i—C. 4.
C.—4.
1905. NEW Z E ALAND.
CROWN LANDS: REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON LAND-TENURE, LAND-SETTLEMENT, AND OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE CROWN LANDS OF THE COLONY: TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.
Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.
COMMISSION. Plunket, Governor. To all to whom these presents shall come, and to Robert Hall, Esquire, of Auckland; William Wilson McCardle, Esquire, ol Kawhia; John Moore Johnston, Esquire, of Palmerston North; William Brooklyn Matheson, Esquire, of Rongomai; Walter Scott Reid, Esquire, of Wellington; James McKerrow, Esquire, of Wellington; George William Forbes, Esquire, of Linwood; Donald McLellan, Esquire, of Duntroon; John Thomas Paul, Esquire, of Dunedin; John Anstey, Esquire, of Otipua : Greeting. Whereas, by a resolution passed by the House of Representatives upon the seventh day of September, One thousand nine hundred and four, it was resolved that, with a view to further encouraging and promoting land-settlement and removing any anomalies and disabilities, if found to exist, it is advisable that inquiry should be made in respect to the constitution of Eand Boards, the tenures upon which lands may be obtained and occupied, and whether Crown tenants labour under restrictions which are inimical to their well-being and unnecessary in the interests of the State; also to inquire and advise whether the residential conditions now existing are too exacting and require relaxing; and as to whether, owing to the varying conditions existing 111 respect to the climate and land-configuration in the several parts of the colony, an alteration and variation in the law regarding tenure and occupation is necessary; also as to the reintroduction of the homestead privileges, and as to the working of the present ballot system, and the dealing with applications for land; and as to what lands have been loaded for roads giving access thereto, and whether good faith has been kept, and also the amount borrowed, the amount spent, and the amount available; also generally as to whether lessees of the Crown are placed at a disadvantage in borrowing privately or from the Advances to Settlers Office; and, lastly, as to the condition and position of those of our colonists holding and occupying the lands of the State under the several tenures now obtaining : the result of such inquiry to be laid on the table of the House not later than fourteen days after the opening of the next session of Parliament: And whereas it is desirable that the several matters mentioned in the said resolution and other questions connected with land, its occupation, and the laws affecting the same, should be investigated, and that such inquiry be made in maimer hereinafter provided : Now, therefore, I, William Lee, Baron Plunket, the Governor of the Colony of New Zealand, in exercise of the powers conferred by " The Commissioners Act, 1903," and all other powers and authorities enabling me in that behalf, and acting by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of the said colony, do hereby constitute and appoint you, the said— Robert Hall, Esquire, of Auckland; William Wilson McCardle, Esquire, of Kawhia; John Moore Johnston, Esquire, of Palmerston North; William Brooklyn Matheson, Esquire, of Rongomai; Walter Scott Reid, Esquire, of Wellington; James McKerrow, Esquire, of Wellington; George William Forbes, Esquire, of Linwood; Donald McLellan, Esquire, of Dunedin; John Thomas Paul, Esquire, of Dunedin; John Anstey, Esquire, of Otipua; to be a Commission for the purpose of making inquiry into the several matters mentioned in these presents—that is to say, generally as to —
C—4
C—4
IV
(1.) The constitution of Land Boards; (2.) The tenures upon which lands may be obtained and occupied, and whether in the interests of the colony any alteration of the law is desirable; (3.) Whether Crown tenants labour under restrictions inimical to their well-being and unnecessary in the interests of the State; (4.) Whether the residential conditions now existing are too exacting, and require relaxing, and, if so, m what direction; (5.) Also if alterations and variations are necessary in the law regarding tenure and occupation, owing to the varying conditions existing in respect of the climate and land-configuration in the several parts of the colony; (6.) Also whether it is expedient that the homestead privileges as indicated in the Appendix to " The Land Act, 1885," should be reintroduced; (7.) As to the working of the present ballot system, and the dealing with applications for land; (8.) The area of lands loaded for roads, the amount of such loading, the amount expended on roads in or giving access to the lands loaded, whether good faith has been kept in regard to them, and as to the amount borrowed, spent, and available; (9.) To ascertain the value of the land now leased from the Crown at the time the land was so leased, and the value of the said land at its last valuation; (10.) Whether lessees of the Crown are placed at a disadvantage in borrowing privately or from the Advances to Settlers Office; and (11.) To ascertain the condition and position of those of our colonists holding and occupying the lands of the State under the several tenures now obtaining; (12.) To consider the report of proceedings and finding by the Conference of Commissioners of Lands and members of Land Boards, held at Wellington on the first, second, third, and fifth day of December, one thousand nine hundred and four, and to report and advise thereon; (13.) To investigate and report as to the aggregation of estates, large and small, the maximum area which should be held under the several classes, and if in certain districts variations are advisable; (14.) To inquire and report whether each area of land leased under the Land for Settlements Act shall have a separate occupier, and the area not to be increased or boundaries altered without the direct sanction of Parliament. And you are hereby enjoined to make such suggestions and recommendations as you may consider desirable or necessary for the further encouragement and promotion of land-settlement, and the removal of any anomalies and disabilities that may be found to exist in regard to land-settlement and the existing law relating thereto. And, with the like advice and consent, I do further appoint you, the said Walter Scott Reid, to be Chairman of the said Commission. And for the better enabling you, the said Commission, to carry these presents into effect, you are hereby authorised and empowered to make and conduct any inquiry under these presents at such times and places in the said colony as you deem expedient, with power to adjourn from time to time and from place to place as you think fit, and to call before you and examine on oath or otherwise, as may be tallowed by law, such person or persons as you think capable of affording you information in the premises; and you are also hereby empowered to call for and examine all such books, documents, papers, plans, maps, or
a—4
V
records as you deem likely to afford you the fullest information on the subjectmatter of the inquiry hereby directed to be made, and to inquire of and concerning the premises by all lawful ways and means whatsoever. And, using all diligence, you are required to transmit to me, under your hands and seals, your report and recomendations in respect to the several matters inquired into by you not later than the lirst day of May, one thousand nine hundred and five, or such extended date as may be appointed in that behalf. And it is hereby declared that these presents shall continue in full force and virtue although the inquiry be not regularly continued from time to time or from place to place by adjournment. And, lastly, it is hereby further declared that these presents are issued under and subject to the provisions of " The Commissioners Act, 1903." Given under the hand of His Excellency the Right Honourable William Lee, Baron Plunket, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over His Majesty's Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies; and issued under the seal of the said colony, at the Government House, at Wellington, this twenty-seventh day of January, in the year of our Lord one-thousand nine hundred and five. T. Y. Duncan, Minister of Lands. Approved in Council. J. F. Andrews, Acting Clerk of the Executive Council. Plunket, Governor. Whereas by a Warrant issued under my hand and the Public Seal of the Colony on the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and five, certain persons named therein were appointed a Commission for the purpose of making inquiry into certain questions affecting Crown lands, and Walter Scott Reid was appointed to be Chairman of the Commission : And whereas the said Walter Scott has tendered his resignation as Chairman and member of the said Commission, and the resignation has been accepted, and it therefore becomes necessary to appoint a Chairman in his place : Therefore I, William Lee, Baron Plunket, the Governor of the Colony of New Zealand, acting by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of the said colony, and in pursuance of the powers conferred by " The Commissioners Act, 1903," and of all other powers and authorities enabling me that behalf, do hereby appoint James McKerrow, Esquire, who is at present a member of the said Commission, to be Chairman thereof. Given under the hand of His Excellency the Right Honourable William Lee, Baron Plunket, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over His Majesty's Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies; and issued under the seal of the said colony, at the Government House, at Christchurch, this thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five. R. J. Seddon, For Minister of Lands. Approved in Council. J Stevenson, Acting Clerk of the Executive Council. Plunket, Governor. Whereas by a Warrant issued under my hand and the Public Seal of the Colony on the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and five, certain persons named therein were appointed a Commission for the purpose of making inquiry into certain questions affecting Crown lands :
C—4
VI
And whereas Walter Scott Reid, Esquire, has tendered his resignation as a member and Chairman of the said Commission, and the same has been accepted : And whereas James McKerrow, Esquire, has been appointed Chairman : And whereas it is expedient to appoint a member in the place of the said Walter Scott Reid : Now, therefore, I, William Lee, Baron Plunket, the Governor of the Colony New Zealand, acting by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of the said colony, and in pursuance of the powers conferred by " The Commissioners Act, 1903," and of all other powers enabling me in that behalf, do hereby appoint William Arthur McCutchan, Esquire, of Whangamomona, to be a member of the said Commission, in the place of the said Walter Scott Reid. Given under the hand of His Excellency the Right Honourable William Lee, Baron Plunket, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over His Majesty's Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies; and issued under the seal of the said colony, at the Government House, at Wellington, this sixteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five. R. J. Seddon, Approved in Council. For Minister of Lands. J. F. Andrews, Acting Clerk of the Executive Council.
EE POET. To His Excellency the Right Honourable William Lee, Baron Plunket, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Governor and Com-mander-in-Chief in and over His Majesty's Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies. May it please Your Excellency,— We, the Commissioners appointed by Your Excellency's Letters Patent of the 27th January, 1905, and of the 16th Eebruary, 1905, to inquire into the several matters and things therein mentioned and referred to, have the honour to report to Your Excellency as follows : — Before we could begin our work our Chairman, Mr. W. S. Reid, was, to our great regret, compelled by ill health to resign his position as Chairman and member of your Commission. Mr. Reid's resignation having been forwarded to Your Excellency, Your Excellency was pleased, on the 13th February, 1905, to appoint James McKerrow, Esq., of Wellington, one of the members of the Commission, to the vacant chairmanship, and, on the 16th of the same, to appoint William Arthur McCutchan, Esq., of Whangamomona, in the Land District of Taranaki, to the vacant membership. The scope of our inquiry, which began at Wellington on the 15th February of the current year, required so much travelling, and the examination of so many witnesses, that we found it impossible to submit our report within the time orginally appointed. We therefore applied for and received from Your Excellency three extensions of the time for presenting the same, all of them within the order of reference mentioned in Your Excellency's Letters Patent. In view of the great public interest in the. subjects of our inquiry, we deemed it advisable to admit the Press and public to our sittings, and we advertised those sittings in most of the newspapers of the colony.
a—4
VII
We have taken evidence from every land district in the colony, with the exception of Westland. During these visits your Commission has travelled over seven thousand miles, held 135 meetings, heard close upon a thousand witnesses, inspected numerous settlements, and received a large number of returns, reports, and correspondence. Before the close of our inquiry it became necessary, in order to keep within the time allowed, to increase our rate of progress, and this object was attained by dividing the Commission into two parts. Of these, one, under the chairmanship of Mr. McKerrow, the Chairman of the Commission, visited the Land Districts of Taranaki, Flawke's Bay, Wellington, Nelson, and Marlborough; while the other, under the chairmanship of Mr. Hall, one of the members of the Commission, visited the southern half of the Auckland Land District and the district of Gisborne. (1.) The Constitution of Land Boards. The present constitution of Land Boards—nomination by the Governor— was approved by a majority of the witnesses, who at the same time expressed satisfaction with the impartial administration of the Boards. A considerable number of witnesses, however, advocated elective Land Boards, but on examination none could suggest a satisfactory franchise on which to elect them. The general consensus of evidence was that the nominative system has produced Boards which have dealt, fairly as between the State on the one hand and the tenants on the other. We recommend as follows : — (a.) That the present system be adhered to. The desirability of the Boards being composed of members having practical acquaintance and experience in the agricultural, pastoral, and mining settlement of the colony was emphasized; also, as far as practicable, they should be selected so as to give representation to the various interests and localities of the respective land districts to which they are appointed. In order to give effect to this, we recommend, — (b.) That in some of the larger land districts the maximum number of nominated members be increased to six. (c.) That the remuneration of members—at present 10s. a day and locomtion-expenses while on duty—should be substantially increased. To effectually administer discretionary powers, the need was acknowledged for the members of Land Boards being in an independent position, and at the same time in sympathy with the land legislation of the colony, and in touch with the Minister of Lands, with whom they have to co-operate, and who is primarily responsible to Parliament and the colony for the efficient control of the great estate of Crown lands, and the rapidly growing estate being acquired under the Land for Settlements Act. The lands settled under that Act up to the 31st March, 1905, aggregate 642,939 acres, at a cost of over £3,000,000, and are occupied by 3,127 tenants. In the ordinary Crown lands, including Cheviot, there are 17,686 tenants occupying on settlement conditions and on pastoral lease 16,324,542 acres. From these facts and considerations, and with a view to make the members more representative of the several interests ano localities of each land district, we affirm,— (d.) That it would be desirable to subdivide each land district into ridings, and that a member, who shall be either actually residing in or have special local knowledge of the riding he represents, should be nominated from each. (e.) That it is necessary to competent administration that at least one member of each Land Board shall be a Crown tenant, and that all the members of the Board shall be men with practical experience as farmers, or with special knowledge in matters relating to land occupation and settlement. We have much evidence to show that when Boards consist of members possessing proper qualifications, friction between them and the tenants is almost entirely absent.
C— 4
VIII
(2.) The Tenures upon which Lands may be Obtained and Occupied, and WHETHER IN THE INTERESTS OF THE COLONY ANY ALTERATION OF LAW IS DESIRABLE. As a unanimous report on this order of reference is impossible, the findings of the Commissioners are appended below. (3.) Whether Crown Tenants labour under Restrictions inimical to their Well-being, and unnecessary in the Interests of the State. A very great deal of evidence was tendered in Southland, Otago, and Canterbury, and to a lesser extent in other land districts, regarding the existing cropping regulations, which prescribe a rotation not to exceed two white crops and a green crop, followed by three years' grass; some witnesses contending for the right to take more white crops in succession where the land was rich, and others—one or two of them of high authority—maintaining that there was no need of any restrictions whatever. Your Commission found that the regulations appertaining to land-settle-ment were, with the exception of a few minor points, just and equitable, and these your Commission respectfully recommend should be altered in the following respects : — (a.) Cropping restrictions, whilst necessary, should only apply to white straw crops and periodical grassing; no limit should be placed on the numbei of green crops grown. On some of the heavier and stronger land the restriction to two straw crops before regrassing, as laid down in the regulations, operates to the disadvantage of the tenant occupying such land. In such cases some extension should be granted when, in the opinion of practical men, such concession should be allowed without any damage being done to the land. The Boards should have statutory power to relax cropping conditions as may be deemed by them to be necessary in exceptional cases. (b.) All restrictions should be removed as to the disposal of straw, the cutting of grass for hay or seed, and the area of the land to be kept in permanent pasture. (c.) Your Commission, recognising that it is obviously impossible that one set of cropping regulations should be suitable for land in every part of the colony, would recommend that all land in future opened for settlement be carefully classified as to cropping capabilities, and regulations framed in accordance. (■d.) All cropping restrictions might be removed whenever a tenant has fulfilled his conditions, has resided on his land for ten years, and has improvements, free from encumbrance, to the value of one-third of the capital value of the land, the value of improvements in no case to be less than £2 per acre. (e.) Evidence shows that some of the tenants have gone on overcropping in defiance of the Land Board. In the Canterbury Land District during the last four years there were 411 breaches of the cropping regulations. The penalty of forfeiture for breaches of regulations, as stated in section 100 of "The Land Act, 1892," is too severe; power should be given to Land Boards to impose fines in lieu thereof. (f.) That in "The Land for Settlements Act Amendment Act, 1901," clause 10, the words "on the happening of any extraordinary event" be struck out, and the following words inserted : "or on sufficient reason being given." (g.) That the Land Transfer Act be amended to enable selectors to subdivide and transfer portions of their leases, to convert their leases, or for other transactions of a like nature; to empower the District Land Registrar to bring down existing mortgages on the new leases, the same as is done in the case of freehold titles, without lessees having to incur the expense of preparing and registering new mortgages a§ at present. (h.) That a lessee or licensee surrendering for any of the above purposes may be enabled to register mortgages or other dealings during the currency of the first twelve months of the new lease issued in lieu of the one surrendered.
C—4
IX
(i.) That the ambiguity in wording of the section of " The Land Act, 1892," defining the powers of a devisee, be removed, and that full power to will without reference to the Land Board to any qualified person be substituted. (j.) That the restriction of borrowing for improvements during the first year of occupancy should be abolished, and only limited to the date when improvements are actually completed. (k.) That the prohibition of cropping by holders of pastoral licenses be removed, and the cultivation for winter feed for stock be allowed subject to the land being properly laid down in grass. (4.) Whether the Residential Conditions now existing are too exacting, AND REQUIRE RELAXING, AND, IF SO, IN WHAT DIRECTION. The compulsory residence-conditions as laid down in sections 141 and 143 of " The Land Act, 1892," and in " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903," are none too exacting, seeing that in bush lands there are exemptions from two to five years according to circumstances, and even total exemption may be granted in exceptional circumstances by the Land Board. Evidence throughout the colony shows that the various I,and Boards have exercised the discretionary powers vested in them wisely in regard to relaxing residence-conditions on Crown lands where good cause has been shown, and that there is no necessity to further extend that power. There are variations in the duration of residence required under the following tenures, for which sufficient reasons do not appear, thus : Under the Land for Settlements Act and on small grazing-runs residence is continuous without a break to the end of the term. In ordinary Crown lands on lease in perpetuity continuous residence is for ten years. In occupation with right of purchase it is only for six years. There does not seem any reason why there should be any difference in the duration of residence under the various tenures of ordinary Crown lands. It is recommended that exemption from residence in no case should exceed four years, and that residence be continuous thereafter for six years under any tenure, including land sold for cash, thus bringing all tenures under similar residence-conditions, with the exception of pastoral runs. The reason for including cash purchasers, and for insisting on fulfilment of residence-conditions, as was pointed out by back-blocks settlers, is to have the necessary support for schools, churches, tradesmen, and so on, otherwise if residence is not enforced the settler and his family who do reside are placed at a great disadvantage. The Commission recommends that residence-conditions should not be enforced until reasonable road access is provided, but that when such access is provided residence should be strictly enforced, except where sufficient cause for its relaxation can be shown. Where country settlers under any tenure in bond fide occupation of and residence upon their holdings take up Crown land, there appears to be no sound reasons for* enforcing residence on the latter, and it is recommended that residence on either holding shall count as residence on both. The residence conditions have amply proved that they are the surest safeguard against speculation and dummvism, and that when reasonable road access is provided the bond fide settler seldom finds these conditions irksome or impracticable. (5.) Whether Alterations and Variations are necessary in the Law regarding Tenure and Occupation owing to the varying Conditions existing in respect to the Climate and Land-conftguration in the several Parts of the Colony. Your Commission see no reason to make special provision for the various land districts under this heading, as we believe the general provisions of the existing land laws and the suggested amendments are applicable to the whole colony.
ii— c,4.
C—4
X
(6.) Whether it is expedient that the Homestead Privileges as indicated in the Appendix to " The Land Act, 1885," should be reintroduced. Although the homestead system of granting land without payment on the condition of five years' residence and effecting certain improvements has been successful in settling 464 settlers on 76,097 acres in the Auckland District, 39 settlers in Westland on 1,480 acres, and 19 settlers on 2,689 acres in Otago, it is not deemed advisable to recommend the reintroduction of the system, which was abolished by " The Land Act, 1892." Its success in Auckland was largely due to good bush lands near navigable waters being opened for the purpose. Evidence has pointed to its application to the poor lands of the colony, the North of Auckland being especially mentioned in this connection. Your Commission do not recommend its reintroduction as a means to solve the difficulty of the satisfactory settlement of this class of land, for the following reasons :— (a.) The homestead system as a means of settling poor men on the land can only be successful if applied to good land, easy of access to market, and the satisfactory settlement of this class of land is amply provided for under the existing forms of tenure. . To put a poor man on to poor land is only to court disaster. (b.) It has been stated that the poor land lying to the north of Auckland might be profitably utilised for fruit-growing, for which it is specially suited. This is possible, but the large outlay needed to establish that branch of farming makes it difficult for a poor man to undertake unless under a system of Government assistance. We think the possible results might amply justify the Government instituting some experiments as to chemical, botanical, or other means for the reclamation of the now almost valueless lands of the colony. (7.) As to the Working of the present Ballot System, and the Dealing with Applications for Land. Notwithstanding some objections, your Commission is forced to the conclusion that when there is more than on applicant for a section some form of ballot is the fairest mode of determining who shall become the holder. We disapprove of the present system of grouping and second ballot, which often causes applicants to take a section they do not want, and also prevents many desirable settlers from applying at all. We would recommend a system similar to that described by Mr. Humphries in his evidence before the Commission, of grouping sections in accordance with the means required for successful occupation, applicants to apply only in the groups to which their means entitle them. That a ballot be taken for first choice of any section in the group, and the ballot thus continued until all the sections are disposed of. Any applicant may withdraw at any time before or during the drawing of the ballot, and his deposit be returned, so that he shall not be compelled to remain in the ballot after the section he would have liked has been drawn. Any sections not disposed of on the first drawing of ballot to be reoffered at an early date, to be fixed by the Land Board. All applicants for a ballot of Crown lands to be examined as to their suitability and bona fides. That the limitation of area to be held by a married woman—32o acres— be withdrawn, thus making the area for a married woman the same as for a single woman or any other applicant, provided that only the wife or husband (but not each) may hold any section up to the area of the present limit, and the means of husband or wife may be calculated as possessed by both for the purpose of applying for a section. Any person disposing of his interest in any section to be ineligible for any other ballot for a term of at least three years, except for causes that the Board in its discretion may deem satisfactory.
C;— 4
XI
We recognise that certain classes of applicants, especially married men with families, and persons who have been repeatedly unsuccessful at a ballot, have some claim to preference, but are unable to recommend a regulation for this purpose that would be equitable to other applicants. That the Land Board should have power to allot to residents of long standing on estates acquired under the Land for Settlements Act such areas as they deem fit, without competition, but in no case to exceed half the area allowed under " The Land Act, 1892." That in clause 3 of the " declaration " on application for lands the words '' or benefit" be struck out, and the words " and bond fide occupation "be inserted. That provision be made to allow holders of small areas under the Land for Settlements Act to ballot for larger areas, on giving an undertaking to dispose of their present holdings to an approved person within a reasonable time after acquiring the larger area. That persons guilty of making a false declaration should be debarred from applying at any ballot for five years. (8.) The Area of Lands Loaded for Boads, the Amount of such Loading, the Amount Expended on Roads in or giving Access to the Lands Loaded, whether Good Faith has been kept in regard to them, and as to the Amount Borrowed, Spent, and Available. The evidence of settlers upon this question has generally been vague, conliicting, and unreliable, for tne reason that they had no definite information as to tne amount of the " loading," or the extent of the expenditure which actualy took place. Departmental returns obtained by tne Commission, and included in the Appendix, give the area loaded as 2,5y5,533 acres; amount authorised to be borrowed, £4/1,339; total expenditure, £358,577 15s. 4d.; balance available (31st March, 1904), £112,761 15s. 2d. Of this latter sum, no authorities were held by the Roads Department on 31st March, 1904, for £77,148, and of the remaining £35,613 autnorised, £22,605 remained unexpended on the Ist August, 1904, but a good deal of this was under contract and in process of being spent. Good faith has, generally speaking, been kept with the settlers, but many have laboured under the impression that the necessary corollary to loading was roads, and this when the amount of loading was inadequate. In cases where it has been considered desirable to assist settlers with road-work, blocks of land have been sectionised, loaded for roads, and the settlers put upon the land to some extent in advance of roads. In these instances they have been paying the charges on the full loading before getting the benefit of the roads, but this disadvantage has been in some measure compensated for by the work given, and cannot be considered a breach of faith. Complaints were made that in the earlier days of closer settlement loading was not always economically spent. Many of the charges of waste made before the Commission cannot be sustained. On the other hand, there has in some instances been loss in the expenditure of loading. The early imperfections of the co-operative system, combined with the fact that the Government of the day was compelled to provide relief for surplus labour, was doubtless responsible in a great measure for this, which has now, however, been remedied, and cause for complaint cannot hold to-day. The matter of loading for roads is inseparable from the general question. The present State methods of roading require fundamental change. The opinion has been freely expressed that the roading question is equal in importance with the tenure question. It is held that unless land is provided with transit facilities for the bringing-in of the requirements of settlement work, and the removal of products, it cannot, from a settlement and productive standpoint, be considered to have full value. It is clearly laid down that the settlement value of the remaining Crown lands is the value of those lands roaded, and that roading should be prior to, or coincident with, settlement. The practice
C— 4
XII
of the State placing colonists on waste lands in advance of roading has been unsatisfactory, and must be condemned. A solvent and flourishing colony cannot be absolved from blame when it calls upon its pioneer settlers to carry out their life's work under conditions inimical to the well-being, happiness, and prosperity of themselves and their families. The evidence of back-blocks settlers has placed the fact beyond doubt that the pioneer work of the colony is being caried on with great enterprise, but, unfortunately, under conditions as to roading so adverse as to seriously jeopardise the success of these outsettlements. It is therefore pointedly accentuated by the Commission that it is the duty of the colony to face with promptitude the expense necessary for the removal of these disabilities. The roading problem presents a twofold difficulty — firstly, of roading country already settled, and, secondly, the roading of new country. In regard to this matter, the question at once arises, how much of the required outlay shall be provided by the State, and how much in equity should be a local burden ? A careful review of every phase of the question leads to the conclusion that road-construction must be regarded as a State responsibility, and that road-maintenance, properly viewed, should, subject to the recommendations subsequently made as to finance, become the task of the local bodies. Roadconstruction is defined as meaning the formation and metalling of all main roads, and the formation only of by-roads for wheel-traffic. All roads to be Government roads and to be under Government control until the foregoing work is completed, and then to be placed under the control of the local bodies by Gazette notices as county main roads and county by-roads. The right of handing over such roads wholly or in sections as completed to be a power entirely in the discretion of the Government, subject to the condition of the continuity of construction. It is apparent that if roading is antecedent to settlement, the process of recompense to the State quickly sets in by means of the increased upset values obtained for the land, and though the benefits arising from speedier and fuller returns. When roaded and sectionised much greater care is necessary in fixing upset prices for settlement. This work should not be done upon the suggestions and recommendations of surveyors alone, but the same care as that exercised in the valuation of land under the Land for Settlements Act should be used. The system of control by County Councils and Road Boards of areas within county boundaries has not withstood the test of criticism. It is true a majority of county areas are controlled by County Councils only, yet, on the other hand, it is found that in thirty counties there are more than two hundred Road Boards operating over districts also to some extent controlled by County Councils, and when it is considered that the rate revenue of some of these Road Boards does not amount to £25 per annum, the position becomes ludicrous, and it is recommended that Road Boards be abolished as wasteful and unnecessary to efficient road-administration. Upon the understanding that the general rate leviable in each riding of a county, less the necessary deductions for administration and other expenses as now fixed by statute, although admitting of temporary transfer from the riding for the county's needs elsewhere, must be returned within a reasonable period to the riding when required for expenditure therein; and subject also to the legislation of road accounts, not necessarily to prevent the temporary transfer of separate rate-money from by-road to by-road, but to enable the financial position of each road to be easily seen by ratepayers, and to secure to each road its just share of county expenditure. The absence of the latter provision from local-government law is believed to be the chief factor in calling into existence a very objectionable system of duplication of local control. There are conditions existing in a few instances where the arbitrary enforcement of the recommendations made regarding general rate and road accounts might operate unsatisfactorily. It is suggested that this power be made permissive, with the initiative in the hands of the local body. For many years local bodies have laboured under the disadvantage of insecure and inadequate finance. Spasmodic and uncertain Government grants in aid of ordinary expenditure, or as assistance in meeting extraordinary
C.—4
XIII
damage by fire or storm, is too intangible a method of coping with difficulties often needing definite and prompt attention. Throughout the colony assistance by Government grant, as a system, is in disfavour. It is difficult, however, to see how the repair of unexpected and extraordinary road-damage can be undertaken except by grant. The Commission recommends that (1) subsidies as now existing; (2) Government grants, except in cases of extraordinary damage from storm or fire; (3) loading for roads; and (4) "thirds" and "fourths" from land revenue be entirely abolished, and a graduated scale of subsidies upon county rates on the following lines be set up : — Where general and separate rates levied are together less than Id. in the pound on the capital value, subsidy as at present. Subsidy. £ s. d. Where general rate and separate rate together equal Id. in the pound .. .. 010 0 lid .. .. 0 12 6 99 99 99 99 AJVI. 99 lid- 0 15 0 l|d. „ •• .. 017 6 2d. „ .. ..100 No subsidy over pound lor pound. Subsidy on all special rates to be 7s. 6d. in the pound. These figures are for the purpose of illustration; full data upon which to base accurate calculation are not available for the use of the Commission. The principle is affirmed that subsidy upon rates should be (a) graduated; (b) adequate. In progressive and enterprising counties, where the ratepayers are actuated by a spirit of self-help, the power to borrow for road-work, &c., under the Loans to Local Bodies Act has been found to be inadequate, and it is advised that the maximum borrowing-power be largely increased, having reference to the size and requirements of the various counties. This recommendation is considered reasonable, as the abolition of Jtioad Boards, if effected, removes the borrowingpower of those bodies—viz., £3,000 a year each. Small-grazing-run areas which are rated for local-government purposes on a capital value obtained by considering the rental as being 6 per cent, of the capital value, to be rated on the saleable value instead, so as to enable the holders to undertake road-work, and to place these lands in a position to contribute to the upkeep of the roads equally with other lands held under different tenures. It is recommended that clause 50 of the Loans to Local Bodies Act be amended, so as to admit of grazing-runs and all other settled Crown lands being included in loan areas for road-work. This clause has stood in the way of progress in various districts, and has prevented settlers willing to assist themselves from obtaining requisite loan-money. Where it is considered advisable to include areas of unsettled Crown lands in loan areas so as to secure convenient boundaries and for equitable reasons, it is advised that requisite facilities be provided, such areas to be liable from time of settlement for proportion of loan rate. The changes advocated are radical. Heavy Government expenditure at present goes on from year to year in maintenance-work, whereas it is affirmed that Government Departments should not spend money upon such work; nor would outlay of this nature be necessary if road-construction to the point of completion, as previously defined, were carried out with the despatch necessary to meet the needs of settlement; Government responsibility would then cease, the settlers themselves, through local bodies' machinery, assuming the duty of maintenance and improvement. Great waste of money has occurred in many districts over a long term of years under this heading, sufficient in a number of districts to have brought heavy road-mileage into condition for being placed under local-government control. Conclusive proof has been adduced that the output and development of the newer districts of the colony has been retarded to an extent not generally known, and the aggregate loss in this respect has reached a magnitude which calls for serious and immediate attention.
(3.-4
XIV
(9.) lo ASCERTAIN THE \ ALUE OF THE LAND NOW LEASED FROM THE CROWN AT THE IIME THE LAND WAS SO LEASED, AND THE VALUE OF THE SAID LAND AT its last Valuation. 1 he Valuer-General gives the values oi the Crown leaseholders as under : — Land for Settlements— U P? et ' Present value. Lease in perpetuity .. .. .. .. 2,629,293 2,796,821 Ordinary and village-homesteads and improvedfarm settlements .. .. .. 1,444,912 1,822,583 Small grazing-runs— Land fotr settlements .. .. 124,712 131054 Ordinary .. .. .. _ _ 1,442,959 1,640,193 Perpetual lease .. . _ _ 139,342 139,342 Occupation with right of purchase .. .. 848,045 848,045 £6,629,263 £7,378,038 or an increase of a little over 11 per cent. (For further information under this head see Appendix, pp. x, xi.) Evidence was given by settlers indicating much greater increases in values than the above in individual cases; but, on examination, some of these were considerably discounted when it comes out that growing crops and stock were included. There is, however, no doubt that very considerable sums have passed tor goodwill after deducting all other items. Figures under this head showing marked increases in value will be found on reference to the evidence and appendix. (10.) Whether Lessees of the Crown are placed at a .Disadvantage in Borrowing Privately or from the Advances to Settlers Office. The evidence before the Commission tends to show that this system has been of immense advantage, not only to the numerous settlers who have availed themselves of its provisions, out also in the effect it has had in improving the conditions of borrowers from other sources. In the earlier stages of its operations, there may have been rather more care exercised in maintaining ample margins for loans than was subsequently proved to have been necessary; but in operations there appears to have been a readiness to advance quite sufficiently near to the margin allowed by statute. There have been many complaints of refusal oi loans, and also of the amounts oliered being much less than the applicant was entitled to on the amount of his valuation, but now that the amounts at credit of the Assurance Fund and the Debentures Sinking Fund amounting to £309,602, together with sums accruing from the same sources in future, will be available for lending under this Department, causes for the above complaint should be removed in future. \ here were many complaints as to the time elapsing between the application tor the money and the final decision as to the acceptance or rejection of it. In the remoter districts it cannot be expected that a valuer can always be at hand to report valuations, and then there is the reference to the Land Department and the consideration by the solicitor, and then by the Board. Ordinarily three or four weeks suffices to get an application "through. The Lending Department has publicly indicated that borrowers should make their cation if possible six weeks before the money is wanted. Both the head of Department and some of the district officers have explained that no unnecessary de ays occur In future, from a recent decision of the Department, advances will be more liberal than in the past. The lessee's interest in the land as well as his improvements being acknowledged as security for the money borrowed. In view of the fact that up to the present not a single loss has occurred, and that already a very substantial reserve has accumulated, the percentage of advance to the security offered might safely be increased to 60 per cent,/especially as under the system of repayment by instalments, the margin of security to advance
C—4
XV
commences to increase almost immediately. And seeing that in respect to land leased from the Crown the Crown still retains control over it, there appears to be no reason why a greater margin of security should be required than in the case of freehold. Holders of some Crown leases are under a disadvantage in borrowing from private sources, inasmuch as difficulty is often experienced in giving lenders prompt security. We see no reason why a tenant, having a property in a leasehold, should be" debarred from facilities for pledging it for necessary temporary or fixed loans, so long as a realisation in case of default did not conflict with the conditions of tenure. This involves giving mortgagees the right to take possession and hold such property for a limited time, pending the finding of an approved tenant. Where a Land Board has given consent to a mortgage, it should insure that forfeiture shall not take place without due notice being given to the mortgagee. Many tenants, especially on cultivated lands, require loans for very short periods at almost immediate notice, and all obstacles to the doing so from private sources should be removed, seeing that the Advances to Settlers Office can scarcely undertake loans oj this nature under present regulations. It would be well worthy of consideration by the Advances to Settlers Office whether it would be possible to introduce a system whereby a settler might increase or decrease from day to day the amount of his loan, within the limit of the advance made. (11.) To Ascertain the Condition and Position of those of our Colonists Holding and Occupying the Lands of the State under the several Tenures now obtaining. The condition and position of Crown tenants throughout the colony can, on the whole, be described as progressive and satisfactory. In Southland, much progress has been made of late years by the settlement under the Land for Settlements Act, and of Crown lands chiefly of moderate quality. We expect to see steady progress in this district, consequent on closer setlement, draining, liming, bushfeliing, and grassing, &c. The keeping in check of noxious weeds and vermin must, however, receive careful attention. Where the land is not of firstrate quality, holdings should not be too small, whilst on the richer lands small holdings are suitable for dairying and providing homes for many prosperous settlers. Southern and central Otago present no exception to the general rule of prosperity. A comprehensive scheme of irrigation for its unwatered areas is the great need for its future expansion and prosperity. In north Otago the benefits of the Land for Settlements policy are very striking, prosperous settlers and a thriving town replacing uncultivated areas and restricted business enterprise. These remarks apply equally to South Canterbury, where the great increase in its harbour returns bears witness to the increase of productiveness and prosperity of settlers during the past few years. Throughout this land district the increase of production and prosperity of its settlers consequent on closer settlement is apparent, and one cannot help contrasting the thriving condition of the settlers of the Cheviot Estate (which was practically the initiation of the closer-settlement policy) with the gloomy predictions of many, when the estate was acquired. The position of the tenants of the pastoral runs in this, as well as the other districts, calls for immediate attention, the lack of a secure tenure discouraging all attempt at improvement and regrassing. Seeing that the prospects not only of these tenants, but of the important freezing industry, depend largely on these great breeding-grounds, this question should receive prompt attention. In Marlborough also the Land for Settlements policy is already making itself felt; the success of the system and the settlers fully warrants its extension wherever possible. In Nelson, the beautiful climate is some compensation for a somewhat restricted area of rich land suitable for closer settlement. On much of the rough country better means of access and communication would add greatly to the progress and comfort of the settlers.
C—4
XVI
Evidence shows that in Westland the Land for Settlements system has proved an unqualified success in the two settlements now under its provisions, and we think this small beginning should be followed up wherever practicable. Better security of tenure to land, where it does not interfere with mining industries, would add materially to prosperous settlement. We regret that want of time prevented the Commission visiting this land district. In the north of Auckland settlement has progressed somewhat slowly, largely due to the poor nature of most of the land, and want of road facilities. But the application of the Land for Settlements policy to the richer portions of its lands, reclamation of swamps, establishment of dairy factories, encouragement of fruit-growing, and improvement of its poor lands, combined with excellent waterways and mild climate, should insure great progress in the future. We are pleased to note that the Government have already established stations at Waerenga and Ruakura, and if they were established in various parts of the colony, the result would almost certainly be of great assistance in increasing general productiveness. In the southern portion of the district much progress is being made in bush felling and grassing. The one thing above all others required to make settlement progress and prosperous is good roads. Wonderful work has been accomplished by the industrious settlers of Taranaki; its bush- and scrub-clad hills are now turned into sheep and cattle farms, and its rich lowlands into dairy-farms, but again the cry rises, " Give us roads." Seeing the hardship these hardy pioneers have endured from the want of this necessity of settlement and comfort, and the way they have burdened themselves to attain this object, they are entitled to every consideration at the hands of the State. These remarks apply to all the bush settlements in Wellington and Hawke's Bay Districts, for when good roading facilities exist, such as at Palmerston, Feilding, and near the centres in all the districts, evidences of prosperity and contentment are very apparent. In the Hawke's Bay District the Land for Settlements policy has already made a successful commencement, and we believe a field exists in this district for great extension of this policy, which, while duly conserving the interests of the present pioneer settlers, should make these lands available to prosperous close settlement. To conclude, the vast majority of our Crown settlers are prosperous, progressive, and contented, but some disabilities exist which a sympathetic Government can do something to remove. Many of these are alluded to in our report and in the accompanying evidence, and we are confident that they will receive such a full consideration by Parliament as will result in their removal. (12.) To CONSIDER THE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS AND FINDING BY THE CONFER- ' ence of Commissioners of Lands and Members of Land Boards, held at Wellington on the Ist, 2nd, 3rd, and sth Days of December, 1904, AND TO REPORT AND ADVISE THEREON. After careful consideration of the report and findings of the Land Conference, we have reported on each question dealt with therein under its separate heading. We are of opinion that the discussion at the Conference was of a most valuable character, and many very useful recommendations made by them have been dealt with by us, and we believe that good results would accrue "from holding periodical conferences of a similiar character. Several technical and minor alterations in the existing Acts recommended by the Commissioners of Crown Lands are, from their knowledge and experience gained in the daily working of the same, entitled to great weight, and we suggest that alterations of this character be considered by similar conferences, with a view to the adoption of changes found necessary, to the efficient carrying-out of the spirit of the various Acts.
C.—4
XVII
(13.) To Investigate and Report as to the Aggregation of Estates, large AND SMALL, THE MAXIMUM AREA WHICH SHOULD BE HELD UNDER THE SEVERAL Classes, and if in certain Districts Variations are advisable. In respect to private estates there is very little aggregation at present taking place, the tendency being for owners to subdivide and dispose of their land in smaller areas; but, in some cases, owners of small and medium-sized estates are acquiring additional lands. We are of opinion that the carrying of these operations to an undesirable length should be prevented by legislation. On Crown lands more minute classification is necessary. On open lands and lands suitable for dairying, the land should be divided into at least three classes according to quality and situation. A limit of 640 acres in the case of our best first-class land is much too high in some cases, and also at least three distinct classes are necessary for purely grazing-country. It has repeatedly been shown that areas as at present settled have, in many instances, proved to be unsuitable, and power should be given to aggregate two or more sections where, in the opinion of the Land Hoard, it is proved to be desirable, whether the lands were contiguous or not. (14.) To Inquire and Report whether each Area of Land Leased under the Land for Settlements Act shall have a separate Occupier, and the Area not to be Increased or Boundaries Altered without the direct Sanction of Parliament. As it is manifestly impossible that the original subdivision of Crown lands, and the subdivision of the numerous estates purchased for closer settlement, can be done in all cases to the best advantage, and suitable for all the requirements of future conditions, there is no necessity for direct reference to Parliament in individual cases, and power should be given to the Minister, on the recommendation of the Land Boards, with the consent of the tenant, to adjust any boundaries or area of sections which may tend to the more economic working of the land, provision being required to enable adjoining lessees to arrange their common fencing boundaries and amend their leases by indorsement, without going through all the formalities of section 12 of " The Land Act, 1895," by subdivision, and transfer and issue of new leases. At present, a lessee holding 640 acres of first-class land cannot do this if his total area should be increased ever so slightly over that area, If the transaction has to be effected by subdivision and transfer, the cost, including surrender, transfer, and new lease fees, cost of survey, &c., is often prohibitive, especially if the leases are mortgaged, &c., as all dealings have to be re-executed and registered on the new leases, and facilities should be given to tenants of areas too small for profitable occupation to acquire one or more additional areas without separate residence-conditions irrespective of similarity of tenures or contiguity. Power should be given to allow of a tenant subdividing and disposing of his holding in part or parts to any qualified persons, subject to the Board's approval of adjustment of boundaries, and apportionment of rent to each division. Workmen's Homes. The condition of the town wage-earners and the high price of town lands in connection with rents has been prominently before the Commission. Rents have increased out of proportion to any rise in wages, and the question of the housing of the city wage-earners calls for immediate attention. It is needless to mention the far-reaching effects of "bad housing, to say nothing of the severe tax on the weekly earnings of the people. After a more or less close inspection of workmen's homes and examination of the tenants, your Commission conclude that the system followed up to date has been attended with a fair measure of success. In the large majority of workmen's settlements visited, comfortable homes have been erected by 'the tenants, and are well cared for The question of Government advances to tenants to help in erecting necessary improvements, which is now limited to pound for pound up to £50, has been carefully considered. The small advance has not been of sufficient assistance to erect suitable
iii—C. 4.
01—4.
XVIII
dwellings for men with families, and we believe that the total amount to be advanced to any one applicant might safely be increased to £120, and the proportion of said increase raised to 60 per cent, of total amount expended by each tenant. The question of suitable areas has been fully considered. Your Commission cannot lay down any hard-and-fast rule as to the area to be held by any one tenant. This must be wholly governed by the special conditions in different districts, taking into consideration the occupation and hours of labour of prospective tenants. In some cases the areas at present held are too large, and rent and taxes, combined with the fact that the holder's daily occupation prevents him closely cultivating such land, and thereby recouping himself, makes it unprofitable to hold same. Holdings which come within this catagory might be further subdivided if satisfactory arangements could be come to with present holders. It is abundantly clear to your Commission that to allot a man 5 acres when his daily work takes him away for eight or nine hours of the 'day is a waste of land, and burdening the holder with unnecessary rent and taxes. The existing law as to area is on the right lines, but very great care must be exercised to prevent alienation of large and unsuitable areas in future. The demand appears to be keener for small sections —in some cases, even an eighth of an acre being stated as sufficient. The question of suitability of land is also a great factor in the success or failure of workmen's homes. If distance is great, cost of transit becomes too heavy, and too much time is taken up in travelling to and from place of occupation. When small areas are wanted, care should be taken that means of communication are quick and inexpensive. The system is capable of much further extension. In the chief centres evidence proves that a want exists, and your Commission believe that this want should be met at the earliest opportunity Lyndon No. 2 Small Grazing-runs. The unsatisfactory position of the lessees of three small grazing-runs on the Lyndon No. 2 Settlement was brought before the Commission at Waiau, and from evidence and observation your Commission think that this case is in some respects similar to that of Pomahaka, and might also receive attention Native Lands. The settlement of the North Island is very much retarded by the extensive areas of unoccupied Native lands that are scattered over it, producing nothing, paying no rates, and yet participating in the advantages of the roads, railways, and other public and private works and settlement that surrounds them. There are about seven million and a half acres, of which nearly six millions are deemed suitable for settlement. Of the latter, hve million acres have been adjudicated on, and the balance has not yet passed the Native Land Court. A considerable area of this land is suitable for close settlement, and much of the balance consists of bush country, which, when cleared and grassed, would make excellent sheep country. The Natives show no disposition to undertake this work, so that, so far as they are concerned, it will probably remain for many years a wilderness, and a harbour for noxious weeds and rabbit pest. This condition of things is a sore burden on the settlers alongside, who, as already mentioned, have to bear the whole weight of local taxation and of boundary-fences, without deriving anything from these Native lands. The Natives complain that they are not free to dispose of the lands, of which they make no use, although willing to do so. Under these circumstances, it would appear that it would mutually benefit both races if these lands, or, rather, a portion of them, were acquired on the principle of the Land for Settlements, and the proceeds placed in the hands of the Public Trustee on behalf of the Native owners. The application of some such principle so as to set free these vacant lands for settlement would be of great advantage to all. There are about forty thousand Natives in the North Island. Ample reservations should be made for their use, which will leave a large area for future settlement
C.-4
XIX
POMAHAKA. This is one of the very few estates which mar the otherwise satisfactory record of the Land for Settlements policy. The area of this estate is 7,2(5(i acres, and of this area after eleven years, 867 acres still remained unlet on the 31st March, 1905. We are forced to the conclusion that the rents on this estate are too high, considering the quality of the land, and many of the areas are too small for profitable occupation. Notwithstanding our strong advocacy of the sacredness of contracts, cases of this sort will have to be readjusted, for it is manifestly against the interests of the State that a considerable portion of this estate should remain tenantless owing to the excessive rent demanded, and that the tenants in occupation should be held liable for rents that they are often quite unable to pay. The loading for roads on this estate was 14s. sd. per acre, and as this expenditure was more of the nature of relief-works than economic reading under which value for the expenditure was hardly contemplated, it is not fair that the full cost should be charged to the estate. Otago Water-supply. In central Otago there are great possibilities in the further development of fruit-growing. There has been signal success in a small way during past years in growing stone and other friuts, and now that railway communication is opening Mie country out, the fruit industry will have the means of safe and rapid transit to the markets of the colony. From Wanaka to Moa Flat, below Roxburgh, along the banks of the Clutha River, there is a stretch of seventy miles of low-lying country proven to be admirably adapted in its dry, hot summers and frosty winters for the growth of fruits, but depending largely on irrigation for further development. Water-conservation and water-rights are therefore of the greatest consequence to the future of the district. Many of these water-rights have already been secured by the mining industry, but it would be advisable to find out by survey what natural basins and dam-sites there are for storage purposes, and reserve them for future irrigation. In this part of the colony the water is the life of the land. Bare patches of apparently poor soil along the base of the hills, not worth £1 an acre in its natural state, irrigated by a trickle of water and planted with fruit-trees, and properly attended to, is worth in a few years many times its original value. Destruction of Land by Gold-mining. Evidence was given before the Commission showing that in a few cases valuable land was being destroyed by dredging and sluicing for gold. One witness stated that much of the destruction of alluvial flats by dredging could be avoided by the use of means which did not add materially to the cost of the process. If this is proved to be correct, the use of some such means should be insisted on in all such cases, and some check should be placed on the destruction of land where the net yield of gold is not equal to the value of the land for other productive purposes. Unused Reserves. Considerable portions of reserves for timber, minerals, and gum do not now contain the product for which they were reserved, and we would recommend that anv portion of a timber reserve should, as soon as cut out, be opened for settlement, thus avoiding the extra expense by regrowth of scrub, noxious weeds, &c. That mineral reserves proved or supposed to be non-auriferous be opened for settlement under a secure tenure, subject to mining reservations if afterwards found to be auriferous. Gum reserves after being opened to gum-diggers for a sufficient number of years should then be available for settlement when suitable. . Preferential Treatment. A complaint brought under the notice of your Commission was the preferential treatment accorded some tenants of special settlements. In many cases the original tenants on these settlements were restricted in their choice
C—4
XX
of tenure to lease in perpetuity. Sections surrendered or forfeited were afterwards offered under the optional system, and sometimes at a lower rent. This is considered unfair, as the original tenants encountered all the hardships, and they now feel in a less favourable position than that of the newer settlers. We think the Act is faulty in allowing this differentiation. Paeroa Town Leases. In the evidence taken by the Commission at Te Aroha an unsatisfactory state of things in reference to a number of Crown leases of town sections it Paeroa was disclosed. Documents were submitted showing that the holders of these leases had been promised by the Commissioner of Crown Lands that the freehold of their sections would be submitted to public auction if they would surrender their existing leases. This they had done, but up to the present the promise had not been fulfilled, although over twelve months had elapsed. Your Commission is of the opinion that this case is worthy of inquiry. Grazing-farms at Cheviot. A petition signed by twenty-three holders of leases of small grazing-farms at Cheviot was presented to the Commission whilst sitting at Mackenzie. The prayer of the petition was to the effect that the holders of these leases, which were for a term of twenty-one years without any right of renewal, should be granted a renewal for a further term of twenty one years at a rental to be fixed by valuation. A deputation, representing the petitioners, in evidence stated that the uncertainty about the future disposition of their farms had a very unsettling effect, causing them to suspend further improvements. The clause in their leases allowing valuation for improvements was unsatisfactory, nothing being allowed for land ploughed and laid down in grass, surface-sowing, or plantations. The request of these lessees for a more secure tenure seems a reasonable one, stability of tenure being essential to good settlement. Your Commission think that in respect to any portion of these farms not required for further close settlement this request should receive consideration. Rebate of Rent. The administration of " The Crown Tenants Rent Rebate Act, 1900," was referred to in evidence brought before your Commission, and it was stated that the intention of the Act was not being adhered to — viz., " to encourage the punctual payment of rent"—but that tenants were receiving differential treatment, the price of their land affecting the amount of the percentage allowed. The amount of rebate is left to the discretion of the Commissioner of Crown Lands and the Receiver of Land Revenue for their respective land districts, and is anything up to 10 per cent. This discrimination places these officers in a difficult position. We would recommend that, if the system of rebate is to continue, it should be fixed at a definite rate per cent., arid the Act be carried out as intended, as an encouragement for the punctual payment of rent, without discrimination. Punakitere Settlers. These settlers took up their land as Crown tenants, and the Crown handed its right over them to the Parnell and Auckland Boroughs. Evidence was given that such action has caused tenants great annoyance, and rendered them liable to disabilities which they did not lie under as Crown tenants. We consider it a case where prompt action should be taken to set right an old grievance. We understand that the matter has been before the Government on more than one occasion. We have not sufficient information of the case to make any definite recommendation, other than to state that the settlers who came before us are dissatisfied, and, if possible, all occasion for that feeling should be removed.
0.—4.
XXI
Noxious Weeds. Your Commission is of opinion that immediate attention to stay the spread of Californian thistle, ragwort, and other noxious weeds is necessary all over the colony, but the two former more especially in the Southland District, where they are spreading to an alarming extent. It has been stated in evidence that river-beds and Crown reserves are a hotbed for these weeds, and it is generally admitted they exist more or less all over the colony in Crown lands. If permitted to spread, the value of property where they exist must depreciate very materially, as stated in evidence. Several sound and experienced farmers stated that Californian thistle cannot be eradicated without considerable expense on open agricultural land, ard the land cannot be used for two years during the process. If such be the case in this class of land, what will be the result in bush and broken country ? We cannot too strongly recommend that this matter should have earnest and immediate attention. James McKerrow. Robert Hall. William Wilson McCardle. John Moore Johnston. William Brooklyn Matheson. W. A. McCutchan. George William Forbes. Donald McLennan. J. T. Paul. Jno. Anstey.
No. 1 REPORT ON TENURES. (2.) The Tenures upon which Lands may be Obtained and Occupied, and WHETHER IN THE INTERESTS OF THE COLONY ANY ALTERATION OF THE LAW IS DESIRABLE. In the disposal of Crown lands under " The Mining Act, 1891," " The Land Act, 1898," " The Cheviot Estate Disposition Act, 1893," " The Land for Settlements Act, 1894," " The Mining Districts Land Occupation Act, 1894," " The Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisiton Act, 1894," " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903," while there are twelve designations under which lands may be acquired or occupied, they are all reducible to four tenures —viz. :— (1.) Cash purchase, (2.) Occupation with right of purchase, (3.) Lease in perpetuity, (4.) Lease or license for varying periods without right of purchase— and these again to the two tenures of freehold and leasehold. In the evidence given before the Commission nearly every witness expressed a preference for the one or the other of the two tenures. Throughout the colony a general desire to acquire the freehold has been expressed by witnesses, the favourite tenure being the occupation with right of purchase. A considerable number also testified in favour of the re-enactment of the deferred-payment and perpetual-lease systems, now only in operation in working out engagements entered into while these tenures were in force. It may be mentioned here that the Land Conference suggested the reintroduction of the deferred-payment system. The main objections urged against the lease in perpetuity are : The difficulty of obtaining money on it as a security, the fear of revaluation, and that the settler is precluded from investing his savings in his own holding. The difficulty of obtaining adequate advances, either from the Advances to Settlers Office or from private sources, was much in evidence from numerous witnesses;
0.—4.
XXII
and the fear of revaluation, and by implication breach of contract, is also very general, due, as many witnesses amrmecl, to what they read in tlie public .Press of proposals to tliat effect. Lven if tlie tear of revaluation were removed, it is evident tnat tliere is a deep-seated desire to liave tlie freehold; something, as settlers, say, tiiey can call their own, free from restrictions, inspections, and paying of rent, lo obtain tne ngnt of freehold tney would willingly pay up, with interest, the difference between the 4 per cent, rent they are paying now on the capital value under lease in perpetuity and the 5 per cent, paid by settlers who hold under occupation with right of purchase. On being questioned why they took up land on lease m perpetuity, settlers replied that in some instances the land was opened on that tenure only, and that they had no choice. The land being supposed to contain metal, minerals, or valuable stone, under section 136, subsection (2), of " The Land Act, 1892,' it could only be opened on lease in perpetuity, and that where the full option was given lease in perpetuity was chosen to secure the lower rental, but in ignorance of the disadvantages of that tenure afterwards disclosed by practical experience. Many settlers pointed out that in taking up the rough bush land in the back blocks, felling, clearing, grassing, and fencing it, paying rates and interest on road-formations, establishment ot dairy factories, and contributing to the erection of freezing-works, thereby rendering the land productive, their interest in the land in a few years became many times greater than that of the State, and that the increased unimproved vaiue of the land is due to their labour and capital, and that in their case there is no such thing as unearned increment belonging to the State. On the contrary, if accounts were kept between them and the colony as to the cost of bringing the land into a productive state, and they were paid current rates for their labour, the colony would be their debtor, and therefore there is no unearned increment in the case. In the Land for Settlements there is to some extent the same fear of revaluation, difficulties in hnance, and a desire ultimately to obtain the freehold of the land at the original price of the land on which they now pay a rent of 5 per cent, per annum. A number of settlers expressed themselves as quite satisfied with the tenure of lease in perpetuity, and wished to be left alone. Evidence of this is shown bv the unwillingness expressed to pay any advance on the original price of the land to obtain the freehold. When confronted with the fact that the value of the land had increased, their argument was that whatever increased value the land may have gained since they took it up is due to their work and improvements, and to the rise in price of produce in the markets of the world, a fluctuating quantity that may soon decline. But even if it should be permanent, it is theirs during the currency of the contract for 999 years to deal with as they may think fit. It is evident that any sense of insecurity in the minds of settlers must seriously injure rural progress. Stability of tenure is, of necessity, a condition antecedent to and inseparable from the energetic development of the colony's resources. Revaluation of present or future leases would, it is considered, exercise a very harmful effect upon settlement. It is questionable if the remaining Crown lands, which are chiefly of a rugged character and remotely situated, would find occupiers under a system of lease providing for periodical revaluation. . Revaluation for rent purposes, as a feature of land policy m an undeveloped country, is open to even graver objections than in older countries, and it is thought its introduction would unfavourably affect this colony financially and in the estimation of a desirable class of British farmer immigrant as a field for S6ttl6lTl6nt It is contended that no private landlord would be so unwise as to grant a 999-years lease without a periodical revaluation clause, and that it would be equally unwise for the State to do so. The parallel does not hold. The private landlord gets his fixed rent only; the State gets a fixed rental, together with the constitutional right of a further levy in the forni of taxation, unlimited, except by the sense of justice of the people; and as this power lies in the hands of the people's Government, the plea for revaluation, with its disturbing and injurious influences, is not well founded.
C—4
XXIII
We are firmly of opinion that in the disposal of what may for distinction be termed the ordinary Crown lands, the option oi obtaining the freehold should be granted after fulfilment as subsequently outlined of residential, improvement, and other conditions; this to apply to existing holdings as well as to those in future, the payments to be gradual and extending over a term of years; the instalments to be £10 sterling, or a multiple of £10, as may suit the settler best at each half-year when the rent is due; no certificate of title to issue until all the purchase-money is paid; rent to be reduced proportionally to the payments made in reduction of the original price of the land. Ihe granting o the right to obtain the freehold will be a source of great satisfaction to tfie laborious settler struggling on from year to year through many obstacles and privations to found a home for himself and family. Those who advocated the reintroduction of the deferred-payment system admitted that this tenure is open to two objections —viz., a 25-per-cent. increase in capital value of the land, and heavy half-yearly payments during the years that settlers were meeting the heavy initial outlay involved after occupation o waste lands. It was considered that the right-of-purchase option under Ihe I and Act 1892," would contain all the advantages of the deferred-payment system and none of the drawbacks, if the capital value were taken m instalments from settlers after the purchasing clause became operative, with a proportional reduction in rent. . , Under the Land for Settlements Act the case is very different, Ihe settler has had the rough pioneer work done for him; the land is improved, accessible, and a going concern ready to produce. Further, the mam object of the system is to render the countrv more productive by settling a larger population on its lands, and to enable settlers to obtain holdings on suitable lands, which thev could never do if they had to purchase the freehold of them. Many settlers testified that the Land for Settlements system had been a great boon to them; that without it they never could have got on the land. It has also to be borne in mind that by the Government retaining these improved lands the opportunity is left open from time to time of others in the future participating m the advantages of obtaining on lease what they could never obtain as freehold. From these considerations we are of opinion that there should be no variation whatever in the terms of the contract already entered into between the State and the tenants, nor any variation in future contracts under the Land for Settlements Act. . „ , , It is only right to add that there is evidence in favour of the proposal to permit the payment of a part of the capital value, as the tenant could do so in o-ood years with the laudable object of making his farm his bank and reducing the amount of rent, as a precaution against bad seasons or low prices of produce, when the higher amount of rent might be difficult to meet. Ihis has much to commend it, both from the State's point of view and that of the tenant. But on the whole it is thought best not to tamper with the system. It seems almost unnecessary to accentuate that there should be no infringement of contract as between the State and its tenants. Any serious attempt upon the inviolability of the compact by the State or the States tenantry is believed to be impossible in any British community. Whilst this is the case, it would be unwisely conservative and non-progressive not to effect modification and changes which time and experience have shown to be necessary to national advancement; and when such changes are considered mutually advantageous by the State and the tenants, legislation in the required direction clearly does not constitute a breach of contract. We recommend,— (a.) That the lease-in-perpetuity tenure under Ihe Land Act, remain on the statute-book. (b ) That after the sixth year from date of lease holders of leases m perpetuity under " The Land Act, 1892," desirous of doing so, be permitted to convert to occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure upon payment of the accumulated amount of 1 per cent, difference in rental between the two tenures, with compound interest "added, provided the improvements required within the first six vears of occupation ha've been carried out, and also provided the residence conditions have, in the opinion of the Land Board, been complied with.
C—4
XXIV
. fe') That lessees , un der the right-of-purchase option of " The Land Act, 1892," be permitted, after ten years' occupancy and fulfilment of conditions,' to pay off the capital value of their land in sums of £10, or any multiple of £10, upon the Ist January and Ist July in each year during the currency of the purchasing clause, their rentals being proportionately reduced. (d.) I hat changes under heading (b) and (c) apply to present as well as to future leases. (e.) That undue aggregation of land from any source is undesirable, and should be guarded against by legislation. (/.) That it be understood that in parting with land for agricultural or pastoral purposes the State retain all mineral rights. James McKerrow. Robert Hall. William Wilson McCardle. W. A. McCutchan. *Will. B. Matiieson. * My signature is attached hereto with the proviso that it does not apply to the paragraph relating to settlers on Land for Settlements? I am firmly of opinion that such settlers should have the option given them of purchasing the freehold at original upset price as suggested for other Crown tenants. The reasons stated for right Vf purchase being given to Crown tenants apply here, and, in addition, evidence has shown that— (a.) The Land for Settlements Act was not intended to create a rent-revenue, but to settle people on the land. This it is accomplishing, and to give these tenants right of purchase, as is done under the British Land for Settlements Act, would perfect what has proved a very beneficial measure. (b.) In many cases the increment above the value Af visible improvements has been paid for by present occupiers, and carried away by the original selectors. Will. B. Matheson. PASTORAL TENURE. Under this tenure there are about twelve million acres of mountainous country of an altitude above sea-level varying from 1,000 ft. to 5,000 ft., ending in barrenness and snowfields. It is mostly open country supporting indigenous grasses, which have deteriorated greatly through indiscriminate burnings, rabbit pest, and overstocking. The question of restoring these mountain pastures is very important, as they are the natural breeding-ground of the merino and hardly crossbred sheep, from which the settlers on the lower country largely draw their supply of ewes for replenshing their flocks. Various suggestions have been made in evidence towards accomplishing this object, such as giving greater security of tenure and full valuation for improvements at the end of the lease, so as to encourage the holders to surface-sow new grasses, subdivide the country, rest portions in turn, to foster the native grasses, and to irrigate and cultivate for winter feed. The terms of the leases are generally from fourteen to twenty-one years, but, as by section 192 of "The Land Act," 1892," the Governor has the power of resumption at any time during the lease on giving twelve months' notice, there is really no security of tenure; nor is there any inducement to surface-sow, as grassing is not included in the improvements at the end of the lease. The limit of compensation to be paid by an incoming tenant for improvements when there is a change of tenancy is an amount equal to three times the average annual rental paid under the expiring lease, together with the value of every rabbit-proof fence erected with the Sanction of the Governor. There is no right to cultivate the soil for winter feed, a very necessary matter where practicable. Moreover, in many cases the low-lying country adjacent suitable for these purposes has been detached for closer settlement, leaving the high summer country denuded of its complement of winter country. Tt may, therefore, be found necessary to purchase some of the low country back again! With irrigation it is remarkable the quantity of feed that can be grown on a comparatively small area. For instance, in the Manuherikia Valley, Otago, which is the centre
XXV
C.—4
of the most extensive area of pastoral country in the colony, the farm of Mr. John Wilson, of about 1,000 acres, situated near Ophir, is an object-lesson as to what can be acomplished by irrigation. In his evidence he says, " I may state that 600 acres, partially irrigated, supported 1,200 crossbred ewes since lambing, and there was 100 per cent, of lambs, and it supported them well. They are all fat. The lambs were prime freezers; there were no turnips in the summer, but I fed with turnips in (he winter. Irrigation would make central Otago the most fertile district in the colony." This great pastoral country can only be improved by the willing co-opera-tion of tenants with capital, and to secure that there must be an absolute security of tenure on lease for a term of at least twenty-one years, with valuation for improvements at the end of the term, and right of renewal at an arbitrated rent. There are a number of ways suggested in evidence that would improve the pastures, such as requiring the tenant to subdivide and rest a portion of the country during, say, from Ist September to end of February, thus allowing the native grasses to ripen and shed seed. The country might be stocked for some months afterwards, and again shut up for another period. Another way would be to restrict the number of sheep carried during the first five years of the lease, and provide the tenant with a certain quantity of good seed, which he would find the labour to sow. It would be advisable at once to establish experimental plots to test different grasses for the respective districts. The suitability of the native grasses should, however, not be overlooked in carrying out any experiments. The present law restricting the area and number of sheep to be held is considered unsuitable for much of the higher country —it is impossible to work this country except in large blocks—Part VI. of " The Land Act, 1892," should be amended accordingly. In runs within proclaimed goldfields, it would be necessary to have power "to reserve to the tenant the area that he was allowed to cultivate during'the currency of his lease. It would also be desirable to have power to make exchanges of land for suitable areas for cultivation and sites for homesteads. SMALL GRAZING-RUNS. This is an important class of agricultural—pastoral country which, in the Middle Island, has been promoted to some extent to the detriment of the higher country held under pastoral tenure. As it may become desirable to resume some of the country held under this tenure, it is unfortunate that " The Land Act, 1892," provides no power of resumption at the end of twenty-one-years lease; there is only the power of revaluation—the holder has the right of perpetual renewal. It will be advisable to amend the existing law so as to have the power of resumption at the end of each twenty-one years, as in the Land Act of 1885. Of course, there must be no interference with the contracts entered into under the existing law, but the future lands taken up on this tenure should be subject to resumption if required for closer settlement. VALUATIONS. Dissatisfaction has been expressed in regard to the method of apportionment of values laid down in " The Government Valuation of Land Act, 1896," and amendments of 1900 and 1903, under the headings " Capital Value, " Unimproved Value." " Improvements," and " Value of Improvements." Examination of the statutory definitions of these terms, together with the information obtained from inquiry into their practical application to valuation-work, indicates that faults exist. Evidence very clearly exemplifies the extreme difficulty of distinguishing with any degree of accuracy between " unimproved value " and " value of improvements," and it would seem that, despite every precaution by the Department to equitably divide these, the tendency is for the unimproved value to unavoidably increase at the expense of the tenant's improvements. It would appear that ground for graver dissatisfaction arises from the fact that the valuation " definitions " in effect compel the Department to credit to " unim-
iv— C, 4.
C—4
XXVI
proved value " the whole of the increased value given to the land by the settler's outlay, in loans and rates, for road and harbour works, and the establishment of dairy factories, freezing-works, &c. In the case of Native, education, grazingruns, and other leases of similar character, where the second-term rentals are based upon the value of the land, less the tenant's improvements, injustice to present lessees must result from existing methods of appraisement of values. The position is outlined with distinctness in Mr. J.J. Elwin's sworn statement in connection with West Coast Settlement Reserves, page 1130 of the evidence. Change is necessary, and, in view of the intricacies of the matter, careful attention is required. James McKerrow. Robert Hall. William Wilson McCardle. W. A. McCutchan. Will. B. Matheson. J. L. Johnston.
No. 2 REPORT ON TENURES. (2.) The Tenures upon which Lands may be Obtained and Occupied, and WHETHER IN THE INTERESTS OE THE COLONY ANY ALTERATION OF THE LAW IS DESIRABLE. The tenures upon which the Crown lands can be obtained and occupied in New Zealand are : Cash, occupation with the right of purchase, lease in perpetuity, village settlements, Special-settlement Association, improved-farm settlements, occupation leases under " The Mining Districts Land Occupation Act, 1894," agricultural lease, small grazing-runs, pastoral runs, miscellaneous leases or licenses. Of these the main tenures are five, as under : Cash, occupation with the right of purchase, lease in perpetuity, small grazing-runs, pastoral runs. The other tenures are modifications of one or other of these to suit special conditions of districts or settlement. These forms of tenures have been responsible for a vast amount of good and solid settlement, the result of which is making itself felt in the increasing volume of our exports. In every stage of history time brings changes, and to-day we have to face the fact that, instead of vast areas of virgin land being in the hands of the Crown crying out for settlement, out of a total of sixty-six million acres we have only about eight million fit for settlement remaining, much of which is poor and almost worthless. We think the time has arrived when the position should be examined carefully •before the last remnant of the public estate is parted with. We, your Commissioners, after having taken evidence from one end of the colony to the other on this subject, feel that the opinions of many witnesses must be largely discounted on account of an unconscious bias, caused by individual interests and political leanings. The " desire for freehold " which was prominent in much of the evidence brought before the Commission during its travels is, in the opinion of your Commissioners, amply provided for in the vast area of land in the colony held under that tenure at present. A large number of the witnesses who favoured the freehold were already holders under that tenure; in many cases owning large areas, and admitted having little or no experience of leasehold. Some of these expressed great concern for the Crown leaseholders; but, as can be seen on reference to the evidence of most of the Crown tenants themselves, combined with the fact that only an exceedingly small proportion of these came before the Commission, they are well satisfied with their tenure, and resent any suggestion whatever of interference with their titles.
We cannot deprecate too strongly the action of political and other organizations in fomenting an agitation for the upsetting of existing titles.
0.—4
XXVII
We believe that interference with existing titles in any direction is dangerous and likely to establish a precedent which would have an unsettling and extremely unsatisfactory effect on the people of the colony. If a title can be granted to-day and repudiated to-morrow by either the State or its tenants, we fail to see how any stability can exist or solid progress be made. Your Commission would therefore lay down the principle that no alteration of existing tenures should be allowed in any case, except on payment of full compensation therefor. The provisions of a title should" be held sacred, excepting in cases where it is found to conflict with the interests of the community as a whole. Then, and then only, on the payment of the fullest compensation, should it be terminated or its provisions varied. We recommend that provision should be made by statute securing to all tenants under proper limitations the right to full valuation for their improvements, and this should be made to apply to tenants on all public reserves. It must be recognised that there are two interests in the lands of the colony —the State's and the tenant's—and a system of tenure to be fair and equitable must conserve the interests of both parties; therefore, all future leases for Crown lands should contain a provision for the periodical readjustment of values. It is of the utmost importance that a large area of land should be maintained under a leasehold tenure by the Crown for the benefit of men with limited means who are unable to buy freehold, and, as the area of land remaining in the hands of the Crown is very limited, it would be a wise provision to retain it for that purpose. A serious objection to parting with the freehold of these lands is the probability that they will be required for closer settlement in the future. An area which is considered moderate to-day very probably will be too large when the population of this colony will have doubled or trebled, and will then require to be repurchased at a greatly enhanced figure. The high prices being paid for the acquisition of the large estates to-day should be an object-lesson in this respect. Two things stand out as essential to the successful occupation of land—viz., security of tenure and good access. The evidence taken by the Commission in the bush districts of the colony emphasize the fact that the question of roads is of far greater importance to the settler, and a far greater factor in his success or failure than any question of tenure. The remaining Crown lands are situated in districts remote from settlement, and, from their rugged and inaccessible nature, will require a large expenditure in roading, more especially m the bush districts, before settlement can be effected; in fact, in most cases the cost of satisfactory roading will exceed the value of the land. This was emphasized by Mr. Robinson, District Road Engineer, in his evidence before the Commission at Wellington, in dealing with the estimated cost of roading near Utiku, in the Awarua Block of Crown land, just opened for settlement. It is in the first few years of settlement that the settler requires the most assistance. Good roads should be afforded him immediately, or within a reasonable time of his taking up his holding. Any financial assistance required should be liberally afforded by "the Advances to Settlers Office, and for the first few years his contributions in the way of rent should be made as light as possible, even in some extreme cases an exemption altogether for a period up to ten years. It is on this system that your Commissioners believe that future settlement should proceed, and as a large expenditure by the State will be required to carry out its conditions —viz., good roads, and in some cases relief from rental for several years, a tenure which may possibly recoup the State in the future for this outlay, should be substituted for the present forms. We therefore recommend a lease in perpetuity, with readjustment of rental by arbitration at periods of, say, fifty years for the first term and subsequent periods of twenty-one years, the tenant's interests in his improvements to be fully conserved to him in all cases, the value of which to be also fixed by arbitration.
C—.4.
XXVIII
CROWN LANDS UNDER THE LAND FOR SETTLEMENTS ACT. There is a great difference between the conditions of settlement under this Act and those of the ordinary Crown lands. Most of the land acquired for settlement has been open land in a highly or partly improved condition, within reasonable distance of satisfactory markets, with good means of access by road, and, in most cases, in close proximity to railways. The evidence that came before us pointed to the fact that the tenants were generally in a prosperous condition, and the land was reasonably rented, the estates bought in the earlier stages of the Act being especially so. This Act, which as proved a great boon to the men and women who are settled on the land under its provisions, has a weakness, inasmuch as the tenure on which it has effected this settlement gives the land at a fixed rental for all time. This, in the opinion of your Commissioners, is unfair to the taxpayers, whose security is pledged to provide the money for the purchase of the land, as they are responsible for any loss that might occur, but are debarred from participating in any profit arising out of an increase in value. As the State is responsible as a partner in the case of the failure of its tenants, it is fair and equi-table that the full conditions of partnership should be insisted on in the future—for better as well as for worse. A lease in perpetuity, similar to that which we recommend for ordinary Crown lands, should be the tenure on which future lands under this Act are opened for settlement, with the exception that the first term should be, say, thirty instead of fifty years, as the more favourable conditions under this Act do not necessitate so lengthy a first period. SMALL GRAZING-RUNS, ETC. Some of the tenures on which small grazing-runs are held do not provide for power of resumption at the end of the present leases. In others there is insufficient provision to protect tenant's improvements, and in others no right of renewal. In all these cases a secure tenure, conserving to the tenant his interest in his improvements arid a right of renewal, should in future be given, subject to the right of the State to resume in part or in whole any portion required for closer settlement. PASTORAL RUNS. About twelve million acres of land in the colony are held under this tenure, the great bulk of which is mountainous country and snowfields, of very little value except for grazing purposes. The condition of this vast area of country deserves serious consideration. Its grazing capabilities are steadily diminishing. This was emphasized by Mr. Humphries, Commissioner of Crown Lands for Canterbury, who, in his evidence before the Commission, stated that "in 1891 there were 147 runs, comprising 3,140,000 acres, yielding a revenue of .£1.1,491, or 3|d. per acre, and in .1905 there were 151 runs, with an area increased to 3,528,892 acres, but the revenue had decreased to £31,078, or 23d. per acre." He further says "that indiscriminate and excessive burning of native grasses, overstocking, and no periodic seasons of rest to enable the grass to seed or recover itself, were in a large measure responsible for this." The Commission heard a large quantity of evidence on this question, and it supported to a large extent Mr. Humphries' conclusions, with the addition of the rabbit as another responsible agent in this deterioration, but this pest was now being kept in check, and its harmful effect in the future would be much minimised. As it is of the gieatest importance to the colony that this deterioration of the public estate should not be allowed to continue, your Commissioners would recommend that every encouragement be given to the holders of these pastoral runs to adopt a system of grazing which will tend to bring the land back to its original carrying-capacity.
C—4
XXIX
In the opinion of your Commissioners such encouragement should take the form of an absolutely secure tenure —a lease for a term of twenty-one years, with valuation at the end of the term for improvements, including grassing— necessary for the economic working of the run —and right of renewal at arbitration rental. MINING DISTRICTS. In mining districts where this industry has hitherto been paramount, it has been considered necessary to protect mining interests often to the extent of withholding all protection from the interests of farming occupiers. On most of this land it is now quite possible, and we think it necessary, to give the tenants a secure tenure as to conservation of his improvements and continous occupation, subject to ndning rights, on payment of fair compensation for actual damage done or resumption where necessary. George William Forbes. Donald McLennan. J. T. Paul. Jno. Anstey. * J. L. Johnston. *My views are expressed in this report on tenures, except wherein it refers to the further selling of ordinary Crown lands, as I am of opinion a Crown tenant is entitled to obtain his freehold when he has completed improvements on his property representing three times the original upset value of the land when taken up by him; improvements not to include buildings of any kind, dip, stockyards, or garden, but to include main draining, fencing, bushfelling, stumping, irrigation, planting, and private roading where necessary to give access to a portion of the property; no extravagant improvement not covered herein to count. I differ in length of lease, believing it should be only revalued at end of not less than fifty years, and 1 think a tenant should have a preference at time of revaluation to the extent of a 2| per cent, reduction in his annual rental. As the following points were not acceptable to the r*»t of the. Commission, I beg to emphasize them : — "Reference No. 1: Land Boards. If the Board consists of four nominated members, three should be farmers ; if five or six nominated members, it should consist of four farmers. The services of a good business man with some knowledge of land or settlement would be of advantage to the Boards. Reference No. 7: Ballot. That the Land Board, when examining applicants for ballot, should accept a certificate from the manager of any bank or reputed financial institution trading in the colony in proof of his financial position. That the name, address, and particulars of any Crown tenant disposing of his property on any settlement should be circularised to each land district, and a record kept for future reference in case of such ex-tenant wishing to ballot again. Reference No. 10 : Advances to Settlers. To enable settlers to borrow to advantage privately, and to give the mortgagee sufficient security to insure a low rate of interest, I would make the following suggestions :— (a.) The fact of the Land Board consenting to a mortgage to protect the mortgagee against forfeiture, in other words, responsibility should be thrown oil the shoulders of the Land Board when they consent to a mortgage, and when once they have consented, this should be an absolute guarantee to the mortgagee against forfeiture. (b.) The mortgagee to be responsible for rents, and to be called upon to pay the rent whenever overdue. (c.) The mortgagee to be advised whenever the tenant is not keeping the covenants of his lease, and when the Land Board consider the tenant's interest in the lease should be forfeited, this to be done so far as the tenant is concerned, the mortgagee then taking the place of the tenant, and being called upon to put a man into possession to properly carry out all the covenants of the lease within, say, three months, pending a sale of the lease to another tenant (within two or three years) who can make the necessary declaration, and who will be accepted by the Land Board. (d.) The mortgagee only to be permitted to recover from the sale of the lease sufficient to cover the amount of his debt as well as any reasonable expenses incurred, together, of course, with interest to date of recovery. (e.) Providing the mortgagee is as fully and fairly protected as possible, it will not be unreasonable to limit the rate of interest on mortgages to be consented to by the Land Board, but it must be remembered that leases merit a higher rate. There is more trouble in connection with them, especially in the consideration of the loan in the first instance in arriving at a proper valuation, and afterwards a mortgagee must see that the tenant is fulfilling the conditions of his lease, and paying his rent, rates, &c. Amending legislation might also provide that any time within, say, two years of the mortgagee entering into possession, the lessee or the Land Board at any time, upon finding a suitable purchaser, can pay the mortgagee his principal, interest, and costs, and the mortgagee must then give up possession.
C—4
XXX
Should no purchaser be found within two years, the mortgagee must then put up the land for sale through the Registrar of the Supreme Court, and at this sale he should have the right to buy in. If he is obliged to buy in, he should become the owner of the Crown lease without having to make the declaration, and without having to personally reside, such other restrictions being provided for as may be thought desirable. In the case of banks, insurance institutions, &c., as mortgagees, it would be impossible for them to reside or to make the declaration so far as area is concerned, as it might always happen that they owned more land than allowed under the Act. In amending the Act, it should be made absolutely clear what a mortgagee's position is, what he may do, and what he may not do, and under what circumstances—if at all—his interest in the leasehold can be forfeited. Destruction of Property by Rivers. Evidence was forthcoming in many districts regarding the damage done by rivers in washing away valuable land of Crown tenants, in some instances to a considerable extent. It is manifestly unfair that areas thus destroyed should continue to be subject to rental, rates, or taxes. ' r Rent Sinking Fund. Considerable evidence was given of tenants wishing to pay off some of their capital in good years, and so prepare for bad times. I would recommend that Crown tenants should be allowed to pay into what might be termed a rent sinking fund any amount they wish to stand against future rents, the Government allowing interest on the balance standing to the credit of the tenant at the same rate per cent, as he pays on the capital value of his holding. A system of this kind would be of great advantage to the settler by allowing him practically to prepay his rent for a number of years and still lose nothing on the investment. J. L. Johnston. Education Reserves. There were a number of tenants of education, school, and college reserves who gave evidence to the effect that, while they had no objection to urge against the School Commissioners per se as to their administration, yet they felt aggrieved at the limited power and discretion they exercised in the matter of improvements, and generally the want of elasticity in dealing with exceptional circumstances, and the wish was expressed to come under the administration of the Land Board, and so obtain the greater advantages of the tenures under " The Land Act, 1892." But for the fact that the School Commissioners have long been administering these education reserves, and necessarily have acquired much knowledge in connection therewith, it would seem that the education reserves could very well be administered by the Land Boards, seeing that all surveys, plans, and technical work are executed by the Lands and Survey Department, and that some of the Commissioners of Crown some of the members of the Land Boards are also School Commissioners and that practically the* main function of the latter is to collect the rents and pass them on to the credit of the Education vote. It seems an unnecessary duplication to have both bodies working in the same district with their respective inspecting officers crossing each other in their visits to the several properties. Now that the receipts from the reserves are colonially applied, no doubt one body in each land district would be deemed sufficient for the duties now performed by the two. We concur in this paragraph on education reserves. James McKerrow. Robert Hall. William Wilson McCardle. Will B. Matheson. W. A. McCutchan. J. L. Johnston. We now return to Your Excellency the Commission with which you honoured us, together with this report. The evidence and Appendix are being printed, and will be forwarded to Your Excellency as soon as possible. Signed, for and on behalf of the members of the Commission, by James McKerrow, Chairman. J. L. Johnston. W. W. McCardle. Will. B. Matheson.
Authority: John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9os.
index.
Auckland.
Pact' Abbot, Robert Thompson n i; ;; 988 Alleil, Charles Ernest Hansen .; ;; . . 1044 Allen, Frank Dillon . ■ ■ ■ ■ 1045 Allinghanl, ThomaS Augustus .; :: .; 764 A mbury. Lilt her ■! nhn.. .; .. .. 89 i Anderson, James . n ;> it 058 Andrews, Alfred Spry . ■. >« .! ;; 778 Andrews, Williani John .: . t .; 979 Armstrong, Heywood . , . ■■■ ■■■ 950 Armstrong, Matthew Watson . i ;: n 822 Atkinson, Wilfred May ; i . > .; 848 Austin, John.. .i ii ii ;; 974 Bahbage, Alfred Whitinore . ; . i . s 939 Babbage, Henry Herschel .. . i . i 940 Bacon, Septimus . i >* . i .i ,745 Ballard, George .; .i >> .; 1052 Banks, Edward Corrigan . i . - .. 985 Barker, Walter George.» .» ■ ■ .» 838 Barriball, Charles Thomas . i . ■ . > 1053 Barton, George Frederick .. . > . > . 932 Bailey, William .. .. . > . • 662 Begg, John .. .. . > . • ■ • 688 Bennett, William Atherton .. i. .. 999 Bishop, James .. .. .. . ■ 1004 Blackman, Arnold .. .. ■. • • 977 Blundell, Arthur Percival ~ .. .. 765 Blundell, Harry .. .. .. •. 674 Bollard, John .. .. .. • • 900 Borrie, John.. " .. .. • • 1036 Bossons, Alfred .. .. .. .. 998 Burke, Jeremiah Lawrence .. .. .. 779 Bowler, Allan Alfred .. .. .. . • 1042 Blyth, William Henry .. .. .. .. 705 Bradshaw, William .. .. .. .. 844 Bassington, Frank .. .. .. .. 988 Brierly, William .. .. .. .. 1031 Browne, Samuel Augustus .. .. .. 1010 Buchanan, George .. .. .. •. 743 Bunkall, William Colinson .. .. • • 717 Button, Edward Henry .. .. .. 989 Caldwell, George .. .. .. .. 958 Carless, Thomas .. .. .. .. 910 Cheal, Peter Edward .. .. .. . • 1019 Chitty, Walter .. .. .. ■ • 916 Christie, John .. . • •. • • 974 Civil, Henry .. .. .. ■ ■ • • 641 Clayden, James .. .. .. 649 Clark, Robert McKenzie .. ..874 Clarke, John Betts .. .. .. .. 789 Clarke, Sydney .. .. .. .. 932 Close, Arthur Theyr .. .. .. .. 801 Clifton, Edmund .. .. .. .. 919 Cooper, Herbert Osmond .. .. .. 1038 Corfield, Andrew .. .. .. • ■ 780 Cock, Frederick .. .. .. •. 1035 Collins, Charles James.. .. .. .. 997 Crane, Arthur Robers.. .. .. .. 836 Crisp, Walter .. .. • • • ■ 977 Cutforth, Richard .. .. .. .. 841 Dalrymple, John .. .. •. .. 666 Daly, William .. .. • • • ■ 738 Daly, James Rehill .. .. .. • • 969 Danaher, Thomas Joseph .. .. .. 758 Davies, William .. .. .. . • 953 Dawes, Samuel Ernest William .. .. .. 758 Dawson, William .. .. .. . • 893 Dewar, Alexander .. .. .. •. 1027 Devey, Gearge .. .. • • • ■ 1043 Donovan, Daniel .. .. .. • ■ 1002 Douglas, Samuel .. .. . • • • 995 Drumgool, Charles .. .. .. •. 1053 Duxfield, Robert Dickenson .. .. . • 912 Easy, Edwin.. .. .. ... • • 933 Easy, Josiah.. .. .. •• .. 931 Edson, John Lewis .. .. .. .. 876 Ervine, Hugh .. .. . ■ • ■ 922 Ewen, Francis Charles.. .. .. ■ • 909 Falwasser, Edward Charles .. .. . . 946 Fenton, James Henry .. .. . • • • 1002 Finlayson, Alexander .. .. .. .. 1029
Page Fisher, Charles Ernest.. :. .. .. 655 Fisher, Older.. .: . . :. .. 1030 Fisher, Jdhii .. ;. .: ;: • • 980 Fisher, Thomas .: :. ;; .. 7i9 Flarinigaii, Joseph .. ;. .. .. 890 Foster; Heriry George .. .. . . .. 786 Foster, Joseph : : : : : : : : 725 FtrfdyeS, Charles is 11 ti .; 892 Fraser, William n a 11 > t 843 French, Henry Robert.: ;; ;; :. 643 Fuller, Walter ti ~ ;. 795 Furze, Arthur . ; ;: . " : ; i 9i5 Gariand, GeOrge Joseph n .; .; 1032 GartOn, Johii »« .; .. 698 GartOn, Williant, juii. .. .; .. .. 722 Geared, William .; .. .. .. 898 Giassoh, William Henry Clatk 4t .. .. 1054 Gillibrand, Johii Thompson .. .. .. 736 Given, GeOrge .. .. ;. ~ 99 i Gioveif, George . i ;; .. .. 787 Goodwin, Johii French.. a a .. 917 Gray, James F, i > >i ( i ~ 756 Gray, John .. .. >> >. 812 Gregory, Alfred ~ ■ ■ ■. a 862 Griffin, Edwin . i .. * 4 *, 846 Gunn, Sydney .. .. 1 > .. 991 Hall, John Alexander Lindsay .. .. .. 669 Hall, Richard Aagustus .. .. .. 68i Hames, Roland .. ~ .. .. 667 Hammond, Horace .. .. .. .. 864 Hare, Joseph.. .. .. .. .. 691 Hare, Nui .. .. .. .. .. 763 Harray, William .. .. .. .. 991 Harris, George .. .. .. .. 739 Harris, William John .. .. .. .. 728 Hartley, Thomas Francis .. .. .. 759 Hawken, William .. .. .. .. 843 Hawkens, H... .. .. .. .. 834 Hawkings, Edgar James .. .. .. 780 Hedger, George Edward .. .. .. 779 Hedley, Thomas .. .. .. .. 807 Heslop, Thomas .. .. .. .. 984 Heyward, Charles Edward .. .. .. 842 Hicks, Francis .. .. .. .. 983 Hjorth, Horatio .. .. .. .. 893 Hodge, Samuel .. .. .. . . 1018 Holland, Robert .. .. .. .. 765 Hood, Andrew .. .. .. .. 636 Hosking, Caleb .. .. .. .. 1052 Houston, Robert Morrow .. .. .. 729 Howe, William Makepeace .. .. .. 927 Hubbard, Frank .. .. .. .. 1047 Hunt, Henry.. .. .. .. .. 1019 Hunt, Thomas Devere.. .. .. .. 971 Humphrys, William Darnell .. .. .. 936 Hutchison, William Robert .. .. .. 816 Hyde, Alfred Hamond.. .. . . .. 972 Jack, Andrew .. .. .. .. 896 Jaekman, William Heathcote .. .. .. 660 James, Percy Frederick Johnstone .. 702, 703 Jenkinson, Charles Campbell .. . . .. 947 Johnson, Henry .. .. .. .. 810 Johnson, John Charles.. .. .. .. 817 Jones, Joseph Gordon .. .. .. .. 783 Joughin, Robert .. .. . . .. 990 Kavanagh, Henry Paul .. . . .. 872 Keeley, Charles William .. .. .. 983 Kelly, Adam.. .. .. .. .. 1016 Kemp, James Edward Day .. .. .. 805 Kemper, George Henry .. .. .. 753 Kernohan, Robert Young .. .. .. 846 Kilbride, James .. .. .. .. 990 Killen, James Miller .. .. .. .. 827 King, Frederick Maskell .. .. .. 1026 King, Horace Stephen Walter .. .. .. 1003 Lambert, John Robert .. .. .. 820 Lambert, Matthew Gregory .. .. .. 868 Lambly, Arthur Duncan .. .. .. 702 Lane, Henry .. .. .. .. .. 683 Lane, Thomas Major., ~ ~ 687, 692
XXXI
C.—4.
fage, Lecoustre, Leo ■. .. .. ~ 706 Lemon, Thomas .. .. .. ~ 994 Lindvart, John Julius .. .. ~ .. 807 Ludbrook, Henry Samuel .. ~ .. 802 Macindoe, Thomas .. *. ~ ~ 1046 Mackenzie, Daniel .. .. •. ~ 967 Mackenzie, George Henry .. .. .. 941 Mackenzie, James .. ~ .. .. 921 Mackie, Robert .. .. .. .. 1046 Macky, Samuel Cochrane .. . . .. 1030 Mandeno, John .. .. . . . . 924 Manning, Thomas .. .. .. .. 893 Mardon, Cecil Norman.. .. .. .. 756 Matthews, Edward John .. .. .. 999 Matthews, Harold William .. .. . . 959 McCardle, Adam Callender .. .. .. 960 McCardle, Robert Albert .. .. .. 952 McCaw, John .. . . .. .. 984 McCracken, David .. . . . . . . 1000 McDonald, Donald .. .. .. .. 951 McDonald, Frederick .. .. .. .. 837 McDougall, Samuel .. .. .. .. 993 McGhie, John Aberdeen .. . . .. 1001 McKay, John Matheson .. .. .. 860 McKay, William Edmund .. _.. .. 706 McKenzie, Alexander Gordon .. .. .. 834 McKenzie, James .. .. .. 819, 821, 1006 McKinnon, Donald . . .. .. .. 1012 McLeod, Ernest .. .. . . .. 767 McLeod, James .. .. .. .. 890 MeNaughton, Colin Peter Campbell .. .. 998 Menzies, George Gardiner .. .. .. 771 Meyers, Thomas .. .. .. .. 665 Mitchell, Christopher .. .. .. .. 821 Mitchell, Thomas .. .. .. .. 779 Moorhead, J... .. .. .. .. 866 Moloughney, Patrick .. .. .. .. 878 Monk, Richard .. .. .. .. 878 Morgan, Edward .. .. .. . . 1050 Morgan, William Chapman .. .. .. 982 Mulhern, Edward John .. .. .. 873 Murdoch, David .. .. .. .. 967 Nathan, Joseph .. .. .. .. 1033 Nicholson, John .. .. .. .. 797 Noonan, James Edward .. .. .. 929 O'Connell, Michael .. .. .. .. 788 Oetzmann, George Cliff .. .. .. 815 Olliver, Albert .. .. ... .. 852 Olsen, Hans Christian .. .. .. .. 771 Ormsby, Arthur .. .. .. .. 932 Ormsby, John .. .. .. .. 954 Ormsby, Jeremiah .. .. .. .. 968 Osborne, Harry .. .. .. .. 1022 Page, Robert .. .. .. .. 774 Parsons, William Francis .. .. .. 679 Partington. Edgar Edwin .. .. .. 1022 Peake, William .. .. .. 904 Pearson, Frederick Alexander .. .. .. 945 Pearson, John .. .. .. .. 700 Peebles, Daniel Georee .. .. .. 657 Porritt, Edmund William .. .. .. 1039 Porter, Thomas .. .. .. .. 962 Phillips, Charles .. .. .. .. 649 Phillips, Joseph .. .. .. .. 640 Phillipps, Leonard Richard .. .. .. 886 Pollock, Alexander .. .. .. .. 845 Press, John .. .. .. .. .. 685 Proctor, Robert .. .. .. .. 784 Prior, Ruben Avery .. .. .. .. 885 Puckev, William George .. .. .. 717 Pullenburv. Walter Scott .. .. 777, 779 Pulman. Walter Webb .. .. .. 840 Quin, Henry Matthew.. .. .. .. 957 Ramsbotham, William Barker .. .. .. 846 Reed, Vernon Herbert.. .. .. .. 693 Rhys, William Henry .. .. .. .. 848 Robertson, Gilbert McDonald .. .. .. 939 Rose, George .. .. .. .. 980 Rose, William .. .. .. .. 721
page 5 Rowley, Edward .. .. ~ ~ 811 t Rutherford, James Gillies .. .. .. 1015 " Ryan, Charles James .. .. .. .. 973 ! Sainsbury, Thomas Comock .. .. .. 646 i Sale, Edmund .. , . .. .. 1024 J Sanford, Alfred .. .. ~ .. 1009 [ Seddon, Robert, ~ ~ ~ .. 1001 [ Seddon, William ~ ~ ~ ~ 1002 i Schreider, Carl .. ~ ~ ,754 ) Schreider, Henry .. .. ~ ~ 948 t Scott, James Edward .. .. .. ~ 942 ! Shannon, Joseph William . . ~ ~ 856 ! Shaver, Joseph Edwin.. .. .. ~ 726 i Shaw, John .. .. .. .. .. 935 1 Smith, Edgar Shield .. .. ~ ~ 987 i Smith, Robert Nesbit .. .. .. 1012 I Smith, Richard Christey .. .. .. 650 Smith, John Bridger .. .. ~ .. 855 1 Smith, Thomas William Portland .. .. 715 Smyth, James .. .. .. . . 964 Snelling, Douglas Cromwell .. .. . . 669 Spooner, Walter John .. .. .. .. 1000 Stallworthy, Arthur John .. .. .. 869 Stanley, Edward Charles .. .. .. 933 Stevens, Theophilus Leslie .. .. . . 1025 Stevenson, George .. .. . . ~ 1026 Stevenson, Robert .. . . .. .. 770 Stoup, William . . .. ~ .. 991 Summerfield, James .. .. ~ ~ 965 Swayne, Robert .. .. .. 976 Taylor, John Poenia .. .. .. . . 1002 Taylor, Vincent Kerr .. . . * .. 889 Teasdale, John Burgess .. .. .. 928 Thomas, George .. .. .. .. 694 Thomas, James Buchanan .. . . .. 1037 Thompson, Frank Forsyth .. .. .. 959 Thompson, George .... .. .. .. 705 Thompson, John Beard .. .. .. 920 Thompson, William .. .. .. .. 989 Thompson, William Frederick .. . . .. 700 Thompson, William Osborne .. .. .. 875 Tippetts, Thomas Stephens .. .. .. 926 Trotter, Alexander .. .. .. .. 638 Trounson, Edmund .. .. .. .. 854 Trounson, James .. .. .. .. 849 Tuohey, John .. .. .. .. 851 Turner, Archibald Campbell .. .. .. 1005 Tyrrell, Walter .. .. .. .. 997 Vaughan, Joseph .. .. .. .. 749 Vercoe, Henry Albert .. .. .. .. 992 Vipond, Alfred .. .. .. .. 645 Wakelin, Henry .. .. .. .. 839 Wallace, David Brown.. .. .. .. 747 Wallace, Gavin, jun. .. .. ~ .. 996 Wallace, James .. .. .. .. 1013 Wallace, Thomas .. .. .. .. 703 Walton, Henry Holden .. .. .. 878 Ward, John .. .. .. .. .. 995 Ward, William Hamlet .. .. .. 677 Weal, Thomas .. .. .. .. 929 Webber, Ralph William .. .. .. 693 Whitcombe, George .. .. .. .. 948 White, George .. .. .. .. 773 White, George Hodgetts .. .. .. 1047 White, James .. .. .. .. 1049 White, James Randall.. .. .. .. 781 Wilkes, George .. .. .. .. 893 Wilkinson, George .. .. .. 696, 704 Wilkinson, William .. .. .. .. 705 Williams, Walter Keith .. .. .. 970 Williamson, Isaac .. .. .. .. 713 Wilson, John Alexander .. .. .. 892 Wily, Henry Evan Robert Luxmore .. .. 1048 Winser, Frederick Brabazon .. .. .. 664 Wood, Caleb .. .. .. .. .. 1028 Woodcock, Alfred .. .. .. .. 645 Wolff, Henry .. .. .. .. 842 Wyatt, Frederick .. .. .. .. 821 Yarborough, Alfred Cook .. .. .. 759
Hawke's Bat.
Bates, Francis . .. ..' .. 1392 Bright, John Wilson .. .. .. .. 1389 Butler, Thomas .. .. .. .. 1222 Cameron, Alexander Jerome .. .. .. 1415 Chambers, William Knox .. .. .. 1381 Clayton, William Lissant .. .. .. 1418 Cunningham, Francis Andrew .. .. .. 1210 Darton, Georgo Edward ~ ~ .. 1412
Dittmer, August Frederick .. .. .. 1205 Duncan, John .. .. .. .. 1223 Dunn, George .. .. .. .. 1398 Dunstan, Thomas John .. .. .. 1392 Falconer, Robert Hewitt .. .. .. 1222 Gallagher, Owen .. .. .. .. 1396 Gold Smith, Eric Charles .. .. .. 1238 Griffin, William Edwin ~ ~ .. 1225
XXXII
C.—4.
o=r4.
XXXIII
Page Hawthorne, James .. t .. .. . . 1237 Joblin, George Russell.. .. .. . . 1408 Jull, Albert Edward .. .. .. . . 1219 Ken way, Philip Thornton .. .. . - 1411 Kerr, John Anderson .. .. 1237, 1242 Knox, Adam Gilmour .. .. .. .. 1406 Lane, Eustace .. .. .. . . 1235 Livingstone, James .. .. .. .. 1205 Low, Archibald .. .. .. . . 1232 Lysnar, William Douglas .. .. .. 1383 Matthews, Alfred Ford .. .. .. 1398 McLean, William .. .. .. .. 1394 Merrikan, George Edward .. .. . . 1216 Parsons, John .. .. . • • . 1222 Percival, Thomas Stephen .. .. . . 1233 Pulst, Julius .. .. .. .. . . 1414 Redpath, George .. .. .. 1393, 1396
Page Reid, James Sheddon .. .. . ■ .. 1400 Robertson, John Alexander .. .. .. 1208 Ross, Frances .. • • ~ • ■ • ■ 1224 Shaw, David.. .. .. .. .. 1407 Smith, Prank Stephenson .. . . 1397 Smith, William Cowper .. .. 1212 Steele, Alexander Campbell .. .. .. 1041 Stewart, Thomas .. .. 1209 Tansey, Matthew .. .. .. .. 1201 Thompson, Thomas John .. .. .. 1235 Todd, Thomas .. • . • •. 1409 Trafford, Margrave Thomas .. .. . . 1422 Tucker, William Henry .. .. .. 1403 Wellwood, Robert .. .. . . . . 1230 Williamson, John .. .. 1214 Wright, Henry Thomas .. . . . . 1224 Wylie, William • ... .. . . .. 1211
Takanaki.
Billing, Chotwill .. .. • • 1075 Bocock, George .. .. .. 1073 Brodie, James .. .. .. ..1119 Brown, John.. .. ... .. .. 1064 Burgess, James .. .. .. . • 1054 Campbell, Harry .. .. ..1123 Cleland, Norman Bobert .. .. .. 1101 Coxhead, Arthur .. .. .. 1081 Cuthbert, Thomas .. .. .. ..1135 Davies, William Bolland .. .. .. 1066 Diggings, John .. .. • • . . 1106 Dougherty, Mrs. .. .. .. 1125 Elwin, James Jeken .. .. •• •• 1130 Finnerty, Charles Ralph .. • - .. . . 1102 Forman, John White .. .. .. . • 1067 Fryday, Nicholas Benjamin .. . . . . 1090 Gatton, Charles Stepney .. .. . • 1107 Geever, Michael .. .. .. • • 1101 j Gleeson, William .. .. . • • • 1087 Hale, William .. .. •. • • 1075 Hallett, William .. .. .. 1092, 1102 Hastie, Thomas .. .. .. .. 1111 Herlihy, David .. .. . . • • 1073 Hill, Samuel .. .. .. . • • • 1078 Izett, Ernest Massy .. .. •. 1096 Jennings, Ernest .. .. • • 1097 Jennings, William Thomas .. .. . . 1076 Jordan, William .. .. .. . • 1136 Kennedy, William] McLachlan .. . . . . 1136
Malone, William George .. .. .. 1126 Marks, Jacob .. .. .. .. 1137 McCluggage, Joseph .. .. .. ..1112 McLachlan, William .. .. .. .. 1134 McLoon, Owen .. .. .. ..1110 Mills, Frederick .. .. .. ..1135 Moir, George Russell .. .. .. .. 1110 Moir, James .. . . . . .. .. 1093 Monkhouse, William . . .. . . 1132 Morgan, Thomas .. .. . . 1070 Murley, Edward Mordaunt .. .. .. 1056 Murray, George Thomas .. .. . . 1069 Okey, Henry.. .. .. .. .. 1058 O'Neil, Michael .. .. .. .. 1105 Price, Richard .. .. . . . . 1063 Richards, John Bangham .. .. .. 1137 Roberton, Eric .. .. . . .. 1091 Robinson, Ernest Crellin .. .. ..1143 Simpson, Francis .. .. .. ..1139 Smith, Edward Metcalf . . . . . . 1079 Stevenson, Edward .. .. .. 1061 Stockwell, George .. .. . . .. 1086 Tait, Charles.. .. .. .. .. 1074 Toohey, Patrick .. .. .. .. 1099 Trimble, Harold . . . . .. .. 1074 Virgin, Frederick John .. .. .. 1072 Waite, Henry .. .. . . . . 1071 Were, James . . . . . . . . 1069 West, Charles Henry .. .. . . . . 1106
Wellington.
Adnams, William James Newton .. .. 1293 Askew, Joseph Albert.. .. .. . . 1280 Baillie, George .. .. • • • • 1250 Bayliss, William .. • • • • 1257 Beckett, Reginald Ernest .. .. .. 1166 Buck, William Joseph.. .. .. .. 1258 Burdan, George Groves .. .. . . 1320 Cade, Robert .. . • • • • • 1256 Campbell, Ewen .. .. •• •• 1174 Campbell, George Frederick Colin .. . . 1508 Carolan, James .. .. .. . • 1251 Cooper, James Christopher .. .. . . 1262 Corrigan, Patrick .. .. .. 1274 Donald, James .. .. •• •• 1249 Dunne, Henry .. • • • • • • 1258 Escott, James Henry .. .. .. • . 1257 Everett, Horatio .. • • • • 1274 Ferguson, John .. .. •• •• 1179 Fitzpatrick, Thomas .. .. .. ..1162 Fraser, Hugh .. .. .. .. 1181 George, Sinclair Munro .. .. . • 1273 Gould, Albert William.. .. .. .. 1200 Gosse, Robert Alfred .. .. .. . • 1290 Griffiths, John .. .. .. . • 1343 Guthrie, David Henry.. .. .. 1150 Gwilliam, Llewellyn .. .. .. . • 1345 Hall, Robert Freeman.. .. .. .. 1318 Hampton, William Henry .. .. .. 1282 Hewitt, James Dudley Ryder .. .. . . 1194 Heyes, Peter.. .. .. .. 1349, 1361 Hogg, Robert .. .. .. .. 1323 Howard, Charles William .. ... . . 1298 Humphries, Thomas .. .. .. . . 1366 Jacobs, John .. .. • - • • 1312 i Johns, Edward .. .. • • . • 1252 Keene, Harrie .. .. .. .. L 271 Kirk, Thomas William, F.L.S. .. .. .. 1467 Kraiger, John .. .. .. .. 1148
Lawson, William .. .. .. 1314 Lundius, Harry .. .. .. ..1150 Lyons, Alfred Richard .. .. .. 1362 Mackenzie, Robert Bruce . . . . 1167 Mackenzie, James .. .. .. 1376 Mayo, Alfred Richard .. .. .. 1199 Marshall, John Willoughby .. .. .. 1158 Martin, Harry .. .. .. . . 1345 Matheson, William .. .. .. .. 1258 McCardle, James .. .. .. . . 1244 McFarland, James .. .. .. ..1176 McKean, Thomas .. .. . . 1148, 1150 McKean, William •• •• •• .. 1180 McKenzie, John .. .. .. .. 1147 McVicker, Frederick Neil .. .. .. 1346 Mortensen, Hans Peter Glerup .. . . 1149 Nestor, Thomas .. .. .. *. 1242 O'Brien, Michael .. .. .. .. 1149 O'Brien, T. .. . . .. .. .. 1319 o'Regan, Patrick Joseph .. .. .. 1337 Osborne, Alexander .. .. .. 1291 Percy, Foster .. .. .. .. 1274 Preece, George Augustus .. .. .. 1181 Pulman, Albert .. .. . . 1146, 1149 Ranby, George Frank .. .. .. ..1198 Reardon, Michael John .. .. ..1162 Reese, Alexander .. .. .. .. 1304 Richards, Alfred .. .. .. .. 1183 Robinson, Allan .. .. .. ..1170 Robinson, George Francis .. .. . . 1518 Smith, Robert .. .. .. .. 1254 Stevens, John .. .. .. .. 1186 Strauchon, John .. .. .. 1473 Sutherland, James Burns Finlayson .. .. 1346 Tansey, Michael .. ... .. .. 1163 Tunnicliffe, Ernest Joseph Cartwright .. .. 1177 Vile, Job .. .. .. .. ..1189 Watson, Walter .. .. .. .. 1172
v—C. 4.
C—4.
XXXIV
Page Ward, John .. - .. .. ™ 1320 Westbrook, William Henry .. ... .. 1314 Wheeler, George ... .. .. ..1178 Whittle, Joseph .. .. .. .. 1177
Page Wilson, James Glennie.. * .. 1325 Wratt, John Stuart .. .. .. . . 1279 Young, Thomas .. .. .. 1300
Nelson.
Fell, Charles Yates ... .. .. .. 1436 Harris, Richard Edward . . .. .. 1436 Higgins, Peter .. .. .. .. 1434 Johnston, John Kirkpatrick .. .. .. 1432 Kingsley, Robert Inkpen .. .. .. 1441 Lammas, Brother Jesse .. .. .. 1443
Maginnity, Andrew T... .. .. .. 1442 Murray, William Davidfßro fm .. .. .. 1427 Pattie, Thomas .. .. .. 1422 Pellew, William Frederick .. .. .. 1425 Ruffell, Charles James.. .. .. .. 1443 Turner, Russell H. .. .. .. .. 1440
Marlborough.
Armstrong, John George .. .. 1443, 1453 Armstrong, William .. .. • .. .. 1461 Atkinson, Robert Dampier .. .. .. 1446 Barnes, Frederick Samuel .. .. .. 1451 Buckhurst, William Blyth .. .. 1458, 1466 Curry, Andrew James .. .. .. .. 1454 Fleming, Alexander .. .. .. .. 1450
Fleming, David Forsyth .. .. .. 1450 Gunn, George McLeod.. .. .. .. 1452 Lissaman, Henry .. .. .. .. 1448 Reader, Harry Marsh .. .. .. .. 1462 Register, Robert .. .. .. .. 1456 Trent, Henry.. .. .. .. .. 1465 Watson, Andrew .. .. .. .. 1456
Westland.
Baucke, Franz David .. .. . .. 1523 Duff, Thomas William.. .. .. .. 1524 Harcourt, Rioliard Allan .. .. .. 1532
Hargreaves, James .. .. .. .. 1526 Roberts, Eric .. .. .. .. 1091 Wheeler, Albert Henry .. .. .. 1530
[These witnesses were examined in Wellington.]
Canterbury.
Acland, Henry Dyke .. .. .. .. 508 Acton, Walter .. .. .. .. 485 Agar, William Edwin .. .. .. .. 610 Allen, Andrew .. .. .. .. 566 Allen, John .. .. .. .. •• 611 Anderson, Robert .. .. .. .. 477 Anderson, William Charles .. .. .. 513 Anderson, William .. .. .. .. 563 Angland, Daniel .. .. .. .. 486 Aplin, William Frederick .. .. 580 589 Archibald, David .. .. .. .. 538 Atkinson, Henry Albert .. .. .. 605 Barker, Louis .. .. .. .. 548 Barnett, Arthur William .. .. . 421 Baynon, Charles Edward .. .. .. 603 Beaven, Herbert Thomas . . .. .. 558 Beere, William .. .. .. . 418 Besley, Charles Henry .. .. .. 467 Bitchener, Alfred .. .. .. .. 412 Boyd, James .. .. .. .. 553 Brooker, Edwin Henry .. .. .. 564 Bruce, John .. .. .. .. 423 Bunn, Alfred . . .. .. .. 582 Bunting, John .. .. .. .. 554 Burns, Robert Crosby .. .. .. 517 Butt, James . . .. .. .. 546 Campbell, John .. .. .. .. 427 Casey, Gerald .. .. .. .. 453 Chapman, Stephen S» .. .. 501 Cleland, Andrew .. .. .. .. 448 Corcoran, Joseph .. .. .. .. 424 Corrigan, Michael Joseph .. .. .. 430 Coskerie, James .. .. .. .. 408 Ourtis, Isaac . . .. .. .. 445 Daniel, Walter . . .. .. .. 587 Davis, James . . .. .. .. 488 Dowds, James .. .. .. .. 557 Driscoll, Matthew . . .. .. .. 455 Dunlop, William .. .. .. .. 578 Elms, Robert .. .. .. .. 433 England, Edward Lee .. .. .. 481 Fitzpatrick, William .. .. .. 554 Fleming, John .. .. .. .. 541 Fleming, Robert .. .. .. .. 550 Forsyth, Alexander .. .. .. .. 423 Fraser, James .. .. .. 463,467 Freeman, Albert .. .. .. . 567 Friel, Peter .. .. .. .. 480 Gardiner, George .. .. .. .. 560 Gardner, James .. .. .. .. 555 Gee, Richard John .. .. . * .. 516 Gee, Thomas George .. .. .. 537, 543 Gell, Philip .. .. .. .. .. 547 Gilpin, Joseph .. .. .. .. 515 Green, Frank . .. .. .. 487 Grigg, John Charles Nattle .. .. .. 490 ■Guthrie, Robert .. .. .. .. 434
Hall, Wilfred .. .. 569 Hamilton, George Innes .. .. .. 437 Hamilton, William Feilding .. .. .. 43s Hansen, Christopher Matheson .. .. 528 Hansen, John .. .. .. .. 551 Harding, William .. .. .. .. 502 Haughey, Samuel .. .. .. .. 550 Hawkins, Thomas .. .. .. .. 411 Hay, John Taylor .. .. .. .. 421 Henshaw, William Frederick .. .. .. sgj Henstridge, Michael .. .. .. .. 424 Hepworth, Raymond .. .. .. 565 Hewett, Samuel .. .. .. .. 5(54 Hodgson, William .. .. .. .. 548 Hogan, John . .. .. .. 551 Horgan, B. .. .. .. .. .. 488 Humphries, Thomas .. .. .. .. 629 Jameson, William .. .. .. .. 580 Joyce, Alexander .. .. .. .. 615 Kelland, John .. .. .. .. 473 Kidd, Henry .. .. .. .. 446 Knight, Henry .. .. .. .. 429 Lassen, George Albert .. .. .. 532 Lawlor, Maurice .. .. .. .. 487 Leadley, George William .. .. .. 497 Leggett, Joseph .. .. .. 507,515 Leonard, Maurice .. .. .. .. 410 Lewis, Charles .. .. .. .. 601 Lewis, Herbert Francis .. .. .. 615 Lowrie, William .. .. .. .. 595 Lundon, William Hot>son .. .. .. 417 Mackintosh, John .. .. .. .. 438 Maffey, John .. .. .. .. 582 Manning, Harry .. .. .. .. 535 Marshall, William James .. .. .. 470 Maslin, William Stephen .. .. .. 456 McCort, James .. .. .. .. 447 McCullough, John Alexander .. .. .. 518 McGloin, Hugh .. .. .. .. 586 McGregor, John .. .. .. .. 436 McLean, Alexander .. .. .. .. 4JO McLean, George Alexander .. .. .. 579 Miller, Alexander William .. .. .. 608 Miller, William Mcßeth .. .. .. 609 Miller, James .. .. .. .. 610 Mitten, Patrick .. .. .. .. 489 Murchison, Duncan .. .. .. .. 511 Murray, George . . .. .. .. 479 Murphy, Michael .. .. .. .. 626 Myers, John Scott .. .. .. .. 530 Newlyn, John Heath .. .. .. 585 Neill, Ellesmere .. .. .. .. 609 Nish, William .. .. .. .. 410 Norrish, Robert .. .. .. .. 462 O'Connor, John .. ~ ~ .. 469 Olliver, John .. .. .. .. 539 O'Loughlin, Michael .. .. .. .. 486
0.—4.
XXXV
Page Overton, Charles Fitzroy . .. .. 510 Overton, Thomas Henry .. .. .. 531 Ozanne, Frederick .. . > .. •. 581 Paterson, Archie Donald . » .. ■ ■ 589 Pitman, Henry Herbert .. .. .. 583 Pringle, Alexander Campbell .. .. .. 622 Pulley, George .. .. ■. • • 540 Pulley, Lewis Joseph ~ .. .. .. 552 Quantock, Job .. .. . • • • 479 Reid, Charles .. • • • • • • 605 Rennie, John .. • • • ■ • • 576 Richards, William .. . • • • • 559 Roberteon, Thomas David .. .. .. 447 Ross, John .. .. •. • • • • 442 Rutherford, John Scott .. .. • • 442 Rutherford, Walter .. .. .. • • 556 Rutherford, Walter Thomas .. .. •. 559 Scannell, Michael .. • ■ • • • • 488 Scott, Joseph .. .. •. • • 462 Shannon, Robert .. .. • • • • 516 Sheehan, Bartholomew .. .. • • 471 Spray, Charles .. .. • • • ■ 512 Staveley, Edward George .. .. • • 599
Pag a Stevenson, James .. .. .. .. 625 Stevenson, Thomas .. .. .. .. 549 Stoekdill, George .. .. .. .. 514 Talbot, John .. .. .. .. 482 Thew, Robert .. .. ■. .. 481 Thompson, Anthony George .. .. .. 515 Thompson, Richard Proctor .. .. .. 465 Tripp, Bernard E. H. .. •. .. 426 Trotter, John .. .. •. .. 439 Vague, Edmond .. .. .. .. 451 Vaughan, John .. .. .. • • 536 Waite, Emmanuel .. .. ■. .. 462 Walker, Alfred .. .. •. . ■ 412 Watt, Alexander .. .. .. .. 409 Watson, Peter .. .. .. .. 466 Webb, Ernest Courtenay .. .. .. 560 White, Cyril Thomas .. .. .. .. 562 Williams, William Henry .. .. 574,590 Wilson, Alexander Cracroft .. .. .. 619 Wilson, Rossmore'Cracroft .. .. .. 542 Wood, Charles John .. .. ... 618 Wreathall, George James .. .. •. 474 Yates, Frank Sturt .. .. .. • • 591
Otago.
Anderson, Joseph Allan .. • .. 283 Armour, Alexander .. .. •. 182, 192 Atkinson, Ernest .. .. • • • • 257 Bailey, Samuel .. •. • • • • 269 Ballantyne, Robert .. .. . • • 182 Barclay, Alfred Richard .. .. • • 323 Barker, Allan Arthur .. .. . • • • 155 Barr, Thomas .. • • • • • • 264 Barron, David .. •• 255, 285, 361, 36/, 403 Bates, Joseph .. .. •• •• 360 Beck, Alexander .. .. • • • • 375 Bell, Alfred Dillon .. .. •. • • 337 Bell, Andrew .. • • • • • • 382 Bleach, Patrick .. .. • • 206,210 Bodkin, James .. .. • • • • 174 Borrie, Donald .. . • • • • • 250 Bradfield, Alfred .. .. • • • • 259 Brown, James .. .. • • • • 213 Bulfin, John . • • • • • • • 301 Burbury, Edward Pargiter .. .. •. 393 Butler, John .. • • • • • • 181 Caroline, Patrick .. .. • • • • 269 Clark, Edward .. •. • • • • 347 Clark, Edward Henry .. .. • • • • 350 •Clark, George .. .. • • • • 341 Clark, Herbert .. .. . • • • 274 Clarke, John .. .. •• •• 2/8 Clement, Edward .. .. • • • • 284 Cockburn, George .. .. •. • • 164 Cotton, Robert .. .. • • • • 314 Cowie, Robert .. •. • • • • 302 •Chalmers, John Howe .. .. • • 383 Christie, John .. • • • • • • 270 Craig, William Lindsay .. •. • • 339 •Crawford, Henry Beloe .. • • • • 401 Cuthbertson, George Lyon .. .. v 175 Dallas, William .. .» • • • • 248 < Dasler, Lewis .. .. • • • • 373 Davis, Samuel James .. .. .. • • 362 Don, James .. .. • • • • • • 352 Dovey, Henry Alfred .. .. • • • • 386 Dowdall, William .. .. .. • • 253 Dowling, William .. .. • • • • 212 Duncan, John .. •• •• 349 Edgar, John 151 Edie, John .. . • ■ • • • • • 2JB Elliott, Robert .. • • • • ■ • 203 Evans, Thomas .. .. • • • • 380 Faehe, George .. • • • • • • 173 Ferguson, Robert .. .. • • ■ • 330 Eisandier, Claude Felix .. • ■ • • 169 Flannery, Brian .. ■ • • • • • 191 Forrester, John .. • • • • • • - Fraser, Alexander .. .. • • 291, 302 Eraser, Andrew .. ... •• •• J4B 'George, James .. .. • • • • 151 Gilligan, Michael .. .. • • • ■ 387 'Glendining, Robert Whitton .. ... .. 223 Goodson, W. K. .. . • • • • • 391 Gordon, Bernard .. .. • • • • 216 Grave, Albert Joseph .. .. • • • • 408 "Hansen, Eric v ■ • • • • • 229 Hay, John .. .. • • • • • • 233 jHaycock, Arthur H. .. .. .. • • 322
Heckler, Arthur .. .. .. .. 343 Heriott, John .. .. .. •. 285 Holden, Charier .. .. .. 165 Home, James .. .. .. .. 168 Howell, James .. .. . • 224 Hughes, William Edward DeCoursey .. .. 378 Inder, Charles James .. .. • • 226 Inder, Robert Shepherd Franks .. .. 218 Iversen, Andreas Christian .. .. .. 176 Jackson, Robert Thomas .. .. .. 166 Johnston, Robert .. ~ .. .. 216 King, Thomas Lunam.. .. .. ■ ■ 366 Kirk, James Robert .. .. •. .. 214 Kydd, John Frater .. .. . . .. 365 Laidlaw, William .. .. .. .. 194 Laidlaw, William Sanderson .. .. .. 179 Law, John, jun. .. .. .. .. 207 Law, John, sen. .. .. .. • ■ 212 Lethbridge, John .. .. .. . • 335 Livingstone, George .. .. .. 243, 362 Lobb, James .. .. ■. • • 214 Logan, Glasgow .. .. .. .. 265 Logan, Robert .. .. .. . • 220 Mannis, Cornelius .. .. .. ■ • 388 Mason, William Davey .. .. •. 229 Matthias, Alured George .. .. .. 228 McArthur, James .. .. .. .. 173 Mcßride, Francis .. .. .. . • 152 McCluskey, Patrick .. .. .. .. 210 McCowan, James Will .. • • • ■ 355 McCrae, John Matheson .. .. .. 359 McCurdie, William Duncan Ross .. .. 398 McDougall, Andrew .. .. .. . • 158 McDougall, Robert .. .. .. 153, 158 McGradie, Peter .. .. •. .. 381 McGregor, Charles .. .. .. .. 346 I McGregor, Donald .. .. ■. 280, 285 Mcllroy, John .. .. .. • • 178 McKenzie, George .. .. .. .. '150 McKenzie, John Munro .. .. .. 254 McLevie, Thomas Davis .. .. .. 201 McMurphy, John .. .. .. .. 366 McNair, Robert .. .. .. .. 388 Mcßae, John .. .. .. • • 169 McScimming, Robert .. .. .. .. 228 McWhirter, Thomas .. .. .. .. 159 Mee, Hinkson .. .. •. • • 201 Morgan, Edward .. .. ■. .. 201 Murray, Lindley William .. .. 371, 375 Moynhan, Michael .. .. ■. •. 233 Naylor, Benjamin .. .. .. • • 172 Nelson, James .. .. .. • • 261 Nichols, Joseph Cowie .. .. .. 388 Nicholson, Donald .. .. .. .. 185 O'Connor, Thomas .. .. .. ■. 363 O'Neill, Edward .. .. .. . ■ 303 Pitches, John .. .. •. • • 186 Pitches, William .. .. .. .. 171 Porter, John .. .. •• •• 376 Preston, Luke Hugarth .. .. .. 153 Pyle, William .. •. • • • • 199 Ramsay, John Johnston .. .. . ■ 189 Reid, Donald .. ... • • • • 235 Reid, Thomas .. .. ■. .. 384
C.—4.
XXXVI
Page Richie, James .. .. .. .. 167 Roberts, Arthur William .. .. .. 228 Roberts, John .. .. .. .. 316 Robertson, James .. .. .. .. 297 Robinson, Robert .. .. .. .. 401 Ross, David .. .. .. .. 352 Ross, James .. .. .. .. 350 Russell, William .. .. .. .. 391 Saunders, Alexander Clark .. .. 263,269 Scott, James .. .. .. .. 210 Scott, John Askew .. .. .. .. 303 Scott, Robert .. .. .. .. 227 Shand, Charles .. .. .. .. 275 Shennan, Watson .. .. .. .. 286 Sheehy, John .. .. .. .. 170 Sim, James .. .. .. .. ~ 288 Spain, Stephen Thomas .. .. .. 180 Steele, John Brown .. .. .. .. 361
Stevenson, Alexander .. .. .. 272: Stevenson, James .. .. ~ 337 Stewart, George Hepburn .. .. .. 290Studholme, Robert, jun. .. .. .. 150 Studholme, Robert, sen. .. .. .. 157 Sturrock, Edward .. .. .. .. 363 Sutherland, William .. .. .. .. 384. Tallentine, James Everest .. .. .. 388 Taylor, Thomas .. ~ .. .. 276 Thomson, James .. .. .. .. 180 Trusdale, Alexander .. .. .. ~ 193 Werner, John H. .. .. .. .. 162 Wilson, Alexander .. .. .. .. 386 Wilson, John .. .. .. 198 Wilson, Richard .. .. .. .. 204 Wise, George Edwards .. .. .. 388 Wood, Robert .. .. ~ , _ 291 Young, Samuel .. .. .. ~ 267
Southland.
Aitken, Andrew .. .. .. .. 125 Ayson, Thomas .. .. .. 102, 106 Bain, Andrew .. .. .. .. 77 Barwell, George .. .. .. .. 74 Baxter, Thomas .. .. .. .. 138 Bennett, Samuel .. .. .. .. 54 Brighton, Gavin .. .. .. .. 30 Brown, William .. .. .. .. 40 Brownridge, William .. .. .. .. 41 Campbell, Peter .. .. .. .. 101 Carmichael, Allan McDougall .. .. .. 60 Casey, Richard Joseph .. .. .. 65 Crosbie, George .. .. .. .. 96 ; Cushnie, James .. .. .. .. 90 Darley, William John .. .. .. 67 Dawson, Alexander Milne .. .. .. 53 Driscoll, John .. .. .. .. 61 Erskine, Hugh .. .. .. .. 48 Fraser, Donald .. .. .. 144, 146 Gibson, Thomas .. .. .. .. 11 Gibson, William Henry .. .. .. 147 Graham, John .. .. .. .. 93 Greenlees, John .. .. .. .. 107 Hall, John James .. .. .. .. 54 Hamer, James .. .. .. .. 138 Hannan, Thomas .. .. .. .. 79 Hay, John .. .. .. .. .. 12, 85 Henderson, John Roderick .. .. .. 126 Heenan, Dennis James .. .. .. 64 Hilton, George Richard .. .. .. 4, 80 Hirst, Henry .. .. .. .. 46 Hodgett, William George .. .. .. 54 Horrell, Bernard .. .. .. .. 51 Horrell, John .. .. .. .. 72 Howard, Thomas .. .. .. .. 50 Inder, Samuel George .. .. .. 127 Johnston, William .. .. .. .. 122 Keith, Robert .. .. .. .. 117 Kelly, James .. .. .. .. 133 King, James .. .. .. .. 70 Kinross, Andrew .. .. .. .. 23 Lamb, David .. .. .. .. H6 Leggat, James .. .. .. .. 78 Macandrew, Colin .. .. 1 .. 132, 134, 137 Mac Gibbon, John .. .. .. .. 125 Mackie, George .. .. .. .. 83 Maher, John .. .. .. .. 140 March, William Joseph .. .. .. 105 Martin, James .. .. .. .. 145 McCallum, Robert Meikle .. .. .. 97 McDonald, Ernest .. .. .. .. 147 McGearty, Bernard .. .. .. .. 85 McGregor, Alexander .. .. .. .. 137 McGregor, Donald .. .. .. .. 110 Mclnerney, Patrick .. .. .. .. 11, 84 Mclntyre, John .. .. .. ~ 28 McKay, William .. .. .. .. 105 McKenzie, Kenneth .. .. .. .. 139 McKinnel, Thomas .. .. .. .. 139 McLean, James John Hamilton .. .. 52
McLean, John .. .. .. .. 31 McLennan, Roderick .. .. .. 137 [40 McLeod, Frank Howie .. .. .. 142 McLoughlan, Alexander .. .. ~ 123 McQueen, John .. .. .. .. g McQuillan, Henry .. .. .. . 47 Menpes, James .. .. ~ ~ 33 Miller, James .. ~ ~ ~ 04 Milne, James .. .. .. .. X4l Milne, James .. .. gg Milne, John .. .. .. .. .. |jg Mooney, Patrick .. .. .. .. 44 Mortimer, William .. .. ~ .. 131 Murchison, Duncan .. .. .. .. 59 Murchison, Finlay .. .. .. .. 141 Murchland, John .. .. .. .. 37 Murdoch, Alexander .. .. .. 129 134 Neylon, John .. .. ~ .. 77 O'Connor, Michael .. .. .. ~ 33 Olsen, Lars Peter .. .. ~ ~ j4 g Oswin, Thomas Lyons .. .. .. 62 80 Parker, Benjamin .. .. .. .. lIJO Paterson, James .. .. ~ ~ 147 Pearce, Thomas George .. .. .. 49 Petrie, Isaac Lawrence .. .. ~ N j Peterson, Peter John .. .. .. .. 54 Piper, Alexander .. .. ~ .. 64 81 Pleasant, Edmund .. .. .. ~ 57 Pollock, James .. .. ~ 131 134 Poppelwell, Dougald Louis .. .. .. 112 Price, John Morgan .. .. .. .. 147 Reichel, Carl Otto .. .. .. . 41 Reichel, Oswald .. .. ~ .. 42 Robertson, Charles .. .. .. _ gg Robertson, Colin .. .. .. _ _ 134 Robertson, William .. .. .. .. 5g Salton, Andrew .. .. ~ , 75 Saunders, William .. .. ■ ~ 75 Scandrett, William Benjamin .. .. .. 1 Scott, George Andrew .. .. ~ 73 Scott, William .. .. ~ _ _ 09 Sinclair, James Alexander .. .. .. 99 Smaill, John .. .. _ 109 Smith, Cyrus Scipio .. .. .. .. 77 Smith, Hugh .. .. ~ # 120 Soaper, Samuel .. .. ~ .. 147 Stewart, Archibald .. .. .. ~ 128 Swain, George .. .. .. . _ 58 Tapper, Robert, jun. .. .. ~ 71 Thompson, Samuel .. .. .. . _ 95 Thomson, James Robertson .. .. 34 Toogood, George Frederick .. .. .. 60 Traill, Arthur William .. .. ~ 54 Treseder, John Henry .. . .. .. g2 Turnbull, John .. .. .. 108 Waddle, William .. .. .. 118 Watson, William .. .. .. .. 40 Wilson, Joseph .. .. .. .. 50 White, Frank Butt .. .. .. .. 91 Whitmore, Edward Henry .. .. .. 77
C.-4
Plan of the Rosewill Settlement
C.—4,
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Invehcargull, Tuesday, 21st Febbuaey, 1905. William Benjamin Scandbett examined. 1. The Chairman.] What is your official position ?—I am Mayor of Invercargill. 2. How long have you been in the colony ?—-About forty-seven years. 3. Have you ever engaged in farming pursuits?— No. 4. But I have no doubt, from your long residence and observations, you are in a position to give us some valuable evidence on the questions we have to inquire into. We shall be very glad if you will give us a statement of your views on the land question, or any particular part of it?— The first item referred to is the constitution of Land Boards. So far as Southland is concerned, I think we are perfectly satisfied with the mode of constitution of these Boards. It had occurred occasionally in the past that a good man had been put off and another man had been put on, but that is inevitable under a political system. In my opinion, the Land Boards have done excellent work in Southland. They have acted fairly towards the Crown tenants and towards the State, and Ido not think that the advantage to be gained by the election of the Land Boards would be commensurate with the expense attending it. Moreover, a very large proportion of the people would take no interest in the election, and would not vote, with the result that the Land Boards would be elected by the leaseholders, and that would not be in the interest of the .colony. Then, so far as the land-tenures of the colony are concerned, I am entirely in favour of the present system, with one exception—viz., I think the leaseholders should be given the option of purchasing the freehold. I regard the lease in perpetuity practically as a freehold so far as the next ten or fifteen generations are concerned, subject to an annual charge which is a reasonable charge on the present value. But there is something in a man which makes him desire the freehold. Fully one-half of the early settlers came to New Zealand with the intention of getting the freehold of their property because it was impossible for them to acquire the freehold at Home. Of course, chat may be sentiment, but I think it is a desirable sentiment. I would only give the option of the freehold. I would not insist on people buying. I think they should have the option of purchasing the freehold in connection with either the perpetual-lease system or lease in perpetuity ; and I think the purchase-money might be put into a separate account so that it might still provide revenue for the Government. Of course, that is a matter which the State would have to consider, but I see no reason myself why the freehold should not be purchased. lam a land agent, and have been in that business for the last ten years. Previously I was Town Clerk for twenty-two years. The Municipal Corporations have a good many leaseholds, but, as a land agent, I find that the great bulk of the people will not buy leases if they can possibly avoid it. In a great manv cases the wives own the home, or they want to own it, and they make a strong effort to get the freehold. If I offer them a good leasehold they say, " Oh, but I will never own it." That shows the desire of mankind for the freehold. I have not much to say in regard to the question of compulsory residence by tenants. I think that is necessary. The Land Board here, at any rate, has always dealt fairly with the tenants in allowing them an extension where the circumstances warranted it before insisting on compulsory residence. I have no knowledge of the effects of climate and land-configuration, nor am I familiar with the homestead system. I am entirely in favour of the ballot system. The ballot system was first started in Otago, and was afterwards changed to the auction system, with the result that people often got excited at auctions, and paid two and three times the value of the land. The result was that the Government had to pass an Act "to allow reductions to be made. The ballot system is fair. What we want is successful settlement on the land, and we get that by the ballot system, because the people only pay a reasonable amount, and generally they are able to pay their way. Under the auction system, when the price of the land is run up to more than its value you do not get successful settlement. On the contrary, you get a struggling settlement, which is not good for the country. I have nothing much to say in reference to the loading of lands for roads, except that it seems reasonable. The next point in the Commission is the value of leaseholds now and at the date of lease. I think that as a rule in this district there has been no increase in the value, except in connection with bush land. Where the land is open tussock land there has been no increase in value of the leasehold outside of the improvements. There may be an increase in some parts of the colony, such as Canterbury, perhaps, where the land is rich ; but, taking Southland as a whole, the only improvement in value is due to a man's own work on the land. I think the advances-to-settlers system is a splendid one, and that the Government of the country deserve very great credit for it. It has had the effect of fixing the standard for interest, because private lenders base their rate of interest on the rate fixed by the Government. That has been of immense value to the country. I think that it has been one of the best Acts the Parliament of the country ever passed. I think the aggregation of large estates is against the best interests of the country, and anything that can be done to prevent it will be for the benefit of the State. However, Ido not think a man should be stopped from increasing the size of his holding. If he is permitted to do so, it may be good for the district, because a man would probably buy his neighbour out at a higher price than a stranger would give. It may suit him very well to acquire a property adjoining his own. I think that power should not be taken away from anybody, although I think it is against the interests of the country to allow the aggregation of large -estates without, at any rate, such provision as now exists in the law for a graduated land-tax. That is all I need say.
I—C. 4.
a—4.
2
[W. B. SCANDBETT.
5. In your line of business as a land agent no doubt settlers often apply to you for a loan of money ?—Yes. 6. Is there any great difference between the rate of interest which a leaseholder and a freeholder has to pay for such accommodation ?—I do pot think so ; but it is almost impossible to get a loan on a leasehold. Putting aside the difference in value of a leasehold and a freehold, you cannot raise nearly the same proportion on a leasehold as can be got on a freehold. 7. You say the rate of interest is nearly the same, but that the amount of the advance is much less?— Yes ; in fact, it is almost impossible to get it. If anybody comes to me for a loan on a leasehold I advise them to go to the Government Advances to Settlers Office, where special provision is made to lend on Government leaseholds. 8. Are you aware that sometimes leaseholders apply to the Advances to Settlers Office, and, getting very little encouragement, have to go to a private lender and borrow the money at a much higher rate of interest ?—I have no knowledge of that. I know that perhaps ultimately they get the money from private sources. I always make it a point to get the money at the lowest rate of interest. 9. With regard to the aggregation of large estates, is that system going on to any extent within your knowledge in Southland ?—No ; just the contrary. 10. And the graduated land-tax, to which you have already referred, is presumably why this aggregation has not taken place ? —I think it is largely the reason. 11. Mr. Johnston.] In saying you have no objection to a neighbour increasing his area, do you mean you have no objection to him increasing it to an unlimited extent? —No, I do not mean that. 12. Mr. Paul.] When you say you are in favour of the freehold, do you not think that giving the option of freehold must in the future lead to the aggregation of large estates ? —I do not think it would. I think the graduated land-tax would prevent that. 13. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be in favour of giving the freehold at the present capital value or at the capital value when the land was taken up, or would you be in favour of putting the land up to public auction ?—I think they are entitled to get it at the capital value on which they pay the interest called rent. 14. And what right have the Crown tenants to get the freehold of their holdings any more than any class of the community ?—They have no right to it, but I think it would be a wise thing for the State to give them that right. The State would not lose. The State would get money which bears 4 per cent, interest under leases in perpetuity, and, as money is worth 4 per cent, in the market, the State would not lose anything, and the people would have the satisfaction of holding the freehold. 15. But if the majority of the Crown tenants do not want the freehold would it be advisable to make it optional ?—I see no reason why it should not be made optional. If a tenant does not want the freehold he will not buy it; but a tenant who does want the freehold should have the right to acquire it. 16. The Chairman.] I suppose your remarks cover leases granted under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Yes, I think so. I know the Government are buying estates and leasing them only under the lease in perpetuity, but I see no reason why the privilege of acquiring the freehold should not be extended to them. 17. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be inclined to give the option of freehold to lessees of educational and municipal endowments, and such like ?—No ; I think they occupy quite a different position. Municipal Councils and Education Boards are local institutions, and they look for an eternal revenue from these leases. If they sold the freehold the money would soon disappear, but if they are prevented from selling they have a revenue for ever. I think it would be against the interests of these institutions to give them the power to sell the freehold. 18. Mr. Anstey.] You spoke just now of the election of Land Boards, and you assume that if Land Boards are made elective the Crown tenants would elect the whole of the Boards, and on that ground you are opposed to any change in the present constitution of the Boards. Do you not think it would be a good thing, while not giving the tenants the right to elect all the members, that they should be represented on the Land Boards by, say, one member elected by themselves? Do you not think that the tenants, who have to pay and obey, should have some say in the election of the Boards ? —That point might be worthy of consideration ; but I believe the men who at present compose the Land Boards act fairly in the interests of the State and the tenants and the public generally. I think they ought to be trusted. I think, if the Boards are made elective, the great bulk of the voting will be by the leaseholders, because there are few of the general public who take any interest in these matters. 19. Then, you think a tenant, who has to pay, should have no special representation on the Land Board?—l am not in favour of it. 20. Have you any experience as to how the present Advances to Settlers Acts suit the needs of people who require loans ?—I have had some experience. 21. Does the Advances to Settlers Office provide loans suitable for farmers' requirements ? For instance, my experience as a farmer is that a farmer may require an advance of, perhaps, £500 to-day and nothing to-morrow. Now, does not the Advances to Settlers Office only advance loans after a good deal of red-tape and delay, and then only for a fixed term ?—Well, a farmer may pay back a loan from the Advances to Settlers Office to-morrow if he likes, or six months hence, or next year, or he can repay a portion of it if he prefers. 22. Can a farmer raise moiiey from day to day as he wants it from the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. They will increase the loan if you show any warrant for it by extra improvements at some future time. 23. Can the Advances to Settlers Office provide the facilities that a farmer wants for raising money on his stock, and so forth ?—No, they cannot do so. That can be much better done by a
C—4.
W. B. SCANDKETT.]
3
private institution that has its agents in the district to see that the stock and other securities are there. All men are not on the same moral plane, and occasionally a lender finds that an old horse has been substituted for a young one. 24. Then, the Advances to Settlers Office is not able to comply with all the needs of the settlers ? —No ; but it is able to supply any loan required on fixed improvements. 25. You say there is no increase in the value of holdings to-day other than the actual improvements made by the tenants: has that been your general experience in Southland?— Yes, on open tussock lands. I will state you a case: The Athenaeum trustees are the owners of 1,000 acres of land a few miles from Invercargill. They leased it twenty-eight years ago at 2s. 6d. per acre, and fourteen years ago it was valued again at 2s. 6d. per acre, and recently it has been valued again at 2s. 6d. per acre. Of course, taking the improvements on some of the farms, the land is worth £5 per acre. 26. Then, there has been no increase in the value of lands in Southland for the last twentyeight years ?—I do not say that. The value has increased, but the increase is in consequence of the improvements. 27. But there has been no increase in the value of the land itself over the last twenty-eight years ?—Not in bare tussock land. 28. Mr. Forbes.] Has not the Corporation of Invercargill a quantity of land leased out as dwelling sections ?—Yes ; there are about a hundred and fifty town sections. 29. Is there any feeling they should sell these lands ?—The Borough Council is altogether opposed to selling the lands, and the leaseholders have never asked the question, because they know we would nob entertain it. The leases provide revenue for all time. 30. On what terms are thesS leases let ? —For fourteen years. At the end of that time the Corporation and lessee each appoint a valuer, who fix the rent for the next fourteen years, and also the value for the improvements. Then that particular section is advertised at an upset rental. As a rule, with only two exceptions in the last thirty years, the original leaseholder has again secured the section. It was always recognised that the rent was a fair one, and that the leaseholder has a prior claim. 31. But the occupier has no option at all: the section is put up in the open market at the end of the term? —Yes. 31a. And the lessees are satisfied with this arrangement and with the terms ?—They have never expressed any general dissatisfaction. 32. If borough leases can be received with satisfaction, would not the same satisfaction be felt by Crown lessees if the Government went on the same lines ? —lf a man takes up a lease under certain conditions he does so with his eyes open, and it is his duty to carry them out. 33. It has been represented that the Crown tenants are not satisfied with the conditions of their leases throughout the country, but do you find that the lessees of the Borough of Invercargill are dissatisfied with their terms ? —No. I know the Crown tenants are anxious to purchase the freehold, because in some cases they could borrow money much easier. Generally they could effect more improvements and place themselves in a position to borrow more money. I find it is easier to raise money on freehold than on leasehold properties. 34. That is your experience of Crown tenants, but it is exactly opposite to your experience of borough lessees? —I do not know that there is much difference. 35. I understand these leases are wholly town leases?—We have some country land. 36. Is that leased on the same terms ?—Yes. It is bush land, and brings in very little revenue in the meantime, although it is very close to Invercargill. 37. Mr. McCardle.] You have some experience of the working of the Advances to Settlers Office :do you know on what basis they make advances to leaseholders ?—Up to half the value of the improvements. 38. Do you think that is a satisfactory plan for the leaseholder?— Well, improvements are liable to decay, and it is the duty of the Government to protect its money. lam not quite sure that-they ought to lend more than that. 39. Do you not think it would be far more equitable if advances were made on leaseholds on the same basis as they are made on freeholds —namely, up to three-fifths of the valuation ?—As a rule, I think the Government, in making these advances, gives three-fifths on the freehold and onehalf of the value of improvements in the shape of buildings. Well, the principle is the same, but you must be very careful in lending on leasehold. 40. You have mentioned the question of restricted area: have you thought out what form that should take, or the acreage of land a man should be entitled to hold ?—That depends on the quality of the land. 41. Knowing that under the Land for Settlements Act the Government gives 640 acres of firstclass land and 2,000 acres of second-class land, do you think that the same principle, if applied to the general settlement of the country, would be suitable for the people ?—I think, perhaps, that it would be in the interests of the country, although 640 acres of first-class land would be a very small area for a pushing man. It is a very difficult question to deal with. I think there should be some limit, but in fixing it I think the Government should be guided by the circumstances surrounding each case. 42. Mr. Hall.] You are aware that in certain parts of New Zealand there are large country endowments ? —Yes. 43. And you would not advocate a policy of selling these endowments?—l would not. 44. When you speak of Crown tenants obtaining the right to purchase the freehold, do you include the tenants on partially improved estates ?—Yes. 45. Would that be fair to the State ? —Yes; because the Government would get the value of the land as fixed, and. the money would bring them in 4 per cent, interest. There would be no loss. 46. The Chairman.'] The Government are getting 5 per cent, for the improved settlements under the Land for Settlements Act? —I thought it was 4 per cent.
a—4.
4
[W. B. SCANDBETT.
47. Mr. Hall.] You think, if the municipal endowments were sold, the money would be spent and would disappear before long: would not the same danger be present if the Government sold their leasehold lands?— Yes ; but the money might be put into a separate account and earmarked. 48. Well, might not the same apply to municipal endowments ?•—Yes; but the endowments of the local bodies provide them with revenue for all time, and they should not be allowed to sell them. 49. Then, should not the rental from Crown leases be considered in the same light, so that the State might have a revenue for all time? —The Government represents the people of the country, and if it is an advantage to the people of the country, as I think it is, to possess the freehold, they ought to get it. 50. Is it unreasonable to compel tenants who have taken up partially improved land on most liberal terms to adhere to the terms of their lease ? —No; they take up the leases with their eyes open, and they are entitled to carry out the conditions of the lease; but I see no reason why they should not have the option of buying the freehold. When I stated that the lessees should pay a price for the freehold that would bring in 4 per cent, to the Government, I thought their rent was fixed on a 4-per-cent. basis. Now that I find it is 5 per cent., I think they should pay a price which would bring in the Government the equivalent of 5 per cent, on a 4-per-cent. calculation. In dealing with the lands of the colony successful settlement should be the first consideration of the State, and not revenue; but revenue is necessarily the first consideration of a Municipal Council —revenue for all time —and consequently municipal endowments must not be sold. Geokge Richakd Hilton examined. 51. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ? —I am a market-gardener. 52. How long have you been in the colony'?— About thirty years. 53. Have you been engaged in market-gardening all the time?— Most of it. In conjunction with that I go in for poultry-farming. 54. Will you just tell us the particular topics you wish to give evidence about ?—I stand here as a village-homestead settler at South Invercargill, and I also represent a number of settlers out there who are prevented from coming in to give evidence to-day. I may say lam not in favour of the indiscriminate granting of the freehold. I would only grant the freehold subject to very stringent building clauses. I think all Crown tenants should have the option of the freehold, subject to the condition I have stated. For instance, I occupy 10 acres. Well, in my lease there should have been a clause giving me the right to the freehold, say, at the end of thirty years, providing I have erected substantial dwellings to the value, we will say, of not less than £200. I wish to explain my meaning by stating that there is a freehold property adjoining my land. It is still in a state of nature, and is a serious hamper to me because it is overrun with weeds. I took up these 10 acres some years ago with the idea of going in for poultry-farming. I got plans and specifications prepared to show what I intended to do, and I went to the Government Advances to Settlers Office for a loan. I was then informed that the Office would not entertain any proposal for a loan until the buildings had been erected on the ground. Then I went to all the financial institutions in the town, and I found that not one of them would entertain my proposal because the land was a Government leasehold. They had no faith whatever in a Government leasehold. The previous witness, Mr. Scandrett, spoke of the municipal leaseholds. They are altogether different from the Government leaseholds, because it is a very easy matter to get a loan on a municipal leasehold : you merely have to take your plan and specifications to any building society and tell them you have a municipal lease and intend to do so-and-so. They consider the proposal and give you an answer, Yes or No. After a long time I was able to finance the thing a bit and I got a good building put upon my place. I again approached the Advances to Settlers Office, and, after paying the valuer's fee, the valuer came up and valued my buildings at £235. I got a reply back from Wellington that the Government refused to entertain my proposal. They gave me no reason whatever. I was placed in a very serious difficulty. I wanted money to pay those who had been good enough to stand the chance of my getting a loan. I did not know what to do, and, to cut the story short, I actually had to call in the aid of the member for the district (Mr. Hanan), the Hon. Mr. Fold wick, of the Legislative Council, and the Hon. Sir J. G. Ward, a Minister of the Crown, before I could force the Advances to Settlers Office to grant me a loan. I am not personally acquainted with the Minister, but I wrote him an account of the position I was placed in, and he wrote to the Board and wanted to know why my application was refused, and they then informed me they would give me £75. I think it is a scandalous shame that a settler with sufficient security cannot get a loan unless he has the influence of a Minister of the Crown. Now, the law provides that they may advance 50 per cent, on leaseholds, and I ask you if £75 is the half of £235. This £75 was not enough to meet my requirements, but I was in such a position that I had to take it. I then found that the consent of the Commissioner of Crown Lands had to be obtained before I could get the loan. I want to know what it has to do with him. Further, I had to pay an extra fee of ss. to get the consent of the Commissioner of Crown Lands. In addition to this, I had to prepare three mortgage deeds, which all meant further expense. Well, in a little while I was so hampered that I was forced to get some money somewhere to pay off my liabilities, and the only way I could do so was by giving a mortgage over the whole of my plant. I have a plant in connection with my business worth £600, and I had to pay 8 per cent, for a loan on that plant. Now, a gentleman in this town told me that if I had the option of the freehold even in thirty years' time he would give me £200 at 5 per cent, on my dwellinghouse alone. He did not ask for any security over my goods and chattels. No one has any faith in a Government lease. I might say there is a general feeling of dissatisfaction amongst the Government leaseholders in the neighbourhood in which I live. They feel they labour under a great disadvantage. I think they should have the option of acquiring the freehold, subject, of course, to a very stringent building clause.
G. E. HILTON.]
5
C.—4.
55. I understand that you object, from your experience, to have any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office ?—lt is no use to the settlers. 56. And that, after trying to obtain an advance, and using a very great deal of influence in your favour, you had to go to a private lender and borrow money at a very high rate of interest ?— Yes. 57. This high rate of interest being charged because of the fact that you had no freehold right either existing or continuing ?—True. 58. And your opinion is that if the leaseholder ultimately had the right to acquire the freehold he would be able to borrow money much easier than he can obtain it now ?—That is so. 59. And you think at the same time it is very proper there should be a stringent condition in the matter of buildings, and so on, before the freehold is given ?—That is so. 60. Mr. Paul.] I understand that your personal experience as a next-door neighbour is that the leasehold property is very much better cultivated than the freehold one? —Yes. 61. Would not a financial institution, in dealing with a proposal for a loan, take into consideration a long lease as against a short one? —No ; because, as I have pointed out, the Corporation leases here are only for fourteen years, and yet it is a very easy matter to raise money on a Corporation lease, provided you erect a building on it. The Government, on the other hand, must have the whole building finished before they will even entertain your proposal. You will see therefore that the question of a longer or shorter lease does not make any difference. The great thing is to have a proviso in the lease giving the ultimate right to the freehold. 62. Then, it is not exactly the leasehold tenure which is the drawback, but rather the irksome departmental regulations in connection therewith ?—That is so. 63. Mr. Anstey.] You said you are in favour of granting the freehold, subject to very stringent building regulations, and you suggest that if a man has spent £200 on a 10-acre section he should have the right to secure the freehold ?—Yes, say at the end of thirty years. 64. Do you think that regulation should apply to all lands, or do you confine your suggestion solely to village settlements ?—I merely cite the 10-acre section as an illustration. I think regulations should be framed to meet the larger settlements also. The value of the buildings to be erected should be increased in proportion to the increase of the size of the holding. 65. You admit that a leaseholder under the Corporation is not placed at a disadvantage with regard to raising loans? —Not in the least. 66. And you suggest the only remedy for it is to give the Government leaseholder the right to purchase the freehold : would it not be just as well if the Government leaseholder were put in the same position as the private leaseholder ?—They do not seem to have any faith in a Government leasehold. 67. Is that not because of the fact that there is no power for the lender to foreclose on a Government property? —That is so. 68. It means that in regard to a Government leasehold the lender has no security, and in regard to a municipal leasehold he has ?—lf a man lent me £200, and I did not pay off the money at the end of the term, he could sell to somebody else, who would have to go and reside on the section, or he would have to reside on it himself. There is the difficulty. The Government will not allow you to relet the land, although I know that regulation is evaded. 69. You told us that you have to pay 8 per cent, interest on your loans : can you inform me if you could have got the money at a lower rate if you had held a Corporation or private leasehold ?—lf it was other than a Government lease I could get £200 at 5 per cent, on my buildings alone in this town. 69a. You think the stringent conditions attaching to Government leases have rendered the security so unsafe that a much higher rate of interest has to be paid on them than on private leases? —That is so. 70. Mr. Forbes.] What amount of improvements had you to offer the Government as security? They had £235 according to their own valuation—that is the value of the house?— Yes. 71. And do you say that a man offered you a loan of £200 on that £235 security?—He said that if I had the right to the freehold even thirty years hence he would advance me £200 on the £235 house. In addition to that, my property is all fenced, and I am putting up other buildings. 72. What was the value of your land when you took it up ?—£4 per acre. 73. And what is the value of it now without improvements ?—They have assessed it at £6 per acre, but I contested that valuation as a most unjust one. 74. At that rate, if you had the option of the freehold, the man who offered you a loan of £200 would have that extra £2 per acre as security over and above the value of your house?— Yes. He saw himself what I was putting up on the place, and, knowing me also, he was quite satisfied. 75. But the Government Advances to Settlers Office gave you no reason for only offering a loan of £75 ?—They gave no reason whatever. 76. And £235 is their own assessment? —Yes. 77. Mr. McCardle.] Suppose the Advances to Settlers Act was amended so that you were entitled to an advance up to three-fifths of the value of your holding, including improvements, over and above the Government leasehold, would that not meet your case : you would not want to acquire the freehold then ? —After I have been on the land some time I by my industry make it worth so-much more than when I took it up. Now, the question is, when lam seeking to raise a loan have I not a right to participate in the work which I have done? Well, the Government say "No." 78. The Government would say "Yes" if the Act was amended? — They say "No" at present; and if I had to sell my place at the present time I would get no benefit for the improvements made on the land—they would only recognise the building improvements.
C—4.
6
[G. R. HILTON-
79. But if the Act was amended so that you became entitled under the Advances to Settlers Act to claim as a Crown tenant up to three-fifths of the improvements you bad effected, would not a leasehold suit you equally as well as a freehold ?—Yes, it would. I say I have a right to participate in the value of my improvements. 80. How long have you held your present section ? —I think, about ten years. 81. And it has been valued at the present time at £2 per acre above the purchase price ? —Yes. 82. And you think that is done to bolster up property-values so as to give us a valuable colonial asset when we want to raise a loan ?•—Yes. 83. How far is your land from the town?— About four or five miles. 84. And do you know that in any other pare of New Zealand land similarly situated would be worth £50 per acre ?—Not the same class of land, for the simple reason that we get the bulk of the water from the whole district over these sections. That may be good for ducks, but it is not good for growing crops. I object to the valuation because my section, which is very broken and rough, has been valued at the same price as the section opposite me, which can be ploughed from one end to the other. 85. In your idea of improvements you give first place to a house : do you not think that other classes of improvements are more valuable than houses ?—No, because houses bring about settlement. Take the case of the man who owns the section next to me, but does not live on it. If we have only a lot of bare land in the district it is not so beneficial to us as if we had a lot of settlers living in the district, and we cannot get these settlers when people are allowed to improve their land without living on it. 86. You cannot produce too touch oats or wheat, but do not you think you can produce too many houses? —Well, we have not produced too many as yet about Invercargill. I think South Invercargill is, to use a strong expression, cursed with absentee owners. 87. Well, that is the freehold you are advocating?—No, because I advocate a stringent building clause. Under my plan a man could not take up a section unless he built on it, and a man would not build a house unless he was going to live in it. 88. Mr. Hall.] In applying for this loan under the Advances to Settlers Act your security was on the building only ?—Yes. 89. I suppose you are aware that in every case of lending on a building the security is based on the insurable value, and not on what the building cost ?—I may say that the gentleman who valued for the Government office was a fire-insurance agent, and he offered me a policy of £150 on the building. He said that if I took out a loan of £75 I would have to take out a policy for £150 in favour of the Government. John McQueen examined. 90. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. McQueen?—l am a farmer and am manager of the Southland Frozen Meat Company. 91. You have been a long time in that position?— Yes, I came here forty-five years ago. I was brought up to farming, and I think I can sympathize with the farmers. I understand them pretty well—what they would like and what they do not like. I am, however, a freeholder myself. I may say I have also a lease. I hold 800 acres of freehold and the rest is leasehold. I have also been acting as trustee in an estate. I had the right to lease land, and I was in charge of the leaseholders to see that they carried out the conditions of their lease. I acted as a kind of factor, so that I came into contact with the leaseholders to a considerable extent. I was manager of an estate of 60,000 acres. The run was 60,000 acres—the Knapdale Run. In connection with that run there was a large amount of land to let on the deferred-payment system. A portion of the land was let under that system from time to time. Something like every alternate section was reserved for sale. There was a block of about 10,000 or 11,000 acres that was considered at that time to be too hilly, and therefore not suitable for settlement. That was sold. The late Mr. McNab purchased that, and altogether we had about 13,000 acres that I managed for a great number of years as trustee in the estate, and carried it on until the property was divided into five portions amongst the sons. I continued looking after it for some time after that. In connection with the leasing of this land some of the young fellows leased their land as farms, and we picked out a class of good farmers—that is the important thing, that the man should be a good farmer, if you are looking out for a good tenant—and they have been very successful. 92. Have they purchasing clauses?—No ; the land has been sold to them since—that is, to one or two of them—but as a rule there were not purchasing clauses. However, they are good farmers. Certainly there were stringent conditions as to cropping, and in some cases I have had to allow them to vary the conditions. As an instance, I may mention the case of one farmer who sowed his paddock in grass. The seeding season was very unfavourable, and there was a failure : the grass did not take. He asked me to allow him to take another crop off it, and he asked under what conditions I would allow it. I suggested that he should put 2 cwt. of manure to the acre, and said that he could take another crop. However, that is by the way. Speaking of leaseholds, I think that is a splendid system of the Government—leasing land. It enables men who have not sufficient capital to buy the land to farm it. But I think that every lease should contain an option clause at some time or another. I think that if a farmer had that security given to him he would be in a position that his leasehold would be equal to a freehold. In fact, it would be better for some men than the freehold, because it would give them assistance in the way of capital—that is to say, they would get the use of the Government capital in the land, and pay interest in the form of rent. That is a splendid system. Ido not suppose there is a farmer—they would be very rare, at any rate—who would prefer a lease to a freehold; but if he had a leasehold with a right of purchase at some future time it is just a question whether he would exercise that right. Some would exercise it no doubt, but I believe that 90 per cent, would continue holding the leasehold,
J. MCQUEEN.]
7
a—4.
because they would have all the advantages of a freehold. If he had not acquired the capital to assist him to develop the wealth that was in the land, still he could give security which would enable him to borrow on the best terms. At present, of course, he cannot do that, and the man who had the money to lend would require to be in a position to walk into that farm if the man defaulted. As a rule, we do not find capitalists like that: they are not prepared to take possession of a farm if the man defaults. I do not know whether they would have power to find a man to take the lease. It is a mistake to think that the Government would be inundated with money, as was suggested, I think, on one occasion. It was suggested that if the right of purchase was given the Government would be flooded with money. It would be a gradual process, and I think it would be a very slow process—that is, the money coming back into the Treasury. I think I heard one witness say that farms would be better attended to under leasehold, judging from the case of his own neighbour. Ido not think there are many people who hold that view. I dare say there are extreme views put forward as to a barren rock being turned into a flourishing garden, but the tendency would be to farm better on the part of the freeholder than in the case of the leaseholder without a purchasing clause. Ido not know that I need occupy your time at any length on that question. I have seen leaseholds where the men did not farm well, and I have seen freeholds where the owners did not farm well; but that was not the fault of the farmer—it was either through ignorance or want of capital. In some cases we see men buying land and cropping the life out of it and then abandoning it. They generally try to mortgage after that, if they have not done so before, as soon as the land is cropped out. They are very foolish people that lend money on land that is cropped out. The farmers in such cases often make a sale to the mortgagee. Reference has been made before the Commission to the Corporation leases. A Corporation lease is not altogether applicable just as it stands ; it would not -be applicable to the country. The Corporation lease is a very good lease for the town, but it would require to be altered a little to make it suitable to the country. It is not so much the buildings on a farm that are considered. First plant your vineyard and then build your house. That is the principle that is generally followed, and it is generally the best principle—namely, to put up some temporary buildings at first, and then get the farm into order, building the house out of the money you make out of the farm. As to the constitution of the Land Boards, Ido not know that I need say much about that. I believe there are some splendid Land Boards, and there are some that are not so good. Whether they could be improved by altering the system of appointment is a matter upon which some persons hold one opinion and other persons another opinion, and I think it is better that I should hold my opinion to myself at present. 93. The Chairman.] You have been long acquainted with farming in the Mataura district: can you say how the deferred-payment system has worked in connection with Knapdale ?—lt succeeded just the same as the settlers do now. Those who had good land succeeded well. Unfortunately, some of the land was very inferior. There were poor men's farms—the men were poor and the poor land kept them poor. Some of the land was so poor that it was not fit for settlement at that particular time. Some of the land was under the margin of cultivation. It might possibly pay to cultivate it a thousand years after this, or, at any rate, some time hence. But in the case of the good land the settlers succeeded. There has been a reaggregation of estates to a certain extent. A man could not make a living off 200 acres of poor land, and consequently his neighbour bought him out. Some men bought; out their neighbours for the simple reason that the area and quality of the land was not sufficient to keep a man and his family, and it will be the same under any system of settlement. If you try to put a man on land that is not fit to support him under the present conditions there may appear to be a failure, and there is a failure. The Waikawa land is an instance in point. That land was too poor. One gentleman remarked that the land the previous witness was referring to, if it had been up North, would have been worth a large sum. The man was complaining about his valuation being £6 an acre, and a member of the Commission said he thought he had very little to complain of, because up North the land would be worth £50 an acre. If he could take the climate of the North on to that farm possibly it might be worth that. Ido not want to run down our climate, but, of course, climate has a great deal to do with the value of land. Land is less in price down here. But, as I have said, lam not going to run down our district. 94. Regarding the Knapdale Bun, some of the land was disposed of on the deferred-payment system ?—Yes. Times of depression came, and the farmers were a long way from the market, and a very poor market it was sometimes, and, although they had promised to pay so-much a year, they found in some cases they were not able to do so. Some of them were able to do so, but others were not. A concession was made to some men, and that concession was claimed by the others. Plenty of them were well able to pay. In some cases the arrears were capitalised, and some of them got the land reduced in price. I think it was a mistake that the Government gave way on that occasion. 95. Mr. Matheson.] The revaluation ?—Yes, it was a great mistake. It might be a hard thing to do, but it would have been better to have evicted them than take the course that was adopted. By combining together these men managed to get the change made. The deferredpayment system was a good one; it ought to be rigidly carried out. 96. The Chairman.] You knew the case of the Bdendale Estate ?—Yes ; there was land sold there during a time of boom, and you know what is the natural result. 97. Mr. Johnston.] I think that Mr. McQueen is one of the most important witnesses we could get, owing to his long and varied experience in the Southland District, and his opinion is well known to -be reliable. I wish to ask him this question : What is the value of land now compared with what it was twenty years a'go : has it increased or decreased ?—lt has increased. We have roads now, and the land has necessarily increased in value. 98. We will take the Chatton district. The land sold at the time you refer to : is it the same value now, or has it increased in value as compared with what it was when it was sold ?—Some of the land was sold at too high a price, and it had to go back in price because it was sold above its
C.—4
8
[j. MCQUEEN.
value. Some of the men who took up land there were ignorant of the value of the land. It was nice level country, and they thought the land was all right. There was a portion of that land that was only suitable for being taken up in large blocks. 99. Is the price the same now as it was at that time in the case of some of the land?— Some of it is actually less. 100. There was a petition sent to Parliament, and some of the land was reduced in value. Some of the land was sold at £13 or £14 an acre, was it not ?—Not so high as that. I think £10 2s. 6d. was the highest price. 101. What was it reduced to?— That was reduced by the Government, I think, £3 an acre. 102. That was originally part of Knapdale ? —Yes. 103. Was not the land in the Edendale Estate sold up to £12 an acre ?—I could not say. 104. Was not the first land sold at considerably more than £12, and did it not fall back into the hands of the company?—lt was sold, and I suppose a mortgage was taken over the land and they had to pay the interest. That is the impression I have. A number of the men were not able to carry out their engagements, and the land fell back into the hands of the company. 105. What is the average value of the land, say, from Invercargill to Lumsden and up to Knapdale and Waipahi— I refer to agricultural land?—l suppose, £4 per acre. There is a lot of country that is of very low value. I have seen land up there that had £2 per acre mortgage on it, and it was valued by the valuer for the County Council at 15s. an acre. 106. How many of the original settlers are on the block that was sold under Mr. Donald Eeid's land-administration ?—I think possibly from about one-half to two-thirds. 107. And they were successful under the conditions of the leases?— Some of them were successful those who remained—and the rest went out. But some of those who went out were successful also. 108. Did some of them sell out to advantage?— Yes. 109. So that really it was a successful settlement ? —Yes, there is no question about that. The failures were largely due to the nature of the land. 110. And it was leasehold ?—No ;it was better than the leasehold—it was deferred payment extending over ten years. 111. You referred to a leasehold without the right of purchase : is that a part of Knapdale— part of this estate you are interested in ?—Yes. % 112. Could you give us an idea how many of the settlers who took up this land on lease without the right of purchase are still on the land ? —I should say approximately ten or twelve. 113. They have not got the right to purchase, and they "are perfectly satisfied with their leases ? They want to be allowed to purchase. I had one of them down some time ago asking for the right to purchase. I may say that at the time the land was leased some of the young fellows approved of not giving the right to purchase. One of them has sold a good portion of his land, and he wants to sell the rest. 114. He has sold at a premium ?—Of course, he did not buy it. 115. But he got so-much for the goodwill of his lease?—He had a freehold. 116. You said there were a number of leases that were given without the right to purchase: I want to ascertain whether that has been successful or not —whether the tenants are satisfied or dissatisfied ?—The tenants want to be allowed to purchase. 117. How long is it since they took it up ?—I should think about six or seven years. 118. They were satisfied at the time without the right of purchase?— Yes. One of them wanted to get the right to purchase put in, but the landlord made the conditions. 119. Roughly, what is the rental per acre ? —lt varies from 3s. 9d. up to 6s. 120. As to the deferred-payment tenant, does he treat his land as well as the leaseholder without the right of purchase ?—Yes. But, of course, there may be conditions in a lease, and if the lessee is compelled to comply with those conditions—if the conditions are judiciously framed and he is compelled to comply with them—he will be forced to farm the land, but if there are no conditions he will very soon play ducks and drakes with the farm. 121. But are the conditions as readily complied with as in the case of a man who has a deferred-payment farm ?—I look upon them as the same. In the case of a lease with the right to purchase the tenure is secure, and if the landlord does not treat him properly the lessee cau get rid of the landlord by paying him off; but so long as the landlord treats him properly he is better to remain a tenant. Unless he has the capital lying idle it will not pay him to borrow the money to get rid of the landlord, because it would cost him more. 122. Mr. Paul.'] I understand you said there was a universal desire for the freehold ?—-Yes. 123. And later on you said that if the option of the freehold were given to Crown tenants you expected that only about 10 per cent, of them would take advantage of it?— Yes. Many of them have not got the money lying idle. 124. Do you not think the tendency on the part of the tenants is to try and get money by hook or by crook?—No one would borrow at a high rate of interest for the sake of getting rid of the landlord. I understand the State will allow them the use of the land at a low rate of interest. You might get money at 5 per cent, and pay the landlord off, or even at less. 125. You do not think, if this option was given, there will be a rush for the freehold?—No ; I do not think 10 per cent, of them would immediately ask for it. 126. I also understood you to. say that, whilst the freehold was generally better made use of, you thought that the result of the instances which have come under your notice was that some freeholds had been overcropped ? —At one time here we had a class of men called croppers; they were not farmers—in fact, the great number of the farmers were croppers to a great extent, but, fortunately for us, sorrel and weeds came and stopped them from that system of cropping. Some croppers would pay for the right of taking a crop off land, and some would buy land for the pur-
pose of taking crops off it. They would sometimes make arrangements to take a crop off any person's land if they could make money out of it. These men sometimes bought land themselves, and continued a system of cropping, and then tried to dispose of the land or sell it to the mortgagee. I may mention that, having some money to invest, I went to see the land, and saw even from the road what had been done in the way of cropping, and at once came away, and that man would not make a sale to me. The man had cropped the life out of the land. 127. The freeholds under those conditions would be very bad for the State? —Yes; but, fortunately, that system is as dead as Julius Csesar. 128. You spoke of some estates sold by private landowners to tenants : in that case would it be in their interest that they should retain the freehold?— Some of them thought that at one time, but since the lands were leased they have allowed some of the lessees to buy the land. 129. Mr. Anstey.] You expressed an opinion just now that if the lease-in-perpetuity tenants were allowed the option of purchase not more than 10 per cent, would exercise that option immediately?— Yes. 130. Can you tell us whether that residue of 10 per cent, laboured under any disadvantage in not being allowed to acquire the freehold ? They are now paying 5 per cent, on the capital value, less alO per cent, reduction, which brings the amount down to 4-J- per cent.—that is, on improved estates —and in the case of Crown lands they are paying 4 per cent, on the capital value, which is also subject to 10 per cent., which brings it down to 3J per cent. What advantage would it be to them to be allowed to pay off their money at that price? What advantage would it be to them to buy the freehold under those conditions ?—lf the farmer had the money to buy the land and get the fee-simple I would say he would buy the land. 131. Where he is getting money at 3J- per cent. ?—I cannot tell what another man would do, but if I had a leasehold and had an opportunity of turning it into a freehold and had the money to do it with I certainly would do so. 132. At any price?— Yes ; and I would tell the Ranger to go and attend to somebody else. I dare say it is sentimental to a large extent. I have known people borrow money and lend it to other people, and even borrow on mortgage and then lend it to other people, but I would not care about doing that. 133. There was a question as to compensation being paid to leaseholders, and you expressed the opinion that all Government leaseholders should have full compensation for improvements effected on their holdings. I understand that under most systems in connection with the Government they have already got that. Does your opinion extend to other leaseholds, such as education reserves or private leaseholds ? If it is right that Government leaseholders should have that right, is it not right that it should be extended to other leaseholders ? —I do not know that that follows exactly. The public estate belongs to the people, and if they decide to grant certain conditions to their tenants they have the right to do so, but that would not necessarily apply to private leaseholds. The public has not the right to dictate to the private landowner how he is to deal with his tenants. It is quite justifiable on the part of the Government or the people to give certain terms to their tenants. They pass a law that it can be done, and they have the right to do so, but it does not necessarily follow that they should have the right to say to a private landowner that he must give the same conditions to his tenants. There is one reason why Government tenants would naturally wish to have the right of purchase, and that is that we have a certain class of people who are trying to propagate their views, and who think that Parliament has the right to have a revaluation of even a 999-years lease. It is held by some persons that that long lease was wrong, and that there should be revaluation at stated periods. To find out what the rent would require to be for this new term it would be necessary to have a valuation of the property. The present tenant is therefore afraid that by-and-by there will be a revaluation for rent, and he is afraid his improvements will be assessed, and that his land will not be valued on the unimproved value. There are certain improvements he has made that will be lost sight of. I heard a man argue in Court —and it was admitted by the Court —that there was no evidence that bush had existed on the land. The man said there was bush, and that he had cleared it, but there was no evidence to prove it. Then, also, a man might have had toi-grass, flax, or scrub on his land, and he might point to a sample of land adjoining his ; but it has been held that this could not be reckoned as improvements, because there was no appearance of it on the land. If revaluation takes place this man will have to pay rent on his improvements, and that is what they are frightened of, and the reason they want the right of purchase to a large extent. 134. I understand you to say that, while you think it is the duty of the State to grant their tenants full compensation for improvements, you think it also perfectly right that Education Boards and others who have large reserves vested in them should be empowered to withhold that right from their tenants ?—I do not see why you should make any differenee. I see no reason why you should make the tenure different in the case of educational reserves, harbour, municipal, or any other reserves. I think that any system that will enable the best use to be made of the land should be adopted. 135. You think that this right should be possessed in the case of public reserves, but not in the case of private tenants? —Yes. 136. You expressed some diffidence just now with regard to stating your opinion as to the constitution of Land Boards: do you think there would be any objection to allowing tenants themselves some representation on the Land Boards ?—I do not think the tenants should have any right to put a man on the Board to represent them. I think the two questions are separate. The Land Board represents the landlord, and should represent the landlord and not the tenant. The tenants would have fine times if they had the appointment of their own factors or agents. 137. Mr. Forbes.] Does your experience of the lease in perpetuity in Southland lead you to believe that it is not so well suited as the freehold in this district ? —I could not answer that question. My experience of that is very limited.
2—C. 4.
9
J. MCQUEEN.]
C.—4
a—4.
10
[j. MCQUEEN.
138. What was the length of the leases you have been administering ? —Twenty-one years. 139. With the option of renewal? —No, although some have been allowed to purchase, and I believe all will eventually be allowed to purchase. 140. Will they get compensation for improvements ? —Yes. 141. Have you restricted the cropping ? —Yes. 142. Are the restrictions the same as the Government restrictions? —I could not say. 143. The Government restriction is not more than one green crop and two white crops ?—The conditions specified the amount of manure, and that is not in the Government conditions. I do not approve of cast-iron rules like that, because if you give the right of purchase you do not require the same terms so long as you have the general conditions that the land is to be farmed on the most approved system adopted in the neighbourhood. You cannot make any general conditions that are suitable everywhere. 144. It is one of the matters we have to report on —viz., as to cropping regulations, and whether they can be varied in any way ? —I should say that as long as a man farms properly —so long as he feeds the land, and he must feed the land —he may take from it as long as he likes. 145. You believe, then, in discretionary power given to Land Boards to vary the conditions?— Yes; if the persons administering the Act have sufficient knowledge, the larger the discretionary power given to them the better. 146. Do you believe in practical farmers composing the Land Boards?—lf they have to administer and decide what the tenant has to do, if they are not practical farmers they are not fit to decide. ... . 147. Mr. Johnston.] You are practically putting the administration of the land into the hands of the very men who might want "to be tenants also? —No. A banker, for instance, might have a knowledge of farming as well as of banking. 148. Mr. Forbes.] You stated also that, with the various regulations in connection with Crown leaseholds, of course a man has to farm in a decent way, and you said that the regulations kept a man up to the scratch. Are the local bodies attempting to deal with noxious weeds in this district ? The regulations in connection with Crown land compel the lessee to clear his land of noxious weeds? —They cannot compel him, because it is impossible. You cannot compel a man to do an impossibility. 149. But he is supposed to keep his land clear —that is, of course, in reason; he cannot be expected to do an impossibility. Do not you think under a leasehold with these conditions in his lease he is more likely to keep his land clear than a freeholder ? The previous witness mentioned the case of a freeholder whose land was infested with weeds, whereas under his lease he had to clear his land of weeds? —We have Inspectors here for nearly everything, and amongst them we have a noxious-weeds Inspector, and he has to worry the freeholders to try and keep them up to the mark. He worries the people just as your agent would do a leaseholder. We have about eight hundred thousand people in this colony, and if you want to enforce the Noxious Weeds Act here you will require to have a few million people in the colony. 150. You said the leaseholders were afraid of a change in the legislation providing for revaluation : are they not subject to the land laws of the country the same as freeholders, and is there not the same chance of heavy taxation being imposed on freeholders as on leaseholders, and do they not feel some amount of apprehension in that respect ?—I suppose some of them do. 151. The law would be just as likely to deal with a freeholder as a leaseholder? —It has dealt with the freeholder already, for his Crown grant has in some cases been taken from him. Seeing that they have broken faith with the freeholder, the holder of even a 999-years lease will know perfectly well that he is in danger of having his lease varied during even his own lifetime. But the difficulty is this : that in varying the rent he will have to pay rent on his own improvements. 152. That is, if the valuation is not taken properly ?—lf you have attended Assessment Courts I would simply ask, Are the valuations equitable, as far as your experience goes ? 153. I must say that there has been very little objection to the valuations in the Assessment Court in my district. The freeholders would be subject to the same changes as leaseholders? —Not in some respects : they might increase his taxeS. 154. Would not that be a greater breach of faith—to break the lease in perpetuity—than to increase the land-tax? —It would not be a greater fault than breaking the freeholders' Crown grant. 155. You mean, in the case of the resumption of land for settlement purposes ?—Yes. 156. If that result is required the leaseholder would have to give way, as in the case of the freeholder ? —No doubt; and that is a reason the single-taxers will have. They will say it is in the interests of the general public that the 999-years lease should be broken. 157. That supposes a very large change in public opinion ?—As to the reaggregation of estates, some people hold that there is a danger, if the right to acquire the freehold is given, that there will be a reaggregation of large estates. As far as Otago and Southland go, there is no danger of that, because the fact is this : that the cutting of estates is at present going on in these districts, and will continue to do so. Estates here are being voluntarily broken up by the owners. There are various reasons that have led to this. For instance, rabbits came, and it has been found necessary to have more people on the land; and then the rates and taxes have increased to such an extent, and the price of labour has increased. These things have all tended to this result. It is almost impossible to get labour in some districts. The worry and annoyance to landowners in carrying on these large estates has so disgusted them that they have in many cases cut up their land for sale. These conditions will remain here, and therefore there is no fear of any reaggregation of estates in Otago and Southland. 158. I suppose the spread of noxious weeds will also tend in that direction ? —Yes. 159. McCardle.] You have already expressed the opinion that the Education Board and Harbour Board endowments are a drawback to the settlement of the country : do you not think it would be an advantage to the State to take over the management of these reserves, giving the
J. MCQUEEN.]
11
a—4.
trustees colonial debentures at a certain rate of interest on the present value ?—I think that would be right enough once we see they are administering their own estates properly. 160. Do you think these reserves have been badly administered ? —I believe so. 161. Of course, the people have a right to say how the land is to be administered?—l do not see any reason why one Department should not manage all these endowments. These bodies will no doubt invest the money, and thus obtain revenue to assist them in carrying out the objects for which they were created. In the meantime I think they are simply keeping the country back. 162. Mr. Hall.] Invercargill possesses considerable endowments, I understand?— Yes, I understand so. 163. In granting leases of these endowments, is it a condition that compensation shall be given for improvements at the end of the lease ?—Yes. Patrick Mclnerney examined. 164. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Mclnerney?—l am a farmer, and am farming 250 acres of freehold. 165. Have you been long in the colony? —-Thirty-nine years. 166. What particular question do you wish to speak on? —I am satisfied that the farming community do not really understand the question. Many of us have come from lands of persecution, and we are land-hungry. The word " freehold " rings in our ears, and we like it. Well, it is not a freehold at all when a man has not his deeds. Giving you individually my own opinion, I would like to see all the land held on lease in perpetuity, for this reason : that any little money a man had on going on the land would enable him to devote his hard earnings to provide for the necessities of life, and provide also for draining the land, keeping stock, &c. If he entered into the purchase of the land he would have to find the money from somebody else, and there is no one who will give him that money under such reasonable conditions as the State. If this course were adopted the colony would become a great producer, and, as far as my knowledge of land goes, the production would be doubled. I may also point out that the less we produee the more difficult to get the stuff away. As Mr. McQueen has mentioned, there is great trouble at present in obtaining labour. 167. I understand that you are in favour of the lease in perpetuity, as against the freehold?— Yes, under the circumstances. 168. You are a freeholder now, and you still hold that opinion ?—Yes. 169. Mr. Johnston.] You have got a freehold now?— Yes. 170. What did you pay for it ?—lt cost me £5 per acre. 171. What could you get for it now? —That is a question I can hardly answer, because the land is subject to floods. 172. Could you get £10 an acre for it?—l doubt it. 173. Would you take £10 an acre?—l have sunk my labour in it for fourteen years, but the floods have beaten me so far.- However, I still hope to stop the floods. 174. Could you get more off the land than you put into it ?—I could not answer that question. 175. It would be an easy thing to sell out and get a lease in perpetuity?—l am not that keen on the lease in perpetuity, but if I were putting my sons on farms I would select the lease in perpetuity. 176. Mr. Anstey.] Although you are a freeholder, you would rather select the lease in perpetuity in putting your sons on the land ?—Yes. 177. That system is more suitable for your sons' means ? —Yes ; if I could get suitable land I would prefer to put them on the land under the lease-in-perpetuity system. 178. You think the lease in perpetuity is suitable for the land about Invercargill?—l think so. We are frightened with the agitation for revaluation; but I understand this : that if the country goes back and it is necessary there will have to be revaluation to raise the money to send Home, and why should the lease-in-perpetuity holders be allowed to go scot-free whilst the freeholder has to bear the burden ? I think there should be something that would be fair and equal. 179. Mr. McCardle.] Suppose your sons are to have a lease in perpetuity, and suppose they had the right to purchase the land, would you object to it ?—lf they made the necessary money out of the land there is another way in which they could attain their object. Rather than they should resort to certain methods of trying to acquire the freehold I would sooner see them bound to the land. Speaking of my own sons, I would be just as pleased if they had not the right of purchase. 180. Would it not be better for you to sell your land and take up lease-in-perpetuity land for yourself and your sons ?—I could not get any one at present to give me the money representing the labour I have put into the land for a number of years. It is a pity the farmers do not understand the lease-in-perpetuity system. If this system were adopted it would make things easier for the farmers, and make it easier for them in bringing up their families. 181. Mr. Hall.] In the event of bad times and the colony going back, you think that the burden would have to be borne by the freeholder and the Crown tenants alike?— Yes. The taxes will have to come on the land, and I maintain that the burden should be borne equally by all. Why should the freeholder have to pay and the other person not pay ? Thomas Gibson examined. 182. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Gibson?—l have a perpetual lease, a village homestead at Seaward Bush. 183. What area?— Nearly 3 acres. It was all bush when I took it up. I have been there seventeen years. 184. How far is it out of town ?—About three or four miles. As far as my observation goes, these leasehold people have a very poor opinion about the system, and those who have settled in
12
[T. GIBSON.
C— 4.
that district think it is a great drawback to the place, being leasehold. I know one family near me where the husband died, and the widow was left with the leasehold. I do not think £200 would pay for the improvements put on the place, yet if she were to leave it she would get little or nothing for the improvements. If the land had been freehold she could certainly have sold it to advantage. 185. What area had she?— Five acres, and there was a house On it. 186. Could not she get any one to take up the lease ?—Yes; but very little would be given for improvements. 187. What are the terms of your lease ?—Perpetual; it is for thirty years, and at the end of that time revaluation for the next twenty-one years, and so on. I may refer to the rough state of our property when we took it up. We had to carry our timber for building over stumps and logs, and we laboured under a great disadvantage in many ways. 188. Your wish, and the wish of those you probably represent, is that you should have the right to make your land freehold ?—Yes. 189. You want to have the option of making it freehold when it suits you? —Yes. 190. Mr. Paul.] Is it the leasehold or the cumbrous conditions that you object to? —The leasehold system. 191. The Chairman.] You have cleared the land?— Yes. 192. And you have long ago completed all that is required ? —Yes. 193. The only condition now is that you should pay the rent ?—Yes, and live on it. 194. Mr. Paid.] How long have you been a leaseholder ?—-About seventeen years. 195. You want the option of the freehold at the present valuation, or do you want it at the valuation seventeen years ago 7— I think it would be unfair at the present valuation, because in the case of others who took up a freehold you might just as well say that their property should be revalued and charged a higher price in some way or another. We have had all the disadvantages of roughing it, and I think that in all fairness the valuation should not be raised. 196. Could you suggest any compromise ?—I would suggest that when all the land is cleared and stumped we should have the right to purchase at the former valuation. Of course, I understand that the reason we are bound to live on the property is that we do not take it up for any one else, and that we mean to settle on it. Now that we have houses built and the land cleared I think that should be enough. It is a sufficient guarantee that we have not taken up the land for any other purpose than settling on it. 197. Mr. Forbes.] Is there not a great difference in the value of the land now and its value seventeen years ago ?—There would be if it were freehold, but I know of some settlers near us who have taken up land recently, and there is no difference I know of in the value. It is difficult to get land sold under the leasehold conditions. 198. There is no difference in the value during the last seventeen years ? —I might give you one instance in point: There is a party beside me ; he has taken up his selection and gave it up ; the next party practically took it up from the Government again, because the former tenant could not get any one to buy it. 199. That is similar land to yours, and adjoins yours ?—Yes. 200. The same tenure and conditions ?—No. It was the same tenure when it was first taken up. 201. Mr. McCardle.] Would you object to paying the increased value on the land above what you purchased it at if you had the right of purchase now or at a future date ?—I do not say I would object, but I think in all fairness it would be hardly just. 202. Did persons taking up freehold land at that time get it at the same value as you did ?— Yes, at £5 per acre. 203. If you wanted to sell, what could you get on the property over and above the improvements you have made on the land? —Nothing. I have put up a building on it, and I paid 6s. an hour for a traction-engine to pull stumps out, and I do not think I could get more than £100 for all improvements. 204. Would the improvements amount to more than £200 ?—Yes. 205. Mr. Hall.] What was the original value put on the land ? —£s. 206. Was that its full market value, or if it had been put on the market would it have fetched more or less? —I think less. It was revalued after I took it up, and it was changed to £4 an acre. The Government valuer came round and valued some adjoining land, and he said he thought the value of my land was too high, and he reduced it. 207. Did he value it is a freehold, or subject to the lease ?—The actual value of the land. 208. Assuming it to be a freehold ?—Yes.
Invercargill, Wednesday, 22nd February, 1905. John Hay examined. 1. The Chairman.] What is your official position?— Chief Surveyor and Commissioner of Crown Lands for the District of Southland. 2. How long have you been in office ? —I have been Commissioner here for four years. 3. You were at the Conference held at Wellington?— Yes. 4. I notice from the report that you have taken part in nearly all the questions submitted to the Conference, and, in giving your evidence here, I would suggest that there is no necessity for you to go over the ground you covered at the Conference, unless you wish in some way to supplement or correct your remarks. Now, I would first ask your view in regard to the constitution of Land Boards ?—My opinion is that the Boards as at present constituted are the best—viz., the nomi-
a—4
13
J. HAY
nated Boards ; but if any alteration is to take place, and if the Boards are to be elected, I would suggest that half the Board be elected by the Crown tenants as voters, and the other half be nominated as at present. 5. But you prefer the present system ?—Yes. _ 6 The next point is in regard to tenures upon which lands may be obtained and occupied : will you please inform the Commission the tenures that are in vogue in your district ?—There are a great number of tenures in force at the present time in this district, numbering altogether sixteen. There is the deferred-payment system, in regard to which, of course, the licenses have not yet run out; there are village settlements under the deferred payment; there are perpetual leases ; there are 'village settlements also under perpetual leases; and village-homestead special settlements. These are all under the Land Act of 1885. Of course, leases under that Act are no longer being issued. Then I come to the Land Act of 1892. We have occupation with right of purchase; we have village settlements of small areas of 1 acre each, with the right of purchase ; there is lease in perpetuity, and lease-in-perpetuity village homesteads. These are small holdings. Of course, there is the freehold tenure. Then, we have leases under the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act of 1894 we have improved - farm special settlements, pastoral runs and small grazing-runs, and miscellaneous licenses. The latter are for small areas of land which we let from year to year at a nominal rental. These lands when required can be resumed at a month's or other reasonable notice. Then we come to the Land for Settlements Act, the sections under which are all held under lease in perpetuity. Those are the sixteen tenures obtaining in this district. 7. Of course, you have licenses for cutting flax?— Yes ; they are included under the head of " Miscellaneous." We have also timber licenses issued under the State Forests Regulation of 1885, and also licenses issued under the present Land Act for cutting timber. 8. Do you think these various tenures work smoothly and nicely for the settlers, or is there any friction and desire for a change ? —I think we have rather too many tenures. 9. How would you simplify them ?—I would suggest that the village-homestead system be abolished. The areas are too small. They are all under lease in perpetuity, and the maximum area is only 100 acres. A man can only acquire one section, and as his family grows up he finds that it is too small. As a rule, the tenants wish to convert these leases into occupation with right of purchase, and at present the law does not allow that. I think the small tenures that obtain now might be converted into occupation with right of purchase, and the size of the holdings increased up to 150 or 200 acres. I think that would be an improvement. 10. Have you much land available for that system of settlement, supposing it were brought into force ? Yes, we will have a good area open that will be available, consisting of worked-out sawmill-areas and other land scattered through the district. Coming to the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act, I would say that, so far as this district is concerned, it is not very workable ; in fact, it has been a failure. The maximum area allowed to be taken up under this Act is 100 acres, and the lease is for twenty-one years, and is issued subject to mining rights. A miner may go in and mark off an ordinary claim, water-races, dams, and other mining privileges. It is always a difficult thing to arrange compensation, and the holders of these leases would prefer to have them converted into lease in perpetuity. They would still be subject to mining rights. 11 Mr Johnston.'] You are referring to lease in perpetuity with mining conditions, are you not?— Yes; sections 119 and 121 of "The Land Act, 1892," should give the miner every privilege that he desires. Therefore the miner is safeguarded, while the applicant would have a much better tenure —viz., 999 years instead of only twenty-one years. 12. The Chairman.] Of course, the idea at the initiation of leases on the goidnelds was that the land would not be vacant, but would be occupied for grazing and for a little cultivation, and the very fact of the leases being for only twenty-one years gives the Government power to resume without compensation. Of course, one never knows what development might take place m mining and what land may be required, and the twenty-one-years lease is really a temporary arrangement, whereas if you grant a 999-years lease you fix the tenant and his successors on the ground, and it might clash with the mining interests, do you not think? —I do not think it would, because the lease is subject to mining, while the tenant would have a better tenure. I might point out that in our district most of these leases under the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act are held in bush country, and the lessees have had to expend a very large sum of money in felling, burning, and 13. Are they entitled to compensation at the end of twenty-one years ?—At the end of twentyone years they are entitled to renewal if they desire it. 14. Mr. Johnston.] At the same rental or at a revaluation? —It would be subject to revaluation, and valuation for improvements if he lost it. _ . 15 The Chairman.] It is very similar to the lease in perpetuity except that the time is a little shorter ?—Yes ; and you can only get an area of 100 acres, whereas under the lease in perpetuity you can get a larger area. 16 Mr Anstey.] Are 100 acres enough under that tenancy, because it strikes me if they are simply grazing-areas the size is too small ?—They are not grazing-areas ; they have the right of 17. Even so, 100 acres must be altogether too small?— That is what I am saying. It has been found to be so. , , ... 18. Mr. McCardle.] You have said it is mostly bush country: can there be much cultivation in that case ? A very large amount of capital has been spent in cutting down the bush and in fencing and grassing, and in some places they have commenced to stump and cultivate the land. You see, our bush land is not of such good quality as the North Island bush land, and 100 acres here will not keep a family. . u u ur u j j j-u *. 19. Your evidence shortly put is this: You think this system should be abolished, and that the lease-in-perpetuity system should be introduced in its place with an increase in the area of the
a—4
14
J. HAT.
holdings ?—Yes. I would simply bring the system under the lease in perpetuity. Then, we have the improved-farm settlements, which are under " The Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisition Act, 1894." These settlements here have also been a failure. In respect to this system, the Government first paid the occupiers of each allotment for felling the timber on the land from £1 ss. up to, perhaps, £1 10s. per acre. The Government also paid for grass-seeding, and there was also an allowance made for building houses to the extent of £10 to a single man and £30-to a married man. In some cases fencing material was also found. Well, this all ran into money, and when the Government ceased making these advances all the expenditure incurred was supposed to be added to the prairie or unimproved value of the land, with a proportion of the cost of roading. lam not exactly sure of the exact figures, but in some instances this brought the price of the land up to probably £3 to £4 per acre, and the tenant or occupier was supposed to pay either 4or 5 per cent, on that value. Of course, when the leases were about to be issued and the rentals were demanded the rentals were not forthcoming, because the tenants could not pay. 20. Did they leave the land ? —Some abandoned it, and as we found a majority would abandon it the Government wrote off so-much of this expenditure and revalued the land and brought it down to what you might call a "living rent." These settlers still remain on that land. One of the reasons for the failure in our district is that many of these improved-farm settlements were in inaccessible places, and our bush land is of an inferior nature and the climate wet. 21. I presume that the greater part of this improved-farm settlement was done about Waikawa ? —Yes, and it is a notoriously wet district. There is one in the Alton district about fourteen miles from Orepuki. That settlement has not been a failure; but that is principally owing to the fact that very good timber was growing on it, and a man could make a good living by squaring sleepers and supplying telegraph-poles. 22. How much did the Government write off?— About £7,000 or £8,000. I find there is another settlement on the Bluff Eoad—viz., Moturimu Settlement, which is about eight miles from Invercargill. It is convenient to the town, and the tenants sell firewood and are making a fair living. 23. Have you any remarks to make in regard to the point as to whether Crown tenants labour under restrictions inimical to their well-being and unnecessary in the interests of the State?—l think the residential conditions are very liberal as administered by this Board, but I think that the Land Boards should have a little more discretionary power in the way of not enforcing the law strictly as they may have to at present. For instance, when a man has no roads or access to his section he has great difficulty in getting his building material and fencing on to it, and I do not think a tenant should be forced to carry out all his improvements in the time stated in the Act. I also think that residence should not be enforced until reasonable access is given to his section. At present there is a four-years exemption in regard to bush lands, but that land may be occupied for over four years and still there may be no road to it. I think a little more discretionary power should be given to the Boards so that a section should not be forfeited for non-compliance with all these conditions. 24. Then, I understand you are quite satisfied with the law as it is now if the Land Boards could exercise what you call a reasonable discretionary power ?—Exactly. 25. What have you to say in regard to the clause as to whether alteration and variations are necessary in the law regarding tenure and occupation owing to the varying conditions existing in respect to the climate and land-configuration in the several parts of the colony : do you think special exemptions are required in your district other than are provided in the Land Act?—l do not think so. 26. Of course, the discretion you have asked for in regard to residence would apply to this also ?—Yes. 27. The next clause asks whether it is expedient that the homestead privileges as indicated in the appendix to "The Land Act, 1885," should be reintroduced. Shortly stated, the system is this : Persons taking up land under the homestead-settlement system take up 200 acres under certain conditions of residence and occupation, and after fulfilling these conditions they get a Crown grant to the land and it is made a freehold. This system was applicable to districts in Auckland particularly, which were very remote, and had no roads, and where the conditions were not at all encouraging for settlement, and it was thought well worth while to induce enterprising young men to go out to these back blocks and make the wilderness blossom : is there any part of your district where the homestead system might be applied?—l think the homestead system might be applied to some parts of Stewart Island with advantage. Of course, it is difficult to make roads in Stewart Island. The access to most of the holdings at the present time is by boat; but, of course, you cannot always get to them by this means, because the weather is not always favourable. In regard to this homestead system, the section of the Act states that if an occupier for non-com-pliance with the conditions should have his land forfeited, his improvements shall be forfeited also. I think that is too severe. I think that provision might apply in exceptional cases, but not in all cases. 28. You think the discretionary power of the Boards should apply here ? —Yes. At present the law is absolute on the point, and I think that provision is too sweeping. 29. Mr. McCardle.] I do not think that power has ever been exercised by the Gevernment ?— Perhaps not. 30. The Chairman.] You think the system could be well applied in portions of Stewart Island, but you think the forfeiture clause is too arbitrary ?—Yes. 31. In other words, it should be tempered with that discretionary power which you think it is very proper the Board should have?— Yes. 32. Now, as to the working of the present ballot system and the dealing with applications for land, do you think the present ballot system is good, or do you think some amendments are required ?—The ballot system under the Land Act of 1892 appears to work well in this district,
15
C—4
J. HAY
and appears to be very fair. I have heard unsuccessful applicants expressing their opinion that it is a fair way of dealing with Crown lands. 33. Then, have you any remarks to make with regard to land-for-settlements lands ? Please inform the Commission shortly what you know of the double system under the Land for Settlements Act? —Under that Act there are two ballots. For example, we will say there are four sections in a subdivision to be balloted for, and that there are ten applicants. Six of these applicants are balloted out, and the four left are eligible for what is called the second ballot. In the second ballot the name of each applicant is put down on a separate paper and placed in a ballot-box, and the same number of balls are put in another box and drawn simultaneously, and whatever name is drawn with the section-number on the ball the applicant has to take that section whether he likes it or not. He very often gets a section that he does not want, and the six applicants who have been balloted out in the first ballot have no chance of getting a section that day; they are completely out of the ballot for that day, and have to reapply. Therefore I would abolish the second ballot under the Land for Settlements Act. 34. Under the second ballot in this example it means that there are four sections for four men, but these four men have no choice of the four sections ? —None. 35. Would it be an improvement if the second ballot was in this wise : The applicant whose name is first drawn could make a selection, and he would then be able to get the section that he wants ; No. 2 when his name is drawn would be able to get the next best, and Nos. 3 and 4 would draw and select in the same order? —Yes. The ballot does not work well for a lady who applies for a section. Under the Land for Settlements Act the land is put into groups and subdivisions, and according to the Act you can only apply for a section in one subdivision, and you have to apply for all sections in the subdivision. Now, there may be many sections in the subdivision that you would not have at any price. Perhaps you would prefer Section 2, and the ballot "lands" you probably with Section 10. We will say a lady applies, and she is successful at the first ballot, and is eligible for the second ballot. When the second ballot takes place she is allotted a section, say, of 350 acres, and by the Act a female is not allowed to have a section of more than 320 acres. There is the injustice in the ballot which forces a person to apply for every section in the group, and says they have to take whatever the ballot may allot them or forfeit deposit. A second ballot might allot a woman a section she could not hold, as it might exceed the area allowed—viz., 320 acres first-class or 1,000 second-class. 36. Is there any restriction upon the male ? — The maximum area that can be held is 1,000 acres. 37. The lady's difficulties would be got over by giving her an equal privilege with the gentleman ?—Yes. 38. Have you any objection to that ?—I do not think so. But altogether I think the second ballot works very unsatisfactorily. The public do not understand it, and the people go away disappointed with the working of it. I see no object in having the second ballot. A straight-out ballot would give greater satisfaction. 39. You would give the choice of selection, of course, in a straight-out ballot ? —Yes. In place of making the applicant apply for all the sections in a group I would give him his choice, say, to three or four allotments in the settlement. 40. If a man is prudent he will get a map of an estate and go over the ground before he puts in his application, and in his mind he will say, " I will go in for this section in this group." Well, when the ballot takes place, if his name is drawn first, he will say at once, " I will take Section So-and-So": would that not be simpler?— But there may be others requiring that section. 41. But this man has the good fortune to get the first choice, and although there may be others who would take the same section if they had the chance, because it is the best one, they would have to take the next best, and so on, according to the order in which they drew ?—Yes. I would allow an applicant to apply for a section in any group. In fact, I would allow him to name four sections on the estate. I would do away with grouping. 42. In other words, the whole block would be open to every one ?—Yes ; and let the applicant make his choice of three or four sections. 43. I have had experience in these matters, and, as a rule, some sections are the pets of every applicant. Well, as a rule, the four sections will be named by a great number of applicants, and will be taken up at once, and the people going in for them would have no right to ballot for any of the others ?—I do not say that. For instance, Section 1 would only be allotted to one man. If an applicant is disappointed in regard to No. 1 he will still be able to ballot for the other three sections when they come on. 44. But, supposing all the four sections are taken up before the applicant gets a chance at all, am I right in supposing that he will be allowed to go over the block and say, " I will take this one here " ? —Yes, after all the successful applicants have been satisfied. A great many sections on our estates are not applied for at all, and I would allow unsuccessful applicants to take a section anywhere on the estate. If an applicant said, " I wish to take such-and-such a section," and if one or more of the unsuccessful applicants who had applied wished to take the same section up, I would ballot for it. By doing this you would place every applicant who had applied at the first ballot on a section. 45. I do not see the need under your proposal for an applicant to name any section at all ?— Well, I see no need for it, but I think any applicant would be quite satisfied if he had the choice of four sections. 46. But what is the use of having the privilege of naming four sections when they are all allotted before you can have any choice of selection at all?—It just means I would do away with the second ballot as unworkable, and also the subdivisions, as it limits the chances of the applicant too much.
16
a—4
J. HAY,
47. You would apply the ballot worked under the Land Act of 1892 to the Land for Settlements Act ?—Yes. 48. In regard to the clause dealing with the area of lands loaded for roads, the amount of such loading, the amount expended on roads in or giving access to the lands loaded, and as to whether good faith has been kept in regard to them, and as to the amount borrowed, spent, and available, you might give us you opinions on these points ?—The area of land is 102.127 acres. The Government' have kept good faith in regard to the expenditure of money for roading the various blocks in this land district. The amount expended has been £18,192. 49. Who expended this money ?—lt has been generally spent by Chief Surveyors here. It was mostly all spent before I came. 50. It is not proceeding so actively now as in previous years?—No ; and it is spent now under the Eoads Department by the District Eoad Engineer. With the exception of a small sum the loading-money is nearly all spent in this district. But, as a rule, the loading you can place on a block here is not sufficient to make roads to give access to the settlers. The land is generally bush-clad, and being of an inferior nature you cannot load the blocks sufficiently heavy to give access, otherwise they would not be selected, and therefore it is necessary afterwards to apply to the Government for ordinary votes to complete the roads. 51. And even then, I presume, they are not metalled?—Oh, no; I am referring only to bushfelling, formation, and culverting. The metalling is generally left to the local bodies, and, as a rule, they do not put much on. The following is the other statistical information asked for : —
Schedule.—Loan Blocks.
52. Can you give us any information as to the value of the land leased from the Crown, and whether the lessees of the Crown are placed at a disadvantage in borrowing privately or from the Advances to Settlers Office ?—That is information you must get from the Valuation Department. 53. Then, we are asked to ascertain the condition and position of those of our colonists holding and occupying lands of the State under the several tenures now obtaining : what is your evidence in regard to that ? —Generally speaking, I think that our settlers are fairly prosperous with the exception of those on the improved-farm settlements. Perhaps in two cases our settlements are not satisfactory under the Land for Settlements Act, but with these exceptions I think our settlers are all fairly successful. 54. Then, we are asked to investigate and report as to the aggregation of estates : you have a large knowledge of this district and can tell us whether the aggregation of estates is going on ?—■ No ; the tendency is the other way. The large estates are being gradually broken down, and the holders themselves are subdividing and putting them on the market. 55. So that instead of aggregation you find subdivision in this land district ? —Yes. 56. Then, we are asked to inquire and report whether each area of land leased under the Land for Settlements Act shall have a separate occupier, and whether the area ought to be increased or the boundaries altered without the direct sanction of Parliament : in other words, should this be a matter for the discretion of the Board ?—-I think it is not altogether desirable that each allotment should be resided on. A good number of our estates have been cut up, and it appears that the areas have been made rather small—some of them as small as 150, 160, and 180 acres. A man when his family grows up finds this area too small to make a living on, and I think that the holder of such a section should have an opportunity of taking up an adjoining section if there is one available or one elsewhere on the estate—l mean, by one of the members of the family— without enforcing the residential condition. 57. Do you think that shoujd be in the discretion of the Land Board or of the Minister?— I think, in the discretion of the Land Board. I think that the Land Board should have power to
* Only £500 authorised. t Over £400 was spent on Stewart laland, but there is nothing to show here whether the amount was part of the money expended. { Not yet authorised. § Not yet authorised. Blook XVII. has been opened, but none of it taken up. Block XIV. not yet opened. || Only £794 authorised,
a —— — — — , Amount Amount Balance , Loan Block. borrowed. expended. available. I £ £ £ Acres. Blocks XVI. and I., Longwood ... ... ... 1,400 1,400 ... 5,659 Alton, Lillburn, and Monowai ... ... ... 8,000 8,000 ... 30,070 Ackers Village Block ... ... ... ... 220 217 ... 351 Oteramika Hundred (Blocks IX. and XIV.)* ... 625 120 400 6,253 Waikawa (Block II.) ... ... ... ••• 191 5 186 312 Paterson (Block I.)+ ... ... ... ... 158 ... ... 633 Waikawa (Block I.){ ... ... ... ... 419 ... ... 1,194 Invercargill Hundred (Blocks XXIII. and XXIV.) 400 321 79 1,403 Hokonui and Forest Hill* . . ... ••• 603 85 415 3,223 Waikawa, Otara ... ... ••• 7,750 7,750 ... 31,000 Waikawa (Blocks XV. and XVII.)§ ... ••• 1,500 ... ... 6,000 Mokoreta Block|| ... ... ... ••• 1,850 294 500 7,400 Longwood (Block XIX.)| 330 ... ... 2,830 Waiau (Blocks XIII. and XIV.)| ... ... 733 ... ... 5,799 24,179 18,192 1,580 102,127
17
C—4.
J. HAT
subdivide a section. If the Board found that a section is too small to provide a man with a living and an adjoining section is unoccupied, I think the Board should have power to subdivide that section without having to issue a new sale-plan and open it in the ordinary way. 58. You mean to take a piece off an adjacent vacant section and add it to the man's holding? —Yes. 59. Might you not spoil the adjacent section?— Well, the Board would exercise its judgment in the right direction. I think that is a very desirable power to give the Board without making it necessary to refer to the Head Office. It would facilitate settlement, because sometimes there is considerable delay when you have to get new sale-plans from Wellington. I think that is unnecessary when the local office can get out such a plan by amending the original. 60. But if the Board in its discretion subdivided a section for the purpose of adding to a man's farm there would be no need to issue these plans, because if you advertise them the land would be open to anybody?—l was referring more particularly to a section that has been forfeited. We could advertise for thirty days, and alter the original sale-plans to suit requirements. I do not think there would be the usual delays in dealing with these matters. I think that is a necessary discretionary power to give Land Boards. 61. Would you allow a man who has improved his section very much, and who is gradually becoming old, and wishing to cut off a bit to place his son on, to do so ?—I think that might be allowed. 62. I presume you would not allow a man to subdivide and become a sort of middleman between the Crown and the tenants ?—Oh, no. 63. Supposing a man finds he has more land than he can profitably work, and he wishes to cut off 100 acres, and he says, u I know a man who will take these 100 acres up ": would you allow that ?—Yes. 64. But in respect to the piece that is cut off, you would give a special lease direct from the Crown? —Yes; I think they should be all Crown tenants. There should be no subtenants. 65. Can you tell us how much land in this district is under pastoral tenure ? —We have ninetysix tenants, embracing an area of 1,473,567 acres. The total annual rent is £3,714 19s. 66. What is about the average duration of these leases ?— Fourteen years is the usual term, but in the higher and rougher country we are now giving twenty-one-years leases. 67. Is the holder entitled to certain improvements at the end of the lease ?—Yes. If the rent is £50 or over, he is only entitled by law to three times the rent for improvements. If it is under £50, he is entitled to only five times the rent for improvements. That is all the law allows, no matter what improvements may have been effected; there is no buying of land now allowed. There is the homestead-site that cannot be resumed during the currency of the lease, but the holders are not allowed to make it private property. I would now like to lay before the Commission the various suggestions that this Land Board has made from time to time. The first is in regard to pastoral licenses under the Land Acts of 1885 and 1892 —that provision be made giving Land Boards discretionary power to allow licensees to cultivate for the purpose of growing winter feed for stock. Our reason for suggesting this is that a licensee having no other land, unless he has this right he is unable to make full use of his run to its greatest advantage all the year round. Then, in regard to valuation for improvements—that provision be made allowing licensees fair valuation for all improvements on any pastoral run necessary for the working thereof. Our reason is that the valuations being based on rental as at present do not, as a rule, cover the value of fencing alone in many cases, much less the buildings such as dwellings, wool-shed, &c. Then, in regard to homestead-areas on pastoral runs under 5,000 acres —that section 211 of " The Land Act, 1892," be amended so that a homestead-area not exceeding 100 acres be allowed on runs under 5,000 acres in extent. Our reason is that, as there is no provision for any homestead-area on runs under 5,000 acres, it seems desirable and reasonable that such protection should be given when required. We think the same provision should be made in connection with a run of under 5,000 acres as for a run of over 5,000 acres. Then, as to the payment of arrears of rates on forfeited holdings—that section 124 of " The Land Act, 1892," be amended so that Land Boards shall be liable to pay rates to local bodies only when the amount received for improvements on a forfeited holding is in excess of arrears of rent and other charges due to the Crown, and that the Land Boards be not held liable during the currency pf any lease or license. Our reason is that section 124 does not work well, and is practically inoperative except when there are improvements upon the forfeited section. You see, at present we are forced to forfeit a section if the county rates are not paid. Then, as to titles for cash lands under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892," when the improvement conditions are not complied with —that section 148 does not define what action shall be taken or how the title shall be dealt with when a purchaser fails to make the required improvements within the seven years mentioned in the section. Our reason is that, on account of difficulty of access and other causes, some purchasers were unable to make the required improvements, and others were not aware of the time-limit, as it is not mentioned in the certificate of occupation issued under the Act. If the improvements are not effected within seven years on cash lands there is no provision made for issuing a title at all. We have a number in this district in that condition. We suggest that in the case of defaulters up to the present time the period within which improvements may be made should be extended. Then, as to grazing licenses under section 116 of " The Land Act, 1892 " —that, as in many cases it is necessary and desirable that the land should be broken up and cultivated so as to eradicate weeds, &c., and obtain pasture, section 116 be amended, giving Land Boards a discretionary power to allow cultivation under temporary licenses granted under this section. I think that would be a good thing, because at the present time the adjoining owner to these little bits of land cannot eradicate these weeds unless he is allowed to cultivate and take more than two crops off. Then, in regard to section 114 of " The Land Act, 1892," it reads as follows: — " Any selector of less than six hundred and forty acres of land under Part 111. of this Act, or under the provisions oi any former Act relating to occupation of land on similar tenure, may apply
3—C. 4.
18
[j. HAY
C—4,
to the Board for an additional area of surveyed or unsurveyed land contiguous to the land in his selection, and the Board, if they think fit, but subject to the limitations of this Act, may dispose of such land to the applicant without competition, at such price not being in any case less than twenty shillings per acre, to hold the same on the same tenure as that of his original selection. " Lands which are separated only by a road or a stream shall be deemed to be contiguous for the purposes of this section." The following alteration was proposed : That in the first paragraph of section 114 all the words after " without competition " be deleted, and the following words be inserted in lieu thereof: "at a price to be fixed by the Board, to hold the same on any tenure.' I think that would be a useful amendment. 68. Do you not think there should be some limit about the cash : the section says not less than £1 per acre: do you not think that is giving the Board rather much responsibility?— The Land Board has the same power in the next section, which also provides for the approval of the Governor being obtained. 69. We know that there are over a million acres in Southland consisting of very high land : can anything be done in the way of improving these pastures ? They are a great asset belonging to the colony, and within my knowledge and observation they have depreciated very much within the last forty years : can you suggest anything that would tend to restore them to their pristine fertility?— Well, there is surface-sowing. 70. Has that been tried much? —No. There is no encouragement to do so, because it would not be considered an improvement by the outgoing tenant, and would not be allowed for in 71. Do you know if surface-sowing has been tried on any of the large private estates in Southland ?—Yes, in some places. 72. Do you know if it has been successful? —Yes, on the lower country I have mentioned — the Lillburn country. That is all fairly low country, and it was all surface-sown, and the grass took very well. But that is a different class of country to our pastoral runs. Ido not know what grasses would take on these pastoral runs. Cocksfoot or Chewing's fescue might take, but you will not get a tenant who will sow the grasses on his run if it is not to count in his valuation for improvements at the end of the term. _ . 73. Of course, resting the land would be a good thing? —Yes, that is doing good. In fact, in a great many places the grass is coming back, even on the high land, except in places where the shingle is loose and is overspreading the lower country ; the rabbits also are pretty well down. I consider indiscriminate firing has done more damage in the way of denuding the country of vegetation than the rabbits. There has been no great judgment used in firing. The musterers have fired in season and out of season, and that has been one of the main causes of the denudation of the country. Of course, the people are not doing that now. 74. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to improved-farm settlements, I understood you to say that the upset price for felling bush, grassing, and grants for fencing and buildings amounted to £4 10s. per acre ? lam not positive. I said I believed that some of the land would amount to £3 to £4 an acre, but I am not positive. 75. It is an estimate ?—Yes. 76. And the area of each holding is 100 acres ?—Yes. 77. And you said that the Government made a reduction in the rental?— Yes, a treble reduction. 78. Of £7,000 to £8,000 in the aggregate ? —Yes. 79. At 4 per cent, the rental would be about 3s. 7d.: what would the average rental be under the reduction ?—I think, probably from 6d. to Is. an acre. 80. Is it on a 4-per-cent. basis?— 4 or 5 per cent., as the case may be. 81. Have you had any applications in respect to mortgages under improved-farm-settlement conditions? —Yes. . . . , „ T ' 82. Have the settlers had much difficulty in getting money under that tenure >—1 do not think there was any money advanced by the Advances to Settlers Office under that tenure. 83. Did they get the money from private money-lenders ?—Yes, if they got the money at all. The Government have had no applications for loans ever since I have been here as Commissioner namely, for four years. I know that they have applied to the Government Advances to Settlers Office for 'loans, but they had no security to offer, because all the improvements had been effected by Government money. . 84. Has not that militated against the interests of the settlers borrowing money from private individuals ?—I do not think private individuals assisted them very much, because they had no security to offer. I rather think that all the money they worked on was money which they got for bushfelling and employment on the roads. Ido not think they got much assistance in the way of borrowed money from private companies. 85. The approval of the Land Board has to be obtained in the case of such transactions with private individuals? —I do not think the Government Advances to Settlers Office has advanced any money at all. . 86. Ido not mean from the Advances to Settlers Department; but the sanction of your Board would have to be obtained no matter where the money was got from ?—Yes. 87. Therefore I am to understand that no improved-farm settler has mortgaged his holding in this provincial district ?—I do not think any of them have mortgaged their farms in this land district understood you to say that the ballot for Crown land in this land district was satisfactory, and that you have heard of no objections from the settlers ?—Yes, in connection with the ballot under "The Land Act, 1892." 89. Do you find that the settlers are satisfied when they are unsuccessful at the ballot ?— They are satisfied that the working of the ballot has been perfectly fair and straightforward.
C.—4
J. HAY. 1
19
90. My experience is that some persons are very much dissatisfied when they go to a new district and are unsuccessful in getting land. Do you not think that the Act might be amended in a way that will give more satisfaction to disappointed persons—for instance, in respect to unsuccessful applicants on a number of occasions, and also in the case of married persons, should not they get some additional advantage ?—Yes, I think the Act might be amended in that direction— that is, if you amend it in the direction of giving unsuccessful applicants who have been at several ballots a preference. 91. What proportion does the loading bear to the upset price of land in this district?— Generally, we put it at about 25 per cent, on the upset price, but, as I have said, that will not make the roads. 92. With reference to the recommendation that " thirds " and " fourths " should be capitalised, do you not think it would be a greater advantage to settlers if they were utilised in paying interest on loans, because in the one case it amounts to a very small sum, whereas in the other it would mean a very substantial sum to be expended in the making of roads ? Do you not think that suggestion is worthy of consideration?—l have had little experience of that, and can hardly express an opinion upon it. I have not had any " thirds " put aside in this district for that purpose, but the idea appears sound. 9,3. Mr. Johnston.] You say that the improved-farm settlements have been a failure ?—Yes. 94. Have they been a failure principally through the locality chosen for the settlement?— The localities have been badly chosen for one thing, and the class of settlers who happened to be put on the land were not altogether the most desirable men. They were often men of no experience who had come from the towns. That is one of the causes of the failure. 95. In your opinion, if tha land had been properly selected and suitable men had been put upon it they would have been a success? —I believe they might have been a success if we had had good land and a good class of settlers. • 96. Who locates the land for this purpose ?—That was done before I was Commissioner. 97. On whose recommendation is the land located? —I suppose there is a recommendation from the Chief Surveyor or Commissioner; and in some cases I think a number of men have formed themselves into an association, and they have had the privilege of selecting blocks themselves. I fancy that in the case of Heathfield and Waipati, in the Otago District, there was an association which selected these blocks. They are situated twenty miles from the nearest railwaystation, and the roads to them are bad. I think there was a small area of 300 acres of open ground there, and the reason why it was opened was that the land was so poor that it would not grow bush or scrub. That showed that the men had no experience in selecting land, and that they were not up to the mark. 98. Is it within your knowledge that residents in town apply for land for the purpose of making a home for themselves when they retire, or of putting their sons on the land ?—Yes. 99. Have there been a considerable number of such applications?— Yes, I think so. 100. Would you advocate that class of tenure ?—I think it would be desirable to provide for such cases, but I also think that there should be certain restrictions in order to prevent dummyisrn. The principle appears to be right. 101. You say that the land laws and the conditions of settlement are suitable, generally speaking, for Southland notwithstanding any climatic difference?— Yes, the conditions are fairly liberal in regard to residence, &c. 102. You do not think it is necessary that they should be altered to suit the climate?— The climate here is not so severe as all that. 103. You say that Stewart Island is suitable for homestead settlement ?—Yes ; I think the homestead system could be applied to parts of Stewart Island better than to any other locality in this land district. 104. Do you think it advisable to settle Stewart Island at all ?—Yes. 105. Do you not think it would be better to hand it over to the acclimatisation society or keep it as a reserve for flora and fauna ?—Practically half the island is to be reserved for the preservation of the native flora and fauna and for scenery purposes. 106. The difficulty is that when settlement takes place it interferes with the preservation of the flora and fauna ?—I should say that settlement will only take place along the coast. It is the interior and parts of the coast that are proposed to be reserved. [Witness indicated on the map the portions of the island proposed to be reserved.] 107. Is the timber valuable ?—No; it is inferior timber country generally. 108. Do you find that the Crown tenants are all good payers ?—Not all. 109. According to your last report they are satisfactory ? —I think they are all perfectly willing to pay as long as they have the money. 110. You said something about small runs of 5,000 acres, and that they got half their rental back : is that for the improvements they have done on them ? —No ; they get nothing. The rule as to the improvements is this: If you are paying a rental under £50 per annum the law allows you five times that rental, and that is all the improvements that that run can be loaded with, and that is all the improvements the incoming tenant will have to pay to the outgoing tenant. 111. Are those conditions fulfilled ? I suppose they are under inspection ?—Yes. The improvements are valued about a month before the outgoing tenant leaves. 112. Supposing there were only about one hundred pounds' worth of improvements ?—The Act does not make improvements compulsory, but the valuation of same at the end of term is based on annual rental paid. 113. Is there much cutting-away of forest going on?— Yes, in the way of sawmilling. 114. For settlement purposes? —Yes. 115. Is it good timber ? —ln some places there is fair timber; but, as a rule, we try and get the sawmiilers to take out the timber before we throw the land open for settlement.
C.—4.
20
[j.'hat.
116. Is the timber sufficiently good for the Government to reserve a large area of land for the purposes of obtaining railway-sleepers and timber for bridge-building, &c. ? —We would not put such blocks as that in the market. 117. When a person takes up an area of 200 acres for sawmilling purposes do you assess the actual value of the timber on the land ?—Yes. 118. Is it checked after it has been cut down ?—He pays a, royalty before he commences to cut—that is, a royalty on the assessed value. 119. With respect to the regrassing of the land, hitherto runholders have spelled tussock land a little and then burnt it: have they sown anything in its place ?—ln a few places, but very little. 120. What did they sow?—l have known places to be sown principally with the " seconds "or the "thirds" from the threshing-mill or seed-cleaning machines. 121. Is that one reason why the ragwort is so plainly visible along the railway-line ?—I think very little good grass has been sown. 122. That sort of thing is under control now, is it not ?—I do not know that it is. The Commissioner has no power over any person buying seed. A person may buy bad seed. 123. Surely the Land Board has some power over a man who may deliberately go to a seedthreshing mill and get " thirds" and sow it on his land? —I do not think the best seed has been sown, judging from the appearance of the land. 124. It simply means that the Crown lands will become infested with ragwort and other weeds?— Our pastoral land, as a rule, is not very bad with noxious weeds, because it is all high country, and there has been little or no sowing upon it. 125. If the land were kept-idle for, say, six months, and then burnt and sown with good seed, do you think that would be advisable: would it be the same as has been done in the case of the bush country in the North?—lt would be very risky. You might sow it, but if it were dry weather after sowing you would not have any grass. I think in the North Island you have a larger rainfall in the bush country. In the interior of this district there is no bush; it is all high barren hills, and there is no rainfall to speak of. 126. Could you suggest any way of regrassing these lands?— Surface-sowing is the only way I could suggest. 127. Would surface-sowing do on bare tussock land ?—Yes, I think so; but if that system were initiated you would certainly have to allow the tenant valuation for improvements. 128. But it can be done with surface-sowing ?—That is doubtful. 129. Do you know of any high land having been regrassed in your district ?—No. 130. Mr. Paul.] With reference to village-homestead settlements, I understand that these have not been successful —holdings of 100 acres ?—lt has not been a success here. 131. And you think it would be a success if the area were increased to 250 acres, not including worked-out sawmill-areas ?—I said that was the land that might be available now for smaller holdings. 132. With reference to Crown tenants, do you not think that relaxing the residence conditions would lead to speculation as against genuine settlement?— Not if the Land Boards do their duty. 133. That would be the difficulty?—l think the Land Boards, as a rule, can be trusted to see that the conditions are carried out properly. 134. You think there is no aggregation of estates going on?— Not here. 135. There is not an aggregation and accumulation going on at the same time ?—No, not here. It is the very reverse in this district. 136. Mr. McLennan.] With reference to the ballot, do you not think it would be advisable to prevent those who have been successful, and who have sold out their goodwill, from balloting again ?—I think that is trading in Crown land. I think that a tenant who has held a land-for-settlement section, and who has sold it, should not be allowed to compete in another ballot for a certain time. I think he ought to be excluded for two years at the very least. 137. Do you not think it would be advisable to provide that he should not be permitted to go into the ballot for, say, two or five years?-—lt occurred to me that the term might be made two years. 138. Mr. Anstey.] With regard to the constitution of Land Boards, you expressed yourself as being favourable to a wholly nominated Board, but, if any change were suggested, that certain members might be elected by the tenants ?—Yes, from Crown tenants as voters. 139. Would it not make a very one-sided Board in favour of the tenants? —I do not think so, as the Board is constituted here. There are four members and the Commissioner. 140. Would it not be sufficient if one member were elected by the tenants ?—I do not think there would be any harm in two being elected. Two would be nominated as at present, and the Commissioner would have a direct and also casting vote. I think the Commissioner could be trusted to act in a fair spirit in carrying out the law or Acts. 141. What is the quorum of the Board?— Three. 142. Two tenant members might be present at a meeting?—lt is not likely that would occur very often. 143. But it might happen that only two tenant members might be present ?—Yes. 144. It seems to me to be very desirable that the tenants should have some representation on the Board, but when you suggested half the representation it appeared to me that it would overbalance the Board altogether?— Perhaps lam wrong in that idea. You have mentioned a case in which the Crown tenants would outvote the other member of the Board. 145. With regard to residential conditions in the case of inaccessible sections, you suggested that the Land Board should have a discretionary power: would it not be better to allow a discretionary power until a passable road was made to the farm before the residential conditions are enforced, or until reasonable access was given to the farm by road, sea, or railway ?—As the Act
21
C.--4
J. HAT. j
has been administered here we have always dealt liberally with tenants. We have administered the Act in a liberal spirit towards the tenants. I think tbe Land Board might be allowed a little more discretionary power to deal with each case on its merits. If you prefer to say that there should be a hard-and-fast rule—it is four years at present—you might extend the period. 146. Until a road was made, and then the lessee would have to reside?— Yes. I suggested that until reasonable access was given the residential clauses should be relaxed. 147. With regard to the ballot, I notice that you do not approve of the second ballot? —Yes. 148. Can you suggest any amendment with respect to the ballot. Let me mention an instance at Pareora. There were fifty-eight applicants for one, and only two applicants for another. The section for which there were fifty-eight applicants had a rent fixed for it, which was at least 50 per cent, too low, and the rent for the other section, for which there were only two applicants, was ample, and was probably more than it was worth. Can you suggest any way in which this sort of thing can be avoided in the future ? —I cannot see how you can avoid having half a dozen first-class sections on an estate. 149. It was the opinion of the fifty-eight men who applied for one particular section that that was the best section. Can you suggest any way whereby these values could be more approximately ascertained: is there any way by which the people who apply could themselves fix the value ? —The values are carefully made in this district, and I suppose it is the same in other districts. The Land Board revises the relative values of the sections, and they are helped by the Commissioner, and two expert valuers appointed by the Government, the one an agriculturist, and the other may be a pastoralist. 150. Have you noticed thing I have spoken of with regard to land ballots in Southland ? Has it been the case that there have been a very large number of applicants for some sections and practically no applicants for others ? —There may be, perhaps, thirty or forty applicants for, say, half a dozen sections, and perhaps these same men would not take up another section of the estate. A section may have a fair building on it, and that may induce a number of applicants to apply for that particular section. I may add that some of our rents are 15s. or 16s. an acre. 151. Are these the ones you get the large number of applicants for ?—We have had a large number of applicants for the higher-rated sections, and I may instance the case of Edendale. 152. Has anything been tried in tbe way of encouraging tenants to grass the high land —■ for instance, what particular objection would there be for the landlord to supply grass-seed cheaply?— There has been no inducement offered. 153. Could any inducement be offered which would be fair or safe ? — The main inducement would be to allow them valuation for improvements. 154. You think that would be better than to give them the seed for nothing ?—Yes. 155. How could you assess the valuation for improvements? A tenant might sow grass-seed in an unfavourable season and get no result? — That, of course, would be the tenant's loss if there was no grass. 156. In what way would you assess the value of the land if the grass was there ? Would you assess it by saying this land will carry so-many more sheep than it would have done before?— Yes. 157. Would that grass run out shortly, or would it be permanent ?—Surface-sown grass appears to remain longer than grass put in under cultivation. 158. It would practically be permanent?— Yes, I think it would be more permanent. 159. I take it that you think it would be wise to encourage that ?—Yes. 160. Even by the value for improvements or otherwise?— Yes. 161. You do not think anything could be done in the way of providing cheap or free grassseed?—No, because it would be a risky matter sowing high country with grass. 162. That might be very risky for an individual, but it would not be, perhaps, much for the State to pay?—We have the results of the labours of the tenant, and after you see those results it can be taken into consideration. 163. You think that if the valuation were allowed the tenant would probably do it ?—Yes, he might risk doing it. 164. Mr. Forbes.] With regard to the subdivision, I think you favour the Land Board being given the right to grant a subdivision in certain cases : is it not a fact that in dividing an estate it is sometimes divided into such sized farms that a man could not make a decent living off them ?—Yes. 165. In such a case would you allow a man placed in such a position to divide it into halves ? —No; I did not mean such a subdivision as that. It was in the case where a man's section was too small, and where a certain area might be allowed to be taken off an adjoining vacant section, thus making a payable holding. I think the Land Board should have power to divide such a section if it were not detrimental to the general working of the estate. 166. Where a section has been found too small you would be in favour of the Land Board having power to subdivide and perhaps allow a neighbour to get a portion of land from another neighbour ?—Yes. 167. Do you know from your own knowledge whether there is a widespread desire on the part of the holders of lease-in-perpetuity sections to get the freehold ?—I do not think there is any widespread desire for that until the tenants become financially sound. 168. Do you think they are fairly satisfied with that tenure ?—Yes. Under the land for settlement I think they are fairly satisfied with their tenure — that is, the lease in perpetuity under the Land for Settlements Act. Of course, it is hard to say what they might desire when they grow richer and begin to accumulate money. 169. There is no very great discontent with the conditions of the lease-in-perpetuity leases under the Land for Settlements Acts?—No, I think not.
[j. HAT.
C.—4
22
170. I suppose there are a great number of townspeople amongst the applicants for the ballot ? —No. There are not so many applicants here. We are always rather pleased to examine all applicants, and, indeed, we would be pleased to have a few more applicants than we have. We are not in a position to pick and choose very much. 171. Do you group your applicants according to their means? —No. But if a man applies for a certain section he is brought before the Board, and if we think he has got sufficient means to work that section, or any section in the group, we declare him eligible for the ballot, but we do not classify the men. 172. Mr. Matheson.] With respect to the loading for roads which you have referred to, was that money spent by the Chief Surveyor by co-operative labour ?—I have spent no money on reading since I came here, but I believe it was spent under the jurisdiction of the Chief Surveyor. I think the greater portion of it was spent under the co-operative system or by day-labour. 173. Do you not think that may explain to a large extent why the money was not sufficient ? —Perhaps so. 174. Would you be in favour of the local bodies being allowed to expend these sums? Would they not expend them more economically than the Roads Department? —I think that as long as we have a local Roads Department these moneys should be expended by the Boads Engineer. 175. Do you not think that it would be more economically expended if it were done by the local body within its own district ?—lf you were to abolish the present system the local bodies might perhaps spend the money advantageously. 176. Do you not think the local body would expend the money more economically ? —lt is a difficult question to answer. Some local bodies might spend their money advantageously and others disadvantageously. 177. Seeing that the local bodies are formed for that purpose, and as they are working over a large area, is it not reasonable to assume that they would expend the money more economically than would be the case of a man working only a portion of that area ?—-Yes, I think it is reasonable to assume that. 178. Would you therefore say that such moneys for roads would be better spent by the local bodies rather than by such a Department? —I would not give that as my opinion. I have known moneys to be expended badly by the Department, and also cases where it has been badly expended by local bodies. 179. But in the ordinary case you would presume that the local body would be the most economical? —Yes, I have said so, with certain qualifications. 180. Mr. McCardle.] You have had considerable experience in the matter of roading, and I dare say, to some extent, in bush country ? —Yes. 181. Can you give us a fair estimate of the cost of construction and metalling of roads in rough, broken country :we will take bushfelling and formation first ?—I think you might put it at £3 per chain in this district. 182. That would be about £240 a mile ?—Yes, sometimes that would do it. 183. The method adopted as to roading and " thirds " is a very tedious method of doing roadwork, is it not?— Yes. 184. In your opinion, does the whole value of the land cover the cost of constructing the roads ? —In some poor districts it would not. 185. Where the land is worth 10s. an acre or so? —It would largely exceed the value of the land. 186. Would it not be much better in that case to devote the whole of the rent for so-many years on the value of the section, and allow the local bodies to raise moneys for the construction of the roads, rather than to adopt the present mode of construction?—l believe it would. In the case of poor land, if it were not roaded under the scheme you refer to it will not be occupied at all. 187. With respect to regrassing, do you not think it would be worth while for the Land Department to set apart a small portion of one of the blocks and try an experiment ?—I think the Commission could get good information with respect to that from the Otago Land Board in the case of Earnslaw. 188. Are you aware whether Danthonia grass has been tried in the country ?—I know that on the Earnslaw the Government have expended a great amount of money in trying to regrass the country. As to whgit mixtures have been sown, I cannot say. 189. Mr. Hall.] What are the principal noxious weeds in this part of the colony ? —I think, the ragwort and the Californian thistle ; and the latter is spreading very much and probably is the worst. 190. On grain land?— Yes, on all land. There are other weeds, but I think you will get better information with respect to them from the members of the Land Board, who are practical farmers. 191. Has Stewart Island a wet climate ?—Yes. 192. There is therefore not much danger of settlement on the foreshore causing fires amongst the timber ? —There is the greatest difficulty in burning off even on the small holdings now. 193. Mr. McCardle.'] With respect to roads, do you not think it would be better to put them on under the leasehold system, instead of the homestead system, without any payment at all?—I think it would not be a hardship to make the selector pay the cost of survey. 194. Roads are more impOTtant ? —Yes, roads are more important than the survey. The Government would get the good of the survey fees if it were done by the staff. I think there might be a very small rental put on that would assist in road-construction. 195. And vested in the local bodies ?—Yes. 196. And they could raise the loans on the strength of it and give roads in a short time, and thus assist in promoting settlement.
C—4
23
J. HAT.]
197 Mr. McGutchan.] With reference to the value of land when it was taken up and its value now let us take a concrete instance. We will suppose it has cost ss. an acre for a block of Crown or Native land, and on that there is 2s. 6d. or 2s. an acre for survey—that is 7s. 6d.; and we will take 25 per cent, for loading for roads, and probably you have it then at 10s. an acre. In some districts in the North Island such land as that is being sold at £1 an acre. The question is whether that is State expenditure or settlers' expenditure ?—The loading is simply borne by 198. And therefore, in as far as the land has increased in value, the settler is entitled to all the value as soon as he has paid for it ?—Yes, if I understand you rightly. 199 Mr Forbes.] What were the two land-for-settlement estates which you have referred to as not being a complete success ?—Otahu, in the Waiau, and Beaumont, on the bank of the Aparima River. Andrew Kineoss, examined. 200. The Chairman.] You are a member of the Southland Land Board ?—Yes. 201. You are a very old settler ?—Yes, I have been forty years in Southland. I had a farm in the vicinity of Invercargill for upwards of thirty years, but I now reside in the town. I have been a member of the Land Board for upwards of twenty-two years. 202 I see you took a very prominent part at the Land Conference m Wellington, and you have heard all that Mr. Hay has to say : are there any particular points on which you would like to enlighten us?— Well, as to the constitution of Land Boards, I look upon Land Boards as judicial Boards. They have the same judicial functions as Judges and Magistrates, and I think that they should be appointed in the same manner. 203 That is to say, they shSuld be nominated by the Government ?—Yes. 204. Then, you do not favour election at all?—No; and I think it is impracticable, for nobody would canvass the whole of a land district for the sake of 10s. a day. 205. But you also oppose it on principle ?—Yes. _ 206 What have you to say in regard to the tenures upon which land may be obtained >.— 1 think that the optional system which is now law is a very good system indeed. Those who have sufficient capital are enabled to buy for cash on condition that they improve the land. Those who have not sufficient capital to buy at once have an opportunity of leasing it by paying 5 per cent., so that at some future date when they are prepared to buy they may be able to do so, and those who never expect to have sufficient capital to make the land their own can get it at a low rate of 4 per cent for 999 years. Therefore all classes of settlers may be suited. I think the optional system is an admirable one to promote the settlement of the country. It should be the object of all land laws to promote the settlement of the country and to prevent monopolies. Ido not think it would be out of place if I referred to an opinion that is very generally expressed at the present time. There are many people, principally town residents, who wish to abolish the optional system. I think it would be a verv great mistake to do so. We must look at the question from a practical point of view, and not from a theoretical one. It seems to be thought that if our land was leased instead of being sold the State would obtain a large unearned increment. That is quite a mistake. If that had been done when the colony was first settled it would have been a good thing • but the day has gone past for that. I say nearly all the lands in the hands of the Crown are' rural lands of a most inferior nature. Take Invercargill, for instance. When land in this town was first sold I believe the quarter-acre section occupied by the Bank of New South Wales and other buildings was sold for £8. At the present time the unimproved value of that section is £9,150, and the unimproved value of the next one is £6,270. To show the difference in the rural lands, there are thousands of acres of fairly good land within a few miles of Invercargill open for selection at ss. per acre. At one time that land was valued at £1 per acre Under the Act of 1887 the minimum was reduced to 10s. per acre, and now it has been reduced to ss. We would be very glad if it were taken up. It is between here and the Bluff, and is not very far from the railwav. It is rather wet, and, unfortunately, there is not much fall to it. I am under the impression that it would be a good thing if the Government made the main outfalls because I think it would be taken up then. When persons take up land of that description—and nearly all the Crown land in Southland is of an inferior description—they should be encouraged in every way, and every practical man must admit that it is a great encouragement to a settler to know that he has an opportunity of making himself the owner of improvements effected by himself. In gaining for the State the unearned increment, I may say we have a provision in connection with our land laws that effects that object. I consider that our graduated system of taxation is one of the best systems in the world to prevent monopolies and to give the State the benefit of the unearned increment. lam under the impression that New Zealand is the first country to pass that law, and think there could be no better law for the purpose of settling people on the land. Although I consider the optional system the best system for dealing with Crown land I think the estates purchased by the Government under the Land for Settlements Act are in quite a different position. That land is already improved when the tenant takes it up. He has not the labour and trouble and anxiety of bringing it into cultivation that the ordinary Crown tenants have to undergo. I quite approve of the manner in which the estates under the Land for Settlements Act are now dealt with—that is to say, by lease in perpetuity. I may say that in Southland our estates have not been so successful, perhaps, as in other parts ; however, they are mostly taken up, and the settlers are doing fairly well. 207. I dare say some of the lands about Winton, and Biverton, and Jacob s River have gone up a D i t i iam referring now only to Crown lands, and not to sold lands. I have endeavoured to show that the graduated tax prevents monopoly. There is no monopoly in Southland nowadays, and so far as I know, no dummyism. We had the worst land law in the colony at one time. It was' free selection. A man could take up as much land as he liked. Upwards of 30,000 acres was taken up in one block. The greater part of Southland was taken up under that Act;
C—4.
24
Ta. KINROSS.
but owing to the graduated tax, and partly owing to the rabbits, the larger estates have been broken up. I have no fear of any aggregation taking place so long as the graduated tax is properly used. 208. You are in favour of the freehold on the optional system in regard to Crown lands ?— Yes. 209. But you are not in favour of the freehold in regard to land for settlements ?—Certainly not. 210. The tenor of your other remarks is that there is no aggregation of estates here?— No. There is this other thing : Those who wish Crown lands to be held over do not seem to be aware that the Crown lands are always deteriorating in value owing to weeds and rabbits, and that the Crown is put to considerable expense every year in keeping them down, If they were occupied now and improved our successors in the future would get the land improved and ready for occupation, instead of getting it in an inferior state and covered with weeds and rabbits. 211. Have you anything to say in regard to the question as to whether Crown tenants labour under restrictions ?—I think Mr. Hay dealt fully with that. 212. Mr. Hay dealt very fully also with the question of residence, and he did not want so much an alteration of the law, but a certain amount of discretion for the Land Boards, which I think is a very wise thing : do you wish to make any remark in regard to that ?—I quite agree with that. By my reading of the Act, by subsection (4) of clause 143 of " The Land Act, 1892," we have a large amount of discretion at the present time. I think that clause provides for everything. It leaves the matter entirely optional with the Boards, and I construe the section in this way : If I think a person is a bond fide settler who wishes to make his home on a section, although he may go away to work somewhere else for a length of time, or if he cannot get access to it and comes to the Board and gives us some sufficient reason, I say, " All right," and support a further extension of time. I think this clause gives us ample power. 213. What are your views about homestead settlement : Having heard Mr. Hay, do you think the system could be applied very well in Stewart Island ? —ln some cases it could be applied. I think a person who actually brought some land into cultivation would well deserve a Crown grant to it. It would be a matter for selection. 214. Do you wish to say anything about the ballot system ?—That is a question to which I have given a great deal of attention. Under our first colonial Crown Land Act, passed in 1877 by Donald Beid, the then Minister of Lands, two systems of settlement were provided by law—viz., partly by cash, and partly on deferred payment—but all the land went up to auction. 215. Mr. McCardle.'] I would like to draw your attention to an error in history. Donald Reid passed a provincial Act somewhere about 1868 or 1870, but the general Act that you refer to was passed in 1877, and was amended in 1879 not by Donald Reid, but by Mr. Ballance. Is not that so ?—I think you are mistaken. Mr. McCardle : The Atkinson Government went out in 1877, and the new Government came in in the same year, and I presented a petition to Parliament praying that the deferred-payment system should be brought into operation. Witness : Mr. Ballance was Minister of Lands in 1877 and 1878. In 1878 I was first appointed by Mr. Ballance, but prior to that date I am under the impression that a colonial Act was passed by Mr. Donald Reid. However, under that Act, by whomsoever it was passed, it was provided that rural land could be sold partly on cash and partly on deferred payment. The deferred-pay-ment land was to be paid by twenty half-yearly instalments, and for that concession the deferredpayment land was to be charged one-half more than cash land. For instance, if cash land was £1 per acre, deferred-payment land was to be £1 10s. per acre. In 1884 Mr. Rolleston was Minister of Lands, and an amending Act was passed which brought the perpetual lease into force. That, of course, was something like occupation with right of purchase. A man paid 5 per cent., and he bought at the end of a certain term. In 1885 Mr. Ballance passed an Act, and, so far as my knowledge goes, that was the first Act ever passed by Mr. Ballance. Under that Act land was open for selection partly for cash, partly on deferred payment, and partly on perpetual lease, and the extra payment on the deferred-payment land was reduced from one-half to one-quarter. As I said, under Mr. Donald Reid's Act the land went up to auction ; but under Mr. Ballance's Act of 1885 it was open for tender. Under the auction system there were thousands of settlers who had run the land up to a price far above its value, and who were quite unable to pay. Consequently, in 1889, the Hon. G. F. Richardson brought in a revaluation Act empowering the Land Boards to revalue all the deferred-payment and perpetual-lease lands. In conjunction with the Ranger, I revalued every perpetual-lease and deferred-payment section in Southland, and we made considerable reductions. Of course, that proved that the auction and tender systems did not work well. Mr. Richardson introduced an amending Act in 1887 which provided for the ballot, and that ballot system has been the law ever since. In Southland the single ballot has always worked very well. I have never heard any complaints about it. Every one was satisfied, and settlement went on extremely well. The only mistake made sometimes was that allotments were valued rather highly by the surveyors, but the settlers afterwards got some reductions under the law. I have never heard any one propose a better substitute for the ballot system. I read Hansard carefully, and I observe that many members of the House have brought certain charges against members of Land Boards—l cannot say which—of administering the land in an improper manner. Some members asserted that under the ballot system there is as much gambling and speculation as under the auction system. I cannot see how that could possibly take place. It has been asserted by some that after the sections have been drawn a successful applicant has been offered hundreds of pounds to transfer the section to some one else, and that such transactions have taken place. I cannot see how any Land Board could agree to such a state of things as that. The Act says that no one shall be allowed to transfer a section until he has occupied it for a year and complied with certain conditions. Nothing of that sort has ever taken place in Southland. I think
25
C—4.
A. KINROSS.]
I have said sufficient to show the single-ballot system is a good system, and, although it has been departed from under the Land for Settlements Act, I cannot see any reason for it. 216. The Chairman.] Do you approve of the double ballot ?—-No. 217. Have you anything to say in regard to loading for roads, or the valuation of land, or the working of the Advances to Settlers Office?—No; I think Mr. Hay dealt with them. 218. We have already gathered from your remarks that there is no such thing as the aggregation of large estates?— No. I may say this is a very large question, and of great importance. I have no doubt you will look at these things from a broad point of view. In other countries it has been the custom to have large estates. We have brought in a law which says that no man living out of New Zealand shall hold land in New Zealand unless he is penalised for doing so, and which also says that if a man holds more than a fair quantity of land he shall also be penalised by the payment of a graduated tax. Well, it is proper when a new Act of that kind comes into force that the graduation shall not be too heavy ; but this Act has been in operation for twelve years, and I am surprised and disappointed that the graduated tax has not been increased more during that time. If it had been increased as I think it ought to have been increased, there would not have been any of this trouble, for instance, over the Flaxbourne Estate. I think it would have been offered to the Government at a fair price. 219. You would graduate to the point of extermination so far as large owners are concerned? —I would, by degrees. If the.y would not take a fair price when other people are wanting land I would give the screw another turn. 220. Have you any observations to make in reference to the pastoral lands of Southland?— Yes. This country is somewhat different to pastoral country in other places. There was a law in Southland at one time which permitted unconditional free selection. Under that Act most of the runholders bought up the low country, and nearly all the land left consists of high country that is not worth buying. You see, up to recent times those who held the high country also held the low country, and they worked the two in conjunction; but the new people who come in and take up the land now have not the same facilities, and they have to improve the land now. They ought to be encouraged to improve it in various ways. So far as surface-sowing is concerned, there are many places covered with fern now, and if at the proper time the fern was burnt off the land would take grass right enough. There are other places that would not pay to bring into cultivation, but if some implement in the nature of a harrow or spike implement were run over the surface to tear the surface soil, and grass-seed was dropped into the ruts, it would take well enough. 221. Do you think that would be practicable in the high places?— There are some places where it could be done. At the present time the law allows no valuation for that, and I think valuation should be allowed. Such a change would encourage settlers to improve the land. They have a good tenure at present, because they can have twenty-one years. 222. Do you wish to make any observation about the treatment of Native forests in Southland ? —I Um sorry that some portions of Southland have been opened up for State farms, and so on, before the timber was cut, and good timber has been destroyed which was worth far more than the value of the land. I consider that in nearly all places where the timber is valuable the land should not be open for settlement until after the sawmills have been through it; but we have found, in regard to many places where the mills have been through and cut out the timber, great difficulty in getting the land withdrawn from the State forests. If it is not withdrawn promptly it becomes covered with " lawyer " and rubbish of every sort; therefore I think the sooner it is open for settlement after being cut out the better. 223. Mr. McCutchan.] You favour Land Boards being appointed the same as Judges : I understand Judges are appointed for life and on good behaviour?—l mean that there should be the same system of nomination, but no alteration in the present tenure of office. 224. Do you not think that under our system of party government, no matter how pure a Government may be, Land Boards might from time to time be nominated who would not be representative of the settlers on the land ?—There is a possibility of that. I might point out that at one time when my two years expired the Hon. G. F. Richardson was in office. He was quite aware that I always voted on the other side in politics, but he considered I administered the Act so fairly and justly that he reappointed me. 225. With reference to the optional tenure, there is just one feature in regard to which I wish to ask your opinion. The occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenants have a right to change a lease to one under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure : do you not think that under a really optional system the reverse process should be allowed ?—-I think so. I would like to make a slight correction of a previous statement. I have already said I approve of the optional system, but I think that if the deferred-payment system were added to it it would be a very admirable addition—that is to say, that selectors should have the right also of selecting on the deferred-payment system. The only difference I propose is that originally they could not purchase before ten years; I think the term should be twenty years. I think such an addition would meet all requirements, and could not be improved on. 226. With reference to the question of residence, lease-in-perpetuity tenants are compelled to reside continuously for ten years, while occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenants are only obliged to reside for six years : is there any good reason in your mind why that distinction should be made? —I have never thought seriously over the matter. I cannot say what was the exact reason for it. 227. Do you think there is justice for it?—l think it might be well to put both on the one footing. 228. Mr. Johnston.] Have the values of agricultural and flat lands increased or decreased in the last twenty years ?—Private lands have increased. I have been confining my remarks entirely to Crown lands.
4—C. 4.
C—4.
26
[A. KINROSS.
229. How much do you think the value of freehold land has increased ?—ln some districts very much more than in others. 230. What has been the increase in this valley up to Gore ?—That land brought a high price very many years ago. They sold farms on Edendale over twenty years ago for more than they got for the estate the other day. 231. What was the price given by the Government for the estate ? —£s 15s. per acre. 232. That includes the ridges : I mean the good agricultural land and the best fattening paddocks ?—The best was valued up to £15 per acre, but the company spent an enormous amount on it. Some people say the company spent nearly that amount in fencing, liming, and cultivating. It was in the best of grasses, and any one who rented land valued at £15 per acre could go and get a good return at once. No further outlay was required at all. 233. Was any of that land sold at more than £15 per acre some years ago?—-Yes. 234. And what would it bring now ?—-The land that brought £15 recently is worth a great deal more than when it brought £15 before, because it was not limed then. But at times there have been booms. 235. Are the rabbits decreasing ?—Yes. They are not nearly so bad as they were, although I have heard some say they have increased a little this season. 236. Are they kept down on the Crown lands?— They are to a certain extent, but some of the adjoining proprietors complain that they are not kept down as they ought to be. 237. Have the proprietors of these big estates which you say have been burst up by the graduated tax made much profit out of them ?—I think most of them have not. One proprietor who selected 30,000 acres more than thirty years ago told me lately he would take half the money he had spent on it. Perhaps he did not spend the money judiciously. 238. You approve of the graduated tax? —Most strongly. 239. Now that the area is becoming so limited you approve of retaining some of the forest land for the Crown, and not allow it to be used for sawmilling or settlement purposes—l mean good flat land with bush on it?—We have very little of that land left. 240. If there is so little, is there not so much more reason for keeping what is left?—-Yes. 241. Mr. Paul.] Am I to understand that all the Crown lands in close proximity to Invercargill have decreased in value ?—Nearly all. What I mean is this : Every year the best is selected, and it is always the worst that is left. For that reason the remainder has decreased in value. 242. Is not all that land taken up on leasehold tenure?— The land I was specially referring to is not taken up at all, but some lands of the better sort adjoining have been taken up. 243. What is your opinion on the question of revaluation for leases let in the future: do you think they could be revalued periodically ?—I think it would not be fair to those who have taken up land under the present conditions. The State, through the Taxing Department, revalues regularly, and I think that is quite sufficient. 244. lam speaking of future leases: Ido not propose to revalue those leases at present in existence ?—lt is not very material, because very little good Crown land is left. I have no doubt there may be some in the North Island, but in this Island there is very little that will increase materially in value. 245. It is not only a question of increase in value; there is also the question of decrease in the value of land held on lease, and if a man's land decreases in value do you not think it is right to reduce his rent?— Yes; I have no objection to that principle at all. Of course, the principle has been embodied in a Eair Rent Bill, but the House has never thought proper to pass it. 246. You are in favour of larger discretionary power being given to the Land Boards ? —I think they have as'much discretion as they require, and that they can do as they like. 247. Do you think that clause 143 that the Chairman read can be applied generally ?—I think so. lam speaking of Crown lands, not of lands under the Land for Settlements Act. That is quite different. There is a great distinction between the two. 248. You think the Boards have full enough powers at present ?—Yes. 249. Mr. McLennan.'] Has your Board many tenants under the Land for Settlements Act?— We have four or five estates. 250. I presume they are paying in rent from 2s. 6d. to 15s. and £1 per acre ?—Each section has a separate value. 251. Do you think it is fair that a man who only pays 2s. 6d. a year should take as many crops off his land as a man who pays 15s. ?—lf that ever occurs it shows that there has been a mistake in the valuation. Each section in our estates here is valued, according to the opinion of the valuers, on what it can produce, and we would expect land let at 15s. per acre to produce six times as much as land at 2s. 6d. Of course, mistakes may occur; but the sections are valued and revalued and classified as well as men can judge. 252. Do you not think that the Land Boards should have discretionary power?—lt might be desirable to have a revision in values sometimes, and I think the Land Boards should have power to recommend the Minister to make such a revision. 253. lam alluding to cropping as well. One man who pays 2s. 6d. takes two white crops and one green crop off his section, and another man who pays 15s. is only allowed to do the same: do you not think the Land Boards should have discretionary power to enable them to permit a man who pays 15s. per acre to take more crops off his land if the land is capable of producing them?— Certainly; the regulations ought to provide for that. Nothing of the sort has come under our knowledge here. 254. Mr. Anstey.] You expressed yourself in favour of a graduated system of taxation, and spoke of it as preventing any aggregation of large estates : do you think that under a proper adjustment of that system you could do away with all necessity for the restriction of areas—at present you
27
C—4.
A. KINROSS.!
are aware a mail is only allowed to occupy 640 acres of first-class land, and that land may be worth £5 or £50 per acre?—l think these are fair areas; but if in the future, when population increases, it is thought desirable to decrease them to whatever the country decides is a fair area, I think the graduated tax could be so adjusted as to prevent any man holding more than that area. 255. Is it not more a question of value than of area ? —Yes; the tax is not levied on the acreage, but on the pound. 256. The limit of occupation is acreage and not value at all, and I ask you whether, if the graduation was properly assessed on the value, it would not limit holdings without any limitation of area at all?— Yes, it would. There is another point. You are referring now entirely to rural lands. The beauty of the graduated land-tax is that it catches monopolists in the towns as well as in the country. 257. You spoke just now about the decrease in value of Crown lands, and you put it down to the fact that as the best land was selected only inferior land remained : can you inform us whether there has been any increase or decrease in the actual value of the land that has been selected ? —Any fairly good agricultural land has increased in value. 258. That is to say, a section taken up five years ago is probably worth more to-day than it was then ?—Yes. 259. You have a number of settlers under the lease in perpetuity Act in Southland : have you had any considerable complaints from them as to the form of their tenure? —Very few. I would like to point out that when the optional system was initiated the numbers who selected the different systems were nearly equal, but according to last year's report 402 sections were taken up under occupation with right of purchase, and only ninety-seven under the lease in perpetuity. That shows the people are in favour of having the right of acquiring the freehold, and I think the people themselves ought to be the best judges. 260. Mr. Forbes.] With regard to the constitution of Land Boards, as both the Crown tenants and the Land Boards are interested in the working of these estates, do you not think it would be advisable and in the interests of settlement if the Land Boards had some assistance from a person directly elected by the Crown tenants ? —So far as my personal feelings go, I am always anxious to see the Crown tenants prospering, and I would just conserve their interests as fairly and justly as a man selected by themselves. 261. I do not doubt that for one instant, but possibly in other parts of the colony the position may be different: do you not think that if the settlers had one representative on the Board it would provide a kind of safety valve for their grievances ? —As a matter of fact, the Minister of Lands has already nominated a number of tenants to the Land Boards, and there is no reason why he should not continue to do so. 262. Do you not think it would give more general satisfaction if the tenants had the power of electing a member? —It may be their opinion ;I do not see any necessity for it. 263. Mr. Matheson.] You said that in dealing with land matters you are very anxious to act in a judicial spirit: do you feel that you have as carefully thought out the position of the large holders as of the small tenants when you suggest a graduated tax to screw them out of existence as a fair and proper thing? —I think it is a fair thing. No man has any right to monopolize more than his fair share of land in this or any other country. 264. When the Crown acquires land for settlement it becomes Crown land to all intents and purposes ?—Yes. 265. Then, if you think that, why should you not give selectors the right to acquire the freehold that you would give for Crown lands ?—Those who take up Crown lands get them in a state of nature, and they have a great deal to contend with. If a man takes up land of that kind and brings it into cultivation, and spends years upon it, I think he is entitled to the freehold of it; but a man who takes up land that is already in a state of cultivation is in quite a different position. 266. After all, is it not a question of finance from a colonial point of view ? I think you suggest that the ordinary Crown tenant has a right to the freehold to gratify a sentiment to a large extent ?—Partly. 267. And he has paid a certain rate of value for the land ?—Yes. 268. Every man pays what is the practical market value for the land, and if from a matter of sentiment you would like to acquire the freehold, do you not think the State would be wise to grant it ?—There is another consideration. It is the duty of the State, for the benefit of both State and tenants, to encourage every one to improve inferior land. The lands on acquired estates are already improved to their highest value, so that there is not the same necessity to encourage settlers. In addition, the Government having spent money in buying the land, it does not seem right and proper that they should part with the freehold again. 269. You will agree "that there is just as much room for improvement in regard to some of the land-for-settlements land as in regard to some of the Crown lands?— None that I know of. It may be so in other parts of the colony. 270. Then, you think the State would be doing an unwise thing from a financial point of view in granting these people the freehold?—l am not speaking from a financial point of view alone, but from all points of view. 271. Will you specify another point ?—The State, having already purchased the land, should retain it. The State might have to repurchase time after time if the right to acquire the freehold was granted. 272. What possible harm would there be in repurchasing if the State, after buying at £3 and selling at an increased value, had lost nothing ?—I admit there may be some arguments in favour of it, but at the same time I am not in favour of it. 273. I was only trying to hear one of your arguments against it, and you only look at it from a general view ? —Yes.
a—4.
28
[a. kineoss.
274. Mr. McCardle.] You object to giving representation to the Crown tenants on the Land Boards ?—I do not object to it at all. I merely said I did not see the necessity for it. 275. We will say that the Government cuts up a large block of land and lets it out on lease at 10s. per acre, and that each of the tenants, before he can bring that land into a reproductive state, has to spend £3 or £4 per acre in improvements : now, has not the tenant a very much greater interest in that land than the Government?— Yes. 276. Well, in that case do you not think the man who has the greatest interest in the land should have a voice in its administration ?—lf it was found that the Land Boards were acting unjustly to the tenants. 277. But it is too late then ? —I am only expressing my own opinion. lam perfectly satisfied with the present system. 278. But you may not always have a Government who recognise the interests of the small settlers ?—When the Boards act unjustly you can alter the system. I do not admit that it is likely to happen. I have no objection to the elective principle, but I think it would be a very difficult principle to apply. 279. In regard to the homestead system, do you not think that it would be very much better if, instead of giving persons in Stewart Island a homestead section free of any cost whatever, they were asked to pay a reasonable amount of rent to be expended in making roads, and that the local bodies should have the power to raise loans on the strength of these rents ?—I am not prepared to say that Stewart Island is a proper place for this system ; only I think, from what I have heard, that there are some parts of the colony where the settlers would be well worthy of getting a Crown grant if they improved the land. 280. But, if they have no roads, what good would the land be to them ?—They must make their own roads. 281. But how can they? Would it not be much better if they paid an annual rent for the purpose of providing a fund to make the roads ?—But people would not be willing to pay the rent, and they would not take up the land. I say that at the Land Conference I heard some Auckland members speak strongly in favour of that system. John Mclntyee examined. 282. The Chairman.'] You are a farmer ?—Yes. 283. And a member of the Land Board ?—Yes. 284. How long have you been in the colony ?—About forty-five years, and I have been engaged in farming about forty years. 285. You have heard the evidence to-day: do you wish to add anything to it or to your remarks at the Land Conference at Wellington ?—I have nothing particularly to say in regard to land reform. I think our land laws are very fair. The optional system is to be preferred, according to my opinion, to anything we have had before. 286. So you are in favour of the freehold under that system ?—Yes. 287. If you were altering the law would you give the same option of freehold in regard to land acquired under the Land for Settlements Act ?—According to my opinion, it is only a question of time when they will have it. 288. So you approve of it ? —I see no harm in granting it. 289. I suppose you would require each settler to hold it for a period on lease before granting the freehold ?—Oh, certainly. I would not grant the freehold until after ten or fourteen years of leasing. I am of opinion that Crown tenants will have a better standing by having the right of acquiring the freehold, whether they exercise that right or not. I think their credit will be better, and if they want to borrow money they will be in a better position to do so. 290. Then, when the time came when the settler wished to exercise his right of purchase, would you let him have it at the original price at which he occupied the section, or would you charge him the value at the time the purchase was made ?—I think that nearly all these sections are fairly valued when the settlers take them up, and that anything that is put on in the way of improvements belongs to themselves. 291. Have you any opinion in regard to the constitution of Land Boards?— Nothing very strong. If I knew the mode of electing members to Land Boards I might be inclined to give an opinion, but not otherwise. 292. Do you think the conditions of residence are too exacting and require relaxing ?—I do not think so, so far as our experience goes in Southland. During the period I have been a member of the Board any one who has been at all inclined to make a residence on his section has had every opportunity to do so. The Act gives us a discretionary power to deal with all these cases. 293. Do you think it would be advisable to try the homestead system for the purpose of settling the poor lands of Southland?—ln my opinion, it would be desirable to again revert to the homestead system, but I would alter it to the extent of giving an increased area of this poor land. The original form, in my opinion, was not desirable, because the area it allowed was too small. One hundred acres of this poor land is no good at all. Nobody would take up such an area. You must make the area big enough to enable a man and his family to make a living off it. 294. Have you any decided opinions in regard to the ballot system ?—ln our experience the single ballot has given more satisfaction than anything else. The grouping in the double ballot does not seem to give satisfaction. ' We never heard any grumbling prior to the alteration. 295. Perhaps you can give us some ideas about this pastoral country ?—There is an immense area of pastoral land here of very small value, and unless something is done to encourage good men to take it up by giving them some value for their improvements it will always remain at a low value.
J. MCINTYEE.]
29
C—4.
296. Do you think it is practicable to improve it ?—I think so, by giving long tenures and reasonable improvements, and by giving good value for improvements. Men with sense would not at the present time spend anything on this pastoral country. 297. It has been said that the low land has been divorced from the high land : would it be necessary for the Government to repurchase some of the low lands in order to provide homesteadsites and yards for the high country ?—Yes, there are some places where that should be done. It would be a judicious policy to buy the low country where it abuts on the high country. 298. As in the Dome country, for instance ?—Yes. 299. Have you any experience of the grassing that was referred to? —I have seen a number of people try it, and some have been successful and some have not. There is a good deal to be said about grassing. I think, in addition to grassing, the settlers should close up a portion of their country, and give it a rest for a year or two, keep the rabbits out of it, and then set fire to it. The grass would then be given a fair chance to recover. But there is some very hard dry country on which the grass would never strike even if it were sown a dozen times. The work requires a lot of attention, and must be done at the right time of the year. I think a lot of the pastoral country in Southland could be improved and brought back to its original state if proper attention was paid to it. It was very much better in its original state than it is now ; 1 acre was then equal to 10 now. 300. I suppose you would not approve of selling these lands? —I do not think it would be possible to sell them. I would not be inclined to sell them. The low price that they are worth is nothing to the State, and no doubt when population becomes more plentiful the grassing of the runs will be taken up, and the time may come when it will be advisable to cut them into smaller areas. 301. Mr. McGutchan.] I would like to ask your opinion with regard to mortgaging these leases under "The Land Act, 1892 "? —They are not usually mortgaged. The small amount of improvements on them does not allow any margin. 302. Have you any fairly good Crown lands ? —Yes. 303. I wish your opinion with reference to them more particularly ?—Like everything else, they suffer a little hardship sometimes in not getting the amount of money they require. They cannot pledge the land. 304. I understand that the freehold of Crown lands can be mortgaged up to 60 per cent, of its value, of first agricultural land up to 75 per cent, of its value, but leased land can only be mortgaged up to 50 per cent, of the improvements ?—I do not think they could even gel 50 per cent. 305. But he is allowed that limit by law?— Yes. 306. The Crown tenants find it a great hardship that, although the law allows them up to 50 per cent, on their improvements, the Advances to Settlers Office only advances them up to 30 or 40 per cent. Suppose a man's improvements are worth £200, the law allows him to get £100 on them, but the Advances to Settlers Office only advances him £80. Do you not think that the Advances to Settlers Office Department might reasonably advance up to 60 per cent, provided the amount of the mortgage is spent on reproductive work?—l think it would be perfectly safe business for the State. 307. Mr. Johnston.] You are on freehold property, I understand?— Yes. 308. What is the area?—l,7oo or 1,800 acres. 309. Good land ?—Very fair land. 310. You said you believed in letting people have the freehold, but that you did not altogether approve of the leasehold ?—I approve of leasehold because I think that many people could not get on the land without the leasehold. I simply approve of them having the right of purchase. 311. It is utterly impossible for men without means to go on a freehold?—l do not think there would be one-twentieth of the people on the land if it were not for the leasehold. 312. If it were not for the lease in perpetuity there would not be so many men on the land ?— I am satisfied in my own mind that if 1 per cent, were taken off the interest on the prairie value and it was brought to 4 per cent., as in the case of the lease in perpetuity, there would be very little lease-in-perpetuity land taken up at all. 313. The land would not have been settled to the extent that it is now if it had not been for the lease in perpetuity ?—Certainly not, except for the optional system. 314. You practically indorse largely what Mr. Hay says ?•—Yes. 315. Have you tried Chewing's fescue on high lands ?—I am of opinion that it is good grass for very poor country, but it is not desirable for land that is in cultivation. 316. It is a good grass in dry country ?—lt is in poor country, because it spreads like a noxious weed. 317. Do you not think it advisable that the State should stop the spread of these noxious weeds ?—They are doing it in Southland. The Inspector is round every other day. 318. Mr. Paul.] You favour giving Crown tenants the freehold at the original valuation ? —Yes. 319. You would also be in favour of private landowners giving their tenants the freehold ?— You have no command over them. 320. With regard to the valuable educational endowments, borough reserves, Harbour Board reserves, &c., would you be in favour of giving tenants the freehold in such cases?—Of course, those are endowments. Ido not think they should be made freehold. 321. Do you not think, if the Crown tenant is given the right of acquiring the freehold, that there will be an agitation on the part of the tenants on the reserves I have mentioned also to acquire the freehold ?—I suppose there will be an agitation, but Ido not think it would be wise legislation to interfere with those endowments. 322. That is on account of the revenue derived from the rents ?—Yes. 323. If it is beneficial to these institutions and bodies to keep these endowments and conserve the rent, is it not also beneficial to the State to keep the leasehold and have the rent coming in as revenue ? —lt is a sort of British idea that a person would like to have a piece of land of his own.
30
[j. MCINTYEE.
C.—4.
324. We will presume that the tenant of an education or harbour endowment is British also? —I do not think the two cases are analogous. 325. I understood you to say that a leaseholder suffered a disadvantage in not being able to borrow money on his leasehold ?—Yes. 326. That is a great objection to the leasehold?—l think that is the biggest objection we have here. 327. Then, if regulations could be framed enabling a man to get an advance on his lease you would favour the leasehold? —It would not alter my opinion on that. It would simply be making the State more liable for loss than if the other way. 328. But you would be conserving the freehold and giving the leaseholder an opportunity of developing bis land? —I think it is a desirable thing to encourage people. 329. Mr. Matheson.] Supposing you granted the tenants of Harbour Board and education endowments the freehold and invested the money in Government funds, it would be returned to them in interest: would not that answer their purpose ?—lt might do, but I would think it would be just as wise to keep them as they are. Ido not think I would interfere with any endowments in the way suggested. 330. Mr. McCardle.] Do you not consider that the lease with the right of purchase has been the greatest factor in getting the land settled ?—Yes ; I think that if the 1 per cent, interest were taken off very little land would be taken up under the lease in perpetuity. 331. In regard to Southland, which of the two forms of tenure were the tenants most anxious to acquire the land under?— After the Act came into force the lease in perpetuity took the lead, but after a few years had elapsed the occupation with the right of purchase was in most favour. 332. Do you not think that the man with a 999-years lease should be free from all control of Land Boards as long as he has complied with the conditions and completed his improvements ? — Of course, he has to pay his rent. 333. Under the lease in perpetuity, if the leaseholder were free from the restrictions of the Land Boards so that a money-lender could see that he had fair security, the leaseholder would get money from an outsider in order to buy stock and in other ways to make the property reproductive?—l do not think he could get the money unless he had the right of purchase. There are no means, as far as I can see, under any Act whereby you can touch the land unless you have the right to purchase. 334. You could do this as well in the other case if he had completed his improvements and were free from the restrictions? —The Government must always come in first. 335. Suppose the land is £1 per acre and the leaseholder has spent £4 an acre on it, and the land is then worth £5, the leaseholder has then a £4 interest in the land and the Government only £1 ? —I would like to see the most of the tenants as free of the Land Boards as possible, but I cannot see how they can succeed unless they had the right to acquire the freehold. 336. You can only see one remedy, and that is to grant the right of purchase ?—Yes.
Invekcakgill, Thubsday, 23ed Febeuaey, 1905. Gavin Bbighton examined. 1. The Chairman.] Where do you come from, Mr. Brighton? —I am a settler in the Wairaki district. I have a little over 300 acres, part of which is freehold and part held on the optionalpurchase tenure. I would like to state my opinion that if the Government would make the lease in perpetuity and the occupation with right of purchase on the same footing with regard to interest it would be a good thing; the tenures ought to be brought to the same level. It is the extra 1 per cent, in the case of the right of purchase that causes people to go in for the lease in perpetuity. Some people regard that 1 per cent, as a handicap, but they find afterwards that they have made a mistake. I believe that if the two tenures were placed on the same footing no one would go in for the lease in perpetuity. At one time it was suggested to me that I should put my land under the lease in perpetuity for the reason that I would save something in interest. My reply was that I wanted to get clear, and that I would rather pay the extra 1 per cent, and have the option of the freehold, and that is what I am doing. 2. How long have you been in that district?— For twenty-three years. My optional-purchase tenure dates from 1900. I may say I took up the land on deferred payments at first, but there being no school convenient I allowed it to be forfeited under that system. I then took it up again, and as there is now a school in the district I have no desire to leave it. 3. Mr. Anstey.] You think that both systems—the lease in perpetuity and the optional right —should be put on the same footing with regard to the interest ?—Yes. I think that one or other might be changed. 4. Would you rather pay the additional 1 per cent, for the right of purchase than take up land on lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 5. You are holding under the right of purchase now?— Yes. 6. And you think that you have a more valuable holding than the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 7. Do you think it would be right for the State to give a more valuable tenure at the same price as a less valuable one ?—lt is a matter of opinion on your part. I say that the people ought to be allowed to choose according to the value of the tenures. 8. But should they not pay more for an additional value ? —Well, raise the one up to the other and bring the two to the same level. It is a matter on which there is a difference of opinion, but I hold that they should be put on the same footing. I do not see any reason why our settlers should be slaves for ever. 9. You are willing to pay the higher price for the more valuable tenure ?—Yes.
G. BRIGHTON.!
31
C—4.
10. Mr. McCardle.] Are you a member of the Land Board? —No. 11. Are you aware to what extent the lease in perpetuity is availed of by applicants now? — Yes. 12. Are there many persons who prefer the lease in perpetuity at 4 per cent. ? —Any one I have spoken to says, " Give us the freehold." 13. At different ballots that have taken place in this district have there been many applicants for the lease in perpetuity ? —I really could not say the number. 14. The experience in the Auckland District is that out of 350 applicants for land only one is for the lease in perpetuity. Does that not show that people preferred to pay the 5 per cent., and that the 1 per cent, is not enough to induce them to take the leasehold ?—I am sure they would rather pay the 5 per cent, and have the freehold. John McLean examined. 15. The Chairman.'] What are you, Mr. McLean ? —I am a farmer at Caroline. I am a partner in about 1,800 acres of freehold, some of which is broken ridge country unfit for farming. There are 1,000 acres cultivated and 800 acres of pastoral land surface-sown. 16. How long have you been on this farm? —Twenty-one years next March. 17. Would you state what you have to say on any point in regard to the land and its administration?—ln the first place, I would like to refer to the land-taxation which we have to pay. On the Caroline property our exemption from the property-tax used to be £500. Lately, on account of the lower valuation, that exemption has been reduced to £190, or a reduction of £310. lam one of the unfortunates in that I come under the graduated land-tax, and, seeing that I have a large family and am already mortgaged, I consider lam treated in a very hard way. Another thing is that I have a partner who owns practically half of the land, and if my share was divided among my grown-up sons the areas would be as small as Japanese farms. 18. Do you pay on the whole property as one ?—Yes. 19. And the only escape would be by subdivision ?—Yes. 20. And that is inconvenient sometimes ?—Yes ; it would cost a lot. 21. Then it might involve you in other troubles, I suppose ?—That is so. The ship is always best under one captain. If you have two or three captains she might not arrive at her destination. 22. You have alluded to one matter to which the Commission have given some attention— grassing and surface-sowing: has it succeeded well with you ?—-I may go back with you for thirtyseven years, and say that both in Otago and Southland I have been in the habit of sowing spare bits of land with grass where I could not get the plough on the ground, and invariably I have found the result a great success. Any one may see the result on the broken ridges about Caroline : that is the last surface-sowing I did. There is a splendid lot of cocksfoot and clover. The land is forty-two miles north of the Invercargill Eailway-station, on the Invercargill-Kingston line of railway. 23. I think your land is all less than 500 ft. above sea-level ?—I dare say the highest of it is 800 ft. above sea-level—broken ridges where a plough could not work. 24. Will you give the Commission some more information about this surface-sowing?—ln surface-sowing one must begin at the right time of the year, and I consider that in order to get a proper burn of the tussock and fern the early part of August is a good time. Then, one should not take too much at a time—only what can be sown down at that time. The seed must be first class and machine-dressed. 25. Cocksfoot, clovers, and anything else?— Yes. I sowed it at the rate of 1 bushel of cocksfoot, 1 bushel of first-class rye-grass, and 5 lb. of white clover per acre. 26. Poverty Bay rye ? —lt was perennial rye-grass. 27. Mr. Anstey.] At what cost? —The cocksfoot would cost at that time sd. per pound. It was machine-dressed. The rye-grass would cost about ss. a bushel. That was twenty years ago ; and the grass is in the ground yet—not much of the rye-grass, but the cocksfoot and the clover show everywhere. 28. You paid from 10s. to 15s. per acre then for seed ?—Yes. Another thing I would like to say is that immediately after the burning a tripod harrow was drawn over the ground wherever it was practicable. It is a flexible harrow, and adapts itself to the surface. The seed was sown first, and the harrow came next. 29. The Chairman.] You sow at the same time—about August ?—Yes. lam thoroughly convinced that if that mode of sowing the runs of Southland were put in practice, and if good seed were used, the carrying-capacity of the land would be increased by at least 25 per cent. lam safe in saying that. 30. To insure that genuine seed would be supplied it might be well for the Government to distribute it —the land is their property? —At any rate, a Government official should inspect the seed. 31. Do you not think it might be better if the Government supplied it? They would get it wholesale?—lf the thing were done on a large scale, as it must be to be effective, the Government could supply the seed to the tenants. 32. Inferior seed would start weeds, I suppose ? —Yes. It is a well-known axiom in the two kingdoms that like produces like, and bad seed will produce bad seed. 33. Is ragwort bad in your district ? —Yes, and it has been there for many years. There is a Crown bush bounding our property, and it first began there. I understand that that ragwort is to be cut at the Government's expense. The Rabbit Inspector, who is looking after these nuisances in our district, gave all of us notice to cut our weeds—it is a big order—and if every one is to clear his bush of ragwort it would be a hard task. I might say that no sheep have ever died in our district from ragwort. Whenever sheep are running in the spring-time they get good feed from it, and you see none of it in paddocks where sheep are running.
C.—4.
32
[j. MCLEAN.
34. Mr. McCutchan.] Do I understand that the sheep kill the ragwort, or do they keep it from going to seed?— They eat it and thrive on it. 35. They do not eradicate it?— No. I may say it does not scour the sheep. lam referring to the plant before it comes into the yellow bloom and seed. A hungry beast would eat the bloom, and in that case I think it would be to a certain degree poisonous to the animal, but so long as the stock have access to it at the spring-time of the year—months before it comes into bloom—they thrive on it. I know that ours do, and you do not see a plant of it in the whole of the thousand acres. Outside, where there are no sheep, there is a lovely crop in full bloom. 36. Your opinion is that it produces no disease among sheep that are kept on it from year to year?—l am certain that it will not. I was brought up in a country where there were fields of it. It was growing on a commonage belonging to the crofters, and I have never known cattle to die from it. 37. Mr. Johnston.'] Where were these experiments made in the grassing—in what country ? — In Otago and Southland. 38. At what height above the sea ? —Between 800 ft. and 900 ft. 39. Only that?—l have known it to be tried bv others at a higher altitude—as high as 1,100 ft. 40. Did the rye hold there ?—Splendidly. You will see it growing at Lumsden on a razorback ridge of Crown property occupied by Mr. McLeod, one of the Crown tenants under the lease-in-perpetuity system. Mr. McLeod is in the Caroline district. His property bounds part of our property, but rises higher. 41. Do you know if surface-sowing has been tried in any other way than by burning and sowing ? —I do not think it would be advisable to try it in any other way, except, of course, after cultivation. 42. I refer to the hilly country. Is it possible to grass it without burning it ?—lt is possible to grass it, but the result would not be good. 43. Have you ever seen it done ?—I have done it myself on a small scale, but the result was not good, for the reason that there was no cover for the seed except for an odd one or two that would drop into the heart of a tussock, and that is not a favourable position for the seed to germinate in to perfection. The rest of the seed was practically lost, there being no cover for it. 44. You say that the ragwort started in a piece of Government bush ?—Yes. 45. Near your place ?—Yes, adjoining our property. 46. You are a member of the Land Board, are you ?—Yes. 47. Why did not the Land Board take measures to stop the weeds on the Crown land accumulating and spreading ?—I do not think the noxious weeds come under the Board's jurisdiction. 48. I think the Board has power to keep Crown lands clean ?—I think it is the Stock Department that has to do with weeds. 49. Did you hear some remarks made about spelling the land to allow the native grasses to come? —Yes. 50. Do you think it would be better to spell the land or to burn and sow it ?—I think that to burn and sow it and give it a year's spell would be the life of it. It would give the grass a chance to come, and then it would hold its own against the stock. 51. What about the rabbits? —The rabbits must be religiously kept down. If I allowed them to get too strong they would put me out. 52. Mr. Paul.] In your experience have the Land Boards sufficient discretionary power?— 1 am satisfied that Land Boards—at any rate, the Southland Land Board—would be much the better of having a freer hand to deal with small matters within their knowledge without referring them to the Head Office away at the other end of the country. 53. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in Southland at the present time ?—I think it is the other way round. It is a cutting-up that is going on. The land is being subdivided instead of being aggregated. 54. The graduated land-tax acts as a deterrent?—lt means this: If you give the taxing wedge another knock up, and more especially if a commercial reaction were to come, the Government would get all the land, because the early settlers are getting too old and the young settlers are too well-to-do to undertake the drudgery and slavery that the old people did, and consequently the Government will have to carry the burden. It is working for that. 55. The early settlers encountered and overcame great difficulties, did they not ?—Yes ; but in those days we used to wear moleskins and blue shirts, and a piece of flax round the hurdies. 56. Mr. Anstey.] Your experience of surface-sowing does not extend to very high country ? How high could it be carried out profitably ?—I would not be afraid to go to the snow-line in any part of Otago or Southland. 57. You think that surface-grassing could be profitably carried on up to the snow-line?— According to the superstition of our Scotch fathers—our grandfathers, as we say—a fall of snow after sowing was a blessing rather than a curse, because it kept the seed warm in the worst time of the winter months, and the result was a beautiful crop after the snow went away. The same rule applies to the grass, only it must be put in early in the spring and put in judiciously. Then, it must be good of its kind, and not too much at one time. You cannot command the labour to sow a run in a day or a week. You can only sow a little at a time if the work is to be done effectively. If a large extent of country is burnt and not sown down, the ashes will have time to blow away, and then if seed is placed on the land it will have no cover and will not germinate. 58. You speak as a freeholder. A lot of the country up to the snow-line is in the hands of Crown tenants: how do you think might grassing be encouraged among them—valuation for
a—4.
J. MCLEAN.]
33
grassing or supplying seed at a low cost, or any measure of that kind ?—You cannot get away from the fact that in anything you do to the land you have to touch the pocket, and the pocket happens to be the tenderest spot of all. I think it would be a good thing to give the seed gratis or at a low cost. Of course, there is another way : you can compensate the tenant by giving him valuation at the end of his lease. 59. You think they might be offered first-class seed gratis or at a low cost, or offered compensation ?—lf I had an estate that wanted more blades of grass on it I would be willing to give the tenant the seed if I could afford it, provided he sowed it properly, so that it would germinate and grow and be a source of profit not only to the tenant, but to me. 60. Mr. Forbes.] You think that after a surface grass-sowing the country wants a spell?—lt would be a beneficial thing. It would repay the expenditure of the reseeding to give the land a spell, and not allow rabbits or any large quantity of stock on it. A few sheep over a thousand acres would not be seen. I think such a course would be the life of the runs in Otago and Southland. 61. If it was grassed in the ordinary course and fully stocked, there would be greater loss than gain in the grassing, and a great deal of the expenditure would be thrown away ? —I am sure that if you were to give the land a spell after sowing it with grass it would more than recoup you within the next five years. In a year like this it would be very advantageous to the occupier of a run to sell all his sheep at the good prices obtaining and sow the run down; but, as I have already said, he must begin early in the spring. It is a mistake to burn the tussock when it is dry at the root, because the soil would also burn. Care must be taken. When you start early in the spring you have the best conditions it is possible to get, and the best results will follow, because the soil is not too dry, and therefore the tussoek only will burn and gives you ashes to cover the seed. 62. Mr. Hall.] Was it open tussock land you dealt with or bush land?— Both. But I am speaking particularly of the open tussock, fern, rocks, and stones. 63. Is your land similar to the general run of high land?—lt is similar, only on a smaller scale. 64. The same treatment would apply to tussock land ?—Yes. 65. Have you ever heard of sheep being kept to ragwort solely ?—The sheep I refer to had the chance to eat part grass and part ragwort. In the spring-time the young plant of ragwort is palatable to the sheep, and they thrive on it. It never shows up at all that year in flower in any paddock where the sheep have been on it in the spring. I would not care about putting sheep into a thick field of ragwort and confining them to it, especially when it was in flower. I think there would be a danger in that. Michael O'Connor examined. 66. The Chairman.] You are from Orepuki, Mr. O'Connor ?—Yes, from Te Tua. 67. Are you in occupation of land ? —Yes; I have 872 acres. 68. Under what tenure ?—Lease in perpetuity. 69. How long have you been there ?—Twelve years. 70. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I wish to say that this lease is a great handicap to a settler. When he applies for a loan from the Government Lending Board he cannot get it. My improvements were valued at £265 three years ago, and when I applied for a loan of £70 the Board refused to give it me. 71. Did they give any reason?— That there was not sufficient improvements in hand, and yet they rate me for £265. 72. Was the £265 the local valuation or the valuation by the Government officer?—By the Government valuer. He valued locally as well. 73. Did you get the money elsewhere ?—Yes; I went elsewhere and got £100 without any trouble. 74. You paid a good rate for it ? —I paid the same as I would have had to pay to the Lending Board. 75. You got it at 5 per cent., did you?—l would not get it from the other office at less than 6 per cent. There is a sinking fund of 1 per cent. 76. Of course, in borrowing from a private individual there would be no sinking fund?— No. I hold that the Lending Board do the settler an injury instead of assisting him. They value him for taxes, and they will not advance him anything to help him through. 77. They do not abide by the valuation in lending money? —No. 78. Is there anything else you would like to say to the Commission ?—I only wish to say that the lease in perpetuity is a bad tenure for the settler. 79. How do you think it should be modified?— For myself, I would like the freehold. It is all very well for town agitators to talk about the leasehold, but when you have to go miles into the back blocks without a track one expects something better, especially when the lands are loaded for roading. 80. You are near the Waiau ? —Yes. My place is about a mile off the road, or about two miles and a half from Mr. Armstrong's. 81. It is mostly bush ?—All bush. 82. Have you much cleared ?—About 200 acres. 83. Mr. McGutchan.] At the time you applied for the loan I suppose the valuer visited your place ?—Yes. 84. Did you pay a procuration fee ?—Yes. 85. That is a charge you would not have to pay under the Advances to Settlers Department ? —No. 86. Mr. Paul.] You believe the freehold is the best ?—Yes,
5—C. 4
a—4.
34
[m. o'connoe.
87. Has that opinion been formed on account of your experience with the Advances to Settlers Department?—lt has. 88. If the conditions surrounding the lease in perpetuity were less exacting do you think it would be a good form of tenure ?—Yes. The agent of the Lending Board (Mr. Carswell) and others admit that the tenure is a bad one, because the Government set no value on it. It is so flexible that a tenant can change it at any time, and the Board will not give an advance on it as they will on other tenures. 89. What was the nature of your improvements ?—A dwelling, bushfelling, fencing, and other improvements—the usual bush improvements. 90. Mr. McLennan.] What rent do you pay for the ground ?—About 7d. an acre. 91. Do you keep cattle or sheep ?—Dairy cattle. 92. When the ground is cleared, how many acres are required to keep a cow ? —lf it is thoroughly cleared it would take about 2 acres to keep a cow all the year round. 93. If it was cleared and grassed?— Yes, and well picked out. It would cost about £3 10s. or £4 per acre to do that. 94. It would cost that amount to clear it and grass it ?—Yes. It would cost £1 10s. an acre for clearing, £1 an acre for grassing, and £1 an acre for picking it up, 95. Mr. Anstey.] Do you prefer the freehold ?—Yes. 96. The freehold purchasing price of your land is 15s. an acre, and your rent is 7d. an acre?— Yes. 97. Why did you not take up the freehold ? —I understood the lease in perpetuity was the best. 98. Would a number of settlers be in a position to take up the freehold?—l believe that, at any rate, many would be inclined to take up the land with a right of purchase; it is the general wish among them. 99. Under the occupation with right of purchase the rate of interest is 5 per cent., and under the lease in perpetuity it is 4 per cent. ? —Yes. The lower rate of interest is an inducement. 100. Would you rather have the occupation with right of purchase at 5 per cent., or the lease in perpetuity at 4 per cent. ? —I would rather have the occupation with the right of purchase at 6 per cent. If I want to sell out under the present tenure I cannot do so. If anything befalls me now and I go a little back I cannot get a purchaser. My interest in the place is almost valueless. 101. Mr. McCardle.] You are under the impression that it is much better for a man to have the lease with right of purchase at 5 per cent, than the lease in perpetuity at 4 per cent. ? —Yes. 102. Is it more advantageous to a working-man, do you think, to have the right of purchase ? —Yes. 103. Mr. Hall.] Your objection to the tenure is the difficulty of getting a loan ?—Yes, or disposing of it to any advantage. 104. But in other respects it is all right ?—Yes. Of course, you have not the same interest to pay as under the occupation with right to purchase. Many a man is led away by the 1 per cent, of difference between the two tenures. James Robertson Thomson examined. 105. The Chairman.] Where do you come from, Mr. Thomson ?—I am a settler at Greenvale, Half-moon Bay. I have 23 acres of freehold at the bay, including the accommodation-house at Oban. I have 408 acres on lease (Sections 145, 146, 147, and 150) with a right to purchase from the Government. 106. The land is mostly under bush ?—Yes, excepting what I have cleared. 107. Does it take grass well ?—Yes. 108. Surface-sown?.—Yes, but you must burn first. 109. We would like to know what particular part of the land-administration you wish to speak to the Commission about ?—What I would like to bring before the Commission is this : Since I have been on the island my view has been that the prosperity of the place depends on settlement. We want people, and in order to get people concessions must be given to them to take up land, seeing that the conditions for them are not so good as they are alongside of a railway. The general belief, and it is my own belief, is that it was a mistake to institute the lease in perpetuity for the optional system. The optional system worked very well in Stewart Island. It is a system that would suit every person. One could buy a cash section or take up either a lease with the right of purchase or a lease in perpetuity. 110. You would like the lease in perpetuity to have the right of purchase ?—Yes. I am sure that settlement has been retarded since the lease-in-perpetuity system was brought into force. Another thing is this : sawmillers are the best people to go through bush land, because the facilities for working sawmill timber are better now than when I was milling twenty years ago. To-day they have the hauling-engines, and with them they make a thorough job of it. I inspected some of the work they have been doing lately on a private section in Stewart Island. If the bush had been worked in the same way twenty years ago, and up to the time the haulers commenced, there is no doubt that to-day there would be plenty of men settled on bush land for every one man we find settled there now. Another thing that has prevented settlement is that Stewart Island has been declared a goldfields district.' I have been connected with gold-mining on the island as well as the tin-mining at Pegasus —I prospected a good deal of the land and discovered tin at Pegasus— and I say that in the interests of the settlement of the island there need be no restrictions as far as the goldfields are concerned, because the auriferous land is not payable. 111. You get the colour sometimes ?—Yes.
J. R. THOMSON.]
35
C.—4.
112. The tin is in another place? —Yes; at Pegasus. My remarks refer to the blocks of land at Paterson's Inlet. Many people have the idea that the island should be closed entirely for scenic purposes, but I think that would be a great mistake. There is an ample reserve made in the island now for scenic purposes. The last map I saw of the island showed that there were 260,000 acres of it reserved for scenic purposes. 113. The 260,000 acres, Mr. Hay has informed us, are reserved for a sanctuary for birds : in other words, nobody would be allowed to destroy it?—l think that is quite enough. Settlement is what we want on the island, together with facilities for it. Most of the people will want the right of purchase. I find that where the people are thrifty they want to have the right to call a bit of land their own. It is a desire that is born in the English people, and it is strong in me too; lam a Scotsman. If we had a larger population no doubt we would have better facilities for people going to and from the island. 114. What about the young men in Stewart Island: do they stay there?— Yes, most of them. 115. They do not come to the mainland?— No. 116. They will be wanting land ?—Yes, but they would not take up the lease in perpetuity. 117. Are there not some fishermen resident there?— Yes, a good many. 118. So that what would suit the island would be a population partly fishermen and partly farmers ?—Yes. 119. They would not want large areas ? —No ; it would be a mistake to give large areas. 120. How much would be a suitable area for that class of population?—2s or 30 acres, or perhaps 50 acres, according to the quality of the land. Further back sections could be larger. 121. I do not suppose there would be a large expenditure on roads ; it is mostly water communication around the coast-line?— They are getting votes to push roads ahead, but I am sorry to say there is a lot of money being spent in places where roads are not much required. The money is scattered over too wide a field. If the work was concentrated and the money spent where people are living it would be spent to more advantage. 122. Do you mean dray-roads ?— I mean foot-tracks. There is only one main road, leading from the jetty, but I refer to the foot-tracks. 123. Bridle-tracks are also necessary ?—Yes ; those are the tracks I refer to. 124. Your population is pretty stationary ?—I think it is increasing. 125. Are there any sawmillers ? — Yes ; there are three working just now. Two of them are working on private land in bush that has been worked before, but they are taking as much timber out now with the hauler as was taken out before without it. 126. Mr. McGutchan.] You favour the fullest option in taking up land under the Act of 1892 ?—Yes. 127. I understood you to say that the young men of Stewart Island do not favour the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—So far as I know, no one there favours that tenure. 128. What are the chief objections to it ? — From one or two I have heard statements similar to the evidence you have already heard. One man named Nelson, at Horseshoe Bay, informed me that he was valued high for rating purposes. He wanted to get a loan to do fencing, and the man who came to value his land and improvements valued them, at less than half of the value for rating purposes, and consequently he could not get enough money from the Advances to Settlers Office to fence his ground. He had to do the work at his own expense. 129. Upon what conditions should Crown tenants be allowed to convert a lease in perpetuity into a lease with the right of purchase ?—I do not know what would be the best way to do it, but I think there should be some provision to allow a settler who is making improvements to occupy his land with the right to purchase. 130. Would you give that right on the settler paying the 1-per-cent. difference between the 4 per cent, and the 5 per cent. ? —-I think that would be fair. 131. In other words, the State has no claim to any increased value in the land beyond that l.per cent. —you think it belongs to the settler?-—Yes, I think so. No one but the person who has to do the work knows what a difficult matter it is to carve a place out of the bush. 132. Mr. Johnston.'] How long have you been at Stewart Island ?—For twenty-seven years. 133. You have been a freeholder all the time?—l applied for a section when I first went to the island. 134. You were a man of means when you went there at first ?—I had half a crown in my pocket. 135. If the perpetual lease had been in vogue then would you have taken up land under it ? — I would have preferred the occupation with right of purchase, but if the perpetual lease had been the only one available I would have taken it. 136. Supposing there was the right to purchase, and the perpetual lease, and you had only a capital of half a crown, which would have been the most advantageous for you ?—I would have taken up the occupation with right of purchase. 137. You would not have seen your way to meet the payments, would you ?—I took up 22 acres, and I think I could have managed it. 138. Without any capital at all?—I was making wages. I started to work at once. 139. You would have improved your land at the same time ?—Yes ; I used to work in the mill by day, and on my land at night when other people were asleep. 140. Do you think the lease in perpetuity has assisted to put men on the land ?—Not there. 141. But, generally, do you think it has assisted to put men on the land?—l think there would be more people on the land to-day if they had had the optional system. Several people have been inquiring for land to purchase, and I have to tell them there is only the lease in perpetuity, and the consequence is that they do not prosecute their inquiries further. 142. They would not take it up under the lease in perpetuity ? —No, I do not think so.
C—4.
36
[j. K. THOMSON.
143. Do you think that the 999-years lease is nearly as good as a freehold ? — Well, if a man goes to the trouble of making improvements on his own place he can realise on them better than if he held the land under a Government lease. 144. If it was freehold and not lease in perpetuity you would make more mdney out of it ? — Yea. 145. It is a matter of the unearned increment ?—I think that the man who takes up bush land deserves all the unearned increment. 146. What pays the pocket best is at the bottom of it ?—Yes ; and, as wise people, so long as we are not doing a wrong to other people I think we ought to make the best of it. 147. What is the cost of bushfelling there?—Up to £1 10s. an acre. 148. Is it heavy bush ?—Some of it is pretty heavy bush. 149. What does the grassing cost ? —£l 10s. an acre. 150. What mixture would you put on ?—Cocksfoot and clover. 151. Did you say £1 10s. an acre for grassing?— Yes, but I think now Chat £1 10s. an acre is too much. First-class Canterbury cocksfoot is 6d. per pound. Clover, alsike, and ryegrass are also put on. 152. What would it amount to if not £1 10s. ?—I have not calculated it. 153. If you sowed down 20 acres, what would be the account for grass ?—I sowed my land piecemeal. I sowed five pounds' worth of grass-seed on less that 5 acres, I think. That was on my freehold section. 154. Do you think it would be advisable for the Commission to see Stewart Island ? —I think it would be a wise step. Ido indeed. I think you would get a better idea of the island if you were on the ground yourselves. "You could look at the land which is open at Half-moon Bay, and at the land that is leased. You could also see the land that is not settled upon, and see its value and how the grass takes. 155. You have 400 acres ?—Yes. 156. How much of it is cleared ?—None of it is altogether cleared. None of it is stumped. 157. You have so-much felled and in grass ? —About 20 acres are grass-sown, but it is not well-cleared land. 158. Is it good land for grazing?— Yes. 159. How long have you had it ? —About three years. 160. That is all you have put in grass ? —Yes, but I have also done fencing. 161. What stock do you carry?—l have about fifty head of cattle. 162. In the bush and on the grass?— Yes. 163. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the homestead system could be applied to Stewart Island ?—I believe it would do very well there. 164. Would you apply it to the coast-line ?—Yes, to the best land in the island. I think it could be applied with good effect as long as the areas were not large, so that as many people as possible could go on the land. 165. You think it would be beneficial if Stewart Island were settled?—l do. 166. With reference to your statement about a desire being born in every Englishman for the freehold, do you really think it is so?— Yes. 167. Do you know that there is not enough land to go round to gratify that desire ?—That might be, but if you leased large blocks of land in perpetuity you could not make more land by doing so. The people who took up that land would be in the same fix that way. 168. But what would happen if the lease in perpetuity were abolished ? We know that many who have a desire to reside on the land have had that wish gratified through the colony's liberal land laws ?—I suppose that is so. I could not speak for the country generally, but only for the island. 169. For instance, had there been no leasehold tenures there would not be nearly the number of settlers on the land that there is at the present time ? —I do not suppose there would be. I think the lease is a grand thing with the right of purchase. 170. Begarding the lease in perpetuity, you say it is not a good system ? —I do not care about it at all, but, as I have said before, if there were no other system I would take a piece of land under it, but with not such good grace as if I knew the land was to be my own some day. 171. Is your opinion widely held ?—Yes, on the island. 172. Has the value of the leases under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure increased?—l could not say. lam not sufficiently posted up to say that. 173. Mr. McLennan.'] In the event of the lease-in-perpetuity tenants being granted the option of purchase, would you favour the holdings being revalued and the present tenants getting full compensation for their improvements and the land being put up to auction ?—I think that would be fair. If the tenant got full value for his improvements there would be nothing to complain about. 174. Do you think the rest of the community should have the same privilege as the present holders in competing at auction for various properties as long as the holder has got full value ?—I am not sure about the auction. I think the ballot is better than the auction. 175. Most of the lease-in-perpetuity ground has been balloted for: do you not think that auction would be better ?—I am of opinion that the ballot works well, because it does away with the temptation to run up the price. Many people pay a higher price under the auction than they are really able to pay. 176. The Government would get the benefit ? —Yes, but if the tenant cannot hold on it might be a loss. If a man takes up land at more than he can pay he is always poor, and the land is overgrown with weeds. The Government may get the benefit in the first case, but if the land is not attended to they get the worst of it in the end.
37
a—4.
J. K. THOMSON.]
177. The men who would get the land by auction would have the freehold? —Yes, but they ■Would have to pay a higher price than at the ballot. 178. Are there many Crown tenants in Stewart Island?—A good many. 179. On small or large holdings?— Chiefly small holdings. 180. Have they been settled there for any length of time ?—Only one or two have been settled for ten years. The rest are later than that—three, four, and five years. 181. Fishermen and sawmillers ? —Yes, chiefly. 182. Mr. Anstey.] Is the bulk of the land in Stewart Island almost valueless ?—The mountainous parts are poor. 183. What about the land round the coast ? —lt is as good as any land on the mainland when cleared. 184. You say you think the homestead system could be applied to all the land : do you say that the good land should be given away on the homestead system ?—Of course, there are restrictions, but I think it would pay the Government to give the land and so encourage settlement. 185. The land on the coast is worth something?—l think it would compare favourably with any bush land in Southland. 186. And yet you think the Government ought to give it away for settlement? —I think they ought to give it away to encourage formation of homesteads. Although the land is good there are advantages on the mainland in the way of railways, and so on, that we have not got on Stewart Island. 187. Mr. Matheson.] You were asked a question about the increment: do you think that in an out-of-the-way place like Stewart Island there is any increment that has not been well earned ? —I think it has been well earned". 188. Mr. McGardle.] You prefer the occupation with right of purchase to the lease in perpetuity ? —Yes. 189. You believe it meets the poorer settlers' case better than the perpetual lease ?—Yes. 190. The circumstances surrounding the lease in perpetuity hamper a man from getting the necessary capital to open his land ? —Yes. 191. Do vou think the reason for the dislike to the perpetual lease arises from the surroundings of the lease and not from the principles of it ?■ —I do not know. I could not say about that, but I know that most men who have tried to get money on it find that they do not meet with favour from the money-lenders. 192. Supposing the Government were to amend the Advances to Settlers Act and provide for the Government valuing the improvements and advancing three-fifths of the tenants' interest, instead of one-half as at present, would the lease in perpetuity not be equal to a freehold ?—I would still believe in making the place my own. 193. Do you think that if you converted your perpetual lease into an occupation-with-right-of-purchase lease and the 1 per cent, was added to the value it would be fair compensation to the Government for the change of tenure ?—I think so. 194. You do not propose to pay off the land right away? —Very few settlers could. 195. Would you propose to take the land under the occupation-with-right-of-purchase lease on the same terms as under the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 196. Mr. Hall.] You advocate the opening-up of Stewart Island for settlement ? —Yes. 197. The land round the coast is good land, is it not?— Yes. 198. Is it suitable for mixed farms ?—Yes. 199. The interior is inferior land? —Some of it. There is a lease in the interior of 14,500 acres, and another of 3,000 acres. That is all flat country. 200. That is second-class land ? —Yes. 201. Does it take the grass well ? —Yes, but it wants to be burned. 202. Is it chiefly timber land ?—No ; it is mostly open with scrub. 203. Is it well watered ? —Yes. • 204. In clearing the land in the interior, is it likely that the fire would get into the bush that is reserved for scenic purposes ?—No, I do not think so. 205. Mr. Johnston.] You said that you would like the lease in perpetuity made optional so that the holder could purchase at any time?— Yes. 206. I suppose what you mean is that if the land paid you would purchase, and if not you would leave it alone? —No, 1 did not mean that. If I take up a section I want to carry it through and make a home of it. It is not that I want to go there to suit my own purposes and then throw the thing up. I want to make a home of it. 207. You must have finality at sometime? —Exactly. I think, myself, that if it could be converted the Government should get 1 per cent, more and give the right to purchase. 208. And when the principal is paid it becomes a freehold ?—Yes. John Mubchland examined. 209. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Murchland ?—I am a farmer near Garston, in the Nokomai district. 210. How much land have you got ? —About 1,366 acres. 211. Is it leasehold ? —Yes, under the Government. 212. Under what tenure?— 999 years —lease in perpetuity. 213. How long have you had it ?—I have had the original area of 200 acres since 1887. 214. What tenure is that on ?—lt was on perpetual lease at first, but I changed it afterwards. 215. It is all under the lease in perpetuity now ?—Yes. 216. Is it mostly grazing land ?—There are 200 acres of agricultural land, 100 acres on which I can grow crop, and the rest is hilly. I graze sheep on it. I am perfectly satisfied with the
C—4.
38
[j. MUECHLAND.
tenure I have got. I have made money out of my freehold land, and have invested it in a Government lease of 1,168 acres. 217. You are getting on well ?—Yes; but I may add that I have not got a buggy. I advised a neighbour to change his tenure into a perpetual lease, but he would not take my advice : he wanted the freehold. The consequence is that he is now looking after the freehold until some one comes along to buy it. I know a number of instances of persons who have gone in for the freehold, and the result is that the people in " Crescent " have got possession of the property. The properties have been mortgaged to loan companies. There is no mortgage on my place, and I have never asked the Government for a shilling. 218. Mr. MoGutchan.] You had the right to convert the 200 acres into the freehold ?—Yes. I had the money to acquire a freehold, but I invested it in a Crown leasehold. I took up 1,160 acres of leasehold land from the Crown. 219. Was the new area bush country or open country ?—Open country. 220. Mr. Johnston.'] Is it rough country ?—Not very rough. 221. How many sheep will it carry?— About seven or eight hundred, by feeding in the winter and growing turnips. 222. Have you any cattle?— No. 223. You make your living out of seven hundred sheep ? —I make my living in -many waysknocking over rabbits, and in one way and another. 224. You make your living out of the land?— Yes; but a man on the land has to pick up a pound in other ways if he is able to do so. 225. Mr. Paul.] You are perfectly satisfied with the lease in perpetuity ?—Perfectly satisfied. I would not part with it. I am- sixty-eight years of age, and it will be a home for me and for my children after me as long as they pay the rent. 226. The Chairman.] What is the rent?— With the concession the Government gave lately it is £16 9s. per year, or 2Jd. per acre. ' 227. Mr. Paul.] You do not want the option of the freehold?— No. If Mr. Seddon said to me " Here, Jack, you can have the freehold," I would not take it. 228. You think it would be against the interests of the settlers to have the option of the freehold ?—There is no option in it. If a man gets the freehold he gets a monkey on the land. 229. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think that if settlers had the option of the freehold a «ood many of them would mortgage their properties ?—There would be more chance of it. There are a good many people in my district who are watching properties until somebody comes alone and buys them. & 230. The Chairman.] You think if they had the option of the freehold it would put temptation in their way to borrow ?—I am certain of it. There is a great danger of it. 231. Mr. Anstey.} Do you think that to a man of small means the lease in perpetuity is safer ■to build a home on than to take up a freehold?— Yes, I think so at a low capital value. 232. Mr. Hall.] You think 999 years is long enough for you ?—Yes, quite long enough, and also for my children. I would like to make one or two suggestions: You will have observed there have been some losses made on sheep in the high country. Some pastoral tenants did not want compensation exactly, but they wanted a reduction in rent and long leases of about twenty-one years. In my opinion, that would be opposed to the best interests of the country to give these pastoral tenants leases of twenty-one years. My reason is this: Where I live we are bounded by six large stations, and I would suggest to the Commission that when those leases fall in they should be cut up into sections of 5,000 or 10,000 acres, as the Government may determine The runs should be made into smaller areas. Then, as to the valuation of land, I think that land-valuers should go on to every section and ascertain what each section produces, and not simply go into a publichouse or meet some one on the street and ask, " What does that man sell his land for." There are no two sections alike. There is another thing which has caused a good deal of dissatisfaction amongst the Crown tenants, and that is the city members. I read Hansard Sir Joseph Ward sends me a copy—and I take a great deal of interest in what is done in Parliament and like to see how the country is governed. I think that revaluation of existing leaseholds is wrong in principle. I think land legislation should be final, and if a man takes up land on lease and makes a mistake he ought to surrender. 233. Mr. McCardle.] But you would not object to the land being revalued if the rent were lowered ?—I think it is wrong in principle. I think it is fair when they increase the original capital value for taxation purposes the tenant should have some interest in it.
Obepuki, Friday, 24th February, 1905. James Menpes examined. f }■ Jhe Chairman.} What are you, Mr. Menpes?—l am a farmer, and have 150 acres of freehold and 140 acres under occupation license, and have been here in that position about twelve years. 2. What evidence do you wish to give to the Commission ?—I think the lease in perpetuity is the most suitable for these occupation licenses. Twenty-one years is useless, because in that time a man cannot make a good farm out of virgin bush. He spends the best part of his life on the land, and unless he has a very large pocket it is very hard for him to have his rent raised when he is less able to work the farm. I think the residential conditions are too strict. The majority of the holders of occupation licenses are unable to comply with them. Most of those persons had either residence-areas or small pieces of freehold on which their homes were built before it became necessary for them to take up an occupation license. I say "necessary" because the commonage was done away with, gold was getting scarce, and we had to live. Non-residence
J. MENPES.]
39
C—4.
could be made to improve so-much each year. In regard to the price of land, I think that heavy bush should not be more than 6d. per acre. It takes £2 to fell it, 15s. for grass, say £1 for fencing, clearing lines, sowing grass, &c., £4 for stumping, an extra 10s. on first ploughing, and another 10s. for loss through big trees—making £8 155., besides the miner's right. We should be entitled to compensation for all miners' rights, such as claims, races, &c., excepting existing ones, more especially where grass land is taken up, because the miner reaps the benefit of our labour when he cuts a race through a grass paddock instead of through a bush. Shafts should be filled in when abandoned. As regards the freehold, I think any one who has tried to make a living off a bush farm for any length of time is not likely to be able to buy it if he had the chance, and I would rather pay rent than interest on a mortgage. If the Government could afford to give us the land for nothing it might be right enough, but otherwise I think a perpetual ldase is as good as anything. In about eight years I lost five milkers (two two-year-olds), one foal, and had ten sheep driven into races by dogs. Noxious weeds are also a source of trouble to the bush farmer. 3. Mr. Johnston.'] How far is your farm from the township?— About a mile and a half. 4. What do you carry on with principally ?—Cattle, sheep, and horses. 5. How many acres does it take to run a cow for a year?—l could hardly tell that: perhaps a beast to the acre. 6. That is by feeding for how many months in the winter ? —Six months. 7. You are satisfied with the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 8. Mr. Paul.] Do the miners always construct their tail-races through the least valuable property ?—No ; they take them through the most suitable places for themselves. 9. And if they ran a tail-race through your property you would get no compensation ?— No. Some people say that, according to the Act, we are entitled to £1 per acre for the ground they take. 10. You think you should be compensated?— Yes, according to the improvements we have put on the land. The miner gains by it, but it costs just as much to clear the bush off the land. 11. It would cost less through your improved land than through the bush?— Yes. 12. Mr. McCardle.] What do you think you ought to receive as compensation for clearing ? —If the land was stumped I think we ought to be entitled to £8 15s. per acre. That is what it has actually cost us. 13. Mr. McCutchan.] What is the upset price of your land?—l do not know. We have to pay Is. an acre rent, and we get a ten-years lease. 14. If you got a perpetual lease you would expect to get it at a capital value of £1 per acre ? —Yes. 15. You estimate the cost of bringing the land into cultivation is £8 10s. or £8 15s. an acre ? —Yes. 16. Would not you prefer the right-of-purchase tenure by paying 1 per cent, extra, supposing there was an alteration in the law and you could get the right of purchase ?—I would be quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity. 17. Mr. Anstey.] Is there much of your land held under occupation license already cleared ? —Yes, there is a good bit. At least 140 acres; and there is about 70 acres of it ploughed, and the rest is in grass, with the bush cleared off it all. 18. At the present moment you have land which has cost you £7 an acre for which you have no title ?—Yes. 19. Have you the option of renewal at the end of the twenty-one years?—l believe there was the option of renewal, but the rent was raised and the land was valued according to the value at the end of the lease. 20. Were you entitled to compensation for improvements ?—I could not say. A man had either to give up his place or pay a higher rent. 21. You spoke of the residential conditions being too strict. I presume you have erected a house. What are the residential conditions you object to on the other land ?—I had my home on the freehold before I took up the other land. I had to clear a track in order to get a horse into it, and I do not think it would be fair to compel me to shift my home off that land. 22. You wish the two places to be treated as one home?— Yes. If a man takes up 100 acres I would suggest that you should make him spend so-much a year on it, so that he should not treat it as a mere speculation. If I were compelled to live on the other part of the property I would have to give it up. 23. Is 10s. the cost of the first ploughing ?—The extra cost. I might state that I put my place up for sale at one time. There was about two hundred and fifty pound's worth of buildings on it. I put the whole lot up; and there were 16 acres of freehold and about 20 acres of good crops, and I was offered £500 for the lot. 24. The Chairman.] What value did you put on the 15 acres with the house ?—£4oo ; and I was offered about £100 for my interest in the rest. 25. How much of it had you cleared and stumped and in grass?—lt was all in grass. The 140 acres was all fenced and about 50 acres was ploughed. 26. Then, it is quite evident in the district that the occupation license is not a very good investment ?—That is so. 27. The whole thing is subordinated to the mining interests?— Yes. 28. When you took up the land you knew that ?•—Yes. 28a. You have made a home, you desire to remain there, and you wish to change your occupation license for a lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 29. You w T ould be always subject to the mining ?—Yes. 30. It is just a question whether the Government would subordinate mining interest", more than they have and give you a better tenure ?—I do not know.
C.—4
40
r J. MENPES.
31. You represent the agricultural side, and we will also hear the mining side represented?— Yes. 32. Mr. Matheson.] What acreage was taken for roads through your property ?—I should say about 6 acres. 33. Is that fenced off?— Part of it. 34. Did you fence off at your own expense ?—Yes. 35. Do you know that according to the Act there was no privilege to take the roads without compensation?—l understand that is so. William Bkown examined. 36. The Chairman.'] What is your occupation, Mr. Brown?—l am a farmer, and have an occupation license and hold an area of 100 acres. I agree with every word that Mr. Menpes has said. Under the lease in perpetuity the privileges of the miner would be just the same as they are now, and the lease in perpetuity would suit my ease. I have been an agitator for this change taking place for the last five or six years—that is, on the goldfields. I would certainly prefer the freehold, but I know that on goldfields that is impracticable. We need gold as well as we need wheat, clover, or anything else. 37. Is valuable agricultural land still being swept away, as was the case some years ago ?— Yes. 38. Is it rich land?— Some of the men are doing well, whilst others are just making a living. 39. Would there be any way of dealing with this land for mining other than by sluicing?— Driving would be much preferable as regards the saving of the land. 40 Mr. McCardle.\ You said that outside the goldfields you would prefer the freehold ?—Yes. 41. Do you refer to the lease with the right of purchase?— Yes. 42. Mr. McCutchan.] You prefer the lease-in-perpetuity tenure under present conditions ?— I think that would suit us. 43. Would you be satisfied with that tenure if it were subject to revaluation, say, every twentyone years ?—I have battled along for over forty years in this colony and I think there should be fixity of rent. 44. The Chairman.] You believe in the tenure as it exists now by law ? —Yes. 45. In the 999-years lease and the price fixed to remain practically the same for ever ?—Yes. I would like to leave the property to any one remaining behind me. 46. Mr. Anstey.] Regarding races being cut through the land, there is one case, to my knowledge, where an extra ss. would have taken a head-race along a boundary and an open fence, and instead of doing that the mining-people cut about a chain and a half through the paddock ?—I would like the digger to notify his intention to the lessee, and let them come to an amicable arrangement if possible; and if there was any obstacle, and they could not agree, then let the Commissioner of Crown Lands decide, and let his decision be final. 47. I suppose the race has to follow the levels?— Yes. 48. Mr. Forbes.] You have never received any compensation for these races?— No. 49. You have had them cut through your property ?—There are two through my property, and they were taken through the maiden bush almost. 50. Why do you prefer the freehold to the lease in perpetuity ?—I think it gives a man a feeling that he has a greater stake in the country. 51. Do you not think that in the case of the freehold there is a possibility of a man selling out to his neighbour? Do you think that the freehold would assist in settling people on the land better than the lease in perpetuity ?—Until six months ago it was my firm conviction that the lease in perpetuity was far the best, but a difficulty that I see is in regard to the cropping regulations. We will have an army of Government officials superintending a man's farming operations. Under the freehold the farmer is free from that, and therefore he has greater heart to look after the land. 52. Mr. Matheson.} You think, practically, that the freeholder will make a better citizen ?— Undoubtedly he will. William Watson examined. 53. The Chairman.'] What are you, Mr. Watson?—l am a miner, and have been engaged in mining at Pahi for about five years. I am the holder of a temporary grazing license, the area of the land being something over 200 acres. It is an old sawmill-area. I took it up about ten years ago, and have spent about £200 on it. I built a three-roomed house on it, and, in addition, I built the place on a small adjoining section held under lease in perpetuity. My wife holds that section. I have spent £400 on that. Of course, it is too small by itself. At the time I took up the land the New Zealand Pine Company held a prior right to the timber. I thought the bush would be cut off within a reasonable time, but it has just been completed now. In taking off the bush they have not respected my fences, and they have dug wells to get water for hauling-engines, and through that I have lost a lot of cattle. Before I can go on further I will have to refence. If I could get the lease-in-perpetuity tenure I would be able to do so, but I cannot under the present conditions. 54. Is mining at all active where you are ?—No ; there are only five or six parties. 55. Are there any races through your property?—No ; it is State forest land. 56. It would be purely a matter for the Minister of Lands to decide whether this land should be dealt with under the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes ; but I would prefer a freehold if I could get it. 57. I see no difficulty why you should not get a lease in perpetuity, which is a very good title ? —Yes. 58. Of course, it would be subject to the goldfields regulations?— Yes. 59. Mr. Johnston.] Are you sluicing?—No; driving. 60. Do you think, in respect to sluicing, that the end justifies the means ? —Where there is only a living-wage I do not think the ground should be sluiced.
C—4.
W. WATSON.]
41
61. Generally speaking, do you think the return of gold justifies the amount of land that is wasted?—l could not answer that with regard to Orepuki. 62. Mr. McLennan.] What is your objection to the lease in perpetuity ?—I think the people take a better interest in the land when they have the freehold and look upon it as their own. 63. You would think a man would take a great interest if he had a 999-years lease ?—I think the coming generation will be better able to pay than those who are on the land at present. 64. Do you not think there is tendency to borrow money, and then possibly lose the property altogether ?—Yes, there may be; but Ido not think that people who want to permanently settle on the land will be inclined to mortgage it. 65. Mr. Forbes.] You think it is better to have a lease in perpetuity at 4 per cent, than occupation with right of purchase at 5 per cent. ?—Yes ; but a great number of people cannot afford to buy out these places even at 4 per cent. 66. Do you think a man is far more independent on a lease-in-perpetuity section on which he has enough to pay the rent than with a freehold with a big mortgage on it ?—He is foolish to get a big mortgage on it. 67. Possibly you know that a great number of freeholds are mortgaged up to the hilt, and the idea of the Government in bringing in the lease in perpetuity was to put men on the land in an independent position ?—I do not approve of people mortgaging their land. 68. Do you not think it is better, in the interests of settlement, to have the lease in perpetuity than to allow the freehold to be sold and the settler to go back to the Crown again ?—I think he should have the option. It has its drawbacks, certainly ; but personally I would like the option of the freehold. 69. Mr. McCardle.] The of your improvements for stumping and ploughing was from £8 to £10 ?—Yes. 70. Then, your interest would be between £8 and £10, and the Government interest would be about £1 ? —Yes. William Brownridge examined. 71. The Chairman.'] What are you, Mr. Brownridge?—l have 100 acres under occupation license, and have had it for twelve years. 72. Have you improved it much ? —Yes, and lam living on it now. I have spent over £600 on the section. The land is all cleared except sor 6 acres, and it is in grass ; 20 acres have been stumped. I wish to get the tenure altered to the lease in perpetuity, so as to be able to hold more land and to get a better tenure. One hundred acres is not enough for a man to make a living on. My place is about three miles and a half from Orepuki, near the Waiau Boad. 73. You have heard the evidence given by the other witnesses?'—Yes; and I agree with Mr. Menpes's statements. 74. Mr. Johnston.] You wish to acquire more land ? —Yes ; and therefore desire the lease in perpetuity. 75. Mr. McCardle.] You do not wish the freehold ?—I would like the freehold if there was any chance of getting it, but I am satisfied with the lease in perpetuity. 76. What stock do you carry on your place ?—Sixty or seventy beasts. 77. Mr. McCutchan.] When you say a 999-years lease you mean that the rent continues without alteration ?—Yes ; no revaluation. 78. Supposing an Act was passed enabling you to get the freehold, would you be agreeable to it being revalued and put up to auction, the improvements being conserved to yourself?— Yes. 79. Mr. Anstey.] You say you want to take up more land :is there any Crown land convenient to your holding? —I could buy land from a neighbour. No one can make a living off 100 acres. Carl Otto Beichel examined. 80. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a gold-miner, and have been one practically all my lifetime in this district. 81. Are you sluicing?— Yes. 82. How much land have you allotted to you for sluicing ?—Myself and my partner have an acre each. 83. You have a water-race ?—I have half a share in a water-race. I may say that the miners were here long before the farmers. The water-right that I possess was granted about thirtyeight years ago, and the race has been in constant use ever since. 84. Does the race traverse some properties?—No; it does not come down to the land that has been taken up. It does not run through a single dairy farm or residence-area. It is good agricultural land, all the same; but it has been worked through by the sawmills. 85. What is the depth of the sluicing?—lt varies from a few feet upwards, and is at present 12 ft. or 15 ft. 86. You would not drive there, I suppose ?—Some of the land on the flat is just as well adapted to driving as sluicing, but ours is not. 87. Mr. Johnston.] Do you think the amount of gold that has been got justifies the loss of the land ? —lt depends on the value of the land. 88. The evidence shows that the land is worth from £6 to £8 an acre : do you get more than that out of the land on the capital value?— Yes, a long way more than that. 89. Yes, but on the capital value taken over a number of years ?—I could not say that. 90. Boughly speaking, a miner would get £100 for every acre of land that is sluiced ? —I should say far more. 91. How long does it take to sluice an acre ?—lt depends on the character of the country. 92. Is there any of the land that is being washed away that could have been driven ?—I should say that most of it could be driven.
6—C. 4.
TC. O. EEICHEL
a—4.
42
93. Sluicing is much cheaper than driving?— Yes. There is a certain amount of expense in timber for driving. 94. Mr. Paul.] Do the miners study the settlers much in taking their races through the land?—lf the settler says nothing the digger just puts his race through. As a rule, he does not study the man who holds an occupation license: he studies his own convenience, just as the farmer does. 95. Mr. Anstey.] What becomes of the debris from these sluice-channels ?• —In the early days, when there was no main channel and the country was swampy, it was deposited all over the country. Then a main channel was constructed and the debris goes right through to the sea. Some gold travels with it, and the sea brings it back to the beach again. There are some good claims on the beach. 96. But the soil goes to the sea ? —Yes. 97. Mr. Forbes.] Looking at it from a miner's point of view, have you anything to say in regard to granting the lease in perpetuity to people holding occupation licenses ?—When the dairy farms were first granted it was understood that the miners had a right to cut races through them, but as time went on the tenure was made a bit stronger. Previously there was no compensation for dairy farms at all. Now, I understand, they are entitled to compensation to the extent of £1 per acre. Well, for a working-miner £1 per acre is not much, but if a miner prospecting for gold had to pay £1 every time he made a cut in the land it would be a very serious matter. Sometimes the miner shifts about a lot prospecting with water and putting a cut in here and a bit of a cut in somewhere else. It would be a serious matter if he had to pay £1 for every cut. Otherwise £1 would not be much. Ido not think the majority of miners round about here would like the title of the farmer to be made any stronger. The miners of Orepuki do not want to do anything to injure the farmers' rights, but they would not like anything done to make mining privileges lower in price. Water-races have cost hundreds of pounds, and the persons who bought them naturally have a right to expect that the goldfields will be kept open. If the title of the land is made stronger the value of the water-rights will be depreciated. 97a. But, in regard to the lease in perpetuity on the goldfields subject to compensation for water-races, do you think that the farmers' position will morally be considered stronger than it is now ?—The miners are afraid that lease in perpetuity would make the title stronger. 98. Mr. Matheson.] Suppose a farmer was granted a lease in perpetuity and so was made more satisfied, and that the mining rights remained exactly the same, do you see that any harm is likely to happen to the miners ?—No, provided that they can enter upon lease in perpetuity as on dairy farms. 99. The miners would have exactly the same rights, I believe, under the lease in perpetuity ?— Then the miners could not and would not complain if the position was just the same. 100. And if under the lease in perpetuity the rights were the same the miners would have no objection ?—None at all. Oswald Keichel examined. 101. The Chairman.] What is your occupation?—l am a miner residing at Orepuki. 102. Have you been as long here as your brother?— Yes. I do not know if any of the Commissioners has had much experience of mining. I want to talk about the constitution of the Land Boards. As at present constituted they consist of farmers. Well, a large quantity of the land that they have to administer consists of goldfields, and I think there should be some one on the Land Boards acquainted with goldfields and their workings. As it happens at present, we have sawmill-areas, mineral licenses, occupation licenses, and Goodness knows how many other licenses granted on the goldfields, and if there is no objection they are simply granted whether they are for the benefit of the district or not, because there is no man on the Board acquainted with mining. Mr. Hay stated that the occupation licenses had not been enforced here ; therefore they were a dead-letter. The consequence of them not being enforced has been that the miner and the occupation-license holder have worked very well together. If the conditions had been enforced there would have been far more squabbles between the two. Perhaps a little bit of description will not be out of place. The actual workings of the goldfields within a radius of a mile from here would cover about a mile, so that you see it is a very small matter. 103. What is the acreage, roughly speaking? —I suppose under 1,000 acres. These goldfields have been worked for the past thirty-nine and forty years, and are supporting a population of three or four hundred souls. Roughly speaking, there are a hundred miners-—sometimes more, sometimes less. Looking at the matter from a broad point of view, mining is the chief means of employment in this part of the district. 104. How many miners are at work now? —About a hundred. In the first place, occupation licenses were granted without compensation. Later on they were amended to provide for compensation; and this was the point I wish to emphasize : If these claims for compensation had been enforced, or if the provisions of the occupation licenses had been enforced, on every occasion when a miner infringed that occupation license there would have been trouble. The great majority of the occupation-license holders are old miners, and they know what it is to be fossicking for a bit of gold, and therefore they offer no hindrance to a man who is prospecting or cutting a bit of a race. The occupation licenses in Orepuki range from 2 acres up to 200 acres, and many of them are being infringed upon by the miners, I may say, every month. The Act simply states that if a miner wants to enter upon an occupation license he must apply to the Warden to cut a piece of a race. In the ordinary course of working a miner cuts a piece of a race pretty well every week, and if he had to apply to the Warden every time he wished to cut a piece of a race entailing perhaps two hours' work he would have to wait a fortnight or so. The miner has no objection to occupation licenses being granted. He has not the slightest objection to any increase in their size, because all the available land about the township that is connected with mining has been
43
C—4.
0. REICHEL.
taken up. The miners are not very likely to trouble about the bush lands further back, and if the occupation-license holders wanted 200 or 300 acres the miners would not object to it. 105. And I presume that they would not object to them getting the lease in perpetuity ?—No, provided the lease in perpetuity did not go any further than the occupation licenses as at present carried out, but not as at present laid down. As at present laid down it would be a hindrance to mining. In regard to occupation licenses, I think the rent is far too heavy for bush lands. If you are going to grant occupation licenses giving full power to the miners the smaller the rent you put on the land the better. 106. One gentleman said he paid Is. per annum : what do you think would be reasonable ?— 2s. for cleared land and Is. for bush. But after ten years, when the licenses fall in, the rent is increased to 3s. and 4s. an acre, but the holders have no better privileges. I think 6d. per acre would be plenty. 107. Do you mean for all time ?—Yes; because if the dairy-farmer clears the land and keeps the weeds down, well, he should get it for nothing. In regard to the question as to whether this land would not be more valuable as an asset to the State than to be sluiced away for gold, I would like to say that two miners will not sluice away an acre in a year, and they will have to get at least £3 or £4 a week to pay expenses or they will not touch it, or if they do touch it they will go to the bad. So from the 1,000 acres which at the outside will be sluiced away at Orepuki we have been exporting about £6,000 a year for the last forty years. That would provide £240 an acre on an average. Of course, some land will give several thousand pounds per acre. These are the main points from the miners' point of view. I hold a residence-area here, and as for the argument that if it were freehold I would do more with it, that is all " buncombe." I go on improving that residence-area tt> the best of my ability. If I could make it a freehold, and was in a position to do so, I certainly would. We would all desire to do so, whether we are for the leasehold or for the freehold. 108. Personally, you would like to be a freeholder?— Yes. Everybody is of that opinion, although it might not be best for the country. lam a leaseholder for the country. 109. You are a leaseholder for the country and a freeholder for yourself ? —lt is a question if you can buy the freehold. 110. Mr. Johnston.] You say that it would pay the country better to mine than it would to farm and save the land ?—Certainly in a small goldfield like this, where mining is supporting the majority of the people. 111. Is much sluicing done that could be done by driving?— The majority of the driving claims do not get all the gold. I know a lot that have been sluiced afterwards, and that means double expense. 112. Mr. Paul.} With reference to the constitution of the Land Boards, would you be in favour of giving them more discretion in the general administration of the land laws?— Not for goldfields when they are all farmers. 113. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards?—No, I am not, because I say goldfields are not represented, and they represent a large quantity of the lands of the colony. 114. What would you suggest as an improvement on the present nominated system?— The election of the Boards would be a matter of expense, of course ; but I really think those who appoint the Land Boards should take into consideration the quantity of land under their control and see that every interest is represented. 115. You are, however, favourably disposed towards the freehold ? —Not for the colony. 116. Mr. McCardle.] You would like a leasehold for everybody else, but you prefer the freehold for yourself?—lf I prefer the freehold I am like every one else, because if I have a bit of money naturally I want to invest it. 117. But land to the value of £1 is not much when you have spent £8 or £9 in improving it? —You always get the value for it; and, freehold or leasehold, you will never take it out of this world with you. . 118. Mr. McGutchan.] Is this district represented on the County Council ? —Yes. 119. Has the County Council by special order declared ragwort a noxious weed ?—They have. 120. Why is that special order not enforced?— They have all been given notice. Ido not happen to have any, but I know the owners of noxious weeds are sick of cutting them. You may see it about here on the county roads. 121. I see it being cut on the county roads, but not inside the paddocks?— Then, the Act is not being enforced. 122. Then, it comes to this: the ragwort is spreading all over the colony, and we cannot get seed from Southland because it is so prevalent here. Do you think it is any use for the Government to legislate upon this matter if the local body will not enforce the law, and if the local bodies do not the fault will lie with the settlers ? —The fault lies with the settlers, but when you come to think of it you can understand why the cutting of it at Orepuki is a dead-letter. So much of the land is not taken up that the ragwort flourishes on it and spreads its seeds all around. 123. Mr. Anstey.] Do you know of any complaints by the farmers of miners causing unnecessary damage in cutting their races through the land ?—No ; the miner, like any other man, always expects to get a return from the work he does. Very often he does not get any return; and, for myself, I may say I have opened up nine different races in a year, and if I had to take into consideration each time the amount of damage I have done in cutting I would have paid a pretty stiff figure. 124. Do you know if miners unnecessarily cut through the middle of a cleared paddock when they might just as well have followed the road or fence line?— No. There may have been some cases, but there has never been any row that I have heard about. 125. One witness said, to the contrary, that races were cut where it was quite unnecessary to cut them ?—Quite likely that witness is a farmer who has never mined. He might think that; but a miner who is looking for gold, and who knows mining country, knows better.
44
0. REICHEL.
C—4.
126. Mr. Matheson.] You feel it is very little use cutting ragwort because so much is left on Crown lands?— That is so. 127. Do you realise that under the law the Crown is responsible for clearing its land as well as the settlers ? —That is right. 128. In regard to Land Boards, in all gold districts you wish to see an experienced miner on the Board ?—Some one with a knowledge of mining. Patrick Mooney examined. 129. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a miner at the present time. 130. How long have you followed that occupation ?—I have been farming and gold-mining for the past thirty-seven years. 131. In this district? —Otago and here. I have been about twenty years in Orepuki. 132. I suppose you wish to address us principally on the mining question?— Well, it was more with an idea of giving my opinions in regard to the land question that I came. 133. Just tell us your views shortly? —I am in favour of small farms. I strongly object to large farms. lam in favour of the freehold. Every industrious man who wishes to make a home is entitled to own the freehold. Any man and his family will work better, and will be happier and more contented, when the home is their own and when it is freehold. All these titles and one thing and another that the Government talk about are like a piece of patched-up machinery — everything goes wrong when the main bolt is out. The main bolt of the whole land question is the freehold tenure. That is my way of thinking. 134. And small settlements? —Yes. I had a dairy farm in Orepuki, and a small portion of freehold. I combined gold-mining with a little farming—that is to say, my family were kept employed milking about six or eight cows. During this period I lived very happily, and I made some money as I went along. I left that place and went into a larger farm, and the ragwort and other weeds came on me and drove me out. I was alongside a party who had a large farm of between 1,000 and 2,000 acres. Nothing was done there to keep down the weed, and it overspread and drove me out. I object to large farms. Again, in my view, the Government holds too many reserves for this and that and the other thing. The Government, in my opinion, are as well entitled to clear their lands and keep down the ragwort as the settlers. If they want to get rid of the weed let them put all these reserves into the market, and people will soon take them up. All the available land alongside the railways and places like that ought to be taken up. I have heard the evidence that has been given in" regard to dairy farms, as we call them. These men are interested in mining or in some mining industry, and they have taken up these farms as well. They have spent a tremendous lot of capital and labour on them, and I consider they are entitled to the freehold of their land. They would be satisfied with a 999-years lease, or something that you could call reasonable, if they could afterwards make their home and get the freehold tenure. I consider a man who follows up a sawmill and the like of that, and takes up bush land, is perfectly entitled to the freehold tenure. There is a great scope of country between Biverton and here which ought to be opened up and given in 100-acre sections to every man who would settle on it at 10s. per acre. A man should be given ten or fifteen years in which to pay the money, and then he should receive a freehold title. If you want the country to become prosperous you must assist the poor man and give him a chance. 135. I understand the two main points you wish to emphasize are close settlement and the freehold ?—Yes. 136. If freehold tenure was in force in Orepuki, would it not be death to the miners ? —Not at all. The freehold is death to nothing. I have tried both. I had a leasehold, and I have a freehold. In this country the working-classes who have not much capital require sometimes to borrow. When I had a freehold property I could go into the bank, and I had no difficulty in getting the money for three or six months. If I wanted to buy stock when I had the freehold I could go to the auctioneer or stock agent, and I could get what I wanted for three or six months. When I had no security I had to go and beg from the Government. I have had money from the Government Advances to Settlers Office, but I will never have anything more to do with them. I had to waste too much time in getting the money. When I had the freehold I left my deeds in the bank, and the bank gave me what I wanted. 137. You are a miner, and also a farmer. Now, if the freehold was granted in this particular district, and if the land was taken up under the freehold tenure, it seems to me it would be death to the miners, because we have heard from previous witnesses that under the present tenure they can prospect and take races over the land, whereas if it was freehold the owner would not allow them to do so ?—My opinion of the question is this, although I may be wrong: In the first place, this goldfield has been going on for forty years, and has been keeping a large population according to the size of the country. I think it has kept as large a population as any other 2,000 acres in this Island. Forty years have gone, and I am beginning to think the gold has gone. All the easily got gold is gone. I think a man who goes and takes up 100 acres of bush, and clears it and puts it in grass, should receive proper compensation if in three or four years' time a miner comes along to prospect and dig. The miner is then in a position to see over the country and see where he can best take a race in, and he could do in a day on that cleared country what it would otherwise take him a month to accomplish. The man who has cleared the land and opened it up for the miner is perfectly entitled to compensation for any damage done by races, and so forth. A miner is not entitled to take advantage of the settler's labour. I also think that the Land Board ought to have more power in this district to deal with the reserves. I think there is a great deal too much referring to Wellington about every question. I have lived for the last thirty years in Southland, and I have travelled about, and I have always found the management of the land by the Land Board to be very good. I think they are most intelligent men, and that they know more
C—4.
P. MOONEY.j
45
about the land than they do in Wellington or any other place. I think the Land Board are quite capable of being intrusted with the whole management. 138. Mr. Johnston.'] Where were you farming? —At Waimatuku. 139. You said you brought up a family: had you any sons? —Yes. I have one a gold-miner, and two boys of sixteen and eighteen, who are working at the cheese-factory. 140. If you were not a man of capital, would you give them a leasehold ? —I would not take up leasehold land. That is what leaves me at the present time without land. I would have nothing to do with leasehold land. 141. If you were not able to buy land, what would you do with your boys?—l would try and buy 5 acres at a time. I would work according to my means. A man does not require such a great deal of land to make a living if he knows how to work it. I could make a living off 25 acres of land. 142. You heard a witness say it was impossible in this district to make a living off less than 100 acres? —A man could make a comfortable living off 100 acres. 143. You do not approve of the leasehold at any price ?—I do not. 144. Do you think the leasehold system has been the means of putting people on to the land? —I do not see how it could possibly encourage any man to go on the land. A man will try to get on the land at any price, but it is the duty of the Government to see that this man has a title to his land. 145. In other words, you would not give the working-man a show unless he had capital ?—I want to give the working-man a show. 146. Mr. Paul.] You believe very strongly in small holdings ? —Yes. 147. You realise that previous to the inception of this leasehold system it was very hard for a working-man to get a small holding?— Yes. In fact, I have spent six months at one time and about £100 in trying to get a bit of land, and could not get it. 148. That was before the present leasehold system? —I think it was about thirty-two years ago, when Mr. McNab's run was thrown open. Six of us came down on horseback from Queens--town and spent three weeks in Invercargill, and not a single one of us could get an acre of land, and I had to go back to gold-mining. 149. You must recognise that the Land for Settlements Act has been a good thing for the country, and has enabled poor men to get on the land?—lt is the best thing that ever happened. 150. And, of course, it is under the leasehold system? —Well, I do not approve of that. 151. Still, you recognise it is a proper policy for the Government to pursue—namely, to buy up estates and put the working-men on the land ?—Yes, by all means ; but let them pay the capital off in twelve or fifteen years and make it a freehold. 152. You hold that the regulations in connection with the Advances to Settlers Office are irksome ?—Yes. I came to the conclusion I would have nothing more to do with it. At the same time I am under the impression it is one of the finest things that has ever happened in the country, because it has had the effect of keeping down the rate of interest on money. 153. Then, the leasehold system with liberal advances to settlers would not be a bad tenure ?— I cannot see at all where the title makes any difference. The leasehold only keeps a man in a poorer position, and I think it is too late to make such a law nowadays. The greater part of the best land is freehold already, and I hold that the people who take up land now are encitled to the freehold as well as their neighbour. 154. Mr. McCardle.] In speaking of the freehold, have you any objection to a lease with the right of purchase ?—I approve very much of that. 155. And in speaking about small areas do you approve of some restrictions being passed by Parliament to prevent men building up large estates ? —I do, very strongly. 156. Mr. McGutchan.] I think you come from Ireland ?—Yes. 157. Were you a young man when you left Ireland? —I was already married. 158. Do you recollect anything of the condition of the tenantry then ?—Yes. 159. Have you studied the literature on the question lately in regard to the measures being introduced by the British Government?—l have heard they are getting very liberal laws. 160. You have heard that they are purchasing estates, and also compulsorily taking estates, as in this colony?— Yes. 161. But is it not with this difference : here we are purchasing to create a tenantry, and there they are purchasing to create landlords?—l cannot say. I have not studied the point. 162 You made a reference to borrowing, and you may have heard the statement from time to time that if a man gets the freehold he is apt to borrow money on it and so loose the freehold : do you think this colony would be as prosperous as it is to-day if the people of New Zealand were not a progressive people, who were always prepared to borrow up to their limit for reproductive works?—We could not have got along without it. 163. Mr. McLennan.] You say the Government have land between here and Riverton ? —Yes. 164. Is there much of it ?—I think, rough country about eighteen miles. 165. Is it anything of a fair class of land ?—I have heard men say they would like to get farms on it. 166. You think it is very desirable that land should be settled ?—Of course it is. 167. Do you not think 100 acres of that class of land is too little to enable a man to bring up a family?—lf the land has a light, ridgy soil I would give him 200 acres, but if it is good flat land a man can make a living on 100 acres. 168. A man has a right to '640 acres of first-class land under the Land for Settlements Act, and surely you would allow him the same privilege in regard to this class of land ?—On this class of land there is a difficulty in keeping down the ragwort, and if you give a man too much land he will not be able to manage it. I know that in the early days men speculated largely in land here, and the half of it is neglected. The Inspector does not see the back portions of this land, and so the ragwort spreads and causes mischief to the other settlers in the vicinity.
C.-4.
46
JH. IJIRST.
Henby Hiest examined. 169. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a farmer, and have resided here since 1865. 170. You have been a member of Parliament and Chairman of the County Council?— Yes. 171. Will you kindly give us your opinions on the land question ?—I have always held that a great departure was made when the two " E's " —Eeid's and Bolleston's—land laws were departed from. I think the acme of settlement is the perpetual-lease and deferred-payment system. I may call your attention to the fact that Mr. McKerrow and I travelled through this country with Mr. Rolleston, and in Eobertson's Gorge we turned back to see a large block of land. At that time I said that if that land was put under the deferred-payment system at a fair price it would be settled. Now when you go through there from Otautau you will see that it is all beautifully settled. It was all settled under the deferred-payment system, and the tenure is now freehold. 172. You think that is the better system? —Yes, the perpetual lease with the right of purchase and the deferred-payment system. It goes without saying that lam a freeholder. I believe in both these systems, subject, of course, to a period of residence and improvements. 173. Have you any remarks to make in regard to the constitution of Land Boards?—l have been nominated to the Land Board sometimes. I have no objection to the nominee system, except that the Government put some funny characters on at times. 174. Do you think Crown tenants are labouring under restrictions inimical to their well-being, and unnecessary in the interests of the State ? —I have heard others complain, but the Government do not interfere with me. 175. Have you anything to say in regard to the effect of climate and land-configuration on settlement?— Well, in Southland we have two systems. We have mining and agriculture. So far as my experience goes, I have never heard that the occupiers of land have been interfered with by mining. Ido not think the miners and settlers are antagonistic to each other. 176. In regard to the homestead system that was in vogue in Auckland to encourage people to take up the poor lands there, do you think that any part of Southland is so poor that no one would take it up even at 10s. per acre?—l do not know of any. 177. Would any of Stewart Island come under that description ?—Stewart Island is good land, but all covered with bush. 178. You have no personal experience of the ballot system ?—None whatever. Ido not think there can be any objection to it if it is properly carried out. 179. Do you think that the system of loading lands for road-making is a good one ? —lt is all right enough if they expend the money, and expend it wisely ; but the Government neither expend it wisely nor at all. The loading goes on for all time during the currency of the lease, which means in a lease in perpetuity for 999 years. Is that right ? 180. It is the law ?—lt is not right, all the same. The law is an ass. So far as the loading system is concerned, I think it would be better if the Crown did nothing in the way of opening up land until they had made the roads, or one main road, in the first instance. They would then know the cost exactly, instead of surveying a road and loading the rent, and then in many cases not making the road. I heard one member of the Commission speaking about ragwort, and I may say the Government themselves are the greatest delinquents in this part of the world. There are thousands of acres of Crown lands I could mention about Colac Bay and the Bound Hill where ragwort and Canadian thistle flourishes in abundance right up to the top of the hill. I say the Crown should be compelled by some means or another to clear Crown lands. 181. Is it practicable ?—We have to keep our own lands clear. 182. Do you approve of the Government system of advances to settlers?—l may say confidently I have known many persons who have made applications for an advance, and they have been refused for no reason that I could see. Ido not think the Advances to Settlers Office will advance money on leases in perpetuity. 183. I think they will up to a certain value of the improvements? —I know they have refused, and I know that no private lender will advance on lease in perpetuity. He will lend on the perpetual lease with the right of purchase. 184. Is there any tendency towards the aggregation of estates ?—lt is rather the reverse in Southland. 185. The people want to sell ?—Yes. I know several large estates that have been cut up lately. They have been all sold and occupied. In these cases under the present law these people have to expend an amount of money in roading before the land is sold. 186. And no doubt they put it on the price of the land ?—Very likely. 187. Mr. Johnston.] What area do you own?— Between 600 and 700 acres. 188. You are not a runholder?—No ; I had a lease of this place years ago before the miners came. 189. Do you not think that the lease in perpetuity has been a great factor in putting men with little or no capital on the land ?—That may be so; but I think people are induced owing to the long term to go on the land when they have no money, and, as I said before, it is totally impossible to get advances on a lease in perpetuity from auctioneers and stock agents. 190. Do you think it has been advantageous in the settlement of the land ?—I do not think any more so than the deferred-payment and perpetual-lease systems. 191. You think the deferred-payment system just as good?— Yes ; I am perfectly certain that if it were revived it would give a great impetus to settlement. 192. Can you give us any idea as to how this ragwort came to Southland ? —lt first appeared at Winton ; and the railway contractor in this district at Orakei got his chaff from Winton, and then the ragwort spread along the line. 193. Mr. McCutchan.] You are a member of the County Council ? —Yes. 194. Have you many " thirds " and " fourths " accruing in this district ?—Yes.
47
C—4.
H. HIBST.]
195. It has been proposed to capitalise the " thirds " and spend them on the roads: do you not think it would be preferable to raise the money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, and use the " thirds" and " fourths "to pay interest and sinking fund as far as they will go ?—I think that would be a very good idea, because in many cases the amounts are so small that we simply allow them to accrue until it is worth while spending the money. Of course, we have a large sum now standing to our debit; but they are so small that it would hardly be worth while sending the engineer out to expend them. I think the control of that expenditure should be left to the local bodies and not to the Eoads Department. 196. Are you aware that a Public Works Act was carried last session under which the County Councils of the colony are receiving notice that unless they spend these " thirds " within six months the Department will resume control, and that the Counties will have no claim at all on the " thirds " ?—That is so. 197. Do you think that is wise legislation ?—There is a good deal of legislation that is not wise, and that is part of it. 198. Mr. Anstey."] Are there many instances of the kind you referred to where the Grown has loaded lands for roads and has not expended the money ?—I know of two. What I meant to say was this : that a long period has elapsed before the money was spent, though in the meantime the settlers were paying the rents. 199. You do not actually mean to say the Government never expended the money ?—No. 200. You spoke about the Crown being compelled to clear its land of noxious weeds ? —Yes. 201. If the Crown had to do that the general taxpayers would have to pay the cost ? —Yes. 202. In other words, I, who live in Canterbury, would be asked to help to clear the ragwort in Southland? —I suppose you-have ragwort and Canadian thistle in Canterbury. I have seen plenty of it there. 203. If noxious weeds flourish in Southland, do you not think it would be much fairer to ask the local bodies to undertake the work rather than the general taxpayers ? —We had control until the Government took it out of our hands. Now it is under the Stock Department. They do not seem to take any action. 204. You think the land ought to be replaced under the local bodies ?—I think it would be effective. 205. Mr. Matheson.] Where the Crown load a block of land with, say, £1,000 for roading, do you think the local bodies would expend that amount more economically than the Eoads Department? —I think so. We have not quite so many officers. 206. Do you think that on all Land Boards dealing with mining there ought to be appointed one man with mining experience? —I think it is a pure matter of sentiment with the miner. There has been very little collision between the Land Board and the miners since I have been here. Henry McQuillan examined. 207. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer with 500 acres of land which was taken up under perpetual lease, and which has been converted into a freehold. Forty years ago I took up 240 acres, and subsequently another 257 acres, both of them bush farms. I have 300 acres cleared and in grass and crop. Some witnesses before the Commission have stated that the lease in perpetuity has been the means of putting a large number of people on the land, because, they said, it was so simple to get. My opinion is quite the reverse. I think the perpetual lease has been the means of putting a large number of people on the land—poor people. I may say that lam in favour of the freehold. In my opinion, and I have travelled a good deal, the ambition of most people is to get a piece of land which they can convert into a freehold—even if that piece of land be not much larger than a kail-yard, so as to be able to say, " That is my own." In regard to the ragwort, I was brought up on a farm in Scotland, and have done everything on a farm between herding cows and finishing the top of a stack. There was some ragwort in some parts of the district I came from, but it existed mostly in places where there had been floods from rivers, and in such places it was a great pest. I may say in regard to this district that the first appearance I saw of ragwort was at Massey's Siding, and I advised that steps should be taken to eradicate it, but my advice was not taken. It then spread all over Wallacetown, and it was conveyed by the droppings of horses from the chaff they had eaten. The Government declared ragwort to be a noxious weed, but they threw the onus of dealing with it on the County Council. I explained to the farmers what the result would be. I approached the County Council on the subject, and a resolution was adopted which was subsequently rescinded. Ultimately the County Council adopted the Second Schedule, and the consequence has been that we now have ragwort throughout the district. However, we have an intelligent Inspector, and I suppose ragwort will eventually be got rid of. 208. Mr. Johnston.] Can you recommend any way of getting rid of it except by cutting it or by pulling it out?—lf you put salt on it that will kill it. If a man has only a few weeds in a paddock I would recommend that he should not allow them to flower, but should put his heel on the tracks and salt them. 209. You are perfectly satisfied that it was the chaff at the siding at Wallacetown which led to the spread of the weed throughout this district?— Yes, through the chaff and the droppings of horses. 210. You have 500 acres, and 300 acres cleared?— Yes. 211. What would you take for it ? —£s an acre. 212. What did you pay for it?—lss. or 12s. 6d. an acre. 213. You strongly approve of the freehold rather than the lease with the right to purchase. Supposing a poor man could not afford to go in for a freehold farm, do you think he should go in for a perpetual lease ?—Certainly I think he should. I was a poor man when I went on the land, and I am not a rich man yet.
a—4.
48
[H. MCQUILLAN.
214. For a working-man going in for a farm would you approve of the leasehold ? —Yes ; but if it is a perpetual lease and he makes improvements he can borrow on the improvements, but if he takes up land under the lease in perpetuity he can borrow only a small amount, and that with very great difficulty. 215. Is your land within the mining-area?— Yes. That is a subject upon which I would like to speak. Under the Richardson Act, Block 15 was taken up under perpetual lease. There were no restrictions as to the land being in a goldfield-area when it was taken up. After some settlers had been a year or two on the land and wanted to purchase, they were told that the land was within the goldfields area. They made an application to purchase. The Land Board granted it, but it was left to the Warden to say whether he would grant it or not. I think that the Government broke faith with the settlers on Block 15 in putting any restrictions on it. Seeing that the Government had broken faith with the perpetual-lease settlers, what security is there for others when we see a section of the people advocating a Fair Bent Bill and a revaluation ? Some of the men who hold land under this tenure will have a rude awakening. 216. What protest did you make ?—I protested; but I could see that if I put in very much protest the Warden would have objected to my getting the freehold at all. I appeal to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, who is present, if I am not speaking the truth. I thank him for backing me up, otherwise I do not believe I would have got my title at all. 217. What is your opinion about the mining?—l am not going to say very much about it. The miners have been here for the past forty years, and the families of the miners and the farmers are so r mixed up that we all get along happily together. 218. Is it right that the good land should be destroyed ? —When I first came into this district I looked around and said, "Future generations will curse this generation for washing that land into the sea but after you are married and have relatives amongst the miners you to some extent naturally change your opinion. 219. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the lease in perpetuity has been a good and successful thing for the colony?— Not so good as the perpetual lease. I think that instead of being an advantage to settlement it is retarding it. 220. Has it promoted settlement ?—No. 221. Has it put numbers of people on the land ?—No. 222. How many men have been placed on the land under the lease in perpetuity ?—Numbers have been placed on the land under the perpetual lease and occupation with right of purchase. 223. I suppose you know that over six thousand people hold land under the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes, and 75 per cent, of those people are to-day trying to get their lease converted into freehold. 224. Which do you think would be the best to settle the poor man on the land ?—The perpetual lease. There is nothing better than the perpetual lease with the right of purchase. 225. Mr. McCardle.] You think that is the only real chance the working-man has to get on the land?— Yes. 2'26. Mr. McLennan.'] I think you belong to the Farmers' Union from what you said?—Yesrj^227. I presume you are representing that body in giving evidence ?—No. Some of them thought the thing was more a farce than anything else, but I decided individually to come and give evidence. 227 a. With respect to what has been said as to the difficulty in getting money, I may say that I am a tenant under the lease in perpetuity, and I have no trouble in borrowing money —in fact, we get too much of it ? —You may be a capitalist. 228. No ; I am simply a working-man, and I have never heard of any one being refused money? —If you are a working-man under the lease in perpetuity my advice to you is to go away home and get the freehold. There is another thing I may mention with regard to the lease in perpetuity, especially in the case of bush land. A man takes up land under that tenure, and after a time he finds he is not able to deal with it, and he says " It is better for me to leave the land in the hands of the Government," and that is perhaps after he has taken the cream out of it. 229. Mr. Anstey.] What is the difference between that and the perpetual lease ? —There is not much difference if the thing is not bought out, but if a man has a chance of buying it out he will work night and day to keep the place pure of weeds. 230. You told us that there was a breach of faith on the part of the Government in regard to some restrictions which they sought to impose on Block XV., and you said that when they broke faith with these settlers they were just as likely to break faith with the settlers under the lease in perpetuity. You are aware that there is a graduated tax, and also that there is plenty of time to put on extra taxation : would it not be just as likely that something more might be done in this direction as affecting the freeholder ? —I do not think so, because they would be able to resist it by combination. 231. And the leaseholders could not?—No, because the land belongs to the Government, and leaseholders would be in a minority. 232. Mr. Matheson.] You have stated that it is not so difficult to get an advance under one system, but that if you wanted to borrow money under the lease in perpetuity it is difficult to get an advance ?—That is my experience. 233. Does it not strike you as strange that in other parts of the colony people speak of getting it very easily ?—lt seems very strange; but it is simply this: that if in Southland you hold a section under the lease in perpetuity and you went to Invercargill to try and raise a mortgage, the boots might be worn'off your feet before you could get it. Hugh Erskine examined. 234. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a settler at the Waiau, and hold 630 acres under the freehold tenure. I have been there eighteen or nineteen years. It was all bush land when I took it up. It is not stumped yet, but it is under grass. There is good access
H. EESKINE.]
49
C—4.
to it. I took my land under the perpetual lease, and I have purchased the land, and have got on well so far. I believe in the freehold. 235. Have you any neighbours on a different tenure than your own ?—Yes ; there is a State settlement called Papatotara. It is an improved-farm settlement. Most of the settlers had the right of purchase. 236. Mr. Johnston.'] You have 630 acres ?—Yes. 237. Is it freehold?— Yes, I made it freehold. 238. What was the capital value ? —I paid 15s. an acre for it. 239. You have it all in grass ?—Yes. 240. What stock will it carry ?—I have six hundred head of cattle, a thousand sheep, and twenty horses, and I think it would carry a lot more. There is plenty of grass. 241. You approve of the freehold ?—Yes. 242. Is the settlement you refer to a success ?—No ; the holdings are too small, and it is out of the way. The settlers have to bring their milk nearly twenty miles to a factory, and there are not sufficient settlers to enable them to put up a factory of their own. 243. Is there sufficient land around to enable the settlers to put up a factory of their own ? — Yes, if it were cut up. 244. Mr. McCardle.] What did it cost to put up a house and grass and improve the land ?— I could not say. 245. What do you consider the value of the farm now ?—I reckon it to be worth £5 or £6 an acre now. 246. Mr. Matheson.] There has been good totara there ?—Yes. 247. Could that be made us» of by sawing it ? —We have none now. 247 a. Has it been destroyed?—No; but it has been made use of by the Telegraph Department for poles, and by the Eailway Department for sleepers. I would like to state also that the Government have set aside a block of land there for the Natives. People in the district would like to take up some of that land with the right of purchase if the Government would set aside a sum equal to the value of the land and give the Natives the interest. With reference to ragwort, I never had any difficulty with it. In the part of the country I came from we thought the land was no good unless it would carry ragwort. Where lam at present we have a good deal of ragwort, and I have lost no stock owing to it. Sheep do well on it. It is a very harmless plant, and I think it is one of the most harmless of the plants that have come into the country. 248. Mr. Johnston.'] Where do you come from ? —Prom County Down. 249. They grow ragwort there ?—There is any amount of ragwort there. 250. Mr. McGutchan.] If the ground was thoroughly occupied by ragwort what would be the position ? —Sheep would eat it. 551. Have you experienced that ? —Yes. I have known sheep to leave the grass and eat the ragwort. 252. There is no doubt that ragwort in small quantities will not hurt much, but do you not think, as a practical man, that a whole diet of ragwort would be injurious ?—Up at Titua there was some ground wholly covered with it, and there is none of it there to-day. 253. Mr. Anstey.] In the case of land there being thick with ragwort and sheep being placed upon it would it increase or decrease?—-Decrease. The sheep would do well on it. 254. Supposing there were cattle on it ?—Cattle will not touch it. 254 a. If the land is stocked wholly of sheep it will decrease ?—Yes. 255. But if it is stocked with cattle it will increase ? —Yes. 256. Mr. Matheson.] Has the noxious-weeds Inspector troubled you about the ragwort?— No; he has had a look at it. 257. Has he not told you that he wants you to take more active steps against it?—He said, " You have a little bit of yellow weed here," and I said, " Yes," and he said, " What are you doing with it," and I said, "I had seven hundred cutters," and he said, "People?" and I replied, " Sheep," and he went away, and I do not know whether he is going to do any more about it. Thomas George Peaece examined. 258. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a sawmiller by trade, but at present I am a farmer living at Otahu and at Waikapotu. I have 1,100 acres at Otahu and about 100 acres at Waikapotu. The 1,100 acres is under lease in perpetuity, and the 100 acres is under lease in perpetuity and partly under perpetual lease. I have been here about twenty-five years. Mr. McQuillan said the ragwort came from Wallacetown. That is not so, because when I came down here the place I took up was smothered with it at Waikapotu. I was then told that it was brought down by horses from Winton. I have reared and bred cattle during the last eighteen years, and, like Mr. Erskine, I have not lost a head of cattle from it. lam not going to say it is a blessing, but I have not lost any cattle from it, nor has it tainted the milk. The fault is that people overstock. I have never overstocked my place. As to lease in perpetuity, Ido not think it is a good system. With respect to borrowing money, I may say that I put in an application in respect of Otahu, on which I have improvements to the value of nearly £800, and I asked for £200. It was refused, and no reason was given. 259. Did the valuer of the Department value it?—He looked at the place. As to breach of faith in connection with perpetual lease, I may say that I took up the lease at Waikapotu under that system, and I applied some five years ago to purchase the land, and I received a memo, from the Southland Land Board to the effect that the land could not be purchased. I applied for the freehold within the time prescribed by the Act, and the answer I got was that there was no provision to issue titles to these areas. As to the village-homestead system, I think the area is far too small. I took up the land simply because I had a family, and I was sawmilling, and I wanted a place to put my family on, and in order that the children might go to school. I was restricted to
7—C. 4.
a—4.
50
[t. g. peakce
50 acres in the block. That was not sufficient for me to make a home on. That was the decision of the Land Board. With respect to the Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, that is very good as far as it goes, but leads to speculation. I know a number of people who have taken up land under that Act—and I would do it myself now—who are simply holding bush land until a mill comes into it. There is no rent to pay, and you are not compelled to make any improvements on it for three or four years, and there are no rates and taxes. Here are we settlers trying to make a living, and yet here are these men holding land for speculative purposes and waiting for sawmillers to come up and then they will dispose of it. 260. Mr. Johnston.] Do you not think ragwort depreciates the value of the land?—No, not if you have sheep on it. My experience is this: that, when you cut it, the next year it comes up worse than ever. I showed the Inspector half an acre that I had cut, and you could not stick a walkingstick between the plants. It spreads from the root. As to killing it with salt, as has been stated, I think you can take that statement with a grain of salt. 261. Do you consider it is advisable that there should be a change in the constitution of the Land Boards?—l think the Crown tenants might be more represented than they are at present. As far as the Southland Land Board is concerned, I must say this: that they act fairly to any Crown tenants. 262. Would you have them elected by the Crown tenants or nominated ?—I think, nominated, the same as at present. I view Land Boards as a kind of jury sitting to try a case, and I think that if the Crown tenants had the right to elect they would only elect Crown tenants. 263. And you think the Land Boards as constituted at the present time consist of fair and reasonable men ?—I think so. I think the village-homestead settlements should be enlarged. 264. Mr. McCardle.] A statement has been made that the new Act which allows a man to remain off swamp land for two years and bush land for four years may encourage speculation in timber, and so on. Are you aware that notices have been sent stating that a settler is not allowed to sell any of the timber on land that is leased so long as it is leased, and that the royalties have to go to the Government ? —I have seen nothing of that sort; there is no clause in my lease that prohibits it. 265. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you condemn the Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Act?— No. 266. But you think it might encourage speculation. Are you not aware that you are bound by the same improvement conditions under that lease as under a lease-in-perpetuity lease? —I have not seen any under it. 267. Mr. McLennan.] Have you a weed called yarr ?—There is plenty of it down here. 268. Do you think it is worse than other weeds ?—I have no experience of it. 269. Mr Anstey.] When you said that Crown tenants ought to be represented on the Land Board I suppose you meant that one member should be a Crown tenant ?—Yes. 270. If you think Crown tenants ought to be represented, what about miners ? —The miners, I think, are well secured by the various Mining Acts and the Warden, who has full control over all mining lands. 271. So you think they do not require special representation?—l do not think so. 272. Do you know of any difficulty that has arisen between the interests of the miners and the settlers?— No. 273. Do the miners unduly interfere with the settlers?—l do not think so. 274. Mr. Forbes.] You would like to get the freehold of your present lease-in-perpetuity section?— Yes. 275. Would you like to get it at its present value, or at the value when you took it up?—lt should be sold to me at the value when I took it up. Its value to-day is what I have made it. There may be places where there is what is called an " unearned increment," but there is nothing of that kind here. When I took the land up there was not a stick on it. I have put up a house and seven or eight miles of fencing, and I have ploughed the land, and so on, and I do not think it would be right that I should have to buy the freehold at the valuation that has resulted from my improvements. It would be only buying my labour back. Thomas Howard examined. 276. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a bush settler. 277. What is your tenure ?—Occupation with right of purchase. 278. How many acres do you hold ?—1,004, and I took it up in 1892. [The witness stated that he had come before the Commission to complain of the manner in which this land had been described by the surveyors on the plans. He had not visited his section before taking it up. He also complained that the land had been valued too high. The Chairman ruled that these were matters affecting the administration of the Lands Department, and did not come within the scope of the Commission.] Joseph Wilson examined. 279. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a farmer at the Waiau. 280. How many acres have you got ?—204 acres. 281. Under what tenure? —Freehold. 282. How long have you been there ?—-About thirteen years. [The witness stated that he had a complaint to make against the Land Board because they had forfeited a section which he took up under an occupation lease for non-residence, and three months afterwards they had given it to a neighbour of his, and that man had not resided on it from that day to the present time. Witness said he could not comply with the residence conditions because there was no road to the section. The Chairman ruled that this was a matter affecting the administration ox the Lands Department, and did not come within the scope of the Commission.]
J. Wilson.]
51
C— 4.
283. Mr. Anstey.] If there had been a road to the section would you have complied with the conditions ?—Yes. 284. Do you think it should be a condition before forfeiture that the road should reach the section?— Yes. 285. With regard to the constitution of Land Boards, do you think that if the Crown tenants were represented on the Boards, or were allowed to elect one member, that your cause of complaint would be removed ?— I think that would be a wise step. The settlers have no voice in the administration of the lands at all, and there is evidently no way of getting redress at present. I do not think there would be so much friction if the settlers were represented on the Boards. Burnard Horrell examined. 286. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ? —I am a farmer. 287. Where do you live ?—At Titua, with my brother. 288. How many acres do you hold ?—4OO acres. 289. Under what tenure ?—Freehold. 290. Have you been there long ?—A year and a half. 291. Did you purchase from the Government?—No, from the original holder. 293. What do you wish to bring before the Commission?—ln the first place, I am in favour of the freehold as the ultimate object. At the same time, I think there cannot be much doubt that the present Government land laws have produced a great deal of good. There has been a lot of successful settlement, but I hold that the present lease-in-perpetuity settlers should have the right to acquire the freehold. I do not think any system of putting people on the land will work properly unless the freehold is the ultimate end. The settlers have not the same heart to work or the same desire to make improvements as they would have if they knew that ultimately the land would be their own. Most of the gentlemen who have spoken on this subject favour the perpetual lease. That has been a good lease, but I think that the present lease with the right to purchase is just as good, only I do not think it is fair that the Government should penalise a man who wants to buy his land with an extra 1 per cent, interest. As a rule, it is the poor working-man that the Government say they want to put on the land, and it is these men who go in for the lease in perpetuity. They want to take up the land in the very cheapest way. People might say that 1 per cent, is not much, but it is a good deal. I think the lease in perpetuity would work well if the settlers had the right to purchase. That should be the ultimate aim. I think you will find as you travel round the country that the great majority of the lease-in-perpetuity holders are very anxious to secure this privilege, and I think they should get the right to purchase at a reasonable cost. Any increase in the value of the land has been put there by their own labours. We can easily understand when this colony was first opened up that the land was almost valueless, and any unearned increment has been the result of these men's labours, and they are entitled to it. It is ridiculous to think that any man coming from the Old Country should have his share of the unearned increment that has accrued before he arrived in the colony. In regard to revaluation, I think it is most unfair that when a man has taken up land and improved it, and by his own work increased the value of it, he should by-and-by have to pay an extra rent for having done so. I think the settler is entitled to every consideration. People in the cities cannot understand what it is to go into the back blocks and take up land. Some people are under the impression that it is a bed of roses, but in practical experience it means very hard work, and in most cases, for some years at least, it means that a man instead of making money is losing it. By-and-by, when the land is improved a bit, he makes a profit, and he is entitled to it. There is just the same increase in value in the cities as in the country, but we hear no complaint from the city. The people say they have a right to it. If a man is in a particular business and that business flourishes he is entitled to reap the benefit of it. I consider revaluation will keep tenants and the farming population in a state of poverty, because they will be always rated up to the limit, and in the event of bad years it will be a very hard business to get a rebate. When things go well we get an increase in the rate very easily. 294. There is no revaluation under the lease in perpetuity, and that is the main way of settling people on the land ?—Yes ; but we think that lease will be departed from. 295. We can just speak of things as they are now ?—At the same time, I give this as my fear : that the lease will be tampered with, and that revaluation is the ultimate object of those gentlemen who are trying to manage the land at present. 296. Mr. Johnston.] What did you pay for your land?—£4 15s. per acre. 297. What was the original cost of it ?—I think, 15s. or £1. 298. What improvements had been made ?—There was a house on it, and about 200 acres had been felled and grassed, and there was some fencing. 299. Do you think the man who sold to you got just the value of his improvements or anything more ?—He got a little more. There was an increase in the value of the land. 300. Then, there was an unearned increment ?—Yes, a slight one ; but I consider he was quite entitled to it. 301. Do you know the education leases under the Commissioners ?—I have heard of them. 302. Would you be in favour of letting those reserves with a purchasing clause?—l should say, Yes. It would be far better for the land and the tenants. 303. Why better for the land ? —A freeholder will work his farm better than a leaseholder, more especially if there is no risk of a revaluation coming over his head, because if a man farms his land well he can easily make it worth a bigger rent than he is probably paying ; whereas if revaluation is hanging over his head his inclination is to take everything out of the land that he can, no matter whether he ruins it, and when revaluation comes the chances are the value will be reduced. 304. In other words, you do not think the leaseholder is honest in the treatment of his land ? —I consider it works that way—the inclination is always that way.
52
!b. horeell.
a—4.
305. You would not be satisfied with a 999-years lease without revaluation ?—I would not consider that equivalent to the freehold. 306. It is a matter of sentiment ?—There is more than sentiment. If you want to sell or to borrow money it is a big advantage to.have the freehold. 307. You get the value of the improvements, and the State still holds the land ? —And you get nothing else. 308. Your goodwill covers the unearned increment as well ?—You get no unearned increment out of the leasehold. 309. You get the goodwill of your lease, which covers your improvements, and more for good land in convenient places ?—Yes, I understand what you mean ; but at the same time there is not the same confidence in the leasehold as in the freehold, and there is good reason for it. 310. But you are not prepared to pay anything extra? —Yes ; I am prepared to pay an extra 1 per cent. 311. If the option with the right of purchase is a better tenure it is worth more? —I am quite prepared to pay 1 per cent, more for six or ten years in order to have the opportunity of buying the land ultimately. 312. You said the Crown tenant should have the right of purchase : do you mean in every case, including the land for settlements ? —Yes, in every case I think the right to the freehold should be given. 313. You make no distinction between those lands where the pioneer settlers have had to encounter all the disadvantages and the case of improved estates acquired by the Government on which those disadvantages have been overcome ? —There is certainly a difference, but I do not know how you can make a distinction. 314. Do you think the Government are still to go on borrowing money and buy land and then give the freehold ? —Yes ; but they should pay off the money borrowed with that money. 315. You said something about revaluation: in the case of land decreasing in value do you not think a struggling tenant has a right to a reduction in rent ? —lf a man takes a reduction in rent he lays himself open to an increase also. If I took up land I would sooner have the rent in front of me and stick to it. 316. Mr. McCardle.] You think there should be a reduction in the lease with right to purchase to 4 per cent.: would you apply that entirely to bush land?—No; I would extend it over all Government land. 317. Mr. McCutchan.] You refer to the question of revaluation : is there a general sense of insecurity amongst the landowners in connection with this revaluation question ?—ln my district there is a general sense of insecurity that the lease will be tampered with. 318. To what is that sense of uneasiness due ?—To the present labour-law agitation. 319. To speeches made by members of trades-unions? —Yes; the object of labour legislation is to nationalise the land. 320. Do you think if that was thoroughly safeguarded, if possible by legislation, that sense of uneasiness would be removed and people would be satisfied with the 999-years lease ?—I hardly see how that could be safeguarded, because the Government could pass an Act to-morrow, and they can rescind it. 321. Mr. Anstey.} You said that many settlers are afraid that the Government might tamper with the lease in perpetuity : is there any more reason that they should tamper with that lease than with the freehold?— Yes ; the land is their own in the one case and not in the other. I think that if they tampered with the one first it would be the lease in perpetuity. Although I am a freeholder I believe in a great extent in the graduated land-tax. 322. You are in favour of bringing all Government land to the 4-per-cent. basis ?—I am in favour of bringing the right of purchase down to 4 per cent. 323. It costs the Government nearly 5 per cent ?—Of oourse, you cannot expect the Government to let land at a less rate than they pay for it. Jambs John Hamilton McLean examined. 324. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer in the Te Tua district. I have 260 acres on lease in perpetuity, and have resided on it for three years and a half. At the time I took up the land I had no capital. When I say I had no capital, it was bound up in a big family and was very slow at returning interest. That accounts for my taking up land under that tenure; otherwise I would have taken it up under the optional system. My position now is that if I wish to get money my capital is not fully developed, and if I want a little money to work it I can only get it at a very high rate. I could not get it from any private firm, and the Advances to Settlers Department gave me to understand that they did not favour my position. The valuer said that should there be a default under that tenure the Department has very little hold upon the improvements. Should there be a default the Land Board steps in and takes the property, and disposes of the improvements as they consider to the best advantage. lam in favour of lease with right of purchase. Most people hope to become freeholders, and I think that all holders of the lease in perpetuity should have an opportunity of making the land their own at some time or other. Possibly the defect could be remedied in" some way by giving the Advances to Settlers Department some more say in the administration of the estate. The cry has always been, " What are we to do with our boys ? " If we do not make farming popular our boys will not take it up, and if we do not give the right of purchase it will not be so popular. When they see the advantages of artisans and others living in the towns there is tendency for the young people to go to the towns and become artisans. I think that under the labour laws the artisan class or labour-unions are making it very difficult for their own offspring to learn trades owing to the restrictions with respect to apprentices. It is the people I have referred to that are trying to upset the freehold tenure, and it is at the bidding of these classes that an endeavour is being made to
J. J. h. Mclean. 1
53
C—4.
take away the option. Then, suppose my health was to break down, what would be the position? I know a farmer not far from here who has been trying to dispose of his property at a reasonable rate, and he is met with the response that he cannot dispose of it. Supposing I fell into ill health and could not work my farm, what would happen? I could not sell it, and it would simply have to go by default, and some one else would get the benefit of my labour. They might give a very little or they might even give the full value of it from a commercial point of view, but that would not represent all the labour I have expended on it, and all the hard work and worry. As a matter of fact, my own family are just beginning to be useful. I have two sons back from school, but they are only lads, and if my health broke down, or I died, my family would be at starvation-point, because those two boys are not yet able to work the farm to advantage. Mr. Hay (Commissioner of Crown Lands, Southland) : There would first be a transmission, and if the children could not carry on it would have to be forfeited. Fair value would be given for all improvements. It would be offered again, and an incoming tenant would have to pay the value of the improvements before getting possession. The Chairman : There is no landlord comparable to the Government for goodness and for giving every consideration to anything that comes before them. The State is the best landlord any one could possibly be under. In such a case as has been stated the family would be treated with the utmost consideration. Witness : There is one other point in regard to the right of purchase, and that is this : When a person has a freehold, and he is in a sound financial position, his home is his castle. Under the lease in perpetuity he is under a landlord, and through the Land Board he is under a Ranger, and, if he happens to give offence to that Eanger, the Ranger, if a vindictive man, may do him a great injury. My own experience is that our officials are doing their work as fairly as they can. At the same time, I think it is not a power that should be in the hands of a man. I think that the tenant should have an opportunity of acquiring his property and making his home his castle; otherwise it takes away one of the strongest reasons for people taking up land, and will tend to make land unpopular with the great majority of the young people who are growing up. Looking at the principle from a broad public point of view, I think the nationalisation of the land will be hurtful in the end even to the town-dwellers. 325. Mr. Paul.] You stated that the Government proposed to take away the option with right of purchase : what did you mean by that ?—ln the case of one of the last blocks dealt with there was no option whatever given. It was dealt with under the lease in perpetuity. Once you establish the principle of State ownership of the land it is only one more step to taking the whole of the land of the colony. 326. Taking the whole of the land of the colony would mean more than passing an Act of Parliament ?—Yes ; it means borrowing money to do so. 327. You mentioned the trades-unions. Although that does not come within the scope of our inquiry, you expressed the opinion that it was unwise to limit the number of apprentices ?—I did. 328. Your experience has not brought under your notice cases where more apprentices have been put into certain trades, thus undermining the position of the workers in the trade—-I mean that the number of workers in the trade have exceeded the demand, and therefore it has injured the whole mass of the workers?—lt may be that the number of apprentices have the effect of reducing the wages of others. That is a question of wages entirely. 329. You spoke of your sons not being able.to pay the rent on your lease-in-perpetuity section if you broke down in health : do you not think it would be easier to pay rent under the lease in perpetuity than to have a loan on the land and thus lose the freehold ?—There is no doubt that that is the case; but at the same time I wanted to point out that, in the event of the family not being able to carry on, no one would buy the property, and it would simply go back to the Waste Lands Boards, whose valuation must be taken by the incoming tenant. 330. But your family would have a greater chance of living on the land at a 4-per-cent. rental than with a mortgage at, say, 7 or 8 per cent. ? —Certainly. • 331. Mr. McCardle.] Your idea would be to further improve the property so that the holding would be reproductive, and the family better able to live on it after you?— Yes. 332. Supposing the Advances to Settlers Act were amended and they treated the settlers liberally, would not that meet the case of a settler who wanted to borrow ? —To a certain extent only. Mr. Hay (Commissioner of Crown Lands, Southland): Block XIX. was offered under the lease in perpetuity because it was within the goldfields area. Witness : I see no reason why an exception should be made in the case of that particular block. Alexandek Milne Dawson examined. 333. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a gold-miner, and have been twelve years in this district. The miners object to any other tenure being given to land immediately around goldmining works than is now given by occupation lease. If we wish to construct a dam or a race through any dairy farm we have sufficient trouble to contend with now. It has been said by some of the witnesses that sluicing is wasting the ground, and that it would be better to give it to the farmer and do away with mining. It is argued that in many cases the land will produce more in the hands of the farmer than if it is sluiced by the gold-miner. At Orepuki there is land being sluiced, and there has been taken from it from two to four thousand pounds' worth of gold. I should say if you put the money thus taken from the land at compound interest it would take even the best land a long time to return a similar sum. The laud is not altogether destroyed when it is sluiced away. In course of time it can be used for agriculture again. If the land is given to the farmers on lease in perpetuity it will add very much to our expense in working the ground, and if we do not happen to have a fairly payable piece of ground it simply means that we will have to give it up altogether. In the case of bush land it would have to be surveyed,
C.—4.
54
|A. M. DAWSON.
and roads would be wanted to it. I think that miners on known alluvial land should be kept as free as possible if mining is worth carrying on, and, if it is not, I suppose it is better to allow the miner to go down altogether and let the farmer take up the land. 334. Mr. Anstey.} A statement has been made that practically mining is played out as far as Orepuki is concerned : is that your opinion ?—I think that is absolute nonsense. The field has been good for thirty years, and no one knows how much longer it will go. This is certainly a limited area, but I have seen prospects away from Orepuki where I would certainly go if I was not working on a fair place here. 335. Why do you object to the lease in perpetuity if the miners' rights are still conserved ?— I do not altogether understand the lease in perpetuity, but I know the more fixed a farmer's tenure is the greater the trouble we have in dealing with him. We do not wish to do the farmers any harm. We wish the Government to consider whether the land is better for farming than mining. William George Hodgett examined. 336. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?-—I am farming 97 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have had it between two and three years. It is in the Longwood district, about fourteen miles from here. 337. What you do wish to bring before the Commission ?—When I got that land I had an occupation license for twenty-one years and I surrendered it to get another lease. I could only get a lease in perpetuity, while all the settlers round me with one exception have the right of purchase. I had no option but to take up a lease in perpetuity. 338. You would like to have it with the right to purchase ?—Yes. John James Hall examined. 339. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I have been mining here off and on for twenty-three years. 340. What do you wish to say ?—I simply wish to say I want to indorse the remarks of Mr. Dawson in regard to the miners and dairy-farmers. Ido not think it would be right to grant any better leasehold for the goldfields. It is not a very big area, and as for Orepuki being played out, I think that more gold has been got from Orepuki in the last seven or eight years than was ever got before. Peter John Peterson examined. 341. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a miner just now and the holder of an occupation license as well of 100 acres. 342. What do you wish to say? —I wish to indorse what Mr. Menpes said this morning. I have heard several miners give evidence, and, of course, I do not see any reason why they should not pay us valuation for our improvements. If we clear the ground and they want to sluice it away they can well afford to pay us £8 or £10 an acre, because it would cost them at least £20 an acre if they had to clear the bush land themselves. 343. Who fixes the compensation ?—The Warden. We are asking for a lease in perpetuity, as our present tenure is not long enough. 344. I presume in fixing compensation the Warden takes into consideration the fact that the land has been cleared? —Yes. I think it is very unreasonable for the Land Board -to raise the rent. There was nothing to justify it. The people make no money out of these dairy farms, and hardly make a living out of them. 345. How much did they raise it ?—From Is. to 35.; and they cannot say that mining improves land. 346. Mr. Anstey.] You are quite willing to allow miners to go across your land on payment of compensation ?—Yes. 347. Is it the case, as several miners have complained, that a good deal of delay takes place in fixing compensation ?—There may be, but we are quite agreeable to fix the price without going to law. If we cannot agree it is quite right that a responsible officer like the Warden should fix it. Samuel Bennett examined. 348. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—1 am a miner, and I have been here just twenty years this time. I was here at the first rush about forty years ago. 349. What do you wish to say to the Commission?—l quite indorse the evidence of Mr. Dawson and the Messrs. Reichel. My wife owns a dairy farm, and lam quite satisfied with the terms we have at the present time. We do not wish them changed. 350. How many acres have you ?—About 13 acres. There is a strip of country between here and Pahi, and there is no doubt there is payable gold all through it, and if it is to be cut up into State farms the miners will have no chance at all.
Stewart Island, Saturday 25th February, 1905. Arthur William Traill examined. 1. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a settler of thirty years' residence. I hold 20 acres of freehold. I have no land leased at present. 2. You are Chairman of the Stewart Island County Council ?—Yes. 3. We would like to have your opinion as to the best means of extending settlement in the island?— Any one who takes up land in Stewart Island with a view to making a living out of it has to spend an enormous amount of money, time, and labour in clearing. This is a particularly hard district to clear, because the climate is so wet. It constantly happens that the felled bush cannot
A. W. TEAILL.]
55
C.—4.
be burned off even in the following summer, with the result that in the winter fern and scrub grow up. Under these circumstances every one who takes up land hopes to get the freehold either by purchasing outright or taking out a lease with right of purchase. 4. Is there much land taken up under the tenures you speak of ? —Yes, several large sections have been taken up under the optional system. One or two have selected under the lease in perpetuity, and, so far as I understand, they regret having done so. 5. Owing to the difficulties of clearing there cannot be much land put into shape yet ?—Not a large quantity. I have known a section to be sown down in grass and left with a few cattle on it, and, of course, in a few years it had gone back to natural scrub and bush. Some sections were cleared about fifteen years ago, and except for the absence of large trees you could uot tell they had been cleared at all. Constant work is required to check the underscrub. 6. Then, the occupiers of these sections cannot possibly be living out of the land alone ?—Very few of them are doing it; generally they are following some other occupation, such as sawmilling or fishing. 7. Ido not suppose sheep do well here?— They thrive well enough if you keep them out of the bush. 8. Can cattle get feed in your bush ?—Yes ; they go there in winter. 9. How are you served for roads ?—The roads are being gradually extended towards these sections. 10. Are the funds for the roads supplied by the Government ?—Yes, mainly. The rates keep the roads in repair a bit. They are mostly bush tracks. Very often summer visitors like to take up land—about an acre or so for a summer residence—and nothing but the freehold is any good for them. 11. Has any land been laid off in small sections to meet that demand?— Only private land. 12. Mr. Forbes.] Would you suggest that Crown land be laid off in that manner? —Of course, all the most likely sites are taken up. The suggestion is worthy of consideration, but I cannot suggest any special site. 13. Do you think it would be as well to make reserves for that purpose?—l think so. 14. Is there much land suitable for settlement ?—Not in the neighbourhood of Half-moon Bay. It is all bush land. I believe if some of the sections at the back in the bush were opened under the optional system they would be taken up. 15. Do you think the people here would apply for them ? —There are some who want to get on it. Ido not think there is any demand for the lease in perpetuity. 16. What sort of rent do they pay for the land ?—I think, about 10s. an acre. 17. Mr. Paul.] I understand a large area of Stewart Island has been set apart for scenic purposes ?—Yes ; all the hilltops, comprising 200,000 acres. It is barren land, but interesting from the tourist point of view, because of the many interesting alpine plants and birds to be found there. It is also proposed to stock the land with deer. One or two tracks have been cut to the mountaintops. Then, some 46,000 acres have been reserved lower down about the principal inlets and bays for scenic purposes, and to prevent the destruction of the bush. All the small islands have also been reserved. 18. It has been represented to us that in these reserves there is a certain amount of good milling timber, and that if it was cut out it would not affect the values of the reserves ?—There may be some sawmilling timber, but usually it is back a bit. The sawmill-area could be tapped if a tramway was put in under strict conditions. 19. Do you think it would be wise to allow the reserves to be thrown open for that purpose ?— In some cases I thmk they could be thrown open without any harm. It is a disputed point. 20. Some people consider that the scenic beauties are a very valuable asset to the island, and some, on the other hand, would rather get a profit from the timber. 21. The Chairman.] What is the class of timber ?—Eimu. 22. Mr. McLennan.] Is there much land surveyed already ? —Yes; a lot of blocks are surveyed into 100- and 150-aere sections. 23. Do you not think 150 acres too small a section for bush land of that description?— They generally find that enough. If you want to run cattle you require more. 24. Do you think it would be advisable to sell these blocks for cash and under occupation lease with the right to purchase and under lease in perpetuity in order to give a chance to all ?—Yes; but I do not think there is much demand for the lease in perpetuity. 25. Mr. MoCutchan.] Is this newly settled country satisfactorily roaded?—We are doing a little every year. We want more roads. 26. What is the rate revenue of your county ?—About £120. 27. Are you utilising the "thirds" from the land that is settled for roading purposes?— Yes; they do not amount to much. 28. You think it would be a wise thing to settle the land under the three tenures ? —I think either granting the freehold or leases with a right to purchase the most suitable. 29. Would you advocate the option of purchase being given to the 999-years leaseholders by paying up the 1 per cent, additional ?—I think so. 30. Would the 999-years lease be considered satisfactory then ? —Yes. 31. Mr. Anstey.] Under what tenure are the sections in the town held?— Leasehold. 32. Has there been much attempt to sow this land with English grasses ?—A fair amount has been put down in grass, which takes well if you get a good burn. It does not last well. 33. What sort of grass do you Sow ? —I sow a mixture. I find cocksfoot and white clover and rye-grass take best. 34. Is there much area of land in Stewart Island suitable for moderate-sized holdings of 400 or 500 acres ?—There is a good deal of the kind southward. 35. It would all require a good deal of expenditure to fell the bush and clear the land ? —Yes.
a—4.
56
[A. W. TRAILL.
36. Can you tell me what is the nature of the land in the interior where the country is open ? —It is very wet and mossy. 37. Will it take grass ?—No ; I tried some of it. In the first few years it had a beautiful sole of grass, but after that it went back to rushes. Ido not think it is worth draining. 38. Is it ploughable ?—You could plough the open land, but it is very wet and soft. 39. Then, it is not suitable for settlement just yet ?—No. 40. Mr. Johnston.'] Have you been all over Stewart Island?— Over the most of it. 41. Which part do you know best ?—I have been over the swamp land, and I have been in the bush at different places. I have been over the hilltops at both sides. There is no open dry tussock land. 42. Are all the bays as pretty as this one?— Yes. 43. Do you not think it would be a great sin to cut the timber in that case ?—I have always advocated that the timber should be preserved for scenic purposes. 44. What is the general size of the trees cut by the sawmillers ?—They are 2 ft. to 3 ft. through and about 30 ft. long. 45. Do you not think, seeing that unless you get a good burn your grass does not come, that it is a pity to cut the bush at all ? Do you not think it would be better to keep it for tourist purposes ?—I think a great deal of it ought to be kept for tourist purposes. 46. Mr. McCardle.\ Would it not be better to push on the settlement in the portions suitable for settlement and save any good scenery you have along the coast ?—Yes; I would never advocate blocking settlement. 47. You have pointed out that your funds for road-making purposes are very small?— Yes. 48. Do you not think your rents should go for a number of years towards making roads for the settlers to supplement the rates you collect as a county ?—Yes. 49. You have expressed yourself as in favour of the lease with the right of purchase, and also buying for cash ?—Yes. 50. Are you aware that the Act as it now stands gives the settler the option of taking up land under the three systems ?—Not over the whole of the island. 51. Mr. Matheson.] Do you feel that if a settler took up 500 acres, and tried to clear and grass it, it might be too much to handle— it might be in danger of going back into scrub?'—l feel if I did that I would not be doing it for myself, but for my children. 52. Do you think a man with an ordinary family could by careful grazing keep it in grass? — Yes; but he would not get any return for a year or two. A poor man could not take it up. 53. Really, you think it would be wiser to take up only 250 acres ? —Yes. 54. The Chairman.] I suppose you have young men coming forward in this island ?—Yes. 55. Is there a tendency for them to leave the island, or do they settle here ? —They stop and go in for fishing, but hardly any of them go in for cultivating the land. 56. It has been thought that if more land was opened under the homestead system —that is, giving the land free—more young men might be induced to take up land : do you think that is likely to happen ?—I think it would if you found suitable areas. 57. You think that if the land could be selected along the coast-line where farming could be combined with fishing it might work well ? —I think it would, but I have not seen many show any inclination to do that. 58. Is the population of the island increasing very much ?—lt increases slowly. It fluctuates a lot according to the number of sawmills. 59. I do not suppose there is much increase owing to people coming here to settle ?—Not much. A few are making homes for the summer. William Robertson examined. 60. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am farming 500 acres by Horseshoe Bay. 61. Your land was originally bush, and you have much of it now cleared ?—Yes; I should say about 60 acres pretty well cleared and in grass. It is held under perpetual lease. There is a bridletrack connecting it with Oban, but it would never be practicable for wheel traffic; it will be practically useless until it is metalled. What is retarding any more sections being taken up at present is that any one who wants to take one up is forced to take it up under the lease in perpetuity. We have not got the optional system now. Since the optional system was stopped only two sections have been taken up, and I think there are only five sections on the island which have been taken up under perpetual lease in twelve years. Out of the first thirty or forty sections that were taken up I think only two sections were taken up under perpetual lease ; the others were all taken up under the occupation with right of purchase. My brother took up a section under perpetual lease, and he is sorry that he did not take up land with the option of purchase. When I took up my land I had some idea of the nationalisation of the land; but, after twelve years' experience, I think now that a man ought to have a freehold. 62. Do you find much difficulty in getting your grass to take ?—I find difficulty in getting burns; but if the bush land is cleared properly it will grow very good grass. I have one paddock of 20 acres, and I run sixty sheep on it all the year round, and I have no turnip or winter feed. 63. What breed are your sheep?— Half-bred. We had 100 per cent, of lambs this year. 64. How much wool do you clip per sheep?— This year and last year my wool just averaged ss. a fleece. It was a better price this year, but the wool was not heavy for some reason or other. 65. I suppose 81b. a sheep?— Yes. 66. Do you sell any of your 'surplus sheep ? I suppose it is all used up in the settlement ?—I have not sold a great many sheep yet. lam increasing my flock. I have cattle as well. One of the principal difficulties the settlers here have is that it is difficult to dispose of cattle, because the steamer accommodation is not suitable for sending cattle away. If you want to send a few cattle away you have to make special arrangements, which cost you £2 10s. a head. If the Government
W. ROBERTSON.]
57
C—4.
could do anything towards giving us a market here, say, twice a year, so that the settlers could drive them in, the Government arranging to take them away for us, it would be a great blessing to us. 67. Mr. Matheson.] Have you any fear of the area cleared going back into scrub, or can you keep it under grass ?—I think the 60 acres under grass is safe. The worst thing I find is a kind of fern, which I call " the nuisance fern," which grows up round the stumps and gradually spreads over the grass. 68. Have you tried killing the beef and taking it to the mainland ?—We cannot sell it, because it is not killed in the Government abattoirs. 69. Did you try it before the Slaughtering Act was passed ?—No, because I have a butchering business myself here. 70. Mr. Forbes.] What is your objection to the lease in perpetuity: do you think it interferes with you working the land ?—I cannot borrow on it if I wanted to. 71. The land is always yours as long as you pay the rent ?—Supposing a man has a section the same as I have, and has worked on it most of the time for twelve years: if he has a bad market for his cattle and his rent becomes due, if he was on the mainland he could drive a few head to market and sell them, and thus pay his rent, but here he has no market for them. 72. You find money-lenders would sooner lend money on the lease with the right of purchase than on lease in perpetuity ?—As far as I can see, they will not look at the lease in perpetuity. 73. Mr. Paul.] Do you consider 500 acres is too much or too little ?—I think a man wants that area, because he wants, in the first place, to fence it and get the benefit of the native bush to bring him in something. You csyi always run a certain number of cattle into the bush, and then you can go on clearing. If you take up a small section you cannot run a great number of cattle on it, because the native bush will not carry much to the acre. 74. Would you have been able to take up the land if it had been freehold?— No. 75. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to roads, do you find that land is of any use without reasonable access?—No ; we want roads. 76. You took up your land twelve years ago?— Yes ; and, although the road has been partly made, until it goes right through it will be of very little use to me. 77. Was your land taken up before the loading system was introduced?— Yes. 78. You have utilised your " thirds " during those years?— Yes. 79. Have you ever attempted to get loans under the Loans to Local Bodies Act ?—No; I find my rent is quite enough without any more loading. 80. Do you fence and clear as you are felling the bush, and is it not possible that the cattle go away into the bush and neglect the clearing ?—lf you clear properly in the first place, and fence it and keep it well stocked, I do not think it will go back into scrub. " What has gone to scrub has been caused by the fact that the scrub has never been killed by the fire. Supposing you cut down a lot of small stumps, the plants come up again unless the fire has taken them. 81. Your opinion is that good land here is suitable for settlement, and can be made a success ? —Yes; there is a lot of land very suitable for settlement. The whole of the sections would have been taken up if they could have been taken up under the occupation with right of purchase. 82. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think it would be any use for the Government to make a special effort to increase settlement in your neighbourhood by offering more favourable terms ?—I think ss. is quite enough for it. 83. Supposing the rent was the same, and they devoted the half of it to road-making instead of taking it all, would that meet your objections as to the market, for instance?— That would make a lot of difference. 84. What is your particular objection to the lease in perpetuity? You understand that your rent is now fixed at 4 per cent., and if you had the right of purchase you would pay 5 per cent. ? Yes; but I took up the land at 10s., and they have reduced sections to 55., but they have not reduced mine. ■ 85. That does not explain your objection to the lease in perpetuity : you are not likely to have all your land cleared during your lifetime?—lndividually! have not any objections to the lease in perpetuity, but simply say that the bulk of the people on the island want the occupation with the right of purchase. The fact that only two sections have been taken up under the lease in perpetuity shows that. 86. The rent you are paying is on 10s. an acre, and the others are paying on ss. ?—I pay 6d., and I would pay more if I held the land under occupation with right of purchase. 87. That is really not much more than paying rates and taxes under the freehold?—l have rates and taxes to pay just the same. Edmund Pleasant examined. 88. The Chairman.] What are you ?—1 am a settler, and have 295 acres in one section under lease with right of purchase. It is on the main road one mile from the wharf. I have held it three years. It is all bush, but I have cleared 60 acres, and there is a small area in grass. I run cattle on it. I live in the town. 89. Mr. Matheson.] Do you find the grass is holding well ?—Yes. 90. Have you no sheep ?—I am going to get some at the " fall." 91. Have you any ragwort?— No. 92. You have been there three years and have 60 acres in grass, so that before many years you hope to clear the whole of it?— Yes. 93. Do you find that the old grass holds as the bush is driven back?— Yes. 94. Mr. McLennan.] Is draining any benefit to the grass ?—The ground is all broken here, and there is no real good in draining.
B—C. 4.
C—4.
58
[e. pleasant.
95. I was over some of it this evening and found it very wet and mossy : is it all the same kind of ground ?—The ground is mixed. You may get good land in one place and a chain away the land may be no good at all. It is terribly mixed. 96. Mr. Johnston.] Is it patchy all over?— Yes. 97. Then, it would be perfectly useless felling the bush on this peaty ground?— The grass will grow if the top is chipped. 98. What grass do you sow ?—Cocksfoot, rye, and clover. 99. Does rye do well here?— Yes, on the black soil, but not well on the peat. 100. You have 40 acres of grass?— Yes. 101. Is that what you make your living on ? —Not up till now. I have just given up the fishpacking business, which I have carried on up to the present, and I intend now to make a living out of the farm. 102. Mr. McCardle.] You have a lease with the right of purchase ? —Yes. 103. Is that the tenure you prefer ?—Yes. I think under any other system on this island it would be a mistake. I think purchase for cash would be a mistake. 104. Mr. Johnston.] You do not approve of the right of purchase at all ? —I do, but not under the cash system unless they are forced to put on the improvements. It is those who own land on the island and who are not making any improvements who are keeping the island back. 105. The Chairman.] Are there any absentee proprietors ?—Yes, a number. I think people who take up land ought to be made to clear it. We who live here pay rates and taxes, and they simply take up the land and make a nominal payment on it. 106. Mr.. Matheson.] Has it not struck you as a county that if you brought in the system of rating on the unimproved value you could make those people pay equal rates with yourselves ? —I think those who do not improve ought to pay rates. 107. Mr. Forbes.] If you rated on the unimproved value you would get at them ? —Yes. Geobge Swain examined. 108. The Chairman.'] What is your occupation ?—I am a sawmiller. I also hold some land at Oban —I am sawmilling on the land I hold. 109. What is your tenure ?—Occupation with the right of purchase. I have 430 acres in all. 110. How far are you from this place ?—By water four miles, and by track seven miles and a half. 111. Have you cleared much of your land or grassed it ?—I have cleared and grassed some. 112. Have you any remarks to make about sawmilling or the terms under which you carry on your sawmilling business ? —I have a few remarks to make in regard to scenery. People are apt to go away with the idea that sawmilling spoils the scenery. That is all rubbish. The sawmiller does not wish to interfere with the scenery. We only open a small gap where we go in to plant a mill down. We do not interfere with the outside of the bush, and we only take the big trees. The tourists get into the bush on our tracks and trams. They do not hang about the scenery on the coast. They flock into our bush and they see what they would not be able to see if the tracks had not been opened up by the sawmiller. 113. They get access to the bush by your opening it up ?—Yes. 114. And in your wet climate there is no chance of the litter of branches you leave behind catching fire?—No; and it is soon covered by different scrubs, many of which did not grow there before. So far as the land is concerned, I think a mistake was made in granting such large blocks within a radius of three miles from this place. I think that land should have been cut up in 10- and 15-acre blocks, and then those in the fishing and other occupations could have taken them up and cleared them properly by hand, and made a thorough job of the work. It would take a lifetime to clear a block of the land of the size I hold. The best land I own I cleared and stumped by hand, and it will grow anything. 115. Mr. Forbes.] Has the timber been cut out on the near ground?— Yes ; all that bush has been worked out and still the scenery is good, and you can get to it through the old tracks. 116. Do you think this large reserve for scenic purposes will interfere with the sawmilling ?— Ido not think so in this case. There is not much sawmilling timber in it. 117. There is plenty of timber still available without going back into the scenery reserves?— Yes. The beauty of the island is in the bays and inlets, and the sawmilling timber is back on the hills, where the tourists never go unless there are tram-tracks through it. 118. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think it would be a wise thing to reserve still larger areas for scenery ?—I do not think it is necessary. 119. You do not think it would be wise to shut up the whole island for scenery ? —Not unless it was put in a glass case. Chakles Bobertson examined. 120. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a sawmiller, and I hold 410 acres of land under lease in perpetuity. I have held it for eight or nine years. 121. What improvements have you effected during that time?—My land is open principally. It is river-flats, about nine miles from Oban. I wish to say that, as far as that land is concerned, the land along the river-bank and in tussock takes artificial grasses well. The terrace land takes it exceptionally well if you get a good burn. I have 40 acres of that land that has been down in grass for six years, and it is still'holding well. It is down in white clover, cow-grass, timothy, cocksfoot, and a little fescue. 122. Have you any cattle?— Not yet. I am going to get some this year. Up to the present I have had very bad access by land. There is a large area surrounding my land available for settlement which would take grass equally well. The Government have made a drain there, and where the land is drained grass takes well,
59
a—4.
C. ROBEETSON.I
123. Mr. Forbes.] You are satisfied with your lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—I am personally. 124. And you would like to see people settled around you ?—Yes. 125. You realise that under the lease in perpetuity a settler will remain, whereas when under the occupation with the right to purchase people can sell out ? —I have no objection to either of the tenures. I think the whole three are good. 126. Do you not think the lease in perpetuity is better for keeping settlers on the place?—l doubt it. 127. Mr. Anstey.] Is there any reason why the large quantity of land you refer to has not been taken up ?—Some of it has been a run.
Invercargild, Saturday, 25th February, 1905. Duncan Murchison examined on oath. 128. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Murchison ?—A farmer on the Orawia Settlement, Merrivale. 129. What area do you hold? —183 acres. 130. How long have you been there? —Nine years. 131. What tenure are you under?— Lease in perpetuity. 132. Is there any particular point you wish to give evidence on ?—There is one point about the loading that I would like to explain to members of the Commission. At present we are paying rates on the valuation of the roading and of the ground on which these roads are made. The roads have been included in the estate. The roads were not roads originally. They had been surveyed and formed to give access to the settlers; and there was a sum of £3,300 set apart for the purpose. The sections are loaded for that amount, and we are paying county rates and charitable rates on it. It is an anomalous position. Under no other land-tenure is such a thing done, as far as I know. 133. The money has been expended on the roads ? —Yes. What is worse, we are paying county rates as usual, as other settlers are doing, and we get little in return. The county member comes and looks at the roads, and says, " sfou have no need for roads," but we are rated all the same. The amount we are paying that way, and which we should not pay, for loading of roads is £17 17s. over the whole block. That goes to the County Council in the way of rates. I may say that I am not speaking of the 5 per cent, at all just now. This is a matter that should certainly be rectified. The next point is as to the freehold. I am strongly of opinion that the system should be altered to give the option of purchase. It would give the settlers more heart to farm their land properly. Some persons who have leased sections in good order and without weeds say, " I will take all I can out of it," and when it is cropped out they throw it up. As the Act stands now, there is nothing to prevent it. 134. Except the regulations ?—Certainly, that is so, but it is not easy to enforce the regulations. I also think that the rental should be 4 per cent, to be the same as the Crown land. Some years ago we sent the Minister a petition, and got it reduced by % per cent., provided we paid within one month. I think, however, that the concession we asked for should be given. I entirely approve of the month, because I think it makes the people pay up in time. 135. You think it is unfair that you should pay 5 per cent, on the £3,000? —Yes. I may also say that I think a sinking fund should be made in that case. 136. You think the settlers would agree to pay off the £3,000 by a sinking fund ?—I think it should be written off, because on the Merrivale payment there is a sum of £4,000 of profit at present, and the one should go against the other. 137. Mr. McGutchan.] You think the rental should be reduced to 4 per cent, to be the same as the Crown tenants pay under the Act of 1892 ?—Yes. 138. Why are you of that opinion ? —Because they would be on the same footing as other settlers. 139. I think you are under a misapprehension. You evidently apprehend that the Crown tenants, under the Land Act of 1892, pay 4 per cent, on the State expenditure ?—That is so. 140. That is a great mistake. The Crown in some cases are making 8, 12, and 20 per cent, upon the net cost to them on the waste lands out of the Crown tenants? —I always understood it to be the other way. The tenant under the original Crown lease pays 4 per cent., provided he has not the right of freehold. If he has the right of freehold he pays 5 per cent. 141. Is it 4 per cent, on the capital value fixed on the land by the State ?—Yes. 142. Mr. Forbes.] You say that some holders of lease-in-perpetuity sections take as much out of them as possible and then throw them up : is that the class of men you are living amongst ?— I know an odd one or two who would do that, but there are not many of them there at present. They soon come to an end; but I have seen cases of the kind. 143. That is the way they farm leases in perpetuity in your district, is it ? Are they allowed to grow weeds, and so on ? —Oh, no. I only wished to say that I knew of casual eases. 144. The man overcropped and allowed weeds to come? —I know they told me that they intended to take land up and crop it until they had taken all they could out of it, and then they would leave it. 145. A man like that is not a decent sort of settler ?—No, certainly not. It is difficult, however, to prevent it under the Act, and I contend that if you gave the right of purchase a man would not work them that way. 'He would be encouraged to improve his land. At present if we want to sell we find that, having no option, people do not care about buying. 146. You prefer the occupation with right of purchase, so that you would be able to sell more freely than under the lease in perpetuity ?—Quite so.
C—4.
60
D. MURCHISON.
147. The Chairman.] You have alluded to the possibility of settlers taking everything out of the land then leaving it: have there been cases of the kind on the Merrivale Settlement ? —-Yes, I think so. 148. Generally, however, your settlement has been a success ?—Yes, it is a success; but I reckon it is the class of settlers that has made it a success. 149. And it is good land ?—Yes. 150. You object to pay county rates on the £3,000 ?—Yes. It means there is a sum of about £18 being thrown away. Allan McDougall Cakmic.hael examined. 151. The Chairman.'] What is your occupation, Mr. Carmichael?—l am a farmer in the Lillburn Valley. 152. How much land do you hold ?—3,600 acres. 153. What tenure are you under ?—Freehold. I may say I am the only freeholder in that district. When the land was first taken up certain scraps were left of an inferior sort, and I bought them. 154. How far are you from the Waiau?—Pour miles from the bridge and three miles in the valley. 155. I suppose you wOrk the land as a run ?—Yes ; I have some birch forest on it, and there is some broken ground too. 156. Are there some flats?— Yes, but they are very narrow. It is country like the middle of Hawke's Bay. 157. Is there any particular point you would like to emphasize before the Commission ?—I simply wish to say I know it is the general desire of all my neighbours to obtain the freehold. 158. They are under lease in perpetuity ?—The greater portion of the land was taken up under that system, but between one thing and another they surrendered. 159. They surrendered the lease in perpetuity? —Yes. Then,l think, without exception, they took it up again on the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system. There was no opposition to them. They felt somewhat aggrieved with the Government —with the powers that be—for having loaded their lands. The sum of £8,000 was borrowed under the Loans to Local Bodies Act to make a bridge at Clifden, and the money was expended on roads, and not too wisely expended. Afterwards I think the Government made up for it by giving a special grant to put up the bridge, which is the life of the place. 160. That grievance has pretty well worn away now?— Yes. There is another grievance among some of the people, and that is that being far away the holdings are too small. 161. There is very little dairying, is there ?—The Merrivale Settlement has two dairy factories. One is upon the estate and one immediately adjoins it. I must say that the people have been very persevering. I believe it would be a benefit to the country if the settlers had the option of purchase. It would not create any revolution in the money-market. I believe it would give settlement an impetus. People would have a greater interest in the land. With regard to weeds, I would like to say that it is quite possible to keep within the law and yet let a farm go wrong. 162. You mean that they may not wilfully do it ? —They may not wilfully do it, but they may do it neglectfully or unskilfully, whereas if the land was their own they would take more interest in it. There is one thing more with regard to the Land Boards : I think that to depart from the nominating of them would be foolish. An elective Land Board would not work at all. You do not know what influences would creep in. A part-elective Board would be worse than all. In that way you would be putting, as it were, conflicting interests on the Board, and it would be a bear-garden. My experience here tells me that our Board has been a Board of hard-headed men. I believe, however, it would be acceptable to the people if there were an elective tribunal of some kind to act as an appeal Court, so that when the interests of the landlord and tenant conflicted the matter might be looked into by that body before forfeiture was made. 163. At present the Minister may be appealed to?— Yes; but I do not think that is satisfactory. The Minister must be guided by the Board and by the Commissioner of Crown Lands. The Chairmen of the County Councils with the Stipendiary Magistrate could form a body of the kind. It might not answer to take the Chairmen who are now in office, but if it were known to the people that these Chairmen were going to act on this appeal Court they would take an interest in the election. The election might take place triennially under the electoral roll. My idea was that the Chairmen of the Southland County Council and the Wallace County Council, with the Magistrate to guide them and the law, might be a satisfactory Court of appeal. It is not satisfactory to send all matters to Wellington, and I am sure that to most people it would be more satisfactory if there were an impartial body to settle disputes. 164. But the Land Board is impartial ?—Yes, that is so ; but with the interests the Government has now in the country through the purchase of estates I think it must be to some extent on the Government's side. If they were coming in conflict with a Crown tenant and it was necessary to eject that man, the case might be referred to the appeal Court. 165. But ejections are not likely to take place?— You do not know when they might happen; and therefore there should be, as I say, a Court of appeal to settle grievances against a Board, because the Board must be acting in the interests of the Crown. 166. Not necessarily?—Of course, I admit they will do justice; but they will have that tendency, because of the amount of money that is being invested in land by the Government. I think they must to a certain extent -be inclined that way. 167. The elective principle would come in in the same way by your appeal Board, although they would not be elected by the popular vote ?—They should be elected as Chairmen under the electoral roll, so that the electors as well as the ratepayers could have a say in the appointment of them.
61
a—4.
A. M. CAEMICHAEL.
168. It would not be quite consistent with the nomination system to have the reviewing Board, which would be an elective body, reversing the decision?— But the Magistrate would also be a member. 169. At any rate, you think there should be an appeal Board ?—I cannot say it is exactly that that I mean, but I think that there should be something in that form. 170. Mr. McCutchan.] The idea of a necessity for an appeal from the decision of the Land Board is an acknowledgment that the Land Board is not representative of the various interests under the Land Act ?—Not at all. I only want to use it for contingencies that may arise. Ido not care what Board it is, there will be some times when everybody is not satisfied, and it would be reassuring to the Board before they take any harsh step that another body elected by the people should ratify their actions and say that they are right. I do not wish to reflect on the Boards. I believe the members of our Board would not do an unjust action to anybody. I think, however, it is necessary that there should be, as it were, a safety valve. I do not care what Board it is, I think that to have the system complete, especially as the Government's interests are becoming so extensive, it would be well to have something in the nature of an appeal Board. 171. You think the Board as elected at present is thoroughly representative of the various interests, and that there is no likelihood of danger from any departure in the future ? —I do. 172. You think the Government would represent the settlers ?—I am not dealing with the Government. lam talking of the Boards as they are constituted now. I do not know that they have ever taken harsh steps, but I do not know what may happen. 173. Mr. Johnston.'] In your district are the settlers satisfied with their conditions of life and tenure ? —Yes; generally speaking, they are. I do not know that there is anything particularly wrong. Wool is a good price, and sheep are selling well. 174. They are making comfortable livings ? —Yes. 175. They are doing well?— Fairly well. They are not doing very well, but they are comfortable. They are making both ends meet. 176. Mr. Matheson.\ Your neighbours took their ground up at first under the perpetual lease with right of purchase? —Under the lease in perpetuity, and then they surrendered and took up occupation-with-right-of-purchase leases. 177. Then, they have the right of purchase?— Yes, those people who are adjoining me have it. There are others not far away from me who have not the right of purchase. John Dbiscoll examined. 178. The Chairman.] Are you a farmer, Mr. Driscoll?—Yes, at Mataura. 179. How many acres do you farm ?—2lO acres. 180. Under what tenure? —Under lease with a purchasing clause. 181. How long have you been there?— Eight months. 182. Did you purchase from a private individual ?—Yes, I bought some one out. 183. Do you desire to bring some matters before the Commission ?—I wish to say that, although I am under that tenure, I was for eight years on a settlement at Highbank, in Canterbury, where I had 73 acres. I sold out my interest there to get a larger holding. lam not at all in favour of the holding I have now. I would have been happy to get another holding from the Government at Edendale, but I found that the restrictions the Board had were quite different from the system in force when the land was taken up at Highbank. 184. At Highbank you were under the lease in perpetuity? —Yes; but in this case applicants were to be examined. Before it was quite open. Only for that I would have been a Crown tenant. 185. You sold out before you came down?— Yes, I came down and asked if I would be exempt from examination. But they said they could not exempt me, and, as that would not suit me, I had to take the first offer that was open to me. I may say that the lease in perpetuity is the best tenure any one could have, because the money you have to pay out to procure land could be better employed on the farm, and better returns would be obtained. 186. You sold out at Highbank to advantage ?—Yes. The Government bought that land at £6 10s. an acre, and it is fully double that value now, so that the Government is safe in buying land in the way they acquired that estate. 187. Mr. McLennan.] You prefer the lease in perpetuity to the freehold ?—Yes. 188. Mr. Anstey.] You sold out to advantage?— Yes. 189. At the price you sold you got value for your improvements and something for goodwill ? —Yes. 190. You had no difficulty in selling ?—No. I would also like to mention this : Under the lease in perpetuity any one can get an advance independent of improvements, so that a tenant is better off under it than under any other tenure, or, at any rate, he is equally well off, because the merchant would advance money as long as the tenant held the lease. Ido not know if it is legal. 191. You had no difficulty in selling out your interest in the leasehold?— None. 192. Could you have disposed of your interest in a freehold easier ?—Very probably I could have sold the freehold too. There would be the same facilities for selling a freehold. 193. Mr. Forbes.] You are a Crown tenant? —Not at present. 194. Have you any objection to the way that the Land Boards are set up at the present time ? —I think it would be only justice to the settlers if they had a voice on the Board so that any grievance they may have could be brought forward by their member. 195. You think it would be more satisfactory if there was a representative of the Crown tenants on the Board ?—Yes. 196. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think a satisfactory manner of appointing that member would be for the County Councils to have the nominations of suitable men and the Government to be bound to appoint one of their nominations ?—I do not think the County Council should have any say in
62
[j. DBISCOLL.
0.—4.
the matter. The land belongs to the Government. The tenants are the ones who should have representation, and not the County Council. 197. Mr. Hall ] You think that the Land Boards as at present constituted are satisfactory, but they could be improved by one man being elected by the Crown tenants? —Yes. 198. As a medium between the Crown tenants and the other members of the Board?— Yes, that would make it satisfactory. 199. Mr. McGutchan.] I "understood the witness to say there was no difficulty in getting money upon the lease-in-perpetuity tenure even when no improvements had been made ?—Yes. 200. What is your warrant for making that statement?—l had a neighbour at Highbank who was in difficulties. He wanted implements for his farm and took his lease to town, and was able to obtain £110 on the face-value of the lease. 201. It was on the unearned increment he got the advance ?—No doubt. Thomas Lyons Oswin examined. 202. The Chairman.'] What are you, Mr. Oswin ?—I am the officer in charge of the Government Advances to Settlers Office and the Government Valuation Office. 203. Would you like to make a statement to the Commission ?—There are one or two matters that I would like to mention. As regards the work of the Valuation Office, I would like to say that nearly all the valuations made for rating in our office are based on the valuations of 1897 — certainly it is so in country places—since which time revaluations have, of course, been made from time to time. As regards Crown leaseholds that come under the notice of the Department, there has been an increase in value over that at which the tenants took them up. Some are large, and some are trifling. I took a note of one from the roll this morning, which I will show to the Chairman. I do not wish to mention any names. In this instance the valuation to-day is four times as large as the original valuation of the land. 204. The owner's interest was £277 in 1888, and now it is £1,118? —That is the interest that has accrued to the lessee. It is the goodwill on which one witness said money was lent. As regards the unearned increment on Crown leases, it is fairly marked in the Matakanui Biding, in the Vincent County, which is under this office. Principally on account of the Otago Central Railway now tapping that district, some of the leases, which vary from twenty years down, show double the value that they were taken up at, with the result that that extra value accrues to the lessee. I have not taken out any examples, as I understand the Valuer-General is collecting examples for the whole colony. In reference to Matakanui, there are approximately two hundred and thirty assessments, and there was only one objection from a Crown tenant. The increase in land-value is 40 per cent, higher than in 1901. 205. The railway is there now ?—The railway, no doubt, adds largely to it. As regards the Advances to Settlers Office, there are two points I would like to refer to. On Tuesday the Commission dealt with the case of G. B. Hilton. I do not know what valuation he stated he had —I think it was £600. The Department's valuation of those improvements was £220, and the house was not then completed. Mr. Hilton was firstly declined for £100, which he applied for, and then he was offered £75, which he took up. Then, there was the case of Mr. O'Connor, who also gave evidence before the Commission. It might have seemed that he applied for a loan on 750 acres. That was not the case. Mr. O'Connor really applied for a loan on 400 acres, and instead of the improvements being £265 they were found by the valuer to be £155. A £70 loan was declined. When the valuer went there he found no buildings on the ground. Mr. O'Connor had removed them to another Crown lease section adjoining. I merely mention these two cases to let the Commission weigh the evidence accurately as regards settlers borrowing from our office. I heard a witness state to-day that in the district in which he lived at one time some money was lent on the unimproved value or the goodwill. I do not think our Advances to Settlers Board would lend on that. No doubt a value does accrue. There is one other point that may be brought before the Board: Within the past few months perhaps a dozen settlers have come to the office under the impression that they could borrow on leases which had not run for one year. Section 85 of the Act provides that they cannot do so. It seems from what some of these settlers told me that they were temporarily embarrassed financially. Ido not know where they got the idea, but they came from the same locality. Some were building and incurring liabilities on the prospect of borrowing from the office, but they are all in the same position, because none can borrow. I have mentioned two cases of loans that have come before you. Ido not know what other cases have been brought before the Commission, but some people may have the same idea that this person in Canterbury had—namely, that they borrow on the unimproved value, and that is to an extent how they are disappointed.' Some of them, of course, have an interest in the unimproved value, varying up to a £1,000. I went through our mortgage register the other day, and I find the total number of mortgages on leasehold lands to be 176. The bulk of them may safely be taken to be Crown leases, because the restrictions in the case of other leases almost invariably shuts them out. The conditions either provide for absolute forfeiture, which is a bar to getting a loan, or the lease may not include full compensation for improvements, which is the case in regard to leases under the School Commissioners. That is all I have to say to the Commission. 206. In lending upon a settler's improvements is there any definite limit that you lend up to ? The Department is entitled to entertain an application for a loan up to half the value, not being on the settler's value necessarily, but on the valuer's report. Of course, the Board reserves to itself the right to decline or to reduce the loan. 207. And if it is not giving away some confidential information I should like to ask you this question : Settlers all complain that no reason is given why a loan is refused : is the reason sometimes not only that there is not sufficient security, but that there is not sufficient means at the disposal of your Board ?—I cannot answer that. The matter is wholly decided by the Board in Wellington.
63
C—4.
T. L. OSWIN.]
208. Mr. McGutchan.] In every case where an application is made for a loan is your valuer sent out ? —No. Where we see that a man has no improvements we tell him that his application cannot be entertained. Of course, some people come in with very vague ideas as to what they may borrow upon. One man came in and wanted to borrow on the Crown-land value, and so looking forward to the freehold he thought he could borrow on that, You see, £25 is the minimum limit which the Board lends, and if the person cannot show £50 in improvements and the valuer is handy and I consult bim, we generally tell the applicant that it is no good proceeding with the proposal. The Department does not want to take any one's fee when there is no chance of the loan being considered. . . 209. When an applicant makes an application for a loan you question him m the office and it there is no security you do not send the valuer out, but in cases where application is made to you for a loan and the settler tabulates his improvements do you always send a valuer out ?—We are guided largely by our rolls which I mentioned under the Valuation Act. We have all the valuations, which are more or less up to date, and if the valuation bears a recent date that is accepted in preference to the tenant's estimate. When the valuation is two years old or so and the tenant says he has been making further improvements we send a valuer out after taking his fee. 210. There have been several cases where the amount of loan applied for has been well within the limit allowed by law and you have only advanced up to about 33 per cent. can you give me the reason ? —I cannot say what tbe reason is but the Board has the local valuer s leport, and also the Crown Lands Report, and the matter is in their discretion altogether. 211. In making loans you said that the goodwill in any case is taken into consideration?—! stated I did not think that the Advances to Settlers Board would lend on the goodwill. It is taken into consideration in a mllnner, but Ido not think the Board would lend money on it. Of course, it gives the lessee a considerably greater interest in his property, and he might be less likely to leave his security if he thought he could get something for the goodwill. 212. Do you not think that independent of that the fact of having 50 per cent, over and above your maximum advance is sufficient security? —I would sooner not express an opinion. 213. Mr. Johnston.'] What are the boundaries of your district?—l do not know the boundaries without a plan. , 214. How far north do you go? —To the extreme northern point of the Vincent County, which, I think, touches Canterbury. 215. Can you give us the number of applications that have been refused on Crown leaseholds within the last three years, and a list of the advances made on leasehold property also ?—I will endeavour to get the information for you. 216. Do you send any confidential report to the Board in Wellington ?—Of course, the valuer sends his report, in which he embodies anything that he knows of the charactor of the applicant whether he , 217. I thought you would discuss the matter with the official head of the Land Board and ascertain the character of the tenant irrespective of his security ? —All our office gets from the Land Board is a report as to the state of his improvements when they were last visited, and the Ranger frequently states what he thinks the security would carry in the way of a loan. 218. Mr. Paul.] I understand there are 176 mortgages on Crown leaseholds ?—I think the majority are Crown leaseholds. I can get you the information. 219. Mr. McLennan.] Does the Board take into consideration the character of the applicant quite independent of his improvements?—l think the improvements are the first consideration, but the question is always asked as to whether the applicant is considered a satisfactory mortgagor. 220. And whether he is likely to be a resident, or is only there to improve his place to a certain extent and then sell out ? —That, of course, is taken into consideration. That may be the reason why some Crown tenants complain so bitterly. A single man may want a loan, and then when he has overcropped his place he clears out. 221. Mr. Anstey.] Will you make it quite clear as to what securities your Department lends on. You say you do not lend on goodwill or stock, but that you will lend on buildings and other improvements of a fixed character ?—That is so. We do not lend upon stock or implements, and Ido not think the Board will lend on goodwill. It is really on the fixed improvements for which the tenant is entitled to compensation. 222. Mr. Forbes.] It has been stated by Crown tenants that the Ranger has told them that the Advances to Settlers Board do not look with favour on the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, and that they prefer the other tenures with the right of purchase? —I think if a Ranger made any such statement it is quite without the direction of the Superintendent. I have never known the Superintendent to intimate anything of the kind to me. 223. You reckon the Ranger stated that on his own authority ?—Yes. 224. So far as you know, the Department does not prefer the lease with right of purchase to the lease in perpetuity ?—No. _ ... ~ 225. In arriving at a valuation do you take into consideration the tenant s valuation as it appears on the rating roll?— The valuation on the rating roll is not reliable, for this reason: it might be two years old, and might be neither fair to the tenant nor to the Department to accept a valuation two years old, even if it was legal to do so which it is not. The law provides that every application must carry with it an up-to-date valuation. 226. Do you take into consideration for the advances-to-settlers value the same things and improvements as for the local rating value ?—lt is on the same principle, but with this difference . Under the Government Valuation' Act, under which the rating rolls are framed, the Department is entitled to alter the land-values only at stated periods. If in the interim a man comes from one of these districts for a loan his valuation is made, and until that district is again revised his valuation remains in what is called the supplementary roll, and is not used for rating purposes until that district is revised. It may remain on the supplementary roll for two or three years.
C.—4.
64
T. L. OSWIN
227. It is taken on the same basis for both? —Yes. 228. Then, a tenant could reasonably suppose in applying for a loan that half of that value would be advanced ?—He could take it as being fairly close, unless it has been altered by the improvements being removed or added to. But the Board would have to get a new valuation. 229. Mr. Matheson.] A property is valued, and there is the capital value, and that is divided into four parts—the lessee's interest in the unimproved value, and the owner's and the lessee's interest in the improvement, and the owner's interest: is it on the lessee's total interest that the Board can lend 50 per cent., or only on the improvements ?—The Department is entitled to consider an application to borrow up to 50 per cent, of the improvements. 230. Does the law not give them power to lend on that value which appears as the lessee's interest in the " unimproved" column?—l think it is a matter at the discretion of the Board. 231. Mr. Forbes.'] The Government taxes you on the goodwill ?—Yes. 232. But will not lend money on it? —It does not say so in the instructions. 233. Mr. Matheson.'] I would like to ask if you can get us the number of cases where the loans advanced have been less than 50 per cent, of the lessee's interest in the improvements?—l will get that. 234. Is a reason always given when a loan is declined ?—No; the reason is known only to the Board. 235. Do you know the reason why a loan is refused? —No. 236. Mr. McCardle.] Is it not a fact that if there are any arrears of rent no loan is granted ?— We do not even go to the stage of making a valuation. We have to inquire at the Crown Lands Office. 237. Then, .the real security you take is 50 per cent, of the actual improvements effected by the lessee on the section?— Yes. 238. You are not authorised to take into consideration what is known as the unearned increment? —Not in lending, although it strengthens the security. 239. You have been asked about the number of loans raised on the leasehold: how do they compare with the number lent on freehold ?—I can get that information for you. 240. Mr: Johnston.] Will you embody in the return the number of mortgages you have to foreclose on as far as Crown leaseholds are concerned ? —I will get the information. James Miller examined. 241. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer living at Hedgehope. 242. I am informed by the Commissioner of Crown Lands that you are a very experienced settler. How long have you been at Hedgehope ? —Over thirty years. I have 2,000 acres of land—l,soo acres freehold. It is all improved. 243. Can you suggest any alteration in the land law that would be an improvement?—l believe in the freehold system, or lease with the option of making it a freehold. 244. A good deal of land is now being taken up under the lease in perpetuity?—l do not like that form of tenure. 245. Are you acquainted with any settlers around you holding under that tenure? —No. 246. Do you think that the constitution of the Land Board is satisfactory as it is now? —I think so. 247. You do not think an elective member would be advantageous?—l think it is better as it is. Alexander Pyper examined. 248. The Chairman.] What are you?— District Land Valuer, Invercargill. 249. How long have you been in that position ? —About five years, and before that I was a farmer. 250. Would you just explain Mr. O'Connell's case in as few words as possible?—He came to the' office and wanted a loan, and his value was given as £265. That was true in a sense. He said there were no alterations since I revised the values of the district, but when I went to his place I found that a house had been removed off the land for which he had made the application, and I had to report that, and I suppose they would not grant anything at all. The Board refused the application. 251. Mr. MeCutchan.] The building he removed was included in the application ?—Yes. 252. And when you went there you found it removed ?—Yes.
Otautau, Tuesday, 28th February, 1905. Dennis James Heenan examined. 1. The Chairman.] How long have you been in this district?—l have been seven years in the Beaumont Settlement. I hold 417 acres under the lease in perpetuity. 2. What do you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I, with five other selectors, reside on the Beaumont Settlement, and we find that our rents are altogether too high to enable us to make a living. 3. What rent do you pay ? —3s. 3d. per acre. 4. What area of land is cultivated ? —There are 198 acres, and in English grass. There is a boundary-fence, and it is subdivided by a road, which is also fenced. 5. Is the balance of your land ploughable ?—Yes. 6. Have you been cropping any of it?— Yes. I have had the 198 acres in oats and turnips and grass. I have been fairly successful on the river-fiat. The crop has averaged from 20 to 50
D. J. HEENAN"!
65
C.—4.
bushels. The land is river-deposit with stony bars through it. About 100 acres is liable to flood, and I have lost flocks and crop by the floods. There are no enbankments to protect against flood. The balance of the land that is not ploughed is in native tussock. 7. How far are you from Nightcaps Railway-station?— Eight miles, by a fairly good road. _ 8. Have you any dairy?— No. 9. I suppose you have some sheep ?—I have about twenty at present and a few cattle. 10. What do you think would be a fair rent? —My idea is that the whole settlement has been bought too dearly. Land contiguous to it and on the other side of the river nearer Nightcaps has been sold at £1 Bs. per acre, and land in the Avondale Block has been offered for sale privately for nearly two years at £1 6s. 6d. an acre and has not yet been sold, as against £2 10s. per acre which the Government paid for the whole of the Beaumont Estate. If I had money and was offered the Beaumont Estate at £1 6s. an acre and the Avondale Block at £1 6s. I would select Avondale. Only six blocks on the Beaumont Estate have been taken up in the seven years. I have expended my money on my section and I have nothing left, and I am in debt still and likely to be. I had a few hundred pounds when I went there and it is sunk in building and improvements, and I can see no way of getting it out. I petitioned the Government, and the Land Board came out and inspected the property and reported favourably, and it is the prospect of getting a reduction that is keeping us going. I understand the Minister of Lands introduced a Bill mentioning this particular section, but it was not proceeded with. If it were not for that I would try to get out as quickly as I could if I could get my improvements out. 11. Apart from the 198 acres of cultivated land have you put any of the tussock land in English grasses?— No. Some of my neighbours tried to cultivate it with very unsatisfactory results. 12. Is there a fairly good market in your district for oats ?—The market is in Invercargill. 13. Mr. McCutchan.] What do you reckon is the carrying-capacity in sheep of 198 acres when you got them ?—They were sown down in sweet vernal, which we find very poor for sheep indeed. There were no mixed grasses. 14. Was there any loading on this land for roads, or was it fully roaded when they took it up ?—The only road was the direct road from Nightcaps. 15. The land is not as good as the settlers anticipated at the time they took it up ? —They are disappointed in the quality of the land. 16. What do you estimate would be a fair rental after your seven years' experience ? —I reckon one-half would be quite sufficient. 17. Mr. Johnston.] Roughly, what was the carrying-capacity of the land when you went on it ?—The 198 acres might carry two sheep to the acre, and the balance one sheep to 5 acres in the winter, and one to 4 acres in the summer. It is sour stumpy tussock. 18. What is the quality of the land on the other side of the river ? —lt is alluvial flats similar to ours. There are patches of rich land. 19. What area have you in grass now ?—I have about 40 acres broken up on the flat, and this year I have broken up about 80 acres of rough tussock on the terrace. The 198 acres are in grass, and it cost trie from 15s. to £1 an acre to put it down. It will carry two sheep to the acre all the year round. 20. What is your average yield of oats ?-—About 25 bushels. I tried wheat one year, but the yield was very unsatisfactory—about 15 bushels. 21. Mr. Paul.] How do you regard the principle of a periodical revaluation? —I have not studied it. 22. From your evidence we see that your rent was originally fixed too high. If revaluation was in force you should get a reduction in rent, but, of course, if the land had increased in value your rent would be increased at periods of, say, twenty or thirty years. Do you think that would be a sound principle in connection with the lease in perpetuity ?—lt is not sound, in my opinion. 23. But you would expect your rent to be decreased now ? —I simply maintain that the Government have made a mistake and that we should not suffer on account of that .mistake in the meantime. 24. But suppose the Government had made a mistake and fixed your rent too low ?—I am quite sure they would never do that. 25. Are you satisfied with your lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—Yes, in the meantime. 26. Mr. Matheson.] Does it not appear to you that you made a mistake equally with the Government, because you also put your value on the land when you applied ? —Yes, my judgment was bad too. Of course, I was quite a stranger to Southland. I belonged to the Taieri, and was accustomed to much richer land. 27. Mr. McCardle.] You desire to get a reduction in order to make yourself a successful settler ? —That is so. Richakd Joseph Casey examined. 28. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler of five years' residence on the Beaumont Settlement. I hold Section 8, comprising about 391 acres, about 130 acres of which was cultivated and in artificial grass when I took it up. There are patches of alluvial land on my section. 29. Have you cultivated any of the tussock land ?—About 12 acres for a trial. It was not successful. I generally cultivate oats and turnips and patches of grass. 30. Have you any dairying?— No. 31. Have you any sheep?— Not at present. 32. Did you build a house ?—Yes. 33. What is your rent ?—I pay £61 ss. a year, at the rate of 3s. l£d. an acre. 34. Do you feel that it is too much? —I find from experience it is too much. The land is not productive enough to pay the rent and provide a living.
9—C. 4.
C— 4.
66
Ik. J. CASEY.
35. What reduction do you think should be made to make the rent acceptable to yourself?— I reckon according to the productiveness of the ground that one-half would be a fair rent for it. 36. Mr. Johnston.] How much of your land is fit to be improved?— About two-thirds. 37. Why do you not improve the unimproved portion ?—Because I find it does not pay to do so. I cannot see how it can pay me at the present rent. 38. How much is fit to be put down in English grasses ?—I should say the most of it. 39. How much does it cost to put it down in grass ? —About 10s. to plough and 10s. to grass it —£1 in all. 40. What would it cost to grass the 130 acres of cultivated land ?—lt would cost about 4s. less. 4 41. Would you not get a good crop of turnips off this rough unimproved ground if you tried it?— No. I have tried it. It is altogether different land from the 130 acres. 42. What does your rough tussock land carry ? —About one sheep to 5 or 6 acres from my experience. There is a bit of good swamp ground, but not enough to justify draining. 43. What is the carrying-capacity of your cultivated ground ?—About two dry sheep to the acre. 44. Mr. Paul.] How do you view the principle of periodical revaluation ?—I cannot give any evidence on the point. 45. You want a reduction in your rent ?—Yes. 46. Another man might find, owing to improvements being effected in his neighbourhood, that his land has been increased in value : do you think he should pay an increased rent ?—I do not. I think the land is altogether inferior and is not as good as it is represented. 47. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —No, I am not at present. 48. In what way are you dissatisfied?— Because it is lease in perpetuity. 49. What do you specially object to?— Under that tenure your credit does not stand as good as it does under the optional system. 50. Would you have been able to take up the 391 acres under another tenure ?—Not at the time when I took it up. 51. Mr. Anstey.] Is all your unimproved ground in tussock?— There is no bush. 52. Have you ever tried surf ace-sowing?— Yes, but it did not do very well. It did right enough in patches. 53. What have you on this unimproved land?—l have been running about 150 dry sheep in the summer. 54. You cannot keep sheep profitably in the winter ?—You could keep them by growing feed, but you cannot carry enough sheep on the section to make it pay. 55. Mr. Matheson.] When you took your land up would you have been better pleased if you could have taken it up with the right of purchase ?—I did not altogether consider it. My lease is a very good way to start with, but after you are settled a while you find the right of purchase very beneficial. 56. Suppose you could have paid 1 per cent, more rent and got the right of purchase, would you have chosen that tenure rather than lease in perpetuity ? —lf the land had been bought at a reasonable value I would have. We are paying 5 per cent. now. 57. Mr. McCardle.] You want a reduction in order that you may be able to hold the land profitably to yourself ?—Yes. George Frederick Toogood examined. 58. The Chairman.] You are a settler on Beaumont?— Yes. I hold Section 1, of 445 acres, and I have been there twenty months. I took the land direct from the Government, and I pay 3s. l£d. rent for it. When I took the land up 130 acres were in English grass, and 60 acres had been ploughed and left uncropped. 59. I suppose you have had only one crop off your land? —Yes ; oats and barley, and turnips arid rape. I got 15 to 40 bushels of oats, 20 bushels of barley, and a middling crop of turnips and rape. 60. Have you any stock on the place ?—No. 61. Have you built a house?— No. I am residing on my father's freehold adjacent section. I have been in the district twelve years, and I know a good deal about this land. 62. Do you think your rent is too high ?—Yes. I reckon if it was reduced by one-half it would be fair. 63. Mr. Johnston.] Have you got any ragwort ?—There is a little. 64. How many sheep does your land carry ? —I should say the flats would carry two dry sheep to the acre. 65. How many acres are there of that class of land ? —About 190 acres of river-flats. 66. What will the other land carry ?—I should say about one sheep to sor 6 acres. 67. Could it be made to carry two sheep to the acre? —No. It would not be worth ploughing. 68. Are you satisfied with your property?— No. 69. Mr. Paul.] How do you regard the question of revaluation ? —I have not considered it. 70. Are you satisfied with your lease in perpetuity?— No. 71. What alteration do you think is necessary ?—lf we had it on the optional system we would be better pleased. 72. Would your means have allowed you to take up the land with the option of purchase had it been possible at the time to do so by paying 1 per cent, more ? —The other way is really the best for a man to start with; but I would rather have it on the optional system. 73. When you get on your feet you want the option with the right to purchase ?—I would rather have it that way.
67
G. F. TOOGOOD.I
C.—4.
74. Mr. Anstey.} Does your present tenure carry with it the right to surrender loaded with improvements if you wish to do so ?—Yes; but I have to run the risk of the section not being taken up for some time, and in the meantime the improvements might depreciate in value. 75. If your land is only worth half the rent you are paying for it, would not surrender be a simple means of forcing a reduction in your rent: why do you not throw it up ?—I do not care about throwing it up just yet, but if no reduction is made it will be a case of having to, because I cannot hold the land at the present rent. William John Daeley examined. 76. The Chairman.'] Are you a settler?— Yes; but I am appearing here for my son and daughter, who are residing on the Otahu Settlement. My son holds Section 7, consisting of 404 acres, and my daughter Sections 8 and 9, consisting of 1,012 acres, both under lease in perpetuity from the Government. My son has been there about five years, and my daughter three. My son pays 2s. 4d. per acre rent, and my daughter 2s. for Section 8 and Is. 7Jd. for Section 9. 77. What use do they put the land to principally?—lt is used for sheep and cattle. I have a place up above, and we work them all together. We have nineteen hundred sheep on the whole property, which means that there are about twelve hundred sheep on theirs. 78. Is that the fair annual capacity of the land?—lt is not the land that carries them, but the agriculture. We put in great quantities of turnips. We used 12 tons of guano to grow 130 acres of turnips this year. Two-thirds of the land is well watered, but there is a third with no water at all, and we find we can do nothing with that at all. It will carry nothing, and that is our trouble. It has not carried one sheep this year. I think it would be best for the Government to take this piece of ground from us and turn it into a forest reserve. It would grow capital larch. If it were not for that third we could do very well indeed. We also find we are greatly hampered by the rabbits, which flock on to our property from the surrounding neighbourhood. We do our best to keep them down. We have put 5 cwt. of poison down since June last. The Eabbit Inspector kept the country pretty clear until the Act was amended, but now he seems rather afraid of going for the people, and the rabbits are increasing. At present my son and daughter are carrying on at a loss. We have done all that is possible to improve the place, but we find we are no further forward owing to this useless area. My ground is all right, but I only pay something like Bd. an acre for it. 79. You admit that some of the land on your son's and daughter's sections is very good?—lt is excellent. 80. Do your son and daughter reside on the sections ?—My son does, but my daughter is at home at present on account of her broken leg. 81. Have you any buildings?— Yes. I think the place would pay if it were not for that bad third I have mentioned. 82. Then, one of your great troubles and one great source of expense are the rabbits?— Yes. I reckon five rabbits equal to one sheep. It is not on account of what they eat, but owing to the destruction they cause. They attack the turnips immediately they appear above the ground, and clear great patches that way, and in the winter, when the ground is under snow, they come tremendous distances to our turnips. 83. Is the Lannekar Bush still reserved?— Yes, and it is a great stronghold and breedingplace for the rabbits. 84. Situated as you are on the ridges, did you think it would be an advantage to work the property together as a family estate ?—Yes. The girls take an interest in outdoor work, and I thought it would be better for them to develop it than to send them into the towns. I think they have done as much work on the land as anybody else. We would not have taken up the property if we could not have worked together. 85. Do you feel you must have a reduction of rent ?—I think my son's rent is too dear; but my daughter's would be cheap enough if that bad third was taken from her, and if the rabbits ware kept down we would not find so much fault with it. 86. Then, on the whole you are not very urgent for a reduction of rent?—l think we have the best piece of land on Otahu, but I think some of it would be dear at a gift. 87. Mr. McCutchan.] At the time your son and daughter took up their allotments it was owing to your experience on the adjoining place that you thought it was a fair thing for them ?— I thought my son's too dear, and did not want him to take it; but he had as good an idea of the subject as I had, and he preferred to do so. 88. Roughly, what is the carrying-capacity of the good portions of the place laid down in English grass ? —Some would carry five sheep to the acre in summer-time, but in the winter it is subject to floods. 89. Do you think the country is too inferior to be properly worked ?—I think Otahu has a worse name than it deserves. 90. Do you think it would be a wise thing and in the interests of the State were these settlers placed upon the land given the optional tenure ?—I think it would be the wisest thing the State could do. I did think once that land-nationalisation was a good thing, but force of circumstances and advancing years have caused me to alter that opinion. I think the system in New Zealand an excellent one, but it should allow a man after a certain time to take up the freehold. If I wanted to sell out under the lease in perpetuity I do not think I could get what I have expended on the property, but under the freehold I believe I would have a better chance to do so. I think the Government should continue to open up the country. Then after a man has been on it ten or twenty years he should be permitted to acquire the freehold if he desires it. I might mention that I am a Justice of the Peace, and a neighbour of mine came recently to get some transfer papers completed. lam sure that lessee is not getting the full value of the improvements he has put on that place.
C—4.
68
[W. J. DARLEY.
91. Your children are under the Land for Settlements Act, and are paying 5 per cent. For the waste lands of the Crown the people are paying 4 per cent., and it is advocated that they should get the right to the freehold by paying an extra 1 per cent: do you think if your people were given the right to secure the freehold they should pay anything further than the 5 per cent. ?—I do not think it would be wise. It would be placing a heavier burden on the people than they could bear. I had land in the Old Country, and I was offered money there at 3 per cent. 92. Was there any loading upon your block for roads? —No. There were two reserves for drainage. One was carried out, but the other has not been done, and in lambing-time the country is subject to floods. 93. Are you satisfied with your representation on the Land Board and the method of nomination by the Government ?—I think, on principle, it would be advisable if the tenants and those interested had one representative. Personally, we could not be better served than we are at present with the members of the Land Board. There is an impression in my mind that the Wellington Land Board have been rather autocratic, and in such cases I feel it would be better if there was one man elected by the people. 94. Considering the Crown tenants' interests are very large in proportion to the Crown's, do you think one member is sufficient ? —Possibly there ought to be more, but 1 think there ought to be one. 95. But you would be satisfied if you could always get good men, as you have on the Land Board at present ?—Yes. 96. Mr. Johnston.] You carry twelve thousand sheep on this land?— Yes, approximately. 97. Do you get, roughly, 15s. per head gross profit from them ? —I have never gone into that. 98. Do you approve of the present residential clauses in the Land Act ?—They suit us very well. It is impossible for the people to reside permanently on the ground. Settlers go out contracting for other people for a considerable part of the year ; but if the Board sees that a man is a bond fide settler who is carrying out his improvements it never interferes. 99. Mr. Paul.] I understood you to favour very strongly the settlement of the people on the land ? —Yes. 100. Then, you are a whole-hearted supporter of the policy of the present Government in buying estates and settling the land—you think that is good for the country ?—I think it is very good indeed. 101. I understood you to say that you are in favour of the Government buying estates and selling them, and, in short, acting as a general land agent ?—I think there is no one else who can perform that duty so well. It is better that the Government should do so rather than it should be done by syndicates. lam in favour of anything that will draw the blood out of the towns and spread it all over the country—we do not want all the blood in the head, but it should circulate throughout the system. It is the country that is going to make the town. The worst of the Australasian Colonies is that it is the other way about, and the blood goes to the head, and a good deal of the bone and sinew too, I am sorry to say, is going there. 102. Have you studied the financial aspect of the question, so far as the colony is concerned, in borrowing money to purchase estates ?—lf the people are to be settled on the land and we are to extend the railways we must borrow. In other countries private companies construct the railways, but here everything is done in the name of the Government. 103. You are satisfied with the lease in perpetuity for a certain number of years ?—Yes ; but supposing a man has been upon a section for twelve or fifteen years and he is compelled by adverse circumstances to sell out, it is difficult for him ; but I do not believe in trafficking in land more than can be avoided. 104. You have made certain improvements on the land under the lease in perpetuity —you could get a fair valuation ?—We possibly might, but in the case I have mentioned I do not think a fair valuation was given. 105. Could your son and daughter purchase the freehold ?—ln course of time they might be able to do so. It is a very good system. 106. Then, the land for settlements and lease-in-perpetuity tenure " pans out " very well?— So far as I have been able to see, it does, but to meet cases of sickness or people retiring it is desirable they should be able to sell out the freehold if they get a better market. 107. We all recognise that the freehold has a higher value than leasehold, but you cannot get a freehold without paying for it. I understand that the lease has enabled your son and daughter to go on the land ?—Yes. 108. Mr. Anstey.] Did your son and daughter take up land under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Yes. 109. It was a purchased estate?— Yes. 110. Mr. Matheson.] Are some people in your district making the trapping of rabbits their chief occupation ? —Yes, in winter-time. 111. Do you think that so long as they make money in that way the rabbits will ever be got rid of ?—I am sure they will not. 112. Do you think that if rabbits were got rid of you would be in a very satisfactory position ? —Yes. 113. So that the greatest hindrance to settlement in your district is rabbits?— Yes, at Otahu. 114. Mr. Johnston.] Do you get a royalty on rabbits?— No. We find the feed for them and they take the profit away. 115. Mr. McCardlei] You have said that a good deal of the land you want to go on is valueless : have you ever tried clover?— Yes. We put 401b. of se9d down. I think that clover does well for the first part of the year, but not in winter. 116. How about grass ?—I would like to have a try at a small patch to see how it would do. I believe yarrow would do, but that is almost a noxious weed on good ground.
69
a—4.
W. J. DART.KY.
117. You think that a man having the lease in perpetuity should have an opportunity of changing into a lease with the right of purchase ?—Yes, after a certain time. 118. Then, you believe that it would be fair for him to have 1 per cent, taken off his rent as compared with the lease with the right of purchase ?—Yes. Those who got it before should be able to pay the extra 1 per cent. I think 5 per cent, is ample for ground held under the Land for Settlements Act. It is about as much as a man can pay. 119. You do not think you get any advantage in taking up a lease in perpetuity as compared with a lease with the right of purchase? —No, except the 1 per cent. 120. The two systems meet the ease of the working-man about equally well for the time ?— Yes; but if I were to take up land it would be under occupation with right of purchase. William Scott examined. 121. The Chairman.] What are you? —I represent my son, who is a holder in the Otahu Settlement. My son has 1,055 acres, Sections 4 and 5. The land is of light quality, nearly twothirds are gravelly. My son uses the land for raising stock, and he cultivates oats and turnips. He puts in about 50 acres of turnips, and during the last year or two he has put in, in addition, about 50 acres of oats. His rent is £103. He lias got the original homestead. There are about 70 acres of bush. I think the improvements amount to about £400. The lease is for twenty-one years. I think that the Otahu Estate was in the first place acquired at rather a high value—the Government paid too much for it. They paid about £1 ss. an acre, and Ido not think it was worth more than 12s. 6d., because it is infested with rabbits. Eabbits have reduced the carryingcapacity of the land by a considerable amount. The expense of keeping down rabitts is very large. I think the rabbits should be the means of bringing about a reduction in the value of the estate. The subsoil is of a puffy nature ; it will not hold the rain, and therefore the land will not grow grass. 122. Supposing there were no rabbits, would the land be worth the rent you are paying? —I believe it would, and I am confident that my son's land would carry 250 more sheep. 123. Was it badly infested with rabbits before it was taken up? —No. The Government had kept them down with the aid of Inspectors, but in a few months the surrounding country again became infested. Under the circumstances I think the rent is double what it should be. I hold 650 acres of freehold at Clifden. Rabbits are not so bad there, although they are pretty bad in some places. 124. Mr. Johnston.'] What sheep does your son's land carry ? —He has about five hundred sheep at present. 125. What did the land cost ?—About £1 2s. 6d. an acre freehold. I hold my land under lease in perpetuity. I had made considerable improvements. 126. You are satisfied with the land, then ? —I have no complaint to make. 127. You are not satisfied with the land your son has got ? —lt is right enough while stock is high, but during two years he made nothing at all. 128. Mr. Hall.] Is your son's land of a light sandy nature ?—Yes. 129. He holds it under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Yes. 130. Is his tenure satisfactory apart from the rabbit trouble ?—He apparently seems content with the long lease. 131. Do you think the Government should do anything to assist in reducing the rabbits, or can you suggest any other means that should be adopted to meet the case ? —I could not suggest anything while the Inspectors have full charge. Three settlers have been warned lately, and I think one has surrendered his holding. 132. Mr. Anstey.] Supposing, instead of reducing the rent, the Government spent the money in subduing the rabbit-pest, would not that increase the productive capacity of the land ?—Yes. It is difficult to keep the land clean unless the surrounding country is also kept clean. 133. I understand that there is a large educational endowment to the north: do you not know whether there any rabbits on it ? —I could not say. 134. Mr. Matheson.] Have you tried rabbit-netting on a piece of land to see the result ?- —I thought that would be a good idea, and suggested it to my son, but it is expensive in the case of a large block. 135. Have you ever been in a rabbit district and noticed that with the aid of a wire net the rabbit pest was gradually diminished ? —I believe it would help it. 136. Are you satisfied that the rabbit nuisance is the greatest hindrance to settlement there? —Yes. 137. Mr. Hall.] Are you aware of the cost of rabbit-netting per mile?— No. 138. Mr. Anstey.] Would it not be almost better for the Government to supply the netting free rather than reduce the rents ?—lt would certainly be better than nothing at all. I think that would be a very good idea. 139. If you were supplied with a certain amount of netting, would it not be well to try some of it on a small portion of land ? —lf I were in a rabbit-infested district and was supplied with netting I would try it. 140. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think it would be advisable for the Government, instead of reducing the rents, to supply wire netting to the.Government, tenants, and thus assist in checking the rabbits? —I would not like to take upon myself to answer that question. If I were in a similar position to an Otahu settler, if I could get no other concession I would certainly accept that one. 141. Mr. McCutchan.] At one time you held a lease-in-perpetuity section?— Yes. 142. You gave up that lease, and you took the risk of losing your land altogether ?—Yes. 143. But individually the settlers in the district thought the upset price, £1 2s. 6d., was the full value ?—Of course, I had considerable improvements. 144. Your improvements were pro ected? —Yes.
a—4.
70
W. SCOTT.
145. You stated that it was your impression that your son is satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure?—l believe he is. 146. But that is always provided there will be no risk of revaluation in the future ?— Certainly. 147. Mr. Paul.) You understand the question of revaluation can only be applied to future leases. Your son holds a lease in perpetuity. At present there is no possibility of him having to put up with revaluation. The principle of revaluation would be applied to future leases—you understand that?— You mean in regard to revaluing the long lease. 148. If the principle of revaluation is applied it will be applied to future leases ?—I do not altogether approve of that, because it might be applied too often. 149. I want to know does your son approve of the principle of revaluation applying to future leases—there is no possibility of it being applied to your son's lease ?—That is quite a different matter. As long as it does not'apply to the present leases. 150. Do you think if s "would be wise to do so for future leases? —I do not know whether I could say I could agree tojit. 151. Mr. McCardle.] In regard to waste lands of the Crown-unimproved country, do you not think that periodical revaluation would retard rather than encourage settlement ?—I could not exactly say. As to the perpetual lease and the lease in perpetuity, the 1 per cent, makes the difference, and increased the applications in one case. Besides, the land-tax cannot get at them. That is another consideration. The lease with the right of purchase is my favourite. Jambs King examined. 152. The Chairman.'] What"are you ? —I am a settler at Clifden, and hold 468 acres—Section 8, Block 1., Lillburn. I also hold three sections in Papatotara. Section Bis held under lease in perpetuity. The area of the three sections at Papatotara is about 160 acres altogether, and they are held under lease with right of purchase. The 472 acres is being used for sheep-farming, and the rent is £33 12s. a year, equal to Is. an acre. I have held Section 8 for twelve years, and have had the remaining property about six months. The 150 acres was improved when I bought it. I paid £350 for the goodwill and improvements. I valued the improvements at about £100; £220 was paid for the goodwill. I took up Section Bin 1892 under occupation with right to purchase. A few years afterwards I surrendered and got a revaluation. I paid 5 per cent, up to that date. I then took it up under lease in perpetuity, and am holding it under that tenure, paying 4 per cent. lam a strong believer in the freehold. I have done a good deal of farming here, and also some in Scotland before I came to the colony. Prom my experience in Scotland I do not believe in landlordism. I came sixteen thousand miles to get a freehold, and I believe in it if a man can purchase it. As I have said, I got a reduction in rent, and I am now quite satisfied. lam satisfied with respect to my land at Papatotara, and use it for cattle, and I have the right to purchase in the case of that land. 153. Mr. McCutchan.] Were these blocks loaded for loading ? —Yes ; Section 8. 154. Are you satisfied with the principle of loading—that is, the settler paying interest or the whole term of his lease on loading ?—I think it is a fair thing that if they get the roads they should pay for them. lam not satisfied with the way it was done in the case of Lillburn. The money was simply squandered in the expending of it. 155. But you are satisfied with the principle ?—Yes; but I think the payment for loading should terminate at the end of a certain number of years. 156. You are paying 4 per cent. ? —Yes. 157. At compound interest the money would be paid for in about eighteen years ?—-Yes. 158. Do you not think it would be a fair thing to cease paying for loading in eighteen years? Surely by that time the Government would be recouped the capital outlay without interest ?—I think so. 159. Mr. Johnston.] What stock do you carry ?—About eight hundred sheep and one hundred head of cattle. 160. What is the cost of your land ?—ls. an acre. 161. Are you satisfied with the land?— Yes, but we paid far too much at first. 162. How much was in bush on the large section ? —lt was all open country. 163. You had the right in the first instance to purchase, but you got a revaluation and took it up at 4 per cent: why did you do that ?—Because I was getting the money cheaper. That was what I thought. 164. In other words, you thought it more advantageous than having the right of purchase ?— No; but I could better afford the 4 per cent, than the 5 per cent, at the time. 165. And at the present time you would like to be able to purchase it ?—I am very sorry I ever changed it. 166. When you were a poor man you were prepared to take it up under that tenure and considered it very good?— Because I could not do otherwise. 167. You wanted to get on the land and you had not any capital ?—I had a little. 168. A poor man could not start a farm unless there was perpetual lease ?—Yes, with right of purchase. 169. Which would you take up if you were a poor man ?—Certainly, with the right of purchase now. 170. That was when you had. not the experience ?—Yes; but with my present experience I should certainly take it up differently now. Before I took up this land I had 300 acres at Woodlands. 171. You left Scotland for the purpose of making a home here, and you are a strong believer in the freehold : was not the land freehold there ?—No ; it was leasehold. 172. But the landlords have now got the freehold?— Yes.
71
C—4.
J. KING. '
173. But it was having the freehold in those days that led to the large estates ?—Yes. 174. Would you advocate giving the freehold now, so that the accumulation of estates could go on ?—No ; I think the amount of land should be restricted. 175. Will you tell us roughly what you are making out of eight hundred sheep a year and what ought to be a fair rent after paying all expenses ?—My return is above the average. I breed stud sheep. My sheep are Border, Leicesters, and Bomneys. 176. Can you say what profit ought to get from eight hundred ordinary sheep?— Values fluctuate a good deal, but to strike an average I should say about 10s. a sheep. 177. Can you get 10s. for a lamb at the present time ? —Yes. 178. Could you have got 10s. three years ago for a lamb ?—I do not think so. 179. Mr. Paul.] Would you favour giving the freehold to all Crown tenants ? —Yes. 180. On what terms ? Those who hold the lease in perpetuity pay 4 per cent.: would you ask them to pay up the 1 per cent. ?—Yes. 181. And even if the land were put up to auction would you favour that if the only way to get the right of purchase was to do that ?—I would not favour auction, because I defy you to get sufficient valuation for improvements. You could not get value for much of your labour that was put into the improvements. You can put improvements on land which could not be valued. 182. Would you favour the freehold being given to all tenants ?—Yes. 183. Including tenants of Harbour Board and educational endowments? —Yes, with a restricted area. 184. You do not consider it is wise to set apart these endowments for educational purposes ? —Yes. I think it is a good thing, but if they got the money out of them it would do just as well. 185. But, generally speaking, these endowments are increasing in value every year ?—I dare say they are in some cases. 186. Then, you propose giving the freehold to all tenants ?—Yes. 187. The tenants or private landlords?— Yes, to every one. I think it is for the good of the country. 188. Mr. McLennan.] You said there had been waste in the expenditure of certain money on roads : was it the County Council or the Government that expended that money ?—The Government. 189. Mr. Anstey.] You said just now that you were sorry that you altered the tenure of your land. By doing so you saved 1 per cent. ?—Yes. 190. Would you be prepared to pay the additional rent if you went back to the old tenure?— Yes. 191. Would you be prepared to pay up the arrears ?—Yes, I would be quite willing to pay the arrears. 192. Mr. Johnston.'] When you surrendered and got a revaluation, what was your valuation ? —£2 an acre. 193. And now it is what?—£l 7s. an acre. 194. Would you be prepared to pay the 13s. if you had the right of purchase?— Yes; but that would not be fair, because the land was too dear originally. 195. But surely £2 an acre is not too dear for land that will carry two and a half sheep ?— We have made it do that, but before the land was improved it would not carry two and a half sheep. 196. Mr. McCardle.] It is an indication that the principle was a good one in your case?— Yes; and I think it is quite fair to pay the 1 per cent. Robert Tapper, Jun., examined. 197. The Chairman.] What are you? —lam a sheep and cattle farmer at Clifden, West Waiau. I have 885 acres under lease in perpetuity, and I manage another farm, and also represent my brother, I have been twenty-four years in that place, and have held the 885 acres for ten years. My rent is about £30 a year, making it 9d. an acre. I cultivate turnips and enough oats for winter use on the farm. The land was rough when my brother and I took it up— that is, the additional land—and the reason we took it was because it adjoined the freehold. My land is Section 14, Block 1., and the other land is Section 7, Block 11. I have cleared about 200 acres of bush. lam frightened to clear any more on account of the Canadian thistle. The cleared portion has taken the grass very well. The land is very inaccessible. 198. You do not think the rate excessive?— Yes, I do, and so did the Land Commissioner once. 199. Mr. McCutchan.~\ Do you find any great difficulty in getting the bush burnt?— Yes, sometimes. This is the first good year I have had for a burn. 200. Is the local body enforcing the Noxious Weeds Act with any degree of stringency ?—I do not wait until I am forced by the local body. 201. If the local body does not enforce the Act, is not the work of a good man destroyed to some extent by the weeds spreading from adjoining land ?—Yes, there is always the fear of the spread of the thistle from neighbouring land. 202. If the local bodies were to enforce the Act, would it press heavily on the settler ?—ln some cases. It would in the case of bush land. 203. Supposing there is lax administration of the Act. what is your opinion of the ultimate result ?—The farmer would have to go out. 204. Mr. Paul.] Are you satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure?—No; I would like to have the freehold. 205. Did the lease in perpetuity suit you when you took up the land?— The difference between 4 and 5 per cent, makes one consider, but I wish now that I had taken up a lease with the right of purchase.
72
C—4.
Tb. tappkr.
206. Did it suit you better at the time you took it up—that is, the lease in perpetuity?—l think if it had been the freehold we would have bought it out. 207. Mr. McLennan.] Do you sow the grass-seed that grows about here?— Sometimes we purchase it from down in the country, or from where we can get the best sample cheapest. I have sown some of my own grass, and I think other farmers also do so. 208. Then, you will not have weeds then ?—I think several of them sent their grass down to the companies to be machine-dressed. 209. Will the machines take yarrow and other seeds out ? —Yes. Yarrow, Canadian thistle, and I also think ragwort, but that is no trouble to us on the flat. 210. Mr. Hall.] How do you account for noxious weeds being spread about the country here ? Is it from the use of inferior seed ?—I think it is owing to the driving of mobs cf sheep down the country, and feeding on the thistle and carrying it home in their fleece, and in other ways. 211. Have you found that Canadian-thistle seed carries with the wind ?—I do not thin kit carries very far with the wind. Patches spread mostly from the roots. 212. Mr. Anstey.] Are there any rabbits on your side of the river?—A few. They are rather a nuisance on the freehold piece, but are not so bad on the leasehold portion. The freehold is black sandy soil. 213. Have any of you tried wire netting ?—No ; not to any great extent. Our neighbour thought he had fenced the rabbits out, but he found there were more rabbits inside the fence than outside. 214. Mr. McCardle.] What is your objection to the lease in perpetuity ?—A man likes to have a piece of land of his own. . 215. Is it only a matter of sentiment?— Sentiment goes a long way towards it. When a man wants to sell land or borrow money the freehold is better for him. 216. As to restrictions, do you think with the progress of settlement restrictions should be removed ? —lf a man is a good farmer I do not think the restrictions are very heavy on him. John Horkell examined. 217. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a farmer in the Lillburn, at Clifden. I have been there twelve years, and I hold 697 acres of freehold. I raise stock and cultivate special feed for winter use. 218. You might just state what you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I am strongly in favour of the freehold. I think the freehold tenure is the best for all concerned. My parents were leaseholders for years in the Old Country. They had a family of boys, who worked for no pay beyond their board and lodgings and clothes. We found that at the end of each year we were always a little worse off. The Government of this country offered then the freehold, and we came out to take it up. I say the freehold settler has built up this colony. The freehold is best for the tiller of the soil, and what is best for him is best for the whole community. 219. Do you think there is any advantage in the various leasehold tenures which allow settlers to get on the land much earlier than they could otherwise do ?—The leasehold is undoubtedly the best for the man with small means, and most of the people who take up land from the Crown in the back country are men of small means; but I think when a man shows that he is a bond fide settler and is putting on sufficient improvements he should be allowed to purchase the freehold. 220. I presume from your remarks you wish settlers to have the right to purchase when it is convenient for them to do so ?—Yes. 221. Have you any remarks to make as to whether the Crown lands should be administered by nominated Board or an elected one?—l think it is only fair to the Crown tenants that they should be allowed to appoint or elect one member, so that they might be represented. Personally, I have been a Crown tenant, and I have no fault to find with this Board. 222. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think it is wise in the interests of the colony that all future leases should have a revaluation clause put in them ?—No. I do not think it would be fair to the settler. Ido not think he should be subject to any revaluation or to any increase in his rent under any circumstances. 223. Mr. McLennan.] Do you belong to the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 224. Do you represent the Farmers' Union here to-day ? —No. I may state that at the meeting at which the resolution which Mr. King read was passed I was the only freeholder present. The remainder were Crown tenants. The meeting was held at Clifden. 225. Mr. Anstey.] Was it a meeting of the settlers or of the Farmers' Union ?—lt was a meeting of the settlers, altogether independent of the Farmers' Union. 226. Mr. Hall.] Do you consider that the greater number of those that have taken up land under the Land for Settements Act would have been able to procure the freehold at the time they took up that land ?—lt is much easier for a man to take up the leasehold. Most of the people that take up back country from the Crown are men of small capital, otherwise they would never go into the back country and struggle as they do. Only those who have gone through it know how these men have to struggle, and I think men who go into that country are entitled to the freehold when they wish to acquire it. 227. Would they be in the first instance in a position acquire the freehold?— They could not possibly take up land at all. 228. Then, it is in the interests of the country that they should get the land under that tenure ? —It is easier for a start, but a struggling Crown tenant is of no use to himself or the country. A man with the freehold will put more heart into his work. 229. Would you advocate converting the existing leaseholds into freehold?—l would if the tenant desired it. If a tenant wished to remain a leaseholder, let him do so by all means so long as the Government does not interfere with his lease.
J. HORRELL.]
73
C—4.
230. In granting the freehold under existing leaseholds ought there to be any revaluation ?— No, unless the rent is too dear. I wish to point out that when I took up a leasehold in the Lillburn district we all surrendered our sections because the rent was too dear. The land was revalued by the members of the Land Board, who were all practical farmers, and the rents were reduced. Could you expect a Crown tenant to struggle on the land when his rent is too dear ? 231. Is it fair to the country to part certain sections that are undervalued and take over from the tenants those that happen to be too dear?— One of the greatest mistakes the Crown make is in putting too big a prairie value on their land. 232. I understand many settlers get a high price for their goodwill ? —I think Mr. King pointed out that you cannot value the improvements on a section. 233. Mr. McCardle.] You are of opinion that when a settler takes up rough country there is very little unearned increment that is not the result of his own improvement ? —Yes. 234. Your contention is that land should only be revalued when it is clearly proved that the tenant has taken it up at too high a price ?—Yes. 235. Mr. Johnston.'] Can you give us any idea of the market value of your land?—l would take £4 per acre for it, but Ido not want to sell. No land has been sold in our district since I have been there. 236. How many sheep do you carry to the acre? —It might carry one and a half. 237. What was the capital value when you took your land up ?—The prairie value was a shade over £2 per acre, and when it was revalued it was reduced to £1 2s. 6d. an acre. This land was loaded at the time of the original selection for roads and bridges, and to the best of my knowledge I paid £300 for the loading. I think loading the back country is a mistake. 238. You think a farmer is'entitled to the unearned increment if there is any?— Yes; but I do not think there is any. George Andrew Scott examined. 239. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a farmer on the Merrivale Settlement. I have been there five years, and I hold 157 acres under lease in perpetuity. It is all open land, and had all been ploughed and grassed when I took it up. I have been grazing it with sheep and a few cattle. 240. Any dairying ?—Yes ; I am milking for the factory. 241. What is your rent?—4s. 6d. per acre. I wish to state, in regard to the Merrivale Settlement, that it is generally conceded that the whole of the land was originally valued too high. From my knowledge of the settlement and of the settlers as a whole it is not what you could call a go-ahead settlement. It cannot be classed under the same heading as Cheviot or Waikakahi, in the north. We have several drawbacks to contend with, the greatest of which, perhaps, is climate. The weather is particularly severe in the spring months, and our stock suffers very heavily. Two years ago we had 2 ft. of snow on the 22nd October, and each individual in the block lost heavily in the lambing. Another great drawback is the broken and steep nature of the land. The narrow ridges away from the sun are not worth ploughing. They do not hold grass very well, because after the first two or three years the fog comes up. We are loaded very heavily for roads. I understand that the land was originally bought for £2 10s. per acre all over. Well, the roading and surveying brought some of the land up to £6 per acre. In my own case lam loaded to the extent of £2 per acre, and in some other cases the loading is £4 per acre. There are not two really successful settlers on the whole of Merrivale. lamon a limestone ridge on Section 27. My wife has another place of 210 acres across the road, but about 130 acres of this is heavy bush. At any rate, I consider I have 250 acres of open land in the two sections. I will tell you the stock I have at present in order that you may judge of the carrying-capacity of the land. I have twenty-eight dairy cows, seventy-five sheep, six horses, and a few pigs. 1 have in winter feed for this stock, say, 60 acres ploughed. That leaves 200 acres in grass, and with the exception of 25 or 30 acres none of that grass is more than three years old, and most of it is running out. In fact, I have not- sufficient feed for my stock. Last year I put in 20 acres in oats, and after harvesting it I got 13 tons of chaff out of it. The rent for Mrs. Scott's section is 2s. Bd. per acre all over. 242. Speaking about fog on your land, have you or any of the other settlers ever applied lime to your land ?—I have not, simply because I could not get it; but I question if it would do any good, because the majority of the ridges are poor yellow clay. I put one of these paddocks down in turnips with 3 cwt. of guano three years ago, and I did not get as many turnips as would cover this table. 243. What is the average value of a cow's produce ?—My experience is that a cow on my land is worth 15s. for four months in the year, and about 10s. a month for other six months. That is £6 per year. We often read that dairy-farmers get £6 to £10 a year from each cow, but they could not do so in our country. 244. Do you sell any young stock?—l sold some calves last year. 245. What do your sheep yield ?—They averaged about 7 lb. of wool. They are crossbreds. 246. Supposing you wanted to buy your land, what would you be prepared to give for it ?— About £2 10s. per acre. 247. So that there is £2 per acre of a loss on the Government valuation ?—Yes. 248. Does that remark apply to the whole of the settlement?—lt does not to such an extraordinary degree, but in the majority of the cases it does. 249. Mr. McGutchan.] What a,re your county rates? —I think -|d. in the pound. I pay about sd. per acre in rates. 250. You say the carrying-capacity is one sheep to the acre? —Yes. 251. How was it, in the first instance, that practical men, looking at this land, and having regard to the small areas, took it up at all ?—That is a question I have never been able to answer to myself satisfactorily.
10—C. 4.
C—4.
74
To. A. SCOTT.
252. You object very strongly to the loading ?—I do. 253. Who spent the loading?— The Government. 254. Have you any suggestion to make in regard to this loading : do you think it is right it should go on in perpetuity ?—I certainly think it should not. I think at the very outside it ought to terminate in fifteen years from the time the money was spent. 255. Mr. Johnston.] Were you,accustomed to this district before you went on the land at Merrivale?—l knew nothing about the district. 256. Are you satisfied with the tenure of your lease? —No. 257. What causes you dissatisfaction ?—I think the principle is wrong. 258. You want to purchase?— No. In fact, I would not purchase my land if I had an opportunity of doing so. lam strongly against this lease in perpetuity. I certainly say a man ought to have the option of purchasing the freehold; and not one particular class of settler more than another, but every settler. 259. Mr. Paul.] You approve of the principle the Government are following of buying land for settlement ?—Yes. It is very good so far as it goes, if they carried out the principle in a reasonable sort of a way. 260. It seems from the evidence we have heard that the estate was purchased at too high a price ?— D ndoubtedly. 261. In what light do you look at an increase in the graduated land-tax for the purpose of making owners of large estates more anxious to sell ? —I think it would be rather arbitrary. The land is only worth what it will produce, and if the Government tax the land above that point I say a hardship will be inflicted. 262. An increase in the graduated land-tax would make a man either produce the limit from his land or sell it ?—Not necessarily. 263. Mr. Hall.] Is the bulk of the Merrivale Estate unsuited for close settlement ?—No, but a good portion is, and some of the settlers took up land not suitable for settlement. 264. Were they as a rule practical men with a knowledge of land and farming ?—Yes. 265. How do you account for them taking it up at a price that was too high ?—The proof of a pudding is in the eating, and so it is with land. You cannot tell what it will do until you work it. 266. Mr. Anstey.] What is the total loading per acre for the whole of the estate? Would it amount to ss. or 10s. per acre ?■—lt would amount to more than that, but I cannot tell you. 267. In regard to the size of the sections, do you think they ought to be larger or smaller ?— They ought to be larger. I think a man, to make a fair living, would require not less than 300 acres. George Barwell examined. 268. The Chairman.] You are a Crown tenant on the Merrivale Estate ?—Yes. I have been there since the beginning of the settlement, nine or ten years ago, and I hold 350 acres. It is chiefly bush. I had 250 acres in bush, but I have cleared about 70 acres, and it has taken the grass very well. When I took the section up portions of the open area were cultivated and portions were surface-sown. I pay Is. 6d. per acre, and I graze both sheep and cattle. 269. Do you dairy?— No. 270. What do you wish to bring before the Commission ?—1 wish to state that Ido not regard the lease in perpetuity as a secure tenure, owing to the agitation that is prominently before the towns for revaluation, and also because you do not get valuation for your improvements. Another point about the Merrivale Settlement is that the allotments are altogether too small. That is one of the greatest faults in the settlement. It is sixteen to eighteen miles away from a railway, and a man with 140 acres of land has practically to depend upon sheep, and no man can carry on successful sheep-raising and maintain a family unless his land is capable of carrying five hundred breeding ewes. These sections under the present Act cannot be grouped. I think the present constitution of the Land Board is all right. I have no fault to find with the Board. I object to the loading for roads, because it is a special tax which these people have to pay for all time, and these roads give access to lands further on. I think all money for roads should come out of the Consolidated Fund and should be paid by the taxpayers generally. Again, in the case, of persons wishing to borrow on the lease in perpetuity, they cannot get anything like one-half the value of their improvements. I know a case where a man's improvements were valued at £300, and the utmost he could get was £100. Under the freehold I think that more could be got. I know the money institutions are very chary about lending on leaseholds. I do not think that short leases are advisable, because a man will not farm his land as well under a short lease as under a long one. 271. Mr. McCutchan.] You think, from the tone of opinion in the towns, that there is a real danger in the future of retrospective legislation in regard to the revaluation of these leases ?—I will not say a real danger, but the threat is held out, and is causing uneasiness amongst the Crown tenants. I believe there might be a danger. 272. That is one of your chief arguments in favour of the tenants getting the option of the freehold ?—Yes; and also because under a leasehold a Crown tenant is practically tied to the land. He cannot get the same value for his improvements as under a freehold, and therefore he does not care about selling out his interest in the leasehold. It is really only those who have no money who take up the leasehold. 273. Was the £300 valuation the Department's valuation or the settler's?—lt was the valuation of the Government Advances to Settlers Office. Ido not know what advance was asked for, but it was well over £100. It was nearer £200. 274. Was the Department's offer of £100 accepted?— Yes. 275. Mr. Paul.] Do you think a freeholder is more able to pay land-tax than a leaseholder is able to pay an increased rent ?—I do not say he is. I should say the two are about equal,
G. BAEWELL.]
75
C—4.
276. When you took up your section would you have been able to acquire the freehold?— No. 277. Then, but for the lease in perpetuity you would not have been able to get on the land ?— Possibly not; but it does not follow that what I say is wrong. 278. Do you seriously think the money for roads for land for settlements should come out of the Consolidated Fund ?—Yes ; I think it should be the endeavour of the Government to settle the lands of the colony as cheaply as possible. They are quite prepared to accept per cent, interest from the railways, but from their land-settlement they want 5 per cent., although land is far and away better security than railways. The railways are no good without land-settlement. 279. Land-settlement is not much good without railways ? —lt could live without railways, but railways could not live without land-settlement. 280. Mr. McLennan.'] Would you be in favour of the Land Board having more power, so that when one tenant goes away they might subdivide his section and give each of his neighbours half of it?—' Yes. Ido not see why a neighbour, if he wishes it, should not increase his holding so long as he does not hold more than 640 acres of first-class land. Ido not believe in any areas being over 640 acres. 281. Mr. Anstey.] With regard to loading, you say you object to this loading for the purpose of making roads, and also that the Government should construct these roads out of general revenue?— Yes. 282. In other words, you think the Canterbury farmers should be taxed to cut roads to Merrivale ?—Yes; it is all for the benefit of the colony. 283. If land is purchased for £1 per acre and is worth £3 after being properly roaded, you say £2 should be found by the whole of the colony, and the settlers of Merrivale should pocket the extra £2 ? —lt would not be worth anything like that. 284. Mr. Matheson.] If you could have taken up your section with the right of purchase by paying an extra 1 per cent., would you have preferred to do so?—I should, certainly. 285. Mr. McCutchan.] Are you under the impression that the loading comes out of the revenue of the country ?—I understand the money spent on loading is borrowed money. 286. And a road, no matter how remote it may be, or how insignificant, is not in any sense a local work because the whole colony derives a benefit from that road? —That is so. Andrew Salton examined. 287. The Chairman.] Wbat is your occupation?—l am a farmer on the Merrivale Estate. I hold Sections 45 and 46, consisting of 230 acres. It is all open land, and was all in artificial grass when I got it. My rent is ss. 2d. per acre. I have gone in for mixed grazing, but principally grazing sheep, and this season cows. 288. How many dairy cows have you ? —Eighteen. 289. Do you find your rent rather too much to pay conveniently ? —Well, owing to the sections being so small it is difficult to make a living on it and pay my way. If I had more land I could do better, because my present plant would be sufficient. 290. In the dairy business a little more labour is involved, but does that improve your position ? —I am doubtful if it does. lam strongly against dairying, but they all maintain that it is an acquisition to the farmer. I have not had much experience of it. The only thing I see in favour of it is that it keeps your children under your own roof and enables you to keep an eye on them. 291. What is your opinion in regard to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—I believe, myself, it would be better for all hands if they could get the right to purchase. 292. You think they should have the option of purchase ?—Yes. 293. Mr. Johnston.] How long have you been on the settlement ?—I have been in the Merrivale district twenty-six years, and upon the settlement, off and on, for eight years. 294. Do you consider the rent too dear? —On many places it is too dear, and on my own place it is too dear for the area. If my section was double the size, of the same quality of land, I would be quite satisfied to take it at my present rent. 295. Do you consider the whole block overrented?— Yes, very much. I would not take some sections up if they reduced the rent by two-thirds. 296. Mr. Anstey.] Your section apparently comprises some of the best land on Merrivale ?— Yes. 297. What area would some of the lower-valued sections require ?—I think some of them want from 1,400 to 1,500 acres to enable a man to make a decent living and bring up a family. There is another thing I would like to mention. Under the lease in perpetuity we are rated on the loading that is put on the land. We pay interest on the loading and the County Council rate us on it as well. I think that is wrong. Under the perpetual lease the Council get some of the rent back from the Crown to make roads, and the settlers are not rated on that, but on the actual value of the land. We think we are labouring under an injustice in that respect. William Saundees examined. 298. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I represent my son, Samuel Saunders, who is a tenant on the Ringway Estate. He has been there about four years, and he has the homestead block of 599 acres. He is paying 4s. 2|d. an acre on the land, and about Is. IOJd. an acre sinking fund on the improvements. He is grazing cattle, sheep, and horses. I have also been asked to speak on behalf of other settlers whose grievances are as to the extremely foul condition the ground was in when we got it. Wherever we have attempted to break it up, weeds, especially the Californian thistle, have taken possession of the ground so thickly in some places that a cattle beast could not head its way through it. The pastures were old, and when the Government acquired the property it was winter, and at that time of the year the thistle does not show much. It is fatal to cropping,
C.—4.
76
fw. SAUNDERS
but it does not destroy the value of the land wholly for grazing when you once get it into grass. My son's land is remarkably good. It carries a large amount of stock. My son's grievance is as to the valuation for improvements. The amount paid for them was excessive. I think that more power ought to be given to the Land Board with respect to an allowance for improvements. At present the reply of the Board is that they have no power to make any variation. We are living under a reign of terror in connection with the Noxious Weeds Act. It would cost more than the freehold value to clear some of the rougher portions. I think it would be better for the Land Board to impose a small rate and clear the thistles themselves, and then they would become acquainted with the cost and difficulties. I think it would be well if the Department would in the case of rabbits do the poisoning all over the district. As to the Land Board, so far as I know the members have been selected from different parts of the provincial district, and they are generally practical farmers who know the difficulties we have to contend with. I have not heard of any better system of appointment. As a rule, I believe in the election of public bodies, but it is very necessary that members of a Land Board should be men of practical knowledge, that they should have a knowledge of the different districts, and that they should be independent. 299. Mr. McCutchan.] Could you suggest any practical means of eradicating the Californian thistle and ragwort?—No; but I think we should endeavour to get scientific information with respect to them. Ragwort can be kept down to some extent by grazing sheep on it. 300. As to trapping rabbits, do the settlers get a royalty ?—No ; but the farmers and their sons trap them, and get 2d. a piece for them. The companies buy the rabbits. 301. You suggest that the Government should take up the poisoning?— Yes. It is so important that the ground should all be poisoned at the same time and in the proper season. 302. How many sheep does, this land carry?—3,3oo sheep, one hundred head of cattle, and twenty horses. 303. Mr. Hall.} Is the present constitution of Lands Boards satisfactory ?—ln Southland it has worked satisfactorily so far as I know. It is a system that might be abused, but I have not heard of any abuse here. 304. Would you consider it any advantage to have Crown tenants represented? —I have only heard of that question cropping up since the commencement of the Commission. 305. Mr. Anstey.] Are you acquainted with the values of land all round this district? — Fairly well. 306. Can you say whether the rents are too high at Merrivale ?—I think what Mr. Scott said was correct —that Merrivale was considered a very favourable purchase at £2 10s. an acre; but the land has never been closely settled. A great deal of money has been spent upon it in putting it into permanent pasture by a wealthy firm. People thought it was very good country, but since it has been cut up it has been found to be variable in quality —some of it very poor, and some very good. Some of the bush land is very difficult to make productive at all. 307. What do you think of it compared with Bingway?—l think the rent of Bingway is a great deal too much. It is very difficult to make sections in Otahu pay rent. Some of the settlers at Merrivale seem satisfied and others dissatisfied. 308. Do you think that the areas in Merrivale should have been made larger ?—Yes, because they cannot live by cropping. It is too far from the railway, and owing to the hilly country it is difficult to cart from. They want to make their living by grazing only. 309. Mr. Matheson.] With regard to overvaluing of improvements, does it seem right to you that the public purse should suffer by a reduction being made, or is it not more reasonable that your son should suffer for his want of judgment and fight it out ?—I think it is a great mistake to think so much about the public purse, whether the Government get 4 per cent, or per cent. Having the land made productive and settled upon and producing ten times as it was doing before means providing traffic for the railways, and means benefiting the colony in other ways. In view of all these things I do not think it is worth consideration whether the State is getting Jor per cent. less. 310. My question is whether the State is justified in making an absolute loss ?—lt is questionable whether the man who has taken up the land and probably lost money on it should not have a concession instead of a stranger. 311. In the case of the alleged overvaluing of the buildings on your son's property, do you think if you were a Minister in charge of a Department you would feel that you were doing justice to public trust if you reduced the value the tenant applied to take the property up under ?—I would say Yes, but I would like to qualify it in this way : that the Minister would recognise that it would have to be reduced sooner or later. 312. Mr. Anstey.] Do you not think, instead of getting a 10-per-cent. reduction all round, that the money should be used in making reductions that were necessary ? —Yes ; I think reductions should be made where they are deserved. 313. Is it fair that the prizes should get a reduction, and others have to pay to the last farthing?—l suppose those who had the prizes are satisfied, and will argue that it is unfair to break a contract and increase their rent. 314. Will you give us your view as to whether you, as a lease-in-perpetuity tenant, would like to have the right of purchase, and, secondly, whether you think it would be politic on the part of the State to grant that right ?—I would like to have the concession. Ido not think it would be politic to do so. The result would be, I think, that the State would be left with all the worst sections, and all the prizes would be made freehold. 315. Mr. McCutchan.] With,reference to your statement that if the right of purchase were given the tenants would buy the prizes and the State would be left with the blanks, and you think for that reason it would not be politic to give the right of purchase^?—l said I would like to have the right of purchase. I think every tenant would feel that it was a valuable concession to him if at any time he had the option of purchase. I think it would ultimately be a blessing
C—4.
W. SAUNDERS.]
77
to arrive as soon as possible at the right rentals for inferior land. Men who have gone on land and who find it inferior are naturally very loth to leave it, even although they know they have made a bad bargain, and I think the sooner that is put right the better it will be for the State and the better for the settlers. Cyrus Scipio Smith examined. 316. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer in Eastern Bush, and have 190 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have held it for about sixteen years, and am engaged principally in grazing. My rent is about 9d. an acre. lam very pleased with the property. I have made a lot of improvements on the land. I do not think it would do, as Mr. Saunders has suggested, to poison the rabbits over every property at the one time, because there would be a difficulty in feeding the stock. If the poisoning were carried out in a proper manner it might be all right. 317. Mr. Johnston.] Are all the settlers at Eastern Bush satisfied with their lot?—I think so. 318. Mr. Paul.] Are you satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure?— Yes ;I am fairly well satisfied. If I had the money to-morrow I would not buy it out. 319. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think, if the Government took over the poisoning and charged the people a sufficient rate for" the men they would have to employ, they would do the work as cheaply as the settlers? —I do not know. We can do it cheaply. John Neylon examined. 320. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler at Bingway, and have 337 acres. I have been here three years, and am paying 2s. 7d. an acre. My land was partly in artificial grass when I took it up. I have made a considerable amount of improvements on the land, and have ploughed and drained part of it. I use the land chiefly for cropping and grazing cattle. There is a good deal of Californian thistle- on the land. If there was any way of getting rid of the thistle the thing would not be so bad, but under the present circumstances it is not very satisfactory. 321. Mr. Johnston.] Do you grow any rye-grass for seed ?—I have sold some. 322. I thought ryegrass was principally grown here ?—Yes, on dry warm ground. 323. Mr. McLennan.] Do you broadcast sow the turnips?—l drill them with a drill. 324. But do you thin them again ?—No. 325. Mr. Anstey.] You do not keep any sheep ? —No ; I have got cattle. 326. Do you anticipate keeping sheep when you have the pasture again laid down?--If I can manage to keep down the thistle. 327. Do you find land heavily grazed with sheep less liable to run to weeds than when grazed with cattle ?—I think there has been too much sheep on that estate in the past. 328. Mr. Matheson.] What is your opinion with respect to the leasehold as compared with the freehold ? —I think it would be more satisfactory if we were given an opportunity sooner or later of purchasing.
Invercargill, Thursday, 2nd March, 1905. Edward Henry Whitmore examined. 1. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a printer residing in Invercargill. I own a freehold section of three-quarters of an acre at present, and I have lived in this locality for thirty-one years. [The witness stated that he wished to complain of the unfair manner in which his land was taxed as compared with adjoining properties. The Chairman ruled that this was a matter affecting the administration of the Government Taxing Department, and did not come within the scope of the Commission.] Andrew Bain examined. 2. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a builder, but lam here at the invitation of the Commission as Chairman of the Bluff Harbour Board. 3. As your Board has very valuable reserves up couutry, we have asked you to come in case you have anything you wish to say regarding the disposal or administration of these reserves ? — I might as well say, so far as the Bluff Harbour Board is concerned, they have no control over the reserves at all. They are administered by the Land Board, and the proceeds from the reserves are sent to the Public Trustee to form a sinking fund for our loans. We pay the interest on our loans out of ordinary revenue. We have between 34,000 and 35,000 acres of a reserve. It is subdivided into three small runs, the rental of which is something like £480 a year. 4. Mr. McCardle.] Is the reserve nearly all rough country ?—Yes. 5. What value do you place on the property ?—I cannot state from memory. 6. Suppose the land was valued now, and the Government took it over and gave you debentures or paid you interest on the capital value, would not that meet your case better than allowing the land to lie as it is at present?— The land would still remain there, 7. It might remain as it is, but under the Government might it uot receive more attention in the way of improvements ? —The Government are administering it now, and I think if the Harbour Board had the control it would probably be better for the tenants. 8. Mr. Paul.] With reference to these endowments, do you approve of parting with the freehold to the tenants ?—lf the Board got an equivalent for them it would be right enough. 9. Do you approve of parting with the freehold on endowments for educational, Harbour Board, and municipal purposes ?—lf these bodies got an equivalent, I should say Yes.
a—4.
78
A. BAIN
10. Can you suggest any equivalent ?—lt is not for me to suggest anything of the sort. Of course, it would be in money. If these bodies had cash endowments equal to what they are getting for the land there is no doubt, in my mind, that it would be better for the country to grant the freehold. 11. Mr. McGutchan.] These endowments are leased for a term of years, and property, generally speaking, is increasing in value, so that when the first lease falls in the second lease is let at a higher rental: do not the bodies interested get a greater revenue in the future by this means ? —That is so. 12. Mr. Hall.] Do you think it wise, in the interests of the country at large, that municipalities and other local bodies should have the right of disposing of their endowments ?—I do not suppose it would be right to dispose of them altogether, because in that case those bodies would lose the whole of their revenue. It would be all right if the Government guaranteed them an equivalent in cash of the rents they derive from their endowments. 13. Is your Board's endowment likely to increase in value ?—I do not think so. It is mostly hilltops. 14. Moat of the municipalities and Harbour Boards of the colony possess very valuable endowments, and do you think it would be prudent or right to give them power to sell these endowments, from which in thirty years' time they may be getting a much greater revenue than they do now ?—Of course, it all depends on whether they are given an equivalent. 15. But are these endowments not for the future?— Well, the equivalent would be for the future too. 16. But the present cash value will not be the future value?—l do not think there will be much difference in the value of the hilltops. Of course, there is a great difference between pastoral country such as we are interested in and town endowments. 17. The Chairman.'] Your approval of the right to dispose of endowments would depend upon circumstances; you do not say you approve of the principle generally ?—That is so. James Leggat examined. 18. The Chairman.] What is your occupation?—l am manager for McCallum and Co., sawmillers, in whose employ I have been for the past twenty-two years. I have been in this district for about twenty-five years. 19. Will you state what you wish to bring before the Commission?—l appear on behalf of the sawmillers in this district. First of all, the sawmillers feel that the proposal to reserve 2,500,000 acres as a national park will be a hardship not only to them, but to the community generally by-and-by. At present it is scarcely possible to secure a sawmilling-area in Southland, and in the proposed reserve there are a good many patches of bush suitable for sawmilling. There are no great bushes such as those of Seaward Bush, but there are many that are capable of supporting a sawmill, and in the very near future we are certain to require bushes down there or else close down our mills. We think that the mere fact of a sawmill going through a bush does not affect it all from a scenic point of view. On the contrary, we believe it rather improves it, in this way : The bush in its natural state is almost inaccessible. After the sawmiller has gone through and laid off tramways and cut tracks the bush is made accessible to tourists and others. In my opinion, also, the undergrowth which comes about the edge of it improves the bush from a scenic standpoint. As a matter of fact, no one could tell without going into a bush that a sawmill had gone through—that a mill had ever been there. So much timber that is of no use to the sawmiller is left that the scenic properties are not at all affected. 20. Where is this bush which you say it is proposed to reserve ?—From what I have seen of the map in the Land Office it is down about the Sounds and Fiord country. I have not been there myself. 21. If this scenic reserve is made, you say you will have to close down ?—I suppose so. Our mill at present will not run for more than four to six months in the bush we have at present on the West Coast, and if there is no chance of getting more bush we will have to go out of the industry. At the present time we are working under a license from the Land Board. The easily accessible bushes about Southland are either cut out or held already. 22. What is the nature of the timber in the proposed reserve? —Mostly red-pine of a fair quality. 23. Of course, in other parts of the colony the objection to your proposal is that sawmills generally leave a litter of branches which in a dry season are apt to take fire and destroy the remainder of the bush : do you apprehend any danger of that kind on the west coast ?—No. We generally want more heat and less wet. 24. Mr. McCutchan.] In the event of this reserve being thrown open to sawmilling, would you fix maximum and minimum sawmill-areas?— That is the law at present. They will not grant one sawmill more than 800 acres, but I was going to suggest that where the bush is thinly planted the quantity ot bush should bear some proportion to what is considered a fair sawmillingarea. Suppose two sawmill-areas are granted and one carries 10,000 ft. to the acre, that means he will be able to cut 8,000,000 ft. of timber. Another man may secure 800 acres which only carries 1,000 ft. to the acre, then he only gets 800,000 ft. of timber, although he is put to the same initial expense in erecting plant, &c. We think that is an anomaly that ought to be rectified. It seems to us absurd that a man who puts up a small engine of, say, 5-horse power, and does everything in the cheapest way, at a cost of about £300, should be able to hold as much bush as a man or company who puts in a substantial plant and good tramways at a cost of perhaps £3,000. We think the area of bush should bear some proportion again to the amount expended. 25. Under the present conditions is there a time-limit within which the bush must be cut out ? —When an area of 800 acres is applied for the Board grants 200 acres of that area and holds
C.—4.
79
J. LEGGAT.]
600 acres in reserve, and a miller is allowed three years in which to cut out the first 200 acres. For the remaining 600 acres he is allowed two years for each 200 acres. 26. You think it is a mistake to protect the scenery at the expense of the sawmilling industry ? —I think it is perhaps a question of degree. If the scenic business was going to bring ss. to the Government of the country and the sawmilling only 2s. 6d., it might be a mistake to protect the sawmilling industry if it could not be shown to be of more value than the other. We do not want to be particularly selfish. 27. Mr. Johnston.] When you go into a bush and cut out these trees, is it not a fact that a large accumulation of weeds and other noxious growths follow ?—Certainly growths spring up. 28. Do you not find ragwort and Californian thistle make an appearance ?—I see plenty of them in the open plains, but not in the bush. It is just possible there may be a little, but Iwo Id not like to say they follow necessarily. 29. You made a comparison between a large and a small mill: how long will a large mill take to cut out 200 acres ?—A large mill might cut out 100 acres in a year, and a small mill spin out the same area to any length of time. 30. What is the total number of hands, roughly speaking, employed in the sawmilling industry in Southland ?—I suppose somewhere about a thousand. 31. Mr. Paul.] From your experience you believe that the sawmilling industry can be carried on without affecting the scenic value of the bush ? —Yes. More than that, it is improved. 32. Mr. McLennan.] What capital is put in circulation in wages alone by an average sawmill in a year ?—Somewhere about £2,500 a year in bare wages. 33. How many mills do you think would be closed down if this area of land is not open for sawmilling?—At present about"sixty mills are working, and just as they get cut out and cannot get more bush they will cease working. Some will run a little longer than others, just as they have acquired areas at more recent dates. I should certainly say that between the next three and six years a great many will close down. 34. Mr. Anstey.] Apart from the £2,500 in wages, can you give us a rough estimate of the other expenses attached to the mills ?—You may say £1,000 a year safely. 35. You say a fully equipped mill will cut down 100 acres a year : therefore you spend £3,500 on these 100 acres in a year ?—Yes. 36. Do you think that the tourist traffic attached to the 100 acres would bring anything approaching £3,500 ?—I have not studied the tourist question at all, but it seems to me at a first glance to be absurd to suppose so. 37. Mr. McCardle.] In your estimate of the money spent by each mill in a year, do you include the amounts paid in railway freight on timber ? —No. 38. Can you form any rough idea of the revenue the railway derives from an average mill in a year ?—I should say the amount would be from £2,000 to £3,000 a year. 39. Then, not only would the workers of the colony suffer a great loss if the mills were closed down, but the railways would also lose ? —That is so. 40. Mr. Hall.] Are we to understand that the litter that is left by a mill does not endanger the rest of the bush ?—I would not like to say that absolutely. There is just a possibility after the bush has been felled that the danger from fire might be increased. 41. Of course, you admit that the bush is something which cannot be reproduced at any cost ? —Yes. It is a question of the relative values of the different industries. 42. Mr. Anstey.] Is there more danger of fire spreading and destroying standing bush before the bush is cut, or while it is being cut, or after it has been cut?—l should say there is more danger after the bush is cut; the danger would be slightly increased in an exceptionally dry season, but this danger does not apply with the same force in the south as in the north. 43. Is there not much danger of fire in a standing bush ?—Fires do go through the bush owing to the carelessness of tourists and sportsmen. Ido not know of any extent of fire that has happened through that cause. 44. Mr. Johnston.] Do you know how long it would take to cut out the timber in the proposed reserves? —I have no idea at all. 45. Of course, the sawmills only last until the timber is cut out, while the tourist traffic will last any number of years?— Yes. 46. And there will be a greater income from the tourist than from the sawmills eventually ? — Yes; but I hold you can have both industries. 47. Mr. McCutchan.] Will the setting-up of buildings and wharves in these sounds in connection with the timber industry be likely to lead to a development in the fishing industry ?—There are signs of it at the present. The fishing industry has started within a few miles of the present site of our mills, and there is a talk of further development. Thomas Hannan examined. 48. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—1 am a labourer, and I hold a village-home-stead leasehold section of 5 acres in Block 11., Seaward Bush. I have held it eighteen years, and it is a perpetual lease without the right of purchase. 49. What do you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I wish to state that I would like to acquire the freehold of my section. In the olden days I came here to populate the country, and I reckon a man who has had a family of thirteen, eleven of whom are now living, has a right to his little bit of freehold. I may say I had to make 20 chains of road to my section at half-cost, and I have spent all my spare labour on it. All my section is cleared and half of it, which is all that is fit for cultivation, is cultivated. My wife has also a section of 6 acres some distance from me under perpetual lease, but she has the right to purchase. I paid £5 for my section to begin with, but the value to £4 10s., which I still think is high,
C—4
80
r T. HANNAN
50. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think 5 acres are sufficient for a man to live upon ?—No. 51. Would you be better off if you had an increased area?—l would, because lam keeping my section instead of it keeping me. 52. Would you rather have the freehold of the small section you have than the leasehold of a fairly large area ?—Yes. Thomas Lyon Oswin further examined. 53. The Chairman.] Have you the returns we asked you to prepare ?—Yes. I wish to state that I have had to amplify them somewhat. The number of mortgages asked for does not of necessity agree with the number of securities, because the same securities may be mortgaged more than once. The following are the returns : — Advances to Settlers, Southland. jg Amount of current mortgages on freeholds ... . ... ... ... 395,130 Amount of current mortgages on Crown leaseholds ... ... ... ... 16,825 Total number of freeholds mortgaged ... ... ... ... 795 „ mortgages on freeholds ... ... ... ... 841 „ Crown leaseholds mortgaged... ... ... ... 129 „ mortgages on Crown leaseholds ... ... ... 149 Analysis of tenures of Crown leasehold securities— Lease in perpetuity ... ... 64, in four cases, freehold also included. Occupation with right of purchase ... ... ... 20, in one case, „ Perpetual lease ... ... 31, „ „ Deferred payment ... ... 3, „ „ Small grazing-run ... ... 5. Occupation with right of purchase, perpetual lease, and lease in perpetuity, mixed ... 6. Foreclosures on Crown leasehold securities since inception of lending scheme, nil. Loans on Crown leaseholds declined by Lending Board during last three years : Number, 30; amount, £3,185. George Richard Hilton further examined. 54. The Chairman.] What do you wish to further bring before us ?—I have brought the documents bearing on my case, which I stated to you the other day [witness read the correspondence] . If you think it worth while I could give you the difference between the legal costs in connection with mortgages and leases from the Government and from private persons. It cost me exactly £12 15s sd. to get £200 from a private person. 55. Mr. McGutchan.] Why do you include the re-lease in your statement of costs ?—That would be the same in any other case. 56. Mr. Johnston.] But you include the two Government mortgages ?—Yes ; and the total amount is £12. If I had option of a freehold, and had gone to the Star-Bowkett Society, and if I had been a shareholder and had drawn a loan, I could have got the £200 for £3 3s. 6d., and I would have had the privilege of paying off the money in twelve years and a half. I think my case is typical of many others, and I know of numbers of persons who, in view of all the circumstances, thought it was no use going to the Advances to Settlers Office for a loan. 57. What were the total costs in connection with the Advances to Settlers Office—for mortgage, application, and all ?—£3 15s. sd. 58. Is that including the re-lease ?—No. 59. Looking at the charges as made in the document you have submitted to the Commission, I make out the total cost under the Advances to Settlers Department to be £1 19s. 6d.—you cannot charge the premium of your insurance and fire insurance?—l said that if I had the option of the freehold I could have arranged the matter without going to the Advances to Settlers Department at all. I admit I made a mistake in the figures I first gave. 60. The Chairman.] The larger portion of the expense began when you went to the private money-lender? —Yes. I simply wished to show that in getting an advance under the Advances to Settlers privately the lawyers' expenses are high, whereas if I had the option of the freehold I could have gone to the Starr-Bowkett Society or some other society, and my expenses would not have been half so much. 61. Mr. Paul.] Have you not found that it is very expensive having anything to do with lawyers ?—ln connection with the Starr-Bowkett Society there is a fixed fee. 62. Mr. Forbes.] You are in favour of the freehold, are you not ? —Yes. 63. You think it is very rruch better in dealing with land to have the option of the freehold?— Yes ; say in thirty years. 64. You are a member of the Borough Council of South Invercargill ?—Yes. 65. Do you think the tenants of the borough endowments ought to have the right of acquiring the freehold ?—I think it would be better if the law were such that we could give a tenant a tangible hold upon the land. 65a. Occupation with right of purchase, or something like that?— Yes. 66. Mr. Paul.] You are of opinion that the lessees of endowments would make better use of the and if they had the freehold ? —I think they would make better use of the land generally.
81
C—4.
G. B. HILTON.]
67. In your evidence the other day you mentioned the case of a freeholder near you whose place was overrun with weeds?— Yes. I said where the freehold was bought for occupation and not merely as a business speculation it might be different. I said at the time that where the land was bought merely for speculative purposes or is lying idle, but if the freehold were acquired for settlement purposes the place would be cultivated ; but as it is the leasehold is better cultivated. Isaac Lawbence Peteie examined. 68. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a master mariner, but hold sections of land in several parts of this district, including one of 36 acres at Stewart Island, which section I acquired ten years ago. I, however, subsequently saw no prospect of being able to do anything with the land, and could not get anything favourable either in the shape of a sale or lease, and therefore I still hold the land. I then proposed to put a few huts on it with a view of getting some revenue, but was informed that I could not make any improvements—or, at any rate, would get no recognition of them—unless I lived on it. I understand now from what has been told me that unless the improvements are made before the end of seven years you cannot claim the title of the land. I want to improve the land, but I do not know whether it belongs to me or to the Government. 69. The Chairman read the conditions of the lease and the section of the Act under which the land was taken up, and said that the witness had not complied with the conditions. [To witness :] Have you anything to say with respect to other matters connected with the land laws ?—I think the general opinion of the farming community here is that the Land Board as at present constituted is a very conservative body, and they would favour a partly nominated and a partly elected Board. As to Crown tenants being specially represented on the Board, it perhaps might not be desirable to create a special class, but these men are struggling in the back blocks, and if it would give them a better chance to make a living I do not think the Government would be doing wrong in granting them that concession. There is a close affinity between the country and the town, and we have in the Town of Invercargill a population of close on twelve thousand people, and I think they should also have one representative on the Land Board, because their interests are frequently in the interests of the country. lam in favour of the constitution of the Board being mixed in the way I have indicated. As to land-tenure, there is a consensus of opinion that the deferred-payment system is the very best that was ever introduced in this country, and it is a pity it was ever abolished. As to the lease in perpetuity, it suits some people. It seems a very liberal lease, and the question is simply about the revaluation. I think the money-lenders think it is too good because there will not be a revaluation many times before the end of the 999 years. 70. Mr. McCutchan.~\ Do I infer that there should be a revaluation ?-—Personally, I think it would be a wise thing, both for the people and the Government, to have a revaluation. 71. The tendency is for land-values to increase in the colony ?—Yes. 72. Do you think the tenants would be satisfied to take up these leases and that it would foster land-settlement if there is periodical revaluation ? —Some men take up land with very little to carry on with; they mostly go into the back blocks because they have not the means of acquiring the freehold. No amount of labour or brains will make a success of any undertaking without the capital to work it. 73. You have revaluation now in the boroughs for rating purposes? —¥es. 74. And therefore for purposes of raising loans?— Yes. 75. As the tendency in the colony is towards increased values, it would militate against the tenants, would it not, if their rent were to be increased ?—I think that if it was fair for the one it would be fair for the other. 76. Mr. Hall.] You have a lease in Invercargill : under what tenure do you hold it ? —I have a Corporation lease and also freehold land. In the case of the lease there is to be revaluation every fourteen years. I might remark in the case of the land at Stewart Island that I am prepared to make the improvements. 77. Mr. Anstey.] Have you ever applied to the Board for the right? —No. In regard to the ad.vances-to-settlers system, I think it has been a great benefit to the settlers, and that it is one of the wisest Acts the Government has ever passed. Of course, there may be individual cases of grievance, but they are bound to occur under any administration. But, speaking generally, the Act has been a benefit all round. Alexander Pyper re-examined. 78. The Chairman.] You are Government valuator in this district? —Yes, and I have occupied that position for about five years. 79. Mr. Johnston.] Can you give us an idea of the value of land about Drummond? —Very little of it exceeds £10. Some lots might go up to £11. 80. Have any sections at Merrivale changed hands above what they were originally taken at ? —Just one. 81. What was the goodwill over and above the valuation for improvements? —It was supposed to be about £300. I think the area of the section was something over 300 acres, and the transaction took place about three years ago. 82. Have any transfers taken place in Blackmount, north of Merrivale? —No. 83. Any at Otahau? —No; but a great many have given up their land. 84. Any at Keys, near Manapouri, changed hands? —Yes, a small run. 85. What was the goodwill on that? —£500. 86. At Mossburn ? —No leases, as far as I am aware. 87. At Beaumont? —A good many have surrendered. 88. At Ringwa}'? —Only one surrendered, but none have changed hands. 89. At Orepuki? —A few leaseholds have changed hands at a big sum. Some of them haye been bought for £600, but that was on account of the timber. 11—C, 4
[a. pypee.
82
C—4
90. What has been done at Winton?—Land is of considerable value there. 91. Have any Crown leases changed hands? —There is very little leasehold land there, except in the bush. , . 92. Would it be possible for you to give us a written statement of the various properties that have changed hands, and the amount of the goodwill over and above the valuation ? Yes; but there are some I could not give you, because they are simply private transactions. 93. Generally speaking, in these settlements that you have valued are the settlers satisfied ?- Yes, generally, except about Merrivale. They seem to have done better since they got the dairy factories 94. Mr. Hall.[J You spoke of some surrenders of leases at Otahau: do you attribute those surrenders to the land being unsuitable for close settlement? Yes. 95. It was not because the lessees were unfitted for carrying on farming? —No. 96. Are ragwort and Californian thistle increasing? —Yes. 97. Are they reducing the value of the land? —I believe it would not sell for so much in some parts. 98. In making your valuations you allow for these weeds? —Yes. 99. In land that has been cut out by the sawmills, do the noxious weeds get into the place from which the trees have been removed, or on to the tracks? —Yes. 100. Do they depreciate the land for grazing purposes?— Yes. 101. The Californian thistle is practically all over your district'?— Yes. 102. And ragwort? —Yes; but on stations where there are sheep there is very little of it. 103. Is the ragwort in the ground?—No, not on stations where there are sheep kept. 104. But when sheep are taken ofi does it appear?— Yes, in many places it does. 105. Mr. McCardle.\ There is a great deal of grass-seed cut in this district every year: do you know whether they take care to cut out all the noxious weeds before the seed is gathered?— I do not think they do. 106. Then, there is a great risk of these weeds being scattered over the colony in the grassseed? —Yes. John Henry Treseder examined. 107. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am District Road Engineer. I have been in Southland for seventeen or eighteen years, and have been District Road Engineer for two years and a half. 108. We understand that you supervise the expenditure of the money on what is called loading? —Yes. 109. Is there much money expended in that way? —Not since I have been in charge. In respect to four or five blocks applications have been received. We do the work with co-operative labour. The sums I have to deal with are from £100 up to about £1,000. 110. In other words, you cannot undertake good, substantial work: you do practically simply temporary roadwork? —No; we do permanent work. 111. Bridges, macadamising, &c.1 —Yes. 112. Mr. McCutchan.~\ Generally speaking, do you find the co-operative work system satisfactory I—No.1 —No. I think it would be better if it was open tendering, because the men want their mates —one man will not work with another because he does not reckon his as good. 113. You have the fixing of the gangs of men?— Yes. 114. You make it a point if there is a gang to put strong men and weak men all together? That is the way it generally happens, because some men would sooner not work with old men, and would go out of it altogether. 115. You fix the scale of prices so that an average man working ordinary hours would earn about 7s. or Bs. a day ? —Yes; what I consider the ruling wages for the work. They can make 10s. or 12s. a day, some of them 116. You think it would be preferable to put your estimate on the work and invite tenders, and if the tenders approached closely to your estimate to let the work in that way? —Yes. Before the road is handed over to the local bodies it has to be formed for 10 ft. right through. 117. Have you the fixing of the loading? —No, the Land Board fixes that. 118. They estimate what the work will amount to and load the land to that extent? —Yes. The present Commissioner consults me on the matter; but if they put the loading on the land it would in many cases exceed the value ten or twenty times over. 119. Then, a settler going on the land has no guarantee under that system of loading that he will get a road? —No 120. Mr. Paul.] I suppose quality counts in this work. For instance, you can make a good and a bad road? —Of course, you can make it a temporary or a permanent road. 121. I mean that some permanent roads are better than others intended to be permanent? — It depends on what money is available. You have to make the best of it. You might get £200 or £300 for a road and it might require £2,000 or £3,000. 122. Do you think, under the contract system, the quality of the road would make any difference T —No. 123. The supervision would be a great deal more expensive under the contract system? — Not necessarily. We give them a specification, and when the job is completed according to that specification the work is passed. There is not an Inspector over them all the time. 124. There is no possibility of scamping the work? —They may scamp a little, but if the work is any way near the specification, if it is a fairly honest job, you will pass it. 125. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that money expended under the co-operative system will do as much roading as it would under contract? —No. 126. Mr. McCardle.] You have had some experience in running roads through bush and rough country ? -Yes,
83
0.—4.
J. H. TEESEDER.
127. Supposing all the rents were given from sections for interest and sinking fund for a loan, would rents, in your opinion, be sufficient to make the roads through the blocks —say, the rents extended for twenty-five years? —It should for that number of years. 128. Do you think it would do more than that? —In some blocks it would take £7 to £8 10s., and in others only £1 10s. a chain. 129. I am speaking of rough country. Your rough country is disposed of at principally 10s. ? —Yes. 130. The cost of your roads is about £240 to £280 a mile —formation, &c. ? —Yes. It costs us £1 or £1 7s. a chain for bushfelling, logging, and grubbing 20 ft. in the centre, and then there is the formation and metalling to do. 131. You can only spend the money now as you receive the votes from Parliament? —Yes. 132. And that is a very slow process, and 1 suppose a great deal of the work you do has to be done over again ? —Yes; we have often to resurface the roads. 133. In your opinion, the present system of special votes is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the settler ? —No, I do not think so. 134. Mr. Hall.] Under the co-operative system a good workman is put in a gang with an inferior man: is that a weak element in the system? —I generally classify them. George Mackie examined. 135. The Chairman.] What is you occupation? —I am a sawmiller at Glory Bay, Stewart Island. I have been there between seven and eight years, and I have been sawmilling for thirty years in the colony. 136. Will you state what you wish to bring before the Commission? —It does not appear to me that the scenic beauties of Stewart Island —and I think the same will apply to Chalky Inlet, which I have visited —would be impaired by any sawmilling. My experience of Stewart Island is that in the tourist season a considerable number of visitors visit the island, and it is a well-known fact that these visitors go to the sawmill-sites as places where they can see the beauties of the island. They do not, as a rule, go picnicking in the virgin bush. lam told that my own mill is a favourite. The reason for this is not far to seek. The tramways are a means of access to the interior of the bush, and, in addition to seeing the bush, they can also see an interesting industry at the same time —viz., the conversion of the bush into timber. Botanising can also be carried on in the interior of the bush by means of the tramways, whereas it is almost impossible for a botanist to go into a virgin bush. The only person who goes into virgin bush, and he goes as little as he possibly can, is the sawmiller looking for timber. Even after a sawmill passes through a bush it seems to me that the undergrowth, which comes up in the course of a very few years, has a greater beauty than the original forest. To my view, as a living picture it is much to be pre ferred. Personally, as a sawmiller, I take an interest in viewing heavy timber, but I think it is sightseers that the Tourist Department mostly caters for; but, so far as I can see, Ido not think that any sawmilling is likely for any length of time to do away with the scenic beauty. It would be a great pity to make the mistake of withdrawing the stores of native timber we have in such places as Stewart Island and Chalky and Dusky Inlets for the sake of a very problematical benefit from a problematical number of tourists. So far as Chalky Inlet is concerned, the configuration of the place is very different from Stewart Island. It seems to be more abrupt and the sawmilling timber to be in more isolated patches. The greater part of the Stewart Island bush is not sawmiliable, but there are patches here and there of fair bush, and these, generally speaking, are in the more sheltered gullies, where the scenic effect is not visible from the water. I might mention that the greater part of the scenery of Paterson's Inlet consists of second growth, because the milling timber was cut out by a sawmill twenty years ago. 137. Mr. Johnston.] You have been down Paterson's Inlet and you can see that a mill has been through the north side? —Yes. 138. Has any mill been through the south side of the country? —My mill was there lately, but-that is the only one. 139. Have you noticed the difference between the two, and how the weeds, such as ragwort, have accumulated on the northern side of the Inlet? —There is ragwort, but there is one part where there is an exceptional growth of grass. Generally speaking, however, grass does not grow well there. 1 ,;Sfff|H 140. Suppose you owned the freehold of bush land and you let it for a sawmill, would you insist directly after the sawmiller had cut out that the balance of the bush should be felled and cleared and the place laid down in grass, or would you leave the bush as it is left now? —I think it would be to my interests to fully clear it and lay it down in grass. 141. It would not be to your interest to allow the undergrowth to come up again? —Certainly not, as a farmer You will observe that I would not be catering for tourists. 142. And if the second growth is allowed to come up the land would not afterwards be so valuable for grazing purposes as it would if the balance of the bush was felled and put in grass directly after the sawmill had been through? —No. 143. Mr. Paul.] Certain areas have been set aside as sanctuaries for native game: do you think, if they were opened to sawmillers, the game would be interfered with?— Not in Stewart Island. There is very little game in the Stewart Island bush. The native game about my sawmill are the weka on land and the grey-duck on the sea. There is just about the same number of them as formerly. They become very tame, and you can get within a few yards of a duck or weka. The penguins come ashore and flock about just the same. 144. And, unfortunately, vandals take advantage of their trust and destroy them, do they n ot? —One of my men shot one of these birds and he was very much ashamed of himself for it. 145. Mr. McLennan.] What amount of capital do you think the sawmilling industry in Stewart Island puts into circulation in a year?—At present from £4,000 to £5,000 a year in wages alone.
C—4.
84
G. MACKIB.
u 146. Can you give us the amount of capital the tourist traffic circulates in Stewart Island? — Not nearly as much as that, but 1 could not fix any amount. The tourist business only lasts for three or four months in the year. 147. Mr. Anstey.] Could you tell us what amount is spent in wages on a fully equipped mill such as your own in a year ? —£1,200 to £1,500 in my own, but that is a small mill. An average mill would pay £1,800 to £2,000. 148. Can you give us roughly what the other expenses of running a mill would be in a year ? —About £350 more. 149. How much ground will be cleared in a year by an average mill running fairly full time? —About 100 acres. 150. You are allowed, 1 believe, to take up 800 acres of bush at a time? —Yes. 151. When you have cleared those 800 acres, 1 suppose there is still a good deal of the virgin bush left untouched ? —A great deal of it. It is impossible to follow the bush on the maps without losing a great deal of it. 152. Supposing all the restrictions against sawmillers were withdrawn both in Stewart Island and everywhere else, do you think any real damage would be done to the tourist traffic or to the sanctuaries for birds ? —1 do not think so. 153. You think that quite sufficient bush would be left untouched for both these purposes? —1 think so. 154. Can you give us any idea of the amount expended by the tourist traffic in Stewart Island ? —There would be about two hundred people there for three or four months in the year, and practically everything is imported for them from the mainland. 155. In which case the tourist brings everything with him to the island? —It looks like it. Practically the whole of the supplies come across. 156. Can you say with certainty that at least three-quarters of the expenditure by the tourists simply returns to the mainland? —I think so. 157. Then, the tourist traffic of Stewart Island is practically worth nothing?- -To put it in to the simplest form, the tourist is practically like a person taking his own provisions to a picnic. 158. Then, seeing that is the case, do you think it is worth while subordinating the timber industry to the tourist traffic? —I do not think so. 159. Mr. Forbes.] Have you to buy sawmilling bush from private people? —That is done on the island. 160. How much per acre have you to give? —It is a small amount per acre, but the price is generally fixed by bargaining. 161. Do you think a more reasonable way would be for the Crown to sell the timber off the ground before letting it for settlement? —That is the mode adopted at present. In the case of the private bushes that have been sold to the mills, at present they are old workings and the sawmills are going through them again. 162. Mr. Hall.jj A large portion of Stewart Island is a reservation? —I understand so. 163. Does what you advocate as regards sawmilling apply to the reservation, or only to areas outside the reservation ? —To the reservation also, because I think the interests of the Tourist Department would not suffer by the sawmilling operations. 164. Is it good timber? —Not very good, but we can sell it. 165. I suppose your tramways follow the nature of the country and do not run in straight lines? —That is so. They do not destroy the beauty of the picture at all, because they are not visible from the outside. 166. Is there any danger of the litter that is left behind by a mill catching fire in a dry summer? —It is very difficult to burn in Stewart Island. There is very little danger from fire owing to the wetness of the climate. 167. The Chairman.] Have your dealings with the Land Board always been of an agreeable nature? —Yes; I think the Board is an excellent body. 168. Hitherto the Boards have been nominated by the Government, and it has been mooted by certain persons that if a change is to be made it would be a good thing to have one or two of the members elected: what is your idea in regard to that? —Speaking of Land Boards as they exist at present, personally nothing could be more suitable than the present arrangement. 169. Then, " Leave well alone " is your motto? —Yes. 170. What is your opinion in regard to the three systems of land-tenure? —Personally, I prefer the right of purchase. 171. Mr. Matheson.~\ You have given your opinion from a personal point of view. What is your opinion from the colonial point of view: do you think the prosperity of the colony would be helped by giving the workers on the land the option of the freehold, or should it be retained in the hands of the Government? —I think that the leasehold under a wise Government is actually the best for the country. However, I am not very pronounced on the matter. Of course, there is absolutely no such thing as a freehold, because freehold is only the right to occupy under certain conditions. Patbick Molneeney further examined. 172. The Chairman.] What do you wish further to bring before the Commission? —Since I have been before the Commission I have spoken with a lot of lease-in-perpetuitv owners, and I find they are all interested in the question of whether they can receive valuation for their improvements. I know one leaseholder who by his own labour and money had improved his section to the extent of £7 per acre. He wanted to sell out, but he did not see the least show of getting his money back. The Ranger was sent out to value the improvements, and all that leaseholder was likely to get was £3 on each acre for every £7 he had spent. I find so far that all these people are in favour of the right to purchase. I know it is hope that carries on settlement, and no settler could go through the hardships that face him unless he has the hope of getting something for his
C.-4.
85
P. McINERNEY.j
labour. I should also like to state that there is a great need of a proper Drainage Act at the present time. We want a simple and compulsory Drainage Act that any man can understand without getting into the hands of lawyers. 1 suggest that a competent man should be appointed in each district to carry out drainage-works where the people cannot agree amongst themselves, i would also like to make a suggestion in regard to the high country up the lakes way. I was a
good deal in that country as a young lad, and seventy thousand sheep and between live hundred and seven hundred head of cattle and two hundred horses were kept on the station on which I was employed. We fatten cattle 011 the English grasses down about here as we could on the high country. A great deal has been said about the damage done by rabbits, but that is nothing to the damage that has been caused by fires going through the native grasess in the high country. 1 would suggest that a competent man should be appointed whose duty it would be to flag ofi the country and see that 110 burning took place within certain lines. If these places are protected there is no doubt the native grasses will come again in time. I see the question of noxious weeds was brought before the Commission at Orepuki, and it strikes me that if the Government do not do their part as the County Councils and individuals have done theirs the value of land will greatly depreciate owing to the inroads of noxious weeds. 173. Mr. Paul.'] Do you think the Government should take the power from the County Councils of enforcing the Noxious Weeds Act and administer it themselves? —I should certainly say so. 1 do not think the County Council administration is at all satisfactory. 174. Mr. Anstey.] You tell us a lot of your neighbours have told you they object to the lease in perpetuity because they have a difficulty in selling out their interest in their improvements? —Yes. 175. Are you aware that the lease-in-perpetuity settlers are every day selling out their goodwills in lease-in-perpetuity sections at large premiums? —I was not aware of it. lam very pleased to hear it. 176. Do you know that we have had the evidence of one man who sold out his interest in his lease-in-perpetuity section for £500, getting £200 for his improvements and £300 for his goodwill, in a settlement which we are told is valued at least 50 per cent, too high ? In this case is it not a fact that the lease-in-perpetuity settler has a much better chance of being recouped for his improvements than a freeholder, because a freeholder could not get 50 per cent, above his value? It seems like it; but a leaseholder very often finds when he wishes to sell out that an Inspector or Ranger comes along and interferes between the parties. 177. Do you know that if a lease-in-perpetuity holder wishes to sell out he can do so by advertising or by selling by auction without any interference on the part of the Ranger? —I am very pleased to hear it. 178. Mr. McCa.rd.le.] Do you know of any man who will buy lease-in-perpetuity holdings out at those big prices ? —No; and I think the voice of the country is entirely against lease in perpetuity. 179. Mr. Nail.] What has been the object in burning the tussock land in the high country?—lt has been done recklessly and for no object. 180. Do you think the Government should make it compulsory for the County Councils or the Stock Department to enforce the Noxious Weeds Act? —Yes. Bebnabd McGeakty examined. 181. The Chairman.] What is your occupation?—l have a leasehold from the Government of 24 acres for a term of ten years, eight of which have expired. When I took up the lease I had no protection for improvements, and I took it up at my own risk. It was offered to the public at the time and I got it at auction. I have improved about 15 acres and fenced the property. 1 am paying rent on the value of £2 per acre, which was the upset price fixed. I have not improved the remainder of the section because there is 110 inducement for me to do so. If I could secure the right of renewal at the original rent, or value for my improvements, I would at once set to work to clear the balance of the land and lay it down in grass. 182. Mr. Anstey.] What is your land worth to-day? —£4 or £5 per acre. 183. What is the value of the work you have done in effecting improvements ?—lt cost me between £4 and £5 per acre. 184. If the improvements cost you £5 per acre and the upset value of the land is £2, the present value should be £7 ? —Yes. 185. If it is worth £7 per acre now, with the improvements taken ofi the upset price should be £2. Would you be satisfied if you could get a renewal of your lease at its present value, less the value of your improvements? —Certainly. John Hay further examined. 186. The Chairman.] You are Chief Surveyor and Commissioner of Crown Lands in Southland ? —Yes. 187. Do you wish to make a further statement? —Yes. If there are to be any alterations in the tenure of land, I would like to say that the deferred-payment system would be a very excellent tenure to reintroduce, extending the period of payment over, say, twenty years, and with no right for capitalisation —that is, to pay ofi as they go on. Some here, after paying ofi for a number of years, capitalised the balance and they pay interest on that, and they are still going on paying interest. It would be less trouble in every way. The deferred-payment system as introduced in the early days was a most excellent one. The country which the members of the Commission came through yesterday, between Otautau, past Druminond, and past Winton—the greater portion of that land was settled under the deferred-payment system. I would suggest a twenty-years term. 188. Mr. Hall.] That applies only to Crown lands? —Yes. 189. Mr. Anstey.] You would not apply it to land under the Land for Settlements Act? — No. With reference to the land-for-settlements tenure, I think that land-for-settlement tenants
(J.—4
86
J. HAY
should be able to get an advance as soon as they have ample and good security in the way of substantial improvements —as soon as these have been placed on the land. At present, no matter how good the improvements are or how good the security, the Advanoes to Settlers Office will not advance anything until the tenant has been twelve months in occupation. Sometimes that is a very great hardship, for sometimes I have known instances where a tenant had four or five times the security to offer, and he would not be obliged with even a small sum owing to this regulation. 190. What advance would you suggest they should be given—what proportion? —1 think half would not be unreasonable. 191. You thmJi that is better than three-fifths ?— For the first year I think half would be sufficient. Ido not think it would be advisable to give too much the first year. 192. Mr. McCutchan.J Do you not think it is necessary there should be some supervision over the expenditure of the loan ? The tenant can now do what he likes with the money —there is no supervision? —I have a case in view at the present moment where a good house was put up and the place ring-fenced, and the person who wanted an obligement could not get £20 or £30 to pay a contract to put a house up. It is to meet such cases as that. The Advances to Settlers Office generally see that the money is well expended, and that the work is going on before they make the advance, and they always know what they are advancing for. I think it is always stated in the application whether the applicant is going to buy stock or build a house. 193. The point is this, and it is the crux of the whole matter: what is done with the money? It would be far safer to offer three-fifths for reproductive expenditure than to lend up to half tor a house. There is no guarantee under present arrangements that it will be utilised either for reproductive works or for a house. [Mr. Hay then put in a r»ap, showing the lands that were available for settlement purposes in Southland Land District, and also the lands when withdrawn from the State forests when cut out by the sawmills would also be available at some future period for settlement. (For tables see Appendix.) ]
Wyndham, 3rd March, 1905. James Milne examined. 1. The Chairman.J What are you? —I am a farmer, and president of the Wyndham Branch of the New Zealand Farmers' Union. I hold a freehold farm of 300 acres, and have had it for close on forty years. I have been nearly fifty years in the colony. 2. What points do you wish to bring before the Commission? —Our union reviewed the terms of your Commission at our last meeting, and I would like to comment on the clauses. 3. What is your idea in regard to the constitution of Land Boards? —I do not think we could do better than continue the present system. I think we have a class of men with a good deal of experience in land and farming, and if a change were allowed we might perhaps get men appointed who have actually to learn their work. There may be weak points in this nomination system, but when the members fall out in rotation there can never be anything seriously wrong about it. 4. What is your opinion in regard to the land-tenure of the colony? —Personally, I am in favour of the right of purchase. I say without any hesitation that the first tenure proposed by Mr. Donald Reid —viz., the deferred payment under the ballot system —is the most successful of any that has ever been attempted in the colony. I say that for the reason that I consider people who take up land under that system have more inducement to try and make homes for themselevs than under the present system. There is no doubt a natural feeling in every man to have a bit of ground of his own, and under the system that I have mentioned a settler who went on the ground with not much means but plenty of energy soon made a home for himself. He had something to induce him to persevere, whereas if he has not the right to the freehold he has not the same force behind him to urge him along. ■5.As a matter of observation, have you seen how the lease in perpetuity works? —I have not seen it to any great extent. We have the Glenham and Edendale Estates in our district. The latter has only started. 6. What is your opinion of the lease in perpetuity as you see it at Glenham ?—I believe there are some very weak points attached to it. 7. Of course, we know there is a great force in sentiment, but if you can divest yourself of that sentiment you must recognise that the lease in perpetuity is for a very long period, and that a man is perfectly safe to put in improvements, because he cannot be dispossessed of them? —I have taken a great interest in this question and have thought over all the phases of it, but whatever view I may take I always get back to the freehold. So far as the question of the effect of climate and land-configuration in settlement is concerned, I think there is a good deal in this that requires consideration. You might lay down rules and regulations to suit Southland which would be laughed at by the northern people. So far as climate is concerned, there can be no comparison between the land here and that in South Canterbury and North Otago. I also think that those who have had to do with the settlement of the land in this district have not given enough consideration to the patchy nature of the soil. It is very difficult to fix the price of land, because you may get excellent land on one side of a fence and poor on the other. In this rolling country you get the best land on the top of the ridges, when one would naurally expect to get it along the creeks and rivers. It is just the same at Edendale. 8. In dealing with the remaining Crown lands in this district, is there anything you can suggest that would tend to bring them into cultivaion ? It has been suggested that the homestead system might be adopted in regard to the poor land which has been lying surveyed and unoccupied for the last thirty years, to my knowledge —that is to say, a man should be given the land for nothing under certain improvement conditions, and after he had fulfilled these conditions he
C—4.
J. MILNE.I
87
should get a Crown grant: what do you think of that ?—lt might be worth while trying it, but the country would have to be cut up into pretty large blocks. I would not advocate the adoption of the old farm-homestead system under which the Government gave the settlers money to build houses and to fence and grass in this country, because I think the Government would only be sinking money which they would never see again. 9. Have you had any personal experience of the ballot? —No. But I think the present ballotsystem might be improved. Ido not like the idea of grouping sections. It might be all right from the point of view of the Government, but as a settler I think I would like freedom of selection if I were applying for a section. These remarks apply particularly to the south, where the land is so patchy. Under the grouping system there is always a liability of getting a section you do not want. 10. But you do not disapprov aof the ballot system? —Oh, no. So far as loading lands for roading is concerned, there is alotto be said for it. The weak point, in my idea, is that in a good many districts, although the settlers are paying interest on the money, the loading is not expended for a considerable time, and it is very hard on settlers who are struggling to make a start to have to put up with that when this money is unexpended. I do not think there is any great harm in the loading so long .* ,s the money is expended expeditiously. 11. If it were possible it would be well to expend it before the settlers are put on the land? — Yes, but it would be hardly practicable. In regard to borrowing under the Government Advances to Settlers Act, I think a weak point in that system is the time that a settler has to be on the land before he can apply for an advance. He has to reside twelve months. That is a drawback, because very often when a settler starts he has not overmuch money, and I do not see why he should not be allowed to borrow right away, as soon as he has put in sufficient improvements to provide safe security for the loan. If a settler is sure of getting his money he is always in a position to make a better bargain, and very often he will be able to build himself a more comfortable home than he otherwise could. 12. Your view is simply that there should be no time-limit at all? —Yes; I think when the security is there a settler should be able to borrow. 13. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in this district? —I do not think so. One farmer sometimes buys out his neighbour, but that is all. lam not a believer in the land being tied up in large blocks, and never was. 14. What do you think should be the maximum area a man should be entitled to hold of first-, or second-, or third-class land? —Of course, it is all a matter of the quality of the land. I think that the good land in Edendale is very fairly divided, but I think the size of the poor sections should have been larger. 15. Do you think that purely pastoral country should be cut into large runs? —Yes. I have had a good deal of experience with runs, and I think it would be a very good idea if some mode jould be adopted by which this large extent of hill country could be improved by surface-sowing. I think it would be a great advantage to the Crown as well as to the runholders. 16. At present the maximum term of a pastoral lease is twenty-one years, and they are only allowed the improvements up to three years' rental if the rent is over ,£SO, or to the extent of five times the rental if it is under £50: do you think that if more liberal terms than these were allowed it would induce men to improve the land by surface-sowing ? —I think that the actual valuation of improvements should be allowed. 17. In regard to surface-sowing, of course one man might do an awful amount of mischief by sowing inferior seed and weeds: would you advocate any restrictions in this respect?—By all means. I think the seed should be examined and tested by the Government before it is sown. 18. Do you think that these great mountain pastures should remain for all time the property of the State, or do you think there should be an opportunity given to make them freehold ? —I think there should be an opportunity to make them freehold; but at the same time Ido not think anything could be done with them until they are considerably more improved than they are at present. • 19. What is your idea in regard to the Government providing good seed?- It would be all right if they were careful. I think it would be a great advantage over the present system. 20. In fixing the rent of these runs, would you fix it absolutely for a term, or would you favour a sort of sliding-scale according to the number of sheep shorn ? —I would not be against a slidingscale, because I think that if the Government provide seed they are to a certain extent laying out money, and I think it would be only fair that the rent should be fixed according to the number of sheep shorn. 21. We are asked to inquire and report whether each area of land leased under the Land for Settlements Act should have a separate occupier, and the area not be increased or the boundaries altered without the direct sanction of Parliament: do you think it would be judicious to embody these conditions in any new legislation? —It might, but I have not given any thought to the subject. 22. Mr. Johnston.] You have occupied a position on the County Council? —Yes. 23. Where is the weakness in the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —I consider a man has more encouragement to persevere if he has a chance to make the land his own. 24. Suppose a poor man wants to get on the land, do you think it is advisable he should get it under lease in perpetuity at a lower rent, or with the right of purchase at a higher one? —I think it is better he should have the option, because it encourages him to persevere. 25. Has the value of land increased or decreased in this district ? —The rates have increased very much. I think the Jand-value has increased to a certain extent, but that is largely owing to the good times of the last few years. 26. Is land of the same value now that it was twenty years ago? —Well, Edendale was selling as high twenty years ago as it is now, but that is nothing to go on, because there was a boom then. The company got from £11 to £12 per acre for land between the ferry and the railway-line,
C—4.
88
[.T. MILNE.
27. Have the Californian thistle and the ragwort anything to do with the decrease in the value ot land ? —I do not think so, because we are very little troubled with it here. We have a good deal of ragwort here, but I do not regard that as a great evil, because sheep will keep it down. 28. Do you think there is serious trouble in the future in connection with the Californian thistle? —I do, if it is not kept down. It is hardly worth mentioning about Wvndham, but away back in the rough country it is very bad. 29. You said the climate was very much worse here than in the north: have you been in the north? —I have travelled through it, but I have no experience of it, except that I have one son in the Taranaki District and one in the Waikato. 30. Do you know anything about the Waikawa Settlement? —Yes. I had some little experience of it when it was started. The principal thing I did not like about the Waikawa Settlement was the way in which the Government scattered money about in trying to force settlement. After the ground was cleared and grassed to a certain extent, the settlers, in their effort to make the settlement a success, tried to start dairying, and as I was an old dairyman I was asked to select the cows for the settlement. I was not bound as to price, and as at the time cows were cheap ) got a really good lot together at easy money, which ought to have enabled the settlers to make a good start. While driving them to Heathfield I met an old farmer who asked me where 1 was going, and when 1 told him they were tor the new settlers at Heathfield he said, " The cows are all right, but you should take the milkers with them." I found he was quite right, for I never saw such a helpless lot as the people there. They knew absolutely nothing about dairying, and after two or three days there I came away disgusted. The settlement was also a failure, for this reason: In Southland, after bush country has been cleared for a year or two, an undergrowth comes up on the ridges that lie away from tlje sun, and unless it is checked it spreads over the country and renders it useless for grazing. That proved to be the case at Waikawa, and now, unfortunately, the settlers there, and especially the young people, are leaving the place. I think that system of settling people on the land is bad from a colonial point of view. 31. If the settlers had been good men would the settlement have been a success?—l do not think so. 32. You do not think the land was suitable for them? —No. Of course, there is a large Maori reserve along the coast, and it takes in all the best land. 33. But the main point is that the men were not suitable? —Yes; and the Government pampered them too much. 34. Of course, you know it was an experiment, and an endeavour when things were very bad to put people on the land ? —That is so. 35. Do you say it was a mistake to put the bush into grass here? —I do not say it was a mistake, but I say it was done long before the people were ready for it. If it was done fifty or a hundred years hence, when there are more people to occupy the land, it might be a success, but it was not possible for a man on 150 or 200 acres to keep this undergrowth in check. 36. If the land was properly farmed, could not the undergrowth be kept down by cattle? —No. My experience is that it can only be kept down by cutting. Some extra good settlers have kept the undergrowth down on certain portions of their holdings, but if they went and cut the whole of the growth the paddocks would not produce enough to pay them for the labour. 37. Do you mean to say that in the country about here the undergrowth comes up and kills the grass? —It does on the hills away from the sun. It is practically useless to clear the bush in these places. 38. Then, would it not have been better to have left the land in bush and put a sawmill in? — I cannot tell; but there is not much sawmilling timber there. 39. Are the other settlements about here a success? —There is the Fortrose Settlement, which was settled under my pet scheme of deferred payment, and they are doing all right. 40. Have you owned any of the high country you referred to? —I did, along with my son, but he holds it now. It is at Wakatipu. 41. How would you propose to settle that land? —I think the suggestion made by the Chair man is the best. Of course, there is a good deal of that tussock country you could never burn. 42. Have you any other alternative besides burning? We had a witness who proposed running a rough harrow over it, and sowing it then? —The only way is to burn the portion that will burn. 43. Mr. McCutchan.\ Is there not this objection to the deferred-payment system as against the lease in perpetuity or the right of purchase: In former years, in Taranaki, sections were laid off alternately for cash and on deferred payment, and if a cash section was valued at £2 the value of the deferred-payment section was priced at £3, or 50 per cent, higher, whereas under the 999-years lease, whether you buy for cash or under lease, the capital value is the same? —That Is an objection to the deferred-payment system, but down here there was not much difference. If the cash price was £1 the deferred payment was £1 55., and I think the Government were quite justified in asking that 25-per-cent. increase. 44. Then, you hold the opinion that the deferred-payment system should be substituted for the 999-years lease? —I think it would be a better tenure. 45. I suppose in this district, where there are facilities of all sorts, the present conditions in regard to residence are satisfactory ? —I think so. 46. In regard to the question of loading, you say there is frequently dilatoriness on the part of the Government in spending the money? —That is so. 47. And the point is that the. Government collects the interest and in the meantime retains the principal? —To a certain extent, yes. 48. Do you think the loading should be terminable, or do you think it should go on for the whole 999-years lease? —That is a difficult question to answer. 49. The Government collect 5 per cent, interest, and in fourteen years at compound interest
J. MILNE.]
89
a—4.
that wipes out the principal: do you think the loading should then terminate, as a road is a colonial work J —l do not think there would be any harm in that. 50. Do you think the fact of the Government buying seed would be of much assistance to a man who always took great care in selecting his own seed? —It would be a certain amount of assistance, because I know a case in this district of a man who is quite an intelligent farmer and understands seeds thoroughly well, and who held a lot of rough country, who, instead of selecting seeds, went to people who have a grass-cleaning machine and bought up all the rubbish he could get from them. He carted the stuff to his run and sowed it, with the result that the place was completely overrun with Californian thistle in a few years. I think the Government have a right to protect their own ground, and I think their control would be a check on private people who are too apt to buy their goods as cheaply as possible. 51. Your opinion that the rent of hilly country should be in proportion to the sheep shorn has reference, I suppose, solely to hilly country? —Yes, and country that has been improved by grazing. 52. Mr. Paul.\ Is there any possibility of aggregation taking place under the deferred-pay-ment system? —No doubt there is a risk. 53. Would you give the tenants of educational endowments and Harbour Board reserves the option of the freehold I—l1 —I would not go as far as that. 54. You would conserve those endowments? —I think it would be very dangerous to touch them. 55. Is your experience such as would lead you to the opinion that Crown tenants labour under restrictions inimical to their well-being and unnecessary in the interest of the State?—l have mentioned a few restrictions which-1 think it would be advantageous to remove. 56. Speaking of the present ballot system, have you any objection to the second ballot?— Yes. Ido not see any occasion for it, and lam also against the grouping of the blocks. 57. I understood you to say that there would be no use in giving the holders of pastoral leases the right of the freehold now, because the country is not worth taking up. Do you think it would be equitable to give them the right of purchase after the runs had become valuable? Do you think it is right that after a man has improved a run another man should come along and buy the freehold of it? —Well, if the leaseholder gets valuation for his improvements, I do not see any harm in it. There is no risk of any people buying the runs in the hilly country in their present state. I think any improvement that is made in them will be in the interest of the State as well as the owners. 58. Mr. Forbes.] I understand you represent the Farmers' Union here? —Yes. 59. Are you looking at these matters from a colonial standpoint or from the point of view of a tenant of the Crown? —As far as we can, we are supposed to take a fair view from both sides. We do not wish to take a selfish view. 60. Have you studied the land question and the position the Crown occupies in regard to the land-for-settlements scheme? For instance, the Cheviot Estate was bought by the Government ten or twelve years ago, and up to the present time the rents of the settlers have wiped off £100,000 of the purchase-money, and in less than twenty years' time the whole cost of the Cheviot Estate will be wiped off the books altogether, and those settlers will be contributing close on £15,000 to the revenue of the country : would you part, then, with the freehold of a place like Cheviot and lose this revenue for the country? —There is another way of viewing this matter. We all know that Cheviot is the most successful settlement the Government have bought, but you must remember that there are other settlements, like Pomahaka and others, that are not doing nearly so well, and I think, when you group them all together, that the Government will be lucky if they can come out of them on the right side of the ledger. 61. Then, do you think it would be good business to allow settlers on successful estates to acquire the freehold and leave the bad ones on the Government's hands? —I reckon that if a settler works hard to make a home he is entitled to the freehold. 62. But do you think from a colonial point of view it would be advantageous to part with the freeholds in such cases? —I prefer that to the other. You must group the estates together before you can say they are doing the State any benefit. 63. Does the Farmers' Union believe in settling people on the land?—l should think they did. 64. If you part with the freehold of any of these estates, in a few years' time there will be only half the number of settlers on the place that there were when the settlement was opened, because the tendency in these good times will be for settlers to buy their neighbours out and so bring about a reduction in the number of occupiers: is that a good thing? —There is another point of view. Most of these settlers have sons and daughters, and they expect to settle them on these sections. At present the sons are inclined to leave home, because they do not reckon that farming is much good, and if a settler can encourage them to stay on the land by putting them on adjoining property I do not think anything better could happen to the State. 65. But if you part with the freehold of these sections might they not be grouped together, and it) time might not one owner hold half the countryside? —That might happen. 66. Do you support that?— Well, it is likely to happen if a man gets a chance, whether I support it or not. But I think feeling in other directions is quite able to cope with that danger. We know the amount of taxation that is heaped on us now, and we know the more settlers we can get the better it will be, because it will spread the taxation over a greater number. 67. But you acknowledge that by giving the freehold there is a danger that the settlers may be bought out, and that less people will be left on the land? —Not less people. I say that if a man works hard and makes a home he is entitled to it if he wishes to acquire the freehold. That is what I dislike about the present system. I say we are serfs, with no freedom of action. 68. You think a man with a freehold has freedom of action? —He is supposed to have, unless he is tied up too tightly,
12—C. 4,
90
[j. MILNE.
C—4.
69. You think a man on a piece of ground who has a chance of getting the freehold has more independence than a leaseholder? —That is the whole thing in a nutshell. 70. Then, logically, you think that any man renting a farm, either from the Government or any one else, ought to have the right of purchase?— Yes. 71. Mr. Anstey.\ You have just said you are in favour of giving every tenant the right to purchase the freehold, but a little earlier you said you were not in favour of giving the tenants on endowments that right? —These reserves are left for a different purpose, and 1 am not in favour of touching them just now. 72. You are in favour of Crown tenants having the right to purchase the freehold? —Yes. 73. Are you in favour of every leaseholder having a legal right to purchase the freehold? — Not unless he has a lease with a purchasing clause. 74. Then, you only want one class of tenants —the Crown tenants —to have the right of purchase ? —Yes. 75. Would you favour any kind of leasehold, provided the right of purchase was attached to it? —I would not object to it. 1 hold that a man who is settled on a leasehold has not the same encouragement to persevere and make a home for himself and family as a man with the right to purchase. 76. The deferred-payment system involves the payment of instalments: do you believe that a man when he taken up a piece of land under that system should be compelled to pay his instalments whenever they are due, whether he is able to or not? —Yes. 77. Have you noticed any great differences in the valuations—one being too high and another being too low? —Sometimes. 78. I am speaking more particularly of land purchased for settlement, and the rents fixed: have you noticed any great anomalies?- I have noticed some. 79. Generally speaking, the valuers have done their business fairly well? —The only objection I have is that they value it all too high. 80. I understand that Oteramika is very poor land? —Yes. 81. It has been suggested that the homestead system might be adopted with respect to it: could you suggest any modification of that system with respect to occupation, for instance? —There might be a possibility, but as a whole the country is very poor. 82. With regard to the aggregation of large estates, would it not be very much better to make a limitation of value instead of area in the case of those holding land I—lt1 —It is very hard to answer that question. I have never considered it at all. 83. Mr. Matheson.] Cheviot has been spoken of as being successful. The greater part of the payment of those settlers is for interest and a small portion is sinking fund: would you be surprised to hear that in respect of the sinking fund they have paid £100,000? —Yes. 84. It is suggested that if right of purchase was given to Crown leaseholders there would be an aggregation of large estates: do you think that a simple means might be devised by law to prevent an undue aggregation I—l1 —I do not see why it could not. James Cushnie examined. 85. The Chairman.] What are you?—A farmer on Edendale Estate. I hold a perpetual-lease section of 90 acres. I have been in this district thirty years, and have been engaged in farming all that time. 86. Would you please state what you want to put before the Commission? —I appear on behalf of the local branch of the Farmers' Union, the same as Mr. Milne. Ido not think it is necessary that I should go over all the subjects be has dealt with. I indorse a great deal of what he has said. There is one thing I have been asked to specially emphasize, and that is the great boon the advances to settlers has been, especially to some farmers in the country, in reducing the rate of interest to a reasonable figure. It has been a benefit in this way: when they want a small loan they can get it without any great outside expense being entailed upon them. It is the desire of the people in this district that the Government should continue the Advances to Settlers Department, and prosecute this policy even more vigorously in regard to small settlers, and more especially in the case of their own tenants. Mr. Milne has explained that a man has to be twelve months on his property before he can get an advance. It is a general complaint in the Edendale Settlement. The Commissioners are supposed to see that you have money to start with, and T dare say they do their duty, but sometimes the price of labour is high and there is a lot of stock to get. If the settlers could get an advance as soon as the improvements were put on it would be a great benefit to many settlers on the new settlement in this district, but at present they have to run themselves into debt, and they cannot make as good a bargain as if the Government paid for it. 87. Is it within your knowledge that there has apparently been unnecessary delay in getting the money even after good security has been shown ?- T have heard reports to that effect. I have heard that when you apply for a loan you may get a promise three months afterwards, and they charge interest on the three months before you really get the money. I represent the same branch of the Farmers' Union as Mr. Milne does, and I pretty well indorse the remarks he has made. 88. With regard to the Edendale Estate, there has not been time to know whether the settlers are fairly satisfied with their position; but I presume they are, or they would not be there? — They all seem very hopeful at present. There is one thing that was spoken about, and that is as to having different restrictions with regard to the cropping of the land for different localities. I spent a considerable amount of time with a settler in South Canterbury, and they seem to think the restrictions there as to cropping do not suit them. When land has been lying in grass for some time, when they break it up it takes a great deal of working before it is again in proper order for cropping. They think they should be allowed to have more than two crops off it. The present regulations with respect to cropping would suit Edendale, but apparently they do not suit the people in South Canterbury. I think that the restrictions as to cropping should be made to suit different localities, different climates, and different qualities of land.
C—4.
J. CUSHNIE.]
91
89. Mr. Johnston.] You had a freehold and sold it, and you have taken up land under lease in perpetuity. You have only been at Edendale eight months? —Yes. 90. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —I am quite satisfied. 91. You do not want anything else?- It seems satisfactory enough; but I think the Government should be a little more liberal with the Crown tenants in regard to advances. They only allow up to half, and in the case of the freehold they are allowed three-fifths, I think. 92. Mr. McCutcha/i..[J With reference to advances from the Advances to Settlers Department, do you think a difference should be made between the money obtained for reproductive works and money got for, say, the building of a house? Do you not think it would be safer for the State to make a larger advance for reproductive works than for buildings 1- -There is no return from a building, but it is necessary for carrying on the work of farming —in fact, it is the first thing a farmer should put on his place. 93. Do you think where an advance is made that there should be some supervision over the manner in which the money is expended ? —They do that now, I think. They send a valuer to the place before they advance the money. 94. But afterwards, I mean? —If they do advance the money before the improvements are made I think there should be something to safeguard that. 95. You stated that the loan was charged for from the date of the application: that is not the case? —I said I heard that it was so. 96. Mr. McLennan.J You said you were quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity. As far as you know, are your neighbours also satisfied ? —Yes, they seem to be satisfied. 97. Mr. Paul.] With reference to the freehold, would you advocate giving it to lessees of education, harbour, and Corporation endowments? —No; but 1 have never studied that question. 98. You think it wise to have these endowments conserved to the State? —Yes. 99. Speaking broadly, do you favour the land-for-settlements policy as carried out by the Government ? —Yes. 100. Mr. Anstey.\ With regard to advances to settlers, can you suggest any improvement whereby it would be more convenient for the settlers to get advances on their holdings? —I could not suggest any improvements in the existing law. 101. It has been stated over and over again that lease-in-perpetuity settlers have a difficulty in getting loans: can you suggest any way in which that difficulty could be removed 2 —There is no doubt greater difficulty than in the case of the freehold. 102. Can you suggest any way in which the difficulty can be removed? Supposing they were allowed to pledge their property, should they be allowed to do so? —1 do not think it would do to allow them to pledge their property. 1 think the Government should, however, be as liberal as possible with the settlers. 103. You think the lease-in-perpetuity settler should not be allowed to borrow except from the Government? —I do not think he should be allowed to borrow on the property, but, perhaps, on the stock. 104. You gave us some interesting information about the farmers in South Canterbury: from my experience you are very wide indeed of the mark? —I stated what I was informed by some of the farmers. 105. Mr. Matheson.] What does your annual rent amount to? —About 15s. an acre. 106. You prefer the lease in perpetuity at 15s. to the right of purchase at 18s. 9d. ? —Yes. Frank Butt White examined. 107. The Chairman.] What are you?- lam a settler at Glenham Settlement. I hold my land under lease in perpetuity. The area is 219 acres. I have been there about two years and nine months. lam paying 4s. 3d. an acre. lam engaged in dairying and crop about 25 acres a year. 108. What do you wish to say to the Commission? —I would like the freehold if I could get it. 109. Supposing it were offered by the Government on condition that you had to put up the land to auction and take the risk of buying it or losing it, would you be agreeable to that? —I would like to be able to take it up at any time I felt able to do so. At the present time lam not in a position to buy the land out, and I would sooner be under the Government than under any other landlord. 110. You are fairly satisfied with your present holding? —Yes. With respect to the advances to settlers, I made an application for a loan and it was granted. I went on the property with £400, and put up a seven-roomed house and a cow-shed 27 ft. by 23 ft. I expended pretty well the whole of the £400 and then went to the Advances to Settlers Office to see what they would give me on it if I spent the money on improvements. The valuer valued them at £333, which was a great deal below what they cost me. I only wanted £150. After waiting about two months word came from Wellington and I was informed they had considered my case and would advance me £100, and by the time I paid the expenses I only got £97. 111. If you had borrowed privately you would not have got such good terms? —I could have got the money from a neighbour at 5 per cent, if I could have given land as security. 112. But under the lease in perpetuity you got it at easier terms from the Government than you could have got it from any one else? —I could not have got it at all from any one else. I think, if a man takes up a place and improves it in, say, five years to the extent of £1 an acre, he ought to have the right of purchase. I did not apply for the freehold. 113. Mr. Johnston.'] You knew what you were going in for when you went in for this tenure? —Yes; but it has been put in a different light since. It looks as if we were doing all the improvements on the land for other people to get the advantage of them. 114. But if you are improving your land you are doing so for the purpose of getting an advantage out of it?- Yes; but we have to put money into the land before we can take it out. 115. But if the land is worth more than you gave for it and you have put improvements on it, you can surely get goodwill for it without having the freehold ?—I do not think so.
C—4.
92
[f. b. white.
116. You are satisfied with your land except that you want the freehold, although you were perfectly satisfied with the lease in perpetuity when you took up the land? —Yes. 117. No reason was given for only advancing the £100, although you were entitled to half of the valuation for improvements? —No reason was given. The following is a copy of the resolutions passed at a meeting of the Glenham settlers on Wednesday evening, the 22nd February, 1905: — Constitution of Land Boards. —Proposed by Mr. Cartwright and seconded by Mr. White, " That members of the Land Boards should be elective, and that Crown tenants be represented on all Land Boards throughout the colony." —Carried unanimously. Land-tenures. —The Chairman proposed, " That after five years' residence Crown tenants have the right to purchase on the original capital value, and to pay such purchase-moneys in such amounts and at such times as the settlers are in a position to do so." —Seconded by Mr. Thompson, and carried unanimously. The Practice of loading Lands for Roads, and its Working.—Mr. Kirker moved, " That any moneys loaded on an estate for road-making should be spent on that estate within twelve months from the time such estate is opened for settlement." —Seconded by Mr. Scott, and carried unanimously. Proposed by Mr. Leigliton, " That Mr. White take a copy of the resolutions carried by this meeting as the Glenham representative delegate of Mataura Island Branch of the Farmers' Union." —Seconded by Mr. Cartwright, and carried unanimously. 118. Mr. McCardle.] Is this land under Land for Settlements Act?— Yes. 119. Mr. Johnston.] If the land were freehold now would you be prepared to capitalise it with the improvements you have put on the land? —No. 120. Would you want more? j *-Certainly. 121. Mr. McCardle.] Supposing the Advances to Settlers Act were amended so that you could borrow up to three-fifths of the value, would you be satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —No. I do not want to borrow any more than I can help. 122. What makes you so anxious to get the freehold?- If anything happens to me —I have a family of seven children —my wife could make a good deal better terms, and divide the property amongst the children, than she could under the present condition of affairs. 123. Would you not be able to divide under the lease in perpetuity with the permission of the Land Board? —No. 124. You mean to say that the feeling of the public is not in favour of the 999-years lease?— Not at Glenham. 125. They are anxious to get the freehold? —Yes. 126. You maintain that in order to get the best advantage from your land you ought to have the right of purchase? —Yes. 127. Considering the great expense of purchasing these estates, do you not think you should have some very vital reasons to oiler to the Commission before you can expect the Commission to recommend that the settlers under the Land for Settlements Act should have the right of purchase ? —I do not see it. 128. Mr. McCutchan.] In the resolutions passed at the public meeting in reference to the right of purchase one resolution advocated payment in sums from time to time, but it does not state whether you expected a proportionate reduction in interest ?- -That question was discussed. 129. When you applied for a loan you stated the purposes for which you required it? —Yes; for grassing and fencing. 130. For reproductive works? —Yes. 131. Mr. Paul.] Would you have been on the land if there had been no leasehold? —Yes. 132. What is your object in asking for the freehold: is it to get more out of the land? —It is simply a feeling that I would like to own the freehold. 133. I have a feeling that I would like to own a lot of things. But giving the freehold would not affect the productive capacity of the land? —In my case it would not. 134. Supposing you had the option of the freehold, would you be prepared to be a Government tenant or a mortgagor? —A Government tenant. 135. You would not mortgage your land for the purpose of taking the freehold ?—I would not gain any advantage by it. 136. Would you advocate granting freeholds in the case of leases of harbour and education endowments ? —-No. 137. Why would you make a distinction?—l have not studied that question. 138. To get down to the bed-rock, is it not a question of money, and that money outweighs sentiment in this matter ? —I do not think so. 139. I understand there are about twenty-two settlers at Glenham: how many attended the meeting at which the resolutions were passed? —Fourteen, and two sent letters. 140. Were there any others present besides Crown tenants?—l think there was one. 141. Are you in a position to acquire the freehold if the option were given?— Not at present. 142. Mr. Forbes.] You recommend that the resolutions passed at the meeting of settlers be agreed to? —Yes. 143. Suppose a settler puts all his surplus money into a section, and bad times come and his payments get behindhand, do you think it would be in the interests of the Government to let him have it back again to tide him over bad times?—l would not believe in getting it back again. 144. lou would "fire him out," then? —I do not believe exactly in feeding a man with a spoon. 145. If bad times came and the rents were found to be too high, would you not expect the Government to do something for their tenants? —I do not believe in that. 146. If it were a general thing throughout the country there would be more chance of making arrangements with the Government as the landlord than there would be in the case of a private
F. B. WHITE.]
93
C.—4.
landlord. If you locked up your money in a freehold you would not be able to meet the position very well? —No. 147. If there were bad times you would be in a better position to spend it under the lease in perpetuity I—Yes.1 —Yes. 148. Mr. Anstey.] 1 understand that the Glenham settlers would all like the option of getting the freehold? —Yes. 149. What is your particular reason in asking for the freehold? Do you consider it a much more valuable occupancy of the land under the freehold than under the lease in perpetuity? —Yes. 150. In what way?— You could do what you liked with the land- you would have no restrictions ; but, as far as 1 can see, they are right enough as regards cropping. 151. You know there is a difference of 1 per cent, between the right of purchase and the lease in perpetuity: would you be prepared to pay that difference if you got the right of purchase? —No. 152. You would like the right of purchase at the same price you are paying now? —Yes. 153. You are not prepared to pay for it? —I think lam paying plenty at the present time. If I paid any more I could not live. 154. Is one of the reasons why you wish the option that you have some fear the lease will be tampered with? —That has a good deal to do with it. 155. You think it would be very wrong to tamper with your lease? —Yes. 156. And yet you bring us resolutions passed by the settlers asking the Government to tamper with your leases? —We simply state what we would like. 157. You cannot suggest any way in which the difficulties in respect to advances can be removed ? —No. 158. You are in favour of the Land Boards being elected? —Yes. 159. Elected on the electoral roll? Yes. 160. If tliey were elected oil the parliamentary roll, as the town vote is much greater than the country vote, probably all the town members would be elected on the Board. You say the tenants should be represented on the Land Board? —They should be allowed to elect one member. 161. Is the present Board fairly suitable? —Yes. 162. You have no trouble with them? —No. 163. Mr. Matheson.\ It has been suggested that if bad times came the Government might see their way to reduce rents: do you not think that if a number of town voters brought pressure to bear on the Government they might see their way to increase rents by a Fair Rent Bill? —I do not believe in either reducing or increasing. I believe in a man carrying out what he promises to do, and if he cannot carry out his promise let him go out of it. John Graham examined. 164. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer at Mataura Island. I hold a freehold of 250 acres. I have been two years and a half there. I was thirty-five years in the Taieri district farming, and ten years in Tokomairiro before that. 165. Have you any particulars you would like to emphasize to the Commission ?—I have thought for a long time that the Chairmen of County Councils would make a very excellent Land Board. They are elected annually, but they might be nominated for three years. lam in favour of the freehold. We came to the colony to acquire a freehold. I think in every British nature there is a wish to acquire a home of one's own. There is no doubt the leasehold is useful in enabling settlers to make a start- those who have no capital —but I think they should be allowed the oportunity of acquiring the freehold when they are in a position to do so. I think that applies not only to country but also to town properties. Even in the towns the freeholds are better looked after than the leaseholds. 166. Do you think the Crown tenants labour under any restrictions that might be removed? —I have had no experience with Crown tenants, but I have a feeling that they are rather much under political influence. A tenant does not like to vote against his landlord. 1"67. Do you think that the residential conditions are too exacting and require relaxing? —No. 168. You do not think that any modification of the Land Act is desirable on account of the difference of the climate here?- I think that for dairying purposes the climate here is good. 169. What is about the average yield of a cow here?—l should say from £6 to £12, according to the pasture. 170. Some reference has been made to the poor land at Oteramika: do you think any scheme could be devised under which this land could be taken up ? Would you approve of the land being offered at a very low rate and not having residence conditions ? —That would be useful where the land would not maintain a family. 171. Have you had any experience of the ballot system? —The only drawback is that it gives the inexperienced man an equal opportunity of getting land with the experienced man, and the experienced man would make a better tenant. 172. Is land rising in value here? —Yes, the freehold is. 173. What is the cause of the rise in the value of the freehold land? —Southland land is going up all round, and I think the price will rise still further. 174. Have you had any experience in connection with advances to settlers? —I am very strongly in favour of that policy. I think it is one of the best measures ever passed in the colony; in fact, I must give the Government credit for having passed two of the best measures ever placed on the statute-book —viz., the Advances to Settlers Act and the provision for carrying lime free on the railways. 175. Do you think the tendency is to group sections of land together and increase the size of the holdings? —It is human nature for a man to acquire all he can, but the Government have the remedy in their own hands in respect to preventing ail undue increase in the size of holdings. 176. Mr. Johnston.] The area of your land is 350 acres? —Yes.
C—4.
94
[,T. GRAHAM
177. What was the price? —£11 an acre. 178. A fully improved farm? —Not all improved. 179. And Californian thistle? —Very little. 180. How many acres do you give to a cow? —An acre and a half on my property. 181. Eleven pounds an acre is a very good profit? —Yes. That entails a good deal of labour, but I have the assistance of my own family. 182. Mr. McCardle.] How many cows do you milk? —Fifty. 183. How many of your family do you employ in the work?- There are ten in the family, but several of them are very young. 184. Dairying keeps a family well together on the farm? —Yes. 185. It does not give you a very big average wage? —Not very much. 186. The Chairman.] Do you think the endowments which have been referred to might be sold, or should they be kept intact so as to yield income from year to year I—l1 —I think that if the body holding the endowments got favourable investments for the proceeds there would be no objection to their disposing of them. 187. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to the ballot, would you give any prefence to a married man with a family over a single man? —Yes. 188. Would you give any consideration to an unsuccessful applicant, whether married or single, at a subsequent ballot? —I think if a man is unsuccessful he should have a prior claim to a new balloter. 189. Mr. Paul.] Do you favour the land-for-settlements policy? Yes. Where a man is not able to purchase land he has a chance of acquiring a home under the lease in perpetuity. 190. He can only acquire tjiat home through the land-for-settlement policy? -Yes, I suppose so. 191. By giving the right of purchase to the tenant it would undermine that policy: would you still persist in giving the right? —I do not see how it would undermine it. 192. If by giving tenants the option of the freehold you undermine that system would you still advocate it? —As they acquire the freehold you would have the country settled, and there would be no need for leaseholds. 193. You said that aggregation of land was still going on, but that the Government would always have the remedy to acquire the estates and cut them up?- Yes. 194. As time goes on land increases in value? —Yes, to some extent in some places. 195. This would become a very expensive process as time goes on? —Not necessarily. It is no use acquiring land at more than its actual value, and you should not raise it above its actual workable value. 196. Workable value means two things. Workable value in the hands of a large landowner is different to workable value under proper settlement conditions? —Yes. 197. You spoke of freehold sections in townships being better looked after that leasehold sections ? —Yes. 198. Have you no sections in your mind's eye which have been bought for speculative purposes? —Any amount of them. 199. Did I understand you to say that tenants were subject to political influence? —Even tenants of private landlords would not like to vote against their landlords. 200. Do you think the tenants of landlords in Ireland desire to place their landlords in power? —I do not come from Ireland. 201. Have you every confidence in the secrecy of the ballot? —Undoubtedly. 202. You said that freeholds are increasing in value at a much greater rate than leaseholds? —Yes, that is an absolute fact. 203. Take two farms side by side, leasehold and freehold: are they equally productive?— Yes, if they are equally well handled. 204. Mr. Forbes.] You cannot say that the settlers at Edendale and Glenham are not cultivating their places as well as those on freeholds ? —I have not been long enough at Edendale to say. I know there is a tendency to put substantial buildings and do more substantial fencing on freeholds. 205. Do you not ascribe that to the fact that the freeholders have more money?—No; I think it is because they can dispose of their freehold and get their improvements. Freehold is more negotiable than a leasehold. 206. You have not noticed in this district a marked difference? —Yes; the freeholds have a more homely appearance. 207. They have been longer settled? —Yes. 208. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you think you could get the same amount now for your land as when you took it up three or four years ago? —I think land has gone up a little. It fluctuates according to the price of produce. 209. Leases have gone up as much as freeholds? —I do not know that they have. 210. Is ragwort more prevalent among cattle than among sheep? —Yes. Sheep are almost necessary to assist in keeping down ragwort. Ragwort would not, I think, become a nuisance at all under sheep. 211. Mr. Matheson.\ In speaking of the £10 per cow did you mean the milk alone? —Yes. 212. Mr. Hall.] Do you not think a leasehold for 999 years is an incentive to good farming? —You have always to pay the six-monthly rent. If you have a farm of your own you have a greater stimulus to work and improve it. 213. Having to pay a rent necessitates good farming? —I do not know that it does. I think it is inherent in British nature that every man should have his freehold. 214. Mr. McCardle.] You favour the freehold, but you have stated that the freehold has a tendency to enable men to acquire more land than they have a right to occupy: would you be
a—4
95
J. GRAHAM.
in favour of restricting that within reasonable limits?— Yes, 215 Do you not think the State or the people ought to have a say in how much land a man should hold under any tenure ?-Yes; and the holdings should vary according to the quality ol the land. . , Samuel Thompson examined. 216 The Chairman.'] What is your occupation 1- I am a Crown tenant on the Glenham Estate. I hold the homestead section, and I have been there nearly three years. I bold 540 acres and one section is valued at 3s. 9d„ and the other two at 4s. 6d. Then, over and above that, I have to pay into a sinking fund for twenty-one years on improvements valued at £540. 1 graze sheep and cattle, and do some cropping. , x ... .. , T , Rnl , s , 217 Would you like to express any opinion in regard to the constitution ol Land Hoards) I do not know much about them. The present arrangement is very satisfactory. 1 have heard the suggestion that there should be one member representing the Crown tenants, and 1 think that would be a very good thing. 218. Regarding the tenures on which lands are held, are you pleased with your lease-in-perpetuity tenure?- Yes; but I would prefer the option of the freehold in case I wanted to buy. 219 Otherwise you have no objection to the present lease? No. 220 Are you sensible, from your experience, of any restriction in regard, say, to the cultivation of the land that you would like to see removed ?—Speaking for myself and in regard to Clenham land, I think the two white crops that are allowed are as much as the land will stand. 1 think that anything more would be hurtful to the land. 221. Do you think the residence conditions are too exacting ? —I do not think so. 222. Do you think it would be worth while introducing the homestead system m order to settle the poor land in this district?—l have had no experience, and I would not like to express an opinion. „ T ±1, 223. In regard to the ballot system, were there many applicants for your section! I was the only applicant. I had no trouble with the ballot. 224. Was there any loading for roads on the Glenham Settlement? Yes, about £1,000, and it has not yet been all expended. 225. Have you had any experience in regard to the Advances to Settlers Office <- i\o. 226. In the matter of large estates, are you aware if any aggregation is going on in this district ? —I think it is the other way about. So far as I can see, the areas are becoming smaller, because large estates do not pay. The owners are inclined to cut them up. 227. Do you feel you can "get on right enough at the rent you are paying?- [ cannot form an opinion yet. The greater part of the place is down in old grass and I am ploughing it up now, and I expect better results in the future. . 228. Do you think the whole settlement at Glenham is going to get on lairly well h 1 think bo. It is not quite as bad as the name it got. 229. Mr. Forbes.] Would you be prepared to pay an extra 1 per cent, m rent in order to get the option of purchase put in your lease? —If I was assured of getting the 999-years lease would prefer to have the land on lease rather than pay the extra rent. 230. But you have your lease-in-perpetuity tenure? Yes; but 1 very often read in the Press speeches made all over the colony advocating revaluation and that sort of thing, and I do not feel quite as secure as I thought I was. 231. Ido not think you have much to fear in that respect? —I hope not. 232. It is a solemn contract between the Government and yourself, and it would take a large change in public opinion before the Government would break such a contract ?-Yes, but large changes take place in public opinion. I would like to point out, for instance, that there is a lot of gorse on my place, and it will take a good deal of time and labour to effect improvements, and I know if my place was revalued later on I would not get in improvements anything like the amount I had expended on the place. I prefer the freehold, because I think the freehold settlers are the best settlers for the country. I was Home about three years ago, and in Ireland I saw that those "who had purchased their places were making better farmers than those who did not hold the freehold. . 233. But the men who buy their places are probably the pick of the farmers I —No; every one who could get the option of the freehold at once bought; and to show you what the British Government think of the matter I may state that they have recently raised £100,000,000 to enable the tenants to buv out their freeholds. 234. If you were given the option of the freehold you could sell your place to your neighbour / Yes. 235. That would mean one man on the two sections instead of two?—l might cut the place up and sell it to two or three people, or give it to my sons, if I had the freehold. I cannot do that now. . . 236. If you cut up your place into two or three sections could two or three people make a living off it?—l think my place would be better cut up into two or three sections than in one. It is close to a dairy and railway, and it could be worked to much better advantage if it was highly farmed. , . , , . 237. Mr. Anstey.] Do you not think that the fact of farmers and settlers meeting and asking the Government to vary their contracts has also done a great deal to create a feeling of uneasiness in the minds of farmers like yourself : for instance, we had a resolution passed at an influential meeting of Glenham settlers before us to-dav in which they asked the Government to vary their contract?—lt might have that effect, but I think that if it is for the good of the country as a whole that the contract should be varied it is right to do so. 238. Then, if it was good for the country as a whole that your lease should be revalued and your rent raised, say, from 4s. per acre to 7s. 6d. per acre, would it be right to do that?—l do not think there is much chance of my land being valued at 7s. 6d. per acre,
C,—4.
96
fs. THOMPSON.
239. Mr. Matheson.\ Did you see when you were in Ireland the settlement under the new Act which enables the settlers to obtain the freehold in time? —Yes. 240. And you say there is a great eagerness to get the freehold in those districts ?—Yes. 241. And you think it is creating a better feeling in these districts than existed before between the landlords and tenants?— Yes. 242. Mr. Hall.] Would not the fact of the Government selling the freehold in this country have a tendency in the future to create petty landlordism ? —I do not think so. The fact is that large estates do not pay at the present time, and if they do not pay I do not think people would be inclined to buy them up. 243. But while 1,000 acres might be considered an ordinary farm now, a hundred years hence it might be a little estate, and so bring about a petty landlord class? —I think the Government could easily pass legislation to restrict the area. I think small estates are better for the country as a whole. 244. Do you think that any one could seriously suppose that the Government will repudiate these tenures for 999 years? I think the Government could pass any Act they liked that they considered beneficial to the country as a whole. 245. Would not the same thing apply to the freehold? Might you not as reasonably suppose that the Government would tamper with the freehold as with the other ? —They have done it in some cases. 246. In that case, then, the advantage as regards the security of tenure is no better for the freehold than for the 999-years lease? —That might be so. 247. Mr. McCardle.(} Mr. Hall has put a question to you about the creation of petty landlords : would it not be equally .bad if the leaseholder sublet his holding, as he can do with the approval of the Land Board? —I do not think the approval should be given. 248. You have also referred to the fact that the State has power to restrict areas? —Yes. 249. Do you not think it would be a wise and good thing for the Government to pass an Act to restrict the area so that no one man should hold more than a certain area in fee-simple? —I think so. 250. You have possibly seen in the English Press that there has been a great tendency of late years for all the agricultural people to crowd into the cities, and that the State is seriously considering the desirability of offering the land on a freehold tenure throughout England and Scotland in order to induce settlement?- That is so. 251. Then, your idea in advocating the freehold is to encourage in every form you possibly can the best settlement of the country? —Yes. 252. And it enters into your mind that if the desire for the freehold is only a question of sentiment it is a desirable thing that the sentiment of the people should be given effect to as far as possible? —Yes. 253. The Chairman.] Did you hold a freehold before you went to Glenham? —No; I have always been a leaseholder. I held private leases. 254. Suppose that ten years hence you have a nice place at Glenham but you are dissatisfied with it, and suppose the Government came to you and said, " Well, if you are dissatisfied we will have your land valued and your improvements valued, and we will put the place up to auction, and whatever price is given for the property you will be secured in respect to your improvements, but if the property brings a greater price than the upset the excess will go with the land and not to you " : would you like that?—l do not know, because the price of land might be higher or lower. I do not think it would be fair. I believe in sticking to a contract if it is carried out straight and fair. 255. Mr. Paul.] Then, providing there is no revaluation you are prepared to stick to your lease in perpetuity without the option of the freehold ? —Yes ; but I should prefer the freehold if I could get it. George Crosbie examined. 256. The, Chairman.] What is your occupation? —I am a settler at Glenham. I have been there about two years, and I hold 459J acres, for which T pay 3s. 9d. per acre. There was a house on my land when I took it up, and it was fenced and laid down in grass. I graze sheep and cattle, and do some cultivating. 257. Are you satisfied with your conditions after your two years' residence?—l am satisfied, but I should prefer the right to secure the freehold. 258. I was referring to the question of rent? —I am not quite sure on that point, but I feel it is high enough certainly. I think I have been helped by the fact that the seasons have been rather better than normal, and the market prices have been fairly high. 259. Is there any special point you would like to bring before us? —Not further than my desire for the freehold. lam one of the deputation appointed to represent the settlers. 260. Do you think the present constitution of Land Boards is satisfactory ?- I think it is fairly satisfactory. Ido not think there is any pressing need for an alteration in the meantime. 261. Had you any experience of freehold before you came to Glenham? —No. 262. Have you any views in regard to the homestead system? I know nothing about it. 263. Have you had any experience of the ballot? -No; I was sole applicant for my section. 264. Have you anything to say in regard to the system of loading for roads? —I am not interested in the question personally, because I am on the main road, but there is a good deal of dissatisfaction amongst those in Glenham who are interested. Settlers have been complaining ever since they have been there about the roads. I know one settler who has no means of access to or from his section yet. The road has been started but not completed. 265. Do you think your land has risen in market value since you got it? —I do not think so. 266. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 267. Is there such a thing as the aggregation of large estates going on? —No; it is quite the reverse here. The large estates are being cut up.
G. CROSBIE.]
97
C.—4.
268. Then, I understand you are fairly well satisfied with your position? —Yes. 269. Mr. McGardle.\ You heard the questions put to Mr. Thompson and the answers he gave: do you in a general way support his statements here? —I do. 270. Mr. McCutchan.] The capital value of your land is £3 15s. per acre: is it at that price you desire to get the freehold? —"Yes. 271. Your opinion is that the 5 per cent, the State gets reimburses it in full and that anything else on the land is the property of the tenant?- Yes. 272. Mr. Paul.] Were you present at the meeting of the Glenham settlers? —Yes. 273. Was this resolution in connection with the constitution of the Land Boards carried unanimously? —Yes. I might say that only one or two felt strongly on the matter, and the resolution was carried because the others present did not oppose it. 274. You mean to say that because one or two wanted a change the rest of the settlers voted with them ? —Yes. 275. And were the other resolutions carried similarly? —Yes. I am now speaking for myself. I do not know anything about the feeling of the others who attended the meeting. 276. Do you agree with the proposal to give the Crown tenants the right to purchase the freehold in terms of this resolution ? —Yes. 277. Was this resolution carried unanimously? —Yes. 278. Mr. Forbes.] In getting the freehold do you think you ought to pay any more for it than you are paying now? —I think not. I consider I ought to get it at the original valuation. 279. Do you think that is a fair bargain between you and the State? —1 think it is a fair bargain for the State. 280. You consider your place would be more valuable as a freehold and that you could sell it to better advantage? —I think so. 281. You would not be prepared to pay the 1-per-cent. difference between the lease in perpetuity and the right to purchase in order to obtain the freehold ? —I would not. 282. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to the question of loading, you say there is dissatisfaction on the ground that the money is not promptly spent though the tenant has to pay interest? —Yes. The tenants feel it is an injustice that they should pay interest and the money is not expended. 283. In some cases is it not rather difficult for the Government to spend the entire loading within a couple of years? —That might apply in the North, but certainly it is a decided inconvenience for a man to have a place and no access to it. 284. Do you think there should be some finality in the matter of paying interest on the loading, or do you think it should continue for the whole term of the lease? —I do not think so. 285. What is your .proposal for terminating it? —I have not thought very much about the matter. Our estate is only loaded to the extent of £1,000, and it is not a very serious matter divided over the whole estate. 286. You know that money at 5 per cent, compound interest repays itself in fourteen years, and that if the interest on the loading is continued for 999 years the tenant and his successors will pay the capital sum seventy times over: do you think that when the State is reimbursed for the actual expenditure that should be sufficient? —Yes. Robert Meikle McCallum examined. 287. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold 300 acres of freehold. lam also interested in a lease of 300 acres. 1 have been over forty years in this district. 288. You are Chairman of the Southland County Council? —Yes. 289. What is your opinion in regard to the present constitution of the Land Boards? —I think they are just as good as they could possibly be. You could not get a better Board by election, but rather a worse one, in my opinion. 290. What is your opinion in regard to the settlement of the country under the present tenures, and which tenure do you think will render New Zealand most productive? —The freehold undoubtedly, in my opinion. 291. I suppose you have no real objection to the lease in perpetuity —at all events, in its initial stages? —I have no objection to it at all, because it is a very good thing for a young man or a man who is starting farming, because it enables him to employ his capital in stock and improvements. But I think they should have the option of acquiring the freehold when they are in a position to do so. 292. Do you think there are any restrictions in regard to the present leases that are harmful? -There are some restrictions which are a little arbitrary in regard to bush and swamp lands, such as Oteramika. I think the settlers ought to have a little more license in those places ; but in regard to land like Edendale and Glenham I do not think there is anything wrong with the restrictions at all. 293. In regard to the land at Oteramika and down about Seaward Moss, and a large region quite close to the town, we know that the land is most admirably situated, but it is very inferior in quality: do you think the settlement of these areas could be brought about means of the homestead system, by which a man would get a free grant of the land subject to certain residence and improvement conditions? —Well, it is very difficult to give an opinion. It is exceedingly poor land, and it would not pay for improvements. It would require first to be drained, and it would take a very big main drain to provide an outlet, in addition to a great number of branch drains. I feel sure the expense of this would exceed the value of what could be got out of the land for the next hundred years. I was over the land over thirty years ago, and it is the same now as it was then. It would not feed a woodhen then, and it will not now. Ido not think it would feed a rabbit. It is a hopeless case. The only thing that could possibly be done would be to run a few sheep and goats on it.
13—C. 4,
C—4.
98
Te. m. MCCALLUM.
294. It has been suggested that it might be improved by doing away with the residence conditions —that the farmers in the vicinity might take it up and put a ring fence round it and put cattle 011 it? —I know a man who has been down there very many years. He gets work here and there, and then he goes and spends his money on his section, and he is poorer now than when he went there. There are others who are in exactly the same position, and others who have gone there have had to clear out. 295. We have had a good deal of evidence in regard to loading for roads, and, as County Chairman, you must be observing how this money is expended: do you think this money when it is expended is wisely expended I—l am not much acquainted with it, but I think the expenditure so far has been fairly done. Edendale is the only block of any size in the Southland County, and there has been no time yet to see what they will do there. 296. The last witness told us that there was loading to the extent of £1,000 on Glenham, and that only a portion of it has been expended yet? —You see, the road-making season is very short in Southland, and that accounts for no great progress being made. Labour of that kind is also very scarce just now. Also, I understand the Government like to give that kind of labour to the settlers themselves, and if the settlers are not in a position to do the work it has to stand over. 297. Do you know anything about the working of the Government Advances to Settlers Office? —I have heard a little about it, and I have heard complaints that people could not get the advances they wanted; but, so far as I could understand, they generally wanted more than the Government would have been justified in advancing. 298. Is there any tendency towards the aggregation of large estates? —No; it is quite in the opposite direction. There is only one large estate in Southland now that is, the Agricultural Company's, in the Waimea Plains —and they would cut it up if they could sell it. The Edendale Estate was in the market for many years before the Government took it, and only a few settlers took up sections. 299. I think you have some knowledge of the pastoral country of Southland? —Yes. 300. I suppose you are aware that pretty well all the lowlands have been sold, and that only the hills and mountain-tops remain in the hand of the Crown : what do you think is the best way of dealing with that large area in the future? —Well, so far as the good country is concerned, a good deal more could be taken out of it by burning and sowing with grass. In a favourable season grass will take quite well, and the land would then produce twice or three times as much as it does at the present time. The grassing has to be done just in small patches as the season suits, and the man must be on the spot to do it. 301. I suppose it is within your recollection that forty years ago the hill pasture was better than it is now? —Oh, yes. The trouble is due to the rabbits. A great many of the best grasses used to be annuals, and the rabbits kept them down and did not allow them to seed, consequently the pasture got poorer. 302. Mr. McCutchan.\ Would you be in favour of the Government handing over the amount for loading to the County Councils for expenditure? —The County Councils could expend it quite well; they have the stafi to do it. 303. Do you think it would be more in the interests of the settlers to have it done that way? —It all depends whether the Government spend it right or not. The Invercargill Land Board have a good man, and they can spend it just as well as the County Council, and nearly as cheaply. 304. I suppose you use the machinery of the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act in connection with your roads? —We do not borrow; we work by overdraft. 305. At the end of your financial year does your overdraft run up to the limit? —Usually it does. 306. What rate of interest are you paying the bank? —We used to pay 5 per cent., but it is a little bit up now. 307. Can the money be had cheaper than under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act? —We do not believe in taking on a loan for twenty-six years with a sinking fund attached, because sometimes we try to wipe out our overdraft. • 308. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be in favour of giving the Land Boards more discretionary power? —Yes, I think so. They want more power to deal with small matters, instead of having to refer them to Wellington. Ido not think they would exceed their powers at all. I did a great deal of business with the Land Board for many years in the early times, and I never had any trouble in dealing with them. 309. Mr. Paul.'] Do you give the option of the freehold to the tenant under your lease? —No. 310. Do you think he ought to have it? —No; he is my son. 311. Do you think the State ought to give that right? —Yes. 312. Do you think the freehold should be granted in respect to endowments? —By no means. They should remain as they are. 313. Mr. Forbes.] Would you give the holders of these sections on Edendale and Glenham the right to make them freehold ? —Yes. 314. Would you put in conditions to prevent a man holding large blocks of land? —Yes. You have those conditions now, because a man cannot acquire more than 640 acres of first-class land. 315. That only applies to Crown lands; but if the freehold is granted there is no law to prevent a man buying as much freehold as he can?— There is little danger of large estates, because the owners now want to break them up. 316. I do not say large estates; but there may be fifty or a hundred men settled on Edendale now, and in the course of time some of them, if the freehold was granted, would sell out to their neighbours, and the number of settlers might be reduced by half? —I do not think that would harm the country much. 317. Of course, it is the desire to settle people on the land that is causing the Government all this trouble: do you not think it is right to maintain that settlement? —Yes; but these settlers
E. M. MCCALLUM..]
99
C.-4.
have sons and daughters, and they want land for them, and if they are in a position to divide their holdings amongst their children, or to acquire a neighbouring farm for them, I do not see any harm in it. James Alexander Sinclair examined. 318. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a Crown settler at Edendale. I have been there eight months, and 1 hold 230 acres, for which I pay 14s. per acre. My land has all been limed and laid down in English grasses. There is too much old grass, however, and it is running out. Different portions of my holding, I believe, have been limed from six to fourteen years ago. lam cropping a paddock that is supposed to have been done the longest, and it is looking well. I came from the Oamaru district. I was engaged in farming there on freehold, but 1 left it to take up a lease in perpetuity. 319. Then, I presume you have a great liking for the lease in perpetuity' Yes, lam in favour of it. Perhaps I should state now that I am here to represent the tenants of Edendale, and to lay before you the following resolutions which were passed at a meeting of the settlers of which I was chairman: — " The Land-tenure of the Colony.—That in the opinion of this meeting leaseholders should have the right to purchase their land, but proper measures should be taken to prevent the aggregation of large estates. " Pressure of Residence and other Restrictions .—lt was unanimously agreed that the cropping restrictions be amended, that the tenant paying a high rent should be allowed to crop more than the one paying a low one. Working of the Ballot System,.- - That the grouping system be done away with. Loading Lands for Roads. —That the land should be loaded, providing the money is promptly and judiciously spent. Advances to Settlers. That advances be granted to settlers as soon as the necessary improvements are on the ground." I have come to support these resolutions. In regard to the question of land-tenure, I may say the resolution does not express my own convictions. That resolution was passed practically unanimously. 320. Was there a large meeting of settlers ?—About forty were present. If I remember rightly, I counted thirty-three hands for the motion and about six or seven did not vote. 321. What have you to say in regard to the restrictions about cropping? —I have spent a good deal of time in South Canterbury, at Waikakahi. There is a lot of land there valued at £1 per acre, and the land is so rich that the first two crops were absolutely useless, and yet the owner of that section is only allowed to take the same amount of cropping as a man who pays 3s. per acre. If the settler was allowed to take a third and fourth crop he would probably find them a great deal better than the first two. I think the same thing would work all right at Edendale. 322. What are the objections to the grouping system?— There may be one or two very bad sections, and if one of them falls to your lot under the grouping system you are compelled to take it. When the Levels Estate was cut up and offered for settlement it was distinctly stated at the start of the ballot that an applicant would have to take whatever section fell to his lot or forfeit his deposit. I know of a number of people who would not go in for the Levels ballot for fear of getting bad sections. 323. From your observation, the grouping system at the Levels ballot acted as a deterrent?— Yes. So far as loading is concerned, the settlers are quite agreeable that the land should be loaded, but they want the money spent quickly and judiciously. 324. And you want the same promptitude in regard to the Advances to Settlers Office? —I have had no experience of that. 325. Are there any other points you would like to mention?—l think not. 326. Mr. McC'ardle.] At present the law permits the Advances to Settlers Office to advance up to one-half the valu* of improvements, and the Premier has recently suggested that the basis should be on a three-fifths value of the settler's interest in the improvements : would you favour a proposal of that kind as an amendment to the present conditions ?—Yes; I think it would be an improvement. 327. I think you have stated_ that your people are in favour of the freehold, but the danger you apprehend from the freehold is that two or three people may step in and buy the freehold and convert, for instance, the Edendale Estate into one large holding again : would you favour an amendment in the Land Transfer Act debarring any person from holding more than a certain area of land? —I would. 328. And you would apply that not only to holdings under the Government tenures, but to freeholds now in existence? —Yes, I would. 329. Mr. Paul.'] Was the meeting at which the resolutions were carried properly advertised? A notice was posted up at the factory and the settlers had an opportunity of knowing of the meeting. J 6 •330. There are 110 Crown tenants at Edendale? —Yes, I believe so. 331. The majority in favour of the option was thirty-three?— Yes. 332. According to that there was not a majority at that meeting?— Yes. 333. Mr. Forbes.] Did you discuss the question of tenure thoroughly at the meeting?— Yes • we had a good deal of discussion. 334. What is your opinion ?—l' think the Crown land should remain Crown land, but my own personal opinion is that we should be allowed to pay off a certain amount of money and make it a light rent. lam certainly in favour of it remaining Crown land. oac' ftS institution of the Land Boards discussed?--Yes, and they were satisfied. Ti. in ji not !, Crown tenants would be better served if they were represented?— It was talked about, and the majority thought we had a good Board.
a—4.
100
[j. A. SINCLAIR.
337. Do you think allowing the Crown tenants one representative would be an improvement on the present system? —Yes; it would be to our advantage. 338. Mr. Anstey.\ On what terms do these settlers wish to acquire the freehold of their holdings? —On the present capital value. 339. Do the settlers think that when they have got the freehold they will have a better tenure than they had before ? —That was the feeling of the meeting. 340. They would not be prepared to pay anything for the privilege? —That was not discussed. 341. They would like to have something valuable for nothing —they would not be prepared to pay fair value for it?- The 1 per cent, was not discussed. 342. If you were offered the right of purchase at a rent of 17s. 6d. and your rent was 14s. without right of purchase, which would you take? —I would probably stick to the leasehold. 343. You said the cropping restrictions ought to be altered: are the cropping restrictions oppressive as far as Edendale is concerned? —I think not. I think two white crops are quite enough. 344. Mr. HaU.\ In the case of rich land, do you think it would be an advantage to take three or four crops ? —Yes. 345. But on other land one crop would be quite enough? —Yes. 346. You do not think it is proper to have one universal system of cropping?- I think the Land Board should have the discretion of regulating the crops in accordance with the character of the soil. Benjamin Parker examined. 347. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler on the Edendale Estate. I have 258 acres, and pay 10s. 6d. per acre; 206 acres was supposed to be limed and 52 acres was in a natural state when I took it up. I am engaged in dairying, and have been only eight months in the district. I came from Stirling, where I was engaged in farming. I heard Mr. Sinclair's evidence, and agree with what he said. There are, however, one or two points I would like to refer to. The description of my land was not accurate. It was said that 206 acres was properly limed, but I found that some 60 acres was only limed with a little crushed lime. I expected that the whole of the land would be limed in the ordinary way with shell lime, whereas a portion of it was only limed in the way I have stated, which makes a very serious difference to me. With regard to roads, I think the money should be spent promptly and judiciously, and 1 said so at the meeting of settlers. Some of our roads are in a very bad state. The summer months have passed, and nothing has been done. I think they should be attended to. Then, a school-site was selected, and I applied to the Education Board, and they were satisfied, and decided with respect to the money to build the school some three months ago. Only a few days ago an officer of the Land Department came up to seek information. One Department is apparently working against the other, and therefore we are not getting our school. Our children have to walk three or four miles to school now. They get half-way by the train in the morning, but it is cruelty to the children, and we think such a state of things should not exist. There are fifty-four children — thirty-eight of school age and sixteen under. A somewhat similar difficulty occurred regarding a railway-siding. I believe that will be attended to shortly, but lam not quite sure that we will get it yet. I was the mover of the resolution regarding the freehold, and I made it clear that a distinction should be made as against the aggregation of farms. I think it would be against the interests of the country to see the country go back into big farms again. The dairy-farmers all supply their milk to the factory. I have been in the dairy line thirteen years, and my returns have ranged from £7 to £13 in the Stirling district. That is the gross return. I think we can do as well here. In regard to the Advances to Settlers Act, I think it would be of very great importance if settlers were allowed to borrow under that Act, assuming that they have made the improvements on the land, and not have to wait for a whole year, because a man might do four or five hundred pounds' worth of improvements within six months, and it might be inconvenient to wait. It is not many men who have enough money to carry on all the initiative expenses and then keep things going on. I think it would be a very good thing if the Government supplied lime to the settlers on a 5-per-cent. basis. Then the Government would have its security, inasmuch as the lime was being put on their own land. If this were done many a settler could get a good start, and make the best use of his land years earlier than he could otherwise do. 348. How long is the tenant to pay the 5 per cent. ?—I think he should be allowed a certain number of years in which to pay it up. 349. The 5 per cent, would be both interest and sinking fund? —Yes. It would be a great help to the settlers. We cannot farm these lands properly without lime. 350. Mr. McCardle.] You are in favour of an amendment of the Act governing advances to settlers ? —Yes. 351. Would you favour an advance being made up to three-fifths of the improvements?— I think that would be an improvement. 352. You believe in having the areas of holdings restricted? —Yes. 352 a. Do you think it in the best interests of the country that the holdings should remain small ? —Yes. 353. And for that purpose it is desirable under the Land Transfer Act to bar the aggregation of large estates ? —Yes. 354. Mr. Paul.] Do the settlers get any benefit from loading, so far as the work is concerned ? —Undoubtedly, if they spend the money. There are cases near my section where the roads are very bad. Any man would be better off paying 5 per cent, and having fairly good roads than to have to fight along with bad roads. 355. So it is advisable to have the roads made as quickly as possible, rather than to have slower progress and give the settlers the benefit of the wages"?—No doubt many settlers would
C—4.
101
B. PARKEE.
like to have the benefit of the work. I think it is very important that the roads should be completed as quickly as possible. 356. Mr. Forbes.jj What is the great objection the settlers at Edendale have to the lease in perpetuity? —Sentiment mainly, I think. 357. It was mentioned in evidence that some of them were frightened that the Government might break the lease, and they had heard speeches made about revaluation ? —I think there is a feeling in some men's minds that the State might some time or other pass laws prejudicial to their interests in connection with the lease in perpetuity. 358. Otherwise the lease in perpetuity is perfectly workable as far as the tenant is concerned? —Yes. It enables many men to get a farm who could not have otherwise have got one. 359. You think it largely a question of sentiment, the wish they have expressed for the freehold ? —The desire of a man to have a thing his very own seems to be bred in his nature. 360. Do you think it is a good thing for the Crown tenants to meet and ask the Government to alter the terms of the contract, thus breaking the contract? —I do not think it is breaking the contract. 361. They ask that the contract should be altered —that the terms of the lease should be altered? —I do not regard it as altering a contract; it is merely giving them an extended right. A man who does not want a lease in perpetuity need not take it. 362. These men are lease-in-perpetuity settlers, and they wish to have the right of purchase? —Yes. 363. That means you want to alter the lease to that effect? —I should no like to have the lease broken. 364. Mr. Anstey.~\ As to the advances to settlers, you are in favour of an advance being made to the extent of three-fifths of the improvements: if a house were built would the remaining twofifths be sufficient security? —Yes. I think a house is good security. 365. But would the security still be good at the end of, say, thirty years? —Yes, if the buildings and fences were kept in proper repair. 366. If they were not kept in proper repair? —The security would become less. 367. Then, if an advance was made up to, say, three-fifths it would be reasonable to revise the security at certain periods? —Yes, as a matter of justice to both parties. 368. Mr. Hall.] You said that you estimated the gross returns of dairy cows at £10 per annum: does that allow for depreciation in the value, deaths, &c. ? —No. 369. A dairy cow decreases in value from 10s. to £1 a year? —Yes; 10s. at least. Peter Campbell examined. 370. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on a freehold of 450 acres. I have been about thirty years in this district. 371. Is it your experience that the constitution of the Land Boards is fairly good? —Yes. 372. You would not recommend any change? Do you think they could be improved by election, or anything of that sort? —There are different opinions on that matter, but I think the present constitution is fairly satisfactory. 373. In regard to tenures, what is your idea as between leasehold and freehold—which do you think is most satisfactory in promoting the interests of the country and the interests of the individuals? —According to my view, a man with a limited means has a better opportunity of doing well for himself in taking up a leasehold than by taking up a freehold. I have known many a man to start with a leasehold who would have had a very poor show of starting on a freehold. He can put his money into stock, which gives him immediate return, but putting his money into land is a sort of dead investment. 374. Have you anything to say with respect to ragwort and Californian thistle? —That is one of the problems we have to solve. Ragwort is not so bad if a man is able to keep sheep. The difficulty is in the case of a small dairy-farmer who has not scope enough to put a few sheep in with his co.ws. If sheep are put in when the cows are taken off they will keep the weed in check. The Californian thistle is becoming a thorough pest all over the district, but my experience is that it can be kept down where you can get a plough on it. Over twelve years ago I bought a dairy farm, and to my surprise I found a clump of Californian thistles on it. I cut them down immediately, and got the plough to work, single furrow. I ploughed a good deep furrow, and got my boys to follow me and pick up the roots as the ground was turned over. When the roots became dry I burnt them. Then about six weeks or two months afterwards I went through the same process again and cross-ploughed the land in the way I have described. Now you can only see a small insignificant plant here and there in that place I spoke to my successor last season about that patch of ground, and he says that there is just a weakly seedling that makes its appearance, and that probably another ploughing will about get rid of it altogether. It is a tedious business, but it can be done. 375. What is your idea about the poor land at Oteramika? Do you think there is anything that could be done to induce people to tackle it? —It would be rather a hard job for a man to tackle it in its present state, but, of course, money will do a lot of things. 376. Supposing an attempt was made to dry the land and then to put lime on it —that woulcT bring it into fertility? —There is no doubt it would improve it. I would have my doubts, but it would be an improvement. Of course, draining would be the only remedy, and the question is, would it be worth it? 377. Mr. McCardle.] There is evidently a great deal of ragwort being cut with ryegrass in this district, and I dare say some of the seed gets to the North Island ?—I suppose they will get the benefit of it in the end. 378. Do you not think there should be some restrictions with respect to grass-cutting, with the object of preventing the seeds of noxious weeds being scattered all over the country? —I'think it is a mistake to allow them to be scattered all over the country.
C— 4.
102
[P. CAMPBELL.
379. Mr, McLennan.jj Have you any yarr growing here?- There is such a thing in the district, but I am not troubled with it. 380. Which do you think the worse —yarr or Canadian thistle ? —I believe, Canadian thistle. 381. Mr. Anstey.] What is your experience with respect to yarr? —I think the only remedy is' to keep the grubber and hoe at work. My experience is that you will not be troubled with it a second year. It is an annual, and is not like the Canadian thistle. 382. Mr. Hall.\ You say that sheep will keep the ragwort down? —Yes; but if they can get good timothy or white clover they will take it in preference to ragwort, but they will also take the weed. 383. Is it found to be injurious to sheep? —I believe it is if they are kept long on it. Thomas Atson examined. 384. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on a freehold of 1,300 acres about six miles from here. It is agricultural land. I have sheep and cattle, and also do cropping. I have been thirty-seven years in this district. 385. Have you any particular points you would like to mention to the Commission? —With respect to land-tenure, I believe in the optional tenure—that is, the right of purchase. I have no objection to the leasehold, but I believe that the freehold is the best system in the interests of the country, and I think it is the system that will induce the best class of settlers, the most enterprising, and those with the most capital to go in for farming, and I think it is the system which is likely to result best to the colony, and also that it will result to the best interests of the people of the colony. I believe in acquiring land for settlement, but I would limit the freehold. I think it is a pity to let the land of tHe colony get into too large holdings. I believe in the land-for-settlements system, but I would give the option of the freehold. The reason is this : that otherwise we are drifting fast into absentee landlordism, and are simply sending the interest to the bondholder in London. I think if a man is able to pay off his leasehold, then the rent of that leasehold remains in this country, and that would be preferable to sending it to London. If we went on the way I suggest, then by-and-by we might reach a time when all the land in New Zealand which is pledged to London would be free. As to the cutting-up of large estates into small estates, I would be inclined to advocate the present system with right of purchase whenever a man is able to do so, and the money that came out of that I should say should either go towards redeeming the bonds in London or to acquiring more large estates. I think that would be the best course to adopt, and that under it the country would prosper better in the end. I notice that a number of persons advocate the leasehold. We have perhaps 11,000,000 acres of land which it is suggested might be leased. I have an objection to that, and it is this: I think it is unfair to ask people to go into the wilds of the colony and take up land which, as suggested by some people, should be subject to revaluation. To my mind, it would be a monstrous injustice to a man who went into the wilds and worked hard for twenty years without any advantages and then that he should at the end of that time be robbed of any improvement that might have come to him through an increase in the price of land. Ido not think that any man in his senses would take up swamp or bush land and go through all the great hardships and difficulties, and spend a large number of the best years of his life in this way, and then that the colony should take away from him the fruits of his labour when he is just able to make a good living from his land. I have had farms in this district, and I know that every penny I had was put into the land, and that if that land had been taken away from me at the end of twenty years I would have been penniless. When a man goes into the wilderness and works hard for twenty years he is entitled to the fruits of his labour; and in the case of country lands such as I have described, in my opinion there, is no such thing as unearned increment. In the case of my farms I know that every rise in the price of the land was owing to my hard work. I think the present system of valuing improvements is very unfair. It works in this way: I know a farm which was taken up ten years ago. It was at that time largely swamp, Maori heads, and so forth. There were buildings and fencing on it, but very little cultivation. That man has been working on the land for ten years. By his labour he has improved and drained it. It has doubled in capital value; but this is the way it works out, especially in regard to draining: You take up a piece of land and you drain it, and you have to wait four or five years before you can plough it. In the meantime you have to keep the drains clean. Then three more years go by. Up to that there has been only expense. Then after you have got a skin on the land the valuer comes along and says, " How many chains of drains have you got there? " You reply, " So-many," and he asks, " What did it cost you? " You reply, " 10s. a chain," and he says, " They have been down six or seven years, and they will now only be worth ss. a chain." Now, the draining has been only an infinitesimal part of the improvements you have put on the land. There has been the interest of your money, there has been the waiting and delay, and there has been your toil and labour. But the valuer says, " That is all the improvements on the land " — just what he sees before him. If you leave the drains open he will give you an allowance for so-much improvements, but if you complete the work and cover them up he will give you nothing. 386. When the valuer comes round in that way do you show him your books? —He sometimes calls, but in other cases he does not call, and the first thing you get is a notice, and the valuation is sent in to you. My experience is that making objections to valuations is very little good—that is, objections with respect to improvements. I think there should be some better method at arriving at the value of improvements than, for instance, simply to value a bare drain, which perhaps was only an infinitesimal part of the cost of draining the land. 387. I suppose you are not interested in the advances to settlers or the loading for roads? — No; but there is one thing that has struck me lately that has come under my notice. I notice, with reference to the residence clause under the lease in perpetuity, that if you have got land adjacent you will be allowed to take up another section —you will be allowed to reside on your own land and take up another section alongside of it, but if there is a section between your section and
C— 4.
T. AYSON.]
103
the other one you want to take up you will not be allowed to take it up. I think some alteration might be made with respect to that matter. As to noxious weeds, I heard Mr. Campbell's evidence. I believe that Mr. Campbell under his treatment of the weeds would be successful to a certain extent, but I doubt whether it would eradicate them. I have been trying to keep the thistle down for some years. I think that cutting them as often as possible will make the plants weaker, and that in the course of two or three years they will gradually disappear. It is a process of bleeding to death. I had an experience which I shall mention which may be valuable. I had a piece in turnips, and there was a very bad patch of California!! thistle on it. I had some cattle on the land. At one time this particular piece of land was very much like a stockyard. Next spring i did not plough it, and the surface got hard and caked, and there was not a thistle on it. The land soured and caked, and sealed up the ground in such a way that when I subsequently turned up the land I found that the roots of the thistles were rotten. That was apparently successful, and I intend to fence in another patch and try it again ; but that can only be done 011 agricultural land, It cannot be done on hilly land. 388. Mr. McCardle.J You said that you had not much experience of the Advances to Settlers Act? —Yes. 389. But as a man of business you have no doubt observed its effect in assisting both small and large settlers in getting money I—Yes.1 —Yes. 390. You are aware that a leaseholder can only borrow up to half his interest in the land ? — Yes. 391. Do you not think if a man spent £5 an acre 011 good permanent improvements that the Act might be amended in the interests of the settlers, and with 110 disadvantage to the State, so that an advance of £3 an acre might be made to that settler?- I think it could. 392. In view of the fact that fhere is provision for sinking fund and thirty-three years and a half to pay off interest and principal would be a safeguard covering all risk to the Government? —Yes. 393. You believe in restrictions as to area? —Yes. 394. You suggest that the Land Transfer Act might be amended to meet your views in that respect? —Yes. I might say also that I think a man should be debarred from destroying public property by dredging good agricultural land. It is really heartrending to destroy good agricultural land. Ido not think even a freehold title should enable a man to destroy what is really the public estate, because, after all, the freehold is only a form of tenure. 395. Mr. Paul.] Would you limit the freehold by area or by value? —By both. I would allow a man to hold a larger amount of second-class than of first-class land. I cannot say just now what I think should be the limit; 1 would leave that to the State itself. 396. Is your land first- or second-class land? —Some of it is first and some second. 397. You spoke of the present system of buying and leasing estates as tending to create absentee landlordism? —Yes. 398. I understood you to say, in effect, that the land belonged to the foreigh money-lender ?- We have given him practically a mortgage over it, although not an absolute mortgage. We have pledged our land to the London bondholder on the security of the New Zealand Government—his interest is to be paid on these bonds that went to buy the land. 399. Do you not think the foreign money-lender looks on the freehold in the ligEi of a security for his loan as well as the leasehold? —If every leasehold were converted into a freehold, and the money was devoted to that purpose, he would be paid off. Of course, the freehold land is pledged absolutely, in a sense, to pay interest on the money we borrow, and we have to send that money to London. 400. With respect to the leasehold and freehold, do you think if the land of the colony was all resumed to-morrow that you would leave the country? —I certainly would not feel inclined to continue farming. Ido not think I would be prepared to go in for a leasehold under such conditions. 401. Did I understand you to say that there is no unearned increment on the land? —Not on rough country land —land in its native state. 402. Do you not think that a railway or harbour improves land? Would you not call that unearned increment? —In many cases settlers went into the wilderness and worked hard for years without any return. If they had asked for wages as they went along there would never have been the present settlement in Southland. All our work was put into the land. 403. If you had been working for wages you would not have been as well off as you are to-day. You do not know of many wage-earners who are able to retire? —I think it is the men who work for wages and go on slowly —who do not go in for much enterprise nor borrow money —who are the best off. 404. Would you advocate giving the freehold to lessees of harbour endowments? —If the bodies concerned choose to give the freehold I would have no objection, if they conserve the interests of posterity. The only difficulty is that in such a case these bodies might be inclined to take the biggest slice from the present generation. 405. Mr. Forbes.] You say that a farmer farms land better under the freehold than leasehold?— Yes. 406. You think that all farmers should have the right to make their leaseholds into freeholds? —I say they would make better farms if they had that right. 407. Would you apply that to private landlords as well as to the State?—l would not compel one farmer to put himself out of a freehold in order that another should get the freehold, but I say a man will do better farming, as a rule, on a freehold than on a leasehold. 408. Better in the interests of the tenant? —Yes; but I would not advocate a man being compelled to give up a freehold in order that another man should get it. 409. You think it would be better for the tenant if he had the right of acquiring a freehold in front of him —that lie would farm the land better? —Yes,
C.—4.
104
r T. ATSON.
410. Mr. Anstey.\ You say there is practically no unearned increment in regard to rough bush lands? —I have never known of any. 411. I suppose you are acquainted with town holdings ? —I have very little experience of them, but I believe there is an unearned increment in regard to town holdings. 412. I take it that you think it would be advisable that country settlers should have the freehold on the ground that anything they put into the land they earn and deserve to hold? —Yes, that has been my experience. 413. And, conversely, I suppose you think it is wise in the interests of the State that there should be nothing but leaseholds in the town, because there is in the towns an enormous unearned increment that the freeholders are not entitled to I—l1 —I believe that would be right, because it is the State and country settlers who make the towns. If the towns were leaseholds the State and country settlers would share in the unearned increment. 414. You said you were opposed to the State borrowing money from foreign bondholders in order to buy up these estates, on the ground that it meant a kind of foreign landlordism? —I look upon the bondholder as practically an absentee landlord. 415. In regard to the Edendale Estate, for instance, you presuppose that the Government borrowed money to buy that estate, and, having bought it, they have to send the interest on the money Home? —Yes. 416. Can you tell me where the dividends and profits from that estate went to before the Government bought it? —They went Home too. 417. I suppose you are aware that the Land Company paid 6 per cent, interest for a large number of years, and that that money was sent out of the colony? —Yes. 418. And the Government borrowed the money at 4 per cent, interest? —Yes. 419. In other words, 2 per cfent. less interest is going Home now than went before? —Yes; but if you give the freehold to these settlers you will save that 4 per cent, for the colony. 420. How do you know the settlers will not borrow that money from Home to acquire their freeholds? —They will pay it off by-and-by. 421. The only difference owing to the State being the landlord is that we are sending less interest out of the colony than went before? —But all the estates that have been purchased by the Government were not in the same position as this Land Company's estate. 422. You are aware that at the present time we have a graduated land-tax? —Yes. 423. Is that having any effect in limiting these large estates? —I am not quite certain, but I should say it is. I know the large estate-holders were very much alarmed when it was proposed, and since the Act was passed they have been very ready to part with their estates. 424. Could not that graduated land-tax be so adjusted that, without being unjust, it would tend to limit the size of all holdings ? —I would not like to confiscate large holdings. I think it would be unfair to raise the tax even on large holdings, however objectionable I might think them. 425. They would always have the right to sell? —Yes; but if you did that sort of thing and forced these large tracts of land into the market the owners would have no chance of selling to advantage. I would be more inclined to take all the estates from owners willing to sell, and deal with the few stubborn ones afterwards in a different way. The Government have got on very well so far, and have taken most of the estates without compulsion. 426. In regard to the limitation of area, do you not think it would be much better to limit by value rather than limit by area? You are aware that there is an immense difference in the value of even one quality of land —say, first-class land? —I think if you limited by value great dissatisfaction would arise. The question of value would crop up, and if the land rose in value a man would have to sell his land when it got beyond the legal value. 427. The land-tax is on the value? —Yes; but the area is not on value. If a man improved his property over the legal value he would be holding it illegally, and would have to sell out. It would simply mean that a man would not improve his section, because he might by improvements raise the value to beyond the legal limit. 428. But you understand that improvements are not taxed, but only the value of the land without improvements? —My experience shows me that improvements raise the unimproved value. I know of a property the unimproved value of which is much higher to-day that it was some years ago, although the improvements are to a pound exactly the same now as they were then, and no new road, bridge, or railway has been built there. 429. Then, you think the limitation should be by area? —Yes, of a certain quality. 430. You are aware that you can hold up to twenty-five thousand pounds' worth of some classes of land, and of other land not more than four or five thousand pounds' worth? —That is so; but one man might be able to live on five thousand pounds' worth of one kind, while another man would starve on five thousand pounds' worth of another class of land. 431. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the unimproved value is a theoretical thing which cannot be reasonably defined? —I believe there is a good deal of theory in it. I think it could be more reasonably defined than it is at present. 432. Suppose you bought a slightly improved farm at £3 per acre, and worked it, and after some years the market value had increased to £10 per acre, do you think the only fair way to value the improvements you have effected is to value them at £7 per acre? —I do not think so, because the improvements might not be worth £7 per acre. 433. Then, you think there is some increment that you have not earned? —There might be a rise in value, owing perhaps to a railway or road having been constructed. I said my experience was that in improving the waste lands of the Crown there practically never had been any unearned increment. 434. Mr. Hall.] You believe that good farming is more likely to be carried on under freehold than under lease in perpetuity? —I feel sure of that. 435. Do you consider that the land in Southland is considerably depreciating in value owing to noxious weeds ? —Yes.
C—4.
105
T. ATSON.
436. Seeing that the noxious weeds are very prevalent here, is it not strange that those possessing the freehold allow their lands to get into this condition I—l think the reason is that they hardly realised what the Californian thistle and some other weeds meant. But they realise it now, and when a man clears his land now he is not likely to allow it again to become overrun with the pest: he knows exactly what is before him. William Joseph March examined. 437. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a journalist. I have been here about ten years. I am not interested in any land at all. 438. What is the particular point about which you desire to give evidence? —The question of the unearned increment has been mentioned both here and elsewhere. In the early days the Government used to hold periodical sales of township lands, and the sales used to be conducted by an official auctioneer. The statements made by an official auctioneer are different from those made by an ordinary auctioneer, because they are authorised. The point I want to make is that these lands were sold with a prospective value, and people with money were induced to invest or speculate in these lands, and therefore if there was any unearned increment in respect to them it belonged by right by bargain to the purchaser of these lands. I can speak feelingly, because I am the son of a man who put his money largely into land in that way and it ruined him. The Thompson Estate has been cited as one where a large amount of unearned increment has accrued, and has been held up as a wretched example; but Ido not think it is fair to select a special case. I say let them balance the whole thing up and then see where the unearned increment comes in. In the past people put their money into land on the faith of promises, such as railway and road construction, which have not been* kept. I believe that if the Thompson trustees had invested their money at its current value it would probably have aggregated a larger amount than the value of that particular estate. 439. Mr. Paul.\ Are there any sections in Wyndham that have never had a hand's turn done to them that are of the same value to-day as they were twenty years ago? —I do not know anything about values. 440. I will take the case of a vacant section lying between two sections with good buildings erected on them: is that vacant section worth more now, with these two buildings on either side, than it was when there were no buildings in the vicinity? —I take it that the value of land is gauged by its use. Wyndham is only a small place, and there is not much speculative land here. 441. Mr. Anstey.] Do you not think it would have been a great deal better for your father and yourself if he had invested his money in lease in perpetuity instead of the elusive freehold?Ido not know; but regarding the question of land-tenures, I say I believe in the freehold. I think you get most out of the freehold as far as working the land is concerned. If you ask me as to the comparative values of the leasehold and freehold tenures, I can say from my own observation that the freeholder makes better use of his ground than a leaseholder. 442. Mr. Mathexon.] Would this be a fair way to put the position : that twenty years ago a man put some money into a State bank when he bought that land, and the State has had the use of the money all these years, and therefore any increased value is a reasonable profit on his investment? —That is the way I would put it, decidedly.
Wyndham, Saturday, 4th March, 1905. William McKay examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you J—l am a Crown settler in the Heriot district. I hold 360 acres under perpetual lease, and have done so for the past eighteen years. I have been in the district thirty-six years. I was a freeholder before that, but I sold out and took up this land. 2. Have you any desire to exchange your lease or modify it? —I have no desire to pass from the present tenure under which I hold my land. I consider the Act under which our lands are administered to-day one of the grandest Acts on the statute-book, because if I like I can purchase my land from the sixth and up to the eleventh year. 3. Then, you have the option of purchase in your lease? —Yes. But if I do not purchase up to the end of the eleventh year, then the lease continues to the end of the thirty-five If we pay our rents regularly we get a rebate of J per cent. 4. Have you any idea of making your place a freehold ? -Not the slightest, under the present lease; and it is more than likely that others will be dealing with it under that. My place is seven triiles from the Heriot Railway-station, and I graze sheep principally, and raise some crops for my own use. My place is near the Greenvale Settlement, which is mostly held under perpetual lease, with a few deferred-payment sections. Of course, the latter settlers have purchased their land, but there are a few Crown tenants there yet, and they are all doing well. The Government not only gave us land when we could not get it any other way, but they gave it to us at a reasonable price, and we have progressed. I am speaking for myself, and when I settled there I had very little more than was sufficient to pay my first rent. To-day I consider the Crown tenants there are in a better position than many freeholders, and we have no mortgages over us. We are able to pay our rents when they fall due, and this year I have been able to take a trip round the North, which I could never do as a freeholder, because the mortgagee got all my unearned increment. When I took up my section it was so infested with rabbits that I could not keep one cow on the place with safety. I destroyed the rabbits, and to-day I carry six hundred sheep on that land. I have six sons all waiting to get on the land, and I believe they would prefer to become Crown tenants, seeing that their father has been so successful as one. I have faith in dealing with Crown
14—C. 4.
[W. MCKAY.
C— 4.
106
lands under the leasehold system until we Crown tenants cry out that we want the freehold. The Government not only gave us land, but they have given us money, which has helped us with our improvements, and under the Government leasing system we are what we are to-day. 5. Mr. Paul.o You find that under the leasehold system you can use your land to its utmost capacity? —I would not like to use it to its utmost capacity. I use it in a reasonable way. 6. Mr. Anstey.] You have a perpetual lease with the right of purchase, for which you pay 5 per cent, rent with £ per cent, reduction for prompt payment: have you any objection to the lease in perpetuity, which does not give the right of purchase 1 I think the lease in perpetuity is rather a long lease: to be paying the same rent from the day you took it up to the end of the 999 years. I would say that if you could manage to pass an Act to enable these lease-in-perpetuity settlers to pay interest and principal, say, for thirty years, or until such time as the money was redeemed to the Government, I think it would be wise to make an alteration in the lease that would make it easier for the Crown tenants. 7. If you took up some land now under lease in perpetuity without the right of purchase you could get it at 4 per cent., subject also to the same reduction for prompt payment, whereas a lease with the right of purchase would cost you 5 per cent.: is the right of purchase worth the additional 1 per cent. ? —I should say the perpetual lease would be the way to make the Crown tenants more settled. . , , 8. Would you prefer to pay the additional 1 per cent, in order to secure the right of purchase? —Yes. Thomas Ayson further examined. 9. The Chairman.'] What further point do you wish to bring before us?—lt has come to my knowledge that questions are tieing asked about the noxious weeds here, and there seems to be some fear that the northern people, if they take our grass-seed, will run the risk of getting Californian thistle and ragwort seed with it. The absurdity of that, at once struck me, and I came here to-day to point out that our grass-seed is all in stack before the thistle or ragwort is in bloom, let alone seeding. This is a very important point, because if the Commission went and made a report on the subject it might seriously injure the Southland people in their seed-market. It is not possible for the thistle or ragwort 'seeds to be in our grass-seed, because the grass-seeed is in stack in January, and the thistle does not bloom until February and does not seed until March. I have been thinking over the question of land-tenures since giving my evidence yesterday,, and I would like to make a comparison between two farmers of eqtial capacity who took up adjoining farms at the same price—one a freehold and the other a leasehold. The rent of the leaseholder is equivalent to interest on a mortgage to the full value of his farm. We will suppose the freeholder mortgages his farm to its full value. It might be thought at first blush that the lease in perpetuity for 999 years is as good a tenure as the other, but if you study the matter you will see there is a very great difference. For instance, a man who has mortgaged his freehold can treat his land as he likes. He can reside on it or off it if he likes, and he can transfer it when and to whom he likes. When he pays £1 per acre off his mortgage the country says, "Splendid; he is a good settler "; and when he pays the whole of the mortgage off the country again says, " Splendid; he is a thriving man, and the country is thriving under under him, and if we had a thousand or so like him the country would advance." He is then able to at once put up better buildings and employ better machinery, and he can also go in for luxuries. The working-man at once reaps the benefit, and the country does also. But the leaseholder is a man who has to be regulated and watched, and, suppose he does make money, the Government have practically declared that it is for the good of the country that that man should be a debtor to the full value of his land for all time, and that he shall send money to the London money-market as interest on that farm for 999 years. If he should accumulate wealth to the value of his farm the same as the other man, he will not be allowed to pay it off, and he will have to look for an investment somewhere else, although he is sitting right on the top of his security. T have tried to see what benefit the Government derives from this lease in perpetuity, and I fail to see one. The country does not derive any benefit if there is a rise in the value of the property. I have also thought out whether the tenant should be allowed to buy at the original price, andl say "Yes," provided the Government have not by railways or other improvements raised the price of the land since the bargain was made. The Government have large profits from the fact that the land has been settled by taxpayers. Every one placed on the land is worth £3 a head for taxation purposes. The Government ought therefore to be perfectly satisfied with the fact that they have settled the land with taxpayers, and they ought to give the land at the price they got it. Supposing a man sold a farm and took a mortgage at a long term, and at the end of the term the farmer says, "I want to pay off the mortgage." The mortgagee says, "I have no objection to taking the money, but you must not pay the value of the farm when you get it, but you must pay the value of the farm at present." I think that, would be a most iniquitous proposal, and I think it would be an iniquitous proposal on the part of the Government. I have studied this question, and also the views of land reformers who profess a desire to allow the working-man to get his fair share of the produce of the land, and as a practical man who has been on the land I have noticed that most land reformers are theoretical men who have never been on the land. T have come to the conclusion that for every £1 saved to the working-man in bis outlay the remedy would curtail his earning-power by £10, and it, appears to me the remedy would be far worse than the disease. 10. Mr. Paul.'] At what rate can you get a mortgage? —From 4i to 5 per cent. 11. Where?—l believe it can be got from the Government Life Insurance Department at 41 per cent. I got a mortgage some time ago from private individuals at 5 per cent., but I have been told that lately the rates have risen. 12. That'makes it 5 per cent. ?—From 4| to 5 per cent,. 13. A man with the lease in perpetuity would pay 4 per cent. ?-~Yes ; but one witness said he would rather pav the extra 1 per cent, with the right of purchase. I would sooner pay 5 per cent, with the right of purchase than 4 per cent, without it.
107
C—4.
T. AYSON.
14. If you had a mortgage over your property, and by farming or using that property it was your only chance of paying off that mortgage, it would be hardly correct to say that you might let it go to ruin?—l did not advocate that it was an advantage for a man to have a property and let it go to ruin. My idea is that the result would be the other way. 15. Do you know anybody who has gone down under a mortgage? —Yes; a good many. 16. What are the unnecessary restrictions you refer to as existing under the lease in perpetuity? —1 said that the treatment of the two tenures showed that the Government considered that there was a decided difference. I said that at first blush you might think the two were the same, but 1 said that the consideration of these restrictions showed that there was an acknowledged difference. 17. If you were a private landlord, and let a farm for ten years, and your tenant in the ninth year wanted the option of the purchase at the same capital value, would you give it to him? —I consider he would not have any right to it, and I would not agree to it unless I chose to do so and I considered it would be an advantage to me. The Government is not an ordinary freeholder. I should say that the State is entitled to give it as a matter of equity, because the people belong to the State. 18. Do you think the State should give it? —Yes; not only as a matter of equity, but I think it would be a gain to the State. 19. When you say it is a gain to the State, do you mean to the tenant who acquires the freehold? —Yes, along with the others. 20. If it is equitable for the tenant under the State to get the freehold, is it not fair to the tenant in the other case ? —lf it paid me to give it to him 1 would. 1 say it would pay the State to give it to him. 21. Mr. AnsteyJ The holder of a lease in perpetuity commences to develop his farm a long time before the freeholder if, as you say, the freeholder can only commence to do this after paying off his mortgage? —1 think it is the other way. 22. You said you objected to the leaseholder being watched? —1 said it was evidently considered that he required watching. 23. Do you not think it would be a very good thing if the Government were to watch freeholders as well t —l stated yesterday, in reference to dredging, that 1 thought it was wrong that the landowner should be allowed to destroy the land. 24. This morning we drove past the holdings of a large number of lease-in-perpetuity settlers, and we noticed that numbers of them had very good farms. On the other hand, we noticed another farm, and we were informed it was a freehold. There was simply a mass of weeds all along the road fence for a considerable distance. Do you not think the State should step in and prevent that man wasting good land ? —I think you are now alluding to my own property. I may mention that until three years ago I had a lease with no right of purchase. 1 got the land in an absolute state of filth. 1 knew that if 1 greatly improved it and wanted to purchase it at the end of the lease the owner would charge me £3 or £4 an acre more than it was worth. 1 therefore waited until the end of my lease, and then started to clear the gorse. I have done a good deal of work on it during the last three years. I was a leaseholder until three years ago, and then purchased the land, and that accounts for the existence of the gorse. John Gbeenlees examined. 25. The Chairman] What are you 1 1 am a farmer, and both a freeholder and a leaseholder. I farm 420 acres of freehold and 123 acres of leasehold. My farm is about nine miles-from Wyndham, in the back country. I consider that to enforce the provisions of the law in respect to ragwort is against the interests of the settlers in the back country. There is so much rough country and bush that it is impossible to keep.it down. 1 have a lease of an education reserve in charge of the School Commissioners. In places where sheep can get at it you can keep down the weed. Californian thistle has not got a very great hold yet, but it is gaining ground. My lease is for fourteen years and the time will expire in another month. There is an allowance for improvements for fencing and grassing up to a limit of 7s. an acre. The only way to deal with ragwort is to sheep-feed it down. With respect to noxious weeds in such cases, if the leaseholder is forced too much he will have to abandon his lease. As to the Californian thistle, you can do nothing with it unless you keep it cut. I have kept the thistle pretty well under in my place. 26. Mr. McLennan.jj Do you think it would encourage you to try to keep the land clean if you had a lease, say, of twenty-one years? —If the country is very poor and rough the sheep cannot get into it. 27. Mr. Anstey.] You said that the weeds were bad on the education reserve I—They are just the same on other properties, freehold or leasehold. 28. Do you find that ragwort is worse on the leasehold than on the freehold? —No. 29. You have fourteen years' lease? —Yes. 30 Have you a right of renewal at the end of that time? —No. 31. Is it let to the highest bidder ? —Yes. 32. I suppose if you had the place nicely cleared you would have to pay a higher rent for it? — It is poor country. 33. If you let it run to weeds you would get it cheaply ?—'Yes; but it is very doubtful whether 1 will take it up again. Of course, I have to keep the weeds down for the sake of my other property. 34. The Chairman.] What rent are you paying?—3d. an acre; but it is pretty well nearly all bush. 35. You say it is useless to force the destruction of the ragwort? —Yes, in the back country. 36. Supposing you were sure of your tenancy, you could keep it down by proper subdivision and stocking? —Yes; if your could get the sheep on it. 37. 1 suppose that land is too rough for sheep?—Yes.
a—4.
108
J. TUKNBULL.
Gore, Monday, 6th March, 1905. John Tuhnbull examined. ... J ' The Chair-man.\ What are you 1 lam a farmer. I hold about 1,100 acres of freehold and 200 acres of Crown land under perpetual lease, and 1,500 acres under private lease 1 have been in the district about twenty-one years. My Crown leasehold is within the goldtields district and the right to purchase the freehold is subject to the Warden's approval. n' / ou kindly state wliat points you wish to bring before the Commission?—l see that the Commission has been endeavouring to get information with regard to the destruction of land by dredging. 1 may say I am connected with dredging also. There are several dredges on my freehold property, and 1 have been trying experiments with the land after the dredges have passed over it. 1 have not disposed of the freehold of my land, but only the dredging rights • and I wish to preserve the property as much as possible. 1 have tried planting trees and sowing grass on the tailings. About tour years ago 1 planted 3 acres in larch, and they have done remarkably we 11. At the present time the trees are about 6 ft. or 7 ft. high and are all thriving. I may say my land is in the Waikaka Valley, about fourteen miles form Gore. It is of a varying quality. Part of the dredging area has been turned over by Chinamen, and was left in humps Dortiin T the . dred S ln S In addition to growing larch 1 tried sowing another portion of the tailings in grass. I sowed it about three years ago in cocksfoot, clover, and ryegrass, and the clover has done remarkably well. Ido not think that I have better clover on any part of my place than I have on the tailings, which is a mixture of sand, gravel, and soil Several the 6 suSTfnT T- +mt 00 T, neCtl0n Wlth dred g in g> and they have succeeded in restoring the surface to a certain extent, iliere are two currents in the sluice-box. The upper current carries the gravel and stones and the under current carries the fine silt, and by attaching a sandshute and running the under current further along they can put the silt on the top of the rough ne ', level bed. It is a sort of top dressing, and it leaves the ground quite level behind the sluice-boxes. Ihere is another system of dredging where elevators -tnd screens are used, but they destroy the land to a far greater degree than the method with slufce-boxes 3. I suppose you are so well satisfied with the results of your experiment that von i„wi continue them?— Most decidedly so, because I have found that the land left behind the dredge is one ro of V! t rSI 11 T1 T , qUite ° ertain ° f that - 1 hold a behold property from one of the othei companies, and one of the conditions of my lease is that I am to sow a certain a T rrL° graSS U j?°v, taillll B s ' , Tlle y have olle of these sand-shutes attached to their dredge There was no sand-shute, however, where I sowed this clover. I have not tried any experiment yet on tailings where the sand or silt has been deposited. There is another matter I would like to refer to Adjoining my place there is a large Government reserve for mining purposes of aCrBS ' T. At the Pr6Sent time the Waikaka Township has the right to run stock upon it as a commonage. There are four dredges now working on this reserve at different stmt Ihe reserve is composed of ridges as well as flats. The tailing! are getting all cohered with lorle , rl p'> a . sll ould say that in a few years' time the reserve will be nothing but a ass of gorse. Ido not suppose that or anything" like it would rlpar nin .+ ,1 present time. A committee of trustees is in charge of it, and they charge is per head merely nominal sum, to graze cattle and horses on it." The revenue derived is ~«£] ; ntn lu f, J Account, but some of it is applied towards the destruction of rabbits, which are kept down We J°th t0 , mentlon that 1 "°tice an ex-member of Parliament referred to the perpetual F it, and he afterwards sent las two sons here in order tLTthL r,ilZ llFf u P eakl "S ab ° ut themselves. I believe they are in Otago at the present time 7 SeCtl ° nS f ° r arts sysj w zs r of ™ ing * sluioe - b " w, iere -, he r.'rf.™k4 be ;? isflz have an elevator dredge to carry away your tailings. g & DeC6SS y to 7. What proportion of the land is lost with a sluice-box dredge?— Very little is ™ e ,?d 6 m ,* ? be *»' >•«». >»•»»» i. « pMio«ii, ii J,uSLg " P t piS St o.ners »U dredgethink it would ent.il e~LXmto "*'* ' and there are none working in the Waikaka Vallov Th 1 ' + n ° ? x P erience elevator dredges, and you can lift the stack behind It 7nft 3 xr e } ey f or 18 an . of the dredge, elevator dredge to level the land to a certain extent° I . some : tkln £ c . ( J l J ld be fi xed to an 6 an P e 6 xTeVt to H ~' *» a mair'fTS stones! failings ? -They go with the above the stones. It was partly successful but tho nnt p lv, an P° sited to a large extent working compelled us to take it off ' ° f the gr ° Und 0n which the was 10. Would your invention involve much additional expense ?-No.
C—4.
J. TUBNBULL.I
109
11. Could you suggest any scheme whereby the Government reserve that is becoming foul with weeds and gorse could be profitably used and the weeds kept in check? Would it be feasible to let this mining reserve under lease in perpetuity, which, as you know, conserves the mining interests, and also requires the tenants to keep the land in proper order ? —I think it ought to be let under some kind of lease, so that the land might be cut up into sections and the weeds kept under. 12. Do you not think the lease in perpetuity under which the miners' rights are conserved would solve the difficulty? —Yes. 13. Mr. Hall.] Do you think it would be an advantage if the Crown tenants elected a member on the Land Board, or do you think it is better that the Boards should remain wholly nominated by the Government as they are at present? —I would sooner see the Board composed of independent men, at at present. 1 am rather inclined to think that a member elected by the Crown tenants would be very much at their mercy. 14. In regard to land-tenures, you know that under the lease in perpetuity the rent is 4 per cent., and with the right of purchase 5 per cent., with a rebate of | per cent, in each case for prompt payment: are there many of the tenants in Southland desirous of getting the freehold? — Yes; I think every man is desirous of obtaining the freehold. 15. What do you think is the reason? —When a man does a stroke of work he likes to think it is for himself. If he cuts a ditch he likes to know it is for himself, and not for the Government. A man can put many improvements on his property which are not seen afterwards, and for which no compensation would be given if it was a leasehold; but he does not mind making those improvements if they are for himself. 16. Is it not largely to make the property more saleable?- I have noticed this difference between freeholders and leaseholders : a leasehold property generally depreciates in value while a freehold section increases in value. 17. You think a freeholder does not harm his land so much? —He takes good care not to. 18. The lease in perpetuity is for 999 years? —It is a leasehold all the same. 19. And it is not so saleable? —No. 20. Do you think it is the duty of the Government to give facilities for selling this land, or do you think it is the duty of the Government rather to give facilities for bond fide occupation ? —I think it is the duty of the Government to sell it and to give every man a chance. 21. Mr. McCardle:] When a settler sells his property and another takes his place, is the State injured in any way by the exchange of occupiers? —I do not think so, if the incoming man is as good as the outgoing one. 22. And if the incomer is a better man it is an advantage to the State? —Yes. I do not think an exchange from one tenant to another injures the State in any way. 23. Mr. Mall.] If a man takes up land with a view to selling it to another, is that not speculating in land, and does it not mean that the bond fide settler has afterwards to pay an enhanced price for his land ? —There may be some speculation; but I know of very little speculation in Crown lands in this district. 24. Mr. Paul.] Do I understand you to say that whilst freehold land has increased in value leasehold has decreased? —Generally, 1 think so. I think there has been a neglect in regard to leasehold lands as compared to freehold lands throughout the colony. 25. Have you heard of instances where holders of leases in perpetuity have sold out to advantage? —Many cases of that kind. A man must put on certain improvements, and land has increased in value during the last few years down here. I am only comparing the two tenures, and I think the freehold compares more than favourably with the leasehold. John Smaill examined. 26. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am the Government District Valuer, and I have been here about five years and a half. 27. Mr. McCardle A Is there a tendency here for the valuations to go up? —In my district there'has been a generally steady increase ever since I took office. 28. You value also for the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes. 29. Has there been any difficulty on the part of the settlers under any tenure in obtaining loans? —Not when the land was fairly good and the improvements substantial. In some cases, however, the improvements were not very substantial, and the land is not capable of giving any great value of improvements, and in these cases there is a difficulty. 30. I suppose you are not aware whether the Department has got much funds at its disposal or not? —They do not "tell me what funds they have. I accept every application for an advance. 31. From your experience in valuing for the Department, do you think that if the Government were to amend the Act so that the Department could advance up to three-fifths of the actual value of the improvements to a leaseholder there would be any chance of injury to the State by so doing? —Yes; I think three-fifths would be rather too much to advance on leasehold improvements as a whole. 32. Why? —For the reasons I stated before. In many cases the improvements are not of a permanent character. They may be of value, certainly, to the man who holds the lease; but if the property was offered for sale lie might find it very difficult to get a purchaser if these improvements were loaded on the property. 33. You advance up to two-thirds on freehold? —Yes; but the Department very seldom advances up to two-thirds. 34. Does the State run any danger in that case of losing money? —Not down here. 35. Then, your argument is that a leasehold does not compare favourably with a freehold as a security? —If the improvements are substantial it compares just as favourably and an advance will be granted just as freely. That has been my experience.
C—4
110
[j. SMAILL.
36. You know there is a good deal of uneasiness on the part of leaseholders because they cannot get sufficient advances. Now, in view of the fact that a leaseholder is paying into a sinking fund every year, which in 36£ years will liquidate the loan, do you not think he is making ample provision for any depreciation in the value of his improvements? —Yes, under the instalment system they are paying off a certain amount of it; but there is no guarantee that they will continue to pay that. I hold with this point: that so long as the improvements are thoroughly substantial there is no risk. 37. And you think it would be safe for the State to advance up to three-fifths? —Yes. In my recommendations in cases of that kind I express my opinion in that direction. I sometimes recommend an advance of less than half the value. 38. Then, your answer is that you consider when the improvements are substantial the State is quite safe in advancing up to three-fifths of the holder's interest in these leasehold improvements ? —Yes. 39. Mr. Paul.] It has been said that the Advances to Settlers Department do not look with favour on the lease in perpetuity: has any instance of that come under your notice? —No; I would say that they do not look on it with disfavour. 40. Then, so far as loans to settlers are concerned, no discrimination is shown in regard to either a freeholder or a leaseholder? —None in the world. 41. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be in favour of advancing a loan as soon as a man has the improvements on the ground, instead of insisting on a year's occupation as at present? —I do .not see any reason why an advance should not be made if the improvements are there. 42. Suppose a man takes up an allotment and calls for tenders and puts up a house, and wants a loan simply to pay the contractor?- I can see no reason why he should not get an advance. 43. Mr. Mc(Jutchan.\ Have you known of instances where the full 50 per cent, has been advanced to settlers by the Department? —Yes, many instances. 44. And in those cases where the valuer's valuation leaves ample margin for the full 50 per cent, being advanced and that amount is not advanced, can you assign any reason why it has not been advanced? —I do not know; the lending Board in Wellington will have to answer that. If the improvements are sufficiently substantial security I always recommend that they should advance up to 50 per cent. 45. Mr. Forbes.] You know a good deal of the condition of the farms round about this district : from your experience can you say there is any marked difference between the way lease-in-perpetuity holdings and freeholds are farmed ?- In some cases there is a vast difference, and in many cases the farms under lease in perpetuity are worked just as well as the freeholds. I think they are worked just as well on the average. 46. Then, the statement we hear so often, that men holding these leases are simply neglecting them and allowing them to become overrun with weeds and are not farming them properly, is incorrect according to your experience? —Yes, I should say so. 47. Mr. Anstey.\ Have you ever known of an instance where a freeholder has farmed his land very carelessly? —Just as many as the other. 48. Mr. Matheson.] I suppose yon know from experience that a great deal of money is sunk in attempting improvements which do not result in an improvement in the value of the land 1 — Yes. Very often £4 or £5 will be spent in clearing bush land which is not worth .£1 per acre when it is cleared; and in the Waikawa district I know of instances where the bush has been partly cleared on sections at a cost of perhaps £2 or £3 per acre, and then, owing to not getting a good fire through it, the underscrub has come up again and made the land worse to clear than it was before. 49. Suppose you go on a property under crop where there is no appearance, of course, of any bush, and you are told by the occupier that it was in standing bush when he took it up: do you then allow him for the work he has done in felling and clearing and cultivating? —Yes, I always do. In most of the cases I have probably seen the land before, or I can see other indications that attest the truth of what he is telling me. " 50. But suppose when he took it up it was worth £5 per acre for the timber than was on it, and that after he had got rid of this timber it was only worth £1 per acre in the market, could you allow him anything for the work he had done in clearing his timber ? —Not in that case, because if it was light shingly land it could not carry the cost of clearing. 51. Mr. Hall.] Where bad farming is carried on and improvements are made which are not real improvements, is it generally owing to incompetence on the part of the farmer, or because of the tenure which he holds ? —lt is sometimes through incompetence and other times want of money. 52. Has the tenure much to do with it? —I do not think it has. But since you have asked that question I may state that I have seen cases where speculation has come in, more particularly under the perpetual lease. There are many cases where men take up these leases and they crop the ground extensively year in and year out, and, after a time, if they can, they will sell out their goodwill. I have seen these men sometimes get a very large sum for their goodwill, more especially under School Commissioners' leases. 53. The Chairman.] Under the School Commissioners' leases do they get valuation for improvements? —Only for buildings and fencing. I know a great many complaints are made because they cannot improve their land as they get no value for improvements, and, as a rule, they make their places look as bad as possible before the lease expires in order to get them cheap next time. Donald McGregor examined. 54. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 276 acres under lease in perpetuity from the School Commissioners on Block VIII., Wendon, about twenty miles from Gore. I pay in rent a little over lOd. per acre, and I have been there fifteen years. Igo in for mixed farming.
111
C—4.
B. MCGREGOR.]
55. Kindly state what you wish to bring before the Commission? —I wish to point out that I would not give the freehold suppose all the farmers in this colony asked for it. Ido not want it, and I would not take it if it was offered to me. I have my land at 4 per cent., and I can make a good living off 270 acres. I consider that if I wanted to buy land for my family the freehold would prevent me from doing so, because the land is too dear. 56. You are very decidedly in favour of the leasehold as against the freehold? —Yes, I am. 57. Some farmers have experienced great difficulty in borrowing money on their leaseholds: has that been your experience I—l1 —I have never tried to borrow money. 58. Have you anything else to say? —I have been dealing with the Southland Land Board for the last fifteen years, and I do not think I could have a better landlord in the word than the Southland Land Board. I think, however, some improvements could be made in this way: In the event of any dispute arising between a tenant and the Land Board, I think the matter should go to arbitration; and, again, I think it would be an improvement if the law was amended in such a way that as soon as a man's improvements were good and sufficient security against any damage the land was likely to receive through bad farming the Board should do away with the cropping restrictions. I also think the Government should be a little more liberal in lending money on these leases. The School Commissioners' lands in the Wendon Valley are leased for 1 fourteen and twenty years, and they have brought discredit on the leaseholds in my district. They do not allow sufficient for improvements, and these farms are changing hands, and they are being badly cultivated. I say that lease-in-perpetuity and perpetual-lease lands are farmed as well in my district as freehold land. I find that the men who have freeholds which are heavily mortgaged in my district keep the members of their family at home, because that is the only way they can work their farms. If their sons become dissatisfied at length, they put them on other freehold land that is also heavily mortgaged, and so they are kept down all their lives. Further, I do not believe that they are properly educated, because they have to be kept hard at work on the farm. Very few of them pass the Sixth Standard. I find these people are as discontented just before their mortgage falls due as any of the tenants in the Old Country. A number of tbem admit that this is so. I certainly would not sell the land that is being bought by the Government. We have only something like thirty-five thousand farms in this colony, and I think they are not the only people who should be considered in the colony. The amount of mortgages total about £43,000,000, and these people only paid £16,000,000 for the land, so that it is idle to say that they are freehold properties. lam satisfied that the freehold is spoiling the youth of this colony. 59. Mr. McCardle.\ You think there should be an improvement in the way of getting money on these leaseholds? —If the Government were more liberal the tenants would be satisfied. 60. You think it would be an advantage to the tenant if he was able to borrow more easily from the Government on his leasehold tenure? —Yes. 61. You refer, of course, to the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes. 62. You think it would be a great assistance to these settlers, who are good working-men, if the Government were to increase the advances from half the value of their improvements up to, say, three-fifths? —Yes; I think three-fifths is not too much. 63. Of course, you are aware that there is a sinking fund, and so forth, that provides for depreciation in the value of improvements? —Yes. 64. And if that amendment is made, in your opinion, that is all that is needed to make the leasehold system satisfactory to the tenant and to the country? —Yes, it would help. 65. You think a leaseholder ought to be treated very much as a freeholder when he has completed his improvements? —Yes; but not until then. 66. Mr. Paul.] You are quite opposed to giving the freehold to the State tenants? —Yes. 67. I take it for granted, then, that you would not give the freehold of these educational endowments and Harbour Board reserves? —Certainly not. 68. All you want in connection with the educational endowments is to extend the length of the lease and protect the tenants so far as their improvements are concerned ? —I would be perfectly satisfied if they were dealt with by the Land Board under the lease in perpetuity. But they only give seven- and fourteen- and twenty-years leases, and allow nothing for grassing, or tree-planting, or ditching, unless they say where the ditches are to go. Moreover, they make reductions in rent which the tenants consider unfair in some places. 69. You think it is quite possible to get the best out of them for the colony under a better leasing system? —Most decidedly. 70. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be in favour of giving the Land Board more discretionary power ? —Yes. 71. Are there many Crown tenants in your locality under lease in perpetuity? —I think there are about nine, and probably three or four perpetual leases, and a large number of agricultural leases. 72. Are the Crown tenants under the lease in perpetuity satisfied with their conditions, so far as you know? —Perfectly satisfied. 73. Mr. Anstey.] You said there is some dissatisfaction under the old fourteen- and twentyyears leases by the School Commissioners, because the tenants have no security of tenure, and not sufficient valuation for their improvements: is that, dissatisfaction fully removed by exchanging the leases for leases in perpetuity? —Yes; they have the longer tenure then. 74. You said a number of the fourteen- and twenty-years lessees farmed the land rather badly: do you see much improvement now that they have got longer leases ?—I do not think there is very much improvement; but all .these men who had long leases always farmed their land well. But the land was farmed very badly by those with fourteen-years leases. 75. We have had complaint several times that tenants have an objection to interference by the Inspectors and Rangers who are appointed to watch them and keep them up to the mark: is that so in your experience? —An Inspector has never said one word to me, and I have corresponded
a—4.
112
[D. MCGREGOR.
with the Board for fifteen years. If I was a little behind in my rent, and named the day when I could pay it, they always agreed. 76. If a number of the farmers farm their land badly it, is the duty of the Inspector to keep them up to the mark: does he do so? —I never knew an Inspector to interfere with a tenant under the lease in perpetuity or perpetual lease. 77. The Inspectors allow them to farm as badly as they like, and to keep to the conditions or not as they like? —No matter; they never interfere with me. 78. Mr. Matheson.\ You said the freehold hinders the education of the farmer's children? — Yes, I do. lam convinced that it has something to do with it. The farmer keeps his family from school to try and work his mortgage off. A very small percentage of his children pass the Sixth Standard. 79. No doubt you have seen a lease-in-perpetuity man working his children just as hard?— I would not. There is no inducement for the children to stay at home. No man would work a leasehold farm unless he could pay wages as he went along It is the inducement to secure the freehold when their parents die that causes the children to work so. 79a. Then, it is the child's own thought that keeps him at work: he is looking after his father's shoes rather than thinking of going to school? —His father never taught him anything else. 80. Mr. McCardle.~\ When you refer to the freehold you mean those persons who have bought a property and given a mortgage over it? —I mean all freeholds. 81. But there are lots of people who have the option of the freehold and are not going to be freeholders unless they like: does your argument apply in the case of a man who has taken up a lease with the right to purchasedl would leave the law as it stands. I would leave the right of purchase with him. Dougald Louis Poppelwell examined. 82. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a barrister and solicitor carrying on business in Gore. I wish to state I appear here on behalf of Mr. Walter M. Hailes, a farmer and runholder at Cattle Flat. He holds some thousands of acres, some under leasehold from the Government and some freehold. The following is a statement he wishes me to bring before you: — " The Chairman and members, Land Commission. " I have to lay before you for your consideration the position of landowners, both freeholders and leaseholders, whose lands are bounded by rivers which flow in shifting beds. In many places such rivers encroach upon the adjoining land, and where a road-line is reserved along the bank, such road-line is, according to the present state of the law, presumed to encroach on the land along with the river. In many places such rivers change their courses so as to isolate portions of a farm, and although the County Council will, in such cases, claim that the road-line runs along the new river margin, the old river-bed and the road on its margin does not become the property of the landowner, although he is compelled to keep down noxious weeds and rabbits on such old road-line and gets no benefit from it, having actually less land to cultivate than before the encroachment or change of course. In my own ease over 25 acres of good land has been cut off from my freehold land in the Hokonui district, near the Mataura River, at Cattle Flat, and can only be worked with great difficulty and expense. The old river-bed, when the river was running there, acted as a fence, but since the change of course the 25 acres is practically unfenced. To fence it would involve 90 to 100 chains of fencing. The remedy I would suggest is that power should be given to Land Boards to have river-beds, cut off by rivers in this way together with the marginal road reserves, valued, and that the landholder on whose land the encroachment or new course goes should have the option of acquiring such old bed and reserve on the same tenure as that upon which he holds his adjoining land. 1 also think that landowners whose properties abut on road-lines bounding streams should have some acknowledged exclusive grazing rights over such road-lines, or be relieved of the necessity of keeping down weeds or rabbits on such road reserves. There is a special reason why this is so, as such reserves are invariably very bad places for both weeds and rabbits, the former in consequence of the spread of seeds from floods, and the latter because of the reserves being generally of soil suitable for burrows. Another point I would like to mention is that I think valuation should be allowed for grassing runs, especially in high country. Either this, or a longer term should be granted. I also think that the Government should pay, say, two-thirds of the cost of putting the natural enemies of the rabbits on badly -infected runs. From my own actual experience, lam sure that such a course would have a lasting result for good." He complains rather bitterly that although considerable portions of the river-bank road reserve have been let for flax-cutting, he has to keep down rabbits and noxious weeds on this area, while he practically gets no use of it. 83. Surely he is not required to keep down weeds on land that is not his own? —Yes. River reserves are roads, and because they front his land he is liable to destroy weeds. In many instances, instead of being an ordinary chain road, these reserves are 5 and 6 chains wide, owing to the accretions by the river. This is a very hard case, but it is not an isolated one, especially in those districts where the river frequently changes its course. In regard to Mr. Haile's last suggestion about grassing runs, his views are that in the high country where rabbits are pretty plentiful a great many of the native grasses have been eaten right out of the ground, and he thinks if this coiftitry was regrassed by surface-sowing the runs would be greatly improved. Under the present tenure no valuation whatever is allowed for regrassing, and the result is that the holders of the high country have no interest at all in doing anything to improve the grassing under the leases they hold. Mr. Hailes specially mentioned the fact to me that, in Marlborough, where he came from, some relation of his was interested in high country. The property was hardly fit at all for sheep-grazing, but by putting on the natural enemies of the rabbits
D. L. POPPELWELL.]
113
C.—4.
and regrassing he has succeeded in making the land some of the best sheep-farming country in the colon}'. Mr. Hailes contends that when the stoats and weasels and other natural enemies of the rabbits are turned out on these runs they become permanently located there, and the good results continue after the runholder leaves. He thinks the Government gets quite two-thirds of the benefit of turning these natural enemies out, and therefore he thinks the Government should bear two-thirds of the cost. 84. Is there anything else you would like to bring before us? —I act in this district as solicitor for the Advances to Settlers Office, and there are some matters apparently about which there is some misapprehension. Mr. McGregor mentioned that the land which he holds is held from the Sdhool Commissioners, and that the tenure is lease in perpetuity. I noticed these two statements seemed inconsistent to some members of the Commission, and I would like to mention that a great part of the Commissioners' reserves in this district are dealt with under section 243 of the Land Act of 1892, which enables them to be dealt with by the Land Board on the same tenures as Crown lands are dealt with, and therefore Mr. McGregor holds a lease in perpetuity of School Commissioners' land from the Land Board. I might say with reference to these reserves that when the Advances to Settlers Act was first passed they were not available for loans, as only Crown lands held under perpetual lease or lease in perpetuity were dealt with in the Act. In consequence of an application coming from this district before the lending Board a loan was granted on one of these leases, and I was instructed to prepare a mortgage. On looking into the Act I discovered the omission of education reserves. Although they were dealt with practically on the same tenures as Crown lands they did not come under the Advances to Settlers Act at all, and no money could be advanced upon them. I informed the Board, and suggested an amendment to the Act. The Act was accordingly and now deals with tenures referred to, whether under the Land Acts of 1877, 1885, or 1892. The question has cropped up frequently as to the position of those persons holding education reserves under the Land Board. I might say that I have had considerable experience professionally in this matter in this district. Most of the settlers in the Wendon and Wendonside districts who took up School Commissioners' land did so in the years 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1891, and the result was that they all took it up after the Land Act of 1885 had been amended by the Land Act of 1887, which gave the privilege to all holders of a perpetual lease to acquire the freehold. It was that Act that first gave them the right to acquire the freehold. The result was that many of the persons who held these leases and were desirous of acquiring the freehold made application from time to time to the Land Board, and in the ordinary course got the freehold, although the land they held was education reserve. It was not until about the year 1894 that a sudden discovery was made that the Boards were giving the freehold of land they had no legal right at all to part with, and after a good deal of discussion and correspondence an Act was passed in 1896 (the Reserves and Crown Lands Disposal and Enabling Act) which enabled the Crown by Proclamation to authorise the giving of the freehold of any of this land. The freehold of the land was given only on the request of the School Commissioners and the recommendation of the Land Board. Several clients of mine applied for the freehold under that Act, and some of them succeeded in getting it. During the absence of the late Sir John McKenzie in Europe the acting Minister refused to give these titles, but on the return of the Minister an appeal was made from the decision of the acting Minister, and in some cases the titles were granted. They are now refused absolutely, and the Government hold but inducements to every one to exchange the perpetual lease for the lease in perpetuity by offering a 1-per-cent. reduction in rent, and by allowing the reduction to date back to the beginning of their original leases. By this concession many of the tenants who converted their leases have sat rent-free for some four or five years. I have correspondence now in connection with two or three cases where the freehold has been refused, although the tenure of the applicants was on all-fours with that of several others who had previously obtained the freehold in the same district. The freeholds have been refused owing, I suppose, to a change of Administration. But in all instances that I can remember any application made for a change to lease in perpetuity has been granted. Personally, I do not see why a lease in perpetuity is not as good a tenure as a freehold. The matter of sentiment comes in to a certain extent, but I think any one who has any experience from a money-lending point of view will recognise at once that there is a difference in the value of the tenures when the owner wishes to borrow. The only reason I can see to account for that difference is that the holder of a lease in perpetuity is restricted in his market —he can only sell to a restricted class of persons, to those who, with the lands proposed to be purchased, do not hold more than 640 acres of first-class or 2,000 acres of second-class land. On the other hand, the freeholder can sell when and where and to whom he likes. It is this difference in the market that makes all the difference in the value of that tenure as a security. As a matter of fact, the main characteristic of the freehold from a legal point of view is the absolute right to dispose of it when and where you like. I might say that popularly the word " freehold " has a more restricted meaning than its legal meaning. A life estate or an estate tail is a " freehold " in the eye of the law, and yet a lease in perpetuity is not, although it is held for 999 years. In using the word " freehold " the public really mean an estate in fee-simple. There is another point in reference to lease in perpetuity I would like to mention. Under that tenure a man may hold up to 640 acres of first-class land or 2,000 acres second-class. Now, I take it, that the object of all land-settlement, as far as possible, is to bring about the best cultivation, and to distribute the land as far as possible over a large number of homes. Well, it seems to me that there is no provision in the Land Act which gives to the holder of a lease in perpetuity, who is desirous of dividing his farm by his will amongst the members of his family, the right to do so. That is a weakness, and there is no necessity why it should exist at all, because if a man wished to divide up his farm it is merely a question of stating how he wishes the division to be made, and then for the Land Board to appoint some one to inspect the land and fix the rental to be paid in respect to each portion of it, and so enable the various devisees of the land to take their portion at the rent 15—C. 4
Fd. L. POPPELW^LL.
C—4.
114
attached to it. Under the Land Act at the present time there is the right to have the land surrendered and put up again with valuation for improvements. There is no reason why it should not be divided, if desired, in the way suggested to meet the case I mention. Ido not see why this should not be done by the lease-in-perpetuity holder as of right, instead of leaving him subject as at present to the desire or whim of the Land Board for the time being. I think he should have the same privilege of subdividing his land as a freeholder has, and I think an amendment of the Act to meet cases of that kind is worthy of consideration. 85. The Chairman.] Put yourslf in the position of the State, and if you were the landlord would you like a lessee to put in a new tenant without your concurrence? —Provided that a proper adjustment of the rents was made and an attornment signed, the new tenants would become the direct tenants of the State, and I do not think that any exception could be taken to such an arrangement. If I am prepared to part with the possession of my land for 999 years, it is a matter of indifference to me who holds the land, provided the rent is paid and the conditions of the lease fulfilled. 86. You know that a landlord may often, without giving his reasons, object to a particular sub-tenant? —That difficulty is inseparable from all leasehold tenures. It presents itself whether the holder of a lease in perpetuity leaves the whole of his leasehold land in one piece to one person —the Land Board cannot object to that —or subdivides the land. Ido not see why it should make any difference whether he leaves it in one piece or whether he subdivides it. Each tenant thus taking up the land would be severally liable for the rent of his particular portion. There are a large number of lease-in-perpetuity holders in this district, and my experience is that there is no way of dividing a man's property on that tenure under a will —a man cannot as of right give a portion, for instance, to each of his sons. There is no doubt, as far as the leasehold tenure is concerned, unless you give a sufficiently long lease with full valuation for improvements, the effect will not be satisfactory, and, especially with regard to town sections, the nature of the buildings put on the land will be seriously affected. 87. Mr. McCardle.\ You are acquainted with the various land-tenures —the lease in perpetuity, the lease with right of purchase, and the freehold ? —Yes. 88. Can you give any reason why a man holding a leasehold should not be treated in the same manner as a man holding a freehold? You know that within a certain number of years a man must make certain improvements: do you not think, especially in the case of bush land, that the State would be doing right if it relieved the settler from restrictions as to improvements and residence? Would that meet the difficulty as to a man willing his property? —I see no objection to the State relieving the tenant holding a lease in perpetuity from his restrictions, provided he put on the same improvements as the freeholder. 89. He puts on more improvements now under the Act? —I see no objection to it. I think that as soon as he puts on sufficient improvements to make the State safe that should be sufficient. 90. In your opinion, it would be an advantage to the individual and no detriment to the State if he could deal from that time through the Land Transfer Office, as other titles are dealt with? —In order that a man should be able to transfer, say, half his property as a leasehold the Act would have to be amended. 91. In regard to the advances to settlers, in your opinion, would it be an advantage to the settler, and the State would run no risk, if the Act were amended so that the holder of a leasehold might borrow up to three-fifths of his interest in the land, in view of the fact that there is already a sinking fund provided for the liquidation of the debt within 36J years? —I see no objection to lending up to three-fifths of his interest in the leasehold. I may here add that people are continually referring to their " improvements " instead of to their interest in the leasehold. A lease in perpetuity carries what is usually termed an unearned increment just as much as a freehold, and that is a legitimate security on which to lend money. 92. In your opinion, if that amendment were made, it would be a step in the direction of satisfying the leaseholder with his tenure? —Yes. There is another point I wish to mention in connection with the advances to settlers, and that is that an ordinary wooden building is done or worthless long before the end of the 36J years. I think, however, that if the 1 per cent, were paid regularly during that period the depreciation in the value of the improvements would be more than covered. 93. Mr. Paul.\ Do you think the restriction as to area in land held under lease in perpetuitv is a disadvantage? —From a money-lender's point of view, I gave that as a reason why the moneylender would not so reaclily lend money on a leasehold as on a freehold. The money-lender does not want to have the land thrown back on his hands. He is not a farmer. Yerv often the person to whom he can most readily sell the land if it falls into his hands is the adjoining landowner, but under the present law he has no option but to go outside and get another purchaser if the adjoining landholder is disqualified by his present holding from buying a lease in perpetuity. 94. Mr. Forbes.] The Borough Council of Gore have several reserves which thev have"let?— Yes; a large number. 95. Would you favour them parting with the freehold ?—Certainly not. Experience has shown that in the case of local bodies there is an inclination on the part of those having the expenditure of the money to spend it if they have it. So long as their property is in the shape of land they cannot part with it. The rent forms a permanent revenue. 96. The one is permanent, and the other may not be? —Yes. 97. Mr. McLennan.'] Has it come under your observation as a solicitor that there is any dissatisfaction among the lease-in-perpetuity tenants? —I do not think there is dissatisfaction so far as the tenure is concerned further than the fact that the leases are not available as security to the same extent as freeholds. A large number of farmers require accommodation from the banks, but a good many bank-managers speak doubtfully about the lease in perpetuity as a security. They think the rent under a Kevaluation Act may be jumped up at any time. As a matter of fact, that is not so in regard to the lease in perpetuity. It is practically as good as the freehold.
C—4.
115
D. L. POPPELWELL.j
98. Mr. McGutchan.] You advocate an alteration being made in the law, so as to enable a man to subdivide his lease-in-perpetuity section amongst his children ? —Yes. 99. In the case of a man who is anxious to divide liis land amongst, say, his three sons, has any instance come under your notice in which such an application has been refused by the Land Board ? —Holders of lease-in-perpetuity sections do not, as a rule, divide up their land in their lifetime. It is usually by will that this is proposed. I cannot recollect any case that has cropped up, although persons have spoken to me about it. A solicitor usually advises a testator that he cannot subdivide a leasehold without the consent of the landlord, hence it is seldom attempted. 100. Supposing a man states clearly in his will that he desires his property to be divided amongst his three sons, is there anything in the law to prevent the Land Board carrying out the wish expressed in the will?— There is nothing to prevent them carrying it out, except that the Land Board can refuse the application if it thinks proper. There is also the risk, if the leases are offered by auction, of some outsider purchasing over the heads of the proposed new tenant. 101. There is one Land Board that has been in the habit of refusing transfers where the consideration was in excess of the actual improvements? —If any Land Board did that I think it must have gone beyond its power. I think the discretion of Land Boards should be a judicial one, and should be subject to review by the higher Courts of the colony. If they refuse to do what you suggest I think it would be very much against the interests of the tenant, and, of course, it would be against the interests of the mortgagee (if any). At the same time I cannot imagine any Land Board being so crass as to try and rob a man of what it was intended should belong to him under the lease in perpetuity. 102. With reference to subdivision, we have seen the evils of excessive subdivision in other countries: do you not think the same might occur in this colony? —I do not think the authorities have laid it down that 640 acres of first-class land is necessary to maintain one family. 103. I understood that you advocated the right of subdivision as an absolute right of the tenant? —With reasonable restrictions, 104. A discretion must be left to the Land Board? —Yes. The Land Board must have discretion, for instance, in regard to adjusting the rent between the different tenants, otherwise all the rent might be thrown on one portion of the land and on one tenant if the Board did not have some discretion. The question is really that of a " living wage " applied to the farmer. 105. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not think, in reference to the constitution of Land Boards, that it would be wise to allow the Crown tenants to have a representative on the Boards, so that their interests might be properly attended to ?—No, Ido not think so. Land Boards are simply administrative bodies representing the landlord —in fact, they are the landlords so far as the tenants are concerned. If, however, there was a dispute that had to be settled between the Board and the tenant, it would certainly not be unreasonable to have it settled by arbitration or by the superior Courts. 106. Mr. Anstey.] Nearly all the advocates for granting the freehold to leaseholders say they advocate it subject to restrictions as to area, so that they may only get a restricted freehold. If they had a restricted freehold they would not have the fee-simple? —The restriction in area is not a question of the first purchase from the Crown only. To be effective the restriction would have to apply to a man who has acquired the 640 acres from any source, in order to prevent him buying more land alongside his present holding. 107. From a mgney-lender's point of view, a restricted freehold would be very little better than a restricted lease in perpetuity? —Very little better, as it would not be so readily saleable. 108. Suppose a money-lender were to advance money to a lease-in-perpetuity settler, would it not be possible for the settler, if he paid his rent, to defy his creditors, because the creditors have not the right of foreclosure ? —There is no reason why he should not foreclose and sell the lease to some one who can hold it. The consent of the Land Board and Minister has to be obtained before a mortgage can be arranged, but under the lease in perpetuity a mortgage is almost unknown. 109. Under the lease in perpetuity the Minister will never consent to a foreclosure. Is there any reason why the right of foreclosure should not be granted, and if that were done would not the lease-in-perpetuity holder have as good security as the freeholder? —Yes; quite as good. And there is no reason, as far as my personal view goes, why the lease-in-perpetuity holder should not be free from all restrictions as to borrowing just the same as a freeholder. 110. That is, if a man had property worth £1,000 he should have a perfect right to pledge it up to that sum? —Yes. 111. If that right were granted to the lease-in-perpetuity settler his position as a borrower would be as good as that of any other person I—Yes;1 —Yes; especially if there were no restrictions as to cropping. It would be practically as good as the freehold. To my mind, the charm that the lease in perpetuity has from a State point of view is this: that it gives the State control of the land so as to prevent the aggregation of estates without interfering with the principle of the tenure. If all the land in the colony were held under lease in perpetuity the aggregation of estates would be impossible without the consent of the Crown; but in the case of the freehold, if you restricted its free right of disposition you would be striking at the very principle of the freehold tenure—you would be interfering with the right of the freeholder by limiting his market. 112. Mr. Matheson.] Does the law not also give the Land Board a discretion as to whether he can leave the whole of his leasehold to any one person?— Yes. It has a discretion in this way: that the person to whom the land is left must be qualified to hold it. 113. Mr. Hall.'] Would it be well if the Crown tenants had the power to pay off part of the capital value, so as to reduce their rental of course, retaining their leases under the same conditions? —That is entirely a question of State administration. Personally, I think it would perhaps be in the intcicsts of the Estate that a reasonable portion of the land should be retained bv the State. '
C—4.
116
[d. l. poppelwell.
114. I mean that a man out of his savings should have the power to reduce his rent to, say, one-half 2 —l think that, seeing only 4 per cent, is being charged, the tenant can make use of his money to greater advantage than by paying off the principal. There is another point I should like to draw attention to. I notice that evidence has been given before the Commission to the effect, in the case of certain land at Stewart Island, that owing to the improvements not being effected within seven years no freehold title can be obtained for the land. I think the time might be extended within which the improvements could be made. 1 think also it is a great pity to allow the bush to be destroyed on harbour frontages, especially where the land is of more value for scenic purposes than for cultivation. 1 am of opinion that if the State got an extra 5s an acre in cash where the land was originally sold for 10s., as on Stewart Island, the freehold tenure should be granted. David Lamb examined. 115. The Chairman.] What are you 1 -1 am a storekeeper at Waikaka, and have been there about thirty-eight years. I have some freehold sections in the township. 1 have come here on behalf of tenants of the School Commissioners. The condition of things is really deplorable under the present tenure, and the settlers are anxious to have the reserves brought under the administration of the Land Board, or to get the same privileges that Crown tenants have. It is a large and a good district if we only had a proper tenure, but, so far as settlement is concerned, this endowment has been the bugbear of the whole district. They give no refund for roadmaking, and the leases are very unsuitable owing to the shortness of the tenure, and not sufficient allowance is made for improvements. The leases are for fourteen years, but such a lease is no better than a nine- or ten-years laase. 116. If they had the option of taking up the leases under another tenure what tenure would they favour? —Some of the tenants are here and they can speak for themselves. I think that the lease in perpetuity is just as good as any freehold. I intended to fake up a piece of land on lease from the School Commissioners, but when I looked at the terms of the lease I would not entertain it. 117. We have evidence that there is a large reserve in your locality which is being overrun with gorse. It is under the Mining Act, and we are informed that the gorse is likely to become a pest?-—I know that there is gorse there, but I think the witness who said it would take £500 to clear it was exaggerating. There is no doubt something should be done. The reserve is in charge of a local committee called the Commonage Committee, of which 1 am chairman. We can only go as far as our revenue will permit in the destruction of rabbits and noxious weeds. We have been put to considerable expense in clearing the place of ragwort. Our revenue is obtained from the fees for grazing on the reserve. We get 4s. a head for cattle and horses. 118. You have no surplus with which to destroy the gorse?—We have a surplus, but not sufficient for that purpose. 119. Then, you are incapable of properly managing the land so as to remove the gorse? —We have not sufficient funds to do that. I think the land should be cut up into smaller areas and be given to the people for the purpose of growing flax, &c., on it. 120. It was suggested that it might be leased to a few parties ? That would be very unpopular. The commonage is for the use of the miners. 121. How would it be to increase the grazing charge to, say, 10s. a head? —I do not think that would be too much. Our revenue is only between ,£25 and .£3O a year. 122. Is the Commonage Committee empowered to fix the charge per head for cattle?— No. It is fixed for us. Something should be done in regard to this reserve, for it is keeping back the surrounding district. It was never intended that this reserve should impede settlement, and every bit of power we have got has only been obtained from the School Commissioners at the point of the bayonet. If it had not been for yourself (Mr. McKerrow) and Mr. Rolleston it would have been locked up still longer. 123. Mr. McCardle.] You are of opinion that the Government should take over the administration of this reserve and let it out under perpetual lease or lease in perpetuity? —Yes. 124. Do you know what rents are being paid for this land?— Various amounts. I do not think the rents are so very high. 125. What is the value of that land per acre?—lt is of fair quality, but being so far away from the market keeps down the value considerably. 126. Mr. McCutchan.\ What is the area of the commonage? —800 acres. 127. Did the Government ask you to make a recommendation as to the charge for running cattle on the commonage ?—No; but that might have been done when the first trustees were appointed. 128. Mr. Anstey.] Would the result you wish be accomplished by cutting up the land into smaller areas ?—I think there would be an objection towards keeping the land as a commonage 129. You are not getting sufficient revenue to keep down the weeds?—No, but Ido not think it would take so much as has been said to keep down the gorse. 130. If it were let to a tenant with some security you would get a substantial rent for it I presume? Perhaps so, but there is another thing to be considered. A good part of it has been let for dredging, and there is every likelihood that that ground will be again used for that purpose. The Government get the revenue from that source. .John Milne examined. j 1 u 3: !- I \ h * Chairman ] What are you?—l am a farmer at Waikaka. lam a Crown tenant and hold 400 acres under lease in perpetuity. I pay about Is. an acre. The land is about twenty-five miles from here and is rough and hilly. It had been long unoccupied before I took it
117
0.—4.
J. MILNE
up, and it had cost the State a good deal to keep down the rabbits on the land. At one time it was part of the educational reserve. The point I wish to draw attention to on behalf of myself and some others is this: The land was put up for lease, and some of it ran to a very high figure —as high as £8, £10, and £12. Subsequently some of the land was again put up, and after it was improved some moneyed men took up the land--indeed, they got the pick of the land. That land is now freehold. It was only the second- or third-class land that was left and was taken up by others. We want the freehold. There is a class of land reformers who are advocating the leasehold with periodical revaluation. We do not want revaluation. 1 may say that in three years 1 put eight hundred pounds' worth of improvements on my 400 acres. 132. Under the lease in perpetuity there is no revaluation? —By a certain section of public men revaluation is advocated. We would rather have the freehold because it gives more freedom. I have 640 acres of freehold land adjoining the leasehold. If I wanted to divide my land 1 could do as 1 liked with the freehold, but 1 would have to get the consent of the Land Board in dealing with the leasehold. Under the leasehold tenure a man has not the same interest in the land as he has in a freehold. I want either a freehold or provision made against peroidical revaluation of the leasehold. The younger people are not taking the same interest in the land as they used to, and we can hardly get a young fellow bred on the land to take up the plough and settle on the land, and we have in many cases to employ men from the towns who know little or nothing about land to do this work. 1 believe in the deferred-payment system, which enables a man to secure the freehold when he is in a position to do so. 1 do not believe in spot cash, because that gives moneyed men a monopoly of the land. 1 believe in a man earning his freehold. 133. Mr. McLennan.] You are satisfied with the rent you are paying? —Yes; but I would like more security for the money I have put into the land. 134. Supposing the Act was amended to enable a change to be made in the tenure, would you agree to the land being put up to auction? —Yes. I think it would be fair as long as I got the eight hundred pounds' worth of improvements. 135. Mr. Anstey.] In taking up the land under lease in perpetuity, did you think that was better than a thirty-years lease? —I did at that time, but Ido not think so now. If I had taken it up under a thirty-years lease I would have got the freehold by this time. With respect to the school reserve, I bought an interest in 900 acres some years ago for my two eldest boys, but it has turned out a failure. It has not given them any encouragement and the land has come back into my hands. If I can get out of it I will do so. The land will be put up to auction in a few days, and if any other person will take it up they can do so. It is a bad system for the young people and it is also bad for the country. If it were freehold property the improvements would be between £600 and £700. 136. What are the improvements put at on that section? —The Government valuation is about £400, and the School Commissioners' valuation to me is £260. 137. You think there are seven hundred pounds' worth of improvements? —Yes. 138. What is the upset price? —Is. an acre, and they want the present tenants to give them a guarantee that they will take up land for the next twenty-one years. I would not give such a guarantee. That is what is driving the young men who have been born and bred on the land from it. I only ask for what is fair, and I say that the State ought to have this land better administered, because that would be in the interests of all concerned. Robert Keith examined. 139. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Keith? —I am a farmer at Waikaka and Wendon Valley. 140. How many acres do you farm?—518 acres of freehold and 712 acres of leasehold, which I have for fourteen years from the School Commissioners. 141. How long have you been farming there? —About twenty-eight years. 142. Is your land devoted principally to mixed farming? —Yes. 143. What is your rent of the School Commissioners' land? —Is. per acre. 144. Will you state what you wish to bring before the Commission? —I was going to speak about the School Commissioners' tenure. 145. Do you think it is unsatisfactory? —Yes; it is very one-sided. 146. We have been told that the leases are too short, that not sufficient is allowed for improvements, that the administration is not very satisfactory, that not enough is given for roads, and that you are not in the same privileged position as if you were under the Crown ? —That is so. 147. I suppose you would like to come under the administration of the Land Board? —Yes; I think it would be more satisfactory. 148. Would you like a longer lease ?--Yes. The lease is too short. When one is improving rough country the lease is practically up when one is beginning to reap the benefit of the work done. 149. You would like to be under the lease in perpetuity under the Land Board?— Yes; I think that is very fair; but many of the tenants would prefer a lease with the right of purchase. 150. Is there any other point you would like to touch on?--I interviewed the School Commissioners lately. They had said they were restricted under Act of Parliament to certain conditions, and that they could not give valuation for grassing, ditching, and roadmaking. 151. In other words, personally they were quite agreeable to it, but they had not the power? —I understood that from them. 152. When did you interview them?— About a fortnight ago. I went to them about the valuation, which I did not consider satisfactory. 153. Mr. McCardle.] You are not quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity ?—I would prefer the lease with the right of purchase, which I consider a fair lease, as it gives the people the right to execute their wishes if they desire a freehold, and if they want a lease they may continue it.
C—4.
118
Ir.^kbith.
154. For what reason do you prefer the right of purchase? —I think a man is freer under it, and, in addition, he gets more value for his improvements if he wants to leave the district, or if his health fails him. 155. You think that under it you are handicapped if you want to sell out? —That is so. One cannot sell to the same advantage. 156. Have you observed the operations of the Advances to Settlers Act? —I know a little about it, but I am not quite clear on it. 157. To your knowledge, have the settlers been operating in the way of loans from that office? —Yes. 158. Have they generally got what they considered a fair amount? —I know of only a few private transactions. 159. Do you think the Act ought to be amended to allow the Government to advance threefifths of the holder's interest under a lease in perpetuity? —Yes, I think so. 160. Or under a lease with the right of purchase? —Yes. 161. You think that the objection to the 999-years lease is the restrictions? —That is so. A man has not the same freedom as with the freehold. 162. Mr. Paul.] Do you think it would be a wise step to give the freehold to the tenants of educational endowments ? —The view I take is that the more you can take out of the land the better it is for the State, and 1 think it would be for the benefit of the tenants too that the freehold should be allowed. I think you would get more out of the land in that way. I think the leases are detrimental to the country's interests. At present, in the case of a man with a lease, if he is going to farm to pay himself he must take all he can out of it, because he has not the right of renewal, and his cultivation or his labour.is put up to auction and sold in the public market. 163. Are you speaking now of the lease in perpetuity? —I am speaking of the leases of the educational endowments under the School Commissioners. William Waddle examined. 164. The Chairman.] You are a farmer, Mr. Waddle? —Yes, at Waikaka Vall«y 165. Are you a freeholder? —Yes. 166. Have you any leasehold? —No. 167. How long have you been in the district ? —Since 1875, when 1 took up a deferred-payment section under what was called the Donald Reid Government. 168. What was the area? —533 acres. I got 200 acres of this area under deferred payments. That was the limit at the time. 169. And the balance you bought? —Yes. 170. Was the deferred-payment system satisfactory to you? —Yes, it was a great success. 171. Having been so long in the district, you will, no doubt, give us some valuable evidence about the settlement of the country?—l left Scotland in 1863, and have been in Southland since then. During that time great alterations have taken place in the land-administration. Southland was a separate province then. lam sorry to relate, but nevertheless it is true, that a number of men bought up land at that time for speculative purposes. They tried all schemes to conserve it. These people —the pioneers and the squatters of Southland —got stranded, and 90 per cent, of them lost their capital. A great many of the pioneers, and even some of the squatters, died paupers. 172. To what do you attribute that?— Well, it has been recognised for many, many years that land is a hungry thing, because you cannot conserve it. It will cost more money to keep it than it will recoup to you. That is my experience of farming. I was a farmer at Home. I could only take two rents off the farm when I required three. 173. You could only take two rents oft it?— Yes. I may explain my meaning to the Commission. A theory in scientific farming is that before a landlord can be successful he must lease his land to allow that the tenant gets three rents out of it. The first rent goes to pay the landlord, the second to pay servants and working expenses, and the third to recoup the farmer for his outlay of money, his management, and his loss of stock. Unless that is carried out it is impossible to farm. I could only get two rents. I could not get anything for myself, and therefore I left Scotland. After coming to Invercargill I bought a freehold property, and I have held land ever since that period. It might amuse the Commission to know that at that time I bought 60 acres of oats from an unfortunate man named Turnbull at ss. an acre within a mile of Invercargill. I used to buy crops for £1 an acre. Just recently I saw reference made to the history of Edendale. It was said that land was sold for .£l2 an acre. If my memory serves me right, the late James Shand bought it at £12 an acre. He also occupied a lot of fine country on the banks of the Oreti, near Winton, and was the most enterprising farmer of his day. His crops realised from £1 10s! to £2 an acre. The history of the early settler in Southland "is not a bright one. I come from a farming race myself, and I say that it is very hard work. In reference to the surrounding district—say, within twenty or thirty miles of this place—the land all passed out of the hands of the original owners, and when the Government introduced the deferred-payment system a portion of it was set aside as freehold. All that land was resold at a loss. Some land that cost £3 or £4 an acre was sold at the end of ten years for £1 10s. an acre. All the runs within a radius of thirty miles have been disposed of as private property-so-much cash down and the balance in instalments—and lam happy to say that all the people who bought land on those terms have been prosperous, employed much labour, and have been large contributors towards the funds of the State. 1 hey did much to tide New Zealand through its infancy. That is my experience of the land around Gore. The only failure that has occurred under my observation is the Pomahaka ate. Some years ago some of my neighbours had sons ready to go to work. They were the proper stamp of men for farms, having been brought up to the "work, and it grieves me to think that they took land there and had to abandon it. Another of my neighbours tried his luck at
0.—4.
119
W. WADDLE." 1
Tokarahi. He abandoned his land there, and is now farming in England, where he is doing much better. Some of my friends who left this district have also gone to England, where they are doing well. When a man has the leasehold he cannot utilise his land to the best Men with leaseholds are restricted in their operations. They are tied down with a certain rotation, so that in the event of cereals going up they cannot prepare to supply the demand. This is what I mean: The Press gives a forecast of what is likely to be in demand, and the freehold farmer prepares accordingly. Being a freeholder he can utilise so-much of his property to meet the times, whereas the leaseholder cannot do anything of the kind. It might suit a man to have a certain area under cereals or in pasture to suit the times. That is what constitutes the difference between the freehold and the leasehold. For a man with limited means the leasehold is right in itself as a stepping-stone to the freehold, but to get a prosperous country I contend that the peasantry must be prosperous. No country will exist where the peasantry are harassed. They must be liberally dealt with and their interests conserved. The scheme of land-settlement is working right enough and the intentions were good, but success has only come half wa"y. The people were put on the land but have not been kept on it, and hence the dissatisfaction that now prevails. I am speaking now of the Crown tenants. I saw an article in the paper with reference to some people who had voted against Ardgowan being taken over. I may point out that wheat was then ss. a bushel: it was in 1897 or 1898. Wheat has now receded in value to 2s. 6d. and 2s. 9d., and hence the awkward position in which these people find themselves. 174. Ardgowan is a great success. It is close to Oamaru, and is different from most of the Oamaru country in that it has a moist climate? —I do not know about that. lam only speaking of what I saw in the paper. With regard to the Waikakahi Estate, I know that some of the settlers are abandoning it because they ca»not get the three rents out of it. It will not pay a man to work land on the agricultural system unless he gets his three rents out of it. Pastoral land is in a different position. 175. Mr. Paul.] You consider that the restrictions on the leaseholds are too exacting? —Yes. 176. Would you favour more discretionary power being given to the Land Boards? —I have not considered the question very much. It is almost impossible to give concessions to meet the case of the bulk of the people who are going on the land under present conditions. My experience of most people in New Zealand is that they do things in a very haphazard way. 177. I understand you to say, then, that it would be no use giving Land Boards more discretionary powers, because the class of men who go on the land are not suited for it? —I would like to give the Land Boards power to discriminate between different grades of land. 178. Mr. McLennan.'] Will you be good enough to give me the name of the settler who failed at Tokarahi? —I can tell you privately. It is not a public matter. 179. If he left Tokarahi, I take it, he got so-much for his improvements and goodwill; and when a man gets £200 or £300 in that way the section cannot be a failure? He told me he could not make a success of it. It is possible he may have transferred his land to another person for a consideration. 180. Mr. Forbes.] Does you experience among leasehold farmers show that they are not farming their land as well as the freeholders? —Yes. 181. You think the leaseholders are not farming as well as the freeholders?— That is so. 182. And that would apply to the land-for-settlements estates as well? —Yes. 183. How do you account for that? —There is so little in the farming that it will not pay them. They cannot utilise their land properly. They are under restrictions that prevent them from taking advantage of their opportunities to cultivate what is required to suit the times. They are bound by restrictions as to cropping. 184. Would you think it would be a reasonable thing that these restrictions should be removed to a large extent when the tenant has sufficient improvements on their land to safeguard the landlord? —The only way you can satisfy the Crown tenants is to give them the land at such a price that they can make the three rents out of it. The settlement of the land will be a success then. 185". Do not the farmers round here get the three rents? —No. Even the freeholder does not get them. He is not able to educate his children properly, and how, then, can the Crown tenants educate theirs? 186. The Government Valuer said that the land here was increasing in value. That shows they must be doing all right out of the land? —That occurred some years ago through Mr. Hawkins, who was on the Magistrate's bench. He valued the land at Pomahaka at £2 an acre. Next vear Major Keddell was sent down, and he laid on the lash unmercifully, and, as a result, some of the tenants sold out, alleging that they had been "had." 187. Do you think that the land is overvalued? —You cannot value land too low to nurse a peasantry. 188. Mr. Awstey.] Do you appear here as the representative of the Farmers' Union, or any other association? —No. I am not a member of the Farmers' Union. There is also a Farmers' Co-operative Association here, but I am not a member of it either. 189. You know of a great number of leaseholders who have abandoned their sections? —Yes. A great number have left Gore for Waikaia. 190. Are there any freeholders who have abandoned their sections here? —I think that not more than 1 per cent, or 2 per cent, abandoned their land under the deferred-payment system. 191. More leaseholders have abandoned their sections than freeholders? —Yes, a much greater number. 191 a. Did you not tell us that 90.per cent, of the original freeholders lost all their capital, and that some of them died in poverty? —I said so; but the people I referred to bought up all the frontages to conserve the land, and consequently many young people who had accumulated money on the diggings and wanted land could not get it, and had to go to Canterbury. That class of men had to give way.
C—4.
120
[W. WADDLE.
192. Did you say, then, that there are more freeholders than leaseholders who have abandoned their land ? —I referred to the speculators when I spoke of the freeholders. 193. Do you think that 90 per cent, of the leaseholders have abandoned their sections? —I cannot tell that. The freeholders I speak of did not abandon tlieir sections, but they had to sell them. 194. As to the settlers who abandoned their sections at Waikakahi, did they abandon them because they were failures, or did they sell out at a profit? —They told me they could not make it pay. I was there at the time. I made no other inquiry, as I did not want to look into their business. 195. Seeing that you have had to go so far afield for failures, must we assume that the leaseholders around here are successful, and that you could not find instances of failure in your own neighbourhood? —I am giving a general description. 196. You had to go to Waikakahi, then, for instances of failures?--Waikaia was a failure, and so was Pomahaka. I have friends at Waikakahi, and from them I heard of the cases I have mentioned. Hugh Smith examined. 197. The Chairman.'] What are you, Mr. Smith?- —A farmer. 198. A freeholder? —Yes. 199. How many acres do you hold? —340 acres. 200. How long have you been in possession of your farm? —About eighteen years. 201. Where is your farm? —Between four and five miles out of Gore. I may say that I came to the district with my parents in 1876, when my father took up a deferred-payment section. 202. Do you use the land for mixed farming? —Yes; for grazing and for cropping. 203. Have you any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I may say that lam a member of the Waikaka branch of the New Zealand Farmers' Union. They decided to appoint a delegate to attend the sitting of the Commission to give evidence. We understood the Commission was to take evidence as to the feeling of the settlers in the country respecting the desirability of giving intending settlers the best form of tenure. We want to get our young people to settle on the waste lands of the country, and to take up the land the Government acquires. 201. How many members are in your Waikaka branch? —Fifty-odd —fifty-two or fifty-three, I think. 205. Would you kindly give the Commission the views of yourself and your brother-members on the question of tenure? —I came here when the land was thrown open on the deferred payment, but I did not get a section, as I was too young at the time. The early settlers were either men with families who could help them, or young men who were starting in life. Many of the young men got deferred-payment sections. Some of these people came here to better themselves, and were determined to take advantage of every opportunity they got. I consider that the deferred payment is the best system of settling the land. Evidence of that can be found about Gore. All' those who got land on fairly easy terms did well. They realised that their whole success depended on their efforts, and they buckled up the'r sleeves and went into it. There were no eight hours a day. They had paid rent long enough, and worked long enough for others, and they wanted to make an independence for themselves and their families. The day was not too long for them, and they worked at all hours. They did not come with a great deal of capital. The deferredpayment system was for ten years —that is, it took ten years to acquire the freehold. When we came to Gore there were few buildings; but as time went on, and as those settlers acquired the freehold of their land, a marked prosperity took place in Gore. The land has increased considerably in value. It may have doubled in value under the settlers' influence, but it has increased perhaps tenfold in Gore through the increased trade brought in by the settlers round about. As a settler, and as one who has been brought up to it all my days, I contend that if we are going to give encouragement to those who wish to settle on the land and reclaim lands that are practically waste we must give the people some chance to acquire the freehold of the land. Lately we had a gentleman addressing us on the land-tenure of the colony, and pointing out the benefit it would be to all if the State were to own the lands of the colony. I think it may be advisable to retain a proportion of them for certain purposes; but if you want them farmed to the best advantage you must give an opportunity to men to settle on those lands and farm them intelligently. In order to encourage settlement the State should also assist people who take up land. Fencing and buildings are required. The Government ought to help settlers in these matters, and charge interest on the expenditure. In the Home-country, when drains and buildings are required the work is done by the landlord. He realises that the improvements belong to him. lam here representing the Waikaka branch of the union, and that is my opinion, and it is the general opinion of all the settlers in my district. My neighbours have been working-men, and are working-men still. All the deferred-payment areas were 200 acres; but when a man's family grows up that area is too small, except for dairying. For mixed farming you require more land, and as a consequence several of the settlers have sold out. Some of them have acquired land alongside of them, so as to employ members of their family or other labour. As far as the aggregation of estates is concerned, it will not be found here. The graduated tax and the conditions of labour which are nowadays favourable to the working-men debars a man from acquiring land in this district and employing a lot of labour. The land here requires a great deal to be done to it. Winter feed has to be provided for stock, and the land, having lost its natural fertility, requires a good deal put into it in the way of manures and working it. Our opinion is that if'the lands of the colony are to be profitably and well settled the farmers must be given the tenure they require, and the only tenure that would be satisfactory to most of the settlers that I know is the freehold tenure. They will do their best to acquire it, and at the same time they will do their best for the country. 206. Are there any of your fifty members who hold land under lease in perpetuity ?—One or two of them, I think.
C—4.
H. SMITH.]
121
207. They also wish the freehold? —I could not say. lam not sure whether it is education reserve or town reserve that they hold. There are some instances in which first-class land can be obtained reasonably on a leasehold tenure, and it might be better in those cases if the Government were to give the tenants the freehold of the land. The Government might get a better return by selling and putting the money into their debentures. I think if that were done they would get as much as they get for the lease of the land. 208. Do you think the settlers would risk exposing their lands to auction, or would they hold on to the tenure they have? —I think they would prefer to hold on to the tenure they have. 209. Mr. Johnston.] Settlement would not have been the success it has been if it had not been for the deferred payment I—No.1 —No. The poor man would not have had such a good chance. The young man who had not saved much money, or the man who had been a working-man and had a family growing up, had an opportunity under that system to take up land. He could not have taken it up under any other tenure. 210. Is yours an agricultural or a grazing farm? —Agricultural. 211. Have you got any weeds on it? —Yes, a few. 212. Ragwort? —Yes; where the sheep cannot get at it. I have some land near the railway at Pukerau which I intend to put the sheep on to. 213. Any Californian thistles? —Yes; it is all over the country here and there. 214. How could it be got rid of? —We mow or chop it down. 215. You bought a freehold property? —Yes. 216. What did you pay for it? —£4 in the tussock. 217. What do you value your improvements at? —Fencing and labour and everything else I value at about £7 or £8. It might be more. 218. Then, you value your improvements at, say, £3 an acre? —Yes. 219. What is the land worth now? What would you get for it? —Between £7 and £8 an acre perhaps. I might get £7 if it was put up to auction. 220. There is no increase in the value, then? —I do not think so. The increase in the value is made by the people who settle round here. Much of the land round about has decreased in value. 221. In your experience, have you found that the educational reserves are well looked after? — No, excepting the instances I have mentioned. 222. Mr. l J aul.\ Do you say that there has been an increase in value in the country but a much greater increase in the towns? —Yes; generally speaking, that is so. 223. What is your opinion about the periodical revaluation of future leases? —I view it with some misgiving. The Government has always tried to do its best in the interests of the settlers, but we might not always have a Government so inclined, and if there were revaluations they might not be favourable to the settler. 224. Does it not seem equitable that if a leaseholder holds land which has decreased in value he ought to have a decrease in rent, and that if it increases in value he ought to pay more rent 2 — I might look at it from a farmer's point of view in a fairly good district. There is something in what you say Possibly if the land had decreased in value he is entitled to favourable consideration, and if the leasehold has increased in value he would be able to pay possibly a little more. 225. Do you think that a settler under the Land for Settlements Act ought to get the freehold ?—Yes. 226. Is it in the interests of the leaseholder to get the most possible out of the land? —I think it is in the interests of every one that he should do so. 227. Then, he is in no different position to the freeholder as far as production is concerned?' — If he is on a leasehold it is to his advantage to take all he can out of it. 228. And if he is on a freehold it is the same?- Yes. 229. Mr. McCutchan.] You advocate the deferred-payment system? —Yes. 230. Would you substitute it for the lease in perpetuity? —I believe the deferred-payment system is the best we have had. The lease in perpetuity might suit a man with small capital or with less capital than the man who could take up land on the deferred payment, and therefore it would be beneficial. I think the riglit of purchase ought to be included in all leases, whether private or Crown. If I was taking up a leasehold I would like to have a purchasing clause inserted. 231. I understand, then, that you advocate the deferred-payment system being put on the statute-book in addition to the other methods of acquiring land? —Yes. 232. You are aware that there is an increase of 25 per cent, in the capital value under the deferred-payment system as against the leasehold system? —Yes, that is so. 233. You have been questioned with reference to the revaluation of land: do you think that, generally speaking, the inclusion of a revaluation clause in all leases to be given in the future would promote settlement and the welfare of the colony, or would it be a deterrent? —I think it would be beneficial. 234. You think that intending settlers would view the introduction of such a clause with favour?—l do not know about that. I believe they would. Ido not see why they should not. 235. Land-values have been fairly stationary here? —Yes. 236. Is it not the case that year after year there is an increase in all forms of wealth in the colony, consequently the tendency in the future will be for land to increase in rental value rather than to decrease? —In answer to that I may say that land has increased in value lately, for we have had several real good years which has enhanced the value of the land. Farmers have been able to make more out of it than previously, and any one selling land is able to get more for it now. If a time comes when there is a reaction the land will go down, and that is where there might possibly be a hardship in the revaluation. There might be a revaluation when things are booming and the land would be valued according to the prices at that time; but things might
16—C. 4.
C.—4.
122
H. SMITH.
go back, when the farmers would not be able to make ends meet, and still they would be asked tc pay the high rent. 237. The proposal is to revalue at periods of twenty or thirty years? —Yes. 238. Do not variations in the price of products happen in periods of five, seven, or ten years?— Yes, I believe so. 239. And therefore the hardship you speak of would not be obviated by the revaluation ? — That is so. 240. Would you favour revaluations for shorter terms, to be concurrent with the variations in the price of products ? —The longer term a man has without revaluation the more security he has. I would not favour terms of seven or even fourteen years. They would be too short. 241. And therefore the deduction to be drawn is that the revaluation you advocate really does not meet the case, for the reason that variations in the price of products would take place perhaps three or four times in the period you mention ? —lt would not affect the valuation at all. It would not matter when you valued it. 242. Mr. Forbes.] There is some difference of opinion about the terms on which the freehold should be granted to Crown tenants under the Land for Settlements Act. Would your branch of the union give the tenants the freehold at the price at which the land was taken up, or at the present market value ? —We have never discussed the question, so that anything I say is for myself and not as the representative of the branch. 243. And what are your views? —I should say at the present valuation, when they want to acquire it. 244. Mr. Matheson.\ You say that the longer term a man has without valuation the better his tenure? —I think so. 245. Therefore, having a lease of 999 years without revaluation is better than having revaluation at any period? —It would be a long time for the farmer to wait. 246. But you say that the longer between his valuations the better? —I mean anything in reason, say, twenty-one or thirty years. 247. You think it would be better with a revaluation at the end of twenty-one years than at the end of a longer period ? —Yes. 248. Mr. Hall.} Regarding the conversion of the leases into freeholds, do you think it would be a gain to the tenants to get rid of the 3J per cent, they now pay under lease and take on a mortgage at, say, 6 per cent. ? —Certainly not. 249. Would not that be the result? —I do not know. I maintain that if a man has the money to acquire a property he ought to buy it. He should not mortgage to acquire a freehold. 250. Do you think it is in the interests of the country that land should be acquired under the Land for Settlements Act and broken up for settlement? —Yes. 251. If you were Minister of Lands would you, after using the taxpayers' money to acquire an estate, sell the freehold and run the risk of the aggregation of estates in the future, even in the remote future? —I do not think there would be much danger of that. The tendency is the other way. Every day the papers tell us of estates of suitable areas for sale. Let the money be handed over to the Government and let them acquire other estates with it. Although the land is acquired by those who take it up it is still there. A man is a fixture. He is still subject to the land-tax and such like, and might contribute as much in that way as he did before. William Johnston examined. 252. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Johnston? —A freehold farmer at Waikaka Valley. 253. How many acres have you? —600 acres. 254. How long have you been on the farm? —About eighteen years. 255. You are engaged in mixed farming? —Yes. 256. Have you any leasehold? —No. 257. How did you acquire your land?—l took up a deferred-payment section of 200 acres about twenty-eight years ago. It was not part of the 600 acres. At first I went about shearing and doing fencing or other work until I could improve my land. It was a very easy way of acquiring land. 258. And then you sold out? —I exchanged for the section lam now living on, and afterwards I bought a section on the opposite side of the Waikaka Stream for £3 7s. an acre. It was the first sale on the Merino Downs Estate. That land was originally sold for £i an acre to Mr. Mclntyre. 259. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I only came here because I think that farmers are backward in coming forward to meet the Commission. I wish to say that from my observations I have often seen land better looked after under freehold than under leasehold. lam of opinion that all private owners, as well as the Government, should grant the right of purchase to their tenants. 260. If I came along and said to you, " I will lease 200 acres of your land," would you be agreeable to inserting a purchasing clause in the agreement, whether you wanted to sell or not?— I would be willing to lease with a purchasing clause. 261. Is the leasehold land you speak of in the hands of the School Commissioners? —In the hands of the Commissioners, and other areas are held privately I always think that if a tenant had the right of purchase he would do his best to keep the land in good heart, and thereby produce more out of the land than a man who would spoil it by allowing couch-grass or weeds to grow on it. I know farms that are valued at £3 an acre, but I would not care about taking them up at any money, because they are so foul with weeds. Weeds are very hard to kill in Southland, because of the moist climate. My remarks apply also to the land at Waikaka under the School Commissioners. If those men were compelled to destroy the noxious weeds on their land they would have to abandon it.
C—4.
W. JOHNSTON. \
123
262. And under the freehold you think the weeds would not have been allowed to grow as they have grown ? —I think the man's greater interest in the land would lead him to keep down the weeds better. 263. You think that under the leasehold a man gets into a condition of indifference? —Yes. I may say that I have also thought over the State settlement scheme, and I think it would be a good thing for the Government to advance fencing and other material to selectors at a cheaper rate than they can get it elsewhere. 264. There would be very little responsibility on the part of the settler, and a great deal on the part of the Government? —I understand that a tenant cannot take up land now unless he is worth so-much. I would not advance him implements, but I would advance him ring-fencing and other permanent improvements. I would provide the material and let the man do the work straight off. In Canada, I believe, a certain area of land is allowed, and material is given, as well as other facilities, at a cheap rate. I am not in favour of a man, after putting on certain improvements, trying to mortgage his place straight away. The less mortgage he has the better; but to help a poor man the Government might put up a substantial ring-fence, the man to pay rent accordingly to meet the interest and expenditure. 265. Mr. Johnston.] Could you get more money now than you put into the land? —I would get a little more for the deferred payment than I paid for it, but not for the other land. 266. I suppose farming pays well? Not unless you work hard and look well after the business. 267-. Do you get anything out of coal? —No. 268. Do any of the farmers? —Some of them do, but it is sold so cheaply that not much is made out of it. You can get as much as you like at ss. a ton. 269. Was there any reason foj selling? —It was an agreement between the parties. I agreed to do so before I bought the place. 270. Then, it was not done for speculation? —No. I was sure I could make as much out of the land as would pay the interest on the money in it. I was quite satisfied with the transaction. 271. If you could get land that would carry two sheep to the acre all the year round without artificial feeding, what would you be prepared to give for it? —I know of no land about here that will carry two sheep to the acre all the year round without artificial feeding —not even the Mataura Flats. On my 600 acres I run from six to seven hundred sheep all the year round, and I have about 70 acres in turnips in the winter, 272. Are you or have you been a member of any public body? —I have been a member of the Farmers' Union. 273. Are you representing the Farmers' Union now?— There is no union now. 274. Have you anything to say in regard to any of the subjects dealt with by our Commission? —In regard to the ballot system, I may say that I think men who have been unsuccessful in a ballot should have a preference over those who have not applied previously at the next ballot. My experience in regard to large estates is that all who have gone in for large estates in this district have always lost their money. I know one property that was mortgaged for £4 an acre and resold of late years at 155., and I know of another mortgaged for £6,000 and offered for sale last winter for £4,000. 275. Mr. Paul.] Is it to the interest of a leaseholder to get the most out of his holding? —Yes; I would think so. 276. Then, so far as productiveness is concerned, the State loses nothing by having the leasehold? —It will depend altogether on the tenant. He may take more than he" should out of his leasehold and leave his land poorer and depreciated in value. 277. A good farmer would not be a good farmer simply because he held a leasehold? —He should not be. 278. In regard to the Government giving the tenants all the improvements you suggest, what length of lease would you give under those conditions?—l would give the usual length of lease. 279. For 999 years? —Yes. That would be best for a man starting, and I should let him pay interest on the improvements that the State had provided. •280. Would it not be a fair thing to pay interest and sinking fund as well? —Yes. I would not care to be a tenant on land all my days, and the Government, as agents, collecting rent from me and sending it Home to the money-lender. I think this drain of interest every year is ruining the colony. Alexander McLauchlan examined. 281. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a threshing-mill owner, and I have been in that line of business for the last nine or ten years. I hold a small freehold section of 8 acres in the Otama Township, where I have lived for the past seventeen years. 282. What do you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I do not thiuk the evidence I have to bring before the Commission is very valuable, but I take up this position: I object to the Government disposing of their Crown lands, because I am a small settler with a large family, and if the Government give these tenants the right to acquire the freehold I want to know where posterity is going to get any leasehold from. lam in favour of the leasehold. 283. What is your favourite tenure under the leasehold ?—I suppose it is immaterial, but I consider the 999-years leased lands are just as bad as freehold. I should certainly object to the 999-years lease. 284. Perhaps you would have a chance if there was periodical revaluation ?—Yes; but I should object to the 999-years lease without periodical revaluation. Of course, it is all nonsense for people to say that there is no .aggregation of estates going on. In Otama, I think at the present time there are only two of the original selectors left. With the exception of these two every farmer has added to his holding by purchasing out his neighbour. 285. What is the size of the farms now?— They were 200 acres in the first place, but most of them are now holding from 400 up to 600 acres.
C—4.
124
[a. McLAUCHLAN.
286. What do the farmers do with their land? —Mixed farming. It is good land, and it has gone up considerably in value. When I came here seventeen years ago one place sold for £6, a few years afterwards for £6 10s., four or five years ago at £8 55., and last year the man was asked to put it under offer at £12 and he refused to do so. That is not an exceptional case. 287. I suppose your occupation brings you in touch with the farmers, and you have opportunities of knowing what is going on ? —Yes. I have spoken to a lot of the farmers, and they are all for the freehold, because they think the Government are going to take their freehold They heard Mr. Laurenson, the member for Lyttelton, down here, agitating for land-nationalisation; and the Farmers' Union, for political purposes, impressed them with the idea that the Government intended to take the freehold. When 1 explained that the agitation only referred to Crown lands many of them expressed the opinion that the leasehold was very fair, and admitted that they had been under a wrong impression. 288. Mr. Johnston.] How many bushels of oats do they thresh as a rule? —It varies considerably. I threshed 110 bushels to the acre on one farm, and over 100 on four other farms, but that was an exceptionally good year. A fair average is 40 or 50 bushels. 289. And what of wheat? —Wheat is only grown on the choice spots, and very often we get as big a yield of wheat as of oats. 290. Mr. Povl.\ In the event of the Government giving the tenants the option of the freehold, do you think there is any danger of the best land being taken and the inferior land being left in the hands of the State? —I should say there was a danger. 291. I understand you are opposed to the State granting the option of the freehold? — Certainly. 292. Mr. McCutckan.\ Do you think the present limits of area fixed by the land laws of the colony are about right? —I should reduce them if possible. 293. What do you understand by the limits?—64o acres of first-class land and 2,000 acres of second-class land. I think the farmers who took up the original selections at Otama must have done well before they could extend their farms, and they have crushed out their neighbours. 294. Is your idea that a man should be limited to a holding that will provide him with a bare living ? —No. 295. Do you think 640 acres of first-class land too much for a man with a family, if he wants to bring his family up properly and give them professions?- Yes, I do. I think any man on the land about Kaiapoi and Christchurch that is worth £40 to £50 per acre could do very well and bring up a large family on much less land. 296. Are you acquainted with the circumstances of the North Island, and what is classed as first-class land there? —I have been in the North Island on a visit, but I cannot speak in regard to it. 297. Your references now are purely local?—I am speaking about Kaiapoi and land about Christchurch. 298. You speak of land having increased in value in the Otama district from £6 to £12 per acre: over what interval did that take place? —Over a period of about seventeen years. 299. Was not that increase largely due to the improvements put on the land by the settlers?— No. Certainly the last farmer has improved it considerably; but I know a neighbouring farm sold very well three years ago, and the owner told me he refused £12 per acre for it lately, and he has done practically nothing to it. 300. And you think the increase in value belongs to the State, and not to the landholder?— Certainly. 301. For what reason ?—lt must be the people who created it. 302. How have the people done it? —I think it cannot be the people in the Otama; it must be the people in Gore or New Zealand. 303. Is not the intrinsic value of the land due to the price of our products Yes. 304. And what governs the price of our products ?—Supply and demand, I suppose. 305. Where?—ln the markets of the world. Ido not suppose all that is consumed in Gore would make much difference. 306. If a wall was put around New Zealand, and our products were not allowed to go outside at, what would their value be in a few months' time ?—They would fall in value, I suppose if we could not get any outlet for them. ' 307. Therefore it is the markets outside the colony that govern the price of our products?— x GS. 308. And therefore it is the people outside the colony who govern the value of land? —Not altogether. 309. That is the natural deduction from your line of argument ?—Yes. Of course, the seasons may have had a little to do with the rise in the value of these lands lately. No doubt a lot of Canterbury farmers are now coming down here to buy land and settle 310. Simply because we are getting a good price for our products beyond the confines of the colony? Ido not know that it is altogether that. I think Southland is being advertised better. ' F + or th f , r f as ° n that a fair r /turn can be got from the land, owing to the price Riven for our products outside the colony; and, following your argument to its finish, any increase in the value of the land does not belong to the State here, but to the people in other countries who take y ° U r absurdlt y when you reach that stage, do you not ?—Naturally you 312. Mr. Forbes.} Some of the-members of the Commission seem to fear that the seeds of noxious weeds, such as ragwort and Californian thistle, are apt to reach the North Island in South and seed . do you think that is likely to happen ?— I There is a great tendency in that direction Of course we dress the seed very roughly with the mills, and it is redressed in the stores I understand that under the ISoxious Weeds Act you dare not sell the seed unless it is redressed.
C.—4
125
Ai MCLAUCHLANij
313. At the time the seed is cut is there any danger of the ragwort or thistle spreading then? —I think so, so far as crops are concerned, but not much in regard to grass. 314. They are very likely to be spread through chaff? —Yes. 315. Mr. Anstey.] In referring to the limitation of area you suggested that 640 acres of firstclass land was too much, and you spoke of land at Kaiapoi being worth £40 per acre?— Yes. 316. You are aware, I suppose, that there is a good deal of first-class land valued at only £7 to £8 per acre ? —I was not aware of it. 317. Do you not think it would be much better if the limitation was fixed not by area, but by value? —I would favour that. John Mac Gibbon examined. 318. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a merchant, and I have been in this district all my life. 1 hold a freehold farm of 200 acres close to Gore. It was originally a deferred-payment section, but it fell into my hands in liquidation of a debt. 319. What is your idea in regard to the constitution of Land Boards? —I have never bothered much about the question. 320. What is your opinion in regard to the freehold and leasehold tenures? —My opinion has always been that the leasehold is generally best for the colony. 321. Any particular tenure of lease? —The 999-years lease is right enough. The only objection I have to it is that there is no revaluation. 322. You would not favour giving the option of the freehold? —No. 323. I dare say you know something about the Advances to Settlers Office? —I think it has done a lot of good to a lot of farmers. There has been a good deal said about men not getting advances on leaseholds. I know leasehold farmers who have come to me without a cent, and they have asked me to give them what they required, and, knowing the men, 1 have done so, and I have always come out right. 324. Mr. Johnston.] Since the Otama property was cut up, have any of the settlers been accumulating farms I—Since1 —Since the Government relieved the settlers here who had bought sections of McNab's estate on deferred payment and paid too much for them at auction, and gave them the right to capitalise and acquire the freehold, one man, 1 believe, has bought out five or six of his neighbours. He now holds properties that five or six families were on before. Of course, he is a good man, but the other men were good also. He offered them a tempting price, and they sold and went somewhere else. 325. Did these men who sold out get more out of the land than they put into it? —Some of the land was valued at £2 per acre, and I know that some sold at £8 per acre. 326. And they did not put six pounds' worth of improvements in? —No. 327. Did they put two pounds' worth in? —I suppose they did that. 328. Generally speaking, have the men who took up land about Gore thirty years ago been successful ? —Yes. We have some first-class farms in this district. 329. Both on deferred payment and freehold? —Yes, and on leasehold; they have done well on all systems. 330. Do you approve of the residential conditions on land? —1 understand they are simply to keep dummies out. 331. At the present time any man in the town who wants to acquire land from the Government for his son must purchase freehold, because the residential qualifications prevent him taking it up under any other system: do you think it would be advisable to give facilities to a man in the town to make provision for acquiring land in order that he may have a property ready when his son is able to take it up and work it? —1 think it would be running a risk to relax the residential conditions. 332. You have put a lot of grass-seed through your hands: have you known much Californian thistle to go through with it? —I cannot say I have. Of course, we are not allowed to sell the seed unless it is dressed, and the present machines pretty well clean the stuff. A chance seed may go through, but I have never had any complaints. 333. Can you give us any reason why the land in Southland has got so dirty in the last thirty years? —I do not know where it came from, but I first saw it close to Invercargill. Andrew Aitken examined. 334. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer, and have 200 acres of freehold and 100 acres of leasehold. The leasehold is held from a private party. My farm is close to the Town of Gore and adjoins the Gore Domain. I have heard the evidence given by the witnesses this afternoon, and Ido not think I can bring forward anything new. I may however, that I am in favour of the leasehold in preference to the freehold. I think that' if everybody had a leasehold it would be easier for every one. I believe in the Crown being the landlord.' If we all paid rent to the Crown our taxes would be less. I believe in the Government acquiring estates and cutting them up—that is, if they get the land at a reasonable figure. I think the Government has paid too much for the land taken up in Otago—that is, south of Oamaru. 335. Do you think they paid too much for Edendale?—l think so. The land, of course, is only worth what you can take out of it. If this had been wheat-growing country it would have been very different. I think any one growing wheat is all right with 5 per cent, on the purchasemoney. Farmers are harassed by Inspectors in connection with ragwort, Cailfornian thistle, and rabbits, and you have to do a lot to satisfy the Inspectors. If an Inspector is very exacting he may sometimes practically put a man out of his holding. 336. Still, you approve of the Government attempting to keep down noxious weeds? Certainly, and I myself have no fault to find with the Inspectors.
C—4,
126
A. AITKEN.
337. We are told that ragwort can be kept down if you have a few sheep on it? —I am, unfortunately, a dairyman. I have a few sheep and they keep the ragwort down fairly well in some places, but there are rough gullies that are not cultivated. I may say, however, that I have never found ragwort do me any harm. I generally get a very good crop after ragwort. I think that the land in the neighbourhood of Gore has increased in value owing to the proximity of the town and the unearned increment, but the land in the back country in some places, even with the improvements, is not now worth as much as when it was taken up. 338. Is that due to its distance from the centre or to the poverty of the land ? —To both. 339. Mr. Anstey.] With regard to ragwort, you said that the crop after the ragwort is often a good one? —Yes. 340. When you plough down the ragwort, does it come up with the first crop ? —No; but it may appear after the land has been two years in grass.
Riversdale, Tuesday, 7th Maiich, 1905. John Roderick Henderson examined. 1. The Chairman.\ What are you? —I am a farmer in the Wendon Valley. I have 140 acres, but I work with my father who has 500 acres. My land is held under lease from the School Commissioners. My father has 276 acres leased from the School Commissioners, and the remainder of his land is freehold. We have been in that district eighteen years. I pay a rent of lOd. an acre to the School Commissioners.and my father pays Bd. an acre. The freehold land was £1 10s. an acre, cash, eighteen years ago. We think that the price is too high and that the land is hardly worth that sum now. A neighbour got his land for £1 an acre. His land is of better quality, is more level, and is nearer the market. I think the School Commissioners ought to be done away with in the administration of this land. I may state that the School Commissioners reduced the charge to £1 55., but they will not make any further reduction. We are paying £12 interest on the land, but £120 was paid as a deposit. They gave us a reduction of ss. about two years ago. We are paying interest on the balance, and the interest comes to about £12 a year. 2. On what tenure do you want to take up the land? —We would be willing to lease it with a purchasing clause. ■3. You are aware that under the lease in perpetuity there is not a purchasing clause?—l think there ought to be. Under our present tenure we cannot get as much money advanced as we would like from the Advances to Settlers Office. They will only give us what the Commissioners are prepared to give, and we will not accept an advance on such terms. We run sheep on the farm, and also grow oats to sell. The ground near there produces from 25 to 30 bushels, unless you put ten shillings' worth of manure to the acre, and then you may get 40 bushels. 4. Mr. McCardle.] If the Act were amended so that the Advances to Settlers Office could advance to the extent of three-fifths of the value of the interest of the leaseholder, do you think that would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the settlers? —Yes. 5. You say you want the right to acquire the freehold? —Yes. 6. Suppose the Government were to remove the restrictions and treat the settlers more liberally in the matter of advances, do you not think that would meet the case of the settlers equally as well ? —Yes. 7. Mr. McLennan.] How many sheep do you run to the acre?—We have only 220 sheep iust now on the 600 acres. 8. You cannot run more? —No. 9. What ground do you crop ?—Generally, 60 to 70 acres. The ground will not carry more sheep. It seems to get burnt up in the summer-time, and the rough ground will not hold the grass. 10. Do you grow any turnips? —Yes, and they do fairly well. - 11. Have you tried drilling and then thinning them?— Yes. They do well, and the ground is cleaner after. 12. Mr. Forbes.] We have had other evidence to the effect that the tenants are not satisfied with their leases from the School Commissioners —they say they ought to get more compensation at the end of the term?— Yes; supposing we were to sow grass six months before our lease was out we would get nothing for it. The next tenant would get the benefit. It is provided that a certain proportion is to be left in grass, but it does not say what age the grass must be. They do not give us fair valuation for even the fences or grass. 13. You have to accept the valuation of the valuer for the School Commissioners? —Yes. 14. Can you not dispute his valuation? —Yes. Sometimes they may give a little more but not very often. 15. You have only a twenty-one-years lease, and it then goes up to auction ?—Yes, the lease is too short. 16. If you put up a good house would you get fair valuation for it?—lf the School Commissioners got any one to take up the lease they might give us fair valuation, but otherwise they cut down the valuation until some one makes it worth while to take up the lease. 17. Mr. Anstey.] In regard to the valuation, would it not be better to submit it to arbitration, the School Commissioners appointing one valuator and you the other?—l think that would be better than the present arrangement. 18. What claim have you now for asking for a further reduction of the £1 5s ?—Simply because the land is not worth the present amount it is valued at. 19. Have you tried td get an alteration of your lease into a lease in perpetuity ?—Thev have not the power to make the change. J
C—4.
J. E. HENDERSON. 1 ,
127
20. Would you be satisfied with the lease in perpetuity in exchange for your present lease?—l think it would be better as long as we could raise the necessary money on it. I have offered the land back to the School Commissioners at the price we paid for it, but they replied that they could not agree to that. Samuel Geobge Inder examined. 21. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a butcher and livery-stable keeper residing at Gore. I have been in the colony forty-four years, principally at Naseby. 22. I understand you have had considerable experience with pastoral runs, and you might just state what you think would be useful information to the Commission in regard to the settlement of this pastoral country, of which there are still some 9,000,000 acres in Southland, Otago, and Canterbury? —My own opinion, so far as the Maniototo County is concerned, is that the high country left should be utilised by the people who are freeholders on the low country as small grazingruns, and so forth. I think they could work the high country to better advantage than anybody who has no low country to work from. 23. What areas would you say the small runs should be cut into? —I should say that the high country at Maniototo should be cut into small grazing-runs of not less than 10,000 acres. It is very high and practically only summer country, but I think it could be greatly improved by surface-sowing. 24. Do you know anybody who has ever tried that? —I did a bit myself when I was there, for about eight years and a half on the low ridges, and the country was greatly improved. I just burnt off the Matagowrie scrub and harrowed it with a big tine-harrow, and surface-sowed with cocksfoot principally. Before that, the block I had used to carry six hundred ewes over the winter, and I afterwards put a thousand ewes upon it. I had 1,000 acres in the block on the Maniototo Farm, down in the Hogburn Creek. That is good land, and although it is ridgy it is all ploughable, and the ridge at the back is volcanic. Eight years afterwards the cocksfoot seemed to be better than it was the first year or two after sowing. I left there about eleven years ago. 25. How are the small grazing-runs doing there? —So far as I know, they have all done fairly well out of them. 26. Does not the level country about Maniototo do very well for cropping if you can only get water on it? —Yes. Even on the Maniototo Farm I myself grew 40 bushels of wheat one year, and in the following year there was nothing to cut owing to the drought. 27. The Maniototo Farm was not much of a success, financially speaking? —No; the company lost a lot of money. 28. Would you attribute that to the want of good management? —No. More to the dry seasons. The land is good enough if it only gets rain. 29. I remember Mr. Grear, at the Sowburn, brought in a little stream of water, and soaked the hard surface for a week after he sowed it, and I have never seen better oats, wheat, or barley than he grew: do you remember that? —Yes. His sons are carrying on yet, and they still irrigate the place. 30. Of course, you know that the land will run out with continual irrigation ? —I do not think so. In his case the land has improved if anything. He also irrigated on the ridges, and the first year he had a splendid crop. 31. Have you any definite ideas about land-tenures? —The general feeling amongst most of the settlers that I came in contact with there was that they would like to make their holdings freehold. I think the perpetual leases contained a clause giving the right to purchase. 32. You think all the agricultural and perpetual-lease holders had as their goal the freehold? —That is so. 33. Mr. Hall.'] How much of the 1,000 acres did you surface-sow with English grasses? — About 360 to 400 acres on the ridges. 34. And that increased the sheep-carrying capacity from six hundred to a thousand ewes? — I will not say the property could not have carried more before I surface-sowed, but I used to winter three hundred on it, and before I left I wintered a thousand —that is, from the time the ewes were put to the rams until cutting-and-tailing time. This surface-sowing was done on the low ridges between the mountains and the fiats. 35. And you think most of the low country would be improved in same way? —I think most of the low hills could be improved by surface-sowing. Of course, it would make a vast difference if a runholder got a good season for the grass to strike. 36. Did you sow fescue grasses? —No. 37. Mr. Anstey.\ Did you ever try any of the higher country for surface-sowing? —No. 38. Has any one up there ever tried it? —Not that I know of. 39. Do you think it would be any use going further up to the snow-line for surface-sowing? —- I do not see why it should not be successful. 40. You think it is quite possible to improve the country by surface-sowing right up to the snow-line?— Yes. 41. I suppose before anybody would go to that trouble and expense they would require a fairly long lease, or valuation at the end of their lease? —Yes. In fact, I think most of that country would be better suited for long leases to the people on the flat, because fencing on the high country would be a great improvement. 42. You mean that if the country was fenced portions of it could be spelled alternately? — Yes. A lot of the country is good for sheep for a certain number of months in the year, but the risk is that if they are left out longer they may get above the snow-line and be blocked. The country therefore requires to be fenced below the snow-line. 43. Do the people who take up this country possess means for surface-sowing, or do they require help, such as the Government supplying them with first-class seed at a very low rate? —-I think they would be more satisfied with a good tenure than help of that kind. If they had the
128
C—4.
S. G. INDEB
lower ground they could grow their own seed, and the fact of removing the sheep from the grass paddocks to the higher country would in itself tend to spread the seed to a certain extent. 44. Then, a substatial tenure is better than spoon-feeding? —I think so. 45. Mr. Johnston.] Into what area do you think the flat and the broken land at Maniototo should be cut? —So far as Maniototo land is concerned, I would not alter what I said to the Land Board twenty years ago. I think it is better to cut Maniototo up into blocks of 500 to 1,000 acres on the flat, with blocks of 5,000 to 10,000 acres on the hills. They could grow winter feed on the flats and spell the low country in the summer, when the hill country could be utilised. 46. Would it be possible to surface-sow up the sides of Mount Ida? —Parts of it, such as Woodney's Hill, but not the Rock and Pillar. 47. What about Nokomai and about there? —Up to a certain distance you might surface-sow with advantage; but there is a lot of land that is very broken, and you would have very little chance of getting the seed to take. You could not get the seed to take unless you could get a harrow over the surface. 48. Would there be any advantage in sowing the high country at the back of St. Bathan's? — I do not think so. 49. What is the country like in the Upper Taieri Valley ? —There is a big block of flat land up there which I think would grow oats and grass. I think this flat would be better cut up into fair-sized blocks to go with the high country. 50. Is the land in this district more valuable now than it was when you came here?— Yes : considerably. 51. Is the land sufficiently divided and cut up?—l think between here and Edendale it is. It is already in suitable areas. 52. Are any of the farmers" increasing their holdings? —In very few instances. Of course, their desire is to increase their holdings where they can, but there is no land for them to do so unless they buy out their neighbours. I should say the average size of the farms between here and Gore would be about 300 acres. 53. What is your opinion about the ragwort and Californian thistle? —The ragwort has been greatly on the increase during the last three years. There is very little thistle on the agricultural land in the Gore district. 54. Do you think the growth of these weeds depreciates the value of the land ? —Certainly. The farmers are finding that out now. 55. What about the rabbits? —They are considerably on the decrease. 56. Mr. Hall.\ Are these noxious weeds spreading on the high unimproved country? —I think the Californian thistle is spreading more on the hill country than on the agricultural country. 57. Has it been introduced by sowing grass, or by other means? —That I cannot say. 58. Would it be well that the Government should either supply grass-seed or that Government experts should pass the seed that is to be sown on the high country, as a safeguard against Ihe introduction of noxious weeds on the higher ground? —I really think it would be a good thing. There is a carelessness on the part of farmers with regard to their seeds. 59. Mr. McLennan.] Did you harrow the ground before you sowed your seed, or afterwards? — I sowed the grass-seed and then harrowed with a heavy tine-harrow that covered about 8 ft. of country. You must use a heavy harrow to get a grip on the ground. My experience was that the cocksfoot improved as the years went on. 60. Mr. Johnston.] I believe you have had some experience of mining: do you think it is better to use auriferous lands for mining or to keep them for grazing purposes ? —I think they should be used for mining. With the exception of the Waikaka Valley, where the land is good agricultural land, the land is not worth keeping for grazing or cropping. At Waikaka I have seen where they have been experimenting with tree-planting and grass-sowing on the tailings, and the grass has come on wonderfully well on land that has been dredged first. There is a piece of land in the Chatton district that has been dredged, and driving along the road I could hardly tell that the bottom part had been dredged. The grass is coming away well, and there is a good sole on it. 61. Mr. Anstey.'] You think if the ground was left fairly level by the dredges they would not injure the land so very much? —No. In a few years' time it would become good grazing-ground. Archibald Stewart examined. 62. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer. I desire first to read the following resolution, passed at a meeting held at Wendon: — " The following tenants of the School Commissioners, at a meeting held on 2nd March at Wendon, resolved that they wish to have their leases altered to lease in perpetuity: — " Archibald Stewart, A. W. Robertson, " Joseph Cooper, Walter Miller, " William Walker, John Stewart, " Thomas Newell, A. Alexander, " James Anderson, George Tayles." Other tenants of the School Commissioners would also have signed the resolution, but their leases will shortly expire, and they therefore decided not to sign. My brother and I have two farms, which we work together under the name of Stewart Brothers. We hold 320 acres under perpetual lease. We have held this land for six years, and we have held 161 acres for about three years. We bought the latter property from a private individual. The lease from the School Commissioners is for twenty-one years. All the persons signing the resolution hold land on a twenty-one-years lease. We wish to have a lease-in-perpetuity tenure. lam paying 3s. an acre for the 161 acres and 2s. 6d. for the other. I might say this: that by the time the twenty-one years is
C— 4.
A. STEWART.
129
up a man has usually got his farm into fairly good working-order, and then there is a revaluation, and he may have to clear out. The lease in perpetuity would obviate that. The lease in perpetuity would suit me much better, and it would also suit many others much better. 63. Do you grow turnips? —Yes. Southland is fast becoming a sheep and turnip country. 64. You do not think the rents are excessive? —According to the quality of the land, I think they are quite enough in view of the increasing taxation. We are having very good times now, but we might not always have them. 65. Mr. McLennan.'] What number of sheep do you keep to the acre? —350 sheep to about 480 acres. My land is not first-class land. 66. Mr. Paul.\ Your grievance is the short lease? —Yes. 67. This land has been set aside for an endowment? —Yes. 68. If it is let for 999 years there will never be any increase in that time in the revenue from this land for education purposes ? —No; but it is intended to increase the rents. 69. How would you view a fifty-years lease? —I would be satisfied with that if I could not get the lease in perpetuity. 70. Mr. Hall.] Are the School Commissioners empowered to grant long leases? —No. 71. Mr. Forbes.] It would be a concession if the Government gave you the option of renewal for another twenty-one years at a valuation —that would be better than putting it up to auction ? — I think that would be a very good plan. 72. Mr. Anstexj.] Supposing your valuation was fixed by arbitrators —you appointed one and the School Commissioners another —would that be satisfactory? —I think so. 73. Would it be fair that the rent should be fixed in the same way? —I think so. 74. Do you think it would be better if the land were administered by the Land Board? —Yes, if we were put on the same footing as Crown tenants. 75. Mr. .Johnston.] Are Californian thistle and ragwort increasing? —Ragwort is decreasing, and Californian thistle is not increasing to any great extent. We cut it down twice a year. As long as you cut the thistle under the ground it will always go back, but you cannot do that in rough country. As to ragwort, you cannot beat it for sheep-feed. Sheep will always keep it down. It is a pity that we have not ragwort in place of fern and tutu. Ragwort is splendid sheep-feed, but for a dairy farm it is quite the opposite. 76. Does not ragwort affect the livers of the sheep?- I have five or six hundred sheep living on ragwort country, and if you like I will catch one, kill it, and you can inspect it for yourselves. My opinion is that it does not affect sheep for butchers or for freezing purposes. I have sold sheep to the freezing-works and to butchers and have heard no complaints. On my farm I lose sheep from tutu, but never from ragwort. 77. Mr. Hall.] Do I understand you to say that sheep will thrive if fed chiefly on ragwort? — 1 cannot say I ever feed sheep chiefly oil ragwort, but along with other grass it does not injuriously affect the sheep. 78. What, is your experience in reference to surface-sowing in hilly country? —There is one hill on which I sowed cocksfoot alone, and I am perfectly satisfied that that hill will carry double the number of sheep. Ido not say that all land will do the same. I simply burnt the tussock in the spring, and sowed the grass immediately it was burnt, and if you get a shower of rain afterwards to wash it in it will do well. 79. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not find that the sheep pull out the cocksfoot before it is established? —I have not noticed that. I have had the grass in for ten years, and it still holds. It is a sort of silvery tussock and rocky ground there. We sow it after the spring, and some white clover with it. 80. Mr. Johnston.] Suppose you had a paddock of, say, 200 acres, and you put a mob of sheep there directly after the grass was sown, would not that assist it? —Yes; but I am referring to fairly hilly country, and you can only burn in patches, and you have to sow it in patches. 81. Mr. McCardle.] Do you find that when grass is sown on the surface nothing more is required than a fair rainfall?- - Yes; but 3-ou want to sow it fairly early in the spring. 82.- Have you got any wild annis here? —Only on some regular precipice. Nothing can get at it. It is a pity we have not more annis instead of Canadian thistle. 83. Have you heard of danthonia —a native grass? —No. 84. It is used largely in the North to put on hard clay hills? —We have no clay here. It is mostly white sand. 85. Mr. Hall.] Does that method of improving hilly land apply to hilly land generally? — Certain grasses will suit certain land. I only refer to the land I have dealt with. Alexander Murdoch examined. 86. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and I hold a little over 2,000 acres under freehold and leasehold. I have 569 acres of leasehold under the School Commissioners, for which I pay 6d. per acre. I have held it two years, and I use the whole property mostly for agricultural purposes. 87. The Commission will be very glad to hear what you have to bring before them? —I may state that I am here as deputy for the settlers at Waipounamu—that is, Lower Wyndhamside. We held a meeting for the purpose of considering the desirability of meeting the Land Commission. Of course, we are all under the School Commissioners, and while we are well pleased with the Commissioners as landlords we are not so well pleased w.ith our tenure. Our leases are for twenty-one years. We get valuation under the old leases for buildings and fencing, and we have to leave two-thirds of the land in grass at the end of the term. We get no valuation for any improvements other than buildings and fences. Of course, there is not very much encouragement for putting up these improvements or for good husbandry. What we decided upon at the meeting was this —I have not the resolution with me, but I remember it quite well: that our lands should be administered by the Waste Lands Board instead of by the School Commissioners,
17— C. 4.
[A. MURDOCH.
C—4.
130
and that we should get the right to convert our present leases into leases in perpetuity. I think that is the sum and substance of the meeting and what I was delegated to say. The greatest grievance of the present settlers is that they have all been trying to make homes for themselves, and then at the end of the leases there is no value put on any of the improvements such as we all like to make during the tenure of our lease, and if any man comes and outbids us by Id. per acre more at the end of the term he gets the benefit of all our improvements. We were quite unanimous in asking that the land should be administered as I have stated. 88. We have had the same thing represented to us by several other tenants who generally desired to come under the lease in perpetuity: of course, you are quite aware that under the terms of the lease in perpetuity there is no right to acquire the freehold? I understand that. 89. Mr. MeCarcUe.] What is the value of your land in fee-simple?—los. per acre. My rental is 5 per cent, on the capital value. 90. You think the interests of the country would be conserved by giving the settlers under these leases the same tenure as other tenants under the Government? I do. 91. Then, you do not think that the purpose for which these lands were set apart would suffer? —I do not think so. 92. Are these lands well looked after by the tenants? —Fairly well; but I think they would be much better looked after if the tenants had a greater interest in them. 93. You think there is no encouragement for a settler to improve up to the end of his lease? —By no means under the present tenure. 94. You recognise that the improvements placed on the land belong to you, and not to the Commissioners ? —Certainly. 95. Have you had any experience with the working of the Advances to Settlers Department? — No--96. Mr. McLennan.] It seems to me you are quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity? —Yes. 97. Have you any knowledge of any of the large estates that have been taken for close settlement under the Land for Settlements'Act?—Yes, a good many of them. 98. Can you tell us if they have been successful?— Yes. I am familiar with Tokarahi, Maerewhenua, Ardgowan, Elderslie, and Waikakahi, and they have all been successful. 99. As a farmer with long experience, do you think that many of those who took up these leases would have been able to take them up or to settle on the land if they had had to purchase their sections?—l do not think one-half would ever have occupied an acre of land if they had had to take it under the freehold. 100. And you think that at the present time they are in a fair flourishing condition? — Particularly so, as farmers they are. 101. Are you aware of the goodwill of any of these allotments having been sold? —Yes. I know a good many of them. 102. Can you tell us of a few, and what was received for the goodwill? —I know of several, but I can only recall one or two instances now. The goodwill of one section immediately adjoining Duntroon, of about 180 acres, was sold for £800. Another section was sold down about Morton's Siding, but I forget the amount it was sold for. It was a very big sum. I know another man who refused £1,200 for the goodwill of his lease, and I know many others who have sold the goodwill of their leases for what we at one time probably thought was the value of the land. 103. You think they have no difficulty in North Otago of selling their goodwill at a very handsome profit? —None whatever. 104. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the State would be unwise to give these people the right to purchase if the State recouped itself for all expenditure? —I would not be in favour of the State giving them the right to purchase. 105. Mr McCutchan.~\ Would you be in favour of a revaluation clause being inserted in leases being issued in the future with a view to increasing or decreasing the rent as the land increased or decreased in value? —I do not know that there would be anything unfair in that so long as the periods were not too short. It would be all right if they were for, say, fifty years. 106. Mr. Paid.] Would you favour giving the freehofd to tenants on these educational endowments? —No. 107. But you are quite satisfied that in giving the lease in perpetuity the interests of these endowments are conserved ? —Yes. 108. And you think it would tend to promote a better class of settlement? —Yes. 109. Mr. Hall.\ Do you think the tenants would pay more for a lease in perpetuity than for these short leases? —They might, because the tenures would be better thought of. 110. Mr. Forbes. 1 In the event of it being found impracticable to give a lease-in-perpetuity tenure, would not the option of renewal for another twenty-one years do?— Yes. 111. Mr. Anstey.~\ If they had that option of renewal at a rental to be fixed by two arbitrators, one to be appointed by the Board and one by the tenant, and valuation for improvements to be fixed also by arbitration, would that be satisfactory?—lt would be better than the present, but I think the bigger portion of the settlers would prefer lease in perpetuity. Then we would have some idea of where we were. 112. You gave us a large number of instances of people selling out their goodwills for verv large sums: do you know of any settlers on any of these estates who have abandoned their holdings? —I know of one on Tokarahi who never took up his section, but it has been taken up and successfully settled. 113. Do you know of anv who went on any of these estates and then abandoned their sections? —No. 114. If any one told you that a large number of settlers had abandoned their holdings at Tokarahi or Waikakahi, do you think he would be telling the truth, or making a misstatement? — I think he would be making a misstatement.
131
C.—4
A. MUBDOGH.J
115. I believe you have had some knowledge of private advances to settlers; do you think the Government under their present system can supply the daily needs of farmers as well as a private lender? —No. I think the State is hardly in a position to undertake such temporary banking. I have never known of any one having any trouble if they were fairly solvent. 115 a. You do not know whether money-lenders consider the lease in perpetuity a bad security on which to lend temporary advances? —I do not think they do. I know a good deal of money has been advanced on lease in perpetuity. 116. Mr. Johnston.] Where were you farming before you came to this district? —I was twentysix years in the Oamaru district. 117. Are the weeds that are here troublesome in Oamaru? —Some of them. The Californian thistle is, but I do not think the ragwort is very plentiful. 118. Do these particular weeds depreciate the value of the land? —There is no doubt that they do to a certain extent. The Californian thistle is certainly a bad weed, but those who have had most to do with it do not take so much notice of it as people who know nothing about it. 119. Why? —They have got used to it, and they do not think it is so very injurious after all. 1 happened to be travelling in the western district for about three weeks, and, although the thistle is a source of expense because it has to be cut down, the people do not look upon it as any great nuisance. James Pollock examined. 120. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer in the Lower Wendonside district, at Waipounamu. I farm 264 acres of my own and 554 in conjunction with my son-in-law, and 267 with my son. We hold it under a twenty-one-years lease from the Otago School Commissioners. On the 264 acres I pay ts. 9d. per acre, on the 554 acres 3d. per acre, and on the 267 acres Is. per acre. We have been farming these lands for about thirteen years. 121. Will you just state what you would like to bring before us? —I have not much to say, but I can confirm what Mr. Murdoch has said in regard to the wishes of the settlers in our district. They think their tenure is too short, and they would like the present leases converted into leases in perpetuity. My lease has only eight years to run, and really the farms are just beginning to come into practical use. The land was all tussock when we took it up. Another grievance is that we only get valuation for buildings and fencing. We get nothing for grass or tree-planting, or draining, or ditching. I have no objection to the Commissioners as landlords, because they are very good, but we object to the terms of the lease. 122. Mr. McLennan.] You believe in the lease in perpetuity? —Yes, in preference to the present leases, by a long way. 123. Do you believe in the lease in perpetuity under the Land for Settlements Act? —Yes, in our district. Of course, lam a believer in the right to purchase the freehold, but the quality of the land in our district is such that I think the lease in perpetuity is quite good enough. 124. Mr Matheson. 1 Suppose the Crown could see their way to give a lease with the right of purchase, do you think that would still more encourage settlement? —No doubt the people as a whole like the freehold, but still in our district we are quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity. 125. Mr. Paul.\ How do you view the principle of revaluation in connection with future leases?—l would not believe in that at all. I will not be here in thirty years, but my children will, and revaluation might be the means of breaking up their homes or forcing them to pay a higher rent. 126. Do you think the State would suffer at all by giving a lease in perpetuity in respect to these endowments? —I do not think so, because the rent is going on the capital value, and the same revenue would be derived from the endowments. 127. Under the lease in perpetuity, do you think the land will be put to better use? —Yes; it will be to the advantage of the farmer to cultivate and improve his land if he has a long lease. 128. Mr. -Johnston.] What is the carrying-capacity of your land? —The 264 acres in its natural state would only carry one sheep to 10 or 15 acres, but by farming and laying down in grass it might carry a sheep to 2or 3 acres. The 267 acres is poorer land still. 129. When you complain about your twenty-one-years lease, you know that the improvements are allowed for in the rental fixed? —I do not think it. The section was put up to auction and no one else bid for it. 130. You gave Is. an acre, knowing that you had to make these improvements for nothing, and I suppose you allowed for them? —Yes. 131. Would you be prepared to give an increased rent if you had these other privileges? —- I would not be inclined to give much more, because the land will not carry stock to pay a much larger rental. 132. Then, you gave too much for the land? —In some instances, Yes; and in others, No. 133. The Chairman.] Of course, you are putting a good deal of store on the permanency of the lease? —Yes. William Mobtimer examined. 134. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on the School Commissioners' land. I farm in conjunction with my father-in-law, the last witness, and I also hold 300 acres, for which I pay 3s. 6d. per acre rent. It is on a twenty-one-years lease. I held it first at a rental of Bs. and 6s. for the two sections, but a flood came, and, as I could not pay that rent, I surrendered. The land was put up by tender, and I was the only applicant for it at the upset price. I use the land principally for grazing. 135. I suppose you indorse all you have heard from Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Pollock? —Yes. My lease is out in four years, because when I surrendered the term was reduced to fourteen years, and I would like to make a home of it. I have put all my earnings in it and it will.be very hard if I have to leave it.
0.-4.
132
[w.wMOBTIMEE.
136. Mr. McCardle.] What is the carying-capacity of your land? —I am not sure what it would carry, because it is so often spoiled by flooding. 137. Mr. Anstey.] Have you good roads leading to your section? —Mostly. 138. Are there good roads all through the lands belonging to the Commissioners? —Yes, so far as I know. 139. How are these roads kept up? —By rates. Colin MacAndkew examined. 140. The Chairman.\ You are Secretary to the Otago School Commissioners? —Yes. I have held that position for twenty-four years. 141. Can you give us particulars of the tenants and area of land under your jurisdiction? — We have 865 tenants and we administer 390,385 acres of land. Of that area 1,221 acres is under the administration of the Otago Land Board and 17,310 acres under the Southland Land Board. 142. How does any part of these lands come to be under the administration of the Land Boards? —It was brought under the Land Boards by an arrangement with the Government some years ago when the lands about here were cut up The arrangement was that a third was to be offered for cash, a third on deferred payment, and a third under perpetual lease. A considerable portion of the area offered under the two last tenures was not taken up, and reverted back to the School Commissioners. At that time the perpetual leases carried the right to purchase the freehold, and, as a matter of fact, a number of them were converted into freeholds and a number into leases in perpetuity. 143. I understand that the right to purchase the freehold is not now given? —That is so. 144. What is the extent of your area in the district about Waikaia, Wendon, and Wendonside? —About 48,694 acres of mixed land, mostly agricultural and rough land, and 123,741 acres of purely pastoral land in runs, making a total of 172,435 acres. I may say that this area is exclusive of what is held under the Land Boards. 145. We have heard from a great many of the tenants that they are quite satisfied with the Otago School Commissioners as landlords, but they are dissatisfied with their tenure, and what they say is this: When a tenant comes to the end of his lease he naturally ceases the general improvement of his farm, knowing that the greater he improves the more likely he is to be ousted by some one outbidding him. Their desire, of course, is to come under the ordinary administration of the Land Board, and to come under the lease in perpetuity, so a*s to secure a greater continuity of tenure. Another grievance is that they only get valuation for improvements consisting of houses and fencing, and not for grassing, ditching, or plantations. Do you confirm these statements ? —Yes; but at the same time the Commissioners supply drain-tiles, where required, free at the nearest railway-station, but the tiles are not to be included in the valuation at the end of the lease. 1 might also say that the Commissioners have at present under consideration the question of allowing valuation for grassing and plantations. There would not be so much trouble so far as plantations are concerned, but at present there is some difference of opinion amongst the Commissioners in regard to grassing. 146. One or two tenants also expressed the opinion that the present system of valuing improvements is one-sided, because the Commissioners appoint their own officer and the tenants have no voice in the matter? —I think there is a misunderstanding there. In regard to agricultural lands, the lease provides that, in the event of a disagreement, the value of the improvements shall be fixed by arbitration, and the tenant has full voice in appointing his own arbitrator. In regard to runs, the Commissioners appoint their own valuer. As a matter of fact, we generally try to come to an arrangement with a tenant beforehand about the upset rent, but the tenant has no voice in fixing it. 147. Mr. McCardle.] Can you tell us the capital value of your endowments? —A return was prepared by the Valuation Department for presentation to Parliament, but I have not got the figures by me. 148. Can you say whether you receive 4 per cent, on the capital value in rents?— Yes; in fixing our upsets we base the rent at 5 per cent, on the capital value, and in a great many cases we get a great deal more, owing to the fact that there is considerable competition. 149. In your opinion, do you think that the trust would suffer in any way if you gave the tenants a more secure or longer tenure with valuation for improvements at the end of the term ? Do you not think the properties would be very much better looked after if that were done, and that the rents would likely be hig'hei ? Yes, I certainly think it would have a tendency to raise the value of the rents if we gave a longer term than fourteen or twenty-one years; but under the present law we are limited to twenty-one years. I might say that just now the School Commissioners are also considering the question of providing for a renewal of the leases without competition. Under the Public Bodies Powers Act, under which the Commissioners are working just now, I think we have power to do so, but we require to make it a condition in each lease before entering into it. The objection, however, to doing this is that in some cases the Commissioners might want to subdivide the land into smaller areas. 150. We have had a good deal of evidence in regard to the carrying-capacity of the land in this immediate neighbourhood, and apparently the subdivision of properties here would be of advantage to no one?--It would not. In my opinion, a great deal of the land up here should never have been taken out of runs.. 151. Mr Matheson.] Has it ever struck you, from a colonial point of view, that this large area of land could be more economically administered by the Land Board instead of having a duplicate system of administration ?—I have no doubt it could be more economically used but I do not think it would bring in anything like the income that it does now.
133
C. MACANDEEW.J
C.-4.
152. What would make the difference? —For one thing, the land would be opened up under the ballot system, and would be leased at 4 per cent, on the capital value. It would not be subject to competition at all, and would be tied up for 999 years if brought under the lease in perpetuity, whereas now we get the benefit of any improvement in value by the opening-up of a district. 153. But if they administered your land according to your regulations could it be more economically done from a colonial point of view ? —Probably. Of course, it is a large estate and requires a good deal of management, both in the field and office. 154. Mr. Paul.] Have the Commissioners power to allow valuation for grassing without further legislation I—Yes.1 —Yes. 155. What is the reason they have not given valuation for it?- Hitherto they have not thought it wise. They thought it would be better to simply stipulate that a certain portion should be laid down in grass at the end of the lease. I fancy they are frightened of being handicapped with the valuation. It is not a very easy matter to value grass. 156. How do you view the demand for the lease in perpetuity for these endowments? —In the interests of education I think it would be a mistake, because they would only get 4 per cent, on the capital value for 999 years, whereas they may get at present 10 per cent, or 15 per cent. 157. Do you think the tenants could be met by giving them the right of renewal of their present leases ? —I think so. 158. Mr. Anstey.] You said the School Commissioners would probably get a larger revenue from this land than if it were administered by the Land Board? —I think so. 159. You consider the School Commissioners are more exacting than the Land Board? —I do not think they are exacting; they have made large reductions all over this district. 160. The tenants would have to pay more? —Yes. The School Commissioners try to get as much as they can. 161. You said that if this land were held under 999-years lease it would fetch higher rents than at present? —I said I thought they would be more popular than they are now. There is another point: if they were brought under the Land Board "thirds" and "fourths" would be taken off for roads. As it is now the whole of the rents go to the educational trust. 162. It means that if the lands were administered by the Land Board the tenants would have the "thirds" and "fourths" expended on roads? —Yes. 163. Can you give me any particular reason why the tenants should not be brought under the administration of the Land Board—that is, from the Commissioners' point of view?— From the point of view of revenue —that is the only reason. 164. Mr. Johnston.] Is (here any of the property that is not taken up?- There are a number of township sections in different places, such as in Lumsden, which are not taken up, and which are a source of great expense to us. I think it would be a good thing if we had the power to sell those sections. 165. As a rule, do the tenants keep the land clear?- We have pretty stringent rules in our leases, and we have recently appointed a Hanger to go round periodically and report on every holding and see that the conditions of the lease are carried out. 166. Generally speaking, the settlers are a good stamp of settler? —In a great many instances the tenants have also freeholds adjoining. More especially in the settled parts of the country. 167. When were the reductions made in the rents?— Four or five years ago. The rents were reduced on account of the bad times, and also when in the opinion of the Commissioners the tenants were paying too much for them. There has been a good deal of competition for the leases, and there is no doubt some of the tenants were paying more than they were worth. 168. Were times good or bad when these leases were put up? They were not as good as they are now. 169. Do you not think it would be much fairer to put an upset price on these leases, the same as the Government do, and let them go by straight-out ballot?—lt might be better for the tenants, but Ido not think it would be so good for our trust. We would not get such a large revenue. 170. The Chairman.] What is the present annual revenue of the School Commissioners?— £13,564 2s. 9d. from all sources. 171. Mr. Johnston.] Where does this money go to?—To the Education Board, and it reduces their grant from the Government, 172. The Chairman.] What staff have you ?—A Secretary, a Banger, a clerk, and we have an agent at Invercargill at present. The Commissioners are only paid an allowance of 15s a day and tram-fares. The Commissioners are Mr. Barron (Chairman), Mr. Borrie, Mr T Mac Gibbon Mr. W. Dallas, and the Hon. A. Baldey. The Otago and Southland Education Boards elect one member each and the rest are appointed by the Government. I may add that the revenue collected by the Otago Board only comes to £56 3s. 5d., and by the Southland Board £787 16s. In explanation of the very small amount of revenue derived from rents from such a large area of land, I may say that when the land was put up it was badly infested with rabbits, and we had great difficulty m getmg tenants at all. Some of the rents are as low as 4d per acre That brings down the figures over the total area of the land very much. The rents run from £2 'to #d. 173. Mr. Johnston.\ Suppose the leases were put up now, would you get higher rents?—l think we would for the runs, but I think tlie agricultural holdings are fetching their full value all round. 174. Would it not be better for the Government to take over all this land and allow the Educaw ar + r\f n R 111C T, e T 1 ™ 1 , 611 ! t0 y hat yOU get ' and P ut the lan(1 straight into the hands of the Waste Lands Board? It might bej I could not say. James Kelly examined. 625 Lit* Th V Chair ™ n -) , W J mtare y° u? - T am a farmer in this district, and hold on freehold acres ' For a whlle 1 had a lease ln perpetuity of 260 acres, but I sold my interest in it, but
a—4.
134
IJ. KELLY.
not very advantageously. I have been farming about twenty-four years here. I am engaged principally in grazing. My land is about three miles from Riversdale. 176. Do you think the freehold is not so good as a lease? —Sometimes to the occupier it is not as good. 177. It is not so good if the freeholder is under a heavy mortgage? —That is so. 178. We have had evidence that the lease in perpetuity makes it more difficult for a man to run into debt? —My experience in this district is that a great many persons immediately about here bought their land at too high a price. It was put up to auction, and they paid a great deal more than it was worth. The consequence was that some of them had to surrender. I have known other cases where men have paid what I thought too high a price, and they consequently had to seek the assistance of the money-lender, and unfortunately a great many of them are under his thumb yet. Although I own a freehold lam of opinion that for the individual the lease in perpetuity is the better tenure. No doubt a freehold is very good for the mortgagee and for the man who has the money to purchase it straight out. 179. But the lease in perpetuity enables a man with moderate means to get a start that he otherwise would not be able to do? —Yes. 180. Mr. McCardle.] In your opinion, would money advanced under the Advances to Settlers Act have a fair security if it were advanced up to £3 out of £5 of the improvements and the settlers' interest in the holding?— Yes; I think so in this district. 181. In your opinion, it would in this district be a 'safe investment for the Crown to make on those properties? —I do not think there is any risk in advancing up to three-fifths. 182. Mr. Paul.] How do you view the proposal to give more discretionary power to the Land Boards ? —I have not had a great deal to do with Land Boards; but while I held a lease in perpetuity I was very well treated. 183. Do you favour giving the option of the freehold to Crown tenants who have taken up lease-in-perpetuity sections? —Certainly not. 184. I take it that you think the State should conserve the freehold of education, Harbour Board, and Corporation endowments? —Yes. 185. Mr. Anstey.] Could you say whether when you sold out you received sufficient to recoup you for the money spent on improvements? —It was not sufficient, but I had bought a freehold and I was glad to get a neighbour to take up the lease. Colin Mao Andrew further examined. 186. The Chairman.] I understand you can now give the Commission the figures in respect to the endowments for primary education ? —The capital value of the endowments for primary education is £372;-880; rent, £12,867 19s. Bd.; and the area 387,663 acres. Secondary education, 2,721 acres; present value, £21,454; rent, £696 3s. Id. Those are the values furnished by the Valuation Department, and I fancy the values are arrived at by capitalising the rents. Alexander Murdoch further examined. 187. The Chairman.] I understand you wish to make a further statement to the Commission? —Yes. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there are a lot of roads made up to the various homesteads of the settlers. These roads have cost a good deal of money —some of them having been made through swampy land —and after a few years their cost to the settler may not be very apparent to a visitor or valuer. 188. Mr. McCutchan.] You advocated a fifty-years valuation clause being inserted in the School Commissioners' leases ? —I said it might not be very much out of the way. lam not in favour of revaluation at all under any circumstances. I think it is only right that the tenant should have the benefit. 189. Mr. McCardle.] You would like the expenditure on these roads to be included in the compensation —that is to say, the roads benefit the estate and assist in securing a higher rent to the trust? —Undoubtedly. 190. And you consider they ought to be included? —Yes. What we want is a lease in perpetuity, but if we cannot get that we certainly think that should be included. 191. Mr. Anstey.] If you cannot get the lease in perpetuity you would be better satisfied if there was arbitration with respect to improvements ? —Yes; we want all improvements included. James Pollock further examined. 192. The Chairman.] Do you wish to make a further statement to the Commission? —Yes. I simply wish to point out that in the present leases there is nothing allowed for dams. If a settler puts up a building and a tank it is very doubtful whether anything will be allowed for it. I refer to a tank for water for the stock. There are many places on the Terrace where concrete tanks have been constructed for the purpose of catching water. These tanks enhance the value of the property, but under the terms of the lease no allowance is made for them.
Waikaia, Wednesday, Bth March, 1905. Colin* Robertson examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I have been about thirty-eight years in this district, and have been Chairman of the County Council. I have 550 acres of land held under all sorts of tenures. I hold a lease in perpetuity. I hold 320 acres freehold and 130 acres from the School Commissioners! I live about three miles and a half from Waikaia. My rent to the School Commissioners is 3s. an acre.
C—4.
135
C. ROBEBTSON.
2. Will you tell the Commission what you wish to bring before them ? What do you think of the constitution of the Land Boards ?—I have had experience of the Land Boards both of Southland and Otago, and my personal opinion is that they are better as at present constituted than if they were elected. I think that any settler who does his duty and what is fair will not feel that he is unfairly treated by the Land Boards. lam perfectly satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Board. 3. Do you think that holding land under freehold or under leasehold is best for the colony? — There is no doubt we all like the freehold; but, personally, I think that the leasehold is better for the colony. I may here state that a block at Glenary, above Gow's Creek and next to the bush, was let under the deferred-payment system, but the whole of that land is now in the possession of one person. There were formerly five settlers there, and now the runholder has got the whole lot. At one time I was a very staunch leaseholder, until I had had some experience of the School Commissioners. lam not now so strong a leaseholder as I used to be. I have no fault to find with the lease in perpetuity. If I were in the position to buy the land Ido not think I would do so. I certainly would not borrow the money to buy it and thus put myself in debt. I think the rent, 4 per cent., is very moderate. 4. Has the administration of the Education Commissioners been satisfactory ? —I think the administration of the School Commissioners is nothing like the administration of the Land Board. 5. Not so good ? —No. Neither is it so liberal or fair. 6. Of course, they are bound by Act within certain limits ?—They are not bound enough, it seems to me. What they want to do they do. I may add that all along their administration has been opposed to settlement. We have got the land settled, but really it has been unsatisfactory, for it has only been by continual agitation that we have got any settlement, and even then there is no limitation as to area and there are no residence clauses. -With respect to the last two blocks, Mr. Mac Andrew and Mr. Barron waited on the Premier, and I may say that an agitation arose with reference to the letting of the land and limiting the area, and Mr. Seddon said that he would take the responsibility of limiting the area. A notice was inserted in the newspapers stating that the area would be limited. Of course, there was only " one man one block," but there was nothing to hinder one man getting dummies to take up the whole lot. But as it has turned out, the land is now settled. I think this auctioning of the land is a very bad system, because it frequently leads to the people bidding more for the land than what it is really worth. I notice that the Commissioners have asked for more powers in this respect, that is to enable them to allow a man to take up his section again without the land being put up to auction, and proper provision should also be made with respect to valuation for improvements. At present the valuation given for improvements is not satisfactory; no provision for improvements is made except for buildings and fencing. There is another thing : they put every obstacle in the way of people building, and permission for the erection of buildings has to be obtained from the School Commissioners. My opinion is that they try to put every obstacle in the way of people making their homes on the land. 7. What is your remedy ? —I would let the Land Board deal with these lands. The whole of Waikaia, with a very small exception, is an educational endowment, and under the present arrangements there is no provision with respect to " thirds "as exists in the case of Crown lands. Some time ago the Commissioners were very generous, but they give nothing at all now in this way. Mr. Mac Andrew and the Chairman some time ago promised Mr. Seddon in Dunedin that they would be more generous in future in connection with the roads, but that has not been the case. In other districts they get revenue from the goldfields for the purpose of maintaining the roads. There are a great number of dredges at work in this district. The School Commissioners get rent from these dredges, but nothing is paid towards the upkeep of the roads. They also get a royalty from the coal-pits. The Rakaia Riding is really penalised because the revenue from these endowments goes towards the education of the colony as a whole, and we get nothing in return in the shape of " thirds " to assist in maintaining our roads. 8. And included in the revenue is the goldfields revenue, the dredging leases, and the royalty on coal ?—Yes. -9. There is no firewood license ?—No. 10. There is a sawmill at Waikaia I—Yes.1 —Yes. 11. That will be administered by the Land Board ? —Yes. Another fault I have to find with the School Commissioners is this : Personally, I would be very much against them having the power of renewal of the leases without their being put up to auction. I think that, personally, I was penalised in respect of a lease which I held. The conditions of the lease are very unfair because the Commissioners can do whatever they like, and the lessee has no standing at all. 12. Do you think if the tenant does not approve of the valuation that it would be fair the case should go to arbitration ?—"Yes; I think that would be fair. ! '.'l3. Nothing is allowed for the construction of dams, the provision of a water-supply, or for drainage ? That is so. I think, as to granting leases, that the present arrangement is too big a power to give to any body of responsible men. On the other hand, the Land Board is responsible to the Minister of Lands, who in turn is responsible to Parliament. But the School Commissioners are responsible to no one. The only thing is that the Minister of Lands can veto any act of the School Commissioners in respect to putting up their land. I believe that for years the School Commissioners have been putting up their land without submitting the question to the Minister at all; but a block of land was proposed to be put up last year and the Minister of Lands stopped it being disposed of in the way the School Commissioners proposed to do. I could mention many discrepancies in connection with the prices and the letting of land by the School Commissioners. 14. As we came along this morning by the road we noticed regular schools of rabbits in some places : this land is all under a Rabbit Inspector ?—Yes. 15. With reference to dredging, it seems a pity to see good land turned over and heaped up in the way it is being done by the dredges : have you any views on that question ? —No doubt it does seem a pity, but to any one working a freehold the returns they get from the dredging —for instance, when
C—4.
136
[O. ROBERTSON.
you get 100 oz. a week it is very nice, and it is doubtful whether as much money could be got from the land in any other way. 16. Is there any other point you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I think the land ought to be taken away from the administration of the School Commissioners. There is no doubt that these educational reserves have retarded the settlement of the district. The present tenure is not at all satisfactory. 17. Mr. McCardle.\ You are decidedly of opinion that it would be better in the interests of the settlers and it would be no injury to the trust to place the administration of this land under the Land Board ?—Undoubtedly it would be an advantage even to the trust. 18. Would you be satisfied with a twenty-one-years lease ? — My idea is that it would be an advantage if we could get a longer lease or a 999-years lease. 19. I suppose you know something about the advances to settlers ?—Yes. 20. You are aware that under that Act power is given to make advances to the extent of half the value of the improvements ?—Yes. 21. It has been suggested that the law might be amended so as to enable an advance to be made up to three-fifths of the interest of the settler in the land ?—Yes. 22. Do you think the State would run any risk in advancing up to that extent ?—No, if you had the right class of settlers. I think also that the advances to settlers ought to be limited to £500. Any man who has property on which he can borrow £1,000 can go elsewhere for an additional amount. 23. Do you know something about the cropping conditions ? —I think they are pretty stringent but perhaps it is necessary they should be so. 24. Mr. Hall.] Is it not the duty of the School Commissioners in the first place to conserve the revenue of these endowments, and secondly to consider the leaseholders ?—Yes. 25. In that case would it be right to lock up these reserves for 999 years ? —At one time, I understand, they were quite prepared to sell the whole of the endowments for cash. 26. Would you approve of that ? —No. I took a very active step in stopping that, because we were afraid that the whole district would be retarded and there would be no settlement at all. 27. Would a longer lease with right of renewal at a valuation be satisfactory ?—I think it would. My opinion is this: that the Land Board should administer these lands and let them at longer leases, say, for twenty-one years. My great objection is as to the administration—that there is no limit of area and no residence is required, and this has kept back the settlement of the district. 28. Mr. Forbes.] In the case of not getting the lease in perpetuity, would a twenty-one-years lease with the option of renewal for another twenty-one years with valuation for improvements —the rent to be revalued at the end of the term —would that be more satisfactory ? —There are many blocks suited for small grazing-runs which might be let for twenty-one years with right of renewal. I think that would be conserving the interest of the trust and of the settlers as well. 29. Mr. Paul.] You are not satisfied with the valuation given for improvements ?—I do not think there is a single settler that is satisfied with the valuation for improvements. 30. You think the valuation should be extended to grassing ? —Yes. The Crown always grants valuation for grass. 31. Mr. Anstey.] You say you would exchange your present lease for a lease in perpetuity ?— Yes, or for any better lease. 32. Would you have any objection to a lease in perpetuity with a revaluation clause ?—I would oppose a revaluation clause. 33. I have been informed that there is a large area of land leased at £d. an acre. Supposing it had been let under lease in perpetuity at |d., I am informed that with proper management and if there were no rabbits it would be worth 3d. an acre ?—Yes ; I think it would. 34. Would it be fair in the colonial interest to let large blocks of land at -|d. an acre which were worth 3d. ? —I think if the Land Board had charge of these blocks they would have been cut up and let at better rentals, but I think the Crown ought to hold all pastoral land. 35. You said the School Commissioners returned no " thirds " to the local bodies ? —Yes. 36. Supposing the administration were given to the Land Board, would the local bodies get the " thirds " ? —Until recently the Commissioners were very liberal in giving grants, but it is not so now. 37. If the land were transferred to the Land Board, would they be able to give better terms ?— Not without an amendment of the Act. 38. We noticed large numbers of rabbits on some of the land—l understand you have Rabbit Inspectors whose duty it is to keep them down'?— Yes; but Ido not know anything about the working of that Department. 39. With regard to dredging, we noticed that there were immense mounds of tailings thrown up, presumably spoiling very good land. We had evidence the other day from a gentleman well acquainted with mining who says that these tailings could be so deposited that they would injure the land very little ? —I do not think there would be any difficulty in the case of a shute dredge, but it would be impossible in the case of an elevator. It is a matter of opinion whether a shute or elevator is the more satisfactory. 40. Mr. McCardle.] Do you not think it would be a reasonable thing on the part of the State to bring in an Act amending the Land Transfer Act so that no person could register in fee-simple more than a limited area of land ? —I think that is really what is wanted. 41. Mr. Paid.] Do you think it. would be any hardship to insist on the land being left level ?— There is one other point I would like to bring out. We had splendid roads, but the work connected with the dredges has really ruined them. X think it would be fair if these dredges contributed towards the roads. I think it was a mistake also to do away with the gold duty. It would have been better for the local bodies in certain districts if the gold duty had not been abolished. The chief damage to the
a—4.
137
C. ROBERTSON.!
roads is done by the carting of coal to the dredges. Damage is done by traction-engines breaking the culverts on the roads, and it is difficult to prove the actual damage to the culverts by these tractionengines. Roderick McLennan examined. 42. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a small tenant of the School Commissioners. I hold two sections of 320 acres each, Block 9, Waikaia. My rent is Is. 9d. per acre. I have held one section for seven years and I had a previous lease of the other section. I wish to make an explanation with respect to one section. The land is a mining reserve and I held a grazing right over it. The sections in that block were put up at 6d. an acre, and I took up one section fourteen years ago at the upest price of 6d. ; two others I took up at the upset price. They had been open for selection for two years and no application was received for them. One section was all under manuka scrub and infested with rabbits. The land was put up to auction in three separate blocks, and I got one of 120 acres, and my uncle took up one section also. Mr. Robertson was the only competitor. He is evidently a man with a grievance. His own section is good land, and he has grown wheat, oats, and barley on it. The Government valuation for the setion I secured was 17s. 6d v and for his section £1. Ido not think that shows any inconsistency nor incompetency on the part of the management of the School Commissioners. This is land that is of no use unlesss it is drained and ploughed, and I think the School Commissioners should allow valuation for ditching, draining, and ploughing. I may say that 1 have ploughed some of the land and sowed it in grass, and three years after it came back to rushes, but draining and ploughing would make the land pretty good. I would be satisfied with a twenty-one-years lease with right of renewal at the end of the term, a fair valuation being allowed for improvements. As to the statement that the management of the School Commissioners is retarding settlement, I cannot say that I have noticed that. I am aware that many people seem to think that the School Commissioners are fair game for public criticism. I think the Commissioners are fairly reasonable. The last time they were up here I suggested that they should apply to Parliament for power enabling them to grant more liberal allowances for improvements and also to give a better tenure, and they seemed willing to do so. 43. Mr. Paul.] You seem fairly satisfied with the School Commissioners' administration of this land ? —Yes. . , 44. Do you think the administration under the Land Board would be an improvement s —l do not know that it would. . 45. Have you had any experience of Land Board administration ? No. 46. Do you favour the lease in perpetuity for this endowment, or shorter leases ? —I think it would be rather too good. It would be practically giving the people the freehold. It is a question for those in authority to say whether it is advisable to give the freehold of educational endowments. I should, personally, be better pleased with a lease in perpetuity than with a twenty-one-years lease if it could be got, but I am inclined to think it is rather too good. 47. Mr. Anstey.] You think it would be satisfactory to both parties if there was a right of renewal at the end of, say, twenty-one years—full valuation for improvements—both rent and valuation to be fixed by arbitration ?—Yes. . 48 You think that would be more in the interests of the country than the land being taken up under lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. In the case of an educational endowment that would be fair, because the endowment was set aside for a special purpose and should be administered with the view of doing what is fair for that purpose. , , ~ ~ , . , , . . 49 If that would be fair in the case of an educational endowment, would it not also be fair m the case of' Crown land and land for settlement ? —I am entirely in favour of the freehold if I lived in a district where I could get a freehold; but if it is to be a lease, I think twenty-one years is a fair thing, with right of renewal and valuation for all improvements. , n , j 50. Do you think it possible without any undue restriction to prevent the destruction of good land bv the dredging '—Mining experts have considered that, and I think it was at one time supposed the good .soil could be put back on the surface of the land, but that was found to be too expensive. 51 You have had no practical experience of mining ? —No ; but I have seen the dredges at work. 52' Mr. McCardle.] What is the capital value of the land per acre where the dredges are at work ? I think it varies from £7 to £8, and should be classified as good agricultural land, and should not be (hedged opinion that t h e f act that a man gets more than the actual value of the land does not compensate the country for all the time this soil is lost ?—Not by a long way. Colin Mac Andrew further examined. 54 The Chairman.] Having heard the previous witnesses, is there anything you wish to say in explanation of their statements ? —I wish to emphasize the fact that Mr. Robertson has a private grievance, ! „ also a grievance as a member of the County Council in regard to a contribution towards road-making. Tt is well known that he is opposed to the School Commissioners, and nothing but their obliteration will satisfv him So far as the limitation of area is concerned, the Government have the power of veto. We have to get the approval of the Minister of Lands, and if he thinks an area is too large he can order tto be cut down There is one point I omitted to mention yesterday, and it is that the C ommissioners, besides having 865 holdings held on lease, have a sum of upwards of £40,000 invested on freehold securities which they have to manage. Alexander McGregor examined. 55 The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer. I hold 324 acres of freehold and 587 acrei nf leasehold Ido not wish to give evidence in regard to land-tenure, but I have another grievance in regard to my freehold. The Waikaia River and Muddy Creek have been declared sludge-channels
le—e. 4,
a—4.
138
[A. MCGREGOR-
and my land lies between the two. Unfortunately I bought this land after the ninety days within which notice must be given to the Government for a claim for compensation. I understood when I bought that the previous owner had given notice, but when I inquired I was told that the notice had not been given in time, and consequently I had no claim. My land is very good land, and by-and-by it}jwill very likely be covered over and spoilt with mining debris, and I can get no compensation. I petitioned Parliament, and the GoldfieldsJCommittee recommended my case to the Government for consideration. 56. How much of your land is affected ?—The whole of it, and if I received compensation on the same basis that it has been received by every one else holding land along the river I judge that the amount would be over £350. James Hamer examined. 57. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a miner at present engaged in elevating and sluicingI have worked on dredges. 58. Can you give the Commission any information in regard to this levelling business and restoring the land as far as possible to its original state ?—The elevator as working at present is partly destroying the land, but if a man buys land it is his to do what he likes with it. The boxes are an improvement to a certain extent, and there is ground below here that is being dredged where the grass and clover are growing as thick nearly as ever they did before. In the case of the elevator, of course, the best part of the land goes to the bottom and the worst comes to the top. Still, I think it would involve very little extra expense to elevate the soil on to the top. 59. I suppose it would be top great an expense to cart off a foot of soil and put it on one side to be afterwards spread on the levelled tailings ? —lt has never been tried. 60. Why should they scoop it off ? —They could do it with the dredge cheaper. They have the power there and the necessary machinery. 61. Mr. Paid.] Even with sluice-box dredging a proportion of the surface soil is lost ?—A certain amount certainly would be lost all through the depth of the stuff they are dredging. 62. Mr. Anstey.] You heard the previous witness say that mining was destroying his farm and that he could get no compensation : could you suggest any equitable way in which his case could be met ? —When the man bought the land it was his place to find out whether a claim for compensation had been lodged. ' f 63. Seeing that he could not help himself, you think the miners have a perfect right to destroy his land ? —Certainly. He had his chance to look after his interest. 64. You said that the miners having bought the land had a perfect right to destroy it ? —Certainly. 65. Supposing the whole of New Zealand was a goldfield, do you think the miners would have a perfect right to spoil it and tip it into the sea ? —A perfect right. I may say if you take up that position you open up a big question. I have seen farmers spoil their land, because while some farm the land to advantage others do not. 66. The Chairman.'] How long have you been in the district ?—About fifteen years. I may say that no one has lost by the dredges buying land. 07. Do you know the average value of gold per acre that has been taken out of the ground ? — I could not say. Some of the dredges are taking £1,000 per acre, and some less. Thomas Baxter examined. 68. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer. I hold 197 acres from the School Commissioners, and I pay ss. 9d. per acre rent. I have held the land about two years. It is good agricultural land, but half of it is subject to floods. It is situated eight miles up the valley of the Waikaia from here. Half of it is in grass, and I keep two hundred sheep. I crop the half that is subject to floods. 69. Is your rent reasonable ?—No. The land was put up to auction. It was loaded with £25 for fencing. Ido not believe in the auction system. I believe in the ballot system. I was opposed at the auction, and the price of the land was run up from 35., the upset, to ss. 9d. per acre. 70. I suppose before you bid for it you went over the ground and made up your mind as to the amount you could afford to give for it ?—I do not think anybody thinks of that when he goes to a sale. A person will bid for a section till he gets it. 71. I suppose you grow grain ? —Yes ; but I am over twenty-four miles from a railway. The School Commissioners never give anything towards roads. The road between Riversdale and here is good, but the road between Waikaia and my farm is very bad in some parts. There is a road through my farm to a coal-pit and we expected the School Commissioners to metal it, but they did not do so, and when the road is bad the carts go all over the section. 72. Mr. Forbes.] Have you approached the Commissioners to see if they will give you any reduction in rent ? —Yes ; but they did not see their way to do so. They allowed us a little on account of losing our crops by the floods. 73. But in the case of the man overbidding others at auction, do they make any reduction ? — Not up my way. 74. You think it would be better to fix a fair rental for the sections and ballot for them ? —Yes. 75. Are you satisfied with the lease ?—I do not like a lease at all. I would rather have the freehold because you can then call the land your own. 76. Mr. Paul.] Have the coal pit owners got a right-of-way over your section ? —I am interested in the coal-pit. 77. The Chairman.] You say you like the freehold : if you had the opportunity are you in a position to buy out the freehold ?—No ; I would like to have the option in my lease,
139
C—4.
T. BAXTER.]
78. Supposing that system was in vogue, would you be agreeable to have your land put upjto auction, loaded, of course, with the value of your improvements, and take your chance of getting it or being outbid for it at auction ?—I reckon it would be fairer to put a value on the section, but I would prefer to take the risk of losing it at auction to get the freehold. 79. Mr. Paul.] At your present rent is there any chance of making enough to enable you Unacquire the freehold ?—I do not think so. 80. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be satisfied if you had a lease in perpetuity ?—Yes ; but not at the present rental. 81. Mr. Anstey.] Would you be satisfied if you had the right to purchase the freehold at the present price I—No.1 —No. 82. You would like the price reduced, and then you would like to buy it ? —Yes. Kenneth McKenzie examined. 83. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer. I hold close on 1,000 acres in four sections. One section, 377 acres, I hold under lease in perpetuity from the Land Board, and the other three under fourteen-years leases from the School Commissioners. |I am paying Is. 6d. per acre for two of them and 2s. per acre for a small section of 57 acres. I pay Is. 6d. per acre to the Land Board for my lease in perpetuity. The latter was recently transferred to me. I have been in the district fourteen years and I have been seven years farming. I principally graze, but Ido a bit of cropping for grain. 84. Is there anything particular you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I would like to get a longer lease under the School Commissioners. 85. Would you like it under the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. I am going in for big improvements and, under present conditions, before I can get them finished the lease is out. The Commissioners do not give any right of renewal, and they try their best to take it from you. 86. In the case of the lease in perpetuity, you are aware there is no right of purchase ?—Yes ; I am satisfied with the 999 years. It will do for me. 87. Objections have been made by some people that they could not raise money very easily on these leases : have you had any experience of that ? —No. 88. Mr. McCardle.] Suppose you spend all your money and find out you have nothing for stock, would you be inclined to borrow from the Advances to Settlers Office to make your improvements reproductive ? —I always get on all right with the private firms. 89. Do you get your money on leases for 4 per cent. ? —I always pay 6 per cent. 90. The present terms under which the Advances to Settlers Office advances money on leasehold is up to one-half the value of the improvements, but it is now suggested they should be empowered to advance up to three-fifths of the value : do you think that would meet the requirements of the settlers and save them from going to a private individual to borrow ? —I believe it would. 91. I suppose you are aware that there is great difficulty in borrowing on lease-in-perpetuity land from a private individual ? —I have never tried. 92. When you borrow at 6 per cent, do they not ask you questions about the value of your property and stock and plant ?—My firm never ask me. 93. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think that the School Commissioners, who are trustees for the educational endowment, would be doing their duty by giving the lease in perpetuity ?—I think so, so long as they get the same rent. 94. But they suppose as time goes on the expense of education will increase, and they look forward to an increase in the rent of these endowments ?—I suppose they do when we cockatoos improve the land. 95. You do not think the land will improve in this district except by what you may do yourself ?— Ido not think so. It is too far back. 96. Do you think if a railway were constructed it would make any difference in this district ?— Not while we have the Commissioners. 97. Mr. Paul.] Would it meet your objections to the School Commissioners if you were allowed full valuation for all improvements, including grassing, ditching, buildings, and fencing ?—Yes ;it would help a lot. 98. You would not object to the present leases with these valuations ? —They are rather short. If they would give an occupier the chance of the first bid I would not object. 99. You object to the auction system and you want the option of renewal ?—Yes ; 1 may improve my land for fourteen years, and then another man may oust me out of it by bidding an extra penny at auction. 100. With reference to the lease in perpetuity you had recently transferred to you, did you pay anything for the goodwill I—Yes. The land was not worth anything when I took it up, but there were some mining rights in connection with it. 101. Mr. Anstey.] Have the School Commissioners treated you unfairly ?—Yes. They allowed me £25 to open up a creek through my property. I spent that on "the work, and I have to pay 5 per cent, on the money to the end of the lease, when the ditch is theirs. They gave it to some of the other tenants free. Ido not think the administration of the Commissioners was fair in that case. 102. Then, generally, from your evidence, you think the School Commissioners are a greater drawback to the district than the rabbits ?—They are. Thomas MoKinnel examined. 103. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and I hold 268 acres from the School Commissioners on a fourteen-years lease. I pay lOd. per acre rent. I have had it for sixteen years, and I have just entered on the second term. lam five miles up the valley from here. I principally use the land for cropping and grazing sheep. I have no trouble with the river.
C—4.
140
[t. McKINNEL.
104. How do you get on with the School Commissioners ? —Right enough. I may state that a block of land o,t the back of my place was surveyed for settlement some years ago, but the whole of the land continues to be a pastoral run. lam confined to the 268 acres and I cannot make a living on them, and I do not see why I should not be allowed some of the land that is now held in this large run. If I cannot get a bigger area I must leave the country. 105. Did you make any representation to the School Commissioners when you renewed your lease two years ago ? —I have made representations several times, and they told me that no man could make a living on less than 500 or 600 acres ; but still, the land adjoining me is held as a station, and I cannot get any of it to increase my holding to a profitable size. 106. Was your rent lOd. an acre during the first lease ?—No ;it was Is. 7d. per acre. The first rent was reduced by half because they could not get any more for it. It was put up to auction and T was the only applicant. 107. What term of lease has the company got ?—lt is nearly up now, and that is why I am speaking about it. I think it is strange that they should have been able to get the land without it being advertised. 108. Do you mean to say that a pastoral lease has been let privately ?—Yes ; within the last seven years. [At this point Mr. C. Mac Andrew, Secretary to the School Commissioners, explained that no land could be leased unless it was advertised for a clear month. That was the present law. Two of the sections referred to had been put up at 9d. and Is., but they were not applied for, and the land was added to the run because the Commissioners considered there was not enough low country to work the run.] 109. Mr. McCardle (to witness).] What is the acreage of this run ?—I think, about 7,000 acres. 110. Are you of opinion that the run could be occupied with profit in smaller areas than it is now ? —Yes ; the land would let at a higher rental in smaller areas and would do more good to the country. 111. How many small settlers are fronting to this land ? —Only myself. 112. And you only want a portion of it ?—I only want enough to make a living on. I have three boys just leaving school, and I must have more land if I am to live here. 113. Mr. McLennan.] Under what lease would you like to take the block up % —All the leases are too short here, and, in addition, you do not get anything for improvements. 114. If you were fortunate enough to get the block would you be satisfied with a 999-years lease % —But I would rather have the freehold than anything else if I was in a position to get it. 115. But if you could not get the freehold of this land would you be satisfied with a lease in perpetuity ?—Certainly. 116. Mr. Paul.] What is the name of the run I—lt used to be called Hyde Home Run, and the present holder is Mr. Pinkney. 117. Mr. Anstey.] You have heard the reason given for throwing these sections back into a run ; that they wanted more low country to enable them to work the high country : do you think that land could be profitably worked under the reverse process if the large run was cut up into, say, 2,000 or 3,000 acres and leased to holders of the low country without residential restrictions ?— T consider it would be a great improvement and would be more profitably worked. Roderick McLennan recalled. 118. The Chairman.] What do you wish to state further ? —I wish to state that my uncle holds a lease of the land mentioned by the last witness. At the time the Commissioners thought it advisable to put these sections in with this run the country was overrun with rabbits, and, of course, no one thought it worth while taking it up. The rabbits have been cleared off at considerable expense, and now the country is fairly clean and the grass is showing well, and people, no doubt, think it is a hardship that they cannot get any of the land. But the course the Commissioners pursued in adding the sections to. the high country was the only one to be followed at that time. John Maher examined. 119. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and have about 800 acres that I farm. I have land under three tenures —274 acres freehold, 320 acres lease in perpetuity, and 320 acres on a fourteen-years lease. I have been twenty years in the district. I pay Is. an acre for the lease in perpetuity and Is. 9d. for the other land. It was originally Is. 6d. an acre. It was then reduced to Is., and within the last two months it has been reduced to 9d. My place is seven miles from the Township of Waikaia and towards Riversdale. I crop my land sometimes, but it is really nothing but pastoral land. Ido mixed farming, but I mostly run sheep on the land. 120. Do you wish to bring any particular matter before the Commission ? —I think the leases from the School Commissioners are too short —viz., fourteen years. It seems to me ridiculous to expect that a man will put permanent improvements on land and settle on it when he has only a fourteen-years lease. When I took up the land originally it was in tussock. The land I hold now under lease in perpetuity was originally a deferred-payment section. When I took up the land you were not allowed to take up two freehold sections side by side. The settlers were allowed to take up a freehold or a perpetual lease under certain conditions. A great many settlers turned their land into freehold, but a few years ago the Minister of Lands prevented any further conversion of the sections into freehold. I believe in the deferred-payment system. I could see no good reason for paying 1 per cent, extra under perpetual lease, and therefore, on behalf of my wife, applied to have the tenure changed to lease in perpetuity. Seeing that the great bulk of the settlers were allowed to convert their perpetual leases into freehold, I think we also should have been allowed to do so. I consider that the deferred-payment system of land-tenure is the best that has ever been in force in New Zealand. Personally, I have no fault
141
C—4.
J. MAHER.I
to find with the School Commissioners. I find them as liberal as the Southland Land Board, and that is saying a good deal. In the case of a short lease of fourteen years, the tendency is that towards the end of the lease the tenant K will make as few improvements on the land as possible, because if he greatly improved the land he would have to pay an enhanced price[or lose his improvements. There is another drawback in regard to the School Commissioners, and that is there are no " thirds " for the roads Of course, that is not the fault of the School Commissioners. When the land was originally leased to most of the present tenants it was stated that the railway would soon run to this district, but the line has not been made yet. Some persons who came to the district with the intention of taking up land have raised the objection that it is too far from the railway. It is ten miles to Riversdale by road from my place, and I am the nearest settler to Riversdale. Had the railway been made, as was promised, there is no doubt the/listrict would have been improved a little ; but it is a district that will not improve very much, as the land is of inferior quality. The greater portion of it is very light and will not grow grass very well. If the railway were taken up from Riversdale to Waikaia, I would be within three miles of the railway. 121. Mr. McCutchan.] Your application to convert your holding was not made within^the prescribed period ? —There was no use applying until we saw how the other cases would be treated. 122. Then, there was no breach of faith in that particular case, because the application was not made in time I —Not in that case, but it would have met with the same fate. Finlay Murchison examined. 123. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and hold 800 acres under lease from the School Commissioners. I pay 9d. an acre for some of the land, and 3d. for some of the rest. I have been thirty years here, and my place is seven miles from the township. My lease is for fourteen years. I have a similar objection to the School Commissioners' leases as the other witnesses ; but I have another objection. In the older leases there is a clause about grass —that you have to leave two-thirds under grass. I think one-third would be quite enough, but under the new lease you have to leave the whole lot under grass. Then, you get no valuation for various improvements. In fact, they are the worst leases I have ever read. I have nothing to say against the School Commissioners personally. Some of them are very good men. There is no doubt that the deferred-payment system was the best ever introduced for settling people on the land. I think the Government should have reserved a portion of the hills for those settlers who took up the flats, and allowed them to run their sheep on the high land and grow turnips on the flats. 1 had to give up the first place I took up because I had no outlet. 124. Mr. Hall.] If the School Commissioners gave you the option of a second term of twenty-one years, would that be satisfactory to the tenants ? —I think so.
Lumsden, Thursday, 9th March, 1905. James Milne examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ? —The lessee of the Fernhill Run, Wakatipu. The area is about 49,000 acres, and I have held it for fourteen years. I pay £33 a year. 2. We have been considering the question of pastoral runs a good deal, and whether there should be any extension of the term of lease or any other encouragement given to the runholder to induce him to improve and make the country more productive : have you ever tried any surface-sowing in your country ?—Yes, and it succeeded very well if the season was in any way damp. I have tried about 2 000 acres during the last ten years. I sowed cocksfoot and white clover, and I find it holds very well and gets the better of the fern. I tried sowing high up on the snow-line, but it did not take so well. Ido not think that exposure in any particular direction made much difference. It was just a matter of difference in the soil. 3. How much stock was your run capable of carrying when you took it up ?—I put on 2,(XX) sheep to start with, and I think it was then well stocked. There must be about 7,000 sheep on it now, and it carries them well. I have subdivided the run since I took it up and that has helped to improve the carrying-capacity. My lease is for twenty-one years, and there are seven years to run yet. 4. Is there any way in which you think the Government could reasonably give more encouragement to the runholders ? —I think it would be better if the Government gave them more valuation for improvements, such as surface-sowing. Under my lease I get five years rental for improvements at the end of the term. 5. Do you think twenty-one years is long enough lease ? —Yes. 6. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to sell these great runs, or do you think they should keep them as they are ? —I think it would be just as well to keep them as they are. 7. Do you turn any fat stock off your run ?—Very few. The country is so high that there is not a big increase. I can just about maintain my stock, and in the last few years I have slightly increased it. I sell very few stores. My sheep are merino, and my average clip per sheep is about 5f lb. 8. Do you ever lose stock by the snow ?—Yes. I have only had two bad years since I went here i n 1885, when I lost 1,500, and in the year before last, when I had to feed my stock for some time. My average loss from all causes is about 12 per cent. 9. Do you cultivate any turnips ? —No ; I have no ground for cultivation. 10. Mr. McCardle.] In regard to surface-sowing, is your run capable of being improved to a considerable extent I think so.
C—4.
142
I J. MILNE.
11. And if the Government were to give fair encouragement, would the tenants take the trouble in their own and the State's interests to sow and bring their runs up to their best carrying-capacity ? — I am quite sure they would. 12. Are you much infested with rabbits ?—Not so much lately. 13. Do you find the native grasses still remaining well in the ground ? —Yes ; andjthey are improving of late years. I find cocksfoot holds well if it takes well. 14. Under these circumstances your run would be capable of carrying a considerably greater number of sheep ? —Yes. 15. Mr. McLennan.'] How do you sow the grass ? —Just with our hands. Thejjcountry is too rough to harrow, and we do not cover the seed in any way. 16. Mr. Paid.] It has been shown to us that inferior and dirty seedjias been sown on these runs ? —I have not the least doubt about it in some instances. lam not in favour of sowing dirty seed. 17. It has been suggested by one witness that the Government should supervise the seed-sowing, or supply the seed to be sown at about cost price : do you think that would be an improvement ? — The objection to that is that it might not be sown in the right place. 18. Do you think that under proper supervision it would be an advantage ? —I have not the least doubt that it would be to some. 19. Are the weeds bad ? —We have no weeds as yet. 20. Then, that is just the place where clean seed should be tried ? —Yes. 21. Mr. Anstey.] If this run were properly improved by grassing, do you not think you could largely improve your output of sheep ? —lf the grass was better we could breed more, but it is a great expense to muster them in the high country.-. The trouble is the country is too high for mustering, and another drawback is that there is no ground for cultivation. 22. Mr. Hall.] Have you sown any finer grasses than cocksfoot ? —I have tried fescue, but I did not find it a great success. It took well enough, but the stock did not seem to take to it. 23. Mr. McCutchan.] What quantity of cocksfoot and clover do you sow to the acre ? —The country is too broken to give you an idea, but on any special piece I generally sow about 10 lb. of cocksfoot and 2 lb. of clover. 24. Do you find the fern a difficulty after burning and sowing ?—lt will grow again, but if the grass takes well the stock will keep the fern down without the necessity of any further subdivision. 25. Is there any annis plant on your run now ? —Some, but not much. I would like to state I find it is a great expense to keep continually at the rabbits owing to the large extent of rough country we have to work over. I find that pollard poison is the best. I poison once with oats and the next time with pollard in order to give a change. I find that if you allow the rabbits to increase at the bottom of the mountains they will spread right to the top. You must keep them down below, and doing that is a bigger expense than mustering stock. Ido not approve of trapping in that high country. 26. Are there any rabbits in that wild mountain country behind you ? —Wherever the country lies to the sun. Where it is dark they die out in the winter. The reason Ido not like trapping is that it proves injurious to the natural enemies, and they are increasing wonderfully. They are ferrets, weasels, and cats. We tried to breed the latter, but they were not a success, although cats kill a lot of rabbits and are hardier than the ferrets in wet weather. The rabbits are all about the country there. 27. Does the woodhen attack rabbits ?—lt is extinct now. 28. Do you net any of your fences ? —We do, because we could not otherwise cultivate any of the small patches of the low country. 29. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think trapping tends to keep rabbits on the increase rather than the decrease ?—I think it tends to decrease the natural enemies, but it does not tend to decrease the rabbits. 30. Could you wire-net a considerably larger portion of your run if you could get the wire-netting at a cheap rate from the Government \ —Not in my case, but it would be a great improvement in some parts of the country. 31". Mr. Hall.] In laying poison for rabbits, do not the cats get poisoned ? —I never knew them to take poison. I have tried with the poisoned rabbits and it has had no bad effect on them. Frank Howie McLeod examined. 32. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer at Caroline. I have 300 acres of freehold, and I rent 1,352 acres of Crown land under lease in perpetuity, for which I pay £21 a year. I have held it a little over ten years. I suppose the leasehold property will carry about five hundred sheep now, and I have about sixty or eighty head of cattle over the freehold and leasehold places. 33. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission ?—The principal thing I want to speak about is that I would like the option of the freehold. I think we all came out here to get a bit of freehold if possible. I did not understand the lease in perpetuity as well when I took it up as Ido now. That is my simple reason for coming here to-day. 34. You would like to have your land with the option of purchase ?—Yes ; if it was possible. 35. Supposing you had the right to purchase just now, would you make it freehold right oft' ? — Quite likely I would. 36. Supposing the Government chose to break their contract with you, would you be agreeable that this land should be valued at its present value and your improvements also at their present value, and that it should be put up to auction ? You would be secured in your improvements, but you might lose hold of your land ?—I would be quite pleased to get my improvements and leave the place altogether. I have spent a lot of money on it, and if the noxious weeds come very bad the hills will not be worth having.
F. H. MCLEOD.I
143
0.-4.
37. What particular noxious weed are you threatened with ? —We have very few noxious weeds now, only we do not know how much Canadian thistle we will get. The seed is"blowing from* the* river. That is the only weed we are frightened of. The ragwort does not bother us. 38. Mr. Forbes.] Does the Inspector come on to your place about noxious weeds ?—He does not come to the place, but I got a notice to eradicate them. I have cleared my place of ragwort and sweetbriar; but there is a Government reserve alongside me which is full of sweetbriar 10 ft. or 12 ft. high, and the Government will do nothing with it, and I get the seed on to my place. I have written to the Inspector about it and I have interviewed the Stock Department, but I can get no satisfaction. The sweetbriar is the worst weed we have. 39. If you acquired the freehold there you would not be in any better position, so fa,r as noxious weeds are concerned ?—No ; but I would have more satisfaction in working for myself. We have not much faith in the Government here, and we never know what they will do. 40. You would still be liable to have the Ranger come on your place about noxious weeds ? —But we keep them clear on our own account. I keep them down as much as I can. I have improved my place immensely by surface-sowing, but if the weeds became bad it would not pay me to keep them down. 41. You have the right under the lease in perpetuity to throw up the place and get compensation for improvements ? —I have had some experience of that. I surrendered once and no one applied for the land, and the Board told me the only thing they could do was to reduce the valuation for improvements. Well, they might have continued to reduce them until there was nothing at all. It is a very unsatisfactory position. I think the freehold would be better, because I would be prepared to take all sorts of responsibility then. 42. You cannot get out at present unless some one comes along to take up the place and buy your improvements ? —That is so. Tt is hard to sell out of leasehold. I have nearly £1,000 in improvements in that place —in fencing, buildings, surface-sowing, and one thing and another. I should say the evidence of the last witness in regard to surface-sowing is the most sensible I have heard. I have surfacesowed over 300 acres in the high country. I find the grass takes all right if the weather is damp. 43. Your neighbour, Mr. McLean, has told us what he did ?—I had some of his advice, but I did not follow it up. 44. Do you think it is possible for the Crown to clear its property of noxious weeds ?—I know they have three men working at the reserve at Caroline, cutting down ragwort, and at the rate the work is going on it will take them twelve months to finish. They are cutting down the ragwort, which is no trouble to any one with sheep, and they are leaving the sweetbriar. 45. But cutting down ragwort will not do any good ? —I suppose they have to spend the money somehow. 46. We have had evidence that the ragwort is no trouble in any place where sheep are run ?— None at all. The sheep keep it down. My sheep got into the Government reserve before I had fences up, and they kept the ragwort down there. I think it is a mistake for the Stock Department to ask people in outside districts like ours to cut the ragwort at all. But the thistle is different, and there is no doubt it is spreading. I keep looking for them all over the place. 47. Would it not be more sensible if the Stock Department concentrated their efforts on the thistle and sweetbriar and left the ragwort alone ?—I think so. 48. Mr. Paul.] Is this notice the only pressure that has been brought to bear on you to eradicate weeds ? —That is all. I never had any trouble with the Stock Department. I think they send out the notices to save themselves. When we get a notice we are liable any day to be prosecuted and fined if we do not destroy our weeds. Ido not complain about the notice. 49. Still, you think it is impracticable to eradicate ragwort ? —Yes ; and even on the Government reserve it is throwing away money. 50. Apart from your improvements, this does not appear to be a very valuable property ?—lt was worth nothing when I got it. 51. Do you think you would exercise the option of purchase ? —Yes ; and I would put in further improvements if I had the freehold. 52. What is your object ?—I think I would be able to sell the freehold ; and, further, I have a family growing up and it would make a good property with my own freehold to divide amongst them. There is no provision for dividing these leases in perpetuity at present. 53. The Chairman.'] I think you could, with the leave of the Land Board ?—I have seen no provision for it. 54. Mr. Paul.] You would not buy this leasehold with the object of making a permanent home on it ? —I have a permanent home on it now. I put a good house upon it. 55. But I gathered from your evidence that you would be very well satisfied if you could get the value of your improvements and get out of it ? —Certainly. 56. Then, it seems to me, under the circumstances you would hardly want to buy it ?—I would buy it because I would have a better chance to sell it again. I have bush on the property which I would clear if I had the freehold, but I know under the present lease I will never be clearing it. 57. Mr. Anstey.] You think the Government ought to remove ragwort from the list of noxious weeds ? —I do not know about the towns, but so far as the country is concerned Ido not think it is a noxious weed at all. 58. Do you think it would be any .harm if it was removed from the schedule of the Noxious Weeds Act ?—I would not care to graze cattle or horses on it, but there is no harm in putting sheep on it. 59. Would it not be much more sensible for the Government to put sheep on the land alongside you instead of employing men to cut the ragwort ?—Of course. I offered to put sheep onto the land, but they told me they were not going to give away the people's patrimony.
144
[F. H. MCLEOD.
a—4
60. Is your rentjtoo high ?—lt is not too high now. 61. Do you think your property would be more valuable to you as a freehold than under lease in perpetuity for 999 years ? —I should make it more valuable. 62. Under the lease in perpetuity you are now paying 4 per cent, on the capital value, and if the property was thrown open with the right to purchase you would have to pay 5 per cent. : would you be prepared to pay the 1 per cent, difference to acquire the freehold ? —Yes. 63. Are there any rabbits ? —There were plenty when I went there, but there are none there now. There is no difficulty in keeping down the rabbits if the poison is laid systematically and regularly. I find pollard poisoning very effective. 64. Do you think trapping the rabbits tends to conserve them ?—Yes, if you give one man the same ground year after year. 65. Do you think that trapping ought to be stopped, and that if it was stopped there would be less rabbits in Southland ?—I think it would be well if it was stopped altogether. 66. Mr. Hall.\ What is your experience of feeding sheep on ragwort ?—I have not had any experience, but I always find the ragwort is kept down when sheep are put on it. I would not care to feed them on it when the ragwort is in seed. 67. Do you think it is injurious to the sheep % —I am sure it is not while it is young. 68. As regards tenure, you think the chief advantage in the freehold is the facilities it offers for selling ? —I think it is more saleable, but I should feel more satisfied under the freehold. I think all feel that. 69. But apart from selling, is the lease in perpetuity not satisfactory ? —I have had no fault to find with it so far. I have had no trouble with any Government official. 70. Mr. McCutohan.] It is said that ragwort lives for two years : if it is kept down for one year and not allowed to seed could it not be got rid of altogether ? —Sheep will not allow it to get up at all. Cutting will not keep it down. 71. Why did you say you would not care to put horses and cattle in a paddock with ragwort ? — I think there are a lot of insects about it which are injurious to horses and cattle. 72. Have you any definite proof yourself to that effect ? —No ; it is simply an idea. 73. Have you sweetbriar on your land ? —I had, but it is all grubbed up now. 74. Did you find it grow again from the roots after grubbing ? —Not if it is properly grubbed. If the main root is taken out it will never grow again ; but it is coming on my place owing to the seeds from the Government reserve. Donald Frasek examined. 75. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a blacksmith living in Lumsden, and I have lived here for about twenty years. 76. What do you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I have two quarter-acre sections leased from the Education Commissioners in the town here. It is felt that these education reserves are retarding the progress of the town, and the people would like them to be offered for sale and the present occupiers or the public generally given an opportunity of purchasing them. We think if that had been done years ago the town would be looking much better than it does now, and it would be better for those who have not sufficient freehold at present and who do not want to build on leasehold. 77. How much of Lumsden is education reserve '—Almost every other section in the town is leasehold. I have a freehold section, and the one next to me is freehold because it was acquired somehow in the early days. My first lease was for fourteen years, and I paid £1 a year for each quarter-acre. The lease of one expired last year and I took it up for a further term of twenty-one years, and the rent has been reduced to 15s. per section. lam not concerned so much about myself as for the town. In the main street there are breaks here and breaks there, and the townspeople are cramped on their own holdings, and they have not the heart to improve on leaseholds. 78. I notice some very good buildings here : are they all on freehold ? —Principally. There are some fairly good ones on leasehold. At the end of the fourteen years I would have got value for my improvements if I had not renewed, but I will not get any valuation at the end of my new lease. I have improvements to the value of between £90 and £100 on one of my sections. 79. Is your opinion about the sale of education reserves shared in by your neighbours ?—Yes ; that is the universal opinion. It is admitted by every one in the place that the sections should be acquired, 80. Mr. McCardle.] If you put in further improvements under your twenty-one-years lease you will get no value for them at the end of it I—No.1 —No. 81. Then, considering the fact that you lose the whole of your improvements now on the property, your rent is a high one ? Yes. , , , 82. What is the value of your sections provided they were freeholds ?—1 suppose the market value would be from £15 to £20. . 83 If these sections were sold the Education Trust would not receive an equivalent for the rent thev are now getting at 5 per cent, from the leaseholds ? —I think that is their great object in keeping them as they are. I think if the present tenants had the power to purchase they would give full value 84 Mr. McLennan.\ Would you be satisfied to get a lease in perpetuity of these sections ? —I would rather make it a freehold. I believe in the freehold. 85. If you cannot get the freehold would you be satisfied with a lease in perpetuity I would as soon see it as it is. • . 86. Mr. Paul.] You think these leaseholds are keeping the town back ; —There is no doubt about it. A man cannot extend his business if he wishes to. 87. Do you mean to say a man wants more than a quarter-acre for a dwelling or business ? —He might want it for outbuildings.
D. FEASEB.]
145
C.—4.
88. Do you think it would meet the object of these endowments to sell the freehold in the towns ? —I think so. They would draw a large sum from the sections in this township. 89. I think you said the sections would sell from £15 to £20 ? —I said that was the market value. Probably I might give £25 for the one I have. 90. Suppose you gave £25 for the freehold of one of the sections, that is what the trust would receive ?—Yes. 91. Do you think these sections would sell for £25 in twenty years' time ? —I think it would be a poor look-out for the town if they did not. 92. Do you think it is probable the price would double ?—I would not say double, but I think they would bring a higher price if the freeholder had them. Ido not know if they would get more for them in twenty years than they would now if they leave them in the Commissioners' hands. Irrespective of the tenure, people do not like to lay out improvements on freehold. 93. If these sections were put up to auction at the present time I suppose several would be bought as a speculation ?—I hardly think so, because there are so few of them together. It would be the present adjoining holders who would buy them. 94. Do you not think that some of the adjoining holders would buy them as a speculation ? — No ; they would buy them for their own use principally. 95. If these sections were made freehold; whether any improvements were put on them or not, would they not increase in value as general improvements were made in the town ? —They would. 96. Most of the young towns will go ahead in the future. You will see thatfsort of thing going on ?—Yes. 97. That is what is referred to as the unearned increment I—Yes.1 —Yes. 98. Then, you do not think that the endowment is entitled to that unearned increment ?—No; I think it belongs to the settler who has battled through the country to make a living and to bring up a family, and who is paying taxes which will be increased as the values increase. I think the country as a whole will get just as much benefit as the Commissioners are getting now. 99. You know from your experience that some of the best buildings in towns are built on leaseholds—for instance, in passing through Gore we found that some of the best buildings were erected on leasehold : how do you account for that ? —I think they are taking a risk. 100. If you were allowed full compensation for improvements at the end of the twenty-one years, would that not meet your case ?—lf I was to get full valuation it would not be equivalent for everything I would put on a leasehold section. 101. You would really want the right of renewal ? —I would rather buy mine. 102. You have given your opinion as to the town sections : would you sell the freehold of all educational endowments ?—No, I do not think so. 103. Why do you distinguish between the town sections and runs and farms ?—These people have the option of competing for them at the end of the term, and are under the same conditionals holders of town sections. 104. The dweller in the town has the same chance of competing for the lease ? —Yes ; but he cannot get proper valuation for improvements. 105. Mr. Anstey.] Who administers these sections ? —The School Commissioners. 106. Would it be satisfactory if there was a right of renewal and valuation for improvements — both being fixed by arbitration ?—That would be more satisfactory than the present arrangement. 107. I suppose you are aware that these endowments are set aside for education purposes, and if the Commissioners part with them they part with something which is probably better security than any other investment, and there is a difficulty in allowing them to be sold ? —Yes ; but the people live on the land and they pay rates and taxes. 108. If you had got full valuation at the end of your lease with the right of renewal, that would not prevent you putting up substantial buildings ? —I would rather have the option of purchase. I do not think it would be a barrier, but I am sorry I could not purchase. Jambs Martin examined. 109. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a general commission agent in Lumsden, and have been here about twenty-seven years. I have a freehold and three leaseholds from the School Commissioners in the township. My sections are valued at different rates: one at 10s. per annum, one at £1, and another at £1 10s. The term of my lease is for fourteen years. The sections are all in use. The general feeling here is that the leaseholders would like the option of converting their leaseholds into freeholds. One does not care much about putting many improvements on the leaseholds, although I must admit that the present agent, Mr. McDonald, was fair in giving valuation for improvements at the end of the term. My lease is for fourteen years, with valuation for improvements. I understood that the further term was only for seven years, making a total lease of twenty-one years in all; and, according to the terms of the lease, we understand that we forfeited the improvements —all the property reverting to the Commissioners with everything on it. The late Sir John McKenzie visited this district and this matter was brought under his notice, and he sad he would try and get these sections brought under the administration of the Land Board. Of course, that would require an Act of Parliament. 110. You wish to have the option of converting the leaseholds into freeholds? —It would be a benefit to us, but at the same time I do not see why education should be robbed of any of its advantages or revenue. Generally speaking, I think the town has gone back since I came here. 111. I understand that while you approve of the education leases not being made freehold you think there should be substantial valuation given at the end of the term? —Yes ; that is my point. 112. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you say that certain sections are almost valueless: are they free-
19—C. 4.
C— 4.
146
J. MARTIN.
holds?— They are both freehold and leasehold. There are a good many leaseholds about here that have not been taken up at all. Where you see the ragwort flourishing those are the Commissioners' sections. 113. Mr. Forbes.] Are the freeholds all taken up here?— Pretty well. 113 a. What sort of prices were given for them?— Fancy prices. Some of the sections which were taken up at £60 or £70 are not worth £20 now. 114. How long ago is it since they were cut up? —More than twenty-seven years ago. 115. Mr. Anstey.] Were these large prices paid at auction? —Yes. 116. Supposing these leaseholders had the right of renewal and full compensation for improvements, both being assessed by arbitration, would that be more satisfactory? Yes; much more satisfactory. Ido not think there is much prospect of getting the leaseholds converted into freeholds in our lifetime. I think the lease in perpetuity would be more satisfactory. 117. You say there are a number of leases for twenty-one years, and you think at the end of that term the improvements are absolutely forfeited? —I understand so. 118. Do you agree with me that for a public body charged with the administration of public land that is an iniquitous thing on their part to absolutely confiscate buildings erected by private individuals? —Yes; I quite agree with you. 119. Mr. Hall.] If there is valuation at the end of the lease the rental would be much higher? —Some of the sections have been renewed at a lesser rental. 120. Those who advocate getting the freehold of these sections run the risk of depreciation in value and loss? —The price at which a property is bought is governed by the market. 121. I presume you would not advocate the Government selling these endowments? —I do not think so. 122. These trusts should be regarded as sacred for all time for the purpose of education? —Yes. Donald Fraser recalled. 123. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I reside at Lumsden. About a year or eighteen months ago the New Zealand Agricultural Company sold to a private individual about 2,000 acres of land. I think it would be well if the Commissioners recommended that this land be purchased by the Government. It could be bought from the present owner and cut up. It would increase the prosperity of the towns. I think the land might be divided into sections of, say, 100 acres. It is back country, that could be used for stock in connection with agricultural holdings. I would also keep down the rabbits, and in that way would save the Government a great deal of expense. Richard Yardley is the owner of the 2,000 acres. If what I suggest were done, together with the land we have now in occupation, it would make a splendid centre for dairying. Ido not agree with Mr. Martin that Lumsden is going back. The town is really growing, but the speculation in farm land some years ago ran up the price of the land. 124. Mr. McLennan.] How would you cut up these sections if the Government bought the land? —Perhaps in sections of 150 acres, with the privilege of leasing the back country for stock. I would let the people buy the land and make their homes there. 125. Do you think the Government should buy this land and resell it? —Yes. I believe a good deal of the land would grow wheat, and if it were bought at £1 ss. or £1 Bs. an acre it would be as good a deal as ever they made. 126. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you not think it would be wrong to buy that land and sell it without restricting the areas? —Yes. I think the sections should be of 100 acres, and further sections of 500 or 600 acres of the back country would enable the settlers to make a very good living. 127. Mr. Forbes.] You suggest cutting up this land and selling it?—l think the best tenure would be to dispose of it on deferred payment. 128. Mr. McGardle.] Do you not think it would be better if the 2,000 acres were purchased and let in sections under the lease in perpetuity? —I think it would suit my case, but I think also the freehold would be the best. I am of opinion that the second best would be the lease in perpetuity. 129. Mr. Forbes.] You would prefer occupation with right of purchase? —Yes. Lars Peter Ohlsen examined. 130. The Chairman.] Do you wish to make a statement to the Commission? —I took up 200 acres of farm land from the Government. In those days we could get land under three different systems —namely, cash, deferred payment, and perpetual lease with a purchasing clause. I converted the land into a freehold after twelve years. I worked at my trade as a carpenter and also worked on the land, and was enabled in the course of time to secure a freehold. I bought a lease-in-perpetuity section from a private individual, the area being 48 acres. It is in the same block, and I pay £3 17s. a year for it. I think the land-administration of the colony could be improved in some respects. It is a hardship on the settlers. They are not allowed to make their holdings freehold. 131. As to the 48 acres under lease in perpetuity, is not that just almost as good as a freehold? —No. There is something in the European mind which causes a man to wish for the freehold. Then, in the case of a lease, there is no security against an increase in the rent. 132. Mr. Paul.] Do you mean to say that a man could not get a living on leasehold land? — Most decidedly he can, but it would be more satisfactory to him to own land himself than to lease it from anybody else. When I made my first section freehold I had a little money saved up, and I was enabled to get a Tittle more to enable me to secure the land, whereas if it had been a leasehold I would not have been able to raise the money. 133. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think in respect to land-tax or in any other way the Government would specially select lease-in-perpetuitv settlers for spoliation?— Not them alone; they would tax the others also.
147
C— 4.
L. P. OHLSEN. !
134. If the Government puts exactly the same tax on the freehold as the leasehold where is the difference I—A1 —A man working his own property has more heart in improving it than a man working another person's property. Ernest McDonald examined. 135. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler at Athol, and hold a pastoral lease of 4,800 acres; also a lease in perpetuity of 293 acres. I have held the pastoral lease about six years, and the lease in perpetuity three years. I pay £20 a year for the pastoral lease and £2 19s. 3d. for the lease in perpetuity. 1 run 1,200 crossbred sheep on the two holdings. As to improvements on the pastoral lease, the Act allows me five years' rental £100 —and it will take about twice that sum to put up a boundary-fence. I have no right at the end of the lease to the land at the homestead. I consider that pastoral leaseholders of under 5,000 acres should have special terms in the matter of improvements at the end of their lease —that is, compared with big pastoral runholders. Then, where I am the winter is very severe, and a man is expected to keep his sheep alive through the winter without being allowed to do cropping for winter feed. I do not mean to say that a pastoral leaseholder should be allowed to crop as much as he liked, but he should be allowed to crop, say, 5 per cent, of his total holding. My lease is for ten years. There is a lot of mining on my land. I have tried grassing on the hills, but on the lower land I have scattered some seed broadcast, and the swamps have done very well. 136. Mr. Anstey.\ If you had a lease-in-perpetuity tenure for the whole of your run, would not that be satisfactory? —Yes. 137. Can you give any reason why you are not allowed to crop the land? —I cannot see a scrap of reason for it. William Henry Gibson examined. 138. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a small runholder at Athol. I have a pastoral lease of 990 acres, and pay £16 Bs. per annum. It only carries about 300 sheep. A good deal of the land is cultivable, but lam not allowed to cultivate it. I have some low ground, and keep the sheep there in the winter. I have to buy turnips from other farmers. I concur with Mr. McDonald's evidence. James Paterson examined. 139. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a station-manager, at present managing the New Zealand Agricultural Company's property, the Waimea Estate. 140. Have you ever tried surface-sowing in your hilly country? —We have done very little in that way, but have laid down many thousands of acres of freehold land in grass. We had some 70,000 acres of Crown land, but the leases ran out and we have not taken them up again. The land is being taken up by others. 141. I presume the reason is that your company is practically clearing out?— Yes. 142. And you are gradually selling the agricultural land? —Yes. 143. Mr. Anstey.\ How much of the station is still in the hands of the company? —There is about 30,000 acres of freehold land still unsold. We have sold about 130,000 acres. The land iB suitable for small settlement. We are selling farms at present now and again. The property has been offered to the Government for settlement purposes. John Morgan Price examined. 144. The Chairman.] What are ,you? —I am a farmer at Athol. I have about 7,000 acres freehold and 9,000 acres leasehold. It is a pastoral lease. I have been here for forty years. For the pastoral lease I am paying about £25 a year. The rabbits are not so bad now as they were twenty years ago. We have to keep them down or we could keep no stock at all. There are about four thousand sheep on the whole place. I also keep over a hundred cattle and about twenty-one horses. lam quite satisfied, and have nothing specially to bring before the Commission; but I would Ike to see the settlers get the freehold. 145. If the leasehold were a freehold, do you think you would keep the rabbits down better?— If a man has a freehold the property is his own, but if there are only two or three years of a lease to expire I am not going to clear the rabbits so as to let the next man get the benefit of my work. I think the option of the freehold should be given. 146. Mr. Forbes.] Do you believe in the Government taking the freehold in certain cases and cutting it up? Yes; as long as they do not charge too much. At Edendale the Government are charging far too much. 147. Mr. Paul.] Would it pay any man to allow rabbits to increase in the last two or three years of his lease? —No; but plenty of men do it for spite. 148. You have 7,000 acres of freehold: are you in favour of limiting the area of freehold? — Yes. 149. What do you say is a fair area for one man to hold ?—I would hold as much as I could, so long as I could pay for it. 150. Would you like a freehold of the 9,000 acres of pastoral lease?—No; it is too poor. But I would take it if I could get it at my own price. That land is worth about ss. an acre. 151. That would give you 16,000 acres of freehold?—l have my family to consider. 152. Do you think that would be too much for one man to hold?—No; I do not think so in this high country. Samuel Soaper examined. 153. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer at Athol. I hold 503 acres under lease in perpetuity and I pay £24 16s. Bd. a year rent, and I have about 200 acres suitable for cropping. I have no stock at present. I have been there seven or eight years.
C—4.
148
[a. SOAPEB.
al 154. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —I am satisfied in a way, but I would sooner make it a freehold property if I could. I would buy the freehold if I had a chance. 155. Supposing you were given the opportunity, and the-Government said you have been there seven or eight years and the place has improved owing to the general rise in value in the country, would you be agreeable that the land should be valued at its present value, and your improvements valued, and that the property should be put up to auction ? Your improvements would be protected, but some one else might outbid you for the place? —I would not agree to that. 156. You would rather hold to your lease? —I would rather hold to the lease than run the chance of losing the place. 157. You think the lease in perpetuity is fairly satisfactory? —Yes; but still you do not feel the same as if the place was your own, and you do not feel as if you could do the same amount of work. There is another thing: if you want a few pounds at any time you cannot borrow money on the leasehold. Hardly any one will lend you a few pounds on a leasehold like that. I went to the Government on one occasion when my improvements were valued at some £200 or £300, and, although 1 only wanted a small amount, I could not get anything at all. 158. Did they give you any reason for not lending?- They said my improvements were not such as would warrant a loan. My improvements were a house and stable, and Mr. Green, who valued for the Advances to Settlers Office, valued them at £100. 159. Did you succeed in borrowing from any private individual? —Not then, but I have since. 160. What interest are you paying on the money you borrowed?—l pay 6 per cent, on leasehold. I could have got it for 5 per cent, on a freehold property. 161. Mr. McCardle.] Is that your main reason for objecting to the leasehold? —That is one of the chief reasons. 162. If the Government amended the Act and treated settlers more reasonably than they are doing now, do you think the leasehold would be a good tenure? —I do. There is another thing. I have paid £100 for four years, and I can go on doing that until 1 am grey-headed, and my children after me, and then we will be no nearer to owning the place. 163. Is the Government price too high? —I fancy it is. 164. But if the Government price were not too high, and they only charged you 4 per cent, on the capital value, that is cheaper than any rate of interest you would pay a private individual for the fee-simple? —That is true. 165. Mr. Forbes.j You said you would like to get the freehold of your lease in perpetuity, but you would not like to bid for it at auction: what would you suggest is a fair way, in the interests of the country and the interests of the settlers, for a man to acquire the freehold of his lease in perpetuity? —Do you not think that the Government ought to let him have it at the upset price put on it, because I have put all the improvements on my place since? 166. But when you took up that leasehold there might have been eight or ten people who would have gone in for it had it been any other tenure: if you want the freehold now do you not think it is a fair thing that these eight or ten people who also wanted the freehold should have a chance to get it ? —That is very true. 167. Then, does it not seem a fair thing, if you are going to alter the contract now, that these disappointed people should have a chance of acquiring the property? —That is so, and that is another reason why I would rather have the freehold. 168. Mr. McLennan.] Are you aware that the law must be amended before you can get the option of the freehold? —I am. 169. What is your capital value now? —About £1 ss. per acre. 170. If the law is amended the Government might raise the capital value to £2 per acre: you have no guarantee as to what the amendment will be? —Very true. 171. Then, is it not better to stick to what you know than to go in for what you do not know? —I think that every man should have the right to acquire the freehold if he wishes.
Queenstown, Friday, 10th March, 1905. Andrew Fraser examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer, and live at the head of the lake. I hold 172 acres of freehold and 4,000 acres of leasehold from the Crown under a pastoral lease. I have been twenty years there. The 4,000 acres is purely pastoral, and during the winter I run about fourteen hundred sheep. I keep the freehold simply for turnips for winter feed for my stock and for homestead purposes. The 4,000 acres comprises Mount Alfred. 2. Have you tried any surface-sowing of grass?--No. I would very much like to do so, because out of the 4,000 acres 1,500 aci-es is light and unproductive. I am positive it could be grassed. If the Government would hold out inducements for a tenant to improve it it would be a good thing. I think the leaseholder should get an extension of lease to the full valuation for improvements. My lease is for fourteen years, and there is about eight years yet to run. 3. You think twenty-one-years lease would be long enough?—l think the leaseholder ought to get the value of the grass he puts in. Grass-seed is very expensive. I think a longer lease should be given, say, for twenty-one years, with valuation at the end of the term for grassing. I think the Rangers ought, to a certain extent, to fix the valuation. 4. It could be settled by arbitration I—Yes.1 —Yes. 5. What is your rent for the 4,000 acres?—£ls. I think the Government ought to take into consideration that in effecting these improvements I am not only benefiting myself, but am benefiting those who come after me. I think the country is losing a vast amount of money in
149
0.—4.
A.. FKASEE.j
this way. Settlers hold in some cases fern land, and in the spring and in a wet climate like this the sheep come down to the fern, and that brings about depreciation in the value of the wool —depreciation to the extent of 1 Jrd. per pound. My sheep are crossbreds. 6. What is the average clip per sheep? —I think the average is about 5£ lb. 7. Can you keep up the quantity of your stock without buying any? —Yes, by simply growing feed for the winter. I could not do it otherwise. There is a very large percentage of deaths in the Wakatipu district. Many deaths are caused owing to the quantity of tutu growing here in the fern. 8. Mr. McCardle.] Do you find that it is easy to grass the fern land? —It is expensive, but it can be done successfully. 9. If the Government took this matter into their consideration and agreed to give seed at the beginning of the lease, would that be sufficient to you as a settler to grass your land to, say, within a few years of the term of your twenty-one-years lease?— Yes. 10. In your opinion, would that be compensation sufficient to meet the case? —I think so. 11. You are carrying fourteen hundred sheep on about 4,000 acres. Could you increase that number to a considerable extent if you had the run fairly grassed? —There is not the slightest doubt about it. The fern is up to the bush level —to the level of the winter country. 12. If you were allowed to crop, would your land be suitable for that? —I crop on the freehold. 13. Mr. McC'utchan.] You acquired a freehold under the deferred-payment. What is your opinion about that system? —I think it is a very good system, indeed. 14. Do you think that people taking up land should have the option of taking it up under that system? Do you think it would be good for the colony and for the settlers? —My opinion is that a man should have the option of taking up land with the right of purchase. But he should prove to the Government or the Board that he is quite capable of going on the land as a settler before he gets the freehold. 15. Mr. McLennan.] You believe in the option being granted to Crown tenants? —Yes, in the case of ordinary Crown lands; but not in the case of land purchased under the Land for Settlements Act. 16. Mr. Paul.\ Do you think there should be any limit to the amount of land held by any one person ? —Yes, or otherwise the poor man would not have a chance at all. 17. What do you think would be a reasonable limit? —I think the present limit under the law. 18. Mr. Anstey.\ You said you desired a longer lease. Supposing you had a lease with right of renewal at a rental to be fixed by arbitration, also for improvements —would that be satisfactory ? —Yes. It would be satisfactory as long as I got value for the improvements I made. 19. Supposing you had a better tenure, would you eventually put all the land down in grass that was fit for grass ? —Yes. A certain amount of care would have to be taken in regard to the grass-seed, in order to prevent noxious weeds spreading throughout the district. 20. Supposing you got some assistance from the Government in respect to being provided with grass-seed, would you be prepared to pay additional rent for it? —My opinion is that we ought to get tested grass-seed at a certain figure. 21. You think the Government ought to provide you with first-class grass-seed at a moderate price? —Yes; something of that kind. 22. Have you any surplus stock for sale? —Yes, a few; but I would not have any if I did not use a portion of my land for growing winter feed. 23. If you had a larger portion of your farm laid down in grass, would you then have any surplus stock to sell? —Yes. 24. Mr. Hall.] Is your run generally fern land? —Roughly speaking, about 1,500 acres is fern country, and it is no good at all. 25. Does that apply to other runs besides yours ? —Yes. Very nearly all the way to the head of the lake. 26. Have noxious weeds been introduced in grass-sowing? —Not so far as I am aware, but it should be guarded against by proper supervision of the grass-seed. 27. You think that the twenty-one years lease with right of renewal would encourage runholders to improve their runs? —Yes. 28. Mr. Matheson.] What is the class of timber there —is it worth milling? —Red-birch, and it is a good class of timber; but on the dark sides there is very little good timber. 29. Have you ample timber for your fencing? —Yes. 30. What is the life of red-birch as a fencing timber? —I have known it to stand for about twenty-five years. The barrels of the trees are sometimes 2 ft. in diameter. 31. The Chairman.] Is there any mining there? —Not much now. It is hydraulic mining. 32. Mr. McLennan.] You have some private leasehold land? —Yes, about 172 acres. 33. You grow feed on that leasehold?---Yes. I either have it in grass or in turnips. 34. Do you know that under the present Act small grazing leaseholders are not allowed to cultivate any of their holding for winter feed 1 Do you think it is advisable to amend the Act so as to enable them to cultivate part of their leasehold land for winter feed ? —Yes, provided the land is laid down in English grass afterwards. I think that is very necessary in a high country like this. 35. Mr. McCardle.] In your neighbourhood there are some forty-five settlers: under what tenure do they hold their land? —I have been asked by some of the settlers to bring this matter under notice. They have taken up small areas of land under perpetual lease. Some of them have taken up land alongside a river. One man told me that his land had been washed away to the extent of 50 acres, but he is still paying the Government rent and the local bodies rates on the 50 acres which he does not now possess. I think he should be given some redress, and that he should only pay rent and rates on the ground he holds. It is through no fault of his that the land has been washed away.
0.—4.
150
A. FEASER.
36. The Chatrmail:J Has he applied to the Land Board? —I do not know, but I said to him that i thoilght the Board had power to grant him relief. 37. Mr. McOardle,~\ 1 suppose that is the best land in the holding? —Yes. 38. Are any of those settlers coming here to represent their interests? —No. The notice given them was too short, and they are far away from here. Those settlers who spoke to me were in favour of people having the option of making the land freehold. 39. Mr. Paul?\ Have you spoken to the majority of the tenants? —Yes. 40. Mr. McCardle.\ Did they expect the Commissioners to come up there? —Yes, if only to look at the scenery. George McKenzie examined. 41. The Chairman.] What are you? —I have been Crown Lands Ranger here for fifteen years, and have a very intimate knowledge of the district. 42. How are the settlers getting on at the head of the lake? —I think they are rather going back. 43. To what do you ascribe that? —The land is poor, and rabbits have helped to retard things. 44. The land on the fiat is fairly good, is it not? —Some of it. On the side where Mr. Fraser's property is it is very good, but towards the liees River it is very poor. 45. I suppose the settlers must depend more on their stock than on cropping? —Yes. Mr. Fraser gets good crops, but, speaking generally, it is on the stock that the settlers depend as a rule. 46. With regard to Makarora, at the end of Lake Wanaka, are there many settlers there? — There are five, and they are really in a very good position. 47. Is there still a sawmill up there? —Yes, and it employs about six hands. 48. Under what tenure do thOse settlers hold their land? —Lease in perpetuity and occupation with right of purchase. 49. Are they satisfied with the tenure? —Yes; and they have now got very comfortable places. 50. With respect to the pastoral runs generally in this district, I suppose they are all of the same nature —ferny land and high country ? —Yes. 51. Are any of the settlers grassing to any extent? —Two of them have been trying it, but really very little has been done. 52. Up the Shotover there is some very good pastoral country: is that land suitable for cutting up into small runs, or should it remain one large run ? —There is one large run there, the lessee being Mr. Baird. 53. Is the bush along Lake Wanaka guarded against firewood-cutters? —Yes. 54. I hear there is a good deal of mining going on at Skipper's? —Yes. It is mostly hydraulic at the Shotover, but there is one dredge still there. 55. Are the quartz-reefs at Macetown still working? —Yes, the Premier Company. 56. I take it from your evidence that the mining is declining? —Yes; but there is some good agricultural land between here and Arrowtown, and some splendid crops have been grown there. 57. Is there anything else you would like to say to the Commission? —With reference to the climate, it is a curious thing that there is so much difference in the date of the harvest to what it was forty years ago. The harvest is now in the month of March, instead of January. Yery good crops of wheat, barley, and oats are grown there. I have specially noticed the changes in the seasons. Formerly the summer was very hot and the winter very snowy. The road to Skipper's was usually impassable for six weeks, but that is not the case now. I mention this to show the difficulties which the settlers have had to contend with at different times. During the last eight years we have had splendid showers in the spring, and land that was considered to be useless some years ago has since produced fairly good crops. 58. How are the settlers at Hawea getting on? —I believe the majority of them are getting on very well. The holdings there are mostly freehold. They were originally taken up under deferred payment. 59. Mr. McLennan.] Do you not think it would be advisable to amend the Act so as to enable the runholders to cultivate a portion of their holdings to provide winter feed for their stock —of course, subsequently grassing the land? —Yes. I do not see how they could get on otherwise. 60. One witness who had a grazing-run of under 5,000 acres said he was not allowed to grow winter feed?— They are mostly large runs up here. 61. If the small runholders were restricted to cultivating sufficient for their own requirements, do you think it would be a good thing to amend the law to provide for that? —Yes. 62. Mr. Paul.] Is it within your knowledge that some runs have been grassed with inferior or dirty seed? —I am not in a position to say exactly. 63. Would you approve of the Government supplying seed? —To a certain extent in the case of struggling settlers. What they want is to have the advantage of the grass they have sown and the improvements they have made. 64. Would you approve of the Government supervising the seed put on these runs? —I think it would be a good thing. 65. Mr. Anstey.] I understand that the large run is held by Burnett and Dalgety: is that land suitable for cutting up into smaller areas? —I do not think so. 66. Is it very rough country? —Some of it is poor and some very good. 67. What lease have they? —I understand the lease expires in 1910. 68. You say it is not suitable land for cutting into smaller runs? —I do not think so. 69. Mr. Hall.] Is the bulk of the country within a radius of, say, thirty or forty miles only suitable for grazing-runs? —Yes, and pretty large runs too. 70. Do you think the carrying-capacity of these runs could be considerably increased by grassing? —I think so. 71. Do you think there should be some supervision over grass-seed, in order to prevent the spread of noxious weeds? It would be a safeguard, but there are already noxious weeds in some places.
151
C—4.
G. MCKENZIE.]
72. Would it probably induce the holders to improve the runs and be an incentive to careful management if the leases were extended to twenty-one years? —1 think twenty-one years would be a very suitable period, if improvements and grassing were allowed for. 73. Are the rabbits increasing or decreasing on these runs? —Decreasing. 74. The Chairman.'] We have been told that Yorkshire fog is being sown in some places. What do you think of it?—l have heard two practicable men express two totally difierent views in respect to Yorkshire fog. 75. Mr. Hall.'] Do you find that Yorkshire fog will often grow on the land that will not grow other grasses? —Yes; perhaps so. Jambs George examined. 76. The Chairman.] What are you? —District Valuer, and I have occupied that position for seven years and a half. My district is Lake and Vincent Counties. 77. Is the general value of land in this district rising or falling? —It is rising fast in the south portion of Vincent County, on account of the extension of the Otago Central Railway, and there has likewise been a tendency for it to rise here, more especially during the last four or five years, due to the rise in the price of stock. The agricultural land has gone up from 15 per cent, to 20 per cent. I allude to the agricultural land between Queenstown and Arrowtown. There has been a slight increase in the price of land on the Hawea Flat. At the head of the lake, at Glenorchy, the value is stationary. There is very little good land there. 78. Is there much export of grain from here? —Yes; especially barlejr and wheat. There is no dairying except for local use. There is a desire amongst the settlers and miners to have these runs cut up into smaller areas. 79. Mr. McCardle.] Could the large run that has been mentioned be subdivided in such a way as to carry more settlers ? —Yes. 80. Have you any idea of the number o, stock it is carrying? —I understand between forty and fifty thousand sheep. 81. Have the wants of the settlers been generally met by the Advances to Settlers Board? —Yes, I think so. Of course, they are not all satisfied. 82. Would it not be better to adopt the system that applies to the freehold in determining a man's interest in his lease? —I think so. 83. In a district where these settlers are generally successful, and where properties are bringing in a fair return, would it not be a safe investment for the State to grant an advance to leaseholders up to three-fifths of their interest in the property? —Yes ; I think so. 84. I suppose you have seen that Mr. Seddon is advocating that principle should apply in the interests of the settlers? —Yes. 85. Do you not think it would be well that those advances should be kept down to about £500 in any one case? —Yes. 86. Is it not your opinion that where the Government are borrowing money to assist settlers that their first duty should be to assist their own leaseholders? —Certainly. 87. Mr. Paul.] Is there any aggregation of estates going on in this district ? —No. 88. You value for the Advances to Settlers Department?— Yes. 89. It has been said by some witnesses that the Government look with disfavour on the lease in perpetuity in respect to advances. Have any instances come under your notice? —No. Thev consider whether the district is a safe one, and whether the lessee is a safe man. 90. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think that the present system of limitation of areas is necessary and is the best that could be devised? —I think so. 91. Is there not a great variety of what is called first-class land? —Yes. If you get 640 acres of real first-class land it is enough. 92. Would it not be much better to make a limit as to value rather than to area? —Yes. 93. Mr. Hall.] Under what tenure do you think these holdings should be taken up? —In suitable areas as pastoral leases. Small grazing-runs have been very successful at the lower end of the Vincent County. John Edgar examined. 94. The Chairman.] What are you? —A miner; and I was at one time Chairman of the Lake County. lam engaged in alluvial-mining sluicing. I have been forty-two years in the district. I have property in the borough. As to mining, I think the tenure might be altered to some small extent both in regard to alluvial and quartz. I think the industry and district are languishing from an entire absence of the conditions on which mining areas should be held. There are sections of hundreds of acres held for mining and scarcely any work is being done on them. If the conditions were more enforced it would give a greater impetus to mining. The law is right enough, but the conditions are not properly enforced. I am alluding particularly now to quartz-mines. Agricultural settlement between here and Arrowtown is going on very well, and the pastoral occupation was never better than at present. The population is about stationary. I may add that trout are not doing so well in Lake Wakatipu and its tributary streams, owing probablv to the absence of food. There is a pretty steady stream of tourist traffic during the season, from May to November. 95. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think that the large runs could be divided so that a larger number of people could occupy the land than at present? —I am afraid this countrv is too mountainous for small runs. 96. There are some settlements of forty, sixty, and one hundred settlers: are those settlements fairly successful? —Yes. 97. You are of opinion that there is a certain amount of mining land which is being held purely for speculative purposes? —Yes.
C—4
152
J. EDGAR.
98. You think the law should be enforced and that auriferous land should not be allowed to remain idle? —Yes. I suggest the enforcement of the law to a reasonable extent. 99. Are trout becoming more plentiful in the rivers? —There are not so many fish now as there used to be. 100. Was the lake formerly full of small native fish? —Yes. 101. Did that probably form their principal food when they were first put into the lake? —That is the general supposition. 102. Mr. Anstey.] Is any useful agricultural land spoilt by dredging or sluicing? —No; the gravel is simply displaced in the river-beds from one position to another. 103. Mr. Nail.] Is a large area of the country —the rough country —only suitable for large runs? —I think the runs are about small enough considering the nature of the country. Francis Mcßbide examined. 104. The Chairman.] You are a freeholder and runholder, Mr. Mcßride?- Yes. I have 600 acres at Frankton Flat and 320 acres at the Shotover. This is all good cropping land. I sometimes thresh 64 bushels to the acre, and at other times not 20 bushels, but the latter not very often. It depends on the dryness of the season. Oats and barley average from 40 to 50 bushels. I hold 1,200 acres under pastoral lease —the block between Queenstown and Frankton. I have about six hundred sheep on that land, and I think that is about as much as it will carry. My lease is for fourteen years. I have tried surface-sowing successfully, burning off and throwing the seed —white clover, timothy, and cocksfoot —on the land. Chewing's fescue grew fairly well on the run at the Frankton Falls. About six years ago I bought nearly 2,500 acres at the head of the lake; 300 acres of that is'not of much value. It is all flat land, and is situated between Diamond Lake and the river. I crop a good deal at 'the head of the lake. I have 100 acres of oats and turnips on the flat The land up there is generally poor, but there is some good land. My land wants draining and liming. I believe if that were done it would be a good grass land. The lime in the district is of a very superior quality. Longer leases would give a greater inducement to surface-sowing. 105. If the Government gave a twenty-one-years lease and more valuation for improvements, including grassing, do you think that would induce tenants to surface-sow more than they do? —Yes. 106. What is your rent to the Government? —£10 a year, and the allowance for improvements would not pay for the fencing. There is sweetbriar on the land, but we are trying to keep it down. 107. If the Government provided the seed gratis or at a very low price, and gave a reasonable extension of the limit of improvements at the end of the lease, would that be likely to be satisfactory? —I do not know anything that would be more likely to be effective. It soon runs into a lot of money, buying seed. It would be a good thing if we could do away with the fern. It grows in every gully. If there were no fern I suppose you could keep far more than twice the stock. It is good ground and will grow grass if the fern is removed. The winter country is taken up by the fern and the sheep cannot go through it. You can burn it off and within twelve months it is as bad as ever. 108. Immediately after burning, if the land were surface-sown in a suitable season the grass might get a start of the fern ? —Yes. It is said that sheep will eat the young fern as it comes up. The grass-seed will sink in the ashes if there has been a burn. I think there is not sufficient improvements credited to the tenant at the end of the lease, and reasonable value should be allowed for improvements and grassing. 109. Mr. McCardle.] Touching grass-seed, do you not think it would be better if the Government found the grass-seed and charged you the price and interest on cost and sowing, and you repay during a term of years, and if that term has not expired at the expiry of the lease, then the incoming tenant takes up your position and pays the balance to the Government? —I quite agree with you. 110. Are rabbits much of a pest? —Yes. 111. But you manage to keep them down fairly well? —Yes, with poisoned pollard. 112. How are these small settlers succeeding at the head of the lake?— They have sections of 50 to 100 acres, and I think it is more for a place to settle down on. 113. Have they any other occupation besides that of the land? —Most of them are doing some other work. Some of them have a few cows. 114. Mr. McLennan.] You are aware that according to the Act holders of small grazing-runs cannot use any of their land to grow winter feed? —Yes. 115. Do you think it would be advisable to amend the Act so as to enable them to grow winter feed, cultivating only a portion of the land? —I do not think they should be prohibited from cultivating any of it. 116. You think it would be an improvement?— Yes. 117. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the Government might help the settlers to clear some of this land? It is a big undertaking to eradicate the fern and sow grass? —That is too big a question for me to express an opinion on. 118. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you think if the tenants were given better security of tenure —right of renewal with value of improvements—that that would be sufficient inducement to settlers to go on with improvements, such as grassing, &c. ? —I think it would. 119. Without the Government actually buying the grass? —I think any one able to afford the seed would buy it themselves if they were allowed compensation for their outlay. 120. Compensation for the value of the improvements at the end of the lease? —Yes. 121. It is security of tenure that you really want? —Yes. 122. Has your experience of the Land Board been pretty satisfactory? —Yes.
C.—4
F. MCBEIDE.j
153
123. You do not think the Land Boards would be better if they were elected? —No. I have been always satisfied with the Land Board. 124. What do you think of Yorkshire fog to sow as a permanent pasture? —It is not much of a grass. It will grow in swampy or wettish ground. 125. It would not be so bad as Chewing's fescue? —Any grass is better than nothing. 126. Mr. Paul.] Have any instances of dirty seed being sown on these hills come under your notice? —No. 127. It has been represented to us that some runholders buy the " seconds " of threshing-mills and sow them on some of the runs? —I have seen nothing of it. 128. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be in favour of giving Land Boards more discretionary power ? —I have never considered that. 129. I mean so that they could arrange small difficulties, instead of referring them to Wellington ? —I think the Land Board is better acquainted with the district than the officials in Wellington are.
Arrowtown, Saturday, 11th March,, 1905. Luke Hugarth Preston examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am Town Clerk of Arrow, of which place I was also Mayor for ten years. 1 have been in the district forty-two years. I have also been a mining agent in the Warden's Court for some years past. 2. Is there anything you woulji like to bring before the Commission? —I may state that in recent years I have had a good deal to do with the applications of Gibbstown residents for occupation licenses. We have not been able to get ground granted owing to the runholder claiming the land, and in consequence a large number of farmers' sons, ranging in age from twenty-five to thirtyfive years, have been unable to get on the land. They are anxious to take up land. Some of them have left the district, and some are still remaining in the hope that they will be able to settle. I am of opinion that if their wishes could be granted a vast amount of settlement would take place in that district. It seems rather broken country, but these people are quite prepared to put up with that. If the country was cut up into small sheep-runs and settlement also proceeded on the flat land I am sure that the place could carry twice its present population. I am referring to the country that lies all along on the Nevis Range. The country there is prosperous and doing well. The stationholder at Gibbstown, who has refused the request of the applicants, states that he wants that piece of land to let his sheep on, but we are of opinion that when the lease terminates it would be better to cut the country up, and these people are anxiously looking forward to that time. I would also like to point out that the taking-up of small runs in the midst of mining privileges is objectionable, because the two interests are always clashing. Doubtless the land cannot be left idle, but at the same time I think these grazing leases in mining districts should be for a very short term, so that no obstacle may be placed in the way of the miner if he wishes to prospect or mine on them. He is supposed to have free access to them now, of course; but any fenced land is a barrier to a miner who wishes to proceed to work at once. 3. You mean he has to pay compensation if he does any damage?— Yes. The whole district is what is termed a mining district, and you have to consider everything from a mining point of view in allocating these runs. I speak as a miner in a district where mining is the predominant interest. The pastoral interest is not in close proximity to the town or the miners generally, and we look foward to the time when it will be put still further back. I think that the run that is now held by one man will ultimately be occupied by perhaps a hundred people, and when that time arrives the country will be kept clean of rabbits, and our people will not have to drift about as they do now. 4. You understand that a pastoral lease as distinct from a small grttzing-run is really the best tenure for the miner ? —Yes, because it is a large area; but when that large area is limited to one man he has a great command over it. 5. Do you not think that if it is divided into a series of small grazing-runs there would be still more objection from the miner's point of view? —I think the general community will derive more profit and benefit out of the land, and I think the miners would take up a portion of it themselves. There is such a thing as taking head and tail races through the country, and if the miner took up the land he would have free access to it. 6. Do you think this rough-looking mountainous country could be occupied without being associated with some of the low country? —Yes; there will be individuals who will confine themselves solely to the hill, while others who hold 100 acres or so of flat country will look forward to getting 400 or 500 acres of rough country for sheep. 7. Mr. Paul.] Is any good agricultural land being wasted or spoilt by mining in this district? —No. The river has been proclaimed a sludge-channel, but no good land has been dredged away in the Arrow district. 8. Mr. Anstey.] Has any good land on pastoral runs been washed away?— No.
Pembroke, Saturday, 11th March, 1905. Robert McDougall examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a storekeeper, and have been in business here for thirty-two years. 2. During that time has the district been steadily progressing in the way of settlement, &c.l —Yes; it has been progressing in regard to the settlement of the land in such settlements as Mount nr\ n A
20—C. 4.
[r. McDOUGALL.
C—4.
154
Barker, Hawea Flat, and round the margin of the lake towards Glen Dhu. At Mount Barker the verted into freehold. Hawea Flat is in a pretty similar position. At Glen Dhu there are only pastoral leases. There are small areas of land between here and Glen Dhu that have been settled under lease —perpetual lease with right of purchase. 3. At Glen Dhu the people do not rely on the 50 acres for a living?—No; they work on adjoining runs, and they do laborious work elsewhere. At Makaroara, at the head of the lake, they are engaged in similar work. There are two sawmills at the head of Lake Wanaka. ' 4. Are there any bushes fit for sawmilling in any other part of your district?— No. 5. With regard to mining, at one time there were very active mining enterprises at Cnffel?— Mining at Crifiel is now dormant. . 6. Is there mining anywhere else? —Only in the Cardrona Valley there is some dredging and some hydraulic sluicing. .... 7. The county plantation in the Cardrona Valley is very much overgrown : is it in charge of any particular authority? —It is leased to a resident here. The distribution of trees has now ceased. At first we did that to a large extent, and all the plantations in the neighbourhood of the town, and as far away as Roxburgh on the one hand and Arrowtown and Queenstown on the other, were made from young trees obtained from this reserve \ also the plantations round all the churches and public buildings came from the same source. But all this came to a standstill owing to the default of one of the officers of the county. 8. It is interesting to hear that the trout in Lake Wanaka are very good, and, for some strange reason, are very bad in Lake Wakatipu? —Quite so. I take it that Lake Wakatipu has been unduly fished in previous years. Even in Lake Wanaka we get a good deal of fishing, and I think there should be some restriction in regard to the use of fishing-nets. A man may pay a license of £2 a year and he may use ten or twenty nets. At present there is no restriction in that respect. We should have a local body controlling Lakes Hawea and Wanaka. Lake Hawea is swarming with fish. 9. Mr. McCardle.\ You have said that a good deal of settlement has taken place during the past few years: are they farms or small runs? —Chiefly farms. 10. Are they fairly successful? —I should prefer the farmers themselves to answer that question. I am inclined to think that they are not successful in having amassed a great deal of money, but they are successful in that they have better homes and have been clearing off some of the handicaps they began with. They are really progressing. 11. You have a large mass of big runs around you here. Would it be possible to more closely settle these runs by subdivision? —Not much now. There was a reduction of the areas some little while back, but the land will not permit of a great deal more subdivision —that is, with any advantage to the holders or to the district. 12. What is your opinion with respect to the tenure of the land? —As to the question of freehold versus leasehold, right of purchase, A-c., my own opinion is that the settlers would live more safely and under as favourable conditions under the leasehold system than they could under the freehold system, and they are safer, inasmuch as the Government are, no doubt, more humane than the ordinary landlord or laird. For that reason I favour the leasehold. 13. Have you observed the work of the Advances to Settlers Department in this district? —Yes. 14. You are aware that a leaseholder can borrow up to one-half the value of his improvements?' —I know there is a limit. 15. Do you think it would assist the smaller settler in making more improvements if the Government treated him more liberally in this respect than they do at present ? —There is no doubt it would help in that direction —that is, if the larger advance is honestly and effectively used. But in my own experience I know that there are cases where the getting of money somewhat easily is not always a blessing. 16. I mean getting a sufficient amount to enable them to complete improvements? —If they are honest it would be a decided advantage. 17. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think the Cardrona Valley hills will compare at all at present with what they were when you came here? —They are more sparse now in regard to pasture than they were, largely because of the burning that has ben resorted to. Criffel looks very bare, but it is really a most excellent piece of grazing country. I do not think, however, there is nearly the carrying-capacity generally that there used to be. I may add that the district generally is not in that flourishing, buoyant condition it was in some few years ago. That is nearly altogether due to the exhaustion of mining. When I first came here the Cardrona Valley contained probably a thousand miners, and the effect of their working caused an amount of profitable business that does not exist now. There are now not twenty miners working there. The mines are practically exhausted, so far as individual labour is concerned. But as to dredging in the valley, it has really not been properly tested, so that as a dredging locality the Cardrona Valley has been condemned actually without a trial. A good deal of expense was incurred by people who went into the venture in putting up instalments of dredges, and who abandoned their holdings. They never really tested whether the valley has gold or not. In regard to the future prospects of this place, I look upon its position as a scenic resort as being of much importance. We are of opinion that we have an asset in that respect that is worth the attention of the people in the locality, and there are some people who have sunk their money in giving facilities for traversing the lake and getting to various points in the district. The hotel-accommodation for visitors has been increased considerably recently in the belief that it is necessary, and during the season that is now closing we have found it to be necessary. We have had not less than 50 per cent., and probably as much as 75 per cent., more visitors this year than in any previous year. We have a splendid district in respect to scenic purposes, and that, coupled with the excellent climate, makes it very desirable for a home. I may also mention that I, and T suppose others, was encouraged to come here owing to the announcement that a railway was to be made from here to Dunedin. The idea was that the
E. MCDOUGALL.!
155
C.—4.
line would begin simultaneously at both the Dunedin and Wanaka ends, but that line has never been made. 18. Mr. Anstey.] Who do the steamers on the lake belong to? —Two of them belong to me. The steamers are all run by private enterprise. Allan Arthur Barker examined. 19. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a small runholder. I hold a pastoral lease of about 20,000 acres. My lease is for fourteen years, and there are six years yet to run. I have been in this district since 1876. My run is at Roy's Creek. We first started with 1,666 sheep, but when we shore them we had only 1,060. We have improved the run until this year we shore 3,100, and we had 83 per cent, of lambs. We have improved the land by ploughing and cultivating —that is, the Glen Dhu Valley paddock of 700 acres. We lost in the first year, and every subsequent year up till last year, about five hundred sheep during the winter. We formerly had no winter feed. The ground is too poor to grow turnips. 20. Do you think it would be possible to surface-sow the hillsides? —There is any quantity of flat land to improve, but we are not encouraged to sow grass, because at the end of the lease we will only get five times our annual rental, which is £38 a year. We paid £370 to the outgoing tenant for fencing alone. 21. You think the Government should give some encouragement, so that you might go on improving the land ? —Yes; but we have effected a great many improvements already, and the next tenant will get the benefit of them. We put up three miles of wire-netting fencing and sowed the paddock in grass, and it is in excellent order. When we went there it was covered with fern as high as your waist. The grass-seed cost us about £1 an acre without the cost of ploughing. All these improvements will make it more difficult for us to obtain a new lease when the present lease terminates. We put up a six-roomed house, wool-shed, &c. When we found out that we would get nothing we approached the Land Board, and they said they would grant us 5 or 6 acres round the house at the homestead; but what is the good of sor 6 acres under such circumstances ? The buildings will be of no use if we have not the run. There is any amount of low flat land that we could plough and put in grass if we got any encouragement, but it will not pay us to put it down in grass owing to our short lease. 22. I suppose in the summer you could carry far more sheep than you do? —Yes. 23. If encouragement was given to you you would cultivate, and be able to go on working up your stock still further ? —Yes. 24. Mr. McCarclle.] Turnips do not succeed well with you? —Not on the run. 25. Have you tried manure? —No; but I am informed that the ground is too hot for it. 26. I am quite sure you could succeed if you tried superphosphates? —Perhaps so. 27. Mr. Paul.] You think that valuation for improvements should be given ? —Yes. It cost £1 an acre to lay the grass down, and if we were allowed 10s. an acre when we went out it would be something. 28. Do you think there should be any limit to valuation for improvements?— Yes; but the Government do not allow anything in respect to buildings. If they only allowed one-half I think it would be better. 29. Are you satisfied with the length of your lease —fourteen years? —It is not long enough when you improve like we have done. 30. What do you think would be a fair lease? —Twenty-one years. That would give us time to reap the benefit of the grass we have sown. 31. Are you cultivating some parts of the run? —Yes. 32. Does your lease allow you to do that? —We do it. 33. If it does not you consider it should? —Yes. 34. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think that if the runholder had the option of renewal of the lease, with valuation for improvements, that that would be an encouragement to him to go on improving the place? —Yes. If we could get the option of renewal for another seven years I would start tomorrow to make improvements. We would lay it down in grass, because we would reap the benefit indirectly. 35. At present it has to be put up to auction? —Yes. 36. Supposing at the end of your term the rent was revalued and you were offered a chance of taking it up first for another fourteen years, and in the event of your not taking it up you were allowed for improvements, would that be satisfactory ?—lf we were allowed so-much for our improvements, so that we would have a better show than another man to get our run again, it would be more satisfactory. 37. If they offered to give you the first chance, the rent being fair, and you being allowed compensation for improvements? Yes; that would be some encouragement for us to work the land properly. At present there is no encouragement for us to spend more money during the next six or seven years, because we cannot reap the bnefit of it. It takes from £2 to £3 an acre to cut down the high fern and sow the land in grass. 38. Mr. McLennan.] As to improvements, would it be satisfactory if you appointed one arbitrator and the Board one, and in the event of a disagreement an umpire should be appointed?— Yes 39 What sort of grass do you sow ?—Timothy, rye, cocksfoot, alsike, red clover, and cowgrass, all mixed up. 40. Mr. McCutchan.] Have you sold any surplus sheep?—We sold about nine hundred last year. 41 Have you brought any more on to the place ?—Yes. In the first year, when we lost the five hundred, we bought some more. 42. Roughly speaking, what is the return for a thousand sheep in that class of country?—l could not say exactly. J
C—4,
156
[a. a. babkeb.
43. Have you tried burning and surface-sowing? —Yes. 44. Did you find it a success? —No. Unless you irrigate the ground it will not succeed. The land is too dry around here. 45. At the time you took up the run you knew the conditions of the lease? —We did not look into the question of improvements. 46. If the Government lay down certain regulations, and a man takes up a run subject to them, is it fair to blame the Government because he does not make himself familiar with the regulations? —No; but I think the Government should encourage industry and should encourage the settlers to improve the land. 47. Is it not just possible that the reasonable rent at which you got this run was due to the fact that there is no compensation for improvements? —When we took up the run we did not go carefully into the question of compensation for improvements. 48. Mr. Anstey.] Can you give us a rough idea as to the amount you have spent on improvements since you went on the place? —I am sure we have spent £2,500 in improvements. We have built a large shed and a big six-roomed house. 49. And you paid £370 when you went in? —Something like that. 50. That means your improvements stand you in close upon £3,ooo?—Yes, if we had full valuation for them. 51. If you were to get valuation for £3,000, practically any one else would be debarred from bidding for the property? —Yes; but we do not expect it. 52. What would you expect as valuation for grassing improvements? Some of the grass has been down five years, and your lease has six years to run ; I presume therefore your grass will be run out in eleven years? —Yes, if we let it; but we do not work that way. We* do not put stock on it in the summer-time, and so'the grass is able to seed and take fresh roothold. 53. Is your run suitable for subdivision ? —lt was in two runs when we took it up. 54. Could the property be suitably divided into two runs, with a certain proportion of high country and low country to each? —No, because on one portion there is a good hill, called Rocky Hill, where we can winter eight hundred or a thousand sheep quite easily, and the other portion of the run has only got a small bit of flat land. The shed is on one run and the house is on the other. 55. Then, the improvements could be divided if the runs were divided? —Yes. 56. In regard to cultivation, our information is that you have no right to put a plough into your ground at all, and you might be sued for damages I—We1 —We might. 57. Suppose the Government sued you for damages instead of giving you compensation for improvements?—l would certainly leave the country. 58. Do you think you should be allowed to cultivate such portions of your run as are suitable for cultivation I—l1 —I think so. I reckon we ought to grow winter feed for our stock if we can do so, and also sow good English grasses. 59. You want the right to cultivate, valuation for improvements, and the rent to be fixed by arbitration ?—Yes. Robert Sttjdholme, jun., examined. 60. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a runholder under a pastoral lease for fourteen years. I hold 7,000-odd acres at the mouth of the Cardrona Valley, and I carry about seventeen hundred mixed sheep on it. I pay £10 a year rent, and I have six years of the lease still to run. I paid about £250 to the outgoing tenant for improvements for fencing, and I have since put up a two-roomed house. I have ploughed about 160 acres and put it down partly in grass. We grow a few acres of oats for winter feed. We have no winter country at all, except the small piece of flat ground we cultivate. 61. Suppose you cultivated all the low ground you hold, would that give enough winter feed to correspond with the amount of summer feed on the run ?—I think it would. 62. Have you increased your flock since you took up the run?—l started with five hundred sheep and I lost fifty of them the first winter. My average clip is about 6f lb., and my last lambing percentage was about 72 per cent. 63. You have heard what Mr. Barker said in regard to valuation for improvements, length of tenure, and the fixing of rent by arbitration, and other concessions to give encouragement to tenants : do you indorse all that he said ?—Yes, I do. 64. Mr. McCardle.] You heard the questions put by Mr. Anstey about valuing the property at the end of the leases : do you agree with that?— Yes. " 65. Mr. Hall.] Do you think that in future leases compensation should be given for buildings and fencing ?—Yes. I would be satisfied with that. 66. Do you think any compensation should be given for cultivating and sowing down in grass? —I do not know. 6 _ 67. Do you not think that giving a lease for thirty years would meet the case better?— Yes I think it would. ' 68. Would it not be difficult to assess compensation for grassing? —Yes 69. Mr. Anstey.] Can you give us any idea of the sum you have spent on permanent improvements?—l would say, £150 for fencing and buildings, and about £250 on water-races for irrigation purposes. 6 70. Are the water-races permanent?— They are constructed of iron fluming. Ye J l "' T ' lat means that ' Wltl) the f £2Bo J* ou P a id on going in, your improvements represent £600? 72 Then, the interest on your improvements is a much larger sum than the rent vou are paying? —Yes. J 73. Suppose you got full compensation for these improvements and a better tenure, would
157
C—4.
tt. SfUDHOLME, JUN.j
you be prepared to pay a considerable increase in your rent for these advantages ? —lt would depend. If a person got a longer lease he could pay a little more rent. 74. If you got a renewal of your lease at a rent to be fixed by arbitration, you would practically have an unlimited lease? —Yes. 75. Would you be prepared to pay a reasonable increase in rent for these privileges? —I would. Robert Studholme, sen., examined. 76. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer and Crown tenant. I hold 150 acres under lease in perpetuity and 184 acres on perpetual lease. 1 have been here since 1871. I have held the lease in perpetuity for two years, and I am paying 4 per cent, on a capital value of 10s. per acre. I have held the perpetual lease for sixteen years, and lam paying 7£d. an acre for it. These sections adjoin each other, and they are a little back from the Cardrona Road. I used the land principally for grazing ? —lt is not good enough for cropping. 77. Have you any remarks to make about your leases? I consider both the lease in perpetuity and the perpetual lease are tenures that cannot be improved. I think they are the very best leases the country could give us. 78. Have you any desire to make them freehold? —Not the least. 79. We have had a lot of complaints from Crown tenants that they have experienced great difficulty in borrowing on the lease in perpetuity: have you had any trouble of that kind? —No. I have never required to borrow. I should not like to borrow on a lease. I would like to say that I am on Block 3, Lake Wanaka, which was surveyed and cut up and offered for small settlement on deferred payment, perpetual lease, and for cash about twenty years ago. This block was supposed to be kept for settlement, but I am the only settler on the block now, and the whole of the rest of the block has been bought up by one person, and by that means the little settlement of Pembroke has been killed. The block lies between here and the Cardrona River. 80. Mr. McCardle.] Would you favour an amendment of the Land Transfer Act which would prohibit any one man from holding more that a prescribed area, and so put a stop to this aggregation of large properties? Yes. This aggregation is the ruination of the country. 81. You realise that the district has suffered considerably through the loss of these neighbouring settlers? —Yes; the place is all shut up because the surrounding sections have been bought up by the runholder. 82. Mr. Paul.] How many settlers went on the block after it was cut up ? —No one but myself. 83. And the stationholder got the rest? —Yes. 84. Mr. Forbes.] Was this settlement offered to the public? —Yes. 85. And did not the public take it up at all?— Nobody but myself took a section of it. 86. Was the rent too high, or what was the reason I—Theyl—They were not able to take it up, but since then we could have had a dozen families on it. 87. Then, the Government sold the rest of the block for cash? —Yes. 88. And you think it would have been very much better if they had let it for a certain term, and perhaps offered it again ?—Yes. That is what we expected would have been done. 89. You think it was a very great mistake to sell it for cash to one man? —Yes. It has crushed out the little settlement here altogether. 90. How long ago was this settlement offered I—About1 —About twenty years ago. 91. Was the land fit for small settlement ?—Yes; well adapted. It is good flat land, and every bit of it could be ploughed, and the river is there to irrigate it. It is useless without irrigation. I think I have a very poor section, and yet I can make a very good living on it. 92. Do you think it would be a good thing if the Government repurchased the land and offered it for settlement? —Yes, that is what is required. 93. Mr. McCutchan.] The block was surveyed four years before you selected vour one section? —Yes. 94. Did this runholder buy for cash every allotment in the block then or afterwards ?—As soon as ever I went on to the corner section a dummy was put up to buy the two sections adjoining me, and I was jambed in there with 184 acres of poor country. They bought after I took up my section. I applied to the Land Board for a section, but I could not get tliem to do anything at all, and I could not get any land on the block until I just took the bull by the horns and settled on this allotment. I was there nearly a couple of years before I could get a title to it. 95. Mr. Anstey.] Who bought up these sections?— Mrs. Turnbull, I think, is the owner of the station. 96. What is the size of the adjoining station ?—I should think about 50,000 acres, perhaps more. r 97. Have they any front country to that station ?—Yes, 3,000 or 4,000 acres of good flat country. a 98. Besides these other 3,000 acres?— Yes. They are on the same flat. 99. How many years is it since they bought up these sections ?—They got some about three or tour years ago. Ihey have been picking them out as they could get them. 100. The sections were open, I presume, for purchase or lease, or under deferred payment and there was nothing to stop any person from taking them up if they desired to do so?— Just so 101. Mr. McCardle.] You have said you think it would be wise for the Government to repurchase this estate: if that were done would settlers take it up under the Land for Settlements Act? —Yes. 1 would take some of it up myself, and I know others would be glad to take it up 102. Is the run of 50,000 acres, held by this stationholder leasehold or freehold?—lt is a pastoral run. 103. How many acres of flat do they hold in that run I—About 2,000 acres 104 And about how many acres of flat do they hold altogether ?-Not less that 3,000 acres, and from that up to 5,000 acres. '
158
|_B. STUDHOLME, SEN.
C—4.
105. Mr. McCutchan.] If the block was surveyed twenty years ago and the last sections were purchased about four years ago they must have been purchased under the Land Act of 1892? —Yes. 106. I understood you to say Mr. Turnbull holds a very large area of freehold land? —He holds the whole block. 107. Is that land classified as first- or second-class land? —Second class. 108. Then, he has a right under the land laws of the colony to acquire 2,000 acres of secondclass land? —I do not know. 109. Was the land which was recently acquired purchased direct from the Crown in his own name? —I think it was purchased in Mrs. Turnbull's name. In regard to the constitution of Land Boards, I want to say I would like to see them representative. My reason is that we want proper representation. I think three-fourths of the Otago Land Board should be composed of good practical settlers. 110. As a matter of fact, have not the members of the Land Board generally been farmers, and are they not so now 2 —l think the present members are far too old. Some of them have been a third of a century on the Board. 111. Mr. Anstey.] Supposing these Land Boards were elected, how would you propose to elect them? —I would like to see three-fourths of the Board composed of practical settlers taken from different parts of Otago. 112. Mr. Matheson.]. Suppose each County Council in the land district had the right to nominate a man, and from these names the Government had to appoint two members, do you think that would be satisfactory? —Yes. I think that is just what the country requires. 113. Mr. McCutchan.] And you would leave the nomination of the other two members in the hands of the Government? —Certainly. Robert McDougall further examined. 114. The Chairman.] What is it you wish further to say? —I wish to refer to the block of land mentioned by Mr. Studholme, sen. It is a block of land that the townspeople attempted to have added to the land here for close settlement, but on the introduction of an Act by Mr. Richardson, the then Minister of Lands, giving the option of deferred payment or perpetual lease or purchase for cash, the then manager of the run, Mr. Robert Stewart —the run was not owned then by Mr. Turnbull, but by a Scotch company —got a man named Henderson to apply for the sections in town, and the whole block was simply dummied. It consisted of some 300 or 400 acres. I remember sending a telegram to the then Surveyor-General, protesting against the alienation of these 300 or 400 acres, because they were really the best agricultural land about here. We had fought Mr. Campbell, the runholder, in the Court at Dunstan, and prevented him from acquiring the sections, and then they were bought by Mr. Stewart, and the whole settlement was cramped. That would be about twenty years ago. 114.a I have no recollection of receiving such a telegram? —I sent it, because it cost me nearly £2. My endeavour was to prevent this land falling into the hands of the runholder. Andrew McDougall examined. 115. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a steamboat proprietor, and also Crown Lands Ranger for this district. I have held the latter position about six years. 116. You have heard the reference to the dummying of the land here: have you any knowledge of it? —No; it was before my time. 117. You heard what the runholders said about improving their runs: do you agree pretty well with what has been said? —A certain amount of what Mr. Barker says is quite correct, particularly in regard to cultivating and putting down in grass and giving a longer tenure. I certainly agree with that. 118. Is it your duty to report anything you see that is irregular?— Yes. 119. Of course, cultivation is not allowed under a pastoral lease, but I suppose when a portion is converted into grass land you would not think it worth while to report that? —I would be bound to-report it, but I would think it justifiable all the same. 120. Is the rabbit-pest being kept under? —Yes. Generally speaking, I think they are decreasing. 121. Is all the country up the west side of the lake under lease? —Yes, except one run at Mount Aspiring. 122. Mr. McCardle.] You have heard the statement made by Mr. Studholme about these sections having been recently purchased: who is occupying the land now? —Mr. Turnbull holds the sections. 123. Do you remember these sections being sold about four years ago? —Yes. 124. Was that land thrown open in such a way that the public knew it was open for selection? — Yes; it was generally known. 125. If there was a demand for it, how do you account for the fact that it was not applied for? —I cannot answer that. There is no reason for it. 126. When you say that the people knew, were the plans advertised in the usual way ?—Yes. 127. Mr. Hall.'] Do you find noxious weeds increasing in the country? —Not so far. They are pretty well kept down by the Stock and Rabbit Inspector and the County Council. 128. Mr. Forbes.] You heard the evidence about this block being suitable for close settlement: if your opinion was asked would you recommend that the land be cut up for small settlement?— I do not think it is suitable unless it is in fair-sized blocks of, say, from 500 to 600 acres. 129. That is the land you heard described as having been" set aside for small settlement and purchased by Mr. Turnbull -Yes. The land is not very good, and it wants irrigation. Anything less than the size I have named would hardly keep a family. 130. Mr. McCutchan.] You recollect the purchase by Mrs. Turnbull of some 300 or 400 acres within the last four years 1--I remember her purchasing, but Ido not know the quantity.
C— 4,
A. MCDOUGALL.]
159
131. From your position you have some knowledge of the law : is it not the case that a married woman in her own right can take up 1,000 acres of second-class land under the Act of 1892? —Yes. 132. You heard the charge of dummyism levelled against Mrs. Turnbull in this connection?— Yes. 133. If Mrs. Turnbull has taken up this land legally that charge cannot rest against her, and the fault would be in the Act and not in the person who took up the land under the Act?— That is quite right. 134. You state that block requires to be cut up into 500- or 600-acre sections to enable a man to make a living: was it in much smaller areas under the original scheme? Yes; and that has been the fault in dealing with the country round the lake. The sections have been too small; 50 acres will not keep a family. 135. Mr. Anstey.\ Suppose the land was surveyed now in fair-sized blocks, do you think it would be taken up? —I am sure it would. 136. Either the people did not want the land five or six years ago or it was cut up into unsuitable areas : which was the reason ? —Unsuitable areas. 137. If it had been cut into suitable areas at that time would it have been taken up, do you think? —Yes.
Cromwell, Monday, 13th March, 1905. • Thomas McWhirter examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you I—l1 —I am station-manager of the Morven Hills Run, and I have been over ten years in that position. The lessees are Captain F. J. Dalgety and Mr. W. Burnett. The term of the lease is for fourteen years from March, 1896, and the area of the holding is about 320,000 acres. This season we have shorn forty-two thousand sheep, principally merino, but there are a few halfbreds. We have about five hundred head of cattle and some station horses. 2. What is the average clip of wool per sheep? —In ordinary seasons about 71b., and a shade over that after a good winter. The average percentage of lambing for some years past has been about 50J. The proportion of ewes is fully one-third. We have not been able to keep up the flock without purchasing in late years owing to snow-storms. We have had to purchase over twenty thousand sheep within the last ten years. The rent is £2,750 per annum. Our losses, owing to severity of climate and from other causes, are very heavy. 3. Did you sell any sheep during the last twenty years? —Yes; about ten thousand sheep in ten years. The winter of 1895 and the winter of 1903 were exceptionally bad. In the winter of 1895 we lost fifty-five thousand sheep, and in 1903, thirty-one thousand. In 1899 we lost fifteen thousand. 4. At present you have not nearly such a large flock as you used to have? —Only about onehalf. 5. I suppose you have plenty of feed, except in the winter? —We have not a corresponding portion of low country to the high country. We were authorised by the Land Board to grow feed for stock, which we have done to some extent. We have put in 300 acres of turnips this year. We have about 1,500 acres of freehold at the terrace where the homestead is. There are patches of freehold scattered all over the run. On the leasehold we have about 150 miles of fencing. The run is divided into about twelve different blocks. 6. If you had more subdivisions you would be able to bring more sheep down from the mountains before the winter came? —If more subdivisions were made it would lessen the loss by snow, and would be otherwise advantageous in working the run. The rabbits are still a source of trouble and heavy expense, but they have been very much reduced since I came here. We adopt winter poisoning with pollard, and have traps and ferreting in the summer. The ferrets do not stand the severe climate very well. In fact, they have practically disappeared. Weasels and stoats are increasing, but ferrets are practically useless. Weasels and stoats are fairly effective in the high country where there is no trapping. 7. Did you ever try surface-sowing grass? —Only to a very small extent; but I am satisfied that it would do if done at the proper time of the year. 8. Of course, the grassing would be practically on the lower hills? —Yes, or in most gullies. 9. Over such an enormous territory have you any other homesteads? —Yes. We have the original homestead near the Lindis Pass, where most of the shearing is done. 10. As representing your chiefs and holding the position you do, would you like to make any statement to the Commission? I understand that, owing to the great losses of sheep, the run has not been payable? —No. It is quite impossible for it to pay under the present conditions. You are probably aware, and it is pretty well understood, that the owners have applied for relief in a reduction of rent, but up to the present time they have had no definite reply. I understand it has been left to this Commission to inquire into the circumstances. I was authorised to come here and represent the position of affairs, and especially if you wanted information with regard to regrassing, &c. There is another matter I might mention. On the opposite side of the river in old days a considerable proportion of the low country was well grassed. The grass has, however, disappeared, owing to various causes, such as rabbits, burning, and overstocking. A fungus growth called lichen has taken possession of a great number of the dry places, where it spreads like a ringworm, and now a great extent of country is covered with this growth. I think that something should be done in respect to this matter, and already valuable time has been lost. There should be regrassing of the country and subdivsion. 11. You have an enormous territory ?—Yes; but there is only one-fourth of that I can describe as winter country. Only about one-fourth is below the ordinary snow-line. The only way of improving the country is by regrassing and subdivisions.
a—4
160
[t. mcwhirteb.
12. Of course, you can hardly say what it would cost to surface-sow grass per acre? —It could only be done in straggling pieces. 13. What kind of grass did you sow? —I tried cocksfoot and Chewin's fescue, and they both took. The cocksfoot seemed to do better than the other. I think that in many parts of that country it would be better if couch-grass were sown. 14. Do you not think there is a danger of it spreading over the better land? —I do not think so. It is a quick-spreading grass, and binds the ground. I think couch should be tried on the bare country. My impression is, and I have held the opinion for a very long time, that it would almost be advantageous for the State to supply grass-seed, on condition that the tenant sowed the seed at the proper time. This work might be done under the supervision of the Crown Lands Ranger. My reason for saying that is this: that it is not only an individual benefit, but in a few years it will become a benefit to the State, because the country will then carry a third or a half more stock. Of course, it might benefit the individual for a few years while the lease lasted. 15. Mr. Paul.] I suppose you have thought out the other methods whereby this land could be improved without State aid? You think State aid is absolutely necessary? I think in such a property as I have been speaking of it is necessary. I think the only way in which the object could be obtained in another manner would be by giving a very long lease, with valuation for all improvements, including surface-sowing. 16. What is the total length of your lease? —There is another six years to run from the present month. The lease is for fourteen years. 17. You are convinced that there would be no danger to the State being involved in the expenditure of such a large sum of money, and perhaps losing it? —I do not think so. 18. Of course, it seems absolutely necessary to restore the productive power of this land in some way? —I think it would be one of the best investments the State could possibly make, and that the system should be applied to Central Otago as a whole —that is, from Waitaki to Central Otago —especially to places with northern slopes. 19. If the grass-seed were supplied and were sown under the supervision of a Government officer you would have no objection to regulations being drawn up in order to prevent the land being eaten out again, just the same as it has been in the past? —Certainly, we would have to conform to that. I think that would be a wise course. I think that all graziers and pastoralists are alive to the mischief that has already been done, and I do not think they would like to repeat the performance of overstocking. 20. There is only the danger in the last few years of a lease of a tenant taking all the improvement out of it? —I quite realise that, but I think there would be no objection to the tenant agreeing to any such saving clause as that. 21. You are convinced that this would be in the interests of the colony and the lessees? —Yes; and I have been of the same opinion for very many years. 22. Mr. McCardle.] It is a very huge property you have to manage: would it not be possible to subdivide that property to advantage, in order to bring it more within the control of one manager or several managers?- Yes; it might be. But, on the other hand, you will perhaps recollect what I have just said in regard to the nature of the country —there is such a huge proportion of it fit only for grazing in the summer. There is only a limited area fit for stock-carrying in the winter. There is no doubt that some of the lower portions could be disposed of to advantage by subdivision, but what is to become of the country in the back? 23. As to your proposal of the Government supplying grass-seed, you would sow the seed in a steady and progressive manner? —Yes; it would have to be a gradual process. 24. If the Government were to supply seed in that way, do you not think it would be a fair thing that they should charge a small amount on the price of the seed in the way of interest to recoup them for the expenditure? —I think that would be quite reasonable. 25. You say that some of the flats are almost denuded of grass? —Yes. 26. Would that land grow turnips?— Not without irrigation. 27. I am certain if it were properly watered it would grow turnips? —Yes. In the earlv days it was covered with grass. 28. And the present position has been brought about through overstocking and burning? —Yes. 29. Have you much fern on your land? —No; only a small portion facing Hawea Lake. The rest of the land is not ferny country. The rabbits have been well kept under. We have got no ragwort and very little Canadian thistle. 30. It has been said that ragwort is fairly good sheep-feed. In the North experiments have been made, and the general opinion is that it poisons numbers of sheep and cattle?—l would not like to see it here. 31. In reference to sowing grass, what do you think of this alternative: the lessee providing grass-seed and the State giving him the right of renewal, with compensation for improvements, to be fixed by arbitration? Would not that obviate any possibility of loss to the State, and be satisfactory to the tenant? —I stated that the only other course to induce the tenant to improve would be to give him a longer lease, with compensation for substantial improvements. 32. Would that be equally satisfactory to you ?—I think so; and I have heard others express themselves in the same way; but we want a lease for a greater length of time, with valuation for improvements. 33. Mr. Anstey.\ Would there be any objection, providing you got a secure tenure—that is to say, right of renewal and value for improvements, to be fixed by arbitration—to a certain proportion of grassing annually, tp be compulsory on the tenant ?—I have not looked at the question from that point of view, but I do not think I could agree to a lease making it compulsory until it was proved that the thing should be done in proper season. 34. In that case you would obtain very favourable leases with no responsibility attached to them?— There is a heavy responsibility apart from that. Any one holding such country as we have got has a responsibility in itself.
T. MCWHIRTER.I
161
C—4.
35. But supposing you were given a much more favourable lease, would there be any objection to being compelled to grass, &c. ? —There would not be any objection provided the provisions were reasonable. 36. What was the largest number of sheep shorn on the station in one year? —To my own knowledge, 110,000. 37. Has the reduction been caused chiefly owing to rabbits and the winter losses? —The winter losses. 38. In such a large run have you the proper conveniences for avoiding these winter losses? — Yes. We have fences to get the sheep down to a safe point; but in some years the low country is worse than the high country. I have seen 2 ft. of snow along the Clutha River, and it lay on the ground for six weeks. We have a huge army of rabbiters, all employed in case of such an emergency, trying to save the stock. 39. You said you cultivated 300 acres of winter feed? —Yes; principally turnips. 40. That seems a trifling amount to grow for such a large run? —In that case turnips were of no use for six weeks, and we had to feed the sheep on hay and oats. 41. How much hay do you grow annually? —300 acres; but the crops are very light indeed. 42. You said that in subdividing the run some of the best country could be subdivided, but what are you going to do with the high country? Could it not be subdivided so that each could have a portion of it? —The configuration of the country is such that that could not possibly be done. I have looked at the run with that object in view, and I do not think it is possible. 43. You say there is a very small proportion of low country. I think we passed some of the worst country on the road to-day; but in one case, on the other side of the fence, we saw some beautiful crops of grass, which-.it seemed required simply irrigation? —Yes; very likely. 44. Could you not irrigate a portion of your land? —The water question has been a trouble to us. Lately we applied for a water-right with that object in view, and the intention is to grow hay, lucerne, or clover for winter use, and we have already applied that to a small extent. 45. Could not that also be done in the case of smaller areas? —No cloubt; but the water question is the trouble. 46. Judging from the sample I saw coming along the road, I should think the land would probably grow twenty or thirty times as much after irrigation than before, so that your 200 acres of turniDS might turn out better if the land were irrigated ? —Yes; but it is a great expense to irrigate. 47. Is is very dry here during the summer months? —Yes, as a rule. It depends on how the autumn rains come. 48. Do you think if the Government undertook the making of greater plantations some improvement might be effected ? —Yes. I believe it was a great mistake that greater plantations were not made twenty or thirty years ago. 49. Might it not be wise for the State to undertake a certain amount of planting? —Yes; I think it would be a most wise thing. 50. Mr. Forbes.] You said the rent you are at present paying is too much?- —Yes; there is no doubt about it. 51. You have applied for a reduction of rent? —Yes. 52. The matter is now under consideration? —I understand so. 53. The land is capable of carrying more than it is at present?— Just double, I reckon; but the price of sheep at present is prohibitive, and in the existing unsatisfactory position it would not be judicious to buy. 54. In regrassing the greatest danger is from the grass being eaten out? —Yes. 55. Do you not think, in the event of the State assisting in regrassing, that it should have something to say with respect to the number of sheep ? —Yes ; I think that would be quite reasonable. 56. The Chairman.] Do you know if your principals got any relief from the Government in 1895? —Yes. The rent was reduced from £4,500 to the present amount, and the length of the lease was extended. Before that the runs fell in at different periods, but they were then all made so as to terminate at one time. There is another matter I would like to mention —namely, in respect to the scattered freeholds over the run. That question was brought before the Minister of Lands, but has not yet been dealt with. There are quite a number of small pre-emptive rights of 11J acres scattered over the Morvern Hills. Under the present law there is no power to exchange them with leases elsewhere which could be irrigated. I think the law should be amended so as to enable the Minister to agree to the aggregation of these pre-emptive-right sections into one block, so that the lessee might improve his freehold by irrigation or other expenditure. These leaseholds are at present practically of no value whatever. I think also that compensation should be allowed for substantial improvements in irrigation and grazing. 57. Mr. McCutchan.] What is your opinion about the constitution of the Land Board? —As far as I have seen, Ido not really think there could be much improvement made. They seem to discharge their duties very well. 58. Do you think the nomination of members of Land Boards should continue to rest with the Government? —I think so. Ido not think it would be any advantage to change it. 59. Mr. Paul.'] Do you think valuation should be allowed for grassing?— Yes. Of course, the lessee does all the labour. It is suggested that he should pay a portion of the cost of the grassseed as well. I think if I had to go to the expense of regrassing a considerable portion of the country and fencing it, and then if I were to leave it, as it would bring in a higher rent to the State I think it is only right that I should receive the first consideration. 60. No doubt you see the great difficulty there would be in fixing the valuation of regrassing? —Yes ; but I think that could be arranged.
21—C. 4,
C.—4
162
J. H. WERNER.
John H. Werner examined. 61. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a mining and land agent at Loburn, and I also run a dairy farm. I have been in this district since 1863, and have been a mining and land agent for fifteen years. I was for seven years engaged in dairy farming before I became engaged in the mining business. I would like to draw the attention of the Commission to the present tenure of settlement in Central Otago. Many of the runs in this district, such as Morven, Pisa Hills, and all the big runs, are leased by the Government, and the Government cannot alienate the land during the currency of the lease. The only way to acquire land —and that is only in small areasis under "The Mining Districts Land Occupation Act, 1894." Under that Act an applicant can only hold 100 acres, including any land he may hold under any other tenure. It is impossible for a man to maintain a family on such a small piece of land. Irrespective of the small area, there is another drawback, and that is the compulsory-residence clause. That means that if you have grown-up children and you take up land under this tenure the family has to separate, and the members of it take up other land. Furthermore, the holder of an occupation lease under the Act cannot get an advance from the Advances to Settlers Department. So that an applicant on the goldfields is placed in a different position from an applicant for land anywhere else in the colony. I have more applicants going through my hands than any one else here, and there is only one instance where an application has passed through without opposition from the runholder. The opposition of the runholder has some reason in it, because there is no allowance for the land taken away —that is, in respect to his rent. An applicant has to advertise before he knows whether he will get ,the land or not. That is a great hardship, because his application may be thrown out and the money he has expended is wasted. The remedy I propose is that the Government should try and arrange with the runholders that areas up to 320 acres for each applicant could be taken from runs of over 100,000 acres, and lesser areas from smaller runs, the whole area taken not to exceed a twentieth part of the land during the term of the lease. I think that land carrying seven thousand sheep or less should be exempt from interference if the lessee is residing on the land. I think that full compensation should be provided by giving the runholders the rents from the land taken out of their runs during the currency of their lease, after deducting one-third for roading. Perhaps you are aware that there is an accumulated fund derived from land taken under the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act, and I think that half of the rent should go to form a second fund to provide for compensation if the land is taken for mining. This accumulated fund has never been touched yet, nor is it likely to be, because there have been no resumptions either here or elsewhere. I propose that this fund should go towards recompensing the runholder for land taken. I also propose that the enforced residential clause should be done away with. There is no necessity for it nowadays. I was secretary of the Conferated Miners Association when the Act was passed, and I had a communication from the Hon. John McKenzie, the then Minister of Lands, who stated that the clause was necessary in order to prevent runholders employing dummies and picking out the best pieces of land. Ido not think there is any danger of that now. I also think that lessees under the Mining Occupation Act should have advantage of the Advances to Settlers Office. The security is just as good as any other leasehold, because they get compensation for improvements the same as a lease-in-perpetuity holder. 62. Does the Act say that they shall be debarred from applying to the Advances to Settlers Office? —No, but the schedule of tenures to the Act does not include land held under the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act. I also wish to draw your attention to another hardship—viz., that the survey fees are not credited to rent. They used to be until the Act was amended last year. 63. Mr. Paul.\ What would this land be used for under the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act? —For agricultural, horticulture, and pastoral purposes. 64. Do you hold any area for that purpose at the present time? —I hold some freehold and some leasehold under the Mining Districts Occupation Act, and an occupation license under the Mining Act of 1886. 65. What is the area? —Under the Mining Districts Occupation Act the maximum is 100 acres. 66. You say the maximum is too small? —Yes. I propose it should be 320 acres, and I think that is little enough in this country. 67. You propose to make the maximum 320 acres when a run is above a certain size, and then it will be gradually reduced according to the size of the run ? —Yes. I should think it would be a great hardship that a man holding a small run should have his land all taken from him. 68. Mr. McCardle.~\ You say you would limit the amount of land to be taken out of any one run to 5 per cent, of it? —Yes, of runs carrying over seven thousand sheep. I mean that an area could be selected until such time as 5 per cent, of the run was taken away, and then no more land could be taken from that run. 69. Do you not think that the proposal you make, if largely availed of, would destroy the large runs, and that all the low country would be taken up and nothing but the mountain-tops left? —I can assure you that the lower country is more barren of grass than the hillsides. 70. You know this large run that has been referred to? —Yes. 71. In your opinion, could this run be subdivided to advantage ?—You have already had the evidence of Mr. McWhirter on that point; but I know that if the Pisa Run was cut up to-day and leased in 8,000- or 9,000-acre blocks it would soon be taken up. I am prepared to go in for some myself. 72. Your experience has been that the Advances to Settlers Office does not advance on leases under the Mining Districts Occupation Act? —That is so. 73. You are aware that when they do advance it is only up to 50 per cent, of the actual value of the improvements: in your opinion, as a land agent, would it be safe for the Government to advance up to three-fifths of the value of a leaseholder's interest in any section? —I should say so. 74. Mr. Anstey.~\ In proposing that settlers in these mininsr districts should have the right to take 320 acres of large runs, do you propose that they should have the right of free selection ?—
C—4.
H. WEENEB.J
163
Yes; where they like. Of course, it would be subject to the approval of the Land Board before being granted. 75. You heard what Mr. McWhirter said, that they had not now sufficient winter country on these large runs: supposing you allowed free selection, would that not most likely spoil the back country'l--No. The best sheep country is on the sidings, and not on the flat country. 76. But if they had free selection as you propose, would they not take the sidings?—No; they would take small areas for agricultural purposes, and therefore they would take the flat country that could be irrigated. 77. Do you think there is plenty of low country for these back runs, supposing 5 per cent, of the run is taken away?--I think so. I think the necessities of the people should be taken into consideration as well as the runholders. That it all. 78. You say that a man should be allowed to take 320 acres out of a run of a certain size wherever he likes: under your proposal could not a man take a strip of land 1 chain wide right along the river or road frontage, and bo spoil the runholder's property? —A man could not take up a holding unless it was in a square block. No surveyor would cut out 320 acres in the way you suggest, nor would the Land Board approve of it. The application has to receive the approval of the .Land Board. 79. Mr. Hall.} Do you not think it would be a great loss to the country if these runs were damaged or made less valuable than they are at present? —I think there is room for both parties with proper management. 80. You do not think the runs would be seriously damaged ? —I think if the runholders got the compensation I propose they would be in pocket if anything. 81. The general opinion expressed by runholders is to the effect that they require a considerable portion of low-lying ground for-winter feed? —Yes, but they could not provide feed for winter without growing it. 82. They can only grow it on the flat country? —They could only do so by ploughing. You cannot surface-sow in this climate without water. 83. Would it not be a great loss to the country if these runs were damaged? —I do not think so. 84. Is not the export of frozen meat a matter of great importance to the colony as a whole? — There is no export of frozen meat from, this country, nor is there likely to be. 85. These runs are the only means of breeding merino sheep, and the supply of merino sheep to the low country is the only means of keeping up the quality of mutton fit for export: therefore, would not the loss of these runs be a serious matter for the colony? —I do not think so. If the great runs were broken up I think they would very soon be occupied. The rising generation are looking for land, and what are they to do if these runs are not cut up. 86. Mr. Forbes.} Is there any demand for land by the people here? —Yes. I applied to the Land Board on behalf of a settler for 100 acres of the Morven Hills Estate, and they said they could not grant the application without the consent of the runholder. I then wrote to Messrs. Dalgety and Co., and received the following reply: — " Dunedin, 25th January, 1905. —Dear Sir, —We have consulted with the manager of Morven Hills Station in regard to the 100 acres of land that Mr. John Watkins wishes to obtain on the runs under lease in perpetuity. As under the present law a runholder obtains no reduction of rental when land is taken away from him for settlement, but is called upon to go on paying rental on that land until the end of his lease, we have invariably refused applications of this nature, and we must do so, we regret to say, in the present instance. We are not aware that the Government are willing to give any concessions to the lessees of Morven Hills, but, should they do so, we should then be willing to reconsider the application that you have made on behalf of Mr. Watkins. —Yours, &c., Dalgety and Co. (Limited). "Mr. John Werner, Land Agent, Lowburn Ferry." It is with the idea of remedying this state of things that I make my proposal. lam not interested in this question, because I can make a living independent of any land. But I have children growing up, and I would like to see them settled on the land here. I know that several people have been driven out of the district through the Land Board refusing applications of a similar nature". The runholders always object and say they want this and that country for winter country. 87. You think if the runholders got a concession in their rent they would be more likely to grant these requests? —I think if the runholders were treated fairly they would treat these applications fairly, and that is why I propose to use this fund in the way I suggest. 88. Do you think the present constitution of Land Boards is satisfactory, or do you think it would be better if they were elected? —I think there should be elective Land Boards with a nominated Chairman. I think there should be two to represent Central Otago and two to represent the other portions of the province. 89. Does not the Board as now nominated represent all parts of Otago? —We have never had a representative on the Land Board since it was constituted. 90. Do you think if the Government nominated men to represent the various districts it would be better than the present state of affairs? —Perhaps so. What I mean is that if a man were sent on the Board to represent this district he would know the requirements of the people and the locality and quality of the land applied for, and he would use that knowledge in deciding the applications. At the present time, if an application comes to me or any other land agent, we make out the application and send a recommendation with it. It is then sent on to the Land Board and the runholder objects, and unless the applicant or his agent goes down he has no show at all. 91. You are not satisfied with the present Land Board because you do not think they go into matters in this district properly? —I believe they are conscientious enough, but Ido not think they have the local knowledge. I have also been asked to draw your attention to the advisability of allowing small areas to be taken up as orchards, without compulsory residence, and I recommend that small areas should be granted for this purpose without enforcing residence conditions.
C.-4 ;
164
[j.efi. WEENEB.
92. Mr. Anstey.] Can you give us a rough idea of how much of that flat land on the other side of the river, belonging to the Morven Hills Station, is suitable for settlement? —I cannot tell you the acreage, but there should be more than 2,000 acres suitable for settlement. George Cockburn examined. 93. The Chairman.J What are you? —I am a miner, prospecting at present. 1 also hold 20 acres of freehold land near Queenstown. 1 came here in 1870, and in 1880 1 took up a deferredpayment section at the head of Lake Wakatipu. 1 went to the North Island in 1890 and came here again in 1897. I have a prospecting license for 40 acres now, but we have not succeeded so far. 94. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission I—l1 —1 have no particular object except to express the opinion of the settlers about here. My own experience at the head of Lake Wakatipu under the deferred-payment system has proved to me conclusively that it is a mistake to ask a man to settle upon a cramped area of ground. 1 was the pioneer settler at the head of the lake, and at that time the land was cut up into 50-acre sections, and 1 was only allowed to take one up. There was a residence clause in my agreement and I resided there three years, and after a good deal of trouble I was able to secure the two adjacent sections. The land did not pay for cropping, and the area was so small and so badly situated that I could not keep enough stock on it to pay me. I sold out at a sacrifice, and, in fact, every settler who went to the head of the lake with capital then had to abandon his holding. I have very little fault to find with the amended land laws. I think they are very liberal, but there are some points in regard to which further amendments are required. I may state that one thing in favour of the deferred-payment system was that it encouraged a settler to improve his holding and settle permanently on it, and I think everyone ought to be encouraged to do that. Ido not see how it woud injure the State in any way to grant the right of purchase to all lease-in-perpetuity holders. 95. Of course, you are aware that the lease in perpetuity is for 999 years, without any interference at all at the original rent, so that if the original rent is reasonable and the country goes on improving, it would appear on the face of it that it is a very good thing to have one of these leases? —Yes, if it was a permanent arrangement; but under party government one Government might promise to continue this state of affairs and the next Government might propose to repeal them, and perhaps substitute such a thing as revaluation, and that would make a farmer a serf. 96. It could not possibly afl'ect any lease in perpetuity already taken up: the Government could not break an existing contract?—l do not know. You are aware that they have taken land compulsorily for settlement purposes, and the same principle is involved. 97. I gather from your remarks that you think a lease in perpetuity with revaluation would be unfair, and would make the settler subservient to the powers that be? —Yes. I am very strong on that point There was a good deal in what Mr. McWhirter said, but Ido not agree with some of his conclusions. 1 think when the time comes these large runs could be worked with more advantage to the State and better results for the settlers about here. I think the people requiring land would be better served if the runs were cut into smaller areas. I think that indiscriminate selection in a run would spoil the grazing-runs altogether. I also heard Mr. Werner say that 12,000 acres would keep seven thousand sheep, but I do not know where that kind of country is about here. My experience is that it would take four times that area, and in the Lake Wakatipu district it would take about 70,000 acres to keep them. I have a great horror, after my experience at the head of Lake Wakatipu, of cramping any settler in his operations in pastoral pursuits, or even in farming. 98. Mr. Paul.] You think it would be wise for the Government to give the option of the freehold to lease-in-perpetuity settlers? —Yes. 99. Would you apply that to land settled under the Land for Settlements Act?—l think they should have the right to purchase when they are able to, but they should not be allowed to borrow money for the purpose. 100. How could you prevent that?—lt would be a trouble to do so. Of course, a settler would have to comply with certain conditions and prove himself a bond fide settler before he was allowed to -acquire the freehold. I think there should be some finality to these leases. It is very seldom you can get a tenant in this colony to observe his contract. If he suffers a reverse or has a grievance he at once comes to the State. 101. Do you look on it as a breach of contract for the settlers under the lease in perpetuity to ask for the freehold ? —I do not. 102. Why?— Because I say it would encourage them to make improvements, and would be better for the State. Of course, if there had been no freehold from the commencement, and if the colony had been always settled on socialistic lines, it would be right enough to refuse the option of purchase now. I think the granting of the freehold would make the colony more prosperous. 103. Would it be a breach of contract if the Government gave the freehold to the settlers under the lease in perpetuity who are asking for it?— The Government can do almost anything now. Ido not hold with breaking contracts, but, looking at the existing state of affairs, we see it is done constantly now. 104. Would you give the freehold to tenants under the Land for Settlements Act? —Yes I would give the freehold to every one in limited areas who was bond fide able to pay for it and use it. 105. And would you give the lessees of educational, Harbour Board, and municipal endowments the right to the freehold ? —I have not considered that. There might be special reasons for not doing so. 106. You think it would be a wise policy for the Government to acquire estates and then allow the tenants to have the option of the freehold: do you not think there is a danger of the tenants picking the eyes out of each estate and leaving the Government with the bad sections?—l do not see that it would be any loss to the Government when they had the price of the land in their pockets and were satisfied with the security.
C.—4.
G. COCKBUBN.]
165
107. Then, you see no harm in the Government acquiring estates and being compelled to part with the best sections in that estate, and have the worst left on their hands'4 —1 cannot see how the thing would work that way. Of course, some settlers will get bad farms and they will have to stick to them under the original conditions; but 1 think the man who is successful, and who is in a position to do so, should have an opportunity to buy the freehold. 108. Do you see any harm in a certain number of tenants acquiring the best sections of an improved estate and leaving the worst on the hands of the Government? —I do not know that a case of that sort has ever cropped up. 109. Do you not know that it could not have cropped up because the tenants never had the option of the freehold on these estates? —That is so. 110. Mr. McCardle.\ When an estate is cut up various prices are put on the sections according to their quality? —Yes, 1 believe so. 111. Should a man who takes up a good section and purchases it be made responsible for the man who takes up an indifferent section and does not purchase it? —No. 112. In granting the freehold, would you be prepared to limit the amount of freehold one man could hold I—Yes. 113. You have already stated you think the time will come when these large runs can be profitably occupied in small areas? —Yes. 114. Do you think that that time to a certain extent has already arrived? —1 think so. 115. Mr. Anstey.J Could you tell me whether the dredging operations in the Clutha River are likely to cause any damage to the adjoining land ? When crossing the punt a gentleman expressed a good deal of fear that the dredging operations would presently so damage the river that it might overflow and spoil the land at the punt? —1 think it is possible, but I have not been up there to take any stock of it. 116. Can these tailings be dumped anywhere the dredge-people like? —1 think they can dump them wherever they like on their own claim. 117. Would it not be wise to regulate the disposition if these tailings, because the river must be kept open ? —I think so, if it was practicable. 118. Mr. llatt.J You know that the object of the Government in purchasing these estates for settlement is to break up large holdings, and to enable settlers to get a reasonable extent of land for bona, fide settlement? —Yes. 119. When the Government has pledged the credit of every man in the colony to buy an improved estate, would the Government be justified in selling the freehold again, and running even the most remote risk of a further aggregation of land? —As far as I can find out, the feeling of the people, even those who have land and are interested in the land, is that they are just as much scared at the aggregation of land as the people who do not want the freehold at all. 1 do not think there is the slightest fear of that. 120. Still, would that prevent people with money, who are desirous of increasing their holdings, from buying out their neighbours and creating moderate estates in the future? —I think regulations could be framed to prevent that. 1 would not have any aggregation of estates. 121. Of course, the Government could limit the area any one could buy from the Crown, but could they limit the area any one could buy from a private individual? —I think it could be done. 122. You are aware that once land becomes freehold the Land Board have no control whatever over it? —Not at present. 123. You said that encroachment on these big runs would have to be carefully done? —Yes. 124. You mean it is important that these big runs should be maintained for the breeding of sheep ? —Yes. 125. Did I understand you to say that people think there is a danger that the Government might upset these leases in perpetuity? —1 said it was possible. Of course, they disclaim that kind of thing, but the legislation of the past few years has opened the eyes of the people as to what Parliament can do. 126. Have you ever heard of any action taken by Parliament that interfered with the title to land acquired legally? —Not except the compulsory acquisition of estates. 127. If the Legislature enacted a law to interfere with the title for 999 years, could they not also interfere with a freehold title? —They could. Ido not think that there would be any loss by converting the leasehold into freehold, because the Government could tax the freehold to any extent they liked if they were strong enough. 128. You think the most effective means and the least costly method of keeping down rabbits is to give the runholders a good length of tenure, so that they could afford to spend money to keep them down ? —Yes; but I think on large holdings it is almost impossible to give the necessary attention. I think that close settlement is the only successful method of coping with the rabbit-pest. I would also like to state that 1 think the holders of small grazing-runs should be at liberty to cultivate any of their land that is suitable for growing winter feed. It seems to me very hard that a man cannot provide against the winter by being debarred from making use of whatever opportunities his run may give him for growing winter feed. It also seems to me that the amount of compensation for fencing at the end of the lease is a bit scanty. I think it should be more liberal. Charles Holden examined. 129. The Chairman.'] What is your business? —I am Town Clerk of Cromwell. I have been here six years. 130. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission? —I think that more facilities should be given to small settlers who wish to take up areas of land ranging from 10 to 50 acres for fruit-growing, and, wherever it is possible, for intense cultivation by means of irrigation. I think they should be granted the privilege of non-residence. I think that a man should be
166
[0. HOLDEN.
C—4.
allowed to live in the town and own his orchard out of it, but I would give the first chance of selection to the man who wished to reside on his section. I agree with Mr. Werner that if the runholder got the benefit of the rent for the land taken out of the run he would not be so liable to offer objection to the men who apply for areas out of the run. I have tried to take up land under the Mining Districts Acts for dairying, but I was not allowed to do so. 131. Mr. McCardle.] You have a good deal of flat country here?— Yes. 132. It is quite useless at present? —Yes 133. Will it interfere very materially with the runholder if the flats were taken up by the settlers and used for cultivation? —I do not think so. 134. Would you favour the homestead system of settlement in regard to this land? —I would. 135. In your opinion, this worthless country is suitable and could be profitably settled by the State under these conditions? —1 do. 136. Do you think that these large runs could be profitably cut up into small runs without doing away with the breeding of merino sheep ? —1 do. I believe it would be to the benefit of the State and to the benefit of this district generally if they were cut into smaller areas, running from the watercourses right up the hills, thereby giving them both low and high country. 137. You think it would be a success? —I do. 138. Mr. Hall.] Have you any knowledge of sheep-farming? I do not profess to have a great knowledge, but I have farmed sheep. 139. Do you think the breeding of merino sheep on small runs would pay the expense of looking after them? —A man with 5,000 acres could breed merino sheep and keep a thousand on a section. 140. Would that bear the cost of management and shepherding ?--I think so, with combined farming on the low land. So far as the rabbit-pest is concerned, I think thi-t its cure is easy communication with the coast and more population. It is also well known that the rabbits like dry ground, and I think if the land about here was irrigated they would clear out. Robert Thomson Jackson examined. 141. The Chairman.] What are you?-—I am station manager of the Kawarau Station. The lessee is the New Zealand and Australian Land Company, and the area of the run is 206,000 acres. We shore 34,000 merino sheep last year. The average clip is about lb., and it is sometimes 81b. The rent is £1,850 a year. The lease is for fourteen years, and there are six years to run. An extension was given under the Pastoral Tenants Relief Act. I have been there about five years. I was formerly manager at Molesworth, Awatere, for six years. 142. Has any grassing ever been done in connection with the run you have been connected with? —We have done a little at Kawarau —about £100 has been expended in grassing, and the results have been pretty good so far, especially last year's sowing, which has taken very well indeed. I sowed grass principally in the gullies and in the shady sides. The northern faces will not take so well, but sometimes it takes fairly well on these places also. The best time to sow is in the spring. We do not burn off. We sow on the bare ground, and after the frost lifts the seed sinks in. At Woodbank and Hanmer Plains we did surface-sowing every year, and the results were beneficial. There was plenty of grass and fern there to clear the ground before sowing or burning. I was at Woodbank six years. I should say that the carrying-capacity of Woodbank was thus increased to a considerable extent. The increase in stock was from eight thousand to eight thousand five hundred sheep. I think the five hundred increase quite warranted the expenditure. Another advantage is that, owing to the increased grass, the land carried the eight thousand five hundred sheep better than it carried the eight thousand before the improvements were made. We sowed cocksfoot principally and white clover. 143. There is a difference of opinion about Chewin's fescue: have you any experience of it? I have seen a good bit of it up here. It grows right enough, but does not seem to carry a lot of feed. It holds the ground well. • 144. Could you suggest anything in the way of encouraging tenants to make improvements by giving them secure leases, or in any other way? T think that to give longer leases would in the first place be the greatest encouragement. I think there should be some supervision in respect to grassing in the terms of the lease. 145. Some witnesses think that the Government might provide the seed ; the reason being that if the seed were purchased indiscriminately by careless people it might cause the spread of weeds throughout the country ? —That is very likely. 146. Do you think the Government might provide the seed gratis, or at half the cost, or help in that matter 1 They could make some provision for it in the rent, and provide also that there is to be so-much grass sown. 147. Do you think the tenants should pay a certain percentage on the seed? —Yes; they should do that. 148. The Government charging the tenant interest and sinking fund? —Yes. 149. How long would this sowing last? —Cocksfoot would last for the term of a twenty-one-years lease —that is, if it took well. 150. Would you put it in the terms of the lease that the run was to be subdivided within a certain time —I suppose it would depend on the nature of the country? —If the country was good I should subdivide it. Subdivision should be made a condition of the lease, regard being had to the class of the country. 151. Do you think it would be a good thing to rest the country periodically if it were subdivided —you are aware that some of the finer grasses and herbs have disappeared altogether—they would still grow if the land was rested a while?—lt would be all right if you could keep the rabbits off it. On all this run country we have only sheep on the land during the winter, so that the land
a—4.
R. T. JACKSON.I
167
gets rested up to the end of June. When we get rain we get feed, but if we do not get rain we do not have it. We had a good lambing this year —about 75 per cent. During the past six years we have been able to keep up the stock from our own increase, and we have also sold some sheep. All that we sell are the older sheep. The run is very high in some places. It runs up to the crest of the Remarkables, 7,000 ft. high. We have a sub-station at Gibbston, on the Kawarau. 152. Mr. McCardle.\ You have seeded down some of the runs successfully? —Yes. 153. Do you think you can do so equally successfully with the run you are now managing? Yes. What I have done here so far has been successful. 154. Would the run you manage be suitable to subdivide?—l do not much think it would. It could be divided if you could get rid of the Remarkable country. 155. You think that getting seed from the Government would insure it being good seed?—lt ought to. 156. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you not think it would be preferable to allow the runholders, large and small, to provide their own seed, extending their lease, and fixing by arbitration compensation for improvements at the termination of the lease, giving the runholders right of renewal from time to time? —I do not think there would be any harm in that. Probably that would be just as good. I think the seed should be submitted to some test, because there is a lot of bad seed sown. I think the Government seed ought to be good, because it would be to the interest of the Government to get good seed to be sown on their own land. 157. Mr. Anstey.~\ Would it not be very much more encouragement if you got a better tenure -that is, right of renewal with compensation for improvements? Would not that be better than a fixed long lease? —That might be a better way. 158. Is it not security of tenure that you really want? —Yes. 159. If you had security of tenure you would probably sow the grass yourself? —Yes, if we were sure of reaping the benefit of it. 160. How are the rabbits on the Kawarau Run? —Pretty bad on the low country, but getting better on the high country. 161. What are you doing to reduce them on the higher country? —Poisoning. They will take poison on the higher country, but they breed more than five times as quickly on the lower country. 162. Can you suggest any better means of reducing the pest? —No; I do not think we can do any more than we are doing now. We trap in the summer. 163. Would it not be possible to keep the rabbits much better in check on smaller holdings? — If the holdings were well looked after I believe we could, but there are some of the smaller holdings about here worse than the runs. 164. Could the losses by snow be minimised if the runs were made smaller? —I do not know. The Remarkable country is very dangerous. Ido not know how you could do anything with it. 165. In your opinion, it is not practicable to make use of that country? —I have tried to cut it up in my own mind, but the country on the other side of Nevis is the trouble. 166. One witness to-day was rather strong on the proposal that in mining districts a settler should have the right of free selection ? —I do not think much of it. 167. If they exercise that right I presume they would select frontages, which would spoil the country altogether? —Yes; because it is not only the land you lose, but there is the disturbance of the stock in the neighbourhood. 168. Mr. Hall.\ Would it work well to divide the run into small runs for sheep-breeding? — You could make two or three runs out of it. 169. Would it pay the lessees to take it in smaller areas? —If they got it at a decent rent. 170. Have you sown fescues? —Yes. They seem to stand to the ground. Chewing's fescue is all we have used. 171. As regards compensation at the expiry of the lease, do you see any means by which grassing could be valued ? Would the arbitrators be in a position to assess the compensation unless they knew the position and state of the land at the beginning of the lease? —It would be rather a difficult thing to get at. 172. Do you see how grassing could be valued? —Any one valuing would have to know the state of the country before the grass was sown, and then inspect it at the end of the term of the lease. 173. In the interests of the State, as well as of the runholder, you say that leases should be for longer terms ? —I think that fourteen years, with right of renewal, would be a better tenure than at present. 174. Do you think that the constitution of the Land Board could be improved by election or by any other means? —I have heard no objections made to the present system. I heard it stated in evidence this afternoon that the members of Board do not know the requirements of the district, but I may point out that they have Rangers who report on all the applications that are made. 175. I suppose it is only merino sheep you keep on these runs? —Yes. 176. Have you no surplus ewes to go down to the lower country? —We sell a few every year. 177. Mr. Matheson.] You said that security of tenure would prove the greatest inducement to lessees to improve the country? —I think so. 178. Suppose you could see a way to divide the land into two or three runs at the end of the lease, giving the holders a right under certain conditions to acquire the freehold, do you think it would be wise on the part of the State to do that? Do you think it would result in making the place much more productive under such tenure?—l do not think so. Ido not think the freehold would be much good to the tenant in country like this. James Ritchie examined. 179. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer on Cromwell Flat. I hold 670 acres. It is freehold, except 180 acres which is on occupation under the Mining Act. I have been here for forty-one years. My land is mostly used for cropping and grazing. All we grow we sell locally.
[j. BITCHIE.
C.—4.
168
Our grievance has always been the want of an outlet. We have always been looking forward to getting railway-communication. The 180 acres is in the middle of my freehold, and I would like to convert it into a freehold. It was held under agricultural lease, and I would have converted it into a freehold except for an oversight as to the date within which I could do so. I think that omission should be rectified. lam willing to purchase it. 180. Mr. Anstey.] Where is your farm? —Two miles and a half from Cromwell. I pay for the leasehold lOd. an acre. 181. What class of land is it? —Fairly good. 182. Do you irrigate the land? —Yes, I irrigate it all. I have two races —one fifteen miles long and the other eight miles long. 183. Is there much improved land in that neighbourhood of that quality? —Yes. The land is of a good class if it is watered. I threshed out 20 acres of oats the other day, and it went 65 bushels to the acre. The land has been cropped for forty years without any manure or anything. 184. It has not been cropped continuously for the forty years? —No; every alternate year. 65 bushels is rather more than the ordinary crop. The crop depends greatly on the amount of irrigation you can give it. 185. You have not got any high country attached to your holding? —Yes ; we hold 2,000 acres —a small run. 186. I presume that works conveniently with the low country? —Yes. 187. How many sheep do you run on the high country? —We have been trying to stock it. We put five hundred ewes on it one time, and we took a hundred off —the snow killed the rest. 188. Can you not bring tlia sheep down to the low country for the winter? —I had five men engaged for a week to bring them down, but they only brought them down to die. 189. Mr. Hall.] Without irrigation would your land pay for cropping? —It would not keep a goose to the acre. 190. And that applies generally to the land here? —Yes, I believe so. 191. Mr. Matheson.~\ What do you do in the alternate year —fallow or green crop? —Fallow. Without fallow and water we could not grow anything. 192. Have you tried a green crop in between? —Yes. 193. Was it not satisfactory? —No. If you get six weeks of weather such as we have had lately it would wither up any green crop. You cannot irrigate a green crop. You must have something to retard the progress of the water and prevent it carrying the land away. In the case of green crops, even if you made drills, it would cut tracks in the crop and force all the plants out. 194. The Chairman.'] For how long have you got the race? —Twenty-one years. I have one race and hold a third interest in another. My miner's right enables me to use the race. 195. Mr. Anstey.] Supposing there are a dozen farmers, has one the right to get the waterrace and keep the others out of it? —These rights have been held since 1861 up to the present time. The water was divided for mining purposes. I suppose one person could purchase all the water and keep the rest out. Of course, one head of water must by law be allowed to run down the natural course of the creek. 196. You have acquired all the water in the eight-mile race? —Yes. 197. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you have to renew the right every year? —Yes. 198. Mr. Hall.] Does the mining license allow you to use the water for irrigation purposes? —You have to take out a license for irrigation purposes. 199. Is there any limit imposed in respect to the water used? —Yes, it is limited. Jambs Hobne examined. 200. The Chairman.] You are Chairman of the Vincent County Council ?-Yes, and I have been a resident here for twenty-two years. I would like to say this with regard to irrigation: that without irrigation small holdings are valueless in this district. The water was all taken up for mining purposes in the early days. As the ground got worked out a great many miners took up small holdings, and they are using the water on those holdings. Until very recently no land could be acquired for settlement except under agricultural lease. Most of the holdings from Mount Barker down to Cromwell were originally taken up under the old agricultural lease. Water granted for mining purposes cannot be used for irrigation unless the right is altered from mining to irrigation. Some races have changed hands lately. In one case one head of water brought about £400. The hospital paid £400 for it. It costs the hospital £40 a year to clean the race and keep it in repair. At this time of the year this part of the country is very subject to thunder-storms, and when they occur they usually damage the races, and it is very expensive to keep them in repair. Rabbits also destroy the races by burrowing under them. 1 may point out to the Commission that some time ago Mr. Hancock, an American expert, was sent up by the Government to report on the various water-supplies that might be used for generating electricity, and he thought that we had the best means of doing so in the colony, at Lake Hawea, on account of its elevation Under his scheme water could be brought down from the lake. Probably the land in the valley is the easiest worked in New Zealand, but it requires water. 201. Mr. Anstey.] You said the hospital paid £400 for a head of water. Is not that the cost of bringing the water in?—We pay 4s. a head for eight years. One head of water would cost £3 12s. a week. 202. Could you suggest an equitable scheme whereby the water could be divided amongst the various settlers in any one locality?—lt would be of no use. The people who have already eot it have got too little.
C—4.
169
J. MCRAE.
John Mcßae examined. 203. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer and the owner of a homestead on the Tarras Station, about twenty-one miles up the valley from Cromwell. 1 have about 2,000 acres between myself and my two sons. The land is chiefly flat, and I use it for cropping and sheep. I have 700 acres freehold and the rest is under lease in perpetuity. I pay 2Jd. an acre for the leased land. I have been thirty-seven years in the district, and have been farming for twentyseven years. 204. Are you satisfied with your lease in perpetuity? Yes, to a certain extent, but 1 would rather it was freehold. 205. How long have you held the lease in perpetuity? —Seven years. 206. Have you improved it much? —Yes. 207. Supposing the Government said to you, "You want to make it a freehold. Very well. We will have your improvements valued and the land valued —not at 2Jd. an acre, but at its present value." Would you be willing in such a case to have it put up to auction and take the chance of- buying it in that way?—l have made a number of improvements that a Government officer could not see. The land was badly infested with rabbits when I got it. I would rather keep my present lease, because I have spent a lot of money on the land, and that expenditure could not be easily assessed. 208. Mr. Anstey.] Do you do any irrigation on your land? —Unfortunately, I cannot. We have got no water at all just now. 209. Has no one ever tried sinking artesian wells here? —Not that I know of. 210. Mr. Hall.] Can you suggest .any further means that the Government might take to lessen the scourge of rabbits?—l think wire-netting is the best method of preventing their spread and increase.
Clyde, Tuesday, 14th March, 1905. Claude Felix Fisandier examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a miner, but lam farming now. I hold some mining property still. I hold 223 acres of land, such as it is, under lease in perpetuity. It lies six miles from here across the river. I have held the land for eighf years. I crop the portion that is worth cropping, and I run a few cows and grow a little fruit. I suppose that we will improve now that the railway is coming up. 2. What would you like to bring before the Commission?-! would like anybody who wishes it to have the freehold. I think the best thing would be to grant the freehold under the deferredpayment system, such as we had in force here about fifteen years ago. 3. That is, to pay up by instalments?— Yes. I do not think there are many here who could pay ready cash for their lands, and I have been here forty years. 4. Do you not think the lease in perpetuity is pretty good? -It is no good. I have paid now in rent what the land is worth—£64 2s. 10d., and wouid it not be better if I had that money to improve with ? The more 1 improve the more lam taxed, and so Ido not see the use of improving further. 5. So far as the lease in perpetuity is concerned, the rent is always the same?— Yes, but I do not believe in it. 6. Supposing the Government allowed it, would you be willing to purchase your land at its present cash value? —It is £1 per acre and it is not worth it. If you call at my place I will show you a sample of if ; but 1 would rather pay the cash value than pay the rent. I think it is very wrong for a new country to have the land held as it is. My candid opinion is that the land laws at present are no good. I have been here forty years, and yet I cannot have a bit of freehold of my own. My two sons are like me. They do not believe in paying rent, and at present they will not go in for land. 7. What improvements have you on your section, and what do you value them at? —I have a stone house of five rooms, and fences and a cowyard and dairy. ,£l,OOO would not pay me for my improvements, and I will not improve any more the way I am fixed now, because the more I improve the more faxes 1 have to pay. I simply put on the improvements I wanted badly. There are plenty more people of my opinion if they would only come forward. 8. Mr. Paul.] Will you explain exactly "what you mean when you say the more improvements you put on your land the more you are taxed?—l am taxed on my improvements. 9. Do you mean local taxation? —Yes, to the County Council. 10. Would not that taxation be payable i? your land was freehold?—l do not know, but I know I would rather have the freehold. I want a thing of my own; Ido not want to be a servant to anybody. I reckon we are as bad as the Irish in this colony. What is the difference if you have to pay rent to the Government or to the private landlord. 11. The Chairman.] Under the freehold, you are aware that' if you improve your land you would be taxed just as much as under your present system, so far as local rates are concerned?— I understand that. 12. Mr. Hall.] Could you have got the option of purchase when you took up this land?— No; I tried to, but I could not get it. I got a piece of the run from the squatter, Mr. William Fraser. I would like to remark, in regard to the question of water-conservation, that two surveyors were sent from Wellington to report on this district. I had an interest in the Fraser River, and they wanted to go along the range and see what water was available for a reservoir. I was asked to go with them, but I could not do so. I know they went over the country, but I do not know what report was sent in.
22—C. 4,
a—4
170
[j. SHEEHY.
John Shekhy examined. 13. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a fruit-grower on the west bank of the Molyneux, near Clyde. I have an occupation lease of 40 acres, and I have held it rather more than four years. 14. Is fruit-growing your sole business? —No; I could not wait while the trees matured, so I had to make it a mixed business. The first lease granted to me was for 20 acres, but I saw that that would not be sufficient for my fruit-trees and for cultivation for horse and cattle feed, so I applied for a further area of 20 acres, and, after a good deal of trouble, it was granted to me. Immediately I was granted this extension I went on planting, and I have now 15 acres in fruittrees. In two years I considered I put a value of £20 per acre on the whole of the 15 acres, and in seven years I reckon the value will be £100 per acre for the 15 acres; and yet, because I am on a goldfields district they have refused me the right to purchase. I consider that the income from each tree after eight years' growth is worth £1 ss. annually to me. Not much of this land can be cultivated with the plough, and I have to grub it by hand. I have water-rights for irrigation, because I was previously a miner. Of course, under the present system of land-tenure it is impossible for me to acquire the freehold. I have nothing to complain of about my rent. I pay 6d. per acre. 15. Would you feel more comfortable if you had the right to make your section freehold? — Yes, and I could do so to-morrow. 16. Mr. McCardle.\ What length of lease have you got?— Twenty-one years. 17. Are you subject to revaluation (hen? —My rent will be fixed by arbitration. 18. Do you get paid for improvements at the end of your lease? —No. If I could get value for my improvements I to the Land Board now. 19. Mr. McCutchan.~\ The capital value of your land is 10s. per acre? —Yes. 20. I understood you to say that you value your improvements at £100 per acre? —Yes. 21. So your interest in the land as tenant is nearly two hundred times greater than the interest of the State? —Yes, and that is why I want it to be freehold now. 22. That increase in the value is due to your efforts entirely? —Yes 23. Under these circumstances you consider you should get the right to purchase this land at the original price—namely, 10s. per acre? —Yes. 24. Mr. McLennan.] Are there any facilities for bringing water in on that side of the river to irrigate the ground?- Yes. Generally before an election the Government send surveyors and officials to survey the water-rights, and they talk to us about water-conservation and about damsites that have been fixed on the ranges at a high elevation, but that is all that has been done. If we ask about it we are told it is being kept steadily in view 25. Would it cost much to bring in the water? —£2,000 or £3,000 would bring water in to irrigate all that side of the river. There is a never-failing supply of water. 26. Seeing that it would be a great benefit to the fruit-growers, would they be prepared to pay the interest on the capital expended? —I can only speak for myself, and I would be prepared to pay my share. 27. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you think that all land in mining districts ought to be available for freeholds? —Oh, no; but any proved non-auriferous should be available as freehold. There is a great difficulty in getting settlers on the land at present. The Land Board have frequently broken faith with us. 28. Then, do you think the boundaries of the mining districts should be refixed at certain points I—That1 —That would be a difficult thing to do. There is a good amount of non-auriferous country right in the centre of the goldfield. I think the freehold might be acquired of proven nonauriferous land. 29. You understand that the freehold could not be granted to one or two individuals in these districts? —I understand that. 30. Seeing that Jhere would be a great deal of difficulty in granting the freehold in mining areas, would not the lease in perpetuity be a suitable tenure? —I do not believe in that system of tenure at all. 31. Would you rather remain as you are? —No; I would prefer to be under the deferredpayment system, and I think that proven non-auriferous land should be brought under that system of tenure. 32. Seeing that your lease is only for twenty-one years, and that you have only fifteen years to run, and that at the expiry of your term you get no valuation for improvements, do you not think it would be much better if you got a lease in perpetuity, which provides for valuation for improvements? —No, I would not consider it at all —I would not take it at all. I would rather go on, and let the Government value my improvements and buy me out at the end of the lease. 33. But you get nothing at the end of the twenty-one years for improvements?—l would get valuation, surely. The Act does not allow it, but Ido not think any Government would allow me to be deprived of the fruits of my labour. 1 might say that our trouble here is that we cannot get land. The run comes right into the township. Nowadays the people are ready to take up land at any price, they cannot get it. 34. Mr. Forbes.] Have you any trouble in getting rid of your fruit? —Not at all, and the more fruit-growers we have the easier it will be to get rid of our fruit. I raised two or three tons this year, and I sold it all locally at 6d. per pound, when T could only get 4d. in Dunedin. My trees are of first-class quality, but they have not come into full bearing yet. I plant every year, and keep on extending. Last .year I planted six hundred trees, and this year I expect to plant another six hundred trees. I procure some of my trees from America. 35. Mr. McCardle.] You have intimated that you are quite against the 999-years lease? —Yes. 36. Are you aware that if you had that lease and wanted to sell out to-morrow you could get value in full for all your improvements directly you sold?—I could do that to-morrow with my present lease, and get full value from any other fruit-grower in the district.
C.-4.
171
J. HHEEfIY.
37. Mr. Paul.'] What is your objection to the lease in perpetuity?- I see they have fixed very high rents under that tenure, and higher than under the occupation leases. 38. That is your objection ?-Yes; and also because there is no such thing as acquiring the right of freehold'over it and stopping this rent. If you let the land to men with families their families do not want to be always paying rent. They require the land to be given to them as a freehold. It is an inducement to them to settle and improve the land. There is something in a man which makes him wish to call a thing his own. 39. I take it that your acquaintance with lease-in-perpetuity holders is limited ?—There are only three systems in vogue here—the runholder, one lease-in-perpetuity holder, and about two under occupation licenses. We cannot get the land because the Land Board will not give it, although we have petitioned frequently. 40. So, your experience of lease-in-perpetuity holders in this district is very small? —It is limited. 41. Mr. McGutchan.] With reference to representation on the Land Boards, do you think there should be direct representation by the votes of the settlers instead of the system of nomination by the Government as at present? —Yes, I think so. 42. Would you confine the voting to the people interested, or would you elect on the parliamentary franchise? —I would confine it to the people in the immediate districts. For instance, at present the Board is constituted of men appointed from the seaboard and agricultural districts, who have simply no knowledge of the conditions ruling in these inland districts. I have applied for land here, and the Board send up a Ranger who is totally unacquainted with the district to report to them on my application. He does not at all understand the climatic conditions, and he sees I am applying for land amongst a lot of rocks, and he tells the Board not to grant it to me, because he says I cannot make a living on it. 43. You are aware that four members are elected by the Government at present?— Yes. 44. The Government interests have to be p-rotected, but if the small settlers and the people interested in the land had the right to elect two members, leaving the power to nominate the other two in the hands of the Government, would that be satisfactory ? —Yes, and it would make a balance of power. William Pitches examined. 45. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am an hotelkeeper here, and a runholder. I have been here five years. I hold a small grazing-run of 2,000 acres at Ophir, about eighteen miles from here, adjoining runs held by my father, sister, and brother. I am paying 4d. per acre rent. We shore a thousand sheep from the combined 7,000 acres last season. My adjoining neighbours are only paying 2d. per acre rent. 46. Do you think your land is any better than theirs? —Not as good. 47. Was your land taken up at the same time? —Yes. 48. Was 4d. per acre the upset rent? —Yes; and my neighbours' upset rent was the same, but they got a reduction to 2d. 49. For what reason? —Because the land was poor, and because of their losses in two bad winters. 50. Did you apply at the same time for a reduction? —No. 51. You have never applied? —No. If I applied I would have to risk losing my run. It would go up to auction again, and my adjoining neighbours might go for it, and it would not suit me to lose it. 52. Was their land put up to auction again when they applied for a reduction? —Yes. 53. Then, they ran the gauntlet of auction? —Yes; but my run was outside theirs, and they did not run the risk I would. If I throw my run up I maintain I should have the first option to take it up again. Ido not think the present law is right. It seems to me ridiculous that I should have to pay 4d. while my brother only pays 2d. 54. Have you many improvements on your land? —Yes; a lot of fencing. We work the runs together. They are subdivided into paddocks. I believe there is also a rabbiter's hut on my run. 55. Are the rabbits troublesome there?— Yes. 56. How long is it since a reduction was made to your neighbours? —About three years ago. 57. Of course, the value of stock and wool has gone up since then, and it is just possible somebody else may be prepared to give 4d. ? —Yes; my adjoining neighbours would, but no outsider would go in. 58. Mr. Anstey.] What run was your holding taken from? —Galloway Eun. 59. Was that a large run? —Yes; and it is still a large run. 60. A portion of it has been cut into small grazing-runs? —Yes. 61. Do you know anything about the other large runs in this neighbourhood?— Yes. 62. Are any of the other large runs suitable for cutting up into small grazing-runs?—Yes. There is Moutere, for instance, and, speaking of that station, I may say that some thirteen months ago the Commissioner of Crown Lands and the members of the Land Board visited this district, and they went to the trouble of going over this run, accompanied by several of the residents of this place. After travelling all day we returned, and had a meeting in the Courthouse in the evening. The Land Board considered the advisability of cutting up this run, and they gave us to understand that the run would be cut up into areas of, say, from 2,000 to 5,000 acres. We were waiting to see the surveyors on the ground, and to our surprise we found that Mr. Jopp had started to fence in the ground, and that was the last we heard of it. The only bit of ground that was given was next to the river below the main road. That ground has been all taken up, and shows the eagerness of the people for the land. Ido not think the people in this district are being treated right. I think they should have had the option of going in for the land that Mr. Jopp got back again. 63. As a tenant, have your relations with the Land Board been satisfactory? —Not under the circumstances I have stated.
a—4.
172
[W. PITCHES
64.-Are you satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Boards?—No, not if they have not got the power to execute what they have promised. 65. Do you think they ought to be an elected body?- I think they ought to have more powers, or they ought to be able to execute the powers they are supposed to possess. I can certainly say they promised us we should get this land and we did not get it, and we do not know why we did not get it. 66. You think they failed to execute the powers they have? —Yes. 67. Mr. Forbes.] You say that if your run was put up to auction again it might be taken up at the same rent as you are now paying? —Possibly it would. It lies into my adjoining neighbours, and most likely they would go for it. Ido not say they would. 68. Do you think they would give more than it is worth? —They might do so. The Galloway Station gave Is. 3d. per acre for some land. It was far more than it was worth, and they had to throw it up. 69. Of course, the proprietors of the Galloway Station would not go in for your run? —But they did so in the first place. We threw the land up to get a reduction in rent, and it was put up to auction ag'ain and the Galloway Station bid Is. 3d. per acre for it, which was a higher price than we were giving. Our sheep fell back on our hands, and we had to sell them within a certain time, and at that time there was no market for sheep, and we sold at a sacrifice. 70. Then, the Galloway Station threw the land up again? —It was taken from them and I got it again. 71. Was it offered again at auction ?—Yes, and I got it at 4d. My brother found it would not pay at that, and I find the same thing. I do not want to throw the run up because I am frightened the same thing might happen again. 72. You think it would be better, when you forward a petition asking for a reduction in rent, that the Land Board should appoint a practical man to see if the rent is too high, and make a reduction if necessary without offering it at auction?- Yes; I think that is a good idea. 73. Mr. Hall.] Do you think these large runs should be subdivided and made into smaller holdings I—Yes.1 —Yes. The people are very eager for land all over Central Otago. 74. Should they be cut into 6,000- or 7,000-acre blocks ?--They should be cut according to the quality of the land. 75. Could runs in the rough country be worked successfully and profitably in such small areas? —Yes; it depends on the survey-line taking in low land. 76. Could they give low land in subdivisions of that limited area?—l think so. 77. You think the Land Board should have increased power to use at their discretion? —Yes, I should say so, so long as they could use it. I would also like to impress on the Commission the advisability of conserving water for land-cultivation. I think there are plenty of water-rights even in this district which should be retained and used for the land. 78. The Chairman.] Are there many private water-rights held here?— There are some. 79. You think there is still a surplusage of water for new applicants?— Yes. It could be easily got. The Waikerikeri Valley would serve a lot of Moutere country if it was conserved by a large dam. 80. In other words, you think that all the water is not in private possession ? —That is so. Benjamin Naylor examined. 81. The Chairman.] What are you? lam a farmer and a storekeeper, and have been here forty-two years. I farm 1,200 acres at Matakanui, and have done so since 1875. There is natural water on the farm. I have grown very good crops there. Ido mixed farming. My tenure is freehold. It has proved a very good investment to me, although it was not so in the first instance. All the work on the farm has been done by hired labour. During the first few years there was a great deal of outlay in draining and other improvements. 82. Mr. McCardle.] Is there any land about here open for settlement?— No. 83. Do you think the runs about here would stand subdivision and be profitably worked?— I think they would if the high country were taken with the low country. 84. Would the Moutere Run stand subdivision? Yes. There is no" doubt farmers could be got on them, and also on other runs. I feel sure the parties who took up the low land would be quite willing to take up a portion of the high country with it. 85. Even if it were away from the low land a bit they would fence it in and feed their stock on it? —Yes. There is better grass on the high country. 86. Do you think if the land was cut up in that way it would be readily taken up?— Yes There is a great land hunger here now. 87. Mr. McLennan.] If stock was as low now as ten vears ago, do you think there would be the-same earth hunger as there is now?— There might not be, but people have to take chances. 1 eople would take up the land and would run the chance of stock rising in price Stock was at a low ebb when I took up my land, but I did not consider the stock, but taking up the land and making a home for myself. 88. What do you think about the ballot system? Ido not approve of that. I think it is a very bad system. I would recommend localising the applications. If you open land in a district I would only allow the local people to ballot for it in the first instance. If they do not take it up, then allow anybody in the colony to ballot for it. At present a person might ballot for vears unsuccessfully, yet he might be a very elegible person to go on the land. 89. Have you anything to say about the Government taking care to preserve the water-rights for irrigation?— Most decidedly. Water-rights from the water-bed is part and parcel of the country. If the water had been conserved the land in the neighbourhood would have been far more profitable than it is. 90. The Chairman.] Do you think it would pay to spend a large amount in bringing water
C.-4
173
B. NAYLOEj
and letting it out to tlie small settlers engaged in fruit-growing? —It might not be a success at first, but it would gradually be successful. With, respect to land-tenure, I think the land laws are very suitable at the present time. I believe in the deferred payment. 91. You believe in the freehold? —1 believe in the deferred payment, and I believe in the present land laws. I believe in the lease in perpetuity, because it enables a great many persons to take up land who could not do so otherwise. 92. You know that under the lease in perpetuity the rent remains at the original amount, but without the right of making it the freehold? —It is better than freehold. The trouble seems to be about the revaluation--the unearned increment. It is a great question who that belongs to. I say that some of it belongs to the man who makes the improvements. The Government might say it is on account of the construction of public works that the value has increased, but I look upon the man who has increased the value by his labour and capital as having got a big share in the unearned increment. 93. As the law stands now there is no revaluation? —Some holders of lease-in-perpetuity land are afraid of revaluation. 1 feel sure they would be satisfied if there was not that fear. I do not think the aggregation of estates is going on here, nor is it likely to. It does not matter so much as to the aggregation of estates as it does about putting the land to proper use. A man has only one pair of hands, and if he is a large farmer and puts the land to proper use he must employ labour, and labour is pretty expensive now. I have a registered dairy, but I will have to slack it up because I cannot get milk-boys. I can hardly get anybody to feed the pigs. They will go rabbiting or do any sort of work rather than feed pigs. I am going to slack it up and go in more for sheep and cattle. As to the constitution of the Land Boards, 1 think they have given general satisfaction, and Ido not think any improvement could be made. lam in favour of the present system. If any one feels aggrieved at a decision of the Land Board he can appeal to the Minister of Lands to put the Board right. 94. Mr. Paul.] Would you be in favour of regulations or legislation being enforced against the holders of freehold land to insure that land being put to the proper use? —Yes. I would put on a wild-land tax. I would find some way of making them cultivate the land. Let them pay so-much an acre for keeping the land idle. Jambs McArthub examined. 95. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and have 1,200 acres of freehold. My son has the adjoining block of 600 acres under deferred payment, and another 200 acres is held by my daughter. The land is in the Moutere Run, about six miles from here. I have been there for over thirty years. I took up the land on agricultural lease for seven years, and then made it freehold. My son took up his land under the same system, and I subsequently took it up on deferred payment. I consider that is the best system. I use the land mostly for stock. There is a great deal of poor land on it. I surface-sow the flat land where it is shingly and thin, and that has succeeded fairly well. I bought two rights of water, and I irrigate. Of course, that is the life of the land. I think that water-conservation would be of great advantage to this district. There is a great deal of water going to waste. If we had water almost anything would grow here. 96. Mr. Matheson.] Have you any idea at what cost the water could be saved? —I think, at a very nominal cost in many places. I have some miles of races to irrigate my own property. 97. If it needs miles of races that would increase the cost very considerably? —A man with a plough can make a race in a very short time. It did not cost me a five-pound note to make the race that serves my farm. 98. Mr. Anstey.] Are there any large runs in the district suitable for cutting up into smaller holdings? —I do not think so. Ido not think there is any of the Moutere Run fit for cutting up. If you make the runs too small there is nothing in them. 99. The Chairman.] Is there any other matter you would like to bring before the Commission?--! think it would be better if the members of the Boards came from different districts. 100. Are you pleased with the system of nomination? —I should favour the district having a voice in the election of a member of the Board. 101. You think there might be a combination of the nominated and elected members? —Yes. 102. Mr. Matheson.] Would you favour the Crown nominating two members, the other two to be nominated but chosen from the County Councils of the land district? —I think that would be a very good idea. 103. Mr. Paul.] Is there not a possibility under election that the populated centres would elect all the members of the Board ? —I do not think it is fair that all the members of the Land Board should come from the seaboard. I think some members ought to come from the interior. 104. There would be a difficulty in such members attending the meetings of the Board?— At present you can go down to Dunedin in one day. 105. Mr. McC'ardle.] Do you not think that monthly meetings would be quite sufficient to meet the requirements of the country instead of weekly or fortnightly meetings ? —I think so. As regards the tenure, lam a strong believer in the freehold. I think it is every man's ambition to get a bit of freehold to leave to his children after he has gone. George Fache examined. 106. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a general agent, and have been over forty years in this district. My object in appearing here is to give an expression of opinion in regard to the tenure of the land. My experience in this colony and in Australia has been that men who live on the land want to own it. It seems a part of human nature, the wish to hold land and to transmit it to one's children. In respect to water-conservation, at the present time large quantities of water are running to waste. Most of that water could be conserved by dams at a very slight expense. At the back of the Fraser there are one or two streams running to waste that could be
&—4.
174
[g. fache.
easily utilised by the making of a few miles of race. There are districts languishing owing to want of water, and if there was water the land might go up in price from 10s. to £10 an acre. 107. Mr. McOardle.] Do you think the runs in the neighbourhood would stand being divided with profit in the way of closer settlement? —I am perfectly sure of that. 108. You are aware of the conditions under which land is settled under the Land for Settlements Act? —Yes. 109. Would you be in favour of granting those men the freehold at the price at which they took up the land, or do you think the land should be revalued before the freehold is granted? — No; decidedly not revalued. 110. I mean under the Land for Settlements Act. Would you be in favour, if a man wanted to purchase the land, that it should be revalued and the section open to be taken up by any member of the public? —I think the tenant should have the right of purchase. 111. The Chairman.] Supposing a man takes up land at £6 an acre, and the valuer says, " Your improvements are worth £1,000, but the land is now worth £10 an acre "? —No; decidedly not, because the man with energy and perseverance has increased the value. The unearned increment is due to the man's exertions. 112. Mr. I J aul.\ Do you believe that all the unearned increment belongs to the occupier? — The whole of that unearned increment is due to the exertions of the tenant. So far as regards the benefits derived from public works, he directly pays for them in the shape of rates. 113. Would you extend the right of purchase to occupiers of educational leases, Corporation endowments, &c. ? —1 think the object of an endowment should be carried out in its entirety. Land which when it was given was worth £10 might in twenty years be worth £500 an acre. If that land were given for educational or charitable purposes, as time went on the requirements of charitable institutions would increase. 114. But would not all that improvement in the value be due to the occupiers? —That does not matter. You must not take from one man to give to another. 115. You think that is different from the other case? —Yes; where the Government sell or lease it. If they lease it the unearned increment belongs to the occupier, but you should not take away land that has been given to anybody. Education reserves are given specially for education. 11C. They are all Crown lands. They all belong to the people, and it does not matter whether they are set aside for education or for any other purpose? —Not according to my view. These endowments are taken out of the hands of the Government and set aside for a special purpose. 117. Mr. Anstey.\ Then, according to your view, one class of tenant is entitled to the unearned increment and the other is not? —One takes it up under the Government and the other does not. 118. You are aware, in regard to land for settlements, that in some cases there is a very large increase in the value of land above the original valuation, and in other cases there is none. You say you are in favour of allowing the tenant the right to purchase the freehold : in that case would it not almost be certain that the best sections would be purchased and the inferior ones would be left in the hands of the Government. Would that be fair to the Government? —I look upon a great number of these questions as being such as will never arise. I stated that I would let every one have the right of acquiring the freehold; but if the Government thought their servants have made a mistake in the valuation put upon their property they should suffer for it. 119. Would you allow the holders of very cheap sections to buy them at the original price and leave the other ones in the hands of the Government? —Yes. 120. Mr. McCardle.\ Are you not aware, in respect to education reserves, that the money derived in the way of rent does not go directly for education purposes, but goes into the Consolidated Fund, and the general cost of education is voted out of the Consolidated Fund? —Yes. 121. Then, what is the great benefit of these reserves being held apart when they are really not being held specially for that purpose at all? —I understand you to say that this revenue is placed in a fund and that the Government distributes it. lam a holder of an education reserve at the present time, and pay a certain rental. I look upon it that that money is going towards the education of the children of the country. 122. Those reserves are only another source of revenue to the Government- —that is all? —That is very likely. James Bodkin examined. 123. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a fruit-grower and dairy farmer. I have been in the district about fifteen years. I hold about 80 acres under freehold on the Dunstan Flat. 124. What do you wish to bring before the Commission? —I have had some experience in regard to water-conservation, and I may state I was present with the engineers sent by the Government to report on the cost of conserving the water about here. The first one selected a site a few miles from Clyde, and then another one was sent, and Ke did not approve of it. He preferred the head of the Waikerikeri Valley, but I think it was the question of cost that prevented anything being done. It was found it would be very expensive. The ground would not hold water, and would almost have to be cemented. My own opinion of the water question is that it would be better to acquire some of the present mining rights to the water, and bring it in by races instead of making dams. 125. Would that suit the mining industry? —At the present time I think the mining industry is not very profitable about here. The sluicing is done, and I think a great amount of water might be acquired at no very considerable expense, and the races could be put right. On the goldfields the land has been reserved for mining, and in many places it is not used for mining; and now that the railway is coming near I think that a better tenure should be given to the land, in order to give encouragement to fruit-growing in these reserves. The Land Board at present can only give a year-to-year tenure to the land.
C.—4.
J. BODKIN.]
175
126. Have all these reserves been tried and prospected I—ln1 —In some places there has been some sluicing, but it is pretty well worked out. 127. You think some of these reserves could be put under a longer tenure without injury to the mining industry? —I think so, where there are suitable places for orchards. My own opinion in regard to the question of tenure is that the freehold, unless a man has his own money to make it freehold, is no better than the leasehold. I think that the freeholder mortgaged is in no better position than the leaseholder. I would favour the deferred-payment system as much as anything. I am in favour of the freehold eventually, but I do not think it would be wise for the settlers to rush into the hands of money-lenders to acquire the freehold. And I do not think it is good for the Government that the eyes should be picked out of the sections they have bought. I think only the best sections would be bought and the bad land would be left on the hands of the Government, and would cost as much to administer as the whole of the estate. 128. You think the lease in perpetuity is more favourable for settlement where the settlers have not enough money to purchase the freehold? —I think so. I think that the late Mr. Rolleston's law for deferred payment would meet the requirements of the settlers who wished to acquire the freehold. 129. Mr. McCardle.] Do you know anything about the large runs here? —I have never been over them. 130. Have you any quantity of land here that could be made available for settlement? — I only know of the runs. If they were cut up and water brought in for irrigating the land I think there would be a large development in the fruit-growing industry here. 131. You think the land could be more profitably put to fruit-growing than farming? —Yes, about here. 132. Mr. Potil.\ Are you in favour of giving the right of purchase to tenants under the Land for Settlements Act? —Certainly, on condition that a settler could show he has his own money to pay for it. I think it is almost too soon yet to give the freehold of the estates the Government have acquired. I think there should be a time-limit fixed, after which the settlers could acquire the freehold, and I think the first estate tfie Government acquired should be dealt with before the freehold is given to settlers on the more recently purchased estates. That would give the settlers time to improve their position, and give them a better chance to acquire the freehold if they wished to. George Lyon Cuthbertson examined. 133. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am Vincent County engineer, and have held that position three years. 134:. Mr. Matheson.] Has it struck you that an additional water-supply could be got at a reasonable expense for irrigation purposes —I am not speaking of a great scheme from the lakes, but from local creeks and streams? —If water was available it could be brought in from the Fraser River without great cost, but Ido not think there is any water available. Several speakers have made a point of building dams up the Fraser and bringing in water for the flats, but there is no water there. There is some water in the Waikerikeri Valley, where the Clyde supply comes from. It was only after a lot of trouble that we could get our water, and a man is kept going pretty continually looking after the races. 135. Then, you do not know of any creek that is available within a reasonable distance for supplying water to these flats? —I do not, in the immediate vicinity of this district. 136. Mr. Anstey.] Do you know if any one has ever tested this ground for artesian water? — I have not heard of it. 137. Could you form any idea as to whether artesian boring is likely to be successful or not? — I could not without data. 138. Do you think it would be worth while for the local authority or the Government to put in a trial test?- T think the Government might very well do it. I think the local body has enough on its hands at present. •[Subsequently the following letter was received and was ordered to be inserted at the end of Mr. Cuthbertson's evidence: — "Vincent County Council, Clyde, 14th March, 1905. " Sir, — In conversation with .Mr. Matheson I find that in giving my evidence on the question of water-conservation I did not understand his question aright. In saying that I did not know of any streams having water available for irrigation in any quantity which has not already been granted, I was not dealing with the question of dams, but meant that at present it would be difficult to get extra water-rights granted, as what is already granted more than exhausts the supply in the dry season. There is not the slightest doubt, however, in my mind, that during a considerable part of the season there is a considerable quantity of water in excess of the present grants running to waste, and which, if it were conserved in dams, would be of incalculable value to the agricultural and fruit-growing lands. Take, for instance, the Fraser River. I understand that from previous surveys it has been ascertained that a dam could be built for about £2,000, which would hold enough water to command the whole of the flat on both sides of the river between Clyde and Alexandra. Trusting this will correct any wrong impression I may have given the Commission through not taking the question up right. —I have, &c., " G. L. Cuthbertson, County Engineer. "The Chairman, Land Commission."]
C.—4.
176
A. 0. IVERSEN.]
Alexandra, Tuesday, 14th March, 1905. Andreas Christian Iversen examined. 1. The Chairman.J What are you, Mr. Iversen? —A farmer. 2. How many acres do you farm? —About 590 acres of freehold. 3. Do you engage in mixed farming? —Yes. 4. How long have you been farming in the district?--About twenty-four years? I was mining and had a garden in Conroy's Gully before that. I had been there since 1864. 5. You might say to the Commission what you would like to bring before us?—As to the question of tenure, I believe in the freehold, with a restricted area according to the quality of the land. The best way to obtain the freehold would be under the deferred-payment system. The term when the system was in force formerly was fourteen years, but I think the term might be extended to twenty years. If a man proved himself to be a genuine settler he might be allowed to buy after a number of years. The reason I support the freehold is that I believe that no man will improve the ground under a lease as he will under a freehold. I might tell the Commission this: I went Home from Victoria in 1857, and stayed at Home for some years. While there a Commission was appointed by Parliament to inquire into the best method of occupying tlie land. All the land in the place I come from —Denmark —is freehold. It became freehold in the early part of the century. In other parts, near Copenhagen, for instance, much of the land was held on lease from the nobility. There was an agitation that the land should be made freehold as fast as possible. Where the land was freehold a man improved his land, but where the leasehold was in force all that was cultivated during a man's father's time was still being cultivated by the son, and no improvement was being made. I visited one place and found that under Count Moltke's leaseholds the floors were still earth floors. Denmark had no resources but the land, and therefore had to take the best course to make the most use of it. A Bill was introduced —I cannot say what became of it —providing that the land was to be valued. A farmer appointed two men, the landowner two, and the Government a fifth, and these men were to value the land, and the farmer could pay in cash if he liked, or pay 4 per cent, interest on the money. The interest could not be raised, no matter how the occupier improved his land. I believe the Bill became law, but lam not certain. 6. Was there a limit in which the land had to be made freehold? —I believe there was a limit, but that is more than T can remember. It was at the time I left Home. At any rate, the result of what was done is that Denmark, which is about the size of Canterbury Province, exports nineteen million pounds' worth of butter, hams, eggs, and poultry to England every year. 7. I think it is an overestimate? —Well, they say so in the papers. I read it myself. It has also been stated in Parliament. 8. I read some time ago that Denmark sent out eight million pounds' worth of butter? —Yes, but bacon and eggs are large items too. All the land has been improved or no such result could have been brought about. New Zealand is on the same footing. The land is the main thing, and the colony should do all it can to improve the land and make it more productive year after year. That will benefit not only the farmer, but the merchant and the working-people, and everybody else, because they all depend on what the land will produce. 9. What are your views on the lease in perpetuity? —I have read about it and I have studied it. There is one drawback in it. No one knows at what moment the rent might be raised. Parliament might raise the rent at any time. The man who has a leasehold has not the same security as the man with a freehold. 10. Parliament could raise the land-tax on freehold? —Yes, I admit that Parliament has that right. 11. You think, however, that the lease is not so good? —That is so. When a good time comes a man can afford to pay his rent, and if he has more money than he wants he may improve his land, or he might put money by to purchase at some future time, or perhaps to tide him over bad times. But when bad times come with the leaseholder he is obliged to give his land up, and it falls "back on the country again. But if that man once commences to pay off his land to make it freehold he will have more interest in it. When the agricultural-lease system was in force I am told that some men considered that the best thing to do was to take a few crops and throw the land up and get another section. That might be done under leasehold as'well. 12. What about water-conservation in your district? —In the first place, I would like to say that in this district it is necessary that some land should be thrown open, so that people here could make homes for themselves. 13. Could you indicate any particular locality? —Earnscleugh and the Galloway Flat are suitable for settlement. 14. Is the Earnscleugh country not all taken up? —No, not yet. There might be some poor country included in it, but there is good land in places. All the flat between here and the Dunstan could be settled if there was water for it, and I think the water could be got from the Fraser River. There is an abundance of water for a good many months every year, and there is a place where it can be stored. Mr. Perrin told me that a dam 1 chain wide and 50 ft. high could be made to supply not only Earnscleugh but the Dunstan side of the river also. I think, myself, there is abundance of water to supply both sides of the river which might be stored. 15. Did Mr. Perrin say anything about the cost? —He estimated the amount, but I would not like to say what I think it was, because the sum in my mind is so small. A dam 1 chain in width and 50 ft. high would not cost very much. Payment for the cost could be made by the farmer in yearly instalments. In that way, I hold, the Crown land could be used to as good purpose as private estates bought by the Government. 16. What is your experience of the Land Boards? —I think the present Otago Board is as good as we could wish for. They are trying to do what is right. We might find fault at times, but I think that all the members of the Board are trying to do the right thing. I think it would not be an improvement to have the Chairmen of County Councils on the Board, as has been proposed.
C—4.
A. C. IVEBSEN.]
177
17. Mr. McCardle.~\ Are you acquainted with the large runs in the district? —Yes. 18. Could they be divided into smaller runs and made profitable for settlement? —Yes; but I would exclude the most valuable land —land that could be taken up for fruit-growing in 200or 400-acre areas. The main part of the runs, however, might be cut up into smaller runs. Blackstone Hills and other places ought to be subdivided. Even here they are too big, and ought to be subdivided. 19. You favour the freehold rather than the perpetual lease? —Yes. 20. There is a large amount of land settled under perpetual lease? —Yes. 21. Those men have their land at 4 per cent., while those who intend to purchase are paying 5 per cent. ? —Yes. 22. Would it be right to grant those lands at the same price and leave the man exempt from paying the 1 per cent, additional ? —I think the value of the land should be the same. If a man wants a change from the perpetual lease to the right-of-purchase system he should pay the higher amount. 23. You think that he should pay up the 1 per cent, to the State? —He should pay from the time he changed to the other system. 24. He is asking a privilege from the State? —Yes. It is a question, however, that I will not be positive about, and I would rather leave it to others who have thought it out. 25. Do you believe in restricting the area of land that any one man can hold? —Yes. I would restrict the area according to the quality of the land. 26. Mr. Paul.] Did you ever know a leaseholder who took two or three crops out of his land and then threw it up I—No,1 —No, but I have been told that they used to do it at the lakes. 27. Mr. McCutchan.] Your reason for fearing revaluation is that there may be a consequent increase of rent? —It is not the only Every man likes to have freehold land. There is a pride in having land of one's own. It is natural to every man to like to possess the land he lives on. 28. In connection with taxation, what are your views on the unimproved value of land? —Of course, the unimproved value rises. That is my own experience. When I came here first the people said that I was foolish and that my land was no good. By-and-by the Government valuator came round and valued the unimproved land at 10s. per acre all over the flat. Next time a valuator came round he put 2s. 6d. more on my land than on the other land, and the last time he came round he put £2 an acre more on my land than on the other land. Therefore I contend that there has been nothing done here to increase the unimproved value except what I have done myself. In other words, the unimproved value has been increased by my own labour. It is owing to my improvement of the land that the increase has been put on the value. 29. It comes to this: the fact that the unimproved value has risen is due entirely to you, and not to any increase in value of the country generally? —I have had no benefit from the railway or any other public work. Of course, sheep might have increased in price. 30. You, being a freeholder, get all the rise in the price of the land, but if you were a leaseholder you would not get it? —If I was a leaseholder and there was revaluation my improvements would be valued at so-much and my rent would be increased. I would have to pay so much more a year to the Government under revaluation, and that is one reason why I object to revaluation. 31. What is the unimproved value of the land of your neighbours? —I could not tell. The general value of unimproved land is 10s. per acre. 32. Does your neighbour's value still remain at 10s.? —I think so. 33. Mr. Hall.] Do your remarks about revaluation apply to the leases in perpetuity? —Yes. It is said that leases in perpetuity should be revalued at certain times. It has been suggested that five years or three years should be the period. The unions in the towns suggest some such thing. 34. If the Government grant a complete title for 999 years, how can there be a revaluation 1 —I say that the Parliament can override any Act. They have done it before. They can pass a law and say that there must be revaluation. I think that if that law came into force a man might be alowed the option of throwing up his land. 35.- If Parliament has the power to break down a title that is given for 999 years, cannot they do the same with the freehold title? —Certainly. At present they are taking large estates compulsorily at a valuation. Parliament is the ruler, and the majority can do anything. 36. A freehold might be so mortgaged that it would not be worth while taking it from people? —Yes, that is so. 37. Mr. Paul.~\ Where did you see any proposal by any trade-union to revalue land every three or five years?—l think it was in the Daily Times. I get it regularly and read pretty well everything in it. Such a thing has been mooted by the unions often enough. The programme was given long since. 38. You are positive that the time stated was three or five years? —It was either the one or the other. Some years ago five years was suggested, but later I believe a suggestion was made that it should be three years. 39. Would you be surprised to know that the trade-unions of this colony have never decided on the period at which revaluation should take place? —I would not be surprised. I can only tell you what I have read. The programme was given not long since in the Otago Daily Times. 40. As an old settler, do you believe all you read in the newspapers? —I find the Daily Times a very truthful paper. I have read it for many years. Sometimes the Daily Times is opposed to the proposals of the Government, and some papers would not print the arguments used in Parliament that they do not advocate themselves; but I read Hansard, and, comparing the Daily Times with the reports in Hansard, I find that the Times is very truthful. 41. I believe that the Daily Times is truthful too? —Yes, they give a very fair account both for and against.
23—C. 4.
178
Fj. mctlroy.
a—4
John Mcllroy examined. 42. The Chairman.'] What is your business, Mr. Mcllroy? —My wife holds a small section under lease in perpetuity on the Earnscleugh Settlement. 43. How much land is there? —46 acres. It was taken up three years ago. 44. What do you use the land for principally? —Mixed farming. 45. What would you like to bring before the Commission? —I maintain that the land has been valued too high. A forced valuation was placed on it. 46. What do you pay now? —ss. 3d. per acre. 47. Was the land fenced when you got it? —Some fences were running crossways on it. It was old fencing that was not worth much. Some of it had been there for thirty or forty years. 48. Was the land in grass when you got it? —Part of it was. Some of it was freehold and some was Crown land without anything on it at all. The freehold was bought at .£4 an acre, and the Crown land that was thrown open was worth 10s. per acre. Another thing is that the rent was not fairly divided among the settlers. It is flat land. My neighbour pays Is. less than I pay, and if anything his section is better than mine. It is the same with other sections. 49. Has your section any advantage in the way of water? —No, except on the top section. 50. Are you satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuitv tenure? —I would sooner have the freehold of the land, or, at any rate, a certain portion of it. A section like that is too small, but there is not another foot to be got. 51. The idea was that it should be opened for small fruit or dairy farms?— Yes; that is so. An area of 500 acres was bought for settlement, and 268 acres of the poorest of the land was opened for settlement. The rest_ was thrown in as a homestead for the run. The runholder is here. He has told me he would be satisfied if the whole of it were thrown open. He pays more for it than he can make out of it. 52. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you make a living off the 40 acres? —I do not depend on the land alone for my living. I have other work as well. 53. Do you know anything about the runs adjoining you? —Yes. 54. Could they be held in smaller areas? —I think so. 55. Mr. Anstey.] Is your farm in a mining district? —It is in a mining district in a way, although there is no mining about there that I know of. The Government have proclaimed the Fraser River a sludge-channel, which, of course, depreciates the value of the land, because tailings accumulate on the ground. 56. Does the watercourse through your land belong to the miners? —No, to the settlement. 57. Mr. Johnston.] Were you satisfied with the land when you took it up? —No; but I could not get any other. It was the only land available, and if I had not taken it I would not have got any other. Half a loaf is better than no bread. 58. Mr. McLennan.\ Have you any improvements?— Yes. I have a house, and I have fenced the land and divided it off. 59. In the event of a Bill being introduced to enable you to get the freehold of your property would you accept full valuation for improvements and allow the section to be put up for sale, so that other people could compete for it? —Yes. 60. Mr. Forbes.] What are you doing with the land? —Mixed farming. I run stock on it, and also grow a crop of potatoes. 61. Would you like to get some more land? —Yes. 62. Is there any land there available ?—'There is the rest of the land that was bought for the settlement. 63. Do you think the Government could get it back again?— Yes. I believe they have let it for twenty-one years. 64. At the same rental as you are paying?—l think it is at a smaller rental. 65. AVould it be taken up freely?—lt would be rushed, and as much more as they could get. 66. What areas would you suggest? —50 acres. - 67. Would you say that in this part of the country there is a demand for that sort of land?— Yes. There is a demand in any place where there is a chance of getting water. If there is no water the land is no good. 68. Is there any chance of getting water?— The water that is there now waters all the land. 69. And there is sufficient water to irrigate if the land was cut into small farms?— Yes; any amount of water. 70. Mr. McCutchan.] If you got full compensation for your improvements would you allow the place to be put up for sale? —Yes. 71. Is that due to the fact that you consider the rent too high?—No; the place is too small for me. 72. If the rent was such that you considered it fair would von consent to its being put up to auction ? —No. " 73. The Chairman.] How long have you been in the district? —For thirty-eight years. 74. Ido not suppose you confine yourself to this small piece of land? —I was working for wages before I took it up, and I have been doing the same since. 75. And you really got this place for a home?— Yes. 76. What is the amount of your rent? —£11 9s. per annum. 77. I suppose you wished to get a decent home and the amenities of a little ground around it instead of going into Alexandra? —Yes; it was more for a home than anything else. 78. So that, taking it on that'principle, you could give more than'the real agricultural value of the land?— Yes; but I do not see why I should pay Is. more than the man alongside of me. 79. Mr. McLennan.] Your neighbour's land is is. below yours?— Yes. 80. Has he got water on his ground?— Yes.
C—4.
179
W. S. LAIDLAW. ,
William Sanderson Laidlaw examined. 81. The Chairman.] How long have you been in the district?— For twenty-one years and a 82. You were the lessee of the Earnscleugh Run at one time? Yes. I had it for about eleven years before the Government bought the pre-emptive right. „ 83. I understand that Mr. Forrester, who was caretaker on the run for the Government, carried' out some experiments in the way of grassing the land?— Yes. He sowed a ton of grass. I told him it would be absolutely useless. He sowed most of it on the bare faces It is very dry country, and there is no shelter for grass. You cannot grow grass or anything else here without water 84. Was the grass-sowing a failure?—l think so. I have not seen any of the grass. 85. Did you ever try it yourself? —I sowed some cocksfoot grass in some of the damp gullies. I sowed only a few bags here and there, and it came away very well. 86. As a former runholder, have you any idea of what might be done to improve them f there are plenty of runs in and about this "district where grass could be sown. There is shelter m the way of tussock, and the grass would come up better than on Earnscleugh. On the Earnscleugh flats it is hopeless to sow grass, because if it did come up in the spring the summer heat would wither it again. On the Moutere, Matakanui, and Mount Pisa Runs there are places where grass might be sown with advantage. They have more rainfall, and it would be a success there. 87. What is the rainfall here?—l do not know. It is not very much 88. Do you think the tenants could be induced to sow these runs if they had a longer tenure, or if a larger amount of valuation were given at the end of the term?—lf they had some quid, pro quo they would do it for their own-sakes, even if they had not a larger valuation. If they had a certain tenure they would do it, I think. Many runholders do not care to do much in the way of improvement, because they never know the minute when their runs will be cut up. 89 Perhaps the right of cutting up would still remain, but it might be stipulated in the lease that if any cutting up was done before the termination of their long tenure they would get full valuation for their improvements? —Then, I tliink they would do it for their own sakes. 90. There is a restriction on tenants under the pastoral lease against cultivating: should there be a modification of that?—l think that if they have agricultural ground fit for cultivation they ought to be allowed to cultivate. A runholder could often cultivate 500 or 600 acres and grow turnips, and so get a few fat slieep worked oil. It might be well to place restrictions on them, 1 think. ' If they put down a crop of turnips for a couple of years they should be obliged to sow the land down in grass afterwards. . 91. Mr. McCardle.] You said that the runholder is afraid that a portion of his run might be taken for close settlement? —Yes. „ , T . , 92. Is it possible to settle a good deal of those runs under closer settlement f—l\ot about here. 93' Then, I do not see where the fear would come in ?—There are some runs that are suitable for closer settlement. . , , ~ 94. Mr. Anstey.\ Was the fruit-growing settlement, which has been spoken ot by Mr. Mciiroy, a piece of Earnscleugh Run?— Yes; it was part of the freehold. 95. We are told that more of that land is suitable for settlement. If it was taken for small settlements would it interfere with the working of the back country?—l do not think they could work the back country without it. I think that if they took the front country off it would interfere with the back country. . 96. Very great care would have to be taken before any more ot the land was acquired tor settlement?— Yes. A man with sheep wants some low land. 97. Is there sufficient of that low country now to enable the back country to be cut up into smaller areas? —There was only 500 acres at the first. 98. Is there only 500 acres that can be described as front country? —There are some thousands of acres on the slope of the hill. 39. Mr. Johnston.] Have you had any experience of any other land besides Earnscleugh/— On Matakanui. 100. Has it fern 1 —No; but there is tussock. 101. You think that grass would come on Mount Pisa? How would you advocate the sowing? —I would sow it broadcast, but I would not burn unless it was thick tussock. 102. Your experience has proved that broadcast sowing over a run without burning would grass the run ? —I have not had any practical experience. I only sowed a few bags here and there in the gullies. 103. And what you did was satisfactory ?—Yes. 104. Do you know anybody who lias done it on the faces?— Only Mr. Forrester. 105. Do you know any one here who has experimented in grassing the high runs?— No. 106. Has anything been done to sow grass among the ferns after burning?—l have no experience of fern country at all. All my experience has been in this district. 107. Is there any Californian thistle on the run?— Very little. 108. Any ragwort?—l do not think so. At any rate, not when I was there. 109. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you consider Land Boards as at present constituted satisfactory? —I think so, so far as my knowledge of them goes. 110. Mr. Matheson.] Are the present land-tenures satisfactory ?—I am a great advocate of freehold land. 111. Do you think it would be a loss to the State to allow the lease-in-perpetuity settlers on acquired lands to obtain the freehold ? —I do not think so. 112. Mr Hall.] Do you think that the short tenure given to runholders is a mistake, and that it is no inducement to them to improve?—l think it is a mistake in most cases.
a—4.
180
T-W. S. LAIDLAW.
113. Do you say that these runs could be more profitably worked if they were in smaller areas? —No, Ido not think so. It takes a great quantity of ground like Earnseleugh to feed any number of sheep. I was running twelve thousand sheep on 65,000 acres. 114. Could that area have been more profitably worked if divided into three or four runs? — Ido not know about that. It would need to be very carefully divided, because much of the ground is practically useless. 115. If the useless ground were left out it would mean that it would be rabbit-breeding ground? —Yes. 116. The Chairman.'] After you left the run was it divided? —Yes; into two. 117. Did it go off as two? —Yes. 118. And it is held as two now? —No. One holder sold to the other, and it went back into one. 119. Mr. Johnston.] Is there any land on the Earnseleugh Run suitable for cultivation high up, in the same way as in the Teviot? —There is a little ground, but not much —only a few patches here and there. Jambs Thomson examined. 120. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Thomson? —A settler on the Earnseleugh Settlement. 121. How much land do you hold? —My wife holds 27 acres, and I have 31 acres on the opposite side of the road. 122. What rent do you pay? —My wife pays 3s. lOd. per acre and I pay 2s. per acre. 123. Do you think you are over-rented? —The 2s. is too much. 124. What are you doing with the ground? —I have some trees on it. I also have a house, 22ft. by 12 ft. 125. Do you agree with Mr. Mcllroy that the areas are too small for a living? —Yes. 126. Do you engage in other work? —Yes; I am on a dredge. 127. And you took the land as a site for a house and to be convenient to your work? —I took it more as a home than anything else. 128. You are fairly satisfied with your position as regards the land? —Yes. 129. Do you like the lease in perpetuity? —I would like the deferred payment. A man has more heart to improve his land if it is his own. 130. You have it now for 999 years? —Yes; but I cannot call it my own. 131. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you say that your section is too small? —The one I have is practically of no use to me. If you turn water on it it runs, as it were, through a sieve. 132. Do you want more land? —Yes. 133. You have not enough to make a living on? —No. 134. If you had twice as much land as you have now could you live on it? —I think so. 135. Have you got your land fully cultivated? —What my wife has is fully cultivated, except 5 acres, which are not quite full. Some of the trees were killed by water running off my neighbour's land. It would take an ocean of water to water the 25.-per-acre land. 136. Would you prefer the option of acquiring the freehold? —Yes. 137. Are you in a position to acquire the freehold? —The deferred payment is the system I would like. 1 could not buy it right out. 138. Mr. Paul.] It is through the leasehold that you are on the land? —Yes. Stephen Thomas Spain examined. 139. The Chairman.] What are you? —The lessee of the Earnseleugh Run. 140. You have held it for some years? —Three years. 141. What is the area of the run? —About 60,000 acres. The term of the lease is twentyone years. 142. How many sheep does it carry? I hardly know. 143. I understand that you wish to make an explanation ?—I wish to refer to a statement made by John Mcllroy. He said I had told him that the freehold land connected with the run was "of no use, or words to that effect. I wish to contradict that statement, and to state what I did say to him. There are two leaseholds connected with the run and it is compulsory for the tenant to occupy both. One of 640 acres is situate about 3,000 ft. above sea-level, and the other of about 200 acres is at the homestead. The one on the hill-tops is practically valueless. The rent is charged for both, and the amount of profit that could be returned from the one on the low land is not sufficient to cover the rent charged for both —that is, speaking from a direct return of the 200 acres. The convenience of the holdings I could scarcely value. The wool-shed stands about the centre of the lower area, and without the use of the land the wool-shed would be useless, or without the use of the ground around the wool-shed one could not carry on shearing operations. It is worth considerably more to the station than what I am paying for the two, for the reason that it could not be done without. No individual could take the amount of rent I am paying for the two holdings from the 200 acres alone. That is what I wish the Commission to understand, and that is what I told Mr. Mcllroy. I thought a misunderstanding might come about from his statement, and for that reason I make this explanation. 144. Mr. Anstey.\ Are the 200 acres a portion of the 500 acres that were purchased for landsettlement purposes? —Yes. I was not aware the land was purchased for land-settlement purposes, but if any one says so I am not here to contradict him. 145. We were told there were 500 acres purchased for small settlements, and that only about 260 acres were devoted to settlement, the other part being taken up by the lessee of the run. I presume that is the land they speak of ? —Yes. 146. You say the wool-shed is on it? —Yes. 147. Has the wool-shed been built since your occupation? —It has been connected with the station for many years.
C—4
181
S. T. SPAIN.]
148 In that case it would be unreasonable to take the 200 acres away from the They must take the wool-shed with it if they do, and commo™ s hows that that would reasonable. Even before some land was taken off tor truit-growmg inconvenience. 149. What is the rent of Earnscleughl—About £360 a y ear - , whicll wou id s.n ,^r/dtr»T n 'r P rit 1, ap s. .no.-.-™, - ■ «. ~ know whether it is profitable to hold it in any form. floc] _ Q IS' -<—■ 1 " bdWdi " g *- mintafse you r chance making the run payMtwould depreciate the value of the whole run. 154 Mr Johnston.] The run was in two blocks I— Yes. IS' DMvCrta^°™i°ion 6 oSe k, L»rße.rd to purchase the other part.-I purchased at the homestead I arranged to take it over fromJhem. remember the number, but 157. What number of sheep did you shear last season Ido not rememoei uie it is not very large —somewhere about three thousand altogetliei. !S' You Iwi'^hi^^thousanV 1 sheep"o^ Yes, but the run might carry more. When you get your stock reduced in a snow-storm and there is a dear market to purchase rom y ° U So P carrying last April ?- !do not think the stock was altered between April and shearing, with the exception of the death-rate of the winter. 161 What is the tally of the sheep returns? —I could not say from memorj. 162' You did not furnish a return of thirteen thousand sheep, did you 1-1 certainly did not give a return of over 3,200 sheep altogether. IS! You°cannot o, sheep or the number o, ba.es oi wool .-I said there the Government ought to give long leases of these run. with a r°Le™ P " ™»uT % £ w"h« J»; cTort :nfeveo "'e«S and mone^ rgi take the rough counW.-No. They could make no 1 of it if they There Sf ,K> '"»°tto o*r'St months the top would graze a large number of .beep in the f.nr ■—& S e S°«t r .'r?m2°?fbS b S'l,5OO -re, cut on. adjoining the h.,„«t,.d Meek f„r ~ttkm«t: Do yeutlrink it the rnn bad been left intact it. value a, « -hole would have been ""lCS?"<£?%££* tb. value o, their holding by giving that small settlement I—'There is no question about that at all. John Butler examined. tG d °l72. wUinTe7se m o y fCent^L°Teat e bT satisfactory It would be good enough to induce me to under yOU r present lease you are entitled to three times ing Olt oneis about 2,500 ft. above sea-level and the top of my range is somewhere about 5,000 ft. There are snow-drifts there now. A great deal of the country is under snow in winter.
C—4.
182
[j. BUTLER.
175. Do you lose many sheep in the winter owing to snow? —Last year I did not lose much, but the season before I lost 560 out of two thousand sheep. 176. Mr. McCardle.\ Is your run of an average quality with most of the other runs in the neighbourhood 2 —l have the highest run about this part of the country. 177. Are you able to succeed with a 7,000-acre run? —I can make a living in the way I am. 178. Is there any quantity of country in the district similar to your run that could be subdivided into 20,000-acre runs, and so on?— Any amount of it. 179. Do you think it could be worked fairly profitably to the individual and more profitably to the State if the land was cut up into smaller runs ? —The run below me is lower country, and it could be cut up into four or six runs. 180. And would it not be of great assistance in keeping down the rabbits if a number of men were settled instead of one runholder holding a large area? —I do not know. Some of our runholders do not make any great work at the rabbits. I think some of them make money by conserving them. I had a man on my place last week teaching me the way to make poison, and 1 always get the newest brands to destroy rabbits. 181. Mr. Anstey.] Could you give us any idea as to what size these runs ought to be cut up into —I mean for carrying-capacity rather than area ?- On the run next to me, Mount Benger, a man and his family could live on 6,000 acres right enough. 182. How many sheep would the 6,000 acres carry? —This particular place would carry three thousand sheep, 1 believe. 183. Do you think that if the runs were cut up to carry three thousand sheep that would be enough for a man to live on?--Tt would be small enough. 184. Mr. Johnston.] You know the very high land cultivated up above Coal Creek? —Yes. 185. I saw a lot of cultivation and cropping there this morning—is the land being cultivated to advantage? —They are all making a living down there, but they are only cultivating for themselves. They are small grazing-runs. Nearly all the people who are settlers there have small runs along with the gardens, 186. Does that land take grass well? —Yes. Grass grows first rate. 187. It seems to me there is a great deal of ragwort between Teviot and here? —There is none in our district. 188. Is there any Californian thistle? —Yes; there are a good few small patches here and there. 189. Mr. McLennan.'] Is there any low land on your run? —There is some land that could be cultivated. 190. Are you prohibited by the Land Board from cultivating any part of it for winter feed? —Yes; but if I had a good tenure I would fence it and sow turnips and sow down grass afterwards. 191. Do you think it advisable for the Land Board to prevent the tenants of small grazingruns from cultivating in that way? —I think they are making a great mistake. I think they ought to allow a man to plough any patch that he wishes to cultivate. Robert Bai.lantyne examined. 192. The Chairman.] What are you?— 1 am a miner, and I have a small agricultural area of 8 acres under lease in perpetuity, and if I had sufficient water I could grow things on about 30 acres. I pay Is. per acre rent. I have been in New Zealand since 1862, and I have been thirty-five years in this district. 193. 1 believe you want to address us specially in regard to water-conservation? —I think a supply of water could be brought in from Bald Hill Flat to the settlers round about Alexandra, who are badly wanting it. That scheme was talked about at one time when a supply for Alexandra was being considered, but it fell through. It is about fourteen miles to the head of the race from here, and the water would require to be brought another ten miles further to reach the town, and I think that could be done at a moderate cost. The water-right I talk about is Dr. Hyde's. . 194. Can you give us any idea what it would cost to bring the water in? —No, I cannot. We had plenty of water when I started there, but, unfortunately, it has all run out for both mining and agriculture. I would be sluicing now if I had water 1o sluice with. I also think a supply of water could be brought up from the Manuherika Stream to supply this flat right up to Clyde at a moderate cost. 195. Would it cost £10,000 to do so? —Something less than that.
Ophir, Wednesday, 15th March, 1905. Alexander Armour examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a small grazing-run holder at Gimmerburn. I hold 7,300 acres under that tenure, and pay 6d. an acre. I have been in possession nearly three years. Another run of 3,000 acres is worked in conjunction with it- —a run held by my sister, for which the same rental is paid. The tenure is also the same. On the 10,000 acres I have 3,300 sheep, and that is about the usual capacity of the land. From 250 to 300 acres is laid down in grass. I have tried surface-sowing. I put in fifteen bags of cocksfoot last spring, and I have about 200 acres of turnips and 40 acres of oats. The run is well watered. The nearest railway-station is Ranfurly, eleven miles off. I also superintend Ross and Glendinning's Run of 117,682 acres of summer country. The area of the low country is 16,354 acres, on Blackstone Hill and Poolburn. We have a pre-emptive right at the homestead of 2,000 acres, and there are 640 at the homestead. There is also some freehold at Higlifield of about 1,500 acres. Our stock is " down "at present.
C—4.
183
A. ARMOUB.]
We have never got it up since the heavy snow of 1903. Before that year we shore about fortyfour thousand sheep, and this season we" shore thirty-four thousand five hundred. The sheep are merino and crossbred —about half-and-half —and the average clip is about 7 lb. The death-rate is very high in the higher country, but all over the run it ranges from 6to 8 per cent. The rent altogether is £965 7s. 6d. The leases expire in 1910. It was a fourteen-years lease, but we got an extension after the severe snow-storm. In ordinary seasons the winter country is a fair proportion as against the summer country. There are probably over a hundred miles of fencing. There is some mining at Cambrian, Welchman's Gully, and also on the Blackstone Hill and German's Gully on a "smaller scale. It is principally sluicing. Several water-races intersect the run. The Government race to Naseby traverses a portion of the country. 2. Mr. Hall.] Would the run admit of the low country being reduced?—No; it would not be workable at all. 3. Would a fourteen-years lease without right of renewal be satisfactory? No. 4. Are there any noxious weeds on the run? -Only an occasional briar. 5. What is your opinion of the constitution of the Land Board? —I think they should have more power than they have at present. 6. What is your opinion as to having one elected member? I think it is satisfactory as it is. 7. Mr. McCardle.] Would it not be more satisfactory if the Government were to nominate from Central Otago some one who knew the requirements of the district? Yes. 8. How does the large run compare with your own as to quality, carrying-capacity, &c. ? The large run is not anything like as good as mine. 9. Would it not be possible to subdivide that run into smaller areas and still produce as good results as are now obtained from the-large one? —No. 10. For what reason?— The proportion of high country compared with the small proportion of low country would not be workable. 11. When you refer to the low country you refer to that portion which is not so long covered with snow?—We put the sheep on the high ground in the summer and bring them down to the low country in May, and they are kept behind a snow-line fence. 12. You could not subdivide so as to include proportionately the high and low country?—No; I do not see how it could be done. 13. Mr. Anstey.~\ You say you have a right of renewal: in what way is that renewal granted —by arbitration, or who fixes the rent?— The Board. That is one of the difficulties under which we labour. 14. Supposing they fixed the rent twice as high as you thought it should be, you have no say in the matter? —No; and that is just the drawback. 15. I suppose you would much prefer if the rent could be fixed by arbitration ?—No; I do not say that. The difficulty is this: that if Ido not happen to take up the run at the increased rental and if no other person took it the value of my improvements would be reduced. 16. You get the valuation for your improvements?— Yes; but supposing they did not get a purchaser they would reduce the value of the improvements. 17. What valuation do you get for your improvements? —It is fixed by the Ranger. 18. Is it the full value or only a limited amount? —Ostensibly it is the full value. 19. Would you cultivate any more than you are doing? —No. I think we cultivate all the land that is fit for cultivation. 20. As a practical man, can you state what should be the limit of area of small grazing-runs? —It depends on the carrying-capacity of the land. 21. Can you give us the limit of the number of sheep that the run should hold?- About a couple of thousand sheep. 22. Are you hampered in any way by cropping-restrictions —some tenants are not allowed to cultivate?- —I am allowed to cultivate. 23. Under some tenures the tenant is not allowed to cultivate?— Pastoral tenants are only allowed to cultivate with the consent of the Board. 24. Is there any reason for enforcing such restrictions ? —I take it that the reason is that if it were allowed there would be competition between the pastoral tenant and the small farmer, which would not be fair. In some of the large blocks the tenant may be paying a moderate or a low rent, and the farmer might be paying a high rent, and yet the former could grow practically as good crops on the land. 25. Surely there is no benefit to the country in preventing a man cultivating the land for winter feed? —Certainly not. 26. There would be no objection to granting him permission to crop? —So long as he did not sell and compete with the farmer. 27. In regard to the Government race running from the Blackstone Hill, do you get any water from it? —There is a certain amount of leakage, but we have no right to the water. 28. Mr. McLennan.] What quantity and varieties of grass do you sow? —351b. of rye to the acre, 5 lb. of cocksfoot, and perhaps 6 lb. of different clovers. 29. What does it cost you to sow per acre —ploughing, harrowing, and sowing? —Roughly speaking, about £1 per acre. 30. Mr. Forbes.] You said you had done some surface-sowing with cocksfoot: that was on your own place?— Yes. 31. There has been none done on Blackstone? —Yes. 32. Was it a success? —Yes; but- it takes a long time to come, and we find that the rabbits and also sheep give it great attention in the spring. To get the best results you would almost require to fence it off. 33. Is there much of the run capable of taking grass?— You could sow all the low country. 34. There is no use in sowing the dry faces?—No; the bottoms of the gullies.
C—4.
184
[a. armour.
35. You get no consideration for any grass that you sow? —None. 35a. Do you think that the present conditions under which these runs are held do not encourage a lessee to improve the land in the slightest? —It is the other way about. You do not know where you are. When there is a sword hanging over your head from year to year you do not know what to do. Since the severe snow-storm the fences have got into some disrepair in the high country, and we do not know what to do in respect to them. 36. Can you make any suggestion about leases in the high country so as to encourage the lessees? —I think the leases should be for a longer term —say, for twenty-one years. 37. There are some pastoral leases for twenty-one years? —I believe so. 38. Would it be in the interest of the tenant and encourage him to make improvements if he had something like an option of renewal I—l1 —I have no doubt it would encourage him to improve the property. 39. If the rental was fixed by arbitration and the tenant had the first option he would feel in a far more secure position in respect to improvements? —Yes, and there should be some allowance made for surface-sowing. 40. Have you had a long experience of this country? —About twenty years. 41. The country is going back for feed? —It is rather better this last year or two to what it was five or six years ago, since we have kept the rabbits down. 42. Some witnesses have said that the reduction in feed had been caused owing to burning at the wrong time of the year ? —That had, no doubt, something to do with it. 43. I suppose the runholders know better now in respect to burning? —Yes. 44. There is no danger in respect to that in the future? —I do not think so. 45. You think, in the interests of the country it would be better to give the tenant a more secure tenure and let him improve the run ? —Yes. 46. Mr. Paul.] You think there would be nothing like State aid required to restore the country to what it was, say, fifteen years ago ? —The State could assist by giving more secure tenure of lease, and then the tenant would expend some little capital; but there is no encouragement now for him to do so. 47. It has been stated that dirty grass-seed has been sown on several runs —" the seconds from a threshing-mill " —have you had any experience of that kind? —No. 48. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to exercise any supervision over the sowing of runs, seeing that the land belongs to the State? —I think it would be in the interest of the tenant to put down good seed. 49. It has also been suggested that the Government might supply grass-seed at wholesale prices? —Yes; that would be a good thing. 50. Do you think supervision would be wise in connection with the sowing? —It might be as well. 51. You think that a more secure tenancy to the runholders will bring the country back to what it was fifteen years ago ? —I would not like to say as much as that, but I know it would encourage them to sow grass if they could get it at small rates. 52. From your experience, the country to-day has not anything like the carrying-capacity of fifteen years ago?- Some years are worse and some are better. 53. In the interests of the district this country must be resown ? —Yes; I think so. 54. Mr. Matheson.\ With regard to the reletting and valuation for improvements, do you realise that the Act says that the existing lessee shall have the option of taking it up at the new rent —I am referring to small grazing-runs? —They have the first offer. 55. And if they are not satisfied with the valuation and rent they can have arbitrators appointed to fix the rent? —It was proposed at the recent Land Board Conference that, in respect to clause 85 of the Land Act regarding the resumption of small grazing-runs, they should be exempted; but the Otago Commissioner for Crown Lands seems to think that that does not apply to renewals. There is another matter I would like to bring before the Commission. Ido not see why married women should not be allowed as much land as a single woman. At present a girl of seventeen can hold up to 5,000 acres, and a married woman is exempted from being an applicant if the area is over 2,000 acres —that is, in the case of a small grazing-run. 56. Mr. Jonhston.] The Gimmerburn Run is pretty good country? —Yes. 57. It is low country —there is no winter country in it? —Yes, there is. 58. The low country is pretty good country? —Yes. 59. With reference to surface-sowing of Ross and Glendinning's run, was it tried on the high country? —No. 60. Was it sown broadcast? —Yes, and it has done fairly well. It is about eight years since it was sown, and I think it will eat the tussock out. 61. Mr. Hall.\ What kinds of grasses do you consider most suitable for surface-sowing on these runs? —Cocksfoot and a little white clover. 62. You do not think the finer grasses would be suitable? —No; I do not believe in them at all. 63. Do you think the sowing of cocksfoot would improve the grazing-capacity of the run? —Yes. 64. A sufficient length of tenure and the removal of restrictions regarding the cultivation of a certain portion of the land for station purposes: would these provisions encourage lessees to sow grass and keep down rabbits? —Yes. That could be stipulated in the leases to the tenants. 65. Mr. Matheson.\ Am I right in thinking that the 16,000 acres of lower country is under quite a different lease, and that the Crown can resume that land under the law? —Yes. 66. And if they so resume that land the larger part of the run would become of much less value? —It would be of no use without the low country, for the simple reason that that is the breeding-ground where the ewes are. 67. You know what notice has to be given?—A year's notice. 68. So that it makes your other lease very much less valuable than if the whole run was for the same term ? —Yes.
A. ARMOUR.]
185
a—4.
69. Mr. McCardle.] Would it not bo possible to divide the piece of land that has been referred to and share it out with the run if it was divided, and divide the high country? —Yes, you could do it; but I would not like to be in the position of having to work the run in the way you suggest. You would require to work the low ground with the high ground. 70. Mr. Anstey.] There is no other improved land in the neighbourhood of Blackstone that you could put up with it?— Yes; there is some more high country, but no low country. 71. Mr. Johnston.'] You do not strip the Blackstone Hill country in the winter? —We heavily stock that. 72. You can winter on Blackstone Hill? —Yes. It is practically safe country. Donald Nicolson examined. 73. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm 450 acres of freehold and 1,400 acres under lease in perpetuity. The freehold is on the Poolburn and the leasehold on the Blackstone. I have had the freehold for twenty-three years. I got it to begin with on the deferredpayment tenure. I have bought 130 acres. I have held the lease-in-perpetuity section for eight or nine years. I pay nearly £50 a year rent for the 1,400 acres. I am satisfied with my lease in perpetuity. I have effected improvements on it —ploughed part of it and sown it in grass. I have also done some cropping on it. Nearly all my buildings, including the homestead, are on it. I think the rent is reasonable, and I am satisfied with it during these times. The two places, although separated, are worked together. I have a thousand sheep on the lease-in-perpetuity land. My wife has a small grazing-run, and so also has my son. These runs are stocked together. I think a thousand sheep is about the-proportion for the 1,400 acres. The average clip per sheep is about 7 lb. in a good year, and somewhat less in other years. The sheep are all crossbreds. We are able to sell fat lambs off that country, and keep up the number of stock as well. I have about twenty to thirty head of cattle and some horses. 74. Mr. Hall.] Do you consider the lease in perpetuity a satisfactory tenure? —I think when a man takes up a new piece of land and breaks it up and improves it, if he wishes the freehold I think he should have an opportunity of getting it. 75. Do you think the desire for the freehold is more sentimental than real? —It is real. With respect to the lease in perpetuity, one cannot be so sure about it, for we hear a great deal nowadays about reforming the land laws, revaluations, &c. 76. Could not that be made to apply to the freehold as well as to the lease in perpetuity?— Perhaps not so easy, for a man would expect to get something like a value in respect to the freehold that he might not get in the other place. 77. But the one tenure is as binding on the Government as the other? —If it is as binding. 78. Do you think it is a contract equally with the freehold? —I would not like to say. 79. Mr. McCardle.] What is the area of your son's run? —1,150 acres. 80. And the area of the run held by your wife? —600 acres. 81. How many sheep do you run on all the places put together? —We shore seventeen hundred this year. 82. Have you given the question of restriction of area any consideration—that is, limiting the amount of land that any one person can hold under the freehold? —It would depend on the land how you would restrict the area. 83. It would depend on the carrying-capacity? —Yes. 84. You do not approve of freeholds being granted, and then some person coming in and taking up the lot and putting them into one large freehold?—l do not think there would be much chance of that. 85. But there is the possibility, and you would not approve of it? —I would not approve of it. 86. Have you given the question of the advances to settlers any consideration? —I think it is a very good thing. 87. Have settlers in this district been taking advantage of it? —To some extent. 88. Have they generally got favourable replies from the Advances to Settlers Board?—ln the case of leaseholds Ido not think many of them did consider it was very favourable. If they wanted advances it was usually near the beginning of their lease, when they had not made any improvements, and it was found difficult to get an advance. 89. In your opinion, is it advisable in the interests of the settlers and in the interests of the country that the Advances to Settlers Act should be amended so as to meet the requirements of Crown tenants in this way: that the tenant's interest in the holding should be valued, and an advance be made up to the limit of three-fifths of the actual value of the tenant's interest in the holding?—l think if such a thing could be done it would be much appreciated by those who wanted it. 90. In your opinion, would the leasehold be about equal to the freehold under those circumstances? —Yes; it would bring it well up towards it. 91. Mr. Anstey.] You know the Blackstone Run: is there some of it suitable for cutting up into small agricultural runs? The last witness said the upper country was not suitable for cutting up, and that it would not do to take the lower country away from it? —I think he was correct in that. 92. Can you say how small these runs should be cut up so as to be profitable to the holders?— I may say that my son has a small run, but it would be practically useless as it is. 93. How many sheep would it carry?— Perhaps three or four hundred. 94. That is too small a number? —Yes. 95. What do you think would be the smallest number of sheep that a section should carry so as to give a man a fair living?—l do not think a man could live on less than from eight hundred to a thousand sheep. He would require land to carry that number.
24—C. 4.
186
[d. nicolso
C— 4.
96. Mr. McLennan.'] Suppose the law was amended, giving you an opportunity of making the land a freehold—the property to be valued, and you to get full valuation for improvementswould you be in favour of the lease going to auction, the highest bidder to be the purchaser? — Not if I wished to make my home there. 97. Do you not think it would be far better to remain a Crown tenant than that the law should be amended in that way I—Generally speaking, I think that an agreement should stand. At the same time, I know that there are people who held land under perpetual lease and deferred payment, and who changed the tenure into lease in perpetuity, and they have regretted ever since having done so. 98. You are paying 4 per cent, now? —Yes. 99. If you wished to get right of purchase you would have to pay another 1 per cent. I—Yes.1 —Yes. 100. Mr. Paul.] Have you had any experience of Land Boards? —I have been a tenant under them for a good while. 101. Do you think the constitution of Land Boards is satisfactory? —I think so. 102. You spoke in favour of the freehold—but take the case of a man who takes up improved land: would you extend the right of acquiring the freehold to the case of land acquired under the Land for Settlements Act —improved estates?—l have had no experience of them. There might be some reasons why they should be in a different position from the man who goes out into the forest or wilderness and makes a home there. 103. Do you think it would be safe or wise for the Government to acquire improved estates and cut them up and sell them? —I think if the State buys them at a proper figure it would be safe. 104. Would-you approve of giving the tenant the option of the freehold? —I think so. There is no reason why he should be kept out of it. 105. Would you extend that option to tenants of educational endowments, harbour and Corporation leases, &c. ? —There might be reasons why it should not be extended. I cannot say. 106. Can you see any sound reason why the tenants of these endowments should not be placed on the same footing as other tenants? —I have not thought anything about that question. 107. You spoke of the real advantages of the freehold over the leasehold, leaving out the sentimental advantage? —As it is at present I think a tenant will have great difficulty in raising an advance under the lease in perpetuity that would be of much benefit to him, whereas in the case of the freehold he can get what advance he requires. 108. But ho does not get the freehold for nothing. He has to pay for it, and the probability is if he were in a position to get a freehold he would be a wealthier man, and could get an advance on account of his financial position? —Yes. 109. Have any cases come under your notice where holders of lease-in-perpetuity sections have not been able to get an advance? —I could not mention any case, but I know where men have complained that they could not get an adequate advance. 110. Do you think there is any possibility of the Government increasing the land-tax? —That is quite certain if money is required. 111. You spoke of the insecurity of the lease in perpetuity: do you not think it is more reasonable to expect an increase of the land-tax on the freehold, for which the machinery is provided, than any tampering with the lease in perpetuity, which would require new machinery? —It is most probable the Government will apply the tax where the machinery is ready at hand. 112. That is on the freehold? —Yes. 113. Mr. McCardle.] When you took up your 1,000 acres had you the option of purchase? —I am not sure. I know I took it up under perpetual lease. John Pitches examined. 114. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer, storekeeper, and small runholder. I hold 300 acres of Government leasehold under perpetual lease, which I cultivate and crop with wheat and oats. I hold it in two sections, and I pay Bd. and lOd. an acre for it. I have 1,929 acres of a small grazing-run, for which I pay sd. per acre. The two properties are four miles apart, but they are partly worked together. My two sons and daughter have runs next to mine, and they all work together. 115. Is your run too small by itself? —Yes. 116. What would be the carrying-capacity of 1,929 acres if you held them alone? —I do not know whether they would carry five hundred sheep. 117. Do you approve of the present constitution of the Land Boards? —No. 118. What would you. substitute ?—I would rather see the members elected by the people. This part of the country is not represented at all on the Land Board, and we have never had one who understood our requirements. 119. Have you given much thought to the constitution of Land Boards? —Yes. 120. What sort of constituency would you have to vote members —would you have it under parliamentary franchise? —I would have them elected something like School Boards. The candidates to send round their views, and the people could then choose between them. 121. What is your opinion of the lease in perpetuity ?—I am not under it. 122. Are you satisfied with the perpetual lease that gives you the right of purchase?— Yes. I have held it eighteen jyears, and I have still eight years to run. I think it would be an improvement if the conditions of these leases were printed on the back of them. We have not all got the Land Act at hand, and we very often do not know what we have to comply with. The leases for small grazing-runs have the conditions printed on the back of them, and we find them very convenient, because we know what we have to do. I also think that we could very well do without Rabbit Inspectors now. They are a great bother to people, and they generally come round when settlers are very busy harvesting- Now that we have population and the railway at hand I think we might very well be saved the expense of them. I think it is a great hardship that the only
J. PITCHES.]
187
C—4
remedy at present open to a person who takes up land, and then finds the rent is too high and wishes to get a reduction, is that he should be compelled to surrender. I think it would be very much better if a person could apply to the Land Board and get redress from them without having to surrender. It would not cost as much as the present system of surrender, and if a tenant can make out a good case I do not see why the Land Board should not have power to grant his request. 123. Do you not think that that might lead to careless bidding at auction 2—l do not think so. He did not take the lease at auction, and therefore I would not allow him to remain under it at a reduced price. My son and daughter were paying sd. for their runs, and they applied for a reduction. A number of Land Commissioners went over the ground and I went with them, and I asked one of them what he thought the land was worth, and he said it was not worth anything, and that he would not live there if he was given £1,000 a year to do so. I offered the Land Board 2d. per acre on behalf of my son and daughter. They 'had to surrender, and they got the land back again at the reduced rate. I think the Land Board should have power to reduce the rent without forcing the tenant to surrender. I might also mention that lam a strong freeholder. I think every man should certainly be allowed to have the freehold. I think it would tend to make him improve his holding to a greater extent. 124. Mr. Hall.] I think you said that your opinion was that the Land Board should be elected: under what system would you elect them ? —I think they might be elected as School Boards are. 125. Does not that mean that the lessees, who are interested, and the people in the cities and towns, who know nothing about land or land-tenures, would have the power to elect Land Boards, while the lessors, the Government, whT> hold the land in trust for the country at large, would have no power at all?—I would give the Government some power. The people up here would not elect a person they thought was not qualified for the position. 126. Would it be a fair thing to the country to put the management of the land into the hands of those interested and of those who know nothing of land and land-tenures? —I would not put a man there who knew nothing about land. 127. But it is what the electors would do, is it not?—We would choose very good men, and men who would look after our interest. 128. Do you not think that the Government, who hold the land as trustees, should have a voice in the appointment of Land Boards?—l do not think they should have the whole of it. 129. Has not the evidence, as a rule, gone to show that Land Boards are very satisfactory in their management of these affairs?— The people up country have an opportunity of electing School Boards, and why should they not have the same privilege in regard to Land Boards. 130. Has the administration of the Land Boards been satisfactory, so far as vour personal knowledge goes ? —Yes. 131. You said your run was too small to be worked profitably ?-Yes. I could not make a living off it. 132. Does that mean that the cost of fencing and managing a small run and a small number of sheep is relatively much higher than if the run was larger and the number of sheep larger ?—Yes 133. Mr. McCardle.] What do you think would be a reasonable size for a small run ?—I thinli for a man to give his whole time to it he should certainly have enough land to enable him to carry two thousand sheep. J 134. Of course, you are aware that if a man had to contest a seat for an elective Land Board it would cost him a great deal of money ?—Not the way I would do it. 135. Four members would be elected for the whole Province of Otago?—Yes. They could do all their canvassing by writing. 136. Would not that mean a large amount of writing and considerable outlay in stamps to begin with? —I suppose so. ' 137. Looking at the thing in a reasonable way, you know you are living in a district where the population is not large: what effect would your votes have in returning a member as compared with the larger settled districts?—l think this district would show itself very well. There are a good many people here. 138. But if a hundred block votes were sent from this district to one man, and you had ten thousand votes against him in some other place, would you be any better off than you are now ? I do not think I would give manhood suffrage in a case like that; I would give those interested a vote. 1.39. Do you not think it would be far more reasonable to suggest that the Government should select from and nominate a man representing the leasehold interest and another to represent the freehold interest in the country ?—Yes. At present, so far as I can understand, the present members of the Board nearly all represent Dunedin. There is no one from this district, except one from Maniototo. r 140. When you are proposing amendments you cannot always get sweeping changes?—l understand that. 141. And if you had one member nominated from Central Otago that is about as much as you could expect? I suppose so. So long as they paid me well I should have no objection to nomination. 142. The pay amounts to 10s. per day, and you pay your own expenses out of that?— That would not suit me. 143. Mr. Anstey.] You think that those settled on the land should have the right of voting for the Land Board members ? —Yes. 144. And you said a little later on that the Land Board should have power to make reductions in rent? —I think so. 145. Then, if the settlers wanted a reduction in rent they might combine together and elect
188
[J.'PITCHES.
C.—4.
four members to the Board who would guarantee to reduce their rents or do whatever they wanted ? —Perhaps we should not find four members to agree to that. 146. You are in favour of the Land Boards having power to make reductions in rent? —Yes. 147. Would you give them power also to make increases where the rents are too low? —Yes. 148. At any time? —No; that would prevent a person from improving his property. 149. Would you allow them to make reductions at any time? —Not unless the tenant made out a good case; and' if he made out a good case why should not the Land Board have power to make a reduction instead of putting a man to all the trouble of surrender. 150. Then, if the Board or some of his neighbours could make out a good case why a man should pay a higher rent, should the Board have power to increase his rent? —Yes; at the expiration of his lease. 151. How would it do to make the reductions wait until the end of the lease? —You see, the tenant has it in his power to surrender if he likes. 152. Mr. McCutchan.] In a year like this what do you reckon the return would be from two thousand sheep in this class of country? —I suppose, £400 or £500. 153. Mr. Forbes.] You say you are a believer in the freehold, and you think it would be better for the country if all lands were freehold? —I would limit the area to, say, 10,000 acres of freehold. It would give occupiers the option of buying if they wanted to. It is not as though the State were going to give the land away for nothing. 154. Do you think a man would be a better farmer under the freehold? —I think he would. 155. You think it would be desirable, then, that every man in the country should be a freeholder if it could be possibly managed ? —lf he wishes it. I would allow every man to exercise his free-will in the matter. 156. If the Government passes legislation allowing every man under leasehold the right of purchase, would you apply that privilege to the leases held from private owners? —I think I would. 157. You would allow even a man who is leasing a piece of land from the School Commissioners or from a private individual to have the right to purchase the freehold? —I think he would feel a little more independent, and if he were an old man like myself it would leave him freer to dispose of his property. 158. You think the Government are quite right to take the freehold from one man and split it up into small freeholds for other people?--! do not think it is bad so long as they make a profit on it. When one family owns 60,000 acres, and the Government take that and cut it up and place a hundred families on it, I do not see any harm in allowing those people the right to acquire the freehold. 159. Mr. Paul.] What would you make the maximum area of freehold a man should hold? — I think, 5,000 or 6,000 acres. It would depend greatly on the nature of the country. 160. Do you not think that if you make the maximum area 5,000 or 6,000 acres there would be a few farmers who would have to go without land ? —I do not think so. They are not forced to sell. 161. But it is a question of buying and occupying: do you think there will be any land left for prospective farmers to occupy? —I do not say that limit will be fixed because I propose it. Ido not know that there are many people who have money enough to buy 5,000 or 6,000 acres; but I say those who have 5,000 or 6,000 acres should not be allowed to increase their areas. 162. You spoke about men taking up land and paying too high a rent for it? —Yes. 163. What would be the position of a man who paid too high a price for the freehold? —He would have it. He could not get the price reduced. 164. You think a tenant should have his rent reduced if he is paying too much for his section? —I will give you an instance. When I took up my farm twenty years ago I paid 2s. an acre for it, and I found I could not make it pay. I had to surrender, and the Government then reduced the rent to Is. per acre, and it was taken up by the party who now holds it. Later on some revaluation took place, and the rent was reduced without any surrender to Bd. and lOd. per acre, and that is the rent at the present time. •165. What do you think of the principle of revaluation in regard to future leases? —I think it would be good. 166. Would you be in favour of it?—l think so. If a man has made improvements he will get value for them if he does not take the section up again. 167. In regard to your suggestion, that rents should be reduced without surrender, do you not think that a case like this might happen: Suppose a section of land was offered, and a certain rental was put on it, and one man was prepared to give 2s. per acre for it, while another man was prepared to give Is. 9d. for it: of course, the man who offers 2s. per acre gets it and the other man is out of court? —Yes. 168. Suppose that later on this man finds that 2s. per acre is too much, and he approaches the Land Board to have his rent reduced to Is. 6d per acre: if the Land Board agrees to that reduction without surrender how do you know that the man who was prepared to give Is. 9d. in the first instance is not prepared to give Is. 9d. to-day?— You understand this would not be done in a hole-and-corner manner. It would go before the Land Board, and if this man said, "I am willing to give you Is. 9d. now," they would not reduce the rent any lower than that. 169. And if the first tenant did not go up to Is. 9d., of course, he would lose it?— Yes. 170. You spoke of the Rabbit Inspector being a bother: can he interfere with you if there are no rabbits on your land?— Yes; he can pull your fences down and give you a lot of trouble, and he does so. 171. What would their object'be in doing that?—To save them the trouble of going to the gate. An Inspector does not want to ride two or three miles to go through a gate. I would make every landowner a Rabbit Inspector, and if he did not keep down the rabbits he would be punished 172. Does a Rabbit Inspector cause any bother at all if there are no rabbits on the land?— Sometimes he says there are rabbits when there are no rabbits.
173. Mr. Matheson.~\ In regard to the constitution of Land Boards, would you be satisfied if you had a Central Otago man on the Board who knew your wants? —Yes. 174. Do you not think that the simplest way to secure that man is to impress on your member the justice of it so strongly that he will impress it on the Minister? Will that not be a simpler way than trying to do it by election ? —Yes; but our member is in opposition, and so far as I can see they do not get much. 175. Do you really think that would prevent you getting a man in the way I suggest? —Yes, I do. 176. Mr. Johnston.] Why has your farm land depreciated from 2s. per acre to Bd. and lOd. per acre? —It was not worth that rent at first. 177. You had twenty years' experience before you took up that land? —Yes 178. And you took it up at 2s. per acre? —Yes. 179. Now, a man in your position as a storekeeper usually knows what a farmer is making out of his land? —Yes; but there was very little farming in those days. It was grazing then, and wool was dearer then than it is now. 180. Mr. Anstey.\ You spoke of Rabbit Inspectors being rather a nuisance: have you any rabbits on your land now? —I have some; every man has rabbits on his land. 181. Are they thick in number or few? —I would not call them thick. 182. Would the rabbits be as well kept down if you had no Inspectors? —Yes ; I am satisfied of that. We have the railway here, and I notice in the newspapers that rabbits are bringing Is. sd. and Is. 6d. a pair. 183. You think trapping would keep the rabbits down? —I do. I would also like to say that we have population here, and I think the time has now arrived when the big runs should be subdivided. lam quite satisfied that if a few of the runs in the district were cut up there would be hundreds of applications for them. 184. Mr. Johnston.] Are you in favour of the present residential restrictions on all land taken up? —No. I am not in favour of making a man live on one of these small grazing-runs. I think it is a ridiculous thing to ask him to settle amongst a lot of rocks, where he would not see a person twice a year. So long as a man lives in the country and proves himself a bond fide settler I say the residence conditions should be dispensed with. I must say the Board were very good to me when I applied to be allowed to live at the store. They granted my request, so that I have no complaint to make. 185. Mr. Paul.] Which of these runs do you refer to when you say that several could be cut up?— There are Matakanui, Moutere, and Ida Valley. We want close settlement to make the railway pay, and a great many people are anxious to settle on the land. 186. Roughly, you think all these runs are capable of further subdivision ?—Yes; in this district. 187. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think if these runs were subdivided into reasonable sized areas that the settlers on the lower ground could take up these runs and use them together with their freehold I—Yes.1 —Yes. 188. And, you think, to advantage?—! am certain of it. There is a lot of good land at the foot of the hills that people could take up, and I would put some of the tops with them, because they are the best grazing for sheep in the summer-time. John Johnston Ramsay examined. 189. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a forwarding agent and grain merchant. 1 appear principally on behalf of the petitioners, who ask that Blackstone Hill Station should be cut up. 190. You might just state your arguments in favour of it? —Mr. Pitches has put it very well when he remarked that if this land was cut up there would be tens, I might almost say hundreds, of applicants for sections of it. That has been the experience in regard to all land cut up here for the last ten or fifteen years. A large number of people in the district have petitioned the Government to cut this run up, and I have been asked to appear before the Commission as one means of bringing the matter before the public. With regard to the cry about "high land," I might say I have heard that raised for the last thirty-five years, since this land was first cut up. In fact, I think I have still in my possession a report, written by your worthy Chairman, in which he said that the land between Hyde and Taieri Lake Station could never be" cut up into small areas, and yet all that land is profitably occupied by farmers now. The same cry was raised in regard to Maniototo when it was cut up, and the whole of that land has been taken up. All the mountains, even, are occupied by men who have low country for wintering sheep. In regard to the depreciation in the value of land, I think Mr. Pitches missed one or two points. When land was first opened up here nobody had had any experience of what the land was worth at all, and the consequence was that at that time the value of the land was assessed at something like £1 ss. per acre for agricultural leases and £1 10s. per acre for deferred-payment land, and very few of the men who took the land up were able to pull through. Another reason why the value of the land might have been higher then than it is now is that there were no rabbits'! I would like to state that Blackstone Hill is admirably adapted for cutting up into small grazing-runs. 191. We had detailed evidence given by Mr. Armour, who said that Blackstone Hill countrywas worked in conjunction with Hawkdon and the land about MounF Ida, and that Blackstone Hill was used as winter country, and that in that Way the very most was made out of the public estate. Mr. Armour was very strong on the point that if Blackstone Hill was detached from the high country no one would take the high country up, and it would revert to the Government. The Government, unfortunately, has had a good deal of experience in that way, and the experience is very expensive, because they have to put on caretakers to keep the rabbits down, and altogether it is an experience they try to avoid. Now, suppose your proposal to cut up Blackstone Hill is
189
J. PITCHES.]
C. - 4.
a—4.
190
[_J. J. KAMSAY.
given effect to, what would you say in regard to the working of the Hawkdon and Mount Ida country ?-—I recognise that the high country would probably have to be cut up in areas to suit the people on the low country. I have pointed out that that sort of thing has been done at Kyeburn, and the settlers are prosperous. The mountains at Pigroot to Dandy's Pass are nearly all held in small holdings, and there is very little low country in them. Some of the settlers have no low country whatever. My reply is that if the high country is of use in one large area it could be subdivided and used in small areas. If it cannot be it is of very little use and it should be allowed to go. There are very few rabbits on the top of the high country, but our experience is that where a rabbit can live a sheep can live. The country up here is so rocky that the rabbits have eaten everything off it. 192. You are quite willing that a portion of the Crown territory should be vacant? —I do not think it is at all necessary, but lam assuming v,he worst phase of the case. I say it is more essential to have a number of very successful settlers on small areas on the flats than it is to keep it merely for the sake of a bit of high country —to leave it in one big sheep-walk in the hands of one big farmer in Dunedin. 193. You refer to the Kyeburn country, and you are probably aware that Mr. Scobie Mackenzie had the high country behind Kyeburn, and you will probably remember also that his lambing country was taken from him and farmed for some time by a company, who certainly did not make much of a success of it; but the fact of taking that low country from Mr. Scobie Mackenzie, and also some other low country, was to render that run unworkable?- It is still working. 194. It is only working in a sort of way —I mean to say there is not enough low country to enable them to take full advantage of the high country? —That is perfectly true, but the low country is carrying twice as manj sheep now as when it was let with the high country. Closer settlement increases the number of sheep on the same area of country. If a man holds 2,000 acres he can also cope with the rabbits far more successfully than the man holding 20,000 or 30,000 acres. The small man very often nets in his run and so can carry much more stock. 195. Mr. Hall.~\ You say that a considerable number of people in this district wish to settle on the land I—Yes.1 —Yes. 196. As a general rule, what has been their calling in life? —All sorts. There are a number of young men about who have gathered some money together by rabbiting and general farm-work. 197. Of course, we all know it is a very desirable thing to promote settlement, but, on the other hand, it is a very unfortunate thing to settle people who have neither the knowledge nor the means to work the land? —That is so, but there are very few of them up here. All the farmers here have been very successful. I do not know of one farmer who has gone bankrupt in this district. 198. Is there any great trouble here in keeping down the rabbits? —As a matter of fact, what is really keeping the rabbits down very largely is the rabbit export trade, and all we want is that the Government should give more encouragement is this direction, and provide cool vehicles for taking the rabbits down, instead of setting their faces against the business the whole time. If that were done there would be very little trouble with the rabbits within a reasonable distance of the railways. 199. Mr. McCardle.] You have had some experience of the working of the runs in this district I—Yes.1 —Yes. 200. You know something of their carrying-capacity? —I know every inch of the district from Lake Wanaka to the Taieri. 201. Is it not a fact that the high country is the best grazing country in the summer-time on these runs? —No; it is not a fact. The best grazing country anywhere are the sunny, salty faces in the low country. The country about the old Taieri Lake carries a sheep to the acre, and the tops of the hills will not carry a sheep to 5 acres. 202. Then, there is a great deal of truth in what the Chairman has suggested, that when you take the low country the tops are of no value at all ? —I say that if you take the low country and subdivide it and put settlers on it you will increase its carrying-capacity to double its present extent. 203. You have advocated strongly the subdivision of the lower portions of this country? —I believe the whole lot could be cut up. 204. Then, if these large hill and mountain tops could not be used for these small holdings what would become of them? —But they are used. The same objections were raised in regard to the Pateroa Run, but they have been disproved. 205. You say it would be advisable to make the small runs include the higher ground, and that they could be worked quite well in conjunction with one another? —Yes. 206. Do you think that the people living on the lower land, which they can cultivate, would be able to take up these small runs and use them more profitably with their own holdings? —Yes. 207. Are these low lands suitable for growing turnips and other winter feed? —Yes, in the valleys, but not at Blackstone Hill. 208. And the class of settlers you represent live in this district and have experience of station property? —Yes. 209. Mr. Anstey.~\ You spoke just now of a petition by the settlers? —Yes. It is before the Minister of Lands at the present time. It is the second one that has been sent asking him to settle this Blackstone Hill Run. 210. Have you ever asked the Land Board -to throw the run open for settlement? —No. It is usual to approach the Minister first, and he then consults the Land Board. 211. Then, the Land Board has never been requested to subdivide this run? —No. 212. In regard to rabbits, you say they are kept down better on small holdings than on the larger runs? —Yes. If a man has four or five boys and he takes up 4,000 or 5,000 acres of land, the boys go rabbiting and soon clear the ground.
0.—4
191
J. J. RAMSAY.]
213 Is it easier on a small run to prevent a large mortality amongst sheep in case of snow than on a large run?- Yes. We have odd seasons now and again when a heavy fall ot snow covers 214 You spoke just now about the export trade being a very good means of keeping the rabbits down : I suppose if this export of rabbits is going to be at all successful you will want to keep up the supply of rabbits ?—"You cannot keep up the supply if you kill the rabbits. I have had a little experience in that trade, and it shows me that if you ofier a fair price trapper will kill so long as there is a rabbit left to kill and he can make a fair wage out of it--215 Then, in your opinion that trade in rabbits will probably be a decreasing one. It is now The rabbits are not nearly so bad as they were ten years ago Any farmer will tell you that. 216 Mr Forbes.l What answer did you get to your petition?—We have not got any answer yet. It was onlv sent five or six weeks ago. We got no answer to the first petition, mentary Committee was set up and it recommended that the land should be cut up, but nothing aS °217. Did you suggest any particular sized areas? —No. We simply asked to have the land subdivided, and suggested that details should be left to the Land Board 218 How many signed the petition?—l am not quite sure, but for the last land that was opened there were from thirty to fifty applicants for each section. _ 2-19. How have the people done that have got them?— They have done well. They cannot help doing well at the present prices. The rents are reasonable. , v 220 You think it desirable for the district that Blackstone Hill shoiild be cut up ? Yes. 221 Mr. Paul.l You anticipate that landholders on the flat would take up these runs. I think that the boeev of the high Uind should not prevent the settlement of the low land. 222 You think that is how met ot this Uid should be token up in the low eountrj l-Te. It would result in increased settlement. You could cut Blackstone Hill up in areas from 700 to 800 acres up to 1,500 acres on Blackstone Hill proper. 223 The main thing you hope for from this cutting-up of the runs is increased productiveness of the land?— Yes. What chance have people who have been born and bred m the district ot piece oMancL tbe cut ting-up of Hamilton Run a success ?—Yes. The whole of those tops are being worked successfully. . -a v. u 225. Was the cutting-up of Paparoa a success ?■—Yes, so far it has been 226. Who has got the high country there?—lt is held by different people. 227. Are there any other runs there fit to cut up? —Puketoi is an ideal country for cutting up. I cannot t h e Maniototo farms making money ?—The leaseholders are doing pretty well, but you must remember that- nearly all of them had their land revalued. '229 You do not know on what basis these first values were put on the land__ Nobody knew anything about the value of the land. Some people thought a man could live on 200 acres of land. You do not know of anybody living on 200 acres m Central Otago. -Yes, and doing WeU '23l The Chairman.-] Do the farmers on the Maniototo Plain succeed from year toyear in getting good crops?— No. Cropping is not very successful. The proper farming is principally miXe 232 ar But with irrigation they can grow very welH-Yes, but the difficulty is to get the water. Bryan Flannery examined. 233 The Chairman.l What are you?—l am a farmer and storekeeper. My farm is 320 acres, in Ida Valley and I have 100 acres at Ophir. They are under freehold tenure. I have held the Ida Valley land for twenty-three years, and the 100 acres for five or six years I got the 320 acres underthe 7 deferred-payment tenure. I use the improved land for mixed farming. Myhornestcad is at Ophir but I have a house at Ida Valley. We are talking here about the tenure of the land but we hU no land for settlement. There is not a vacant section from Ida to Queenstown, and there has not been for the past twenty years. I want more land for my family. 234. Do you think the 420 acres you have got is sufficient to rear a family on?—I would like, as my family grow up, that they should be able to do for themselves I can make a living on the 420Teres but Ido not think it is quite sufficient for a man with a large fami y. It is very hard upon young people who have been brought up in the district that they should have to go away from their parents because there is no land available for settlement here I think that an oppor+nni+v should be o-iven to the young people here to take up land in the district. 235 You are well aware that in both Ida Valley and here there is a very large estate belonging to the Government. Do you think any of this Crown land could be settled more closely than it is now ? —My opinion is that it will carry hundreds of families. lam prepared to say that there is as good land from Dunstan to St. Bathan's as there is m this flat. That land is now occupied under three pastoral leases. There is as good land there as I hold m this flat There is a sample of oats at the door of this room, the crop having been 35 bushels to the acre without manure 236. You say there are only three occupiers of pastoral leases within a distance of about forty miles and that this land might be subdivided: how would you mark it off? I have heard a good deal of evidence to-day as to what number of sheep it is necessary for a man to have in order to make a living from them. These people may have their big ideas-what they think the poor people of the country are going to live on. I think that a ewe is worth £1 a year. The lamb is worth from 15s. to 'lBs., and I think I am right in saying that on the Ida Valley Run the average clip is about Blb In that case if a man runs a thousand sheep he makes £1,000 m the twelve His rental would probably be £50. Then, take another £50 for incidental expenses. That would give him £900. I think if a man has sufficient land to run from five hundred to seven hundred sheep, according to the nature of the ground, he can make a living.
192
[B. PLANNERY.
C—4.
237. How are you going to divide the Dunstan Mountains? —I would divide them into small runs. 238. How many acres would be required for a thousand sheep there? —I think 2,000 acres will run a thousand sheep at Matakanui and Moutere. They are well watered and well grassed. If we cut the runs into larger areas than I have suggested the young people in the next thirty years will have no land in this district to settle on. 239. Of course, in the cutting-up some regard would have to be paid to the configuration of the country? —Yes. 240. Mr. Hall.\ Have you had experience of sheep-breeding? —Yes. 241. The results you have stated seem good? —Yes. 242. I have had experience in that for forty years, but I have never been able to find out the secret of bringing things out so well? —There are three small runs from here to Chatto Creek, and their returns justify the statement I have made. 243. Mr. McCardle.\ I quite agree that where the land is suitable it can be cut up into small areas and profitably occupied, but a good deal of this is rough country, and you cannot always count on the high price of wool such as has prevailed during the past year ? —When wool was at a lower figure there was an ordinary good living for a man. 244. Does your experience extend to a knowledge of rough run country? —I have for many years watched closely the working of the runs. 245. Is your experience sufficient to enable us to say that it is advisable to cut up these runs in the way you suggest? —That is my opinion. 246. You are quite satisfied that if the land you mentioned is cut up into suitable areas it would be taken up ? —Yes. 247. Mr. Anstey.] With respect to the profit on a sheep, you said you reckoned that a ewe would produce £1 profit, and you said that lambs were worth from IBs. to 18s. each: are you aware that the prices you mentioned are considerably above the average value of prime fat lambs at Addington, for instance? —No; I am not aware of it. 248. I tell you it is so. Do you consider that lambs bred on some of these runs would be equal or superior to the best lambs grown in New Zealand? —I have seen at one station recently as fine sheep as there are in New Zealand, and they are the same sheep as will be grown on the tops of these mountains. 249. Can you tell us what the average lambing is on these hills? —No; but I heard on good authority that it was 100 per cent, in Ida Valley. 250. You say that on this high country every ewe will produce a lamb equal to the top price of the best in New Zealand? —No; Ido not say every ewe in the high country. If you farm the low country with the high country you can work the tops profitably. 251. Would there be no loss on account of dead ewes? —I suppose so. 252. That would come off the profits? —Yes. 253. Are you aware that in the great bulk of this high country there is no increase in the sheep? —It has been stated to-day in one case that the loss was only 6to 7 per cent., which is not a great loss. 254. We had it in evidence that the loss was 57 per cent, on one run in one year? —Yes. In regard to my estimate of the profit of a ewe I stated that the profit could be made up to about £1. 255. Are the tops of these hills suitable for crossbreds or for merinos? —They are suitable for crossbreds as well as merinos. 256. You think that 6s. is a fair average value of the clip per sheep? —I think it is very good value. 257. Mr. McCutchan.\ What is the cost per thousand sheep in working-expenses? —I could not say. 258. Mr. Johnston.'] Of course, you based these values on a very successful year? —I go back to ten or twelve years ago, when wool and lambs were low. 259. Have you never seen ewes sold here at less than 10s.? —I referred to what profit they would produce. There is a great difference as to the carrying-capacity of a sheep. Then, runs have a considerable number of cattle and horses, and that reduces the number of the sheep. • Alexander Armour further examined. 260. The Chairman.'] Do you wish to make a further statement to the Commission? —Yes. In 1895 we lost through snow thirty-three thousand sheep. At that time we shore something over fifty thousand. In 1903 we lost seventeen thousand by snow, and we shore about twenty-three thousand that year. This year we have got up to thirty-four thousand five hundred. I think in 1899 the death-rate went up to 10 or 11 per cent. 261. Do you consider that the sheep you have now is the proper number of the flock? —No; we could carry from six to eight thousand more sheep in ordinary seasons. 262. Mr. Hall.] What is the market-value of your lambs, when weaned, on the station at present prices? —I should say that merinos are worth about 10s. and crossbreds about 12s. 6d. 263. And in previous when the price of sheep was low? —We never sell lambs; they are generally taken into stock at about 4s. 6d. 264. It takes all your ewe lambs to keep up your flock? —We keep all our lambs. 265. Wool now is worth how much, when put in bales in the shearing-sheds? —For my own wool I got 10Jd.—the highest price at Dunedin. 266. And three years ago what was it? —I got Bd. or 9d. at Home. Crossbred wool was just about 6Jd. 267. Mr. Amtey.] You say you never sell any lambs? —Unless we have a few fat ones about the paddock. 268. We had evidence that on this high country the average production was 100 per cent, of
193
C.-4,
A. ARMOUR.I
lambs, and they were all prime, fit for market? —Probably if we got a quick return like that we would sell them. 269. You said just now you never sell any lambs? —We have sold about three hundred fat lambs this season. 270. You get no fat lambs on high country? —No; we never expect to get them. 271. What you sell are old ewes and wethers? —Yes. 272. What percentage of them do you sell every year? —I dare say from 25 to 30 per cent. 273. Can you give us th% average price, say, for the last ten years? —We have sold them as low as 3s. 6d., and this year we sold a few at 15s. I should say the average would be about 6s. The average price for wethers would not be that. The highest price for wethers last year was Bs. I suppose the average price would be about 3s. 6d. 274. It is the culls that are the profit? —Yes. It is a very hard thing for me to give the real value; it is an approximate value. 275. Mr. Forbes.] What do you say would be the average produce of a crossbred ewe on the high country this year ? What percentage of lambs do you reckon ? —Our average this year was about 76 per cent. 276. This has been rather a favourable year? —It has been the best year we have had. 277. What is the lowest you have had? —After the heavy snow it was about 53 per cent., 1 think. 278. Would 10 per cent, cover the loss in ewes? —Yes; about 10 per cent. 279. You gave the average on the station at 7 lb. : but the ewes would not clip that? —No. 280. Would not 61b. be nearer? —51b. to 61b. 281. Mr. Paul.] Do you know'any of the country about here that could be cut up so that 2,000 acres would run a thousand sheep? —No. It would want to be very choice, unless there was winter feed grown. 282. Over all, what does it carry, roughly? —About a sheep to 3 acres. 283. Mr. Johnston.] What do you reckon your crossbreds will clip, ewes and wethers combined —I mean on the high run country? —About 6 lb. 284. Are there any crossbreds reared on these hills? —Yes. 285. What is the cross? —There is a dash of Cheviot and halfbred Cheviot ewes. 286. What do the halfbreds clip? —They go a little heavier 287. What would a halfbred wether clip? —About lb. The average would be about 7 Ib., and the ewes about 5 lb, or 6 lb. 288. You do not think it is possible to make £1 out of them? —A farmer could on the flat, but I do not think it is possible on the hills. Alexander Trusdale examined. 289. The Chairman.] Are you a miner and farmer, Mr. Trusdale?—Yes. 290. How much land have you got? —400 acres. There are 200 acres of freehold and the rest is on lease in perpetuity, for which I pay about 9d. per acre. I have had the leasehold land about ten years. 291. Are you quite pleased with that tenure? —Yes. 292. How long have you held the freehold land?— About twenty-five years. 293. Under what tenure did you obtain that? —Under the deferred-payment system. 294. To what use did you put the land ? —Growing crops and raising sheep and cattle. 295. What stock have you just now? About three hundred sheep, perhaps twenty head of cattle, and six or seven horses. My farm is at Matakanui, between four and five miles from the Omakau Railway-station. 296. Your object, I believe, is to make known that you would like to have more land? —Yes. 297. Do you wish to settle some of your family on it? —Yes. I would like some agricultural land for them. 298. Is there any land in your vicinity that, presuming it was opened, would suit you? —Yes, on the Matakanui Run. 299. Mr. McCardle.] Are you acquainted with the runs surrounding this district? —Yes. 300. And you say that the land you want can be got in a particular run?— Yes. 301. In what areas might the land be cut up to provide suitable farms?— From 400 to 600 acres. 302. Would it interfere very much with the runholder if the land were taken away from the run? —I do not think it would. 303. Have you had any Ixperience with sheep on runs? —Not a great deal. 304. Do you think those runs are suitable for subdivision? —Yes, I fancy they are. The land I have is only second class. I have a good water-race, and I have done other improvements. 305. Is the Matakanui Run a large one?—-I could not say what the area is. 306. You approve of the leasehold? —Yes, or the deferred payment. 307. Do you think that the amount of land that any one person can hold should be restricted to a reasonable area? —Yes. I think 600 acres of agricultural land or 2,000 acres of secondclass land would be sufficient. It would all depend on the quality of the land. 308. Are the settlers generally met in a fair way in their applications to the Advances to Settlers Board ? —Yes; I think so. 309. Do you think the Act might be amended as now proposed —viz., to place the settler on those lands in pretty well the same position as regards his lease as persons holding a freehold—that is to say, to increase the advances from half to three-fifths of the value of the improvements?—l think that would be an advisable alteration to make. 310. Do you think it would assist in developing the resources of the colonv?—Yes. 25—C. 4,
194
[a. trtjsdale.
C—4.
311. And the Government would really be your mortgagee as well as your landlord ?—Yes. 312 Are you satisfied with the Land Board as at present constituted? Yes. 313. Mr. McCutchan.] If land is made available which tenure would you prefer?—lhe deferred payment. , . . ~ , 314. If you had had the option when you took up your lease in perpetuity would you have taken your land on the deferred-payment system? les. 315. Would you like to see the old deferred-payment system restored (—Yes. 1 would. 316. Mr. Anstey.] Do you know that there is a difference of 1 per cent, between the deterred payment and the lease in perpetuity? Yes. 317. Would you rather have paid the extra 1 per cent. ?—Yes. 318. Have you mined in this particular district?— Yes, a good deal. I was sluicing. 319. Has it come under your notice that good land in this district has been spoiled by mining —A certain amount of it has been spoiled. . , 320. I refer to good agricultural land? —No, Ido not think so. It is mostly along the bottom of the range that the mining is carried on. There is not much mining on the flats. 321. Do you think the good land might be worked without being spoiled? I do not see that 14 C °322 Do you think the fine stuff might be left on the top and the ground made fairly level? —I do not think that could be done very well. I think, however, that useful ground might be made with the tailings if they were made level. . 323. Do you think it would be very expensive to leave the tailings fairly level! No. It would not be very expensive , , , . , ... , XT 324. There would not be much objection if the miners were forced to level the tailings {—INo, I think not. 325. Mr. McLennan.] You are satisfied with your lease!— Yes. 326. And you say you would rather have the option of the freehold? Yes. 327. If you got the option of the freehold would you be agreeable to take the value ol your improvements and let your lease in perpetuity go to auction?—l would not be particular, would be satisfied to take up ground either on deferred payment or on lease in perpetuity. 328 What I want to know is this: if you got full valuation for your improvements, would you be satisfied if your lease was put up to auction and other people were permitted to compete for it? —No, I would not. „ 329. Would you sooner have your lease as you are than that such a thing should take place I YeS '330 0 Mr. Johnston.] Do you know if freehold land interferes with mining in any way?—l do not think it does 331. You have never had freehold land at the end of a tail-race t JNo. 332. Do you know whether freeholders have ever taken out an injunction to stop the depositing of tailings on their land? —I have heard of it. 333. And it stopped a man from mining!—' Yes. 334. It has not occurred in this district? Not that I am aware of. 335. You are satisfied with the living you are making out of the farm?— Yes. 336. Are you satisfied with the value put on your land?— Yes. 337 Mr. Hall.'] Is the land suitable for agricultural purposes?— Yes. 338. What do you think the value of it is for the purpose for which you want it?—l do not think I could answer that question. • » xr e 339. Mr. McCardle.] Is there much land available in this locality for farming?— Yes, a tew thousand acres. 340. There is room for a number of settlers?— Yes. 341. Mr. Mathtson.] Are you on Spottis Creek?— Yes. William Laidlaw examined. 342. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Laidlaw?—A sheep-farmer. 343. Your run is the Matakanui? —Yes. 344. What is the extent of it?— 53,985 acres. 345. You are under the pastoral tenure?— Yes. 346 Are you on the fourteen- or the twenty-one-years lease?— Neither, unfortunately. We came under the Pastoral Tenants Relief Act of 1896. At that time the bulk of the run was put up for fourteen years and one subdivision under class 2, which could be resumed on twelve months notice Notice was given that the block would be resumed, and we hold the balance, which falls due in fourteen years from 1896 —that is, in 1910. I might further explain the position in this way: Some time ago an agitation was got up in this district for land, and the matter came before the" House, but nothing more was then heard of it for a time. I thought it had died out, but two years a°x> Mr Barron came up to Tinker's to see what land the people there wanted. Ihey all wanted land there at that time, and they asked for a 7,000-acre block. We made representations to the Government that if that 7,000-acre block of lambing country was taken from us we would have to consider the question of throwing up the rest of the run. After repeated representations to the Government Mr. Marchant himself came to report on the block. _ He came to l mk ers with Mr Barron, and we went over the ground with several of the petitioners. Before we had gone far they declared they did not want that class of land. It was pastoral, they said, and they wanted agricultural. Eventually'a compromise was arrived at. We agreed to give up 1,380 acres of agricultural land close to Tinker's, in consideration for which we got back the subdivision of 7 000 acres of pastoral country. It is now all under one license, which expires in 1910. 347. How much stock do you carry?—We have not recovered from the effects of the snowstorm of 1903 yet. We shore 11,2(10 sheep last year.
195
C.-4.
W. I, ATM, AW.
348. What, were you carrying before the storm ?—Seventeen thousand-odd. We lost 7,288, or 41 per cent. 349. What is the average loss in ordinary years?—lncluding the 1896 loss and the 1903 loss, it comes to 11J per cent, for ten years. 350. Can you keep up your stock by your own increase? —I had to buy last year. That is the first time I had to buy. 351. Mr. Johnston.] That was owing to the bad winter of the year before? —That is so. Taking eight years and leaving out the two bad years, the death-rate was 6f. 352. What is the class of sheep ? -Principally merinos. 353. What is your average clip?- In bad seasons it has been down to a little over 5 lb., and in good seasons it has been over 8 lb. 354. In your run have you a ilue proportion of winter and summer country? —I have sufficient summer country for the amount of winter country that I hold. 355. The Chairman.\ Do you say that you can keep up the stock with the annual increase? — The average increase per annum for the past ten years, taking bad years, was only 53f per cent., and the death-rate, as I have said, was 11J per cent. That is the position. The lambing flock is too small to work the run to advantage. •356. Do you sell old stock?- Yes; they must of necessity be sold. 357. Do you sell lambs? —Yes, off the freehold. 358. What is the extent of the freehold? —2,100 acres. 359. That is low country? —Yes. 360. Mr. Johnston.] Is it included in the other? —No, but 1 work the two together. 361. The Chairman.] Have .you any cattle? —A little over two hundred. 362. You have a good deal of mining on your run? —Yes. 363. Does that trouble you much in working the station? —There is always a certain number of sheep getting into the races. 364. I suppose the mining is on the low ground? —Yes, along the foot of the spurs. 365. How many subdivisions are there in the run ? About ten, without the home paddocks. 366. Have you ever tried surface-sowing?— Not on the leasehold, but I have tried it on the freehold, and it has been very successful. 367. You might inform the Commission how you proceeded in that matter? —The tussock was burnt off and the grasses sown broadcast in the early spring. 368. Any particular grass? Cocksfoot, ryegrass, and clover. 369. Has the ryegrass kept pretty well! —It has stood very well. It has been about twenty years there. 370. Was the surface-sowing done about twenty years ago? —Yes. 371. And none since? —No. 372. And it is still good? —Yes. 373. Are rabbits numerous? —I have my full share of them this year. 374. You require to poison twice a year, I suppose? —Yes; I find that they do not take the pollard now. It is my first experience of pollard not being a success. 375. Can you account for it? —No. On several other places it is the same, and I have heard no explanation. 376. Would the taking of any portion of the run from you seriously diminish the carryingcapacity of your run.? —If any more low land is taken from the run it would certainly decrease the carrying-capacity and very seriously interfere with the profitable working of the run. 377. Mr. Hall.] I suppose your run carries about a sheep to 5 acres, taking it all over?— A little more. I am understocked this year because I have not recovered from the effects of the snow-storm. I was carrying a little over seventeen thousand before the snow-storm, which is about 3 acres to the sheep. 378. Do you say that if you were deprived of much of the lower land you could not work the run profitably? —That is so. • 379. Would a good length of lease induce runholders to improve their runs, as regards sowing grass and keeping down rabbits? —I think so. 380. Do you think that restrictions as regards cropping for winter feed ought to be removed? —Yes, I certainly do. 381. I suppose you have knowledge of the runs generally?— Yes. 382. Would these runs if broken up into smaller holdings be suitable for working sheep? It is practically all merino country here. All the flat country has been taken off as far as possible, and I think the position of the runs now would not admit of more being taken. 383. Could a run of 50,000 acres be divided into five or six areas and worked profitably? I would make long stretches running up and down the hills. 384. Would these smaller runs bear the cost of fencing and management, and so on, and be profitable to the holders?—l think that a matter of 5,000 acres would be too small if that'country up. Two thousand sheep ought to be allowed as the carrying-capacity in cutting up any 385. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards? —Yes. 386. Should they have increased discretionary powers?— Yes, I think so. 387. In grazing these runs should care be taken that no noxious weeds are introduced—should the Government interfere ? I thought the Government ought to interfere in the sale of the winnowings from a number of cleaning-machines. I know that refuse has been bought and sown over the country. The Government ought to see that that refuse is destroyed. Members of the Stock Department ought to examine any seed that is sown. 388 It would increase the grazing-capacity of runs to sow them down?— Yes That is matter that touches indirectly on the question of tenure, concerning which I have something more to say. As is well known, practically no grass-seeds have been sown on the pastoral leases and
C—4.
196
W. LAIDLAW.
what with occasional droughts and the natural process of stocking under rather than over the native grasses are eaten out. In addition, there have been occasional fires, and rabbits have helped in the same direction. Then, under the present tenure, towards the end of the lease the licensee naturally stocks the land to the very utmost of its carrying-capacity. That is only to be expected. The result is that the land is found to go back, the rents from the pastoral runs decrease, and I think it is pretty well recognised as a fact all over Central Otago that the carrying-capacity has very seriously decreased during the last fifteen or twenty years. 389. To what do you attribute that? —To the causes I have named. 390. Do you not think that resting the ground is necessary? —We try to get as much as we can out of the land during our leases,. We are liable to be turned out at any time. I think a runholder ought to be allowed to cherish a sentiment in regard to the possession of a piece of land of his own to make a home for himself and his family, and that is more than any pastoral tenant of the Crown has been allowed to do. 391. During the last fifteen years not many leases have been falling out? —Speaking for myself, I never knew what peace was until I came under the Pastoral Tenants' Relief Act, and then I knew I was certain until 1910. 392. The fourteen-years lease was not enough to induce you to sow? —The 7,000-acre block was subject to resumption at any time. The suggestions I would like to make are these: That all pastoral tenants whose leases have not expired by, say, the 31st March, 1906, should have the option of renewing them for fourteen or twenty-one years from that date at a rental to be fixed by arbitration. The new leases should contain the following clauses in regard to improvements: (1.) If during the term the lessee shall expend a sum to be named by arbitration in improvements he shall have the option of renewal of his.lease, at a rental to be fixed by arbitration, twelve months before expiry for a further period of fourteen or twenty-one years, such renewal to be on the same terms as the existing lease. (2.) Such renewed lease shall state the arbitrators' value of improvements for which the lessee is entitled to compensation under the lease referred to in paragraph (1). (3.) The lease to be put up by auction if the lessee does not give seven months' notice of his intention to renew his lease for a term of fourteen years or twenty-one years, and the incoming tenant shall pay to the Receiver of Land Revenue three-fourths of the value of the then existing improvements as fixed by arbitration, and also three-fourths of improvements referred to in paragraph (2). Such auction shall take place, say, six months before expiration of lease. Improvements shall include buildings, plantations, fencing, ditches for draining, roads and bridle-tracks, snow-shelters, and the sowing of grass approved by the Land Board (cocksfoot, Chewing's fescue, crested dog's tail, ryegrass, blue-grass, arid clovers). Lessee before making such improvements shall inform Land Board in writing of the improvements he proposes to make, and when made shall forward a statement and vouchers showing cost .of same. If twelve months before expiration of lease the Governor is of opinion that the lease is wanted for close settlement he shall give the tenant twelve months' notice, and lessee shall be paid three-fourths of all improvements. 393. Mr. Hall.] I understood you to say that the runs have gone back in carrying-capacity during the last fifteen years ? —Yes. 394. To what is that due? —Perhaps overstocking, and possibly fire, and the native grasses being eaten out. 395. Do you think the runs would be improved again if the tenure was sufficiently long and the other conditions fair ? —Yes; I think the tenant would treat it as a freehold property, and that he would not overstock. 396. Did I understand you to enumerate amongst the things for compensation the sowing of grass? —Yes. 397. Would that mean that the Government should bear the cost of the seed, or that there should be compensation at the end of the lease? —The tenant would pay for the sowing. It is always an asset that he reaps a benefit from. If he loses the run the incoming tenant pays threefourths of the value of the improvements. 398. Would it not be very difficult to determine the increased value given to a run by grasssowing? —I think it could be given effect to. 399. Mr. McCardle.] You said the grass-seed should be inspected by the Stock Department: do you think that would be sufficient to prevent against Canadian thistle and ragwort?—We do not know much about ragwort up here. I think it would be a sufficient safeguard. 400. Do you not think in the interests of the sower a much better plan might be adopted— namely, while the grass was in a growing state that it should be inspected with a view to seeing whether it is clean or not? —A number of noxious weeds can be taken out in the cleaning state. 401. You can get any amount of rubbish after it has been machine-dressed, but if you get the paddock clean before it is cut you know then that you have no weeds? —That is so. 402. You know there is a great demand for land in the colony, and in this particular district it seems there is no land available except that included in the runs: do you not think by extending the leases as you propose that it will shut out closer settlement in those runs for a considerable time?— This country is not adapted for closer settlement. The Government got the offer of 322,000 acres the other day, and they did not take advantage of it. 403. Are there any improved estates in the neighbourhood that could be purchased by the Government I—No.1 —No. 404. Would the 2,000 acres you hold on freehold be suitable, or is your station homestead on it? —More than half of it is assessed, I think, at £2 15s. improved value. 405. That would be the sort of land for closer settlement: I do not think the price is too high if the quality is good?— The land is not good. That, is the Government valuer's value for it. There is a lot of very poor land in it. 406. Mr. McCutchan.'] You said you sowed ryegrass on your freehold and that it does very well. Is there much of the leasehold that could also be sown? —In the gullies.
C.^4.
W. LAIDLAW.]
197
407. Why did you not try sowing grass on your leasehold? —I did not know when I would lose the ground. 408. You said you recommend dog's tail: had that been tried on the hills here? —I cannot say. 409. There is a grass sown in the North Island called danthonia: do you know if that grass has been tried here? —I do not know the grass. 410. Mr. Anstey.J You say the tenant would be entitled to three-fourths of the cost of these improvements. In the case of ordinary wooden buildings the value would be gone at the end of twenty-eight years? —The improvements could be valued at the time the tenant takes possession, and at the end of fourteen years there is a fresh valuation. 411. Then, I think you ought to alter the word " cost " to " valuation " of improvements?— The present lease allows up to three times the rent for improvements. 412. With respect to grassing, I presume the reason why you do not grass is owing to want of security of tenure? —Yes. 413. If you had security of tenure would that be an encouragement to leaseholders to grass? —Yes. 414. If you got security of tenure would there be any objection to inserting a clause in the lease providing for grassing? —No; but that would have to be judiciously exercised, because there are different classes of runs. 415. But there would be no objection to some compulsion in respect to grassing? —No. 416. You do not include the dry flock as natural increase —the average? —No; and that was taken in the very worst seasons, too. 417. Your average lambing, you say, is 53 per cent, of the ewe flock? —Yes. 418. What would you consider a fair average profit per sheep —it would not be £1, as one witness stated?- No; 1 suppose about ss. a head would be the wool-money. Freezing crossbred lambs would be worth 14s. When I say that I had an increase of a thousand, it was after selling off the old sheep. The gross profit would be about 6s. 6d. 419. Are there any settlers on the land? —There are occupation licenses, but there are no houses on the sections The land was taken from me about two years ago. 420. Mr. Johnston.] What is the altitude of the highest point of your country? —4,794 ft. 421. What is the homestead? —About 1,150 ft., and some of it runs down to about 1,000 ft. 422. What is the height of the snow-line? —About 2,500 ft. 423. Is Thomson's Pass in your run? —Yes; about the middle of it. 424. Do you lose any sheep through the gorges ? —No. 425. Has any Italian ryegrass been sown? —No. I have sown it, but not broadcast. 426. How high did you try sowing ryegrass? —About 1,150 ft. I would not go much higher than that. 427. What would you sow in the high country? —Cocksfoot and clover. 428". How would you propose grassing, say, 500 or 1,000 acres in the high country?—l would begin by sowing broadcast in the gullies —burning off and sowing it, the same as is done in the North Island. 429. Do you get good burns in this district? —Yes. 430. How would you burn and sow? —Just clear the gullies to begin with, and sow broadcast, without interfering with the stock at all. I think it would spread itself. 431. Would it spread over the top ridge? —It depends on the nature of the ground. 432. It would be a satisfactory way of grassing the run? —Yes. 433. You said you did not grass any of the leasehold? —My reason was that I did not desire to effect any more improvements than were necessary. 434. You do not know the area of low country you have as compared with the high country ? —I suppose there are about 14,000 or 15,000 acres of low country. 435. Do you know instances where "seconds" and "thirds" have been deliberately bought and sown on the land ? —I know one place. 436. Leasehold Government land?— Yes. " 437. What was the result? —I suppose "as a man soweth so shall he reap." 438. You say the carrying-capacity has greatly decreased —has the value of the land decreased proportionately? —The rentals have very much decreased. 439. You mentioned Chewing's fescue: would you put it on the tops? —No, on the low land. 440. Have you any experience of tree-planting being done?— Nothing beyond the trees around the homestead. 441. Do you think it would be advisable to plant trees ?- Poplars, willows, spruces, and larches are all you can plant up here. Pinus insignis and Finns macrocarpa will not do here. The frosts kill them. 442. Would it not do to plant English forest trees here? —There is a very fine plantation of young spruces at Burwood, on the banks of the Taieri. The want of water and irrigation is the great drawback up here. 443. If you had the command of water would it not be a great advantage? —There is no question about that, but I cannot get a drop now because it is all taken up by the miners at Tinker's. 444. What do they do with the surplus water?- -There is no surplus in the summer. ■ 445. If you had races in the front of your run it would be a very considerable advantage?— There is no doubt about it. Ido not see why the " tail " water should not be used by the settlers on the flat. You will see what has been done by Mr. Wilson on his farm on the way to St. Bathan's. 446. Have you had any experience of miners interfering with freehold land, or freeholders interfering with the miners? —A freehold was interfered with in my case. A pre-emptive was taken up before gold was discovered at the mouth of Thomson's Creek, and they wanted to stack their tailings on the land. We sold it to them, the Government paying part and the miners part. That was about twenty years ago.
£.—4.
198
[w. LAIPLAW.
447. Do you think that the freehold where mining is concerned is detrimental? —The miner is well safeguarded. 448. Are you a believer in the freehold or in the leasehold '? —I am a believer in the freehold. 449. Do you believe in the Government giving a freehold title in the case of these high runs? -I do not see why they should not do so. 450. I mean, to allow you to buy your run? —Yes. 1 believe in the principle. 451. Would it be in the interests of the colony to allow the sale of these runs of immense areas of land ? —I think they would be quite glad to get rid of some of them. 452. The question is whether, from a national point of view, it is advisable? —Possibly, so far as the State is concerned, it might be better to leave them as they are. 453. Provided there was a good tenure and compensation for improvements? —Yes. 454. Mr. Matheson.\ You said the agriculturists might use the tail water without hurting mining interests? —Yes. 455. Does the law prevent you? —The miners objected to water being taken out of a sludgechannel, because it would naturally cause a block where the diversion was made, and might cause trouble. 456. Supposing the agriculturist became responsible for keeping the sludge-channel clean? — Yes. I think an arrangement could be arrived at. Most of the companies stack almost all their heavy stuff, and for very many years to come the light stuff could be stacked in the open tailings. 457. In the case of an area small enough to be properly worked, do you think it would be wise to allow the freehold to be granted? —On some runs I think it would pay the Government to sell outright. 458. Do you think it would.be the best encouragement to a man to make the best use of the land ? —Yes ; I think so. 459. How are the values of improvements and the rentals to be arrived at under your scheme? —All the values are to be arrived at by arbitration. 460. Mr. Ilall.] Would the Government be justified in encouraging or assisting in the planting of trees that would be valuable for timber purposes, and would such trees do on the higher land? —I think larches would do right enough, but I question very much whether you can get people to grow them. 461. The Chairman.] If the freehold was granted it would at once put an embargo on the miners and would interfere with the freedom of action of the Government to a great extent?--I think the miners are pretty well protected. Existing rights could be protected. There are thousands of acres that will not be wanted for mining. John Wilson examined. 462. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm 1,000 acres three miles from Ophir. I have 550 acres of freehold and 450 acres on deferred payment. I have got a small run of 1,298 acres as well, and I pay 6d. an acre for it. It is about a mile and a half from the farm. I grow wheat, oats, turnips, hay, mangolds, and potatoes. I have about 150 acres of white crop this year, and 150 acres of green crop. 463. Do you wish to bring anything before the Commission, especially with respect to irrigation? —I find irrigation to be very profitable. I irrigate all my land that it is possible to cultivate. It is the grass land that is mostly irrigated. I have two heads of water in one race and three heads in another, but I have not half enough water. I consider it would pay the Government handsomely to invest a million of money in big irrigation schemes when there is so much water going to waste in the district. A permanent supply is to be got in either the Manuherekia or Dunstan Creek. The sludge-water, after the diggers have done with it, is valuable for irrigation. There are various ways of irrigating. 1 run plough-furrows along the higher levels. I turn the water on on the Ist October to the Ist Hay. I start at one end and work it right through, and then come back again. One good soak when the crop is about 4 in. high is sufficient. I work both the freehold and leasehold land together. To give you an idea of the value of irrigation, I may say that 600 acres partly irrigated supported twelve hundred crossbred ewes since lambing, and there was 100 per cent, -of lambs, and it supported them well—they are all fat. The lambs were prime freezers. There were no turnips in the summer, but I feed with turnips in the winter. Irrigation would make Central Otago the most fertile district of the colony. I have been called to task because I do not live on my small grazing-run. Part of my time is divided between the run any my farm, and I think when a settler is in the district—and it being impossible to reside on both- the Land Board ought to have discretionary power to grant exemption in such cases where two sections are worked in conjunction. I would like the Commission to make a recommendation to that effect. 464. Mr. MnCardle.] Is there any distinction between the holder of a small run and the holder of a large run as to residence? —I cannot say, but I have been called to task for not residing on my run. I have more than double the value of the improvements required by the Act, and have sown permanent grasses on the land. 465. Mr. McCutchan.] You still hold one section on deferred payment?--Yes. 466. What do you think of that tenure?—lt is a very good tenure. 467. Do you think the deferred-payment system should be restored to the statute-book?— Yes. It gives "a poor man a chance of gradually acquiring a freehold. 468. What do you think of the administration of the Advances to Settlers Department I—lt has been a very good thing for the colony. 469. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards? —Yes. 470. You think that nomination by the Government is best?— Yes. 471. Mr. Anstey.] Would it be very useful for a person possessing a small irrigated farm to have a fairly large portion of high country, not necessarily adjoining, but within easy reach?— Yes. The two together could no doubt be profitably worked.
C—4.
199
J. WILSON.^
472. But you want an alteration in respect to residence conditions? —I think the intention of the Legislature was that it should only affect absentee landlords or speculators living in the cities and holding land for what they could make out of it. Ido not think the Legislature intended to harass settlers who desire to improve their property. 473. Mr. Johnston.] Do you know of any one large runliolder who lives permanently on his run in this district? —I would rather not answer that question. 474. You have got a race simply for irrigation purposes? —Yes. 475. Are you using sludge-water?— Sludge-water is the most valuable water of the lot. 476. One*witness said there was some difficulty about it? —I think, only in imagination. It requires labour to be employed. 477. It costs money to get the sludge-water I—Yes; to construct the races and look after them. 478. Are you using sludge-water from your own race? —Yes; I take it out of Muddy Creek.
St. Bathan's, Thursday, 16th March, 1908. William Ptle examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a storekeeper and farmer, and lam interested in mining. I hold 320 acres of freehold. 1 also hold a small area of 7 acres under lease in perpetuity. I took up 320 acres under the goldfields agricultural lease system, and I converted them into freehold. I have held "them about twenty-five years. 1 keep stock, and also do some cropping. For some years my 320 acres were worked with similar areas held by some other farmers. The whole of the sections were ring-fenced, and crops were taken from different portions of the land, but none from my ground. I may say that we wound up because we found that system of co-operative farming did not work well. Individual effort was required. We have grown splendid crops of wheat in this neighbourhood. I have known as much as 50 bushels of wheat to be grown, and the crops of oaTs are usually very good. It is also good turnip country. 2. Is there any irrigation of the land?—To some small extent there is, and great benefit has resulted from it, because the land is all of a porous nature and irrigation does not sodden it. 3. Does mining interfere much with the mining here?— The miner does not interfere much with the farmer, but farming interferes with the mining in this way: when a mining right is required, either for a water-race or for a tail-race or anything of that kind, it is generally found that these rights can only be obtained after a great deal of trouble and expensive litigation. It is generally felt in this community, which is, strictly speaking, a mining community, that greater facilities should be given for obtaining these rights for which they have to pay rates and rents. It has been found that the grants of land made under the different tenures have with the mining privileges, and it is also generally felt that the two industries could be more amicably carried on by conserving mining outlets from plains to a greater extent. That has been done to some extent, but in many instances it has been found that the farming grounds have been encroaching too much on these outlets. The question of tenures has been discussed a good deal by the mining community, not only in this district but in the districts extending from Matakanui to Naseby, and I have been asked to urge that no tenures should be given to any land which would hamper the access of the miner in these localities. The reason is that it is well known that there is gold-bearing land along the foot hills of the Dunstan Range, extending from Hawkdun to Naseby. These leads have been traced and followed, and those interested in mining feel sure that if land is granted on other than a very short tenure future mining operations will be hampered and probably prevented altogether. They feel that the tenures should be short, and thatsome arrangement as to valuation should be made which would not put it out of reach of an individual miner to go in if he discovered gold. If the compensation were large it would mean that only large companies and wealthy individuals could go in at all. It costs a considerable sum of money with the improved methods now in vogue to work a mine, and high valuations would shut out individual miners. 4. Mr. Anstey.] We were informed yesterday that the water from the sludge-channels could be used profitably for irrigation : I would like to know how the farmer interfered with the miner ? I do not mean to say that they acutally interfere, but the outlets are not always in suitable places, and there has been trouble in getting" outlets from claims in this district. 5 I take it that the agriculturists do not get the water until the miner has done with it? It is not in regard to the water that the trouble has occurred, but in getting tail-races through the land held under the different tenures. Of course, the farmer always puts difficulties in the way of the miner going through because the tail-race will not benefit him, as the water is carried through his land at a considerably lower level than the surface, and it is not possible to use it for irrigation. 6. Is there any difficulty in the way of the farmer using the water after the miner has done with it? —None at all. . 7. The difficulty is that the farmer complains that you spoil his land with the tail-races/ That is so. Sufficient provision is not made in providing for the deposit of tailings. 8. Sometimes you store the tailings on the farmer's land ?-Sometimes it is necessary to store tailings on an area granted to the farmer or grazier. 9. Do you often deposit tailings on good ground and spoil it?—lt may be good grazing ground but not good agricultural ground To a certain extent we spoil good ground. 10. You are a farmer and a miner as well: do you think that the miner should have an unlimited right to spoil good land?— Yes, I would go that far, and justify myself by saying that
C—4.
200
r W. PYLE.
the miner may spoil good land by depositing tailings upon it, but that in many cases after ten years the tailings so deposited are as good as the land which they covered. It is well known that grass can be grown upon land covered with tailings to a considerable depth. 11. We had it in evidence the other day that it is possible to deposit these tailings in such a manner as not to really spoil the land —in fact, one witness went so far as to tell us that a great proportion of the stones could be deposited at the bottom and the fine stuff on the top: do you know if this is practicable at a reasonable cost? —It is practicable, but it would cost a considerable sum per acre. 12. Would it cost more than the land is worth? —Yes, as values go here at present. It could be done by means of dredging but not by tail-races. The tailings left by sluicing are comparatively level. 13. In regard to the land at the foot hills that you say contains a quantity of gold, is that land more valuable for mining than for any agricultural purpose? —Yes. It is totally useless for agricultural purposes. It is pastoral land, and the miners wish that it should be kept under pastoral tenure, and that the leases should be short, and that small valuations for improvements should "be arranged. I want the land to be accessible to the miner without any expensive formalities. 14. What compensation do you think should be paid by the miner for freehold land destroyed by him? —The value of freehold land differs considerably in a few miles "in this district. 15. Have you to pay full value of the land so destroyed? —Yes. 16. Mr. McCardle.\ You a miner, and you recognise that the mining interest is a great one and requires developing and protecting: you are also a farmer, and from that point of view you recognise that every effort sheuld be made to closely settle suitable land in this and other districts? —Yes. 17. If the land here was leased under lease in perpetuity for 999 years the digger who wished to enter upon such a leasehold would only have to pay the value of improvements: would that be a very great hamper to the miner ? —No. 18. In that case, you would be quite willing to see the lands put under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ? —Yes; but we find that certain formalities have to be gone through, and that all sorts of difficulties are put in the way. 19. Do you not think that is due to the machinery which governs the Act, and not to any fault in the tenure? —Yes. 20. Then, it is the machinery of the Act you would want amended rather than the tenure? —Yes. 21. Have you had any experience in this district which would enable you to say whether closer settlement is possible at the present juncture? —Not in this immediate neighbourhood, but not far from here closer settlement is possible. 22. Do you think these large runs could be subdivided ? -Some of them. I know a large run not very far away which is practically valueless as agricultural land 23. Would it be suitable for small grazing-runs? —No doubt it would. 24. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —I have met people who have had to do with it. 25. Has there been any difficulty at all in this district in obtaining loans? —I think not. 26. If a proposal was made to enlarge the operations of the Advances to Settlers Office in the direction of assisting bond fide settlers on Government leaseholds by increasing the limit up to which advances could be made from half the value of improvements up to three-fifths, do you think that would be a proper thing in the interests of the small settlers? —I do. 27. And do you think the State would be running any undue risk in making such advances on its own property ?—Certainly not. 28. Have you had any experience of the operations of the Land Boards? —Yes. 29. Do you think it is necessary that Land Boards should be composed of elected members? —No. 30. In fact, is it not an impracticable sort of thing? —I think so. 31. Mr. Paul.] Is mining the predominant interest here? —Yes 32. You therefore want short leases and object to the lease in perpetuity ?- -No ; we object to the formalities that are put in the way of the miner under the lease in perpetuity. 33. A pastoral lease is for fourteen years and a lease in perpetuity is for 999 years: do you not think that is a more valuable lease than the short one?— Yes. 34. Do you think that means increased difficulties to the miner? -The machinery if properly oiled should run so that there would be no increased difficulties in the way of the miner. I think the restrictions on the miners should be removed so far as possible. 35. As a miner, you think that no obstacles should be placed in the way of a miner to sluice away good ground, providing it pays good wages? —That is what I say. 36. On that ground the freehold tenure would be against the interests of the miners in this district? —It would. 37. Mr. Johnston.] Is the land between here and Hawkdun freehold?—lt is nearly all pastoral 38. Then, no freeholder is interfering with the diggers?— No. What- I want to impress on the Commission is to allow things to stand as they are. 39. You approve of the high land being cut up with the flat land to give summer and winter country on these small runs?— Yes. ■ It is absolutely necessary._ 40. It is impossible for this high country to be farmed by itself? —Yes. 41. Is there any place near here where tailings that have been deposited for ten years are producing grass?—l could show you an area of ground that was covered with tailings fifteen or sixteen years ago that has grass growing over the tailings. There was good grass there before. There is a comparatively large patch of 10 or 12 acres some six miles away, at a place called Surface Hill.
T. D. MCLEVIE.I
201
C.—4.
Thomas Davis McLevie examined. 42. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a farmer, and I hold about 200 acres under lease in perpetuity between Cambrian's and St. Bathan's, but there are several small mining reserves included in the 200 acres for which I have no title. I have held my section since the land was cut, a year and a half ago. I held an occupation lease of 50 acres under Ihe Mining Act, being the first to take up land under that tenure, and that section was afterwards included in the 200 acres. I use the land for mixed farming. I grow oats and wheat and potatoes. Oats do well, but wheat is not a success, because the land is not heavy enough. 43. Have you any mining on your land?— Yes. I have come into conflict with the miners, and I would like to disprove one or two of Mr. Pyle's statements. On one occasion the miners gave me notice they were going to prospect on my land. That was all right, because I knew I had to expect that under an occupation lease. When the case was called before the Warden I told him I made no objection, and that all I asked was that I should be allowed to take my crop off it. I was not allowed to do so, and, as showing the consideration of the miner to the farmer, I may state that the water was turned on to my growing crop, and I had to dig my reaper out of the mud. I had no recourse for compensation. So far as I know, no objection has been made to the resumption of land for mining purposes; and, so far as I know, the farmer is willing at all times to make every concession. But I cannot say the same for the miner. 44. Mr. Anstey.] Was your standing crop destroyed? —No; we saved it after considerable trouble and expense. 45. Mr. Paul.\ Is it within your knowledge that good land has been destroyed by mining?— Undoubtedly. 46. In what way? —In some cases a good deal is sluiced away to the ocean, and in other cases the land is covered with a deposit of useless debris. In some cases, if the fine silt is deposited on the damp low-lying ground, undoubtedly grass will grow on it. 47. In the interests of the State do you think it is a mistake or otherwise to destroy land, even when it yields good wages? —That is the question. If the land were really payably auriferous, then I think an opportunity should be given to the miner, but what I think should be deplored is that large areas of land containing just a few grains of gold are sluiced away. 48. Mr. ■Johnston.'] Have you ever known a good bed of grass to grow on tailings? —Certainly not. 49. We were told about some 15 acres of tailings growing grass: have you seen it? —I have not, but it may exist all the same. Edward Morgan examined. 50. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a miner and farmer in a small way. I hold 400 acres under lease in perpetuity, and have done so for about twelve months. I pay sd. per acre rent. My land is about a mile and a half from St. Bathan's. We can plough some of it, but the other portions are very stony. Very little is hilly. I have been in this district for thirty years. 51. Are you satisfied with the tenure you are under? —Yes. 52. In this particular district, which is a mining district, in your observation, have the miners and settlers and rtinholders got on fairly well? —I think so. There* are some places where the miners have been prevented from doing what they wanted. 53. I suppose they were only little differences, which were settled without much litigation ? Yes. 54. Can you suggest anything to help the miners without doing any injury to the farmers? — The principal matter is the providing of outlets to take tailings from the claims. All the miner wants is more outlets to enable him to work to advantage. 55. I suppose the farmer objects to the sludge going over his fields and spoiling his land?— Yes. 56. Have you had any trouble in your experience as a miner? —No. I may say in some ways the silt benefits the ground. I can prove that at my own place. 57. Mr. Anstey.] You say the miners ought to have better outlets for their tailings: do you think the miners ought to have the right to destroy good land by covering it up with tailings?— Of course, it would depend on the value of the land and what is'got out of the ground destroyed. It would perhaps pay to destroy poor land to get gold out of good land. 58. Do you agree with the previous witness, who said the miner had a perfect right to destrov whatever he likes? —Not without compensation. 59. Mr. McCardle.] Is there any demand in the district to have the large runs subdivided?— Yes; there is a great demand at the present time. 60. Is the land suitable for closer settlement in the way of small runs? —It is. 61. Mr. Paid.] Has good land been sluiced away to any extent?—l cannot say that it has. Hinkson Mee examined. 62. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I own 220 acres of freehold, and I hold 530 acres under lease in perpetuity, and 250 acres under a small grazing lease. 63. Which tenure do you prefer? —The freehold. 64. Is your land all in one block? —It is in different places, but it is all worked from one homestead, which is situated between Beck's and Cambrian's, about five miles from the Lauder Railwaystation. I have been farming about twenty-seven years. 65. Have you any mining on your land? —No. 66. Have you any water for irrigation purposes ?—Yes; I have a small race on my freehold, but it does not command much land. 67. Your farming will be mixed? —Yes —cropping and sheep. 68. Do you turn out fat stock? —Yes; I have seut some fat cattle to market bv rail 26—C. 4.
202
C—4
H. MEE
69. Are you fairly satisfied with your two leasehold tenures? —I would prefer to be under deferred payment, in order to acquire the freehold ultimately. 70. Mr. McCutchan.] You prefer the deferred-payment system, and you wish to have your lease converted to the deferred-payment tenure? —Yes, if possible. 71. You are aware that the capital value would be increased 25 per cent., as was formerly the case? —Even so I think it is better. You can never improve your land under lease in perpetuity, because you do not know what time the Government will turn round and raise your rent, and then you would have to throw it up. 72. What makes you fear the Government will break their contract with you? —It is hard to say what makes them do anything. 73. Then, I understand you would be satisfied to have the capital value of your land increased 25 per cent, in order to get under the deferred-payment system? —Yes; but it would depend on how long it would be before I could get the freehold. 74. What period do you suggest? —I think it used to be something like ten years before you could purchase. That was the system under which I took up my first land. 75. Are you satisfied with the Land Board control? —I do not see that I can make any better of it. 76. You think the system of nomination by the Government to the Land Board is the best system of representation for the settlers? —Well, I think the people ought to have a say in that. 77. Would you give the towns a right to have a say as well as the country? —No. I think the towns should have no say in the management of the country land. The townspeople have the towns to look after, and the country people do not interfere with them. 78. Are you living on your ynall grazing-run? —It adjoins my freehold. 79. Is residence on the freehold accepted by the Land Board as fulfilling the residence conditions on the grazing-run? —Yes. The farmers have the right to take up small grazing-runs. 80. Mr. Forbes.] How would you like your lease in perpetuity to be converted into deferred payment —would it have to be put up to auction again and offered to the public?—l do not know that it would have to be done that way. I altered the lease of one of my farms and it did not go to auction again. 81. You admit that deferred payment is a better tenure, and therefore more valuable. If your lease in perpetuity is converted do you not think that your neighbours might say, " This is a fresh lease, and, while we would not take the land under lease in perpetuity, now that the Government are going to alter the tenure we want to have an opportunity of bidding for the section "? —That was not done when I converted my perpetual lease to lease in perpetuity. Of course, I could not then get the freehold. 82. But under perpetual lease you had the right to acquire the freehold? —I believe I had, but I was paying too high a rent. 83. By altering it to lease in perpetuity you got a lower rent? —Yery little. 84. Now you would like it back again—why? —l want to make it freehold. 85. Does your lease in perpetuity hamper you at all? —It is not a bad lease; but, as I say, I would prefer to be paying an instalment every year to make it freehold, the same as I did with my first land. 86. Mr. An»tey.\ Is the portion of your land irrigated profitably? —Where I have my race the land is too heavy for irrigation. Some of my land could be irrigated, but there is no water to put on it. The miners have all the water. 87. Would irrigation pay generally in your district if a comprehensive scheme for providing water was adopted?—l dare say it would. 88. Is there a large quantity of land in your district suitable for irrigation?— Yes. 89. Is there enough water to be got? —Not in a dry season. The miners have all the water to be had at the present time. 90. Mr. McCardle.\ You want to have the same option as you possessed before of changing from one tenure to another ? —Yes. • 91. Do you know anything about the runs surrounding this district? —Not much. 92. Would it be possible to reduce the area by subdividing them, and, if so, do you think profitable tenants could be found for these small runs? —I think tenants could be got if the runs were cut up. 93. Is there a demand in the district for such settlement ?—Yes; but not for all the high country. 94. If these large runs were divided and a proportion of the low country was provided for the high country would there be tenants for these runs ? —I am certain of it. 95. Mr. Paul.] You have experience of three tenures? —Yes. 96. You find the freehold the best of the three? —Yes; I can make more improvements on it. 97. I suppose that is why you prefer the freehold ?—Yes. You will not make the same improvements on a leasehold as you will on a freehold. 98. Why?—lt is hard to say what might turn up. You never know what the Government will do. 99. Would the Government break their contract?—l would not say they would, and I would not say they would not. 100. Do you think you are giving them a handle to do that when you ask for a change from the lease in perpetuity to a lease with the option of the freehold ?—I dare say I am. Ido not know the law much. If I had known the law I would not have changed my perpetual lease into a lease in perpetuity. 101. Of course, you gained something by the change?— That was a mere nominal matter. 102. As a taxpayer, do you approve of the Government buying improved estates and cutting them up and putting people on the land ?—lt depends on the district, and whether it is good land or not.
203
C.—4
H. MEK.j
103. I want your opinion in regard to the general policy? —I think if the country is good it is necessary to have close settlement. 104. This is good country? —Some of it, and some is very poor. 105. You would give the tenants on these improved estates the option of the freehold? —Yes, if they could pay for it. 106. You would put the Government in the position of a land-speculator who buys land and sells it again? —That is a question I cannot answer. 107. Do you not think that private enterprise could meet that demand? —No. 108. You are inclined to think that if the Government had not intervened the settlers would not have had much assistance in this direction ? —Certainly. 109. Then, in general terms you approve of the land-for-settlements policy? —Yes; I approve of anything which will enable more people to settle on the land. Robert Elliott examined. 110. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am station-manager of Blackstone Hill. I have held that position about eighteen months. Before that 1 was head shepherd. I have been on Blackstone Hill Bun about sis years and a half altogether. 111. We had the evidence of Mr. Armour, who gave us full information about the run, tenure, rent, and so on: have you had under observation any improving and grassing of runs in order to increase their carrying-capacity I—To1 —To a certain extent of Blackstone Hill. 112. Has it been fairly successful? —Yes, by surface-sowing. 113. What area was surface-sown? —Perhaps 80 to 100 acres. I believe there was more at Highfield. 114. How much did it increase the carrying-capacity? —I should say at Blackstone Hill it doubled it. It was on a good part of the Blackstone Hill proper. 115. Do you think the same improvement could be made on the high land you have at Hawkdun ? —Yes, on parts of it. 116. And also on the Lauder Mountains? —Yes. 117. Do you think the Government could do anything in the way of improving tenures or any other way to induce the runholders to go in heartily for these improvements? —If they had a long lease and certainty of tenure they would go in for greater improvements. 118. What is your observation with regard to the relations between runholders and miners: do they get on fairly well? —Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. 119. Where are they likely to differ? —In regard to race-cutting and flooding the ground with tailings. 120. Mr. Hall.] Would it be sound policy to reallot these runs and divide them into small areas for grazing purposes ? —I do not see how they could be worked, because there is so much high country against so little low country. 121. Then, the country could not be worked profitably in small areas?- ! should say not. 122. Then, would it bring in as good a revenue to the Government as it does at present in one large run ? —No. 123. Mr. Matheson.\ What is the highest altitude at which you have know surface-sowing to be successful? —I Have not seen it at any great altitude. I have noticed cocksfoot that has been carried there by stock growing over 3,000 ft. up. 124. What was the highest sowing done at Blackstone Hill?--About 1,500 ft. 125. Did you notice other grasses besides cocksfoot? —I have seen Yorkshire fog and white clover. We only sowed cocksfoot. 126. Mr. Anstey.] Are there any rabbits on the Blackstone Hill country? —Some, but it is not nearly so bad as I have seen it. 127. Are you well able to keep them within reasonable check? —We have done so. 128. What does it cost you annually for trapping and laying poison? —I can hardly say. We employ perhaps twenty to forty men for two or three months in the year to lay poison. 129. It must cost you something over £1,000 a year, then? —I do not know if it costs so much as that. 130. Do the Inspectors insist upon your destroying rabbits? —Yes. 131. Do they also insist on the small runholders destroying rabbits? —They are supposed to. 132. Mr. McCardle.] What is ihe proportion of the high to the low country in your run? —I should say there is seven to eight times as much high country as there is low country. 133. Is the low country fairly distributed around the base of the mountains? —It lies along the foot of the hills. We call the country about Blackstone Hill proper the low country. 134. Is there any extent of it? —No great extent. 135. If the low country was fairly distributed I fail to see what difficulty there is in the way of dividing these runs: would they not be as easy to work in that way as in one large run ? —You would have a block of low country down here on Blackstone Hill and a block of high country at the back of Hawkdun and no low country to it. 136. Mr. Paul.\ You have a fair idea of the carrying-capacity of the country round here: do you know of any large area that could be cut up into 2,000-acre runs which would carry a thousand sheep ? —No, I do not. 137. Mr. Johnston.] Would you approve of the run being cut up if sufficient country could be secured to give a proper amount of high country and a proper amount of low country? —Yes. 138. Have you ever seen any " seconds " or "thirds " grass-seed sown on these runs? —No. 139. Can you tell us what the cost of management, including rabbiting, is per head per sheep?—lt would, cost 3s. or better per sheep. 140. Mr. Hall.] There is an indigenous native grass growing in the north of New Zealand called danthonia. It grows very well on the high elevated clay hills and is very hardy, and is not injured apparently by firing: do you know anything about it?— No.
204
[B. ELLIOTT.
C—4.
141. Do you think it would be wise on the part of the Government to send down some seeds of it and have it tried on these hills?—lt might. I do not know what effect our winters would have upon it. Richard Wilson examined. 142. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. My wife.holds 700 acres under lease in perpetuity at Lauder. She has held "it forty-three years. We use it for mixed farming. We have about six hundred sheep. 143. Are you satisfied with the lease in perpetuity as a tenure? —I would prefer to make it freehold. 144. Are you very anxious to do so? —Yes. 145. We will assume, if the Government allows you to break your contract, that they value your land afresh, and, after protecting you by loading the land with the value of your improvements, they put it up to auction again, and it would then go to the highest bidder: would you be prepared to run the risk of being outbid in order to secure the freehold, or would you rather remain as you are under the lease in perpetuity, which is practically forever ? —I think, rather than sell out my home I would prefer to remain as I am, but I still think that those who settle down in the back blocks, before there is any railway or other convenience, should have the first right to the land. 146. Mr. McCutchan.\ You wish to make your land freehold? —Yes. 147. Do you wish to make it freehold by either the deferred-payment or right-of-purchase systems? —Either would suit me. 148. Those who have the right to purchase are paying 5 per cent, on the capital value as rent? —I would be quite willing to do that. 149. Would vou wish to have the right to pay off the capital value by instalments and get your rent reduced proportionately? —It would be much easier by instalments. 150. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office?— No. 151. Are you satisfied with the Land Boards as they are?— Yes, so far as lam concerned. 152. Mr. Forbes.] What is your particular objection to the lease in perpetuity? —I have no great objection to it, but when one is settled in a place he would like a chance to make it freehold. 153. As the lease in perpetuity is for 999 years, of course the term is quite long enough?— Yes, so long as you pay your rent ; but if bad times come and you are unable to pay you will be ejected. If I make "the place freehold they cannot put me out. One always likes to feel that the land is one's own, and that you cannot be domineered by the Land Board or any one else. 154. If the freehold was granted would you be in favour of restricting the area of freehold land a man might hold, or would you leave it open to a man to buy up as many farms as he liked?- I would be in favour of restricting the area of freehold to 2,000 acres of the sort of land here. I would like to say that the Land Valuers come around in the spring when everything is looking at its best. I think they should come round now and see the country. I thought these lease-in-perpetuity lands were exempt from revaluation, but this year the valuer clapped £700 more on it. 155. You do not pay any tax to the Government ?—That is for local rates, and it seems a lot for a lease in perpetuity. 156. Of course, on the freehold you have to pay on the full value of your land? —Yes. 157. The valuer has valued your improvements at £700?- He has valued the land at more than when it was taken up. He has valued the increase and my improvements to the extent of £1,800. I pay rates on £1,800. 158. You do not pay taxation to the Government?— Only rent. 159. Mr. Anstey.] Are there any miners on your I have no water. 160. Could water be got for you? —Yes, if the miners did not have it. 161. Mr. McCardle.] You object to the 999-years lease, first, on the sentimental ground that you prefer the freehold, and, secondly, because of certain restrictions in regard to Land Board inspections, and so on? —Yes. _ 162. Suppose you had effected all the improvements stipulated in the Act, do you think it would be a fair thing to place you in the same position as the freeholder alongside you, who has purchased from the Government, by exempting you from these inspections and restrictions?— Yes. 163. If that were done do you think your lease would then be just as good as a freehold?—lf that were done. 164. A high authority in the Government is proposing that as soon as you have completed all your improvements all restrictions are to be removed, with the exception that you will owe the Government a small amount for rent; and he further proposes to increase the amount to be advanced under the Advances to Settlers Office from one-half up to three-fifths of the value of your improvements: do you not think if all this were done that your lease in perpetuity would be quite equal to the freehold?—l do not think it would be equal. 165. Would it not be sufficient to satisfy you?— No. 166. Mr. Paul.'] Could you make this land freehold at the present time if you had the option! —Yes. ' , , 167. In regard to bad times and inability to pay your rent under lease in perpetuity, suppose you had the freehold and bad times came, what would you be compelled to do? Would you not be compelled to mortgage? -Not if I had not to give the Land Board rent. 168. What does you rent amount to per annum?—£3o. 169. If vou had the freehold' would it not increase the amount of your local taxation I—A little, but not much. , ' , . 170. Is any water wasted now in connection with mining? —Yes; plenty goes to waste in the winter. 171. Then, it could be conserved in the winter? —Yes.
205
C.-4.
K. WILSON.]
172. Do you think it would be any advantage if the Government acquired these races so that the water might be conserved for the use of the farmers without injuring the miners? —That would be a very good thing. 173. You quite approve of that? —Yes. I have seen places that took 3 acres to feed one sheep, but which when irrigated carried four sheep to the acre. 174. A farmer told us this morning that he preferred 1 acre he could irrigate to 10 acres that he could not: do you think that a fair statement? —Yes. 175. Mr. Johnston.] You said you prefer the freehold because if bad times come you would be in a better position : suppose you had a mortgage on your freehold, would the mortgagee treat you as well as the Government? —I do not know. I have had no experience. 176. Would it be possible for the Government to conserve the water that now goes to waste? —I think so. The Government would only have to put a wall across to dam it back. There is enough water going to waste in the winter to irrigate the whole of the country up here.
Ranfurly, Friday, 17th March, 1905. John Forrester examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer in this district, and have 212 acres of freehold and 890 acres under lease.in perpetuity. I have been in the Eweburn district for twentynine years. My farm is about two miles from the Ranfurly Railway-station. lam paying for one portion of the lease-in-perpetuity land Is. and for another portion 7d. an acre. lam quite satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure as long as it remains as it is. My land is principally used for grazing, but I grow a little feed for homestead use —from 30 to 40 acres of turnips. The winter is pretty severe. The snow lies for some time, and there are very severe frosts. I have sown about 300 acres in English grass. That was only sown last year. I have not tried surfacesowing. There is any quantity of water on my land. I got my tenure on deferred payment at first. lam satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Board. If there is to be any change in the land-tenure I think the old deferred-payment system would be the best for this district. 2. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it would be profitable and advisable to cut up some of the large runs in this district into smaller areas? —Yes; a good many of them. 3. Profitable to the State and the tenant? —Yes. 4. What area is the smallest you think they could be profitably cut up into? —It all depends on what sort of land it is. 5. How many sheep do you think a man ought to be able to make a fair living from? —There are some runs of which parts would be suitable for growing crops to a limited extent. 6. Ought that cropping not to be for winter feed? —Yes. 7. In cutting up land for small settlement you would want to give a man sufficient land to carry a certain flock: would you put it at a thousand or two thousand sheep ? —I would put it at a thousand; I have made a living up till now, and I have never had a thousand sheep. 8. A thousand sheep would be sufficient to give a man a living? —I think so. 9. Could you name any runs that you think are suitable for cutting up?—Puketoi and Blackstone Hill. 10. Do you think those runs could be cut up so as to give a fair proportion of arable land to each piece of hill country? —Yes; enough low country. 11. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?— Yes, a little. 12. Has it been satisfactory? —Yes, I think so. 13. Mr. McCardle.] If these runs were cut up do you think there are people in the district ready to take up the small runs ? —Yes. ■14. There is no suitable land for proper so-called close settlement—for 200- or 300-acre sections?—ln the first place, you could not get a bit of such land under any consideration. I held 100 acres for over ten years, and I could get no more, and it was about fifteen years before I could get any such additional land. I had to do with what I could get, but it was not enough. 15. Do the holders of the large runs own any extent of freehold land?—l could not say. 16. In the event of those large runs being cut up, and if the runholders own a considerable area of fairly level good-quality land, do you think it might be necessary that it should be divided with the runs? —Yes. 17. Mr. Anstey.] Do you use any artificial manure in sowing turnips or crops? —No. It is new ground that I have sown, but by-and-by it will have to come to that. 18. Has any one here used manure? —Yes. 19. Do you know the result? —I think there is a witness present who can inform the Commission about that. 20. Do you know if lime has been used?—l do not think it is suitable for this land. 21. How have the rabbits been kept down in this neighbourhood?— Very well, I think. 22. Are they thicker on the larger runs?—l think they are fairly well kept down all over. 23. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think the deferred-payment system would be better than the lease in perpetuity? —I do not exactly go that far. 24. You are satisfied with the lease in perpetuity?— Yes. 25. Do you not see that there is a danger in connection with the deferred payment, where the lands are bought out, that there is a probability of farms being thrown together and being held by one man, thereby reducing the number of people who are settled on the land ?—Yes. 26. By introducing the deferred-payment system there is a possibility of the number of people on the land becoming less? —Yes, I quite agree with that.
C.—4.
206
[j. FOEBESTEK.
27. Mr. McCutchan.] Could you give us an estimate of what it costs per acre to lay down in grass? —We never estimate the cost. We do all the labour ourselves. 28. What grasses do you sow? —English grasses and cocksfoot. 29. What varieties of English grass? —Ryegrass. 30. You say that you are quite satisfied with your lease-in-perpetuity tenure, provided there is no revaluation ? —Yes. 31. Is there any doubt in your mind that the lease may be interfered with in the direction of the land being revalued ? —Yes. 32. What reason have you for that feeling? —It has been written about in the newspapers over and over again that the labour unions in Dunedin want to get periodical revaluation. 33. Are they advocating revaluation, and that the revaluation should have a retrospective effect —that is, would it interfere with leases now in existence? —I do not know. If it does not interfere with existing leases it is all right. 34. Mr. McLennan.] You said you have 40 acres in turnips? —-Yes. 35. Do you give the land a second ploughing? —Not for turnips. They grow well if they get any rain; but they are not so good this year because it has been dry. 36. Do you know if any of your neighbours tried giving it a second ploughing? —I could not say. 37. Do you know of any Crown tenant that has acquired the freehold and who has immediately sold his land for perhaps double the money ? —I know of no tenant in our district who has done that. 38. The Chairman. ] You said that you thought a thousand sheep was enough for a man to make a living from? —Yes. 39. There is some fairly higK run country here? —Of course, it would take more of that land to run a thousand sheep. I did not say I would limit any one to a thousand sheep. I simply said he could make a living from them. 40. Mr. McCardle.\ You have been asked about the aggregation of small farms if the freehold was granted: in your opinion, would it be proper to prevent that by amending the Land Transfer Act and limiting the amount of land any one person could hold —either by acreage or by value? — I think so. 41. You think it is desirable that some amendment of that sort should take place? —Yes, if it is to be altered. 42. You have a large amount of freehold land now, and there is nothing to prevent one man purchasing the lot? —No. 43. Mr. McCutchan.~\ In paying your rent have you taken the 10-per-cent. rebate given by the Government for prompt payment? —Yes, always. 44. In connection with your fear of revaluation, by taking the rebate in good times do you not think you have given the trades and labour organizations of the colony good ground for their advocacy of revaluation, because it was an interference with the terms of your lease? —I do not see that. Patrick Bleach examined. 45. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and have about 850 acres of land —320 acres freehold and the remainder leasehold. 220 acres was exchanged from perpetual lease. My place is about two miles and a quarter from the Ranfurly Railway-station. I pay 9d. an acre for one section and 4Jd. for the other. I have been in possession of the freehold since 1880, and the lease in perpetuity for about twelve years, and one section for four years. I use the land for mixed farming. I have 80 acres of oats, 70 acres of turnips, and engage in dairy-farming. I keep about forty cows. lam satisfied with my lease in perpetuity. In connection with the lease in perpetuity I would like to mention a hardship that the settlers in this district are labouring under. I have had my home on the freehold since 1880, and four years ago I got this lease-in-perpetuity section. It is a very poor piece of ground and a good distance away —six or seven miles. Regularly every year I get a notice from the Land Board to show cause why I am not residing on that section. I consider that where a settler is residing on a section, and where he has an out-piece of land like that to help him to make a living, no such restriction should be proposed as long as the settler fulfils the other conditions and resides in the neighbourhood. There is no dwelling-place there, but I have eSected a considerable number of improvements, and have complied with all the other provisions of the Act. But let me put such a case as this: that an adjoining holder may put up two or three sheets of iron, and perhaps two or three bricks, with an opening to let out smoke and to let in the light, and the Ranger comes round and says, " That is all right," and that person has not to show cause at all with respect to residence. 46. Mr. Matheson.~\ Do you do any irrigation? —No, for the simple reason that the Government took all the water away from me. 47. For mining purposes?--Yes, with the head-race and big dam. That is a point I would like to mention. At the time the big dam was to be built —that was only a few years ago —there was some trouble between the farmers and the miners about getting the dam built. A deputation of miners was appointed to interview the farmers at Eweburn in connection with the building of the dam, and it was ultimately stated on behalf of the miners that the farmers interested would be allowed the same privileges, and the opposition of the farmers was therefore withdrawn. After the dam was built a neighbour of mine, who had a lease-in-perpetuity section, went to plough up his land and found that he had no water there. He went to the manager of the Government water-race and asked him if he would give him permission to put in a 2 in. pipe, and he would pay for any water he took, but he was not allowed to take a drop of water, although he offered to bear all the expense. That was the way which the miners and the Government broke faith with the farmers. I do not think we would be allowed a drop of water however necessary it might be.
207
C.—A.
P. BLEACH.
48. The Chairman.] Was the attention of the Government drawn to this matter? —I could not say. 49. And since the dam was constructed has all the water been taken by the miners? —Yes. 50. Mr. Matheson.~\ Would that water be of use for irrigation? —Yes. 51. Do you not find a difficulty in keeping your cows in milk in the dry season? —On my homestead I have plenty of water, but it is too flat for irrigation. 52. Mr. Paul.] Is it possible that further conservation of water could take place?-—I do not think so. 53. At any time of the year is there water running to waste from the dam? —In the Wedderburn it would be possible that more conservation of water might take place. 54. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes. 55. Has it been satisfactory? —Yes. 56. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you know anything of the big runs in the neighbourhood ? —-Yes. 57. In your opinion, could Puketoi and Lynburn be subdivided into lesser areas, profitable for occupation by small settlers ?--The only thing we would be frightened of would be people coming from all parts of the colony and competing against us. 58. That is the strongest reason for cutting up these runs? —The worst run of the three was cut up recently, and I think that is proof enough that the land would be taken up. 59. Mr. Anstey.\ What was the result of your irrigation scheme so far as you tried it? —I only diverted the water from one creek to another. 60. Have you any idea who paid for building the dam? —The Government. 61. Did the Government also construct the head-race? —Yes. 62. Then it was handed over.to the miners?— Yes. The miners have got all the benefit of it so far. 63. And the farmers have been deprived of what they had previously? —Yes. There was an outcry one rear to get some remedy, but the miners were too strong for them. 64. Mr. Forbes.] Do not the miners pay for the use of the water? —Yes, so-much per head. 65. Does the money received from the miners pay the Government for the money they have spent? —No; I think it has been worked at a loss. 66. Do you think if the farmers could get the opportunity of using the water for irrigation purposes they would do so ?—Yes, and they would be prepared to pay for it. 67. Do you think the land would be very much improved by irrigation? —Yes. 68. Have you seen any good results from drilling and manuring—any better results than in the case of runs in the past? —Yes. Two of my neighbours drilled a few acres this year, and if it had not been for the drilling I do not think they would have had a turnip at all. 69. You think if the farmers could get the use of this water for irrigation they would use it, and it would improve the place very much? —Yes. 70. Mr. McCutchan.~\ What you desire is that where a settler is a bona fide settler, and in order to get sufficient land to make a living for himself and his family he happens to reside away from one of his sections, that he should be considered to have fulfilled the residence conditions of his lease? —Yes, or residence on another leasehold. There is a clause in the Act which gives the Land Board power to call any distance contiguous. 71. What reason had you for converting your perpetual lease into a lease in perpetuity? —I think it was because the rent was cheaper. 72. Which do you consider the preferable tenure? —The lease in perpetuity. 73. Why? —For the reason that I consider the State should be the landlord in all countries. 74. Do you think that is possible in New Zealand now?— The people of New Zealand could make it possible, or a majority of them could. 75. That is, that the State would become the landlord of all the freehold land in the colony? —Yes. 76. Would not that involve a very great expenditure? —I do not know what it would cost, but New Zealand is a very young State, and in fifty or a hundred years' time I presume the population will be trebled, and I do not know where the people are going to get the land. 77. Mr. Patd.] You know there is no limitation to the amount of freehold land a man can hold ? —Yes ; I know that. 78. Do you think that is an evil? —It is. 79. Would you limit the freehold as to amount? —I would. 80. Do you not think that by limiting the market for the freehold you would be interfering with the essential quality of the freehold? What I mean is this: you have a freehold to sell, but your neighbours immediately adjoining have their full compliment under the Act. Your market is restricted by that, but somebody else from outside may come in ? —Yes, if my neighbours have their full compliment they should not get mine. 81. That would depreciate the value of the freehold? —I do not think so. John Law, jun., examined. 82. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a freeholder and hold about 1,700 acres two miles from Ranfurly. I have held the land for about ten years. I am engaged in mixed farming. The principal point I desire to draw the attention of the Commission to in connection with the land question in this district is that provision should be made for people who want the land ; in other words, that more land should be open for selection and settlement. Previous to taking up the freehold I tried my fortune several times at the ballot. About fifteen years ago I tried to get a piece of land in the district, but was not fortunate enough to secure a piece. There are always a large number of unsuccessful applicants at the ballot in this district, for the simple reason that there is never sufficient land put in the market. The ballot system, as far as I can see, is the best that can be done at the present in the way of giving people a fair and equal opportunity
C—4.
208
\j. LAW, JUN.
of getting on the land, but there are evils attending the ballot system, including that which I have just pointed out —namely, that people that want to get a piece of land are frequently unsuccessful. The way to minimise that evil is, in my opinion, to keep plenty of land in the market. lam not aware of any failure having taken place in connection with any run having been cut up in this district. Ido not know that any run has been cut up that was not applied for five or six fold, and sometimes more. I read Mr. Laidlaw's evidence given at Ophir, and 1 agree with him when he says that there is a difficulty in working this high country, and that the man who has got it to work wants some security of tenure. The only point upon which I disagree with him is as to the area. I think that if you get a run —we will say that it is principally high country —and carries, as Mr. Laidlaw says, seventeen thousand sheep, and if that run had more low country it would carry more sheep, and the way to get a run to carry more sheep is to give more low country, and give the people the chance of competing for the high country. I think it was Mr. Scobie Mackenzie who kept saying that a man should have 2,000 acres of second-class land. Every one here knows that under present conditions a man requires sufficient land to run a thousand sheep. I think, in the immediate vicinity of the railway-line an area sufficient to run five thousand sheep is too much considering the demand for land, and especially the number of young people who want land. The small-grazing-run system gives fixity of tenure to the tenants for the working of the runs, although the conclusion drawn is that the land should still be leased in 30,000- or 40,000acre blocks. If you are going to give fixity of tenure I think the present conditions and the desire for land demand that you must not give a greater area than will run, 1 would say, three thousand sheep. As far as I am aware people never ask for land that they do not intend to take up. 83. Would there not be a risk, if your scheme were carried out, that some of the high runs might be left, and that they would be simply a breeding-ground for rabbits ? Do you not think three thousand sheep is drawing it rather fine? —I do not see that it is. If the land would not cut up under the small-grazing-run system it could be let under pastoral license with the right of resumption at a year's notice. 84. Do you not think if the country requires to be let under pastoral license that the persons holding that license should be rendered as secure as those who take up the smaller areas? —The natural conditions will render them as secure. 85. In the case of the high country, if you restrict the occupier to a very small number of sheep, the expense of fencing would be so great that it would not be worth while taking up the land at all? —There is a large run here that has been thrown on the hands of the Government once or twice, and it has been let under pastoral license, and a number of settlers are working the run as a kind of syndicate. That syndicate has been in existence about six years, and it apparently works fairly well. 86. Mr. Matheson.\ Which run is that? —3628, and the area is 27,000 acres. 87. Mr. Paul.] I think you said that the only way in which the ballot system could be improved would be by putting plenty of land into the market ? —Yes. 88. I suppose by that you mean that the leasehold policy should be continued? —I am a thorough believer in the leasehold policy. I believe in State ownership of the soil. 89. I suppose you would limit the area of freehold that one man could hold? —I cannot see how that can be done. Ido not see the difference between a number of small freeholders under a mortgagee company and a number of leaseholders under a large freehold landlord. 90. Has your freehold increased in value? —Yes. 91. Apart from your exertions? —Oh, yes. 92. The fact of the railway coming along has increased the value of that holding? —Yes. 93. Believing in the State ownership of the soil, do you think that that unearned increment should belong to the State? —Not mine. My particular bit of unearned increment Ido not believe in going to the State. But I believe in it as a principle. 94. I take it from that that you are not, prepared to give that to the State? —Yes. There are some people who regard it as an inconsistency that a freeholder should be an advocate or in favour of the leasehold system. I look at it in this way: that it is much the same as the inconsistency that is exhibited by the great peace-professing Christian nations when they arm themselves to the teeth. It is analogous to that. 95. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think that the 999-vears lease should be revalued?—lt will be revalued. 96. When? —When hard times come and the lessees want a lower rent. 97. Has the State the power to do that now?—No; not now. Neither has it the right to take back those freeholds. 98. Would it not be much easier for the Government to raise revenue from the freehold by means of taxation than it would be to raise the rent under the 999-years lease?—lt is much the same, and the proposal to tax the freehold is, I think, much nearer. 99. You have said a good deal in favour of the need of subdividing these large runs. lam one of those who believe that those runs should be cut up, although it is against the evidence we have had from some witnesses who have said it is impossible. Your arguments are that these runs can be cut up1 —Yes. 100. And you consider that in the interests of settlement it ought to be done?— Yes, as the people demand it. 101. Is there a demand for it now? —Yes. 102. Has the point been reached already when this land should be subdivided ?--There have been petitions sent to Parliament from this district and they have been ignored. 103. Mr. Anstey.] Is there any of that high country in this immediate neighbourhood that would not be practicable to be cut into small grazing-runs I—That would be a matter chiefly for the surveyor.
C—4.
209
J. LAW, .TUN.
104. You think they all could be cut up into small grazing-areas, and that the high country should all be included with the low ? —Yes. If the people did not think it was practicable they would not ask for it. 105. Is there any of the high country that would be suitable to be offered to existing small occupiers of the low ground ?— I There is a restriction that prevents the occupier of low ground from acquiring a small grazing-run. 106. You think if those restrictions were removed there would be no fear of the country not being occupied 2 -1 have no fear in regard to this district. 107. You have said that the restriction should be by number of sheep, and not by area? Yes. I think five thousand sheep is too many. I think three thousand is quite sufficient. 108. Have you had any experience of co-operative works in this neighbourhood? —No. I have not taken sufficient notice to give an opinion. 109. I believe there was a farm started on the co-operative principle some time ago: do you know whether that principle has any chance of success?- —It is not a very suitable principle for this district. I would require more fertile land. 110. Mr. Forbes.j About this water : you think it would be a good thing if the farmers had a chance of getting some of it? 1 fought as hard as I could to get a race for the farmers from that reservoir when it was being built, but I did not succeed. I have got a water-right from Eweburn Creek. I have tried irrigation. The farmers all require water, but irrigation means a lot of labour and expense, and that means a still further reduction of area*, as far as I can see. The system of irrigation means the still closer small settlement of Central Otago. 111. Yesterday we passed a farm of 400 acres which was irrigated, and that farm was a beautiful green spot amongst the other dry land. Do you believe this district would be improved very much by irrigation? —Undoubtedly. " 112. There is not much manuring done by tenants here?- People who are growing turnips are trying it, but I am not sure that or. this dry soil it is a great success. 113. Do you know anything of the present constitution of the Land Boards? Do you believe that the Crown tenants should have some representation on the Land Boards, or do you believe that the present nominated system is the best for the colony? I think the nominated system is the best, but I do not think' they are required at all. I think the Crown Lands Commissioner and his staff can do the whole of the work. 114. Do you not think that giving the Crown tenants representation on the Board would be in their interests as well as in the interests of the Crown- -not to give the Crown tenants a predominating power, but to allow them, say, one member to see that their interests were looked after? —The best'use that would be, 1 think, would be this: that it would take a large responsibility off the shoulders of the Government. I think that is the very thing the members of the Land Board do. They are the buffer between the people and the Minister. If there is any credit the Minister gets it. "if there is any blame the Land Board gets it. I think the present nominated system is the best—that is, if vou' are to have Land Boards at all. 115. There has" been some complaint that there is no representative appointed on the Board from this district? —Yes. 116. It has been said that all the members of the Board come from round about Dunedin ancl the seaboard ? It is only recently that I have heard that cry, and that the different districts wish to have representation on the Board. Ido not see any sufficient reason for it myself. 117. Do you not think with district representation local knowledge would come in? Local knowledge would come in in respect to the classification of runs, but that question is usually specially dealt with. 118. You do not think it is necessary that a man should be the representative of any particular district?— No. . -tr 119 Mr McGutchan.] You made reference to the question of the unearned increment, xou seem to have given a good deal of study to that matter. I would like to get a definition with respect to the unearned increment on land taken up in blocks? It is a wide question. I should say that public works is a principal factor in creating it a railway, for instance, harbours, lighthouses, and everything done by the State in that way. _ n . 120. Is not that an intermediary step? You are not at the fountain there? That is a factor. The primary cause is the improvements effected by public expenditure. 121. Who put that expenditure into operation? —The general community—the Government, the peop e w ( | oes t ] ie Government do it?— For the welfare of the district. 123. But is it not the markets outside the colony that causes the Government to put that expenditure into operation ?—Yes, in some cases. . , 124. As a borrowing colony, is not the market outside the governing factor over all these matters? We can only pay our'interest by our produce. If we owed the money to ourselves that would be a different matter. This is debt owing beyond the colony. When you get a railway put in here it is simply in order to send our produce away. If you say that the unearned increment in the land belongs to the State, does it not follow that the unearned increment in all other pursuits belongs to the ~State ?—The only thing I can do in reply to that is to buy you a copy of " Progress and Poverty." What is strictly the unearned increment and what is the earned increment is rather difficult to define. In some cases there is an increment the wrong way to the freeholder and he has really made a loss and spent more money on the place than he gets—m fact the system works both'ways. There is a value created by public expenditure that a man who'goes on the freehold may get-in fact, the freehold gives him the power to get that value, and the leasehold does not give him that power to the same extent, _ . c _ xl , 125 Mr McLennan.] Are the other farmers in this district satisfied with the lease in perpetuity?— No' There are a lot the other way. I did not say I was satisfied with the lease in per- ' 27—C. 4,
a-4.
210
J. LAW, JUN.
petuity. I believe in State ownership of the land, but I think the lease in perpetuity is practically individual ownership. 999-years lease is a freehold to all intents and purposes. It is very good for the man holding it, but very bad for the State. 126. Mr. Paul.] With reference to closer settlement and irrigation, a witness at Ophir said that if he had the choice of 1 acre that could be irrigated and 10 acres that could not be irrigated he would take the 1 acre: has your experience borne out that? —Any irrigation I have done has been for the benefit of growing grass or grain. It might be so in the case of fruit-growing. It has a very increased value. 127. Do you agree with the land-for-settlements policy, so far as the acquisition of approved estates is concerned ? —Yes. 128. You have said you would not resell that land? —Yes. 129. What tenure do you think best to let that land out on ?—I think thirty-one years would be a very good lease. 130. I take it that you would protect the tenant's right to improvements fully? —Yes. 131. Mr. Mathf-son.] You have said that you recognise public works as improving the value of the freehold ?-—Yes. 132. Do you think that- (hose public works, by encouraging the production, also increase the value of the merchants' and tradesmen's businesses in the towns to an equal extent that it increases the value of country property?—ln the case of a merchant's business, he may have competition, but in the case of a farmer the land is limited, and you cannot get competition there. 133. Is it not a fact that the colony is entirely dependent on the production of the pastoralists and agriculturalists?— Yes, principally; but gold-mining is a large factor too. 134. Do you think we could-pos ibly go on without the agriculturalist interest? —No. 135. Therefore do you approve, from a colonial point of view, that he should be encouraged by all reasonable means?— Yes, in every possible way. There is one thing that has struck me—l do not know if it is practicable—namely, that, seeing as a matter of political expediency we still give freeholds, I think that all freeholds granted by the Crown should only be mortgageable to the Crown, and in the event of the freeholder getting into difficulties the land would fall back into the hands of the Crown, and not into the hands of a mortgagee company. 136. Mr. McCutnhan.] In connection with the 999-years lease, do you think that if the State at any time should resume those leases it should only be done on paying compensation? —Presuming the State has resumed the freehold and for the same reasons. 137. The present contract should be held inviolable? —As far as possible until necessity compels. Patrick Bleach further examined. 13.8. The Chairman.'] I understand you wish to make further statements to the Commission? — Yes. In case the Commission should go away with the idea that the Land Board is dealing harshly with the tenants, I must say, as far as my experience goes, they show the tenants every consideration. Of course, they have to enforce the provisions of the Act. As regards residence conditions, however, every consideration is shown by the Board. Patrick McCltjskey examined. 139. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold 300 acres on grazing right. I have held it for twenty-five years, and pay £15 a year rent. My place is about five miles from Ranfurly. I engage in mixed farming. I was the occupier on close on 2,000 acres. I had 600 acres freehold, 230 acres perpetual lease, and close on 600 acres perpetual lease as well. I have heard the other witnesses talking of the freehold, and I may add that my experience in connection with the freehold was most unsatisfactory and unfortunate. I may add that I have been trying to secure by the ballot some lease-in-perpetuitv land, but I have not yet succeeded in getting" a section. The 300 acres of land which I have now is too small for my surplus stock. I am dairying, and keep forty cows. I consider that the lease in perpetuity excels all the freeholds in existence. I am of opinion that if the Government permitted the granting of freeholds to everybody there is no power to keep back capitalists from aggregating estates. 140. Is there any aggregation of estates in this district? —Yes. 141. You have a good water-supply I—Yes. 142. Mr. Paul.] From your experience, you would be against the option of the freehold being given to Crown tenants? —Yes. It might be right enough, however, if a man held a section and wished to make it bigger, to be compelled to borrow solely from the Government. 143. You think it is hardly in the interests of the tenants themselves if they can only buy a freehold with borrowed money? —I think it should not be allowed. Ido not care how prudent or energetic a man may be, it is an evil. 144. You think it is better that they should be tenants of the State than be bound hand and foot to mortgage companies?—l do. When they can get money at 4J per cent. I think it is preferable to any freehold in existence. 145. Mr. McLennan.] Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board? —Perfectly. 146. Would you be in favour of giving the Boards more discretionary power? —Yes. I have heard a good many complaints as to residence conditions, and I think more discretion should be allowed to the Board to deal with such cases. . James Scott examined. 147. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold 946 acres under lease in perpetuity. My land is about nine miles from Ranfurly. I pay ,£35 a year rent. It is chiefly dry pastoral land —good sheep country if lightly stocked. I usually shear about six hundred sheep. I came to this district in 1879, and have seen the greater part of the settlement that has taken place here.
211
a—4.
J. SCOTT.
148. Do you approve of the present constitution of the Land Boards? —-I have no fault to find with the Board. I have considered the question of elected Boards and partially elected Boards, and I think if we are to have a Board at all the State should be the landlord, and therefore I think the State should nominate the members of the Board if we are to have a Land Board at all. I would not give more discretionary power to the Board, because I think it induces people to crawl to the Board for special consideration, and there is nothing more contemptible than people crawling. I think the law should be carried out properly, but not with harshness. I approve of the lease in perpetuity. I consider it as good as a conditional freehold, and I think the time is coming when all freeholds will be conditional—limited in value. 149. Do you think it would be advantageous if irrigation were applied to your land?— Yes; but that would involve considerable cost. 150. It would not pay?—l cannot see how water can be got to pay in the Maniototo basin— that is, for growing ordinary farm crops. It would be very expensive to bring water to this part of the country. The time may come for that some day, but'that time has not yet arrived. 151. Is there any other matter you would like to draw attention to?— With respect to subdivision of runs, so far as I have observed, all the runs that have been cut up in this district have been occupied. The people in the low country require high country for grazing purposes. It would not do to subdivide the mountain-tops into small sections, but the land might be divided into moderate-sized holdings. An agreement might be come to, say, between five or six settlers to allow their sheep to run there. It seems to me there might be an extension of that principle. 152. Do you think that might solve the question of the high and low country?— Yes, in so far as Maniototo is concerned. 153. Mr. Matheson.] Do you. think that the practical experience needed could be got by the appointment of a couple of Rangers rather than by dragging up the Land Board regularly?—l think that is quite feasible. Ido not believe, at any rate, in giving large discretionary powers to Land Boards. 154. Do you think it preferable to work on the other assumption, making the Rangers and Commissioner responsible to the Minister, who is responsible to the people?— Yes. 155. Mr. Paul.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office?— No. 156. Are you satisfied with your lease-in-perpetuity tenure?— Yes. I think it is as good as the freehold to the bond fide occupier who wishes to use the land simply for farming and not for speculative purposes. 157. You think that a good farmer on a lease-in-perpetuity section can get just as much out of that section as a good farmer on a freehold?—l think that all conditions to secure good farming are present under the lease in perpetuity. Any one who through force of circumstances has to dispose of his section can get value for improvements and for the goodwill besides, and the goodwill m these times is worth a considerable amount. 158 Do you think any of the goodwill belongs to the State?—lt is very hard to apportion what belongs to the State and what does not. 159. As to increased facilities and accommodation ?—They increase the value of the goodwill also. b 160. Do you approve of the land-for-settlements policy ?-Yes; I think it is a good policy and that if it had not been for that policy many people who are doing fairly well at present would not have had an opportunity of getting on the land. I believe it is also a benefit to the State the Stat lat " ear all the eState " thßt haVe beeU ° Ut UP Will be worked with better advantage to 161 Would you be in favour of giving the tenants on improved estates the right of freehold? —JSo; lam rather against that, lam inclined to think that if it were practicable, and if we had begun to thuik of it some fifty or sixty years ago, all the land might now have been under the (state as the landlord, and I do not know whether it is yet too late to think about it i«q T, 0U £*£* *£**-! W^ uld have been advantageous ?-Yes; especially in regard to such land 1M». Mr. McCardle.] Do you agree with other witnesses that the large runs should be cut up and that closer settlement is desirable ?—Yes. P i- ,/ 64 ;w! len th holder has completed the necessary improvements and complied with the conditions, do you not think it is reasonable that he should be free from all control as tar as Land Boards and oversight is concerned?—l have never found the control of the Land Board galling. There are a large number of people-and that number is increasing-who are not able to buy a freehold, and I think it would be well if a portion of the land of the State were reserved for those who are able to take it up. I have taken up a lease-in-perpetuity section bar ah? * e condltlons attached thereto, and I think I ought to abide by my 165. Why do you say that you think the Land Board control should be removed?-Because it seems to me superfluous. If the land belongs to the State, and if there are State tenants, they would, of course require more supervision than those who hold freehold; but I do not know that the man who holds a lease-m-perpetuity section requires much supervision 166. And why do you want to continue it9—l do not want to continue it; but I think the Land Boards are superfluous. Lue 167. With reference to the advances to settlers, at present a leaseholder is entitled to an advance up to half the value o his improvements. It is now proposed to amend the law and value a man s interest m the holding, and give the Advances to Settlers Board power to advance up to three-fifths of the value of the. tenant's interest in the holding; do you approve of thaUIf it includes goodwill I disapprove of it. . "W roTe 0I mat * ( 168. Mr. Amtey.] You spoke just now of limiting the value; do you not think that the imitation of value could be properly attained by an adjustment of the graduated lanlteV-xaisinß he tax gradually until it became oppressive to large holdings ?-I was referring chiefly to land being opened for settlement for a start. s mieny to land
212
[j. SCOTT.
C.-4.
169. Do you not think that the limitation could be attained by proper adjustment of the graduated land-tax?—l think that when a man is making a statutory declaration in respect to the land he holds the declaration should be as to the value of the land. 170. Do you think the existing holders should have the right of holding as much as they like? —Before we apply such a principle to those who hold land now there will have to be something in the nature of a revolution in our land laws, and I am not quite prepared to advocate that just now. 171. Mr. Forbes.] You think the lease in perpetuity is a far better system of settling the country than by giving the tenants the right of purchase? —Yes. William Dowling examined. 172. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold about 1,200 acres on perpetual lease. I have held the land for eleven or twelve years, and 1 am paying 7d. an acre for some sections and 9d. for others. My farm is about five miles from Ranfurly. lam engaged in mixed farming, and I shear about seven hundred sheep. I sell wheat and oats. The average yield of wheat is about 25 bushels and oats 30 bushels-. 173. Do you think the Land Boards as at present constituted are satisfactory? —Yes. 174. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —Yes. 175. Is there any particular point you would like to draw the attention of the Commission to? —There is only the water question. I took up this land about eleven years ago, and there was a creek running through it. It did not run all the year round. Since the reservoir was constructed there is not half the water in the creek that there used to be. I do not think it is fair that I should be thus deprived of the water. I did not make any complaint to the authorities, but others have made complaints, and they got no satisfaction. I think that when the water was cut off the rent ought to have been reduced, 176. Mr. Paul.] Do you believe in having the option of purchase? —Yes; I believe in getting hold of as much freehold as I can. 177. Do you think that would be wise if generally followed?— Yes—to the men who get it; but I do not think it would be in the interests of the State. 178. Would you be in favour of limitation of freeholds? —My opinion is that there should not be any freeholds at all. 179. Why? —It should be all leasehold. I think that the freehold is very injurious to the State. There must be something good in it when all the people crowd after it. It must be doing some one harm. 180. Do you think there is a rush for the freehold because it pays the freeholder? —Yes. 181. Not having the water when you originally took up the section at a certain rent, how do you justify your claim? —Because the maps drawn up by the surveyors would lead any one to believe there was water on it. 182. Mr. Forbes.] You consider the lease in perpetuity a good lease? —Yes. 183. Do you consider that it is worth I per cent, more to get the right of purchase? —Yes. 184. Why?—As I said before, I believe in getting hold of as much freehold as I can, because the unimproved value seems to be more on the freehold than on the leasehold. 185. That is your experience here —that leaseholds are not sold so readily as freeholds? —Yes. 186. Therefore you prefer the freehold because you can sell it or deal with it more readily ? —Yes. 187. Do you think it would be a good thing if some of the large runs were subdivided? —Yes. 188. Is that the general opinion in this district? —Yes. I quite agree with the evidence of Mr. Scott and Mr. Law about that. They can be easily enough cut up. lam referring especially to such land as at Puketoi. I think they will have to be a bit careful about cutting up Blackstone. 189. If the Government were to cut up some of that land you think there would be a good demand for it by people living about here? —I feel sure of it. John Law, sen., examined. 190. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am a farmer, and have 900 acres of freehold and between 500 and 600 acres under lease in perpetuity. I prospected the Giminerburn for land, and petitioned the Government to throw open the block in 1881. I have been there since the beginning of the settlement. My farm is about six or seven miles from Ranfurly. For my lease-in-perpetuity land I pay 9d. an acre. I am quite satisfied with the tenure and the rent. I merely wish to emphasize what my son has already said with regard to the high country. There is a disability suffered by those holding beyond 1,000 acres of the low country. If that disability were removed it would be the means of giving greater facilities for occuping the high country. The high country should be used under the small-grazing-run system, with security of tenure, and residence should not necessarily be required. There is a disability attached to small-grazing-run holders. They are only allowed to hold one small grazing-run, and there are some of the small grazing-runs that are too small. They should be allowed to hold up to the maximum, which is 5,000 acres. 191. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that a man who holds a freehold is likely to make a better home and improvements, and take more care of his land in some degree than a man who has a leasehold ? —The lease-in-perpetuity sections obtained here from other tenures are practically from restrictions imposed in the 'case of lease-in-perpetuity land under the land-for-settlements system, and they are practically as good as freeholds. I think that is why Mr. Scott could not see the necessity for a Land Board. 192. Do you think that the lease-in-perpetuity holder is as likely to do justice to his land as the freeholder ? —No doubt of it.
C.—4.
J. LAW, SEN
213
193. Mr. Paul.] Does it pay a leaseholder to take care of his land in respect to cropping? —Yes. 194. There are freeholders who do not know how to take care of their land? —Sometimes they do not get the opportunity- they are more bound than the leaseholder. 195. Mr. McCardle.] Have you noticed what is being done in the way of using artificial manures for the growth of turnips? —Yes. Phosphates and patent manures. lam experimenting just now. It is water that is being required here more than the manures.
Naseby, Friday, 17tii March, 1905. James Brown examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a. general storekeeper. I have been about thirtyfive years in Naseby. I also hold a few sections in the town. 2. I believe you have an intimate knowledge of settlement in this district, both agricultural, pastoral, and mining? —Yes. 3. You have also had dealings with the Land Board? —Yes. 4. Do you think the present constitution of the Land Boards satisfactory? —I would fancy that an elective Board would be preferable. 5. What constituency do you think should elect them? —I should say the district over which they presided. 6. What is your opinion in regard to the occupation of land, and the best way of putting people on it, and the best tenure for the settlers and the country? —I am inclined to think that the most satisfactory to the greater part of the settlers would be a small piece of freehold with their leasehold. I would think that the freehold should be in proportion to their leasehold, say, from 50 acres to 300 acres. lam speaking, of course, in regard to this district. 7. How much leasehold would you allow them to hold? —That should be decided by the carry-ing-capacity. 1 would limit the carrying-capacity to probably five hundred or a thousand sheep. 8. Another matter affecting the settlement of this country is the question of water-supply: do you think there is sufficient water within the watershed of this great plain for all the wants of the farmers if properly distributed? —If the water was conserved by dams there would be enough for all practical purposes, as well as mining. But in dry seasons such as the present there would be a scarcity. 9. Mr. Johnston.] You know the Buster pretty well? —Yes. 10. What height above the sea-level up the Buster could sheep conveniently winter?—l think, about 2,000 ft. 11. Have you ever known sheep to be kept on the Buster Hills or on the other side of them during the winter? Yes. 12. What height above sea-level there? —One part of it which used to be in the Kyeburn Station would be nearly 4,000 ft . 13. Is that on the Waitaki watershed? —Yes, it was on the west side of the Otamata River. 14. Is there good summer feed up there? —Yes. 15. Do you know of any large station here which could be conveniently cut up, giving a proportion of summer and winter country ?--A petition was sent round here some six months ago for signatures for the cutting-up of the Kyeburn Station, but a good many of the miners raised objections to it, fearing that the land would fall into the hands of the farmers and that their mining operations would be blocked. 16. The petition was not presented, then? —No. 17. Are any obstacles put in the way of the miners by the farmers? —There has been some trouble in the Home Gully in regard to the outlet for tailings, but I believe the difference has been satisfactorily settled now. 18. Are the farmers who object to the tailings freeholders or leaseholders? —I can scarcely tell you. lam inclined to think that some of them may be freeholders. 19. Do you think it is more advantageous to mine the land here than to keep it for agricultural purposes ? Some of it should be kept for mining, because that industry gives employment to a large number of men who otherwise could not make a livelihood. Not many of them have money to go and settle on the land. If any convenient land was available many of them could combine a little farming with their mining." When there was not enough water for mining they could occupy their full time in farming. That is the reason why this petition went round. 20. According to that the miners are not prosperous: are they making a living?—A good many of them are doing a great deal more than that, but many of the miners here with families have no way of utilising their time when the water is scarce. 21. You think the demand for land is considerably greater than the supply?— Yes. I do not know how much of the Kyeburn Station would be available, but if it is cut up enough country should be allowed to winter the sheep that are run upon the high country. 22. You would believe in the land being cut up in such a way as to give summer and winter country ? —Yes. 23. Mr. Paul.] You would approve of cutting up the Kyeburn Run?—l am scarcely prepared to answer that question. I speak of the matter because others have been agitating. 24. Have you any idea how many signatures were placed on that petition? —No. 25. Have you any idea why it was not presented to the quarter it was intended for? —Because many of the miners here feared that their mining outlets would be blocked if the land got into the hands of the farmers.
C.—4
214
[J. BBOWN.
-26. To your knowledge, did any miner sign that petition? —I cannot say. 27. If Kyeburn were subdivided can you see any reason why the holders of small grazing-runs and the miners should not work amicably together I—l1 —I know of no reason why. 28. Mr. llall.\ You stated you consider that Land Boards should be elected? —Yes. 29. If the Land Boards were elected by a franchise, in effect the tenants would elect the members? —Yes, that is my idea. 30. If you owned 10,000 acres of land and leased it out to forty or fifty tenants, would you be disposed to allow them to appoint a Board to fix the rents they should pay, which would mean that they would be fixing the rents themselves, while you would have no voice at all in the matter ? — I can see no objection in common fairness to all men why that should not be so. 31. If they had the fixing of the rents, and you, the owner of the land, had not voice at all, would they not make the rents very low ?—-Apparently the Crown tenants have had some control already in fixing their rents. They all bid high for a lease at many of the sales on purpose to get it. Then they place as much improvements on it as possible to put it out of the reach of other people, and then they throw their sections up. That is my reason for saying that it is apparent by that act that they partly determine the rents they shall pay. Jambs Lobb examined. 32. The Chairman.] What are you?-—I am a hotelkeeper. I have not been long in this district. 33. Have you ever been engaged in any other occupation ? —Yes. I managed at Black's for Mr. Nay lor. 34. I understand you have had a great experience in keeping the rabbit-pest down ? —Yes. We were not troubled much with, miners up there; but what I would say is that the railway has made a great difference to Maniototo in the matter of rabbits. When the railway got to Wedderburn rabbits were bringing a big price in London, aild they were worth about 4d. each at the railway-station. The railway gives facilities for taking them away. It was a profitable business then. 35. Did not this profitable business not have a tendency to stop poisoning with pollard? —I do not think so, because the farmers in their own interests poison in the summer-time. You see, the grass on the Maniototo is a long way ahead of what it is on the Upper Clutha, and the land is just the same. I attribute that difference to the rabbits having been kept down here. 36. Was the grass ever eaten out here? —Yes; it was just as bare at Maniototo ten years ago as it is at the Upper Clutha now. It has recovered since the rabbits diminished. One farmer told me to-day that he reckoned that his land had improved from £1 to £2 per acre since the rabbits had been killed. The trouble now is that the price of rabbits has gone down in London, and it is not so profitable to send them Home. I think if the railway authorities were to send rabbits to the freezing-works almost railage free it would be in the interests of the country. It would then be profitable to catch them. The present freight on rabbits is pretty high, because the Department has not thought it an advantage to the colony to send them away. It was thought there would be a tendency to farm the rabbits, but that has not been proved to be the case. 37. Mr. McCuchan.] You attribute the clearing of the country of rabbits to the prices realised in London some years ago? —Yes. 38. You said the price has now fallen? —Yes. 39. Will it pay trappers now to trap the rabbits?—l think it would where they are very thick. 40. Do you think the rabbits will make headway under the present prices ruling in London? It_is hard to say. I think it is likely they will. 41. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think if the Stock Inspectors and the farmers did their duty in the summer-time, when the rabbits breed, there would be any rabbits for the railway to take away? —Yes, I think so. The poisoning proved a failure to some extent. The rabbits increased until the railway came up. I think the two methods should be worked together. James Robert Kirk examined. 42. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a solicitor practising in Naseby. lam not a farmer. • 43. In your business as a solicitor I understand you have had a good deal to do with advising tenants about advances from the Advances to Settlers Office? —That is so. For some years I was solicitor to the Advances to Settlers Office. 44. We have been told there is great difficulty in getting this money, and that in many cases no advances have been made at all, and that the tenant has had to go to the private lender and borrow the money at a higher rate of interest than the Government charge: has that been found at all frequent in your experience? —I found that the machinery was very complete so far as making out an application for a loan was concerned. I found that the Department advanced on sound business lines according to their powers. You know, of course, up to what limit they can advance. It appears to me, perhaps, that the limit should be extended. The Governmentare not recognising the interest a lessee has in the goodwill, and the goodwill in this district is a very considerable asset. I think that if the Government had power to make loans up to threefifths of the total value of the lessee's interest in the whole of the holding, including not only the improvements but his interest in the goodwill, they would be running no unnecessary risk. 45. Then, you think that the modus operandi is just as smooth as it could be, but that the amount lent on the security should be greater than it is now? —I think so. I found also that if the Government did not authorise' the full advance which was asked for they generally let the applicant know what amount they were prepared to advance. In nine out of ten of the cases the proportion was accepted. 46. I suppose in your business you have people come to you about tenures? I find that a great many witnesses are vague in their ideas about the tenures: has that been your experience 1
215
0.-4.
J. R. KIRK.
-I know what the various tenures are. I might say that, so far as this immediate neighbourhood is concerned, being a mining community, I think it is unfair to the farmer as it is unfair to the miner to grant even a lease in perpetuity where gold-mining is not altogether out of existence, because of " The Mining Act, 1898," as amended by the Act of 1899. The miner must give compensation to the holder of a lease in perpetuity- not only the value of the improvements which would be destroyed, but also for such damages as might be occasioned. The wording is a little indefinite. I think that the miners are quite agreed that where the farmer has a title he is undoubtedly entitled to compensation; but they would prefer that no title should be given, so that the farmer would not be misled, but might devote his energy in another direction and leave that piece of land to the miner. If the land is held as at present under yearly grazing licenses the miners have no difficulty at all in arranging with the farmers. 47. Of coarse, your suggestion would do very well if the farmer was purely a grazier, but it would not work very well if he was engaged in farming proper. Do you not think it would be better for the Government in future to lay off wide stretches of land for mining outlets? —Yes; I think the Mines Department could easily do that, and then to a great extent all difficulty would be got over. 48. Can you suggest any improvement in regard to balloting? —I have had a good deal of experience, and I find the farmers are very well satisfied with it, and have no great objections to the ballot system. There is one thing I have heard complaints about, and it appeals to me as a very reasonable recommendation. It is this: Supposing an estate is cut up and divided into small grazing-areas, and that perhaps a dozen small grazing-runs are opened for selection at the same hour hour at the same place, one man could apply for only one of these runs. Now, it is possible that every other applicant-might hit on the same run, and therefore the remaining eleven runs would require to be offered again on perhaps another day. I think the better way would be to allow the applicants to apply for all the runs which were offered on the one day, and when an applicant was successful he must take the first of the runs he applied for, because it must be considered that he is satisfied with any of the runs he applied for, and then he drops out of the ballot. Of course, everybody would be on the same footing. My idea is that a ballot should be held for each one separately. 49 Is there any other point you would like to mention? —As a solicitor I have had a great deal of work to do with the Land Board, and so far as the administration of the Otago Land Board is concerned I have to speak very highly. With regard to the conditions applying to the various tenures, such as the residence conditions, I have found that as far as possible the Board has given the tenant every consideration, and that they will not really make him reside on the land when they are assured that otherwise the land will be looked after, and that it would not be reasonable to compel him to so reside. I think that any system of elective Land Boards would be very cumbersome ; but there is a feeling in this district that perhaps an Otago Central man should be on the Board. At present all the members are residing along the sea-coast. 50. Then, you think nomination as opposed to election is the best system? —Yes. 51. Mr. I'oul.\ Have you any experience as to whether an aggregation of estates is going on? —I do not think so. I think the lands in this district are very fairly divided. Of course, where a man has fourteen to twenty-one of a family it is possible that they may hold seven runs between them, but I do not think that is unreasonable. 52. Can you say from your knowledge whether land is increasing in value in this district?— Undoubtedly it is. 53. Both leasehold and freehold? —Yes. 54. Mr. McO id chart..] Have you known any instance where an advance has been refused by the Government Advances to Settlers Office where the money has afterwards been obtained elsewhere? I cannot say that 1 have. I know that I have made application to the Government for loans of perhaps a large amount, and the answer has come back that the Government were considering loans up to £500, and that such loans would have preference. 55. In regard to the question of families and where the land is taken up in a child's name, has not each child to .make a declaration that the land is for his own exclusive use and benefit?- — Yes. 56. And there is permission to reside with the parents until he has reached the age of twentyone years? —Yes. 57. You do not regard that .as aggregation—is that not perfectly legitimate and just the same as though another man s child had applied for the land? —l?es. Some people may be prepared to argue that it is aggregation, but I cannot see why a child because its father owns a bit of land should be precluded from applying for another piece. 58. Mr. Hall.] I understood you to say that when a settler holding land under the Land for Settlements Act applies for a loan it shall be based upon his interest in his lease?—l would not say under the Land for Settlements Act. We have not had much to do with that Act here; but so far as the lease in perpetuity and perpetual leases are concerned I think that should be the case I should be inclined to make valuation of the lessee's improvements and of his interest in the goodwill and then allow an advance up to three-fifths of the whole. I think that strict business lines should be followed in making these advances. 59. Mr. McCardle.J Have you had any experience of bush lands? —No. 60. I suppose you can quite see that in the case of a man who takes up a bush section at os. per acre, and is required possibly to spend £4 per acre in improvements, that that amount would not represent the whole of his-improvements. For instance, the Lands Department, by its Hanger values the improvements on a bush section in this way: he puts down a stated sum for bushfelhng, a stated sum for grassing and fencing and houses, and so on. These may all have been done by contract, and though the man may have been working consistently for four or five years in still further improving his land those further improvements are not taken into considera-
i.T. B. KIRK.
C—4.
216
tion at all in making an advance —the improvements still stand at the first fixed sum. That man's interest has increased not as represented by the value of the Ranger but by the settler who is acquainted with the land, and that man's interest is worth what that adjoining settler is prepared to give: do I understand that it is on such a basis that you would make an advance? Yes. 61. You also know that as matters stand there is great difficulty for the settler under lease in perpetuity to get assistance from outside sources, and that he has to rely on the Advances to Settlers Office? —Lenders as a whole much prefer the freehold to any leasehold; but really for myself, with care, I would not be disposed to refuse a loan. 62. Do you think that some of the restrictions now existing in regard to bush land might be reasonably removed? —Quite so. 63. Mr. McLennan,\ Would you be in favour of giving the Land Boards more discretionary power in the matter of applications which they could decide for themselves, but which at present they have to send to the Minister of Lands at Wellington I—Yes; I think they are quite capable of dealing with a lot of the applications which have to go to Wellington. 64. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you not think that in dealing with such an important piece of the public estate very great care should be exercised to do it judicially? —Yes. 65. Do you think that the Commissioner of Crown Lands would perhaps do the business better without the aid of the members of the Land Board, provided he had thoroughly competent Rangers to report?- ! am sure the Commissioner does the majority of the work, and he guides the members, I dare say, more than they guide him. 66. Do you look on the Land Boards as a very expensive piece of machinery? —I do not think they are very expensive. 1 think it would be only fair to the Commissioner that he should have associated with him gentlemen from various parts of the district; otherwise he would be blackguarded to a great extent. 67. Do you not think that sometimes there would be much less reason to blackguard him if he was able to entirely use his own judgment? —That may be true. 68. When the statement was made that the Advances to Settlers Department were first considering loans up to £500 did you think the reason for that was that there was a shortage of money available for loans? —That was the reason I assigned to it. There is one point about which Ido not wish to express an opinion one way or the other, but it might be advisable for the Commission to take a note of, and that is whether it is advisable that lands which are to be ultimately given to the people should be given to them at a time when stock is very dear. If the agitation for the cutting-up of the big runs comes from poor men is it not advisable that the runs should be thrown open when poor men may be able to stock reasonably 1 I only want to say, in regard to the freehold versus leashold question, that what we want is a contented people. 69. Mr. Johnston.] Do the Advances to Settlers Office prefer to entertain large loans or small loans? —I fancy, small loans. They told me that preference would be given to loans up to £500. 70. Do the large runholders apply to the Government Advances to Settlers Office for money?- - Not to any great extent. 71. lilr. Matheson.] You said that what we want is a happy and contented people: do you think we are likely to get them if the freehold is gradually granted to the land, or if we continue the leasing system? —I think, under the freehold. Bernard Gordon examined. 72. The Chairman.'] What are you? —The last thing I was at was mail-contracting. I have also been engaged in mining. I have never been a landowner in this country. 73. What would you like to bring before the Commission? —I think the present land laws, with a few amendments, will do very well. I think the Advances to Settlers Act should be amended so as to encourage lease-in-perpetuity holders to borrow money from the Government instead of going to the private money-lender. At present the private money-lender will not advance on lease in perpetuity, and they tell the tenants to go and get the freehold, and so the agitation for the freehold is kept going. We also want more facilities for mining outlets in regard to all future lands opened for mining. It does not do to leave the matter to the farmers, because the people about here are too selfish. Ido not believe in the aggregation of great estates. 74. There is not much aggregation of estates going on here? —Not yet, but I think it will occur if the people get the freehold. It is human nature. 75. 71/?'. Forbes.] Do you believe in giving the tenants the right to make their holdings freehold ?—No. 76. Do you think the leasehold system is better for the country than the freehold? —I do. Robert Johnston examined. 77. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a miner first, and a farmer by compulsion. I have been in the district since 1863. I was a water-race proprietor. I live at Blackstone Hill. 78. I suppose you quite agree that the question of providing for mining outlets should be seen to? —Most assuredly. 79. In regard to water-supply, do you think that the miners are using more than they want, and that such water might be diverted to the farmers? —It would cost too much. This plain is not suitable for irrigation. There are too many humps and hollows. There is a lot of hanging ground at the foot of the hills which could be greatly improved by irrigation, and if the farmers could get the water at a reasonable, price it would certainly be a wonderful improvement. However, the work would not be worth undertaking. 80. Is there anything you could suggest in the way of amending the Land Act which you tKink would be beneficial? —I might say that, as far as the leases in perpetuity granted under the Act of 1893 are concerned, the land is as open to the miner as any ordinary Crown land, but before that it was different. Now the farmers under the lease in perpetuity, since 1893, can offer no
B. JOHNSTON.]
217
C—4.
obstruction to the miner. I do not think a lease in perpetuity should be granted near mining at all. The way things are going here it will soon be impossible to carry on mining. I think it is a pity that mining and farming and grazing cannot go on together. In regard to the Land Board, I think that a man who owns an estate has a right to appoint his own managers, and therefore I think it would be a wrong thing altogether to have the Land Boards constituted in any other way than they are at present. I think, though, that the members of the Board should be scattered over the land district as much as possible in order to have a bit of local knowledge on the Board. I think we have the very best representative here, and that is the Chief Commissioner himself. I think the Land Board should have more extended powers. I have had to write on behalf of myself and other people to the Minister of Lands, and he replies, " I cannot interfere with the Land Board," and then, when we approach the Land Board, they say, " We cannot go outside the Act." I think the Land Board should have more discretionary power. For instance, there are several families up our way —in fact, we have had to knock off dealing with them because we could not get land for them —who have small grazing-runs and some of them are as big as 330 acres, and they wished to be able to group some of these runs together in order to have enough land to live on, but although they were living next door they were not allowed to do so. I think it is a shame to stick one family on a small piece of country like that. It is the coldest place in the world, but the people are acclimatised now, and I think it is far better to give the land to the people who are acclimatised and who understand the country. I think the Land Board should have more power to group these runs together, and I would let the other people who want land go somewhere else. I also want the runs to be grouped together without surrendering, and the present holders to get them without having to go to the ballot. If the land goes to ballot all your improvements go to " pot," and if a man has been there thirty or forty years he should not be asked to shift. I think the ballot is all right, but the trouble is that the Government do not open enough land to go round. I think if the Land Boards Conference suggestion is given effect to —that if a man and his wife goes into the ballot and one is successful the other must withdraw —it will have a bigger tendency to stop the birth-rate than anything else. What is the use of growing families 'unless there is land to put them on. I also think that members of a family should be allowed to transfer from one to another just as easily as a man who lives next door to them can transfer to a stranger. 81. There have been such dodges in transferring land that all these restrictions have been put in for the honest purpose of preventing dummyism? —I can quite see that. I understand every inch of the land between here and St. Bathan's, and it is unsafe country for sheep. You have to feed every beast during the winter, and therefore I think the people who classify the land should go up in the winter to fix the rent. They go up in the summer and sit down on a hot rock to eat their lunch and say, "What fine country this is." But in the winter-time they would not see the fences for the snow. 82. Mr. Johnston.] You were manager of the water-race first for many years, and you know the country from where the race comes in to Naseby? —Yes. 83. How many acres are you now farming? —50 acres of freehold and 400-odd acres of small grazing-run. 84. How many acres in the name of the family? —Altogether, including my brother, 2,100 acres. 85. What you wished to tell us was that you wanted that place, and that you wanted other runs for your boys? —Yes; but I would like you to understand that I cannot leave the land behind in a satisfactory way to the rest. .86. But 2,000 acres of that land is little enough to make a living: could you have lived if you had not had a mining claim to bring in some money? —Not until this year. 87. It is not as necessary to irrigate the land around here as it is necessary to get good returns in the Manuherikia Valley? —In some portions in these plains it is just as good on the shingly bottoms down the plains, but you cannot get water on it. 88. But suppose you were able to get water, would it do good? —It would be a wonderful improvement. 89. Have you ever known good grass to grow on tailings? —Yes. 90. As good as on the ground that has not been interfered with? —Better in some cases, because the land was trenched and surface-sown on the top of the trenching. 91. I mean on land that has not been covered at all? —Not so good there, but ultimately it will be. 92. You do not approve of these residential clauses? —Yes, for people out of the district; but if a man is living in a district and land is thrown open there, I say he ought not to be asked to go out of a good home. 93. You mean that the young fellows growing up here prefer to take land up in the district to going to other parts of the colony, and you say they are seasoned and experienced in the land here and are not seasoned or experienced in regard to the bush lands of the North? —That is so. Some of my boys are getting grey-haired waiting to get land. They have gone in for every ballot at Highfield and Patearoa, but they have not been successful. 94. Do all the big runholders reside on their properties in this district? —No. 95. Do any of them? —Occasionally, but their principal homes are not here. I think Mr. Laidlaw and Mr. Jopp reside constantly on their stations. 96. Do you know anything about the grassing of these runs? —Yes. 97. What would you suggest as a good way to regrass the high country at the back? —I think a good suggestion is to try sowing couch-grass in the spring. I tried it myself, but I could not get it to grow. lam going to try cocksfoot. 98. Have you ever known anybody to try regrassing the high country?— Not to any extent. 99. Are any of the runs here suitable for cutting up at the present time?— They are all fit to be cut up, but they should not be cut up to carry less than two thousand sheep.
28—C. 4.
a—4.
218
|B. JOHNSTON.
100. Mr. Paul.] You know the three runs held by Ross and Glendining —namely, Blackstone Hill, Lauder, and Home Hill: is Blackstone Hill good winter country? —No; it is very unsafe. 101. A portion of Blackstone Hill is low country worked in connection with the other runs? —Yes. 102. Supposing that were taken away and subdivided, would it be to the detriment of the other runs? —Yes. 103. You think these three places should be cut up and subdivided together? —You cannot ask them to work the station without taking the lot. 104. Could these runs be cut up to give a fair proportion of summer and winter country? — They would not work together. The low country is so far away from the high land that if you waited for a snow-storm you would be too late to get your sheep off. 105. Could Lynburn be cut up to advantage? —I do not know, but it was an iniquitous thing to release Puketoi. We sent petitions, with seven hundred to eight hundred names on them, asking that it should be cut up, but they were disregarded. 106. Why was not the Puketoi cut up? —Simply because of the influence of the man who holds it. I know some people who signed a petition against the cutting-up, and when I asked one his reason he said he wanted some of it, but he was not ready then to take it up. 107. Do you mean to say that this one absentee owner had more influence than that great number of petitioners?—He got another twenty-one years lease; so, evidently he must have more influence. 108. What is his name? —Watts and Sheehan. Robert Sheppard Franks Inder examined. 109. The Chairman.'] What are you, Mr. Inder?—l am a butcher. I have 250 acres of freehold in the Mount Ida Valley, three miles from the Wedderburn Hotel. I have had the land for eight years. My wife has 350 acres in the Maniototo, six miles from the other place. That is also freehold land. It was taken up as a perpetual lease in 1892, I think. 110. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Land Commission in regard to land-administration?— Personally, lam a freeholder. I take it that the freehold is not the fetish that it was in the Old Country. The freehold tenure undoubtedly gives a man more incentive to work than a leasehold does. In a district like this, with mixed industries, great care must be taken in granting freeholds in the vicinity of mining interests. I hold that if a man wishes a freehold he should be able to get it. I recognise that the perpetual lease and other lease systems have been a wonderful assistance to many who have settled in this colony. I consider that in the public interest there should be endowments reserved for public institutions —Corporation, education, and so on —and these should not be capable of being made freehold. These will increase in value and an income will be derived from them. 111. Do you think the lease in perpetuity is a good system? —No, I do not. I take it that the object of the lease is that the State should reap some benefit from the increased value. If you give a man a 999-years lease the State will not reap much benefit from it. Perpetual lease or something of that nature is much better than the lease in perpetuity. 112. Have you any remarks to make with regard to the mining, agricultural, and pastoral interests clashing? —They do clash sometimes, and it is a difficult problem. I heard a gentleman suggest that one way to overcome the difficulty was to only give small grazing-runs in the vicinity of mining interests or where mining is likely to be carried on, and I think that is a good idea. Under that system a miner would have fairly free access. Under any other tenure you must make ample reserve for outlets. 113. What is your opinion about the water-supply? —They could use more water for mining here if they had it, and if there was more water there would be more mining. What you used to pay £5 for in the early days you would pay ss. for now. 114. Is water more plentiful? —Of course. The Government race has been brought in. In the olden days men would work for part of a week breaking dirt down, and then they would wash it away. The easily worked ground is gone now, and unless a man can shift an immense quantity it will not pay. For every miner here now I suppose there were a hundred in the early days. 115. Although water is cheaper it is not so profitable to the workers on account of the poorness of the ground?— Yes, that is so. 116. The Government have given a concession in the way of cheaper water? —Yes, in order to keep the field going. 117. I presume it follows that the water-rates do not amount to any adequate interest on the capital sunk and on the maintenance of the race? —I think it pays its way, but lam satisfied that the return in the shape of interest is very small. 118. What did the fifty-mile race from the Manuherikia cost?— The race and sludge-channel cost over £50,000, I think. The Eweburn Reservoir is not included in that, and it cost between £15,000 and £16,000. 119. Mr. Johnston.'] How high up could you winter sheep in this district? —It would depend greatly on where the country is that you are using. 120. Well, on the Naseby side of the watershed? —Naseby is nearly 2,000 ft. above sea-level, to begin with. I should say they could be wintered about 1,000 ft. higher than this, but there would be a risk. 121. How high could you winter sheep without risk? —I do not think there is a great deal of risk up to 3,000 ft. 122. On the snow slopes facing the Rock and Pillar how high up would you put sheep?— You could winter there nearly 2,000 ft. up—that is, 4,000 ft. above sea-level. As a matter of fact, there are sheep wintered on the back of Mount Ida, a good part, of which is over 4,000 ft. high. Of course, there is considerable risk in that.
B. S. F. INDEB.
219
C—4»
123. At what date would you put them on and take them off the roughest country about Maniototo?—l would put them 011 in November and take them down in May —that is, on the very roughest country. Of course, sheep are taken to the back of the Buster about November. 124. How many sheep could a man make a profitable living from?—lt depends on the price; but I think a man should do fairly well with a thousand sheep on the low country. 125. And on mixed country? —About two thousand sheep. 126. Will this country cut up, giving a fair proportion of winter and summer country? —No. 127. The Mount Ida district will not cut up in that way? —No. 128. What about Patearoa, Linburn, and Puketoi? —I believe there is some good country up the river, but I am not sufficiently acquainted with it to give a definite opinion. I think that Puketoi would cut up. 129. Have you done any grassing on high country?— No. I do not think any has been done. Some was done down the plain in the tussock. 130. How was it done? —Fire was run through the tussock and scrub, and the seed sown. It was fairly successful. 131. What grass was sown? —Mostly cocksfoot. 132. You have had a good deal to do with mining? —I have been connected with different concerns. 133. Is mining prosperous? —A number of people who have claims are doing very well. 134. What is your opinion about the constitution of Land Boards?—l think that the election for the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board is a farce in this district, and I think the same result would follow in the election of a Land Board. People generally would not take an interest in it. I think that the present system of nomination has given satisfaction to the people generally. If members were elective and a clique wanted to get a man in they would take a little interest in the election, as has been done in connection with the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, and return their candidate. I think that if the Government select suitable men it is a good plan ; but I consider that, seeing the large amount of land in Central Otago, the members should be drawn from a wider area than is the case at present. 135. Would it answer if the Government made a nomination from each county? —I think the Government ought to take men from the district in which they have most land. At present the majority of the members of the Otago Land Board come from the coast, where the conditions of working land are very different from ours. 136. You believe in the freehold? —Yes. 137. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office?—A little. 138. Was it satisfactory? No. There were differences of opinion as to value. In one case a certain sum was required, and the Government said they would only give a stated amount, which was refused. Later on considerably more than one-third of the valuation was obtained from a private individual at 6 per cent. 1.59. Is land changing hands to any extent? In a few cases. Land is dearer now than it was ten years ago, but it is not as dear as it was twenty years ago. 140. If there was more land put in the market in suitable areas would it be taken up?— There is a good demand for land, as was shown by the opening of the Patearoa and Highfield lands. 141. Mr. Paul.] Would a good farmer be a bad farmer on a leasehold?—l do not think so. 142. He could produce as much on a leasehold as on a freehold? —I suppose he could but he would not make the improvements on his leasehold that he would on his freehold. 143. Would he do so if he had a 999-years lease?—l do not think he would: but, for mvself I do not see why he should not. ' 144. Would you extend the option of the freehold to lands taken up under the Land for Settlements Act ? I see no objection to it. At the same time I would restrict the aggregation of estates. A limited freehold is the best, I think. 145 What would you consider a fair limit ?-One would have to decide that according to the quality of the land 111 the district. Value would be better than area. 146. Would you give the freehold of Corporation, education, and other endowments?— No. 147. Do you not think that would interfere with the productiveness of those endowments? —I do not know about that. I think that when a man has a leasehold and is coming near the end of his lease he will take as much out of it as he can. 14 5'0 If L T il iB rr7 is ! to ' asi ? e en , dowm ents for educational purposes should not all lands be reserved?— No. The freehold makes all land more valuable. t / 49 ' 1 Hght in , as , sumin g t] J at y° u support revaluation of future leases at certain periods? favour the perpetual lease, and under that form of lease revaluation is made. I sav this* fa man makes a bargain he must stick to it, and those who hold leases in perpetuity at the present time should not have the option without making a fair bargain with the State. *■ 1 T V ,() - P° yo " think that the present method of electing members of Hospital and Charitable Aid Boards is a fair test of the elective principle 1—No; I really do not think it is 151. Mr McCutchan] You are aware that it is proposed in some quartersto settle the back countrj in the future under perpetual lease, with periodical revaluation: do you think that would be conducive to settlement or otherwise ?-The perpetual lease, and before that the deferred-pay-ment system and the agricultural lease, were the means of settling many people on the land and I think it would have the same result in the future. ' nd -I do s Lt^hink^'would-be 1 & reValuati ° n clause would be detrimental in any way to settlement? 153. Mr. McCardle.] You say that you have known cases of disappointment to settlers whn had applied for advances under the Advances to Settlers Act: from what cause did t arise?From a difference in opinion as to the values. arise*
.0.-4.
220
[E. S. F. INDEB;
154. Are you of opinion that the Advances to Settlers Act has brought down the value of loans to a very large extent? —I believe it was a good thing, and of great assistance to many people. 155. Mr. McLennan.] Do you know of any Crown tenant between Naseby and Hill's Creek who has acquired the freehold of his property and immediately sold out to his neighbour for double the value? —I cannot say that I do. A private sale was made of one place, but Ido not know the details. I believe one condition was that it had to be made freehold. It was a perpetual lease, and the man had a perfect right to make it freehold. 156. Does that man farm his property better than the Crown tenant did? —I think he will, unless I am mistaken in his character. 157. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the Government water-race is ever likely to pay interest? —No. 158. Do you think that by careful examination engineers might suggest a scheme to cost, say, £20,000, to provide a reservoir for irrigation purposes that would enhance the value of this lower land so much that the rents would pay good interest on the expenditure? —There is a considerable portion of the Maniototo which would do very well under irrigation. When you get out into the plains you could make reservoirs cheaper than the one under the hills. I think the land below the Rough Ridge Railway-station would pay, and there is a lot of Maniototo land that would pay. Some of it with a clay bottom would have to be carefully dealt with, because if it got too much water it would get sour. I believe that sites have been surveyed for two reservoirs by Mr. Perham, a Government surveyor. 159. Did Mr. Perham publish a report on the matter? —I believe he did. If so, it will be found in the reports of the Mines He also made estimates of the works.
Waipiata, Saturday, 18th March, 1905. Robert Logan examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a small-grazing-run holder. I have been here twenty-two years. I hold nearly 5,000 acres of small grazing-run and 1,500 acres of pastoral deferred payment, and I work in conjunction with them a small grazing-run of 2,500 acres held by my mother. My wife holds 630 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have no freehold. 2. Do you feel satisfied under these several tenures? —Certainly. I prefer the small grazingruns to the pastoral deferred payment. I have found no objection so far to the lease in perpetuity. I ascertained if it was possible to have accrued payments on the deferred payment placed to the credit of rent to accrue, but I found it could not be done. I might say that I have paid about £1,000 on the 1,500 acres of pastoral deferred payment, and, roughly, £500 is still due. 3. Having in view your dealings with the Land Board, do you feel that the present constitution of the Land Board is quite satisfactory, or is there anything you could suggest by way of a change? —I have nothing to suggest. I may say I have never been harassed by the officials of the Land Board in any way. They have, of course, inspected my place to see that the improvements are there, but in doing that they were only doing their duty. But I think it would be advisable if the Government would accept suggestions from the people of the district as to members to be nominated. As a matter of fact, the Government do take the representations of the settlers into consideration. I do not think an elective Land Board would be suitable. 4. Is any of your land fit for cultivation by the plough? —I made it fit, but it is really pastoral land pure and simple. I spent a lot of money in taking out the stones and ploughing the rough land. My land is quite unfit to cultivate, but I laid down 1,000 acres in English grass after growing turnips. It would be profitable to me if I had never touched it. 5. Was the growing of grass successful? —Fairly successful. Of course, it has been on selected pieces of land. 6. You think it hardly paid you? —I am perfectly certain it would be money in my pocket if I'had never done any cultivation. 7. Did you ever try surface-sowing with grass? —To a small extent, but it has not been very successful. 8. To what do you attribute the non-success of surface-sowing? —To the dry seasons following a hard frost in the winter. The ground is blown up by the frost, and a north-wester comes and perishes the root. If we could roll the ground in the spring after the frost has gone out it would be successful, but the roughness of the country makes that impossible. 9. What is about the carrying-capacity of your holdings? —About four thousand sheep to 10,000 acres, and I grow 100 to 200 acres of turnips as winter feed for the hoggets. 10. Do turnips grow fairly well here? —Yes, in a suitable season. 11. Mr. McCardle.] You are acquainted, I suppose, with the larger runs surrounding this neighbourhood ? —Yes. 12. Are these runs suitable for cutting up into smaller areas than now exist? —Certainly, some of them. 13. Do you think the people here are prepared to take them up? —Yes. That has been proved. 14. In your opinion, is it desirable that some of them should be cut up? —There is certainly a demand for them. 15. Mr. Hall.] The reason that the English grasses have not been very successful here is chiefly due to the light rainfalls and severity of the winters ? —Quite so, and the difficulty of rolling the country in the spring. You will understand that our cultivating season is all blocked into three months in the spring. 16. Do you think that surface-sowing on the higher country is not as successful as you would like to see it? —I do not think the game is worth the candle.
R. LOGAN.]
221
C.—4.
17. Mr. Paul.\ Have you a knowledge of Puketoi Run? —Only superficial. 18. Would that knowledge enable you to give information as to the desirability of subdividing it]—lt must be subdivided. There is a demand for it. I say that not from my knowledge of the land, but from my knowledge of the people on the plains. 19. You think that would be a wise step? —Yes. 20. Do you know the Ross and Glendining runs —Blackstone Hill, Lauder, and Home Hills? —To a certain extent. 21. Could the three of them be cut up? —There would be much more difficulty in cutting them up because there is such a largo extent of summer country. 22. Supposing the Government took Blackstone Hill away, do you think that would render the rest useless? —You could not work Home Hills without Blackstone Hill. Of course, the summer country would have to be cut up and utilised. 23. Do you think the three runs could be cut up and subdivided to give winter and summer country? —Yes, judging by the past it would be all occupied. For instance, the Eweburn high country at the back of Mount Ida has been occupied by a syndicate. 24. Then, you think in the interests of the settlers these runs should be subdivided? —I do not know that it would be in the interests of the settlers; that is another matter. 25. Well, in he interests of the State? —Not in the interests of the State. But there is no question about it that the settlers wish the land. 26. Then, they wish the land, but you are not sure whether it would be in their interests to subdivide it? —That is so. 27. Do you think Puketoi should be subdivided? —It is certainly wanted. 28. Mr. McLennan.\ Do you syw manure with your 100 to 200 acres of turnips? —I have been sowing the first and second furrow and then putting down in grass, but I would certainly use manure if I was working old ground. I know manure has been used very successfully here. 29. Mr. Johnston.] What is your average clip? —About 6| lb. to 7J lb. 30. You say you are sorry you have put some of it into English grass? —Certainly. 31. You think it is better to have it in the native grasses than to sow it down in English grass? —Yes, because if you cultivate here the portions you cultivate are your best winter country; and if you put them into English grass you turn them into summer country. 32. It is your richest ground? —Exactly. It carries nothing in the winter in English grass, and, of course, it is the best winter country in tussock. 33. How do you surface-sow on the higher ground? —By just going with a handful of seed and dropping it on to the moist patches. I cannot say whether it has been successful, because I have not done it to any extent. But, in regard to cultivation, if I had to start again, I certainly would not turn a furrow. 34. Not even for turnips? —No. I would perhaps carry three thousand or more sheep on the 10,000 acres, and I am sure it would be more profitable. 35. What about grain-growing? —I only grow my own horse-feed. It would not be possible to grow grain on my land. I have been unable to get any of the flats. 36. Has the cutting-up of the land been a success in Maniototo? —Certainly. 37. And the settlers, generally speaking, are satisfied? —So far as I know, they are. 38. They appear to be prosperous?— Yes, for the last few years; but ten years ago it was a different story. 39. Has the land decreased or increased in value? —Increased very much. 40. How much? —I should say it has increased £1 per acre all round on the plains in the last ten years. 41. You say Puketoi ought to be cut up: why was it not cut up? —I do not know. I was not a member of the Ministry. 42. You have never heard the reason why? —No. I have heard speculations on the subject. 43. What is the altitude of your country? —From I,oooft. to 3,000 ft. above sea-level. 44. Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Office? —I have had no dealings with "them, but I know something about them. I have had some station-agent's experience. 45. Have they given satisfaction? —So far as I know, they have. 46. Are you interested in any other land than this? —None whatever. 47. Is there any Californian thistle in Maniototo? —I have not seen any beyond a little patch, and it has not increased to any extent. 48. Any ragwort? —Not that I know. 49. Mr. Forbes.\ What do you think of the residence conditions attached to the various tenures? —I have worked out my sentence long ago. It was a limited sentence, because when I took up the land it was five years' residence, except for the lease in perpetuity held by my wife, and she has got exemption from the Land Board because she is residing with me on land adjoining. 50. Do you think these residential conditions should be amended in any way?— Yes, I do. I think that the residential clause in the old Act of 1882 is far preferable to the present clause. If a man went and lived five years on the land it was proof that he was a bona fide settler. It was all the proof that should be required. 51. Of course, under the lease in perpetuity you have to reside continuously? —Yes; but I think all the necessities of the case would be met by five years' residence and five years' residence after transfer. 52. Do you hold any opinion as to the most satisfactory tenure for land? —I think perpetual lease for thirty years, with revaluation, is best for the country. 53. Do you not think that lease would keep settlement oS the land? —Certainly not. I do not think the lease in perpetuity is a good tenure. 54. What is your objection ? —They are getting practically the freehold at the original valuation. It is entirely in the interests of the tenant.
C.—4
222
[K. LOGAN.
55. You do not think it is a wise thing for the State to part with the land like that ?—Certainly not. Ido not know what they gain by it. 56. The How much do you pay per annum to the Government altogether? — Roughly, from £275 to £300 per annum. 57. Mr. McCardle.] Do you receive any reduction in rent for prompt payment? —Under the lease in perpetuity only. I may say that these rents were reduced after the 1895 snow-storm from 6d. to sd. per acre. I would like to say a word or two on the subject of classification. I think that the whole of the present system of classification is wrong. A lot of the land up here is classified as first-class land. There is really no first-class land up here. It works out in this way: A man holding 200 acres of land in the Lower Taieri worth £30 per acre can come up here and take up 420 acres. Now, a man holding a large area, almost up to the full limit —say, 600 acres — up here, of first-class land could only go to the Taieri and take up 50 acres. One man would be holding seven thousand pounds' worth of land and the other man would be holding two thousand pounds' worth. I think that classification should be done by value entirely. I should say, if you want to limit a man's holding to allow him to hold ten thousand pounds' worth of land, he should be allowed to hold 20,0U0 acres if the land is worth 10s. per acre, and 10,000 acres if the land is worth £1 per acre. That is the only equitable way to classify. 58. Would you approve of Parliament limiting the amount of freehold land a man might hold ? —Certainly, on value. I think that all the holdings in the colony should be on the same basis. Ido not see why there should be any discrimination. 59. Mr. Johnston.] Of course, your basis is on the unimproved value? —Certainly. Another point I wish to bring out is this: I think there should be no discrimination against persons holding land. I think it is very unfair that a married woman should not be allowed to hold land exactly as a man or a single woman. I would point out that the daughter of a man holding 200,000 acres of land could take up a small grazing-run, but the wife of a farmer holding 200 acres could not. I think that is very unfair. Then, there is a great anomaly in regard to the married woman regulations as well. I can give you a personal instance which shows it very distinctly. A married woman can only hold half the area that a single woman can. My wife holds 630 acres under lease in perpetuity, and my mother 2,000 acres of small grazing-run under the former Land Act. My wife could buy out my mother, but my mother could not buy out my wife, although she is entitled to hold double the amount of land. I think these anomalies should be done away with altogether. The thing is absurd. In regard to the question of loading for roads, I could give you an instance of the Swinburn Homestead Block. The sections fronting the main road within a mile of the railway-station were not loaded, but the sections on the back road three miles away were. The main-road sections are valued at £1 per acre and the back sections at £1 2s. 6d. per acre. The quality of the land is quite similar. That has been my experience of loading. 60. Mr. McUutchan.] Were the sections valued at the same time? —Oh, yes. They were put on the market at the one time. The land was taken up by a homestead association, and the most inconvenient sections had the highest value put on them. There is another matter I would like to bring before the Commission. When the runs are resumed in this district it is very unfair that we should not have the Government grants for roading. I was Chairman of the County Council when Highfield was resumed. I think we got a few hundred pounds for many miles of roading, although 1 applied for a grant for roading when the run was being surveyed. When Patearoa was being surveyed I think we got a few hundred pounds for I do not know how many miles of roads —I should think there were perhaps twenty or thirty miles. This bears very unfairly on the ratepayers of the county. The grants made are totally inadequate. 61. The Chairman.] Of course, the rents of these resumed runs do not come to very much? — They amount to about £100 per annum. We get the "thirds" and "fourths," and we have anticipated them at the expense of the present ratepayers of the county. We work on an overdraft. There is another matter. I think when a run is resumed it would only be fair to the pastoral tenant that he should have the option of taking up a small grazing-run adjoining his homestead, or as near it as possible, without competition. 62. Would you say subject to the approval of the Land Board?— Certainly. Presumably he is as good a tenant as any other man. I also wish to say that many leaseholds—small grazingruns and lease-in-perpetuity holdings—in these plains are very heavily improved. They are improved far above the unimproved value. I may say that one of the small grazing-runs on my holding is improved to double the unimproved value. There is another point, and it is this: I think that a Civil servant should be allowed to take up land and be exempt from residence so long as he is in the public employ. It is very hard that a Civil servant should have to take up land with residence conditions if he wishes to go on the land, and sacrifice his billet. There is no reason why he should not for five or ten years retain his billet and make provision against his retirement. There is only one more point, and it is in regard to grouping the sections under the Land for Settlements Act, I will take the case of a place like Greenfield. I have not noticed particularly the number of sections grouped, but probably four, or five, or six sections are grouped together, and if a man applies for one of these he must take what he gets. If an applicant wishes a farm in that group he must put in his application, and he must take whichever section in that group falls to him. Well, that certainly stops applications, because I might wish one section and no other. There is another point. When a run is opened up I think it is unfair that the applicant should not be allowed to apply for the lot of it if he wishes any section on the block and after he has drawn a section then he is ineligible for any others. Under present circumstances you can only apply for one area that does not exceed the total area you can hold. Whv should a man not have a chance to apply for the whole run. 63. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to the question of loading, do the County Council or the Government spend the money?- The County Council have spent it in the shape of special grants.
a—4.
223
E. LOGAN.]
64. You think it is unfair that there are not sufficient grants for roads when the land is sold from the runs ? —Very unfair to the county. 65. But it strikes a North Island member, considering the wonderful facilities you have here in the shape of the railway and admirable roads, so far as we have seen them, that it would be less selfish if the County Council would use the machinery of the Loans to Local Bodies Act and borrow the money to make these roads? —In regard to the roads, I may say that the roads I refer to are in rough country. They are not like the roads in the plains, that are natural roads, and only require cutting and forming. As to the Loans to Local Bodies Act, I rather object to borrowing in any shape or form. I know that the North Island people have taken tremendous burdens on themselves in order to make roads. 66. In this district the settlers practically get the land at what the land costs the Government, and in the North Island the Government get a substantial profit out of the land and still make no roads? —That is very unfair. 67. Mr. Johnston.'] Do the large runholders reside on their properties here? —Up till recently they have. 68. Constantly? —No; there is no compulsory residence clause in a pastoral license. 69. Mr. Forbes.] Is there such a thing as the aggregation of large estates going on in this neighbourhood? —It is impossible. 70. In regard to the ballot, you say you would have the estate thrown open and let a man go in for any section on the place: do you agree to the condition that he should be examined as to his financial position? —Yes. I do not think that is out of the way in regard to the land-for-settlements policy. I think that is in the man's own interest. 71. You think if a man had sufficient money to qualify for the largest and most expensive section in the block he should have the right to draw for it? —Quite so. 72. Supposing =£1,000 is needed to work any section on an estate, you would not allow a man with £500 to have the full run of the place? —Certainly not. I would only allow him to draw up to what his financial position would enable him to work. Robert Whitton Glbndining examined. 73. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Glendining? —The holder of a small grazing-run. I am chairman of the Maniototo branch of the Farmers' Union. 74. How much land do you hold under this lease?—3,loo acres, and the rent is £106 per annum, or BJd. per acre. I have held it for twenty-one years. 75. Do you find the tenure and conditions satisfactory? —Yes, quite satisfactory. 76. What point do you wish to bring specially before the Commission? —I am here to answer questions. 77. What is your opinion on the constitution of Land Boards? —I think the Land Board does good work at present. If it was to be improved on I would suggest that one or two members might be added to it, and that they be elected by the Crown tenants. There might be five nominated members and two others elected by the Crown tenants. I would cut the province into blocks, and have a member living in each of these blocks. I would also like the Government to pay some attention to the suggestions made by the Farmers' Union and other bodies as to new members who are appointed. We suggested one or two names lately, but got not even a reply from the Government. 78. What is your opinion regarding the tenures under which land is held? —Personally, I am in favour of the leasehold. Ido not wish to own an acre of Government land. At the same time I think that my neighbour, if he wants the freehold, ought to be allowed to change the tenure and acquire the freehold. 79. You think the freehold should be optional?— Yes, especially of small holdings —lease in perpetuity and other holdings. 80. Have you tried grassing on your property?—l have 500 acres of cultivation, and some of it is laid down in grass. It was profitable to me to do that. My cultivation is 1,000 ft. above sea*level. 81. Have you tried surface-sowing?—To a small extent only. It is only profitable in gullies and low-lying grounds. It is throwing seed away to try it on the hilltops. 82. Mr. McCardle.] You have had general experience in this country in the matter of settlement, and so on I—l1 —I have lived in the country for twenty-three years with my eyes open. 83. Are the large runs capable of being divided profitably' for occupation ?—As far as I know, round here they are. 84. Do you know anything of the operations of the Advances to Settlers Board?—l have had no experience of the Board. 85. Have you had any experience in running country requiring a large expenditure before any return could be got from the land? —No. 86. Do you think that in such a case it would be advisable for the Government to make larger advances than one-half of a tenant's improvements ? —I have had no experience. 87. You know of no drawbacks to the occupation of a lease-in-perpetuity holding?— Yes I have a suggestion that I would like to make in that matter. Mr. Logan spoke of the examination of a man's financial position. I would also examine him about his knowledge of farming and pastoral work. 6 88. You consider that experience is as desirable as capital?— Yes. I would have a Board of agriculturists to draw up a hundred questions, and members of the Land Board could put half a dozen questions to each applicant. ■ If he had no knowledge of the subject he should not be allowed to put in an application. A man will only lose his money if he knows nothing about farming 89. Should the residential regulations be altered to some extent in this district?—l think the Board should have more discretionary power in that matter.
224
[b. w. glendining.
C—4
90. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you approve of the system of loading for roads? —No; it is very unfair. A neighbour was speaking to me on the matter only yesterday. He said that his section was loaded to the extent of 45., which made his payment .£1 45., whereas some of his neighbours had only 9d. put on them, though they have better sections than he has and are nearer the railwaystation. 91. Has the loading been adequate for making the roads in this district?—l could not say. 92. Mr. Hall.] You think that the tenant should have the right of converting his leasehold into freehold at option? —Yes. 93. Would you make that apply to improved estates bought by the Government for close settlement under the Land for Settlements Act ? —After a man had resided for ten years or so he might be allowed to purchase. 94. Would not that result in the aggregation of estates again ? —The Government could buy them up again. 95. Mr. Paul.] It has been represented to us that the Land Board could be abolished and the Commissioner and competent Rangers do all the work ? —I do not think that would work. 96. What is your reason for preferring the leasehold personally? —For financial reasons. 97. Do you think there are many others in your position? —Yes. You can always sell a freehold here. 98. The land here is inferior compared with other parts, is it not? —Yes. 99. Is it fair that the best parts of the colony should be made freehold and the inferior land held under lease? —I would give the option of making any of it freehold if they wanted it. 100. You do not regard the fact that your neighbour holds a freehold as an injustice to yourself? —Not in the least. Of course, I would limit his quantity. 101. Mr. Forbes.] You would examine applicants for land as to their agricultural knowledge: by that means would you not shut the door to all residents in the towns? —I would make a man learn his business before he got land. 102. And only farmers could apply?— Yes, and it would be a good thing. 103. One man told us the other day that the best farmer in his district was a barber. For the purpose of answering questions a man might be coached? —Well, he has the knowledge then, and has passed his examination, no matter how he got his knowledge. 104. Might not some farmers find it hard to answer some questions about farming? —Not in an oral examination. If it was a written examination it might be harder. 105. How many sheep do you carry? —I shore two thousand sheep. 106. Is the opinion of your Farmers' Union as to the freehold the opinion you have expressed? —As far as I know, it is. The delegates who have come to-day have practically got a free hand, and the opinion I have expressed is my individual opinion. 107. How many members are there in the Farmers' Union here? —About a hundred. 108. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it would be any expense to the State to buy estates a second time, provided they got from the persons obtaining the land all the money they had expended?— No; the Government would look after that. 109. Mr. Paul.] In regard to the limitation of areas, what are your views? —I would allow 640 acres of lease-in-perpetuity land. 110. But would you limit the freehold? —Yes, to the same extent as at present. James Howell examined. 111. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Howell? —A farmer. I hold close on 2,000 acres on lease in perpetuity. I have had a portion for twenty-five years and the balance for seven or eight years. I pay an average rental of IOJd. per acre. It is a mixed farm, and I work it in connection with my brother's land. My brother hofds 2,000 acres and my wife 1,000 acres. 112. What stock do you carry on the 5,000 acres? —It is all worked as one, and we carry three thousand sheep and a few cattle and horses. We do not carry on any dairying. 113. Have you cultivated any portion o? the land? —Yes. We have ploughed about 1,500 acres. Close on 1,000 acres is laid down in grass, and the balance is under turnips and oats. 114. Have you found the cultivation fairly profitable?—ln the last few years it has been profitable. 115. Do you feel quite comfortable under your tenure? —Yes. An area of 306 acres was originally taken up under agricultural lease and changed to the lease in perpetuity. 116. Have you any desire to obtain the freehold? —Yes, I would like to have it. 117. Would you be willing to pay something extra in order to obtain it? —Yes; I would agree to divide the increased value with the Government. I think that would be fair. 118. In order to have the opportunity of acquiring the freehold would you be willing to have your land and improvements submitted to public auction, being allowed to you for improvements?— Certainly not. I would not like to be put out of my own. I would like the right to purchase the lease, taking half of the unearned increment. 119. What is your avilable clip of wool per sheep? —This season it was close on 81b. It was exceptionally good this year. 120. Have you a large death-rate in stock? —Yes. Taking one year with another, and leaving out the snow-storm years, it is 10 or 12 per cent. In extraordinary years, such as 1893 when there was a heavy snow-storm, it is much heavier. 121. Did you get relief from the Government? —We got assistance from the Government by a deduction of the railway rates-to bring sheep and feed up. 122. Mr. McCardle.] What was the value of your land when you took it up? —The average was £1 per acre. 123. What is it worth now? —About £2 per acre at the present time, but if bad seasons come again the value will go down.
J . HOWELL.
225
C.—4.
124. If you were granted the right of purchase, on what conditions would you like to pur-chase.'--I here are three systems I believe in—the deferred payment, the lease in perpetuity, and the small grazing-run and I think the whole of them ought to carry a purchasing clause with them. small grazing-runs up to 2,000 acres ought to have a purchasing clause. 125. But on what condition would you consider it fair to have the right of purchase?--! would like to have the right of purchase straight out, if I was able to do it. Some might change their holding to a deferred payment and pay off by degrees, and I would allow that after the conditions had been complied with. 126. The property would have to be valued then? —It carries its value already. 127. say that you would share the unearned increment with the Government ? —Yes. 128. A\hal is your real desire for a freehold? —I have had twenty-five years' experience on leasehold land, and during the whole of that time I have had a desire to sell the leasehold and buy a freehold. We have never had an opportunity, however, of buying the freehold of theground, and the consequence has been that I have never settled on the land as I would have done if I had been a freeholder. 129. What trouble have you with your present tenure that leads you to desire the right of purchase to get rid of past troubles?—l want the freedom. The cause of that desire is this: there are times when a man is pestered and troubled by the Land Board and the Ranger and other people, and he is in constant fear of them. If he has a freehold he has not that fear at all. 130. It is proposed now by Mr. Seddon to remove the objections you mention. So soon as a leaseholder has completed his improvements the control of the Land Board and the Rangers is to be removed. Would that satisfy you with your leasehold ?- No, it would not. I would still stick to the freehold. A man may make a considerable amount of money out of his leasehold, and if so he would be compelled to make use of it in a certain direction, which would be different perhaps to that in which his own feelings go. If he is a real farmer he would like to improve his holding, and he would naturally like to put that money into his freehold and not into a leasehold; but if he was making money on a leasehold his inclination would be to gamble with it in dredging or horse-racing if he could not put it into a freehold. 131. Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Department ?—I have never had occasion to borrow from the Government. 132. Mr. McCutchan.\ Why do you say you would halve the unearned increment? Is there not a necessity for inquiry as to what should'go to the State and what to yourself ?—Yes, I think so; but I think the State ought to have a portion and the landholder a portion. When I took up land here first there were no railways and the roads were bad, and now we have railways, roads, telegraph, and telephones, and that has helped to increase the value of the land. 133. T would like to know your reason for dividing the unearned increment equally between yourself and the State. Would that be a fair share? —It is only an opinion. 134. Do you think that the amount should be divided equitably ?—Yes, I think an equitable division should be made. lam quite agreeable to correct my evidence to that extent. 135. Mr. Hall.'] You think that lessees of small grazing-runs should have the right of purchase?— Yes. 136. Does that apply to existing leases?— Yes. 137. Would it not follow that the good lands would be taken up under that option and the inferior holdings thrown back on the hands of the Government?—l do not see that that would follow. 138. Mr. Paul.'] Do you represent any branch of the Farmers' Union? —No, I do not represent any particular branch. I was selected with others from the local branch co give evidence here to-day. 139. I suppose you wish to acquire the freehold because it pays best? —Not exactly. I believe in the leasehold as much as in the freehold, but I think a man should have the right to get the freehold. Leasehold is the best system we could have for the man with small means to make a start. If it had not been for the leasehold Ido not believe I would have been a f-armer to-day myself; but after a man has been for fifteen or twenty years on the land, the best speculation he can make is to put his money into the freehold of the land. 140. You propose to acquire the freehold if the Government will give you the option? —Yes. 141. You propose also to share with the Government the unearned increment up to the date of purchase ? —Yes. 142. What would you do with the future unearned increment? —I suppose that would follow in the same direction. If a man takes up a section under lease and settles on it for ten years, and during that time the value increases through many causes, the Government have a right to a certain amount of it. 143. But what becomes of the unearned increment after you have purchased the freehold? We pay that in the way of taxes on improvements on our land. If we put improvements on our land the Government would tax us, and we are prepared to pay our taxes. 144. You will get benefits for that taxation? —But it was our own money that put the improvements there, and we have a right to the benefits. 145. Do you say that you could not sell a freehold but you could sell a leasehold? —That is so. It is more difficult to sell a freehold than a leasehold, for this reason : there are plenty of people with small means going in for land, who are ready to take up a leasehold because t-hev have not the money to buy a freehold. Therefore the freehold keeps you a fixture on the land. 146. Do you approve of the Government selling land for cash? —No; it is a bad system. T think this too : a man who acquires land through the Government and who wants to sell it should get a purchaser who was approved of by the Land Board in the usual way, and that, purchaser should be in a position to declare that he did not own more than the prescribed area. 147. You would limit the freehold? —Yes; 2,000 acres of second-class land or 640 acres of first-class land.
29-C. 4.
|j. HOWELL.
226
C—4.
148. You spoke somewhat disparagingly of Land Boards. Do you approve of the nominative system? —Yes. I think, however, that in appointing members they should be appointed from certain districts. The Otago district should be cut up similar to the way in which County Council districts are cut up into ridings, and members should be sent from each place. These members would understand the districts they represented. At the present time only one member of the Otago Land Board thoroughly understands our district, and that is Mr. Barron himself, who lived here for a long time. The other members live on the coast, where the land is superior and there is a greater rainfall, and it is unfair that they should deal with the lands of Central Otago. As to the increase of members, Ido not know that there is any necessity for it. I think the present Board would answer all purposes, especially if there was a member going out of the district who understood the circumstances of each case. , tit 149. You think that one drawback is that tenants are pestered by the Land Boards. Were you so annoyed ?—Yes. When 1 took up land first it was a small area of 320 acres of secondclass land. Ten years afterwards I took up another section of 600 acres. I had built, a homestead on the 320 acres, and when I took the second section the Land Board asked me to show reason why I did not live on it. If a man does not reside on a section he is compelled to make other improvements. It is a matter that makes one uneasy. 150. You think that residence on one holding should cover the whole?— Yes. I have thousands of pounds of improvements on one section, and they compel me to put improvements on another section that does not want improving. 151. Mr. Johnston.] Why did you take up land under perpetual lease ?—Because I could not get the freehold. . _ , . ... 152. Would you have taken" the freehold if you could have got it?—l was not in a position to take it, and that is one reason why I did not take it up. When I took up land at first I was a miner and did not know much about the land. 153. Mr. Forbes.] Do you believe in examining a man as to his agricultural knowledge before he can take up land?—l do not agree with that proposal. I think the best farmers in this district are miners. 154. Mr. Matheson.] Looking at the country-side, do you really think there is any increment that has not been well earned by the farmers ? —Yes. 155. It has been caused by railways, and so on?— Yes. ( _ 156 Has it ever struck you that the railways only come as a result, of the farmer s industry to carry his products out for the benefit of the colony, and that he pays for those railways through the Customs just as others do?— Yes, that is true. Everybody pays for the railways. 157. Then, why should he return to the State some part of the increment that has gathered round him any more than the tradesman in the town who Has benefited by _ the other end of the railway?— The land belongs to the State and the man is only a leaseholder of it. The man m town is working on his freehold property and gets his improvements out of his freehold. Once the land became my property I would not share with the Government. 158. You would then be entitled to the increment?— Yes, most assuredly. Chaples James Inder examined. 159. The Chairman.] What are you?—A farmer, and have about 2,000 acres—3so acres freehold and 1,400 leasehold, the balance under yearly license. I have been farming on my own account for eleven years. My farm is about five miles from Waipiata. I think the tenures are all right but I also think if 'a man wishes it he ought to have the option of converting the leasehold into freehold—that is, in limited areas. My idea is that if you want to have the best use made of the land and make good farmers you must give men something to tie them to the land. 160 Do you not think the lease in perpetuity ties a man to the land for a long enough time? —Yes We would not want anything better if they do not interfere with the present lease. 161. Have you any fear on that score—the Government and you have entered into a contract, an'd if they did'want to take the land over no doubt you would be amply compensated ?—I think the Crown' ought to stick to its bargain. There has been a lot of trouble created here through compelling people to reside on their leasehold sections when they already reside on other sections in the district " As long as the Board is satisfied that a man is a bond fide settler and is already residing on one section, I think that ought to be taken into consideration. I would be far more in favour of being more stringent in connection with the improvement conditions. 162. Do vou approve of the present constitution of the Land Boards? Yes, but I think the members ought to be more representative. Otaeo is a very large district. T agree with the other two witnesses in regard to that question. , 163 Mr McCardle.} You have heard the evidence of the previous witnesses: do you generally approve of the views expressed by them?--.I have heard nothing that I take serious objection to 164. Mr. Hall.] Do you consider that the lease in perpetuity has promoted settlement ?—Yes. It has encouraged people'with small means to go on the land. 165. And it is good for the people and eood for the State?— Yes. _ 166 If that is so would it not be advisable to further continue it?--There is always a feeling that people wish to make the land their own. The families are growing up, and when the sons see that the father has no securitv of tenure they so away and leave them. . 167. Mr. Paul.] Do you think it would be beneficial to the settlers and the State to subdivide 168 And as to the three runs —Ross and Glendining's? That is quite a different class of country. lam satisfied there is far too much high country for the low country at Blackstone
Hill 169. But to take Blackstone Hill away from the other two would spoil the other two?—T do not think you could get any one to lake them up at all.
227
(J.—4
C. J. INDEK.J
170. Mr. McLennan.] You said you believed when a bargain is made between the Crown and a tenant each should stick to it? —Yes. 171. That means the tenant would not get the option of the freehold? —That was his own fault. 172. Mr. Johnston.] Would irrigation improve the pastoral prospects of Maniototo? —Undoubtedly ; but there is a vast amount of country that is not suitable for irrigation owing to its roughness. 173. There is a good deal of the sludge-water going to waste now that could be used to advantage ? —I think so, but there is a lot of trouble and labour attached to it. 174. Does the leaseholder treat his land as well as the freeholder, or does the leaseholder treat his land to advantage? —In some cases they do and in others they do not. It looks in some cases as if they took what they could out of the land, but that does not apply to all leases. 175. Who controls that? —The Land Board. 176. They have a Ranger? —Yes, but I have never heard of him laying a complaint against any one in respect to the farming of the land. 177. How high would you winter sheep? —I know of cases where sheep have been wintered at between 3,000 ft. and 4,000 ft. with safety, but, as a rule, I do not think they are taken more than 2,000 ft., and there is terrible risk above that. 178. How is the co-operative run getting on generally? —Not very successfully. 179. Suppose it were in the hands of one individual, could it be worked to advantage?—l think so if the man had low country. It is useless without low country. 180. The winters are more severe now than they were some years back? —The winters vary; 1895, 1899, and 1903 were very severe winters. 181. You say that Blackstmie Hill —Ross and Glendining's land —could not be cut up to advantage on account of the scarcity of low country? —Yes. 182. If the high land was put in the market first, would the settlers in the low country who have not got high country take it up ? —1 think they would on certain conditions, but I do not think they would under the present conditions. 183. It simply amounts to this: that if the rent was less and the tenure longer it would be taken up ? —Speaking for ourselves, we are quite satisfied with the length of the tenure and also with the rent, but we want more compensation at the end of the lease. 184. Mr. Forbes.] The Government made some concessions to the farmers during the bad winters in the way of cheap railway rates on produce, &c. : do you believe the Government should do that sort of thing ? —No, I do not. 185. The Chairman'] Have you ever come into conflict with the miners in respect to sludgewater ? —No. 186. Mr. Johnston.] To your knowledge, has the freehold land interfered with any mining operations? —I cannot say that it has. Robert Scott examined. 187. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am a farmer, and have altogether 6,400 acres —600 acres freehold, 4,000 private leases, and 1,900 acres Naseby Borough Council endowment. 188. What is your opinion of the lease in perpetuity —do you think it tends to promote settlement? —Yes. The lease in perpetuity is a good tenure, and, as far as my observations go, it is promoting settlement in this part of the country. For my own part, in taking up country I would prefer to take it up with the right of purchase. 189. You think the lease in perpetuity, or any lease, is very good for a start, but you would like to have the option of the freehold in view ? —Yes. 190. You have had no communication with the Land Board? —No, only in an official capacity of this branch of the Farmers' Union. I would like to say something with respect to that. I had information as to Mr. Kirkpatrick resigning from the Land Board, and under instructions from my branch I wired to the Minister asking that a successor —a resident of Central Otago —be appointed to the Board. We received no reply to that wire, and later on, when Mr. Henry Clarke resigned, I was again instructed by my branch to write to the Minister asking that a resident of Central Otago be appointed, and up to a few days ago I had received no reply. In the meantime fresh appointments had been made. A few days ago I received a reply stating that my letter had been addressed to Wedderburn and had come to the Dead-letter Office. I indorse what has been said by several witnesses to-day. I think it would be in the interests of all Government settlers that a representative from Central Otago should be on the Land Board. Although the new members of the Board may be excellent men, they are not acquainted with the climatic and other conditions of this district. 191. Mr. Hall.] You say the Government should give the rights to the tenants to secure the freehold, and that you would limit the area? —Yes, most undoubtedly. 192. What would be your limit? —Money-value limit, not an acreage limit. 193. Mr. Paul.] Have you the option of purchase in your private lease? —Yes. 194. Have you the option in the Naseby endowment? —No. 195. Do you think you should have it in the case of the endowment? —No. 196. Do you not think that the security in landed property is better than the security of lending money out at interest? —Yes. The land is always there. 197. Therefore it is in the interests of the Borough Council that this endowment should be preserved ? —Yes. 198. Is it not in the interests of the State that it should hold the land for the people and only have a leasehold tenure ? -Not, altogether. The farmers are part of the State, and therefore, I take it, they should be allowed to acquire a certain freehold area. 199. Mr. McLennan.] Those who took up land under lease in perpetuity entered into an agreement with the Government to take up the land on certain terms? —Yes.
[E. SCOTT.
C—4.
228
200. Would it be right now to break that agreement between them and the Government? — 1 would not expect it from a private individual, but I cannot see why it should be done by the State. 201. Mr. McCardle.] Were you here in the days of depression, when it was absolutely necessary to reduce rents in order to enable the tenants to remain on the land? —Yes. 202. That was a breach of contract? —Yes. Amendments may be necessary sometimes, but still it would not be right to break a contract to the detriment of the tenant. Arthur William Roberts examined. 203. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a nurseryman in charge of the Government nursery, Ranfurly, and have been in that position since 1896. We have about 50 acres altogether, and about 11 acres have been broken up and planted. We are growing pines of various species, larch, birch, rowan, and laburnum. We only distribute these trees to be planted on Government land. We do not sell trees to the settlers. We find a difficulty in growing trees owing to the dry weather, hot winds, and frosts. I have chosen the varieties that 1 think will grow, and they are doing fairly well. The following figures show the rainfall for the years mentioned: [See Appendix]. 204. Mr. McCardle.] Do you not think that if application was made to the Government the settlers could obtain a small number of rowan and other trees? —The only drawback would be the objection of private nurserymen. 205. Mr. McCutchan.] You have sown some Italian ryegrass? —Yes. 206. Have you sown cow-grass?— No. There may be some specimens amongst the clover, but that is the seedsmen's fault. 207. Mr. Hall.] Are there any trees that can be successfully grown on these plains that would be valuable as timber trees? —I am not supposed to grow anything else but timber trees. 208. Mr. McLennan.] Was it from your nursery that the trees in the plantation at Naseby were taken ? —Yes. 209. How did they do? —Very well on the whole. 210. What area of land is planted there? —About 131 acres. 211. Is there Crown land in other parts of the district where plantations could be established? —Yes; there are a good many reserves. 212. Do you not think it would be advisable to encourage the farmers to plant trees by giving them the trees for nothing? —Yes, if they would take care of them. Robert McSkimming examined. 213. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm between 400 and 500 acres. 1 hold land under lease in perpetuity, and have had some of it for ten years. My rent is about lOd. or Is. an acre. I engage in mixed farming. lam quite satisfied with the tenure. 214. What are your views about the freehold and leasehold? -In a sense I have been very grateful to get a lease in perpetuity, but, like a good many other people, I would like to acquire a piece of freehold property. I think the freehold should be limited. What I came principally to speak about was the recent subdivision of Patearoa Station. So far it has been a success. The principal point I wish to bring before you is the discretionary power granted to the Land Board, subject to the approval of the Minister. The position is this: About 1,200 acres was cut off for landless people, principally gold-miners. They were allowed the privilege of acquiring sections of 100 or 200 acres. It has been really a success, because the land has been all taken up. These people would not have had room to run any cattle there, but under this arrangement they are content and happy. I think that discretionary power has been beneficial. There is another matter I wish to draw attention to. I got a small section of 230 acres under lease in perpetuity, but when the section of land opposite me went to the ballot I was debarred from competing because I had not held the lease-in-perpetuity section for three years, whereas other people in the neighbourhood who had 1,000 acres and whose lease had run out got the privilege of taking up extra land. I have a family growing up and I wanted a little more land, but was not allowed to compete. I think discretionary power should be given to the Land Board in respect to that matter. Alured George Matthias examined. 215. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a sheep-farmer, and have been here thirty-nine years. I hold 1,100 acres freehold and 3,500 acres pastoral lease, and also a share in 5,600 acres high land on the top of Rock and Pillar, also under pastoral lease. I pay 6d. an acre for the 3,500 acres and 3d. an acre for the top land. I shear three thousand sheep a year. With respect to Blackstone Hill Run, I may say that I think that is capable of being cut up with advantage. 216. As to your land at the Rock and Pillar, do you keep sheep up there in the winter? — We never put them up there before December, and this year not till January, and we bring them down in May, so that we have practically only four months. 217. You have low country or you could not hold that high country? —Yes. 218. Mr. Johnston.] How high up can you winter sheep with safety? —We winter them up to between 2,600 ft. to 3,000 ft.—that is the height of our snow-fence. 219. Are there any other runs that could be cut up with advantage to settlement?—l suppose Puketoi could. 220. Do you know why it was not cut up?—l have my private opinion; but I do not know that I should give it here. 221. Would Lynburn cut up? —Part of it.
C—4.
Middlemaiich, Monday, 20th March, 1905. Enic Hanson examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I hold 100 acres of freehold two miles from Middlemarch. I have been over thirty years in the district, and farming for twenty-six years. Igo in principally for dairying. There is a factory here. 2. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission? —1 would like to have a bit more land. I have three sous coming on, and my place is too small, and all the land in the vicinity is held by big holders. Murray, Roberts, and Co. are the principal proprietors. Although 1 have freehold I do not believe in the freehold system, because it only gives the big holders an opportunity to buy you out, and then the laud is held in one big block. 3. Has there been any buying-up of little holdings by these large owners? —I think Mr. Allan has sold some land, and some of the employees on Messrs. Murray-Roberts's station have bought sections, although they are working on the station. 1 think if a man takes up land he should work it himself. Mr. Allan's estate was about 300 acres. 4. Is there any selling out by one farmer to the other up the plains? —They are nearly all leaseholds up here, but their holdings are too small, and many of them have had to clear out because they have families growing up and cannot get land. The sections about here range from 4 to 20 acres, and as residence conditions compel the holders to reside on them they have had to leave the district. 5. Mr. McCardle.\ There is a lot of fine farming country along the railway-line: who does it belong to? —Murray, Roberts, and Co. 6. How much have they in that particular locality ? —1 do not know the exact amount. They have some leased land as well. 7. Is there any block of laud here that the settlers wish the Government to buy for close settlement? —I have never heard of it. 8. Is there a number of people here desirous of getting land to settle on? —Yes; they have had to leave the district for want of land. 9. Can you give the Commission any idea where land could be obtained for these settlers ?—- There is a run up at the Six-miles. Ido not know how much land there is in it. 10. lou do not know of any land in the district which is available if the Government desired to cut laud up ? —There are some freeholds. 11. Are these freeholds large or small? —Both. 12. Has anybody bought up these freeholds? —Yes —Murray-Roberts. 13. How many acres do they hold?—I think they have at least 10,000 acres on the flat here. I think they are holding too much. 14. If that country were bought up by the Crown would it be suitable for small dairy farms, and so on ? —Yes. 15. What is the value of the land per acre? —Murray-Roberts put £14 per acre on it. Some of it has been bought at that price. There is no chance for a poor man to get 100 acres at that price. 16. If the State bought up the land and offered it at lease could the settlers afiord to pay 14s. per acre to occupy the land as dairy farms? —I do not know. 17. I understand the Government made an offer to Messrs. Murray-Roberts: do you kuow what price they offered per acre? 1 have no idea. William Dakcy Mason examined. 18. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 115 acres of freehold and 7 acres of leasehold. It is fat land on the Taieri River, and I use it for dairying solely. I have been farming here since 1866, and I live within a mile of the town. I carry about thirty-two cows at the present time, twenty-nine of them being in milk. I supply the dairy factory. Approximately, there are about thirty-six suppliers, and they average twenty-five cows each. • 19. You heard from the former witness that there is a considerable demand for land here: is that correct ? Yes, there is a great demand for it here. The people are paying really a sweating price for the land from the High School Board at the present time. The laud was set apart for village settlements, and instead of being devoted to the purpose for which it was intended it was found more expedient, I suppose, to cut it up in its present form and let it out in small sections of 4 and 5 acres. But they were too small. 20. Is there not a large education reserve of about 40,000 acres for the High School?— Yes. It extends up the plains for seven miles. Ido not know what the area is. 21. Who administers it? —There is a mixed administration here by the Land Board and High School Board. The large reserves have passed into the hands of the Land Board some few years ago, but the land surrounding the township is still administered by the High School Board. All the rural sections of land under lease to tenants is on perpetual lease for thirty years, with the right of renewal every twenty-one years, with revaluation as well. There was a right of purchase from the seventh to eleventh year, but the High School Board objected to it, and they managed to put it out of the minds of the tenants until they got over the eleventh year. 22. Evidently you cannot get any more land up the plains, therefore the only land available round here for dairy farms is that belonging to Messrs. Murray, Roberts, and Co. I—Yes. Of course, there is pastoral land. 23. Can you say approximately the area of this flat dairy land belonging to them? —It is about three miles and a half by two to three miles. They have about 4,000 acres of dairy land. There is land adjoining quite fitted for dairying, but not of first-class quality. 24. The last witness said they were asking £14 per acre for it: is that correct?— Yes. The price asked of the Government for a block of about 1,400 acres was £9 per acre for the poor
229
E. HANSON. j
C—4.
W. D. MASON.
230
45. Have you any idea of the carrying-capacity of this run?- —A fair idea of the carryingcapacity of the grazing-land in this district in a dry season is that it would be well stocked with two sheep to 5 acres, but in a good season it would stand stocking to the extent of two sheep to 3 acres. The average capacity would be a sheep to 2 acres. 46. You think that country would be taken up in small grazing-runs if it were thrown open by the Government'? —I think it would be as readily taken up by the public. 47. The Chairman.] Supposing when the lease runs out the Government take Murray-Roberts's high country and divide it, would there be sufficient low country left to work the high country in the winter? —The high country here is not in the same position as the high country in Canterbury. This is comparatively low country compared with that. 48. Is not some of the high country on the Rock and Pillar under snow in winter? —Yes, but the settlers could use it as advantageously as the present holder by utilising it as summer country. 49. Supposing it was cut up, what would be the size to suit the settlers on the plains, having regard to the fact that the stock would have to be brought down in the winter and taken up in the summer?— The people who hold land on the plains here—say, 300 acres—could quite well do with 1,000 to 1,500 acres of rough land. 50. I suppose when Murray-Roberts offered the 1,400 acres they reserved the balance to work their high country? —The 1,400 acres were really the extremities of the estate, and they would leave the estate then in a compact block. 51. Then, his high country lies immediately behind his flat country ?—Yes. 52. Mr. McCardle.\ Have you thought about the question as to what area one man should hold in fee-simple ?--I think that, wjiere land is scarce and population is becoming large it is necessary to restrict area in the interest of the settlers and the country. 53. You are aware, I suppose, that the quantity of land available altogether in the colony is not very large, and do you not think that principle ought to apply generally throughout the colony ?—Undoubtedly. I think the area should be restricted to what would keep a family in what you might call real comfort. A man would then have no fear of the future if he chose to exert himself. 54. Mr. McCutchan.~\ Has your district had much to do with the Advances to Settlers Department? —I cannot say. 55. Is the Land Board control satisfactory? —I think it is fairly satisfactory. 56. Do you believe in the system of nomination by the Government?- I do not know that you could get a better system. I think that a system of election to the Land Board would be very cumbersome, and would simply amount to the same thing. 57. Is there not some dissatisfaction owing to the fact (hat under the system of nomination there is not an equal distribution of representation: for instance, in Central Otago we heard complaints that they were not being properly represented?- -Well, a man selected from Central Otago would be better acquainted with Central Otago wants and the peculiar features of settlement in that locality. I should certainly say there is a good deal in that, because the nominees from the low country about Oamaru are not in a position to judge fairly as to the requirements of the central district. 58. Would you limit the power of nomination by the Government in this way: that the land district should be divided into ridings, and the Government have power to nominate a member from within each riding? —I certainly think Central Otago should have representation on the Board, and that the lower district about Clutha should also have a representative. This is necessary, because the conditions are so utterly dissimilar. It is necessary that the people should have their complaints properly placed before the Board. T think the same principle should also apply to the Rangers. 59. You said the High School tenants are paying a sweating rent? —Yes, in the immediate vicinity of the township. Apparently the object of the people who administer the finance and lands of the Board is to secure as much revenue as possible to carry on the school. 60. Are not these areas very small and used more as homes? —The excessive rentals apply to the sections put up to auction around the township. 61. Is the present position due to the land being put up to auction or to an excessive upset?— The land was put up at a fair upset, but a large number of people desired sections, and the supply was limited. 62. Do you think the people should be protected from themselves? —If a man must really have a place to live on and there are half a dozen others in thp same position, they compete for the land the same as they would for anything else. 63. Is your local taxation high?—No: it is about Ifd. in the pound on the capital value. 64. That seems fairly high ?—lt is not very high, f pay about £3 a year on my place. 65. Is there any loading for roads in this district,?- There is no place cut up under the Land for Settlements Act here. 66. Mr. Paul.] It was represented to us in two or three places that the Boards should be dispensed with and the work done by the Commissioners, aided by competent Rangers : do you think that is feasible and workable?-The same principle applies as to all elected bodies —the greater number of members you have in the Board, I should assume, the less chance there is of private influence being used for the benefit of any particular person. It is a more difficult task to influence six or seven people than one. Ido not think that is a practical suggestion. 67. You spoke of men running these leaseholds up at auction: you do not mean to infer that is an evil connected with the leasehold? —I certainly think it is an evil. I think that a value should be put on all lands that are to be leased, and if there is more than one application the only fair way is to put the section up to ballot. 68. Supposing it was put up as freehold, would it not be open to the same objection ?—No,
C—4.
W. D. MASON.
231
-45. Have you any idea of the carrying-capacity of this run?- —A fair idea of the carryingcapacity of the grazing-land in this district in a dry season is that it would be well stocked with two sheep to 5 acres, but in a good season it would stand stocking to the extent of two sheep to 3 acres. The average capacity would be a sheep to 2 acres. 46. You think that country would be taken up in small grazing-runs if it were thrown open by the Government'? —I think it would be as readily taken up by the public. 47. The Chairman.] Supposing when the lease runs out the Government take Murray-Roberts's high country and divide it, would there be sufficient low country left to work the high country in the winter? —The high country here is not in the same position as the high country in Canterbury. This is comparatively low country compared with that. 48. Is not some of the high country on the Rock and Pillar under snow in winter? —Yes, but the settlers could use it as advantageously as the present holder by utilising it as summer country. 49. Supposing it was cut up, what would be the size to suit the settlers on the plains, having regard to the fact that the stock would have to be brought down in the winter and taken up in the summer?— The people who hold land on the plains here—say, 300 acres—could quite well do with 1,000 to 1,500 acres of rough land. 50. I suppose when Murray-Roberts offered the 1,400 acres they reserved the balance to work their high country? —The 1,400 acres were really the extremities of the estate, and they would leave the estate then in a compact block. 51. Then, his high country lies immediately behind his flat country ?—Yes. 52. Mr. McCardle.\ Have you thought about the question as to what area one man should hold in fee-simple ?--I think that, wjiere land is scarce and population is becoming large it is necessary to restrict area in the interest of the settlers and the country. 53. You are aware, I suppose, that the quantity of land available altogether in the colony is not very large, and do you not think that principle ought to apply generally throughout the colony ?—Undoubtedly. I think the area should be restricted to what would keep a family in what you might call real comfort. A man would then have no fear of the future if he chose to exert himself. 54. Mr. McCutchan.~\ Has your district had much to do with the Advances to Settlers Department? —I cannot say. 55. Is the Land Board control satisfactory? —I think it is fairly satisfactory. 56. Do you believe in the system of nomination by the Government?- I do not know that you could get a better system. I think that a system of election to the Land Board would be very cumbersome, and would simply amount to the same thing. 57. Is there not some dissatisfaction owing to the fact (hat under the system of nomination there is not an equal distribution of representation: for instance, in Central Otago we heard complaints that they were not being properly represented?- -Well, a man selected from Central Otago would be better acquainted with Central Otago wants and the peculiar features of settlement in that locality. I should certainly say there is a good deal in that, because the nominees from the low country about Oamaru are not in a position to judge fairly as to the requirements of the central district. 58. Would you limit the power of nomination by the Government in this way: that the land district should be divided into ridings, and the Government have power to nominate a member from within each riding? —I certainly think Central Otago should have representation on the Board, and that the lower district about Clutha should also have a representative. This is necessary, because the conditions are so utterly dissimilar. It is necessary that the people should have their complaints properly placed before the Board. T think the same principle should also apply to the Rangers. 59. You said the High School tenants are paying a sweating rent? —Yes, in the immediate vicinity of the township. Apparently the object of the people who administer the finance and lands of the Board is to secure as much revenue as possible to carry on the school. 60. Are not these areas very small and used more as homes? —The excessive rentals apply to the sections put up to auction around the township. 61. Is the present position due to the land being put up to auction or to an excessive upset?— The land was put up at a fair upset, but a large number of people desired sections, and the supply was limited. 62. Do you think the people should be protected from themselves? —If a man must really have a place to live on and there are half a dozen others in thp same position, they compete for the land the same as they would for anything else. 63. Is your local taxation high?—No: it is about Ifd. in the pound on the capital value. 64. That seems fairly high ?—lt is not very high, f pay about £3 a year on my place. 65. Is there any loading for roads in this district,?- There is no place cut up under the Land for Settlements Act here. 66. Mr. Paul.] It was represented to us in two or three places that the Boards should be dispensed with and the work done by the Commissioners, aided by competent Rangers : do you think that is feasible and workable?-The same principle applies as to all elected bodies —the greater number of members you have in the Board, I should assume, the less chance there is of private influence being used for the benefit of any particular person. It is a more difficult task to influence six or seven people than one. Ido not think that is a practical suggestion. 67. You spoke of men running these leaseholds up at auction: you do not mean to infer that is an evil connected with the leasehold? —I certainly think it is an evil. I think that a value should be put on all lands that are to be leased, and if there is more than one application the only fair way is to put the section up to ballot. 68. Supposing it was put up as freehold, would it not be open to the same objection ?—No,
0.—4.
232
r W. D. MASON.
because a person is speculating then on the value put on the land by the work and productive powers of the community. He is speculating on something he does not pay for at all. 69. You have some opinion about the land-tenures of the colony? —I think the land should be the property of the State. A man should only have a right to the land while he uses it. 70. What system do you think is best for the State? —I think that the old perpetual lease, without the right of purchase and with revaluation at fairly decent periods, is certainly the best system for the individual and the State. 71. You think that would be a good system for the farmer? —Certainly. 72. Does good farming follow freehold or leasehold? —Well, if the Commission had half an hour to spare to look round the district I could prove to them that leasehold is better farmed than freehold. The general experience is that the leasehold is farmed better than the freehold. I think the best farm in this district is held under a fourteen-years lease from the High School Board, and under the conditions of his lease that settler forfeits some of his improvements at the end of the year. 73. You do not think it is exactly fair that the tenant should forfeit some of his improvements? —No. I think a reform is needed so that all these improvements should be provided for in his valuation at the end of the term. 74. In short, you would protect the tenant's right up to the full value of his improvements? —Unquestionably. But he should not be allowed to make foolish improvements. For instance, 1 might take a fancy to build a £400 or £500 house on a 20-acre dairy section, and I do not think I should be allowed to do so. Otherwise it would mean that no one could take up that section again but myself. 75. Would you give the option of the freehold to lease-in-perpetuity holders?- —I do not think any practical man under lease iTi perpetuity would require it. I should certainly, be against giving it. 76. Some of them are demanding it? —In this district, prior to the advent of the railway, we had to pay ,£1 15s. to £2 per ton for the carriage of our grain to Dunedin. At the present time it goes for 9s. to 10s. a ton. Necessarily there is an increased value put on the land by the advent of the railway of at least £1 per acre. 77. Then, I suppose it necessarily follows you would object to the option of purchase of all lands under the Land for Settlements Act ? —Certainly. I think it would be folly to borrow money to settle people on the land and then give them an opportunity to do what has occurred here. The land which was originally settled under deferred payment in this district has got into one big estate, and now the people are clamouring for small settlement again. I think all land acquired by the State should be kept in the hands of the State. 78. Is the Otago High School Board land under different administration to the Otago University land?- The University Council administers the University endowments. 79. Can you say which is the best body to control these lands? —The Land Board, unquestionably. It would be better in the interests of settlement that the Land Board should administer all the land under the Land Act. 80. In several places we have heard that some of the labour unions are advocating revaluation of leases, and that this revaluation should have a retrospective effect. I believe you have kept in touch with labour unions to some extent: do you think that is correct ?--No; I know it is false. My acquaintance with the labour unions covers a period of thirty-two years, and I know that they insist that the fullest protection should be given to the improvements of the tenants, and they do not ask for revaluation at short periods, but at such long intervals as in the wisdom of the country appears best in the interests of the settlers. 81. It lias been pointed out to us that the fact of the Crown tenants accepting a rebate of 10 per cent, on theii leases in perpetuity is a violation of their contract?- I presume that any contract is broken if both sides do not observe it. 82. Do you not look on that as interest for prompt payment? —If I have a landlord, and I agree to pay him £1 per acre, and I happen to have an idea of lagging behind in my rent, and he gives me an inducement to pay up on the due date by rebating 5 or 10 per cent, of my rent, I should not say that was? a breach of our contract. 83. Mr. McCardle.\ In speaking of holdings being revalued at periodical periods, I suppose you are referring more particularly to the land you are acquainted with here? —I think it applies with equal justice to any other place. 84. We have hundreds of settlers in the North where the whole country was covered with dense bush, not a tree of which had any value as timber.. The settler has to spend some £4 per acre to put it in grass, and before he can bring it into the condition of the land round here it will cost him from £10 to £15 per acre—in fact, he will have to spend his life's labour for thirty years before he can cultivate, and under your proposal of a perpetual lease he is then to be revalued : do you think that is a fair thing?—l cannot see any injustice if the whole of the man's labour is taken into account and he is given full valuation for every improvement made. I say that the valuation should not be struck by the Ranger at the end of the term, when many of the settlers' improvements may not be visible, but after annual visitations to the land, and he should then credit every shilling to the tenant. 85. You think where by individual effort and industry a man lias raised the capital value of Crown land from 10s. per acre to £15 and £20 per acre that the Crown is more entitled to retain the freehold of that land than the man who has spent hundreds and thousands in making these improvements ?—I do not see that it affects the question at all if the Ranger credits him with the full value of his improvements. / 86. If a hundred settlers go into dense bush country, and by their own labour as well as by their improvements they raise the unearned increment of that land, are they not entitled to it? —You have to consider also that at the same time right throughout the State people are construct-
W. T). MASON.I
233
C.—4.
ing roads and railways and harbours to bring these people within reach of the people to whom they are going to sell their produce. These people are also helping to create that unearned increment, and the only claim these settlers have is to share that unearned increment with their fellowcitizens. 87. 7he Chairman.] You think, on principle, that the land should belong to the State? — Although I hold a freehold I think the land should belong to the State. 88. But you recognise there are wide differences according to the circumstances? —Yes, and they should all be taken into consideration. 89. Mr. McLennan.] In regard to the rebate, is it not interest at the rate of 10 per cent, on the rent the tenants have to pay in advance? —Yes. John Hat examined. 90. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a carpenter. I have been here twenty years. I have about 15 acres of High School Board lease, and I own half an acre of freehold. My 15 acres comprise part of the suburban sections here. I have 6 acres on a temporary lease that can be terminated at three months' notice, and I pay ss. per acre for it. The other 9 acres are held under a fourteen-years lease at ss. per acre. I use the land for dairying. 91. What do you wish to bring before the Commission ?—There is a demand for land for settlement in the district. This is a dairying district, and I believe if land were cut up there would be more here. I do not approve of taking land for settlement, say, five or six miles from the township. There is an area of 600 acres in close proximity belonging to Mr. Kirkland which would cut up very'well, and I know a good many people would be thankful to get 5- and 10-acre farms on it. 92. Would they be satisfied with that area? You are a carpenter and work at your business: are you quite content to go on with your business and also farm the 15 acres, or is it your ambition to be a farmer ultimately ?--Not in this district. In regard to being satisfied, I would almost prefer to have my land close together. These sections are scattered. I would be content to have less than that area if the sections adjoined each other. Some of the High School Board leases are expiring next year, and I know there is a little bit of anxiety on the part of the settlers who have sections. I think they would prefer to be under the Land Board, with a more secure tenure, or else a lease from the High School Board, giving the same terms as the Land Board lease. I would like to point out the advantage it would be to workers in the country districts and the towns if land could be taken up under a land-right system. A man holding a miner's right in a mining district can go and take up an acre of ground and settle on it as long as he pays his miner's fee every year, and I think after Crown land has been surveyed the workers of the colony should have the same right by paying a land-right fee of 10s. or 15s. per annum to take up an acre of ground. I may say that there are several hundred sections here which have never been taken up, and if the Government took them over from the High School Board and gave the workers an opportunity to take them up under a land-right system the people would be able to settle here. 9.3. Mr. McLennan.] Do you know anything about the large sheep-runs here?—To a certain extent. 94. Do you think they are fit to be subdivided into smaller areas?—l think some of the land at the foot of the mountains could be cut into smaller areas. 95. You know they could not cut up the winter country unless there was so-much summer country with it?—l agree with what Mr. Mason said, that some of the settlers here could use it during the summer and not put stock on it in the winter. 96. Would it be very expensive to fence it if it was cut up into 2,000- or 3,000-acre blocks? —I do not know that it would. 97. Mr Paul.l I suppose your suggestion in regard to land rights is prompted because of the high price of land m proximity to cities?— Not altogether. It is because of the easy-facility it would give to working-men to settle on the land. Another thing is, the land would be nationalized and would always belong to the State, and the Crown would receive a perpetual rent from it. 98. Has any aggregation of estates been going on in this district, to your knowledge?— Not to any extent. 6 Michael Moynihan examined. 99. The Chairman.} What are you ?-I am a farmer. I hold 180 acres under perpetual lease and 36 acres of freehold I graze sheep and cattle. I have been in the district since 1883, and on mv freehold since 1888. I pay Is. 6d. per acre for 60 acres and 2s. 6d. for the balance. 100. You apparently did not convert your perpetual lease into a freehold?—No, but I would like to. I allowed the time to lapse. 101. What would you like to bring specially before the Commission ?—I came here to give evidence about the unearned increment. There is no such thing. 102. Some witnesses think that the railway has created an unearned increment? —What is the good of the railway if I and the rest of the settlers stop sending stuff bv it. We came up here to settle first, and we have brought the railway. 103. Then, your opinion is that the unearned increment is due to the settlers?— Certainly Any unearned increment is simply my wages and the result of my improvements, for which' I otherwise would not get any value, because no man coming along ten or twenty years after I had settled here could possibly tell what I had done in clearing and planting and improving the place He would never see clover instead of matagowrie, and grass instead of tussock. The only way he could value my improvements would be by leaving a strip of each paddock in its natural state and even then the cattle would spread clover over it. 104. What was the value of your place when you took it up ?—I paid £4 per acre for the freehold.
30—C.4.
234
C—4.
M. MOYNIHAN.
105. What is its value now? —It would not pay me at anything less than £20, having regard to my buildings and improvements. 106. Have you improved your perpetual-lease portion much? —Yes. On one section of 120 acres I gave the outgoing tenant £415 for his improvements. There were no improvements on the 60 acres, barring fencing. It was valued at £1 10s. for renting purposes, but a recent valuation has increased the value to £200, or £3 6s. Bd. per acre. 107. What improvements do you consider you put on that? —It is subdivided into four paddocks, and what was once matagowrie and tussock is now down in clover and grass. 108. Mr. McLennan.] You heard what the other witnesses said about cutting up the stations here? —Some of these runs could be very well cut up. I could do with 1,000 acres of high and low country, and I could make as much off it as any other man. 109. Do you think the sections would be all taken up if the Government subdivided the land? —Yes. I may say that the land across the river is in 1,800- and 2,000-acre blocks, and everybody is doing first rate. 110. Mr. McCardle.] I suppose you have an idea where the unearned increment goes and where it is principally created: is it not in the cities where the produce of the settlers is sent? — Yes. I will take Mosgiel, and I remember sections that were once bought for £25 per acre now bring £100. Those people come up here and are making a living out of us by selling drapery and other goods. That is where the unearned increment is. 111. Is not the same thing still more apparent in the City of Dunedin? —I am not particularly posted about Dunedin. I take no interest in it. 112. You do not believe in a single-tax being levied on the farmer? —I do not understand that tax. 11 2a. There is very little of the settler's earnings remaining in his pocket? —Very little. 113. Mr. McCutchan.] Was it through an oversight that you did not acquire the freehold of your perpetual lease? —It was that as much as anything else. If I had known as much then as I do now I would have had the freehold, even if I had had to borrow money. 114. You think the freehold tenure is the best? —Yes. 115. Would you limit the area? —Decidedly. 116. Do you think the present limitations of the Act are satisfactory? —No. Under the present Act if a man has four or five sons and daughters he can add to the property and still all reside in the one house. When you limit the area of land I think you should make the holder reside on it. 117. The young people have to reside on their sections when they reach the age of twentyone years? —Not on the freehold. I think you ought to limit the area and make it a condition that a man resides on it as well. 118. Generally speaking, you approve of the freehold tenure? —Yes, up to a certain limit. 119. It is understood, from an opinion by the Solicitor-General, that the period for acquiring the freehold under perpetual lease has been extended in some cases: have you heard anything about that in this district? —No. The great advantage about the freehold is that if a man strikes two or three good years and he makes his property freehold, he is saved when the bad years come. The bad years will come just as surely as they did before, and by acquiring the freehold a man is making provision for them just as if he put his money in the bank. 120. Mr. Paul.] What is your main reason for wanting the freehold? —Just what I have stated. 121. Suppose you continued the leasehold and put the money in the bank against bad years, would that not be as good? —There is always something else turns up when you have money in the bank, and sometimes it turns out all right and sometimes it does not. If you buy the freehold you are safe and your family is safe. 122. You think it is best, from a personal point of view, to buy the freehold? —Yes. 123. Do you think it is good policy, from the point of view of the State, to allow you to acquire the freehold ? —lt is good policy for the country to put men who want the freehold on the same level as the men who have acquired the freehold before now. 124. But do two wrongs make a right? Suppose it was wrong in the old days to allow a man to acquire the freehold? —It would be all right if the State had commenced at the beginning and prevented the acquisition of any freehold. 125. Then, you want the freehold because somebody else possesses the freehold? —And because that man is in competition with me, and has a better chance of weathering through than I have when bad times come. 126. You know the flat land belonging to Murray-Roberts? —Yes. 127. Has that increased in value in the last twenty years? —Very much. 128. What improvements have they put on it? —There is a splendid house on one part of it, and many other improvements. 129. Are there any improvements on the section offered to the Government? —It is fenced, and is all ploughed and in pasture. 130. How much is that increased in value during the past twenty years? —Similar land twenty years ago was bought for £6 10s. per acre, and for similar land to Murray-Roberts's a settler is wanting £12 10s. per acre now. 131. Who created that value? Did Murray-Roberts do so by their improvements? —Yes, a lot. 132. How much? —It would be very hard to say. 133. To save time, was there any unearned increment there?- Perhaps to the extent of £3 15s. per acre. 134. You admit that is community-created value?- Not at all. 135. Did Murray-Roberts create it? —They did. 136. How? —In several wavs. Thev have been paving rates, and their share of the railway, and their share of taxation. These have all helped to create it.
M. MOYNIHAN.]
235
C—4.
137. If you and your fellow-settlers had not come to Middlemarch, and if the Otago Central Railway had not been considered, would Murray-Roberts's land be still worth £14 per acre? —No, it would not. 138. Mr. Forbes.] You said the railway did not increase the value of the land in this district? —I said if it was not for us the railway would not be here. 139. If the Government had done nothing with this land until they had put the railway through, would it not be worth more than it was twenty years ago? —Decidedly it would be worth more. 140. Then, the railway must have made some difference in the value? —I suppose, valuing the land twenty years ago as compared with what it is worth to-day, there is fully £2 per acre increase due to the railway alone. 141. Mr. Matheson.] Do you pay any revenue to the Crown through the Customs? —I think so. 142. And through that you are paying your share of the railway through other people? —Yes. 143. So you have paid for the railway, and you contend that any enhanced value it has brought to you it had also brought to the dwellers of the towns by bringing them your produce to handle? —Yes. They get their stuff so much cheaper. I would like to say, so far as Land Boards are concerned, I do not think they could be improved on at present. I think the constitution of the Land Boards is entirely satisfactory.
Dunedin," Tuesday, 21st March, 1905. Donald Reid examined. 1. The Chairman.] Mr. Reid, you are a farmer at Salisbury, North Taieri ? —Yes, and I am also in business in Dunedin as a wool and general commission agent. I have been in the colony fifty-six years, and have beeu farming at Salisbury nearly forty-eight years. I have over 4,000 acres of freehold there. 2. I think you were Minister of Lands at one time, and also head of the Provincial Government of Otago for a while? —Yes. 3. You have had a large experience in land matters, and the Commission thought they would like to hear your evidence. We will take the various points we have to inquire into in their order. The first is the constitution of the Land Boards. You are, of course, aware that the Boards are at present nominated, and there have been some expressions of opinion that their constitution might be altered for the better, either by total or partial election. What is your view with respect to the present constitution of the Land Boards? —I do not think you can improve on the nominated Boards. That system gives the Government of the day the power to select trustworthy, reliable men, and men whose sympathies would be in the direction of the best settlement of the land. An objection I have felt —though not to the Boards themselves —is as to the manner of carrying on their business, and it is this: that there are too many references to the Minister. It occurs to me that if you have a highly paid Chief Commissioner and a Board selected by the Government —men of probity and integrity as soon as the waste lands of the colony are brought under the control of the Board the control of the Board should be absolute, without any reference to any Minister. We have felt at times —we have had in our business to act as agents for clients — and we have felt at times that this reference to the Minister meant farewell to the hope of our client unless he was of the favoured "colour." I strongly disapprove of the patronage —namely, the authority that is given to the Minister in these cases. You refer a matter to the Government, and it is a month or two months before you get a reply, and that reply is " So-and-so is declined," or it is granted. I have heard of deputations going as far as Wellington to intercede with the Minister in order to get decisions in the way they wished. I think that is a bad state of affairs. 4. Regarding the selection of the members of the Board, it has been mentioned several times that, instead of the present constitution by nomination, it would be a decided improvement if the Government would select members fairly representative of the different districts of Otago. At the present moment we are informed that all the members of the Board are from the seaboard, and there is no representative of Central Otago? —That would be desirable. No doubt one reason for most of the members of the Board coming from the seaboard is the accessibility to the place of meeting. • 5. Especially in the case of a weekly meeting of the Board, a man would be half his time going to and coming from the meeting; but we are informed that the meetings are to be fortnightly, and probably monthly, before long? —Yes. 6. The next point we have been asked to inquire into is as to the tenure of the land. Under the leasehold there is a variety of tenures. The one that is most prominent at present is the lease in perpetuity. The great question is, of course, whether it would advance the country most to have the land held mostly as freehold, or whether it should be held as leasehold. That is a most important point —perhaps the most important point upon which the Commission is asked to report —and we would like to have your views upon it? —I am strongly of opinion that the whole of the land of this country, as soon as it can be safely and judiciously done, should be held as freehold. 1 cannot conceive of any country getting the full benefit from its land under any form of tenure other than the freehold tenure, and I am not aware of any country in which the lands are owned by the State. Take France, for example, where the most intense small settlement obtains. lam not aware that the farming-lands in that country are held by the State; but, as far as I know, the tendency is to individualise. In fact, by the State owning the land we go back pretty much to the old Maori system, where the head of the tribe held the land, the tribe occupying under the chief. lam strongly in favour of the freehold.
236
D. REID
a—4
7 You know the terms of the lease in perpetuity—for 999 years, and the original price of the land is the capital value of the land for all time. Of course, the tenant pays a percentage of interest in the way of rent?— Yes. ■ 8 Supposing for a moment that your views were given effect to—those who now hold the lease in perpetuity would not be affected—but if an offer was made giving an opportunity to tenants to exchange their leaseholds for freeholds, do you think they should get the land at the capital value at which they started; or, seeing that the contract is to be broken, should there be a fresh valuation, and should they pay either the increased or decreased price at the time when they made the land freehold J -That question is a little knotty; but 1 think, as a general principle, they ought to get the laud at the price which was fixed when they took up their lease, ."they had been purchasers for cash—l presume the Government fixed the value of the land—and it the settlers had purchased for cash there would have been an end of it, But if they are tenants, why should you take advantage of their position, and why not allow the tenant to acquire the landnot compulsorily—but to acquire it gradually as he is able to pay it off. 1 think the highest aim of any State or people who wish to encourage the beneficial occupation of the land should be to say to every one of these men, " As soon as you are able to pay, no matter what the amount may be—£2o a year, or, say, £5 or £10 every half-year we will lower your rent to a corresponding extent " That would give a man an incentive. Taking these leaseholders: supposing they are making a little profit, what are they to do with their savings? Very few men think of putting their small savings into the bank. They spend it. If they had the option of putting it into their land they would be doing something for their families, and it would be no injury to the country in fact, it will be a benefit to them and to the country in assisting to reduce our obligations to the foreign money-lender in regard to the purchase of these estates; and the same thing applies to the Crown lands. Every inducement should be given to these men to settle here and become freeholders under the best conditions. It was the prospect of getting the freehold that brought our first and best settlers here, and that feeling is inherent in the bosom of most men. I notice from some of the evidence given before the Commission that some witnesses do not believe in it, but there are exceptions in the world always. 9. Supposing your views are given effect to, and people are allowed to get the freehold, what would be the tenure you would recommend in regard to land yet to be taken up?— Under a former law there was'a deferred-payment system—a system of gradual payment by instalments over ten years; and there was the perpetual-lease system, which was a leasing system with right of purchase after a definite term of residence and improvements, and if that period was passed over it became leased practically for ever with periodical revaluation. The first term of the perpetual lease was thirty years. That gave a man time, in the case of rough country, to bring the land into shape and get some advantage of his improvements. At the end of thirty years it was valued afresh, and he got the first offer; and if he refused to avail himself of it it was put up to auction, his improvements being carefully conserved to him. 10. We will presume that we are passing a new Land Act: what would you recommend; You say the object should be to get the people on the land and fix them there. We do not want to make the land a merely speculative matter?- In framing a new law, I do not know that you could much improve on a system similar to what was called the deferred-payment system. For instance, there need be no cash payment more than equal to the first half-year's rent. Thereafter the land might be held, the occupier paying a low interest on capital value. The reason I mention that is this: some of those who make our very best settlers, although they may have abundance of skill and energy, have very little capital to begin with, and they might get their land under a system of deferred payment or long lease-you may call it any name you like; the object would be the same—that is to say, they would take up the land with very little capital. You should fix the price on the land—what vou consi'der it is honestly and fairly worth, and if you get a good settler on it I would say let it go for nil, or for the cost of survey. But, having fixed the price, the occunier in all cases should be allowed and encouraged to pay it off gradually from year to year as his means permit; but there should be a condition of occupation and residence attached to all fertile land-land capable of growing grain and grazing dairy cattle. lam sorry to say that we have not a great extent of that sort of land now available. In regard to ordinary grazing or pastoral land, that would be quite different, and I would deal with that separately. 11. We might just touch on the great pastoral estate, which is really the main land we have got. I may state that in Canterbury, Southland, and Otago there are, in round numbers, 9 000,000 acres of the mountain country under pastoral lease and license at the present moment. It is an important question how to deal in the future with these runs. In Otago there is an area, in round numbers, of about 4,000,000 acres. We have just passed through a good deal of that country. Take, for instance, the Maniototo Plain. Pretty well all the low land has been taken up nearly to the base of the mountains, leaving the high land behind. It is a very important question how this is to be dealt with in the future. We would like to have your views on that point I— l think there is a great deal of our mountain country that cannot be very largely subdivided. The best men to make the subdivisions are not the surveyors—they may be good men to come in afterwards and prepare plans and show boundaries, but the men who ought to make these subdivisions should be experienced shepherds and sheep-owners. It is idle and futile to set off runs of that sort without winter country attached to them. There has been a good deal of mischief done, I think, in this connection. I refer to what I know of close at hand. Take the Rocklands Station, which the Chief Commissioner was over recently. The low land was taken off that and a few smaller runholders were put there. The other men were men of some substance, and they were left to fight the best way they could. To-day the run has no tenant, and there are about 100,000 acres in the run itself.' That run is about forty miles from Dunedin. The question is whether it is not desirable to reacquire some of this low grazing land in order to subdivide the country and work it with the high pastoral country, which is capital summer grazing, but
C—4
D. BEID.]
237
dangerous for the winter. The men who occupied Rocklands had to acquire other low lands in order to rear their young sheep during the winter, as the country left in the run was too high and cold. Even old sheep suffer greatly, and are subject to heavy losses. My opinion is that you can have no cast-iron rule. You must take each piece of country separately and consider its altitude and general features, and lay it oft' in such a way that there shall be some accessible winter country, and it should be divided up and down from the mountain-top to the land below. In doing that you cannot aiford to make the sections very small because of the cost of fencing, and where fences are on the snow-line the expense is very heavy. This is a big subject. I think it would be well to reacquire some of the low-lying grazing-lands in order to profitably dispose of the high country. 12. I suppose you think it is most essential that all the country should be occupied by some one so as to keep down the rabbit-pest —as a protection against the invasion of the lower and better country by the rabbits? —Yes; 1 tliink it should all be occupied 13. The next question is this: Whether the residential conditions are too exacting and require relaxing, and, if so, in what direction ?- I could not say anything on that point. I have had no experience of it for a number of years. 14. Then, there is this question: Whether lessees of the Crown are placed at a disadvantage in borrowing privately or from the Advances to Settlers Office?--! do not know that there is much hardship. Sometimes settlers have told me they would rather borrow from private sources. 15. Are you aware of any aggregation of estates going on in Otago? —No. There is more segregation than aggregation. It sometimes happens that a man has taken up a section of, say, 100 or 200 acres to begin with, and by industry he supports his wife and young family upon it; but by-and-by his family increases and grow up, and the section is too small for them. In such a case a neighbour may sell out, and this man may buy the section. That is aggregation in a sense, but I consider it is beneficial and in the interests of the country. When a man with a big family buys, the probabilities are that he divides it amongst the members of his family, and, as in the case of France, each member of the family will have a small piece if land, which will be segregation. I know scores of people who want to sell, and the best prospect for sale is when the Government wants to buy, and the Government sell to men who are going to occupy the land on lease, and this chiefly because they are not in a position to buy. 16. Then, there is the question: The maximum area which should be held under the several classes. Do you think there should be a limit to the amount of land sold to any person : do you think it would be in the interests of the general progress of the country if there was a law defining a maximum area or the value of land any one individual can hold?—I think the Government are quite justified in seeing that the country is as fully settled as it can reasonably be profitably occupied. I should say that in the case of fairish land, suitable for growing cereal crops and for grazing purposes, 200 acres would be a fair-sized farm for a man devoid of capital. I am not very sure, however, that there is any reason why, no matter what capital, energy, talent, or capacity a man may have, that he must be limited to a certain area of land. I would be dead against that. I think every man has a right to acquire, if his means permit it, and to purchase from private sources, as much land as he can profitably occupy. The Government has ample means of protecting itself by taxation in such cases. 1 say that the Government, in the case of the first sale, as long as the land belongs to the State, should provide that the land should be offered and sold in limited areas. 17. Then, there is the question: To inquire and report whether each area of land leased under the Land for Settlements Act shall have a separate occupier, and the area not to be increased or boundaries altered without the direct sanction of Parliament?- Evidently it cannot be done at present without the sanction of Parliament. I do not see why it might not be decreased. If a man had a good estate, and he has sons —active, intelligent, pushing young men—who wished to settle on the land, and the owner was getting feeble with advancing years, and was content to do with 10 or 20 acres, I do not see why he might not divide his land if he chose to do so. 18. Mr. McLennan.] You are in favour of more discretionary power being given to Land Boards, so as to decide certain cases coming before the Board on their merits and within the law I —Yes. 19. Would you be in favour of amending the law so as to provide for that?—l am not sure whether they are not able to do that now, but the practice has been to refer certain questions to the Minister more as a matter of policy or deference. But if the Board took that power on themselves it might cause the Minister to desire a change in the personnel of the Board. I would make it quite clear by law that the Board had no reference to make to the Minister, and that the Minister had no right to interfere. 20. If you found the law did not give the Board the power you would be in favour of amending the law so as to enable them to have the power ? —Certainly. 21. You remember when the Land for Settlements Act was before the House: were you in favour of that measure? —I was not then in politics. 22. As a private gentleman, were you in favour of it?- I am in favour of the land being occupied that is not now occupied. 23. I tliink when that measure was first proposed only a certain class were in favour of it : what was your opinion of it at the time? - When I heard it discussed I felt it would be a hardship if I were a farmer profitably occupying a farm of, say, 1,000 acres of good land, that the Government should take my land compulsorily, and partly at my expense, with the.view of giving it to eight or ten other farmers to do the same work as I was doing myself, and who might not be capable of doing it so well. With reference to compulsory taking of land, that is not an innovation, for in the Old Country County Councils have the power to take land compulsorily for closer settlement—for small village occupiers. That is how I thought of this question ten or twelve years ago, but I took no special interest in it; it did not really weigh with me then.
238
[d. beid.
C—4.
24. In your business capacity has it ever come under your notioe that Crown tenants under the lease in perpetuity are anxious to get the option of the freehold I—l1 —I have heard settlers say they would like to acquire the freehold. 25. Do you think there is a universal desire on the part of Crown tenants under the land for settlements to acquire the freehold? —That is a matter I have never discussed with them. I have only casually heard people say they would like to acquire the freehold. 26. As a business man, do you not think that desire should in the first place come from the tenants? —1 have no doubt it will come. 27. You are aware, I suppose, that most of the agitation has come from the Farmers' Union, money-lenders, and suchlike? I think you will agree with me that if it is for the benefit of the tenants the desire should come from themselves and not from outsiders ? —I have no doubt it will come in due course; but I do not think that at present they have accumulated sufficient funds to enable many of them to take advantage of it. If the option were immediately given Ido not know that many could find the funds to do so. As to the agitation coming from themselves, some of them do not like to do anything that might be construed as being opposed to the policy of the Minister for the time being. There are Inspectors coming round, and they take their cue from the Minister, and there are a lot of things that I dare say you understand better than I do. 28. Then, you consider they are slaves, or are not independent? —To some extent I think they are. 29. I differ from you there. As long as a man pays his rent and makes the necessary improvements he is just as independent as any other man? —Possibly he is. lam not saying that he is not. 30. Mr. McC'ardle.j Referring to the last question, have you noticed that the Premier has determined that tenants are not to Ijq, harassed by Rangers or Land Boards: is that not an indication that there is a certain amount of oppression thought by the Minister to be exercised by the Boards or Rangers ? —lt would appear to be so. 31. How long is it since you brought in your Land Act in Otago? —I think it was first brought in in 1871, but it did not pass then. It was passed in the following year —1872. 32. You had some experience while Minister of Lands of the bush country? In 1876 I waited on you with a petition regarding land-settlement, and I remember at that time you considered that if the settlers got the bush land for nothing it would be a good thing for the State? —In respect to some classes of bush, as well as open land, 1 think so still. 33. Do you not think there should be some special treatment given to those who take up bush land, compared with those who take up improved land ? Say a bush settler takes up a section valued at 10s. and spends £4 on it before he has grassed it, and his interests then become much greater than that of the State, do you not think he is entitled to exceptional treatment in the way of being granted a freehold —you have expressed your opinion in favour of small holdings? —I am in favour of all occupiers getting the freehold within a reasonable time. I think we should make sure of getting permanent settlers on the land, and, having done that, I think the settlers should be allowed to pay off the value of the land as soon as they can, and then let that money go towards paying the public creditor. 34. In the case of bush settlers who have got no road, do you think an exemption as to residence would be a fair thing, so long as they comply with their improvement conditions ? —Yes. 35. With reference to the advances to settlers, do you know whether settlers holding lease-in-perpetuity land generally have their wishes or requirements met by the Department? —I do not know. 36. Do you think the Government could safely increase the advances to settlers under this Department up to three-fifths of the value of their interest in the holding? —I think so. 37. You understand that the value of a man's interest sometimes differs very much from the improvements valued by the Ranger, and that sometimes the settler spends a large amount of money for which he gets no allowance: do you think the selling-price would be the proper value to assess it? —That is, the Ranger's price? 38. No; he does not value nearly up to the cost of the improvements?— Ido not think it is desirable that he should get too much accommodation. 39. In the matter of the freehold, is the State being deprived of anything when freeholds are granted to an individual? —No; I think it is being enriched. 40. A so-called freehold is only a conditional freehold —it is always liable to taxation? — Whenever the Government choose to impose it the unfortunate man who holds the land is liable to have his taxation increased. 41. In regard to the unearned increment, how can you differentiate between the country settler and the man in the town ?—I would not differentiate, but it would appear as if the country settler is supposed to exist in an inferior condition, to be the hewer of wood and the drawer of water to provide luxuries for the owners and occupiers in the town. 42. Mr. McCutchan.] You advocate the deferred-payment system, and you would put that system on the statute-book, in addition to the present tenures ?—lf the present tenure were altered in the way I suggest it would enable a man to pay off the money as he is able. That is practically a deferred payment The deferred-payment system I speak of would be different from that under our original Act as applying to Otago, for the simple reason that that Act provided that every half-year there should be a fixed payment made, and it might happen that an unfortunate tenant or purchaser might have a bad season, or troubles might overtake him, and he could not make his payments. Under the system I suggest it would not be a compulsory payment. He could make the payment if he had the money available, but failing that lie would have to pay interest on the unpaid balance of the capital value of the section when he purchased it. So that practically it would be a system of long lease, with the right of completing the purchase by paying off money as the settler had the funds. 43. Under the old deferred-payment system, when it first came into force the Government fixed the capital value at 50 per cent., and some years later by 25 per cent. Do you not think
C.—4
239
D. REID
that was excessive? —Yes. Under our Otago system the price of defer red -payment land was fixed at £1 ss. The extra ss. payment was supposed to represent interest on the capital. The purchaser paid no rent, but he paid ss. for the accommodation for the ten years. He paid 2s. 6d. per annum for ten years. This acquired the freehold. The cash price of land at that time was £1 per acre. 44. I suppose that was a fair actuarial calculation?—! suppose so. 45. With reference to the Land Boards of Otago and Southland, we have found that the settlers are in favour of the system of nomination by the Government. In other parts of the colony the settlers are fairly well satisfied at present, but some of them express a fear that the balance of political power will not always be so equitable as it is now —that is, in view of the thorough organization of the centres. Do you think it would be wise or unwise, in view of that, to make a portion of the members of the Land Boards elective? Say, if two out of the four members were elected? —Possibly that might be advantageous, but I do not think there is any danger at present. 46. With regard to the runs, you advocate acquiring low country and selling all the high country. We noticed that very much of the low country adjoining the high country is already in possession of small holders, and in such cases would it not be reasonable to subdivide a fair proportion of the high country and offer it without competition to those persons holding the low country? —Yes, that would be right enough at a fixed price. When I spoke of reacquiring low country I did not mean where homes were established and farming going on- I meant semipastoral country. There is some of that class in the market now, and I think it would be advisable to acquire it. When I spoke of reacquiring land I did nT>t mean land used for cereal cultivation, but grazing land, to be worked-as winter country in connection with the summer country on the high runs which have no winter country. 47. With reference to borrowing, you said that you thought no hardship was entailed on Crown tenants in cases where the Advances to Settlers Department reduced the advance asked for : do you make that statement because the tenant could get the money as cheaply elsewhere? —Sometimes he can. A person may feel it a hardship, but Ido not look upon it as any great hardship. I know where some of them have failed to tret it from the Department they have got it from private sources at about the same rate. 48. You think that segregation rather than aggregation of large estates is going on? —Yes. 49. You mentioned the case of France. I notice that it is said that the excessive subdivision of land in France is becoming a national evil? —T do not believe in the Government interfering with private enterprise in regard to the size of a man's estate, if they are simply going to take his land from him and give it to other people; but if a man chooses to subdivide his estate, I do not see why he should not be allowed to do so. When a man has spent many years of his life in developing his land I do not see why the Government should step in and take from him the fruit of his labour and enterprise, unless the land is required in the public interest. In the cities there are large iron-foundries and printing establishments in which fortunes are made, and you do not hear of the State compulsorily taking over those establishments; and when a man has given his intelligence and skill and the best years of his life to the cultivation of the land it is not fair nor consistent with sound policy to take the lan'l from him, even if he has accumulated money with it. But my experience is that landowners do not, as a rule, accumulate anything, but are sometimes very glad to sell the land, often at far less than it has cost them. 50. Mr. Paul.] You have had a large experience of Land Boards. It has been represented to us by several witnesses that these Boards could be dispensed with, and the administration vested in the Commissioner and Rangers. Do you think that possible? —I think it might be possible, but I do not think it desirable. 51. You wish the patronage of the Minister removed from the administration? —Yes. 52. By removing the patronage, is it not simply a case of transferring it to the members of the Land Boards? —Yes; but the members of the Land Boards are not supposed to be particular partisans of any side in politics, and I would assume that they are men who are appointed because of their fitness for the position in character and otherwise, and of their aloofness from excessive partisanship, their knowledge of land-settlement, and their sympathies with it. In the case of the Minister, there may be partisans who send him information that if so-and-so is not done so many votes will be lost at the next election. Then human nature comes in, and the Minister may be told " So-and-so worked against you last election," or it may be that the man who wants this thing done is an out-and-out supporter. I suppose, however, you never heard of such things. 53. Then, you think the administration of these lands is a huge political machine?—No, I never said anything of the kind. I said I objected to special cases being referred to the Minister. 54. Has it been your experience that this political influence has been used? —I say I have known a deputation go to Wellington to try and influence the Minister with respect to a decision the Land Board was prepared to give. 55. Seeing that the best lands are in the hands of private people, how would you settle a poor man on the land? Would you leave ft entirely to private enterprise, or deprive the State of the power of acquiring land for settlement purposes ?—"-Private enterprise does a lot, but I never said anvthing against Ihe Government acquiring land. Ido not think it is desirable on the part of the Government to compulsorily take land from one farmer, who is working the land properly and making the most of it, in order to start a number of other farmers who may not be able to work it to the same advantage. The Daily Times, in DuneHin, has a very big circulation, and its size and strength precludes any one else starting a second paper; suppose you say to the Government, "Take Ihat paper and make it into a number of other papers," do you think there would any equity in that? 56. How else can it be done except by acquiring some one else's land? —I see no necessity for its being done if the land is being used to its best advantage.
C.—4.
240
[d. eeid.
57. It is a question of population —you must have a larger rural population? —You would not make the land larger by taking the land from one man and giving it to another. 58. In your experience, are these large estates fully developed? Take Flaxbourne, for instance, is that producing to its fullest capacity? —I do not know anything about that estate, but I should think it had not been fully developed. 59. You approve in that instance of the Government acquiring an estate? —Yes; that is a different thing altogether. 1 have been referring to farmers who were farming their land, say, of 1,000 acres, and using it to the best advantage. I say it would be a hardship to take that man's land and divide it between six or eight others. But, in the case of a large estate like Flaxbourne, if a fair value is given I think it would be right enough —I never heard any one say anything against it. 60. You make a comparison between land and business. Do you regard land as a chattel? — Yes, I look on the land a man has taken up and is using to support his family and carry on his business as his stock-in-trade, and you might as well put Reid and Gray, the manufacturers, out of their foundry as put a man off his land. Reid and Gray out of their foundry would be unable to carry on their business, and the farmer out of his land could not carry on his business; the land is his means of production. 61. Under the present system tenants under the lease in perpetuity pay 1 per cent, more for the option to purchase. Would you be in favour of paying up that 1 per cent, from the time of leasing to the time of purchase?—l think it would be rather an advantage to get them to purchase. Seeing that, if they purchased a number of the Inspectors and Rangers could be dispensed with, it would perhaps be as well to do away with the 1 per cent. 62. Do all freeholders look after their land? —In the great majority of cases they do.. 63. I am very sorry to say we have seen both freehold and leasehold land badly neglected? — That may be; we have got, to compete against the cheapest labour in the world, and high wages have to be paid, and a man cannot be expected to keep everything in tip-top order. 64. If higher wages generally were paid would not workers be able to give more for the produce? —It would help, but we have to compete with our surplus produce in the cheapest markets. 65. Would you favour giving the tenants of educational endowments the right to the freehold? —Yes, if they paid a fair price for it. It would be the best thing for all parties. The Education Boards would not have a place like Burwood thrown on their hands. 66. And in the case of Corporation leases, say, in the City of Dunedin ? —The Corporation manage those themselves. 67. Have you the same opinion with regard to them, as to the wisdom of parting with the freehold ? —Certainly, they might sell them with great advantage. If they sold them at the presentday prices they might chuckle over it ten years hence. 68. Might not the boot be on the other foot? —It might be, but it is as likely it would not. 69. Do you suppose that Crown tenants would borrow to buy the freehold? —Yes, they might borrow from private lenders. 70. Would that be a wise step? —Not unless they were required to pay up. 71. Do you approve of the Advances to Settlers Office as at present administered? —I think that the advances-to-settlers system has been very beneficial to borrowers, as it has steadied the rate of interest. 72. Do you not think that if the option were given in regard to these estates purchased under the land-for-settlements policy, one neighbour would buy another out, and so forth? —I do not know that that would be any drawback. It would be turning the land to good account. I do not know that we should restrain a man from doing his best with his energies, capital, and intellect. 73. If a man has the capacity to manage the whole block you would not hinder him acquiring the surrounding land? —Not if he thinks that by so doing he can do better, and that those who sell think thev can do better by getting their money and putting it into some other enterprise. ■74. Would you favour the Government buying the land back again if they wanted to? —Yes; but I do not think they would want to. 75. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not think it would be better if the Land Boards adhered more strictly to the conditions of the law, instead of varying the conditions as frequently as they do? — I think the Land Boards should be bound to administer according to the Act. Anything outside of that should be by reference to Parliament. 76. Do you think that the accumulation of large estates can be got over by the application of a graduated land-tax? —Yes; I think it has pretty well been got over already. Most of the people I know wish to dispose of their estates, but the difficulty is to get purchasers. 77. You said that if the tenants were able to get the freehold of the land the Government would be able to pay off the money-lender : do you think if the money came in it would be used for that purpose? —If Parliament did its duty, and if the Auditor-General did his duty, they would see that that money was used for no other purpose. 78. There have been sinking funds previously: have they been rightly applied?—No; thev have all, as a general rule, been "collared." 79. Do you not think there is a danger of the freehold money following the same path?— Perhaps. 80. Mr. Anstey.J Did I understand you to say there is no aggregation of large estates going on? —I did not say that altogether. 81. We have had several instances : the owners of Blackstone Hill already own several other runs? —Those are leasehold runs. I was not referring to them; but Ido not know that there is much of that going on either. 82. Robert Campbell and Sons have a number of large estates? —I was referring to freeholds. I understand Campbell and Sons are selling out of some of their runs, or refusing to renew their leases.
241
C—4.
D . BEID.]
83. Well, is there no aggregation going on of runs? —I am not aware of it myself. 84. Supposing that low country was purchased and thrown into these runs, would it not be possible to subdivide them? —Yes. 85. Would it not be more desirable to purchase that land than to add it on to a large run? — It was for the purpose of subdividing the large run and making it more accessible that I suggested it. Take Rocklands, for instance: there is no winter country on that estate now, but there is winter country adjoining, and it would be to the advantage of the estate and to the interest of the State to acquire it. 86. In subdividing runs you think that each subdivision should contain a proportion of high and low country? —Yes, and all the high country should be attached to one or other of the watersheds. The subdivision should run up and down to the low country according to the trend of the gullies and ridges. 87. You spoke of the minute subdivision of land, as in France: would that be desirable in New Zealand? —I do not think it would; but when you get a thick population of peasantry on the land subdivision amongst families goes on, because that is all the parents have to give to the children. 88. Is that desirable? —No; certainly not. 89. Is it not a fact that the leasehold system is much more attractive to the ordinary occupier than the other ? —I should say it is more attractive to the man who has nothing to buy with. 90. Is it not a fact generally that your potential settler is a man with little or no means? — Very often it is so. 91. The tenure the Government offers is better than he can get from a private owner? —Yes. 92. Mr. Johnston.] Is your property at the Taieri all level land? —No; 400 acres is tolerably level. The most low-lying is about 40 ft. above sea-level and the highest 1,800 ft. 93. Is it generally good land? —No; I have improved it and made it what it is to-day at great expense. I have spent more money on it than I could get for it to-day. 94. What is the value of the land? —Some of it would be cheap enough at £30 per acre, and some of it would be dear enough at 15s. p'er acre. 95. How much of it is worth £30 per acre? —200 or 300 acres probably. 96. And the balance is worth 15s. per acre? —No; some of it will be worth £15 and some other parts worth £7. 97. How much will be worth £15? —I have not studied that out. I never get any commensurate return from it. 98. Is it not rather bad business to keep it, then? —What else can I do? 99. Can you not sell out? —No. 100. Have you tried? —No; but I have tried to sell other similar properties. 101. Have you tried to cut it up? —I cannot afford to cut it up and allow people to come in on the terms the Government do. 102. It is quite evident that you believe in large estates? —I do not know that that is quite evident. 103. What is the extent of Rocklands? —100,000 acres. 104. What is its height? —Some of it is 4,000 ft., I believe. 105. Will land at 3,000 ft. carry sheep in the summer-time ?—Yes. 106. And in the winter? —Yes; but it is dangerous for sheep in winter. 107. Is there good winter feed at 2,000 ft.? —Yes. It is a dangerous run in winter. There have been great losses. 108. Is 2,000 ft. on the Maniototo dangerous? —I cannot tell you; but I know they have had great losses up there. 109. How many sheep do you shear? —I have got fourteen hundred running just now. 110. Did you shear that number?—-No; 'I was rather lightly stocked with sheep last season, but I expect to shear fifteen hundred next season. I may say I have a number of cattle on the rugged country, tramping the fern down and bringing it into grass. 111. Do you know anything about grassing high land? —Yes. 112. Would you tell us what you have done, and whether it was successful? —At I,Booft. I sowed cocksfoot and put chain-harrows over it, and there is a fine crop of cocksfoot 2 ft. 6 in. high there. I have not put much stock on it, as I wish it to go to seed. 113. Did you burn the tussock off? —Yes, before sowing. The best time I find for sowing is about Christmas; but, of course, I sow at any time I get an opportunity. In some cases the most effective method I find is by feeding the cattle on the waste from seed-cleaning machines. I buy it from the seed merchants, and have used as much as 200 tons in a winter to the cattle in the fern and rough gullies. 114. Do you mean weeds, and so forth? —Yes; everything in the blowings. 115. How do you give it to them? —In wide boxes. 116. You feed that to the cattle? —Yes, and sow cocksfoot ahead of them. They feed round the boxes in the winter-time, and they trample the cocksfoot-seed down, and at the same time distribute this seed over the land. 117. You do not advise anything but cocksfoot?— Yes; I use Chewing's fescue and crested dogstail also. 118. They stand on hilly country?— Yes; they hold better than the cocksfoot. 119. Is it rough country ?—Yes; so rough that I could not plough it. 120. Is it under snow in winter-time?— No. My land is not far from the coast; but I have seen the top of it for a fortnight with a couple of feet of snow. 121. Is there no danger of spreading weeds through feeding with this refuse?—No; I have not found it so. The land is very rough. 122. Have you any ragwort?— Well, that is coming. I saw a big plant of it the other day.
31—C. 4.
Id. reid.
0.-4.
242
-123. You do not think there is danger in using the refuse from seed-cleaning machines?— No; but I always examine it to see if there is any ergot or objectionable seeds in it. 124. Do you believe in runs being cut up ?—lt all depends on the configuration of the country. I think a run of 15,000 to 20,000 acres is big enough, even if it is very rough country. 125. Instead of cutting up according to area, you would favour a run being cut up according to its carrying-capacity of sheep? —Yes. 126. How many sheep would you advise allowing a farmer in order that he might make a fair living? —That depends on the kind of country. The configuration would have to be considered. There is no doubt that in some of the back country large areas must be given. I think in ordinary cases, if the land is suitable, a man should have at least enough to carry two thousand sheep. I do not think that with less than two thousand sheep it would be worth his devoting his time to the business. 127. You think a man with two thousand sheep can make a living? —Yes. Of course, the land ought to carry that number in good condition all the year round. 128. You seem to think there is considerable corruption in connection with the land-adminis-tration? —I did not use that word. I said that, in my opinion, undue influence had been used. 129. Has this crept in of late years only? —No; I do not notice it so much of late. 130. Has it always been the case in connection with the administration of land? —I have abstained for some time from having any dealings in land matters, and have preferred to refer my clients to other firms. 131. Do you believe that tenants on church and educational endowments should be given the right of purchase? —Yes. If that were done the University Council would not be in the difficulty they were in connection with Burwood. 132. Why are they in a difficulty in regard to Burwood? —I suppose because the people think it is not worth the rent asked. 133. If the freehold was included in the lease do you think they would get the rent they ask then? —I do not know. 134. Do you not know that a good portion of the flat at Burwood is freehold? —I have seen from the plan that a lump of freehold goes into it. 135. The University has got a property at the northern side of the Takitimos, and it is said that the fact of its being fronted by a freehold depreciates its value as an educational reserve? — I know there is a freehold there. 136. Still, you say they should give the freehold of the land? —Yes, if they get a suitable sale. 137. Is the value of land at Taieri and Clutha increasing or decreasing? —Sometimes it increases and sometimes it decreases. It is as high just now as I have known it for some time. 138. What is first-class land on the Taieri worth? —Near Mosgiel first-class land is worth £30 to £35 per acre, improved with buildings, outhouses, &c. 139. Is it any dearer now than it was twenty years ago? —Yes ; it is as dear now as it has been. 140. Is there any material difference, or has it kept much about the same? —It has kept pretty steady during the last few years —since the dairying industry started. Inferior land has not risen in proportion to first-class land. 141. Do you approve of the runholders getting the freehold? —Yes, if the mineral and riparian rights could be conserved. 142. You have experience of the Old Country? —I was young when I left. 143. Do you think it good that there should be the accumulation of large estates there? —I suppose they got them as gifts for using their swords originally. But I suppose they sever the estates there too. They have tried many methods. 144. You come from a country less grieved with land laws than Ireland was? —In Ireland they had the leasehold system thoroughly. 145. You represent the Farmers' Union? —Yes—the Taieri Branch. 146. Are you chairman or president?—No; I am an agent. 147. I thought the Farmers' Union did not believe in middlemen at all?— That is probably the-reason why I am not the chairman. 148. You are here on their behalf? —Yes. They asked me to come. 149. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it statesmanlike to give the option of the freehold? —I do. 150. Do you think a statesman would wait until the tenants clamour for it?—l think the option of the freehold should be given without being asked for. 151. Mr. Hall.] Do you consider that this leasing of lands by the Government under the present tenure has promoted settlement in the country? —Yes. 152. As regards Crown-land settlement, do you think the freehold should be given there?— Yes. I think occupiers should have the right to acquire the freehold after they have shown that, they are bona -fide settlers. 153. When substantial improvements have been made up to a certain value, do you think that restrictions, such as Rangers and inspection, should be removed?—l do not know that you can ever do away with that as long as it belongs to the State. Ido not know that that would do. 154. As regards the lands taken under the Land for Settlements Act, do you think the freehold should be given there? —I do. 155. Would you make that apply to the existing holdings, or only to those granted in the future? —I would make it apply generally. 156. Would it be fair to the country ?—Yes; I think it would be beneficial to the State. 157 Would not the effect of it be that the good holdings would be bought and the bad holdings thrown back on the Government ?-Yes; but they would all be valued before the tenants came in and you would get what you valued them at. 158. But the tenants get them at cost price, and the good ones being bought and the poor ones thrown back, a loss to the country would ensue?— But the good sections would doubtless be valued
C.—4.
D. KEID.I
243
higher when fixing the capital value, and the tenants would pay interest on the purchase price, and, I think, would become buyers. 159. You do not think there would be aggregation of estates if freedom was given? —No. 160. Is it fair to compare freedom in the purchase of estates to freedom in manufacturing! —Yes. 161. There is a limit to the land of the country, but there is no limit to a man's enterprise?— There is a limit to the output he can get a market for. There is a limit to the area of land, but the productiveness of land has never yet been fully discovered. 162. No one is prevented from going in for an industry? —Oh, yes. The Union Steamship Company has a monopoly, and a firmly established daily paper has a monopoly, and private enterprise cannot compete there. 163. As time goes on commerce increases, and there are opportunities for coming in? —That is so, but we may not be able to wait for that. 164. You suggested that power might be given to municipalities to sell endowments rather than hold them? —Yes. 165. Would you limit them to the holding of endowments that were not revenue-producing, or would you allow them all to be sold? —I would allow all to be sold. I think the land would be better in the hands of private owners than in the hands of tenants. These endowments are given for specific purposes, and in many cases comparatively little is got out of them; but if they were in the hands of private individuals the purchase-money would always be invested and the interest available for the purposes of the trust. The Government could give interminable debentures which would bear interest for ever. 166. The revenue from the endowments would then remain stationary, and be of a fixed value for all time? —It is doubtful whether there is any increase as it is, and sometimes there is no revenue for want of tenants. 167. The tendency in the colony is for properties to increase in value? —Not always. If improved they would probably increase in value. 168. Mr. McLennan.] Supposing I leased a farm from you, and one of the conditions was that I was to put so-much improvements within six years —say, equal to £1 per acre —I put on the improvements, and I come to you and demand the freehold on the capital value of the land, what would you say to me? During my occupancy the land has increased in value £2 or £3 an acre: would you be willing to give me the Crown grant on my paying the capital value? —If I had the same right as the Government has to tax you afterwards to obtain any moneys I required to maintain me in comfort all the days of my life, I would have no objection. George Livingstone examined. 169. The Chairman.] You are a member of the Land Board of Otago? —Yes, and a farmer. I hold 602 acres under lease in perpetuity, and about 30 acres of township and suburban freehold. The lease in perpetuity is part of the Elderslie Estate, and the freehold is part of the Windsor Park Estate, adjoining Ngapara. I have held the lease in perpetuity for about six years, and .have farmed for about twenty-nine years in the South Canterbury and Otago districts. I farmed both freehold and leasehold prior to taking up the lease in perpetuity. lam thoroughly satisfied with the latter form of tenure. Speaking for the district around where I am, including the Ardgowan and other estates which have been thrown open for settlement, comprising 300 settlers, I think lam safe in saying not 5 per cent, seek any change. All are quite satisfied with the present system of tenure. 170. Have you anything to bring before the Commission in your capacity as a member of the Land Board? —I would just like to say, in regard to some evidence that has been already given, that I got my appointment without any solicitation whatever. I merely got a wire telling me I was appointed, and I accepted it. 171. A good deal has been said about powers of discretion being given to the Land Boards? — I think in some cases it would be desirable that there should be a little more discretion. It would facilitate the settling of matters sometimes. A good deal of delay is caused by trifling matters having to be referred to Wellington. 172. This settlement, however, would require to be final? —Yes. 173. Mr. McLennan.'] I suppose you are well acquainted with your district? —Very few better. 174. Have you visited the various settlements lately? —Yes. I know every place on the estates within forty miles. 175. We had evidence in several places that the tenants of Crown lands are not farming their land as well as the freeholders, and that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they have not got their improvements: I would like to know what you have to say on that question ? —Well, land may not have its full improvements effected, but it is farcical to say that because of that the land is not being farmed properly. In the settlements, however, that I refer to the farms of the leaseholders compare more favourably than those of the freeholders. The buildings and fences are better, and some of the land is better farmed. 176. Do you know anything of a Crown tenant at Tokorahi having to abandon his holding and go somewhere else? —I do not think there is a word of truth in it. I never heard of it. 177. Do you know of any difficulty having been put in the way of the transfer of Crown tenants' property, supposing they wanted to go away and they could" get a fair thing for their improvements and goodwill in your district? —Sometimes there lias been a little difficulty in giving a transfer. I think the Board has been rather particular in inquiring into a man's affairs from a financial point of view. For instance, the Board has sometimes thought that the purchaser was giving too much. Now, my opinion is that, so long as the Board approves and the State gets a good tenant, it does not matter very much what a man gives for the goodwill. A tenant should be allowed to sell to the best advantage. That has also been suggested at the Land Boards Con-
C—4.
244
[G. LIVINGSTONE.
ference in Wellington —that so long as the Government get a suitable tenant the man selling, out should be allowed to sell out to the best advantage. 178. Has any tenant on these estates, to your knowledge, sold out his goodwill to advantage? —I know some who have sold out to advantage. But you must bear in mind that when the rent is put on these farms it is not always equally divided. Sometimes a rent is put on a section, and it is ridiculously low, simply through the valuer not being a capable man. In that case a man might get a "snip." For instance, two farms of 600 or 700 acres might be rented at ss. and 7s. 6d. respectively owing to bad valuing, although the land is the same, and the man buying out the goodwill of the section with the low rental would take into consideration the fact that the rent is moderate and give more for it. 179. You know a great many allotments range from 2s. 6d. to 17s. per acre rent? —Yes. 180. Do you think it is right they should all be on an equal footing in regard to cropping? — Not at all. 181. You know that one man paying 2s. per acre is allowed to take two white crops and one green crop, and the man paying from ss. to 15s. per acre is only allowed to do the same: do you think the Land Board should have a discretionary power to very these regulations? —So far as our Land Board is concerned, it has always taken that into consideration. I admit that there should be some restrictions, but as a whole I think the cropping conditions are very fair —in fact, they are as fair as any private landlord would give to a tenant. Ido not think it would be wise to allow any tenant to crop the ground as he liked. I think two white crops in succession are sufficient. You cannot grow grass if you crop the ground out. I think it should be left to the discretion of the Land Board to decide whether a tenant should be allowed to take three white crops. 182. Would you leave it to the Board to decide each case on its merits? —Yes. 183. Do you remember when the Land for Settlements Act was first before the House? —Yes. 184. Were you in favour of that Bill being carried? —Yes. I reckon that the present landtenure has done the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people. 185. Do you know if there were any publications, such as newspapers, which were very much against that Bill becoming law? —There are always two parties —one for and the other against. 186. And at the present time is it not the very parties who were against the Bill being carried who strongly advocate the freehold I—l1 —I know for a fact it is not the Crown tenants who are advocating the freehold at all. In North Otago it is not the Crown tenants, but a great many of those who are very much indirectly interested who are advocating the freehold. 187. Do you think the demand should arise from the Crown tenants themselves, instead of from the newspapers and from Farmers' Unions, and money-lenders, and all such? —I will be candid with you. A great many settlers in our district look upon the Commission as a farce. They do not know what it is for. They have never complained. I was told that on Sunday, and as I was a member of the Board they tried to get at me about it. They are quite satisfied as they are for the present, at any rate. 188. Do you think the only thing they want at the present time is to be left as they are? — Yes. Ido not believe 5 per cent, of them are in a position to pay down 25 per cent, of the cash if you gave them the option of purchase to-morrow. 189. Mr. McCardle.~\ Although you have not been a member of the Land Board long you have had a good deal of experience of the Land Board? —I have been acquainted with the Board for the last twenty-seven years. 190. You have already stated that there was some objection to a settler transferring and getting a considerable profit for his holding I—lt1 —It has been questioned at the Board. The Board thought he was getting rather much for the goodwill, and questioned the ability of the incoming tenant to carry on. 191. In your opinion, as a member of the Land Board, is not that the best evidence possible that settlement is a success ? —Certainly. 192. If it were the other way, and a man was selling out for less than his holding had cost him, would it not go largely to prove that the settlement was a failure? —Most decidedly. 193. By these two extremes you then can estimate the success or otherwise of a settlement? — Yes. 194. And, as you or Mr. Reid wisely put it, it does not matter so much to the State whether A sells out and B succeeds him so long as B is a good man I—So1 —So long as the State gets a good tenant the State loses nothing. 195. And the tenant who leaves with increased capital is better fitted to battle with the difficulties standing in his way as a settler ? —That is so. 196. I suppose you are aware that when the Land Board decides any particular matter there is no appeal from its decision? —So far as I am aware, there has not been. 197. Do you not think that should be amended: that if a settler has a grievance and thinks that his case has not been settled in equity he should have the right of appeal from the decision of the Land Board? —I have never heard any grumbling so far as this Board is concerned. It has always decided cases fairly. 198. But when you know that the Board can exercise an arbitrary power such as I have stated, do you not think there should be some safety-valve in the way of an appeal? —Yes; I certainly think it would be but fair. 199. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Board?— No. I have heard a good deal of grumbling, but I have never had anything to do with it myself. 200. It is proposed now to amend the Act in this way: that instead of limiting the Advances to Settlers Board to lending up to one-half of the Ranger's value of the improvements on a holding, the limit should be increased up to three-fifths—that is to say, if a man has improvements to the extent of £5 per acre on his holding he should be entitled to borrow £3 for permanent improve-
245
C.-4
G. LIVINGSTONE.]
ments: in your opinion, would that meet the requirements of the settler without causing the State to run any risk?— Yes; but I think 1 will not place the responsibility altogether on the Ranger. I think one or more members of the Board should assist the Ranger in putting a value on the improvements. 201. Are you aware that at the present time, if an application is made for a loan, the Board first of all takes the report of the Ranger, and then the District Valuer puts his value on the improvements, but that always the Board takes the District Ranger's opinion about the improvements as they stand on the section ? —I quite understand that. lam not finding fault with the Ranger's value, but I think it would take a good deal of the responsibility off his shoulders. 202. Mr. McCutchan.\ In speaking of goodwill, where a Crown tenant sells out you expressed the opinion that if the incoming tenant is suitable the Board should approve of the transfer, and that the question of goodwill should be left between the vendor and the purchaser? —Yes. 203. Then, you are of opinion that any increase in the value of the land belongs entirely to the tenant? —Yes. I believe there is no such thing as unearned increment. If I have improved the property, all increase arising therefrom is my doing. I have seen land much dearer in North Otago than it is to-day. The value of land fluctuates —it may increase in value or it may not in the next thirty years; and if a man improves his holding and takes a pride in doing so —of course 1 look on the 999-years lease as a freehold practically —I think that man is entitled to all the enhanced value in that property if he wants to sell out. 204. It has been proposed in certain quarters that leases for 999 years issued in the future should be subjected to a revaluation clause: would you be in favour of that? —No; I am against it. 205. Do you think it would be prejudicial to the settler? —I do. 206. In dealing with the lands" for-settlement leases you said the tenants were not advocating the freehold, and you stated that if they got the right of purchase not 5 per cent, of them would have 25 per cent, of the purchase-money available? —I know perfectly well they could not do it unless some one came to their rescue. 207. If it were permissible for them to pay off a certain sum from time to time and get a proportionate reduction in their rent until the capital value was paid off, would you be in favour of the freehold under such conditions? —I am not in favour of paying off the whole of the capital value. I would not be opposed to the tenants reducing their capital indebtedness to one-half or two-thirds, but lam not in favour of getting a Crown grant. I think the State should still retain a royalty in the land. 208. Does your opinion on that point apply to land under the Land for Settlements Act or to all lands under the Crown? —In both cases. 209. You do not approve of the right of purchase?—l do not approve of the right to purchase right out. 210. You think, then, that the right-of-purchase clause should be eliminated from the Act of 1892? —I think so. 211. Do you think that the tenants under the Land for Settlements Act and the tenants under the Act of 1892 should be placed on the same footing —that is, that the State should simply charge them interest upon the cost of the land to the State? —I have not studied that question. 212. You have had no experience of that? —No. 213. You stated that you have had no experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?— None, except that I have heard people complaining about delay in advancing and the small amount advanced. 214. As a member of the Land Board, have not applications to come before you for the sanction of the Board ? —Yes. There have been one or two cases since I have been a member. 215. And has the sanction of the Board been given in those cases? —Yes. 216. Mr. Paul.] You are a leaseholder under the Land for Settlements Act?— Yes; I hold a square mile. 217. Do you feel that you are anything in the nature of a slave? —No. I am as independent as ever I was. 218. Have there been many cases of settlers selling out and obtaining money for their goodwill? —A few places have changed hands. 219. How long after taking up the land? —One case that came before the Board last week in which the doctor recommended the settler to remove on account of illness. In that case the transfer was granted, although the tenant had not been the specified time in possession. In the other cases the tenants had been the specified time in possession before asking for a transfer. 220. In any case that has come under your notice has the outgoing tenant received in goodwill a larger sum that he spent on improvements? —In all cases they have received a certain sum for goodwill over and above the value of their improvements. 221. Then, they are really getting something for nothing ?—They are not getting it for nothing. They have had to improve the land. 222. But they got something for the goodwill?— You must bear in mind that land has been enhanced in value in this district because creameries have been put up, and facilities are available that were not here ten or twelve years ago. 223. Does that not look a little like unearned increment? —It may be or it may not. Ido not think so. If it is the settler is entitled to it. 224. Then, you instanced the case of a tenant who got his land at a moderate rental, and you said the incoming tenant had been prepared to pay more in the shape of goodwill in that case? — Yes. 225. Do you not think that some of that should have gone to the State? —No. That man ran the risk when he took the section up of prices going down. 226. Land increases and decreases in value, according to your experience?— Yes. 227. Do you not think that if the land decreases in value the tenant should have his rent reduced?—No; lam not in favour of revaluation. I think if a man enters into a contract with
246
[G. LIVINGSTON*).
C—4.
a private landlord he has to stick to it, and he should do the same with the State. There may be exceptional cases. 228. What would you do in exceptional cases? —The same as the Commissioner of Crown Lands does now. In the event of any disastrous accident, such as snow-storms overtaking the tenants, it is within the discretion of the Commissioner to allow a rebate in the rent. 229. And what would you do in the exceptional cases the other way, and in cases where a tenant has got his land too cheap I—Then,1 —Then, he is lucky in getting it. 230. The State should lose that? —The State does not lose anything, but perhaps his neighbour loses it. 231. Mr. Forbes.] Is a tenant who wishes to cut out the goodwill of a section examined as to the amount of money he possesses ? —I have not seen any examined as yet, but I would not examine a man according to the amount of money he has got, because a man with experience is better in many cases than a man with no experience but some money. The best settlers have been men with experience and very little money. 232. Would you say that before the original tenants go on these lands the Government places rents on the sections which will enable the settlers to make a fairly reasonable living ? Yes. 233. If the tenants then sell out and other tenants come in and buy the goodwill, and have to mortgage themselves to a very large extent to do so, thereby doubling their rents, do you not see any danger in tifle future that a large number of the tenants under the Land for Settlements Act may become hopelessly involved financially ?—I see no danger of the State losing anything. There are any number of mortgages on the sections now, but I think a man knows enough to judge whether any bargain he makes will pay him. 234. You do not think there is any call to keep the tenantry of the Crown in a prosperous condition and free from mortgages and heavy interests and rack rents? —I do not see it. If I want to buy out my neighbour it may be supposed that I will make the best bargain I can. If I think his place is worth £1,000 I give it, though another man may not think it is worth £500, and I think the owner of the place is entitled to sell so long as I am willing to give him £1,000 for it. 235. Is it not possible that the tenants instead of paying a reasonable rent for these sections may have to pay that rental, and a large amount of interest on mortgages as well, and so make them struggling settlers?—lt is possible that they may come to be struggling settlers, but I think that is only looking for trouble. 236. Do you know of any instance of that?--No. I have known instances where I thought men were giving a ridiculously high price for the sections, but they have sold out at a profit also. 237. If things come down the men who give big prices for the goodwill will become struggling settlers? —I have known cases where men gave good prices for the goodwill, and then they came to grief through things coming down. 237 a. The Board had a provision at one time objecting to excessive goodwills, had it not? I think so, but not since 1 have been a member of the Board. 238. You have never raised any objection to fancy prices being given for the goodwill? I think the transfers have all been granted with one exception, and that was before I joined the Board. There was some misrepresentation in that case. 239. Do you not think that a great many settlers have secured choice sections at a much lower rental than they ought to be paying? —Yes. 240. Do you not think the State would have a better chance of arriving at the proper value of these sections if they were put up to auction instead of by ballot? —I am entirely against auction, because in the excitement people bid against each other and run up to ridiculous prices. I think the system of balloting is a very fair one, but I am entirely against the present method of grouping sections. I think there should be a straight-out ballot. 241. You examine tenants as to their financial position now? —Yes. 242. Mr. Anstey.] Can you tell me whether these settlers labour under any disadvantage in getting loans from private people owing to the nature of their security? —I know settlers who have got money from private firms, and they have had no trouble in getting it. 243. Are you aware that before a private firm can get any security for the loan from the settler that security must be indorsed by the Minister of Lands? —Yes. Any case of that kind has been recommended by the Board to the Minister. 244. The process is that the application comes before the Board first, and the Board recommends the Minister to grant it?— Yes. A great many settlers get accommodation from agents without appealing to the Land Board at all. 245. 1 am speaking of loans for which security is given: are you aware whether that has any particular disadvantage in raising a loan as against any other form of tenure —for instance, the freeholder would not require to do that? —No. 246. Is there any particular reason why that form should be insisted on? If a man has property in a leasehold, why should he not be able to mortgage it the same as a freeholder ?—You have got to protect the State in some way. It protects the man who lends money, rather. 247. In what way? —If the Board sanctions a loan, then the man who lends the money can hold the estate in security. If the sanction was not given no loan would result. 248. Is there any reason why the tenants should not give that security without having to ask the permission of the Land Board, or any one else? I have no objection to that. I have not thought of it. 249. You are well acquainted with the settlement on the Tokarahi ? —Yes. 250. I suppose you know every case where a settler has dispensed with or in any way left his holding?— Yes. 251. Are you quite certain that in every case where a man has dispensed with his holding he has dispensed with it to some advantage?—ln the case of one man I am not sure whether he
a—4.
G. LIVINGSTONE.
247
sold to advantage or not, but within the last few years anybody who has sold out at Tokarahi has sold out to advantage. 252. Would it be correct for any one to say that settlers had abandoned their holdings? —No. I never heard of such a thing. 253. You said just now you are in favour of allowing the tenants to pay off part of the capital value of their sections? —I have no objection. 254. Supposing a tenant elected to pay off, say, half of the purchase-money, would it be easier for him to dispense with his interest in the leasehold after paying off half or before he did so? — Ido not think he would have any trouble in selling either way. He could sell just as easily with part paid off as he could now. 255. Mr. Johnston.] How long have you been a member of the Land Board? —Since October. 256. Do you know anything about the leasing of Puketoi Run? —1 know nothing about it. 257. Do you not think that the Central Otago settlers are entitled to a representative on the Land Board?- -I certainly do. I would go further, and I would say that I think it is but right that there should be quarterly meetings of the Board at Cromwell or Naseby, to give the people there a chance of appearing before the Board, instead of having to get agents in town to appear for them. 258. None of the present members of the Land Board have lived in Central Otago? —No. 259. Mr. Matkeson.\ There are Crown lands offered for occupation away back in the forest, which necessitates a man going in and living with his wife and family in loneliness. In many instances the upset price is £1 per acre, and a settler perhaps improves his land to the extent of £4 per acre: would you object to giving him the right to acquire the freehold of his land after he had put such heavy improvements on the forest land and opened up the country? —Certainly not. I am quite in favour of giving the freehold in such a case. I still maintain that the law should be different in the North Island and in the south of this Island, because I think the people who go into bush lands and fight their way are entitled to the freehold. I consider it is quite a different thing from a man taking up land in this district. Here he has only to yoke up his horses and take off a crop of wheat. So far as the runs are concerned, I may say the Board has been doing its utmost to try and classify the runs to the best advantage. If you take the low country away from them the rest of the runs will be left on the hands of the Crown, and it will take a great deal more than the rent of the low country to keep the rabbits down. 260. Mr. You say that a man holding a leasehold is entitled to any unearned increment that may arise? —Yes. 261. Is that for the reason that in taking up a section he runs the risk of getting an inferior holding, and also that he runs the risk of land coming down in value, and to provide against that he should have the benefits of any rise? —Yes, and from his own industry. 262. Are there many cases of tenants taking up land who, through incompetence or want of knowledge of farming, or want of sufficient means, have turned out failures? —I do not think there are any cases of that kind in our district. The land is there for them to start and work upon. 263. Some people earn their experience when it is too late? —We have all got to pay a little for our experience. 264. Mr. McLenna,n.\ Do you know of any Crown land or other runs in the North Otago district that is fit for cutting up for close settlement? —Yes. 265. Would you mind naming those that are fit for close settlement or small grazing-runs?— There is the Coridale Estate, belonging to an absentee owner. It is about fourteen miles out of Oamaru, up the Waireka Valley. 266. Do you think there would be a good demand for that land if the Government were to purchase that estate and cut it up into fair-sized farms for settlement ? —I am confident there would be a dozen applicants for every section, because there has been a good deal of agitation for some time to get this estate. I know this estate because I cropped on it for twenty years, and for many years I did a good deal of contract farming there. It is much better than any stranger going into the district would think. 267. Is there any other estate, held under the Crown or in private hands, that wants to be cut up for closer settlement or into small grazing-runs? —There is a bit of an agitation to get the Otekaike Run cut up for closer settlement by the people about Duntroon. 268. As a farmer and as one who thoroughly understands both pastoral and agricultural work, do you think it would be advisable for the Government to acquire the freehold of that estate which does not now belong to the Crown ?—I think it would. There has been a very successful settlement on the Otekaike adjoining it, and another successful settlement on the southern side, at Maerewhenua. Ido not see why it should not be successful. 269. Do you think it could be cut up so as to give a proper proportion of winter country to summer country? —I have no doubt but that it would. I have not been over the high country. 270. I suppose you know the high country goes up to Dandy's Pass, about 6,000 ft. above sea-level? —Yes ; I have been through there. 271. The low country, of course, is only about 900 ft. high? —I am of opinion there would be a lot of this high country sought after by the small farmers surrounding the place, providing the residential conditions were not insisted upon. 272. You think it is advisable to acquire the freehold of that estate to enable the Crown lands to be cut up into smaller areas? —You would have to acquire the freehold. I would like to mention a grievance that I have been asked to bring before the Commission. As things stand at present the occupier of a small grazing-run is debarred from applying for a lease in perpetuity, but a man who holds a lease in perpetuity can apply for a small grazing-run. Now, I know instances in our district where men are living on small grazing-runs far away from schools and post-offices, and I think it is only right they should be permitted to acquire a lease in perpetuity in close proximity to where they live, so that they may get their chlidren educated at the nearest school.
248
[G. LIVINGSTONE.
C—4.
273. Would you be in favour of those who have a lease in perpetuity being allowed the privilege of cropping a part of their holdings for winter feed?— Yes, if the ground is suitable. Some of these people are at a great disadvantage through not having any ground on which to grow winter feed. I think the privilege should be extended to them. William Dallas examined. 274. The Chairman.'] You are a member of the Land Board? —Yes. I have been a member for sixteen or seventeen years. 275. You are also a farmer?— Yes, I was a farmer to within the last five years. I was thirtyseven years in the Clutha district. I started with 200 acres, and when I sold out I had 1,450 acres. My land is all freehold. 276. What is your opinion about tenures generally? —I think that deferred payment was a very good system for Crown land, and I think perpetual lease also a very good system. Of course, lease in perpetuity is very good too. A man can take up a section under lease in perpetuity when he could not buy the freehold. 277. Do you think lease-in-perpetuity tenants should have the option of making their places freehold ? —I think it would be to the advantage of the State in regard to Crown lands, because all the best land of the State has gone now, and I think if the tenants got the option of the freehold they would improve the poor land now left more readily. Of course, they should also have the option to continue under the lease in perpetuity if they wish it. 278. With regard to estates purchased under the Land for Settlements Act, do you think the tenants should have the right of freehold there? —I do not think they should be allowed to buy out altogether, but I think Tt would be a very good thing if they had the right to pay off, say, haif the purchase-money. My reason is that under present circumstances we may have a hail or snow storm, and, of course, we are applied to as a Land Board for a rebate of rent. While we are anxious to help the settlers who really require assistance and who have suffered losses, I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind we are often taken advantage of, and the tenants get a rebate they are really not entitled to. If half the capital value was paid off and a bad season came along they would be able to pay their rent very well. I know that objection is taken to that, and it is said, "Well, you can have your half and I will take mine." But a contract is a contract, and I do not see that it should be broken. 229. In other words, if the contract is to be broken between the tenant and the Government there should be a reconsideration of value, and so forth ?—Certainly. 280. In regard to the administration of runs, can you give the Commission any. information as to how you think they should be dealt with ? —lt seems to me the only way is to cease taking away any more of the low country from the high country, as soon as only sufficient low country is left to properly work the high country. Otherwise the high country will fall into the hands of the Government and the rabbits, and it will be a serious affair. I know there is a great agitation to cut these runs up into smaller areas, but lam very doubtful how they will get on. I know that this season we have taken 20,000 acres of a run with a view to cutting it up into three or four small grazing-runs, with the result that we have not been able to get the balance of the run let. It is lying there, and I am sure that will be the result generally if this course is followed. 281. Where is this run? —It is Rocklands. What we took was adjoining the land taken from Patearoa, and these 20,000 acres were available for putting hoggets on and the like of that. Now they are afraid they cannot hold the run to advantage, and there has been no bid for it. 282. Mr. McLennan.] Could the high country be cut up into small grazing-runs? —No. It could not be done to advantage. 283. Mr. McCardle.] You have had a long experience on the Otago Land Board?— Yes. 284. You are aware of the different conditions under which persons can apply for land: you are aware there is a condition that if a settler acquires a section and then finds there is not sufficient to maintain him and his family, he can take up any vacant adjoining section, but that if he" is divided from the vacant section by another section he is unable to do so?— Yes. 285. Do you not think it is a great hardship he should be debarred in that way?— Yes. I think if a section is within workable distance of his holding he ought not to be debarred from holding sufficient land to maintain himself and his family. 286. Mr. Paul.] You approve of selling the remainder of the Crown lands? —If the tenants want a freehold I think it would be no harm to give it to them. 287. Is that because the remaining Crown lands are worth very little?— Yes, and because I think they are more likely to improve them better. 288. Do you approve of the principle of parting with the freehold of Crown lands? —So far as I am personally concerned I would just as soon have a lease in perpetuity, because I look upon it as the freehold. But I know a great many do not view it in that light. There is a certain amount of sentiment about the freehold. 289. Is there anything in the leasehold system which prevents you being a good farmer or getting the utmost out of the land? —No. 290. From the point of view of the State, do you think it is wise to give the freehold? —I do not think it would be against the interests of the State to give the freehold of Crown land, but, of course, I would not be in favour of giving the freehold right out to the land-for-settlements holdings. 291. Do you not think there is some slight inconsistency there? Should there not be some underlying principle governing this matter"? —I look upon it that the Government has bought these land-for-settlement estates in order to closely settle the people, and I regard them as being in a somewhat different position to the ordinary Crown lands. 292. You do not approve of the Government buying the same land over and over again for close settlement? —No.
W. DALLAS.]
249
C—4.
293. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think the present constitution of the Land Board to be most satisfactory, or do you think it would be better if the Crown tenants had an elected representative on the Board, allowing the Government to nominate the majority of the members 2 —lt could do no harm. I may say we have a representative of the Crown tenants on our Board now, and when we come to business f do not see there is any diSerence because of his presence with us. 294. Do you not think it would be a safety-valve in the event of any great dissatisfaction amongst the tenants ? If they alleged that there was any hole-and-corner work going on, could you not point out, " You have your representative on the Board to see that things are done fair and square " I—l1 —I do not see that there is much in that, because we have always been very glad to hear anything they had to say. 295. Do you ever get any private instructions from the Minister in reference to Crown lands ? —No. 296. You are not interfered with in the slightest degree so long as you are carrying out the law in reference to Crown lands? —No. 297. In reference to the ballot system, do you favour the present system of grouping? —I believe in the ballot, but not in the grouping. I have heard many say that they would not go in for the ballot on account of the grouping. I think it is far better to let a man get the section he wants, and not hold him to any section whether he likes it or not. 298. Do you take a man's financial position into consideration when he applies for a section? —We have to pass him for the ballot, and if the grouping was done away with we could pass applicants for sections of a certain value, and tell them they could go in for such-and-such sections that we consider they are capable of properly working. I fail to see why the same object could not be arrived at in that way instead of by grouping the sections. 299. You would classify your applicants according to their financial means and experience? —Yes, I think that would be preferable. 300. Mr. Anstey.] You expressed the opinion that those who take up Crown lands should have the right of purchasing the freehold ? —Yes. 301. Is that because the land is not very valuable and requires a large amount of money being spent on it for improvements? —A large number of people have a feeling that they would like the freehold. I myself would as soon have a lease in perpetuity. 302. Does not that apply exactly the same to people under land for settlements —they would like the freehold also ? —I would not be against them getting, perhaps, from half to two-thirds freehold, even, under the land for settlements. 304. Supposing you give the right of purchase would it not probably turn out that all the best sections would be bought and all the inferior be left on the hands of the Government? —I would not let them be bought out altogether. 305. Is there any objection to the tenants having some representation on the Land Board? — No ; I do not see any. 306. Would it give the tenants more security or confidence? —I have always heard the tenants here express satisfaction with the way they are treated by the Board. 307. Supposing you had a hostile Government nominating members to the Board more or less hostile to the small-settlement policy that has been pursued, what would be the position then ? —I do not see that it would make a great deal of difference, because if they had only one representative out of five members he would not carry anything by himself. 308. We have been told that the holders of small grazing-runs are not allowed to crop? —We have never made any objection to the holders of small grazing-runs cropping. Our Board lets many small pieces of Crown land adjoining settlers' sections —lets the land to the settlers. We are allowed to do that on annual lease under clause 116. 309. Mr. Matheson.\ Can you suggest what harm it would do the State to give those who wanted it the freehold, seeing that the State would receive from them all it had expended, and would still retain the power of taxing the land ? —I do not suppose that would be against the interests of the State if they got the freehold. 310. Would the State not have done what it wished to do —it would have taken the land to put more settlers on it? —Yes. 311. Mr. Johnston.] Were you on the Land Board when Puketoi was re-leased? —Yes. 312. Why was it re-leased? —As far as I can remember, there was no agitation at that time to have it cut up. 313. Do you believe in these runs being cut up? —Wherever they can be cut up to advantage, but lam very doubtful about most of them just at present. Stock is high. 314. Could Puketoi be cut up to advantage? —I am very doubtful. It has been one of the bestmanaged runs in the district. It has not been overstocked. 315. Do you know that it is one of the most suitable runs in Central Otago for cutting up — that is, according to the opinion of the people?—We have cut up some runs, and they have not been a success sometimes. It all depends on how things are at the time. At present wool and stock are high. 316. Was Patearoa a success or not? —It has been a success so far, but has only been newly opened. If wool goes down lam doubtful whether it will be a success. 317. Is Patearoa higher country than Puketoi? —There is very little difference. 318. Do you recommend any other runs in Otago to be cut up?— There are several runs that could be cut up, I believe, if there was low country for the high country. I suppose Blackstone Hill, taking it by itself, could be cut up. 319. Do the large runholders live on their property? —There are not many of them who live on their runs. 320. Do you not think there should be a representative from Central Otago on the Land Board? —I do not see any objection to that.
32—C. 4.
250
[W. DALLAS.
a—4.
321. Do you favour the Board being increased in size? —I do not think there is much need for that, but perhaps it would do no harm to have one or two more members. 322. Do you not think it would be better to cut the district into wards and have a representative nominated from each ward ? —There is no reason why that should not be done. 323. Would you favour the Waste Lands Board taking over educational endowments, and doing away with the School Commissioners? —I am a member of both bodies. Ido not see that it would make much difference. 324. Do you think the Land Board could deal with the land as effectually as the School Commissioners? —The School Commissioners can do what the Land Board cannot do. For instance, if a flood does some damage we can by resolution give the tenant rebate of a quarter- or half-year's rent, but the Land Board cannot do anything of that sort. 325. Supposing the Land Board had the power? —I do not suppose the Land Board could attend to the endowments at a much cheaper rate than the School Commissioners. 326. Does the Land Board keep its area of land free from noxious weeds? —As far as possible. 327. Do the School Commissioners do the same?— Yes. We have had some complaints to-day from the south stating that ragwort is spreading a little, and we have asked them to clear it. 328. Mr. Hall.'] You have said that those holding land under lease from the Crown should be allowed to pay off part of the purchase-money? —Yes. 329. That would be for several reasons, but principally to give them a stake in the country?— Yes. Of course, freeholders get no assistance from the State. If one-half of the purchase-money was paid and if a bad year came the leaseholders are not so careful as the freeholders, who lay by something for a rainy day. 330. I suppose instead of investing their savings in some outside way they would invest them in their holdings up to a certain limit? —Yes. 331. You are one of the School Commissioners: may I ask if your endowments are revenueproducing? —Yes, except a few small township sections. I think the Government ought to exchange these sections and give the School Commissioners land of equal value in another place. 332. Where there are endowments not revenue-producing, do you think it would be a good thing to allow the sale of those endowments and invest the money? —Yes, or exchange it for more suitable land. 333. Would it be an improvement if all endowments, including harbour, municipal, and university endowments, were vested in the Land Boards? —I do not think it would make a great deal of difference. The settlers on some of the School Commissioners' land are hardly treated fairly. We have no power to give "thirds " and "fourths," although we have no objection to giving them. I think the School Commissioners should be in the position of giving " thirds " and " fourths " the same as the Land Boards. 334. Mr. Anstey.] How do you account for the fact that the Land Board has not as much power as the School Commissioners in the administration of their land? —I know it is so. The School Commissioners, for instance, have passed a resolution to give valuation for plantations, open drains, and for grass—of course, it only means grass one or two years old. 335. You said you thought it would be a good thing to allow lease-in-perpetuity tenants to pay off a portion of their holdings? —Yes. 336. Would you be prepared to give the same concession to the tenants of School Commissioners? —That land has been set apart for a particular purpose, but I do not see much objection to giving them the same right. 337. Would you extend the same right in respect to municipal and harbour reserves? —I have not had anything to do with those endowments. 338. Would you give it to tenants of private landlords? —I do not think the State should interfere in that matter. 339. Mr. Paul.] Is the administration by the School Commissioners of their lands more or less economical than the Land Board's administration of their lands? —I am not in a position exactly to say. Ido not know what the Land Board costs. I know that the expenses of the Commissioners are very reasonable —about 5 per cent. I think that is very reasonable; but Ido not know what the Land Board cost is. 340. Mr. Johnston.] Five per cent, of the revenue or the capital value? —Of the revenue, of course. Donald Borrie examined. 341. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a member of the School Commissioners Board, and have been so for six years. I am a farmer in the Papakano district, and I farm, between freehold and leasehold, 2,200 acres. I have been a farmer all my life, and have been farming on my own account forty years. 342. Have you given attention to the constitution of the Land Boards? —I think the present system is as it should be. Ido not think the tenants should have much say in the constitution of the body that is going to look after the interests of the country in this respect. I feel very strongly on that point. 343. What is your opinion about the tenures —for instance, as to the lease in perpetuity?—l think the lease in perpetuity has been successful so far. In the Oamaru district the Government has taken over a large number of estates, and in all cases they have been very successful. 344. On the broad question of freehold and leasehold, what is your opinion as to which system is the best for advancing the country and satisfying the settlers?—ln my opinion, the freehold is the best. The country would never have been settled if it had not been for people coming out here to get a bit of land of their own. 345. Would you extend the freehold tenure to the land that you now administer as one of the School Commissioners? —No. That land has been set apart by Parliament for a specific purpose, and I do not think it should be interfered with.
251
C—4.
D. BOBBIE.
346. Mr. McLennan.~\ Is there any agitation amongst Crown tenants for the freehold? —There it no strong agitation as far as I know. I believe the only agitation amongst the people of North Otago is from the Farmers' Union? —Not at all. The Farmers' Union does not care a snap of the finger about it. 347. The proof of what I say is correct is shown in this: There was a meeting of the Farmers' Union executive last year, and it was carried by eleven to one that the Crown tenants should get the freehold, and the one that voted against it was a Crown tenant himself; therefore I presume that- the Farmers' Union is very anxious that the Crown tenants should get the option of the freehold: is that not so? —I think you have been wrongly informed. There is no doubt that matter has been discussed at various meetings, but the pressure has come from the Crown tenants, and not from the Farmers' Union. 348. It was practically unanimously agreed at a meeting of Crown tenants that they were dissatisfied? —Not quite. It was engendered into the minds of the meeting that in the event of their getting the option of the freehold there would be a revaluation, and, of course, the Crown tenants to a man would object to that. I have spoken to many tenants who were present at that meeting, and their invariable opinion has been that if they could get the freehold at the present valuation they would go in for it to a man, but not simply to get the option of the freehold at a revaluation probably from 50 to 75 per cent, over the present value. 349. I was present at the meeting, and have a different impression as to what was the feeling? I —l formed my impression from what was said to me by Crown tenants who were present. 350. During the passing of the Land for Settlements Act were you, as a freehold farmer, in favour of it? —I never gave it any consideration. 351. Were the freehold farmers in favour of it? —I could not tell you. 352. Seeing that there is so much agitation amongst the Farmers' Union, do you not think any agitation should come from the tenants first? —Decidedly. 353. Then, why did the Farmers' Union canvass for it? —I am one of the executive of the Farmers' Union, and lam not aware that they have done so. At the first meeting of the Farmers' Union, held at Milton, the question was brought up, and it was dead against the Farmers' Union having anything to do with the matter. I argue that if the Crown tenants wanted the right of purchase the agitation ought to come from them, and not from the Farmers' Union. 354. But there was a canvasser who came and asked me to sign a petition in favour of the freehold? —He was not authorised by the Farmers' Union to do so. 355. Mr. McCardle.\ Are you in favour of granting the freehold to land-for-settlement settlers? —I am in favour of giving the option to practically secure the freehold —of allowing a number of tenants to put in their savings and reduce their liability. I think I have fairly good reasons for suggesting that. 356. You said you are not in favour of granting the freehold in the case of lands administered by the School Commissioners, because they are set aside for a particular purpose? —Yes. 357. Do you not think the land-for-settlements land is set apart for a particular purpose — namely, for close settlement? —Yes. 358. Then, if you grant the freehold would not the tendency be towards large holdings? —No, because the land is too valuable to do anything of the sort. 359. You know very well, as a practical man, that the pro rata expense of working large farms is less than for working small ones? —Pro rata the amount derived from a small farm is very much larger than that derived from a big one. 360. It is just the price of his labour? —No; not at all. 361. Does the small farmer get well paid for his labour? —Yes. I never saw a big estate bring in revenue pro rata as in the case of a small farm. 362. I suppose you are aware that there are acres and acres of School Commissioners' land covered with ragwort and Canadian thistle? —I have never seen any ragwort; but I have not been down south at this season of the year for some years past. 363. Mr. Paul.\ Do you approve of the system of putting leases up to auction at the end of the term? —We are administrators of the law as passed by Parliament. 364. You do not care to express an opinion? —I do not mind expressing my opinion. Ido not believe altogether in the ballot, because the ballot is a thing of the past. 365. Do you think the leases granted by the School Commissioners are long enough? —They are what the law allows. In some cases they are for fourteen years, but the bulk of them are for twenty-one years. 366. Do you think that a longer lease than twenty-one years would be against the interests of the educational endowments? —You do not know what the value of land may be in twenty-one jears hence. It might be wanted for closer settlement. 367. One or two witnesses demanded that they should have their holdings changed to lease in perpetuity: do you think that would be against the interests of the endowment? —Yes; decidedly so, without revaluation. 368. Do you favour revaluation?I—l1 —I would not be in favour of granting our educational endowments on lease in perpetuity without revaluation. 369. What is your opinion of the principle of revaluation as applied to future leases under lease in perpetuity? —I have not given that matter much consideration. The lease-in-perpetuity settlements in my district are all successful. 370. One or two witnesses have said the School Commissioners are very loth to contribute towards roading? —The law will not' allow us to give grants to local bodies for roading, and we are not going to break the law and have to refund the money out of our own pockets. 371 Do you think the law might be altered to advantage? —I have not the slightest objection to the law being altered. 372. Some witnesses have said that you compelled them to leave the whole of their leased land
C—4.
252
[d.^bobbie,
in grass at the end of the term? —Yes; it is almost a universal thing with private landlords to include such a condition in their leases. 373. Taking everything together, you think your leases are at least as liberal as they ought to have from a private landlord? —Very much more so. I lease 1,200 acres myself, and have done so for over twenty-one years. 374. I suppose you have not got the right of purchase? —No. 375. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not think the work of the School Commissioners might as well be done by the Land Board —you have separate officials? —We Lave a Secretary and a Ranger. 376. The Education Board of Otago gains nothing beyond that of other Education Boards through having this endowment? —That is so. 377. The revenue from this endowment is thrown into the common fund for education? —Yes. 378. There is no reason why the endowment should not be administered the same as other Crown lands ? —As the law stands now it would make very little difference to education in Otago if these endowments were all made Crown lands, but you cannot tell what may occur in the future. 379. You think something might happen in the future? —1 am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, and I cannot tell what may happen in the future. 380. As a business-man, do you not think it could be done away with? —You might do away with the Land Board, but I do not think you could do away with the other. 381. Our experience, travelling through the country, was that the tenants under the School Commissioners appeared more discontented than those under the Land Board. One man told us that the rabbits were not so bad as the School Commissioners, who were keeping the land back? — What public body that has eight or nine hundred tenants can you name that has not some discontented tenants. I belong, to North Otago, and 1 do not know one tenant there who is not entirely satisfied, and they are paying higher rents than the tenants down south. You have had the evidence of the agitator, and the reason for that is that you do not summon witnesses, but you notify them that any one who pleases can come and give evidence, and naturally the agitators are those who come. 382. Do you not think it is a strange thing that you do not find such widespread dissatisfaction among the Crown tenants? How do you account for that? —I do not account for it at all. 383. Do you not think that the administration of the Land Board is more satisfactory than that of the School Commissioners ?- I do not think so. 384. Do you not think that the amount of dissatisfaction there is with your administration shows that they would prefer to be under the Land Board ? —I do not admit that there is widespread dissatisfaction. There are a few out of the eight or nine hundred tenants. 385. We met witnesses who thought they would like to be under the Land Board, but we did not meet any witnesses who said they would like to go under the School Commissioners? —That may be so. 386. Mr. Anstey.] The fact that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst the tenants would simply go to show that the administration of the Commissioners is for the estate, and not for the tenants? —I am sent to administer the school reserves in the interest of education, and not in the interest of the tenants at all. Of course, they get fair treatment, but an educational endowment was never set aside in Otago purely and simply in the interests of tenants. 387. You administer these estates on behalf of the landlord? —Yes, and treat the tenants as liberally as the law allows. 388. You said that the country would never have been settled so well under leasehold as under freehold? —At the time it was settled. The grand old men, the pioneers, would never have come out to New Zealand if they had known that they could not get a bit of land of their own. 389. Do you think the later settlements under lease would have been more successful if under the freehold? —Do you mean the lease in perpetuity? 390. Yes? —No, I do not. I think the lease in perpetuity is the right thing for settling the large estates. 391. You think that the leasing system is the better system for settling the people on the land? —No, Ido not. I said that if you could purchase land from the Crown the freehold was the best; but where large estates were bought by the Government for land-settlement, the lease in perpetuity enabled the man with small means, who otherwise could never get on the land at all, to take up a farm. 392. You think the leasehold system is the best for them? —Yes. 393. Settlement has gone on quicker because of that? —I cannot tell that, but there is no doubt it has been a good thing for that class of men. 394. Are you in favour of allowing these leaseholders under the Land for Settlements Act to acquire the freehold? I think they might be allowed to put their savings towards lessening their liability. 395. On what terms would you allow them to acquire the freehold—the present or the original valuation? —The present valuation was the original valuation. 396. Oh, no. You are aware that many are selling out the goodwill for large sums? —I do not see the point. 397. Supposing the original value of the land is £5 an acre, and it in time increases to £7 per acre, would you allow a man to acquire the freehold at the original value of £5 an acre or at £7 an acre, the value at the time the freehold is given I—l did not know that there was any difference. The original valuation is the valuation on which he pays his rent. 398. You know that scores of farms have been sold at a large amount for the goodwill. You said that the present value of those lands was 75 per cent, higher than when they got them? —I did not. I made no such statement. What I said was this : that the Government tenants objected to have the freehold at a valuation in the future that might be 50- or 75-per-cent. increase. 399. You think the valuation might go up to 75 per cent. I—lt may go up to 100 per cent, before the thousand years expire.
C—4.
X>. BOBBIE.]
253
400. Very well, then, are you in favour of giving the right of purchase at the original valuation, or would you insist on their paying the value at which the lands are at the time they purchase, say, when they went up 50 per cent. ? —At the present time I think it is only fair to give it at the original value, but forty years hence the circumstances may have very much altered. 401. At the present time you would give it at the original value? —Yes. 402. How long should that continue? —I cannot say. You cannot say what the circumstances will be in the future. Let the future take care of itself. 403. Mr. Jonhston.] You are in favour of the freehold? —Yes. 404. You are not inclined to give the School Commissioners' lessees the right to purchase? — No, not while they are educational endowments. 405. Do you not think that these endowments are held by you in precisely the same manner as the Crown lands are held by the Government? —No. 406. Why? —They are set aside for educational purposes. 407. Are the other not set aside for the people? —I do not know. They are set apart for the use of the State. 408. Supposing more could be got out of the land under leasehold than under freehold, you would advocate the leasehold? —Not altogether. 409. Boiling it down, it comes to that? —Not at all. People want to have a home, and sentiment comes in. That is half of life in this world. 410. There is a great deal more of pocket? —No, I do not think so. I have made a home myself, and I would not sell it for three times its value. 411. Do you tind that the tenants do justice to the farms? —Not by any means in some cases. 412. Are you trying any meiin.s to force them to do justice to the land? —They require to be supervised. 413. Would an alteration in the tenure effect it? —I do not know that it would. 414. Would giving them the right of purchase do it? —I do not think so. A man who would abuse land under one tenure would do it under another. 415. Are there any of your reserves gridironed with freehold land? —1 think there is some about Waikaia, but, as a rule, they are not. 416. Would it be advantageous to you to acquire the freehold? —I know of no case where there is a freehold frontage that blocks the outlet. Ido not say that there is not, for, personally, I have not been over all the educational endowments in the vicinity. 417. Is your own country high? —No, quite low. 417 a. Do you know anything about grassing these high countries? —Very little. 418. Does the Board you represent insist on any particular way of grassing the high country? —They do not insist on grassing it at all. 419. What do you propose doing with it? —The question has never cropped up. 420. Do you not think it is mandatory? —I do not think it is. 421. Is your revenue increasing or decreasing? —I really do not know. 422. Mr. McCardle.] If it came to a matter of giving the freehold, the price would have to be fixed according to the value of money at the time the lease was granted? —It would only be right it should. 423. For instance, what is the value of money to day? —You had better go to the bankers for that. 424. What is the value of good security on mortgage? —5 per cent. 425. It has been stated that these leaseholds have increased very much in value since they were settled. Is it not a fact that many of these sections were considered prizes at the time they were thrown open ? —That is so. 426. How would you discriminate, then, between the one and the other? —I do not know. I know intimately the lands that were purchased for settlement purposes in North Otago, and I think the Government got bargains in every one of them. In some cases they got them at 20 or 30 per cent, under the actual value, only the parties who owned them did not want to cut them up and offer them for sale, because some of it would have been thrown on their hands. 427. Mr. Forbes.] When one of the School Commissioners' leases expires it is put up for auction and charged with the improvements? —Yes. 428. You fix an upset price? —Yes. 429. If the upset price is not reached what do you do? —If we cannot get a tenant we would have to reduce the upset. 430. Do you reduce the improvements? —They belong to the occupier, and could not be reduced without his consent. Their value is mutually agreed upon by the owner and the tenant at the expiration of the lease. 431. Mr. Paul.] Is the administration of the School Commissioners as economical as that of the Land Boards? —I am not in a position to express an opinion as to the administration of the Land Board. I can say this: that the members of the School Commissioners' Board give a lot of time to their duties without getting very much remuneration for it. William Dowdall examined. 432. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a sheep-farmer in the Waipori district, where I have 10,000 or 12,000 acres of land leased from the Crown, and for which I am paying £150 a year. I first had it for five years, and then I got a lease for twenty-one years. I applied for a reduction of my rent on account of mining. [Witness here proceeded to lay before the Commission a grievance through the available area of his land being reduced by mining operations, <fcc., his application for a consequent reduction of rent having been declined. The Chairman, howevef, informed the witness that that was a matter purely for the Department to deal with, and did not come within the scope of the Commission.]
a—4.
254
[J. M. MCKENZIE.
John Munro McKenzie examined. 433. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer at Busy Park, Palmerston, where my brother and I have over 2,000 acres which is all freehold, with the exception of about 80 acres which we have leased from the School Commissioners. We have been in that place for about eight years carrying on mixed farming —cropping and sheep. 434. What do you pay for the Commissioners' 80 acres i- 10s. an acre for part of it, and somewhere between ss. and 6s. for the other part. It is a fourteen-years lease, with improvements, fencing, buildings, &c., at the end of the term. 435. Do you find it fairly satisfactory to be a tenant under the Commissioners I—Yes;1 —Yes; 1 could not wish for a better landlord. 436. You are also a member of the Land Board? —Yes; I was appointed six weeks ago, and, of course, have not had much opportunity of judging the work of the Board. 437. Mr. McLennan.] Are you in favour of the Crown tenants getting the option of the freehold ? —I consider it was set apart for special settlement, and a contract was made with the people when they took up the leases, and they should be willing either to abide by the contract or allow some one else to take it up. 438. Would you apply the same to Crown tenants who have taken up land under the lease in perpetuity ? —I think so. 439. Do you think it would do to have two modes —one for the lease in perpetuity and one for the land for settlements? —No. 440. Mr. McCardle.] Have you any experience of the difficulties of settlement in bush country? —No. 441. Are you aware that income holdings the interest of the State is only 155., whereas that of the tenant is £5: do you not think there should be difference in cases of that sort? —Yes, but that applies more to the North Island. 442. The fact that a man is allowed to go on to these lands for nothing, and for a certain time simply spend a sum of money on improvements, would show that the State recognises that there is great difficulty in getting these lands settled? —Yes. 443. Mr. Paul.] Do you approve of selling the remainder of the Crown lands? —No. 444. Mr. Forbes.] As a reasonable man, do you think it would be better for the colony if the whole of the land was under one administration —the Land Board or School Commissioners? —I do not see how they cannot be dealt with just as well under the Land Board as under a special Board, although I have nothing against the School Commissioners as a body. 445. Very likely as a Board they might be an improvement on the Land Board, but in principle, do you not think having two Boards dealing with similar lands must lead to a certain amount of overlapping? —Yes; 1 do not think the two Boards are required. 446. What is your opinion about the ballot system? Do you believe in the grouping? —1 believe in the ballot system without grouping. 1 believe in the straight-out ballot. 447. You believe in placing the applicants according to their financial means and experience? —Partly. Under the grouping system a man might have to take up a section he did not want. 448. You would not be in favour of allowing the holders of the lease-in-perpetuity leases to have the option of the freehold ? —No. 449. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards at as present, or do you believe that they should be partly nominated and partly elected ? —lt would be a pretty difficult matter to get them elected. They are elected as it is by the representatives of the people, and it would be a great trouble to elect them by the people themselves. 450. The present nominated system is about as good as you can get? —Yes. I would have no objection to the ordinary mode of election if it could be done easy enough. 451. You would not agree that it would be right that Crown tenants alone should elect the whole of the Board ? —lt would be more to their interests to turn out and elect the members than it would be for other people. 452. Mr. Anstey.] Have you right of renewal of your lease? —No; we would prefer to have the right of renewal. 453. Do you think a lease in perpetuity would be better that the one you have got? —Yes. 454. Supposing you had a lease in perpetuity would you prefer a freehold ? —No. 455. Have you any experience of advances to settlers? —No. 456. Mr. Johnston.] Do you think the constitution of the Land Board at the present time is the fairest to the whole of the district? —I do not know, but I believe Central Otago consider they are not properly represented. 457. Do you think they ought to be represented? —Yes. 458. Have you any experience of high country? —A little. 459. Do you know anything about this regrassing of runs? —Yes, I have seen some of it done. 460. Can you give any suggestion as to how it should be done? —The best thing is to get a good burn in the spring and sow then. 461. What grasses? —Cocksfoot and clover are the best, in my opinion. 462. At what elevation is that? —Up to 1,600 ft. 463. Mr. Matheson.] Do you believe that a man is more likely to be more contented under the freehold than under the lease in perpetuity? —I would just as soon have my property under perpetual lease for 999 years. 464. And leave your money in the bank? —Yes. 465. Mr. McLennan.] Would you favour an amendment in the Act so as to give greater discretionary power to the Land Boards in the deciding of disputes, instead of those matters having to be forwarded to Wellington? —I think it would be better in some cases perhaps, but I have not been long enough a member of the Land Board to give an opinion. I think that a practical Board should be able to decide a case as well as any one else.
D. BARRON.]
255
C—4.
David Barron examined. 466. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am Chairman of the Otago School Commissioners, and have held that position for two years and a half. 467. We will examine you on the land question later on, but is there anything you have heard from the various witnesses that requires correction 1 In other words, has there been any unintentional misleading? —I think the evidence given by Mr. Borrie and the result of the questions put by the various members of the Commission have elicited everything that is necessary. No doubt, as x\lr. Borrie pointed out, the tenants who gave evidence before you were the most dissatisfied of all those we have under our control. The bulk of them, as far as my experience goes, are all quite satisfied. What aggravated the position more than anything was the want of roads. The Commissioners thought that the roading should be done by the local body, and a difference of opinion arose amongst the Commissioners over that question. It was threshed out to the end, with the result that those of us who thought we had the power were forced back from that postion by our solicitor, who advised that we had no power to spend money on roads. There is no doubt that if we had been able to satisfy them with better roads there would practically be no grievance. Of course, the question arises as to what powers we have in regard to the renewal of leases. That has been a burning question also, but we have had that and several other matters before us for the last two or three months, and our deliberations culminated last night in a series of resolutions being passed. 468. Does your solicitor give any advice on the subject? —Yes. He gave an opinion that we could improve our leases, and we did so by making them more attractive. 469. Does your solicitor say that you have the power? —Yes, under the Public Bodies' Powers Act. 470. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you not think, as the Chairman of a great trust, that fl is in the interests of the trust and the settlers of the colony generally that all reasonable improvements should be paid for at the end of the lease, and that the lease should be on a tenure of reasonable length ? —I have no doubt that we should be more liberal in allowing valuation for drainage. Up till now, however, the settlers have been provided with tiles for drainage, free of cost, at the nearest railway-station. Open drains have not been allowed for. As far as grassing is concerned, when they took up the leases they knew the conditions, and did not pay an excessive rental on that account. 471. Have you any manuring conditions? —No. 472. Do you not think it is desirable that something of that sort should be done? We saw some of the land running to sorrel, and we think that if manure had been judiciously used a different state of things would have existed ? —lt would be almost impossible to compel a settler to carry that out. There are so many different manures, and we would really require to have a chemist to analyse the soils before we could know what manures to use. 473. An intelligent Ranger could do that? —Well, as a matter of fact, we were compelled as School Commissioners to look after the doubtful tenants. 474. Do the School Commissioners' Rangers and the Land Board's Rangers not go over the same ground? —They have extensive districts —our reserves extend from the Waitaki to the Bluff. 475. Do you not think it would be more in the interests of the country if the Land Board had the sole administration of this land? —I do not think the Land Board could manage it much more economically that at present. As far as the Commissioners are concerned, they are all good, sound, practical men. They are all farmers and acquainted with the conditions obtaining throughout the province—two come from Southland and two from Otago. 476. How are they appointed? —The Governor appoints two and the Education Boards appoint the other two. They are all farmers, or are interested in farming. 477. Mr. McCutchan.\ Have you any practical suggestion to make for getting over the roading difficulty? —I think an amendment of the law is required to enable us to devote a moiety of the rents to that work. We are unable to give anything, and consequently the Land Board administration with "thirds " and " fourths " is more beneficial to the settlers. 478. Are not the "thirds" and "fourths" from the Crown lands wholly inadequate for making roads? —Perhaps in some districts that is so, but they are an immense help. 479. The Commissioners do not use the machinery of the Loans to Local Bodies Act? —No. 480. Would it be in the interests of education to extend the length of the lease? —No; I do not think it would. I think it is fair to have a revaluation at the end of every twenty-one years, provided they have the right of renewal. We propose to allow them that now. 481. You think twenty-one years is long enough? —Yes. In some cases it might be too long, as in the case of land near the towns. 482. In those cases you only grant fourteen-years leases? —In one case just now we are only granting seven years. That is suburban land at Invercargill, which might be required for town sections. 483. If the tenants obtain full valuation for grassing and other improvements the rent would be much higher, would it not? —Yes; I have no doubt they would pay a little more for it if satisfied with the valuation at the time. 484. Mr. Forbes.] In travelling round the country we found the greatest dissatisfaction at Lumsden, where the School Commissioners have a number of town sections ? —The difficulty is that we cannot let the quarter-acre sections. When the sections were selected —I do not know how many years ago —they were selected in different blocks. There was a quarter-acre in one block and a half-acre in another, and the result i's that we have been unable to let them at all. We are trying to get them grouped, and we are going to approach the Southland Land Board and the Government to allow us to group these sections, and have a number available for selection in a block. Otherwise we will never be able to dispose of them. You can readily understand that a quartos acre of leasehold in a place like Lumsden is not of much value.
0.—4.
256
r D. BARRON.
485. They said that at the end of their lease they forfeited their buildings: is that so? — They get full compensation for any buildings. 486. Is there any limit to the amount of compensation you give a tenant, supposing he puts up a substantial brick building? —I am not very clear on that point, but in the case of other improvements the tenant has to get permission to make these improvements before loading his section too much. 487. That is in regard to farm lands? —Yes, and I think it applies to town lands as well. 488. They say that these vacant sections are keeping the place back, and that they cannot put buildings on them because they are only School Commissioners' leaseholds, and they will get no compensation for their buildings?—Of course, they would get these sections if they thought fit to take them at a really peppercorn rental, so I do not see where their grievance comes in. 489. But the leases are only for fourteen years? —Yes; but we propose to give them the right of renewal, so that they should be quite satisfied. 490. They all mention that they would like to get the freehold of these places? —Yes. We propose to have all our sections grouped into one lot, and then offer them probably under grazing license, or some other mode of selection, so as to prevent them becoming a nuisance to the community. No doubt they will be taken up if offered in more substantial areas. 491. Do you attempt to keep down the noxious weeds on your section? —The Stock Department requires us to do so, and our Ranger has been instructed to take steps to keep down the ragwort. 492. Mr. Anstey.\ Will you tell us a little more about your proposal to allow compensation to tenants for grassing 1 Do you propose that the same regulations should apply to pastoral tenants as to agricultural tenants?— The question in connection with pastoral leases has not been raised either by the Commissioners or by the tenants. 493. Do you propose to allow valuation for grassing on farming and cropping land? —Yes, but not on pastoral land. The latter question has not been discussed yet. 494. Does it not strike you that in the case of farm lands this question of compensation for grassing is simply useless, whereas in the case of pastoral lands compensation is required? —What the tenants complain of is that they are not allowed compensation for grassing in regard to their agricultural sections at the end of the lease. 495. I suppose the trouble is that you insist on all the land being in grass for the last year of the lease? —Yes; evidently a mistake was made in drafting the original lease. 496. Suppose you altered the lease to provide that a fair proportion of the ground must always be in grass, there would be no question of compensation at all, because the ground would be in exactly the same condition at the beginning of the lease as at the end of it? —Yes. The point is this: in the event of the tenant in possession not desiring to take up the land again, he would know he would get a fair valuation for grassing as well as other improvements. 497. But suppose the grassing condition is that a fair proportion of the land is to be always in grass, would there be any question of compensation at all? —That has been the position taken up by the Commissioners hitherto, but the tenants have expressed themselves dissatisfied with it so frequently that the Commissioners have given way a little. 498. And the reason of the dissatisfaction is that you have got this silly condition in the lease that the place must all be down in grass, which destroys the tenant's chance of profitably using his land in the last year of his lease?— When a man takes up the lease he does so with his eyes open. 499. I suppose a man will pay a much lower rental if there is a silly condition like that in his lease than he would if there was a fair condition in it? —I do not say they are silly. It is not for me to find fault with my predecessor. 500. If these conditions are unfair, I suppose a man will pay a lower rent under them? —If they were, yes; but I do not admit they are unfair. 501. I think you said a shrewd man would naturally take that into consideration, and consequently offer less rent? —Yes. 502. Suppose the Commissioners have insisted on inserting unfair conditions in their leases, is it not a fact that the land has been administered at a loss, both to the tenants themselves and to the State? —If the tenants are paying less rent it must be a loss to the State, and if there are unfair conditions imposed on the tenants they must mean a loss to him? —Not at all. If the place is in good grass when it is put up for the second or third term the succeeding lessee would pay more for it in that condition. 503. Is it you experience that a tenant would rather have his farm all in grass than a fair proportion in each sort of crop ? —lf he had it all in grass of the second or third year it would be an easy matter for him to break the land up and put it into any crop he thought fit. 504. Would it not be much better in drawing up leases to provide that, instead of the whole land being left in grass, there should be a fair proportion in each crop? Would you not then do away with the question of compensation for grass on farm lands and be able to extend the concession where it is really wanted —namely, to pastoral lands? —The question of pastoral land is a very difficult one to cope with. We have attempted it in connection with pastoral runs, but with no great success. 505. Do I understand you now propose to give your tenants the option of renewal as well as valuation for improvements? —Yes. 506. You think if the tenants get the option of renewal, together with valuation for their improvements —in other words, if you give them security of tenure —they will then just be as satisfied as though they had the freehold? —I think they would. 507. You say you have recently appointed Rangers? —Yes. 508. And that you are now considering the question of giving valuation for grass, and that you also propose to give them the right of renewal of their leases, and other concessions? —Yes. 509. Can you tell me whether this feverish anxiety, or whatever it is, for a better administration of public lands has been in any way influenced by the appointment of the Land Commission ? —Not in the slightest.
D. BAERON.I
257
C.—4.
510. Can you explain why these proposals seem to be coincident with the appointment of the Land Commission ? —There was a deputation to the Commissioners, and the Commissioners went south about six months ago and went round all the sections under their control. They carefully considered the matter, and decided to make some alterations, and from time to time this question has been brought up, but as some of the Commissioners have had to go away, and as there was a very big question involved, the matter has been allowed to stand over, as there was no time to thresh it out. In fact, it has been on the minutes for the last six months, and it was only last night that we were able to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. The present proposals are practically the result of the visit I referred to. 511. Mr. Johnston.] Is much of the agricultural land high land? —Some is fairly high. Some of the pastoral runs go up to close on 4,000 ft. That is the country at the head of the Waikaia. 512. Have you any theory as to how this country should be regrassed? —Yes. Some of the witnesses before the Commission have expressed my idea as to how the land ought to be regrassed. I have not had any practical experience, or, rather, I have not had any opportunity to put my ideas into practice, and therefore I do not know how they would work out. My idea is that as soon as possible after frost the grass-seed should be sown, because the land becomes somewhat honeycombed by the frost, and if rain follows it gets thawed into the ground. There is an element of danger that you may put in the seed too soon, and in that case the frost perishes it. I think if the seed is put in as soon after frost as possible, and on a limited scale sheep put on it, the grass will succeed. It would require to be done on very limited areas. I think the land should be fenced in and kept free from stock for probably twelve months, the results would then be successful. 513. Has that system been tried yet? —Not on any extensive scale. I think if the land were fenced in from rabbits and stock"there is not the least doubt the grass would come away again. You might have seen two or three patches along the Taieri Gorge where that has been done, and the tussock has come again almost as good as it was originally. 514:. Has the revenue of the Commissioners increased or decreased of late years? —It is practically stationary. Our revenue is about £15,000 a year, and it has been that since I came here. 515. Would it be advisable for the Government to undertake to pay the Education Board, through the School Commissioners, interest equivalent to your present revenue, and take back these lands? —That is a matter of policy, and I do not think I should express an opinion. 516. Mr. Matheson.] You are a citizen as well as an administrator: as a well-informed citizen, does it seem to you wise that two bodies should be administering public lands within the same area? —That is also a matter about which I do not care to express an opinion. 517. Mr. Hall.] I suppose if these tenants get a longer lease and right of renewal there will be less trouble ? —Yes. 518. There would not be so much trouble then about allowance for improvements? —No. 519. You do not recognise exhausted improvements? —No. 520. You only recognise what is visible at the end of the lease? —Yes. 521. You said that the settlers had a great grievance owing to the want of good roads? —Yes. 522. May I be allowed to suggest a remedy?—l will be very pleased to hear it. 523. Do you not think it would be a good plan to satisfy the people here who have grievances to go up to the North Island in the month of August, because then they would return quite happy so far as roads are concerned? —I think that is outside the pale of practical politics. Ernest Atkinson .examined. 524. The Chairman.J What are you? —I am Crown Lands Ranger for North Otago, including Maniototo and Naseby. I have been in that position for nine years. 525. You have heard the evidence given to-day: is there any of it you would like to correct or add to in any way? —In some cases I think the suggestions would be practicable, and in some cases Ido not think they would. I think there is a common-sense body of men who have experience and can use their own judgment, and I think any matter can be left to them to arrange according to circumstances. 526. In regard to those who are under the various leases of settlement and subject to conditions of residence, improvements, and so forth: are they generally fulfilling in a proper and substantial manner what is required of them? —Yes, in a very satisfactory manner indeed, especially the people who are holding under the Land for Settlements Act. On the ordinary Crown lands, of course, there is not the same amount of supervision. We make an inspection every now and again, but, of course, we have nothing to do with their method of working the land. They simply have to put on a certain amount of improvements in a certain time, and comply with conditions such as residence, &c., and that is all we ask them to do. But under the land for settlements settlers have to comply with certain cropping conditions, and they have to adhere pretty strictly to them. A very large amount of money is involved, and it is very necessary, I suppose, although we do not visit them any more than is necessary. So far as the estates in Norlh Otago are concerned, I make an inspection once a year, and during that inspection I see whether they have complied with the conditions, and I take their crop return and it is embodied in the Lands Report. 527. Do vou think that your inspection once a year over your wide district and over these very valuable estates is really sufficient? —W© have a system, and there is no possibility under that system of the settlers infringing the regulations without detection, and therefore it is only necessary to make a visit once a year. There is a certain rotation, and we have all the fences plotted on the plan, and the paddocks numbered, and a rotation of the crops is taken regularly. 528. Do you find any inclination on the part of the tenants to overstep the regulations in the manner of cropping? —Yes, in rare instances; but, taking it all round, the settlers under the Land for Settlements Act in North Otago I consider equal to any in the colony. 529. And in cases where they do show this inclination, how do you correct it? —It is brought under the notice of the Land Board, but there are no very serious breaches. For instance, a man
33—C. 4.
[E. ATKINSON.
258
C— 4.
is supposed to take oft two white crops and one green crop, and then the land has to be.laid do in grass for three years. Well, his second white crop may be a failure, and the tenant naturally supposes there would be no great harm in taking off another crop and then laying it down in graS s3o. Mr. McLennan.] You were a farmer yourself before taking up this position, and, of course, you understand farming and what the tenants are required to do?— Yes 531 So far as your knowledge goes, how do the improvements and buildings on leasehold* compare with those who have freeholds alongside them?—l was going to say they compare more Zf favourably, but they are equal if not superior. But I will say this: hat the man who. has a freehold has probably held that land for twenty-five years or more, and therefore his impro e ments have not been kept in the same state of perfection as those of the man whoj hasonly take up the land. So far as my experience of the people under ihe Land for Settlements Act gone, I find that those who have held for probably the last eight years have very highly improve their'sections, and that their improvements are very substantial. 532. Are the tenants inclined to have gardens, and to beautify their places by planting and so forth?— Yes, on nearly every section you find the beginnings of a plantation 533 We had evidence before us in several places that the Crown tenants do not farm o improve their holdings anything like they would if they were freehold: do you think that is correct?—l think it is a mistake. . , , 534. There was a witness before us who swore that a tenant cn the Tokarahi Estate had aban doned his holding owing to the oppression of the Land Board or the Ranger: is that so ? _It ™ not so I know all about the case. 1 think that man's name was Solomon Goodsoli. He held a section of about 250 acres, and he was an original holder at Tokarahi. ihe hr,t two years on the estate were very dry, and he and a number of others applied for an extension of time in which to pav their rent. 'That extension of time was granted In the meantime he harvested his crop and sold the whole of the proceeds, and then abandoned his section. At that time there was about £30 owing for rent, and the Land Board took action against him for the amount and got judgment. They therefore set the police to work to make inquiries, and they found that within three months or less of the time he left the section he sold, through a farm in Oamaru about three hundred pounds' worth of property in his wife's name, and that he had about two hundred an fifty head of stock grazing on turnips at Waimate. I strongly advised the Board to sue him on a iudgment summons, but they would not do it. 535 Mr. McCardle.] I suppose the most of the settlers on the settlements you refer to were old experienced farmers before they took up this land?-Yes, I think the majority were. 536. The men who have had experience are really essential to make good farmers? That is so. 537. Do you see any appearance of decay in the cropping-capacity oi any ot he lan N ° 1)38. Most of these estates, I think, were cropped very little before they were taken up ?—Some of them were pretty heavily cropped. , . ; . , ~ 539 I have seen that a great deal of the country is going back for want ot manure, whethei it is freehold or leasehold land I do not know?-Of course, this is nearly all limestone country, and the farmers are very practical men, and they take very good care to so work the land that it shall not be depreciated in value. ... 540 Of course, if it is a freehold estate you have no control?—No, they can do as they like. These men do not do as they like. They are sensible men, and they require very little superVlSl °54l. Mr. McCutchan.l Have you had any complaints from Crown tenants under the Land Act of 1892 in regard to residence conditions? —No complaints have been nuule to me personal y. 542 Do vou supervise lands in remote places settled under that Act?— Yes. 543' Is there a reasonable access to those places ?-In my district there is very good access 544. Metalled roads?— The same roads as at Mamototo—beautiful level roads, and not a 545. In estimating improvements what do you allow for bushfelling and grassing in joui district?—l have no bushfelling or grassing in my district. 546. Mr. Paul.] Are there any restrictions or supervisions that you have to exercise ovei these tenants'that you would resc-nt if you were in their places?— No. _ 547. You think there is nothing unnecessary in the way of supervision or restriction? No. I think the tenants would answer that question for themselves. , , , T 548. Mr. Forbes.] Is there any widespread desire to get the freehold of these lands? I have 1101 The tenants seem to be perfectly satisfied ?—'There may be an odd one, but, as a general run, they are perfectly satisfied in North Otago. 550 You said that experience as a farmer is essential to making a successful settler?—l do not think I said it was essential. It is one of the essentials. _ , , , 551. Do you know of any people who have had no previous experience becoming successfu farmers ? ° t " i < j nk that a tradesm an and a sensible man would be likely to turn out a very successful settler ?-I would say that he would have to have more money than the man with experience Taki the gett lements in North Otago generally, are there better crops being grown there now than when the land was in the hands of freeholders ?-I think there is a very much larger area under crops on these estates now than formerly, and I think heavier crops are g s r s°4 Wn is n °the land generally more or less weedy now than formerly?-I question whether it is as weedy. Ido not think it is, because in the early days when it was held in one block they did not go in for so much drilling of root-crops.
a—4.
259
E, ATKINSON.]
555. Can you make a comparison of the stock and sheep on them?—l think there is a greater number of sheep now than then on many of the estates. For instance, Ardgowan, which formerly belonged to the Australian Land Company, carried about six thousand sheep on 4,000 acres, and now there are no sheep at all It is a dairying place, but on the other estates the settlers go in for mixed farming. 556. Do you notice any freeholders in the neighbourhood with badly farmed land? I do not take much notice of freehold. 557. There is one condition in your lease that seems to me a little bit unfair if insisted upon. 1 think the wording of it is that the land must remain three years in grass from the time the previous crop was harvested: would that not involve keeping the land in grass three years if interpreted literally? —Yes. 558. Would it not be just as well to word the lease so that the tenant could break the land up at the end of the third year without infringing any condition of his lease 1 There have been no complaints in regard to that. They all seem to be satisfied. It is a very small matter. 559. Can you tell what has become of the farm abandoned by Goodson? —It is held now by a man called Thomas Beck, and the total value of his improvements is £335. 560. Has he put these improvements on since Goodson left? —There were about sixty pounds' worth of improvements when Goodson left. 561. Is that farm carried on successfully now?— Yes, very. 562. You said you consider once a year is sufficient to inspect these farms?— Yes, now we we have a system. 563. I suppose it is quite necessary to visit them every year?— Yes, because the information we get is put into the Land Keport. 564. Mr. Johnston.] Do you put any value on the land at all? —No. 565. Do you know if the land has been falling or rising in value in your district?— Taken all over the district, it has been rising very considerably. 566. Have the settlements been a success all round?— Yes, a very great success. 567. Do you know Maniototo? —Yes. 568. Do you know if any of the runs in Maniototo that are not cut up could be cut up? —I would say so, but I do not think they could be cut up until their leases expire. 569. Are the farmers on the Maniototo Plains farming successfully ?—Yes. They are doing better now than they have done for a good many years. Of course, it is not very good land. 570. Mr. Hall.] You said that, so far as your observation goes, land held under lease in perpetuity was farmed as well if not better than that held under freehold tenure?— Yes. 571. Do you think the reason is that a good deal of freehold land is held for speculative purposes?— No. I think it is held by genuine farmers, but a good many of the freeholds are encumbered. 572. Mr. McCardle.] You did not gather from the questions I put to you that I was casting any disparagement on any class of settler in these blocks? No.
Owaka, Wednesday, 22nd March, 1905. Alfred Bradfield examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I hold 600 acres of freehold. I have been farming here for thirty-two years. I obtained most of my land from the Government by cash purchase. I was never under any of the settlement conditions. My farm is between six and seven miles from Owaka. I use the land principally for dairying and sheep-growing and growing winter feed for stock. There are three dairy factories in the district. 2. I do not suppose there is much grain grown here except for winter feed in the district?— Neariy everything is consumed in the district. A few oats are grown for sale. 3. 1 suppose your climate is very wet?— Yes, as a rule, owing to the frequency of the rainfall. It is cold in winter. . 4. Is there anything you would like to bring before the Commission ?—Nothing, except that 1 would like to say it is a great consideration for a man to have the freehold. 5. Are there many settlers here under leasehold and settlement conditions?— Yes. 6. Have you any opinion about the constitution of Land Boards? —I do not know that election would make the position any better, because very few of the voters would know anything of the men they elect. I have never seen anj'thing unfair about the Land Boards. 7. Mr. McCardle.] You are interested in getting the freehold for other settlers?—l do not know what' other settlers might like, but if I was a new settler to-day I would be very sorry if I could not get the freehold when I wished it. 8. Do you prefer that the Government should sell for cash or on terms of easy payment by the settler ? —I should prefer deferred payment, because it makes it easier for a man to purchase. 9. You have no particular objection to the lease in perpetuity ?—No, if they give a man an opportunity to transfer. They say this lease in perpetuity is as good as a freehold. It is, in a way, if you want to keep hold of it, but if you want to sell out and the Land Board does not fancy the incoming tenant they can prevent you selling. ... 10. Do you find any difficulty i-n getting transfers from the Board?—l have not tried it. I think if a man is able to pay for a"place that should be a sufficient guarantee that he is a good man. 11. Supposing the restrictions were removed with respect to the lease in perpetuity, and a tenant was able to sell to another person, would it not be all right then ?—Yes. _ 12. How do you get on for roads in this district? —You have hit a sore point there.
C —4.
260
[a. bbadfield.
13. Have the roads been constructed by Government special grants? —Of late years we have got nothing except what the Government have done for us. 14. Do the County Council spend your " thirds " ? —I am not interested in them. lam 011 the main road. 15. Do you think the Government have kept faith with the bush settlers in the matter of roads? —I think the bush settlers are better off than we are on the main road. 16. Do you know of any bush settlers without roads?- I do not know of any without roads, but some of them have very bad roads. 17. Have you observed the working of the Advances to Settlers Department?- I am not particularly interested in it. 18. Mr. Paul.] Have you had any experience of leaseholds? —I had three or four years of a private leasehold. 19. You say the freehold is more easily disposed of than the leasehold?- I think so. 20. Is that why you prefer the freehold to the leasehold?- I think it is one reason. I think when a man lias the freehold he will spend all the money he can raise in improving it, whereas if he has a leasehold and he can push past, anything will do. 21. I suppose you will admit that most settlers have not a great deal of money to raise, and is it not reasonable to suppose that if they held the leasehold they could spend more money on it and improve it to a greater extent than the freehold ? —That is all right; but if the land was taken 011 deferred payment it would not affect them at all. 22. Have you studied the position of leaseholders 011 improved estates purchased under the Land for Settlements Act?- I have seen about them in the papers. 23. Have you formed any definite opinion as to what is the best policy to follow? —I think the best policy would be to put a clause in the agreements giving the tenant the right to purchase after a given time. 24. These lease-in-perpetuity holders have entered into a contract with the Government, and some people wish that contract broken : would you be in favour of that? I would make a man hold to his agreement whatever it was, but if he could be allowed to purchase I would give him the freehold. 25. You would break the contract in that respect 1— Yes. I would leave the matter to the tenants themselves. 26. You think that would be beneficial to the State?- 1 do, because people would put more energy into improving their places. 27. In other words, you think a good farmer would be a bad farmer on a leasehold? —He would not be as good. That is my opinion. 28. Is that your experience? —I have seen a lot of it. I have seen men with a leasehold get into a bad state. 29. When you had the leasehold did you make as good use of it as you did of the freehold?—l treated it the same, because I was bound to do so by the conditions of my lease. 30. Was it not to your own interest to take care of it? —Of course, I would do my best; but there are a lot of things a man would do 011 a freehold that he would not on a leasehold. 31. Mr. McCutchan.] You believe in the deferred-payment system?—l do. 32. Do you not think that sometimes bears a little hardly on new settlers going 011 the waste lands of the Crown ?—There is not a great deal of difference. How much difference is there between lease in perpetuity and deferred payment. 33. We will take 100 acres at £1, for cash: Under the leasing system the tenant pays £4 per annum, but under the deferred-payment system 25 per cent, is added straight away to the capital value, which then becomes £125, and he has to pay that in ten years, which means £12 10s. a year instead of £4, at a time when the struggling settler is least able to bear it: is not that a hardship ? —I say that is my opinion, but I would allow a settler to take up the land as he thought fit, either under lease in perpetuity or on deferred payment. For myself, I would rather take a smaller piece of land on deferred payment than a larger piece of freehold. 34. Would you advocate extending the payments over twenty years instead of ten years, so as to make them bear less heavily on the struggling settler ? That is a good idea. 35. Would you be in favour of putting this tenure on the statute-book as well as the other tenures? —Yes. I think the payments over twenty years would be a great benefit. 36. In reference to Land Board transfers, you stated, and, I think, rightly, that the matter rests in the discretion of the Board, and they may refuse a transfer, although the tenant has complied with all the conditions: you think that is the greatest objection to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —Yes. 37. You said that roads were a sore subject here: is your revenue inadequate to make roads? —The Council appears to have got so far behind in debt that really they have no money to make roads. If they have money we do not get it. 38. Are you striking the maximum rate?—We strike fd. in the pound 011 the capital value, as well as a special rate. 39. We will say that there are a number of sections 011 a road offered to the public for cash, 011 deferred payment, and with the right of purchase. From the right-of-purchase and lease-in-perpetuity sections " thirds " are derivable, but from the cash sections no " thirds " are derivable: do you think that is equitable?—l think the people should get as much money back when they pay cash as under any other system. I would advocate a change in that direction. 40. Is the Noxious Weeds Act in operation here?— Yes; by the County Council. 41. Is it enforced?—l think so, in some cases. 42. Has any case been brought before the Magistrate for neglecting to destroy weeds?—l have not heard of any. 43. Mr. McLennan.] What is your objection to the lease in perpetuity?- I have 110 particular
261
C—4.
A. BKADFIELD.
objection to it, but I think a transfer is not easily got if a tenant wishes to sell out. I think it is a very good system otherwise. 44.* Of course, you possess the freehold at the present time, but I suppose there are a great many settlers in this district who are under lease in perpetuity? —There are all kinds here. 45. Do you not think it would be only right and proper for them to advocate the freehold first, and before gentlemen who possess the freehold advocate it? —1 do not advocate it any more than if I worked leasehold or freehold. 46. You do not advocate the freehold? —I advocate the freehold being given to any man who wishes it. Ido not want to force the freehold down anybody else. 47. They cannot get the freehold unless the law is amended. If the Crown tenants demand the freehold and the Government do not wish to give it to them it means that one party —not both — wish to break the contract: would you advocate breaking the contract, seeing that the tenants are not demanding the freehold?--If the tenants demand the freehold I would. 48. Supposing you have a freehold property, and I lease 100 acres from you at so-much rent per annum, and put on improvements equal to £1 per acre, and then I come to you and say, " Bradfield, I want you to give me the freehold of that ground on my paying you the capital value," what would you say?--1 would say it rested with me if we could agree on a price. 49. But I demand it? —You could not demand it. If the law said you could demand it it would be a different thing. 50. You would not give it to me —you would tell me to go and mind my own business? —I do not ask you to grant the freehold unless the country wishes it. 51. But those who are concerned do not wish it? —Then, I do not want to make them wish it. 52. Mr. Forbes.~\ Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 53. Have you been appointed to represent them here? —No. 54. Mr. Aiistet/.\ Do you advocate the unrestricted sale of leases in perpetuity, supposing the unrestricted right to transfer and sell was given? —I would not allow a man to buy more land if he held the full area specified in the Land for Settlements Act. 55. With regard to the expenditure of Government "thirds" and with regard to Government promises, do you know whether the Government have spent money on roads which they have promised in this district? —I cannot answer that question. 56. You do not know whether the "thirds" that have accrued from this land have been spent? —I do not. 57. Mr. McCardle.] You understand the law of contracts in a common-sense way? —Yes. 58. If a contract is made between you and another man for a lease, and that man comes and says to you, " I would like the freehold " : if you agree to that it is not a breach of contract, is it? —Not if both are agreeable. 59. It is simply an amended contract? —Yes. 60. You would not advocate that a settler should go to the Government and demand the thing as a right, but you think he should ask the Government to consider reasons he may adduce in favour of it? —Yes; I would leave it to the Government to make a law. I would not leave it to any person to say indiscriminately it should be this thing or that. 61. And, no matter what amendment was made in the law, you would leave it open to any person to continue the present contract, or to take advantage of any amendment the Government may see fit to make? —Yes. James Nelson examined. 62. The Chairman.] What are you?- lam a Crown tenant. I hold 315 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have held it seven years. I pay £6 6s. per annum. It is bush land. I have about 30 acres cleared and in grass. It is about seven miles and a half from Owaka. The grass has taken fairly well. I have a team of bullocks and a few cows on the place. I have not got my family on the place, because I cannot get on to it. I have no road to it at all. My section is two miles off the main line of road. 63. Have you any neighbours? —Yes; but they get out in another way. 64. Has anything been done to clear the road for you? —A little has been done; but I have been there seven years, and I have not got a track yet. I have to hump my goods in. 65. Is it difficult to make the road? —All the bad parts were made three years ago, and then they left the work. The bush is cleared off the road-line, and the road simply needs to be formed. The culverts were put in three years ago and then left. 66. Can you estimate what it would cost to form the road, without metalling? —I think 10s. per chain would do to form a road 10 ft. wide for a mile. 67. Mr. McCardle.] What is your view with regard to the question of purchase? —I think the lease in perpetuity is far better than purchase. 68. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Board? —No. 69. I suppose you are aware that the law obtaining under that system is that the Department can only advance up to half of the value of the improvements already effected? —I believe so. 70'. You have 30 acres in grass now: suppose the Government were to offer you liberal terms to complete other improvements, would it be of advantage to you to obtain that money from the Advances to Settlers Department? —If the Government would extend the Special Settlements Act to apply to tenants like me, and give us half the price of the bush we fall, I would have a good home at once. 71. Suppose the Advances to Settlers Act was amended so that the Government could advance up to three-fifths of the value of the improvements, would that not meet your case and at the same time be a safe thing for the State?—l think so. 72. Is there any restriction in connection with the administration of the land under the 999-years lease that you think ought to be altered by the Government? —No; I think the lease
C— l.
262
[J. NELSON.
is about us near perfection as it is possible to be. In regard to transfer, there is a little difficulty, but I do not think it is too much. 73. How are you neighbours generally succeeding with their holdings? —If they could get roads there is nothing to stop them. 74. Have you a Heavy rainfall? —It is not heavy. 75. Do you obtain good burns? —Sometimes, and sometimes we have drawbacks, but we get good grass after bad burns. 76. Have you thought out the question of the best means of supplying roads to the settlers in such country as yours? —Yes. 77. What would you propose?— That the "thirds" should be taken from the County Council and handed to the Roads Department for administration. 78. Our proposal in the North is to capitalise the " thirds " and raise a loan to do the work straight away, without any delay to the settlers?- I would object to that altogether. I would rather have the " thirds " as they accrue honestly expended. 79. Mr. Paul.] Are there many settlers in this district without roads? —I think most of them have a road, but I have not even got a track. 80. Do you think that is bad policy? —I think so. I certainly would not have taken up the land if I thought 1 was to be treated in that way. 81. Do you think that roads should precede settlement 2 —That is a large question. It would be fair enough if they gave me a road within a certain time. 82. Do you think it is fair to put settlers on the land with no means of access to it? —Certainly not. 83. Mr. McCutchan.] What in the capital value of your land? —10s. per acre. 84. You are paying 4 per cent, on that? —Yes. 85. Are there many more settlers on your road in the same position as yourself? —Only one. 86. So that the total revenue from "thirds" would be about £4 per year? —Yes. 87. Do you ever expect to get a road on such a small expenditure as that? —No. In eighteen months, instead of the " thirds " being £6 the Council said they were only £2 10s. S"8. What is the area of your neighbour's section? —It is about the same as my own. I am not quite certain. 89. Then, you may take it for granted that the Council's statement is correct, because they get a schedule from the Receiver of Land Revenue ? —I wrote to the Receiver of Land Revenue and got his statement, and there was £b according to his statement, but the Council Engineer told me he would not recognise it. 90. Do you understand the working of the Loans to Local Bodies Act?—l have no experience of it. 91. I can assure you that if you formed yourselves into a small rating area and utilised your "thirds" as security for a loan you would be able to make your road without any trouble, because the "thirds" would be sufficient to paj- interest and sinking fund, and extinguish the loan in twenty-six years. It seems to me a strange thing that when machinery of this sort is put into the hands of the settlers they will not use it? —So far as I can learn, when we have applied to the Government we could not get a loan, because they did not seem to have enough money for themselves. 92. Was your land loaded for roads? —No. 93. Then, the Government felled and cleared the track gratuitously? —Yes. 94. And you got your land for 10s. per acre? —Yes. 95. Mr. Forbes.] Are you satisfied with the way the Land Board treat you? —Yes. 96. You do not think that any alteration is necessary in the way of giving tenants a representative on the Board ? —No. 97. Mr. Johnston.] What distance are you from a metalled road? —A mile and a half. 98. Has it taken you seven years to clear 30 acres? —I could not get out and in. I have to go q,nd make a living elsewhere, and I spend all I can spare on my section. 99. Is it broken or flat country? —It is the same country as you see from the window. 100. Have you put any buildings on it? —I have a camp and a garden, and it is pretty well ring-fenced. 101. What is the cost per acre of clearing bush land? —About £'2 ss. to fell and about 14s. to sow in grass. 102. That does not include grubbing up the stumps? —No. That would cost another £6 or £7 per acre. I stumped some of the ground in order to grow turnips. 103. Did the Government promise a road when they sold you that section? —I understood I would get a road. 104. You do not know for certain whether money was promised for it and then was notspent? —I know I would have got a road when the culverts were put in had it not been for a Government official. 105. Would it not be very much better for you if the Government formed these roads before you went on to the land, even if they charged you a little higher rent for the land? —If I could have got straight on to the land it would have paid me to give double the rent. 106. Mr. Matheson.] Was there a special Government grant for the work done?--Yes. I do not know how much. 107. Mr. McCardle.] Do the settlers do the roadwork in the district? —Under the Government they do, but not under the County-Council. 108. And that is in their interests, is it not? —Yes. 109. Mr. McCutchan.] How long ago is it since the Government vested your road in the County Council? —I never knew it was vested. 110. Who is doing the work on the road now?— The Government.
263
C.—4.
J. NELSON.
111. Where is your grievance with the County Council? —If the Government gave the "thirds" to the Roads Department we would get on all right, but the Council will not spend the " thirds," and when they are forced to spend them they do so in a way that is of no advantage to us at all. 112. Are your "thirds " spent? —The Council spent £3 10s. on my road a week or two ago, and the road is impassable now. 113. Is it the custom of your County Council to spend money on a road under the control of the Government? —I cannot tell you. Alexander Clark Saunders examined. 114. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 150 acres of freehold. I might mention I did not come here to give evidence on the land question. I dropped in and I heard a witness attacking the County Council, and I must reply to what I have heard. I regret exceedingly that I came in late and did not hear all he said. I heard the last witness finding fault with the County Council in regard to the expenditure of the Land Fund. Some years ago things were not just exactly as they should be, and we had a special audit of the whole of the county accounts, so as to put things on a proper basis. I think Mr. Barron will bear me out in that. At that time things were put in proper order, and since then I can honestly say things have been carried out in proper order. We have in our Engineer and County Clerk two capable men. I understand from the little I have heard Mr. Nelson say that lie alleges the Land Fund is not expended. Such is not the case. There is a very small amount accruing from these "thirds." Mr. Nelson stated to me some time ago that there was so-much to the credit of his rate, and I asked the Engineer if it was so, and he said the amount was not as much as Mr. Nelson had stated. There may be at the present time a pound or two to his credit, but it is impossible to expend these small sums as soon as they come in. The County Council have had extreme difficulty in letting these jobs, as the people in the district will not tender for these small amounts. In some cases we have had to put on surfacemen on day-labour to do the work. Mr. Nelson makes a song about his section, but I would like to point out that he has never resided on his section. 115. He said if he had a road he would do so?— There are good settlers living in the bush in that direction, and they have no better roads than Mr. Nelson. But Mr. Nelson has never lived on his section. It is only a camping-ground for him when he is in that direction. 116. Mr. McCardle.\ You have said that the amount available for this particular road is very small indeed ?—Very small. I might also state for your information that the Government do not complete these roads. They only vote a certain sum for certain blocks, and they push on the road so far as the money will go. Then, as " thirds " accrue the roads are kept in repair as far as possible. 117. Do you not think it would be a very much better plan if the settlers would agree to raise a loan on the strength of the " thirds " and get the roads made, instead of spending the few pounds as the " thirds " accrue in dribs and drabs? -A great deal of it is wasted now. 118. This man says that £40 would make his road, and as his "thirds " would pay interest and sinking fund on a loan until the expiration of the "thirds," would not the plan I suggest be much better in his case? —I do not think £40 would make the road. 119. If this man's statement was correct, the "thirds " would be sufficient to pay interest on a loan ? —Yes. 120. Have you taken over this particular road from the Government? —There is no form for taking over any of the roads. The Government just do what they are inclined to do in regard to them. 120 a. I suppose you are aware that in different parts of the colony the Councils have refused to take over roads until they considered they were in a fit state to be taken over from the Government? —If my Council took that stand we would not take over any roads from the Government. 121. Do' you not think it would be a proper stand to take?- It would be a proper stand. There are peculiar circumstances in regard to this district, which is a riding of the Clutha County. The Government have opened up thousands of acres of bush country, much rougher than you can see from here, and they have roaded it in all directions-—that is, they have cleared the bush and formed the road. The greater part of the roads are only 10 ft. wide, and in the winter, which lasts here for six or eight months in a wet season, these roads are only sludge-channels. Well, it is impossible for the County Council to undertake the surfacing of these roads, to say nothing of metalling them. The "thirds" will not do it. The land was rented to the tenants at from £1 to £1 ss. per acre, but the valuation has had to be reduced in some cases, I understand, to 7s. 6d. per acre; so you see we get a reduction in revenue right away. 122. Do you not think that the better system would be that the Government, instead of waiting for Parliament to make special grants, should decide that the whole of the land revenue should be devoted towards road-making; then, the local bodies could raise a loan on the strength of the rent, and repay the interest and sinking fund to the Government?— Well, it might; but my opinion in regard to the settlement of bush country is that the railway should have been put into this country first, so that the timber, which is the natural product of the country, might be utilised, and then settlement should follow. The people would get employment at the mills first, and would then be in a better position to improve their sections quickly. 123. But my remedy is to make good a bad job? —The matter of borrowing was before my Council some time ago; but, in my opinion, the suggestion is not workable, for this reason : you have to take a three-fifths vote of a special district created for the purpose of raising the loan, and the revenue in some parts of this district would not be sufficient to raise a sufficient revenue to repay interest and sinking fund. 124. I think if the people want the roads badly they will vote for any scheme to give them roads? —I know a settler a mile and a half from the railway, whose section has three-quarters of
0.—4.
264
[a. c. saundees.
a mile frontage on to a clay road, and the total revenue from his place is 12s. 6d., and out of that has to be taken the hospital and charitable-aid rate and special rates. 125. What does his rent amount to? —Only a trifle. The land is of no value. 126. Mr. McGutchan.\ You say that there is a difficulty in carrying a loan proposal for a road, as it has to be raised over the whole riding; but that is not so, for under the regulations rating districts are formed in connection with each individual road, and not over the whole riding? —Certainly. 127. Have you made a calculation of what the sinking funds amount to in connection with any particular road ? —Certainly. 128. And you have found that it is not feasible?—l will give you a case in point. There was an agitation to raise money to metal ten miles of the Owaka Valley Road, and they wanted from £2,000 to £3,000. The amount procurable on the statutory rate up to the limit would only have given about £800. 129. There is no limit? —There is a limit. 130. No, there is not?— Well, I may be wrong, but I thought there was. Anyway, you only get a svibsidy on a three-farthings rate. 131. That only refers to the general rate? —You can only borrow up to six times the general rate. 132. That is all repealed by the Loans to Local Bodies Act?— That may be, but we went on the Act before us, which provided that we, could only raise six times the general rate, and that only gave from £600 to £700, and all existing loans had to be deducted from that, so that there was nothing left for the road. m • «/» nnn 133. You are under a misapprehension: the borrowing-power of your Council is £6,000 a year, and if there are no other demands you can use it for any particular road?—We got our information from the Counties Act as furnished to the individual members. 134. All that is controlled by the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act of 1891. Your Council has power to borrow up to £6,000 annually for roadwork?—Without security? 135. You form a rating area, and make a calculation, and strike a rate to meet the interest on the loan, and reduce the amount of the rate by the accrued " thirds " and " fourths " ? That is just where the difficulty comes in, for the land in the special district would not bring in anything like sufficient rates to meet the interest. 136. Mr. Johnston.] Why was the special audit made I—Because the Council considered the accounts were not in proper order. 137. That they were not kept properly ?—No. 138. Who is your Chairman ?—Mr. Hay, of Romahapa. 139. Does he live near Balclutha?—Eight miles away, I think. 140. Mr. Anstey.] Have you been long a member of the County Council? —Between five and six years. 141. Were you a member when this audit took place ? les, lor a short time. 142. The affairs are administered all right now?— Yes. 143. Can you tell us whether the statement that Mr. Nelson made was right or not: he said that you had spent £3 or £4 on his road, and that now it was impassable ?—lt may be, but Ido not think it is, because we have had a spell of fine weather. 144. Do you not think that, instead of spending trumpery sums, it would be better to hoard them up or to spend them in advance, so as to be able to allocate a fair sum?— You cannot very well spend in advance. i •. * o 145. You do not spend the "thirds" every year on the little bit of road it comes from.' You are supposed to spend it on the roads leading to the different blocks. 146. In that case you do not accomplish anything? —Where the surface of the road is clay it 147 Would it not be better to borrow a fair sum of money and do a fair piece of road and be done with it?—l do not think so. It is all right where you have only small roads. 148. And waste the money in driblets? —It is not wasted at the time. lam located pretty near the centre, and nearly every one who comes here wants something done. 149 And the culverts are made on this road to Mr. Nelson's?— Yes. 150 Are they useable, or are they useless for want of road-formation ?—They are useable; but I have been told that one which was put in by the Government is rather small to carry off the water. T . . 151. Is the road sufficiently formed to get to the culverts?—l think so. 152. Would it not be better if the Government, before opening up the land, spent a tairly larire sum in making the necessary roads and charged the settlers a sufficiently high price to cover the cost?—l believe it would be better for the settlers if that were done. They would be able to make a livelihood instead of merely struggling. 153 Mr Johnston.'] Are the settlers satisfied?— Some of them. 154. The majority?— There has been a good deal of Government work which they have had to do but when it is completed I suppose some of them will have a struggle. There is another matter I might mention: Mr. Nelson's brother was the late County Clerk, and that may have been the cause of some of his grievances. Thomas Bahr examined. 155. The Chairman.l What are you?—A Crown tenant holding 195 acres under lease in pernetuitv. My land is situated three miles and a half from Owaka. The road to it was made by the Government, and the grade is very steep and very often gets cut up. It is not what you would call a good road. It is all formed, and a few chains are metalled. 156 How long have vou been living on this place ?—Eleven or twelve years. 157! Was it originally bush?— Yes; and I have about 70 acres of freehold and in grass.
T. BARR.I
265
C.—4
158. Has it taken the grass pretty well? —Yes, except a few mossbank patches. 159. I suppose you only have cattle on, or do you dairy ?■ —We make a little butter- that is all. 160. Are you satisfied with the lease in perpetuity as a tenure? —Yes. 161. What do you pay by way of rent? —The rent is £3 19s. 6d., but there is a rebate. 162. Mr. McCardle.\ Have you had the same difficulty as the others about roads? —We had a bit of difficulty until the road was formed up to my place, but since then our only difficulty has been the want of metal. 163. It is a summer road now? —Yes. 164. The settlers generally participate in the expenditure of the money, I suppose —they get employed making the roads? —Yes. 165. It is suggested that the roads should be made before settlement takes place: is it not a fact that if that was done the roads would be valueless before the settlers got there 2--It would be money wasted unless good job was made of it. 166. Macadamised roads, and so on? —Yes. 167. Do you not think it would be wise to get a special loan for making these loads and use the "thirds" and ' fourths"? —Yes; but I was not aware it could be done. I will only be too pleased to see my "thirds" spent on metal, I can assure you. 168. Mr. Paul.] Have you had any dealing with the Land Board? —Not particularly. I suppose I was one of those interested in "thirds" and "fourths" at the time the special audit was made. 169. What you have had is satisfactory? —Very satisfactory. 170. You agree with the present constitution? —I am thoroughly satisfiod with the Land Board as at present. 171. Mr. McLennan.] I suppose the Ranger visits you occasionally? —Not very often. 172. He does not harass you in any way? —No. 173. We were told that sometimes he comes down and uses the lash on the Crown tenants? — He has not used the lash on me so far. 174. Mr. Forhes.] Do you find the settlers round here generally satisfied with the lease in perpetuity? —I have not discussed it with them. I can only speak for myself. 175. Has chere been much discussion going on here about the question of the freehold? —Lately, 1 suppose, there has. 176. As far as you know, from personal observation, there has been no great dissatisfaction with the lease in perpetuity? —Not that I am aware of. 177. Mr. Johnston.'] How was it that the County Council got into the mess at the time of the special audit? —It is not safe to say. The books were not as they should be, and the Crown tenants were not satisfied with the expenditure of the "thirds " and " fourths " in the district, and they appealed to the Council, with the result that you know. 178. Are they satisfied now? —I think the bulk of the settlers here are satisfied with the expenditure of the " thirds " and " fourths." 179. You have only got 70 acres cleared in twelve years? —Yes. 180. That seems very little? —Do you think so? 181. I say it seems very little? —If you come and work alongside of me you will think it a good deal. 182. In the North Island we clear quicker than that. Is there trouble in burning the bush? — Yes; we very seldom get a good burn, and even if you do get a good burn, so called, half the land is lying covered with timber. 183. In that case it would have been better if the land had not been let for settlement and used for timber purposes only? —At the first, certainly. 184. What is the largest area felled in one season? —I have heard people talk about 40 or 50 acres; but there may be cases where more has been felled, though I do not know of them. 185. Do you find that the larger the block felled the better the burn, or the ether way about? — It stands to reason that the larger the block felled the better the burn will be. 186. What is the cost of felling timber? —About £2 per acre. 187. Mr. Anstey.] What does it cost in addition to grass it down ?- The grass-seed alone would cost 15s. an acre, without anything for sowing it. 188. Roughly speaking," it costs £3 an acre to fell and grass?-- Yes. 189. Is any of the timber felled used for milling? —No. 190. Is it not fit? -Yes. 191. Could you sell it? —Yes, but I cannot find a buyer. 192. What is the reason of that? —There was a sawmiller cutting timber on my boundary, but he went away and never asked me for mine. I think he thought the grade was too steep to get it down to the mill, 193. Could nothing be done with the timber?—We could only split a few posts; we could not carry them to the station. 194. You cannot do anything with the timber at all? —No. 195. Can you suggest anything that would make it useful?— Only the putting in of a tramway. 196. Is there any ragwort or thistle here?— Not much, so far as lam concerned. They are spreading though. 197. Have the Farmers' Union a branch here? —Yes; but, so far as I know, they are not represented here to-day. 198. What kind of timber is there on your place?— Red, black, and white pine and totara. Glasgow Logan examined. 199. The Chairman.] What are you? —A farmer at Owaka, owning 467 acres of freehold. I had one section of 226 acres on perpetual lease, but some years ago I converted it into freehold. The balance of my land I purchased for cash. There were 40 acres that I could plough
34—C. 4.
C—4.
266
G. LOGAN.
when I took up the land, and I have cleared and grassed another 300 acres. I have taken care to sow good seed and have manured my land, giving 4 cwt. of artificial manure and 3 tons of lime to the acre. If attention is not paid to the grass Yorkshire fog, which seems to be the natural grass of this locality, will supersede it —either that or couch. 200. How long have you been in this district farming? —I have been anchored down here for thirty-four years, to my sorrow. 201. What use do you put your land to? —I grow a bit of winter feed and milk about twentythree cows and send the milk to the dairy factory, which is situated about two miles away over a fairly good road. 202. Have you any remarks to make about the district generally? Is the district going backwards or forwards ? —The only drawback I see at this time is the ragwort. I knew that weed in the Old Country, but I never saw it grow so freely as here. I was told by Mr. Bruce, the Stock Inspector, that settlers had paid 3s. 6d. an acre twice in the year for cutting it on land only worth 10s. an acre. Some of the best land in the Owaka is nearly worthless through ragwort. Its growth is fostered by the wet climate. 203. Is there any Californian thistle here? —Acres of it. 204. How many cows will land run all the year round down here, giving them winter feed ? — That all depends on the winter. Sometimes the winter is quite mild, and at other times we will get snow every day for six weeks. 205. Under all the circumstances, would 2 acres graze a cow? —I do not think two of my acres would. It would take fully three. 206. Do you house your milking-cows during the winter?—-No; we turn them into the bush after a good feed. 207. Have you plenty of water for the cows?— Too much. We get it in our boots sometimes. 208. Mr. McCardle.] What price did you receive for your butter during the last few years? -—We were paid on the butter-fat, and I think it came to 9d. a pound. 209. Do you run any sheep on your property? —No. 210. We have heard that sheep is the only cure for ragwort?—l have heard that sheep will eat it before they will eat each others' fore legs, but they prefer clover. 211. Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Office?—l always take my help from my own arms. 212. Do you know anything about it so far as other people are concerned? —No. 213. Is the constitution of the Land Board suitable?— Yes, so long as farmers are kept on it. 214. Is there any difficulty down here?—We cannot get roads. There is a great extent of roads to be made and there is very little money available. 215. Mr. Paul.] Has it paid you to improve your land as you have done it?—lf I had not done it the land would not have been worth fencing. 216. Do you think it wise to settle this country? —Every man was not made to be a settler. Some people get on right enough, and others, if you put them in the meal-barrel, will starve. 217. Do you think it was a wise thing to settle this land when the settlement necessitated the destruction of so much valuable timber?—No, of course not; but one is generally wise next morning. 218. Would you extend the option of the freehold to all tenants?—l would let every man select his own tenure. A man, if he is going to prosper, should be the best judge of the tenure that suits him. If a man is only waiting till he qualifies for the old-age pension he is not particular as to the tenure he takes up land under. 219. Would you extend the right of freehold to those who had been put on improved estates under the Land for Settlements Act?— Yes, but I would not allow the areas to be too large. I look upon 200 acres as being a reasonable amount for a man to work. 220. Would you give the tenants on endowments set aside for particular purposes the option of the freehold? —Let the people who want leases take that land. 221. Mr. McCutchan.] Did all the grass that you sowed your place with go out?—As a rule, I can show you land that was in grass thirty years ago, and to-day is nothing but Yorkshire fog. The greatest difficulty in the locality will be the grassing of the bush land. Some of it is so steep that you cannot put a plough on, and to stump it would ruin the Bank of England. I sow cocksfoot, white clover, trefoil, crested dogstail, and various other kinds. 222. Has the dogstail gone out? —Yes. 223. Surely it will not pay to work the land at all? —That is where the difficulty will come in by-and-by, unless they are very careful in keeping up the strength of the land. 224. You were careful? —Yes. 225. Did you sow timothy? —Yes, and it has gone out too. The difference between timothy and Yorkshire fog is very slight, and can only be detected by an expert. 226. You said you were satisfied with the Land Board so long as farmers were on it, but do you not think there are other interests besides the interests of farmers to be protected in the settlement of land? —I think a farmer should know all that affects land. 227. The Land Board has the power to reduce rentals ?—Yes. 228. You do not think there would be any danger of a farmer Board reducing rentals below a rightful amount? —No. 229. Would you give the Board more discretionary power? —Yes. 230. To decide cases on their merits without sending them to Wellington? —Yes. They can go by the evidence before them, and can also be guided by their own practical knowledge. 231. What do they charge for lime here, delivered at the station? —13s. a ton. 232. Where do you get it from? —We used to get it from the Government kiln at Palmerston, but the last lot I got from Milburn.
G. LOGAN.J
267
C—4.
233. Is not Milburn much nearer?— Yes; but we thought at first that the Palmerston lime was of better quality. Ido not think it is. 234. Is not 3 tons to the acre a great quantity to use? —It is a terrible quantity. 235. Do you put covers on your cows at night? —No. 236. Mr. Forbes.] Is there much bush land unoccupied about here? —I think all the Crown land is taken up. A wave of insanity went round here, and people were all mad to get bush land. They got into their right minds a few years afterwards. 237. Is there much sawmilling going on ? —Yes. There have been sawmills in this locality for the past forty-five years. I came here forty-two years ago, and there were abandoned sawmills here then. 238. The timber must be scattered? —It is getting far back. 239. Has land increased in value?- It did, but I think it is at meridian now. 240. Are the rabbits bad in the district? —Yes; they start breeding in the month of July. 241. Mr. Johnston.] You said you had experience of ragwort somewhere else? —Yes, in the North of Ireland. 242. Was it bad there? -Yes; but not so bad as here. 243. How many acres of bush have you felled at one time? —25 is the biggest lot 1 have put down in one season. It cannot be felled to burn under £4 an acre. 244. How long have you been felling your 300 acres ? —Thirty-three or thirty-four years. 245. You would have done a good deal better if you had gone to the North Island? —I would have done a good deal better if I had not come to New Zealand at all, but had gone to Canada. 246. How is it that so many settlers are here? —They are just beginning to find out where they are. I have known as manv as fifty or sixty people apply for one section. 247. Mr. Anstey.] Have you stumped any of the land you have cleared? —A little. 248. Is it expensive? —I have taken out some that have cost me £3 a tree. 249. Is there any difficulty in ploughing it? —Not if the stumping is carefully done. 250. Some of the stumps must be pretty rotten? —Some of them are, but broad-leaf and kamai might last for a hundred years. 251. You do not keep sheep? —Not yet, but I will be compelled to get them. 252. Will the climate allow it? —There are plenty in the district. 253. What do you estimate the cost of felling and grassing ordinary bush land here? —Over £4 an acre. 254. Mr. McLennan.] Do you make any fences out of the timber and logs? —No; we use wire. We might use log fences for the time being, but they are not profitable and are never safe in the case of fire Samuel Young examined. 255. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a storekeeper at Owaka, and have been here twenty-eight years. I have 50 acres freehold and 220 acres perpetual lease, with right of purchase. It was all bush land, but I have cleared about 100 acres, and have succeeded fairly well in respect to grassing. I have cattle and a few sheep. I have no road from the main road —only half a mile of bridle-track. There is both ragwort and Californian thistle on my land, but I cut them every year. The ragwort is pretty easy to keep down with sheep, &c., but that is not so with the Canadian thistle. 256. What is your opinion about land-tenures? —I am a freeholder. 257. You have a lease as well? —Yes. 258. What is your particular objection to the 999-years lease? —When the land is freehold you can do what you like with it, and my experience is that freeholds are better farmed than leaseholds. There are good examples of the truth of that statement in this district. 259. May not the difference be owing to the fact that the freeholders were better off in the first place than were the leaseholders? —Yes. They have advantages sometimes that the leaseholder has not got. 260. Do you see anything in the 999-years lease which makes it difficult for a man to do anything with it? —Not if he does not pay too much for it. 261. Are you not of opinion that a man could succeed with a 999-years lease just as well as with a freehold? —Yes, if he is a good farmer and has good land. It all depends on the nature of the land. 262. As a storekeeper, I suppose you know pretty well whether applicants under the advances to settlers have succeeded in getting their loans? —Some of them have succeeded, but they usually do not get the full amount they apply for, and very frequently delays occur. 263. Do you not think, as that Department belongs to the Government, that the Government ought to give better treatment to their own tenants as to loans than to outside persons? —I think they ought to treat their own tenants better than freeholders in that respect. 264. Mr. Paul.] How long have you had your lease? —About fourteen years. 265. Do you intend to make it freehold? —I do not think so, because lam thinking of leaving the district. 266. Do you think the settlements in this district have been a success? —Some have turned out successful. 267. Is the land on which there has been successful settlement better than the surrounding leasehold land?— Yes. A good deal of it is of better quality. 268. Mr. Can you make any suggestions for the better roading of newly settled Crown land?—l think the best thing that could be done in this district is to go in for a loan and get the roads made right away. I have advocated that for fourteen years. I think the interest might be spread over a number of years, the settlers paying the interest and sinking fund. The settlers would thus get the use of the roads in the meantime. We have bad roads here during a great portion of the year, and we pay pretty heavy rates now.
268
[S. YOUNG.
C—4.
269. Do you think the maximum borrowing-powers under the Loans to Local Bodies Act — £6,000 a year—is sufficient to meet the requirements of the settlers in respect to the making of roads? —The Clutha County is a very large district, and the money does not go very far over it. 270. If the County Council exercised its full powers in that direction would not the roads be brought up to the requirements of the settlers in a very few years? —Yes, I think so. 271. Is the trouble that exists here due to the fact that your local body is not sufficiently progressive? —They are not progressive, from my standpoint. 272. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board? —Yes; but I would increase their discretionary powers. 273. You think the system of nomination is the best? —I think we get a chance of better men being selected, because the Government can appoint men who are known to be suitable. I would like to see the representation or selection of members spread over the country as largely as possible. 274. Would you be inclined to divide the land districts into wards, and have one member appointed from each district? —Yes. 275. Mr. Johnston.] You say that some of the settlements have been a success and some have not: which have been a success? —All up the Owaka Valley the settlers are comparatively well off. 276. Is that lease-in-perpetuity land? —No; it is mostly taken up by freeholders. A good deal of it is bush land, but a part of it is open country. 277. What is the quality of the land compared with the land where the settlements have not been successful ? —lt is heavy-bush land, where the settlers have a difficulty in clearing it, and the roads are very bad in the bush, and there is great expense caused to the settlers in taking in their goods. 278. It would appear that it was not proper settlement to open up this heavy-bush country in the way it was done? —I think it was short-sighted policy to settle people on that land until the bush was opened up by the sawmillers. 279. Was it not the settlers who were the principal movers in getting the land opened up i - I think the principal mover was our late member, Mr. Thomas Mackenzie, who went down through the bush some years ago and saw cocksfoot growing well at a particular place on the roadside, and he came to the conclusion that the rest of the land would grow grass in the same way, whereas the settlers have found out that it does not. 280. You think the settlers up the valley are most successful? —There is a small bit of land on the other side of Catlin's Lake that has been settled on the homestead system, and the settlers there have nearly all done fairly well. 281. How do you account for them doing well on those small areas? —They worked in order to make the laud their own; that was the great inducement in nearly every case. The land is now their own and they are fairly comfortable. They have had a dairy factory there for a number of years, and that has been of great assistance to them. 282. There is a small settlement called Heathiield divided into small areas? —That is a comparative failure. 283. Have you formed any opinion with reference to the advisability of transferring the management of education reserves from the School Commissioners to the Land Board I—l1 —I have not been interested in that matter. 284. Do you think the Californian thistle and ragwort depreciate the value of the land? — Kagwort undoubtedly decreases its value for dairy purposes. My opinion is that it would be better for many settlers if they kept sheep. This is a very good jalace for raising early lambs, and if a man did not keep his old stock too long he would do well by keeping lambs, but he would need a somewhat larger area than at present. 285. Roughly speaking, what does grassing cost per acre?—l never sowed anything under 155., and I think it generally costs a little more. 286. Mr. Anstey.] Can you give us any reason why steps were not taken to raise a loan for road-making? —There was an agitation for it about fifteen years ago, and about two or three years ago some of the settlers were very anxious to raise a loan to mettle the road; but obstructions were put in their way, partly by the County Council, and it was also said that the Crown tenants at the back of the freeholds would not be asked to bear their share of the cost of raising the loan. 287. Mr. Matheson.] Were you told that the Crown settlers could not be rated for roads? — Some persons said so. 288. Have you learnt differently since?—l understand they can, and have always thought so. 289. The Chairman.] Is the railway open for traffic much beyond this? —Three miles and a half. 290. Is it all bush right ahead? —Mostly. 291. It occurs to me, after hearing the evidence, that if the Government would agree to allow these people to suspend their operations for a time, until the railway was taken right through, and taking the first crop off the land, which is also the best—that is, the good timber—it would be the best course to take? —Yes. I am satisfied that land should never have been settled until it was opened by the railway. 292. Do you not think that the best thing would be to do as I suggest—to give the people who have bought land or hold land under tenures an extension of time until the railway is constructed, so as to take away the milling timber, which would furnish freight for the railway? Do you not think that would be making the most of the resources of the country? -I think that has been given effect to in most cases. The Board is most lenient with the settlers. I may mention that a great many sections that have been cleared and grassed at £2 10s. an acre, and fenced at 15s. an acre, you could not get the amount that has been spent on the land at the present moment, and if the land were sold now it would be sold at a loss 293. Where it is proposed to take the railway-line, is the land better or worse than the other land? —There is some very good land.
C.—4.
S. YOUNG.j
269
294. It would have been far better if the land had been held by the Crown and leased to sawmills ? —Yes. 295. The Chairman.] 1 understand you get some of your metal from Dunedin ? —Yes, some is obtained from Dunedin—from Logan's Point, and, I think, about Bruce. There is very little stone in this neighbourhood suitable for road-making. Alexander Clark Saunders further examined. 296. The Chairman.] I understand you desire to make a further statement? —Yes. One witness has stated something with reference to settlers in the upper district wanting to raise a loan, and the trouble and difficulty experienced in connection with that matter. The settlers in the upper district sent a petition to the County Council asking for a loan to be raised, and it was proposed to create a special rating district, and appended to that petition were the names of a great number of Crown tenants. I was not very sure about it, and brought the matter before the County Council as to the power of Crown tenants pledging Crown land for the loan. The question was discussed, and a resolution was passed that the County Council should communicate with the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and ask his opinion on the point. In due time a reply was received from Mr. Barron, enclosing a letter from the Minister of Lands, stating distinctly that Crown tenants would not be allowed to pledge the Crown land for any loan. Therefore the County Council were not able to go any further in the matter. 297. Mr. McCutchan.\ You are aware, of course, that the Loans to Local Bodies Act is in operation all over the colony. Can you tell me if there are any specific reasons why there should be any departure in this case from the practice in other parts of the colony? I know of dozens of cases where loans have been raised under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, and there was never any reference to the Minister nor to the Commissioner of Crown Lands; it was simply a matter between the County Council and the lending Department in Wellington ?—What I have stated was what occurred in this case. Samuel Bailey examined. 298. The Chairman.] What are you?- -I am a bush farmer, and hold 153 acres of bush land under occupation with right of purchase. 1 have held the land for about two years. My rent is about £7 per annum. I have felled about 38 acres of bush. My land is in the Woodlands district, a little over eleven miles from here. I have a road that is passable in the summer-time. The grass has taken fairly well in some places. 299. Have you anything special you wish to bring before the Commission? —I have a grievance against the Land Board in respect to the rent of my land. I thought the Land Board would be fair to me and give it to me at the price other settlers adjoining have got their land. Two settlers in the neighbourhood have left their sections, and a year after I took up the land I applied to the Land Board to be allowed to surrender, but they would not accept my application, although they allowed a settler next to me who has got as good land as mine to surrender twice. The Chairman said that such a case hardly came within the scope of the Commission. Witness said another objection he had was to the Board allowing men to take up land and not living on it. These men went away and worked outside, and that was a drawback to the settlers who lived on the land. 300. Mr. Anstey.J Do you think that the settlers ought to have some representation on the Land Board? —I do. As far as my experience of the Otago Land Board is concerned, it all depends on the men you have on it. We have no representative on the Board from the Catlins district. 301. Do you want to elect a representative, or do you want a member appointed from each district? —I have not formed any opinion on that point, but I think we ought to have some representation on the Board. 302. Mr. McCardle.] Do you know if the bush settlers have any representation on the Board at present?- -I believe there is one member from Clutha, but I do not think he understands the bush question at all. 303. Mr. Paul.] You would not say that the improved-farm system has been a success? —No. There is another thing I would like to mention, and that is, that the Board have allowed the bush reserve to be taken up by a party to cut sleepers out of it. The settlers got up a petition objecting to it, because it meant cutting up the roads. The Land Board for a time took no notice of our request, and they would not have done so but for some members of Parliament happening to come our way, and they brought the question before the authorities. Patrick Caroline examined. 304. Witness said lie was a grocer in Dunedin, but he Had been brought up on the land. He noticed that a question was sometimes put to witnesses in this form: " Supposing you were a landowner and you leased your land, what would you think if the lessee came to you and demanded the right of purchase? " He did not think it was right to put a private landowner in the same position as the Government, for the reason that a private landowner was like a man in business, and wanted to make as much out of the land as possible. The Government was in a different position altogether. They held the land for the people. They did not want to make a profit out of the land in letting it out on perpetual lease or in small holdings, but their desire was to settle the land. Every man put on the land was a man taken off the streets, and he became a good and useful citizen, and, naturally, the Government, in giving such a man advantages and inducements to go on the land, were not in the same position as a private landowner, who owned land and leased it, and who desired to make the best of it as a private speculation. He thought that the man who took up a section of land and felled 30 acres a year undertook a herculean task.
C—4.
270
[j. CHBISTIE.
Balclutha, Thursday, 23rd March, 1905. John Christie examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a freehold farmer at Warepa. I own about 900 acres, and I have been farming all my life. lam chairman of the Clutha Branch of the Farmers' Union, and I have been appointed, with Mr. Wilson, the secretary, to give the views of the union on a few points. At a meeting last night twenty members of the union were present, and they carried by a majority, " That the meeting is in favour of elective Land Boards." I may say that personally that is not my view. I believe in the Land Boards as at present constituted. It was carried unanimously, "That the meeting is in favour of leasehold with the right of purchase." We think that the tenants should have the right to pay off as they go along. Ido not think that means to say they should be allowed to borrow outside money to buy the land. It was also carried, " That this meeting is in favour of the single ballot." That is the old system. It was explained by one of the settlers in Barnego that there are two systems, and the meeting strongly supported the old system. That is all I have to say so far as the Farmers' Union is concerned. 2. Can you tell us what influenced the majority in carrying the motion of elective Land Boards —I presume they are dissatisfied with the present constitution I—l1 —I cannot say as to that; I think it is just a theory. They think that by election they would be better served. 3. Of course, they must have been dissatisfied with the present Board in some particular way? —A few of the Crown tenants seem to think they want more representation on the Board. I understand they would like some special representation of their own —that they should be represented by a member elected by themselves. Their idea was that the Government should appoint some members and that some should be elected. 4. Was it carried that they were all to be elected? —It was put to the meeting and carried by a majority that the Land Boards be elected. 5. What have you to say in regard to the option of purchase? —We think that all the present methods of acquiring land should be left as they are —that a man should be allowed to take up land either under lease in perpetuity, or occupation with right of purchase, or for cash; but the meeting seemed to strongly support the idea that the settlers should be allowed to pay off the land as they had the means. 6. In regard to the single ballot, I may say we have had very complete information about it: have you anything special to say on the subject?—No, except that grouping is the objection, because under it a man is compelled to take a section that he would not otherwise touch at any price, or else forfeit his deposit. If a farmer's heart is not in the section he selects he would sooner have nothing to do with it. 7. Is there any other point you have to mention? —So far as my personal views are concerned, I may state I have read Mr. Donald Reid's evidence, and lam exactly in accord with his views. It seems to me it is a good incentive if a man is able to pay off £100, £150, or .£2OO as he makes it out of the land, and so reduce his rent. 8. Mr. Johnston.] How long have you been in this district? —All my life. 9. Have you many of the settlers in this new Barnego Settlement as members of your union? —Several of them. There were three or four there last night. 10. Is there any land here fit to be cut up over and above what has been cut up ? —A great deal of it. 11. Freehold or leasehold? —There are places like Clifton. Some of the latter land has been lately bought for private settlement, and it should have been cut up years ago. 12. Is Clydevale fit to cut up? —I think so. I have not had much experience of it. 13. Is there much Californian thistle about here? —I consider there is a good deal of it. 14. Any ragwort? —Very little outside the bush land. The bush land is infested with ragwort as a rule. 15. Is the Californian thistle depreciating the value of land at all? —I consider it is greatly depreciating, and in my own case I consider it has depreciated from £1 to £1 10s. an acre. •16. Have the settlements close to here been a success? —I do not know. Barnego is the only one, and I have not made any inquiries about it. So far as I have heard it has been a success. There is a small village settlement at the Warepa Bush, about ten miles from here. That has been a partial success, but the areas are too small and the land too poor for a man to live on. 17. Mr. McLennan.] You said that at the meeting last night there were three or four Crown tenants? —That is so. 18. How many freeholders were there? —About sixteen or seventeen. 19. How many Crown tenants are there in this district? —I have no idea. I believe there are twenty-four on Barnego. 20. You had the opinion of three or four out of twenty-four ?—I think these gentlemen were sent from the settlement to represent the settlement. But they will speak for themselves; they are present to-day. 21. What is the object of the Farmers' Union advocating the freehold? Do they think it is for the benefit of the tenants?— They have a conviction that land is better farmed, and that a man will put more substantial improvements on the land and take more interest in it if he has the right to purchase. 22. How do the improvements that these Crown tenants have already erected compare with improvements on freehold lands about here?—l do not know; I have not visited Barnego. 23. Mr. Anstey.] You say your union is in favour of elective Land Boards: on what principle do you propose to elect them?— That is a question they did not fully discuss. We are inclined to think they should be elected as members of the County Councils are elected—namely, by the ratepayers, and that the towns should not have a say in it. 24. And do you think that the tenants have no right to elect a member of the Land Board?— Personally, I think that Land Boards are better nominated by the Government as at present; but
J. CHRISTIE.]
271
a—4.
the union carried a motion that they should be elected, although they were not very clearly decided in what way. I have had some little experience on Education Board elections, and I think School Committees often vote for men they know nothing about, and I object to that. 25. Do you think it is necessary for the Crown tenants to have any representation? —The Crown tenants present expressed the opinion that they would like representation on the Land Board. Ido not say that is my view. 26. You say a majority of the meeting was in favour of the right of purchase being given: can you say whether the Crown tenants who were there were in favour of that ? —Certainly. I said the motion was carried unanimously. 27. Do you think if the right of purchase was extended to them it would be any great advantage to them? —I think it would be an incentive for a man to get his rent reduced as he was able to pay the purchase-money off. I would strongly object to outside money being borrowed and the land being bought outright. 28. On what terms do you propose to give the right of purchase? —If they can pay off £100 or £150 in any good year let them do so and have the rent reduced accordingly. 29. Would you give them the right to purchase at the original valuation or at the valuation at the time they exercised the right? —I would give them the land at the same price as if it had been purchased for cash at the time it was taken up. 30. Although the land may be 50 per cent, higher in value then? —I think they should get it on that basis. I do not think it is good for the colony or for the land that a man should be harassed by having to pay too much for his land. If he is he must take it out of the land to the detriment of the land. 31. Are the valuations of-these sections all strictly correct, or is it not a fact that some are very cheap and others possibly are dear ? —I heard this morning that the Barnego Settlement is not valued very justly. 32. Suppose you gave these settlers the right of purchase, would not the result be that those who have cheap and valuable sections would buy them, and all the dear ones would be left on the hands of the Government? —That might possibly happen. 33. Would it not be much fairer in giving the right of purchase to make a revaluation? —It might be in some cases, but in some cases it would be a hardship. 34. Have you any right in saying that freehold farms are better farmed than leasehold? — Well, there are men who should never own land, because they cannot farm properly; but, as a general principle, I think that freeholders do farm their land better. At any rate, they have an incentive to farm it better. 35. For instance, we went through Barnego Settlement this morning, and saw some splendid crops of turnips: do they grow them better on freehold farms? —The land is not as good in a great many cases. 36. I noticed some of the buildings there, and they certainly could not be called very bad: do freeholders when they first start put up better buildings than these? —I cannot say. I think some of them put up too good buildings and encumber themselves. I do not consider it a very healthy sign to see a man going in for too elaborate buildings. 37. Mr. Forbes.] In giving the right of freeholds to Crown tenants, would your union consider that there ought to be some restriction as to the amount of freehold a man should own ? —I think that is generally conceded, but the question was not raised last night. We do not want to aggregate big estates again, although I do not think that is likely to happen. 38. The Government have gone to a good deal of expense in cutting up estates and putting people on them, and if they give the right to acquire the freehold possibly half the present tenants may be bought out by their neighbours: would that be a good thing? —The very fact that these improvements have to be put on would prevent that, because they would make the land too dear to be bought. All these improvements and buildings would be unnecessary in one big place. A man does not want a farm with half a dozen homesteads. 39. You think the improvements are sufficient protection to prevent settlers buying out each other if the right of purchase is given ? —I do. 40. What difference do you see between the lease in perpetuity and the freehold? A man holds a lease in perpetuity for 999 years and he only pays 5 per cent, on the capital value of the land, and if he had to borrow to make it freehold he would have to pay fully that interest to a private lending company : do you not think it would be better that the Government should have a say over that land rather than a private lending company? —I would object to anything of that kind. I do not think he should be allowed to borrow money to acquire the freehold. I think he should pay a portion off as he makes it out of the land. 41. Do you not think that a lease in perpetuity at a fixed rental ought to be as secure as any freehold in the country? —Yes; but the tenant has to pay this everlasting rent, and he would like to make it lighter if he could. 42. Suppose he had sufficient money in hand to do so, could he not invest it at 5 per cent, elsewhere? -Yes; but a farmer very seldom does that. He likes to put his money in his own land. If he had £100 or £150 he would not invest it, but would make a struggle to pay it off his pur-chase-money. 43. Do you not think it is that struggle to pay the mortgage off that has done a lot to sicken young people of farming life? The father with a mortgage has done everything he could to pay it off, and the young people have got no wages and have therefore left, disgusted with the life? — That was so to a great extent, but the time for that is past. Farm produce here was for a great number of years almost unsaleable, but things have taken a better turn now. You will find many of the young people coming back to farm life before long. They find that office-work is not such a fancy job as they thought. 44. In your experience, do you think that there is a great deal of extra money made in farming ?—There are no fortunes made in farming.
C—4.
272
[j. CHRISTIE.
45. If a man had to pay his family anything like fair wages would there be anything left over ? —I am in a position of having no family, and I pay wages for everything that is done on my place, and I make a little bit over and above that. I often make £100 or £150 or £200 with which I could lighten my encumbrances. 46. If dairy-farmers with families paid wages for the work to their families would there be much left over? —I have had no experience of dairy farms. 47. Mr. McCutcha,n.\ Is roading satisfactory throughout the district, generally speaking? — I think the Crown tenants have grievances, so far as roading is concerned; but they are here, and will be able to speak about these matters for themselves. 48. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —None whatever. 49. With reference to Land Board representation, we have heard complaints that there are districts, and particularly Central Otago, that have no adequate representation : would you be in favour of a land district being divided into wards and the Government nominating a member from each ward ? —I think that would meet the case. 50. Mr. Paul.\ You have not much faith in the leasehold system? —I think the leasehold very good. I would leave the option open, and allow a man to take up a leasehold if he could not take up a freehold, but I think he should be given the option to pay off the purchase-money. 51. Would you extend that option right through and include lands purchased by the Government? —Yes. 52. You have studied this question, I suppose, from a broad standpoint and from the interest of the State? —I do not say that I have given it a great deal of thought myself. It did not interest me personally. 53. Do you mean to say that a question of such magnitude as this does not interest you personally as a citizen of the colony?- Personally, I have always been on freehold land, and have never had anything to do with Government land. I am only here representing the views of the union so far as freehold is concerned, and, I may say, my own views as well. 54. You are chairman of the Farmers' Union: therefore do you not think that is all the more reason why you should study the question from the standpoint of the State? —I dare say; but we have leaseholders for that purpose. 55. Would you extend the option of purchase to tenants occupying education and other endowments? —I have never studied that question, but Ido not think the State should part with the freehold of their education endowments. 56. Do you believe in conserving them for the purpose for which they were set aside? —Certainly. 57. In answer to a question put by Mr. Anstey you said in some cases there might be hardship if the land was revalued for the purpose of selling to the tenants? —I dare say there might be. 58. In what direction? —I can hardly say at present; I have not got a case in point. 59. Mr. McCardle.~\ How many members are there in the Clutha Branch of the Farmers' Union I—About1 —About a hundred paying members. 60. Do you think you are expressing the opinion of the majority of the Farmers' Union? — Certainly. 61. You know what is meant by the term " colours " : are the " colours " well mixed amongst the membership of your union, or are they all of one "colour"? —I think the "colours" are pretty well mixed. Alexander Stevenson examined. 62. The Chairman.\ What are you? —I am a settler on Barnego. I hold 150 acres, partly on the flat and partly on the hill. I pay lis. per acre rent, all over. lam an original settler there, and I have been there five years. lam under the lease in perpetuity. 63. Are you satisfied with that? —Yes, so far. 64. Do you find the land well worth your rent? —Yes; I am satisfied with it. 65. Mr. Johnston.] Are you satisfied with the tenure? —Yes. 66. Are you satisfied with everything in connection with the settlement ? We are not satisfied with the representation we have on the Board. That is the only trouble. 67. And you want it elective? —No. We approve of the present system of Government nomination, but we consider the members of the Board should be fairly divided. We do not think they should be all freeholders, but that out of the seven there should be at least three Crown tenants who have proved themselves capable of filling the position. 68. You think there should be three Crown tenants nominated by the Government? —Yes. At present there is only one. 69. Have you any objection under any other heading in connection with your settlement? — We have a grievance in regard to loading. When we took up the land loading was put on your rent —no doubt to a small extent —to extend over the 999 years, and at the present time the roads are not constructed. We have had to go the length of making the roads at our own expense. 70. Mr. Anstey.\ We have been told that the Crown tenants do not farm their land as well as freeholders : I need not ask you about your place, having seen it this morning; but is it your general opinion that Crown tenants are not farming their land as well as similar freehold lands are farmed ? —We have certain regulations that we must work up to or walk out, and we are compelled by these regulations to keep our land in the same condition as freeholds; hence a tenant must keep his land up to the standard of the freehold. 71. Do you know of any freeholders in regard to whom it would be just as well if they had something to keep them up to the mark? —No doubt the freeholder is kept up to a certain extent as well. 72. Are the buildings that are being erected on these leaseholds very much worse than the buildings erected on freehold land of a similar nature? They seem to compare very favourablv with the improvements that a freeholder puts on.
A. STEVENSON.]
273
C—4.
73. Then, there is not much in the objection that the freeholder farms much better than the leaseholder? —No; only the freeholder has a more secure tenure. 74. Mr. Forbes.] Would you prefer the freehold of your lease in perpetuity? —Yes, provided the right conditions were given to acquire it. 75. You would like the right of purchase? —Yes. 76. Why do you wish to have the freehold? Is the lease in perpetuity not long enough? —It is right enough, but it is nature all the world over for a man to want to own his own land. When a man has his own piece of ground he feels more secure. You have no feeling of security in this lease in perpetuity. 77. Are you harassed by the Ranger? —There is no need of it, because there is a standard of regulations which we must work up to or walk out. 78. Does the Ranger not come round to see if you do work up to thern ? —Most decidedly, and we know that. 79. Are you required to clear your land of this Californian thistle? —The Stock Inspectors are sent out by the Government to see that we keep it down, and if we do not they take action against us. 80. You would prefer to have the right of purchase of your lease in perpetuity? —Yes. 81. Mr. McGutchan.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Board? —None. 82. The Barnego Block was loaded for roads? —So I understand. 83. Are you confident it was loaded for roads?--That is the information we got from our member and from the Road Engineer. 84. Do you know the amount of the loading? —It was to be sufficient to complete the unconstructed roads. 85. Do you include formation and metalling in the construction? —No; it was just to make the roads. 86. Has any loading been expended on the roads? —Part of it. 87. Has the work been given to the settlers? —In no case. 88. If the work had been offered to the settlers would they have undertaken it? —Most decidedly, and they offered to do it. 89. You understand that interest on the loading goes on for the whole term of the lease? — So I understand. 90. Do you think that is a grievance? —Yes, because the money has not been expended. 91. Would it be a grievance if the money had been expended? —No. 92. You are prepared to pay interest on the loading for the whole 999 years? —Yes, provided I get value for the money paid. 93. Mr. Paul.~\ Is Barnego Settlement a success? —Taken all over, I think it is. There is one section vacant at the present time. 94. Have any settlers left or sold out during the five years? —Only one. He applied for a surrender, and the Board at first refused it, but now they have it under consideration again; but no conclusion has been arrived at yet. 95. Is the man still in occupation? —No. 96. Is any one else in occupation? —Not so far as I know. 97. How does the price of land at Barnego compare to-day with what it was five years ago? — I suppose the settlers by their own exertions have increased the selling-value of the land. My section is worth more to-day than it was five years ago. 98. Is there a selling-value over and above what you have expended upon it? —I dare say. The surrounding circumstances will increase the selling-value. 99. You want the option of the freehold? —Yes. 100. In the first place, you would not have been able to take up the section if it had not been for the leasehold system? —That is true. 101. Do you propose to acquire the freehold at the original value or at the value to-day? — At the original value. ■ 102. Do you think that is fair? —The conditions I would stipulate are these: Under my lease lam compelled to reside on my section for ten years. After that time residence is not compulsory. I would give a man who continued to reside on his section after ten years the right of purchase. 103. Suppose he did not exercise the option until twenty years after the date of his lease? — I would give him the option even then. 104. And at the original valuation? —Yes, because I say that he has by his own exertion made the land what it is. 105. We know, in regard to some land settled under the land for settlements, there is a goodwill amounting in many cases to £500 over and above the exertions of the tenant: would you make a present of that to the tenant ? —I think any revaluation would only be hampering to the tenant. 106. What about the interest of the State? —I think the interest of the State has been very well conserved already. 107. Is the interest of the State to be conserved by making the tenant the present of a sum equivalent in some cases to £500 ? —Yes, because I consider in looking after the interest of the tenant the State must be looking after its own interest as well. 108. You think that always follows? —I think so. 109. You spoke of the instinct of ownership: is not the instinct of ownership strong in a man in regard to many other things as well as land? —Most decidedly. It is nature all the world over. 110. It is a very natural thing that a man should want to own his piece of land? —Yes. 111. How are you going to gratify that instinct: do you think there is land enough to go round I—l1 —I would still keep the lease in perpetuity open as well as granting the right to purchase. 112. Mr. Matheson.] Your farm has gone up in value by the general advance of the district as well as by your own labour ? —Yes.
35—C. 4.
[A. STEVENSON.
C—4.
274
113. Have the values of town businesses also gone up owing to that general advance?— Most decidedly they must have. . 114. Do you think it is as reasonable for you to have a right to the general advance in the value of your property as it is for the business-man to have the increased value that has come to him? —I should think so. We ought to be on the same terms. 115. Mr. McCardle.\ You are holding a lease in perpetuity now, and suppose your section is worth £500 more than when you took it up, to whom does that increased value belong if you wanted to sell out to-morrow ?—lt partly belongs to me. 116. If you sell out to-morrow and get that sum for the goodwill how much of it will the State get?—lf the State gets a good tenant that is all it can get. 117. So that if you got the freehold you would be getting nothing more than you have already in your possession ? —Nothing more than a securer tenure. 118. And the State is making no more of a present to you than you already possess under your present agreement? —No. 119. It has been said in some quarters that the Crown tenants do not want the freehold at all, but that certain unions and organizations are stirring the farmers up for political purposes : have the farmers in your district been stirred up by any particular portion of the community foi political purposes ? —Not at all. 120. You are acting entirely in accordance with your own mind and wishes? —Yes. We had a meeting amongst ourselves before going to the Farmers' Union at all, and two were appointed to go there, and these two happened to be members of the Farmers' Union. 121. You see by the trend of some questions put to you that it is assumed the State has an ownership in your property over and above the fee-simple in your land: suppose you sold out and got a value over and above what your improvements had cost you, if the Government revalued that land and any portion of the unearned increment, so called, was to go to the State, that man would be compelled to return the amount over and above his improvements ?—I consider if it was not for us there would be no such thing as unearned increment. The railway would not be put through if it was not required. Heebeht Clark examined. 122. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler on Barnego. 1 hold 112 acres, and I pay lis. per acre rent. lam a neighbour of the last witness, and occupy the same land as he does. 123. You have heard Mr. Stevenson's evidence: do you disagree with any portion of it?— No; I indorse it all. 124. Is there any other point you wish to bring up? —I would like to say we do not approve of the second ballot. . „ , 125. Are you satisfied with your section and what you pay for it?—l have to be satisfied with it. . 126. Mr. Johnston.] You say you have to be satisfied: are there any drawbacks to it I— Yes; we are subject to floods at times. c . u 127. I suppose you knew that when you took the land up?—l had no experience ol it when I came from the tiorth, but I was told about it. 128. Is that the only drawback? —There is a drawback in regard to roads. We are part on the hills' and part on the flat, and we were given to understand there was to be a direct outlet, but it was never made until we made it ourselves. 129. Do you want the freehold?— Yes, I would like the option of purchase. 130. Is there much Californian thistle on your land?— Yes. 131. Is it doing any harm? —It would if we did not keep cutting it. 132. Could you sell out your section now at a premium? —I do not know that I could. 133. Mr. Anstey.~\ Could you tell me whether the loading promised has been spent on these roads? —It has not. 134. You are certain it has not? —Yes. 135. Can you give us any reason why it has not been spent ?—We petitioned the Government, and they always told us the money was voted and they were making a start, but nothing came ° f 11 "136. Do you think the Government has broken faith with you in not providing the roads as they promised? —It seems so. 137. In saying you would like the right of purchase, do you think you have any right to it? —No. i would only like to be placed on the same footing as other people. I think the lease in perpetuity is a good lease, and I should not like to see it done away with. 138. Mr. Foi-bes.] Do you find the Rangers give you any trouble at all? —Not unless we neglect our places. . 139. You do not think that any of the regulations they have to enforce are a hardship on the settlers I—No.1 —No. 140. When you took your section up, of course, the roads were surveyed. Did you understand you were going to get them properly fixed up?— Yes, and river-protection works as well. Mv section abounds the bank of the river and is loaded for river-protection works, and a certain amount of money was to have been spent straight away. I think £200 a year was to be spent until the protection-works were completed. A portion of it was spent, but we had to petition them several times before it was, and I know I had to give work gratis to get it done. It is still unfinished. The last time the settlers approached the Government they said the money was voted and a start was to be made in a week, and that is the last we heard of it, and land has since Been washed awav. , , , . , _ 141. Did you apply to the Land Board to get the work done?—No, to the District Engineer generally. We applied to the Land Board through our member to use their influence on our behalf.
C—4
H. CLABK.j
275
142. Mr. McC'utchan.] Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Department ? —No. 143. Do you know the amount of loading for roads in this Barnego Block? —I have not heard of it. 144. You are aware that a certain amount of money has been spent? —Yes, Out it was spent where we did not want it. 145. If you are not aware of the total amount of loading and you are aware that a certain amount of loading has been spent, how are you in a position to say that the total amount of loading has not been spent? —If it was spent we consider it has been spent in places that least required it. There was enough money if it had been spent in the right places. 146. Then, that is your objection —not that the total, amount of loading has not been spent, but that it has been spent unwisely ? —I do not know if the total amount has been spent. 147. Are you satisfied to go on paying interest on the loading for the whole term of your lease? —Not if we have to make the roads ourselves. 148. Mr. Paul.] You are a member of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 149. How many settlers on Barnego are members? —There are about four. 150. Then, instead of these resolutions being the opinion of the Crown tenants they are the opinion of the freeholders in this district? —No. 151. Why not? —We are expressing our opinion apart from the Farmers' Union. We had a meeting of the settlers on Barnego, and we are here to represent the settlers. 152-. How many settlers were at that meeting? —All the settlers on the flat were present. 153. Do you want the option of purchase at the original valuation or at the present valuation? —I think it should be at the original valuation. 154. Do you think that is fair? —I think if there is any difference we should be entitled to our share of it. It is due to our own work and industry that the land has been brought to its present state. 155. Do you think you should be entitled to all of it? —I think we should be entitled to the biggest portion of it. 156. At all events, you think the State should be entitled to a portion of it? —Yes. 157. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the State is entitled to a portion of the merchant's business that has increased in value through the advancement of the district? —No. 158. Then, why is the State entitled to a portion of the value of your farm which has advanced in the same way? —I suppose if it was not for them we would not have had it. 159. Is it not the result of the efforts of the country settlers that all town values have advanced 2 —Yes. 160. With regard to cropping, does it seem reasonable to you that you should be restricted to two white crops on land for which you are paying lis. per acre, when people who have land for which they are only paying 6s. per acre are entitled to take the same crops off it? That is according to the way the land is farmed. 161. Do you think it would hurt your land to take three white crops running? —Not at all. 162. With regard to loading, I suppose you know when an estate is offered for sale the plans ■ give a description of prices and quality, and then speak of work to be done: did your plan speak of protective works and roads to be made?—No; we were only given to understand it. 163. Was that on inquiry at the Land Office? —Yes. 164. You had a verbal assurance that protective works would be done at the rate of £200 a year? —Yes, and I drew one of the sections affected by the river. 165. Mr. McCardle.] You say you held a meeting among yourselves I—Yes. 166. Was a resolution carried in favour of the freehold at your meeting?— Yes. 167. Was it carried unanimously? —Yes. 168. You consider, of course, that the country has done a good thing in passing an Act granting land on these easy terms? —I do. 169. Are you so desirous of the freehold that you would be prepared to pay something extra to the Government to acquire the freehold ?—Not unless they are entitled to it. 170. Do you not consider it would be giving you some consideration if the right of freehold was granted? —Yes. 171. And you would be prepared to pay a moiety for it? —Yes, if they prove they are entitled to a share of it. 172. Of course, the whole interest in that section is yours for 999 years?— Yes. 173. The State is not entitled to any extra amount on that property beyond what you are paying in the shape of rent? —That is so. 174. And if you were selling out to-morrow you are entitled to the value of that holding as it stands to-day? —Yes. 175. Mr. Forbes.] You say you applied to the Land Board and to the member for your district to get the loading spent? —Yes. 176. What was the result?—We were always told that a vote would be placed on the next estimates. 177. How long has this gone on? —Ever since I took up the section, five years ago. 178. Who is your member?— The member for Bruce, Mr. James Allen. Charms Shand examined. 179. The Chairman.] What are; you?—l am a settler at Upper Barnego, where my sons and daughters and myself hold about 1,800 acres, for which we pay about £300 a year in rent. 180. You represent the settlers in the upper end of the estate and know their feelings ?—' Yes. I have been in the Clutha district for the last twenty-eight years. I was living with a grown-up family of nine sons and daughters at Tahakopa, and we made up our minds to go in for the
0.—4.
276
0. SHAND.
Barnego Estate, and my son Was fortunate to secure section 7. One Fraser drew section 8. The way the buildings were arranged made it advisable for us to secure section 8 if possible, so as to keep them all together. Fraser did not fulfil the conditions of the lease and reside on his section, so the Land Board objected and he sold out to me. Barnego, I think, is the worst-valued settlement that the Crown holds. The ballot showed that the settlers knew better than the valuers what to value it at. The sections at the lower end at 3s. were rushed, but at the upper end, where there is snow for weeks on end, we have to pay 4s. 6d. and ss. There is a petition now in the House praying for a reduction. 1 heard to-day of one man who will be compelled to throw his section back on the Government's hands. lam very sorry for that, for this particular man is very industrious. We do all our labour within ourselves, practically speaking. We could not afford to employ a great deal of labour, for wages are worse now than they were thirty years ago. 181. Mr. Johnston.] You say that the estate is badly valued? —Yes. 182. Were we near your place this morning? —No, my place is ten miles away. 183. Is it on those rocky hills? —Yes. 184. What are you paying? —4s. 6d. and ss. an acre. There was 1,000 acres that had been lying unoccupied till about a month ago, and the Government reduced the rent for it, and one of my daughters was successful in drawing it. 185. Is that the vacant section we heard about this morning? —No. 186. Is the lower part we were through this morning undervalued? —I would not say that. They are making a livelihood, but they run a risk from the river. 187. Are the majority of the settlers in the upper part dissatisfied? —Yes. 188. All of them? —There are four. 189. What is the carrying-capacity? —It would not carry a sheep to the acre. 190. Would it carry a sheej) to 2 acres? —With plenty of turnips for six months of the year it would. 191. How many years will the grass last? —After the second or third year the grass is no use without renewing. The frost and snow are very severe. We will have frost and snow there in the month of October, when we are busy with the lambing. 192. What is the height? —700 ft. to 800 ft. 193. Mr. Anstcy.] Do you wish the right of purchase? —Yes. 194. On what terms do you wish the right of purchase —on the original valuation or at a valuation to be made now? —On the original valuation. 195. You told us that the rents were much too high, but you are still willing to purchase at the price on which that rent is based? —My sons and daughters wish they had the right of purchase, and that whenever they had a good year they could pay in to the Government whatever money they could spare, so that the amount of their interest would be reduced. 196. You do not mind paying more than the land is worth in order to get the right of purchase? —No; I would not pay more than it is worth. 197. Mr. Forbes.] You have applied to the Government for a reduction of rent? —Yes, at the upper end. 198. Are you personally overvalued? —Yes; I would have had to go out the second or third year but for my sons and daughters. 199. Could you get land cheaper in the neighbourhood? —Yes, just across the road land is standing at £1 155., and the highest at £2 10s. per acre. 200. And you are paying 4s. 6d. and ss. an acre? —Yes, and all the buildings added on to that. 201. Why not give it up and take the other land? —It is the terms that kill the other land. I like the lease in perpetuity, but there should be the right of purchase. Under that system a man with small means can go on, and with the right of purchase he will take more interest in his land. 202 You do not feel the regulations pressing unduly on you? —I could not wish to serve a better landlord than the Government. 203. You cannot be turned cut so long as you comply with the conditions?—No; but it seems to me that settlers never value 999-year leases. You may as well give them twelve-year leases. 204. They would sooner have the right to convert to freehold than continue under any lease? —My sons' and daughters' hearts are in the land, and I would sooner see them invest their money in the land 205. Mr. Paul.] What do uou think of the principle of revaluation at stated intervals, say, every twenty or thirty years?—l consider that a farmer who is struggling and improving his farm should have the right of purchase at the original valuation. Any of you can have my place to-morrow if you give me what I have paid for it and put into it. 206. What objection have you to periodical revaluation? —I have no objection to it, but thirty years is a long time. Would the Government be prepared to take it off my hands if I wanted to go out.
Clinton, Thursday, 23rd March, 1905. Thomas Taylor examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a farmer at Wairuna, where I have 4,000 acres of freehold. I have been farming, in this district for thirty years, more or less. 2. Is there any matter you wish to bring before the Commission? —No. 1 have nothing of my own motion to bring forward, but I will answer any questions the Commission put to me. 3. Have you had any dealings with the Land Board at all? —No.
T. TAYLOE.J
277
C—4.
4. No doubt you have given attention to what goes on in the Land Boards —their work and general administration; do you think the present constitution of the Land Board is satisfactory ?— I have no fault to find with the Land Board. I never knew the Land Board to come into collision with any one, or to give a detrimental decision. 1 do not know how it could be constituted better than at present. If, say, three of the members could have been nominated by the Government and two elected by the people that might be a good thing, but I do not see how it could be done. I look upon it that when men are put into the position of members of the Land Board, if they are honest they will always do what is fair and right when matters come before them. The only point I would wish to mention in connection with the Land Boards is the distribution of its members over the district. For instance, we have two members —one coming from Clutha and one from Tokomairiro. That is too near, and one would do for that area, whilst the other could have been selected more from the interior 5. What views do you hold with regard to lease in perpetuity or freehold as a tenure? —To my mind, freehold is preferable. My idea with regard to the leasehold is, that it is a very good thing for a man desiring a start, for by its means a man can start farming with far less capital than on a freehold. My opinion is that with all leasehold tenures there should be a clause giving the man the option of becoming a freeholder if he so desires. 6. Have you any particular tenure that you think would be most beneficial in the settling of the country —you know that lease in perpetuity is freehold in effect? —There is something in human nature that makes a man desire to own his land, and even with the lease in perpetuity there should be a clause that the holder can make it his own if he wishes it. For instance, I have a family of sons, and if I had a lease in perpetuity 1 might not desire the freehold, but when my sons came into possession they might, and under the present conditions that would not be possible of fulfilment. There should be a clause providing that the holder of the lease may become a freeholder if he so wishes, and I think that woufd be a very good thing. 7. Mr. McCardle.] The Land Boards at present meet weekly, and it is proposed that they should meet fortnightly. If they were to hold alternate meetings at different parts of the province so that members might become acquainted with the different localities and the position of settlers, do you not think that would be a wise thing, and do away with the necessity of persons representing different localities ? —Yes. 8. Is there anything in connection with the 999-years lease that you think objectionable? — Yes. The matter of there being no option of freehold. If I.have a freehold which is stocked, and I die, even though I have no money in the bank, I can so leave my property that my sons and daughters are all provided for. On the other hand, however, if my land is a lease in perpetuity I am unable to definitely provide for any of my family, except the one to whom the lease is left. 9. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Board? —I have had this experience : that it brought down the interest the freeholders were paying on mortgage. I think that the advances-to-settlers scheme is a splendid thing, and has done a lot of good. 10. Do you believe its powers should be extended? —Yes. They might be gradually extended. 11. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it good for the tenants to give them the right of purchase? —Yes. * 12. And good for the State? —Anything that is good for the people is good for the State. 13. Is your farm near the Pomahaka Estate?--Almost adjoining. 14. What did you think of the Government paying £2 an acre for Pomahaka for subdivision ? —I did not think it was out of the way. 15. What do you think now? —I think the loading of it is too great. If the settlers had got the land at the price the Government paid for it their rents would not have been out of place. 16. It was necessary to have roads for them? —Yes, but it was not necessary to add the money for the roads on to what the Government paid for the estate. The first purchaser of the land bought it from the Government, and out of that payment the roads should have been made, not out of the second purchase. For those of us who are in the district and not under that system the Government made our roads out of the money we paid for the land, and they should have done the same with Pomahaka. The roads should have been made out of the money paid at the time of the original purchase. 17. Mr. McCutchan.] You mean the roads should have been made out of consolidated revenue? —Yes. The original purchase-money was included in that. 18. Mr. Paul.] Are you a member of any local body? —No. 19. Are you representing the Farmers' Union here? —The president of the Farmers' Union asked me to speak for the union, but I am not representing them, and I am only expressing my own views. 20. The views you have put before us to-day are not necessarily the views of the Farmers' Union? —That is so. 21. Are you in favour of limiting the area of land which can be held by one man? —Yes, but the quality of the land enters into that subject. Where the soil is good and rich a smaller area will do than in places where the soil is not good. For instance, 1,000 acres in the Taieri would be too much, whereas 2,000 or 3,000 acres down here would not be too much. 22. You think that the limitation should be with regard to value? —Yes. 23. What would you suggest as a limitation? —I would not suggest anything, for I have not studied the question, only I think you cannot limit a man to what he can just work himself. If there were no men in the district .who could give employment outside their family it would be a mistake. Some people should have more land than they can work themselves, so as to give employment to others. 24. You think that a leaseholder has not the same incentive to work as a freeholder ? —lf it comes to a case of that kind, and a leaseholder sees that he is really going to be bested in his land,
[t. tayloe.
C— 4.
278
he will not make the same effort as a freeholder, who will work night and day to keep possession of his land. . , v t 25. You think that the receiving of wages is sufficient incentive tor hired labour f— Yes; I would rather myself take my swag on my back and work for another man than begin on a leased 26. You do not believe in the leasehold? —Not when there is no incentive to get the freehold. 27. If it is a question of being a leaseholder all your life you would rather have nothing eo do with the land? —Yes. 28. Will you not admit that some of your neighbours with leaseholds are excellent farmers i —Yes. My farming experience has been confined exclusively to the Clutha district, and I have known young men take up leasehold farms from private individuals, and at the expiry of the lease in nineteen years have left the place as poor as they were when they went on. That is bad. Had they taken up a freehold at the start they would have been in a much better position. 29. Do you think the present holders of leases in perpetuity should have the option of the freehold?— Yes. I think the option of the freehold should be given in all leases of whatever kind. 30. On what terms would you give that option—the present or the original value?—l would not like to say; I have not studied that question. 31. I understood you to say just now that what was good for the people was good tor the State, but now you say you are not sure on what terms you would give these tenants the freehold —That is so. There are differences of valuation and differences of tenure, and they would have to be dealt with under their own individual system. 32 When you speak of the people you understand that tenants are not necessarily the only people to be considered?— That is so; but if you have a prosperous tenantry all over the State you will have a prosperous State. 33. Is it not possible to give the tenantry something very good for themselves to the detriment of the rest of the community? —No, I do not think so. 34. Do you not think that too much could be given to one section ?—I think the (government could look after that and see that too liberal terms were not given. They have not been in the habit of giving away their land without some equivalent. ... , 35 Mr Anstey. 1 You said that all tenants should have the ultimate right of purchase: does that include the tenants of education, Harbour Board, and other endowment reserves?— No. 1 consider that the land reserved for educational or any other specific purpose should be kept without violation in any way. I would not sell an acre of land that belonged to an endowment. 36 Then, the tenants of these reserves are not deserving of the same consideration as other Government tenants?— There is a bargain, they know what they are doing before they take up the lease, and they know that the land does not belong to the State. 1 37. Do not the holders of leases in perpetuity know what they are doing f—ihey know that they are dealing direct with the State. 38. Mr. McCardle.] Are you not aware that the rents of those endowments you speak ot are received by the Government? —That must be a very recent date. 39. No. The amount of the rents from the Otago educational endowments is deducted trom the grant from the Government for educational purposes, so that the whole of the colony is on an equal footing ?—Something has gone wrong before that commenced. 40. Do you not think it would be better if all these endowments were taken over by the Government and interest-bearing debentures given in their stead, the endowments becoming the lands of the State? —1 am not very clear about that. I notice there is an agitation to have these endowments administered through the Land Board instead of by the School Commissioners but I do not wish to go into that. The State really parted with the freehold of those endowments in giving them as endowments, and therefore parted with its interest in them. John Clarke examined. - 41. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer owning 950 acres of freehold, and I have been forty years in the district. _ . _ , ~ 42. Am I right in saying that you come here not only to give your own views but also those of the Farmers' Union? —I just come here to give my own views. , . 43. What do you think of the Land Boards?—l do not think you can better the present constitution. Members might be more widely distributed. One has been taken away trom Central Otaeo district and given to Oamaru, which is not fair. 44 What is your view as regards the two tenures of the settlement of the country -freehold or leasehold?—l am a freeholder, out and out. Ido not believe in the lease in perpetuity in any shape or form. It is not fair to the country or to the people. It is what 1 call a bastard tieehold, and not good to anybody. „ , 45 Do you not approve of the leasehold ?—Yes, I approve ot a leasehold, and I approve of the freehold My own idea is that a leasehold should not be of longer tenure than thirty years, and I would be inclined to give the option of the freehold after full improvements had been made say in five or eisht years. The time during which the option to the freehold can be exercised should be limited to! say, fourteen years. At the end of the lease I think it should be revalued. 46. Mr. McCardle.] If the tenure is altered with reference to lease 111 perpetuity, would you be in favour of revaluation at some particular time?—l do not understand that. 47 You know that the tenants who hold lease-m-perpetuity leases under the Land for Settlements Act pay 5 per cent, and 4 per cent, if they hold ordinary Crown lands: if a person is desirous of obtaining the freehold, would you be in favour at some particular time of having the land revalued, and the holder having the right of purchase at the revaluation fixed on the land ?—No I would not. I believe that those who have got the land direct from the State should
J. OLAEKE.j
279
C—4.
have an alteration from 4 to 5 per cent. —they should pay the back interest, as it were, and both they and the lease-in-perpetuity holders have the right to purchase. 48. You know that in doing that it is said that the Government would be parting with a valuable asset? —They have parted with it already for 999 years. 49. When the State gives the freehold does it not relinquish claims on the land? —No; we get our title deeds under certain conditions. 50. Are you in favour of restricted area? —No. 51. You would allow a man to buy as much land as he likes? —Yes. When a man is in business and his trade is increasing no objection is ever made to his building a larger store. 52. Supposing somebody comes with wealth sufficient to buy the whole of the lands of tha colony, there would be no room even for the storekeeper? —You have the power of the graduated land-tax, and can tax him out of existence. 53. You can live without a store, but you cannot live without the land?— That is true, and that is why those on the land should have every favourable preference given to them. 54. Mr. McCutchan.] The inference from your opinion is that you are not in favour of the land-for-settlements policy of the Government? —I did not say that. 55. You say you would place no limit on the accumulation of £he land? —Oh, I have misunderstood you. Of course, in the cutting-up of large estates I would make certain limits. What I thought you meant was that I favoured stopping the aggregation of estates in a general way. I am in favour of the Government policy. 56. If you do not stop the aggregation of estates, do you not defeat the Government policy? — No. I think the tendency is for the land to be held in more hands, and I think the thing will cure itself. 57. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —I know a good deal about it. It has been a good institution, but it is no good whatever just now, because no one can get anything from it. They are too hard-up. I do not know personally of that, but I was told it by a gentleman to-daj'. 58. Did the Government, in the case you mention, assign a reason for not advancing a loan?— No; they need not assign any reason. 59. Do you know anything about the matter of loading for roads? —I know about Pomahaka 60. We had evidence that if the settlers had got the land at its initial cost they would have done very well ? —Before Pomahaka Settlement can be a success the loading will have to be done away with, for it is unfair and unjust. The settlers pay 5 per cent, on the loading for roads for 999 years, and it is calculated that they pay something like £400 per acre. Under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act you can get money for twenty-six years for 5 per cent., at the end of which time the whole loan is wiped off. 61. You think the settlers should get the estates at the actual cost, without the cost of roading ? —I think it should be done out of grants. At any rate, so far as Pomahaka was concerned, money was squandered. The estate was purchased at too high a price. 62. Is it your opinion that a road in Pomahaka district may be a colonial work, and that the colony generally benefits, and the cost therefore should come out of the consolidated revenue? —To a certain extent; but, as far as Pomahaka is concerned, that land had paid rates for thirty-five years to the local body. 63. Your contention is that the loading for roads should be terminable ?—Yes; I do not see why a loading of 5 per cent, should not be terminable in twenty-six years. 64. Mr. Foul.] Was it a member of the Land Board who told you that no money was available? —Yes, but I could not say whether it was from him personally. 65. I gather from your remarks that- it would not be a great evil if one of these large estates got back into one man's hands? —No; I said I would give free trade in land. 66. But it is just possible? —No, because it will not pay. 67. You say it is not possible that aggregation may take place? —No, not in this country. 68. Is it possible for partial aggregation to take place? —Yes. ■69. Would that be in the best interests of the colony for one farmer to buy out another? — Yes, in some cases. I will give you an instance. A man cannot possibly live very well on a section of under 200 acres. In fact, you want 400 acres in order to get on comfortably. Supposing a man had 100 acres and another had 100 acres or 200 acres, would it do any harm to'the country or to the district if one man were to buy the other out? I maintain that it would do them all good, and it would do the country good. 70. But is it not in the interests of the colony generally to have as many settlers as possible on the land? —I do not think so. It is not in the interests of the colony to have more settlers on the land than the land can maintain rightly. 71. The question of area came under our notice to-day at Pomahaka: do you think those sections are to small? —Much to small. That has helped to ruin the Pomahaka Settlement. The land was £1 an acre to dear. Those settlers who left were those who went to the wall, and those who are left are paying too much. 72. Was that not a state of things and an evil inseparable from the freehold? These estates were aggregated under freehold at Pomahaka? —No; the man who had it did not make anything from it. The land had been begging for years. 73. You do not think that the original owner of Pomahaka held too great an area? —Not if he thought so. 74. You think there is no difference between storekeeping and land? —I do not see why there should be. Without the land there would be no storekeeper. 75. You cannot see that where there are probably thousands of storekeepers in the colony, the area of land is limited, and we cannot add 1 acre to it? —That is an impossibility. 76. The Flaxbourne Estate has been before the public very much lately: do you not think
[j. CLARKE.
C—4.
280
something will have to be done to insure land being offered to the Government at a more reasonable price?— Yes. I think the Government is paying too much for the land, and I say the country is being "had" in many cases—pretty well everywhere. _ 77. Do you not think that in course of time the land-for-settlements policy must fail it the Government have to pay too high a price for the land? In some cases it has failed already. There is Pomahaka and other places in Southland. 78. You do not think it would be a good thing for the colony if that policy were abandoned altogether ?—No. I think the Government are doing right in purchasing estates and settling the people on the land by leasehold, but I do not approve of the lease in perpetuity, because I think it is unfair, even to the storekeeper. . 79. Can you suggest any way whereby the Government could acquire these lands easier! Do you think an increase in the graduated land-tax would make more anxious to sell? I am not suggesting anything in the shape of confiscation ? I have not studied the question in that S 80. Mr. Anstey.] You say you have not studied the question of the graduated land-tax: do you think that if the graduated land-tax were properly adjusted it would of itself prevent any aggregation ? —I do not see why it should not. 81. Could it be properly adjusted so as to reduce the areas now being held, and prevent the holding of estates that now are too large?-I could not say. t „ ...... 82. Can you tell me how much of Pomahaka is now unoccupied? —I understand, about /,UOU acres out of about 7,000 acres. 83. Do you know if the Government get any revenue from that portion ?—Perhaps a shilling or two now and again for grazing. 4 i ok 84. Instead of the Government leaving 25 per cent, of the land idle, supposing they took 25 per cent off the rents of the whole of the estate, would it then be a successful settlement ?—I think it would be a very successful settlement at 2s. an acre all over. At present I think it is about 3s. 6d. an acre. 85. That would come to the same thing?— Yes. 86. "Would all the land be let if the rent was reduced ?—Yes, especially if there was a purchasing clause. 87. Should the farms be larger?— Yes, say, 500 or 600 acres. Donald McGregor examined. 88 The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a farmer at the Pomahaka Settlement, and have 247 acres. My rent is about 3s. 4d.' per acre. I have been there about eleven years. I was one of the first settlers. I hold my land under lease in perpetuity. 89. What is your opinion of the tenure—is it satisfactory ?—No. 90 In what way?— From the beginning it is not satisfactory. _ 91. In other words, would you like to have the choice of the freehold?—l have no desire to get the right of purchase of my farm at Pomahaka. 92. You are dissatisfied with the land? —Yes. _ 93. Would a partial remission of rent satisfy you and cause you to wish to remain? No; 1 would not remain on any concession. ± i A 94. We saw from your fields that you have done a great deal of improvement plantatiQns, &c. ?—Yes; I have done the best I could. , , , 95. You must have expended a great deal of labour and money in doing what you have done! —More than ever the land will return. . 96. You are so placed that you cannot leave it?— Yes. The whole objection is centred round the improvements. 97. Have you any suggestion to make?— None. . 98. You have done very well on your place —you have improved it? Yes. It the place had paid anything towards improving it I would not have minded, but it has done nothing in that respect The Government say practically that the land is not worth what lam paying for it, even with my improvements added. Even after adding £1 an acre improvements they tell me it is not worth the original amount. . . . 99 Mr McCardle.] Could Pomahaka, as far as your experience goes, be reduced sufficiently m rent so'that you could make a fair living out of the 240 acres you now hold?— No. Ido not think a decent living could be made out of 250 acres of land at Pomahaka. 100 Suppose the Government were prepared to do a certain amount of draining, and expend a certain amount on liming the land, do you think that would be of considerable assistance to the settlers ? —Yes. 101. But you think the area is too small?— Yes. 102. Have you been able to maintain yourself from the land and its products?— No. 103 You have had to take employment outside?— Yes. 104. And you consider your position is hopeless of success?— Yes. I have no desire to con- , f rentg were reduced 30 per cent, and the holdings increased to 500 or 600 acres you think you could succeed ?—Generally speaking, I think the settlers would be successful if the rent were 2s. an acre and the area increased to 500 or 600 acres. In that case the settlers might do something, but they would not make a fortune 106 What is the carrying-capacity of the land in its native state? About one sheep to 5 acres. 107 What are you able to carry now? I saw a large quantity of turnips in proportion to the area of the farm: what number of sheep are you able to carry now?— Under 150. 108. Do you know anything about advances to settlers ?—Yes. 109. Have you had any personal experience?— Yes.
D. MCGREGOR. 1
281
C—4
110. Do you find it fairly satisfactory? —No. 111. If the Act was amended in the direction of giving increased amounts to the Government tenants would not that be of assistance to the tenants? —It would. I may state that in several cases —myself included —unsatisfactory replies were received. In the case of one application for a loan the reply was that, owing to the land being rented to more than twice its value, the Department declined to advance anything. The reply in another case—that of a man who had put £1 an acre improvements on the land —was that, with the improvements added, his land was not worth the rent he was paying, and consequently he had no security to give, and the Department declined his application. 112. You think the time has arrived when the State should remove the burden from the settler and place him in a position to make a living on the land? —I think it would be a dead loss to the State to advance under present conditions; but if the settler really had cheap land an advance would benefit him. 113. If the Government were to amend the regulations affecting Pomahaka in the direction you have already said, you think then the settlement would be made successful? —Yes; about 2s. an acre, with an area of, say, 500 acres. 114. Mr. Matheson.] Have there been many transfers of sections? -Yes; a great number. 115. And have the rents in any case been reduced? —No. 116. Mr. McCutchan.] You spoke of valuations made by the Advances to Settlers Department, and you state that reasons were assigned by the Department for not making the advance? —Yes. 117. Have you seen those reasons in writing? —Yes; one letter was to myself. They had got word from the Land Board that I was in arrears with my rent, and they said that if I could not pay the amount I could not obtain an advance. I have seen other replies sent by the Department. I may mention that in one case the attention of the late Sir John McKenzie was drawn to the matter, and he said the settler was to get an advance, but the Department kept back the amount of his arrears, and they only sent him £3. 118. It is a condition that the rent must not be in arrear before an advance is made. You also said that one settler had applied for a loan, that he had effected the improvements, and that the Department said that the improvements were not sufficient security: have you seen that reply ? —Yes. 119. Could we get a copy of it? —Yes. 120. You have heard Mr. Clarke's evidence with regard to loading. Under the present system of loading the tenant has to pay 5 per cent, for the whole 999 years: supposing there was no loading on the land, but the settlers received the money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, in twenty-six years at 5 per cent, the debt would be wiped out —that was Mr. Clarke's statement — do you not think that would be a much better scheme for the settlers than allowing the land to be loaded? —The Government got some £3,000 —10s. per acre —for that estate in the first instance. I think the roads should have been made before the place was settled. 121. That should be made a charge against the settler, not against the Government? —The roads do not belong to the settler, but io the Government. Ido not see why we should pay for the roading of Pomahaka. 122. Mr. Paul.] You have had a very unpleasant experience at Pomahaka?—Yes. 123. Have you formed any opinion as to the principle of revaluation of leasehold? —Yes. 124. Do you approve of that principle being applied to these leases: in your case it appears you are paying too much rent, and in another case it might be found that the settler is paying too little? —Yes. 125. Under a revaluation clause, such as existed under the old perpetual lease, your rent would be reduced and your neighbour's rent would be increased: do you think that is sound in principle? -I think the settler is entitled to the unearned increment. Ido not see why revaluation should take place during a fixed lease. I took up that land eleven years ago, and if it had been at a fair rental and if the land had increased in value I do not see why the Government should revalue the land. After all the work I have put into the place I would be entitled to the increased value. 126. In the case of decrement, as in your case, do you not think you are entitled to a reduction of rent? —It is in the interests of the State to reduce the rent if the State finds a great difficulty in getting a settler to go on the land. 127. Do you not think that in the other case it is equally just that the rent should be increased? -Although I would accept revaluation at the present time, I do not think it should apply retrospectively to the lease. It would only apply from the present onward. If it was fair to revalue land that had been undervalued originally it would be equally fair to make the reduction retrospective to those who had paid too much from the beginning. The Government would not entertain any idea of making the reduction on Pomahaka retrospective. If a settler got his place at a fair rental, and it had increased in value in ten or twelve years, I do not think it is fair to revalue it. 128. Then, it is only in the case of a man's rent being fixed at too high a figure that there should be any alteration made —is that it? —Certainly it should, in the interests of the State itself, and the welfare of the settler is in the interests of the State. 129. But not in the other case? —No, I do not think so. 130. Mr. Anstey.\ Supposing these reductions of from 30 to 40 per cent, in the rents of Pomahaka were given effect to by the Government, and the sections were made into reasonable-sized areas, would the land then be all taken up? —I could not answer that question. 131. Supposing it was all taken up, would the Government get much less rent than they are now receiving, seeing that one-third of the land is idle? —I believe if they had got 50 per cent, less rent all round since the beginning of the settlement they would have been in pocket. Although there are only about 2,000-odd acres vacant now, it is only lately that some of it has been taken up. There have been as many as three or four settlers on some of the sections at different times.
36—C. 4,
282
ID. MCGREGOR.
C—4.
132. If the Government had reduced the rent by 50 per cent, they would still be as well ofi as they are now ? —Yes. 133. Do the settlers at Pomahaka generally take the rebate of 10 per cent, for prompt payment? —No. The 10 per cent, rebate is no advantage to the man who cannot pay promptly. It is only an encouragement to the man who can. 134. The man who has got a cheap section always gets it, but the man with a dear section cannot take advantage of it?— Yes. The 10 per cent, is of no advantage to the man who is struggling. 135. What have your relations, generally speaking, been with the Land Board: have they been considerate to you as settlers? —I have no serious complaint to make against the Land Board. 136. They are not unduly exacting in respect to the payment of rent in bad seasons ?—They enforce the law, and my section has been forfeited once for non-payment of rent. 137. What do they do when they forfeit your section for rent—you are still on the land?— They forfeited a number of sections for non-payment of rent, and there were arrears of rent, and after they had been forfeited for a considerable time the settlers still remained, and they took a temporary lease of their own sections. Some of them instructed the Land Board to reduce their valuation, in order to try and get rid of the land, and when they could not do that they had to reselect their sections. In that way they came in as new tenants and got out of their arrears of rent. I was not included in that number. At the same time the settlers left the land open —they did not want to take up the land if others would take it up. 138. Mr. McLennan.] Did you ever apply for an increased area of land? —Yes, several times. 139. Were your applications refused? —Yes. 140. What "was the reason 1- I-for instance, applied for a section in one block in which there were originally four sections, and because I would not take up the four sections they would not give it. I applied for part of another, and was told unless I took the lot 320 acres I could not get a part of it. 141. In the case of those who forfeited their sections, what became of their improvements?— A good many took away everything that was portable, and in many cases the Land Board relets the land in order to get some revenue out of it, and the improvements get knocked about in such a way that they deteriorate in value, and consequently become of no value to the settler who went out. 142. Do* they take their houses away?- They take away anything they can. I never heard of any objection to any one taking anything away. 143. Mr. Forbes.] What did you say on an average the land would carry when ploughed and grassed? —I have about 150 sheep on 250 acres. 144. Did not the Government grow a crop of turnips on the vacant sections to show you how it was to be done? —Yes. 145. What was the result? —I could not say. 146. Were you there at the time?--Yes. 147. Did they have a good crop?—A. very fair crop, but it did not pay them. I know that, because I worked on the land for a considerable part of the time during which they made the experiment. I knew what is cost them to put in the crop. I do not think it paid them more than their labour. They ploughed the land and left it in fallow for over twelve months, and some of it they ploughed again. They also manured it. lam sure the expenses amounted to about £1 an acre. What they got for the turnips I do not know, but I do not think it was a profitable crop. A settler would have been out of pocket by it. Turnips do not pay the first season. 148. You do not think the Government made a very great success of the turnip-growing?— Not financially. 149. Did they sow the land down in grass after taking ofi the turnips?— No. 150. You never heard of what they thought of their experiment. Do you know if they thought you were paying too much rent?— The official reports for years past had praised up the estate. Some of the official reports have come into my hands. They were sent to me from Wellington, but they were not correct in one detail. There are two valuations at Pomahaka, and this is a great objection. There is an occupation valuation and a forfeited valuation. My valuation is probably £1 10s. an acre, but if I were to leave the valuer would come round and reduce the amount by 50 per cent. If the land remains unoccupied for a time the improvements are cut down in 'value until they disappear altogether. That has prevented the settlers having any heart in improving the land. When a settler is more anxious to leave a settlement than he is to remain I think he virtually ceases to be a bond fide settler, and that is how I would represent the settlers at Pomahaka at the present time. Ido not know any of them who are not very anxious to get away from their holdings. 151. If you surrender your section to the Land Board they do not pay you for your improvements'—No. I would not mind if they did not pay for them as long as they did not abuse them. Immediately after we left they would "allow the first person who came along to take up the land and run stock on it, and spoil the improvements. I do not say that the Land Board would not prevent them if they could do so, but it is done, all the same. Immediately a section is forfeited the Land Board is only too anxious to get a few shillings by letting the land, and they allow any one to graze the land with sheep, and 1 think that is very unfair to the settlers of the adjoining land to get their fences knocked about. 152. Supposing your seel ion is forfeited and it is offered again, and the improvements were, say, £200, and the Board cannot get a tenant for it, do they reduce the value of the improvements? —Yes. • 153 But they do not reduce the rent?— No. 154. Do you not think they ought to reduce the rent?—l think they should reduce it prothat both the Government and the tenant should each make a bit of a loss,
D. McGBEGOR.]
283
a—4.
and not make the whole loss fall altogether on the improvements ? —I think any sensible man would try and find out the cause why the land is not taken up. They admit the improvements to be there, and, of course, the improvements deteriorate sufficiently in value without the Board allowing stock to be turned on to the land and knock the improvements about. I notice this also: that when a section is forfeited they generally cut down the improvements to the amount the settler was in arrears with his rent. 156. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to the forfeited sections, when those sections were taken up again did the Government offer the land at the original rental, or plus whatever improvements were made by the man who forfeited and add them on to the rental?— They put the section up at the original rental, burdened with a certain amount of improvements, and if the land was not taken up within a certain time they reduce the improvements. Immediately the settler goes out his section is revalued. If my section were forfeited to-morrow I would not be allowed the valuation that is on the land to-day. Joseph Allan Anderson examined. 157. The Chairman.] What are you? I am a farmer, and I have also done a good deal in the way of valuing properties. I hold a half interest in 2,500 acres of freehold land, chiefly pastoral land. I have a half interest in 2,000 acres of a Government pastoral run. I have been engaged in farming for over thirty years in this distrct. 158. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —No. 159. Did you value Mr. McGregor's land? —1 valued the whole of Pomahaka about seven years ago for the Valuation Department, and one of the properties for the Advances to Settlers Department. 160. Was your valuation seven years ago greater or less than the actual capital value fixed by the Government? —It was considerably less for the unimproved value. 161. How much per cent, less? —My valuation was about £2 55., or ss. less than the Government paid for the land. 162. Have you been over the ground since? —Yes, occasionally. 163. What is your opinion now as to what is called prairie value?—l do not think 1 would value it at £2 10s. for the unimproved value. 164. lo what do you attribute the non-success of the settlers? —The land was bought rather dear, and there was too heavy a loading on it. The rental is about 3s. 3fd. —that is the average. If you capitalise that at 5 per cent, it comes to about .£3 65., leaving about 16s. of loading per acre. That is about £6,000 on the 7,000 acres of land, and I really do not know where the money has gone to. It was never put on the roads. The survey would cost about Is. an acre, and £1,000 ought to cover the roading. 165. Under whose direction was the roading done? —The Government. I think it was very expensively done. I have got it from very good authority —from old contractors to the County Council and Road Board —who have said that they would have done the work of roading for half the money. 166. i 7 ou think if they were paying rent on £2 ss. the settlement would succeed? —From £2 ss. to £2 10s. that is, from 2s. 3d. to 2s. 6d. per acre. I think it would pay. 167. Do you know the character of the settlers —were they men of capital, many of them? — Not many of them, and I think some of those who left had little experience. 168. You think that a man with fair knowledge of farming and sufficient capital, or with a reasonable amount of money might have succeeded ?—Not at the present rentals. 169. Do you think the areas were too small?—l think from perhaps 400 to 500 acres would make a nice farm. That area would Keep a full team of four or five horses fully employed. 200 acres does not do that, and then they were so far away from the railway that the carrying of grain was costly. I think that a man with 400 or 500 acres could go in more for sheep. If a man has only 200 acres and takes a part of the land for cropping and part in fallow, he has very, little left for grazing sheep or cattle on. 170. Mr. McCardle.] You have had some experience under the Advances to Settlers Department?— Yes. I have valued for them in the Taieri and Bruce Counties, and to some extent in Clutha. 171. Do you find that it has worked satisfactorily? —I think the system has done a great deal of good. 172. It has been suggested that a man's interest in the section should be valued, and if his interest is, say, £5 an acre above the Government's interest he should be entitled to borrow up to £3 an acre —that would be up to three-fifths? —I think that would be quite safe. 173. What is your opinion about the tenure!—l have an idea that the Crown should own all the land in the country. 174. You think that with reasonable treatment of the Crown tenants and the removal of some of the restrictions that now exist- placing a man as nearly as possible in the same position as a freeholder, it ought to be satisfactory in inducing people to occupy the land? —I think it would. The great object is to induce close settlement on the land. 175. Do you think there is any necessity for an amendment in the constitution of the Land Boards ? —No. 176. You do not approve of elective Land Boards? —No. 177. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think in the spending of money on roadworks the local body could do that more economically than the Government? —I think so. 178. Mr. McCutchan.'] Were you in the district when the loading was being spent on Pomahaka? —I did not see any of the work that was done until some seven years afterwards. 179. You expressed an opinion that you could not see where all the loading expenditure had gone to —about £5,000 or £6,000>- Yes.
284
J. A. ANDEBSOSU
C—4.
180. I understand you to say that old contractors in the district said they could have done the work for half the money? —Yes. 181. Was the work on the roads given to the settlers in the Pomahaka Block?— 1 have no idea. 182. With reference to the value of Pomahaka, when you valued it and its value to-day you said the two values are about alike? —I think it would be a little better now than when 1 value it. The country generally has been more prosperous since my valuation was made. About seven years ago land was at about bed-rock prices. Land generally has increased in value all ovei the colony since then. . , 183. Mr. Anstey.J You valued Pomahaka seven years ago at £2 55., and again at iOs. : is the latter value since the estate has been roaded I—-Yes. 184. Then, taking your present value as being about the value of Pomahaka, it is only worth from 2s. 3d. to 2s. 6d. an acre? That is so. 185. That is to say, it is about Is. an acre too dear? —Yes, about that. 186. Supposing the rents were reduced by 30 per cent., do you think the land would be taken up 'Yes, I think so. , 187. In that case would the rent the Government receive be much less, it any, than it is now I I have not gone into a calculation on that point. 188. You said that you thought it would be quite safe for the Government to advance up to three-fifths of the improvements: would you recommend up to two-thirds in the case of Pomahaka?—l would not advance up to two-thirds of the improvements. Three-fifths would be the outside I would advance to. . 189. Would you be prepared to recommend an advance up to three-hiths ot the improvements of Pomahaka ? —From one-half to three-fifths. Improvements are things that disappear if they are not looked after. 190. If you valued the improvements to-day, and the amount was not paid in, say, twelve months, possibly the improvements may have disappeared? Not so soon as that, but they would depreciate to a far greater extent than the unimproved value ol the land. Three-fifths would be the outside that I would recommend. 191. Would you recommend that three-fifths of the cost of grassing would be an item on which to make an advance?— Grassing might disappear or be worth very little in a few years. If the ground is sour or cold, in a few years the grassing would be of little or no value. 192. You would not recommend a large advance on grass?— No. 193. Mr. McLennan.] Are you aware there is a Government lime-kiln at Dunback?—l have 194 Do you think it would pay the Government to supply lime free to the settlers at the rail-way-station here?—l think a good deal of Pomahaka land would require draining before it would give good returns from lime. .... 195 If the farmers would drain the land would it pay the Government to give them lime gratis delivered at the railway-station ?—I would not care about committing myself to answer that question. p or } you heard one witness say that he got a reply from the Advances to Settlers Department saying they could not advance anything on the Pomahaka sections on account of their having been rented too high: was that so?- I valued one of the sections at Pomahaka, and there was some correspondence between the District Valuer at Invercargill and myself about the matter. I understand the advance asked ,for was £100, and I valued the settler's improvements at about £250 or £260. He was entitled to considerably over £100. The question was put to me then, "What is this man's goodwill in the property for his improvements?" And I replied that the property, with his improvements, would not let at more than the unimproved rental, and consequently he had no goodwill in it, and, 1 understand, they refused the advance. 197 On that account?— Yes. I could not say that there was any goodwill in the place. You could only see that the sections, with the improvements on them, were merely worth the rent he was paying without the improvements? Yes. 199. And vou advised the Department to that effect? —Yes. 200. Mr. McCardle.] I proposed in my question that advances should be made on the value of the goodwill, including improvements—that is what I mean—on future advances under the Advances to Settlers Department?— Many of the settlers thought it was a very hard thing when they had made a couple of hundred pounds' worth of improvements that it should be said there was no goodwill. 201 You approve of the advance being made on the goodwill or interest rather on the improvements : do you think that is the safest thing?— Yes. Edward Clement examined. 202. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a farmer at Pomahaka, and have 288 acres. My rent is 3s 6d. an acre. I have been at Pomahaka since the beginning of the settlement. 203. You heard the evidence of Mr. McGregor: do you generally agree with what he said as to the settlement?—ln many respects I do, but in some Ido not 204 Wherein do you differ from Mr. McGregor?—ln the first place, I differ from him slightly in regard to the value" of the place. I think he has slightly undervalued the land. I think it is worth £2 10s. an acre in its natural state. That is the price the Government paid. I have managed to exist on my place, but I cannot call it a living. I have a family, and they are assisting me now lam engaged in mixed farming. I think the cost of roading and surveying has been rather excessive, and that the load is too much for the land. I have always been of opinion that the loading should not have been put on the land, but that the money should have been taken from the consolidated revenue. I think the rent should have been 2s. 6d. an acre all over. 205 Mr Matheson.] If you could sell out your interest in Pomahaka now, and get for it the capital you have sunk there, Would you be very pleased to get out of it?— Yes; I would like to get swav verv much.
C.-4.
285
E. CLEMENT;]
206. Mr. Paul.] How was the roading done?—By co-operative labour. 207. I have been told that that co-operative labour was unsatisfactory because the men were unqualified for such work? —In many cases it would be so. 208. Mr. Anstey.l Are you satisfied with your lease in perpetuity? Yes, from my own point of view, but I would like to"see the option of the freehold given. Ido not think I would try to make my land freehold, but I would like to see the option given. 209. Are the sections at Pomahaka suitable as to area?—ln some instances they would not be, but in my case it has not been so, as under the Act my wife could take up 320 acres and I could take 320 acres, so that I got more than one section. 210 Mr Forbes ] The last witness said if the sections were increased to 400 or 500 acres the settlers would have a better chance of making a living?—l think 200 acres is not enough for a man with a family. , v 211. You think a reduction of rent is necessary before that estate will be a success f les. 212. You think it would be much better if the Government made a reduction at once, so'as to enable the settlers to make a fair living?— Yes. John Heriott examined. 213 The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a settler at Pomahaka, and have 870 acres of land and am paying 3s. 4d. and 3s. 6d. an acre. I have held the small section for about six years and the larger one for about twelve months. The land is held under lease in perpetuity. I believe that the roading has cost about £6,000. If the Government had given me that work to do 1 would have done it at one-half the cost. I think that £6,000 is double the price the roads ought to have cost. T . , . , , 214. Do you think you are going to make a success of your section ?—lt the rent is reduced^ A reduction in rent was promised me by the Land Board. I took up this land under the belie that I would get the rent reduced. 215. Mr. Forbes.] Where did you get that belief? —From Dunedin; but I would not like to mention the name. 216. You did not get it officially?—lt was only by word of mouth. 217. Did any members of the Land Board tell you that if you took up the land there would be a reduction in the rent? They said it would have to come down in rent. 218. You thought it was good enough to risk?— Yes. 219. The present capital is too high ? Yes. 220. From your experience you think you cannot make a living on that land! lhat is i 3O. I paid the Government £250 for improvements when I went in, and I suppose I have laid out £300 in fencing and other improvements. If I went out to-morrow Goodness knows where my improvements would go to. I know that if things do not prosper with me I will go back to ploughing again. David Barron examined. 221. The Chairman.] You are Commissioner of Crown Lands for Otago ? Yes. 222' Will vou shortly state to the Commission what you desire to say? I merely want to reply to two or"three statements made by Mr. McGregor. Of course, I can only reply to them so far as my experience goes as Commissioner for Crown Lands in this district. In the first place, he said that official reports in connection with Pomahaka have been falsified, lhat 1 deny, lhe official reports sent to the Government during my time have been true in every particular, and think it is very wrong that he should make such a statement as he has done, lhe next statement was that the Land Board deliberately turned stock out into the sections that had been forfeited, and he left the impression that the Land Board were parties to the neighbours' stock being turned out on those sections. 1 wish to deny both of these statements. Another point raised was this: as to the question of reducing the rent. I think the members of this Commission without crossnuestioning a witness, must know that there is no power under the Act to reduce the rent. When a man forfeits bis section the full market value is put on the improvements, and in a very short time if the section is not taken up, they depreciate very greatly. After the lapse ot a given time the rule is for the Land Board to reduce the value of the improvements by 25 per cent., and I think Mr McGregor and other settlers will agree with me that the improvements depreciate to that extent within the time the Board generally allows for the section to be taken up. The Commission knows that I do not want to interfere with the evidence of any witness, but I cannot avoid giving this denial to those two statements. Donald McGregor further examined. 223 The Chairman.] You said that the reports on Pomahaka which you allege to be inaccurate were official reports?- I may say that the official reports were sent down to me from Wellington from the House of Representatives—l do not know by whom and I say that those reports relating to Pomahaka were false. They gave a glowing account of Pomahaka all round. I deny the prooi of those statements. _ _ .. < ~ 1 » -n > 224 Do you remember whose report it wasl I could not say, but it was before Mr. Barron s time as Commissioner. I shall forward them to the Commission, and point, out the misstatements. So far as Mr Barron is concerned, I may say that he has been a most conscientious officer. He has been very lenient, reasonable, and approachable in every way, and in the matter of education he has been very K ood in working hand-in-hand with the Education Department in order to give education to the children in our district, and I say that you could not find in Christendom a better officer than Mr. Barron.
a—4.
286
[W. SHBNNAN
Tapanui, Friday, 24th March, 1905. Watson Shennan examined. 1. The Chair man.J What are you I—l1 —I am a sheep-farmer. I own about 13,500 acres of freehold at Conical Hills, and I am a lessee of 36,000 acres on the Maniototo Plains, being the Puketoi Run. 1 hold the latter on a twenty-one-years lease, and it h&s fifteen years to run. My wife has a lease also for 22,000 acres at Puketoi, and on the 58,000 acres 1 shore 17,000 sheep. 2. What is your opinion in regard to the constitution of Land Boards? —I think the present constitution has worked very well in the past, and 1 do not think any improvement could be made. 3. In regard to the question of tenures, which do you think is the most suitable to promote successful settlement and conserve the interests of the State? —1 believe in the old system of deferred payment. 4. That implies, of course, obtaining the freehold? Yes. 5. What is your opinion of the lease in perpetuity, so far as you have observed the working of that system? —I have no objection to the lease in perpetuity, but Ido not favour it. What I do object to is that the lessee should be exempt from taxation. I think there should be a revaluation for taxation, and that the lease-in-perpetuity holder should not be permitted to go on for all time paying taxes on the original value. I think they should be subject to the same taxation as freehold land is. My reason for that is simply this: my leaseholders are in possession of land that is quite as valuable as freehold land alongside them, and I do not see any reason why these people should not contribute equal taxation to the State with the freeholder. I do not see any difference between a lease in perpetuity and a freehold. 6. In regard to pastoral runs, you are aware that a large part of Otago consists of pastoral country, and that a great deal oj the low country has been taken away, and that there is more high country left in the hands of the Government than there is low country to work. The problem in the future is what to do with these runs, and I would like to know if you have any suggestion to make as to the best way in future leases of dealing with this great area of mountain country? — I think the only way to deal with them is to give a fairly long lease, say, for twenty-one years, with valuation for improvements. 7. Do you think that the present valuation for improvements —namely, three years' rent under £50 and five years' rent where the rent exceeds £50—is enough? —That gives no encouragement for sowing grasses or anything of that kind. On many runs the improvements are worth a great deal more than three or live years' rental. 8. Have you tried surface-sowing of grass at Puketoi ? —Yes, but the grass spreads very slowly. The grass sown upon the ploughed ground there grows into tussocks, the same as the old native grasses. The grass will not sward. We do not seem to be able to grow beyond a certain amount of forage unless the ground is irrigated. In many cases the native pasture is preferable to artificial grasses. I sowed ryegrass and clovers. Cocksfoot is no good there because the ground is too dry. 9. What area did you sow? —I suppose, about 1,000 acres. It was partly surface-sowing and partly after cultivation. 10. And would your experience with those 1,000 acres induce you to go on doing more? —Not on the plain. On the mountain perhaps it would do better. 11. Then, you may sow more? —Not under my present lease. 12. We have heard a good deal about Puketoi Run since the beginning of the inquiry, especially in the Maniototo district, and we got a specific statement there that the run could be very well cut up into a series of small runs: would you like to express an opinion on that? — That is my chief object in coming here to-day. 1 believe people are beginning to shake their heads and say that there has been some irregularity between myself and the late Minister of Lands in connection with the run. I will be very pleased to give any information I can. 13. I do not think there has been any suggestion of irregularity? —A great many questions have been asked which pointed to something of the kind. It was stated that a very large petition had been prepared, and that, notwithstanding the fact, the authorities concerned —namely, the Land Board and the Minister of Lands —for some reason relet the run for twenty-one years when the people wanted it. I think lam justified in saying that the petition referred to never reached the Minister of Lands nor the Land Board. 14. I think it was said there were seven or eight hundred signatures to the petition?—A large petition went up within the last year with four hundred signatures, which I see have now grown to eight hundred. 15. You mean to allege that the petition referred to as having been sent before the run was relet never reached the Minister? —I believe lam correct in saying so. 16. Supposing your lease were out now and the run reverted to the Government to deal with, do you think it could be cut up conveniently into two or three runs? —It would cut up if you chose to spend the money on the fencing, but it would be most difficult to cut up on that account. The depth of the run from the bottom of the hill to the back boundary is about nine miles, and owing to the local character of the country it would be very difficult to fence at all. The whole fence of the country is covered with rocks, and fences would have to wind in and out between them. I am on what is called Rough Ridge. 17. I notice by the map that the run has been put into several divisions. Was it offered to the public in these divisions?— Yes, for public competition. 18. What was the result? —I had competition for them, but I succeeded in securing the lot at a rental which was equal to more than twice the value of the run. 19. What is your rental for the 36,000 acres? —About £900, and Mrs. Shennan pays £450 for her 22,000 acres. It is about 6d. per acre. I would like to state we have other land as well. I hold 1,200 acres of forest reserve under temporary lease from the Crown at Is. per acre rent,
C—4.
W. SHENNAN.]
287
and another reserve of about 800 acres for which I pay 6d. per acre rent. In addition, I have 1,500 acres of pre-emptive right. On all this land I only shore seventeen thousand sheep. 20. So you really have 61,500 acres for seventeen thousand sheep? —Yes. 21. Then, you are paying quite 2s. per sheep ? -More than that. I may say the forest reserve and pre-emptive right are winter country. 22. What is your average clip? —A little over 8 lb, 23. You have just been showing us photographs of the sheep you originally imported from Germany in 1861, and of your present sheep which you have developed from them: what was your clip when you first started ? —The runs at that time were covered with a good sward of grass, and wool was in a very much heavier condition than it is now. It produced much more yoke in the wool, and the clip would be about the same as now, but it scoured down 40 per cent. I think the loss in scouring would have been much greater then than it is now. It was about 30 per cent, greater then. 24. Is that 30 per cent, arrest of depreciation due to the better quality of your stock now? — Yes. The original stock, if kept-on the ground now, would not produce more than 51b. of wool. 25. Then, 1 suppose this raising of your flock to this high standard has cost a great deal of money ? —Of course, I derive part of my profits from it, but is has cost a large sum. The importation of the sheep from Germany cost about £3,000 originally, and I have bought sheep in Australia that have cost me about £300. Altogether it has been the work of a lifetime. I would like to explain one matter. Questions have been asked several times by the Commission how was it I was able to secure another lease of the run. I feel that some reflection has been cast not only on myself but on the late Minister of Lands, and I would like to say a word or two in connection with the matter. lam under oath now, and I state that I never said a word to either the Minister of Lands or any member of the Waste Lands Board to influence them in any way in connection with offering the run to the public. What they did they did entirely on their own initiative. I believe they were influenced by the knowledge that the flock upon that- run was a useful one to the country. There was also this other reason: the late Sir John McKenzie met me afterwards and said, " You have been a good tenant to the Crown. Much of the land in the interior of the country has gone to the bad, but your run has been looked after, and the grasses have not perished through overstocking." I think that the agitation that is going on in the interior for bursting up the runs is quite legitimate, but at the same time I think they should respect what has already been done by the Waste Lands Board and the Minister of Lands. I believe that everything that was done was fair and above-board. It was let out at public auction, and there was no hole-and-corner business about it. The rent received from the run was a fair good rental, and lam quite satisfied there was no corruption in any shape or form in connection with the reletting of the run. I may say I had nothing to do with either of the petitions I have referred to. 26. You simply went to the auction-room and bid higher than any one else for the run and you got it?—l was being blackmailed, but I refused to give way. 27. Have you much loss by death in this high country ?—About 6 per cent. 28. Did you suffer at all'in those great snow-storms ?—That is one matter I would like to mention. During the last severe storm of 1903 preparation had been made to a certain extent for a recurrence of the storms that had taken place. Fortunately we had on the run an accumulation of sheaf oats, and that year had been rather a good year, and we had an extra quantity. Had it not been for that the losses on my run would have been just about as great as on any run in the country. Another thing that helped us was that we had 300 acres of the forest reserve in turnips that year. We used a snow-plough to uncover the turnips, and in that way we saved our stock. 29. What is about the altitude of this forest reserve?—l think it is about 1,200 ft. 30. Mr. Paul.} I think the general evidence we have had in regard to Puketoi was that it was an ideal run for subdivision : do you think there is enough winter country and summer country to enable the run to be divided into smaller workable areas?— Yes, if you cut it into 10,000-acre blocks. 31". It was also suggested (hat if Puketoi were cut up the surrounding farmers and graziers would take up part of "it: do you think that is practicable?—Of course, it couldbe done. The question arises, Would it be more profitable to the State to cut it up than to hold it as it is now ? I consider the flock at Puketoi is a flock that the country could do very badly without. The number of rams sold is somewhere between four and five hundred every year. These sheep are wanted, and the people know where to find them. I may say I am almost a monopolist in ram dealing. This year lam selling rams at £2 2s. apiece, so you will see Ido not take any advantage of the people who require them. In some years I might charge three or four or five guineas, but this year the price is two guineas, although other rams are selling at five and six guineas and more. , , , , 32. Then, you think decidedly that the interests of the btate are best conserved by leaving Puketoi as it is'?—l am very sure of it. You cannot get a better tenant than I am. 33. Then, even if you" did go out, are you in favour of leaving the run as it is?—lt could be put into, say, 10,000-acre blocks, but any one who has not seen the configuration of the country can form no opinion as to the great difficulty of cutting up the run. You cannot get a good fencing-line anywhere for rocks. It would cost £100 a mile and more to fence it into small areas 34. Have you any knowledge of Ross and Glendining's three runs —Blackstone Hill, Lauder, and Home Hills?—l know the country. 35. Do vou think these three runs taken together are suitable for subdivision ?—They might be held in smaller areas, but still you would require to subdivide so as to have a large percentage of low country with the high country. 36. Would the taking-away of Blackstone Hill seriously impair the value of the other two runs? —Very seriously.
C.—4.
288
[W. BHENNAN.
37. Do you think the other two could be worked without Blackstone Hill?—I think the bulk of the other country is only fit for summer grazing. As it is now it is workable, but if you cut it into much smaller areas it would not be workable. 38. How long have you been at Puketoi I —l have been in the colony since 1857, and I bought Puketoi Run in 1868. 39. How does the pasture of that country compare to-day with what it was when you took it up? —It does not compare at all. The grass then was waving and in splendid condition. 1 might mention that originally I took up a portion of what is known as Galloway's Run, my brother and I having explored that country, and at that time you could not have seen better feed for sheep anywhere in the world. Now it is a barren waste. 40. Can you suggest any means whereby this growth might be promoted again ? —I do not know of any means. There has been nothing to hold the soil, and it has blown away and disappeared. 41. You spoke of valuation for grassing: do you see any difficulty in giving valuation for grassing? —I think it would encourage a tenant to sow grasses. 42. Do you see any difficulty in arriving at a fair valuation at the end of the lease? —I think there would be some difficulty. Ido not think any one would derive the full benefit of the cost of sowing it. 43. Mr. Forbes.] You said that the holders of lease-in-perpetuity sections should be subject to taxation to their full value: if a freehold is mortgaged has the owner not a right to deduct the mortgage off the value of his freehold ?-- Yes. 44. Is not the lease-in-perpetuity holder in the same position, because the Crown practically holds a mortgage on his land to the amount of the original value, and he pays 5 per cent, interest on it? —What I wanted to convey"to the Commission was that a man holding a 999-years lease should be put on the same footing as a freeholder to a great extent. I think that he should be subject to the same amount of taxes, and that for taxation purposes his country should be valued in the same way as freehold. 45. Is that not done at the present time: the lease-in-perpetuity section is valued and the amount of the Government mortgage on which rent is paid is deducted, and the value of improvements are also deducted, and the leaseholder has to pay land-tax on what is left? —I was under the impression that the lease-in-perpetuity holder was not subject to land-tax. 46. Mr. Anstey.] You said that the preparations you made greatly minimised your losses in the snow-storm ?—Yes. 47. We had in evidence that many of the large runs suffered heavy losses:' could they also have minimised their losses in the same way as you did ? —A certain amount of preparation could be made. It is difficult after a big snow-storm to feed sheep on the mountains. They get stuck up, and you cannot get them to where the food is. 48. You have done it, and, 1 suppose, others could have made proper precautions? —A good deal could be done. 49. Could it be done easier on a large run or a small run? On a small run, I think, if there is more assistance. 50. Do you think they should have made better provision on the Morgan Hills Run, consisting of some 350,000 acres, to minimise their losses which, I think, total 60 per cent, of their stock? —Very little could be done. 51. The run is too large for the purpose?— Yes. 52. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think under the present land-administration the lease in perpetuity is more likely to give prosperous settlement or a lease with the right of purchase? —I am decidedly in favour of a lease with the right to purchase. Jambs Sim examined. 53. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a retired farmer. I used to farm in the Crookston district from 1876 up to the last five years. I used to hold close on 900 acres. My first tenure was deferred payment, and I made it freehold. I wish fc> state that I represent the Tapanui Branch of the Farmers' Union. 54. What is your view in regard to the tenure that is really the best to promote the settlement of the country and the welfare of the settlers?—We never had a better system than the deferredpayment system. I think you, Mr. Chairman, passed through my property some years ago, and vou saw evidence of that as you went through. 55. What do you think of the lease in perpetuity, which has been in vogue some years now? -Not very much. 56. What is your objection? —I object to it because it is giving away all this land in a manner actually for nothing. Who is to say at the present time what the value of that land will be a hundred years hence, let alone in 999 years. There is another thing. lam not quite sure in my mind whether any provision is made in settling the land in this way for a man to subdivide his leasehold among his family. 57. It can be done with the approval of the Land Board?- I just thought I would mention it. I may say that people here are all freeholders. The land is chiefly freehold for thirty or forty miles right round here. 58 You are giving evidence for yourself and on behalf of the Tapanui Branch of the Farmers' Union that the freehold system is favoured here?— Yes. I also object to the lease in perpetuity in that when blocks are set aside ho adequate provision is made, as there was under the option of purchase, for contributions for the local bodies for roads. Under the old system the local bodies had a fourth of the upset price for making roads, but under the lease in perpetuity they only get a fourth of the rent paid, and that is a mere bagatelle.
J. SIM.]
289
a—4
59. Mr. Paul.] All the farmers in this district are freeholders? —There are a few exceptions. There are three or four leaseholders at Dusky. You had one before you at Wyndham. There are a few very small leasehold sections in the Township of Heriot and this bush settlement round here. They are all doing fairly well, except one settlement in the riding. The land is very poor there, and Ido not believe it is a success. They are all believers in the freehold there. I may say also I object to the ballot system in toto. I have seen it urged that if land is put up to auction it might fetch fictitious prices. That has not been so in this district. I may mention that the properties belonging to Messrs. Denlvy, McKenzie, Mclntyre, Logan, and McKellar, all within a radius of thirty miles from here, were all cut up by the owners and sold on the fall of the hammer, and I do not think there is any one here but will admit they have been a success all through. This district is peopled by a prosperous set of farmers. 60. You object to the lease in perpetuity because it is unfair to the State? —Yes, that is my objection. 61. Of course, you know the policy of the Government under the Land for Settlements Act: do you think it would be advantageous to give the settlers under that Act the right to acquire the freehold? —That is a question that would require some consideration. It depends on the time you try to make it freehold. If it was made freehold at once probably you would not require any compensation for improvements, but if it was put off for some years some compensation would be wanted. 62. You think that if these settlers get the option of the freehold the section should be put up to auction, loaded with the value of the improvements? —That is my idea. 63. Mr. Forbes.] You think that the lease-in-perpetuity tenant has a pretty good bargain?— It is better than the freehold, as far as I can see. 64. He has got the place on a B-per-cent. rental and he has to find no capital, and he can deal with his section in any other way, the same as a freehold ? —That is so. 65. Do you think the State would have done better if it put this land up to auction? —I think everything should go to auction. 66. And leases providing for the right to purchase? —Yes. I look upon land as a commodity. All commodities are sold to the highest bidder, and why should land be treated differently. 67. You think that the State should deal with the land on business principles and get fair value for it? —Yes. 68. Mr. Anstey.] When you refer to the number of leaseholders in the neighbourhood do you mean Crown or private leaseholders ? —Crown leaseholders. 69. Is there any number of private leaseholders?- I am not aware of any. 70. Have you had a meeting of your union to discuss the Land Commission ? —lt was left entirely to myself. 71. How were you delegated to do so ?--I was asked the question by the chairman whether I was in favour of the freehold, and I said I was a thorough believer in the freehold. 72. Then, to-day you do not represent the Farmers' Union at all, but the opinion of the chairman of the Farmers' Union? —Not at all. I was asked the question at the meeting of the union, and the whole meeting concurred in what the chairman asked me. 73. Then, there was a meeting? —Oh, yes; a public meeting. You must not run away with the idea there was no meeting. 74. Do I understand you are not a member of the union? —I am a member of the union. 75. Can you tell me how many members were present at this meeting when you were asked to represent them?—So far as I remember, there may have been about fifteen. It was a small meeting. 76. You do not know whether it was by a majority that they asked you to represent them as being in favour of the freehold?- They were unanimous. 77. Mr. McCardle.\ You believe in the deferred-payment tenure? —Yes. It, is the best system ever advocated. -78. Say a section of land belonging to the Government is for sale, and the value of that section is £1 per acre, and if it is offered on deferred payment an extra 25 per cent, is charged, making the value £1 55.: is that a fair bargain on behalf of the State? -I have never given the matter any consideration. 79. Would it be fair for the State to sell that land for £1 per acre to the freeholder? —I think so. 80. Then, would it not be fair for the State to give the same right to the man on the leasehold at 4 per cent. ? You are going into the depth of the question, and I have not gone into it. 81. Then, you condemn the leasehold system and say it is tying up the land for ever: on the one hand you say it is quite right the State should sell at £1 per acre to a freeholder, and on the other that it is not right to tie that land up on lease at the same price? I say you are tying it up for all time. 82. It does not matter when you are getting your interest for all time?—lt means a great deal. It will take a great deal to convince me that the leasehold is better for the colony as a whole than the freehold. 83. Would it convince you if there were a hundred prosperous settlers in this district instead of one man holding all the land ?- I believe in settlement. 84. Then, you think that every facility offered to people to settle on the land is best for the State? —Yes. . 85. Can you make the terms too easy to produce that good result? —I would like them to get on lands on as easy terms as possible, but let them have the option of purchase. I did not come all this distance to be a serf all my life. 1 would like to add, in regard to the Waste Lands Board and the School Commissioners, that I believe in the nominated system at present obtaining. They are free to express their own opinions, and they are not sent in as the nominees of any class of settlers.
37—C. 4.
C—4
290
Tj. SIM
86. Mr. Matheson.\ Does it seem reasonable to you that these two bodies should exist to administer lands within the same area, or do you think it better that the Land Board should administer the whole of the land? —I think they have all got quite enough to do, and I think if you put the two together you would incur heavier expenses in administering the land. Geobge Hepburn Stewart examined. 87. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer at Crookston. I farm 460 acres of freehold. lam here to represent the Crookston Branch of the Farmers' Union. 88. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before us? —I may say the Crookston Flat was settled under the deferred-payment system, and it has been a great success; and these settlers and the sons of these settlers, on account of the success of that settlement, are very greatly in favour of that method of selling land. Personally, I have had no experience of it; but everybody out there ftas a freehold, and they believe in the freehold and they believe in the deferred-payment system for taking up land. 89. How many members are there in your branch ? —About forty-five or fifty. 90. How many were present at the meeting at which you were appointed to represent them? — About thirty. 91. Was that decision unanimous? —Yes; absolutely. 92. What do you think of the lease in perpetuity? —I think it is a very good thing for the country, because it has been the means of enabling many people to get on the land who would not otherwise have been able to do so, and if it had the right of purchase attached to it I believe it would be admirable. 93. Mr. Paul.\ You would Ji/ld the deferred-payment system to the present land-tenures? — I would not like to say. Personally, Ido not know much about it; but I was instructed to say this branch is in favour of it, because the members have had some experience of it. 94. Then, you do not know whether it would be wise to settle land under the land-for-settle-ment policy on deferred payment?' —Personally I cannot say. I would be quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity if the right of purchase was given. 95. Mr. Forbes.] Is your Farmers' Union a strong union? —It embraces everybody in the district but one. 96. The farmers there think the best bargain a man could make out of the State is the freehold ? —They think a man would do better for himself, and therefore for the country, if he got the freehold or a prospect of the freehold. 97. Do you think it would be better for their pockets? —I think there is a certain amount of sentiment in it. Ido not know how much it affects their pockets. 98. Mr. McCardle.] You have no particular objection to the lease in perpetuity without the right of purchase? —No; I do not think a man should be forced in a certain time to acquire the freehold, but I think every man should have the option. 99. Does the Farmers' Union in any way advocate any particular tenure to the settlers here? —No. The question never cropped up until this Commission came round, and then the union discussed what evidence would be brought before the Commission. 100. Are you satisfied with the Land Act as it now exists? You are aware of the three systems under which land can be acquired —namely, with the right of purchase after ten years after paying 5 per cent., or under lease in perpetuity at 4 per cent., or for cash after certain improvements, or under the Land for Settlements Act under lease in perpetuity at 5 per cent.: do you not think that Act as it stands, if conscientiously administered, would meet the requirements of most of the settlers? —I think it would settle a great many more people on the land, and Ido not see that it would be any drawback to anybody if the lease in perpetuity carried with it the right of purchase. 101. A person has the right to take up land under any of these three systems, and, except on the goldfields or under the Land for Settlements Act, he can take up the land with the right of purchase by paying 1 per cent, extra ? —That is so. 102. Is that not quite liberal enough? —It is certainly very fair; but I think it would be an improvement if you had the right of purchase. 103. Mr. McLennan.\ Are there any lease-in-perpetuity holders members of your union? —I do not think so. 104. May I ask what particular interest your union takes in the lease in perpetuity, seeing there are no lease-in-perpetuity tenants belong to your union ? —We take this much interest: Although I have no sons I wish to put on the land these other men have, and these men are interested in the question owing to the fact that they want to settle their sons on the land, and therefore they have as much right to interest themselves in this question as you have or any other lease-in-perpetuity settler. 105. The only interest I see at the present is that if you have the option there would be more property for sale for your sons? —No. 106. Or more mortgaging, and you could step in and get the mortgage? —I do not see what that has to do with it. 107. Ido not see what other interest you have in it? —I say these freehold farmers have sons whom they wish to settle on the land, and they are as much interested in the tenure of the lease as anybody else; and if they want a freehold for their sons because they think it is the best tenure they have a perfect right to express their views on that point. 108. They could get the freehold now? —But how many men could go and buy a farm costing £4,000 or £5,000 for their sons? .They must take the land up on lease, and they want a lease with the right of purchase. 109. It seems strange that the Farmers' Union should take such a keen interest in the freehold when the lease-in-perpetuity holders do not come forward themselves? —The Farmers' Union simply expresses the opinion of the farmers in the district, and I presume it is that opinion the Commission wants,
6. H. STEWAET.j
291
C—4.
110. The Chairman.] Is there anything else you would like to mention? —One point has been brought up, and I have been asked to mention it, and it is that decent seed should be sown when the high country is being regrassed by surface-sowing. We saw it had been mentioned that men had bought screenings and rubbish for this purpose. We do not think that should be allowed. Robert Wood examined. 111. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer and runholder. I hold 1,400 acres of freehold at the Beaumont. 1 also hold 20,000 acres under partial lease on the Blue Mountains, close to Tapanui. My lease is for twenty-one years, and I have held it three. My rent is £125. 1 carry altogether on the freehold and leasehold about six thousand half-bred sheep. My freehold is winter country for the rest. My average clip is about 6 lb., and my average losses about 6 per cent. 112. What particular point would you like to bring before the Commission? —The questions of surface-sowing and noxious weeds. 1 have surafce-sown a good few thousand acres of the run, and the results have been very good so far. I use cocksfoot and white clover. I paid £50 this year for grass-seed, and Ido not remember how much before that. I think it was profitable to do it. 1 want to say, in regard to noxious weeds, if the Act is enforced there is no man I know of who will be able to hold a run at all so far as ragwort and Californian thistle are concerned. I have been cutting them, and so forth, but it does no good. 113. Do not the sheep keep ragwort down? —Yes, when the land is thickly stocked. 114. What is to be tlie outcome if these weeds are not to be controlled? —In the snow the sheep will eat ragwort and thistle. I have no fear of the bad effects of these weeds on the hills, and on the flats cultivation will keep tftem under. I think there should be some compensation for this surface-sowing, and also that the runholder in the high country should have some liberty to prepare food against the winter and against snow-storms for consumption on the run. 115. Mr. Paul.] Do you wish to apply your remarks with reference to the weeds to the low country 2—No. I think the option should be left to the settlers themselves. Nobody will let them grow. I always clear my paddocks; but to be asked to start and clear the high country —I do not see how it could be done. 116. Mr. Forbes.] Has the pasture on this country gone back as on the other large runs? —It did until the rabbits were brought under control. The rabbits are now a thing of the past as far as the high country is concerned, and I do not find it hard to cope with them in the low country. 117. Do you think the rabbits have been the principal cause of the loss of pasture? —Yes. 118. Do you think overstocking has had anything to do with it? —No. 119. Do you think any scheme is practicable for regrassing these runs? —Yes —surface-sowing. 120. Do you think surface-sowing could be done on many of the runs with advantage? —Yes; on all I know, 121. Would you say that the Government should do something to encourage tenants to resow'i - Yes. 1 think if the tenant did not release the run he should get satisfactory valuation for such .iinount of surface-sown grass as could be shown on the run at the end of a week. 122. Mr. Anstey.] Do you anticipate increasing your flock of sheep now that your grass is coming along? —I do. 123. Would it not be rather difficult to assess compensation for grasing? —You would get no compensation if you got the run again. 124. Would the right of renewal of the lease be sufficient to regrass? —Yes. 125. In regard to cultivation, I understand you are not allowed to cultivate now?' —That is right. 126. Would you like an unlimited right to cultivate, provided the land was immediately grassed down after ploughing? —Yes. 127. Would that do any harm to the farm at all ? -Not at all, if the land was laid down properly in good grasses. - 128. Mr. McCardle.] What is your view on the land-tenure question? —I think the present system is as good as it could possibly be. 129. You believe in the 999-years lease?-You have the option to take up land any way you like. 130. Mr. Mathexon.] What has caused the rabbits to disappear in your country? —We are getting into the way of coping with them, and their natural enemies, such as stoats, weasels, and cats, are increasing.
Lawrence, Saturday, 25th March, 1905. Alexander Fraser examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am chairman of the Tuapeka Branch of the Farmers' Union. lam a farmer farming a little over 200 acres, all of which except 26 acres is freehold. The 26 acres is a lease with the right of purchase. I have been thirty-six years farming in this district. 2. Under the present constitution of the Land Boards the members are nominated by the Government: do you approve of that ? —I do to a certain extent. I believe that the nominated system is the best if it is judiciously carried out. 3. So far as you know, has it been judiciously carried out? —I have had a good deal to do in connection with the Land Board, and my opinion has been that politics is too much considered in deciding matters that come up for adjudication. 4. Before the Land Board?--Yes.
C—4.
292
j_A. FKASEB.
5. We are speaking of the constitution / —i approve of tlit; nominative system, but 1 think it could be improved very materially. For every provincial district there is a Land Board, but the various parts of the district have never been considered in appointing members to the Land Board. 6. You think that in Otago the several districts have not been sufficiently considered when nominations were made'/ —That is correct. 7. Apart from that, are you quite satisfied with the Laud Board?— Yes. I do not think an elective system would be an improvement; but what I would suggest as an improvement is that the provincial district should be divided into as many districts as there are members, and each district should have one member nominated from those residing therein. Appointments have been made recently, and in the making of them 1 do not think that the interests of the country people have been considered, because those selected have been taken from old-settled districts ou the seaboard, where there are no Crown lands to be disposed of. The Crown lands are mostly in Central Otago and the goldfields, from which there is no representative at all. 1 think a mistake has been made in not nominating men from these districts when vacancies occurred. 8. There are two main tenures--leasehold, in its various forms, and freehold: what is your opinion regarding them ? —ln my opinion, there are far too many tenures. 9. What is your opinion about the freehold and leasehold tenures —as to their effect on the settlement of the country and the well-being of the settlers of the country generally! —I am firmly of opinion that the freehold tenure is the best tenure for the country as a whole, because you get a far more contented people on the soil, and under it they will put greater energy into carrying out their operations. 10. Are you acquainted with the lease in perpetuity? —Only by name and reading about it. 1 have no actual experience of it." 11. Are there any people around here under that tenure? —There are a few, but 1 am not acquainted with any of them. Land is held here under various forms of lease —license, perpetual lease, and, I think, a few leases in perpetuity, but lam not sure of the latter. There may be an odd one under the deferred-payment system who has not paid up yet. Originally on the goldfields the whole of the land was taken up under agricultural lease. We could only get 10 acres at first —that was to safeguard the auriferous land. By-and-by the settlers got numerous, and the Provincial Council, which had the administration of the land then, extended the area to 50 acres, and as time went on it was extended to 200 acres. Then the people got dissatisfied with their tenure. They thought the leasehold was not good enough for them as pioneers and settlers. A measure was introduced to exchange the agricultural lease for the deferred-payment lease, under which the holders were enabled to buy the land by instalments. 12. That led to the freehold, of course? —Yes. Many people took up land in this district with very little money. It is a very large district. Bight through the goldfields to Crookston was taken up under that lease at first. When the deferred-payment system was introduced it enabled people to pay for the land gradually, and they became successful settlers and attached to the soil. 1 consider if any change takes place in the law it should be in the direction of providing only four tenures namely, temporary license, lease of arable lands with right of purchase under deferred payment, deferred payment pure and simple as in the old days, and the. homestead system. 13. The homestead system enables the applicant to get the land for nothing after he has effected certain improvements? —Yes. I understand that system applies to lands of not much value, and is an inducement for people to go on to these lands. 14. There is one tenure you have hardly noticed: what do you say about the pastoral-lease tenure? —I am not in favour of including that among the leases with right of purchase. I think they should be held on lease and subdivided into suitable areas, according to the natural features of the country —in sufficient areas to be properly occupied. Pastoral leases are not so valuable now as they have been for various reasons. The grass is going back, and rabbits and noxious weeds have to be contended with. " 15. I suppose the rabbits are under control here?- They are just under control and no more. 16. You are aware that there is a very large area of pastoral country in Otago? —Yes. 17. And it is depreciating. Have you any proposition or advice to give with regard to restoring these great pastoral areas? —To restore them to a fair condition of pasture they should be surface-sown with suitable seeds, and I do not know that they have discovered a suitable seed. I think the Agricultural Department should experiment with various grass-seeds in the different localities. Take the Dunstan district. I think they should experiment with grasses grown in that quality of land in other countries. 18. What do you think about cultivating the native grasses? —That would be a good idea; but resting the pasture, and not overstocking it as has been done, would help the country very materially, because our native grass does not seed now as it did. The rabbits are very destructive on it when it is in seed. They cut off the seed, and if they are not stopped they will also kill our rye and cocksfoot. In connection with the pastoral tenants, I would like to mention an improvement which I think might be introduced. When a lease expires, or the tenant is unable to carry on by reason of the rental or the depreciation of the land, he has to apply to the Land Board for a surrender, and if the Board grants him a surrender of his license the country is revalued, the result generally being a lowering of the rent. The improvements are also valued. Before the land is put up to auction again I think the outgoing tenant should have the opportunity afforded him of taking it up again under the new conditions. Under the present Act that is not allowed. He has the right to bid for it, but I think, in justice to him, if he is bond fide, he should have the privilege of taking it up under the new valuation. The improvements are very often not valued fairly to the tenant, who seldom gets fair value. 19. He woidd not. He is only entitled by law to improvements that will not exceed three
293
C—4.
A. FBASEK.j
rentals if the rent is over i-50, and if the rent is under ,£SO he is entitled to five rentals. Generally speaking, is that enough to meet the case 2- If the valuation is a fair one. 20. We must assume they are fair ] —They are not. 21. We must assume that the law is fairly administered, and 1 ask if you think three rentals is enough on the assumption that the law is fairly and wisely administered ? At the present time improvements consist of buildings and fencing. Do you think there should be a greater number of rentals?—l would rather not express a definite opinion on that point, because one would require to be in the position of a pastoral tenant, which I have not been. 22. 1 would like to ask you whether, in your opinion, the residential conditions now existing are too exacting and require relaxing, and, if so, in what direction? I think that the Land Boards should have full discretion in deciding matters of residence, and so on. Matters are so varied and arise from so many causes that legislation could not cope with them. Land Boards should have discretionary, in fact, full power to deal with all these cases on their merits. Land Boards should be entirely free from Ministerial control. 23. The Minister is the landlord. He represents the State, and it would not do to shut him out altogether ? —The point I want to bring out is, that if the Land Boards were properly constituted they should be the best judges of how to deal with these cases. 24. Tour evidence is this, regarding the conditions of settlement under lease: the Land Board" should have full power to deal with them within certain limits? —Yes. For instance, in connection with these leases the Land Boards largely follow the political view of those in power. 25. You think so? lam positive. Of the recent appointments made to the Land Board two have given evidence, and they advocate the leasehold, but are themselves purely freeholders. I have a very strong suspicion that members of the Land Board are appointed to carry out the views of the political party in pcrtver in connection with the lands of the country. 26. You think, at all events, the Land Boards should have more discretion? —Yes. In many cases the referring of matters to the Minister only causes delay and humbug. 27. You think an alteration is necessary regarding the occupation tenure owing to various conditions, such as climate and configuration of country? —In connection with configuration of the country, I think that in surveying pastoral or arable country the Lands Department has adhered too much to east-and-west and north-and-south lines, without studying the natural features of the country. Take our district —a very rough district. There was no regard paid in surveying this district to its natural features, and 1 think the country could be more profitably occupied and worked if the natural features had been considered in laying it off. 28. You are in favour of the homestead system? —Yes. I think there are very great areas of land now that are only suitable for men to go on to without paying anything at all. 29. Do you think there are any such areas in the Tuapeka district? —There are large areas of waste lands in the Tuapeka district that could be satisfactorily settled in the interests of the State. 30. Without interfering with the mining industry —it carries the freehold, you know? —It was said once that by settling here he would ruin the mining industry; but the mining industry is not going to last for ever, and if settlement had not taken place and the land had been left for the miners this would have been a barren place. I do not think the settling of such lands now would be any bar to the mining industry. By means of the homestead system land could be settled in the Tuapeka district which is not now settled at all. 31. Is there anything you would like to say in regard to the ballot system? —I do not believe in the grouping; I think every applicant should be able to go for the section he wants. A man who goes to look over a block takes a fancy to a particular section, and if in the balloting he is grouped he might get a section that he dislikes, and the result is that if he goes on to that section very likely he will always be discontented. 32. Do you know anything about the loading of sections for roads? —That is a very important matter. lam diametrically opposed to loading lands for roading purposes, partly for the reason that the lands included in these roads belong to the public of New Zealand as a whole, and to saddle the settler with the full cost for all time is, I consider, iniquitous. I have not gone to Pomahaka, but I have conversed freely with those on it, and there is no doubt that the loading was so heavy that when added to the rental made the rental too high. Without the loading Pomahaka might have been successful. The money that was spent for this purpose by the State has been spent very largely injudiciously, and the poor settler has for all time to bear the cost of this squandering of money. 1 think the roading and surveying of lands should be paid by the State and not made a burden on the settlers, because the roads are really State property. Another thing is that if there was a front road to the block the sections would not be loaded for it, but the back settlers would be loaded for the road which was made to give them egress, and a back road is never so profitable to the settlers as the front road. 33. Has the value of land gone up in this district very much within the last few years? — Ido not think so; but the Valuation Department has increased values. 34. Has there been any exchange of land?— Very little indeed. In connection with the valuation of land in this district, there are a large number of farms that could be bought, but it is difficult to get buyers. A man likes to have a good value on his land for various reasons. If a man wants an advance under the Advances to Settlers Act he gets it on the value of his land, and for that reason a high valuation is acceptable. But the value of the land in the whole of the district as a selling asset has not inci'eased for years, it is about stationary. 35. Have vou any knowledge of whether there has been much application to the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Yes; there has been. Some at first had a difficulty in getting money from the office. In one case I know that political influence had to be brought to bear before an advance could be obtained. I consider the scheme was very beneficial to this country, because it steadied the rate of interest and let loose in this country an enormous capital that had to seek investment in other ways.
C—4.
294
[a. frasek.
36. Do you think the settlers in this district are in a fairly thriving condition? —Yes. They work very hard, and, as a rule, have improved their positions materially. They got their land under the deferred-payment system, which enabled them gradually to convert it into a freehold. 37. Is there any aggregation of estates going 011 here?— Not to any extent. 1 notice that the question has cropped up everywhere, and a lot of capital has been made out of it; but I do not know that the increasing of estates is detrimental to the country, because the State can step in at any time and acquire them for subdivision. In fact, 1 regard the owners of large estates now as simply trustees for the State. It is a well-known fact that all the big landowners of the country for various reasons would like to get rid of their properties. The conditions are so harsh and they have to contend with so many difficulties that they feel that they would be better rid of them. The conditions of the big landowner now are difficult for this reason: He has to contend with graduated taxation, the rabbit-pest, and the noxious weeds, which is a serious problem. If he is a cultivator and a grower of cereals he has to contend with the small-bird nuisance, which is very injurious to the grain-growers of this country. He has to contend with the State valuator, and has to put up with the labour laws of the country, which considerably hamper him in his operations. 38. There was a recent sale of a large estate in this district: do you know whether that was compulsory or voluntary? —It was voluntarily offered. There was an agitation, and it was offered. There are two points I would like to mention in connection with Greenfield. A good road to Greenfield will be one of the great considerations to accommodate the people now settled there. The main road to Greenfield was from Lawrence, branching off three miles from here, and I think, in the interests of the settlers, that a road should be made to join the main road going to Lawrence. 39. How far is it from here to Greenfield? —Eight or nine miles to the nearest point, and to the furthest point seven miles more. 40. A portion lies to Waitahuna? —Yes. Of course, they could go to Waitahuna any time by branching off this road. The road to Waitahuna is simply a short cut that will not be used by the bulk of the settlers. Another matter in connection with Greenfield is that the bulk of the estate is in Bruce County, but formerly a large area was in Tuapeka County. 41. What way does it affect Tuapeka ? —lf the Government does not make the main road from here to it the settlers of Tuapeka would be saddled to keep a road for the settlers of Greenfield. It would therefore be an advantage if the boundaries were altered, and part of Greenfield brought into Tuapeka. 42. That is, on the assumption that Lawrence is the proper business centre for the Greenfield settlers ? —Yes. 43. The Greenfield Settlement has been laid off into a number of areas: presuming that these have been laid carefully, do you think there should be any alteration of the boundaries by the Land Board? Should they have power in the future, say, for some reason to group two forms, or do you think that the farms as laid out to-day should be preserved for all time? In other words, if at the present time there are fifty farms 011 Greenfield there should always be fifty farms so that the country would always be well settled: do you think it would be wise to allow much variation ? —I think it should be allowable to vary it, because the conditions alter so much. There are various conditions that might alter to such an extent that would prevent Greenfield and many of those other settlements being successfully carried out. If the value of produce went down -to so low a figure in the market that it would be unprofitable —we are simply living on the suffrages of the outside market that takes our produce at a profitable rate, but there is no guarantee that that will continue. There are climatic influences, market influences, labour conditions, and various other conditions that alter so materially that really there should be no hard-and-fast rule. 44. Do you not think the Land Board should have power to make those changes? —Yes; I think they should, particularly if the members are nominated as I have suggested. 45. You do not think it necessary to refer it to Parliament? —I do not think so. I have just read Mr. Donald Reid's evidence, and I desire to say that 1 very much admired it. He holds the views that I hold myself in connection with the land question; and, really, if the Government of this country wanted to do justice to those who go 011 the land they would commission Mr. Donald Reid to frame a Land Bill on the lines of his evidence, and I believe it would give the greatest satisfaction to this country and be a benefit to those who go 011 the land. 46. Mr. McC'ardle.] You are chairman of the Farmers' Union?— Yes. 47. How many members have you got? —We had over sixty msmbers some time ago, but there are not so many just now. 48. Of course, you are aware that you are looked upon as a union belonging to one particular side in politics: is that the case in this district ? —The attitude of the union and my own attitude is that every member of the union is free to exercise his own mind. 49. The impression abroad is that the Farmers' Union is composed principally of supporters of the Opposition party: does that apply to your branch? —No, nor to the Farmers' Union, so far as I know. 50. Are you representing your own views to-day or those of the Farmers' Union?—My own views. The Farmers' Union did not lay down any views to be represented here. 51. You think a fairer system of adjustment would be obtained by dividing the Land Board districts ? —Yes. 52. Do you not think it would be better to have the different interests represented 2 You have four great interests in the province—the freeholder, the leaseholder, the gold-miner, and the great landless class of the colony: do you not think all four interests should be represented on the Land Board ?—They could be represented in the system I suggested. 53. Would it not be more equitable if you selected men representing each of these interests, irrespective of locality: each would know the conditions of the class he represented ? —The mining
295
A. ERASER.
C—4.
interest has no representation nor ever had, and under the conditions I laid down I do not know but what it would be necessary to increase the numbers. 54. You know something of the working of the advances-to-settlers system in this district? — From what I have heard, I do. 55. Has it been generally satisfactory or otherwise? —As far as I know, satisfactory. 56. Do you think it would be an improvement on the terms and conditions of the advances to settlers if the valuation was made on the interest in the holding rather than on the improvements? —Really, the interest of the settler in the holding is the improvements. 57. There is a bigger interest —the selling value?- It would be very difficult to arrive at what a man's interest would be in Pomahaka. 58. Do you think it would be a fair thing if the Advances to Settlers Act was amended so as to advance to three-fifths of the holder's interest in a section ? You are aware that the sinking fund wipes off the loan in 36J yeafs: it would be safe finance, do you not think ? —lt would all depend on the quality and capacity of the lessee. 59. How would you get at the capacity of a man except through the property he holds? — You can judge by his success on the section. You must judge the man as a farmer by the success on the section he occupies. Supposing a man takes one of the Pomahaka sections and puts on expensive improvements and squanders his money, I do not know that it would be wise to advance up to the limit provided by the Act on such improvements if those improvements are too expensive for the section. 60. Under the Land for Settlements Act you think that every man should have the right of the freehold ? —Yes. 61. Would you be prepared to allow those persons holding the leases to get the freehold at the price now fixed? —Yes. Any value that was given to the land has been brought about by the energy of the tenants themselves. 62. Is there any provision to prevent the selling of the freehold to one individual, and thus bringing about the aggregation of estates? —There is a limit. 63. Not as to the freehold? —The Legislature may pass a law limiting the area. I would favour that. 64. With respect to roading, do you not think it would be a better plan for the Government to say that the whole of the money paid to the Government shall be spent on the land in the way of roading rather than part with the fee- simple ? —The policy of the colony should be to get as many people on the land as it possibly can, because the people are the asset of the colony, and it would pay the State in many cases to give the land for nothing in order to get the people to settle upon it. In Canada they give the land for nothing, and the result is that thousands of people are flocking there. 65. Do you not think that this same end might be accomplished by spending the value of the land on the roads? —If a fair value was put on the land. 66. You cannot put a fair value on the land where you are excellently supplied with roads, but in some districts it is practically impossible to settl*e people on the land, owing to the want of roads? —We have great difficulty in connection with our roads. 67. You do not approve of the loading of sections? —No, I do not. 68. You will be pleased to see that the Premier proposes to remove the loading? —But he did not propose to remove it until the Commission began its work. I took particular notice of what the Premier said after the evidence was given before the Commission in Southland. He proposed alterations immediately. 69. Mr. Anstey.] You are aware that the Crown land called " public reserves " is vested in two bodies —the Crown Lands Board and the School Commissioners: do you think it could be better administered by one Board ? —I believe that the Land Board could administer the education endowments better than they are administered now. 70. If they are going to be administered by one Board, you say you wish the various districts to be better represented. Do you not think if they are administered by one Board there should be an additional number of members of the Board ? Yes, so that the various interests may be represented. 71. Can you tell me whether there is any quantity of good land in this neighbourhood being spoiled by dredging? —The good land that has been turned over by mining is mostly Crown land. 72. Is it good land? —Yes. 73. Has it been spoiled? I do not think it has been much spoiled in this district. 74. You do not think it is necessary to restrict the spoiling of land by miners? —I think in certain cases there should be restrictions imposed. 75. Is there any great conflict between the interests of the miners and the farmers? —Not in this district. 76. You condemned the system of grouping sections under the ballot?—-Yes. 77. Do you think that a man who had the means of farming 1,000 acres should be allowed to select any section he liked, and that the man who had only sufficient money to work 50 acres should be allowed to select one of the larger sections?- -I do not think it would be advisable that a farmer who could only farm 50 acres should be settled on a very big section, because he could not carry out his obligations. 78. Speaking of the grouping system, would you give a man who had only the means of farming 50 acres the right to take up any section on an estate? —Certainly not. 79. Do you not think there must'be some grouping? —No. 80. With regard to Pomahaka, you said it was the loading which made the rents too high : is it not a fact that the Government paid too much for the estate in the first instance? —Possibly it did. 81. Is not that the cause, rather than the loading, which made it too dear? —If they had paid
C.—4.
296
lA. FRASER.
less it would have been far more favourable to the settlement. If I had to do with Pomahaka 1 would dispose of it under the deferred-payment system, and be done with it. 82. Mr. McCutchan.] You advocate the reduction of the tenures to four or five? —Yes. 83. You exclude the cash-down system entirely I—Yes;1 —Yes; 1 think the deferred-payment system would satisfy any one who wished to become a bond fide settler. This district was all settled under the deferred-payment system. 84. Do you not think the term of payment should be extended ?- -Yes, for a considerable time, and the payments should be very light. 85. In speaking of the nomination of members of the Land Board, you said it was your opinion that the appointees of the Government reflected the land policy of the Government? —Yes. 86. llow do you reconcile that statement with your advocacy of the system of nomination? I think the Government should appoint men to the Land Board because of their experience, capacity, and knowledge in administering the land laws in the interests of the State and of the people, but lam of opinion that nominated members are not all appointed on these lines. Politics largely comes in in most questions in this country now. 87. How do you propose to correct that fault? —We must simply leave it to the Government to do the proper thing. 88. Speaking of the avances-to-settlers policy, you said it left free an enormous amount of capital ? —Yes. 89. Then, you admit that the advances-to-settlers scheme lowered the rates of interest?- T admit that it is one of the most beneficial schemes that has been enacted in this colony for many years, because it has lessened the rate of interest, brought a lot of capital into the country, and relieved the capital of private individuals. 90. You condemn the loading of land?- Yes. 91. Do you think that the payment of interest on loading should be terminable —that is, where the lands are already loaded for roads ? —Yes; I think it is a wrong system that a man should be loaded for roads that belong to the Crown for all time. 92. It was pointed out the other day that under the Loans to Local Bodies Act the principal and interest at 5 per cent, were wiped out in twenty-six years? —Yes. 93. As the Government is charging 5 per cent., do you not think the loading should terminate in twenty-six years? —Yes. 94. You expressed the opinion that the work of roading was extravagantly done in many instances? —It is done largely by the co-operative system, and the local bodies have no control. The roading of Greenfield is to be done under State supervision, and I undertake to say the unfortunate settlers who have to pay for the roading will not get the value for their money. I consider that the roads should be made under the supervision of the local bodies. 95. Mr. McLennan.'] You are president of the Farmers' Union here, and I presume you represent them here? —I am a representative of the Farmers' Union here to-day, but lam expressing my own views entirely on this question. 96. Are you aware that there is any dissatisfaction among the Crown tenants in connection with their leases? —In this district there are no Crown tenants under the Land for Settlements Act. 97. You have no knowledge of any grievances amongst them, or a desire to get the option of the freehold? —No. 98. Do you remember when the Land for Settlements Bill was brought before the House in 1894?— Yes. 99. I suppose you were in favour of it? —Yes, I think it is a good measure. I was in favour of it then, and I am still in favour of it. 100. Seeing the beneficial results of that Act, why are you so anxious that tenants holding land under the Act should get the freehold ? —I am firmly convinced that in the interests of the State land occupied from the State should be held by freeholders, because they are better settlers, they are more contented, and I think a large burden would be taken off the State if the settlers were freeholders —for instance, the State has to maintain a large staff; they have to appoint Rangers and other officers to see that the conditions of the leases are properly carried out, and it is the Rangers that the leaseholders have to deal with. I notice that since the Commission started its labours the Premier, in a speech, says that it is the intention to take certain powers from the Rangers, the inference being that the action of the Rangers sometimes harassed the leaseholders. 101. Under what system did you take up your land?- Tinder agricultural lease. 102. Did you take up any land under the deferred-payment system? —I got the lease exchanged for deferred payment. 103. How long ago? - A good many years ago, and it enabled me to make my farm freehold without having to borrow any money, and I had not much money when I started. 104. Under the lease in perpetuity the rent remains the same during the term of the lease, so that you can see it is even better for the colony than the other tenure? —I cannot see that it is better for the colony, because the policy of the colony should be to have a contented people on the land, and a great many leaseholders are not contented, because they cannot get the freehold. 105. Mr. Paul.] You are not very favourably impressed with the Land Board as at present constituted? —-I am in favour of the nominated system, but I think a great improvement could bp made on the lines I have suggested. 106. The members are not representative of the whole of the land district? —No, they are not. They are simply appointed from old-settled districts where there is no Crown land to deal with. 107. It has been suggested that meetings of the Land Board should be held in different parts of the district? —I do not think that would be necessary. I think if local men were appointed from various districts that would be better. 108. Do you think if we had another Government there would be any difference in the administration of the land laws?—lt all depends on what sort of Government you had.
A. FRASEJt.
297
C—4.
109. Do you see anything very inconsistent in a member of the Land Board advocating the leasehold while he himself has a freehold?—l see this inconsistency, that if the Government determined to carry out the leasehold policy and make it the land-tenure of this colony, the Government would appoint men to give effect to their views. 110. Are there any Crown tenants in your branch of the Farmers' Union?- 1 am a Crown tenant to a very small extent, but with that exception I am not aware that there are any. 111. You spoke in favour of the limitation of freeholds: would you limit the freehold by the area or value? —By value, because land varies so much in quality. 112. Would you extend that right through to private freeholds? —Yes, value should be the main consideration. 113. You are altogether in favour of the option of the freehold being given under the Land for Settlements Act? Yes, if the tenants comply with the conditions. 1 f4. That is on improved estates? —Yes. 115. You cannot see that the State would lose anything by it? —I think the State would rather gain, because it would have a more contented people, and a large responsibility would be taken off its shoulders. 116. Do you not think that this might occur: the good sections in an estate would be purchased immediately and the bad ones would be left on the hands of the Government ? —I do not think that would happen to any extent under the Land for Settlements Act. 117. Did I understand you to say that the owners of big estates are anxious to sell? —Yes; I think most of them are. 118. Do you think they are willing to part with their land at a fair price?—l suppose any owner of land is anxious to get as-much as he can. 119. Do you think the owners of Flaxbourne are anxious to part with their land at a fair price? —I only know of that estate from what I have read in the papers. 120. Can you give an instance where a Ranger has unduly harassed Crown tenants? —I would not specify any instances, but I consider the Rangers are not infallible. I think, perhaps, that many of them have not got the practical knowledge to guide them to proper conclusions. 121. Do you know any such Ranger?—l do not know that any of our Rangers are practical men in connection with the land. 122. Do you know of one who is not practical? —I am alluding to them all. 123. Speaking generally, it is your opinion that none of the Rangers are qualified? —I do not say they are not qualified; but, to my knowledge, they have had no practical experience of farming land at all. 124. Could you tell me how the labour laws hamper the large landowner? —It is very difficult for him to get a sufficient number of suitable men to carry on farming operations. 125. Have the labour laws limited the supply of men? —The tendency is for the young people in the country to go to the towns in view of the stated improvements in the labour laws. 126. You are convinced that all the flocking of the people to the towns is owing to the improvement in the labour laws? —I do not say all. 127. They have no Arbitration Court or labour laws in England? —No. 128. If the people flock into the large cities in the Old Country does that mean that the agricultural industry is waning? —I would not go so far as to say that. England is a wonderful country, and people flock there from all parts of the world. I am simply dealing with our own country. 129. You must see that there is the same tendency in most countries for the people to flock to the towns? —Yes; but I am sure the labour laws have the tendency I have mentioned. 130. I understand you to say that it is wrong to load the land of the tenants for roading because the roads belong to the Crown ? —Yes. 131. What do you think with reference to the railways? —I do not think there is any comparison. 132. In the first instance, we pay interest on the railways? —Yes. 133. And then we pay separately for the privilege of travelling? —Yes; we pay interest on the capital invested in the railway; but the case of the roads is different, for the settler has to pay rates all the time to assist in keeping the roads in repair, in addition to the loading. 134. Mr. Forbes.] You say you know very little about the lease in perpetuity? —Yes. 135. Do you not think it is rather presumptuous in you to give your opinion as to the best tenure when you have not studied the latest legislation on the subject? —No, I do not think so. 136. You say that you think a settler with the right of purchase is more contented than if he has not that right I—Yes.1 —Yes. 137. Therefore you say it would be wise to grant it? —Yes. 138. But you think that should not apply to grazing-runs? —My remarks applied to arable land. 139. Do you not think the grazing-run would be better employed if the ocupiers had the right of purchase, and therefore the State would be enriching itself by granting the right of purchase at an equitable rate? —It is possible; but I class pastoral country as being land not suitable for close settlement. 140. Perhaps you would rather not give a direct answer to that question without further thought I—Yes.1 —Yes. James Robertson examined. 141. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer near Lawrence. My farm is 970 acres, and is freehold. I have been associated with farming more or less all my life. I engage in mixed farming. 142 Have you heard Mr. Fraser's evidence? —Most of it. 38—C. 4.
C.—4.
298
[j. ROBERTSON.
143. If you agree with his evidence generally, please say so, and if not, we will examine you on the points on which you differ ? —I am in favour of the freehold system. I may state that I am also a believer in the deferred-payment system. I saw it carried out in the case of land held by my father and others, and I must certainly say that the settlers worked successfully on that system, and seemed to take a greater interest in the land than if it had been leasehold. I have heard my father say more than once that on account of the difficulty of getting a proper tenure for the land the bulk of the miners, who could otherwise have acquired sections and settled on farms, had to go out of the district and take up land in other parts north and south of this district. That was because they could not get a fair area of freehold land to settle upon. From what I have heard, some settlers would like to have a purchasing clause included in the lease. I think the present constitution of the Land Boards is fairly satisfactory. It is, of course, advisable to have the members of the Boards as representative as possible of the people and of the district. 144. Mr. Anstey.] Do I understand you clearly to say that you would give a purchasing clause under the Land for Settlements Act?—-I would give them all a chance of purchasing the land. ' 145. Does that mean without restrictions as to area?—l consider that there should not be over a certain amount of land in value given to any one settler, and the area should be reasonable. 146. Do you think there should be restrictions against overcropping?— Yes. 147. You are in favour of the single ballot —you do not like the second ballot?—-Yes; and I know one man of experience who stated to me the other day that he preferred the single ballot also. 148. Is there any good land in this district being destroyed by mining?—l know of none, except on the Island Block. 149. Would it be wise to have~any restrictions with respect to that? —Yes. 150. Can you tell me whether it "is possible to make regulations compelling dredges to return the soil to the surface of the ground, leaving the debris below: is that practicable? Ido not think so. They could probably improve the surface to a certain extent. I think it would be wise where the work was not paying that the State should step in and stop mining operations. 151. Can you say whether in many cases mining is paying a great deal over wages?—l cannot say. 152. Mr. McCutchan.\ You heard Mr. Fraser's views on the land-tenure question ! —Yes. 153. He expresses the opinion that the option of buying for cash should be eliminated from the land laws of the colony? —I am not acquainted with that question. 154 Mr. Paul.] You said that in the early days of this district it was impossible for miners to settle on the land because they could not get the freehold?—l said that large numbers were driven from the district on account of the land laws. 155. That was the result of the freehold tenure?—No ; it was not freehold at that time. Ihev were leasehold sections. 156. Did they not go into another district and purchase land for cash?— Yes. 157. The land laws at that time could not be altered, because of the mining?—l am speaking of land behind the mining area. 158. But the State had to protect the mining industry ?—Yes ; I suppose that was the reason. 159. It is hardly fair to blame the leasehold when the difficulty was caused by the protection of the mining?— That may be so. 160 Have vou had any experience of the land-for-settlements policyh -J\o. 161. You have formed an opinion as to the wisdom of giving the option under that system?— Yes, after speaking with experienced men. „ T • 162. Do you not think the State would lose something by giving the option?—l have not gone into that matter, but I do not think they would lose much. 163. But if it would result in the bad sections being left on their hands and the good ones being taken up, would that alter your opinion? —I do not think so. I think it would work bene--164. Mr. Forbes.] Have you had any experience of the lease in perpetuity ?—No. 165. You do not know anything about its provisions?— No. 166. There are no lease-in-perpetuity sections about here?— No. 167. So that, in speaking about freeholds, you have not studied the latest legislation on (he subject of land-tenure?— No. , . . , . , , 168 What kind of farming is generally engaged in in this district?— Mixed farming. 169. Is there any land for sale about here?— Yes ; I believe there are a good many farms for sale, owing chiefly, I suppose, to ordinary causes, such as families growing up and going elsew here to Matheson.\ Have you any knowledge of the co-operative system ?—I have seen a little done on railway and road work. 171. Do you think the local bodies could spend the money much more economically than the ' J 172, Mr. McCardle.~\ At what price can good farms be obtained here for mixed farming?— From £5 to £6 an acre, and many farms further back from the settlement could be purchased 173. What is about the carrying-capacity of land here laid down in English grass? About two sheep to the acre. _ 174. Does that include turnips for winter feed?— Yes. John Edie examined. 175 The Chairman.] What are you?-County Engineer and I am also a farmer. I farm 600 acres, and my farm is twenty-three miles from here. The land is freehold. I have held the land for twelve years. T engage in mixed farming.
C—4
299
J. EDIE
176. What is your opinion about the present constitution of the Land Board? —I think the constitution ig very good. 177. In regard to land-tenure, what is your opinion? —So far as Crown land is concerned, I think people should be allowed to acquire what area they wish, but in regard to estates purchased for close settlement, I think the present system is a proper one. I think the land should be let under lease in perpetuity. I do not think there should be any right of purchase. Personally, I have had great experience of this matter. 1 have been surveying all over the province, and 1 think it would have been a good thing for the colony if there had been no freehold. As far as the Crown lands are concerned, let the people take them up if they like. The estates that have been purchased for close settlement should be kept to their present form of occupation. Ido not think we should risk any more by the selling of land. 178. Do you think that the tenants under the Crown are hampered by undue restrictions? No, Ido not think so. If I were leasing my land to-morrow I would take every care to hedge the tenants round with restrictions. 179. You think there is no necessity for an alteration in the law regarding tenure? No. 180. Do you think there is any laud here so inferior that unless given under the homestead system it could not reasonably be brought under settlement? —No. 181. You think that all the land could be brought under cultivation by some form now existing? —Yes, by lease or cash. 182. What have you to say regarding the ballot? —I believe in the single ballot. Ido not think a man should be forced to take a section lie does not wish for. 183. Can you give us any opinion regarding the loading for roads? There is no doubt, so far as the co-operative work is concerned, that the county can carry it out cheaper than the Government. I have had a good deal of experience of roads —1 was ten years in Catlin's and lam satisfied the county can carry out roadwork better. 184. You know the settlers seem to feel very great objection to this loading they think they pay on it for ever? —We made the roads in the days gone by to the Crown lands, and I do not think the settlers should be loaded at all. 185. You think the roads should be made out of general revenue? Yes. We have already made roads oil Crown lands, and these estates have been paying rates for many years, and have not received any benefit. Pomahaka was in the hands of Mr. Douglas for a quarter of a century, paying heavy rates all the time, without a ten-pound note being spent by the local body. 186. You think the principle of loading is bad?- Yes; it is better for the Government to pay for the roading and have a contented settlement than to have the settlers continually struggling. 187. Do you think the Advances to Settlers Office has done good?—I think the Advances to Settlers Office alone should advance to these estates. I think the measure was one of the best ever introduced. 188. Is there any aggregation of estates in this district? Around my own district there is a tendency for the aggregation of farms. 189. You do not mean aggregations into large holdings so as to make large landlords! JNo, increasing from 800 acres to 1,000. _ 190. Do you think increasing to that limit is a benefit to the district ? Ao, Ido not. 191. You think the law should intervene and fix the limit of area? Yes, for the various classes of land. , , 192. The Greenfield Estate has been laid off with considerable care: do you think these farms should be preserved for all time in that area?- If experience goes to prove that it is not a success they will have to group the sections. 193. You think there should be discretion given to the Land Board?--Yes. 194. Mr. McCa,rdle.\ You have had considerable experience of road-making? Yes.^ 198. Do you think the price at which the land has been disposed at has been sufficient in all cases to make the roads ?- -Perhaps not in all cases, but, as a rule, it has. 196. Is there any revenue to the State after making the roads? —Assuming that there is no revenue, I still think it is the duty of the Government to make these roads. 197 In the case of rough country lands at 10s. an acre, if the County Councils were empowered to raise loans for the making of the roads, would the rents from the sections be sufficient to liquidate the loan?—I think 10s. an acre would more than do it. 198. Mr. Anstey.] Did 1 understand you to say that the same restrictions should apply to private leaseholds as to leases from the Government? Yes, of course. 199. Would not a system of graduated taxation do it better than by dividing the land into classes? —It is immaterial which way it is done. 200. Would not the graduated tax apply rather to value than to areai—Yes. 201 Has any land been spoilt here by mining purposes ?—Very little. Where they are mining now the land is of very poor quality, the gravel being within 10 in. of the surface. No doubt, at the north end of Island Block there is some very good land indeed. 202. Is there no way of working it so as to leave the land is good order ?—No, it cannot be done. So far as this end is concerned dredging has done no harm. I have advocated that all dredging leases should contain a provision that the land should be surface-sown as they go on. 203 Do you think the dredges should have unrestricted right to heap stones on the land Where that happens it is mainly poor land. If the land is good there should be some restriction. 204. Do you think the State should put some restriction on it?— Yes. 205. Do you think it is practicable to make a regulation that the land should be levelled? do not think it is practicable. . . 206. Mr. McGutchan.] In speaking of the tenures, you expressed an opinion that there should be no interference with the tenures under the Land for Settlements Act, and with regard to the Crown you said that you would advocate the widest tenure, and, in addition, I understand that you advocate the reintroduction of the deferred-payment system?— Yes.
C.—4
300
J. EDIE
207. Would you advocate the land going up to competition 2 —No. The price, should be fixed the same as you do in the case of the estates. 208. You said there was no necessity for an alteration of the present land-tenure of the colony? —I meant the leasing of the new estates. 209. You stated that in your opinion the County Councils could do work cheaper than the Government, and I understand you to attribute that to the fact that the Government used co-opera-tive labour ? —Yes. 210. Have you any idea where this labour comes from? —It comes from all over the colony. In the extension of the railway from Heriot to Edievale they came from Christchurch and all over the place. 211. Do you consider that the men themselves were of a fairly good stamp? —In all cases they were not satisfactory. 212. Were the men grouped in gangs?- STes, and the men themselves complained. 213. Has your Council much trouble in the expenditure of " thirds "1- No. 214. On what system did you work? -We notified the Land Board where it was proposed to spend the money, and the contracts were carried out by the Council as soon as possible after sending the reports to the Land Board. We allow them to accumulate. 215. Are you aware that an amendment was carried to the Public Works Act under which the Minister gives notice to the local bodies that unless the " thirds " are spent within six months the Department will resume control of them ? —Very well, they can expend them. In some cases 9d. coines in from a section; how can they expend that. The thing is absurd. 216. Mr McLennan.] With regard to the roading of estates, you advocate the giving of the amount to the County Councils to.expend? Yes. 217. You would prefer the Government to contribute towards the roads? —Why not. They do it to other places, why not in the case of these estates. 218. Would you apply that system to all private estates?- Yes. 219. To those that have been bought some time ago as well? —They can make it retrospective if they wish. I would not object 220. Has any instance of the Crown Rangers unduly harassing tenants come under your notice? —Not one. 221. Would you care to express an opinion as to the ability of the Rangers? Do you think them competent to carry out their duties? —Yes, .1 think so. My experience is in that direction. 222. Mr. Pauli\ You object to the co-operative system? —Yes. 223. Have you any objection to day-labour? —No. 224. Do you think it is workable under proper supervision? —Yes. I would not object to co-operative labour if it is carried out on proper lines, but it is not carried out on proper lines. The men do not know what they are to get before they start their job. All details should be set out before they sign the contract. 225. It is possible to alter the conditions of the system and make it a success? —By allowing men to band themselves together and take small contracts. 226. Mr. Forbes.~\ With regard to the valuation of land, do you think the Government valuers have put too high a value on land? —I will give you an instance. A farmer at Tuapeka Creek complained to me that he had been too highly valued. I offered him 10 per cent, above the valuation for the land, and he would not sell. I then offered him 20 per cent, above the valuation, and he would not take it. I think if there is a margin of 20 per cent, the farmer has no right to say he is overvalued. 227. Do you think the Government should have the right to resume on 20 per cent, over the valuation? —I do not think they will do that. The farmer must assist the valuator to a certain extent. 228. A gentleman wants me to ask if you would be in favour of the farmer being represented on the Assessment Courts ? —Yes, but they are there now, so far as my knowledge serves me. 229. Do you know anything about Pomahaka? —Yes. '230. Possibly you may have seen the evidence that has been tendered about that. The tenants advocated a reduction of the rent by Is. an acre? —That, I take it, represents the loading for the roads. It is a very strange thing that one of the farmers there was a ploughman for twenty years, and he gave a substantial sum to acquire one of the sections. There were some very inferior men went on to that estate. One, I think, was an undischarged bankrupt. How could you possibly expect that man to get on. 231. These men are off now, are they not? —I understand so. 232. Mr. Matheson.~\ Do not men lose their heads on occasions over land?- Yes. 233. Do you not think, then, that they should lose their money to learn wisdom?— They say that experience teaches. 234. If the ocupier is prepared to pay to the Crown all it has expended, and the State has acquired the means of settling the land, what objection is there to giving the right of purchase?— For the reason that some of the land would be left on our hands. I, as one of the electors of the colony, think we are running a risk in doing that —of selling tKe best land and holding the bad. 235. You would not mind if you disposed of it all?—No, I would sell none of it. But if you sell at all the good land will go off and the poor will be left. 236. When land is bought by the State the Department has to pay low for the worst of the land and high for the best, and any undue valuation is due to the mistakes of the officers?- Not at all.
237. Is it not reasonable that we should be prepared to lose a little for the mistakes of the officers in settling the land? —Land theoretically can hardly be too high, and all land is not worth anything in price. 238. Is it not wise to see that more competent men value the land?—J never heard of incompetent officers.
301
C—4
J. EDIE
239. Cannot you conceive of incompetent officers when you see that some bargains are better than others? —No, the land is better. 240. Mr. McCardle.] Some stress has been laid on the statement that the valuations of the Government assessor in this district have been too high. You, as a competent man, know something about how these valuations were arrived at: did he converse with the holder as to the value? —That is so. He came to me, and we agreed upon the valuation. 241. Mr. Anstey.] You say that the co-operative system would work all right if the men were allowed to choose their mates, but we have had an objection to that. If five or six competent men join together they would make good wages, and if incompetent men they would want higher prices for their work. Then, there is great objection to the authorities selecting the men, for they put good men and duffers together : that has been a great objection ? —Quite right, too. 242. How would you get over that? —Allow the men to choose their own mates. Why should old men expect to compete with young and able-bodied men. 243. How do you get over this difficulty: five good men can earn, say, 15s. a day, whereas five totally incompetent men cannot earn tucker? —We should not lose money on that account. 244. If a man is not able to do a fair day's work pay him accordingly? —Yes. 245. Mr. McC'utchan.] Are you aware if the overseers are instructed to keep the earningpower of the men down to 7s. or Bs. a day? —Only from hearsay. 246. Are you aware whether the overseer supplies the contractor with the quantities before they start ? —No, Ido not think so. My contention is that should be done. 247. Is it not the custom with your Council when letting contracts to have estimates of what the contract should come to, and to compare those estimates with the tenders before any is accepted 'I —Yes; that is so. 248. Do you think such a system would be workable in connection with the co-operative system? —Yes. 249. In speaking of the valuations you made reference to a case in this district: do you think it is a wise thing for the people of a nation who have reasonably high ideals to reduce this land question to mere commercialism? As a family we have an attachment to the soil, and though intrinsically our farm may be worth, say, £8 an acre, and it is valued at that for taxation purposes, yet we would not sell it. for .£lO an acre, because the land has a higher value in our eyes? — That might apply in old-settled countries like England; but we are a young country here, and it is more a question of pounds shillings and pence. John Bulpin examined. 250. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold about 1,000 acres, of which 200 acres is leasehold with right of purchase. I have held the land for about thirty years. 251. Do you approve of the present constitution of Land Boards?- I think the Land Boards should be elective. I think it would be much better if the members were representative people sent from the different districts. 252. With respect to tenures, what is your opinion? —I think the deferred-payment system is a good system and ought to be reintroduced. I also think that under the lease in perpetuity there should be a purchasing clause after conditions as to residence and improvements have been complied with. lam in favour of the freehold. I think that a person looks after the land much better when he has acquired the freehold. I have had no experience with reference to the Advances to Settlers Department, nor in regard to roading. I think roads should be made out of the general revenue of the country. 253. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you belong to the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 254. You do not interfere in any way with the settlers as to their ideas of tenure?- —No. 255. Do you recommend the freehold simply from a sentimental point of view? —No. 256. Do you think there is any chance of the Government breaking the contract with respect to the lease in perpetuity and revaluation ? —I could not say. 257. Do you think the settlers need be alarmed in that respect? —I do not think so. 258. You agree that the great object is to place as many people on the land as possible?— Yes. 259. The land-for-settleinent policy is accomplishing that? —Yes. 260. Would you approve of the extension of that principle? —Perhaps so. 261. Mr. Anstey.\ You said you were in favour of the election of Land Boards? —Yes. 262. Is that the general opinion of the Farmers' Union in this part of the country? —I could not say. I was asked by the Farmers' Union to come here. 263. Upon what franchise would you elect the members of the Board —the parliamentary franchise? —I think so. 264. In that case would not the thirty or forty thousand voters in Dunedin swamp the country vote, and would not labour members generally be elected ?- That is a question that would have to be looked into. 265. Would it do if the Farmers' Union were to elect the members of the Board? —I think the people as a whole should elect the Board. Ido not say that the men in the towns should elect them. 266. Mr. Paul.\ Have you seen an instance of any leaseholder neglecting his land? —I could not mention any case. 267. You want the deferred-payment system added to the present tenures? —I think under that system a poor man can take up land and make it freehold. 268. Do you want the lease in perpetuity amended by the addition of a clause giving the right of purchase? —Yes. 269. And you want the present option-with-right-of-purchase tenure still one of the land laws? —Yes. 270. You want the cash system to remain on the statute-book? —Yes.
C— 4.
302
J. BTJLI'IN.
271. Mr. Forbes.] In giving the right of purchase in the case of lease in perpetuity, do you not think there is a danger of the money being squandered after the land is disposed of ? —I think the Government should do the very best for the country. '272. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the best -way to stop the Government squandering the money is for the citizens to take more interest in the election of members? —I think so. Alexander Fraser further examined. 273. Mr. McC'utchan.] In speaking about the roading of the country 1 understood you to say that you advocated the roads being made by the Government out of revenue?- Yes; out of the consolidated revenue. 274. Is it not the case that we are borrowing largely from year to year? —Yes. 275. You would not consider loan-money to be revenue? —There is a large proportion of loanmoney expended on roads now. 276. There is a fund called the Public Works Fund? —Yes. 277. From what source is that fund supplied? Partly from the consolidated revenue and partly from loan-money. 278. The consolidated revenue is chiefly derived from Customs?--That is included in it. 279. You think a certain portion of loan-money should be expended on roads —that is, for reproductive work?—l consider that- the present policy of expending loan-money on reproductive works is a good policy, because the two funds are put together for that purpose —a portion of the consolidated revenue and a portion of the loan-money- -and my contention is that that money should be expended in opening up these lands the same as Crown lands. Robert Cowie examined. 280. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer. 1 have 560 acres of freehold, 1,600 acres under the small-grazing-run system, and 1,340 acres under pastoral lease. I have been fourteen years farming in this district. I pay 4d. per acre for the grazing-run and very nearly 4jd. per acre for the pastoral lease. 281. Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 282. Were you appointed by the union to come here?- 1 was not appointed, but 1 said I would appoint myself, because there were some things I wished to put before the Commission. [The witness then proceeded to lay before the Commission a number of grievances he had against the Land Board in the matter of his leases. His boundaries had not been defined satisfactorily or in a way calculated to enable the property to be worked to anything like its best advantage. The creek boundary was most unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it was not wide enough to deter sheep swimming across, and as his neighbour would not pay half the cost of fencing he was compelled to run a straight fence down for his boundary, and lose the use of a portion of his land accordingly. Through these causes he complained that he had lost two years' benefit from his lease. He also complained about a commonage reserve spreading rabbits. The Chairman informed the witness that these were departmental matters, and did not come within the scope of the Commission's inquiry.] 283. Mr. McCardle.] Have you watched the operation of the different tenures of land?—l think so. 284. Do you approve of the 999-years lease?- I think it is a farce. 285. Do you not think a man might succeed under that lease?—l dare say he might. 286. Where does the farce come in? —Because I do not consider that any one has a right to grant such a thing as a 999-years lease. 287. Have they a right to grant an everlasting title? —I do not know. 288. You have a freehold title? —Yes. 289. Is that a farce? —No. 290. It is longer than a lease for 999 years? —It is a genuine thing. I think the lease in perpetuity can be altered as circumstances arise. " 291. What circumstances? —I do not know. 292. What circumstances will condemn the 999-years lease? Perhaps the rising generation will not believe in it. 293. Will the lease in perpetuity interefere with the birthright of the rising generation ? No; I do not suppose so. 294. Do you approve of the Land for Settlements Act? To a certain extent. 295. The State is receiving 5 per cent, interest on the capital expended: there is no farce in that? —Not for those who have to pay it. 296. Do you not think the Government will make a good investment? —The 5 per cent, is to go on for all time. _ 297. As long as the lease continues? —That is where I think the farce is. Interest may come down to 2 per cent. 298. Who would get the benefit?— The Government. The settlers would not get the benefit. 299. The settlers are satisfied with the contract now?—l suppose so. 300. Do vou not think the lease in perpetuity meets the case of the man with only a little capital? —Yes. The deferred payment was just as good as that. Under the lease in perpetuity a person has to farm the land according to the Inspector. A man who is farming land must consider the markets and other things; yet the Inspector has power to order a particular crop, and the farmer must comply, although, he knows that there will be no good market for it. 301. Do you recommend any alteration in that? —No, except to do away with it altogether, and to allow a man to crop as he pleases. 302. Would it not be better to say that as soon as you put on certain improvements you will be put in the same position as the freeholder and be relieved of inspection: would that meet the difficulty? —Yes.
C—4.
E. OOWIE.]
303
303. Are there any education reserves in this neighbourhood? —There is one small one. 304. Mr. McLennan.'] Are you aware that there are rules and regulations laid down under the Land for Settlements Act that have to be abided by, independent of the Ranger? —I suppose so. Ido not know about the Act. 305. The Ranger has actually nothing to do with knowledge of farming so long as it is done according to the Act? —What I say is that the rotation of crops may not suit the market. 306. Mr. Paul.] Has any instance come under your notice of undue interference by the Ranger ? —No. 307. So far as you know, they are competent men, and carry out their duties properly I—Yes. Edward O'Neill examined. 308. The Chairman.] What are you? —Crown Lands Ranger. 309. How long have you been in that position? —I was acting Ranger for about three years, and have been Crown Lands Ranger for the last three years six years altogether. 310. You are well acquainted with this district? —Yes. 311. Are the tenants under the various tenures fulfilling their conditions fairly well? —Very well. 312. You have heard the evidence that has been given. Is there any that requires alteration? —Yes. A gentleman this morning made the statement that none of the Crown Lands Rangers were competent or had had experience as farmers. Speaking for myself, I was brought up on a farm. I was farming from the time I was able to work until I was thirty years of age. My predecessor, Mr. Hughan, is pretty well acknowledged all over Otago as being able to speak on farming matters and as a judge of land-values. I may say that I have never before met the gentleman personally who made that statement. I know that he does not know me nor my antecedents, and therefore I do not think he was justified in making the statement he did. 313. Mr. Anstey.] Are there any Crown tenants in this immediate neighbourhood? —Generally speaking, there are not very many in the immediate neighbourhood. 314. Do you know how it is they are not represented liere to-day?—No, but there was one witness who is a Crown tenant. 315. Are Crown tenants unduly harassed? —No. 316. Have you often to correct them for breaking the terms of their lease?— Speaking of this neighbourhood, I do not think I have had to speak to more than one of them, and that only on one occasion. 317. From that we infer that they are all farming their land fairly well?— Exceedingly well. 318. Do the Crown tenants, as a rule, keep their fences in order, and keep down the rabbits, and keep their land as clean and free from noxious weeds as the freeholders ?—Yes; I do not see the slightest difference. There are plenty of freeholders who do not farm their land very well, and the same remark applies to leaseholders,'but there are good men holding land under both tenures. 319. Mr. McLennan.] As regards their improvements in buildings, &c., how do they compare with the improvements on freehold land?—l clo not see any marked difference. They are just as good on the leasehold land as on the freehold. 320. Have you been inspecting in any other district than this?— Yes, all through North Otago. 321. How do they compare there? Very favourably. 322. Do they keep their fences and buildings in as good order as their neighbours holding the freehold?—l should say that land held under the land-for-settlement system in North Otago compares most favourably with land of an equal area in any other parts of Otago, as far as improvements are concerned—that is, considering the time they have been holding these leases. 323. What kind of improvements do they generally put on the land ?--Fencing, buildings, draining in some cases, and cultivation. 324. Do they do anything in the way of planting?— Not in the first few years. 325. Small gardening?— Not right away. "326. But, taking them all in all, they compare very favourably with their neighbours on freeholds? —Yes, they do. 327. Mr. Paul.] Do you know the conditions Crown tenants have to fulfil? —Yes. 328. Putting yourself in their place, is there anything you would consider unnecessary fn the regulations?—l do not think so. 329. You could be a Crown tenant and not feel that you were half a slave?—! certainly could. 330. Have you ever known an instance where an incompetent man has been appointed Ranger 1 -1 consider that they are all competent men in Otago. 331. Mr. Forbes.] You know something of Pomahaka: have you sent in a report on it to the Land Board? —Yes. . 332. Do you agree with the evidence that the rent is too high, considering the quality of the land, for a man to make a living on it?—lf you do not press it I would rather not answer that question.
Dunedin, Monday, 27th March, 1905. John Askew Scott examined. 1 The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a journalist, and editor of the Ota go Liberal. 2 Will you kindly state what it is you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I might mention that I have been appointed by the Otago Trades and Labour Council to give evidence on their behalf and on behalf of the unions affiliated with the Council. The membership of the affiliated unions number about five thousand. Speaking generally, they are opposed to the proposal to allow Crown tenants under the lease-in-perpetuity system to obtain the freehold on the
C.—4.
304
[j. A. SCOTT.
ground, first of all, that it is opposed to public policy; and, in the second place, because it constitutes a breach of faith with the State. They look upon the land in the colony as being the family estate of New Zealand, and they consider that the Crown is exercising its legitimate function when it acts as trustee of that estate. Consequently they hold that the sale of Crown land and of lands acquired by the Crown should be discontinued, and that in future all lands administered by the Crown should be leased at their fair rental value and subject to periodical revaluation. 3. That includes all public land? —Yes. They are opposed, further, to any extension of the freehold, on the ground that the freehold and landlord system is the one great bar to the progress of the great mass of the people, and the one great factor which keeps them from reaping the full benefit of the progressive legislation passed on their behalf. The chief ground on which they consider that the proposal is opposed to public policy is because it deprives the State of the vast increase in the value of land which has come about through the progress of the community, and without any effort on the part of the owners of the land. I do not need, of course, to give any proofs of that increase. I might just mention that the process of substantial increases in the value of land is going on under our very eyes in Dunedin. The value of the leasehold land in the colony, according to a statement prepared by the Lands Department, has risen from £6,635,975 to £7,300,512, a total increase of £664,537. The period was not stated in the table I refer to, but it covered the actual land, including land leased under the Land for Settlements Act but excluding timber and mineral reserves. Of course, the period does not affect our point, which is that if the freehold is granted to these leaseholders the State will really be making them a present of that amount, or, rather, making a present of it in many cases to the money-lender —that is, the unearned inclement. We look upon the demand for the freehold in such a connection as that as really a confiscation of the unearned increment of the land —in plain English, a bare, bald steal from the State. We say that if you were to go to any business-man who had an article which he knew would steadily increase in value, and ask him to sell it now at a low price, when he knew with absolute certainly it was going to increase in value, he would ask you if you thought he was a fool. We say that is precisely the demand that is made upon the State. It is asking the State to sell an article at a low price now which it knows will increase in value very largely later on. Coming now to the breach of faith, I would just point out very briefly that the Crown tenants have been given this land at a very low average rental. The value of that land has, on the whole, increased, and the land should be giving a larger rental now. The tenants have had the use of the land at this very moderate rental, and they show their gratitude by asking the State to give them the right to it altogether, and deprive the State even of the moderate rental it now gets. Coming now to the way in which the freehold affects the workers more particularly, I may say that the way in which the freehold operates to the special detriment of the workers and businesspeople in towns is by devouring an altogether excessive proportion of their wages or profits in the shape of rent. I will read you just a short sentence from each of two recognised standard authorities on this subject. John Stuart Mill says, — " The ordinary progress of a society which increases in wealth is at all times tending to augment the incomes of landlords; to give them both a greater amount and a greater proportion of the wealth of the community, independently of any trouble or outlay incurred by themselves. They grow richer, as it were, in their sleep, without working, risking, or economising. What claim have they, on the general principle of social justice, to this accession of riches? " Professor Thorold Rogers puts the matter plainer still. He says, — "Every permanent improvement of the soil, every railway and road, every bettering of the general condition of society, every facility given for protection, every stimulus supplied to consumption raises rent. The landlord sleeps but thrives. He alone, among all the recipients in the distribution of products, owes everything to the labour of others, contributes nothing of his own. He inherits part of the fruits of present industry, and has appropriated the lion's share of accumulated intelligence." We say that is the position in a nutshell. The more a worker works, the harder a shopkeeper pushes his business, the more valuable property becomes, and up goes the rent. Any general rise in wages is almost immediately followed by an increased rent. So much is it the case that a general rise in wages is followed by increase in rent that it has actually been made the ground for refusing a rise in wages. The Right Hon. Mr. Goshen, late Secretary of the Navy, actually refused a rise in wages to the workers at the Woolwich Arsenal on the ground that the benefit of the rise would go ultimately to the landowners. He said that during the last ten years wages had increased 20 per cent., but the rent for the workmen's dwellings had risen 50 per cent., and on that ground he refused to give a rise of wages which would only benefit the owners of the land. In an official memorandum issued a short time ago by Mr. Tregear, the Secretary of the Labour Department, he brought out very clearly that although wages had risen there had been a verv much larger increase in the rents, and he showed that there was no hope of bringing any adequate measure of prosperity to the workers so long as the present system continued. That is one great reason why the labour party are opposed to the freehold. They regard it as a veritable millstone around the neck of the workers, and they consider that the workers will never be really free and never get their heads properly above water until this system is superseded by a more just and rational arrangement. Another objection to the proposal to extend the freehold is that it will be fatal to our whole land-for-settlements policy. We have just lately purchased two large estatesMount Vernon, for £95,369, and the Greenfield, for £79,300. Now, if the demand for the freehold is successful we shall have to sell these lands again, and the absurdity of buying large estates one year and selling them the next will soon become apparent, and the land-for-settlements system will be thoroughly discredited. In saying that the extension of the freehold will be fatal to a land-for-settlements policy, I am expressing not only my own opinion and the opinion of the party, but also the opinion of the founder of the land-for-settlements policy, Sir John McKenzie. In a debate which took place on the Land for Settlements Bill in 1897, an amendment was proposed
C.—4.
J. A. SCOTT.]
305
giving a modified right of property to the tenant, and this is what John McKenzie said on the point —I am quoting from Hansard, — " I have no hesitation in saying that if it is carried it would destroy the system. " Mr. Wason. —No. " Mr. McKenzie. —That is my opinion. I say that if you allow properties disposed of in this way to become partly the property of the tenants you will at once have a divided interest between the Crown, the owner, and the tenants —an interest which it would be impossible to meet in any way except -by allowing the tenant to become the full owner. If you do that you might as well ' shut up shop ' altogether as far as land-settlement is concerned. The only way we can prevent that is to keep the land on the terms on which it is now held. There are certain members of this House who imagine that if we allow the tenants to pay up part of the purchase-money, and only became mortgagors to the Government to the extent of three-fifths, then the thing would be safe; but I venture to say that this is only the thin end of the wedge, and I warn honourable members who are in earnest about the system not to support a motion of the sort now proposed. It is only giving the people the right to get the property and becoming freeholders. " Hon. Members. Hear, hear. " Mr. J. McKenzie. Well, if you do that you will spoil the system." In the same debate Sir Robert Stout also opposed the same amendment, and he said, " I take it that in a system of land for settlement you must keep to the lease —you cannot allow purchase of the freehold." I submit if there are two men in the history of the colony who could be considered to be authorities on such a point they would be the present Chief Justice of New Zealand and the late John McKenzie, who was to a very large extent the author of the land-for-settlements policy. I say when they agree in saying that the adoption of the freehold is fatal to the system their testimony is entitled to very great weight. A further objection is that if the Crown tenants are allowed the option of purchasing, other tenants, such as City Corporation, Harbour Board, and educational bodies' tenants may demand the same right. Now, that that is not an imaginary difficulty was proved by the evidence given before you the other day by Mr. Donald Reid, who said distinctly that he was in favour of giving them all the right of purchase. He was practically a " whole-hogger " in the matter of giving these tenants a right to the freehold. In other words, all these endowments and reserves, including possibly recreation reserves, are to be taken from the people and put into the hands of individuals. Mr. Reid did not say how the revenue which would be lost was to be replaced. I would just point out how disastrously that would work for Dunedin. A league, called the Otago League, has been formed here to advance the commercial Interests of Otago and Dunedin, and at a meeting held the other night it was pointed out that the one hope for Dunedin was to get a free port and reduce freights and charges, and they all agreed that the only hope of that —and it was a good and reasonable hope—was an increase in the value of the Harbour Board endowments and the increased revenue which would be obtained from them. If these endowments were taken away it will be a very serious matter for Dunedin. While speaking about Corporation endowments, I might mention that there is a considerable amount of land in Dunedin held by the Corporation and Harbour Board, and in all the leases issued by these bodies there is provision for revaluation every twenty-one years. There has been no public complaint against that system, and these leases were quite satisfactory. The tenants pay a fair rent and they make no complaint. I would like to say a word or two about the alleged natural yearning every Britisher has for the freehold. To say that merely because most men have a certain yearning therefore the State should gratify that yearning seems to me the queerest kind of reasoning. There are a great many natural yearnings that have to go ungratified. Most of us have a natural yearning for a good balance at the bank and as little work to do as possible, but no one is found so eccentric as to suggest that the State should gratify those yearnings. I say it is not a question of the yearnings of individuals, but a question of what is best for the community. And any yearning that conflicts with the highest well-being of the community has no claim to recognition from the State. Moreover, we claim that whatever is legitimate in that desire for the possession of land is fully satisfied by the leasehold provision. The legitimate element in that desire is the desire for a permanent home and for security for improvements and the fruits of one's industry. We say that is more effectually secured under the leasehold arrangement than it is under the freehold, where the owner of the land is continually liable to fall into the hands of mortgagees and money-lenders. We say that the freehold gives the name of security without the reality, whereas the leasehold gives the reality though not the name. I would like to say a word about the evidence given by Mr. Donald Reid on one particular point. Mr. Reid was asked, among other questions, if a tenant of his came to him demanding the right of the freehold what he would do, and he got out of it in a way that seemed rather clever at the time. He said that if he had the right to tax that tenant to the full extent of any deficiency that might arise in his Own income he would be perfectly willing to let him have the freehold. I am quite sure if the member of the Commission had not already promised to only ask one question he would have followed it up by another question, and asked Mr. Reid if he was in favour of a substantial land-tax so as to take from landowners the unearned increment of the land. That is the logical sequence to Mr. Reid's statement. We take up the position that there should be a substantial and effective land-tax, which should be increased so as to secure the greater proportion of the unearned increment for the country. 4. Mr. Mc,Cardie. 1 I might inform you that Mr. Donald Reid favoured that in his general remarks? —That is all right, then.- We are glad to have him on our side. I would like, further, to point out that the adoption of the leasehold system and the refusal to grant the freehold is in accordance with the progressive spirit of the time. You see that in a hundred directions. When a goldfield was discovered lately in Japan, and Japan announced to the world that no private individual was to be allowed to exploit the great natural resources of the field, the world applauded the wisdom of Japan. When the Federal Government announced that the site of the Federal
39—C. 4.
306
J. A. SCOTT.
C.-4.
capital is not to be on any account alienated from the Commonwealth everybody agreed with the wisdom of the proposal. We have adopted the same principle by securing to the people those utilities which are really natural utilities and should belong to the people. We have adopted that principle in the Act regulating the water-powers of the colony. I say, then, it is entirely in accordance with the progressive spirit of the times to keep the natural products in the hands of the people, and that it would be an entirely backward and retrograde step to enter on a course which would take the land from the people. I would just like to say, in conclusion, that, although I have spoken as the representative of the Trades and Labour Council and the organized workers, and to some extent have spoken from their point of view, we do not for a moment mean to suggest that the refusal of the freehold is to be carried out simply in the interests of the working-classes. We believe it is entirely in the interests of the whole community. We entirely agree with the witness who appeared before the Commission and said he was a freeholder for himself and a leaseholder for the country. We contend that the whole principle on which this thing should be settled is the interests of the country, and we believe that the extension of the leasehold and the abstaining from an extension of the freehold is in the interests not only of the workers, but of the whole community. These are the chief points I wish to bring up. 5. The Chairman.] You have given us, Mr. Scott, a very clear statement of your views. There is just one thing has occurred to me. We have a great deal of back country consisting of hilly and bush lands, which can only be tackled by men who have an heroic heart, and who are not danuted by ordinary difficulties —in fact, men who will surmount any difficulties- and I fear this yearning you refer to is so strong in the minds of some of these individuals that if they are refused the freehold they will really not take up this back country, and these lands will remain in their virgin state. While they dcr not create the freehold, they create it to the extent that they make the land fit for public and private use. I do not know if you have had any experience of going into this back country, especially in the other Island, but if you have you will find that what I am saying in regard to the difficulties to be overcome is correct, and that the request for the freehold is really very moderate indeed; because a man works there all his life, and he works not only for himself", but with the idea of providing a home for his children; and I fear—l merely express it as a fear and a conviction—that if the leasehold system is to be applied so universally and without any exception these individuals would not tackle the wilderness: what do you say to that ? —I merely want to say that, so far as the value of the land was due to the work of these pioneers, that would be absolutely secured to them. I think that 1 lie desire for a permanent home and the desire for a special incentive to take up that land might be met by securing the land on a lease to themselves and their descendants by a kind of lease in perpetuity, which would be an incentive to them to take up land and work it under these difficulties. 6. Mr. McLennan.] Do you express the views of the unions? —On all general principles I have stated I do. 7. You said you would like to see the land revalued at certain periods?— Yes. 8. Do you mean in present leases or future leases? —Future leases. 9. Mr. McCardle.\ You quoted John Stuart Mill, and, I took it, your views referred principally to city properties? —Yes. 10. Do you know how the workmen's homes system has worked near Dunedm I— I have no detailed personal knowledge of it. 11. Do you know anything of the terms and conditions? —No. 12. I think I am correct in saying that the Government purchased the land and advanced onehalf of the value of the buildings to be erected and the improvements to be effected on that land to the holder: do you think that is a good thing in the interests of the working-men ?— ! The system which I prefer is that the land should be worked through the municipality, and the buildings erected by the municipality and let out at low rents to the workers. 13. You recognise that the lands of the colony belong to the people, and you think they should be worked as near as possible in the interests of the people. If a working-man is unable to secure a home in the neighbourhood of Dunedin at other than an extortionate rent, do you not think it is the duty of the Government to come to his rescue and purchase suitable areas adjacent to the cities for the purpose of providing him with a home?— Yes. 14. The Government are doing that under the land-for-settlements policy in the interests of the farming community, and do you not think that a similar system should be introduced by the Government in the interest of the workers of the cities, whereby the Government could purchase the land and advance the whole value of the improvements, and still make it a good thing for the worker of the city and a safe thing for the State?—l said before I prefer the system of letting the State, acting through the municipality, do the whole thing. 15. lam only asking in regard to the principle of the matter? —If you mean that the Government should come to the assistance of the workers by buying land and giving them cheap homes— certainly, I agree with it. 16. You made a reference to the fact that if settlers were allowed to purchase it would mean putting a profit in the pockets of the money-lenders?— Yes. 17. Does that not convey to your mind that, notwithstanding all the conditions the Government have granted to leaseholders, they are not in a very flourishing condition, but still find it necessary to apply for assistance to monetary institutions to enable them to carry out improvements? No. My'point is this —that when a tenant gets a freehold he gets into these difficulties: that if you give him the option of the freehold he will have to raise money to buy the freehold, and he would be unable possibly to pay the interest, and then he will find himself in difficulties, and ultimately the unearned increment will go to the mortgagee. That will not occur while he is a leaseholder. 18. Do you not know that there is a large number of leaseholders who have their properties mortgaged to the Government and to private monetary institutions?— That is so.
J. A. SCOTT.]
307
C—4.
19. And do you know that the struggling settler who is forty or fifty miles from a railway and ten or twelve miles away from a road, and who is settled in the forest without any of the advantages of civilization, and whose labour possibly is his principal capital, is now clamouring for the freehold because of the fact that he needs outside assistance? —I do not know that they are now clamouring for the freehold, and 1 think that is absolutely the worst form of assistance that could be given them. 20. I can assert, without any fear of contradiction at all, that these men have been refused assistance by the Government, and to enable them to keep themselves and their families on their sections they need outside assistance, and on the leasehold system as it now obtains they are unable to get it? —I think that wants remedying, and the Government should give them far greater assistance than has been given or can be given under the present legislation. But I think it would be a great mistake to give them the freehold, and that it would not be in their interests. 21. Do you know the circumstances of these cases? Do you know that possibly the price of the bush land is about 10s. per acre, and that before a man can make the land fit to take a plough and reap any crop other than the grass sown on the surface it will cost him over £20 per acre, and that if he started with the bush and worked till the day he dropped into the grave he would not accomplish all these results? His interest will be a thousand times more than that of the State in the land, and yet you will not allow him the freehold? —I say, give them a lease for their own lifetime and the lifetime of their descendants; give them every possible concession, even to the extent of not charging any rent at all until the land is in an improved condition. I would give them every concession, but I would not give them the freehold. 22. Would you give them twenty years free of rent, so long as they were putting improvements on the land? —Not twenty years. 23. Mr. Hall.] Have you had any experience in regard to the settlement of land in the back country ? —No. 24. You are speaking from theory? —I am not speaking of the settlement of the land in the back country. lam speaking very largely as it affects cities, and also in regard to general principles. 25. Of course, you must admit that the cities are entirely dependent on the prosperity of the country? —I think they are mutually interdependent. 26. You can no more build up the cities without the country than a house without foundations ? —On the other hand, the cities offer a very good market for the country, so they really react on each other. 27. Of course, you will say that if the country is settled in a prosperous way that will build up the cities and make their industries prosperous? —Yes. 28. Is it not the export of produce from the country that provides the interest for the enormous loans that have been spent chiefly for the benefit of the cities? —Very largely that. 29. It is about £12,000,000 out of £13,000,000. Are there any manufactures exported? —■ It is chiefly produce. 30. You gave us a statement of increased values. Was that from a period of depression up till the present, when there is what is called a boom in the country ? Is that a fair way of showing the increased value of property? —I simply wanted to emphasize the fact that as every community advances the value of land increases. 31. But if you take the value over a period of years when a boom has been in progress that is not a fair statement of the case? —I will suggest that you go back as far as you like and take it from the beginning of the colony, and find out the values then and the values as they are now. I do not think any one will suggest, going back as far as you like, that land has decreased in value. 32. You spoke of the yearnings of the settlers for the freehold, and that the Government should not recognise the yearnings of that kind ? —Not if they conflict with the interests of the community. 33. Well, the Government have recognised to a large extent the yearnings of what are called the workers of the colony by legalising, as they have, a standard rate of wages and other benefits? —That is in accordance with the condition 1 laid down. We say it is not in conflict with the interests of the community to give the workers a living-wage. On the contrary, it is not only in the interests of the workers that there should be a good living-wage for the workers, but of the farmers also, because the workers' purchasing-power is increased, and the market of the farmers is also increased. 34. But is it not also a fact that the Government cannot increase the value of the products of the soil? —Yes. 35. If they increase the cost of production beyond a certain limit, what is to become of the country ? Is not the country entirely dependent on the products of the soil, and are not every man, woman, and child in the country also dependent on them? The Government can say to a settler he must pay a certain rate of wages, but they cannot insure him a higher price for his mutton and butter, and if they carry that beyond a certain point and the industries of the country are killed, what is to become of the cities or any one else? Is the colony not dependent entirely upon the success of land-settlements and the production from the land? —Certainly not. It depends very largely on them, but it depends also on building up successful manufactures and founding flourishing industries so as to give the workers useful and remunerative employment. It depends on both these things. 36. What export of manufactures is there, and what money does it bring to the colony? —I am not talking of exports but of manufactures. 37. But there must be exports of some kind to pay the interest on the national debt of the colony. If the exports of the country stop for one year, of course, the colony would be bankrupt, and who is to pay wages then ? Do you not think that some consideration should be given to the settlers in the back blocks of the country —I am not speaking of acquired estates —in order to promote settlement there? —Yes.
[J. A. SCOTT.
C.—4.
308
38. Do you not think that a rigid adherence to the leasehold of the Crown lands and the back lands of the country may be very prejudicial to the welfare of the State? I do not suggest that we should adhere rigidly in the sense of limiting them to a short term of lease, but I think the State should give them concessions in the way of an extended lease, and give their descendants the right of occupation. 39. If the people will not take up the unimproved country in the back blocks on leasehold, what then? —I would say that all the other land should be taken up first. There is a good deal of land which is not rough or back country but possibly should be acquired. I would make every effort to have every inch of land that is worth cultivating settled before I drove them to the back country. 40. Ido not include tho improved lands acquired by the Government —1 refer to the Crown lands of the colony ? —I understand. 41. I think if you had had any experience of settlement in the back parts of the country and making a living oh that land you would not be so. strong in your opinion?—l would be just as strong, because it is a matter of definite principle. I would give these men every concession that could possibly be devised short of parting with the people's rights and interest in the land. Suppose the country progresses in a hundred years, that very bush land may be extremely valuable through the construction of railways and improved means of communication. If a few light railways were put through the colony they would increase the value of land very largely, apart altogether from the value of the mineral deposits and the timber on them, and I say we should not deprive the people of their rights and interests in that land. Give the tenants every concession that could be devised to make their lot tolerable and comfortable, but do not part with the people's whole right in the land._ 42. You spoke of the land'increasing in value: have not the expenditure and toil of the pioneers in the back country chiefly given that value, and if railways are made are not these very people taxed to pay for the railways? —They bear their share possibly, but, so far as the value of that land is due to the efforts of the pioneers, I say let every penny of it be absolutely secured to them; but, so far as it is due to improved communication and increased population and the general progress of the community, I say that portion should be secured to the community. 43. You spoke of the increased value in land generally, but is it not a fact that in many cases land has gone down in value and the poor settler has gone down too, and has lost his all ? That is an argument in favour of what we advocate —leasehold with revaluation. We say if the land decreases in value it is only right the tenant should pay a lesser rent. Consequently, that is really an argument in favour of what we claim. 44. Mr. Johnston.] Do you say that all your remarks apply to the cities, and not to country lands at all ? —My remarks in regard to general principles dealing with the land question apply to all lands. Some of those quotations I read apply more especially to the towns. 45. Would you not allow workers in the towns to have a freehold section in the towns at all? —No. I would not allow a worker or anybody else. 46. You think the land in the cities should be entirely in the hands of the Government?— Entirely in the hands of the people. 47. Mr. Anstey.] Would you generally be in favour of placing all reserves, together with the Crown lands, under the administration of one body, say, the Land Board? —That is a question I have really not gone into at all, and if 1 answered it would be on the spur of the moment and therefore of no value. 48. Can you tell me in what periods these revaluations you advocate should take place?— Every twenty-one years. 49. Do you apply that to all Crown lands? —Yes, I should say so. 50. You think the same period would be suitable for town properties and for country properties? —Yes. 51. I suppose you are aware that in many country districts it will take a great deal longer than twenty-one years to find out what the improvements amount to or before they can be accomplished ; for instance, a man could not possibly recoup himself on bush land in that time, and would it be equitable then to revalue him in twenty-one years? —The revaluation would not affect his improvements; it would apply only to the unimproved value, and if that unimproved value had increased it is only right that the community which created the value should get it. 52. The improvements on any property —to whom do they belong? —To the man who makes them. 53. No matter whether he is the tenant, the landlord, or the State? —Yes. 54. Would you be in favour of altering the existing law to the extent of actually conferring the value of the improvements to the maker of those improvements? You are aware that under the present law the value of the improvements is conferred upon the landlord unless he specifically gives away that right? —Yes. 55. Would you be in favour of altering the law giving the leaseholder the absolute right of the improvements? —Yes. 56. To whom does the unearned increment belong? —I say it belongs absolutely to the State. 57. You say that there is six hundred thousand pounds' worth of what you call the unearned increment on land-values within a certain period: does that belong to the State, or does not some portion of it belong to the tenant? —The whole of it belongs to the State. I say it is the community that has created the increase in the unimproved value. 58. Is there no portion of it -that belongs to the man who has made the improvements ? You say there is £600,000 of difference between the value of land some time ago and now? —No. That is the difference in the unimproved value of the land. 59. Is there no portion of the unimproved value due to the improvements made by the tenants? —No. That is absolutely the increase in the unimproved value —simply in the value of
ground as ground. I say the increased value is dependent on the increased population and the increased facilities of communication. But I say that if it can be shown that any proportion of the increased value of the laud is due to the efforts of the holder of the land, then he should get that. 60. Let me state a case. A great deal of the bush and swamp land is absolutely valueless until it is improved, and not only is it absolutely valueless, but it is a cost Jo the State in keeping down noxious weeds, &c. Therefore the occupier who makes the improvements puts practically the whole of the value into that land. Does no portion of that increase belong to the man who has made the improvements? —The improved value of the laud would not be unearned increment. There are two valuations. There is a valuation of land with improvements, and there is a valuation deducting the value of the improvements. It is only the valuation of the land apart from the improvements we deal with. 61. Can you mention any system whereby you can ascertain the value of the improvements! For instance, in the case of bush land, the improvements entirely consist in the removal of the forest, in the first instance. How can you ascertain twenty years afterwards the value of the improvements effected on that land ? —You can ascertain it by the market value for one thing. 62. There is no market value for anything you cannot see? —The market value of the land. 63. How can you ascertain a tenant's interest in the market value of a thing you cannot see?— I do not know. 64. Following out your argument that the State should be the holder of all freeholds, supposing a man goes on to a bush section which is practically valueless, and he puts on improvements that represent nine-tenths of the value of the land. Do you say that the State should remain the landlord, notwithstanding the fact that the tenant himself is the owner of nine-tenths of the value of this land? If you are consistent and say that the landlord is to remain the owner, is it not right that he should be compelled to purchase the tenant's interest? —I have no doubt the State would be willing to do that, but I think it is an impossible position. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the value of the improvements is nine-tenths the value of the land, we are not framing a policy for the present time only. Every country progresses and so will this country, and it will not be very long before the position is reversed and the value of the land will be infinitely greater than the value of the improvements. 65. That is an impossibility in the case of rough land? —It is very hard to say what is an impossibility. 66. You say that, notwithstanding that the tenant's interest may be much greater than that of the State, the tenant should retain the ownership of the land ? —Yes. I think the State should not part with the people's right and interest in the land. 67. You say that every one wishes to have as large a balance at the bank and to do as little work as possible: I suppose you really do not want that to go forth as a fair expression of your opinion? —1 said, in the first place, that in reference to the general principles I laid down in reference to the land that I was the mouthpiece of the labour party here, but 1 did not say that in respect to every illustration I gave I was the mouthpiece of that party. I think in your question you are unfairly twisting my statement. 68. Will you correct that statement and say that your party demands a living-wage, and in return for that you make it an absolute condition that the worker shall do an honest day's work? —Yes. I was merely illustrating the general sentiment of human beings that they do not love work for its own sake. Of course, some may do so, but most do not 69. Do I understand you to say that in advocating the land-tax you advocated it with no exemption I—The1 —The improvements are exempted. 70. Yes, but with 110 further exemption whatever? —No. 71. In that case, would you be prepared to advocate an income-tax with 110 exemption?— No. 72. You think there ought to be an exemption in the case of the income-tax, but tKere ought to be no exemption in fEe case of the land-tax? —Because the object of the land-tax is to take the increase in the value of the land which is due to the progress of the community. It is not due to" the work of the holder of the land. He is exempt under the improvements. 73. Are you prepared to advocate a land-tax without any exemption whatever? —Yes. 74. And you say there should be an exemption in the income-tax? —Yes, to the extent of giving every one a living. I advocate an exemption in respect to the farmer's income, as well as in the case of every one else's income He pays a tax 011 the unimproved value of the land, which belongs to the community. 75. Does the unimproved value of the land belong to the community? —It should belong to the community. 76. After the individual has paid for the land, does it belong to the community? —No, but the increase in the unimproved value does. 77. Are you in favour of imposing a land-tax without the £500 exemption? —Yes. 78. And are you in favour of giving exemption in the case of incomes but not in the case of the land-tax? —Yes, in the incomes of farmers as well as of everybody else. 79. You said just now that by giving the tenant the right of purchase it would be depriving the State of the modera'te rent which it now gets? —Yes. 80. Do you mean to say that when the State sells the freehold it fs deprived of the equivalent to the rent? —It loses that source of revenue. 81. Has it not got the money, and cannot it invest that money?— Yes. 82. Then, how do they lose the rent or its equivalent? —They lose it as a source of revenue. 83. But they invest the money somewhere else?— The point I wish to bring out is this: that the land will increase in value, and the State is depriving itself of a very valuable source of revenue by once parting with the land. 84. Returning to the question of the freehold, do you propose to place any restriction as to
309
f J. A. SCOTT.]
a—4.
C.-4,
310
[j. A. SCOTT.
area on the freehold ?—I do not believe in the freehold, but I would put a restriction on the area of freehold land that may be held. 85. Would you restrict it by area or by value? —By both; quality would be the chief consideration. 86. Would you be in favour of the State having the power to take land, paying compensation? —I do not see any objection to the State paying a man full compensation if he has more land than he ought to have. 87. But you would not advocate taking away the land from him without full compensation ? —No. 88. Are you in favour of the land-for-settlements policy? —Yes. 89. Are you in favour of the purchase of large estates and disposing of the land under the leasehold system? —I am not in favour of the 999-years lease. 90. You favour a lease with revaluation ? —Yes. 91. That would apply to future leases? —Yes. 92. You do not propose to do away with existing leases? —No. I would not make it retrospective. 93. Mr. McCutchan.] You want to stop the sale of Crown lands and to have a revaluation clause, and you mentioned a period of thirty years: why do you fix that period ? —There is no absolute rigid period fixed, but we suggest about twenty-one years as being a fair period, broadly speaking. It is fair to both parties. It gives the leaseholder a good chance of getting fair use of the land without being continually subject to changes, and, on the other hand, twenty-one years is quite a reasonable time in which to have a change made. 94. Is it not the case that the value of the land is proportionate to the value of the products got from it —that is what fixes the intrinsic value of land —we are dealing with Crown land? —That may be so. 95. It seems to me that revaluation as you propose is irrational, because there may be five or six variations of value during the term of the lease, and at the end of the term there may be either a period of inflation or one of depression ? —That applies to any period you may fix. I mentioned twenty-one years because I think that is a fair period. 96. If you are going to make a calculation over a long term of lease and strike averages, where is the necessity of this fixing of the rental, because the conditions in the colony are not dependent on the circumstances of the colony but on the markets outside, and that will be so for perhaps the next couple of hundred years? —It is partly dependent on that and partly on other factors. 97. How does the increase in the unimproved value belong to the community? —Because it is due to the increase in the population and to the improved means of communication. 98. You state that your remarks spring from theory, or are largely based on it: have you read the statistics on this matter? —Yes. 99. Have you gone intelligently into the statistics as to what causes the value of back country land I—l1 —I am speaking of the general increase in the unimproved value. 100. Have you any idea what has been spent by the settlers? —I know that the Government does not bear the whole of the cost of roads, but we say that these properties should not be loaded because of the roads. 101. That the State should pay that cost? —Yes, partly, anyhow. 102. So as to conserve to the community the increased value? —Yes. 103. The State has the right of taxation, and they have exercised that right in the case of the graduated land-tax in order to secure a portion of the increase in land-values. So that your statement is not absolutely correct? —It is correct, unless you are willing to admit that there should also be an increase in the tax on land-values up to the full extent of the unearned increment. 104. You said that the tenants were getting the land at a very low rental? —Yes, on the average. 105. Are you aware of the area of land the Government have acquired from the Natives? —No. 106. We have acquired 8,000,000 acres. Are you aware of the cost of that land? I may say that the Government has spent £2,000,000 in acquiring it. That gives an average of ss. an acre, roughly speaking? —Yes. 107. The settler has to pay for the loading, and the total cost to the State is about 7s. 6d. an acre, and they are selling the land to the tenants at a value of from £2 to £2 ss. an acre? —That may be so. 108. I have been in the back country for twenty-five years, and I say that no man will dream of taking up back-country land unless he gets a freehold or the full increase in the value of the leasehold. lam perfectly certain that if a revaluation clause were introduced it would stop backcountry settlement. Most men who have had long experience in back-country settlement say there is no difference between the fool and the pioneer, because the pioneer nearly always goes out of the struggle broken in health and in fortune. You may say that there is no dependence between the town and the country; it is the markets of the world upon which the country settler is dependent. In a very remote degree he is dependent on the cities in the colony at the present time ? —So far as the workers are concerned, they have the strongest possible sympathy with the workers in the country. There is no antagonistic feeling between the workers in the cities and their fellow-workers in the country —in fact, there is the strongest possible sympathy from the town workers with the struggling settler. There is no hostility in that respect, and I am glad to have this opportunity of removing any misapprehension that may exist on that score. 109 You say you would secure to the tenant his improvements? —The absolute right to his improvements. 110. How would you keep a record of his improvements? —What is the difficulty? 111. How would you keep a record of the improvements made twenty-one years back: do
C.—4.
J. A. SCOTT.]
311
you mean that the valuer would go on the land at the end of twenty-one years and value the improvements then ? —Yes. 112. Suppose half of those improvements were not visible? —Are records not kept of the position and state of the land when the tenant took possession. 113. Are you aware that the unimproved value is increasing even at present, and that improvements are already being discounted on the ground that they are not visible? —It seems to me that it should not be a difficult thing to value the improvements. The Government valuator could make periodical visits —even an annual visit if necessary —and value the improvements. 114. Would it not be a good idea for your union to subscribe and send one of your men on to land in the back blocks, and then, in a few years, get his verdict? —I have seen men who have been on the land, and I indorse the evidence they have given. These men were themselves Crown tenants. 115. Were they working Crown tenants of back-country land? —They are Crown tenants, and they indorse what I have stated. 116. Can you give me a name? —I have here a resolution passed by a meeting of Crown tenants in Windsor Park and Elderslie Special Settlements. 117. That land comes under the Land for Settlements Act, and they have got facilities with respect to roads there, and they have no drawbacks? —With regard to the back blocks, I am in favour of giving the settlers there every possible concession that will act as an incentive to them to take up the land and that will make their lot tolerable —anything short of giving them the absolute right of acquiring the freehold, because some day even that right will be extremely valuable, and we say that it would be bad business to absolutely alienate an estate that will be valuable in future years. 118. You say that you favour leases for a long term of years in such cases: what term would you give? —Say, for ninety-nine years, or within the term of their lives and their families. 119. At the original rentals? —No; with revaluation. 120. A lease with revaluation is a twenty-one-years lease? —Revaluation only applies to the unimproved value. It does not apply to anything the tenant has done; it applies simply to the unimproved value due to the community. 121. Do you not think it should be the object of the State to make the people as content as possible ? —Yes. 122. Do you think a revaluation clause in a twenty-one-years lease will result in the rural settlers in the colony being contented and happy, or do you think that people in any other country would be contented and happy under such conditions? —I do not see why they should not be. 123. Take France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, and Holland —what is the experience there? —The experience in France is that land is passing into the hands of a very few people, in spite of the vaunted system of peasant proprietorship. 124. Who is your authority? —M. Toubeau is the authority. 125. I understand that in France the evil is rather that of excessive subdivision? —No; the land is gradually getting into the hands of fewer individuals. If I had thought that this question would have arisen I would have brought you the statistics. 126. Mr. Matheson.\ Will you let us have these statistics? —Yes; I will forward them to the Commission. 127. Is your ultimate aim the nationalisation of the lands of the colony? —Yes; we look upon that as the ideal. 128. You said that a good leasehold gives the reality, and the ownership of the freehold is only a shadow: why not sell the shadow, if any one is willing to pay for it, seeing that you still retain the buyer and are able to tax him? —There is a little fallacy that comes in there. I would like to ask the members of the Commission if they are in favour of the land-tax. 129. If it could be shown that the selling of the freehold would make the people more contented and the land more productive, do you think it would be wise to sell the land? —That is a hypothetical case. I deny that the land would be more productive. In any case I would be inclined to say, even if there was a slight increase in the production, it would not compensate for the loss to the State in parting with the unearned increment of the land. 130. You said that you thought the increment caused by the general progress belonged to the State? —Yes. 131. Then, has the State the right to a share in the increased value of a newspaper business which is caused by the general progress of the community? —The increased value of a newspaper business is quite different, for the newspaper-proprietor gets nothing that he does not give valu« for. 132. Do you consider the compulsory clause in the Land for Settlements Act to be a breach of faith with the original settlers? —No, because most of them are not here, and the present settlers get full value for their property. The interest of the individual must be subordinate to the interests of the community. That is a recognised principle in taking land for railways. 133. Is it possible by legislation to assure to town workers a fair wage and a comfortable living? —Not if the present system of landlordism continues. 134. Theoretically, you would say it is possible to arrive at that by legislation?— Yes, if a rational land system is inaugurated. 135. Is it possible by legislation to insure to the farmers of New Zealand a fair market? — Something has been done in that way already in the finding and development of new markets. 136. Would it encourage land-settlement to increase the land-tax? —I do not know. 137. Is not such action likely to kill the goose that lays the golden egg? —No. It is likely to kill the freeholder, and then the land would be open for settlement, possibly on easier conditions. 138. You spoke of the absurdity of the Government buying land for settlement and then parting with it again t—' Yes. 139. You know the object of that Act was to encourage settlement? —Yes.
[j. A. SCOTT.
a—4.
312
140. Seeing that by selling it there would be no loss and that settlement would be promoted, why would it be absurd for the State to part with it? —Because settlement can be encouraged without doing that. 141. You have quoted Hansard: do you consider Mr. Rolleston's opinion on the land question of equal value with that of Sir Robert Stout ? —I consider lie was a very advanced and progressive man. 142. Did you read Mr. Rolleston's speech in that debate? —No. 143. I think you will find that he gave just as strong arguments on the other side. Were you not rather distorting the position and what took place in saying that Mr, Donald Reid the other day urged the wisdom of the State selling reserves, such as recreation reserves?---No. I said, in answer to a question, that he made no exception, and, to be consistent with what he said, it must be so. 144. Is there not a great distinction between land which the State requires to be made use of for settlement and such land as recreation reserves? I think you will agree that there is a distinction between recreation reserves and education reserves? Yes; but I think it is a difficult thing, having once allowed the claim for the freehold, to exclude them. 145. Are you aware that under the latest British land laws the Government are acquiring land and leasing it with right of purchase? —I do not think that the British land laws are a model for us to copy. They move very slowly in the direction of progress in Great Britain. 146. Mr. Paul.] I suppose you are also aware that had it not been for the freehold the large expenditure now being made in the purchase of land for settlement there would not have been required ? —Yes. 147. The question of a newspaper was brought up a short time ago, and a parallel was drawn between the profit from a newspaper and the profit from the land: is it not a fact that newspapers can be multiplied, but no man can increase the area of the land? —That is so. 148. Then, there is something in the one case that is altogether absent in the other?— Yes. 149. With respect to revaluation, you are quite positive that there never has been any proposal made by the party you represent to have this applied retrospectively ?—I never heard such a suggestion made. 150. You liave noticed that the suggestion was made by witnesses who have given evidence before the Commission during the last month?— Yes; but not from authoritative witnesses from our ' 151. Have you ever heard of a proposal to revalue the land in periods of three or five years? —No. 152. Do you think there is any possibility, if the option were given, of the good land being taken up and'the inferior land being left on the hands of the State?— There is a great possibility of that. , . , 153. It has also been said that it is too late now to conserve the land in the hands of the Crown, and therefore it is proper to sell the remaining Crown land: do you think that would be a proper thing?—lt seems to me it is the very opposite. I think the State should preserve all the land it has. . . . , 154. Do you not think the Rangers might keep a record of the improvements made by the tenants, so that the tenants' improvements would be absolutely protected ?—lt seems to me that would be quite feasible. I do not see any difficulty about it at all. 155. If the option is given under the Land for Settlements Act, do you think it would be fair to give it at the value assessed at the time of the occupancy of the land or at the present time? I should certainly say at the present time. 156. Do you think there would be anything unfair in insisting that the land should go to the highest bidder?—No, because it is a business transaction, and the increase in the value of the land is due to the progress of the community, and 1 think the community has the right to get the fullest measure of that increase. . ' 157. But, providing that the tenant is satisfied to abide by his agreement with the State, you would not suggest any alteration in the existing leases? No. 158. I suppose you favour the provisions in the Land for Settlements Act being put into operation in the case of land for workers' homes? —Yes. . 159. I think you have said that, even with the rise in wages, the worker is not relatively in a better position whilst the landlord is there to raise his rent? —That is so. 160 From your knowledge, are the labour party in favour of closer settlement on similar lines to the land-for-settlements policy?- Yes; they 'are extremely anxious for that. They are also desirous that the lot of their fellow-workers in the country should be made as comfortable as poss lble. f ear j g that by giving the option of the freehold that system must break down ?— Yes. 162. With reference to "natural yearning" for the freehold that has been so often spoken of do you not think that is materially ai'ded by the fact that, generally speaking, the freehold pays handsomely?— Yes, especially in the cities, the "natural yearning" for the freehold is easily explained. ~,,,,,, • n 2 163. You are of opinion that settlers taking up bush land should have every inducement given to them? —Yes. . , 164. If after inquiry you thought the bush settler was entitled to getting his land rent-free for a term of, say, twenty Tears, vou would have no objection to giving that to him?—l think that every reasonable concession should be given to him in order that he may be able to make a comfortable living. I have no personal knowledge of bush land, but I would have no objection to every reasonable concession being granted to him. ... . '165. It is purely a question of inducement, and you are prepared to give him practically an equivalent of the freehold ? —Yes,
313
C.—4.
J. A. SCOTT,
166. Is the major portion of the produce of the colony consumed inside the colony or outside the colony?-—I should say inside the colony. 167. I know that you sympathize with the drawbacks the early pioneer has had to encounter; but how do you think, in the case of Otago, for instance, the pioneer compares with the man who has been working for wages all his life ? —ln most cases the original pioneer is very comfortably off indeed, whilst the worker has a tough struggle all the time. 168. Mr. Forbes.'] Do you not know that our export amounts to about £12,000,000? You would not say that more than twelve million pounds' worth of produce was consumed inside the colony? —I was speaking offhand. On further consideration, I should say that the portion consumed inside the colony is very considerable indeed. 169. But you would not say that more is consumed inside the colony? —No. 170. The party with which you are associated are not in favour of revaluation every three or four years?—No; and when I mentioned the term of twenty-one years, that is merely a suggestion. All they want is a reasonable term. 171. Do you think that the present state of our laud laws has had a great deal to do with forcing men to take up very poor, land with very little chance of success I—Yes, by leaving the best land in the hands of the private individual. 172. Mr. McCarclle.] You have said that you thought a very close valuation could be made if the Rangers visited the sections periodically and made revaluations. But in the case of bush land the settler has to work for four or five years from daylight to dark clearing his land, and yet the value of that work is never included in the valuation of the Ranger: how would you arrive at the real valuation of that man's labour oil the land ? The settler gets no allowance made for the work he has done? —That seems unjust. Ido not see why he should not get an allowance. 173. Then, there is another difficulty. One man may get an excellent burn and his neighbour may get a bad burn: how are you to discriminate between the two cases? —That is a matter of detail. 174. I may mention that in the district I come from the people are begging for a local body in order to get roads. There are no roads and no schools, and none of the advantages of civilisation, and 1 am perfectly certain, after spending twenty years on that land, the only thing they will get in the shape of the unearned increment is what, I think, is simply a fair return for their labour and toil and the privations suffered by themselves and their families. That is the case of the bush settlers in hundreds of cases in the North Island ? —I would not call that unearned increment. 175. Mr. //all.] \ou say that the increased value of the land belongs to the people at large: do you mean by that that all the inhabitants of the colony are equally entitled to it? —No; 1 believe it should be vested in the people of the country through the State or through the municipality. 176. Suppose two artisans came to Dunedin, and after working at their business or trade for a number of years one of them has saved £500 or £600, and with that money he takes up a piece of land in the back country and makes grass grow where there was only fern or forest formerly. The oilier mechanic has spent his savings and has done nothing to promote settlement in the country. Surely you are not going to say that one lias done as much to promote settlement as the other? at all. My remark only referred to increase out of advance of population, and so on. 177. Mr. Anstey.] Might I ask you to make a little more clear the answer you gave to Mr. McCardle when he asked you with regard to the expenditure of the bush settler. He said that the bush settler buried himself in the bush, away from all the- benefits of civilisation: would you include all the expenditure these settlers make in the way of education, and so on, in their valuation for improvements? —I would include whatever can be shown in the holding itself. 178. Suppose a man wastes twenty years of his life, would you allow him twenty years' wages? —I would allow whatever improvement he had made on the land, either directly or indirectly —full value. 179. You would allow full value for everything he could show he had produced, and the State could take all the rest of the increment? —Yes. 180. Supposing a settler could show that he had spent considerably more than the improvements came to, would you be in favour of the State paying to him the difference? —I do not quite catch the question. 181. Supposing a man spent £10 improving his land, and at the end of his term the land is only worth £9 an acre, would you be in favour of the State recouping that man ? If the value was £9 and the improvements have brought it up to £10, you say the settler is entitled to the £1 from the State? —We believe in a revaluation, so that if there is a decrease the man will get the benefit of it. 182. He would get it back again? —Yes, in reduced rent. 183. Mr. McCutchan.] With regard to the unimproved value. Take the case of 100 acres of land on which the Government upset is £1 an acre, but the tenant pays £3 to come in—that is, £4 the land stands at. Three years go by and no improvements have been made, but the land has gone up £1 an acre. The State's interest then would be £2 and the tenant's interest £31 —Yes. 184. You said that the unimproved value of Crown lands, presumably since 1892 when the change in tenure was made, had gone up from £6,635,975 to £7,300,512. You said that if the tenants got that increase it would be a bare, bald steal from the State: what made that increase? — I say it was due to the increase of population and increase of means of communication. 185. Now take what the tenant has done. You will find from the Year-book that from 1902 to 1903 the County Councils and Road Boards of the colony have spent £675,000 on roads, which they have raised out of rates and loan. The unearned increment, as you say, is £634,000, but in the meantime the settlers have spent £675,000 on roading. There is no unearned increment there? —There is an unearned increment, but not a proportionate unearned increment.
40—C. 4.
[j. A. SGOTT.
314
C—4.
186. Mr. Paul asked you to draw a contrast between tlie position of the worker and the position of the pioneer settler, and you mentioned it as your opinion that the position ot the pioneer settler was much better than the position of the worker of the colony. Who were the original pioneers of the colony?— 1 understood that what was meant was the settlers who took up tlie laud here first. , . , , .1 1 187. What is the position of the worker to-day as compared with the position of the worker on the land generally ?—ISo far as my knowledge goes, I know a great many small farmers ot tle colony, and I believe they are much better ofi than the workers. 188. From what ranks did they graduate from in order to become settlers 011 tlie iandf Farm labourers and workers. „ . . „ ,?, 189. Even people from the towns have gone 011 to the land and been fairly successiuii suppose they have. , . 111, 190. Where did they get the money?— Most of those that I know happen to be people who Have spent their lives there. . , 191. Surely the majority of the settlers have gone 011 to the laud 111 the last ten years, ana must have come from somewhere? —I am not speaking of those. 192. Are not the best settlers to-day men who have come to the colony with nothing, ana have used the means that they save to make the land productive?—My experience does not go 111 that direC l93 n Mr. Paul.] With reference to the amount of produce consumed inside and outside the colony, there is the question of price to be taken into consideration. Is it not a fact, genera y speaking, that the price of produce consumed in the colony is higher than the price ot the produce that we send outside the colony ?—That is so. 194. Is it not a fact that part of the exports are the result of the labour ot the wage-earners f Of course, they are. . „ , 195. With regard to this question of the unearned increment. In the tram on Saturday we passed through an estate that could have been bought some years ago at between £2 10s. and £0 per acre. That estate has not been improved over £5 per acre at the outside It was sold recently for £22 10s. Who do you think was entitled to that value? I think, as 1 have said all along, that the State was. 196. That is a concrete example of what you mean by the unearned increment f— les. 197. You think that the tenant's improvements should be absolutely conserved? Yes. 198. Is it not a fact that improvements decrease in value while the general tendency of land is to increase in value? —That is so. 199. Therefore, although the State's interest, or supposed interest, may be only 10s. per acre and the tenant's improvement may be pounds per acre, the time is coming when the position will be reversed ?—That is what I tried to point out, that that was a very possible and probable contingency. , 200. When you mentioned that there was a yearning for men to do as little as possible, even in that example you meant all classes of people?— Yes; I said most men, not any particular class 201. It has been represented to you that the land-tax would be a class tax, and that the wageearner would not pay land-tax. 1 understood you to advocate land-tax without exemption? les. 202. Would not the wage-earner then pay land-tax on his property in the city?— Yes. 203. Then, it is not a class tax? —That is so. .... 204. Mr. Forbes.] Were you instructed at all by your Council as to the constitution of the Land Boards? —No. • 205. Mr. Johnston.] You said that the workers who have gone from the city and taken up land have done well: have they done better than the workers in the city? 1 could not express an opinion on that. .. , , , 206. Can the workers in the city not save money?—No, because ot the high amount they liave to pay for rent. They do not save what they should. 207. How is it that the savings-bank returns have increased so much of late years 111 comparison with the population?—l do not say that none of the workers can save money, but I do say they do not save what they should by reason of the big drain 011 them in the way of rents. Ihe deposits in the savings-bank are not wholly from the workers. 208. Mostly they are?—A good deal, but not wholly. I know they have increased. Robert Cotton examined. 209 The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer and runholder at Waipori. I have a freehold farm of about 500 acres. My run is in different parts. I have 6,000 acres in one run, 2 000 acres in another, and my son has 30,000 acres adjoining. Altogether my son and I have 38 000 acres of pastoral lease, for which we pay about £250 a year. It is pretty high country, and we carry about six thousand sheep. The altitude runs from 1,200 ft. to 3,000 ft. above the sea. The high country is the Lammerlaws. . . 210. Is there any particular point you wish to bring betore the Commission ( JNo. 211 You have had a good many dealings with the Land Board? Yes. 212 Do vou approve of the nominated system in connection with Land Boards?—l think a proportion of the members should be taken from experienced farmers 213 Do you think the Land Board should continue to be nominated, lhere are five members now -one is the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the other four are nominated by the Government They are farmers, 1 believe, at the present time. Do you approve of the system of nominating members being continued ?—lt has answered very well so far, but there is a feeling that old settlers should from time to time be put upon it.
R. COTTON.]
315
C—4.
Do you think the nominative system is right? —On the whole, Yes. I think the biggest proportion should be nominated by the Government. 215. Have you any remarks to make about the various forms of land-tenure? —There is not much that I have to find fault with. The lease in perpetuity has been very good for the settlement of the country. 216. Do you think that the natural pastures of the country have improved or deteriorated? — They have improved. 217. How long have you been a runholder? —Thirteen years. 218. Could anything further be done to improve them? Take your own place. What could be done to improve your own place more than is done now? —Surface-sowing. 219. Have you ever tried it? -Yes, on my freehold. . 220. How many acres? —About 300 acres. 221. Is it long ago since you did it? —Several years ago. 222. What was the result of it? —Between the natural grasses and the seed sown there is very fair feed. 223. How much do you think it improves your carrying-capacity? Did it pay to do it? — Yes, I believe it does pay. I think it improves it about one-third. 224. What is the altitude of your freehold? —1,300 ft. to 1,400 ft. above sea-level. 225. The biggest part of the freehold is ploughable? —Yes. 226. Mr. McLennan.] Are you allowed to cultivate your leasehold? —No. 227. Do you not think it would be an advantage if the Act was amended to enable you to take off so-much winter feed from the leasehold ? —I would approve being allowed to plough a portion of the leasehold. 228. Provided you are not allowed to sell any of what you take off? —Generally speaking. Where I live the township cannot support itself. It has to go outside for produce. I may say I am the only farmer in the district although there is a small township there, and it is necessary for me to sell locally a portion 6f the horse-feed. I never thresh anything. I merely grow for my own horses, and perhaps a little for my neighbours when they require it. 229. Supposing you were allowed to cultivate part of the leasehold to enable you to get winter feed for yourself, how many more stock could be carried on the leasehold than at the present time? —I could easily keep as many more at present if it were not for the high price of stock. 230. If you were allowed to improve the leasehold by ploughing, how much would it improve the capacity of the leasehold ? —lt would improve it considerably, but I have sufficient freehold to work without going on to the leasehold. If I had not the freehold I would then be very anxious to get liberty to plough and cultivate a portion of the leasehold. 231. Would you be in favour of giving the Land Board more discretionary power than they have at the present time? —Yes. If I had no freehold I would have asked the Board to allow me to cultivate the leasehold. I did so ask at one time, and they said tfiey could not grant the request. I consider the Board should have that discretionary power. 232. Mr. Anstey.] Would your run be capable of improvement by surface-sowing? —The low portion of it. 233. Why have you not done any improvement on it? —Because I had plenty of ground for the stock I had. 234. Would you be prepared to do surface-sowing? —It would be very limited in my case. 235. If you did surface-sowing would it be detrimental to your interests in getting the land again? —I would not study that for a moment. 236. You would surface-sow, notwithstanding the absence of the right of renewal? —Yes. 237. With regard to the cultivation of the leasehold, you are aware that there is no right now to cultivate? —That is so. 238. Would there be any harm in allowing tenants to cultivate the leasehold? —I think it would improve matters in many cases —I do not say it in my own case particularly; but if I had not.the freehold I have I would be very glad to get liberty to plough and sow a portion of the leasehold. 239. Would you spoil it by cropping? —It would improve it. 240. Provided you put it down in grass immediately afterwards? —Any sensible man would sow down in order to have a better crop of grass in winter. 241. Mr. Paul.] Do I understand that you have some objection, or were you whole-hearted in your support of the nominative system for the Land Board? I would like some members of the Board to be elected from the old settlers of the country; but, on the whole, I think the Government has the right to nominate the major portion of the Land Board. 242. By nominating some of the older settlers of the colony I presume they would be settlers wholly of the freehold? —Most probably. 243. You think that interest predominates over any interest the Crown tenant has in the negotiations of the Land Board? —I think their experience would give them a better knowledge. 244. What franchise would j-ou elect that portion on? By the vote of the district for which the man was required. 245. The parliamentary franchise? —Yes. 246. Is there anything in your lease that prevents you using the pastoral lease to the best advantage? —Only the one clause —the Board cannot give power to cultivate. That should be in the hands of the Land Board. 247. Mr. Forbes.] Your son lias done no surface-sowing on the 30,000 acres? —No; that is all high country. 248. You said the pasture was improved in that part of the district? —Yes. 249. Have you got rid of the rabbits yet? —Not quite: but they are decreasing. 250. Would you say that is why the pasture has improved? —That in itself has a certain effect. The grass of the country has improved within the past twenty years,
C. -4.
316
[b. cotton.
251. In that particular part of the country? —Yes. I have been over a good deal of it myself. 252. Our evidence from other parts of district has been that for the last twenty years the grass has been going back; but you say it is the very opposite in regard to your country? Yes. Of course, we all know that the rabbit takes a good deal of feed away from stock, and if there is much stock on the land the grass must be poor. But, all the same, the grass has improved. There is a better class of grass. 253. Are you satisfied with the conditions about improvements in your lease? —I think the compensation is too small - the compensation for fencing. We have been led to believe, in taking our leases, that we would get full compensation for our improvements. Ido not think that is the case, for too little allowance is made for the fences one leaves on the land. 254. The Chairman.] Speaking about the improvement of the grasses on your particular run, you also stated that you were rather understocked? —Yes. 255. I suppose the improvement in the grass is largely to do with that? —That has a little to do with it. 256. Is your run fairly subdivided? —Yes. 257. You can rest one portion and graze another? —Yes. 258. Have you any bad weeds on your place: we have heard a good deal about ragwort and Californian thistle?—l have not anything to complain of on my own land yet. Ragwort is making its appearance; but my experience of ragwort since I was a boy is that it is not poisonous. I never knew it to be poisonous at Home. As a little boy I have pulled it up in the spring of the year and put it in little heaps to rot. The thistle also is coming. 259. On your run? —Not yet; but I suppose that is because there is not much cultivation on the run. In other places the Californian thistle is very prominent, and Ido not think they can get rid of it. I think it has come to stay, and also ragwort. Ido not think the owners of the land could reasonably keep it under, and if it is not poisonous I do not think they should be compelled to destroy it. If found to be poisonous, they should, of course, be compelled to destroy it by some means. I look upon the thistle as worse than the ragwort, and it can be managed. I think it could be made fair feed for stock by cutting and stacking it. 260. A sort of ensilage? —Yes. 261. Do you know of any one having tried it?— Not beyond what I have seen in the Old Country. We pull the same thistle out of the oats and put it in tubs for the cattle, putting a little bran and water over it. 262. Where do you come from? —County Derry. 263. Mr. Matheson.~\ Did you call it the corn-thistle at Home? —It is the same. 264. Did you tramp it into the tubs? —No; we just threw it in loosely. 265. For immediate use?— Yes. 266. The Chairman.\ Is there anything else you would like to say? —I have been in the Tuapeka district for the past forty-four years. I have heard a good deal to-day about refusing men the freehold. I totally differ from that gentleman. I think that the freehold is the only thing that will take a great many men to the back parts of the colony. I approve of the freehold, and the deferred payment is also a good system of land-tenure. 267. Did you obtain your freehold direct or through the deferred-payment system? —Some of it I bought for rash and the remainder through deferred payment. I was one of the first to take up laiul in Tuapeka. The freeholders and the deferred-payment settlers have been the most successful right through. A great many people would not have come over here forty or fifty years ago but for the freehold.
Dunedin, Tuesday, 28th March, 1905. John Roberts examined. 1. The Chairman.] You are a merchant, runholder, and freeholder, I understand? —Yes. I have been a runholder since 1869. I hold the Gladbrook Run, comprising 35,000 acres, for which 1 am paying £750 a year. I have been occupying it since 1872, and on that run, including 9,000 acres of freehold and 9,500 acres of High School reserve, we shear twenty thousand sheep. 1 was lessee of the Patearoa Run, comprising about 65,000 acres, up till last year, when it was taken from me. I held Patearoa Run about twenty-eight 3*ears, and latterly I was paying £1,097 12s. 6d. for it. The carrying-capacity of Patearoa was about the same as Gladbrook— twenty thousand sheep and, in addition, four hundred head of cattle. I may say that on the Gladbrook Rtin we have about six hundred head of cattle in addition to the sheep. 2. We heard a good deal of evidence in the Maniototo Plains in reference to the cutting-up of Patearoa, and it was there stated to us that the run had been cut up and all occupied successfully : do you wish to make any remark in regard to that I—l wish first to remark that it seems to me a very unfair thing to think that land which is fit for a large holding at a certain rent should be let at a smaller rent in smaller holdings. lam told that the rents the Government are now receiving total £997 ss. 9d., whereas the rent formerly paid by me was £1,097 12s. 6d., and I was prepared to give an increased rent for a renewal of the lease. 3. What is the general character of Patearoa? —It ranges in altitude from I,looft. at the lowest to 4,750 ft. at the highest above sea-level. 4. In the run as you had it was there a fair proportion of low and high country to work the summer and winter pastures? —During my occupation a good deal had been taken off the river frontage, which materially affected the run, and of late years we had barely sufficient to keep our flock going. As regards your statement that you heard the settlement had been successful, it remains to be seen whether the tenants can pay their rents in view of what is due very soon —
C—4.
317
J. BOBERTS.
a slump in both wool and sheep. I may say that the Minister of Lands, when talking about cutting up the run, was anxious to take off the low country, and he asked me to continue with the high. I informed him that without the low country the run was perfectly unworkable, and 1 declined to take it. I said I would either take the whole or none. 5. Has the run been so cut up now that sufficient low and high country has been kept together to make workable runs ? —No; that is not possible. 6. Then, these people cannot work the country successfully unless they have low ground somewhere else? —There are four ordinary pastoral subdivisions, taking up about 35,000 acres, which run about seven miles long by an average width of one and a half to two miles. It is high country running down to the river, and the amount of winter country in these blocks is necessarily very small. 7. So, it might be found in a very short time not very profitable to work these runs—of course, there must be a great deal of fencing to go back seven miles?- Yes. I may also inform the Commission that the subdivision of this country caused a great deal of anxiety and trouble to the Lands Department. Not only did the Waste Lands Board visit the run, but Mr. Marchant was sent down from Wellington,' and it was only after the greatest difficulty that the Government arrived at the conclusion they did. 8. What was done with the balance of the run—you say .35,000 acres were disposed of in pastoral runs? —It was subdivided into small grazing-runs, and a certain portion of Sowburn was cut up into small sections and taken up by the residents there. 9. Did this subdivision, so far as you know, result in the establishment of more homes? — I am told that the small-grazing-run holders are in occupation of their land, but all the settlers were already settled in the district. 10. So'that there has been no material increase of what you might call actual settlers?—So far as I know, there are no strangers to the district on any of it. 11. In regard to Gladbrook, we had one or two witnesses before us at Middlemarch who said it was very desirable to secure more country for settlement, and, on inquiry, they could not point to any land belonging to the Crown except a small bit of the Stratli Taieri Hundred, which is still apparently available and occupied by you as pastoral country on the face of the Rock and Pillar. They also told us that the Government had been negotiating with you for the purchase of a portion of' your freehold, but that nothing resulted, because a difficulty arose in regard to the question of price: is there any remark you wish to make in regard to that ? —ln reference to the hundreds, I may explain that you yourself made a reference to that, at the meeting at Middlemarch, to the effect that you doubted whether the Waste Lands Board had any right to dispose of the unsold hundred, i also take the same view, that they have no power. But they have, in spite of that, re-leased it to me and charged me 4d. per acre for the unsold portion, though I contend they have no legal right to do so. 12. I was making inquiry at the Lands Office this morning, and, in the absence of the Commissioner, all I could ascertain was that, so far as the officers here knew, the law is still the same; but it was remarked that the hundreds have practically ceased to exist, and, as this was a little odd portion, the Land Board assumed the right—it was merely an assumption—to make some use of the land, and they issued a license under what is called "miscellaneous licenses" for that purpose?—i'may say'that," outside the purchased land, none of the hundred is less than 1,600 ft. above sea-level, and it goes up to 3,000 ft. I agreed to take it from the Waste Lands Board under protest. I question very much whether I have any legal right to deal with it, and I think if I did any impounding on that land I would be liable for damages. 13. Of course, so long as there is any land left unsold in the hundred it was available for pasturage only by those who had purchased land in the hundred : that was the law in the matter 1— Yes, and so it was up to two years ago. In reference to the evidence at Middlemarch as to the value of land there, although I did not deal with the Government, there were small settlers there who wanted to increase their holdings, and I have been selling in 50- and 100-acre blocks to them at what I believe to be a perfectly fair value. One witness said I was selling land at £14 an acre for which he thought £9 per acre enough. Well, as an evidence of the cheapness and fairness of the value put on the land, I have produced this sample of wheat this morning for the information of the Commission. It is a sample of wheat that has been grown on the other side of the fence to the land lam selling. The land is of equal quality. That wheat yielded 60f bushels of " firsts " and 4f bushels of " seconds." It has been sold and delivered at 3s. 3d. per bushel at the Middlemarch' 1 Railway-station, and, taking the " seconds," 2s. 9d. If you run that out I think you will find it comes to £10 Bs. 2d. per acre. Well, if a man wants land for £9 per acre that is capable of "rowing crops like that I think he wants to rob the man who owns it. This particular block of land I am offering now, and some of which I have sold at £14 per acre, is land that has been down in English grasses for twenty-six years, and it was put down in English grasses after three crops of turnips had been taken off it. 'No white crop has been taken off it, and, so far as the fertility of that land is concerned, I say it is fully better than the land on which this wheat has been grown. 14. Was the land the Government treated for similar land to this?—lt was a portion of it. 15 Are there any other remarks you would like to make? —I wish to make some remarks in reference generally to the position of runholders in the colony. I think it would be a very great hardship and a very great wrong to ask the men who have been from thirty to forty years occupyin'- that country profitably and well to step aside as soon as the land is wanted for anybody else. I ur"e the fairness and propriety and righteousness, in the event of any change being made, to make provision by which the ruiiholder would be entitled to retain a fair portion of his holding. There are men in the country, as vou know, who have no other land to divide amongst their sons and daughters, and surely they have a right to be considered when the properties they are now occupying are being dealt 'with. I have also to suggest that any new provision in regard to term of holding ought to contain a lengthened lease up to twenty-one years, with renewal, by auction or
|"J. ROBERTS.
318
C—4.
in any other way at, that time, and with revaluation, and also valuation for improvements. I think the present limitation of the value of improvements is quite inadequate, 1 think the improvements ought to be unlimited so long as the improvements are in keeping with the requirements of the run. In regard to buildings, I say they ought to be reasonable buildings for the holdings, and not absurd buildings. I think the runholder should be allowed fencing to any extent, and ditching to any extent, and plantations to any extent. _ 16 I presume you think it will be reasonable before engaging in a considerable outlay for improvements that the runholder ought to consult the Land Board as the landlord? I do not think so. A man will not willingly put down improvements that he thinks will not be reproductive. not p U t, down improvements to an undue extent with a view of preventing anybody elra taking up the country? Not so far as ditching and fencing are concerned; and I say that the building should be in keeping with the holding. I would not object to the question of buildings being first submitted to the Land Board, but so far as ditching and fencing are concerned 1 think the runholder should be at liberty to improve in that way to any extent, 18 Do you not think that the Land Board should be privy to the various improvements as they are put' on the ground, so that they may keep some sort of a check on the value : of course, open ditching would always be seen, but suppose somebody went in for a little draining, woul 1 it not be necessary to mention the kind of tiles and all about it, so that a record might be kept for reference when the valuation was being assessed t-I do not think hat would matter very much I think the Waste Lands Board are very reasonable people, and that they would sanction •mvlliine in reason So far as grass-seed sowing was concerned, Ido not think the benefit to be derived froin it would encourage* it to be carried on to any extent. I have tried surface-sowing on my freehold but not on my leasehold. It cost a very considerable sum, and a sum outside Pf l f« h^«V^4tou' i oould suggest outside your o.u interests with regard te the future disposal of tliis gfeat pastoral country now in the hands of the Crown? We have in Otago Southland, and Canterbury 9,000,000 acres of this country, and, of course the future disposition of this property i. a ,er, * h^„ d |JL™L* fe" without sufficient L°r2,u"y tT"di"dv,,,'t;.g.' of Urn summer postures? I think a great deal of h.rm has been done to the high country by cutting off the low country. 90 "Rut that has been done? —It is still being done. , 21Suppose this was your own estate, what do you think you would have to do to the most of it?- I think it is possible for the Government to repurchase some of the low ground at a prTce that would pay them well enough to take the low country to work with the high. I think that is the case with the Docklands Run. It was offered the other day and there was no bid foi it ' and I am told that the holding adjoining it could be bought at a fair price and the rents loaded with the interest, which would enable the high country to be worked with it at a profit. 22 We fave had a d deal of evidence about the deterioration of the pastoral country what is you oblervation on that point?-! think the country has deteriorated in nine cases out ° fte 23. What would you say it is due tof-I think the rabbits mostly,'and in some cases bad seasons anything could be done to restore some of the ancient fertility ?—lt is a difficult problem. Ido not know how it is to be done. To get quit of the rabbits would no doubt be the first step, but they are not so easily handled. nroviding vou could 25. Do you think resting the country would have any effect ?- It 'Id prov keep the rabbits off. Ido not know if the Commission saw the Barewood ll but that has half stocked for the last two years, and it has recovered a good deal. But half-stocking COIISi 26 r ttill 10 if t it t !rioing t to bring back the fertility of the land it might be made part of a ss 2 7 In regard to the constitution of Land Boards, do you think the present nomination syshi™ srt. i.» g «»a t .««««- ««> lan< ' 2 % £ cl n C °'r's»7 Y ™«h.t extent there is »n unearned increment throughout the back country xpas? ~rge not. in the country blocks^ h «t » ,3 GlLlblS:''l referre" "aboriginally improvements give any return Ihe to drain and cultivate it, but, as anybody who is a matter oftune as well. 1 have had swamp, that have not been fit to cultivate until after fifteen years_ work. qo Have vou had any experience of bush lands.' Yes. . . , 03 And in bush districts where a large number of settlers take up back country, is not any unearned increment, in the absence of roads and railways, due to their individual and collective efforts which have raised the value of the land above its actual cost?-I believe it is so.
C—4.
J. EOBEKTS.]
319
34. Mr. llall.\ Are you aware of any pastoral runs that could with advantage to the State be cut up into small grazing-runs ? —I have answered that to a large extent already, because 1 say the low country has been taken from most of the runs already. 35. You do not think, as a rule, that subdivision would be advantageous? —1 do hot think subdivision is in many cases practicable. 36. Because it entails so much fencing? —Yes, particularly on these high back runs, and because the want of low country to work with the high is, to my mind, fatal. 37. I think you have said already that the runs generally are not improving in sheep-carry-ing capacity?- 1 do not think they have deteriorated in the last ten years, but they distinctly deteriorated after the rabbits came. 38. Do you think surface-sowing would be done under improved conditions of lease ? —ln very few cases, but in Central Otago 1 am afraid it would mean an outlay that would be quite unrepresented by any return. 39. What length of tenure do you think should be given to these pastoral runs in the future? —I think twenty-one years at least. If a person wishes to occupy land profitably he cannot do so under a short lease, because a short lease does not conduce to profitable occupation. 40. As a general rule, have these runs sufficient low land? —In most cases they have not. 41. Do you know of any case they have more than is necessary? —I know of no excess, but I know most of them have a distinct shortage. 42. I understood you to say that the pioneers and early settlers are entitled to every consideration, seeing the benefits the State gets from their work of opening the country and promoting settlement? —I am strongly of that opinion. Surely they have some right to have some little attention paid to their interests. 1 think the unearned increment comes to very little in this colony. 43. You think the early settlers are entitled to a fair share of the benefits of what have accrued to the State by their taking up the land in its rough state? —I am sure they are. I think I will go back to the case of Mr. Shennan, who has been settled on Puketoi so many years, and who I am sure is paying a rent for that run which would not be paid to the State if it was cut up into smaller holdings. Mr. Shennan has greatly improved that run, and he has a flock of sheep on it that is a credit to himself and a credit to the country. I think if that flock was dispersed it would be a serious loss to the colony, and I think it would be dispersed if the run was subdivided, because the tendency is, immediately country is cut up into smaller holdings, for the quality of the sheep to deteriorate. 44. Are noxious weeds spreading over the runs? —Not to any great extent. There are a few patches of Canadian thistle, but that is all I know of. Some of the south country is very bad with ragwort. 45. Of course, it is chiefly merino sheep that are kept on these high runs? —They are going in more for halfbreds, which are found quite as hardy and more profitable. There are not a great many merino flocks pure and simple. The corriedale is being introduced, and many of them are quite as hardy as merinos, and they secure good quality of the mutton. 46. Mr. Amtey.\ Was the Patearoa Run Crown land? —Yes, with the exception of 350 acres of freehold, which, together with the buildings, I sold for £1,000 to one of the settlers. 47. Did the Government repurchase that when tliey cut it up? —No. 48. In the four pastoral runs that have been cut up, do you say there is not sufficient low country to work with the high country? —I do not think there is. On these four runs we used only to winter five thousand sheep. 49. Judging from your remarks, 1 may take it you think it would be wise for the Government to purchase some low country to work along with the high country? —In some cases it would. 50. I presume that generally you would say this subdivision of the runs lias already gone beyond an economic standpoint?- I have already stated that Patearoa was crippled by the loss of the low country for some years. We were not able to winter our ewes and hoggets sufficiently well. 51. Applying your remarks generally to the Otago Central runs, do you think they have been divided into too small areas ? —ln a great many cases they are. 52. You spoke just now about the grassing on the leasehold runs not having been particularly successful: can you suggest any way that would encourage the grassing of these runs ? —The only way you have a reasonable chance of improving the grass is by spelling the country. 53. Suppose they were given a better tenure and guaranteed a renewal of the lease, would the leaseholders then regrass down the runs? —In some cases they might, but in many cases in the dry country in the interior I am quite sure the sowing of grass would not be a success. 54. Generally speaking, in regard to the Crown lands of the colony, would you advocate the State disposing of them on the freehold system or under some form of leasehold? —If you want my opinion on land-tenure I may state, as a general rule, I am in favour of the option of the freehold. 55. Does that remark apply to the lands acquired under the Land for Settlements Act also?— I think not. I think there is no sense in the Government resuming a freehold simply to transfer it from one man to another. 56. You think it would be wise to continue the leasehold system in regard to these improved estates? —Yes, for all land purchased for settlement. 57. But in regard to Crown lands generally you favour the freehold? —Yes. 58. Would you apply that remark also to the grazing-runs and high pastoral country?- I do not think there would be any liar pi in selling the purely pastoral country. 59. Are rabbits more easily kept in check on small holdings or large ones? —The evidence, I think, is generally in the direction of showing that the large holders keep the rabbits down better than the small holders. 60. In regard to the losses through snow, we had evidence that in some cases these losses were greatly minimised by making provision for the storms : do you think provision could be made for
b.^4.
320
J. EOBEKTS.
minimising such losses more effectually on small runs than 011 large ones? —I think the losses were just as heavy 011 the small holdings as 011 the large ones. 61. We were told that the Morven Hills liun lost considerably more than half of the flock, and it appears to me that on a run some 350,000 acres in extent it is almost impossible for a man to go over every mile of it at such a time I—So1 —So it is, and it has been demonstrated that if sheep have been standing two or three days surrounded by snow there will be less mortality if you leave them stand there than if you endeavour to shift them. 62. But, on a small run, would there be any great difficulty in carting feed to them? —The carting of feed has a curious effect 011 them. On the Strath Taieri we had snow for some two or three weeks, and we carted hay and straw to the Leicester stud sheep, and we found that the change from the succulent green food to the dry had a very disastrous effect. In the case of heavy snows, 1 think a man will suffer less loss by leaving the sheep entirely alone than by making any effort to save them. 63. Do you know if the Morven Hills Run is suitable for cutting into smaller areas ? —They have a very large area of high country, and if the low land is taken 1 do not know what possible use the high country could be put to. 64. Could it be divided into four or live runs ? —lt is a long straggling country, with the valley of the Lindus running through it, and that is all high country. It would be a very difficult matter to cut it up. 65. Mr. Johnston.\ l)o you know if Patearoa is carrying as many sheep now as it did in one block? I am told it is only half-stocked now, but that is 011 account of the high price of stock. The settlers are unable to secure them. 66. How long is it since (lie Hat was taken out of that station? —-A considerable number of years ago. 67. Was it taken for settlement or for mining? —For settlement. 68. Has the settlement been a success? - 1 cannot tell you. 69. You say that no outsiders took up any part of Patearoa?- 1 have the names of the men, and they were all local people. 70. W r hat is your average yield of wheat at Gladbrook ? —About 45 bushels. 71. Is that off new land? —No; land that has been cultivated before. In a dry season we never got less than 35 bushels. 72. Has cocksfoot been sowed on Gladbrook? —Yes, and ryegrass; but all has been done 011 tussock freehold. It improves the country much, but the cost is very considerable. 73. Have you tried it 011 the leasehold?—No, because you get 110 valuation for it. 74. Do you think if some value or consideration was given it would be done? —1 would try a good deal of it. 75. Would it be successful? —I think so, by not sowing on dry ridges and confining it to valleys, from which it would spread. 76. Is the high country generally in Central Otago carrying as many sheep now as it did, say, twenty years ago? —I do not think it is 011 the flat, and that is owing to the rabbits and to the grass going out. 77. Is the country less productive generally? —Yes. The rents are much about the same as they have been. There has been no material alteration in my rent for the last twenty years. 78. You say you favour giving the freehold of these large runs? —If you can get people to buy them, that is the best solution of the difficulty. 79. Without any restrictions on account of mining? —That would not apply to the high country. I do not know of any high country occupied for mining. I think it is advisable to preserve the mining industry, because the miners are good settlers and they mind their own business, and do not trouble other people. 80. A considerable amount of Central Otago has been cut up: do you think it has increased population? —I think it has increased population. It has allowed settlers to retain their sons and daughters near them. 81. W T ould you say it has been to some extent successful? —No doubt the low country there has been more profitably occupied and better settled than it was before. 82. We have had evidence that screenings from seed-cleaning machines have been sown 011 the high country in Otago: have you ever heard of it? —I have not done it, and lam not aware that I ever heard of it. 83. Do you think it would be detrimental to the interests of the country to have the screenings of these machines fed to the stock in boxes? —Exceedingly so. I think it would be a very foolish thing to do. 84. You say that in the interests of the country Puketoi should not be cut up : we have had very conflicting evidence in regard to that run, but you think that in the interests of the country, and having regard to the flock that Mr. Shennan lias there, it would be a great mistake to cut the run up? —I do not say it would be a great mistake to cut any portion of it up, but I say why should Mr. Shennan, who is a very old settler, be dispossessed for the sake of another man. 85. Unless it is an advantage to the country? —I suppose the advantage to the country is in the number of people employed on the property. I imagine Mr. Shennan is employing as many men now as if the run was cut up into four holdings. 86. You think the runs generally are employing as much labour now as they would if cut up? —111 the case of Puketoi I should say that is so. 87. Would you be in favour of giving the right of purchase to the lessees of the School Commissioners' reserves ?- 1 should say that any provision made by the Government for selling their own land should apply to the School Commissioners' land just as well. The High School Board have already sold a good deal of land 011 the Strath laieri Plain.
J. BOBEETS.j
321
0.—4.
88. Is Canadian thistle bad generally? —Very bad in the river-beds, but it does not extend to any distance from them. Some of the settlers near Middlemarch are making very useful ensilage out of the thistle for winter feed for stock. 89. Does not that spread it over the land? —No, the ensilage destroys everything. There is no germination after ensilage. 90. Is the thistle bad on the high country? —No. 91. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not think that the School Commissioners are a duplication of the Land Board, and that their land could be administered by the Land Board ? —I can only speak of my own experience. I think the High School Board administer their land very well. 92. The School Commissioners administer a large quantity of land lying alongside Crown lands, and practically the revenue goes to the Crown also: would it not be better to bring all the land under one Board ? Is there any reason to assume that the School Commissioners are not as capable men as the Waste Lands Board. I have not had much experience of the School Commissioners' administration, but I never heard any dissatisfaction expressed in regard to them. 93. We found there was great dissatisfaction with the School Commissioners, and that the tenants considered they would be much better under the Land Board: do you not think it would be an advantage to the country if the whole of the lands were brought under one Board I—l1 —I suppose the settlers have found that the Commissioners are not as squeezable as the Waste Lands Board. 94. Mr. Matheson.\ As a general principle, does it not seem an extravagant way to manage our lands that two bodies should administer Crown lands within the same area —I mean apart altogether from the personality of the two Boards? —It might to a certain extent, but still it is an advantage is so far as the School Commissioners have control of their own lands. If they were placed under the Land Board the revenue might disappear altogether. 95. But have the School Commissioners any control of their revenue now, and, as they have not, is it wise to have dual management? —I do not think it works to any disadvantage. 96. Do you think the State would encourage good settlement by giving the right of purchase to tenants?- I think the best settlement is freehold. 97. I asked that because you said you did not approve of parting with the freehold of lands under the Land for Settlements Act —that Act was to encourage settlement —and what is the objection to giving the freehold to them if it encourages good settlement? —It does not seem to me to be right to take the freehold from one man to give it to another. 98. Not if it encourages a more intense cultivation of the land? —It does not necessarily follow it would do that. 99. Then, you would retain these lands once the State has acquired them? —Yes. 100. Have you watched the operation in Ireland of the New Land for Settlements Act? —I have not. 101. Under which they are resuming land? —I believe they are doing that. 102. Mr. Paul.] Where it is a question of freehold transfer you prefer that should be done privately, and you do not see the necessity of the Government taking the freehold from one'man to give it to another? —I am inclined to think that land-settlement would be very much better if it were left to the private holders to sell. I do not know if the attention of the Commission has been drawn to a very fine settlement near Otautau. Four properties there —Bayswater, Ringway, Gladfield, and Waikola, aggregating, I should think, not less than 45,000 to 50,000 acres, has been sold by the private owners, and, I venture to say, the Government cannot show a finer settlement than is to be found there. The land was sold at reasonable values, and all the settlers have done well. 103. Do you not think that the action of the Government has practically compelled these large landowners to take that step? It had nothing to do with the settlement I speak of. It was done purely because they found they could sell properties they were not making interest out of. 104. Then, you do not approve of the land-for-settlements policy? —I can only judge by my own- feelings. I say that when land is worth more to others than it is to myself they can have it. 105. You are quite decided in your opinion that Puketoi should be conserved to Mr. Shennan in the interests of the State?- T see no reason why the run should not be left to Mr. Shennan. He is a man with a family, and why should they not have the right to that land. Ido not think the Government would benefit settlfement one bit by cutting the run up, and they would do an injustice to him. I may say that the last time Puketoi was leased the late Sir John McKenzie said to me, " Shennan has been a good settler and a man whom the country has a right to be proud of, and I am going to do him justice." 106. You are intimately acquainted with Blackstone Hill, Lauder, and Home Hills? —Yes. I owned Lauder many years ago. 107. Do you think these three runs taken together could be subdivided? —I do not think so. Blackstone Hill is the low country, and without the low country I do not know wha{ you could do with the high country in the other runs.. If you took Blackstone Hill away it would make the other high lands unworkable, and the present owners would have to relinquish the other runs. 108. You think that instead of more low country being taken from these runs it should be purchased and added to the runs? —In some cases I think it would be advantageous. 109. You said there was a great difficulty in connection with grassing these runs? —Yes, and I think the cost will probably be out of proportion to the benefit the leaseholder would derive. 110. In the event of the Government allowing valuation for grass-seeding, do you see any difficulty in estimating the value?- 1 No. It is only a matter of tenants submitting invoices of the cost of the grass-seed and the cost of sowing it. 111. And simply take off the value according to the time that has elapsed since the grass-seed was sown There may be much better pasture after the lapse of, say, ten years than after the first two or three years.
41—C. 4.
322
[j. EOBEETH.
C—4.
112. Could that be applied universally ?—Yes, especially in the case of fescues, that spread from the roots. . 113. You are in favour of the remaining Crown lands being made freehold as soon as possible! —If you can get people to buy it Ido not see why it should not be sold. 114 Would you extend that to reserves and endowments?—lf you can get a fair capital value I see no reason why it should not. The whole trend of my remarks is that the freehold is the best system of tenure in the interests of settlement. 115. Mr. Johnston.] Has the Otago Central Railway increased the value of land in Otago I- - I do not know that the increase in value has been anything so much as some people think it has D66H • 116 Then, that railway-line to some extent was not justified? —If you add the annual cost of the maintenance of the roads before the railway was constructed to the revenue of the railway you will find that it will go a very long wav towards a better result. That heavy road expenditure is all saved because there is no heavy traffic on those roads, and they are now all in good order. 117. Have you tried irrigation on Gladbrook?-—Yes, in dry seasons. 118. Has it'been successful?— Yes, it does fairly well. 119. Would it do well at Puketoi ?—Puketoi has no water to irrigate with ; all the streams are very small during the summer. Arthur H. Haycock examined. 120 The Chairman.] What are vou?—l am accountant and general business manager for Murray,' Roberts, and Co!, in Dusedin, and I have been in the firm for about thirty years. 121 The Commission would be glad to have your opinion in respect to the grassing ot runs. We have been told that in some cases the refuse from the seed-machines has been used in surfacesowing • would you kindly tell us what you know on that particular subject?—So far as the grassing of runs is concerned, I have never heard of any of our leaseholds in Otago having been attempted to be grassed. I have heard of the blowings of some of the seed-cleaning machines being sent into the country ostensibly for the purpose of being used for surface-sowing, but never in connection with any of the runs we are interested in. The only case that I know of in the way of trying surface-sowing in connection with the runs we are immediately connected with is that which Mr Roberts has already mentioned—sowing on the tussock freeholds where we are clearing the scrub the ground being loose and the scrub being burnt, leaving the ashes and making a good soil on which to sow the seed. But we sowed good seed, and with fairly good results, but at a cost as already said, that would be entirely out of the way in attempting to apply it to leaseholds. ' 122. Mr. 'Anstey.] You said you have not attempted to grass the leaseholds?— No. 123. Why? —Because the cost is too great. 124 Would you consider it too costly if you had a better tenure 1 ? No, if there was a tenure which would give the leaseholder a chance of getting the benefit of it and getting the cost and the result included in the improvements—in that case it might be worth while doing it 125. You Vould then attempt to grass some of the leaseholds? —Yes; it would certainly be d° ne^ 26 oul( j that largely increase the carrying-capacity of the leaseholds? Yes. 127 What would you require in the form of security of tenure?— There would have to be liberal terms both as regards indefeasible tenure and as to valuation for improvements and the cost of them, because the surface-sowing of grass takes some years before you get the full benefit ° f 28 Do you think it would be wise for the Government to do anything in the way of supplying grass-seed cheaply or free of cost?— No. If the Government undertook it I suppose you mean that it would be practically the Government undertaking all the main cost, with the exception of the labour. Ido not think it would attain the desired result. _ 129 Do you think they can do anything in the direction of helping in that matter? 1 think it is simply a question of making it to the interest of the runholder to do it; and in order that he might do that he would have to have the runs on a fixity of tenure which would pretty well insure him the result of his work. 130. You think that would be safer for the Government, at all events!—les. 131 Does your firm finance farmers, independent of the land which you hold yourself ?—Yes. 132 With regard to making advances to tenants under the lease in perpetuity, have you any difficulty in making advances on the point of doubtfulness of security?—Of course, you cannot make an advance upon the value of improvements, which in the case of the failure of the nerson who gets the advance you cannot hold as a security yourself. 133 We are told that it is not competent for you to foreclose on a lease-m-perpetuity settler —that it is no use to you as a security ?—That is so. _ 134. You have to get the consent of the Minister of Lands in order to get the right of fore closure? Yes. Do yQU know of any 0 f your clients who have sown grass in the high country?—No ; I have never heard of their doing so. _ 136 Could you tell us where we could get reliable information with respect to grassing the high country?—l have never heard of it being done in Otago. 137 Mr McCutchan.] With reference to the payment for improvements on the cost on these nastoral runs do you not think it would be feasible to have the improvements estimated at the end of any lease —for grassing and other improvements?—l suppose it would, the same as in the case °g g fe^ u o adyocate these p as toral leases being put up to auction ?—Yes; I think so, provided it is known that the result will be a fixed thing, and not, as has been the case in some instances, where a man simply overbought another and managed to get a reduction of his rent later on.
C—4.
323
A.. H. HAYCOCK.
i -'19. Do you not think it would be better for the authorities to fix an equitable rent and decide the matter by ballot? —There is always this to be said: in the case of a pastoral run there is always some man to whom it is more valuable than to others. 140. Those men would have to take the chance under the ballot? —Yes. 141. Are you at liberty to say whether your firm has made advances to settlers who have been refused by the Advances to Settlers Department? —I am not aware of it. 142. Mr. Matheson.~\ As a shareholder in the public estate, do you think it right that the State should grant the right of purchase, or do you think it would be wiser for the State to retain all titles to land? —My opinion is that the granting of the freehold is a much greater incentive to a man to make the best of his property than to give him any other tenure. 143. Therefore you say it is a sound colonial policy to pursue? —I think so. 144. Mr. Paul.] Is it not a fact that the leasehold somewhat restricts the operations of financial institutions ? —Yes. 145. Therefore, from a commercial point of view, you favour the freehold? —The freehold is a more valuable security to deal with than any leasehold. 146. It costs considerably more in the first instance to get the freehold? —Exactly. 147. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not think that a man with a lease in perpetuity has a far better bargain than if he had the freehold? He gets his land at 5 per cent, on capital value, and if he were to borrow money to pay for the freehold he would very likely have to pay 6 per cent? —Yes, he might. At the same time, you cannot get rid of that sentiment in human nature in favour of the freehold —a piece of land that a man regards as his own and that he can deal with as he pleases. I dare say that, financially, there may be cases where a man holding a lease in perpetuity at 5 per cent, would be just as wejl off as a man with a freehold. 148. The leaseholder does not pay land-tax, whereas the freeholder does. Do you not think it is largely a matter of sentiment, the desire to convert the lease in perpetuity into freehold? — From a business point of view, the leaseholder cannot raise money on his section in the same way as if it were freehold. 149. Mr. McCardle.\ Would it be fair to ask you on what terms freehold estates generally are let out with the right of purchase—that is, by the individual owner ? —They vary so much that it is hardly possible to state the general terms. I know of one case where there is simply a 5-per-cent. deposit, and 5 per cent, is accepted each year. 150. Some people are of opinion that the freehold is merely a matter of sentiment: do you not think that there are other reasons why settlers are very anxious to obtain the freehold ? —Yes, as a matter of security for financing. In the case of a leasehold the position for them is not nearly so satisfactory as in the case of a freehold. 151. Mr. Hall.] Under the Land for Settlements Act would you approve of the option of purchasing being given to tenants? —I think the same arguments apply in that case as in the others. 152. Would you approve of changing the existing tenure, or do you think the change should only be made in the case of future tenures? —I think it should be made in respect to present tenures, leaving it optional to the men holding the leases to say whether they desire to avail themselves of the new arrangements. 153. You think the present leases should be adhered to? —I think you will find that it would meet with general approval if it were made optional for these men to obtain the right of purchasing the freehold. 154. I suppose one of the reasons you would advance would be this: that it would be easier to dispose of the freehold ? —Exactly. 155. Is it in the interests of the State to give facilities for selling the land after they have purchased it? —I see no reason why land should be dealt with differently from any other properties. 156. Are these estates not purchased with the view of promoting settlement? —Yes. 157. If granting the freehold would tend to create an aggregation of estates would it not defeat the object of the State to grant the freehold? —I think there should be certain limits as to area provided. I admit there may be cases where the aggregation of estates may be injurious to tile body politic, but the cutting-up and holding in small estates only would in the case of certain classes of country have distinct disadvantages, it being entirely a question as to the full and proper use being made of the country held. 158. As regards facilities for borrowing on these leaseholds, you think that is another difficulty in the way of the tenants? —Yes; they have not got the security the freeholder has. 159. If they have had to mortgage the property in order to get the freehold they would have an equal difficulty in getting a further loan ? —A man cannot get a freehold and mortgage the whole value of the land. He must have money in the land itself. 160. Is it desirable to give too great facilities for borrowing money? —No; but in the case of a capable man he may use borrowed money to great advantage. 161. Mr. Paul.] Does your firm advance money on leaseholds? —We have never taken leaseholds as anything but what might be termed collateral security, and in such cases it is desirable to advance simply on the stock. Alfred Richard Barclay examined. 162. The. Chairman.] What are you? —I am a solicitor, and have been in Dunedin for about thirty years. 163. Is there any particular question to which you would like to draw the attention of the Commission? —Yes. What I have to say in connection with this matter will be rather from the business point of view ihan that of practical experience in the working of land. My experience lies in this direction : I know something of land transactions, of their values, and what they have changed hands at, and also with respect to the business part of dealing with land. I have been in the profession of the law for about twenty-five years, and I have seen a great many transactions,
0.-4.
324
[A. B. BAIiCLAY.
aud I know something of prices at which property lias changed hands. 1 know in particular something about the rise in the value of freeholds in the city. 1 may say I have been a member of Parliament for the City of Dunedin, and I have given a great deal of attention to the land question in this colony for a great many years. 1 have formed an opinion very strongly against the State granting the freehold, and I desire, if the Commission will allow me, to give one or two illustrations of how the granting of the freehold has worked in the City of Dunedin. 1 have here a plan showing the City of Dunedin, and it shows the Corporation, Harbour Board, and Presbyterian Church reserves. Let me uoint out Section 39 of Block IX., known as Wise's Corner, at the comer of Rattray Street and Princes Street. That section was originally obtained by the Crown grantee under the New Zealand Company's Laud Claimants Ordinance. That would probably be at the ordinary rate then for Crown sections- namely, £12 10s. per section. That section was granted on the 14th November, 1864, at the probable price of £12 10s. Twenty-one years afterwards, on the 14th February, 1885, it was sold for £35,500. It may be said that the buildings on it must have been of great value, but that is not so, because directly the place was bought most of the buildings, such as they were, were demolished, and the present Government Life Insurance Buildings were built upon the section. So that the State in that case had to pay £35,500 for a bit of land which it had sold twenty-one years previously for £12 10s., the value of the buildings not being great. There is a building on that section which was not destroyed. That building used to the known as Court's Hotel, but was not worth more than from £2,000 to £3,000. That was an instance of the result of private ownership. Now let me draw the attention of the Commission to Section 65, Block IX., the section on which the Grand Hotel stands. That section was bought for £59 10s. It was Crown-granted on the 11th November, 1854. On the 11th February, 1880, it was let for twenty-one years. The rent for the first two years was to be £1,703 for each of the two years, and the rent for the remaining nineteen years was to be £1,965 per year, and the tenant was to pay all the rates and taxes. It may be said in that case that the buildings were of great value. That is not so. They were of very little value —old wooden buildings. There was a covenant in the lease providing that the tenant should spend £7,000 in buildings within two years from the date of the lease. The buildings were almost immediately pulled down, and £7,000 and a good deal more than that sum was actually spent in buildings on the land. The area of the land is only some 38 perches. So that from 1854 to 1880 the land has risen from £59 10s. to a capital value of something like £40,000. These facts go far to explain that sentiment which is said to be inherent in every man's mind to secure the freehold, and of which we hear so much at times. Those are both private properties. I will contrast with those cases a section directly opposite the Grand Hotel, on which the Colonial Mutual Company's Buildings stand. That is a section vested in the Corporation, and to-day the rent is only £300 a year, and the company does very well out of it, and is quite satisfied. Take, again, another Corporation reserve, where Inglis's shop stands. The total annual rent that A. and T. Inglis pay is £169 7s. Id. That is, comparatively speaking, a very fair and moderate rent, and it is quite right it should be so. Then, take the lied Lion Hotel. That land was originally granted under the New Zealand Company's Land Claimants Ordinance, and an area of only 20 perches of that section was let on the Ist March, 1879, for £200 per annum and rates and taxes, and the tenant was to spend £1,500 on buildings within fifteen months. A year or so afterwards the rent was reduced to £176, but the tenant got no valuation for the £1,500 that he had put into the buildings, and there was no right of renewal. I also might say this: that, in my opinion, judging from a study of the statistics on the subject, that it is exceedingly bad business for the State to sell the freehold. I know it is said that if the freehold be parted with it does not matter, because the right of taxation is still left. I desire to point out this: that in every case wherever there is a question of the landtax being raised every landowner in the country very naturally combines with his fellows to resist it. The consequence is that it is only with the utmost difficulty that it is possible to get any increase whatever in the land-tax. The position is quite different when the State deals with each individual owner in regard to his rent. That an unfair amount is paid by land by way of taxation is shown by the fact that the unimproved value of land for 1904 was £112,629,000. Out of all that land the total revenue collected by the Crown was £335,000, and that includes £102,000 of graduated land-tax. Of course, that does not include income-tax. I admit the land pays rates, but a point about the rates is this: that every 6d. of rates that is collected is merely an investment for the benefit of the land, and is spent for the purpose of improving the land. There is also this: it is a fact that the unimproved value of land is increasing far faster than the value of the improvements put on it. The increase in the unimproved value from 1891 to 1904 was £36,841,517. The total increase in the value of improvements was only £23,801,532. Moreover, the aggregation of large estates is going on and increasing, because the value of large estates of 50,000 acres and over rose between 1903 and 1904 from £9,872,000 to £10,153,000. I desire also to say this : as far as this city is concerned, there are a number of reserves in the hands of the Corporation and the Harbour Board, and there are some Presbyterian Church reserves. These reserves are generally let, and here is a specimen of one of the Corporation leases. It contains a covenant to pay rent for twenty-one years. There is a right of valuation of improvements, a right of renewal of lease, and a right to obtain payment from any incoming tenant for improvements on that valuation. That system seems to work exceedingly well. I know of no objection to it on the part of the tenants. The tenants seem to be satisfied. It has been sometimes said that if a man does not get a freehold he will not put such good buildings on the land. As far as the leaseholds in this city are concerned, some of the finest buildings here are built upon leasehold land. For instance, the Colonial Mutual Building is one of the finest in the city, and it is on a Corporation leasehold. Then, with respect to leasehold land in the country. In every way these leases are drawn in the most careful manner, with very strict clauses as to cropping and the management of the land, and the landlord as a general rule takes very good care that the leaseholder farms the place properly. I may also point out that the aggregation of land into fewer hands is
325
C—4.
A. R. BARCLAY.j
going on in this city, and I can point out a block —that block bounded by Moray Place, Princes Street, and Stewart Street —which piece by piece is gradually passing into the hands of one owner. There is one other point I would like to mention. It is said that there is a difficulty in financing in the case of leaseholds. That is quite true, but the reason is very plain. All trust moneys are forbidden b}- law to be invested in leasehold land. There may be reasons advanced for that, but, in my opinion, there are not sufficient to show that it should be so forbidden. Section 14 of " The Trustees Act, 1891," prescribes the various forms of investment in which trustees may invest trust money, and leasehold land is left out of the list. It is the same under " The Settled Land Act, 1886." The proceeds of land sold under that Act cannot be invested except in the way prescribed by section 7, and that excludes investment in leaseholds. The Government Life Insurance will not lend money on leaseholds generally, though there is a special clause giving them power to lend on Crown leaseholds. The Dunedin Savings-bank is prohibited from lending any money on leaseholds, and so it goes on -an enormous quantity of money being unavailable for leasehold securities. There is no reason, it appears to me, why a leasehold should not be as good as any other security, provided you do not lend too much money on it. The result of these provisions of the law is very simple. It narrows enormously the supply of money for the purpose of lending on leaseholds, and for that reason an extra J or an extra I per cent, interest is demanded. I cannot see, from a purely business point of view, why that restriction should be made. 164. Mr. McCardle.] Is it not a fact that the great increase in the value of property is produced by the workers and the creators of wealth throughout the colony? —No doubt it is. 165. And we must take the settlers in the country as a portion of the workers and the creators of the wealth of the community —I refer to the small settlers of the colony, the most poorly paid class in the colony —that wealth-has been created by those men ? —I quite agree that those settlers are the backbone of the colony, and that they produce from the land a very large quantity, if not the greater part, of the wealth of the colony. 166. You have shown that there has been a great unearned increment in the wealth of the cities? —Yes, and there is also in the wealth of the country considerable unearned increment. 167. That is a very difficult thing to get at in the case of the country. In the case of unimproved land taken up in the back country and improved by the settler, it is practically impossible to ascertain what his improvements have cost and the labour he has put into the land? —The men who toil in the back blocks deserve every consideration from the State. I should give them every possible concession. 168. Are you of opinion that there is an aggregation of estates going on 2 It has been suggested that the Land Transfer Act might be amended, limiting the area or the value of the land that may be taken up ? —I think a value test would be a fair test. 169. Would you be in favour of restricting the freehold? —I do not think the freehold should exist at all. If it must exist it should be limited. 170. Have any workmen's homes settlements been established in the vicinity of Dunedin?—No. 171. There are such homes in other centres of the colony: would it not be a good thing to try and introduce that here? —I think so, decidedly. 172. Do you not think it could be extended to granting working-men leases with buildings on them, and the State run no risk, seeing that there are such great numbers to take advantage of it, and that if one man failed another would take his place?—l think so. The system is in force in England —West Ham, for instance —and in Glasgow. 173. Those are under the Corporation? —Yes. 174. Would it not be much better for the State to do it? —I think so. 175. As a legal man who takes an interest in public affairs, would it not be possible at this stage to do something in the way of restricting large holdings in the city? Would it not be well to put a pretty progressive land-tax on this land? —I would be very glad to see something done in that direction. There is, of course, the graduated land-tax, and I suppose it applies to the city properties as well as to any other. 176. According to your facts, a man in the early days only required to buy these sections, go to sleep in hope, and he would leave a fortune to his family I—That1 —That is so. 177. It is very different in the country ?—Yes. The unearned increment is probably not, as a rule, so large or so rapid; but it must be remembered that very large increases in value have been given to country lands by public works, such as railways, which are not paid for out of rates. 178. The settler living on the land makes it possible for the railway to pay? —In America they put on railways first, and then put on the settlers. 179. You are aware that in parts of America large portions of the public estates in the vicinity of railways are given away free, and the State only derives a benefit when they sell a township? — I have heard that that is so. 180. In Canada, as you know, any one who goes there can get a certain number of acres?— I have seen that stated. 181. You admit that in connection with country lands the rates for roads have to be counted against the unearned increment ? —That is so; but these rates, after all, are merely an investment for the improvement of the land. 182. But the landowner pays the local taxation for the expenditure that goes on?— Yes. 183. Mr. Hall.] Has the Government any'property in Dunedin?—Not beyond what the public buildings stand on. I know of no reserves. 184. There is no Government property here that could be disposed of? —No. 185. Then, the question as regards the value of land in Dunedin does not come within the inquiry as to land-tenure? —I do not know the exact scope of the Commission. 186. You spoke of the increased values of land in Dunedin, but vou did not take into consideration other places where the land had greatly fallen in value. * There is such a thing as townships which have been laid off in New Zealand where these buyers could not realise the value
[A. B. BARCLAY.
326
a—4.
that they gave in the first place?—lf they hold on to them they will. Sir William Russell himself, in Parliament, said there was no doubt, in all human probability, that the value of all the land in New Zealand, speaking generally, would increase and keep on increasing for some considerable time. 187. The Chairman.] On the contrary, I could name a dozen townships in the Province of Otago where the sections would not realise shillings to-day for the pounds that were paid for them?— There may be exceptions, but I was speaking of the general rule, and I give you Sir William Russell's statement as he made it. 188. Mr. Hall.] With regard to railways, of course, these railways add to the value of land, but is it not the land itself that has made the railways; has not every mail's land in the country been mortgaged for the money that constructed these railways, and that but for the settlement of the country the money could not have been raised ? —lt is true that the lands are mortgaged, but the interest is not paid by the landowner, as a rule. The total amount, as 1 have told you, that arises from the general taxation of the land of the colony is only about £335,000. 189. The whole of the interest is paid out of the products of the country, and these are created by the settler ?—As far as the land-tax goes, the country settler pays very little. 190. Have you taken out the amount that the city pays?—No, I have not; but the total amount from the whole country is very small. 191. Would you advocate trustees being empowered to lend money on leasehold tenure?—l would. 192. Would that not be a very dangerous thing? —I do not think so. 193. Trusts, 1 suppose, to be safeguarded?— The only danger is in lending too much. Enormous sums of money have been lost in lending on freehold. There is no reason why the loss should be more on leasehold than"on freehold if ordinary care be taken. 194. Should not trust money be carefully safeguarded, and while freehold can be got as security why, then, on leasehold?—l say that the money lent on leasehold is as well safeguarded as money lent on freehold, provided you do not lend too much. That is the only salient point. 195. You also stated that, as a rule, lessors of land very carefully enforced restrictions and conditions? —That is my experience. 196. I have seen a great deal of leasehold land worked in the country, and the very opposite has been my experience. 1 find leases filled up with all sorts of legal terms and restrictions which are never considered, and which are not adhered to in one case out of ten ?- -I can only say that many times tenants have come to me where the matter of enforcing the provisions of a lease is in question, and the landlord, as a rule, as far as I have had any experience, insists on the terms of the lease being carried out, and I think it will be found that in Otago that is the general rule. 197. You admit, I think, that workers should have an opportunity to provide homes for themselves in the city? —My idea was that the State should provide the land and build the houses and 198. In one city in New Zealand the Government have done that. They purchased land at the instigation of legislators in the House, and it has been an entire failure? I quite believe that. There are many reasons why it may be a failure unfavourable position, and so on. lhere is no reason why it should not be a failure owing to one or more causes just as much as if it had been done by a private landlord. . _ , , 199. What 1 refer to is land taken on a line of railway five miles from the city, in 5-acre lots under lease in perpetuity. The Government advanced money against the building of the house, and it has been a failure?— There is this to be said: that a great many of the workers do not like to go outside; they like to live in the towns. 200. They like the comforts of a city?—lf they like to live in the towns at a reasonable distance from their work I do not see why they should not. 201. Mr. Anstey.J Do I understand you to say that the State should not part with any more of the freehold of the land on any conditions?— Yes. 202. Dispose of no more except on leasehold? —Yes. " 203. I presume that applies to settlers in the back blocks?— Everywhere. 204. You propose that the settlers on the back blocks should have secured to them the value of any improvements they make?—l would practically allow the back-block man to enjoy the land for nothing until he reaped the reward of his labours, but I would not give him the freehold 205 I presume you have got some feasible scheme for securing to the settler the value 01 the improvements. The difficulty in arriving at the full value of improvements on bush lands has been pointed out. You know that the clearing of the bush involves the destruction of the bush and the total disappearance of the improvements. How would you ascertain the value of improvements that disappeared twenty-one years ago?-Every day, every week every month, every year valuations are made of the improved and unimproved value of laud. In every county, borough, and town values are fixed every day. It may be that the principle on which these valuations are made is not always a perfectly correct one, but I see no reason why it should not be fairly reliable. 206. Would you send a valuer every day to see how the bush is disappearing. No; surely that would not be necessary. 207 How would you get at it?—l do not profess in any way to be an expert valuer or to put forward'rules for valuing. I only say it is done every day where there is rating on unimproved V<llU< 208 I can understand that quite well where there is a city, but the objection lam raising is a pertinent one I have already pointed out that these improvements depend almost entirely on their disappearance, and it has been asserted over and over again that there is no way of securing to the settlers of the back blocks the value of their improvements except by giving the freehold. So far nothing has been suggested as to how that value is to be given otherwise than by giving the freeholds. I ask you, can you suggest any way by which we can give him those improvements?
A. B. BARCLAY.]
327
C.—4.
What I understand is this: bush lands are generally cleared by contract —that is to say, at so-much per acre. 209. That is a mere trifle in the clearing of the land? —If the land is cleared by contract surely the ascertained value is the amount of the contract. 210. That is only a trifle? —I have heard of contracts for stumping —for clearing out the roots. 211. How do you know how many stumps there were in the land twenty-one years afterwards? —I only know that the valuation is made year by year and the valuations remain. Tou have only to look up the official records to know what the valuation was twenty-one years ago. 212. Can you tell me whether within the last ten or fifteen years there has been any decrease in the value of remote bush land —I cannot say as to that. lam not an authority on bush land and do not pretend to be. 213. You told us just now about some very large unearned increment that came under your notice as having taken place in the city. There is no reason to doubt your word, for there is no doubt that there is an enormous unearned increment in the city. It is dreadful to think that the city should have lost these enormous sums of unearned increment, but can you suggest any means by which in the future this increase can be retained, or what has been lost in the past recovered? Would you suggest that the city should buy up these properties ? —I see no reason why they should not be taken under the Land for Settlements Act. They can be bought by debentures. 214. You suggest that they should purchase this hundred and twelve million pounds' worth of land in the colony? —I believe it would pay most handsomely, from a business point of view. From a business point of view, it is madness to part with the freehold of the land when it is absolutely certain that in a giveu number of years it will be worth ever so much more. 215. Suppose the State buys these hundred and twelve million pounds' worth of land, where would they get the money? They would pay by debentures. The money or cash would not be necessary. 216. Can you tell me what the owners would do with this large amount of money after they had got it? —They would not have the money in loose cash. They would have debentures, which they would sell, just as is done in the case of ordinary stock. 217. You gave instances of city reserves being leased, and compared the city leases with those of private leaseholders: are the city reserves being administered in the best interests of the community —from the figures you gave us they are wasting the public estates?—-I do not say so. I think the proper policy is to ask for fair and moderate rents. I am no advocate of putting up these leases to auction and selling to the highest bidder. That is wrong. 218. On the other hand, private owners are extracting far too much rent? —I think so. I am sure of it. 219. They are disposed of by public competition, T presume?—Some are by private arrangement. 220. Who are the public reserves administered by?— The City Council. 221. The Council are elected by the ratepayers? —Yes. 222. Who do the reserves belong to —the public, I presume?— Yes. 223. It is a public property administered by the ratepayers? —The term "ratepayer" is more embracive than formerly: every lodger has a vote. 224. Would it not be more just if these lands were administered by the Land Boards who represent the general public, and not by the ratepayers ? —I do not think it is of much consequence which body administers the land. 225. You think the Council is justified in letting these reserves for, in one case, £167 per year, whereas by your statement a private leasehold realises .£2,000. Do you think that perfectly right? —It spells ruin for the man who pays the .£2,000. I think the £167 a fair rent for the section that pays it. 226. Mr. McLennan.\ Has the Presbyterian Church got any endowments in Dunedin? —I believe so. At all events it has considerable reserves. 227. Endowed by the Government? —The church is the owner of the freehold of the property. I would not say it was got from the Government, but I was under the impression the pioneers of the settlement set apart these reserves for the church. 228. There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether these church endowments here are, strictly speaking, endowments, or whether they were purchased by the first settlers who came to Otago? —As far as I understand, the Presbyterian Church endowments were reserved for the church in the original settlement. 229. The Chairman.] That is not so? —Very well, I accept your statement. 230. Mr. McCutchan.\ Referring, to the question of taxation, I think you said that settlers would resist the imposition of taxation by legislation ? —Getting taxation out of land is Tike getting blood out of a stone. I can speak from my own experience in the House, that when a question of getting another sixpence out of the land came up it was always the signal for a fierce fight. 231. The resistance was effective? —Very often it was. 232. Does not it occur to you that exactly the same objection and exactly the same force would be behind that objection in the case of the State owning all the land? —No. 233. Why not? —Because the State makes its own contracts with each individual tenant. That is quite a different matter from imposing a general tax in one instant on every landowner in the country. 234. If the tenants are in the-majority they can resist anything?—No doubt; but do you suggest that the tenants should be taxed after they become tenants? 235. They will have to be taxed on unimproved value? —I do not think that there should be any taxation of Crown tenants. 236. How would you raise the revenue of the country? —From the rents. There are about
C—4.
328
la, e. babclay.
66,000,000 acres of land in New Zealand, and if you calculate that land as let at even Is. per acre per year you would raise about three millions and a half of money. There is no reason for taxing the tenant if he pays rent. How much rent could be raised from Dunedin alone? Not less than £250,000, at a very low estimate, per annum. 237. You said that between 1891 and 1904 the unimproved value of land increased by £36,814,571? —That has been stated. 238. And you point out that during the same period the improvements have only increased by £23,801,522?—Ye5. 239. And therefore you consider that the difference between the improvement and the other value —some £13,000,000 —belongs to the State? —You see, the £36,000,000 does not include improvements at all. 240. The question I wished to ask you is, have you analysed that unimproved value? For instance, a new block of country is opened up, and the settlers go on it and make certain improvements. The capital value remains for three years, but there is an increase of £1 an acre. To what is that due ? —lt might be due to the extra demand for land, it might be due to some public works, or it might be due to the man's own labour. I do not profess to say what particularly might cause it. 241. You have a legal mind: have you gone into this question closely before making your statements to-day? If you mean have I examined the various principles on which all the various valuations are made, I can only say I have not. I take it that the figures which are officially supplied in the Year-book are approximately correct. 242. Of course, you know you can pretty well do anything with figures? —I do not know; I cannot. 243. The figures you quote are perfectly correct, but, analysed, a different complexion may be put on them. I suppose you admit that a person is entitled to any value he creates? —Undoubtedly. 244. And a settler the same? —Undoubtedly. 245. You maintain that that £36,000,000 of unimproved value belongs to the State, but, supposing £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 of that money is value which has been created by the settlers' expenditure upon roads, you would not say that the settlers' expenditure on roads is State expenditure ? —No. 246. You have been a member of Parliament, representing an important constituency, and these matters have been under your notice for a great number of years. In the roading of these back blocks, who was it found the money? —The bulk of the money was found by rating the land. Very often it is done by borrowing, and very often the Government lend the money. The Government very often make grants for that purpose. 247. Is it not a fact that the Government make a large profit out of all the blocks of Native land they acquired ? —I should say so. 248. Have you analysed the matter to see whether these blocks of land acquired from the Natives in the North Island have not a proportion of the loan-money raised from time to time?I have not in respect to the Native land of the North Island. I have not been in the House since ,1902, and do not know very well what has been done in the last two years, nor am 1 perfectly familiar with the Native-land dealings. 249. You spoke of grants: I suppose subsidies come under the heading of grants? —Yes. 250. Have they been increasing or decreasing since you have been interested in these matters? —They were decreased for one year, and there was a good deal of complaint. If the finances are good and there is a large surplus, as a general rule there seems to be an increase in the subsidies. If there is a shortness of money and things have not been good the subsidies go down. There seems to be no principle on which grants are made, except the urgency of the work and the supply at hand of money. A road or a bridge is wanted in a certain district, and the Government apparently get a report from an engineer, either that the work is one that should receive Government assistance, in which case money is given, or they come to the conclusion that they will not assist. 251. Subsidies have increased enormously during the time you speak of? —Yes. 252. In Dunedin you do not take up a judicial attitude at all. You take an isolated instance where there has been an enormous increase, and you wish to apply that generally. You must be aware that our order of reference applies to town lands, and I waited to hear your application of the conditions of things in Dunedin to the rural land of the colony. Are you aware of the amount of money the County Councils have expended under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act on roads"? —I cannot give the exact figures from memory. 253. Is not the increase in the value of the land of the country due to two things —road access and the value of products? —It largely depends on these things, but they are not the only factors. 254. What are the other factors? —Kailway communication, increase of population, greater plentifulness of money, and a variety of causes. 255. The settlers made the railway communication. It is not a cause, it is an effect? —A cause too, sir, of increased value. 256. You are making a very great mistake. Under our policy railways follow settlement. There are very few instances in this colony where railways, except for political reasons, have been constructed unless there were products to be carried by them. You quote authoritatively the figures from the Year-book. I think it was due to yourself and the Commission that you should have gone carefully into them and analysed them. You have taken no pains whatever to show the source where the unimproved value came from. You jump to the conclusion that it belongs to the State, and you acknowledge at the same time that where a man's energy is responsible for it it belongs to him—a contradictory statement,?- -The figures I have given you are for the strictly unimproved value. Any value given by a man's labour to the land is, I take it, included in the value of improvements. ' These figures are those of trained experts. The country travels on those figures, and"if they are not correct you can hardly expect me to demonstrate that fact.
A. Br BARCLAY. 1
329
C—4.
2.>7. lam a trained farmer; you are ii trained legal man. I accept the figures as absolutely correct. What is incorrect is your application of them. Were you a member of Parliament when the Rebate to Crown Tenants Act was passed: did you take any part in the debate?—l stonewalled the Bill. 258. Upon what grounds? —On the ground that it was unfair and improper to give a 10-per-cent. reduction all round. We would have given 20 or .30 per cent, reduction in necessary and proper cases, but to give a 10-per-cent. reduction to men who were even then selling the goodwill of their leases for large sums was nonsense. 259. Is it not a fact that the settlers pay land-tax, and also pay through the Customs, the same as the people of the towns?— That is quite true; but the settlers have the valuable thing—the land. 200. our advocacj- of State ownership of land implies periodical revaluation? —Yes. 261. Do you think, as a gentleman of experience, that practical men with perhaps a little money and knowing what they are doing will go into these outdistricts, where there is no road access, and take up this land with a revaluation clause in their lease?—l can only say that it is done every day —I do not say in very remote back-block districts. 262. Mr. Mntheson.] Would you agree with me if I suggested that there is a clear principle of giving grants of money where the lever applied is strong enough to move the log: do you think that is a bad principle?— From my experience, that principle did not work. My experience was that the Administration went to considerable trouble and pains to get reports, and decided in each case whether it was a fitting and proper thing to make a grant or not. I tried desperately hard to get some money for local bodies in my own district, with very little success. 26."?. You think it would be a sound principle where settlers rate themselves to form roads if in future the Crown took over one-half of that liability? The settlers in rating themselves show a genuine need for the roads? —I think if the Crown had some tangible return —if they had control of the roads, or something of that sort —it might be a good thing. 264. You know that in the past a great many roads have been made entirely by the State? — That is so. 265. Seeing that the people are rating themselves to make roads, would it not be sound for the State to pay half of that liability? —I think you cannot lay down a hard-and-fast principle. 266. You would leave it to the State to make grants where they deem fit? —Where it was necessary and fit. Some roads are very expensive to make or keep up, and it might be a poor borough or district that has to keep up that road. But in other cases the district might easily be able to do it out of its own funds. I could give several instances of each case. 267. Do you think Dunedin would ever have originated if the founders had known that there was to be no right of purchase? —That is a very difficult question to answer. What might have been is largely a matter of speculation. I think, myself, if they had reasonable promise of getting land on easy lease I see no reason why it should not have been established. 268. Do you not think they are entitled to a handsome profit for investing their money in the land in the city in the early days of the pioneers? —I do. 260. Mr. Paitl.~\ Do you know that the labour party propose revaluation? —I do. 270. Was there ever a proposal to make that retrospective in its application? —I have not heard of any such proposal by the labour party —although the 999-years lease is a terrible thing. 271. It goes without saying that you object to the lease in perpetuity as as present?— Entirely. 272. You are prepared to vary the revaluation clause in reference to bush land? —I would give every possible consideration to the bush settler. 273. If the revaluation were set aside in connection with the bush lands, that would not be an objection, surely? —Bush lands can be dealt with on exactly the same principle as other lands. If land has no capital value a man pays no rent until it develops an unimproved value. 274. Surely, you are prepared to give every encouragement to a man to go on bush land? —Yes, certainly ; but that does not involve giving him the freehold. 275. It was repeated to us by several witnesses that there should be leasehold for the town and freehold for the country: how do you view that proposition? —I should not agree with that at all. 276. It is proposed in some quarters to give the freehold to Crown tenants under the Land for Settlements Act. If it is decided to do that on what terms should it be given, the original or the present capital value? —I do not think it should be granted on any terms at all; but if it is, then it. ought to be on the capitalised value for twenty years into the future. T would not be in favour of selling the freehold at all. 277. Do you think it would be likely to break down that sj^stem? —I do. 278. In the case of workmen's homes, do you not think that the matter of distance from the centres was very largely the cause of the failure of the scheme?- I think the same causes would ruin a settlement established by the State would ruin a settlement established by a private landlord. If the place was unsuitable it would fail. To be a success the conditions must be the same as would be the case in a successful settlement by a private person —the rents must lie less than in town, and the position must be suitable. If anj' of these factors or many others are wanting it will not succeed. 279. The City Corporation leaseholds are entirely in the hands of the Corporation, are they not —.they are not part of the Crown lands? —I think they are all in the hands of the Corporation. 280. The City Council can administer them as they think best? —Yes. 281. If they think a reasonable rent is better than a rack rent they put on a reasonable rent? — Yes. As a matter of fact, the rents are fixed generally by arbitration. There are private leases in this town of sixty years where there is revaluation every ten 3'ears, and they are accepted gratefully. They belong to an absentee landlord. 282. There was some discussion whether the settler precedes the railway : is it not a fact thatcloser settlement often follows the railway? A railway goes through a district, and after a short time closer settlement follows that railway?—l think, as a general rule, that is so,
42—C. 4,
Ta. R. BARCLAY.
330
C—4.
283. Do you think the Otago Central Railway has improved the value of land in that district? —As far as 1 'can gather from the reports, the result has been to increase the land-value along the 11116 284. If if did not increase the value there was no necessity for the line being put along there? —That is so, no doubt, in a sense. . . „ 285 In reference to this rebate of rent to Crown tenants, do you think that the accepting of that rebate breaks the contract between the tenant and the Government?-I do not regard it in that light. I make no fetish, although a lawyer, of this alleged sacredness of contracts in every case. In the case of foolish contracts that are entered into, if the best interests of the community and changed circumstances require a change in the provisions of the contract it is right that such a change should be made, even by legislation. _ 286. Do you not think that the whole foundation of our Government is built on the fact that the word and bond of the Government is a thing that can be abided by, and if any variation is made in the contract proper compensation should be given to the person with whom the contract is made?—lt is a common practice of the Law Courts to grant relief against what they call unconscionable bargains, and T do not see why the State should not adopt the same course. A striking i ? nstance of a 'clear breach of contract' by the State is the Land for Settlements Act. Every Crown grant gives him the right to hold the land to him and his heirs for ever. That is a contract. But the Act says now he shall do nothing of the kind, but must give up this land if it is think the gfate won },i be justified in resuming the freehold of the lands which they have sold and which have gone up in value ?-On their present valuation-not to confiscate them 2Bß. Mr. McCardle.] Do I understand you to say that you considered the State would be justified in purchasing the whole of the freeholds-£112,000,000?- -Yes; but, of course, they would have to pay for the improvements also. 289. What would the improvements amount to?— They are set down at .£70,000,000. 290 Do you know of a case where railways have had the tendency, instead of building up and creating values, of destroying centres ?-Yes. Some small towns in the country I believe have experienced loss through the people taking advantage of the railways to go to larger centres o transact their business. . _ T 291. Were you in the House when the Fair Rent Bill was brought 111 . 1 was. 292. Did that have retrospective tendency?—l do not think so. , , ~ 293. Unless it was to be so the whole thing would have been met by an amendment Land Bill? —It never went any distance. . 294. It was there, and the feeling of the country was that it_ was to have a retrospective tendency—was that so?—I do not think the Bill itself had such a provision. Robeut Febquson examined. 295 The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a compositor. I was born in the colony, and I h "%S\r^Si D r, di p n in WH- not. directly I .p~.r before vou on'behalf of the Trades and Labour Council of Otago I just wishto' e ' n P^ slze Mr Scott has said. I saw his remarks in the paper and I know his ideas 1 would Ihe to make it perfectly clear that the labour party in Dunedin, and, in fact, the whole ISew Zealand labour party are not antagonistic to the farmers, but they are antagonistic to the farmers or anybody else owning the freehold, because we consider it is not in the interests of the colony that the land should be parted with. For my own part, I say that so long as the freehold system is in existence a man has a perfect right to buy tl.e freehold, whether he is a land-nationaliser or not Ido not sav that is the opinion of all the labour party, but it is my opinion. We consider the land ques£io y n of far more importance than any law ever passed in New Zealand. We have the Arbitration Act and the Factories Act and other Acts for the benefit of the working-classes, but until we g the land laws properly fixed up we will never get what we consider to be justice. We consider these Acts only stop-gaps. Mr. Scott told you yesterday, on behalf of the labour party, that we advocate the leasehold with periodical revaluations. We contend that parting with the freehold is parting with the birthright of the people, and that you have no right to part with the freeho d 'ilr.r hut consideration whatever. Everv man born into the world has a right to own a certain port on of land, and it is impossible for him to own it if you sell the freehold. The only possible way a man ca n own a portion of the State is through land-national,sat,on. You have as much right to sell the air as the land, because the one is as necessary to life as the other. ' We consider the land belongs not only to this generation but to every future generation, and that the State has no right whatever to part with that which does not really belong to this generation We have heard a food deal about'the inherent desire of every man to possess a portion of the freehold Well I would like to ask, how is it possible to gratify this desire? If you part with the freehold how are the generations to come to get a portion of the land? The only way to gratify it is by the State owning the whole of the land, and then every man will have an equal share of it as a member of the Community. We contend that immediately you part with the freehold you part with the community-created value for all time-that is, the unearned increment All you get for the freehold is the market value of the land for the time being, and no matter what railways are constructed or other public expenditure is made, the only man who can possibly benefit is the lander To illustrate that T will refer to Anderson's Bay, a suburb of Dunedin. I cannot quote exact figures but I will say that land that could probably have been bought a few years back at £50 per acre has, owing to'the construction of tramways at the cost of the ratepayers of Dunedin risen fn value T say that increased value is The Anderson's Bay people did nothing to increase the value of their land, but they get the benefit of that increase, and I know as
C.-4.
R. FERGUSON.]
331
a good commercial principle that when land increases in value you have to pay an increased rent. The owners want more rent for their places at Anderson's Bay now because the land is more valuable. It is the same with the Otago Central. The settlers there told you that the value of the land is going up owing to our money being spent on that railway. Who reaps the benefit of it? The landowner every time, and no one else. The railways do not pay interest on their cost, and we have to pay a portion of the interest and bear that extra burden. If a man wants to sell he wants an increased value for his land. Therefore it costs more to produce from the soil, and the consumer has to pay more in order to recoup the landowner 297. Mr. McCardle.] Does he get it? —He must get it. 298. Where does he get it from? —He gets it from the consumer. If he cannot get it he cannot pay the price for the land. A man will not pay a price he cannot get out of the ground, unless he is a fool. As an economic fact, I reckon it is perfectly sound to say he must get that value from the consumer, or the land is not worth that price. No one can wonder why the working-class as a body object to the freehold, when rents go up and they receive no benefits. The same thing applies to town and suburban lands, and also to the lands over the whole of the colony. Spend money on them and up goes the rent, and the man who does not own any land practically receives no benefit. We want to be perfectly fair to the landowner. We do not want to take anything from him that rightly belongs to him. We say let him have all the improvements he may put 011 the land; be generous with him. We have no desire to rob any man of anything that rightly belongs to him. At the same time, he has no right to be allowed by the State to take things that do not belong to him —that is, the unearned increment. We want him to be fair to the rest of the community as well as that the rest of the community should be fair to him. We reckon the only possible way to do this is by retaining the land and having .periodical revaluations, because it would be unfair in our idea to value the land at a certain figure and lease it to a man at that rent for 999 years. This is as good as the freehold, and we contend that principle is wrong. I do not think the labour party as a whole are very particular as to the exact periods when the leases should be revalued. I think anywhere between twenty-one and thirty-five years would be fair. I want to make one point perfectly clear. During the trip of the Commission farmers have said they fear that the revaluation would be made to apply to existing leases. They fear that the Government will break their contract and revalue the properties they now lease. I would like to point out that the same people who contend that have no hesitation in asking that the contract should be broken to enable them to obtain the freehold. They are afraid that the contract^ may be broken to their detriment, but when it is to their advantage they have no hesitation in asking that it should be broken. If they think that the Government want to break the contract to their detriment, why do they ask that the same contract should be broken to benefit them. I would like to say that, in my opinion and in the opinion, in fact, of the labour party, the farmer is very, very far from being an unbiassed witness. It is to the farmers' interest to get the freehold if they possibly can. It is to the interest of each one individually. If I could pick up a piece of land to-morrow in*Dunedin for .£IOO, and I thought the unearned increment would increase the value next year to £200, I consider I would be a fool if I did not buy the land and turn it over at a profit. The farmer says he would like to buy the land, and I say small blame to him, because the farmer knows there is unearned increment in it. There is a deal of selfishness in human nature. A farmer in Southland came along and told you, " I am a freeholder for myself, but for the State I am a leaseholder." That is the gist of the whole matter. We contend that no value should be placed on the farmer's opinion that the freehold should be granted to him. We know that the evidence so far is all in favour of the freeholders. Of course it is, because a majority of the witnesses have been farmers. If you are going to decide by a majority of the witnesses, which we contend you should not, we would keep you here three months calling people from the ranks of the labour party to tell you that the freehold is wrong and that the leasehold is the right system. We want to make it perfectly clear that it is the reasons for and against the system that should count, and not the number of witnesses, who are mainly interested parties. Again, I find that people who advocate that you should get a direct revenue from endowments, such as education, Harbour Board, and Corporation endowments, contend strongly that you have no right to part with the freehold of those endowments. Your first witness (the Mayor of Invercargill) advocated the freehold strongly, but at the same time he would not sell these endowment lands, because the bodies concerned are getting a direct revenue year after year If that argument is sound, and if the Government kept hold of their own land, would they not get a revenue from them year after year? We would like to point out that every acre of land that is sold reduces the assets of the colony. The whole revenue is swallowed up in the Consolidated Fund. lam perfectly convinced that very few people would part with these endowment leases, but the same people advocate parting with the Crown lands, and we say that is very inconsistent. I also say it is an insult to the leaseholder to have it continually thrown up at him that he does not farm his land as well as a freeholder. I think the farmers' insult the leaseholders by saying that. We know that independent witnesses, such as Crown Land Rangers, come along and tell you that the leaseholder farms Ins land equally well as the freeholder. Ido not think there is anything in that contention at all. We think it is wrong for the State to sell a block of land and improve it, and then buy it back at an enhanced valued At the present time, according to the Year-book, there are 115,713 landowners in New Zealand. Of these forty-three thousand odd own over 5 acres, and somewhere about seventy thousand own under 5 acres.' The unearned increment of the whole of the land of the colony last year was £9 000 000. We contend very strongly that a proportion of the interest on that unearned increment on whatever accrues from the freehold—l am not able to find the figures—is paid by the man who does not own 1 acre of land, and that means three out of every four adults in this colony. The landowner gets the unearned increment, and the more the land goes up in price the poorer the landless man will become. That is why you find extreme poverty and extreme wealth side by side at Home. In conclusion, I would like to say we have heard a good deal about these bodies not
332
R. FEEGtSON.
C—4.
being able to get people to take up tlieir leases. I may say tliere is not the slightest difficulty in letting these leaseholds all over Otago, at any rate. There may be a case or two, but the) are isolated ones. The men who take up these leases do so knowing they have not the slightest hope of acquiring the freehold of that, land. lam perfectly convinced that, no matter what the report of the Commission may be, the time will come, though it may not be in our time, when the State will own every acre of land in this colony. 299. Mr. McCardle,\ You instanced Anderson's Bay property: do you know if the Corporation of Dunedin are running people free to Anderson's Bay? —Certainly not. The working-man has to pay his fare the same as others. It does not matter whether he is a working-man or not; but that is where the iniquity of it comes in. He has to pay a higher rent, and he gets no benefit from the trams going out. 300. Does lie require to pay a higher rent in Anderson's Bay than in the City of Dunedin I —Certainly not. If you come into the centre of Dunedin you have to pay a higher rent, because the nearer you are to the centre the higher the rent becomes. 301. You state that the price of land has gone up in Anderson's Bay : what is the price of land per acre there to-day? I do not know. I only quoted that as an illustration. I say distinctly that the land has gone up in value since the tramways were constructed, because any publicworks" expenditure has a tendency to increase the value of the area that conies within the scope of that expenditure. 302. You have come here and said that the price of that land lias gone up, and I ask you to what extent 1— I only used Anderson's Bay as an illustration, and I say, as a general principle, it is correct, because immediately you construct public works you increase the value of land. 303. I can take you back to ihe time when Anderson's Bay was worth £50 per acre; and are not the men who have been paying interest on that capital all these years entitled to the increased value which ought to take place without any tram at all? —I say, as a general principle, the value of the land has increased through the construction of the tramways. 301. Then, you say that an unearned increment has arisen, and you take it that the face-value of improvements on all holdings throughout the colony is fairly represented by the figures appearing in the Year-book. I can take you to a country all covered with dense bush, which a settler takes up from the Government, and the Ranger assesses his improvements, in the shape of buslifelling, fencing, and grassing, at something like £2 per acre. That settler and liis family will occupy all their labour in improving that place for five or six or more years, and when the Ranger conies along to value the improvements he does not increase the valuation, but very often reduces it, because in the meantime the fencing lias deteriorated. The Ranger does this although that man has spent all his time and labour in effecting improvements and has taken nothing from the soil, and therefore the improvements are much greater than the amount represented? —I take the Yearbook as the official information from the and I take it to be correct. lam not in a position to dispute the figures in the Year-book. If you dispute them I cannot help that. 305. Do you not think that before you come before a Commission like this to* give evidence you should make yourself acquainted with the real facts of the case? —If a man cannot use the official publication of the Government for his facts, then I do not know where lie can go for his facts. I consider I have a perfect right to use the official publication of the Government and make a statement on that, independent of what any Commissioner may think. 306. You know something about small farmers and their earnings on the farm?—No; I cannot say I have any practical knowledge of them. 307. You recognise he is a labourer like yourself I—Most decidedly. I have the greatest respect for him. 308. And that he is the creator of the wealth of this colony?— That is to a certain extent true; but if there were no consumers he could not possibly create wealth. 309. I suppose you are perfectly aware he does not require a single consumer in this colony to get the prices he obtains now—that the whole of his profits and the proceeds from liis labour are ruled by the London markets?— That is the consumer, notwithstanding. Ido not care whether the consumer is inside the colony or outside. 310. If it is the consumer outside the colony that has raised the value of his farm, then it is the consumer outside the colony who ought to be entitled to the unearned increment I—No.1 —No. We would not claim some of the unearned increment of England any more than England could claim some of our unearned increment. The colony must get its own unearned increment, no matter who the consumers are. 311. Do you remember Sir Julius Yogel's public-works policy? —I do. 312. The" country was not settled then. Do you know what that policy was? —It was to construct railways for the benefit of the people and to sell lands and to settle the people on the lands. We want to settle the people on the land. 313. These railways are not maintained, as you think, entirely at the cost of the workers of the colony? —I never made the statement that they were. 314. Nor are they entirely in the interest of the farming population, because the farmers are able to produce more from the land, and so increase the prosperity of the colony and maintain the workers in the colony, and give them profitable occupation without which they could not be in the position in which you find them to-day, in the City of Dunedin, for instance?— You put a wrong construction on mv remarks. I say these railways when constructed in any particular locality benefit the landowners there. The landowner puts up the price of his land immediately the railway has been constructed to his door, and the consumer does not get any benefit by the construction, because he has to pay higher for the produce he consumes. 315. You know perfectly well'that if the London market was to fail to : morrow the people occupying the land in this colony could not possibly succeed?- I do not dispute that for one moment, but that lias nothing whatever to do with the question. lam not so foolish as to say the consumer here or in England. You can go all over the world.
CJ.-4
333
E. FEBGUSON.
316; Mr. Anstey.\ You gave us some instances of a very large unearned increment in regard to land near the city: can you give us any similar instances of large sums of unearned increment which ought to belong to the people falling to individuals in remote settlements? —All I can say is that lam taking the unearned increment as a whole. lam not taking the unearned increment of any individual settler. 317. You cannot give me any instance of unearned increment in remote settlements? —I do not know where to get this information. It is not in the Year-book. 318. Suppose it is said there is none, could you contradict it? —I could not, because Ido not know. 319. Seeing that apparently there is very little unearned increment in the bush districts, and apparently a tremendous lot in the towns, and seeing that the experts tell us the people will not go into these remote settlements unless they get the unearned increment, would it not be better for you to confine your efforts to securing the unearned increment where it exists? —We go for the principle. It would be very wrong of us to advocate a principle to apply to the city and not to the country as well. 320. We have had evidence that people will not go into these remote districts unless they get the freehold? —For myself, I cannot possibly tell you whether they will or not. 321. Supposing they will not, would you give up your principle, so far as they are concerned? —No, I would not budge for one moment. 322. You would insist, notwithstanding that it would mean these lands lying idle? —I would offer every inducement for them to go into the country short of parting with the freehold. 323. You tell us that the lease-in-perpetuitv holder by asking for the right of purchase is guilty of attempting a breach of his contract? —That is so. 324. Can you tell us whether any lease-in-perpetuity holder has asked for the freehold? —I do not remember the names of any of them; but I see by the papers that a number of them came before you Commissioners and said they would like the law to be altered to give them the freehold. 325. You referred to public reserves, and I take it that you would jsut them on the same footing as Crown lands in regard to obtaining the freehold. Do you think if the right of the freehold is granted in one case it should be granted in the other, or to neither? —I think no one should have the right to the freehold. 326. You think one has as much right to it as the other? —Yes; it is inconsistent, in my opinion, to advocate the freehold for one and not for the other. 327. .1//-. Forbes.] Is it true that the increase in wages of late years has been followed by a great increase in the price of rent? —I do not think there can be any doubt of it. This has been the experience in Dunedin. 328. Mr. McCutchan.] You spoke of land being the birthright of the whole people, in the same way as the air ? —That is perfectly correct. 329. Why do you make that statement? —I make that statement because no man can live without land and no man can live without air. 330. We will admit the correctness of your statement with regard to air, but why cannot a man live without land? —Because he must live off' the products of the land. If there was no land to grow produce a man could not live. What is he to live on. 331. But every man is not a producer from the land? —I never for one moment said he was. 332. Therefore it cannot be his birthright? —Every man born into the world has a perfect right to have a share of what is absolutely necessary for his existence. We do not say for one moment that every man is a producer. 333. I think we have heard that statement about land being the birthright of the people a great many times, not only from politicians but from gentlemen like yourself, and I think it is a matter which requires very close analysis. I suppose you have been a student of the old Mosaic land laws ? —I cannot say that I have 334. It was mentioned there, as a general statement, that the land was the birthright of the people, but the explanation is very simple —the land was the birthright, and was secured to those wht) were prepared to go on it and make it reproductive. All our land laws go back to the old Mosaic land laws, and there never were wiser laws; but they had entirely different laws for the people living in the cities, because the circumstances were entirely different. So that when you make the statement that the land is the birthright of the people I take objection to it straight away? —I not only contend that, but I believe all political economists of modern times hold the same Views. I do not profess to have the same knowledge of these things as the writers of political economy, but they will all tell you that the land belongs to the people, and that you have no more right to sell the laud than the air, because it is absolutely necessary to existence. 335. With reference to the £9,000,000 of unearned increment that has accrued from 1903 to 1904? —That is in the Year-book. 336. We had a witness here this morning—Mr. Barclay —and he made a somewhat different statement. He said that the unimproved value, which, of course, includes the unearned increment, from 1891 to 1904 was £36,000,000? —That may be correct; the two statements do not clash. 337. You claim that the whole if this £9,000,000 belongs to the State generally because it is unearned? —I do. 338. What is it that gives the increased value to land? —The public expenditure of money to a great extent, and also the density of population. 339. The expenditure by the public generally? —One Commissioner spoke about Sir Julius Vogel's borrowing policy, and that is the sort of thing that has given it. You and I have to pay the interest on that although we do not own an acre of land. 340. Try to be a little more concise: you state that the £9,000,000 have been produced by general State expenditure? I do not say it is all so produced, but I say that to a great extent it may have been produced by the community. If the population of Dunedin gets denser up goes the price of land.
C.-4.
334
[b. FERGUSON.
341. Of course, you are aware that our inquiry has to do with Crown lands, and in reference to them 1 will ask you this question: have you looked into the amount of expenditure that has actually been made by the settlers, independent of the general public, in roading the country ? —■ I have not looked into it, but 1 am quite willing to admit they are entitled to all that. 342. We will suppose that your scheme is carried into general operation, and all freeholds are abolished, and that all land, both rural and town, is under the leasehold system: would you fix your rents simply to bring in the revenue that is required? —I would consider the capital value of the land and get a fair interest on that. 343. Would you abolish all taxation? —It is immaterial whether you put the tax on the people. The money must come from the land some way. 344. Is your object to meet all the taxation of the country by the rent from the land ? —I would not like to say the whole of the taxation, because that would be single tax pure and simple. I would not go to that extent. 345. Would you still continue Customs duties? —I have not gone into the details of that. I am convinced the money you would get from the unearned increment of the land would decrease the burden of the debt per head. 346. You made a statement that all political economists advocate a somewhat similar scheme? —I said, so far as I know, and 1 believe that is correct —that is, political economists of modern times. 347. Are you a student of Adam Smith? —Adam Smith lived some 130 years ago, and what was applicable to his time is not applicable to the present day. So far as I have read Adam Smith —and the best work he ever wrote is " The Wealth of Nations "—he never mentions anything about that sort of thing, because the sujbject was never before the public. 348. Do you make that statement with the fullest sense of the responsibility of what you state? —I do. 349. And you say Adam Smith said nothing in regard to the matter we are considering today? —I do not say he did not refer to the land question, but, so far as I have read Adam Smith, he never touched upon that question. He took it for granted that the freehold was right, because the question had never been before the then public. 350. Mr. Matheson.] You said that increasing wages only enriches the landholders? —Yes, it has that tendency. The landowner is the man who gets the principal benefit from it. 351. Then, if increasing wages only enriches the landlords, why try and get the wages increased? —Perhaps I have not made myself clear. What I intended to say was that immediately the colony was prosperous and public money spent on works the value of land went up. No matter whether the workers got increased wages or not he has to pay an increased rent. 352. Do you think that the simplest way to enrich the colony is to increase its productiveness? —Yes. 353. Suppose it could be shown that by granting the freehold the country would be made more productive, would you be in favour of granting the freehold? —No, because I am decidedly of opinion that in the long-run it would be very bad for the colony to grant the freehold. 354. Supposing the farmers said_, " Unless we can get the ownership of the land we will go elsewhere and get it," what would be the position of the town people then?— 1 do not think the farmers would say that. The farmers take up leaseholds and the holders have no difficulty in getting rid of their leases. 355. Mr. Paul.J Do you know of any prosperous country where there are no towns or cities as well as farming country? 1 do not know how the farmers would get on if there were no cities. 356. You think their interests are mutually dependent?— Yes. 357. Can you tell us whether the labour party is anxious to promote closer settlement —are they in favour of the land-for-settlements policy? —Yes. 358. Do they think that by giving the option of the freehold in the case of improved estates that there is a danger of the land-for-settlements policy failing? —That policy would be rendered abortive if you granted the freehold under the Land for Settlements Act. 359. Do you know of any leaseholds that have good buildings on them? —Yes; large numbers. 360. Do you believe there is a natural yearning for the freehold? —As I have said, there is a natural yearning for many things. 361. Do you not think the " natural yearning " for the freehold is aided by the fact that freehold pays very well? —Yes. 362. Do you not think there is a very great difference between town land or improved estates and bush land —for instance, it may be probable that a bush settler would require a low rental or no rental at all? —1 would give the busli settler every facility —1 would give him the use of the land for nothing, for that matter. I would give him every possible inducement to settle on the land. 363. If the obstacles he has to overcome are so stupendous, do you not think the State should aid him? —Yes, if he is doing pioneer work. He has the sympathy of the labour party, and lie should have every consideration he is justly entitled to; but we say the unearned increment should be reserved for the people of the colony. 364. In respect to retrospective revaluation, did you ever hear the labour party wishing to apply that principle? —No. 365. Did you ever heal' it suggested that there should be revaluation every three or five years? —No. 366. Would you favour the provisions under the Land for Settlements Act which apply to workmen's homes being brought into operation —that is, acquiring land in close proximity to the cities ? —Yes. 367. The Old Country has been mentioned: was it not the freehold system that led to the aggregation of estates at Home? —Yes. The extreme poverty in the Home Country is caused through the land laws.
335
C—4.
E. FERGUSON.]
368. It has been said that there is no such thing as unearned increment: if it turns out that there is no such thing, then the State cannot get it? —That is so. 369. Then, the man in the country has nothing to lose if there is no unearned increment?— That is so. 370. Do you agree with a land-tax without any exemption? —I would not care to give an opinion on that matter at once. 371. If there were a land-tax in operation without any exemptions, would not that, be a fair means of revenue? —Yes, and it might enable the Government to do away with the Customs tariff on articles which cannot be produced in the colony. 372. That would be nothing in the shape of a class tax it would apply generally? —Yes. 373. Mr. Amtey.\ You said the land-tax without exemptions would be fair, and then you could do away with the Customs? —I said if this tax were in existence it would be equitable and would possibly do away with some of the Customs duties, or reduce taxation in some other way. 374. You say it would be an equitable tax? —Yes. 375. Mr. McCardle.\ There is a £500 exemption: do you not think that is a fair exemption? —I have not seriously considered that question. 376. The men who hold these small holdings do not earn nearly the wages that the labourer in the town does. The average earnings of these men is about £70 a year, and they have families to keep and to pay interest on their money? —I do not dispute that for a moment. John Lethbridge examined. 377. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am Dunedin manager of Dalgety and Co. (Limited), and I have been twenty-one years here. 378. We wish to have your advice and knowledge about the grassing of runs, and about seeding them, &c. ? —I might explain that one of the reasons of my being here to-day is a letter I have received from the Commissioner of Crown Lands. I received the letter on behalf of the owners of Morven Hills Station, for whom we act as agents. After the snow-storm in 1903 we applied for some relief, and evidence was given by the manager and others before the Lands Committee of the House of Representatives in reference to the Pastoral Tenants' Relief Bill. At the time I was in England on a visit. The Bill was not brought in, and consequently I had to consider what was the best course to adopt. Before the snow-storm of 1895 the run had ninety-eight thousand sheep on it, and after the last snow-storm it had only thirty-eight thousand sheep on it. The lease has only five years to run from the Ist of this month, and owing to the fact that valuation is only allowed to the extent of three times the rental, we found ourselves in the very awkward position that we could not see our way to spend money to stock it again. The place cannot be worked to the best advantage without a great deal of subdivisional fencing. I therefore thought the only possible course was to apply to the Land Board for permission to surrender. I understand the Board recommended that the owners should be allowed to surrender, provided they would give a guarantee to take it up at the reduced upset. The application and recommendation were sent to the Minister of Lands, and I have received a letter saying that as the Land Commission had commenced its labours, he, the Minister, thought it might be referred to them. This is the letter I have received: — " Department of Lands and Survey, Dunedin, 7th March, 1905. " Morven Hills Station. " The Manager, Dalgety and Co. (Limited), Dunedin. "Re feudinc to your letter of the 28th December last, and to previous correspondence on the subject of the losses sustained in respect of the Morven Hills Runs and proposed surrender of the pastoral license thereof, I have to inform you that the Under-Secretary for Lands has advised me ■that, the matter has been under the consideration of (he Hon. the Minister of Lands, who, in view of the fact that the Land Cimmission has commenced its labours, one of the matters for inquiry being the dealing with pastoral lands in Otago, considers it advisable that no action in the direction of accepting surrender should at present be taken, he meanwhile declining to agree to the recommendation of the Land Board. The Under-Secretary also suggests that all matters in connection with the Otago runs be placed before the Land Commission on its arrival in Dunedin. I may mention for your information that the Commission will be in the vicinity of Morven Hills, i.e. at Pembroke, on the 11th and 12th instant, leaving there on the 13th for Cromwell via Hawea. Perhaps it would be well if your Mr. McWEirter were to meet the Commission at either of these places, or en route, and make such representations to it as j'ou may deem advisable. " D. Barron, Commissioner of Crown Lands." I may say at once that this run does not belong to Dalgety and Co. (Limited). We are merely agents for the owners. I might here state that previously there were a number of other owners, but the losses on the station were so great that one by one they were glad to sell out their holdings to the remaining partners at a very large sacrifice, because for many years past they had to pay tip the losses. The acreage of the run is 320,000, and the rent £2,750. It was formerlv £4,500, and at one time it was between £10,000 and £11,000. That was the result of competition, and, as I have shown, resulted in very heavy losses. 379. What are you prepared to give as rent? —I have a letter T sent to the Commissioner of Crown Lands on the sth January, 1904, after the snow-storm, in which I suggested £750 as rental and £250 to be spent on grass-seed, as a fair arrangement. The cost of rabbiting has amounted to a very large sum —for fourteen years it amounted to £58,010. It is the gross expenditure I have been giving. The average number of men employed during each year in rabbiting was 157. 380. Mr. Johnston.'] What is the cost, of rabbiting? —T cannot say. It varies during different years. 381. Do the skins balance the expenses?—No, not nearly. Sometimes when skins have been up to 2s. 6d, they have nearly balanced, but, as a rule, they average Is. or Is. Bd.
[j. LETTTBEIDGE.
336
C— 4,
382. Mr. Matheson.] Do I understand that during good years the skins nearly balance the £4,000 expenditure?—ln very exceptional years. The amount of winter country is a very small proportion of the country, and, unfortunately, the winter country has been very much deteriorated in late years. I think 'Mr. McWhirter explained to the Commission that on some parts of the run there is scarcely a blade of grass left -it is all covered with lichen; but on the shady side it is tussock. The great difficulty is the want of winter country. Although the area appears very lar<*e on paper the run is not easily worked. My own idea is that the only way would be to systematically grow some winter feed" in order to keep the young sheep and the ewes in times of W ;?83. You have grown 300 acres of turnips this year?— That is nothing like what is needed. In order to grow winter feed in sufficient quantity we would first have to obtain water-rights, but until the authorities do something we cannot undertake the expenditure. It would be useless for us to cut races. In fact, we have no right to cultivate pastoral land. 384. You think you should get a reduction in rent, that Ihe lease should be given to you tor twenty-one years, and that an undertaking be given by the Government that they will not take any of the land under the Land for Settlements Act?-Yes, but we want more than that We would require to be able to exchange the freeholds in order to be able to irrigate the land, and then the question as to improvements would have to be altered. 385. The Chairman.] As to the large loss of sheep in the winter, have you plenty of low land to work the thirty-eight thousand sheep on safely, and to carry them on through the winter ? —If there was a very bad winter I could not say. Probably with more subdivision fences it would carry them a little safer. 386. What is the average clip up there? —I think, about i lb., but this year it lias been exceptionally good. . .. 387 Mr Matheson.] When the lease was taken up on the last occasion was there public competition ?—Under the Pastoral Tenants' Relief Act the rent was fixed at a certain amount, and a new lease of fourteen years was given to us. 388. But the" previous lease was open to public competition ?—' Yes. 389. Supposing the Crown resumed the pre-emptive right and capitalised the value, and assessed the rent on the whole run with the irrigation block, and then put it up to public competition, would that be a reasonable thing to do?— Yes, provided the Act with regard to pastoral runs was so framed that we could get valuation for improvements for future work. 390 Mr Anrtey.] AVe have heard some rather contradictory evidence about the Morven Hills Run. Perhaps you'could tell us whether it would be suitable for dividing into small runs-not necessarily over small, but smaller than its present area?— Personally, Ido not think it can. After the passing of Sir John McKenzie's Land Act some three runs fell in and were grouped, but no one bid for them, although offered several times. It was absolutely essential that some runs falling in during the following year should be retained. No one else bid for them. Then the late Mr. Maitland, Commissioner of Crown Lands, suggested we should take up the land under a temporary license, but we declined. He, however, pressed us, and eventually we took it up in that way. 391. Supposing the State were to acquire some of the land that is suitable, could it be cut out?— The low country I spoke of is a piece of the run. 392. It would largely increase the winter country if you irrigated it?—the area that is suitable for irrigation is comparatively small. I do not know that it would very largely increase the carrying-capacity of the run, but it would give us a stand-by in the case of a severe snowstorm so that we would not lose so many sheep. , . . , 393. Supposing all the advantages were taken of irrigation, could it not be reduced in size <— I do not think it could be subdivided in that way. 394. Regarding the right of cultivation on these runs, I understand that you have no such 395 Can vou see any reason why tenants holding these leases should be debarred from cultivating some of the land?—No, but there should lie a regulation that any land broken up should be left in grass at the end of the term. _ , , . 396. Provided there are strict conditions in respect to grassing you see no reason tor restrictions as to cultivation ?—No. , c , ... 397 Mr Matheson 1 Would you restrict the tenant from selling the produce from the cultivated land'—Yes I have here a statement drawn up by Mr. Sciffe, manager of the Mount Pisa Station, which bears upon the question of valuation for improvements. I will hand in the statement for the information of the Commission. , 398 Have any of your clients done surface-sowing on runs?— Only to a small extent, but in Southland it has been tried rather extensively in the damper climate, and I understand it has been a success In the case of runs in Central Otago it has been tried where there is sufficient moisture, and so far it has been very successful, but it has only been tried on a small scale. 399. What grasses have been used? Chiefly cocksfoot and fescue. 400. Any dogstail?—l have not heard of any. M , ... , v T .. , 401 Could not those runs be improved considerably by irrigation? No. In the particular case T am referring to there is a very small area that water can be taken to. I went carefully over it again about eighteen months ago for the purpose of seeing what land could be irrigated, and I saw that the area was very limited. , ..... v 402 Mr Johnston 1 Was the reduction in rent made after the snow-storm in 1895?— Yes. 403". And in 1878 the land was rented at £10,000?— Previous to that 1 think the rental was about £3,500, but there was very great competition for the land, and many people got ruined by running up the rental of the runs. , „ , . T ± 404. What do you reckon the average expenses per head of merjno sheep! 1 cannot say,
A. D. BELL.I
337
C—4
Alfred Dillon Bell examined. 405. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a runholder, and live at the Shag Valley Station. I have a leasehold run there. lam also a runholder in Central Otago. I have only a small run at Shag Valley, and my run in Central Otago is at Ida Valley. I only wish to speak as a runholder. The area of the run is about 70,000 acres. The lease was originally for fourteen years, and there are five years now to run. The rent is £794 a year. The run carries eighteen thousand merino sheep. There are only a few cattle about the homestead. 406. What do you wish to specially bring before the Commission ?--To lay the position of the runholder before the Commission. I wish the Commission to understand, from a runholder's point of view, that the time has come when the runholders themselves think they have not received and are not receiving quite sufficient consideration, in view of their long settlement of the country. I may say, with respect to the Ida Valley Run, that it was held by my father before me and also by myself now for something like fifty years. During that time we have given up without a murmur the land that was required to be taken for settlement purposes by the Government and the Land Board, although thousands of acres of the best of the country has been disappearing, and we have been left with the poorer land. That is shown by the fact that the 70,000 acres which we now hold will only carry eighteen thousand sheep. From time to time we have lost blocks extending from 4,000 to 8,000 acres, and, as I have said, the land taken has been the very best. But there comes a time, from the leaseholder's point of view, when he feels that if this process of taking the land is indefinitely extended he must go. I think it is a fair question for this Commission to consider whether the runholder really ought, as a principle of public policy, to be made to go. If that is the conclusion arrived at, of course, it must be submitted to; but I think there are fair reasons to suppose that the runholders during all the time that the country was not alleged to be required for smaller settlement have been occupying the land and doing good work. I think I can say that every one who knows Central Otago must see that the runholders there are anything but rich men. We have, as I have said, given up our best land from time to time without a murmur. We have been compelled to remove our lambs and put them on country where we formerly put older sheep, and we have been compelled to graze our ewes on land that was before considered only fit for mountain wethers. In the meantime we have been, in our own opinion, fairly good settlers, though we have incurred the odium that was so well expressed by a gentleman who to-day gave evidence to the Commission. We have, as the law allowed, acquired a little freehold, and on that freehold we have l'air homesteads, and have cultivated and fenced the land round the homesteads, and have done our best to make ourselves permanent settlers in the country, and in nine cases out of ten we have lived on our own properties. I may say that in my own case I have lived on my property all my life. The number of days I spend off my property in a year can almost be counted upon the fingers of my two hands, and that is the case with a great many of us. I may add that we do not live upon these places entirely in comfort and luxury. I cannot myself claim to be a " worker " as I heard a worker defined in the evidence given before the Commission to-day, because I never work more than fourteen hours a day if I can help it ; but we have certain disabilities which we labour under. For instance, there are no schools near at hand, and ■that necessitates employing private tuition for our children. We have not also many of the comforts of civilisation ; but we are willing enough to stand that. What I wish the Commission to understand is that a great many of us have been on the land from ten to forty years, and have remained there with perfect content, and we have not at the end of that time become wealthy men. Indeed, the best of us have, I may say, just been able to hold our heads above water, and during all that time we have had to endure seeing the best of our land disappearing from us in the interests of settlement, until now we are practically only left with the back country. Now the time has arrived when not only can the process I have described not be carried, generally speaking, any further without ruining us, but we honestly believe it cannot be carried out any further with advantage to the country, because if it is the case that we, who have lived frugal lives and who have done our very best and who have worked hard—if it is true, as I think you will find on investigation, that we have arrived at the present period of our lives without being rich men — it stands to reason that if the rest of our lives is to be devoted to making our living from our worst land while others hold the best of the country round about us, we have not, generally, got more land than is required for the industry. I recognise that settlement must spread, but I think that in Central Otago the time has arrived when the country will not be benefited by exterminating the squatter. We feel sure that in many cases smaller areas cannot be profitably held, and if the present system is carried on it must result in the extermination of the men who have been good settlers for the last half-century, and it will result in their extermination without any corresponding benefit to the State. In fact, it will be the reverse also to those who will succeed us when the land is divided. That is my honest opinion. Personally interested as I am, I do not expect my words to be taken as gospel, but I claim this: that at least I inherit from one of the founders of this country an absolute command never in my own interest to stand in the way of the necessary march of settlement. I have no sympathy with any squatter who comes here and says that he defies the march of settlement. I have never made any objection to any land being taken from me, although too much has been taken away from me already. At Shag Valley I have been driven to become a freeholder by the process of settlement, which has spread over more than 100,000 acres of country which I once held on lease, and all of which has from time to time been taken for smaller settlements, leaving me only 15,000 acres of mountain land under lease, upon which lambs cannot possibly be grown, because it was impossible to work the place without certain/ portions of it. I had to buy some lahd on the low country, or else the home which had been ours for many years would have had to go. That is the position of a great many of us to-day. I earnestly put that forward as a matter for the consideration of the Commission. Remember that when you take one of these properties and cut it up into small sections —and let us assume that I am wrong and that the State will benefit —the squatter who is situated on his little bit of freehold
43—C. 4.
C—4.
338
[A. D. BELL.
in the desert, which for the last forty years has been bringing in a revenue to the State when no one else wanted it, and which but for the squatter would have been left to the rabbit—l ask you to remember that you will not even allow that man to take up 5,000 acres around his property, because residence on the leasehold is compulsory. The house is off the boundary, and therefore he shall not have a single acre, and the person who takes up the small run shall have the squatter's freehold for a song. It may have cost the owner £5,000 to £10,000, but it is absolutely worthless because the squatter cannot take up a single acre of land. I think, as a matter of public policy, that where you find one of these properties in Central Otago you should recognise that the owner who has been a good settler should be allowed a workable portion of his run, bearing some relation to the magnitude of his homestead buildings and plant, without competition, and at a fair rent to be fixed by the State. There is another point I would like to bring before you. In the country we have been speaking of there is a factory for the production of the merino sheep of New Zealand, and these small nests of the merino sheep are getting much smaller, and this is another question of public policy. lam not claiming to be entirely unselfish in the matter, but I sincerely believe that New Zealand requires to make provision against being compelled to import merino sheep from Australia. I believe that New Zealand requires to conserve a portion of that area where people like myself have given up the attractions of country suitable to the longwool sheep for country suitable for the maintenance of merino flocks. I had an instance of that where, this year, a man came to Ida Valley, Puketoi, North Burn, and those places, and took away an enormous train-load of merinos, stating that "we must have these sheep." That man is a good breeder and wanted the sheep to renew his flocks. In the papers we have already had hints of the necessity of renewing with merinos. The merino is necessary to the prosperity of New Zealand, and if the prSsent close settlement continues in this district the merino will disappear and their place be taken by crossbreds and longwools. It is a question for you to consider as a matter of public policy whether, even supposing it is right to exterminate the squatters of Central Otago at one blow, and that by doing so the State will benefit—l say it is a question of public policy whether it is desirable to "destroy one of the few centres of merino sheep breeding that still exist in this country, and so make us dependent on importations from Australia for successful breeding in the future. Frankly, the object of my giving evidence before you is for the purpose of making clear that a body of squatters and runholders in Central Otago and Canterbury are not the criminals we are represented to be; that we have fulfilled a good function in the past and should be allowed still to exist, even if our holdings must be still further cut down. 407. What is the altitude your country runs to? —The lowest point on Ida Valley, around the homestead, is 1,300 ft. It runs up to 3,000 ft. at the Rough Ridge. 408. Whilst making a plea for the existence of the runholders you made a remark which seemed to imply that Ida Valley Station might be subdivided somewhat, and that if so the law should be so altered that you who have been connected with it from infancy should be allowed to take up a substantial part of the run free of competition. Could the run be so subdivided ?—' Yes; I think a portion could still be taken off Ida Valley Station. 409. It was farming land that was taken away?- The first portions that were taken, some 8,000 or 12,000 acres, grew crops, and sheep. The remainder that was taken, some 12,000 acres, was for small grazing-runs. 410. If the run was taken from you the extensive buildings you have on the homestead would be of no value to you? —No. We once carried forty-three thousand sheep on the run, and now are only able to carry eighteen thousand, so that already the buildings and plant are beyond requirements. 411. Mr. Hall.] You hold that the Government should carefully consider the matter before encroaching on the runs or taking any action that will make the run valueless? —Any action to the extent that will make the run valueless. 412. Fixity of tenure and a legal tenure"should be given in future? —Yes. 413. It has previously been put before us that there is a necessity of having merino sheep bred in the colony for the sake of keeping up the status of the flocks: you affirm that?— Certainly. 414. Merino sheep can only be bred to advantage on the high country? —Yes; and you are quite aware that when a large holding becomes several small ones the merino sheep disappear at once. Small owners, quite rightly, invariably turn to the longwools. 415. Mr. Anstey.] Generally speaking, the cutting up of runs in Otago has about reached the economic point?— Precisely. 416. Would the large runs like, say, Ida Valley maintain as many individuals at the present time as they would if cut up ?—lf I answered that question honestly I would be held to answer very dishonestly. I say Ida Valley would not carry any more men than it does now. I have married men in my service there and where I live who have been with me for thirty years. They have lived on the place, and their families have grown up on it, and in some instances have taken service with me, and these people and all the other hands are threatened with the extinction of their employment if the run was extensively cut up. I believe that those places will not successfully carry the number of people that they do now or pay the amount of wages that is now paid. 417. Did the taking-away of the low country from Kyeburn Run affect the carrying-capacity of the run? —That run used to carry sixty thousand sheep; it now carries sixteen thousand. 418. None of the high country was taken away?— None. Kyeburn was ruinously dealt with. 419. The carrying-capacity was reduced without any advantage? —That is so. The rent had to be very materially reduced too. 420. Have they done any grassing at Kyeburn? —If you held a grazing-run at Central Otago you would hardly ask that question. It is impossible to make improvements where any improvements you make reduces your chance of getting that country again. I have myself no experience to give in reply to that question. 421. If better conditions of lease were given you do you think it would be worth trying, and
A. D. BELL.]
339
0.-4.
trying to advantage? —If such an offer were made to me the first thing 1 would do would be to carefully re-examine everything I own, with a view of seeing whether any such experiment was possible, and, if so, I would carry it out with the greatest pleasure, providing that such improvement would not be the means of cutting my own throat afterwards in the matter of my lease. 422. Is there any Californian thistle on Shag Valley or Ida Valley Stations? —I have never seen it on Ida Valley, but I have seen a few bits about Shag Valley. 423. Any ragwort? —I have never seen it except in Southland. • 424. Have you ever known Central Otago settlers sow cleanings from seed-cleaning machines? —No. 425. Has the carrying-capacity of Otago generally been decreased as regards sheep? —Very much. 426. Mr. Matheson.~\ You have given Mr. Johnston an answer with regard to the carryingcapacity of the places if cut up : supposing on Ida Valley you were left with an area for carrying merino and the remainder was cut up, would the products exceed the present products in value? — No. My conviction is that it would not do so, for the reason that merinos require a considerable range in order to produce the best results. From the experience of our neighbours having small holdings alongside us, we do not believe that the sheep with the small range can produce at the same rate as on the large runs. 427. Do you think the length of lease satisfactory? —Yes, if unbreakable for twenty-one years it would be satisfactory. 428. You want to be able to say that the land is yours for twenty-one years? —Yes. 429. At present you are liable to interference by closer settlement? —Yes. Where further deductions from the runs are required for settlement I urge that the present occupier should be offered a lease of a substantial part. 430. Under a twenty-one-years lease you would get fixity of tenure? —Yes. We look upon it as a grievance that as soon as we are displaced the people who come on in our place are given an unbreakable lease, which is denied to ourselves. 431. It was pointed out by one witness this morning that a certain run—Patearoa —was cut up into small grazing-runs, and the total rental was less than previously for the large pastoral run ? That has also happened to me. 432. A large portion of country has been taken at Shag Valley and settled: generally speaking, is that a prosperous settlement I —There are a good many on it, but I would not like to say that they are all prosperous or are not all prosperous. I think the best answer to your question is that there is no conspicuous prosperity, and the rents are less than 1 gave for the run as a whole. A great many of them are now personal friends of mine, and I eirploy them as musterers, and so on. I do not think they are making a great deal out of the properties. They come to me and do shearing, mustering, harvesting, and so on, to this day, and therefore I do not think they are men whose holdings independently maintain them. 433. You would not say that the closer settlement has been a failure? —I would not like to say that. It has surrounded me with a lot of fellows that I like, and would miss very much if I lost them now. William Lindsay Ckaig examined. 434. The Chairman.] You are District Land Valuer for the Government?— Yes. I commenced valuing in 1882, and I have been District Valuer since the inception of the Government Valuation of Land Act eight years ago. Previous to that I valued for the Government for land and property tax. 435. You have a great knowledge of the country? —Yes. 436. Are the values going steadily up all over the district you are working in? —On firstclass land there is a considerable rise in value, on second-class there is a moderate advance, and on poor country there is little or no advance. 437. Are there many appeals from the increases in valuation by your Department? —Recently I valued from Taieri River to Owaka, and from Waipori River to Lovell's Flat. There were in all about fifteen hundred assessments of farms and town lots, and the number of appeals were about thirty, and many of these were simply adjustments as between the value of the land and the value of the improvements. I may also say that last year I revalued the whole of Otago Peninsula. In that case there were about sixty objections to the valuation, but no one appeared at the Court. Two objectors came, but they were too late. 438. What is the percentage of increase on the unimproved value, say, for a period of five years? —For first-class land 25 per cent., second-class land about 15 per cent., and probably little or none for third-class land. 439. Mr. Anstey.] Is there any bush land in your district? —Yes, in South Molyneux and on the Peninsula. 440. What increase, generally speaking, is there in the unimproved value of bush land ? — Some of it has gone back. In South Molyneux a good many, after clearing a considerable area, have found that the land goes back so quickly to scrub again that they have abandoned it. 441. In what way do you value the improvements when the land has gone back to scrub? —I take the improvements at the selling-value at the time of the visit. We consider not the cost of the improvements, but what those improvements would sell for along with the lease. 442. Let us assume that a man has felled bush, and, say, the selling-value of it is £2 an acre: you go back again and find that it is all grown over with scrub? —We would have to write it down then. I know one case where it cost',£2 an acre to fell the bush and another £1 an acre to sow, log, and so forth, and that country is now practically in its natural state again. 443. In the case of a highly improved and well-farmed bush section which was originally under heavy bush twenty years ago, how do you ascertain the value of the improvements on it? —
C—4.
340
[W. L. ORAIG.
We have to go a good deal by the general appearance, and, of course, we take into consideration the nature of the surrounding bush. 444. A good deal of it is guesswork? Yes, in that class of valuation. 445. It is quite possible that a man might put improvements 011 his land that are not recognisable twenty-one years afterwards? —You cannot tell exactly. You go by the evidence of the people and the unimproved land surrounding it. 446. Some people say they must have the freehold in order to have secured to them the full value of their improvements: your evidence practically confirms that point of view ? -It would be very difficult indeed to arrive at the full value of the improvements, it just occurs to me now that there is a proposal on the part of the Advances to Settlers Department to lend up to threefifths of the value of improvements. 1 do not consider that would be quite safe. Of course, it would be guarded against in this way : that the valuer would be more guarded in his valuation, and in that way it might not act so much against the Department as it would appear. In the case of a cleared section which may have cost £3 an acre to remove the bush and grass it, where we see indications of scrub coming and we know that by a little neglect on the holder's part the value will go back again, we safeguard against that in the valuation. 447. In other words, it is not wise to lay down a percentage of improvements. There ought to be different percentages for lending on for different improvements. It would be quite safe to lend up to three-fifths on fences, or, say, a good house? —No. 1 have known a house that cost £200 in five or six years become almost worthless through the wood-borer, where the house has been built of white-pine. 448. You think a half is sufficient to lend up to? —Yes. 449. Mr. McCulchan.] Are your valuations always taken by the Advances to Settlers Department?- We always make a valuation at the time the loan is applied for. 450. Are these loans not sometimes applied for for the paying of improvements already on the ground? Say a man is putting up a house. He is pretty confident of getting an advance, and he proceeds with the work, but nothing is paid for. He applies for the advance, and the valuer goes there and sees the house. In that case, can a man get an advance up to more than one-half ?- -In some cases men have applied for advances to build a house and the Department have agreed to lend, subject to getting a receipt from the valuer that the house had been erected costing a specified sum of money. 451. That is on all-fours with the case of the house being there? —Yes. 452. Is there any scale of price in regard to bushfelling and grassing I We examine very carefully that class of improvements, and it varies very much. 453. What value do you usually allow for bushfelling2- That varies according to the class of bush —from £1 to £3 per acre. 454. Where the country goes to scrub you write down the value of improvements? —Yes. 455. In that case the proportion of the unimproved value has increased largely? —No; the unimproved value remains and the improvements are reduced. 456. Do you find that the scrub coining through is largely the fault of the settler in not stocking judiciously?- Even in the case of a good settler there is a difficulty in regard to scrub. The climate is wet and you can seldom get a clean burn. 457. Are you satisfied that the unimproved value is a thing that can be clearly defined, or would you say that the capital value was the sounder basis ?- By taking the value of the section and the selling-value of the improvements and deducting the one from the other you get the unimproved value. 458. You have just been showing us that the value of a great many improvements vanishes not merely in fact, but they vanish from sight and yet remain. There are improvements which may be effected and yet in future years are unseen, though they still remain ? —You cannot arrive at that very definitely. 459. Do you think the unimproved value is a satisfactory rating basis, or do you think it would be sounder to tax on the capital value? —I think on the capital value is the fairest for local rates. 460. Mr. Paul.] Can you give us an idea of the rise in value on Otago Peninsula in five years?- About £117,000, I think, was the increase from the previous valuation seven years before. That is, on the capital value. 461. What would be the percentage of increase on the unimproved value? —Speaking from memory, I should say about 20 per cent. Of course, it is greater nearer the city, and further away the increase is very slight. I may mention that when bush country on the Peninsula is cleared now it comes up mostly Canadian thistle. 462. You do not say it is impossible to value improvements?—No, but there is a certain amount of guesswork in valuing improvements done twenty years ago. 463. Is it not possible to keep an annual inventory of improvements?- Not on every farm all over New Zealand. It would require an army of valuers. 464. But you revalue the land very frequently: what is to prevent you making an inventory of improvements and their value on a farm now and at a subsequent revaluation ? —That is what we do now, but it takes me all my time at present, and I have to get assistance sometimes for revision work. If we had to do each farm more frequently than now it would require more time to take a very close inventory annually. 465. You think it could be done satisfactorily ?—Yes.
Palmerston, Wednesday, 29th March, 1905. George Clark examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am a small graziug-run settler at Macrae's, about thirty miles from here. I have 3,300 acres, and I have held them about ten years, and lam paying about Bjd. per acre. In addition to that area I have about 1,200 acres, partly on freehold and partly under perpetual lease. I carry about eighteen hundred sheep on the whole place. I have no cattle. I cultivate about 30 or 40 acres in turnips every year. My small graziug-run lies from 1,600 ft. to 2,000 ft. above sea-level, and my other coun-try about 1,500 ft. 2. Do you suffer from the snow much? —Yes, a bad snow-storm takes the sheep down very considerably. The snow lies a good while. Of course, my death-rate is heavier in the spring, because the sheep do not actually die in the snow-storm. My death-rate is very high. I run a thousand to thirteen hundred ewes, and 1 lose fully two hundred every year, and sometimes three hundred. My percentage of losses ranges from 16 to 25 per cent. 3. Do you require to buy sheep to keep up your stock?- No, 1 have not required to do so so far. With bad lambing and heavy mortality I cannot sell, that is all. 4. What breed of sheep have you ? —Halfbreds. My average clip is perhaps up to 5Js lb. 5. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I want to state that my rent is too high. On the one side of my land there is a small grazing-run held at 4d. per acre, and on the other side there is another one at sd. per acre. It is very much the same country as mine, and it was taken up at the same time as mine, but the tenants surrendered and got a reduction. I did not surrender. It is a good few years since they surrendered. 6. Did you not think of doing the same?- Yes, but I did not want to lose my run, to tell the truth. I have a run adjoining it and I manage to pull through. What I want is that the Commission, if they can see their way to do so, should recommend that discretionary power should be given to the Land Board to reduce rents where they are excessive. 7. Is there any other point?—l might mention that the country has been revalued by the Government valuer perhaps two years ago. The capital unimproved value lam paying rent on is 15s. per acre, but the unimproved value as now put by the Government valuer is 10s. per acre, and I am still paying rents and rates on 15s. per acre. 8. Mr. Anstey.] Have you grassed any of this small grazing-run ? —No. 9. Do you think it would be practicable or profitable to do so? —In some places it might, but in other places the country is too bare and dry. 10. Have you any reason for not trying surface-sowing? —I have no particular reason. 11. Would it be necessary for you to get some encouragement in the way of security of tenure or a renewal of lease to sow grass ? —I would if they would give valuation for improvements of that kind. 12. Supposing you got valuation for your improvements Mould you then grass? —Certainly, if I got encouragement. 13. If you surface-sowed the rough country would it increase the carrying-capacity of the country?- Yes, where surface-sowing would take. 14. Suppose you did it where it was profitable to surface-sow, would that stop your heavy mortality? —It is high country, and I believe the native grasses stand the winter-time better than any other grass one could sow. Of course, the English grass would be better food in the summer. 15. Have you any wish to acquire the freehold of your section? —I think it would be better if one could acquire the freehold. 16. Would you like to have the right to purchase? —Yes. 17. Based upon your present rent? —No, because my present rent is undoubtedly higher than the value of the land. If 1 wanted to acquire the land I think the Government valuer's value would be about the thing. 18. Supposing a man was holding a leasehold and the rent was cheaper than the value of the land, and he wished to make the place freehold, on what terms should he get it? —I think, upon the-value of the land. 19. You said you wish the Land Board to have power to reduce your rent? —Yes. 20. Do you think if the Land Boards should reduce the rent when it is too high that they should also have power to increase the rent when it is too cheap?—l suppose a Fair Rent Bill would cut both ways if one was passed. 21. Would you be in favour of a Fair Rent Bill? —I always have been. That is one reason why I hung on so long to my ground; I always believed one would be passed. 22. In the event of your surrendering your run, what becomes of your improvements? Do you get full value for them? —We are supposed to, I think. 23. Mr. McGutchan.] Are you in favour of a Fair Rent Bill in reference to these small graz-ing-runs only? Is it in reference to your own particular circumstances that you advocate a Fair Rent Bill? —No, because I thought it would be fair to the tenants. 24. Do you think that a Fair Rent Bill and periodical revaluation would be fair to a man who had a lease-in-perpetuity section? —I do not know about that. That is a question I have never thought out. 25. Do you advocate a Fair Rent Bill because your small grazing-run is valued too high?— Or if it was too low I would not object to pay a fair price. 26. Suppose you were under the same circumstances as the tenants of the colony with 999years leases, would you then think a Fair Rent Bill fair ? —That is a question I have not gone into. 27. You have a perpetual lease? —Yes. 28. You have the right of purchase with it?—l had, but I do not think I have the right of purchase now. 29. We will suppose you take up a perpetual lease with the right of purchase between the
341
«. CLARK.]
C—4.
C.—4.
342
[g. olabk.
sixth and twelfth years at a certain price, do you think it would be fair to interfere with the purchasing price in any way ? —I think it ought to be purchased at about the fair value of the land. 30. Irrespective of the purchasing clause that has been fixed?—l think so. 31. You advocate reduction in rentals without surrender —in other words, that the Land Board should have the right to revalue?--Yes. 32. Do you think it would be advisable for the tenant to have the right of nominating one person to act for him and the Land Board to nominate another, and these two to appoint an arbitrator ? —I think that is a fair way. 33. You think that is preferable to leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the Land Board ? —Yes. 34. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board ? —1 have nothing to say against them. I have always found them very fair. 35. You think the system of nomination the best system? —I do not know exactly. I have not studied out that question. 36. In speaking of your own land you said it was valued at 155., and that you are paying rates and rents on that sum? —Yes. 37. And the Government valuer's value is 10s.? —Yes. 38. Do not the County Council levy the rates annually? —The rates are fixed on the annual rental and cannot be altered. 39. Is not the Government valuer's valuation taken by the County Council? —It does not affect my rates at all. I went to the Assessment Court about it, and they told me they had nothing to do with the matter. They told me the rates were fixed by statute according to the annual rental. 40. What statute?- That was the statement made to me. 41. Mr. Paul.] I suppose your opinion on revaluation is formed because you see the justice of reducing a man's rent if it is fixed too high; increasing it if it is fixed too low? —Yes, I believe in a fair rent, undoubtedly. 42. You think that is an equitable principle? —Yes. 43. Is your property part of what was once the Shag Valley Run? —Yes. 44. How does the rent you pay compare with the rent the previous owner paid ? —I cannot tell you. 45. A good deal of country has been taken from the old Shag Valley llun: has that country been settled successfully, and are the settlers prosperous? —I think they are fairly prosperous. 46. In regard to the option of the freehold, do you not think it would be fair to put the option up to public auction 2- No. 1 think if a fair price was fixed the tenant should have the first chance of it. 47. Why? —Because he has worked there and spent a lot of his time in making improvements, and if he is a suitable tenant 1 do not see why he should be put out to make room for another man. 48. In dealing with pastoral country it has generally been the custom to give it to the highest bidder. Now you propose to sell this pastoral country, and do you not think it should also go to the highest bidder ?- It has been found that the selling of Crown lands by auction in the past did not work very well. They were run up to beyond their value. 49. Are not a lot of other things that are sold by auction run up to beyond their value? —1 suppose so. 50. You do not advocate the abolition of the auction system altogether because somebody gives more than a thing is worth?— No. 51. Does it not seem to you that the national property —the State lands —are fair game, and that people think they should get them at as reasonable a value as possible? —Yes. 52. Mr. Forbes.J What is the length of your small-grazing-run lease? —Twenty-one years, with the option of renewal after revaluation. 53. How did you come to take up this section if the rent is too high?—lt did not take the stock I thought it would. I miscalculated its capacity. The land is not what I thought it was. 54. If it had turned out better than you thought it would do, would you have been willing to give the Government extra rent during this time I—l1 —I would not have asked them to reduce it, at any rate. 55. Do you not think that a bargain is a bargain, and that if you had bought this place outright as a freehold and found you had made a mistake, there would be very little chance of it being rectified? —There would be no chance of getting it rectified. 56. Mr. Matheson.] If your place was put up to public competition now, do yoti think itwould fetch the rent you are paying?—lt would not. 57. Mr. McCardle.] Have you had some experience of surface-sowing? —Yes. 58. What does it cost per acre? —It all depends on the grass. I never went closely into the question, but for permanent grasses some kind of fescue would be necessary. 59. Or cocksfoot? —Cocksfoot does not do well because the ground is too dry. Clover would not do well either. There is no moisture. 60. Would it cost 10s. per acre? —Yes. 61. That would mean extra rent in the shape of interest to the extent of 6d. per acre? —Yes. 62. Do you think the land would pay you, even if the sowing was fairly successful, at another 6d. per acre? —I do not know that it would. 63. Have you given the question of a Fair Rent Bill very close consideration, or have you only given us your opinion on the spur of the moment? —I think a Fair Rent Bill would be fair to all parties concerned. 64. I understand that a good deal has been made of the fact that Crown tenants are proposing to break their contracts. In your case you are supposed to be making a request that means a breach of your contract, but I view the case in this way: a mistake has been made by the landlord and by the tenant, and in order to make the occupation of that run fair you ask for a rebate of interest. Is there anything out of the common in that?— No.
o; CLARK.
343
0.—4
65. We have quite a number of people settled on the land under 999-years leases, and, according to your theory of a Fair Rent Bill, you would ask these men to undergo a system of revaluation at stated periods: do you think that would be a fair thing on the part of the State? —It should have been put in at the beginning of the contract, of course. 66. You have men taking up the freehold at £1 per acre, and a man under lease in perpetuity gets a 999-years lease and he is paying a fair percentage on a capital value also of £1 per acre — the freeholder stands free of any revaluation, but his unfortunate neighbour is to be subject to revaluation from period to period : do you think that is fair? —Not when you put it like that. 67. To carry your argument to its final conclusion, should not a Fair Rent Bill be made to apply to both leaseholder and freeholder,- in order that it may deal fairly and equitable to all parties concerned in land-settlement? —I do not see how you could apply a Fair Rent Bill to freeholders. 68. You say, then, it would not be fair to revalue a leaseholder?- I say when a man is paying too high a rent and he cannot live at that rental, he ought to get a reduction. It simply means that there must be a revaluation. 69. Do you not think it would be fairer, instead of bringing in a Fair Rent Bill which would be one-sided, to grant extended power to the Land Board to grant a man a fair remission of rent if he has made a mistake? —That is exactly what I want. 70. Then, from your point of view, you do not approve of a Fair Rent Bill? —No, if that would meet the case. 71. Mr. Paul.] In reply to a question you said that if your land was put up to auction you are quite sure no one would give the same rent as you do? —Yes. 72. Then, why do you hesitnie about surrendering? —Because it would be put up at a much lower rental than lam paying, and people would go for the lower rent. But nobody would go for it at the rent I am now paying. 73. And you say you should be able to come to some mutually satisfactory arrangement with the Land Board? —Yes. 74. Mr. An-stei/.] If it was put up at a lower rent would it go by ballot or by auction? —By ballot. Arthur Heckler examined. 75. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am practically a farmer in the Waikouaiti district. lam interested, with eight others, in several lots of land. Three of us hold a small grazing-run of about 600 acres. We are interested as executors in our father's estate of 2,300 acres freehold and about 592 acres under perpetual lease. Besides that, we hold 40 acres of educational reserve. In a good season we carry about two thousand sheep and about fifty head of cattle and a few horses. We cultivate a good deal of grain and root crops on the freehold land for home consumption. Our small grazing-run has a good deal of snow in winter, but it does not lie long. 76. What is the point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I may say that three of us were appointed by the Farmers' Union at Waikouaiti to meet the Commission. I have to apologise for the non-attendance of the other gentlemen, who are busy harvesting. I may say that the union practically gave me a free hand, so that the opinions I express are my own. In regard to Land Board appointments, I think that invariably good men have been appointed, but I think that the Crown tenants should be represented on the Land Board. I would suggest that the Government should appoint three members and th 6 Crown tenants appoint one. 77. You would alter the constitution of the Board to that extent? —Yes. In regard to landtenures, I believe that Crown tenants should have the right to purchase. 78. Do you mean in regard to all leases issued by the Crown? —Yes, all tenants, bar educa-tional-reserve lessees. I think deferred-payment and perpetual-lease systems are the best tenures for the settlement of the country. I also believe that there should be revaluation, say, every twenty-one years. 79. Would you give the tenant the first offer of renewal? —Yes. I think that the tenants should make their holdings freehold, and I think it is both fair to the tenants and the State that there should be revaluation. In regard to the restrictions imposed on Crown tenants, I think that the residence conditions should not be too stringent, and I would let people in business and offices hold sections, as they would probably hold to their business only until their sections and stock were clear of mortgage, &c., and then they would become good settlers. 80. You would enforce conditions of improvements, but not of residence? —That is so. In regard to the conditions of climate, I should open up country so that anybody taking up lowlying country would have to take up a certain amount of high country with it. I have not had any experience of the homestead privileges, and therefore cannot express an opinion. I think that the ballot system is very satisfactory. 81. Are you aware of the working of what is called the second ballot? —I do not know it. I have tried for sections once or twice at the ballot, but I have not been successful. In regard to the question of loading lands for roads, I have not had any experience of that system, but I think that all roads should be a colonial charge. I refer to the original formation of them. 82. Of course, maintenance would be a local charge? —Yes. 83. What degree of construction would you require the Government to do in the first instance? —Formation only. I would leave metalling and maintenance to the local bodies. I think that the Advances to Settlers Department is a grand system. I have had no experience of it. I think that Crown tenants should get every chance to use it. In regard to the condition of occupiers, I think that the freeholder would w"ork his land better than the leaseholder. I believe there are some leaseholders whose sections are farmed just as well as freeholders'; but I think that on the whole the freeholder will husband his farm to the best advantage. In regard to the aggregation of large estates, Ido not think that is going on in our district. A settler may have bought out his neighbour to make his own section a little larger, but that has not gone on to any extent.
C—4.
344
fx. heckler.
I think some of the sections were cut up rather small in our district. I dare say 200 acres would be the average size of the agricultural farms. I would not give the right of the freehold to the educational-reserve tenants. I think all tenants of the Crown and of educational and other reserves should get a liberal valuation for improvements, including drains, grasses plantations, &c. 84. Mr. Anstey.] Can you give us any reason why the tenants on education reserves should not have the same right to acquire the freehold as all other Crown tenants? —I think the land was set apart for a certain purpose, and I think it would be right to stick to it. 85. Are you aware that the revenue from all the primary-education reserves is simply paid direct into the Consolidated Fund and not applied specially in any way, and that the capitation grant is paid out of the Consolidated Fund? —I was not aware of it. 86. Now that you are aware of it do you think that the one set of tenants should be treated differently from the others? —It might be right enough. 87. You think it would be perfectly right to give you the right to acquire the title to your Crown land, but not to your education-reserve lease? —That was my idea. 88. You say you are in favour of revaluation every twenty-one years for renting purposes 1 — I think that would be a fair thing, both for the State and the tenant. 89. Would you apply that to the lease-in-perpetuity tenants as well? —I think I would. 90. Would you be in favour of giving the holders of educational-reserve leases valuation for improvements as well as Crown tenants ? —Certainly. 91. Would you be in favour of passing a law compelling the administrators of these reserves to give tenants valuation for improvements? —Yes; 1 think they are going to do it. 92. Mr. McCutchan.~\ In speaking of Crown tenants having the right to elect one member to the Land Board, upon what suffrage would you give them that right? —On a suffrage confined to themselves. I see the doctors elect one member to the University Council, and I do not see why the Crown tenants should not have the same right. 93. You advocate that Crown tenants should have the right to purchase, but you do not make it quite clear on what terms you would give them that right?- On a revaluation. 94. Do you understand the present right-of-purchase lease: you get a lease for twenty-five years, and from the tenth to the twenty-fifth year you have the right to purchase. When the tenants take up that lease a capital value is put on the land : would you alter that capital value? —I believe it would be fair to have a revaluation, say, every twenty-one years. Of course, if the tenant bought after twenty-five years there would not be much difference. 95. But would you give the right to purchase at the initial cost plus the improvements, which of course, belong to the tenant? —No. 96. Why would you not give the land to the tenant at the original price? —Because it might have gone up in value a great deal since it was let. The land is increasing in value every day. 97. But do you not think that the tenant is instrumental in producing a large amount of that increase? —To a great extent, certainly. 98. Would you not conserve that to him? —If the Crown tenants get a liberal valuation for improvements they would be covered. 99. In the case of bush lands how will you arrive at that valuation, because a number of improvements are not visible after a few years? —If the tenants were allowed to appoint an arbitrator and the Government appointed one the valuation could be arrived at in that way. 100. But neither of the parties might have t a record of the history of that farm back to the time it was taken up as rough bush, and their award would be valueless, because the information would not be available for their guidance. Do you think that under your system practical men would go back and endure the hardships and disabilities of back-country life? —I think a good settler would if he got liberal valuation for improvements. 101. You say you would relax residence conditions in order to allow business-men to take up land and make improvements? —Yes. 102. Would you insist that they should go on the land and reside on it after a number of years? —Yes; I would say after five or six years perhaps. ■ 103. You think loading is unfair, and you advocate roads being a colonial charge up to the point of road-formation : you think metalling should be a local charge? —Yes. 104. How would you finance that? —There is a certain amount of "thirds" and "fourths" coming from these lands. 105. You know they are not " thirds " and " fourths " of the capital value, but of the rental, which really amounts to a very small sum, and this metalling is a very expensive business in the North Island —in some of the back-country districts it runs into £1,000 per mile? —I have not had much experience of the North Island. 106. Do you think that would be a feasible scheme, and that settlement and making the country reproductive would be possible if the metalling of the main arterial roads was made a local charge? —I believe it would. 107. Mr. Paul.] I suppose you think if these education endowments had not been set aside our total sum for education would not be so much as it is at present ? —That is what I think. 108. It does not matter whether it is put into the Consolidated Fund or not so long as we have a large expenditure on education? —Yes. 109. Do you think the present restrictions on Crown tenants are too stringent? —In my experience of the Land Board, they have never harassed the settlers much by their Inspectors or Rangers. 110. Would you exempt the town people from residence under all the systems of leasehold? — Yes. 111. Do you not think in the case of the purchased estates one factor in the success of that policy is getting such estates settled immediately? —I suppose it would be. 112. If the majority of the holders happened to be townspeople, and they did not go and settle on the estate, would that not handicap the rest of the settlers? —I do not see why it should.
345
C.—4,
A. HECKLER.
113. Supposing they wanted to establish creameries and schools, and so forth? —The town holders would doubtless have somebody on their sections to manage for them. 114. You think your scheme could be carried into practical effect? —I think so. 115. Do you mean to say that farming is better done on freehold than on leasehold? I said there were good farmers on both, but, as a rule, I think the freeholder looked after his resources better. 116. Do you see any reason why a freeholder should be a better farmer as compared with a lease-in-perpetuity holder ? —He knows he is working perhaps for his family, and he will not take any more off his farm than it will stand. 117. Who would the lease-in-perpetuity holder be working for? —I suppose under a 999-years lease he would be in the same position as the freeholder. 118. I understand you to say you are in favour of a revaluation of these leases? Yes. 119. Mr. Hall.] Would it not answer the purpose if the County Councils had the nomination of one member of the Land Board to represent the Crown tenants, and so save election expenses? It might answer the purpose. 120. Do you mean that the right of purchase should be made retrospective and to apply to existing leases? —Yes. 121. You think settlers require an incentive to go back to the rough country to reclaim and settle the land, and you think that the freehold would be an incentive? —I think so. 122. Would it be fair to the country for the Government to purchase large estates'with a view to breaking them up, and then sell these estates again? —You could have restrictions to prevent the aggregation of large estates. 123. When these estates were "thrown open for selection many people may not have applied for them, because they did not care for the leasehold tenure. Would it not be fair, then, if they are to be offered under a new tenure with the right of purchase, that they should go up to public competition again in order to give everybody an equal chance? —If the tenant got liberal valuation for improvements the section could go to auction. 124. You think the land should not be loaded for roads?— No. 125. Would you make that apply to land under the Land for Settlements Act?- -I think so. I think the roading should be made a colonial charge. 126. If the tenants get the land at the actual cost of purchase, and if the roading is done in addition, that is also part of the cost, and should be included in the value fixed?— Yes. 127. You think that in the case of town residents, mechanics and others, who have saved money and who look forward to settling on the land, that the residence clauses should not be strictly enforced? —Yes. 128. That is, provided they make substantial improvements?— Yes. 129. The terms should be greatly extended? —Yes. 130. Mr. Forbes.] Following up the question about the settlers from the towns going on to these lands, do you not think the first thing is to consider the settlement of the land, and do you not think that we want people with experience?— Yes. 131. You know that in the case of an estate being cut up there are large numbers of applications, and a certain amount of discrimination is now used by the Land Boards as to the financial position, &c., of the applicants. You think that genuine settlers who wish to get a piece of land and earn their living on it should have consideration for persons from the towns?— You might do that, but I think I would let them have all the same consideration. 132. You would not give them any preference over those townspeople who are not prepared to go on the land for some years?— Some townspeople might make just as good settlers as the others, but there is reason in what you say. 133. What is the membership of the Farmers' Union in this district,?— About sixty. 134. Did you have a meeting and pass these resolutions? —No; but we had a meeting and two others and myself were appointed to give evidence. ... 135. Were you instructed about the answers you were to give with respect to some ot these questions ?—Some time ago a resolution was passed that the Crown tenants be allowed the option of obtaining the freehold. 136. Was that resolution passed by the executive or by the members of your branch ot the union?— There are twelve or thirteen Crown tenants who are members of our union. 137 Did they give any reasons why they wished the freehold?— Every settler we have in the Waikouaiti district signed the petition' to the House of Representatives that they favoured the system of giving the option of the freehold. 138. Do these men hold lease-in-perpetuity sections or small grazmg-runs ?—All sorts of t e n m«gg 139. Have you amongst them many holders of lease-in-perpetuity sections?—l could not say, but there are about twelve Crown tenants. ... , 140 Do vou not think that a man holding a lease-in-perpetuity section has as much security as a freeholder. He holds the land for 999 years, and he has it at a 5-per-cent. rental on the capital value? —That is so. . . i . , 141 You can quite understand that a man holding a lease-m-perpetuity section is in a much different position to the man holding a twenty-one-years lease?— Yes. 142 Mr MatKeson.] Do you think it would be reasonable in the case of the townsman to make a rather higher charge in the matter of rent so long as he is non-resident?— Yes, that should be done. McCardle.] Are the views you have expressed the views held by your branch of the union For instance, in reference to the revaluation question ?—No; that is my own opinion. 144. Do you know what the feeling of your branch is in connection with revaluation?—! could not sav.
44-C. 4.
C.—4.
346
[a. heckler.
145. As to revaluation under the Land for Settlements Act, would you have revaluation in their case, or only make it apply to those who are anxious to break the present contract and have the right of purchase? —I would make that apply to all. 146. You would break the solemn contract the Government has entered into with these settlers for 999 years?— Yes. 147. Do you not think you would carry it a little further and say that every freeholder shall be treated in the same manner?- I do not know. 148. If the State enters into a contract with settlers who take up land under the Land for Settlements Act, is it a right thing to break that contract? Is that your sense of political honesty? —The Government could let no more land under the lease in perpetuity. 149. Is it not a fact that you have hardly studied this question sufficiently before giving an opinion to the Commission? —I have not had much opportunity of studying the question. 150. Mr. Paul.] You advocate that the Crown tenants should be allowed to break their contract with the State and get the freehold, but you would except education-endowment tenants?— Never any revaluation. 151. But you advocate the option of the freehold to all Crown tenants? —Yes. 152. That is a breach of contract, is it not? —I dare say the Government could find ways and means of doing that. 153. But revaluation in the case of the lease in perpetuity would be a breach of contract if applied retrospectively? —Yes. 154. Do you not think it would be better to apply that principle in the future, and let the present State tenants abide by the contract they have entered into ?—Perhaps that would be a better way. 155. Are you not helping them at the present time to break the contract and give the option of freehold? —Yes. Charles McGregor examined. 156. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler, and have been here for forty-seven years. I hold 550 acres of freehold. It is an agricultural farm, and I engage in mixed farming. I keep sheep, cattle, and dairy cows, and grow wheat. My farm is about three miles from Pal merston. 157. Is there any particular point you wish to emphasize or bring before the Commission? —I think that every man ought to have the right to get a freehold —Crown tenants and every one else. 158. What do you think of the lease in perpetuity? —I do not think it is right. It is too long a lease, and one man will not see it out. The Government we have been having has been so shifty lately that the legislation might be all repealed in the meantime. They have been taking freeholds from the people, and I do not see why they should not take the leasehold. 159. Ido not think they are likely to do that. It is a contract that has been entered into? — Yes; but we bought our land at so-much per acre, and the Government have taken many estates against the will of the owners. Was not that breaking the contract. 160. What is your opinion with respect to the constitution of the Land Boards? —I agree with the present constitution of the Land Boards, but they have not as much power as they ought to have. They have to go to Wellington for every scratch of a pen, and the recommendations of our Land Board are ignored. 161. Have you had any experience of pastoral country? —Very little. 162. Can you say if there is any aggregation of estates going on here? —No. All our estates are too small, and every one is satisfied to hold on to what he has got. 163. Is land going up in price here? —Yes. 164. To what do you ascribe that? —To the good markets —to the outside markets chiefly. We are getting good value for our produce. 165. Really, it is the London market that fixes it?- Yes, that is so. 166. And then there is the convenience of the railways, telegraphs, Ac. ? —Yes. I would like to make this suggestion: that it would be a good thing if the Government gave the Crown tenants two or three trucks of lime per acre free. That would make the land a good deal better. The lime should be free both as to railage and cost. If a farmer has to cart it for six or seven miles it is quite dear enough, and I am sure it will pay the Government and pay the tenants. I would give two trucks per acre —that is, about 10 tons. There has not been much liming done in this district. I have tried it on my land, and I can assure every one that it pays to lime the land. 167. Mr. Anstey.] You said that all tenants should have the right of acquiring the freehold? —Yes. 168. Do you include private tenants as well as Crown tenants? —I have not thought that matter over. 169. With regard to giving free lime to tenants, is there any particular reason why Crown tenants should get free lime and that other tenants should not get it?--Manv of them could not take it because they could not afford to cart it. 170. But you would not confine it to Crown tenants? —I think the Government ought to start that sort of thing and show the landlords how to deal with their tenants. 171. Mr. McGutchan.] You disapprove of the 909-years lease? —Yes, I think it is too long. 172. Your objection is that a man will not live for the whole term of the lease? —Yes. 173. Do you think that is a valid objection?—l think so 174. Mr. Paul.] As to the lease in perpetuity, is the term too long for the State or for the tenant? —I think it is too long for both. 175. Do you approve of the land-for-settlements policy? —Yes, and I would also approve of the deferred-pavment svstem. 176. Why did you raise an objection to the Government acquiring freeholds under the land-for-settlements system? —Because they have plenty of land of their own.
347
C—4.
0. MCGKEGOB.j
177. 11l the case of a man owning 100,000 acres, would you not approve of the State taking any of that land?--Yes, if it was wanted, but lie should be given fair compensation, i think that the Government might have disposed of their own Crown land, and not have bought properties already profitably occupied. 178. But, in the interests of settlement, you agree that the land-for-settlements policy has been a good thing? —Yes. 179. When you say that the Government could break any contract, you must realise that the Government could do no such thing I—But1 —But they have taken estates from private owners. Did they not break a contract in such cases. 180. Could any Government break a contract unless the people were behind them? —Yes. 181. Most Governments have for the time being a majority of the people behind them?-That is where the trouble comes in. 182. Mr. Hall.] You say that the 999-years lease is too long, but is not the freehold still longer ? —You can hold the freehold down, and I am not sure how it would do in the other case. There is a desire to get the freehold. 183. You say that the lease in perpetuity is an uncertain tenure —that the Government could break it down ? —Yes. 184. Have they done that so far? —No, but they may. 185. But, having taken freehold, would it not appear that the freeholds are not as safe as the leaseholds ? —The smaller freehold you keep the safer you are. 186. As regards lime, there is a good part of the colony where there is no lime. What should the Government do there? Should they help the farmers in giving them bone-dust? —You cannot get that now under the present law." 187. Would you give them guano? —That would be better. If you can assist the farmers in any way it would be a good thing. I would like to say this: that it is terrible to hear of the way in which the Government are treating the bush settlers in the North. I think we have a perfect paradise here compared with the bush settlers in the North. I have told Mr. T. Mackenzie, our member, that, compared with the settlers in the North, we have almost everything we can expect, and we should be ashamed to go to the Government for anything. 188. Mr. Forbes.] You said the taking of large estates was a breach of faith? —Yes. 189. When you bought your freehold was it not subject to the right of the Government to take land for roads or other Government works ? —Yes. 190. It is considered to be necessary that estates should be taken for the purpose of closer settlement. Do you not think tliey were subject to that right when they were bought? —That was not my idea when I got my Crown grant. I recognise that the land might be taken for roads. 191. I suppose you say, in regard to the freehold in Scotland, that the freehold was a better bargain than leasing land?- If 1 had had the money I could have bought land within twenty miles of London cheaper per acre than here. 192. Do you not think that a good farmer will farm his ground equally well under a lease in perpetuity as with the freehold? —I think, in the case of such a long lease, he would look upon the land as his own. It would be to his own advantage to farm it well. Nothing else would pay. 193. You do not think a good farmer would farm in a slovenly way? —No. 194. Do you not think that the Government by expending large sums in the purchase of estates for closer settlement is helping to increase the value of the land? —Not in this district. 195. But you recognise that the more people there are who are anxious to buy the land the more it tends to increase the price of the land ? —Yes. 196. Mr. Matheson.] Do you prefer the option with right of purchase because it will make the settlers more contented and the colony more prosperous? —Yes. 197. Mr. McCardle.] Have you expended a considerable amount in liming your land? —Yes, from £2 10s. to £3 an acre. I also drained the land to some extent, and no doubt it adds to the value of the land, and it adds also to the comfort of working the land. 198. Do you find when your improvements are valued that you are allowed for all improvements? —No. The valuer puts on a higher valuation every year. 199. Is there anything on your farm in respect to increased valuation that properly belongs to the State? —No. 200. Do you not think there is an unearned increment in the land? —There is the original value, but I have been improving the land every year. 201. Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 202. Do you agree with those who say that it would be fair to revalue the lease-in-perpetuity land? —I have never studied that question. 203. There is the case of the man who takes up an improved farm. Do you think that land should be revalued ? —Not till his lease is out. 204. In the case of a man taking up bush land with hardly any or no roads, do you think the lease should be revalued? —No. 1 think he should get the land for little or nothing. I would be in favour of giving almost the whole of the North Island bush land free of rent. The settlers have taxes enough to pay. Ido not think it is a good thing to let the towns swamp us by making us pay a land-tax to keep up the cost of Government. 205. Have you any objection to suggesting to the member representing your district that he should help us, especially in the bush districts in the North? —I am perfectly sure that Mr. Mackenzie will do his best for all parts of the colony. I have great sympathy for the North Island settlers, especially those in the bush districts. Edward Clark examined. 206. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold 1,700 acres —a small grazingrun —under the Land for Settlements Act. My rent is £85 10s. lOd. half-yearly, in advance — just under 2s. an acre. The price is too high. I wish to draw the attention of the Commission
348
I"b. clabk.
C.-4.
to the question of the cutting-down of improvements by the Board when they fail to find a tenant for a surrendered section. It may possibly mean ruin to a man and his family, even when the improvements may be very large. 207. But the improvements have deteriorated? —Yes; but the land may be occupied by the former lessees under a temporary license until a tenant is found, and in that case the improvements would not deteriorate. With respect to land for settlements, I think applicants are put to too much trouble in getting land. I think the examination of the applicant should take place at any Land Office when he goes to examine the land. I think that he might be examined by the Crown Lands Commissioner. I do not think it would necessitate the appointment of a greater number of examiners than there are now. I think the applicant should be able to go to the nearest Land Office and be examined. 208. Would you intrust the examination to one man I—Yes-the preliminary examination; and if the applicant were successful and if the Board were not satisfied they might further examine him. At present there is far too much expense put upon applicants. 1 think that a man with a wife and children should get a preference, more especially if he has applied for land before. Under the Land for Settlements Act I think that residence should be compulsory up to ten years in all cases. I would not sell the freehold right out in every case. It seems to me that the 999years lease is as good as a freehold. Ido not think that any land laws made in the time of William the Conqueror would affect us now. I think the lease in perpetuity is a satisfactory tenure. lam of opinion, however, that lessees should have the right of getting the freehold they should have the optiou of purchase. I think that Land Boards should be able to reduce the rent when they are convinced that the rent is too high. Ido not think that Civil servants should get any advantage over other people as far as exemption from residence is concerned. Ido not think that preference should be given to townspeople, and I am of opinion that a married woman living with her husband should not be able to take up land at all. I also think that a man should have his improvements secured to him under any circumstances. I think the unsuccessful applicant at a land ballot should have a preference given him at the next ballot he applies for, and I think there should be no grouping. The applicant should have the opportunity of applying for a section right out. 209. Mr. McCutchan.} In the case of surrenders, have you any suggestion to make in the matter of the Government cutting down the rental? —I think the Government should cut down the rentals, but what they do is to cut the improvements down ancl keep cutting them down until they have been reduced to nothing if they cannot get a tenant. 210. If a place is a considerable time unoccupied the improvements must deteriorate?— There is no necessity for the place to remain unoccupied. They can get a temporary tenant. 211. You advocate the lowering of the rental?— Why not. It is contrary to ordinary business not to do it. 212. Mr. Paul.] Are you in favour of the present constitution of Land Boards? —Yes; but at the same time I think that'some of the evidence that has been given by members of the Land Board is not exactly consistent. They have the freehold themselves, and they do not like to give it to other people. 213. In the case of the rent being fixed too high I understood you to say that you advocated that the Land Board should have power to adjust the rent? —I do. 214. In the case of a rent being fixed too low would you suggest any alteration? —No. 215. You said something about not being in favour of parting with the freehold: what do you mean by 'parting with the freehold?—l think it is not for the good of the country that in future the freehold should be sold—not the whole of it. To prevent the aggregation of estates and to keep the tenants up to the mark I think only nine-tenths should be sold and the other tenth should be retained by the State. 216. Would you make that apply to land bought under the Land for Settlements Act, and also to the remaining Crown lands? —I would. 217. What is your objection to married women holding land?—A married woman's purse is in common with her husband's, and they are one person. I fail to see why a married woman should hold land while there are families landless. 218. Do you not think that a married woman has rights equal with a man?— Not when she is living with her husband. 219. Would you make an exception in the case where she is not living with her husband? — If she was a widow I would make her equal with a man, and I would, too, if she was entirely separated from her husband. 220. You would penalise a woman who lives with her husband? —I do not think " penalise " is a good term. I think a man and woman living together are practically one. 221. In that case you would refuse the land to her? —Certainly. 222. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think the Crown tenants should have a representative on the Land Board to look after their interests? —My experience of the Land Board is that they act justly. 223. You think that the Crown tenants' interest has no need of special representation ? —Not as far as my experience of the Otago Land Board goes. 224. Mr. Mcitheson.\ If you were working land with a partner, and an opportunity came of one of you taking up another section, do you think it would be reasonable for you to say to your partner, "Go in for that section and we will work it together"? —If the residential conditions were complied with the partner would practically have a place for himself. 225. Supposing the partner Were a woman, would you allow her to take up the section? —Not if she were his wife. 226. If they were married, would not the two have better rights than a bachelor?—l do not think a married woman should have rights in land —that is, if she lives with her husband. 227. Would you allow a single woman to take up land? —If she is of age.
C.—4.
349
E. CLAEK.
228. Would you allow a single man to take up land? —Yes. 229. Would you allow a man and woman holding land separately to get married and hold their land together? —I do jiot think that I would unless each resided on their own property. 230. Mr. Anstey.] You said you would insist on compulsory residence in all cases. It has been pointed out to us that in many cases in the back country there are no means of access: in such cases would you insist on compulsory residence? —My remarks apply particularly to lands under the Land for Settlements Act. 231. You said that all the improvements should be secured to the tenant ?—Yes. 232. Would that apply to all tenants?- Not to private tenants. I am speaking of Government land only. 233. You do not think it should apply to Government tenants? —That is guided by the terms of the lease. 234. Do you not think there should be one law for all? —Not necessarily. 235. You think it is quite right for a private landlord to sell the property of his tenant at the end of the lease? —No, I do not. 236. Suppose a tenant built a house on a farm, do you not think he has a right to it? — Certainly, if the lease allowed him valuation for improvements. 237. Not otherwise?- If it did not it would be at his own risk that he built the house. 238. Do you think the law should be altered in regard to that? —No. 239. You say a private landlord has a perfect right to appropriate the propertj' of his tenant? • —A tenant is not justified in putting improvements on land that he has no claim to afterwards. 240. And a private landlord has a perfect right to take such improvements? —Yes. John Duncan examined. 241. The Chairman.] What are you?--I am a farmer holding about 400 acres of freehold, of which I farm 30 acres, and I also hold 30 acres of farming land under leasehold. My land is at Dunback, and is on the hill. On the hill land I run sheep. I have been twenty years in that district. 242. Would you just tell us what you want to bring before the Commission? —I think that the ballot should be improved so that practical farmers would have a preference, especially when married. I think that the rent of the lands which the Government are taking under the Land for Settlements Act should be done by men who are thoroughly acquainted with what the land can produce. In surveying the sections care should be taken to include water if possible, and the sections should be large enough to enable a man with his family to make a fair living. I am hampered in that I have no water on my leasehold, although there is a creek running alongside. I have had forty-seven years' experience of cropping and farming, and I think that a five-years rotation is fair for landlord and tenant. The first should be a grain crop, the second should be a green crop or fallow, the third a green crop and sown down with grass, and the other two years grass. 243. What is your view of the tenure?- lam a leaseholder by preference. It is easier to go on the land under the leasehold, and if a man wants to sell he can get a buyer more easily. The conditions of tenure must be fair rent, secure tenure, and full valuation for improvements. 244. That means a revaluation? —No. 245. We are speaking of the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 246. For 999 years? —Yes; but it will come to an end, and I want to secure the value of the improvements then. The tenure does not alter the productiveness of the land. In fact, a man is more liable to ruin his land by overcropping, in order to make money fast or to pay the interest on his mortgage. There is no one to keep any check on him, and that is what a great many farmers in this colony require. 1 should say that I think that when once the improvements are effected the rent should not be paid in advance. Any one wanting to borrow on his improvements should be allowed up to three-fifths of their value, as is the case with regard to the freehold. I regard the Government as the best landlord. The Dunedin Land Board in all cases is favourable to the tena'nt. I certainly would give the Land Board more discretionary power. The first witness today gave an instance which I think should rest within the discretion of the Land Board. There should be a discretion not only to lower the rent where too high, but to raise it where too low. One is the logical outcome of the other. 247. Do you suggest that rents are not fixed as they ought to be? —No, I do not; but I say they ought to be honestly done. 248. Do you suggest that the rents are not skilfully apportioned? —In some cases there should be a variation. 249. Generally speaking, are the sections of Crown land cut up too small? —My section is only 30 acres. No man could make a living on it. 250. What is the size that you would suggest for this neighbourhood? —200 to 300 acres for farms, and larger for pastoral purposes. 251. Do you think there should be any areas of 30 acres? —Unless in the vicinity of townships. 252. Purely farming land should not be less than 200 acres? —No. 253. According to your rotation there are only two years of grass —really only a year and three-quarters: is that long enough to be laid down in grass? —I mean for two years after the crop has been taken off. Under the present conditions we have to allow the grass to lie for three years after the crop is taken off; that means that for practically four years it is in grass. 254. That would be seven years? —No; we sow grass in the spring after the crop. 255. You say it has to lie four years in grass. You have allowed two years for crop and one for turnips; that is seven years? —No. I say that under the present conditions the last three years are in grass. 256. Do you think a year and three-quarters is sufficient to lay down in grass if you have a five-years system? —Two years in grass is quite sufficient.
C—4.
350
J. DUNCAN.
26i'. That is not the case in Canterbury? —I can show you instances where the third year in grass has led to the fields being overrun with Yorkshire fog and other weaker grasses. 258. I presume you would allow your evidence to apply to your own neighbourhood? —Yes. 259. Do you think that fixity of tenure and compensation for improvements should apply not only to Crown tenants and the tenants of educational reserves, but also to private tenants? — We cannot interfere with private tenants. But it should apply to all Crown tenants, and, I think, also to public reserves. 260. Do you think that a man of moderate means, if he purchased a freehold, would be likely to improve that place as much as if he had taken a leasehold? —I do not think so, for in the case of taking the leasehold he would have more money to go on with. 261. Mr. Paul.] Would you give a landless man a preference in the ballot? —If he was a thorough practical farmer. I would not encourage landless men to take up land unless they were practical farmers. 262. Do you know of any instance where a man has taken up land who was not previously a farmer and made a success of it? —It is quite possible. 263. You do not think leaseholders have a monopoly of bad farming? —No; I think there is as good farming among the leaseholders as there is among the freeholders. 264. I was not quite clear what you meant by the Land Board having power to increase or decrease the rent: do you mean that the system of -periodical revaluation is a sound one ? —lt is not necessary to have a periodical revaluation; but where a man has taken a section at too high a rental the Board should have power to reduce the rent. 265. He would make representations to the Land Board? —Yes. 266. But what would you do in the case of the man having too low a rent? He would not be likely to make any representations on the subject? —I do not think it likely that he would. 267. Mr. McCardle.] Did you buy your land fairly cheap?- No; I think I paid too much for it. 268. You say that in the case of Government leaseholds the price of the sections might be fixed too low? —Yes. 269. Might not that happen in the case of freehold? —Quite so. 270. Would it be fair in those cases to ask the buyer to consent to a revaluation and pay some more? —If he got it too cheap, certainly. 271. Mr. Paul.] Do you think there is any probability of a man who has paid too little for his land from the State coming forward and paying an additional sum? —No; I think it is the other way. Edward Henry Clark examined. 272. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a builder in Palmerston, where I have lived for twenty-five years. I have no land. 273. What is the point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I wish to object to the option of freehold being given to Crown tenants without the holding being put up to auction. There are sections for which there are, say, forty applicants, only one of whom can be successful. That applicant, after he has been farming the place for ten years and has made money out of it, wants the freehold. Why should not the remainder of the applicants be given an opportunity also of securing it. It belongs as much to them as to him. 274. Mr. Paw/.] You think it is just probable that one of the other forty would give a better price if the land went to auction ? —I think they should have the right. 275. The Chairman.] Would you restrict it to the thirty-nine? —Certainly not. I wouldput it up to the public. 276. Mr. Paul.] Is it your opinion that Crown tenants should get the option? —Yes, if put up to auction. Ido not think he should get it as a right. 277. You would put a provision in the lease that when the freehold is given it would be auctioned ? —Yes. 278. Mr. Matheson.] Is your reason for giving the option of the freehold that it would make a more contented peasantry 1- -No. 279. Why would you give them the option, then? —It is my opinion that they should have the right. 280. Mr. McCardle.\ If put up to auction it would likely bring fresh revenue to the State? — Very likely it would if the tenant was outbid. James Ross examined. 281. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a freeholder, and I also have a leasehold, but not from the Crown. Altogether I hold a little over 7,000 acres. I have been in the colony for fortyfour years. 282. On your property have you ever tried surface-sowing? —Yes. 283. Extensively? —Yes, as much as I possibly could, and I know it improves the country in Central Otago as well. 284. The general tenor of evidence is that surface-sowing does well if tried on damp places and not exposed to a burning sun? —It depends very much on the season, but the seed lies a long time in rough country and germinates when moisture comes. 285. Is there any particular seed that should be sown? —Cocksfoot and white clover. Lots of people try fescues, but I do not believe in them. 286. What is your objection to fescues? —It mats the surface too much and prevents the rain penetrating. 287. We have had an opinion tendered doubting whether it was worth doing or not. We had the opinion yesterday from a man of experience that he was doubtful whether the expense was
351
C—4.
J. BOSS.]
worth it? —If I had land of my own in Central Otago I should certainly try it. I have seen it done successfully myself. At Dunback, about Macrae's, it is very successful in some parts. 288. We have had expression of opinion about lands in the interior, and it has been said that if they could only be fenced off and rested for a season it would be a good thing? —That would certainly benefit the land. 289. Has it come under your observation that the pastures of the colony are deteriorating very much? —They did for some time, but 1 think they are recovering again. 290. I suppose that is due to the rabbits being kept down? —Yes, and to the fact that we have had four or five good seasons. 291. Is there anything else that occurs to you that you might mention ? —There is one thing that occurs to me and it is this: that in making appointments to the Land Board thoroughly practical men who understand the capability of land ought to be appointed. Such men would know better than a lot of those people who have never had any experience of rough country, or as to the carry-ing-capacity of grazing-land and its subdivision into workable areas. 292. Of course, it goes without saying that high and low country must be combined as much as practicable? —Yes; that is where a mistake has been made in the past. 293. Do you think that can be rectified? —It could be cut up in strips, I think. 294. I suppose it might be a question of whether it is not advisable to buy some of the low country to give proper communication to the high country that has been left? —I suppose the people who have it would not like to lose it. I would also like to say that I think the deferredpayment system is the best system we have ever had for settling agricultural country, and for pastoral country I think small grazing-runs are the best. 295. Mr. Anstey.\ Can you .give us any suggestion by which the surface-sowing of grass can be encouraged? —I have seen it done in a very peculiar way by Mr. F. D. Rich. He used to open the wool on the sheep and put in the seed, and distribute it that way. 296. Was that successful? —To a certain extent, it was. You could find those grasses miles away. 297. Can you suggest any way in which this non-security of tenure can be got over? —I think twenty-one years ought to pay them. 298. They say that at the end of the lease they get no compensation? —I think they should be provided with grass-seed. 299. If they have a guarantee that it would be properly sown you think it would be wise for the Government to give the seed ? —Yes. 300. Do you think the Land Board district ought to be divided into several districts? —Yes. I think the members of the Board ought to be more distributed over the province than they are at the present time. 301. Do you think there should be a representative for each interest?- Yes. 302. In that case you would require more members?- No. 303. Supposing the Board was limited to four members, could they be so selected as to represent all the interests in Otago? —Yes. 304. Mr. McCutchan.~\ You advocate the reintroduction of the deferred-payment system, under which the payments were extended over ten years? —Yes. 305. Would you be in favour of the term being extended so as to make the payments lighter at the beginning, when the tenant had got all the initial expenses of bringing the land into profitable use —say, extend the term to twenty years? —If he was not able to pay ofi the land I certainly would. 306. There is some doubt in your mind as to the result of surface-sowing?--Not the slightest. 307. Do you think surface-sowing or resting pastoral land would be best? —I could not allow it to rest. I have seen country which has been successfully treated by tramping in the seed. 308. I understood you to say, in answer to the Chairman, that this country became fertile again if rested? —Yes. It improves a lot. 309. Which would you advise, resting or surface-sowing, or both? —I do not know which would pay best. 310. You are quite satisfied you will not give the freehold to these grazing-areas? —I do not wish to go into that question at all. 311. Would you give the option of the freehold to lands under the Land for Settlements Act? —It is my opinion that every one wants the freehold. I would not enter into any contract with the Crown unless I had the right of freehold. 312. If you entered into a contract you would stick to it? —I would perhaps stick to it as long as the Government would. 313. Mr. llall.\ If one member on each Land Board was appointed by the County Councils, would they not naturally appoint a man with a knowledge of the high country? Would that be sufficient? —I think it would be better as it is—that the appointment should come from the Government. 314. You think fescues prevent the penetration of moisture into the soil: that would apply only to special places? —It applies to all places where certain people have been putting these fescues into the land, and it is a difficulty now to get them out. 315. Do they want them out? —I would rather have something else in. 316. Mr. Forbes.'] Would you support the Government going in for a policy of spending money on grassing this back country? —It would be no use sowing grass where there are frosts and severe storms during the winter. 317. Would you have much faith in grass sown by Government officials? —I tell you straight, I have not much faith in them. 318. Mr. Matheson.] Does what you have said about surface-sowing apply to land over 1.500 ft. above sea-level? —Yes, I think it does. It depends largely on the soil to a certain extent. I do not mean great heights.
[j. ROSS.
352
C—4.
319. Do you think the giving of the right of purchase is likely to make the colony more prosperous? —Yes. It gives a man more interest in what he is doing. 320. And townspeople will eventually reap the benefit?- I do not take townspeople into consideration at all. . 321. As a citizen, do you not think it is a shabby thing not to take the townspeople into consideration ?—No; if I spend my life in the country and they their lives with more pleasure in the towns, why should I take them into consideration. 322. Do you think they would reap a benefit?— Yes. 323. Mr. McCardle.] It would take about 10s. an acre to grass the land?—l do not think it necessary to buy the very best grasses. 324. How much do you think it would cost? —I cannot tell you. 325. What is the best grass to put in? —Cocksfoot. 326. I suppose that is generally worth 6d.? —No; you can buy good cocksfoot for 3d. and 4d. 327. Are you in favour of a man who has taken up land under lease in perpetuity getting the freehold? —Yes. . . 328. Do you think that the State gets any advantage by continuing the 999-years lease!— I do not see that it does. 329. It is tied up, to all intents and purposes, just as much as the freehold! lnat is true. If the country is to prosper for the next fifty-seven years as it has for the past fifty-seven years I do not think that the Commission or the Government or any one else in power can for one moment think that the laws of the land will be the same then as now. I think the whole thing will be altered, and all your present Acts be thrown aside. 330. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think it would be possible to enforce a provision for the fencmgoff of land for the purpose of resting the land? —Yes. 331. And keep the rabbits off it too?—I do not say anything about rabbits. 332. If you have the rabbits on you may as well have sheep?— Much better. David Ross examined. 333. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a sheep-farmer holding a small grazing-run of 4,900 acres or thereabouts in Macrae's district. I have had it for about ten years, and I pay 4id. per acre. It is pretty high and bleak, and does not carry much stock. I never have more than two thousand sheep, half-breds principally. I started with merinos. 334. Do you find half-breds hardy enough?—lt is pretty cold in the spring. 335. Is there a high death-rate?— Mine is about 20 per cent. 336. Do you require to buy to keep up your stock?— That is my trouble. The ordinary increase will not keep up the flock. _ 337. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I want to know if I can get compensation for the surface-sowing we have heard so much about. I may tell you that I sowed grass-seed this season to the value of £50, without counting the cost of labour and carting. If T knew I could get compensation for this sowing it would encourage me to go on with the surface-sowing. I might mention that Mount Royal has been surface-sowed over the most of the estate, and I do not know of any country in the neighbourhood that is carrying as much stock as that land. But it takes a long time to reap the benefit from surface-sowing. I might mention that this surface-sowing was commenced at Mount Royal over twenty-eight 3'ears ago, to my knowledge. I want to impress on the Commission the necessity of bringing forward the question of compensation for surface-sowing. I would also like to say T am quite satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Boards. I do not think that election by the public would be workable. . . 338. Mr. Anstey.] I presume surface-sowing will largely increase the carrying-capacity ot your run? —I think so; I hope so. 339. Suppose you have a right of renewal with your rent fixed by arbitration, would that encourage you to go on surface-sowing?—l would not be satisfied with that. I want compensation for the sowing. . , _ , 340. Mr. Matheson.~\ Would you suggest that compensation should be granted according to the increased carrving-capacity? Would you be willing to accept that basis? Ido not know that you could get at it in that way. I think the State should either give the grass-seed or appoint a person to see the grass-seed put on.
Windsor, Thursday, 30th March, 1905. James Don examined. 1 The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer at Windsor. I hold 834 acres under lease in perpetuity, and I pay 6s. 6d. per acre rent for it. I use the land for cropping and grazing. 2. During the four years you have held the section has it been fairly satisfactory to you ?— Very satisfactory. I have nothing to complain of. 3. Are you satisfied with your tenure ? —Quite. 4. Have you any remarks to make about settlement generally that you think would be useful for the Commission 'to know?— The weak point I see in the administration is in connection with the concessions given to tenants when they suffer loss through hail-storms and other causes. It is quite right get the concession, but my idea is that there should be an Act passed that any rent that is remitted in a bad year should be added to the rent in the following good years in order to recoup the State. I think that any concession should still be a claim on the land.
J. DON.I
353
C—4
5. You do not want the concession to be a gift, you only want time in which to pay ?—That is all. I think the good years should be made to pay for the bad ones. Some men make a good bit in a good year, and they do not run to the Crown and give them any of it, and I do not see why any remissions should not be spread over a period of good years to make up for the bad year. I am quite satisfied with all the other points in the leasehold. I consider it has been a great boon to the district that these estates have been broken up by the Government. I have been in the district the last thirty years, contracting and working over these estates, and I have never seen the country in such a flourishing condition as it is at the present time. The good seasons account for some of that, but the greater part of the prosperity is due to the land-for-settlements policy. 6. Mr. Hall.] You consider the lease-in-perpetuitv tenure satisfactory to the lessees, and safe and in the interests of the State ?—Yes. 7. You know how the Land Boards are appointed : has that proved quite satisfactory ?—lt has in this district. 8. I suppose the land has risen in value a good deal here during the last eight or ten years ?— It rose in value before the Government purchased these estates. It was on a rising scale owing to the Government making the railway through here. 9. Mr. McLennan.) You have been here thirty years : do you remember the years 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, and 1894 in this district ?—Yes. 10. Were those years prosperous ?—They were not; they were dry years. 11. Do you remember that during those years there were what were called " croppers" leasing areas of various dimensions on these estates for one year ?—Yes. 12. Can you tell me what rent they were paying in those days ?—From £2 to £2 10s. per acre, and for potato land as high as £3 per acre. 13. You have studied the Land for Settlements Act, and you know the difference in the rent now to what it was in those days?— Yes. You can grow as good a crop of wheat for 6s. 6d. now as you could when you had to pay £2 10s. 14. And even then you did not get a remission of rent in the event of a bad crop ?—lf the landlord thought the rent was not there he put a padlock on the gate so that you could not get the crop away. 15. Has the district and the Town of Oamaru prospered in the last four or five years ?—I consider they have improved every year for the last four or five years. 16. What is the reason of that, to your mind ?—lt is due to good seasons and the settlement under the land-for-settlements policy. 17. In your opinion, would these estates have been cut up privately if it had not been for the Land for Settlements Act, and so long as the owners were getting £2 10s. per acre, or 25 per cent, of the capital value of the land, for one year's rent?—l do not think they would. 18. Do you remember two other estates that were cut up privately—viz., Tipo and Holmes's and part of Totara ? Do you think they would have been cut up if they could have got the rent that the croppers were giving them in the years I have referred to ?—I think the Holmes Estate was cut up owing to the death of the Hon. Matthew Holmes. At the same time, Ido not think the others would have been cut up and sold if the owners could have got the £2 10s. and £3 rent they used to get. 19. Do you not think that the cutting-up and settling of these big estates has improved Oamaru wonderfully ?—There is no doubt about it. Oamaru has gone ahead more in the last five years than in the fifteen years before it. 20. Seeing that is so, do you know of any other estate in the locality that could be cut up and settled ?—Yes ; there is Corydale Estate, which, if cut up, would provide homes for a good many people. But it should not be cut up into sections under 500 or 700 acres. 21. Do you think that Otekaike could be cut up into large holdings, for grazing-runs, for instance ?—Yes, but they would want to be fair-sized holdings. They would require to be from 2,000 to 3,000 acres. "22. Do you think if the Government bought the freehold from Duntroon right up to the Otekaike Eiver, and surveyed it so as to get a certain proportion of winter country for high country it would suit very well?—lt would. The low-lying country on the bank of the river would make good winter country. You could make small places of the land along the river, and give them part of the higher country as well. 23. Do you think it would be "advisable to give the Land Board more discretionary power, so that they could deal with matters that have at present to be referred to Wellington ?—I would not say so. I think they are doing very well at the present time. 24. Mr. Paul.] In your opinion, these estates would not have been cut up but for the land-for-settlements policy : do you think that if they had been cut up that the settlers would have been placed on the land on as advantageous terms as they hold the land now from the Government ?— I am certain they would not. 25. Are there any restrictions or regulations that harass you in any way? —None, whatever. I am satisfied with my lease and all its clauses. 26. You do not "wish for a change in any direction?— There is one point. A man is only supposed to take two white crops off and then to sow down in grass. Some of the cocksfoot land is very tough, and if you only take two white crops off it it has not been worked sufficiently to sow down in grass. I would only advocate that a settler should be allowed to take three crops off in order to properly work the ground. . 27. Do you think that that discretionary power should be vested in the Land Board ?— Certainly. 28. Mr. Johnston.] Were you farming before you took up this land ?—I had been cropping and contracting.
45—C. 4,
354
J. DON
C—4.
29. About what area of these estates was cropped each year before they were cut up ? —I was never on Elderslie before I settled here, but I was on Maerewhenua and Tokarahi. There used to be from 2,000 to 3,000 acres under crop at Maerewhenua ; but in the early days, in 1876, there mi«ht have been from 6,000 to 7,000 acres, with ten or twelve croppers on the block. 30. What was the rental given then ?—7s. 6d. before the railway was finished, and 10s. after it was finished. It got to be afterwards £2 to £2 10s. 31. "What was the average yield when they were paying £2 per acre ?—From 30 to 35 bushels, and sometimes 40. t ~ . j . 32. Did it pay ?—Everybody seemed to live at it. I do not know that they made much 33. They paid £2 per acre and they got 35 bushels to the acre, and they had to put in the crop and take it out and put it on board the train ?—Yes; but we got 45., and 4s. 6d., and ss. per bushel in those days. I have seen it as high as 6s. 6d. and 7s. The crops were mostly wheat. 34. What became of the land after that ?—The landlord used to sow it down in grass. He did not give us the seed to sow with the crop. 35. Were there as many men employed then on these estates as there are now under the settlement policy ?—For a few months during the cropping and harvesting there might have been, but over the whole year there were not near so many. I suppose the population of the district is three times as great as it used to be. 36. Do the leaseholders on these blocks farm their land as well as the freeholders outside the blocks?—l do not see any difference. I know several of my neighbours are treating the land in the same way as if it were their own. They mean, apparently, to make their home on it. 37. You said that Otekaike was capable of being cut into small runs : would you give a man 5,000 acres of a small run or would you give him sufficient land to run two thousand sheep ? How many sheep would you limit the man to ?—lf he has land sufficient to run two thousand sheep I think he has quite enough. 38. Have you had any experience of the back country ?—None whatever. 39. Are you satisfied with the working of the ballot system ?—Yes. The section I got had been thrown up, and there were only two of us in for it. 40. If this land was put in the market now would it bring more money than it did before, without improvements ?—I do not know that it would. Of course, the improvements have enhanced the value of it considerably. 41. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—None. 42. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the increased value of land is chiefly governed by the British market ?—Well, I think it is chiefly due at the present time to the good seasons and yields we are getting. If we had bad seasons the value of the land would drop considerably. 43. The value of your products is governed by the English market ? —There is no doubt about it. . 44. Suppose a man takes up one of these leases and has some good years straight away, do you think it would be wise to allow him to pay off a part of the capital value so that his future rent might be reduced ?—I am not in sympathy with that, because if a farmer has any money to invest he can invest it in other ways and get just as good interest as he is paying to the State. 45. Is not what I am suggesting on the same lines as your proposal, that when a rebate is made the tenant should pay it back again?— Certainly. 46. Would it not be just as sound to pay it off first if you have good years, and so reduce the rental ? —lf you reduce the rental you reduce it for ever. 47. Have you any objection to reducing the rental for ever?—l have none. 48. Do you think it would be a good thing ? —Yes. 49.'Suppose things went on very prosperously, would it not be reasonable in time to pay off the whole amount ? —I do not believe in the freehold myself. lam satisfied as lam at present. 50. Suppose anybody would like to pay off the capital value gradually out of his own earnings, do you think, as a citizen, it would be unwise to allow him to do so? —I would not be satisfied. I think he ought to be left as he is. 51. You say you would not allow him to pay it off out of his savings?—l would not go so far as that. 52. Suppose you had to decide the matter, would you allow him to do so ?—I am in favour of leaving him as he is. 53. Mr. Forbes.] You believe in a man sticking to his bargain?— Yes. 54. Do you think that there is any breaking of the contract if both parties agree to alter it ?— Certainly, it is breaking it, although both parties agree. The lease is sound at the present time, and if they break it we do not know how many breaks may occur in it before it is finished. 55. Mr. Anstey.] Do you know if any of the settlers have sold out their interest?— Yes, I know some. 56. Did they sell at a loss or at a premium ?—Generally at a premium. 57. Did they get more than sufficient to recoup them for their improvements? —I think in all instances they did. 58. You say you are perfectly satisfied with both the terms and conditions of your lease. How do you view the statement we see repeatedly in the papers that the lease-in-perpetuity tenants are now demanding the right of freehold? —I see they are by the newspapers. 59. Speaking from your own experience, are you and your fellow-settlers coming here to demand the right of the freehold? —I am not. Of course, we do not come here as a deputation. Every man is coming here for himself. 60. If the newspapers were to publish that the Windsor Park settlers are now demanding the freehold, would that statement be correct? —No; I would contradict it.
355
C.—4
J. DON
61. Mr. McCardle.] In regard to the Advances to Settlers Department, I suppose you know that if a man with a freehold applies to a lending company for a loan they will advance up to two-thirds of the value, and the Advances to Settlers Department will only advance up to one-half of the improvements appearing on the land. There is a proposal to amend that and grant the Crown tenants an advance up to two-thirds of their actual interest in the land. Do you think that would be fair in the interests of the settler and a safe thing for the State ?—I think so. The improvements would be valued by the Government valuer, and so long as he is satisfied I do not think the State would run any risk. 62. Mr. McCutchan.] You said you were perfectly satisfied with your tenure and do not want any alteration ?—Yes. 63. That is in reference to lands under the Land for Settlements Act'?— Yes. 64. Have you any knowledge of the lease in perpetuity under the ordinary Land Act of 1892 ? —No. 65. Your advocacy of no change is in reference to the Land for Settlements Act only ?—Yes; in regard to the settlements about here only. 66. You say that concessions have been given on account of extraordinary damage through hail-storms, &c., and are you of opinion that these concessions should be refunded in subsequent good years?— Yes, they should be spread over a period of years. 67. Did the tenants on these estates take the 10-per-cent. rebate?—l have always got it. 68. Do you not think there is an inconsistency in your two lines of argument—namely, that where concessions are made for damage there should be a refund, but where a concession is made without any damage at all there should be no refund ? —I believe the Government are charging us more for the money than they arc-actually paying for it, and I do not see any robbery in taking the 10-per-cent. rebate. 69. You think that throughout all time the Government should charge the tenant no more than bare interest upon the money invested in these estates? —They are charging more now. The Minister of Lands, at Windsor, before the last general election, told us how much money had accumulated to the credit of the Elderslie Estate then. Ido not remember the figures, but if it had accumulated then there must be a good deal more now. 70. The inference I draw from your remarks is that there should be no revaluation clause in connection with these leases ?—My idea is to stick to the lease as it is at the present time. 71. But a proposal has been made in influential quarters that any lease issued in the future should contain a revaluation clause : would you be in favour of that ?—No. I believe the leases issued in the future should be on the same lines as those now issued. The tenants ought all to be under the one law. 72. Therefore your advocacy of the 999-years lease is on the ground and understanding that there should be no revaluation clause either in respect to leases now existing or to future leases ?—I consider that the man who takes up a lease five years from now has just as much right to have no revaluation clause as the man who has already got a lease. 73. Is your objection to any change in the form of tenure from the leasehold to the freehold or any paying-off of the capital value due to the fact that you have an extraordinarily good thing indeed, and you dread your change ?—I do not know that I have an extraordinary good thing now. The extraordinary good seasons make it a good thing. About four years ago, when there were bad seasons, it was not a good thing. It was a very bad thing four years ago. 74. Do you think where a tenant is able to sell out at a higher sum over and above his actual improvements he is fully entitled to that increase ? —I think the Land Board should not allow him to sell out. 75. No matter what circumstances may arise, do you think a man and his family should be bound to continue on that land for all time ?—He takes it up under those conditions. 76. Do you not think that circumstances might arise which would necessitate that man moving away ?—They might. .77. Would you allow him to take the full market value then ?—lf he had to shift. 78. Do you not think there would be a certain amount of slavery if you bound a man to the land for all time ?—But the man took up the land knowing the conditions under which he took it up. 79. But there is nothing in the law to prevent him selling out?— Then, it is all right. 80. But is it your opinion that the law should be made such,that he should not be allowed to sell out ? lam quite satisfied with the law at the present time. I wish no alterations made in it. James Will McCowan examined. 81. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer on Elderslie. I hold 320 acres under lease in perpetuity, for which I pay 7s. per acre rent. I have held the land a little over eighteen months. 82. Is the lease-in-perpetuity tenure satisfactory to you?— Yes; so far as I have gone on I am perfectly satisfied. 83. Is your rent satisfactory too?— Yes 84. Is there any point you would like to bring before the Commission ? —I have always been under the impression that the cropping clause is wrong. 85. Do you agree with what Mr. Don said ? —I think I would go further than Mr. Don, who suggested three crops without classification. I was on Waikakahi before I came here, and it seems to me a ridiculous thing to see land there valued at 19s. per acre and other land as low as 4s. per acre all classed as first-class land, and all held under the same cropping regulations. Ido not think any private landowner in the world would expect a tenant only to get the same right to crop on 19s. land as on 4s. land.
[J. W. McCOWAN.
356
C—4.
86. Of course, what underlies the regulation is that the land will not be harried out ? —Then, it is quite evident, if you are saving 19s. land, you must be killing the 4s. land. 87. Of course, a man is not compelled to take three crops if the land will not bear it: the 4s. land should be rested longer?— But how is a 19s. man going to extract his rent out of 100 acres and be held to two crops ? The land I refer to would stand four crops. 88. Of course, there must be some regulation; but would you leave any variation in the hands of the Land Board to decide in regard to the various lands, or would you have all the land carefully classified before the tenants got it ?—Either classify the land on a rental basis or leave greater discretion with the Land Board. I should say that land over 12s. 6d. per acre should be entitled to three white crops or under. _ 89. Would you keep the present regulation in regard to two crops for land under 12s. 6d. ?— I think the Banger ought to have the discretion right through. I think if a crop is a failure, or if the grass is a failure, a man ought to be allowed to sow another crop in order to get his grass. 90. Were you a settler on Waikakahi? —Yes; I had a small section, and I laboured under a disadvantage. 91. Were you a 19s. settler ?—I was not, thank God. I held 34 acres valued at 9d. per acre, and 50 acres at 3s. 4d. per acre, and because 1 held these 84 acres the Land Board would not let me go into a ballot until I sold out. I think that is a great injustice to the small settler. What I want to draw your attention to is this : A man with a wife and family may hold a small area of ground—in my own case, I was a single man and could perhaps battle for myself—and when he has improved his position, and wants to go on to another piece of ground, I think it is very hard that he should be compelled to throw up his little home and stand his chance at the ballot for a new section. We know the risk that attaches to the ballot. I think the law should be amended to enable him to go on to a larger area, and still keep his little home until he has got clear of it. I would give him a certain time after he has secured a new section in which to sell out the old one. 92. Mr. Hall.] Do you wish for the right to purchase the freehold ? —No. 93. Have you had any experience of taking up ordinary Crown lands ?—No. 94. Do you think it is better for the State that the lease in perpetuity should be kept intact without interference of any kind ? —Not for the State, but for the tenant. 95. If it is good for the tenant it ought to be an advantage to the country as well? —I do not think it is a benefit to the State, but it is good for the tenant. That is my private opinion. 96. You say the conditions in regard to cropping should be modified : is it good farming to crop the land much? —It is good farming on good land, because that is the only way you can make sufficient to pay the rent you are asked to get out of it. 97. Does not grazing do fairly well on good land ?—The difference between what you graze on good land and on fair average land is not sufficient for the difference in the rent. 98. Is it good farming to overcrop any kind of land?—No; but what may be overcropping on one land may be light cropping on another. 99. Are the sections which have been allotted at the ballot of a fair size in this district ?—I think they are a fair size on Elderslie. Some of them are too small. 100. Is there any tendency to aggregate estates around here ? —I do not know this district sufficiently well to say. I suppose every one, as he betters his position, has that desire. 101. Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Office?—l know nothing about it, and I think also I should be very sorry to have anything to do with it, from what I have heard. 102. But those who have to do with it can borrow to the extent of 50 per cent, of the value of their improvements : would it not be better if their whole interest in the property was taken into consideration and they were allowed to borrow on that basis ?—I should be very sorry to advise the State to take that asset. 103. Would it not be better than lending on the improvements only ?—The improvements are there, but the other is a fluctuating value. 104. Are you satisfied with the ballot system ?—lt is good in its way, but I think the examination is a bit of a farce. 105. Mr. McLennan.] Do you know anything about the system of loading roads and other works on the land ? —I have not gone closely into it, but I understand the loading is for ever. 106. Do you think that after twenty-six years or within a reasonable time the loading ought to be done away with ? —I really think, from what I can see of it, that there is more made out of it than it is really worth. » 107. This estate has not been very heavily loaded, but some are very heavily loaded : I know one estate loaded to the extent of 17s. per acre?— Well, it is loaded pretty heavily, and that would mean a remission. 108. Could you suggest any system that would do away with loading altogether?— No. That advice would want more thought than I have given to it. 109. Do you think it is just that the tenant should pay the interest on this loading for the 999 years ? —I would not answer any question unless I have thought over it. I have never gone into the question of loading. 110. Mr. Paul.} Several large estates have been cut up: do you think that policy has been in the interests of the State and of the district ?—Yes. 111. Are there any other restrictions or regulations under the lease in perpetuity that harass you unduly ?—I have not said that any regulation harassed me. I merely make the suggestion that the cropping regulation should be amended, because I do not come under the class of men who are unduly restricted in their cropping. 112. You said the lease in perpetuity was not in the interest of the State: what do you mean by that?— That is my private opinion. I suppose there are certain gentlemen on the Commission with revaluation views. 113. What effect has that on your objection—because some people on this Commission hold
C—4.
J. W. MCCOWAN.]
357
that view ?—I have no objection to them, but that is my objection to touching the lease in perpetuity. Ido not object to all sections being represented on the Commission, but I say the lease as it is at present is good for the tenant but not for the State. 114. Are you in favour of revaluing future leases ?—I am not in favour of touching the present leases at all. If you want my opinion it is this: the John McKenzie lease was the lease of a practical farmer who knew that surety of tenure was the finest thing we could have. Students say there should be a revaluation every twenty-one years. Ido not want that. 115. Suppose for a moment that your land was valued at too high a price and you were paying too much rent?—l made a bargain. 116. That would not help the State out of it ?—Then, the State could arrange the matter. If they could get no one to come in at that rent they would have to reduce it. 117. Suppose you were a married man and had a family?—lf I could not make it pay I would be better to go out and work. 118. Then, you agree that the present lease in perpetuity is not in the interest of the State, but you do not want it changed so that it would be a fair thing for the State ? —lt would be a fair thing to the State, but, bear in mind, it might not be a fair thing to the farming community, who do not have the rosy time they are supposed to have. The present lease is best for the farmers because they have good tenure. 119. If the present lease is not fair to the State but is fair to the tenant, should there not be a little giving by the tenant ? —No. We want surety of tenure, and every farmer will agree with me in saying that. Revaluation is one of the causes of the breakdown of your small grazing-runs. Under a short tenure a man has no heart. 120. Are there many smalLgrazing-runs unoccupied ? —Go into the back country. Every day they give that out as their reason. They will not surface-sow or try to improve the land because they get to the end of their leases. 121. I understand the objection to surface-sowing is purely because there is no valuation for improvements at the end of the lease? —Of course, it is. That is because he comes to the end of the lease ; but we will not get to the end of our lease. 122. Mr. Johnston.] Have you been farming all your life? —Yes. 123. On any country other than this class of country? —Yes, I have been on all sorts. 124. Do you know the high country ?—I have been shearing on the high country. 125. Is there any Californian thistle about this estate?— Yes, a little. Ido not think it is increasing. 126. What are you doing to keep it down ?—Chopping it down. 127. Does it increase if you cultivate where it is ? —I cannot say, because I have not had much experience with it. 128. Is there any ragwort ?—I do not know what it is. 129. Mr. Matheson.] You think the lease in perpetuity is the most secure tenure and better than the freehold tenure for the tenant?—l do not say it is better than the freehold. 130. Suppose you are doing very well on your lease in perpetuity and saving money, do you see any harm in allowing the tenant to gradually purchase his section out of his savings ?—That is another way of breaking the lease. 131. I mean, looking at the future. We want to make the country as productive as possible, and our object is to settle the land as well as possible; and in order to do so it is a question of what will most encourage the farmers. Suppose future leases contained a clause giving the tenants the right to gradually pay off the capital value out of their savings, or if a rich uncle died and left them £1,000 they had the right to pay that amount off, do you think the State would be wise to give them that option, seeing that the State would get back all it had expended, and that the land would be there for the State to tax?—l think under the present system the State would be left with the debt and minus the money if the purchase price was paid off to-morrow morning. 132. If they sell out the Government would get the money ? —lt would give them more money to spend. 133. Do you not think in arranging the matter under a new law it is reasonable to suppose we have got honest administrators ?—I do not say we have got dishonest administrators, but it is money taken from London specially for this Land for Settlements Act, and, in my opinion, if they gave us the right to purchase to-morrow the purchase-money should be sent straight back to London. 134. Suppose it were a condition that all money received from the estates were handed back to the people from whom borrowed?—l would not agree to that, then. I would like to have the freehold, but I would not agree to that. 135. You think it wise to give the freehold on any terms ?—No. 136. You do not think it wise that the State should give you what you like ? —No. 137. Mr. Forbes.] Do you say the examinations for the ballot are a farce?— Yes. 138. In what way ?—Because any fellow with brains can beat the Commissioner every time. 139. Do you not have to show your bank-book ?—lf you have not anything you can get a pal to lend some money to you. 140. Does it not show you are trustworthy when a friend will lend you a few hundreds on no security ?—Still, the Board do not know that it is not yours. 141. It has been suggested that the Rangers give a good deal of trouble and interfere a good deal: do you find that is so here ?—No. I have been under the Ranger both here and in Canterbury, and I have always found them fair, just, and reasonable persons. 142. Mr. Anstey.] I understood you to say you are perfectly satisfied with the cropping conditions in regard to your land which you are renting at 7s. per acre, but you think there ought to be some relaxation in regard to higher priced land ?—Yes. 143. You have told us you were at Waikakahi: have you known any of the land on the other
a—4.
358
J. W. McCOWAN.
side of the river to be cropped continuously for a good many years—say, ten or twelve years?-—I know one paddock at Willow Bridge from which eight or nine crops of wheat were taken in succession. 144. Can you tell me whether the later crops were much worse than the first one ?—The later crops were a bit better, because the first ones were all straw. The last crop went 35 bushels. 145. Had the yield diminished?—lt had diminished, and they had to spell the ground. I consider that was ridiculous cropping. It was not good farming. 146. Would it not be very much better that a condition should be put in a lease in regard to the cropping of good alluvial land such as that, rather than that the cropping should depend on the good-will of the Banger?— Yes. 147. Supposing that very rich land is laid down in grass immediately after two crops are taken oil, does not the land become too foul ?—Yes. 148. Then, is it not necessary to crop it more than twice in succession?— Yes. 149. Mr. McCardle.] You said there was not a fair opportunity at present for a successful small settler to enlarge his holding ? —Yes. 150. You are aware of the Act that limits the amount of land any man may hold direct from the Government ?—Yes. 151. Then, is it your opinion that if you hold a lesser amount than the limit you ought to be allowed to take advantage of the Act and acquire more land if your section is too small, whether the land adjoins your holding or not, and that residence on one section should be sufficient ?—Oh, no. What I mean is this : if you hold a small section in a settlement here, and you get to the position when you can take up a larger section in another settlement, say, at Greenfield, for instance, I think the Land Board should allow you to go in for the ballot the same as any other selector, and if you are successful and secure a section at Greenfield, then I think a certain time should be allowed you to transfer your present holding to another tenant. I do not think a man should be allowed to hold the two sections. 152. In the case where a man holds a small section, and the growth of his family makes it necessary for him to increase his area and he does not want to part with his home, do you not think he should be allowed to extend his holding, even though the other land may be some little distance from his homestead ?—-Yes, if it is only some little distance away, but I would not allow him to hold another section in another settlement. 153. Would you allow him to do so in the survey district?—No; I would limit him to the settlement. 154. Mr. McCutchan.] What is your reason for not allowing a man to take up another section even a few miles away, provided the area is within the limit allowed by law ?—I should consider if he was holding sections in two different localities he was occupying two men's livings, and that is not the intention of the Land for Settlements Act. 155. Your point is that a man goes on to 50 acres, as you did, and after years of toil he makes things comfortable, and has a certain amount of attachment to that place, why if he finds he requires more land should you force him to part with the 50 acres in order to get a larger area ?— He might hold two places a hundred miles apart. 156. Surely, that is a matter for himself, and if he likes to go away a hundred miles well and good ?—I cannot agree with you. 157. You object to the principle of loading : have you had any experience of the spending of loading in connection with roads?—l would not like to express an opinion. I saw them making a road once. 158. I do not wish to force you, but it seems to me extraordinary that you should hold an opinion on a matter that materially concerns yourself and not express it ?—The road-making reminded me of Pharaoh building the pyramids —they did not seem to be in a hurry. 159. Mr. Hall.] I think you stated chat the lease in perpetuity is not a good tenure for the State? —Yes. 160. For what reason ? Is it because some of the sections turn out bad and are thrown back on the hands of the State?— No. Those sections have to be revalued. 161. Is that where the loss to the State would come in ?—I answered the other Commissioner by saying the benefit was in having such a good tenure and no revaluation of it. 162. It does not matter at what price the land is taken up the tenant always get it at the same price, but if there was periodical revaluation the State would get the benefit of it ?—That does not say that the present tenure is a loss to the State. 163. Does not the rent pay the full interest on the purchase-money of the land?— Yes. 164. Then, where does the loss to the State come in, unless it is in consequence of sections being thrown back on the Government's hands?— There is no actual loss, but if there had been a revaluation clause there would have been a gain to the State. That is the reason why lam against any breaking of the lease either by reducing the rent temporarily or by going for the freehold, because I do not know what we may get. 165. Mr. McLennan.] Do you know of any Crown tenants who have sold the goodwill ?—I bought the goodwill of a section. 166. Do you think it right that they should be permitted to go to the ballot again for a certain time after selling their goodwill ?—Yes; if a tenant can show he is prepared to take up a much larger holding, because I would not bar any man's advancement. 167. Mr. Paul,] Have you heard of any proposal to revalue the leases and make the revaluation apply retrospectively ?—I -think, from what I can gather from the statements of Messrs. Ell, Laurenson, and others, it is for revaluation that they are working. 168. Do they want to revalue your lease ?—Yes, if they could get it done. 169. Supposing the Crown tenants reopen the leases, would you complain if those people wanted a variation : do you not think that if the leases are reopened for the Crown tenants they
J. W. McCOWAN.]
359
C—4.
cannot complain if other provisions are inserted ? —lf the Crown tenants stand together unanimously I think their position will be simplified. 170. If the Crown tenants want the contract broken they may gain an advantage on one hand, but on the other hand it may result in a disadvantage ?—I would have no pity for them under those circumstances. 171. Is there a branch of the Farmers' Union here?— Yes. 172. Is it in favour of giving you the option of the freehold?—l do not know. 173. Do you know that in other parts of the colony they are advocating the option of the freehold ?—Yes; I believe they are. 174. Do you know why they are advocating it when neither the tenants nor the country are asking for it ?—I suppose they think they are looking after our good. 175. Would it not be just as well to let you look after your own good?— Yes ; but perhaps they have an axe of their own to grind. 176. Mr. Aiistey.] You said you were in favour of allowing a small settler at the ballot a larger section on the condition that if he were successful in obtaining a larger farm he should transfer the smaller farm to a suitable tenant?— Yes. 177. The reason is that as soon as a settler is successful and he is able to get a larger section he should be allowed to do so, thus enabling a settler who is not so well off to get the smaller section? — Yes. 178. Mr. Forbes.] Have you ever heard of a small settler making a transfer to a friend temporarily while he ballots for another section ? —No ; you cannot do that with Government land. John Matheson McCeae examined. 179. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer on the Elderslie Settlement. I farm 426 acres, and my rent is Bs. 9d. an acre. I have held the land for about five years. The section is under lease in perpetuity, and the tenure is satisfactory to me. I must say that I have been under various landlords in the colony since the early days, and have had a good deal of experience with landlords and their workings. I think the lease in perpetuity is the best tenure. 1 80. Have you any yearning for the freehold ?—No, I have not; but when the time has arrived when the Government is prepared to give me the freehold I will accept. 181. It has been suggested that it might be a good thing to allow tenants to pay up the capital value gradually ?—That is a subject I have been thinking over, and I am of opinion that it would be very unwise for the Government to give the freehold on condition that it was to be paid up —that is, that las a Crown tenant should be obliged to go into the hands of the money-lender. I certainly say that the Government should be the mortgagee until I was in a position to meet my liabilities to the Government. 182. Would you approve of paying the money off just as you had it?— Yes, I think gradual payment would be best. 183. When you were in a position to pay off do you think the Government would require a revaluation of your land? —I think in that case that any improvements made on my farm, in the shape of levelling the land and ditching and other improvements, should be my own. I think that any valuation that is put upon the property from the time I take it up I am legitimately entitled to it. 184. Mr. Hall.] Is it your opinion that the settlement of the land under the lease-in-perpetuity system has promoted the prosperity of the country ?—Yes. 185. You also consider that it is safer to hold land from the Government under a rental than to get the freehold and go into the hands of the money-lender?— Yes. 186. The question has been often raised that if the Government make any concession of rental that might make the case itself invalid : have you any opinion on that ? —No, I would not like to give my opinion on that point. 187. But you believe unless the lease itself is cancelled any concession of that kind cannot make it invalid ?—That is so. 188. Mr. Paul.] Are you satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Board?—l am. 189. Nothing has come under your observation to make you think a change in that respect is desirable ?—No. 190. Are there any regulations or restrictions that are too harsh ? —No. 191. Mr. Johnston.] You said just now that you could prove that there was considerable prosperity in the colony ?—I was going to refer to the early days when I held an agricultural lease. That was as far back as 1872, on the goldfields. In those days we paid 2s. 6d. an acre rent for fourteen or twenty-one years' lease, and we had the right of purchase for £1 10s. an acre. Still this 2s 6d. an acre was going on, and we had tutu and rough country to contend with, and I must say in most cases it was a failure. The only advantage was that we were allowed to run stock at a low rental. 192. You were going to produce documentary evidence ?—I have read that there is a great deal of clamour about the deferred-payment system. I was one who changed from an agricultural lease to the deferred-payment system. I went down to Knapdale, and I think I could prove that Mr. Donald Beid's policy at that time was a failure. 193. How was it a failure ? —I expect some members of the Commission know why. When Mr. Donald Beid's land-tenure came out the sections were put up to auction, and in the case of the land in the district I came from there were some people who paid over £6 an acre, and when the revaluation took place they got the land for £1 16s. an acre. I was paying something over £2 an acre, and after the revaluation I got it down to £1 10s. an acre. Something like two hundred sections were thrown up and revalued, and the Government had to come and help us.
[j. M. MCCRAE.
C—4.
360
194. You say the settlement was not a success in the first instance? —Yes, for those who paid more than the upset price, but .those who were lucky enough to get land at £1 10s, prospered. 195. It was sold by auction, and they gave too much for it ?—Yes. 196. The rent was fair after the reduction ? —Yes. 197. What was the cause of the exaggerated value put on the land by applicants ?—The excitement of the people who were anxious to get a piece of land. 198. What other tenures or land laws have you been under ?—I had a freehold. 199. You preferred the lease in perpetuity to any other tenure ?—Yes. 200. Mr. Matheson.] If the farmers of the colony can be made really contented and prosperous will that be a great benefit to the colony ? —Yes. 201. Do you think it would be wise to give settlers a chance of acquiring the freehold with their savings as has been suggested, providing they were not allowed to borrow money to do it ?— I should say it would be a benefit. 202. You say that the principle of deferred payment is sound so long as the price is reasonable, and that where it has failed has been in cases where the men offered foolish prices ?—Where it failed was in the case of the auction system, and the excitement consequent upon public competition. In all cases men will get excited if they want a piece of land, especially if some one else wants it. 203. Mr. Forbes.] If the Government were to allow the holders of lease-m-perpetuity sections to have the freehold, would you be willing that the land should be open again for selection ?—The improvements effected by the tenants cannot in many cases be seen. 204. You do not think the improvements can be properly valued ?—No. 205. And therefore you do not think it is fair that compensation should be allowed for improvements and the public get a chance of getting the altered tenure ?—I think it would be doing the tenant harm if revaluation took place. 206. You think it would be much better for the tenant to stick to his existing lease than to try and take up the freehold under revaluation ?—Yes. 207. Mr. Anstey.] I understand you to say that two crops in six years is suitable for this class of land? —I would not like to say that, because there are farmers and farmers. A practical man will go on his land and work it to his own advantage and make money on it. Another man may go on to his farm with double the capital and be a total failure. 208. But, still, there must be some cropping restrictions? —If a farmer farms his land as he should I do not think our present Land Board will interfere with him—that is, if he does what is just and honest. 209. You know nothing of the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 210. Mr. McCardle.] If the Government decided upon a fair value for the land, and the land was to be disposed of at that price, do you not think a proper way of doing that would be to grant the freehold if the tenant was not contented with the lease as it stands at present ?—Yes ; that would be my argument. Joseph Bates examined. 211. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer, and farm 496 acres in Elderslie. My rent is about Bs. 3d. per acre. I have been here about five years. I find my holding satisfactory in every way. I get on very well with the Land Board, and am satisfied with my tenure. 212. Mr. Hall.] Are the tenants in this district generally satisfied?—l think so. 213. On the whole, do they farm the land fairly well ? —Yes. 214. They are not failures"?—No, I do not think so. 215. Mr. McLennan.] You say the tenants in this district are satisfied. Supposing a referendum was taken, do you think it would be in favour of their getting the option of the freehold ? —I do not know. lam quite content. 216. How many settlers do you think would be in favour of the Crown tenants getting the freehold ?—I cannot speak for any one but myself. 217. You think that the policy of breaking up large estates and settling them has been a good thing for the colony and for the settlement of the district ?—Yes. 218. You think the lease-in-perpetuity is the best system ?—Yes. _ 219. Mr. Johnston.] You do not know of any settler in the block who is dissatisfied with the Land Board ?—No. 220. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office?— No. 221. Mr. Matheson.] Have you had any experience of bush settlement ? —No. 222. Do you think that, in a case where a man takes up bush land at the upset price of £1 an acre and fells the bush, it would be wise to give him a chance of acquiring the freehold ?— Yes 223. Mr. Forbes.] But you think the lease-in-perpetuity system is the best in the interests of the settlement of the country ?—Yes. 224. Mr. Anstey.] Have you had any experience of the ballot ? —Not much. 225. Do you know anything about the second ballot ? —No. 226. Can you tell me whether the farmers in this settlement, generally speaking, farm their land well ?—I believe they do. 227. Do they farm it as well as the freeholders ? —Yes ; I believe so. 228. Are they putting up good buildings on the leasehold land ?—Yes. 229. Are the buildings as good on the land of the leaseholders as those on freehold land ? — They are quite as good, and I think the farming is quite as good. 230. Mr. McCardle.] You have thought the question out, and you are prepared to go on with your leasehold rather than apply for the option of purchase ?—Yes.
3. BATES.]
361
C—4.
231. Supposing the Government were voluntarily to say that they were going to grant the freehold, you think the settler should have the option, if he thought fit to take it ?—I think they should stick to the agreement made with the Government. 232. If the Government did propose to give the option of the freehold, you do not think it would be fair that somebody else should have an opportunity of getting a section now held by a tenant ?—No. 233. You think the present tenants should have the right of the option ?—Yes. John Brown Steele examined. 234. The Chairman.'] What are you ? lam a farmer on the First Windsor Park Settlement, and have 230 acres. I pay 12s. 6d. an acre, and am loaded with improvements on the place— making £193 to be paid off in twenty-one years. That makes something over £200 by the time I pay it off. I pay about £15 a year for twenty-one years. That is for buildings, sheep-yards, and dip. I have been there about three years. I do not think that the First Windsor Park Settlers have got justice in regard to rebate. Rebates have been given in the case of other estates in this neighbourhood, yet we on the First Windsor Park Estate have not got it. I have a letter here, dated the 22nd December, 1902, signed by the Receiver of Land Revenue, in which he says, " I have to state that no rebate is allowed in respect to Windsor Park sections." Ido not say that Windsor Park is overvalued, but I say that Elderslie is a better bargain to the settlers there by about 2s. to 2s. 6d. an acre. The two estates adjoin each other. There is only a gorse fence between them. In the one case the rental is Bs. Bd., and in the other it is 14s. 3d. 235. ¥ou do not think Windsor Park is too highly valued ? —I do not say that, but I consider that I am paying a good rent for my land. I do not consider that Windsor Park is unduly valued considering the seasons we have had since I came here. I consider, from the state of my land, that I cannot farm it with the restrictions at present imposed by the Land Board. It is a dirty farm, and most of the land in my neighbourhood at Windsor is also dirty. 236. Would you like to be allowed to crop more ?—Yes. 237. But you would hardly be prepared to recommend any cast-iron rule as to cropping ? — No. The Ranger is present, and the Commission may ask him if he does not think I farm my land well. I think it would be better if some alteration were made in respect of restrictions as to cropping. 238. Mr. Johnston.'] You knew what you were doing when you took up your land?— Yes. 239. You were satisfied when you took it up ?—Yes; but it has turned out to be dirtier than I took it to be. 240. What is the matter with the land ?—lt is overrun with couch, and there is also some Californian thistle on it. 241. You want the right to crop more?—l said I wanted the right to use my own judgment with regard to more cropping. As to what is called " white cropping," it might suit me to take onewhite crop off one portion of the land and in another part of the section to take two crops off in succession. 242. Mr. Anstey.] Have you applied to the Land Board to get a concession as to cropping ?— Yes. That application was granted, but Ido not think I should have to write to the Land Board for every alteration of that sort. 243. How often does the Ranger come round ?—I think, about twice a year. 244. You have had no difficulty in respect to him?— No. 245. You would not suggest doing away with all cropping restrictions ?—lf a man puts substantial improvements on his land I do not think it would be injurious to the State to make some alteration with respect to restrictions as to cropping. 246. You think cropping restrictions might be done away with if the settler puts sufficient improvements on the land ? —Yes; I think the interests of the State would be safeguarded. 247. Mr. McCardle.] You have had experience on a farm?— Yes, I was brought up on a farm. 248. You think the suggestions you have made to the Land Board are fair and reasonable, and ought to be complied with, especially as you have made permanent improvements?— Yes. 249. Mr. McCutchan.] With respect to the rebate, are you aware that it is in the discretion of the Commissioner to grant rebate ?—Yes. 250. What rebate is usually granted in this district ?—ln Elderslie it is 10 per cent., and I believe it is the same at Maerewhenua and Tokarahi, and it has also been granted at Second Windsor Park. 251. Did you pay your rent within a month ?—I was prepared to do so if I could get the rebate, but I was informed no rebate would be granted. David Barron further examined. 252. The Chairman.] You are Commissioner of Crown Lands for Otago, and I understand you desire to make a statement in reference to the evidence which has just been given by the last witness? —Yes. All these estates were gone carefully through by the Receiver of Land Revenue and myself, and when it was ascertained or understood, from the information we had and from our own knowledge of the land, that estates were bought at a reasonable price—and in this case it was bought at less than we thought the current price to be—we did not deem it necessary to allow rebate. In the case of estates bought at a full price we have the power to grant a rebate up to 10 per cent., but in this case the land, was bought at £1 an acre less than its value, and therefore we did not grant any rebate. I may say that in individual cases—and perhaps in Mr. Steele's case —there might be hardship, because probably all the sections were valued equally, and his sections may not have turned out so good on account of the couch-grass that he refers to, and on account of other circumstances. We recognise in his case that the land is somewhat sour, and it is valued at a little less than some of the adjoining sections, but it may have turned out even worse
46—C. 4.
362
[d. baeron.
C—4.
than we thought, and probably in his case a rebate might be necessary, but we do not give rebates to individual settlers in the one block. I may add that this question is to be considered in connection with one or two other estates, and probably a rebate may be deemed necessary. 253. Mr. McLennan.'] "Was there any other reason that came under your notice ?—No. 254. Was there anything about land-tax or county rates ?—No. The Eeceiver and I went through all the estates and carefully considered each on its merits. 255. Mr. Johnston.] Are there any tenants behind with their rent in these blocks at the present time ?—There is always a proportion of tenants who are behind time, but nine-tenths or more of them are paid up. 256. Mr. McCutchan.] In reference to rebate when it was originally granted, was it not granted for the reason that there was a margin over and above the cost to the State which admitted of rebate being given ?—No, there was no margin. 257. Is there not a margin which admits of the 10-per-cent. rebate being given without loss to the Government? —That is a question I cannot answer. 258. Some people say there is a margin which admits of rebate being given ■without loss to the State?—l do not care to interpret the intentions of the Legislature in a case like that. 259. Mr. McCardle.] Is it not the fact that tenants were keeping back their payments to the last moment, and in order to get prompt payment the Government agreed to grant a rebate?—No doubt the rebate induces tenants to pay more promptly. Ido not remember exactly our arrears, but I think they dropped from £10,000 to about £2,000 in a very short time. That showed clearly that the settlers were taking advantage of the benefit of the rebate. 260. It has been stated th%t there is a profit over and above the interest that is paid on the estates —that there is always a margin left clear? —According to the annual returns there is a substantial profit. I think last year it was about £50,000. 261. Mr. McLennan.] Is the 10 per cent, a rebate or is it interest on the half-year's rent paid in advance ?—According to law the rent should be prepaid. 262. And they are getting interest for it now ? —Yes. 263. Mr. McCutchan.] Why should the discount for cash payment be varied?—On account of the particular circumstances in each case. In the case of a man who pays full value or perhaps a little more for his land, the full rebate of 10 per cent, is allowed, whereas in other cases 5 per cent, rebate is allowed, and in other cases no rebate is given. 264. That cannot be a discount for cash ?■—No. I may say that some Crown Land Commissioners simply give the 10-per-cent. rebate in all cases. Samuel James Davis examined. 265. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer, and have 69J acres in Windsor Park No. 1. I pay lis. rent, and have been there for three years. I have been dissatisfied with my position about the rebate not having been granted to me. Also, I think that the cropping restrictions are rather strict in the case of small sections the same as mine. 266. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be in favour of giving more discretionary power to the Land Boards ?—Yes, I think that would be better. 267. Is there any couch on your land?— Yes. I have ploughed it four times to try and kill the fine couch. 268. Mr. Paul.] I understand you are satisfied with everything except in respect to the rebate and cropping regulations ?—Yes. 269. Mr. Johnston.] You want the rebate because the tenants in No. 2 have got the rebate?— I do not like to be treated differently from others. 270. If this land was in the market would you be willing to take it up ? —Yes. 271. Would you be prepared also to pay a little more for it ? —No, I do not think so. 272'. Mr. Anstey.] Have you applied to the Land Board for permission to vary the cropping restrictions? —No. I have been told they have not the power to vary the conditions. 273. I suppose you would not advocate the doing-away with the cropping restrictions ?—No. Our cropping restrictions are as to one-half, but at Elderslie they are allowed to crop as much as thev like. 274. Mr. McCardle.] You said you want the Board to have more discretionary power. Are you not aware that the Board can exercise discretionary power, and has done so in respect to the 10-per-cent. rebate ? Do you not think it would be better to remove the responsibility of the Land Board as to that ?—I meant in the matter of cropping ; but I think the law is not plain enough in respect to rebate. 275. You think the law should be made general in respect to rebate or not at all?— Yes. I think one person should be treated the same as another in that respect. 276. If the Government paid £1 an acre above the value do you think the tenants ought to be penalised for that ?—No. George Livingstone further examined. 277. The Chairman.] You wish to make a further statement ?—Yes. In regard to the rebate, I may say that about three months ago the settlers asked me to bring this matter before the Minister of Lands, and he told me distinctly that it was his wish that they should get the rebate. I think Mr. Barron understood that these settlers were just as much entitled to it as the settlers in any other settlement, and I am sure it is the wish of the Minister of Lands that they should get it. Mr. D. Barron (Commissioner of Crown Lands, Otago) : I do not think it is fair for Mr. Livingstone to make that statement, and Ido not think he is justified in doing so. He may have had a private or an official communication with the Minister of Lands; but Ido not think he should come here and advertise it, and throw upon me the onus of the refusal to grant the
a—4.
G. LIVINGSTONE.]
363
■wishes of the settlers here. I think, moreover, especially in view of his position as a member of the Land Board, that he should not have said what he has done here to-day. Mr. Livingstone : I think, as a member of the Land Board from this district, I have a perfect right to say what I have. I was asked by the settlers to interview the Minister, and as a result I told them the Minister was in favour of giving the rebate, and I expected it would have been done at the last meeting of the Board. I have not drawn attention to this matter with the intention of doing Mr. Barron any injury. Thomas O'Connor examined. 278. The Chairman.) What are you?—l am a farmer, and have 75 acres of freehold in Windsor Park. I pay 4| per cent, interest and 1 per cent, on the principal. That is, I pay 5£ per cent, interest and sinking fund. If Igo on paying for thirty-six years and a half the land will be my own. I have paid seven instalments, and as I have reduced the principal by a certain amount I do not think I should be called upon to pay interest on the whole amount. The Chairman said that was a matter that was outside the scope of the Commission ; they could not deal with it.
Ngapaka, Thursday, 30th March, 1905. Edwabd Sturbock examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you. —I am a farmer holding 650 acres under lease in perpetuity on the Elderslie Settlement. I pay 6s. 6d. an acre rent, and I have been on the place for four years. 2. I suppose you carry on mixed farming ? —Yes. 3. Are you satisfied with the holding?— Yes, and the tenure and the rent. 4. Is there any matter that you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I am not very well satisfied with the Advances to Settlers Office. I applied two years ago for an advance of £300. My improvements were valued at £750, and I was only offered £150. I did not take it, as that amount was no good to me. 5. Was any reason given why the application was cut down? —No; the Government valuer valued the improvements, and I did not even get returned to me the valuer s fee. 6. I suppose you had to get the money elsewhere ? —I had to do the best I could. 7. Are you satisfied with the conditions with regard to improvements?— Yes, I am satisfied with the cropping conditions too. 8. Mr. McCardle.] You consider, I suppose, it is the first duty of the Government to make advances on their own property ? —Yes. 9. It is proposed now to make an amendment to the Advances to Settlers Act m order to enable the Board to advance up to three-fifths of the settlers' improvements or interest in the land. Do you think that would be right and proper ?—I think the limit should be increased, as a half is not enough. 10. Do you think that would be satisfactory to the settlers and safe to the State ?— Quite safe to the State —it is their own land. 11. Have you any objection to the ballot ?—I do not believe in the grouping system. 12. Do you think there should be any inducement to the settlers under the lease in perpetuity to purchase their holdings ? —No; I think it would be better for the settlers and for the State that they should not. 13. Have you any experience of rough country ?—Yes. 14. Bush country ?—No. 15. Do you think that, where settlers go into the back country and hew out homes for themselves, away from all the conveniences of centres and schools, and so on, they are entitled to the freehold?—No, they go there with their eyes open. 16. They are compelled to apply for the land under the lease conditions. The land is only worth a few shillings, and they are compelled to put on improvements worth £4 or £5 per acre. Do you not think that they are entitled to the freehold ?—No, I do not. 17. The Government comes to your rescue and buys an estate which they let you have at 5 per cent, on the cost of the estate,'but in the case of the bush settler, he goes to a place where there are no improvements at all. He has to borrow money to make roads, and he pays for all his own improvements. Has he not a right to the land ?—lt belongs to the State. I have improved my farm in the same way. 18. From the bush ?—No. . 19. Your answer does not apply to the North Island?—l say the State bought the land. 20. They got it from the Natives in many instances for 2s. 6d. per acre, and they sell it to the settlers for 10s. ?—A man is a fool to go there" when there is plenty of land to get elsewhere. Let the Natives work that land. 21. Mr. McCutchan.) Your answer to Mr. McCardle had reference to the land bought under the Land for Settlements Act, had it not ?—Yes. 22. With reference to this loan that you applied for, you had to fill up a form, had you not?— Yes. n _ 23. In that form did you state the purpose for which you required the money ?—Yes. 24. Was the loan-money to enable you to make further improvements or to pay for improvements already made ?—To pay for improvements already made. 25. The Advances to Settlers Office only offered you up to 20 per cent, of the value of your improvements? —£150 on £750 of improvements.
C.-4
364
• [e. stueeock.
26. Was there any reason known to yourself why the loan should not be granted? —No. 27. Were there any noxious weeds?— No. 28. Any rabbits ? —Eabbits, of course ; we have to keep them to live on. 29. Do you not think that the reply of the Department might have been in some sense due to the existence of the rabbits ?—No. 30. The Chairman.] Were the rabbits bad at the time?— No. 31. Mr. Matheson.] What do you think they refused the loan for?—l do not know; I suppose they had no money. 32. Suppose you took up a lease in perpetuity of the capital value of £1,000, and that you improved it after years of hard work; good times came, and you were enabled to save £1,000 : do you think the State would be doing any harm by letting you pay them that £1,000 and giving you the freehold in return ?—I think so. 33. In what way would they be doing harm?— Because if I do not want the leasehold there are plenty of other people who do. If I have the money I can get away and buy a freehold somewhere else if I want it. 34. Mr. Paul.] You think the proper policy for those who want the freehold is to go into the open market for it ?—Yes. 35. And leave the leasehold for those who can only go on to the land under that policy ? —Yes. 36. The State have some Crown lands at the present time. Do you think the State should retain the freehold of those lands ?—I think that the State should not part with any of the freehold. 37. You think that the State should not sell any more of the Crown lands? —1 am only speaking of what I know—the land rSund here. When you get away to the back blocks of the North Island I do not know much about it. 38. In the North Island there is a large area of land which belongs to the Crown, do you think they should sell the freehold?— No. 39. Do you think that the State should make some equivalent for the freehold ?—I think they should give those in the back blocks some show. 40. You would be in favour of allowing them leases without rent ? —I do not understand the conditions of that part of the country. 41. At any rate, you would make it as easy as possible for the man who goes on to that land? —They do that now. 42. You understand the difference between ordinary lands purchased under the Land for Settlements Act and Crown lands let under the optional system, by which they can get their freehold. You are opposed to that ?—I am opposed to the freehold altogether. I think the Crown should own all the land they possibly can. 43. But on these Crown lands you would give the settler every advantage ?—Yes; otherwise they will not go to live there at all. 44. Would you favour those who have not got the right of purchase in their leases getting that right of purchase ?—I would not be in favour of the State making leases with the right of purchase at all. 45. Do you know anything about the loading of lands for roads? —We are pretty well loaded now, and have got no roads for it. 46. Have you any opinion to give about the roading of the land ?—We pay the County Councils rates for our roads. 47. Was not the road formed before you took possession of the sections ?—lt is not formed yet. 48. Was any money spent on the roads?— Some may have been. 49. Did you get satisfaction for the money that was spent ? — Yes; but they did not do enough of it. 50. Mr. Forbes.] Can you suggest anything that would better the advances-to-settlers system ? —I think there should be a more liberal advance to the State's own properties. 51. How do you know that your improvements were valued at £750? — The Government valuer valued the improvements. 52. You had that value supplied to you ?—Yes; and I filled in a form with regard to it. 53. Did you ask any one to apply to the member for the district to ask the reason why so small a sum had been offered?—l did not ask any one. When beat there I did not think it worth while to go any further. 54. Mr. Anstey.] Was the Government valuer sent to make a value when you made your application?— Yes, and I paid him for it. 55. You would not object to the loading for roads provided you got value for it? — That is so. 56. What fee did you pay for the valuation ?—£l,l think. 57. You paid it when you made the application, did you not? You paid it to the Department ?—That is so. The valuer, Mr. Atkinson, did not get it. 58. You were farming before you took up your lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 59. In this district ?—Yes. 60. What was the height of the rough country you have sowed ?—I do not know. 61. It was not on the runs?— No. 62. Have you any experience of the grassing of high country?— Yes; on the Albury Estate, near Fairlie. 63. How was it done ? —lt was done by the hand with cocksfoot. We burnt the tussock and sowed the grass. 64. Was the height of the country 2,000 ft. ?—Quite. It was under the snow-line.
E. STUBROCK.]
365
C.—4.
65. Was the sowing of the cocksfoot a success ?—Yes. 66. Have you any idea of the area sown ?—No. 67. Do you think the high runs can be so sown ?—Not too high. 68. The Chairman.] What part of Alhury Estate did you sow ? —lt was the low downs, from the homestead up the valley. 69. Mr. McCutchan.] At the time you made the application to the Advances to Settlers Office for the loan what did you estimate your improvements at ?—About £700. 70. Did the Government valuer say whether his valuation coincided with yours ?—No. 71. How did you know what his value was, then ?—I got it from the valuer himself afterwards. 72. Was your rent paid up at the time you made the application ?—Yes. 73. Did you get the money elsewhere afterwards ?—I did not bother about it. I battled through without it. John Fbater Kydd examined. 74. The Chair man. ] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 47 acres of lease in perpetuity in Windsor No. 1. I have been there about three years, and pay a rent of ss. 9d. per acre. 75. Are you fairly satisfied with your holding ?—Yes, but there is no water on. Two wells that I have sunk have fallen in, and I have sunk another to 10 ft. 76. It is only surface-water you have ? —Practically so. There is no spring water. 77. Did you go over the ground carefully before you applied for it ?—Yes, but it was in a rough state at the time. 78. You did not recognise that it was badly off for water?— No. 79. You cannot get on very well without water? —No. 80. Are you cropping ?—I have put in some crops this year and I have a few sheep, but I have had to take over a paddock for them. 81. Have you any cattle ?—I keep a few cows, and have to take them twice a day a mile and a half for water. That is bad for the milk. 82. Mr. Hall.] How far have you sunk for water ?—I went down 20 ft. in one well. 83. Did you get plenty of water at that depth ?—No. 84. Mr. Paul.] Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board ?—Yes, practically speaking. 85. You have not come into collision with the Land Board or Ranger ?—No ; I am well satisfied with them. 86. Are you satisfied with the tenure ?—Yes. 87. Mr. Forbes.] Do you desire a reduction of rent?—No; but I think they might have given me some little allowance on account of my having no water. I have no water whatever. Two sections should have gone into one. 88. Have you applied to the Land Board ?—No. 89. Mr. Anstey.] Can you make any practical suggestion that would get over this difficulty? I am not sure what 1 could do. 90. You hold the land, and if you can make no suggestion you can hardly expect any one else to do so?—No; but they could give me some assistance. Ido not know how far I would have to go down to get water, and the walls would have to be timbered and windmills put on. 91. Would it be suitable to borrow money under the Advances to Settlers Act and pay interest on it ?—That means another speculation, that is all. 92. Do you get the 10-per-cent. reduction for prompt payment ?—I have never got it. 93. Is your rent paid promptly ?—Yes; it has always been paid in advance. 94. Do you know of other settlers at Windsor getting it ?—They said that no allowance was to be made in respect to Windsor Park No. 1 sections. 95. Do you not think you had better agitate until you get it ?—What is the use. I have been applying for two years and have not got it. 96. Have you ever tried for artesian water ?—No. 97. Do you know of any one in the district who has tried for it ?—No. 98. Have you ever tried boring?—No, but I know of a practical man who tried for water in that way and it was a failure. 99. You do not think there is any way of getting water except by open-well sinking?— No. 100. What depth do you go to ?• I have been down 20 ft. 101. Is your land flat ?—No ; it is hilly country. 102. Do you make a good living on 47 acres ?—No, I do not. 103. You want more land ?—Yes ; I have leased from my neighbours in order to keep my stock. I have to do that for the sake of water. 104. Mr. Hall.] Is there any probability that you got this land at a reduced rental because of the want of water ?—I do not know, lam sure. It was practically a waste piece of country when I got it. 105. Is there any running water at a higher level than your section?— No. 106. The Chairman.] How far is your neighbour's spring from your leasehold ?—I suppose, a quarter of a mile. 107. Has he plenty of water ?—Yes. 108. Could an arrangement not be made with him by which you could drive your cows down to that water ?—lt is right in the centre of his land, and I do not think he would allow it. 109. Mr. Forbes.] —Was your'section one of those originally cut up?— Yes. 110. It was not a waste section, then ?—lt is to me. 111. The_ Chairman.] Are there any well-contractors in this district ?—There are some in the Oamaru district. I was going to write to the Land Board for assistance in getting water, but did not bother.
C.—4.
366
[i. l. king.
Thomas Lunam King examined. 112. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer holding 308 acres on Windsor Park No. 1. I pay 6s. 3d. per acre rent. I am engaged in mixed farming, and have been on the place for about three years. Water on my holding is scarce. There are several springs, but they run short if any quantity of stock is put on. 113. Have you done anything to increase the surface-water in the way of dams ?—I sunk one well, but I could not get a supply sufficient to keep a windmill going. My land is hilly, and I dare say there are some good sites for dams, but I do not think they would be workable. 114. Have you any particular point to bring before the Commission ?—The only thing I object to in regard to my section is the roading. I have got a road on two sides, but they are of no use to me. The one on the lower side is 150 ft. or 200 ft above my land, and in order to get my grain out to it I have to go through my neighbour's paddock. 115. I suppose you did not see the inconvenience of this until you took the land up ?—That is so. 116. Is there no part of your land fairly accessible to the road ?—A small part of it is, but the great part of my section is lying in a hollow. I am quite satisfied with the section, with the exception of the road. 117. Did you make any application to the Land Board ?—Yes ; but they said they could do nothing with the matter at the time. I wrote to the Minister of Lands also, and he referred my letter to the Land Board, and, of course, I got the same answer back again. 118. Mr. McCardle.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Board?— No. 119. Do you know of any of your neighbours who have applied for loans ?—No. 120. Mr. McCutchan.] How long ago is it that you referred this matter of the road to the Minister of Lands ?—Six months after I got the section. 121. Mr. Ball.] Are several neighbours in the same position as yourself in regard to water? —Yes. 122. Have any of you tried sinking to a greater depth ? —I think my neighbour and myself both struck water at a depth of 30 ft., and lower than that we could not go, and the flow at that depth was not sufficient to keep a pump working. 123. Would it not be worth while for the lessees to join mutually in putting down an "experimental bore?—l do not think that boring would be a success owing to the formation of the ground. There is too much rotten rock underneath. 124. Mr. Matheson.] Do you like the lease-in-perpetuity ? —Yes ; I think it is a good tenure. 125. Do you think it would be a good plan for the Government to buy up all the land and abolish freehold ?—No. 126. Do you think the State would make a mistake in selling a man the freehold after he had proved himself a good settler ?—I think they would. They took the estates and cut them up in order to settle the land, and, having secured" that object, if they sold the freehold they would get back all the money they had paid. 127. What harm would there be in that ?—I think it would close out the unsuccessful applicants for land. 128. Mr. Paul.) Do you believe in leasehold or freehold ?—Lease in perpetuity. 129. If this policy of buying estates and settling them under leasehold were extended gradually would you object to that ?—I would not agree to the State buying small freeholds. I would not object to a man having 1,500 to 2,000 acres of freehold, but when it comes to thousands of acres, I think it is a fair thing to take it and settle people upon it. The amount of land a man might hold under a freehold must all depend on the nature of the country. 130. Mr. McLennan.] Is the farm you cart through lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. .131. Would it damage your neighbour's farm to take a road through it?— No. It would cut off a small piece of his land, but it would be as valuable to my neighbour. I think he would be agreeable to that being done providing an allowance was made in his rent for the land so "taken. 132. Mr. Anstey.] If you had better road - accommodation would you be prepared to pay additional rent for it ?—Yes, so long as it was not too heavy. 133. Have you any reason to suppose that dams would not be successful ?—Yes. The formation of the land is not suitable. 134. Mr. Johnston.] Were you farming before you took up this section?— Yes. 135. What stock do you carry ?—About four hundred breeding ewes and a few head of cattle. I have about 70 acres in wheat, and another 60 acres lying fallow. 136. What is your average yield of wheat ?—About 30 bushels to the acre. 137. What is your reason for liking the lease in perpetuity ?—But for it I would not have had a farm at all. 138. Do you know whether any of the settlers in the block are dissatisfied?—No ; I think my neighbour and myself are about the only two who are not quite satisfied, and that is because of the want of water and a road. 139. The rent is not too large for you ?—No, I do not think so. 140. You are satisfied with the Land Board?— Yes, and if they help me to get that road I will be better satisfied. 141. The Chairman.] Are the springs sufficiently strong to flow?— Yes, at certain times of the year, but at present they are not. . John McMuephy examined. 142. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer on Elderslie, holding 312 acres lease in perpetuity, for which I pay 7s. 9d. per acre. I have been there between four and five years. I carry on mixed farming, and am satisfied with the lease in perpetuity and everything else about it.
C—4.
J. MCMUBPHY.]
367
I have plenty of water. I would like to see the lease in perpetuity extended all over the colony I believe the majority of us would never have had a farm at all but for that system. 143. Do you approve of the present constitution of the Land Board ?-—Yes ; my relations with them have always been in every way satisfactory. 144. Have you ever approached the Advances to Settlers Board?— No. 145. Is there any aggregation of estates going on about here ?—I think not. 146. Mr. McCardle.] Is there any more land available here that the Government could purchase for settlement purposes ?—lf Corriedale Estate was purchased it could be cut up, and I believe Otekaike Station could be subdivided into a number of farms. 147. Does your opinion of the lease in perpetuity apply to the waste lands of the colony as well as lands purchased under the Land for Settlements Act ?—I do not know anything about the waste lands. 148. Mr. McGutchan.] Are you quite satisfied about the loading for roads ?—Yes. 149. You know, of course, that you are paying interest for the whole term of the lease for roading, and that the interest in twenty-six years will reimburse the State in full for the cost on those roads. Do you not think the loading should cease when the State has been paid in full?—I am quite well satisfied with my holding in every way, but I believe the loading should cease when the State is reimbursed. 150. Do you think it is equitable for the County Council to have the power to levy a rate not only on the capital value of your land, but also on the loading? —No, I think that is unjust. 151. Mr. PauL.] Have you been long in this district ?—About twelve years. 152. You were here before these estates were cut up ?—Yes. 153. Mr. McLennan.'] You*and your neighbours are satisfied with the lease in perpetuity?— I think the majority of them are satisfied with it. 154. Supposing a referendum were taken, do you think that 90 per cent, in this district would say they are satisfied? —Yes. 155. Ninety-five per cent. ?—Yes. 156. Does the Banger give you any trouble?— Not much. 157. He acts fairly in the interests of both the Land Board and the tenant?— Yes. 158. Mr. Johnston.'] Have any sections in this block changed hands from the original owners ? —Yes, two sections have changed hands. In one case the successful applicant did not take up his section, and in the other case the tenant transferred about a month after he had taken the section. The first mentioned made nothing out of the change, but in the second case there was a little profit. 159. If your land was to be put in the market would you give more rent than you are paying at the present time ?—I am not sure. I think lam paying any amount. 160. You are satisfied with the rent you are paying ?—Yes. David Barkon further examined. 161. The Chairman.] You are Commissioner of Crown Lands and Chief Surveyor for Otago ? —Yes. I have been four years in Otago, and in other districts eight years in that position. I have been connected with the Survey Department since 1870. 162. Regarding the constitution of Land Boards, do you think the present constitution is favourable to the proper administration of the lands of the colony?— Yes. Of course, this is rather a political matter and somewhat outside any expression of opinion by a Civil servant. I may say that my experience of the various Boards as now constituted and with whom I have been connected is that they have all loyally worked in the interests of settlement, quite apart from any political party or opinions held by them. 163. It has been brought before us, as you are aware, that though the constitution of the Boards is satisfactory, yet the selections do not cover the province sufficiently, and that at the present time, for instance, your Otago Land Board members all come from along the seaboard ?— I-believe they should be drawn from the various parts of the district, and more especially from Central Otago, where the conditions are altogether different from those obtaining in the settled portions of the district. 164. In drawing from the different districts do you think the different tenures should be represented ? You are aware that there are a very large number of people holding under pastoral tenure, and that there are a large number of smali-grazing-run holders and a large number engaged in mining : do you think these interests as far as practicable should be given representation on the Board?— Yes. It has been recognised, as you are aware, that the Crown tenants should be represented on the Land Boards, and I think that the pastoral tenants should also be represented on account of the extent of the interests of that particular class. For instance, the revenue derived from the lease-in-perpetuity tenants under the Land for Settlements Act is £20,121, and the revenue derived from the pastoral tenants is £28,489. That sum does not include small-grazing-run rents, which represent £13,000 in addition. I give these figures for the purpose of illustrating the extent of the pastoral interests and the necessity for these classes being represented on the Board. I also mention it for the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that in the classification of runs we should have on the Board men who are accustomed to pastoral country and have a practical knowledge of it. All the members of the Board are to a certain extent acquainted with that class of country, but I do not know any one of them who has had any practical experience of the working of large pastoral blocks. 165. Having regard to the various recommendations you are now making, do you think the Board would require to be more numerous than it is ?—I think the present number of the Board is perhaps more workable than a larger body. 166. The Commission would like to have your opinions on the other questions that come within our scope?—l would just like to add before passing on that the mining interests, so far as
0.—4.
368
[d. babbon.
the Land Board is concerned, do not bulk very largely, so that if we had a man from Central Otago he would be acquainted with pastoral as well as mining interests. As a matter of fact, the pastoral lessees very seldom come into conflict with the miners. They work more amicably with the miners than small freeholders and leaseholders. 167. In using the word " conflict," it reminds me to ask you do you think it would be wise to sell the great pastoral areas in the interior of Otago, having regard to the mining interests ?—I think it would be inadvisable at the present time. 168. What is your opinion in regard to the various tenures under the Land Acts ?—I made a note of the various questions dealt with by the Commission before the Commission started their work, and I will just state them now. The tenures in this district appear to satisfy the bulk of settlers and applicants for land. So far as ordinary close settlement is concerned, a number regret the loss of the deferred-payment and perpetual-lease systems. The present conditions are, however, deemed, upon the whole, to be fair, provided that in all cases (whether on a goldfield or not) the optional system should be allowed. If the object of limiting selection on goldfields to lease in perpetuity is for the purpose of securing the miner better rights and privileges this appears to be attainable by the Mining Act of 1898 and its amendments—that is, miners have full power to enter upon any land granted or disposed of since 18;)2 and do whatever is necessary, the compensation being practically the same under any of the tenures. If the Government desires to give leases only, 1 would suggest that lessees be allowed the right to pay off at any time an amount equal to a certain sum as indicated in my suggestion at the Land Boards Conference, and for the reasons therein given. The right thus retained would prevent the aggregation of estates beyond a limit of, say, in the case of first-class land, not more than 1,000 acres, and second-class, say, 2,000 acres. Of course, the limit would apply to close settlement only. The areas of grazing-runs are not included in above. They are conditional on position and quality, aspect, elevation, and workability. The size of pastoral runs also depends on the above. At first sight it might appear that there need be no limit to the area of pastoral leases, but, so far as my observation goes, a run that goes beyond a certain limit proves a most difficult problem of management. The conditions as to large areas of pastoral country under one control have materially altered during the last few years on account of the difficulties in contending with the various pests with which the pastoralist has to cope. The question of the future of runs in this district is somewhat difficult to determine. As a matter of course, the low-lying runs must be subdivided to meet the interests of advancing settlement. At the same time great care must be exercised in classifying what is now left so that the interest of the pastoral and settlement lands as a whole may be equally preserved in the present state of affairs. There is a danger that this may be lost sight of on account of the limited area of low country still unalienated and the natural desires of advancing settlement requiring this low country. Years ago, and prior to the great run sales of 1882, I advocated a thorough classification of the land throughout Otago. Had this been carried out all the agricultural land would have been carefully defined. The pastoral agricultural land should have been marked on our maps in the same way, and the purely pastoral equally carefully classified. This last class should have had a fair proportion of low country for winter lambing purposes. Probably some portions of this would have been agricultural, but, whether fit for cultivation or not, it would not materially matter so long as it could be adapted for giving the necessary lands to keep up the flock, and also to grow a certain quantity of winter feed for young stock. This classification is now almost too late. At the same time, what is still left is worthy of consideration, and the fact that so very many of the leases expire in 1910 will give the Government an opportunity of adopting a scheme of subdivision. This appears to me a matter which should be taken in hand within the next few years so that both intending settlers and pastoralists may know what to expect. To both the present state of affairs means unrest, the settler demanding all the low country and the squatter doubtful of the future, and consequently refraining from attempting any improvements on his run on account of the insecurity of tenure. Were this proposal carried into effect and leases given for lengthened period, with the right of renewal under certain circumstances, there is but little doubt but that grassing would be extensively carried out. The remaining tenures applicable to land in this district are : (1.) Improved-farm settlement. This system has been carried out under difficult circumstances on account of the distances in most cases from markets. This and the difficulty of roading to and through the blocks made the conditions of settlement somewhat hard. (2.) Occupation leases under the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act have proved a considerable boon to the miners in the district, and wherever the Land Board finds it judicious to grant areas under this Act they have given the full benefit of its privileges. Of course, in some cases we have been compelled to refuse these for many reasons, the principal being the prejudicial effect on the present working and future subdivision of the pastoral run on which they are applied for. Doubtless a feeling of irritation is aroused when they are refused, but it is only in cases where the Board is quite satisfied of the probable harm to result both now and in the future that they refuse to grant. I produce a map showing the area of land held under purely pastoral lease to be 4,464,000 acres. 169. What does the latter portion of your remarks refer to ?—To grants of land on the goldfields up to 100 acres under the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act. It was made specially applicable to miners, and has been rather a burning question here, and I thought it would have been brought before you at Matakanui. We have been compelled to refuse several sections owing to the injury likely to be done to the run on which sections were applied for. In regard to the question of restrictions, doubtless Crown tenants labour under minor restrictions, but nothing to seriously interfere with their welfare. By Crown tenants I mean those who have leases under the close-settlement system or pastoral tenure. Others holding leases or licenses over stnall portions of Crown lands or reserves are not included in the above category. These Crown tenants, if they have exercised their right to the tenure most suited to their financial means and ideas of settlement, know exactly the Act and regulations before making their choice. They therefore cannot
D. BABRnN.I
369
C.—4.
and very seldom find fault with the conditions of their occupancy. Local circumstances occasionally arise by which a tenant may be unable to carry out his lease. In these cases there might be some method of relief provided by which the Land Board after careful investigation might recommend or grant a substantial reduction in rent, and the right to continue in occupation might be allowed without having to resort to acceptance of surrender or forfeiture, and the contingent delay and expense of Gazette and other expenses in advertising, &c. What I mean is this : In some cases a settler finds himself unable to carry on, and he applies to the Board for the right to surrender. We make careful inquiry, and we find that the man is quite unable to continue to live under the rent and other conditions of his occupancy, and we accept surrender and offer it again. Of course, if there is any applicant outside the man who surrenders he cannot apply again, but as a rule the original occupant is allowed to take it up again without any difficulty. But we have to go to all the expense and delay and worry to the man in possession before he can get the right to apply again. It may take two or three or even six months to carry it through, whereas if the Board had the right to accept surrender and grant the man a new lease, after, of course, referring to the Minister in the usual way, it would save a great deal of time and worry to the Land Board and anxiety to the tenant. The same would apply, of course, in the case of forfeiture. We are compelled to forfeit sometimes, and the man in possession would perhaps take it up again if he knew his rent would be reduced, because a man, as a rule, forfeits his section or allows it to be forfeited because he cannot pay the rent or carry out other conditions; and when the Board reduce it (as they invariably do in cases of that sort) the tenant in possession at the time of forfeiture would take it up at once. As things now stand the matter has to be dealt with first by the Board and then by the Minister, and the delay goes into perhaps five or six months, and I have known twelve months. In the meantime the settler does not know if he is likely to get it again, and if the section is unoccupied the improvements deteriorate. If the rent could be reduced at once and the land offered to the original occupant, we would be able to have the land again occupied and get our rent in at once —in fact, there would be no loss of rent beyond what would result from the reduction—and be in a position to keep the section as a going concern. 170. Would not this facility probably increase the number of those who would be coming and begging for remissions, and so forth?— The Land Board have sufficient backbone, as a rule, to resist them. We get intelligent reports from our Bangers, and if we are not satisfied with them we make further inquiry. In fact, we sometimes actually send members of the Land Board to investigate with the "Ranger, and in this way we get to the real state of affairs. 171. Do you think you would still refer these matters to the Minister ?—I think the Land Board are quite in a position to deal with them themselves. It is rather a delicate question, however, and it is not for me to offer an opinion. 172. If you must refer to the Minister would not the delay occur just as it does now ?—No. The Minister could approve or disapprove of our proposals, and if he approved the settler would simply remain in possession at a reduced rental. 173. You mean it would not be surrendered, and then gazetted and offered to any one else?— There would be no delay. Passing on, I wish to say residential conditions appear to be fair, Land Boards exercising sympathetic discretionary power in granting exemption when it is found the settler has bond fide intentions of complying with the requirements of the Act. There are cases when a man after making his selection may not be in a position to comply with the Act within the statutory period given. In these cases, as a rule, the Banger makes the necessary inquiries, and if it can then be shown that surrounding circumstances prevent immediate occupation as required by the Land for Settlements Act, or within twelve months in open country, or the more extended term in bush country, then the Board may, on application being made, allow the tenant an extended time within which to have a house erected or other necessary arrangements being made. Ido not think it would be wise to relax residential conditions too much, as bond fide settlers, unless under the stress of extraordinary circumstances, do not ask for or require exemption privileges. The conditions obtaining under the Land Act are quite sufficient for the southern parts of the colony. The homestead system is not required here. My ideas in connection with the ballot system are referred to in reply to a circular dealing with this subject. 174. You do not approve of the second ballot?— No. 175. In fact, you would simply revert to what was in operation before that ?—Yes. The only difficulty in the Land for Settlements Act, so far as grouping is concerned, is that, I think, there should be some method of grouping into two or three or four lots, as the case may be. This would be necessary on account of the various classes of settlers who might wish to apply. A strong man financially might wish to apply for, say, a section of 1,000 acres, and he might be capable of working it. A man with less means might be satisfied to apply for half of that area, and a third class might put in for a limit, say, up to 200 acres. In that case it would be necessary to have the sections grouped so that the Board could deal with the various classes of applicants. In other words, it would never do for a weak man, financially, to be allowed at the ballot to secure a section which would require a considerable amount of money to be expended on it. This is the only system of grouping I would suggest. Otherwise I would have a straight-out ballot, and let the first man make his choice of the section he wanted, and so on. 176. Is the aggregation of estates going on in Otago ? —I think it is rather in the opposite direction. There is a segregation rather than aggregation. 177. Mr. McCard/e.) You have mentioned that you would put certain settlers in for certain sections : in grouping these sections, do you group the capital pro rata to the value of the section that is being taken up ? —Yes. 178. Does it not follow that very often the most suitable section for agricultural purposes is the most highly valued ?—That might be so. 179. Is it not a fact that when a man is going on a section that is largely pastoral he requires
47—C. 4.
[D. BARRON.
C.-4.
370
a larger capital to work it, even though the section is not so highly valued as an agricultural one ? There might be an occasional case of that sort. 180. Does stock not cost a great deal more than merely agricultural implements and teams to work the farms ?—Yes. 181. You mention that you think the Land Boards should be more representative, and you think the different interests should be represented as well as localities ?—Yes. 182. You think that of the four members selected by the Government one should represent the holders of leases under the Land for Settlements Act, and another should represent the pastoral tenants : do you not think that the landless people of the colony should also be represented by a member appointed from the towns ?—The difficulty with a town member is that he practically knows nothing at all about land. 183. But if there were three other good men with him he would very soon grasp the questions. I think the principle you suggest here has really been in evidence in the Wellington district for a number of years ?—Yes. Of course, I would certainly not object to freeholders. We have had, as I mentioned before, members of the Board who were all freeholders, and they acted in the interests of the settlers and the Crown quite as carefully and as wisely, I think, as if they had been Crown tenants. 184. It would be more satisfactory possibly to the settlers if they knew they had some person on the Board from amongst themselves ? I would not suggest that all the members should be Crown tenants, because there would be too many interests pulling in different ways. 185. You have shown us a large tract of pastoral land : is it possible to divide these runs in such a way that an increased population could be placed on them as the leases fall in ?—To a limited extent only. 186. Would you favour where there is level or low country adjacent to these large runs the Government purchasing it to assist in dividing the large runs ?—I have only one in my irind's eye where that would be possible. Any of the land adjacent has become so valuable by improvements that it would hardly pay to group it with the hill lanas. I think, so far as the comparatively valueless lands are concerned, we will just have to make the best of a bad job. lhis of classification should have been undertaken years ago, and the high land and the low or lambing country should have been conserved together. As it is now, we will have to let the poor high land go for whatever it will bring. The danger is that it may be thrown on our hands eventually, and this is what I am anxious to guard against. 187. Have you had any experience of small settlers, who, finding they had too little land on which to make a living, were desirous to obtain a section to increase their area, perhaps at some little distance from them ? —lt has been carried on to a limited extent on the latest run taken that is, Patearoa. . 188. I am referring to the small settlers under lease-in-perpetuity or occupation-with-nght ofpurchase leases? —Yes ; some of these settlers are combining to take up one or two of these hill runs, and in this way they are trying to work in their low country with the high ground. 189. We know that the ordinary Crown settler under lease in perpetuity can only take up 600 acres of first-class land or 2,000 acres of second-class land, but there are many cases where a settler takes up a very small section, and in the course of time he wishes to get more land, but there may be no land adjoining his section, and the Board have no power to give him land unless it is adjacent to his section ?—He could buy a pastoral lease. The run I previously referred to was cut up into four small pastoral leases, and the settlers some few miles away bought them. However, this class of settlement is only in its experimental stage, so far as this particular run is concerned. How it may eventuate will greatly depend on a variety of circumstances. 190. I know a case in point, where a man who was only holding 20 acres was not allowed to buy a deceased estate of 30 acres a quarter of a mile away because it did not adjoin his section : do you think the law should be amended to meet a case like that ?—Yes. If a man has occupied a section for three years and has held it for that time, he is then in a position to take up a section any distance away. 191. Mr. McCutchan.] In going through the province several tenants pointed out that inadvertently they had allowed the period during which they could purchase to pass by under the per-petual-lease system, and we were informed that, under an opinion from the Solicitor-General, that period has been extended ?—Yes. 192. Has the fact that it has been extended been generally made known to the tenants?—No, except through the medium of the Press. I do not think that any other intimation has been given. 193. In connection with the amendment Act passed last year, in reference to a division of property under a will, it seems to me such a very important matter and such a vital question in regard to family life that it appeared to be placing a very great responsibility upon one pair of shoulders in giving power to the Commissioners of Crown Lands throughout the colony to say whether a deceased person's estate should be divided as he willed or not: do you not think that such an important question as that should be left to the Land Board generally, and not to the Commissioner of Crown Lands only? I think in all these important cases the Land Board should be considered and consulted, and even in comparatively unimportant administrative cases I invariably consult the Land Board so as to get the opinion of a number. 194. In regard to loans applied for, and for which the sanction of your Board is required, have you any idea of the proportion of these loans that have been refused ?—The refusals, of course, do not come through us. 195. But when an application for a loan is made the tenant applying has to inform you that he is applying for a loan, and a report is required from you by the Department: in that way you get a knowledge of what loans are applied for, and subsequently you have to approve, and therefore you know what loans have been granted; and I wish to know if you can, from memory, give
C.—4.
371
D. BARRON. 1
me the percentage of the loans granted by the Department ?—I cannot give you the percentage. Of course, the amount of the loan is not mentioned in the application that is sent to me to get the ordinary report from the Ranger. I have no idea how much the loan is, and beyond the application afterwards for the approval of the Board to the loan we are left in the dark altogether. 196. Can you state what number of these loans refused by the Department have been granted by outside lenders, seeing that the consent of your Board has to be given to these mortgages . In my experience very few applications that have been refused by the Advances to Settlers Department have been granted by outside lending bodies. 197. Have you had any instruction from the Minister as to the maximum rate of interest that was to be permitted in connection with these mortgages on Crown lands ?—Yes, the limit was 8 per cent.; but, as a matter of fact, we have had no applications, so far as I remember, for loans beyond 7 per cent. , . , , 198. In connection with the " thirds" question, does any good reason occur to your mind why " thirds " should not be paid to the local bodies from cash lands as well as lease-in-perpetuity and perpetual-lease lands?—No; I think they should be paid from cash lands as well as the other leasing systems. , , n 199. You said that the residential conditions are fairly right, but it seems to me there is an inconsistency in one respect. On lease-in-perpetuity bush lands a man is exempt from residence for four years, and from the time he goes into residence he has to reside for ten years continuously ; but the right-of-purchase tenant is under the same exemption, but from the time he goes into'residence he has to reside six years: is there any reason for such a wide distinction between the two systems ?—Certainly not. I think that both should be placed on the same footing, and be required to live on the land at least ten years. . . , 200. Do you not think it would be wise to reverse the position and make it six years residence ? —No; I think ten years. ... 201. When speaking of the ballot question you made no reference to giving preference to a married man or to unsuccessful applicants in order to do away with the amount of dissatisfaction that exists in connection with the ballot, more particularly in the northern districts ?—The question of preference was gone into verv extensively at the Land Board Conference, but it was found quite impossible to arrive at any decision in regard to it. So many difficulties arose in connection with preference to married men or men who had been unsuccessful in previous ballots that, upon the whole, we could not come to any decision. 202 In the Catlin's Biver district we were told that the Minister had vetoed an application tor a loan under the Loans to Local Bodies Act asked for by the County Council and we could not get to the bottom of the matter there: can you supply the Commission with definite information as to the reason why the Minister interfered in the matter ?—He did not veto it beyond this :So far as mv memory serves me, a question was asked by the County Council as to_ whether the County Council would be allowed to load these particular sections held under lease in perpetuity, and the Minister refused to allow the sections to be loaded. I could have got the correspondence if I had known I was to be asked the question. . , , ~ ~ , 203. I have had a good deal of experience in raising these loans, and it was a matter that never had to be referred to the Minister in any way whatever, and the only explanation that occurred to me in this case is that the settlers wanted to include sections not occupied ?—Yes ; thev meiftioned a certain district that they wanted to load, and they gave a portion of the Clutha trust endowment, and all the occupied and unoccupied sections in that. 204 Do you think it was on account of the unoccupied sections that the Minister declined to allow the loading ?—Yes, and because these sections had perhaps been loaded previously to the limit I know for instance, of a block in Southland with which I had to do, where we were compelled to accept surrenders, and in many cases the rentals had been reduced to the actual amount required to return the loading. On these blocks it would be impossible to borrow any more.
Tokaeahi, Friday, 31st March, 1905. Lindley William Murray examined. 1 The Chairman.] What are yon?—l am a farmer, and hold 462 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have held the section since 1897. My rent is 6s. 9d per acre I also hold 15 acres under occupation license at a rental of Is. 6d. an acre. lam satisfied with the conditions of the lease in perpetuity, and my rent is quite reasonable. 2. Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory ?—Yes ; I have had no cause 3 You believe in the present constitution of the Land Board? Yes; but there has been an expression of opinion that the Board, or a portion of it, should be elected There is a feeling that every public body should be elected. As I have said, I have no cause of complaint against the P 4. In regard to tenures, you are quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity?— Yes. 5 What are your views as regards the freehold and leasehold. lam decidedly opposed to living the option of the freehold. Taking the larger view of the question lam o opinion that the Government should not part with any more Crown land, and that they should take_ every means to divide large estates. As to giving the option to the present leaseholders to acquire the freehold, there would too many risks. I thmk, in the first place, the State would incur a risk that would not be compensated for by any money they would get, and there is a risk that the land would in course of time get into the hands of money-lenders in some cases.
a—4.
372
L. W. MUBBAY.
6. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in this district? —-No ; beyond, perhaps, cases where a man has not sufficient land, and he may take up a neighbour s section or a part of it, and I think it is quite reasonable that that should be allowed. 7. Was there a double ballot when you took up your land ?—-I am of opinion that the grouping of sections and the second ballot is not a good system. I think a man should have a chance of going straight out for one or two or more sections. Sometimes, in the case of grouping and second ballot, an applicant has to take a section he does not want or else forfeit his deposit. 8. Mr. McCardle.] Do you know anything of the working of the Advances to Settlers Department?—l have had some little experience with it, but it was not satisfactory, and I dropped further correspondence. 9. Do you know anything in respect to bush settlement? —No. 10. Mr. McLennan.} You have been a long time in this district ? —Yes. 11. Where did you come from before you came here ?—I was in Oamaru for fifteen years, and before that was in the Kakanui district. 12. As a whole, is the district in a prosperous condition ?—There is not the slightest doubt of that. 13. From, say, 1890 to 1895 was the country prosperous? —No. 14. Why ? —Prices were not as good as they are now, and there was also the difficulty of getting land at a reasonable value for cropping or grassing. 15. Did you crop your land ?—No ; I had a short grazing lease, and the conditions were very severe on the tenant. 16. What rent did you pay ?—£l 10s. an acre for wheat and £1 an acre for grassing. 17. Do you know of any people paying £2 and £2 10s. an acre for one crop? —Yes ; that was common at that time. 18. Do you think since the cutting-up of large estates there has been greater prosperity in the district ?—That has been one means of promoting prosperity, but we cannot give that credit altogether for the prosperity of the country. 19. Do you think that 5 per cent, of the settlers would have been in a position to buy their land and pay for it ?—No, I do not think they would. 20. Do you think that the fact of the Government acquiring estates and cutting them up caused some private owners of land to cut up their estates ? — I dare say it had something to do with it. ... 21. Mr. Paul.] Are there any other estates in the district that could be subdivided to advantage? —The Corriedale could be divided into fair-sized sections, and I understand that Otekaike could be cut up with advantage for grazing-farms, but I am not so well acquainted with the latter estate. There is a strong feeling in the district in favour of it, so I suppose it must be all right. 22. You are decidedly in favour of cutting up Corriedale ?—Yes. It is much needed, and people are looking for it. 23. Do you think the further sale of Crown land should be stopped ?—Yes. 24. I suppose you would be in favour of giving big concessions to bush settlers ?—I really know nothing of the conditions of bush settlement; but I would be in favour of the Land Boards giving those settlers an opportunity of making comfortable homes for themselves. lam now stating my own views on the question. I look at it from the point of view of the State. The question is whether it is good policy on the part of the Government to part with the freehold, and I say No. 25. You would not give the absolute freehold under any conditions?— No. 26. Are you afraid that if the option were given for the purchase of the land aggregation would ultimately take place ?—Yes. The money-lender will get a hold on many of the sections. Ido not say that large estates would be aggregated, but a worse form of ownership would come about —that is, the ownership of those who do not work on the land. 27. The settler on the land would be the owner in name only, and the real owners would be one or other of the financial institutions?— Yes ; that is one of my objections. 28. Mr. Johnston.] You said that previously you were cropping ?—Yes. 29. Where ?—Near Oamaru. 30. What estate ?—Private land. 31. You were paying £1 10s. an acre ?—Yes. 32. What was the yield per acre ?—The yield in oats was about 40 bushels, but the frost took the wheat, and I did not thresh it, but I had to pay the £1 10s. all the same. I had a lease of a farm which I cropped in rotation in the usual manner, and I paid £1 an acre. I got about 30 bushels of wheat and 50 bushels of oats—that was about the average yield. Owing to having some business in the town I was able to do pretty well—l was selling milk in the town. 33. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Department ? —I made an application when I first came here for an advance for building purposes, but, owing to certain difficulties, I dropped further negotiations. 34. Mr. McCutchan.] What do you mean by saying you are opposed to the absolute freehold? —I am opposed to the Government parting with the absolute freehold. 35. You are averse to the State selling any more Crown land ? —Yes. 36. Was the block upon which you are settled loaded for roading ?—I suppose so, to some extent. There were some new roads made. I have no cause of complaint. 37. You have to pay interest upon the roading? — I suppose it was loaded on the value of the estate, and the cost of the roads was added to the cost of the estate. 38. Mr. Forbes.] Have you a branch of the Farmers' Union in this district?— Yes. 39. Was there a petition sent down by the Farmers' Union and circulated in the district asking for the signatures of Crown tenants to get the freehold of their sections ?—I think not.
L. W. MURRAY.]
373
C—4.
40. Mr. Anstey.] Can you tell us in what way the Advances to Settlers Department did not suit you ?—I made an application through the agent here for £100 to enable me to complete my buildings. The house was in course of erection at the time. The rents are payable in advance, and I did not pay my rent in advance for the second half of the year. Owing to the reason I have indicated I dropped negotiations with the Department and made arrangements with a private party. 41. Is there any more difficulty in a lease-in-perpetuity settler getting an advance than any other settler ? —I have had no difficulty in dealing with agents, and I believe if I wished an advance on my farm I could get it without any trouble. 42. Mr. Forbes.] In respect to cropping regulations, do you find them all right?—As far as I am concerned they have been right enough, but I think there are times when the Land Board might use a little more discretion. I am not blaming the Board. I think the Board has been fair to us. 43. Do you not think after a man has put sufficient improvements on the land and has shown that he has a good interest that these cropping regulations might be almost done away with ?—I think so, as long as the Banger was satisfied that the tenant was' not going to too great an extreme. At present the Land Board and the Ranger treat us very fairly. Still, I think the law should allow the Land Board some discretion. 44. When a man has a value in his section almost as large as that of the State do you not think that the section might be treated almost as a freehold? — No man would think of overcropping or destroying his land in that way, because it would really mean drawing on the future. 45. Mr. Matheson.] You referred to bad seasons. Do you think it would be right for the Government to give a rebate in the case of very good seasons ?—That opens up a very wide question. While the Advances to Settlers Department has a surplus I think it is quite right that they should make concessions to a tenant who has had the misfortune to take up the land under extraordinary conditions, and who has suffered owing to bad seasons. 46. Supposing he had extraordinary good luck, and also good luck as to prices and seasons, do you think he should be asked to pay additional rent?— That is coming so near to socialism that I would not like to give my views upon it. 47. Do you not think that would be equitable?—l cannot deny the equity of it, but it would alter the whole of the present conditions of our tenure. 48. So that, really, you believe in revaluation for rent ?—I do. I regard the revaluation principle as sound, but the intervals would need to be very long, because we cannot expect these rents to remain in force for the next 999 years. We know that land will increase in value. I think if revaluation occurred too often it would stop improvements. Ido not think there should be revaluation oftener than, say, fifty years—an average lifetime—and then it could only be on bare land values. If a man improved his land by buildings, ditching, &c., that should be his actual property. 49. Suppose the whole of the country were subdivided into farms of the right size for a man to make his living off them according to quality and position, and the freehold was given to such men and they were allowed to pay it off out of their savings, do you think it would be wise for the State to have small freehold farms ?—I am not in favour of small freehold farms. 50. I mean in areas suitable to make the land productive ?—I am not in favour of freeholds; I think the State should own the land. I would suggest that under the lease in perpetuity we should be allowed to subdivide the land amongst our sons. 51. You really think the country would be more productive with the Crown as a landlord than with the occupier being a freeholder?—l do not think it would be more productive. 52. Which way do you think the balance lies with respect to productiveness in the case of freehold or leasehold ?—As long as the tenure is secure in the case of the leasehold there will be the same productiveness as in the case of a freehold. I take the same interest in my lease-in-perpetuity land as if it were a freehold. 53. Mr. Hall.] You spoke of the revaluation of these leases increasing the rental from time to time : do you mean that the existing leases be upset and a new tenure adopted, or that it should only apply to future leases?—l think if it is applied it should be applied universally, because we know that revaluation must come in some form or other. 54. Would it be a dangerous thing to upset tenures that are in existence when the State and the tenant entered into a contract, the same as if it were a freehold ?—-There are some tenants who ask to upset the present arrangements, and they want the freehold. Ido not want to do that. Lewis Daslek examined. 55. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm 376 acres in Tokarahi. I pay ss. 9d. an acre. I have been farming on the land for four years. It is held under lease in perpetuity, and I am quite satisfied with it. I am satisfied generally with my holding. I may state that prior to taking up this laud I held a section at Otekaike on deferred payment. I was there about twenty years. Unfortunately I made it freehold. The result of that is that I am now out of it. I prefer the lease in perpetuity. I think it is the best tenure under which to hold land. I am satisfied with the tenure, but 1 think it would be better if the payments were to be made on the 20th March and the 20th September, because that would work in better with the harvesting. I maintain that we have no right to alter the leasehold. I have no desire to alter the lease, and I do not think, speaking generally, that it would be good for the country. I may here say that the men who had the pick of Otekaike are those who have acquired additional land there. It is those who hold the best land who will be able to buy out other settlers, and thus the worst land will be left to the State. Under the present lease we have a fixity of tenure to encourage us to make improvements for ourselves and our children. I think that the State should own all the land.
a—4.
374
Tl. daslek.
56. Mr. McCardle.] You say it would not be fair for the State to grant the freeholds. Would it not be fair under those circumstances for the State to have revaluation at stated periods?— Revaluation is a cry of the labour party. My land, I have no doubt, will increase in value, but I think it is perfectly right, owing to the increase in the value of the land, that I should pay taxation the same as others when the land reaches a certain value. I pay a tax independent of my rent. It is our settlers who increase the value of the land. For instance, we have erected a creamery here, and that has increased the value of the land by at least £1 an acre. It is different from a section in the town. 57. Are you prepared to support an Act limiting the area of freehold that may be held by any one person ?—Yes. 58. Mr. Matheson.] Do I understand you to say that any increment in the value of the land is well earned by the settler—you do not think it should be called " unearned increment "?—Part of it. 59. Then, you do not think you have earned all the increment?—No; part of it belongs to the State and part to the settlers. 60. Suppose these prosperous times go on and you accumulate savings, do you think it unreasonable that you should be allowed with that money to pay off some of the capital value?—No, not a sixpence. I would invest it in putting my boys on the land. 61. Mr. McLennan.] You were one of the first settlers at Otekaike ? —Yes. 62. Did the settlers get a rebate on the purchase of their sections ?—Yes. 63. Could you tell us anything about it ?—Yes. Those who acted up to the conditions and paid the money had to pay the full amount, whilst other people who did not pay it up capitalised it, and they got an extension of fourteen years from the ten years. During the time between the ten and fourteen years I was one of the unfortunate ones who paid it up. Every time I had £50 I paid it up, and that left me bare, whilst those who had not paid it up got a rebate. I might mention that the very man who holds the 1,700 acres of the pick of the land got a large rebate. He got the pick of the land and was able to buy up the poor ones who did not get the rebate. 64. Would you be in favour of giving more discretionary power to the Land Board?— Yes. 65. You think it would be an advantage to the Land Boards and the tenants that the Boards should have more discretionary power ?—Yes. 66. Mr. P<ml.] You think that if a settler once gets into the money-lenders' hands he very seldom gets out of them ? —Very seldom, unless he has good luck. 67. You expressed yourself in favour of the State owning all the land?— Yes. 68. And you are also in favour of limiting the area of freehold : do you think that is possible ?—There is nothing impossible to the present Government. As they are able to take all a man's land away I do not see why they could not take part of it. 69. Would not that be rather an expensive way of trying to limit the area?— There would be some difficulty in it. It i 3 the same thing if it is a freehold. Some people will be able to get a big section, and if they do not get a bigger section than others they will get the best sections. 70. Do you think it would be really freehold if it were limited ?—There is no such thing as real freehold in New Zealand. 71. Do you not think it would be better to limit it by value through the land-tax ?—Yes; you could not limit it by acreage. It must be limited by value. 72. Still, you think the leasehold system is far preferable to limiting the freehold?— Yes. 73. Mr. Joh?iston.\ How many settlers took up land at Otekaike?—Thirty. 74. How many original settlers are there?— Sixteen. 75. Holding 9,000 acres ?—Yes. 76. Are they the ones that got the rebate?— Some of them. 77. What was the rebate?— The land was sold by auction at first at the upset price of £3 an acre, and it ran up as high as £11 and £12 an acre. The consequence was that any one who had paid over £5 was brought down to £5. There were only three prices put on, and any one who bought at over £3 an acre was taken down to £1 10s. 78. What date did that take place?—l could not say from memory, but it was under the Atkinson Government, and Mr. G. F. Richardson was Minister of Lands. 79. Did you buy into this settlement ?•—No ; my son took up the section first, and it was transferred to me. 80. Have any of the original settlers sold out of the settlement ?—Yes. 81. Have they sold out to advantage?— Yes. 82. Have they got goodwill over and above their improvements ?—Yes. 83. Do you know how many?—No, but there were a good many. 84. Have you any idea what goodwill they got ?—From £1 up to £3 an acre. 85. Does that include their improvements ?—I think I can safely say they got from £1 to £2 independent of their improvements. I think £2 is within the mark. 86. This settlement is evidently a great success?— Yes, but I may say it was a very hard struggle at first. There were some very bad years. Owing to our own industry we have erected creameries, and it has since been a success. 87. It is the dairying that has made it a success?— Yes. 88. Is there any Californian thistle?—A little. 89. Any ragwort? —I do not know it. 90. Mr. Forbes.] You think that if the tenant was allowed to pay off a portion of the value of his farm the same danger would occur as under the deferred-payment system. That is, he would pay off in good seasons, and in bad seasons he would have to go to the money-lender ?—Yes, that would be the danger. 91. In respect to cropping restrictions, do you think when a man has been on a farm for a certain time and made certain improvements that the cropping restrictions should be done away
C—4.
375
L. D ABLER.]
with, and that he should be allowed to work his farm in his own way?— Yes, I think so. I maintain that a practical farmer can work his farm better in his own way than it can be worked under the direction of pen-and-ink instruction from the office. 92. Mr. Anstey.] You are aware that some lease-in-perpetuity holders pay land-tax?— That may be so, but I hardly think this land has increased in value enough to come under the land-tax. Whenever it does so increase in value I think it is right that it should pay land-tax on the increase. 93. It should only pay land-tax over and above the rent ?—Yes. 94. Mr. McLennan.] Was there ever a meeting of Crown tenants here with reference to the freehold and leasehold ?—Yes. 95. Was it a large meeting? —About twenty were present. 96. Was any resolution carried at that meeting ? —I moved a resolution that the tenants here were quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity and did not desire any change. 97. Was there an amendment to the motion?— Yes. The motion was carried by eighteen votes to two. .-1 98. Do you think that is the general feeling of the Crown tenants on this estate at the present time? —Yes; I think that is the feeling of the majority. 99. Mr. Johnston.] Was that a meeting of the Farmers' Union ?—We have a Tenants' Association and the Farmers' Union as well. All the Crown tenants were present at that meeting. 100. Mr. Hall.] You think the £500 deduction under the land-tax should be abolished ?—Yes. 101. Mr. McGutchan.] You do not believe in the system of taxing the unimproved value ?— I am a great believer in taxation on the unimproved value, but the exemption should be done away with.—that is, improvements should be exempted. Alexander Beck examined. 102. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and hold 136 acres under lease in perpetuity at Tokarahi. My rent is 7s. 9d. an acre. I have been here nearly eight years. I am satisfied with my lease-in-perpetuity section and tenure. I have nothing particular to bring before the Commission. My evidence would be much the same as that that has already been given. I heard the evidence given by the previous witnesses, and I pretty well indorse all that they have said. I quite agree that it' would be more convenient to the settlers if the date of payment of rent was fixed as suggested by a previous witness. 103. Mr. Hall.] Your lease in perpetuity is satisfactory to you?— Yes. 104. Is it generally thought to be satisfactory by others in this neighbourhood ?—Yes, I think so. 105. Do you get 10 per cent, rebate for prompt payment ? —Yes. 106. Would it be an improvement if the rebate were fixed by statute instead of being left to the discretion of the Land Board ?—I think it should be left to the discretion of the Land Board. 107. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that the Land Board or the State should have power to lower the rent in anv case ?—I do not think so. As far as the rent is concerned, lam quite satisfied. . , , . 108. There are some people who have got a very good bargain and who may be doing very well; but suppose a man is doing badly, like settlers at Pomahaka, what then? No doubt in such cases' it would be advisible for the Land Boards to have power to reduce the rents in order to give such men a chance of making a living. 109. Supposing the seasons were good and prices booming, do you think the State should have the right to increase the rent?— Not at present, I think. Ido not think there should be a revaluation for some considerable time—say, about an ordinary person s lifetime. 110. Mr. McLennan.] You are in favour of giving the Land Board more discretionary power? Yes. 111. Mr. Paul.] Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards? —I think it would be advisable if some'of the members of the Land Board were elected so that the Crown tenants might be represented. 112. Do you not think it is possible to have the Crown tenants represented under the nominated system ?—Yes ; but I think the Boards should be partially elected. 113. Mr. Johnston.] Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Department?— No. . . . . 114. Mr. Forbes.] As to the cropping regulations, is it your opinion that a tenant who has put substantial improvements on his place should be free from cropping regulations, and could that be done without any injury to the State ?—I think so. A good tenant for his own sake would not crop out the land. 115. There would be just as much chance of a freeholder cropping the land out as a brown tenant under such circumstances? —Yes. 116. Mr. Anstey.] Who are those who are agitating for the freehold being granted : are they lease-in-perpetuity settlers or others ?—Yes, a small number of them are lease-in-perpetuity settlers, and there are some others. 117. Is your reason for coming here that you fear these men may possibly succeed in altering your lease?—l do not think the majority wish the present lease altered. Lindley William Murray further examined. 118. The Chairman.] I understand you wish to make a further statement ? —Yes ; I am interested in the balloting. I have a son who wishes to go in for land shortly. I think the Land Board should be more lenient with respect to the sons of farmers resident in the district and who have been brought up there. These farmers have in many cases been long settled in the district, and have reared their families there, and their sons should, I think, when the money values are equal, receive some consideration over that shown to, say, people from the towns.
C—4.
376
[L. W. MURRAY.
119. But you could hardly stipulate that by law ?—No, I would not ask for that; but sometimes a man gets land who has had no experience of farming. 120. That is inevitable in the case of the ballot ?■—l think the farmers' sons should be treated a little bit easier, or be enabled to get a section easier than the man who has had no experience. John Porteh examined. 121. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and hold close on 600 acres under lease in perpetuity at Tokarahi. My rent is 6s. 6d. per acre. I have held the land for about four years. I have also about 16,000 acres under pastoral lease on the ranges above Livingstone. I am satisfied with the tenure of my farm. The pastoral land is very high country, the highest altitude being 6,000 ft. or 7,000 ft., and the lowest about I,Booft. It is very much summer country. I shore three thousand five hundred sheep this year. Ido not use the run in connection with my farm. My rent is about £130 a year, and the lease is for fourteen years. 122. Have you done anything to improve the high country ?—I did try sowing down some portions in grass. I sowed some of the lower country. I have only surface-sown a little near the creeks. It did fairly well. 123. Mr. McGardle.) Is your lease-in-perpetuity tenure satisfactory ?—No, I would prefer the option. I think that a settler should be allowed to pay it off as he can. 124. Do you think revaluation should take place?—No; I do not believe in revaluation. That is really the reason why I want the option, because I am afraid revaluation will come in later on and destroy the lease in perpetuity. 125. You seem to be an exception to the rule in this district ?—That is my view. 126. Are there many morer who hold similar views ? —I know a few, but they are not here to-day. 127. Do you think the cropping regulations might be altered? Supposing a settler had a free hand to crop and he reduced the land to second-class land, do you think the buildings would recoup the Government?—l think that substantial buildings and farmhouses would. If a man has any judgment in farming he will not abuse his land. 128. But, of course, the Government has framed the regulations to prevent that. Personally, I think these regulations should apply to some freeholders?—l think that the restrictions with regard to cropping might be done away with under the circumstances. 129. Do you know anything with respect to the Advances to Settlers Department ?—No. 130. Can you say whether the Act has given general satisfaction?—l believe it has been a benefit to some people, and I believe it has tended to bring down the rate of interest. 131. The Government can only advance up to half the value of the improvements?—l think a half is rather too small. I think the Government would be well protected by giving a little more than that. 132. Is there any aggregation of large estates going on now ?—No, not in the case of large estates, but a man with a small place may take up another small section in order to make a decent farm of the two. I think that big estates are a thing of the past. 133. Do you not think there should be some restriction to prevent aggregation ? —Although I am inclined to approve of the Government not allowing any one to hold more than a certain area, I do not know that the present limit is the right one. 134. Do you not think that your tenure is equal to a freehold ?—I would be clear of all interference if I had a freehold, and I would be clear of revaluation that I feel sure will come about later on. 135. Do you think the freeholder will escape —there might be increased taxation on him ?— We would be paying taxation also. 136. Mr. Hall.] Seeing that the lease in perpetuity is practically a freehold for 999 years, would it not be equally in the power of the Government to upset the freehold as to alter the lease in perpetuity ?—lt is possible, but it is not likely that they will interfere with moderate-sized farms. 137. Mr. Matheson.] You do not see much difference between the lease in perpetuity and the freehold?—No ; but in the case of the leasehold you have not got the same liberty. 138. Mr. McLennan.] You have been a long time in this district ?—Yes. 139. Where were you before you got your section at Tokarahi?—Otekaike. 140. Was it a leasehold or freehold ?—A freehold latterly. Part of it was on deferred payment at first. 141. How much land had you there?—s4o acres. 142. Have you got it still ?—I sold it. 143. And you came to this place and took up a lease-in-perpetuity section?— Yes. 144. You did not then think that the freehold was better than the leasehold ?—I still think as I did, but I wanted to get nearer to the market. 145. Was there any other reason ?—Probably there might have been, but that was the principal reason. 146. And now you advocate the freehold so that you can purchase it and sell it again ?—No; I do not intend to take up any more agricultural land at present. 147. Do you belong to the Farmers' Union?— Yes. 148. Are you one of their representatives?—No; I always keep in the background. 149. I suppose you are aware that the Farmers' Union is strongly advocating the option of the freehold ?—I have never been at any meetings of the Farmers' Union except at this place. 150. Have you any other object in advocating the option of the freehold? —It is simply to get clear of'restrictions in respect to cropping, and there is always the fear of revaluation. 151. But you know it takes two parties to break a contract ?—They have broken the freehold, and they can break these leases.
377
C.—4.
J. PORTER.]
152. If the contract were broken the terms might be ten times worse than they are at present, and the sections might have to be put up to auction ?—We do not want those terms. I have come here to tell you what we do want. 153. But the Government will tell you what the terms must be. I think the best thing the Crown tenants can do is to say very little about the freehold ? -1 have no great fancy for buying my leasehold just now. 154. Mr. Paul.] I suppose you paid something for goodwill ?—Yes, about £460. 155. You are in a little worse position than the original settlers ?—Yes. 156. You have paid £460 for something that you would like to be able to realise on ? —Yes ; it would be rather hard on me if I was forced to take it up as a freehold when I have paid between £400 and £500 for improvements. It would be a bit rough if I had to pay it over again. 157. Why are you afraid of revaluation being made retrospective ?—Because we have heard of statements made by town members and labour organizations. They have got such a large population in the towns that they can overrule the country pretty well. 158. Are you sure that the labour members in the towns propose revaluation shall be made retrospective? —I cannot say that, but I have heard a little murmuring about it. 159. Why do you come" to this Commission and say there is a proposition to revalue the land retrospectively when you admit you know little about it ? —I said I bad heard murmuiing to chat effect, and there will be pressure to bring about revaluation. 160. Have you ever heard that revaluation was to be applied retrospectively or only to future leases ? —I cannot say anything about that. 161. It does not appear that„you have much ground for your fear. If it only applies to future leases it does not apply to you?— Not a bit. 162. At the present time you wish to break your agreement with the btate: you want the option of purchase —something that is not provided for in the lease ? Yes. 163. If the contract is broken could you complain if something you do not ask for is inserted in the new contract ?—I would not be satisfied, but we have to agree to many things we are not satisfied with. 164. If you were the primary cause of having the lease varied you would not have very much cause of complaint?—l know I cannot be the primary cause. lam only one individual. 165. But you are doing all you can for it?— No. 166. Do you believe in restricting the area of land that one man may hold —I mean freehold land ?—Yes, according to the quality of the land. 167. If the option of purchase is given you do you not think it matters much whether the settler is simply an owner in name? —We have no control over these things either in respect to leasehold or freehold. These things will go on, and as long as men require money they will try to get it. 168. And it is not necessarily an evil ?—No. 169. Mr. Johnston.] You have got some high country ? —Yes. 170. Do you winter your sheep on it ?—Yes. 171. What are your losses, generally speaking ?—I am satisfied that 15 per cent, would not cover my losses. , . . 172. Have you any rabbits on it? —Some, but they are not very bad. They have been kept down. 173. Any noxious weeds ? —No. 174. Have you ever tried sowing on the high country ?—Only about the creeks. 175. Do you know any one who has ?—I think there is very little of it done down here in the high country anyway. The leases are short, and there is no encouragement to do surfacesowing or make other improvements. , 176. If you had a longer lease would that induce you to make greater improvements .■'—Yes. 177 Do" vou know anything about the ballot system ?—Yes. ' Do "you approve of it as at present ?—Yes; but I cannot say much in respect to the b' l "°l 79. You considered your section was worth the money when you paid for it ?—I thought I was paying pretty high at the time. 180. You are doing pretty well on it now ?—Fairly well. 181. How many bushels do you expect your wheat to yield? —I insured it for 38 bushels. 182. What is the area under wheat? —About 144 acres. 183. Mr. McCutchan.] You said your mortality amongst sheep was 15 per cent., what is your increase ?—I think the average is about 60 per cent. _ . . . 184 Mr Forbes.] Is Otekaike suitable for cutting up ?—I think so, in suitable-sized sections, according to the quality of the land; but there is a good deal of poor land there too 185. What sized places will carry two thousand sheep?— Between 2,000 and 3,000 acres, 1 fc hi n i'q6 Y/hat are the restrictions you wish done away with ?—The Land Board has not been too severe here, but I have seen accounts from Timaru that they were not so lenient there. I want to set out of their hands altogether, so that they shall have nothing to do with me. 187. You think that when a man has put on substantial improvements he should be tree trom cropping restrictions ? —Yes. _ 188 Mr. Anstey.] You said you paid £460 for goodwill ?—Yes. 189. Was it all goodwill, or was a portion of the payment for the improvements of the previous tenant ?—There might be forty pounds' worth of improvements. 190. And over £400 was goodwill?— Yes. 191. You say you fear there may be revaluation ? —Yes.
48—C. 4.
a—4.
378
[j. PORTER.
192. I suppose you think that would be a breach of faith on the part of the Government ? — Yes. 193. Do you think it would be a breach of faith on your part if you insist on getting the right of purchase ? —They have the power to say whether they will give it. 194. It would be a breach of your lease ?—I would not consider it so. If one party wanted it to remain as it is I would let it remain so. 195. If your lease was broken in one way you could not complain if it was broken in another way ?—I do not think they would break my lease if I did not want it. 196. If you alter the lease you must break it, and that is a breach of the lease?— Yes. William Edward DeCoubsey Hughes examined. 197. The Chairman.'] What are you?—A settler at Tokarahi, where I have 367 acres under lease in perpetuity, and 10 acres under temporary license. I pay 7s. 3d. an acre for the lease in perpetuity. My brother and I originally took up the section seven or eight years ago, but I have it myself now. 198. Are you satisfied with the holding?—l would prefer the freehold. By that I mean that the lease in perpetuity should carry with it the right of purchase. 199. Is the rent you are paying fair?— Yes; but, as a rule, it is considered to be too high all over Tokarahi 200. The first few years of the settlement was rather trying, but the last few years have been much better owing to greater moisture ? —That is so. 201 Do you crop ? —I have not been cropping for some time My land is down in grass for sheep and dairying. I grow a little green crop. 202. What is your opinion of the present constitution of the Land Boards ?—I think they should be partially elected, with a majority of nominated members. A petition asking for an elective Land Board originated in this centre, and was signed by settlers at Tokarahi, Windsor, Ardgowan, Elderslie, and Maerewhenua, but it was thrown out by the House. 203. What is the fault of the Land Board as now constituted ? —The Land Board was considered to be biassed, and when any matter was submitted to them they would not listen to a tenant, but upheld the Department. I can give a case in point. I wrote to the Land Board on the occasion of a flood, and asked for an officer to be sent up to make a report to the Board. It took me three weeks in correspondence before the Land Board agreed and two officers were sent up. Had there been tenants on the Land Board they could have explained the matter to the Board. 204. Is there any other point you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I think the Land Board ought to be allowed a little more discretion. When I took up my section it was not'ringfenced. I subdivided it into six paddocks, built a two-roomed hut, made two roadways, and built sheep-yards and a cow-byre. For all that, I got a notice saying that within fourteen days from date the section would be forfeited because the conditions of the lease had not been complied with. I admit that the capital on the section was not up to the amount required bythe lease, but, at the same time, I do not consider that that is the way to encourage settlement. I drew the attention of the Board to what had been done on the section, and the matter was left in abeyance, and I heard nothing more about it. Nothing happened; but when a threat of forfeiture is made it might get into the newspapers and that would damage a tenant's credit. 205. What you received was not a peremptory notice of forfeiture, was it ?—No, it was " to show reason within fourteen days." lam in favour of the freehold for this reason : the Crown Tenants' Association was formed here, with the object of assisting the tenants with the Board, without in any way interfering with present leases, but when an application came through the Crown Tenants' Association the Land Board refused to acknowledge the association, although it is registered. Seeing that we are living some distance from the town, it would be of assistance to the Board to have facts placed before them by such an association, and I may say that eventually the Land Board did agree to recognise us on certain terms and conditions. The Under-Secretary in Wellington, however, wrote down saying that the Land Board had no power to recognise us, so that we have the Department in Wellington and the Department in Dunedin against the association formed by the Crown tenants. This leads to an unsettling of the minds of the tenants, and makes them think that they would be in a better position if they could do as they please after certain conditions have been complied with. 206. What are the objects of this association? —It was formed before the Farmers' Union started, and it was for the general good of the district. It was not confined to lease-in-perpetuity tenants, and it was intended that if a tenant had a grievance the association would lay it before the Land Board in the same way as would be done by a Land Board agent. In one case, however, where a sludge-channel on a man's land was flooded, I brought it under the notice of the Board, but the Board said they would recognise no one but the tenant. I pointed out to the Board that they did it every day by allowing agents and solicitors to appear before them in Dunedin.. 207. You agree with the former remarks that have been made with regard to the alteration in the times of paying rent?— Yes, except that the date should be a little later. Then, there is the question about the rebate of rent to tenants. When the tenants see that there is such a large profit being made out of the estates by the Crown it is only reasonable that they should ask for a rebate where necessary. In regard to the loading for roads, 1 understand the £7,000 was put on to Tokarahi, and I consider that that should come out of the general revenue, and should not have been put on to the estate. I would not be in favour of grouping sections in the ballot. That was one of the things that the association brought under the notice of the Minister of Lands. 208. Your objection, I suppose, is that under the ballot a man is sometimes forced to take a section he does not want?— Yes. Then, there is a great deal of talk about the unearned
379
C—4.
W. E. P. HUGHES.]
increment. On Tokarahi 80 per cent, of the unearned increment has been caused by the efforts of the settlers themselves in the way of erecting a creamery, providing telephonic communication, and a school. 209. Did the tenants have to give a guarantee for the telephone ?—They had to pay down £50 cash before it was brought in. 210. Was the school not erected out of the public funds? —Yes, but it was the exertions of the tenants that led to the erection of the school. We only got it after fighting very strong opposition. Then, with regard to the creamery. We applied to the Minister for the piece of land that this hall stands on as a site for a creamery, and we were refused on the ground that it could not be given away. We were forced to go and buy a piece of freehold, and the ground we had applied for was subsequently granted as a site for a hall. I may say here, in reply to what Mr. McLennan said down south, that our price for butter-fat ranged from Bfd. to llfd., after I received notice about the forfeiture of my land I had to make arrangements for putting on my improvements, and I applied to the Advances to Settlers Department for a loan of £400. They offered me £250, and were to retain £100 of that as security for the erection of the house I proposed to put up. 211. Did you accept that offer. No. [Witness here read correspondence between himself and the Department with regard to his application for a loan.] The house, as a matter of fact, was finished before I got anv reply from the Advances to Settlers Office about the loan I asked for. They would only advance me £250, but I was able to get from a private source £500 at 5 per cent, for five years, with a right of renewal. I consider that a tenant ought to be able to look to his own landlord for the money that he requires for improvements and not have to go to private individuals. There is also too much delay in sending applications through so many officers. The tenant has no confidence put into him. The Prime Minister, who is a member of the lending Board, speaking at Stratford the other day, said that he must put his finger on the spot where the weakness was. All these things point to the fact that the Crown tenant would be better off under the freehold. 212. Mr°McCardle.] Have you got any sound reasons to advance why the freehold should be granted to Crown tenants?—l think they "would be in a better position with the freehold. It would be beneficial to them and to the State. 213. With reference to the Advances to Settlers Department, can you suggest any amendment?—l think they should be able to advance up to three-fifths. 214. In lending money do you think the Government ought to first consider their own tenants?— Yes. 215. If the Advances to Settlers Department advanced up to three-fifths of the tenant s interest you think that would be more satisfactory to the tenant ?—Yes. 216. Do you think the State would run any risk if these moneys were paid back by instalments ?—I do not think so. 217. Mr. Matheson.] Do you realise that under the Loans to Local Bodies Act many settlers are paying for the roads through their district —paying the whole cost ?—Yes. 218. Do you think it would be a good reform, wherever settlers are ready to bear one-half through the Loans to Local Bodies Act, that the State should bear the other half rather than that they should ask the State to do it all?— When I referred to roads I meant that when an estate is broken up roads are put through it and the land is rated accordingly, and I have made what I think a fair suggestion. 219. Referring to the whole reading of the colony, do you not think it is necessary that some part should be borne by the settlers in order to give the Government a good reason for helping in the roading? —Perhaps so. I have not thought out that question. 220. Mr. Hall.] Did you mean that the option should apply to existing leases ?—Yes. 221. Would that not" necessitate a fresh ballot ?—No. I take it that any two parties can amend or alter a lease. They do not break the lease, for both are consenting parties. Ido not see why there should be a fresh ballot. 222. But important alterations would be made in the tenure, and you would exclude the public from participating ?—Yes. 223. Mr. McLennan.] Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 224. Had the executive a meeting in Dunedin some twelve months ago ? —Yes. 225. Was there a motion brought forward with reference to the option of the freehold ? —Yes. 226. Did you favour the option being given?—l moved, as a delegate from Tokarahi Branch, that they should not get the option. lam not now representing the Farmers' Union or the Crown Tenants' Association. lam giving my own private opinion. 227. You were an upholder of the lease at that meeting, and now you are an upholder of the freehold ?—At that time I was a delegate from this branch and I voted according to instructions. No petition came to Tokarahi for the freehold. 228. Mr. Paul.] So far as you know, the petition from the colonial executive of the Farmers' Union in favour of the freehold never came to this estate ?—No. 229. You favour elective Land Boards. What would be the franchise?—l have not gone deeply into this matter, but I think that some members of the Board should be elected. 230. Did you say the Dunedin Land Board opposed the Crown Tenants' Association ?—I said they would not recognise them, 231. You said that financial men advised you that you would fail in approaching the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Yes. 232. Did they think the security was not sufficient ?—lt was before the improvements were put on, and also afterwards. 233. You agree with the land-for-settlements policy ?—Yes. 234. You think it is wise that the State should acquire improved estates and cut them up and resell them in the shape of freeholds ?—I think that if a man takes up land under lease in perpetuity,
C.—4.
380
[w.*E. D. HUGHES.
and after he has resided on it for a certain time and complied with all the improvement conditions, he should have the right of purchase. 235. Do you not think there is a danger that the man who had a good bargain would take the option, and that the man who had a bad section would leave it in the hands of the State?— Yes. 236. Do you think that would be a good policy for the State? —I could not say. 237. Do you think the option should be at the present capital value or at the capital value when the lease was taken up ?—At the time he took up the lease. 238. Do you not think if you were to break the contract it would be fair that the improvements should be valued and the land put up to auction ?■—l do not wish to break any contract, but only to amend the present contract. 239. It is pretty clear if you get the option of the freehold the contract is broken ?—No. 240. If the Government wanted to amend it so as to provide for revaluation ?—Then, the two parties would not be agreed. 241. Are there any restrictions that harass you on your farm ?—No, the Land Board and the Eanger have always treated me fairly. 242. Mr. Forbes.] As to the Settlers' Association, do you think it is a reasonable thing for the Land Board to recognise a third party between themselves and a tenant when it comes to a case of an individual grievance ?—The association was formed so that everything could be fairly laid before the Land Board. 243. You say you signed this complaint from the Farmers' Association ?—No, I drew attention to damage by floods on behalf of the association, and the Board refused to recognise the association. 244. Do you think in the case of floods you should be entitled to compensation ?—Certainly, when there is a big credit balance in the Land for Settlements Department. 245. If you could get compensation for floods and 10 per cent, rebate on your rent, do you not think you would be in a better position with that assistance than with the freehold ?—No ; I have to find six months' rent in advance, and therefore the tenant is entitled to rebate. 246. If there are many settlements like Pomahaka there will be a loss. Do you not think it would be businesslike to keep an insurance fund to provide for such cases ?—Certainly, I should think that might be done. 247. As to the Advances to Settlers Department, do you not think it has had the effect of reducing the price of money to the farmers —outside money ?—No. 248. Because the majority of farmers go to the Government, does that not make outside lenders more anxious to lend?— No. 249. You do not think the Advances to Settlers Department has had anything or very much to do with the reduction in the rate of interest ?—I do not think it has had very much to do with it. 250. Mr. McCiotchan.] Are you able to state whether the rebate is for prompt payment, or is it given because the Government was in the position to allow of it ?—I cannot say. 251. With reference to the £7,000 loading, you do not approve of the principle of loading land for roads ?—Yes. 252. Was the £7,000 wisely spent?— No. 253. Under what system was it spent?— Co-operative labour, and they took too long over it, and the work was not well managed or done. 254. It was since 1900 that you applied ?—Yes. 255. The Act says it is allowable ?—We could not get it. 256. Could you send the Chairman of the Commission the reply you got ?—Yes, if I can place my hands on it when I get home. 257. At the time you sent the petition to the House of Representatives had you a representative from this district on the Land Board ?—No. 258. You have one now ?—We have one from Windsor. 259. Do you think the present settlement would have been here if this land had been opened under the freehold ? —No. " 260. You could not have got on to this land but for the fact that it was leasehold ?—Not in my case. 261. It was very convenient for you to be able to get a lease ?—Decidedly. 262. You say the rent is too dear?—lt is high. 263. Do you know if any sections have changed hands ?—Yes. 264. Did you give your brother anything for the goodwill ?—Yes. 265. Then, of course, the land was worth a little bit more than you originally got it for ? —Yes. 266. What position do you hold in the Farmers' Union ? —Secretary of this branch, delegate, and a member of the Otago executive. Thomas Evans examined. 267. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a miner at Maerewhenua. I have lived in the district for twenty-eight years. 268. Is there any matter you wish to bring before the Commission?—My wife holds an occupation license over 27 acres at Maerewhenua, for which she pays Is. per acre. The license has got eighteen years to run. She applied for an additional area of 60 acres, but it was refused on the ground that the application was opposed by the Mining Reserves Committee. That ended the matter for the time being. There are 2,180 acres in the mining reserve, which is held by the miners' committee for grazing purposes, with the right to the miner to work over it. The residents have very few head of cattle on the reserve compared to the number there belonging to three members of the committee who were running it as a monopoly.
T. EVANS.I
381
C.-4.
269. Do those who run the cattle on the commonage pay so-much per head ?—They pay 6s. annually. 270. Has every holder of a miner's right the right to run cattle there?— Yes. 271. What regulates the number of cattle each man can run ?—I tried to get a limit fixed, but was not able to, the others on the committee overruled me. 272. Why did the Land Board refuse you this land?— Because the Banger reported that we were taking too much frontages. We put the application in again in another form through an agent in Dunedin, and it was again refused. 273. Mr. McCardle.] Have you any suggestion to make ?—The reserve' should be let go as occupation licenses. 274. Mr. Anstey.] Would it not be better to have these commonages occupied by tenants?— Yes. Have no commonage at all. 275. Mr. Matheson.] When you could not get the block on the terms on which you asked it was it not reasonable to ask for it on any terms ?—Our agent in Dunedin asked for it on any terms, and there was no chance of getting it. 276. The Land Board refused it to you in any shape ?—I believe so. Peter McGbadie examined. 277. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 75 or 80 acres in the Tokarahi Settlement, for which I pay 6s. 3d. per acre. 278. Are you one of the original settlers on Tokarahi?- —No, I am only twelve months here. 279. You bought in from some one else ?—Yes. I believe in the freehold. I was a freeholder in Shag Valley for fourteen years before I came here. I had 257 acres, but I had to sell it in order to close a partnership. 280. What do you want to bring specially before the Commission ?—I would like to have the option of purchasing the land. 281. Supposing the option to purchase was given you, would you be agreeable to have the land revalued at the time you exercised the option?— Not at all. 282. You want it at the original price? —Yes. 283. Mr. McCardle.] Is there anything more in your land, do you think, than you paid in goodwill to the man who went out ?—I think so. 284. Mr. Matheson.] You paid him something for goodwill, and if you had to be valued again before you purchased you would be paying to the Government over again the money you had paid to the original holder of the section?— Yes, it would be unfair to make me pay twice. 285. Do you understand that when the Government took up this land originally it was with the intention of settling the land ?—Yes. 286. Was it with the intention of making profit out of it?— No. 287. If they had no intention of making a profit, does that seem a good reason why they should sell to you at their original outlay ?—Yes. 288. Do you consider the lease-in-perpetuity a good tenure ?—lt is very good for any one with small means wanting to go on to a holding. 289. Under the lease in perpetuity the whole of the unimproved value of the land remains on the land at a low rate of interest. What would be the advantage of making it into a freehold ?—lt would be a man's own. 290. It is now for 999 years ? —Not exactly; he has to pay rent. 291. Do you think a man wants the freehold generally with the object of making money out of it ?—No. 292. It is sentiment ?—Yes. 293. Is there any real advantage ? —A man would have all the fruits of his labour. Under the leasehold he cannot get the full value of his section with the improvements on it. I could not. I have put up nearly four hundred pounds' worth of buildings herein addition to what I paid for when I took over the lease. It is only an 80-acre section, and I could not get that value of improvements if I sold. 294. Mr. McLennan.] I suppose you got a good price for the farm you sold for partnership purposes ? —I doubled my money on it. 295. How was it you did not go in for a freehold instead of taking up a leasehold, and preventing some poor fellow who could not take up a freehold from taking it up?—l did not want to keep anybody out of it. 296. Mr. Paul.] Did you pay what you did for goodwill as a speculation on the offchance of getting the freehold? —No, I took it as a home, and put on four hundred pounds' worth of additional improvements. 297. You recognise that in the freehold there is something above what you paid for goodwill ? —Yes. 298. You are asking for the option at the original capital value ?—Yes. 299. By gratifying that sentiment of yours it will pay you very well ?—I do not know that it would. I would have no rent to pay. 300. You are admitting there is something substantial in this section beyond what you have paid for goodwill, and you say there is sentiment in the freehold ? —I have been fourteen years under the freehold. 301. Do you not think you should pay something for that yearning ?—I would pay the original value. 302. You admit there is something substantial in it above the original value and above the goodwill you paid ?—There would not be but for the improvements I put on. 303. We are speaking of the unimproved value: your improvements would not be included in the value ?—I want the place as a freehold at the original value. 304. You want the place as a freehold, provided you lose nothing by gratifying the sentiment ? —No.
a—4.
382
r A. BELL-
Duntroon, Friday, 31st March, 1905. Andrew Bell examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a dairy farmer at Maerewhenua. I hold 36 acres under lease in perpetuity, for which I pay ss. per acre; and my wife also holds 19 acres, for which she pays 4s. per acre. The two places are not exactly together, but we work them as one. I run from twenty to twenty-five cows, and I supply the creamery. I grow some feed for the cows. I have been in the district for Che last thirty-three years. 2. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission ? —I suppose the principal thing you want to know is whether we are satisfied with our present holdings and our present tenures, and I reply that I am quite satisfied. I only wish I could get a little more land. 3. I presume from what you say that you prefer the leasehold to the freehold tenure ?—Yes. 4. Mr. Matheson.] Would you like to see the State gradually regain all the land and lease it in this way, so that no freehold would be left?— Yes ; the State, I think, should be the landlord of all land acquired for closer settlement, and even of the ordinary Crown lands. I think there should be no land alienated from the Crown. 5. Mr. McLennan.] Do you know of any other large estate that could be cut up by the Crown ?—Yes, the Otekaike. I have been over the most of it. 6. Do you think it would make a very good settlement if purchased ?—Yes, a very successful settlement. 7. Would you be in favour of the Government buying the winter country from the Maerewhenua Eiver to the Otekaike, so that it might be worked along with the summer country ? Ido not think there would be the slightest difficulty in getting rid of the winter country. I think if it were bought by the Government it could be cut up in such a way that every acre of winter country could be used. I saw by the Press that Mr. Don suggested that Otekaike should be cut up into 2,000- or 3,000-acre blocks. Mr. Don and his father cropped on Otekaike, and I think they gave something like £1 6s. per acre for one cropping, and at that time I think they would have been quite satisfied with 200 acres instead of 2,000. The outside public might be led to believe that Otekaike is of very little value for anything but pasture, and that would be misleading. 8. Mr. Don referred to the high summer country when he suggested that area. Do you think that a man could live on less than 2,000 acres of the summer or mountainous country ?—I think 2,000 or 3,000 acres would be too small an area. 9. Do you think a man could live on 6,000 or 8,000 acres?— Fes, and he should have the benefit of some of the lower country as well. 10. What stock would that area carry?—l am not in a position to answer that question. 11. What sort of land is the lower country, say, from Duntroon from the freehold area to the Otekaike Eiver?—lt is very fair mixed-quality land, and would do at a fair value. 12. There are some reserves through Otekaike ?—Yes, there are three endowments—municipal, hospital, and Harbour Board. 13. In the event of the Government taking over the freehold, do you think they should get tenants for the summer country as well as the winter country ?—Yes ; there would be no difficulty in disposing of the runs. The Otekaike, even to the top of Mount Domett, is not as high as the Kurow Range, and the country there has been successfully settled. 14. Do you think there would be any great difficulty or expense in fencing, say, 6,000 or 8,000 acres of the summer or mountainous country ?—I do not think it advisable to out that country 'into areas larger than 6,000 to 8,000 acres. 15. Do you think a farmer could live entirely on the products of 6,000 to 8,000 acres grazing sheep?—-I am not in a position to answer that question. 16. Is there any other estate round about North Otago that you think it would be advisable for the Government to acquire and settle under the Land for Settlements Act?— There is the Corriedale Estate, which I think would make a very successful settlement. But I believe Otekaike would make a more successful settlement than it, and the land is quite as much wanted. Many of the young men growing up in the district are prepared to take up the whole of it. I do not think it is fair to force people to take up the back country when there is improved land here with railways and all other conveniences ready at hand for them to make a living on at once. 17* Do you lemember the years from 1890 to 1894; was the North Otago district prosperous in those years ? —That was the dry season, and the farmers had to struggle. 18. I suppose Oamaru was not very prosperous then ?—So far as I can gather, I think the value of property has increased in some cases over 300 per cent, since then. 19- What, in your opinion, has caused that increase?— The settlement of the country. Our prosperity is entirely due to agriculture, and had it not been for the settlement of the country I do not see how that prosperity could have been brought to Oamaru. 20. Would these large estates have been cut up and closely settled had it not been for the Land for Settlements Act ?—lf they had been Ido not think one out of every hundred of the present settlers would have been able to acquire a section. They had not the capital to purchase them. 21. Seeing that is so, do you not think it is very ungrateful for the Crown tenants now to cry out for the option of the freehold ?—Though the Crown tenants have done very well within the last few years in this district, if they got the option I do not know that a great many of them would be in a position to purchase. I think it is more of a cry than anything else. 22. Who has caused that cry, the Crown tenants or some other body ?—I cannot say there has been any great cry in our district. It comes from outside districts. 23. Has the Farmers' Union anything to do with this agitation?—l cannot say. I have had nothing to do with them. We had a branch here, but it died a natural death.
383
a—4.
A. BELL
24. Mr. Ball.] You say you believe firmly in the lease in perpetuity?— Yes. 25. You hear of some people having a desire to obtain the freehold?—l do not hear much of it here. 26. Do you think it is wise to raise these rumours ? —They are the opinions of the people ; one man may have one opinion and another another. 27. Though one cannot believe there is the slightest probability that the lease in perpetuity will ever be interfered with, still, raising rumours of that nature is like prompting the Legislature to do so. Do you think it is wise to foment these rumours ? —You cannot prevent it. I think the rumours have been caused through it being reported there was going to be revaluation. I think if those who have taken up land in good faith under the lease in perpetuity stick to their part of the contract the Government should also stick to theirs. 28. Mr. Paul.] Have you heard anything definite as to retrospective revaluation ? —No, it is rumour. 29. Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory?— Quite satisfactory. I think the Land Board as at present constituted do their business very well. I would like to see the Land Board have more power, and to be kept as free from political power as possible. I think they ought to have a freer hand than they have now to deal with many matters that have to be referred to the Minister in Wellington. 30. Mr. McCuichan.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —I have never had any advance from them, and the only complaint I have heard is about the delay that takes place before a loan is made. 31. Was the Maerewhenua Block loaded for roading?—Yes, and that is a hardship. Ido not see why any land should be loecded to the settler for roading for the simple reason that the cost of the roading is put on the capital value, and the settlers are paying rent on that at 5 per cent. The local bodies then rate you on your rent, and you have to pay a rate on the money you have spent for roading. I think that loading for roads ought to be entirely done away with. At any rate, the Maerewhenua settlers have paid enough to get it taken off altogether. 32. At 5 per cent, interest a loan extinguishes itself in twenty-six years: do you think it would be a fair proposal that you should cease paying interest on your loading in twenty-six years ? —Would it not do a little sooner. I think at the very outside twenty years is quite long enough to continue paying interest on the loading. 33. Were you satisfied with the way the loading was expended?—l cannot say we were satisfied, because we never knew the amount it cost for roading. There is loading for other improvements such as buildings and fences, and so forth, and some of the tenants have to pay interest on them for all time, and I think that is a great hardship. We know that buildings and fences depreciate 10 per cent, every year, and yet we have to pay interest on them for all time. 34. I think that loading is extinguished in a certain time?— Not on Maerewhenua, but on other estates purchased since then. 35. Was the loading spent on the settlers' labour, or was outside labour brought in to do the work?—l think it was co-operative labour, but I was not interested in the estate at that time. I think all these burdens ought to be taken off the settlers. 36. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think that when a man has placed sufficient improvements on his land to show that he intends to make his home on it and has a substantial interest in the land the cropping restrictions should be taken off? I say the settlers are quite capable of farming the land to the best advantage without any restrictions whatever. I have heard it said that the farmers under lease in perpetuity do not farm as well as under the freehold. I consider that is an insult to the leaseholders, because I reckon we have got in our district as good farmers as any freehold farmers in New Zealand. 37. It has also been said the man on the leasehold feels a kind of a slave, and has not the same independence as the man on the freehold ?—I think the leaseholder is just as independent as the freeholder. . 38. Mr. Johnston.] Has the value of the land increased or decreased since the settlement was taken up ? —lt has increased, but that is through the value of products increasing. The land is no better. It has also increased through the labour expended by the tenants. 39. Suppose you wanted to sell out and you estimated your improvements at so much, could you get any goodwill over and above your improvements ? —I could get a certain amount. I would sell just as I would a freehold—to the highest bidder. John Howe Chalmers examined. 40. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer in the Kurow district. I hold a small grazing-run of 885 acres under lease in perpetuity. It is a part of the old Kurow Run. I pay Is. per acre and lOd. per acre rent. I have held my run sixteen years. I carry about six hundred crossbred sheep, and my average clip is from 5 lb. to 6 lb. 41. Have you ever tried any surface-sowing on your country?— Yes, and with very great success in some seasons, but with indifferent success in dry seasons. Once the grass takes it does very well. 42. What is the altitude of your country? —About 1,900 ft. to 2,000 ft. I am considerably under snow in the winter. 43. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission ?—My rent is too high. In 1902 I wished to surrender, and I asked that the Ranger should be sent up to value my property. He valued my place at 6d. per acre, and my trouble is that I am paying Is. and lOd. for different sections. Similar country in the district is valued at 4|d. and 7d. per acre. My difficulty is that I want to keep my place and transfer it to my boys. 44. I suppose you must either hold on or surrender and take your chance of losing the run at the ballot if the rent is reduced ?—That is so. I have divided the run into ten paddocks, and I
C.—4.
384
r .T. H. CHALMERS.
have done a lot of surface-sowing and stone-clearing and ploughing on the hilly sides. Then, I have a six-roomed house. 45. Mr. Anstey.] If you surrender your land, and the Board reduce your rent, it has to go to ballot? —Yes. 46. Suppose it was put up to auction instead, and you were allowed a chance of competing for it, would that satisfy you? —No; I would like to retain the place and transfer it to my family. 47. You wish the Board to have power to reduce your rent without putting it up to competition ?—Yes. 48. Do you not think that is putting too much power in the hands of the Board?— No. 49. Do you not think it is open to the objection that particularly favoured persons might get special treatment?— That might be so; but I think the tenants should get every consideration on account of the work they have done and the years they have spent on the place. 50. Mr. Johnston.] Have you ever known of screenings from seed-cleaning machines to be used on the high country?— No. 51. Is it possible to make a living out of six hundred sheep?— Barely at times. William Sutherland examined. 52. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a sheep-fartner. I have 410 acres of freehold and a small grazing-run of 800 acres, and a private leasehold of 49 acres. I pay lOJ-d. per acre rent for the small grazing-run. I hold it for fourteen years. My freehold and part of iny leasehold is cropping land. 53. Is the main part of your cultivation for feeding the sheep?—-That is just my game. 54. Is there any special point you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I would like to see a little more settlement round this locality. I think there is a great land thirst in this particular district. Ido not care a rap about any further settlement, because I am a freeholder and a leaseholder, but I have sons. To the best of my belief Otekaike is very much adapted for cutting up. 55. You are aware that the low land is all freehold, and that behind there is a large area of mountain country, the property of the Government: of course, if the Government were to acquire the low land they would necessarily try to work in the high country with it ? —That is quite correct. I think the high country could be cut up into 2,000- or 3,000-acre blocks, but I think the subdivision would require to be carefully done, so that the creeks should be made to he in. 56. Have you had any experience of grassing the country by surface-sowing ? —Very little. I cannot say I have been very successful. You must do it very early in the spring. What I did is nothing co what I would do. I sowed cocksfoot and a little bit of ryegrass, and a little red-clover amongst it. The red-clover seems to strike on anything damp better than anything else. But do not take the weeds from the mills; you must get the best seed. 57. Have you any weeds in your country ? —None on my farm, and none that I have seen on the small grazing-run'. I have plenty of rabbits, though. 58. I suppose you keep them under as far as you can ? —That is the Inspector's business, not mine. 59. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the Government would be wise to allow you to gradually pay off the capital value of your lease-in-perpetuity land out of your savings ?—lt would all depend on whether there was any outlet for the Government to make use of this capital. 60. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think if the Government cut up the summer or high country on Otekaike into '2,000-acre blocks that area would be too small? — I cannot say, really. You must follow the natural boundaries in cutting up Otekaike. But lam quite positive that, without the lowlying country, the high country on Otekaike, if cut up by the Government and settled, would bring in more rental, and be more successfully settled than it is at the present time as held in one block by Robert Campbell and Son. 61. Then, in your opinion, it is desirable that Otekaike should be cut up into smaller areas? — Yes. I should say it would be a most wise thing for the Government to do. 62. Do you know anything about the Corriedale Estate. —Yes. 63. Do you think it is advisable that the Government should takeover the Corriedale Estate? It all depends on the price. 64. Is it all fit for close settlement? —Not in my opinion. I should not say it was as good an estate as the very worst of Otekaike, and I have been all over both estates. 65. Do you think it could be settled in areas of 500 to 600 acres in the back country, and in smaller areas of 200 to 300 acres in the front?— Yes. 66. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think the present lease-in-perpetuity holders should get the right to purchase the freehold of their holdings ?—That is a question I cannot answer. 67. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the lease in perpetuity a good tenure ?—I do—a very good tenure. 68. Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory ?—Yes. I wish for no change. Thomas Reid examined. 69. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer. I hold 605 acres under lease in perpetuity on Maerewhenua. i pay Bs. 3d. per acre. I have held it about ten years since the commencement of the settlement. ~I go in for mixed farming. My nearest railway-station is Borton's Siding. I get plenty of water at 18 ft. by sinking. 70. Is your experience satisfactory?— Yes, so far. 71. Are you pleased with your tenure?— Yes, fully satisfied. 72. No desire for the freehold ?—No ; but, still, I may say that if I had sufficient money to buy the freehold I would be for the freehold. 73. Would you like the option to purchase the freehold? —I would. 74. Is there any other point you would like to emphasize? —No.
C—4
385
T. REIP
75. Mr. Matheson.] You are a tenant, and your landlord is the people of New Zealand, and the Land Board are the stewards: do you think the landlord would be wise to give you the right to acquire the freehold if you had accumulated savings?—l cannot say as to that. 76. You are one of the people of New Zealand, and you are dealing with your own estate: would it be wise to give you that option ?—I cannot say; though, at the same time, if I had sufficient money to buy the freehold I would be only too glad to buy it. 77. That is your view as a tenant: what is your view as a landlord ?—I only look at it from my own point of view. 78. Mr. Anstey.] Are your relations with the Land Board satisfactory ?—Yes, thoroughly. 79. Are your cropping restrictions oppressive ?—lam thoroughly pleased with them. I consider two crops quite sufficient to take off the Maerewhenua land in succession. 80. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —None whatever. 81. Mr. Hall.] Leaving yourself out of the question, do you think that the Crown tenants generally would derive any real advantage by any change from lease in perpetuity to freehold ? —I cannot say as to that. It is too far-fetched for me to give an opinion. At the same time, if I had sufficient money to buy the freehold I would be only too pleased to buy it. 82. Would it be an advantage to those who have not sufficient money to borrow money outside the Government to purchase the freehold?—My idea is that if I had sufficient money to reduce my rental down from Bs. 3d. to, say, about 2s. 3d. or 2s. I think it is only right I should be allowed to do so, because the Grown would still have the same hold over me as they have now with my rent at Bs. 3d. 83. Mr. Paul.] You say you have studied this question from your own point of view, and you have come to the conclusion tltat the freehold would pay you financially ?—I am quite satisfied that the freehold would pay me in time better than the leasehold. lam thoroughly satisfied that my neighbours who have freeholds are doing better than I am with the leasehold. 84. You are not sure it is in the interests of the State ?—I am not for the State at all. If I had sufficient money to buy my property and could do so I could do better than I can now, with the State having its say and my having to pay this Bs. 3d. rent. 85. You are looking after yourself ? —Bather. 86. Mr. McCutchan.] You decline to express any opinion as to whether it is best in the interests of the State for you to acquire the freehold ?—I cannot say as to that, but I do maintain that had it not been for the State acquiring these properties a lot of us who are now settled here would never have been on this settlement. 87. Do you feel at liberty to express an opinion as to whether it would be wise for the State to allow you to reduce your rental from Bs. 3d. to, say, 2s. 6d. ?—I do. That is my opinion. 88. Have you any objection to the principle of loading for roads?—l have. I think we ought to be allowed to pay them off. 89. Do you object to the principle of loading to get roads ?—I do. I think the County Council could have made them much cheaper than the Government. 90. Do you think it is more advisable for the Government to road the country than to make the tenant provide the whole of the roading ?—I think the tenants should provide a portion of the money, but I do not think they should have to pay the whole of it. 91. Do you think the interest on the loading should go on for all time?—l do not. 92. Money extinguishes itself, both principal and interest, at 5 per cent, in twenty-six years, and, that being so, do you think the interest on loading should then terminate ?—I do. I maintain we ought to be allowed a certain time in which to pay off the roading. 93. The witness who occupied the chair a few minutes ago objected to the County Council levying rates on the land and loading on the ground that it was a rate on a rate : is that objection in your mind too?—I cannot answer that question. 94. Do you object to the manner in which the money has been expended ? —Yes ; I maintain that the County Council could have expended the money more wisely. ■ 95. You say that from personal observation ? —Yes ; it was done by co-operative labour. 96. Was it satisfactory labour, in your opinion ? —No. I maintain the County Council could have made better roads at less cost. 97. Then, you advocate that if loading is continued the local authority should have the expenditure of the money ?—I do. 98. Mr. Forbes.] You say the freehold farmers are doing better than you are on the leasehold : what are the drawbacks in this lease in perpetuity ?—There is no drawback at all, but, at the same time, I might do better if I could pay so-much oft and reduce my rent. 99. You cannot take more out of the ground under freehold than under leasehold ?—Nothing whatever. We are allowed every facility to work the ground to best advantage. 100. Do you not think the lease in perpetuity is rather better than the freehold in this way : you get a 10-per-cent. rebate on prompt payment of rent ? —Yes. 101. You would not get that as a freeholder?-—No. 102. In the event of extraordinary damage by hail-storms, &c., does not the State come to the assistance of the tenants ?—Yes. 103. As the freeholder has not that privilege, do you not think you are in rather a better position as a leaseholder ?—I will admit all that, but, at the same time, if 1 drew a sweep in Tattersall's and had the power to buy the freehold I would be the first to do it, and so would you. 104. Mr. Johnston.] Do you .know what your improvements have cost you?— Yes, to my sorrow. 105. Could you get the value of your improvements out of your section if you wanted to sell? — I never tried it. 106. Do you know anybody who has transferred his section in the block ?—Yes; perhaps three or four. 107. Did they make anything out of the sale ?—I cannot say.
49—C. 4.
a—4.
386
Ta. WILSON.
Alexander Wilson examined. 108. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding a lease in the Maerewhenua Settlement, for which I pay 9s. per acre. I have been there from the start of the settlement, and carry on mixed farming. lam about three miles from the railway-station. 109. Are you satisfied with the conditions under which you are working ? —Fairly so. I like the tenure fairly well. If I had the opportunity I would like to make it the freehold. I consider that the buildings were too highly valued when I got the section. I got the homestead. lam paying on over seven hundred pounds' worth of improvements, and one of the floors gave way. 110. You will work off those improvements in twenty-one years ?—Not in the case of Maerewhenua. I pay for the improvements over the whole term of the lease. 111. Mr. Paul.] You want the option of the freehold ?—Yes. I would like to own a freehold before I die. That is what I came to the colonies for. 112. Do you not think that the lease in perpetuity is secure enough ?—No. 113. In what way ? —You have not the inducement to improve the land that you have if you think you can make it your own some day. 114. Is there anything insecure about it?—lt is a leasehold, and I am paying a high rent. 115. On what terms do you want the option ?—At the original capital value, certainly. 116. Would you be agreeable to the section being put up to auction and the improvements secured to you?— No. 117. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think it is a fair thing that the interest on the improvements should cease when the State has been reimbursed their cost —that is, in twenty-six years ? —Yes. 118. Mr. Forbes.] Does the Land Board treat you satisfactorily?— Yes. 119. You have no complaint to make about being harassed by the Ranger?— No. 120. Is your reason for wanting to have the freehold of your land the fear that it might be taken from you?—No; but I am continually paying a high rent. Henry Alfred Dovey examined. 121. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer farming 561 acres on Maerewhenua under lease in perpetuity. I have been there from the start, and I pay 6s. per acre rent. 122. Are you satisfied with your farm and all about it—tenure and so forth ?—I am fairly satisfied. 123. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it would be wise on the part of the State to allow you to gradually pay off the value of your section ?—I think we should have the option of purchase. 124. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think it is advisable that the Land Boards should have more discretionary power?—l do, although I have no complaint to make about the Board or the Ranger. 125. Mr. Hall.] You think the tenure should be optional: does that apply to leases granted in the future or to those at present existing ?—I think a man, if he is in a position to do so, should have the option of purchase. 126. Do you think that should apply to leases now in force ? —Yes. 127. Do you not think outsiders might consider that there should be a fresh ballot? —I think the present tenant has put all the improvements and all the labour on the land. 128. Of course, it is assumed that he would be allowed for all his improvements ?—lt is a difficult thing to say what a man's improvements are. There is a lot of labour expended in the taking-out of stones and general improvement of the land which is not included in the improvements at all. 129. The ballot was held under certain conditions, and if those conditions are altered should there not be a fresh ballot ? —I should not think so. 130. Mr. McCutchan.] Can you express an opinion as to whether the method of expending the loading for roads by means of co-operative labour is wise and in the interests of settlement ?— I -consider that the roads on Maerewhenua have cost double what they ought to have done, and were not made properly then, and it has cost the County Council a considerable sum to put them in proper order. We have been rated for that extra work. 131. Was the amount of the loading sufficient to road the country satisfactorily ?—Yes. 132. Can you enter into particulars as to why this expenditure by co-operative labour failed ? —Yes. There should have been more horse and less manual labour. More should have been done by scooping and ploughing, and the expense would have been less. 133. Was the labour of a satisfactory nature?—l suppose the men earned all they got. 134. Was the work offered to any of the settlers in the block ?-—No. 135. Would the settlers have taken it ?—I dare say many of the settlers on small sections would have taken part of the work. 136. Mr. Forbes.] You think that if the tenants had the right of purchase the lease in perpetuity would be a much better lease than it is now?—My idea is if a tenant, say, after seven or ten years has proved himself to be a successful settler he should have the option of purchasing if he wishes to. 137. Would the lease be not more valuable if it carried with it the right of purchase ?—Yes. 138. Do you think the tenant would be willing to pay something for getting a more favourable lease, or would he want it for nothing ? —I consider the tenant is paying fairly well when he is paying the value of the land. 139. You do not think that if this extra advantage was given to the lease the tenant would be justified in paying for it ?—No. 140. Mr. Johnston.] How many sheep did you shear this season ?—Four hundred ewes. I have no other sheep, and I crop from 100 to 120 acres of oats and wheat,
H. A. DOVET.I
387
C.—4.
141. What is the yield of oats per acre?—l have 35 bushels of oats this season. I have had from 7 to 40 bushels per acre, and could not say what my average has been. 142. What was your yield of wheat this year?—4o bushels to the acre. 143. Had you the same last year ?—No ; I had 50 bushels of oats and about 30 of wheat. 144. Have you been contracting on the roads ?—No. 145. You evidently know something about the way they should be made? —Yes. 146. Is there any Californian thistle on your land ? —There was one patch there when I went, but I got it out by the use of salt. On a patch about 8 ft. by 4 ft. I used 4 cwt. of salt, putting it on 6 in. thick. That was nearly ten years ago, and I have not seen a thistle there since. Of course, for some time nothing grew on that patch. James Stevenson examined. 147. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 600 acres of private leasehold on Otekaike. lam a tenant of Mr. Campbell, and have been there for a little over ten years. 148. What is your view as to tenure? —I prefer the leasehold, although I hate a purchasing clause in my lease which is for twenty-one years. I can pay off the whole or a part, but not less than 10s. per acre, at any time. 149. Do you think that is a satisfactory way of working the land?— Yes. lam paying 5 per cent, on the purchase-money. 150. Have you any particular point to bring forward? —No, except that I would like the Government to fence in the railway. There are about four miles of fencing to do, and until that is done I cannot subdivide and fence my place. 151. Have the Railway Department refused to put up the fence?— They say they do not do it, but if the Government took over the Otekaike run there might be a chance of their doing it, I think. 152. Mr. Math-son.'] Do you know why the Government fence land in other places?— This line from Duntroon to Kurow was a private line, and that, I believe, has something to do with it. 153. Mr. McUardle.] You favour the 999-years lease?—-Yes, for the reason that it enables persons to go on the land who would never have a freehold. 154. Do you think they should have the right of purchase after a certain length of time?— Yes, the same as I have with Campbell's. 155. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think Otekaike suitable for cutting up?— Yes, and it is desirable too. 156. Do you think the Government should take over the freehold and also the leasehold, and work them both together?— Yes. They talk about the leasehold being very bad country, but I have been over a great part of it, both back and front, and it is all good sheep country. 157. Is it hard to fence, say, in areas of about 10,000 acres ?—No; there are leading ridges that could be followed. There would always be little bits that would be hard to fence. The cost would all depend on the price of material. Labour is about 2s. per chain. The fencing required would be standards, with a post here and there. There are a great many totara posts on it already. 158. If the Government took over the estate do you think they would get all the allotments let ?—I do not think they would have any trouble at all if they were cut into proper-sized blocks. 159. What sized blocks do you think should be laid off?—7,ooo to 8,000 acres. There are 15,000 acres in the Domett Block. 160. What sized blocks could the freehold be cut into ? —From 100 to 400 or 500 acres. 161. How many families would it be able to support?—-There are 20,000 acres of freehold, 1,700 acres of municipal reserve, 1,500 acres of hospital reserve, and, I think, 1,200 acres of educational reserve. 162. Would not these reserves interfere with the cutting -up of the freehold?—l do not think so. 163. Do you know of any of the Otekaike country being surface-sown?—l do not think surface-sowing does much good. 164. Mr. Johnston.] Who do these reserves belong to?— The Oamaru municipality, the Oamaru Hospital, and I do not know what body owns the educational reserve. 165. Are these reserves good land ?—Yes, and there is plenty of gold on them too. 166. What is your rental ?—I pay £127 10s. per year. It runs out about 4s. 3d. an acre. 167. Are the Maerewhenua settlers doing well?—I think so. There is not much grumbling, and they are always putting up fresh buildings and getting new furniture. 168. Do you know anything about the Land Board or the Advances to Settlers Department?— No. Michael Gilligan examined. 169. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer farming 140 acres in the Maerewhenua Settlement, and I pay Bs. 3d. rent. I have been on the settlement about three years, having bought two parties out. I would like to see the lease-in-perpetuity system extended. Ido not wish to have the freehold. 170. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think the Land Board should have greater discretionary power ?—Yes. Some of the land could be cropped more than the conditions allow, and the Land Board should have power to give that permission. 171. Mr. Anstey.] Did you pay much for the section you took up?— Yes, and it has paid me very well. Ido not understand why others should growl. 172. Do you know whether any other sections have changed hands at a premium?— Yes, and all have made money. 173. Mr. Forbes.] When a man has placed sufficient improvements on his land, and there is no chance of his abusing the land, do you not think the cropping regulations should be done away
C.—4.
388
M. GILLIGAN.
with ?—No. There are a lot of people who have to be kept in order, otherwise they would crop too much. 174. Mr. Johnston.] With what you paid for goodwill, what would the rent be brought up to ? —About lis. 175. You are perfectly satisfied ?■—Yes. 176. Are you milking ?—Yes. 177. What is your average per cow ?—I think, about £7 per year. 178. How many gallons do they give a day ?—I think, an average of four gallons. 179. Have you any Californian thistle ?—Not that I know of. 180. Have you seen salt used successfully on Californian thistle?— Yes, very successfully. The land treated is useless, of course, for four or five years. Cornelius Mannis examined. 181. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer farming 83 acres in the Maerewhenua Settlement. My rent averages 7s. 9d. per acre, and lam one of the original tenants. lam quite satisfied, and do not wish the freehold. Robert MoNair examined. 182. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, holding 94 acres of freehold on the Otekaike Estate, purchased from Campbell and Sons. 183. Have you any particular matter to bring before the Commission in regard to tenures ?— Ido not think a freeholder can compete at all against a leaseholder. About four years ago a hailstorm came along and knocked my crop out in about nine minutes. It crossed over here and did the same for the lease-in-perpetuity settlers. A valuer came along and they had compensation made to them, whilst I had to get a mortgage. 184. Do you think the State is a good landlord ?—I think there is none better. They come to the relief of their tenants. 185. You have heard what has been said with regard to the Otekaike land, and as to there being about 20,000 acres of freehold which is fairly low-lying, and a large area of pastoral country belonging to the Government. Supposing the level land was bought by the Government, do you think a successful settlement of farmers could be established ? Do you think the low country and the high country could be satisfactorily worked together cut into sections? —I question it. There are 4,000 or 5,000 acres above Domett that would not feed a goat. 186. But you think the estate could be divided successfully ?—Yes. 187. Mr. McCardle.] What price would you want for your land?—£l2. 188. Mr. Johnston.] Do you know anything about grassing the high country on Otekaike ?— Some of it could be sown if you come down low enough. 189. Can you surface-sow it ?—No, it is too dry. If Otekaike has a fault at all it is that it is too dry. George Edwards Wise examined. 190. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, farming 800 acres lease in perpetuity in the Maerewhenua Settlement. I pay 2s. per acre for some land and ss. an acre for the rest. I am on the Waitaki, and it is all shingle flat. I am quite satisfied with my holding and with the tenure, and have not the slightest desire to obtain the freehold. James Everest Tallentire examined. 191. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, holding 90 acres in the Maerewhenua Settlement, and I pay 7s. 6d. an acre rent. I carry on mixed farming, and supply milk to the factory. lam quite satisfied with my holding, but I would like to see the Land Board get more discretion in the matter of cropping. When I took up my section it had the reputation of being one of the dirtiest sections on the estate. It is not much better now, I suppose, but if it were not for the restrictions in regard to cropping 1 think I could clean it better. It would be a distinct advantage to take green feed off it rather than to leave it in grass for three years. 192. Mr. McCardle.] Do your crops grow heavier each year?—l have had one good crop since I have been there, but it cost too much to get it. One year I was cleaning the land, and the next year everything was lost through hailstones. 193. Do you not think that where there is more cropping there is more weeds ?—That is not my experience. No doubt if you crop year after year you will impoverish the land, but if you green-feed instead of grassing you will get the rubbish out of the land. 194. Mr. Anstey.] Have you asked the Land Board to vary the conditions ?—I do not believe in running to the Land Board for every little thing. I have had permission from the Banger with regard to this particular paddock, but it is going away from the conditions of the lease. 195. There is not much to complain of in that?—No, but I am under an obligation to them in getting permission. 196. Do you think the restrictions should be wiped away ?—Eor a certain time a man should be under restrictions, but after five or seven years, when a man has shown that he is a bond fide settler, he should be allowed to use his land as he likes.
Oamaru, Saturday, Ist April, 1905. Joseph Cowie Nichols examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a sheep-farmer, and have 25,000 acres of freehold and leasehold combined—s,7oo acres of freehold and the balance, 19,800 acres, leasehold. The leasehold is a pastoral lease, and the run is situated on the Kakanui Eanges. I have held
C—4.
j. C. NICHOLS.]
389
the leasehold for twenty years. The rent is £135 a year. The average number of sheep is about twelve thousand on the total holding of 25,000 acres. My run land runs up to from about 1,500 ft. to about 3,400 ft. The freehold runs from 400 ft. to 1,600 ft., and just fronts the leasehold land. I desire to make the following statement to the Commission : I wrote the Otago Land Board on the 3rd July, 1899, regarding the worn-out condition of Runs 209 and 217b, the leases of which were expiring. The following members of the Land Board visited the runs : Mr. Maitland, Mr. Clark, Mr. McKerrow, Mr. Hay, and Mr. Kirkpatrick. I had been experimenting with the grassseed sowing at rabbiting time since pollard-poisoning started in 1895, and found it a success. The Board deputed Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Atkinson to report on the runs at my request, as I wished to place on record their then state ; and as Sir John McKenzie said he intended to bring in legislation to give valuation for grass-seed sowing, I wished to be able to go on at once and take advantage of any protection offered. The report was as follows: — " 19th September, 1899. " Acting on instructions from the Land Board, we, the undersigned, beg to report having visited Runs 209 and 217b, the property of Mr. J. C. Nichols, with a view of reporting on the condition of the country for the purpose of surface-sowing. We made a thorough inspection of the whole of the country, and found that, owing to dry seasons and overstocking in late years, the natural grasses have nearly all disappeared, leaving the ground bare and practically valueless for grazing. We also saw some country which had been surface-sown, and it certainly looked very well, the grasses having taken a good hold of the ground. We are of opinion that the grass will do well in the country we visited if sown at once, as the ground is open after the late frosts. We also inspected a large quantity of grass-seeds which Mr. Nichols proposes sowing, and, judging from the appearance of the varieus seeds which we saw, Mr. Nichols is evidently sparing no expense in giving the experiment a thorough trial. " Hugh H. Kirkpatrick. " B. Atkinson." When discussing the matter with the members of the Land Board who visited the runs, they told me they would endeavour to have the run offered for twenty-one years, but it was only offered for fourteen years. I pushed on with the grass-sowing at once, and sowed in 1889 6,300 acres at a cost of £1,124. The grass-seed sown was 1,066 sacks, each containing and costing as follows: 201b. cocksfoot at 3d., ss; 201b. fescue at 3fd., 6s. 3d.; 351b. rye and Italian, 25.: total, 751b., 13s. 3d. This area sown was my ewe country. Sir John McKenzie told me that he intended having legislation passed to cover a valuation for grass-seed sowing, and on the good faith of this I sowed 802 bags costing 10s. each; this took fourteen men fifteen weeks to sow, the total cost being £943, and covered about 5,000 acres at the back of the runs. In 1901 I sowed a further area of about 3,000 acres at a cost of £496. There were sown about 14,300 acres at a cost of £2,563, and for this improvement I have no valuation. As the country is now in fine order through subdividing and grass-sowing, I considered that some compensation should be allowed. What was in 1899 practically barren country is now a valuable asset to the State. Seeing that there was no protection to my improvements I stopped doing any more. The remaining 3,500 acres is my warmest country, but I am afraid to sow it as it would only invite competition at the end of my lease. Should "protection be given lam anxious to further subdivide and complete the sowing. My division fences on the runs are of more value than lam at present entitled to receive at the end of my lease. I think it is desirable that pastoralists should be encouraged by valuation for improvements, and long leases given for any country not required for close settlement, for then they will nurse the country, keep down rabbits, and the State will benefit by more taxation ; more labour will be employed, and generally the State must benefit, for what is the benefit if the country is eaten out and not profitably employed. Through this improvement a curious state of affairs is arrived at. The Crown levies income-tax on lands held from the Crown. When worked with freehold the method of arriving at the income is determined by the carrying-capacity of the two tenures. In my ease, where the carrying-capacity is equal, I objected to this" method, as I do not lamb on Crown lands, and therefore there is not a just equality. It was arranged to use the capital values as a basis. Now, through my improvement the capital value of the leaseholds is going up and the proportion is not the same, therefore I have to pay a higher ratio of income-tax through my having improved the runs, and at the same time the Government do not recognise this improvement as anything you should receive compensation for. I tried hard not to have the capital value of the run increased on me, but to have the capital value determined on the rent, and when my improvements were recognised and guaranteed, then I was willing for the Crown to use them as a lever to get more taxation : Run 209, at £50, twenty-one years from Ist March, 1900, 5,200 acres; run 217b, £85, fourteen years from Ist March, 1899, 13,600 acres. 2. Has the carrying-capacity of your run been very much increased since you took it up?—l am running a different class of sheep now. They were merinos before, now they are halfbreds. I am carrying less now, but they are being carried better. 3. You get more wool now? —No, I think I got a heavier clip from the merinos than from the halfbreds. 4. Then, what is the advantage ? —I can get better money for the store lambs. It is a very much more profitable thing now than it was before, because the markets made all the difference. 5. Mr. McCutchan.] In speaking of sowing the 14,300 acres you said the cost was £2,563, which runs out about 3s. 6d. an acre? —Yes. 6. That seems very cheap ?—That is the amount it actually cost. 7. You say it was a success generally? —Yes. There are a few places it did not'take, but all round it is a very great success. 8. Did you sow above the snow-line? —I have no permanent snow-line now. 9. The capital value of pastoral leases is arrived at according to the rent you pay. The runs are capitalised at 6 per cent, on your rent, which is the capital value for local taxation purposes?
C.-4.
390
j~.T. C. NICHOLS.
—The Government have also another valuation which they return as the capital value of the run, but I think that is only done for their own purpose, and Ido not know how it is arrived at. I spent a considerable sum of money in improving the run, and the Department added that to the capital value, and I was taxed on it. If they would allow the improvements I would be quite willing to accept that, but until they recognise the improvements in some way it seems unfair that they should use that as a lever to get more income-tax from my pastoral land. 10. Mr. Hall ] You find halfbreds more productive than merinos?— Yes, very much more. 11. Is your country very high or moderately high?— Only moderately high. 12. Mr. McLennan.'] Would you proceed with your sowing if you were sure of getting a better tenure ?—I am anxious to do so. It is the warmest and best of my country that I have not sown, and I am afraid to do so. 13. What area do you think you would be able to 50w?—3,500 to 4,500 acres. 14. What extension of your lease would be necessary in order to give you encouragement to go on sowing and improving the property ?—Probably an extension of twenty-one years would cover it. 15. Would twenty-one years be ample?—l should prefer more. 16. You would be satisfied with twenty-one years? —I do not think twenty-one years would recoup me, but if it were added to the present lease I would agree to it at once. 17. Mr. Paul.] Do you know any large holdings in this district that could be subdivided for closer settlement ?—There are none immediately near me. The only one might be an estate that I understand is divided amongst seven members of the family, or it will be divided, and when that is done very little will be left for close settlement. 18. You have given a good deal of attention to surface-sowing of grass?— Yes. 19. Have you ever known of an instance of dirty seed—the " seconds " or " thirds " being sown on the land ?—Yes, I used it myself. 20. I suppose you think it is very inadvisable to do that now?—No, I think it was advisable. You could not afford to sow such seed on mountain country as you would sow in paddocks, because the cost would be quite prohibitive. 21. That means that all sorts of weeds are spread ? —I have not noticed any on my country. There is any amount of sorrel and fog, but I have never seen Californian thistle. 22. Then, you approve of sowing dirty seed on these runs ?—Yes ; I think the result justifies it. 23. You do not think it would be better to sow a smaller area of clean seed than a larger area of inferior seed?—l think you get a better result for your money with cheap seed. 24. Then, you do not approve of Government supervision in respect to this matter ?—I think if long leases were given the runholders would do their best, and I think they would use good, sound seed. I certainly would have done so myself if I had had perfect security. 25. Sufficient security would be value for improvements at the end of the lease ? —Yes. 26. As a practical man, do you see any difficulty in valuing grass in connection with sowing? —Yes, great difficulty. A man may spend £1,000 and not get £100 result, and a man may spend £100 and get £1,000 result. I think my country is suitable because of the result, but a great deal of country is not suitable. 27. Do you think a fair valuation could be arrived at—fair to the tenant and fair to the State ? —Yes, I think so, by arbitration. 28. Mr. Matheson.] Do I understand you to say that you would be prepared to continue surface-sowing if you had an extension of your lease to twenty-one years? —Yes. 29. Mr. Anstey.] In what form would you want an extension—at the present rental or arbitration as to the rental?—At the present rental. 30. Supposing you had a perpetual renewal at a rental fixed by arbitration, would not that be satisfactory ? —Yes, if something were recognised of the money I have spent at the present time. 31. If you got continual right of renewal it would be on the unimproved value?— Yes, I would be quite satisfied. 32. Is any of that land suitable for cutting up ? —There is 4,000 acres in one corner that would make a nice little grazing-run by itself, but it would spoil the high land behind it. 33. Could it not be cut up into two runs so as to give a fair proportion of high and low country to each run ?—I think it would spoil the run if the 4,000 acres were taken out of it. 34. It would not be wise, you think, to give the freehold of any land suitable for subdivision? —No, certainly not. 35. Do you think there would be any harm of the runholders being given the right to cultivate provided they grassed it down immediately afterwards ?—I think, it would be wise if that right were given. 36. You think the right of cultivation might be unlimited, provided the land was immediately grassed down afterwards ? —I think so. 37. Mr. McCardle.] Do you not think it would be running a great risk of introducing noxious weeds in using dressings?—lt has not been so. There is no ragwort on my run. There is Californian thistle on one place in the bush. 38. We have heard a good deal of evidence, and you are the first witness who has admitted having sown rubbish. All the others have spoken strongly against sowing " seconds" and " thirds " ?—I sowed ryegrass. 39. Have you any idea where the seed was grown? — I bought it from Dalgety and Co., in Dunedin. I saw it there, and thought it was good enough to buy. 40. Mr. Matheson.] Do you consider there is a distinct difference between the rubbish from the cleaning-machine and the " seconds " ? —I do not think there is a great deal of difference. Of course, there is a great deal of rubbish comes from the machines. 41. It is really a question of discretion in buying your samples ?—Yes.
T. C. NICHOLS.]
391
a—4.
42. Mr. Paul.] Did you sow any of your freehold land?— Only 640 acres. 43. Did you use the same seed ?—Yes, similar seed. 44. Could the Moeraki Estate be subdivided for close settlement ?—I thin'k so. 45. Mr. Forbes.] Your country being dry there is not much danger of noxious weeds spreading? —I am afraid the Californian thistle will spread, because there is a Government bush near it which has a patch on it now. I have about twenty patches on the freehold, but I keep it cut down and salted, and in some places I have been able to exterminate it. 46. You do not think that it is spreading to the leasehold ?—I am certain it is not. 47. You do not think that in sowing that seed you could have spread the Californian thistle there ?—No, because I started sowing in 1889. 48. Mr. Anstey.] You say there is no ragwort there ? —No. 49. Do you think it will not grow because it is too dry for it ?—I do not know. 50. Mr. McLennan.] What means did you take to try and exterminate the Californian thistle ?—Cutting and salting it. W. K. Goodson examined. 51. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer, and farm 46 acres in the Awamoa Estate. It is freehold. I have been there three years. I engage in dairying and grow crops, chiefly root-crops. I keep fifteen milking-cows. I would like to say something in reference to the Californian thistle. 1 have just read the evidence given in other places before the Commission, and some witnesses say that the freeholders can keep their land cleaner than the leaseholders, but I find that the land of the freeholders in this district is almost smothered with thistle. Having studied many ways of destroying the thistle, I have found that every method suggested is pretty well a failure, and I think it wSuld be better if the Government offered £10,000 or £20,000 instead of £500 to any one who will discover a method of destroying and getting rid of the weed. I consider that the present award is of very little use. Although lam a freeholder lam a firm believer in the lease in perpetuity. I think it would be better if the whole of the land in the colony belonged to the colony. If I could get a lease-in-perpetuity section where I wanted it I would sell my freehold to-morrow and take up a lease-in-perpetuity section. As far as borrowing is concerned, it is all very well to say that the freeholder can borrow. I have not had to borrow much, but when I bought my freehold it took away all my capital to pay a third of the amount down as was demanded, and that left me short of money for stocking my farm. I had to buy two cows, and I had to pay 8 per cent. I gave a note of hand for three months, and at the end of that time I found I had not the money to pay it back, although I could have got it. I got it renewed for the next three months, and it cost me in the end 28 per cent, per annum. If I had been a lease-in-perpetuity settler I would have had my money to stock my farm, and would not have had to borrow. I think that if I had taken up a lease in perpetuity section I would have been worth ten times what I am to-day. 52. Mr. Forbes.] Did you buy the freehold right out?—No, it is to be paid at the end of seven years. 53. Do you think you would have got very much better terms if you had taken up a Government lease and not sunk all your money in the land ?—I think I would have been very much better off to-day. 54. You think that the men who are holding lease-in-perpetuity sections are in a better position than the freeholder? —I think they are. I think they have had a great amount given them from the State. 55. Mr. Johnston.] What was the price of your freehold? — One block was £25 an acre, and the other £18 an acre. 56. You have Californian thistle?— Three small patches. 57. Have you ever tried salt ?—Yes. Where you can put the salt on the main root it destroys the root and the plant, but if you do not kill the main root the plant survives. It would sometimes cost more than the land is worth to use salt to destroy the thistle. 58. Are you satisfied with the living you are making out of this piece of land ? —Yes. I have had hard work, but lam now clear of debt, and am perfectly satisfied. Still, I would like to have more ground. 59. Mr. Matheson.] Suppose a man had a suitable piece of ground and made a good living under the lease in perpetuity, and he had been able to accumulate some savings, do you think it would be wise for the State to let him pay off some of the capital and thus reduce the rent ?—No, I do not think it would be advisable for the State, but it might be for the man. 60. Mr. Anstey.] You mentioned having been charged 28 per cent, for some money: is that a customary charge?—l inquired, and the reply was that it was not altogether customary, but it was legal. I understand that 8 per cent, is the legal charge, but they charged me 5 per cent, as commission. 61. They charged you commission for making an advance ?—The 5-per-cent. commission was for renewing the note. That particular agent charged me the percentage I have mentioned, but I cannot say what other agents would do. William Rdssell examined. 62. The Chairma?i.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and have 72 acres on the Ardgowan Estate. It is a lease-in-perpetuity section. I have been there for about ten years. My rent is Bs. 9d. an acre. I engage in dairying principally. I have no grievance in regard to tenure. lam a strong believer in the freehold or the option of making the freehold, simply because it gives a man more encouragement to make good improvements. 63. But you have it for 999 years ?—Yes, but I think the option of the freehold is better ; it creates energy in a person and a feeling of being a good loyal subject, and that he has something to work for and fight for under the freehold system.
C—4.
392
[W. RUSSELL.
64. Supposing you were enabled to get the freehold, would you be willing to pay the enhanced price on revaluation in order to get the freehold?—-That would depend on circumstances. I consider that I was myself the means of improving the value of my land. 65. Mr. McCardle.] You recognise that the Land for Settlements Act has placed you and other settlers in a good position ?—I acknowledge that it has been a great benefit to the country. 66. You do not think the State loses anything in parting with the freehold? —I do not think so. 67. Do you think that the advances-to-settlers system is a good system?— Yes, if well administered. 68. Mr. McCutchan.] Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards?—l have no grievance against the Land Board, but I think the Land Boards ought to be elected by the community at large. 69. Might not there be a danger to the tenants, inasmuch as the people of the towns might get preponderance of influence on the Boards ?—I consider that they should be elective, but lam not prepared to say much on that subject. 70. Are you satisfied with the loading of the Ardgowan sections ?—lf the work of roading had been done by contractors it could in many cases have been done for half the money. There are a good many roads through Ardgowan that are useless. 71. The work was done by outside labour?— Yes, principally by the unemployed ; and it was slowly done. As I have said, it could have been done for half the cost. 72. Do you think the tenants should be called upon to pay interest for the whole term of their lease ?—No ; and I also think that rebate should be given in the case of Ardgowan, the same as in other settlements. 73. In twenty-six years, at 5 per cent., the principal and interest for loading would be extinguished. You think, then, it would be fair to the State if that were done?—7es. In regard to rebate, I may say that we got it for about two years, and then it was discontinued. 74. Mr. Hall.] You believe in the freehold ?—Yes ; and, generally speaking, the tenants of Ardgowan belive in the option of freehold. 75. In the case of the option of the freehold being given, do you think there should be revaluation or a fresh ballot?— Would it not be a cowardly Government to take advantage of a poor tenant. lam a believer in progress. The lease in perpetuity was good for the country, but the option of the freehold is still better. 76. Those who were defeated at the ballot might say they had a right to a chance in the ballot under the same favourable conditions ? —lf they paid compensation for improvements they could ballot away. 77. Mr. Forbes.] If the option of the freehold were given, is there not some danger of one man or a few men buying up some of the other sections?— There should be a safeguard as regards the freehold. The Government could retain control of the land and let the tenant pay up to threefourths of the value. 78. You think it would be right for the Government to retain some hold over the land ?—Yes, so as to prevent the reaggregation of estates. 79. Mr. Paul.'] You said that under the lease in perpetuity the tenants could not improve their holdings?—l said they had not the same interest in doing so. 80. Do they improve their holdings ?—To a certain extent. 81. I have been going through the estates, and it seems to me the lease-in-perpetuity holders have been improving their sections to a very great extent by erecting good residences, fencing, and so forth : what else could they do ? —They could not carry on farming without making a certain amount of improvements, but, still, if they had the option of the freehold there would be more encouragement to make permanent improvements. 82. Are these improvements permanent?— Some of them are and some are not. 83. Which are not ?—1 am not prepared to say which farms have permanent improvements, but going along I see some of the improvements are very poor structures. 84. You do not know of any poor structures on freehold land?— Any amount of them, but a freeholder can do as he likes. 85. Then, it seems to be better in the public interest that the land should be held on lease in perpetuity ?—I consider it is better for the tenant and better for the country that a successful tenant under the lease in perpetuity should have the option of paying a little off his capital value in good times. Then, if bad times came, he would not be so troubled to meet his liabilities. I think that any level-headed man ought to agree in the same policy. 86. You have bettered your position under the lease in perpetuity?—l do not know whether I bettered it much. I had a bit of money when I went in, and Ido not know if I have any more yet. 87. Have any settlers on Ardgowan left since it was opened? —Any quantity of them. 88. Did they get anything for their goodwill ? —They got something. 89. Much? —Some of them got a reasonable value for their improvements. 90. Did they get anything over and above their improvements ?—Yes, even above their improvements ; but you must bear in mind that this Taieri and Peninsula Milk-supply Company were the principal means of raising the value of both private and lease-in-perpetuity lands in this district. 91. Then, I suppose you are pretty well satisfied it would pay you better to have the option of the freehold ?—I do not know whether it would pay me or not. I cannot tell you what is to come. 92. You look upon it as more valuable ?—I look upon it as more valuable if I want to borrow a few pounds. I could borrow then with less difficulty than I can under the lease in perpetuity.
W. RUSSELL. 1
393
Q. 4.
93. What are you prepared to pay the State for that something they are giving you which is better than what you have ? —Matters would have to be considered when that question arose. 94. If full valuation is allowed you for improvements are you willing to go into competition for your land ?—Any day I can get full compensation for my improvements they can have the land. 95. You are prepared to go to auction for it ?—lf you give me the option. 96. Mr. Anstey.] Are there any cropping or other restrictions in your lease unfavourable to you?— No. I have nothing to complain about. The greater part of my section would grow no crop at all when I took it up. It was full of twitch. 97. Mr. Hall.} Do I understand you to say that the tenure would be satisfactory to you if you had the privilege of paying off part of the capital value?— Yes. I think it would be a wise economy. 98. Mr. McGutchan.] You said if you got full compensation for your improvements you would be content to allow your place to go to auction ? —Yes, any day 99. What about the £2 per acre increased value which you say the Taieri and Peninsula Company gave to the land ?—lt belongs to me. The land has improved because we settlers paid the Taieri and Peninsula Company out of our own pockets. 100. I merely wanted to clear up your statement that you only wanted compensation for actual improvements on the place, and this value was given to your land by a condition of things outside your ring-fence? —Certainly, but it should belong to the tenant because he paid for it. 101. You pay the loading out of your own pocket: do you think you should get compensation for that amongst your improvements ? —I am not prepared to give evidence upon that point, but there ought to be something-done as regards loading. 102. It goes in the capital value of the land ?—Yes, what I have paid on it. Edward Paegiter Burbury examined. 103. The Chairvian.\ You are manager of the Loan and Mercantile Agency Company ?—Yes, I have held that position twenty-six years in Oamaru. 104. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I do not wish to bring anything before the Commission, but I am quite willing to answer any questions they may ask me. 105. Do you think the present constitution of the Land Boards is satisfactory ?—Personally, not altogether. I think the settlers should be represented. In fact, I think it might be a wise plan if the Board was constituted, say, by one member nominated by the Government, one nominated by the settlers, and one, say, by the County Councils to represent the taxpayers of the district. For instance, in a large town like this where there are many taxpayers but comparatively few country residents, I think they might fairly have a voice in the conduct of the Board. 106. Would it not be a very expensive thing to hold a ballot to elect a member to the Land Board ?—I do not think it would be expensive when you consider the enormous amount of money invested in land by the Government, and under these circumstances we should not be parsimonious. Of course, I have not gone into this matter carefully, and I have answered the question on the spur of the moment. 107. You think the Board should be partly nominated and partly elected?—l do. 108. What is your opinion of the freehold as compared to the leasehold in its various forms?— I have thought that matter over considerably. In the first place, I cannot conceive it possible that any person who had the option of making a leasehold property a freehold property would not like to do so. I want it to be clearly understood thdt I say " option." Ido not think it should be compulsory for him to convert his leasehold into a freehold, but he should have the option of doing so. Assuming that he has the option, then comes the question as to what should be his rights under that option. I think probably it might be wise that no man should have that option until he had been, say, a resident on and farming his section for a number of years—say, ten years—during which time he would have been able to arrive at the conclusion as to whether it was to his advantage or otherwise to convert that leasehold into a freehold. He would then probably also have come to a conclusion as to what was the intrinsic value of that property. Now, I maintain that the value of land is exactly like anything else, it depends on what you can make out of it, and I think a settler who has been on a farm ten years will be well able to judge as to the value of the land. That would be the first basis upon which I would say that he should have the right to make his leasehold a freehold. I then think that his farm should be valued on almost identical lines as the Harbour Board leases and borough leases are valued. That is to say, two valuers should be appointed, one by the tenant and one by the landlord—i.e., the Government —and these two should appoint an umpire. I should absolutely object to a man who wished to convert his leasehold into a freehold mortgaging it in order to purchase the freehold. That may sound very strange coming from me, the manager of a mortgage company, but I wish you to understand that I am here giving my personal opinions only. I do not think a tenant should be allowed to mortgage his place in order to buy the freehold, but I think he should be allowed to pay off, by degrees the capital value arrived at by the method I have suggested. I think if he has any savings from crops or any earnings from the farm he should be allowed to pay that amount off, provided, of course, it was not less at any time than, say, 10 per cent, of the capital. I do not think he should be allowed to pay off any trifling sum of, say, £10 or £20 at atime. I think that would give a man the absolute interest in his property which I think everybody has a desire for. Of course, I would like to see some regulations laid down which would prevent the aggregation of large estates. Although I think the large estates have served their purpose, I think it would be a pity in the interests of the country if large estates were again to become common. But Ido not anticipate that for a single moment. That is how I would look at the position if I were a leaseholder. Now, looking at it from the Government's, or I prefer to say the taxpayer's, point of 50—C. 4,
C.-4.
394
[e. p. bukbuby.
view—because the Government are simply managers for the taxpayers —I say it would be good business for them because you will give the leaseholder an absolute interest in the property he is occupying, and he will use that property to the very greatest advantage as a matter of course. I have travelled about a little in my time, at Home, in Europe, and Australia, and so on, and everywhere human nature seems to be the same —every one likes to possess what he has for himself if he can possibly do so. 109. You just said it is not likely there will be any aggregation of large estates in the future in the colony?— Yes; it all depends on the land and the locality. I know, of course, that a farm of 100 acres may be considered a good-sized property in one district and a very poor property in another district. I speak generally, having regard to the nature of the land and locality and climate, when I say I do not think we will ever see small estates again amalgamated into large estates, because I do not think they could be made to pay. 110. Do you think it would be as well in the interests of the country to limit the amount of money any man could invest in purchasing land in order to check the aggregation of estates —I mean, to check it on a valuation basis and not on an acreage basis ?—I said I should certainly object to any large estates again being formed in the country, because, of course, a man might come along to whom money was absolutely no object, and he might desire to turn half a dozen farms into a shooting park, or something of that sort, although I do not think we may expect that in New Zealand in our or our children's time. 111. Mr. McCardle.] Believing in the principle that prevention is better than cure, would it not be well to make such safeguard by legislation to prevent anything of the kind?— That is exactly what I mean to say. 112. You believe it is desisable to give the small holders under lease in perpetuity every encouragement to be thrifty, and you think one of the great inducements to be thrifty would be to pay a certain amount of the capital value of their land back to the State ?—I do. 113. You said also it is desirable in the best interests of settlement that all classes of settlers should be fairly satisfied with the tenures that they hold and the circumstances under which they are working?— That goes without saying. 114. Of course, you recognise that whether a man is a leaseholder or a freeholder he is still occupying what is really the public estate, because whether a man is paying rent or direct taxation to the Government for the use of his land he is still contributing to the State ?—Yes; but if you will excuse my saying so, I think that is a little far-fetched. I ain one of those who think that the land-tax is unfair. I think it is a class tax. I say there could be no fairer taxation in the world than the property-tax and the income-tax, and I say that every man and woman in the country who owns anything should pay according to the amount they own. I would allow no exemption. I claim that anybody who owns anything derives a benefit according to the stake he has in the country, and that therefore nothing could be fairer than taxation on property and income. 115. Conceding the idea that the land-tax is to continue, do you not think it is fair to exempt the very small landowner in view of the fact that he will be paying through the Customs?—l would absolutely exempt nobody for the reason I have stated—namely, I think we all reap a comparative benefit from the payment of taxes. 116. Would it not really mean that a man on a small estate would be paying out of his labour ?—Yes ; he might be paying out of labour, or annuity, or anything you like. I say he derives a comparative benefit from the good conduct of the country, and from what we have in the way of railways, roads, telegraphs, schools, and so forth. 117. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you not think it is wise in the interest of the State to assist the poorer classes of the community as far as possible : your principle of taxation is to tax a man in proportion to what he owns ? —Yes. 118. But a wise system of taxation, surely, sees to it that the under-classes of the community get every opportunity to improve their position?—My feeling is that every man should pay his proportion. It might be 3d. or £300 per annum, but still he pays his proportion. 119. Then, of course, you are averse to the Customs taxation ?—I should certainly like to see this a free country if it were at all possible. 120. The evil is this: in making no exemption in favour of the poor man any system of taxation would be very inequitable, because a man with £10,000 a year and ten in his family would pay no more through the Customs than a man with £100 a year and also ten of a family ?— I think he does, and I say he should pay in proportion to whatever he owns. If he has £10,000 a year he pays in proportion, if he has £1,000 a year he pays in proportion, and if he has £100 or £50 a year he pays in proportion. 121. Would you make no exemption in favour of the poor man ? —Absolutely none. 1 think a great deal of claptrap is indulged in in regard to the poor man. I think no man need be poor if he liked to work. As a rule the honest working-man is quite willing to pay his share of the taxation of the country the same as any other man. 122. That is very true, but still the fact remains that the taxation of the country is bearing very unevenly on the poorer classes of the country, and your proposal tends to make it worse by giving no exemption ?—I am only expressing my own views. I think there is too much grandmotherly business about the thing altogether. 123. From your knowledge, do you not know that the chief difficulty in a man improving his position in life is in getting the first £200 or £300 together ? —I know men who started in this district quite as youths and with absolutely nothing, and gained their position, which is very good and sound to-day, by sheer pluck, hard work, and common-sense. 124. I admit it, but they have done so against difficulties which are unfair ?—But some people will never make a success in life no matter how you assist them. 125. Have you had any experience oi the Advances to Settlers Office?— None.
B. P. BURBUBY.]
395
C—4.
126. Mr. Hail.] You advocate giving the option of purchase to tenants under the lease in perpetuity?—l do, absolutely. 127. Do you mean that to apply only to ordinary Crown lands or to improved estates purchased by the Government ? —To both—to every Crown tenant. 128. Would you make it retrospective, to apply to existing leases? —Certainly. 129. Mr. McLennan.'] You remember the years 1890-94 : was Oamaru prosperous then ?— Those were the years of drought, and they were very bad years indeed. 130. I suppose Oamaru and district are pretty prosperous now ?—Yes ; I should say they are more prosperous than they have ever been in my time. 131. What do you attribute that prosperity to ?—First of all, to the extraordinary good seasons and prices for all produce and stock—whether they are selling above their intrinsic value or not I cannot say. The prices now are very much higher, probably, than they were in the years you speak of. I can remember seasons when prime milling wheat was 2s. 2d. and 2s. sd. per bushel; oats, 9d. per bushel; barley, in proportion; potatoes, 10s. and 12s. per ton ; wool, 3d. to 3£d. per pound; draught horses, some of the finest I have ever seen in this district, from £20 to £25 apiece; good dairy cows, from £2 to £2 10s.; I have seen ewes sold at 14s. one season and absolutely given away the next season—sold at 6d. per head to boil down. Now, if you compare these with the present prices, is it to be wondered at that a district like this, perhaps one of the fineSb agricultural districts in the world, is prosperous at the present time. 132. Is there anything else to which you could attribute it? —The district is more prosperous by the settlement on the land. 133. Do you not think, after the land has been cut up and settled, that the tenants are asking too much at the present time m asking for the option of the freehold ?—I do not know that they are asking for the option of the freehold, but if they are they certainly are not asking too much. I have absolutely no doubt whatever in my own mind that if I was a tenant I should like the option. 134. If the tenants had had to buy the freehold by auction when the estates were cut up, how many of the present tenants do you think would be on the land to-day?—lf you ask me that question I might answer it by asking another: How many of these people now occupying leasehold sections, if they had had three bad years instead of three good ones, would be there to-day ? 135. But how many of the Crown tenants at the present time on these estates would be there if they had had to buy the freehold ?—I doubt very much if any of them would be. I doubt if any were in a position to buy the freehold. 136. Do you think these properties would have been cut up and sold had it not been for the Land for Settlements Act ?—That is a question I hardly feel able to answer. It all depends on the surrounding circumstances. I feel pretty sure that Taipo Estate would have been sold, on account of the death of the owner and the division of the property amongst his children. I think Awamoa would have been sold on account of the death of Mr. Holmes. These are merely guesses—l do not know. 137. In your opinion, are there any other large estates in this district which could be cut up and settled to advantage?— Undoubtedly. There is Corriedale for one, and Otekaike for another, and Moeraki. 138. Do you think that Otekaike could be prosperously settled by cutting up the Crown lands independently of the freehold ?—I am not sufficiently acquainted with the Crown lands to say so. 139. Do you think it would pay the Government to buy the freehold so as to cut the leasehold up into large areas and settle it ?—I should suppose that the Government, in buying the Otekaike freehold, would cut it up in conjunction with their own leasehold country. Certainly it would pay them to do so. 140. In your opinion, what is the value of Corriedale all over?—l think, holding the position I do, that is hardly a question I should be asked to answer. 141. Do you think it would be suitable for settlement provided it was cut into fair-sized farms of from 300 to 500 acres ?—I have no doubt whatever about it so long as the Government buy at a fair price. It lies right in the centre of Windsor Park, and there is settlement all round it. 142. Do you think it would be for the benefit of the district as a whole if these three estates were settled ?—I do not think there can be any doubt about it. 143. Mr. Forbes.] Is it not a fact that throughout New Zealand land will gradually rise in value ?—I suppose we all anticipate that it will through natural causes. 144. As a business-man, do you not think that the Government should look at this matter from a business point of view ? Why should the Government part with this land that is rising in value ?—Looking at it from a broad point of view, I cannot conceive any country more prosperous than a country settled by freeholders—by people farming and occupying their own land. I say that the value of land is a mere bagatelle to the country as a whole compared to what the people produce and what they do with the lard. 145. Do you know of any country where the land belongs to the State?—l have been in France and Belgium, where there are many small freeholders. I was a mere lad at the time I lived in those countries ; but my recollection is that what we called the peasants, who owned their own land, were very prosperous people ; while in other countries where they did not own their own lands the peasants were just the very opposite. For instance, take Ireland or Bussia, where the working farmers are merely tenants, they are not prosperous, and they are a discontented class in comparison with those who do own the land. 146. That is private tenantry, you are referring to ?—Yes; but I do not think there is any difference really, when you come to boil it down, whether the Government or an individual own the land that is leased to the settlers. In fact, I think it is quite possible, and I have seen instances, wiiere the private landlord has been more considerate than the Government.
396
[B. P. BURBURY.
C.—4.
147. You think it is for the benefit of the tenant and the benefit of the country that a settler should be working with the hope of some day making the land his own ? Would you extend that same privilege to men leasing private lands ?—I certainly would not, because that would be interfering with the liberty of the subject, which we have no right whatever to do. Let the private landlords and their tenants make their own arrangement the same as the Government and their tenants. 148. You think a different law should apply as regards the private landlord? —I consider absolutely that the taxpayers of the country, as landlords, should give their tenants the option of making their leaseholds into freeholds if they wish to do so. 149. But you would not extend that same privilege to lessees holding private lands ? —I would not be in favour of saying we should pass a law to compel every landlord in this country to give his tenants the right to acquire the freehold if they wished it. 150. At the same time, you think it would be better that the tenants should have that right ? — I think that must be perfectly obvious. 151. It has been said there is a great deal of sentiment about a man owning his section : do you think there is a good deal of business instinct about that yearning as well ?—I do not think there is any doubt about it. You must look at it from every point of view. Take a woman hiring a piano, i cannot conceive that she would not rather buy that piano if she could instead of hiring it. 152. Mr. Johnston.] Do you know any large runs being held by dummies, or of any dummyism ? —I cannot say that I do. 153. What do you think of the Land for Settlements Act ?—Looking at it broadly, I think it is one of the finest things ever instituted. It is magnificent, and, so long as you provide the right land and the right settlers, I cannot possibly conceive anything better. I would arrive at the best settlers by the process of the survival of the fittest, and the best land by buying what is offering at its fair value. 154. Do you believe in the examination of applicants by the Land Board?—No ; I think it is an absolute farce. 155. Do you think the Land Board are capable of judging the men who come before them ?— I know for an absolute fact that men have committed the most horrible perjury before the Land Board in regard to their positions, and I do not see how the Land Board could find them out. 156. What is the value of land now as compared with the value when the Government purchased these estates?— The value of land in the Oamaru district is fully 25 per cent, higher than what was then supposed to be the value of land. As I said, the value of land is what you can make out of it. You have to take a series of years and the average. Ido not know that a single property was bought at what you might call its fair intrinsic value. Of course, I consider the Government took advantage of circumstances which they should not have taken advantage of, and which they never would have taken advantage of as individuals. For instance, some people here were in such straits that they had absolutely to accept whatever the Government chose to offer them for their properties. I happen to know two or three cases. Ido not think it was the duty of the Government to take advantage of these unfortunate circumstances. " 157. Do you not think the Government gave them as much as private individuals would ?— It is easy now when everything is going so splendidly to talk like that, but in those days, as you know yourself, things were very bad, and it was very difficult to get anybody to buy anything. Those were extremely bad times, and I say it was wrong for the Government to purchase land at less than their own officers valued it at. I say that the Government of the people should never do a thing that a private individual would not do, and no honest man would take advantage of his neighbour's misfortunes. 158. There are plenty of business-men who would do it. We often hear it said that So-and-so is a smart business-man and a clever man, but what is the difference between him and a rogue ? —Very often very little. 159. Is the land generally about here and on the Government estates cultivated to the best advantage ? —I should say that is a very big question. Of course, there are all sorts of restrictions as to cropping and cultivation which I think in many cases should not exist. Farms vary—one piece of country should be cropped and handled in one way, and another variety of land should be handled in another way. I think a practical farmer on the site should say how that land should be cultivated. 160. Are the farmers, to your knowledge, getting the most out of their country ?—Taking them as a whole, I should say Yes. 161. Would you give the Land Board more discretionary power in regard to the cultivation of the land ?—lf the members of the Land Board will forgive me for saying so, I do not think they should have as much power as they have now. I think the Bangers should be thoroughly practical men, and I think they should come into personal touch with the tenants and their holdings. If they could not arrange matters pleasantly and amicably I think there should be a sort of a Board of Appeal, consisting of, say, a leading farmer known to be a thorough expert in the district, a leading business-man in the town, and a member of the County Council to decide the matter, and the land should be cultivated in the terms of their award. I think there is too much red tape at present. 162. Do any of the tenants ever complain to you about the Rangers harassing them and putting them to any trouble? —I.have had complaints that they are harassed—l think, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly. That is why I say the Ranger should be a thoroughly practical man, and he should discuss the matter with the farmer from a practical and business point of view. I think also you ought to have a first-class man for the North Island and one for the South Island. They should be very well paid and above suspicion, and they should supervise the settlements in
each Island, and should have the power of veto in regard to the arrangements made by the Rangers and the Appeal Board. 163. You would advocate the appointment of a superintendent for each Island, to have lull control of the Crown tenants' rotation of crops and the proper care and condition of the land ?— Yes. I should have an officer the same as the large companies have—he is called the superintendent of properties. I assume that the North Island is not farmed similarly to the South Island, and therefore I suggest two officers. It should be their duty to visit these settlements and talk matters over with the Rangers and the farmers, and generally to see that things went on swimmingly and according to law. They should be independent men. I should appoint them if necessarv for life on good behaviour. 164. Do you know anything of the ballot system ?— My idea is that the ballot system is good in a way, but I think anybody and everybody should go to the ballot. I would not exclude anybody. 165. Would you have a straight-out ballot ?—Yes ; and then, of course, the successful applicant has to conform with the rules and regulations upon which the land has been let. 166. We will assume the case of a merchant in the town who is prohibited from taking it up ? —He is not prohibited from taking it up, but he must reside on it. 167. Assuming you wanted to take up some land for your children, do you not think it would be advisable to extend the privileges of non-residence ?—That is exactly the point over which I clashed with the Land Board. I wanted to take my old homestead for my son, who was not of age, and I had to apply for it myself. Well, I had to reside there, which meant that I would have to throw up my appointment with the company, and as I could not afford to do that I had to abandon the intention I had formed on my son's behalf. I claimed I should be allowed to take up the homestead for my son, and they should allow him to reside there under my control. 168. You would alter these restrictions ?—ln certain ways certainly, but lam looking at it from a personal point of view. There may be very good arguments why the present rule should continue. I felt it was a very grave hardship, and I think so still. 169. Could you tell us what the price of the ground was in the old cropping days ?— My recollection is that in the old days the land was taken up by the croppers in tussock. In some cases they paid a certain rent, and in some they did not pay any rent at all. The land was broken up, and the squatter found the grass-seed, and it was laid down with the crop. Later on the croppers used to take the land for cropping, and they paid rent according to the quality of the land and its proximity to the railway or market. The large landowner had to regrass the land, and what might have appeared a very high rental did not mean a high rental to the squatter for that reason. 170. But in the case of men who had to pay from £1 to £2 10s. per acre ?—I have known £3 per acre paid as rent for potato land, and the cropper to make £30 per acre. Ido not think anybody ever paid £3 for wheat land. 171. What was the then value of the land for which £1 was paid as rent?—l cannot tell you from memory. I suppose you are leading up to the point that many of these men paid exorbitant rents ; but Ido not think the surrounding circumstances are taken into consideration. Many of the proprietors did not make as much out of it as people think they did, and I know in many cases where the croppers had bad seasons the rents were remitted entirely. 172. Is the value of the land higher now than it was then ? —Yes, by one-half. 173. Do you know the pastoral country about here ?—Yes. 174. What conditions would you recommend to improve the carrying-capacity of the land?— Longer leases and surface-sowing. I have had large personal experience of surface-sowing, even on the high hills. Excellent results can be obtained if the tussock is burnt and good seed sown at the proper season. I would have good seed only, mind you, and not rubbish such as was often sown in the past. I would endeavour to assist the occupiers by supplying them with seed at wholesale price or by railing it free to the nearest station. I would give long leases to encourage surface-sowing. My method was to burn the tussock in very early spring, and immediately afterwards the seed was sown broadcast. As a rule, we used to choose the damp spots and gullies in which to sow it. It was very successful, and increased the carrying-capacity of the country very largely. 175. What is your opinion in connection with the noxious weeds in this district? —We have got no ragwort, but I think the Canadian thistle is going to take possession of some of the lands unless it is tackled in a serious manner. There is a lot of gorse and broom growing in the riverbeds and on the waste lands, and I think they will become very dangerous also. Ido not think the Government can be too stringent in regard to noxious weeds. Many methods have been tried to destroy Canadian thistle, and quite a number of people have been trying to earn the Government bonus by experimenting on totara, but we cannot tell with what success so far. Ido not think there has been any absolute success yet. 176. Is the matter being attended to now by the County Council ?—I do not think so. Ido not think anybody realises what a serious thing it is. 177. Have you ever known the screenings from seed-cleaning machines to be sown in the high country ?—Yes; my company have received orders for screenings for surface-sowing on the high country. They contain all the weeds under the sun, and they all grow. 178. In your opinion, would any bad results come from the feeding of stock on the refuse of these machines? —It must be detrimental to the land. 179. Do you know if any Crown settlers have sold their holdings? —Any number of them. 180. To advantage ? —To very great advantage to themselves. The goodwill has varied from £1 to £5 per acre—l think, exclusive of improvements. 181. Have the small grazing-runs been a success? —Yes, latterly. 182. Mr. Paul.] In the case of the purchased estates do you not think your proposal might result in the good sections being bought and the bad ones left on the State ?—Not if it was carried out on something like the lines I have suggested. Naturally the best sections would be bought first, because more money could be made out of them.
397
C—4.
ft. P. BTTRBDRY. 1
a—4.
398
|E. P. BUEBTJRY.
183. Is there not a chance of the tenants getting out of the bad sections by surrendering? — That is a matter for the landlord to decide whether they shall be permitted to surrender. 184. Is it not possible that a majority of the settlers on one estate might surrender, and in the case of another estate a majority might secure the best sections ?—I do not suppose there is any estate in this district in regard to which the tenants would not be willing to acquire the freehold if they could. 185. You think that if the option was given in regard to these estates the land would ultimately be made freehold ? —Yes. 186. You said a man could leave a freehold to his children : can he not leave lease-in-per-petuity property ?—I think there is some difficulty in regard to it, but lam not sure. I think a man would naturally rather leave a freehold to his children than a leasehold, but that might be purely sentimental. 187. You express yourself against the land-tax ?—Yes, because I think it is a class tax. 188. Would the land-tax be a class tax if it was levied without exemption ? —1 should hardly like to say Yes or No to that question without more thought. 189. Would you give the option of freehold to the lessees of Corporation and education and Harbour Board leases ? —I know that point has been raised, but I cannot see why there should be any difference. There may be reasons why the tenant of a Harbour Board or Borough Council should not have the same right as the Crown tenant, and I should not care to give a direct answer to your question without going into the matter very fully. 190. At present, to be logical, you think that all tenants should have the option of the freehold ?-—Yes ; on the spur of the moment that would be my answer. 191. Mr. Matheson.~\ Is yo«r reason for that because you believe that under the freehold the State would prosper more, and tha.t trustees could invest money they receive in State security, and so retain their income ?—Yes, I certainly think the Government would benefit; but I think the money obtained from these lands should be absolutely ear-marked in some way or other to buy more estates for cutting up. 192. At present, in this and other provinces, there is a dual administration of Crown lands by the Land Board and the Education Commissioners : do you think that is economical or wise, or would it be better that one Board should administer the whole of the lands ?—I have not given the matter sufficient consideration to express an opinion worth having. 193. Do you consider the chief and only purpose of the land-for-settlements policy was the settlement of the land?— That was the idea. 194. If the settlers who have been put on the land and have prospered are given the right to acquire the freehold should the State try to make a profit out of them ? Why should the State not sell the land at what it cost—at the original upset price ?—I do not think it would be fair to the taxpayers as a whole. In many cases the Government have purchased the estates at extremely low prices, and I think if a man who wants to make his place freehold is not prepared to pay its fair intrinsic value it is not proper to let him have it. 195. Why should not a settler who has done all this work on the land, and has run the risk of his investment proving profitable, be the one to benefit by the sin of the State ?—I do not think it is altogether what the settler has done that has enhanced the value of his property. 196. Mr. Anstey.] You say the land-for-settlements policy has been a magnificent success ?— Yes. 197. Seeing that it has been such a magnificent success, do you think it is wise to introduce a factor which may spoil this magnificent success ?—I do not think it will spoil it. 198. Would it not be wise to leave this magnificent success alone ?—I do not think so ; I think tenants should have the option. 199. Mr. McCardle.] We have seen a large area of seed country cut where noxious weeds abounded : do you not think that any man growing seed for the public market should have a clean certificate before he is allowed to sell that seed ?—That is a big question. I think perhaps there might be some absolute rule that he should have his seed dressed before it is'sold, but I should hardly like to go so far as to say a man should not be allowed to cut seed with noxious weeds in it. 200. Do you think it is possible to eradicate all weeds from seed no matter how it is dressed ? —Yes ; I think there is machinery in this country now that will thoroughly clean any seed put through it. William Duncan Ross McCubdie examined. 201. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am District Boad Engineer in Otago. I have been in that position for about four years, and before that was in the Survey Department since 1880. 202. It is under your direction, I believe, that the "thirds" under the various tenures are expended ? —No, we have nothing to do with that. 203. You see to the expending of the moneys voted by the Government?— Yes, all over the province. 204. We have been hearing a good deal about the roading of the settlements. Have you anything to do with the expenditure of the loading-money ?—Yes, we mostly expend it. 205. You mostly do it on specification ?—Yes, we make out a specification and generally do the work by co-operative labour. 206. Is that a quasi contract ?—Yes, it is a small contract. The work is done on the engineer's price. 207. Have you been spending large sums in this way during the past financial year under the co-operative system ?—lt has been mostly in small sums, but in the aggregate it has been a fairly large amount.
W. D. B. MCCURDIE.!
399
C—4.
208. Could you cell us how much has been spent ?—I would not like to say. It has been so scattered all over the place. 209. There has been a good deal of dissatisfaction expressed about the expenditure of moneys on roads. The settlers seem to think that the amount of money spent in some cases is out of proportion to the amount of work done. Do you think that if the local bodies, the County Councils, had had the expenditure of the money more would have been done for the money ?—I dare say there would, because if you call for tenders you have the advantage of the man who is hard-up and those who make a mistake in putting in too low a price for the work. Our estimate is a safe one for the worker, so that the man will be able to pay his storekeeper. 210. A statement has been made that in one case the work could have been done for one-half of the cost if horses and scoops had been used in place of hand labour ?—Since I have been in charge I have never put any obstacle in the way of using machines. At Greenfield, now, we are using all the appliances we can to make the money go as far as possible. 211. Mr. McCardle.] Do vou allow the co-operative workmen to choose their own mates?— Yes. 212. Do you know if that is the case in connection with railway-works ?—I have nothing at all to do with railway-works. 213. Is it not a fact that the price of a contract has to be regulated so that a man does not earn more than a certain amount of money?—We seek to regulate them so that an average man will make an average wage: in some cases men cannot average 4s. a day, and in others they can average say, Bs. 214. It is said that there is not sufficient competition in the various works to bring out the best that is in a workman ? —I de not know about that. 215. If a party of men have a small contract which will last a month, and they have hopes that they will get another contract the following month, they will not work too hard and earn too much for fear that the contract will be cut down ?—I always fix the price before I know who is to do the work. 216. Do you think it matters to the State what a man earns so long as value is got for the expenditure ?—I think a man should get whatever he earns after the price is fixed; but Ido not think the price should be so fixed that a man can only earn 15s. a week. 217. Mr. McCutchan.] You are in charge of the total expenditure of Government grants on roads ? —Yes. 218. Do you do part of the work by contract ?—Sometimes, but we do it by preference. We are not supposed to call for free tenders without special authority. 219. Have you noticed any contrast in the cheapness of the work under the two systems ?—lt has not been done very often, but I cannot say that I have. 220. Has the loading been adequate ?—Not to metal and form the roads. 221. It was not supposed that the roads were to be metalled? —That is so. We have done very little metalling in the roading of private blocks, but when Mr. Holmes settled Awamoa the County Council made him gravel and do everything. 222. It is understood by the settlers when they take up land in these blocks that the loading is adequate to provide the roads ? —Yes. 223. Has it in all cases been adequate to complete the roads?— No. 224. In those cases has it been due to the fact that the amount of the loading was insufficient, or to the fact that the co-operative system is inefficient 'I—To the fact that there was not sufficient money provided in the first instance. 225. Has the loading been supplemented by Government funds on these blocks ? —Yes. 226. Was that due to the fact that the loading was insufficient in the first instance?— Yes. 227. Has the co-operative work been satisfactory to you?-—Yes. 228. Do you think it as good a system of doing work as the small-contract system ?—-The engineer gets the work done at his own price, and has charge of the work right through. I think it is just as satisfactory. 229. Do you supply the men with the quantities ?—Yes, and every information they want. 230. A tabulated statement of quantities, and so on ?—I would not like to say we do in every case, but on the contract the price for every item is written. 231. Has the work, generally speaking, been given to outside labour or to the settlers in the block?—We try to employ local men as far as possible. 232. Have the settlers generally been anxious to do the work in connection with the expenditure of the loading ?—Down at Barnego they have made inquiries, but they have not shown any frantic desire to take the work. 233. Was the Barnego loading spent under your supervision ?—No, under that of the Chief Surveyor. 234. Some of the settlers there expressed the opinion that the work had been very expensively done One said he would be prepared to do the work for half the cost ?—They often tell you that after the work is done. 235. Do you think there was any justification for that statement ?—Why did he not come forward and make an offer. 236. You fix the scale of payment according to the wages ruling in the district?— Yes. 237. It is for an eight-hours day ?—Yes. 238. If a batch of young men work for twelve hours a day, and make 12s. instead of Bs., what means have you of checking them ?—lf there is a lot of work to be done we have a ganger in charge of the men. 239. There would not be a ganger in charge of one gang of men ? —No. 240. If they were working in a widely settled district there would be no check?— No.
|W. D. R. MCCTTRDTE.
400
a—4.
241. Do you try and equalise the earnings at, say, Bs. a nay ?—I nave no instruction to that effect. . , 242. Would the fact of men working long hours, and making consequently higher pay than would have otherwise been the case, have any effect on the price those men would get for their next work?—l do not think it would. .... . 243. Can men work as long as they choose? —There is a sort of principle that eight hours is supposed to be a day, and they are not supposed to work twelve or sixteen hours. 244. Is that an instruction ?—I have had no particular instruction. 245. Do you do any work by means of day-work ?—Yes. 246. Do you find it satisfactory? —Yes, quite. 247. What is vour rate of pay for day-work?— From 6s. to Bs., according to the men. 248. How do you judge the capabilities of the men, by their appearance ?—Yes. 249. Has your experience of the co-operative system shown any weakness in the administration? —No, I think it works all right. 250. You think it is perfect?—l could not suggest any improvement. 251. You made reference to the County Councils, and said that they got the advantage of the men who took the work too low ; but is it not the case that all County Councils insist the engineer supplying them with estimates of the cost of the works before tenders are accepted ?— Yes. 252. Is not that with the object of allowing them to refuse an unreasonably low tender ?— Yes, I suppose so. . 253. Mr. Hall.] Do you group the men in the contracts ?—No; I let them choose their own 254. I suppose the men get together according to ability pretty well ? Strong and weak men could not work very well together ? —They like to get men of their own calibre, and they arrange themselves 255. If these strong men earn more than a reasonable, or what is called a reasonable, wage, does that cause the price for that kind of work to be cut down ?—The principle is that the average man will make an average wage. Of course, extra-good men will make a good wage. 256. Is that allowed ? —Yes, in our district that is so. 257. You think the work does not cost much more than if it were done by public tender?— It may cost a little more for the reason I have given. 258. Mr. Matheson.] Supposing four men of equal ability took in a fifth who was not up to their standard, and it was agreed that this filth inan was to take 10 per cent, less for his work, would the Department object to that?—No, I would not object. They could arrange it amongst themselves. ... 259. The local bodies have been constituted for the purpose of making and maintaining roads in certain districts. Do you think it wise to set up another piece of machinery to do similar work in the same districts?—l think that is a matter of politics. 260. Mr. Anstey.] Do you know of any local bodies who have refused to expend Government grants under the co-operative system on the ground that it was not economic ?—No objections have come to me to that effect. 261. We had evidence several times that the loading on settlements was wasted. Assuming that that is correct, is it fair that those settlers should be loaded with an addition to their rents for money which has been wasted ?—No one should be charged on the waste , but, of course, I do not know that there has been any waste. 262. Where waste is proved the amount should be ascertained and written off?—l suppose so. 263. Can you tell us whether there is any truth in the statement that too much loading ha been put on the estates for the amount of work done? —I could not say. 264. Does the same remark apply to Maerewhenua?—l do not know anything about that; it was done before my time. • 265. Is money being more economically spent under the co-operative system than it was previously?—l do not know that. 266. Have the changes, such as optional grouping, been beneficial? —I think the optional grouping was a beneficial change. 267. Has all the loading that was placed on Barnego been spent ?—Yes ; but there is still £170 standing over for expending on river-bank protection. 268. The settlers there told us an untruth, then, when they said that half of the loading had not been spent? —The loading has all been spent. 269. Has all the loading on Windsor Park been spent ? —Yes, and more. 270. In laying off public roads is there any check on the grades that are taken ?—They are not done by my department. The Chief Surveyor does that. 271. Do you ever call attention to routes that have been injudiciously chosen, such as going over a hill when it would have been easier and shorter to have gone past it? —You could not expect me to criticize my Chief Surveyor. 272. The Chairman.] The Survey Department lays off these roads. They have a limit of grade, have they not ?—They have a' limit of grade : 1 in 15 for main roads, and 1 in 10 for occupation lines. 273. Do you find that they adhere to that ?—Yes, very closely. 274. Have you had any occasion to deviate any of the lines the Survey Department have laid off in recent years? —Nothing to speak of. 275. As a general thing, the laying-out of the roads by the Survey Department is satisfactory ? —Yes.
R. ROBTNSON. 1
401
C.—4.
Robeet Robinson examined. 276. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 90 acres of freehold on Awamoa. I am in favour of the leasehold in preference to the freehold, but I think the terms of the Crown tenants should be improved by their being allowed to pay off so-much of the purchase-money until, say, only 2s. an acre for first-class land, Is. an acre for second-class land, and 6d. or 3d. for thirdclass land was left. If the freehold is allowed to be purchased right out Ido not see how you are going to prevent a man mortgaging. You would not be able to keep the landlord out. 277. Mr. McCardle.] Would you get rid of your freehold and take up a leasehold to-morrow if you could ?—Yes, but it is very hard to get a piece of land. I would not have been on a freehold if I thought I had any chance in a ballot. 278. You think that the lease-in-perpetuity land is let to the tenant well within its value ?— Yes. 279. And that is a large inducement to a person to take it up ? —Yes. 280. Mr. Hall.] Do you think that after a man has paid off one-third of the value of his land all restrictions should be removed, and he should be allowed to farm his land as he likes without any control ?—I think one-third is too little. I would have him pay off two-thirds before the restrictions are removed. 281. Is it easy for the Crown tenant to sell the goodwill of his section?— Yes. 282. If the Crown tenant had a money interest in the section would it not be much harder for him to dispose of the section ?—lt would be much easier for him, and he would get a better price. 283. Would it not make it unwieldy ?—No ;it would make the country free. 284. How?— Because we cauld pay off the English money-lenders. 285. Supposing I rented a farm from you for a period of years, and after a few years I came to you and said I wanted to purchase the farm at the capital value, would you give it to me ?—I do not know whether I would. Henry Beloe Ceawford examined. 286. The Chairman.] What are you'?—l am a barrister and solicitor practising in Oamaru, and have been so doing since 1886. I have had a great deal of experience with dealings under the Land for Settlements Act, and there are one or two points that I would like to mention. To my certain knowledge the ballot distribution system has worked out in many cases to the great hardship of applicants. I know in many instances men who would make as good settlers as any who are now holding land have gone pretty well all over the colony trying to get land at the different ballots. They have passed the examinations and been told by the Land Board that they are just the sort of settlers they want to see on the land. I think that some scheme could be devised whereby those applicants who have passed the examination and have been disappointed in one ballot or two ballots should in future ballots have priority over first applicants. I have worked out a scheme, and, if desired, I will write it out and lay it before the Commission. Then, there is hardship in respect to the restriction in dealings. The Canterbury Board started the plan of dictating to the tenants as to how much they were to accept in the way of premium. The Otago Board shortly afterwards followed on the same lines, to a certain extent, by refusing to pass transfers for land-for-settlement sections which had been sold—one by auction and some privately—because they thought the amount payable by the purchaser was in excess of the premium value. It seems to me that is to some extent an interference with the subject and the right every man has to sell what he produces by his labour, and it tends very strongly to foster the feeling which has been raised against the lease-in-perpetuity system, and to my own knowledge it is one of the strongest incentives to people to object to the control of the Land Boards. In one instance I was personally engaged to complete a transaction in connection with a section on the Windsor Park Estate. It was sold by a firm of auctioneers, and the firm's representative came to me with one of the parties to the transaction to carry the transfer into effect. I sent the papers forward, and subsequently was informed that the transaction was stuck up by the Board. Both the seller and the" buyer went before the Board and were examined. In the meantime the Ranger was asked to report on the case, and he ascertained that the amount mentioned by me in the application was not actually the amount passing between the parties. He reported that to the Board, and I presume that was the reason why the parties were summoned to give evidence. I was not personally informed after the inquiry why the transfer was refused, but have since learned that the sum filled up in the application to transfer was that at which the goodwill was sold, the balance being for crops, &0., the subject of a separate transaction. That meant a very serious loss to both parties, and the two young men came back with a certain stigma on their characters for untruthfulness. I knew the men had not the slightest intention of being untruthful, and I know that it has possibly prejudiced the Board against me for having sent forward such an application. In respect to this restraint on alienation, I know that in Canterbury there has been a certain amount of rigging and cooking of accounts with the view to throwing dust in the eyes of the Board as to the actual amount paid between the parties, and it is a bad state of affairs when it leads to that. As to the mortgaging of sections, the Board made a condition in Canterbury that it would not pass a mortgage over 6 per cent. I sent up applications, and they were refused because they were over 6 per cent. This led to one man being forced to part with his section at less price than he otherwise could have got. There is another thing to which I would like to call the attention of the Commission. At present trustees cannot lend upon leasehold security. A very simple amendment to the law could be passed allowing trustees to lend trust funds on leasehold security to the extent of half of the actual value of the tenant's interest in the lease, to be ascertained in the same way as the value of the freehold is now ascertained. I have had the investment of many thousand pounds' worth of trust funds, and I know that in several instances trustees were willing to lend upon leasehold securities because they would get a better rate of interest than on freehold securities, but I had to advise my clients that the law would not permit that to be done, All leasehold borrowers
51—C. 4.
C—4.
402
[H. B. CRAWFORD.
pay at least 1 per cent, more than if they had the freehold, and it often goes up to 2-| per cent. In my opinion, that is a strong argument in favour of granting the freehold eventually to leasehold tenants when they have sufficiently complied with the terms of their lease. Ido not think there is the slightest danger of the aggregation of freehold estates. I would like to say a few words about the co-operative system on the roads. I was a settler on the Ardgowan Estate, and from what I have seen I am satisfied that the co-operative system of road-making is a wasteful farce, and I could give instances to prove it. 287. Then, you think the fact of these men getting loans from mortgage companies is a guarantee that the applicants are reputable men ?—No; but I know of one case in which it did an injury to the applicant to have been refused, for it would have been a great advantage to have been able to get stock and sheep. 288. Mr. McCardle ] You said a simple amendment to the law would enable trust moneys to be lent on leasehold property ? —Yes, a simple amendment to the Trustees Act, enabling trustees, in the case of leases of not less than twenty-one years, to invest to the extent of half of the value of the tenant's interest in the improvements on his leasehold section. 289. Do you think that would be an advantage to the leaseholder?—l think he would get the money cheaper by 2 per cent. 290. Do you not think the ease would be equally met by the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes; but my experience of that Department has been so depressing as to prevent me advising any man having anything to do with applying to it. 291. I suppose you are aware that if a man applies to the Board and is refused it tends to stop his getting an advance elsewhere?— Yes, that is so; but the delays disgust people and prevent them applying, and then there is a small amount offered by the Board in comparison to that applied for. 292. It is your opinion that there is much room for an improvement in the administration of the Advances to Settlers Board ? —Yes. 293. Mr. McCutchan.] Have settlers come to you for loans—that is, settlers who have been refused by the Department?— Yes. 294. And have you been able to negotiate loans for them ?—Frequently. 295. There is a scale of legal charges in connection with the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Yes. 296. Is it the custom for private firms in this district to charge procuration fees ?—lt is not so universal now as it was. The procuration fee is dying a sort of natural death. 297. Are reputable firms looking upon it as an unfair charge ?—I, personally, have not received procuration fees for some time. At one time it was quite ordinary. 298. Is it the fact that the Advances to Settlers Department does not charge procuration fees? —I know that the Department has helped very much in that respect, also to lower the rate of interest, and has assisted settlers generally; but the Department can be better worked than it is. 299. Have you noticed any material difference between the charges made by the Advances to Settlers Department and the usual charges made by private firms lending money?—ln simple cases the Advances to Settlers Department charges less, and in other eases there is no great difference. On the other hand, although the Department professes to have a scale of legal charges, there is nearly always something in the way of extras that causes the charges to be as much as if the applicant had got the loan privately. 300. Can you say, in reference to the Advances to Settlers Department, that there have been any unusual delays ?—I have seen repeated instances where people have got sick of waiting for the Department. 301. Was that due to the volume of business done by the Department?—l cannot say. 302. Can you say when an application is made for money that the Department's Valuer is sent out promptly ?—I say there is a difficulty in getting the Department's valuator at all. I know a case of a property here where a man was refused a loan of £60, and he immediately borrowed £160 from a private lender, and shortly afterwards he repaid the amount. 303. Have you had any extended experience of the co-operative work system ?—Yes ; I have done a little road-making, and I have seen instances of work done under the co-operative system which could have been done at one-third the cost. 304. Mr. Hall.] Do you think the law should be altered so that trust funds could be lent on leasehold property ? —Yes; to the extent of one-half, not two-thirds as in the case of the freehold. 305. Would that be by way of a second mortgage ?—No; no trust funds can be lent on second mortgage. It would take the place of the Government mortgage. 306. Mr. Johnston.] You said the majority of the Crown tenants want the freehold? Yes. The great majority when they first took up the land on the early settlements expected that they would be able to get the freehold eventually. 307. How many Crown tenants are there about this district ?—Roughly speaking, I should say more than a thousand in the immediate neighbourhood. I know their feeling through having moved amongst them a good deal, and I have done a great deal of business for them. 308. Would you be surprised to know that only two witnesses have come forward who wanted the freehold—that is, Crown tenants who have given evidence during the last two or three days? I know that the Tokarahi people have pledged themselves to the leasehold pretty unanimously, but, at the same time, I think they stand alone in that respect. 309. What about the Windsor Park No. 1 and No. 2 and Elderslie settlers?— Those are more recent settlements. lam speaking of the earlier settlements—Ardgowan and Maerewhenua. 310. If they were anxious to obtain the freehold surely they would have come forward ? I think I may be regarded as the mouthpiece of a great many of the settlers. Many hardly knew what the issue was. I am sure the majority would vote that they should have an option to purchase.
H. B. CRAWFORD.I
403
C.—4.
311. Have they sold any of this land ? —A great many sections have passed out of the hands of the original settlers. 312. Have you heard what they have made out of them ?—ln many instances they got a very fair premium in selling out. 313. What would they get, exclusive of the improvements they put on ?—According to the value of the land. I think it is quite safe to say it would average from 25 per cent, to one-third, but it is hard to distinguish as to how much was in repayment of the improvements and how much was for pure goodwill. 314. Were there many transfers?—l think from a quarter to a third of the original settlers have transferred. 315. Do you consider the settlements a success ?—There is not a settlement in this district that is not a success. 316. There would have been 250 settlers less in one district if it had not been for the lease in perpetuity ?—One cannot say that, for many of the owners were considering the cuttingup of their estates. 317. I suppose you speak feelingly as a solicitor?—l do not know that I have any personal axe to grind. I have been a settler, and have lived amongst them and know their feelings. 318. Mr. Matheson.] The Crown lands in the provincial district are administered by two bodies—the Land Board and the Education Reserves Commissioners. Do you think it would be better for one body to administer all the Crown lands in the provincial district ? — From what I have seen of the administration of the School Commissioners, it leads me to think those reserves have been very fairly administered. Providing the tenures of the education reserves are maintained, it would certainly be an advantage if there was one body solely responsible for the control of public lands. 319. Mr. Anstey.] You said the vast majority of the Crown tenants wish to obtain the freehold, and you include the Waikakahi?—l said I believe there is a majority — generally; but I know the settlers at Waikakahi are fairly evenly divided. 320. Would you rather leave Waikakahi out?— Yes, if you ask me to answer the question in detail. 321. Do you know of any one who has transferred his section at a loss—at less than the value of his improvements ? —I did myself. I took a section for residential purposes and sold out at a loss, as it interfered with my business in town. I know of no other instance. 322. Do you know of any one who abandoned his section?— There was one at Tokarahi. 323. Did he leave any improvements behind him ?—A few. That is an exceptional case. 324. Supposing a witness were to say that he knew of settlers at Maerewhenua and Waikakahi who were abandoning their sections — many of them—would that be the truth ?—I should say he was exaggerating. 325. You said that the Department had vetoed all the advances above 6 per cent. Was it the Land Board or the Minister that vetoed them ?—I am inclined to think the Land Board, on the recommendation of the Minister. 326. What was the rate of the advances which were refused?— 7 per cent, in several cases. It was that rate in those the Canterbury Board refused. 327. Have you ever tried any at 6-J- per cent. ?—No ; I have never made any applications at 6£ per cent, which have been refused, but I have been refused at 7. 328. Was the reason given that the interest was too high ?—Yes. 329. Do you think it would be advisable to allow tenants unlimited liberty to mortgage their holdings at any rates the lender demanded ?—I think it is an interference with the rights of property to dictate in the matter at all. 330. A witness said to-day, with respect to procuration fees, he paid equal to a rate o f2B per cent, per annum. Do you know whether that is the custom in this district ?—lt is absolutely absurd to say that anything of the kind is the custom. If it did happen he must have been in the hands of a shark. The ordinary rate of commission charged by commercial firms is about 2-J per cent., and interest about 8 per cent.; but it is only the stock and grain agents and public loan companies that charge commissions as a rule. 331. Is there anything in the nature of commission on renewal?—No; it is possible there may have been a commission on the business and a commission on the sale of produce, but as a general rule the advances are not supposed to extend to more than cover the season in which the crop may be produced or the stock grown. It is not the custom to charge commission on making advance and another commission on renewal. 332. But it is the custom to charge commission on making the loan ?—Yes. 333. You have been asked, with regard to the Advances to Settlers Office, why they refused loans. Do you not think the reason is because they have not got the money? —Yes. 334. Do you think that £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 would be enough to supply the needs of every one ?—I am not able to reply definitely to that, but £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 is a large sum of money. David Baeeon further examined. 335. Mr. McGutchan.] When a section is not taken up after forfeiture at a rental based on the original rental and valuing of the improvements, is it the custom to reduce the improvements and not reduce the original rental ? Do you not think it would be fairer to the tenant and in the interests of the State if a proportionate reduction were made in the rental and in the improvements. It seems unfair to make the reduction fall entirely upon the tenant's improvements ? —The position I take is this : A section is forfeited and surrendered, and the assumption is it is on account of the high rent being charged. We get the Banger to make a new valuation, and, as a rule, that valuation is based upon the rent which a tenant can then pay. We will say,
C— 4.
404
:D. BARBON.
in a bush section, where the rent has been 155., the Eanger has found that the land is not good. The bush has been cut down, and the tenant and land are both in a very unsatisfactory state. The rent is probably reduced to 55., 65., or 75., or practically the limit. That is on account of the loading, and we therefore cannot bring it any lower. 336. That is under " The Land Act, 1892 " ?—We have no power to bring the rent down under the Land for Settlements Act. 337. Do you not think it advisable that the law should be altered in that direction ?—There is only the exceptional case of Pomahaka where it would be necessary. It would require an amendment of the Land Act to give Ministerial power to reduce estates where it was found that perhaps too much had been paid for them or the tenants were unable to pay the requisite rent. It would not be a power I would like to see given to the Land Boards, although, at the same time, I would like to see a certain amount of discretionary power given. I feel, however, that a great amount of pressure would be brought to bear by tenants and others, and it would be very difficult to resist it. Speaking as a member of the Land Board, I would not care to have too much discretionary power. 338. But, subject to the approval of the Minister, would it not be safe ?—I would not like to say as to that. 339. With reference to the rates of interest charged, we have evidence that the Canterbury Land Board refused a mortgage because the rate of interest was in excess of 6 per cent. Can you say whether Ministerial instruction had been given saying that the rate of interest shall not exceed 8 per cent. ?—I think it was 8 per cent. 340. Generally over the colony?— Yes ; it was a circular instruction. 341. Mr. McLennan.] How was it that the settlers on Ardgowan received no rebate this year? —For practically the same reason as I gave in reference to Windsor. I think the estate was bought when land was very low in value, and leased at a much less price than could now be obtained for it, therefore we thought the tenants were not entitled to the rebate that the tenants were who were paying full value for their land. 342. Mr. Anstey.] Did I understand you to say that the members of the Land Board should represent the various districts and the various interests?-—Yes. 343. In order to represent these interests, do you not think it is necessary to have a larger Board?—lf you are going to represent all interests probably it might be advisable to have a larger Board. So far as the Otago Board is concerned, the difficulty is that the meetings have been weekly, and to have brought down a larger number than four would have involved great expense and inconvenience to the members. 344. You know there has been a great deal of trouble in regard to want of compensation for improvements on the high country of the interior : do you think if these runs are cut up as much as they will bear cutting up there will be any harm to the State in selling the freehold of these runs?— The mining difficulty would almost necessitate the runs being kept for pastoral purposes. Under the pastoral-lease system the miner has free right of entry to do as he thinks fit. 345. In districts where there is no mining is there any objection to selling the freehold ?—lt seems to me that the country has not come to that stage yet, because, in addition to the closer subdivision that we think necessary now, it might by-and-by be deemed advisable to still further reduce the areas. It would be wiser for the State to keep them in the meantime. 346. In regard to the 10-per-cent. rebate, do you not think it is a most unwise option to place almost solely in the hands of the Commissioner and Receiver of Land Revenue ? Probably the Receiver of Land Revenue knows nothing at all about the facts of the matter, and the responsibility is practically thrown on the shoulders of the Commissioner ?—lf you think that is a question I should answer I will say I am very sorry the Legislature cast the duty on the Receiver and myself; and I think it would be better, if such discretionary power is to be allowed, that it should be given to a larger body, say, the Land Board. 347. It is unwise to place the power in the hands of the Commissioner ?—I do not say it is unwise. I said it would be well to spread it over a wider area. " 348. With regard to mining, do you know where any large quantity of good land is being spoilt by mining, and, if so, would it be wise to place any restrictions on it generally throughout the Otago district?—No doubt a very considerable extent of good land has been spoilt by mining, but mining has reached the stage now when any further restrictions placed on it would strangle it altogether. 349. Do you think it would be wise to compel the people who are spoiling good land to return it to something approaching its natural state ?—So far as Otago is concerned, that does not apply to any extent. While I was in Southland I saw one valley—the Waikaka—being destroyed by mining. I thought it was a huge pity, and I think legislation should be brought to bear to stop the destruction of good land. 350. You think it would be wise to impose some restrictions in the case of good land if possible ?—Yes. 351. I think you advocate that the Board should have power to accept surrender on lease-in-perpetuity lands, and reduce the rent and allow the tenants to go on again without competition ?— Yes, on Crown lands. 352. Do you think it would be wise to place anything like unlimited power in the hands of the Board : would it not throw the Board open to charges of favouritism and undue influence ?—Yes. Certainly I would not agree to too much discretionary power being given to the Board. 353. Do you not think it would be unwise to place the Board in that position ?—We have practically that power now. We make certain recommendations, and the Minister invariably accepts them. 354. You say the ballot should be first man first choice? —Yes, subject to grouping for financial purposes.
D. BARRON.]
405
C.—4.
355. Would there not be a difficulty in regard to that ? Supposing ten sections were balloted for and there were twenty applicants, the first three or four would probably get the sections they required : would you then insist on the next man taking the next section, or would you allow him to drop out, the finest sections having gone?—lf the ballot gives him a section he does not like he could drop out altogether. 356. Might that not mean that nobody would be left in for the last few sections ?—I dare say ; but it would be almost impossible to force a man to take a section he does not require. I think the difficulty could be got over. 357. Can you tell, when private mortgages on leaseholds are vetoed, whether they are vetoed by the Board or by the Minister ?—The Minister has the power of veto. 358. I understood you to say that the maximum rate of interest allowed is 8 per cent. ?—Yes, so far as my memory serves me. 359. Would a loan at 7 per cent, necessarily be vetoed ? —No. 360. Would it be vetoed at 8 per cent. ? —Yes. 361. Would it be vetoed at per cent. ?—No. 362. Mr. Johnston.] It has been said that undue political influence has been brought to bear on the Land Board : is that a fact?— No. 363. Are you of opinion that the lease in perpetuity is giving entire satisfaction in your district ? —-Yes, it is fairly satisfactory. I would not like to say it has given entire satisfaction. 364. Have the lease-in-perpetuity settlements been a success? —Yes, with the exception of Pomahaka. 365. Has the Land for Settlements Act been of advantage to your district ?—Decidedly. 366. Has the land taken proved successful?— Yes. Of course, there are one or two small settlements which cannot be called a great success. 367. Would you classify the land inOtago as first, second, and third class for Otago, or would you classify it for the whole of the South Island ? —lt might be advisable to divide it into more than one class in Otago. 368. Where would you get the first-class land?-—-Say, the Taieri and North Otago lands. Perhaps the best of Maniototo and similar land could be classed as second. 369. Would it be advisable to have that classification right over the South Island or for Otago only ? —So far as my experience goes, it might be applicable to the whole of the South Island. I am not very well acquainted with the North. 370. Would you approve of people in the towns taking up land on condition it was for their or their children's future use, with conditions to suit to prevent dummyism?—Yes; I believe it would be a very good plan to induce people to leave the towns and go on the land. I think some conditions might be framed to enable that to be done. 371. Would relaxing the present residential conditions tend to dummyism ?—Yes, I think it would. All sorts of reasons are offered now for relaxing the residential conditions, and we have great difficulty in preventing evasion. We do our best to require strict compliance with the residence conditions. 372. Are the residential conditions too severe?—l do not think so. 373. Do three-fourths of the large runholders live on their runs?— Not personally. They are represented by managers in a great many cases. 374. If the Crown tenant has to reside on his property, is there any reason why the runholder should not? Would it be of advantage to the State if he had to reside on the run?—l do not think it matters very much, because, so far as the colony is concerned, the manager who is placed in charge expends as much as the resident lessee would. 375. Why are the pastoral runs not put up to auction at a reduced rental if surrendered, instead of being lumped together and being let ?—-In some cases, I presume, we could not get any one to take them up under small-grazing-run conditions, and they were let under pastoral conditions. 376. Why do you not reduce the rent before you put them under pastoral conditions?— Because we cannot reduce the rent of small grazing-runs below the limit of 2f per cent, of the capital value. 377. Who assesses the capital value ? —lt is assessed from time to time. 378. Is the examination of applicants a farce, and has there been any deception practised by them ?—I hold the examinations are not a farce by any means. We are very careful to examine and weed out doubtful applicants. In some cases we are misled by false statements, but we accept men as a whole to be honest until we prove them otherwise. 379. Generally speaking, the examination is successful?— Yes. 380. Would there be any objection to allowing the owner of a small Crown section to apply for a larger area on condition that he sold the small section at a given date later on ?—lt would be somewhat difficult to do that, because a man might agree to sell his small section and after he had secured the other he might simply defy the Board. 381. In your opinion, would it be advisable to allow a man to hold the two sections, provided he did not go beyond the limit allowed by law ?— If the sections are not sufficient to constitute a living area, then I think the Board should have discretionary power to allow him to enter into the ballot for another section. 382. You think the difficulty would be overcome if the Board had discretionary power ?—Yes. 383. In regard to Pomahaka, do you think the areas should be increased or the rents reduced, or do you wish to express an opinion about it at all? —I think both would be advantageous. There might be a difficulty, because a certain number are placed in such a position that they could not increase their area, and unless all agreed to surrender in order to allow the sections to be regrouped there would be very great difficulty in fixing matters.
406
[d. babbon.
c—4:
384. I mean, should they be allowed to increase their areas where practicable ?—I think that might be done. 385. Would it be possible and convenient for the Land Board to hold some of the meetings ac some centre outside Dunedin in order to meet the settlers ?—I do not think it is necessary in the case of Otago, because Dunedin being the centre to which every one comes the majority are quite able to come to town to transact the necessary business, and, perhaps, to enjoy a holiday. So far the meetings in Dunedin have not been found a great inconvenience to the settlers. 386. Would you explain the position of the Tokarahi Association to the Land Board ?—As Mr. Hughes put it, this association was formed for the purpose of transacting business connected with the district, and when they approached the Land Board in the capacity of an agent we could not possibly recognise ihem. We pointed out that the settler alone was responsible to the Board, and that it was to him and not to any association we looked for the rent. I set out my reasons in my reply to their letter, and these are going to be sent to you. 387. When the runs have been cut into smaller areas has the aggregate rent decreased, as stated by Mr. Roberts in regard to Patearoa?—ln a number of cases there has been very little difference. As a matter of fact, in this case the rents are £50 less than the original rental, but that may be accounted for by the fact that Mr. Roberts was compelled to buy three or four of the sections at a very high rental on account of the difficulty of getting into the river. There were many other applicants for them, and that resulted in the total rent coming to a little more than what is now received for the subdivisions. 388. As a rule, are the rentals the same or greater?— Much about the same. 389. Mr. Bell laid stress on the improvements in the way of buildings, &c., made by the large runholders as a reason for not cutting up large runs : is the stress he laid on that matter justified in the case of the runs you have taken over ? —To a limited extent only. If it were allowed altogether it would give the runholder pre-emption probably over the best block in the run. I would rather give valuation for improvements. 390. Do you think that notice of the extension of time of purchase should be sent out specially to the perpetual-lease tenants ?—I think it might be advisable yet to send out circular instruction in connection with it. 391. Have the petitions to the Land Board requesting the cutting-up of runs been granted, as a ru le ?—ln some cases. The members of the Land Board, as a rule, inspect the run, and after careful consideration they subdivide or otherwise, as they think fit. 392. Are these petitions bogus or genuine? —I should not like to say. 393. Do you approve of the freehold being given of the Otago big runs?— No. 394. What are your views on the planting of Central Otago?—l think it would have a most beneficial effect on Central Otago. 395. Could it be carried on to advantage? —Yes, I think so. 396. Have vou formed any opinion in regard to a system of irrigation for Central Otago ? —As a matter of fact," the rivers or creeks available for the best lands are already secured by the miners, and it is quite impossible, unless a very extensive scheme of irrigation was started, to carry that into effect now. No doubt, when mining becomes of less value, these water-races will be used with great effect on the dry lands of Central Otago. 397. How many forfeitures have taken place over the last five years?—l will send you a return of them. 398. How many transfers have taken place under the Land for Settlements Act, and what premiums have been paid over and above the capital value? —I will supply that also. 399. How many tenants are in arrears, and-what are the amounts? —I will supply the information. I may say the arrears a month or two ago only amounted to some £2,000-odd, the lowest amount in arrears we have ever had. 400. Are there any homestead settlements here ?—One, but it has been practically bought out. It was a success. . 401. Do you advocate them ?—No. 402. Generally speaking, has the value of Crown leaseholds increased or decreased? —Pastoral leaseholds have not increased; if anything, they have decreased, on account of rabbits, noxious weeds, and burning. I think there has been more loss through burning than any other cause. It was an unfortunate habit of shepherds when mustering to burn various parts of the hills as signals, with the result that during the months of January, February, and March the tussock was burnt out, and never came away again. The fires very often travelled for miles. 403. Has the advances-to-settlers system given satisfaction so far as the Land Board are concerned ? —I think so. T m 404. Do many unreasonable requests for transfers come before you I —A tew. 1 may say that the case referred to by Mr. Crawford, and as put by him, does not represent the actual facts. Of course, it was only to-day, when he told the Commission that he was the principal in the matter, that I could associate Mr. Crawford directly with it. The case was this : The applicant put in a statement, as required, to the effect that the bonus consideration was £268. We found, on looking up the Ranger's previous report, that the value of the improvements at the time amounted approximately to, say, £100. The statement was then made that probably the improvements had increased between the date of the Ranger s report and the date of the application. We therefore thought it wise to ask the Ranger to go up again and inspect the improvements. He went up accordingly, and on his return he advised the Board that the had increased to a limited extent —they were worth about £150 or £180 —but, in the course of his inquiry, he found that the statement in regard to the bonus consideration was false, and that, instead of being £268, the consideration was actually £600. That was done with the intention of misleading the Boaid so that the transfer could be dealt with. Another statement made by the applicant was to the effect that he required the recommendation of the Board to the transfer on account of " an unfor-
C—4.
407
D. BABBON. I
tunate circumstance happening." These are the words used in the Act. His brother had been drowned in the Waitaki River, and his father required him to go home and look after his farm at Waikakahi. He said his father was in delicate health. We found that his brother had been drowned, but, as a matter of fact, his father was over in Victoria buying horses. That was the state of his health. Taking these false statements into consideration, and the fact that the goodwill was upwards of £400, the Board did not feel justified in allowing one of their future settlers to be handicapped to that extent. No settler is allowed to transfer until he has occupied his section five years, except on the recommendation of the Land Board. This man had only been in occupation between twelve and eighteen months, and during that time he had nearly fenced his land, and his improvements amounted to a very limited sum; and yet, in the short space of eighteen months, he was demanding a bonus of upwards of £400 on a 400-acre section. In our opinion the previous rent was a fair one, and we did not feel justified in handicapping a future tenant to the extent of upwards of £1 an acre. lam rather surprised that Mr. Crawford should have confessed to a request for a transfer of £268, as I presume he knew the consideration was £600. 405. As a rule, are the men who get the sections genuine settlers or speculators?— Nineteen out of twenty are genuine settlers. 406. Then, there is no dummyism ?—Very little. 407. Who fixed the sites for the homestead settlements in Southland ? —They were selected many years ago. One selector is now dead, and the other is out of the service. 408. Who selects them now, the Land Board or the surveyors ?—There is no such thing nowadays. The improved-farm settlements are a thing of the past. 409. Mr. Matheson.] Would it be reasonable, where the residential conditions are relaxed, that an increased rent should be paiS?—We only relax in very urgent cases, and in that case I do not think it would be wise to increase the rent. I would like to repeat and emphasize some remarks I made at the Land Conference on a matter that has been brought before you a great many times. This is what I said, — "A system of tenure which he would like to see made applicable to both ordinary Crown lands and land for settlement was a modified form of deferred payment up to a specified sum or proportion. The suggested form would not be a hard-and-fast annual amount, but only such a sum as the settler could afford in excess of his annual rental. In a good year he might be able to pay from 10 to 20 per cent, of the capital value; in other years, through bad seasons or other circumstances, he might be unable to pay any rent, and thereby lose the bulk of his previous payments towards capital. The resut of good years might enable him to pay up to a given limit of, say, 75 per cent., the Government to retain an interest in the land so as to exercise a control'in the transfer, &c. This incentive towards what would be practically as good as freehold would give the vested interest so much desired by many. Many under the deferred-payment system or under these modified conditions would work, save, and pinch themselves for the purpose of acquiring a property over which the ever-recurring burden of a half-yearly rent would not press so hardly as at present, and with these suggested improved terms of payment there would not be the pressure of a heavy mortgage. This is a system he had heard discussed by a good many people, and he thought if modified to some extent it would meet the wants of the settlers, both as regards Land for Settlements land and Crown lands. He understood the members of the Conference were given a free hand to make suggestions which they thought would tend to improve the working of the land laws, and he hoped this would be accepted as a suggestion not only from himself, but from a good many of the settlers in the district." I have had this brought home very strongly in connection with some districts in North Otago. When I came to the district a good many of the settlers were in arrears as a result of the severe seasons in 1890 to 1895. A good many of the settlers were quite unable to pay their rent. Of course, we did what we could to get the rent in, but in a great many cases extended time had to be given in which to pay the rent. I will mention the case of one settler, who was two years and a half, or five payments, in arrear. We served him with repeated notices in the usual way, and the result was, after allowing him over two years, he was able to pay up his two and a half years' arrears in addition to his current rent. I think he is only a half-year in arrears now. That shows that if he had been in a good position when he started, he would have been able to pay off two years' rent towards the capital value of the land, and ultimately, with a succession of good seasons, he might be able to reduce the capital value to 25 per cent, of the whole. Then, if a bad season were to come he would be in a position to pay his rent, or get credit for it from amount previously paid. I think the Crown should retain 25 per cent. The tenant would then have a partial freehold. 410. If you will allow one generation to pay off 75 per cent, of the value, would you not allow the next generation to pay off the remaining 25 per cent. ?—I think it is wise that the Crown should retain some hold over the land purchased by the Crown under the Land for Settlements Aet. In regard to general Crown lands, lam in favour of the ordinary optional system. 411. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction on the part of the Crown tenants under the Act of 1892 with regard to the Land Board's interference. They say that the Board should have no control as to the amount of consideration that is paid in the way of goodwill, the tenant's interest in the holding generally being paramount and the State's interest small. Would you be in favour of the tenant being allowed to get as much consideration as he could for his property ? —ln ordinary cases the Land Board practically passes them all. 412. Has the Board refused any ? —I do not remember any case in particular, unless it was found that the object was to get a dummy in. 413. Are you of opinion that all such transfers should go through without the Land Board considering the amount that is given for the purchase of the place ?—I do not think it matters so much in the case of Crown lands as in the case of land-for-settlement lands.
o—4.
408
[P. BARRON
414. Do you think it matters at all ?—lf the Crown is to retain any control at all we should gee that we get a good tenant, and not either a dummy or a man unable to carry out the conditions of his lease. 415. Under the present conditions is not dummyism impossible ?—No. 416. Is it not during the years that residence is compulsory ?—As far as the residential conditions are concerned, it is almost impossible. It requires a good deal of work looking them up sometimes. A man may ascertain that the Banger is going into a certain district and occupy for a time, and leave immediately after the Banger has gone away. Albert Joseph Grave examined. 417. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a solicitor practising at Oamaru. There are two matters in connection with the Land Act which cause a great deal of inconvenience, and I would like to bring them before you. The first grievance on the part of tenants is with regard to the month's time that has to elapse after the consent of the Board had been given to a transfer before it can be registered. The result is that it is often a matter of seven weeks or two months before the tenant selling gets his purchase-money. The other point is with reference to the restrictions on testamentary disposition. We find, as a matter of practice, many cases of tenants not being able to make their wills dealing with their sections in anything like the form they would like to. These are two matters that require consideration in the interests of the great body of Crown tenants.
Waimate, Monday, 3rd April, 1905. James Coskerie examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a farmer in the Waikakahi Settlement, where I have 200 acres lease in perpetuity, for which I pay Bs. 6d. an acre. I went there five years ago. The land is purely agricultural, and I engage in dairying and mixed farming. There is a creamery within half a mile of my place. lam perfectly satisfied with the holding and the tenure. 2. Are you satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Board? —Yes; but there are one or two matters in connection with the Board which are not quite right. My rent was due, in order to secure the rebate, on the 31st January. On the 30th January I drew the money out of the bank, and at 11 o'clock that morning paid it into the post-office, thinking, of course, that it would be in the Beceiver's hands on the following day. However, I got notice that the rent had not been paid in time to entitle me to the rebate. I took no notice of it, and afterwards got a demand from the Commissioner. I replied, stating what I had done, and saying that I understood the money would be in the Beceiver's hands on the proper date. I was told that, unfortunately, the Beceiver had not got the money until the Ist of the month. 3. Have you any desire for the freehold ?—I went through the freehold tenure. In 1867 I took up 6,000 acres of freehold. I was a nominal freeholder, and was in the hands of the Philistines all the time, and after twenty-five years was crushed out. The leasehold is the holding for me, and I advise every one to go in for it and stick to it. 4. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in Canterbury ? —Certainly, there is, every day. Two estates were sold the other day—Lagmore and Mr. W. B. Woods's Swyncombe Estate near Kaikoura, and the subdivisions were bought mostly by adjacent proprietors. 5. What is your experience of the ballot?—I went in under the single ballot and had no difficulty, but there have been great difficulties in connection with the grouping system. That is a most ridiculous thing. Under it some of my neighbours were actually forced into taking sections which they found it would not do for them to go on to, and they had great difficulty in saving their deposits. 6. Mr. McCardle.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ? — I have had a little experience. It has done good in cheapening money, but it has certainly done nothing to help the poor man. 7. You think there is room for improvement? —Yes. 8. Would you favour an amendment of the Act in the direction of increasing the limit ?—Yes, I would favour advancing to the full value of a man's improvements. 9. Would it not be better to advance to two-thirds of the man's interest in the holding?—lt might be ; but Ido not think there is the slightest fear about, say, Waikakahi. The people there were all making substantial improvements, and there is no fear of any loss being incurred. 10. Are there people still wanting land under lease in perpetuity in the district ?—Yes. 11. Are there any large estates in the neighbourhood which you think could be cut up profitably ? —I would not like to give an opinion on that. 12. Could you suggest any amendment suitable to the requirements of the settlers in the matter of the ballot?—I think the single ballot is very unsatisfactory. 13. Have you any comment to make on the matter of loading ?—There has been nothing to object to in my experience. 14. Is land rising in value?— Yes. 15. Would you favour restrictions in the holdings of freeholders ?—Certainly. 16. Mr. Forbes.] You are a very strong believer in the leasehold?— Very strong indeed. 17. Do you find any difficulty in the cropping restrictions ?—That is all humbug ; there are no cropping restrictions. 18. Mr. Paul.] Has any instance come under your notice of the Banger harassing settlers ?— No.
■T. COSKERIE.I
409
C.—4.
19. Mr. Matheson.] Is there much of the Waikakahi land that would stand three white crops ?—Yes. 20. Do you ever take out three running ?—Eound about me they do, and do no harm to the land. 21. Were they not afraid they might break their lease by doing that ?—They ran the risk of that, but it is stopped now. 22. Mr. McLennan.] Do you remember a meeting held last year to advocate the option of the freehold ?—I believe there was such a meeting. 23. Were you at the meeting ?—No. 24. Do you know if the meeting was in favour of freehold or leasehold ? —Leasehold. 25. Who called the meeting?—l would not be sure, but a man named Corrigan was in the matter. 26. I suppose he was not in favour of the lease in perpetuity? —I never entered into the matter with him. 27. Are your neighbours pretty well satisfied?—As far as I know,|they are. 28. Mr. Hall.] Did the Department not accept payment in the local post-office as prompt payment for rent due on the 31st?—No. 29. Do you think the date of payment to the post-office should be accepted as the date on which it is made?— Yes. 30. The Chairman.] Did you get a receipt from the post-office ?—Yes. . Alexander Watt examined. 31. The Chairman.] What are you?—l have been farming up till recently in the Redcliff district, where I had 600 acres of freehold pastoral land. I sold that and bought the goodwill of a Government lease in perpetuity of 50 acres at Hannington. With the rebate for prompt payment the rent is 10s. Id. per acre. I have just recently gone into the property, but Igo in with every confidence. I gave something considerable for the goodwill of the lease. 32. What use do you make of the land?— Dairying and cropping. 33. Are you satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Boards ?—Yes. 34. Have you any desire for the freehold ?—Personally, I have none ; but I think, from a public point of view, both should run alongside of each other. 35. You, of course, do not know whether there are any restrictions that are troublesome?— Not from personal experience; but, from a public point of view, I believe some modifications are necessary. A great deal of the heavy land, good land especially, is becoming overrun with noxious weeds, and, of course, it requires thorough cultivation to keep these weeds under. 36. You think the present cropping regulations are not sufficient to do that ?—lt might happen that it is a damp year when a farmer wants to eradicate weeds, and he cannot, and so loses a year. In that case some consideration should be given him. 37. Have you had any experience of the ballot system ?—No ; but, so far as I have studied the thing, I think the single ballot is the best. 38. Have you any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office?—No personal experience, but I have known leaseholders who have asked for advances and who were refused, and I believe it was to their advantage ultimately. I think that a person who gets a leasehold should have sufficient capital to start on his own account, otherwise he is simply an adventurer and speculator —a man of straw who has nothing to lose. 39. Within your knowledge, is there any aggregation of estates going on ?—Successful farmers may be buying a little bit around their outskirts. Ido not know of it going on to any great extent. 40. Mr. McCardle.] When you spoke of leaseholders, with regard to the advances to settlers, and said that a leaseholder should be able to start his farm without assistance, you were not, I presume, referring to men who took up bush land and had to expend £4 or £5 an acre in bringing their land into a workable condition ?—I think if money is advanced on leasehold it should be advanced very carefully. When a man has to pay both rent and interest it is very apt to swamp him. 41. A bush leaseholder pays 6d. per acre to your 10s. per acre. You do not think that if these settlers are industrious and require money that they should get it from the Advances to Settlers Office ?—lf they are wanting money the Advances to Settlers Office is the best to get it from. 42. Mr. Paul.] Am I right in gathering from your remarks that the Government, in your opinion, should not grant freeholds at all, that they should only settle land under the leasehold tenure, and leave to private enterprise the providing for those who want the freehold ?—Yes. 43. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that after twenty prosperous years leaseholders will be anxious to get the freehold ? —I dare say they would, but Ido not think it would be a good policy to grant it to them. 44. Do you think it wise on the part of the Board to examine a man as to his means and ability ?—Yes. 45. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think the applicants should be examined more as to their ability than as to capital? Do you think it is more desirable for a man going on the land to have experience than to have capital only?—I dare say that is quite true. 46. You do not think a man with experience is more worthy of consideration than a man with capital only? —Yes. 47. A man with no money can only take up a leasehold, whereas a man with capital can afford to take up a freehold ?—Yes. I would further like to say that I think the loading for the roading of estates purchased for settlement should be distributed over the whole community and be put solely on to the settlers.
52—C. 4.
[M. LEONARD.
410
C—4.
Maubice Leonard examined. 48. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a Crown tenant at Waitaki, where I have 100 acres on lease in perpetuity, on which I pay 9d. per acre and 3s. 6d. per acre. It is shingly land. I carry on mixed farming, and have twenty-seven cows milking. I have also 147 acres ot freehold alongside the leasehold, and 105 acres of freehold twenty miles distant. I have been farming all my life I would like the State to hold all the land. If the leaseholders acquire the freehold of their sections the land will get into the hands of the land agents, and they will be in a worse A nstey -j You would be prepared to hand over your own freehold to the Crown ?— Yes. 50. You prefer leasing to owning it?— Yes, I do. 51. You know there is objection to the cropping restrictions? —Yes ; but those who object to the cropping restrictions want to sell after they have worked out their farms. I think the cropping restrictions are not at all inconvenient. William Nish examined. 52. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a Crown tenant on Waikakahi, where I hold 421 acres under lease in pertetuity, for which I pay 6s. per acre. I have been there from the start of the settlement —about six years. My land is classed as a second-class farm in the schedule Ido a little cropping to renew the grass. lam well satisfied with the holding, and have no desire for the freehold at present. - 53. Do you think the constitution of the Land Boards satisfactory?— Yes ; but 1 think perhaps the settlers ought to have a say in electing one member, at all events, to the Board. 54. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think the cropping restrictions are necessary ?—lt is only but right that the Government should have some restrictions in their leases, the same as any private landlord. lam perfectly satisfied with the cropping restrictions because of the nature of my holding. It is hilly country, and I only want to get it in good grass. 55. Mr. Johnston.] What stock do you carry?—At present I have 270 ewes and about the same number of wethers. That is only for the time being. On the average I carry about a sheep and a half per acre all the year round. 56. Have you any Californian thistle on your land?—l have one small patch which I have been trying to get under for three years, and I have not got rid of it yet. 57. Has your land gone up in value since the settlement commenced ?—I have not tried to sell it, but, according to the prices settlers round about' are getting, I would perhaps get a little over and above the value of my improvements if I were to sell. 58. Do you know whether settlers are selling to advantage ?—I cannot say, but am of opinion they are. , . T 59. Do you approve of the ballot system ? —I had been in for twenty-one sections before 1 got my present one, and I would rather have the single ballot. 60. In how many different ballots were you ?—Six. 61. You think the straight ballot best ?—Yes. 62. Mr. Anstey.] With regard to cropping restrictions, you said your cropping restrictions were all right ? —Yes. 63. Do you think cropping restrictions should be the same in the case of higher priced land ? I think there should be a little more latitude in the case of higher priced land. The Banger who visits the district should be given a little more latitude. 64. Have you ever found it necessary to take more than the crops at present allowed? —No. 65. Do you find the Bangers ever bother you in regard to keeping down weeds, &c. ?—No. 66. Mr. McCutchan.] In your case the land-for-settlements policy has been a success?—les. 67. Are the settlers satisfied ?—Most of them are, but, of course, some of them have their little grievances. 68. Mr. Matheson.] Have you the highest bit of land on the settlement ?—One of the highest, but I could plough three parts of it. 69. Mr. McLennan.] Do you not think it would be as well, instead of a representative of the Crown tenants being elected, that he should be nominated?— Yes, so long as the majority of the Crown tenants were agreeable. I think the Crown tenants ought to have a say in the election of one member of the Land Board. 70. Would you be satisfied with a nominated representative ?—Yes, so long as he was a Crown tenant and knew their interest. 71. Would you be in favour of giving more discretionary power to the Land Board?— Yes ; I think the Banger should be given more power. Great delays occur owing to all applications having to go to the Land Board at Christchurch. Both the Board and the Banger are under too much red tape. 72. Mr. Anstey.] Has the Land Board ever refused you any reasonable request as to cropping ?—I have never asked them for any. 73. Do you know of any of your neighbours who have been refused any reasonable request as to cropping, or anything of that nature ?—No ; I think the Board deals very leniently with them. Alexander McLean examined. 74. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and have 1,200 acres freehold. My land is on the Waiau and the Waitaki. I front the Biver Waiau. The Government created certain reserves there fifteen or twenty years ago. The river has washed my land on the opposite
411
C—4.
A. MCLEAN.
side, so that the river is now running on my ground. My land is on both sides of the river. The reserves are leased to other people. I would like to know whether I have not got a claim, seeing that the river is running on my freehold. 75. The Chairman said the claim made by the witness did not come properly within the scope of the Commission, and therefore he was sorry the Commission could not help him. It was a matter for the Board to decide, and the witness should consult his own solicitor. Thomas Hawkins examined. 76. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler at Maytown, and have 46 acres under lease in perpetuity, and pay 14s. 6d. per acre. I have been there three years. I find the tenure very unsatisfactory. lam dissatisfied with the cropping regulations. I have a very small area of land to crop. I would like the Land Board or the Ranger to have more discretion in respect to cropping. It takes time to work weeds out of the land. I have put grass in, and it has cost me 14s. 6d. an acre for seed alone. 77. Supposing there were no restrictions at all, how would you treat your land?—We do not want to spoil our land. We would work it up to put it into pasture. We would fallow it if we were permitted, but the Land Board would not allow me to fallow it and then take a crop. 78. Mr. Forbes.] Do you wish permission to grow another crop? —We want permission to fallow the land to grow another white crop. 79. Instead of there being a cast-iron rule, you would prefer that the Ranger should be'allowed to exercise his own judgment? —I think that would be more satisfactory to the Land Board and the tenant. 80. Do you believe in theJease in perpetuity? —Yes; but in some cases the rent is rather on the high side, and I think it would be much better if the Government would allow us to pay off two-thirds of the value. The Government would still hold the land so that it could never get back into big holdings. That would reduce the amount of our rent and give us a chance to live. If a man has any surplus money I think he should be allowed to pay off some of the value of the land, and thus reduce his rent. 81. Mr. Johnston.] Are the settlers satisfied, generally speaking?—l speak as a delegate from the rest of the settlers. 82. How many settlers? —Eleven. We had a meeting, and we were all of the same opinion. 83. Did they tell you to say anything in regard to the Land Board ?—No, only in regard to the cropping regulations ; and the price of the land has been rather high. 84. How does it range ?—About 14s. 6d. to 17s. 6d. 85. What is your yield of grain ?—The first yield was 18 bushels of oats and the next was about 17 bushels of wheat, and this season it might go to 25 bushels. 86. Mr. Anstey.] If you had the right to take three crops would you be satisfied?— Certainly. 87. Did you ask the permission of the Land Board?— They have refused others. I asked for an alteration in the cropping regulations, and they refused. 88. You would like to have the right to pay off two-thirds of the capital. Would you desire to pay off the other third afterwards? —No ; it should remain the property of the State. 89. Mr. McCutchan.] After paying your rent, &c., do you find that you have sufficient to live upon? —No. 90. Do you consider it is a hardship to be prevented from taking up another section under the Land for Settlements Act ?—I would like to take up other sections if I could manage it. 91. Do you consider it a hardship to be compelled to live continuously on the land? —Yes, I think the residence conditions are a hardship. I could not make a living off the section, and I have to go out to work. 92. But you get home at night?—No, only on Saturday nights. If a man had a little larger section he could live on it altogether. 93. Mr. Paul.] How much of the land have you cultivated?— About 16 acres cropping, out of 46 acres, and last year I had 21 acres. 94. Have you cultivated the same land twice? —Some of it, and some I fallowed. 95. Have you cultivated any of it three times ? —Yes; the Board gave me permission. 96. You have never had a request refused by the Board ?—No. 97. Mr. Matheson.] Are your crops an average crop for the land near where you are ?—I have average crops. They are not fine crops. 98. Mr. McLennan.] Do you fallow the lea in summer ? —Yes. 99. You plough again about May ?—Yes, and we put wheat in then. 100. Have you got any couch-grass? —Yes, any amount. 101. After your wheat is out what do you do with the ground ?—I skim-plough it, and plough it again in May. 102. Do you crop and disc it then ?—I do not think any one has cropped and worked his land more than I have. I subsequently put it in oats or wheat. 103. Do you not think it would be better to put in a green crop after you got the ground in good order ? —How would a green crop pay ? 104. Have you got cows ?—Not at present. 105. You want three white crops ?—Yes, but to fallow the land in between them. 106. And the next year you want to sow oats along with the grass after you get it clean ?— Yes. 107. Mr. Hall.] Do you think the Government paid too much for the land?— Yes; I think some of the rents are too high. 108. Mr. Johnston.] If you knew the land well, why did you take it up when you thought it was too dear? —At first there were no regulations in regard to cropping. We thought we were going on the land to do as we liked with it as to cropping.
412
C— 4.
[T. HAWKINS.
109. Mr. Forbes.] Have you put any improvements on the place ?—-Yes, more than any other settler there. 110. Mr. Matheson.] When this land was offered for selection, was it the result of a petition asking for the land to be cut up ?—I could not say. Alfred Bitchener examined. 111. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and have a freehold and a private leasehold. I farm 360 acres. The freehold is at the Hook and the leasehold adjacent to Waimate. There are complaints from Crown tenants regarding the conditions of lease and the cropping regulations. I was a leaseholder for ten years, and the cropping regulations did not suit me. In many instances they worked detrimentally. Sometimes I was allowed to have the land in fallow, and sometimes there were exceedingly bad seasons for working the fallow land. I did what 1 considered best for the land and for myself. If I had had more liberty I think I could have worked the land to a much greater advantage. For that reason I am very much in favour of the freehold. The freehold gives a man much greater liberty. At the same time, I believe in the leasehold and in the Government system of leasing land, with certain restrictions. Ido not think a hard-and-fast rule with regard to working the land is to the interest of the State or the individual. I think a certain amount of discretion should be allowed, and that some one with practical knowledge should supervise the working of the leaseholds. I admit that the leasehold has been the means of putting many men on the land who would otherwise have been landless. While I believe in the freehold I think the area should be limited, and that one individual should not be allowed to monopolize the whole country-side. 112. Mr. McCardle.] You are aware that the Government has gone to very heavy expense in obtaining land for settlements ?—Yes. 113. If the freehold were granted would you be prepared to give a premium to the Governmeu for acquiring the freehold?—l think so, in certain circumstances ; but one needs to be very guarded in making such a statement. As to Maytown, I would not be prepared to give anything because they have paid too much for the land. 114. Do you think it would be fair to have the leaseholders' interest valued?— Yes. 115. Do you think the Government is entitled to the whole of the unearned increment ?—No. 116. Mr. Anstey.] What are your objections with respect to cropping restrictions in the case of lease-in-perpetuity land?—l object to any hard-and-fast rule as to cropping. I think when a dispute occurs a third party might be called in to decide. 117. You do not suggest that cropping regulations should be removed altogether?—No; I think that would be detrimental to the interests of the country. 118. Mr. Paul.] You said you were in favour of limiting the area of freehold held by any one man: how could you accomplish it?—l think the Government could formulate a scheme to do that. 119. But if the market is restricted would not that depreciate the value of the freehold?— While the present demand for land continues I do not think it would. 120. Have you studied the land-for-settlements policy?— Yes, to a certain extent, 121. Would you give the option of the freehold under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Yes. 122. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to buy estates and sell portions of them ?—Yes ; the Government could purchase more land with the money they would thus receive. 123. You see no danger of the best bargains being snapped up and the worst land left in the hands of the State ?—No ; 1 do not think so. 124. Mr. Matheson.'] Have you ever grown strawberries for market ? —No. 125. What will an acre of good strawberries bring in if they are well looked after ?—I could not say. At first they produced a good crop, but the crops are not so good now. Ido not think the Maytown land is suitable for strawberry-growing. 126. Mr. McLennan.] Do you not think the demand for the option of the freehold should come from the Crown tenants themselves ?—Yes. 127. It is very strange that some witnesses should advocate it and that the Crown tenants should not ask for it themselves ?—I believe in the freehold, but I think the area should be limited. ■ 128. Mr. Hall.] The Crown tenants themselves ought to know their own interests best ?—I leave them to judge for themselves. 129. Is it not strange that they have not come forward and expressed a desire for the freehold?—lt is a good thing they are satisfied. 130. Mr. McCardle.] If the Government or their officers wrongly valued certain estates is there not a danger that a similar mistake might occur under the freehold as under the leasehold with right of purchase ?—I only know of one settlement where that is the case. Ido not think that difficulty would arise at Waikakahi. 131. The question is that if those lands had been properly valued, and if the valuation had been properly carried out over the whole of the estate, there can be no good and bad bargains ? — It might happen. 132. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the State should wait until the Crown tenants make a howl for the purchase, or that they should be given the option or what they think is good for them ?—I think it would be advisable for the Government to wait until they were asked. Alfked Walker examined. 133. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am an architect and builder, and I also farm 110 acres of freehold. I am a member of the County Council. I have been in the district thirty years. 134. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I have been deeply interested in the land question for the past thirty years. In 1885 I applied for freehold land, and I had great difficulty in obtaining it. I was refused by private owners, and when I applied for a piece
0.-4.
A. WALKER. 1
413
of Government river-bed land it was handed over to a gentleman in the district who was already holding 45,000 acres of freehold. I got Government assistance to fight the matter through the Supreme Court, and I obtained the opinion that I was more entitled to the land. I may say that at this particular time the whole district was landlocked. Two estates represented 100,000 acres of land, and it was impossible for a man with a little capital to secure land. This Council was besieged with applications from the unemployed. I may say that Waikakahi has proved one of the most successful settlements in the colony. There has been a considerable increase in the value of land in the district, and there is no question but that a number of settlers, particularly on Waikakahi, have benefited to a great extent by this increased value. The goodwill of one section on Waikakahi sold for £1,000, including improvements amounting to probably £200. The goodwill of another section of 460 acres, with improvements averaging from £150 to £200, sold for £1.900. The goodwill of a section of 40 acres at Kapua sold for £450. Another section of 40 acres at Hannaton sold for £450. Another section on Waikakahi, comprising 300 acres, sold at £800. Another section at Waikakahi of 260 acres sold for £900. This will show you that the increased value of the Government sections has been pretty substantial. The average increase is, approximately, £4 10s. per acre. There has been a large increase in the value of freehold property also. According to the county valuations we also find there is a substantial increase in both the capital and unimproved values in the district. The capital value of the county in 1896 was £2,255,791, and in 1903 it had risen to £3,044,915, an increase of £789,124. I had no way of obtaining statistics in reference to the unimproved value before 1901; but in 1901, when the system of rating on the unimproved value was adopted, it vvas £2,281,145, and in 1905 it had risen to £2,407,773, an increase in the taxable value of £126,628 in four years. So far as Waikakahi is concerned, there has been no increase in the value so far as local taxation purposes are concerned. The freeholders in some instances find that their land has increased double or treble in value in the past few years, but Waikakahi remains stationary, and, looking at the position from a ratepayer's point of view, I think it is an injustice that the Government settlers on Waikakahi should ask the freeholders of the district generally, as they practically do, to keep their roads in repair. Some four or five roads were provided for by the Government, but the gentlemen who laid out the estate were very careful to see that the existing roads were suitable for the requirements of the sections and the settlers, so that really very little roading was done or was required on the estate. In regard to the matter of tenure, I think the perpetual lease with revaluation every twenty-five years, but without the right of purchase, is the best form of tenure in the interests of the people of the colony. I think that to give the Crown tenants the option of the freehold at the original valuation would be simply robbing the taxpayers of a very large amount of money—anywhere from a half to three-quarters of a million if the value of Government lands has increased all over the colony in the same proportion as they have increased in this district. Further than that, had the settlements been a failure there is no doubt but that the general taxpayers of the colony would have been asked to put their hands into their pockets and come to the rescue of these people. They would have required a reduction in rent or some other concession. For instance, a settler at Hannaton and another at Norton applied for a reduction and got a substantial reduction. Frequently there have been losses of sheep on the pastoral country, and the tenants have been granted substantial reductions in rent on account of these losses. I fail to see why the tenants on Waikakahi should get the freehold and reap the whole benefit of this increase in value. So far as the cropping regulations are concerned, I consider they are too stringent. I have known Waikakahi for the last twenty-six years. Some of the farms are very dirty, and it is a moral impossibility in existing circumstances for a man to clean his ground. They are only allowed to take two white crops and one root-crop, and then they have to lay the land down in grass. I think the cropping regulations should be made easy, and that a better opportunity should be given to the settlers to clean their ground. I have had several paddocks overrun with ox-eye daisy. I have been six years endeavouring to clean one paddock, and I am not sure I have it clean yet. I am inclined to think that some alteration should be made in regard to the Noxious Weeds Act, so that the power of saying what shall be deemed noxious weeds should be left entirely in the hands of the Government. I have brought the matter of the ox-eye daisy under the notice of our own county. It has spread throughout the county, and it is only a matter of time when some of our best paddocks will be overrun with it. It is useless for me to attempt to clean my paddocks when my neighbours are allowing it to spread all over the district. It is only six years since the ox-eye daisy started at the north of the town, and it has since swept right down to the Junction. I think a great many of the councillors are large landowners, and though their lands in many instances are covered with weeds they do not intend to clean them, because they are under the impression it is quite possible they may sell at the present enhanced values of land, and leave the work for some one else. So far as our county is concerned, with reference to " thirds " and " fourths," we have found them ample to meet all requirements for roads and other public works. In some instances there has been an excess of money for that purpose. On pastoral lands the requirements for roading are not the same as on the smaller settlements. The Council get "thirds" from Hannaton and Norton, and that amount is quite sufficient; but in connection with the pastoral country there has been an accumulation of money, and at the present time we have £4,326 in hand of "thirds" and " fourths " from runs. I believe in the present year we will be able to spend a great portion of it. Another feature in regard to these " thirds " and "fourths" is this: we are compelled, as a rule, to spend them on the particular runs, or adjacent to them, from which the money has accrued. I may mention the case of a bridge over the Hakateramea, which has to be erected over a certain part of the river. From petitions sent to the Council, and from private information I have received, I believe it is not desirable in the interests of the general public that this bridge should be erected at this particular locality. If the bridge were erected some three or four miles lower down it would suit most of the parties concerned, and would be more in the interests of the general public. But for the very reason that the "thirds" and "fourths" have accumulated from two runs in this
C.—4.
414
'a. walkeb.
district, we have to recommend that the money be spent in this particular locality. 1 think there should be an increase in the graduated land-tax. Ido not think, in the interests of the colony, that the tax at present is sufficient upon the large estates. lam inclined to think that the small man with the large family has to pay considerable more in proportion than the large man with a large family, and I think the landless labourer pays most of all. The taxation received on land in 1893 was £297,181, and in 1904 it was £334,291, an increase of only £37,810, and this, taking into consideration the phenomenal increase in land-values generally. The taxation through the Customs in 1893 was £1,642,590, and in 1904 it was £2,601,325, an increase of £959,735. The Customs taxation practically increased 59 percent., against a 13-per-cent. increase in the land-tax. I think there should be no further sale of Crown lands. It does seem to me to be absurd that the Government should buy the land at top prices, and considerably over the values assessed for taxation purposes, and then part with it and buy other lands from private owners. I think, also, it would have been very much better for this colony if no freehold land had ever been sold. I think, in that case, rents would have been extremely low, and taxation reduced to a minimum, and this country would have been one of the most prosperous and wealthy in the world. There has been general prosperity here, due in a very great measure to the Government's land-for-settlement policy, and also to the increased value of produce and stock. Every one has participated in this prosperity with the exception of the labourer, and his position is no better to-day than it was twenty years ago. 135. Regarding the premiums paid on the transfer of sections at Waiakahi, you have given figures in round numbers, and I presume you are simply giving us the gossip of the district ?—No; some I had from the published reports, and others from private information received from the parties themselves. My figures are all based on facts. 136. Mr. McCardle.] As you have taken so much pains to collect the statistics you have given us, could you later on supply us with the exact figures in regard to the value of the improvements on these several sections ? —Yes, 1 can do that. 137. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Act?— None whatever. 138. Did I understand you to say that you do not believe in the lease in perpetuity?—l do not wish to interfere with the existing leases, but I suggest that in future the Government should let no more land under the lease in perpetuity, which is practically better than a freehold. I think the land should be let under lease, with revaluation every twenty-five years, and no right of purchase. I would not change matters so far as existing tenants are concerned, because the people of the colony have made a compact with them, and we have a right to keep it. 139. Mr. Anstey.] You are averse to giving the present lease-in-perpetuity settlers any right to purchase?— Yes. 140. In the event of the lease-in-perpetuity settlers getting the right to the freehold, would you give it at the present value or at the original price ?—Provided the majority of the people decide that the tenants should have the right to the freehold, I maintain that, in the interests of the general public, the Land Board should send a valuer to value a man's improvements, and they should allow him for the whole of his improvements, and then put the section up to auction and sell it to the highest bidder. 141. You gave us the case of a lease-in-perpetuity section of 40 acres at Kapua, which was recently disposed of for £450: can you give somewhere near the value of the improvements ?— Approximately, there were about £210. 142. That means that the goodwill was worth £240, or £6 per acre ?—lt appears so, according to the price. 143. What were the improvements on the other 40 acres at Hannaton that you referred to ?— I should say £200 would be a very fair valuation of the improvements on that farm. 144. I presume that the improvements bear a much larger ratio on a small place than on a larger one?— Most decidedly. A farm was sold for £1,900, and, if my memory serves me right, I do not think the improvements came to much over £200. 145. Can you tell me if in all instances the lease-in-perpetuity sections on Waikakahi have been sold at a premium ?—Every one of them. 146. You are quite sure no settler has abandoned his section on Waikakahi?—No case has come to my knowledge of a section being sold without a premium. 147. We had sworn evidence at Gore in which a witness said, amongst other things, that the settlers at Waikakahi are abandoning their holdings : was that statement correct ?—lt was not correct. 148. Would you say it was a deliberate misstatement?—Most deliberate. It is only within a day or two that I was asked to come before the Commission, and if I had chosen to investigate this matter I could have brought very conclusive evidence before you in reference to sales of Waikakahi sections. A friend told me that he cleared £800 out of a pastoral section at Waikakahi. 149. In regard to noxious weeds being very plentiful, it has been stated over and over again that freeholders farm their land a great deal better than leaseholders : I want you to tell me whether the noxious weeds are very much worse on Waikakahi and the other leasehold farms here than on the freehold ?—Taking the average acreage and farm sthroughout the district, I do not think they are any worse. I believe it is in the interests of the leaseholder to work his land on a better principle than the freeholder, because he is always compelled to pay his rent. 150. It has been said that the Rangers are apt to interfere with leaseholders in regard to noxious weeds : do you not think it would be a good thing if the Inspectors looked after the freeholders as well as the leaseholders ?—I do, most decidedly. 151. Do you think a proper adjustment of the graduated land-tax will have the effect of reducing the size of estates without any other limitation ?—I think so.
415
A. WALKER.]
C—4.
152. Do you think the present graduated land-tax is sufficient for the purpose? —I think it ought to be heavier. 153. Mr. Johnston.] You said you applied for some land once: at what time and through whom did you do so ?—ln 1885, and the Land Board at Christchurch. I may say at that time the Land Board was very rotten. 154. How old are the settlements at Hannaton and Norton?—l should say eighteen years old. 155. Mr. McCutchan.] I think you said you are an architect and also a freeholder? —Yes. 156. Therefore you can take an impartial view of this question, seeing that you have interests on both sides ? —Yes. 157. I understood you to say that the capital value of Waimate in 1896 was £2,255,791, and in 1903 £3,044,915, an increase of £789,124? —Yes. 158. Did I infer from you that that increased value belonged to the colony generally ? —My reason for giving the figures was to show the large increase in the land-values of the district, and to show, so far as Waikakahi Estate is concerned, for local taxation purposes the settlers are getting off scotfree, because they are only paying on the original valuations, while the freeholders around them are paying on the present valuations. 159. Has there been no assessment of Waikakahi since 1891?— Not for local taxation purposes. 160. You say the Council of which you are a member are levying rates on the same value since '1891?— Yes. We are bound by the Government valuations at which the sections were sold to the settlers. 161. Do you mean to tell me.that there has been a revaluation of the land of the county, and that Waikakahi Settlement has been excluded from that revaluation for local rating purposes?— Most decidedly, I do. 162. You said that to give the lease-in-perpetuity holders the right to purchase at the original upset price would be robbing the colony of £750,000? —That is my opinion—that is to say, if land has increased in value throughout the colony in the same proportion as it has in this district. 163. Do you know what the tenants have spent on roads by means of loans and in rates since this three-quarters of a million accrued ?—I do not know. 164. You say that increased value should belong to the colony generally ?—lt should belong to the colony, the same as the amount of money that every freeholder has spent in roads and rates. 165. The freeholder gets the increased value of his land accruing from the expenditure on roads, &c. ?—So does the Waikakahi settler. 166. At present he does, but your argument is that if these sections are sold and the tenants are allowed to acquire the freehold, the colony would be robbed if they got this increased value ? — Most decidedly, it would. 167. But a considerable portion of that increased value has been produced by the tenants' expenditure upon roads and rates : should not that belong to the settlers who have produced it by their expenditure rather than to the colony generally ?—I do not think they are entitled to any more than any other ratepayer in the colony. 168. Are they not entitled to the increased value due to their own expenditure ?—No, for the very reason that they enjoy the land at a low rental, and already the goodwill of the sections has increased in value. That is enough to pay the settlers for any amount they pay in taxation and for any amount put on them for roading. 169. They are supposed to get it, but you want to deprive them of it ?—I have no wish to deprive them of it. I have no desire to alter the conditions so far as Waikakahi or any other district under lease in perpetuity is concerned. 170. You propose revaluation. We had evidence that wherever the operations of the Taieri and Peninsula Dairy Company were under way the value of the land supplying milk to that company has been increased £2 per acre, and the witness who made that statement said that the late Sir John McKenzie had made the same statement —namely, that the value had been increased by the "tenants' expenditure, independent of the whole colony. Whenever the settlers provide money and thereby increase the value of their land, should they not be entitled to the benefits arising from that expenditure ?—Certainly not, no more than their fair share of the increased valuation. I say the labourers are entitled to their share of the increased valuation or the unearned increment, but they do not get it, and I maintain that the farmers are only entitled to their portion of it. 171. You would not give to the farmer the whole of the increased value that comes from his own expenditure ? —Not from public money. 172. But this money was provided by the settlers to establish this dairy industry?— Then, most decidedly, they are entitled to the increased value if they can clearly prove it is due to no other agency. 173. You would give them that value ? —Most decidedly. 174. That would come out of three-quarters of a million, then ?—Probably it would. 175. You are a member of the County Council ?—Yes. 176. And you say that the Government should take charge of the noxious-weeds inspection ? —Yes. 177. Have you tried to get ox-eye daisy included among the noxious weeds of this district?— Yes. 178. How did you succeed?—l. was outvoted. L 79. You say it is not fair that the " thirds " and " fourths " should be spent in the particular district from which they accrue, but should be taken away and spent where they would be of greater benefit for the district generally : what reason have you got for that statement ?—For the
C.—4.
416
[a. walker.
reason that it is money that comes out of the public estate, and where moneys come out of the public estate it is right that they should be spent in the interests of the district, and not in the interests of a particular few. 180. Do you not think that the money coines out of the pockets of the runholders ? If you take up a run what are the conditions in regard to the rent ?—That so-much of the rent is put by as " fourths," which are handed over in this case to the County Council who spends the money. 181. From whom does that money come?—l think it comes from the leaseholder. 182. And the condition is that those " fourths " must be spent in giving access to the land from which they accrue, yet you say the money comes out of the public estate ?—-If the money can be spent collectively, instead of individually, for the benefit of the whole it would be much better. 183. Mr. Paul.] You are very decided that this subdivision is in the interests not only of the surrounding district, but of the colony generally ?—Yes. 184. Are there any estates which could be further subdivided ?—Not in this district, that I am aware of. 185. Have you formed any opinion on the constitution of the Land Boards? —I think they should be elected on the parliamentary franchise. 186. Supposing that in some cases there was a majority of the voters townspeople, do you think that the mere fact of their being a majority should elect a Land Board ? —I do not know that there would be a majority in the towns. In this county I think the majority is the other way. 187. In the land district where there is a large centre of population do you not think that that might turn the scale ?—That might occur. 188. Do you think that would be wise ?—That would require a deal of thought. 189. Have you thought of that contingency ?—I have not, and could not give a definite opinion on it. 190. You say that- if the freehold is given the land should be put up to auction. Do you say that because the lease in perpetuity was a good bargain?—l would simply do that if the tenant advocated that he should break the present conditions of the lease. If he did that those are the terms I should fix for it. 191. When you advocated the perpetual lease it was with the option of purchase —one term of thirty years and a revaluation every twenty years ?—I advocated always that there should be a revaluation, but no freehold. Freehold under no conditions. 192. Do you think an increase of the graduated tax would have any good effect on these large estates?—l do. 193. I suppose you think that at the present time the Government are being compelled to pay too much for them ?—I do. In several instances the large holders are simply waiting for a rise, and if they were compelled to sell the land would be much cheaper than it is. Even private purchasers find it almost impossible to buy land, the price being too high. 194. A high price given by the Government means a high rent? —Yes, and also a high price for the private purchasers. 195. Mr. Matheson.] You said that the landless labourers pay more taxes than anybody else, is that because they eat or drink more than anybody else ?—Not at all. 196. Seeing that the landholders pay rates, taxes, and Customs duties, how can the labourers pay more ?—Because the landholder enjoys more privileges than the labourer. The labourer has only his labour out of which to make his living. 197. Do you think the pioneers who came out here in the early days would have come if it had not been for the chance of getting the freehold ?—lf those pioneers had been placed in the same position as I was in the Old Country they would have been glad to take up land at any reasonable price under the leasehold. 198. You say that if the land was taken up in the freehold they should pay the present value : do-you recognise that that means that those who have come in after the settlement and paid a goodwill for their sections would be paying that amount over again to the State ?—The fact that he had been stupid enough to pay a monstrous price is no reason why the State should give him the freehold. 199. Mr. McLennan.] You say that the district here is very prosperous?— Yes. 200. What do you attribute that to ?—Principally to the land-value. 201. Do you not think the price of produce in the London market has a good deal to do with it ?—Certainly, although for the last two or three years wheat has been at a very low price. 202. Mr. McGardle.] You said, in answer to a previous question, that the noxious-weed Inspector should visit the freeholders as well as the leaseholders. Do you mean to say that the Inspectors only penalise the leaseholder and not the freeholder ?—I do not know that they penalise the leaseholder ; the Second Schedule of the Act has not been brought into force. 203. They would have the right to if you brought the Act into force ?—Yes; but the Council will not. Ido not attribute any fault to the Banger. I say it is desirable in the interest of both the freeholder and the leaseholder that their lands should be inspected, and that the matter should be left in the hands of the Government and not of the Council, because the Council declines to do its duty in the matter. 204. We had evidence in the southern portion of the district that if the Act were brought into operation it would ruin every man in the district ?—I do not agree with that at all. You are not bound to adopt all the weeds in the schedule. I think a man should be compelled to clean his land of Californian thistle at any cost. 205. With regard to this rating, you say that ten years ago Waikakahi paid rates on £10 per acre, and that to-day the settlement pays rates still on £10 per acre, but the freehold now pays rates on £15 per acre ?—That is quite correct.
A. WALKER.T
417
C.—4.
206. Have your Council had any experience of co-operative works ?—Yes. 207. How do they pan out as compared with other works ? —-The co-operative works done here were done many years ago, and were principally relief works. There have been only one or two instances since, and I think they have panned out satisfactorily. 208. Have the Government made any grants Co your Council on the specific understanding that they were to be expended by means of co-operative labour?— Not that I am aware of. 209. Mr. Forbes.'] This particular bridge that you were referring to in regard to the " thirds " and "fourths," did you say that the tenants from whom the "thirds" and "fourths" accrued were agreeable that it should be erected at a place more convenient to them, some distance from where it was by law supposed to be erected ?—No, that is not so. There are two who have sufficient accrued "thirds" to build the bridge, but there are others in the district who have accrued " thirds " and who are willing that the bridge should be erected lower down, and it would supply the district better. 210. Your county is rated on the unimproved value. If it was rated the same as formerly, on the capital value, the settlers at Waikakahi would have paid just the same proportion as the others ?—Just the same. William Hobson Lundon examined. 211. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a labourer, and may fairly claim to be that infallible authority, the oldest inhabitant. I come before you as the representative of an association that is being formed here, known as the Workmen's Homes Association. In former years I have taken a very active interest in the land question, and spent considerable time and money in the passing of the Land Acquisition Bill, and I am somewhat disappointed with the results, especially with regard to the poor-provision made for the settlement of poor men. It started very well. The two settlements referred to by previous witnesses, one at Hannaton and one at Norton, were composed almost entirely of industrious hard-working men. Owing to bad seasons and low prices they were not a success at first, and there was great difficulty in getting the rent, and the Government were twitted with the fact that small settlement was going to be a failure, and a system was introduced that a small portion of capital was an essential condition for the applicant. Waikakahi was eminently suited for small settlement, but very few small allotments were laid out, and very few working-men got the opportunity of settling on Waikakahi; and it seems to me that throughout the country generally working-men are debarred from the benefits of land-settlement. It has been said that the Land Boards harass and trouble the tenants a great deal. From my own personal observation I think the Land Boards are too lenient. I know of one case in this district where a man held a section for a considerable number of years and never slept on it one night, and ultimately it was forfeited. That man had then nothing but abuse for the Land Board. Insisting on residence is the greatest safeguard we have against dummvism. A considerable amount of speculation is going on in regard to leases, and the leases on Waikakahi are selling like hot cakes. I know of at least one section on Waikakahi which is now in the hands of its third owner I think that the aggregation of estates is still going on to some extent in this country. In this district the New Zealand and Australian Land Company have added to their Hakateramea Estate by the purchase of Hakateramea Downs. 212. Their policy is to clear out of New Zealand In this case it may be that they have bought one piece in order to sell the other?—l hope that is so. The best thing for the colony would be for them to go away. One of the dangers that threaten New Zealand is the noxious weed, for the reason that there are such large areas of land which cannot be ploughed. It is only a question of a few years, when the land will not pay to clear. I know of blocks in this county which it would not pay any one to clear. In the south some witnesses expressed the opinion that the Government should supply grass-seed for nothing for grassing the high country. That would be almost useless over great areas of the mountain country in this part, for the reason that it would never grow. Then, again, I believe that if that course was adopted there might be a possibility of the grass-seed never reaching its intended destination. If adopted, I think the Government should see that the grass-seed is sown. With regard to the tenure, there was an understanding that the land would never be parted with by the Government, and this attempt now to force the Government to part with the freehold at the original valuation is one of the most absurd and unjust demands ever made in the colony. It would be a great blunder, for the reason that the area of really good land is limited, and it is reasonable to suppose that in the future further subdivision will take place, and that 640 acres of first-class land will be considered too large for one holding. I have had a little experience with regard to the advances to settlers, and it has not been altogether satisfactory. If all the applications were treated as mine was I think the Department would lend very little money. I had a property valued at £240, and applied for a loan of £100, and was refused. I did not think so much of the refusal as the method the Department adopted in arriving at the valuation. They sent me a long list of questions, some of which were difficult and some absurd. One question was, " How much has your land improved by surface-sowing? " I had no knowledge of the land before it was surface-sown, and therefore could not answer the question. After I had done all this, and notwithstanding the fact that they had the value of my place from the Government valuers, they sent down a valuer to make a valuation, and therefore the particulars required from me were unnecessary. 213. Mr. McCardle.] What area do you think should be allotted for a workman's home ?—5 to 10 acres. 214. Do you think the Government should give some extra assistance to such settlers as compared with the ordinary farmer?—-'I think it would be bad policy to deprive these men of assistance. 215. In view of the great rents obtained in the centres of population, do you not think it would be safe for the Government to buy land and build houses, and run no risk of loss ?—I fail to see how there could be a loss.
53—C. 4.
a—4.
418
r W. H. LUNDON.
216. Mr. Forbes.] Are you doing anything to secure a workmen's homes settlement?— Yes, that is what our association is formed for. 217. You think it would be desired by working-men?— Yes, I do; and it would be a great advantage to the colony generally. 218. Mr. Anstey.] Do you want a settlement close to Waimate ?—Not Waimate particularly —throughout the county. 219. Do you want them close to the towns?—lf there is easy access they need not be very close. The land should certainly be of good quality. 220. Is there any guarantee that these sections would be taken up if laid aside?—l believe they would be taken up very readily here. 221. Mr. Paul.] Is there any land suitable for this scheme about here?— Yes. 222. At a reasonable price?— The price is high at present, but there are advantages, such as good markets, for the produce of small holdings. 223. Mr. Matheson.] There were sixteen 50-acre sections in the Waikakahi Settlement : were they all taken up at the first sale ?—I could not say.
Morven, Tuesday, 4th April, 1905. William Beere examined. 1. Ihe Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold a section under lease in perpetuity. I hold 348 acres, and my rent is 6s. 9d. per acre. I have been here since 1899, when the estate was cut up. 2. Do you find your holding satisfactory ?—ln some ways it is, but not in others. The cropping regulations are the drawback. My land is hill country, and I cannot cut it up into various areas. Probably in ploughing up a hill I have to cut off a few acres more or less. I want a little more to come and go on. I have had no trouble with the Land Board. I think when a man gets his improvements on the matter of cropping should be left to his discretion. At present the cropping regulations are vexatious and unworkable. The tenant should either have an absolute free hand, or, at any rate, a freer hand than at present. The cropping regulations apply to the whole colony, and while they may suit some land they do not suit other lands. Although the Land Board has always met me fairly, still, I have heard others complain of the Board. I recognise there must be some regulation. You would require regulation for every paddock, and, of course, that is a thing that would kill the system entirely. The simplest way'out of the difficulty would be, when a man has made his improvements, to give him almost a free hand in the working of his farm. I think the Land Board would be a competent body to deal with these matters, but I also think the Land District of Canterbury is too large in extent for one Board to administer. There should be a Land Board in South Canterbury. The tenants in South Canterbury are becoming very numerous. If there was a Board for South Canterbury a man could go personally to the Board in a day, and he would come back more satisfied than by simply sending a letter. We have no complaints to make against the Rangers. I may point out that it takes three days to go to Christchurch and return to this place, and a farmer can ill spare that time. I am of opinion that the Crown tenants should be represented on the Land Board. The elective system would be too expensive. lam satisfied with the nominative system, and I think the Crown'tenants should be represented by one member. I am satisfied with the leasehold tenure as long as the cropping regulations are amended as I suggest, otherwise I must ask for the freehold in order to get a free hand. The improvements required to be made on Waikakahi amounted to £19,373, and the improvements placed on the land amounted to £64,267—nearly four times the amount required You will see at once that people who place £64,267 of improvements on the land are not going to overcrop; they are settlers, and not merely trotters-they intend to stop here. I am of opinion that the ballot system is the best yet introduced. I have had no experience of the grouping system but Ido not approve of it. If I want a section I would like to get that particular one, and would not care to have another section forced on me. As to the unearned increment, there is no unearned increment on these lands in the way it exists in the case of suburban and city land. Every bit of improvement put on the land around here has been done by the sweat of the brow of the settlers, and they are entitled to the full benefit of it. The survey charges of the State were very large, and interest has to be paid on those charges for 999 years' I do not think that should be the case. The survey charges should be kept as low as possible, and should be reasonable. The remarks made by one or two of the Commissioners of Crown Lands—not in Canterbury but in other parts of the colony—have had some effect on the mind of leaseholders. One Commissioner of Crown Lands said that "they did not intend to transfer land that was sold at a high value.' Another Commissioner of Crown Lands warned speculators against taking up land in his district. We are not _ speculators, we are settlers; and we think that those Commissioners went outside their duties in making such remarks. These injudicious remarks made people feel that their lease-in-perpetuity tenure is not as secure as they would like if. Transfers should be freely granted, provided the person taking up the land is a suitable person. Under such conditions the transfers should be as freely granted as the transfer of freehold. 3. Have there been any cases of transfers in Waikakahi ?—Yes, there has been some, owing to deaths. Ido not know of any actual case that has been refused. 4. You are chairman of the Settlers Association ?—Yes. 5. Mr. Anstey.] Do I understand you to advocate the removal of cropping conditions altogether?—We are dealing with a very difficult subject. I would give a man when he gets his improvements a very much freer hand, and, if I could, I would give him a free hand altogether if he has come to stay. 5
W. BEERE.
419
C. 4.
6. How are you to distinguish between the man who is going to farm his land properly and the man who would abuse it by overcropping? —You will find bad eggs in every basket. 7. It is necessary to have some restrictions? —Yes, that is so; but I think there should be a little more elasticity in dealing with property. 8. Is there any of the land at Waikakahi that you could take four crops from? —Yes, plenty of it. Some of the land near the beach you could take six crops from, and it would do it good. 9. You mean to say that the third and fourth crops would probably yield better than the first and second crops? —Yes, decidedly; the land is that strong that all the time a man is working for straw instead of working for grain. 10. You have made no reasonable request that has been refused by the Land Board? —None. 11. Do you know of any one else?- I cannot speak for others. 12. With respect to local rating, upon what valuation are you paying local rates? —We are under the unimproved value. 13. Freeholders say that their rate was raised at the last valuation, and that the lease-in-perpetuity land was not raised ?—My rateable value is the same now as when I took up the land; but when we came here the rateable value was much above the freeholders round about us. 14. It has been stated over and over again that the leaseholder does not farm his land as well as the freeholder, nor put up as substantial buildings: what is your experience in the case of Waikakahi ? —My experience is that the leaseholder is quite equal to the freeholder, and even a little above liim, in his method of farming and in the buildings he puts on the land. The leaseholder keeps as many horses as the freeholder. Ido not think the question of title affects him a bit in respect to his farming. 15. I understand there are a number of settlers who have sold out their interests: have they sold out at a premium? —I do not know what they got. A man would be very foolish to sell out if he did not get a premium. 16. You think there would be no necessity for him to do so? —Certain circumstances might arise, such as family troubles or ill health, which might- induce a settler to desire to change to another district. 17. Do you know of any settler who has had to give up his holding and who has not been able to carry on ? —I do not know of any; but, owing to the cropping restrictions, I think that one settler will give evidence before the Commission and show that he cannot make a living under the present conditions. 18. Some days ago a witness stated that the settlers of Maerewhenua and Waikakahi were abandoning their holdings: is that true?- I think they would want to be driven out. 19. Then, that statement was not correct? —No. 20. Have you had any experience in connection with the Advances to Settlers Office? —A little, and it was fairly satisfactory. 21. Mr. Johnston.] The majority of the settlers are satisfied with their conditions? —I think they would be if the cropping regulations were altered. 22. Mr. Forbes.] It has been stated that the Crown tenants are afraid that the lease in perpetuity will be subject to revaluation —that the Government will break the contract: does that fear exist in Waikakahi? —There is a fear, and that, together with the penalties attached to breaches of the cropping regulations which provide for the forfeiture of the lease, has caused a feeling of insecurity amongst some of the settlers. 23. Do you not think if the Government needed to raise revenue a much simpler method would be to give another screw to the land-tax rather than break the contract entered into with the tenants? Do you think any Government would be strong enough to break the contract? —The first day they do so would be the day of their death. 24. Having the machinery of the land-tax to raise revenue, do you not think it more reasonable that they should do so in that way? —Decidedly. My own opinion is this: that if the Government takes my lease to-morrow I will make a " rise." 25. You consider that if the lease is varied or broken the settlers would be entitled to compensation ? —Decidedly, and that for the whole length of the term of the lease. Ido not know that any Government will undertake that; it will be a big contract. Personally, I do not feel the uncertainty, but I know other men that do. They wish to feel secure in their present tenure. If the people can feel that their lease will not be broken, that the tenure is good, and that the cropping regulations will be altered to suit the land I do not think the cry for the freehold will be heard. 26. Mr. Paul.] When you said you wouFd make a " rise " did you mean that you would get compensation? —I should expect to get compensation. 27. Did you ever hear of any proposal to make revaluation retrospective?—No; but once a system of revaluation is introduced we do not know how soon it may be altered and made retrospective. 28. Have settlers sold their sections at Waikakahi? —Some have parted with their leases. 29. We had evidence the other day that sections had been transferred, and that the goodwill amounted to a considerable sum?- Yes; but the settlers have had very great hardships at various times. You must take that into account. 30. What I want to find out is whether any settler after getting full valuation for improvements has received an additional sum as goodwill? —Yes; I should think they had, but I could not say to what extent. 31. Do you not think that that is uncommonly like unearned increment? —No; there is no unearned increment in this farm land. 32. What would you call that? —That is the result of the sweat of the man's brow, and he is entitled to that result. 33. You said he was allowed full valuation for improvements. While he occupied the land he brought a living out of it, and when he sold out he got a considerable sum above improvements ?
C—4.
420
[W. BEERE.
—Why would you sit on a man who goes on to a Government section while you allow the freeholder to go off scot-free? There are a lot of improvements on land that are never seen. 34. If you were selling your section to-morrow would you ask for something over and above your improvements as goodwill ? —As a business-man, I would ask for all I could get. I think a man could be free to transfer his section, but I think the incoming tenant should be a suitable settler. 35. Do you not think a very large sum in the shape of goodwill would ultimately cripple settlement?- Every man in buying and selling must be able to do his own business. 36. One witness said that he paid a large sum for goodwill, and he looked on it as being somuch out of pocket, and he would be out of pocket until he got the freehold ?- That man took the risk. 37. You do not think the lease should be varied to suit him? —Not one particular man. 38. Mr. Matheson.] If you have some more prosperous years do you say the State would be wise to let a man pay off some of the capital value out of his savings and so reduce his rent ? —lf there is to be any alteration in the tenure that would be the alteration I would be in favour of — the man reducing his rent, but the Government keeping sufficient hold over the land. 39. Do you think the State would be the loser if it got the money back that it originally spent on the land ? —lf the land was cut up into small holdings the State would be the gainer, and if the Government always kept its hold on the land it would prevent the aggregation of estates. 40. Do you not think the very fact of this closer settlement and the improvements put on the land would prevent the land going back into big estates ? —I think what has been done is security against the aggregation of very large estates. Ido not think any one could buy up Waikakahi and use it as a run. 41. Mr. McCardle.~\ With respect to the unearned increment, what would have been the value of this land had there been no close settlement? —The rise in the price of sheep would have affected the price of the land, but it would not have been so much as it is now. 42. Is it not a fact that the increase on property in the towns is due to settlement in the country? —Yes. When Mr. McLean owned this station he knew what his expenses would be, but every shilling that the settlers have made during the last six years has been expended on improvements, and the money has gone into circulation again. 43. You think the collective operations of the farmers have raised the land to its present value? —Yes. 44. And, then, there is the scarcity of land for similar settlements? —Yes. 45. You are of opinion that if the Government could find large estates it would be wise to purchase them and bring about more close settlement? —Yes, wherever possible. 46. Your only desire for change in respect of the present tenure is in order that more liberty may be given to the settlers? —Yes. I would like to mention this: When Mr. McLean had the run he had about fifty-six thousand sheep on it. This year and last season there were in the settlement 8,433 acres of grass, 2,601 acres of grain and root crops, 42,000 sheep, 2,352 cattle, and 950 horses. There are now 626 souls resident in the settlement, and possibly when Mr. McLean had it the number of people on the land did not exceed fifty. 47. Mr. McLennan.] Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? —Yes, I was; but the branch that existed here is dead now. 48. Has the Farmers' Union had a great deal to do with the agitation for the freehold? —It may have, but not in this locality. 49. What would you suggest in regard to cropping regulations? Would you be in favour of giving the Land Board more discretionary power? —They will have to get discretionary power. 50. Would you be in favour of the tenants on the Waikakahi electing two competent settlers along with the Ranger, the three to form a Board to consider applications with respect to properties? —I think your suggestion would be far better than the present arrangement; but if the settlers were given a free hand after making the necessary improvements your suggestion would be unnecessary. 51. Do you not think my suggestion would be workable? —Yes; it would be better than the present system. 52. Mr. McGutchan.] In regard to roading, would you be in favour of the interest charge ceasing after twenty-six years, because by that time the principal and interest is wiped out? —Yes. 53. Do you think a man holding a section under the Land for Settlements Act should have the right, when in a position to do so, to acquire a neighbour's place up to a certain limit? —Yes, in some cases, because one man might have a large family. For instance, 100 acres might be sufficient for a young man just married, but as his family increased he would require a larger area. 54. Would you fix a restriction as to the area? —Yes; but I would make it fairly large. 55. Mr. Johnston.] Where are the members of the Land Board drawn from at the present time? —I think they are fairly distributed all over the provincial district. I would like to see the Land Board sit at Timaru or Waimate or some other convenient place once a quarter. I think that would fairly well meet the case. I would like to suggest also that all imported straw — especially that used for packing goods of various kinds —should be burnt, in order to prevent the introduction of destructive insects and weeds. 56. Have you any Californian thistle? —No; but I have heard of it being about. I think that all grass-seed coming from a district where there are noxious weeds should only be sold on a certificate from the Government ■ officers —for instance, grass-seed might be imported from a district in Southland, where there is much ragwort and Californian thistle. I think something should be done to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds to a district that is at present free from them.
421
C—4.
A. W. BABNETT.j
Arthur William Barnett examined. 57. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold 243 acres in VVaikakahi, and my rent is 13s. 6d. an acre. 1 think the conditions of lease are unsuitable, principally owing to the cropping conditions. According to the regulations lam allowed to take two straw-crops and one green crop. The farm must remain in grass, but in order to keep a rotation 1 must work one-sixth of the farm every year. That would be 40 acres of root-crop, and 40 acres of root-crop in a farm the size of mine is ridiculous; it would be more than 1 could use. The present regulations force one into a wrong sort of farming. 1 would suggest that where a man has put on sufficient improvements he should be allowed to farm as he likes one-half of his section, provided he does not put in more than two wheat-crops. Half the farm would remain in grass, one-third would be in wheat, and the balance in turnips or barley, or what he liked. According to that system he could not possibly crop more than one-third of his farm every year, and he could not possibly injure the farm under those conditions. If the Government could not see their way to grant that amount of liberty they might halve the amount of root-crop and make it one-twelfth instead of one-sixth, so that the man could put in one-sixth of the farm in oats. I think that might meet most cases; at any rate, 1 would be satisfied. It is infinitely better to grow a small area of roots and keep it clean than to grow a larger area and not attend to it so well. 58. Mr. Anstey.\ Have you applied for a modification of your cropping restrictions? —Yes, 1 applied to be allowed to put in a portion of the root area in oats, but the Board said that they could not see their way to grant the concession. 59. If the condition of lease were altered so that half the land should always remain in grass, and not more than one-third remain in wheat in any one year, would that be suitable for the level land on the Waikakahi Estate? —I believe most of the settlers would be satisfied with that. 60. Mr. Johnston.] Are you one of the original settlers? —Yes. 61. You knew the conditions of the lease? —Yes. 62. Were you satisfied then? —Yes. 63. Is it since you have had experience in working the land that you think the conditions should be altered ? —As a practical farmer, I have found that the conditions are not suitable for the land 1 hold. When I took up the land I thought I might be able to work it under the conditions, but I have since found that I cannot do so. 64. You do not want any alteration in the tenure? —I think most people take far more interest in freehold land than in leasehold land, and I would put far more improvements on my section if it were freehold. But I have not agitated for the freehold. 65. Mr. Vaul.\ Do you approve of the present nominative system of Land Boards? —Yes. 66. Mr. Matheson.J Do you think it would be an improvement to increase the number of members of Land Boards in order that you might have some representative? —No; but if we could not get the restrictions altered, it might be advisable to have another member on the Land Board. 67. Mr. McCardle.\ Y r ou find the restrictions work against the interests of the settler? —Yes. 68. Do you not think it would be well if some competent person, experienced as to the quality of land, were appointed by the Government with power to grant concessions to the settler ? —Yes, provided the conditions were such that no man could injure his farm. I think it would be better to leave it to himself. I would like to mention a point in respect to the unearned increment. 1 could not make use of my farm at first because part of it had to remain three years in grass; it would only carry a sheep to the acre in old pasture, it has taken some six years to arrive at a rotation; by the time I have got the farm in rotation it will cost me from £2 10s. to £3 per acre. Then, there are facilities such as creameries and saleyards. These have been put up by the settlers themselves, and the outside community does not reap the advantage of that. I maintain that there is no unearned increment on this land. 69. The Chairman.] You think the losses balance the profits pretty well for the series of years? —Yes. John Taylor Hat examined. 70. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and my wife holds a section at Waikakahi. The area of the section is acres, and the rent is 12s. 6d. an acre. We have held the section for six years. I have 18 acres of my own at Uritaue. It is freehold land. There is some insecurity in regard to the present tenure. If you break the regulations you are liable to forfeiture. 1 knew the regulations when I applied for the section, but I never anticipated the Board would carry them out to the letter. My wife and I have applied for sections, and she was successful in drawing one. I was in a very good billet for some "six or nine months before I came here. 1 sent a man down to test the land and to put up a whare. It was very difficult to get a carpenter to build a house, but my eldest boy and myself lived on the section, and I took a house in Waimate for my family. I do not blame the Land Board for the difficulty in regard to residence. Because my wife was not residing on the land she received notice that unless there was residence the section would be forfeited. There was no dummyism in that case. I think a wife and husband should be treated as one in respect to residence in such cases. As soon as the house was put up on the section my wife came and resided on the land. I do not blame the Board; 1 blame the system. Last year and the year before. I cropped 32 acres of barley. I received an intimation from the Land Board that if I did not fulfil the conditions laid down I might have my section forfeited. This was my only offence. I had fallowed the land out of grass, and the next year I put half in barley and ha'lf in oats. The second year I put it in wheat, and the third year in barley. The land had been in grass twelve years previous to me taking it up, and if land which is worth 12s. 6d. rent will not stand that I know nothing about farming. I never anticipated being called up for a small breach like that. 71. You think the cropping conditions are not workable for the proper cultivation of the farm? —No. I think after one has put improvements on the section he should have a free hand
0.-4
422
J. T. HAY
in regard to three crops. 1 do not say there should be unlimited power. The land should be classified. At present, land for which 3s. or 4s. is paid and land for which £1 is paid are all under the same conditions. 72. You have heard what the previous witnesses said: do you indorse their remarks? —I quite indorse what Mr. Beere said about cropping, but I do not altogether agree with Mr. Barnett. 73. Mr. Anstey.] Did you ask the permission of the Land Board to take the third crop off'/ —1 did not. 74. Have you ever asked any permission to exceed the cropping conditions? —Yes, I asked for it this year, i reckon a farmer should look ahead of him, and 1 asked permission to put a third crop in 40 acres which 1 had fallowed in grass. The Land Board replied that they could not grant permission for that year. They did not exactly refuse my request, but 1 understood they had not power to grant any concession ahead. 75. Suppose you had asked permission in the first instance to take a third crop, do you think your request would have been granted? —The reason I did not ask was that 1 heard that some of my neighbours had asked and had been refused, and 1 thought I would be in a better position if 1 put in the crop without asking. 76. What you want is a modification of the cropping clause of your lease, so that it will not be necessary for you to have to ask the permission of the Board?— Yes; 1 think I should be allowed to take three successive grain crops, and then rest the ground in grass. 77. Do you think that at least half the land should be in crop and the other half in grass? —I think Mr. Burnett restricted himself too much to wheat. 1 should say half in grass and the balance in whatever the settler liked to put in. 1 think when a man pays his rent and puts improvements on the ground, he ought to be in a position to judge how to farm it. 78. Do you want to do away with the cropping restrictions as soon as you have put certain improvements on the section? —There should be a certain limit, according to the quality of the land. 79. What do you suggest in the case of your land?-If I got three grain crops in succession 1 would be quite satisfied. The land at the beach would stand more. 80. How much cropping could you do on land ranging from 19s. to £1 ? —1 think Mr. Beere was right when he said five or six crops. I would improve the crops. 81. Do you think there would be some little difficulty in framing regulations? —Yes. 82. And, finally, you would have to fall back and give some little relaxing authority to the Land Board?—l really do not think the Land Board should be put in that position. It should be allowed by the Act. At present it is within the discretion of the Land Board, and, as Mr. Beere said, the Board covers too wide an area. 83. Do you think there should be a sitting of the Land Board in Timaru, or a separate Land Board? —I think there might be a separate Land Board for South Canterbury. 84. Would that meet your requirements much better than the sittings in Christchurch ?—lt would not make much difference so far as I am concerned, but it would make them more accessible to other people. But, if the conditions were altered as I suggest, one Land Board would do for New Zealand so far as I am concerned. 85. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?— Yes, from the very start of the Department, and in regard to both freehold and leasehold properties. I have never had any difficulty in getting what I wanted, and I always got it without delay. 86. Mr. Johnston ] You knew the conditions under which this land was to be worked when you took it up? —Yes. 87. Were you satisfied with them then?—l was satisfied that they were merely a safeguard against a tenant abusing the land. 1 never anticipated that an attempt would be made to carry them out. 88. Suppose you leased your own land under these conditions, would you expect your tenant to carry them out?- I would always expect that there should be a give-and-take policy. • 89. Have any sections been sold on the block? —I believe so. 90. Have they been sold to advantage?—l do not know. I should think they have been. 91. Is your land worth more than when you took it up, exclusive of improvements? —I do not think it is worth very much more. 1 think that any unearned increment belongs to the people who go and settle on the land and improve it. 92. Mr. Forbes.] With the exception of the cropping conditions, you are satisfied that the lease in perpetuity is right enough: you do not think the Government are likely to break the lease made between themselves and the settlers, and introduce revaluation ?—The Government can do what they like with freeholders and leaseholders. In fact, I think the leaseholder is more secure than the freeholder in that respect, particularly if he is holding large blocks of land. I do not suppose small blocks would be interfered with. 93. You do not think there is any special reason to feel insecure about your lease: it has been pointed out in some parts of the country that the reason the freehold is desired by the Crown tenants is that they feel these leases may be broken and a revaluation clause put into them?- I do not feel any insecurity so long as I can adhere to the lease and carry it out. If the lease has to be broken it will be myself who will break it, because I cannot farm successfully under my present conditions. . 94. You think the cropping conditions are the worst penalty you have to work against here? Yes. 95. Mr. Paul.] You said the Land Board threatened to forfeit your section: have you ever heard of one being forfeited by the Land Board?—l have read of cases, but I have never met with them. In my own case there is a feeling of insecurity, and this feeling has retarded me from putting on improvements I would otherwise have done.
J. T. HAY.I
423
C—4.
96. Has the Land Board declared any section on Waikakahi forfeited? —Not that I know of. 97. Do you not think that any relaxation for dispensing with the residence conditions would lead to dummyism ? —I believe in the residence conditions, but I think in my own case the Board should take into consideration my residence on the section. My wife was the lessee, and I was living on the section. 98. Mr. Matheson.] If a new Land Board was constituted it would be a considerable expense for the sake of the settlers' convenience: do you think it would be reasonable they should pay anything towards that expense? —If they altered the cropping conditions I do not think a new Board is necessary, but if the Board has discretionary power it is necessary they should see the land for themselves. The Ranger can only report as to his opinions. 99. Mr. McCardle.] When you took up this land the Government had had very little experience in regard to cropping? —I believe the Hon. John McKenzie had had considerable experience. 100. But he was only one member of the House, and he had to submit to the different opinions when bringing in his cropping regulations: is it not a reasonable thing that if an amendment is in the interests of the settlers, and is not against the interests of the country, that that amendment should be made in the cropping regulations? —I think it would be in the interests of the settlers and the country to have amendments to give the settlers a free hand. It would mean more produce and increased traffic on the railways. 101. And, being an experienced farmer, you considered in applying for the land the State would treat you in a reasonable and common-sense way in regard to the cropping regulations?— That is what I anticipated. John Bruce examined. 102. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on Waikakahi, and I have been there six years. I hold 121 acres, for which I pay 18s. an acre. Igo in for cropping and sheep. 103. Have you found the same difficulty in regard to the cropping regulations as the previous witnesses have stated? —Yes ; they are unworkable. 104. Have you anything to suggest that is new? —No. I agree with what Mr. Hay has said that five or six crops could be taken off the heavy land with advantage. 105. Is there any other point 3'ou would like to express an opinion upon? —No. 106. Mr. Anstey.] What modification would you suggest in the cropping restrictions? —I think if a man pays his rent in advance and puts improvements on his section, he should be allowed to work his land at it suits him. 107. You would do away with cropping restrictions altogether?- Yes. 108. Is there not a danger that some tenants would overcrop their land? I do not think so. 109. Wotild you have no restrictions as to grassing down? —No. 110. What would prevent you taking three or four crops in succession and leaving the land in stubble? —If a man puts on improvements and pays his rent in advance, that is quite sufficient. 111. Have you ever exceeded what you were allowed by the cropping conditions of your lease? —Yes. 112. Did you ask the Board's permission? —Yes, in some cases. They always granted me what I asked. 113. I presume you never ask for anything unreasonable? —No. 114. You are not satisfied with the permission given from time to time: you want your lease amended ? —Yes ; I would like to crop the section as it suits me. 115. Mr. Johnston.] Do you know anything about the constitution of Land Boards? —I think the Crown tenants should be represented on them. 116. Would you advocate holding a meeting in Timaru, or do you think the meetings are sufficient where they are?—lf the cropping conditions are altered the meetings would be just as convenient at Christchurch. 117. You are satisfied with your tenure? —Yes. 118. Mr. Matheson.'] Would you be satisfied if the cropping conditions were altered to suit the land: say, two white crops to be allowed on 10s. land, and between 10s. and 15s. three crops, and beween 15s. and £1 four crops? Do you think that would be a simple and reasonable way of dealing with the matter? —It would be a great deal better than the present arrangement, and it would satisfy me. Alexander Forsyth examined. 119. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on Waikakahi, and I have been there six years. I hold 110 acres, for which I pay 18s. 120. I suppose you say "Ditto" to the evidence of the previous witnesses in regard to the cropping conditions J— Yes; I indorse what has been said. 121. Have you any new light to throw upon the subject? —I think if a man keeps half of his section in grass he should be allowed to take three grain crops off the other half. 122. Mr. Anstey.] Except for the cropping restrictions, you are otherwise pretty well satisfied with your tenure and rent? —Yes. 123. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. I know people who applied for a certain sum, and a man came round and valued their improvements at about £300, and, although a loan of £100 only was asked for, the Board granted them only £50. 124. Was any reason given why they did not advance £100? —No reason whatever. 125. What would you suggest as a modification of the cropping restrictions? Do you agree with the suggestion made by Mr. Matheson that the cropping should vary according to the price of the land?— Yes, that would be qtiite satisfactory. 126. Mr. Johnston.] Have you any Californian thistle? —No. 127. Mr. Forbes.] Has any settler had his section forfeited for breaking the conditions?— Not that I know of.
C—4.
424
I A. FOESYTH.
128. Do you think the Land Board have been very reasonable in the past? —I think so. 129. Mr. Paul.] Have you ever asked the Land Board for anything and had your request refused ? -No. 130. Mr. Matheson.] Can you say if the settler who only got £50 had any of his rent overdue? —It was not overdue. 131. Have you any objection to tell us the name, so that we can make further inquiry? —It was my mother. 132. Did the valuer put £300 on the improvements? —About that. I cannot say exactly. 133. Mr. McCardle.\ In your opinion, does an offer such as that in any way meet the requirements of the settlers ? —No. 134:. Do you think that some modification should be made in the existing law so as to meet the requirements of the settlers? —I do not understand anything about it. I have had no experience myself. Michael Henstridge examined. 135. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer at Glenavy. I hold 421 acres, and I pay 4s. 6d. rent. I have been there since the settlement started. 136. Are you satisfied with your lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —Not exactly. I did not anticipate that these cropping' regulations would be enforced. My section was all in rape when I took it up. My section is very poor land, and no one offered for it but myself. When I took up the land I had to buy expensive teams and implements, and now the land is all down in grass The Land Board will not allow me to take a third crop off any of it. Am Ito have it all in crop for two years and all in turnips another year, and then all in grass? What am Ito do? 137. Were you a farmer before you took up this land? —I was a farmer's man in England for about ten years, but, practically speaking, I was a railway contractor's man. 138. I wanted to know if you had had any farming experience, and knew what you were doing when you entered into this arrangement ?—You can take it from me that I have had experience enough. I never anticipated that these cropping restrictions would be mentioned so long as I put on improvements and went on in a reasonable way. There was never a word said about these cropping conditions when I took the land up. 139. Have you ever gone to the Land Board in regard to your cropping conditions? —No. I wrote to them' once about the Waimate County Council's water-races, and they bluffed me off. The less I have to do with the Government and their officers the better it suits me. 140. Mr. Forbes.] You took up the land in rape: what did your conditions compel you to do?—I had to put half of it in crop and leave the other half idle, because I could not afford the teams and plant to put the whole of it under crop and carry out the other improvements as well. I do not see why these conditions should be mentioned to a settler so long as he otherwise carries out the conditions of his lease. If a settler resides on his section and improves it that should be good enough for the Government, and he should be allowed to crop as he reasonably thinks fit. 141. Mr. Paul.] Your land is poor? —Yes, it is more stones than land. 142. Do you think that land would stand the three or four crops you want? —Undoubtedly it would not. A man would not be fool enough to go and crop where he could not get anything. 143. You do not want the Land Board to allow that,?- WLy should the Land Board interfere. Why should the Land Board pay officers to look after comparatively nothing. The man who is on the land can be left to find out what is necessary for the land. 144. Mr Hall.] Is your land fit land to bear three crops?— Some of it is fairly good, and some is only good for grazing. Joseph Corcoran examined. 145. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and I farm 198 acres at Waikakahi, which is held by my wife. It is on a yearly tenancy, the land being a plantation reserve, and the rent is 4s. per acre. I also hold ten acres of educational reserve, for which I pay 10s. per acre. On the 198 acres I have put up buildings which have cost me £200, and I have also subdivided the land into paddocks. 146. I am surprised at you putting up buildings on a yearly tenure?- Where else could I put them ? 147. Is there any particular matter you would like to bring before the Commission? —Yes. I would like, in the first place, to say something about the rebate of rent for prompt payment. My neighbour, who has a lease in perpetuity, and who pays identically the same rent as I do, gets the rebate allowed to him, whilst it is refused to me. I think there is an injustice there, because, if the revenue comes out of the revenue from the Waikakahi Settlement, I am entitled to it as a tenant on the settlement, and if it comes out of the consolidated revenue of the country I am entitled as a colonist to the rebate if the others are entitled to it. 148. The rebate was not intended for temporary tenures such as yours, which is only a license ?—That may be so, but if so the law then requires amending. 149. You think the rebate should apply to all Crown tenants? —Yes. 150. Is there any other point you would like to mention?- -I think it would be very advisable if the Crown tenants were given the option of the freehold on a certain basis. I think they should have the right to pay off to, say, 15 per cent, of the capital value of their holdings, down to 2s. or 3s. per acre if first-class land and proportionately for second- and third-class land. It would be good for the tenant and better for the State. For the tenant it would act as an old-age pension, for when his family are around him he can easily pay the rent on the full value, but when they have left him for homes of their own the difference between the rent of 10s. per acre and 3s. per acre will enable him to pay for the labour which he will necessarily require to engage for the farm. It would act also for the State much better than the present system. At present the State is in the position of an absentee landlord, because they have to go to London for their money. At the
J. COEOOEAN.]
425
C—4.
end of twenty years a man who is paying 10s. per acre will have paid £10. Of that the London money-lender will have got £7 and the State will have got £3. The tenant will be no better oS as regards his land, the money-lender will have received £7 and still have a mortgage of £10 on the land, while the State will have received £3, which it has spent in administration. It is a great strain on the country for that to occur, and it could not occur if the State was not an absentee landlord. The position would be different if the money could be borrowed internally. In fact, the present lease-in-perpetuity system would then be perfect, but, as it is, the money having to be borrowed outside, it is a very bad business speculation. 157. Do you not think the very fact of the men being settled on the land has enabled the State to realise many times over by the price of the additional produce exported what you point out as a direct loss through having to go to the London market ? —Yes; but having borrowed the money I think we should allow the tenants, where possible, to pay off a portion of the value of the land. I think it would be fair, too, that the tenants should be asked to pay 1 per cent.— that is, that for every £100 they were paying off they should pay £110. It would be a step in the right direction. A good deal has been said in the cities about giving the freehold, and one would think that those people imagined that when a person bought a section of land he might take it up and run away out of the country with it. It is immaterial whether a man pays rent or buys the freehold. If he does not work his land to the best advantage he is no good to the State, no matter what his tenure is. I think if a man has a chance of getting a freehold he will do better by the State. Ido not think that the lease in perpetuity should be done away with, for I think it is one of the very best systems that could be introduced; but, at the same time, I think the right to acquire the freehold to a certain extent should be given. Practically, it is more in the interests of the State than of the tenant. Now, I would like to say a word about the unearned increment, so called. The increase here in the values of farms to-day is solely due to the energy of the settlers. In Allan McLean's time the land was simply turned over about once in ten years, and a crop of turnips put in, after which it was put in grain and grass. Since, however, the land has come into the hands of the tenants it has in most cases been worked to the best advantage, and to that is due the increased productiveness, and therefore value, of the land. Other contingencies that tend to give increased value to land are the moneys spent by the farmers in developing the industries of the district. Creameries have been established, yards have been erected a £ Studholme at a cost of £800, the Pareora Freezing-works would not have been there but for the farmers taking up shares, and only twelve months ago the farmers authorised the expenditure of £50,000 on the harbour at Oamaru. All that helps the district, and if you consider these matters you will see that there is no unearned increment. Another thing, if you go to a man's farm it is impossible to see all the work that has been done. I have spent, myself, £12 in draining 2 acres. That is more than the value of the land, but its value is there all the same. If a man at the end of seven or ten years gets a price for his goodwill he has earned that, either directly or indirectly. A property in Timaru the other day was sold at a price £3,400 more than that a,t which it was purchased five years ago. That was due to the work of the farmers who were instrumental in having the freezing-works erected. The Government would only be doing right by moving heaven and earth to assist the farmer to work his farm to advantage. Government cannot spend too much money on the farmer, because he is the life and soul of the country. I would also like to say, on the question of improvements, that the land never forgets a single ton of manure that is put on it. 152. What is your view with regard to the cropping restrictions? —As a general principle, it is quite right that there should be restrictions, but it must be admitted by any one who knows anything of the subject that the same conditions will not apply to all lands. I think a good plan would be that the settlers should appoint two gentlemen who know the land of their district to co-operate with the Crown Lands Ranger each year in making the cropping restrictions for those farms for which application to vary the restrictions has been made. 153. You think, then, that the Land Board should have discretionary power to alter the cropping regulations?— Yes; they should have a lot more discretion. "154. Do you think the present constitution of the Land Board is satisfactory ?—Certainly. If the Government do not appoint the Land Board how can they carry out the land laws which they sanction? I would like to have my tenure altered not necessarily to 999 years, but to a longer term, because under the present lease I cannot work the land to its best advantage. I reckon the State loses by not giving a longer tenure. 155. Mr. Anstey.\ Do they propose to plant this plantation reserve you have got?—lt was set apart for a plantation. I have the right to crop 25 acres. 156. What more do you want,?- I have spent a lot of money on the place. 157. You would like the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 158. Have you been a lease-in-perpetuity tenant yourself ?—Yes, at Horsley Downs. 159. Have you ever been a freeholder? —Yes. 160. How does the lease in perpetuity compare with the freehold for a man of moderate means? —Lease in perpetuity is the tenure for a man of moderate means. There is no question about that. 161. Mr. Paul.] You believe in the freehold? —Yes. 162. Why would you not allow tenants to acquire the freehold instead of a partial freehold? —Man is only mortal, and he is very greedy, and he will lay his fingers on anything he can get hold of. 163. You think there is no possibility of legislation being enacted to repress the greediness you refer to?— You cannot legislate for morality. 164. Is acquiring freehold a question of morality?—lt is a question of greed, which is innately born in man. 165. Is that greed the yearning or sentiment that we hear as being inherent in the heart of every Britisher ?—Sentiment is the nice term that they apply to it. They talk about land being
54—C. 4.
a—4.
426
[j. COBCOKAN.
the birthright of the people, but the land of New Zealand is the birthright of the Maori, from whom we came and took it. 166. Is there any analogy between the New Zealand Government as a landlord and the absentee landlords of Ireland? —In a small way, and that only as regards interest going out of the country. 167. Is it better to be a tenant under the New Zealand Government than under an absentee landlord in Ireland? —Certainly. 168. Mr. Johnston.] Have you owned any land in Ireland? —No. 169. You do not speak from personal experience, then? —I lived eighteen years Miere. 170. How much land had you at Horsley Downs? —62 acres. 171. Is your neighbour's land as good as your 198 acres? —They are just the same quality. 172. Was there any understanding that you were paying 4s. without remission of rent on account of having a lesser rental? —No. When I made my first payment after the Rebate Act passed I deducted 10 per cent, remission, which I though I was entitled to, but I was called upon to repay the amount. 173. Mr. Matheson.~\ Is there anything in your lease safeguarding to you compensation for improvements if the lease is not renewed? —I had a letter from the late Commissioner telling me that my successor would have to pay valuation for improvements. 174. Mr. McGutchan.'] Was it not clearly pointed out when the Rebate Act was passed that' the profit the Crown was making out of the land warranted the remission ? —Yes. 175. And you think you have just claim to it? —Yes. 176. Have you had any clear explanation why you were not granted the rebate? —No. They simply wrote to me saying that no-rebate was given on such a tenure. 177. Where a transfer of a lease in perpetuity is applied for to the Land Board do you think that the Land Board should give attention only to the capability of the transferee, and that the amount of consideration which he is paying to the transferor should not be a question within the province of the Board to inquire into? —I do not see that the Land Board has anything to do with the price that is paid. 178. But they should have the right to inquire into the bona fides of the transferee? — Certainly. 179. With regard to this unearned increment, you have mentioned certain works and operations on the part of the farmer outside of his own land which you say have caused the increased value; but over and above these considerations may there not be a small margin? Is not that because of the individualising of the wealth of the colony, and that the portion called the unearned increment is nothing more than the tenants' share of the general uplifting of the colony? —Yes. 180. You consider he is entitled to it? —I consider that he is entitled to everything within his fence.
Timaru, Wednesday, sth April, 1905. Bernard E. H. Tripp examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a sheep-farmer, and appear for the executors of the late C. G. Tripp, Orari Gorge Station. I have been there for thirty-six years. I desire to read the following petition in respect to pastoral runs. ' There is another petition to come which I have not got. I did not have much time to send the petitions round, otherwise I might have got more signatures. 2. I suppose these are all pastoralists ? —No; there are some farmers about Geraldine who said that they thought the terms of the lease of the runs should be altered, as much for their interest as for the interest of any one else. There is another matter I would like to draw attention to: on the 31st March, 1904, the only two accounts that showed a decrease in the revenue for the year were pastoral rents, £16,359, and deferred payment, about £3,000. The returns for the present financial year are not out yet, therefore I cannot give the figures. It seems to me that something must be wrong in connection with the pastoral rents when the rents are decreasing. A few of these blocks may have been taken for settlement purposes, but not many of them. I would also like to give the sheep returns of the hill country, between Rangitata and Waitaki, from 1895 to 1903 —I thought it was not fair to take in the year 1903, when we had the severe snow-storm —the returns show a shortage on those runs of one hundred and ten thousand sheep on the hill country between the Rangitata and the Waitaki Rivers. I did not go further south because I was not quite sure of the country as to which was pastoral and which was not, but, I think, in respect to Otago, the returns would show that the shortage has been a great deal more. The main thing that we want is to be encouraged to improve our country, and get valuation for improvements. If we improve the land we do not mind paying more rent, as long as the country will carry more sheep, but at the present time the country will not carry more sheep. In reference to surface-sowing, I would like to say this: about fifteen years ago my father began surface-sowing the Crown land, chiefly with cocksfoot grass-seed. He spent about £500 in improving the Crown land. After my father's death I thought to myself, " I may get no benefit out of it," and so I knocked of! those improvements in grassing, but I would be only too glad to show the members of the Commission if they are up there that the grass sowed by my father has taken wonderfully well It would almost have paid "us to have gone on with the sowing if we had a better tenure. We sowed up to an altitude of 3.300 ft. In some cases the cocksfoot is now a couple of feet high. In the back country the grass has rather gone back. The native feed has eaten out. There is no encouragement for surface-sowing. The back country will not carry so much stock as it used to do. As I have said, the native grass has been eaten out, and the only way to improve the country
B. B. H. TRIPP.]
427
C—4.
is by surface-sowing English grasses, such as cocksfoot and Chewing's fescue. We burned in the spring, chiefly in September, and then surface-sowed. It would take too many men to surfacesow all the land at once. We do it just as we find it convenient, and we test how it takes in different parts of the run. Our country is a shade wet, and the grass has taken wonderfully well. In the case of very dry country it would not take so well. On the sides of creeks, in gullies, and on the shady sides of the hills it takes well. The wether country, which is high country, is decreasing in value every year, and 1 do not know what the Government will do when a lot of these leases run out. Sheep cannot be put on this high country at the present high price. The run I am specially referring to is at Orari Gorge, and the area of Government land is about 22,000 acres, and there are 22,000 acres of education reserves. Both are leasehold. The rainfall at the station shows an average of about 47 in., but that is the wettest part of the whole run. If you go five miles away it is much drier. That is in the hill country. 3. Mr. Johnston.] Are you speaking on behalf of any other runholders? —I have not been instructed to speak on their behalf. lam only speaking in reference to the position generally. 4. The Chairman.] What rent do you pay for the Crown land —the 22,000 acres? —£750 to the Government, and £700 to the Education Reserves Commissioners. There is one thing I want to point out. If the Government think the land is fit to cut up for settlement we do not want to block that, but if they take up the land we desire to have compensaion for improvements. That is set forth in the petition. A lot of the country has been ruined by cutting oil the ewe country and leaving the wether country, so that we cannot breed enough sheep to keep the flock going. There is the Bluecliffs Run. That is an example of that. There is only one other thing I would like to say. The blocks that were cut ofi were cut off before Sir John McKenzie and Mr. Duncan's terms of office. Those Ministers-treated us as fairly as they possibly could. According to a paragraph in the newspapers the School Commissioners of Otago are going to give valuation for grassseed. The paragraph in question says, " Valuation to be made on grass for two seasons prior to the expiry of the lease." Ido not know exactly what that means. 5. Mr. Paul.] 1 think the word "sown" between "on" and "for two seasons" has been left out? —That may be so. Then Mr. Barron, Chairman of the School Commissioners, said it was contemplated giving the tenants the right of renewal. That is what we are asking for —namely, valuation, if we improve the country. 6. Mr. Johnston.] Did you say it was entirely cocksfoot that your father sowed? —Yes, I think so. 7. Up to what altitude? —3,200 ft. is about the highest. 8. Was the tussock burned before it was sown? —Yes, it was burnt in the spring, and then we sowed the grass on the top of it. 9. Has it given satisfaction? —Yes, it has taken wonderfully. 10. How long have you held this run? —My father took it up in 1856, and it has been held by the family ever since. My father was the first person to put sheep on that country. 11. Did you Jose any sheep in the bad snow-storm? —We lost 8,800 sheep in 1895. 12. Did you get any consideration from the Land Board for it? —Yes, we got some consideration, and the lease was extended for seven years. The Education Commissioners reduced their rent £70 a year. 13. Is there any agricultural land on it? —Scarcely any. The freehold takes in all the low country. 14. How much freehold is there? —About 17,000 acres. That is the winter country. 15. Have you any Californian thistle?— Yes, on some of the paddocks on the freehold. 16. Is it increasing? —I keep it in check with salt. 17. Has that been a success? —Fairly successful. It is a great trouble, and I believe it will be a serious thing. 18. Do you approve of the present constitution of the Land Boards? —As long as they have more power to deal with the cases as we suggest in the petition. That is all we can ask. 19. Mr. Paul.] Amongst the signatures to the petition some are farmers in addition to the pastoralists ? —Yes. 20. You said the shortage in certain years was 110,000 sheep. That is not altogether due to the deterioration of the pasture, is it? For instance, the high price of sheep at the present time has a little to do with it, has it not? —That has something to do with it. The country will not carry the stock that it used to carry. 21. Your father did some surface-sowing, How long ago is that? —About fifteen years ago, and it is improving every year and spreading over the land. 22. What was your loss of sheep in 1903 after the heavy snow-storm? —6,600 sheep, but in 1895 we got a concession from the Government. 23. Does the concession made by the Education Reserves Commissioners in the South apply up here?—l could not tell you. I hope it will, because they seem inclined to give a right of renewal. The school reserves authorities some time ago reduced our rent by £70, but they did not extend the lease. 24. Do you think it would be an improvement if the Land Board had charge of all these Crown lands? —That is rather a difficult question to answer, because the Education Reserves Commissioners have already agreed to give a concession in respect to grass-seed, and they are considering the question of the right of renewal. If they give those concessions then it would be better to be under the School Commissioners, unless the Land Board also grants it. 25. Mr. Anstey.] Will you explain the difference between the tenure under the Government and the tenure under the School Commissioners? —Under the School Commissioners the lease is for twenty-one years with no right of renewal, and valuation is given for improvements—for fencing, plantations, and huts. The Government give valuation for fences and huts, but it must not exceed three times the annual rent. I think the School Commissioners are exactly the same as the Government.
C.—4.
428
[b. e. h. tbipp.
26. You have a quantity of freehold land on the low ground?- —Yes. 27. Is there sufficient low country to work the high country properly without the freehold land? —No. 28. The high ground could scarcely be cut up into smaller areas unless the Government resumed the freehold of the low ground ? —That is so. 29. If the freehold were resumed could it be cut up into smaller areas? —It might, but it would want a lot of looking into. 30. What you really want is security for your improvements? —Yes, to encourage us to improve our country by sowing grass-seed, putting in plantations for shelter, and putting up fences. If we were encouraged to do that we would not mind paying more rent if the country will carry more sheep. 31. If you got a right of renewal and valuation for improvements you would go on spending money on surface-sowing, and you would not mind if land was acquired for settlement, a piece being cut out? —Yes, if we got a right of renewal; but we would want to know what blocks were to be taken off. 32. If you got full compensation for improvements? —They could not take the low spurs and leave the high land. There is one block of 1,500 acres; if that had been taken the rest of the country would have been useless. 33. Have you any restrictions as to cropping or cultivation? —Yes. I do not think you are allowed to plough the leased land. 34. You are not allowed to cultivate a bit of land for winter feed? —I think that is so, but 1 think it would be a very good thing to encourage people to cultivate. 35. I suppose if you undertook to grass down after cropping it would be all the better for it? —Yes. I may state that I saved live or six thousand sheep on the freehold the winter before last, and if I had had a bit of hay on the leasehold I might have saved many more sheep. 36. Mr. McGutchan.\ Can you make any practical suggestion as to the means of estimating the value of grassing—that seems to be a difficulty? —The only way, I think, would be that suggested in the petition to send in vouchers to the Land Board showing what the grass-seed cost. 39. Would the revaluation be inclusive or exclusive of improvements in the way of grassing ? —It would include the improvements. 40. Then, you would be charging a rent on your own improvements. Supposing you got the lease fixed by arbitration, the point I wish to ask you is: would the rent be exclusive of the improvements put on by way of grassing? —Including them. We do not mind paying more rent if the land will carry more sheep. We do not mind paying rent on our own work if we can make money from it. I would be content to leave it to arbitration to settle the rent. 41. Mr. Forbes.] How would it do if you had a stipulation like this in the lease: in the event of your spending a certain amount of money in surface-sowing, you would be entitled to a renewal for twenty-one years so as to get the benefit of the regrassing? —That would be fair, and it would be a simpler way. 42. From the evidence given before the Commission in Otago, it appears that the tenants there want compensation for grassing cultivated land. I take it that the concession proposed to be granted by the School Commissioners referred to that class of land, and not to surface-sowing on high country. Would it not be a very difficult thing to arrive at valuation for surface-sowing on high country? —Yes. It would be a very hard thing to do. The way you suggest would be the simplest way of dealing with the difficulty. If we improved the land and expended money on grass-seed we should have the right of renewal. 43. Mr. Matheson.] Does the petition ask for a perpetual right of renewal ? —lt asks for a perpetual right of renewal if the Government does not think the land fit to cut up. 44. In that case, the improvements are to be secured by arbitration ?—Yes. 45. And the rent is to be settled by arbitration? —Yes. 46. Do you think it is wise to have two bodies administering the Crown land in the same district —that is, the Land Boards and the School Commissioners ? —I have not gone into that question and therefore cannot answer it. 47. Mr. Hall.] If you had a right of renewal would that meet the difficulty as to grassing? — If we had a right of renewal with valuation of improvements for grassing, that would encourage us to sow grass. We are willing to supply the grass-seed and sow it. If the Government wanted the land to cut up at the end of the lease they should pay us compensation for grassing. 48. You have a knowledge of the high country? —Yes, I know most of the country in Canterbury. 49. I understand you to say that grassing on the high country would be a success? —I think that grassing on most of the country would be a success; there are always gullies that could be sown. 50. What kind of grasses do you consider should be sown on these runs? —Cocksfoot and Chewing's fescue take very well, and I am told that crested dogstail is also a good grass. 51. Sho'uld the Government exercise supervision over the grass-seed that is sown so as to prevent the spread of noxious weeds? —It might be a good thing. We do not want Californian thistle or ragwort here. 52. Mr. McLennan.] You said the native grass has been eaten out? —Yes. 53. Did you ever try to improve it? —We spell some of our country for a good many months in the year and then sow swedes, and if there are any stock on it they eat it out. 54. Did you ever try fencing a couple of thousand acres and letting it have a spell for, say, twelve months? —No, I have never tried that. It would be very hard to fence the high country, and it would require a lot of fencing to be done. 55. Do you think if you got a longer lease you might try to get back the native grass? —Yes, if we had a better tenure it might be a very good thing to try that. I have seen annis-seed come
B. E. H. TEIPP.]
429
a—4
back in country where sheep have got at it and where it has been spelled, but I have never seen Maori cabbage come back. As to the native blue grass, it might come back, but I could not say. 56. Have you got any rabbits? —Yes, there are rabbits right through the South Island, but they are not thick in this country. 57. Mr. McCardle.] Have you ever known any runholder use the screenings from grass-seed machines for grassing runs in high country? —Some years ago I believe we used some grass-seed screenings. 58. Do you not think it is a dangerous thing to do —that it may spread noxious weeds? —Yes. One ought to have the very best cleaned seed. 59. One witness recently informed the Commission that the screenings had been used very largely by him ? -It might ruin the country by causing the spread of noxious weeds. 60. Mr. Ilall.] In regard to the grassing of high country, would it be desirable for the Government to try an experiment with different grasses, including native grass ? —lt would not be a bad idea to try such an experiment. 61. There are some native grasses in the North Island that might be experimented with?— It seems to me that it would be just as well to try the native grasses, such as blue tussock, &c. 62. Mr. Matheson.] Have you tried danthonia, a grass which grows well on pumice land in the North? —No, but I thought of getting some seed down and trying it on my land. 63. Mr. Johnston.] Have you tried tree-planting? —No, not on the higK leasehold land. 64. Would it do? —Some trees, such as larch, might grow. The trouble would be with the fires in the spring. 65. How high do you winter your sheep ?—About 3,500 ft. 66. And do they do well as -high as that? —Yes. 67. Supposing the runs were being cut up into small grazing-runs, how many sheep do you think a man would require in order to make a fair living from them? —I think, about a thousand ewes. 68. Mr. Anstey.] I desire to draw your attention to one word in the petition which has been read by you, and it seems to me that that word is rather unreasonable. The words in the petition are, "three-fourths of the cost of the improvements." I would suggest that you should substitute the word "value" for the word "cost." Do you agree to substitute the word "value" for the word " cost " ? —Yes. Henry Knight examined. 69. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a carpenter, and I have been in Timaru about four months and in New Zealand about thirty-two years. I may state that I have occupied a leasehold from the State in the North Island. I had a little over 30 acres under perpetual lease at Pahiatua. It provided for revaluation in thirty years' time. At that time a petition was got up to convert the sections into freehold, and I objected, because I thought that was the best system of leasehold ever invented. Afterwards it was turned into lease in perpetuity, and I object to that also. If I was a landlord I should think that was a very bad system indeed. I also had a lease with two others of 200 acres at Waiwera, in the same district. I do not believe in the leasehold at all. I would rather see all the lands freehold. I am entirely in favour of the socalled freehold, and I believe (hat it is in the interests of the people that there should be an increase of a penny in the pound in the land-tax, without any exemption at all. I have never been able to see why there should be a graduated land-tax. 70. Mr. Paul.] Do you think that the leasehold system is necessary in order to settle people on the land? —I recognise that a good many people are in a stronger position through it, but I find it has not benefited the masses at all. Their position is the same as ever it was. When I was in the Pahiatua district I tried for a long time to get a section under the ballot, but I was not successful, and I know many people who had the same experience. Therefore if it is such a good thing to be on the land I think the whole community should reap the benefit of it. 71. You think if the land-tax was made heavy enough it would cheapen the land, and that therefore the poor man could get on the land I—l1 —I have not the slightest doubt about it. 72. Mr. Matheson.] I understand you think that in the disposal of Crown lands the sections should go to the highest bidder ? —I should give the freehold at the original valuation, and, in my opinion, the land-tax would meet all requirements. 73. But you would sell them the land? —Yes. 74. Then, I understand that having sold the land you propose to make them pay rent for it? —I would tax the land, but you might call it a ground rent. 75. Mr. McLennan.] Would you apply this ground rent to the town as well as to land in the country? —Certainly; to all land according to its value, but not according to its quantity. 76. You say that land settlement has done no good to tradesmen such as yourself? —Not to the mass of the workers. 77. May I ask what carpenters' wages were in 1894 and 1895? —I was getting 10s. a day when I worked for wages. 78. I knew good carpenters getting 7s. 6d. and Bs. a day in those years? —Well, I never worked for Bs. 79. And a few years afterwards they were getting 12s. and 14s. a day? —I do not think that is owing to the land-for-settlements policy. The workers only get what they earn; but we want some of this unearned increment as well. We want some of the good things as well as the bad. 80. Mr. McCardle.] On what terms would you give the land: on a sort of deferred-payment system? —So far as I am concerned, I would give them the option of keeping as they are or keeping to the freehold. 81. Was the village settlement at Pahiatua a success? —Yes.
a—4.
430
[m. j. corrigan.
Michael Joseph Cobrigan examined. 82. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I hold 372 acres under lease in perpetuity at Waikakahi. I pay 6s. 9d. per acre rent. I was one of the original settlers. 83. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —No. 84. What is your objection? —I would like the option of purchase. 85. Do you think your present tenure is not secure enough, or what? —For one reason, I think the tenure is not secure, owing to a Bill I saw introduced by Sir John McKenzie in 1896. Another reason is, I think it would be better for the State and better for the tenant that the option of purchase should be given, or that they should be allowed to pay off a portion of their capital value. My reason for saying this is that I think we would be inclined to farm our land better and improve it more, so as to make a bank of our own sections. I think it would be better for the State that we should be allowed to purchase, because the State might purchase more land with the money we pay in for our sections. 86. Would you be satisfied with paying off a part of your capital value? —No; I would like to pay off as I could until I had paid it all off. I think that would be much better for all Crown tenants. There are many Crown tenants who say they are satisfied with the tenure. I have never met a Crown tenant yet who is really satisfied to be paying rent for all time. I think an eternal lease was never meant, and I really believe if the late Sir John McKenzie was alive to-day he would see the fallacy of the present system, and that he would have it altered so that we should have the right of purchase. 87. Supposing the Government brought in a Bill to empower them to give you that right, would you expect to get the land tit the original price at which you took up your section, or would you agree to a revaluation I—Not1 —Not so long as the country lost nothing by the Crown tenants. When Sir John McKenzie introduced this settlement scheme he said that so long as the country did not lose anything he would be quite satisfied that the country should make nothing out of the Crown tenants. If the country has made any bad deals in some estates and really good bargains in regard to others, I think they should make a pro rata, levy on the successful ones, so that the country should lose nothing out of these estates. Apart from that, I really think the tenants are entitled to the profits of their own industry. Ido not think there is any unearned increment. It is due to us settlers taking up shares in the dairy factories and creameries and freezing-works and paying freight on our stuff to the London market. 88. Do you think the present constitution of the Land Board satisfactory? —I think it is better as it is than to have it elected on a broad franchise. If boroughs and cities were excluded and the settlers only had the right to vote election might be an improvement. For myself, I have nothing to say against the Land Board. I have always got on well with the Board. 89. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —I was one of the first to borrow money from, them in the North Island. I got an advance once. I found out that if you wanted to borrow £300 you had to ask for a loan of £900. I managed one time to apply for £350, and all I got was £125. 90. Was your valuation considerably above what you got ? —Yes. At that time I had an interest of about £700 in this property. 91. Mr. Paul.\ You say there is no such thing as unearned increment? —That is my opinion in regard to the estates purchased under the land-for-settlements policy. 92. How far are you from the railway-station? —About six miles and a quarter. 93. Has the fact of the railway going through the Waikakahi Estate improved the price of the land all over Waikakahi in the same ratio? —If there was any unearned increment the original owner, Mr. Allan McLean, got it, because the railway went through the property before we went there. 94. Have you always believed in the freehold tenure? —Not always. When I was a boy, and did-not know better, I always held for the leasehold. I have always believed in the freehold since I came to a proper understanding. 95. Why did you take up a leasehold if you think the freehold is so much better?—Do not misunderstand me. I did not say I do not believe in the leasehold. I say the leasehold is one of the best systems introduced into the colony, but it is to help the poor man. It has put many men on the land who never would have got on the land but for the leasehold system. 96. Then, you think the leasehold system should be continued, and when a man is in a position to obtain the freehold his lease should be broken? —Not broken. I reckon the leasehold is a step for a man to get on to the land. 9*7. Do you not think that the land-for-settlements policy is built on a leasehold foundation, and that if you take that away will it not be liable to undermine the whole system? —Not necessarily. The money we paid off could go to purchase more estates for the landless. 98. You believe the Government should act as a land agent? —That is what the State is doing when it threatens us with revaluation. 99. Who threatens you? —The Fair Rent Bill seemed to be revaluation. 100. Would that have been retrospective? —According to the Bill, it said, all lands held for a greater period than four years with two years of the lease expired. That was the Bill. 101. Are you afraid of revaluation? —Certainly, I am afraid of revaluation. But even if I was not I would like the option of purchase. 102. Do you think the tenants who are paying too high a rent for their sections on these estates should keep on paying that high rent? —I explained my ideas in regard to them.
M. J. COBRIGAN.I
431
C—4.
103. When you gave the Crown tenants the option of the freehold would you have a general revaluation ? —Not necessarily, except to make up a deficiency. 104. That would entail a general revaluation? —I do not know that it would. 105. If one estate has to contribute something to make up a deficiency on other estates would not the whole have to be revalued? —I do not know of any estates that were bought too dear, witli one exception. That is Pomahaka, which is supposed to have been bought too dear. Ido not know anything about it personally. 106. So long as one estate has been bought too dear the whole of the estates will have to be revalued to make up the loss on that one estate? —If necessary. 107. Mr. Anstey.] Supposing the option of purchase was given, do you not think that immediately the people on the cheap estates would purchase them, and that the other ones would be left on the hands of the State? —It would be easy to draft a clause to prevent that. I say they should reside a certain number of years before they could purchase, so that the Government and the country could be satisfied that the State was not going to lose anything. 108. When the Bill was passed would not the people on the cheap estates buy and leave the others on the hands of the Crown? —When I say "buy the freehold " I would not allow a Crown tenant to raise money from a private lender in order to acquire the freehold. I would not allow them to mortgage their holdings to any private individual until such time as they had reduced their capital value by their own industry and finally paid off the Government. 109. Mr. McCutchan.\ Were you a Crown tenant in the North Island? —Yes, on bush lands. 110. Under what Act?—We took it up under no Act at all. We held the land on the promise of Sir John McKenzie until such time as he introduced and passed the Land Act of 1892. Then we held our land under lease in-perpetuity. 111. Do you know anything about the principle of loading for roads?- Yes. All the settlers who took up in this particular block, known as the Mount Baker Block, were loaded to the extent of 6s. per acre for roads. 112. What was the amount on which you were paying rent? —The land was valued at from 17s. 6d. to £1 ss. per acre, and we were paying rent on a 4-per-cent. basis. 113. And 6s. per acre loading was added for roads? —Yes; for £1 ss. land we were paying 4 per cent, on £1 lis. per acre. 114. And was that 4 per cent, to be paid for the whole term of the lease? —Yes. 115. Do you think it is a fair thing to ask the tenant to pay interest on the loading for the whole term of the lease? —I do not think it is right at all, because we can borrow money through the local bodies and pay it off within a certain period. 116. At 4 per cent, you can pay off interest and principal in thirty-two years? —Yes, about that. 117. You think the payment of interest on loading should cease then?—l think so. 118. Was the expenditure of the loading given to the settlers on the block? —In many cases it was; but many of the settlers were not there at the time, because in this particular district the settlers were not in a position to take the work up. They had to do their bushfelling. 119. Still, it was of benefit to some of the settlers? —Yes, to some of them. 120. You had a personal observation of the expenditure?— Yes. 121. Was any part of it spent by contract? —The settlers got the option. Of course, roads are very expensive to construct in the North Island, and the Government only made 8 ft. tracks, for which they allowed £1 10s. per chain. If they were handed over to the County Council the latter had the option of borrowing money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, and make a drayroad for them. 122. Had you an opportunity of observing the two systems —that is, the expenditure of the loading by the County Council by contract, and the expenditure of the loading by the Government under the co-operative system? —Yes. 123. How do the two systems compare? —So far as benefit to the settlers is concerned, there is no comparison whatever, because the one was done 50 per cent., and, in some cases, cheaper than the other. 124. Which was the cheapest? —The expenditure by the County Council. I knew an instance where two roads were made, the work to be done on each being much about the same. The road made by the Government is known as Barton's line, in the Alfredton district. It cost, I think, 19s. to fell the bush and clear the track of the logs, and then the making of the 8 ft. track cost £3 16s. 6d. a chain, while the other road, known as Mount Baker, only cost £2 19s. to make, and it is a dray-road. I believe of the two Mount Baker was the most difficult to make. 125. Would you say that the system of co-operative works was justified, seeing it brought people from the towns and settled them upon the land? If it was a little more expensive, do you not think the extra cost was justified? —I do not, because it did not benefit the men a bit. Ido not know what it is now, but the system was really bad at that time. The overseer who was sent into the district, to my mind, had no practical experience. He let this road out to gangs of four, five, or six men. Then he sent in a report to the Government stating that this particular section was let, and that it would take so long for these men to make the road. It did not matter if the road was made within that time, the Inspector would not pass the work until the time he specified had expired, and I knew of men who had to lie in their camps doing absolutely nothing until such time that this overseer had mentioned to the Department had expired. 126. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that under better management these co-operative works might be good for the State and the settlers too? Do you think it would be good for the Road Engineer to estimate the cost of the work, and then let it out to men who should work as mates together? —My opinion is it would be better to let it out in small contracts to five or six men, under
0.—4.
432
[m. j. oorrigan.
the supervision of the County Engineer. Under the co-operative system the men do not try to work. They simply start growling at the Department, and that they have not been given a job that will pay. If they do not get a fair rate the men do absolutely nothing, and then they get the work revalued in order to get better pay for it. 127. Mr. Hall.] Did I understand you to say that the lease in perpetuity was a doubtful tenure ? —Yes. 128. Would you consider the freehold safe? —Yes, because if the State requires money for revenue they can raise it equally on leasehold as on freehold. 129. If they can break or ignore a title for 999 years, could they not with equal force break the freehold tenure ? —lt is proved without a doubt they can break either up by the way they are bursting up large estates. They can interfere with the leasehold just as well as with the freehold. 130. Then, according to that, what advantage is there, so far as security of tenure is concerned, in changing from one to the other? —This much: if I can save £100 or £200 I can pay that to the Government and reduce my rent. At present I cannot do that. If I have any money I have to invest it in the Post Office or in the New Zealand Consols, and I only get 4 per cent, for it. Therefore, I lose 1 per cent. 131. But, as regards security of tenure, do you think there is any advantage in changing from one to the other ? —I think there is more security in the freehold, seeing that ten or twelve town members of Parliament have banded themselves together for the special purpose of getting periodical revaluations of all Crown leases. I think it would be better for the farmers of New Zealand to be one body and under the same tenure. 132. You say the Government should not make any profit out of these lands? —I do not think so. 133. Are they making any profits? Is it not understood that the tenants pay on the actual cost to the Government, including all charges? —So far as I know, it is on the cost price. 134. Mr. McLennan.\ Did you sell out of your Crown leasehold in the North Island? —Yes, 1 had 200 acres. 135. At a good premium? —I was satisfied with my premium. It was bush land, and I had a lot of expensive work to do in felling and cultivating. 136. Then you came down here arid took a section in Waikakahi, and now you want the option of the freehold? —Yes. 137. Do you not think it is a very dangerous practice to trifle with the Act?—-I do not think so. 138. Have you any security that, in the event of the Act being amended, the Crown tenants will be as well as they are now? —I certainly think they will be better off if they get the option of purchase. 139. I have no doubt if you and I and some other Crown tenants could frame the Act it would be all right, but there are eighty members in the House and each one has his say in any amendment, so what guarantee have you that we will be better off than we are at the present time? —I think we will. I look upon the members of the House as sensible men, and if the Crown tenants only show it is better for the country and better for them, I have not the slightest doubt but that the House will accede to our request without any hesitation. 140. So far, no request has been placed before the House by the Crown tenants? —Of course, that is largely owing to the threat of the Minister of Lands. As you are aware, we happened to be at a meeting held at a place called Windsor and Elderslie. The meeting was convened by a member of the Otago Land Board, Mr. Livingstone. At that meeting Mr. McLennan proposed a motion in favour of the leasehold. 141. The Chairman.] Do not mention names? —Very well. I want to show you, as you have mentioned it, that although the Crown tenants never actually asked for the freehold they are all in favour of it. At that meeting there were forty-one Crown tenants, and these forty-one Crown tenants carried a resolution in favour of the leasehold, but the chairman of that meeting, in summing up the discussion, said, " In our inmost hearts we are all freeholders, but we are frightened to ask for it owing to revaluation, and having our places put up to public auction." I would be sorry to give offence to anybody, but I say if we have to live in fear of threats the sooner we are not Crown tenants the better it will be for ourselves and the tenants generally. The forty-one Crown tenants at that meeting unanimously agreed to that resolution through fear of what would happen if they asked for the freehold. 142. Mr. McLennan''] It was simply because they were satisfied with the conditions? —Excuse me, they were not. 143. Mr. Forbes.'] Did that meeting agree to what the chairman said, or did he say this in his general remarks?- The convener of the meeting said, " Now the chairman has struck the nail on the head." I have got a report of the meeting in my pocket. There were reporters present from the Oamaru Mail and the North Otago Times. 144. Mr. McLennan.] The Land Commission held a meeting at the very place you allude to, and all the witnesses were unanimous in saying they were satisfied? —They were unanimous then, but they said, " we are afraid to be otherwise." 145. Mr. McCardle.] You have had experience of bush lands, and it is suggested that you sold out and made a good thing?—lt was not a good thing. I was just paid for my work. 146. You know that Crown Rangers come round and value your improvements: do they ever value all the work you really do on a section in bushfelling and grassing? —I do not think they take everything into consideration. I do not think any holder of a bush section ever got Fully paid for the improvements he put on the land. 147. If you thought that your request for the freehold would injure the prospects of future estates being"acquired and cut up, would you ask for the freehold?—lf I thought it was going to stop the bursting-up of large estates and settling men on the land I would certainly rather keep the leasehold.
M. J. CORRIGAN.J
433
0.-4.
148. And you come here honestly believing that the Government have appointed this Commission to ascertain the true sentiments of the people occupying the lands of the colony in regard to the question of tenure? —You have asked me a question that, honestly, I would rather not answer. 149. Apparently, on the face of the statements made, was not this Royal Commission set up to ascertain public opinion in regard to the land-tenures of the colonyl —My opinion is that the Government had no intention of finding out the real sentiments of the country in appointing this Royal Commission. My opinion is they appointed this Commission simply as a kind of stonewall. I may be going too far, but that is my opinion, and that is public opinion. 150. Do you think tlie Government knew the mind of the Commissioners before they appointed them? —Not the Commissioners, but they knew the mind of the public. 151. Yon admit that the Land for Settlements Act has been a great thing for the colony, and your argument is that the option of the freehold, if granted, would not endanger the State in any way, and would be in the interests of the settlers? —If I thought it would endanger the State I would not ask for the option of the freehold. 152. Mr. Paul.] Do you seriously say that some co-operative work in the North Island cost 50 per cent, more than work done by County Council contract? —I really think it cost more than 50 per cent, extra, because, in the case of the road 1 speak of, the road was not made in accordance with the Engineer's plan, and proved absolutely useless. I was over the place three or four years ago. There is a dray-road made there now, and in some places the Government track is 10 ft. or 12 ft. higher than the present road. 153. And there is a difference in favour of the County Council expenditure of 50 per cent.? — I think so. 154. You said the Crown- tenants were apprehensive of revaluation: did you ever hear a proposal made to make the revaluation retrospective? —I read in the papers that Mr. Ell, M.H.R., at a meeting in Dunedin, said that as the land-tax had decreased, although the valuation has increased by £27,000,000, there should be something done to tax the land held under lease in perpetuity. 155. Did you ever see a report of a meeting of a representative, say, a trades conference, representing the town workers where it was proposed and carried that revaluation should be retrospective? —I cannot say I have. 156. You tell us that the Crown tenants are unanimously in favour of the freehold? —Of course, I would not say unanimously. So far as I know, they are unanimous. 157. Then, during the last week or ten days we have had dozens of witnesses from these districts who told us they are perfectly satisfied with the lease in perpetuity and the conditions surrounding them: do you think they were also afraid to speak the truth, although they were on oath? —I do not say they did not speak the truth, but judging from the meeting held at Elderslie and Windsor Park they themselves acknowledged they were afraid. 158. You mean to say that these resolutions were proposed and seconded and a majority voted in favour of them while at the same time they believed in the freehold, and that they were afraid to speak their real opinion? —They themselves stated so. The chairman said he believed they were all freeholders there, and they all cheered him, and the convener of the meeting said the chairman had struck the nail on the head. 159. Then a meeting was called, and the settlers were brought into the hall and discussed the question, and resolutions were moved and carried, and afterwards these tenants said that that was not their sentiments? —It was before the resolution was carried, I think, that the chairman said they were all freeholders, but they were really frightened to say so, owing to a threat made in the House by the Minister of Lands, that if such a thing as the option of the freehold was given it would not be given without revaluation or their sections being put up to public auction. 160. Then, if they were afraid to express their opinions, why did they call that meeting to consider the whole question? —Well, lam on oath, and I can only surmise. I cannot answer that question. I have my opinion, and if I was not on oath I could tell you. 161. Do you not think it is rather a serious thing to say when we have evidence from these people that they are satisfied, and that they have expressed themselves so in public meeting assembled, that privately they want the freehold?—-I am only going by what was stated at the meeting. 162. What is the official report of the meeting? Were resolutions carried to this effect, or were remarks made by one or two, including even the chairman ? —lf you had been at that meeting as I was, and understood the feeling of the meeting, you would have seen that all hands agreed with the chairman. 163. Mr. McCardle.\ Did any one point out the danger that if you made a request for the freehold the contract would be broken? —I was told not to mention names, and if I answer that question I must do so. The convener of the meeting said he had a communication from the Minister of Lands that such would be the case. Robert Elms examined. 164. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 36 acres under lease in perpetuity on the Upper Pareora, for which I pay Is. 3d. per acre rent. [The witness said he wished to complain of the manner in which the Land Board had dealt with his request for a piece of land in the Pareora river-bed. The Chairman ruled, as this was a matter affecting the administration of a Government Department, it did not come within the scope of the Commission.]
55—C. 4.
434
Fr. gttthbie.
a—4.
Burke's Pass, Thursday, 6th April, 1905. Robert Guthrie examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a sheep-farmer holding a small grazing-run of 4,000 acres, with a currency of twenty-one years, and I also have 200 acres of freehold. I have been in the holding for about seven years, and I pay 7d. per acre rent. 2. Are you well satisfied with the conditions of lease, and so forth? —Yes. 3. Can you give us any information about the grassing of runs by surface-sowing? You know that it "is said that the natural pasture on the high country is becoming poorer ?—lt is debatable whether the natural pasture is deteriorating in this part of the country. I have had thirty years' practical experience, and, so far from deteriorating, it is better now than it was thirty years ago. lam referring to the whole of the land within the watershed of the Mackenzie County. 4. Has anything been done in the way of surface-sowing to bring about this improvement, or is it simply Nature being left to work out her own destiny ?—Practically. _ 5. I suppose fencing had something to do with it? —Not much, I think. Anywhere where it has depreciated is where there has been injudicious burning, but that does not amount to a great extent. 6. Is there any other point you would like to give information upon with reference to pastoral runs?— Though the grass is getting a little bit better, I think that by a little judicious subdivision, bringing the present runs down, not to a checker-board, but to small holdings, the carryingcapacity could be greatly increased by judicious surface-sowing. 7. Has any one in this district tried surface-sowing? —Not to any extent, so far as I know, in a thoroughly practical manner. Most of the English grasses that are on the runs have been taken out by sheep which have Ibeen taken oft' English-grass paddocks. In addition to that, of course, there has been a certain amount of surface-sowing. 8. Is there any run on which surface-sowing has been tried on, say, 1,000 acres? —Not that I am aware of. 9. Mr. McLennan.] Are there any large runs here that could be subdivided? —Yes. 10. In cutting them up could the summer and winter country be distributed ?—Yes; but they would have to be cut up by men who know the climate and the country. 11. Would the land be expensive to fence?— Fencing is always expensive, but any fencing put up in the way of subdivision would be recouped by the extra amount that could be taken out of the land by reason of the subdivision. 12. What size of run do you think advisable?—lt would never do to fix a size at all, because you have to take into account the nature of the country. I would say that along the frontage there is any amount of land that could be cut into small grazing-runs, but when once you get into the basin and the back country you would have to be guided by the nature of the land. In that country I should say the minimum size should be a carrying-capacity of about six thousand sheep, and the size would have to be graded from the standard according to how the summer and winter country could be worked in. 13. Do you think that if these runs were subdivided some of the farmers in the low-lying country would take them up and utilise their farms for winter-feed ?—I think they should only be given to bona fide settlers with no connection with the agricultural farms below. With five thou»and sheep or over a man can make a comfortable home in any part of the Mackenzie country. 14. Would you advise an alteration in the Act so as to enable the holders of pastoral runs to cultivate a portion of the land suitable for winter-feed ?—My experience is that when you get to the latitude of the Mackenzie Basin it is not advisable to put a plough into it at all. Anything done would have to be in the shape of judicious surface-sowing. 15. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the country is more likely to improve in small holdings than if held in large holdings ?—There is no question of doubt about it. 16. What seed would you advocate sowing?—ln the valleys and damp places I would suggest white clover, timothy, and cocksfoot, and on the ranges Chewing's fescue. Of course, there may be other grasses equally good, but for the Mackenzie country, I think, those I have suggested would be the most suitable. 17. Have you done any surface-sowing? —Yes. 18. Has it been a success ?—Yes. I have not tried Chewing's fescue, but I have the others. 19. Has there been any agitation by the settlers about here to have these runs cut up? —There has been no public agitation, but it is a well-known fact that the settlers along the frontages are anxious for the land to be subdivided on the lines I suggest. Farmers and settlers in the back country, although they have grievances, are apathetic in bringing them before the public. They do not want in any way to interfere with the leases of the present holders, and they are quite satisfied for things to remain as they are until the expiry of the leases, which will be in about six years. We hope that the whole thing will then be put on different lines and a different tenure substituted. I may say that I express the opinion of the majority of the people in a line from here to the Waitaki and some distance north. 20. You think that if these runs were subdivided there would be plenty of applications for them? —Any quantity. 21. Mr. McCardle.] How does this country, generally, compare with what we have seen to-day between Burke's Pass and Lake Tekapo? —You have seen the worst of it. 22. Is it a fact that nearly all the best of the available country is in the hands of the freeholders?—l do not know. So far as saving stock is concerned in the back country, I reckon that a northerly or north-westerly aspect is the best in the Mackenzie. 23. The evidence that we have had is that it is desirable when cutting up large holdings to purchase some of the freehold frontage in order to give low country with the high ? —I do not think it is desirable. I think they may be worked separately. It would mean that this back country
R. GUTHRIE.]
435
a—4.
would be an out-station and never cultivated at all. There is as good a living for the man on the back country as for the man on the agricultural farm. 24. Could you not have a better subdivision of the rough country if the level country was thrown in with it? —That may be all right in theory. 25. You think practical men should inspect and recommend on the subdivisions'! —Yes. 26. Mr. Anstey.] The Mackenzie country is not stocked to its carrying-capacity. Are the runs fully stocked ? —I do not believe they were quite. 27. Supposing the runs were cut up into smaller areas, do you think they would carry more sheep ? —Yes; it would gradually work into that. 28. You think a smaller quantity than six thousand sheep would be too little? —Yes, when once you get over into the basin. About here there is some land that could be cut up to two thousand sheep. In the Mackenzie, I think, five thousand sheep should be the minimum. 29. Is there none of the land in the Mackenzie country where you could grow winter-feed? — You might do that about the homesteads, but the person who suggests growing winter-feed on hilly country knows nothing about it. When once the sheep get snowed up you cannot get at them with the feed. The only thing to save them is to bring them in before the snows come on, get them on as good an aspect as possible, and fence off the rest. 30. What tenure do you suggest for these new leases? —Practically on the same lines as the small grazing-runs are now, with a twenty-one-years lease with renewal, and valuation should be given for grass. 31. If you had the right of renewal after each lease at an arbitration rental on the value of the ground without the improvements, would that do ? —What encouragement would there be for a man to improve his land ? 32. If the rent was based on the value of the land without the improvements, and the right of renewal was given on that valuation, would that be sufficient encouragement to grass?—lf a man prefers to go out if the second rental does not suit him, or through some other cause he wishes to retire, 1 think he should get valuation for grass. Grassing is a good thing to encourage, for it is the thing that will increase the carrying-capacity of the country, and that should be generally looked into and given consideration for. 33. In a petition from grazing runholders which was got up it was stated that there should be compensation at the end of the lease for three-quarters the cost of improvements. I suggest the compensation should be for three-quarters of the value of the improvements —not "cost"? — Exactly, as far as grassing is concerned. You know pretty well what the carrying-capacity of the run is at the beginning of the lease, and experts at the end would be able to tell pretty correctly what the extra carrying-capacity of the land is, and I consider the compensation should be based on the extra carrying-capacity. 34. That is, the value of the improvements, not the cost? —That is so. 35. Mr. You say it is not practicable or profitable to raise feed for sheep in high country? —It is neither. 36. In that case would it not be better to have low country along with the high? —It would be better, but a good living can be made out of the high country by itself. 37. The Chairman.] Do you approve of the present constitution of the Land Boards? —I think they should be wholly elected. 38. On what constituency would you elect them? —I think they should be elected by the people on the parliamentary franchise, cities and boroughs being left out altogether, as they are not interested in land sufficiently to warrant them having a vote in the election of the Land Board. 39. Have you any experience of the ballot? —A little. I think the ballot is right, but it should be worked in some other way than at present. Applicants should be classified, and, everything being equal, married men with families should have the first option. 40. The present examination is pretty exhaustive, and is pretty much on the lines you suggest I—lt1 —It has not been my experience. 41. But you have not had experience of these agricultural lands? —Some of my family have. 42. Are there any restrictions in regard to the offering of land to the public that you think are a little vexatious, such as residential conditions? —I think residence is a very necessary condition in any tenure. 43. Mr. Paul.] Do you not think the system of election would be very expensive? —I do not. The Land Board districts at the present time are, in my opinion, too large altogether. I consider that there is sufficient Crown land in South Canterbury to warrant a separate Board being established, with headquarters at Timaru. Ido not think there are any members on the Land Board with sufficient interest in us to attend to our needs, such as would be the case if the members were elected by the district. 44. Has Timaru a representative on the Board I—There1 —There is one man on the Board who lives in Timaru. Ido not think there is any one on the Board representing anybody but the Government. 45. Do you think it fair to leave out the cities and boroughs in the election of Land Boards? — Yes. The people I wish to be included are the people directly interested in the land of the country; but, at the same time, when it comes to an election, the people in the country are very apathetic. It does not matter whether there is a burning question or not, they will not take a great deal of trouble in coming to the polling-booth. In cities like Christchurch, however, where there are land agitators such as Ell, Laurenson, and Mr. Taylor, they could swamp the whole country from Christchurch alone on any point, and Ido not think that would be fair. I am sure it would be more satisfactory to leave the cities and boroughs out. 46. Has not every citizen in the State the right to say what shall be done with the national estate? —That may be, looking at it from a broad point of view; but I think you will find that what I say is best. 47. Mr. McCutchan.] Would not the trouble with regard to the size of the land district be got over by increasing the number of members on the Board to, say, six members and dividing the
0.-4.
436
B. GUTHBIE.
province into wards, giving one representative to each ward ? —That might do, but if there were two Boards each county could send a representative. 48. But if there were six wards would not the difficulty be got over without the expense of a second Board? —The expense would not be great. There would only be an extra Commissioner. 49. The Chairman.] There would be extra clerks, offices, and so forth? —There would be a little extra expense, but the different districts would receive greater attention. 50. Mr. llatt.~\ Under the franchise you suggest would not the power be chiefly held by the Crown tenants themselves ? —I do not think so. 51. Would their power and influence not dominate in a Land Board election? —I do not think so. I have not gone into it, but I should say that in Canterbury, outside of the boroughs and cities, there must be a majority who are not Crown tenants. 52. The Crown tenants, however, would have such a strong interest in the election, because they would be practically electing their own Board ? —I think they would be equally apathetic with the others. They are the same breed of people. John McGbegor examined. 53. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a sheep-farmer in a small way holding a small grazing-run of about 1,400 acres, and I have about 500 acres of freehold. I pay Is. per acre for the grazing-run, which is the highest rent in the district. It is a twenty-one-years lease, and it has been running for about thirteen years. I have had it a little over four years. I am well satisfied with the holding. With regard to cutting up the runs, I do not think it would be judicious to cut up too many at one time. It would be well if the runs were held under a tenure under which they could be cut up-when wanted. Other wise there is a danger of putting too much on the market at one time. 54. You think they might not be taken up I—Theyl—They might and they might not. There are a great many young people growing up who will want land when these leases have expired. 55. If the runs were let on a tenure under which they could be resumed at any time would it not strike at the root of doing any improvements on the runs ? —lt would; but I confess I cannot see what is to be done on these large runs in the way of surface-sowing. I have had experience of it on the freehold. Grass is scattered naturally through the gullies by the stock, but there is a great deal of country that will never take grass. I think it would be very hard to value improvements by grass-sowing after a few years. 56. Would the carrying-capacity not be the test? —To a certain extent it would. 57. You would hardly approve of surface-sowing, but would leave it to the work of the cattle? —It might be overdone and improvements be put on which would block a poor man going in for the run. I believe in it to some extent, but not as a general thing all over. Sunny faces will not take any sort of grass. The grass seems to go up the gullies and on to the back faces to a certain height, and then it seems to die away. Of course, the smaller the runs were the more chance there would be of sowing all over. 58. Mr. McLennan.] Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board? —As far as my experience has gone, I have found the Land Board all right. 59. Do you think it is desirable to give the Board more discretionary power? —I believe that would be an improvement. 60. Do you think it is desirable to give lease-in-perpetuity tenants the option of the freehold ? —It would have to be under some restrictions, otherwise in many cases it would just go back again into the hands of the moneyed men. 61. You think the best plan is to leave it as it is? —I do not see any immediate chance for a change. It might come. 62. Mr. Paul.] You indicated that your rent is too high? —It is the highest about here, and the reason for that, I suppose, is that the run was not thrown up and the rent reduced, because the tenant was afraid he would not get it again at the reduced rental. 63. When you took the run over from the previous tenant did you give any consideration for goodwill? —I gave a little, but not much. 64. Do you not think that makes the rent heavier for you than if you had got the run as the original tenant? —Of course, there is the interest to pay on anything given for goodwill, and necessarily it would be a little easier, but in my case the amount was not a big one. 65. Mr. McCardle.] What number of sheep are you running on the small run? —I work it in with the freehold, and run about a thousand sheep on both places. 66. You have had no experience with the Land for Settlements Act? —I am not interested in a lease in perpetuity, but I have taken notice of the system as it has gone on in this district. 67. Would you be in favour of a portion of the value of the land being paid off by the tenant? —I would be in favour of a portion being paid off, but it would be necessary to have a check on a man having too much land. 68. Have you had any experience in cropping? —Not in this country. 69. Do you think it safe to allow tenants under the Land for Settlements Act to crop as they think fit? —No. A tenant would crop the ground for years and take everything he could out of it, and then sell out and get another place. 70. That would not follow if he had paid off part of the value of the section? —In those circumstances he would not be so apt to overcrop. 71. Where is your run? —About a mile on the Fairlie side of Burke's Pass. It goes up to the top of the range in sight of the Mackenzie country. 72. Do you think it would be wise to give the present holders of the runs a varying extension of the existing leases so as to make some of them fall in at different times? —I think so. The present holders ought really to have the option of a fair portion. 73. Do you think they could be profitably cut up into smaller areas than they are now? —Yes.
C—4.
t. MCGEEGOR.]
437
74. To what size? —The size would have to vary a good deal, and the subdivision would have to be done by practical men. A certain amount of sunny country would have to be left, and perhaps you would have to put people on one run into part of another in order to catch the sunny faces for saving the sheep in the winter. 75. Can you tell me whether more than one of the existing runs in the Mackenzie country belong to one lot of people? —Some of the companies have more than one run. 76. Do you think it wise in cutting up this country to insist on residential conditions? —That is the best check I know of. If residence conditions are attached people would not go in for land that they were not prepared to live on. I would like to say that Ido not quite agree with Mr. Guthrie in what he said about an elective Land Board. A nominated Board is more independent than an elected one. There may be some faults in the present system; but lam not in favour of the Board being elected, because in that case they would follow too many advisers. George Innes Hamilton examined. 77. The Chairman.'] What are you? —A runholder. I hold 46,800 acres under a pastoral lease for twenty-one years which has twelve years to run. I pay £750 per annum. I also have 9,000 acres of freehold contiguous. I carry thirty thousand sheep at the beginning of winter. I cannot say what there will be in the spring. 78. Have you done anything in the way of surface-sowing on the leasehold? —Yes; but, I suppose, altogether it will not be more than 200 acres —quite sufficient, however, to test it. 79. What was the result? —There is not much improvement on the dry spurs, but the lowlying ground and gullies are decidedly improved. 80. Was it well worth the expense? —Yes. 81. 1 suppose, in a run such as yours, mostly hilly country, you could not surface-sow very much ?—Probably about 10 per cent, could be surface-sown. 82. You signed a petition from runholders: does that pretty well express your views in regard to the run country? —Yes. 83. You want three-fourths of the value of the improvements when a man enters the run, and then you want three-fourths of the cost of the improvements that have been effected during the currency of the lease?—l believe that was so. I ought to have been aware, but 1 did not notice that it was "cost" that was used. 1 think that is more or less ridiculous. It should be "value." Under the present tenure there is no inducement for a man to go in for surface-sowing or to do anything to improve the lease. If the runs were held in such a manner that we could get the leases renewed at a revaluation there would be more inducement to the holders to improve them. I think the auction system is extremely unsatisfactory. Those who have bought the runs at high prices have done very badly out of them, and, of course, those who have lost them have suffered. 84. You think the rent should be fixed by the Crown, and if the holder does not take it up it should go to auction 1 -Not to auction. Any other system would be better than that. 85. Have you anything special to which you would like to draw the attention of the Commission? 1 heard what Mr. Guthrie said about subdivision. I think in a great part of the country it is ridiculous. With the amount of snow we have in the Mackenzie country and in this district any man with five thousand sheep, unless he has capital at his back, would be ruined in one winter. I believe there are properties —as one member of the Commission suggested, freehold, and comparatively low lying —that might be bought by the Government and cut up and joined with some of the higher country; but to give a man nothing but summer country is simply to make a martyr of him. I have lived for twenty-four years in a district where there is much snow-country. The Mackenzie country is only summer country. There is no safe country in the Mackenzie in the winter, and a man with only five thousand sheep would be ruined in one bad winter. 86. Take the case of the man with fifty thousand sheep: would he be ruined still more? — No; he has a chance of saving a certain number of his sheep. The witnesses who have given -evidence spoke about the grass. We do not know as much as we very soon will know about Chewing's fescue, but I think it is a very valuable grass for surface-sowing. That is my experience of it. I think that those people who laugh at surface-sowing do not know anything about Chewing's fescue. 87. Mr. Paul.] Do you think it is practicable that the Mackenzie country can be subdivided and only summer country be given ? —Of course, it is practicable; but I think it is very hard lines to put a man there with a small holding. 88. Do you think he would have an opportunity of succeeding? —I think he might for a year or two, and then he would get wiped out. 89. Have you formed any opinion as to the constitution of the Land Boards? —I am quite satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Boards. 90. Mr. Forbes.] You said that a man with a small run in the case of a bad winter would be wiped out, while a man with a larger run would have a better chance. You mean to say that in the case of the larger range of country a man would have a better chance of bringing his sheep through the snow-storms and putting them in a safe place than if he were confined to a small block of land? —Anybody with practical experience of snow-country must know that you must have a large area of country to move sheep on in case of snow. If you have a large block you are sure of having some sunny faces on which to place the sheep, but in the case of a man with a small block of land he may have no sunny faces. 91. Mr. McCardle.] You are aware that there is a strong feeling in favour of cutting up some of the larger runs, and it is thought that if some of these runs could be subdivided the land might carry perhaps eight times the number of sheep it is at present carrying? —Perhaps in some cases they might carry more sheep; but, as Mr. Guthrie has said, I do not think there is that opinion. There is a feeling that more small agricultural runs should be got.
[G. I. HAMILTON.
C.—4.
438
92. Mr. Anstey.] If you had security of tenure such as is indicated in the petition which came before as the other day from the runholders would you largely extend your operations in the way of surface-sowing?—l should surface-sow experimentally in different parts of the run, and in those places where I found it to be successful I would surface-sow largely. 93. How many sheep live in the Mackenzie country during the winter months? —I could not say; but I know that a good many thousands die. 94. A quarter of a million 2 —Less than a quarter of a million, I suppose. 95. They are never taken out of the Mackenzie country during the winter? —Some are. 96. Many? —I could not say; but I know there are sheep which come down from the Mackenzie country to be wintered on the low country. 97. You said you lost a large number of sheep in the snow-storm of 1895? —Yes; seventeen thousand. 98. How many per cent, would that be? —57 per cent, of the total carrying-capacity. 99. Do you think you were better able to save sheep than if you had had smaller areas? We had our sheep on our very lowest ground and where we could get at them. 100. Did you make any effort to get at them? —Yes, we made every effort. We had twentyfive men at work. 101. Mr. Hall.] You have had experience in the rough country? —Yes. 102. Would it be profitable to hold that rough country without holding some of the low country with it? —Not in small areas. 103. Mr. Matheson.] If a run of 80,000 acres could be cut up into eight small runs with a proportionate amount of low country, and if each of the small runholders had a proportionate amount of capital, would they irot be as secure from ruin as the man holding the big run? —Yes; but I said if they had no winter country. William Feilding Hamilton examined. 104. The Chairman.] What are you? lam a runholder, and hold 30,370 acres on pastoral tenure, and I have thirteen years to run now. My rent is £470 a year. I have got 6,468 acres of freehold, and the freehold is contiguous to the leasehold. I carry seventeen thousand sheep. Before I went on this run some of tlie country had been surface-sown, and in places it did a great deal of good, but I have not done any surface-sowing myself. There is a good deal more of the run which could be treated in the same way. Generally speaking, I agree with the remarks of the last witness in respect to surface-sowing of runs. lam not satisfied in regard to the tenure of my run. I did not sign the document forwarded by the runholders, and which has been referred to this afternoon, because 1 thought it was absurd to produce vouchers for work you had done on the land. I thought it ought to be settled by valuation at the end of the lease. 105. Several witnesses have said that it would be very difficult to assess the compensation to be paid for surface-sowing? —I think it might be left to the Land Board, and if the tenant objected to the compensation offered, it might then be settled by arbitration. It has also been suggested that it might be decided by the increased carrying-capacity of the land. That would be very hard to determine. Under the tenure we now hold our land under, there is no inducement for any man to come in and improve his land. The great inducement at present is to get as much out of the land as possible during the time you have it. If you want to surface-sow and improve a run you must understock. There is no use stocking up to the hilt. When I went there they used to shear twenty-two thousand sheep, and I now shear seventeen thousand sheep. I would like to have the right to take up the run again. In the petition sent by the runholders to the Commission it was said that three-fourths should be paid to the tenant for improvements. I think that any improvement made by a man in the way of grassing he ought to receive full compensation for. I think that if a man does spend money, and if he makes a run carry more sheep it ought to be worth so-much more to any one taking it up. I think there should be full compensation for grassing and three-fourths compensation for other improvements. ' 106. Mr. McLennan.'] Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board?— Yes. 107. Would you like to give them more discretionary power? —Yes; perhaps it would be a good thing. # . 108. Mr. Paul.'] Do you agree with the previous witness so far as the cuttmg-up of runs is concerned*?— The country varies in the case of different runs. In these very high runs it would be very absurd to cut up, and many men would be ruined. 109 You do not agree with Mr. Guthrie with respect to the cutting-up of runs?— No. lio! Mr. Hall] Do you think if there is too much cutting up the high country would become valueless? —Yes, perfectly valueless. John Mackintosh examined. 111. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a sheep-farmer, and hold my land under the small-grazing-run tenure. I have 1,750 acres of leasehold and 165 acres of freehold. I have held the leasehold since 1893. My rent is 9d. an acre. On both the freehold and leasehold combined I carry about twelve hundred sheep. I am quite satisfied- with my holding, except that it is too small. The altitude ranges from 1,600 ft. to 4,000 ft, My country is under snow during a good part of the year. Ido not lose a great many sheep. 112. Have you surface-sown? —Yes, and it has been successful. I surface-sowed some years ago and it has increased the carrying-capacity of the land, but it would be difficult to say how mUCh II3. You surface-sowed in the spring?— Yes, and in the beginning of winter. As far as my experience goes, cocksfoot takes better in the beginning of winter, because the winter frosts open the ground. . , , T 114. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards! —Yes.
439
C— 4.
J. MACKINTOSH.
115. Mr. McCardle.] Do you agree with the large runholders who suggest that these runs could not be cut up profitably ? —There are some runs that could hardly be cut up with profit. 116. The cutting up would have to be done with discretion? —Yes. 117. Mr. Anstey.~\ You say your run is too small: what do you think would be the smallest size run that could be profitably occupied I—A1 —A man should have not less that four or five thousand sheep down in the front here. 118. And more than that in the higher country ?- -Yes. You would want more there. There is one point I would like to refer to. One witness this afternoon said that with a large holding there was a better chance of saving sheep from death in the snow. I have had close on thirty years experience dealing with sheep in snow-country, and I have found it quite the reverse. I reckon that a man with 10,000 acres has a far greater chance of saving his sheep from death by snow than a man with 40,000 or 50,000 acres. A year last winter 1 had 22 in. of snow at the door, and it lay on the ground for a good while. The sheep had stayed twelve days in the snow before I had any land to put them on. I lost over a hundred sheep, but not through standing and starving on the snow. It was due to the sheep being caught in a steep siding. I did not lose many through starvation. If it had not been for an accident my loss would have been very small. 119. Mr. Forbes.j Did you get any compensation from the Government for the losses through snow? —Yes, in 1895. 120. Did you lose many sheep then? —Yes, I lost a good many- about a couple of hundred. 121. What did the Land Board do for you then? —I think they allowed me half a year's rent, which was not much.
Fairlie, Thursday, 6th April, 1905. John Trotter examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you J-—I am a farmer and Crown tenant at Punaroa. I have 496 acres under lease in perpetuity, for which I pay 7s. 3d. rent. I have been there since 1900. I go in for cropping and mixed farming. 2. How are you getting on?--Very well. lam satisfied with my lease, and with all the conditions. 3. Do you find the Land Board satisfactory? —Yes, thoroughly. I approve of the present constitution of Land Boards. 4. Is there any desire on your part for the freehold of your land? —No. 5. Is there any desire on the part of the other settlers on Punaroa for the freehold? —On Tuesday night last we had a meeting in this room, and there were present seven tenants belonging to the settlement and two or three freeholders, and a few others. We thought it was only right, as the Commission had been sent round, that we should have something to put before them. We discussed matters from various points of view for about three hours, and then Mr. Guthrie wanted a show of hands for the leasehold as against the freehold, and five to one of the Crown tenants voted for the leasehold. 6. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —No. I have never had any difficulty in getting any money I wanted. 7. Was any loading put on your sections for roads? I cannot say. I think all properties are loaded to a certain etxent. We are supposed to pay interest on it in our rent. 8. You are well acquainted with this district generally : is there any aggregation of estates going on? —I have been in the district about twenty-five years, and I have not known of that. 9. On the other hand, have not estates been cut up? —Yes, and it is a very good thing that they have. There is no doubt but that the policy of cutting up estates has been a real good thing for the districts in which they have been cut up, and for the country also. Formerly, the one train from Timaru used to b§ more than enough. Now there is plenty of traffic for the railway, and the county valuations have gone up, and we have more rates to spend. 10. I suppose for the same reason land is going up in value in the district ? —I suppose it has gone up all over New Zealand to a certain extent. I saw by the papers that at the meeting of the Commission at Waimate a witness said that the leasehold properties had not been put up to their full values for local-rating purposes the same as the freehold properties had been. That has not been our experience in this county. The Government valuer has put up the value of the Punaroa Settlement from £1 to £1 10s., and in some cases more. That is the only advantage I see that the freeholders have over us. The freehold properties in the county have not been put up to their full values, but the leasehold have. It seems strange that it should be so, but at the same time I suppose they thought the Government properties were such good things that they have put the full values on them. 11. Has there been any exchange of properties on the Punaroa Settlement? —There have been four, so far as I know. 12. Did they sell out to advantage? —In two cases they have, but I did not hear the price of the other two. 13. Mr. McCardle.} Is there a demand for further settlement of the same kind in the neighbourhood? —I hear people say they would like this and that property cut up, and no doubt if they were cut up there would be tenants for them. 14. Are there suitable properties that could be subdivided to meet the requirements of the settlers? —No doubt there are several. 15. Do you know anything about the run-country in the neighbourhood?— Not much. 16. You cannot say whether there is a demand for the cutting-up of the large runs? —I cannot say for myself. There always seems to be a great run on the grazing-runs. The most of the
a—4.
440
[j. TROTTER.
properties to be cut up are high country, and unless there is low country to go with them they would hardly be safe. 17. You find the rating in the shape of local taxation rather a burden? —I have not objected to the valuation. I think our properties are worth the valuation, and therefore I could not very well go before the Court to argue that my property has been overvalued. But I say there are plenty of freehold properties that have not been put up to their full values. 18. Mr. McLennan.] Do you not think it would be rather dangerous to meddle with the Act? — I think so, and that seemed to be the feeling of the Crown tenants the other evening. We would sooner have the King for our landlord than a mortgagee, and that is what the freehold would come to in the long run. 19. Would you be in favour of giving more discretionary power to the Land Board? —So long as they do not bring in revaluation or a Fair Rent Bill. 20. I mean in regard to small differences that have now to be decided in Wellington: do you not think it would be better to give the Land Board more power to decide these matters then and there? —I think it would be a good thing. For instance, there are the cropping regulations. I think two white crops are quite right, because our properties have to be as good a hundred years hence as they are now, and if more than two white crops were taken off in succession the land would go back. But, in the matter of green crops, I think an alteration might be made. At present you cannot work the ground sufficiently in taking off one green crop to get the weeds out. In this district you may have to lay down the grass early, and the chances are that you cannot fallow to advantage. The consequence is that when you come to turn up the land again in three or four years it is worse than when you left it, because the weeds have not been killed. I think we should be allowed to take two-green crops off the land. 21. Supposing the Land Board delegated that power to the Ranger and, say, two competent farmers in the district, who, in the event of any dispute in regard to another green crop, should go over the ground and decide whether it was advisable to work the ground further: would you favour that? —I think it would do. I do not think there need be any trouble about the white crops. I know a very successful farmer in this district who is cropping his farm on the same lines as the Government regulations, and his crops are improving every year, just as ours are. I refer to the Allandale Farm, about two miles from here. 22. Have you any couch-grass on your land? —Yes, all the weeds ever made, with the exception of Californian thistle and ragwort. 23. Mr. Anstey.\ Do I understand you to say that you do not require any alteration in the cropping regulations, but you think an occasional variation should be granted by the Land Board? —Yes, in regard to green crops. 24. Was there any money spent on roading this estate after it was cut up? —The roads were made, and the Government granted the money for the work. 25. Who was the work done by? —By the County Council by contract. 26. Mr. Johnston] Are you a member of any local body? —No. I am president of the Agricultural Society. 27. Is Allandale owned by a practical farmer? —Yes, by Mr. Wilson. 28. Is he the chairman of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 29. You say he works his farm on the same conditions as laid down by the Government? —Yes. He may vary a little, but not much. I think two white crops in succession is his rule. 30. Suppose your land was like the land down at Waimate, it would grow more than two white crops?—lt seems to me that if a man pays £1 per acre for his land he gets 60 to 70 to 80 bushels of wheat to the acre, and he is only paying for the value of the crop that he gets. We are paying 7s. to Bs. per acre, and we get from 25 to 30 bushels to the acre, and really it seems to me to come to just about the same thing. 31. You say that the leasehold valuations are high as compared with the freehold: when your improvements are taken into account, would you sell your property at the valuation ?—lt is worth the valuation. 32. How does it come that the freeholds are valued lower than the leaseholds? —In the past the freeholds have been valued at about two-thirds of their value, and I think ground has risen somuch per acre, and it is put on that way. 33. Does the one valuer value the Government leaseholds and the freeholds? —Yes, so far as I know. 34. You said the resolution in favour of the leasehold was carried by five to one: do you represent a society of the Crown tenants? —No. It was simply a meeting called to discuss the matter. 35. Would the balance of the Crown tenants on the settlement advocate the leasehold? —I think so. The Farmers' Union sent round a paper to see whether the Crown tenants were in favour of the leasehold or the freehold, or, rather, they wanted us to sign this paper in favour of the freehold, and not one on the Punaroa Settlement signed it. The petition was handed over to me, and every settler on the place saw it. There was not a signature on it when I got it back. 36. Would you give us an idea of the wording of the petition? —It just asked for the freehold, and gave reasons why we asked for the freehold. One of the reasons was that we were harassed by the Crown Rangers, and that was one I would not have signed in any case. 37. Did the Farmers' Union ask your executive to send round this circular? —I cannot say. 38. Are you on the executive of the Farmers' Union? —No. I was a member of the union once, but I left it. Their opinion of the Crown tenants did not suit me. When they said our vote was a bastard vote I would rot stop in the union, because I reckon my vote is as free as any man's in New Zealand. 39. Has the Farmers' Union burst up, or is it still in existence? —It is in existence, so far as I know. 40. Do you know the membership? —No.
J. TBOTTEB.]
441
C—4.
41. Mr. Hall.] You think you should be allowed to take two green crops? —Yes. 42. Is the green crop always consumed on the land? —That is right. 43. Is it not generally supposed that a green crop consumed on the land improves the soil? —Yes. 44. In that case, do you think there should be any restrictions? —I think more than one green crop should be allowed. 45. Mr. l'aul.\ Is there anything in the leasehold that interferes with good farming? —Not that I know of, except in regard to green crops. 46. Have you ever requested the Land Board to vary the conditions?--No. 47. Have you ever had a request refused by the Land Board? —No. 48. Has the Ranger ever been unduly severe on you? —No. Our Ranger seems to be a man thoroughly up to his work, and he has given the Punaroa Settlement every satisfaction. 49. Do you think the Crown tenants were afraid to sign the petition? —Certainly not. This business about the Crown tenants being downtrodden and overridden : s just a lot of " buncombe." I do not think the Crown tenants ever said it. 50. If a witness said that a meeting was called and that forty Crown tenants were present, and voted one way because they were afraid to vote another way, what would you say to that? —I never seem to realise that I am a Crown tenant. I reckon I am just as good as any freeholder in New Zealand, because, I suppose, 90 per cent, of the so-called freeholders are simply mortgaged to a private individual instead of to the Crown. lam not frightened of any one. I speak as I think and I act as I think, and a man could not be freer than that. Nobody ever asked me to do a thing I did not want to do. 51. Mr. Matheson.\ Are ySur local rates levied on the capital value or on the unimproved value? —On the capital value. 52. Are you aware that you have just as much right to object to any one else being undervalued as to yourself being overvalued ? —You cannot go round and do that. 53. Do you not think it is your duty to do so if people are not paying their fair proportion? —They are paying a proportion, and it may be a fair proportion. I have only mentioned this point to show what applies to the Waikakahi Settlement does not apply to the Punaroa Settlement. 54. Do you think the freeholders are paying less in proportion to value than the leaseholders? -I do. 55. Suppose the present prosperity goes on and the settlers begin to accumulate savings, do you think it would be wise for the Crown to allow them to pay off the capital value and so reduce their rent? —I am against interfering with the present lease, which is just as free as it possibly could be. If we wanted the freehold, which we really do not, and it was given us, no doubt the Government might then have the right to put something else in our lease that we do not wish, and no doubt a Fair Rent Bill and a Revaluation Bill would be at once passed. We have a first-rate lease at present. 56. I wish to know if you think the Government would be wise in giving permission to a Crown tenant who had saved, say, £500 to pay off a portion of his capital value? —I do not think so. 57. Mr. McCutchan.] The Commission has sworn evidence at Waikakahi that that settlement was not revalued for local-rating purposes, but that the freeholds adjoining were revalued: that is not the case in regard to Punaroa ? —No. 58. You said you were satisfied with the loading and its expenditure on the block? —It seems to me we have all the roads we require. Of course, we took that in our lease, and I never gave it a great deal of thought. Of course, we are paying interest on the loading for 999 years, but we took up our lease with our eyes open, and I do not think in three or four years time we should ask for a change. 59. Supposing, instead of this block having been loaded for roading, the settlers under the Loans to Local Bodies Act had borrowed the money at 5 per cent., then principal and interest would have been extinguished in twenty-six years: do you not think that would have been wiser than paying interest on the loading for 999 years? —We had not the option of it. 60. Still, do you not think it only fair {hat when you pay off the principal and interest the payment of interest on loading should cease? —It seems fair, but I have not given the matter much thought 61. We had evidence in regard to other settlements that there was waste and extravagance in the expenditure of the loading: was that the case in your block? —No. 62. It was wise and careful expenditure in your case? —I think so. 63. It is proposed that leases issued in the future shall contain a revaluation clause: do you think that would militate against settlement! —I think so. 64. You think there should be no revaluation clause even in future leases? —I think so. In fact, I think revaluation means Irish landlordism at once. That is the difference between our present leases and these revaluation leases. It constitutes one of the worst features of leasehold. I would not say our lease was a good tenure if a revaluation clause was inserted in it. 65. Have the settlers on the Punaroa Block taken the rebate for the prompt payment of rent. —Yes. 66. What was the amount granted by the Land Board? —I think, 10 per cent. 67. Mr. Forbes.] We have it in evidence tliat the reason why the settlers are asking for the freehold is that they feel the Government will bring in a revaluation Bill: do you think it is reasonable fear that the Government will break the bargain they have made with the tenants? —In the past the Government have dealt with us very well. We have nothing to do with the future in anv way, but I should say, judging by their conduct in the past, thev would not. 56—0. 4.
€.—4
442
J. ROSS
John Ross examined. 68. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a sheep-farmer. 1 held, up till quite recently, the Sawdon Station, at Burke's Pass, consisting of about 30,000 acres, under pastoral lease from the Crown. I held it twelve months, and lam just about selling out now. I have been about thirtysix years in the Mackenzie country, and I have been connected with most of the runs there, either as manager or owner. I was eighteen years managing the Richmond Station, and for four years I was owner of Lilybank. 69. I understand the Mackenzie country is high and risky to work? —Yes. 70. Do you think the country could be improved by surface-sowing? —I would be in favour of certain parts of the runs being surface-sowed up to a certain height. 71. Do you think the grass would take? —Certainly. It has taken already, as I can prove by my experience. I would suggest compensation being given for improvements. 72. Was this surface-sowing done on any particular run you could mention? —We just did it ourselves by sowing broadcast. I sowed it mostly in the gullies and along the creeks. I would not say it would take very well on the hills or on the dry plains. The stock will spread it on the high land from the gullies. 73. As a practical sheep-farmer, do you think that the country round there could be divided into smaller runs than it is now and worked profitably ? —My experience is that probably the country consisting of two or three runs held by one company up there could be divided at the present time. But I would say that it would be no benefit for the Crown to subdivide the smaller runs at the present time. The time may come when it will be necessary, but it is not now. The Loan and Mercantile Company hcrld three or four runs up there, and perhaps other companies may hold more. Of course, we cannot blame them for taking them, because they took them up when nobody else would do so. They advanced money to me and other people, and we lost it, and they had to take the runs up themselves. At the same time, when the leases are renewed I think the runs should be divided again. 74. In regard to the three or four runs held by the Loan and Mercantile Company, do you think that each run would be workable in itself and pay by good management? —There is Balmoral Run, and Glenmore Run, and Braemar Run. The Glenmore Run is a good run, and could be worked by itself, but Braemar could not be worked by itself. It consists of about 20,000 acres, and is mostly all summer country. These two would have to be worked together. 75. I suppose that, generally, in the Mackenzie country there is not enough low or winter country to take full advantage of the high or summer country?- -It all depends. If the tenants on the place get much encouragement to grow stuff for feed in a bad winter they could hold on. 76. Could they grow turnips on any of this low country? —No, because turnips are no good when the storm comes. I think they ought to grow hay and stuff to feed the sheep on instead of taking the stock down country. 77. Would the land bear ploughing to grow hay? —Yes; there is any amount of ploughable land. 78. Suppose there is a redivision of the country when the leases fall out, what is the lowest number of sheep a man could work with there? —It all depends on one point: Suppose I hold a run, and you cut off a certain portion of it, then you may just as well take the lot. The runs have been divided already to give low and summer country in the Mackenzie country. 79. Mr. McCardle.] We saw a great deal of that high table-land as we passed through the Mackenzie country to-day. Would not that land grow straw-crops, in the shape of oats for winterfeed I—Yes.1 —Yes. 80. Is there not a good deal of that country where a man could grow oats for winter-feed which would stand subdivision? —You have to consider this point: it costs a lot of money and a lot of labour to grow this stuff up there. I cannot see where the profit comes in. This country has flourished in the last two or three years, but you must undertsand that we have any amount of .bad years when we very nearly have to chuck the runs up. We cannot judge things by these two or three flourishing years. I think if more encouragement was given for growing feed as I have suggested the Government would not be so much troubled when bad years came. 81. Mr. McLennan.] What sort of grass did you sow? —Mostly white clover. We used to build huts and camp up there, and I used to take a pocketful of seed and sow it broadcast in the sheepyards and paddocks. The sheep tramped it in, and next year the grass was up very high. 82. Have you seen ryegrass sown on the Grampians and cut as hay?—At Lilybank I have seen ryegrass growing several feet high. English grasses will grow in that'country, but we never tried much of it. 83. Mr. Anstey.] Suppose you were to cut this country the other way, and give a fair proportion of high country and a fair proportion of low country, how small a flock of sheep would be necessary to enable a man to make a comfortable living? —From six to ten thousand sheep. As a rule, it is very difficult, to divide this high country. 84. Mr. Paul.] You are selling out?— Yes. 85. Are you selling out to advantage? —It is just a fair thing. The man I bought from a year ago went a trip to Scotland, and now he is back again and wishes to take up his run.
Ai,buky, Friday, 7th April, 1905. John Scott Rutherford examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What- are you?—l am a sheep-farmer and Government settler. I have a run on pastoral lease in the Mackenzie country beyond Lake Tekapo. The area is 62,000 acres, of which only 32,000 acres is grass land, the rest being practically barren. I pay £236 per annum rent. The run should carry seven thousand sheep, but ever since 1885 I have not had
443
C—4.
J. S. EUTHEEFORD.
it stocked up. So far, i have never bred on the run, but iam going to do s>o now. I have only a little over ten thousand sheep on the run. 2. You have had it for a considerable time, I suppose? —Twenty-odd years. 3. Have you any Government land? —I have 640 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Chamberlain Settlement, for which I pay £244 a year. 4. Are you satisfied with the lease in perpetuity? —Yes. 5. Have you ever done anything towards improving the run-country by surface-sowing? —■ Yes; I have sown a good deal of grass there; but you want to keep the stock off it in the summer. 1 have sown cocksfoot, timothy, and clovers, and they have done fairly well. I have not done it extensively. 6. Can you tell us anything that will improve the back country we saw yesterday and that which you occupy to make it more productive, and so forth? —I consider that if longer leases were given it would enable us to go in more for the sowing of grasses and clovers. 7. Do you mean longer than twenty-one years? —For twenty-one years longer. The runs would require to be fenced in in blocks to keep the sheep off the grass as much as possible all the summer until the grass gets established. 8. That is, on the lower country? —Yes, and a pretty fair height as well. 9. The elevation of your country is pretty high, is it not? —Yes; but tile flats and the sides of the hills could be sown all right. 10. The elevation of the lake is 2,000 ft. above the sea: how high above that would you sow? — We could run right up the gullies a good way. 11. Would you recommend planting trees? —I was going to recommend to the Government that when the next leases fall in_it should be a provision in the new lease that so-many acres should be set aside for plantation purposes, and these should be planted for shelter. It would be a great advantage to the country to have plantations of different classes of trees there. The Government have forest nurseries, and they can supply the trees to the tenants, who would require to fence the trees in with wire netting for the first year. A few acres every year would help the thing on, as firewood is a trouble up there as well as shelter. 12. Would any particular tree flourish? —Any tree would grow, but the larch flourishes extremely well up there. 13. From your observation, do you think the natural pastures are going back, or are they improving? —If anything, they have gone back; but with me, since 1895, I have been understocked, and the pasture has improved. 14. That shows that resting will improve the grass? —Yes; there is no doubt about that. A good deal of damage is done to the pasture by late burning. If you burn as late as the end of July and August the grass does not come for two years afterwards. 15. I suppose you suffered very much on account of the loss of sheep in the snow? —The years 1888 and 1895 were the two worst. About half the sheep were lost in those years. 16. Do you think the Mackenzie country, generally, would bear greater subdivision than at present? —I do not think you could do much good by subdividing there. It must be held in big country. 17. Even with the greatest care in subdivision there would always be a heavy risk in connection with the heavy snow? —Yes. The trouble is you cannot get the stock down to the low ground. 18. That country should be held by capitalists, who can stand the loss? —Yes. 19. Mr. McCardle.] You approve of tree-planting on the runs? —To a certain extent. 20. Do you not think it advisable for the Government when letting the runs again to cut off a portion of the land in different parts and plant it? —There are reserves for plantations now, but they are not planting them. 21. Considering that the State is now planting large areas of forest, would it not be possible to induce the State to lay off considerable parts of the runs for tree-planting? —I think it would be better for the settlers to do it, as they would take more interest in it. " 22. Have you had any experience at all in connection with the advances to settlers? —No; I have had nothing to do with it. 23. Is the Land Board satisfactory? —Yes. 24. You have a great number of settlers around here under different tenures: do they seem prosperous? —Yes. 25. They have no desire for the freehold? —So far as I know, that is so. 26. Mr. McLennan.} Would it be a mistake or otherwise to tamper with the Act so as to enable Crown tenants to acquire the freehold ?—-My idea of that is that the Government, once they have the land in their own hands, should keep it. 27. Would you be in favour of giving more discretionary power to the Land Board? —In some cases I would. They would have to be careful, though, in the matter of cropping. I know cases in my district where seven crops have been taken off. One man after two years in grass puts on the sheep, and it is eaten bare off and he tells the Board that the grass ran out. The district of the Ranger from Rangitata to Waitaki is too large. 28. You believe there is necessity for an extra Ranger?— Yes. 29. Mr. Anstey.\ 30,000 acres of your land is liill-tops? —Yes. 30. You are going in for breeding? —Yes. Last year I tried it, but this year I have gone to the expense of getting a lot of ewes from central Otago, and I am going to breed this year. 31. There will be more loss on the ewes than on the wethers? —Yes. 32. Still, you think they should be successful? —Yes; we will get the lambs at the end of October. 33. It is not practicable to fetch many sheep out of the Mackenzie country in the wintertime? —That all depends on the amount of land available.
C.—4.
444
[j. S. BUTHEBFOBD.
34. Can you grow anything in the shape of winter feed? —Not much; only patches of oats. It is a very great chance to grow, and even if you have the feed it is very difficult to get the food to the sheep afterwards. 35. What is the best way of encouraging surface-sowing? —A longer term of lease. 36. Would it not be necessary to make compulsory sowing a condition of the longer lease? — Yes. The Inspectors could see that it was being done. 37. Is it not rather difficult to put a value on grassing? —Yes; but I think you would get pretty near it if you had Inspectors going round. 38. If you had a renewal at arbitration rental, that would be sufficient? —It would satisfy me all right. 39. Some parts of the Mackenzie are much worse than others? —Yes, and could not be subdivided to any advantage. 40. In subdividing, what would be a reasonable amount of high country to allow ? —There are some who have three runs adjoining, and they could be made into three separate runs. 41. They will have to provide that each run is held by a distinct holder ? —Yes, otherwise they will go back again. 42. Are the rabbits pretty troublesome? —They are pretty well cleared out now. 43. Are the cropping restrictions in Albury and Chamberlain oppressive? —My lease in perpetuity is just a home. lam making no living out of it. I know that some of the people want better conditions. 44. Do you think two grain crops in six years are sufficient? —Yes, otherwise the land will run out in most cases. 45. You do not think the Ranger worries the settler too much? —I think he should be around a little oftener. 46. Is there any reason why the holders of grazing-runs should not be allowed to do a little cropping? —Provided they grass down immediately afterwards, I would allow them to cultivate as much as they liked. It would be better for the place, which would grow better grass after it had been ploughed. 47. Mr. Paul.] We had a petition presented to us by Mr. Tripp from runholders with reference to valuation for improvements. Did you sign it? —No. 48. It was represented to us yesterday that the highest of the country in Mackenzie could be subdivided? —The Commissioners want to go up and have a look at it. 49. You do not think it is wise to send men up there on small runs? —I do not. It would have been a good thing if the Commissioners had gone up round there and seen it for themselves. 50. Do you think it wise policy to sow good seed or cleanings? —If you sow good seed you will get good grass, and if you sow rubbish you will get weeds. 51. Have you heard of any one sowing rubbish? —Yes, I have; but I think to sow good seed paid best in the long run. 52. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think there is any necessity to divide the Canterbury Land District and make a South Canterbury Board, with headquarters at Timaru I—l1 —I do not see any necessity for that. The Land Board, however, meet at Timaru when there are grievances affecting South Canterbury. 53. Do you think lour members sufficient to represent Canterbury? —The number is small enough. 54. It has been suggested that the land district should be divided into wards, and a representative sent in for each ward? —I think the Land Board works very well as at present. 55. Ido not mean nomination; but in Otago it was pointed out that it was possible for the Government to appoint men from the seaboard, where the population was thick, and the country got no representation ? —I think it would be an improvement to have wards, because then the back country would be represented as well as the front country. 56. With reference to the 999-years lease there is a proposal that, in connection with leases to be issued in the future, there should be a revaluation clause: do you think that would be hurtful to settlement? —I would not like to express an opinion upon it. 57. Were Albury, Chamberlain, and Rosewill loaded for roads? —In the case of Chamberlain it is only £200; but Rosewill and Albury were. 58. The roads seem to be very satisfactory? —Yes. 59. Do you think it is fair to have to pay interest on loading for all the time of the lease? —I do not think it is fair. 60. Do you think that when the Government is reimbursed, interest and principal in full, the loading should cease?— Yes, I do. 61. Mr. Matheson.~\ If the Crown goes on acquiring land for settlement, do you think it will become a great expense to have competent Rangers? —I may say it does not seem to be very expensive. Only one or two more Rangers would be required. 62. As the tenants get homes and make improvements, do you think it would be wise to allow them to pay off part of the capital value of their sections? —No. I think once the State has got it it should keep it. 63. Mr. Anstey.] It is not a fact that the present lease-in-perpetuity settlers can deal with their interests in their sections quite easily now? —Yes. 64. Do you not think they could deal with them easier than if they paid off a portion of the capital value? —That is my opinion. 65. Is there anything hindering a man from investing £100 as safely in other security as in his own farm? —Yes, he can do that, or he can buy a freehold somewhere else as he wishes. 66. What is your opinion in regard to the placing of all reserves under the administration of the Land Board ? —I certainly think that could be done. I may say I have always been in favour of close settlement. Wherever there is any chance of the land being acquired for land-settlement
C—4.
J. S. BUTHEEPOBD.j
445
I would be in favour of it. About Fairlie there are two or three large holdings that could be cut up at the end of the leases. They should be properly cut up, and not only the frontage be taken away. That spoils the run. Isaac Curtis examined. 67. The Chairman.J What are you? —1 am a farmer in Albury Settlement, where I have 326 acres, for which I pay 7s. per acre. I have been there since the beginning of the settlement ten years ago. 68. Are you satisfied with the section?- 1 am not satisfied with the restrictions as to cropping; they are too severe. I consider that two white crops in six years is too little, and I consider there is plenty of land on which the grass will not stand more than two seasons. If you cut the grass for seed, in the two years the grass is not worth keeping for the next year, and should be ploughed up. 69. Are you satisfied with one year's green crops?—l think that after one year's green crop the land should be ploughed for a white crop the following year. In the Old Country, when we grow turnips, mangolds, or beans, we go on cropping again—mangolds or turnips are counted as a fallow. Here, we are obliged to lay down grass and keep it three years. I have applied for a good many things to the Land Board, but they have never agreed to my proposals. 1 have had the whole of my crops washed out of the paddocks, and you will see them covered with docks through water coming down on to me from the land above. The Land Board had a watercourse surveyed and valued, but that was all the length it got. 70. How much of your land has been flooded? —I have had 40 acres under water at the one time. 71. What is the remedy? —It would not be an expensive work to carry the surface-water off. Then I had another complaint. If we do away with Californian thistle that ought to be an improvement, but we can get no recompense for that. 72. You have a lease for 999 years: it is not to your advantage to keep the land in its proper state? —Yes; but these thistles were there when I took the land. 73. Is it to your advantage to get rid of them? —Yes; but if I cannot pay my rent I lose my farm and get no recompense for that work. 74. Have you used any endeavour at all to get rid of the thistle? —I have got rid of 4or 5 acres I think, but it has cost me a iot of money. 75. You would see that before you took the land up? —No, no one knew anything about it; neither did any one know about the water. If I had been informed that the place was liable to flood I would never have taken it. There is an old creek in which I Gave had hundreds of sheep drowned. I lost seventy hoggets in my first year. 76. What is your opinion with regard to the tenure? —I do not think leases are worth the paper they are written on in one way. If the lease was from a private individual it would be a guarantee, but from the Government it is not so. No Government would pass an Act for a private individual to raise our rent or throw us out, but the Government are the law themselves, and can pass whatever Act they choose. 1 believe the settlers ought to have the option of the freehold. 77. The Government has entered into a contract with you, and in ordinary justice cannot break that contract without both agreeing; but, suppose the Government had the power to break the contract with your consent, would you be willing to have the land revalued at the time the contract was broken and a new agreement entered into, provision being made for you to retain your improvements should you lose the whole of them? Would you be willing to have that for the sake of getting a chance of a freehold? —I think if a man is going to leave a place under any conditions he should be able to have valuation the same as in the Old Country. So much work is done on these lands which, after a few years, is not discernible and cannot be valued. 78. You would like to pay off your holdings on the original price? —Yes. 79. Mr. McC'ardle.] How many years would you want in order to pay off the freehold if the Government gave the option ? —I would not recommend any term of years. "80. Why should you be so anxious for the freehold when you have all improvements included in the lease? —The lease is only from the Government, and is not worth the paper it is written on. 81. Would not the same apply to the freehold? —No; when you have got a freehold you have got it. 82. Only as long as you can keep it. If the Government can give you a lease for 999 years, and then break the lease if they gave you a parchment title, could they not do the same thing?— Yes; but, at the present time, the Government can pass a Rent Bill and put ss. an acre on it. 83. And if you had a freehold they could put on the graduated land-tax? —Yes; but that would go on the whole of the country as well. 84. Do you riot think that land-settlement under the Government has done a great deal of good for the country ? —Yes. 85. Is that not an argument that the Government is anxious to secure land to the people? —Yes. 86. You would not do anything that would stop operations under the Land for Settlements Act? —I would not stop land being distributed and people going on it. 87. Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Office? —I borrowed £100, and want to get more. I put £497 or thereabouts on the place, and £100 was all I could get from the Department, and it took me six months to get it. 88. Do you think that a higher amount should be granted to the tenants? —Yes, I do; and it could be done with safety. 89. Mr. McLennan.] Do you not think it is dangerous to tamper with the lease? —I think if a man had the option it could not be tampered with. 90. If 3 r ou advocate the option of the freehold you would be tampering with the lease: do you not think it would be better to put up with the present position rather than allow other alterations to be made in the lease, perhaps including revaluation? —That is what we are afraid of.
Fl. CUETIS.
446
a—4.
91. Would you like to give more discretionary power to the Land Board 1 Yes, and also to the Ranger. . 92. Supposing two practical farmers in your district and the Ranger were appointed to decide whether another crop should be allowed or not, do you think that would be satisfactory? I think that would be a very good thing. . 93. Do you not think that would be far better than an amendment of the Act I I think it would be better. . . 94. Mr. Anstey.] Is 300 acres a suitable-sized farm to work economically 2—Yes, 1 think so. 95. There are a number of farms in the Albury and Chamberlain Settlements that are smaller than that: are they too small? -I do riot think so. It depends on the quality of the land. 96. Is 50 or 80 acres large enough?- 1 think it is not large enough. 97. Do you think it is wise to put two of these farms together? —50 acres would not be so bad if it was joined to another, but not above that. _ 98. Mr. Paul.\ You think your land was too dear when you took it up? Yes. 99. Do you not think it would have been still dearer had there been no thistles, and if the drainage had been all right? —I do not. 100. Then, the land is now worth what you are paying for it ? —lt was not worth it then. My improvements have made it worth it. . 101 If you had the option of the freehold would it be too much to get it at the capital value when you bought it? If I had the freehold I would be sure of getting paid for my improvements, but now I cannot. . . v 1.02. Would not your land be more valuable to you if the Californian thistles were outs ies. 103. Why do you say you do"not get any value for eradicating the thistles?--It is not included in the valuation. 104. If you had the option would you buy the land? —Yes, and then I would put more lmP1 ° 105. You said you objected to putting two farms together on these settlements ?—lt depends on the nQt think if they were freehold that some men would gradually buy up their neighbours?- No. The Parliament could pass a law to prevent the aggregation of freeholds. 107. It would be pretty hard to prevent one man buying out another if it were all freehold? — You could limit Hie freehold to, say, 150 or 200 acres. 108. Do you think that would be a reasonable limit? I think so. 109. Mr. McCutchun.] What steps are you taking to eradicate the Californian thistle?—l do by best to keep them down. By constantly working some of the land I have got rid of the thistles Hbnby Kidd examined. 110 The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a small-grazing-run holder, and hold my land under lease in perpetuity. The area of my run is 2,000 acres, and I am paying about £120 a year I have held the run for about fourteen years. It is four miles and a half trom Albury. lam well pleased with my run and with the conditions. The main point I desire to bring before the Commission is to urge on the continuance of the land-for-settlements policy. It is the only thing that will give our country a start. ~ . , 111 Do you believe in the option of the purchase?—l believe in the State holding the land. I consider my holding equal to a freehold. I cannot see how any sensible man can call his land freehold when the Crown has a claim on it. There has been nothing but_ prosperity since the present land-for-settlements policy was inaugurated, and I say that it is dishonouring Sir John McKenzie's name to propose to alter it. 112 Hive you anything to say in regard to the constitution of the Land Boards (—1 would suggest that the Land Office in Timaru should be kept open daily. Our Crown Lands Ranger requires assistance. I think that would suffice, instead of having a second Board. The Land Board has never refused any request I have made. 113. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? J\o, but I have had experience of being accommodated by auctioneers, and I think the less we have to do with advances You are aware that the Advances to Settlers Department was introduced bv the Government in order to assist small settlers and keep them out of the hands of the moneylenders, who charge high rates of interest: do you not think that policy lias been a good thing and has been in the interests of the country?— Yes, I do. 115. And you believe it should receive every encouragement?-Yes. I paid 8 per cent, until that Department came into existence. . 116 Do you think it would be a good thing to increase the advances on improvements trom one half up to two-thirds of the settlers' interest in the holding if he requires it?-It would probably be a good thing in some cases; but in the case of industrious settlers wishing to make their home on the land, I think they should take as little advances as possible. T . _ _ _ » 117 Have you anything to say against the present cropping regulations ?—I think that the settlers themselves and the Ranger should be able to arrange these matters as to cropping. 118 Mr Forbes.] It has been said by some witnesses that the Rangers sometimes harass the settlers in connection with the cropping regulations 1 I have not seen that. 119 Do you not think when a man has put sufficient improvements on his land that the cropping regulations may be done away with altogether ?—Yes. I am working my place as if it were my own, and it is my own, and no one will succeed unless he works his land in that way. The Government is the people, and the land belongs to the people. 120 Do vou not think there is more danger of a man holding a section under lease in perpetuity cropping his land out more than if it were freehold ?—No man with common-sense will impoverish his land.
C—4
H. KIDD.I
447
121. You do not know of any one in this district who does that? —No. There are here a lot of the most industrious men I have ever seen. I live on the hills, from where I can look down on the Rosewill and Chamberlain Settlements, and it would do the members of the Commission good to see them from that position. The land-for-settlements policy has been a great success. 122. Mr. McLennan.'] Do you not think there would be a danger in tampering with the Act? -I think it would be a disgrace and a dishonour to the colony. The land-for-settlements policy has been a success. Every one who took up a section under that Act read the conditions and knew what he was doing, and it would be bad taste to come back now and say, we want this and we want that. 123. Do you not think there might be a clause inserted in the Act, if it were amended, varying the conditions to the disadvantage of the present lessees —for instance, there might be a Fair Rent Bill? —I would take no Fair Rent Bill. I say we should stand by our bargain. There is no use talking of improvements. This is a contract for 999 years. It is my opinion that the Government will not annoy any settler so long as he is industrious. 124. Supposing you had Canadian thistle on your section, do you not think it would improve the land to get rid of it, and would you want valuation for it? —I think the Government should appoint an expert to supervise the selling of turnip and grass seeds. I know from my own experience that weeds are being imported from foreign countries in the seed we buy, and these weeds are polluting our land. For instance, the ragwort has come here and it is spreading, and the County Council is apparently shutting its eyes to that fact, and they are letting the seed blow all over the paddocks. It is not the same pi :nt as that in Southland. 125. Mr. Anstey.] You do not think it would do to abolish restrictions as to cropping altogether? —No; but I would hare the regulations altered, and I think that practical settlers should be given a freer hand. 126. Mr. Hall.] It has been represented that Crown tenants do not feel free to come before the Commission and state their real opinions : do you think that is so in respect to the Albury settlers? —No, I do not think so. 127. Do you think if they wanted anything they would hesitate about saying so? —We cannot regard the Government in the light of, or place the Government on a level with, a private landlord. 128. Mr. Matheson.] Yon think the tenants ought to be ashamed for asking for alterations in the Act? —Yes. 129. But you say that the cropping regulations should be altered? —Yes; only that one clause. 130. You would like to see Sir John McKenzie's proposals carried out? —Yes. 131. Would you like to see a Fair Rent Act passed?—No; Ido not agree with that. Instead of this Commission being appointed —of course, Ido not blame you —I think it would have been much better if a day had been set apart for celebrating the passing of the Land for Settlements Act. Thomas David Robertson examined. 132. The Chairman.] What are you? —I hold a twenty-one-years lease of a small grazing-run on the Rosewill Estate. The area is 1,826 acres and there are 300 acres of river-bed. I pay 2s. lid. an acre for the 1,826 acres and 3d. an acre for the river-bed. I have held the 1,826 acres for a year. lam so far satisfied, but I think the rents are high enough if things should take a bad turn. In good times such as the present the rents are all right. I had experience at Hinds of surface-sowing. We used to sow secondary seed, and it took very well. We sowed on the sunny faces, and the grass spread all over the place. It was clean seed, but a cheaper seed than the ordinary. It was mostly cocksfoot, white clover, and timothy. 133. How are you to estimate the value of surface-sowing?—l should say that the actual carrying-capacity should be valued now, and at the end of twenty-one years it should be revalued. That would make people sow good grass-seed. 134. Mr. McCardle.] Have you any opinion in regard to land-tenures? —I consider that the present system is the best. If a man gets land for 999 years it is as good as freehold. 135. Do you think the Advances to Settlers is a good thing in the interests of the small settlers? —Yes; it helps them and gets them through a difficulty. 136. Do you not think more attention should be paid to the Crown tenants in regard to advances to settlers? It has been said that some settlers have been refused advances and have got advances from private lenders? —It would be far better to get advances from the Government than from private individuals. I think the Government should first consider their own settlers. 137. Mr. Forbes.] If a longer lease were given for pastoral runs do you think it would encourage surface-sowing ? —Yes. 138. It would be rather difficult to assess the actual value of surface-sowing. If a man had a longer lease do you not think that would meet the question of surface-sowing? —Yes. 139. Mr. Anstey.] You said you thought the lease in perpetuity a very good tenure? —Yes. 140. Do you think it better than the twenty-one-years lease that you hold? —I have the right of first refusal at an advanced rate. 141. If you had a tenure equal to the lease in perpetuity that would be sufficient inducement for you to grass your run and make other improvements? —Yes. James McCoht examined. 142. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on the Albury Settlement. I hold 290 acres, and pay 4s. an acre rent. I have been on the land about nine years. I am satisfied with my section and the terms, but I think the cropping regulations should be modified a little. I think if the Ranger were allowed more discretion it would meet the case. Land varies so much in quality that you cannot have a cast-iron rule in respect to cropping. I work about 70 acres of my land for three years, and have put down no crops in it, and I think I should be allowed the privilege of cropping or grassing to the best advantage.
C.—4.
448
[j. MCOORT.
143. Mr. McCardle.'] Are you satisfied with the present 999-years lease? —Yes. 144. Do you agree with the evidence of the previous witnesses as to the Advances to Settlers Department? —I have had no experience of that Department, but I understand they do not advance enough money, and therefore it is a practical failure for that reason. 145. But you think the Advances to Settlers Department should be encouraged? —Yes. 146. Mr. Anstey.~\ You say the Ranger should have more power? —Yes. 147. Have you ever asked the Ranger to vary the restrictions and he has refused to do so? — No. 148. If there were no restrictions, do you not think that some people would make a mess of their farms ? —A practical man will not ruin his farm. 149. Do you think that 50- and 80-acre sections are too small? —Yes. 150. Your farm is larger, and you found it necessary to get additional land? —Yes. In my opinion, 300 acres is not too much in this district. There is one point I wish to bring before the Commission. Seeing that the tenants pay their rents six months in advance, I think that if they put on the necessary improvements the}' should be allowed rebate up to that time.
Timaru, Saturday, Bth April, 1905. Andrew Cleland examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 2,000 acres of freehold in thirf district. 2. What is your opinion of the present constitution of the Land Board? —I think the present constitution is satisfactory. I think they have acted very well. 3. What is your opinion in regard to land-tenures? —I believe in the freehold. I think a man who owns a freehold farms his land better. I believe Crown tenants should have the option of purchasing the freehold. I may say that I believe the Levels Estate would have been let in farms years ago had it not been for the experience of bad farming in connection with two or three of the farms they leased. The managing director on one of his trips out to the colony asked my opinion as to letting the land out on lease, and I could not advise him to do so at that time, because the leasehold land in our district was very badly farmed then. 4. You think a freeholder's farm is better than a leaseholder's farm? —As a rule. There are exceptions, of course. Circumstances have altered to-day. I was referring to twelve years ago, and both leaseholders and freeholders are farming much better now than they did then. They have to do it to keep the weeds down. 5. Have you ever tried grassing lands by surface-sowing? —Yes; I have sown clover and cocksfoot on unploughable land. 6. Was that fairly successful? —Yes, they both took very well. The cocksfoot has pretty well killed out the tussocks on some of the faces now. I treated about 50 acres in that way about twenty years ago. This land was about 800 ft. high. 7. Have you had any experience of the high interior country? —No. 8. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?— No. 9. Is there any aggregation of estates going on here? —There may be a small farmer buying out his neighbour, but the tendency regarding the larger estates is the other way. A good many large estates have been subdivided and sold privately. 10. Have you seen anything of the working of the lease-in-perpetuity system on the various settlements round here? —I have not had much opportunity of doing so. The Levels Estate is right along my property, but there has been hardly any time to judge as to the working of the system there. The Albury Settlement seems to be doing very well, but I have only been through it once. 11. Mr. McCardle.] You say you think the freeholder makes the best farmer: how do you distinguish between the 999-years-lease holder and the freeholder ? Are their interests not identical? —It is a long lease, certainly; but Ido not know if really at the bottom of their hearts they feel they will hold the land for all time. 12. Do you not think that the one tenure is just as likely to hold as the other? —I do not think so. For my part, I think I would be more secure if I held the freehold. 13. Can you see any advantage which would accrue to the Crown settlers under the land-for-settlements policy if they were granted the freehold ? —The removal of the restrictions in regard to cropping would be one advantage. It would also be an advantage to the State if the tenants were allowed to pay off, say, three-quarters of the capital value in good years. I think it would make the position of the State more secure. In the case of the Levels Estate, for instance, if we had a recurring of the prices of twelve years ago the tenants would not be able to pay their rents. 14. Would there be any question of their purchasing under these conditions? —The years we have had lately would enable them to wipe off part of the purchase-money, and then they would not have so much rent to pay if lean years come. 15. You say the restrictions would be removed: do you think that would be an advantage to the country in view of what you said just now that both classes of farmers have been farming indifferently? Do you not think that the restrictions tend to make good farmers of the leaseholders I—l1 —I do not think it would do for the Government to allow the tenants to crop the land they have leased as they like. I think a freeholder looks out that he does not destroy his land by b farming. I can remember how some of the education-reserve leases in our district were farmed in the past. One I know is very bad with Californian thistle. 16. But they are only for twenty-one years? —Yes. 17. Do you think the State has done a great deal for this district in purchasing the estates for closer settlement? —Yes.
A. CLELAND.I
449
C- 4.
18. Do you think they should continue that policy in this district? —Yes; but they should not go to the London money-market to borrow money for the purpose. They should give the tenants the freehold and use that money to buy other large estates. I do not believe in this continual borrowing. 19. Mr. Hall.] You say you consider the freehold a better tenure than the lease in perpetuity: do you mean that to apply to the tenant or the State? —To both parties. I think it is a safeguard to the State and also an advantage to the tenant that he should be able to pay off a part of the capital value in good years. 20. Do you think the country would have been so successfully settled under freehold tenure as it has been under lease in perpetuity? —I do not think so. I think a lease with the option of purchase would be a good thing. A man could start farming with very little capital. I know a ploughman who worked for myself who has got a farm which he could not have bought as a freehold. 21. Do you think, in the interests of the State, it is well that this lease in perpetuity was introduced? —I do not believe in lease in perpetuity without the option of the freehold. 22. In speaking of the option of the freehold do you mean that to apply to the present leases, or to the future only ? —To the present leases. 23. In that case, as they were originally balloted for under certain conditions, should there not be a fresh ballot when there is to be any change of tenure? —I do not think so. It would be optional. Some may purchase and some may not. 24. Every one had the right to ballot in the former case, and now when the tenure is to be changed you would limit it only to those who were successful in the first ballot? —I would not believe in breaking faith with the tenants like that. 25. If the tenure is substantially changed would not every one consider they had a right for another chance under the new conditions? —I cannot agree to that. I think some percentage should be added to the value to secure the State against loss. 26. Do you think that any Government would for a moment attempt to break down a title given in good faith for 999 years? —What did the Government do with the Land Company? The State gave the company a Crown title for all time and then forced them to sell it. 27. But is that not done in every country when the public interests require that land should be taken? —But what is to prevent them taking the leasehold? It is very easy to make excuses that it is in the public interests, and break the lease and have new valuations. 28. Seeing that the freehold had been taken compulsorily in the past, would there not be a greater danger to the tenants under freehold tenure than under leasehold? —I do not think so. Of course, I see the Trades and Labour Council advocate revaluation. 29. Mr. Paul.\ You agree that the fact of the Government acquiring the Land Company's estate and cutting it up for closer settlement has been in the interests of the colony? —Yes. 30. Have you had opportunities of judging whether these leaseholders are farming their land well? —Not much. The estate has only been settled twelve months. 31. Then, in saying that the freeholder farms his land better than the leaseholder-you mean that remark to apply to private leases let several years ago?— Yes; private leases and educational leases in my district. 32. Were the men who leased land from the Levels Estate paying a moderate or a high rent? —They paid a moderate rent, but they did not farm it successfully. 33. What is the length of the lease? —I think, for fourteen years, but lam not sure of the terms. At the time the general manager spoke to me one tenant had gone away and left his farm in a very dilapidated condition. 34. Is it not probable that a very high rent was charged for the land, and that those who took up leases went in for the system of taking as much out of the land as they could in a short time? — I expect they would be bound by certain restrictions in regard to cropping. I do not know the particulars of the lease. ■35. However, the same conditions are not applicable to the 999-years lease?—l do. not think so. I have had no means of judging them; but the tendency all round is to farm better, because we cannot get the crops unless the land is well farmed. 36. Is there anything in your observation recently that would lead you to say that the leaseholder does not farm his land well?- I cannot say anything about the lease-in-perpetuity tenants. 37. On what terms would you give the option of purchase to the present tenants? —I would be inclined to add a small percentage to protect the State against loss. 38. What would you do in the case of tenants who are paying too high a rent at the present time? —This percentage would have to cover that loss. They would not be likely to buy the freehold, and their sections would be left on the hands pf the State. 39. Would you give the freehold of educational endowments? —I would not. 40. Why? —They were granted for a certain purpose, and the revenue is required to carry on the educational institutions. 41. You think it pays the State to hold these lands for these institutions? —The institutions have the Crown grant, and they let the land out. 42. But from the financial point of view it pays these institutions to keep these endowments? —They are endowments to enable them to carry on their work, and, I suppose, they could not do without them. 43. Would you give the tenants on these purchased estates the whole freehold or a partial freehold ? —I would not allow them to pay off more than 80 per cent, of the capital value. 44. You would still allow the State to have a controlling interest so far as the mangaement of the estate is concerned? —Not in regard to the management, but in regard to the sale of the sections, I would allow the State, through the Land Board, to have a voice in the sale.
57—C. 4,
450
[a. cleland.
C.-4.
45. Do you not think that the tenant would have more difficulty in selling his interest when he has paid such a proportion as you suggest than if it was simply a leasehold?—l do not think so. I think the freehold always sells well. 46. You said the tenants were afraid of revaluation ?—Yes; I think there is a general feeling of that sort all over the colony. 47. You say that has been brought about by the Trades and Labour Council advocating revaluation ? —Yes. 48. Are you aware that in advocating revaluation they have never wished to apply it retrospectively?—! am not aware of that. I think some of them speak difierently from that. 49. Can you say where you saw or heard of such a proposal? —No; but I gathered that opinion from reading of their meetings. 50. Mr. Anstey.] Would you apply the term "bad farming" to holders of leases under the lease in perpetuity generally? —I have not seen much of their farming. 51. You would not like to make the assertion to-day that the lease-in-perpetuity tenants are not farming their lands well? —I would not. 52. With regard to leases given by the company you referred to, can you tell me whether the leases contained a purchasing clause? —One that I know of did, and the other one did not. 53. Are these people still in possession of that land? —One of them is. 54. How many of them gave up their land owing to bad farming?—l only know of one, but Mr. Davidson had experience in other respects besides the Levels. 55. But you only know of one who bought the land out and of one who had to leave through bad farming? —Yes. - 56. You spoke of the terms on which you would be prepared to grant the freehold: you said in some cases the rents were a little high and in some cases a little low: does that not mean the land would have to be revalued?—No; I would add a percentage to all. 57. And then deduct the percentage from those that were valued too high?—l expect in cases like Pomahaka the sections would not be bought at all. 58. How could you tell which sections the percentage should be added to and from which the percentage should be taken off? —I think you could easily find that out. I could pretty well tell what estates had been bought at a reasonable price. I believe that is pretty generally known. 59. At all events, you are not prepared to give them the freehold at present prices?—l would require a percentage to save the State against loss. 60. Have you any leasehold land? —None. 61. Do you think the cropping restrictions imposed by the lease are too severe? —In some cases where the land is very good and suitable for further cropping I think the restrictions might be eased off. 62. Do you think, generally speaking, two white crops in six years would be fair average cropping?— Yes. I do not think a freeholder would crop, on the average, more than that. 63. You spoke of education leases being badly farmed: do you know the terms of these leases? —I think, about fourteen years. 64. Have they the right of renewal or any valuation for improvements at the end of the term? —They get valuation for buildings, provided the Board have sanctioned the improvements. 65. Do vou know of any land that is controlled by the Board of Governors of the Canterbury College? —I do not. 66. Are you aware that the leases are for fourteen years with no right of renewal, and not one penny for improvements? —I am not aware of it. 67. Supposing there is a large area of land held under such leases, would you say it is any wonder the land was badly farmed?—l would not wonder at it. There ought always to be valuation for improvements in all leases. 68. Do vou not think it should be compulsory that all leases issued in regard to public lands should provide for reasonable valuation for improvements? —I think it would be reasonable, provided the authorities have some say as to what improvements are put on. 69. You are aware that the Land Board administers all the public lands in the colony, and that the Educational Commissioners administer part of the reserves, and that the College Board of Governors manage another part, while several other bodies manage other reserves: do you think it would be a good plan were all the public reserves to be administered by the Land Boards?—No; I think it would be dangerous. I think that institutions should manage their own reserves. 70. Are you aware that the Educational Commissioners have nothing whatever to do with the revenue arising from these reserves except to pay it direct into the Consolidated Fund? —1 am not aware of it. . 71. Supposing you were aware of it, do you not think it would be just as well that the Land Board should administer the whole lot?—No; I think there would be a tendency to centralisation. 72. You are a member of the executive of the Farmers' Union?— Yes. 73. There was a circular sent out: was it sent out by your executive or by the colonial executive? —By the colonial executive. 74. Was it sent to all the branches?—l do not know. Our branch got a circular. 75. Did you hold a meeting in Timaru to consider that circular? —No. 76! Mr. Matheson.] If the State and the tenant agreed to a purchasing clause being added to the lease would you call it an amendment or a breach of the lease? —I think it is optional; it would be no breach. • 77. Mr. Johnston.] You say the Levels Estate would have been settled long ago had it not been for the experience with some of the farms they left? —Yes. 78. What kind of lease was given?—l think fourteen years, with the usual cropping conditions. I believe they were given a purchasing clause if the system had proved satisfactory and had been continued.
A. OLELAND.j
451
C—4
79. Is the cocksfoot better than the native grasses on the country you sowed? —Yes. 80. Have you been at Waikakahi? —No. 81. Have you had any experience at Pomahaka ? —No. 82. Mr, Forbes.] Are there any more large estates about Timaru that could be cut up and settled? I suppose so. A good few large estates have been broken up privately. Raincliff has been cut up and sold privately. 83. Has the price given for land cut up privately been much more than the price on which the settlers on the Levels are paying rent ? —Kainclifi was sold a few years ago, and land has gone up a bit since then. 64. \ou think that the law which enables the Government to take these estates and cut them up is one that is necessary in the interests of the country?—l do not think it should be compulsory. I think a law allowing the Government to buy them is sufficient. 85. How would you get the estates if the large owners refused to sell them or settle them? — Hut they have been very anxious to sell. 86. But would it not be advisable to have some means whereby the Government could go on with this settlement? It might if there was a stoppage, but, so long as there are plenty offering, 1 think there should be no compulsion. 67. Do you not think that the expensive process that is involved in compulsorily resuming these estates would cause the Government to pause before setting the machinery in motion and influence them to negotiate for the purchase? Ido not think so. The Ardgowan Estate was taken from the company, and was worth far more than the Government gave for it. The farmers who gave evidence had sons going in for the ballot for that land, and, really, their evidence was not trustworthy. 1 am well acquainted with the Oamaru district, and I know farmers who gave evidence at the Compensation Court who were interested parties. 88. On the other hand, the weight of evidence in regard to the Flaxbourne Estate seems to be in favour of high values I—Well,1 —Well, there is a great discrepancy there between the two valuers. 89. Mr. McCutchan.] In speaking of the transfer of leases under the Land for Settlements Act you said you thought the Land Board could exercise a controlling power even after the tenant had paid off 80 per cent. : to what extent, in your opinion, should the Land Board exercise that power ? —To provide against the section going into large estates. 90. Would you leave the vendor and the purchaser absolutely free as to the consideration? — Yes. 91. You said, further, that the purchasing clause should not be at the original upset, but at a higher value to guard against loss? —Yes. 92. Do you not think that the liability against loss is sufficiently safeguarded already?—lt might if the times keep good, but, if more lean years come, I think there will be a large loss. J3. lhe State is already granting a 10 per cent, rebate to tenants who pay their rent promptly? —Yes. 94. If that were to cease and that money paid into a fund to provide a guarantee against loss, do you think that would be sufficient?— Yes. 1 think that should be done from the first 95. Do you think it is a wise thing to give the tenants a 10-per-cent. rebate in good years?—l do not think so. I think it should go into a fund to be available in lean years. 96. \ou express the fear that revaluation in connection with these leases might be made retrospective? —Yes. 97. And I understood you to say that your fear arose through the sayings of the Trades and Labour Council? Yes, and Mr. EU, and Mr. Laurenson, and Mr. Fowlds all talking that way. 98. But none of them hitherto have advocated making this revaluation retrospective 2 —l cannot say that exactly; but we gathered from them that we could not trust them. 99. You think if they succeeded in introducing a clause into the Land Act providing for revaluation in connection with leases to be issued in the future that as soon as they gained that step they would endeavour to obtain the further step and make this revaluation retrospective?— I think so; and not only that, but the feeling all over the country would be that it was unfair to tho one who is subject to revaluation that there should be others who have escaped revaluation. 100. Mr. Johnston.] What is the average yield of oats and wheat on your land?— Within the last half-dozen years, about 30 bushels of wheat and about 50 of oats. 101. Do you know the average rental of the Levels and surrounding country?—l do not know I think about 6s. or 7s. 10 ?' r?° 5 ° U think that is a fair rental for land averaging 30 bushels of wheat and 50 bushels of oats? Tliey cannot average that; but the rents are not too high at the present prices and yields. Edmond Vague examined. 103. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I hold about 300 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Levels Estate. I have been there four years last June. I pay 12s. Bd. per acre, including buildings. I have the homestead block. The rent for the buildings is for twenty-one years only. J 104. Are you satisfied with your tenure?— Yes. My business to-day is not to express any dissatisfaction regarding the tenure or anything of that description, but I have come here to-day in the hope that the Commission will enlighten me in regard to one or two questions. 105. Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory ?—Yes, so far as their powers are concerned, but I think the Land Board should have greater discretionary power. I came to the Levels Estate four years ago, and I found that things were not as they were represented in the Government pamphlet. I might explain that I was not able to come and see the place before the ballot took place, and after I had drawn my section I found it did not answer the published description to a very large degree. I made a representation to the then Commissioner of Crown Lands on the subject, but I got no satisfaction. First of all, they argued that the place was as
a—4.
452
|E. VAGUE.
represented, until I convinced them to the contrary. There were 50 acres of my section absolutely covered with matagowrie, to clear which would cost a considerable expense, and I asked the Commissioner what he thought would be a fair monetary grant to enable me to convert the land into what they had represented it to be. But he could do nothing for me, and he said he would bring it before the Land Board. He did so, and the Land Board sent me a letter saying they had considered my case, and that they could not grant me any allowance in money, but they would grant me the right to cultivate 50 acres additional to what the lease allowed. That seemed all right on paper, but it was a matter of impossibility to carry it into effect. 1 had to do this all in one year. Since that 1 have been struggling to clear this place, but 1 have not been able to get any satisfaction from the Land Board. 1 received a letter from Wellington twelve months ago saying that the Department considered 1 had no ciaiin whatever upon the Government, because they had granted me what I had asked in the matter of this extra cropping of this 50 acres. You will see this was the reverse of the position. 1 did not ask for this extra cropping; they proferred it to me. 1 have half of that land now in cultivation. The other question 1 came to ask you about was in regard to land-configuration and taking back facings into consideration with sunny facings. 1 can give an instance to you. I suffered great loss two years ago through being on back facings. The season was very wet, and I was totally unable to get any cropping on the back facings which ought to have been cropped. As a consequence I had no crop at all, but I took the liberty of putting a small area of 16 acres on the flat in wheat which 1 should have grassed down. Of course, the Government Hanger came, and, as was his duty, he reported the matter, and I got a letter warning me that I had broken my lease. This was all the cropping I did that year. That is why I think the Land Board should have more discretionary power. I want to ask you whether it is not possible for Crown tenajits situated as 1 am to take a crop of oats out in grassing down on the back facings, instead of having to grass down with turnips. 1 think any man who wishes to remain on the land would not wish to overcrop his land. 1 have land which actually grows wheat rank for the want of cropping. A considerable proportion of my first crop was blighted for want of cropping, but the present one is a sound crop, which goes to show that ground can be too strong until it is mellowed down. 1 want to know in all fairness whether the Land Board should not have more power to vary the cropping conditions, and to enable me to take a crop of oats in grassing down instead of a crop of turnips or rape. 106. Mr. McGardle.] You are quite satisfied with your tenure of 999 years? —Yes. 107. Have you had any experience with the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes. 108. Was it satisfactory? —No. 109. Do you think the Act could stand amending in the direction of being more liberal? — They could amend it how they liked, but I would have no more to do with it. 110. You do not think, then, it has been a good thing for the country? —1 am straight-spoken. 1 came here with £500 cash, and I had other property in North Canterbury. I found the £500 was not nearly enough to enable me to carry on, so I went and mortgaged my place to a small extent. First of all I went to the Advances to Settlers Office, and, after being interviewed by a young man, I was told he did not think the office had any money to lend. I said it was a peculiar thing that the office was kept open when they had no money. He said he would write and see. He asked me how much I wanted, and said 1 might as well sign a form, which he filled in. I said I wanted £300, and he said he would send the application to Wellington. It was sent to Wellington accordingly, and I got a reply from the Board stating they could not grant me as much as I wanted. They offered me a sum that was short of my requirements. I may say that before the application was sent away they took fine care to collect £1 10s. from me. My property was worth considerably more than they offered. 1 then went to an outside firm and told them my case and how much money I wanted, and they said all right, and the money was transferred to my account in the Bank of New Zealand without the slightest trouble. 111. Then, from a public point of view, but not from a personal point of view, you think the Act requires amending? —Certainly, 1 do. I applied to a private firm for £150 more than I asked from the Government department, and I got it without any trouble. 112. Notwithstanding your experience, do you not think the Act has had a good experience on the money-market in the colony ? —I can only speak of my own experience. 113. Mr. McCutchan.] You speak a little harshly about the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes. 114. You said you paid a fee of £1 10s. when you sent in your application : was that the valuation fee? —I do not know what it was. 115. Did not a valuer inspect your property and see what your improvements were? —He may have done so after I went away. I know I paid £1 10s. and I got nothing for it. 116. Could you say that the valuer did not visit your property? —No. 117. Are you aware that the Department, on leasehold property, only advances up to 50 per cent, of the actual value of the improvements as estimated by their valuer? —Yes; but it seems to me a peculiar thing that I could go to an outside firm and get £150 more without any trouble. 118. At an equally reasonable rate of interest? —Yes; I paid 5 per cent. 119. Did you pay a procuration fee? —No. 120. Were your legal expenses as reasonable as under the Advances to Settlers Department'? —Quite. 121. Mr. Hall.\ Do you consider that the acquisition of these large estates with a view of cutting them up has been a good policy on the part of the State, and in the interests of settlers with limited capital requiring lan.d?—Yes. 122. Would it be to their advantage if the tenants had the privilege of paying off part of the capital value?—l can scarcely speak for other people. I say lam satisfied. 123. Generally speaking, would it be good policy to allow them to do so? —I think, like every other Britisher, we all like a little freehold. You see we may not be in a position to purchase,
C.—4.
453
E. VAGUE.
even if we had the privilege. For my own part, lam satisfied the way things are; but, still, I believe the freehold is the better tenure. 124. But, as regards the lease in perpetuity, would not the policy of allowing a part of the capital value to be paid ofi be a safeguard to the State, and give the tenant a greater interest in his farm? —I should not like to express my opinion. 125. If that were done would it not be only reasonable that all restrictions in regard to cropping should be removed, seeing that the tenant would have such a great interest in the property ? —lf a man had a chance to pay something off and then all restrictions were removed, I think it would be very good policy, supposing we could buy at the original capital value. 126. Should there be any restriction in regard to taking more than one green crop which is consumed on the land I—l1 —I do not think there need be any restriction about that. 127. Mr. Paul.] Do you notice any difference in the farming on leasehold and freehold land to-day? —Yes, you can notice a difference. 128. In favour of which?- In favour of the freehold slightly. 129. Is that difference disernible in this district? —I think so. If grain-growing promises to be fairly good for a season or two there is nothing to prevent the freeholder putting in another crop of wheat if his land is capable of carrying it, whereas we are restricted from doing so. There is a great advantage in that. 130. Is that the only thing? —It is the principal thing. 131. I xnean, is there any difference in the character of the farming? —I do not think there is much difference about that, but they have this advantage over the Crown tenants: a man on his own place can crop as he chooses, and oftentimes to advantage. 132. To what office did you apply for the advance? —Christchurch. 133. And did the officer seriously tell you they had no money?—1 think he wr. serious. 134. And the conclusion you came to was that the Department was broke? I think so. 135. Mr. Anstey.] Where is your farm? —On Levels. I have Sullivan's old homestead. 136. Are the cropping restrictions generally too severe? —Yes, I think so. 137. You would not favour doing away with them altogether? —No. 138. In what way do you wish them amended? —I consider that there should be a differentiation between land that pays £1 an acre and land that pays 3s. or 4s. rent. As far as I can hear, the man who pays 3s. rent is allowed to take off the same number of crops as we do. Where, then, does the difference in rent come in. 139. You consider that the whole of your land would bear three crops? -Yes, and it would be more to my advantage and to the advantage of the place to have them. I should be allowed to grass down with the third crop. Generally speaking, I think that would be satisfactory to the great majority of the tenantry. 140. That would mean a seven years' course instead of six? —Yes. We should take the preference of grassing down with the oat-crop instead of being compelled to grass down with rape and turnips. 141. Are the rents on the settlement reasonable? —Yes, fairly so, I think. 142. You said you are afraid of nobody. We had the statement more than once that Crown tenants being under the Government are afraid to spfeak their own minds. Do you think the generality of tenants feel themselves compelled to refrain from mentioning their grievances? - I have not consulted them on that point, but I can safely answer for myself. 143. Is there anything in the lease that compels a man not to speak his own mind? —No. 144. If you pay your rent and fulfil the conditions you think you have a right to say what you please? —I think so. 145. Mr. Matheson.] You have a special interest in one piece of land and an interest as a citizen in the whole land of the colony. Looking at it from a citizen's point of view, supposing the colony was occupied entirely by freeholders, or, again, entirely by Crown tenants with Rangers to supervise them, under which conditions do you think the colony would be the more prosperous and contented? —I think under the freehold. 146. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think it is desirable that the Land Board should have more discretionary power ?—Yes; not to detract anything from us, but to be able to improve matters. 147. Supposing the Land Board had a discretionary power which would enable them to appoint two practical farmers in each district to co-operate with the Ranger in ascertaining whether the land is fit for another crop, would that be satisfactory to the Crown tenants? —I consider the Ranger has quite sufficient ability to do anything like that. 148. The Ranger might not care to do it himself. Would the tenants be in favour of two farmers co-operating, such farmers to be chosen by the settlers? I do not know what to say about that; but it is' quite certain a farmer would not seek to overcrop his land if he intended to stay on the p'lace, and I think the Department could rely upon that, for what interest would it be to a man to overcrop his land for two or three years and then get no crop at all for the next two or three years, when it would not be to his interest to clear out very likely. 149. Mr. Johnston.] If times were bad would you be satisfied with your rent, say, with wheat at 2s. Id. a bushel and oats at Is. Id. a bushel? —It would not pay at that, and the land is too dear for sheep. Gerald Casey examined. 150. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, farming 200 acres of freehold. I lease the land with a purchasing clause at 10s. per acre rent. The lease is for twenty years, and the farm is situated at Claremont, about nine miles from here. I carry on mixed farming. 151. Is there anything you would like to bring before the Commission? —My first remark is with regard to the Advances to Settlers Office. I have a very small opinion of it. A condition of my lease was that I had to give three months' notice of my intention to purchase. Twelve months ago I applied to the Advances to Settlers Department for a loan, and I got a reply that they would
(J.—4.
454
j_G. CASEY.
advance me the money. 1 accordingly gave notice to the owners that I was going to purchase. Ten days before the time for completing the purchase arrived i got notice from the Department that they had no money in the office, and, of course, I could not get it out of them. I was advised that 1 had an action at law against them, but I was also advised not to take action, because 1 would only be one against eight hundred thousand people, with the Hon. Richard Seddon at tneir head. 1 therefore decided to try and get the money somewhere else, but, of course, as 1 had only ten days in which to raise it, 1 could not get as favourable terms as 1 would have been able to if 1 had not been delayed through receiving a promise of the money in the first instance from the Advances to Settlers Board. In connection with that, too, 1 may say that I had to pay a fee of £2 2s. 6d., whereas the last witness said that he got off with £1 10s. I would like to know whether 1 was being charged more because 1 was not a Crown tenant. The next point 1 would like to mention is that of tenure. In my opinion, it is the naturally born instinct of every Britisher to live on a freehold, and more especially is that so in the case of a man who comes from Ireland. What has maintained this colony from its initiation ? only the love of the freehold. It is strange to me that any one who left Britain to come here should say that he prefers leasehold to freehold. 1 cannot understand it, unless the iriau is like the fox, who, when he got his tail cut off, wanted all other foxes to take off their tails too. My idea is that when the Government cut up large estates they should, first of all, lease them to the tenants, but when the tenant has proved that he is going to be a permanent settler, and wishes to reside on the land with his family, say, after five years, he should get the right to make the land his freehold if he so desires, and the price at which he buys should be the original value. That will be the best for several reasons. There is no doubt that the man who has the chance of acquiring the freehold will work his land better, keep it cleaner, and ask no concessions with regard to cropping conditions, or anything else. Then, if the day ever arises, and we are threatened with battle, the freeholder is the man who will be most willing to defend the country. The freeholder is more patriotic than the leaseholder, who can put his belongings into a carpet bag and clear out. Then, with regard to the loading for roads. The Levels Estate paid rates to the local bodies for many years, and I consider that the Government should only have been responsible for the deviations of existing roads and of roads originally surveyed on the estate. The local bodies should make the roads surveyed on the place before the estate was acquired by the Government. If it pleased the company to do without roads all these years that is no reason why the local body should not make them now, seeing that they have received rates from the place for years that should have been spent there. 152. Mr. McCardle.] Do you not think the settlers under the Land for Settlements Act are fairly successful ? —Yes, I believe so. 153. What you claim for the tenants is that they should have the right of purchase? —Yes. 154. Do you not think it would be just as well to wait till they ask for it? —Yes; but they should have the right to ask. 155. You think there is room for amendment in regard to the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes. 156. Mr. McGutchan.] Did you make any application to the Advances to Settlers Office for a refund of the valuation fee? —Yes, and I got it refunded with the exception of 6d., which they owe me yet. 157. Since your valuation fee was £2 2s. the amount you applied for was in excess of £500? —Yes. 158. Are you not aware that they are not advancing more that £500?--Why did they not say so at the beginning. 159. The change may have come about just about the time you made your application? —It had not come about before they sent me their first reply. 160. Do you not think they have made reasonable reparation in refunding you your fee?- No, 1 do not. 161. With reference to the loading of the Levels Estate, you understand that when a large estate is bought and subdivided for close settlement, it is necessary to make a number of roads to meet the requirements of the new settlers, and that the cost of that roading must be added to the cost of the estate and distributed over the sections? —I have no objection to that; but lam led to believe that the Government charged interest on £30,000 or £40,000 more than the roading cost them. 162. Mr. Mall.] You do not believe in the lease in perpetuity? —No, I do not. 163. Would not that be hard on people who cannot afford to buy a freehold? —By all means let a man who cannot afford to buy a freehold have a lease in perpetuity, but if he so wishers give him the right to acquire it when in a position to do so. 164. You speak of the leasehold in Ireland being a curse: did not that arise in consequence of granting the freehold to the landlords ? If in the early days of Irish history the land had been leased on low terms for 999 years, would not that have been a good thing? —The people of Ireland have cheek, but I do not think they have enough to let land for as long as 999 years. 165. If the Government had leased the land in Ireland for as long terms as they do here, would not that have been a good thing for Ireland? —Yes, it would. 166. The freehold has been the curse of Ireland? —No, it has not. 167. Mr. Paul.] Is there any analogy between an Irish landlord and the New Zealand Government? —I class all landlords the same, whether they be Irish landlords or a Government. 168. Do you think the tenants under the New Zealand Government are in a better or worse position than the tenants in Ireland? —They are better off under the New Zealand Government. 169. Could you forward to the Chairman, for the information of the Commission, the letter you got from the Advances to Settlers Office saying that they had no money? —I do not know whether I can produce both letters or not, but I believe I have the one in which they said they would let me have the money. Ido not know whether I have the second letter. That second letter, now I think of it, stated that they had the money in smaller quantities, but not in the quantity I wanted it.
C—4
455
a. OASET.
170. Do you think there is any danger of aggregation if the freehold is given to the tenants under the Land for Settlements Act? —The Government can easily stop that by stating the acreage one man can hold. 171. You are in favour of restricting the area? —Of course, I am. I would never have it again brought into large estates. 172. If the amount of freehold you can hold is prescribed by law, would not that restrict the market and reduce the value of the freehold? —There is plenty of land in New Zealand. You need not be afraid that I will not be able to sell my land if I want to. 173. Do you not think that if the tenants are given the option of the freehold the good bargains in the sections will be bought up and the others left on the hands of the State? —If the land is properly valued when cut up there should be no bargains. Every section should be valued for the money put on it. 174. Do you know of any man who is paying too much rent? —No. If they are they have kept it to themselves, and have not told me. 175. You are emphatic with regard to freeholders being more valuable in time of war than leaseholders. Is the British navy armed by freeholders? —Those who command the navy are, 1 believe. 176. You think the commanders win the battles? —They go a long way towards it. 177. Mr. Anstey.] Would you extend the option of the freehold to lessees of education reserves? —Yes, I would. It is all public property. 178. Would you extend the same right to the leaseholders on private estates? —I would leave alone whatever contract had been entered into between private individuals. 179. You would not give orTvate leaseholders the privilege of the option of purchase? —I would leave that to be arranged between the parties themselves. 180. You would not go the length of saying that the Advances to Settlers Office should be done away with altogether ?—lf I had my way I would abolish it right off, but perhaps the office deals more favourably with other people than it has done with me, and I suppose they have a right to be heard in the matter. 181. Have you had any experience of co-operative labour? —No, but I understand how it is worked. I maintain that the contract system is better. 182. Do you know whether the roads which were made by the Government on the Levels Estate were made by the local body out of moneys provided by the Government, or whether the Government sent down their own men and made the roads themselves? I could not say that. 183. Mr. Matheson.\ Are you aware that the British Government are spending more money in buying estates than the New Zealand Government is, and that in each case in Britain the option of the freehold is given ?—Yes, they can pay off by instalments. 184. If four or five lean years came to Canterbury do you think the Crown tenants could prosper under their present rents? —Yes, I believe they could. 185. You think that if wheat and oats fell to what they were ten years ago, and the price of sheep came down too, they could pay all right?— They would pay all right, no matter what grain does if sheep keep up, and there is no chance of sheep falling so long as John Bull has got as good an appetite as at present. He has a good appetite, and the Lord increase it! We would be badly off without it. 186. Mr. Johnston.'] What did you pay for your land? —£10 an acre. 187. What did that land cost Mr. Rhodes?—He paid £9 10s. an acre for it seven or eight years before. I took it on lease nine years ago with a purchasing clause. 188. Did Mr. Rhodes get the land from the Government direct?— No. He bought it from a private individual. 189. Did the improvements Mr. RKodes put on the land cost him 10s. an acre? —I believe he lost money over the transaction between what he gave for it and what we paid for it. 190. What did Mr. Rhodes originally pay for the bulk of his land about Timaru? —I could not tell that. say that no one but freeholders can fight?—l did not say that, but I say freeholders are best, because they have a stake in the country to fight for. 192. Are all the Irishmen in the British army freeholders? —I never heard of a freeholder outside of the landlords in Treland. If Ireland had to defend itself now only women and youngsters would be there to fight for it. 193. Mr. Forbes.] Where there any cropping regulations in the lease you had from Mr. Rhodes? Yes, but they were not quite so restrictive as yours. We were allowed two white crops in five years, and as many green crops as we liked. 194. You think that reasonable? —Yes. 195 Would the regulations on Crown land about here be better in that form? —Any man who wants more than two white crops in five years is injuring himself and the land. 196. We were told that some of the land at Waikakahi was so strong that the first two crops were nothing but straw?— There is no land of that nature about here. If the land is so strong that it grows nothing but straw, you want to crop it until the crop is less rank. 197 As long as a man grows green crops that would do instead of putting it into pasture? —I would allow a man to grow as many green crops as he likes. Matthew Driscoll examined. 198 The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer holding about 500 acres of freehold on Levels. I have been farming in the district for about thirty-three years, and I purchased my land from the company at £12 and £12 10s. per acre. I crop and keep sheep. 199. Have you had any dealing with the Land Board? —No.
C.—4.
456
[m. deiscoll.
200. Do you think the cropping restrictions should be made more elastic for the tenant? —I can hardly say. The tenants who have been here for the last five years have done fairly well. I think two white crops are plenty, and if a man wants a third crop he should put in a year's fallow. 201. Do you think freehold is better than leasehold for advancing the colony? —Those who have got the land lately have done very well, because of the good years we have had. On the Levels Estate they are paying £12 rent, and I do not know how they would have done on that rent twelve years ago. 202. As a principle of settlement, do you think it is better that the people should have land on the freehold or simply cn the leasehold ? —Had it not been for the Government purchasing estates I do not know where many of the people now on the land would have got their farms from. Not one in twenty could buy a freehold. I think, however, that in the course of five or six years they should have the option of purchasing. 203. Do you think that if they had the option it would make them better farmers? —I think if a man was inclined to farm he would farm on any tenure; but it would be a great encouragement if he had the option of the freehold, say, in five or six years' time. 204. Mr. McCutchan.\ While enjoying good years do you think it would be good policy on the part of the Government to pay off part of the freehold?—l think it would. 205. Would you allow them to go on and pay off the whole amount ? —Yes. 206. Would you allow them to acquire the freehold at the original price? —I hardly think so. 207. Mr. Anstey?\ Do we understand from you that the cropping restrictions allowing two white crops are reasonable? —Yes; but if it comes a dry year and his land only gives 7 bushels to the acre, as happened once with me on land generally giving 30 or 40 bushels, I would allow him to take another crop off. 208. You would not alter the lease to allow him three crops? —No. 209. Are settlers able to get what advances they want from private firms easier and better than from the Advances to-Settlers Office? —I could not say. 210. What is your experience with regard to the buildings put up on the Rosewill Settlement; and are the farms there farmed as well as if they were freeholds? —Yes, I think so. I think they are putting up better houses and sheds than I had when I started on my land. 211. Do you remember at any time when the New Zealand and Australian Land Company let land for cropping? —Yes. 212. Did you ever crop any of it? —Yes; I paid about £1 an acre —£1 3s. was the highest I paid. 213. That was for one crop? —Yes. We broke it up, cross-ploughed it and put in one crop. 214. What is the rent for that land now? —I suppose the land for which I paid £1 3s. is occupied by tenants paying 6s. or Bs. Wheat then was 4s. 4d. a bushel. 215. Mr. Johnston.\ What did it cost to cart that wheat, then? —2d. per bushel to Timaru, a distance of thirty miles. 216. How long have you been farming this piece of land you have now? —The last portion I acquired about fourteen years ago, and the first portion about four years before that. 217. Have you found that your land pays you at 12s. 6d. an acre? —Yes, I have. I paid off the whole value at the end of two crops. 218. Will that land pay on a rental of 12s. 6d. an acre on the average price of stock and grain ? —Yes, at the present time. 219. Will it pay in bad times?—l do not think so. If wheat is down to 2s. and oats to Is., and sheep stand at Bs. or 9s. per head, it will not. 220. What is the average yield of wheat on your property? —35 to 40 bushels. 221. What is the average yield of oats? —40 to 45 bushels. William Stephen Maslin examined. 222. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm 2,000 or 3,000 acres of freehold land in the Geraldine district. I have been a long time there. I have given a fair amount of attention to the land question. 223. What do you think of the present constitution of the Land Board? —I do not think the present system could be improved upon. Their duties are administrative, and the Government should be alone responsible for the administration of its land policy. I believe if you had authority in the shape of partly elected Land Boards you would have no one to whom you could ship home responsibility with respect to administration. I think the Land Boards should be in sympathy with the Government of the day in its land policy, and that can only be absolutely secured by the Government appointing the members of the Land Boards. 224. What is your view in respect to the freehold and leasehold tenure and their influence on the settlement of the country ? —I believe if at its inception leasehold with periodical valuation had been adopted it might have been a good thing for the colony and for the general taxpayer; but, seeing that that system has not been adopted, I think that all holders of leases in perpetuity should have the right to convert their leasehold into freehold. I would not do away with the leasehold system; I believe in the leasehold as a first tenure to enable a man with small means to get on the land. The object of the man going on the land is to improve his position. I would not make the payments for the freehold compulsory; they should be optional. I think it would be very necessary if a system of that kind were adopted that there should be some limit as to the amount to be paid during each year. I think that only a certain amount should be received in any one year. Under the lease in perpetuity in connection with Crown lands under the Land Act there must be a considerable loss to the gerieral taxpayer through leasing land at 4 per cent, when we are paying 4 per cent, interest on over £30,000,000 of our public debt. From a business-point of view, it would be, I think, in the interest of the general taxpayer that these people should be allowed to convert their leasehold into freeholds, because by doing so we would get all the advan-
C.—4.
W. S. MASLIN. 1
457
tages of the land-for-settlements system without the expenses of administering, which must come out of the general Consolidated Fund. We have leased as lease in perpetuity under the Land Act over 1,147,000 acres at 4 per cent., and it must be patent to every one that the leasing of land at' 4 per cent, and borrowing money equal to the value of the land at 4 per cent, must result in a loss somewhere that must be met by the general taxpayer. lam therefore of opinion that it would be in the interests of the State to allow them to acquire the freehold at the original value, seeing that the State would lose nothing by it The State has practically alienated the land for 999 years at a nominal rental of 4 per cent. lam speaking now of land leased on lease in perpetuity under the Land Act. Coming now to the Land for Settlements Act, I believe in the general policy of the Land for Settlements Act. I believe it is in the interests of the community that such a policy should be carried out vigorously; but I think that the right to acquire the freehold would be in the interests both of the tenant and of the State. It would certainly be in the interests of the landholders to give a freehold tenure, because, I think, it is in the interests of the agricultural and pastoral community that there should be a community of interests in the occupation of the land. I think that should be the ultimate aim of our land policy, so as to counteract as largely as possible the socialistic tendencies of the cities in respect to the occupation of the land. It has been objected that the enhanced value that has accrued to this land since it was taken up would mean a gift of a considerable amount of money to the tenants. But I would like to point out that we have practically given the land to them, and we cannot get it from them again except by an immoral act or by imposing penal legislation upon them. They have got the land for 999 years, and it would be making the best of a bad bargain for the State to allow them to acquire the freehold and come under the general system of taxation of the colony, which they escape to a large extent now. I would like to make some remarks with respect to cropping. I think that latitude should be allowed to the Crown Land Rangers with regard to cropping, and, seeing that most of these officers are men of experience, the cropping regulations would, no doubt, be properly administered. I think that the cropping regulations should depend largely on the character and the condition of the land. 1 would therefore allow some discretion to the Crown Land Ranger. For instance, as long as a settler is only taking off green crops —feeding them off—he is improving the land, and there should be no limitation. With respect to the ballot, I have not much to say as to that, except to mention the objection which I have heard made by persons who have spoken to me about the subject: that is, as to the grouping-system —that they cannot get a block of land they want. I think that system very often misrepresents the keenness of the desire for land, because it compels men to go in for something that he does not want. 225. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in this district? —No, I do not think so. The tendency is in the other direction. Owing to the direct and local taxation, I do not think there is much likelihood of the aggregation of the estates again taking place. I might mention, with regard to giving the right of acquiring the freehold, that many persons say that that would lead to the reaggregation of large estates. I think that the aggregation of estates might come about just as easily under the leasehold if it were not that the conditions of the leasehold prevent that taking place. I think that an amendment of the Land Transfer Act could prevent in a similar way the aggregation of the freehold land by providing that no transfer would be registered except the transferee took the declaration required under the Land for Settlements Act, and there should be heavy penalties for any perjury or misstatement —penalties involving even the forfeiture of the land. That would effectually prevent the aggregation of freehold estates just as much as the present law can prevent the aggregation of leasehold land. The limit as to area would, I think, depend entirely on the character of the land. There is some land which is now classed as firstclass land which in other districts is only regarded as second-class land. All land that is now classed as first-class land is not similar in quality. Some of the land that is now classed as firstclass land is worth three or four times the amount that other first-class land is worth. I think it should be a question of the value of the land rather than the area of the land. 226. Have you any knowledge of the Advances to Settlers Office? —If there was not such delay in connection with obtaining loans, I think it would be very much more popular with borrowers than appears at the present time. Men seldom seek to borrow money until they want it. Under the present system such delays occur before settlers can get money from the Department that many people borrow outside who would otherwise avail themselves of the Advances to Settlers Office if it were not for the uncertainty that seems to attach to getting loans from the State. I have heard many people complain in respect to the delays in getting advances from the Advances to Settlers Office. 227. Mr. Hall.] I understood you to say that the 999-years tenure is very good, but you are also in favour of giving the option of the freehold? —I say that the 999-years tenure without revaluation is a bad tenure for the State. If provision had been made in the original Act for revaluation it might have been a very good thing for the State, because in the course of time land might have been so enhanced in value that a sinking fund might have been provided —in excess of the interest —that would have wiped out the original sum borrowed. As it is now the State will be for the 999 years practically an interest-collecting agency for foreign capitalists. 228. Do you consider that it would be better if the tenants could have the freehold? —I do, undoubtedly. 229. In what way, seeing that they have the money at a very low rate of interest, they might acquire the freehold and afterwards be subject to a mortgage at a very much higher rate of interest? —When a man has the advantage of holding his land at 4 per cent, on the original value of the property, under my proposal he would 'have the option of paying off sucli a sum as he could pay from time to time, and I say it would be most unreasonable to suppose that he should borrow money outside in order to pay off the amount owing to the State. 230. You think there is no probability of the aggregation of estates in the event of the State parting with the freehold ? —No; that would be prevented by the provisions attached to the transfer of land.
58—C. 4.
a—4.
458
[W. 8. MASLIN.
231. Would you make that apply to present leases?— Yes. I would allow the tenants under the lease in perpetuity to have the right of purchase at the original value. 232. Would that be fair to others outside?— Yes, I think so, because under the Land Act, while there is an indirect gain there is practically a loss involving the total cost of administration, which has to be charged by the landlords to the general taxpayer, who is paying 4 per cent, on from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000 of public debt, and the State is only getting back 4 per cent, minus the cost of administration under the Land Act and any rebate of rent allowed. 233. Would not others outside the present tenants have the right to come in under the Land for Settlements Act in regard to sections of purchased estates ?—They had the right originally to come in under the ballot. 234. You speak of certain changes in the lease: would not that mean issuing a new lease?— There would be no necessity to issue a new lease. I would be in favour of legislation being passed giving the present occupiers of the land the right of purchase by payments of any sum, fixing a limit, which might be paid in any one year, and that would mean the tenant would get a proportionate reduction in the rent. 235. That would be virtually cancelling the present lease?—l think the Government has already done that to some extent. The Crown Tenants Rebate of Rent Act has been passed. The tenants took up the land covenanting to pay 4 and 5 per cent., and now they are to get % per cent, refund. 236. That does not vitiate the lease? —No more would my proposal vitiate the lease. By legislation you can do anything. You can provide that the lease shall not be vitiated. 237. As regards education and other such endowments, they were set apart for special purposes for all time: do you consider that there should be power given to sell them?— No. Seeing that the persons in whom these lands are vested are not in debt, they have the revenue from these reserves purely as income. 238. I suppose you consider there might be a danger in giving the power to sell?—I think there would be no advantage in giving the power to sell. There is no encumbrance on the land, and consequently the whole of the rent received would be available for the purposes for which the local authorities were constituted. 239. You spoke of Crown land as being distinct from land acquired under Land for Settlements Act: is that because the tenants pay a lower rate of interest, or what is the reason?—l know of cases in the North Island where considerable sums of money have been made by speculating in lease-in-perpetuity sections, but, seeing that that was land acquired at a small sum from the Natives, I suppose"the State would consider that it should deal with that as it pleased. 240. Do you think that settlers taking up such Crown lands should have liberal terms?— Yes; I quite approve in respect to back-bush blocks of letting settlers occupy the land at a nominal sum at first, and I also think that in regard to residence they should be dealt with liberally, especially where there are no roads. I know of cases where some settlers have had to pack their goods and produce for miles, and I think they should be very liberally dealt with. 241. Mr. McCutchan.] You approve of the nominative system for Land Boards?— Yes. 242. That seems to be the general opinion ?—Yes. I do not think you could improve upon it, because it makes the Government responsible for the land-administration. 243. In some districts—especially in Canterbury, for instance—do you not think there should be more local representation, because some of the outlying districts do not at present get representation?—! do not think that direct representation is necessary, because the members of the Land Board must be guided largely by the reports of the responsible officers. 244. But there is the other side of the question. Capable officials are a very fine thing, but would it not be well to have good local representation from the settlers standpoint J—l do not think it would be in the interests of settlement to have such representations. 245. Then, why not abolish Land Boards and let the Crown Lands Commissioners administer the Act?—lt is said that in a multitude of councils there is wisdom; it may apply to Land Boards, but I do not think there would be any advantage in altering the present system. " 246. In connection with Crown land where these settlers' interests exceed that of the interest of the State in the land, would it not be very unfair if the tenants had no direct representation?— I do not see that there is anv good ground for giving direct representation. 247. What are the four members of the Land Board at present appointed by the Government f or ?_Tliey are four men who are appointed because they are supposed to have a practical knowledge of the working of the land in the district, and I think most of them have. 248. It has been suggested that the land districts should be divided into wards?—l do not think that would act satisfactorily ; it would materially increase the cost, and you would have an unwieldly cumbersome Land Board. 249. lam not advocating a departure from the present system of nomination. I think that is wise and proper, but there are many districts, especially in Canterbury, which are not at present getting representation 6n the Land Board?— Let us take South Canterbury. The present member of the Board appointed from this district is a man who goes all over the district, and he must know tt well tne circumstances of the whole district. I believe it would lead to bad administration if members of the Land Board were such men as could be button-holed by applicants in respect to the various questions coming before the Board. 250 Does not the objection vou now raise exist in respect to the present system?—No, the members of the Board are entirely independent; they do not represent any particular section of the settlers, or any particular district : their duty is to administer the land laws and the land policy of the Government in the best possible wav. _ 251 If that is so in regard to four members, why not have six members? —If you had six members vou would probably want twelve members before long. I have had a good deal of experience of committees and Boards of various kinds, and I am convinced that a small level-headed committee or Board will do better work than a larger body.
C—4.
W. S. MASLIN.J
459
252. With reference to Crown land under the Act of 1892 you said that the State is suffering a loss? —I said that there is a direct loss, but indirectly there may be a gain. 253. Ido not think that is quite correct, for this reason: that 8,000,000 acres of land has been purchased for =£2,000,000?— Ido not consider what it was purchased at. We have borrowed over £30,000,000 of money upon which we are paying 4 per cent., and we are leasing the land at its assessed value at the time it was taken up at 4 per cent., and then there is the cost of administration, which must come out of the pockets of the general taxpayer. If you allow those persons who take up this land to convert their leaseholds into freeholds the necessity for further borrowing for the land-for-settlement policy would be obviated, because the money received would be available for carrying on the land-for-settlement policy, and that would save the colony going into the London money-market for land-for-settlement purposes for many years to come. i noticed the other day that it was stated that the reason why Canadian stock is so much higher than that of other colonial stock is simply because the Canadian Government is not borrowing. If we could keep out of the money-market, and could finance from the moneys received from this land, the colony would be benefited in every way. 254. You say the colony is suffering a loss because it is only receiving 4 per cent, from this land, but 1 may point out that in many instances the Government is getting as much as from to 8 to 12 per cent, out of these lands? —If you take the original cost of the land in the South Island — and practically the whole of that land has cost nothing, or next to nothing —as we are getting 4 per cent, on lease in perpetuity under the Land Act there may be a considerable gain; but, as I have stated the case, as the Government leased at 4 per cent, on the capital value at the time of leasing, there must be a loss, for there are the expenses of administration in addition and the rebate of rent. 255. The figures show that the State is making a substantial profit out of the Crown tenants?— • Take the case of land in the Taranaki District. Land was disposed of there up to £2 ss. and £2 7s. k which was worth that amount in cash at the time, and some of it was worth more than that, and that was before the railway was constructed through the district. You must take the cash value at the time before the land was leased. 256. What land was settled there before the railway was put through? —Where was Eltham before the railway was constructed. 1 was there before Eltham was called Eltham. The State could have converted that land into cash and so have avoided borrowing, but the Government elected rather to borrow, and leased the land. They leased the land at 4 per cent, on its value then, and I maintain that the cost of administration must be added, and therefore there has been a loss to that extent to the general taxpayer. 257. Would you advocate the revaluation in connection with leases to be issued in future? — No, because we have already alienated all our easily available land and the best of our land and have leased it without revaluation, and if you impose revaluation on those who take up land in the future under less advantageous conditions it would be manifestly unfair to those who take up land in the future. 258. Mr. Paul.j If a tenar.„ is entitled to have his rent reduced is it not fair that it should be so reduced ? —I know that there are a few exceptional cases where it may be desirable that the rent should be reduced, but in most cases the rent is very fair —in fact, it is to the advantage of the tenant. 259. Do you think revaluation is right in principle? —The proper principle of leasing should embody revaluation, and that principle is now being applied by local bodies under the last Municipal Corporations Act, which gives the local bodies power to revalue and to continue the lease. 200. 1 understand you to say that leasehold with revaluation would have been the best thing for the State? —Yes, originally. 261. Do you not think it would be better to inaugurate that system for the future? —I do not think so now that so much of the best land has been let with no provision for revaluation. 262. You propose giving the option of the freehold? —Yes; then the freeholder would come under the general system of direct taxation, which they now escape, to a large extent, as leaseholders. " 263. Could not they be kept apart from future leases! If you made a provision now that all land leased under the lease in perpetuity shall be subject to the option of purchase, could you not start to-morrow and inaugurate a new system of leasing with revaluation ? —I think it would be to the advantage of the community to make it retroactive, because you would ultimately in this way get a uniformity of tenure for those who occupy the land. 264. What would become of the bad sections or dear sections in the blocks which are at present paying too high a rental ? —They are the exceptions. I may inform the Commission that I know of a case where a tenant applied for and got a reduction in his rent, and recently I understand he got something like £2,500 for the goodwill of his lease. I may say that I was instrumental in some degree in getting his rent reduced, and then some ten years later he got the amount I have mentioned for his goodwill. That was a section held under lease in perpetuity under the Land Act. If the Commission desire it I can give the name. The man's name was Dorwood, on the Rangitata Plains, and the amount he got was £2,000 or £2,500. I think the rental of the land was only about 6d. per acre, and the area of the run was about 1,500 or 1,600 acres. I know of several cases where considerable sums have been received by tenants for the goodwill of their leases. 265. Would you relax the cropping regulations, or allow them to be relaxed at the discretion of the Ranger? —I think the cropping regulations should depend entirely on the condition and character of the land. 266. You think the whole power should be vested in the Ranger? —Yes, but subject to confirmation of the Land Board. T would not give him absolute power, but I think there should be larger discretionary power, subject to the approval of the Board. 267. When the" option is given to the tenants to acquire the freehold would you allow an outside freeholder to come in and buy up the sections? —How can an outsider come in when you give
the tenants the option ? I think similar conditions might be attached as are now attached to transfers under the leasehold system. 268. Would you restrict the area of freehold which may be held by one man? —Yes, either the area or the value. Of course, while the land is so badly classified as it is you could not fairly restrict the area. I think the value would be a better basis than the area. 269. You would not think of giving a freeholder the right during a number of years of getting rid of his excess of area ? —They are doing that now as fast as they can, and in their own interests, too. 270. Do you think there is a loss under the land-for-settlements policy? —I generally approve of the land-for-settlements policy —that is, in the interests of the colony and of the people. 1 believe in giving the easiest possible conditions to the people to get on the land. While there may be no difference in the character of leasehold and freehold lands there is often a wide difference in the valuation for local-rating purposes. 271. How do you account for that? —I suppose the value of the leasehold is governed to some extent by the rent the tenant is paying. In the case of a freehold the valuer assesses the value at what it will fetch in the market, but in the case of the leasehold the valuation is affected by the rent the tenant is paying. That rent was fixed at the time at which the tenant took up the land, and not at its present value. 272. Then, you think that the lease-in-perpetuity holder is not paying his fair share of local taxation ? —I believe that while the tenant would gain a great advantage by being allowed to acquire the freehold, his not being allowed to invest his savings in the land he occupies, and thus reducing his rent, is a disadvantage to him, and I think that if he were allowed to acquire the freehold it would be better for the State, because he would then become liable for land-tax, and thus the number of direct taxpayers in the colony would be increased. 274. But holders of lease-in-perpetuity land are subject to the land-tax, are they not? —Yes, they are subject to it; but, so far as I know, there is no lease-in-perpetuity holder that is paying land-tax. 275. What is the socialistic tendency of the towns in reference to land legislation that you have referred to?—I do not think the people I have referred to know where they are. I think a few "faddists" and agitators in the towns make large numbers, or most of the people there, believe almost anything they like. They talk glibly about land-nationalisation, but they really do not understand the question. 276. You meant that remark to apply in a general sense? —Yes. Judging from the remarks made in public addresses in the towns, they seem to speak without giving the matter very much thought. As long as the State can exercise the right it possesses of taxation it can make the land contribute equitably towards the revenue of the colony. I hold that in this way all the land belongs to the State, whether it is held under freehold or leasehold tenure. 277. Would you be in favour of increasing the land-tax in the case of lease-in-perpetuity holders? —I would not impose penal taxation on any one. I believe that the more equitably taxation presses on all classes of the community the better it is for the community on a whole. 278. Do you favour a land-tax without exemption? —While it would be just in principle, 1 think there would be considerable disadvantages. I think there should be exemptions, because the small amounts that some people would have to pay would not be worth while collecting. I believe that the greater number of taxpayers in the community the better it is for the State, because that would cause a keener interest to be taken by the people in the government of the country. 279. Mr. Anstey.] You say that the land-for-settlement policy has been a success? —Yes. 280. Do you think that any system under the freehold would be as successful? —I will not answer that question that way. If I say Yes I should say what Ido not mean, and if I said No I should say what Ido not think. I think the leasehold is the best first tenure to bring about the occupation of the land, because it enables men with small means to get on the land; but I also say that having got on the land you should give the leaseholder the right to acquire the freehold. 281. Supposing you give these tenants the right of purchase, do you not think they would buy the cheap and better sections and leave the dear land on the hands of the Government?Excepting Pomahaka, and perhaps one or two other estates, there are no such dear sections on estates purchased by the Government. 282. Do you think there is a large margin to the good on estates the Government have bought? —Yes. 283. Supposing you allow the tenants to buy the land at the original cost, would you advocate that the State should take that money and buy other estates? —Yes, if the State requires the money for land for settlement. But I think it would be necessary to limit the amount to be paid in any one year. 284. If the State did that could it invest the money to as great advantage as it is now invested 1 —They would not require to go to the British money-market. 285. Do you think the Land Board should agree to transfer sections, no matter what sum may be paid for goodwill ? —I believe there is a little difficulty in getting transfers passed now. If a man came before the Board and showed that he was in a position to successfully carry on with the section, and complied with the conditions of the lease notwithstanding the high price paid for goodwill, I think there could be no good objection to accepting the transfer to him. 286. You would not give them the right to agree to any transfer? —No. I think the Board should inquire as to the position of the man proposing to take over the section. 287. Do you object to the grouping-system or to the second ballot? —I think a person should have a right to apply for any section if he has sufficient capital to take it up, and he should not be compelled to apply for so many sections grouped together and put in a deposit for the highestpriced section, and then possibly draw the section he does not want. 288. Do you know whether the lease-in-perpetuity settler labours under any disadvantage in getting financial assistance privately? —They do sometimes.
460
W. S. MASLIN.
C—4.
W. 8. MABLIN.I
461
C—4.
289. Are they under any greater disadvantages than any other leaseholders? —I do not think they are. 290. You said you were not in favour of allowing tenants of educational reserves to acquire the freehold. Can you state the specific purpose for which the Education Reserve Commissioners apply the moneys they receive: are they not paid directly into the consolidated revenues ? —To all intents and purposes they are paid into the consolidated revenue; it practically amounts to that. 291. What is the difference between those reserves and other reserves? —Those reserves are subject to no special charges. 292. You are aware in respect to a number of these leases that it is made a condition that tenants should get valuation for improvements at the end of their lease? —I think a tenant should have a reasonably secured tenure, and I think in most cases provision is now being made for a renewal of the lease at the end of the term of twenty-one years at a valuation to be fixed by one person appointed by the tenant and one appointed by the Board, with a third to come in as umpire in the case of the other two disagreeing. 293. Do you think it would be wise to make it compulsory by law that such a condition should be inserted in the leases? —I do not think it would be a bad. idea in respect to fresh leases. 294. Mr. Matheson.] If the land were cut up into suitable-sized holdings do you think the colony would prosper most under the leasehold or under the freehold ? —I think it would prosper most under the freehold. 295. Do you think it would be wise to give the option of freehold in respect to primaryeducation reserves if that would result in making the land more productive? —1 do not think it would be right to grant the freehold in the case of primary-education reserves. 296. Do you think it is advisable that education reserves should be administered by a separate body? —I think they might as well be administered by the Land Boards. 297. Mr. Johnston.] Would you restrict the area of first-class land to 640 acres? —I would not allow it to be more, so far as the Government estates are concerned. 298. Would you approve of an Act of Parliament being passed prohibiting a man registering more than 640 acres of first-class land acquired from anybody? —No, I would not. 299. Would you classify land for the whole of one district, or for the whole Island, or for the whole colony ? —ln districts, because there is such a variation in the matter of climate and other conditions. 300. I do not know if you quite understood Mr. McCutchan's question in regard to Land Boards : I think he suggested that the land district should be subdivided into four districts, and that the Government should nominate a member from each of these districts? —I think that would be fair, and that is practically what we are doing in this district. 301. Do you believe in the straight-out ballot for land? —Yes; I think a man should be allowed to apply for the section he wants. 302. Do you know if there is any organised system to force them or to threaten them to come before this Commission and give evidence in favour of the freehold ? —I do not. 303. We have had evidence to that effect: are you satisfied there is no such thing? —We talk the matter over in the trains, and the general expression of the tenants is that they would like to have the freehold, and they think it will ultimately come ; but they said they would not come before the Commission as the freehold would come without them troubling much about it. 304. Is there any organised system of threats to force them to give evidence in favour of the leasehold ? —I have never heard of it. 305. Have you any Californian thistle? —Yes, I have a bit on my place. 306. Is there much in the district? —In some parts there is a good deal. It is kept regularly cut and never allowed to seed. The danger is that it is spreading in the river-bed, where it is not under the same control, and when the river is flooded the thistle will be carried on to the rich low-lying ground, and in the future it may cause a great deal of trouble. 307. Do you think it will be a serious matter if it is allowed to spread any further? —I think every means should be adopted to prevent it spreading, but I really do not know how you can eradicate it. 308. Is the Agricultural Department taking measures to keep the thistle down? —Yes; they are very strict, and rightly so too. 309. Have you any ragwort? —It is an unknown weed here. 310. Mr. Forbes.] You are a member of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. I do not take a very active part just now. 311. Do you represent them here? —No; I appear only on my own behalf. Of course, the opinions I express are held by a great many members of the Farmers' Union. 312. Do you not think that a much better method of restricting the area of freehold a man may hold would be by the graduated land-tax ? Would not that be the most effective means to prevent the aggregation of large estates? —I do not think there is any aggregation going on. It is rather the other way. The land is liable now to a rate of 3d. in the pound for local-taxation purposes. 313. You think that the local rating and the ordinary taxation are sufficient to prevent the aggregation of large estates ? —I think that not only the present taxation but the fear of what may happen in the future has already had a tendency to cause owners of large estates to sell out. 314. You do not think there need be any restriction as to the amount of freehold a man may hold? —I do not think so, except to prevent aggregation under the Land for Settlements Act. Even in that case where it is proved that a mistake has been made originally in cutting up the estate into too-small areas I think provision should be made to enable the tenants to purchase adjoining sections and so make their farms a reasonable size.
a—4.
462
JW. S. MASLIN.
315. Are there any large estates about here it would be advisable to subdivide? —I only know of one now. 316. Is that under offer to the Government?—l think it was under offer and was declined at the price. Robert Nourish examined. 317. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. 1 hold 260 acres of freehold and 390 acres under lease in perpetuity on the Kohika Settlement, for which I pay 6s. 3d. per acre rent. I have been there since the start of the settlement four years ago. I carry on mixed farming. 318. Are you well satislied with your land ?- I am satisfied, comparatively speaking. 319. Do you like your present tenure? —I have no objection to it. 320. Is there anything to bring before the Commission ?—Yes, in regard to cropping conditions. I think there is no chance to clean dirty land under the present conditions. 321. What would you like? —I think two white crops are quite sufficient for my part of the country, but I think more than one green crop should be allowed. 322. Do you think you should be allowed to take as many as you like?- Well, I do not see how it would do any harm. 323. Have you made any application to the Land Board to vary your conditions a little? — No. My land is in such a state that it is not profitable to crop it at all. I have 25 acres of oats this year and 35 acres of green crop. I keep seven hundred ewes on the two properties. 324. Have you any objection to the Land Board as at present constituted ? —No. 325. Mr. Hall.} You are under both tenures: do you find the one tenure as profitable and as satisfactory as the other?- I am quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity. 326. Do you consider that green crops are in any way exhaustive when they are consumed on the land? —No. I think they improve the land, and they give you a chance to eradicate the weeds. 327. Do you think it "would be good policy to allow lease-in-perpetuity tenants to reduce their capital value by paying off instalments to, say, 50 per cent. ? —Yes. I believe in giving the tenant the right to purchase the freehold practically if he wishes to do so. 328. Putting the freehold on one side, is it desirable to allow the tenant to pay off part of the capital value ? —Yes, if he has the money in hand to do so. 329. If that were done should not all restrictions in regard to cropping be removed?—l am quite satisfied with the restrictions now, except in special cases. 330. If the tenant reduces his mortgage by one-half is there any need for restrictions from the point of view of the State? —No. 331. Mr. Anstey.] What is your experience of the ballot-system ?—There was no grouping or second ballot when I applied. If I wanted a section now I would object to the grouping system. 332. Mr. Johnston.] Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Department? —I have. 333. Was your experience satisfactory? —I could do 110 good with them. I could not get a sufficient advance to meet my requirements. lam referring to some ten years ago, when I applied for an advance in regard to my freehold property. Joseph Scott examined. 334. The Chairman.] What are you? I was formerly a schoolmaster in this town. I have been in this district thirty years. 335. Have you ever been engaged in farming pursuits ?—Not _ directly. 336. Is there any point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I wish to suggest that the Crown tenant under lease in perpetuity who wishes to give up his lease should be compelled to surrender it to the Land Board instead of selling it. Ido not think he should be allowed to sell it at all. I think the Board should do the whole of the transfer business, and retain any unearned increment for the benefit of the State. We have heard a lot lately about the amounts obtained for goodwill. In many cases it has been suggested that a good deal of the unearned increment has been.acquired by the leaseholder, and I think it should belong to the community. 337. I suppose if your plan was given effect to you would allow transfers to be made, and, after the settler's interest in the improvements had been ascertained, if there was any larger sum, you would keep the balance for the State?— Yes. I think they should be given liberal allowance for improvements. . 338. Mr. Hall.] Is not the unearned increment created almost wholly by the settlers individually and collectively ?—Whatever is created by them should be paid to them. 339. But is there not a value created chiefly by the tenants by improvements which are not visible and which cannot be compensated for?- I think not. I think the community generally have a great deal to do with creating the additional value of the land. 340. Mr. Matheson.] Suppose there were no occupants of the country lands, do you think all the exertions of the town workers could make that country land worth more?—No ; but I consider as the country progresses roads and railways are built, which add largely to the value of the land. 341 Is it not the work of the farmers which has made these roads and railways necessary ?- In every particular case where a farmer lias improved his land, I think he ought to receive full value for what he has done. Emmantjei. Waite examined. 342. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. My wife holds 26 acres under lease in perpetuity on the Kareta-Seadown Settlement, the rent for which is 15s. 2d. per acre. She has held it since 1895. I have been farming all my life in England, but this is the first place we have held in New Zealand. . vjj.ii. 343 Do you find your holding satisfactory ?—lt is not large enough. 1 have applied to the Government for more land, but I cannot get any more while I hold these 26 acres. I must sell them out.
E. WATTE."I
463
C—4.
344. Cannot you apply on your own behalf ? —No, I cannot, because my wife holds these 26 acres. They allowed me to put in for the Levels ballot on condition I sold out if I got a section, but I was not successful. The Land Board met me to that extent. I would like the law to be altered to enable me to make my place larger. I have built a house, and it would be a great expense if I had to erect another building somewhere else. I think I should be allowed to hold more ground to go with my present house, even if it is a mile or two away. 345. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes. It appears to me to be a swindle. I applied for an advance of £60 for building purposes. I had to pay a fee of 10s. 6d. to the Government valuer, and then the Board only offered me an advance of £40, which I could not accept. But they offered if I would put up more buildings to give me more money. I put up further buildings, and then I asked for an advance of £100. I had to pay another 10s. 6d. for the valuer's fee, and word came back that they could not advance the money, and when I inquired they told me they would not advance anything. The valuation was £590, and the Advances to Settlers would not advance me anything on it. 346. Mr. McCutchan.~\ You wish to have the right to take up another piece of land in your own name? -Either in my own name or my wife's name. 347. On the grounds that your present holding is not sufficient to support a wife and family on ? —Yes. 348. Mr. Anstey.~\ Is your valuation of £590 for improvements a valuation made for the Advances to Settlers Office?- Yes; Mr. Allen came and valued it, and sent the valuation up to the Advances to Settlers Office. 349. The Chairman.] Is there any other matter you would like to mention? —I think that in the ballot a man should only bt> asked to ballot for the piece of land he wants. I also think that the leaseholder should have the right of purchase at the original valuation. If I had had the option of the freehold I would not have had the trouble I have had, for I would have bought the section and so have been saved all the expense of litigation.
St. Andrew's, Monday, 10th April, 1905 James Fraser examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler on Pareora No. 2, where I have 209 acres at 10s. 3d. per acre. I have been residing there for four years, being one of the original settlers. lam well satisfied with my farm and the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. I consider the Government would not be justified in giving the freehold to the lease-in-perpetuity tenants. There is any amount of freehold land in the market, and the lease in perpetuity should be retained for the poor man. I have had a good many years' experience in this country, and I think the lease in perpetuity has given the poor man a good chance to make a home for himself. The restrictions as to cropping is the only thing that I think is hard on the settlers. I cannot complain very much as regards myself. I asked permission to have a third crop and it was curtly refused, but, after I had interviewed the Board and explained the whole matter, I was told that I could take off the third crop of oats provided I sowed it down. It does not always suit a man to have a fallow or to have another green crop, and the Board should have discretionary power in that respect. The Board can from time to time have a valuation of improvements, and by that means know whether a man intends to be a bona fide settler or not; and the Ranger is always about to see whether a man is working a point or not. That is the only thing I have against the lease. The rents are fair and we are reasonably treated. I think the Board ought to meet at least once in three months at Timaru, or some other southern part, so as to give opportunity to settlers to place local matters before the Board without the inconvenience of having to go to Christchurch. 2. Do you think the present constitution of the Board satisfactory? —I think one member ought to be appointed by the leaseholders. Such a man would understand better what the leaseholders are likely to want, and any reasonable request that was made he would be in a position to say Yes or No to. 3. Have you any experience of the ballot? —I do not understand this late one further than the question of grouping. Ido not consider it is right for certain sections to be grouped. One section might suit a man and another might not, and he should not be compelled to take a section that is not suitable for him. 4. Is there anything else you wish to Bring before the Commission? —When Pareora No. 2 was tKrown open intending applicants had to place a great deal of reliance on certain matters, such as the watering of sections, on the particulars in the Department's pamphlet regarding the settlement. On matters such as the nature of grass, soil, and so forth, a man could make himself acquainted by going over~~the land, but in regard to water we had no way of telling for ourselves by a mere inspection what the facilities were, and accordingly had to take the statement in the book for it. With regard to Pareora No. 2it was stated that permanent water could be obtained by sinking from 30 ft. to 100 ft. I came from Amuri to Pareora, having had no experience of this country at all. In my first season I found the want of water, and in all have sunk and bored four wells to depths ranging from 75 ft. to 125 ft. without getting any water at all. I had to cart water the Ist May to December from the Otaio River, six miles and a half away, for house and stock purposes. I spoke to Mr. Allen, of the Land Board, about the difficulty I was in, and he said that sheep would live without water. lam not an experienced sheep-farmer, but, as far as I could see, whenever I put water in the paddocks the sheep were very anxious to get at it. My total expenditure in sinking the wells, which were all unsuccessful, was £23, and, counting my own labour and materials, I estimate that the work cost me over £54. Seeing that I had been misled by the official statement regarding water I consider that I was entitled to some compensation or rebate
a—4.
464
[j. FRASEK.
from the Land Board, and applied accordingly, but my application was not entertained. I was advised to bring the matter before the member for the district, which I did, but Sir William Steward told me to bring it before the Minister. What is the good of passing a man on from one to the other like that ? If it was private land the landlord would be accessible at once. 5. Mr. McLennan.'] Do you think the Land Board should have discretionary power to appoint two settlers to co-operate with the Ranger in the case of applications for extra cropping?— The members of the Canterbury Land Board are competent farmers, and could do the work without the assistance of any settlers at all. 5. Do you think if the Land Board had given you the compensation you asked for that some other tenants in Pareora and other estates would have made similar applications ?— I They would not have the same right. My case is an exceptional one. I consulted a lawyer, and he said the only remedy I had was to make an application for consideration, and that I was entitled to it. The only thing the Land Board could have against me was that I took three crops off one piece without asking permission. At the time I did that we believed that the Board would allow us to do it without permission being asked. This year 1 know men who have taken off a third crop without getting into any trouble at all. I think all should be treated alike, and that no third crop should be taken off without the Board's permission. 7. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think the Government should go to some trouble in the finding of water? —Yes. If they will find the water I do not want to claim anything for what I have done in the matter. 8. Do you think the Land Board should allow a third crop provided the farmer puts in manure with it? —Yes. 9. Has the Advances to Settlors Act had a good effect ?—Yes. 10. If the terms were made more reasonable would it be better still? —Yes. 11. Mr. Anstey.] Generally speaking, do you think the rents on Pareora are fair?—No one has reason to complain, so far as I can judge. 12. Has there been any revaluation for rates since you took up your property ?—No. 13. Do you know if any of the freeholds in the neighbourhood have been revalued for rates? —I cannot say. \i. Do dnms on your land hold water well? —I think if I had a dry season they would run out. The first year that I was there I would have been very much worse off if it had not been for my brother, who has the adjoining section. He allowed me to use his dam for my horses, but, eventually, it ran out and we both had to cart. 15. Has any water been got on the settlement by sinking? —A man about a mile and a half from my place got water at about 20 ft. 16. Do you think it wise to have a separate Land Board for South Canterbury?—l think it would be very advisable. 17. Mr.' Hall.] Did I understand you to say that the Land Board did not take the same interest in holdings as a private landlord would?—l could hardly say that, but a private landlord is easier to see, and when a matter is referred to bim he will come and have a look at it. 18. You would allow that a private landlord only leases for short tenures, and consequently he is more interested in the farm? —I should say that the Land Board or the colony should have the same interest. It is a long lease, of course, but the more improvements that are put on the better for the State. 19. Do you think the Government has done a good deal to promote bona fide settlement in the country?—l do, and I think the leaseholder has as much interest in the cultivation of his land as a freeholder has. 20. Mr. McCutchan.] Are road matters satisfactory on the block?— Yes. 21. Faith has been kept with the settlers as regards the expenditure of the loadlag?—Yes, as far as I know. 22. Has the rebate been given to you for prompt payment of rent?— Yes. •23. The full 10 per cent. ?—'Yes, as far as I know. 24. It is suggested that leases issued in the future for 999 years should carry a revaluation clause: do jou think such a clause would be detrimental to the interests of the country? —I do. I think if a man takes a property he takes the risk of whether it goes up or down. If you revalue leasehold property why not revalue freehold property too. 25. Mr. Paul.] Is it practicable to water your land with dams? —In a very dry season the water as it gets low gets stagnant, and I consider I* would take a considerable amount of risk in allowing valuable animals to drink from it. The only way would be to have underground tanks, and every man has not the buildings to give him sufficient roofing to fill them. 26. Has Pareora been a success? —I think so. 27. How does the value of the leaseholds at the present time compare with the value when the settlers took them up ?—They are more valuable now by a good deal. A fact largely due to the efforts of the settlers, freehold and leasehold, in establishing a dairy factory and the Pareora Freezing-works. 28. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in the district? —Not to any extent. 29. Do you think there should be a penalty for breaking the cropping regulations?--I think so, if permission is not obtained from the Board. 30. Mr. Forbes.] You think the descriptions given of the estates should be as nearly accurate as possible? —Yes. When I found out that I could not get water I would have walked out of the place if T had not had the buildings there. I do not really consider the land is as valuable to me as it would if water could be found on it. 31 Do you know where they got the authority from for the statement that water could be obtained at from 30 ft. to 100 ft. ? No. 32. Have any people on Pareora No. 2 been successful with wells?—l think they all have with the exception of two of us.
J. FBASEB.
465
C.—4.
33. It is only in two or three instances, then, that the description with regard to water has proved to be wrong ?--Yes. 34. Is there any widespread dissatisfaction on the place with regard to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —I have heard some say they would like to go in for the freehold. 35. You saw it represented that a man holding a lease in perpetuity had not the same feeling of security, and did not farm his land so well as if he had a freehold? —I do not think there is anything in that. 36. A sensible man would know that he would be fairly treated? —That is so. 37. Do you think the Ranger carries out his duties fairly and impartially as far as the settlers are concerned? —That has been my experience. 38. Do you not think a green crop would be as good for the land as leaving it in pasture? Do you not think a green crop does the land no harm at all? —I would not say that. 39. You think the present regulation requiring three years' pasture is a proper one? —I think so. 40. Mr. Muihtson.] Supposing the Government offered you the value of all your improvements and this £50 of expense in regard to the wells, and another £100 to boot, would you be willing to give up your lease? —I would not. I have made my home there, and do not want to shift my family all over the place. 41. You feel that you Lave a good bargain on the whole? —I do not think it is anything extra. 42. You say that the present regulation regarding cropping is reasonable if permission is asked for a third crop ? —Yes. 43. But sometimes regulations are broken on the chance of its being passed over? —Yes. 44. Do you think it wise that where broken without permission there should be a fine, say, of 5 per cent.—at present the only punishment is eviction? —If a fine of 5 per cent, was imposed tenants would adhere to their conditions. A fine would save all the trouble. 45. Mr. Johnston.] Was the permission to allow you to crop a third time a compromise for not getting water ? —No. 46. Did you expect to get water at 130 ft. on land 380 ft. high? —I did not sink on the highest part of my land. 47. Do you represent any union or association ?—-None whatever. 48. Mr. Hall.] Do you think it would be a good policy to allow lease-in-perpetuity tenants to pay off portion of the capital value? —No. 49. Not any? —No. 50. Do you not think that would be a means whereby all restrictions could be removed as regards cropping? —The restrictions regarding cropping can be got over by giving the Land Boards a little more power. There is no need to give power to convert the leases into freehold, for there is plenty of freehold land to be obtained in the open market, and those who want the freehold can go into the open market and get it, and leave the leasehold for those for whom it was intended. Richard Proctor Thompson examined. 51. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a lease-in-perpetuity settler on the Pareora No. 2, where I hold 395 acres at 7s. 9d. per acre. I am one of the original lease-in-perpetuity settlers there. I am fairly well satisfied with my place, taking it as a whole. I am very well off for water, and carry on mixed farming. I think a man should be allowed to take off as many green crops as he likes, and if he has a green crop after two white crops he should be allowed to take off another oat-crop in sowing down. 52. Have you had any personal inconvenience through the restrictions? —Yes. 53. Did you make any application to the Land Board? —No, T did not get the chance. They told me I was" to put the paddock in grass straight away. 54. What was the state of the land when you took it up? —All in grass. I reckon that any man who puts on improvements required by the Board should be allowed to farm the land as he wishes. The Board has a good hold on the place, and it is always worth the money even if he clears out and leaves it. 55. Mr. McGardle.'] Are you satisfied with the tenure? —I would rather have the freehold. 56. On what terms?—On the original value. 57 How would it do if you were allowed to pay off part and the balance remained? —That would do. 58. Do you know anything about the advances to settlers? —I have never applied, but a friend of mine did and got no satisfaction. 59. Would you favour an amendment of the Act to allow the Department to make more liberal advances? —Yes. 60. Would you be in favour of getting a general permission to take off an extra crop if you manure? —Yes, I think that would be good. I put in manure with my last turnips. 61. Was it successful? —Yes. 62. Mr. Anstey.\ If you had the right to purchase the freehold do you not think that all the cheap sections would be bought and the dear ones left in the hands of the Government? —On Pareora all would be taken up. 63. What about the dear ones on other estates? —All would go, as far as I know. 64. Would it be fair to the Government to saddle them with all the dear sections? —A man should have the right to purchase the section he went on to. 65. Are you quite satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board? —I think it would be better if the Land Board were elected. Three members of it, any way. 66. Mr. Paul.] What franchise would you elect those members on? —The parliamentary franchise.
59—C. 4,
[R. P. THOMPSON.
C—4.
466
67. Do you not think that would allow the people in the towns to elect the Land Board?— They do a good bit now that way. 68. They are nominated by the Government? —Yes. 69. You think they are fairly nominated now?— Yes; but it would be better if they came from the district. 70. They are practical farmers? —Some of them. 71. And fairly representative of each district? —Yes. 72. Would you have had this land but for the leasehold tenure?—l might not have had the same section. Had I gone in for a freehold at the time I would have been worth £2 where lam worth £1 now. 73. Could you have gone in for a freehold?— Yes, with the help I had. 74. Was there any particular reason why you did not?— Less money was required for the leasehold; but had I known as much as one knows afterwards the freehold would have been the best. Land was sold which I could have bought. 75. Is your rent reasonable? —-Yes. 76. Supposing you got full valuation for your improvements and the section was put up to auction, do you think it would bring a price equal to the capital when you took it up?— Yes; it would fetch more. 77. About how much per acre? —I never offered my section for sale, but I think it would bring £2 per acre increase, and perhaps more. 78. That is, for goodwill and above improvements? —Yes. 79. Mr. Forbes.] Do many tenants here break the cropping restrictions? —Yes; we all do in one way or another. 80. Is the Land Board at all hard on them when they find out? —It does not appear so; the tenants are there still. 81. They have not forfeited any sections? —No. 82. Do you feel that you have not the same heart to work your place as you would if you had the freehold? —I would farm the land better. 83. Take out more crops? —More of both green and white. I think when a man puts on a certain amount of improvements the cropping restrictions should be done away with altogether. 84. How many crops ought they to be allowed to take off the ground? —As many root-crops as they like; but I would never allow more than two white crops following —that is, if he fed off on the ground. 85. Mr. Matheson.\ If your suggestion in regard to cropping were carried out, and you sowed down with a white crop after two or three green crops, how long do you think it would remain there? —Three years. 86. Do you think it would be wise if a clause were inserted enabling the Board to add, say, 5 per cent, to the rent where the regulations as to cropping were broken? —I think that would be better than the way it is now. 87. Mr. Johnston.'] Is there any Californian thistle on your land? —No; but there is some on a property close by. 88. Have any of the settlers sold out to advantage? —Yes; but I could not state the amount. Peter Watson examined. 89. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold a lease from the Canterbury College authorities. The area of my land is 220 acres. My place is about eight miles from St. Andrew's. My lease is for fourteen years. I am entitled to £150 for improvements at the end of the lease. Under these conditions I feel that I can farm with goodwill and heartiness. The restrictions as to cropping are two white crops and then sow down. You can green-crop if you choose, and it has to be done every three years before you can break it up again. My lease was renewed last May. The rent was fixed by arbitration. During my last lease they treated me fairly liberally, but there was no security for any improvements I put on the place. Relying on the fairness of my landlord, I went on improving and manuring the land just as before. 90. Mr. McCardle.] What is your idea of the tenures, leasehold and freehold? —My idea is that if they put me under the Government I would be fairly satisfied The lease in perpetuity would suit me. 91. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Board? —No. 92. Do vo'u approve of manuring your green crop?— Yes, up to 100 cwt. to the acre. I do not know any one who has gone as far as 200 cwt. Last year it was superphosphates, but this year I have used manure from the Pareora Freezing-works. 93. Mr. Anstey.] Previous to your renewal had you got any valuation for improvements?— No. 94. Do you think the £150 is sufficient valuation? —No, because I do not think any man can work a farm and put reasonable improvements on it for £150. 95. Do you think you ought to get full compensation? —No; I would be satisfied with something reasonable. 96. What do you think would be a reasonable limit? —I think from £1 10s. an acre to £2 per acre would be a reasonable limit. 97. That would be between £300 and £400 for your place? —Yes. 98. Do you put up any buildings? —Yes, and fencing; also three dams, and there has been water there ever since, except once in an exceptionally dry summer. 99. Since you have got the renewal have you done anything more? —Yes; I have put up a very good house. 100. Is that the reason you put up the house, because you got the valuation and the renewal? —Yes. 101. Had you any right of the renewal? —No,
C—4.
467
P. WATSON.
102. Does your present lease give you the right of renewal? —No; that is the trouble. 103. Would you be satisfied with your tenure if you had the right of renewal, with arbitration as to the rent, and full valuation for improvements at the end of the lease? —Yes, I would be perfectly satisfied. 104. Do you think that all public land that is leased ought to contain those conditions in the lease? —I think so. 105. Do you think it would be better for the Land Board to administer all the public lands of the colony? —I do not think it would hurt if the Land Board had to administer all the reserves. 106. Would you prefer the Land Board's form of lease to your present lease? —Yes. 107. Mr. Paul.] Do you consider the lease in perpetuity is a good tenure for the settlement of the country? Do you consider it as good as the freehold for that purpose? —Yes, because there are numbers of tenants who would never have secured a farm if the Government had not adopted the land-for-settlements policy. I think the tenants ought to be satisfied with their present tenure. I should be perfectly satisfied with it. 108. Do you think they should have the right of paying off a portion of the capital? —I do not think so. I think the arrangement made between the Government and the tenants should be adhered to strictly. 109. Mr. Paul.] Previously, the College Board of Governors had been confiscating the improvements at the end of the term? —Yes. 110. Do you think any public body has a right to do that? —I do not think so, but they seem to have the right. 111. Do you not think the tenants' improvements should be conserved to them in every case? —I think so. 112. You have expressed satisfaction with the form of tenure if there was arbitration as to rent, with the right of renewal? —Yes. 113. Mr. Matheson.] These College Governors are stewards for the public in managing these estates ? —Yes. 114. Is it now public property, whatever rent is paid? —Yes. 115. Then, why do you object to tell us? —The leases under the lease-in-perpetuity system are all made public before the applicants tender, but my tendering was between myself and the Board. 116. The Chairman.] When you took up the land you knew the improvements would be merged in the State? —Yes; that is so. 117. Mr. Anstey.] 1 understand that your land is very similar to the land at Pareora? —Yes. 118. Do you consider that two white crops are sufficient during six years? —My experience is that two white crops are sufficient. 119. I presume if the stewards of the reserves occasionally gave you the right of taking an additional crop that would be quite sufficient? —Yes. 120. The regulations allow you to take two crops in five years: do you always do that, or do you sometimes only take two crops in six years I—Sometimes1 —Sometimes 1 take two crops in five years and sometimes in six years. James Fraser further examined 121. The Chairman.] 1 understand you wish to say something further in respect to cropping? —Yes, I think that if a man had a little more liberty in regard to cropping he would be inclined to spend more money in improvements; that would make the land more valuable to the Government as a security. I would also like to say that I think that in all cases in Pareora there is always manure used with the root-crop. I have never known any one attempt to sow a green crop without manure. Generally speaking, the settlers are using manure. 122. Mr. McLennan.] How do you sow turnips? —I sow them in ridges, hoe them, and clean them thoroughly. Charles Henry Besley examined. - 123. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a sheep-buyer for the Christchurch Meat Company. 124. 1 suppose the settlers at the present time are extremely prosperous on account of the high prices? —Yes, almost too prosperous. 125. Have you had any experience in buying stock from the runholders —the big runs? —The stock we usually buy is bought from the farmers. The runholder generally sells the stock to the farmers to be fattened. 126. Mr. McCardle.] Have you any opinions in respect to tenures? What tenure do you think is most suitable for the country? —1 am in favour of the Government cutting up the land under the land-for-settlements policy. I think the 999-years lease should be adhered to. 127. Is that the general feeling of the settlers that you come into contact with? —They appear to be satisfied with their present tenure, provided there is no revaluation. 128. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?—No; but I have heard some settlers say that they could not get as large advances from the Department as from private money-lenders. 129. How do you think the country is now compared with what it was two years ago? —It is improving considerably. 130. Is the grass showing greater signs of fertility than it did before?—l think the farmers are doing better. 131. Do vou think if the grass were laid down with manure that there would be a considerable improvement? —I have never seen it tried except with turnips. 132. I think most of the authorities consider that in order to have good bone in stock you must put bone into the ground ? —That is so.
a—4.
468
[C. H. BESLEV.
133. Do you think bone-manure could be used in the district with advantage to the settlers? —Yes. The bulk of the settlers use a considerable quantity of manure from the freezing-works, and that is principally bone and blood. 134. Do you think that if the settlers used manures a great deal more—say, 200 cwt. to the acre —the cropping restrictions might be removed? —No. 1 think there should be some restrictions. 1 would allow them to take as many green crops as they wished. 135. Mr. Anstey.] Are you not also a farmer ? —Yes. 136. How much land do you own ? —I am a partner in 470 acres. 137. Previous to your present business were you in any other business! —Yes, farming and butchering. 138. You were a butcher prior to the Pareora Estate being cut up? —Yes. 139. Was your business larger after the estate was cut up? —Yes, about double. 140. Would that apply generally to other businesses about St. Andrew's? —Yes, I think all businesses increased to about double after the cutting-up of the estate. 141. Was there any increase in the number of fat lambs and sheep from the Pareora Estate after it was cut up? —Yes, there was a considerable increase. 1 should say there are ten thousand sheep more taken from the Pareora district than before the estate was cut up. 142. We have been told by some witnesses that leasehold settlers do not put up as good buildings and make as good improvements on their farms as freeholders: what is your experience in the case of Pareora?—lt certainly does not apply to Pareora. The buildings on the farms at Pareora —that is, the leasehold farms —are better than those usually put up on freehold farms, and they are better than I would put on a freehold if I bought one. 143. In regard to the cropping restrictions, do you think that two white crops in six years is an oppresive restriction in thejcase of Pareora ? —No, I do not. 144. What were the conditions when you farmed? —Three crops in six years —one of them was a green crop —which I think is quite sufficient for economical farming, and in order to make money out of the business. 145. Mr. Hall.] You come in contact with a good many lessees holding land under lease in perpetuity ? —Yes. 146. Is there any feeling amongst them that the Government may bring in revaluation ?- There is a talk amongst them, and the Farmers' Union agitated for the freehold. iMy experience is that the people agitating for the freehold in South Canterbury are not the leaseholders — they are freeholders or the Farmers' Union —the bulk of them are freeholders. 147. Can you imagine that the Government would repudiate the title of the 999-years lease? —It is a question of who breaks the lease. If you allow the tenants to have the freehold the Government is breaking the lease and the tenants are breaking the lease, and if the Government breaks the lease in one way they may break it in another way. 148. Do you think that any Government would break a contract that is entered into in good faith? —It should not be done, but I would not like to answer for any Government. 149. Would not the same remark apply to the freehold? —No, because no agitation has been got up to alter the freehold. The question has been discussed in Parliament, and the average farmer is fairly well acquainted with what has been discussed in Parliament. 150. Would not that only apply to leases in the future, and not to the present leases? —I should say it would be wrong to make it apply to leases in force now. In the case of future leases I would be in favour of revaluation. 151. Mr. McCutchan.] You said the Pareora district was now turning out ten thousand more sheep than before the estate was cut up : is that an annual increase? —No. 152. But it speaks well for the cutting-up of the property? —Yes. 153. With respect to revaluation, can you say, of your own knowledge, that there is a fear amongst the Crown tenants that revaluation will be introduced with a retroactive effect? —I do not think there is a fear, but it has been suggested if there is an agitation got up for the freehold the right to acquire the freehold may be given on condition that there is revaluation. 154. Does it not appear to you to be a very unreasonable thing that the present Government should interfere with a salient feature of their own land policy?- Yes. 155. And you say that this feeling does not exist amongst the tenants, but is fostered by outsiders ? —Yes. 156. Mr. L\iul.\ If the tenants demand the option of the freehold, do you not think it possible that they may also get something that they do not want, and that may be against their own interests? —Yes, I think they will get revaluation if they insist upon getting the freehold. 157. Do you think revaluation would be an equitable principle to apply to future leases? —I do. 158. But you would not advocate it being retrospective in its action? —I believe that would be wrong. 159. You believe that the present lease-in-perpetuity holders should stand to their bargains, and that the Government should stand to their part of it? —Yes. 160. Mr. Forbes.] Is there any more land in this neighbourhood that is suitable for cutting up? —Only one estate, I think —Elworthy's estate. I think it was offered to the Government, but the price was too high and the Government would not. buy it. 161. Mr. Mcitheson.~\ Did you ever hear of Sir John McKenzie's Fair Rent Bill? —Yes. 162. Do you not think that that Bill indicated a change of policy? —Yes. I believe a Fair Rent Bill would be a very good thing, but it should not be retroactive. 163. Supposing prosperous years should continue for a while and the farmers accumulate savings, do you think it would be right to allow them to pay off some of the capital value of their land? —No, because it would be breaking their lease. 164. Do you not think it is possible to amend the lease without breaking it? —Yes; but that
469
C—4,
C. H. BESLEY.j
would be breaking the lease. Both parties would have to be agreeable to amending it. If the Crown tenants insist on getting the freehold and the Government agreed, I would say that they should reply, " Yes, but, it will be revaluation not at the original price the Government paid, but at the price the land was worth at the time the tenants took it up." 165. Mr. McCardle.] Could you conceive of anything that would cause more dissatisfaction amongst landless people of to-day and future tenants of the Crown than such a proposal as that I —Yes, I could. 166. The Crown has settled more land during the last ten years under the land-for-settlements system than they are likely to be able to settle during the next twenty years, and you would give that advantage to the present tenants, whereas in the case of future tenants there would be revaluation from time to time J —Yes. 167. Mr. Paul.] Do you not think it is fair that the tenants should get a reduction if their land is not worth what they are paying for it? —Yes. 168. Mr. Forbes.] Are you freezing any young ewes at all? —No, the price of breeding ewes is too prohibitive for'that. 169. Do you think the shortage in the flocks will be made up by the farmers keeping back their young ewes ? —I do. I would like to say this: that the sheep returns as at present are not correct. They are given at the wrong time of the year. I know of one instance where a man had four thousand sheep, and his sheep returns only showed two hundred. lam quite convinced that very few farmers send in their correct returns. I did not do so when I was farming. 170. You think the sheep-tax prevents the right returns being sent in? —Yes. 171. You think it would be well to abolish the sheep-tax? —Yes; if you want a tax you might tax each bale of wool that leaves the country, and do away with the sheep-tax altogether. Instead of the sheep returns being maclte up on the 30th April 1 would suggest that they be made up at shearing-time —that is, providing the present tax of 2s. a hundred was not imposed. 172. Mr. Anstey.J Is it not a fact that on 30th April there are large numbers of sheep passing from one owner to another, and a man did not know on that particular day what number of sheep he has ? —Yes. 173. That sales are goiug on, sheep are changing hands, everybody is either buying or selling, and nobody knows exactly what number of sheep he has? —That is so. John O'Connor examined. 174. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am a farmer, and my wife holds 28 acres on No. 1, Pareora, and 38 acres freehold on the late Pareora Estate. The sections on No. 1, Pareora, are too small. They range from 10 acres to 30 acres, and they are too small for a man with a family to make a living on them. If one settler were allowed to buy oat the section of an adjoining settler I think that would settle the difficulty. He should be allowed to buy out either adjoining land or land at some little distance. At present you can only buy land immediately adjoining your section. Then, the cropping restrictions are too stringent. 1 think the Land Board should be empowered to vary the cropping regulations in accordance with the value and quality of the land. I desire also to point out that the Land Board treated me differently to the way in which they treated another settler in regard to holding another section of land. The circumstances were quite similar, yet the Board treated us differently. The Chairman said that did not come within the scope of the Commission. 175. Mr. McLennan.J Are you satisfied with your tenure? —I would rather have the freehold. The settlers would like to have more power in connection with their farming operations. 176. Mr. Anstey.] You have 28 acres, and you think it is not sufficient for a man with your family of eight ? —Certainly not 177. Do you know anything about the Adair Settlement? —Yes. 178. How many settlers were there originally? —There were thirty-four sections. 179. How many occupiers are there now? —About sixteen. 180. That means that one or two settlers have taken up a number of sections? —Yes. 181. They were working-men who took up the land in the first instance, and they did fairly well ? —Yes. 182. I suppose if a working-man wanted a section at Adair now it would not be possible for him to get one? —No. 183. Do you think when land is cut up in this way it would be well to allow a settler to join two or three sections together? —No. 184. The land was originally taken up by working-men, and they have raised themselves to be farmers in a small way? —Yes. 185. Do you not think it would be fair to allow other persons to have a chance of getting these sections, instead of a few people mopping up ail the sections ? —Too many small settlers is not good for a place. 186. Mr. McCutchan.] When men improve a place they get attached to it, and it is very hard to leave it. You think the difficulty you have mentioned could be overcome by the Government cutting up further land in another locality? —Yes. 187. Mr. Paul.] Is this land more valuable now than when you took it up? —Yes. 188. Do you not think it would be better that you should hold the small section until you are in a position to take up a larger section on another estate? —I have tried that, and the Board would not allow it. We asked for the privilege of taking up one of the sections in Pareora No. 2, and the Board would not allow as. 189. Are you in favour of an amendment of the law to allow you to do that? —Yes. 190. Mr. Anstey.] If you were allowed to ballot for a larger section, would you be prepared to give up your present section and allow another working-man to get it? —Yes. I think Springbank Estate would be very suitable for cutting up. 191. You think the Government ought to take steps to acquire it?— Yes.
470
|W, J. MARSHALL.
C—4.
William James Marshall examined. 192. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer on the Kohika Block. 1 hold 306 acres under lease in perpetuity, for which I pay 6s. per acre rent. I have been there four years. Igo in for mixed farming, and I run three hundred ewes. 193. Are you fairly satisfied with your farm? —Yes. 194. And with your tenure? —Yes. I am not satisfied with the cropping restrictions. 1 think a man should be allowed to take three grain-crops if he thinks the land is fit to carry it, and especially in the case of the failure of his grass. I put 50 acres down in grass this season, and it is a failure. Ido not think a man with a 999-years lease is going to injure his land unless he is a fool. 195. Supposing you had a free hand, what would you do?- I would skim it and take another crop of oats, and put 1 cwt. of manure to the acre, and then fallow it and clean some of the dirt out of it and sow it down. 196. Did you apply to the Land Board in connection with this matter?—No, because I thought it would be no good to apply to them. I think the Ranger, who is a practical man, should have the right to use his own judgment in cases of this kind. I did not mention the matter to the Ranger except to tell him that the grass was a failure. 197. Mr. McLennan.'] Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards at the present time?— Yes. 198. You do not wish the option of the freehold? —I am quite satisfied with the leasehold so long as a man can farm his land to the best of his ability as he sees fit. 199. Mr. McCardle.] You want your lease amended?— Yes, in this respect: I think the Crown tenants are too much in bondage to the Land Board at the present time in the matter of the cropping restrictions. '200. And if you failed to get liberty in that respect would you still be in favour of the 999years lease? —Yes. I did not know when I took up the lease that these restrictions were to be so strictly enforced. 201. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —A little. 202. Generally speaking, did you find it satisfactory ?—Yes. 203. Do you think it would be a still further advantage if the Government made more liberal advances than at present? —I think it would. Some men have not the means to cultivate the land as they would like to. 204. Mr. Anstey.] You said you were in bondage to the Land Board: how could you be in bondage when you never asked the Land Board to do anything ?—What is the good of asking them when they have laws to prevent you doing what you want to do. 205. They have power to grant you concession in the matter of cropping now? —I do not see it. 206. Do you think it would be wise to amend your lease altogether ?—ln the way of cropping, I said. lam quite satisfied with my lease if a man is allowed to crop his land satisfactorily. 207. Would it be satisfactory if the Ranger got power to vary the cropping restrictions?--I think so. 208. Then, there would be no necessity to alter your lease? —Not so long as the Ranger has liberty to take off another crop in order to clean a paddock or after a failure of grass. 209. Do you think it is generally necessary to take more than two crops in six years from that land? —I do not think a man could clean his land satisfactorily in our country without it. 210. Do you think the land is strong enough to stand three grain-crops? —I think so, if you cultivate right. 211. Mr. Hall.] Are the cropping conditions inserted in your lease, or is the lease made subject to regulations? —They are set out in the lease. 212. Mr. McCutchan.] Are the tenants, generally, upon the Kohika Block satisfied with their tenure? —I think so, if it were not for the cropping conditions. We have a good deal of twitch, and I do not see how a man can clean his land satisfactorily and lay it down in two years. - 213. Are the roads in the block in a satisfactory condition? —Yes, we have very good metalled roads. 214. Was there any loading for roads when the settlers took the block up? —Not that I am aware of. 215. Mr. Paul.] Do you not think it would be much safer to give the Land Board, instead of even a good Ranger, power to vary the cropping conditions? —I think when a Ranger is in charge they should consult him. 216. Do you not think that the safe plan would be for the Ranger to report to the Board? — I think so. 217. You would not like to be Ranger and have power to vary the cropping conditions? —I suppose I would get into hot water sometimes. 218. Mr. Forbes.] You knew the nature of the restrictions when you took up the lease? —I did not think they would carry them out so strictly. I thought they were only to meet the case of men who tried to impose in the matter of cropping. 219. Have you ever broken the conditions? —No. 220. Have you ever known anybody in the neighbourhood who has broken the cropping regulations? —I have heard of them. 221. Have you known of any case where the Land Board has acted harshly with them? — They have threatened to put them out. 222. They have not put them 'out?— No. 223. Then, where is your bondage? They will not put you out if you observe the conditions of your lease? —They can turn round and put me out if I broke the lease. 224. But they cannot put you out so long as you observe the terms of your lease? —No; but I say the cropping restrictions are too severe.
W. J. MARSHALL.!
471
C.-4.
2125. If you had asked the Land Board for permission to put down a third crop of oats would permission have been refused? —I have known of refusals in other cases, and that is why I did not apply to them Bartholomew Sheehan examined. 226. The Chairnian.\ What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 267 acres under lease in perpetuity on the Poreora No. 2 Block, for which I pay Bs. 9d. per acre rent. I bought in privately two years ago. 227. Has your experience been favourable in regard to this holding? —Yes; I am satisfied with holding the land all right. 228. What point do you wish to bring before the Commission? —My* land is very dirty, and I believe a good many farms around me are in the same condition. When I came up I had one particular paddock in crop that threshed 15 bushels of oats to the acre. This time two years ago I skimmed that paddock and fallowed it through the winter. I cleaned it from October to January, and I grubbed it no less than ten times. The result is that I have a clean paddock, but it cost me at least £3 per acre to do all this grubbing. I thought a man was entitled to take a crop off it, and I did so, and, to my astonishment, I got a letter from the Board telling me I had exceeded the limits of my lease. I consider that any man, whether a leaseholder or freeholder, who goes to the expense 1 did in cleaning the paddock is fully justified in getting some return from it. I may say I threshed this paddock last Friday, and it yielded 62 bushels of velvet wheat to the acre. I consider the Ranger has not nearly enough latitude, and I think he has altogether too much to do. I think he should see for himself what land has been cleaned and what has not been cleaned. 229. Then, your crop of whSat was in defiance of the Board?—l thought, after taking all this trouble, I was justified in getting this crop off it. lam satisfied with the Land Board as a Board. 230. When you took over the land two years ago was it in the proper proportions of what you might call red land and grass land? Did your predecessor leave it in a proper state? —T cannot say that my predecessor left it in a proper state, and I cannot say he was there long enough to clean it. You know it takes a lot of money to clean a 50-acre paddock. I wish to be a permanent bond fide tenant, and therefore I wanted to clean the place. T did not pay £800 for the goodwill to go and overcrop the land. 231. Were any improvements included in the £800? —Yes, a good few. 232. Was half the place in grass when you got it? —Not quite; but there were not more than 80 acres in crop, for all that. I have cleaned 30 acres, and it has cost me £4 per acre to do it. I have written to the Board for permission to take a crop off it, but I have not got permission yet. I anticipate getting their permission, and I am ploughing the paddock now, although in doing so it might be said I am acting in defiance of the Board. 233. Mr. McCardle.~\ You are satisfied with your tenure?- Yes, I am perfectly satisfied; but all the same, I would prefer to be a freeholder. lam satisfied with the tenure provided lam left alone. I may say, so long as you have your land clean to lay it down in grass, two white crops and a green crop, with manure, are sufficient. 234. You think the Ranger wants more assistance and more power?— Yes. I think the Ranger should be a man who could see what is wanted, and who should have time to look at this paddock and that paddock, instead of running all over the district. 235. Mr. Anstey.~\ Have you the letter the Land Board wrote to you? —I have not got it with' me. 236. Did the Board threaten to forfeit your land? —They did not threaten me. They reminded me I was breaking my lease. 237. Can you tell me if this particular crop was the third or fourth crop? —I cannot say. 238. Seeing it was the fourth crop, do you not think the Land Board were quite right in drawing your attention to the matter? —I say the Board were right, because when the Ranger's report went to Christchurch the Board could do nothing else but draw my attention to that matter. . 239. Do you think these regulations are imposed vexatiously? When the Board allowed you to clean the paddock and take a crop of it do you think you have anything to growl about? —I am not growling about it. 240. You are a leaseholder ? —Yes. 241. And you say you would prefer the freehold? —I am satisfied with the tenure; but, alf the same, every man likes to be a freeholder. I think this tenure is a grand stepping-stone from the poor man to the freeholder. 242. Are you a freeholder because of the agitation got up in this district by the Farmers' Union? —No; I do not take much notice of an agitation of that description. I have nothing to do with them. 243. The statement has been made in evidence that there is no general desire amongst the Crown tenants for the freehold, but that the Farmers' Union are agitating for it? —That may be so, but Ido not think the Farmers' Union have anything to do with it. These tenants are satisfied enough with the conditions. They knew the conditions when they came here. That is right enough, but a man who has no land chances a thing and runs a risk to get land in any way. 7 may say that if the general opinion of every leaseholder in the Pareora Settlement was taken every one of them would take the freehold if they could manage it. All the same, we are satisfied with the conditions existing. 244. Mr. Paul.] Suppose the improvements on these sections were valued and conserved to the tenants, do you think the settlers on Pareora would be prepared to go to auction to obtain the freehold of their land, or would they prefer to remain leaseholders, as at present? —I think the settlers on Pareora would prefer to stay as they are rather than go to auction. I think when a farmer has a family and has settled down he likes to stay so.
a—4.
472
[b. sheehan.
245. Then, there is nothing in the lease in perpetuity which prevents you farming the land to advantage and making a fair living? —Nothing, except these letters from the Land Board. 246. You paid £800 for this goodwill?— Probably it was too much, but I am not sorry I did so, anyway. 247. How much of that £800 went for improvements? —The improvements would be worth £400, or probably £500. 248. The remaining £400 was for goodwill? —Not even for goodwill. If I include the crops, the improvements were worth £750. Roughly speaking, I got back all I gave for the place. 249. Then, you did not pay too much for it? —No; but others thought I did. lam satisfied enough with it. 250. If you were a landlord, and fixing cropping conditions for the tenant, would you make them the same as the Crown's? —Yes; but if I was a landlord and I saw a man trying to do his best with a dirty farm I would tell him, " By all means clean it and take a crop out of it." I think a man has a right to be allowed to take three white crops out of a piece of land he has cleaned. I speak for myself and a good many of my neighbours. 251. Do you mean in succession? —No. Two crops and then skim it. 252. You think the regulations are all right except in the case of dirty land? —Yes. I contend that a man who is paying 13s. or 14s. per acre rent finds his first crop all straw and of no use. I think he should be allowed to take three or four crops off it, because only then will the land become good. 253. Would you allow him to take crops according to the rent he is paying? —Yes. I think the land is all the better, when it is good heavy land, if three crops are taken out of it. 254. Mr. Matheson.] At present the Ranger has about twelve hundred tenants to look after, and you think he has too many? —Yes. 255. Suppose a second Ranger were appointed, do you think the tenants should pay the cost of the extra " screw "? —I do not. I think the tenants are paying any amount at present. 256. Then, that Ranger's "screw" would be a loss to the State? —The State will be well repaid by the 5-per-cent. rent on the capital value. John Campbell examined. 257. The Chairman.\ What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 147 acres of freehold land on the Otaio Estate, about eight miles from here. I have owned it twenty-five years, but have only lived on it during the last fourteen years. I carry on mixed farming. 258. I suppose you are in favour of the freehold as against the leasehold? —As a principle, I am. I think the freehold is the backbone of the country. But I think the Government has done a oreat deal for the settlement by purchasing estates and cutting them up. I think the system is a very good one. I believe it is greatly to the advantage of the colony, and that the tenants as a whole are very well satisfied with the tenure, except in regard to certain of the cropping conditions such as you have heard to-day. I know a large number of the tenants, and I have never heard them ask for or refer to the freehold if the cropping conditions were removed. 259. As an experienced farmer, what do you think of the restrictions?— I find that I could not carry out cropping in rotation unless I have a clean farm to begin with. I must clean the land before I can carry out the conditions, and a large number of the Crown tenants' sections, especially in South Canterbury, are more or less dirty. I know the Waikakahi, Levels, Pareora, and Kohika Settlements, and I am quite certain I could not farm under the conditions laid down, owing to the dirty state of the land. I hold with the last witness, that if you lay down the land when it is dirty you will leave it dirty. 260. You "think a relaxation of the conditions must be made owing to the foul state of the estates? —Yes. My reason for saying that is that I think it would benefit the State very much if the tenants were allowed to clean their farms in order that they might have clean land to work with. I know if the tenants are successful the State is benefiting thereby. "261. You think it is quite right there should be some restrictions? Yes ; I think the Ranger should be a practical agriculturalist, and able to give sound advice to the tenant when it is needed. Some tenants may not be good farmers, but they may be very anxious to gain knowledge, and good advice in their case would be very useful. 262. If the Ranger became a sort of advisor to the farmer might it not lead to unsatisfactory results, especially if the Ranger is inefficient? —If he is inefficient he should not be there. I do not think there would be any danger in that. I think the farmers are very sensible men, and a large number of them are really bona fide settlers. In their case I think the restrictions are not expedient, because, as a witness said, only a fool would overcrop his land when he has a 999vears lease. I leased my farm for some years, and perhaps gave a little too much liberty to the tenant, and when I came back I found one paddock rather dirty. First of all, I took a crop of oats off, and then turnips, which were poor. Next year I turned it again and had a good crop of turnips. Afterwards I alternately cropped with oats and wheat for six years, and cleaned the land. I have just laid down the paddock in grass after it has been broken up for thirteen years, and the land is in better condition than it was then. The last year it was in crop I had a very good crop of oats. I consider I can now go on and crop in rotation. 263. Mr. McLennan.\ Do you think broadcast sowing of turnips tends to dirty the ground? —I think so, especially if the ground is inclined to be dirty. 264. Would you be in favour of a third or fourth crop if the turnips were manured and hand-hoed ?—Yes. I believe in summer fallowing if the summer is dry. 265. Do vou think it would be advisable to sow grass along with the last crop of oats in place of sowing the"grass by itself? —Generally speaking, the people cannot afford to do without a crop, especially if they are paying rent. I think grass and clover do better without a crop.
J. CAMPBELL. 1
473
C.—4.
266. Will grass and clover do better with oats than with turnips? —I have never tried with turnips. I tried with rape and got good results. 267. Mr. McCardle.] You have had a good deal of experience of the operations of the advances to settlers? —Yes. I think 'it is a very good thing, and I think it would benefit a good many settlers who have no capital, especially if the Land Board saw that the money is spent in improvements. 269. Of course, the Land Board have nothing to do with the expenditure of the loans? —No; but I think the Advances to Settlers Office should give the Land Board power to see that the money is spent in improvements on the land. 270. Mr. Anatey.\ Do many people broadcast their turnips in this district? —They put them in with the ordinary drill, and that is almost the same thing, because they cannot clean between the drills. They sow with manures. 271. Mr. Paul.] Can you clean the land with white crops as well as with green crops? —By proper fallowing. 272. What cropping restrictions did you lay down in the lease of your land? —I gave a sevenyears lease and the right to take four white crops in seven years, and as much land was to be left in grass as was found in grass. 273. Mr. Forbes.] Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? —I was when it was in existence, but Ido not think it exists now. Ido not think the settlers as a whole ask for the freehold, and I do not think the Farmers' Union should be blamed for agitating for it. 274. Was any agitation got up by your branch to get the Crown tenants to ask for the freehold? —I believe the leaders were in favour of the freehold. Ido not think it is right or just to give the tenants the right to tlTe freehold so far as the Government have gone, because many of the unsuccessful people who applied for sections at the ballot had money either to pay an instalment or the whole of the purchase-money if the freehold had been available, and I do not think it is right now to give the right of the freehold to the tenants who just got the land on a turn of the wheel. I think the thing should be left as it is. Some 600,000 acres have been purchased, and I think it would mean a great loss to tlie State to give the tenants the right to purchase the freehold at the original price. 275. What would you do in regard to future leases? —I think it would be advisable to give the option in future leases, but not to make it compulsory. 276. You do not think the Government should insist on a revaluation clause being inserted in future leases? —I do not think so. I do not think the tenants should be in a state of fear. I think they have a perfect right to what is called the unearned increment. I believe there is no such thing. I believe every penny of it is earned. I know that any increase in the value of our freehold land is earned by the cultivation we have effected, and I think the land under the long leases are practically freeholds. 277. Do you not think that the principle of successful settlement is to have the settlers on the land at a reasonable rental? —Yes. 278. Suppose, in the case of some of the estates bought at the present time and to be bought in the future at the top of what we may fairly call a "boom," that the prices of produce and stock go down, and these tenants find their rents too high: do you think that a provision to allow their rents to be reviewed is a fair thing? —I do not know of any estate in this district where I consider the rent too high, even in bad times. I think, taking one year with another, the rents are reasonable. 279. Mr. Matheson.'] There are two or three bodies administering the public lands in each province—the Land Board and the School Commissioners and the Education Board: do you think it would be a wise economy for the Land Board to administer the whole of these lands, and save these people going over each other's tracks? —I think it would
Geraldine, Tuesday 11th April, 1905. John Kelland examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you?—J am a farmer holding about 1,300 acres of freehold and a lease of 1,100 acres of primary-school reserve. It is a fourteen-years lease, and there is no valuation for improvements. The lease is too short, and offers no inducement to the tenant to farm his land as he would if he thought he was going to get compensation when he left. A portion of my lease, I should say, I hold under an arbitration rental, with the right of renewal. 2. Is the leasehold contiguous to the freehold? —Yes; I work the two together, and have no building on the lease. 3. Do you think the present constitution of the Land Board satisfactory? —As far as I have taken any notice, I think their working is satisfactory, and I think the present system of nomination is just as good as if the tenants themselves elected the members. Members of a Land Board should be both independent and practical. 4. Have you any opinion to offer in regard to tenures? —I am not directly interested in the question, but I think the lease in perpetuity is a desirable one to start with, at all events. We all like to call our home our own; but there is many a good settler on the land to-day who could not have been there but for the leasehold, and he has just as much inducement to improve his* property, having so long a lease, as if he were a freeholder. There is, of course, the disturbing fear about revaluation. 5. Is there any tendency towards aggregation of farms in South Canterbury? —I should think not, except in the case of small holders. We occasionally see a small holder trying to increase his holding by buying out his neighbour, who also has a small holding.
60—C, 4.
r .T. KELLAND.
C—4.
474
6. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think, as a general principle, that the law should be altered to compel the administrators of all public lands to give valuation for improvements? I think that would be quite just. 7. Owing to the lack of this valuation you do not care to spend money on improvements. Supposing you highly improved that land and it had to go up to competition, would that injure your chance of getting the land again? —Of course, it would. 8. The more you put on the land in the way of improvements the less chance you have of getting it again? —That is so. 9. Would you consider the introduction of a revaluation in the case of lease-in-perpetuity leases a tampering with existing contracts? —Yes. 10. If the Government wished to tamper with titles do. you not think they could just as easily tamper with the freehold as with the lease in perpetuity by increasing the land-tax? —I dare say they could; but I know there is a fear, and I would share it myself if I was a lease-in-perpetuity holder, that some morning they will find their rent increased by 25 per cent. 11. Supposing you found your land-tax increased 25 per cent.? —That would put me, perhaps, in a worse position. 12. What do you consider a fair valuation for improvements —full valuation without restriction?—! think there should be a limit. A man would not be entitled to claim full value for all that he considered permanent, because he has received some benefit from them himself. 13. Do you think the basis of valuation should be the value of the improvements or the cost of the improvements I—The1 —The value. 14. Mr. Paul.'] Is the portion of your lease held under arbitration rent with the right of renewal satisfactory? —Fairly so- I would prefer the freehold to that sort of tenure. 15. Do you think it would be wise to give the option of the freehold to tenants on these endowments? —I hardly feel confident to express an opinion on that. 16. Do you think if you had all your leasehold with the right of renewal at an arbitration rent, your improvements being protected, it would be satisfactory ? —lf my improvements were protected I would be satisfied. I have competed twice for my section, and got off quite as well as I did with the arbitration rent. 17. You prefer the arbitration rental? —Yes. I do not enter into competition with the public in any sense. 18. Do you think it advisable to bring all these public lands under the control of the Land Board?—l am hardly justified in expressing an opinion, but I have no doubt it might be just as much in the interests of the properties if controlled by the Land Board. 19. Do you think the Land Board would administer them to the same advantage as these educational bodies do now? —I do not see why they should not, for the simple reason that they are just as practical, and, I take it, a man must know something about land when he has to control it. 20. Have you heard any proposal made to apply revaluation retrospectively? —No; it is only a dread that some of the tenants seem to have, and I think I would share it myself. 21. Have you heard any responsible section of the community discuss retrospective revaluation ? —No; I think that sort of thing chiefly comes from the towns. 22. But you never heard a desire expressed to apply revaluation to existing leases? —No. 23. Do you think the land-for-settlements policy has been a good thing for the colony? —Yes. 24. Has" any settlement been established around Geraldine ?—There is only one in the district —Rakatira. 25. Is that a success? —I think it is. There are about a dozen settlers there now on land that was occupied by one man before, and they are all prosperous, so far as I know. 26. Is this the centre they would come to to give evidence? —Temuka would be jugt as near for them, perhaps. 27. Is there any more land in this district capable of being closely settled? —There are no large estates that I can think of suitable for cutting up. 28. The Chairman.] You are, I think, the Chairman of the Geraldine Road Board? —Yes. 29. Mr. Matheson.] You have the district revalued periodically for rating purposes? —Yes. 3Q. Is the Rakatira Settlement within your district? —Yes. 31". Do you find that their valuation is increased as values rise? —I think so. 32. They are altered according to the view of the assessors? —Yes. As a matter of fact, I think they have been put up lately about 20 per cent. 33. Mr. McCutchan.~\ Is the Government assessment adopted by the Road Board? —Yes. We are jumping up very rapidly, and our ratepayers object to it. 34. Is it not an instruction to the Government valuer to value all properties at their sellingvalue? —I take it it is. 35. If such is the case, can there be any difference made between these properties and freeholds? —I do not think so. 36. From what you said I took it that you thought there was a difference? —For the first few years there was a difference, no doubt, and they were not contributing as much to the rates as their neighbours were, but that has been adjusted. 37. But not completely? —I could not say. George James Wreathall examined. 38. The Chairma?i.] What ai*e you? —I am a farmer, at present holding 170 acres of freehold. I took it up under the 1887 Act on the perpetual lease, with the right of purchase up to the twelfth year. I took up 500 acres in 1881 under perpetual lease —300 at 12s. 6d., capital value, and 140 at £1 per acre, capital value —7Jd. rent for one and Is. rent on the other. The land was then all under scrub and fern, and would not carry a sheep. During the twelve years I cleared
and cultivated 220 acres of the land, surface-sowed 200 acres, and reserved 80 acres of bush. 1 increased the carrying-capacity from nil to live hundred sheep, put on fencing to the value oi =tJdO, and spent not less tnat between £400 and iioOO in cultivating and grassing the land. After obtaining the freehold 1 disposed of 300 acres at ±li per acre, and i reside on and farm the balance now. 1 put in the work oi twelve of the best year aof my life on the property, and in selling at ,£6 an acre reckon 1 only got back my own. in very rougn Crown land i think a settler is well entitled to the freehold, i took up this land that 1 now hold at an unimproved value of =£180, and this year my unimproved value is assessed at ,£1,300, and 1 am only allowed the paltry sum of ,£l4-1 ror all the improvements 1 have put on. The valuation is fair, but I think it should be divided and a half allowed to me lor improvements. 39. The unimproved value is a little more than ,£4 an acre now ! —Yes. 40. The difference between 12s. lid. and £4 an acre is still called the unimproved value: if it is really so the difference must be due to the rise of the value ail round in JNew Zealand? —Yes, but the Christchurcfi City Council has 2,000 acres on the opposite side of the fence to me, and it is still in its unimproved state. It was valued at £2 per acre when they took it up thirty years ago, and it is valued at £2 per acre now —I am basing the valuation on the rent paid then and now. 41. What you want to make ciear is that the unimproved value of to-day takes in a large amount of the improvements which you have made? —That is so. Although Ido not find any fault with the Land Board 1 would just like to call attention to the expenditure of "thirds" on this particular land. When 1 took up the land it was stated that one-third of the rent would go back to the local body to make roads to that particular section, which was somewhat inaccessible. The iioad Board to-day holds £46, the balance of the "thirds" paid over, and not a single penny has been spent in making a road to the section. The Land lioard should have power to see that that money is spent on that road and on nothing else. 42. But the Land Board prescribes what road the money is to be spent on? —In this case 1 never got any assistance from the Land Board. It seemed to be left entirely with the Land Board. 43. Is there anything you wish particularly to bring before the Commission? —I consider the best method of disposing of unimproved Crown lands would be to lease for a term of twentyone years, with the right to purchase at end of lease, providing (1) that lessee had continuously resided on the land during the term; (2_) that he had by means of permanent improvements increased capital value of the land 66 per cent.; (3) that size of holdings should not exceed 500 acres of first-class land or 1,000 acres of second-class land; (4) that 'A 5 per cent, of the rent received should be paid to the local body for the purpose of making roads; (5) that all landless persons twenty-one years of age or over should be eligible to take up the land; (6) that the land should be let by ballot. In the case of lands purchased for subdivision for close settlement, I consider that all applicants should be given the option of taking the land up on perpetual lease, with revaluation, apart from all permanent improvements made by the lessee, every twenty-one years; or leased at a 10-per-cent. higher valuation for twenty-one years, with the right to purchase, providing lessee had during term of lease continuously resided on the land; had increased the capital value of the land by 66 per cent, by permanent improvements sanctioned by the Land Board or one of their appointed officials. The size of holdings should not exceed 200 acres of firstclass land (agricultural), 400 acres of second-class land, and 600 acres of third-class land. The classes to be determined by price paid for the land: first-class to consist of land over £15 in value, second class under £15 and over .£7 10s. per acre, third class all land worth under £7 10s. per acre. In the case of pastoral lands, the limit of holdings should be: first-class land, a carryingcapacity of one thousand sheep; second class, two thousand sheep; and third class, consisting of high and rough hilly country, five thousand sheep. All agricultural leases should be subject to stringent cropping regulations, to prevent tenants from unduly cropping or in any way impoverishing the land. In the interests of closer settlement lam convinced of the absolute necessity of inserting in any future or amending Land Bill a clause having for its object the prevention of any one person buying or holding more than 640 acres of first-class land or 2,000 acres of second-class land when either area is suitable for close agricultural settlement; or that such clause should not apply to those at present holding a larger area, but should come into operation when such land should again change hands. It would be the only means of preventing the aggregation of large estates. I am also of opinion that all college, high-school, and secondary-education reserves should be administered by the Lands Department, and thus brought into harmony with the demands and interests of closer settlement, as the present administration is most unsatisfactory; that the revaluation of such reserves is unsatisfactorily and unfairly done, and that they are in many cases unfairly weighted with costly and unnecessary improvements which effectually prevent outside competition, thereby allowing tenants to retain their holdings at a ridiculously low rent. I consider that the Land Board as at present appointed are in every way a satisfactory and representative body, and more preferable than an elective body which, from interest, would become the delegates of Crown tenants only, and would cease to be the guardians of the public rights and interests in the Crown lands. 44. Mr. Anstey.~\ You say you purchased this land for under £1 per acre and sold out a portion at £6 per acre: what portion of that can be classed as unearned increment? —Not a penny of it. 45. Supposing you had that land on lease with a purchasing clause, subject to revaluation at the end of the lease, is there any system by which such revaluation could secure you those improvements? —Evidently not. 46. If the improvements are visible it is the fault of the valuer? —That may be. 47. In your case there must be improvements that depend for their usefulness on their disappearance, such as the removal of manuka scrub. How is it possible to value such improvements? — It could only be done by a man familiar with the land at the time it was taken up. The state of the land at the time it is taken up should be recorded.
475
G. J. WKEATHALL.j
(J.—4.
C.—4.
476
J. WBEATHALL.
48. You think that the only way in which a tenant is secure of his improvements is to give him the freehold ? —I think that should only apply in the case of rough Crown lands. 49. In the case of improved lands it would, be different? —Yes. 50. Do you think that all public reserves should carry valuation for improvements ? —1 think they should be administered by the Land Department for the purpose for which they are set aside. 51. You say there is no unearned increment: suppose your land liad lain idle, the present value would have remained what it was originally? —Yes; there would, of course, have been more demand for land than at the time 1 took it up. 52. Have you had any experience in grassing and surface-sowing? —Yes. it can be done if you go about it in a practical way. 1 believe in burning off the scrub and fern, and sowing the grass before the ashes sink into the ground. 53. We have had a good deal of evidence to the effect that the runs are deteriorating, and partly because there is a lack of encouragement? —I think the best way would be to decrease the size of the runs to 5,000 acres, and put a man on every 5,000 acres to do his own work. 54. Would not valuation for improvements do it?—No, 1 do not think so. You can only give valuation for improvements of a permanent nature. But you might, say, give a lease that carried a rent of Is. for, say, fourteen years, Is. 6d. for the next fourteen years, and 2s. for tlie next fourteen years. 55. What happens at the end of that lease? —Give a man valuation for all permanent improvements, and then put it up to the public. 56. You would not give the right of renewal? —No. 57. Mr. HalL.\ You separated Crown lands from purchased estates. You think that a Crown tenant has a right to the freehold when he has made substantial improvements and been a bond fide settler for a number of yearsj—Yes. 58. In the back-country lands, would you enforce residence conditions ? —ln the case of high land I think sufficient land should be reserved on the flat for a residence. 1 do not know the North Island, but 1 think the residence .conditions must be harder there than here. 59. Do you think that the Land Boards at present are quite satisfactory? —Yes. They used to confiscate my holding every year because 1 had not paid my rent in advance, and when I sent in the rent they used to rescind the decree. 60. Do you think that part of the Board should be elected'? —No. 61. Would you put harbour and municipal endowments under the Land Boards? —There is no necessity for it in those cases, for the local bodies there are elected by the ratepayers, and if they do not manage their endowments properly they can be put out at the next election. In regard to the School Commissioners, however, we have no control at all. 62. Mr. Paul.J Do you think it would be in the interests of the State to lease these lands under lease in perpetuity? —No; I do not think it would be in the interests of the people who own the land. 63. In speaking of Crown land you recognise that a settler deserves every encouragement: do you think it would be more in the interests of the State to give him a long lease without rent than to give him the freehold? —I should like it, from a settler's point of view. The late John McKenzie's Act was the best ever passed in New Zealand, but the blot in it was that it did not provide for periodical revaluation. A man then would have improved his land and got compensation for all his permanent improvements. 64. Do you think no equivalent can be given which is equal in value to the freehold? —No, I really do not think so. 65. If your farm was put up to auction to-day in its unimproved state would it bring more than 12s. 6d. per acre? —Yes, I believe it would, on account of the excessive demand for land to-day. It is not worth more, but it would fetch more. Without».the introduction of freezing machinery land would not be at its present price. When I took up my land I paid 6|d. per head for merinos, which to-day would be worth from Bs. 6d. to 12s. 6d. They were boiling down sheep then, and that was the boiling-down price. If sheep went back in value land would go back too. 66. Mr. McCutchan.\ You spoke of raising the age from seventeen years to twenty-one years: are there not plenty of parents who are in a position to give their boys a start, and do you not think it would be an advantage for those boys to go on the land at seventeen, rather than wait four years longer ? —No, Ido not. They would be the better for waiting. 67. You made reference to the expenditure of "thirds": did I understand you to say that the Road Board had taken the "thirds" and spent them somewhere else? —They have not spent them. There was a balance of £46 of unexpended "thirds " when I bought the property, which was paid back to the Road Board. 68. Have the Road Board got the money? —Yes. 69. Then, the schedule for the expenditure of the money must have been sent in to the Receiver before the money was handed over to the Road Board? —The money was handed over to the Roard Board, I know. 70. Mr. Matheson.] If New Zealand was divided into suitable-sized farms, do you think it would prosper more under leasehold than under freehold? —I think you would have a better and more solid class of men if freeholders. 71. When the Crown took up these large estates it was for the purpose of settling the lands, and having got tenants who by residence have proved themselves good, what objection have you to their being granted the power to pay off the freehold out of their savings, seeing that you think the colony would be more prosperous under a freehold? —I think a bargain should be a bargain, and it would be a breach of faith either on the part of the State to revalue or for the tenants to claim a right that they did not have when they took up the land. 72. Supposing both parties agreed to an amendment of the lease, would that not be reasonable? —Of course; an Act of Parliament can do almost anything, and if both parties agreed it would be mutual.
G. J. WREATHALL.j
477
C—4
73. If the people represented by the Government agreed to give the tenants the right, and the tenants by asking showed their willingness to accept it, do you think there would be any objection to that? —It would be an act of injustice to the people of the colony, who look upon this as the Crown's estate. 74. How could it be an injustice to the people at large, seeing that under the freehold you believe the colony would prosper ? —I think all tenants in the future should be given the right of freehold or lease as they prefer it. 75. Mr. McLennan.J Have you any opinion with regard to the grouping system under the ballot ? —I would rather forfeit my money than take up a section I thought I could not make a living out of. 76. Would you be in favour of giving the Land Board discretionary power? I certainly think the Land Board should have large discretionary powers and not be bound by hard-and-fast rules, because they are in possession of local circumstances. 77. Mr. Hall.] As regards lease in perpetuity, there is a rumour that it is not a secure tenure? If I was a lease-in-perpetuity settler I should be quite convinced that when this generation shall have passed away there would be a change, and farmers are anticipating that by trying to secure the freehold now. 78. Do you think the tenure is insecure? —Yes; I do not think it is possible for one generation to legislate for another. It will eventually mean either the freehold or an amending Bill to revalue the land. 79. Mr. Paul.] Might not (he next generation be just as anxious to nationalise the land? — That might be. It all depends on which is in the ascendency —the town or the country. 80. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you know the name of the Government valuer? —Mr. Allan, of Timaru; but, of course, there is a special valuer sent round —Mr. Campbell—who has the assessment of all the land. Robebt Anderson examined. 81. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm 1,650 acres. I hold a lease in perpetuity. I pay a rent at 4 per cent, on the capital value on £1 10s. an acre. My place is thirteen miles from Geraldine. It is all flat, rough, stony sheep country. I have occupied it for about fourteen years. I took up the land under perpetual lease with the right of purchase. About seven years ago the times had been very bad, but I had, perhaps, a couple of thousand pounds. As sheep-farming was not very prosperous then 1 was willing to part with the property. The Land Board was harassing me a bit to cultivate a portion of the land. There was not water on 700 or 800 acres, and I asked the Land Board if I could get out of cultivating that portion. I did not get much satisfaction, and I surrendered my lease, loaded with valuation for improvements, which amounted to £1,250 for the whole holding. The Board changed the section into second-class land —it ought to have been second-class land in the first instance —and called for applications for the section, but none were received. They then told me that I could take it up. I had to agree to that or lose the money, and I therefore took the land over under the lease in perpetuity. Since then times have changed wonderfully, and through help from a friend of mine I have been able to make very great improvements on the property —sowing down, clearing off stones, and improving the land in every way. It is now capable of carrying two sheep and two lambs to the acre for eight months of the year —that is, for two years after it has been sown down. When I took it up it was only capable of carrying one merino sheep to three acres, and the Government was getting a rental of 4d. per acre from the runholder. Its value, if it were a freehold to-day, would be £7 an acre. Before 1 took up the land under the lease in perpetuity, 1 read in the Government Year-book that lease-in-perpetuity holders had the same privileges as freeholders. I read in the Year-book that they could sell the land or let it or dispose of the goodwill just exactly as a freeholder can do. I find, however, that I cannot dispose of the property except under great restrictions. I cannot let it, and I cannot even make a will in favour of my son, but the Government has the power to upset it. Therefore I feel I have no security in my holding, after bringing up the value of the land from £1 10s. an acre to £7 an acre. I cannot acknowledge that there is any such thing in my holding as the unearned increment or an unimproved value. The value it has now, I maintain, I have given the property by my own capital, labour, patience, and perseverance, and, seeing that my interest is about £5 10s. per acre and that the interest of the Government is only £1 10s. an acre, I think my tenure is worth very little when I am dictated to as to what I must do with the land. I hope 1 may be excused for using strong language, but I know what I am talking about, and I have no hesitation in saying that, so far as the holder of a lease in perpetuity is concerned or his interests are concerned, that lease is a perfect fraud. I have used strong language in describing the lease, but I can give my reasons for doing so. About a year and a half ago my health gave way for a little bit. I thought I had worry enough, and that I would simply let my holding and live upon my little income. I could let the land for 7s. an acre annual rental. I explained the reason for my wishing to do so to the Land Board. I stated my age, and said my health was rather failing, and therefore I wanted to live an easier life, and I asked them if I could let a part of my holding to my son or to a neighbour. The answer I got was, " No, you can't let outside your own family. If you can't continue to occupy the land, communicate with us, and we will act, because we must be pleased with the tenant." I therefore could not let the place. They gave -me liberty to sell, but said they must approve of the tenant, and therefore I had not the privilege of a freeholder. The freeholder can sell to a moneyed man, but I must sell to a landless man. In fact, I have no control over my land under the lease in perpetuity. I have also come to the conclusion from what I saw of a case in the North, that even if I willed my property my son might not be regarded as a suitable tenant, and the Board has the power to upset my will. Therefore I conclude, under those circumstances, that the lease in perpetuity is a perfect fraud. I should, however, be perfectly satisfied with the lease in perpetuity if I had the same privileges in every respect as a
[b. ANDERSON.
a—4.
478
freeholder, which, I think, I ought to have, seeing that I have so much capital in the farm beyond what the Government has. Therefore I cry out aloud for the freehold, and I am confident that if every landholder from Auckland to the Bluff understood as much about the lease in perpetuity as I do the Government would not be able to let another acre of land under such a tenure. 1 admire the policy of the Government in acquiring large estates and cutting them up for closer settlement. I also approve of the right to purchase; but I say this: that the freehold for the good of the nation and for the good of the individual is the best for both. That is my candid opinion. As for the Government buying large estates —that is, of highly cultivated land and leasing that land under the lease in perpetuity without getting a few instalments in the way of purchase, I do not think it is safe for the State. I think it would be better to allow the tenants to pay off a few instalments, and then there would be security for the State and the rent of the land would be reduced. We may not always have such a time of prosperity. I have been forty years in the colony, and have seen many changes, and I would not be astonished if at some time in the future land that is now worth £14 an acre is not worth more than perhaps half that amount. In that event I think the Government would be in a very awkward position, because they could not hold the people on the land if the tenants could not make a liv'ng on it. The tenants could pack up and leave, and the land would be left on the hands of the Government. In the case of Crown land or other land acquired by the Government which requires a large amount of improvement, I certainly would not push the tenants for their instalments until they were able to pay them, and I would give the tenants an opportunity of making the land freehold. But in the case of highly improved estates, I would be very frightened of leasing it out after paying the high price for it without getting a few payments back very quickly. I would push those tenants, because they are capable of making quick return payments. 82. In the case of highly improved estates, while you would push the tenants to pay a portion of the capital value, would you let them go on paying in order to get the freehold?— Yes. 83. The freehold is the goal?— Yes. In respect to the aggregation of large estates, it is very easy, in my opinion, to prevent that. I would fix a money-value, and I would not allow a freeholder to buy any more land beyond a value of £100,000 or £200,000, or whatever the Government might settle upon, and if the freeholder bought any more there would be a way of remedying that. I would make the progressive land-tax speak, and speak pretty loudly. I would let every man who works on the land have an opportunity of becoming a freeholder. There is no such thing as the unearned increment, and there is no unimproved value. If land rises in price as it has done—and I know that in many instances during the last twelve years it has doubled its value—who has caused that doubling in the value 1 Why, the farmers have erected freezing-works, and they have done many other things which have promoted the welfare of the country. The people in the towns have kept their place —they are a necessary evil- and tliey have helped us, but it is the farmer who has improved the country. As to the lease in perpetuity, 1 have another thing to say. I would compare a tenant's interest in the land to what is called in Ireland a tenant at will —that is, if you make improvements on your land this year the agent will come round and you will have to pay a higher rent next year. My landlord is getting about three times the rent he got when the land was in its native state or when it was first let, but now, when I have made all these improvements on the land, my landlord has stepped in and raised my rent. I got notice within the last twelve months that I would have to pay 10 per cent, more rent in the way of land-tax. I call that raising my rent. I now leave it to the members of the Commission to balance it up and see what the lease in perpetuity is really worth. 84. Mr. Anstey.] You are now paying about Is. 2d. an acre: is that what you were paying previously under the form of tenure? —No; I was paying about Is. 6d. an acre. 85. Then, you get a little advantage in rent by taking up the land under lease in perpetuity? —Yes, I do. . 86. Have you tried to sell out your interest in the land—you say the land is worth £7 an acre ?—l could'sell it at that price if it were freehold, but I do not know that I could sell it at all under the lease in perpetuity. " 87. You said that when you had a form of lease at Is. 6d. an acre you could not carry on ( — That is so. ... „ 88. Will you point out where the fraud of the lease in perpetuity comes in? lou say you could not carry on at Is. 6d. an acre, and now the land is worth 7s. an acre annual rental: the fraud does not seem very apparent? I explained why I think the tenure is a fraud. I have no power to deal with it nor to let or will it. T.hat is the fraud. 89. Mr. Hall.] Do you consider that the adoption of the lease-in-perpetuity policy has promoted the prosperity and will continue to promote the prosperity of the country in the way of settlement? —No. „ , „ 90. What has promoted the prosperity of the country?—l approve of the Government acquiring large estates for closer settlement, but I maintain that every tenant should have the privilege of converting his leasehold into freehold, and I say that would tend to the prosperity of the COIOU 9I. Assuming that the lease-in-perpetuity system is maintained, would it be good policy to allow the tenants to pay off a portion of the capital, so that when the tenants' interests became as great as those of the Crown all restrictions should be removed: would that be satisfactory?— That would apply to highly improved Crown lands that had been acquired by the State, but would not apply to Crown land such as mine. 92. Would you not approve of its application to all land held under lease in perpetuity? — Yes;' that would be a very fair law, only you would have to make the lease in perpetuity very different from what it is now. . . 93. Would it make it different if part of the capital value were paid off and all restrictions were removed? —Yes.
479
a—4
R. ANDERSON.I
94. Mr. Paul.'] What is to prevent you willing your holding to your family? —The Land Board has the power of objecting to my son, for instance, taking up the land, because they may allege that he would be an unsuitable tenant, and my land might thus be disposed of in another way. 95. If you left that property to an unsuitable person —say, one of your own family —do you ot think the Land Board would give the full value of your interest to those persons to whom you willed the land? —It is at their own discretion. 96. You do not believe that the Land Board would rob your family of your lease after your death? —When they gave me the lease in perpetuity I took it for granted that I could deal with the land as a freeholder, but I find it is worth nothing, for the reasons I have stated. 97. Have you heard of any one selling their lease in perpetuity? —I have. 98. Have you heard of them getting several hundred pounds for goodwill? —Yes; so would I get several hundred pounds, but I have dearly earned it. 99. If a witness came before the Commission and swore he received for goodwill several hundred pounds above his improvements would you be in a position to contradict that? —No. 100. Do you really believe that there is any danger of these tenants packing up and clearing off? —In the case of bad times I would not stick to land that was not paying me. I would leave. There is a danger in these tenants clearing out —that is, those who have taken up fully improved land and who have very little interest in it. 101. Mr. Forbes.] Is not the first consideration of the State to have people on the land who are paying a reasonable rental —a rental enabling men to make a reasonable living? —That is a very good way of dealing with the land. 102. Mr. McCutchan.\ What was the reason given for refusing to allow you to sublet?— They gave no reason. 103. Did you make a formal application to sublet to some particular person? —No; I said my son would rent part of it, and I wanted to let part of it to somebody else. 104. You asked for permission to divide your property between two tenants? —Yes. I said I would be responsible for the rent, and they refused to grant my request. 105. There is a special provision in the Act under which these leases can be devised by will, but that power is subject to the approval of the Minister: you think that power should be given to the Commissioner ? —Yes. 106. Mr. Matheson.\ You quoted the Year-book, and said it contained a statement to the effect that the leasehold was as good as the freehold in regard to selling and letting: do you remember what year that Year-book was issued? —No, but it was published within the last three years. Job Quantock examined. 107. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and have about 100 acres of freehold and 84 acres of leasehold. I hold the leasehold from the Crown, and part of it is waste land leased from the Crown. For the 84 acres I pay £7 ss. half-yearly —that is, taking off the 10-per-cent. rebate. What I want to ask the Commission is this : I have been living alongside a river for nineteen years, and on several decasions have had my fences washed away. The river is the Orari, and the river is my boundary. A considerable portion of my land has also been washed away from time to time, and lam still paying rent on the land that is supposed to be there. I should think 4or 5 acres have been washed away. I am paying about £1 a year for land that has been washed away. The Chairman suggested that the witness should bring the matter before the Land Board. George Murray examined. 108. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am a farmer, and have 68,000 acres under pastoral tenure and 1,800 acres freehold. There is about six years to run in the case of the pastoral tenure out of a twenty-one-years lease. I pay £150 a year rent, and £10 a year for certain small reserves in "the run. My pastoral run is in the Mackenzie country. Besides the leasehold and the freehold I have another farm of 1,800 acres which lam leasing near Geraldine. The pastoral run, Glentanner, is from 2,000 ft. up to 5,000 ft. or 7,TF00 ft. in altitude. Only about one-half of the 68,000 acres is what is called grass country. I run about 8,500 merino sheep on the property. In order to make the run safe I want more low country. I took up the farm near Geraldine so as to work it with the leasehold, and bring some sheep down in the winter-time. In respect to pastoral runs, there is no encouragement to do anything to keep the places. I understand that in Australia if dams are constructed on a run they have a chance of renewal, but here no encouragement is given to improve the property in the way of sowing grass, or in any other way. If we were given the right of renewal or more security of tenure we would sow grass and make plantations, and at the end of our lease, if the property were revalued, I would be only too pleased to get the chance of taking it up again. 109. If you had those terms what might you do in the case of Glentanner?- I would sow cocksfoot and make plantations. I have only had Glentanner about a year. I bought into it. There has been grass sown on some parts of it, and in some places it has done well, while in other places it has not done well. 110. If you got an extension of your lease would you do surface-sowing? —Yes; you want some sort of shelter for your sheep, but it is not worth while planting trees when you have scuh a short lease. Larch and spruce are the best trees to plant. 111. Mr Anstey.'] Did you sign the petition sent to the Land Commission? —Yes. 112. I presume you generally agree with it? —Yes. 113. If the concessions you have referred to were given, do you not think it should be compulsory to grass? —Yes, I should say it would be best that way.
C.—4.
480
[G. MURRAY.
114. Mr. Hall.] In order to turn these runs to best account, what tenure should be given when the present leases expire? —I think twenty-one-years lease at least, with right of renewal. 115. In tha't case, do you think the runholders would sow grass without compensation? —Yes, if the Government would value it and give us the first chance at its value again. The Mackenzie country is a very cold place; it is not nice to live there. 116. Would it not be very difficult to assess the value of grass-sowing? —You might ascertain it from the number of stock running on the run at present and the number of stock running on the land at the end of the term. 117. Do you think there should be Government inspection of grass-seed in order to prevent the introduction and spread of noxious weeds ? —Yes. 118. Should the Government supply the seed at the lowest possible price? —I do not think so. 119. Are there many runs that could be better dealt with if they were reduced in area or subdivided? —Not in the Mackenzie country. Peter Friel examined. 120. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 264 acres under lease in perpetuity on Rakatira Settlement, for which I pay 6s. 3d. per acre rent. I have been there eight years. 121. Do you feel satisfied with your farm and with your conditions generally? —Yes, quite satisfied. 122. You approve of the lease in perpetuity? —Yes; but if the freehold comes I would take it at the valuation at which I took up the section, but I would not take it with revaluation. I would prefer to hold my lease rtither than run the risk of revaluation. There is one remark I would like to make. I think there is a great feeling amongst the Crown tenants in favour of the freehold, and that has been brought about through the agitation got up by the Trades Councils and town members in the House of Representatives. I believe that is the real cause of the desire for the freehold. 123. You think you would be safe that way? —Yes. As regards the cropping restrictions, 1 think when a man has put his full improvements on his section equal to, say, 25 per cent, of the capital value, the Government might give the Land Board more power to place confidence in the tenant, and allow him to crop as he thinks proper. I think three crops in succession should be allowed then. But in no case would I say a man should have that liberty unless he has put all his improvements on. 124. Mr. Hall.] Is there a feeling abroad that this lease in perpetuity is not a secure tenure? — Of course, when an agitation is got up to smash the lease for the purpose of rack-renting the tenants, I think it is quite sufficient to bring that feeling about. 125. Do you think the Government would propose or the Legislature would pass a measure to render invalid the title granted under the existing leases? —I know it has never been done under the British flag, but I believe there are people in New Zealand and members in the House of Representatives who are very anxious to see it done. 126. Can you imagine any Government or any Legislative taking such a course? —No, I do not think it. 127. Do you not think that public opinion would denounce such a course? —I think so. 128. Mr. Paul.] You say the Trades Councils have helped to foster this desire for the freehold? —I have seen that deputations have met the Premier, with lists of resolutions passed, asking for the revaluation of leases. They did not state whether the revaluation was to apply to leases let in the future or to those let in the past, and I believe they were aiming at those let in the past. 129. Did you ever see a statement made or a resolution to that effect carried by a responsible body? —No, I did not; but I fancy the Trades Councils have carried it. 130. Did you ever hear that they carried a resolution to make the revaluation retrospective?— I think it looks like it when these resolutions came before the Premier asking for revaluation. It was. a deputation some two years ago. 131. Mr. Forbes.] Otherwise this lease in perpetuity is quite satisfactory? —Yes, so far as I am concerned. I think the majority of the settlers on the settlement lam on are fairly well satisfied. So far as the Land Board is concerned, I have no fault to find with them, nor with any officer belonging to the Lands Department. 132. Is there any feeling on your estate that the tenants should have a representative on the Land Board? —There was a feeling of that sort, but still they did not ask for it. 133. You think you ought to have the right to take three crops in succession? —Yes. According to the terms of our leases, two are supposed to be white crops and one is supposed to be a green crop. Certainly, you cannot do without a green crop ; but, supposing a man has 260 acres, as I have, according to his lease he has power to crop one-half in one year, so long as he does not take more than three crops in succession. If a man takes two white crops off 130 acres it is too much to expect him to put all that area down in green crop. I think he should be allowed to take another white crop off a portion of it, and lay it down at the same time in grass. Sometimes a turnip-crop does the land harm if you have a wet season and stock heavy on it. 134. Will the land on your settlement stand taking three crops off in succession? —Oh, yes. I notice some freeholders outside the district take five and six crops, and their land is cleaner than the land which three crops have been taken. 135. What sort of yield do you get on that estate?--The first year I only got 7 to 8 bushels of wheat to the acre, but that was a very dry summer, and 16 to 20 bushels of oats The following vear I got 25 to 35 bushels of wheat. The crops vary according to the season. 136. Is the land worth more to-day than when you took it up?— Yes. 137. But yon would not be prepared to give that extra value to get the freehold? —No. I think it would not be fair to ask it.
P. FRIRL.]
481
C—4.
138. You think the freehold would make you safer? —It would be more satisfactory in a way, but, at the same time, if the leasehold is let alone it is just as good a tenure as the freehold. I just wish to make one further remark. Some tenants work the land well and others do not, and no man knows this better than the Crown Ranger. I think notice of these things should be taken by the Ranger, and that he should tell the Land Board who are doing their work and who are not. So long as a man does his work there is no need for him to be interfered with. Since I have been on the settlement I have heard no dissatisfaction expressed with the Ranger or with the Land Board. 139. If you allowed the Ranger to put a black mark against a settler, would he not get himself very unpopular? Would that be a very desirable position for the Ranger to occupy? —I think it is only right he should have more power to see what the tenants are doing. 140. Do you not think if the Land Board visited the various estates sometimes they would be able to see for themselves? —Yes; that is a very good idea indeed. 141. Mr. McCutchan.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —Not much. I consider the advances-to-settlers policy has been a boon to the country, because i* has regulated the price of money. 142. In your knowledge, have applications for loans to the Department met with success, generally speaking? —I think so. 143. Returning to the matter of revaluation, you say a good deal of uneasiness has been produced in the minds of the Crown tenants by the action of the Trades and Labour Council in asking for revaluation ? —Yes. 144. If their applications for revaluation only had reference to leases to be issued in the future, would there be any cause for uneasiness? —That would be quite right. 145. Your objection is that they ask generally for revaluation without particularising as to whether it is to apply to leases issued in the future, or to leases issued in the past, or to both? — Yes. I consider the lease issued in the past is our contract made between the Government and the tenant. There would be nothing wrong at all in letting future leases with revaluation in them. 146. If a distinct pronouncement came from these large organizations in the towns that they have no intention of making such legislation retrospective, would that ease the minds of the tenants? —I believe it would. 147. Mr. Matheson.] Suppose that revaluation was brought in for future leases, do you think there would be a fear amongst the Crown tenants that that was the thin edge of the wedge and the beginning of something worse? —No, I do not think they would feel that; but I think that these Trades Councils and labour people are only wanting to get in the thin edge of the wedge at the tenant, and then they will go at the freeholder. 148. Mr. McLennan.] Do you belong to the Farmers' Union? —No. 149. You believe in giving the Land Board more discretionary power? —Yes, so far as cropping is concerned. 150. And do you think they should have power to decide other questions which have at present to be referred to Wellington, but which they are quite capable of settling themselves? —Yes. 151. Mr. Hall.] Do you think that the real distinction between lease in perpetuity and freehold is chiefly a matter of sentiment? —I think the leasehold is just as sound a document as a Crown grant. Of course, if the one is to be revalued I believe they intend to revalue the freehold. Edward Lee England examined. 152. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I hold two sections comprising 20 acres under lease in perpetuity at Orari, about one mile from the railway-station, for which I pay 4s. and ss. per acre rent. I have held the land about eleven years. 153. Are you satisfied with your land? —Perfectly satisfied, in every shape and form. 154. Is there anything particular you wish to bring before the Commission? —No. 155. Are you satisfied with your dealings with the Land Board? —Yes. "156. And with your tenure? —Yes, at present. 157. Mr. Anstey.] These small sections were cut up in order to give working-men a chance to better their positions: has that policy been successful in attaining that purpose?—l believe so. 158. How are the men getting on: can you live more comfortably now? —Yes. 159. You think the system is a good one? —Yes. 160. Mr. Matheson.] You said you are quite satisfied with the tenure at present: do you think that as time goes on and you prosper and save money the State would be wise if they allowed you to use these savings to pay off part of the capital value, and so reduce your rent? —I do not think so. Robert Thew examined. 161. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer and member of the Timaru Harbour Board. I hold 578 acres of freehold and 1,240 acres under pastoral lease from the Crown in the Orari Gorge. For the leasehold I pay £210 16s. per annum. 162. It must be pretty good land at that rent? —No; it is very rough. It is only fair grazing-land. The rent is high because it was run up under the auction system. I think the auction system is detrimental to the settlement of the land. It is very unsatisfactory, in my opinion. 163. How would you let the runs? —I think there should be a sufficiently long lease, so that the tenants coitld improve the land to a certain extent by sowing grasses, and so on. I have had considerable experience at sowing grasses. If you get the proper kind of seed and burn off and sow at the proper time of the year the grass does fairly well. My grass has taken very well. 164. What is the term of your lease? —Ten years, and I have had it about five years.
61—C. 4,
C.—4.
482
'b. thew.
165. You have sown grass during that time, and already you can say it has had good results? —Yes. Of course, some two years ago we had a very heavy snow-storm, and they sent round land officers to ascertain our losses, and I went to a lot of trouble in collecting information in regard to losses in the snow. It took some time to estimate our losses, and I think my estimate of my losses was very accurate. It was somewhere between £600 and £700, direct and indirect. They led many of us to believe that they intended to do something, but after a lot of correspondence between myself and the Minister of Lands and the Land Board they told me they did not intend to do anything. All I asked was that they should reduce the term of my lease. The upset price of my land was run up from £90 to £210 165., and you will therefore understand I am paying a great deal more than the value of the land. It suited me very well, because I had a family of boys growing up and I had no other means of occupying their time, and it adjoined my freehold property. I did not ask for any monetary assistance, but that the Department should terminate my lease so that I could apply for it again at a lower rental. However, I have got over my trouble with the snow, and as prices are going now I can get along very well. 166. What is the height of your land? —I think, over 3,000 ft. at the highest point. There was an average depth of 2 ft. 6 in. of snow all over the ground. I did my best to save the stock. 167. Mr. Anstey.'l Is the Timaru Harbour Board composed wholly of elected members? —Yes. No members are nominated by the Government. 168. Has the Timaru Harbour Board any endowments? —None whatever.
Temuka, Tuesday, 11th April, 1905. John Talbot examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer farming about 2,200 acres of freehold and 1,000 acres of leasehold, which I hold from the Timaru Borough Council. I am Chairman of the Geraldine County Council. 2. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —The question that seems to be most agitating to the people's mind, and probably the reason why this Commission was set up, is whether the Crown tenants should have the option of the freehold. So far as my opinion and my observation go, I certainly think it would be advisable that the option of the freehold at the original value should be given. I think the State has parted with the land in any case, and in most cases at its full value at the time, and any value that has accrued since through better times or increased price of produce or the settlers' improvements I think the settlers are entitled to. If that is not so, the selling-out that has taken place should not have been allowed, for I presume that the people that are selling out are taking away with them any additional value there may be in the land. 3. 1 suppose you would not allow the freehold until after a certain time of residence? —I do not see any reason for fixing a particular period of time. I suppose the object of the State is to get the best out of the land, and, so long as too large estates are not held, I take it that that object is accomplished whether it be under freehold or leasehold. 4. Would you put any restriction against aggregation ? —That seems to be guarded against by taxation. I think it is almost a pity to stop enterprise during a person's lifetime. A man will soon find out what it is advisable for him to hold under the present or any other system of taxation. During the time a man's family is growing up it may suit him to aggregate, but after a time the land becomes distributed again. 5. Is there any aggregation going on in your county? —Not a great deal, I think. In some cases there may be a joining of farms, and in other cases they are being broken up. From my experience over a considerable time, I should say that segregation is going on rather than aggregation. 6. How long is your lease for? —Fourteen years, without improvements. It is in the Raincliffe Estate. It seems that one of the objections raised to a person being allowed to acquire the freehold at the original value is that of the unearned increment. I hardly think that such a thing exists. For the last two or three years there has been a great improvement in the price of farm produce, and that is accountable largely for the increase in the value of land. Like any other class of property, farming land will fluctuate. It is hard to say who owns what is called the "unearned increment." Take the case of the Levels Estate, which was purchased only a couple of years ago. If the market had not been favourable that land would be dear enough at its price. When first I came here there were no roads or railways, and it is possible that those settlers who paid for the roads and railways might have increased the value of land alongside which was not being utilised; but, at the same time, that land was taxed heavily. 7. Mr. AnsteyT] Is there any unearned increment in the towns and cities? —I could not say. 8. You do not know whether any sections which have been lying idle for many years have been sold at a large profit? —I do not know of any special case of the sort, but very likely there are some. Nevertheless, that land has been taxed all along. 9. Do you think, as a matter of public policy, that all the leases on reserves ought to carry compensation for improvements?--As a lessee, I would say Yes; as a lessor, I would probably have a little hesitation about it. The compensation clauses in a lease have a tendency to check competition at the end of the leases. I have known cases where houses and improvements have been put on, and it has been known that the lessees did not want to go out, and through the amount of compensation that had to be paid there was practically no competition. I have known a considerable difference in rent to be obtained in competition where there were no improvements.
J. TALBOT. 1
483
C—4.
10. Where there is no compensation do you feel justified in expending large sums in improvements ? —No. 11. With compensation, would you? —Certainly. 12. Then, the absence of compensation retards improvements?— Yes. As a matter of policy in regard to public lands it would be the best thing to give compensation. 13. Education leases are public lands, and therefore there would be no objection whatever, 1 presume, for granting full compensation? —I think not. 14. We have had a complaint that on estates which have been obtained by the Government the value at which they were purchased has been adhered to as the valuation for local rating purposes, notwithstanding the fact that freehold land in the neighbourhood has been revalued and the value put up: lias anything of that sort come under your notice in the county? —I do not think in the road district there is any complaint in that respect. Latterly, at all events, I think values have been put up evenly. 15. Have you any knowledge of the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 16. Can you tell us from your knowledge of commercial transactions whether the lease-in-perpetuity settlers suffer under any disadvantage owing to the nature of their holding in negotiating for advances from private firms I—l1 —I do not think the security would be considered as good as freehold. 17. Is it as good as an ordinary leasehold? —I do not think it is. 18. Is it as good as a freehold whereon there is a mortgage equal to the rent that is being paid under lease in perpetuity Ido not think so. 19. What is the particular quality of the security that makes it not so good? —It is the risk that a transfer might not be obtained. So far as I can understand, very few cases have occurred in which a transfer has not been granted; but still there is the feeling that it might not be granted, and, I suppose, where people get into trouble they would not facilitate the granting of a transfer very much. 20. Is there any reason why a lease-in-perpetuity holder should not be able to give adequate security the same as any other leaseholder? —-At present they cannot. 21. Is there any reason why this difficulty should not be removed? —No; I suppose it is purely a question of the conditions of the lease. 22. Mr. Paul.] Do you agree with the present constitution of the Land Board? —Yes; I think nomination is the right principle 23. Have you formed any opinion as to the wisdom or otherwise of dual control over public lands —Land Boards, School Commissioners, and so on ? —So far as primary-education reserves go, there is no object whatever in keeping them separate, because the rents derived from them go in reduction of the amounts the Government hands over to the Education Boards; but in the case of endowments for high schools, &c., where the people want to make as much as they can out of them, they should be left as they are. They are for specific purposes. 24. Would you favour selling these endowments? —Not those for high schools. 25. Would you sell the others? —There is no reason why they should not be sold; the State has to find the money for primary education in any case. Parliament would have to vote a larger sum of money; that would be the only difference. 26. Those lands that should be leased, do you think it should be under the lease in perpetuity? —I think there should be a shorter tenure, unless there is revaluation. With regard to Crown tenants, if their improvements are properly valued and a liberal allowance made for the same, would there be any injustice in putting that land up to public auction? —I think it would be an injustice to turn the tenants out of their holdings. The question, in my mind, is whether anything would be gained by it. Why should you turn out one settler in order to put in another? 27. Do you not think there is a value accruing to land from the general prosperity of the colony above what the settler has bestowed on it? —I do not think there is any value in the land apart from the produce derived from it. Possibly an increased number of people in the towns might give an increased value, but at present we are entirely dependent on outside markets. 28. We have had evidence that the goodwills of sections have been sold for several hundreds of pounds. Do you not think a portion of that should go to the State, seeing that you think the option is worth something? —That goodwill is due to the increased value of produce since the land' was taken up. If wheat fell back to 2s. a bushel and wool to 3d. a pound you would see a slump again. 29. Do you think it would be fair to ask the tenants to pay the original capital value if the selling-value was under that? —I think the price on which they are paying interest would be a fair value. 30. In the event of the option being extended those sections which are of good value would be taken up and the bad ones would be left on the hands of the State. Would that be fair? —It would only be the option that would be given, and it would not be made compulsory. There may be something in what you suggest, that the eyes of the estates might be picked out; but it was supposed that the State had made fair bargains, and I do not see why there should be anything in that. 31. Do you think it would be unwise if the worst of the sections were left on the hands of the State? —I think it would. 32. In the event of estates bought at too high a price?— That is not the fault of the tenants. It is not the fault of the Levels settlers that Pomahaka was bought. They would pay sufficient for their land in any case, I take- it. 33. The general taxpayer would have to pay where there was a loss? —In that case, I suppose, he would. . _ 34. Mr. Matheson.] You think the lease in perpetuity was introduced with the idea of settling people on the land ?—Yes.
C-4.^
484
[j. .TALBOT.
35. Do you think the State had any idea of making a profit out of it? —I do not think so. 36. Therefore, if they get the amount they expended in granting the freehold that should be sufficient? —Under the present system there is not a chance of the State getting more out of it, unless the option of purchase is given. 37. You think it would be reasonable for them to be satisfied with the return of the expenditure they have incurred? —Yes. 38. Have you noticed the tenants under the lease in perpetuity overcropping and going beyond the regulations?—It has not come under my notice. In advocating the freehold my idea would be to give the settlers freedom in their operations. If under the lease there must be cropping conditions. 39. Mr. Did you mean the option of the freehold to apply to estates that have been purchased by the Government? —Certainly. 40. Do you think it would be fair for the State to purchase lands and sell them again 'I —l take it they were purchased for the purpose of putting good settlers on the land, and the State has parted with any chance of getting any further interest from it. 41. If the present leases are to be cancelled and new conditions altogether fixed, would you limit that to the present holders of the lease? —Not necessarily. 42. You think there might be a fresh ballot with new conditions?- —No; 1 see no reason for a fresh ballot. Why not give the option to the present holders. 43. That should have been done at the first ballot, so that every one would have the same chance? —I think it is a matter which has only come up now. 44. Would not those outside the present lessees who took part in the ballot think they had a right to come in under the new-conditions? They might; but I do not know that it affects the question very much. 45. Mr. McLennan.\ From your own observation, do you think the Crown tenants are prosperous under the lease in perpetuity? —Yes, I think so. 46. Is there any demand amongst them for the option of the freehold? —I do not know. I take the stand that it is for the benefit of the State that they should be given the option of the freehold, and that they should be encouraged to take it. 1 regard the freeholder as the man who in times of trouble the State will look to, and I regard the leaseholder as the man who in times of trouble will look to the State. 47. Do you not think that if there was any desire among them for the freehold they would come to the Commission and express that desire? —I cannot otier any opinion as to whether the tenants themselves want it. Ido not know whether they do or not. 48. Do you belong to the Farmers' Union? —I was for a while. 49. Do you represent them here? —No, certainly not. 50. Supposing I leased a farm from you under conditions that 1 had to put on certain improvements. Good years came and 1 found that I could do better with the freehold, and I asked you for the freehold of the farm you had leased me, would you give me that freehold on the capital value? —The State's interest is to settle the land with the best class of people. It is quite another thing what I would do with my own land. The State is in quite a different position from the individual. 51. Mr. Johnston.j Do you approve of the present constitution of the Land Boards? —Yes. 1 think election by tenants would create trouble. 52. Do you think the Crown tenants are treated fairly by the Land Board? —So far as I know they are. 53. Has the value of Crown settlements about here increased or decreased since they were taken up? —I should say there has been an increase generally; but, of course, it would be difficult to assess what would be due to the settlers' individual improvements. 54. Do you think if the price of produce went down the tenants would be paying too high a rent? —It is quite possible that would be so. In the case of the Levels that was purchased at a fairly good rate a couple of years ago, and if the price of produce had gone down from that time instead of going up, it is quite possible that they would not have found themselves so easily situated. 55. Is there any Californian thistle in this district? —Yes; but I do not think there is a great deal. 56. Have you had any experience of it? —No. 57. Is it increasing at all? —Undoubtedly it is. 58. In your opinion, will it do harm if allowed to increase any further I—l1 —I am doubtful if it will be found very troublesome on land that can be cultivated, but on some lands which cannot be ploughed it would become troublesome. At the present time it is one of those things that cannot be worked out how it will affect us. For the last thirty years every weed that has come along has been held up as a thing that will ruin us. 59. Mr. McCutchan.] Can you say whether there has' been any variation in the valuations between the lands under the Land for Settlements Act and freehold lands in the last few years?— Any examples that 1 have looked into I have found that the valuation was as high for the leaseholder as for the freeholder. 60. Has there been any variation in the past? —I cannot say that there has been. 61. Have you any experience of the expenditure of " thirds "? —Yes. 62. You are aware that "thirds " have to be spent on giving access to the lands from which they accrue? —Yes. 63. In what way has that been safeguarded in your county? —In all cases the proposals for the expenditure of the money are sent to the Land Board and approved. 64. In Geraldine a settler complained that £46 of the " thirds " that had accrued from his land were in the possession of the Road Board, and that he had been unable to get that money
J. f&LBOT.J
485
C—4.
expended? —It may be that that £46 may be of no use towards any expenditure that may be required 65. Is it not the custom to send in a schedule for the expenditure of the money, and that the money will not be granted by the .Land Board unless they are satisfied that the money will be expendeu on the matters mentioned in the schedule?- -Boards are allowed to hold the "thirds that have accrued, 1 think, until more or the whole amount has accrued. I heard of this case, and it would appear that the whole amount has accrued and been handed over, i cannot understand how it has come about. 66. Would the fact of giving the freehold of the best sections in any way injure the position of the colony with regard to the worst sections? —1 do not see how it could, it has nothing to do with one settler what has been done in another place. The land-for-settleinents policy has turned out remarkably well, but it has to be borne in mind that it is a system that lias been in force ever since the province came into existence. 67. Assuming that there is an increase in the value of land outside what the settler has done, and supposing that such increase has been made by the whole colony, and in view of the individualisation of this increase, would not the unearned increment as it is called legitimately be the settlers' portion?- I think it would. 1 have not been able to bring my mind to consider that the public has any right to it. 68. Mr. Forbes.J The money that has been invested in buying these estates for cutting-up purposes has been raised by the Government at 4 per cent., and the Government are receiving 5 per cent, on that from the tenants: if the Government allowed the tenants the right of purchasing the freehold of their holdings at the original price, would not the State lose that 1-per-cent. profit they are making? —1 do not think tlte State went in for the settlement policy for the purpose of making money out of it. For the sake of the sentiment, as between the leasehold and the freehold, I would be prepared to pay more for the holding myself. 69. Mr. Anstey.\ Supposing a large number of the tenants availed themselves of the right of the option to purchase their holdings, what would the State do with the money? —There might be trouble over that, but 1 presume the purchase of estate would still go on. 70. Would you suggest that the money should be invested in the purchase of other estates? — Certainly. 71. I suppose there is a fairly large margin of profit over and above what the State gives? —Yes. 72. Do you think the Government could invest that money in other estates with the same margin of profit as they have at present? —That would depend on the trial. If the people were willing to give them 5 per cent, again it would work out all right. 73. l'ou think there are plenty of estates to be bought at the same profit as those that have been bought? —1 think the time is past unless there is a change in the outlook. I think the land will rise yet if the price of produce is maintained. 74. Are there plenty of estates to be bought at any price similar to those which have already been bought? —At present, no. 75. Then the Government would have to look for some other investment for the money? — That is another consideration. 76. Mr. Paul.] There are several sections on Pomahaka that the Government cannot find tenants for. Would you be agreeable to reduce the rent on those sections and give the option of the freehold? —Yes; the Government made a bad bargain there, and, like a private individual, should make the best of it. 77. The State should stand the loss? —I do not think the State stands any risk of loss in the long-run if they get the settlers there. There would be an immediate loss, which would be nothing in the general principle. Walter Acton examined. 78. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer holding 163 acres under education lease, which I have held for about five years. The original lease was for twenty-one years and it has three years to run. The rent is 10s. per acre, with valuation for buildings put up with the consent of the Board. I think the Board should pay for other improvements besides buildings. It is swamp land, and they should pay for draining and plantations. I wrote to the steward of reserves two years ago and asked for some allowance for a plantation of timber, which in time would become valuable, but he wrote back to say that the Board had no power to grant such a request. 79. Have you a right of renewal? —Yes, by arbitration. 80. What do you think of the lease in perpetuity as a tenure? —I think it is absurd for either the Crown or a private individual to sign a lease for 999 years. 81. Do you favour the freehold? —Yes, lease with the option. 82. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you want the freehold of the education lease? —No, not as at present. 83. You do not think you have any right to the freehold? —No. 84. Still, you think the lease-in-perpetuity holders should have the freehold? —Without a doubt. 85. What is the difference that gives one class of settlers more right to buy the land than another? —Every one knows that if bad years set in Crown tenants would have to get a reduction. 86. Does that not apply to other settlers? —No, the education tenants have had their reduction from time to time. The original education leases were tendered for, and have had to be reduced several times. 87. From the point of view of the tenant, the 999-years lease or one terminable in twenty-one years? —The latter. 88. What are your cropping regulations? —We are allowed three white crops.
C—4
486
[W. ACTON..
89. Is that sufficient for the land?— Plenty; we never take it. It is more than the land will carry. 90. Taking the land in the neighbourhood, do you think that two white crops in six years are sufficient generally? —Yes; but if a man lias the misfortune to lose his crop, he should be allowed to take another. 91. With a right of renewal on an arbitration rent and allowance for all improvements, would your lease be satisfactory ?—-Yes. 92. Would you favour a revaluation clause being put in lease-in-perpetuity leases in future? —No. 93. A twenty-one-years lease with renewal on an arbitration rent is practically a revaluation? —Just so; but I hold that a lease expires with the man. 94. But the dead man can leave it? —Yes, but the lease ends with the death of the man who signed it. 95. You think the State has no right to give a lease covering a longer period than a man's life ? —Yes. Michael O'Loughlin examined. 96. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer holding 110 acres under lease in perpetuity on Arowhenua, for which I pay 9s. per acre rent. I have been there for about seven years. The place is too small to keep a team of horses, and lam only allowed to crop half the land. If I was allowed to crop the whole of it I would take off three crops, and then put it in grass for three years and sell my horses and get sheep. There is no chance of getting more land around my farm as it is all taken up. 97 Do you dairy-farm? —No. 98. Mr. Anstey.] On that class of land what would be a suitable area? —200 or 300 acres. 1 could not go in for a ballot for another section so long as I hold this section. 99. Mr. Paul.\ Do you favour the present constitution of Land Boards? —Yes. 100. Mr. Matheson.J What is the value of your buildings? —I could not say. 101. Is there any danger that after you got off the three crops and sold your horses that you would sell out and look for another place? —No. 102. Is there no contract ploughing in the district? —1 might as well throw stones at my own window as take contracts at ss. 6d. per acre. 103. What is the highest price you have paid per acre for cropping? —£2 10s. per acre. I was getting from 20 to 60 bushels of wheat an acre. Wheat was then 4s. a bushel. It is now 2s. Bd. to 3s. 104. What do you reckon you will get this year? —30 bushels, I think. 105. Has your rent proved too high? —No, I am quite satisfied. 106. Are the rest of the tenants satisfied? —I hear no complaints. 107. Would this land bear three crops? —Yes, two crops would be of no use, as it is too heavy. 108. How much do you reckon it takes to keep a team of horses per year? —I could not give any idea, but I know what a liorse will eat in a week. He will eat 4 bushels of oats with straw chaff. Daniet, Angland examined. 109. The Chairman.] What are you? lam a Government settler on Albury. I hold 282 acres, and pay ss. 7d. per acre. 1 have been there since the commencement of the settlement six years ago. lam satisfied with the section and the rent, but 1 think there should be some modifications as regards cropping. I think when a man has been five years on his land and has fulfilled the conditions he should be allowed to use his own discretion. I think also that when he has resided ten or fifteen years on his leasehold he should be allowed to purchase the freehold. It would be good for the settler and for the State as a whole that he should have the option of the purchase at the original price. I also think that the settlers should elect two members to the Land Board, and that more power should left in the hands of the Ranger. Where a dirty paddock requires cleaning or a man loses his crop the Ranger should have power to say whether the settler is wrong or not. 110. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you think it would be better for the tenants that they should get the option of the freehold? I think it would, for the reason that he would have an end in view. He would be more cautious in working his land if he had a chance of making it his own than if he was to be always a leaseholder. 111. You are aware that if a condition were put in your lease giving you the right of acquiring the freehold that would involve an alteration of the lease? —No ; that would be an addition. 112. If that alteration were made do you not think alterations might be inserted in your lease? —No; I do not think that is necessary. 113. Is the Albury Settlement fairly successful?— Yes. 114. Are the rents fair? —Yes. 115. But you want a little more latitude in regard to cropping? —Yes. 116. Mr. Paul.] Do you agree with the present nominative constitution of the Land Boards? —No. 117. How would you vary it? —I have had dealings with the Land Board. I think the present Commissioner is a very good man, but I think we ought to have a voice in the election or nomination of members to the Land Board. 118. How would you elect those men?- ! think it is very probable the present members would be elected. 119. Under what franchise would you elect them? —By a vote of the Crown tenants. 120. If you had an estate would you allow your tenants to elect two men to sit with you in arranging what conditions should govern that estate? —A private individual and the State are
D. ANGLAND. I
487
a—4.
two different things. I think that an election in the way I suggest would result in better men perhaps being elected to the Land Board. Persons who are not interested in the land question should not have a voice in the election of the Land Board. Nobody but a Crown tenant is interested in the Land Board. 121. Has the Ranger ever harassed you? —No; the Ranger is a very reasonable man. 122. Mr. Matheson.] In asking for the right of purchase are you aware that you are asking for something which the tenants in Great Britain under the Crown already possess? —I think that all people who hold land should have the option of the freehold. 123. Mr. Hall.] You say that the holders of lease-in-perpetuity land should have the right of converting their holdings into freeholds? —Yes; and I think the money derived from that source might go to acquire other land for closer settlement. 124. If the tenant was allowed to pay off a portion of the capital value and thus reduce his rent would that not answer the purpose I—lt1 —It would go a long way towards it. 125. Do you mean granting the right of freehold in the case of existing leases? —I would not allow it to any leaseholder until he has been from fifteen to twenty years on the settlement. I mean it to apply to present leases and also to future leases. 126. Seeing that that is a complete departure from the terms of the present lease, do you think the price should be fixed by arbitration? —I do not think the land has improved except in so far as the tenant has improved it. 127. Was the Albury Block loaded for roading? —I think so, slightly. 128. Has the expenditure on the roads been satisfactory? —I think so. 129. Do you think that the right should be given to the settlers of the redemption of the loading —that is, as the Government is charging 5 per cent, on the loading, the total amount for loading should be extinguished within a reasonable time? —Yes, I think so. 130. The loading is for roads; it is put on to the value of the land, and the local body strikes rates not only upon the value of the land but also upon the loading: do you think that is equitable? —I do not think that is right. 131. Mr. Forbes.] You said you thought the Crown tenants ought to elect one or two members to the Board. If a candidate for the Board came round and said he would allow you to take two crops out of your land do you not think you would support him? —He could not alter the law and the regulations. 132. Do you not think there would be that danger? —Any man who has made the necessary improvements and complied with the regulations —there is not much fear of his being a burden on the State. Frank Green examined. 133. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm 152 acres at Arowhenua. My rent is Bs. 6d. an acre. I have been there since the beginning of the settlement. lam not satisfied with the cropping regulations. I think we should be allowed three white crops. I may say that I have taken out three white crops and the Board has warned me. 134. Do you think the Land Boards as at present constituted is satisfactory? —Yes, to a certain extent. But I would like to say this: that too much capital is required to be possessed by applicants before the Board will accept their applications. At present it does not give a man a show unless he has ample means. 135. Mr. Anstey.] Are you generally satisfied with the conditions of your tenure except in regard to cropping? —I am quite satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure and with the rent, but I think my section is rather small, and that I should be allowed to ballot for an adjoining section or to buy out an adjoining section. I want about 300 acres in order to keep my family together. 136. Mr. Paid.] Do you not think it would be better if the law were altered so as to allow you to ballot for a larger holding on condition you sold the smaller holding ? —When a man has improved a place and made a home on it he prefers to stop there. I would not like to sell my own property and take the chance of drawing another section. 137. Have your dealings with the Ranger been satisfactory? —Yes, very satisfactory; and I have not heard one complaint made against the Ranger. I think the Ranger should have more discretionary power in respect to details as to dealing with the land. There is too much trouble and delay in sending to the Board about details. 138. Do you not think you would have some trouble if you were a Ranger in pleasing the settlers? —You could not please everybody, but the present Ranger seems to do so. 139. Mr. Matheson.] In respect to the cropping regulations, instead of forfeiture, do you think it would be wise if the Board were allowed to increase the rent? —I do not think so. A man does not crop to ruin his land; he crops to improve it. 140. But do you not think there should be a milder form of punishment than eviction? — Certainly; but I do not think there should be any punishment of a man who is a good farmer and who farms, in his opinion, in the best way. 141. Mr. McLennan.'] Did you apply to the Board to get permission to replough the land and grass it? —No. 142. Did you see the Ranger? —Yes, and he said the best way would be to make inquiries and see if I could not plough it again. 143. Mr. McCutchan.~\ In reference to getting a second section, do you think that at the ballot married men should get any preference over others?— Yes. Maurice Lawlor examined. 144. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm 40 acres at Rakepo, three or four miles from Temuka. I pay £1 Is. 6d. an acre rent. I have been there nine years. The land has too much twitch growing on it. It grew to about 4 ft. high this year with the crop. I
a—4.
488
Tm. lawlok.
am only allowed to take two crops oS the land. The cropping restrictions are not satisfactory and should be altered. If the land is laid down in grass for three years the tenant should be given liberty to take three crops. In the third year the grass is very little good. You cannot make your rent out of third-year grass on dear land. I understand that there is a complaint before the Land Board against me for overcropping. 1 think the settlers should be allowed to work the land as they like when they have made the necessary improvements. The tenants should also be allowed to pay off a certain amount of the capital value, so that in bad times they will not be crippled with the rent. I think they should be allowed to pay off at least two-thirds of the capital. We will not have good times always, and in bad times the tenants will have a difficulty in paying their rent. My land yields from 7 bushels to 40 bushels an acre according to the season. For two seasons I only got 7 bushels an acre. 145. Mr. Anstey.] What would be the yield this year? —I cannot say; I have not threshed yet. 146. Mr. Paul.] Was it anticipated that you would be able to make a living out of the produce of 40 acres? —I cannot do so if lam only allowed to take two crops off the land. 147. Was it not the intention that you should get work outside your land? —I am getting an old man now and I cannot work outside. 148. The 40 acres is not large enough for a man to make a living out of? —Not if he has a big family. The cropping conditions are too severe. The tenant should have more liberty to crop as he likes. 149. Do you not think there are a few Crown tenants who would crop and ruin the land? Yes, poor land; but anybody should be allowed to take off three crops from good land if he chooses. 150. Have you ever asked to be allowed to take three crops off? —No. 151. Will it not be time enough to complain when the Land Board refuses? —There are numbers of people who have been refused. 152. Mr. McLennan.] Have you ever tried turnips and fallowing? —Yes; but we cannot grow turnips without ridging and hoeing. That costs a lot of money. James Davis examined. 153. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a small farmer. I hold 20£ acres at Arowlienua, and my rent is Bs. 6d. an acre. I have been there seven years. lam satisfied with my holding and with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, but I do not approve of the way in which small tenants are rated by local bodies. We are compelled by the Government to put on so-much improvements on our land, and we are rated by the local body on those improvements. I think there should be a little more give-and-take so far as the regulations as to root-crops are concerned, and where a crop has been a failure I think the Ranger, through the Land Board, should allow the settler to crop again. 154. Mr. Anstey.] That settlement was a settlement for working-men? —Yes. 155. How are the working-men getting on there? —Very comfortably, so far as I can hear. 156. Can they get plenty of work?— Generally. 157. You think that, generally speaking, these small farms are useful to enable working-men to become settlers and get into a better position? —If it were not for these small settlements there are hundreds of people who would never have gone on the land. 158. Do you think they ought to be allowed to ballot for another piece of land? —Yes, up to a fair size. 159. If you balloted for a larger section and got it would you be prepared to leave your present holding for another workman? —I would not part with my section. I have a home there and I am going to keep it. 160. Mr. Johnston.] Are all the rest of the settlers contented? —Yes, so far as I know. 161. Mr. McLennan.'] Would you be in favour of giving more discretionary power to the Land Board as to cropping? —Yes. B. Horgan examined. 162. The Chairman.] What are you?- lam a farm labourer, and have 11 acres of land at Rukepoa. My rent is £1 3s. an acre. I have been there about five years. I am satisfied with my section, except that it is too small. My sister has a section of 50 acres close by, and I want to know if it is possible to make the two sections into one. I have been informed by the Land Board that they could not allow me to apply for any more Government land while I hold my present section. My sister's section is under lease in perpetuity. 163. Mr. Anstey.] If you were allowed to ballot for a larger section and were successful would you be prepared to transfer your present section to some one else? —Yes. 164. You think that as soon as a workman is able to take up a larger section he should be allowed to transfer his present holding? —Yes. Michael Scannell examined. 165. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a threshing-machine proprietor and farmer. I have 269 acres of freehold and a similar area of leasehold adjoining on the Rosewell Settlement. I pay 7s. per acre rent for the leasehold. I have held it twelve months, and I bought the freehold about six months ago. lam newly settled on both sections. 166. You have not had much experience of the place, but, so far as you have gone, are you satisfied? —So far I have no reason to grumble, except that in going round the country as a threshing-mill owner—l work on all the Crown settlements south of the Rangitata—l find there is a good deal of uncertainty in the minds of the Crown tenants as to how they are going to be treated eventually in regard to revaluation. They are also hindered a good deal by the cropping regulations. There is a good deal of desire amongst them that they should be allowed to acquire
489
a—4.
M. SCANNBLL.
the freehold. They reckon they would be more secure under freehold tenure. The opinion in their minds is that they do not know how soon there may be an alteration of the Act, and their improvements may be confiscated. 167. Do they really think so? —-Any amount really do think so. They also think a man should be allowed discretionary power to a certain extent after he has put on his improvements and resided on the place to take more than two white crops off if he thinks it is wise to do so. In our view the man who is working the land knows better how to do it than the man in the office who draws up the regulations. 168. Would you not have some control over the tenant? —You have control enough so long as you hold his improvements. There is no man who farms his 200 to 300 acres who will not put from £800 to £1,500 in improvements on his section, and I fail to see how he could depreciate that land by taking an extra crop from it. Ido not see that he is any more likely to do it even if he is not restricted. A practical farmer will not do it if he is restricted or unrestricted. 169. Mr. Paul.] You say the tenants are afraid of revaluation? —Yes; there is a feeling of uncertainty in their minds that things are not going to last like this always. 170. That things are too good to last? —No, but that their bargain will be varied by the Government. 171. Have you ever seen a proposal to apply revaluation retrospectively? —It has been hinted at amongst some of the trades-unions and town members. 172. Have you any definite knowledge of that, or is it just something somebody has told you? -It is what I have read in the papers, and I read them as intelligently as most people. 173. You are quite positive that in some papers you saw a proposal to apply revaluation to existing leases? —Yes. 174. Mr. Hall.] Do you think that any one seriously considers that the Government would ignore a title to land issued and acquired legally and honestly?- I do, sir. Considering that the Government can commandeer the freehold, why should they not vary their leases. One deed is no more binding than the other, and the lease is not nearly so much so. 175. Well, if they can repudiate a lease they have entered into they can repudiate the freehold, and where would be the advantage in changing the tenure, so far as security of tenure is concerned? That is the impression amongst the Crown tenants generally. They feel they will be more secure under freehold or part freehold. 176. Then, they will be out of the frying-pan into the fire if the Government could contemplate such a thing? —I do not think so. 177. Mr. Johnston.] What did you pay for the freehold? —I bought at £4 ss. an acre. 178. What do you pay for your lease? —7s. per acre, or equal to £7 per acre. 179. I suppose in paying that you do so because you think the land is worth it? —I am satisfied it is worth it. 180. What is the average yield of grain? —39 bushels of wheat on the Government sections. 181. How long have you been a threshing-mill owner ?--Close on thirty years. 182. What is the general yield in this district for oats averaging the last five years? —It would run from 50 to 80 bushels, and wheat from 25 to 55 bushels to the acre. 183. Have you ever known wheat below that? —Yes. About seven years ago I knew it to be no more than 12 bushels to the acre. It was an exceptional year. 184. Are the settlers doing well on the Government land here? —A lot depends on the class of people who take up the land. Some are doing well and some Ido not think will ever do well, and would never do well under any conditions. 185. The good settlers are doing well and are satisfied all round? —Yes. 186. Mr. Forbes.] You have a freehold section and a leasehold section side by side? —Yes. 187. Do you pay the land-tax on the freehold section? —I will do so. I have only held it six months. 188. Do you pay anything on the lease in perpetuity? —No. 189. Do you not think that if you converted that into a freehold you would have to pay landtax immediately? —Yes, and I think quite right too. 190. You think the tenants are willing to change the lease in perpetuity into freehold, and come under the provisions of the land-tax? —I would not object at all. I think it is only right. I think also there should be only one regulation for all people occupying land. The tenants should pay land-tax as well as the freeholder. 191. You say the trades and labour people in the towns want to get at the Crown tenants: do you not think if the'tenants get the freehold and the trades and labour people cannot get at them that they will then be likely to put a heavier tax on the freehold ? —My opinion is that after they have worried the freeholders and made them all Crown tenants they will then worry the Crown tenants. Patrick Mitten examined. 192. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I hold 174J acres under lease in perpetuity on the Arowhenua Settlement. I pay Bs. 6d. per acre rent. I have been there eight years. 193. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —Yes, with little improvements. 194. What modification do you suggest? —I consider the cropping regulations are not right. I reckon that when a settler has been on the land for four or five years, and has put the required improvements on it, and is living on it exactly the same as though it were freehold, he should be left to use his own discretion. That is my opinion. I consider, too, that if a settler has done well in a few prosperous years and has made, say, £100 or £200, or whatever the sum might be, that there is no reason why he should not be allowed to pay off equal to, say, 50 or 75 per cent, of the capital value of his section. Ido not say that the Crown should part altogether with the land. I have been speaking to a lot of the settlers, and every one of them has agreed that it would be vert
€2—C. 4.
C— 4.
490
r P. MITTEN.
satisfactory if we were allowed to pay off 50 or 75 per cent, of the capital value. My reason for asking that this should be done is that I am a young man to-day and I am fit to battle along. If I should make a bit of money is it not better that I should put that money in the land on which I am living rather than put it into some other speculation and run the risk of losing it. If bad health or bad seasons come along I have something to fall back on, and the Crown has also something to fall back on. Again, is it not well when the settler has money to part with that the Government should take that money from the settler and keep the interest in the colony, rather than borrow more money from the London money-lender. 195. Mr. Anstey.\ Have you had any trouble with regard to your cropping regulations?— Not a bit. 196. Have you ever exceeded the regulations? —I have. The first year I came I put a lot of land down in grass with one crop, and some of that land was laid down for four years. I had some very twitchy paddocks to contend with, and I took three crops out of them because I had to do it. 197. Did you ask the permission of the Board?- -No. I think it is a great mistake to bind a man to two crops. 198. Are two crops sufficient to take out of the ground in the ordinary course? —No, I do not think so. I consider that the oftener the Arowhenua land is turned up and worked the better chance has the last crop. 199. Mr. Paul.] Why would you not allow the settlers to obtain the freehold I—l1 —I will tell you the reason. I would not really say I would go against it or go for it, but I say I would be satisfied with 75 per cent. The Crown in starting the land-for-settlements policy did a very good and noble act, and a lot of good to the country, and I do not think it would be fair or just to the country that the land should depart out of the hands of the Crown. 200. Were not the cropping conditions clearly set out in the pamphlet that was issued when the estate was opened up? —That is true enough, but I do not think the people who issued the pamphlet could know that such-and-such a paddock was full of twitch and other weeds. I never believed the land was like what it was until I had to contend with it. 201. You think the cropping restrictions are not practicable? —I do, indeed. 202. Mr. Hall.] When the tenant has paid off a portion of the capital value as you suggest, do you think that all restrictions should then be removed and that he should be as free as though his land was freehold I—Yes.1 —Yes.
Ashburton, Wednesday, 12th April, 1905. John Charles Nattle Grigo examined. 1. The Chairman.'] Yon are the proprietor of Longbeach Farm?— Yes. I am a freeholder. There are 10,000 acres in the estate. 2. I understand this is part of a much larger estate that belonged to your father at one time, and that he brought what was called an impenetrable swamp into a high state of cultivation. We also understand that a portion of the estate was exit up into large farms and successfully settled. It would be a great advantage to us to know from you how your father accomplished this great work, and the principles upon which that settlement was conducted? —My father purchased the first 2,000 acres of Longbeach in 1864, and when he was going to buy those first 2,000 acres the Government map showed no survey whatsoever, but right across the country that is now Longbeach was simply written in large letters, "Impenetrable swamp." He at once started a large open drain to let the water oft. I may say that the estate by the time he and Mr. Thomas Russell had finished buying consisted of somewhere about 30,000 acres of freehold. After partially draining and clearing a considerable extent of the estate in 1875 my father began to sell portions of the land he had drained, and continued to do so until the year 1892, when he had sold about 15,000 acres. Most of the farmers paid a certain amount down and paid interest on the balance, and they were allowed to pay off the balance as they could. The paying-off period extended for a great many years in some cases. Most of the original settlers held the farms until the purchase was completed. The purchases are all completed now. Since then many of the farms have changed "hands. My father kept, roughly speaking, about 13,000 acres for himself, of which 10,000 acres now belong to me and the balance to my brother. 3. What was about the average size of the farms sold? —A lot of land was cut up into small holdings for men working on the place, and, leaving them out of consideration, the farms ran from 50 acres to 400 acres. 4. I suppose these men came from all parts of the country? —Yes. A lot of them came from Southbridge, and from the earlier districts around Christchurch. 5. Did they farm their land well?— Yes, the bulk of them did. 6. You use your farm partly for cropping and partly for sheep?— Yes. The cropping is now confined to the very best part of the property, as where you pay for labour wheat must yield 40 bushels or over to leave any profit as against stock. 7. I suppose your average yield is up to that? —Yes, of late years. 8. How many sheep per acre do the paddocks laid down in grass after cropping carry all the year round? —So far as the expression "carrying sheep all the year round" in concerned, I do not think there is any expression more misleading or used in such a casual manner and without a proper understanding of its meaning. There is some land that sheep' will just live on, and it is said that the land is carrying that sheep, but, in the real farming sense, to carry sheep ought also to include fattening it. I might say that keeping the plough going for three years the land in the summer-time will carry from two to four ewes to the acre on new pasture, and fatten a fair proportion of their lambs.
J. C. N. GEIGG.
491
U— 4.
9. What class of sheep suits this process of farming best? —On such land as I own I prefer a good second cross—a Leicester ewe and a Shropshire Down rani. 10. For how many years have you been actively engaged in farming operations, both pastoral and agricultural?— Since 1883. 11. Mr. Mall.] I suppose you have a knowledge of the country generally in this part of the island 1 Yes, I think I have a fair knowledge. 12. Have you any knowledge of the higher pastoral runs? —Not very much. 13. I suppose you have given some study to the different tenures of land? —Yes. 1 have thought over the matter pretty frequently. 14. Have you given some consideration to the question of the tenure for the settlement of ordinary Crown lands, and for the settlement of the improved estates purchased by the Government? —Yes. I think the resumption of some of the properties that have been taken over has been a good thing for the country. 15. Keeping in view the interest of the State and the interest of the occupier of the land, and the interest of the community, what class of tenure do you think would be best for the country i —I have given this subject some consideration. I wish to put aside party politics and persona) interests, and simply to look at the question from a broad point of view— namely, that which is most profitable to the country as a whole. Surely no man living wants more than that. I take it that because large estates in the past were lying idle, or were not being worked at top and have been resumed and let on lease in perpetuity, there is no reason why in the future people should go too far in the other direction. 1 mean by that, to my mind, and speaking without any bias, the lease in perpetuity is really a false lease, for this reason : you have only got to extend that system fully along the line to prove it-one way or the other. Just think what would be the result if the whole of New Zealand was put under lease in perpetuity. Politics would simply be town versus country. All the electors would be able, virtually, through their members, to vote reduction in rent, or, if need be, the resumption of the freehold back again, because Parliament has shown in the past that the freehold grant from the Crown can be taken. Therefore, I take it, any other tenure can be taken if Parliament so chooses. Another bad point in this lease in perpetuity is that as soon as it becomes Government land, whoever gets it by the ballot ceases to pay any tax of any kind towards keeping up the State, whereas if the land were freehold it is an asset to be taxed for all time to raise a fair revenue for the State. Then, to come to the question of productiveness, which is the main thing after all, 1 think it cannot be gainsaid that men under freehold on an average produce 25 per cent, more than leaseholders, and, from a business point of view, that ought to be enough to justify the freehold. But you can add to it the fact that the freeholder is always more anxious to keep his land clean and free of pests, and make a home for himself and his children. There is one more point. Supposing hard times come, which tenure will stand the test of adversity best? I fancy the freehold, and for this reason: that when it comes to a pinch the man on the freehold will first of all cut down his expenses and strive very hard in his farming, and otherwise to make ends meet; but the leaseholder, I think it is fair to say, having regard to the evidence of the past, will, directly hard times come, agitate for a reduction of rent. Now, the State in the case of freehold has got a revenue all along the line by taxation, but the leaseholder under lease ill perpetuity has his rent fixed to-day and virtually for all time, so far as we are concerned, and therfore his land does not in any way whatever bring in anything to recoup the State. I want you to understand that Ido not for one moment wish to interfere with any system or any holding at present in force; but supposing instead of the lease in perpetuity the perpetual lease with revaluation at certain periods has been adopted, then at the end of each period the increased rent from these farms would bring in a large revenue to the State and virtually recoup to the State the money originally paid for the land. At least that increased rent would be to some extent equal to the land-tax, which is now levied on freehold. Then, if 1 might just add one word : To my mind, the model countrj" of the world and the one whose policy is worth imitating, so far as land-tenure is concerned, is Denmark. With half the size of Scotland and half the population of Scotland the people of Denmark, besides living well in every possible manner, export twenty million pounds' worth of produce from the land. What is the tenure in tlie country that does that? It is the freehold. The Government for many years past have put aside large sums of money to help the farmers to buy the freehold, and it is under that system and by advancing them cheap money to make the farms their own that Denmark has developed to such an extraordinary extent. 1 think honestly that if the Government wishes to help, there is no other way by which the country can be so well and profitably farmed as under the freehold. I think by far the safest policy is for the Government to help the settlers to get on the land with a small amount of money. There are six men on the land in Denmark to four in the towns, and if Denmark can do this with the land under snow and ice all the winter —and it is really a hard winter —what cannot New Zealand do with the splendid climate she possesses. There is another point. I maintain that the freehold tenure alone makes a people far more patriotic. I think there is no doubt about that. There is that feeling which cannot be described when a man sits on his own land, and, after all, all the towns want is that the land be thickly populated and produce the greatest possible amount, and bear its fair share of the taxation of the colony. The freehold answers these purposes best. 16. As regards existing leases under lease in perpetuity, would you consider it a sound policy to allow the tenants to pay off a portion of the capital value and so reduce their rent? —I think that the land in many cases has gone up very considerably in value since the Government purchased some of the properties, and in that it was by no sweat of their brow or their work that these men went on to these sections but simply by ballot, and by the State finding the money and running the risk. To my mind, the only way by which they should become owners of the freehold would be at a fair revaluation. But I would allow every settler very full compensation indeed for all improvements.
C.—4.
[j/c. N. GRIGG.
492
17. And you would give the tenants the right to purchase after fresh valuation? —I would give them the right by the payment of instalments or as they could to become freeholders, feeling certain that this is far better than carrying the lease in perpetuity along for all time. There is a true saying in regard to farming, and it was said by my father, that if people do not oust the weeds the weeds will oust them. I think I need only recall to your mind the Californian thistle and other weeds to emphasize the truth of that saying now, and 1 think that the freehold would make people very much more careful to keep down weeds and pests of all kinds than the leasehold. 1 say so for this reason: weeds such as the Californian thistle depreciate land £5 or £6 an acre. If it is freehold land that loss falls on the owner; if it is leasehold it falls on the Government, and if on the Government back on the bulk of the people in New Zealand. They have to pay for that loss, and that loss means reduced rent. 18. Assuming that the present leases are to be kept intact for 999 years, would it be a good thing if the tenants were allowed to pay ofi a portion of the capital value, thus reducing their rental and giving them a greater interest in the land ? —Yes, anything that would give them a greater interest in the land would be an advantage. 19. In future leases would you approve of the rent being fixed on a higher scale, to include a sinking fund that would wipe out the capital value, say, in forty years, and thus allow the tenant to become the owner of the freehold? —That is virtually deferred payment. Yes; I am in favour of deferred payment. That is the best system. 20. Mr. McGutchan.] In reference to the question of revaluation, do you think that if a clause was inserted in future leases, providing for periodical revaluation, it would be detrimental to settlement? lam speaking now not only of lands settled under the Land for Settlements Act, but also of the Act under which the ordinarv Crown lands of the colony are disposed of ? —I do not think you could get such a good class of men on the land. There might be a certain amount of hardship under revaluation, and for myself I should say there is no comparison between that and the deferred-payment system. I should make it optional, and allow a man to acquire the land under deferred payment or for cash, but I would not allow him to mortgage it in order to buy. 21. You expressed the fear that if bad times came the State would not be recouped for its outlay: these tenants are now paying 5 per cent, on the capital value of the land, and since money at 5 per cent, compound interest repays itself in twenty-six years, do you think there is any real danger to the State in that direction? —Not at 5 per cent, on the present value. The bulk of the properties bought by the Government are worth the money paid for them, and therefore there is no danger at 5 per cent. But I will say this much in reference to that question: I do not consider that the Government —it may be presumption on my part —have allowed a wide enough margin for expenses. I think they ought really to have loaded the estates a little more to allow for surveys and miscellaneous expenses that now have to come out of the Consolidated Fund. I am told on good authority that there is hardly one property taken over by the Government the loading on which has really paid fully for the cost of roading, bridging, &c. 22. There is a good deal in that argument, but is it not a fact that from year to year the Government are borrowing money for reproductive works, and these estates are entitled to a portion of that money, seeing that it is being expended in the development of the country and they have to pay their share of the interest ? —I think the man who pays taxation to keep his country going has a right to receive a share of the benefit arising from the expenditure of borrowed money; but if a man is put on the land by the State and ceases to pay taxes in any form whatsoever I do not see why he should benefit equally with those who do pay taxes. 23. Is it not the case that the tenants upon these estates contribute as largely as other settlers in the colony through the Customs, and, further, that they are really subject to land-tax? Their exemptions are the capital value of the land and their improvements, but there is often a wide intermediate value, generally termed the "unearned increment," and as soon as that unearned increment exceeds the exemption, which, I believe, is £500, all these tenants are liable to land-tax ? — I would like to know if any of them have paid land-tax up to the present time. 24. There are several Crown tenants in the colony paying land-tax at the present time simply because the intermediate value of their land to which I have referred is much greater than the three exemptions —namely, the exemption on their own improvements, the exemption on the State's interest in the land, and the £500 exemption? —Then, I would like to know whose duty it is to revalue these properties, and whether they are revalued from time to time for taxation purposes. 25. Of course, they are assessed just the same as the freehold adjoining. I suppose have heard that several of these properties have changed hands at very considerable premiums ovelr and above the value of the tenants' improvements? —I know that. 26. Up till last year scarcely any lease-in-perpetuity land paid land-tax, but, as a matter of fact, the land is subject to land-tax when a man's interest over and above his improvements exceeds the exemption? —It will all depend on how many lease-in-perpetuity tenants there are. If the country was wholly under lease in perpetuity, I say again—l do not want to accuse any body of dishonesty or anything of that sort; it is only the survival of the fittest —the chances are that these leaseholds will not pay land-tax to the same extent as freehold. 1 must say that, if what Mr. McCutchan has told me is correct, that the settlers under the Government are paying equal land-tax, it is news to me. 27. I do not go so far as to say that, but when their interest exceeds the exemption they are subject to land-tax, though, as a matter of fact, very few are paying it? —I understand that. 28. Whilst the Commission were travelling through the pastoral areas in Southland, Otago, and South Canterbury they saw the difficulties of settling that country: I would like to ask your opinion, as one at home in the open country and a buyer and breeder of sheep, in view of the tact that the products of the sheep —namely, wool, mutton, and lamb —bulk larger in value than any other single product from the colony, and also in view of the fact that statements, apparently
J. C. N. GBIGG.j
493
C—4.
well founded, have been made that the merino sheep is a factor which largely governs the success of that great industry, do you or do you not consider that the maintenance and, if possible, the increase of the merino flocks should be a primary consideration in fixing the area and other conditions under which the rough pastoral country —which is the merino country —should be worked? —I would like to say, in reply to that, that I am a farmer born and bred on the flat, and I cannot say definitely what is the wisest policy for the hills; but I have this evidence close at hand: that two or three of the largest station-proprietors on these hills are going out of merino and going in for inbreds. I think I value the merino as much as most people, but if the bulk of the owners holding these leases find that the inbred halfbreds and other crosses are more profitable and bring them in a larger revenue we must allow them to do as they think best, especially as what the Canterbury Plains want most of all is a ready supply of good breeding-ewes to produce fat lambs for export. It is the duty of the hills and the downs surrounding the plains to produce these ewes for the farmers on the plains, and that this will be done to a very large extent and quickly seems certain by the fact of the £1 to £1 10s. apiece given for breeding-ewes this season. There will always be a supply to meet a steady demand at a high price for anything in the world. I think that is the future of the hills. Ido not honestly lay such very great stress on the merino as some do. If it is decreasing so fast there is still a way by which the Canterbury Plains can keep up the quality of its mutton to a great extent, and that is by using first-class rams, either Southdowns, Shropshire, or English Leicester. Any of these three will produce splendid fat lambs. Ido not, therefore, lay such stress on the merino. I would let the runholders do what pays them best, and the crossbred, I understand, has been a very great success up to the present. I know a man who has been breeding inbred crossbreds, who this year sold his entire flock for £1 Bs. apiece and lambs for 18s. That is a more profitable class of sheep than the merino. 29. If that goes on on these hilly stations to a greater extent it will practically mean the elimination of the merino ultimately? —There, I should certainly say, you have made a good point, but there is no fear of our running out of merino blood while we have Australia, with its thousands of better merino rams than we have here. We can import very easily and cheaply first-class merino rams from Australia to keep our inbred halfbreds from deteriorating. I do not wish to be misunderstood, and 1 want to say that there is a certain class of country in New Zealand where the merino will always exist, but it is of comparatively small area. 30. Mr. Paul.\ Do you believe that the land-for-settlements policy should be pursued further? —Not under lease in perpetuity. 31. You think the tenure should be changed to deferred payment ? —Yes. At present, I think the State is giving too much and receiving too little. 32. Then, it is as a citizen of that State that you object to lease in perpetuity? —Yes. 33. You told us that your father settled a large part of his estate on deferred payment: do you think the State could follow similar lines to advantage? —Yes, certainly. 34. Could the State give them as liberal conditions as your father gave? —No. I do not think any Government should give such liberal terms as a private individual, because a private individual can watch the business far better and take greater care as to who goes on the land than the Government can. 35. Is not the case of Longbeach exceptional? That was not the way the large owner generally dealt with prospective farmers ?- Well, many have. Glenmark has been cut up into small holdings lately and sold on the freehold system at a price far above what the Government could have taken it up at. Of course, I know it is only of recent years this has been done. 36. You are afraid if all the land is held on leasehold tenure that the tenants would see that their rent was low enough if they were in the majority in the country? —I think so. I will put it this way: I think they would take care that the rents were not too high. 37. Then, if all the country was settled under freehold in small holdings would the people not see to it that they escaped their share of taxation as much as possible? —No, because the Government valuer goes round and decides in a perfectly independent manner what the value of the land is, and it is assessed accordingly. 38. The land-tax is levied at so-much in the pound: do you not think that if all the land were freehold there would be a reduction in the rate to be levied? Is there not just the same danger in the case of all freehold as in the case of all leasehold so far as taxation is concerned? — Yes; it is everybody for himself, but not to such a great extent, I think, in regard to the freehold. 39. You raise the objection that the lease-in-perpetuity tenant does not pay his equivalent to the general taxation: do you not think there is an equivalent in the small profit that is made by the Government over and above expenses? —I do not think 1 per cent, is sufficient as against the freehold. 40. As a practical man, can you conceive of a 999-years leaseholder allowing his property to go to ruin with weeds or other pests?--Yes; and then, as I said before, it is a State asset, and the loss by the depreciation of the land falls on the colony more than it does on the individual. He would throw it up.and go away from it. 41. I understand you object to the 999-years lease, but if you had a lease in perpetuity and it was conserved to yourself and your heirs do you not think you could farm that just as well as freehold and put on just as good improvements? —I would feel nothing like so secure. I would not spend the enormous sums of money that are wanted sometimes to reclaim land under any leasehold. Rightly or wrongly, the leasehold is not looked upon anywhere in the world as such safe security as freehold, and if you are going to spend, as my father did, £6 or £7 an acre in improvements and draining, &c., I think you would require to know that your holding is pretty safe before you would do so. 42. You think the present lease-in-perpetuity holding is not safe? —I do not say it is not safe. It is an entirely new thing. It is certainly a bad thing, but its safety simply depends on the honesty of the voters in the future.
C—4.
494
[j. C. N. GEIGG.
43. Is not the freehold in somewhat the same position? —Yes, it is. I may be wrong, but I think, in that we get our freehold from the Crown, if any violation was attempted it is possible to appeal. 44. Is there any aggregation of estates going on around here? —Yes. I think a certain number of farms, mostly light country, are being bought by neighbours. 45. I notice some correspondence in the Press: is that a fair indication of what is going on? —Well, it really amounts to this: on a certain class of land one homestead and one man can work a certain area very much cheaper, or at the same expense, as he can manage a smaller area. Hence, when an adjoining piece of land comes into the market a man says, " It will be no more expense for me to manage it, and it will be all net profit to me, and therefore 1 can afford to give more for it than any other man." 46. Do you think that reaggregation is in the interests of the country?--It may or it may not be; but I think, in most cases, too much is made of this reaggregation, for this reason: in many cases that I know the farmer has grown-up sons, and he is virtually providing a home for his boys when they marry and settle down, feeling, naturally, that he would rather Lave them around him than a hundred miles away. That is really at the bottom of this aggregation of estates. The father is willing to buy I might almost say at an abnormal price—any property adjoining his own for the sake of having his married sons or daughters around him. 47. It has been advocated by several witnesses before the Commission that a law should be brought in to prevent a man holding more than a certain area in fee-simple, such amount of land to be fixed either by area or value, and to apply, of course, only to future transfers: do you think that would be a wise or an unwise step?—ln the matter of the resumption of estates by the Government, 1 would again quote the case of Denmark. In Denmark when the Government has helped to put a man on the land there is a law providing that no two farms that have been bought by the Government for settlement can ever be put' together in one holding. It is impossible by law for any man to add an adjoining section to his own. 48. Do you think in the case of further land-settlement of estates bought by the Government there should be a simple law of the kind you have just referred to ? —Yes. I believe in the land carrying as many people as it possibly can, but it is very hard to make a universal rule. I think where the Government step in and take property they remove all risk of too much land being held by any one man, and I take it that is their object. 48a. And outside that would you or would you not interfere with private barter of the freehold ? —No, I would not. 49. Mr. Anstey.\ Do I understand you to say that you generally approve of the Government resuming large estates and cutting them up for settlement? —Yes; but not under the land-for-settlements system. The policy has been an advantage to the country. 50. Holdings should be in fair-sized areas? —Yes. 51. Would you mind giving your opinion as to whether your estate, which is a large one, would be more profitable to the State if held in smaller areas, say, of 100 to 200 acres? —There is only one way in which it would produce more. Ido not think lam biassed at all, but I think it would be more thickly pojjulated if it were cut into dairy farms. If dairying was not carried on I honestly do not think that any more would be taken off the land than is being taken off now. 52. Do you think that the purchase of estates should be confined to estates not fully developed? —Yes; and not only that, but there are so many estates offered to the Government to purchase that there is no need to take them by force. 53. Do you object to the compulsory acquisition of estates?- Yes, unless the owners get extraordinary full compensation. If they get a very full price and it is urgent that the Government should have the land for some very strong reason, I should say it is right. The law already exists, and any piece of land can be taken by the Government under the Public Works Act if it is to the advantage of the colony generally. 54. Are there any lands about here settled under the Land for Settlements Act? —Not about Asliburton, but there is the Highbank Estate at Rakaia. 55. Are there any educational reserves? —Several. 56. Do you know what the terms of the leases are on those reserves ? - They run for twentyone years with no right of renewal, and no valuation is allowed for improvements. 57. As these are public lands, do you think that the lessees should get valuation for improvements? —Certainly. I think every man ought to get valuation for improvements. 58. Do vou think the law should be altered to compel every landlord to give the tenant valuation for improvements? —Certainly I do. 59. You think that improvements created by the tenant belong to the tenant and to no one else? —I do. 60. Do you think it would be wise if these reserves, instead of being let, were sold? —Education reserves" are so wrapped up with the education system of the colony that Boards before they sold would require to have a guarantee of the same amount of income as they have a possibility of getting at present, for the reason that the interest on money may fall, and if these properties are sold and the Education Boards get the money they might make a bad investment, or the price of money mav fall and the education system would suffer. I think the Government ought to be very, very careful in dealing with the freehold endowments for education purposes. 61. You say that there is a gain of 25 per cent, under the freehold: that means that there is a waste of 25 per cent, going on all the time that these lands are held under leasehold. Do you not think it is time this enormous waste was stopped and these lands turned into the freehold at once?- -Education is most important, and if the Government resume these estates they ought to give the controlling bodies debentures bearing 5 per cent, for all time. 62. If your statement is correct, that a loss of 25 per cent, is going on, should not that loss be stopped ?—Yes, if the Boards get very full value. Take the case of the Canterbury College: it would suffer very much if its revenue was interfered with.
J. C. N. ttRIGG.]
495
C.—4.
63. They would get the capital value? —Just the bare capital value is not sufficient. Land may go up in price and the properties increase in value very considerably, and as population becomes thicker the expense of education will become greater. 64. Is it not a fact that the Canterbury College is getting too much revenue now, and is investing some of its money in mortgage instead of expending it according to the conditions of the trust? —I cannot say. I would interfere with nothing that affects education. 65. Conditionally on getting 5-per-cent. debentures, you think they might be turned into freehold? —Yes; if they got 5-per-cent. debentures up to the full value of the land I would allow the reserves to be turned into freehold. 66. Would you apply that to harbour reserves, and so forth?--Yes, I would. I believe the land would produce more. 67. You said you carried two to four ewes on new pasture in the summer: is that ewes and lambs ? —Yes. 68. Mr. Johnston.] Have you had any dealings with the Land Board? —Only once. 69. Have you been on the Land Board? —No. 70. Do you approve of the Board as at present constituted? —I do not say that the Land Board is not properly constituted; but no matter what Government is in power I would like to see the Land Board in a perfectly independent position and not elected too frequently. 71. If the members are not appointed by nomination by the Government how do you suggest it should be done? —I am afraid I cannot answer that. Nomination by the Government has been very good and is very good; but I can imagine that they ought to be trustees for the State virtually. It is a very important office, and lam not prepared to say in what way there should be a change, if any. 72. Do you think the Land Boards have done their duty in the past? —As far as I know, they have. 73. Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Office? Have any of your tenants got advances from it or made application ?■ I could not say. 74. You think the Government have a perfect right to go and buy up large estates at practically a lower value than a private individual could, because very few individuals are in a position to buy a large estate, and that they should put that land on the market, and that the lucky tenant who got it should have the right to get it at the price at which it was bought plus the roading and other expenses? —Yes; but they must be well loaded, because the State takes all the risk. 75. Would you approve of a 999-vears lease with a valuation, say, every forty years? —I would rather not have the leasehold myself. 76. You would rather have deferred payment ? —Yes. 77. In the case of a place like Longbeach is there a large sum of money that is sunk in the property that would not be taken into account at all in a valuation? Yes, a very large sum. 78. Do you know anything about high country at all? —No. 79. You do not know of any of the high country being regrassed ? —I think a certain class of country can be improved by surface-sowing —the best of the hill country —more valleys and low spots than the steep hill-sides. I would not have much faith in surface-sowing steep hill-sides. I think that possibly the best surface-sowers are small cattle which graze in the valleys and walk up over the hills, and wherever they travel they drop seed, and it grows better that way than any other. 80. Do you think the feeding of sheep from boxes on the refuse of seed-cleaning machines would have a detrimental effect on the land? —Certainly. I think it is a criminal act. 81. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think that two white crops and one green crop and then the ground to lie three years in pasture is a reasonable regulation to put into a lease? —I really think that the Government could hardly do anything else. If there was not something of the kind the leases would require too much looking after. There is very little land in New Zealand that could stand more than two crops of wheat running. It would not be good farming. I would not, however, absolutely compel a man to lay down his paddock for three years in grass. Ido not do it myself. I would allow him to take two green crops, or catch crops, and then a crop of grain again ; but with the green crops he should sow manure. 82. You do not think it necessary to lay the ground down in grass for three years? If the stipulation was made that the land should be three years in green crops would that be just as good for the land as if it was sown down in permanent pasture? —Yes, except that I think it would get a great deal fouler. Three green crops in New Zealand does riot mean cleaning the land as it does at Home. In New Zealand it means that the land gets dirtier. On the whole, I think the Government rule for three years' pasture'is the best for the majority of the land that has been taken. Where the land is very strong and good and the holdings are small it would be a hardship to compel the settlers to sow down in grass for three years. 83. We have had evidence that on some of the rich land which is taken up in the grass the first crop on the furrow is not a good one, and the second crop has too much straw, and then they have got to sow down again according to the regulations. They think they should be allowed another crop, because they have not had a benefit from the crops they have put in, and they might get a profitable return from the third crop ? —I would not break away from the regulations too much, for the reason that that is a hypothetical case. You must have a large rainfall to do that, in any case, and in Canterbury the bulk of our summers are fairly dry, and I think seven crops out of ten will stand up most seasons in any of the land I know. The Waikakahi land is very rich and heavy, and, very likely, has never been cropped at all, and, naturally, the initial crops will be very heavy, but when it comes round again that will not occur. 84. Do you not think that a man who is paying, say, 15s. rent should be allowed greater latitude than a person who is paying, say, ss. 1 The best of the land generally goes at the highest rental. Do you not think the State would be safeguarded? —I would not break the regulation.
C.—4.
496
[j. C. N. GEIGG.
Taking the bulk of the land the Government has taken, I do not think I would give a very great license. It is plausible enough, but, at the same time, a man who has 155.-an-acre land can easily make £2 an acre out of a crop of rape. 85. The excuse they give is that they cannot clean their land without the extra crop? —I never heard of cropping being a system of cleaning land before. 86. All the evidence we have had is that they can clean their land with white crops, and want the third crop for that purpose. Is that reasonable? —No. I shall learn it for the first time today if growing wheat is a system of cleaning land. 87. When the lease in perpetuity was brought in by Sir John McKenzie one of the reasons given was that there were a great number of freehold farmers in this country who were heavily mortgaged, and the interest they were paying was equal to a rack rent, and it was to have a tenantry free from mortgage that the lease in perpetuity was introduced. Has the lease in perpetuity accomplished that object and made a more independent class of farmers? —Of course. The Government has taken the responsibility from the settler. It is certainly making the settler freer —almost too free. I believe in letting a man get on to the land as cheaply as possible, but, at the same time, the State should be protected. 88. You think the settlers are in a more independent position than they would be if paying mortgage interest as in the past? —The lease in perpetuity is too free. 89. Then, there is the question of paying off the capital value. If settlers sink their capital in paying off their land and bad seasons come and they have to mortgage, would not they be again in almost the same position as farmers were before the lease in perpetuity was introduced? If money has to be advanced let the Government advance it. 90. There is a large section" of the community who believe that the remaining Crown lands of the colony should be held as a large national endowment, so that the increased value could be used for keeping down taxation. Is that a wise provision to make? —No, Ido not think it is. I think the prosperity of the community as a whole is what the State has got to look to, and not make a revenue out of one class more than another. 91. Mr. McLennan.'] How many farms were sold on your estate some time ago? —Roughly speaking, I should say sixty or more. 92. How many families are on those farms now? —Pretty well the same number as there were at first. Though some farms have been sold and joined to others, others have been divided. 93. Mr. Matheson.] It was suggested to you that Sir John McKenzie brought in his Act in order to people the land with farmers free from mortgage: do you not think he must have been disabused of that idea when he introduced the Advances to Settlers Act offering inducement to people to mortgage? —I think if Sir John McKenzie were here now he would change his mind regarding many things. The abuse he was carrying in his mind from the Old Country made him try to carry out a system here, which in a young country was not applicable. 94. Was not vour proposal that if the option of the freehold was given it should be at a revaluation, and that the Government should take the profit that accrued —the incoming tenant should pay to the Government the increased value? —That is right. 9f>. So that the State would be making a handsome profit out of the land sold? —No. I am taking it for granted that the man who has got the lease in perpetuity wants it for his freehold. 96. The State took the property at its value ten years ago: if they are recouped all their expenditure why is that not sufficient, seeing that they acquired the land for settlement and not to make a profit out of it?— Looking at it as a citizen, I say that the Government borrowed the money and the rest of the citizens paid the interest for the land-settlement. 97. They have achieved that by putting the men on the land, and the men have proved their bona fides by staying there for ten years, and if they are given the right to purchase you say the State should make a handsome profit or whatever profit does accrue?—As a matter of principle, something of that sort should be done, but every improvement would have to be allowed for. When the man went on the land there were no improvements at all, and I would allow him very adequately for everything, so that the difference between the improvements and the value would not be very great. 98. Supposing all these improvements which come from the farmer's own efforts and those of his neighbours in the erection of dairy factories and freezing-works were allowed for, what is the cause of the further value? Is it any more than the London market? —Mainly, that is so. 99. You think the State is entitled to the increase due to the London market?— No. The land belongs to the State, not to the man, and, to carry your point along, a man might hold the land for 999 years and then buy it at its original value. 100. You do not think that would be right?—No; of course, not. 101. In Britain under the land-settlement policy a man pays rent for forty-nine years, and then the land becomes his freehold. Do you think that would be a sounder policy for us to adopt in the future, or would you have the settler pay the interest on the State's expenditure, with the right to pay off the value'when it suited him?— When it suited him, otherwise he would have money lying idle. 102. Mr. McCardle.] The matter of noxious weeds has just been touched upon. In Southland we saw thousand of acres under ragwort and thistle: do you not think there should be some restriction against persons with these weeds on their land cutting for seed?—l think it should be criminal on the part of anybody offering seed full of weeds for sale; but I do not see how you can stop a man cutting his crop because there are weeds in the paddock. 103. Is it not possible, as far as most weeds are concerned, to eradicate them or isolate them so as to prevent them going to the public?—l am afraid the weeds you have mentioned are of so determined a nature and so persistent that once they take possession eradication is difficult. 104. You think that machine-dressing would extract all these noxious weeds? —Most of them, but not all; and that is one of the greatest dangers at present. I will give you an illustration.
Dodder, which is one of the greatest pests in America, has a seed just the same size as the redclover seed, and is not rejected by the seed-dressing machines, and therefore comes out here. I could name other weeds the seeds of which are of the same size as in the crop amongst which they are, and which do not come out in the dressing. 105. Is it possible for a person to make a living on a 50-acre or 100-acre section on the light country Hinds way? —No. 106. In the case of a person holding such a section which is too small for him do you not think he should be allowed to go in for a ballot in another settlement, and dispose of his other section afterwards —at present the fact of his holding that section debars him from participating in any other ballot ? —lf a man is put on such poor land that he could not possibly make a living on it I would treat him as almost landless, and if the Land Board was satisfied that it was a genuine case he should be allowed to go in for another section. Dear Mr. McKerrow,- In thinking over the land-tenure, I am in favour of a holder being allowed to turn a lease in perpetuity into a freehold either by a 1-per-cent. sinking fund or on deferred payment if acted on within ten years; but if a lease is held for a greater number of years the freehold should be obtained after revaluation on deferred payment. From this date I would like to see the lease in perpetuity stop. —J. C. N. Grigg. George William Leadley examined. 107. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, holding about 2,400 acres of freehold in the Wakanui road district, where I have been for twenty-eight years. I carry on mixed farming. 108. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission? —I wish to speak first as an official of the Farmers' Union. 1 am colonial vice-president of the union, and I wish, first of all, to give a public denial to the statement that has been frequently made to this Commission, that the Farmers' Union was responsible for promoting the petition amongst the* Crown tenants asking for the freehold of their holdings. The colonial executive of the Farmers' Union some little time ago communicated with the provincial executive of the North Canterbury district asking them to take charge of and circulate a petition from the Crown tenants with regard to this matter. I moved a resolution in the provincial executive that before acceding to that request we ascertain whether the petition was being promoted by the colonial executive and was recommended by them, or whether it came from the Crown tenants spontaneously. The reply to that communication was that the Crown tenants had by letter approached (he colonial executive, asking for assistance to circulate the petition. The petition was sent round amongst the various settlements, and when I was in Wellington at the last colonial conference I asked the colonial president, Mr. J. G. Wilson, what had become of the petition, and he held up a roll of papers and said, "It is here." I asked him what number of signatures had been obtained, and he said about five hundred. That petition was afterwards jjresented to Parliament, I believe, from the settlers. I make that as a denial to the statement made before the Commission that the union were the authors of the petition and originated it. I would also like to speak on the subject of the reaggregation of estates in this district. It has been freely said that a very large amount of aggregation is going on in the Ashburton County, and it was stated in the House last year by Mr. T. E. Taylor that he believed there was less bona fide settlement in the Ashburton County to-day than there was twelve years ago, owing to the reaggregation of estates In order to disprove that statement and to show the real position of affairs, the local branch of the Farmers' Union obtained from the Land Office a statement as to the respective number of holdings in this county in 1898 and 1904. The return was supplied by Mr. R. Hepworth, officer in charge of the Valuation Department, and is as follows: — 1898. 1904. Increase. Decrease Number of owners of freehold rural land in Ashburton County ... ... ... ... 1,736 1,892 156 Number of Government leaseholders under all tenures ... 371 393 22 Number of rural landowners owning 20,000 acres and over ... ... ... ... 1 1 Number owning between 10,000 and 20,000 acres ... 6 3 ... 3 Number owning between 5,000 and 10,000 acres ... 15 11 ... 4 Number owning between 1,000 and 5,000 acres .. 132 161 29 Number owning between 500 and 1,000 acres ... ... 138 163 25 Number owning between 100 and 500 acres ... ... 437 474 37 Number owning under 100 acreb ... 1,007 1,079 72 I would also like to add to that by saying that in my own neighbourhood the land was originally held by G. H. Moore in a large block, and what was known as the Wakanui Homestead Block of 5,600 acres was sold about twenty-eight years ago to eleven different people and occupied by them, and that piece of land of 5,600 acres which was originally held by eleven people is now held by fourteen. In casis where occupiers have increased their holdings it has been, to a large extent, by men who held what we might call the better class of land going in for pieces of light land in order to indulge in mixed farming. Twenty-eight years ago large areas of the lighter plains land were taken up by men of limited capital and in rather small holdings, and when bad years came they found they could not make a living on the small piece of the plains, and they sold out to others. Those are cases where reaggregation of land has gone on. Within the last two or three years quite a number of large estates have been cut up in this district and sold in smaller blocks. I might instance the Coldstream Estate, where I believe there are now thirty holdings where there was previously one. The Acton Estate has been cut up, Alford Forest, portions of Lagmore, Cracroft, Winclimore, and other similar runs, and in many instances where farmers already
63—C. 4.
497
■T. C. N. GRIGG.
C—4.
C—4.
498
[g. w. leadley.
holding land have bought pieces of these runs it was for the purpose of settling their sons on it. I would like to make a remark with regard to the clamour for the freehold amongst the Crown tenants. I move about the country a good deal and come into contact with these men, and know what they are thinking about. I think that the reason why the great majority of them are so anxious to obtain the freehold is partly on account of the amount of agitation that is being carried on in the big centres in regard to the land-settlement system. There is a feeling of insecurity notwithstanding the fact that the State has made a contract with them. These men really have a feeling of insecurity, and they think there is nothing so safe and secure as the freehold. Another reason is they are continually hearing about this revaluation, and they want to secure what they have got in order to escape that. Another cause is the Fair Rent Bill. I would also like to say a few words with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land near populous centres. In this centre there are numbers of working-men who would be very glad to have a few acres of land on which to occupy their time when they cannot get work elsewhere. Under the present conditions of the law this town would have to increase in population till it reached fifteen thousand before the Government could buy a single acre of land near it, and I think that time will come in the very remote future. Even if they did not take the land compulsorily they could only purchase 100 acres a year under the law as at present, and in that an amendment is urgently required. There is land immediately around the town which would cut up admirably into small lots, where men could settle comfortably and make homes for themselves and their families, and occupy their time when not working in the town or elsewhere. 109. Mr. McCutchan.] Can you say whether many tenants under the Land for Settlements Act signed that petition to which you referred ? —I was told by the president that there were five hundred names of Crown tenants on ihe petition. 110. He gave you no information as to the tenures of those who signed the petition? —No. 111. The evidence that we have had has been largely in favour of the lease, but we have come into contact mostly with tenants under the Land for Settlements Act, and, so far as we could gather, there is a good deal of indignation felt by them in regard to this agitation, and I was anxious to get from you a definite opinion as to the tenures of the tenants who signed the petition which originated the whole of the agitation. You are not in a position to give that information? — lam not in a position to say what class of tenants signed the petition. So far as our district is concerned, it was circulated amongst the land-for-settlements tenants. 112. You cannot say definitely whether it was the land-for-settlements tenants who signed the petition ? —I never saw a single signature. 113. Is it not a fact that there are very few of these settlements in the North Island? —I do not know. 114. It is largely a policy that has been exploited in the South? —Possibly. 115. Can you speak definitely from your own knowledge as to whether there is any difference in the conditions of the tenants in the North and South Islands —conditions of settlement, roads, and so forth? —I should say that the tenants in the South Island have far the best of it for many reasons. 116. If it is shown that this petition originated from the Crown tenants under the Act of 1892, would you say that the agitation was justified in order to better their position?— Yes, I should say it was. They are satisfied it would be an improvement of their position if they had the freehold. 117. With regard to this sense of insecurity that the Crown tenants labour under with regard to the threat of revaluation, do you think that that sense of uneasiness in the minds of the settlers is justifiable? —It might be with men of a certain class of mental calibre; but if I had a 999-years lease I should not fear at all, because I would look on the contract as binding for the full term. 118. You have sufficient confidence in the Government to think that they would not vary a contract entered into with the tenants? —They have varied a contract, and what has been done in the past may be done again. 119. Do you mean the contract in regard to the estates which were freehold and were compulsorily taken ? —By the acquisition of large estates, and also in the case of the Rotokare Domain, in the Hawera district. 120. That is a very minor matter? —It is an example of the principle. 121. Is it not the rule in England and every progressive country that under the Public Works Act the Government is right and justified in making the individual give way in the public interest, and is any injustice done, seeing that the people interfered with are compensated? —That is quite true in the case of a public work. But there is a great difference between taking a piece of land for a public work and taking away the whole of a man's holding. 122. Seeing that it is justifiable in the case of a public work, is it not more so if it is in the interests of the masses?—lt is a moot point whether it is in the interest of the masses. 123. Mr. Paul.] There has been some correspondence in the Press in reference to the aggregation of estates: does that correspondence give a fair statement of the case? —No, it is most unfair, because no particulars are given as to the size of the holdings or anything else. 124. I notice amongst the names those of several large landowners? —I do not think it is at all detrimental to the district or of settlement that there should be some large holdings. 125. From your evidence I gather that there is subdivision going on on the one hand and reaggregation on the other? —Yes. 126. With reference to the petition circulated by the Farmers' Union, I would like to know the exact position taken up by the local branch? —It was sent to the various branches, but before putting our imprimatur on the petition I wanted to be quite clear that the colonial executive of the Farmers' Union was not at the bottom of the petition—that they were not simply inciting the tenants to agitate for the freehold, and I therefore moved to refer the matter back to Wellington for further information, which information was given to us, and we acted on it and sent copies to the branches in the district.
499
C.-4.
Gi W. LEADLBY.j
127. Then, it is quite true that the petition was circulated by the Farmers' Union? —Yes, the petition was sent to the branches. 128. On that petition after it was circulated there were five hundred signatures? —Mr. Wilson, the president of the union, held up a bundle of papers comprising the petition, and I asked the number of signatures, and he said five hundred. 129. Do you not think if the clamour on the part of the Crown tenants had been so great there would not have been more signatures? —Possibly, but that would depend on the time allowed for getting the signatures. 130. In that petition it is mentioned that "in and out of Parliament revaluation is being advocated "T— Yes; I believe it was, 131. Do you know of any responsible body which has advocated that revaluation should act retrospectively ? —No. 132. Do you not think the Farmers' Union is conveying the idea to the Crown tenants that there will be revaluation ? —No, I do not think so. 133. Do you not think that the statement which has gone abroad, that people in the cities wish to harass the State tenantry by periodical revaluation, has been a factor in unsettling the minds of the tenants regarding their leases? —I said so. 134. And that statement has been circulated by the Farmers' Union? —It has been circulated by the newspapers, and has been included in the reports of the meetings of the Trades and Labour Councils and Conferences for many years past. 135. The Farmers' Union in what it has circulated leaves that inference to be drawn? —No, I do not think it does. We have not put the question of retrospective revaluation to the people. 136. When you say that a certain party is in favour of harassing the State tenantry do you not think that has lead the tenants to the conclusion that revaluation will apply retrospectively? — My saying so would not affect the minds of the tenantry. 137. I am referring to the official pronouncement of the Farmers' Union? —The Farmers' Union has never made an official pronouncement on the question of retrospective revaluation. 138. They have simply drawn attention to the fact that a certain party is advocating periodical revaluation, and they further say that it is the intention of the Government to harass the State tenantry? —I do not think the Farmers' Union has ever gone so far as that. lam not aware of any official document or utterance in which the State tenantry are given to understand that revaluation will be of a retrospective character. I said that the agitation in the towns by the Trades and Labour Council, by socialistic organizations, Progressive Liberal Associations, and bodies of that kind, in reference to revaluation, had created in the minds of the State tenantry an uneasy feeling that revaluation was going to take place. 139. But you have said that it was not to be applied retrospectively? —I stated that we said nothing about it applying retrospectively. 140. You admit that the Farmers' Union has circulated a document drawing attention to periodical revaluation? —No; I denied that most emphatically. 141. Here is a clipping from a newspaper that has been circulated by the Farmers' Union, and these words occur: "It is opposed to the freehold tenure of the soil, and is in favour of harassing the State tenantry by periodical revaluation "1 —It speaks of "a party." That is not the Farmers' Union, is it. 142. The Farmers' Union circulated this; this is a copy of a manifesto issued by the Farmers' Union throughout New Zealand? —This document or paper purports to be an official communication from the general president of the Farmers' Union. 143. In the petition that was circulated these words appear : "No tenant can feel any security while certain people in and out of Parliament are agitating for revaluation " ? —Yes, that was in the petition. 144. Then, it appears the Farmers' Union has been the means of making public and circulating this revaluation question more than has been done by any other party? —No; I cannot admit that for one moment. I said that the petition originated amongst the Crown tenants, who requested the Farmers' Union to give the Crown tenants the use of their machinery —the branches of the Farmers' Union —in order to get the petition into the hands of the Crown tenants. I emphatically denied that the Farmers' Union circulated or originated the petition. 145. What section of the Crown tenants drafted the petition? —I do not know, but I think it came from settlers holding sections under the Land for Settlements Act. I think it originated in one or two settlements in Wellington and Taranaki —chiefly Taranaki. 146. Mr. Anstey.\ This petition bearing five hundred signatures—did it originate in the North Island?— Yes. It had not received any signatures when I saw it. IH7. Did you circulate it amongst the branches of the union?—We sent copies to the branches in the North Canterbury district. 148. Did you send a copy to each branch?—Yes, I believe so —where there were Crown tenants. 149. What was the response from the branches ? —I could not say. The petition came back and it was forwarded on to Wellington. The petition was never in my hands after circulation. The idea occurred to me that we would be charged with fomenting this agitation, and I got the resolution passed which I have referred to. 150. If I were to tell you that there was not a single name signed to this petition in Canterbury you could not deny that? —No, I could not. 151. You say that the reason why the settlers feel that they are not secure in their tenure is in consequence of the agitation in the towns I—Yes,1 —Yes, partly that. 152. Supposing this agitation could have the effect of altering these leases, might it not also have the effect of increasing the taxation in respect to the freehold? —Yes. 153. It would be easier to put another screw on the land-tax than to alter the existing leases? Certainly.
500
[g. w. leadley.
C.—4.
154. What profit would it be to these leaseholders if they altered their lease ? —A great many of them would not pay very much land-tax under any circumstances. lam aware that they are liable to taxation now —that the chattel interest in their property is liable to taxation —but owing to the £500 exemption, the allowance for improvements, &c., the land-tax they would pay would be very small under any circumstances. 155. Would you be in favour of altering the lease at all? —Yes. 156. You do not think that the bargain made should be considered to be sacred? —I think it is a very bad bargain. 157. And therefore should be altered at any time? —No; but I think that in any case where an alteration is made it should be purely voluntary on both sides to begin with —that there should be absolutely no coercion or compulsion by either party, and that a Board or Commission should be set up, consisting of members of the Land Purchase Board on one side and a committee of tenants in each district where they seek to make these holdings freehold on the other side, and that these men should settle the question as to what the values of the land are and as to the terms on which the lease should be altered. 158. Do you think it would be wise to give the lease-in-perpetuity tenants the right of purchase? —I think it would be a very good thing for the State if they did so. 159. Do you think it would be wise and that it would be favourable to the tenants?—l believe it would be favourable to both parties, and more favourable to the State than to the tenants. 160. Upon what terms do you think that should be done —upon the original purchasing price, or on what terms? —I am not very clear. If it were on the original purchasing-price there would be an element of injustice to the-State, because many of these holdings have very largely increased in value already; but I think a right result could be got at by actuarial calculation, and that would be the simplest way of arriving at the solution of a very difficult problem. I realise that the State has parted with its interest in the land for 999 years, and if we can get out of a bad bargain in a way favourable to ourselves the sooner it is done the better. 161. You are favourable to amending the lease if both parties are willing? —Yes. 162. You mean that if there is to be an alteration in the lease both parties will have to consent ? —Yes. 163. Is there any chance of workmen's homes being successful near Ashburton? We have been told that the workmen's-homes settlements near Christchurch have not been a success?—-I cannot say anything as to that. 164. Mr. Johnston.] You approve of revaluation ? As a general principle, I think it is better at stated periods than the 999-years lease. It is better, at any rate, than the bad bargain we have made. 165. If the Crown tenants are to get the freehold you think there should be revaluation? —Yes. 166. You believe in revaluation?- Yes. I mean revaluation with a view to purchase, not with a view to letting again. 167. Do you not think that the circular sent out by the Farmers' Union has caused dissention amongst the Crown tenants owing to the way in which it was worded ? —1 do not admit that it was sent out by the Farmers' Union, in the first place. 168. Is the Farmers' Union a political organization? —Yes, it is, within certain limits. 169. Have you ever known the Crown tenants to be harassed by the Land Board? —Yes; some of them have told me some peculiar things. 170. What settlements do you know? —I know a number —for instance, Highbank, Marawiti, Ruapuna, and Hekeoa, in this county. 171. Have the settlers in those settlements been harassed by the Government? —I did not say that. 172. How do you know so much about the feeling of the Crown tenants?- Because they have told me. 173. You make it your business to find out whether they are properly treated or whether they are ill-treated? —No. 174. Do you make it your business to find out whether they wish the freehold or the leasehold?— No. 175. Would you be surprised to know that the Crown tenants have expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with the Rangers and with the Land Boards, so far as the Commission has yet gone? —I am not at all surprised to hear that. 176. You do not think that the Crown tenants in the South Island want the freehold? —I think a great many of them do want it. 177. How many? —A very large majority. 178. Why did they not sign the petition? —There might be a hundred reasons for that. 179. Mr. Forbes.] There is a large section of the community who believe that the remainder of the Crown land should be set aside as a large national endowment, which would increase in value, and thus keep down the general taxation I—l1 —I am aware that a section of the community is of that opinion. 180. Do you think that is a wise thing to do?--Not if it applies to all the remaining Crown land. When I say that lam not speaking of purely pastoral country. I think that should remain as it is in the hands of the Crown, because it can be best worked as it is now. 181. You believe in setting aside endowments for special purposes, such as education?— Yes. 182. Would you allow tenants of educational endowments to have the same rights as are given to lease-in-perpetuity tenants? Would you give them the right to make their holdings freehold? —No; I do not think that would be wise on the part of the community as a whole, because the education endowments are part and parcel of our education system, and not of the land system. 183. But they are still the lands of the colony, and do you not think the State is interested in seeing that they are worked to the best advantage? —Yes; but the tenants of education endowments are not subjected to the same amount of espionage as Crown tenants are.
G. \V. LEADLEY.]
501
C—4.
184. What is the difference in the terms of the lease ? —ln many cases there is very little difference. 185. Do education leases carry the right of compensation? —Mine did. 186. Do you not think a provision for reasonable compensation should be made, and that that provision should be inserted in the lease? —Certainly. I do not think it would Be wise for the State to interfere very much with the management of these endowments; but I think an ordinary sense of justice would show that it would be quite right and proper to give compensation for improvements. 187. You think that condition ought to be made? —Yes. 188. Mr. McLennan.] Do you approve of the present constitution of the Land Boards? —I think the constitution could be improved by the tenants having the right of electing one or more members. 189. Under what franchise? —I have not thought that out. 190. Would you be in favour of giving the Land Board more discretionary power in reference to cropping? —I think that the Crown leases are too arbitrary in regard to the cropping restrictions in many cases, and I think also that it was a huge mistake to make one form of lease and provide for one kind of management of the land to apply 'to the whole colony, because the conditions and the productive powers of the various districts vary so much. 191. Do you think one Board might administer both the education reserves and ordinary Crown land 1 —No; I think the Land Boards have more than' they can well manage already. 192. Mr. Matheson.] If both parties agree to an alteration in the lease would you call that upsetting the lease or amending it I—l do not know what term should be given. 193. Supposing the colony were divided into the most suitable areas for farming, do you think the colony would be more prosperous if the land were altogether freehold or if it were altogether leasehold ? —I do not think any one tenure would suit the whole colony. I think we should have various kinds of tenure. The leasehold is a very good system of settling a man on the land, and the freehold is a very good tenure to keep them there. 194. Do you think in the case of education reserves that they would be better worked if the lessees had the right of making them freehold? —It is always to a man's interest to work his holding to the best advantage. I believe he would spend more money on improvements if it were freehold. 195. Seeing that the money received from education endowments is principally part of the general revenue, do you think it would be wise for the State to grant the option of the freehold ? — No, I would not be in favour of surrendering those endowments. I think they should be regarded as part of our education system, and should be held as such for all time. I am aware, however, that the endowments are not yielding the revenue they might be made to yield. 196. Mr. McCardle.] Can you state the membership of the Ashburton Branch of the Farmers' Union? —About four hundred. 197. You have already admitted that it is a political organization? —Yes, up to certain limits. 198. You are not all of one " colour " 1- -Not by any means. 199. Have you any Crown tenants who are members?—Yes. 200. Do they share in the views you have expressed in regard to the lease in perpetuity? — I believe a good many of them do. 201. Did you call a meeting of the members of the union before you met the Land Commission ? —Not a special meeting. The question of the Land Commission was discussed at our ordinary monthly meeting. 202. If any amendment of the Land Act were proposed in regard to the lease in perpetuity — if it was proposed that there should he periodical revaluation, would that work —I mean in respect to future tenants? —I think almost any system would work under which you could induce men to go on the land. The desire for land is so great that they would take it up under almost any tenure. 203. Men have taken up land under the Land for Settlements Act and now they are asking for the freehold. If other tenants took up land with revaluation would they be satisfied, seeing that the greater number of the Crown tenants were not subject to revaluation? —They would have to accept the conditions of the lease they took up. 204. From a statesman's point of view, do you think it would be fair to the landless of to-day that they should take up land under different conditions to those enjoyed by the greater number of Crown tenants ? —I think, having made a mistake, there is no reason why the State should continue to perpetuate that mistake for all time. lam not in favour of breaking contracts; but I would make a contract applying to the future that would be better for the State. If a man did not care to take up land under the new conditions he need not do so. 205. Mr. Anstey.] What is the distance of the nearest lease-in-perpetuity settlement to Ashburton? —About twenty-five miles. Stephen S. Chapman examined. 206. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. My brother and I farm 4,600 acres of land in the Longbeach district. It is partly pastoral and partly agricultural. Part of it grows grain, and the other part of it is light grass land for sheep. I have been here thirty-one years. It has been stated that aggregation of estates has been going on here to a large extent, and that that is detrimental to the district at large. lam here as a member of the Farmers' Union. There has been aggregation in. some measure, but the full truth has not been stated. In the Longbeach district some properties have been added to others, but they have been in most cases where the sons have been brought up on the farm, and the parents have bought additional land for them. In respect to the leasehold and freehold question, that is a matter that has occupied a good deal of attention, and, personally, I am of opinion that it is an advantage to have both systems. Any one working on the land likes to have a freehold. A farmer will do more to
a—4.
502
[S. S. CHAPMAN.
improve the freehold than a leasehold. I think, however, it is an advantage to have the leasehold tenure for men starting with small capital. 207. Mr. Paul.~\ You think the aggregation that has been going on in this particular district is in the best interests of the district and the country? —I think it is for the time being, because in a great many of these cases a man starts, say, with 100 acres, and he subsequently finds he can take up a larger block, and he acquires a neighbour's section, or a portion of it. 208. There is a great demand here for land? —Yes. 209. Is the demand on the part of the landless? —It depends on what you call the landless. My experience is that if a man wants to get land he can get it, but there is a type of man who say they desire to acquire land but who have not the nerve to take it up. 210. Do you not think it is in many cases a question of money rather than nerve? —It might be in some cases. 211. Do you think there are any suitable estates that could be cut up with advantage for close settlement? —I certainly think the more settlement the better, but it is not always an advantage to men to be put on to small sections. 212. Are there any estates about here that could be cut up for closer settlement with advantage?—l do not think so, with the exception of Longbeach. 213. Do you approve of the lease in perpetuity? —No. 214. What is your idea of the best leasehold system? —I think the State has got the worst of it in regard to the lease in perpetuity, but I am not in favour of breaking it. 215. What improvement would you make in the future? —I should only give a lease for twenty or twenty-one years. I believe in a fair lease. 216. With revaluation at the e«d of the term? —Yes. 217. Mr. Anstey.] You are not in favour of giving the present lease-in-perpet.uity settlers the right of acquiring the freehold? —I think if an agreement could be come to between the settlers and the Government it should be done. I think it would be an advantage to the country, for the simple reason that the present settlers have got the property for 999 years at an almost nominal rental. 218. If every one acquires the freehold there will be no leaseholds left? —Yes. I would consider that a most satisfactory system. 219. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you know a property called Springfield? —Yes. 220. Is it suitable for cutting up for closer settlement? —Yes. It is a fine" property. William Habding examined. 221. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer at Willoughby. I farm 145 acres of first-class land and 240 acres of second-class land under freehold tenure. I have held it since 1888. 222. I think you are a member of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. I was until a few weeks ago provincial secretary for the North Canterbury district. I resigned the position because the work was too much for me. lam here to-day on my own motion. lam not a delegate from the union. 223. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I wish to speak in regard to the petition business which has been mentioned, because, as secretary, I had the execution of the work. The petition came to the North Canterbury executive and the executive considered it, and a resolution was passed that if the Crown tenants did not wish it it was not wise for us to touch it. I correspond with the headquarters of the colonial executive, and they informed us that the motion came by letter from the Crown tenants themselves. Accordingly, I wrote a circular to each branch. I cannot remember the exact wording of it, but, speaking from memory, this was the gist of it: This petition has been put before us, and we present it to your branch; if you have any Crown tenants invite them to sign the petition if they wish. I had replies, some to the effect that there were no Crown tenants in the branch, that some objected to sign, and that some did sign. I returned to the central executive a batch of signed petitions from North Canterbury. I cannot tell you which particular branch gave them to us, and I cannot tell you which particular branches refused, but I know I made up a fairly good-sized batch. I asked them to return them to me by a certain date, and as soon as they came to hand I forwarded them to headquarters. That is the whole of our connection with the business. In regard to the acquisition of small areas for working-men and for people in a small way, I think that policy is most desirable. I have done a little in that way on my own account. I had 300 acres of land, and I cut 100 acres into four pieces, and these four pieces remain with homesteads on them to-day. They were highly appreciated. One of them has just changed hands now. The holder has gone from it on to a lease-in-perpetuity section, and his place was bought immediately by another man privately. It did not go into the market. I put my own boy on 50 acres, so I have 150 acres left, and by disposing of 150 I have done a little towards close settlement. If the Land for Settlements Act could be made available to provide in agricultural districts small areas like that of first-class land of 50 acres and under, I know from experience it would be highly appreciated and be extremely valuable. A good many working-men have spoken to me in that direction. On the subject of aggregation, I may say there is only one large estate remaining intact in this country. All the rest are sold or are in process of sale, owing to the demands of the time and by their own weight. The exception is Longbeach, and that, you see, is being divided by family arrangements. People are saying that there is not enough land for those who want it. Well, speaking of this district, I do not think there are many genuine persons looking for land who cannot get supplied. I have had a good deal to do by advice and so on with helping various people to get on the land, and I have found that wherever a man really wants land some can be found and terms can be made by which he can get on 'it. With regard to the form of tenure, I would prefer in the leasehold tenure to have something like the perpetual lease, with periodical revaluation for improvements,
W. HAEDING. I
503
C.—4.
and the option to the present tenant to renew, which we used to have. Mr. Rolleston, I think, was the father of it. I think that is more satisfactory than any other system I have met with. 224. Are there any other landed proprietors in the district who have done anything towards closer settlement as you have? —Mr. John Studholme has on the Coldstream Estate. I do not know whether Mr. Leadley has done a little. 225. You found all these people satisfactorily fulfilled their obligations to you?- —Yes. They were people with a little money who wanted to make a start. All but one have changed hands since then. 226. You took the money by instalments I—lt1 —It was the deferred-payment system —the ordinary way of getting on freehold land. 227. Mr. McCardle.] You say you prefer the Act brought in by the late Mr. Rolleston: do you approve of all the principles contained in that Act? —Not necessarily. What I meant to say was that I would prefer not to see the State dispose of its rights for a lease in perpetuity. 228. You would not give the right to purchase? —I would give the option. 229. Do you know the Springfield Estate? —I only know it by repute. I think it is highly suitable for settlement. 230. You say that the demand for land can always be met by private persons at reasonable terms ? —Yes. 231. Do you not think that the Land for Settlements Act would be a much more convenient method by which farmers' sons and others in the district wanting land could obtain it? —I believe that one of the easiest ways of getting on the land is by the leasehold. 232. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Act? —No and Yes. I looked at it when I had an idea of getting money on a mortgage, but it seemed to me to be out of my reach and I left it alone. 233. Is it, to your knowledge, working beneficially in the interests of the small settlers? —I do not know anybody who has obtained any benefit from it. 234. It is generally admitted that it has been a great benefit in bringing down the value of money in the colony?—I question that personally. I think the abundance of money brought down the price without any Government action. 235. Mr. McLennan.] Have you any idea how many Crown tenants signed the petition for the freehold? —1 could not give you any idea. I did not. look at it. I took the whole bundle of replies and passed them on without taking any practical interest in them at all. I cannot say whether there were fifty, sixty, or a hundred. 236. You have no idea how many Crown tenants there are in the colony under lease in perpetuity?—l have no idea. I know very little of the properties that are held under lease in perpetuity. 237. Do you know that there are eighteen thousand ? —There may be eighty thousand for all I know. 238. Mr. Matheson.~\ We have seen one or more settlements on Crown lands on such areas as you speak of —from 30 to 50 acres —and in some cases, after a while, these men have wanted to acquire adjoining sections because they found their first holding too small: do you think the State would be wise in allowing them to increase their area in that way? —I think that should be done very cautiously. My idea is rather that such men should be encouraged to look afield for more land, and so enable other people to come on to the small areas on these easy terms. 239. Mr. Anstey.\ You say you know a large number of people in North Canterbury signed the petition circulated by the Farmers' Union? —I said there was a batch of petitions returned to me and that I passed them on. I would have replies from branches to this effect: " Ashburton Branch: No Crown tenants. Greenpark Branch: We have some signatures," and so on 240. Did you send any petitions to the South Canterbury branches? —I did not go south of the Rangitata River. I know nothing of them, and I cannot tell you what branches sent signed petitions. 241. According to the law now, if a man has got a section under the workmen's-homes system he'is not allowed to ballot for any other section, notwithstanding that he may be a man of sufficient means to take up a larger section: do you think it would be wise to allow that man to ballot for a larger section?—l do, away from home. 242. And do you think it would be wise to make it a condition, in the event of a man getting a larger holding, that he should then give up the smaller section, in order to give another workingman the same chance as he had himself ? —I think that would be a fair alteration of the Act. 243. You said you were in favour of the perpetual-lease system being applied to land-for-settlements estates? Would it be wise to apply the perpetual-lease system to workmen's homes and so prevent what has taken place in connection with one workmen's-homes settlement that was settled under the system giving the right of purchase —namely, the aggregation of four or five holdings by one man and the reduction of the original number of the settlers from, say, thirty working-men to a dozen or perhaps less? —I think it would be a pity to allow that. I think it would Be better to give the men a chance to get a larger area outside. 244. You said there were no large estates suitable for cutting up: what about Laghmore? — That is being cut up. 245. Is it quite unnecessary for the State to interfere? —The State had an offer and refused it some three or four years ago. 246. What about the Coldstream Estate? —That is cut up and disposed of. 247. I think you said you are in favour of lease-in-perpetuity settlers getting the option to acquire the freehold?—l said I would recommend that in future the lease in perpetuity be abolished. 248. Do you think that the existing lease-in-perpetuity holders should be given the right of purchase? —I do, but I see a difficulty in regard to the financial aspect of the question. A certain
G.—4
504
<W. HARDING.
amount of money is now invested in these lease-in-perpetuity lands, and the colony is responsible for it. If that money were liberated piecemeal could we be sure that it would go back into landinvestment, or would it be frittered away. 249. We know, in regard to the estates already purchased, that there is a large margin of profit behind them. If the present tenants paid off the capital value could that money be invested in other estates to secure an equally large margin of profit? —I think it could. I think I know estates in North Canterbury that would be extremely good buying, and in connection with which there would be room for the improvement that has taken place in Cheviot in the same number of years. 250. Mr. Johnston.'] Do you know anything about the Land Board? —No. 251. As late secretary of the Farmers' Union, do you think the Land Board is properly constituted at the present time?—l have heard complaints from members of the union who were under the Board, and, speaking of other people's opinion, if I am allowed to do so, I may say a desire has been expressed several times at the provincial conference of the Farmers' Union that the Crown tenants should be directly represented on the Land Board in some form or another. I know that feeling is abroad amongst the Crown tenants. 252. Do you not think that would be simply making the lessees lessors? —It is difficult for a man to be buyer and seller too. 253. Have you heard any complaints about the Board?- -I cannot call any to mind just now. 254. In your official capacity, have any complaints been lodged with the Farmers' Union in connection with the Land Beard? —If I remember rightly, I think I can recollect at one or two conferences of delegates from all branches between the Rangitata and the Hurunui one or two complaints as to the conduct of-the Land Board in dealing with Crown tenants. But I cannot state the complaints. 255. Do you know where the Crown tenants came from?- I cannot remember. 256. Were they under the Land for Settlements Act? —I do not know. 257. Have you heard any complaints of the tenants being harassed by the Land Board or by the Rangers ? —l*have heard a'good deal of complaining, but I know of nothing I could rely on. 258. Would you approve of the lease in perpetuity being done away with altogether and the land made freehold entirely?—l would prefer to see the two systems —leasehold and freehold —side by side. I would not do away with the land-for-settlements policy, and I would not do away with the opportunity that people possess of getting on the land under the leasehold tenure. 259. Do you think one-half of the people on the land now would have been there had it not been for the Land for Settlements Act? —I think the majority would, because when I went on the land in 1888 —I think lam right in saying Sir John McKenzie's Act was not passed then, and there was not the same easy opportunity of getting on the land—my experience has been that it was quite as easy for a man with small capital and knowledge to get on the land on freehold terms as on leasehold terms. I know a case that occurred when Waikakahi Estate was going to be balloted for. The man, I knew, had not much money, but he was a practical man and had the makings of a splendid farmer. He could not produce sufficient cash to satisfy the Land Board, and he was not allowed to go into the ballot. In my opinion, if it is at all possible, the Land Boards should give such men an opportunity of getting on the land. I do not know how you could work it, but it is most desirable it should be done. 260. Mr. Forbes.'] As a practical farmer, you know about the cropping regulations laid down by the Government in connection with the Crown tenants: do you think they could be altered in any way to work to the better advantage of the Crown and the tenants?—l do not think so on good land. I think the cropping regulations should be classified according to the quality of the land. I have rented land in England under good leaseholders, and on one farm in Wiltshire we had what is known as the four-field system. The rotation was—Break up out of grass; first rape; next roots, preferably swedes; then wheat, barley, or oats, and sow down; and go round the same way again, thus giving two crops in four years. The grass would last two years; but in England there is this difference: you must not sow clover more than once in eight years or the land will go clover-sick. Then, the other system was—two years white straw-crops, and then three years grass and green root-crops. That was the five-field system. I have farmed under both systems, and I think, in connection with our better land, the Government might allow something like the four-field system. I think that system might apply to such land as the best of Waikakahi and the best of Cheviot. . 261. That would not overcome the difficulty they complain of at Waikakahi—namely, the first two white crops are practically failures, and it is the third or perhaps the fourth crop on the heavier ground that they get the yield of grain from?— You can work it either way. You could begin with white straw "crops off'the grass. I have a piece of land that I cropped this year. It was in excellent order, and I have had three wheat-crops off it running, and the last crop this year went about 54 bushels to the acre of Hunter's wheat. It is a splendid sample and a satisfactory crop. I do not think that land has been harmed. In starting the good land at Waikakahi, say, below Willowbridge, I do not think for one moment that anybody would be injured by allowing' even three white crops to be taken off land of that weight and class. I think the Land Board or the Ranger, or both of them, should have some liberty in that direction. 262. Mr. Paul.] You believe that settlement would have gone on independent of the land-for-settlements policy? —I think so. .... 263. Would" you advocate the repeal of that policy ?—Certainly, not. My reason for believing so is that a large number of the farmers in Ashburton County, to go no further from home, as far back as 1884 were farm labourers, and to-day are farmers in very good positions. We were sitting round the table at an agricultural conference in Christchurch one year, and nearly every man said, " I was a farm labourer to besrin with." This is how I have known men to get on the land: they have been working on farms for several years, and they have then gone to some land
W. HABDING.I
505
C.—4
agent and deposited a certain sum and taken land up under deferred payment. They have been able to get hold of the land, and they are to-day successful men. 264. But if these large estates had not been burst up would there have been enough land for these men to get? —Well, the large estates have not been burst up in the Ashburton County. They they have burst themselves up. 265. Do you think they would have burst themselves up if there had been no compulsory clause in the Land for Settlements Act? In 1875 we were told that Mr. Grigg disposed of 15,000 acres. I came out to manage the Fleinington Dairy Factory, and I was one day talking to Mr. Grigg about land, and he said he would let me have some land any day I wanted it. There were other men who were prepared to sell in those days, and, speaking of the Ashburton County, I say that estates have been broken up by the market for land. lam not prophet enough to say what would have happened if Sir John McKenzie iiad not come into power and had not done the work he did, but I believe we are not absolutely dependent on the land-for-settlements policy for the break-ing-up of estates. I think that policy has done a good deal towards it. 266. Can you say what pressure was brought on the colonial executive by the Crown tenants to have this petition circulated ? —We were informed that a letter was sent to the executive from the Crown tenants. 267. From an association of Crown tenants? —It was not stated. 268. I notice by the local papers that two or three men have stated there is an aggregation of estates going on round here: do you think that is so; and, if so, do you think it is in the interests of the district? —It is so. I have aggregated. After I sold 150 acres of my land I found that the balance of my land was wet and I had trouble with my sheep's feet. I had to buy 240 acres of second-class land for the benefit of "my sheep. I do not know whether I was a terrible sinner in doing so. I may state that the Coldstream Estate has been sold in areas ranging from 2,000 acres to 1,000 acres. It is light land, and it has been mostly bought by adjoining farmers with wet land. 269. Is there any systematic aggregation by large landowners? —I do not think so. The men who have enlarged are men with a considerable number of sons, and I should imagine their idea is to find a home for their sons. 270. Mr. McCutchan.~\ You got a letter from the head of the Farmers' Union in the North Island, stating that a request had come from the Crown tenants to have a petition circulated in favour of the freehold: do you remember the wording of the letter?—l do not. It did not come to me, but to the then president, and it was read at the executive meeting. Speaking from memory, the wording was that the petition was not the work of the Farmers' Union, but was the result of a letter from the Crown tenants. 271. Can you say if a numerously signed petition from the Crown tenants, both under "The Land Act, 1892," and he Land for Settlements Act, went to the Government independently altogether of the Farmers' Union? —I do not know at all. 272. Mr. Johnston.] Was this information got from the Crown tenants through the organizing secretary, do you know I—l1 —I do not think there was an organizing secretary in those days when the petition went round. Unless I am greatly mistaken, Mr. Glass had resigned and Mr. McCurdy had not been appointed. 273. How long is it since the petition went round? —I think, two years ago. Charles Reid examined. 274. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer, and I hold 600 acres of land, comprising education reserve leasehold, County County leasehold, and private leasehold. The education lease is for fourteen years, with no valuation for improvements. I have held it fourteen years, and it is just about running out now. 1 have a County Council plantation reserve under a fourteen-years lease. 275 What is your opinion of the lease in perpetuity under the Government? —I think it is a very unfair one to the State. I think it is too one-sided. I think the tenant has the best of it. In a large number of cases the tenants are making an enormous amount of money by selling their goodwill. There is hardly an original tenant left on the Highbank Estate. I think more have sold out than have remained. 276. Have you any knowledge of what has been paid for goodwill? —I know that £1,000 was given in one case. 277. Did that include improvements? —fes, but the improvements would be probably only worth £400. The area was about 240 acres. I know of other lands which were taken up under deferred payment and the holders were offered a reduction in rent to exchange into lease in perpetuity, and they did so. That land was originally taken up at £1 10s., and it is now readily selling for £7. It is in the Rangitata district. It was stony and some people did not care to stay on it, but it has turned out good land. 278. Regarding the fulure disposal of both ordinary Crown lands and improved lands under the Land for Settlements Act, what do you think should be done in the way of amending the present system? —I am afraid that is a very difficult question to settle. I think the deferred-payment system is one of the best systems ever invented. It has enabled an enormous number of people to go on the land. 279. That gives the freehold ultimately? Yes; but I think it is the fairest system. A large number of persons thought the lease In perpetuity best, but I think from the evidence put before you it is not a very popular system at the present time. 280. Mr. McCardle.] How long ago is it since the land that is now selling for £7 was sold for £1 10s. ? —I think fourteen or fifteen years ago. 281. You say you prefer the deferred payment to lease in perpetuity ?—Yes,
64—C. 4.
C—4.
506
fC. REID.
282. At the same time you say giving the tenant a lease for 999 years does the State out of something, whereas if he was under deferred payment I gather by inference from your argument that nothing would be lost to the State? —I pointed out that the deferred-payment system seemed to be a fair one for settling people on the land. I would not like to say that somebody did not make a profit. 283. You agree that the main object is to get the people settled on the land successfully? —That is very important, no doubt. 284. It has been successful so far under the 999-years lease? —Yes. 285. Do you propose to change that and grant these tenants the deferred-payment system instead? —It is a hard question to answer, because, notwithstanding the fact that the lease in perpetuity is unprofitable to the State, looking at it from one point of view it has been profitable. It has enabled all these men to go on the land and cultivate it, and enormously increase its productiveness. By this means it has enabled the Government to increase their railway revenue. 286. I gather from your remarks you are anxious to save the unearned increment for the State? —I do not think there is any unearned increment. My argument was that the people were entitled to the increased value of the land, because it was their money that settled them on the land. 287. Do you think the tenants should have the increased value of the land? —The tenant is entitled to a good deal, because he has taken up the land and made it habitable. 288. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think it would be advisable to prevent the tenants who have sold out at a big profit from competing in other land ballots? —Yes. 289. Do you know anything about the Land Board? —Nothing but what I have heard. 290. Do you think the present constitution all right? —No, it is not all right. 291. What would you put in its place? —I think in a democratic country some of the members ought to be elected by the people. But I think some should be nominated as well. 292. Do you not think so long as they control Crown lands they should be nominated by the Crown? —I think half should be nominated by the Crown and half elected. 293. Would you be in favour of giving more discretionary power to the Land Board? —I do not think so. 294. Mr. Hall.] Do you say that the improved estates under lease in perpetuity are a loss to the State? —I have already said that the tenants under lease in perpetuity are selling out at a great deal more than they have put on in the way of improvements. I think that is a loss to the State. 295. Has it not been a gain to the State to settle people on the land who could not have otherwise got on the land? —If course it has. 296. Does not the "State get full interest by rentals on the money these estates have cost the colony? —The State does. My point is that you may load the land too much by selling it two or three times over, and if the tenant has to pay the original rent and a large sum for interest on the money paid for the goodwill, the land may be loaded to such an extent that if bad times come the State will be a loser. 297. Mr. Anstey.~\ Whom do you have your lease from? —The Ashburton High School Board. 298. Do you think you should have valuation for improvements? —Yes. There are some leases in which valuation is given now and they are encouraging it, but I have not applied for improvements. 299. You are getting near the end of your lease: are you going to apply for it again? —No. It went to tender and has already been taken. I knew that the other man was going to offer more than I was prepared to offer, and I did not go in for it. 300. Do you think that all these lands should be weighted with improvements and submitted at an arbitration rent? —Yes. 301. Supposing you had been offered a renewal under lease-in-perpetuity conditions or on the terms which you now hold, which would have been the best tenure for you ? —I would prefer the lease in perpetuity, without a doubt. 302. Do you know the name of the settlement at Rangitata? —It is not a settlement. It was taken up under the deferred-payment system. There are between ten and twenty settlers. Arundel, Carew, and Ruapuna are parts of it. Some of the areas are 640 acres and 1,200 acres. In some cases the freehold has been secured, and in others they are now held under lease in perpetuity. 303. Mr. Pavl.] You hold land under three different leases: which do you think is the best, from your point of view? —They were very much the same. The long lease is. of course, the best, for by putting up certain improvements we have a chance of getting it again. 304. What system of tenure is best for the State? —The best thing for the State is the freehold, pure and simple. 305. Would you apply that to land-for-settlement lands? —That system was introduced for men without capital, and it is necessary to have some system to enable those people to get on the land, but it wants to be a system very different from that now in vogue. 306. Under an optional system of purchase would you allow a man to make the land his at the original value, or would you have a revaluation for selling purposes? —If they gave the option of purchase it should be revalued. 307. Mr. Anrtey.~\ T suppose if you had farmed your education leasehold badly you might have pot it again?— Yes. 308. Owing to your farming it reasonably well you lost the chance of getting it again? —Yes.
J. LEGGETT.j
507
C—4.
Methven, Thursday, 13th April, 1905. Joseph Leggett examined. 1. The Chairman.J What are you?--I am a farmer, and was formerly a builder. I hold 140 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Highbank Settlement, and pay 6s. Bd. per acre rent. I have been there since the beginning of the settlement eight years ago, and I am quite satisfied with my holding. 1 have no desire for the option of the freehold; I consider lamin a better position without it. 2. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes. They did not grant me what I asked for, but 1 consider it was wise on their part not to do so, because it prompted me to rely on my own resources. 1 overcame the difficulty, and 1 see nothing out of the way in the Advances to Settlers Department. They kept on the safe side, and Ido not blame them. 3. Do you think the present constitution of the Land Board is satisfactory? —I should very much object to any other system, because 1 should not like any man who is at all biassed to be on the Land Board. I would sooner put up with the judgment of a nominated Board than I would with that of an elected Board, especially if the members were elected by the settlers, because in that case they would be more or less biassed. 4. Was the Highbank Estate allotted under the single ballot? —Yes. 5. You have no experience of grouping or the second ballot? —Yes, 1 have. I think that the grouping is a bad system. I have known men who would rather forfeit their deposit than take up the section that has been allotted to them through the grouping. 6. Mr. Johnston.] Are the settlers on these estates satisfied with their tenure? —Most of them are. 7. What is the yield of oats in this district? —I have averaged 70 bushels of oats and 35 bushels of wheat. 8. Mr. Paul.] Is the land of the settlement increasing in value? —Yes. 9. Have any of the settlers sold out their holdings? —Yes. 10. Did they sell to advantage? —Yes, but I do not agree with it. I think it is a very bad system which allows the settlers to do that. I take it that the primary object of these settlements was settlement, and instead of that it is becoming a mere speculation. For my part, I cannot see on what principle at all the tenants have a right to the unearned increment —that is, the increased value in the land from the time it was taken up until now. The country put the settlers on the land and the general taxpayer is liable in case there is any deficiency, and I consider that each settler's right in the unearned increment is one-eight-hundred-thousanth part. 11. You mean to say that settlers are selling out at hundreds of pounds above any improvements they have effected I—Yes.1 —Yes. 12. Have they been long on this land?-—1 could refer you to one who has only been on it two seasons. 13. Have you any idea what that man got? —I understand that he got somewhere between <£7 and 8s an acre goodwill. I can refer you to another case. My son and I bought a man out last year and we gave £6 per acre, including improvements. It was Section 34, containing 73 acres. 14. What was the value of the improvements?—l suppose they were worth from £150 to £200. Complaints are being made in some quarters about restrictions, but if there were no restrictions there are some men who would crop all the good out of the land. Land cannot be cleaned by cropping. 15. Do you wish any variation in the cropping conditions? —None whatever. I think the matter of obtaining the option of the freehold is a very serious one. I think the only thing that would cause us to go for the freehold is a revaluation Act being passed. 16. You do not think that would apply retrospectively? —No, I feel quite contented in that respect myself. Ido not think it would be done. Ido not think the Legislature would overturn existing arrangements. 17. You think the State should keep to their part of the bargain and the tenants to theirs? — Certainly, I do. With the freehold how could you restrict one man selling out to a larger owner. 18. Mr. McCutchan.] You think it is a wrong thing for the unearned increment to be disposed of by the tenant, and that it should belong to the State? —Yes. 19. If your dictum is right and carried into practical effect, what will your position be in regard to the goodwill you have paid? Would not that goodwill belong to you? —No. I do not care for the principle of the thing, but at the same time the law allows it. The boy wanted the land and he got it, but for all that I do not think it is right. 20. If a movement was set on foot to give the unearned increment to the State would you give that your support? —Certainly. 21. Even though it confiscated the £6 an acre your son had paid for goodwill? —Yes, I would. 22. You say the Crown tenants should have no direct representation on the Land Boards: have not the Crown tenants a direct interest in their improvements?— Yes. 23. Should not those improvements have direct representation on the Land Boards? —I think the fact of having unbiassed men on the Land Board outweighs that. 24. Is it not a fact that the Government has sometimes nominated Crown tenants to be members of Land Boards? —Yes. 25. Do you not think that if Crown tenants had a right to elect a member they would be just as anxious to appoint as good men as the Government would? —If they elected one of their own number he would be biassed in their favour. 26. The Government are nominating them now; why are they not more biassed than any other I—l1 —I do not know; but, for my own part, I would sooner trust to a nominated man if he was a practical man.
C—4
508
[J. LEGGETT
27. Do you not think if the Crown tenants had the right they would appoint a practical man to look after their interests? —That is the case at present. 28. You say that the freehold is a thing a man can do what he likes with, but the freehold is subject to taxation just the same as leasehold in this colony?- I was referring to selling out. 29. But is there anything to prevent the Government passing legislation fixing the limit of holdings under freehold?—l do not think they would do it. 30. But is there anything to prevent them?—l think the voice of the country would prevent them. It is an impossibility. If 1 cannot sell my land to a man how can it be a freehold. 31. Mr. McCardle.] What was the number of the section sold for £8 an acre goodwillSection 18, 323 acres. 32. Do you know the Springfield Estate? —Yes. 33. In your opinion, is that suitable for subdivision for closer settlement?- 1 should say so. 34. Do you think it is desirable that the Government should purchase it for close settlement? -There is no doubt that there are a great number of people who are asking for land and who cannot get it. 35. Is not the high price of land due to the fact that people cannot obtain land in the districts —There are continually dozens of farms offered for sale. 36. Are they at a higher price than you paid? —Certainly. 37. They are at a prohibitive price, then? —That is so. 38. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be in favour of preventing these men who sell out going to the ballot again?— Yes, I would, if they are not satisfied with the leasehold let them go out and get a freehold. I would bar them from taking part in a ballot for some six to ten years. Henry Dyke Acland examined. 39. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am one of the trustees of the Mount Peel Estate, and a pastoral tenant of the Crown. I signed the petition presented by Mr. Tripp at Timaru, and I want to indorse everything that appeared therein and Mr. Tripp's remarks as published in the papers. I should like to say, as far as the present leases are concerned, that they do not seem to me to be suitable, either for the Crown or the tenant. There is nothing to stop us for the two or three years before the lease expires overstocking the runs, and, as far as the tenant is concerned, there is nothing to encourage us to put on improvements. We only get three times the value of the rent, and from what I have seen of the runs and know about them from people who have held them for many years it seems to me that the more improvements there are in the way of fencing the less likelihood there is of the loss of stock. With fences we know where the sheep are, and we are enabled to keep them off bad country during the dangerous time of the year. 40. Between what altitudes is the Mount Peel Run?— From 1,000 ft. to 6,000 ft. 41. In that high country have you ever tried surface-sowing?—A little was done, 1 believe, in the eighties, but I do not think any has been done recently. I have no personal knowledge of it. 42. Do you know what the result was?— There is a certain amount of English grass along the creeks, but whether it simply spread or is the result of the sowing I do not know. 43. Are we to infer that you would like a renewal of your lease?—lf there was a system of renewal I would suggest that concessions should be made, both by the Crown and by the tenants. The tenants, for the right of renewal, should enter into more onerous conditions as to the working of the properties, in the interests of State and tenant. They should be prevented from overstocking and overcropping. 44. I suppose you would not think it advisable on the part of the Crown to sell these greatmountain areas? —I have never considered that question. A lot of the country is practically worthless. On Ben McLeod the Government map shows 16,000 acres as barren land. There is a great deal of shingle on it, and that land is absolutely worthless. 45. How are you affected by rabbits? -Poisoning seems to keep them down. If you happen to "have dry cold weather during May and June you can practically make a clean sweep of them if the work is done properly. 46. Mr. Anstey.] If you had sufficient security of tenure would you do anything in the way of surf ace-sowing ?—We would be prepared to try it. I think we would undertake to spend money on permanent improvements which were considered best in the interest of the properties if any recompense was to be got for it. 47. In your petition you asked for three-fourths of the "cost" of all improvements: do you not think it should be " value " I—lt would be better to substitute the word " value." 48. Is there any desire on the part of the runholders to purchase the freehold of these runs? —I think everybody wants to get the freehold if they can. 49. Would the runs be more productive under freehold than they are now? —I think they would in some ways. More permanent improvements would be put on them. 50. Have you any right of renewal? —No. 51. If you put a lot of improvements on the run would that effect you getting a renewal of the run again? —If we improved the runs now we would be increasing our rent when next put up, or encouraging some one else to come in. If we put on a thousand pounds worth of improvements and we are paying £100 a year rent we can only claim £300 for those improvements, and the prospective tenant has got that margin of £700 to work on in making his offer for the run. 52. The more you improve now the less chance there is of getting it again?— Yes. 53. And the worse it is farmed the better chance there is of getting a reduction in rent?— 54. Mr. Johnston.] What is the total area of your leasehold ?—About 100,000 acres in the two places. That includes 16,000 acres of barren land. There is a certain amount of barren and bush land on Mount Peel which does not appear on the Government maps.
509
C—4.
H. P. ACLAND.
55. What is the amount of freehold? —Between 5,000 and 6,000 acres. 56. Is that low land? —It is largely on the Rangitata, and is practically all flat land. 57. Have you enough flat land to work the station to advantage ?- -We lost a block in 1900, which has prevented us from carrying the number of ewes we had, and, of course, that loss of land made it more risky than formerly. The area was 2,700 acres. 58. Would you have given the same rental as is being paid for the block you lost?- I think so, if we had been allowed to. We never competed for it. 59. Has the carrying-capacity of the run increased or decreased of recent years? —We do not shear anything like the number of sheep we did several years ago. 60. What is that due to?- To want of stock, and also the fact that we cannot carry as many crossbreds as we did merinos. 61. Is that your own fault or the fault of the run? —The fault of both, I suppose. We have had three bad seasons, and it has been troublesome to keep up our stock. Runholders cannot afford to buy stock at the present time. 62. If you could afford to buy the stock could you run the same number of stock now as formerly? —I do not think so. 63. Have the rents decreased or increased during the last twenty-five years? —Our rent was reduced by the Pastoral Tenants' Relief Act in 1890 to ,£3OO per year, and we are under that now. 64. Is your run under a lower rent than previous lessees paid? —I am not prepared to say. 1 think it would probably be increased a bit. In 1891 or 1892 we were paying more rent than now, and we were shearing ten thousand more sheep. 65. What altitude do you winter your sheep on? —We winter our sheep right up to the top of the sunny faces of the Rangitata. We winter up to 5,000 ft. 66. What is your average loss ? —Something over 5 per cent. This last two years, of course, the loss has been nearly 10 per cent. 67. What is your average lambing? —This year we had about ten thousand lambs from over sixteen thousand ewes. Anything over 70 per cent, we consider a good lambing. This year the lambing of the merinos was very bad in consequence of the storm. 68. If you got an extended tenure and valuation for improvements you think it would be an improvement to the runs? —Yes. 69. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that the Tenants' Relief Act was wise, or would it have been a more statesmanlike thing to have allowed you to struggle through on your bargain? —I am satisfied that the bulk of us would have been elsewhere, and our stations have been in the hands of residents in England. 70. If the colony was divided into the most suitable areas for farming do you think it would prosper most under freehold or under leasehold, with Rangers to supervise? —My opinion is that the freehold is the better tenure, because when a man gets a place as his own he works harder and tries to improve it. He then is working for himself, and not for some one else. 71. Do you think it would be wise on the part of the Crown to allow lease-in-perpetuity settlers to gradually acquire their freeholds with their savings? —I think it would. 72. Do you think it would be wise to allow them to clear their sections at the original price? -Yes, plus the cost of administration. 73. In the case of estates which have been bought at too high a price, do you think the State should make a loss on them? —In cases where the State has made a bad bargain they would have to be dealt with on their merits. 74. Do you not think it would be more equitable to take the whole thing in bulk, and in the case of the bad bargains to put them against the bad bargains? —Then you make the man who has made a good bargain suffer for those who have made bad bargains. If I was a man who had made a good bargain I would be against such a proposal, and if 1 had made a bad bargain I would probably be for it. 75. You think the freehold is better than the lease in perpetuity? —Yes; but the lease in perpetuity is an excellent thing for men starting. 76. The Government gave the lease-in-perpetuity holders leases on a certain capital, and you think they should pay for it? —I do not think the Government can lose anything. The Government are paying 4 per cent, at the present time, and it would be simpler for the Government to take the money and use it for purposes for which they are now raising money-railways. 77. There would be a loss on the estates which have been bought at too high a price? —To allow the option is the best, it seems to me, for in those cases the Government would be bound to lose in any case. If the land goes up the Government would get no good out of it, and if it goes down'the Government is bound to lose, because the tenant would throw it up. It is a bad system. 78. You think the State should bear the loss where there is a loss? —We have to stand that in any case. 79. Have many tenants thrown up their sections in this district? —I should say not, because the land has gone up in value around here. 80. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board? —Yes, so far as I know about it. 81. What was your loss in 1903? —Five thousand out of thirty-seven thousand. 82. You are not sure whether this country is depreciating or improving?—l think that the hills have undoubtedly gone back. 83. What is the best method of bringing the country back to its former state?— The only thing to do is to try and improve it by surface-sowing, if possible, and allow certain blocks to seed off, keeping stock off the country if you can during certain times of the year. 84. Are there any weeds on your run?— Very few. 85. Are the weeds bad in the district?— Not on the station. 86. Mr. McC'utchan.] The land policy is a national policy?—l believe so.
C.-4.
510
[h. d. acland.
87. You were asked some questions about the probability of loss if the right of freehold was conceded: are you aware that a rebate of 10 per cent, on prompt payment was granted to tenants? —I am. 88. If that rebate, instead of being paid to tenants in good years, was put into a guarantee fund against bad times, would not that obviate danger of loss? —It would. 89. Would you approve of that being done? —It would be a good suggestion. 90. Do you find that you get proper representation on the Land Board under the present system? —We come before the Land Board so very little that I have not considered that. I am perfectly satisfied with the present Commissioner. 91. Mr. McCarcLle.] Do you think it is fair and reasonable that a man who has sold out a lease-in-perpetuity section should not be allowed to take up another ? —I do not think it would. 92. In your opinion, does the State suffer any loss by allowing one man to transfer his interest, so long as the man coming in is a good man I—lt1 —It does not make any difference to the State so long as the places are well farmed. 93. All this talk about men being allowed to change their properties is really fudge, so far as the State is concerned? —Yes. 94:. Mr. Hall.\ You think the manner in which these big runs have been leased in the past has not been satisfactory, either to the tenant or to the State? —I do not think it has. 95. In what manner should they be leased in order to be satisfactory? —I think the men in possession should be given the option of getting them back. If a private landlord has got a good tenant he is generally satisfied to keep that tenant. If the land is put up again the tenant has no better chance than any one else of getting it under the present system. He has associations which attach him to the property; and if he improves it he has to go to the hammer the same as any one else. I think he ought to be given some right of renewal, or, instead of putting the properties up to auction, they might adopt the New South Wales system, where the rents are fixed by the Land Board, and the man in possession has the first chance of getting it. 96. Do you think that if better conditions were made more improvements would be effected on the runs? —Yes. 97. Have full experiments been tried for surface-sowing? —We have not tried for many years. 98. Do you think tests have been made to find out the best kinds of grass to sow?- I could not say what would grow best, except grasses that will stand cold weather and heavy frosts. 99. As regards lease-in-perpetuity lands, I understood you to say that the weak point in the system was that British money had to be obtained to purchase the properties ? —Yes; it makes the Government of the day agents for the English money-lender. 100. Do you infer from that that there is too much capital in the country? —I think it is a bad thing to have money going out of the country. I would sooner have our own money used and the interest retained in the colony. 101. Assuming that all these lands were bought by the tenants, the money would then all go back to pay off the lender at Home? —Yes. 102. Would not that mean that other money would have to be received to replace that sent out? —I think the money would ultimately be made in the country. At first people who bought might borrow money some of which might be English, but ultimately, I think, the small loans would be obtained from local people. 103. Do you think it would lead to money bearing a higher rate of interest? —The insurance companies in New Zealand have plenty of money to lend, and if the rate went up in New Zealand money would soon come in from the A.M.P. and other societies. 104. Mr. Paul.] Do you think a settler is more likely to succeed at the original rental or when paying a goodwill of several hundred pounds, in addition to the annual rent? —It all depends on whether the land has gone up in value or not since the rent was fixed. 105. Do you not think the original lessee is more likely to make a good settler than one who has paid a good sum for goodwill? —The tenant's interest in that land was increased. When he got .it there was no such thing as goodwill; that accrued subsequently. The produce coming off the property now might be worth £2 per acre as against £1 formerly. That is what has made it go up in value. 106. If that view is correct, do you think that increased value belongs to the tenant or to the State? —Under the present system I think it belongs to the State. If the perpetual lease had been adhered to the Crown would have got a revaluation after thirty years, and would get the benefit of any increase in value. 107. Do you think it is a good system?- -I think they should have kept to the freehold or to the lease with revaluation. The lease in perpetuity is a bad system, for if the land goes up in value the State gets no benefit from that increase, and if there is a fall in price the tenant comes to the State for a rebate. Charles Fitzroy Overton examined. 108. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a partner in a Government leasehold of 6,000 acres under pastoral tenure. The rent is £354 per year. It is called the Rockwood Run, and is about twenty miles from Metkven. I would like the lease extended, or that some compensation be given to us to encourage us to put improvements on the leasehold. A lot of gorse was allowed to spread over part of the property for a good many years. That should be removed. Fencing is also required and surface-sowing. We have two years yet of our lease to run. We bought the run privately about two years ago. I think the run could be improved a good deal by surfacesowing and fencing. If we got the lease extended, or if compensation for improvements were given we would improve the farm. 109. Have you had experience of surface-sowing? —Yes, but not to a great extent, owing to the doubt which exists with respect to the renewal of the lease. Some of the grass has taken very well.
H. D. ACLAND.]
511
C—4.
110. Mr. Forbes.] What compensation do you get now according to your lease? —Three times the rental. I have heard that some years ago the run fell into the hands of the Government, and therefore we are not entitled to valuation for improvements, owing to the neglect of a former tenant in not sending in a return of the improvements at the proper time. 111. You do not think there is any likelihood of a tenant putting on excessive improvements in order to retain possession of a run? —I do not think so, but there may have been cases. 112. In what way would you have the compensation allowed for? —A fair value for the improvements put on the place valued at the time the lease expires. 113. Mr. Anitey.j Supposing you got the right of renewal with valuation for improvements, would you undertake to make certain specified improvements? —Yes. 114. Is there any desire on the part of pastoral tenants to acquire the freehold?—l think a man always has an inclination to get the freehold. 115. Could you produce mere off the land if it were freehold than under leasehold? —Yes, if we got it at a fair price. 116. Mr. Johnston.] How much stock did you take over with the run? —3,800 sheep. 117. You knew the conditions of the lease when you took it over? —Yes. 118. Did you object to them? —We hoped to make a fair thing out of it, but we lost a great many sheep this year, and have had rather bad luck in that way during the last two winters, and therefore we wish the lease extended. 119. What is the altitude of the run? —3,000-odd feet. 120. Is it facing the sun ?-A good deal of it lies towards the sun. 121. How did you make such a big loss? —The snow lay very thickly, and we had a bad lambing. 122. How much of the land is ploughable? —200 or 300 acres. 123. Have you applied for a renewal of the lease? —Yes. 121. Have they treated you satisfactorily? —It has always been said that the matter would come before Parliament, and there would be some compensation. 125. You took up the land knowing that the gorse was there?--Yes. 126. Have you any Californian thistle?- -No. 127. Mr. Matheson.] Have you had any experience of the land-for-settlement policy? —No. 128. Mr. Paul.] Do you think it would be wise to allow the runholders to acquire the freehold of these runs —that is, from the point of view of the State? —I think if they were taken over at a valuation made by the Government it would be a fair thing for the freeholder, and also for the State. 129. Do you think the area of freehold held by one person should be limited? —It all depends on the condition and nature of the land. 130. Suppose the limitation were by value, do you think there should be a limitation? —That is a question I have not studied much, but at a fair value I do not think the Government would lose at all if they did sell out to the present leaseholders 131. Do you think one man should hold as much land as he is able to buy? —No. 132. You believe in a restricted freehold? —Yes, to a certain extent. I do not believe in a millionaire buying up as much land as he can. 133. At what value would you draw the line? —If I got about ten thousand sheep I would be satisfied. 134. You would like a freehold to carry that number? —Yes. Duncan Murchison examined. 135. The Chairman.] What are you?- My brothers and I hold the Acheron and Lake Coleridge Runs. The area of Lake Coleridge is 18,000 acres, and is under pastoral tenure. The Acheron Run is about 12,000 acres. I also hold about 12,000 acres of freehold and about 800 acres on Lake Coleridge. Then there is the Canterbury College reserve. lam not sure what is the area of the reserve. We pay £260 a year for the 30,000 acres. Our country runs from 1,200 ft. to 7,200 ft. above sea-level. Tlie leases run out in 1910. I signed the petition to the Land Commission which was presented by Mr. Tripp, and I agree with all that was said in that petition. We have had very bad winters lately, and I think we should be given a more secure tenure in respect to our lease. We have had two bad winters and two bad lambings, and we cannot keep our stock up. If we had a fairly long lease or if we had the right of renewal, I think it would be only fair, and if we had those terms we would do more fencing. 1.36. Mr. Forbes.] Have you done anything in the way of regrassing? —Yes, on Glen Thorne Run last spring. The grass is not coming so well as it ought to have done. 137. Has the pasture gone back of late years? —Yes. 138. What do you attribute that to?—To too heavy stocking. I think if a tenant had the right of renewal he would not stock quite so heavily. There is nothing to prevent a man now from overstocking and taking everything out of the ground, and leaving nothing for the incoming tenant. 139. If you had the option of getting a longer lease at a rent to be fixed by arbitration there would not be that danger? —No, a man would hardly spoil his place under such circumstances. 140. You think a perpetual right of renewal would be better than the present method of putting the runs up to auction?—l think so. 141. Mr. Anstey.] Is there any compensation for improvements at Glen Thorne? —I believe three times the rent. 142. Is not that sufficient to justify you doing more fencing? —It would not be worth it. 143. At the present moment you are fully compensated ?—Yes; but if we had a right of renewal we would fence.
C.—4.
512
|d. muechisok.
144. You have not got up anywhere near the value you are entitled to? -No; but 1 would not be prepared to put on any more improvements at present. 145. If you got compensation would you undertake to make certain improvements and regrass the land ? —Yes, if I got proper security as to the right of renewal. 146. Have you tried grassing? —Yes. 147. Do you think it would be profitable?- Not on the rooky faces. It would only be profitable up to a certain altitude and in certain country. 148. Mr. Johnston.'] What is the number of sheep on Glen Thorne?—We shore this year about 6,300, and the rent is .£l6O. 149. What is your average loss on it?--I think about 12 or 15 per cent. 150. What is the loss on the other runs?- For the last two years on Acheron and Lake Coleridge it has been 15 per cent., but these have been exceptionally bad years. 151. What is the average result of your lambing?--About 47 per cent, on Acheron and Lake Coleridge. 152. And on Glen Thorne?—We lost heavily in ewes. Last year it was probably 72 per cent., and this year it will probably be 24 per cent. 153. Did your people try grassing these other two runs? —My father did, but it was not successful on Acheron. 154. Have you ever known screenings from seed-cleaning machines to be sown on these runs? Yes, on Acheron. 155. W 7 hat was the result? —Much noxious weeds. 156. Is il on the very high country? —About 2,300 ft. 157. How low do you winter Tour stock? —Up to 2,300 ft. We have no low country —only open facings on Glen Thorne. I think I could shear ten thousand sheep if I fenced the run. 158. Mr. Matheson.\ What was your annual expenditure for rabbiting? —About £40 a year on Lake Coleridge and Acheron. 159. Mr. Paul.] You think in the interests of the pastoralists if not of the State there should be a fairly long lease with right of renewal, the rent to be fixed by arbitration? —I should favour a lease of'ten years at an arbitration rental. I think that would be satisfactory to both parties. I hardly think it would pay the State to have a shorter lease or put up to auction as it is now. The man who holds the run will go perhaps beyond his valuation at auction in the heat of the moment owing to old associations. 160. Do you think a pastoral tenant would suffer under any disadvantage if he had a tenyears lease, with arbitration in respect to rent and with right of renewal?—l do not think so. 161. The native grasses are all being eaten out? —Yes. 162. Then the native grasses cannot be a permanent pasture? —Not by any means. 163. Then, something will have to be done to put in native pasture or allow the native grass to come back?—l do not think the native grass will come back in those places. 164. Supposing your run was subdivided, could part of it be fenced and spelled alternately with advantage in order to allow the grass an opportunity of growing?—ln Glen Thorne I have spelled the country and I did so last spring, and I think that is an advantage. 165. Mr. Anstey.] Supposing the pastoral tenants in Canterbury were given a secure tenure, do vou think they would all fence and put other improvements on the land, which would largely increase the carrying-capacity of the runs in respect to ewes, and consequently be better for the lambing?— All the runs I know of are stocked to their utmost at present. 166. By fencing you could keep ewes where you now keep wethers? —If we had a snow-line fence we could keep the ewes out all the summer, which we cannot do at present. 167. Bv so doing, you could largely increase the number of your ewes? —Yes. 168. Mr. Johnston.] How long have you been on these runs?— Five years. Chart.es Sprat examined. •169. The Chairman.] What are you?--I am a farmer, and I own 100 acres at Highbank. My section is No. 12, and I pay a rent of 6s. 7d. per acre. The tenure is lease in perpetuity. lam quite satisfied with the tenure. When I took up the land 1 was in a position to take up 100 acres, and I am compelled to keep at that 100 acres. My present area is not sufficient to maintain myself and family. I think it is only right that I should be allowed to take up another section. If I were fortunate enough to secure a larger section I would be quite prepared to give up my present holding to somebody else —of course, my improvements being paid. I have been on this run for eight seasons, and have been fairly successful. I have improved my section quite up to its full capacity. I have kept within the limits of the cropping regulations. I did not find any necessity to overstep them. Under the regulations we can take two grain-crops in succession, but I consider, under certain circumstances, I should have the privilege of ploughing and sowing down again. I never applied to the Board in respect to the cropping regulations. I have no complaints to make against the Land Board, but I think the Land Board should be composed of practical men who understand the needs of the farmer. lam quite satisfied with the Rangers. I have had no trouble with them. 170. Mr. Forbes ] The men who are applying for land to-day are supposed to be landless. Do vou not think men without any land at all ought to have a preference over those who have land? -Yes • but I consider that a man who has served his apprenticeship on the land should have some privilege over a man who has had no experience but who may have more capital. I think the amount of capital required is far too large, and, as I have said, I think experience should count to a great extent instead of capital. 171. How are the settlers doing at Highbank?- Fairly well. I do not think there is a big percentage advocating the so-called freehold. I would not exchange my little piece for a so-called average freehold.
C. SPBAY.'
513
C—4.
172. Mr. Anstey.] Do you know if there are any other large estates in this neighbourhood that would be suitable for cutting up in the same way ? —Yes, Springfield Estate. It is the best land in the country. 173. Can you say whether all the small sections at Highfield are occupied? —Yes, they are; but I think some tenants hold two or three sections. 174. Are such a large number of small sections desirable in an estate like that? —Not at all. I think they are an encumbrance. There is no market for produce here, and there is no labour wanted on the Highbank Estate. A man cannot make a living off 10 acres. I think that from 50 to 100 acres is quite little enough. 17"5. You do not think it is necessary to have any workmen's seutions there? —Not on such a place as Highbank. 176. Mr. Johnston.] Do you mind saying what capital you had when you started? —I had £35 after paying iny first rent. 177. It is very much to your credit that you have done so well, and that you were able with a capital of £35 and your experience to make a success of it. Were you working about here before you took up this land ? -Yes, I had been twenty-eight years in this county. 178. You want to impress us with this fact, that a steady man with experience does not require so much capital in starting as an inexperienced man? —Yes. 179. Mr. Matheson.] In regard to Springfield, did the land you have referred to adjoin that estate I—Yes.1 —Yes. 180. Were the terms cash deposit and with the right to pay off gradually? —Yes. The terms were very liberal. It has been satisfactorily settled, but, unfortunately, it has been settled by men who already have land. The. sections now are only got by people with money. Working-men have no chance to get sections on those estates. 181. Mr. Paul.] If you were allowed compensation for improvements, would you be prepared to surrender your present holding on condition that you got a larger holding in another estate? —I would be prepared to sell out my goodwill. 182. Is there not a difficulty that after you drew an allotment in another estate you might demand goodwill which would be too high for an incoming tenant on your present holding? —I think we should be allowed to transfer and sell out our goodwill. I have five in my family, and the holding is too small, and I consider that it is not justice to me to keep me on the bottom rung of the ladder. I have made a success of my present holding, and have brought up a large family. Of course, at first I had to go out and get work. 183. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think that everything in your section belongs to yourself — that is, if you were to sell out," do you think that the tenant is entitled to the full value of the land ?—I would not like to say that. 184. Then, you would sell out for more than the actual improvements you had put upon the land? —No doubt. 185. Do you think the farming community generally has been instrumental in increasing the value of the land?—No; I think it is Mr. Seddon's butchers' shops at Home that has increased the value of the land. 186. Do you think the increased value should go to the people who eat our meat at Home? —No. 187. Who should it go to?—lt is going to the tenant at the present time. 188. Is it right that it should go to them? —I consider that if tenants were compelled to reside on their farms for a number of years before being allowed to transfer, it would stop a lot of landjobbing. 189. The question is to whom the value over and above the improvements belongs? —To the partv who bought the estate. I say the tenant has the biggest right to it. He risked something when he went in for it. 190. Mr. MeCardle.] Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Department?— Yes : I have made an application to that Department. I have no complaint whatever to make against it. "191. And you think it has done good to the country? —Yes, a power of good. 192. And is it desirable that the State should further encourage settlers by giving an increased amount of advance for permanent improvements ?—I think so. 193. What is the amount of your improvements? —Roughly speaking, between £300 and £400. 194. And you would get more than £600 for your interest in the place? —I would not like to sell it at less. , 195. In selling out your interest, you think you are entitled to get all the value in the tenure? —Yes. .... , , 196. If the Land Board had discretionary power they might, in your case, have taken into consideration your experience and have let you go to the ballot?—I consider they should have that power. William Charles Anderson examined. 197. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on Highbank. I hold 198 acres, and T pav 6s. 9d. per acre rent. lam an original settler. Igo in for mixed farming. 198. Do vou find vour holding satisfactory? —Yes, only I could do with more land now. The difficulty is to get more, and I cannot hold more under the lease. 199. Tf you had an opportunity of taking up a larger holding would you be willing to relinquish your present section on securing the larger one?— Yes; but it would be better if I could hold both. , _ 200. What would you require now in clearing out of Section 27? Would you he content with the value of your improvements alone if they were valued by a competent person ?—Certainly not, I think the settlers there have made the district.
65—C. 4.
C—4.
514
[W. C. ANDERSON.
201. Then, you want both the value of the improvements and of the goodwill? —Yes. At the same time, I would like if a settler could buy his neighbour out, because if that was possible I could buy my next neighbour out and make my holding big enough. 202. Mr. Forbes.] There are a number of people wanting land who have no land at all at present: is it not the duty of the State to attend first to the wants of those who are landless ? —I dare say. 203. Do you think it would be fair for the State to allow you to go into the ballot again with landless people? —Certainly not. 204. Is much money being given for the goodwills on Highbank? —Yes; some money is being given. 205. So your rent to-day is below the market price at the present time? —Yes; but it is the improvements we have put on our sections that make our rent below the market value. 206. You do not think the goodwill is worth any more than the improvements are worth? — I think it is worth a lot more. 207. Mr. Johnston.] Have you ever been threatened or annoyed or harassed by the Land Board or by the Ranger? —I have never had any trouble with them. 208. Then, it is not true that the settlers have been harassed by the Land Board or the Rangers? —Not in my case, and I have not heard of it. 209. Mr. Hall.] Are not 198 acres of land well farmed worth twice that area of land badly farmed ? —Yes; but I could do well on a good farm of 298 acres; but the trouble is to get it. George Stockdill examined. 210. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on Highbank. I hold Section 2, of 359 acres. I pay 6s. lid. per rent. I have been there nearly three years. I bought out another holder. 211. Are you satisfied with your holding? —Yes, quite satisfied. 212. Have you had any dealings with the Land Board? —Yes. 213. To your satisfaction? —Yes. The only thing I have to complain of is that a wrong report was put in about me by the Ranger. I was accused of cropping a paddock that I had not cropped 214. Did you inform the Land Board to that effect? —I did. 215. I suppose they at once accepted your word? —I am not so sure, from the letter they sent me. They said the Ranger, who has since been shifted, would come down and see the paddock and make it right, but he never came. Mr. Williams was the Ranger. 216. Had the present Ranger anything to do with it? —No. 217. Is there anything you would like to bring before the Commission ?- I would like to refer to a river-bed which lies at the back of the settlement, and which, I think, belongs to the Government. I think that land should be leased to the settlers adjacent, or that they should have the option of taking it up. 218. Have you made any application to the Land Board for it? —Not yet. I believe it is already leased, but the present lessee does not keep the fencing in repair nor keep the rabbits down. 219. Have you informed the Stock Inspector? —I have not, but I think some other people did. 220. Mr. Forbes.] You have heard the complaints of the previous witnesses: do you find your place large enough? —I think it is as much as I can manage at present. 221. You have heard that there is a great demand amongst the Crown tenants for the freehold : is that the feeling on Highbank ? —I would not say it was. Ido not think the majority want the freehold. 222. What is your own feeling? —I would rather have the leasehold. I would not like itinterfered with at all, because if the Government break the trust we do not know where they will stop. I think it is a very good system as it is. 223. Are you satisfied to leave things as they are? —I cannot see the difference between this and freehold. 224. Mr. Anstey.] Did you pay anything for the goodwill of this section? — Yes. 225. Did you pay anything over and above the value of the improvements? —I might have. It would be hard to say. There was a lot of improvements on it. 226. Mr. Ma,theson.\ Do you get a 10-per-cent. rebate if you pay your rent promptly? —Yes. 227. That was done by means of a special Act: do you call that an amendment of the lease? —I think it would have been better to have left the lease as it is. 228. Suppose a Bill was brought in to allow tenants to reduce the capital value of their holdings out of their savings, and so reduce their rent, do you think it would be reasonable to call that an amendment? —For my part, I would rather leave the lease as it is. You might die, and the Government might use it for you. 229. Mr. Paul.\ When you received the rebate of 10 per cent, no alteration was made in your lease? —Not that I know of. 230. What was your particular quarrel with the Land Board?- —It was in regard to a paddock of 30-odd acres, and they sent me notice to show cause why they should not forfeit the land. That is pretty rough when I never did anything. I never took a third crop off the land in my life. The Commissioner told me the Ranger had given him the information. I never saw the Ranger on my place except when I was carting away, and he said he would come back in a month and get the information from me. But he never came back. I never saw anything wrong with the Ranger, except that he never came back. It would have satisfied me if the Land Board had sent some one to examine the paddock .and see for themselves. 231. I think you may take it for granted that the Land Board would accept your word? — Well, it did not seem so from the last letter. 232. Mr. McCutchan.] Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Department ? —No.
515
G. STOCKDILL.
C—4
233. Did you get the full 10-per-cent. rebate for the prompt payment of your rent? —Yes. 234. The Department had no power to give you that rebate under the Act of Parliament under which your lease was framed: a Rebate of Rent Bill had to be introduced in order to get that power ? —I think so. 235. If new legislation had to be introduced is it not clearly an interference with the original lease? —That is what I say. I would not like them to interfere with the lease at all. 236. But in taking the rebate you have sanctioned that interference brought about by fresh legislation? —1 do not understand your question. Joseph Gilpin examined. 237. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on Highbank. I hold Section 43, of 86 acres. I pay 7s. 2d. per acre rent. I have held it eight years. 238. Do you find this section satisfactory? —Yes. 239. Do you wish to bring anything in particular before the Commission? —No. 240. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes. 241. Have they been satisfactory ?—Yes. 242. Have your dealings with the Land Board and the Ranger been satisfactory?— Yes; I have never had any trouble with them. 243. Mr. Forbes.] Would you wish to exchange your lease for the freehold? —No wish whatever. 244. Do you think the cropping regulations of the Crown are satisfactory? —Yes. The onh difficulty I see is that 1 would like tt> have three crops in succession. 245. Do you think that would improve the ground at all? —In my case it would. When 1 first went there the land was very dirty with twitch, and I consider you cannot properly clean it by two ploughings in two seasons. I reckon you want one summer's fallowing to get it in a proper state for sowing down, and I think I ought to be allowed to sow down with another crop. 246. If you got that concession at the first turning of the paddock you would not want the same concession every time you broke up the paddock, would you ? —Not if it is not necessary. My experience of the land is that it grows a lot of Yorkshire fog, and by the time you have taken two crops out of it there has not been enough labour to kill the fog. 247. Is this heavy land? —It is medium. 248. Would the third crop be a good one? —I have seen fair crops outside the estate on equal land. 249. Mr. Anstey.] Is it necessary for you to take your three crops in succession, to begin with? —I do not think so. The rule is to take two white and one green crop in six years. 250. What is to hinder you taking one grain-crop and then one green crop, and lay the second grain-crop down with grass ? —lt could be done that way. 251. Have you ever tried it? —No. 252. Are 86 acres big enough for you to make a living on? —The section is not big enough, but I have to make it do. I would like to say, in regard to the river-bed mentioned by the previous witness, that I have often spoken to the present Ranger and to the Stock Inspector about the rabbits there, but the Inspector never seems to take any notice of it. Joseph Leggett further examined. 253. The Chairman.] What do you wish further to bring before the Commission? —In reference to the river-bed referred to by the previous witnesses, I would like to say that if it could be a recommendation to the Land Board to let the section of the river-bed opposite each tenant's holding to that tenant in order that he might keep the rabbits down, it would be a good thing. At present the place is infested with rabbits. 254. Have the settlers made that known to the Land Board? —They have complained to the Inspector and one person and another, but there does not seem to be much notice taken of the complaints. Anthony George Thompson examined. 255. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on Highbank. I hold Section 45, of 372 acres, and I pay 6s. 7d. per acre rent. I carry on mixed farming. 256. Do you feel quite satisfied with your section? —Yes. 257. And with the conditions under which you hold it? —Yes. 258. Mr. Forbes.] You do not wish to have the option of the freehold?—No; I think it would be a pity to break faith or to interfere with the lease. 259. Do you think there is any necessity to alter the cropping regulations? —Not in my own case, but I think it would be only fair in the case of the last witness. He has better land and a smaller holding than mine, and, of course, he has got to struggle harder to keep his family. I think it is only reasonable in the case of people working twitch and fog that they should be allowed to take a third crop. I think several of the sections are rather small to make a living on. With regard to the river-bed frontage and the rabbit-pest, I think it would be an advantage to give the holders of the sections along the river-bed the section of the river-bed fronting them. 260. Mr. Johnston.] Are you satisfied with the Land Board? —Yes. I am very pleased with them. 261. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —No.
516
K. J* GEE
C—4
Rakaia, Thursday, 13th April, 1905. .Richard John Gee examined. 1. Tht Chairman.] What are you? —1 am a painter in Kakaia, where 1 have been for eighteen years. During that time the district has progressed steadily. The farmers in the neighbouring settlement are in a thriving condition. Most of the settlers have been there since the settlement was instituted, and have from 1 to 5 acres. 2. It was settled under deferred payment, and, as time went on, the settlers acquired the freehold ? —Yes. 3. How are the men principally occupied 1- -Most of them work on the farms and stations, and till in their odd time on their sections. 4. Is fruit-growing carried on to any great extent? —Yes, there are three very nice orchards. One man gets his living almost entirely from his orchard. 5. Is any fruit sent out of the district? —Not a great deal, but there is some. 6. Is there any hot-house fruit produced? —No. 7. Is there any dairying on these places? —Some keep a cow or two, and most of that goes to the stores and to private people. 8. Is there a dairy factory in the district? —No. 9. Is there a mill? No. Therfe was a dour-mill, but it was burnt down and not rebuilt. 10. There are several estates around here, are there not? —Yes, but 1 think they have been all cut up now. There are none nearer than Mr. Lyttelton's and Holmes's. 11. Is Holmes's a large estate? —Yes, it is managed by trustees. 12. Is Rakaia increasing ?-*The township has not grown much during the time I have been here. 13. Mr. McC'utchan.j If other areas were placed on the market here would they be taken up? —I have not the slightest doubt that they would. 14. You are aware that the deferred-payment tenure is no longer available for land-settle-ment? —Yes. 15. What tenure would you favour for settling further areas in this district? —It would be presumption on my part to say what other people would prefer, but, for my own part, 1 think there is nothing like the lease in perpetuity. 16. Do you think if a revaluation clause was inserted in that lease it would meet with approval or otherwise? —It would meet with the approval of the great majority of the community, I believe. 17. Whether would it be more preferable, with or without a revaluation clause? —I think myself there is nothing to fear in a revaluation clause if it cuts both ways. 18. Would it not be more apt to cut in favour of the tenants' interests than against, unless values go up all over the colony? —There may be a time when they go down. I think myself it would only be fair. 19. Mr. Anstey.\ Are you living on the settlement or on the township? —In the township. 20. Do you think there is demand for more workmen's homes in this neighbourhood?- ! never heard such a demand expressed. 21. What is the most suitable size required?- I should say if a man could acquire 20 or 30 acres anywhere in the neighbourhood of the township he could get a living. A man cannot make a living on a 5- or 10-acre section. 22. There has been a good deal of increased settlement in the district since you have been here? —In the district, yes. 23. How does this increase affect your trade? —There is more demand for all classes of building trade now than there was eighteen years ago. 24. Are there more people engaged in it in the town ? —No, I do not suppose there are. A good many tradesmen come from Christchurch and Ashburton. 25. Mr. Hall.~\ Is there any land in this district suitable for settlement that could be acquired by the Government? —I would not like to suggest any, but, of course, there is plenty of land that might be acquired. Land in this district would always be taken up unless there was some serious drawback. 26. The people generally are doing very well in their small holdings around here? —Yes; 1 think the Highbank and Mead Estates are very good evidence as to the success of cutting up land for settlement. 27. Mr. McCardle.] I suppose the real need in this district is properties large enough to maintain families? —Yes. 28. I suppose you see a marked increase in the volume of business since the settlements were established ? —Undoubtedly. 29. We have had evidence that Springfield would be a desirable place to be taken over by the Government for closer settlement: is your opinion favourable to that ? —I have no doubt it would be a very good place. 30. Do you suggest that the revaluation clause in the lease-in-perpetuity leases should be retrospective, or only to apply to lands to be acquired by the Government? —Certainly not to be retrospective, for that would be a breach of contract. 31. What you are desirous of seeing is a prosperous and contented people settled on the land? —Certainly. Robert Shannon examined. 32. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a Crown settler on the Mead Settlement, holding 376 acres, for which I pay 7s. 6d. per acre rent. lam well satisfied with the place and with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure.
a-4
B. SHANNON.]
517
33. Have you done any cropping? —Yes. I do not think they need any restrictions on the Mead Estate. The land is rather thin, and we are not likely to overcrop. I have grown both wheat and oats, and carry some sheep. 34. How many thousand acres are there in the settlement ? —About 6,000. The farms range from 700 acres to about SO acres. 35. I suppose the roads are good? —Yes. 36. Have you a school ? —That is the only drawback. 37. Have you a number of children of school-age? —There are over twenty, I believe. 38. Have you made any application in the matter?- Yes, we have tried our best, but cannot get anything done. 39. Was your land grouped and a second ballot taken?— The sections were grouped, but 1 think there was only a single ballot. 40. Were you the first settler on your section? —Yes; it was my wife who drew the section. 41. Did you get the section that was desired? —Yes. 42. Mr. Forbes.] You think the lease in perpetuity a good tenure?- Yes. 43. You have heard it stated that there is an agitation among Crown tenants to get the freehold of their holdings, because with that they would feel more settled: have you got that feeling? —No; I am a leaseholder out-and-out. 44. Mr. McLennan.] Have you sufficient children to get a school? —The Education Board does not think so. We cannot even get an aided school. 45. What was the reply from the Education Board? —That if we got twenty children of school-age they would grant us a school. 46. But you say you have twenty children? —The trouble is that the bottom end of the district will not fall in with the top end. 47. What is the distance?- About seven miles. 48. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think the settlers on the Mead Estate, generally speaking, are prosperous I—Yes,1 —Yes, I think so. 49. What holding do you think is suitable for that class of light land? -600 or 700 acres. 50. Are there many sections as small as 80 acres? —Five or six, I think. 51. Are they large enough for a man to make a living on? —No. 52. Do you think they should be allowed to acquire another section and work the two together? —Yes. 53. Are there any smaller sections ?- There is one section of 11 acres which is unoccupied. 54. Is there any water-race through the estate?- Yes. 55. You have to pay a water-rate, then? Yes. 56. Is there always, plenty of water in the sections?--! have not plenty at present, but hope to get it soon. 57. What do you do ; cut branch races ?—Yes. 58. What is a suitable cropping regulation on that land —two in six years or is one plenty? —It is patchy land, and some will stand cropping and other parts will not. 59. What do you do with the land that will not stand cropping? —We generally plough and sow down in grass. It will not pay to do anything else. 60. Mr. Hall.\ 1 suppose you consider it good farming not to overcrop land? —On that class of land anyway. 11 would soon go. 61. Mr. McCardle.] Have you any fear of revaluation ? -No. 62. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Board? —No. Robert Crosby Burns examined. 63. The Chairman.] What are you?- I am a settler on the Mead Settlement, where I have 450 acres at 3s. 9d. per acre. I principally farm sheep. So far I am fairly satisfied with the land-tenure. One of our greatest troubles is the want of school-accommodation. The trouble is that there was a school-site surveyed at the corner of the settlement, but the Education Board did not seem to think it a very suitable place, holding that the school should be more towards the centre, and, of course, the bottom end were not agreeable to the change of site. 64. Your settlement is long and straggling up the river-bank? —Yes; two sections in breadth. 65. Mr. Forbes.] I suppose you know of the agitation that has been talked about with regard to Crown tenants and the freehold? —I understand that something has been said about that, but I think the Farmers' Union has more to do with it than the Crown tenants. Of course, I have heard some of the tenants express the wish for the freehold, but, as a rule, there is general satisfaction with the leasehold. If it had not been for the leasehold a great many of us could not have been on the land. 66. Your wish is that the present contract be adhered to by State and tenant? —Yes. 67. Mr. McCutchan.] Is there a branch of the Farmers' Union in your district? —Yes. 68. Y-ou give it as your opinion that the Farmers' Union is fostering this agitation for the freehold I—The1 —The reason for that is that some member of the union—l think, the secretary —came round here some little time ago and tried to get the opinion of the settlers. In fact, he asked them if they would prefer the freehold to the leasehold, and asked them to sign a paper to that effect. 69. Are many of the settlers in your settlement members of the Farmers' Union? —I do not know of any, but there may be some, for all that. 70. With regard to the school -difficulty, have you placed yourselves in the hands of the Board, and asked them to send a deputation to fix the site? —The Board was not requested by the settlers, but a deputation came and, after inspecting the place, shifted the site from where originally provided, but the people would not accept the change.
C—4.
518
[e. c. burns.
71. If the school is erected the compelling of the children to attend is a very easy matter? — I suppose all that is wanted is the school. 72. Mr. Hall.\ Was the member of the Farmers' Union who came round to your district a Crown tenant? —I do not know. 73. Do you know his object in coming round? —No, no more than that he asked if we were satisfied, and if we would sign a paper saying that we wanted the freehold in place of the leasehold. 74. Do you think it was out of kindness to the tenants? —People do not do these things nowadays for kindness. 75. Do you think there was something of the political element in it? —Yes. 76. Mr. Matheson.] How did you hear of the meeting here to-night? —The Crown Lands Hanger informed me of it to-night. 77. Did he ask you to come?- No; he simply informed me there was to be a meeting. 78. Mr. McCardle.] What is the carrying-capacity of your land in sheep? —Three-quarters of a sheep to the acre. 79. You said something to the effect that if the land had been given with the right of purchase settlers could not have been there. Supposing it was under deferred payment for thirty years, would it have made any difference? —Yes; we would have had to pay a higher rent, and 1 know that most of us are paying as much as we can manage. 80. What is your view about revaluation? —I think it would be a fair thing; but, as far as that is concerned, we have now a 999-years lease, and a revaluation would be a breach of contract. 81. Do you not think it would be just as reasonable for the State to say they would revalue the freeholds as to say they would revalue the lease in perpetuity ? —Yes. 82. Mr. McCutchan.\ Can you say definitely that the action of the Farmers' Union official in bringing round the petition for the freehold was not done at the request of the settlers? —No, 1 cannot. The first that I heard of it was when that person came to the settlement. 83. Mr. Anstey.] Can you say there was no meeting previous to this man coming? —There may have been, but I did not know of it.
Christchurch, Saturday, 15th April, 1905. John Alexander McCullough examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a tinsmith, by trade. 2. I understand you represent the Trades and Labour Council? —Yes, I have been asked to represent them. lam an executive officer and a trustee. 3. You might just shortly state what you wish to bring before the Commission? —The Council that I represent have affiliated to them three thousand five hundred members. They are of opinion that upon the right solution of the land question depends to a very large extent the future prosperity of the wealth producers of the colony. The conclusion is being forced upon us that increasing our wages is not, as was supposed, an efficient remedy against the evils that they have to contend with, but that other economic forces are at work counteracting the benefit of increased wages, and chief amongst them is the private ownership of land. That is very apparent where house-rent is concerned, and recently Mr. Coghlan, the statistician of New South Wales, in dealing with New Zealand, pointed out that during the last fifteen years wages had increased 8J per cent., meat had increased in price 100 per cent., and house-rent from 30 to 50 per cent., and other items from 10 to 50 per cent. Mr. Tregear, the New Zealand Secretary for Labour, also indorses this so far as house-rent is concerned. There are other contributing causes, but, in our opinion, the main increase in the cost of living is the large increase in land values, instances of which I purpose giving to the Commission. We are also fortified in this belief by the well-known facts printed and given to the world of the conditions under which the workers in the large industrial districts of the older lands live, work, and die. We are told on undisputed authority that " out of one million babies born in the tenement districts of America at lease two hundred thousand die annually. Out of one million babies born to the wealthier classes only about fifty thousand die annually," and that fifty to sixty thousand in New York City alone go to school every morning who have had no breakfast, or else have had but a crust of bread. The local officials of London report that fully one-fifth of the population of London are overcrowded, in spite of the law prohibiting it. That is, nine hundred thousand people in the City of London are in illegal occupation of rooms. There are nearly four hundred thousand living in what Mr. Sydney Webb calls "the soul-destroying conditions of the one-roomed house." There are three thousand living eight and more in one room; there are nine thousand living seven and more in one room; and there are twenty-six thousand living six and more in one room. This is by the most competent authorities attributed to the private ownership of land. Therefore, to prevent this iniquitous overcrowding from ever overtaking us in the colonies, we advocate the nationalisation of land in New Zealand. I am, of course, aware it is a large subject, but Ido not think the largeness of it should prevent us discussing it, and the necessity for it and the possibility of it being consummated in our time. I will not dwell upon that, except to pass an opinion and offer the suggestion that the State might immediately pass legislation giving it the right at any future time to purchase at to-day's valuation any land in the colony. Such a measure would render speculation in future increases in value improbable, if not impossible, and make it almost certain that the State would in a very few years become the possessor of the enormous profits which accrue as population increases. But I would like to dwell upon, and emphasize as an absurdity, the fact of the State under the Land for Settlements Act repurchasing large estates with a view of settling people upon the land and while so doing selling the fee-simple of the Crown land. We are of opinion that no language can be too strong to use in this connection, and, as a labour party, we have urged upon the Govern-
.T. A. MCCULLOUGH.I
519
C—4.
ment that no further Crown lands should be sold. We contend that that is a reasonable request, and that to continue such a course is not statesmanship, but idiocy, and we have never heard any person who could logically defend the action of the State in repurchasing land and selling its own land at the same time. There may have been a time in the history of the colony when to sell land was necessary, but that time has gone by years ago, and should have ceased immediately the first estate was purchased. We look upon the proposal to obtain the freehold as one of the most natural requests for a greedy, grasping individual to make. I am pleased, however, to see that the officials of the Farmers' Union disclaim all connection with having originated the petition for presentation to the House to secure the freehold, and we trust that the originator of so impudent and so dishonest a proposal will never be discovered, for the sake of his good name and the reputation of any family he may leave. Such an one's name deserves to be handed down with those enemies of the race who have been found in all ages to set their own selfish purposes against the good of the people —the Jabez Balfours, the Whittaker Wrights, and that class of individual —only he has not the same excuse that these notorious individuals had, seeing that his share and the share of the five hundred who signed the petition must be small in comparison with what these worthies receive. The sum of £864,975 which they propose to steal from the community should not compensate them for the loss of their good name. As a reason for urging that no further Crown lands be sold, I submit the following facts: — "When constitutional government was established in Canterbury the Provincial Government took over the property of the Canterbury Association, including the town reserves of Christchurch and Hagley Park, the total area of these two being 897 acres, which, five years previously, had been considered of the value of .£2,700. The association had got into debt to the extent of nearly £29,000, which the Provincial Government paid with money raised on debentures, and proceeded to sell the reserves situated inside the belts. To prevent anj' misunderstanding as to the then estimated value of these town reserves, it is desirable to state that for the £29,000 mentioned the association transferred to the Provincial Government all the property it possessed in Canterbury, which included other reserves than those in Christchurch, also plant, tools, survey-maps and fieldbooks, which must have been value for a considerable portion of the sum named. " By the deed-poll of the association these lands were to be held in trust for the purposes for which they were reserved, but a special Act of the Assembly was obtained to permit of their alienation. It has been truly said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It is equally true with regard to reserves of land made for the benefit of the public; the people (every individual) should be ever on guard and watchful that no tampering with public reserves be allowed. " At the present day it is particularly interesting to consider what would now be the position of Christchurch if the reserves inside the belts had not been sold. What income would now be derivable therefrom? Excluding 12 acres which were set apart by the Provincial Council as endowments for various religious bodies, the frontages of the reserves on the main streets of the city, as originally laid out in the extensions of these streets to the belts, amount to about 92,400 ft., after deducting 1J chains at each corner to avoid reckoning double frontages at corners. At 4s. per foot the rental would be £18,480; at ss. per foot frontage it would be £23,100. Bearing in mind that more than half the frontages have a depth of 5| chains, it is estimated that if these lands were now let on building leases they would average a return of not less than 4s. per foot, possibly more, and it is probably safe to say that the income therefrom would be £20,000 a year. " The statement of accounts of the City Treasurer shows that for the year ending the 31st March, 1901, the rates assessed amounted to £28,526 : General rate (omitting shillings and pence), £13,680; special drainage rate, £1,983; charitable institutions, £1,370; Waimakariri, £686; district drainage, £10,807: total £28,526, obtained by a total assessment of 2s. 7Jd. in the pound, whereas had the town reserves not been alienated all the municipal services rendered would probably have been obtained for a modest rate of less than 9d. in the pound. " This is surely an object lesson which should be laid to heart by every inhabitant of the colony, as well as by the citizens of Christchurch, and should demonstrate how very desirable it is in the interests of the people as a community that all land should be owned by the community, seeing that increased values of land are derived from the exertions and sacrifices o'f society. It will serve to show what enormous sums society thus pays to individuals to state that it is estimated that the value of land in London is increasing at the rate of seven millions and a half annually; under the system of private ownership of land this large sum is accruing yearly in London alone to private individuals, and the public who must use the land necessarily pay interest on that sum. " The Progressive Liberal Association earnestly commends these facts to the consideration of the people of New Zealand in the hope that they will insist upon a stoppage being put to the sale of Crown lands; and as regards the granting of leases in perpetuity, which, in parting with the possession for 999 years at a rental based on present value, hands over to individuals the unearned increment for that'unconscionably long period, it is hoped that a mandate will go forth from the electors of the colony insisting upon a periodical revaluation of the unimproved value. When these have been accomplished there will be the question of the nationalisation of all the lands in the colony to be dealt with. " That which was created for the use of all, the use of which is absolutely necessary for the existence of every individual, should be owned and controlled for the benefit of all. The private control of land is dead against the common welfare. That which is against the common welfare must be removed for the common welfare. Justice demands this, and what justice demands must sooner or later be conceded." I have a few instances of the enormous increase in value in specific town properties which may be relevant to your Commission. What, is known as Garrick and Cowlishaw's estate consists of Town Sections 843 and 845, situated in Hereford Street and Colombo Street. I am informed this land was purchased in 1874 for £5,000, and the present unimproved value is
C.—4,
520
i.T. A. MOCUILOUGH.
£33,000. There is another estate —Watson's —on which Black, Beattie, and Co.'s buildings and Strange and Co.'s buildings are now erected, and with a frontage to High Street up to and including Ashby, Berg, and Co. It was bought between thirty-five and forty years ago for £560 by Mr. Robert Watson, who was a working tailor. The total unimproved value of these sections now is £34,200. The widow, son, and daughters of the late Mr. Watson are now living in Bath, England, on the rents received from the estate. Every one of the buildings erected on this property have been erected not by the owner of the land, but by the persons who are now leasing the land. They are paying rent now to the heirs of the lucky individual who paid £560 for the land thirty-five years ago. Then, there is the Triangle, Christchurch, which was bought at public auction on Wednesday, the 16th April, 1850, by Mrs. A. M. Buchanan and a Major Bulkeley at the upset price of £24 and £12 respectively. Mrs Buchanan bought two quarter-acre sections and Major Bulkeley a quarter-acre. Mr. W. Wilson bought Mrs. Buchanan's half-acre section some years after at, I understand, £65. The unimproved value of that property is now £36,950, and the unimproved value of the total block, including Major Bulkeley's quarter-acre, is £47,450. Major Bulkeley or his heirs are and have been receiving rent from this property. Nearly all the buildings have been erected by the tenants. Major Bulkeley also owned Town Section 844, in Cashel Street and Colombo Street, which is now valued at £24,045. Some of the buildings on this section were erected by Mr. J. D. Fisher, but I am not sure whether the whole of the buildings were erected by the tenants. I have got the increased values of land in Linwood, Sydenham, Ashburton, and Christchurch. The unimproved value of Linwood in 1898 was £171,361, and in 1904, £237,991, the increase being £66,630; in Sydenham in 1898 the unimproved value was £288,514, and in 1904, £331,993, the increase being £43,479; in Ashburton Borough the unimproved value in 1897 was £86,328, and in 1904, £177,795, the increase being £91,467; and the City of Christchurch, within the belts and including Richmond, the unimproved value in 1897 was £1,520,017, and in 1903, £2,167,755, the increase being £647,738. I know of a sale of land which has taken place at the back of my own home within recent years, which I think strikingly illustrates the increase in values in suburban land. It is in the Riccarton district. Some 50 acres of land there were sold nine years ago at £120 per acre, in quarter-acre sections, or at the rate of £32 10s. per quarter-acre section. Now you cannot buy any of the quarter-acre sections, which are being held for speculative purposes, for £90, or at the rate of £360 per acre. In the Spreydon district, which adjoins Riccarton, Lord Lyttelton in 1857 bought 700 acres of land, and gave £3 per acre for it. It is now valued at £150 per acre. A man named Roberts bought 12 acres of this estate about seven years ago at £60 per acre, and he is now selling it at £70 per quarteracre, or at the rate of £280 per acre. In the Halswell district, which is a purely farming district in the vicinity of Christchurch, a relative of my own in the early days bought land at £3 per acre from the Canterbury Association. I understand he had a town section thrown in, which he still holds. He sold 11 acres of this land a few years ago at £45 per acre, having done nothing in the way of improving it except to plough the tussocks and take out a few nigger-heads and that sort of stuff, which are usually found on swamp land. He did nothing in the way of artificial drainage. The land all round that vicinity, which was bought at the same price, is being rented at from £2 ss. to £2 10s. per acre for farming purposes on short leases. I would like to give just one case of household property increasing in value, to illustrate how rents affect the worker. The house next to the one lam living in was let some five years ago by the owner at ss. a week. It is now being let at Bs. per week, and nothing has been spent in any way on the place to improve it, except that, I think, the house has been given one external coat of paint. It was sold some five years ago for £90, and within six months it has been resold at £145. I mention that case because I know the facts are as stated, and the position comes home to me because it is next door to my own place. Ido not know that lamin a position to review in any way the statement that leaseholders are not working under better conditions than freeholders; but I would like to state that a relative of my own bought some land some time ago and paid a good price for it. If I may state the particulars, he bought 1,280 acres, and paid £4 ss. per acre. He thought he had got a "-nibble " ; but, unfortunately, he got into the hands of the land-sharks, and they bled him for the savings of twenty-five years, and sent him off that farm a ruined man. That was a freehold farm, and I mention the case because this man was my own relative, and the position has been brought home to me. I know that is a sample of dozens of other cases. He placed the savings of a lifetime in the farm and mortgaged his farm to one of the land companies, and, being unable to keep up his interest, they foreclosed within three years after bad seasons. As against that, I have another relative on the Cheviot Estate, who went there with practically no capital. He is the holder of 450 acres, I think, and now he is looking for the freehold and a bigger place, if he can get it, in which to invest the surplus capital he now possesses. I mention this as it has come under my own notice to show that the advantages are not, as is supposed, all on the side of the freehold. I have practically no other evidence to adduce. Some facts were put in my hands with reference to the large increase in value of land on the Port Hills. This land was bought some seven years ago for £16 10s. per acre —anybody in Christchurch can tell you who bought this land and who owns it —and it is now being sold at £250 per quarter-acre. The unearned increment is of such a character that they can sell that land at the rate of £1,000 per acre. Land in Linwood bought for £50 within the last six years is being sold now at an advance of £300 per cent. The evidence I have given is with a view of urging, if I can, on this Commission and the Government the advisability of stopping the further sale of Crown lands. When I show that land has increased and is increasing, and will, I believe, continue to increase in value, I believe that the time has arrived when the further sale of the Crown lands of the colony should immediately cease. We have advocated this for the last fourteen years, and, of course, up to the present there has been no result; but I trust that the efforts of this Commission will be in the direction of at least preventing the further sale of the Crown lands of the colony. I think that will be in accordance with the spirit of the age. The Legislature of the Australian Commonwealth have legislated in that U
521
C—4.
J. A. MCCULLOUGH.]
direction. They say that the land in the vicinity of the Federal capital site, wherever it is fixed, shall not be alienated from the State, and I think we ought to have at least as much wisdom in New Zealand as they have in Australia, and that we ought to say that the lands still remaining in the hands of the Crown shall not be alienated for ever, but that the people who own no land shall have, as far as possible, the unearned increment which will accrue to that land. 4. You have adduced some very striking examples of the rise in value of city and suburban lands, and, to a much lesser degree, of rural lands, and 1 have no doubt your statements are accurate; but, I would like to ask, have you had any experience of what I might call the pioneering work of the colony—that is to say, of going into the back country and tackling, say, 100 acres of bush or rough land, and bringing it into cultivation and into productiveness? —No. I have gone there for fun and to shoot pigs. 5. Do you think it would be likely, if your ideas were given full effect to, especially in regard to the back blocks, that people would go into these wildernesses and hew out homes for themselves unless they get the very best, title to satisfy them? —Oh, yes; I think so. Land is a necessity, and from that point of view when the necessity arose I think the land would be taken up. 6. Just put yourself in the place of one who felt the necessity of going into this country —of one who did not see any good way to prosper in the town, and resolved to be a settler : do you think that you yourself, if placed in that position, would be likely to tackle this rough country I speak of with the same zest and enthusiasm if you knew you would only get a lease of it, and that what is called the "unearned increment" would go to the State, either during your life or the life of your children, as you would if you knew you could get the very best title that is on the statute-books, which is generally conceded to be the freehold ?- Of course, being a selfish animal, I would naturally do the best I ccruld for myself and my children. But, in this case, it seems to me we have to legislate not for the individual but for the community. I mean to say I would certainly as a selfish man prefer the freehold —it seems to me only natural that I should do that — but I think we have a right to legislate for the whole community, and not for the individual. 7. But the community is composed of individuals? —Yes. 8. So that what is good for the individual is also good for the community? —Not necessarily so. I think legislation may be enacted which would favour individual members of the community and act certainly against the best interests of the bulk of the community. 9. But, in the case I pointed out to you, do you not think that the interests of your family would be better conserved by the freehold than in any other way? —Of course, I do. I am prepared to admit that. 10. Mr. McCutchan.] You represent three thousand five hundred affiliated members of the Trades and Labour Council? I am representing the Trades and Labour Council to which these three thousand five hundred are affiliated. 11. Are these members all over the colony? —No; in the Canterbury Industrial District. 12. Have you been appointed to come before the Commission to-day to represent the Council, or have you come here on your own motion ? —I have been appointed by the Trades and Labour Council to represent them. 13. Are the opinions you have expressed your own individual opinions? —No; I think I am expressing the opinions of the Trades and Labour Council which have been expressed time after time by resolution. 14. In driving round Christchurch yesterday we saw a number of workmen's homes: do you think that system should be extended? —Yes, and improved. 15. Do you think money should be advanced by the State to help them to put up buildings as has been done in cases close to Christchurch? —Most emphatically I do, and I think better buildings should be insisted upon. IG. Do you think that the system of giving 999-years leases should cease? —Yes, as it exists as present. 17. Do you think it should continue, provided there is periodical revaluation? —Yes. -IS. Do you think if this system is carried into general operation all over the colony that it will continue? Do you not think that the selfishness of which you spoke and which has been exemplified in your own case when you spoke of what you would do yourself, will by-and-by when all these leaseholders have sufficient weight in the colony, cause them to rise up and demand the freehold, and that we will find ourselves in the same position as we were before? —I cannot say what will happen in the future, but I think there will always be sufficient patriotism, anyway, to prevent so unpatriotic a thing. That is my opinion. 19. A great number of thinkers all over the world are of opinion that the freehold is at the foundation of patriotism ? —I do not think the people who die for their country have much freehold. 20. You are of opinion that the right of the State should be safeguarded in regard to the future increase of land-value, by assessing the value to-day and giving the State the right by legislation to acquire the freehold of these lands, even fifty years hence, at to-day's valuation?— I 'would press that upon the Legislature as being a solution of the difficulty without doing any injustice to the present holders. 21. Then, you would confiscate all the value given to these lands by the expenditure which has been made by the people in occupation in providing facilities ?—I would confiscate nothing. 22. But, under your idea it must be confiscated, because you would take the land at to-day's value?- -I would impress upon Parliament the necessity of legislating in the direction of taking the lands of the cclony at the present-day valuation at any future time when it was necessary to take the land. I do not think there is any confiscation in that, or anything approaching confiscation. 23. During the past few years the public bodies of the colony have spent ,£8,000,000 m improving their facilities and we are progressing very fast, and probably a much larger sum
66—C. 4.
C—4.
522
!j. A. McCULLOUGH.
would be spent in the future; that money is provided solely by the men in possession of the land, and the system you advocate would confiscate the increased value arising from that expenditure: do you think that is equitable? —I do not agree with your terms to start with. Ido not believe that people on the land did provide the £8,000,000. I believe the people who have no lands provided that money. 24. How do you work that out? —It appears to me they are taxed in the same way as the holders of land through the Customs duty in regard to almost everything they consume. 25. You are speaking, I presume, of the General Government works, such as railways and roads, for which, of course, I know the Government provide the money ; but I am speaking of the liabilities shouldered by the settlers on the land in the way of loans and rates, and so on, independent altogether of Government grants: do you not think the value produced by the settlers' own enterprise in raising money for public works and taxing themselves heavily in the way of rates, also the additional value arising from the money spent, in putting up dairy factories and freezing-works, and so on, should be conserved to the settlers, as it is due altogether to their own enterprise? —Anything that is created by the efforts of the individual I would give to that individual, but what has been created by the community belongs of right to the community. 26. Then, we get to this position: that the local bodies of the colony have spent some millions in these works of which I speak. You would qualify your statement in so far as the improvement effected by the increased facility produced by that expenditure? —I do not know that I quite understand the question. Ido not wish to give a reply that Ido not thoroughly understand. I think the statement I make is explicit—that I would not take from any individual what that individual had created of his own effort, but what has been created by collective effort I think belongs by right to the community which created it. 27. You qualify your statement that the State should have the right to fix a valuation to-day, and have the further right at any time in the future to acquire any laud that they wanted on this valuation? —No, I do not qualify that statement. 28. You are faced, then, by the other position, that you would confiscate that value which was placed on the land in so far as that value was made by efforts outside of Government grants ?— I fail to see where confiscation comes in. All that we or that any person would advocate would be to acquire the unearned increment —that is, the natural increase which has been made by collective effort, by the community's effort, not by individual labour. 29. I am afraid your idea of unearned increment is very vague. It has been very clearly defined by you that the man in occupation should have simply the value of his own improvements, and that all the rest belongs to the State. But a large amount of such increment, you must see, is produced by expenditure outside the fences of the man in occupation of the land. Last year two millions were spent on roads outside the fences. That was a liability taken by the settlers, and therefore it would seem that they were entitled to the value produced by that expenditure. I am just giving you an opportunity to qualify your statement ?- -I do not think there is any necessity for it. Tdo not think my statement requires any qualification. I cannot make it any clearer than I have done, that T would not confiscate nor take from any individual what that individual had created by his own effort, but what the community had created of right belonged to the community, and not to the individual. 30. With reference to revaluation: In the rural districts that you have passed through settlers have expressed a fear that your organizations in the town—the Trades and Labour Councils —will use every influence to make this revaluation retrospective. Can you, as the representative of these 3,500 members affiliated to your council, give that fear a denial, and say it is not the intention of your council to make it retrospective? —I could not deny it. 31. Can vou say it is the intention of your council to make it retrospective? —I cannot say that either. 32. Is it a matter you have not discussed? —It has not been discussed as to whether it should be retrospective. 33. Are you aware whether it has been discussed by any other Trades and Labour Councils in the colony?— Not that I am aware of. 34. You wish to illustrate the difference between leasehold and freehold, and you instance the case of two friends of your own who had gone upon the land. In one case the man put the earnings of a lifetime into a freehold, at £4 ss. per acre, and he lost it. Was it on account of adverse seasons or on account of the harshness of the institutions from which he borrowed money? —I suppose both combined to put him out on the road. 35. You do not substantiate your case very fully. Can you tell whether the amount charged for the money was more than the current rate of interest at the time? —No, I do not think it was. 36. If there was extortion it might be due to the influence of these institutions, but you did not state clearly that it was due to adverse seasons. Of course, if he got into trouble owing to the harshness of the seasons, your friend could not complain if the companies carried out the provisions of their deeds of mortgage? —It was a business transaction. 37. If there were adverse seasons, would not the leaseholder be subject to them the same as the freeholder? —I suppose he would. But the man with the mortgage had his interest to meet every six months, and failing to meet it he would be put off. 38. Would not the settler have his half-year's interest to meet? —Yes. .39. And are not many of these settlers under leasehold mortgaged and subject to the same conditions as your friend with the leasehold? —I suppose so. 40. With reference to the 540 acres your friend took up on Cheviot, on practicallv no capital, is it not the case that before any tenant is allowed to go in for these land-for-settlements lands he has to convince the Land Board that his financial position is such as will enable him to carry on? —That was not the case when Cheviot was settled. The regulations were not so strict then as now. 41. Tf your friend had no capital he would require to get it?—l do not say he had no capital,
J. A. McOULLOUGH
523
C—4.
but he had very little capital compared with the other relative who took the freehold and lost it. What I wished to emphasize was the fact that one relative had gone on to a freehold with £3,000 or £4,000 and the other had gone on with as many hundreds, and the one had succeeded and the other had failed. That is the difference there is between leasehold and freehold tenure. 42. Is it not the case generally throughout the colony that those practical men who knew what they were doing and who raised money on mortgage for the proper working of their places and for reproductive works are responsible to a large extent for the prosperity of the colony to-day? — I suppose it is so. I have known men who have succeeded when they paid 15 per cent, for money. 43. In speaking of the unearned increment in town and country lots you gave us a lot of figures, but in substantiating your case do you think it wise to quote extreme cases ? You made no mention of losses having occurred, and there have been a great many losses all over the colony: had you any reason for giving us extreme cases? —I have only given typical cases where land had increased in value. They were not exceptional. I suppose I could pick out dozens of cases of a similar character. 44. Did yiJu give a single case where a man had made a loss? —No. 45. I suppose you are aware that there is considerable antagonism and feeling between town and country residents over this question of land nationalisation that you advocate? —I think the antagonism is all on the one side. 46. On the side of the country settler? —That is my experience. 47. In dealing with a large question, and in speaking of the wish of the country settler to get absolute security of tenure and getting the land at the price at which it was originally taken up, there is a good deal to be said on both sides, as there is on all great questions. What I wish to ask you is: do you think you are justified, as the representative of the Trades and Labour Council, to characterise or liken a large section of your fellow-colonists to Jabez Balfour and men of that type, as you have done? —I think it was a good illustration. I think both are adopting the same course of fleecing the public. It was only in that connection I used it. 48. Mr. Anstey.~\ Do you think that a man who goes into the back blocks and takes up land, wasting twenty or thirty years of his life, bringing up a family without any conveniences, should go to gaol with Jabez Balfour because he gets £1 per acre profit on his section? —No. I say it is on a par with the dealings of those people. 49. You gave some very striking examples of the unearned increment which takes place in the cities: can you give any striking example of unearned increment taking place on any Crown lands that have been sold within recent years ? Crown lands now are only those that are very remote; there are practically no lands worth much in the hands of the Crown to-day? —I should not look for unearned increment until a population got on to the land. Immediately a population settled on the land or in the vicinity I would begin to look for the unearned increment, but not until. 50. Did you not say that the State should value all the lands now, with the right of resuming it at a future time at its present value? —Yes, I stated that. 51. Then, you are looking for the unearned increment now if you are going to secure it to the State? —Not on the Crown lands. 52. You said you would value all lands now, those sold and those not sold, with the right of the Crown to take them at any time in fifty years at the present value ? —The Crown has the Crown lands, and I did not include that in my statement. 53. A great many Crown lands have been bought under the right of purchase and are still Crown lands, because the purchases are not completed. You would value them to-day with the right to the Crown to resume them at any time? Do you think, failing good security, people would take up these back lands of the colony? —I think all the people would want would be security of tenure and the right to the product of their own labour. If that is assured to them, I think they will take up the land. I would. 54. Do you think there is any way in which you can secure to a tenant the full value of his improvements, and also the full value for his improvements outside the fences, except by giving him the freehold? —Yes. 55. The settlers in South Canterbury have found £80,000 for the building of enormous freezing-works, which, we are told, has increased the value of their lands £2 per acre: could you secure that to them under any Government valuation ? —Anybody might have found the money. 56. We are talking about what has been done, and that is only one work. You claim that the whole of the workers of the State should claim that, and not those who found the money? —I claim for the people the unearned increment which has not been made by individual eSort. 57. Is there anything to secure that to the tenant except by giving them the freehold? —I think the leasehold will secure that. I do not see any difference between the lease in perpetuity existing now and the freehold. As far as the tenure is concerned, the tenants under lease in perpetuity are better off than if they had their money invested in the land. 58. The question is how to secure to any tenant the value of his improvements: is there any way to do it except by giving the freehold? You are aware that a very large quantity of improvements are placed on land which depend entirely on their disappearance for their existence: how would you value improvements that have disappeared, such as the clearing of bush? —I cannot get hold of it. 59. You have shown instances of unearned increment in city and suburban land, and we have evidence that there is no chance of unearned increment in country lands ? —There can be no unearned increment where there are no settlers. The Crown land has no intrinsic value if there are no people wanting it, but immediately people want it and are prepared to lease it it becomes valuable, and becomes more and more valuable as the demand for it increases. 60. There are a large number of workmen's homes in the vicinity of Christchurch: can you say under what tenure they are held? —Lease in perpetuity.
[j. A. MCCULLCUGH.
C.—4.
524
61. Do you oppose altogether continuing that system? —Under the lease in perpetuity I would. 62. Would you propose, as the representative of the Trades and Labour Council, any alteration in the existing lease? —I would--revaluation. Jam quite clear and distinct that the State would be right in revaluing existing leases; but so far as the labour party in the colony is concerned, as 1 told Mr. McCutchan, they have have not discussed that aspect of it, and I am not in the position to say what their view is on the question. 63. What form of lease do you wish to introduce in the future?- A lease with a revaluation every twenty-one years, anyway. 64. What would the revaluation be on ?—On the unimproved value of the land. 65. At periods of twenty-one years?- Yes. 1 want to make it clear that the labour party have not made that pronouncement. That is my view lam giving you. My statements do not commit the party to anything except that we favour periodical revaluation. No period has been fixed. 66. Do you contend that all improvements belong to the tenant?--The improvements which the individual puts on the land should be his. 67. Do you think there should be a law passed securing to every tenant, public or private, the value of any improvements he makes?—l would give the individual who made the improvements the value of such improvements. 68. Did the Provincial Government take over from the Canterbury Association all its liabilities and also all its assets? —They did. 69. Can you tell me what happened when the General Government took over the provinces? Did they also take over the provincial liabilities and assets? —I think they did. 70. Would you be in favour of allowing workmen to acquire small freeholds for their homes instead of having the lease in perpetuity, say, quarter-acre sections? —I would not be in favour of giving them the freehold of land which was purchased under the Land for Settlements Act. 71. You would not propose, then, obtaining the freehold privately ?—You could not stop them while the present system exists. 72. Do you think workmen would be better off with freehold homes instead of having to pay rent? —A man with a freehold would be better off, of course, if it was a freehold, than if he were paying rent. 73. Do you know whether the parents of these children whom you mentioned as going to school without breakfast resided on freehold or leasehold?—No doubt they resided in tenement houses belonging to freeholders. I think the reason that they had to go to school without breakfast was that the landlord had a monopoly over the place where they lived. 74. The reason was that they had to pay a heavy rent?— Yes, to a freeholder. 75. If they had had the freehold the children would have got breakfsat? —I do not think so. 76. You spoke of large freehold properties in Christchurch, and mentioned Strange's: do you know whether they have any valuation for improvements at the end of their lease? —I am not ill a position to say, but I think not. 77. Mr. Hall.] Have you had any experience on the land? —A little. 78. Have you had any experience in reclaiming the waste lands of the country ?—No. 79. Assuming that your theory is right, and also assuming that the people would not take up the waste Crown lands of the country —I speak more of the North Island, where it is forest land, hilly and roadless, and away from civilisation —if the people will not take up the land under the theory vou advocate, what then?—l would like to try the theory, and then we would be in a position to say Low it would act. I think people will take up the land if you give security of tenure. It is not so much a case of giving the freehold as of giving the tenant security in his own improvements. ,iii 80. Do 1 understand you to say that the community at large are quite equal m what they do towards promoting prosperity and paying the indebtedness of the country, whether they live on the land or in the cities?— They pay very unequally just now, in my opinion. I think the worker pays more than his share. 81. The workers in the city?— The workers in the country, unfortunately, are worse off than those in the city. . 82. The Legislature can fix the rate of wages, they can impose protective tariffs on imported goods so as to favour the workers here, but can the Legislature in any way fix the value of products? If not, it must be a one-sided affair, must it not?-To our home consumer, of course, they could legislate to secure the value of the work. In the case of flour, there is a duty of £1 per ton, for the purpose of assisting the producer of flour in the colony. 83. Does it assist?— That is the object—to keep them up that much. 84. Can that take place while flour has an export value : the value of the chief products of the country and of the workers of the country and cities is governed by the foreign market?—l suppose the price of agricultural produce is governed by the price obtained in the Home or some other market. 85. Agricultural and pastoral produce? —Yes. 86. What other export have we got? —There are some manufactures exported. Coal and some woollen goods go to the other side. . j 87. That is infinitesimal compared to what is imported ?—Yes, we are mainly agricultural and pastoral producers, of course. < 88. The settler is paying 20 to 30 per cent, beyond the imported value of the goods he uses, and if you put much more upon the settler you will kill him and stop the settlement of the country, would vou not?—He is surviving very well during the last few years. 89* Do you remember Canterbury about thirty years ago, when every man's property went down about 50 per cent., and the towns went down with it?—l only remember it twenty-seven years ago. I had property that went down. 90. Does not that indicate that the prosperity of the city is dependent on the development and prosperity of the country? all admit that.
J. A. McCULLOUGH.J
525
C.—4.
91. If you aim a blow at that you aim a "blow at the State? —I think so. 92. Mr. Paul.] With reference to the imports and exports, is it not a fact that the wageearner plays a very large part in the export of mutton, for instance? —I should say he does. The worker in every industry, whether agricultural or pastoral, plays the most important part. 93. At all events, it seems that there is an interdependence between town and country? —1 think we all admit that we cannot exist one without the other. 94. You have shown us that there is a very large increase in the price of land; you have also been questioned as to the increment likely to come from the remaining Crown lands, and also that there is no possibility of any settlers going on to that land unless they get the freehold: do you think it is wise, in the interests of the State, to give them the freehold, or an equivalent —say, a long lease with no rent / - If there was any dearth of applicants for land, then the State could offer any inducement by way of helping them on to the land. I would be favourable to that —that is, with regard to the back blocks. 95. What modification would you like to see made in the land-tax? —1 would like to see the exemption taken out of the land-tax altogether. 96. You are satisfied with die working under the Land for Settlements Act in the city and suburban districts. Has it been carried far enough, or should it be extended? —1 certainly think there is a demand for suitable land in small holdings. 97. From your experience, are ail the suburban settlements a success in the surrounding district ? From my knowledge of the men on the land they are certainly eminently successful, and 1 think they ought to be encouraged. 98. Do you know at the present time that the amount advanced by the Government is any amount up to £50, provided the. holder of the land contributes £1 for £1 ? Do you think that amount should be increased?— 1 think it should be doubled, at least. 99. Supposing that the option was given holders under lease in perpetuity, do you think there is any danger of aggregation of estates ? —There is nothing in the world can stop it. 100. Do you think it is possible or workable to limit the ordinary freehold in area or value? —1 would not like to say that is impossible, but 1 think it is very improbable that it could be done. 101. In your experience as a town worker, has a rise in wages been followed by an increase in rent? —Invariably. 102. Can you tell us whether the labour party is favourable to the closer-settlement policy of the last few years?—-Yes, they are very strongly in favour of it; but they are certainly not strongly in favour of the lease in perpetuity as existing at present. We have as strong an objection to the lease in perpetuity without valuation as we have a predilection in favour of closer settlement. 103. You have told us of several buildings costing many thousands of pounds that have been built on leasehold land which leases do not provide for valuation for improvements: do you not think if that can be done in the city the settler at least can make reasonable improvements in the country, if he has a fairly long lease and his improvements were protected at the end of that lease? 1 see no reason why he should not, so long a» the value of the improvements are secured to him. The buildings 1 mentioned as Strange's will revert in twenty-one years to the owner of the land, and no doubt arrangements can be made with the settlers in the same way. 104. Do you know also, as a town worker, that the majority of workers must pay rent? Do you not think it is best, in the interests both of the worker and the State, that that rent should be paid direct to the Government?— There is no comparison between paying it over to the Government, who represent the community, and paying it over to the private landlord. 105. If revaluation were made retrospective would you compensate the man whose holding you revalued ? —I would be prepared to sacrifice something for the purpose of having these leases revalued. 106. It was suggested in a question put to you that you had brought out extreme cases of high land-values. You included one or two boroughs, including Ashburton. Do you not think that was a fair indication and not an extreme case? If you gave the whole of the land-values of a'borough in bulk, surely that was not an extreme case 2 —l deny that I gave extreme cases. 1 could produce cases where the increase has been greater than that. I wanted to show that sections were bought in the early days by an individual, who, to my knowledge, has never been in this country, and has never benefited the country, except that he sent out £24, and the sections have increased to £44,000 in value. 107. It has been represented to you that there is no unearned increment in the country. If that is so, I suppose you do not want to bring in a law to make it?—lt is not possible for us to manufacture an unearned increment. If there is no unearned increment, which I doubt, we do not want it. I think, however, I made it clear, that, in so far as Halswell farming lands are concerned, there is a decided unearned increment. 108. Do you think it possible to assess the value of improvements caused by felling bush?— There is nothing insuperable about it. It is only a matter of arrangement, which might easily be made by the settler and arbitrators. 109. It would require, in the first instance, a valuation to be made of the land in its wild state, and when the improvements were made it would require a further valuation to fully compensate the man for those improvements? —I should give full compensation for improvements made by the tenant. 110. You know, of course, that the remaining purely Crown land is not very valuable. The eyes have been picked out of it. 'Is there not just a possibility of native land being bought by the Crown and becoming Crown lands? —The labour party have that in view in advocating the cessation of selling Crown lands. They realise that there are only 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 acres, including native land, available, and we wish that to be reserved for all time in the same way as education and other endowments are reserved for specific purposes.
C—4.
526
I_J. A. HCCTJLLOUGH.
111. iou think it would be unwise to part with another acre of Crown land? —I think it would be suicidal policy to buy land and at the same time be selling it. 112. Mr. Forbes Has the labour party taken any action in the matter of a nominative system for the election of members to the Land Board? —We favour elective Boards, and, as far as I can gather, if the Boards were made elective we would favour more power being given to them with reference to cropping regulations. 113. Do you not think there is a trouble in connection with the franchise on which these Boards are to be elected2 —It is a trouble that we make ourselves by our cumbersome method of conducting elections. If we had a system similar to the American, where all the candidates can be elected on a certain day and on certain conditions, and all the candidates names are placed before the electors, and they can vote for whatever individual they like for any specific office. 114. Do you not think, as it is in the interests of the State, which is the largest factor in connection with this land, it would be wise that the State should have a majority on the Board, to see that their interests are conserved ? —lf by the State you mean the seven or eight men who conduct the Government of the country, lam not for that State control at all. I want the people to have the control. 115. The Crown tenants have asked for the right to elect a member to the Land Board: is that a right position? —It is absurd. 116. Being interested parties in an election, they would work the hardest to get their man on ?—Yes, and they might get concessions which they would have no right to get. 117. The ordinary man in the country does not take the same interest in land as Crown tenants would, and they would endeavour to secure members sympathetic to themselves, and who might be favourable to rent-reducti"On 2 —We would have to take that risk. It might be that way, but, personally, I am sure the labour party in the towns would be prepared to take the risk. 118. You have heard a good deal about the hardships that the settler has to put up with in going into the back blocks of this colony. You have heard about his " carving out a home in the wilderness." Does it not strike you that there is something wrong with the land laws of a colony that forces a man to go out into those places to make a living? —Yes. 119. Do you think that if we had not parted with the freehold of any of the land there would not be any necessity for men having to go to these back blocks for some time, at any rate? If the land was not held in large blocks there would be no necessity now. I think the cause arises from the fact of a monopoly in land. 120. If the State held the land of the colony, do you think there would be any necessity for any particular section of the community to make their own roads? —I think we would undertake to give them better roads than they can make themselves. 121. Do you think it possible if the State owned the land that the State would be able to erect these freezing factories themselves? —The position would be forced upon them just as they are forced to erect shops in which to make their railway engines and carriages. 122. Do you look upon the rebate to Crown tenants as having broken the contract between the Crown and the tenants? —Certainly, and it justifies me in taking the action I have in saying that 1 would have no compunction at all in breaking the lease, because it has already been broken. 1 may also say that that 10-per-cent. rebate went to tenants who did not require it—men who could pay the rent right up to the nail. 123. Does your Trades and Labour Council agitate for the extension of the workmen's-homes system around Christchurch ? —I am sorry to say we are not agitating to the same extent that we should, but there is a general desire to see these settlements extended. 124. You think these settlements are in the interests of the workmen? —Undoubtedly. I am in hopes that several settlers will come before this Commission and give their experience of the benefits that have accrued to them through the Government having provided these settlements. 125. Assuming that these are of such vital importance to the working-man, and the Trades and Labour Council are supposed to be looking after their interest, do you not think they should have -agitated more for the extension of the homes 1- I certainly think we have neglected our duty. 126. Is there not plenty of land that could be acquired? The Land Settlement Act prevents the compulsory acquisition of land in the town. Do you suggest that the Act should be amended so that it can be brought into operation in the suburbs of the city?- I see no reason why it should not be amended in that direction. 127. You are of opinion that these workmen's settlements have been a very great benefit to the people placed on them? —Certainly, because numbers of working-men have secured a home, which they otherwise would not have been able to do. 128. We hear a great deal about the increase of the wages of working-men. Do you think working-men are in a better position to-day than they were ten years ago? —No, I do not think they are in a better position now; but I think that immediately on his receiving the increased wages, say, six or eight years ago, he was in a better position; but that has been taken from him owing to "the increased high price of commodities and the increase in rent. I do not think the worker in the city is in a better position to-day than he was ten years ago. We are no better off now with our 10s. a day than we were before with our 9s. prior to the increase in rent and other commodities. 129. It has been said that the people of the colony affect in a very small degree the price of the produce in the colony: do you not think the high price of wheat is ruled by the shortness of the supply? —I think that wheat has increased in price because exportation has taken place. I think the other reason why bread has increased has been that we have had a "ring" buying wheat. 130. It is the consumer of wheat in the colony that affects the price?— Yes. 131. It is not the London market? —I do not think the London market affects to the extent some people tell us. It is the colonial market that is the most powerful factor.
J. A. McCULLOUGH/'
527
C—4.
132. Mr. Matheson.\ With regard to a lease, do you think if a landlord and a tenant both agree that it is impossible to amend a lease without breaking it ? —I do not think it can be amended without breaking it. 133. With regard to the rates the settlers have paid, do you think it would be more equitable if when a loan was raised for such a purpose the local people paid one-half and the consolidated revenue the other half ? Do you not think that would be more equitable than the present system under which the settlers pay the whole cost of the loan ? —I do not know the circumstances sufficiently to express an opinion. 134. If the State owned all the land would it stop the land increasing in value? —No. 135. Suppose the land was nationalised, would not the State tenants in the towns have to pay an equally increasing rent? —Of course they would. 136. If they did that why would they be better off than if they paid that equally increasing rent to a private man?- It seems to me very clear that paying the rent to an individual, if the rent is increased it must benefit that individual. 137. Do you think it would make a difference whether the increased rent was paid to the individual or to the State exchequer ?— -I think it would make a vast difference whether it went into the colony's exchequer or into the pocket of a private individual. 138. You spoke of the fearful overcrowding in cities: if it could be shown to you that by settling the people on the freehold it would make the producer more contented and the people more prosperous, would you approve of the freehold ? —I think that no man should have the right of acquiring the freehold of the land, and I do not think what you suggest would be in the best interests of the community. 139. Do you think that the giving of the freehold will make a settler more contented and make the land more productive?— It might make him more contented, but it could not possibly make his land more productive. 140. Do you think it is a correct statement that the prosperity of a State depends very largely on the contentment of its peasantry? —No, I do not think there is any truth in that. There are very few peasantry in England, and there is a great deal of prosperity {Here. 141. Do you think that the English statesmen are as wise as the Australian ones? —If I am forced to give an answer, I would say I do not think they are. 142. Are you aware that the latest land law in England allows the tenant, after paying fifty years' rent, to have the freehold of the land he dwells on ? —Yes, and I am also aware that that law was promoted to some extent by the private owners of land for th'eir own interest. 143. Are you aware that it has created a very desirable state of things in the Irish counties where it has been practised?—l am aware that it may have benefited the individuals who received the freehold, but it has not benefited Ireland or the State. 144. Mr. McCardle.] Are you aware that no private money-lender will lend money on the leasehold tenure as they are prepared to lend it on freehold ? —I am aware that they are not so willing to lend it. 145. In respect to people in the cities, you know that a man's only hope of getting a home is by taking advantage of a system which h .s been brought about by "the Government, and which I think could be made more perfect that it is—a system of workmen's villages and homes in the neighbourhood of cities: do you think that system should be encouraged ? —I think the Government should do what is right, but they should run no risks. 146. In the case of bush settlements, It is very difficult, if not impossible, to properly assess the amount of improvements put on the land ? —What I do say is that it would be possible to value the improvements. 147. Having lived thirty years amongst such people, I say it would be impossible for me to properly assess the value of the improvements? —I think it ought to be possible. 148. In respect to the constitution of Land Boards, do you not think it would be more reasonable if the Government appointed some one to represent the leaseholders and some one to represent the colony ?--If the Government did "as you say, nominate somebody to represent the leaseholders and somebody to represent the colony, that would be an improvement on the present method of appointment, but an elected Board would be an improvement even on the other suggestion. 149. You think that every freeholder should pay land-tax? —Yes. 150. Are you aware that hundreds of men are working in the bush, and are settlers there bringing up families, who are not making more than £50 a year, and yet they are paying through the Customs as much as the working-man in the town, who is earning from 7s. to 10s. a day! —I think the taxation of these settlers would be very light. Then, again, the enormous increase in the price of land in the centres makes the men in the towns pay more than the back-block settlers. We in the towns pay more for our homes than the back-block settlers. 151. Suppose you did away with the right of purchase in the back blocks, would you approve of the Government making advances on the value of the improvements ? —Yes : I would treat him in the same way as I am advocating the settler being treated under the village-settlements system. 152. Mr. Johnston.~\ Would you mind giving the name of the man who has accumulated the land on tfie Peninsula? Thacker. 153. Do you consider 3s. 2d. a bushel high for wheat? —I am really not in a position to say. 154. Do you know that the Americans send very littl" flour to this country directly it falls in price below paying point? —Yes. 155. So that the bread bill is not so very high for the worker? —We were paying 7d. a loaf before the Flour Trust burst, and we are only paying sd. a loaf now, and I do not know if the farmers are getting less for their wheat than they did before. 156. Mr. Amtey."] We have noticed that several of these workmen's sections have been joined together: can you say whether there was no demand for them? —I think I can explain it in this
[j. A. MCCULLOUGH.
C—4.
528
way: that the Government bought land which was hardly suitable, and which was in unsuitable localities. Where the land was acquired in suitable localities there are no sections now awaiting tenants. 157. If there were a number of other sections of land cut up for this purpose, do you think there would be a demand for them? —I think if they were of a suitable size, and if the land is of suitable quality, there would be a demand for them. 158. Supposing the land went down in value, would you give the individual the right to hand them over to the State at that lesser value? —I do not think I would give any individual an advantage over the community, otherwise the tendency would be to break down the land policy. On the other hand, I would not. give the State any undue advantage over the individual. 159. But you say if the price rises the State should take the land at its present value, and if the price falls the individual must bear the loss, and not the State? —I would make a bargain that would be equitable to both the individual and the State I would give the State the right to take the land within a specified time. 160. Say it was ten years when the State should take the land? —If the land rose in value the State would take it at that time, and if it fell in value the State would still take it 161. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the Americans would export more flour to New Zealand if the duty of £1 per ton were removed? —Yes. 162. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think men should have representation without taxation; in other words, you recognise that there is a principle that there should be no taxation without representation. Do you think the reverse is correct, that a man should get representation without taxation? —There is no one here who gets representation without taxation. 163. Your organization is advocating the extension of the parliamentary franchise to local bodies' election, are they not?— Yes. 164. In the back country districts, at any rate, there is sometimes a floating population that would take part in the election of County Councillors, and in their case there would be representation without taxation ?—They must live somewhere, and therefore they are subject to taxation. 165. But men who are simply camping in the district would have the right to participate in an election? —Even day labourers pay taxation. They are citizens of this country, and their " all " is in the country. 166. But we are speaking now of the taxation or rating of local bodies? —I do not think it is subversive of that principle. Although a man may not have a section of land in the vicinity he must live on the land, and therefore he should have the same rights as property. 167. Your argument is that as soon as he gets a home he pays taxation? —I would go further and say that every man twenty-one years of age should have the right to vote for County Councils, municipalities, and other local bodies. T think that should be done in justice to the individual, and I am sure that it would make a better man of him. 168. I will ask you to go a little further We will say there is an area of land, and the people there desire to raise a loan of, say, £2,000. They are entirely responsible for the interest and sinking fund of that loan, and they pay the colony 5 per cent, for twenty-six years in order to wipe out both interest and principal. In that case, the men who have no stake in the country —the floating population-—may vote for the loan, and as soon as the public works are done for which the loan has been raised, these workmen leave the comparatively few settlers who may be permanently settled on the land to bear the burden of the taxation, and to pay off the principal and interest? -We advocate giving them citizen:-.' rights. 169. Mr. Hall.] You said that if the £1 duty were removed from flour it would probably help the exporter to send flour here. In the same way I take it, if the duty on boots and shoes were removed, it would help the settler to get boots and shoes cheaper than at present ?—Probably. Christopher Matheson Hansen examined. 170. The Chairman.] What are you?- -I am a labourer. I have been twenty-two years in the colony, with the exception of four years on the Australian goldfields. I have always made the land question my principal study. Personally, I am a tenant of half an acre on working-men's homes on the Pawaho Hamlet. I consider that working-men are better off with a small lot on expensive lands. Most of this settlement is unsuitable for small lots ; nearly half of it is subject to flood. There is a, large area of suitable lands surrounding our settlement more adapted for that purpose. Ido not consider the loaded capital a great burden, but lam of opinion that it has not been evenly spread. As seen in the Land Beport, where the two Departments are set up together, the working-men's homes should have been classified from the original Department. As it now stands it is impossible to frame an estimation from each. I will now compare the position of two settlements side by side. The Pawaho Hamlet has an area of 50 acres, with a loaded capital of £387; the Hatuma Settlement has an area of 26,522 acres, with a loaded capital of £6,264. The Pawaho, with little or no expenses for road-making, has on every pound of purchase-money a loaded capital to the amount of 4s. 3d., or £7 Bs. lOd. per acre. The Hatuma Settlement, considering its large area, which involves a great deal more for road-making, has on every pound of purchase-money a loaded capital of ljd., or 4s. Bd. per acre. I believe in the administration laid down by Sir John McKenzie. So much has been said lately in favour of a periodical revaluation on Crown lease, when in reality it is the freehold that should be taxed to keep the land-values down to a point. That would allow a margin sufficient for the production of labour. Supposing that some day we should have to write down our land-values, with the adaption of a periodical revaluation, it stands to reason that the leases would then have to be revalued for less, and the rent would then have to be reduced accordingly. In that our present land reformers fail to notice the danger threatening the asset of the State. Those are the rocks ahead that we should steer clear of It is apparent that our land-values will have to be reduced by taxing it. Our position would have been different if this policy of our late Minister had been persisted in. To-day the
C. M. HANSEN.]
529
C.-4.
land monopoly is not only forcing labour into idleness, with material forces going to vast commodities, but rents are steadily increasing with the advancing land-values, the increase of population, the expenditure of public works, the briskness of trade resulting from the improvement from our closer-settlement system, and the buving-up of estates, which continually are booming the freehold in value far beyond the limits for the State to find it profitable to buy for closer settlement. Yet under our graduated land-tax all the best grazing country is practically exempted, while the leasehold is paying in loaded capital a tax fixed to stand or fall by the lease. I wish to propose three concessions in return for an effective and classified land-tax. I have had personal experience of the settlers' hardships in the back blocks. The proposal is to the advantage of the small settlers especially. First, a free postal delivery at least once a week, and goods not to exceed a hundredweight ; secondly, a universal old-age pension ; thirdly, compulsory registration of farm labourers. By a special Act, to sanction the current rate of wages; rules and conditions to assure a fair living. With such an Act there would be no scarcity of farm labourers, and the proposed emigration would be quite unnecessary With regard to the advances to settlers, lam of opinion that land-settlement and State banking should go hand-in-hand. I will quote Mr. Miles Yerall on banking authority. " The advance on the settler's improvements would be equally as good security as that on public works, with the'sole right of a State bank to issue bank-notes, the Advances to Settlers Office would then become a useful Department." I consider the present ballot system satisfactory, except where the applicants have been unsuccessful a concession should be granted of a permit from the Land Board to throw their ballots anywhere within the colony without their presence being required. The leaseholder, knowing that he has a chance in life, will work harder to make himself a home than auv_of the freehold proprietors would like to do under similar conditions, with all their boasted improvements left out. In view of nationalising our lands without borrowing, the three millions that lias been invested for the purchase of estates should be set aside, and the annual rents therefrom, which are now supporting the Consolidated Fund, could then be converted for buying up more lands. By styling the leasehold " the asset of the masses," the money devoted for that purpose will first have to be set free. Considering the bulk of our national debt, and the limited amount for the purchase of lands, this should not only be a right, but a just and equitable demand from a tax-burdened population. In this colony we have an area of fifteen million acres, one-tliird of its lands, which are suitable for closer settlement and the various systems of Crown lands in perpetuity. If that amount was converted to leasehold, say, at 3s. per acre, it would yield us an annual rental of £2,250,000, and periodical revaluation may then with safety be considered. All future grants of Crown lands should be abolished. I consider that the Land Report should be sold at cost price; 6s. 6d. for one is a luxury beyond the means of the working-class. No person can have a grasp of oiir land-tenures who has not studied the peculiar conditions of this colony. This volume itself is graphic and instructive. It is notable that the attitude of our local newspapers towards their correspondence on the land question has been far from encouraging. 1 would also bring to notice that the work written by Henry George, the greatest authority on the land question—" Progress and Poverty " has gone off the market, which indicates the little enthusiasm displayed. At this stage the country is prohibition sick, and nothing but the referendum will make it healthy and active. 170 a. Mr. Anstey.] What rent are you paying for Pawalio Hamlet? From 17s. 6d. to £2 10s. per acre. 171. What size are the sections ? —From I acre to 3 acres, which is the limit. 172. How far is it from Christchurch ? —Five miles. 173. Have all the sections been taken up?- Yes, recently. 174. How long ago was it when it was first cut up? —Six years ago. 175. And some of it was only taken up recently?- -Yes. 176. What is the reason? —The hill-side. 177. Is there any necessity for cutting up more land for that purpose? —There is a great demand for houses especially; the land is very much monopolized. During the time the settle-ment-has been in progress, and previous to that, even, you could buy freehold land in the neighbourhood for £40 an acre, and it has increased to £240 an acre on account of the increased population and the improvements effected in the neighbourhood. 178. Mr. Paiil.] Was this land suitable for the purpose? —It was unsuitable, because part of it is subject to floods. 179. You think if the land had been suitable there would have been no unoccupied sections? —That is so. 180. You think if suitable land is cut up for this purpose the principle can be extended with success?- -Yes, so near a seaport. There are hundreds of people inquiring for houses and proP er ty. 181. You do not think there is much possibility of a working-man getting a home when the freehold is at such a high price? —No; that is the only thing that prevents it. 182. This is the only method by which a labouring man can make a home for himself? —That is quite correct. 183. Mr. Matheson.] You say that the values have gone up to as much as six times what they were when the land was taken up I—Yes.1 —Yes. 184. Do you think if the Crown took up more land like this for homes the labourer could afford to pay six times as much rent as he is paying in this settlement? —I do not see how it is possible under the present system of government to carry out this policy to perfection. In the first place, we ought to have a State bank, and a State bank and land-settlement should go hand-in-hand. 185. Do you think it is unadvisable to cut up more land for this purpose under present conditions as to value and rent? —My remedy would be to tax the freehold. Unless you do that you might as well abolish the whole leasehold system.
67—C 4,
C—4.
530
[j. S. MYEBS.
John Scott Myers examined. 186. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a small farmer. I have 5£ acres of private leasehold at Marshlands, about five miles from Christchurch. 1 have been there nineteen years. 1 grow vegetables and root-crops mainly. 187. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I might say I have been on the land for twenty-two years altogether. lam a member of the executive of the Political Labour League, and I have been appointed by them to come here and give evidence in their interest. I consider it is the duty of the State to let every person on the land who has ability to go on it. lam not in favour of the Government selling any more land, for the reason that some twenty-two years ago I was on the back station, and 1 see that Mr. Murchison gave evidence at Methven that he and his family now hold possession of three stations. When I was there twentytwo years ago, for two years six stations were held by five different families. Now these six stations are owned by two families —the Geralds and Murchisons. There are thousands of acres of that land that would help scores of families. There is plenty of swamp land on Mount Aldrige, the station I was on. The question raised by Mr. Murchison was that if he was allowed a longer lease he could put up fences and increase the carrying-capacity of Glenthorne by four thousand sheep. The Glenthorne Station is the worst of the six stations in the gorge, and has less flat land, and the worst winter country of any of them. But there is plenty of room for any amount of honest struggling working-men to get on the land there. These people only pay rent to the Government up to the snow-line, and above the snow-line you will find thousands of acres of splendid summer country. 1 have been there, and I know all about it. On the flat there is splendid land which could be put into grass and made suitable for winter country. As it is these people simply hold a little of the best land as freehold in the centre of the country, and no other person therefore has a chance of getting on the land. If a man like myself, with a large family, was allowed to take up one of these small runs, and had not to pay the first six months' rent down and had money to stock it, 1 have no doubt but that he would be successful in farming one of these small stations. As it is now it is impossible to get on the land up there. In my district you will find any amount of land that was bought from the Government at £2 per acre thirty or forty years ago, at the present time is let out for cropping for one year at £4 per acre. Within a few chains of that land you will find a City Council and Drainage Board reserve of 800 acres, of a quality somewhat similar to Lake Ellesmere land, let for £50 per year, and there is only some 17 chains between the two. There is another City Council reserve, called Cha,ney's Corner Reserve, in my district, which is let at a very small rental. lam in favour of the Ranger being a practical farmer, for the reason that the cropping restrictions at the present time are too severe on some people who are holding small sections. Some of these small holdings are nothing more than a matter of starvation to the lessees. They can just exist and nothing more. If the Ranger was a thoroughly qualified farmer, with a knowledge of what the land is capable of producing, he could give advice to many of these people, and that would be much better than restricting them in the matter of the crops. My landlord allows me to take off as many crops as I like, and I often take two crops in the year. In some years I have taken off my land as much as would be taken off half a dozen Government sections. He does not interfere with me, because he knows I know it is impossible unless I put some material in the land to grow it. I say the man who holds the land knows best what the land can produce and what is best for the land. In regard to the back blocks, I know people who have been struggling on the back blocks for years. I hold that the Government should allow any person with a large family, who has ability to go on the land, to go on the land rent-free for twelve months, on condition he can prove to the Land Board he has sufficient money to stock and improve his place. I think most landowners allow their tenants to do that. That would enable many people to go on the land. I know people round my way and about Kaiapoi who have sold out and have got £1,000 or so, and who want to go on the land. I believe the land-settlement of the Government was intended to put people with sinew and muscle on the land in order to give them a start in life, and, so far as I can see, these are the men who are kept oft the land, because every time they put their application in they are told they are ineligible because they cannot pay the first twelve months' rent. I think a good many people who go from the city on to the land want advioe, and I believe a good practical Ranger would be of assistance in giving them that advice. Otherwise they have sometimes to pay very dearly for the experience they gain. In regard to the question of Californian thisfle, I think it is impossible to get rid of this noxious weed under the present cropping restrictions, because the only way to get rid of the thistle is by constantly cutting them. In my district the place is fairly alive with thistles, and I reckon it is the duty of the Rangers to see that people are not allowed to let these weeds spread. I think the Rangers should understand the best methods of dealing with noxious weeds. Reverting to the land question again, I find, oh looking about the Canterbury District, there is not an acre of land to be got in my direction, and I believe there are hundreds and hundreds of men who would only be too glad to get a place suitable to live on. They have succeeded in living on small holdings of 8 or 9 acres, and they have enough capital now to help them on something bigger. I think the only thing to be done in regard to this matter is to recommend the Government to put these people on the land on the easiest possible terms. 188. Mr. Anstey.\ Hew long were you on the runs?—l was two years and a half continuously on Aldridge. 189. Have you been on Mr; Murchison's runs?—l have been on them, but I have not been working on them. 190. Have you been there sufficiently long to be able to form a definite opinion as to whether these runs could be cut up into smaller areas? —I have not the lease doubt but that if Aldridge Station was cut up two or three families could live on it comfortably.
J. S. MYERS.]
531
C.—4.
191. lam speaking of the three runs mentioned by Mr. Murchison? —I think that Acheron might be cut into two. 192. What number of sheep do you think a run should carry in order to enable a man to make a reasonable living?- I should say about six thousand sheep, as the runs are. I should say if a person had six thousand sheep 011 some of the runs he could make a comfortable living. 1 know a shepherd on a station further back who lias made a comfortable living in that way. 193. When you said that private land was let at £4 per acre and a reserve near by of 800 acres was let for £50 per annum, did you mean us to infer that the reserve is similar quality land?—Oh, no. It is very poor land—nothing but sand and manuka, which could not be improved. My reason for mentioning it was to show that the reserves near the City of Christchurch are really of no quality at all. 194. Mr. Paul.] Would you do away with the cropping restrictions altogether? —Yes. I do not think any person should be restricted from making the best possible use of the land. 195. Is it not a fact that a certain proportion of unpractical men get on the land under the land-for-settlements policy, and if there were no restrictions do you not think there might be very serious consequences from the point of view of the State? —Under the present system it would be so, but if we do as I advocate, and the Ranger is a thoroughly practical farmer, he could advise the tenants as to what would be best for the land. 196. Of course, you know that land can be utterly ruined by incompetent farming? —You can never ruin land by cropping it. I say that if you do not put enough into the land to make it produce a crop it will not produce it. 197. Have these workmen's-home settlements come under your notice? —I have been on some of them, and I must admit the sections of the one 011 the Papanui Road were too small for a man to make a living on them. 198. What are the areas? —About 4 or 5 acres. 199. Do not the men work outside as well? —When they can get it. If they could get constant employment the sections would answer the purpose. 200. Do you not think the area must be kept small in proximity to the city, otherwise the rents will be prohibitive?- If the land was fairly good it would pay more rent, but that land is only sliingle-bed. It is unsuitable land for the purpose. 201. Mr. Matheson.~\ Do you consider that a man living and working on Glenthorn, like Mr. Murchison, is not an honest working-man 1 I knew him as a bit of a boy, but I do not know what he is like now. I know the man living 011 the place never had much work to do; they got other people to do it for them. Thomas Henry Overton examined. 202. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a pastoral tenant, and I hold a lease at Rockwood. I hold it in company with my cousin, who gave evidence at Methven. 203. Do you indorse all he said? Yes. He spoke of the want, of improvements on the run, and I think he told you pretty well the facts of the case. 204. Is there anything you wish to add 1 I would like to state that there was a lot of gorse on some coal leases up there, and it lias been allowed to spread by the previous tenants, and we are willing to clear it if we can get a longer lease. We comply with the regulations now, and keep it from spreading, but under present circumstances you could not expect us to clear it. There are gorse fences 011 each side of the property to the extent of two or three miles, and half a chain from the fence is a mass of solid gorse, and there are bushes scattered everywhere over the place. There is a certain amount of briar as well. There are no buildings or yards at all on the run, and we do not care to put up buildings under the short lease we hold. We have to depend on our neighbours for shearing. I think if we were allowed a further lease and if we spent £200 or £300 in the way of a shed and yards that expenditure would not block anybody else from going in for the property, and it would be a benefit to ourselves and to the Government. In regard to the remarks of the last witness about cutting up the large properties, I do not think the country is really fit for it. A petition was got up in our district to cut up our place, but it was knocked on "the head. There is nothing in it. The winter was severe up there. In the last two years we had about 2 ft. of snow. We now carry about four thousand sheep. Last year we had to buy two thousand to stock up, and this year we had to buy five hundred. On a small place like ours it takes the two of us all our time to get along. We can scrape along on four thousand sheep. 205. Mr. McCutchan.] What extension of lease would you expect in consideration of clearing the gorse and the briar?— The longer we could get the better it would be for us. We would be satisfied with a seven-years lease. 206. Do you think these holdings should be let for a term of years with periodical revaluation, so as to give the tenants a greater interest in them? —I think that is only fair. 207. How would you assess the rental to be paid at the beginning of the new term?— That would be really.in the hands of the Ranger. 208. If you were allowed compensation for your improvements would you be willing to have the place put up to auction? —That is what we object to, because it means we might get the place into fair order and somebody comes along who does not know the country, but sees a bit of the improved land, and outbids us. That does not give one much encouragement to put on improvements. 209. If you were given a long lease with a clause providing for periodical revaluation would you be prepared to have the valuation of your improvements fixed by arbitration, and not by the Rangers ? —Perhaps that would be the best idea. 210. Have you done anything in the way of surface-sowing? —Yes, about 50 acres. It has taken, but it has not been a great success. Of course, we have only been there two years, and have not had much chance to do anything. We sowed cocksfoot principally. 211. Are you satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Board? —Yes.
532
[T. H. OVEKTON.
C—4.
212. Do you think in a large district like Canterbury four men are sufficient to adequately represent each part of the district?- I think so, if they are practical men. 213. We heard complaints, especially in Central Otago, that there were men on the Land Board without local knowledge, and the suggestion has been made that each land district should be divided into wards, and a member nominated by the Government from each ward: do you think that would meet the difficulty? —Perhaps it would. 214. Mr. Johnston.] Has your father ever owned any of these runs? —No; he has always been a farmer on the plains. 215. In your opinion, Acheron and Lake Coleridge should not be cut up? —I do not think so. They are a good way from the market, and the winter is very severe. 216. Is the land as good as was described by the last witness? —I do not think so. It is nice sheep-country, but there is a lot of risk with it. 217. What is the size of your run? 6,100 acres, and we try to keep four thousand sheep on it. 218. You think it is fully stocked with four thousand ?—That is quite enough. 219. Mr. Anstey.] Suppose you had a secure tenure —the freehold, if you like —and you then cleared the gorse off the place and farmed it better, would that better farming enable you to carry more sheep? -Certainly, and we could carry our young sheep better. We could then grow some turnips. 220. Do you think that would apply generally to the runs in the high country?- If they had land on which to grow turnips it would. 221. Have you the right to cultivate ?—No. 1 may say we own 200 acres of freehold alongside our pastoral lease. 222. Have you any land suitable for cultivation? —Yes; 200 or 300 acres. 223. Is there any reason why-you should not be allowed to cultivate? —I do not know of any. 224. Can you give me any idea as to the number of sheep you think a run should carry in order to enable it to be worked economically and leave a fair living for the lessee? —We have to scrape along to make a living out of four thousand sheep. 225. I presume you would require a larger number of sheep further back? Certainly. The losses are heavier. Glenthorn, I believe, lost two thousand sheep this year. 226. I presume if most of the country was cut up into stations to carry from six thousand to eight thousand sheep they would be sufficiently large for a man to make a living?— Yes, a good living. If the Glenthorn people were able to get a long lease they would be able to fence off the high country, and then their losses would not be so heavy. 227. Do you think any of the runs are suitable for subdividing, providing the tenants got a good tenure?— Some of the larger runs might be cut up; but if some of the small people got heavy losses they could not stand them as well as the people who now hold the properties. 228. Is it not a fact that some of the large people do not lose at all, but the companies who support them lose? —I do not know about that. 229. Mr. Paul.] Have you had much experience of the back country?—! have been mustering ever since I left school, ten or eleven years ago. 230. Do you think the present state of your run is the result of an unsatisfactory lease?— Certainly; it has allowed the gorse and briar to spread. 231. How does that country compare with what it was fourteen years ago? —I do not think it is as good. Towards the end of a short lease the tenants take all they can get out of the place, and that does not do it any good. 232. Do you think if the tenants had a chance of leasing a run at a fair price, with full valuation for improvements, that state of things would continue to exist?—No, because it would be no benefit to the present holder to depreciate his property. 233. Mr. McCutchan.] The previous witness said that no rent was paid for land above the snow-line: is that correct?—l do not think any rent is paid for it, but lam not certain. It is a sort of no-man's landGeorge Albert Lassen examined. 234. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I hold 600 acres under lease in perpetuity at Green Park, about seventeen miles from Christchurch, on the border of Lake Ellesmere. I also hold 100 acres under temporary lease, and I pay Is. 3d. per acre rent for the lot. 235. How are you pleased with your holding?—l can very easily explain that I am very much dissatisfied with it. I have nothing to complain of about the land or the rent, because they are right enough ; but I think it is an absurd fraud for the Government to put people on to the land under the pretence that it is for 999 years lease, or a tenure as good as a freehold. I went to this Lake Ellesmere land with savings which I had earned by the sweat of my brow, and I have put that money on to the land and improved it to a great extent, and I say when a man has spent his hard earnings on his property and settled down it is nothing else but bare robbery to threaten him with revaluation. 236. Who has threatened you ?—The agitators in the towns. 237. Who is your landlord ?—The Government. 238. Have the Government ever threatened you?—No; but we do not know how soon they will. We people on the land can see it right before us. The agitators in the towns are in the majority, and they will have their way, and that their day is coming I feel sure. When revaluation comes along I may as well leave my property. Ido not think it is a fair thing at all. I think the leaseholder should have the option of acquiring the freehold of his place at any time and at all times. When I went on to this land it was practically useless. I have irrigated it with my earnings, and I have spent a lot of money in stocking the land and surface-sowing, and it now carries a fair quantity of sheep in the summer-time. The upset value of the land was £1 Bs. per acre, an'd if they come along to value the property with my improvements they will put three times that value on it. I have been there six years. The Government have taken the credit for putting the people
G. A. LASSEN.]
533
C.--4.
on the land there, but the Government simply will not spend a bit of money in helping the people to keep their homes on it. Every year the settlers are flooded out by Lake Ellesmere, but the Government will not spend one penny in helping the people to drain the lake. 239. The Government spent many thousands in draining the lake before you went there, and then they handed the work over to the County Council? —-Yes, and now they snap their fingers at the whole of the settlers since I have been on the lake. The culvert that has been put in is no good, because it has not been built at the proper level. If it had been built at the proper level it would'be successful in draining the lake and stopping the flooding of our land. 240. You have done very well on your farm, I think you said? —Yes, because I had the money, and spent it on the place. 241. It has paid you fairly well? —It has not paid me up to the present, because I have spent all my cash on the property. - 242. Supposing you have security of tenure, do you think it will pay you? —That depends a great deal on circumstances. With the present markets there is no doubt that it would pay if irrigation is continued. The salt rises from the bottom and requires to be kept down. There is no doubt when a man goes on the land he should have the option to acquire the freehold. 243. You took up this land knowing there was no option? —I did; but I thought that in time the leaseholders would get the option. 244. Mr. McGutchan.] Had you a feeling of insecurity when you took the land up? —No; 1 went in quite satisfied that the lease would not be broken. I have seen lots of things that have been done in past years, and have come to the conclusion that if we get a majority from the towns they can break our lease at any time. 245. You think the town members can put a Cabinet in office to bring that about? —It will not be their fault if they do not. 246. Is this desire for the freehold produced by the agitation from the towns? —I cannot say that I would be content all my life with the leasehold. When a man can afford it he likes to make his home his own. 247. Is the sense of insecurity that you speak of general among the settlers in your district? —Yes. 248. Were you sent here to speak for the other settlers? —No. A great many of them would like to come, but they are afraid to speak to their landlord. 249. They hesitate to give evidence before the Commission ?—Yes, a great many do. 250. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think it would be very wrong to break the conditions of your lease in the direction indicated, according to your statement, by the labour party? —I think it would be very wrong. 251. You think that a contract entered into like that should be sacred? —Yes. 252. Do you not think it would be equally wrong of you to ask the State to allow you to break the same contract which you hold so very sacred? —I cannot say lam wanting to break it. 253. You are asking the State to break it by giving you the freehold? —Yes. 254. Then, you come here and start an agitation on the other side: do you not think you are to blame? —No, I cannot see it. 255. Supposing you get the right to obtain the freehold, on what terms do you want it? —To pay off the land at the price at which I took it. 256. Do you think you would be a great deal better off if you had the freehold?—We would be a lot safer than if we had a revaluation. 257. It would be a better tenure than the freehold? —I would be able to spend more money on it. 258. You would not be willing to pay anything for that improvement? —I should think it would be hardly fair to ask a man to pay anything on his own capital that he has spent on the land. 259. Do you think any agitation from yourselves or the labour party to break the leases would be successful? I have not much faith in our own efforts, but I have with regard to the efforts of the labour party. 260. Do you not think if you got the freehold they might put on a thumping big land-tax?— I think if a man has the land he is able to pay a good big land-tax. 261. What cropping regulations are you under? —I do not know that lam under any. My land will not grow crops. It is all grazing land. At the same time, I think that when a man goes on to land with experience and capital he should have a free hand to crop to the best of his ability. The land will bring restrictions about of itself. A man cannot do much injury to the land by overcropping. 262. Mr. Paul.\ Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory? —Yes. 263. Has the Ranger ever harassed you 111 any way? —No. 264. What do you think would be the most valuable tenure —lease in perpetuity with the option of the freehold, or the lease in perpetuity without it? —The lease in perpetuity with the right of purchase should be the lease for the people who require it. In my opinion, the deferredpayment system was the best ever introduced. 265. You are not prepared to give anything extra for what you consider to be a more valuable form of lease? I would be prepared to pay 1 per cent. more. 266. Would you be willing to have your improvements conserved to you in the event of the option being giveu and the land put up by auction?-—I think the most satisfactory way would be to put the land up to auction, but the trouble is that the moneyed people might come in and take away the land from the smaller men. 267. You recognise it would be fair from the point of view of the State? —I should say so. 268. What have these agitators been saying with regard to revaulation? —They have not done much so far; but the members of Parliament for this city have been agitating for revaluation, and no doubt that agitation will increase year by year.
[G, A. LASSEN.
a—4.
534
269. Did those members advocate that that revaluation should be retrospective? Yes. 270. To apply to your leases?—To all the Government leases. 271. Do you think the principle of revaluation is sound? —No, I do not. I look upon it as a fraud. 272. In what way? —In every way. 273. You do not mean to suggest that your improvements would be revalued after a few years? —It would be my improvements, of course. What else would be revalued. 274. Has any case come under your notice where land has decreased in value? Yes >in the North Island; but that does not apply to Canterbury. 275. Would you favour reducing a man's rent if the land decreased in value? —Not if the land was all there as he took it up. 276. As a citizen, you would be prepared to charge him too high a rent for the land he was occupying? —No. 277. Supposing your view is correct, and some members of Parliament are advocating retrospective revaluation, do you blame them when another section is advocating the giving of the option of the freehold to the tenants? Both parties are anxious to break the lease, and is one more guilty of breach of contract than the other?— Yes. The freehold is the tenure of the people in New Zealand in general, and why should not the balance who have the money have the option of the freehold when they are prepared to pay for it. 278. What is the fear that tenants have of giving evidence before this Commission? —They think that if they give evidence and do not agree with the doings of the Government they will get into the Government's bad books. 279. Did you ever hear a tenant express fear about coming before this Commission? —I have in various ways. 280. In what way?—l have heard one or two say that they would not care to give evidence before the Land Commission because they were tenants, and I took it that they did not care to express their minds about wanting the freehold, and so on. 281. Would you give the names of those people?—l would not care to give the names. 282. Can you tell us definitely what they did say?—l have told you that they said they should not care to give evidence before the Commission, being Government tenants. 283. You know that a good many Government tenants have given evidence on both sides?— I do not see anything to be afraid of, personally. 284. You do not consider yourself a great deal braver than the rest of the tenants? —No. 285. Is there any reason why they should be afraid?—l do not know that there is any special reason. They think that the Ranger or some one else might keep some of them more up to the mark than they like. That is only my opinion, of course. 286. You know that the Ranger could not go outside his duties?- I understand that. 287! Mr. Forbes.] Has the land gone up in value since you went there?— Very little. 288. In the neighbourhood? Outside the lake boundary there is quite a different sort of land altogether. 289. How long have you been there? —Six years. 290 The produce of land, especially grazing land, has increased in value very much in the last five years: would that not affect the price of land?—lt would improve the value if the lake was well drained, and we could depend or carrying a certain number of stock all the year round. 291. Does your land get covered in water?— The biggest portion of it is under water in the winter-time. The lake will sometimes rise 2 ft. or more in a week. 292. What rent do you pay?- Is. 3d. per acre. 293 What do you carry in the way of sheep?—ln the winter-time we cannot carry any sheep, and in the summer-time we can sometimes carry one sheep to the acre and sometimes less, according to the seasons. „ T 294. Do you think Is. 3d. an acre is full value to-day?- I am quite sure it is. 295 Then, you must have given too much for it five years ago if it is only worth its rent now?—lt must be worth more than that, considering the amount of improvements I have put on. 296 When you went on that land did you know it was to be flooded half the year? I did not know the land at all. The Ranger told me that portions of the land were liable to floods, but I did not know to what extent. . 297. Would you be satisfied to buy the land in its present condition f I would be just as satisfied as I would be to pay rent all my life. 298 Does the Crown do anything for you at all? —ISot that I am aware ot. 299. Do they make you no"grants to help you to get rid of the water?- There was one grant of '<£1 500 two or three years ago when we raised a loan to drain the lake. The Selwyn County Council have managed the drainage-work and built the culvert 4 ft. 6 in. above the lake-level. 300 You do not think there is much chance of getting any more?— Not while the Selwyn County Council is in charge of the work. The settlers would be quite willing to pay their part of the'rates if the culvert were put in at the proper level. 301 Mr Matheson ] If time goes on well and the State retains the ireehold, the State has a better opportunity of getting a bigger income from it. If they converted the whole of the country into Government'leases and bad times come they run the liability of a heavy loss. Do you think that if they granted the tenants who wished it the right of the freehold the State would be doing an unwise thing, from a statesman's point of view?— They would be doing a very wise thing to give them the freehold. , • , { • 302 Wise from the citizen's'point of view? —It would be, from a farmer s point ot view. As a citizen do you think it would be wise for the State to grant the freehold ?—Yes.
C—4.
535
H. MANNING.
Harry Manning examined. 304. Mr. Chairman.] What are you? —I am a jobbing builder, and have a 2-acre lease-in-perpetuity section in the workmen's-homes settlement at Pawaho, for which 1 pay £1 lis. 6d. per acre per annum. 1 am a newcomer from the Old Country, and have only been here a little over four years, and, with the exception of a few weeks, my time has been put in on the workmen'shomes settlement. I think it is a great idea to give an opportunity to a man to acquire a home of his own, and if instituted in the Old Country would considerably ease things. There are a good many drawbacks which only reveal themselves to a man when he gets on the settlement. One condition is that a mail within twelve months has to put on improvements and a habitation of the value of £30. That strikes me as being a trifle ridiculous, for it would take £30 to build a cowshed. He is also informed that he will get assistance from the Government. When he gets on the section and spends what money he lias got on materials lie naturally expects that he will get the Government assistance. He applies to the Government after getting his house under way, and the Ranger comes and makes a report to the Land Board. The Land Board then informs the tenant that when he has finished the house they will give him the assistance. That prevents a man from building a proper house. It would be better if the Government advanced money to the settlers at the offset for their buildings, and charged a certain amount per annum for the advance. 1 think the Government should put up the house for the tenant and charge hiin a rate of interest which, say, in fourteen years would make the house his own. Some people with better opportunities of getting money are able to erect houses to the value of £200 or £300, whilst probably on the adjoining section there is a tenant simply fulfilling the conditions of lease by putting up a £30 house. Another drawback is that the £50 which a tenant can get from the Land Board he caif only get once. If he has had an advance, and pays it back, and at some future time requires another advance for a specific purpose he cannot get it through the Board, but has to go to the Land Settlement Office, which attaches a good many legal expenses to its loans. There are no expenses attached to the Land Board advances. There is room for improvement, too, in the method of valuing. It is impossible to expect a Ranger to be able to value improvements in land and also improvements in buildings. He always errs on the Government side. I put on a hundred pounds' worth of material, without counting labour at all, in addition to fruit-trees, pigstye, and cowshed, and applied for a loan, and the Ranger came down and valued everything at about £60. I came to the conclusion that the man was not practical. 305. What is your opinion with respect to the tenure, and especially as to the lease in perpetuity ? —I have been asked whether 1 am in favour of the tenants having the right of purchase, and I say emphatically Wo. Ido not think it is just that the tenants should get that advantage at the expense of the rest of the community. So far as lam concerned Ido not think the question of the freehold should be allowed to enter into the consideration of this question at all. As to revaluation, Ido anticipate that tenants should pay an extra rent upon the value given to their land to causes outside of their control. For instance, there is the increase in population and the greater demand for land. I take it that is what the labour agitators are aim'ing at, and I think it is very fair too. 306. Mr. McCutchan.\ Would you be satisfied to have your own lease revalued? —Yes, it is only fair. 307. Therefore if the labour unions desire to make the application of revaluation apply to existing leases you think that should be done ? —Yes. 308. Mr. Aiistey.] You suggest that the Government should go a step further and build houses, and let both houses and sections to the tenants?- I think it would be a wise thing from the standpoint of the Government and tenant. 309. Do you think there would be much risk in the Government undertaking that sort of thing? —I fail to see where there would be more risk than at present. 310. Mr. Paul.] Do you think if the amount were increased —the total amount is now £50 — if that were increased and the money was advanced before the buildings were erected that would meet your objections? —Yes, to a certain extent. I think it would be met by a fair valuation — not a ridiculous valuation —and also if the amount were increased which the Government granted. Fifty pounds is too little. It is of little or no assistance in the building of a house. 311. You mean to say that the Government by restricting the amount to £50 gives a premium for a man to build a poor house? —It is obvious that the man must build a poor house. 312. If (lie amount were double that would it not be more likely that good houses would be built I—Yes.1 —Yes. 313. Do you think the municipality would be able to deal with this question better than the Government? —Yes, but there is no reason why the Government should not introduce legislation dealing with workmen's homes. 314. Has this system been fairly successful around Christchurch ? —Yes, fairly successful; but there have been some failures. 315. What do you mean by failures?— My meaning is best expressed by what I have said, but I may add that on some sections houses have been put up at a cost of £200 or £300 alongside other houses which are not much better than cowsheds. 316. But in a city in the case of private enterprise do not you see the same sort of thing? — Yes, but we look for better things where the Government is concerned. 317. Mr. McCardle.\ You are well acquainted with the increased values and rents in cities? — Yes, fairly well. 318. I suppose you know of cases of deserving families who are destitute owing to the high rents they paid in the past? —Yes. 319. Do you not think it is the duty of the State to provide house-accommodation for these people? —Yes, I think it is the duty of the State to move in any direction in order to benefit the people. 320. Is it not very much in the hands of the working-men themselves how they will obtain these benefits? —Yes, I think so.
a—4.
536
[j. VAUGHAN.
McKenzie, Cheviot, Monday, 17th April, 1905. John Vaughan examined. 1. The Acting-Chairman (Mr. G. W. Forbes).] What are you? —I am a farmer on Cheviot. The area of my holding is 206 acres ; 106 acres is held under lease in perpetuity and 100 acres freehold. My rent is lis. 4d. per acre. I have no grievance, and things have been going on smoothly. I have looked over the various questions which the members of the Commission are asking witnesses, and I am not prepared to recommend any alteration in regard to the present state of things. 2. Mr. Anstey.\ Are you, generally speaking, satisfied with your present tenure —the lease in perpetuity? —Yes. .3. And you are satisfied as to your rent?--Yes, just as things are now. I used to feel that it was too high. I certainly felt it was high for some years, but as things now are 1 have no complaint to make. 4. Have your relations with the Land Board been satisfactory? —Yes; I have not had a single hitch during the eleven years I have been here. I have thought over the question of the constitution of the Land Board, and I think the present constitution of the Board should be retained. 5. Are the cropping conditions of your lease satisfactory?- There is one little matter in respect to which I found I have been violating the strict rule as laid down in our conditions — namely, by working the land for four years. lam advised that we are only permitted to keep working it for three years, and I have been working it for four years; but I claim that in doing so I have been improving the land. The course 1 have been pursuing has been this : turnips, oats, then early turnips and rape and wheat, and then down in grass. I do not take two graincrops in succession, but a root ffr rape crop, with manure at all times, and 1 hold I have been improving the land. I find, however, that I have been violating the conditions. 6. If you were restricted to two - white crops and were allowed to do as you liked in regard to green crops, that would be satisfactory ? —Yes; what 1 am doing at present is satisfactory. [ know all the settlers on Cheviot, and there is not a single one who would materially injure the land by unduly cropping it. 7. You are aware there must be be restrictions? —Yes. 8. You think that two white crops are sufficient to take out of the land? —Yes. 9. Mr. Paul.] You are one of the original settlers on Cheviot? —Yes. 10. Did you approve of the ballot system by which you got on the land? —Yes; I thought if was very satisfactory, and I think other settlers have come to the conclusion that it has worked satisfactorily. 11. That was the single ballot? Yes; and there was the further privilege that when we drew a section it could stand over until we had a chance of drawing one or more sections, but only getting one. If we drew one and then got another section the original section was allowed to remain in abeyance, so that we had a double or a treble chance. 12. Have you studied the grouping system? —Yes; I think that is absurd. 13. You think the original system under which the settlers secured land on Cheviot is better? -Yes; better for the settlers, although under the present system the balloting is completed more quickly. But, as far as the settlers are concerned, the grouping system is not satisfactory, and I think there is a universal condemnation of that system amongst the settlers here. 14. Has the value of land at Cheviot increased during the past eleven years? —Yes. 15. Have there been many changes —many new settlers who have bought in? —I could mention half a dozen new settlers, and there have been changes amongst ourselves. 16. Have these changes been generally to the advantage of the seller?--As things have been going lately, the changes have generally favoured the seller. Of course, we have had, to my mind, something like a boom lately in regard to prices. 17. And have the boom prices been paid by the incoming tenant? —I have felt that unduly high prices have been paid by the incoming tenants by their anxiety to get on the land. .18. Do you think that is in the interests of the settlers ?- -It is in the interests of the present holders, but I question whether it is wise in the case of fhe incoming tenants. Of course, if wool and mutton remain at their present prices the amounts which have been paid are not unduly high; but I think we ought to anticipate a decided drop presently. The present prices are abnormally high for breeding ewes and stock, and our past experience has shown that such abnormal prices do not remain long. 19. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes. 20. Has it been satisfactory? —Yes; I have had no friction with the Department. 21. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think the Government would be wise to allow more than two white crops in six years? —I do not think they would be wise to allow that. 22. If a tenant breaks the cropping regulations the only punishment at present is eviction. Suppose a harsh body of men came into power, and in the event of the cropping regulations being broken, do you think it would be wise that harsh punishments should be inflicted, or do you think that a fine might be imposed rather than eviction I—There1 —There has been no trouble with the tenants in regard to the cropping regulations, and that question has never arisen ; but in order to meet minor breaches of the regulations I should think it would be advisable to have some very much lighter punishment than the extreme punishment of eviction. 23. Supposing good times continue, and the tenants are able to save money, do you think the Government would be wise in letting them pay oft a part of the capital value and thus reduce the rent in the future? —I think it would be a good thing in the interests of the individual, but 1' think in the interests of the State the Government should retain the land In the interests of posterity. 24. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you not think it would be a wise thing in the interests of the State if the Government, in the case of land taken up under the Land for Settlements Act, were to value the
537
J. VAUGHAN.
0. 4.
land in this way: value the improvements made by the previous holder separately from the value of the unearned increment the incoming tenant to be allowed to pay off the amount of improvements as stated in the lease? I think the Government should not demand that the amount should be paid down in a lump sum. I do think, however, that what you suggest would be reasonable. 25. Do you know the feeling of your fellow-settlers with regard to the freehold and the leasehold? —I cannot say that lam conversant with the feeling of the majority, but my own feeling is this: that where they had the means it would be a very satisfactory investment of their money. 26. But, from a statesman's point of view, you think it would be a mistake ?--Yes. 27. This settlement has proved a very great success?- I think it is quite as successful as any settlement could reasonably be expected to be. Both pastoral tenants and agriculturalists had a pinch at first, but as things have been going lately it ought to be considered a success. 28. Are there some other large estates in the district that would be suitable for subdivision? —Yes. 29. Do you not think that in the interests of the State and of settlement those estates should be purchased for closer settlement as soon as possible?- Yes, as soon as they can be purchased at a fair price. I think that at present the price of land is abnormally high. There are very few owners who would be prepared to part with their land now at what would have been considered a fair value four years ago. 30. Do you think that revaluation of lease-iii-perpetuity land would be a fair thing? —In the interests of the State I should say Yes, but in the interests of the individual I say No. 31. You have expressed yourself pleased with the Advances to Settlers Department: would you go a step further and say thjit it would be a fair thing in the interests of the leaseholders and safe for the Government if the Government advanced up to three-fifths of the settler's interest in the land?—-I have hardly had sufficient experience to say whether that might be considered a commercially sound policy. In the event of land coming down in value the State might suffer if they did riot leave a good margin. 32. Mr. Johnston.\ You say you would not approve of a man paying off a portion of the capital value and thus reducing his rent? —I do not approve of it in the interests of the State. 33. Would you approve of the tenant depositing with the Government a sum of money and allowing the Government to draw the interest equal to the rent —that is to say, 4 or 5 per cent. ? —Is not that almost equal to depositing it in a bank or paying off the amount. I should say, however, that I can see no objection to it. 34. That is, so long as the tenant had a receipt for the amount, and the interest was allowed to be charged as interest against the rent?-—I think as a farmer is not allowed to seek outside investments under the present circumstances, the Land Board might arrange this matter in regard to investing his surplus savings, and they would naturally look to the land as a very sound and satisfactory investment. But, in the interests of the individual, I would go so far as to say that he might very reasonably be allowed to pay off a certain amount —say, equal to the improvements. Thomas George Gee examined. 35. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you? —I am a sheep-farmer, but I may state that I appear as spokesman on behalf of a number of holders of small grazing leases at Cheviot. I -may first say that I hold a lease-in-perpetuity section, and my brother holds the lease of a grazing-run, and I also represent him. In fact, I represent all the small-grazing-run holders at Cheviot. The area of my holding is 270 acres, and my rent is 7s. an acre. My brother holds 1,770 acres, and his rent averages about 3s. 4d. an acre. The special business I have to bring before the Commission is the unsatisfactory conditions of our leases. The leases are for twenty-one years without revaluation. I have been asked to present the following petition to the Commission : " To the Land Commission. "Cheviot, 17th April, 1905. " Gentlemen, —We, the undersigned holders of small grazing-leases on Cheviot, desire to bring under your notice the unsatisfactory and unsettled condition of our leases, which are for twenty-one years without renewal. The Cheviot Estate, as you are aware, was the first estate acquired by the Government, and the latter has found out by experience that a more secure tenure is desirable, and in all recent settlements have granted a twenty-one years lease with the right of renewal. This right we are anxious to get in our case. We feel that no good purpose is served by turning out one settler merely to put another in his place, especially as the original settler has had the pioneering with all the accompanying hardships to overcome. He has also laid out the homestead and built according to his own idea, and feels, no doubt, proud of the result. It would therefore be a hardship to turn him out merely to make room for another, and at the same time force him to find a new home. We should also like to point out if our leases were more secure we should continue ploughing, surface-sowing, and otherwise improving our holdings. We respectfully ask the Commission to give the above matter their consideration, and urge the Government to grant us a renewal of our leases with revaluation. (Signed) " R. C. Wilson. Patrick Fitzsimmons. Nicholas Francis. John Fitzpatrick. A. E. Denton. W. J. Gee. D. Archibald. James Anderson. D. Winskill. John Upritchard. Gertrude Hungerford. Jno. H. B. Oliver. Peter Childs. Richard Wm, Hale. D. McLaren. John Fleming. • William C. Hyde. Robert Sloss. Louis Barker. Charles J. Westland. Alexander Mowatt." John Munro. John McPherson. This petition was agreed to by all the small-grazing-run holders of Cheviot a few days ago. The petition is unanimous. The petition itself puts our case clearly. I think with the exception of
68—C. 4,
C—4.
[t. g. gee.
538
Waikakahi all the small grazing-leases are for a term of twenty-one years with right of renewal. We, the small-grazing-run holders on Cheviot, also wish the right of renewal. At present I desire to confine my remarks simply to the question of the small grazing-runs, and subsequently I and other settlers may appear before the Commission in regard to other matters. For instance, some of us may be in favour of the leasehold whilst others may be in favour of the freehold, but we are all agreed in our desire to have the right of renewal and to be placed in a similar position to that occupied by holders of small grazing-runs in other districts. As far as the State is concerned I think it would be a very great advantage if we were granted the right of renewal for this reason: that there is only some ten years of our leases to run, and, as time goes on, it will not be to our advantage to put improvements on the land —for instance, surface-sowing, tree-planting, and other improvements —because we will get nothing for them at the end of our term; but if we had the right of renewal it would be to our advantage to go on improving the land by surface-sowing and ploughing; and, in respect to ploughing, I may mention that it is three years before any result is apparent to the man who has sown grass seed, and as his lease comes to an end he does not get any advantage by sowing grass, and consequently the State does not get that advantage out of the land which it otherwise would get if there was a more secure tenure. In the case of Rosewill and Highfield the Government have granted a twenty-one-years lease with right of renewal. That gives a man an opportunity of improving his place instead of letting it get into a state of neglect. 1 have been specially asked to say this in regard to those who signed this petition, that with the exception of one or two whose names we have been unable to get it is practically a unanimous expression of our opinion. We do not wish to be asked our opinion in regard to the freehold or the leasehold at present, but after this question has been dealt with a number of us will.be prepared to come forward and state our opinions in regard to the question of tenure. 36. Mr. McLennan.] Do you want the right of renewal at the present rent?—It is stated in the petition that we wish the right of renewal with revaluation. 37. To be fixed by arbitration? —I think that would be a very fair means indeed. 38. Would you be satisfied with valuation for improvements? —Yes. I consider that the question of improvements need hardly be considered if we got a renewal. The value of the land would be assessed at its carrying-capacity. It would have nothing to do with improvements at all. 39. Mr. Anstey.~\ Does your present lease carry with it any valuation for improvements at the end of twenty-one years?—No, and that is a very sore point. 40. According to your existing lease the improvements belong to you ? —I am very pleased to hear that. 41. Supposing you got a renewal at an arbitration rental, would not that cover anything you are entitled to? —Yes. 42. Supposing you got a right of renewal, are none of the grazing-runs in this neighbourhood suitable for closer settlement ?— One of the great drawbacks of Cheviot all through has been that it has been cut up into too small areas. I may mention that at Highfield there is one section of 6,000 acres which will carry four thousand sheep, but there is not a single section at Cheviot which will carry four thousand sheep. Therefore I do not think in the interests of settlement it is advisable to cut them up any smaller. I believe that the Government is now finding out that it is.best to give a man a fair-sized holding, and thus make him a contented settler, rather than have a large number of discontented settlers. 43. Would there be any objection to inserting in the clause as to right of renewal that it is subject to be taken, or any portion of it be taken, if it is considered necessary by the Government for purposes of closer settlement ? —lf the Government decided in favour of that I think they could do that now. 44. How many sheep are carried on this small grazing-run of 1,770 acres? —We carried twelve hundred last year and they did not turn off too well. 45. Do you think that is large enough to make a fair living off? —I would like to point out that we were only carrying five hundred ewes and the rest were dry sheep. I think in order to give a man a fair chance he ought to be able to carry two thousand ewes. 46. Are there any cropping restrictions in the case of small grazing-runs? —I do not think there are many who do cropping except turnips, rape, &c., for the purpose of fattening. 47. You are not harassed in regard to restrictions as to cropping? —No. 48. Mr. Paul.\ Are there substantial improvements being put on these runs? —Yes, very substantial. 49. Are the small-grazing-run holders doing fairly well on their present holdings? —Yes, owing to the present high values ; but I am certain of this fact that the men who had the hardest struggle for the first four years were the holders of the grazing-runs. David Archibald examined. 50. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I hold a small grazing-run of 4,018 acres, and my rent is £733 a year. The point I wish to emphasize is this: I think it is neither good for myself nor for the State that my tenancy should be left so insecure. The question of revaluation is a strong point with some people. I wish to point out that if you are going to have revaluation every twenty-one years there should be some limitation placed on the amount. 51. Do you indorse all that is said in this petition? —Yes. 52. Mr. McLennan.] I suppose you would be quite satisfied, after the expiration of your present lease, to take up a new lease at the same rent as you are paying now? —Yes; I think it is a very fair rent. 53. Would you be in favour of having it settled by arbitration? —I think that would be a very fair way of settling it if it has to be revalued, and I would be quite prepared to stand by that.
D. ARCHIBALD.]
539
C—4.
54. And you would get valuation for your improvements?- Yes. 55. Mr. Anstey.\ Supposing your rent were to be fixed by arbitration, would that not be a sufficient guarantee as to the equity of the position? —I think there should be some limitation or percentage fixed. 56. Mr. Paul.] Do you favour the principle of revaluation applying to these runs? —It is a principle I cannot escape from, but if 1 could get out of it I do not think I would desire to have it. 57. You do not think it sound?- -Not as it stands now. 58. But you took up these small grazing-runs under these conditions ?-—Yes. I am quite satisfied to submit to revaluation, because I have signed this lease for twenty-one years, and 1 have no right to renewal. I am quite prepared, however, to take a renewal with revaluation, but I want to point out the weakness of revaluation. I think that revaluation without a limitation is a dangerous thing. 59. I understand that under the present lease you have erected substantial buildings and have made other improvements? —Yes, I have splendid buildings. I have ploughed a good bit, but I have not surface-sown. 60. Mr. Matheson.] If you had a free hand and were looking for a piece of land would you look for freehold or lease in perpetuity? —If I were a rich man I would look for a freehold. 61. The land-for-settlements policy was brought in in order to settle people on the land? —Yes. 62. In view of all the circumstances, do you think the State would be wise in giving the option of the freehold, seeing that you would make better use of the freehold ? —I think the time may come, and I think very likely it will come, when the freehold should be granted to the tenants who have done what we have done on the land. 63. Mr. McCardle.\ You are supposed to have a considerable amount of unearned increment in your land? —I do not know that. lam paying rent on about £3 10s., and the last valuation put on the land was £2 15s. 64. Leaving your own case out and taking the case of a number of other settlers here, apparently high prices have been paid for their interests in their sections? —In some cases. 65. What has been the cause of those high prices? Has it been the high price given for stock and produce generally, together with the fact that people now are seeing that the land-for-settle-ments policy has been a success? —I believe it is the market value of the produce which is really the cause of it. 66. And if the market price of produce goes down you think the price of land will go down with it? —Yes. 67. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes, and it was very satisfactory; but still I was glad to get out of it. 68. I know districts where the land is covered with dense bush, and where a man before he can take anything out of the land has to spend £3 or £4 an acre. Most of these men are hard-working men. Do you not think the State would be safe in advancing up to three-fifths of their interest in the holding? —My opinion would not be worth giving on that point, because I have not been in the North Island. 69. Mr. Johnston.] Would you have been on the land if it had not been for the Land for Settlements Act? —No. 70. If there had been only freehold land you could not have been here? —I could not. 71. How many sheep do you carry? - A little over four thousand. 72. Do you crop any? —Only enough for the horses and green feed for the sheep. 73. Do you put in turnips? —I put in about 70 acres this year. John Olivee examined. 74. The Acting-Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a sheep-farmer, and the area of my holding is 3,030 acres, and the rent is 3s. an acre. I support the petition which has been presented to the Commission by Mr. Gee, and I indorse what he said in favour of it. I hope the request of the petitioners will be agreed to, because we are in a very bad position. We really do not know where we are, and at the end of our lease we may be kicked out without any valuation for improvements. If we were given the right of renewal we would improve our places very much more than we have been doing. 75. What is your opinion in reference to the present constitution of the Land Boards? —I am satisfied with their present constitution. 76. What is your opinion in respect to the question of land-tenure? —We desire a longer lease and right of renewal; but, of course, if we could see our way to get it I would prefer the freehold. 77. You think, in connection with Crown settlements, freehold would be the best system of tenure I—Yes.1 —Yes. 78. Would you prefer it to be obtained by deferred payments, or that the settlers should purchase their holdings right out? The deferred-payment system is, I think, a very good one. It has given many a man a chance of getting on the land who would probably never have got there otherwise. 79. Have you had any experience in connection with the working of the ballot? —I think it is very satisfactory. 80. Have you had any experience of the grouping system?— No. 81. Mr. McLennan.] When you took up this small grazing-run were you satisfied with it? — I was satisfied, but I hope that some day I might be able to improve on it. 82. I presume there were a good many more applicants for the land when you took it up? —Yes. 83. You took up the land under the expectation that you would get the lease amended before the expiration of your term ? —Yes.
84. Mr. Anstey.~\ Supposing the Government were to give you the right of renewal of your lease, would you have any objection to their inserting a provision giving them the right at any time to take a portion of your section if they required it for the purposes of closer settlement ? — I would have a great objection. 85. Of course, giving you full valuation for any improvements you might make on that portion of your section? — Yes, there would be an objection on my part. 86. How many sheep do you carry ? —Two thousand five hundred. 87. What size do you think these grazing-runs should be in order to give a man a fair chance of making a living out of them? —I think they should carry not less than two thousand sheep. 88. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 89. Mr. Paul.] Is the value of land at Cheviot increasing? —Yes, there is no doubt it has increased owing to the good times we are experiencing, when stock has doubled its value during the last few years. 90. I understand that you bought this section privately: did you pay anything above the value of the improvements for goodwill ? —Yes, but very little. 91. I understood you to say, with regard to your lease, that at the end of the term you might be kicked out without compensation ?- Yes. 92. Do you not know there is no possibility of that taking place, because under your present holding you are entitled to compensation for improvements ? Yes; but sufficient compensation is not allowed. Ido not think compensation is allowed for surface-sowing or tree-planting. 93. Do you not think the terms of the lease give you full valuation for improvements? —I do not think I would get one-fourth of the value of a house I built on the section. 94. Do you think the State-would be wise to give you the freehold?- Yes, it would be a very good thing. 95. Why? —Because instead of the colony having to go to London to borrow money they would derive additional revenue in the colony. I admit that the land-for-settlements policy is a good thing. 96. If you hold this land for the next fifty years do you think your rent will be the same? — It is very uncertain. 97. You have an idea that the colony will progress and that land will increase in value? —We hope so. 98. If you are given full valuation for improvements and right of renewal at an arbitration rent, is there anything in the freehold that would help you to work your run better I—ln1 —In the case of the freehold it is your own, and you have no further trouble. 99. Would you have got your land if you had had to purchase it as a freehold? —No. 100. Then, you must thank the leasehold for your present position? —Yes. 101. Supposing the State gave you the option of the freehold, at what price would you want it —at the original capital value or the value after revaluation? —At a revaluation, and I would be quite prepared to purchase it. 102. If your improvements were protected would you be prepared to enter into competition with others in trying to secure it at auction ? The improvements are my own now. 103. But if full valuation were allowed, and the land were offered at auction, and you were protected in every way in regard to improvements, would you agree to that? Yes. 104. Mr. Johnston.] Have you had any conversation with the Ranger about the Land Commission? —None whatever. 105. He has not approached you in any way? —No. 106. You are not afraid to give evidence as a leaseholder? —No. 107. No threat has been held over you? No. 108. How long have you been on this property?- A little over eight years. 109. Have you ever made any attempt to plant trees on it ?- Yes. 110. You knew you were doing so at your own risk?— Yes. 111. Have you got any Californian thistle or ragwort on your land? —No. 112. Mr. Paul.] You think the freehold is the best from the point of view of the State? —Yes. 113. Suppose a man came along with the cash and took up a freehold he would be a freeholder immediately; but you recommend that the settler be allowed to acquire his freehold on deferred payments. In the latter case he would be simply a prospective freeholder. 113 a. Do you think the State would be wise to sell the land to the man with the cash? —I think that would be safest on the part of the Government. I think that the man who can pay for his freehold straight out is better for the colony. 114. You think it would be best in the interests of settlement?--Yes.. George Pulley examined. 115. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you?- lam a sheep-farmer. I hold 160 acres under a short lease of three years with the right of renewal for three years more, but with no compensation for improvements. I pay £118 a year for the place. I have a lease of the Cheviot wool-shed. What I want to say is that I think at the end of my term I should be allowed compensation for my improvements. I have had to improve my place in order to get a living aft it, but I would improve it more if I had a clause in my lease giving me compensation for my improvements. I have laid down J)0 acres in grass, and I would have laid down every acre I possess in English grass if I had had a good lease. 116. Is there anything else you wish to say in regard to the matters mentioned in our Commission ? —No. 117. Mr. Anstey.] You wish to get a renewal of your lease? —No, I only want fair valuation for my improvements.
540
0.—4.
[j. OLIVEE.
C.-4.
541
G. PULLEY.
118. What improvements have you made? —There are 170 chains of fencing, 90 chains of which I had to buy from the outgoing tenant. I have laid down 90 acres in grass, and I had to pay £23 to repair a windmill and slaughterhouse on my section. 119. You get no compensation for them? —No, and I would like valuation for them when I go out. „ 120. What happens when your lease runs out? —It must go to tender or to ballot. 121. You do not wish the option of renewal? —The Board say they cannot give it to me, but 1 would not be satisfied with the option of renewal, because the rent is too high. 122. Mr. l J aul.\ What did you pay for the improvements when you went in? —£45 for the fencing. 123. Do you simply lease the improvements on the section? —I bought the fencing, but I lease the woolshed and the accommodation. I would also like to say that when land is being opened for settlement I think preference should be given to a married man with a family, because 1 regard a family ranging from thirteen to twenty years of age to be as good as capital to a man. John Fleming examined. 124. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you? —I am a small-grazing-run holder. I hold 1,450 acres, and I pay 3s. 6d. per acre rent. 125. What is it you particularly wish to bring before the Commission?-! wish to indorse what has been said in regard to the petition asking for the right of renewal 126. Are you satisfied with the conditions of your lease, so far as compensation for improvements is concerned ? —Yes; but I wish to state 1 am in favour of giving valuation for improvements, such as the surface-sowing of grass and plantations. These things are not at present provided for. It is an expensive job to grass down on high country, and I think compensation should be allowed for it. In my own case 1 would mention that I have to pack in all my seed and horse-feed. 127. You think the lease should make clear what compensation is to be allowed for? —Yes, and I think it should include surface-sowing. 128. What is your opinion as to the best system of tenure for settling the lands of the colony? — My opinion of the lease I bold is that it should be for twenty-one years, with the right of purchase at the end of twenty-one years. 129. What would you do in the case of a man who was not in a position to acquire the freehold at the end of the term? I would not be frightened to go into the hands of a money-lender. They only want interest on their money if a property is worth it. 130. You think at the end of the term the occupier should have a right to acquire the freehold I—Yes.1 —Yes. 131. Are you satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Board?- I think the men are placed there all right. Ido not find any fault with the Land Board. I have only asked them to convert my lease into a lease-in-perpetuity holding, but they did not see their way to do so. I have put the place in the market since, because I do not feel the tenure under the short lease is very secure. 132. Mr. I J aul.\ On what terms do you want the right to purchase? —At the original capital value on which I am paying my rent. 133. At the present time you hold your place for twenty-one years? -Yes. 134. At the present time you have no right of renewal at the end of the twenty-one years? —No. 135. On what ground, then, do you base this claim for the right to purchase, seeing you have no right of renewal and that only your improvements are protected 1- It is only natural that a man who went into the back blocks through the slush and mud, as we did when we came here, and put improvements on his section, would like to make it his own. That is my idea of the matter. 136. Do you not think it would be a fair thing at the end of the twenty-one years, if the right of purchase is given, to value and conserve your improvements to you, and then put the land up to auction ? —1 would sooner lease it now than let it run on for a chance of that sort. 137. Have you improved this land much?— Yes, and as much as I will do until I have got a better tenure. 138. Have you erected substantial improvements? —Yes, the Government have valued them at £1,400, and they are never over the mark. 139. It is satisfactory to know you have a certain amount of confidence in the place? —I would like to have everything secure. When a man gets and gets a bit on the right side of the ledger he naturally looks to see what he is going to do with his money, and if he gets a chance to put it into the land, he likes to know that it is conserved to his family for the future. 140. Could you carry this place on satisfactorily if you had the right of renewal every twentyone years at a rent to be fixed by arbitration? —I would not be satisfied. 141. Would there be anything in such a lease to prevent you using the place to fair advantage? --Nothing at all, but I have a feeling that I would like it to be my own. It could be carried on the same as it is now. 142. It would pay handsomely to make it freehold at the original capital value? —I suppose it would. I would be prepared to chance whether the value was down or up when I went to t>uy. 143. Has the land at Cheviot increased in value? —Not on the small holdings or grazing-runs-they have not increased 2J per cent.. 144. Then it has increased in value? —Very little. 145. Mr. Matheson.\ If the Government gave you the right of purchase eventually and allowed you pay off the capital value as you liked out of savings, but refused you permission to borrow money to do so, would you be satisfied ? —Yes. 146. Mr. Johnston.] Are you one of the original settlers? —Yes.
C—4.
542
[j. FLEMING.
147. Have you done well out of this property? —I cannot complain, I have seen bad times and good times. 148. You were perfectly satisfied with the conditions under which you took the land up? —1 was not. I looked to the end of the lease, and I would have liked a 999-years lease when applications were wanted for Cheviot. 1 had tried all the ballots unsuccessfully, and this was my last chance. * 149. Could you have taken up freehold land when you took up this section?- 1 was farming leasehold land when I came to Cheviot. It was agricultural land, and I considered sheep was what I wanted and what I had been used to. 150. Would you have been in a position to take up freehold land then? —I had not the freehold fever then. 151. You have got that fever now that you have improved your position? —1 would like to make the place my own after improving it. 152. You are not afraid of the Land Board bringing pressure on you for asking for the freehold ? —Not a bit. 153. Are any of the other settlers?- I do not think anybody is frightened of the Land Board. 154. Have they used their powers to aggravate or annoy the settlers? —No. 155. The Acting-Chairman.] Is there anything else you would like to mention? —I would like to mention, in regard to the 10-per-cent. rebate, that I cannot understand why the twenty-one years leaseholders do not get the rebate. It seems to me funny that men with a more secure tenure than twenty-one-years lease should get the rebate. Ido not think there should be any difference. 156. Mr. Johnston.\ What sheep do you carry?- About a sheep to the acre. 157. What is your average,, loss? —3 or 4 per cent. My average lambing varies from 50 to 96 per cent., but I only carry twelve hundred ewes. 158. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 159. Are there any weeds on Cheviot? —No. We are pretty free from weeds. I wish to add that I think the pastoral runholders should have the same right to compensation for improvements as he have. I think they ought to get valuation for surface-sowing. I have been a good bit about these runs, and I think surface-sowing is a thing which ought to be done. The timber is gradually going ofi the country, and the land is now capable of taking grass. 160. Have you ever seen surface-sowing done on the high country? —Yes. It was sown broadcast after burning the scrub and tussock. The seed was a mixture of cocksfoot, rye grass, and clover. It took very well. 161. At what altitude? —From 1,500 ft. to 2,000 ft. The land was very rough, but there were plenty of pigs about in those days, and all the land wanted was grass. lam referring to Mr. McCrae's run, Tekoa. I think some of these runs would stand subdivision at the present price of stock. The holders of them own a little bit of front country, and they get the whole of the back country almost for a nod at auction. That has been my experience at the Crown land sales. I know there is one block —Glenwye —at the head of the Waiau, consisting of about 170,000 acres, leased by Mr. D. Rutherford. It is not very far away from the best saleyard in New Zealand — Culverden —and I think it ought to be subdivided instead of being sold in one block. 162. How many sheep do you think a section should carry in order to enable a man to make a living on it? —This back country carries a lot of cattle. If a man has enough cattle to pay the rent, and a hundred bales of wool in addition, he has a fair living. 163. How many sheep would a hundred bales of wool represent? —It varies. I suppose it would take fifty to seventy-five merinos to make a bale. 164. Do they carry cattle in the valleys?- -Yes, in the valleys and bush. I think that is too large a block to let as one run considering the present demand for land. 165. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you think there are any runs in this immediate neighbourhood that could be subdivided? —Not close handy here. 166. Is there any estate suitable for close settlement I—-Yes; I reckon Stonyhurst would make a fine place for close settlement. The others are mostly sold. 167. Do you think it is suitable for cutting into 300- or 400-acre blocks? —Yes. 168. Do you think all tenants ought to get security for the improvements they put on their places ? —Yes. 169. Would you include the tenants of private landowners as well? I am talking about the State; but if you are dealing with private land as well. I would think so. 170. You think that every man is entitled to the property of his own creation? —Yes, it would be a very fair thing. In regard to the ballot, the only thing I have against it is the examination of applicants for land. There was no such thing when we came to Cheviot, and I think the system under which Cheviot was settled much more satisfactory. You will find that the Cheviot se'ttlers are as good as those you have seen anywhere else who have been examined about the contents of their cash-boxes. 171. Mr. McCa,rdle.\ Have there been any failures here? —I do not know of one, and we went through some of the roughest years I have ever experienced in Canterbury. 172. No evil has resulted from the fact that the men had a free hand to go in for the land?— None at all. Rossmore Cracroft Wilson examined. 173. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you? —I am a sheep-farmer. I hold 1,286 acres under grazing lease. I pay 2s. 7|d. per acre. I signed the petition in reference to the grazing leases. I would like to have an extension of the lease, but, really, I would sooner have the freehold tenure if I could get it. 174. Have you had any trouble with the Land Board? —No. 175. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think the State would be a loser if you had the right to pay to the State what the land cost the State? —No. I think if we could pay off for the sections we hold now there would be so much more money for the Government to break up other estates with.
C.—4.
543
R. C. WILSON.
176. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think the freehold would be an advantage to the settlers, seeing that they get the money now at 5 per cent. ? —I think we would be holding the places and working them for ourselves and our children, and I think we would work our places to better advantage than at present. 177. Suppose your lease was for 999 years, would you be as anxious then to obtain the freehold? —I think so. I would sooner be working on and improving my own place. 178. You have no fear of revaluation? —I would not expect to get my place at the valuation on which I pay rent at present. 179. Would you be willing, if the Government gave you the right of purchase, to have some increased value put on the land by arbitration? —Yes, if it was fixed by arbitration. 180. It is suggested that if the tenants get the right of purchase the land should be put up to auction : do you think that is a fair proposal ? —No. Thomas George Gee further examined. 181. The Acting-Chairman.] I understand you wish to lay before us your opinions on land matters generally? —Yes. I hold 272 acres under lease in perpetuity, for which I pay 7s. per acre rent. 182. Are you satisfied with this lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —I am not altogether satisfied. I believe if the optional tenure was granted it would be much more satisfactory, and particularly so in the case of men who are holding small areas. I consider one of the greatest mistakes ever made at Cheviot was the cutting-up of some of the farms into too small areas. We have some of 100 q,cres and some of less. I consider a man who has 100 acres of leasehold on Cheviot has too small an area to make a living and support his family. It may be all right while he has youth and strength in his favour, but when he becomes an old man and is unable to throw the energy of youth into the working of his farm it is not a sufficient area to enable him to make a living. If the 100 acres are worth 10s. per acre rent, and he is able to work the farm to the very best advantage, he is able to make up to £50 a year ; but as he becomes older ftiis £50 becomes a very great bugbear, so far as his future living is concerned, and I do not know of one leasehold of 100 acres on Cheviot which would stand the employment of an extra individual at a salary of, say, £50 a year. I consider if a man had an optional tenure he would be able to make a savingsbank of his own on his farm, and as time went on and he was able to put aside, say, £25, or £50, or £100, he would be able to pay off a part, or even the whole, of the capital value of his farm. If he is still a leaseholder, when he becomes an old man it means he must throw up the farm and become a burden either on the Old-age Pension Fund or charitable aid. I believe that the lease in perpetuity or any other leasehold is a very good system to enable a man to climb to a certain position, but I do not believe in curtailing any man's ambition. I think if a man or a nation wants to progress they must be ambitious. In regard to the constitution of Land Boards, I think the Crown tenants should have some representation on the Board. I have not had any dealings with the Land Board, but I have heard a good number of complaints in regard to Cheviot. One great objection is that the tenants have no right of appeal, and I think the Crown tenants should have a member on the Board to safeguard their interests. 183. Do you think the whole of the Land Board should be elected, or a certain number of them? —I think if the Crown tenants were to elect two members the balance of power would still be held by the State, and the Crown tenants would then be far more secure. Ido not blame the Land Board or the Commissioner, but I do blame the evidence which is put before them. The Crown Lands Ranger is not always infallible. 184. Have you had any experience of the working of the ballot system?—l was fortunate in the first ballot at Cheviot, but my brother has made attempts at balloting. One of the things I consider that is not altogether as it should be is the grouping system, under which a man must take the sections he draws, whether he wants it or not. If he draws a section he does not want it gives him a bad start, and a bad start means a bad ending. I believe that each section should stand on its own merits and be balloted for separately. 185. Do you think that a similar system to that under which Cheviot was balloted for would be more satisfactory?- I believe the Cheviot system was the very best. We came here and we were not asked about money, and I believe the Cheviot Estate is now one of the most successful of any owned by the Government. 186. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes. I have had advances, and probably if it had not been for the Advances to Settlers Office a good many of us would not be here to-day. I honestly believe that I would not be here to-day but for that office. I have not had anything to do with it for a number of years now. I had to be grateful for very small mercies, and, mind you, they were small mercies in those days. I believe the Advances to Settlers Office are not sufficiently generous. In the present circumstances it is not worth a man's while to ask the Government for money unless he does not want it. If a man wants money it is far better for him to go to a private firm. He can then get it far more quickly and in more liberal advances. If you ask the Government for a loan of £1,000 you are more likely to have £400 offered to you. In regard to the question of examination by the Board, a man goes before them and he is passed as a legitimate applicant for a section. He fails at the ballot. He is a working-man, and he has been at considerable expense and loss of time to see the land. He goes home, and, being anxious to get on the land, he enters the ballot for another estate, say, in Otago or South Canterbury. He decides on a certain section, and he has to journey to Dunedin to be examined by the Board. If he has saved, say, £100, each of these journeys means an expense of £10 or so. He is again unsuccessful, and a man has only to try that a few times to get sick of trying for land. I consider that one examination in twelve months or two years, if the applicant is prepared to swear before a Justice of the Peace that his financial position is the same at any time during that period, should be sufficient, I think the ballots are conducted in the fairest and
a—4.
544
[t. g. gee.
most impartial manner. Ido not consider there is any system equal to the ballot; but I think it is too much to expect a man to have three years' rent in hand. I consider one year's rent, or two years' at the outside, should be quite sufficient in the case of a man with experience in farming. I would be quite prepared to take up land if I had sufficient money to fence it. 187. Mr. McLennan.] Do you remember when the Cheviot Estate was taken over by the Government I—Yes.1 —Yes. 188. I suppose you were fairly pleased at that, seeing it was a chance for working-men to get farms ? —Yes. 189. When you took up your section did you expect to get the option of the freehold eventually? —To be candid, Ido not think that entered into my calculations at all. I had a perpetuallease place in the bush in the North Island, which I got out of, and I cannot say I had any idea that I would get the freehold here. 190. You were quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity, then? —Yes; I believe it is a good system to enable a man to get a start. 191. It is a well-known fact that you cannot get the option of the freehold unless the Act is amended in that direction ? —That is so. 192. Do you not think it would be a very dangerous proceeding to interfere with the Act? — No. 193. I suppose you have read about a certain section of the community who would like to bring in revaluation? —Yes. 194. If the Act is amended is it not likely that it will be amended so that revaluation will be introduced?- I take it that the matter will rest entirely with the tenant. Tf the Government bring in a freehold tenure it entirely depends on the tenant whether he is prepared to accept that tenure or remain as he is. 195. Still, there is a danger? —I do not think so. You see, the Acts have been amended for a number of years. First of all we had deferred payments, then perpetual lease, and then lease in perpetuity. Well, so far as I remember, it was entirely optional with those holding perpetual leases whether they changed into lease in perpetuity or not. It did not depend on the Government, but on the tenant. 196. The Land for Settlements Act has not been amended since it was passed, has it? —Not yet. 197. Supposing the Act was amended to enable you to get the option of the freehold, and you received full value for your improvements, would you be prepared to compete for your property at public auction ? —I would. 198. Do you think it would be fair that the public should have a chance at it? —I am quite prepared, if my improvements are protected, to let my place go to public auction, and any one who outbids me can have it if he pays me for my improvements. 199. Mr. Anstey.l You said that settlers could borrow money much easier from private firmt. than from the Advances to Settlers Office : do you know if the terms are as favourable so far as interest and other conditions are concerned ? —Yes. 200. What rate of interest did you pay the Advances to Settlers Office?- 6 per cent., including I per cent, sinking fund. You can get it anywhere else at 6 per cent, without a sinking fund. 201. That is 1 per cent, difference? —Yes; but you are always in a position to pay off at any time, and you will get a 35 or 40 per cent, bigger advance than from the Government. 202. But the rate of interest is somewhat higher? —Yes, because it does not provide a sinking fund. 203. Do you think the Land Boards should have more discretionary power? —I think they have too much power in some cases and not enough in others. 204. Do you think it would be wise to give them the right to make concessions in rent in case of disaster, or anything of that sort? —Of course, I may be inclined to speak of Cheviot alone, and we are not likely to meet with any disaster here. 205. Supposing you got a hail-storm which knocked the crops down?—We had that, but we never got anything for it. I think myself a man should stand by good and bad years. Ido not believe in running to the Government about every little loss we meet. I and others suffered by the earthquake here, but we did not apply for relief. 206. You are not satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Board? —So far as I am concerned, I have no actual grievance against the Land Board, but I am merely voicing the opinion of a number of settlers I have spoken to who have little grievances. 207. What more could you get, supposing you had the right to elect two members to the Land Board? —I think it would be a safeguard, and that our interests would be better looked after. There is a great difficulty at present in connection with transfers. I think the House of Representatives should decide as to the acreage a man should be entitled to hold, and that should be the law, and the Land Board should abide by that law. The law at present says a man may hold 640 acres of first-class land and 2,000 acres of second-class land, and I think that should guide the Board in dealing with applicants for transfers. I do not think the Board should say that because a man already holds 50 or 100 acres they will not allow him to hold any more. 208. You think the Board should allow a tenant to take up as much land as he wants to up to the limit prescribed by law? —Yes. 209. You know that in the present Board of five members three make a quorum? —Yes. 210. Supposing the two nominated members were absent, the proceedings of the Board would be dominated by the members elected by the tenants?—l think you are quoting an exceptional case. If the members attended to'their duties they would be present at the Board meetings. 211. You do not think there is any danger of that under your proposal? —No. 212. Mr. Paul.] Is not the area fixed now? —Yes, 640 acres of first-class land, and 2,000 acres of second-class land. I can quote oases where a man with a small holding applied for an extra 50 acres and he was refused it.
T. G. GEE. i
545
C—4.
213. Does not tlie law lay down that the sections cannot be grouped?- The law says that a man is to hold a certain number of acres so long as they are contiguous. 214. Is not the Land Board prevented by law from allowing two of these areas being put together ? —No, because they do it in some cases and not in others. 215. How many 100-acre sections are there in Cheviot? —Perhaps twenty. 216. Do you not think that when a man is through with the leasehold it would be a fair thing for him to sell out and buy a freehold, and so preserve the leasehold for the poor man I—The1 —The question of preserving the leasehold for the poor man is a pure fallacy. I believe in preserving the leasehold so that the poor man may get a start, but I also think that it should allow him to improve his position as circumstances permitted. At the present time when a man with 100 acres wants to improve his position and get a larger place he has to sell out, or wait till such time as he can buy a freehold. But it is a serious thing for a man to sell out his leasehold when he is debarred from taking part in another ballot for twelve months. It is a pretty heavy drain on a man's capital to have to keep himself and wife and family for twelve months while he is qualifying to go in for a ballot. 217. When you say that the preserving of the leasehold for the poor man is a fallacy, you mean that the poor man cannot get on the land even with the leasehold ? —No; but it should not stop at giving a man a start, it should help him on still further. 218. Do you not think there is an end to the estates the Government can purchase for closer settlement, and that it will be very hard for people to get on the land in future? —When I look across the river and see men with 30,000 and 40,000 acres I think that instead of restricting the man on 100 acres it would be better to get at the man with the large holdings. 219. Interfere with his freehold?- If you are going to interfere with the man who has 100 acres 1 think you are perfectly justified in interfering with the man who has 30,000 acres of freehold. 220. Do you not think that if the option of the freehold is given to leaseholders there will be an aggregation, which will be against the interests of the State? —The question of the interests of the State is altogether magnified. I think the State would be far better off if the interests of the farming community were looked after. The aggregation of estates can be prevented by putting a limit on a man's possible holding, and I do not see why that should not be done by law. 221. Do you think these 100-acre sections served a good purpose at the first ? —Yes, but I think they should be used as a stepping-stone to allow a man to go on to larger areas. The curtailment of ambition in New Zealand is a very serious thing. There are men in New Zealand on small holdings from which they are not prepared to sell out and take their chance in another ballot. They accordingly stop where they are, and the best work is not got out of them. That is a loss to the State. 222. Do you think it would be a reasonable amendment in the law to allow such a man to take part in another ballot, on his giving an undertaking that if successful lie will sell out his original holding in a reasonable time? —Yes, 1 think that is a good idea. 223. That would allow another man with small means to come in on the 100 acres? -Yes. 224. Mr. Matheson.] In the Cheviot hand-book it says that the area one man can hold is not to exceed 5,000 acres. Under that clause, were some of the sections put together and one man allowed to hold two?- -Yes. But with regard to the larger areas they were neglected at the first, and you will find those people who have two runs had one originally, and were asked to take up the one adjoining them, which no one would take at any price. 225. Do you consider the Rebate of Rent Act an amendment of your lease?-- ino. 226. Did it improve your lease?- It did to a certain extent. I considered the Act was a bid for political purposes. 227. Mr. McCardle.] You are aware that the Land Commission was set up in order to ascertain the views of the tenants, because of strong representations made to the House of Representatives that the tenants desired the freehold I—That1 —That is so. 228. Therefore, the argument that in applying for the freehold you are breaking your lease does not apply? —No, for the reason that if the Government offer me the freehold it depends on whether I like to acept it, and it is the Government who are offering to break the lease, not me. 229. You think that the intention of the Act is defeated by the Land Board preventing a man from adding to his freehold, so long as he does not acquire more than the statutory amount of first- or second-class land?- -That is so. 230. And, in your opinion, those regulations should be modified? —Yes. 231. I suppose you have heard of men trying to hoodwink the Boards as to their financial position, and getting their friends to assist them in their bank balance for the time being? —That is so. 232. So that the financial restrictions are an encouragement for a man to tell an untruth? —Yes. 233. Mr. Johnston.] Why is a freeholder working on 100 acres in a better condition than a man on the same area of leasehold? —When a freeholder has had a good year and has a surplus of £50 or £100 he can invest it in his land, which will give him a better return than any other investment. He makes his farm his savings-bank. 234. But the leaseholder can invest his money at a rate of interest which would be equivalent to paying off his section? —Farmers are not very well versed in commercial knowledge. It is a difficult matter to invest £50 or £100 to anything like the same advantage as in a man's own section. 235. Do you know how many transfers of Cheviot sections there have been since you came here? —I should say about thirty 236. Were they at considerable advantage to the seller?- I do not think with the exception of those in the last two or three years they have been to any considerable advantage. I think they were an actual loss for the first six years.
69—C. 4.
C—4.
546
[t. g. gee.
237. Since then they have been at a considerable advantage? —I do not know about a considerable advantage. 238. Considerable sums of money have passed 1- Yes, but it has represented a considerable amount of improvements. 239. Have any of the runs changed hands at advantage? —Yes, within the last three years, but previously they did not. Men sold out at actually less than they had spent on the places. 240. If the Land Board gave you permission to release your section, would you make inquiries as to the position of the man you lease to? —I have no objection to reasonable inquiries by the Land Board. 241. They ask a man's position?- I do not see anything wrong about that. 242. You said you wanted the Land Board to allow a man to go in whether he had money or not? —No, I did not make any charge against the Land Board. What I said was in reply to the Chairman, who asked me if I thought the way adopted in the settling of Cheviot was preferable. 243. If you were leasing a farm yourself would you make inquiries as to the financial position of the man to whom you were leasing? —I do not think that would be necessary. If a man buys out a section on Cheviot to-day the Land Board do not inquire whether he will be able to meet the payments; they take it for granted. 244. If a man paid you twelve months' rent you would allow him to have your land? —If he signed the conditions of the lease. 245. No matter who lie was ?-- If he was in a position to deal with it. 246. You are aware that under the Otago Board a man does not require to go to Dunedin to be examined for a ballot, he can be examined here? I believe that has been adopted recently. 247. You say that the runs-are selling to advantage in recent years: can you tell me why that is when the tenure is not satisfactory ?- Because of the unprecedented value of stock. Three or four years ago a man sold his lambs at 6s. and 75., and to-day he is getting 14s. and 155., and the value of the land is gauged simply by what you can get out of it. 248. When a man gives £100 for a lease he expects to get that back in the remaining years of the lease? -Yes, naturally he expects to make it up. James Butt examined. 249. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you?- I am a farmer on Cheviot, where I have 300 acres under lease in perpetuity, and for which I pay 4s. an acre rent. 250. Do you think the present nominated system of Land Boards is satisfactory? —I have nothing personally against the Land Board, but, nevertheless, I do not think it is satisfactorily constituted. I think the administration of the land would be very much better carried on through the Magistrate's Court, the Magistrate to be assisted by the Commissioner of Crown Lands and another expert. At the present time I think the members of the Land Board are like so many strings tied to the Commissioner of Crown Lands for people to be pulling at. 251. What is your opinion as to the tenures under which land is held in the colony?- I like the lease in perpetuity very much, but really Ido not think it is the best in existence. I think the number of years is too many. I cannot understand what interest I will have in the land 999 years hence. I only wish, all the same, that all the land in New Zealand were held under the same lease. Ido not advocate the freehold in any case. The land belongs to the people, and the proper way to get it more equally divided would be to increase the progressive land-tax, and even tax the people on the lease in perpetuity. Tax all of us on the land, but tax the big blocks. That would break them up, and the Government would not have the same necessity to buy. 252. Have you had any experience of the working of the ballot? —I had when I came, and a few of my boys have. I cannot say there is anything unsatisfactory about it. I have heard a great deal about the grouping system, and it may or may not be right; but what I have noticed, from pamphlets that have come under my notice lately, is that they seem to have grouped sections so that they were pretty equal in value and size. - 253. You have not had any actual experience of the working yourself? —Not since the Cheviot ballot. 254. You think the Cheviot ballot was satisfactory? —I thought so at the time; nevertheless, I think we should inquire into a man's position somewhat before we allow him to go on a section and perhaps lose his money. It would be to the benefit of the country that we should inquire into a man's position. 255. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Board?- I think it is a fine system, and one of the best Acts the Government ever passed; it brought down interest all round. I know several men who were badly mortgaged, and who were pulled out of their difficulties by the Advances to Settlers Department. 256. Do you think it wants improvement in any way?- No. 257. Mr. McLennan.] You do not want the option of the freehold? —No, Ido not. When I have made sufficient money to acquire a freehold I will be quite willing to sell out and buy my freehold in the open market. 258. Mr. Anstey.\ Is there anything to object to in your cropping restrictions ?—No, but I would make a suggestion about that. I cannot crop my land to advantage as it would ruin it for grass-growing purposes, but I do think the men on 100-acre sections, where the land is good, should have almost a free hand. The land on the Waiau would stand cropping for a dozen vears in succession if attention is paid to it. There is necessity, nevertheless, for restrictions as to cropping. 259. You think there ought to be a variety of restrictions for various classes of land? —Yes. 260. Mr. Paul.'] Do you think it would have been better in the interests of the State to have settled this land on shorter leases?—l do not think it would have made any difference to the State, but I think a shorter lease would have been iust as good.
J. BUTT.j
547
C.—4.
261. Would you favour revaluation at fairly long intervals —that is, future leases ?—To future leases, 1 say revaluation; but after a contract has been made that contract must not be broken, and we must not break it. 262. Mr. Mathezon.] Do you think the markets were just as much the cause of your friends being pulled out of their bad positions as the advances to settlers?— 1 am certain it was the advances to settlers. 263. Do you think it would be wise if the Government raised all its revenue out of the land — single tax? —Yes. 264. And let the townspeople go free ? Yes. 265. Mr. McCardle.\ Are you aware that the Magistrate's Court is the only Court in the colony that cannot touch a land title? - I was not aware of that, but 1 am suggesting an Act that would put the administration of our lands under the Magistrate's Court. 266. You think it would be wise to put that matter on to a Magistrate who has no previous knowledge of land ? —We would have the Commissioner of Crown Lands who knows all about lands, and we would have an expert, and these two with the Magistrate would give a straightforward decision. 267. You are a strong friend of the lawyers, then? —Not at all. 268. How would you get your case before a Magistrate without a lawyer? —We bring them before the Land Board now, and we have no lawyer. 269. Do you not think that the Land Board as at present constituted, with certain amendments, is far more able to judge of values and other matters connected with land than any Magistrate in the colony ? —I do not think so. 270. Mr. Johnston.] How much per acre have your neighbours got over and above improvements for the sections which they iiave sold out of? —Up to very nearly £3 10s. per acre. Philip Gell examined. 271. The Acting-Chairman.} What are you? —I am a farmer on Cheviot, holding 356 acres under lease in perpetuity, for which I pay ss. 6d. per acre, and 78 acres on a short lease of seven years, for which I pay Bs. per acre. 272. Have you any matter which you wish to bring before the Commission? —I only wish to indorse what Mr. Gee said in regard to Land Boards —that is, tenants having the right of appeal. That is one great drawback Crown tenants have, and which causes great dissatisfaction. Crown' tenants have no land laws. What the Land Board says is law, and the tenants have to abide by it. I think a right of appeal by some means should be given them. Land Boards are not immaculate, and sometimes interpret the law wrongly. The law says that a man may hold up to 640 acres of first-class land, but the Land Board takes it upon itself to prohibit that in many cases. 273. Have you not an appeal to the Minister? —No. The Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, stated a few months ago in connection with a case before him that Crown tenants had no right of appeal. 274. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board? —Yes. 275. You do not think an elective Board would be better? —No. If elected on a parliamentary franchise I should say No, because there would be too much of the town element in it. 276. Do you wish to express any opinion about the various tenures of the colony? —I consider the leasehold a splendid system for cutting up large blocks, and especially back blocks, but I think after a man has been a tenant for a fair number of years he should be given the option of acquiring the freehold. If that were done I do not think there would be so many sales of leaseholds. 277. Do you think there is any danger of the lease in perpetuity being broken and revaluation being brought in? Ido not think that will come to pass. 278. You have no particular fear yourself about your lease being broken? —Not the least. 279. Have you any experience of the working of the ballot? —The only experience I had was when I came here. I think, with Mr. Gee, that a poor man has no chance at the ballot. He has got to produce bank-books and, all sorts of things before he can apply, and it is practically the rich man who goes to the ballot now. 280. Do you not think sonic swiem of examination is necessary? —As to a man's experience, Yes, but not to the extent of capital that a man is required to have now. It prevents many good men going on the land. 281. Would you feel inclined to leave the matter open as to the amount of money a man had, and ballot on the same lines as in the case of Cheviot ? Similar. There is more trickery in connection with financing than there was when we came here. 282. Mr. McLennan.] You think that experience should count as a set-off against capital? —• Yes. 283. You think that a man may sometimes have money and no experience, whereas a farm labourer for years would have good experience though he may not have much capital ? —The latter is the best man —that has been proved on Cheviot. 284. Mr. Anstey.\ On what terms would you allow a man to acquire the freehold? —At the current value, to be fixed by arbitration. 285. Do you know of any instances where the Land Board has given decisions contrary to the well-being of the settlers? —Yes. 286. Can you give any instance of it? —Yes; two or three have been quoted to-night, one man with 150 acres not being rllowed to'take up another 100 acres adjoining him. 287. Is there an3thing else they have done contrary to the Act? —No; but I consider a man somewhat similar to a man with a business. A man starting business generally starts with a small place, which he increases as his business increases. That is human nature. The Act says a man
C—4.
548
P. GELL.
can hold up to 640 acres of first-class land and 2,000 acres of second-class land, and when I came to Cheviot I thought I would be able to do so, but the Land Board says I cannot. 288. Do you think it is a wise thing for the Government to acquire estates and cut them into small blocks? —It is a good thing. 289. Do you think that these 100-acre sections were cut too small originally? —Some of them. If there had been townships near it would have been all right. 290. Do you think that a man should be allowed to add two or three 100-acre blocks together afterwards? —If he is in a position to do so, certainly, or allow him to go in for another ballot and then sell out. Dozens of people now would be willing to ballot and then sell out. 291. Are the tenants selling out to advantage? —Yes, now. 292. What is the reason they are selling? —To improve their position, and some to get the freehold elsewhere. 293. Do you think there are many buying freehold elsewhere? —Yes, several from here have. 294. What sum per acre is being received in the shape of goodwill above improvements 1 — The average will be about £2 10s. or £3 per acre. 295. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that, if the Minister of Lands is a statesman, he is likely to put better men on the Land Boards than would be the case if the people elected them? —Yes, I do, in preference to the parliamentary franchise. Louis Barkeb examined. 296. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you ?- lam a farmer on Cheviot, where I have a small grazing-run of 874 acres, for which I pay 3s. 6d. per acre rent. I also have a 5-acre yearly lease. 297. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I wish to say that I support the petition for the right of renewal of small grazing-runs, with a revaluation at the end of twenty-one years. 298. Have you any opinion to give with regard to the constitution of Land Boards? —It is perfectly satisfactory, as far as I am concerned. 299. What is your opinion about the various tenures under which the lands of the colony are held?- The leases should be for a term of years, with revaluation and a constant right of renewal. 300. Have you had anything to do with the advances-to-settlers system? —I have had a little to do with it. Their ideas about value and mine did not agree altogether. It was when first we came here, and, I suppose, the security was not gilt-edged. 301. Do you know any large runs about here that could be cut up and similarly settled to Cheviot? —Most of the land I can see within a radius of a hundred miles from here a man could live on sufficient to run three thousand sheep, provided the rent was not too great. 302. You think there is land about here that could be closer settled than it is at the present time? —Yes, on two sides of us, anyway. William Hodgson examined. 303. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you?- I am a farmer on Cheviot, having 276 acres under lease in perpetuity, for which I pay 7s. Bd. per acre. 304. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards as at present? —Yes; I do not think you could get better men on the Boards under any other system of appointment. They are very impartial men, and have got no interest to do anything that is not fair and square. 305. Have you had any trouble with the Ranger?- No. 306. What is your opinion with regard to land-tenure?- I think the lease in perpetuity could not be beat as a tenure. We have no trouble about mortgaging our land. If we make money, well and good, and we can always find plenty of use for any spare money we have. .307. Do you wish the option of the freehold 1--No. If I had plenty of money I could sell out here, and I could sell out my leasehold just as well as I could a freehold. 308. You think the lease in perpetuity is the most satisfactory tenure under which to hold land?- I think it is one of the best for any man who wants to «>ke up a good-sized piece of land or a small piece. 309. Do you think the cropping restrictions are fair? —I think that land that is valued at over 12s. per acre would not receive any harm from taking off two white crops running, and if the land is valued at over £1 three crops might be taken off. 310. Have you any complaint to make about the Advances to Settlers Department?— No. I asked for so-much, and after a reasonable time I got it. I think the law was one of the best ever passed. But for it we would never have got cheap money. 311. You have seen the statement in the newspapers that Crown tenants were afraid to come forward and give evidence, on account of being afraid of getting into trouble with the Land Board: is there any truth in that statement, so far as Cheviot is concerned ? —I do not see why people should be afraid. 312. I do not think farm labourers ought to be compelled to have as much money as men from the towns taking up land? —I had very little money when I took up my land, and I have worked the land all right. 313. You think that farming experience should count for something in the case of applicants? —Yes, it would count in many cases for more than money. I think also that the Board should fix the prices on the different sections, and that applicants should be obliged to state on oath what money they have to work the farm with, and if it was subsequently found that they were not telling the truth in regard to their capital they could be prosecuted for perjury. 314. Have you studied the ballot system, including the present grouping system? —I would not like to go in for land under the grouping system. The system of ballot which was in force
W. HODGSON.]
549
C—4.
when I took up land at Cheviot gave a little more trouble to the officials, but it was more satisfactory to the applicants. 315. Mr. McLennan.] I suppose you have seen from the reports in the newspapers that evidence has been given before the Commission to the effect that Crown tenants do not do justice to their land in the way of improvements? —I think the holdings on Cheviot will compare favourably with freehold land in that respect. In fact, I think you will find that more and better improvements have been put on these sections than are on the majority of freeholds. 316. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think the lease-in-perpetuity tenants farm their land as well as the freeholders? —Yes; in fact, very often better. 317. Do they not grow more weeds than the freeholders? —No. I consider they farm the land well, because, as a rule, they have more money to farm it with, and are not troubled with mortgages. 318. Is your rent fairly reasonable? —Yes. 319. Does that remark apply generally to all the land at Cheviot? —Yes. 320. Supposing you got the railway up here in a reasonable time, do you think that considerably more grain will be grown than is grown here at present? —Yes. The distance of the land from the railway is too great for grain-growing. The cost of carrying it to the railway is considerable. 321. When there is a little more inducement to grow grain do you think there will be a greater desire for a change in the cropping regulations? —I do not think so. 322. Do you think that, generally speaking, two white crops is sufficient under ordinary circumstances ? —Yes. 323. But you think they should be allowed to take three white crops on the heavier land? — Yes, in the case of smaller areas. 324. Mr. Paul.\ You think that the leasehold is a very good system under which to settle people on the laud? —Yes. 325. Without it is there any difficulty in people getting on the land? —Yes, there is a big difficulty. 326. Do you not think it is fair, when a man gets on through being placed on the land under the leasehold system, that he should go out into the open market for land, and allow another poor man to settle on the land? —I think it would be a big mistake on the part of the Government to buy estates and let everybody take the pick out of them, because the best land would be taken and the poor land would be left on the hands of the Government. 327. Mr. Matheson.] Is most of the Cheviot land loaded for roads? —I am not quite sure, but I am informed the amount was £60,000. 328. In some districts the settlers pay off the amount of the loading, principal and interest, in thirty-two years: do you think it is reasonable that the settlers under the lease in perpetuity should have to pay for the loading for 999 years ?- I do not think it makes any difference now, because there were a number of other applicants in for the section, for instance, which I took up, and I knew, of course, the terms under which I took it up. Thomas Stevenson examined. 329. The Acting-Chair man.] What are you? I am a farmer, and hold 533 acres —287 acres under lease in perpetuity, 277 acres of freehold, and 18 acres of railway reserve under a yearly lease. For the leasehold 1 pay ss. 6d. an acre, and for the freehold I gave £6 12s. 6d. For the yearly lease of railway reserve I pay 3s. 6d. an acre. In the case of the 18 acres there is a mile and a half of fencing to be done, which would raise the rent to 18s. an acre. Cheviot was loaded for roads to between £50,000 and £60,000, and I object to paying my share of that for all time. I think the settlers of Cheviot ought to be allowed to pay off that amount in rent in a certain time. 330. That is your experience in respect to the lease in perpetuity? I am perfectly satisfied with it. I have never had any trouble with the Land Board, and, as for the Ranger, if I want to see him I have to hunt him up. lam quite satisfied with the cropping restrictions at present. I think, however, that the Cheviot settlers ought to be allowed to cut grass the first year, as you never get a good crop the second year. 331. Are you satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Board? —Yes. 332. Mr. McLennan.] Would you like to change your lease in perpetuity into a freehold? — No; lam quite satisfied that the rent lam paying is much less than I would have to pay if I converted it into a freehold. 333. Mr. Anstey.] You say you wish the right to pay off the loading in a term of years? —Yes, either in a term of years or straight out. 334. To whom do the roads belong? —To the County Council. 335. If you paid off the loading who would the roads belong to? —To the country, the same as any other roads; but Ido not see why I should pay interest on the roads for all time. 336. Mr. Johnston.] Your freehold cost you £6 12s. 6d. ? Yes. 337. What could you get for it now?— With improvements, I might get about £10 an acre. 338. What are your improvements worth? —About £1,000. 339. You would not have much profit out of it, then?-- No. 340. What stock will it carry? —I keep two teams going all the j'ear round, and the land carries three sheep to the acre through growing feed for them. If I did not keep the teams going it would not carry a sheep to the acre. • 341. If you had very bad years would you apply to the Land Board for a reduction of your rent ? —No. 342. You do not think that any Cheviot settlers take advantage of that Act? —Tliey might, but I would not. I would rather go out. I would stand on my own.
C—4.
550
JR. FLEMING.
Robert Fleming examined. 343. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and hold 99 acres at Cheviot under lease in perpetuity. My rent is 10s. an acre. I also hold 1,316 acres near Kaikoura under lease in perpetuity, and the rental is Is. an acre. 344. Do you wish to bring any particular matter under the notice of the Commission I—Yes;1 —Yes; I am a believer in the freehold, and I want the option of the freehold instead of lease perpetuity. 345. Do you wish the right to pay off the amount as you are able to? —Yes, in any way it suits me. 346. What is your opinion in respect to the constitution of the Land Boards?—! do not see what good the Land Board is when its decisions can be overruled from Wellington. The Land Board is better to-day since they " tired " the members of the House ofi it. 347. Do you think an elective Board would be better than the present nominated Board? —• Certainly. 348. How would you elect it? —I would have two members elected by the Crown tenants. 349. And have the rest nominated? —Yes. 350. Have you had any trouble with the Rangers or the Land Board? —I applied for an adjoining section some six years ago, and they refused my request. That was when there were members of the House on the Board. I only held 99 acres and applied for 117 acres, and they refused my request. 351. Do you know anything with respect to the Advances to Settlers Office?- Yes. I got an advance, and subsequently got the money elsewhere and paid it ofi at 1 per cent. more. I wanted to get out of the Government leading-strings as much as 1 could. 352. Was there any particular hardship in connection with the working of the Advances to Settlers Department? —No. 353. Mr. McLennan.~\ If you were a land-proprietor and had leased your farms to various tenants, would you like to see two or three of those tenants appointed to see that you were carrying out your agreement and the tenants were carrying out theirs ? —No, I would not. 354. Mr. Anstey.] Upon what terms would you wish to acquire the freehold of your leasehold property? —At the original price. When 1 took up my land first it was largely covered with nigger-heads and was swampy, and it cost me £3 an acre to clear it. 355. Why is the freehold better than the lease in perpetuity? —You do not need in the case of the freehold to carry the broad arrow for 999 years. 356. Do you think you can farm the land better and make more money out of it under the freehold ? —Yes. 357. In respect to the freehold, do you think you ought to get that advantage for nothing? —Yes. 358. Mr. Paul.] What do you mean by carrying the broad arrow? —A State slave. 359. How? A tenant of the Government. 360. In what way is he a slave?—He is working for their good. 361. Are you not able to make a living out of the land? Yes, but it is a pretty thin thing. 362. If there was no leasehold could you have bought this land as freehold? —Certainly not. 363. Have you nothing to be thankful for? —No, not after the treatment I have had. 364. What is the grievance particularly? —Why was 1' not allowed to enlarge my place. 365. How did they allow you to get the 1,360 acres? —That was under a different Land Board. 366. Do you think there should be any limit to the area a man should hold? —Certainly. 367. At what would you fix the area? —As it is at present, 640 acres of first-class land and 2,000 acres of second-class land. 368. Would you extend that to settlements under the lease in perpetuity ? -Yes. 369. Do you think Cheviot would have been as successful to-day if the minimum area of firstclass land was 640 acres and 2,000 acres? —Certainly. 370. Do you not think where land is of good quality it is better to have a larger number of settlers on it?—l suppose so. 371. Mr. Matheson.] Why do you want an elective Land Board, seeing that you dislike members of the House, who are men who have been elected ? —I want the Crown tenants to elect two members. 372. Mr. McCardle.] Do you not think it would suit the interests of the Crown tenants if the Government were to nominate good practical men from among the Crown tenants? Do you not think that would meet the case much better than to elect the men, or do you think they might suggest some representatives they might think fit? —That would amount to the same thing. 373. You think the nominated system, as long as the Crown tenants were fairly represented, would meet the case? —Yes. 374. Mr. Johnston.] You said you knew of a case in which influence was used in Wellington: can you mention it? —Yes. 375. What was it?- At the Hurunui Mouth there was a section that the Land Board refused to cut into two, dividing the land between the adjoining owners, but that decision was overruled, and a memorandum came down to transfer it. 376. Have you a grievance against the Land Board? —No. 377. How many sheep do you carry? —About six hundred. 378. You say you would not have got on the land if it had not been for the Land for Settlements Act?—l do not think so. Samuel Haughey examined. 379. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold 134 acres under lease in perpetuity and 60 acres with seven years' lease, the latter having been recently acquired. The rent of the lease-in-perpetuity land is lis, an acre, and of the other land 10s. or lis.
551
C—4.
S. IIAUGHEY.
380. What is your opinion in respect to the leasehold and freehold systems?—My opinion is that Ido not think it matters much whether it is leasehold or freehold. What is required is that it should be secure. 381. You think security of tenure is the principal thing?- -Yes, it is the vital principle of all land-settlement. There is no country which will progress properly unless it has security of tenure. I think that every other condition is subservient to the tenure question. 382. Do you think your lease in perpetuity is a secure enough tenure? —Yes; I consider it as good as the freehold, provided it is not interfered with in the future. Igo on the assumption that it will not be interfered with. It is better than the freehold for putting people on the land. It gives a man with a very small capital a chance of getting a farm. If the land were freehold such a person would never have that chance. I consider that the business of the State should be to allow every one who wishes it to get on the land, and after he gets on the land he should be secure. 383. Mr. Anstey.\ Have you got any valuation for improvements at the end of the sevenyears lease?- -I paid for the fences, and I will get paid for them on going out. There is no right of renewal. 384. You know of cases where men have taken up freehold land on deferred payment: do you know whether tliey were invariably successful ? —I know of certain cases which were not very successful because the land was very poor. 385. Mr. Paul.] As to the valuation for fencing, is that reasonable on this lease? Do you work it in connection with your lease-in-perpetuity holding? —I only got it recently The valuation is reasonable enough. 386. Is there anything else you could put on it in the way of improvements that would aid in the proper working of the land? VYes, I would put one of my boys on it; but I do not think I would get compensation for any improvements put on the land. John Hansen examined. 387. The Acting-Chairman.\ What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold 1,184 acres under lease in perpetuity and 35 acres of railway reserve on a seven-years lease. The rent for the lease-in-perpetuity land is 4s. 6d. an acre, and for the railway reserve 15s. I would like to see the Land Board have power to grant rebates on rent in the case where a tenant's section is washed away by a river or stream. I have had some of my land washed away, and applied to the Land Board for some concession, and the Board replied they could not grant it under the existing law. I would like to see the law so amended so that a farmer might have his rent reduced in proportion to the ploughable land washed away. 388. Mr. McLennan.] Are you satisfied with your lease in perpetuity? —My section is too small. 389. Do you wish to have the option of the freehold? Yes, for the small section. 390. Are there any other tenants who are liable to have their land washed away by the river? -Yes, there are several ; but they have larger holdings, and they do not feel it so much 391. Could not the farmers themselves form themselves into a River Board and protect themselves? —Yes; I have seen that done in South Canterbury. 392. Mr Anstey.\ You say that the section of 146 acres is too small: what size ought the section to be? —For grazing sheep I think a man ought to be able to graze at lease five hundred sheep. 393. Could you live better on the freehold? —It would induce me to pay off a small amount when I had a good year or two, so that when hard times came I would not feel the rent so much. 394. Were you able to buy the land when you went there first? —No. 395. How is it you are able to buy it now? —I am not able to buy it out now, but if I had a few years I could pay it off in £25 or £50 instalments. 396. Upon what terms would you expect to buy it? Do you want to buy it at the original valuation ? —Yes, that is all it is worth. 397. But you would not care to submit it to public competition? —Yes, if I got valuation for my improvements. 398. Mr. Paul.\ Is much of this land liable to be washed away? —Half of it is only river-bed. 399. Would it not be rather risky to buy the freehold? —Yes, to a certain extent. William Frederick Henshaw examined. 400. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold 198 acres under lease in perpetuity and 28 acres under a yearly lease. The rental of the lease-in-perpetuity land is ss. an acre and of the other land 3s. an acre. I desire to say that I think a man who only holds 190 acres of second-class land should be allowed to acquire a section next to him. Some eight months ago I had an opportunity of acquiring an adjoining section, but my request was refused on the ground that I had sufficient land to live on. But I can assure the Commission that it is not sufficient. I think the Land Board should have no discretionary power in regard to such matters, otherwise favouritism may occur. 401. You think the constitution of the Land Board is satisfactory? —I am quite satisfied with the way the Land Board is constituted, but I think in such a matter as T have referred to they should adhere to the provisions of the Act. lam quite satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. John Hogan examined. 402. The Acting-Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold 257 acres under lease in perpetuity, and my rent is 4s. an acre. I have also 80 acres of reserve land. lam not very well satisfied with the Land Board, because in their administration of the law they do not seem to treat everybody the same. In some cases the Board may grant applications enabling persons to take up adjoining land, and in other cases they refuse the application.
r J. HOPtAN.
0.—4.
552
403. Have vou made any application yourself ?—No; but the opinion of most people about here is that the Board does not treat all the people the same. There is a lot of favouritism carried on. 404. How would you remove that?—l think the Act should be strictly enforced, and the Board should not be allowed to do as they like. They seem to have a new Act nearly every time they hold a meeting. lam not in favour of their having discretionary power. 405. Mr. Anstey.] Are the cropping restrictions unsatisfactory? —I think they are all right. 406. Are you satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure?— Yes; but I think everybody should be treated alike. 407. In that case would there be any necessity for a Land Board? Could not the Ranger see that the Act was carried out?—lt might be necessary for the Board <o see that the Ranger did his duty. 408. Mr. Johnston.] Has the Land Board treated you badly? —No. 409. You are not afraid of the Board?—Not a bit. 410. We have been told that Crown tenants are afraid of the Land Board and the Government? —I am not afraid of either.
Waiau, Wednesday, 19th Apbil, 1905. Lewis Joseph Pullet examined. 1. The Acting-Chairman (Mr. Forbes).] What are you?—l hold a grazing run on the Lyndon No. 2 Settlement. It is under the small-grazing-run tenure, and the term of the lease is for twenty-one years. My rent is 2s. 7d. an acre, less 10 per cent, rebate for cash. The area of my holding is 3,590 acres. I carry about sixteen hundred ewes. I have found that the country is too dear. I and two other small-grazing-run holders brought this question before the Land Board, and the Board has done all it can in the matter. The question was referred to Wellington. We first wrote to Mr. Seddon, and he referred our application to the Minister of Lands, who told us there was no power under the Act to make any reduction in the rent, but that a remission could be made on the recommendation of the Land Board. From the correspondence I have seen, I think the Land Board has done all it could in the matter to get a remission, but it appears thai the opposition has been so severe that the Minister decided not to grant a remission. We wished to get a half-year's remission when we found that we could not get a reduction in rent; but it seemed to the authorities that that would not help us, but 1 thought half a loaf would be better than none. We could not get any reduction in rent. This settlement has been wrongly cut up. We have not sufficient flat land. I think if the settlement had been cut up into three farms and three grazing-runs it would have been better. But the present arrangement does not give us a chance of bringing our sheep down in a bad year. It is very fair sheep country, but the land is too dear. I think on an average season it is worth about Is. 6d.^—that is, half what we are giving. 2. Are you troubled with snow in the winter?— Not severely, except in occasional years. Fof instance, the year before last we lost a good deal of our stock. It is cold country. 3. You think if that reduction were made there would be a chance of making a better living off the runs? —Yes, or if we had more flat land. 4. Is there any flat land in the vicinity that the Government could get?—l do not know of any. 5. Is there any particular point that you would like specially to bring before the Commission ? —I think the tenure is all right, but I am of opinion that the Government is paying a little too much for the land they are acquiring, and I also think that in some places the land is not always suitable for settlement. If the land is bought at a reasonable figure I believe that the tenure is a very good one, and would give every one a very good chance of being fairly successful. 6. What is your opinion in respect to the constitution of the Land Boards?- The Land Board have been very fair indeed to me. I think the Board has done everything it was possible for them to do. 7. Mr. Paul.] Is your land fully stocked with sixteen hundred ewes?--Yes. 8. Would it not carry more?-—Not to do them justice. 9. What was your percentage of lambs?- -This year it has been very good—about 92 per cent. I had an exceptionally good lambing last season. In previous years it was about 72 per cent. 10. Do you think if the rent was reduced you could carry on with success ?—Yes, if there was a reasonable reduction. 11. Without any more low country? —Yes, it would give you a chance, because you could go on with your country lightly stocked. People coming from the south and looking 'at the land from a distance would probably say that the country is well tussocked, but I may point out that there is very little between the tussocks. 12. How did the rent in the next run compare with yours? —It was Is. 10d., but that country is not so good as mine. I think it was based on the same carrying-capacity. 13. Mr. Anstey.] Are the rents about equally proportionate on those three grazing-runs— that is, according to value? —I think so. 14. Why is it the other run has been surrendered? —It has not been paying. 15. You think all three runs are too dear?—l am certain they are too dear. 16. In your lease have you a right of renewal?- I am informed I have. 17. At an arbitration rental?- I do not know for certain, but I think so. 18. Have you done any surface-sowing of grass?- -Yes, in a few of the gullies, and it has taken. If I surface-sowed it might cost me ,£1 an acre, and at the end of my lease I would get nothing for it.
L. J. PULLEY.I
553
C.-4
19. Has your experiment been successful, speaking generally? —No. I have sown about ten bags at different times, and I do not think one bag has taken out of the lot, and we have had very fair seasons the last three years for surface-sowing. 20. Then, if you got valuation for surface-sowing it would not be very much use to you — it would not encourage you to sow if it had been a failure?- But if you did get valuation it would encourage one to try. 21. Mr. Matheson.~\ Have you put buildings on the land? Not many. 22. What were your improvements, roughly? —About £700. 23. Supposing your improvements to th« extent of £700 were secured to you, and the rent reduced to Is. 6d. per acre, would you be willing to see it put up to public competition if your improvements were valued at arbitration I—Yes,1 —Yes, I would be perfectly satisfied, because I feel I cannot continue at the present rental except at a loss. 24. Mr. McLennan.] Have you any other stock? —No, except four horses and a couple of milking-cows. 25. Is your place well watered? —Yes. 26. I suppose there is good grass in the guilies? —No, there is nothing but fern. There is another bad point about the run —most of it lies to the south-west. It has been badly cut up — too much of the flat land has been cut off. 27. The Acting-Chairman.] You think if you had a reduction in your rent you would be able to make the place a success? —Yes; and I was recommended by the Minister of Lands to bring this matter before the Land Commission. James Boyd examined. 28. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold 120 acres of freehold land at Kaikoura. I wish to draw the attention of the Land Commission to one or two matters. I may say that I strongly object to the Land Board as at present constituted; some of the members of the Board should be elected. Ido not think it should be wholly elected, because that would be taking too much power from the Government; but if it were not for that reason, it would be better if it were wholly elected. I think the members of the Land Board should be elected on the parliamentary franchise, and that the remaining members of the Board should be nominated as at present. 1 am very strongly in favour of the present system of land-tenure. I think the freehold is best for the rich man, and that the leasehold enables the poor man to get on the land. 29. Do you think the lease-in-perpetuity system is the best system? —Yes, I do think so, not that I have any land under that system, but 1 do say it is best for the people, because there are large numbers of persons who would not be able to get on the land if it were not for the leasehold system. I think it would be wrong to grant leaseholders the privilege of converting their leasehold into freehold. 30. I suppose your County Council have to do with the expenditure of "thirds""? —Yes, we get about £700 of " thirds " and " fourths " a year. 31. Do you think that system is satisfactory?- It is in a certain way, but it throws a great responsibility on the Council, because a great amount of the money with which the land was loaded was squandered. If the expenditure had been properly done, it would have been a very good system. The "'thirds" came in regularly, but the money was squandered, and now numbers of the settlers have not got a road at all. The "thirds" would be enough to maintain the roads, but they are not enough to make them. We get ""fourths " out of the lease-in-perpetuity land, but none out of the freehold land sold in our district. 3.2. Is there any land about Kaikoura suitable for cutting up for closer settlement? —No, not to be taken compulsorily. 33. Have the landowners there shown any disposition to sell to the Government? —No. I may state that the Kaikoura settlers signed a petition to the Land Commission asking them to visit that district, but I suppose there is not much chance of their doing so. I have come here to give my evidence. 34. Mr. Paul.\ Is your reason for advocating the election of members of Land Boards on the parliamentary franchise the idea that all the people should have a voice in the administration of the land? —Certainly. 35. It is suggested that residents in cities and boroughs should be excluded?- That would be right enough, but I may say that there is no city in our district, and I did not take that into consideration in my reply. On further consideration, I would not like to give a definite answer on that point. 36. But the alteration you are advocating might be a success in Kaikoura? Yes. 37. Do you think it should be applied throughout the country ?--Yes, generally. 38. Is the condition of the settlers in your district satisfactory? —Yes. 39. Is the value of land there increasing?--Yes, every day. 40. Then, taking everything into consideration, your district is prosperous? —Yes. 41. Is there any aggregation of estates going on? —Yes, a little. 42. Were the roads made under the co-operative system?- Yes. 43. Is that why the money was squandered? —They were too liberal with the men in regard to the money. 44. The supervision was not satisfactory? —No. 45. There was no contract labour? -Not tender contracts. 46. You saw the working of the co-operative system? —Yes. 47. With proper supervision, do you think it could be made satisfactory? Yes. 48. Then, the success or failure of that system depends entirely on proper supervision I—Yes,1 —Yes, I think so. 49. Mr. Anstey.~\ You think there is really no further land about Kaikoura that could be subdivided? —Yes, but not by compulsorily taking it. 70—C. 4.
a—4
554
J. BOYD
50. Are there any large runs in that neighbourhood that could be profitably subdivided into smaller runs? —Yes. 51. Is there much of it, and, if so, in what size areas should the land be cut up? —From 1,000 to 2,000 acres. 52. How many sheep will it carry? —Any of that country will carry about two sheep to the acre if the bush is felled. 53. In what size runs do you think the open country ought to be cut into so as to carry a certain number of sheep ? —I believe that the runs would be suitable in size if they were cut up so as to hold from two to three thousand sheep. 54. What are the adjoining runs there?- -From 1,000 to 3,000 acres. 55. In regard to the election of members of Land Boards, you recommend the parliamentary franchise. In the case of Christchurch, however, with its thirty thousand voters, you do not think it would be advisable to include that city? —No, I do not. 56. Mr. Matheson.] The Minister of Lands is at present responsible for the nomination of the members of the Land Board? —Yes. 57. Does it not seem to you that he is in as good a position to select a suitable man for the position of member of the Land Board as the ordinal settler is in a position to do? —Yes; but I would point out that members of Parliament ask for the appointment of men to the Board who have worked hardest for them, very often quite irrespective of whether they are really suitable men. 58. Suppose you had a member of the House who was a thoroughly straight man, and who wanted to serve his district, do you not think he could pick out a suitable man for the position ? —Yes. 59. Would not that be much simpler than having an election? —Yes. 60. But you really think it would be better if the people elected the Board rather than the Minister should appoint the members?— Yes. 61. Can you suggest any method of supervision of co-operative works which will avoid wasting money? —Not unless the work is intrusted to the County Council. 62. Do you think the County Council could spend the money more economically than a Government Department? —I am sure they could, after the road was graded and laid off. 63. And would you suggest that they should let the work by tender? —Either by tender or under the co-operative system, with capable supervision. John Bunting examined, 64. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you? —I am a labourer, and I hold 1 acre of land in the Waiau Settlement; the tenure is lease in perpetuity, and my rent is £1 2s. 6d. a year. I am strongly in favour of the present system of land-tenure. 1 approve of the leasehold system. I think it is best for the country, and best for the people. I have no complaints to make against the Land Board. If it were not for the leasehold there are very many people who would not be able to get on the land. I would not have been able to acquire a freehold. 65. Mr. Paul.] Did you go to the ballot for this section? —No. 66. Have you had long experience in this district? Yes, twenty-two years. 67. You have seen the effect of this closer settlement?--Yes. 68. Is it satisfactory and good for the district? —Yes; I am quite satisfied it is the best form of tenure. If the farmers had it in their own hands they could not better it. 69. Mr. Anstey.] Are there any very large estates in this district that ought to be cut up? — Yes, Achray. 70. As to workmen's homes, are there sufficient small sections here for them? —Yes, I hold one of them. They are not all taken up. 71. What is the most convenient size for these sections? —From 15 to 20 acres. If there were any sections of that size available they would be taken up at once. 72. Would there be any demand for 1-acre sections ? —Not so much ; I think the 10-acre sections would be very quickly taken up about here. 73. Is there plenty of work available for men who take up those sections?- Yes. 74. Supposing there were any more runs cut up, what would be the best-size sections to cut them into? —You could not expect a man to work the land unless he had 300 or 400 acres in order that he might keep a team of horses. 75. In cutting-up a run, would it not be well to cut it up into fair-sized farms, and also into some smaller sections? —A labouring-man would want from 10 to 15 acres. 76. Mr. Matheson.] You said that you would not have been able to buy a freehold: do you think it would be wise, in the event of a man getting on well, that he should have the right to pay off the capital value? —I would buy the section, but that would be looking at it from a selfish point of view. Looking at it from the point of view of the State, I say the State should retain all the land it has. 77. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to gradually acquire all the land of the colony, and let it out to tenants? —I think so. 78. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think it is desirable that you should stick to your agreement with the Government? —Yes, lam quite satisfied in every way. Ido not think I could better it. William Fitzpatrick examined. 79. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and my land is in the Annan Settlement. The area of my holding is 993 acres, and my rental is 3s. 3d. per acre. The tenure is lease in perpetuity. I wish specially to call the attention of the Commission to the question of the roads. After rain you cannot get to my place with three horses and a dray. When we took up this land we understood that a new road, which is shown on the plan, would be made.
W. FITZPATRICK.]
555
C—4.
80. How much money was spent in making roads to the settlement I—l1 —I do not know, but very little work was done. 81. How was the work done? —By co-operative labour. 82. Were the workmen taken from amongst the settlers? —Yes, I think so. 83. You do not think the settlers got the value of the money that was expended? —No. 84. Have you applied to the Land Board about it?- I believe the Board has written, saying that the proposed road runs through other sections. We want the road. 85. Is there any other matter you would like to bring before the Commission? —I believe in the leasehold system, and 1 also think that the major part of my neighbours are in favour of it — in fact, I think they are all in favour of it except one, and I think his mind is in the balance. 86. Do you think the present lease-in-perpetuity tenure is most satisfactory? —Yes, I am quite satisfied with it. I would not have been able to have got the land I hold if I had had to buy the freehold. 87. Mr. Paul.J There are no other conditions working against you? —No. 88. Have you formed any opinion as to the constitution of the Land Board? —I think the present constitution is satisfactory. 89. Are you satisfied with the working of the ballot system by which you got this land? —I am now, but when I went to the ballot I had fifty-two other applicants against me. 90. Mr. Atistey.] Are the rents of this settlement generally fair? —This year has been very good, and there has been plenty of grass. Ido not know what it would be in a dry summer, but in the case of the smaller sections I think they would require to grow some crop in order to pay the rent, and in the present bad state (Tf the roads they could not carry out the produce. I brought out to-day twenty bags of cocksfoot with three good horses, and I could hardly get it through. 91. Mr. Matheson.] Do you avail yourself of the 10-per-cent. rebate? —Yes. 92. When that Act was passed granting the remission, did you think it was an improvement to the lease? —Yes, but we only get it for prompt payment. 93. If the Crown claims the land and bad times come, do you think there will be an agitation for a reduction of rent?— I think there will be when the land is too dear. 94. Do you think the Crown should let the tenants gradually pay off the capital value? —I have not considered that matter. 95. Mr. McLennan.] Have you any couch-grass there?--No. I have some sweetbriar that I have nearly grubbed out. Jambs Gardner examined. 96. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you?--I am a leaseholder on Lyndon No. 2, and the area of my holding is 630 acres I hold the land under the lease in perpetuity, and my rent is 4s. 3d. an acre. 97. What is your opinion with respect to the constitution of Land Boards? —I think the different districts should be represented, either by nomination or election. lam in favour of the optional freehold system. 98. You would like to have the option of converting your lease in perpetuity into a freehold? —Yes. 99. Do you think the Government would be wise to give the option of the freehold? —Yes. 100. In connection with your lease in perpetuity, do you think the option ought to be at the original price, or at a price to be fixed when the fresh provision is inserted in the lease? —It depends on when that provision is brought in. If it were brought in soon after the land was taken up it should be on the original value, but if it were brought in much later on there should be a revaluation. 101. Do you not think it would be a fair thing for the holder, before converting the lease into a freehold, to pay the difference in the value?— Yes, there would certainly be a difference in the value. 102. What is your opinion with respect to the ballot? —I have not studied it much, but Ido not approve of the grouping system. In my own case, there were one or two sections which I very much fancied, and there were some that I did not fancy. The section I drew was not a section that I fancied at all, but I drew it and had to abide by it. I therefore object to the grouping system, and I approve oi the ordinary straight-out ballot. 103. What is your opinion with respect to the advances to settlers? —I do not understand the working of it, but lam informed that a fair value is not given for improvements. 1* think it would be a great help to settlers in commencing their work on a section if advances were granted up to almost the full value. 104. Do you think the Government would be safe to advance up to three-fifths? —Yes, quite safe. 105. Mr. Paul.] Is there anything in the leasehold tenure which prevents you making the best use of the land ? —No, Ido not think so; but Ido not see that it is altogether a secure tenure. 106. Where is the insecurity?- I know of two sections side by side. In one case the settler was able to stock the section to almost what it could carry, and he did well In the other case, at the same valuation, the land remained in a very poor state, and for the first two or three years the settler had a very hard struggle, and if he got behind with his rent he was liable to be turned out. 107. But is there anything in connection with the tenure that prevents you making the best use of the land? —No; but the lease in perpetuity is not so secure as the freehold, in my opinion. In the case of bad yeirs the leaseholder would have to pay his rent, or if he did not he would have to go out. 108. Did you never hear of a mortgagee foreclosing? —Yes. 109. Mr. Anstey.] You said the settlements or districts should be represented on the Land Board: I suppose you meant the settlers? Yes.
\S. GARDNER.
556
G.—4.
110. In what way should they be represented? I think the settlers should have the right of electing some members of the Land Board. 111. How many members do you think the settlers ought to elect?—l think one member out of the four. 112. If the whole of the settlers of Canterbury, from Waitaki to Waiaii, were to elect one settler, do you think that most of them would have the least idea of who they were voting for 1 I do not suppose they would. (13, Do you think they would know who they were voting for as well as the Minister knows the man whom he nominates? - No, 1 should not think they would; but if the person nominated was a settler we would know that he would represent the settlers. 114. Do you know anything about the No. 2 Run?—l consider the rent is too high. 115. Is it large enough for a man to make a living out of it? —There is not sufficient low country attached to it. I have seen the land seven weeks under snow. 116. Do you think that one of the settlers on the low country ought to have a chance of getting it? -If one of the farms in the low country were put in with the high country the settler would have a better chance. I would not take it, because I consider the rent is too high. I think there ought to be more flat country put in with it. 117. Does that apply to the other two? —They have got a great deal more flat country; but I think the rents are too high, but they are not so bad as the one I have referred to. 118. Do you crop your farms?- No, only for horse and sheep feed. 119. Do you breed sheep?— Yes. 120. Do you sell fat lambs? —Yes. 121. Do you grow turnips? —I have not grown a decent crop yet, but I may in time. 122. Mr. Matheson.] Do you manure your turnips? —No. 123. Was this settlement loaded for roads?— Yes. 124. How was the money spent? —It was done by contract. I think the amount spent was about £700. 125. Do you think the settlers got good value for that money? —No, 1 do not think so. 126. Mr. McLennan.'] You are in favour of the freehold? —Yes. 127. Do you not think it is a very dangerous thing to interfere with the conditions under which you hold your lease? —No. ... 128. Do you not think it might lead to revaluation? —That is the only thing in connection with the leasehold we have to consider. Revaluation may take place at any time, in my opinion.^ 129. Do you think the Government will do that as long as the Crown tenants do not desire it?— Why should they not do so. If they thought it was a fair thing to do they might do so at any time. Ido not think the lease in perpetuity will continue for 999 years. 130. You think the Government will break the present lease? I would not be a bit surprised if they did. 131. Would it not be the Crown tenants' own fault, if the Crown tenants wish to acquire the freehold, and thus the lease is broken?—lt is the wish of some tenants to acquire the freehold. 132. But it takes two to break a lease. Do you not think an alteration of the lease might be made which would be detrimental to the tenant?— I do not think so. Walter Rutherford examined. 133. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you?- I am a retired farmer. I hold 5,000 acres of freehold land, which my son is working. , 134. You have been in this district for a long time?—l am the oldest resident here. 1 came here in January, 1860. ~ , . . ,xl . „ ~ 135. You have seen these runs cut up for settlement: do you thmk it is a good thing tor the country ?—Yes, for the good of the country at first. When I came here first there was only a license to occupy, and then the authorities began to give lease with right of purchase. Then they gave a purchasing clause, and there was no possibility of a little man getting any of them at that time. But what I came here to refer to is the loading of the land of Crown tenants. That land is loaded so-much per acre for roading, and it is included in the rent, and rates have also to be paid on the loading for all time. Lyndon No. 1 was loaded with ss. per acre, and they have to pay rates on that, and the rates have to be paid in advance, and that is rather hard on the settlers. I think an alteration should be made in respect to that matter. 136. Do you think if the loading was kept separate from the rent it might be paid off?— Yes, and not only that, but it would save it from the rates. 137. Do you think the loading for roads is unnecessary? —Yes; it seems to me the Crown tenants are paying about double what they ought to. The Crown tenants are valued on their rental, and it was about double what the freeholders pay. Highfield is about double what it originally was. 138. Do you consider it a good thing, in the interests of the State, that these large estates should be cut' up for closer settlement ?—lt is a great improvement on the old system of landtenure. There are more people on the lands now than formerly. 139. Do you consider the lease in perpetuity a good system? —No. I consider the best system would be revaluation at shorter periods at, say, thirty years, and if things came to the push there might be revaluation at even shorter periods if bad times came. I think that would be better in the interests of the State and in the interests of the tenants too. Under the lease in perpetuity the State gets no increment for 999 years, but there is sure to be an increment during that time. 140. Mr. Paul.'] Do you think the State acted wisely in selling these large areas of freehold land in the early days? —No. 141. Do you think if they had given the squatter a secure tenure, say, a lease with revaluation, it would have been better? —Yes, it would have been better.
W. RUTHERFORD. I
557
C—4.
142. Do you think that closer settlement has cost the country much more than it should have done? -Yes, it has been a great loss to New Zealand —these big leases. 143. These large freeholds were an evil? —Yes. 144. And if our statesmen had been far-seeing enough in connection with closer settlement it might have been brought about at a much lower cost? -Yes, at an earlier period; but I consider the price of the land now is too high to work the system satisfactorily. 145. You think that the Government are paying too much for the land, and thus they have to charge the tenants too much rent? —Yes. 146. Is land increasing in value in this district? —Yes. 147. What was Highfield bought for in the first instance? —I believe most of it was bought for 10s. 148. What was it sold to the Government at? —It is rumoured the price was £2 18s. 149. Was there much improvement put on the land by the original purchaser? —There is a great deal on part of it. 150. As to the other estates resumed for closer settlement, were they purchased at about the same price or higher ? —I think they were. Some of them were without any improvements except fencing. 151. In that case did the original owner get a large sum? —Yes; I think Lyndon No. 2 was purchased at about £2 17s. 6d. 152. Are there any more estates suitable for subdivision which could be obtained at a fair price? —There are plenty that could be obtained, but I could not say what they could be obtained at. 153. Mr. Anstey.~\ You say tTiere are a lot of areas which could be cut up into smaller sections: what do you suggest to be the size of the sections?- It all depends on the nature of the land. 154. In case of grazing country, what number of sheep would a man require to have in order to make a fair living out of them?- He should make a living out of a thousand sheep. He would not make a fortune. In the case of land not of such good quality he would have to have a rather larger number of sheep. 155. What size holdings would agricultural land have to be to enable a man to make a fair living on it? —I think from 300 to 500 acres. If it was very good land it might be less. 156. Have you had any experience in surface-sowing this high country? —Yes, a good deal. It has been successful with me. I grassed down gradually. The grass takes very well —not everywhere, but in most places —and it will spread itself even if you do not sow it at all on some land. 157. What sort of seed do you sow? —Ryegrass and timothy in damp places, and white-clover The best-quality seed is the most profitable to sow in the end. 158. Mr. Matheson.\ How high does your high country run? —The highest part is about 2,000 ft. 159. Do you think it is reasonable that the settlers should pay interest on the roading for ever? —I think the roading should be made out of the general land fund. 160. Do you think it would be an improvement on the present system of loading for roads if the settlers were allowed to pay oft the capital value in thirty years? —The freeholders might do so, but Ido not know that it would be so in the case of Crown tenants. I would like, in conclusion, to make another suggestion to the Commission. I think the Government might only charge the Crown tenants a small rent for the first year or two, and make it compulsory that improvements should be effected to the value of the difference in the rent. Jambs Dowds examined. 161. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you ?- lam a farmer on the Annan Settlement. I hold 298 acres under lease in perpetuity. I pay 6s. 6d. per acre rent. 162. Is there anything special you would like to bring before the Commission? —I want to refer to the road mentioned by Mr. Fitzpatrick. I had hopes when I took up my section that that road would be made, but I find now there is scarcely any probability of it being made. There has been some correspondence in regard to it, more especially through the member for the district, but it is not likely to be made now, the reason given being that the road is one that is likely to be made by the County Council some day. I think it is very necessary for the proper working of my section, because the present road is impassable in wet weather. It is said that the estate has not been loaded with the cost of making it. 163. Is there anything else you wish to bring before the Commission? —No. 164. Are you satisfied with your lease in perpetuity ? —Perfectly, for my circumstances. 165. Are the rentals on the Annan Estate fairly satisfactory? —Yes, so far as I know. 166. Do you find the Land Board treat you all right? —Yes, I am quite satisfied with the constitution of the Land Hoard. I think it is the best, because it is free from local influence. 167. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 168. Mr. Paul.\ Was the settlement loaded for this particular road you mentioned? —No. 169. Mr. Anstey.] Do you consider the Government have broken faith with you in not opening a road shown on the plan? —I would not say that quite. In the earlier stages of the ballot the Commissioner stated it was not intended to open the road, but I did not hear of it at first. But if I had heard it was not to be opened that would not have stopped me going to the ballot. 170. I notice you live at the back of this hill: what do the people through whose land the road would go think of it? I do not think they desire it, because it would cost them a considerable amount for fencing. But Ido not think they should be allowed to stop the other settlers getting a road they want. 171. But, before the ballot, did they get an assurance that their farms would not be cut through by this road ? —Not until the very day of the ballot. 172. Would you be agreeable to a fair loading now to pay the cost of this road? —Yes.
C—4.
558
J. DOWDS.
173. Mr. Mathe-fon.] Do you not know that you have power now to raise money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act to make that road, and that you can repay interest and principal in a certain number of years? —I was not aware of the fact. 174. If a majority of the settlers along that road are in favour of doing the work under the Loans to Local Bodies Act they can raise the money and construct the road, and repay the loan in twenty-six or thirty-five years?—l was not aware of it; but I do not see why the road should not be made in the ordinary way. 175. The Government have no power to set this machinery in motion after the settlement has been opened, but the settlers who desire the road can do so? —I was not aware of the fact. Herbert Thomas Beaven examined. 176. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on Lyndon No. 1. I hold 648 acres under lease in perpetuity. 1 pay 3s. 9d. per acre rent. 177. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —When I went there the settlement was loaded to the extent of £500 for roads, and we naturally thought that money would be expended straight away. We wanted the roads during the first six months more than at any other period, and I may say the road was very bad then. It was nearly two years before this road was opened. I would suggest the Government, in opening up a settlement, should spend the loading for roads as soon as possible, in order to give the settlers a chance to conveniently get their goods on to their sections. The roads are in very fair order now, and we have nothing to complain of. 178. Do you look on Lyndon No. las a successful settlement? —I think it will be. It is coming now. For the first few years the sections at the back, and my own amongst them, were almost usless, because the country was all covered with scrub and gorse. The country is no good until it is grassed, but we have a good deal in grass now, and we are doing better. It is practically all ploughable. It takes grass very well, and it will be right enough by-and-by. But in the first few years it would not carry a sheep, and we could not hold our own then. 179. Are you satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —It is right enough, so far as it goes. Like some of the rest of the Crown tenants, we would like to get it for our own if possible, and when we are in a position to make it freehold, as we hope to be some day. I would like to see some alteration in regard to the system of rating by the Assessment Court. We were assessed right up to the hilt as soon as we went on to the place, and I do not think we would be assessed quite so high if we were assessed in proportion to our freehold neighbours. Ido not suggest that the Land Board has anything to do with that, but it hardly seems fair that we should be rated higher than our freehold neighbours. 180. Mr. l J aul.\ Is the general settlement of the district satisfactory? —1 think so. I cannot speak for other settlements than this. 181. Do you think the land policy has been a wise one?- Yes, it is a good policy to get people on the land, and give them suitable-sized places to live on. 182. Have the Land Board treated you fairly? —1 have no complaint to make about them at all. I fancy if there was a sprinkling of Crown tenants on the Land Board the Board would get into better touch with the tenants, and know them personally. 183. You think the Government might make a practice of appointing one Crown tenant on each Land Board? —Just so, and let that member come from a different district, say, every three years. 184. If you get the option of purchase do you think you should be allowed to buy at the original capital value, or at a future valuation ? —When we went on to this place it was really not worth the money. I have had to make every inch of it. I suppose I have 100 acres, more or less, ba»d with gorse. When a man has had to improve his place like I have had to, I do not think he should have to pay any more for it at any future time. He makes it what it is. Some places may increase in value owing to what is commonly called the " unearned increment," but I say our improvements should be taken into consideration. When I went there that land would not carry a quarter of a sheep to the acre, but when in grass it will carry one sheep and a half to two sheep to the acre, but it costs a lot of money to put it into grass. 185. Where land has increased in value through the expenditure of public money, do you think the State should get something more than the capital value?- It should get a little. 186. Do you think the tenant should be allowed to do whatever pays him best, independent of the interest of the State?—lf he had the option, of course he would do what he liked. If it did not pay him to buy he would not buy, and if it did he would buy. 187. Do you want it fixed so that it would always pay him to buy?—l do not say that, but I say give him a fair show. 188. As a general principle, would you be in favour of revaluation for the purpose of purchase? —So far as our settlement is concerned, I should say certainly not. I have had no experience of other settlements. 189. If that is so, there could be no increase in the value of your sections if they have not increased in value outside your own efforts?— Our land has not increased in value. 190. Then, you could have no serious objection to revaluation? —No, provided I am allowed liberal valuation for my improvements. 191. Supposing you were allowed liberal valuation for your improvements, would you be in favour of allowing your section to be put up to public competition, seeing that other people may be anxious to obtain the land under the different tenure?—l think the tenant should have the first chance somehow. I was there three years before the place paid me. Now it is coming on, and I am getting the land into shape, and things seem to be better. If the place pays £200 a year for the next twenty years, I think I should be allowed to increase my capital to the extent of £200 for every year I have been there since I took the section up.
C—4.
559
H T. I'.EAVEN.i
192. Mr. Anstey.] Suppose the Government had been as prompt in spending your loading as the local bodies were in putting up your rates, would you have been satisfied I—Quite.1 —Quite. 193. Have you cleared all 'he scrub off this section] —No; that would take me all my lifetime. 194. Do you crop your land? —Only to the extent of oats for the horses. I do not know whether it will grow wheat yet. 195. Is your rent reasonable? —Yes. 196. Mr. Mathexon.] With regard to your objection to your valuation for rating purposes, do you know that once in every three years a day is set apart on which any person can object to his own or any one else's assessment?—Yes; but one does not want to be unneighbourly, and I cannot object to my own valuation, because when 1 applied for the section I practically admitted the section was worth the money. 197. Is it not a reasonable objection to the Court if you show that your valuation is out of proportion to a neighbouring one? —I have never tried it. William Richards examined. 198. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you? —I appear as the secretary of the Waiau District Settlers' Association. I have a freehold of 1,567 acres on part of the old Lyndon Estate. 199. What particular point do you wish to bring before the Commission? —The matter of the Annan Road, mentioned by Messrs. Fitzpatrick and Dowds. I am of opinion that the Government have clean " shuffled out" of the making of that road. I say that because of the fact that last session they put a vote of £100 on the estimates mainly owing to the pressure of the Settlers' Association to give it a start, and only within the last two or three months they have replied to our representations by disclaiming any fhtention to make the road. 200. Do your association think the Government are under any obligation to make that road? —That was the general feeling. 201. Do your association know of the statement made by the Commissioner before the ballot was taken I—Some1 —Some heard of it and some did not. 202. You do not think it was generally known? —Not generally. 203. Do you think, in view of the fact that the Commissioner made the statement before the ballot took place, that the Government is still under any obligation to make that road ? —The position is unsatisfactory. The road appeared on the plan when the settlement was offered, and a lot of the settlers took up the land on that condition. 204. In your opinion, is it a very necessary road? —Yes. 205. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the Government are under any obligation to construct a road through one of these estates when it is not loaded for the purpose ? —I do, for the reason that the matter was referred to the surveyor and the member for the district. They had a look at the road, and the surveyor agreed to waive any claim if the grades were eased on the present road and a slight deviation made to cut off one large hill. But this has not been carried out. 206. Was this estate loaded for roads? —It was loaded to the extent of £850, and I think £1,200 has been spent. I think that is a fault of the system—that the estates are not loaded sufficiently for road-making. 207. Mr. Anstey.] How many members are in your association ? Forty-eight. 208. Are they composed of the settlers on these estates? —The larger part. 209. Are you interested in this road?- No. 210. Is there any number of settlers living beyond the settlement across tbe Staunton River? — None at all. 211. Who live beyond there who are interested in this road? —Only two stations, but it is a mail track. 212. I suppose if this road was opened up they would benefit by it? —Certainly they would. 213. Is there any scheme whereby they could be made to pay their share of the cost of it? —Not that lam aware of. If you made it a county job only a small portion of Parnissus and Mendip Hills Stations would be liable for rates. 214. Mr. Matheson.] Have your association any definite feeling in regard to land-tenure?-No ; we leave that question alone. 215. Have you personally any strong feeling with regard to land-tenure? —No. 216. Have you no opinion about it?— My opinion is that things are right enough as they are at present. Walter Thomas Rutherford examined. 217. The Acting-Chairman-.] What are you?- lam a farmer on Lyndon No. 1. I hold 532 acres under lease in perpetuity. I pay 4s. per acre rent. 218. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission? —No. 219. Are you satisfied with your lease in perpetuity? —Yes, so long as there is no revaluation. I am against revaluation. 220. You do not feel any great fear in regard to revaluation? —No. I see there are a few in favour of it, and you never know when it might come. I think our contract should be regarded as sacred, and should be kept by both parties. 221. Mr. Paul.] Do you think there is any danger of the agitation by the Crown tenants for the freehold reopening this lease?- I believe that those who wish for the freehold may get revaluation, but I think those who do not wish it should be left alone. 222. Mr. Anstey.] Are the rents fairly reasonable?— Yes; lam satisfied. I crop a little for home use. lam under the usual cropping conditions, and lam perfectly satisfied with them. I have had no dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office. 223. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it is possible for the landlord and tenant to agree that a clause shall be added to tKe lease without breaking it? —I should think so.
C—4.
560
[E. C. WEBB.
Ernest Courtney Webb examined. 224. The Acting-Chairman.J What are you? —I am a farmer on Lyndon No. 2. I hold 4,500 acres under small-grazing-run lease. I pay 2s. 6d. per acre rent. 225. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? The whole of the settlers on the three runs have been agitating to get a reduction of rent. The places are too dear. We brought the matter before the Hon. T. Y. Duncan, and he said the whole thing would come before the Royal Commission. I would like to know what you are going to do about the matter. 226. What would you suggest as a fair rent for these runs? —I think an average rent of Is. 6d. per acre would be full value for this land. We would then have a chance to do something in the way of improvements. There are about 500 acres of my land with which I can do nothing at all. I carry about nineteen hundred sheep on the place, and they do not come off too well. I have lost over twelve hundred in three years. In the first year I lost eight hundred through snow alone. 227. Mr. Anstey.\ Have you sufficient low country to bring your sheep down in winter? —Not sufficient, and what there is is very poor and sour. There is no English grass on it, and the sheep simply exist oa'it. 228. Do you think it is necessary that some low country should be added to your run? —No; 1 think if the rent came down it would enable me to cover my losses. 229. Would you be in favour of a Fair Rent Bill being passed? —Certainly, I would. 230. Do you think it would be fair to apply that principle to other settlers with the rents of which they are perfectly satisfied? —Yes, so far as runs are concerned. 231. You think it would be fair to apply that to lease-in-perpetuity farmers? —No, I think they should come under a separate Bill. 232. Are you able to crop?- I think so. I will be able to grow enough for winter feed in time. 233. Mr. Matheson.] If your improvements are secured to you would you be willing to have your place put up to public competition at a fair rent ?—Yes. 234. Mr. McLennan.] Have you cultivated any of your land? —I have about 100 acres in turnips and grass. The turnips do not grow very well.
Hawarden, Thursday, 20th April, 1905. George Gardiner examined. 1. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you?--I am a farmer, holding about 1,100 acres of freehold on Horsley Downs. I was one of the original settlers at Cheviot. One of the chief reasons I had for selling out on Cheviot was on account of the freehold. The best thing for the country, and for everybody, is to have homesteads scattered freely all over. I think each farm should be sufficiently large to enable the owner to keep a man working on the place, but, on the other hand, it is criminal and waste of money on the part of the Government to give a man a larger holding than is necessary. The three things the Government have to deal with in connection with land are —(1) Land monopoly, (2) land abuse, and (3) taxation. I consider the town and country are mutually agreed on these particulars. I consider that the 999-years lease should have been repealed long ago. It is a ridiculous absurdity. Ido not think that even Great Britain could guarantee a thing for 999 years. In our case, with the 999-years lease, they are trying to pick holes in it already before nine years have elapsed. It is ridiculous also that the cropping regulations should be the same for £20-an-acre land as they are for ,£3-an-acre land. The lease in perpetuity is also bad, because under it no more mortgage-tax is collected nor can any land-tax be collected. The Government has sunk the money of the people in land which they have purchased for settlement purposes, and no one gets any benefit from that money except the person who is fortunate enough to secure a section at the ballot. A man may have a leasehold, yet he is able to sell the goodwill of it for as much as if it were a freehold. The only difference is that the man with the leasehold has no money invested in the land apart from his improvements, whereas the man with the freehold has the whole of his capital in the land. Another thing is that the Crown leaseholder is enabled to sell out for what he can get during good times, and in bad times he looks to the State for help. Cropping restrictions are put on land on the " fish to one and flesh to another " principle. Complaints have been made with regard to the Advances to Settlers Department, but I consider there are very good reasons why tenants should not get advances. It is all very well to have wire fences, fine houses, bath-rooms, and pianos, but the people who are responsible for advancing the money are, I take it, shrewd, level-headed business-men, who prefer for their security good acres that produce 60 bushels of wheat and turn out 18s. lambs. Land Boards are a necessary consequence to State tenantry. No matter what Government is in power, if its wishes in regard to their farms are to be carried out, it must appoint the members of the Land Board. The political trail is over everything, and if you have a friend at Court you are a white-headed boy. It causes a lot of heart-burnings in regard to the transferring of sections, and so on. Some tenants are able to do things that others cannot, and I know very well that there are many heartburnings which is not a good thing. I notice that at Cheviot evidence was given with regard to the size of holdings and the number of ewes that a man with a small grazing-run should be able to carry. I consider myself thai a grazing-run holder should be very thankful if he was able to keep a thousand ewes. I think that surface-sowing is the most valuable improvement that can be carried out on a grazing-run, but I do not think that can be carried out under a twenty-one-years lease. In a favourable season, such as the present, surface-sowing could be done with advantage, but if it was a dry season the seed would be thrown away. To surface-sow successfully a man must understock for several years, and therefore he should have the greatest securitv of tenure. I cannot understand why the man with a twenty-one-years lease does not get the rebate
561
C—4.
G- GARDINER.j
the same as the lease-in-perpetuity holder. The grazing-run holder has only his stock and sheep to look to, and in many cases they are not in as good a financial position as the man with the 999-years lease, liuns should be improved by surface-sowing and not by ploughing, for I regard hill ploughing as a doubtful improvement, for it often causes the ground to break away in wet weather and also destroys the natural grasses. There are only two systems of land-tenure wanted in any country -namely, freehold and deferred payment. The deferred-payment system is quite as good a system for settling poor men on the land in the first place as is the lease in perpetuity. In fact, the lease in perpetuity as a system for the poor man is a fallacy. A man with a freehold is, 1 think, the best farmer, or at least there is no reason why he should not be. I do not see any reason why the State should not buy land for settlement purposes, so long as they give the market value for it. It is for the present or the next generation we are legislating for, and not 999 years hence. 2. What was your experience of the Land Board in connection with your transfer at Cheviot? —I had no trouble at all. 3. You had no complaint to make j'ourself ? —That was my only experience of the Land Board. I. Mr. McLennan.] Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? —I am. 5. Are you representing the Farmers' Union before the Commission ? —No. 6. Do you admit that the Land for Settlements Act has been the means of placing more working-men tenants on the land in the last eight years than was the case under any other Act passed by Parliament?--! do not think it has. 7. Are the tenants on the land at the present time successful? -The original tenants cannot help being successful. 8. Mr. Paul.\ What area had you on Cheviot? —1,729 acres. 9. Did you get a sum for goodwill over and above improvements? —Before I sold out I bought another place. I wanted to get rid of my run and took a reasonable time to dispose of it, but I did not get within £500 of what I should have. 10. Did you get fair remuneration for your improvements? —Yes. 11. Do you think these large sums that are being paid for goodwill are likely to hamper the success of the incoming tenants? —If prices drop I should say they would. 12. Would you give the Land Board power to prevent transfers, or what would you do? —No. I think a bargain is a bargain. 13. Do you think the tenants should stick to the bargain: they have agreed with the Government to take the lease in perpetuity at a certain price? —If there has been a wrong done all round I consider that Parliament should have power to make it right. The Government can see that they have no right to interfere with the lease, and the tenant sees that he is handicapped in regard to cropping. If all parties are agreeable the tenant should be allowed the right of the freehold at the original valuation. 14. Tenants are making good sums out of the goodwill? —I consider the original tenant does. The goodwill of his section returns him as much as if it was freehold. 15. You mean to say that there are people ready to buy leasehold land and give as high a price for it as they would for freehold land? —In proportion —£3, £4, or £5 per acre goodwill. 16. Mr. Amtey.~\ You are not in favour of the lease in perpetuity as a means of settlement? — Decidedly, no. 17. Is your objection to it that it is too advantageous to the tenants ? -No. 18. What are your objections to it? It pays no land-tax and no mortgage-tax, the tenant cannot crop as he wishes, and there are various other reasons. 19. Do you object to the settlement of the land under the leasehold system?—l consider the deferred payment as equal to any leasehold system, and while that is so it is as good for the poor man to go upon the land as the lease in perpetuity. Therefore I object to any leasehold system being introduced while the deferred-payment system was what it was. 20. Do you think the settlement of the country would have gone on under any freehold system as it has under lease in perpetuity?- It would have gone on just as well. 21. Would you be prepared now to grant the option of the freehold to existing lease-in-per-petuity settlers? -I would. 22. Upon what terms?—At the original valuation. 23. Do you think a contract entered into between the Government and the tenant ought to be adhered to?- If both parties are agreeable to a change it is no one else's business. 24. Would you be prepared to break the contract if only one party desired to break it? —It takes two parties to break a contract. 25. If the Government was not agreeable you would not ask for the freehold ? —I would advocate for it. 26. What is your opinion as to the best size for small grazing-runs? —That all depends on the country. You must have a fencing-line,, and a man should not be given all south-west faces on which his lambs would be lost. Most of the settlers on Cheviot would have been better off if they had had less of hill land and more of the flat. 27. You have not told us what size you think suitable?- I could not do that; it all depends on common-sense and the surroundings. 28. Do vou think it would be wise to settle our grazing country under the freehold system? —I do. 29. Can you give any idea of the most suitable size for agricultural settlement?— Not less than sufficient' to enable a man to properly employ a four-horse team and get interest on all that he requires for the working of his farm. 30. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office yourself? —No. .31. Are you in favour of the Government advances-to-settlers policy?—l have no doubt that when the scheme was started there was a " ring," and that the scheme broke that " ring."
71—C. 4.
[g. gabdiner.
C.—4
562
32. Do you think the system should be abandoned? —It is stopping itself. 33. Mr. Matheson.] If the Government cut up more land and settled it, you think the best way would be to give a lease with the right of purchase? On the deferred-payment system. 34. Is there any land about here which they could buy at a price at which settlers could profitably take it up ?- -Any amount. 38. Can you mention any? —Culverden Estate and lutton s estate. 36. What is the acreage of Tutton's? —2,200 acres. Cyril Thomas White examined. 37. The Acting-Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a farmer at the Peaks, where I have 260 acres lease in perpetuity, 3,856 acres of small grazing-run, and 150 acres of freehold, which is in my wife's name. For 50 acres of the lease in perpetuity I pay Is. per acre, and Is. 6d. per acre for the balance, and for the grazing-run I pay £130 a year. It is a large block, but half of it is covered with dense scrub. As far as the Land Board is concerned, I think the Crown tenants should have the privilege of nominating and appointing two members. I think it is only fair that they should have representatives of their own. I consider that it is not only unwise, but morally wrong, tor the Government to part with another acre of their land. They should retain it all. There is plenty of freehold land in the colony, as is evidenced by the lists of freehold farms for sale, without taking away the best asset the country has. lam perfectly satisfied with the lease in perpetuity ; if anything, I think it is too good a lease. It is certainly favourable to the tenant, and I have no fault to find with any of the conditions. A better tenure for the State is the twenty-one-years lease with the right of renewal at revaluation at the end of that time. That is the most advantageous to the tenant and*the country at large. I have never heard any complaints about undue interference on the part of the Ranger. I quite hold with the Land Board having reasonable discretionary powers in regard to transfers, and so forth. I think the systeni which was in vogue twenty years ago, under which a man was advanced so-much towards erecting his house, was a very good system. 38. How long have you been here? —Eighteen years. 39. Where was Mr. Rolleston's settlement about here?—At M.edbury. Our sections were settled under the village-settlement system, and we soon found that 50 acres was insufficient. After considerable pressure we got the Government to purchase from the Midland Railway Company the remainder of the flat, and it was cut up into sections far too small for the class of land. 240 acres is nothing like sufficient for a man to live on there. We should be allowed to buy our neighbours out, so as to throw two farms into one. Without my grazing-run I could not have stopped there. . . 40. Have you brought this matter before the Land Board? -I do not think it has been since we got the enlargement of our holdings. I would strongly suggest, in the case of new settlements, even in regard to old ones, that the settlers should be compelled to form an association and elect a small committee, that would always be appealed to from the Land Board in the event of there being anything in dispute, in regard to loading for roads especially. The Land Board should not act'without first referring to the association belonging to the particular settlement. I have known a good sum of money to be handed over to the local Road Board by the Government —loading money—and spent not to the advantage of the settlers, who have to pay interest on it. In other matters, too, I think there should be a recognised body on each settlement that the Land Board should lay matters of that sort before and take advice from. I think the loading is carried out in such a way that money is spent where it should not be spent. 41. Is your settlement loaded? —Yes, the lower part ot the flat was, and I maintain that our money has been spent as much, if not more, to the advantage of the surrounding freeholders as for the tenants themselves, who have to pay the interest on the money. 42 Did the Government hand over the amount in a lump sum?—No; but there was a balance left, and the Government asked the Road Board to spend the money. The settlers were never consulted as to where the money should be spent. Instead of being expended on finishing the top road, the money was spent on the main road leading to freehold property. When I pointed the matter out to the Road Board, and told them where the money came from, they expressed surprise, and said they had not known of it before. A most important matter that is overlooked in the cutting-up of land is the provision for water. In our case it is dry land, which would be enhanced in value, and the settlers could make a far better return than at present if they had water. There are no means of getting water, and we are getting tired of approaching the Government. We suggested that they should send an engineer to report on the cost of bringing in a race from the Hurunui, but we never succeeded in getting that done. As far as my experience of the advances to settlers is concerned, I think the Government are very unfair. They say they will advance up to half the value of a man's improvements; but the valuation is their own, and is anything but a fair value. If a man has improvements which have cost him £50 the Government will not value them at anything like that, and, of course, he can only get half of what their estimate is. I know of one case where a man had improvements to the value of £640, and he asked for a loan of £300. The Government reduced him to £250, which was not accepted. The man went to the city and got a loan of £300 at the same interest as the Government were charging, and the following year got another £100 as a second mortgage. I consider that all the country round here, even Horsley Downs, has been cut into too small holdings, and I do not see why provision should not be made whereby a man could buy out his neighboui. 43. Mr. McLennan.'] Has the Land for Settlements Act been successful? —I think so. 44. Have not a good deal of improvements been put by the Crown tenants on their farms?— Yes. 45. Do their improvements compare favourably with the improvements put on freeholds?— Quite. I know of freehold farms in our district that do not carry anything like the quantity or quality of the improvements that are carried by leaseholds under the Crown.
563
C—4
C. T. WHITE.
46. Mr. Paul.] Do you think if these improved estates were let on twenty-one-years leases, with a right of renewal and valuation for improvements, that successful settlement would ensue? Yes; I do not think there can be any doubt about that. 47. Are you representing anybody to-day? —No. 48. Are the settlers in your immediate vicinity satisfied, and do they hold similar views to yourself? —I think 1 can say so. We had a meeting last night to talk the matter over, and I think I am only expressing the views that were agreed to by the others. I found no discontent at all. 49. You think the condition and position of the present settlers are good?— Yes, except in regard to the matters I have mentioned. 50. Mr. Anstey.] You think the settlers ought to elect two members to the Land Board? —Yes. 51. The Land Board now consists of four members and the Commissioner: do you think it would be fair that the tenants should elect half of the Board ? —Yes, I do. 52. Suppose the two nominated members were absent, you might have the Land Board entirely composed of Crown tenants?—lt would cut either way. Ido not think there is any danger about that. 53. How are you going to elect them? —I think the settlers should have the right to nominate two members, and the matter should be put to the vote. 54. Do you think the settlers between Waikakahi and Cheviot would be likely to know who they were voting for? —I think so. They would soon find out the man who would look after their interests. 55. Was the loading for roads spent in the usual way by the Waipara Road Board or by co-operative labour?—ln the usual way, by tender. 56. Is there anything to prevent you forming a settlers' association? —No; but I think there should be a body recognised by the Land Board, to whom matters should be referred for their opinion. 57. In regard to a water-supply, is there anything to prevent you forming yourselves into a special rating district for the purpose of raising a loan to provide water?- I suppose not, except the question of expense. 58. Under the Loans to Local Bodies Act you could borrow money for the purpose at 5 per cent., with a sinking fund, which would repay the whole cost in twenty-six years?—l was not aware of the fact. 59. What would you suggest as a fair size of holding on a settlement like Horsley Downs?— 1 certainly think a section of 100 acres is not large enough. I think the sections should range from 250 to 300 acres for medium agricultural land. 60. What is a suitable size into which to cut the grazing-runs ?—I should say the holdings should be able to carry f.rom one to two thousand sheep. 61. Do vou know of any large runs in this neighbourhood that are suitable for cutting up? -There is the Allandale property, I believe. I do not know sufficient about Culverden Run. Then, Tutton's is certainly a good piece of country. A good deal of it is dairying land, and some of it is grazing land. 62. Is the remainder of Glenmark suitable for cutting up into smaller areas? —Certainly. It is mostly grazing country. 63. Is it all freehold? —Yes. 64. Is there any Crown lands suitable for cutting up into grazing runs?— Not that I know of. 65. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you know the amount of loading for roads on Patoa Settlement? — I do not know the exact amount. 66. When the settlers load themselves voluntarily for roads under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act they pay 5 per cent., which in a certain number of years extinguishes the debt: do you think that ought to be applicable to lands under the Land for Settlements Act, so that the settlers would extinguish the loading in a certain number of years, instead of having to pay for a thousand years ? —Yes. William Anderson examined. 67. The Acting-Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a farmer. I hold 108 acres under lease in perpetuity on the Horsley Downs Settlement. I pay Bs. 6d. per acre rent. 68. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I think a good many of the Horsley Downs sections are far too small. I have to keep a team of horses, and I have to go out and contract to keep them employed. I believe in the settlers having the option of making their sections freehold. I think as they have £200 or £300 they should have the right to pay that off their capital value. I consider a man's farm is the best savings-bank he can have. If a man has £200 or £300 the Government allow him 3 per cent, in their Savings-bank, and he has to pay 5 per cent, on his farm, which means a loss of 2 per cent. 69. You think the lease in perpetuity would be better if the right of purchase was attached to it, and the tenant was allowed to pay off as he makes a little money?- Yes. It is not an easy matter for a Crown tenant to compete with the outside public for the freehold, because it takes him a long time to get a little money together. I may say that a neighbour of mine sold out on Horsley Downs a few weeks ago, and I was prepared to buy him out, but the Land Board would not entertain my proposal. I would suggest that the law should be altered to enable a man to buy out his neighbour and to make the land freehold. I have had no friction with the Land Board, nor yet with the Ranger. I have no fault to find with them whatever. I have never borrowed any money under the Advances to Settlers Act, and I never wish to. But if I wished to borrow money 1 would sooner go to a private firm, because I think I would get better terms. _ 70 Mr. Paul.] On what terms would you like the option of the freehold? At the original valuation If it was otherwise it would only be turning the Government into land-speculators.
C—4.
564
IW. ANDERSON.
The land has risen in value and improved under our occupation, and I think we should get the benefit of it. 71. Mr. Anstey.j Do you get a 10 per cent, reduction in rent I—Yes.1 —Yes. 72. What size of holding do you think is suitable for Horsley Downs?- 1 would be quite satislied with 200 acres. 1 could make a living on that area and keep my team at work. 73. Do the cropping restrictions interfere with you? —I think the cropping might be left more to the Crown tenant, because sometimes he meets with a bad season, and it does not suit him to sow the paddock down in grass. I think he should be allowed to take another crop off. But in ordinary seasons the cropping conditions are satisfactory. 74. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think, in regard to other estates opened up for settlement in the future, the Government would be wise to offer the land for cash, or under lease with tlTe right of purchase?—-Under lease with the right of purchase. Samuel Hbvvett examined. 75. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you?- lam a farmer. I hold two sections, comprising 245 acres, under lease in perpetuity at the Peaks. I pay 2s. 6d. per acre rent for the 45 acres and 2s. 3d. per acre for the 200 acres. 76. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission I—l1 —I was one of the first on the settlement up there. At that time it was a village-homestead settlement, and my small section was originally a village-homestead section. I have since converted it into a lease in perpetuity. I have been there for the last eighteen years, and I am perfectly satisfied with the lease in perpetuity, provided it is not interfered with. I reckon the Government are one of the best landlords I have ever known. They have never in any way interfered with me or with my neighbours. We are perfectly satisfied with the way in which we have been treated; but I think there should be one representative from the whole of the Crown tenants on the Land Board. Some of our land is very poor, and if the past seasons had not been very good we should practically have had to sell off our stock on account of lack of water. If water could be brought across the flat there is no mistake but that it would enhance the value of the Crown property, and I would be perfectly willing to pay a good deal more for the water. Some time ago a water-race was talked about from the Hurunui, and it was suggested it should go down to Balcairn, because the land about Medbury would not be able to stand the cost of it alone. I think it is very desirable that such a scheme should be carried out. When I went on to my section I had nothing. The Government advanced me ,£2O towards building my house and otherwise helped me, and I managed to get things together. Since Horsley Downs Station was cut up I have not been able to get contract work, and if it had not been for my father and myself working together and having 500 acres of land between us I could never have stayed on, because my 245 acres do not provide a living; it is only an existence. I consider the law should be altered to enable us to buy one or another out up to the 640-acre limit. The Government bought this land for us, and we formed ourselves into an association, and by the rules of that association we cannot hold more than 340 acres, and that area is only an existence for a man. With regard to loading for roads, we have at the back and side of our sections several freeholders. We paid for the roads up there, and as their farms are much larger than ours they use the roads we paid for more than we do. I do not think our settlement, in view of its special situation, should have been loaded for roads. The road only goes through our sections and stops, and these freeholders use it both coming and going. In regard to valuations, I think the present valuation put on our properties is certainly not enough. The valuation is right enough for local rating purposes, but it is not enough if we want to get an advance under the Advances to Settlers Office or if we want to sell out. 77. Mr. Matheson.] We have had evidence that when valuations are made for rating purposes the freeholders have not had as high valuations put on their property as Government leaseholders: is that your impression, or do you think the valuations in this county are fairly uniform? : —I think they are, so far as my experience goes. 78. So that these freeholders are paying equally with you for the maintenance of the roads now they are constructed ? —Yes. Edwin Henry Bkooker examined. 79. The Acting-Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 100 acres under lease in perpetuity at Medbury, for which I pay £14 ss. per year. I also hold 540 acres under lease in perpetuity, for which I pay .£27 per year. 80. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —No. I am quite satisfied with the land, and the settlement, and the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. 81. Have you any desire for the freehold? —No; I object strongly to it. I believe the land should belong to the people of the colony. I think one member of the Land Board should be elected by the Crown tenants. 82. Do you know anything of the land settled in your neighbourhood under the deferredpayment system? —It was settled about eighteen years ago before we came here I think some who got behind in their payments have brought their sections under lease in perpetuity. I only know of one who has converted his land into freehold. The land was called first class, but it really was not first class. It is about the same as the Medbury Settlement land. I think the Advances to Settlers Department is a very good thing, but I think the settlers should be able to get a little more money from them. I think a man should get an advance pretty well up to the full value of his improvements. The land is increased in value, and the Government are secure in that way. In regard to the size of holdings, when we went on to Medbury we only had 50-acre sections, and it was not enough to live on. That area was only given to us to make a home on. The Government advanced us £20 towards building a house, and it was a very good thing, and I should like to see a little more of that done. I went there next door to being a bankrupt, and I have done
fi. H. BBOOKEK.
565
G.-4.
very well. I say if a man wants a larger holding he should not clamour to get his neighbour's land, but he should be allowed to go out and ballot for a larger holding, and then he should be given twelve months in which to sell out his present holding. If a man sells out his small holding before he has another, he is apt to lose a lot, of his money-in going about the country to look for a larger holding. 83. Mr. Paul.\ Do you think successful settlement could take place under a lease for twentyone years, with the right of renewal and valuation for improvements ? Oh, yes. 84. That would mean revaluation every twenty-one years? 1 am satisfied with the lease in perpetuity, but, mind you, Ido not think it is best for the State. I think the perpetual lease with periodical revaluation is the right thing. 85. Mr. Anstey.] Are many people living on the deferred-payment settlement now?--Yes, it is all taken up. There are two freeholders, who are absentees. 86. Have any of them bought one another out?—l think that has only been done in one case. 87. Are these settlements with 50-acre sections suitable for settlement purposes generally?Yes, if you carry out my suggestion to afterwards allow the settler to ballot for a larger place.
Christchurch, Tuesday, 25th April, 1905. Raymond Hepworth examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am officer in charge of the Advances to Settlers Office, Canterbury. 2. We have had a great deal of evidence from the clients of this Department, and it is said that there is considerable delay in getting advances? 1 do not think there is a great deal of delay in the office; the valuers, however, have to visit these properties and then their reports have to go on to Wellington. If any delay occurs it is, to my mind, usually caused through the applicant not fulfilling the necessary conditions. An applicant, when forwarding application to this office must notify the Land Board, so that report may be obtained from the Crown Lands Ranger and consent obtained to the mortgage. This is often neglected and delay occurs. When we find this is the case we send the necessary forms to the Land Board, and we have to wait until the latest lepoits are received from their officers. In this way delay occurs, because we do not send the papers to Wellington until we get the consent of the Land Board. -3. Presuming an applicant fulfils all the necessary conditions, what is the average time between the time of the application and the granting of it? —It could not be possibly less than a week. Ihe Board meets at Wellington every Monday. There is, however, no delay other than that necessitated by waiting for the report of the Crown Lands Ranger, which has always to be obtained. 4. Is it a usual thing to deal with the applications within a week? —A great deal depends on the accessibility of the property. 5. I should think myself it could not be done in a week that is, to go through all these formalities ?—There is no delay other than what occurs in obtaining the consent of the Land Board. 6. Am I right in assuming that a month would be about the usual time?—No, I should say that a week is probably the minimum; a good deal depends on the application catching the meeting or the Board. 1 should say that within a week or ten days is a fair average. 7. In regard to the amount applied for, is it a fact, in the case of leasehold property, that the amount granted is frequently less than the amount applied for?— Yes, it does occur fairly frequently. That, of course, is a matter for the Board at Wellington to decide. For instance, an application is made, the valuer states what in his opinion would be a fair advance to make on the security, and the Board in Wellington decides the matter. The local office has nothing further to do with the application after the report is sent to Wellington. 8. What is the percentage of applications that are granted?— The percentage declined is very small The Department has upon its books 472 mortgages over Crown leasehold lands in the Canterbury District, classified, as at 3ist March, 1905, according to counties as follows: —- oaunt y- No. Amount. ' Waimate ... ... ... 44 4 n7ft Mackenzie 48 evel 1 ® ••• •• .. 29 1,590 Geraldine ... ... ... ... 33 1>760 Ashburton 47 3,515 80 6,085 Akaroa ... ... ... ... ... ... 13 960 ;\ sh H v 31 2,875 ( , lievl ? r ... ... 140 13,880 Amuri 7 1,420 Total ••• ... ... 472 £40,740 One leasehold security in Canterbury lias been sold by the Department in exercise of the power of sale, and twenty-three applications, amounting to £2,080, have been declined during the three years ended 31st March, 1905. 9. Mr. An«tey.\ We have heard a great many complaints from settlers that there is considerable delay in respect to applications for advances. Can you suggest any way in which these delays can be avoided? Is it not possible to have some local Board which might facilitate
0.—4.
566
[it. hepwobth.
dealing with the applications ? —That would probably be an advantage in some ways; but, on the other hand, it would be difficult for one local Board to keep in touch with local Boards in other parts of the colony. 10. How does the Wellington office know about the needs of the settlers in the various districts? —The Wellington Board only knows what is shown in the reports of the local valuers. 11. Would not local Boards be able to deal more satisfactorily with these questions? —They might be able to do so. Of course, they would be better acquainted with the local conditions. 12. The Advances to Settlers Office has not an unlimited amount of money to lend. Can you say whether the reduced amounts advanced sometimes depends on the amount of money available? —I could not answer that question. 13. It has been stated to us in evidence that applicants have made applications for certain advances, and that the valuer has perhaps recommended that an advance be made up to half th. amount applied for, and subsequently the applicant has been offered half the amount recommendeu by the valuer : can you give us any reason why the Board has recommended the granting of half the amount recommended by the District Valuer?--We are not informed by the Advances to Settlers Board what their reasons may be in agreeing to make advances. 14. Do you think that one reason may be lack of funds for this purpose? —I could not say definitely. 15. Mr. Paul.] Do you think that a Ranger or a subordinate officer is justified in saying that the reason why a loan has been refused is that the office has no funds? —I do not think so. 16. You do not think that a local officer should say that? —No; we have never received instructions to refuse applications entirely on that account. 17. Does your office regardJ:he leasehold tenure as inferior to the freehold in making advances on improvements? —No. 18. It has been said that the Advances to Settlers Office has no faith in the leasehold tenure? —I do not think so. We grant applications just as readily to leaseholders as to freeholders. 19. Is the proportion of the refusals to advance the same in both cases? Do you think there is any discrimination whatever between the two tenures ? —I do not think there is. I think the leaseholder gets as good treatment as the freeholder. 20. Mr. Matheson.] You have suggested that a local Board might overcome some of the present difficulty in regard to delays: would not a local Board have to depend in the same way as the Central Board on the reports of the local valuer? —Undoubtedly; I do not see how you could get beyond that, unless the Act were amended. 21. In the case of a local Board the suggestion is that it would be better able to deal with the facts, as they would know the local conditions. Do you think that local Boards could do better service than a central Board in dealing with these applications? —That is a matter that I have really not considered at all. 1 do not think that the suggestion as to local Boards would be workable, for the reason I have already given—namely, that it would be very difficult for the local Boards to keep in touch with each other. 22. Mr. Anstey.] Supposing a private lender were to make an advance on a leasehold property, would he have the right of foreclosure? —Yes, I should say so; but he would be bound by certain conditions. 23. Would he have to obtain the consent of the Minister? —I could not say, but I know that this Department has sold a leasehold security. 24. The Department has the right to do that but a private individual has not ? —I could no say. 25. It has been said by some witnesses that they had been called upon to pay the valuation fee and then their application has been refused? The valuation fee has to be forwarded, otherwise the application cannot be gone on with. The fee for an advance up to £100 is 10s. 6d., which is to cover the cost of valuation, which cost in many cases exceeds the amount of the fee very largely. 26. What are the other fees?- There are no other fees except for mortgages, and they are on the lowest possible scale. 27. You do not make an advance without a security?—No, not without a registered security. 28. Mr. Paul.] What would it cost a settler to obtain a loan of £200 —that is, in the case of a leasehold? —The total cost would be about £2 15s. Andrew Allen examined. 29. The Chairman.] What are you?—-I am a District Valuer for South Canterbury, and have held that office since 1897. 30. Has the value of land risen very much during that time?— Yes, there has been a steady rise of, say, 30 per cent, since 1897. The rise varies according to the class of the land. In Timaru, for instance, the suburban rise has been very decided. 31. Regarding good farming land round Timaru, has there been an increase in value? —There has been a rise of about 25 per cent, round Timaru. In the case of purely pastoral country, there has "not been so large an increase. 32. Have there been many appeals from your valuations? —A good few. 33. Have they been sustained? —No, a very small percentage of them. 34. I suppose the appeals are very often as between the unimproved value and the improvements? —Generally, on the capital value, which includes both. 35. Mr. Anstey.] It has been said that there is a difference between the valuation of leaseholds and freeholds in certain districts. For instance, at Pareora a complaint was made to the Commission that the leaseholders are still paying on the original valuation, while in the case of the freeholders in that district, you have increased their valuation very considerably? —The Pareora leaseholders are still on the original valuation.
567
C—4.
A. ALLEN.j
36. What about the freeholders in that immediate neighbourhood? Are they in the same position as when this land was taken up by the Government? —The leaseholders are still on the original value, but there will be a revaluation this winter. 37. Can you give us the reason why the leaseholds were not revalued at the same time as the freeholds ?— They were revalued, but were maintained at the original value. 38. Why did you increase the valuation of the freeholds and not the leaseholds? —In valuing a district it is very difficult to get the valuations at the selling-value. The purchase-money for the Pareora Estate was at the full market value. The freeholds around there were not valued at the full selling-value. 39. I may mention a particular case. I received a complaint from a Mr. Lyall that he is valued at about £16 an acre, whereas a farm of exactly the same value on the other side of his fence is valued at £11 an acre? —Perhaps the comparison is made as between the unimproved value in the one case and the capital value in the other. 40. I should say that both are on the unimproved value? —I think there must be something wrong there. There is too big a difference. I fancy the capital value is given in Mr. Lyall's case and the unimproved value in the other. 41. We have also received complaints the opposite way. For instance, at Fairlie we received complaints that lease-in-pereptuity settlers were valued considerably higher than adjoining leaseholders? —That can be easily accounted for. The Puneroa Settlement is the best land around there. That district was revalued about six months ago. 42. Can you explain to us the system under which you make these valuations? Do you make them once in three years ? —No, there is no set time. Formerly it was three years. Puneroa has not been valued for seven years. 43. Then, do you value districts whenever you please? —No, we get instructions from Christchurch. 44. Do they instruct you to value one particular district? —Yes, a Roard Board district or a county. 45. Then one district may be valued once in seven years and another district every second year ? —I am valuing the whole of the time. 46. Does that not seem a very slipshod way of valuing? —No; we are valuing the whole time. 47. You value districts that you get instructions to value? —Yes. 48. Can you give us information with respect to the runs in the Mackenzie country, and also as to other runs?—I have made a valuation this year of the runs in the Mackenzie country. 49. Have the values risen there? —No, they are stationary. 50. Can you give us any information as to whether some of those runs could be reduced in area and worked with advantage? —Some of them could —not the whole of them. 51. For instance, an instance was mentioned to us where three or four runs were worked together. Could they be reduced in area with advantage ?—Yes. But it all depends on the amount of winter country there is. 52. Mr. Paul.] You are well acquainted with the Canterbury Land District? —Yes. 53. Do the improvements in farming on leasehold properties compare favourably or unfavourably with the improvements on freehold? —They compare very favourably with the freeholds. 54. Do you know of any marked difference between the two? For instance, could you pick out a leasehold on account of its bad farming, or on account of its want of improvements ? —No. 56. Do you think that rise has been due chiefly to the rise in the London market? —It is due, I think, to the general prosperity of the colony. No doubt the increase in the price of mutton and other produce had something to do with it. 57. Do you know of any other reason for the rise in land-values? —No, except that many people have acquired the means to take up land. 58. If the price of produce on the London market drops, do you think the land-values here will fall?—I think the land-values will keep pretty firm. 59. Do you find it difficult to divide the capital value into the value of improvements and the unimproved value? —Not as a rule; but in some cases where there is clearing, draining, &c., there is a difficulty. In the majority of oases, however, we have not much difficulty. 60. When a creamery or butter-factory is established in a district, do you consider it increases the value of the land? —No doubt it helps to increase the value. 61. In that case would you put the increase down to the unimproved value? —If there was any change it would be the unimproved value that would be increased. Albert Frf.eman examined. 62. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a District Valuer, and value the Ashburton and Selwyn Counties, and at one time I valued the Akaroa County. 63. How long have you valued the Ashburton and Selwyn Counties?- I have been permanent valuer since 1897. 64. Have the values gone up in your district very much? —Very considerably. 65. What is the percentage of increase in the case of Crown land?- It depends on the local conditions. I have known some of it double itself. But I would not take that as a general rule. I should say the increase has been anything from 25 per cent, to 40 per cent. In the case of suburban land, the same remark applies. With regard to purely farming land, that depends a good deal on the quality of the soil. .The ploughable sheep land has gone up more than anything, and land that can be used for getting off the lambs early. In the case of the Ashburton County in particular, the dry land which they call the plains land, I suppose, has risen fully 60 per cent. I know of farms there that in five years have been sold at nearly double the amount paid for them. I do not think that such an increase in value was justified, but, still, there is the fact.
568
[a. fkeeman.
0.—4.
66. You heard what the last witness said on the question of the increase in land-value: what is your opinion about the cause of the rapid increase in the value of land? —I think that the prosperous seasons we have had lately have enabled farmers to open out for their sons, and there is no doubt that the increase in the price of our products and the general state of the moneymarket have assisted in increasing the value of land. A man, for instance, has been able to borrow
569
C—4.
A. FKEEMAN.
ment, or would you value it as being worth less than if there was standing bush on it? —No doubt, if the section was near a wharf, it would be worth more if the bush was there. 100. Do you find a great difficulty in arriving at the unimproved value? —No; I should allow a man for stumping and clearing, if I was satisfied in my mind that that had been a bond fide work. 101. Have you come across cases where bona fide work has cost more than the present value of the land? —Never. 102. Mr. Anstey.~\ What are the instructions given to valuers for valuation purposes? —To put on a cash value and avoid an excited market; to put what we consider as a reasonable and fair value. 103. Its saleable value? Its reasonable cash saleable value. 104. Have you ever had any specific instructions? We have been informed that valuers have been told to bump properties up. Have instructions ever been given to you to raise your values? —Never. 105. Have you ever been reminded that in any particular part of the district the values are too high or too low? —No. I have had my attention called to sales that have been taking place in localities very much higher than the assessed value. 106. Your attention has been called to the fact that you have been valuing too low? —Not exactly that; but my attention has been called to the rise in the market. 107. You have not had instructions as to any specific district? —Never. 108. Have you had instructions as to the value of leaseholds as compared witli freeholds? — Never, only to put a fair value on improvements. - Wilfred Hall examined. 109. The Chairman.'] What are you ?- -I am a farmer at Glenroy, in the neighbourhood of Rakaia Gorge. I hold 1,073 acres of freehold, and I have been farming here since 1893. It is chiefly a grazing-farm, and I only grow enough crop for my horses. 110. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I may say I am a member of the executive of the North Canterbury Branch of the Farmers' Union. The union has not had any formal discussion as to the nature of the evidence which should be given before the Commission, but simply appointed certain members to give evidence, and lam one of them. I believe that the State will lose little or nothing by selling land at a fair price, for the unearned increment is so small as not to be worth taking into account, and is probably at the present time a negative quantity. That it is small is shown by the fact that people are willing to sell land ; that many who have invested money in land have lost largely; that comparatively few have made large fortunes. I believe it is possible to show that the average rate of increase in land-values owing to increases of population is not more than Jd. per acre per annum, and that the rate tends to decrease as time goes on. The recent rise in land-values in this country is not of the nature of unearned increment —i.e., it is not due to increase of population either here or anywhere else — that it is not likely to continue, but that it will probably be followed by a decline in values which will operate more or less steadily for a very considerable time. To any one who has given any thought to the subject it must be apparent that the price of our land depends on the price of our products in the world's markets, and that any increase of population here has no appreciable effect upon it at all. Some seem to think that the price of land rises because a number of people want land. The fact is, of course, that they want the land because its value has risen, and no one can afford to give more for land than the market-price of our produce will warrant, otherwise he will pay more in rent or interest than he can make out of the land. If, then, the price of our land goes up because of a rise in price of our products in the London market, does that mean that it is due to the increase of population in England or in the world at large? If that were so would not the value of land in England also rise. Tf to supply the wants of the English consumer we were obliged to have recourse to less productive land, would not the English agriculturist be influenced in precisely the same way, for he also is engaged in supplying the wants of the English consumer. And in these days of world-wide commerce all land in the world must be similarly affected by this particular cause. But land in England is not increasing in value for agricultural purposes; so far as I can learn, the process during the last forty or fifty years has been quite the reverse. If, then, in spite of the increase in population land in England tends to fall in value, does not that mean that the unearned increment is at present inoperative. The reason for this tendency is not difficult to see. If rents and land-values rise when the increase of population and its increasing needs compel us to have recourse to inferior land in order to supply those needs, then, supposing a large quantity of superior land to be suddenly made available, it would no longer be necessary to use the inferior land. It would therefore fall out of cultivation, and the "margin of cultivation" would rise—that is, economic rent would fall. Now, during the last fifty years or so, by reason of the development of steam power, and especially of the process of freezing, our land, as well as land in other parts of the world, has been brought nearer the world's chief markets, and so its productiveness has been increased. With this large amount of land of a high degree of productiveness thus made available, it is inevitable that some land, which, though less fertile, was formerly more productive owing to its proximity to a market, should fall out of cultivation. Therefore, as steam communication has been steadily extending for many years, fresh land has constantly been brought into the higher classes of productiveness, land in older countries has been falling out of cultivation, the margin of cultivation has risen, and economic rent has been falling. And I think this process may be fittingly described as a reversal of the process which creates the unearned increment. Our land, therefore, owes its increased value not to any increase of population, but to industrial inventions. Now, it does not seem at all likely that any invention in the near future will place us in a yet more advantageous position as 72—C. 4.
C.-4.
570
Tw. HALL.
compared with agriculturists in England; but it does seem extremely likely that the same inventions which have benefited us will before long operate in the same way with regard to other lands which are more favourably situated geographically than we are. There are immense areas of land in many parts of the world which only require a better form of government and an energetic! population to place them in a position to compete successfully with us to bring down the price of our products, and so reduce the value of our land. Then we shall be in the position in which the British farmer now finds himself. I, therefore, think it would be an exceedingly wise policy for the State to sell as much of its land as possible at present prices, since everything seems to point to the probability that those prices will not much longer be maintained. It may be said that though the recent rise in values is not due to increase of population, it is none the less unearned, as far as concerns any effort or sacrifice on the part of the owner. Ido not think that is a just view of the case. Industry and thrift are not the only qualities which deserve a reward. There is also the pluck and enterprise which prompt men to run the risk of loss in order to earn the chance of profit. That there is always risk of loss in buying land is a matter of experience, though it is denied or disregarded by those who urge the nationalisation of the land, and who have generally had no experience of dealing with it. Therefore, if a man is content to run this risk, he thereby earns any profit he may win, even if it be as much as Major Bulkley is said to have obtained. It must not be lost sight of that the risk that Major Bulkley ran was a very great risk indeed. The odds were very much against him, and, as a matter of fact, he came very near losing his investment, for the Canterbury Association was, I believe, at one time on the verge of bankruptcy, and when a man takes long odds like that he deserves to win a big prize. There is not, and cannot be, any real security for a State tenant. When a tenant takes a lease of land from a private individual for a very long period it may be almost as good as a freehold, for the law will compel the landlord to observe the terms of the lease; but when the State is the landlord it can alter the law as it pleases, and there is no power which can compel it to stick to its bargain. It is assumed by land nationalisers that the State will always be a good, just, and considerate landlord. Ido not think there is any good ground for that assumption. There have been State landlords in the past, and they have been just as oppressive as individual landlords, and even more so (in India, Egypt, Rome, Turkey). Our own Government is not guiltless of arbitrary and unjust acts. Whyshould landowners be taxed at a higher rate and with a lower exemption than other payers of direct taxation. Have not many municipalities adopted rating on unimproved values, which amounts to a confiscation of a large part of the value of the land. Have we not seen a Fair Rent Bill introduced into Parliament. And are there not many people now urging the State to revalue leased land, and confiscate freehold land. One could give other instances Public Revenues Act, Manawatu Railway, Lake Wakatipu Steamship Company. If the State can act unjustly in one instance it can in others, and there is no good ground for thinking that the State will always treat its tenants fairly. On the contrary, it seems likely that under a system of universal State tenancy it would squeeze the utmost possible amount out of its tenants, especially those of them who were so foolish as to be opposed to the party in power. But the greatest drawback to a universal State tenancy is the immense opportunity it would offer for political corruption. It would enable a strong man when once he obtained office to make himself secure in it for an indefinite time, and would convert him into a veritable dictator. The effect on the tenants, even if this were not the case, would be very bad. We should have them always looking to Government for help in times of difficulty, or ready to throw up their holdings if help were not forthcoming. The independence and selfreliance of the freeholder would be lost, and our national character would deteriorate very much, Mr. McCullough says he does not see how aggregation of large estates could be prevented under freehold. It seems to me it could be done with the utmost ease. No sooner is a large estate formed than the Land for Settlements Act can be brought to bear, and the estate reacquired and redivided. If this is not enough a clause might be inserted in the title deeds of lands disposed of under the Act, prohibiting the holding by their owner of more than a specified area of land : or the Land for Settlements Act might be extended so as to provide that if more than one holding created under the Act should come into the possession of any one person, the Crown may give notice that it will acquire, under the conditions laid down in the Act, all sections in excess, if not disposed of within a given time. It is not from a feeling of self-interest that the Farmers' Union advocates freehold tenure. The union has always set its face against asking for concessions at the expense of other sections of the community, and would not now advocate the sale of State lands if it did not believe such a policy to be in the best interests of the State as well as of the farmer. AVe do not think that those who favour leasehold are actuated entirely by selfish motives; but we believe that their opinions are largely due to lack of knowledge of the conditions and necessities of a farmer's life, and of other matters. I, therefore, wish to protest against the unnecessarily offensive language in which Mr. McCullough referred to those who are asking for the freehold —in comparing them to Jabez Balfour and other miscreants. His statement that, " allowing 10s. reduction is virtually a breach of conditions of lease, and as such is a just ground for confiscating tenants' interest," is absurd. This also applies to Mr. McCullough's statement about "the £864,957 which they propose to steal from the community." This sum does not and never did belong to the community. 111. Mr. How far does your experience extend in New Zealand? Not very much beyond my own home, I have lived on the west coast of the North Island. 112. You saw the price that was originally given by Sir George Clifford for his estate: he did not make money out of it, I presume? —He was one of the few. 113. Are there not many in Canterbury who have made money out of land? —If I knew all those who have lost money on land I think they would number more. 114. Do you not think the balance is in favour of the landowner? —Not in favour of a number of men; but if you come to the matter of pounds, there is a balance in favour of the landowner. 115. You seem to think that the State tenants who gave evidence did not know what they were talking about. You practically give them no credit for having improvements of their own? —That is not so.
W. HALL
571
C—4
116. You said if they really knew what they were talking about they would not prefer leasehold to the freehold?- 1 think most of them prefer the freehold. 117. The evidence we have had at Waikakahi, where the men seem level-headed, and who know what they are talking about, is to the effect that they prefer the leasehold? —I think they are very unwise. 118. You think that the State as a landlord would not be better than a private individual as a landlord ? —No. The private individual is bound down by his agreement, which the law will compel him to keep up. 119. Do you not think in cases of adversity, as happened here in regard to snow-storms, that the Crown tenant has a better chance of getting concessions than he would have if he was the tenant of the freeholder ? —That may be. Ido not think that the State should be placed in the position of having to make concessions to tenants. 120. A freeholder leasing his land would not give those concessions, and the man would have to go out if he did not pay his rent?- Most landlords, if able to afford it, would make concessions. 121. The Farmers' Union is a political body, is it not? —I suppose no body of its nature can entirely keep free from politics, but we try to keep clear of party politics. We do not oppose a man because he belongs to one party or to another; we try to look after the interests of farmers and country settlers. 122. Mr. McLennan.] You say that none of the large landowners made much out of their properties by increased value? —1 said not many. 123. How about George McLean? 1 do not know anything about him lam afraid. 124. Mr. Anstey.] You say there is not much unearned increment in land during late years: do you think we should take in this respect as against that of the two last witnesses?— 1 did not say there was no increase; but 1 said there was no increase owing to the pressure of population. There has been a large increase lately, but it is due to an industrial advance due to invention. 125. There is a large unearned increment, then? —No. In political economy the unearned increment is an increase owing to a pressure of population. 126. You said there was a probability of a serious drop in land-values, and that it would be a wise thing on the part of the Government to sell all the land they could? —At the present values, yes. 127. Do you think it would be a desirable thing to make all the people bankrupt who bought all this land? —I do not know that a large number of people would buy the land at its present value. In any case, it is their own look-out. The State does not compel the people to buy, and the people can please themselves and take their chance. 128. Supposing the land is sold to private individuals and this drop comes, do you think it would be a desirable thing, from the point of view of the State, to have a lot of bankrupt farmers ? —They would not necessarily be bankrupt, though they would lose a good deal, no doubt. 129. Are there a large number of farmers who buy land for cash? —I do not know. 130. You said that leasehold was no security when the Government could alter the leasehold, and a little later on you said that the Government was confiscating part of the freehold? —I said there was a party who were advocating confiscation of the freehold. 131. Supposing the Government started to do that, in what way would the leasehold suffer more than the freehold ? —I do not think they are as likely to tamper with the freehold. 132. You said the graduated land-tax was unfair: do you not think if the Government really wished to touch anybody they could put another screw on that tax much easier than they could alter the lease? —I suppose so. 133. How is the freehold any more secure than the leasehold? —There is a certain amount of insecurity in both. 134. As a representative of the Farmers' Union, what do you advocate should be done with the lease-in-perpetuity settlers? Do you advocate that they should get the freehold? —Yes, I should think so. " 135. Do you not think that would be a breach of the agreement entered into between the State and the tenant? —When two people enter into an agreement they can always vary it by mutual consent. 136. Is not that the very thing you are condemning —tampering with titles? —I am not advocating tampering with titles. 137. Is not allowing lease-in-perpetuity settlers to acquire the freehold tampering with the title? —No, not when it is done by mutual consent. 138. Supposing you gave these lease-in-perpetuity settlers the right of the freehold, on what terms would you allow it? Speaking for myself, I have said already I think it would be to the advantage of the State to have freeholders rather than leaseholders, and therefore I think the State should make it as easy as possible without giving them anything. I should let them have the freehold of the land by paying the Government interest in that land. As far as I understand it, that is practically the amount at which the land was valued when the lease was granted. The Valuer-General sent down a statement explaining how the valuations were made, and in that he incidentally mentioned that the lease in perpetuity was looked upon as what its name applied — viz., a lease in perpetuity, and that the Government had really no interest in any value that has been added to the land since the leases were granted. 139. They should practically sell at the original value? —Yes. Some members of the Farmers' Union do not agree with me in that. 140. You are a strong believer in the freehold. Do you think the option of the freehold ought to be granted to the tenants on all the other public reserves, such as educational, and so on ? —That is entirely a matter of expediency. I think most of the land-values are too high just now, and it would be a wise thing for public bodies to sell their endowments and invest the money in other
(J.—4.
572
jW. HALL.
securities. At the same time 1 do not think there is the same objection to public bodies holding endowments and leasing them as there is in the case of the State, for public bodies are subject to the law. 141. You advocate the freehold from the landlords' point of view, and not from the tenants' point of view particularly ? —I think it would be an advantage to the State and to the tenant. 1 do not think the private landlord comes into the question at all. 142. If giving the freehold to State tenants is an advantage to the State, why should not educational-endowment tenants get the advantage of the freehold too?— 1 think it would be a very good thing for the tenants; but that land is set apart for particular purposes, and if those in charge of it think it is better to keep it in that way, 1 think they would be justified in doing so. 143. Do you think private tenants should have the right of the freehold? -1 do not think they have any claim, unless the landlord is willing to vary the bargain. 144. You think the lease-in-perpetuity settlers are the only ones who have a claim on the freehold? —I do not say any one has a claim on the freehold. 1 say 1 think it would be an advantage to the State, which is the landlord, not to have tenants, and to get rid of the land. 1 think it would be much better for the State to have freeholders and no leaseholders. 145. Supposing the State gave the freehold of these lands, what would it do with the money ? —The money could be used in extending the land-for-settlements system, or for other public works. 146. You would not be in favour of it being paid back to the man from whom it was borrowed? —You could not pay back to the man it was borrowed from until the end of the loan period, but if there was no other need for it it could certainly be used for redeeming the loan. 147. If you gave the tenants the right to acquire their sections, all the sections with a large margin of value would probably be bought? —1 should think so. 148. If particular sections were too dear they would not be bought? That is so. 149. Supposing you allowed all the sections with a big margin to be sold and others to be retained, do you think the Government could invest that money in land with as big a margin ? —I think so. 150. Do you think they could buy land as cheap to-day as seven years ago? —Certainly not. 151. Would not the Government then have all the dear sections left on their hands, whilst anything with a margin of profit would go oil 2 —l suppose that would be the result. 152. You advocate that? —I would advocate that the State should not buy so freely at a time when the land is dear. 153. Mr. Paul.] Do you think it wise that these educational and other endowments should be conserved or sold? —My private opinion is that it would be better for them to be sold when landvalues are high. 154. Corporation and other endowments as well? —I think it would be profitable. 155. Would you be favourable to the improvements being liberally valued and the properties put up to auction? —i\o. 156. You think the present tenant has the absolute right of freehold outside of others? —He certainly has an absolute right to any increased value which has arisen since he obtained the lease. It is simply a matter of law and justice. 157. You think the majority of people prefer the freehold to the leasehold? —I certainly do. 158. When these estates were acquired they were subdivided and allotted under the leasehold tenure. Had they been offered to the public under the freehold tenure, do you not think it is very probable many others would have made application for them, and now that the tenure is being changed do you not think those other people have a right to acquire part of that land ? — Ido not see that at all. In any case there were a great many more applicants than there was land for, and the matter was decided by ballot. It would have been the same if the land had been disposed of under the freehold originally. 159. The fact of a man being successful at the ballot entitles him to the freehold at a very low valuation ? —I do not see that it makes any difference. 160. Has the Farmers' Union any members who believe in the leasehold? —I cannot say. lam not .acquainted with any of the Government leaseholders of these small sections. 161. Are there any Crown tenants in the union? —Oh, yes. 162. Have any Crown tenants been appointed by the union to give evidence before the Commission ? —I cannot say whether they have in the different branches, but Ido not think there were any appointed by the North Canterbury executive. 163. Is there any reason for tuat? —I do not think there happened to be any Crown tenants on the executive. lam quite sure if there had been any they would have been appointed if willing to do so. 164. Was the appointment of witnesses before the Commission restricted to the executive? — The executive could only appoint its own members. The branches have in many cases appointed members to give evidence. 165. How do you view the principle of revaluation of future leases? —I should think it would be better to grant a lease for a definite time, say, thirty years, rather than have revaluation. 166. Do you not think it would be better to give the tenant the right of renewal at the end of that term? —I certainly think the tenant should have the first refusal. If the rent was increased, of course, he might not think it worth while to take it. 167. Do you think it a sound principle to apply the periodical revaluation which existed in the old perpetual lease? —I do not think there is very much difference between that and granting a lease for a definite time. 168. Do you think the New Zealand Government could act like the Egyptian and Turkish Governments as landlords? Do you think their civilisation, and so on, can compare with ours? —No, it does not. But one hears a good deal of the corruption that occurs in America, and I think at a future time it is quite possible that New Zealand politics might come to be so corrupt that the Government might take advantage of its power to oppress the tenants in the way I have suggested.
W. HALL.]
573
C.-4.
169. Do you think it would be good financial policy to buy land several times over for the purposes of settlement after that land had been reaggregated into large estates?: —So long as the State did not lose money over it, I do not see what harm there could be in it. 170. Do you think it wise for the Slate to enter into that business, or would you leave it to private enterprise I—Private1 —Private enterprise would not subdivide the land. 1 think every one concedes that it is wise that the land should be held in small areas, and the State is the only means that can effect that. 171. As aggregation takes place in future the State should step in in every case and subdivide the land, even if the State had done that several times previously'!—Yes, if the land is suitable for subdivision. 172. Do you think that every farmer can be a freeholder? Do you think there is no demand or necessity for the leasehold at all? —I think it is much easier for a man who has not much money to start as a leaseholder. I think the leasehold is an excellent system for getting people on the land. The Farmers' Union is quite of that opinion. We do not want to abolish the leasehold at all. 173. You would not put any man on the land on a straight lease; every one would contain a purchasing clause? -If a man desired a straight-out lease there is no reason why he should not have it, but 1 would not give it for 999 years. 174. You would give it on shorter terms with a revaluation? —Yes. 175. Do you think that any rise in the value of land is due to the collective effort on the part of the general community? —I do not know quite what that means, but it seems to me to mean bringing the market to the land instead of bringing the land to the market, and that is increasing the productiveness of the land. 176. There is general prosperity in New Zealand at the present time; is not part of the increase in value of land due to that? —All of it is. 177. If there is a progressive public-works policy, does not that increase the value of land? —Perhaps it does to some extent. It depends on what kind of public-works policy it is. If it consists of making roads and railways and opening-up land, it does increase the value of land, because it increases the productiveness of the land. But that increase would not be due to an increase of population. 178. You think that the landowner is entitled to all that increase? —In the case of roads, I think the local bodies in the districts served by them ought to pay a rate towards the cost of construction, and with regard to railways, I do not think they ought to be made where they will not pay something over and above the cost of making and working. In that case the State gets some advantage and the landowner gets more, and I think the landowner ought to be allowed to keep that. If the two values could be accurately ascertained the State might get something extra, but I do not see how you can arrive at it. 179. Would you say that the landowner was entitled to that general increase? —I do not know whether he is entitled to it, but I think it would be well to let him have it. 180. Mr. Matheson.\ Does a vigorous public-works policy using loan-money increase the liability of land to taxation? —I suppose it does. 181. Is it likely that these estates which have been cut up by the Crown will be reaggregated again to the original blocks? —I should not think so. 182. Do you suggest that the sale of the freehold by the Crown should be compulsory or optional? —Optional, entirely. 183. If the bulk of our land was occupied by Crown tenants, do you think the State would risk a heavy loss as time goes on?—lf the value of land fell the State would lose, no doubt. 184. Do you think there is a decided risk of that? —I do. 185. Do you encourage freehold tenure on the ground that you encourage individual enterprise? —Partly that, and partly I think it improves the character of the settlers. It would tend to make them more independent. 186. Mr. Johnston.] Do you know anything about the settlements under the Land for Settlements Act? —No. 187. Therefore, you do not know whether the leasehold is a success or not? —I do not know from experience. 188. What area of land would you advocate any one man holding?—l would not like to express an opinion. 189. You believe in large areas? —Certainly not, unless it is very poor land. 190. You think the land should be capable of carrying a certain number of sheep to allow a man to make a living? —Yes. 191. Do you know anything about the Land Board at all? —No; I have not had any experience of it. 192. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you know whether the Farmers' Union sent round to Crown tenants a circular in favour of the freehold, which they asked them to sign? —A petition was sent round. I think it originated in the North Island, and I believe, though I am not sure, it was at the request of Crown tenants who are members of the union in the North Island. It was circulated by the Farmers' Union, and no doubt officers of the union asked Crown tenants if they were willing to sign it. No pressure was brought to bear, of course. 193. Did you send round an agent? —Not a paid agent. 194. The petition was sent round from the executive? —Yes, of course. 195. Supposing we had a member of your executive who deliberately stated that such was not the case, he must be under a misapprehension, or stating what was not true? —Yes. 195 a. Mr. Paul.] With regard to reaggregation, you do not think it possible that these estates would be reaggregated again to their original areas? —I said I did not think it was likely.
C—4,
574
W. HALL
196. Do you think it would be ao evil if live or ten of these 300-acre farms were thrown into one holding? —I think that would be a pity. 197. Would you do anything to prevent that in giving the freehold! —1 made one or two suggestions in my statement in that direction. 198. Do you think the freehold tenure containing these restrictions would be of the same value as a freehold without these restrictions? —For selling 1 should think it would be just as good. 199. Do you think it wise to place restrictions as to area on the freehold? If you restrict the acreage one man can hold you depreciate its value? —Yes; but it is necessary in some cases to interfere with individual liberty in the interests of the State. 200. You think it wise to do that and have a partial freehold? —Yes. William Henby Williams examined. 201. The Chairman.] What are you ? —1 am Crown Lands Hanger, and my district is from the Waitaki .River to the Kangitata. Up to within the last few months 1 used to go as far north as the Eakaia. I have held that position since July, 1896. 202. You have a large number of land-for-settlements bloclq: in your district? —Yes; 1 have twenty-live. There are about 649 holdings under the Land for Settlements Act. 1 have a population of 2,500 on these holdings. 203. Are these 649 holdings fairly successful? —I might say almost all. 204. Are they satisfied with their position generally? —Yes; 1 have had no complaints to the contrary. 205. We had a good deal of evidence from them about the cropping regulations: what is your opinion in regard to that iflatter? —It depends on the quality of the land. The cropping restrictions, so far as ordinary lands are concerned, are right, but on very rich land 1 think some concession should be made. For instance, on the very rich land at W'aikakahi and Temuka, when you break the land out of grass the first crop is of little value, because it is almost all straw. The second crop is very little better, and the third crop is the best, and so on. I have known them to take five and six crops off. 206. Is that not contrary to the present regulations 2 —Yes. 207. Did the Land Board give them authority to do so?—I am speaking of freehold lands in the district adjoining the Crown leaseholds. 208. Have the Government cropping restrictions been adhered to? —In some of the settlements they have taken three and four crops from the rich land. 209. With the concurrence of the Land Board?- In some cases with their consent, and in some without. 210. In the case of those who take " French leave," do you warn them not to do so again? — Yes, and I report to the Land Board. 211. Seeing that different land requires different treatment, do you think there should be a variation in the present printed regulations, or do you think the matter should be left to the discretion of the Land Board ? —I think it should be left to the discretion of the Land Boards on the report of their officers. 212. Do you think there is any tendency towards overcroj3ping just for the sake of harrying the land? —Not at all. It is only done in the case of rich lands, and where the land is very full of twitch, yarrow, and other weeds. They cannot clean the land with two crops. 213. Mr. Johnston.] Is there much Californian thistle in your district? —No. 214. Did you receive any instructions, directly or indirectly, from anybody connected with the Land Board or the Government to ask Crown tenants to give evidence before this Commission ? —No. 215. You are positive about that? —I received no instructions whatever. 216. Generally, are the Crown tenants doing well? —Oh, yes. 217. And making money? —Yes, many of them are doing very well. 218. Have many of the sections changed hands at an increase value in the settlements you supervise? —Not many. 219. If the markets went down do you think the tenants would be able to pay the present rentals ? —Quite able. 220. Even in bad times? —Yes. 221. There is no overvaluing? —There might be an odd section in a settlement that is overvalued, but they do not represent 1 per cent, of the whole. 222. Are not the valuations at Waikakahi a little erratic? —No, the rentals are fair. 223. You think that estate is fairly valued?— Yes, according to the quality of the land. 224. Are the improvements put on by the tenants in these settlements of a substantial and permanent nature? —Yes. 225. Mr. Anstey.\ You say that, generally speaking, the two white crops allowed by the law are sufficient? —Yes, and that is acknowledged by the tenants. 226. A lot of the tenants complained that to take two white crops off and then a green crop and grass down is not profitable without a third white crop: would it be any disadvantage to take the green crop between the two straw crops ? —No, and I think they might take more green crops. 227. You think they might get over the difficulty by putting a green crop between the two straw crops? —Yes, or by fallowing. 228. The regulations speak of three crops, one of which must be a green crop: in taking a crop of turnips off the section, does the tenant take it off the land ? —No. 229. Do you not think it is unfortunate that the regulations should refer to the point as taking three crops off the land? Do you not think it would be better if the regulations referred only to two crops, and not to the third crop at all? —I think the tenants should take as many green crops as they like.
575
C—4.
W. H. WILLTAMS. 1
230. Do you not think it would be better that the regulations should apply to two white crops, and not refer to green crops at all? —Yes, the tenants should not be restricted to the number of green crops. 231. You say the tenants complain that they cannot clean their land by taking two white crops: do they clean the land by taking a grain crop ? —lt depends on the land. 232. Is it not a fact in nine cases out of ten that the land is far dirtier after a straw crop than it was before? —Not on medium land, but on the rich land at Waikakahi, where there is twitch, it is dirtier after cropping. 233. Can they clean the land by taking off a grain crop? —No, not with one. They want to fallow between. A fallow will clean it best of all. 234. It is quite possible to celan it with a succession of green crops, but not with a succession of straw crops? —That is so. 235. We heard a number of complaints as to a number of the sections being too small: what is your experience with regard to that point? —Some of them are too small, and on my representations the Board have grouped some of the sections on the Albury and other settlements. 236. What do you think would be a fair-sized section? —It depends on the quality of the land. 237. We will say in the case of Albury? —A man wants at least 200 acres at Albury, and some of the sections were cut into 40 and 50 acres. They have been grouped since. 238. Have the working-men's settlements, such as Springbrook, been a success?— Yes. The small 10-acre sections cut up in the Albury and Waikakahi Settlements for working-men have not been a success, because the men could not get work close enough to home to be able to attend to them. 239. Have any of the village-settlement sections been grouped? —Just in one or two cases of husband and wife. They have been taken up readily, and many of them have changed hands since. A man who has done well sells out and goes in for another section. 240. Are there many large runs in your district capable of being reduced in area? —Not many. 241. Do you duties take you into the Mackenzie country? —Yes. 242. We had evidence that one or two of the runs are held by one tenant: do you think it is wise that they should be held as they are? —In former days each run kept one person, and they would do so now. 243. Then, you say they could be cut into smaller areas than they are now? —The Loan and Mercantile hold several runs now. 244. Do you think it is in the best interests of the country that a foreign company should be allowed to farm these runs as an absentee? —No; I think the three runs should be held by three people. 245. Do you think any of the runs in the Mackenzie country could be reduced below their original size? —Some of them, but not many. They have very little winter country. 246. A complaint was made at St. Andrew's by a man named O'Connor that the Board refused to allow him and his wife to occupy two sections at Springbrook, but that afterwards the Board allowed another settler to do that very thing: what is your explanation of that? —I would want all the records of the Board to explain that. Shortly, the position is this: the man complained that his rent was too dear, and he surrendered. The section was offered again, but he did not take it up. That was his wife's section. The section lay for some time unoccupied, and the Board grouped it with the adjoining section which was also lying idle, and the present holder took it up. He was the only applicant for the land. 247. Mr. Paul.] It lias been asserted that the Crown tenants are afraid to come before the Commission and give evidence favouring the freehold: do you think there is any ground for that fear? I have been amongst them a good deal lately. They told me they had seen the statement made and they laughed at it. They said they did not come before the Commission because they had no occasion to go before it to give evidence. 248. Do you think the evidence that has been given before the Commission is a fair statement of the wishes of the Crown tenants? —You have had evidence from a good many of those who have petty grievances. The statement of the majority of the settlers I have seen is that they are satisfied. 249. Do you think the majority are satisfied with their present holdings and tenures? —I am quite certain of it. 250. Do you think any number of Crown tenants have not come before the Commission because they were afraid?' —Not one. 251. Do you know any reason why they should be afraid? —No reason at all. They are no! afraid of the Board nor of the Commission. They said they had no occasion to give evidence, because they are satisfied. 252. The proposal has been made that the Ranger should have power to vary the cropping conditions: would you like to be given that power? —Certainly not. I am only a subordinate officer, and I want some one to protect me, though I am not afraid that the tenants and I would not agree. # 253. Do you think that the tenant who has paid a large sum for goodwill is likely to bear tl:strain of bad times as well as the original tenant? —Quite as well. The men who pay large sums for goodwill are men who have money behind them. 254. Can you do justice to the tenant and landlord, having regard to the large area under your control? —I suppose I have done so hitherto. It is hard work, but so far I have done justice to it. 255. You feel you can do it? —I think so. The area is not too large. My only trouble is the want of help in the office when I am away.
C—4.
576
[W. H. WILLIAMS
256. The reason I ask the question is that some people have said it is impossible for a man to do the work the Ranger is asked to do : I want to know if it is impossible? —I do not think so. I think my reports to the Commissioner will prove that I have done justice to the district. 257. Is there anything in the present regulation that you, if you were a Crown tenant, would resent? —No. 258. Mr. Matheson.] Suppose in the case of these 650 land-for-settlement tenants the letter of the law had been strictly carried out, how many of these tenants would have rendered themselves liable to eviction for breaking the cropping regulations?- Very few. 259. Would you say at least fifty? —I should not think more than fifty tenants have seriously broken the cropping regulations. 260. I am not speaking of serious breaches, but of a strict enforcement of the law: have a great many rendered themselves liable? —No. 261. Do you think it would be wiser if the Board had power to fine tenants for breaking the regulations, instead of only having the power to evict them? —The Board do not evict. 262. Do you think it wise for the Crown to fix regulations and then frequently allow them to be broken ? Would it not put the Land Board in a securer position if they had some power other than eviction to punish tenants for breaking the regulation ? —Yes, the Board should have some discretionary power, such as power to fine, because an eviction never takes place. 263. Can you suggest what form the fine should take? —If a tenant broke the cropping regulations after being warned I would fine him so-much per acre —a sum sufficient to prevent him doing it again. If a man applied for a concession to the Board he invariably gets it if it is reasonable. 264. Mr. Anstey.] You spoke of occasional sections being overvalued: what would you suggest should happen in cases of that sort ? Do you think it is fair or wise to keep the tenants paying an excessive rent? —I have already reported that I think it would be \Hse to at once reduce the rent to a fair value in cases where a section has been overvalued. • 265. On the other hand, do you know of many sections which are paying a small rent? —No. 266. Have not a number of sections been sold at a very large goodwill?- Yes; but the money has been for improvements and work done by the tenants. 267. Have not a large number sold at a considerable goodwill over and above the value of the improvements ? —Yes. 268. In that case does it not mean that the sections are paying too little rent?- It is not so much a matter of rent as an increase in the value of land and stock. 269. Do you think it is necessary for the success of a settlement that these tenants should get the 10-per-cent. rebate that they do? Do you think they would get on right enough without that rebate? —No; I think it has been a help to a good many. I think it is wise to continue it. 270. You think it would be wise to continue that rebate and to keep these tenants paying too much rent as they are now? —No. 271. If you reduce the rents of the tenants where are you going to get that money from? I would take it out of the 10-per-cent. rebate. 272. Do you know of any settlements in your neighbourhood that were settled under the deferred-payment system? —Yes, but they were before my time. These deferred-payment sections have been nearly all grouped. One man has bought out five or six of the others, so that where perhaps there were originally fifteen settlers there are now only four. 273. Has that happened in most cases? —Yes, at Belfield and Adair. 274. Do you think it wise to allow these small sections to be grouped in that way? —No, because people are constantly applying to the Government to cut up more land for small settlements. 275. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that these lands which were cut up under deferred payment and have since been aggregated were as suitable for close settlement as the lands that are being cut up now? Yes; the poor lands have not been grouped. The land that was taken up under deferred payment at 6s. or 7s. per acre has been grouped and sold since at £25 per acre. 276. And the land has been aggregated at what extent?— Four or five 10-acre sections might have been bought and grouped. .277. Do you mean that the aggregation does not amount to more than 100 acres in area? —Yes. The holdings were very small. John Rennie examined. 278. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer at Doyleston. I hold 600 acres of freehold and 125 acres of private leasehold. I have been in the district since 1863. I started at Prebbleton with 20 acres. lam Chairman of the School Commissioners. I have two sons who are Crown tenants under lease in perpetuity. 279. What are your views on the question of leasehold versus freehold tenure? —I think the lease in perpetuity is the best system that has been adopted yet. If I had a chance at that when I started I would not have started on 20 acres. 280. In regard to School Commissioners' land, we have a good deal of evidence from their tenants, especially in Otago, who complain that they did not receive sufficient valuation at the end of their term for improvements, and that altogether they were somewhat restricted in their leases: can you tell us shortly what terms your tenants had? —They mostly have fourteen-years leases. We have the right to give twenty-one-years leases. 28P. What improvements do you allow for? —They are allowed valuation for buildings, but Mr. Pitman, who is present, will be able to give you details. There are about 43,000 acres let, and we have about two hundred tenants. We have not the least trouble with our tenants. When the leases run out we renew them by arbitration, if the tenants have resided on the property and made improvements; but the lands that have been taken up by runholders and large holders are put up to competition. 282. Mr. Johnston.] How long have you been Chairman of the School Commissioners? —For the last five or six years.
J. BENNIE.'
577
C—4
283. It is the habit in other places for the Commissioner of Crown Lands to be Chairman of the School Commissioners: why is it not so here? —It was so here in Mr. Marchant's time; but when Mr. Humphreys came he did not care about undertaking the work. He preferred another member to take it. 284. Do you not think it would be more advantageous to the State if the Government came to terms with the School Commissioners and said, " We will hand you debentures of a value realising 5 per cent, to give you the same income that you get now, and we will hand your lands over to the Land Board to be administered by them"?- I do not know if the Land Board would administer them as cheaply as we do. 285. It is not so much a matter of the cheapness of the administration as that all Crown lands should be. administered by one body instead of by several bodies. Do you think it is advisable that one body should administer all the Crown lands, or do you think it would be better to leave things as they are? -I think the position is better as it is. You see, the Education Board appoint two members, and the others are appointed by the Government, and the land is administered by people resident in the province. We have a very good officer in Mr. Pitman, and he goes round the district every year and sees the land, and tells the Board how it is being worked. 286. So far as the Education Boards are concerned, would they not get the same income as they receive at the present time? —Yes. 287. But do you think it would be advisable to continue to administer these lands as at present ? —I think so, in regard to our district. 288. You are a farmer, and therefore will know something about the other matters we have to inquire into: what settlements are your two sons on? —On the Lake Ellesmere flat. One has been there ten years. 289. You say if you had had the same opportunities as they had you could have got into a better position quicker? —I think so. I have visited Cheviot and Highbank, and lam quite satisfied the tenants there have twenty-five years' start of the original settlers in our district. The original settlers in our district had to get agents to buy land for them. The land cost the agents £2 per acre, and the settlers took that land from them at £4 or £5 per acre, payable in four or five years, and they paid 12 per cent, interest on the money as rent. It took a number of them many years to redeem themselves, but I believe they have all done so, owing to the quality of the iarid. 290. Who did these land agents buy from? —The Government. 291. And then they resold to the settlers on deferred payments? —Yes, that is how a large amount of land was settled around Springston and Ellesmere. Land-speculation has retarded settlement here a great deal. T have known land to be sold at £4 per acre; before it was bought from the Crown at £2. 292. I suppose what Mr. Hall said is true, that very few men in this district made money out of land?- -I do not know what else they made it out of. 293. You think the bulk of the wealth of Canterbury has been made out of land? —I think so; in fact, our future prosperity depends on the use we make of the land. 294. I am referring to the settlements under the Land for Settlements Act? —Yes, Cheviot and Highbank are very prosperous, and there are as good homesteads and as much planting on them as if it was freehold. 295. Is the School Commissioners' land mostly rough or high country? —No; we have one or two runs, but the bulk of the land is agricultural land. 296. Has it depreciated in value at all? Are you getting as much rent now as you did tei> years ago ? —We get more. 297. Do you get as much rent now from your high country? —We have only one run let. 298. Is there much Californian thistle on your land? —I do not think so. There are some patches here and there, but we see that it is kept down. 299. Mr. Anstey.~\ Does the valuation you allow for improvements extend to buildings and fences? —Mostly to buildings. Most of the holdings have been fenced by previous tenants. 300. Do you think it would be advisable to enlarge that valuation for improvements to include all improvements, such as fencing, drainage, and so forth? —When a tenant is going to make improvements he makes a written application, and states what he is going to do, so that we may know the position. As a rule we consent to these improvements. We allow so-many improvements to be put on, according to the size of the holding. 301. Do you think it a wise principle to allow them full valuation up to a certain limit for all improvements ? —Certainly. 302. Do you think that the want of full valuation interferes with the letting of your farms at all? —No; I think they are all easily let. 303. Supposing you as a public body, or any other public body having control of reserves, refuse to give valuation for improvements, do you think that refusal would be in the interests either of the trusts or the tenants?—No. It is a wise thing to give valuation for improvements. 304. Supposing you or any other body refuse to give valuation for improvements, do you think it would be a wise thing for the State to take over the control of the reserves? —Perhaps it would. 305. We had evidence that the Christchurch. City Council have a reserve near Ashburton, and we had evidence that land on one side of the road from it is worth £7 per acre, while this reserve owing to the disgraceful state into which it has been allowed to get, is only worth £2 per acre: do you think it is wise or in the interests of the State that any public body should allow its land to get into that state? —No, it is not. . 306. Do you think the State would be justified in taking that land out of their control?- If it is in that condition I think the State would. 307. Do you think it would be wise for the State to pass a law to compel all landlords to give their tenants valuation for improvements within reasonable limits?■— That is rather a wide question,
73—C. 4. 'n rn
C—4.
578
J. KENNIK
and.l have not considered it quite enough to give an answer. I expect it would affect private individuals as well as public bodies. 308. Do you think that all public reserves should be held under leases, giving valuation for improvements ? —Yes. 309. But you are rather doubtful about applying that principle to private individuals? —Thai is so. 310. Mr. Paul.] Do you think it would be a wise policy to sell these endowments? —I do not think so. lam on the Education Board, and I see the money comes in handy. 311. From your experience, the revenue has been an increasing one for the last ten years? — Yes. 312. Do you think it is likely to increase as the colony becomes more thickly populated? —Yes; I believe it will increase. 313. Mr. Matheson.] You say that the present dual administration of the lands in this province is wise, because your body work more economically than the Land Board? —I think so. 314. Is it not a fact that you get a great deal of work done for you by the Land Board without payment? —That is so. 315. Seeing that is the position, and looking at it from a broad point of view, does it not seem wise that one body should administer these Crown lands, and so save a duplication of officers? —It might be. 316. Do you think it would be wiser than the present system? —I cannot say. William Dunlop examined. 317. The Chairman.] You are Chairman of the Selwyn County Council? —Yes. lam also a small farmer. I hold 220 acres of freehold. I have been fifty years in the colony. 318. What is your view in regard to the question of land-tenure? —Personally, I much prefer the freehold. I think the leasehold is best to enable a man to get a start, but I think ultimately he should have the option of the freehold. I think a freeholder, as a rule, is better contented, and makes a better settler than the leaseholder. 319. I suppose as County Chairman the various classes of settlers come under your observation : do you notice any difference, so far as freeholders and leaseholders are concerned, in their style of farming? —I used to say some years ago that I could tell a leasehold from a freehold when driving anywhere along a road. Of course, there are exceptions in both cases; but, as a rule, freeholds are much better cared for in the county than leaseholds. 320. Mr. Johnston.] Do you refer to private leaseholds? —I think, as a rule, leaseholds of all sorts are not so well kept. 321. Have you visited any of the settlements under the Land for Settlements Act? —No. 322. So you cannot express an opinion as to the leaseholds under the Land for Settlements Act? —No, I have not been on any of the latter settlements. 323. Have you seen any of the settlements? —I am speaking of leaseholds in the Selwyn County; they are principally private leases. 324. Do you approve of the Land Board as at present constituted? —I have never had anything to do with them. 325. As County Chairman, do you think the Land Board is well constituted? —So far as I know, they work fairly well. I have not heard much complaint. I think the Board is composed of impartial men who do their best. 326. Mr. Anstey.] Are there many lease-in-perpetuity settlers in the Selwyn County? —I do not think so. 327. Can you tell us what -were the terms of the leases in regard to length of tenure and valuation for improvements granted to the people who did not farm their lands so very well ? —All sorts of terms, as a rule. 328. Did any of them get valuation for improvements ?—I do not think there was much of that. 329. Is not the bad farming to be accounted for by the absence of security for the improvements they put on the land ? —I do not know that it is. Ido not think they take the same interest in it. 330. Do you think a man would improve his land just as much if he got no valuation for improvements? —I do not think so. 331. Were any of these ill-kept leaseholds the property of the School Commissioners or under their control? —I do not think so. A lot of property in our district belonging to the Church is in a very backward state. It has been keeping back the district very considerably. 332. Do you know if they give valuation for improvements or any security?—l think not. I think that is probably the cause of the trouble. 333. Do you think it would be a fair thing for the State to interfere when the land is held in such a manner that the man is not allowed to properly improve and produce from it?—l do not know. 334. Do you think it would be a fair thing for the State to compel landlords of that description to give their tenants full valuation for improvements?—l think so, under certain conditions. I think an agreement should be come to between landlord and tenant as to what are considered improvements if they cannot agree to be decided by arbitration. 335. Do you think it would b<} fair for the State to interfere under proper limitations?— Yes, there is no doubt the tenant would do much better. 336. I suppose the land will be made to produce more? —I do not know that it would verv much. 337. Have you had any experience of the expenditure of Government grants in your county? —We never have very much of that. The money goes somewhere else, as a rule.
579
tt~4
\V. DUNLOP.J
338. I presume you have had some Government grants?— Yes. 339. Was any condition attached to them as to the manner in which they were to be expended? —1 think we were allowed to spend the money as we thought best. 340. Is the outlet to Lake Ellesmere under your jurisdiction? —Yes. 341. We had evidence the other day that a lot of money had been wasted there, and that the drain has been constructed in such a way that the water has to run uphill? —The work was done under professional advice, and was sanctioned by the Government engineers, so if it is not what it ought to be you know who to blame. 342. Is it not a success? —It is a partial success. But it is not quite what we expect to make it yet. 343. Did your county do the work? —Yes, by contract. 343 a. Have you had any experience of co-operative labour at all? —No. 344. Mr. PaulJ Do you think a good farmer would be a bad farmer under a leasehold tenure? He would not be so good as if he had a freehold. 345. Can you say why? —I do not think he takes the same interest in it. 346. Do you see any reason why he should not take the same interest in, say, a lease in perpetuity ? —fie might take an interest in a lease in perpetuity, but, for my own part, I should not take the same interest in it. 347. As a public man, do you think it would be a wise policy to sell educational and other endowments? —I do not think so. I think it was very wise to make these endowments, and I see no reason why they should be parted with now, so long as they are properly utilised. 348. Do you think it would have been a good policy for the State to have conserved a large area of good land, instead of selling the freehold of it ?- The State did conserve a very large area. 349. Do you think it would have been a good policy if it had conserved a still larger area? —I do not know. I think the fact of selling the land at the time they did, when money was very much wanted to give the country a start, was just as wise a policy as could have been adopted. 350. We are told that the State sold a lot of land to speculators, and that these speculators sold to somebody else: do you think that was wise ?- It was very hard on those who had to buy, for they had to pay dearly for the land. 351. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the State would have been wise to have retained the whole of the titles if it could have financed matters, and if it had done so and all the land was now occupied by Crown teuants, do you think the colony would have prospered as it has? —I do not think there would be so many people here. I for one would not have come here if there had been no prospect of getting a piece of land of my own some day. 352. Suppose the tenants on school reserves had the right of purchase, do you think they would put more improvements on the land, and use the land better than they do under lease? —I think they would probably. 353. Then, would it not be a benefit to the State to give them that option, seeing that the education revenue is guaranteed to the province, no matter what the reserve would Bring in ? —lt might be advisable, but once the land is turned into money the probability is it would vanish. 354. Would that not be due to the want of good administration ?- I have seen lots of money that was supposed to be ear-marked disappear very quickly. 355. If the expense of electing a Land Board was undertaken, do you think it would be likely to result in the selection of more suitable men than the present members? —I do not think so, so far as my knowledge goes. Geobge Alexander McLean examined. 356. The Chairman.\ AVhat are you ? —I am a farmer and a Crown tenant on a pastoral lease. The land I lease is part of Mount Grey. The area is 4,100 acres. I have had the lease for five years.. My rental is £120 per annum. 357. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission? —I would like-to point out that the tenure, is hardly secure enough. In order to winter sheep I would want to sow grasses, and it does not do at the present time to surface-sow without being paid for it. My lease has nine years to run, five years having already gone. I would like to be able to plough some of the land. My idea is that at the end of the term we should get the land at a valuation. I have 80 acres of freehold, and I grow turnips on it. 358. Mr. McLennan.] Have you tried surface-sowing? —Yes; I sowed twenty bags, and it took very well. 359. Did you sow clean seed? —I sowed cocksfoot, and some white-clover with it. 360. Supposing the lease were amended so that at the end of the term arbitrators should determine the rental, would you be prepared to take up a fresh lease at their valuation? —Yes, so long as it was a fair valuation. 361. Would you require a valuation for your sown grasses? —If I lost the lease I should, but if I did not that would not be necessary. 362. Mr. Anstey.~\ Would it be fair if you got full valuation for improvements to submit the land to public competition at the end of the lease?--It would be hard to see how you could get full valuation for surface-sowing on a mountain. It is very extensive. If I could get full value that would be fair. I think that a tenant in a place like that is a better man, because he understands the country, than any new tenant coming in. 363. Suppose you got the right of renewal at an arbitration rental, would you consider that a sufficiently secure" tenure to put all the necessary improvements on the land? —Yes. 364. How much of that land did you surface-sow and improve generally? —Pretty well the whole of the mountain would take cocksfoot.
a—4,
580
[Gi Ai McLEAtf.
365. Would you surface-sow the whole of it if you got a security of tenure? —Yes, I would do so in course of time. 366. If they agreed to give you a renewal with arbitration as to rental, would you have any objection to putting it in grass within a reasonable time? —No. 367. How are your relations with the Land Board? —I have not had many direct dealings with the Land Board, but in whatever dealings I have had with them they have always treated me fairly. 368. Do you think it would be an advantage to have the Land Board elected? —1 think if they were elected on the ordinary franchise the townspeople would put in their representatives, who would probably be men who would not understand the country so well as the present members of the Land Board. 369. Then you think that the present constitution of the Land Board is satisfactory? —Yes. 370. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes. 371. Have those been satisfactory? —Yes. 372. Has there been any undue delay or any undue expense? —There has been no delay, and the dealing I had with the office was the cheapest transaction I ever had of that kind. 373. Did you succeed in getting as high an advance as you asked for? —Yes. 374. You only asked for what was reasonable? —Yes. 375. Do you think that there would be any risk to the State if it allowed tenants to crop any portion of the land they required, or an unlimited area of land ? —I do not think it would be right to give an unlimited right of cropping. 376. Why? —Because the land would get dirty. 377. Then, how would you .propose to crop? —Sow the land in turnips. My land now is mostly manuka, and that has to be cleared, and I would sow it in turnip, and the following year sow either rape or grass, if I sowed rape, I would sow grass the next year. 378. If you were compelled to follow with grass, would there be any risk to the State? —No; the State would be a gainer. 379. Mr. Paul.\ How does this country compare now in productiveness and carrying-capacity with what it was ten years ago ? —I do not think there has been any decrease in carrying-capacity. William Jameson examined. 380. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am Clerk of the Selwyn County Council, and I have occupied that position since 1878. 381. You have-certain areas within that county called "planting reserves"? —Yes; about 15,475 acres. 382. How much of that land is under plantation now?--Roughly speaking, about 14,000 acres. It is nearly all planted or partially planted. 383. Do you lease the open land? —Yes, and also these plantations when the trees are sufficiently grown. Some of the leases are for seven years, and others for fourteen years. We have a clause in the lease allowing us to resume any portion of the open land we require for planting purposes. 384. Are the rents accruing from the leases devoted to planting? —Yes. 385. What trees do you generally cultivate? —Red-gum, stringy-bark, and all kinds of pines. 386. Do you sell the timber ? —Not so far; but we may do so in future. 387. Mr. Johnston.] Has the blight attacked the gums in your plantations?— No. 388. Are there any Crown settlements within your county? —Yes; there is the Mead Settlement, and there are the suburban settlements around Christchurch. 389. Have you had any trouble in collecting rates from the Crown settlers? —The rating is done by the Road Boards. The County Council has had no trouble with those settlers in respect to rates. 390. Mr. Anstey.] What security have the tenants on these reserves? Have they a right of renewal or valuation for improvements? —No. '391. Do you propose to plant the whole of the 14,000 acres? —Yes. The plantations are mostly for shelter purposes on the plain, and most of them consist of strips of land. William Fhedekick Aplin examined, 392. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a wool-sorter, but I was brought up to agricultural work. I have been thirty years in the colony. 393. Have you any particular matter you would like to bring before the Commission? —Some years ago I took a prominent part in bringing about the settlement of the land —in fact, I think I was one of the first persons who advocated on the public platform the compulsory taking of large estates for the purpose of closer settlement. Now, after the lapse of some years, I come back and find the country in a very prosperous condition, and I also find that the lease-in-perpetuity system has been adopted. I was under the impression before I left the colony that the lease would be for ninety-nine years. I feel it is a mistake to give such a long lease as 999 years, and I think the State should now say, seeing that they have made a mistake, " We will give the present occupiers of those leases the present market value." For argument's sake, let us suppose the land was worth £6 an acre when they took it up and it is now worth £8 an acre, I think they should be given £2 an acre cash, and then give them the leases for thirty years, and have a revaluation every subsequent thirty years. At the same time, I think the tenant who holds the land at the expiration of the term of thirty years should have the option of renewal at revaluation. I make that statement because I find that a great number of proposals that I advocated in my early political career have since become law, and other people have received the credit for them. I may say that I was formerly on the Edendale Estate, and was agricultural manager at Windsor for the late Mr. Menlove for a considerable time, and I also know some of the Otago country.
581
W. If. APLIN.]
C.—4.
394. Mr. Johnston.l You were not at Edendale when the land was first sold? —No. 395. Is the land at Edendale worth as much now as it was in your time? —We considered the land was worth fully £8 an acre at that time. Ido not know the value now. 396. Do you know the high country in the Mackenzie country? —Yes; I was manager of the " Mistake " Run, on the Godley lliver. I know the Mackenzie country generally. 397. When you were in Southland was there any ragwort or Californian thistle there?— I never saw Californian thistle until 1 returned to the colony after an absence of ten years, and there was no ragwort there when I was in Southland. 398. Have you ever seen grass-seed sown on the "Mistake" Station? —No; but I should imagine it would take grass-seed readily on the sunny face. There is a sunny face fully fifteen miles in length. 399. Have you had any experience in grassing high country? —No. 400. You formerly advocated the bursting-up of large estates : do you advocate the cutting-up of runs more than the land is cut up at the present time? —As far as the runs in the Mackenzie country are concerned, I think they are cut up small enough now. But some runs might, I think, be cut up to better advantage; that is, in cases where it is possible to winter the sheep. 401. Up to what altitude do you think you can winter sheep in that country? —You can winter sheep right up to Mount Cook. My experience is that they will do very much better at the Mount Cook Station than on some of the lower country. For instance, at Balmoral, because I have seen snow remain on the latter places for a very long time. 402. Mr. Anstey.\ Have you wintered any ewes on the "Mistake" Station? —At one time, I understand, they wintered ewes there, but that was not when I was there. I was only there, for about six months. 403. What did they generally winter there? —Generally dry sheep. 404. Did they winter a large number of ewes in the Mackenzie country? —Yes, usually a good number of " wools." 405. And at Glentanner? —Yes, just sufficient to keep up the carrying-capacity of the run. 406. You said you were in favour of the State buying out the unearned increment of the 999year s lease? —Yes. 407. Have you given the matter any particular study?- Yes. 408. Have you any idea what it would cost to do that? —I have not gone into figures; lam only speaking from a broad political point of view. 409. Do you think it would cost a couple of millions? —I do not think it would cost that, over and above the present value. 410. Do you think it would cost one million? —Possibly it would. 411. Would you propose to borrow the money? —The freehold would practically be given to them. The fairest way would be either to do that or give them the freehold right out. 412. If you were to buy it out would you approve of borrowing another million to do so? — Yes, rather than give them the freehold. 413. Having bought the land once you think the State should say, " We have made a mistake in giving a lease of 999 years, and we will pay the difference "? —Yes, the present difference. 414. How do you propose to recoup the State for the money they have had to borrow for that purpose? —The land would be revalued, and I understand that a number of the Crown tenants are on land capitalised at .£6 an acre, the present value of which land is £12 an acre. 415. Do you think the tenants would agree to that? —It is not a matter of what the tenants would agree to; it is a matter of what the public have to say. 416. Mr. Paul.] Do you think that settlements would go on satisfactorily under the tenure (hat you advocate?- Yes, far more satisfactorily than under the present tenure, because the tenants would have an absolute security for thirty years. 417. Would you be in favour of revaluing the present leases without compensation?—No, because I consider that the State has entered into a compact. It would not be fair to raise the rent, because the tenants took up the land on the understanding that the rent was to be a certain amount for 999 years. 418. You think the State should stand to its bad bargain, and pay for any alterations they want to make? —Yes. 419. Do you think it would be a good policy to conserve the remaining Crown lands? —Yes: I think it would be one of the greatest of follies if the State were to dispose of a single acre more of Crown land. Frederick Ozanne examined. 420. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and have been liere for thirty-two years. I hold a section under lease in perpetuity at Roimata, Woolston; the area is 1 \ acres. I have been there for nine years. 421. Are you perfectly satisfied with your holding? —Perfectly satisfied. 422. Do you believe in the lease in perpetuity? —I do. 423. Are your neighbours fairly well satisfied 1- -As far as I know, all my neighbours are absolutely satisfied with their leases and with the way in which the Government have placed them on the land. And I, for my part, am fully satisfied with the way we have been treated. I think that the lease in perpetuity is a boon to the working-man of the colony, and I would very much like to see some more land opened up so as to give more working-men an opportunity of acquiring homes for themselves. Some years ago I paid rent for six years, and whatever improvement I put on the place went to the private landlord. The consequence was that I had either to pay more money as rent for the property, or I had to make room for another tenant. My present rent is £3 18s. 6d. for the 1£ acres; that is about Is. 6d. per week. The consequence is I can live a great deal more comfortably than when I was living under a private landlord. 424. Mr. Johnston.'] Do you come here of your own free will?— Yes.
C—4.
582
[f. ozannjb.
425. Yon have not been requested by any one to come here? —No. 426. Could you have got on this land if it had not been for the lease-in-perpetuity system? — No; I had barely enough money to pay my deposit. 427. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes. 428. How did they treat you? —Very well. 429. Did the Land Board treat you well? —Yes. 430. Mr. Anstey.~\ You have built a house on this section? —Yes. 431. Do you consider the lease in perpetuity a sufficiently secure tenure to put a valuable house on it? —Yes. We had to put up a house to live in; but they did not bind us as to its value. 432. You do not think the Government was likely to step in and revalue the land? —No, I am not at all afraid of that. 433. You say you are satisfied with the Advances to Settlers Office? -Yes. 434. You have got quite sufficient advance for the improvements you wish to make? —Yes. 435. Do you think that pound for pound up to £50 is sufficient to enable a working-man to build a cottage? —In a good many cases I think it would be a very good thing for a working-man, especially if he had a family, if the Government were to give him a little more assistance, so as to enable him to put up a house, say, worth £150, and charge him interest on that money, and give him so-many years to pay it back in. 436. Do you think the Government would be safe in advancing so much? —I think so, because the building would be on the property. 437. Supposing the tenant were to allow the building to tumble to pieces?—l think there should be some clause to compel him to keep the building in repair. 438. Do you think there is ji demand for an extension of these workmen's-home settlements? 1 have no doubt if another settlement were opened up close at hand it would be taken up very quickly. 439. Mr. Paul.] Do you think that when these settlements were not successful it was because of the unsuitability of the land? —In some cases it was. 440. Do you think if suitable land were acquired to-day it would be.readily taken up?— Yes. 441. As a working-man in the town, do you find that the increase in rent is out of proportion to the increase in wages? —For private houses it is. The rent is more than a working-man can afford to pay —that is, 10s. and 12s. a week for a house. 442. Do you think the position is serious enough to warrant the Government entering on this policy on a larger scale? —Yes. I only pay £3 18s. 6d. a year, and at the present time, if I had to get a house the same size, I do not suppose I would get it under £30 a year ; and that would be far too great a drain on my yearly income. 443. Mr. Matheson.\ After paying for the building, do you think the Government should allow him to pay off the value of the land, so that he would be entirely free of rent? —No, I am not in favour of that. I think the Crown should retain the title of the land. Alfred Bunn examined. 444. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer at Oxford. I farm 350 acres, parthfreehold and partly with right of purchase. I have 292 acres with right of purchase. The rem is lOjd. per acre. It is scrub land. I will have had the land for two years at the end of thi present month. lam satisfied with it. I think the present land-tenures should be upheld. lam of opinion that they give a man the best inducement to do his best with the land, and I think he should be entitled to the benefit of his labours. I went out into the country with a young family, and I have had to do a lot of hard work and struggling to get our little home together. I think after all our hard work it is scarcely right for the State to step in and say, " We are going to revalue your home." Ido not believe in cash sales, except they include complusory residence on sections large enough to settle upon. I believe also that the clauses limiting the freehold should apply not only to obtaining land from the Crown, but should apply to all sales of land being effected, and it would check land-monopoly. 445. Mr. Johnston.'] Do you not think you would have got on better if you had started under the lease in perpetuity than under the freehold ? —I was not aware of the existence of the lease in perpetuity at that time. 446. If it was in existence, do not you think a man would have done better to have taken up land under that tenure? —It might have been so, but I had to gain my experience. 447. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the right of purchase should be extended to lease-in-perpe-tuity holders? —I would let the present leases stand exactly as they are. A man knows when he takes up the land under what conditions he can best go on the land. 448. But in the case of future leases from the Crown, do you think the right of purchase ought to be given ? —I think so. John Maffey examined. 449. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a gardener, and have a garden of my own. I have 3 acres in the Sumner district. My land is freehold. I have a short statement which I have prepared which embodies my views on the land-tenure question. It is as follows: I believe in a leasehold system that should hold good for at least one generation, or, say, from twenty-five to fifty years, the holder to have the right of renewal. Provision should be made for redistribution. I ijelieve that all future leases should be subject to revaluation, as the only way to put Crown leaseholders on an equal footing, the revaluation to cut both ways, the same as with the freehold at present. I believe the only fair way to deal with the present leaseholders is to buy back their goodwills and give them the option of taking them on again under amended conditions. In dealing with the public estate the aim of the authorities should be to allow every man just sufficient land that he and his family can work without employing labour. As for the back blocks, no doubt some induce-
0.-4.
J. MAFFEY.i
583
ment should be held out. I would suggest that settlers should be given the first term of, say, live or ten years (according to quality) rent free, or at a nominal rent. In short, I believe that the leasehold should be as near the freehold as possible, with one exception, the leaseholder not having to find the capital. The only title that he is entitled to is the fruits of his own labour; but I believe he should be allowed to reduce his rent by paying off a certain amount of capital —just what amount I would not like to say. Cropping restrictions are not necessary when dealing with practical farmers, and in no case should be hard-and-fast. As for village settlements, I would recommend a visit to the Roimata Settlement. I might state that some seven or eight years ago 1 made application for a Government leasehold, but was not successful. The ballot was fair. 1 have made a close study of the land question ever since, and hope some day to become a Crown tenant under reasonable conditions. 450. Mr. Anstey.] You say you are in favour of cutting up the larger holdings into farms, so that a man could work it himself with the assistance of his family, thus avoiding employing outside labour?- Yes. 451. How, then, would you propose that outside labour should be employed I—l1 —I think that every man should have an opportunity of going on the land himself. 452. Do you think it would be advisable to put every man on a bit of land? —Yes. 453. Do you think that would be a satisfactory way of settling the land? —Yes. I think that every man who wishes to take up land should have an opportunity of getting a piece. 454. Suppose you got a labouring man without any capital, and he went on to the back blocks, how would he do in the first few years?— Under the present system there are other employers without the Government making more. There are plenty of employers. I am not prepared to deal with the question after the whole of thejand is nationalised. 455. Mr. Paul.] You would not be a party to revaluing the present leases?—No, not without compensation. I believe the best way to deal with them would be to buy out the goodwill and sell to them again as in the case of a private individual. 456. Do you think there is a demand for more settlement of the same class as that at Roimata? --I certainly do. There is no doubt the Roimata Settlement has been a God-send to the lucky persons who have got on to that land. 457. Would vou allow those tenants to acquire the freehold? —No, under no circumstances. 458. Would you allow any Crown tenant to acquire the freehold? —No. I think that any man who wants the freehold should be prepared to go into the open market and obtain a section under that system. 459. Do you think it would be wise for the State to conserve the remaining Crown lands of the colony? —Yes, every acre. 460. Mr. Matheson.] Do you believe that all the Crown lands of the colony will be nationalised?—l believe that will be the ultimate result, but I think it will be many generations before it is brought about. Henry Herbert Pitman examined. 461. The Chairman.'] What are you? I am steward of education reserves in Canterbury, a position I have held for twenty-seven years. We have 43,857 acres of agricultural land, and one pastoral run of 23,315 acres. The agricultural land has been subdivided into 240 sections, which are held by about two hundred tenants. The annual rental from that endowment is now about £18,521. When first I started the rental was about £6,000 a year, but there were some unlet sections then. The rental has gradually worked up to the present amount, and I think it has now almost reached its highest point. The total cost of administration last year was only £619, which included £31 spent in drain-pipes, &c. The fair cost of administration is 3£ per cent, on the annual rental. 462. You are Inspector as well? —Yes. 463. Have you many exchanges? —Tenants transfer occasionally. 464. At the end of the term do you give the old tenant an opportunity of remaining?—We do now.under clause 244 of the Land Act. The leases are renewed on arbitration rents, and in the last four years nearly 25 per cent, of the tenants have had their holdings renewed. That gives them a fixity of tenure which they would not have under the Land Board, as the lands, I presume, would have to go to ballot. 465. Are they all fairly satisfied ?—Yes. No doubt they obtain their land at a lower rent under arbitration than by tender. 466. If the tenant does not accept the arbitration rental, what about his improvements?— Both the Board and the tenant are bound under the Act to accept the rental fixed by arbitration. If the tenant did not take up the land under the rental as fixed he would lose his improvements 467. Mr. Johnston.] Are the improvements the tenants are putting on substantial?— Yes. 468. At the end of the least! do they get valuation for improvements?— Only the buildings. 469. Do you not give compensation for fencing or draining?—No; we have been supplying tiles for draining. 470. Do these tenants farm their land and carry out their improvements and generally take care of the land as much as a freeholder would ? —The bulk of them do. 471. There is no attempt to deteriorate the land towards the end of the lease? —No. In many cases applications for renewal are made twelve months before the lease expires, and in one or two cases substantial buildings were put on at the end of the lease. 472. Do you allow anything for plantations?— Just lately we have agreed to pay half the cost of plantations and extra fencing. 473. You have no plantation reserves?— No. We only have one pastoral run, which was obtained in 1892 from the Crown in exchange for agricultural land it required for small settlements near Waimate. 474. What run is that?— Mr. Tripp's run at Orari Gorge.
C—4.
584
[h. h. pitman.
475. Has Mr. Tripp tried surface-sowing, or have you encouraged him to do it? —I believe the late Mr. C. G. Tripp did surface-sowing on his runs a great many years since. I was over his runs in 1878 to value same for a private firm. I noticed some seed had taken, but there was a good deal of cape-weed, the result, I thought, of inferior seed. Of course, much of the land is of a nature that would not take grass well. 476. Mr. An*teyi\ What is the general run of crops on your agricultural land? —Two graincrops on the generality of our land, and three grain-crops on swamp lands. 477. Supposing a man had a failure in his crop one year? —If a man had a failure or was working out twitch the Board would agree to let him put down grass in the following spring with oats. 478. Under the lease in perpetuity there is one set of cropping for all sorts of land : do you think that should be varied?— Yes. Those conditions are too hard-and-fast. It is unwise thm the same conditions should apply to land worth £2 10s. an acre and land worth £15 an acre. 479. You say that under existing conditions you are giving all your tenants the right of renewal ? —Yes, if they are good tenants. 480. What constitutes a good tenant? —A man who carries out the conditions and keeps his farm in good order. A few years ago one man did not get a renewal because his fences were not kept in order. 481. It is not compulsory on the Board to give a renewal? —No, the Board has the option. 482. There is no of tenure, then —it depends on the Board? —The Board has practically adopted a system which gives fixity. 483. Previous to some fourteen years ago or so you let all the land by tender; but I understand you to say that you got higher rents by tender? —Yes, I think from 10 to 20 per cent, higher. 484. Did you always get these higher rents paid? —When the times were good we did, but when they were bad there was, of course, trouble in some cases. We have had very few losses. 485. Do many surrender after the rent has been fixed by arbitration? —No, we have never had a case. Of reserves let by tender during the whole period of twenty-seven years we have had four surrenders, 1 think, in South Canterbury. 486. In the case of the existing leases the fencing was on the land when the leases were taken up ? —Yes, on those let for many years past. 487. You do not allow valuation for fencing? —No, because most of the present tenants got their fences with the land. 488. You have appropriated the property, then, of the original tenants? Yes, that will be so; but the tenants at that time paid very low rents and had to fence and subdivide. 489. Do you say you are now giving valuation for fences? —No, only for buildings, except in the case of plantations, where we have just agreed to allow half the cost of the plantation and the necessary fencing. 490. In the event of further subdivision a man would get no valuation for the fencing he put up ? —No. 491. Would you include grassing as an improvement to get value for? —No. They have, according to the terms of the lease, to deliver half the land back in grass. 492. You would not consider grassing on an agricultural lease an improvement in any circumstances ? —No. 493. We had evidence that the Government valuer has to value grass as an improvement. Do you consider grass as a permanent improvement on an agricultural farm and a subject for valuation ? —lt is called an improvement if it is new grass; it might be called an improvement. 494. Is the run which is part of your endowment let for a term of years? —Yes, for twentyone years. 495. Has the holder valuation for improvements? —Yes, the ordinary Crown conditions. 496. That would include fencing? —It was already fenced and subdivided. There is no valuation for sowing grass. 497. Do you think tenants on runs like that ought to have some encouragement to grass their land ? —I think so. Ido not believe these runs could be grassed to a great extent. On the rocky and damp faces and alongside streams grass can be sown, I think, successfully. 498. Towards the end of the lease it would be to his interest to make the place look as bad as possible if he wants to get it back again? —He cannot very well do that without injuring himself. 499. You do not think it well to give him any inducement to improve the run by surfacesowing? —In the main it would be a good thing, I think. 500. Mr. Paul.] Is this run increasing or decreasing in carrying-capacity? —I think it keeps about the same. 501. Do you think that this settlement under lease with an arbitration rental is satisfactorv ? —Yes, I think it is. Our tenants are satisfied. 502. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you propose to pay for these plantations and extra fencing at the end of the lease or when the work is done? —When the work is done. 503. Supposing the Crown resume the whole of these reserves, would primary education in Canterbury suffer ? —No, because what we pay now to the Education Boards is deducted from the Government grant to the Boards. The tenants would be prejudiced very much, because they know that under us they have continuity of tenure. 504. It is reasonable to suppose that if the Crown took over your tenants justice would be done to them; but, apart from the tenants, as a business-man, does not this dual administration of estates in the same district appear to you to be a mistake? —I cannot say it does. 505. With regard to Crown lands, do you think it wise, as a citizen, to errant the option' of the freehold? —Yes. There is no doubt that the subdivision of large estates has done a great deal of good for Canterbury.
585
C.—4
H. H. PITMAN.
506. Do you think that the Crown, having successfully settled these large estates, should give the right of purchase? No. I think they should keep them to the original contract. I think a mistake was made in the first place by giving a 999-years lease. I think a thirty-one-years perpetual lease is preferable. 507. Would you give the right of purchase? —No, I would not. 508. Mr. Anstey.~\ Are you satisfied that the system under which you are now letting land, giving the tenants reasonable security, is satisfactory both to you as landlords and the tenants as tenants? —Yes. 509. Do you think it wise that all public lands of the colony should be administered under somewhat similar regulations I—l1 —I think it would be very wise. 510. Do you think it wise that the Government should step in where the administrators of public reserves refuse to give the tenants any valuation for improvements, and thereby leave the land practically waste? That is practically to interfere with them. I think pressure might fairly be brought to bear on them, and that has been done in the case of one or two other endowments. 511. We had an instance the other day at Geraldine. The City Council of Christchurch has a small reserve there which is covered with manuka scrub, whilst the value of land across the road lias been put up to £7 or £8 an acre owing to the land being improved, and the Christchurch reserve remains at the same value? The other land to which you refer was sold, 1 think, only about two years ago for about £5 an acre. 512. Do you think it right that the State should step in and insist on reasonable security being given to the tenants of reserves? —I think so. John Heath Newlyn examined. 513. The, Chairman.] What are you?- -I am a retired schoolmaster, living at St. Albans. My reasons for appearing before the Commission are twofold. When living in country districts, 1 have taken some interest in the difficulties and progress of the small farmers, and on more than one occasion took the chief part in forming farmers' associations and leagues, such as the Colonial Land Association, which was brought into existence in 1884, to better the state of rural mortgagors. I may also say that few private persons have had as much correspondence with the various New Zealand Governments upon progressive land-settlement and kindred subjects as 1 have carried on since 1881. I have taken a very keen interest in the formation of special settlements, having made a proposal in 1881 to the Agent-General in London to form a company to place some Cornish and Hampshire yeomen on land to be acquired from the New Zealand Government upon a sliding scale of deferred payments. Some of the land near Oxford was then under the expiring pre-emptive rights, which were renewed shortly after for a term of years. In the Lands Report for the year ending the 31st March, 1904, allusion is made to 8,000 acres near Oxford, released by the removal of the Midland Railway restrictions. There was keen competition when the land was taken tip under the optional system. Possibly had the land been under some local control in 1881 some farmers from Great Britain might have settled along the downs between Oxford and Mount Somers under my proposals. Elective Land Boards met with the approval of a farmers' conference in Sydney as'far back as July, 1894, so that the demand for a change in New Zealand cannot be termed a frivolous or socialistic desire for novelty. It is said that there is luck in odd numbers, and five members ought to be able, except in the very large districts, to keep up with the work. The presence of an administrative officer or an active politician on a Land Board has been deprecated by some people, who are also opposed to seeing a large number of public bodies controlled by a few select persons; but as this occurs under the elective system there should always be a Government nominee on each Land Board, though not necessarily as Chairman. The Board might comprise one member elected by the runholders owning freeholds, one member elected by farmers owning freeholds, one member elected by the leaseholders, and one member elected by the town electors, and one Government representative. Electors should have the option of voting under any one qualification. The land-tenure appears to ofier variety enough to meet, most requirements, although there appears to be an obstacle in the way of the man who desires to acquire land without personal residence at the start. Had some men in town or official employment been able to invest in some of the Government land—leasehold, for instance—they might' have been able to employ labour and acquire something worth leaving to their children. The ballot system might certainly have been used by them up to a successful drawing (if they were allowed to get that far), and they might have sold their lucky number for, say,_ £100, a not unknown occurrence, it is said ; but this would not have been getting on the land. The amendment made in 1901 may possibly prevent, the lucky man at the ballot from absorbing what is the most glaring example of the unearned increment.' Vol. 1., A to C, of the parliamentary papers, 1903, contains several criticisms of the ballot system. Climate and configuration have a great influence upon the steadiness of progress even with the most progressive farmers, those in the hilly country demanding access to some fiat land—in fact, they expect fat and lean, much the same as we demand it in their sheep. Possibly, if, when cutting up estates for close settlement, the Government could reserve paddocks where the hill sheep from the snowy ranges could be driven some time before lambing, the extra percentage saved would be worth the cost. The unearned increment has again been prominently brought forward. Some members of the Commission will recall to mind the importance which 'the question assumed in 1884, when the great name of the late Sir George Grey was coupled with it. In an address delivered in the Ashburton County in July, 1884, I put the matter before the farmers present from the small freeholders' point of view, and made two "estimates of the value'of the interest of the farmer and his family, who prior to the sale of a farm had put all their capital, either in money or undrawn wages, into the property. In one case I reckoned the family's interest to be at the end of eight years' occupancy £2,457, allowing 5 per cent, annual interest for their work or money. By disposing of the land at £5 10s. per acre (more than the top price then obtainable) the unearned increment, so-called, 74—C. 4.
C— 4.
586
J. H. NEWLYN.
amounted to £293, or lis. BJrd. per acre for the 500-acre farm, bought eight years before at £2 per acre. By the sale of the farm for £5 ss. per acre —a price hardly obtainable for the Chertsey land in 1884 -and the allowance of the current rate of 7£ per cent, annual interest, I showed that the family would go off the land with £228 2s. 3d. of their earnings and money sunk in it. So that, as far as the despised " cockatoo " is conoerned, there it not much unearned increment for the State. Although in some instances a man may have held unimproved land near commercial centres for years, and have ultimately sold at a great apparent profit on original cost, there may not have been much unearned increment after computing compound interest on purchase-money, rates, and other charges. But the most glaring cases of profit without individual work will probably be found in relation to town and suburban lands. Readjustment of taxation may partly remedy the evil. The aggregation of large estates began to occupy serious public attention when the New Zealand domesday-book was first printed, and in 1884 what was called the " bursting- up policy" was freely ventilated. As an alternative remedy (see Appendix) I suggested in the Christchurch papers what I thought was a more reasonable and scientific mode of adjusting land monopoly to the welfare of the people generally, and thus avoiding any hasty attempts at confiscation. I propose to show, if possible, where the early graduated land-tax fell short of my proposal. The letters which 1 request permission to read will throw some light upon the views I have held for over twenty years upon the subject of land-taxation. (The letters will be found in the Appendix.) 1 trust that there can be no impropriety in submitting for the subsequent study of the Commission a skeleton scheme for what I venture to term a scientific progression in the mode of levying a graduated land-tax. If the farthing rate as the unit should be found either too large or too small the scale can still be made available, say, bv using seven-eighths of the scale rate if too oppressive, or by multiplying the schedule rate if too small. (The scheme will be found in the Appendix.) The scientific progression I have had in mind may be very briefly explained. Tf what I may call the unit of value be taken at £10,000, and its accompanying graduated rate of taxation at a farthing, then values below the amount named will have rates attached to them which are aliquot and decimal parts of in the pound. On the other hand, land-values above £10,000 will entail rates over Jd. in the pound with increases corresponding to the decreases for the amounts below £10,000. Although it is unnecessary to explain to the Commission the ease with which the calculations can be made by the revenue officers, one example, where the figures are very ordinary, will show the system, to advantage. Where a man owns land worth £87,000, the officer, knowing that the scale gives a tax of }d. in the pound on each £10,000, divides by 10,000, or, in other words, puts a decimal point between the 8 and the 7. So the sums reads 87,500 articles at 8.75 farthings each = £797 10s. 61d., the graduated tax payable. The Land and Income TaxAct Amendment Act of 1891 started with a tax of Jd. on land valued at £5,000, with an increment of |d. when the value exceeded £10,000, with a similar rise for each £10,000 up to £210,000. The amending Act of 1903 came nearer to my suggestion of a steady and progressive rise in the tax for the large estates, But the continuity of the rise in each £2,000 of value is broken by a step of £3,000 to get to each complete £10,000 —for example, the larger jumps are £17,000 to £20,000, with a rise of in the pound, £27,000 to £30,000, and so on, although the other early rises are usually in couples of thousands But what I advocate in this connection is that the man who makes the best possible use of his land according to its qualities, market facilities, roading, and railing shall be let off much more lightly than the man who uses high-class and accessible agricultural land merely as a sheep-run to employ only a few hands until he gets the unearned increment. But, in the absence of any accepted and legal prohibition, as far as the holding of a large acreage or land worth a large sum of money is concerned, there seems to be no reason why the owner of land with, say, £200,000 should pay a higher rate of taxation than the small farmer, provided he spends an equal sum in the pound of land-value in providing work profitable to the country, and I advocate a reform in this direction. I thank the Commission for a very full and courteous hearing, and shall be glad to answer any questions. Huoh McGt.oin examined. 514. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a carpenter, residing in Christchurch, where I have been for fifteen years. I have no land, but I had practical farming experience in my early days. My object in coming here was to make a few remarks with reference to the lease in perpetuity. T approve of that lease, and would not approve of the option of purchase. I think, however, that the Government should have the whole of the dealing with the lease. They purchase the land at the expense of the colony, and hold only one ballot for it. As soon as the ballot is over, and even before, bargains for the purchase of the leaseholds are made, and new people come in and buy out the lucky man who was successful at the ballot. I do not think that is right. If a man wants to part with his lease it should revert again to the Government, and there should be another ballot. It is a common thing to see forty applicants for one section in a ballot, each of whom has probably spent £10 in looking over the section, and they are debarred from any chance of getting it after the ballot. When Mr. McKenzie first initiated the scheme he led the people to believe that the Government would have the whole of the dealing with the land, and the fact of these land agents now having the disposal of leases is a great set back to the original supporters of this land scheme. Take, for instance, Dalgetv and Co., of Christchurch: out of a hundred farms in Canterbury alone offered to the public for sale twelve were lease in perpetuitv. Over 10 per cent, of their business in Canterbury is with regard to land belonging to the Government. That is not right. 515. If a man's circumstances altered and he wanted to sell his lease, you would not restrict him doing that? —It should be sold to the Government, and no one else.
a—4.
587
H. MCGLOIN.
516. The man might have put a lot of improvements on the land, and the land might have gone up in value for various reasons ?— The Act says that the Government is willing to take it at a reasonable valuation. 517. You want to prevent the leaseholder getting the unearned increment?—l would give the leaseholder a fair and substantial sum for all his useful improvements. That should be advanced by the Government, and the land put up to ballot again. 518. Mr. Johnston,.] Have you ever been a settler on the land? Yes. 1 lived for three years at Paringa, on the West Coast. 519. Was that a State settlement? —No, it was freehold. 520. Did you work on the land? —I did. 521. You say you would only give valuation for improvements, but a great many improvements are not visible? —I did not say a man should not get valuation for improvements, visible or invisible. I said that he should get fair value for improvements. 522. You would not allow a man to get a penny-piece for his labour on the land, except for his improvements? Not on Government land. 523. Would you take up land under those conditions?—! would. 524. You are a practical farmer: why do you not do it? —I have not the money. 525. We have evidence of men who went on Cheviot with £35, and have made a success of it? —The Land Board was not so stringent then as now. You must have a good deal of capital now before you are allowed to take up a section —£300 or £400. 526. Did you ever take part in a ballot for land? —No. 527. How do you know so much about it? —I have made inquiries. 528. It is only hearsay, thenJ —I made personal inquiries, and there is no hearsay about it. 529. Mr. Paul.] Do you think future leases under the lease in perpetuity should be revalued? —Yes, because the State loses a lot of land-tax revenue now by taking over the estates. Every ten years, I think, the leases should be revalued. Some would be reduced, others increased. 530. Is there any demand for land for workmen's homes in the immediate neighbourhood of Christchurch ? I have made no inquiries, but at the rate land is taken up in the immediate vicinity there should be no difficulty in disposing of the leases. 531. Do you rent your home? —I do. 532. Do you find that the rent increases out of proportion to any increase in wages? —Out of all proportion. 533. Do you not think it would be good policy for the Government to extend the provisions of the Land for Settlements Act into the cities ?--Personally, I do not approve of the Government putting men on to small sections at all. They should take large estates. The policy of the Government should be to attract the surplus population in the cities to the land. 534. Can you suggest an}' way by which a poor man can get on this land ? —I cannot under present conditions. When the Land Act was first introduced it was an easy thing for a poor man to get on, but he is required to produce a signed cheque from his banker now. Farming experience does not count if a man has not a cheque behind him. 535. You think a man of large experience and little capital is more likely to be successful than a man with large capital and little experience? 1 do, at the ballot-box. 536. Mr. Matheson.] You think the Crown should endeavour to attract people from the towns to the land? —Yes. 537. Which do you think should prove the most attractive to people who want land, lease with the; right of purchase, or lease with renewal at an arbitration rent? —The lease in perpetuity would. 538. Which of the two I suggested would be the most attractive —lease with right of purchase or lease with revaluation every ten years?- Revaluation would not alter the popularity of lease in perpetuity. Walter Daniel examined. 539. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a member of the Wharf Labourers' Union at Lyttelton, and I am also a leaseholder under the Crown on a village-settlement allotment. I consider the condition of working-men is worse now than it was fifteen years ago. My experience is that this has been brought about by the enormous growth in the cost of the necessaries of life, and especially of rent. In my opinion, the cure for this or a much-needed relief would be more village settlements for men employed at casual labour. Owing to the rush now to discharge and load the big steamers, the work is more broken and intermittent than ever it was, and much worse than it was in the old sailing-ship days. Although this is good for the general community, it is much worse for the men. The acquisition of my allotment has materially assisted me in maintaining the standard of living I and my family now enjoy. Previous to my present selection I used to pay 9s. and 10s. per week for a small cottage, with practically no land attached to it. The 2-acre section on Roimata, which I have just alluded to, together with the house, would probably be less than a four- or five-roomed cottage in the town withovit any land attached. Under the present system I can produce for my own consumption milk and butter, poultry, bacon, fruit, and vegetables when the seasons are favourable, and that reduces the expenditure in those commodities very considerably. 1 have no hesitation in saying that the workers generally need an immediate and large extension of the system of land and homes for their use. lam satisfied with the conditions of tenures generally, with the exception of a few minor details, such as defective drainage, &c., which the local office ought to be able to negotiate satisfactorily. I would emphatically protest against the conditions of the lease being interfered with. An agreement between the Crown and the tenants should be held sacred, and any interference in that direction would be a betrayal and a violation of the trust. I have asserted that from the time I took up my section I treated it exactly as if it was a freehold. I have spent, I may say, almost the results of a lifetime on it. to make a home on it, so that I could end my days there and leave something to my family. If
0.-4.
588
|W. a DANIEL.
I had had any thought that the conditions of the lease were going to be interfered with, 1 would not have spent one single farthing in improving the section. We consider it would be a very serious betrayal indeed if the conditions of the existing leases were interfered with. 540. Mr. Johnston.j What is your occupation t lam a casual wharf labourer, working for the Government. 541. You belong to the Casual Wharf Labourers' Union?— Yes. 542. And you say the union do not want to interfere with existing leases i Yes. 543. Do you know if the Trades and Labour Council have ever expressed any intention of interfering with the existing leases? —It is not within my knowledge. I might say that my remarks have been based on a statement made before this Commission a week or ten days ago by a prominent member of the Trades and Labour Council. 544. Did not Mr. McCullough make it perfectly clear that that was not the opinion of the Trades and Labour Council, but only his own individual opinion ? —1 would go further, and I say that both the journals in Christchurch here —the Lyttelton Times and the Press —have stated in their leaders that they did not suppose for a moment that a Government could be found that would interfere with the conditions of the existing leases. But, still, it is within the bounds of possibility that it could be done. You know there is a great deal of agitation in that direction at the present time. 545. Is it the wish of your organization that the present lease-in-perpetuity leases should be interfered with? —No. 546. Are you satisfied with the Land Board? —Perfectly. 547. Would you suggest any alteration in the constitution of tlie Board?- No. 1 have never had any occasion to go before the Board. 548. You have not been pressed to come here to give evidence by any Crown Lands Hanger ? —No. 549. You are a free and thoroughly independent British elector? —Thoroughly independent. 550. You say you want more village settlements: are you aware that the small sections which have been laid ofi in the large settlements have been a failure? —I am not aware of anything of the sort. I can only speak of my own, close to Christchurch, and that has been a great success. 551. Then, it is village settlements nearer the towns you want? —I would say wherever the land is available. 552. Mr. Anstey.J Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office?--Yes. 553. With what result? —I did not get what I wanted. But they treated me fairly well. As is the case with all institutions of that sort, they used their discretionary power on the safe side, and one cannot blame them for that. 554. What were they prepared to advance you for building ? —I asked for a certain sum, and they did not seem to want to go so far as that, and I wanted to know why, because I had more than the value of the advance. That was admitted, but the position they took up was this: that in the event of a forced sale through adverse circumstances the land would be assured, but not the value of the improvements, and for that reason they did not care to give scarcely half the value of the improvements on the place. 555. Does not the Act provide that they can only advance you £50 on a pound-for-pound basis'! —They did not do that in my case. It is some seven years since I got this loan. I am satisfied now with what 1 got then. But I think they might show more consideration to people where the actual value is on the land. In my case the improvements were worth something like £300, and they did not care to advance me more than £100. I asked for £125. 556. At the present time they can only advance £50 under the Workmen's Homes Act? —I cannot speak of that. 557. Do you think that would be enough to advance to a working-man to enable him to build a hous6? —It is a very poor house you could get for £100. 558. Do you think a workman could put up a home that would do for the time being for £100? —For the matter of that I think every right-minded man can accommodate himself to circumstances; but it would be a very indifferent house that you could build and finish for £100 according to the standard of these days 559. Do you think it would be wise for a working-man to spend more than £100 in building a house if he has to borrow to do so ? —Probably not 560. Do you not think it would be wiser for him to make that do until he was in a position to do something better? —I think he should deny himself as much as possible, and only go to the Government for help when he cannot possibly do without it. 561. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to build the homes and lease them to working-men? —I do, indeed. That proposal has my entire favour. If the Government built homes and charged working-men an extra percentage on the rent until the price of the house was paid off, I am satisfied it would be a boon to all working-classes about here, and would be a safeguard to the Government, because the tenants would have an incentive to take care of the property. There are many here craving to go on the land. 562. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the private landlord has got more than a fair proportion of the increase in wages? —Yes. 563. Do you think the increase in rent is generally out of proportion to any increase in wages? —I do. 564. Can you give any indication as to the general increase in rent of small cottage properties in the last few years? —I have had no personal experience of this during the last nine years, but I know that many of my fellow-workmen get most indifferent premises for almost fabulous prices. They have to pay Bs. or 10s. per week for houses that are altogether inadequate to house a family in. But they have to pay these rents, because the demand for the houses is so great.
589
0.—4.
W. DANIEL. J
•565. You think the Government should come to the relief of these men? —That is the only fair solution I can see for it. It is a question that will have to be faced. 556. Has there been any agitation to interfere with the present leases by way of any revaluation ? —No more than what you see in the daily papers and what you hear here. 567. In condemning those who propose to interfere with existing leases, do you include Crown tenants who demand the freehold ? Do you think they are jeopardizing the conditions of the lease? —I cannot speak of them because Ido not know who they are. There are none in our settlement demanding the freehold, and no Crown tenant I have ever spoken to has demanded it. 568. Do you think it is fair to demand a freehold ? —I do not. 569. Has any responsible party in Christchurch, such as the Trades Council, ever advocated the revaluation of existing leases, or do they only advocate revaluation to apply to future leases? —I think it would be to apply to future leases. Ido not think any reasonable or sane man could advocate that leases in existence should be revalued. lam not a delegate to the Trades Council, and for that reason I cannot answer your question other than as 1 have. 570. You are a resident of the city: have.you heard of any agitation on the part of the Trades Council to revalue existing leases ? —Not so far as I know. 571. Mr. Matheson.] What is the proportion of your interest in your holding compared to that of the State? Suppose your holding was freehold, would it fetch as it stands, with the improvements, £400? —Yes, more than that: £600. 572. What is the capital value owned by the Government on which you pay rent? —I think £100. 573. They have parted with that capital value to you for a thousand years: do you think they would be wrong to Jet you acquire the fractional portion they possess so that you might hold the title for the land you live on ? —lt would be a great mistake to do so. What is the use of taking the land from a freeholder to make it leasehold, and then selling the freehold again. William Frederick Aplin further examined. 574. The Chairman.] What further point do you wish to<bring before the Commission?- I wish to say something in connection with the wages question. The Farmers' Union have repeatedly said that wages have gone up during the last ten years. I may say that in 1876 all ploughmen on Edendale received £1 ss. per week, and at Pareora in the same year they received £1 7s. 6d. per week. 1 think at the time the City of Glasgow Bank failed things were at their lowest ebb in New Zealand. Since that time, owing to the initiation of the frozen-meat industry and the dairy industry, land has gone up in value from 15 to 30 per cent., and yet wages have not gone up one iota. The proof of that is, we see to-day, that ploughmen are advertised for at £1 2s. 6d. per week. 575. Mr. Johnston.] Your reference is to farm labourers only? —Absolutely, I know nothing about town labourers. 576. Mr. Anstey.] Can you give us the rate of wages, say, ten years or twenty years ago ?- Throughout my experience I have personally never given ploughmen less than £1 ss. per week anywhere. At that time there was no Farmers' Union, and very few labourers' unions. 577. Did that £1 ss. per week include board? —Yes, and a bonus at harvest. 578. Do you say that during the period from 1876 up to the present time wages have not been much lower than that? —I believe they were much lower. I was away from the colony for ten years. 579. Are you quite sure that the New Zealand and Australian Land Company did not pay as low as 15s. per week? —Possibly; and I have paid as low as 15s. per week for general farm and station hands, but not for ploughmen. 580. Are you prepared to say that the average wage paid from fifteen to twenty years ago was 15s. to £1 per week for ploughmen? —I was in the Timaru district at that time, and I never paid ploughmen less than £1 ss. per week. I do not know what other people paid, but I believe numbers of the farmers did pay £1 and less than £1. 581. Mr. Paul.] You think the country wage-earner is not getting a fair proportion of the increased prosperity ?— He is not getting a tithe of the increased prosperity. He is not getting nearly so much as the town worker.
Christchurch, Wednesday, 26th April, 1905. Archie Donald Paterson examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am engineer to the Selwyn County Council. 2. How long have you occupied that position?—l have been acting for about five months, and was appointed permanently about six weeks ago. 3. Is there any money that the County Council expends on behalf of the settlers —what are called "thirds" and "fourths"?—l am not aware of it. That does not come under my jurisdiction. 4. The actual works are under your care? —I fancy that the work on some of the bridges have come under that head. It is only the water-races and plantations I have to do with so far. 5. Mr. Anstey.] What were you engaged in previously to your appointment here? —I was a surveyor. 6. Have you had any experience of Government co-operative works?--Yes, a little. I was assistant in one camp at Tauranga about nine years ago. 7. Did you find the system an economic one? —No.
C—4.
590
[a. d. patebson
8. Do you think private contracts would be more economic?—! am not in favour of private contracts; but the conditions under which labour was then organized were not on a paying basis, because that was in 1891, when things were very bad, and when married men were given a preference, and there were many men employed 011 work for which they were unfit. Skilled labour was not available for the money they were giving. 9. What would you suggest as the best method to adopt in carrying out such work -that is, from a public point of view?—l urn in favour of day-labour with skilled supervision. 10. Do you think that would be the most economic way of expending public money?—l have proved it to be so. 11. Would you pay the men at the same rate of wages per day? —Yes, all except the gangers. 12. Do you find your men to be all of equal ability? —If they are not fit for the work they must gO' 13. Then, the others who have to go away must find some other work beside Government work ? —Yes. 14. Then, it is only the efficient whom you would employ ? —I have only to do with men who have to work hard. There are lots of positions that men can work at who are not really in their prime. In engineering and excavation work men have to be in their prime to be any good. 15. From that point of view it is necessary, if the Government wishes to employ the unemployed, that they should find some other work for them? —There is such a variety of work that I presume they can find work for a number of these men. 16. You think it is not desirable to have a differential wage? —No. 17. Did you have anything to do with the outlet of Lake Ellesmere? —No, except odd maintenance work. 18. Some people speak of it as a great failure, owing to bad engineering? —The work is a success so far as the scheme is concerned; but it is inadequate to carry away the supply. 19. The opening at the outlet is too small? —Yes. 20. Is it at the proper level? —Yes, to give sufficient fall to the scour. 21. Do you think it would be advisable to find a lower level so as to reduce the height of the lake? —It might be advisable to take it 18 in. lower. 22. Would that provide sufficient outfall to the sea? —No. 23. Then, what is the use of putting it lower if you have not an outfall? —I would leave the present arrangement as it is, but I would duplicate the outfall. 24. If you put in another outfall could you reduce the level of the lake by 18 in. ? —Yes. 25. What would that cost? —An outfall sufficient to carry away the water is estimated at about £10,000. 26. What did the existing one cost? —Between £4,000 and £5,000. 27. Why would an additional one cost more than the original ?- Because it would have to be a larger one. I understand that the present one was put in for experimental purposes, in order to see whether the present scheme would act. The scheme is working satisfactorily; it is running now, but it is not sufficient. 28. Mr. Paul.] Are you quite certain that day-labour with competent supervision is better than the contract system? —Yes. 29. You have proved that in your own experience? —-Yes. William H. Williams further examined. 30. The Chairman.] I understand you wish to make a supplementary statement as to residence? —Yes. I will read the following statement, which 1 wish to be regarded as an addition to the evidence which I gave yesterday. [For statement see Appendices.] 31. Mr. Anstey.\ With regard to residence, what you now suggest would prevent a town resident investing his savings in a section, unless he was prepared to reside on it. You would not think of that? No; but it might be a different thing in the case of a bush section. " 32. There are plenty of good farmers ready to go on the land, and you do not think it advisable to encourage town residents who are not prepared to reside on the land to take up sections? —That is so. 33. With regard to grouping for the ballot, I understand that you are in favour of the first ballot and not the second ballot? —I approve of an applicant being allowed to take up a certain area of land or land up to a certain value. I think a man ought to apply for the section he wishes. He should say that he would like, say, Section 1, 2, or 3, and he should have the chance of securing one of these sections. 34. What is the objection to allowing him to apply for any section in the block under the ballot? —I think he should indicate the section he wants. 35. Supposing the section he wants has been already taken, has he to stand out altogether?—No; he would have the choice of two or three sections. He has three chances. 36. Mr. Paul.\ You would not relax the residence conditions in any case? —Not on settlements where the settlers can get a return. 37. Not on improved estates? —No. 38. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the ballot might be more satisfactorily worked in this way: Suppose there are fifty sections in a block, the Board examines the applicants and decides that a man is eligible for certain sections. Then the names of all who are eligible for any of those sections are put into a box a-nd a name drawn out, and he has the first pick. Then there is another drawn out, and thus it goes on. Does that not seem to you the most simple method of disposing of the land ? —Yes, so long as the applicant has indicated that the sections are acceptable to him. He in that case has his freedom of choice.
591
C—4.
P. R. YATES
Frank Sturt Yates examined. 39. The Chairman.] What are you ? lam an ex-president of the Progressive Liberal Association, and I have been asked by a number of people to give evidence before the Commission. 40. What are you in business? I am an upholsterer, and T am a native of New Zealand. 41. Will you kindly state what you wish particularly to bring before the Commission?- I simply wish to make a general statement as an ordinary city dweller who has taken a little interest in the land question. 1 may say that 1 do not altogether agree with the view that city dwellers do not know anything about the land question, simply because they are not practical farmers. I look at it in this way: we were born into this world without being asked, and after some years we are sent out to earn our own living, and one of the first questions that confronts a thoughtful man is the land question. Although we have to get our living in the towns, still the land question is just as much a city question as it is a country question. For instance, if any ordinary young man wishes to get married he immediately is confronted with the fact that he has to pay rent, and if he is at all thoughtful he asks himself, " Why have I to pay rent? " and he is then immediately confronted with the land question. If a man wants to go into business and get a section on which he will not always have to pay rent he very soon finds that he has to pay a great price for the land, and he in his turn is immediately confronted with the land question. Therefore we find that it is as much a city question as a country question. And when we inquire further into the matter we find that it is eminently a city question, for this amongst other reasons: we find that in the case of the four chief cities of the colony, including also Napier and Nelson, the value of land, taken altogether, is as much as the whole of the rest of the colony put together. Then, looking at it from an economic standpoint, you cannot judge this question from the results of a year or two's experience. J will go back a good few years. I may point out that a few years ago the freehold was practically the only tenure in the colony. Then, at one period there occurred a great economical depression, and that depression was not relieved until the Liberal Administration came into power and succeeded in passing liberal land laws. We believe that the present prosperity of the colony is largely due to the liberal land laws of the Liberal Administration. Amongst those laws is that providing for the lease in perpetuity. As you know, most of (he dwellers in the city are believers in the lease in perpetuity as against the freehold. I may be allowed to say that we can only deal with this question in a general way, but these are some of the considerations that bring us city dwellers to the conclusion that the leasehold system is a good one. There is, I may state, no provincial district in New Zealand in which there is so much landmonopolv as in Canterbury. Twenty-three persons own one-twelfth of Canterbury. Then, taking Banks Peninsula, there is a place called the Wainui Road Board, with an area of 54,152 acres. It has 256 ratepayers, and one-fifth of the area of that district is held by three persons. It is what they call " fattening " country. Then, there is the case of Okain's Bay. The area of the district is 16,836 acres. There are ninety-nine ratepayers there. One-third of that district is held by one familv. There is also the case of Pigeon Bay, 22,225 acres, fifty-one ratepayers, and onehalf of the area is held by two families. I have given these figures as illustrations of what I mean, and as showing why we come to the conclusion that the freehold is a bad tenure —namely, because of the tendency to reaggregation of large estates. I may also mention that in the Ashburton County last year the report from about fifteen schoolmasters was to the effect that the attendance had decreased, and they attributed that fact to the aggregation of large estates in the Ashburton County. This question came up for discussion in the House, and the statement was challenged ; but Mr. Studholme, a large landowner down there, stated that it was just as well the land had been acquired by wealthy persons, because poor people could not afford to pay for the land at its present value. These are facts which bring us to the conclusions I have mentioned. Speaking at the annual meeting of the Christchurch Frozen-meat Company, Mr. Gilbert Anderson, who is well known in commercial circles, and who is also a director of that company, said, " Nothing but praise can be given to the policy of the Government in cutting up for close settlement the front country suitable for cultivation." Then, I came across an extract from the paper recently, in which the chairman of the Levels Estate Company, in moving the adoption of the last annual report, speaking of reinvestment, said that he did not think New Zealand was a profitable field for investment just now, because that class of company had done its work in the past, and they were the pioneers of that form of settlement, and the people of New Zealand could not be blamed if they retained the land for farming, because the land was eminently suitable for farming. He said that it was a marvellous thing that New Zealand could afford to allow £60,000 to go out of the colony without asking for it to be reinvested. That I take to be one of the results of the leasehold policy of the present Administration. It has been said, and I say it now, that there is no one in the colony —no farmer or landowner —who can point to a parliamentary representative who has ever advocated confiscation or repudiation. On the other hand, we say that every parliamentary representative has maintained that the existing contracts in respect to land must be strictly adhered to, both by the tenant and by the Government. So far as I know, the general opinion held by city men is that there should be no breaking of contracts between the Crown on the one hand and the Crown tenants on the other. Then, in respect to security of tenure, I need only refer the Commission to the last report of the SurveyorOeneral, Mr. Marchant, who said that the tenure known as the lease in perpetuity was in all respects equal to the freehold. T think that no one in the cities has ever advocated anything else. Then, in reference to the question of the unearned increment. T have read in the newspapers the evidence given by several witnesses before the Commission, who have stated that there is no such thing as unearned increment. I will read the following extract from a newspaper bearing on this point: "Property Sales. The Canterbury Farmers' Co-operative Association offered several properties at auction at Timaru on Saturday. A farm of 153 acres, close to the Sherwood Estate. Makikihi, was passed in at £11 15s. A farm of 116 acres, the property of Mr. Edwin Evans, Seadown was sold at £20 to Mr. W. R. Clarke, of Ashburton. A property of 160 acres, belong-
592
fP. S. YATES.
C—4.
ing to Mr. S. Armstrong, situated near Hadlow Estate, five miles from Timaru, passed at £12 17s. 6d. The goodwill of a lease in perpetuity, of 175 acres, at Hilton, was offered for Mr. Griffiths, and, starting at £500, it was passed at £600. The annual rental is £70." The opinion of the average citv man is that the difference between a man's improvements and what he asks for his property is the unearned increment. We do not know what political economists call it, but that is what we'call the " unearned increment." According to a table prepared by the Valuer-General for the information of the Right Hon. the Premier, there is £350,000 of unearned increment in connection with the lease-in-perpetuity land in this colony—that is, up to last year. We say that this brings up the question of the demand for the freehold at its original valuation, and we say that the money that has been paid for the acquirement of the estates is public money. 1 have noticed that some tenants who gave evidence before the Commission have admitted that they could never have got on the land if it had not been for the lease in perpetuity, because they were practically without capital. We hold that it is not right for the State to borrow money to purchase estates and break them up and then hand the freehold back, which would result in it being resold, because that would establish what we regard as a very vicious principle. We say that if you put up for sale land after acquiring it from the freeholder there is no freeholder in this colony who is safe. Generally speaking, our platform is: that there should be no more Crown land sold. There is a great' difference of opinion, I find, amongst so-called land-reformers as to what the future leases should be: but we are perfectly satisfied that the leases should be strictly adhered to, and, although we say the country has made a bad bargain in connection with the lease in perpetuity, we would not interefere with existing leases. Personally, I think (hat future leases should be short leases. Ido not think it is the duty of Parliament in respect to this matter to legislate for more than, at any rate, two generations, and, personally, I may say that I advocate leases of about sixty-three years, with periodical revaluation every twentyone years ; but that question has never been definitely settled by the city workers. If I could have it placed on record, I would like to say that the general position taken up by the people of the citv who take an interest in this land question is -,(1) That there should be no more Crown land sold : (2) that existing contracts as between tenants and the Crown should be strictly adhered to; and (3) that all future leases should be subject to periodical revaluation. That is practically the position taken up by land-reformers all over the colony. 42. How many persons do von represent in this association ?—We are not very active just now We have found that it is verv difficult to arouse public opinion. Most of us represent half a dozen small associations. I may' add that we held a meeting some time ago in regard to the land question, and that meeting was attended by two thousand persons—the largest meeting ever held in the colony in connection with the land question. When the association was in full swing (Ik membership was 250. That was two or three years ago. But there are a number of associations that are not organized, and practically the only mouthpiece of these associations in most oases is the Trades and Labour Council. ~,„., - , , t u 43 1 fathered from your statement that you are very decidedly in favour of the leasehold as against the freehold?—l would like to supplement my previous remarks by saying that I was a leaseholder before this system came into operation in New Zealand. The economic depression which took place sent me'awav from this colony in my teens. I was quite a lad when I was forced to go to Australia to earn my living in my trade, and whilst I was there I lived in the eountrv and I saw a private (-state, owned by Sir William Clark, called the Bowling Forest Estate, 16 000' acres of agricultural land. He had subdivided it into sixty farms, and he kept a manager at a salary of £1,000 a year. I thought to myself that if that man can afford to farm out an estate like' that for short 'leases -they were leases of not more than ten years—it would be a good thing for the people of any country to do the same thing. T became convinced that if the leasehold was good for a private individual it was also good for the State, and when I came back to New Zealand I found that the present land laws were in operation. 44 Mr Amtey.] You say you are in favour of the lease in perpetuity? T think the present lease in perpetuity'is worse than the freehold, but I approve of the leasehold. If T used the words " lease in perpetuity," meaning that fo'rm of tenure as at present, I wish to withdraw those words, because I consider the lease in perpetuity for 999 years is a worse tenure than the freehold. 45 You approve of carrying out or maintaining the present contracts?— Yes : I believe the present contracts ought to held as sacred as the marriage contract ..-.,, 46 To whom do von consider the unearned increment ought to belong?—lt is a difficult question but it should be assessed. If a man puts his capital into a farm, and by his labour and his capital his goodwill is increased, he ought to be allowed something: but, in my opinion, it is'not right that a farmer should be allowed all the increase, seeing that, in the first place, he could not have got on the land without the assistance of the State. I think the State is entitled to what is called "the unearned increment": but T am not prepared to say that the farmer is not entitled to some of it too. , ~ -. , 47 Supposing the land were leased with revaluation at short periods, 1 presume the State would acquire the goodwill? A* the end of the term the land would naturally fall into the hands of the State—sav, at the end of sixty-three years, when the lease ran out, 48. But the goodwill disappears if a man has to pay the full rent from time to time?— That is a question for the District Valuer. 48a Under your proposal the goodwill would then belong to the State?—A man takes up a lease for, say, sixty-three years, with periodical revaluation every twenty-one years, and at the end of the sixty-three vears the land reverts to the State. _ 49 At the end of everv revaluation period- presuming the revaluation was made fairly— the tenant would be paving the full value of the rent, and consequently there would be no goodwill? T have already quoted a case showing that there is goodwill. That is a question that could only be worked out as a result of experience.
a—4
593
F. S. YATES. 1
50. You say that no more Crown land should be sold? —Yes; that is the position taken up by many of us. 51. I suppose you are aware that much of the Crown land in the remoter districts is almost valueless without labour?— Yes. 52. Do you think that without giving the tenant something more than a lease that he will be tempted to go back into the wilderness and settle down, without any award in the way of what is called "the unearned increment"? —Judging by the way in which people are rushing to take up land, I should say they are prepared to go anywhere. I think, however, the State should be very liberal with the tenants. 53. Can you properly value a tenant's improvements? —Yes. 54. Could you value improvements twenty-one or sixty-three years after they were made?— I think that could be done. 55. You are aware that a considerable area of Crown land is bush land?— Yes. 56. In respect to clearing that bush, how could you tell sixty-three years afterwards the value of the improvements that have been made? —I should say that the valuation of the improvements could be properly made at the end of the first twenty-one years. 57. Supposing a man has land valued at £4 an acre, and he spends £6 an acre on it, what do you think should be done by the State in such a case? —I should say that the valuer would recommend that that man's rent should be reduced. 58. You say that you would secure to the tenant the full value of his improvements? —According to evidence which T have given, 1 do not think that works out. 59. Would your association be in favour of a Tenant's Right, Bill, which would secure to all tenants the full value of all the improvements effected on their farms under reasonable restrictions? —I am not prepared to speak for the association on that question, because that matter has not cropped up for consideration. We look at this question from its general broad aspect. We take our figures from books, and we believe that the present system is a success, because the figures work out our way. 60. You are probably already aware that there are thousands of acres of the very best land in Canterbury, for instance, vested in certain public bodies, and that the tenants in many cases dare not build a house on their section, fearing that it will be confiscated at the end of the lease. Are you in favour of passing legislation compelling those landlords to give their tenants proper security ?—Yes, I am. 61. Do you not think it would be a. good thing if your association were to consider such a question as that, and leave the question of land-settlement to be dealt with when you know more about it? —We have only laid down a general platform, and" we have stuck to it. I do not know much about the remote bush land. We have to take up our present position for this reason: we find that there is something at work—we do not know exactly what—by which the present system of leasehold is in danger of being taken from us, and by which the Crown tenants are being made to ask for the freehold, and we have to defend the present position. That question has been brought prominently before the people by such men as Mr. Ell, and I have no doubt it will be .discussed in the future more than it has been considered in the past. 62. Mr. Paul.] Is it not a fact that the several progressive association platforms have insisted that the tenants' improvements must be protected under all circumstances? It has been more an academic question than a general or practical question. 63. Has it not appeared, to your knowledge, in several of the platforms of these associations? -Our own platform did not work that way. When we revised our platform last time we made '< very clear that the existing leases should remain as at present, and that there should be periodical revaluation in the case of future leases. 64. While it is generally fair to give tenants full valuation for improvements, is it not a fact that in some cases the tenants get a lower rent simply because they get no valuation for improvements at the end of the term?— There is a difference of opinion as between tenants, and you cannot always believe the statements of these people; but, speaking generally, I believe that °65. As a general, principle, you believe that the tenants' improvements should be absolutely protected? —Yes. _ , 66. A case has been mentioned where land may be valued at £4 an acre and the improvements on it to be valued at £6 an acre. Do you believe any community can properly fix the value equitably to all concerned in the case of it being converted into a freehold ?—That could only be done by the land being put up to auction, and then it would bring the market price. 67. Though there may be a difference of £2 an acre at the end of one period, is it not a fact that in, say, ten years the difference might be the other way?— That is a question for the valuers who are appointed to adjust matters in all such cases. It may be the case that in one valuation a man has got £6 of improvements, and at the end of the next period the position would be changed, and his improvements would decrease in value. I have known several of such cases in tllG °68 Do vou think it is possible to give men who go on bush land the equivalent to the freehold—sav, by a long lease at a nominal rental?— That would require special legislation. lam speaking in a general sense. For instance, Parliament passed a Crown Lands Rush and Swamp Act to meet certain cases, and I presume Parliament may pass similar legislation to meet other CfIRGS 69. Do you recognise the great-difficulties that have to be encountered in taking up bush land ?—Yes; but I know of quite a number of city men who have taken up bush land and have become successful farmers. 70 Do you think an average man will take up land in the bush with the knowledge that ar the end of his term he will lose the money and labour he has put on the farm?—l do not think the average man would be so foolish.
75—C. 4.
594
[F. S. YATES.
C.—4.
71. Do you know of any responsible body which has advocated the periodical revaluation of existing leases?— No. I think there is a great deal of confusion as to what these bodies really do want; but I do not know that there is any responsible body which actually advocated the revaluation of existing leases. I know, however, of numbers of members of such bodies who are under the impression that existing leases should be revalued. As I said before, no parliamentaiy representative has ever advocated it. 72. Do you think it would be just to revalue existing leases?—No, Ido not. 73. Do you think they should be given the option? —I would not give them the option until I was defeated on every other point; but if I were defeated on the other points I would fight that out until my latest breath. 74. Would you give tenants full valuation for improvements?— Yes. 75. I understood you to say that the State and the tenant should adhere to the bargain, but that the lease-in-perpetuity tenure should be altered in the future in the way of giving shorter leases with revaluation ?—Yes, practically an equivalent of the old perpetual lease. 76. Mr. Matheson.] You spoke of the present prosperity of the colony being due to the Liberal Government and the land laws passed by them: do you realise that the chief alteration they have made in regard to land-tenure is the lease in perpetuity, which you have spoken of as a bad bargain for the State? —I admit that. , . 77. You said that no member of the House had advocated the breaking of any existing contracts : how do you account for the compulsory clause in the Land for Settlements Act? I am speaking of the lease in perpetuity. 78. You spoke in a broad sense of any existing land contracts?—l meant lease in perpetuity. 79. Do you realise that in that case the existing contract was broken?— Yes. 80. With regard to the increment, you wish to secure to the tenant the result of his own work? —Yes. . . 81. Take a case where the value of property has gone up through the erection of dairy factories or freezing-works: would you secure that to the tenant? Do vou think it is equitable that he should get that increased value secured to him? Supposing twenty people on a land-for-settlement block erected works which increased the value of the property by £1 an acre, do you think that the £1 increase should be secured to the people who erected the works?— Yes, if it is due to their own labour. 82. Take a second case, where the value of the property has been increased by £1 per acre owing to the increased price of produce on the London market: do you think that should be secured to the tenant or to the Crown ?—That is a question of fluctuation in values. 83. It is on that point that the greatest fluctuation depends?— That, of course, would be a question for the valuer who valued the property at the end of the term. 84. When a valuer values a property it is his business to see how much capital belongs to the State and how much to the tenant, and then there is the question as to the London markets ?—That increase is not altogether due to the tenant. That is practically owing to the expenditure of public money. Everything depends on the law of supply and demands It would depend on the value of the land when the valuer is doing his work. 85. In respect to the increment and the price of produce in the London market, and its effect on the value of the land, what is your opinion? Of course, I will not press you if you have not thought the matter out carefully?—l would rather not answer that question without further consideration. That is a question affecting the law of supply and demand. 86. Do you advocate land nationalisation ?—No. I laid down the platform for the party I represent, and I made it as concise as I could. 87. Speaking generally, do you think it would be for the good of the colony if we had land nationalisation?—No, I do not think it would be good now; but I think that if no Crown land had ever been parted with in New Zealand it would have been a good thing. lam not prepared to advocate it now, and, so far as I know, there are very few people in the cities who actually advocate land-nationalisation. 88. Mr. Forbes.] In connection with the unearned increment of leasehold land which has never been settled, do you look on it in this light: that the State is a partner with the tenant, and is therefore entitled to some share of the unearned increment? —Yes. 89. Do you not think it is a fair and just thing that the State, being a partner, and having supplied the money to put the tenant on the land, is entitled to a share of the increment? —Yes, I think so. That is my own personal opinion. 90. Do you not consider that a city man is quite capable of judging of the fairness and equity of the land laws as a man who has been following the plough all his life? —If I may be allowed to say so, I think the city man is in a better position to judge. 91. Mr. Ansteyi\ You say you are not in favour of any breach of contract, so far as it applies to the lease in perpetuity, and you refuse to give the same answer in respect to the freehold. Are you in favour of allowing any breach of contract when it applies to freehold? —I gave an illustration of that. I stated that at the last annual meeting of the New Zealand and Australian Land Company the chairman of directors said it was quite reasonable in a young country like New Zealand that the people should acquire large estates for settlement after the large companies had done the work of settlement. 92. You think it is quite right to break a contract when it applies to freehold, but not when it applies to lease in perpetuity.? —That brings up the whole question of settlement. It is a question whether men are better than sheep, and I hold it is the duty of every country to grow men and women in preference to sheep and bulls. 93. According to your theory, the lease in perpetuity is a contract which must be held sacred, but no other one need be? —-Not necessarily. The lease in perpetuity has only been in existence ten years, and already there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction with it. I stated that it was not
F/8. YATES. |
595
a—4.
right that a nation or country should legislate for all future generations. If it legislated for the present generation and the one ahead it was doing as much as could be expected of it. So far as breaking a contract with regard to the freehold is concerned, there is 110 actual freehold in any country, because so long as land is liable to be taxed the State has always got the right to interfere, and it is always open to the State to bump up the tax that settlement may take place. 94. Supposing a breach of contract occurs in regard to the freehold, are you in favour of allowing that breach of contract without full compensation ? —No. 95. Are you in favour of it with full compensation? —That is the law of the land at present. 1 approve of the present law. 96. Supposing it is necessary to make a breach of contract with the lease in perpetuity, would you allow that also with full compensation? —That is a very difficult question to answer. William Loweie examined. 97. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am Director of the Agricultural College at Lincoln, which position I have held for three years and a half. Prior to that I held a similar position in South Australia for fifteen years. 98. From your position, you must have a very great and extensive knowledge of cropping land, and of the restrictions that ought to be applied to maintain land in what might be called its standard fertility. The Commission would be pleased if you can give information in regard to that, and also as to whether you concur in the present cropping regulations of the Government, or whether you think it wise that there should be some modification thereof ? —I could not concur in asking the tenants to submit to any set of restrictions in the matter of cropping which provides for two white crops and. one green crop and grass for three years. My position is that 1 believe it would work out better for the individual and better for the State if the matter of cropping is left entirely and absolutely to the tenants' discretion. Restrictions in cropping, like most other things, have an historical origin and development, and those-restrictions came into practice before the knowledge of natural science was advanced to any such degree as it is in the modern day. Land used to be worked as out-field and in-field. It was three years in crop and three years out of crop, or thereabout. That was modified to some extent after the period when fences and enclosures were introduced, but before the time of the knowledge of manures for plants or of the constituents of plant-food. These restrictions arose in Britain, where, of course, the land is largely worked by tenants, but the reason for them lias largely disappeared. It has been demonstrated at Rothemstead and elsewhere that the same crop can be grown year after year for sixty or seventy years, and that the average lias not fallen. I have not the latest details, but 1 believe it would be found that at Rothemstead the average for the last ten years for land suitably manured and apart from climatic modifications will be as high as for the first ten years when it was first undertaken. Not only lias that been done with wheat, but it has been done with some of the most exhausting crops, such as mangolds. The notion originally was that by severe cropping the land became exhausted, but that exhaustion conveys far too wide an impression. It is only a temporary exhaustion. I have myself bought land for the Government of South Australiaexhausted land it was called, which would not average 7 bushels to the acre for £3 ss. an acre, and after fallowing it for one season I got sufficient from the land the following season to pay the cost of purchase, the cost of fallowing and working arid all expenses, and to leave me a balance besides. It had been exhausted to the extreme of exhaustion wheat, wheat, wheat every year — but by using 2 cwt. or 3 cwt. of manure I took ofi a crop that paid for the land and expenses and left a balance. So that exhaustion is not a permanent matter; it is a mere temporary condition. It is a mere using-up of what is immediately available plant-food in the soil. A rest or its equivalent, through tillage and adding manures, will bring the land rapidly, at any rate, back in full fruition. That is one of the reasons I have against restricting the tenant at all. Then, again, I think if a tenant is so foolish as to go 011 cropping his land without putting anything into it, and reducing it to such an impoverished state that it will only grow half a crop, that man, however tied down with restrictions, would be a bad tenant. He will have ha'lf his ground in grass, but "it will be sown with bad seed and will be infested with weeds. Then, again, his sheep may be of a nondescript class of little value. The result, then, for the State is just the same. Restrictions in themselves also spoil the enterprise or initiative of a good man. A man who is thoroughly well up in land modifies his practice from year to year or from period to period according to the market. If through economic reasons cereals make a jump it would pay him to crop for a series of years, and no harm would be done to the land if manures were used properly. I could mention cases where it works out to the direct loss of the tenant to be so restricted. If a dry spring comes and a man has sown out in grass —at a large expense if he is a good tenant —he gets a very bad strike, and he knows perfectly well it would pay him much better after harvest to root up that grass; but if these restrictions are adhered to strictly he has to let that bad grass lie for three years and trust to Providence for it to thicken up. Any one working land knows that it may be advisable to leave grass for a run-off when feeding ewes on turnips, and if bound to a definite rotation manure is lost on the road, in addition to perhaps driving his sheep too far. Then, take the case of the grass-grub coming in in the second year. I had one paddock where I was working, three-quarters of which took the grass-grub in the second year. It would have been a mistake to keep that land down for the three years in grass. Then, again, looking at these restrictions as a mere matter of economics to the State, at the present time 1 believe it bad. I believe there should be a greater proportion of forage crops than is indicated. Forage crops at the present time are grobably the most profitable we can grow, and yet on a farm of 600 acres a man is limited to 100 acres for turnips, kail, mangolds, peas, and beans. 1 noticed on one of the settlements that I visited lately that if there was any tendency at all on the part of the tenants it was to go back to grass. The tenants asked me for suggestions as to permanent grasses. They were inclined to imitate the large owners alongside. It would be a great mistake
[W. LOWBIE.
a—4.
596
for the State if small settlers begin to do with as little labour as possible. They should rather be forced in the other direction, though I must say I honestly think it is a mistake, for the reasons 1 have given, to restrict the tenants. 99. Do you think the State should have no control whatever over the cropping of the land? — There should be control to the extent of inspection to see that the man is keeping his land free from noxious weeds; but so far as the conduct of his business is concerned there should be no restriction whatever. 100. Would you not require him to keep up the fertility of the land by manuring? —I do not think it would be practicable for the State to do that. 101. Where do you think the State should step in, then, if a man is practically making a " botch " of his land? —When he did not pay his rent. 102. But he might pay his rent all along? —It is a matter of degree. The State should not step in at all, I think. 103. The Government has invested now over ,£4,000,000, and it is quite conceivable that by bad farming some of the best lands would be depreciated, which would eventuate in great loss to the State unless there was control to prevent that being done?—lt is not practicable for the St»"< to do it. You can limit a man in the matter of crops, but you cannot stop a man making a mess of his ground by sowing bad seed. He may be farming his place unprofitably and still keep within the regulations as to cropping. A man who is grazing milk-cows and selling milk is exhausting his land much more than a man who is keeping sheep, and three or four times more than a man who is keeping cattle; but the State does not say that a tenant must keep certain proportions of cattle, sheep, and milk-cows. It is an obsolete, musty, lawyer's form, giving rules with relation to white crops and-omitting all the other matters of farming economics. Why not leave this particular one out too. 104. You would have no restrictions at all? —No; apart from seeing that the man kept his land in proper order and did not allow it to be infested with noxious weeds. 105. Mr. Johnston.] Would you insist on manuring? Supposing a man took off three white crops without manure, would you insist on the fourth being manured? —I think it must be left to the man's judgment. There are lands in this district, at any rate, that even to this day are too strong to carry a satisfactory cereal crop, although they have been cropping at them since the colony was settled. They grow too much straw. A man might find when going on to newly opened land that has been lying for many years in grass that the best thing he can do is to proceed to the best means of exhausting it. 106. What would you do to prevent a man taking a series of crops from his land and going away without paying his last year's rent?- —That exhaustion would only be a temporary one, and I would not be afraid to buy that land at a very little discount. 107. It would be a very awkward position for the State to be put in; no one would go on that land straight away? —Not nearly so difficult a position as if the man left the land in couch or foul with weeds. 108. The man who took it up would have to leave it for a year idle, and would not make his first year's rent out of it? —Not necessarily, unless the land was-foul. It is only a temporary exhaustion. He might have to give it a summer's fallowing, and with manure to the value of 15s. or £1 he would probably grow as good a crop in the second year as when the land was first cropped. 109. That means £200 capital straight away for 200 acres? —If he cropped the whole of it it would; but he would only reap probably £1,000 to £1,200, and the £200 would thus be well spent, as all the influence of a dressing of the value of £1 per acre would by no means be recovered in the first year. 110. If the Land Board could discriminate between good and bad farmers, that would be all right; but you get all sorts and conditions of men applying for land ? —I know how it works out, and were it not for touching on political matters I could tell you very well. 111. A man puts in for a ballot and gets a section, and is examined by the Board. He says he is a farmer of some experience, but for all that he may be a bad farmer ? If he is a bad farmer in one sense he is a bad farmer in every other sense. 112. 1 admit that, but the question is how far to go? —It is impracticable to tie him up all round. 113. In regard to a farm of, say, 300 acres, what area would you limit for cropping? — I would put no limit on it. Markets are so variable. It would pay him at one time to devote much to dairying or sheep and at another time to cereal it. 114. Have you been on any of the land-for-settlement estates? —I have had a good look at Cheviot. 115. Generally speaking, do you think that is well farmed? —I thought it was satisfactorily farmed, and some of it very well farmed. I should have liked to see, as a general matter, less grass and more plough there. I was astonished to find the small settlers using-the plough so little. 116. Can you give us any opinion about the high country of this colony? —I have seen it, but I have no practical knowledge of it. I have only been three years in New Zealand, and I have not been a fortnight away from the college. 117. Can you tell us what grasses to grow at different latitudes? —A matter like that is better left to the men with practical experience. You cannot approach it from the outside. Modifying factors are so varied and there are so many of them that the matter cannot be well approached from the outside. I know, for example,- one man working high country who is sowing a very inferior grass, and he knows it is an inferior grass, but he is sowing it on his very worst country. That grass down here would be a real blackguard, but he says it is the best available for him in the circumstances. I give that as an illustration of how one really requires to have practical experience of the district before he can give an opinion worth a rap.
597
C—4
W. LOWBIE.
118. Can you tell us what is the best meaus of eradicating ragwort and Californian thistle? —1 have had 110 experience of Californian thistle, but I know what has been tried in different places. lit). Supposing you had it at Lincoln, what would, in your opinion, be the best means of eradicating it? —1 would make up my mind to lose money in the first instance, and work the verylife out of it. 1 would never allow a green blade above the ground for, say, upwards of two seasons, and put the scarifier on to it. It might cost as much as the value of the land in the first instance to get rid of it. A small spot might be heavily salted or dressed with carbonate of soda. 120. It would pay in the end?---Yes, and you would gain a great deal by the frequent working of the land. 121. What would you do with the ragwort?— 1 was brought up in the south of Scotland where ragwort is very plentiful, but it never got beyond the backs of the fences. 122. In Southland it was everywhere? —That arises through allowing it to get the upper hand. A good farmer can keep ragwort under. 123. How would you get rid of it?— Never allow it to tiower, as far as possible. Apart from ragwort some of my neighbours run the mower over their paddocks to catch the weeds that the sheep have missed, and so prevent them seeding. I cannot see why there should be much of a bogey in ragwort if a man tackles it with any determination whatever. Californian thistle is quite another thing. 124. Do you think the Government should insist on the Noxious Weeds Act being carried out without any quarter whatever?- Yes, to its utmost limit; but they should be careful to see that the weeds in the schedule are really noxious weeds. After that harry the very life out of the individuals who continue to grow.them. 125. Have you seen the blight on the gum-trees in South Canterbury? —It has been pointed out to me, but I have never studied it. 126. Mr. McLennan.] What would you suggest as the best means of cleaning a paddock infested with couch and yarrow? I inherited a paddock very bad with couch, and I have not finished the cleaning process yet. lam doing it by cropping, but cropping that would not be allowed under the Government regulations. lam growing, for instance, rape after turnips, then a white crop, and then turnips or mustard, and after that rape again. lam trying to smother it with a thicklysown crop of Cape barley, and then 1 will go at it again with two successive forage crops, so that 1 get the spring-time for cleaning, which is tiie best time. 1 have had two " goes "at it, and it is not clean yet. 127. Crown tenants can take off three crops. How are they to rid their land of couch in those three crops? —Vote for an M.H.R. wiio will do away with the restrictions. 128. Under the regulations the only way we can clean is by fallowing immediately after the crop is taken off, and working it up as much as possible until the turnips are put in. In your opinion, would it be desirable for fhe man to put in turnips on the fiat, or drill the crop and handhoe?- If the climate is damp enough it would be preferable to use the drill and hand-lioe. If you are working in a district where there are severe frosts and the land was turned up in the wintertime, probably as much good would be done to kill couch as by working it in the spring. 129. If when the man is finished the land is still not quite cleaned of couch, what should the do? —Follow the turnips with rape, unless he is prepared to fallow it altogether. 130. Turnips will not pay him as well as wheat, and he may want to get something to pay his rent? —Turnips are nowhere regarded as a paying crop; they are a fallow crop and really to keep up the fertility of the land, but indirectly profitable by increasing the stock-carrying capacity of the farm. 131. If the turnips were followed with rape the ground would be in first-class order next year for wheat? —If it is good land it woufd be too strong for wheat probably. 132. According to the regulations 1 must put it down in grass. The ground would be in a better condition than when I first fallowed it? —That is so. 133. If permitted to take another crop of oats, do you not think it would be an advantage to the State and to the farmer ? —I certainly think it would. It would be an advantage to the farmer, and if an advantage to the individual the State benefits. 134. Do you not think that land would stand two or three crops of oats? —That depends a good deal on the ground. This year, at the college farm, I grew oats after lea, and got 46 bushels to the acre, and I grew oats after wheat and got 86 bushels. You might with advantage carry two or three crops and you might not. It all depends on the conditions under which you are working, and the quality of the land. 135. In vour opinion, you would give a practical farmer full discretion as to how he would work his farm? —Yes; I would make him absolutely free, except in so far as he was a danger to the district from harbouring weeds. 136. How would you prevent him harbouring weeds? -The Noxious Weeds Act would do it. 137. But the County Councils do not bring the Act into force? Do you not think it would be sufficient for the Inspector to see that the man is keeping his land clear, and allow him to use his own discretion? —Yes. 138. Mr. Anstcy.] Generally speaking, can you succeed in cleaning land while growing cereal crops? —Not well. 139. I suppose in real practice it gets dirtier? —Yes. 140. Can you succeed in fairly cleaning land while growing a green crop, such as turnips? —Certainly. 141. The more green crops there are the better the chance of cleaning it is? —Yes, and the better the farm is too. 142. The more cereal crops there are the more likelihood there is of the land getting dirty? —Yes.
C—4.
598
[W. LOWBIE.
143. You said that the Noxious Weeds Act should be rigorously enforced if quite certain that they are noxious weeds: are there any weeds in the schedule that are not noxious weeds? —I have not studied the schedule closely enough for that. What made me make that remark was that I was working in a country where for years Scotcii thistle was put down as a weed. 144. Would you consider a heavy crop of Scotch thistles a splendid preparation for wheat? -if land has grown a good crop of thistles you know it is aerated below, and the subsoil has been opened up under conditions that very few crops could equal. 145. Thistles is a splendid preparation for wheat?--For anything. 146. You told us something about experiments at Rothemstead: but is it not a fact that the crops there were always very small? —The average of some of the manured plots was 42 bushels for over sixty years. 147. Can you tell us whether that sort of thing would be really economical? —It would not be. 148. It would be much more economical to follow a suitable rotation? —Certainly. I am not arguing against rotation. I am arguing against restrictions, because they tie a man up so much. 149. Do you think it wise for the Government to vary the restrictions according to the quality of the land 2 —l should think it would be a matter of ordinary common-sense, to vary the restrictions according to the quality of the land. If there are restrictions at all most certainly they should be varied. There is some light land down the railway where it would be a mistake for a man to take off a white crop at all. 150. Mr. Paul.] Do you follow any set course in your cropping.? —No, but 1 like to vary the cropping. In thinking over the cropping scheme for any one year, 1 have to take into consideration the number of sheep 1 want to carry that year, and various other details in regard to the situation of paddocks, and their distance from buildings, i&c. Then, again, if the land is heavy 1 may put it into kale, and if it is light land I put it into turnips. 1 cannot keep any definite rotation, but I do crop in rotation. 151. Do you think the average farmer is in exactly the same position as yourself? —Yes. 152. And that he requires the same liberty? —Yes, 1 am sure of it. 1 very often take a second cereal crop after a white crop, simply because it allows me to get more in for the autumn. 153. Do you regard the average size of holdings on these improved estates as too large or too small? Have you considered the matter at all? —Generally, 1 should say that it works out best for the State if a man has a block sufficiently large to make a good living and educate his family well. If his block is too small and he cannot get enough off it to enable him to live comfortably and educate his family, it is a mistake. 154. Is it not a fact that a man with a small holding —not too small -is more likely to farm that better than a man with a larger holding? —So long as the farm is within the range of his immediate personal supervision a small farm need not necessarily be farmed better than a large farm. I have in my mind the position of the crofters in Scotland, or the position of the Irish peasants, with blocks of land altogether too small The probability is a man when newly married can live on one of these farms, but when his family grows he cannot do so. He hangs around getting odd work here and there, and he becomes a bad factor, so far as the State is concerned. 155. With your experience, do you think the average farms in this colony are not too large? —I should say they were not too large. lam sure it will work out better, as I say, to make a sturdy free yeomanry in the country. A farmer ought to be able to send his sons into a town to be apprenticed, and he ought to be able to afford to keep them while they are there. If he cannot do that they hang around the home and get into a lazy kind of existence. But if a man has 300 or 500 acres of the class of land where I am working he could work his farm well and cheaply, and make the best use of the land for the State. 156. Do you think it is absolutely necessary under the present conditions for a farmer's sons to go into the town to learn a trade? —I am taking the position where a man has a block of land so small that he cannot make enough out of it to send his son out. If he has a fair-sized farm on which he can comfortably raise a family, he can keep one or two of his sons at home, as the case may be, and he can buy land for the others or send them out to learn a profession, or to enter business. 157. Mr. Matheson.~\ Is it a fair expression of your opinion to say that it would be profitable for the State to encourage individual enterprise by giving the tenants a free hand, rather than trying to frame a huge set of regulations, and make a man a mere machine under State supervision? —I think that is practically what I meant to say. 158. Would you say, further, that the soundest way to make the colony more productive is to encourage with a generous hand a comprehensive system of technical agricultural education? Is that how you would work up to a wise management of the land? —Well, it is one of the direct roads to it. 159. Do you admit there is n good deal to be learned by farmers in order to make the best use of the land here? —Yes. 160. Do you think they are more likely to learn it by a system of education of that sort, or by home experience? Home experience, so far as it goes, is unequalled. 161. But is the other absolutely necessary to complement it?- -Well, a man who makes a good farmer, if he had had technical education, would have made a better farmer; but a man who is in the first place a bad farmer will not be much improved by any technical education. He is a " duller," and will remain a " duffer." 162. Do you think that the expenditure of a handsome sum of money on more agricultural education would be one of the surest means of making best use of the State's land?- It would be a good means, at any rate. 163. Do you think it would be wise to give the Land Board, who are the stewards, power to . fine their tenant for foul paddocks, in addition to the powers under the Noxious Weeds Act? Sup-
W. LOWRIB.]
599
C—4.
posing you gave them a free hand in regard to cropping I—l1 —I question whether the Board would be found altogether competent to discriminate You might get an individual of wide experience who could do it, but the average Land Board member would not be able to do it. I think it would be better to keep things as they are. 164. Mr. Forbes.] Following Regulation 21, Regulation 22 says, " The lessee shall at all times during the term of the lease so farm the land, if the area of the whole exceeds 20 acres, as that not less than one-half of the total area shall be maintained in permanent pasture " : do you think that would be necessary if the tenants were given free hand in regard to cropping? — No. At the present time I do not think that it is economically best to keep half the land in grass. We are suffering this year from lung-worm and stomach-worm, and there would be less of that if there was less grass. 165. Regulation 23 says, "The lessee shall not cut the cultivated grass or clovers for hay or seed during the first year from the time of sowing as aforesaid, nor shall he at any time remove from the land or burn any straw grown upon the land " : do you think that is a reasonable regulation? -No; 1 do not think it is. Very often the mistake is made of feeding the first year's grass altogether too heavily in the autumn and in the following spring. In the remaining two or three years that the land is in grass it suffers accordingly. It is one effective means of getting rid of the clovers in it. Clover mown will do better than clover grazed, and more than that, the land curiously enough will benefit more, and be in a better condition if the clovers are mown in the first year than if they are grazed. If you were lifting the land in the second year a block that was mown would show better results in cropping than a block that was grazed. It seems contrary to what one would think, but that has been the result of experience. 166. That would be on account of the clover having a better root? —Yes. 167. You think that regulation could be done away with? —Yes. 168. What is your opinion about burning straw on the land? —There is some straw that should be burned, particularly when there are bad weeds in it, and it might be well to sacrifice the very few shillings it is worth per ton for manure to get rid of the seeds of weeds in it. Then, there are cases very often where the land has grown a rank crop, and the farmer does the land good by cutting the stubble high and burning it. I supjpose that would be called burning straw. 169. In the case of a crop being rusty or smutty, would it not be better to burn the straw? — It is useful for very little else, and in New Zealand, with the conditions such as they are, it is not practicable to make much farm manure out of straw. It will cost as much after making to lift and take out to the land as a good dressing of artificial manure. Therefore, the straw might as well be burnt, when in excess for feeding or shelter. 170. You think the regulation is rather an absurd one, and could be removed altogether? —Yes. 171. The Cheviot regulations differ from the ordinary regulations inasmuch as the former provide for one white crop, then a green crop, and then another white crop, whereas the ordinary regulations allow the two white crops to follow one another : do you think the one system is as workable as the other ? —lt would not meet the case I mentioned of the grass failing and you want that land back into grass. If the grass has failed you either have to sow out the grass with the green crop or sow it with no crop at all. I think it very often works out better to grow a second cereal crop. 172. You do not, think it as reasonable to restrict the number of green crops a man may take off his land? —I think he ought to be patted on the back for every green crop he feeds on the land. At the present prices he can do nothing better. 173. Evidence has been brought before us to show, so far as heavy land is concerned, that the first crop, say, of wheat grows too much straw, and that the second crop grows too much straw, and if it is then sown down in grass the same thing occurs when the land is broken up again : would that not be a very serious handicap to a settler on that class of land ? —Yes, it means he could not grow wheat at all. It would be far better to give him a free hand, and get the land reduced a bit by growing something like mangolds or two crops in succession, or more than two to reduce latent fertility. 174. The evidence has shown us that it takes five or six crops on virgin land to get it into condition to grow grain profitably 7 : do you think that is a reasonable statement? —Yes; lam quite sure it is a fact from the short experience I have had here on good land. Edwahd George Staveley examined. 175. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am manager of the Loan and Mercantile Agency Company in Christchurch. I have been twenty years in the stock and station business with them, and I have been ten years manager. 176. I think your agency has a large area of high mountain country in its charge near Hanmer? —Yes, we have about 170,000 acres at St. Helen's Station. 177. The greater proportion of that is very high land, running from about 1,200 ft. tn 5,000 ft. or 6,000 ft. in altitude? —I believe that is so. 178. Has your company carried out any experiments to improve this high country in the way of grassing, subdividing, and resting? —That information you will be better able to get from the gentleman who controls the practical management of the property —Mr. Lyons, in Wellington. I have chiefly to do with the management of the financial part of the business. 179. T believe that country was very badly infested with rabbits once: what is its condition now? —We have quite reduced them. The rabbits are now in hundreds where they were in thousands when we took the run over. 180. I suppose you lost very heavily in some of the snow-storms of 1893 and before that? We did.
C.—4.
600
[B. fl. STAVELEY.
181. Did you get any relief? —Yes, we got an extension of our tenure to twenty-one years. 182. Mr. Jnhnston.] Can you give us any information about the grassing of the high country generally? Has there been much grassing done by the runholders apart from your own property? To some extent, but not nearly as much as could be done. 183. Do you know if it has been done to advantage? —As I have had no practical experience 1 would not like to say. 184. If their tenure was made more secure do you think they would go in for improving the country and regrassing it?—l should say Yes, decidedly. 185. Would it be advantageous to the colony, in your opinion, to increase the tenure of these large runs? —Yes, 1 think the country would be improved. 186. Would it tend to a better development of the country generally if the runholders were encouraged to improve this high country? —It would increase the carrying-capacity. 187. Do you know if the runholders are making any improvements at the present time?-— They are, but not to the extent I think they would if their tenure was improved. 188. We have had petitions from some runholders in South Canterbury and North Otago, and they advocate giving valuation for certain improvements they do not get at the present time: do you think that would be an advantage to them? -I think it would be an inducement to improve more extensively. 189. Do you think that anything that would increase the carrying-capacity of that land wouh be an advantage? —Undoubtedly. 190. Is there any reaggregation of estates here? —I think the tendency is the other way. 191. Have some of the larger holdings been cut up privately? —Yes. 192. Do you know if their settlements have been a success? —I do not think I could give actual examples, but I should say, in general terms, they have been a success. « 193. Generally speaking, has the value of the flat land in Canterbury increased? —Certainly. 194. Have you been through any of the Government special settlements, such as Cheviot or those in South Canterbury? —I was through Cheviot not long ago. 195. Ts it a success? —Yes, a very great success. It was a very different picture from what it was twelve years ago when I was there as chief salesman at the selling-off. 196. The settlers are prosperous? —Yes. 197. And you think the land has not been leased too dearly for bad times? —I should say not. 198. Say we had the bad times of some years back, would the settlers be able to make a living and do fairly well?--I do not know that they could if very bad times came. 199. T do not mean the bad times of 1879 and 1880, but I mean if there was a general fall in the price of wool and produce, do you think they would be able to continue their rentals? —T I cannot answer that. It is a question of limits entirely. 200. Generally speaking, you do not consider they pay too dear a rent for average years? — I think not, because the fact is public property that many of these selections have been turned over at a profit on the goodwill. 201. In regard to the large runs which have been cut up into small grazing-runs, do you know if Hie present holders are doing well? —I do not know of an instance of runs being cut up here. 202. Mr. Anstey.\ You have a large number of runs besides St. Helen's? —Not a large number. We have disposed of a great many of them. That is the only one under my control in North Canterbury. 203. In addition to getting an extended tenure for the St. Helen's Station, did you not get a concession in rent as well? —I believe we did, but lam not quite sure. 204. I believe your firm goes in extensively for rendering financial assistance to settlers? —Yes. 205. Do you find any difficulty in advancing money to holders under lease in perpetuity? — Yes. 206. Upon what ground? —Because there is no valid security except the goodwill in the lease that they can make over to us. "207. Can they make the goodwill of the lease over to you? —I do not know that they could do that to be a legal security, but they give us a sort of lien over it. 208. Do you think they ought to be able to pledge that to you? —I think it would be to their advantage. They would be able to borrow on better terms. 209. Do von think it is necessary for a leasehold settler to borrow occasionally? —It is an advantage to be able to do so, and sometimes it is necessary. They would not have tided over many of their years if they had not had assistance. 210. Do you think it would be a wise thing to allow them to pledge their interest in their holdings to financial companies when they want assistance? —I think, undoubtedly, it would be wise for them to be in a position to receive assistance when they require it. 211. Mr. Paul.] Have you power to foreclose on a lease-in-perpetuity holding in the event of the borrower not fulfilling his obligation ? —We can put his goodwill up for sale if he has pledged it, but we cannot take possession of his leasehold, because we cannot occupy it. 212. Is it a fair question to ask you whether large sums have been paid for goodwills through your firm?--AVe have not sold any. 213. What terms of lease do you think would be fair for this high country? —I think the lease should be at least for twenty-one years. 214. And at the end of that time valuation for improvements? —Yes. 215. Do you think it would be advantageous to give the tenant the right of renewal at an arbitration rent? —I think so, certainly. 216. Have any large landowners in this district added to their holdings? —I do not know of any striking example of it. As I say, the tendency is the other way.
E. G. STAVELEY.~j
601
C—4.
217. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the success in reducing rabbits has been chiefly due to the use of their natural enemies? —No, to poison. 218. If the Crown runholders were given the right of purchase do you think that would be a strong inducement to make the best use of the country I —Well, I believe that in all cases the freeholder makes better use of this land, so my answer would be Yes. 219. As a financial man, do you think the State would be wise to grant such a right? —Yes, I think they would. 220. Mr. Forbes.] In granting the right of the freehold to men occupying these lease-in-perpetuity sections would you allow them to acquire their holdings at the original valuation or at the present valuation? —I am afraid that is rather a hard question for me to answer. I would like to add to my remarks, in regard to the tenure and extended leases for the runs, that a very important factor for the State to bear in mind is that these high-country runs are absolutely useless, and spell ruination to anybody without a sufficient area of low country to carry breeding ewes for the flocks of sheep that graze on the hills. There must be sufficient low breeding country attached to the high country to enable the flocks to be maintained. No run is profitable where you have to buy stock annually to keep up the flock. 221. Mr. Johnston.\ Generally speaking, do you consider that there is enough low country in Canterbury attached to the runs at the present time? —Generally speaking, I think so. 222. And you think the low land should not be further interfered with? —That is so. Charles Lewis examined. 223. The Chairman.] You are Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Canterbury College? -Yes. 224. Your college has some endowments? —Yes. 225. Might I ask what area you have? —223,775 acres. 226. We are making investigation as to the terms of leases of the Crown tenants, and, of course, we want to make our inquiries as wide as possible, so that we may derive valuable information from you and others dealing with endowment lands? —Anticipating this question, I have here the usual form of lease, which I will put in as an exhibit. That deals solely with our agricultural land. Our pastoral lands are subject to another form of lease, a copy of which I could not obtain ; but I may say they have to be approved by the Government, and I think that the Department could refer you to them in the Gazette. Briefly, the terms of the lease handed in are fourteen years, with certain cropping conditions and certain conditions relating to improvements. Such improvements as we approve of have to be put on in the first place, and they have to be paid for by the incoming tenant. That is made a condition of the next lease. 227. Do you give renewals subject to arbitration? —It is not compulsory on us to do so. The Act demands that we shall let the land to the best possible advantage from the point of view of the College. 228. Are your rentals increasing from one period to another? —Not very materially. 229. I suppose your pastoral land has gone down a little? —Yes. 230. Is the agricultural land going up? —Yes. We have had some in recently, and we have got an advance of a shilling or two per acre. Much of our land, even of agricultural land, is not of a high quality. 231. Mr. Johnston.] Are any of these endowments lands gridironed? —Not that lam aware of, but I will ascertain. I know in connection with several of our runs that the homestead and yards are on the freehold property of our tenant who leases the adjoining land from us. I apprehend, however, that the value of their freehold without the surrounding leasehold would be very little. 232. Do you mean that the freehold is the winter country? —Perhaps; but the area of the freehold is so small as a rule as to be not worth holding by itself. Without our land it would be useless to the tenant. 233. Have your tenants made any improvements in the way of grassing? —Well, I have heard of experiments having been made. 234. Do you know with what result? —It was not encouraging. I heard of one man who sowed two hundred sacks of seed with no result. I heard of another man who took particular pains with a piece of flat land. He fenced it and harrowed It, and worked it, and he thought he might grow some grass from which he could get his own seed. But he got absolutely nothing from it. 235. How was that, accounted for? —Well, the climate of the country accounted for it. Country that practically derives all its moisture from snow, with a dry summer and a very severe winter, is not good enough to experiment with. Ido not think they will be inclined to repeat the experiment. 236. We had evidence in South Canterbury of successful sowing in wet gullies from which the grass spread? —Just so, but they represent a very small proportion of the land. In any case there are generally good native grasses there. 237. Do you think anything at all could be done to regrass this country? —I have had no experience of it myself, and the reports which have reached me are such as I have given you. 238. Have you a Ranger? —We have an Inspector. It is from him and from his annual reports that I have derived my information. 239. Are there any noxious weeds on the lands belonging to the College? —The only one I know of, if you do not include gorse, js Californian thistle. 240. Is it spreading? —I am afraid it is. We make our tenants do what they can to keep it from seeding, but I dare say the eradication of Californian thistle in the main is altogether out of question, so far as the tenants are concerned. 76—C. 4.
|C. LEWIS.
a—4.
602
241. I suppose you have seen what it is like in Southland? —I have a farm of my own, and I need not go to Southland. But I have seen it in Southland and on the Taieri Plains, and I recognise it is a very serious question. 242. Mr. Anstey.\ Could you tell us roughly if the amount of land vested in your Board of Governors is something like 200,000 acres? —The exact area is 223,775 acres of Crown land. 243. Is it not a fact that your rentals amount to about £60,000 per annum? —The amount is £16,165. 244. You said have a good deal of poor land, and I inferred that the bulk of your land is poor: is it not a fact that you have land leased for £1 per acre? —Yes. 245. A good deal of it? —I would be sorry to say what proportion. I indicated that we had a fair proportion of good land. What I said was that included in what we rate as agricultural land there is a good deal of land that is rated at Bs. and 9s. per acre. Ido not call that good agricultural land. 246. Still, you have a very large quantity of land that is let at from Bs. to £1 per acres? —Yes. 247. This lease applies to agricultural land? —Yes. 248. I notice it provides for valuation for improvements? —Yes. 249. I notice, there is the following proviso: "Provided further that in no case shall any incoming tenant be required to pay or the said lessee entitled to recover a greater sum than " : I take it you insert a limited sum there? —Yes. 250. Is it not a fact that in almost every case that blank has been filled up by inserting a trumpery sum in no way adequate to the necessities of the farm? —I do not think so. We consider each case on its merits. Before a tenant erects any improvements on the place he applies to us, and we have to take into consideration the size of his holdings, &c., before we approve. 251. Is this blank filled in at the time the lease is signed? —I cannot say what was the practice before I was Chairman, and I should not like to swear as to what has been done in the case of every lease; but I know that when the question of improvements comes along each case is decided by itself. There is no arbitrary scale. 252. It is a limited amount? —Yes, in the sense of not "unlimited." 253. Suppose you had 200 acres of good agricultural land valued at 10s. per acre, would you put in the sum of, say, £50 in the blank when signing the lease? —We would be largely guided by the amount of improvements on the land already. 254. It is not a question of improvements at all; it is a question of the limit which is inserted in the lease when it is signed : is it not a fact that the tenant cannot exceed that limit unless he afterwards receives a concession, for which he has to apply to the Board? —I think so. 255. Then the question of improvements does not come in when the limit is fixed? —But, as you have already indicated, afterwards we are prepared to extend the limit. 256. Is it not a fact that in all cases only a trumpery sum is inserted in this blank? —No, it it not. 257. Would you be prepared to swear on oath that in the case of a farm leased at 10s. per acre the limit for improvements has not been fixed at 10s.? —I am not prepared to swear on oath in regard to any matter of detail. You must remember that we have 120 farms on agricultural lease. 258. Supposing a farm was valued at IDs. per acre annual rent, do you think that 10s. per acre would be a sufficient amount to allow for improvements? —It would all depend on what improvements were on the place when it was taken up. If we have a farm already fenced and subdivided, and carrying what we regard as sufficient buildings and appliances, do you not think the probabilities are that a man would not require to spend anything at all after we have let it again. 259. Suppose there are no houses or buildings on it? —That is a different matter. He is not confined to a limit of 10s. per acre. 260. Are you sure of it?—l am not sure of anything with reference to any individual farm. The probabilities are that you know more about some one farm out of the 120 than I do, and you are not going to betray me into making any statement that you can disprove. 261. Will you tell us how long that form of lease has been in existence? —During my term of office as Chairman, and I have been Chairman about fifteen months. I am not responsible for anything before that. 262. Can you tell us what proportion of your tenants are working under that particular form of lease? —I cannot. 263. Would you like to contradict me if I say that at least 95 per cent, are not under that lease at all?—I would contradict you if you said that 95 per cent, with whom I have had to deal are not under it. 264. Is it* not a fact that the vast majority of your tenants get no valuation for improvements whatever? —It is not a fact as to those I have had to do with. I have signed a good number of renewed leases since I have been Chairman, and this is the form. 265. Did the leases issued prior to your taking office as Chairman provide for giving compensation for improvements? —I think the one who will know about that better than Ido is the Registrar, or the previous Chairman. 266. Do you think it would be wise in leasing your land to bring the conditions of your leases somewhat into line with the Government conditions, which provide much better security for the tenants' improvements? —I am under the impression that these conditions are to be found in this lease now. 267. Would your Board suffer if your tenants got full security for their improvements?— Not so long as the Board has some control over the improvements to be put on the land. ' 268. Would it interfere with your letting the land, supposing your tenants were able to claim a fair valuation for improvements? —It might in some cases. For instance, if it were allowed a
6. LEWIS.]
603
C—4.
man might put on a 40- or 50-acre section a house out of all proportion to the requirements of the tenant who might follow. 269. Generally speaking, you think there would be no harm whatever in giving a tenant proper security for his improvements? —No. 270. Would there be any objection to giving tenants the right of renewal at an arbitration rental? —No, I do not think so. 271. Would you have any objection to these two special conditions I have named being attached to your leases? —I have none, but you must understand that lam only speaking as a single member of the Board. 272. Mr. Paul.\ Do you think the dual control of public land is wise? —I do not see anything against it. I might say, with respect to our pastoral country, that the conditions under which we let it have to be approved by the Government, so that the dual control to a large extent disappears. 273. You think there is nothing to be gained by bringing it all under the administration of one body? —I do not think so, so long as you get capable bodies. The central body would very likely have a great deal more on its hands than it could probably overtake if it gave any attention to detail. 274. From your point of view as Chairman of the Board of Governors, do you think it would be wise to sell these endowments? —I have never heard any suggestion that they should be sold. Undoubtedly, I do not think it would be wise. 275. You think they ought to be conserved? —Yes. As you have asked the question, I may say the difference between our leases and the Crown leases, in respect to which the suggestion has been made, is that our leases are for fourteen years, and the Board have a very large reversionary interest at that time. The Government leases for 999 years are interminable, and the reversionary interest to the State is practically nil. I would not give you sixpence for the State's reversionary interest in Cheviot, but I would give a very large sum for the Board's reversionary interest in our land. 276. Are you prepared to say whether it is wise for the State to lease land under lease in perpetuity? —I do not think the Chairman of the Board of Governors has any views on that matter. 277. Mr. Matheson.\ Have you heard Mr. Lowrie's evidence with regard to the cropping regulations ? —I heard a good deal of it. 278. Do you think it would be wise for your Board to remove all cropping restrictions, and give their tenants a free hand? —No; I am not sure that it would. 279. Have you ever gone into that question? —I have never considered it from the standpoint that Mr. Lowrie took up, but we have suffered through tenants overcropping, and in one case at all events I know we recovered very heavy damages from a man who exceeded the cropping limits of his lease. 280. So that, so far as your experience goes, you would not like to see the cropping restrictions done away with? —No; but 1 must say I recognise the difficulty of drafting regulations which could apply to all the land in one paddock, let alone every farm in the district, or every farm in the colony. I have one paddock in my farm with four different qualities of land, each of which requires different treatment. 281. If you cannot deal with the matter intelligently by regulations, would it not be wiser to give a man a free band? —If somebody has to suffer through the want of ability to draft intelligent regulations, I think the general public have a better right to escape than the tenant. 282. Mr. Forbes.] You have a quantity of pastoral country which is let on the same terms as the Government pastoral lands? —Yes. 283. Have any representations come before you from the tenants asking for an extension of their leases? —No. 284. There has been no dissatisfaction expressed, so far as you know, in regard to the terms of your pastoral leases?- It has never reached us. 285. Mr. Johnst,on.\ Would not your Board do well to adopt the same course as Otago and hand over these endowments to the Government, on the receipt of a guaranteed income equivalent to the present rentals? —You see I am afraid the Otago University found its revenues falling every year, and likely either to fall further or to entail a considerable expense to maintain the properties at their present values. Our anticipations are that our properties will improve. 286. Would you be inclined to hand them over to the Government on a revaluation at the present time, the Government to give you bonds bringing in 5 per cent, on the capital value? — No, because if you get bonds they have a fixed value. But as the population of this colony increases and the educational requirements increase, we anticipate theoretically a corresponding increase in our revenue from these endowments. We hope our revenues will extend with the necessities of the institution. 287. You think it is better to keep your endowments as they are? —Yes. If I may say so, I do not think Otago would have done what they did if they could have helped themselves. Their finance is not so strong as ours, and they had to do it. Charles Edward Baynon examined. 288. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a tailor, and am a native of the colony. I have 2i acres of land in the Wharenui Settlement at Riccarton. It is held under lease in perpetuity. My rent is £8 ss. for the year, reducible to £7 Bs. 6d. with the rebate taken off. I have been on the land for eighteen months. I think the terms are very satisfactory. When I went on the settlement I bought out another man's improvements. There was a house of two rooms on the place and a little fencing. I paid £107 for the improvements. I consider that the amount I paid was a fair payment for what I received. Ido not think I paid very much, if anything, for goodwill. When I took up the place all the money I had was £110, and I had to borrow from the
C—4.
604
[C. E. BAYNON.
Advances to Settlers Office. I applied for a loan of £50, in order to put up two more rooms. I was earning fairly good money at the time. I applied, as I have said, for £50, and they only let me have £40, so I had to borrow £10 from a friend. I think such a system as that adopted by the Advances to Settlers Office is likely to lead to abuse, in this way: that an applicant will apply for more money than lie really requires, thereby making provision for a possible reduction. I got the loan very promptly. I notice some people have complained of the delay in obtaining loans from the Department. I think I got my loan within a week. It was necessary I should get it promptly, as I thus obtained a discount on the price of the timber. The loan of £40 cost me £2 9s. I thought at the time it was a very high charge, as it came to a little more than 6 per cent. I had to go to a lawyer in obtaining the loan, and I strongly object to that. I think if the Government lend money to settlers they should complete the whole business, and not necessitate the applicant going to an outside lawyer. I had to pay £1 18s. 6d. for costs and 10s. 6d. for the valuation fee, so that the loan cost me altogether £2 9s. In looking up the Year-book I find that I was charged too much. There is 6s. that I cannot account for. 289. Mr. Johnston.] Do you not know that there is a regulation charge? —The facts are as 1 have stated, and there is 6s. that I cannot account for. 290. Mr. McLennan.] Are you satisfied with the lease in perpetuity? —I do not believe in the principle of the lease in perpetuity. I think it is ridiculous to give a man a lease of a piece of land for close on a thousand years. That lease must be broken some time. I do not think any body of men can make a contract for a thousand years and reasonably expect that it will not be broken. 291. You do not wish to have it broken just now?- I am quite willing, and since I have been on the settlement I have gone round-with a petition advocating the revaluation of existing leases. 292. You do not wish the option of the freehold? —No; of the two systems, freehold and leasehold, I prefer the leasehold. I am a firm believer in land-nationalisation. But in comparing the leasehold with the freehold, I think the leasehold is preferable. 293. Mr. Anstey.~\ Did you have to pay £2 9s. for the loan of £40? —Yes. 294. Then, you only actually got £37 lis.? —Yes. 295. And upon that £37 lis. you have to pay interest upon £40? —Yes. 296. Do you think the charge is too high?-—Yes. 297. Mr. Pauli\ Is there a demand for similar settlements to the one where you are? —Yes, I think so. 298. Do you know of any cases where the tenants have sold out to advantage? —I do not know whether they have sold out to advantage, but I know of one man who was asking a good figure for his section. 299. Do you think that you have an advantage over the ordinary tenant in town who has to pay rent to a private landlord ?- -Yes. My place is not so convenient to the town as where I lived previously, but the benefit I am receiving in the way of rent more than compensates me for the extra distance of my section from the town. 300. Do you think that rent increases out of all proportion to any rise in wages in the cities? --Yes, I think it is. 301. Do you think it would be fair to revalue existing leases under the lease in perpetuity? — Certainly. 302. Do you think the freeholder should also pay a certain sum to the State when his land increases in value? —Yes. His land increases in value not simply owing to his own labour, but through the labour of other people, and to which he (the landowner) has no moral right. 303. Do not you think it is better that the State should stick to its bargain and keep faith with the tenant ? Do you think this agreement should be broken ? —I would ask, how can any body of men such as the House of Representatives make any contract for a thousand years and reasonably expect it to be kept. 304. Seeing that they have made it, and that some of the people want a variation, do you not think the Government should pay compensation to the present lessees ? —Not anything above their improvements. I would be quite willing that the lessees should be paid for their improvements if the Government broke the contract. I think they would be quite justified in breaking the contract at any time, the compensation being fixed by arbitration. 305. In the past has the State not given fair compensation in the case of freehold land being taken ? —That may or may not be so. I have had no means of knowing. 306. Do not you think the same rule should apply when the State wants to vary or alter their leasehold tenure? —Yes, to improvements only. 307. You think that arbitration would be a fair way to settle these cases? —Yes; I would be favourable to that where either party disagreed. 308. Mr. Matheson.\ Can you tell us, briefly, the wording of that petition that you took round ? —No. 309. Was it because you thought the rent was too high, or because you thought the State ought to increase your rent as time went on 1— It was simply a question of principle. 310. You said that if a freehold property increases in value you thought the State should lie empowered to share it. Supposing a man takes up land and it drops in value, do you think the State ought to share in his loss? —I know of no case where land has dropped in value except where there has been speculation, and where land has been really above its value. 311. Do you think that speculation makes the land rise or fall in value? —Chiefly, but not wholly. 312. Do you think the State would be doing a good thing in cutting up land and making workmen's homes on it? —Yes, I think they ought to erect buildings. It would be a great assistance to poor men in getting homes for themselves and their families if the State built houses and charged them interest on the capital invested.
605
C—4.
6. E. BAYNON.]
313. Is it possible for an ordinary tradesman to save £100 in five years out of his wages if he is really a thrifty man ? —lt depends on whether a man is married or single. 314. Do you think the State would be wise to put up such buildings and ofier them at a certain rental by ballot?— Yes; and I also think that settlements that become surrounded by a thickly populated district should be cut up for this purpose. Henry Albert Atkinson examined. 315. The Chairman.]- What are you?—l am a life insurance agent in Christchurch, and have been engaged as such for eight months. lam a mechanical engineer by profession. 1 only hold a small section of land in the town. 316. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —Yes. I desire to make the following statement: I wish to place before the Commission something of the upshot of my observations and reading relative to land-tenure, and to state some amendments necessary in our land laws that we may in a measure assure to the people of the colony for all time equitable opportunities for the earning of a full and sufficient livelihood. At the present time the Government returns (1904) show that the lands of the colony are occupied under different tenures in the following proportions: Freehold, 15,989,655 acres; leased from private persons or public bodies, 3,642,476 acres; leased from Natives, 1,816,740 acres; lease in perpetuity, 2,083,944 acres; pastoral runs and other leases, 13,686,187 acres; tenures from Crown with right of purchase, 949,565 acres. These returns show broadly--lands worked by freeholders, 16,939,220 acres; lands worked by leaseholders, 21,229,347 acres. If the freehold tenure were necessary to the wellbeing of the producer, all leaseholders should be given the right of purchase at a fair valuation from the owners, private or public! That the freehold is not necessary, however, is proved by the prosperous conditions obtaining on various settlements already visited by the Commission where the lands are held on lease from the Crown at sufficiently low rentals. Security of tenure and equitable rentals are the things necessary for the independent farmer. The cry for the freehold is the cry of the money-lender, whether he be a country man or a town resident. What is claimed is not so much the right of freehold for a cultivator as the right of free sale to another the right of unfettered trade in land; the right of one man to batten on another. Its success means the fastening on the backs of the poorer cultivators and producers an incubus of debt that will for ever insure a poverty-stricken community. Granting the right of freehold has placed in the hands of individuals monopolist powers whereby the owners from time to time levy a heavy toll of rent from the occupiers, competition often forcing up rents and land-values to such a point as to leave the genuine small farmer who pays rent or interest only a bare existence. The freehold system is not in the best interest of the colony, nor is it well for the colony that long leases of the colony's land be let without provision being made for reversion to the Government at stated periods, and for reassessment of rent at reasonably short intervals. It is not possible to guarantee, nor is it right for any Government to pretend to give a guarantee to uphold for all time obligations against the interest of future generations. Means must be found, therefore, whereby without unnecessary hardship to present owners the lands of the colony can shortly become the property of the public, to be worked in their interest under such conditions as from generation to generation shall be found most suitable. As one means to this end the land-tax should be considerably increased, and the exemptions under the present Act abolished. Land taxation, whilst it tends to lower the market price of land, does not affect the cultivator materially in any way. The amount he pays in interest, rates, and taxes together, or rent, rates, and taxes together, being always fixed on new leases by the amount which is offered in the competitive market. If the rates and taxes are high then the rent charges or the capital charges for the land will be low in proportion. The degree of this competition in the open market is ultimately fixed by the standard of comfort of the competing people by the amount of hardship they are prepared to endure for the opportunity to earn a livelihood. The Government in letting lands on lease should endeavour to fix the rent, not on the competitive market value, but by assuming a certain standard income as being necessary to the well-being of a settler, and so fixing the areas and rentals that as near as possible at least that amount may be earned by the tenant with careful and consistent farming. Reduction in Customs taxation on the necessaries of life—placing this amount on the land-values would relieve those workers and others whose present economically strong position enables them to resist any reduction of wages or profits, but it would not materially benefit agricultural or pastoral disorganized workers whose wages would have a tendency to fall as their cost of living fell. The cure for this lies in the provision by the people as a whole of an organization of workers of all grades in producing from the land and other natural resources, and by the best-known means a sufficiency for their own proper maintenance, without the intervention of those who would take charges for the use of money or land. By means of co-operative settlements, working in conjunction with each other throughout the colony, and financed to a large extent with the proceeds of taxation, this could be done. Such a system of settlements would need to be in the main self-sufficing —i.e., they would constitute a body of co-operative producers, and would form also the chief market for their own produce. In this "connection I would like to refer the Commissioners to a work by Herbert V. Mills, "Poverty and the State" (Kegan, Paul, Trench, and Co., London), which deals very fully with this question. It Is a modification of Mill's scheme lam proposing should be put into practice here, so that we may deal with the land question and the unemployment question generally at one and the same time. As showing the extent to which people are burdened when working with small capital on rented land, a glance at the conditions about Christchurch is sufficient. One man, who is recognised as a good farmer, or, rather, a market-gardener, works 6 acres, for which he pays £4 per acre rent and £8 in rates per annum. He went on the land thirty years ago with his father, and used his whole capital, £150, in putting a house on the land which was wholly unimproved. He has brought the ground into a high state of cultivation, but has
C—4.
606
[H. A. ATKINSON*
been able to save practically nothing, and his present lease runs out very shortly, when his whole property will be at the absolute disposal of the landlord. Another man, now doing jobbing work at gardening about this town, was until lately working a small highly improved place here; his takings for one year amounted to £260, out of which he utilised £50 for living expenses, the balance was eaten up by necessary expenditure on the place and rent and taxes, which two items come to £125. One man of my acquaintance lets a place to his son at £2 per acre. The market price would be £3 or £3 ss. It is not .in his heart to sweat his own flesh and blood. One pays £50 a year for 13 acres of what is described as very " dirty " land. £5 an acre has been paid many years ago for 5 acres, with nothing but a two-roomed shanty on it. The land is more valuable now, and the owner lives on it. Persons living by agriculture are most unfairly taxed under the system of private ownership, and, though immediate relief might be given by the operations of a Fair Rent Court, ultimately the land must come back to the people as a whole to be dealt with according to the dictates of common-sense and common decency. There are many blocks of land about Cliristchurch purchased and set apart by the Government for workmen's homes. A rental charge has been placed on these holdings which is supposed to remain the same for 999 years. It is considered by some (hat it would be iniquitous if any revaluation were made during that term in the interests of the State. I would like to point out that, according to the Land Act, the rent is to be " an amount equal to 4 per centum of the cash price of such land," consequently any covenant entered into with a tenant without making provision for the discovery of this price at any time and the necessary reassessment of rent is ultra vires, and therefore null and void. Apart from this, however, there is another consideration that should make us hesitate in our attempt to carry out this vicious contract. Each allotment is used onoe for the purpose for which it was purchased it provides a workman with a cheap home. Instead of then coming again into the hands of the authorities for the purpose of again letting on easy terms, the first settler, when he is tired of it, or thinks it advisable to move for any reason, puts his holding in the market and sells it al a profit or a loss, according to the market and his personal exigencies. In some cases considerable sums of money change hands on these occasions, and poor men are debarred from the advantage which the land was purchased especially to give them. The whole spirit of the Act is directly against the present procedure, which is supposed to be carried out under its provisions. To show the openness with which the trade I have referred to is carried on, I would call the attention of the Commission to the following advertisement appearing in one of our daily papers of the 13th instant: "£75 for village-settlement lease, 999 years; rent Is. a week, with cottage of two rooms, large stables, &c. Call early and secure this bargain." Some years back considerable correspondence was exchanged between private individuals and the authorities relative to a transfer which took place in respect to a Tamai section an'Ti house. The original lessee has barely been in a year when he transferred his holding, and it was stated he received £90 for the goodwill, though his improvements were very small. He had been lucky in getting a cheap allotment, and did very well out of it. What I am advocating in the direction of land reform, briefly put, is this: no land shall in future be sold by the State; all leasehold lands shall, at stated intervals, revert to the State, to be dealt with as then thought best; all leaseholds shall be made subject to revaluation at reasonably short intervals; no traffic in leasehold lands shall be permitted : a system of co-operative settlements shall be inaugurated for working the land and other industries, the products of the settlements being in the main such as to directly meet the needs of the settlers, who may so be able to avoid the fluctuations and other dangers of an unknown outside market. A considerable increase in the land-tax is desirable, and all exemptions should be abolished. Funds raised by this means should be used in the repurchase of lands and in promoting the co-operative settlements mentioned above. A Fair Rent Court should be established to assess rents on a fair basis. 317. You advocate co-operative farms? —Yes, with allied industries. I think you can get more people to the acre on the land under that system than under any other system. They make their own market, as well as being their own producers. If you have a thousand farmers you have so-many people whom they can supply with food, &c., and if there are so-many people supplied with food that means that there will be so-many people engaged in other trades to supply the wants of the community. With a proper adjustment of the proportions of labour of various sorts, and capital and land, you can so arrange things that the people will supply their own needs, and not be dependent on other local and outside markets as all the farmers are at the present time. 318. Are you aware that the present prosperity of New Zealand depends mainly upon the prices of produce sold outside the country altogether I—lt1 —It is in order to do away with that dependence that I would suggest this scheme. We do not depend on the outside markets now, but that is not necessary. 319. Then, you would have New Zealand a self-contained country? —Very much so. 320. I rather think we would get back to the condition of the Maoris under that scheme? —No, we would get on all right. We would get along without many of the charges we are hampered with at present. We are now hampered with all the charges of middlemen, who come in between the producer here and the people at Home. 321. Would you stop all commerce with the outside world? —No, I would not stop anything. I would simply say that we would under my suggestion get a better living without nursing people who are of no use to us. We do not want to be always nursing any one who might be usefully employed. Under my scheme, the people would get the best living that could be got off the land and from the general industry of the community. 322. Are you aware that New Zealand is sending enormous quantities of frozen meat outside the colony? —Yes. 323. How would that be consumed in the colony? —We need not consume it; we need not produce it.
C.-4.
H. A. ATKINSON.]
607
324. What would be the position, say, of the iron industry? —There is no reason why the iron industry should not flourish here. Of course, there are many things we could not make at once, and we could not ever make the colony quite self-contained, and, to begin with, we would have to go slowly with such means as we have. 325. Mr. Johnston.'] You have never been on the land?—l am not a farmer, but I have worked on the land. I have worked with a surveyor, and as a boy 1 worked on the land and travelled a great deal about the colony. 326. Have you worked for a week on a farm? —Yes. 327. Have you worked for a month on a farm? —Perhaps not a month. 328. Mr. Anstey.] You said just now that it is not necessary that we should produce any more than we can consume. I suppose you are aware that we have a large public and private debt? —Yes. I did not say we need not produce more than we can consume, because there are some things you could not get in the colony; but my idea is that the colony ought to be as largely as possible independent of outside fluctuating markets. 329. You said that there is nothing very wrong in breaking the existing contracts with private individuals in regard to the land ? —Yes. 330. Could not you apply that principle to the foreign money-lender ?—lt might not be advisable to do so. 331. You think you would do it if you thought it was advisable? —I do not suggest that. 332. Do you think it would be a wise thing to do if it was advisable?— Yes, if it was advisable, but I do not think it is. 333. Mr. Paul.\ Would you break the present leases and revalue them? —Yes. 334. Would you give compensation to the present holders of leases? —No, I would not give them anything that did not belong to them. I would be as easy with them as I could. 335. Then, do you believe that the State should give the freeholder compensation when it takes his freehold land ? —Not of necessity. It is a matter of humanity. As I say, Ido not believe in dealing more hardly with people than is absolutely necessary, either leaseholders or freeholders. But we must get the land. We have parted with land which did not belong to us, and which does not belong to us. We have parted with rights which we cannot give away, because they are not ours. 336. Granted that the State made a huge mistake when it leased the land for 999 years, do you not think it should stand to its bargain or pay money for breaking it?—We shall doubtless have to pay something for breaking it, but it is not for us to leave future generations to bear the brunt of the wrong that has been done. 337. Do you think that compensation should be paid to the present lease-in-perpetuity holders? Some of these tenants are selling their properties with a goodwill outside the improvements: are you going to take away that value from them? —I do not propose in any cases of leases that we should enter into the possession of the leasehold at once. That is what some people seem to think with respect to this revaluation. What I suggest we should do is to make the leases terminable at the end of, say, twenty years We had a lease in existence before the lease in perpetuity was adopted, and in "that case "the first lease was for thirty years, with a right of renewal after revaluation for another twenty-one years. That system has a good many points in its favour. But that period does not go beyond the present generation in dealing with the land, and I do not think it is so bad as the other lease, which I do not think can be upheld. 338. Is there any responsible body of men or party advocating retrospective revaluation? — I do not think there is any body of men who advocate that, but there are numbers of individuals who do. 339. Is there any association or society which advocates that principle? —Not that I am aware of. I may mention, however, that I think the Socialist Church has passed a resolution, but it i a small body. 340. How does the rent of lease-in-perpetuity holders compare with the rents charged by private landlords?—l have not had wide experience of that. I only know of certain cases, and I think" there is not much difference; but I should say it is in favour of the lease in perpetuity. 341. What was your object in quoting the advertisement you have read? —Simply to show that these properties "are traded in; that there is this traffic in leaseholds; a traffic which It!;' should be suppressed. 342. In advocating the exemptions under the land-tax, do you recognise that without those exemptions it is a fair tax ? —Yes. 343. Mr. Matheson.] Do your figures go to show that the bulk of our exports are produced on freehold land? —No. 344. Do you admit that we are very prosperous with a large portion of. our land in the hands of freeholders? —I do not think the colony can be called prosperous when we have unemployed people in it. But I would say that we are probably better off than most other colonies under our present system. 345. Would you say that Denmark under freehold is prosperous, seeing the large volume of its exports? —No ; it would be a question of the conditions under which the people live. 346. But if it is shown that the average life of the people there is better than that of many other countries, what would you say? —I think in the case of all the Scandinavian countries the conditions of life are much more equal amongst the various classes than in most other countries. 347. If I say that our exports are very large, and that our average life in this colony is a comfortable one, "would you still say that the land-administration is not in keeping with commonsense and decency, seeing that our land is almost entirely freehold ?—The average life may be comfortable compared with the life of the people in other countries, but that may be in spite of
a—4.
608
I~H. A. ATKINSON.
the freehold. There are many conditions (hat conduce to the people's well-being. There is not only one evil to fight against—the land-monopoly is but one of the evils. 348. You reiterate that a country which parts with its freehold is acting without commonsense or decency? —Yes. 349. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not see the injustice that would be done by altering the leases without compensation, inasmuch as a great many of the leases have gone out of the original holders' hands at a certain amount of value because of the belief that original conditions would be adhered to? —There is a hardship there, but it cannot be helped. There is a great hardship in the case of land-tax to people who bought land under the impression that there would be no tax. The only thing to do would be to minimise the hardship without doing an injustice to the great body of the people. We must legislate in the interests of the great bulk of the people. 350. Do you not admit that the legislation of this country is the expression of the wish of the people through the Legislature ? —Nominally it is, of course. 351. These men are elected on a broad franchise, and they pass legislation dealing with our lands, and it is acquiesced in by the bulk of the people Is not that, as far as we can understand it, an agreement entered into by the people? -The appointed representatives of the people and bodies appointed in other ways to administer our affairs have often done things that they had no right to do. They thought they were acting within their powers, and have afterwards found they were not. This is such a case. 352. It has been acquiesced in by the people of the colony supporting them? —Even so, I do not see that I can give away what does not belong to me even if every person in the colony conspires to do so. They cannot give away the heritage of their lands which does not belong to them. The effect of allowing this in JCngland and other countries has been to amass estates in such a way that the poorer people cannot get access to them, or when they do it is at such a rental that they cannot make a decent living. 352 a. You believe in the Employers' Liability Act? —Yes. 352b. Under that an employer is responsible for the actions of his employee, and is not the State responsible for the actions of its employees —in this case members of Parliament? Should not the State bear any loss that is made? —Yes. 353. You say the lease in perpetuity is a mistake: should not the State bear the loss incurred through that mistake? —I do not say there is any loss. There should be a date fixed in some reasonable number of years when (he land should fall back to the Crown again. 354. You would destroy the present lease and substitute another for twenty-one years, and would not compensate the people for taking that from them? —No. When those leases fall into the State I would say pay the value of all improvements. 355. But nothing for the fact that you have substituted a short lease for a 999-vears lease? — No. Alexander William Miller examined. 356. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a blacksmith and wheelwright at Gebbie's Valley, near Motukarara, on the Little River line. I hold 3 acres of land under a lease from the Little River Road Board. 357. I understand you are here as leader of a deputation representing the settlers of Motukarara ?- There was a meeting of Motukarara residents to consider the land question. I was chairman of that meeting, and I am here to give the views of the meeting. The meeting was publicly called for the discussion of the land question, without any prejudice to any particular phase of it. It was mostly attended by Crown settlers, there being a Crown settlement —one of the very first established under the Ballance land-settlement scheme in 1892. This motion was carried'by a strong majority, " That this meeting is in favour of the present lease in perpetuity, without the option of purchase, as the best tenure for the country and people as a whole." It was further resolved, " That this meeting considers that all unsuccessful applicants for land at a ballot should be given a greater chance at future ballots by giving them one extra chance for every time they have applied unsuccessfully." They considered that those people who persisted in applying for land were certainly those who wanted to get a living from the land, and they should therefore be given a chance of acquiring a section in preference to those coming from another country and applying for the first time. I know, personally, that a number of people around me have applied ten or twelve times unsuccessfully, and any one who knows anything about it knows that every ballot costs the applicants time and money in making themselves acquainted with the sections. It was also moved and carried unanimously that the present cropping restrictions should be discontinued as soon as the tenant has complied with all the improvements necessary, and has satisfied the Land Board that he intends to be a bond fide settler. We hold that it is impossible to mako hard-and-fast rules as to how a man should crop his land, for land differs so much. The next motion was that the grouping of sections at ballots should be discontinued, as being entirely unsatisfactory and unnecessary. Every one was unanimous in saying that the grouping was an absurd condition. They could not see where it was any advantage to the Land Board or to the applicant, and they thought it was better that a man should be allowed to put in for whatever section he wanted,"or for those sections which he thought were most suitable to him. My own views may be different from what I have stated, but those are the views of the meeting. 358. How many were at the meeting?— Between thirty and forty. 359. Mr. Paul.\ Were they all working on the land who were at the meeting? —They were all workers on the land or landowners. 360. What was the resolution carried by? —About three to (wo. 361. Mr. Matheson.] Do you personally think that the State is wise in giving a lease for a thousand years at a fixed rental?— No. 362. Mr. Forbes.] There were between seven and eight hundred unsuccessful applicants in the case of the Levels Estate: would it not be stuffing the roll tremendously to give all these men
C—4.
A. W. MILLKR.I
609
an extra chance? —I understand that. You cannot give land to them all, but I think you should give land to the men who have tried hardest to get it. Because there are so many, it makes it all the more imperative to give those who have tried for so many times the first chance. If there are so many really wanting land, then more land should be thrown open. William Mcßeth Miller examined. 363. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer in the Rabbit Island Village Settlement. I hold 284 acres of second-class land, for which I pay Is. per acre. It is lease in perpetuity, and I have held the land for about eleven years. I would prefer the freehold, because I have no guarantee at the present time that my tenure will remain as it is. 364. Do you doubt the integrity of the Government? —I do. We have proof already in regard to our settlement. In the first case we held our land under the Land Act of 1882, which said that the Government must use our rents firstly towards draining our land. At the present time we are rated considerably for drainage works down there, and the Government will not use our rents for that purpose. As far as I can see, we will have to continue paying the rate. When the Government will not fulfil the conditions in one case there is reason to suppose that they will not in another. Apart from that, lam quite satisfied with the lease. 365. The Government expended a large sum of money there before the settlement was opened in straightening the river and banking the lake, and so forth? —Yes. 366. These works were fairly successful? —Yes. 367. Did the Government enter into any compact with the settlers that they were going to keep these works up for all time?" No, not beyond the conditions in the Land Act under which we hold our leases. 368. Are the rents not applied in the way set out in the Act? —No. 369. Are you quite sure of that ? Absolutely. Since we have held the land no money has been spent by the Government on the drainage of the lake. We petitioned the Government last year, and got various members to support our request, but we got no redress in the matter. 370. How much do you pay to keep up these works? —I pay £7 a year. 371. Mr. Anstey.] When was the work for draining the lake commenced? —About two years ago, and it was finished a few months ago. 372. Do you know who paid for it?— I paid a share of it, and am doing so still. 373. Did the Government not devote a sum of money to the work?—l think they voted £1,000 towards it. •374. Are you quite sure that the Government have taken no part of your rent and applied it as a subsidy for this outlet?- I would not like to say they have paid no portion of it, but I know that the great bulk of the money has been found by the settlers. 375. Do you know how much money has been paid out of rates towards that outlet from Lake Ellesmere? —A loan was raised, and so far only one year's rate has been collected. The work cost £7,500, and the Government gave £1,000. 376. You are not sure that any portion of the rents was devoted to this outlet?—l am sure. 377. If your lease is broken, do you not think you should get compensation I—Yes. 378. Have you any reason to suppose that you would not get it? No. 379. Mr. Paul.] Is the settlement prosperous? —Yes. 380. Is there any desire for the freehold amongst the settlers?- No. I think the last witness voiced the opinions of the majority of the people there. No doubt some would like the freehold, because under it they could trade in the land better; but I do not know whether they put their own profit against the principle of the thing. Personally, lam not in favour of the freehold at all. 381. Do you think it wise for the State to retain all the Crown land they have and also the freehold of the estates they purchased ?—Yes; but I think it unwise that they should give so long ft Igrso 382. What do you think is a workable lease ?—A period not exceeding a hundred years at the outside. , 383. Would you have a revaluation during that time? —That depends on what terms the revaluation would go on, and what, exemptions would be allowed the tenant. Perhaps a fifty-years tenure without revaluation would be preferable to a hundred years with revaluation. 384. The tenant would not pay an increased rent on his improvements—that would be taken for granted?— From the public point of view, I think revaluation should be periodical, and not at too long periods. . 385. Do you think anv more land should be let under lease in perpetuity ?—JNo. 386. Mr" Forbes.] According to the terms of the Land Act, your rent was first to be used for the payment of expenses and survey; secondly, in repayment of such works as may be necessary for the protection of the land. Might not your rent be used in the repayment of those works? If so, I think it would be more satisfactory if the Government gave us an explanation in that way. We have asked for information, but can get no reply. Ellesmere Neill examined. 387 The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer at Gebbie's Valley, where I lease 40 acres from a private owner. I have been there all my life. I consider the grouping system at the ballot as verv unfair. I have applied for land five or six times in the North Island and Canterbury, and have been unsuccessful every time, and think I should have some preference over the man who applies for the first time.
77—C. 4.
JE. NEILL.
C—4.
610
James Miller examined. 388. The Chairman.] What are you?-- lam a farmer at Motukarara, where I have 38 acres. lam the first settler under the Land for Settlements Act. The drainage of our land is very insufficient. 389. Do you think the Government acted unfairly by you? —Yes, to a certain extent, because they agreed with us that our rents were to go towards the drainage of the district, and they have not done so. They have assessed us for it, and have not expended our rents on it. It was after the canal was cut that the settlement was let, and the rent that was to be collected from the settlers was to go towards the drainage of the district and keeping up the lake dam. In place of that they have saddled us with rates for that purpose. William Edwin Agar examined. 390. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a stevedore, and president of the Lyttelton Stevedores' Union. I have been forty-one years in Lyttelton, where I have a freehold residential section. 391. What particular point do you desire to bring before the Commission ?—On behalf of the union I represent, I am here to impress on the Commission the necessity for the Crown acquiring land in the vicinity of Lyttelton for labourers. The position of casual workers is getting serious. The cost of living has increased practically 50 per cent, in fifteen years, whilst wages have not advanced at all—not 10 per cent., at any rate, and that only for certain classes of work. Members of our union are satisfied that the Government can acquire land for settlement. We do not necessarily require it under the lease in perpetuity, but under any system of leasehold. A great number of our members are prepared to take up sections in the full belief that it will assist them in their means of livelihood. Members of our union who have secured land in the settlement in the valley have benefited considerably by it, whilst the men, especially those with families, who live in Lyttelton all their time are no better off after fifty years than when they started. The man who can get a plot of 2 to 5 acres, and utilises his spare time in working on it, is better off than the man who lived in the Port and pays rent. There are perhaps three busy days in the week when practically every available man is employed, but for the remaining three days not 50 per cent, are employed. 392. Do you know of any block of land in the vicinity of Lyttelton which could be acquired? -There is a block on the other side of the harbour which I think could be obtained, and which would be suitable if a ferry service was put on. 393. How is that land held?—ls it freehold, and held for grazing purposes. I think the majority of it belongs to Mr. Gardiner, of Purau. 394. Has any attempt been made to get him to sell any of it?—l cannot say, but I know that it has been advocated for ten or eleven years that the Government should acquire that land. The arrival of steamers is very uncertain, and they may be signalled two hours before they come to the wharf. If a man goes to the valley he has no means of knowing when a steamer arrives, whereas if he is on the other side of the harbour he can see it come in and be across before it berths. We have about three hundred men in the union, and a large number of them live away from Lyttelton. They have to be in attendance all the year round and work day or night, because they have to be prepared to start work whenever a boat arrives. I believe we are better off than the majority of casual wharf workers in New Zealand, but at the same time the average rate of pay only pans out about £2 per week. The average rent of our men is about 9s. 395. Mr. Paul.] Do you find that vent is increasing out of all proportion to the rise in wages?— There has been practically no rise in wages, except in one class of work that employs only about one-third of the members of the union. There has also been an increase in the wages paid for frozen-meat work, but that only employs about 20 per cent, of the men. 396. You think if the Government acquired suitable land it would be taken up? —There is no.doubt about it 397. What does the union think would be a suitable lease?—We would be prepared to take up a twenty-one-years lease. We would prefer a thirty-three-years lease, with compensation for improvements —a Lyttelton Borough Council lease. 398. Mr. Forbes>.~\ Have you got up a petition amongst your members asking the Government to acquire this land?— Some years ago that was done, but not recently. 399. Do you not think you should get up a petition from those members willing to go on to this land and forward that to the Minister? —The member for Lyttelton has taken a great interest in this particular work, and he has consistently advocated it. Even in Mr. Joyce's time it was consistently kept before the Government, and I do not think a petition would do much more. 400. How many men are working in Lyttelton casually? —We have from 300 to 310 members. There is another union with about sixty members, and I dare say there are twenty to thirty outside of either union. Every meeting I suppose we have from twenty to thirty applications for outsiders wishing to join our union. 401. There are men outside of your union would be likely to take up this land?— Yes. 402. You consider that the position is now getting to such a stage that something must be done to relieve the wants of the casual labourers in Lyttelton ? —Yes. This work has to be done, and some one has to do it. Commerce must go on, and the Government would only be doing their dutv in assisting us. 403. Did men earn better wages at your work in previous years? —Yes. Most of the companies are now very anxious to get their boats speedily away, whereas formerly they were often in port a fortnight, and the men got regular wages all the time. Steamers that formerlv employed eighteen to twenty-four men, working three gangs, now work five gangs and employ fifty to sixty
W. E. AGAR.j
611
C—4.
men. When twenty to thirty men were employed they would make from 12s. 6d. to 155., whereas with the extra gangs employed they make 6s. or 7s. That means that a large amount of surplus labour has always to be on hand to meet the shipping requirements. 404. That is a reason why casual labour in Lyttelton is in a worse condition than it was ten years ago ? —That helps it, but the increased cost of living is the principal thing. As a rule, we pay from sto 10 per cent, more in Lyttelton than would be the case in Christchurch. Of course, the cheapness of Christchurch to our men is discounted by their having to pay train fare. 405. Mr. Paul.] Does your union favour leasehold as against freehold? —We have men of all shades of opinion in the union, and I would not answer for them as a body. I believe a majority of them are in favour of the leasehold, but, of course, we have some freeholders amongst us. I believe in the leasehold with periodical revaluation. 406. Would you apply that to future leases? —Yes. 407. Not to existing leases? —No; I should leave them intact. 408. Mr. Forbes.] Have the Borough Council leases for thirty-three years, with compensation for improvements, been a success? —Yes. 409. How do the houses on those leases compare with the houses on freehold sections? — Favourably in every respect; they are equal to the best class of house in Lyttelton. 410. The fear that people have, that unless the land is held under freehold the holder will not put up a house or improve the land has no foundation in Lyttelton with regard to the borough leases ? —No. John Allen examined. 411. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and member of the Land Board. I farm about 986 acres of freehold at Waikare. I have been a member of the Land Board for two years on the 7th March. 412. In that time you have seen a good deal of the working of the Land Act: is there any particular point that strikes you as wanting amendment? I think more discretionary power might be given to the Land Board, but I would not go so far as to say that I want the Act amended for that reason. In a great many cases the Board can use discretionary power, and the Act should be left as it is so as to prevent people abusing their privileges. 413. In regard to what particular point do you want more power?—ln the matter of cropping. 414. Do you think that the regulations as a general thing are just as satisfactory as they could be made? —I think so. In each case we have to take the circumstances into consideration. If I was a private landlord I would give concessions where they were reasonable, and as a Land Board we do so. In other cases the tenants come and ask for concessions that are quite inconsistent with good farming. For instance, we had an application the other day from a tenant who was given a concession last year. He had taken two white crops and then fallowed the land, and we gave him permission to take a tliird crop off. He came to-day and wanted a fourth crop, which, of course, we refused. We find in some of the small sections we have the most difficulty in the matter of cropping. The people would be inclined to crop the whole of the section year by year and thereby depreciate the value of the land, so that in a few years' time, when they could get nothing more out of it, they would throw the section up. The land would then lie on the Board's bands, or the Board would have to take a reduced rent. 415. In the matter of tenure, do you think the lease in perpetuity is favourable for the settlement of the country ?—Under the Land for Settlements Act I think it should not be altered, except as to periodical valuations in future leases. These improved estates have been resumed and paid for with borrowed money, and lam not in favour of giving the freehold in respect to them. But, in regard to Crown lands, to take up which people have to go to the back country and make hermits of themselves for the best part of their lives, I would give them any tenure they wanted — lease in perpetuity and right of purchase, perpetual lease, deferred payment, or for cash. They have to improve the land, and when they bring it into cultivation they are producing more wealth for the country. 416. You will have seen the working of the double or second ballot: do you think there is any room for improvement there? —I think the one ballot is quite sufficient. Ido not think a man should be compelled to take a section he does not want, and, so far as the Canterbury Land Board is concerned, we have never held a man to it. The Commissioner generally asks an applicant after he has drawn a section to say if he does not want it, and if he does not another ballot is drawn. We have never forfeited any money yet. 417. So you ease the rigour of the law in that respect? —Yes, we use a discretionary power probably a little bit beyond the law. 418. Is there anything else you would like to mention? —I would like to say a word in regard to the ballot for married and single women. I think there is a great anomaly there, to call it by no stronger name. A single woman or a widow can take up the maximum area of land, whereas a married woman, if her husband is alive, cannot. Probably she may have a large family, and yet she is not allowed to take up more than 320 acres. I think she shouni be put on the same footing as a single woman. In fact, I believe the position should be reversed; I think a single woman should not be able to take up more than 320 acres. 419. Mr. Johnston.] Would you advocate a straight-out ballot?- I would advocate a straightout ballot, but I would group the people with capital —that is to say, I would group all the applicants with, say, £200 of capital together, and I would allow them to ballot for certain sections. lam in favour of the scheme that Mr. Humphries prepared. I think that is about the best system I have seen, as every applicant gets into the ballot according to his capital. 420. We have had a good deal of complaint about the examination of applicants as to their financial position: what do you do in that matter? —We hold that a man who has not got any capital at all is not able to go on the land and make a success of it. I think the regulations provide that an applicant must hold three years' rental. Well, we modify that according to circumstances.
IJ. ALLEN.
0.-4.
612
421. Suppose a man had, say, one and a half years' rental, but he was a man of very large experience with a good reputation as a farm-labourer, would you allow his experience to count in place of a certain amount of capital?—l may tell you that the Canterbury Land Board, since 1 have been a member, have used their discretionary power in that way. If a man has not the capital that we think is necessary but lias a large experience, we allow him to go to the ballot. 422. We had complaints to the effect that you did not?—We do. We take a man's experience into consideration in all cases. 423. Have you had any cases of deception? —Yes, a considerable number of them. 424. In what way? —People come and give false evidence as to their means and as to their a S e ■ ri 425. How do you get at their capital? —The matter does not go beyond the Board, lhe Commissioner asks the question, " What capital have you got to go on this section with? lhe applicant tells us, and then the Commissioner asks for proof of it. We expect them to bring either their Post-office Savings-bank or other bank book, or some evidence as to the amount of their live and dead stock. 426. Do they ever bring a bank-book showing a certain amount to their credit which has probably been paid in a few weeks before? -Yes, we have had cases of that kind that have been paid in the day before, but we do not accept the proof. However, the Commissioner will be able to give you better evidence in regard to these matters. 427. Suppose a merchant or a tradesman in the town wants to put his savings into land for the future benefit of himself and his family, would you advocate relaxing the residential clause to enable him to do so?— Certainly not. A great amount of abuse would creep in. 428. Do you think it is bad policy to allow men in the towns to go on the land? I do not think we have put obstacles in the way of men in the towns going on the land if they desire to g;. on the land, but I am decidedly against allowing men living in the town to take up land and put another man to live on it. 429. But suppose you provide that the man or some member of his family must go and reside on the land in a given time or for a given time, do you think it would not encourage thrift if a man put his savings into land?- I do not think so; but he can always put his savings into freehold. However, as to your question in regard to relaxing the residential conditions, I wouldcertainly relax the conditions for three or four years in the case of ordinary Crown lands which have to be improved, but I certainly would not in the case of improved lands under the Land for Settlements Act. 430. Would you allow the holders of these 20-, 30-, 40-, or 50-acre sections to enter the ballot for a larger section?— Yes, if the holding is not sufficient to enable a man to maintain his family. We have always done so here ; but we have made it a condition that they must transfer their small sections if they are successful at the ballot. 431. Do you hold meetings anywhere except in Christchurch? —Yes, we have held a considerable number of meetings at Timaru; but that has been owing to ballots for settlements having taken place in that vicinity. About a year and a half ago we went nearly all through South Canterbury. We did not go through the Fairlie district. We held a meeting at Waimate, and we invited anybody to come there and give evidence or make complaints. 1 certainly think there should be periodical meetings of the Land Board in different parts of the land district, in order to save the tenants the expense of going all the way to Christchurch. In Canterbury we would hardly need meetings at places other than Christchurch, except Waimate or Timaru once or twice a year. 432. Have you had many forfeitures?— One was forfeited just when I was appointed to the Board, and there has been one forfeiture since in the case of a person who gave false evidence as to his age. 433. Has there been any forfeitures for the non-payment of rent or the infringement of conditions?— The forfeiture that took place just when I was appointed was for an infringement of the cropping conditions. The tenant took five crops off, in defiance of repeated warnings by the Board. There have been no forfeitures for non-payment of rent. ' 434. Do you think that such infringements should be met by a fine instead of forfeiture? — Yes, lam quite in favour of that; but it would have to be a stringent fine to act as a deterrent. 435. Is there much trafficking in the land under the Land for Settlements Act?—A good bit; but I may say, since I have been a member of the Board we have set our faces against this trafficking as much as possible. We had an instance not long ago where a man wanted to transfer a section he had only held for less than twelve months. We said he could surrender, but he did not want to surrender; he wanted to sell. But there has been no instance since I have been on the Board of a man drawing a section and selling it next day for £100 or £150. 436. Suppose a man has 100 acres, and his rent is 6s. per acre, and he is getting £600 for his goodwill over and above his improvements, which would bring his rent up to 12s. per acre in the ordinary way, would you approve of the incoming man paying that rental?-- No; I have been averse to big premiums being paid under the Land for Settlements Act. 437. Then, you would refuse a transfer if you thought the incoming man was giving more than a fair rent? —I would be inclined to do so; but, unfortunately, we cannot always do it. If a man has lived long enough on a section he can demand a transfer. 438. Have the estates under the Land for Settlements Act increased in value? —Yes, considerably. I think even the most recently purchased estates have increased in value. 439. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Act? —Yes. We have to pass a considerable number of applicants at almost every meeting. 440. Do you think this Act and the working of it are giving general satisfaction? —Well, at one time it did not, but it is giving more satisfaction now. Still, it is not giving general satisfaction yet, although I think myself it never will, because there will always be people who want more than they are entitled to.
J. ALLEN.]
613
C—4.
4:41. Do you think it would be a good thing if the Crown Lands Ranger kept a record of the amount of grain taken off each section ? —I think it would be a very good thing, but I think it is hardly practicable. 442. Why? —He would not be able to do it. It would mean a considerable amount of extra work, and perhaps he would not get a true statement, anyway, of the yields. 443. Could he not check the record from the books of the threshing-machine owner? —They could be manipulated as well. However, I think it would be a very good thing if the information could be obtained. It would help the Board when they had to deal with applicants asking for unreasonable cropping concessions. 444. Mr. McLennan.] If a settler has been on the land for ten years, and has put on all improvements according to the Act, would you be in favour of giving him full power to farm his land as he thinks fit, so long as he kept it clean of all weeds? —No, I would not. I think there ought to be some restriction. As I said before, I think the law should be kept in its entirety. 445. You know there is some land from which you can take a great number of crops without injury, so long as it is kept clean and worked properly? —As a practical man, I cannot agree with you. If you take a great number of crops from the land the grass will not hold. 446. 1 know of land in my neighbourhood that has been in wheat for the last fifteen years every second year, and it is growing splendid crops of wheat? —That may be so; but have you ever seen it in grass? 447. No? —Well, that is my reason for disagreeing with you. I have not the slightest doubt that by cropping and fallowing every second year it will grow good wheat; but if the time came when it was more profitable to grow grass you would find that the land would not grow or hold grass. 448. But the farmer would use manure to grow his grass : he would not leave his land without any benefit? —The difficulty is that if that were allowed the people would take advantage of it, and they would not keep their land clean. They would crop the land as long as they could, and then they would throw it up. 449. At the present time a good deal of the land, not only in Canterbury, but in North Otago, is very dirty with couch-grass and yarrow. Do you think a settler can keep his land clean by taking two white crops and the green crop allowed by the regulations? —He can get it clean. 450. Have you had any experience of couch-grass? —A little. 451. Could you clean a paddock that was badly infested with couch and yarrow by taking, say, a crop of wheat and a crop of turnips and another crop of wheat?- I have done it by using the cultivator and cultivating before I put in the turnips. 452. But experience in that rich soil has shown that it cannot be done in three or four years?— Well, the only thing for them to do is to fallow all the time. 453. If a man has to pay rent he cannot very well fallow unless he is allowed to put a turnip crop in? i would not prevent him putting in a turnip crop. 454. But it is against the Act ? —As a Land Board, we use discretionary power. We have never refused permission to take a green crop. 455. I know you use your discretionary power, but people, as a rule, do not care to be always coming before the Board asking for these liberties? —Well, in Canterbury we find they take the liberty before they apply. I would not object to them taking as many green crops as they wanted. 456. After a settler has cleaned his paddock, would you object to him putting in grass and oats for the last crop ? —I will answer by telling you what we do. If a settler has taken two white crops and a green crop, and he comes and asks us for a third crop, we say, " If you fallow the land you will be allowed to take a third white crop and sow it down." That is, in regard to good land. 457. Would you be in favour of prohibiting a man who has sold out the goodwill of his section from applying at the ballot for another section for a number of years? —We have done that, and we are doing it now. 458. Would you be in favour of prohibiting him from applying not only in Canterbury, but anywhere else in the colony, for, say, seven years ? —My own opinion is that it should be seven years; but I think a motion was before the Board making the period five years. I would make that prohibition apply all over the colony. 459. Mr. Anstey.\ You have already admitted that some lands are capable of bearing three white crops: do you think it is satisfactory for a tenant to have to ask permission to do a thing he is apparently perfectly entitled to? Would it not be much fairer for him if the conditions in his lease were altered ?- I think that would be a very good thing if embodied in the lease. 460. Then, would you object to the cropping conditions being altered in that respect —that they should be varied according to the quality of the land? —I would be quite agreeable to that. 461. Have your Board power to reduce rents in cases where they are too high? —No. Under some grazing leases we have, but not very many. 462. Are any of the sections under your administration too highly rented? —Yes. I think I know of Ihree on Lyndon No. 2 Settlement. They are small grazing-leases. 463. Can you reduce the rent now without reletting? —No. It can only be done by the Minister or Parliament. 464. Then, there is no power to do anything but to keep this dear land idle. Do you think the Board should have power to reduce the rent? —Yes; I think they should in certain cases. Still, 1 do not think the Board should have too much power. 465. Do you think the Board .should have power to put a little on where the rents are too cheap ? —Yes. 466. Under lease in perpetuity ?- No; I would not alter those rents, except in cases of forfeiture. Then, if the section is worth more money I think the Board should have discretionary power to levy a fair rent,
[j. ALLEN.
614
C—4.
467. Do you think it is necessary to apply the 10-per-cent. rebate all over? No. 468. Do you not think it would be wiser to apply this money in reducing rents manifestly too high, rather than making the reduction all over? —Yes, I do. I do not think, though, the rents are too high in regard to the land under our jurisdiction. In fact, a selection was surrendered the other day by a tenant because his father became ill, and he had to take his father s farm. We had over twenty applicants for the section, and that shows the rental was not too high. 469. There has been a demand from many people for an elective Land Board: what is your opinion in regard to that? lam not in favour of an elective Land Board, for this reason: the Government want men to carry out their policy on the Land Board, and if the Land Board is elective men might be returned who would not do that. In the case of Canterbury, it would mean that the townspeople would return four members, and there would probably be no representative from the country at all. Christchurch, Timaru, Ashburton, and Rangiora, and Kaiapoi would probably return a member each, and there might be no practical man on the Boaid. I think practical men should be appointed to the Board from each part of the district. 470. Do you think the Crown tenants should have some representation on the Board?—l do not think so. . , 471. Do you think there should be an instruction to the Minister in appointing members to the Land Board that members should be appointed from various parts of the land district?—l think so. 472. Do you think the various interests, such as the pastoral tenants, the lease-in-perpetuity tenants, the village-settlements tenants, and the general public should be represented on the Board as well I—No.1 —No. In my experience a landlord does not put one of his tenants to sit in jurisdiction over himself, and to say how he is to let his land and what terms and concessions shall be given. I think the Government ought to liave the power to nominate men to carry out their policy in its entirety. If they appoint practical men the general interests of the whole district are represented. 473. Mr. Paul.] I understood you to say you would not break any existing contract: would you be in favour of revaluation applying to future leases ?—Yes, I think so. I think the leases are too long. I think there should be periodical revaluations with security of tenure. 474. Then, of eourse s in the case of the land decreasing in value, the rent would be reduced? —Certainly, but I would not reduce it below the original capital value, because that would mean a loss to the State. . . . 475. As a practical farmer, what would you say would be a fair period at which to revalue the leases?— About thirty years. , , . . 476. Do you think the Canterbury Land District is too large for proper working by one Board ?—I do not. We have no difficuity in administering our district. 477. In the case of ordinary Crown lands and bush lands, do you not think it is possible to give an equivalent equal to the freehold, say, a long lease at a nominal rental ? I would be prepared to give them any tenure at all that they wanted, so long as they would go on the land and improve it. 478. You would apply that universally to Crown land?— Yes. 479. Mr. Matheson.] In any of these cases of perjury in regard to age, did you lay an infor-mation?-Yes, in four cases. 480. Were the men punished for it?— Yes, they were put on probation. 481. Have you given any attention to the Irish Land Settlement Act, or the way the land is held in Denmark?—l cannot say that I have. 482. The Crown has acquired land here for the purpose of settling it, and that settlement has been successful: do you think when a man has resided on his land for ten years, and has proved himself a bona fide settler, the State has accomplished what it set out to do? Yes. 483 Then, why do you object to letting him buy the freehold out of his savings if the State gets all the money it has expended ?—This land under the Land for Settlements Act has been purchased with borrowed money, and therefore the State is quite right in keeping that land for future generations. . 484 Supposing the land repays all they borrowed, they can hand it back, and the debt is cancelled: what is your objection to that?- There would be no more land for settlement for the Pe ° P 4B5 h I follow you ? At the present time, if the people were given the freehold of the whole of the land under the Land for Settlements Act in Canterbury, the Government could not get other estates, because there are none to get. 486 But sir, the tenants have that land for a thousand years now ?—Yes, but they generally stay on the land for ten or fifteen years and then they want a change or a larger place. There is plenty of freehold in the market, and they can go and purchase that 487 If they do make up their minds to change, does the land come back into the hands of the Government, or do they transfer ?—They transfer, and it is equally as good as buying and elll *488'^Have'vouj then, a distinct objection to the State parting with the freehold ?—No, I cannot say I have I object to them parting with the freehold of the lands under the Land for Settlements Act- but if the country demands it and wants it, I should say let them have it at a valuation at periodical times-wither on deferred payment or for cash right out, 489 Mr Forbes. 1 Do you think that the restriction which prevents a man with a small holding iii one of these settlements from going into the ballot, unless he has first disposed of his small section works rather harshly in some cases?—l think it is an absolute absurdity. We had a case of a man who held a 1-acre section, and he was not allowed to go into the ballot. I think the Act should be amended. . , .. 490. Have you in any case refused a man, who had three years rent in hand, permission to go into the ballot ?—No, we cannot.
C—4.
J. ALLEN. 1
615
491. In the case of a section loaded with improvements, has a man to show that he has money for the improvements, and three years' rental in addition I—No.1 —No. If he has money to p&y for the improvements that is all we require. Herbert Francis Lewis examined. 492. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer at Oxford. 1 hold in partnership with three others 3,900 acres under pastoral lease from the Government for fourteen years, and with another I hold 1,200 acres under pastoral lease. We pay about sd. to 6d. per acre. 1 also hold in partnership with three others 3,000 acres of sublease from Snowdale. We have held the land five years. 493. Has it been satisfactory, so far as your experience goes?—lt would be satisfactory if we could get a longer lease. Our country is all bush country, and we are not allowed to burn, although the fire has been through the standing timber once. It would not pay us to sow down under our short lease, and if the country is not sowed down the land will be absolutely useless. 494. Was the bush burnt by accident or intentionally?- The fire went through it some years ago. After taking the land up we sowed some of it down three times, because we were under the impression that we would get value for these improvements. Then we found that the valuation did not cover grasses, but only fencing, buildings, ditches, &c. 495. And you want that condition altered to cover grassing?— Yes. 496. How much Crown land have you under birch forest that you want to sow down ?—About 5,000 acres. 497. Then, at the present moment all the Crown land you hold is of practically no use to you ? —lt is of very little use if I"do not grass it, and it will not pay me to grass it unless 1 get a longer lease. 498. What does the grassing cost you? It costs 10s. per acre. We have sown down 1,000 acres already, and the grass has taken splendidly right to the very tops. We have nine years of our lease still to run, but the sowing will really cost us as much as the value of the land at the present time. 499. Mr. Johnston.\ How do you sow?--Broadcast through the burnt trees, and wherever we have sown the land is a sight to look at. The timber is still standing there. 500. Is it heavy bush? —Fairly heavy. The Land Board issues splitting licenses, and there are about twenty splitters at work, and they are taking the timber out as quickly as they can. In this way they are clearing the land very well. 501. What mixtures of grass did you sow? —Cocksfoot, white-clover, and timothy. I have had some of tha- cocksfoot down twenty years on my mother's land adjoining, and it is better now than the first day I sowed it. 502. What does this land carry in grass?—On the 3,900 acres in the first year we had nothing ; in the next year we had eight hundred sheep, and we mustered out six hundred ; and in the next year we put out fourteen hundred ewes and mustered out five hundred. We have a lot of bad country under snow, and we lost nine hundred that year. This year we have four hundred head of cattle on the block. 503. Have you any Californian thistle? —All sorts of weeds are coming up through the bush that I have not sowed "down. I have had two bunches of Cali'fornian thistle in the bush, and it cost me £5 to clear them. I eradicated it by burning the earth. I have not seen it since. 504. Mr. Anstey.] Would you consider the right to renew your existing lease a sufficient security? —Yes; I would sow every bit of it then. 505. To what extent would tliat increase the carrying-capacity I—By1—By three times the number. 506. Supose you had a renewal of your lease at an arbitration rental with your improvements protected, would you consider that a sufficiently secure tenure? Yes. Alexander Joyce examined. "507. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am time-ball keeper at Lyttelton. 508. Have you any land? —No. I may say I have been in the colony for forty years. 509. Have you any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—Yes. I wish to address the Commission on the question of land-tenure generally. I wish, first of all, to congratulate you upon the position you hold as members of this Commission. It is the most important Commission that has ever been set up in the colony. You are intrusted with the duty of inquiring into the land laws and their administration, and of suggesting such improvements as, in your opinion, are required for the benefit of the whole of the community. I hope that the suggestions vou make will lead to practical legislation, possibly not in the ensuing session, as it will be the last session of Parliament; but I hope that they will lead to such proposals being placed before the country at the general election that a Parliament will be returned with a mandate from the people to deal effectively with this important question. One hundred years ago there was no land question. The freeholder or the landholder was in absolute possession. He made what terms he required or could get from his tenant, whether for residence or cultivation, and his right to do so was practically unquestioned. Fifty years ago there was very little discussion upon this question • but at the present time a very large section of the community is convinced that the absolute freehold title to land is an injustice to the community. This change of public opinion has been brought about mainly by the writings of two men —one an Englishman, the other an American. I refer to Herbert Spencer in England, and to Henry George in America. Of course, there have been manv others who have dealt with the question ; but to these two men practically public opinion at the present time is due. Herbert Spencer, whose arguments I think I may say have never been confuted, showed the injustice of absolute property in land. Of course, I know as a legal fiction there is no absolute property; but practically land has been dealt with as if there was. He pro-
C—4.
616
[A. JOYCE.
pounded no means of altering the system, but he pointed out the evils, and he also pointed out what would have been a just system. Henry George, whose arguments also, as to the effect of absolute property in land, have hardly been questioned —certainly not seriously questioned--proposed a remedy, but, unfortunately, the remedy that he proposed was either unjust or impracticable, so that those who have adopted it-- known generally as the " single-taxers "--have really retarded the settlement of the question more than they have advanced it. His remedy, as, of course, every member of the Commission is aware, was practically the confiscation of land by making a rent-charge equal to its value. If that were done at one blow it would be unjust, and if it were to be done gradually it would be impracticable. But this does not prove that there is no just remedy to be found. And, as far as the colonies are concerned, I maintain that the remedy has been found, and has been in practical application for some years; and lam proud to say that it is this colony that has taken the lead in the matter. The Land for Settlements Act is a practical and a just remedy for the evils, subject to one condition, which I shall deal with directly. It authorises the Government, on behalf of the community, to repurchase land compulsorily if necessary, to extinguish the freehold title, and to reissue the land. At present there is a choice of tenure, but the Government may issue the land under a leasehold title. If this leasehold were a just one the problem would be solved; but, unfortunately, the leasehold title under which the land is reissued in the colony is not a just one. We practically extinguish one freehold title and create another. Under Mr. Ballance'o Land Act the land would be issued, subject to revaluation, at intervals of thirty years. Whatever the term may be —whether twenty, thirty, or forty years- - that, I believe, is the right principle on which the new lease should be granted. The lease in perpetuity is the most unjust, impolitic, and suicidal measure ever passed by any Parliament. If a leasehold title were granted with j\ twenty-one or thirty-years term, or whatever other term Parliament in its wisdom saw fit to fix., so long as it was not too long or too short, then the interest of the people would be conserved. But although I oppose the 999-vears lease, lam not in favour of any arbitrary and unjust change being made in the present leases. The lease is practically equal to a freehold, and as a freehold it must be considered in any alteration that the State on behalf of the people may make. My idea- -and I just offer it to the Commission as a suggestion —would be that the present leaseholder and his direct heirs should have the right to retain the possession of the land at the present rental as long as they desired to do so. But should the leaseholder or his heirs be willing to exchange this lease for a lease subject to periodical revaluation, he should then receive in cash from the State the difference between the original value and the value at the time of exchange. The new rental would then be calculated upon the new value. If the tenant or his direct heirs should want to sell the lease he might do so. The land would then be revalued, and, on a tenant coming forward who was willing to pay the rental represented by the new valuation, the old tenant would receive the difference from the State in the same way, and the new tenanf would pay on the new valuation. This would entail no burden upon the country as the increased rental would pay the interest on the amount paid ; it would give the present leaseholder the full advantage of the bargain made with the State, and it would secure to the State by future periodical revaluations a fair return of the value of the land. This, I maintain, would be perfectly fair, that the leasehold tenure, subject to periodical revaluation, is the only tenure that secures to the community its proper interest in the land. I do not want to take up too much of your time. I am quite convinced that, all of you gentlemen are familiar with the arguments on both sides ; in fact, I dare say you have had them almost ad nauseam; at any rate, you will have before you have completed your labours. lam going now to tell you a conversation T had with a leading politician in New Zealand. I always use the word "politician," because we have really so few statesmen that it is difficult to pick them out. This gentleman I met in Lyttelton at a time when I was taking a considerable interest in this question of land-nationalisation —which, of course, periodical revaluation practically is—and he told me that my view was perfectly correct —that the land should be considered as belonging to the whole community ; that the person using the land should pay a fair rental to the community for its use, subject, of course, to revaluation from time to time, as the land increased or decreased in value. And he said he would go even a step further: the land revenue should be for the equal benefit, so far as such a thing were possible, of the whole community —from the infant just born to the old man just tottering off. He said if the population was a million and the land revenue was a million, each individual in the community should be entitled to a benefit —not a cash benefit —but a benefit in the expenditure of that money, so far as possible, to the value of ill, and that the land revenue should not be applied to the general expenses of the country, relieving the large revenue-producers, but that it should be equally divided as far as possible individually, from the poorest to the richest —not in cash —but in benefit. T think I might go round this Commission and give them a considerable number of guesses as to whom that politician was. In fact, I think when I mention his name you will be rather surprised ; but I can bring the evidence of a gentleman who was present at the conversation. The gentleman expressing those opinions, which, I presume, would be called extremely socialistic, was Sir Harry Atkinson, the leader of the Conservative Government in the colony. Those were his private opinions—his political opinions, of course, we know. I have to thank you, gentlemen, for your courtesy. I wish to put a definition of the true position of the land before you for your consideration, which is that the land cannot justly be the property of an individual. It cannot justly be the property of any section of the community. It cannot even be considered as the absolute property of the whole community, but it is in the position of an estate in entail for the support, use, and enjoyment of the present possessors, to be by them handed down unhampered by unjust restrictions for the support, use, and enjoyment of future generations. 510. Your argument amounts to this, I think: that if you had the making of the lnw you would make the leasing system with periodical revaluation the only land-tenure? —Yes, 511. And the fee-simple would always remain with the Crown? —Yes.
A. JOYCE.I
617
C.—4.
512. I was glad to notice that you do not wish to confiscate any one's property, and you hold out a bait to the present holders of the lease in perpetuity by giving them, when the time came for making the change —giving them in cash the difference between the original value and the value of the property at the time of transition? —I think that is the only way that we can treat them justly. We have made a very foolish bargain, but, at the same time, it is a bargain, and, I think, it should be adhered to. Another thing I may say, that I omitted to mention in by remarks: I think that proposal would be very favourably received by the 999-years leaseholder, inasmuch 'that he can continue on bis present rental as long as he likes, and his heirs after him; but if the land increases in value he would then have capital by the increased value paid to him by the State to stock his land or effect improvements upon it. 513. Would you compel any one to come under your system? —No; he could continue at the present rental as long as he likes, but he should not be allowed to transfer the lease to anybody else except after revaluation. When he transferred the lease, instead of the incoming tenant paying him the difference in value, the State would pay it, and the incoming tenant would hold on a rental based upon the new value. 514. You would not allow him to transfer the lease to the party who was to follow him? —No, only to his own direct heir. A father might hand it to his son. 515. Mr. Anstey.\ Carrying out your proposal, that would involve the State finding a considerable sum of money to purchase out the goodwill? —Undoubtedly. 516. How do you propose to raise that money? —In the same way as the State raises other money. Of course, the sooner it is done the less the payment would be. 517. At what period would you make these arrangements to come into force? —I would not name any period. I think the time would come in the case of all leases when either the lessee would want to part with his interest, or else the increase in value would be such that he would be glad to have the difference to use upon the property. 518. Would you allow the tenant the option of accepting this when he chose?— Yes, because 1 consider that is the only way in which we can keep our bargain with him. 519. Under your system, how are you to ascertain the amount of goodwill attached to one of these leases? Simpty by valuing the unimproved value, the same as we do now. 520. We have heard of very large sums having been paid for goodwill in the case of some of these sections; for instance, we have heard of sums from £1 up to £500. The valuation, according to the present rateable value, would never approach anything like that sum ? —Then, we must come to one of two conclusions —either the valuation was wrong, or the new tenant was induced by some means —perhaps his own anxiety to get on the land, or some idea as to prospective value —to give a price more than it was worth. 521. Supposing, for the sake of argument, the tenant was offered £1,000 for his goodwill, and £500 of that is represented by his improvements and £500 by the goodwill —supposing, according to the Government valuation, there is no goodwill over and above the value of the improvements, upon whose valuation is the tenant to be paid —upon the valuation he can sell out at or the Government valuation I—l1 —I presume in that case it would go to arbitration; but Ido not think such differences in the estimated value would be possible if the leases were subject to periodical revaluation, though they might be possible under the 999-years lease, which, being practically a freehold, might command a prospective value. 522. Supposing the existing tenant is actually offered £500 for the goodwill, do you mean to say the tenant must be deprived of the whole of that £500 which his section would fetch in the market? —No; I say it would be subject to arbitration. 523. Mr. Paul.] Do you believe in a universal system of leasehold? —I do 524. What would be your answer to the objection of some people to paying rent under a leasehold tenure?- My answer is this: True, you will have to pay rent, and if you do not or cannot pay rent you will lose your hold upon the land; but I think a few minutes' consideration will show you that under the freehold tenure you also pay rent, that you cannot avoid paying rent, and moreover that under the freehold system, if you cannot pay rent you lose not only your hold upon the land, but also run a very great risk of losing a large portion of the capital value of the land and of the money you have expended upon improvements. Now, as to the question of rent. If you hold a piece of land under the freehold system, you must occupy one of two positions: either you hold the land free of encumbrance that is, the land represents capital —or you hold it subject to a mortgage. In the first case, the rent of the land is the interest of the capital value of the land. For instance, we will suppose that you hold a piece of land worth £500, and that money on investment will return 7 per cent, interest. Your £500, if invested, would give you an interest of £35 a year, but you forego this interest in exchange for the me of the land, which, if there is any logic in figures, is equivalent to paying a rental of £35 a year. To make the matter plainer, we will suppose you invested your £500, receiving £35 a year interest, and then pay that amount for the use of the land. I presume you would then allow that you were paying rent. In this latter case, you would frequently be in a better position than if you held the freehold; for, supposing your occupancy of the land to be unprofitable, or, should you from any cause wish to leave it, if you were a tenant you could do so on giving a reasonable notice, but if you were a freeholder, you would have to find a purchaser for the property, and probably, if you were compelled to force your property on the market, you would find the nominal value of £500 considerably reduced, and vou would lose the difference. In the second place, where you hold the property subject to a mortgage, the interest of the mortgage is the rent you pay for the land, but it is not the whole of the rent. The mortgagee always endeavours and generally succeeds in retaining a margin between the value of the property and the amount advanced upon mortgage. The interest of this amount has to be added to the interest paid on the mortgage, the whole amount being the rent paid for the land. To the person holding under this tenure, the term freeholder is a sarcasm. The
78—C. 4.
C—4.
618
A. JOYCE.
only freedom he has is the freedom to work for the mortgagee, the margin between the value of the property and the amount advanced upon mortgage, together with the money which, under the fond delusion that he is a freeholder, he has expended upon improvements, chain him to the land. The principal of the mortgage is as a millstone round his neck, a weight from which he is unable to free himself, and which frequently, after a few years struggling, drags him to the bottom of a sea of debt. The mortgagee either forecloses, in which case the land submitted to a forced sale barely realises sufficient to pay the mortgage and expenses, leaving the so-called freeholder ruined and helpless, or else the mortgagee suffers him to remain in possession a freeholder in name, but a tenant in reality —a tenant without the option of relinquishing his tenancy, except under the penalty of absolute ruin. 525. I take it you advocate the cessation of a further sale of Crown land? -Most decidedly. 526. Do you think the Crown land of the colony would be settled successfully under the leasehold system? —I am convinced they would. 527. Would you be prepared to vary the conditions of leases of bush land? —As to bush land, I would be quite willing to give the leases for the first term at a merely nominal rental. In fact, as to a good deal of bush land, I think the State would make a very good bargain if it gave the land for the first twenty years without any rental at all, subject, of course, to improvement and residence conditions. 528. Do you think that successful settlement might ensue under that system, because a man working on the land would have no rent to pay nor capital value to pay? He would certainly have an advantage, so far as rental was concerned. He would have no rental to pay. Whether that would be sufficient to enable him to become successful I cannot say, but that is a matter that would have to be worked out by the man himself. 529. A good deal would depend on the man himself? —Yes, upon his energy, his ability, and his health. 530. Mr. Matheson.] Seeing that you consider we have so few statesmen and so many politicians, do you think there would be a great risk of political power being wrongly applied under your scheme, when all the land would be occupied by tenants of the Crown ? —I do not think so, for this reason: that the bulk of the population must always be in the towns, and, although I can quite imagine that if the whole of the country was cut up into small farms, and could be fairly held by a farming community, there might be pressure to get the leases converted into freeholds; but, as I say, the bulk of the population being in the towns, and having a direct interest in preventing this change, I do not think there would be any chance of it being carried any more than there is of our educational system being interfered with. There is another point I would like to bring out: a great deal has been made by some of the new papers with regard to the present leasehold tenants desiring to have freeholds. I do not at all doubt that they would like to have the option of the freehold, because the freehold would relieve them from conditions as to cropping and other restrictions, which, in the interests of the country, the tenants have to observe under the leasehold, and the freehold would also give them security that the whole of the future increase in the value of the land would belong to them, and the freehold would give them other rights which I do not think they possess under the present tenure. But 1 do not see that that is any argument whatever in favour of making a change. If you were to set up a Commission to go round the country and ask every man if he would like the State to give him a five-pound note on his birthday, I have no doubt there would be very considerable support to that; or if every person was asked whether he would like a pension of £3 a week at fifty years of age, that offer would be jumped at, but that would be no evidence that the proposal would be just or politic from the point of view of the State. Charles John Woon examined. 531. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a carpenter, and I have been here all my life. I hold 3 acres of land at Fendalton under lease in perpetuity. My rent is £8 a year. lam very well satisfied with my selection. I have been there from the beginning of the settlement. - 532. Have your dealings with the Ijand Board -been satisfactory? Fairly satisfactory. I only had one small difference with them in respect to a drain. Otherwise lam very well satisfied, and am perfectly satisfied witli respect to the tenure. Ido not wish any alteration. 533. Have you had occasion to approach the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes, and I got the money I asked for, and there was no delay in my getting it. I may state that I did not ask for much. The Board had good value for security for the small amount I asked for. 534. Mr. Anstey.\ You are on one of these village settlements? -Yes. 535. Do you think that system ought to be extended? —Yes. 536. Is there a demand for that kind of land? —Yes, because when any one wants to sell out they have very little trouble in disposing of their section. 537. Mr. Paul.~\ Do you think there is a demand for more of these settlements? —Yes, I think so. 538. Do you feel that you enjoy an advantage over your fellow-workmen in being a tenant of the Crown on one of these settlements? —I do not know that I have an advantage over any other workmen, but I took up this place as a home, and my rent is not very heavy. 539. Seeing the low rent you have to pay, do you not feel that you have an advantage over your fellow-workers who have to pay rent in the towns to private landlords?— Yes. 540. Do you think that the rents in the cities have increased out of all proportion to the increase in wages? —The cause of rents being increased is, I think, the fact that people are building a better class of house than they used to. 541. Do you think that excessive rent is becoming a serious handicap to the city dweller?--I cannot say for certain, because Ido not live in (he town. My rent is not large. I can pretty well make up my rent from the section itself. I keep a cow and it pretty well makes up my rent. 542. Mr. Matheson.] If further land is cut up for workmen's homes near the cities, what area
C—4.
619
0. J. WOOD.j
do you think the sections should be?—l consider that 3 acres is small enough. It is impossible for a man to make a living off 3 acres, but if he were a worker I think that would be a fair size. 543. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not think it would be a very great I'elp to the working-man if houses were erected on these sections ?—Would you charge interest on the cost of the house, or would the tenant pay for the building afterwards 544. Yes, he would pay interest in his rent?—l daie say it would be an advantage to some men. I may inform the Commission that when 1 took up my section 1 had hardly enough money to pay the rent, but 1 have since that time managed to put up a good four-roomed house with verandah, and I suppose what 1 have been able to do other men can also do. 545. Mr. Johnston.] What is the price of a six-roomed house at the present time—a plain, good, substantial house? —About .£250, but it would be a very plain workman's cottage. 546. Do you know the rent of a six-roomed cottage in town? —I think 12s. for four rooms and scullery. 547. What would be the cost of such a building ? -There is hot water in a good many of them. The building would run up to about £300. 548. Mr. Paul.] Do you know of any cottages without modern conveniences and on less than a quarter of an acre with rents at 12s. a week? —Not personally. 549. Do you think there are such places? —There are places you can get in Christchurch for 6s. or 75., but they are not much good.
Ciißis-TtHURCH, Thursday, 27th April, 1905. Alexander Cracroft Wilson examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am Registrar of the Canterbury College, in which position I have been for about fifteen years. 2. What is the area of land under your jurisdiction? —I might explain that although we have a large number of acre the revenue is distributed over a number of departments. We also have two classes of reserves—agricultural reserves and pastoral reserves. We have about 200,000 acres of pastoral land, and the revenue from that endowment is kept distinct for superior education, technical education, the museum, and so forth. Then, under the technical education branch, there are four or five different sub-departments again. 3. We would like to ascertain the terms of your lease as regards conditions of improvements, residence, tenure, and so on? —Our pastoral lease is agreed to by the Government. 4. How much agricultural land have you? —12,000 acres. 5. Is that land divided over a variety of departments in the same way as the pastoral land is? -It is devoted more to the common purposes of education, such as the College and Boys' and Girls' High Schools. 6. Mr. Anstey.] You have a lot of town property, have you not? —Not much. We have a few sections in small towns, but they do not bring us in much money. 7. The Chairman.] For what term are your agricultural leases?— Fourteen years. 8. What are the terms with regard to'improvements ?—Perhaps I should explain that these pastoral runs of ours are in rather a peculiar position. Ido not think it is generally known that the tenant, as a rule, has a big block of freehold of iiis own in the centre of these blocks of ours, on which he puts all his improvements and carries oat any little cropping that he does. He is not dependent on our land for his improvements. 9. Have your agricultural tenants to submit themselves to any programme of improvement?— They have in regard to cropping, but not as to improvements. 10. What are the cropping regulations? —Not more than two straw crops in succession, unless special permission is given. They are inspected every year to see that the conditions are not being violated. ' . '11. Have they to rest the land in grass at all?— They have to sow it down regularly m grass, and in many cases it remains in grass for a considerable period. 12. Have the tenants the right of renewal?— No. 13. They are simply at the discretion of the College Board of Governors?— Yes. 14. Usually, I suppose, they do get another term?— Yes. 15. How many tenants have you on the 12,000 acres of agricultural land?—l should say one hundred and fifty. 16. Mr. Johnston.] How many tenants are there on the pastoral land?— Very few; say, ten. 17. You say that the pastoral tenants have freehold adjoining their leases: how did they acquire this land?— About twenty-five years ago there was a great boom in the purchase of land, and in those days they thought their fortunes were made if Ihey bought heavily into the land for homestead purposes, sheep-yards, and so on, and they thought that by picking the eyes out of the country they would to a great extent secure the pastoral facilities enjoyed by the use of these runs. 18. That means to say that they gridironed the property ?—No. 19. They picked the eyes out of the land ?—Yes; but it might have been done because the land was more level than other parts. 20. They could practically dictate the rent they give to you?—ln a great measure. They thought they could. 21. What is the revenue from the agricultural tenants? —£16,000. 22. And from the pastoral tenants ?—Say, £6,000. 23. This land is wholly and solely for Canterbury College?— One reserve of 64,000 acres and another of 37,000 acres is devoted to superior education, which means the real university and
C—4.
620
[A. G. WILSON.
classical work. Then there are, say, three reserves devoted to the museum and technical science which embraces three or four special departments, and the acreage in those reserves is about 100,000 acres. 24. Does that embrace all that your endowments are used for? —No. There. are the Boys' and Girls' High Schools which come out of the agricultural rents. 25. Who controls the education system: do you? —No; we are controlled by the University. Canterbury College in the conduct of the work is subject to the guidance of the University of New Zealand. 26. What do you uo with the money you get for the Boys' and Girls' High Schools? —We spend the whole of it in educating the boys and girls. 27. Do you control the High Schools of Christchurch? —Yes. But we have nothing to do with the mushroom high schools which have been established within the last few weeks. 28. Would it be advantageous to the Board of Governors if they got a stated revenue from the Government and handed over their endowments to the State? —1 do not think it would matter to them. There would, however, always be the danger that that would be the rirst money to be cut off in the event of trouble overtaking the colony. 29. Has you revenue decreased or increased in the last ten years?-—lt has gradually increased. 30. What is that increase derived from—from the agricultural or from the pastoral leases ? —From the agricultural leases. There has been a great demand for them lately. 31. Are the pastoral lessees improving the land at all? —No. 32. They do not attempt sowing at all? —No; that is rather ungrateful country, most of it. 33. Is it capable of improvements at all ? —I do not think it is much, except by fencing. It is a question whether the grass will take in that high country. 34. Do your agricultural tehants give you satisfaction? Have you any trouble with them? None whatever. 35. Do they pay their rent? —When they get accustomed to it. 36. Do they generally take up the land again after their first term? —They would like to. 37. As far as you allow them, do they? —1 think so. 38. Do you think they are satisfied with their tenure? —I think so. Of course, there are one or two that one would not have at any price after our experience of them. 39. You let them go and get good men? —If we can. 40. Mr. Anstey.] Is your new lease one that has been adopted somewhat recently?—No, but there are one or two new clauses in it; for instance, the valuation-for-improvement clause is new. 41. How long has that been in the lease? —It was really available before it got into the printed lease. 42. Is it not a fact that it was not available until you had brought yourselves within the conditions of the Public Bodies' Powers Act? —We are not under those .conditions yet. 43. How long is it since you granted your tenants this valuation clause? —Say, five years. 44. Previous to that there was no valuation clause in your leases? —No. 45. How many tenants are there now tinder the old lease without revaluation? —They get it when they ask for it. The position is that if they ask for it and put a proper application before us they generally get it, whether it is included in the lease or not. 46. In the case of renewals, provided the tenant is a good man, you invariably give him these new conditions now? —Yes; but a great many do not desire to avail themselves of the valuation clause. They may have a house adjacent and also conveniences on their own land. 47. That involves the necessity of the tenant holding two sections? —Yes, he may have his own freehold, which would put him in a position of giving a better price for our reserve. 48. Do you insert a clause giving value for improvements in your pastoral leases as well? — There is a stipulation in regard to these reserves that the incoming tenant pays to the outgoing tenant. There is nothing much in that clause where the tenant resides on his own freehold. 49. The question is whether you insert that clause in your lease? —A somewhat similar clause. 50. You say that a large number of people have freehold adjoining these pastoral reserves: is -it a fact that owing to the lack of this valuation clause the tenants had no security of tenure, and therefore the adjoining freeholders were the only ones who could take the leases up? —He, of course, was in the position to hold the pre-emptive right. 51. If you had given a valuation clause there would have been nothing to stop the outsider coming in and building on your land 2 —l do not allow that. They probably got the only land available for the purpose —perhaps the only land with water. But, as a fact, they thought there was a great deal of money in it, and most of them ruined themselves in buying this freehold land in the centre of the run. 52. Is it not a fact that this made it more profitable for a freehold man adjoining than for an outsider to come in?—ln some cases, yes. 53. Do you think it would be a wise thing for all these endowments to be administered by one body, say, the Land Board ? —No, I do not. 54. Do you think they would be better administered as they are now? —I think so. 55. In the event of their being administered by your Board, would there be any particular objection to your leasing tbem under the same conditions as the Land Board —namely, full valuation for improvements within reasonable limits, and also renewal at arbitration rent? —Our system is to name a certain price, which may be attached to the freehold value of the land. For instance, take a small reserve of 100 acres. A good deal depends on the character of the land itself, and we go up to £200 that the incoming man would have to pay to the outgoing tenant. 56. Is your limit £200? —We have no real limit, but practically that has come to be our limit. 57. Is it not a fact that this limit in most cases is utterly inadequate to the improvement? —No.
0.—4
621
A. C. WILSON.J
58. We had a complaint from a tenant at St. Andrews. He was leasing about 250 acres from you, for which he was paying 10s. or lis. per acre, and your limit for his improvements was £150. Do you think that is sufficient?- Perhaps it ought to be subdivided. •59. Do you think £150 is sufficient to allow a man for his improvements on 250 acres of good land? —It is a very difficult position. You have got to see that the land is not overloaded with improvements. All that is required are the ordinary conveniences for working the land. 60. Do you think that a valuation for improvements of £1 per acre, which involves an additional Is. per acre rent, would overburden lOs.-an-acre land? —I should think it would, to a certain extent. 61. With regard to the cropping conditions, we were told yesterday that they were useless and out of date: do you think there should be cropping restrictions ? 1 do, most distinctly. 62. I have been informed that the revenue for the Boys' High School is much more than you need for its purposes, and that the revenue for the Girls' High School is too small: is that true? Not at all. 63. Are they both sufficient for the purpose?— No. The Boys' High School reserve is of better quality than the Girls' High School reserves, which are ordinary Canterbury sand and shingle. 64. Are there more boys than girls at the school? —No, I do not think so. 65. You have a considerable sum of money invested on mortgage from which you derive a revenue? Can you tell us what the amount is? —£10,000. 66. At 5 per cent. 1- -Yes. 67. Can you tell us where you derived that money from? Was it from the revenue of the land reserves ? —lt has been generally derived from the sale of Government lands. 68. Has not a portion been derived from the rent of the land? —No. 69. Mr. Paul.] Do you think*, as a general principle, that a fair valuation should be allowed the tenant for his improvements? —I think so. It is all provided for in the lease. 70. Is not there generally an amount that is inadequate for the proper working of the farm? -You must also consider the letting-value of the reserve. Many of these people do not care two straws about that valuation clause, because they have got conveniences elsewhere. 71. Will you admit that every man, who is dependent entirely on the lease he has from you, does not think anything of that valuation clause? —In that case it would be considerably worth his while to have it; he must have some place to live in. 72. What lease do you use for the small sections in the different towns you mentioned ?—They are not worth talking about. They bring in no revenue, and are often let for some trumpery sum a year. Ido not know that we ever go to the trouble of drawing out a lease for them. 73. Has a tenant never put a building on one of these sections? No. 74. Why is that ? —I cannot say, lam sure. 75. Would you give valuation for improvements on those sections? —We have never done it yet. 76. Might that not be the reason why there are no improvements on them, and why they are not bringing in much revenue? —No, I do not think so. 77. Do you think they are ever likely to be of any value, either to the Board or to the tenant?—lf that particular part of the town goes ahead, they would soon bring in revenue; but they are in what you may call the back slums of Timaru. 78. Do you think that if the town went ahead tenants would build on that land without valuation for improvements? —They would get a twenty-years lease, perhaps. 79. Do you think they are entitled to valuation for improvements, as well as to a twentyyears lease?— There would be the same trouble again. You would put a large value on to a quarter-acre section. . 80. Do you know that there are some small properties in Timaru which have good buildings on them? —Yes. 81. The Borough Council leases have good buildings on them?- Ihey are (xlasgow leases probably; but these sections of ours are in the back parts of the town, and have never risen in value. 82. You do not think you would get any advantage from them if you allowed valuation for improvements ? —I do not think it would be wise to do it. 83. Do you control any endowment which is devoted to the public library in Christchurch ?— It is mixed un in these divisions I have been talking about. It is a subsidy from a particular fund amongst three or four other institutions. 84. Have you seriously considered the question as to whether it would be wise to sell these endowments for cash? —I have. 85. Do you think it would?—l do not. 86. Do you think that the increasing value of land is likely to keep pace with the increasing needs of the community? —We do sell occasionally with the consent of the Governor, but that happens only very rarely, and because of special conditions. 87. Mr. Matheson.] Who have the election of your Board of Governors ?—The Government nominates one, the graduates nominate two or three, and the teachers and School Committees also nominate representatives. 88 Have the public at large no vote?— Not except through the School Committees. 89. The whole of the Board of Governors are elected by the bodies whose trusts they are administering? —Whose interests they represent. _ _ . „ 90 Do you never show the working-expenses of the Board m your annual report! —there are no expenses on the part of the Board, and clerical services are charged to the maintenance account. wtiat ig the cogt 0 f administering these trusts?— The College pays the whole of the salaries, and it gets reimbursed from the different endowments set aside for the different institutions.
C—4.
622
r A. C. WILSON,
92. Mr. Anstey.~\ Is it a fact that jour Board have a number of sections adjoining main streets in Timaru, adjoining the Main South School and adjoining the main park? —Yes. 93. Is that what you call the slums of Timaru?— I will withdraw the word " slums." 94. Is it not a fact that your land on main street has lain a wilderness, simply because you will not give any security to any one to improve it?- No. The tenant whom we allowed to occupy that land was not a very good tenant. He occupied it as a kind of nursery garden. He was very slow in paying his-rent and gave us no end of trouble, and yet he occupied the place till he died. He was the only man who would give us anything for it. 95. Is it not a fact that you could have let it at a good price if you had given security for a person to build on it? —Not that I know of. 96. Is there any reason why you should not give a Glasgow lease for these sections?- There are two people required for a Glasgow lease—one to let and the other to take it. These are rather out-of-the-way places. Alexandee Campbell Pringle examined. 97. The Chair man.] What are you? lam a farmer, but sold my farm about three years ago. lam a member of the Canterbury Land Board. I had been over thirty-nine years in the Timaru district, and have been a member of a Land Board for about twelve years. 98. What is your opinion of the lease in perpetuity with regard to the settlement policy of the country? —I think it has been a first-class thing for the country. A great many men would not have a piece of land to their name but for the lease in perpetuity. There is many a man who had but little capital who would not have had a chance of getting land but for the lease in perpetuity. 99. Taking them as a whole, do you think the tenants are fairly well satisfied with their tenure? —Yes. 100. They are all prospering and in a fair way? —They are all doing very well now. When we started at first times were not good, and many went on with small capital, and it took them all their time to pull through. In the last two years, however, every one is making money out of the leases. 101. If we had a recurrence of bad times, do you think they could pull through? —In Canterbury they could. 102. We have had evidence that it might be financially advantageous to the State if these people were allowed to pay off a portion of their capital value, and thereby lessen their rent. What is your opinion on that point? —I think there was a talk about giving them a free hand in working their holdings, and I think before the inspection by the Ranger is done awav with it would be well to make the lessee pay off half the capital of the freehold. 103. We had evidence yesterday from a very high authority that there was no use in having any cropping restrictions at all. As a practical farmer of long experience, what do you say to that? —I would say you want restrictions, because if you give the tenants a free hand some of them will no nothing but crop year after year. A few years ago, before the Rangers started a system by which they could keep a check on the cropping, some of the tenants used to crop year after year. 104. In other words, they harry the land and render it worthless for a time? —It takes two or three years to recover. You have to fallow the land and work it before you can get it back to its original state. 105. The tenant in that case might not only run the laud out, but himself as well, and then the land might revert to the Crown?- Yes, although I do not think that is likely to happen in Canterbury. But if bad times came these are the men who would go down first. 106. Mr. Johnston.'] Have the Government brought any pressure at all to bear on you as a Board in your administration of the land? —Not that I know of. 107. You say the land settled under the Land for Settlements Act has been a success? —Yes. 108. In regard to the classification of land, would you classify the lands of Canterbury as a province, or would you classify the lands of the island as an island? -Up till about two years ago the Commissioner and surveyors used to classify and divide the different estates. - 109. Do you think the present system of classification is wrong?- I regard all the land that will grow crops as first-class land. 110. Would you approve of dwellers in the towns having certain residential restrictions removed to allow them to acquire land for themselves and their families? —If you take away the restrictions in the case of a man in the town, but should you not remove them in the case of the farmer who has sons growing up that he wants to settle on the land. If the son is under twentyone years of age he cannot take up land under the Land for Settlements Act. If you break the lease for the son of a man in the town, why should you not break it for the son of a farmer in the country. The country people would clamour for the same privilege that you give to the man in the town. 111. Why should they not get them? —The law says just now that he must be twenty-one years of age before he can apply for a section. 112. Do you think that should be altered? —I do not think so. Anybody can go in for Crown land if they are seventeen years of age, but a boy or a girl of seventeen is not fit to go on a farm and look after it. 113. Do you believe in the holder of a homestead section being allowed to apply for a larger section under the Land for Settlements Act?— Yes. Many of the men start on a small section, and if you insist on them surrendering before they can enter the ballot for a larger section you will simply keep them on the small block all their lives. You will give them no chance to better their condition. 114. Do you think that the big Canterbury runs are cut up sufficiently at the present time?— I think some of the companies hold two or three runs, and they might be subdivided. But if you cut the other runs up and take some of the best grazing country away from the front of them I
C—4.
A. C. PRINGLE. I
623
think you will simply spoil the back country. 1 think no run should be capable of carrying less than five thousand sheep. 115. As some of the high country requires a lot of capital to stock and improve it, do you not think the tenants should be encouraged to improve their runs? —Yes. 116. Have you had any experience of grassing this high country at all?— 1 have seen it done, and I have seen the grass take well up to 3,000 ft. The method was to burn the tussock and surface-sow in the spring. 117. What grasses? —1 know of one case where a mixture of cocksfoot, ryegrass, clovers, timothy, and crested dogstail was used. The latter is an expensive seed; but the sheep never eat the seed, and it will do as well as any I know of up to 2,000 ft. on the tussock land. But if you begin surface-sowing you must fence off the land. It is no use to surface-sow if you are going to stock the land all the year round. You must spell the land every two or three years to enable the grass-seed to keep going. 118. Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Act? I know no more than what comes before the Board. I know of two particular cases when Rosewill was cut up. Two different men wanted to build decent sorts of houses. I know one house cost between £350 and £400, and the man thought he would get an advance from the Advances to Settlers Office. He built the house and applied to them, and they told him they could not advance any money until he had resided twelve months. The same thing occurred with the other party. A lot of these men when they go on the sections have not sufficient money to stock the section and build a decent house, and they do not want to make two jobs of it, and I do not see why the Department should insist on twelve months' residence before they will advance a loan. I think they should advance after three or six months just the same as after twelve months. 119. You think the Act was all right if some of the conditions were altered? —Yes, that is what I mean. 120. Mr. McLennan.] You have been through the south? —Yes; I have been all through Canterbury. 121. You are aware there is a good deal of dissatisfaction amongst the Crown tenants at Waikakahi in regard to cropping? —Of course, they all want to grow wheat when wheat is up. 122. As a farmer, do you think it is possible to clean a paddock infested with couch and yarrow with two white and one green crop ?- I do not think you can clean ground at all with < topping. 123. Do you not think it would be advisable to allow Crown tenants more liberty to green-crop, (o enable them to clean yarrow and couch out of the ground ?- But weeds will come after green crops worse than after grain-crops if you do not clean the land well before. 124. Do you not think it would be an advantage to the tenants if they drilled turnips, and hand-hoed them until such time as they could get the cultivator through the drill? —Yes; but you cannot get the tenants to do that. 125. We had evidence that tenants were compelled to sow grass on land that was very badly infested with couch and yarrow?— That is bad farming. 126. But they say the Land Board would not allow them to work the land and take green crops off? If you want to clean the land you must fallow it,. There is no use trying to grow crops amongst couch and yarrow. 127. But it is very hard to fallow the ground unless you get some crop off to pay the rent? —I know from experience you generally get paid for all your work if you give the land a good fallow and work it well. In the last two seasons you could not clean the twitch out because of the wet; but in a dry season, if you give the land a good knocking about and clean it well, you will get twice the crop next year. 128. We had one witness who stated in evidence that when he was putting a paddock in grass heavy rain came when he was half through, with the result that he could not go any further, and half of his paddock was left ungrassed. He said that when he applied to the Land Board they would not allow him to replough the land that was not in grass, to enable him to put grass in. Do you think that was right?- -He could have reploughed it without the sanction of the Board and sowed it down. 129. He said he applied for the sanction of the Board and it was refused: is that so? —I do not know the circumstances of the case. 130. Do you think it would be for the benefit of the tenants and all concerned if the Land Board had more discretionary power to enable them to relegate that power to the Ranger and to practical farmers in the locality?- I think it would be a case of too many cooks. I think between the Land Board and the Ranger and two practical farmers they would simply do as they pleased. A good few of them try to do that now as it is. 131. Do you think it would be advisable to grant them liberty to take as many turnip crops as they liked, so long as they drilled them in and hand-hoed them? —I do not think the Board would interfere with them. I think the Board would give them leave if they asked for it. 132. Mr. Anstey.\ You say the lease-in-perpetuity tenure is a very favourable one to the tenant: do you think it quite a fair one to the State? -I cannot see any disadvantage to the State. It is there now, and we have to put up with it. 133. But do you think it is quite a fair one to the State?- I think so. 134. You said you would not allow any relaxation of the cropping conditions until the tenant had paid off half the capital value: do you mean to infer that you favour allowing existing tenants to pay off a portion or the whole of. the capital value? —There has been an agitation to do away with the Rangers, and I say before you give them a free hand let them put their capital in the farm. 135. Are you in favour of allowing the tenants to pay off a portion or the whole of the capital value of their farm? —Well, the State would have more security.
C—4.
624
[a. c. pringle.
136. Do you think it would be wise to give them the option of the freehold? —I do not think it would hurt the State a bit. 137. Suppose you gave them the option of the freehold, should it be at the original valuation or at the present valuation? —At the valuation at which they took it up. I cannot see if a man has improved his farm why he should not get the benefit of it the same as the man buying the freehold. It is practically a freehold now, for they have it for 999 years. Nobody can put tnem out so long as they comply with the conditions. 138. Then, you are in favour of giving the lease-in-perpetuity tenants the right of purchase? —No, I do not think I would. 139. Would you oppose that? —Yes. 140. In regard to the classification of land, at present the limit of 640 acres applies to land worth £30 an acre as well as to land worth £10 an acre, all of which is called first-class land: do you think the limit should be by value rather than by area, so that if the land was worth £10 per acre the limit would be six thousand pounds' worth of land rather than 540 acres ? —That is done under the Land for Settlements Act now. We cut up the expensive land into small sections. We never give 640 acres of what is called first-class land. It is generally cut up into 200 or 300 acres. 141. Mr. Paul.] Do you favour limiting the area of freehold at all? —I think that can be done by taxation. At present, so long as a man has money, he can buy as much freehold as he likes. 142. You think that should be continued?—l believe it would be better if the land was held in small blocks. 143. You think that no man should hold in fee-simple above a certain area? —I think the smaller holdings are better for the country. 144. But do you think the law should say the lands of the colony should be held in small holdings? —I think it should. 145. Do you think that the present constitution of the Land Board is better than an elective Board?—l do'not see that the present constitution could be improved on. If you were elected by a certain class you would represent them, and you would have to fight for them. I think under the present constitution the members try to do what is fair between the State and the tenants. 146. It has been represented to us that the Ranger should have discrimination to vary the cropping conditions :do you think that would be wise ? —I think it would be giving him too much power. 147. The Land Office at Timaru is opened once a week, and the tenants have represented to us it should be opened daily: do you think it should ?—There is no work for it if it were opened 148. We have also had representations made to us that the Canterbury Land District should be subdivided: do you think there is any necessity for it?—l do not think so. 149. Has the Canterbury Land Board ever revalued a section and reduced the rent under the Land for Settlements Act? —No. . 150. Do you approve of a man who has a small section on one of these estates being allowed to buy out some of his neighbours ?—I approve of giving every man enough land to make a home on. I would approve of grouping where a man cannot make a living and bring up his family well. 151. Do you think it would not be better to continue these holdings, and allow the men in possession to go in for a section in another block, on condition that they sold their present holdings to another small man ?—Yes. I know that some blocks in the early days were cut up too small, and I do not think there would be any harm in allowing those people to group together. 152. Have you given any consideration to the question of the revaluation of future leases. No. 153. You cannot express an opinion on it? —I think T would continue the present conditions. Tf a man gets a good section I think he should be allowed to continue on it. 154. What would become of the man who gets a bad block and has to pay too much rent, That is a mistake in the valuation. 155. Should the tenant be made to suffer for that for all time?—No, he should not. 156. What would you do in his case?—l cannot say offhand. There is no law to give him redress i • 157. Do you think it would be an advantage to have the law altered to allow of revaluation in future leases? —I think it would. ~ 158. Mr. Forbes.] According to the residential clause, a man has to go on his section lmmediately he draws it? Yes. . , . , , 159' A case was pointed out to us in which a wife drew a section, and when her husband was erecting' a home for her on the land the Ranger was demanding that the wife should live on the section in accordance with the terms of the lease. Do you think a concession should be given in that case?— Yes, unless she is hanging off too long altogether. Ido not think the Canterbury Land Board would force a wife to go on the land if her husband was there building a home. 160 Your Board have never insisted on the strict letter of the law being carried out?-No 161° There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction as regards the financial arrangement: do vou work under any system?—l think every Board have their own rules. 162. Have you any fixed amount to go on?—We generally require them to have three years rent l i 63 h Aml is anv difference made in the case of a man who is an experienced farmer f-Tes; we take his experience and plant into consideration when dealing with the amount of his capital. 164. Are the workmen's-homes settlements under your Board a success?—l think they are all taken y(m say that the gystem about, Christchurch has been a success, and that it is wWh should' be extended?— Yes. Some of the settlements have done extra well, and some have not\een 'o good Ido not think you could get . better .etttan.nt th„„ MM. »n the country.
A. C. PEINGLE.]
625
C.—4.
166. Do you think the non-success of the other settlements has been on account of their position? —That has a good deal to do with it. The land may have been bought too dearly. 167. Do you think if this system was extended about Christchurch the land would be taken up? —Judging by past experience, these suburban settlements do not go off half as well as the rural land outside. I never saw one suburban settlement all go off at the first ballot, whereas in the case of rural land we have had six times more applicants than there was land available. 168. Do you consider the clause which prevents a tenant cutting grass the first year for hay a reasonable condition?- I do not think the Board ever enforces that condition. 169. Do you think it would be better to cut it out of the lease? —It could be cut out easily enough without hurting anybody. James Stevenson examined. 170. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a member of the Canterbury Land Board. I have held that position two years. 1 am a native of the colony, and I have been farming ever since I was old enough to attend to that work. 171. I think you heard the evidence of Mr. Pringle: are there any points on which you disagree with him, or do you wish to make any statement? —I do not think I disagree with Mr. Pringle. In the matter of cropping and cleaning the land of weeds, Ido not think a tenant will ever clean his land by cropping with grain-crops I think the tendency is always for the land to get fouler with weeds if you crop often with grain. I have had a good deal of experience with cropping ever since I was a lad, and it has been my experience that you can clean the land by growing rape or turnips. For this reason I would like the cropping regulations altered, so as to allow a tenant to grow as many .rape or turnips crops as he desired. If he grows these crops he will have to use manure, and by so doing will improve his land. This will not exhaust it, because the manure will keep the land in good heart. On the other hand, if a man is growing grain crops continuously it will exhaust the land. You will find that a tenant will very rarely use manure with a grain crop. I have also observed that if you crop for a number of years with grain that the good grasses do not do so well, because the land is exhausted, and they die. out in two or three years, and hair and fog grasses take their place. For these reasons I think it is necessary that there should be cropping restrictions, but I think that the Board should have a good deal of discretionary power to vary them when they think that the circumstances warrant it. For instance, a man might have the misfortune to have his land flooded and have a miserable crop. I think the Board should have power to take this circumstance into consideration, and allow him to take another crop. Since I have been on the Board we have not held croppers hard-and-fast to the regulation. The Commissioner will be able to tell you that we have given many concessions, and in no case that I am aware of has a tenant been refused permission to grow additional rape or turnip crops. But they generally ask permission to take another grain crop because the grass has failed, and we had a case yesterday of a man who had sowed wheat in the autumn and grass in the spring time applying for another crop to sow with grass, because the grass had failed. To put in an autumn crop and feed it off in the spring and then surface-sow with grass, I consider a very bad method of farming: In regard to grouping,, I am not in favour of it at all, because a tenant often has to take a section that is not at all suitable to his requirements. If a man takes a dislike to a section Ido not see that he should be compelled to take it up. It is half the battle when a man takes a fancy to his section. 172. We were informed by Mr. Allen that your Board do not insist on this part of the regulations? —That is so. I am in favour of Mr. Humphries'® ballot system being adopted. I think it is a hardship that a married woman is not allowed the same privilege as a single woman. I think she should be allowed to take up 640 acres of land as well as anybody else. I also think that applicants are put to far too much expense in going before the Board for examination. I think some method should be devised by which applicants should be able to go up for examination before the Land Board in the district in which they reside, and that such examination should suffice for any part of the colony. I especially think the disappointed applicants are put to too much expense. Then, again, T would favour giving unsuccessful applicants some preference at future ballots. There are people who have applied four or five times unsuccessfully, and if they have to come from a distance they have to spend a considerable sum of money, and it is rather hard that they should not have some preference. I also think a number of people would be quite satisfied to take the description of the estates from the Government pamphlets without inspecting the land. I have known instances in which applicants have done this. Of course, thev do it at their own risk. I am interested in a pastoral run in the Awatere district, in Marlborough, and with regard to grassing pastoral runs I think that the limit of values for improvements should be raised. I think it should be much higher than three times the annual rental, in order to encourage the tenants to grass these runs. I may say that we are surfacesowing grass on onr freehold, and I find it has taken fairly well. We sow Chewing's fescue and cocksfoot. Further, if the tenant had,some right of renewal he would be encouraged to improve this pastoral country. Then, in regard to roading the back country, I think the back country should be roaded before it is opened up, and the land loaded with the cost. I thinlt it is half the battle if a tenant can get a f.air road into his country. lam only speaking of Canterbury. I have heard that it would cost fa- too much in parts of the North Island, but I think it could be done in Canterburv. T know of cases where tenants have taken up land years ago, and they still have very poor roads. 173. Mr. McLennan.] In examining applicants for a section, do you take into consideration their experience as farmers? —Yes, in a slight degree. 174.. Supposing one applicant has a good deal of farm experience but only £100, and he applies for a block which the Board think requires £200 to work, would you regard his experience as equivalent to the £100 he lacks? I would.
79—C. 4.
C.—4.
626
(J. STEVENSON.
175. Under the law at present, a man who has taken up a small block which he finds is not sufficient to live upon has to transfer that small section before he can apply for another larger one: would you be in favour of allowing them to enter the ballot, on the condition that if they were successful in drawing a larger section thev should transfer their smaller one within twelve monthsi —Yes; but I think six months would be long enough to effect a transfer in. 176. Mr. Paul.] Do you think any improvement is possible 1 in the constitution of Land Boards? —Being a member 1 prefer not to express my opinion. 177. Have you formed any opinion in regard to the revaluation of future leases? —I have thought over the matter, and I think I would be rather in favour of a shorter tenure than 999 years with revaluation and a right of renewal at the end of the lease. I think a fifty-years lease long enough for any one. But lam decidedly in favour of leaving the present leases as they are I think a contract should be binding. Another reason is that at the time the settlements were opened in Canterbury quite a number of the applicants, probably all the unsuccessful applicants, would have been quite satisfied with the present conditions. Therefore, the successful applicants have no right to an alteration of the conditions. 178. You think if there is any variation of the contract it would be fair that these unsuccessful applicants, or a portion of them, should have another chance? —I should say so. 179. Mr. Matheson.] Some of your tenants are evading the cropping regulations persistently, and your only means of punishment is eviction : do you think it would be wise if the Boards had some power given them to fine?- Probably it would. 1 think eviction is rather a harsh measure. 180. Do you think that many of the applicants for leases in perpetuity would much prefer leases with "the right of purchase? —I think a number would, but I cannot say how many. 181. Mr. Forbes.] Have you any power to vary the cropping conditions? —No. 182. You really are breaking the law in doing so, then? —Yes. 182 a. Would it not be much more reasonable to amend the law so that you could do it legally if you wished? —I consider it would. 183. Did you hear Mr. Lowrie's evidence? —No. 184. He said he would do away wirh cropping restrictions altogether: do you think that would be reasonable? —No. I think some restrictions are necessary. If a tenant would make the place his home for life, I do not think we would require any restriction ; but we find that a number are not real settlers but speculators, who will crop the land to its fullest extent,, and be ever on the alert to sell out for a big goodwill at the earliest opportunity. Then the incoming man has to bear the brunt of making a living out of exhausted land. I think that would be very unfair. Perhaps Mr. Lowrie is quite right about cropping if you put in an equivalent in manure, but that costs a considerable sum, and would not always prove profitable. Tf we had no cropping restrictions I feel sure the land would get into a very exhausted condition, because the majority of the Crown tenants would not out in the necessary manure to keep the land in good heart. 185. Suppose a man put on improvements equal to, say, a third or half of the Crown's interest in the land, do you think any restrictions would be necessary? Does anybody attempt to restrict a freeholder? —No; but you will generally find that a freeholder will husband his land, and a man who intends to keep a property for life will husband it well too. Still, I believe some restriction is necessary to keep the cropper in check. 186. Do you not think the clause which requires the tenant to keep half his land in pasture is rather inconvenient? —It is occasionally. 187. What- do you think about the restriction against cutting cultivated grass and clovers for hay? —I think it is an absurd clause which should be deleted from the lease. 188. And what do you think of the clause which prevents a tenant from burning straw on the land? —In the last two years only one man has applied to the Board for permission to do so, and I thought he was a most conscientious tenant, because we know they all burn their surplus straw. 189. Do vou think the people on the heavy land at Waikakahi could be allowed to take three grain crops off the land without doing any injury to it? —They might once or twice, but, as I said before, grain-cropping will exhaust the land, and it will not grow grass so well afterwards. " 190. Mr. Lowrie said that what struck him about the Crown settlements was that there was to much land in grass, and he thought that they should go in more for cultivation with root crops: do you think that would be better for the land? —That is what I am in favour of. 191. Do you think two white crops and one root crop a reasonable condition? —No; I would allow them as many green crops as they desired to grow. 192. Mr. McLennan.') Supose you took so-manv green crops out of the land, would not the wheat vou grow after be all straw? —Not necessarily. That would only occur in regard to a small proportion of the land. Then, T think, if you chose a suitable variety of grain and sowed in the sT>ring-time it would stand all right. I have seen very little land which would be too strong, and I come from a district where there is some very heavy land. Michael Mttrphy examined. 193. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am editor of the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association's journal, and secretary of the Sheep-breeders' Association. 194. TTave you been long connected with agricultural matters? —All my life. 195. We have called upon you to see if you can give us any information? —As I have not been farming in New Zealand my evidence may not be regarded as practical. T would therefore prefer that you would question me. 196. With respect to cropping regulations in order to keep the land in a state of fertility, what is vour opinion •do you think thev are too severe? —I do not at all believe in those restrictions. I may say that I agree almost word for word with the evidence given bv Professor Lowrie. If agriculture is to be a progressive science, people must be taught how to cultivate their land in a proper way. It appears to me that the making of such restrictions is dealing with people as if they had no capacity for improving themselves. The Government send out experts to teach
C.-4
627
M. MUBPHY.j
people how to manage dairies, orchards, horses, and cattle, and I see no reason wny something should not be done in the direction of assisting those who have not had much experience in farming. But 1 think if we are to improve agriculture in this country we must copy what is being done in other countries. We must begin at the beginning--namely, in the State schools—and we must teach our young people as they grow up the principles and practice of modern agriculture. There are other reasons why 1 think it is injudicious to restrict settlers to two white crops and one green crop. Supposing, for instance, war were to break out and last for six or seven years; wheat would go up in price, and it would be quite possible to grow profitable crops of wheat year alter year, as indicated by Professor Lowrie. Wool and mutton pay well just now. It pays to grow grass now, but under certain circumstances it might pay better to grow white crops more frequently. lam entirely against restrictions as to cropping. 1 think that undue or bad cropping will bring its own punishment without the Government keeping officers shepherding the settlers as to how they farm their land. 197. You advocate instructing the children in the public schools in agricultural matters; but meanwhile we have numbers of people taking up land who have not been brought up to agriculture, and who, of course, could not participate in the instruction given in the schools. Do you not think it would be advisable in the meanwhile to have some restrictions as to cropping ?—-No. 198. Do you not think that while there is a chance of tenants allowing land to deteriorate there must be some control or supervision of their farming operations (—As the Last witness has said, it would only be very few settlers that would allow the land to deteriorate. 199. it has been pointed out that there are some tenants who would so crop the land as to leave it pretty well exhausted, and that land might be taken up by another tenant. We have, of course, to bear the interests of the. State in mind in this matter ?—lf the tenants exhausted the land they could not get anything for their goodwill. 200. A man might not visibly exhaust the land, but at the same time it might be left in a very undesirable state indeed. Its condition might be visibleto the Ranger but not to the person looking at the land with a view of taking it up, and at times of booms there are numbers of persons who are willing to embark their money J—People in all branches of business are subject to that kind of thing, and must pay for their folly. 201. Do you not think there should be Inspectors!--! think there might be instructors, and 1 think the Board might have very large powers of discretion. 202. As to the tenure of the land, you know the lease in perpetuity, which gives the land to the tenant for 999 years at a fixed rent: do you think that a good system ?—Not at all. 203. What is your objection to it? -1 do not think there should be so long a tenure. I here ought to be a shorter tenure with revaluation, in justice to the people coming after us. I think those who have been fortunate enough to get a 999-years lease should be left undisturbed if we are to act straightforwardly. They have no right to be interfered with, but there is no reason why we should not mend our ways. 204. You approve of the leasing system I-Yes, with periodical valuation. 1 would allow the lessees to have the option of purchase. . - 205. Is it within your knowledge and observation that, in Canterbury especially, there has been an aggregation of estates going on 2—No; I think the tendency is the other way. 206 Mr. Johnston.] Have you made a study of these back-country runs at all;—I know a »ood deal about the subject from reading and hearing the opinions of farmers who have tried it. 207 What do you think would be the best course to pursue in order to get back the native masses, or to put English grasses on the country ? -You cannot sow English grasses with success above a certain altitude. , 208. At what elevation do you think it advisable to sow grass?— Not more than 2,000 It. to :] 000 ft There are native grasses which grow at higher altitudes. 209 What grasses would you advocate sowing ?—There is no grass I know of that lends itself more to various conditions than cocksfoot. In the North Island crested dogstail is much used. 210 Would crested dogstail do well on this rough country?—l cannot say. 211 What native grass would you suggest ?—Probably the danthomas are the best, lhere are poas and others, but the seed is not available. I once wrote to a gentleman in the North Island regarding Banthoma semiannularis as a pasture grass. He replied that he would sow danthonia when he could not get English grasses to grow, and his experience in respect to grasses cannot be questioned. I refer to Mr. J. G. Wilson, President of the Farmers Union. 212 Is his opinion theoretical?— Yes; but he has had a good deal of practice as well. 213. Do you know Central Otago?—No; I have never been on the high land there. lam told that Chewing's fescue does very well in that country. 214 Cocksfoot is said to be a favourite grass in that district?— Yes. 215 Do you think there is any possibility of getting some of these runs improved to the same extent as they were originally before the rabbits and fires?—l suppose that exterminating the rabbits is the first step, and then not overstock , mmmmamt 216. Do you think spelling the land would do it good in respect to the growth of grasses?— Yes, because it would allow the native grasses to seed. ■ 217 Would spelling the land for, say, twelve months be justified?— That depends on the quantity of native and English grasses present in the soil. If they are not abundant I do not think it would do; I cannot see that it would. , 218 Generally speaking, in Canterbury, have you had any experience of these special settlements, such as Cheviot or Waikakahi?-I have been over Cheviot two or three times. 219 Do you think the majority of the farmers there are doing well?-Yes. What I like to see is this: the majority of the farmers are planting trees, and that shows that they intend to rema 220 th Would you advocate the planting of trees in this high country ?- -Yes; there are trees that would do well in the high country, but it is very expensive work.
C—4.
628
jM. MUKPHY.
221. Is it work that the Government would be justified in undertaking? —I think it is work which the farmers themselves might very well undertake on their own farms. Take, for instance, Finns insignis. That pine grows rapidly on most soils, and can be used for cutting into boards in about forty years. I may mention that I tried an experiment in regard to the suitability of this timber for butter-boxes. I had a box made of seasoned timber and packed with butter, which was placed in a cool-chamber for three months. When the box was opened by an expert at the Central Dairy Company, Christchurch, the butter was pronounced to be first class. I think a tree which grows so rapidly as I'inus insignis should be planted more largely, because our native timber is becoming exhausted. If 1 had a tract of land one of the first things 1 should do would be to put> i'i a plantation of this tree. Of course, 1 would not plant Finns insignis to the exclusion of other trees. 222. Up to what altitude can Finns insignis be planted with safety?—l cannot say. 223. Do you know anything about the blue-gum blight? —Some three or four years ago I noticed trees which looked as if some of them were killed, but since then a certain proportion of them have recovered. 224. Apparently most of the blue-gums in certain southern districts have been killed by the blight? —Yes; I have seen a weevil at work devouring the foliage. I have also seen trees killed by a scale. 225. Is there any cure for those blights? —I do not think so; at least, 1 cannot see liow trees such as tall gums could be successfully treated. 226. Do you approve of the Land for Settlements Act?- Decidedly. The only way of saving the colony is to get the people on the land. 227. It has been a great advantage to Canterbury? —Yes. 229. Mr. McLennan.J Do you approve of cropping restrictions2--No, Ido not. 230. Is it because it is not to the advantage of the farmer? —It is neither to the advantage of the State nor the farmer. 231. Do you think an intelligent farmer would farm to the very best advantage for himself and for the State? —Decidedly. 232. And you think that cannot be done by cropping restrictions ?- -That is so. 233. You recognise that the conditions of soil and climate vary very much, and that those conditions affect the cropping? —Yes. 234. That is one of your reasons for your opinion? —Yes. 235. Mr. Faul.\ Regarding the tenure of pastoral country, do you think the present tenure is satisfactory? —I understand the term of lease is fourteen or twenty-one years. 236. What do you think about the pastoral tenants having the right of renewal at an arbitration as to rent? —I think that would be very fair. If a man has spent his time and made improvements he ought to have the first refusal. It would make him feel more comfortable and contented. 237. Do you think that the tenant in occupation of the land would very likely be better for the country than a new tenant brought in? —Yes, provided he was farming the land intelligently. 238. You think with those alterations the pastoral tenure might be considerably improved?— I think so. 239. Have you formed any opinion as to the proper constitution of Land Boards? —No. 240. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that one of the surest ways of making the best future use of our lands is to encourage technical agricultural education? —1 do, decidedly. 241. Do you think there is an urgent need that this instruction should be promptly carried out in our primary schools ? —Certainly. 242. You said you approved of the right of purchase. Do you think that under the freehold the fullest use is likely to be made of the land? —I do. 243. Suppose a tenant has made improvements equal to or more than the interest in the land possessed by the State, do you think he might safely be allowed greater freedom as to cropping? —I think so. 244. Mr. Forbes.] Do you know anything of the workmen's homes around Christchurch?— No"; but I should think that system is a good one. 245. It has been suggested that it would be a greater help to working-men in poor circumstances if the Government erected houses and charged them a rental with a sinking fund? Yes, that might be done, so long as the Government was careful as to the tenants it put on the land. 246. It has been represented that one of the objections to removing the cropping restrictions would be this: that a man might work his farm out and throw it up, and that would be a hardship on the man who succeeded him. Of course, in that case it is reasonable that the condition of the land would be allowed for in the price paid by the incoming tenant?— Yes; the outgoingtenant in that case would not get anything for his goodwill. There might be a few isolated cases of hardship. 247. Do you think it would be better for the State as a whole if there were no cropping restrictions ?—I am quite satisfied of that. I should like to say, in reference to the Noxious Weeds Act, that that is a law which requires to be carefully looked into and rigidly enforced. For instance, there is the Californian thistle. That has got beyond control in the south, though it is not so with us in Canterbury and some other parts of the colony. When this weed first made its appearance I raised a cry about it, but no notice was taken; but, as I have said, the weed is pot beyond control here. A great cry has been raised in reference to ragwort, but I do not think that is likely to be so harmful, as it is a bi-annual. It is quite possible to deal with it, and I think it ought to be dealt with. • ... 248. Mr. Johnston.] How would you propose to eradicate it? —Speaking of the Californian thistle, when in Tasmania a few years ago I went to see how they eradicated it there. The farmer had fallowed the land for two years, during which time the weed was not allowed to send up a shoot or leaf, by which means the farmer entirely got rid of it. The two corn crops which followed paid him for the loss of time and expense.
M. MURPHY.]
629
C.-4.
249. Mr. Forbes.] How are the Government getting on with the experiment at Tapanui? — There is nothing, in my opinion, for the Californian thistle except elbow-grease. 250. Mr. Johnston.] We have had the evidence of a man who stated that he put 6 in. of salt o;i the weed and trenched around it; but, of course, he was not able to use the land for two years, and in that case he eradicated it? —When J say it can be got rid of, 1 mean in cases where it is in isolated patches. 251. Have you seen Southland? —Ye», 1 was there in December. 1 think they will never get rid of it there, owing to the number of water-courses, which distribute the seed. I was also up at the lakes, and it has got complete possession of some parts of the country in that direction. 252. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the present administration of the Noxious Weeds Act is satisfactory? —It is left to the local bodies to declare what are noxious weeds, and I think the local bodies should declare what are noxious weeds. 253. Mr. Johnston.] What do you think about yarr? —I can find it on any farm in Canterbury. It does not spread here, because the climate is not cool enough. In Southland I saw crops completely destroyed by it. 254-. Mr. Paul.] Do you not think some local bodies are very lax as regards bringing the Act into force? —Yes. 255. Some of the local bodies do not seem to have sufficient backbone to enforce the Act. Is not that a danger to adjoining local bodies? —One would think the local bodies ought to be the best judges. 256. Where did the yarr come from?-—lt is a British weed. There is a variety grown in Germany for sheep-feed, but it is not the villainous weed Spergida arvensis, or corn-spurm. 257. Mr. Johnston.] You are satisfied this thistle is the Californian thistle: is it not the corn thistle? It is the English corn thistle, Garduus arvensis. There is no doubt about it. 1 think it was called the Californian thistle because it was brought here in some clover from that country. It is called the Canadian and Californian thistle, but it is the English corn thistle. 258. Mr. Forbes.] Does it spread through the bush land in Southland ?--They will never get rid of it there. 259. Mr. Matheson.] You do not suggest that the Crown would be wise in spending money on trying to get rid of it from the Crown bush reserves?- -Yes, in permanent pasture. Sheep will eat it while it is young and prevent it from seeding, but as soon as you break up the land it will increase. 260. Mr. Johnston.] Do you not think it would be a dangerous thing to sow Southland rye-grass-seed? I take it that every farmer ought to look carefully at his grass-seed and see that it is free from seeds of weeds. Seed-cleaning machinery is now so perfect that there should be no difficulty in procuring perfectly clean seed, provided the farmer is willing to pay for the extra trouble in cleaning. Thomas Humphries examined. 261. The Chairman.] What are you ? -I am Commissioner of Crown Lands for the Canterbury Laud District. 262 And previous ,to that you held the same position in the Taranaki, Auckland, Hawke's Bay, and Nelson Land Districts? Yes. 263. You have had a very long experience some twenty years in that office—and previous to that you had many years' experience in survey-work? Yes. 264. I understand you have prepared a statement of your views on the land question. Would you kindly read it now ? -Yes. My statement is as follows: As a preliminary, I will give a summary of the tenures under which Crown land was held in the Canterbury District as on the 31st March, 1904. The returns for the year just closed have not yet been completed. The total number of tenants of all classes at the date named was 2,942, who occupied 4,181,120 acres, the revenue for the year from all sources being £122,662. The full details as to the particular tenures are as follows: —
CANTERBURY.
Summary of Tenures as at 31st March, 1904.
" " i i ' "ii i Number Tenures. Holders. Area. of Area. Revenue. Holders. 1_ I J I • A. R. p. A. R. P. £ s. d. £ S. d. Deferred payment .. .... .. 19 11,200 0 2 .. 932 13 9 Perpetual lease .. .. .. •• 171 6,948 2 28 .. 870 18 4 Occupation with right of pur .. .. 35 4,932 1 24 .. 252 10 0 chase Lease in perpetuity— Crown .. .. .. 406 83,070 1 27 ) | 4,289 12 11) Endowment .. .. 113 15,363 1 H x 740 285,786 1 10 J 6 •> [■ 58,512 19 4 Land for settlements .. 1,032 160,469 0 12 i : 45,721 5 6 ' Cheviot .. .. .. 189 26,883 2 9) I 6,978 14 2) Grazing-farms, Cheviot .... .. 48 45,977 2 9 .. 6,292 3 9 Small grazing-runa— ? r0 Tf t" " A? 11V- 94 200,746 2 11 | n'n?? ,n ?} 14,357 18 1 Land for settlements .. 44 81,161 0 26 ) ( 9,071 10 1 j ' Pastoral licenses— Crown .. •• 150,3,522,504 3 34 151 Q 504 14ft q 34 J 30,920 2 3| qi iiq c 11 Cheviot 1 1,642 0 Oj l 5 l 3 > 3 « j 193 3 8 [ 31 ' 118 511 Total fixed tenures .. .. .. 2,258 4,079,738 1 38 Miscellaneous temporary 1 ccu- .. .. 684 101,381 3 13 .. 10,330 5 4 pation lioenses Total holdings .. .. .. .. 2,942 4,181,120 1 11 .. £122,662 14 6
IT. HUMPHRIES.
C—4
630
i'otal Area. Revenue. Holdings. a. -.nii; i.B. p. £ s. d. Cheviot ... 238 7 4,503 'Qfi 18 13,464 1 7 Miscellaneous ... ... 73 1,450 2 11 289 15 7 Total 311 75,953 2 29 13,753 17 2 Land for settlements ... ... 1,076 241,630 038 54,792 15 7 Miscellaneous ... ... 31 956 2 15 210 14 8 Total ... ... 1,107 242,586 3 13 55,003 10 3
Classification of Holdings as at 31st March, 1904.
Number Area. Revenue. Glass of Holding. of Holdings. a. b. p. Jd s. d. Village ... ... ... 59 582 218 260 6 4 Village-homestead special settlement 344 12,447 124 1,834 16 11 Hural... ... ... ... 1,521 291,186 136 58,154 13 0 Farm homestead ... ... 41 4,650 326 319 5 2 Small grazmg-run ... ... 94 200,746 211 14,357 18 1 Grazing-farm ... ... ... 48 45,977 2 9 6,292 3 9 Pastoral run ... ... ... 151 3,524,146 334 31,113 511 Miscellaneous ... ... ... 684 101,381 313 10,330 5 4 Totals ... ... 2,942 4,181,120 111 1-22,662 14 6
From these it will be seen that leases in perpetuity and leases and licenses of pastoral areas are the principal systems in the district, the other tenures occupying very subordinate places. The holdings under the deferred-payment and perpetual-lease systems, established by ''The Land Act, 1885," are now but few in number, and are a diminishing quantity. Under the two tenures there remain but 190 holders, and these will, doubtless, ere long either exchange into the lease-in-perpetuity system, as many have done in the past, or else convert into freehold. The optional system of "The Land Act, 1892," which enables a selector to choose either cash, occupation with right of purchase, or lease in perpetuity, has worked well, but no great extent of land has been thrown open in the Canterbury District for selection under this system, owing the scarcity of available Crown lands; so that land for settlements, Cheviot endowments, and special settlements, in all of which the lease in perpetuity is compulsory, represent the great bulk of the 1,740 holdings under that tenure. To meet the needs of settlement, the acquisition of estates under the powers contained in the Land for Settlements Act has been extensively carried out, and the number of properties purchased in the district since the inception of the system has been no less than fiftyfive, comprising a total area of 246,000 acres, or slightly under a quarter of a million acres. This large area has been very successfully settled with a contented tenantry, numbering 1,032 under lease in perpetuity, forty-four small-grazing-run holders, and thirty-one miscellaneous licensees with short tenures, the whole producing a yearly revenue of £55,003 10s. 3d. As stated in my annual report of the 31st March, 1904, only 125 acres out of the large area acquired remained unselected at that date, and this consisted of small village and suburban sections. _ The Cheviot Estate, not included above, contributes 189 holdings on lease in perpetuity, forty-eight grazingfarms, one pastoral run, and seventy-three miscellaneous leases and licenses of short terms, from which'a total revenue of £13,753 17s. 2d. was derived during the year. A very large extent of country has been taken up and is occupied on lease under the small-grazing-run system. There is no provision, either in the Land Act or in the Land for Settlements Acts, for resumption of the land at the end of the term if required. The consequence is that at the end of the twenty-one-years lease, however desirable it may be found to subdivide any of the runs for closer settlement, there is no means whereby the Crown can resume possession. There are, to my knowledge, a number of small grazing-runs in different parts of the colony which it would be desirable to subdivide, but, unfortunately, this cannot be done at the end of the term without doing an injustice to the tenants who selected the land on the condition that they would not be dispossessed, so long as they were prepared to pay the newly assessed rental at each recurring term. I am decidedly of the opinion that provision should be made so that future leases should be for a term of twenty-one years, with the proviso that in the event only of the run being again let as a whole, the outgoing tenant should have the option of a renewal at a rent based upon a revaluation of the land; improvements tc be protected, as is now the case. As to pastoral runs, experience, at any rate in Canterbury, goes to show that the existing law which enacts that a person may hold no more than one run, might work out to the serious detriment of the Crown's interests. Out of the 151 runs in Canterbury seventeen licensees hold at the present time no less than fifty-two, comprising an area of 1,343,924 acres, at a yearly rental of £13,093. Those particular runs were leased under "The Land Act, 1885," and the leases will be expiring in a few years' time. It is very doubtful indeed whether fifty-two independent purchasers could be found for them. If such were the case, and the law remains as at present, it might happen that many of them would be left tenantless. It is not alone these fifty-two runs that might be affected, but also some of the remaining ninety-nine, the bulk of which will be falling in during the next ten years. It seems to me obvious that, from the standpoint of the rabbit question alone, apart from that of loss of revenue, the risk of runs becoming tenantless should be provided against. It has been urged that to allow unrestricted competition at auction might result in the financially strong man or company pushing out the men of moderate means, and prevent the latter from acquiring runs suitable to their capacity, financial and otherwise. One way of obviating the
0.—4.
T. HUMPHRIES.]
631
possibility of such occurring might be to debar the holder of a run or runs from purchasing another at auction; but, in the event of any remaining unsold after being offered at auction, then such holders should be allowed to select from the number an additional run or runs, to an extent approved of in each case by the Minister, on the recommendation of the Land Board. It is pretty generally admitted that, in the majority of instances, the carrying-capacity of runs has decreased ; the reasons assigned for this by persons with expert knowledge are: indiscriminate and excessive burning of the native grasses, overstocking in some cases, and 110 periodic seasons of rest being given to the pastures, so as to enable grass to seed and recover itself. To accomplish this latter result would necessitate not only judicious surface-sowing, but also more internal or subdivision fencing than is customary. So far as the runs in this district are concerned, the statutory amount of protection for improvements appears to be sufficient to allow of very much more being done in this direction than at present. As an instance, I may mention thai two years ago thirty-one runs, comprising 650,000 acres, the original leases of which were expiring, were reoffered at auction; the estimated value of the improvements 011 these runs was collectively about £11,500, but the extent to which improvements could have been protected was £41,000 (i.e., three times the annual rent under the expiring leases), which gave a very large margin for additional fencing were it needed for the profitable working the runs, and in no single instance did the value of the improvements made even nearly approach the limit of protection. Canterbury, however, is singular in this respect, and this is largely due to the higher rentals obtained than for the runs further south : the average rental per acre for Canterbury (about 2Jd.) is nearly double that obtained in Otago, and four times that paid in Southland. The high rents obtained here, as compared with those of the runs further south is possibly mainly due to our comparative freedom from the rabbit pest, which is so prevalent in the more southern districts. Then, again, the homesteads of the Canterbury runs are almost always, if not in ever)' instance, on freehold, which was acquired under pre-emptive right (at. £2 per acre) in the early days, and, in consequence the runs are relieved of these as a charge for improvements. From what I have said, it is clear that protection for improvements to the value of three years' rent, or five years' rent, on the smaller runs, as provfded by the law in force, will not universally meet the case. The asserted deterioration receives some confirmation in the gradual decrease in revenue from these runs. In 1891 there were 147 runs, comprising 3,140,000 acres, yielding a revenue of £41,491. or per acre. In 1900, nine years later, through some amalgamation, they numbered only 120, with an area of 3,4-29,918 acres, and yielded £34,579, or 2|d. per acre ; this considerable fali was due largely to reduction in rent made on account of the injury caused by snow in 1895. In 1904 the number increased again to 151, with an area increased to 3,528,892 acres, but the revenue further decreased to £34,078, or per acre. The further fall is attributable to the lessened rentals obtained on a considerable number of runs, the licenses of which fell in and were reoffered during the interval. That some effort should be made to bring the runs back to their former productiveness, by surface-sowing or otherwise, is unquestionable, and possibly the expert evidence given on that point before the Commission in different parts of the country will enable some practical means to be devised for dealing with this somewhat difficult problem. In regard to the constitution of Land Boards, my opinion, based 011 an experience as a Commissioner of Crown Lands for twenty years, during which time I have had to do with the Land Boards of five different districts, is that the present system of nomination by the Government is a good one, has worked well, and is unlikely to be improved upon by an elected Board. It seems to me that Boards constituted as at present are much more likely to administer the land laws in harmony with the policy of the Government, and at the same time in the interests of the settlers, than if elected. The Government of the day is, to my mind, unquestionably entitled to insure that the administrative power is in the han(ss of persons who can be depended upon to make the law in force work as smoothly as possible, and in no way thwart its policy. A tenancy could be easily harassed unnecessarily, great discontent caused, and the land policy of the Government brought into disfavour by the administration of members though acting in accordance with the strict letter of the law, thus hampering a Government in the carrying-out of its policy. Ido not say that this would be likely to happen in the case of elected members, but there is the possibility. I consider that the majority at least of the members of a Board should, when practicable, be persons with some experience in agricultural and pastoral pursuits, and also possessed of a thoroughly personal and practical acquaintance with the requirements of the class of settlement and other business peculiar to the particular district, and selected from different parts. This, I contend, is more likely to be attained in a nominated than in an elected Board. In respect of the cropping conditions, very great difficulty has been experienced during the past four years in the endeavour to keep tenants reasonably within the regulations, and this will be recognised when I state that during that period the breaches have numbered 411. Many of these were of a nature that would have been readily granted as concessions by the Board had the request been made, since there were reasonable grounds for the variation but in all these cases the Board has been totally ignored, and, notwithstanding the exertions of the Rangers, the breaches have not been discovered until too late to remedy them, and all manner of excuses have been made. The following are a few instances out of a large number, and are to some extent typical of what was found to be the state of things about three years ago, and shows how the Board deals with such cases: — Section of 104 Acres. —Stale of land that season: 71 acres of fourth crop, 49 of which have been sown: 16 acres of third crop, not sown down; 9 acres of second crop, sown down; only 7 acres of grass, instead of 52 acres. No application was received from this lessee; he was not there when the Board visited the section. Section of 101J Acres.—State of land: 33 Acres of fourth crop; 10 acres of third crop, to be sown down; 22 acres of second crop, to be put in green crop; 22 acres in fallow after third crop ; only 15 acres of grass, instead of 51 acres. Decision of Land Board: The Board allowed him to
632
T. HUMPHRIES.
C—4.
put oats and grass in the 22 acres that is in fallow after the third grain crop; the 22 acres in second crop may have a green crop, to be followed with grass; the 10 acres to be sown down. Section of 103£ Acres.—State of land: 20 acres fourth crop, not sown; 24 acres of fourth crop, sown; 22 acres of third crop, sown; 20 acres of turnips after third grain crop; only 18 acres grass, instead of 52 acres. Decision of Land Board: The 20 acres of fourth grain crop not sown the Board allowed the lessee, at her request, to fallow next summer, and sow down without crop; the 20 acres in turnips after third crop may be sown in oats with grass. This was granted with a view to the lessee getting feed for teams. Whenever application has been made the Land Board lias always been ready to make any reasonable concession, as the fact of eighty-four concessions having been granted to date will testify, though in this the Board has exceeded its statutory powers. On the occasion of a special visit to Waikakahi Settlement in connection with the overcropping referred to, the Board inspected a number of the holdings on which it has been done, going from paddock to paddock, and arranging with the tenant what variation he might make the next season, so as to bring into cropping back again into something approaching the prescribed rotation. Whilst the great majority are now dealing fairly in the matter there are a number who still deliberately ignore,, and, in fact, act in defiance of the Land Board, as has already been admitted by one at least of the tenants in his evidence before the Commission. The Board recognises that from time to time cases arise where common justice demands that consideration be given, and, although the Board is of opinion that the regulation rotation of two white crops and one green crop followed by three years grass is a reasonable requirement for most classes of land and should be retained, it considers that discretionary power should be given to relax the conditions in special cases where the circumstances warrant "it Concessions are now made as I have shown, but the Board's action requires legal authority. As to dealing with those persistent overcroppers, whose action, at present unpunished, is creating a bad example for others, it is considered that absolute forfeiture is too drastic, though it was done in one case where the tenant took five consecutive grain crops off comparatively light land, in spite of being cautioned against it each year. I think that the practice would be quickly stopped if power were given to inflict a heavy fine, say, not exceeding £3 an acre. The fine would need to be substantial, or excessive cropping would be done by some on the chance of getting a 50- or 60-bushel wheat crop, which is not uncommon. My recommendation, therefore, is that the regulation rotation be not altered, but that the Land Board be given discretionary power to vary it under special circumstances, and also be empowered to inflict fines for breach of the cropping conditions, instead of being compelled to have recourse to forfeiture to stop the practice. In regard to applications and ballot for lands under the Land for Settlements Act, I would make the following suggestions, which would, in my opinion, make the system more workable, and would obviate a number of the objections taken to certain points in the present law and regulations: (a.) That section 92 of "The Land Act, 1892," be amended, by the addition after the word "systems" in the sixth line, of the words "or who has in any manner committed an offence under'the provisions of this Act or any previous Land Act." There is at present no power to reject the application of a person who has been convicted of perjury in connection with any former application. There have been a number of cases in which perjury has been committed in connection with applications, but there is no power to penalise the offenders in the manner proposed. (6.) That section sof " The Land for Settlements Amendment Act, 1904," be amended by the substitution of the words " the holder of any land under the Land for Settlements Act" for the'words "successful in any land ballot " in the first line, and by the substitution of " two " years in place of " one "in the third line. As the law now stands, it is only the original selector who is legislated against, whereas the transferee should be placed in the same position. A case ocurred lately in this district, in which a transferee of a homestead section in a settlement sold out at a very high figure (about £1,000), and immediately afterwards applied for the homestead in another settlement which was then being offered, (c.) That section 49, subsection (15) of "The Land for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1900," be amended by the insertion after the word " point," in the second line, of the words " or if the Board shall be of opinion that from any other cause he would be an unsuitable or undesirable tenant." It has been found in many cases that the clause, as it now stands, is not comprehensive enough, and does not allow sufficient discretionary power to the Land Board, (d.) That section 10 (a) of the regulations under the Land for Settlements" Acts be amended, so that the " preference " to be given to married men may be effected solelv by permitting their wives to apply for the same land on the strength of the husband's means, thus'duplicating the latter's chance at the ballot. The present regulation for giving invariable preference to married men has, in practice, proved quite unworkable. For example, see my remarks on the subject as made at, the Conference of Commissioners and Land Boards, and reported on page 43 of the proceedings: "If they were to give direct preference to married men with families—that men with families should come first and all others should stand aside till they were satisfied—in the case of the last four settlements the Board would have had to turn away about twelve hundred people. The estates there were large ones, one being of 38,000 acres, another of 32,000, another of 10,000, and another of 8,000 acres. In the Chamberlain Settlement there were twenty-three sections, and, as far as he could make out from the notes he had before him, there were fifty-four married men, with families, that applied, and 264 applicants in all. Consequently the fifty-four married men would have more than absorbed the twenty-three sections, and the Board would have had to say to the balance of the applicants, 'We are sorry that after going to all the trouble and the expense that you have been put to you will have to go home again, for we have more married menthan we know what to do with.' In the next estate, of 8,000 acres, 300 persons applied for thirtv-eight sections, of whom fifty-one were married men. So 250 would have been left over there.' In the next estate the number of sections was. he thoug-ht, twenty-six, for which there were 290 applicants, seventy-five of them being married men. That would have
C.—4.
633
T. HUMPHRIES.
left a balance of 250 that the Land Board could not do nothing for. In the case of Rosewill, of 38,000 acres, there were 145 sections, for which there were 690 applicants, 214 of whom were married men, the balance being 476; but from that 476 he ought to have deducted about 200, because in all probability the wives of Ihe married men would be included in it. The Board thought it would not do to turn away all these people, so they gave preference to the married ones by giving them two chances to a single man's one." (e.) That Regulation No. 3in Gazette of the 21st May, 1903, which limits the area that may- be applied for and held by a married woman to 320 acres of first-class land or 1,000 acres of second-class be revoked. The married woman will naturally desire to apply for the same section as her husband, and this would, more often than not, exceed 320 acres. Several cases have occurred under the present regulation where the wife has been compelled to apply in a different group from her husband, solely on account of this restriction of area. It is not possible that both husband and wife could hold sections, for as soon as one is successful in drawing a section the other is at once excluded from all remaining ballots, as he or she can no longer be deemed to be landless. (/.) That the last part of clause 4 of Regulation No. 8, whioh provides that an applicant shall have no right to withdraw an application, nor to claim a refund of his deposit, be rescinded. The present regulation has been almost universally condemned by intending applicants, and it is known that in Canterbury many very desirable persons have refused to lodge their applications when they became aware of this condition. (g.) That a tenant holding a small area under the provisions of any Land for Settlements Act should be allowed, subject to the approval of the Land Board, to apply and ballot for a larger section in another settlement, provided that he gives an undertaking that, in the event of his being successful at the ballot, lie will, within six months, dispose of his original holding to an approved transferee, or surrender, the lease of it, in which latter case he would receive valuation for improvements from the incoming tenant. A number of cases have arisen where lessees who have held small sections for a number of years have financially outgrown these restricted areas, and are extremely anxious to acquire a property more suitable to their present requirements; yet, as the law now stands, these persons cannot be admitted to a ballot so long as they hold any iand whatever under the same Acts, and they are naturally very reluctant to part with what they have, and trust to the chances of the ballot to secure another holding. (h.) That an addition be made to section 57 of " The Land for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1900," to provide that a bona fide "married servant" of the owner of an estate which has been acquired by the Crown, and who has been in the service of the owner continuously for at least six years prior and up to the date of such acquisition, and has during that period resided with his wife and family in a dwelling on the property, may, in the discretion of the Board, be allowed to select such an area and in such a position, as the Board in its discretion may decide, the area in no case to exceed 640 acres. There, have, during late years, been some cases of hardship, in which a married servant of many years' standing has, owing to the purchase of an estate, been suddenly deprived of the position which he had looked forward to occupying for many years to come, and has been compelled to go out and start afresh. Such men would, as a rule, prove the best of settlers. It has been thought that the number of such cases might be so large as to interfere with or greatly lessen the chances of the outside applicants. I think, however, that there are no sufficient grounds for apprehension on that score, for in the last seven estates purchased in this district, including such large ones as Highfield, Opawa, and the Levels, of which, if anywhere, such cases would arise, there have only been three persons in the position indicated. (i.) That in the event of one or both parents applying for land in a settlement, and being approved by the Land Board, not more than one other member of the family shall be admitted to the same ballot, and such person must have proved to the satisfaction of the Board that he has sufficient means, bond fide his own, to profitably work the land applied for, and that he is entirely "on his own " : also that two brothers, each with sufficient means, may apply when their parents are not applying, but their acceptance shall be at the discretion of the Land Board; also that the Board be given power to reject any relative of another applicant when in its opinion an attempt is being made to stuff the ballot. With your permission I will here quote from C.-8, 1903, pages 17 and 18: — " In the case of lands under the Land for Settlements Acts, the Land Board does its best in the examination to purge the ballot list, but it is difficult to do much in the face of sworn declarations and with the limited grounds for rejection which are sanctioned by the existing law and regulations. " To show what an enormous disadvantage the man with the single application labours under ii: a ballot, I cannot do better than give the particulars of the last two ballots--the first, for the Chamberlain Settlement, 9,528 acres in twenty-three sections, under the Land for Settlements Acts; and the other, a block at View Hill of 8,174 acres in thirty-eight sections, under the Land Act.
"Chamberlain Settlement (leased under the Land for Settlements Acts). Of the 246 applicants, 67 were women—49 being married and 18 single. Applications. In 86 cases each applicant had but one chance ... ... ... 86 40 „ „ two chances, through relatives ... ... 80 "10 „ three „ „ ... ... 30 „ 7 „ „ four „ „ ... ... 28 „ 3 „ five „ „ ... ... 15 „ 1 case the „ seven „ ... ... 7 246
80—C. 4.
634
[T. HUMPHRIES.
C—4.
" View Hill Plains (disposed of under the Land Act). Of 303 applicants, 88 were women—46 being married and 42 single. Applications. In 41 cases each applicant had but one chance ... ... ... 41 „29 „ „ two chances, through relatives ... ... 58 „17 „ „ three „ „ ... ... 51 „ 8 „ „ four „ „ ... ... 32 „ 5 „ „ five „ „ ... ... 25 „ 4 „ „ six „ „ ... ... 24 „ 5 „ „ seven „ „ ... ... 35 „ 2 „ „ eight „ „ ... ... 16 „ 1 case the „ ten „ „ ... ... 10 „ 1 „ „ eleven „ „ ... ... 11 303 " Thus the chances of each of the last two men were to each of the first forty-one applicants as 10J to 1. It is just possible, however, that two or more of these numerous relatives wanted land for themselves." If it were decided, as has been suggested, to give preference in some form to applicants who have been unsuccessful at previous ballots (which course may be questionable, however, chances of a person who had been unsuccessful in, say, two ballots in the previous twelve months. I may remark, in passing, that 993 approved applicants were unsuccessful in the last four ballots here. Many of these had had the same bad fortune previously, and some came from other parts of the colony, who might or might not have been successful elsewhere. It would be with this class that difficulty would arise. We now come to the ballot: (k.) That the grouping of allotments be made in a more general and comprehensive manner than at present. In the example before us —namely, Rosewill Settlement (Levels Estate) —the allotments offered were divided into fifty-four groups, involving the same number of ballots; it will be seen that under my proposed system there would be only seven. (I.) That if an applicant for a particular group be deemed by the Land Board to possess insufficient means for the working of any one section in that group, he shall have the option of being admitted to another group more consistent with his means and circumstances. Under the present system, if the applicant fails to satisfy the Board that he has sufficient means for the group for which he has applied, he loses his chance altogether, after having possibly gone to some trouble and expense in applying, (m.) That an applicant may apply for a group, however many sections there may be in it. (n.) That the groups be balloted for in their order, commencing at the one containing the sections of least value, (o.) That the whole of the applicants for a group shall ballot for the " order of choice " of sections in that particular group, and it shall be optional for any applicant to decline to take advantage of a successful drawing, and in such case he may have his deposit returned. In the event of there being a larger number of applicants than there are sections in the group, the unsuccessful ones shall have the opportunity, in their order of priority, of selecting any sections which may remain unselected in the groups previously balloted for. That on the map which accompanies the pamphlet the sections in each group shall be indicated by a distinctive colour. The foregoing, both as regards applications and ballots, is especially applicable to lands under the Land for Settlements Acts; but for applications and ballots in the disposal of ordinary Crown lands a much more simple treatment is sufficient. In the first case there is a valuable estate to be preserved, for, as a rule, the acquired land is much improved property, and special care is required to provide against its being taken up by persons whose circumstances will not enable them to do justice to it, but in whose hands the property would from various causes surely deteriorate and its value become necessarily lessened. On the other hand, ordinary Crown land is invariably in its natviral state when offered, with no improvements to injure. The present system of ballot for Crown land is simple, has worked well, and can hardly be improved upon for general purposes; but provision might be made so that, in cases where special circumstances render it necessary, it could be modified in the direction of the style of ballot proposed for land for settlements. The applications should, however, be subjected to scrutiny, and regulations framed on the lines already indicated for preventing the stuffing of the ballot with relatives or kindly disposed friends of the real applicant who wants to secure the land. Regarding the practice of loading for roads and its working, there have only been four cases of borrowing under "The Government Loans to Local Bodies Act, 1891," and "The Local Bodies' Loans Act, 1901," and these on three Crown Settlements, as follows: One for £300 for Wainono, two of £25 each for Nukuroa, and one of £106 for Ruapuna. The period of loan was fixed at twenty-six years, and the rate of repayment 7 per cent., covering interest and principal. These amounts have been fully expended, with the exception of the last case, in which, as nearly as can be ascertained, there is a balance of £31 not spent. There has, however, been money borrowed for roading on twenty-nine settlements under the Land for Settlements Acts, which sums have in each case been added to the amounts paid in purchase of the estates prior to fixing the rentals of the sections. The following will 'show to what extent the rentals are affected, or the value of the land enhanced, in consequence of the improvement of means of access on the larger settlements: —
T. HUMPHRIES.]
635
C—4.
ln regard to transfers: Of the 1,418 holdings under the Land for Settlements Acts and the Cheviot Estate Disposition Act, 415 have been the subject of transfer, sixty-nine of that number having changed hands twice, and fourteen three times. About half of the holdings in twenty settlements have changed hands at one time or another during the past twelve or thirteen years, among the number being Albury, Highbank, and Rakitairi, three of the large settlements. In the case of Waikakahi, about one-fifth of the holdings have been transferred, and in Cheviot a little more than one-third. Many of these transfers were from those who had started on a settlement in a small way on limited areas, but, having been successful, in time became competent for and desirous of acquiring larger farms, others from outside taking their places on the smaller areas. Again, some of the larger holders have disposed of their leases and acquired freehold, those of more limited means taking their places on the leaseholds, one of the objects of the land-for-settlements policy being thus achieved. This brings me to the question of " goodwill " of these leaseholds. It is true that in some cases the "goodwill" has been what may be considered unreasonably high; but some extravagant statements have been made to the Commission regarding it, for what was sometimes referred to as " goodwill " included growing crops, stock, &c., and in one case even the improvements. I have investigated the transfers that have been effected during the past three years on the larger settlements, and find as follows: Albury Settlement: twenty-four transfers; average percentage of goodwill on capital value, 12.8 per cent. Highbank Settlement: fifteen transfers; average percentage of goodwill on capital value, 29.2 per cent. Waikakahi Settlement: thirty transfers; average percentage of goodwill on capital value, 12.3 per cent. Cheviot Settlement: fifty-four transfers; average percentage of goodwill on capital value, 15.9 per cent. It will be noticed that the average goodwill on Highbank Settlement is much higher than on the other three settlements. This is due to the exceptionally good purchase and the correspondingly low capital values as compared with the other settlements. As regards the dealings with the Government Advances to Settlers Office, no complaints have been made to this office by tenants or others. The mortgages that have been submitted to the Land Board by the Advances to Settlers Office for approval and also from private lenders during the past five years have been as follows: —
Advanoea Year. to Private. Total. Settlers. 1900-1901 ... ... ... ... 28 10 38 1901-1902 ... ... ... ... 21 7 28 1902-1903 ... ... ... ... 40 17 57 1903-1904 ... ... ... ... 14 30 44 1904-1905 ... ... ... ... 36 26 62 Totals ... ... ■■■ 139 90 229
The excess of private mortgages over those to the Government Advances to Settlers Office in the year 1903-1904 was due to a number that had been executed some years previously, but to which (.he approval of the Land Board had not been obtained till then. The extension of holdings under the Land for Settlements Acts has been the subject of some discussion, and on this phase of the question 1 might be allowed to express my views, which I may say are generally indorsed by the individual members of the Land Board. There is a provision in " The Land for Settlements Act, 1900," under which the Board, with the consent of the Minister, may allow settlers on small holdings to increase them by acquiring adjoining sections. Such extensions have in thirty instances been granted, and the Board is willing to assist in this direction so long as the utility of the settlements is not impaired. It is held that, whilst the existing occupier deserves consideration, it is necessary at the same time to consider and conserve the interests of the same class of individual coming forward in the future. I mean that the existing subdivisions of the settlements should be maintained as nearly as possible, though judicious extensions of holdings should be permitted when the experience of a number of years has proved that the small sections are too numerous, the character of the land unfitted for them, or the conditions altered from those existing at the time the sections were laid off. It is undoubtedly the case that time has proved that in some settlements too many small holdings have been provided, and advantage has been taken of the pro-
„ ,,, , . Average Rent Average Rent, Mileage o£ Mileage of Settlement. Area. J [g le^ 8 0^g o£ Old Roads. New Roads. A prflG G /I a rl Highbank 8,862 6 9 6 8£ 22 5f Albury ... ... 19,398 3 6| 3 5| 29 7i Waikakahi ... ... 48,102 6 llf 6 ll| 88 11 Lyndon No. 1 ... ... 4,207 4 o| 3 11 Nil. Chamberlain ... ... 10,488 4 If 4 1£ 17 Nil. Annan ... ... 32,427 3 2 3 1£ 25 5 Bosewill ... ... 36,945 7 2£ 6 11 95 9f Lyndon No. 2 ... ... 15,845 2 10£ 2 10J 16J 1J Punaroa ... ... 7,021 4 9£ 4 9 12J f Pareora No. 2 ... ... 8,078 9 2 9 1 30J Nil. Takitu ... ... 9,674 2 7 2 6| 13 Nil.
C—4.
636
T. HUMPHRIES.
vision quoted to permit amalgamation. Instances of these may be found in the numerous 10-acre sections at Highbank, and the 50-acre lots near Cricklewood, in Albury, which the members of the Commission had an opportunity of seeing on their visits 1o those settlements. The object of the land-for-settlements policy is to provide opportunities for getting on the land persons of limited means who are not financially in a position to purchase freehold. When estates are being subdivided great care is taken, consistent with the character of the land, to provide holdings suitable for different classes of persons wanting land. There is the labourer, who desires a small place to make a home for himself and family, and a small area to cultivate and keep a cow, &c.; then, there is the man who has sufficient means to take a larger place where he may do some farming on his own account and get occasional employment outside to fill in his spare time and supplement his income; then, again, the man has to be provided for who is strong enough to have a team of his own and can occupy the whole of his time on his holding; and so on to the man who can take up a more extensive farm or small grazing-run, on which more capital is required. Representatives of the various classes of individuals will in future have to be provided for in the ordinary course of things, and whilst new purchase will require to be made, the present settlements should, in my opinion, be held practically intact to assist in providing for future requirements. A review of what is taking place in the transfer of holdings goes to show that a certain natural progression is being followed. The small man after a time gets into a position which enables him to take something larger by transferring his holding to an outsider and obtaining a section more suited to his requirements and capabilities, and a similar progression is going on in the larger holdings, some of the lessees passing out altogether and taking up freehold, and thus making room for others to follow in their wake. It has been urged that the freehold of these settlements might be allowed, and the proceeds devoted to the purchase of other estates; but, apart from every other consideration, -there is the difficulty- in fact, the impossibility —of acquiring other estates in Canterbury to the extent of a quarter of a million acres of the character that has up to the present been acquired and settled. One may ask, where there could now be found estates to form a series like Cheviot, Waikakahi, Albury, Annan, Highbank, Chamberlain, Pareora, Rosewill, &c., which have been acquired and settled at very reasonable rates as compared with the rates now ruling. To dispose of the freehold of these estates, which have been acquired at moderate prices, and purchase fresh lands at the market prices now ruling, would not only mean that a much smaller area would become available for settlement, but also that a contented tenancy at moderate rates would be replaced by others who might experience great difficulty in meeting their obligations during less favourable seasons. It has also been proposed to permit tenants to pay off, say half of the capital value of the land, as a security to the Government against trouble arising out of bad seasons, and at the same time as an advantage to the tenant by reducing his annual payment to the Crown. I consider that, apart from the likelihood of such a course leading up to absolute freehold, it would stand in the way of men with limited means getting into the settlements. Take, for instance, the case of the selector of a 200-acre holding of a capital value of £2,000. His rental would be £100 per annum, and on acquiring the land in the first instance he would have to show that he possessed about £300 capital. The posftion of a man obtaining a transfer of that section would, however, be very difficult ; he would have to find perhaps more than £300 for improvements made, and, in addition, £1,000 of paid-up capital on the section. This would be prohibitive, and would prevent the sections in the settlements from affording to men of moderate means stepping-stones to independence, which, I think, it should be the object of the land-for-settlements scheme to provide.
Warkworth, Thursday, 4th May, 1905. Andrew Hood examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, holding close on 700 acres. It is all freehold. My land is about nine miles from Warkworth. I have been there thirty-six or thirtyseven years. It is mixed farming. 2. Is the farming generally in the district of the same class? —Pretty much so. There is very little grain-growing, as the land is not suited for it. 3. Does it run any sheep? —Yes. 4. As you are a freeholder, I suppose you have very little communication with the Land Board? —None at all. 5. At the present time the Land Boards are nominated by the Government: do you think there is any better system under which they could be appointed?- I think they ought to be elected, because I believe there are many men shoved in by the Government who have no right to be there. 6. On what franchise would you elect them? —I suppose on the same franchise as members of the House are elected. I have not gone into the question however, and, on thinking it over, I might alter my mind. 7. As you are aware, the town population preponderates over the country, and the chances are that under such a system townspeople only might be elected to the Board? —That is exactly what I was thinking. 8. Can you suggest any other franchise? I have not thought much about the matter at all, but there is the local bodies' franchise. That might make a difference; 9. Have you any reason to suppose that the administration of the Land Board has been hurtful to the country?— No. I have no reason to think so, but I have many times thought it would be an improvement if the members were elected. 10. On the question of tenures, have you thought anything about the freehold system as distinguished from the leasehold system? For instance, so far as the settlement of the people on
A. HOOD.]
637
C.-4.
the land and security of tenure, there is much difference between the freehold and the lease-in-perpetuity systems'! —Yes, I think there is a good deal of difference. 1 think the freehold system is the best, but 1 believe in the optional system. A man should be allowed to take up land under any of the three tenures. I think if a man takes up a lease at a certain rent, he should be allowed to make it a freehold whenever he has the money to do it. 11. Have there been any capitalists buying up the lands and converting them into large estates? —Not to my knowledge. 12. The country is fairly well divided into ordinary-sized farms? —Yes. 13. Is there any other point you would like to bring before the Commission? —No. I would only say that if I had not the freehold probably I should not have any land at all to-day. 14. Mr. Aiistey.] Has the Government purchased any estates in this district for settlement 1— Not anywhere near here. I suppose Colbeck's estate or the Bickerstaft'e Estate is the nearest. 15. Have you good roads in your part of the country?— The road to my place is good in the summer. A fairly good horse could draw half a ton over the road in the summer, but it would not take the dray empty in the winter. The roads are very bad in winter. 16. How are the roads maintainedi--By the local bodies- the County Council generally. 17. Do they rate for the purpose? —Yes. 18. What rates do you pay? —I think they can rate us up to 3d. now. 19. What is the present rate? —l|d., I believe. 20. You say the land is not suitable for grain-growing ? —lt would be suitable if the land was more level. 21. Do you grow any grain for export? —Very little. It is mostly consumed locally. 22. What market have you for your stock? —Some of the fat stock goes to Auckland, and a good deal of it is consumed here— 23. Do you send many sheep to the freezing-works? —Not so far, but I have no doubt more will be going in the future. 24. Is the land suitable for fattening sheep? —Yes, it is splendid sheep country. 25. Do you breed all your own sheep ? —Yes. 26. Mr. Forbes.] Are there any large estates here at all? —-No. 27. Is all the land settled in this part of the country? —There may be some absentees, but the land principally is in private hands. 28. And it is held mostly under the freehold system? —I believe it is. 29. What is your objection to the Land Board? —1 consider there are men placed on the Land Board who ought not to be there. 30. You think the Land Board is not composed of the best men of the district? —I should not like to give any further answer. 31. You have not found they have done anything wrong? —I have had nothing to do with them. 32. Have you anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Department in this district? No; I cannot speak as to the working of that. 33. Mr. Hall.\ Is there any land in this district still in the hands of the Government? There may be small patches here and there, but it is all practically held by private individuals, and is nearly all freehold. 34. Is any of it held in large blocks? —No; it is mostly held in small blocks. 35. Is there much held by absentees? —Not a great deal, I think. 36. Is bond fide settlement increasing in this part of the country? —I do not think it has increased in the last few years, as most of the lands are taken up. 37. If the land generally were now in the hands of the Government, would it be readily taken up under the»4easehold tenure?-! do not think so. 38. You mean if the people could not get (he freehold they would not take it up at all? Well, they would want the option of purchase. That seems to be the most popular tenure. I would not like to say whether the land would be taken up if offered on lease. I believe the freehold is the best tenure, and if I had not the freehold I should not be here now. 39. Do you think the freehold is the most satisfactory tenure, both to the owner and to the State? —Yes. 40. Mr. Johnston.] What stock can your farm carry per acre? —I have never tried it. I carry a stud flock. 41. What is your flock? —Lincoln. 42. Mr. Matheson.] Have you had any loans under the Loans to Local Bodies Act for roadmaking?- I do not think we have gone in for that. 43. Is the Noxious Weeds Act in force in this country? —Yes. 44. And is work being done under that Act? —Yes. 45. Mr. McCardle.] On what conditions do you advocate that the land should be offered with the right of purchase?—l think under the three systems. 46. You believe in the optional system as now existing?- Yes. 47. There has been an agitation going on in favour of the homestead system. Do you think that system would assist in bringing about settlement in this district? —I think it is a good system if carried out properly. 48. Do you think it would be a good thing to put a price on the land, and devote the whole of the proceeds towards making roads to the settlements? —I think it is a very good idea. 49. As a believer in the freehold, you are of opinion that the optional system would meet all the requirements of settlement?— Yes, I think so. 50. Mr. McCutchan.\ In speaking of the Land Board you advocated election within ridings, the same as local bodies: would you be in favour of dividing the Auckland Land District into ridings, and giving the Government the power of nomination within those ridings, so as to secure
a—4.
638
[a. hood.
representation for each district? —I have not really thought that question out, and I cannot give a definite answer; but, speaking on the spur of the moment, I think it would be a good thing. 51. Are you a member of the County Council? —No. 52. Are the County Councils enforcing vigorously the Noxious Weeds Act?--It is a dead-letter, so far as the County Council is concerned, I believe. It is the Government who are sending the Inspectors here. 53. With reference to the residence question. There is a distinction made between the 999-years-lease holders and the leaseholders with the right of purchase, inasmuch as the tenants who hold land with the right of purchase are only called upon to reside for six years, whereas those who go in for a 999-years lease are called upon to reside for ten years : do you think there should be that difference?—No, 1 do not see where the difference comes in; but I have not thought the matter out. 54. With reference to the loading question, which is a winter difficulty, does the local body rate on the unimproved value? —No, on the capital value. 55. Is the valuation very low? —It was considered low, but recently it has been raised very high, in my estimation. 56. If the rate was raised from l£d. to the full amount allowed —viz., 3d. —in your opinion, should the Government subsidy be increased proportionately?—! think it should. My opinion is that the land ought not to keep the roads at all. I consider the man in Queen Street gets as much benefit from a road to my place as I do. 57. But he is keeping up the roads in the city for you?- I hold that the land ought not to maintain the roads. 58. Does the local body get a subsidy?—At one time we got a pound-for-pound subsidy, but we did not take the advantage of it we might have done. 59. You have power to borrow money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act. Has the local body not utilised that power at all? —We do not believe in getting into debt if we can do without borrowing. 60. Has there been any increase in the value of the land in the past few years? No, I do not think there has. I think the carrying-capacity of the land is less than it was twenty years ago. 61. Has the price of land fallen in consequence?- 1 cannot say that. I know very little about the price, as very little land in the district is being sold. Wages are altogether too high, and we cannot afford to pay for labour. The noxious weeds get in and it will not pay to keep them down. 62. Labour is not much higher than it was twenty years ago? —It is by a good deal. 63. In my district we had to pay men Bs. a day twenty years ago? —We could get them here at half that twenty years ago. If I were to go in for employing labour now the men who were working for me would soon have my farm. 64. Mr. McLennan.] Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? Yes. 65. Do you represent them here to-day?- No; 1 was not asked to represent them. 66. Do you know if the land between Devonport and Wade is- Crown land or private property? —No. 67. Do you know the value of that land?—A good deal of it I should think is worth nothing, except for the fact that it is near a centre. 68. Would it be worth £3 an acre?- I would not give half of that for it. 69. Mr. Paul.] Did you purchase your land straight out for cash?- Part of it, and part of it I took up on lease and purchased it afterwards. 70. You have not stated definitely what franchise you consider Land Boards should be elected under?—No, it is a thing that requires more consideration. 71. Do you think the dwellers in towns should have some say as to the way in which the lands should be administered and disposed of? —I think they should, but that is another question which should be thought cut. I think, however, the man in the country should have a little more say, at any rate. 72. You said the man in Queen Street should be called upon to contribute to your roads?— What I said was that the man in Queen Street got as much advantage from a good road to my place as I did. 73. Are you in favour of the three systems of tenure as they exist?— Yes; I think they work very well, only before the lands are actually put on the market I think they should be roaded to give access to the settlers, even if they have to be loaded a little for roads. 74. Do you consider the lease-in-perpetuity system is the best leasehold tenure?— No. 75. What would you substitute for it?— Well, I cannot answer that question. I do not believe in the leasehold at all. 76. At what could a farm-labourer be hired, say, twenty years ago?— About 12s. or 15s. per week. 77. Is farm labour double the price now that is was twenty or twenty-five years ago?— Yes. 78. You said that at- the present time if you took on a farm-labourer he would have a good chance of getting your farm: do you think that is a fair statement? —I say there is not a farmer in this district who could pay the ruling wages and have anything left for himself. 79. You would not like to become a farm-labourer ?- I would like to go on a farm and get from Bs. to 9s. a day, anyway. 80. Do you say the farm-labourer is better off than the landholder?— Yes, he is better off. Alexander Trotter examined. 81. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer living near here. I hold 850 acres of land altogether. About 550 acres is freehold and the rest leasehold. A portion of it I hold from the Government and the rest I acquired privately. The land I acquired from the Govern-
A. TROTTER.]
639
C—4.
ment was with the right of purchase. I have been about thirty-one years in this district, and I have had about eight years' experience in the South Island. Mine is a mixed farm. 82. What rate do you pay per annum for the land you hold from the Government? —I pay £7 per annum for 250 acres I hold from the Government. 83. Then, the land would be rather poor? —I do not think there is better land in the Tuhua Block. About 200 acres is in grass, and is substantially fenced. 84. Did it take the grass well? —Yes. My sections are numbered 185 and 186, and they are on the west coast, at the back of the Kaipara Flats. 85. I suppose anything you send to the market is sent by sea? —Sometimes, and sometimes by dray. 86. Mr. Anstey.] Are there many leasehold settlers at Tuhua? —I think most of the sections were taken under the optional system, but some were taken under the homestead system and some under the lease in perpetuity. 87. About what rents are being paid? —About the same rate, I think, as I am paying. I believe the Government valuation of the land was something about lis. That is, unimproved value. 88. Do you grow crops? —No; it is all under grass. 89. Any dairying? —No. 90. What is your chief revenue derived from? —From the sale of fat sheep and store sheep. 91. Do you breed more sheep than you fatten ? —I could fatten them all, but it is better to sell a portion of them as stores. I sell the cattle fat. 92. Have you good road-communication with Warkworth and elsewhere? —Yes, for driving stock, but not for wheel traffic. 93. Which is your port?— This is our port. All my stuff has to come over to Warkworth — about fourteen miles. 94. Mr. Forbes.] What form of land-tenure do you believe in? —I am in favour of the optional system. 95. You consider the lessees should have the right of purchase? —Yes. 96. How did you take up your land? —I bought it privately. 97. Have there been any auction sales of land since you have been here?- Only some small lots put on the market by private individuals. 98. As a whole, are the farmers doing fairly well in this district? —They are much more prosperous now than when 1 came to the district. 99. That is on account of better prices? —Yes, and there is more land under cultivation now, and the land is being better cultivated, because the people have more experience. 100. Do they go in for dairying at all? —Yes, and some of them do fairly well at it. 101. Have you a dairy factory here?- -There is one within six miles of us and another ten miles away. 102. Are they doing well? —Fairly well, to the best of my knowledge. 103. I suppose the biggest trouble up here is the road trouble? —Yes. 104. Is it the expense of getting suitable metal that is keeping them back? —Yes, and the want of funds. We are rated at l|d. in the pound. 105. Is that not sufficient to do much in the way of metalling? —I think if spent judiciously it might be made to go much further. 106. Is there any good metal to be obtained about here? —There is very passable metal. 107. Who spends this money? —There are the Road Board and the County Council. 108. Is there any difference in their management? —I do not know. 109. Have the Government been spending much?- I do not think so. 110. Then, you cannot compare their methods with those of the local bodies? —I believe we get less value from the local bodies than we get under the Government. 111. Mr. Hall.] You say you held some land with the right of purchase. Would you have taken up that land under the lease in perpetuity without the right of purchase? —I do not think I should. 112. Is the successful settlement of the land and the reclaiming of the waste lands in the interests of the community generally: that is, of the large towns as well as the country? —Certainly. 113. Do you consider the optional system would be the most successful way of making the waste lands of the country reproductive? —Yes. 114. Is there much land held for speculative purposes in the district ? —I do not think there is. There is some held by absentees. 115. Is it, generally speaking, held by bond fide settlers? —I do not think it is. 116. Would not the levying of a higher rate prevent those people from holding these lands? — Yes, I think so. I believe it was proposed some two or three years ago, but Ido not think it came to anything. 117. Do you consider this good healthy country for sheep? —Yes. 118. Do you think danthonia would be suitable for sheep pasturage? —I think it is the best class of grass for poor land. 119. Mr. Johnston.] Is the land at Tuhua of the same quality as the land about here? —It is superior. 120. What is the value of the land where you are? —I really could not say. Very few of the farms have changed hands. Probably it would bring £5 an acre in the market. 121. Where are the headquarters of the Rodney County? —At Warkworth. Mr. Beecroft is Chairman. 122. Is the valuation struck on the unimproved value? —I do not think so. 123. Do your two sections, 185 and 186, comprise 118 and 157 acres respectively? —Yes.
C.—4.
640
!"a. trotter.
124. Does your other land adjoin them? —My 500 acres of freehold is in another part of the district. 125. Is the road formed from Warkworth to these leasehold sections? —Yes; about ten miles of it is unmetalled. 126. What would be the cost of metalling it if let by tender? —It would cost fully £3 per chain. 127. Would it be a great benefit to the district if it was metalled? —Not to that particular district, because it is not agricultural country. 128. If you had the power to borrow money from the Crown to metal the road —the settlers to pay one-half the interest —would it be a sound investment? —I do not think so, except on the flat parts of the road. 129. Mr. McUardle.\ Do you consider it would be in the interests of small settlers to get assistance from the Government in the manner proposed by the Advances to Settlers Act?- I think it is a good thing. 130. Do you think that Act has been the means of bringing down the high rates of interest ? —I think the rates were gradually coming down, but perhaps the Act has brought them down all the quicker. 131. Have you taken any notice of the administration of the land under the Land Boards? —No. 132. Have you had any trouble with the Rangers? —No. 133. Mr. McCutchan.] In speaking of the rate levied by the local body, you think the ljd. in the pound might be more economically expended? —Yes. 134. You have spoken about the dual control by the County Council and the Road Board: do you think one local body should control the whole of the rating? —I think so. 135. There are the " thirds " from the leaseholds?- Yes, but they amount to very little. 136. Are they not utilised in giving access to the block? —Yes. 137. Do you think it would be better to utilise the "thirds " in paying interest and sinking fund upon a loan, under which they could get substantial work done? —I can scarcely answer that question. 138. Mr. McLennan.] In the case of large areas of land purchased by the Crown and offered for settlement, would you be in favour of leasing with the option of purchase?- Yes. 139. Do you think it would be to the benefit of both the Crown and the tenants?- -Yes. Joseph Phillips examined. 140. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a farmer. I have about 133 acres of freehold about four miles from here, near the Kaipara Flats. I have also 358 acres of leasehold in the Parish of Hoteo. I have the right of purchase. For that I pay a rental of .£6 14s. a year. 141. How long have you been farming here ? - Forty-five years. I have gone in for sheep and cattle principally. 142. Is there anything you wish particularly to bring before the Commission? —Only this: I have held my land now for ten years under lease with the right of purchase, and I now want to purchase. 143. Have you complied with the conditions?-Yes. 144. What is to prevent your getting the freehold? 1 have received no notice yet from the Government. 145. The Chainnan.] If you apply to the Commissioner of Crown Lands you should have no difficulty in getting your freehold. 146. Mr. Johnston.'] Have you made out of your own farm the money that you want to buy the freehold with?— Not out of the leasehold, but of the freehold. 147. Mr. Paul.] Have you formed any opinion as to the constitution of the Land Board?— 1 think it ought to be elected. 148. On what franchise?- The same as the House of Representatives. 149. Do you think the towns would have too much power? That is a question that wants thinking over. ...... , 150. You would not go so far as to say they have no right to a voice in the election of members of Land Boards? —No. ~,,,, , „ 151. I understood you to say that there is a lot of land held by absentees?- there is a portion held by absentees. 152. Is there some on the road between here and Auckland ?--There is a good portion of that land held by absentees. 153. That is freehold?— Yes. 154. Do vou think that is in the interests of the whole district?—No, Ido not. It is against the interests of the district. . 155 Do you think it would be more likely to have been good tor the district if that land had been settled on reasonable terms under the leasehold tenure?-I do not think you could get any one to take up that land on the leasehold tenure. 156 It takes many years before you can get a return from it? —Yes. 157 Do you not think the State might go so far as to give that land to an intending settler at a very low rent, and in some cases at no rent, for a certain period ? -I think it would be beneficial to the State to make a gift of that land to any settler. _ 158 Mr McCutchan.] With reference to absentees, have the ratepayers in your district ever considered the question of rating on the unimproved value, so as to catch these people?— They discussed it two years ago, but they have arrived at no decision so far. 159. Was a poll taken?—No; the question was simply discussed,
641
C—4.
J. PHILLIPS. j
160. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you think it would be wise for the State to introduce legislation compelling rating on unimproved value, instead of leaving the question to the district itself? — I could not give a decided answer on that point. 161. Do you think it would be in the interests of your district if the rating was on the unimproved value? —I think it would in regard to my district ; but 1 would like to consider the question further before giving a decided opinion. Henry Civil examined. 162. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and hold 900 acres seventeen miles from Warkworth, in the Wangaripu district. In the first case I took up .300 acres under the homestead system, and that land is now freehold, and 41 acres adjoining I acquired twelve months ago, having the right of purchase. I hold 262 acres under lease in perpetuity. I took up the lease-in-perpetuity section eleven years ago. The other 300 acres I have got under the optional tenure. 163. How do you like the lease-in-perpetuity tenure?—l dislike it very much. 164. What is your objection? —I will never have a free hand in connection with it. 165. Would you like to make it a freehold? —Yes. 166. I suppose you wanted that land? —It was adjoining my other land, and having a large family I had too little land to live on, because it is poor country. 167. You would be satisfied with the 600 acres under the optional system? —Yes, I think that is a good system. 168. You believe that the end of any system should be the right of having the freehold? —Yes. 169. What farming do you do? It is only sheep and cattle. It was all standing bush when we went on the Jand. 500 acres at least is now in grass. I have 317 sheep and about 160 cattle. My rent for the lease-in-perpetuity section is a fraction under sd. an acre. 170. Mr. Anstey.\ Were both those farms valued at the same upset price—the lease in perpetuity and the right of purchase? —No, one was valued at more than the other. 171. Have you got fair roads to those blocks? —I have got a bridle-track. 172. Do you think it would be a wise thing for the Government to spend a fair sum in making a road to the land, and adding it to the cost? —We took it up under the homestead system. In respect to settlers taking up land under the homestead system, I suppose it would have paid the Government to have made the roads. 173. Have you a fair road to get your produce to market, or do you get it out by boat? —- We have to bring it to Warkworth or to Matakana. I have packed my wool into Warkworth and to Matakana for seventeen years. We have been promised by the various Governments that they would attend to our wants, but those promises have not been fulfilled. 174. Is the road fairly passable in summer-time? —You have to pack your goods both summer and winter. 175. What local body are you under? —Rodney County Council. 176. Is there a lload Board in that district ? —No. 177. What rates are you paying? —3jd. in the pound on the capital value, which is equal to 2s. in the pound on the letting value. 178. Do they ever spend the rates in doing useful work on the roads? —They spend the rates, but there is not much from that source. 179. Do they spend it economically?---In the early days we would get twice as much work done on the roads as is done now. 180. What is the reason? —In the early days work was scarce. Now it is more difficult to get men for the work. 181. Mr. Forbes.'] What is your objection to the lease in perpetuity. Does the Ranger give you any trouble? —No, the Ranger has not given me much trouble. .182. What is your particular objection to it? —Under the lease in perpetuity there would be some trouble in disposing of it, but if we had the right of purchase we could dispose of it quickly. 183. But, in the case of men remaining on the land, that trouble would not arise? —In the case of men wishing to live hand to mouth it is a good system. 184. You do not like the lease in perpetuity? —No, I hate it, and I have neighbours who hold a similar opinion, but they are not here to-day. 185. Do you wish to buy your lease-in-perpetuity land?- I would like to have the right of purchase. 186. Are the farmers in this district in a position to buy their places?— Plenty of them never will be, I believe; but the settlers have to work very long hours, and I think they are entitled to a little consideration in comparison with people in the cities. 187. Mr. Hall.] You hold land under three different tenures: which do you consider best in the interest of the settler ? —The freehold if he can get it. 188. Is it also the best in the interests of the State? —I think so. 189. Is there much land held by absentees in your district? —No. 190. Would it not be better to levy your rates on the unimproved value, so as to bring pressure to bear on those who do not use the land ? —I am so far advanced now it would not matter much. 191. But for local rating, would it not be better to rate on the unimproved value so that people could not afford to keep their land lying idle? —I would be against that. 192. Is it not the case that every man who improves his land is letting others off who do not? — Yes, but what would be the position of a young man who goes on the land. It would be hard for him to live on the place.
81—0. 4.
C.—4.
642
[h. civil.
193. Mr. Matheson.] What is the distance of your place from Warkworth? —About seventeen miles. 194. According to this plan there is six miles of metalled road? —If the map shows a formed dray-road it must be correct, because I have to pack all my wool to Warkworth. 195. Do you know that under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act you can borrow to do the work of roading yourself I—Yes.1 —Yes. 196. Is the reason you have not done so because you think it would put too high a rate on your property? —It would make it so that I could not pay it. 197. Have you ever gone into figures to see what it would cost? —No. 198. Mr. McCardle.] Suppose the Government were to advance to the local bodies the whole of the rent, or the value of the land as sold by them, would that be sufficient to make the road? — It would take all the value of the land in some places to make the roads to some of these sections. 199. Do you not think it would be a wise thing on the part of the Government to make a new departure in the direction I have suggested in the interests of settlement? —They make promises and give us nothing. 200. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Board?- Yes. 201. Has it been satisfactory? —Yes. 202. You think it is a good thing for the country? —Yes; I think it is a good thing for a young man taking up land. Many a young man would not get pushed along without such help as is given by that Department. My relations with the Department have been satisfactory, but I have heard some complaints from others. 203. Mr. McCutchan.] What was the upset price of your right-of-purchase section? —7s. and 7s. 6d. 204. And then there was the loading ? —Yes. 205. You said the Government made promises and did nothing? —They have expended some money, but I may mention that last year the engineer of the district said he would recommend £50 being voted for a particular road, but that he could not guarantee it. The grant was not received. 206. What is the average valuation of the block? —I would have to go into figures to get at that. 207. Have the "thirds" been expended on the roads? —That is a question it is difficult to answer. 208. Have you made inquiry from the local body as to whether they have expended the "thirds "1 —In this county every Councillor spends the money in his own district. 209. They cannot expend the "thirds" money? —They do so. 210. Does not the County Council submit the schedule of expenditure of the "thirds " to the Land Boards? —I do not think so. 211. Do you say "thirds" are expended in another part of the county? —They have spent none in my district this year. 212. Mr. Pauli\ Are you satisfied with the Land Board? —I have never had any business with the Board. 213. Have you formed any opinion as to the best constitution of the Land Boards?- I think they ought to be elected. 214. On what franchise? —I cannot say. 215. Do you believe in the land-for-settlements policy? —Not as long as the Government have plenty of land of their own to cut up. 216. You state that you have a large family, and that your present holding is not large enough, and therefore you took up additional land under lease in perpetuity: did not that tenure suit you best? —I have regretted ever since I took it up, but it was a section adjoining mine; I have since seen that I have made a mistake. 217. Have you made money on it? —No. 218. Do you think, if the option of the freehold were given, the settlers would be in a position to buy the freehold ?—They are all working hard. I know some who would be able to take up the land. I know some settlers who are very sorry they took it up under lease in perpetuity, and who would now think they should have taken it up with the right of purchase. 219. Have they the money to buy the freehold? —I do not know that they have the money yet, but they are working early and late and are earning money. 220. Do you think it would be better that settlers should borrow money and buy the freehold, rather than hold the land under lease in perpetuity?- They would feel more free with the freehold. I might mention to the Commission that about two years ago I happened to be in Auckland, at about the time I get the money for my wool. I have always made it a rule to pay mv rent in advance at that time, because sometimes in the winter-time a farmer may not have so much money on hand. I paid my rent and got 10-per-cent. discount allowed, but in the month of July following I got a long letter saying I paid 3d. too little. Considerable delay took place and correspondence in connection with the 3d., and ultimately I was informed I must pay the 3d., or if I did not I would lose the 10-per-cent. rebate in the following January. I felt sure the charge was not right, but rather than have any further bother about it I paid the 3d. 221. With reference to the settler's interest and the State's interest to-day, the settler's interest far outweighs that of the State, judging from the present value of the land. Do you not recognise that in course of time the State's interest will outweigh that of the settler? —Yes. 222. The land will not always remain at its present value?—We cannot tell that. 223. We know that land in settled parts of the colony has increased enormously in value in the last fifty years?—Yes : but I know of land in Auckland that has decreased in value.
H. B. FRENCH.]
643
C.-v 4.
Henky Robert French examined. 224. The Chairman.] What sire you? lam Clerk of the Rodney County Council, and have occupied that position for six years. lam also a settler, and hold 80 acres of land. 225. Is there any particular matter you would like to bring before the Commission? In listening to the evidence given by previous witnesses, and the questions of the members of the Commission, it seemed to me that the Commission wanted further evidence regarding the roading question, which is one of the burning questions in this country. The rateable value of the Rodney County is a trifle over £300,000 that is, the capital value. The unimproved value is a little over £150,000. There are about 190 miles of main county roads. The revenue per year per chain is Is. 3d. That is on the main roads only, and does not include district roads. The general rate on the old valuation would amount to about £900. The county has just been revalued and the Assessment Court is to sit at the beginning of next month. 1 think the new valuation will probably be 50 per cent, higher than the old one. A poll was taken on a loan proposal about fifteen years ago. At that time the Counties Act had a limitation that a county could only borrow about four times the amount of the general rate, and £3,600 at that time was quite inadequate to do the work required. The proposal was rejected by the majority of the ratepayers. The enlarged borrowing powers have only been in force for two or three years, and the question of revaluation having cropped up nothing has been done regarding any loan proposals. That question will probably receive consideration. 226. I suppose these statements go to show that the county has very little money to spread over such an enormous length of roads? —Yes. The want of roads is a great detriment to settlement in this county. The last witness was asked about the expenditure of "thirds "on his road. I may state that there is one amount that has not been paid into the bank, and, although a letter on the subject was sent to the Receiver of Land Revenue about June last, no answer has been received. The last witness's payment was in that amount. Not even an acknowledgment has been received from the Receiver of Land Revenue. I would not have mentioned that matter had it not been for Mr. Civil's statement. The County Council has pressed repeatedly that the Government subsidy on rates should be paid on a graduated scale. The poorer districts have often more engineering difficulties than the richer districts, but the richer districts get more subsidy from the Government. 227. Mr. Anstey.] Do you administer all the rates of the county, or are there other local bodies that administer some of them ? There are Road Boards in some parts of the county. I think there are twelve Road Boards in the county. 228. What roads do the Road Boards attend to.' The district roads. 229. Can you give us the mileage of those roads compared with the county roads? —No. 230. Have you any other revenue besides the £900 general rates ? —There are kauri-gum licenses, &c. The revenue is about £3,000. 231. Your revenue from other sources besides the rate is about £2,000? —Yes, but there is expenditure in connection with that. 232. Your total revenue is £3,000, and your expenditure is only equal to about Is. 3d. per chain on the general rate? —Yes. 233. Your revenue is much larger than that, including the other sources of revenue? —Yes; but, so far as grants are concerned, there Ts no regularity. 234. Can you say what these items of expenditure are? —There is about £200 a year for charitable aid 235. What other expenditure have you? —The cost of administration runs into about £300 a year. Then there is the maintenance of wharves. It varies in different years. 236. You have given us items amounting to about £500: that would mean about £2,000 for road purposes? —That was for last year. It fluctuates owing to the Government grants. 237. How much of this is spent in metalling the roads? —That varies also from year to year. 238. Mr. Matheson.] What is the largest grant you have received in any one year, as far as you can remember? —Perhaps £2,000 would cover it. 239. Mr. McCardle.~\ Would it not be much better for the Government to give by way of subsidy, say, the whole of the value of the Crown lands sold in so many years, and that the amount should be paid back in interest and sinking fund? —Something requires to be done in order to provide a more assured revenue. 240. The present system is not a satisfactory one? —No 241. Have you considered the question of I consider that the freehold tenure is the best every time. 242. On what condition —straight out from the Crown, or by some system of easy payments? — Occupation with the right of purchase, or under the deferred-payment system. 243. Would you make that apply to the holdings under the Land for Settlements Act? —I think it would be in the interests of the colony if that were done. In that case it would require, in my opinion, some legislation to prevent the aggregation of large estates. 244. Would you be prepared to grant the freehold at the value now fixed by the Crown ? —Yes, provided that value recouped the State for its outlay. 245. Do you not think it would be fair if that question was considered that there should be some increase in the value before the tenant purchased?— Probably so, inasmuch as the land has not been put up to competition. The prices have been fixed, and the successful applicants at the ballot have secured the land at these prices. 246. Do you think it would be in the interests of the settlers to get that change of tenure? — I think so. 247. Then it would be worth something extra to the settler? I think a distinction wants to be drawn here. The State is not in competition with the units who compose the State. If the units of the population are in an independent and prosperous position the State as a whole will be independent and prosperous.
644
h. e.!fbench.
C.—4.
248. If a person is going to get certain advantages under the change of tenure, do you not think the general taxpayers of the colony should participate in that advantage? —I should say, perhaps, yes, because if the leasehold is to be given it should be given to the one who is best able to give the most for it, and who intends to occupy it to make the best use of it. 249. Do you know anything about the working of the Advances to Settlers Office in this district? —I know the settlers have taken advantage of it. I have heard nothing against it. 250. In regard to the question of "thirds," do you not think it would be much better for the local body to borrow on the strength of these "thirds" rather than spend them in dribs and drabs as they now do? —There would be an advantage, certainly. Some of the "thirds" are so small that it is an absolute waste of time and money to spend them. 251. Mr. McCutchan.] You say that the old capital value of the county is £300,000: do you know what the new valuation is ? —lt cannot be ascertained yet. 252. Supposing the new valuation is higher, is it the intention of the Council to strike the same rate as the present one?— That is a matter that has yet to receive consideration. 253. Yoa say that the revenue from the general rate is £900 a year on the old valuation? —Yes. 254. And that the Road Boards in the county are striking a three-farthings rate too? —One small Road Board is striking a farthing rate, but the bulk of them are striking a three-farthings rate. 255. Can you tell me what the valuation works out at per acre over the settled acreage of the county? —I have not reckoned it out. 266. I understood you to say that there are twelve Road Boards and one County Council within the Rodney County controlling a rate expenditure of somewhere about £1,600 a year: do all these local bodies possess clerks and engineers? —None of them have engineers. In one riding there is a foreman of works. 257. Who controls the expenditure? The councillors in each riding. 258. Therefore the councillors are their own engineers ? —That is so. 259. Is that not an extraordinary state of affairs? —It is simply owing to the small revenue. They have to make the best use of it. 260. Surely if the main object is to make the best use of the revenue it would be better to wipe all the Road Boards out, and leave the expenditure to the County Council? —That is a question for the ratepayers and the Road Boards. 261. You made the statement that no loan proposal has been brought forward by your county under the Loans to Local Bodies Act except the big proposal that originally came forward, although for several years now the right to borrow up to £6,000 a year lias been available to your Council, and the right to borrow up to £3,000 a year has been available to all the Road Boards: why have they not exercised that power ? The position is that the question of revaluation has been looming ahead ever since that amendment of the Act came into force. 262. But does the question of revaluation apply? —Yes. The valuation has been unequal, and as the interest has to be paid by the land it would be paid unequally by the ratepayers. It is necessary to have a valuation that would be more equitable. 263. Would not each riding have to put forward its own loan proposal? —I do not know that that would apply. However, the question is simply nebulous at present. 264. In dealing with the question of tenure, 1 understood you to say you did not approve of the lease in perpetuity but believed in the option of purchase ?- That is so. 265. You, as a practical settler, and as one having had a wide experience of settlers here, are aware it is in the first eight or ten years that the settler has to face his greatest troubles and expense ? —Yes. 266. Well, is not the system of land-tenure, which makes his payments as small as possible during that period, the system which should be retained on the statute-book? —It is only a difference of I per cent. 267. But is it not very often a small margin at the start that makes the difference between success and failure?- Ido not think so. It is so slight that it might be met in other ways. 268. Then, you advocate that people under the 999-years lease should have the option of purchase by paying up the extra 1 per cent, and the interest on that 1 per cent.? —Yes. 269. Mr. Paul.\ With reference to the freehold of improved estates purchased under the Land for Settlements Act, would you favour that land being put up to auction after the improvements had been conserved to the tenants at a full valuation I—l1 —I would not express an opinion as to the best method of dealing with it. I have not thought sufficiently about it. 270. I thought you said the land should go to the people who paid the most for it? —Yes, provided they carried on their farming operations and showed themselves to be bond fide settlers. 271. Do you think there would be anything unjust in putting up these holdings to auction if the improvements were conserved to the tenants? —There might be. 272. Have vou had any experience of these improved estates, or have you visited any of them? —No. 273. Then, why do you give your opinion that it would be the best thing for the State to give the freehold to these settlements? —For the reason that I stated before —that the freer the units of the State are the better it is for the State. 274. But the units of the State interested in these special settlements are not only the tenants settled there ? —That may be so, but not to the same extent. 275. Yet, without any knowledge of the condition of the settlement on these estates, you believe that the settlers should get the freehold?- I think it would be better in the interests of the State. 1 hold that if the town workmen have a right to say under what tenure the country lands are to be held, then the country settlers have a right to say what wages the town workers are to receive when their cases go before the Arbitration Court. I think the positions are analogous.
C—4.
H. It. FBENOH.]
645
276. Do you think the freehold is the best system for the cities, having regard to the fact that instances have been brought before us of the enormous increase in the value of city property owing to the growth of population? —Certainly 1 do, because the city people pay taxation upon that land. 277. And they get the benefit of the community-created value? —I do not know so much about that. We had a case in point in Albert Street, Auckland. A vacant allotment was sold at greatly in excess of the original purchase price, and it appeared on the face of it to have been a very good speculation; but when the rates and taxes paid over these years came to be capitalised, it was found that the owner would have been better off if he had invested his money elsewhere. 278. Would you give the freehold of educational and other endowments? —No. I think they should be conserved for the purposes for which the endowments were made. 279. But, having in view the instance you quoted in Albert Street, if the endowment lands were sold and the money invested in other directions, would not the special purposes for which the endowments were set apart receive greater benefit? —They might or might not. These things fluctuate. 280. Generally speaking, you think land is a pretty safe investment, and therefore these endowments should be conserved for the purposes for which they were set apart? —That is so. Alfred Woodcock examined. 281. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler of forty-three years' standing. I live seven miles and a half from Warkworth. There is a railway-station on my property, and I expect the railway to be through scon. 1 came out under the 40-acre system. I hold now 400 acres or more land, and with my sous another 1,000 acres. It is mostly held under occupation with the right of purchase. lam paying 6d. per acre rent. I use the land for sheep and cattle farming. I may say the original 40 acres which I cleared and grassed are all grown up with rubbish again, and the land is of very little use. That sort of thing will occur on the shady side of all these hills. I have had about 10 chains of metalled road made during the forty years I have been here. During the first years I had to pack all my goods in and out. We have a road now, but we had to make it ourselves. For years we never got our " thirds," and for years the " thirds " have been wasted. 282. Mr. Anstey.] Is it a county road you say so little money has been spent on?— Yes. 283. How much money has been spent on it? —About £3 per year. 284. How much do your rates amount to? —I paid £6 the other day, and I will be lucky if I get £2 back on the road. We never get our rates expended. 285. Can you tell me what the County Council do with the balance? —No, I cannot. We have no engineer in the llodney County, and you ought to see for yourselves how the money is spent. To give an instance, I may say they built a culvert the other day without any mortar, and, of course, it fell down. 286. Have you a Road Board? —Yes —a lovely Board. They collect about £18 per year, and 1 pay £6 of that amount. 287. Can you tell us how that money is spent? —No. 288. How much is your rate for the Road Board ? —I owe them £6 now, and I will not pay it until I know I am going to get some return for it. 289. Can you give us the reason why you do not get any return from your rates? —No. I suppose it is simply because the Board is at one end and we are at the other, and they spend the money where they choose. 290. How are the members of the Board elected ? —Like other Boards, I suppose —by the ratepayers. 291. Have you a vote? —Yes; but I never go there to vote. 292. If you exercised the franchise, might not you improve the Road Board by putting good men on it? —I suppose it would be simply the old thing over again. 293. Mr. McCardle.] What is your opinion in regard to tenure? —I believe in the freehold tenure. That is what I came out from the Old Country for; I wanted to ge't a bit of freehold. • 294. You believe in a lease with the right of purchase? —Yes. 295. Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Board? —No. 296. Have you any opinion about the Land Board?--No; I suppose they are the same as other Boards. 297. You have a " set " on all kinds of Boards?- Yes. Alfred Vipond examined. 298. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler. I have 400 acres of freehold, 300 acres of which I took up originally under the Homestead Act, 75 acres under lease, and 30 acres for cash. I live about fourteen miles from here on the Kaipara Flats. Igo in for cattle and sheep farming. 299. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —No. 300. Mr. Anstey.\ Are you a member of any local body ? —Not at present. 301. How do you get on with your local bodies: do they provide you with good roads? — With the best they can with the money available, I presume. 302. Have you any fault to find with them? —No. 303. Are there any lease-in-perpetuity settlers adjoining or near you? —I believe there are some. 304. Are they successful?- They get on like other people. 305. Do they manage to farm their land as well as other people? —Just about the same. 306. There is nothing in the form of their tenure that prevents them being good settlers? — No; but they are generally in favour of having the freehold.
C—4.
646
[a. vipond.
307. Mr. Johnston.] Is your land bush land? —Yes. 308. Is it cleared now and sown down ? —Yes; but there is a good deal of rubbish and fern on it. 309. Is it flat land? —No, it is broken hills. Ido not know how it came to be called Kaipara Flats. 310. What is the value of the land? —I think £1 per acre was put as the unimproved value. 311. Can you keep the rubbish down by stocking the land? No; we keep it down by cutting it. 312. Mr. Matheson.] Are you hampered by want of roads?- -I have been. I have only lately got a cart-road to my place. 313. Where did the money come from?— Partly from the Road Board and partly from the County Council. 314. There was no special loan for it?— No. 315. Mr. McCardle.] What is the value of your land to-day with your improvements? —I think about £3 per acre. 316. How much have you spent in improving the land?- I could not tell you. 317. Has it amounted to £2 an acre? —I have been there twenty years with a family of boys, and we have been working all the time improving the property. 318. Would £5 per acre pay you for everything you have done? —I do not think it would. 319. Mr. Paul.] Have you ever gone into the figures to find out whether it would pay you or not? —No, and it would be almost impossible to do so, owing to the way I have worked. 320. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board?— They have never interfered with me at all. Thomas Cornock Sainsbury examined. 321. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler and farmer at Kaipara Flats. I hold 600 acres of freehold. My wife holds 100 acres of Government leasehold under deferred payment. I have been there twenty-five years. I use the land for cattle and sheep farming. My land was originally all under heavy bush, and about 250 acres is still under bush. 322. Has your long connection with that district been satisfactory to yourself? —No. 323. What has marred your expectations? —The land has deteriorated. 324. How do you account for that? —It is owing to the growth of noxious weeds and fern and suchlike, and also its failure to hold grass. 325. Do vou ever plough any of it? —I ploughed about 50 out of 70 acres on the flat at great expense. 326. Did the grass hold there?— Yes, very well. There is some surface-sown grass there that lias been down forty years, and it is still holding. I put in all sorts of the best grasses I could get hold of —cocksfoot, ryegrass, fescues, timothy, &c. I did not put in clover, because the land will not hold it. 327. What stock do you carry? —From three to five hundred sheep and about fifty head of cattle. 328. Is there any particular point you want to emphasize? —I am a great advocate of the freehold. I had twenty years' experience of renting in the Old Country before I came out here, and that, was what brought me out. I have been terrorized, I consider, in the Old Country by landlords. I could never get a lease there. 329. Mr. Anstey.] Are the 50 acres all the land you have that is capable of being ploughed?--There may be 20 more acres that could be ploughed. There the hillsides that could be ploughed one way, but they would only slip away after the first heavy rain. 330. Why have you not ploughed all your land that could be ploughed? —Because I have not money enough to work it. It is no use breaking the land unless I come to Warkworth and fetch manure out for it. As soon as we put our plough into the greund our expenses commence. 331. Will it ultimately pay you to plough?- Not until we get better communication. We have only stock there, and the price of stock has been very low sometimes. The land will not pay to grow grain or root crops. 332. Can you do anything to renew the grass that has deteriorated ?—Nothing at all. 333. What do you do about the noxious weeds?—l keep them all down except fern. The noxious weeds are the one thing our union has been fighting very hard about. The noxious weeds are around us, and we are fighting hard to keep them away. *1 may say that within the last three years ragwort has appeared in our district, and it has come in the very cleanest seed I could get in Auckland. • 334. Do your neighbours keep down the weeds? —Some do and some do not. 335! Has a Ranger been appointed?— Yes, this year. Some of the settlers are only cutting blackberries now after they have done fruiting, and that is no use at all. The blackberry must be cut in December. 336. Supposing you had not sunk all your money 111 buying the freehold, do you think you would have had money enough to continue cultivation? I should have left the district if I had not got the freehold. I should leave New Zealand very quick if there was 110 freehold land here. 337. Do you think there is any comparison between the yearly tenure you had in England and our' 999-years lease? Do you think there is likely to be as much tyranny under it, for instance? —I think about the same in years to come. 338. Do you think also you have no better security under the 999-years lease here than under a year-to-year tenancy in England?— Not a bit, because we have one Government now, but we do not know what the next Government is going to be, and because every year fresh laws are made, some of which are very obnoxious to the settlers. 339. Are you a member of the Farmers' Union?- Yes; I am the secretary of our branch. 340. Are you representing the union here to-day? —No.
T. C. SAINSBUBY. ]
647
C.—4.
341. Have you had any meetings of the Farmers' Union to consider the question of sending a representative before the Commission? —No. We only knew you were coming here yesterday. 342. Are you a member of the Road Board or County Council? —Not now. 343. How do the local bodies treat you? —All about the same. We get very little. I think a great deal of the money is wasted. For instance, when a roadman has to go seven miles in the morning to his work and seven miles back again in the evening I look upon that as waste. 344. Can you tell us why the money is wasted? —It is left to the local bodies to manage their affairs. 345. Are they incapable of managing their affairs? —I cannot say. The member from each riding can do as he pleases in his district. He can appoint men to do the work, and he can say what work has to be done, and we have nothing else to do but pay our rates until the next election. Then, if we can get enough votes we can turn him out, but if not he stands in again. 346. Do you generally turn out inefficient members ?—Not at all, because the members can make a lot of friends and supporters by the work they can give. I think if we had a practical engineer our roads would be better. It is just the same with the freehold. A man with a freehold will work well for himself, but a man with a leasehold will not. I know people who have land under leasehold. They fell it and work it and get it under grass for a few years, and then they throw it up and let some one else get it, whereas if the land was freehold and owned by them I think these men would do their best to keep their places going. 347. Mr. Forbes.] Have you had any experience of the lease in perpetuity? —No. 348. Have you ever been in the South and seen the improved settlements there, and the way the people are working the land tinder the lease in perpetuity there ? —I have not been in the South. 349. What class of leasehold is it that you say the settlers throw up after grassing down? They throw up all leaseholds. 350. Is that a payable thing? —It is for the tenant, because I can cut down a piece of bush pretty cheap with my own labour, and I can sow it down in grass at from 6s. to £1 per acre. I can have ten years' use out of that land, and after that the grass goes out and there is only a bit of fern left to support the stock, and that, will not keep anything. The fern will run over the ground and destroy all vegetation. 351. Is that sort of thing going on here at all? —Yes, and there will be more of it. 352. You think if settlers had the option of buying the freehold it would not go on? —I do not think to such an extent. 353. Does it ever go on under freehold tenure? —Not that I am aware of. There may be a lazy settler here and there, or one who is working on the roads or in the bush or on the gumfields. They may neglect their places, or leave them to their wives and children to work. 354. A petition was sent out from the Farmers' Union, asking for the freehold: had you anything to do with it here? —The question was sent up by our executive in Auckland. We were all for the freehold. 355. Did you send a large petition from here? —We only have twenty-seven members in our branch. 356. Were they all Crown tenants? —No. We have as many leaseholders as freeholders. The question was brought up, " Are you in favour of freehold or leasehold? " and we were all in favour of the freehold. 357. Did you sign a petition to that effect? —No. I sent that as a resolution to the Auckland executive. 358. Mr. llall.] Do you not consider 999 years' lease good enough and long enough to induce people to farm their land properly? —No, and my reason is that every three years we have fresh Ministers and members. We know what our laws are now, but we do not know what they are going to be next year; and I have heard complaints from many that they are subject to a good lot of restrictions in regard to cropping in the South. In the North there are no such restrictions, because there is no amount of cropping done. 359. But do you question the security of the lease-i-n-perpetuity tenure? —Yes, I do, very much. 360. Can you suppose that any Legislature would upset a title to land legally entered into? -I believe they will. 361. If they did do such an unprecedented and unconstitutional thing and such a wrong to the subject, do you not think the Imperial Parliament would step in to prevent it? —I am doubtful because you find that in our Parliament there are no practical men. They are not farmers, and they do not understand the land question. 362. Has land increased in value much in this district? —No. The flats have increased, because you can get something out of them. 363. Where the land has increased in consequence of the toil and hard work of the settler, do you think he is entitled to the benefit of the increase? He should be entitled to the increase of his labour. 364. Mr. Johnston.] Is it a very honourable thing to work out the land and then throw it back on the landlord ? —Yes; it is self first and others afterwards. 365. What noxious weeds did you refer to? —Blackberry, sweetbriar, and gorse. 366. Where do you think this ragwort came from? —It came from my seeds, but I cannot tell you what seed it was in. 367. Have you any Californian thistle? —Not yet; but if it does come here it will be all up with us. 368. Do all the settlers approve of the idea of taking up leasehold land and getting all they can out of it and then throwing it up? —Not all of them. This part of the colony does not contain farmers. They are what are called " cockatoos." They do a day's work here and a day's work somewhere else.
C—4.
648
It. c. sainsbury.
369. Do you think the same number of settlers would have been on the land now if it had not been for the Land for Settlements Act? —That is a question I cannot answer. 370. Do you think that the leasehold tenure has been the means of putting people on the land ? —A great many have gone on under that system, and especially with the right of purchase. Many of them had no money of their own to buy land, and they wanted to get on the land. 371. Do you not think the Government could legislate just as much against freehold as they could against leasehold ? —No. 372. Have they not already passed an Act to enable them to acquire freehold land? —Yes, and it would be a blessing if they would pass an Act to reacquire some of our land. 373. Mr. Matheson.] If the settlers in this county had to depend on their own farms for a living, do you think they could make a living? —No, I do not. 374. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to the valuation of the land, you say the hills have gone back in value? —Yes. 375. Were they originally under bush? —Yes, under heavy bush. 376. You say you put in a fine mixture of grasses? —Yes; the very best I could. 377. And the fern has gradually come in? —Yes. 378. Is it not the case that when you get land below a certain quality anywhere in the colony fern will come in? —I cannot tell you. 379. Is not that the case with your land?— No. The fern has come up on the good land just as well as on the bad land. 380. What is the carrying-capacity of your level land? —From a sheep to a sheep and a half per acre. 381. Do you call that good land?—lt is good for this district. 382. Was it on the County Council you had a seat? —Yes, and on the Road Board. 383. Did your Council keep road accounts? —Yes. 384. We heard complaints from witnesses this morning that money had been taken from their locality and spent elsewhere? —Yes. 385. If road accounts were kept, how did that money come to be transferred? —Because a bridge might be down or a landslip occur in one part of the district, and if there was no money available from that district to do the work they must take the money from another district. 386. Under those circumstances what is the object of keeping road accounts?—To show where the money has been spent, so that a readjustment might be made afterwards. 387. Is not a road account kept for the purpose of protecting a particular locality ?—Yes. 388. If the money is taken away from that locality is it not an act of dishonesty on the part of the Council?—l suppose so; but if you have no money to keep up your works in one district you must take it from somewhere else. 389. Then, has separate rate been transferred from one riding to another ?—Yes. 390. In direct violation of statute law?—lt is done by the riding member. If he has not enough money from his riding he must get it from the Council. 391. Does the Auditor-General pass expenditure of that nature?—l do not know how it is passed. 392. Mr. McLennan.'] As secretary of the Farmers' Union, can you say if the meeting at which the question of freehold versus leasehold was discussed was called together by circular ?—Yes; I notified the members. 393. Was it stated to them that the question of freehold versus leasehold was to be considered? —"Y GS 394. Were any of the public there?—No, only our members. 395. Mr. Paul.] Did .you act as your own engineer when you were on the County Council?— Yes. I spent the money to the best of my ability. 396. Do you think that is a good system?—No; but it was the best thing we could do. 397. What becomes of the improvements on these leaseholds when they are surrendered?— That is a thing I cannot answer. 398. Still, they are surrendering their holdings with improvements on them?— Yes, and it will pay them. They can keep an account of the cost of their bushfelling and fencing and grassing. . . 399. When these leaseholds are surrendered is a fresh tenant immediately available I JNo: and that is why I say it is doing a great deal of harm to the colony. 400. Then, does not the settler forfeit his improvements?—He has put the land in grass, and he has had the use of it, and if he stays any longer he knows he cannot maintain his stock or himSelf 40L You say a man fells the bush and grasses the land and then surrenders it?— Yes, after he has got all he can out of it. , „ TT , . . 402. Would it not do for the incoming tenant to regrass the land ?— Mow could the incoming tenant regrass it? How could he regrass the steep rough hills or the broken country? 403. How was it done in the first place?—By cutting the bush and burning and then sowing. 404! If you took up leasehold land and got it into that state would you surrender it?—l would with the greatest pleasure to-morrow. , 405. If that is how the land goes, why do these people buy the freehold'—Because they know that whatever they spend on the freehold they spend for themselves and their families. It is their home, and they are not harassed by the landowners or Rangers or any one else. My home is my CaStl< 4o6. And they can sell it?— Yes, or divide it up, or deal with it in any way they please. If they have a leasehold they have to depend on the Government. 407. Not so long as "they pay their rent? —Yes, in a lot of little ways.
T. C. BAINSBTJBY.]
649
C. 4.
408. Then, if we are to have such tyrannical Governments in the future cannot they get at the freehold by increasing the land-tax? —Of course, they can, and that is why I say the Government should be composed of practical farmers. 409. Then, the fact is that the settler is in a hopeless position 2 —He is. 410. Freeholder and leaseholder? —Not so much in regard to the freehold. 411. Mr. Anstey.] In regard to the settlers who are felling the bush and grassing down the land and throwing it up, are they in this neighbourhood?—On the Kaipara Flats 412. How many have thrown up their sections?—l do not know of any. It is a thing which is spoken of as likely to occur in the future. James Clayden examined. 413. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, but I have done other things. I have a little over 600 acres of freehold about three miles from Warkworth. It is mixed farming. 414. Mr. Matheson.\ How many years have you been in the district? —Nearly forty years. 415. Have you made a living out of your land most of the time? —I cannot say that. I have often had to resort to other things. lam really a builder by trade; but, still, I have resided on the land. 416. Does it now provide you with a living? —Yes. 417. Mr. McCardle.] What do you consider is the best tenure to bring about the settlement of the country rapidly? What do you think of the lease in perpetuity? —I have always fought shy of leases, and in my own case I should not have leased only that the land was connected with my other property. 418. I suppose we must have consideration for other people who have not money enough to buy the freehold ? —lf they have a little I would advise them to take a lease with the right of purchase. 419. Mr. Paul.] Are the settlers in this district fairly prosperous?— Well, they have plenty to eat and drink, and they have their pleasures, and so forth; but it is not a district that I, as a young man, would think of settling in. 420. Is it worth roading properly? —If it is not worth roading it is not worth having. 421. Is it too expensive to road? —I do not know about that; but the system is bad. I know the money they have is not sufficient, but it is not spent judiciously, in my opinion. I blame the local bodies for that. Charles Phillips examined. 422. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler holding 297 acres of freehold at the Kaipara Flats, which is about four miles from Warkworth. 423. Have you any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I only wish to say that lam an out-and-out freeholder; but if there are people who would like a leasehold for a time to give them a start I think they ought to have the right of purchase. 424. You recognise that the lease is a good way of starting people on the land ?—I got started without it, and have brought up a large family on the land. 425. How long have you been in the district? —About forty-three years. 426. I suppose you use your land very much as your neighbours do? —Yes. 427. Mr. Anstey.] Have you good road-communication? —No; I wish I had. 428. Who makes your roads? —The Road Board and the County Council, I suppose, do what they can. We have not had much Government assistance. 429. How are you rated? —We pay a three-farthings rate in the Mahurangi Road District. 430. What staff do the Road Board keep?— They have a Clerk, who acts also as Clerk for the County Council. 431. They have an engineer, I suppose? —Not at the present time. 432. Who supervises the expenditure of money on the roads? —I can hardly say. I suppose they are all engineers. The district is divided into ridings, and each member is allotted his share, and he does what he likes with it, I suppose. He could throw it into the river if he liked. 433. Have they regular men employed? —Not surfacemen, I think. Each representative of the Road Board can employ what labour he likes, I believe. It was understood that when the Counties Act was brought into operation the work would be better carried out, but it is nothing of the kind. It is like so many petty Road Boards —each one on his own. 434. Mr. Johnston.] What is your land worth per acre? —I could not say. 435. Would you take £5 an acre for it if offered? —It is quite likely I might. It was counted as second-class land when we first took it up, and second-class land was worth 10s. an acre. 436. As to the way your local body does its work, I would like to ask, have you ever stood for election yourself? —I used to serve on the Board. 437. Do you vote when the election comes round? —Yes. 438. Does the land wear well in grass? —It gradually gets weaker, but it wears pretty well. 439. If you sold your land at £5 an acre would you consider yourself paid for what you have done since you took it up ? —No.
82—C. 4.
[b. c. smith.
650
C—4.
Maunqaturoto, Friday, sth May, 1905. Richard Christey Smith examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you I—l am a farmer and sawmiller. 1 have about 500 acres of freehold land of my own, and I and my seven brothers hold also 1,600 acres of freehold between us. I came from Canada, and have been here since 1862. 2. Do you consider the present constitution of the Land Boards is satisfactory 1 ? £no, I think not. I think they should be elected, and there should be more country members. 3. Upon what franchise would you have them elected? —By the landowners and ratepayers, I suppose. 4. Would you restrict the election to country districts?—Of course, if the towns wished to nominate a. man he could be elected under the municipal franchise. I think the Auckland District, for instance, should be divided into separate districts, and that there should be fair representation for both town and country. 5. What is your opinion with regard to the two systems of tenure namely, the lease in perpetuity and the freehold?—l believe in the freehold, most decidedly. Ido not think the land will be settled under the leasehold system. I consider that if the Bickerstaffe Settlement had been offered under the freehold it all would have been settled now. 6. Are there many sections not yet taken up? —I believe so. My experience is that the people will have nothing to do with the leasehold. On one occasion one of my brothers applied for a small section of land under the lease in perpetuity, and after residing upon it for about five years, having a family he naturally wished to get near a school, so a,s to get his children educated. He wanted to part with this area of 28 acres to another brother, and to move nearer civilisation. He was told that he would have to forfeit the land unless he resided on it for twelve months more. Well, a man could not reside on 28 acres of land unless he iiad money in the bank. I may tell vou that he took up this 28 acres as he had other land adjoining it, with which he parted. He was not allowed to transfer this small area, and he was told he would have to forfeit. Well, it seems to me there is not much security under such a tenure as that. The farmers about here prefer the freehold, because they know they are working upon what is their own, and every shilling that they put into the land they feel they are putting into a savings-bank for themselves, whereas if they put money into leasehold land they think they are putting it by for the Government. As soon as the land is improved the rent may be raised on them, and if reverses some along they may not be able to pay the rent, and altogether there is no security of tenure. I would not take up a piece of leasehold land from the Crown at any price. 7. The lease in perpetuity is a 999-years lease, which is practically for ever as regards human occupation, and the Government would never think of breaking a contract with a tenant ?—There are plenty agitating to break it already. There is nothing a Government cannot do. I consider it is quite possible for legislation to be passed to make revaluations, which, to my mind, is nothing more or less than confiscation. 8. That would be breaking the contract in the matter of rent?— Well, there are plenty now asking for that sort of thing. I can give you a number of instances to" show what is being done. For instance, I took up a piece of land under occupation with right of purchase in the Tokatoka Swamp. The value put on it then was 7s. 6d. per acre. The area was 700 acres. I put a canal there three miles long and made other improvements, and after nine years and a half I gave notice that I was going to buy the land. I was told that the land was forfeited for non-fulfilment of conditions. That is, non-residence, non-payment of rent, and the non-compliance with the improvement conditions. It put me to considerable expense to prove that this was all wrong. I went to the Commissioner of Crown Lands and said I was prepared to bring evidence to show that the conditions had been complied with, and to show that the land should not be forfeited, but the door was closed in my face. They did not want to hear what I had to say, and the land was forfeited. I then wrote to the Commissioner, asking him to stay any further proceedings, and demanded an inquiry. I sent my solicitor to Wellington to proceed in the matter, and I asked that an independent officer should be instructed to inquire into all the circumstances. Inquiry was held, and it was proved that I had lived on the land for six years continuously, and my improvements exceeded by £1,000 what was required, because fences, ditches, grass, and so on do not disappear. I was accordingly reinstated, and allowed to purchase the land. I afterwards said to the Commissioner, "What is all the trouble about? What have I done that I should he treated like this? " I was told I had got the land too cheap, and that I could get as many pounds per acre for it as I was giving shillings. Well, that might be, but that was not my fault. I might say that the canal I made was counted as a road, and it was deducted from my improvements. It is in things like this that the Land Board show their ignorance, and that is why I think there should be country members elected to the Board by country people. They would know the conditions, because the conditions of settlement in this part of the country are quite diSerent from those of any other part of New Zealand. ... 9. Mr. Forbes.] Where is your land?—At Matakohe, fifteen miles from here. I forgot to say that the tenure I would advocate is the deferred payment. I believe it has been one of the best tenures that was ever in force in New Zealand. 10. You do not believe in occupation with right of purchase? —I think the conditions are such that a man might have to forfeit his land through no fault of his own. 11. Is the Bickerstaffe Estate held under lease in perpetuity I—l do not know. I know it is a lease of some kind. , , „ „ 12. Where do the members of the Auckland Land Board come from? —There is one from Whangarei and one or two from the Thames, I think. They are nearly all new men now. 13. Do you not think that under an elected system they might be elected from the large centres of population, and that the country districts might get no representation at all?— The Government might nominate them from the cities.
651
C.-4.
E. C. SMITH.J
14. You do not think they are representative as they are? —1 think the present Board is the best we have had for some time; but there have been Boards composed almost entirely of town men. 15. Would it not be an expensive matter to hold these elections throughout the whole province, and would the people take a sufficient interest in it? —It would be their own fault if they did not. The country settlers have to work under these Land Boards, and I think they have the right to elect them. Under the present system the members of the Board are simply appointed by the party which may be in power at the time. 16. Would not the Minister see that all classes were represented? —I do not know who the Minister might be. 17. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you not think the Minister of Lands is in a better position to judge of the fitness of a man for the Land Board than the ordinary citizen? —I do not think so. 18. Do you know all that manuka land lying between here and Auckland? —Yes. 19. Most of it is held under the freehold, is it not? —Yes. 20. Why has so little been done with it? —Because it would require a lot of money to bring it into use. 21. Can you suggest anything that would bring it into use? —I think a good deal of that land is held by absentees. Some of it was granted to old soldiers and immigrants, and so on, and that is why it is lying in that condition at the present time. I think if the Government gave the freehold of the poorer lands to people on condition that they would settle upon them and make certain improvements, it would be the best and only satisfactory way of getting those lands settled. 22. Why has better use not been made of this land?— The men who took it up in the past did not know what they were doing. 23. Do you think a man who knows the country and knows the best way of working it could make better use of it? —Yes. Ttiere is a family settled at Brigham's Creek who have proved that in a practical man's hands good use can be made of the land. 24. Mr. McCardle.] Does it not seem that your proposal for the election of Land Boards is almost an impossibility ? You know, in the Auckland District, for instance, what a wide electorate the candidates would have to contest. Do you not think if the Government were to carefully select men from amongst the freeholders, the leaseholders, and the townspeople in the different parts of the district the object you have in view would be attained? —I dare say if the Executive would do that you might get a good practical working Board; but there is the chance the Executive might not do so, and if the people elected their own members, if anything went wrong, they would have themselves to blame. And I do not see that it is impossible, when we have elected Road Boards, and County Councils, and Licensing Committees. 25. Each man who stood for the Board would have at least five electorates to take in, even if the province were divided into districts, because you would have one man representing the whole of the community from here to the North Cape. There would be only four elective members on the Board? —I do not see why they should not be elected just as Education Boards are elected. 26. They are elected by the School Committees. Do you consider the lease with the right of purchase is the proper thing for the successful settlement of the country? —I would advocate that every acre of Crown land in the colony should be thrown open under the optional tenure. 27. Do not the objections you have raised arise more from an administrative point of view than from the present system of land-settlement? —No. I think all the land should be thrown open under the optional tenure. 28. Have you any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?— No. 29. You advocate giving the land to the people in order to get it settled? —Yes; certain lands. 30. That would, I suppose, mean that after a man had resided a certain time and made improvements he should be given the freehold? —Yes. 31. Do you not think it would be better to charge a reasonable price and spend the interest returned upon making roads to the sections? —I think that would be a good way. lam an advocate of having the land settled at any cost. In regard to the lands such as you have seen to-day, if people could be induced to take it up and put their energy into it they should be given the freehold; but there is something in the argument that some amount should be charged and the funds derived put into the making of roads. There is no doubt that the want of roads has kept settlement back. 32. Mr. McCutchan.\ You consider that in order to have a good practical Land Board you should have men who have an accurate knowledge of the capabilities of the district, and men who are conversant with the interests within that particular district? —Certainly. 33. In an extensive district such as this do you think it possible for four members to fulfil those conditions? —I think so; but at the same time it might be better to have more in a district like this, and for the district to be divided. 34. You advocate that the district should be divided into wards, and that there should be election within those wards ? —Yes. 35. Do you not think the system of nomination would fulfil all conditions? —No; because there is no use disguising the fact that a man may be nominated because he is of a certain political colour, whereas the settlers could select any man in whom they had confidence. 36. You say the settlers have no security under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. Is that in any way due to a pronouncement by the Trades and Labour Council in Wellington that there should be revaluation upon the death of the occupier or transfer of the land ?—That has something to do with it. 37. Do you think if such a clause were introduced into the land laws of the colony it would militate against settlement ?—Yes; but I do not believe in the 999-years lease at all. However, if any one wants it let him have it. 38. If the Trades and Labour Council became sufficiently strong by-and-by to return a Cabinet favourable to their interests, and brought in a revaluation clause to interfere with existing leases.
C.—4.
652
[e. c. smith.
do you not think the tenants would then have the right of appeal to a higher power, and that such legislation would be ultra vires'/ —Yes: but if you have had any experience of the farmers you will know that they are very slow to move in their own interests. They are working from daylight to dark, and they have very little time to appeal for their rights. The Trades and Labour Council, being in large centres, can act together by simply inserting a short notice of a meeting in the daily papers. 39. What is the name of your county? —The Otamatea County. 40. Have you many Road Boards? —Only two, I think. 41. Do you approve of dual control by these bodies ?— I approve of the Road Boards having wider control. 42. Does the county hand over the control of the main roads to the Road Boards? —No. As the Government give the larger amount of the subsidies on the rates collected to the Road Boards, it seems to me the Government prefer the Road Boards, and certainly they can do the work cheaper and better. They are not troubled with the question of charitable aid. The county has to hand over a portion of its rates to support the Charitable Aid Boards. I believe it would be a good thing to abolish one body or the other to avoid dual control. 43. Has your county raised much money by way of loan? —No. We attempted to raise a loan last year, but we did not get it, as there were not sufficient funds at the disposal of the Government. 44. But there were refusals all over the colony at that time? —Yes. The amount we asked for was £4,000, and since then Mr. Seddon has told us that we could have £1,000 after the 31st March last year, and another £ 1,000 after the 31st March of the coming year. That is the first loan we ever asked for. 45. Has your county put ink) force the Noxious Weeds Act? —Two or three clauses of it, but it is practically a dead-letter because no one will inform. 46. Would not the Stock Inspectors take the matter in hand? —No one will inform. If the Clerk of the county knows that a man has certain noxious weeds on his land, he writes and tells him that unless he cuts them down at once proceedings will be taken. That is all. 47. But there is no Inspector ? —iSio, unless the Stock Inspector is one. The County Council has passed a resolution declaring only the worst kinds of weeds, such as gorse, blackberry, and briar to be noxious weeds. 48. Has any notification to that effect been sent to the Stock Inspector ? —I could not say. 49. With reference to the poor country between here and Auckland which you think might be made profitable, do you think it might be made profitable by sowing English grass upon it? — No, not the ordinary English grasses. 50. Do you think the Government should take up the question of sowing danthonia upon these lands? —1 do not think the Government should take any of these matters up. 51. It is recognised that this grass, danthonia, is going to redeem the North? —It would not grow well on limestone land, but it would on poor dry land which would grow nothing else; and instead of going to the trouble of clearing these lands, the danthonia comes up better after the burning. 52. W T hat do you think of rating on unimproved values? —1 have not gone into that. It is a very broad question 53. Mr. McLennan.] Have you had any experience of the South Island —Canterbury and Otago, for instance? —None. 54. You never saw the result of the lease in perpetuity? —I have been in the South Island, but 1 did not see the result of that system. 55. You have not seen the prosperous homes those tenants have made in the South under that tenure ? —No. 56. I think you should have gone down there and looked around before condemning the lease in pereptuity ? —I think I stated in my evidence that I considered what might suit the South would not do in the North. .57. Would you be in favour of the people in the South getting the option of the freehold? — I would give them whatever tenure they wanted, and Ihe money derived from the sale of the lands I would devote to the purchase of native and other lands. 58. Mr. Paul.] Do you think Crown lands should be sold for cash straight out? —Most certainly I do. 59. Do you believe in any system of leasehold? —I believe in the deferred payment or the lease with the right of purchase, those are the only two kinds of leaseholds I believe in. 60. Do you know any farmers who have been successful on leasehold land? —I do not know one. 61. Can you imagiue that they might be successful on leaseholds? —Yes, if the rents were not (oo high and the rent was not raised on them. I cannot imagine a man being successful on poor land under a lease. 62. Do you think land always increases in value? —Of course, a man increases the value of his land by his labour, or it may be increased by the labour and enterprise of those around him. 63. Have you ever known of a decrease in value? —Yes, certainlj'. 64. In that case, would you allow a tenant a reduction in rent? —I suppose so. 65. In the case of land being valued far too low, do you think the State should increase the rent? —I do not believe in interfering with the tenure in any way. If you went in for revaluing land that had been valued too low, I think it would be a very dangerous precedent. It would be far better to allow the land to be purchased straight out, or that the option of purchase should be given. 66. Do you think it a good thing for a man to pay too high a price for his land? —I think it would be better than paying too high a rent.
653
C—4.
K. C. SMITH.]
66a. Suppose the people of this country insist that a certain proportion of the land must be held under lease in perpetuity, do you think the principle of revaluation would be equitable? —I do not believe in the principle of revaluation in any way. It might in some cases amount to confiscation. 67. It might mean confiscation if there was no revaluation? —Well, it might. But I believe revaluation would be what I might call the thin end of the wedge of confiscation, because once you break the contract for the 999-years lease, and say, " Your land must be revalued at the end of twenty-five years," there is nothing to prevent some agitation which would result in the land being revalued every twelve years, or every five years, and that simply means confiscation. 68. But none of us suppose that a present 999-years lease will be interfered with?—l am not so sure about that. 69 Do you look upon a lease as a contract? —Yes. 70. Do you approve of those people now holding leases in perpetuity being given the option of the freehold, and thereby breaking the contract? —I think if it can be shown that their land will be better worked as a freehold they should be given the right to purchase on the present value of the land. 71. Would you be prepared to give the tenants the value of their improvements and put the land up to auction I—No.1 —No. 72. Do you think if the land had originally been offered as freehold a larger number of people or a different class of settlers would have put in applications? —I do. 73. Do you not think when the conditions are being altered it would be fair to let that other class of people come in and have a chance of acquiring the land? —No; I think the man who goes into the back blocks and carves out a home for himself has a right to be considered. 74. What is the principal reason why the lands up here have not been more closely settled? — The difficulty of getting on to the land is one reason 75. Are there any absentee leaseholders? —I do not know of any. The absentee lands are mostly grants given to soldiers and to immigrants. Probably the original owners have died, and the land may be now held by their heirs in London and elsewhere. 76. Is it a drawback that there should be absentee landowners? —It has been a drawback. I do not think it is to such an extent now. 77. Do you think it good policy for the Government to buy any land? —I do not think the Government should buy any private land while there is an acre of Crown land in the colony. As soon as all the Crown lands are settled, they could start and buy land of this sort. That is my opinion. 78. What do you consider would be the better condition —good roads with the leasehold tenure, or bad roads with the freehold tenure? —May I answer your question by asking another? Why should we not have good roads with the freehold? It seems to me you are more likely to have good roads if you part with the freehold, or give the option of the freehold, than if you lease at a rental of 4 or 5 per cent. 79. Do you think the settlers would come into this part of the country and pay cash for the land ? —Yes, unless too high a value was placed upon it. You would get ten settlers under the freehold for every orife under the leasehold. 80. There must be a difficulty in getting roads? —Yes, a very great difficulty. 81. How do you account for it?- Five or ten miles back there were very valuable kauri trees growing on most of the land. Thousands of pounds have been paid for kauri which has been sold for cash, and the money has been taken straight away, and the land when the timber was taken off was of very little value. The local bodies collected very little in the way of rates from it. If the whole of the money the Government recived from the timber had been given back to the local bodies to make roads the road difficulty would have disappeared. 82. Have any of the freeholders sold timber? -Very few of them had timber to sell. 83. Mr. Anstey.~\ Are you a member of a local body? —I am a member of the County Council, and I was a member of the Road Board for sixteen years. .84. What is the capital value in that road district?—l could not say. I have not been a member of the Road Board for two or three years. On a three-farthings rate I think they collected something like £100. There are two Road Boards in my county; one of them has been only recently created. 85. What is the annual rateable value of your county? —I could not say. I think our rates amount to something about £1,500 a year. 86. Do you think that the Roard Board with an annual income of £100 could, with economical administration, do much in the way of making roads? —I think the money has been spent economically. 87. What is the cost of administration? —It is very small. They pay the clerk £7 a year. 88. Can you get efficient service for that ?—Well, he is a man who has been Chairman of the Board, and he has been a member of the Board for fifteen years. 89. Do you employ an engineer for road-making? —No; they sometimes get the services of an engineer or some one in the district. They have sometimes had the services of the county engineer - and sometimes of the Government surveyor in the district. 90. Do jou not think it would be wise to employ a man with some little experience in roadmaking? —If we did that we should have nothing left for making roads. 91. Do you think it would be better if the area of the local bodies was extended, so that you could get a fair amount in the way of rates? —We have the County Council, and we cannot afford to employ an engineer there. $2. Do you think it is economical to have small local bodies if their annual revenue amounts so only £100 a year? —I think if it were not for the Road Boards the back-block settlers would not be able to get on to the land. The County Council is too unwieldy. T think the Road Boards are better able to look after the roads than the County Council.
(J.—4
654
|B. C. SMITH.
93. Do you not think it would be economical to appoint a competent engineer? —You could not get an engineer for less that £200 a year.. If the county had an assured sum every year of £1 for £1 or 10s. in the pound it might be possible; but under the present system, where we are only occasionally getting grants, we cannot afford to keep an engineer. The rateable value is too low. 94. With regard to Land Boards, do you think the conditions of settlement are the same in the north of Auckland as in the south ?—No. 95. Do you think it would get over the difficulty if they had a Land Board for the north of Auckland and another for the south?- ! think the Auckland Land Board should be divided. 96. You told us that the land lying between here and Auckland had something wrong with it: can you tell us anything that might put it right? —I do not know that there is anything wrong with the land, except that it is poor. I said that under certain conditions, in the hands of practical men, the land might be brought to a fair carrying-capacity. There, is something wrong, because they are leaving it idle. 97. What effect do you think a good graduated tax would have? —Well, that is a broad question. It might do some good for that land, but it might be bad for other land. The rating on the unimproved value has been tried in the adjoining county. 98. Mr. Johnston.] Can you tell me why, in the case of Cheviot where every other section was offered as freehold when the estate was thrown open, only the leasehold sections were taken up ? — 1 cannot tell you, except that I believe the conditions of settlement in the South Island are quite different from what they are here. I think if the same amount of money had been spent in this part of the country in putting roads through as has been spent in Cheviot you would see that land settled too. 99. Mr. MeCutchan.] In speaking of the tenure question, you said you thought the right of purchase should be given to 999-years-lease holders at the present value I—Yes.1 —Yes. 100. How would you assess the value? —As the value is assessed in the first place. 101. But it is the value of the improvements?—l think the improvements are a man's own. I would not value the improvements at all. 102. Then, it is the other value you would assess J--The value of the land. 103. Then, in assessing the improvements, how about the improvements that are not visible after a man has been working land, say, twenty years? —I think any practical man would be able to tell. 104. He would have no history of the land ? —He could find out. 105. From hearsay? —From official inquiry. 106. Is it not the case that a large amount of improvements disappear altogether, especially in bush country? —Yes. 107. And would it be possible for a tenant to be reimbursed for his improvements by sending in an assessor ten years afterwards? —it would be very difficult. 108. And how about the improvements outside his fence-boundary, such as the dairy factories he puts up, which give an added value to the land? —A practical man would take all that into consideration. I think the unearned increment is paid for ten times over by a settler who goes into the back blocks, Ido not think there is any unearned increment in this part of the country, because it is a man's own energy and sinews which give an increased value to the land, I quite admit it would take a competent man to do the work. 109. Then, taking these things into consideration, at what price should the tenant get the land I—lt1 —It all depends on the class of land he has. 110. Take this class of land: is there any unearned increment on this? —No. I do not believe for a moment that there is any such thing as unearned increment on country land. 111. Then you are departing from your previous position when you said the tenant should get the land at the present value: if there is no unearned .increment he should get it at the upset value? —That is the value I put on it. 112. Then, your statement now is that the tenants should get the right of purchase at the original capital value ?-—Unless there is an unearned increment due to such a thing as a railway put through by the Government, for which the whole of the people of the colony have to pay. But if the people in this settlement put their hands in their pockets and build a dairy factory, for instance, I do not think there is any unearned increment then. 113. The people of the colony borrow the money for the railway? —Yes. 114. And the people of the particular district pay their proportion of the interest, and, according to our method of constructing railways, before the Government put a railway in they see that there is a probability of that railway paying the average earning-power of the railway — viz., £3 6s. per cent. ? -Yes. 115. Then, is it not the people of that particular district who put the railway in? —To a certain extent it is. 116. Is it not to the whole extent? —It is to the whole extent almost. If there is any unearned increment at all it can only be owing to this sort of thing: one class of people or one particular settlement may get a greater share of borrowed money than another. That is the only possible way, to my mind, by which there could be any unearned increment. 117. Well, suppose there is a small unearned increment, seeing that the rural population are really in excess of half the total population, should not half of that small margin of unearned increment really belong to them? —That fact might be admitted. 118. You stated you do not favour the purchase of private properties by the State under any circumstances until all the waste lands of the Crown are settled: is it with a full knowledge of the conditions existing in the South Island that you make that statement, or do you make it solely with reference to the district you know? —To the North Island, and I know it from one end to the other.
h. 0. SMITH.'
C.—4.
655
119. Is it not the case, even in the North Island after a number of years, that farmers and settlers who have brought up families naturally desire to see their children settled round about them, and that unless these large estates are purchased their young people will have to be scattered away, or go out of the colony ? Is it not a laudable and a patriotic thing for these people to endeavour to keep their children settled round about them?- —It may be, but Ido not think it is a good thing. The curse of Ireland has been that too many people have wanted to settle on one little patch. I think it is better that the people should be spread about. 120. Then your principal argument would not apply until excessive subdivision takes place? — That is right. 121. The Chairman.] Is there not a great deal of land surveyed and mapped, and ready to be taken up in the Province of Auckland? —Not with roads through it, and 1 do not consider land is ready to be taken up unless there are roads. 122. On that point would you recommend that the homestead system be reintroduced in the Auckland province? —Both the homestead and deferred-payment systems. I believe in them both. 123. Mr. McCardle.\ You mentioned the difficulty in regard to Native lands: is there much Native land in this district? —Not in this, but further north there is a great quantity of very fine land held by the Natives. 124. Do you think it is being dealt with satisfactorily now by the Maori Land Council? —No. Nothing is done except to allow it to be overrun with gorse and blackberry. It is going back every year. Charles Ernest Fisher examined. 125. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a tenant under the Crown. I hold 156 acres under lease in perpetuity on Bickerstafle. 1 am paying about .£6O a year for the land, and another £20 a year for the buildings. 126. Are you fairly satisfied with your section? —Yes, the section is all right. 127. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —Not altogether. I have a young family growing up, and I would like to see my way to acquire the freehold by-and-by, so that I might hand the property to those of my family who have helped me to pull it together. 128. Can you not do that now —in fact, after you have fulfilled certain residence and improvement conditions, can you not sell out your holding, or leave it to your family? —I cannot do that until I have lived on the place a certain time. 129. Were you farming before you went to Bickerstaffe ? —No, but I have been a cadet on a farm. 130. Have you been in this district for some time?—No, only for the last twelve months. I came from the Christchurch district. 131. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —Only that I would like to have added to my tenure the option of the right of purchase when I am in a position to do so. 132. You knew the terms and conditions when you went on to this land? —Yes, but I had not the experience I have since gained. I put in for the section and took it up without looking at it. I went straight on to it, and after considering (he matter I have come to the conclusion that I would like to purchase the land. 133. Did you not see the land before you applied for it? —No. I took it up from the pamphlet. I was satisfied with the report and description in the Government pamphlet of the other settlements I had seen. 134. Mr. Forbes.] Have your neighbours the same feeling aJxmt the lease in perpetuity?— Every one I have spoken to on the subject. 135. They would like the option of purchase added to their lease?- Yes. 136. Do you not think that the lease in perpetuity gives a man more freedom in connection with the land; and if he has his money is he not always in a position to use it to make further improvements? —Yes; but I feel that if there were two or three exceptionally bad years and he was not able to raise his rent out of the land, he might have to clear out, whereas if he had two or three years of prosperity and saved his money the first thing he would do would be to acquire the freehold, and then he need not care a snap of the finger for any bad year. A man finds it pretty hard to tide over a bad year if he has £80 a year rent staring him in the face all the time. 137. Supposing a tenant had a certain amount of money sunk in the land, and a bad year came along, if he wanted the money badly would he not have to raise a mortgage on the land?— He could do that. 138. Do you not think that would be getting away from the spirit of the Act, which is to keep the land out of the position of the mortgaged freehold ? —Not if the law was altered so that a man could not acquire more than a certain acreage of first-class land. 139. Suppose you and all your neighbours sunk a certain amount of money in the purchase of freehold, and a certain number of bad years came and you had to raise money from a loan company on your places, and suppose times continued bad and you could not meet your interest payments and your land fell into the hands of the loan company, would not that be aggregation? —Yes; but that is a thing a man will have to face in any business. 140. But, from the Government point of view, is it not right and proper that they should protect themselves against a contingency of that sort? —But they do provide against it. 141. There is the lease in perpetuity? —What does it matter to me whose hands it falls into if I lose all I put into it. Suppose I have bad times and I have to forfeit my section, what does it matter to me whether it is to the Government or to a loan company. 142. But the Government have to look to the success of settlement as a whole: you think that settlement will be more successful if the tenants can put their money into the land?—l do, certainly.
U.—4.
656
[C. K. FISHEK.
143. You are thoroughly satisfied with the place at is it? —Yes, perfectly. 144. Is it all taken up I—No.1 —No. 145. What is the reason of that? —The rents are too high. 146. You do not think you are paying too high for your particular land? —Not for my land, because it is all cleared. It is the only section on the whole estate which could honestly be called ploughable land. I can go straight to work and plough it. 147. One witness said the reason why the land was not taken up was because there was no option of purchase: do you think that is the reason? —It is in this district, but it was not with those about Christchurch. I think the chance of getting on the land by paying down a small percentage of the purchase-money is a splendid inducement for we poor people to go on the land, but we should feel better contented and more secure if we could purchase the freehold. 148. Do you fear that the land may be revalued by the Government? —Yes. 149. Have you seen it stated that revaluation may be made to apply to leases in perpetuity already in existence? Have you a feeling of insecurity in that respect? —Yes. 150. Is that one of the reasons why you wish to acquire the freehold of your section? —Yes, my great reason. 151. Mr. Johnston.] You pay 5 per cent, on the capital value of your land? —Yes. 152. You expect to be able to make it freehold if you have the opportunity in the course of time? —Yes. 153. Are you doing sufficiently well so far to be able to do it? —I am doing pretty well so far. 154. Could you not invest your money at 5 per cent., so that it would bring you in sufficient interest to pay your rent, and still leave your land leasehold? —The fact is this: I have just come through the experience of having a lot of money, and I know a man may sit down and say he is going to invest his money in this and that, but while he has a lot of money he goes sporting about and loses a lot of it. 155. That is due to his own weakness? —That is my weakness. 156. Mr. Matheson.\ Have you seen land-settlement going on in the South Island? —Yes. 157. Has it done good in promoting settlement? —Certainly. 158. Do you think the State would be wise to let those people pay off the capital value out of their savings? —I do, indeed. 159. Do you think if (hey do so it should be at the original value? —Yes, because the fact of these people going down there and taking up small farms, and paying rates and taxes and building roads and dairy factories has improved the value of the land, and I do not see why they should be asked to buy the land at the increased value which they have given to it themselves. 160. Mr. McCardle.] One reason why you favour the freehold was that you were afraid, in the case of the lease in perpetuity, in the event of death you could not will your property as you wished, as it might turn out that you had willed your property to some person who would not be accepted as a tenant by the Land Board: do you not think it would be wise on the part of the Government to amend the Act so that you could will your property as you thought fit? —Certainly, I think so. 161. Is there any real objection to the lease in perpetuity, so far as you are concerned? —The only objection I have is that I do not see any possible way of acquiring the freehold of it. 162. You said you were afraid that if you got some money together you might squander it? —I am sure I would. 163. If the Government amended the Act so that you could pay off the greater portion of the capital value of your land, the Government still retaining an interest in the property, would not that meet your case and enable you to make the land your savings-bank? —It would be an improvement, certainly. 164. Mr. McGutchnn.] The previous witness said there was Canadian thistle on the Bickerstaffe Estate: is there any on your holding? —No. There is what the expert tells me is ensilage thistle, which is a very useful thing I have seen no Canadian thistle, and only one blackberry bush on the whole place. 165. Have you a representative on the County Council?- I do not know. 166. Has anything been done in the matter of eradicating briar? - Not that I know of. 167. Do you know if it has been gazetted a noxious weed? —I do not. 168. Are the roads satisfactory on the Bickerstaffe Estate?- So far as my place goes, Yes; but further on, No. 169. Was the estate loaded for roads?—l did not see anything about it in the conditions under which I took the land up. 170. Mr McLennan.'] Did you ballot for this property? —I did not. 171. Mr. Paul.'] Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory? —Very. 172. Were you examined bv the Land Board when you applied for this section? —Yes. 173. Your section has the highest rent on the estate? —Yes, it is part of the homestead block. 174. Do you think the condition under which you pay off the value of the homestead in a certain number of years is satisfactory? —Yes, very. 175. Is there anything in the conditions of your lease which interferes with you farming the land to the best advantage? —I do not altogether approve of the cropping conditions, because a man in cropping his land for the three years that are allowed may meet with three bad seasons, and not get any grain out of the land. Why should he not be allowed to take another crop? I think his experience would tell him better what should be done than any set of regulations drawn up by people in an office. 176. Do you think the cropping regulations are likely to interfere with your farming of the section I—Yes,1 —Yes, I do. 177. Do vou think it is better for a poor man to have capital to work his farm than to expend it in buying the freehold I—Yes, I do, for a poor man.
C.—4.
0. E. FISHER."
657
178. Then, it is only for the well-to-do men that you want the freehold? —No, for the poor man, when he has made enough out of his farm to buy it. I say you should give him the same privileges and opportunities as the wealthy man. 179. And you think he should have the option at any time? —No; I should say after he has resided on it for five years. 180. Have you an intimate knowledge of the settlements under the Land for Settlements Act in Canterbury? —No, not very. 181. Why do you express the opinion that they should have the option of the freehold? — Because I feel I want the option. 182. Do you recognise that they are in exactly the same condition? —I do, indeed. 183. Do you think the conditions of settlement are the same? —They seem to me to be the same. Those who have been lucky enough to draw a real good section will do better than us with the poor land. 184. Are there any really bad sections in Canterbury under the Land for Settlements Act? —I am not prepared to say that. I dare say there are plenty. 185. You believe the freehold should be given at the original capital value? —Certainly. 186. Then all the good bargains would be taken up immediately on the option being given? —Yes. 187. Do you think it would be a bad thing for the State if the bad ones were left on its hands I—l1 —I suppose it would be. It is only natural if those who assess the value of the land do not do it right that those who sent them to assess it should bear the brunt of the mistakes. 188. You think, however, the tenant should have the option of the freehold, even if the State loses something by the transaction ? —I would not go so far as to say that. The State did not lay itself out to lose anything by the transaction. The Government buy the land at a price, and they assess certain parts of it at certain values, and they should take the responsibility of their act. The land will not become any more valuable, except through the energy of the men who take it up. 189. Do you think it might be fairer to the State if the tenants' improvements were conserved to them at a liberal valuation, and the land put up to auction? —To my idea that would not bu an unreasonable thing to do; but I think, after acquiring a section and working and living on it for a number of years, a settler should have the right to purchase it if he is in a position to do so. 190. If you held a section that you thought was valued too high, and for which you were paying too much rent, would you purchase it at the capital value? —No, and I would not blame myself for not purchasing it. I should blame the Government for assessing it at that high rate. 191. And all over the estate, if some men had excellent bargains and the option of the freehold was given, the State might very easily lose on the transaction? —That should not be if the value was assessed right. 192. If the land was put up to auction you think that would overcome any loss that might accrue? —Not necessarily. A wealthy man might outbid me and give more for my section than it was really worth. Ido not ask the State to lose unless it has assessed the land at too high a value. 193. Mr. Anstey.] Do you grow any crop on your land? —I am going to. 194. Oats or wheat? —Oats. 195. What do you get off it now? —I have only been there a few months. We are going to dairy and grow crops and sheep. 196. Can you grow turnips on it? —I do not know, but Ido not think so. 197. Is your chief objection to the lease in pereptuity due to the fact that you think you have not full power to will it as you choose ?- -That is only one objection. 198. Are you now satisfied with the Chairman's explanation, that you can will it as you choose altogether independent of the Land Board? —I am not very clear about that. Daniel George Peebles examined. 199. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 308 acres under lease in perpetuity on the Bickerstafle Estate. I came here from New South Wales about eighteen months ago. I am .paying £87 per annum. 200. How do you feel in this new country? Do you like the section you have got? —Yes, the section is very good. There is plenty of good grass and plenty of water. 201. What is your view with regard to the lease in perpetuity? —The lease is right enough, but I would like to have the option of purchase with it. I would then desire to make more improvements, and I would be happier and more contented. 202. Still, you knew the conditions before you took the section up? —Certainly. 203. Is your land fit to crop? —It is too rough. It is all grazing land. 204. What has been your experience with the Land Board ? —So far they have dealt very fairly with me. I have no fault to find with them. 205. Mr. Forbes.] You do not know yet whether your rent is too high or too low? —I fancy it is a little too high. 206. Are the sections round you taken up? —They are taken up on each side of me. 207. Are some still not taken up? —Yes, a lot of them. 208. Do you think it is the rent that is keeping the sections from going off? —As much as anything —that and bad roads. Of course, the roads are a little better now. There have been a lot of obstacles in the way of taking up the land. 209. Have many roads been formed on the place? —Yes, by the Government. They are still working at them. 210. Do they intend to put roads into the sections that are not yet taken up? —The sections all border on the roads
83—C 4.
a—4.
658
D. G. PEEBLES.
211. What sort of ground is it that is not yet taken up?—lt is a sort of ironstone rubble formation. 212. Is it in English grass? —It is principally in cocksfoot. There is fair grass on it. 213. What are you going to run?—l have been dairying for the last six months. 214. Is the land round there suitable for dairying? —I think so. 215. Is the land not taken up suitable for dairying?—No, there is an undergrowth of tea-tree. I think the land is very poor. 216. Do you think, in that case, it would be better for the Government to face the position and reduce the rent? —I think they would get the land off their hands quicker. 217. And you think it would be better for the country to get somebody on the land?— Yes, because while it is unoccupied it will not be improving. 218. Mr. Johnston.'] Were you farming before you came here? —Yes, in New South Wales and in Ireland. 219. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think if the right of purchase was given with these leases it would induce more people to apply for sections? —I think so. I think if the land was thrown open under the optional system it would be all taken up. 220. Have you been in Ireland since the Land for Settlements Act has been in operation there? —No, but lam pretty well versed in the land laws there. 221. Are you acquainted with the operation of the Wyndham Act in Ireland?—lt gives what we are looking for here; it gives the option of the right to purchase. 222. I understood the Wyndham Act was a system of purchase by instalments? —Yes, the same as the deferred-payment system here. 223. You spoke about the roafls being in a bad way? —Yes, they have been. 224. The Government are expending the money: is it a grant? —I think it is a grant direct from the Government. 225. Is the work being done by settlers' labour?—No, with outside labour. I think the Government are paring wages by the day. 226. Do you find the work is done satisfactorily ?—Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. What they are doing is very good, but it takes them a long time to do anything. 227. Do von think if the work were let under a small contract system it would be done better? —I think it would be done quicker and cheaper too. 228. We have had evidence elsewhere that day labour is satisfactory: You think it is not satisfactory on the Bickerstaffe Estate?—l do not think it is, so far as I have seen it. I have been there since last August, and it takes a long time to form a few chains of road. 229. Is there an overseer?— There is an inspector of roads. 230. What is thd daily rate of wages? —Bs. per day. 231. Mr. Paul.'] Are they using proper modern implements to make the roads, or doing too much by hand? —They are using the pick and shovel and mattock. 232. Do you think the roads would be better made if they used teams?—l do not think they could use teams here. The country is too broken. 233. Have you any idea whether the price of land under the Wyndham Land Act in Ireland is too high for ' successful settlement? —No. It seems to work well. It seems to be appreciated, at anv rate, by the people of Ireland. 234. You never heard that the price the tenants are compelled to pay is altogether too high ?— No, and I do not think it is either. 235. Mr. Anstey. 1 You would like the right of purchase ?—The option of purchase. 236. Do you think you would feel more safe, and do you think you would farm your land better?—l think it would be a great encouragement to people to work better and to become better tenants. 237. Do you want the right to purchase at the original valuation or at the value at the time you purchase? —I think the upset value would be a fair thing. ■238. Do you not think if the Government give you the right of purchase they should say on what terms you should buy? —I dare say they should. 239. Would you consent to revaluation in that case? —I do not know that I would piind revaluation to-morrow. 240. Are you ready to buy to-morrow? —I would not be ready to buy, but to give the full rateable value of the land. 241 Do vou think it is a wise thing to break a contract regarding the title to land? —I do not think it would hurt to break it. 242 Do vou think it would be a good thing to break a contract in regard to the freehold? — I think it would be a srood thing for the country at large. 243. In what way would you break the contract with the freeholder? —They acquired the freehold in the earlv days, and they got it for next to nothing, and when we come in we have to pay a higrh price for it. 244. Would vou charge them the difference between the value of the land now and the price they oriarinallv paid for it?— Yes, I would make it one thing or the other. 245. Would you take away the freehold title now held and put the land throughout the colony under lease in perpetuity ?—I would have one law governing one people. James Anderson examined. 246. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold -328 acres under lease in perpetuity on the Bickerstaffe Estate. lam paying ss. lOd. per acre. 247. Are you well satisfied with your section? —Tt seems to be a very fair section, but I think it has a higher rent than any other section round here, and it is no better,
J. ANDERSON.]
659
C—4.
248. Did you go over the ground before you went in for it? —I did. 249. And you then thought it was worth the money?—l did. 250. Can you plough any of it? —No; I do not suppose I could plough an acre of it. 251. Then, you will have to rely on grazing? —Yes, principally. 252. Is it in grass? —Yes, the greater portion of it. I run sheep and cattle. 253. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —I would like the option of purchase. 254. You heard what was addressed to the last witness about revaluation: would you be agreeable to that ?—I think if we get the option of purchase it should be at the valuation on which we pay rent. 255. But in your case, though you think it is rather high, still you would risk it if you had the money? —Yes. 256. Mr. Forbes.\ Why would you like the option of freehold: why are you dissatisfied with the lease in perpetuity ? —Well, I would like to make the farm my own in the future and have it rent-free. 257. Do you think you are not secure under the lease in perpetuity? —I have that feeling also. 258. Do you think if you made it a freehold you would have feeling of greater security? —Yes. 259. If you got the option of purchase do you reckon it should be paid off in instalments at any time?— Yes, as the tenant could. 260. You say you are paying too much rent for it as a lease? —I think it is dear. Of course, 1 have only been on the place a short time. 261. Do you not think that the people who are leasing the land cheap enough, if they get the option of purchase, should pay a little more for that concession ?—I do not think they should. I question if any of the tenants have the land too cheap. In any case Ido not see why they should be charged any more for it. I tkink that concession should be thrown in for nothing. 262. Mr. Johnston.] How do you reconcile the fact that you would like to buy the freehold on a basis of ss. lOd. per acre, capitalised at 5 per cent., but you would not like to give ss. lOd. per acre rent? —I have to pay ss. lOd. for ever, and in the other case I can pay it off in a certain number of years. 263. But if you did pay off you would expect to pay 5 per cent, on your capital? —Yes. 264. What stock do you carry ? —I have three hundred sheep and fifty head of cattle. 265. How long have you been on the land ? —About four months. 266. Were you on the land before you came here? —Yes, farming in the North of Ireland. 267. You knew what this section was before you took it up? —So far as I could when I looked over it. 268. Are you satisfied with the results for the four months? —The grass has not kept up as I thought it would. The grass had not been heavily stocked before I purchased. 269. It had been allowed to run into grass before you purchased? —Yes. 270. Have you any weeds on it? —Not noxious weeds. 271. Do you know if there is any ragwort or Californian thistle on it? —No. 272. Have you had any other dealings with the Land Board except applying for the section? — Very little, except getting an account from them for fencing, which I did not feel I owed. 273. Mr. Matheson.\ If the State sees it is wise to give you the right to purchase, and you agree to take it, do you think that could be done by an amendment of the Act without breaking your lease? —Yes, I think it could. 274. Did you see anything of the working of the Wyndham Land Act at Home? —It had not come into force when I left; but I believe from what I hear it is working very satisfactorily. 275. Mr. McCardle.~\ Do you know how many settlers there are on the Bickerstaffe Estate? — I think about sixteen or seventeen, and there are quite as many sections not yet taken up. 276. Do you think they are likely to be taken up? —I do not think so. 277. What is the reason ? —I believe the tenure is the principal objection, from what I hear. 278. I suppose all the settlers around you are freeholders? —Yes, outside the block. 279. Will you be able to carry more than three hundred sheep and fifty head of cattle? —I do not .think so. 280. Do you think that will be sufficient to keep you and pay the rent, and so on ? —I took the section up thinking it would do so. 281. If you get the right of purchase, I suppose you want it on long and easy payments? — Yes. 282. What number of years do you think you would require? —I would say from twenty to twenty-five years. 283. Mr. Paul.] Do you think, if the State thought it wise to amend your lease by putting in a provision for periodical revaluation, you would look upon that as breaking the lease? —I think it would be breaking the contract. 284. Yet you do not think it would be breaking the contract if the State inserted a provision giving you the option of the freehold? —Yes, it would be breaking the contract. 285. Do you think the State might lose by giving the option of the freehold if the bad bargains were left on its hands, while the good ones under the Land for Settlements Act were purchased?— Taking the Bickerstaffe Estate, I do not think the State would lose anything by giving the option of purchase at the prices the sections are at present rented at. 286. I think you said some of the sections are rented too high?' —Yes. 287. Do you believe all the land would be bought and made freehold? —I think it would. 288. If that did not apply in all cases, would you be prepared to modify your opinion to save the State sufiering any monetary loss? —If the Government gave the right to purchase at the prices they rent on they could not suffer loss. 289. But supposing half the tenants refused to take up at that price, and insisted on a reduction of rent when bad times came, would not the State suffer loss?— The State is not compelled to give them a reduction of rent.
660
[j. ANDERSON.
C—4.
290. Do you think the State could purchase an improved estate and settle half of it and leave the other half unsettled? Would not the Government be compelled to settle the whole of the estate ?—lf they could get settlers to go on it. 291. But would they not have to decrease the rent until they could get settlers permanently on it? —Yes, if it is too dear. 292. How would it do to make the purchase compulsory, so as to insure the tenants buying even the dear sections: would that meet with your approval?—l do not think so. I think the tenant should have the option. 293. Supposing the tenant's improvements were conserved and full valuation given tor them, would you be prepared to have the land put up to auction ?—No ;I do not think so. 294. You think the only way is to give the tenant the option at the original capital value?— I think that is the fair way. . ~ 295. Even though the State might lose a little by the transaction ?—But Ido not see how the State could lose. . 296. You do not see that some bad sections would be left on its hands? —But some bad sections are left on its hands as it is. 297. In Canterbury I—l1 —I am not speaking about Canterbury; lam speaking about where 1 am myself. , 298. Yet you think there are plenty of people waiting to buy the freehold at that capital value ( —From what I hear. „ 299. Mr. Anstey.] Is there a creamery near you? —Not nearer than five or six miles, inere is a site on the estate. 300. Do you do any dairying? —No. . „ 301. Do you anticipate doing any?— Not with a creamery six miles away. I would go in tor dairying if I had a creamery near me. 302. How is the roading of the estate progressing? Are the Government spending the money judicially? —I think they are. 303. Are the roads already made? —The road is pretty well formed all the way through, except the last couple of miles towards Maungaturoto. 304. Is that all the Government have promised to do for the estate? —I think so, but lam not certain. ' T 305. Are you entitled to 10 per cent, rebate for prompt payment of rentf—l believe i am. I have not yet paid any rent except the first instalment. 306. Mr. Matheson.~\ Do you see a distinct difference between an alteration in a lease to which both parties agree and an alteration to which only one party agrees? Would you not call one an amendment and the other a breach? —Yes, I suppose so. William Heathcote Jackman examined. 307. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer. I have about 250 acres of freehold and 287 acres under lease in perpetuity on the Bickerstaffe Estate. I pay 4s. per acre rent for it. 308. Are you satisfied with your Bickerstaffe property? Yes, I am satisfied with the land. 309! And with the tenure too?—I think the tenure should be amended. Of course, I think if vou form a contract with the Government or with any one else you are bound to fulfil that contract I formed this contract with the Government, and I feel bound to fulfil it; but I think at the same time, for the benefit of the whole colony the contract should be amended. There is no breach of contract if both parties agree. 310 What would be your amendment ?—ln the first place, I would give the people the option of buying the freehold. The great objection to the present system is the fear of revaluation, and also there is a difficulty in transferring your rights. At the present time before you can transfer your rights you have to go before the Land Board, and, of course, the Land Board, if they like, can can ggt trang f er if you bring forward a reasonable man to take your place? —Yes; but you are not free. You cannot demand it as a right. If you have a freehold vou can sell it to any one. 312 Mr Forbes.] Have you been long m this district ?—I have been forty years here. 313. Do you think this Bickerstaffe Estate is too highly rented?—l do not think the rent is altogether too high on many sections. I think the place was not valued properly. I some of the sections were valued too high, and some of the others perhaps a little too low ; but I do not think the rent is too high as a whole. 314 What do you think is keeping the settlement back?—lt is simply the want ot optional tenure. ' I will o-ive you an instance. The country that you drove through on the other side of Maungaturoto is & no better than Bickerstaffe, and it was put up to auction and sold with the right of purchase, and every piece of it was taken up. No one paid for the land ; they are paying 5 per 315. How do the prices compare with Bickerstaffe? The price, if anything, was a little higher than 3^6° k And"have the people who took it up done well out of it?—Of course, it was only sold about the same time as Bickerstaffe. You cannot tell if a man has done well in a year. 317. You think if the option of purchase was given that the whole of Bickerstaffe Estate would be taken up? —I think the whole of it would be taken up. ... ~ ,■ 318 You think that is all that is keeping the place back?— Yes. Of course, if an alteration was made, and if a man who took up, say, 100 acres under lease in perpetuity was at the end of five years, when he had completed his improvements, just as free to deal with his land as a freeholder, I think you would probably hear very little grumbling about the option of the freehold.
W. H. JAOKMAN.]
661
C—4.
319. Of course, he cannot be as free as a freeholder in the matter of selling to his neighbours? - That is it —he wants to be as free as a freeholder. 320. The Government insert that provision in order to prevent the aggregation of estates: do you not think that is a good provision ?—'Yes; I think no man should own more than a certain area of land. But I think the Government could regulate the matter in another way. 321. Mr. Johnston.] Have you seen any of the settlements under the Land for Settlements Act in the South Island? —I have no experience of it whatever. 322. Can you form an opinion in regard to the Bickerstaffe Estate? —Yes. 323. How much land was sold by auction? —About 3,000 acres. It belonged to private people. 324. It is all freehold land between here and Warkworth ?—Yes, pretty well. 325. How do you account for it being in such a disgraceful condition? —A great deal of the land is poor, and, another thing, there has been no communication between North Auckland and Auckland. For instance, it would cost the small settlers a great deal more to get their produce to Auckland than it would to produce the stuff. 326. There is a steam service to Warkworth and all up the coast, and the road is not at all bad that we came along. You do not call the road that we came along to-day bad ? —lf you came along the road in two months' time you would find it in quite a different condition. 327. You have the spring to get rid of your stuff? —A man who is a practical farmer does not get rid of all his produce in the spring. 328. How do you account for the land not being taken up and worked? —I cannot account for it in any other way. 329. Do you think if the land was leased it would be cultivated, because then the people would have to reside on it? —I certainly ilo not. 330. Have you had anything to do with the Land Board ? —A little. They have been very satisfactory. 331. You say the land would not be satisfactory under leasehold. Why did you take up your land if the lease is not satisfactory? —I am quite willing to abide by my contract, but there is no reason why I should not get it amended if I can. 332. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 333. Mr. Matheson.] Does it seem to you that the Minister of Lands is in a better position to pick good members for the Land Board than an ordinary citizen I—Well,1 —Well, the Minister of Lands ought to be in a better position to nominate a man to the Land Board than any single individual in the district; but 1 think the County Council could pick more suitable men than the Minister. 334. Mr. McCardle.] Suppose the restrictions under the lease in perpetuity were removed, and you were able to deal with your property much in the same manner as the freeholder does now, would that waive any desire you have for the right of purchase? —That would waive my desire altogether. 335. Suppose the. Government agreed, as soon as a settler under the Land for Settlements Act had done improvements up to a certain value, to remove these restrictions and allow him to deal with his land as he liked, subject, of course, to the provisions of the Land Act, would the whole of your objection be removed? —Yes, so far as my business objections are concerned; but, of course, every one knows that the matter of land-tenure is a matter of sentiment. It is the same with a man who is going to take a wife: he does not reckon what his wife is going to cost him. 336. You also expressed yourself in favour of a restricted area: do you think the Government should restrict a man's holding to a certain area? —Yes. 337. Mr. McGutchan.~\ You say you cannot transfer your lease without the sanction of the Land Board? —Certainly not. 338. Is it the sanction of the Land Board or the sanction of the Minister under the Land for Settlements Act that is required?--! cannot tell you, but it is some one in authority. 339. Do you know any case where a transfer was applied for and refused? —No. 340. Do you not think it is a wise thing for the Land Board to exercise some control over the lease? —Certainly not, if the necessary improvements have been done. "341. Your lease on the Bickerstaffe Estate is land which has been purchased for the purpose of settlement? —Yes. 342. And for a considerable time the interest of the State in the land will exceed your interest, and yet you say the State should have no voice in the control of that land ? —Certainly not. They should be in exactly the same position as a landlord. A landlord has his interest in a farm —say it is £4 or £5 or £10 per acre —and his interest remains at that figure. There is no loss to the State if the whole of the Bickerstaffe tenants bought the estate to-morrow and paid the upset price for it. 343. Do you know of any private landlord with as much interest in the land as the State has in this, who would allow his interest to be transferred from man to man without exercising some control over it: have you known of any instance of it? —I have not. 344. Then, do you think it is wise for the State to forego its control? —I think it would be wise for the State to give the option of purchase. 345. Are you on any local body? —I am on the County Council. 346. Are you on any Road Board? —No. 347. Do many complaints come from the settlers in your locality with reference to the disabilities they suffer under on account of roads? —Yes, any quantity of them. 348. A gentleman who had a seat formerly on the local body, and who gave evidence this afternoon, stated it would be a good thing if the local bodies got an assured finance. That term, '' assured finance," is used all over-the colony :do you know what it means? —I cannot tell you. 349. As a member of the County Council, do you think the road-making of the county should be subsidised by the Government? —Yes. I think the monetary grants should be divided among the local bodies, instead of being placed in the hands of the members of the electorates. It would be a very difficult thing to do if the grants were made on a population basis, because then the towns might get the whole of the money.
C—4.
662
|W. H. JACKMAN.
350. Could you not take it on a valuation basis?- —Then the cities would get all the money. 351. Is it not the case now that the subsidy decreases the higher the rate that is levied? —I cannot tell you. 352. Are you acquainted with the Local Bodies' Finance and Powers Act, under which the subsidies are fixed ? —I am not, very well. 353. Does your county keep road accounts? —No. 354. Have you complaints from the settlers about their rates being transferred from their riding and spent elsewhere? —Not that I am aware of. 355. Mr. Paul.] Do you believe the best way to constitute the Land Board is by the County Councils electing them? —Yes; I think the local bodies are the best people to elect the Land Board. 356. Better than the whole of the people? —Yes. 357. Mr. Anstey.\ Is there anything in the nature of the tenure of your lease which will prevent you making the best use of your land? —Nothing whatever, 358. You are able to farm it just as well as your freehold? —Yes. 359. Do you think you possess just as good security for your improvements? —No. 360. What is the difference?— There is the fear of revaluation. 361. Is that the only difference? —Yes. 362. Can you tell me whether the settlers generally on this Bickerstaffe Estate, so far as they have gone, are farming the land as well as the freeholders around them? —Just the same. 363. Can you tell me whether the freeholders generally are farming their lands well in this district? —I would not like to say. If you go into any district you will find good farmers and bad farmers. It is impossible to make a sweeping assertion. 364. Do you think there ought to be any interference on the part of the State in the case of the people who are keeping their'lands idle? —Certainly I do. 365. What would you suggest, in the case of the lands referred to by Mr. Johnston as being in a most disgraceful state of neglect, to compel the owners to put their lands to some use? —I cannot suggest anything. 366. Can you tell me how the land is rated? —On the improved value. 367. What would be the difference in the rating of a farm highly improved and another next to it in a state of neglect? —A great deal of difference. lam in favour of rating on the unimproved value. 368. What would it cost to bring any of this land into a fairly improved state?—lt depends altogether on the land. 369. Take the tea-tree scrub land?—lt would cost about £3 per acre. 370. Would that include buildings and fences?—No; to get it into grass. That is where the unfairness of the valuation comes in. A man will work the land and put a lot of manure in it, and when the valuer comes along he knows nothing about the manure that has been put in. 371. Then, the difference between the improved and unimproved value would be the difference between, say, £1 or less per acre and £4? —Yes. 372. Then, in rating on the capital value an improved estate pays rates on £4 per acre, and the unimproved estate pays on 10s. per acre? -Yes. 373. You think it would be wise to alter that system? Certainly, I do. 374. Mr. Forbes.\ A previous witness said there was Canadian thistle on Bickerstaffe Estate: do you know if that it so?—I have not seen any. 375. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it is a wise policy for the Government to help those settlers who are trying to help themselves ? —Certainly. 376. Do you think that might be done by abolishing grants, and allowing the settlers to raise loans to make'roads, the Government to pay one-half the interest on such loans?— Certainly. 377. Mr. McCutchan.] You have had forty years' experience working the land?— Yes. 378. You think it is apparent to any one—even a novice in the district —that the reason why the poorer lands have not been brought into productivity is because it is almost impossible to do so by the sowing of English grasses; but we had an expression of opinion this afternoon, from a gentleman of long experience, that this very poor country could be redeemed by such grasses as danthonia: is that your opinion ? —1 have seen a lot of poor land redeemed by danthonia towards Wellsford way; but danthonia will not grow on lots of land. I doubt very much whether it will o-row on those hills at the Wade. I think such land is only fit for tree-planting. 379. Mr. Anstey.| I notice there are a large number of small Road Boards about here with microscopic revenues: do you think that is the most economic way of attending to the roads of the district ?—Certainly not. I think it would be better if two or three of the counties were made into on ° 380. That would mean putting about fifty Road Boards into one?— There are very few Road Boards in the Otamatea County. 381. You think the County Councils are too small?— Yes. 382. Do you think that one local body instead of two is sufficient to administer all the roads? —Certainly. William Bailey examined. 383. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am secretary of the Maungaturoto Co-operative Dairy Company. This is the third season it has been in operation. There has been 39 tons of butter made during this season, and 38 tons of that has been exported to London. This season 7d. per pound has been given for butter-fat. 384 What effect has the factory had oil the farming in this district?—lt has not to any great extent led to cropping at present. "There is no doubt that is coming to the front, and the settlers generally recognise its importance, and that they should take steps to provide winter feed for their stock.
W. BAILEY.]
0.—4.
663
385. I suppose milking is mostly done by the suppliers ? —The company generally meets them to the extent of running a cart and paying half the cost of cartage. The milking of the cows is mainly done by the farmers and their families. I only know of two instances in which farmers employ outside labour. The monthly payment of about £400 is divided amongst forty suppliers, and £10 a head is about the average paid to each. That lasts for six months in the year, but during two seasons it lasted for seven months. The Brynderwyn Estate was sold on the freehold tenure, but the settlers buying that land were not obliged to pay down the whole amount. Other land in the district was also put in the market the year before last. These sales of land have had an effect on the settlement at Bickerstaffe, and that has been the cause why some of the Bickerstafie land has not gone off. 386. But there is no doubt that Bickerstaffe will go off? —Not the slightest doubt. 387. Mr. Forbes.] Was a petition got up to the Government to buy Bickerstaffe? —I am not acquainted with all the circumstances which led to the purchase of that land. 388. Was there an agitation got up here for the Government to acquire the estate? —It did not come from the settlers round here. 389. There was nothing to lead the Government to believe that there would be a good local demand for the Bickerstaffe land? —Not on the part of the settlers collectively. To most of the settlers here it was a matter of surprise that the Government bought the estate. 390. Where do the settlers at Bickerstaffe send their milk to? —Two of the settlers supply our factory with milk. 391. What is the road like between here and Bickerstaffe? —I think it is a very good road, but until it is metalled it will be almost impassable in the winter-time. During the summer the road is all that can be desired. 392. Mr. Matheson.\ How long have you been in this district ?--Forty years. 393. What tenure do you think it is wisest for the Government to offer land under? —The leasehold. 394. Do you think that is as likely to promote prosperous settlement as if the right of purchase were given? —I think there is a widely prevalent sentiment in favour of the freehold. Ido not know that it is founded on reason, but it will probably have the effect of checking settlement for some time, because I do not think the leasehold system is properly understood. 395. Do you think if the tenure were properly understood people would be quite satisfied with a Government lease? —Yes. 396. Do you think that the Government lease should be revalued at stated times? —Yes. 397. What periods do you think it would be reasonable to revalue them at? —I should say five years, but probably it would be better at longer periods than that. 398. Mr. McCardle.] How does it come that you are only paying 7d. this year? —The factory commenced at the middle of the season, which resulted in a loss, and the directors decided to keep the price low, with a view of paying dividends, if possible. 399. How is the factory worked? —They have borrowed money from the bank on the joint guarantee of the members of the company. 400. Do you know what is the average this year? —I should say about 3.8, but it has risen up to as high as 5 in the last of the season. 401. You would get a good average test if only the quantity was sufficient? —Yes. 402. You expect that in another season the quality will improve? —Yes. 403. Do you send the butter Home or sell it to agents? —It is shipped entirely at the settlers' risk. The agents advance so-much per pound, subject to recall in case the butter does not fetch the price at Home. 404. I think there are agencies with which you could make better terms ? —The company had an offer of 9d. f.o.b. in Wellington, and they guaranteed, but they declined to take that, and it has resulted in their offering close on 9|d. 405. Mr. McCutchan.\ You advocate a five-years revaluation clause being inserted in the lease?—l think five years would be a fair period, in justice to the country. 406. Why in justice to the country? —Because I think the community has an interest in the lands of the country —that is, in contradistinction to individualism. I think there is an increment in the land that should be the property of the people. 407. Is it the people that make it? —Decidedly. 408. How? —By improvements, by their energy and business, and even by roads and railroads. The improved value of property resulting from this expenditure should, I think, belong to the people of the colony. 409. Has the dairy factory increased the value of the land at all? —Undoubtedly. 410. You made 39 tons of butter last year, and exported 38 tons Home. How, then, does the increased value of the land belong to the community of New Zealand? —The increased value of the land belongs to the colony generally. The unearned increment belongs to the people of the district, who are really getting it in this case. 411. Therefore, any increase in the value of the land here belongs to the men who are in occupation of it? —No. Any increased value belongs to the people of the country. I take it that if the increased value goes to the men in occupation that is individualistic. I think if the expenditure of tha people increases the value of the land the people of the country have a claim to that increase. 412. Have you had any Government grants here in connection with your roads? —Yes; in the early days, a great amount. 413. Do you think the amount this district has hacl is more than its share in proportion to the expenditure over the whole colony? —No. 414. Are you a freeholder? —On a small scale. 415. Does not the increased value of that land belong to yourself? —Do you mean by my labour ?
[W. BAILEY.
a—4.
664
416. I mean the increased value given by public works? —It belongs to me as a colonist, but not exclusively to me. You will understand that if I am a freeholder that was the only tenure that existed when I came to the colony; but, speaking broadly, I think the Government should reserve to themselves some authority over all land. 417. If you sold your property to-morrow would you hand over the increased value that was not made by your own efforts to the colony? —If other people would do so I would; but that is hardly a fair question to ask under the circumstances. Every one cannot quite live up to the principles he holds in regard to questions of that kind. 418. Would a single section of Bickerstafie have been taken under a five-years revaluation?— The probabilities are it would have been taken up. 419. Do you think men would go into the rough bush country here and take up land on a five-years lease, because revaluation every five years means simply a five-years lease? Do you think that men of experience and men with the requisite ability and capital would take up the rough bush land of the colony under that tenure?—l do not think the rough bush land of the colony is of very great value to any one until it is improved. 420. Do you think men would undergo the risks and hardships of taking up such land under those conditions?— Not if it meant that the lease would terminate at the end of five years; but if the revaluation was a fair one I do not think it would deter many of them. 421. Do you not think, in the case of the back country, it would be better to give the settlers a longer lease at a very low rent? —Certainly. I would like to say this in reference to the length of the term I mentioned —namely, five years —that I do not wish it to be understood that I would limit the lease to five years. In answering the question as you have put it, I think it would be unfair. . 422. Do you not think the old perpetual lease was a fair thing—namely, the first period tor thirty years, and a subsequent revaluation every twenty-one years?— Yes, I think so. lam inclined now to think that five years would be too brief a period, and that twenty-one years would be a better term. 423. You think the term of revaluation should be according to the nature and the value of the land?— Yes. • 424. You think that the settlers in the back blocks deserve every encouragement and help I Yes. 425. Mr. Anstey.] Do you expect the settlers at Bickerstaffe next season to supply milk to your factory? —Yes, cream. _ . _ 426. How far are they from the factory? —The most distant one is between five and six miles. 427! Is the land there suitable for dairying?— Part of it has very good grass. 428. Is it suitable for grain-growing?—A very small area. 429. Is it suitable for sheep? —Yes, sheep and dairying. Frederick Brabazon Winser examined. 430. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer at Bickerstafie. I hold 547 acres, and my rent is Is. 9d. an acre. It is rough, broken land, and is purely grazing land. lam perfectly satisfied with my rent and with the tenure. I have a good summer road to my place. There is a Government wharf at Bickerstaffe, about five miles from my section. 431. Mr. Forbes.] You have heard other witnesses say to the Commission that they are not satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, and they want the option of purchase?—l certainly agree with them about the option of purchase. . r „ 432. But you are willing to abide by the contract you have entered into with the Government? —Yes. • ,■ , n -xt 433. But if there is to be any alteration you would like the option of purchase i—Yes. 434. You do not wish to have your present lease broken ?- I think it would be very nice t<? get the land as a freehold if I was in a position to take it up under that tenure. 435. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the State would be wise to give you that chance if you gradually made savings on the property ?—Yes, I certainly think so. 436. Mr. McCardle.] If you took it up on those terms you would want a long term on which to pay it off ? —I could not really say at the present time. 437. Do you know anything about the working of the Advances to Settlers Department?— No 438. Mr. McCutchan.] You think of raising enough to acquire the freehold?- Yes. 439. I suppose you mean after putting sufficient improvements on the land?— Yes, and after I have got a little from it. 440 Do you expect to mortgage the goodwill?—I would not like to mortgage it too much. 441. Do'you think the goodwill belongs to you?—lf I could get hold of the section I would be very glad to get it. . 442.' Are you aware that the Advances to Settlers Department is now advancing on the goodlll?443°lf the Advances to Settlers Department is advancing up to 50 per cent, on the tenant's interest would you consider that is an acknowledgment that the goodwill belongs to the tenant?— I thought the Advances to Settlers Department only advanced on improvements. 444 But would you consider that was an acknowledgment by the Government that the goodwill in these leases belongs to the tenant ?—Yes. 445 Mr. McLennan.} Can you grow a green crop on your propertyJ—i do not think so. 446 Is it all in grass now?—No; 125 acres is in bush, and 250 acres in tea-tree, and the balance is in grass.
F. B. WINSER.
665
C.-4.
447. How do you get rid of the tea-tree? You have to cut it and burn it. I have been only four months in the north, but they tell me that danthonia and brown-top are the best grasses to plant. 448. Mr. Paul.] Is there anything in the conditions of the lease in perpetuity which prevents you making the best use of the land? —I do not think so. 449. Why do you think it would be wise for the State to give the freehold? -I am not thinking of the State, to tell you the truth. 450. You are thinking of No. 1 ? —Yes. 451. Mr. Anstey.] Is there any kauri-gum on your property? —I hope so. 452. Do you expect to make a considerable sum from that? —I might make a little to pay the rent. 453. Do you expect to do dairying or to run sheep? —It is too rough for dairying, but I will keep sheep and cattle. Thomas Meyebs examined. 454. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler at Bickerstaffe. I hold 372 acres, and my rent is 2s. 4d. an acre. My land is practically unimproved land. I suppose after the teatree scrub is cleared off some of that can be ploughed and improved. I am satisfied with reposition as far as I have gone. The tenure seems fairly reasonable. It might be improved by the insertion of the optional clause. I would like to have the chance of making it a freehold some day. I have a fairly good road to my place. I intend to use my farm for dairying. 456. Mr. Forbes.] How long have you been in this district? —Four months. I came from Feilding. 457. Is the rental reasonable? —On the whole I think the rent is rather high for the time being. It has been said here that the leasehold is stopping settlement at Bickerstaffe on the poorer sections. My opinion as to the unimproved sections is that if there is any rebate given there are numbers who would settle on the poorer sections, because I am firmly convinced that any man with energy could make something out of the land, but the great drawback is that you are paying for land from which you are getting no return. 458. If the rent was made reasonable for a number of years, until the settlers were getting a return, you think that would be better?- I think that would be quite reasonable. 459. You are satisfied with the lease in perpetuity? —I think it is a very good thing. There is every inducement offered to a man with small capital to settle on the land. It is useless for a man crying out for the freehold if he has not got the money to buy the freehold. 460. Do you think if the option of purchase were given it would be a little more inducement to the settlers? —I think on this land it would be very difficult indeed to place a fair valuation on the improvements made by the settlers. 461. You think it is in the interests of the State to keep the people off that land, and give them every inducement to keep at work? —Undoubtedly. I think if the people are willing to work it is the duty of the State to offer them every inducement. 462. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that by offering the option of the freehold it would be giving a little more inducement to the settlers ? —Yes. 463. Do you think the tenants should be allowed to pay off the amount in sums of, say, £25 and upwards ?"--That might suit a man of small means, but I have not studied that question. 464. Do you think the option of paying off the amount in sums like that would be better than paying the whole amount off in, say, twenty years? —No, it would not be better in the case of a man who has the means I have got. 465. Mr. McCanlle.] Do you think the rents will have to be reduced or the right of purchase be given before the balance of the sections will be taken up? —I think if the Government would offer such inducements in regu.rd to certain sections they would be readily taken up. If you gave a settler a rebate for two years, or gave him the land rent free for two or three years, and he puts his energy and money into the land in improving and grassing it, I think that would be a very good thing. 466. Would that be fair to the settlers who have already taken up the land?- Perhaps they might not think so. 467. You have got a section, and it is a paying section? —It will not pay for three years. 468. Mr. MeCutchan.] We had evidence given to-day that the reason why Bickerstaffe was not all taken up was because there was no right of purchase, and there was also another reason givenviz., that the local demand had been already satisfied by the previous sale of other land in the district : is either of those reasons the true reason ? I should think the right of purchase would be a great inducement to more settlers to come here. 469. Mr. McLennan.] Can you plough any of your land? —If it was cleared a good bit of it would be ploughable. 470. Is it clay or chocolate? —There are about fifty different sorts of soil in the 300 acres. 471. Is there'much limestone in it?-Very little. 472. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the settlers are in a position to acquire the freehold if they were given the option? —Not at present. 473. Do vou think they can pay for the freehold out of the revenue from the farms? —They might after a while. 474. About how long? —I could not say. 475. Is there any revenue they would get under the freehold that they could not get under the leasehold while they occupy and work the land?- I think it would be an additional inducement to people to settle on the land if they were given the option of the freehold. I think the leasehold is altogether reasonable, but my opinion is much the same as other witnesses, that the optional clause would be another inducement to them. 476. The optional clause would make it a more valuable tenure? —I think so.
84—C. 4.
C—4.
666
[t. meters.
477. There is nothing in the leasehold tenure which prevents you from getting the best from your farm? —Not so far as I can see, individually. 478. Mr. Aiistey.~\ How many sections were taken up at Bickerstaffe at the original ballotJ— About seventeen. 479. Have any been taken up since?--I do not think so. I might say my own was not taken up at the first ballot, but shortly afterwards. 480. Do you know if any more have been taken up since? —I do not think so, but I could not say. 481. Is yours the only one that has been taken up since the original ballot? —I believe they were all taken up either at the ballot or shortly afterwards. 482. What about the man on Section 58? —I do not think 58 is taken up at all. 483. Is there any kauri-guin on your section ? —I think so, because there has been some digging. 484. Do you expect to get revenue from it? —I have not the time. I have been chopping all the time. 485. Have you the right to dig for gum? —There is nothing so far as I can see to prevent me. 486. Mr. McGutchan,\ When you have chopped down the manuka scrub do you think the ground will hold English grasses? —I do not think it would be wise to sow English grasses. I think the native grass would be best at the start. In two or three years, when the ground has been worked, it might be well to try English grass. 487. Ie your land capable of being ploughed? —Yes, after a while. 488. Have you had experience of this country before? —Yes. 489. You handled the manuka in the same way as other people do here?- -I have not had much experience of manuka country. "I was referring to the soil. lam only just a new arrival here. 490. Have you had any experience of native grasses? —Yes, a little. 491. Have you had any experience of this danthonia? —I have made inquiries, and it seems to do well about here. I have had no experience of it personally. 492. Have you observed it closely since you came here? —Yes, as closely as I could. 493. If you sowed down that grass in this class of country, what do you think would be the carrying-capacity of your land? —About 4 or 5 acres to the cow —about a sheep to the acre. 494. Do you think it would be wise on the part of the Government to foster the growing of this danthonia? —Yes. As regards the North of Auckland, I have thought the matter over, and compared this district with other of the world, and I think what has been done in other parts of the world could be done here if there was sufficient inducement. 495. Mr. Anstey.\ Could you give a fair idea of what sized farm is necessary to make a living on the Bickerstaffe Estate? —I should not care to offer an opinion. 496. Are 350 acres sufficient for you? —Not at present, because it will not carry anything yet. 497. Is that because it is not cleared? —That is the main reason. 498. Do you think 100 or 150 acres would be sufficient if it was cleared? —No. I think a man would need 300 acres. 499. There are a number of sections on the Bickerstaffe Estate not taken up; some of them are small sections of 100 to 150 acres: do you think they are too small? —No, because they are on the limestone land, and are all ploughable. You could go in for more mixed farming. You need not confine yourself to dairying. I think they are a suitable size. John Dalrymple examined. 500. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler on Bickerstaffe, and my section is No. 50, and the area is 174 acres. The rental is ss. per acre. I have been there eighteen months. 501. Is your land ploughable? —Yes, mostly. I have done some ploughing. 502. Have you had any crop? —I made an attempt to get a crop of maize, but was not successful. The land was twice ploughed. 503. Are you satisfied with the tenure you have it under? —I have taken it up under lease in perpetuity. I have made a bargain and am bound to fulfil the conditions. 504. How far are you from a port or wharf? —Three miles bv road. 505. Mr. Forbes.'] Are you of the same opinion as your neighbours about the option of purchase? —I know nothing about my neighbours, but T prefer the option of purchase. 506. Mr. Maiheson.] Do you think the best way would be to give you an opportunity of paying for your land in fixed instalments, or in sums of, say, £25 whenever it suited you ? —I think there should be the option of paying in about ten years, and if the people were not able to comply with the conditions in that time they should have the option of another five years. Fifteen years would be a fair limit. 507. Mr. McCardle.] Would you prefer to pay it off in a lump sum at the end of that term?— I should prefer to pay it in instalments, as I should not care to bind myself to anything. I merely want the option. 508. I suppose your neighbours are all freeholders? —I think so. 509. Do you think if the balance of this land were offered with the right to purchase it would be a means of inducing settlement? —I can only speak from my eighteen months' experience, and I think it would be an inducement. 510. What do you think would be about the largest carrying-capacity of this land when in grass? —About a sheep and a half.to the acre. 511. Is your land suitable for dairying? —Yes, and I think the whole of the district is just as good for dairying. 512. Do you think it would be an advantage to you when breaking up the land to leave it exposed for a time with a certain amount of manure in order to sweeten it? —Yes,
667
C.—4.
J. DALBYMPLE.j
513. Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Department? —I have had no transactions with it, but 1 know something about it, and 1 believe in the principle of it. 514. You have had experience in other parts of the colony? —Not for some years. 1 recently came over here from Australia. 515. Mr. McGutchan.] What expenditure do you estimate would be required to enable your property to carry a sheep and a half to the acre? —About £1 to £1 ss. per acre on the whole lot. 516. Is the carrying-capacity of Bickerstafie a sheep and a half to the acre when improved? —So far as I have seen. 517. Well, it must be a fairly cheap place: considering the rental you pay it is a fairly good investment? —I pay ss. per acre rent, and I have placed fencing and stock upon the land, and have erected a building to live in, and that sort of thing. 518. Mr. Paul.] Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory ? —Yes. 519. And with the Hanger? -I have had no connection with the Hanger at all. 520. Mr. Anstey.\ Is your farm large enough to make a good living out of ? —No. 521. What sized holdings do you think the Bickerstafie land should be held in? —Not less that 500 acres. 522. Do you think you should be allowed to increase the size of your holding? —Yes. 523. Is there any kauri-gum on your property? —Not to my knowledge. Eoland Hames examined. 524. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I hold about 500 acres of freehold about two miles from Bickerstafie. I have been in the district about forty years —from infancy, in fact. 525. Have you been farming for a long time? —Yes. 526. What do you do with your farm? —Grazing sheep and cattle entirely. 527. Do you send away fat lambs? —No; they would get thin before they reached town. I can send wool, grain, and mutton. Ido not go in for dairying at all. 528. What are your views with regard to land-tenure? Under what tenure do you think the country would be rendered most productive? —I believe in the optional tenure —in allowing everybody to please himself. 529. Do you think the freehold is good for the country? —I think so. I know it is called sentiment, but the desire to get upon the land at all is a sentiment. Logic would say it is better to borrow money from the Government at per cent, and have your own capital to yourself. There is this feeling, however: that we would like to be our own masters and have our own piece of land. 530. Mr. Forbes.] Do you know why Bickerstafie has not been all taken up? —Judging from my own knowledge of the place, and the value of the land, and all the conditions, I should be very sorry to take any of it up under those conditions. I think the rent is so high that the men who take it up will have to be much smarter than I am to make a living out if it, or else they must have a good deal more capital. 1 think the reason why it is not taken up is partly because there is no option given to acquire the freehold, and partly because the rents are higher than people will be able to pay. 531. Do vou think giving the option would make any difference ? —Well, I think a man might go into it with more heart and determination if he had a chance at some time of making it his own. 532. Do you think the lease-in-perpetuity people do not go upon the land with heart and determination? —They may do; but you want a good deal of energy and determination to tackle this scrub and tea-tree. I have a little of that land, and I agree that danthonia and Waipu brown-top are the best kinds of grasses to grow on such land. 533. Do you think the Government made a mistake in buying Bickerstafie? —Yes. 534. How did they come to buy it?— That is what we do not know. 535. Mr. Matheson.\ Have you seen any one take up a piece of this poor manuka land and gradually get it into grass, so that the manuka would not grow again ?- Yes. My own idea, from some 'experience, is that it should be cleared for something like nine months before it is burnt. It should be left to lie idle for a winter and spring and then burnt. By that time most of the seed has germinated, and the young tea-tree is caught by the fire. A few weeks after it is cut down the seed is in the ground and germinates subsequently. After the burning the land should be ploughed. 536. Do you think it is wise to encourage the sentiment which draws people on to the land? — Certainly. 537. Mr. McCardle.\ There is a gentleman here who holds that there is a good deal of unearned increment in the district ?—There is not much about my place, because it was five miles from the settlement; and as I look back at the hardships of my parents in the back country, and of the children with no opportunity of education ; when it was quite a startling event in my time to see any woman except my mother, I feel that all the increase that comes to a property that has been worked under such conditions is well earned. 538. You think the settler by his self-denial and hard work is hardly paid even if he gets all the so-called unearned increment?— Unless 1 can see something more than I now see in prospect, I think he is not paid. 539. Do you think the advances-to-settlers scheme is a good thing?— Yes. 540. Do you think it is a means of assisting the small settlers? —Yes; but I have met people who have applied frequently and have been disappointed. 541. In giving such assistance do you think greater preference should be given to tenants of the Crown than has been given in the past?—l think they should have a fair chance. I think any one who wishes to borrow money and has sufficient security to offer in land and improvements should be assisted.
C—4.
668
|B. HAMES.
542. You consider the defects have been more in administration than in the principle of the thing? —Yes, I think so. 543. Mr. McCutch.au.] 1 think the method spoken of by you for the destruction ot the manuka has been fairly successful on the east coast; but on the poorer lands between Warkwortli and here there is a scrub which is very light: in that case, if the scrub is allowed to lie on the ground until the seed germinates, would the method be equally successful?- I think so. 544. Do you think danthonia would do there? —I'es; but I think ou some of that poorer land between here and Devouport the land is so miserable that I would be sorry to see any one waste time upon it, even with danthonia. 545. In speaking of Bickerstafie, you considered the laud was too dear? That is my impression. 546. There is a settler—Mr. Jackman- who has been forty years in the district, who took up an allotment. Do you think he made a mistake?-No doubt lie made a wise selection of the land. He knows the district thoroughly; but I speak of the Bickerstaffe Estate as a whole. 547. Do you consider the roads in the district are satisfactory?■ lhey are all right in the summer, but they are all but impassable in the winter. 548. Can you devise any scheme to improve the condition of things? —No, unless there is an increased rate or a more reliable income from allocation of money. It should be allocated on some systematic basis to the local bodies, instead of just a grant here and there. 549. Have you a seat on either of the local bodies? —No. 550. Do you know whether any proposals have come before this county for raising loans ?- Yes, and I think it was carried in most of the ridings, but it fell through, as the Government had not the money. 551. Has the application been renewed?—l understand so. 552. Do you think a railway'through this district would be justified?- I suppose as far as here it would not pay a great deal, but further north there would be a splendid return, as the land is so much better. 553. You make that statement having in view the competition there would be from water carriage? —Yes. Railway carriage is so reliable; water carriage is so unreliable. 554. Mr. McLennan.] How did you acquire your land? —Most of that land I have purchased myself since my father died. 555. How much have you got cleared?- About 400 acres. I have just sown a good deal. I did not buy it all at once; I bought as 1 got the money. 556. Mr. Paul.] Have you formed any opinion as to the best constitution of Land Boards? — I have not considered the question very much; but I believe if there was a partially elected Board instead of being entirely appointed it would be an improvement. I know the members of the Board are not always men most fitted for the position. 557. How would you have the Board partially elected? —Well, perhaps it would be better to have the Board entirely elective. It is easy enough to have an election if it is wanted for other bodies, and I do not see why the Land Boards should not be elected. 558. Do you never have unsatisfactory men on any of the local bodies which are elected? — Possibly; but they are the choice of the people. 559. Do you think the Land Board, being an administrative body, should be elected? —I think it would give more satisfaction. 560. Would you elect them on the parliamentary franchise? —I should elect them on the landowners' franchfse; but, of course, I have not thought the matter out. 561. Do you think the people in the towns and others should have a choice? —Perhaps it would be well; but I suppose, as a rule, they would not take much interest in it. 562. Do you consider the Crown lands are the national estate? —They are certainly part of the national estate. 563. And have not all the people a right to a voice in the way those lands should be dealt with? —Yes, they have a right. 564. Do you think the Government are paying too high a price for these improved estates they are acquiring? —I only know of this one here. I should not like to say the seller got too much, but I fancy it was not a success from any point of view except the seller's. 565. Did the seller get more than a fair price? —I do not know that he did; but Ido not know that it was suitable for close settlement —at any rate, under the leasehold system. 566. But if the land was too dear as leasehold, would it not be too dear as freehold ? -Well, people are willing to pay more for something which is their own, and they will sometimes pay more for a freehold than it is worth. 567. Mr. Anstey.] Does your statement, that on the whole Bickerstafie is rather dear, apply more particularly to those sections which are not taken up?— Yes. When a man has spent £3 an acre in clearing, fencing, grass-seeding, and stocking it, it will be two years before lie gets any return, so that a man must have a good deal of capital to enable liim to take up such sections. 568. Do you think it is the poorest sections that are left? That is probably so in the main. 569. How many sections are taken up? —I believe sixteen or seventeen; but I have not been over the place since it was opened. 570. Do you know how many sections there are left? —No. 571. Do you think Bickerstaffe would be better if opened on the freehold tenure? —I think a good many young men in this neighbourhood would have taken up sections with the right of purchase who would have nothing to .do with a lifelong lease. They would be more disposed to go further back than take land under lease. 572. Have you ever had a seat on any local body?— No.
G.-4.
669
K. HAMES.
573. What rates are you now paying? —Six farthings the two rates —the general rate and a separate rate. lam in the Paparoa district. We pay both rates to the county. There is no Road Board. 574. Do you know the annual revenue of the County Council?- I forget. 575. Have you had any experience in any other districts where there are both County Councils and Road Boards? —Just observation. 576. Do you think the administration is better with one local body or with two? —I think it would be better to stick to one. Douglas Cromwell Snellino examined. 577. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. My brother owns about 200 acres of freehold. We have been settled here twenty-four years. Our place is about three miles from here. It is chiefly pastoral country —sheep and cattle. 578. What do you think about the tenure? Do you think the freehold system is better than the leasehold or otherwise in order to promote settlement and draw out the capabilities of the country? -I think the freehold is the best, but that every one should have the option. 579. Mr. Forbes.] Where is your farm? —Maungaturoto. 580. Do you know anything about the Bickerstaffe Estate? —I know it pretty well. 581. Do you think the rents are too high there? —I think on the whole they are. 582. Is that on the ground that is not yet taken up?- I think on the ground that is taken up as well. 583. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think if the State gives the option of the freehold to its tenants if is doing justice to the city people, who look upon the Crown lands as the public estate? —I do not care a " hang " for the city people. 584. Do you not think the town and country people are closely linked together?- I think the country people have a harder time on the whole than the town people. 585. But do you not think their interests are closely linked together? In what way? 586. If you do not understand, I am afraid I have not time to explain. 587. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think if the consumption of the people of the colony, exclusive of the farmers, were done away with the price of farmers' products would be lessened ? —I consider our exports are what we have to look to. The consumption within the colony is not the main thing. 588. You think it is the market beyond our shores, and that the consumption in New Zealand in no way influences prices? I suppose consumption within the colony has some influence. 589. Is not, then, the welfare of the towns and the welfare of the country largely identical? Yes, it is.
Kawakawa, Monday, Bth May, 1905. John Alexander Lindsay Hall examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a commission agent, I hold 150 acres of freehold. I have been in this district some thirty years, anri I am thoroughly acquainted with it. 2. I believe there are a considerable number of settlers scattered round in the valleys ?—A fair number who are engaged in farming, chiefly sheep and cattle. 3. Are they fairly prosperous as a whole? —I cannot say that exactly. They are living. 4. Are they generally pretty long settled ?—They are very old settlers. 5. I suppose they are all settled under the freehold system?— Most of them. 6. Is there much exchange of properties going on here?— Not a great deal. 7. Is there any Maori land in amongst the freehold ?—A very great deal. All the best land is still held by the Natives. -8. Is this Native land retarding the settlement of the country ?—Yes, it is greatly against it. 9. I understand they have a great many privileges ?—Yes ; hitherto they have not had to pay their share of fencing nor yet rates. 10. What do they do with the land ?—lt is going to waste. They run pigs and cattle on it. 11. Are they not disposed to lease it? —Some would be, but they are unable to do so, because as soon as they attempt to lease other Natives who reckon they have a share in the land come in and upset their arrangements. I might mention I leased a very fair paddock from some Natives and paid them the first quarter's rent in advance. I turned my cattle in and after they had been there some time some other Natives got to know of the lease and they demanded a share of the rent, although they had done nothing towards the fencing. The upshot was that my cattle were turned out. 12. I believe the coal-mining is coming to an end ? —Practically. 13. Is there any fruit-growing on the part of the settlers?— Not for the market. They grow a great deal of fruit, but they can do nothing with it. There is no jam-factory here. Fruit does very well in this part of the country. 14. Is there any dairy factory ? —There is one at Ohaeawai, which is doing very well. 15. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission?—l think the great detriment to the north is the Native-land trouble. The Natives hold the very best lands, and under the present legislation they cannot .deal with it themselves. I think the Natives themselves are very favourably inclined to sell the land if they were allowed to do so. 16. I understand there is a great stretch of very fine land at Kaikohe ?—Yes, about seven miles from Ohaeawai. It is all held by the Natives. I was on that block some thirty years ago when the
C.—4.
670
Tj. A. L. HALL.
first race-meeting of the Natives took place. There were no briars and gorse growing on the land then. Now acres and acres are simply covered with these weeds through the neglect of the Natives. 17. Have you thought anything about the question of land-tenure, speaking broadly, in regard to the whole colony ?—I have done a great deal of travelling through the Bay of Islands County. I have valued the district on two occasions for the Government, and I have come into contact with all classes of people, and in any conversation I have had with them in regard to land-tenure they have stated their preference to the freehold. But the system they seem to like better than any other one the Government have brought in was the homestead system, under which the Government gave the land for nothing, subject to making certain improvements. 18. Is there much land about here settled under the Homestead Act?— Not just here, but some fifteen or eighteen miles away there is a block called Okaihau, the whole of which was settled under the homestead system. At Buapekapeka another block was also settled under the homestead system. 19. In your opinion, would it be beneficial to re-enact the Homestead Act ?—Yes, in this part of the country. 20. Under the Homestead Act the members of a family could combine and take up a very large area of land ?—I believe so. 21. Within your observation, have these people thriven : when they got their foot on the land did they make that a stepping-stone in society ?—I think so. Nearly all I know who have taken up land under the Homestead Act are still there. 22. Knowing your roads are such as they are—viz., very good roads in summer—and that you have good steamer communication, and that the railway is coming near you though at a rather slow rate, perhaps the conditions are sufficiently altered that instead, of the re-enactment of the Homestead Act the land might be offered at a very low figure, say at ss. an acre for cash, or on the deferred-payment system ?—I think I would make it optional. Those who wanted to take up under the Homestead Act should be allowed to do so. The land is very poor, and, really, the settlers want to be induced to take the land up. 23. I suppose there are lots of young people in the district who are likely to take the land up, and they would be most likely to succeed, being close to their fathers' homes ? —There is nc doubt whatever that they would know what the land is capable of doing, which a stranger to the district would not know. 24. Do the young fellows who are born here settle in the district or go elsewhere ?—I am sorry to say that as soon as they grow up they generally abandon the land. They do not stick like their fathers to the land. The inducement in the way of better wages at bush-felling and gum-digging takes them away. 25. Mr. Hall.} Do you know of any Crown Lands within a reasonable distance from here suitable for settlement ?—There is one portion at Buapekapeka, but I am not sure that it is Crown lands. 26. Is the bulk of the suitable land in the hands of the Natives?— All the good lands in this part are in the hands of the Natives. 27. Is there any representative from this locality on the Native Land Council other than Mr. Wilson of Whangarei?—l think some Natives were chosen from this part, but Ido not think there was any European. The Council sat steadily in Kawakawa for some three months, and after ascertaining the names and interests of the Natives in the different blocks they awarded the shares to the different Natives. Apparently this award has not given satisfaction, and the Natives have appealed, and the whole of the work that took some three months has, I understand, to be opened up again. 28. Does that apply to the Native lands generally ? —Yes. 29. And the titles are not"determined yet?— No. 30. Is the Native Land Council blamed for too much " taihoa " in dealing with the lands?— Yes. 31. Is that their motto ?—I think so, without doubt. 32. Of course, they can do nothing until the Land Court determines the titles ? —They cannot deal with the land until the titles are ascertained. 33. Would this land be taken up freely if it was taken over by the Government and put into the market? —Yes, it would be very readily taken up. 34. Would it be good policy on the part of the Government to arrange with the Natives to take possession of the land, and, after leaving them sufficient to live on, to sell the remainder and invest the proceeds as an endowment for the benefit of the Natives ? —I think it would be advisable for the Government to take charge of the whole of the Native lands. They should find out what the Natives would require for their settlements, and sell the remainder of the land to the Europeans, and invest the money derived from this land for the benefit of the tribes. But Ido not think that Europeans would be favourable to leasing Native lands if they could not eventually get the freehold title. 35. Do you think that could be arranged amicably with the Natives?—l think so. I certainly think the Natives are quite able to take care of themselves as well as Europeans, if not a little better. 36. Does it not come hard on the settlers when they have to do so much roading through Native land from which they get no rates? —It has been the great drawback to this Council. Until recently the Maoris used bullock-drays, and they tore the roads up and paid no rates whatever. 37. Mr. Johnston.] How much of this poor land do you think is necessary for a man to make a living out of?—I should say a very great deal. The only way to work a great deal of this land is by having a piece of fair land with it on which you can raise sheep, or cattle, or crops. The poor
J. A. L. HALL.]
671
C.—4.
land could then be used for grazing at certain times of the year. It is almost impossible to make a living out of poor land alone. 38. How is the land held between here and the end of the railway-line at Hukerenui ? Is it freehold ?—I think it is chiefly leasehold from the Crown, with right of purchase and under perpetual lease. 39. Is all the land farmed in the same way as the land between here and Hukerenui ? —This side is nearly all freehold, and it is farmed differently because the land is better. 40. Will you tell me how many acres of this land between here and Hukerenui it takes for a man to make a living off?— You have asked a question I can hardly answer. 41. The Chairman.] Do the settlers rely on the land for a living?— Certainly, they do not. They dig gum. 42. Mr. Johnston.] What area would make a suitable farm without the help of gum-digging or anything else ?—A man might make a living off 300 or 400 acres. 43. How many sheep to the acre will it carry in its present state ?—About 10 acres to a sheep. 44. Suppose it was all in grass, how many sheep would it carry ?—One to the acre. I am speaking of Hukerenui land. 45. Mr. Matheson.] Have you seen any of this scrub land in the district successfully grassed so that the grass holds?— Yes. 46. Are the homestead settlers you refer to making a living out of the land, or do they work also at gum-digging and timber-felling?— Chiefly on their land. 47. Out of sheep and cattle ?—Yes, and butter. 48. You spoke of a successful dairy factory at Ohaeawai. Is there land of a similar quality around Kawakawa that would support a dairy factory?— Not in the hands of Europeans, but in the hands of the Maoris. 49. Are you a member of a local body ?-—Yes. 50. Have you had grants from the Crown in the last year or two for roading ?—Yes. 51. Have you raised any loans under the Loans to Local Bodies Act?— None. 52. Mr. McCardle.] Have you had any experience of the working of the Native Land Act ?— None. 53. I suppose you are aware that before the Natives can deal with their lands, either through the Maori Council or private individuals, the titles require individualising ?—That is so. 54. You are also aware that each Native must show he has 50 acres in addition to the portion he is proposing to let ?—I believe that is correct. 55. Has the Maori Council sat here and heard applications for leases in the district ?—Not that I am aware of. 56. I suppose you are aware chat the Native Council is unable to deal with any land until the title has been individualised, and that that must be done by the Native Land Court ? —That is correct. 57. Are you aware if there is a large number of Natives interested in these blocks of land?— A very large number. 58. You think, in the interests of the district, that it is desirable chat the Crown should find money to put these blocks of Native land through the Land Court to get the titles individualised? —Yes. 59. And if the titles were individualised, and the Natives had power to deal with the land, do you think persons would lease it for twenty-one years, with payment for improvements at the end of the term ?—I do not know about leasing it, but lam certain they would buy it. 60. I suppose you are aware that the Native Council has no power to allow a Native to sell his interest ?—I am quite aware of it. 61. You think it is desirable he should be empowered to sell under proper safeguards'— I do. 62. Can you form any idea what it would cost to put the light scrub-manuka country through which we passed into grass? Would not that country want to be ploughed and manured to grow grass?— No. There is a certain grass called danthonia which is beginning to come in. 63. Will you not have to wait a very long time before it takes possession ?—No. It is only within the last five years that it has made its appearance there, and some acres are now under it. 64. Would you attempt to sow that manuka ground with danthonia after burning?— You burn first and then sow the danthonia, and any subsequent burn will not hurt the danthonia. 65. How are the settlers doing wno are settled under lease with che righc of purchase ?—They are living on their land, and doing work on the gumfields and in the bush. 66. Do you not think that most of che land is taken up with a view to working the gumfields rather than the surface of the soil ? —I do not think so. 67. Is there much evidence of practical improvement being made in the district we have passed through ?—I think so. 68. Then, they must be away back from the road?— Yes, a little way from the road—so much so that they are about Co start a dairy factory in the country you have come through. 69. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Yes. 70. Has it worked satisfactorily here?—l think so. 71. Has it proved of benefit to the settlers in the district ?—I think so. 72. Have che Land Board and-their administration been satisfactory to the settlers here?—l think they have. 73. Have you any fault to find with the Land Board? —No. 74. Mr. McGutchan.] As Government valuer, what did you value the poor manuka country at ?—I think something like ss. per acre.
672
[j. A. L. HALL.
o.— 4
75. What is your estimate of the cost to make that land carry the sheep to the acre you say it will ?—I should say about £2 per acre. You have to experiment to find out what grasses will take on the soils. At the present time a grass called Waipu brown-top and danthonia seem to be taking the places of the other grasses the settlers tried to grow. They used to go in for English grasses, but they proved an utter failure. 76. Would paspalum do on the poor land ? I believe it would. I have seen it tried on poor places, and it seemed to grew very well. I have seen it grow 5 ft. high on pipeclay land. 77. You say that at a cost of £2 10s., which includes the cost of the land and fencing, the land will carrv a sheep to the acre ; but will it go back?—No, not with danthonia. lam only speaking of what I have observed myself. Danthonia apparently kills tea-tree and fern. 78.° You are a member of the County Council? —I am. 79. What is your rate revenue? —I should say about £600? 80. Is the capital value of your county £300,000 ?—I cannot say, speaking from memory. 81. What rate do you strike in the pound?—ld. 82. That on a rateable value of £300,000 would bring in £1,250?- I think our revenue is £600. 83. What subsidy do you get ?—I think it is 10s. in the pound. 84. If you doubled your rate will you get any increase of subsidy?—l should presume so. 85. Is "it not the case that if you put up your rates the subsidy decreases after a certain amount ?—I was not aware of it. 86. Do you think the subsidy from the Government should be proportionate to the amount of rate levied ? —I do not see why it should not be so. 87. Would it not be a great assistance if the settlers were prepared to rate themselves highly if the Government helped them in proportion to the way they were trying to help themselves?— Not in this part. 88. Why not? —Because the Natives use our roads quite as much as we do, and do a great deal more harm to them, but contribute nothing. I think it is a great shame to see a few struggling settlers trying to make an existence and rating themselves for roads which their brown brothers use without sharing in the cost. 89. Then, there would be no injustice in an increased subsidy, but there would be an injustice in an increase'in the rates ?—Certainly. I think the Government should come down very handsomelv in these parts where they will not put these lands through the Council and bring revenue to the county. 90. Then, it is idle for the settlers to make roads until the Native-land question is settled !— Until the Government help us. There are many ways the Government could help us. A great deal of gum is exported, and a great deal of timber is sold. The Government reap the benefit of the sales of the timber, and it is to bring this timber from the bushes and from the creeks that our roads are used. They' are badly cut up by this traffic, and yet we get no assistance from the Government. , , 91. Mr. McLennan.} Do you know of any settlers in this district who have sowed gorse on their land for stock purposes ?—I knew one only. 92. How did it do ?—lt grew very well. 93 How did the sheep do on it?— Very well; but the unfortunate part is that they could not control it. When the young gorse is springing there is plenty of grass feed, and you need a terrible lot of stock to crush the gorse off. If you are in a position to put plenty of stock on the land during the strong growth of the gorse there is no doubt it will feed sheep well. 94. Do you "think it would be better to clear the ground of the scrub and sow grass instead of growing all gorse? —I think so. 95. Is your County Council taking any steps to compel them to grub and clear the gorse !— None whatever. ■ , r 96. Do you not think it is advisable to do so ?—1 am afraid if the Act was put into force in this part a great number of the settlers would abandon their properties. They could not attempt to clear manv places. 97. Do you not think it would be just as well to abandon the land as to leave it in such a state as that ? But by burning the gorse occasionally a settler can run sheep and cattle on the land.' I feel sure it would spell ruination to the settlers if they were compelled to clear the gorse off their places. . . 98. Is the ground not worth it?— Yes, but in many places the gorse is growing amongst stones, and it would be impossible to plough the land. 99. We saw some very good land yesterday and to-day all covered with gorse : do you not think it would be better to clear the gorse and cultivate the land propeily ? —That is down at It would pay well to clear the ground there, because there are no stones, and a plough could be put to work. , ~ 100. I presume that land is freehold?—l think so. Ido not think it is leasehold. 10L Mr. Paul.} Is there much freehold land in the same state as the Native land we saw around Kawakawa? —Not a great deal. 102. About how much? —1 really cannot tell you. 103. Has freehold land in this district risen in value in the past few years?— Yes. 104 What is that owing to ? —Owing to the dairy factories and the increased price of stock, and various things. Of course, when I speak of this district you must remember you have only seen the district "the road comes through from Hukerenui. When I speak of the freehold round here I speak of land you have not yet seen. Property has not increased much towards Hukerenui. 105. It appears to us there are large areas of freehold we have come through since leaving Whangarei tha t are totally unimproved—in fact, they are worse now than when they were in their native state? Well, between here and Hukerenui there is not much freehold at ali.
J. A. L. HALL.
673
a—4.
106. Are there not some farms which have not been improved at all ?—No freehold that I know of. 107. Between Hukerenui and Whangarei are there not large areas of freehold land overgrown with gorse and noxious weeds ?—I do not think so. 108. Has most of the freehold land been improved in the last ten years ?—Yes. 109. Are you acquainted with any lease-in-perpetuity holdings in the vicinity?—l cannot say I am. I think most of the leases have a right of purchase. 110. Do they compare favourably with the freehold in the way they are farmed ?—They do not. 111. You think they are worse?-—Yes. 112. Mr. Anstey.]—There is a large block of Native land adjoining Kawakawa : is that good land or high rough country ?—A great deal is good land and a great deal is bad. I think one-third of this block is really good land, and two-thirds is bad and middling. 113. Is all the land between Hukerenui and Kawakawa in the hands of settlers in some form of tenure or another?—A great deal. 114. Do you think there is a demand by the settlers for much of this Native land ?—Yes. 115. Supposing the settlers got a lot of this Native land, do you think they would occupy it and clear it a little better than they are doing with the land they already hold ? —There is no doubt about it. As I said before, this is really good land. 116. Notwithstanding what you have said, we had acres and acres pointed out to us as we drove along as being freehold land, and there seems to be nothing at all done with it ?—So far as I know, I do not think there are more than 300 or 400 acres of freehold land between here and Hukerenui. 117. Does the same apply between Hukerenui and Whangarei?—l think that is pretty well all freehold and Native land. The land where the two sawmills are alongside the railway all belongs to the Natives. A little further on there is a village settlement, but between this and Hukerenui I do not believe there are 400 acres of freehold. 118. Are the village settlers living there ? —Yes, you would see the fences and houses and cultivations. 119. Is that under lease in perpetuity?—l do not know how it is held. 120. Do you not think it would be wise, seeing that these are the only people who are making improvements, to extend that system, and let some more land under lease in perpetuity ?—I certainly do not. 121. You think it wiser to allow the land to run gorse under freehold?— Will you tell me where the gorse is on the freehold. 122. Really, we have not seen much else since we started from Whangarei?—lf you like to go out and compare absolutely freehold property with leasehold, you will see, without doubt, a very big difference. A person who has the freehold will naturally devote all his energy and time to improving what is his own. 123. Are there many freeholds held by absentees in this district? —There are a few. 124. Do these people cultivate their lands well ? —They are chiefly leased to others, I think. 125. Are they farmed well ?—No ; they are pretty rough blocks. They are fenced, and cattle run on them. 126. How are you rated ?—On the capital value. 127. That means that any man who improves his land has to pay the most rates, and the man who leaves his land idle pays next to nothing ?—That is so. 128. Do you not think it would be a good principle to apply the rating on the unimproved value to this land?—l think if I could do anything in the matter I would exempt from rating the comfortable house, stables, and buildings that a man who wanted to live decently erected on his property, so that he should not pay more than the man with similar land alongside him who only erected shanties. 129. Have you ever had a poll of your ratepayers on the question of adopting the rating on the unimproved value ? —Never. 130. Do you not think it would be wise to do so?—I do not think it would do any good. 131. Why? —Because the people would be in favour of the present system. 132. What local bodies have you here?— Only the County Council, 133. What is the area of your county ?—I cannot say. 134. Do you get any large sums from the Government by way of grants? —Yes. 135. Do they come regularly?— They do not. 136. Would you be better off if you had a larger subsidy and no grants at all?— That would mean striking heavier rates, and I am not in favour of that. 137. That is to say, you get a grant when you bring a little political pressure to bear ?—Yes. 138. Is that a wise system ?—No. 139 Then, would it not be better to get a larger subsidy?—No, because we would have to strike heavier rates, and we get no rates from the Native and Government land,s. 140. Mr. Forbes.] Do the settlers go in for fruit-growing?— Yes, a large number. 141. Has it been a success ?—Yes. 142. Where do they send the fruit to? —They have been shipping to Auckland, but the cost of carriage, freight, and commission has left some of the settlers in debt at times. 143. What sort of fruit? —Apples, quinces, and plums. We do not grow lemons. 144. We have had evidence that this part of the North Island is very suitable for fruit-growing, but if that has been your experience it does not seem reasonable ?—I think it is the want of communication. 145. How do the settlers send the fruit?—By steamer. We only have a boat once a week, and the fruit is delayed and injured on the journey.
85—C, 4.
674
[j. A. L. HALL.
C—4.
146. Would the railway be better?— Railway-communication between here and Whangarei would make all the difference. It would warrant a canning-factory being established. 147. Has experience shown that this is a good district for fruit?—l think so. I might mention that a friend of mine started growing vines. He put in 13 acres of them, and they have turned out a success. The vines are doing splendidly, and he is making wine. 148. Is it on good land ?—On poor land. 149. I suppose the apples and plums are grown on heavy land? —No, on poor land. It would be worth your while to go up and see the fruit-growing on the Pipeclay Hills. Peaches do wonderfully well. . 150. You think a canning-factory at Whangarei would assist the district? —Yes, very much if there was railway-communication between here and Whangarei. It would enable the settlers to grow fruit and send it to a central place. They built a canning-factory at Whangarei two or three years ago. , „ 151. Mr. Hall.] You mentioned the valuation of the county on which rates are based. Does that include Native lands?—No, they are not rated at all. 152. As regards rating on the unimproved value, what is the maximum rate the law allows ? —I think it is 3d. in the pound. 153. Then, you could raise a larger sum on the unimproved value if you levied the maximum ra te?— But what about the Native land again. 154. You spoke of danthonia being sown on the burnt-off tea-tree land: is it not a fact that the tea-tree comes up thicker than ever afterwards from the seeds? —Not with danthonia. It kills and crushes out the tea-tree. 155. Is the Waipu brown-top the same as brown-eve ?—No, that is an inferior grass. 156. Would it push this district forward if the railway was completed through ?—lt would be a great benefit to the district. 157. Mr. Matheson.] As Government valuer, do you know the country intimately between here and Hukerenui? —Yes, very well. 158. If Mr. Anstey tells you he saw large areas of freehold property between here and there smothered with gorse, do you think he is speaking quite correctly ?—I do not know one bit of gorse growing between here and Hukerenui. 159. You do not know of any gorse growing between here and Hukerenui? —I do not. 160. Mr. Johnston.} Have you ever seen any grass growing ?—I have. 161. Do you see as much gorse as grass ?—I said I have not seen any gorse. I would like to know where it is, because I would go out and see it. 162. It is growing every yard along the road ?—I have not seen it. Harry Blundell examined. 163. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am county engineer. I have held that position for about eight years. 164. What is the amount you have to expend per annum on roads ?—From all sources, about £2,000 for road-maintenance. 165. How many miles of roads have you to keep up ?—I have not gone into that question, but I should think at least a hundred miles, including by-roads. 166. How many miles have you of what might be called main district roads ?—About forty miles of what is called the Main North Road. 167. Do you get any assistance from the Government for that Main North Road ?—A little. 168. Is that included in the £2,000 ?—No. I might say that the Government money I have referred to is spent by the Government Department. I have nothing to do with it. 169. Does your work on the Main North Road not clash with that of the Government Department ? To a certain extent it does, because there is no distinct understanding as to what part the Government look after and what the County Council look after. We consult one another. 170. Do the Government specially charge themselves with the bridges? —No. 171. Is there anything you would like to bring before the Commission? —I would like to say that the Native difficulty is the great drawback to the advancement of the district. Another thing is that there are certain areas of ground at present shut up in timber and gum reserves that might be settled. n , 172. But besides the gum reserves there are areas of land that the gum-diggers are allowed to work as well ?—There are areas reserved for gum-digging that are not gum-bearing. 173. Could you state the area of land shut up as gum reserves ?•—No; there are a good many reserves about the county. 174. Have you some bush reserves? —Yes ; there is a considerable area. For instance, there is Puhipuhi. 175. Is there any other particular matter you would like to bring before the Commission ?— There are a great number of Austrians scattered about the district. I believe they would make good settlers if they understood our land laws. I think if our land laws were printed in their language and copies were distributed amongst them many of them might be induced to take up land. Of course, that would be subject to their being naturalised. I know of one case in which Austrians have gone in very extensively for vine-growing in this country, and from all accounts the vines are doing very well. The Austrians are generally steady men, and there are rarely any complaints about their conduct. At present nearly all their business with the Europeans is done through an interpreter. 176. Can you say how many Austrians are in the district north of Auckland ?—I have not the slightest idea. There might be two or three hundred about here, but they are also scattered about other districts.
675
C—4
H. BT.TTNDETJ,.
177. Mr. Hall.] Is the subsidy deceived from the Government 10s. in the pound on the ordinary rates ?—Yes. 178. You say the great drawback to the district is the amount of Native land which is at present unoccupied?— Yes. 179. Should there not be pressure brought to bear on the Government or on the Native Councils to expedite the dealing with Native land?—-My idea is that the Native Land Councils have been of very little use. I think that Native land should be made to pay rates the same as European land. The Natives use the roads just as much as Europeans do. 180. As regards the Austrians, would it not be better to give them sections of land for nothing to induce them to settle upon it?— Yes, if it was a condition that they must do a certain amount of vine-planting or tree-planting. 181. They would only require small areas, say, of 50 acres? —Yes, and in the neighbourhood of gumfields, on which they could earn a living while the vines are growing. 182. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think 50 acres would be ample to offer them in that way ?— Yes; they could only cultivate a certain area. 183. Do you think if they were offered 50 acres on lease with right of purchase they would take up the land at a low rent ?—I should think the freehold would be more likely to tempt them than a lease with right of purchase. 184. Do you mean that they should pay cash down for the freehold?—No; to give them land something like under the old homestead system, on condition that they planted a certain area in vines or fruit-trees. 185. Mr. McCardle.] Do you not think it would have been very much better to grant the land at a small rental with right ofc purchase during a number of years, and use the whole of the rent and capital value in making roads to those blocks. Would it not be a very great disadvantage to other settlers to give away the land without some such arrangement ?—Yes, it might be. 186. I suppose you are aware that until the Natives hand over their land to the Native Councils the Councils are powerless to deal with the land ?—Yes, I believe that is the case. I may mention that there was a small block of Native land that I wanted to lease. The area was about 50 acres, and there were no less than twelve owners. The lawyer told me that the fees and charges would come to about twice the rent I was going to pay for the land. Of course, I took no further steps in the matter. 187. In driving up from Auckland I have seen a great deal of country that, it seemed to me, ought to be cultivated. What means do you think can be taken in order to bring about settlement on that land ?—There is a great portion of the land you have seen that is very poor land, and I think that land ought to be sown with danthonia. I have seen large areas put into danthonia by just running a plough through it. 188. I have seen instances of land on the way from Auckland to this place where an attempt has been made to cultivate it and it has gone back into tea-tree scrub again ?—Yes, that is so. . 189. You have some village homestead settlements in this district ?—Only one, and I do not think it has been a great success. 190. Mr. McGutchan.] Can you say that the condition of the roads has seriously hampered the progress of this district ?—The roads are still occasionally bad in the winter, but our roads compare favourably with those of other districts in the north. 191. A previous witness said that until the Native-land question is settled it would be unwise to increase the rates for the purpose of making the roads better ?—I quite agree with that. 1 think it would be a great mistake to increase the rates until the Native title is ascertained. 192. The Native traffic is considered a great hardship in some districts, seeing that the Native land does not contribute to the local rates ? —Yes. 193. Has your County Council taken any steps to regulate that traffic ? —On the small roads in the back blocks riding is really rougher on the roads than the traffic of bullock-drays. 194. You said your gross revenue was £2,000 a year : what proportion of that was subsidy on rates-?— About £300. 195. What were your rate receipts?— About £600 or £700. 196. What are the expenses of administration ? —About £250 a year. 197. How is the remainder of the £2,000 made up?—l include the amount we receive for the deferred-payment " thirds " placed in the hands of the Council to expend. 198. Have you had any experience with respect to co-operative labour ?—Yes. 199. Has it been satisfactory?— Decidedly not. 200. Do you think the system of doing the work by co-operative labour could be improved, or would you abolish it ?—I would do away with it altogether. I think the contract system is far more satisfactory. 201. Is there not danger of the profits going to large contractors under the old contract system? —I do not think so. 202. Mr. McLennan.] Is there much Crown land available for being taken up in this district ? There is a lot of poor land. The good land has been mostly taken up. 203. Mr. Paul.] Do you believe the Austrians are anxious to take up land ? —I can hardly say that. I think they are iguorant of our land laws, and I also think that a number of them would probably take up land if they knew our land laws. 204. Do you not think that if they were anxious to take up land they would not find out through their interpreter what our land laws are ?—There are numbers of them who never come into contact with Europeans at all'. They simply stop here a few years, and go away without knowing anything at all about our land laws. 205. Can you say from your own knowledge whether the Government grants are spent to advantage ?—Yes, I think so.
0- -4.
676
r H. BLUNKELL.
206. You spoke of the Native-land difficulty keeping the district back, and of the Crown land being locked up for glim-digging. Do you think those lands would be settled if they were thrown open for selection ? —There is one block on which some settlers have been anxious to settle, but they cannot do so owing to the restriction not being taken off. 207. Do you think the demand would come from within the district?— Yes. There are settlers who are anxious to take up the land. 208. Do they want more land or different land ? —Most of the good land has been taken up. I am certain that if the land I now refer to —which is good land—were thrown open it would be taken up. 209. Taken up by people who are already landowners?— They have not got much land. 210. Is it because their present areas are too small that there is a further demand for land ?— There is a demand for land right through the country owing to the area of Native land which is shut up. 211. Do you think the land in this district is well farmed? —It varies a great deal. There is some good land from here inland that is pretty well farmed. It is nearly all grazing-land. There is very little ploughing or cropping. 212. Mr. Anstey.] Where is the kauri-gum reserve that you suggest should be cut up? —It is the Ngapipito Reserve, a few miles from here; but I notice from the plan just submitted to me by a member of the Commission that it is no longer a kauri-gum reserve. 213. Are there any other kauri-gum reserves that are suitable for settlement ? —I think there are pieces of the Puhipuhi Forest Beserve that could be settled. 214. You have said that the kauri-gum land is all poor. Does that also apply to the swampland ? —The swamps are not naturally poor land, but they require draining. 215. Could they be drained while the gum is being taken out of them? —Yes; I have known of cases where the Austrians have drained the swamp land while taking the gum out of it, and have then returned it to the owner. 216. We noticed in coming along the road on Saturday that a piece of swamp land had been drained some time ago, and that it was already overgrown with tea-tree ?—Yes. 217. Do you think it would be wise to rate on the unimproved value ? —I think so. It has been tried in the adjoining County of Hokianga, and has been found satisfactory. 218. Is there any difficulty in getting the same amount of rates from the land as if rated on the capital value?—No; it seems to work very well and to work equitably. 219. You have only one local body, the County Council?— Yes. 220. Does that work better than if you had a number of Road Boards?— Yes, we have only a small amount of revenue. 221. Further south in this district there are some Road Boards which have only a revenue of £20 a year : do you think that money can be spent more economically than by the County Council ? —No. 222. Could the county spend its revenue more economically if the area of the county was smaller? —No ; there is a large portion of the county that is practically uninhabited. It is all in the hands of the Natives, and we get no benefit at all from it. If that land was all brought into cultivation the area of the county might be too large. 223. Do the Government grants come regularly every year ?—Very irregularly. 224. Who spends those grants ?—Some are spent by the Roads Department and some by the local body. 225. Would it not be better for you to get an increased subsidy rather than these spasmodic grants ?—Yes, I should think it would. 226. Do you think there should be differential subsidies—that is, the higher the rate struck the higher the subsidy ?—I think the out-districts should get a higher subsidy than districts already settled, because they want the money a great deal more, and they are not in a position to pay a high rate. Ido not know that you could raise the rates very much. 227. Do you think it would be necessary to give the land you suggest to the Austrians or any one else?—l would give it to them subject to their making certain improvements in the way of planting certain areas in vines or fruit-trees. 228. Mr. Forbes.] About what is the price of good dairy land about here?— Near the dairy factory the average price is about £15 an acre. 229. Where is the dairy factory ?—At Ohaeawai, about sixteen miles from here. There is a creamery at Okaihau. 230. Is the kauri-gum gradually getting worked out ? —I think so. 231. There is not an inexhaustible supply ?—No ; it must come to an end some time, but as the quantity of gum gets less the price naturally increases. I think that is really what keeps the industry going. 232. Are the men making anything like wages working on the gumfields?—Some of them are doing fairly well, but swamp-gum is now almost unsaleable, and there is something like a slump in the gum market at present. 233. Are the roads very bad in the winter-time ?—The roads are fairly good compared with the roads in the other counties. 234. You have good metal in the district?— Yes, through the main portions of the county. It is volcanic country. 235. Speaking generally, would you say the settlers are in a prosperous condition now?—No, you could hardly call them prosperous compared with the settlers in the south. They are making a living. That is all you can say. 236. But they have been doing better during the last four or five years than they did previously ?—Yes ; there have been fewer complaints lately of hard times.
H. BLUNDELL.]
677
C.—4.
237. What do they depend on chiefly, sheep or cattle?— There is one portion of the district where sheep and cattle farming is mostly carried on, but the settlers in the part of the district you have come through to-day depend more on gum-digging. 238. Mr. Anstey.] How do you do your road formation and repairs—by hand labour chiefly? —Yes, by plough and scoop. 239. Have you used a grader?— No. 240. Have you seen one at work ?—Yes. 241. Do you think it would be advisable for the county to get one for this work ?—I have often thought it would be advisable for a road-contractor to get one. 242. All your work is let out by contract ?—Yes. 243. Do you think it would be a wise thing for the local body to get one and attend to these roads? Do you not think that would be better than spending the money in small sums in letting out contracts? —Yes, I think it would. William Hamlet Wabd examined. 244. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer, and hold 108 acres of freehold. My farm is at Taumarere, about two miles from here. 1 have been in this district about thirty-nine years. My farm is under grass. 245. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission?—l represent the local branch of the Farmers' Union. They desired me to give evidence before this Commission. The members of the local branch of the union are unanimous in wishing for the freehold. Our local branch is comprised of twelve members. 246. I do not suppose you hUve had much experience of the lease in perpetuity in this district?— There are several sections held under the lease in perpetuity. I would like to mention something about one case. I can hardly give you all the particulars. In that case a man died and left a widow and a small family. The Land Board did not seem to be able to allow the widow to succeed her husband. Another objection that a neighbour of mine has to the lease in perpetuity is that his sons will not remain on his section. They say that it is not his, and they are simply working for the Government. 247. But the lease is for 999 years?-—-Yes; but we read constantly that in the House of Bepresentatives they want to introduce and pass a Fair Rent Bill, and they also want to revalue the land. That is what makes people regard the lease in perpetuity as rather shaky. 248. That implies that the Government would break a contract, which is very unlikely ?— They have broken it already by giving a rebate on the rent. 249. Mr. Hall.] You represent the Farmers' Union ?—Yes, our local branch. 250. As a body, they are in favour of the freehold?— Yes; the members of our branch are. 251. Individually, do you think there is any advantage in the freehold over a tenure of 999 years ?—For sentimental reasons there is. 252. But, apart from sentiment ?—lf you could be assured that you would have the land for 999 years at the present rental it would be as good as the freehold; but we are not sure of that. 253. But the existing leases are for 999 years ?—Yes; but Parliament, that brought them into existence, may alter them. 254. If Parliament could alter the lease-in-perpetuity tenure could they not alter the freehold tenure ?—They have done so. 255. In what way ?—ln purchasing large estates. 256. That is not altering the tenure ; that is taking the land for public requirements, and full value is paid for the land so taken ? —I read that there was a gentleman in Hawke's Bay who offered the Government a considerable sum of money to let him retain his land. 257. Is it not a fact that in England, in almost every civilised country, the freehold land is taken for public requirements, full compensation being paid ?—Yes ; but the public requirements do not occur so frequently as they do in England. 258. You said the granting of a rebate was interfering with the title ?—-Decidedly, because the agreement was that the tenants were to pay so-much rental. 259. That is in no way breaking the title ; a concession may be made to a tenant, but that in no way affects the lease or title ?—Yes; but they might raise the rent for the same reason. 260. They cannot do that, surely ?—lf they give a man a thing I do not see why they could not also take something from him. 261. As an illustration : If I leased a piece of land from you for seven years, and if I had a bad year and could not pay my rent, would it not be possible for you to give me a full receipt for a year's rent on paying only a six months' rent ? That would not affect the legality of the lease, would it, but you could not raise the rent upon me?—We are dealing with the Government, and not with a private individual. The Government can do what it likes, but a private individual is bound by the law. 262. Can you contemplate any legislative body confiscating a title of a contract entered into between the Crown and a private individual ? Has such a thing ever taken place ?—I know this : that if they want to take a road through a freehold they can do so, and another thing is when they compensate you for taking the road through they will sometimes take it from corner to corner and give you only compensation for the land taken. 263. Would it be possible for the Government to make a railway through the country unless they had that power ?—They might be blocked, but I do not think it is very probable they would be. 264. Do you still think that the 999-years lease is not a sound or safe tenure? —I would not tike to have it.
a—4.
678
[-W. H. WARD.
265. Mr. Matheson.] I do not want to be too inquisitive about your private affairs, but has your 108 acres been sufficient to keep you without outside employment?— No. 266. Is it now sufficient to keep a family?— No. 267. Is it fit for dairying ?—There are some flats in it, but the rest consists of tea-tree ranges. 268. Have you had any experience of danthonia on manuka-scrub land ?—Yes. 269. How long ago was it sown ?—Three years ago. 270. Is it standing well against the scrub ? —Yes. 271. Mr. McCardle.] Have you had any experience of the working of the Advances to Settlers Act ?—No. 272. Do you know whether advantage has been taken of that Act by any of the settlers in this district?— Yes, a great number. 273. Has it been good in their interest ?—I think so. 274. I suppose you are of opinion that chat Act has been beneficial in assisting small settlers ? —Yes. 275. As to the 999-years lease, if the tenure was secure would you still have objections to it ? —I have no objection to the tenure provided it is permanent, but I read that every session of Parliament they wish to bring in a revaluation Bill, and I also read that the Dunedin Trades and Labour Council wants to revalue the land every seven years. 276. Supposing they proposed to do that, do you think they would not require to compensate the present holders before they could revalue ?—Perhaps so. 277. Would you amend the Act so as to allow those who want the freehold to have it, and those who wish to keep the 999-years lease to keep it ?—I would give anybody holding a lease from the Crown the option of the freehold. 278. Do you think the laud'law as it now stands, and which provided for three systems—viz., lease with right of purchase, lease in perpetuity, or the freehold straight out—do you not think that Act liberal enough in the interests of all ? —lt gives a man a choice, but in a district like this where the land is so poor the land ought to be given to him in order to induce him to go on it. 279. That practically means the homestead system ?—That was a very good way of settling people on the land. 280. You do not think it would be in the interests of the colony, especially in certain districts, to put a small value on the land and let it a low rental, and let the rental be devoted entirely to road-making, and thus to assist the settlers ?—You must understand that here it is the man who keeps the land, not the land that keeps the man. I am of opinion that the homestead system should be adopted, and that the State should make the main roads, and that the local bodies or the settlers should make the roads to the main roads. 281. In the case you have mentioned did the settler will the property to his children, and then the Board found they could not grant each member of the family his share of the land until he came of age ?—I cannot tell you the exact circumstances of that case. 282. If such conditions existed, would it not be desirable that the Act should be so amended that the holder of a 999-years lease should be placed in the same position as a freeholder regarding the willing of his property ?—Yes. 283. Mr. McLennan.] Have you lately been at the waterfall near Kamo ? —About ten years ago. 284. Did you see gorse growing there ?—There was plenty of gorse growing there at that time. 285. Is that freehold land ? —lt might be, but it is mining-land. 286. Mr. Paul.'] You said there were twelve members in your branch of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 287. How many Crown tenants are there?—l do not think there is one. I think they are all freeholders. 288. They carried a resolution that the Crown tenants should have the freehold ?—Yes. 289. Could you say why there are no Crown tenants in the local branch of the Farmers' Union ?—I suppose most of the men are away at work, and it would not pay them to come into the union. 290. Do you agree with the land-for-settlements policy ?—I have no experience of that. 291. Why do you say that a man with a 999-years lease is working for the Government?— For the simple reason that if the Government raises the rental he is working for the Government. 292. But the Government is not raising his rental?— But every year we see that a Fair Rent Bill is brought before Parliament. What is a Fair Rent Bill ? 293. Let us talk of something we have, not something we might have ?—But we have to look forward. It does not do to sit down quietly until we get it popped on our necks. 294. But are there many people who are successful as prophets? —No ; but if you see a thing coming on you it is wisest to try and get out of the way. 295. Do you feel sure that a Fair Rent Bill is coming?—l simply read in the newspaper that it is brought in every year. The Noxious Weeds Bill took eight years to pass, but it came at last. 296. Was that a good measure ?—I do not think so. The Government and Maori land is stocking the whole country with noxious weeds. 297. Are you familiar with any other district than this?-—No. 298. In making those remarks you only apply them to this district?— Yes. 299. Do you think there is any fear of revaluation of the present leases? —I have given my reason for thinking so. I see that the Trades and Labour Council of Dunedin are always passing resolutions that the leases should be revalued every seven years. 300. Where did you see that ?—ln the Weekly News. 301. Would you believe me if I told you that the Dunedin Trades and Labour Council has never passed a resolution with reference to the period at which revaluation shall take place ? —I
a—4.
W. H. WARD. 1
679
should not like to contradict you on the strength of a statement in a newspaper, but that is where I read it. 302. How long ago was this?—l suppose six or nine months ago. 303. I may tell you that I am President of the Dunedin Trades and Labour Council, and I have not missed a meeting for the past few years, and no such resolution has ever even been placed before the Council, much less carried?—lt is a strange thing that you did not take notice of it in the newspapers and have it contradicted. 304. If the Trades and Labour Council or a public body of any sort were to take notice of everything they saw in newspapers they would not have much time to devote to their every-day business ?—That is so. 305. Mr. Anstey.] Is it the Auckland Weekly News that circulates chiefly in this district?— Yes. 306. And I suppose you generally believe what you see in that newspaper ? —Yes. 307. Do you think it is wise to believe it?—l do. 308. Do you still believe the statement made in the newspaper against the contradiction given by Mr. Paul?— Not when this gentleman assures me to the contrary. 309. Do you not think it would be wise to take statements of that sort in the newspapers with a grain of salt ?—Why should I ? 310. You have been given one reason why you should. You say that the members of your branch of the Farmers' Union are all freeholders. Is there any other question they have discussed besides this question of the leasehold and freehold which they have desired you to bring before the Commission? —Yes; we generally have a talk about the roads and what is good to sow, &c., but there is no other question that I have been asked to bring before the Commission. 311. Have you had any representation from the tenant farmers asking you to concern yourselves with the freehold on that behalf?—No, nothing more than I have told you with reference to the complaint of one settler, that his sons would not remain on the land, because they said that the land did not remain to their father. 312. Do freeholders' sons always stay at home ?—They generally stick to their fathers and mothers —they do not clear right away. 313. Do you not think it would have been wiser to have left this question of the leasehold and freehold to the leaseholders themselves to take up ?—The Commission advertise that they want our ideas on the subject, and I have come here to give them my ideas. 314. You mentioned the case of a widow whose husband died and left her the property, but you were not very clear about what happened. Where is she living ?—Hukerenui. 315. Then, the farm was not taken from here ?—I believe she had to give up the land. It was forfeited, but the neighbours agreed not to go in for it, and she was allowed to take it up again. 316. Are you quite sure of that ?—lt is hearsay. 317. Are you quite sure that the land was not transferred in the ordinary way under the Land Transfer Act ?—lt took some months to do, and there was a great deal of excitement about it. 318. Do you not think the Government could just as easily confiscate a bit of freehold as a lease-in-perpetuity section?— They have already done so. 319. Do you think the freehold is any more secure than the leasehold ? —I do not think anything is secure in this country. 320. Then, what is the advantage of having the freehold compared with the leasehold?—ln the case of the freehold you have no rent to pay, and in the case of leasehold there is a constantly recurring rent, and that is a grievance. 321. But you have to buy the freehold ?—Yes. 322. You have not to buy a leasehold, you have only to pay the rent ? —Yes; but if you understood this part of the country a man has often to leave his place in order to earn his rent. 323. But supposing a man has not got the money to buy the freehold, what would happen then ?—Let him take up a leasehold, but I think he should have the right to acquire the freehold at any time he likes. 324. Mr. McCutchan.] You stated that the Crown tenants were uneasy about the tenure on account of an agitation by the Trades and Labour Council at Dunedin for revaluation ?—Yes. 325. Are you aware that within the past month the Trades and Labour Conference in Wellington, at which a representative of the Trades and Labour Council of Dunedin was present, laid down as a part of their propaganda that all existing leases were to be revalued upon transfer or death of the holder ?—I have not seen that yet. 326. Such is the case. With regard to this Rebate of Bent Bill, you look upon that as a variation of the contract ?—Yes. 327. Before a rebate can be brought in it must be done by the will of the people through their representatives in Parliament ?—I suppose so. 328. If that is so, is it not therefore possible that an increase of rent might be brought about by the will of the people ?—That is what I think. William Fbancis Parsons examined. 329. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler residing at Buapekapeka. I was formerly a homestead settler at the same place. I own 250 acres of freehold which was the homestead, and I have 188 acres on lease with the right of purchase as well. I have had the 188 acres for about ten years, and am paying £4 13s. per annum for it by way of rent. 330. I suppose it is your intention to make that a freehold too by-and-by ?—Well, a little while ago a friend offered to advance me the money to acquire the freehold, but as I had not been quite ten years in occupation I was not allowed to acquire the freehold. Now I have not the money and my friend is not here. 331. You still have the right to purchase?— Yes, I think so.
C—4.
680
!W. F. PARSONS.
332. Do you rely entirely on your farm for getting along ?—No, I have to work off it sometimes. 333. Your land is not very good, probably?—lt is like all the land about here. The riverHats which are long narrow strips are good land, but the hills which are, comparatively speaking, good to look at are very deceiving. When we put grass upon it it is very hard to get it to grow. I find the English grasses are a failure. We are now trying Waipu brown-top and danthonia. 334. What do you think of this danthonia ?—I look upon it as a good grass for burning off the tea-tree, but as a feed I value it very little. However, it is better than nothing. 335. What do you think of the Waipu brown-top?—l have only had it for the last two years, and it is rather pleasing me. 336. In putting the land down in English grass was the land ploughed ?—No, I could not get 10 acres of ploughable ground on my place. It is clay land, not gum land. When you fell the bush it gives fair grass for three years, after that the fern and tea-tree take it place. That and the pennyroyal are our worst trouble. 337. Have you any Californian thistle up here ?—Not that I know of. 338. Then, you cannot improve your place very much ?—No ; the whole of our settlers are in much the same position. We cannot advance. We have not the ploughable ground, and surfacesowing, unless it is with danthonia, does not do, for danthonia, according to my opinion, is not much good for feed. Where it can be manured it is equally as good as rye, but we cannot manure the hillsides. 339. Do turnips grow well ?—Fairly well when the land is cleared. 340. Do you use any bonedust or other manures?—No, just the ash. 341. Mr. Matheson.] How long is it since you sowed the first danthonia? —It has been coming into our ground for about seven years. 342. Do you think with its help you will be able to keep the manuka under? —I think so. That is the only hope we have. 343. Have you done anything in fruit? —Yes, I have a very good orchard—about sixty trees — and large quantities of fruit both in the house and on the trees. 344. Do you send the fruit away to a market ?—No; I should have to pack it fifteen miles to the train, and then pay the train-fare to the boat. 345. Mr. McCardle.] Have you tried Ohewing's fescue ? —Yes, I tried it on a piece of stony ground—a sort of rotten rock. For the first two years it was very fair sheep-feed, but this summer it was not looking very bright. 346. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?— Yes. 347. Do you find it works satisfactorily?— Yes. 348. Do you think when you come to buy your freehold, if the friend you spoke of is not there to advance you the money, you would be able to get it from the Government Advances to Settlers Department?—l dare say I could get it through that channel. 349. Mr. McCutchan.] In speaking of the grasses, you said danthonia was good for getting rid of tea-tree scrub, but that when the scrub was got rid of the grass was of little value as feed : do you think it would be possible to grow paspalum ? —I have tried it on light hill soil. The growth is slow, and Ido not think it would do on all soils. I think it is more adapted to heavy clay soils or river-flats. On volcanic soil it gives a fair amount of feed in the summer, but lam doubtful of it in the winter. 350. How do sheep do on danthonia ?—They fatten pretty well. 351. Can you get fat lambs off it ?—I do not know about that. I have seen four-tooth sheep killed off it going to close on 80 lb. 352. What breed of sheep?— Lincoln, I should say. Danthonia seems to do well on volcanic soil where I saw these sheep killed. 353. Can you give any estimate of its carrying-capacity ?—I cannot. 354. Mr. Paul.] Has your experience of the Land Board been satisfactory ?—Fairly so, I think ; but there is a lot of fuss when the rent is not paid up. We are shaken up a good deal, or, at any rate, we were by the former Commissioner. I do not know how this new gentleman will be." Sometimes gum cannot be got, and there is no bush-work, and you cannot sell a few sheep in a hurry. Then, it is hard to get the rent. We always send it as soon as we get it. 355. Do you approve of the present constitution of the Land Boards : do you prefer the nominative system to the elective ?—I think the present system is the best. 356. Mr. Anstey.] Have you any objection to the leasehold tenure of land ?—I have this objection : that if I were to die to-morrow, while my freehold would go to the children my leasehold, although I might make it over to the children, they would not continue to hold it, as the ground is too bad. 357. But, in the case of the freehold, you had to buy that?—l got it under the homestead system, which I think is one of the best systems we ever had. They are all thrifty settlers about here. They have good homes now, but they have had very great hardships to put up with in isolated country. 358. Would you not have preferred to have paid something by way of rent for your land, provided the money was spent on roads?—l do not think so. I would rather get the land for nothing, because we had not the money when we took up the land. We are now fairly comfortable. 359. You do not mind being without roads?— Well, we do; but for the last twenty years we have been battling along and getting roads made as well as we could by putting our hands into our own pockets and bv barracking the Government for a little help. I may say I came here because Mr. Houston wished me to assist in giving evidence. One great trouble is that between here and my place, a distance of fifteen miles, there is about 20,000 acres surveyed, and in that area there are only my 188 acres and another block of 727 acres taken up. I have got three different indi-
W. F. PARSONS.]
681
C.—4
viduals to take up that second piece of land merely for the sake of getting a road and nothing else. Then, there is a big block of unsurveyed land adjoining the block I have mentioned, and I consider that if the Government were to give that land away to people on condition they grew forest trees it would be a good thing for the country. 360. Is any of the surveyed land open for settlement?—lt has been open for sale from Bs. 6d. to 12s. 6d., and there is not a bit of it I would give 3s. for. I think the price is far too high, 361. Would that be taken up under the leasehold system if offered?—lf the rent were very small one or two sections might be taken up. 362. What is the value of that land?—lt is hard to put a value upon it. It is poor, cold, clay land. 363. Do you think it could be brought into useful cultivation?—lt would be very costly. No poor man would ever think of taking it. 364. After you have sown your land in grass in two or three years it goes back again, you say. Is it then expensive to renew ?—During the last two months I have been falling a lot of manuka, which has come on very suddenly. I intend to leave that until next November, when I will try and burn it off. That should give me a good ash, and when I sow it in grass it should give me early feed for the winter. 365. You cannot renew the grass with burning?— No. The grass will not grow if it is sown. There is a kind of moss that grows all over the ground. 366. Mr. Forbes.] Your 188 acres is better land than the land you are speaking about ?—-Yes; the 188 acres and the 727 acres is the pick of the whole lot. 367. There have been no applications for this 20,000 acres you have mentioned?— Only for the timber, I think. 368. When you spoke of encouraging the settlers to grow forest trees you meant something in the nature of a State forest ?—I meant encouraging the settlers by giving them the land to grow so-many acres of forest trees, and, after a certain time, taking them off the settler. 369. Dili you hear what the county engineer said about the Austrians ? Do you think that sort of land would be suitable for growing fruit-trees, and so on?—lt would suit grapes, but I do not think it would do, because there is no gum adjoining it. 370. There would not have been much land settled about there if it had not been for the gum, I suppose ?—I do not think so. 371. Is thegum getting very much less?— Yes, it is. A few of the gum-diggers are doing fairly well, but the majority are doing very poorly. 372. As time goes on, then, it will be far more difficult to settle the land ?—Yes, I should think it would. 373. You could not have done anything with your land except for the gumfields round about? —Well, we had a better chance then, because it was all dense bush. The settlers who had cattle did well while the bush was there, but then you could get £8 or £9 for a beast—a beast for which you could not get £3 now. 374. Mr. Hall.] Has the export of gum from the country fallen off?—l could not say, but it may have kept up on account of the Austrians digging. 375. As regards the question of grants of land to the Austrians, I suppose it would be necessary that those lands should be adjacent to gumfields?—Yes, it would give them something to live on for a time. 376. Do you know the swamp land on which the Austrians are working, the other side of Whangarei ?—No. Bichakd Augustus Hall examined. 377. The Chairman.] What are you? — I am a butcher, living in Kawakawa. I have 670 acres of freehold and something over 400 acres under occupation with right of purchase. My land is about three miles from here. I use it entirely for grazing. 378. Have you surface-sown any of the land ?—Yes, it has been fairly successful. It is stony, volcanic land. 379. Can you say what the carrying-capacity is ?—lt carries fairly well. I have always some stock there. 380. How long have you held this land?— The freehold I have had for the last six or seven years, and the laud under option of purchase I took up quite recently. 381. What do you pay for the 400 acres ?—£lo a year. 382. Have you any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —No. 383. Regarding the constitution of Land Boards, do you think the present system is satisfactory ? —I have had very little to do with the Land Board; but I would like to say this: that there is land being frequently sold up in this direction, and there is some to be offered just about here quite shortly. I know it to be the wish of the people that the land should be sold at this place to save the people the expense and trouble of going to Auckland to bid. There are from twenty to thirty of them who have houses on the land. lam not myself one of those wishing to buy. 384. You might mention that to the Board. They have power to send an officer to conduct the sale here ? —I believe the people would give a bigger price if that were done. 385. From some of the evidence we have had it appears that it is almost hopeless to attempt to reclaim some of this poor land, and that it seems almost to get worse ? —The land is not of good quality, as a rule. 386. You have managed to grass your place?— Mine is better ground. It is volcanic. 387. How long have you been here? —Since 1866. 388. What are your views about this district generally? Do you think it will improve, from B,n agricultural point of view ? —I think the place is improving slowly and gradually.
86—C. 4,
682
[e. a. hall.
C—4.
389. The best land is held by the Natives, no doubt?— Yes, and it is very difficult to acquire it from them on account of the number of owners. 390. Mr. Hall.] Have you a knowledge of a considerable extent of the country here ?—I know the Bay of Islands district pretty well. 391. What do you consider the best form of land-tenure in the interest of settlement?— Freehold or occupation with right of purchase. 392. Do you consider that is best in the interests of the State as well as of the settler ?— I do. 393. Mr. Matheson.] When all the kauri timber and gum is used up, do you think the land here will keep its present population ? —I think so. 394. Have you had any experience of danthonia on the poorer ground?—No; but I know lots of poor ground which would grow nothing else, but which is coming on with danthonia. 395. How long after the manuka is burnt on the poor land does it take to get grass in the old way ?—ln about two years. 396. What process do you adopt in burning and sowing?— Just fell the manuka, and let it lie till the seed germinates again and then burn, and the danthonia will carry the tire through it. 397. Mr. McCardle.] You are brought into close contact with a large number of the settlers, I suppose?— Yes, I take stock from all parts. 398. Are they, in their occupation as farmers, gaining a lucrative profit from their labour, or merely existing?— The majority of the small settlers could not live on what their holdings would bring them alone. 399. How much land would a settler require to hold in order to make a living and save a little for his family ?—I should say fully 500 acres. 400. Do you "think a working-man on employment at Bs. a day regularly is better off than the average small farmer?— Yes; the small farmer does not make that, and he is working longer hours for it. 401. Is the land increasing in value ?—I think it is somewhat. 402. If a present settler were to sell at present prices would he recoup himself for his labour? —No, nor do I think he would in any part of New Zealand, unless it might be in the neighbourhood of a large town. 403. You think the unearned increment applies only in the vicinity of large centres of population, and not in the outlying districts ?—Yes. 404. Mr. Johnston.'] What experience have you had outside this district? —Not much. 405. You are not in a position to say whether there is unearned increment elsewhere? —No. 406. How many sheep could a man carry on 500 acres about here? —About three hundred. Of course, on good paddocks laid down and ploughed he would carry a sheep and a half to the acre. 407. Would three hundred sheep be enough to keep a man and his family ? —lt would be an existence for him, because he might be able to run some twenty or thirty head of cattle as well. On the sort of ground you came over to-day it would take about 2,000 acres, I think, to keep a man. 408. How much of this district do you know ?—I know the whole of the Bay of Islands. 409. Is the whole of the 400 acres you have under option of purchase in grass?— No. 410. What is your valuation? —10s. an acre. 411. What is the Government improved value of it ? —£36o. 412. Is there any Californian thistle about here?—l believe so, but I have not seen it yet. 413. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think that the land between here and Hukerenui if sown with danthonia would carry three-fifths of a sheep to the acre ?—lt might carry about half a sheep to the acre. 414. What would it cost to put the land in danthonia? Would it be a profitable investment to bring that land into danthonia to carry half a sheep to the acre if you got the land for nothing under the homestead system ?—lf a man got 1,000 acres it might pay him to take it up. " 415. How do sheep do on danthonia ?—They do very well. 416. We were told of a sheep 80 lb. in weight being killed off danthonia ?—An 80 lb. sheep is nothing out of the way, and the best sheep often come off the poorest pastures. 417. You think it is possible to grow 80 lb. sheep on danthonia ?—lf the land is not too heavily stocked. 418. Do you think it would be a good thing to use these waste lands by sowing wattle on them ? —Yes. I think when the gum is done the wattle would take its place. 419. Mr. Paul] Are there any lease-in-perpetuity holdings in this immediate vicinity ?—There are some a little way from here. 420. Do you know whether those settlers are prosperous or not?—l think some of them are. 421. Do you think a settler under that tenure is as prosperous as under any other ?—I could not say, but they all prefer the freehold. Most of the land is under occupation with right of purchase. 422. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think the poor land in this neighbourhood could be reclaimed by danthonia ?—There is a certain amount grown now in places. 423. Suppose the Government were to burn off the scrub and sow the land in danthonia before offering it for settlement, would that be a success, do you think?—l could not say, but a very poor man could not afford to pay very much for it, of course. 424. Mr. Forbes.] Has any wattle been grown about here ? —There is a little of it on a place belonging to the Williamses; and a man has told me that he has sold the bark and done very well out of it. 425. Has it been experimented on this poor ground ?—There are a few trees along the road you came to-day, and I think wattle would do very well on all this land,
B. A. HALL.]
683
C—4.
426. Do you think the best way of turning the land to profitable account would be to use it for wattle-plantations ?—Yes; I should say if the best class of gum-diggers were given some of the seed to scatter here and there we should have wattle-plantations presently which would bring in a revenue both to the Crown and county. 427. Would not the cattle and sheep destroy it?-—No, stock do not touch it. 428. Mr. HalL.~\ As regards the land between here and the railway station at Hukerenui, would a man require 1,000 acres of that in order to make a living ? —Yes. 429. Assuming that a man would pay 10s. an acre for it in its natural state ?—I would not give half a crown for it. 430. Half a crown would be a fair price ?—Yes. 431. Suppose the land was fenced and the scrub burnt off and the ground sown in danthonia, two years after that it would be ready for the sheep?— Yes. 432. Would the man who gave half a crown an acre for it be then compensated for his outlay and for the work he has put into it ?—I think he would if he got it at that price. 433. And he would make a success of it in some degree ?—Yes. 434. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you know what is the cost of sowing Waipu brown-top ?—You only want to sow about 1 lb. to the acre. It spreads very rapidly. With danthonia you would require about 4 lb. to the acre, which would mean about five shillings' worth of grass-seed to the acre. 435. Is the danthonia a native grass ? —Yes; there are several kinds of it.
O-i'UA, Tuesday, 9th May, 1905. Henky Lane examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I have been here since 1860. I hold 2,074 acres small grazing-run from the Government. I have had it since December, 1892. I pay £12 19s. 4d. per annum rent. I put 400 sheep on it at first, and I had a lot destroyed by Maori dogs. I restocked up to 600 sheep, and again a large number were destroyed by the Native dogs. The sheep do not increase because the land is very poor. I cleared 300 acres of tea-tree scrub on wages, and surface-sowed it with cocksfoot and ryegrass, with the result that the grass died out in the second year and the scrub continued to grow. I cleared the ground a second time, and tried other grasses, with the same result. I find the only grass that is standing and doing any good at all is danthonia. 2. We have had various accounts of danthonia: is it a good feeding grass?—No; but the advantage is it will kill the tea-tree, because you can burn it. It has a very slow growth, and produces very little feed, but it is the best that will grow on the poor land. 3. Is it possible to turn off fat stock from it?—l do not think so. Sheep seem to grow on it, and they are healthy, but the only fat stock we get is the stock which comes off small pieces of swamp. 4. Have you ever tried turnips or mangolds? —Yes ; but they do not do at all. They grow in some patches on selected swamp areas, and we use them for feeding the ostriches which we run. 5. How many ostriches have you ?—I bought nine for £200-odd, but there are only five living. The others strayed away and got lost. I keep the five in paddocks now, and they are doing very well, and they pay very well. We get an average for good feathers of £1 an ounce. Of course, there are many inferior feathers, and many get damaged by being knocked about by the scrub. I have had the five ostriches about two years. 6. What is the average per ostrich per annum ? —About £5. They require a good deal of attention. 7. Have you any cattle at all?— Yes, about twenty head. 8. Are you quit of trouble with the Maori dogs now?—No; only last week I found fourteen dead sheep. "9. Are you surrounded by Maoris ?—Yes, that is my unfortunate position. lam now building houses at two corners of my run in order to put a man at each place to look after my interest. I am greatly troubled with the Maoris. They draw my staples out and tie the wires down, and put their horses in to feed on my place. 10. Do they pay anything for fencing?— No. My 1,000 acres are fenced, and I did not get a penny from them towards the cost. I think that is very unfair. 11. What are the Maoris doing with their land?— Nothing at all. 12. Have they got much ?—About 26,000 acres. 13. Have these 26,000 acres been through the Native Land Court ?—I do not think the block has been investigated. It is held under tribal rights. The Native Land Court has been fighting it out in blocks, but the land has not been surveyed. 14. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office?— Yes. My experience has been satisfactory. I have no fault to find with them. 15. Is there any other point you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I have brought along the following statement: "I have a run of 2,000 acres of poor land, carrying about one sheep to 4 acres, and every year the Native dogs destroy a lot, so there is no profit. lam sorry I took up the lease from the Crown. The Land Boards should be formed, and people wanting land in the district could be directed by them and receive advice. That could not be done in Auckland. The Board should not be the County Council, but three members appointed by the Minister of Lands. The Crown tenants should be allowed the freehold at the first valuation, say, after ten years' improvements, as the improvements would be four times that of the land. All rates collected by local bodies from Crown leases should be used in making approaches to the land, not roads only, but boat-landings also. The rent conditions are too stiff. Private people are not so hard as
a—4.
684
[~H. LANE.
the Land Board as landlords. Ido not understand the old homestead system, but I have heard it is very good. The value of land here is less now than it was formerly, because the industries here have all stopped—viz., the coal-mines, manganese-mines, saw-milling, &c.—and the land is too poor to make a living off alone, and there is no market here for produce. The Advances to Settlers Act is very good, but it should only be used in putting buildings and fences on the land. Freehold is best, as it gives a man more heart to improve. Large estates should not be purchased by the Crown from private people when there are thousands of acres of waste iand wanting settlers. The Crown should pay half the cost of dividing-fences, and also the Natives, as their lands are improved thereby. Crown leases are not saleable here. I have tried for several years to sell my improvements, but no one will buy. They fear revaluation." 16. Mr. Matheson.] Is the bulk of your land under scrub still?— Yes. 17. If you get it down in danthonia do you think that you could work the scrub out ?—Yes, in time. 18. And when you get the scrub away and the land is in danthonia, will the place keep you then ?—lt would be better, but it means time, because the land is poor and the grass grows slowly. 19. Have you bred any ostriches?— Yes, but not successfully. The chicks died. 20. Then, can you only keep your stock up by buying? —No; the reason mine died is that they came too late. If the chicks come in the spring they will do all right. 21. Are you hopeful that another year you will be able to breed and rear yourself?— Yes, if I keep the ostriches in pairs. Up to this I have had to keep them together, and they fight terribly. I think that is one of the reasons why the chicks were destroyed. 22. Do you find them more profitable than sheep?— Yes. 23. Do they find feed themselves? —We keep a little corn for them, but they find a great deal for themselves. They eat a grea'! deal, even of tea-tree scrub and fern, readily. 24. Do you look to the ostriches in the future to provide you with a better means of livelihood than sheep ?—ln the way the ground is now I do, but when the tea-tree has been got rid of and the danthonia comes along I think sheep will be better. 25. Mr. McCardle.] Have you any neighbouring settlers in the locality? —No, only Maoris. 26. Are you acquainted with the settlers throughout the district ?—Yes, well. 27. How are they succeeding in getting the land into grass?— Very slow. The only method is by danthonia. 28. Do the settlers find it a very difficult job to clear the land and get a living for a number of years ? —Yes ; the cost of labour is the great trouble. 29. It would not do for a settler to pay wages on that land?— No. 30. It requires the settler and his family to devote long hours to the land without expecting very much from their labour?— That is correct, and, as my children say, " What is the use of sticking to this place when it will belong to the Crown after we have improved it ? " 31. Do you think, considering the heavy cost that is involved to bring the land into anything like a state of productiveness, that the settler's interests becomes very much greater than that of the Government, and that he ought to have a freehold title?—' Yes. 32. Do you think the State would lose anything by granting the right of freehold to the tenants of the Crown ?—I do not. 33. So long as settlement is successful, and production from the soil is fairly certain, you think the State will be recompensed ?—I do. The land in its natural state is almost valueless. 34. We have seen thousands and thousands of acres of idle land between here and Auckland : do you think the Government ought to offer special privileges to settlers to induce them to settle on that land ?—I do. I think they should offer the poor land rent-free for a number of years on condition they made a number of improvements. 35. Are you getting anything like wages and interest on the capital you have expended on your land ?—Not yet. 36. Mr. Paul.] Is it not a fact that most of the land between here ami Auckland is held as freehold ?—A great deal is held as freehold, but a great deal is held by the Crown and Natives. " 37. Do you know whether more is held as freehold than is held by the Crown ?—Very much more is held by the Crown and the Natives. 38. What is the length of your lease?— Twenty-one years. 39. What experience have you had with the Land Board?—lt has been very bad. . 40. In what way ? —They have sent me letters on two or three occasions after my cheques were sent away, telling me that my rent must be paid immediately or else my place would be forfeited. 41. Is that the reason you say the Land Board is worse than a private tenant?—lies. 42. There seems to be some mismanagement?—l think so. I have written to the Minister, and I have been very well treated by the Minister. 43. Have you had many letters complaining of the non-payment of rent after you had posted the cheques ? —Yes, and about paying in cheques. I wrote to the Minister about it, and he told me to go on paying in cheques. But the Board told me to get my cheques marked by the bank, and how could Ido that, situated as I am. There is no money-order office here. 44. Do you think when the Crown erects half the fences and landings and other improvements you ask for you should be allowed the freehold as well ?—Of course, that makes a difference. Of course, my remarks were to Crown leases. 45. If that were done you would not ask for the freehold?— The Government would be doing something then towards opening up the land. 46. At the present time you do not think the Government are doing enough, so far as roads are concerned? —No. Ever since I have been on my place I have not a scrap of road of any description, and I have paid rates every year. Neither have I received a penny of benefit from my "fourths."
C.—4
685
H. LANE
47. You think roads should precede settlement, ?—Certainly, I do. The main roads, at all events. Ido not say branch roads should. At present I have got to go through the scrub ten miles to Kawakawa. 48. Are there any other settlers near you in the same position ?—There are a lot on the way towards Kawakawa. 49. Mr. McLennan.] You say you cleared 300 acres and grassed, and that the grass died out in the second year ?—Yes. 50. Is the fern or scrub growing up in the place of the grass?— Yes, the tea-tree. 51. What means are you taking to keep the tea-tree down ?—Cutting and burning. 52. You say you do not believe in the Government acquiring large estates under the Land for Settlements Act while they have plenty of land of their own ?—Not up here. It may be all right iti the south in good land. 53. You have no experience of the settlement in the south?— Not the slightest. 54. Would you be in favour of giving them the option as well as the ordinary Crown tenants? —I think they should have the option, but they should certainly do improvements first. 55. But if the Crown tenants down south do not want the option themselves, would you be in favour of forcing it on them?— Not at all. If a man is satisfied with what he has got let him keep it. 56. The Chairman.] Tou said you had trouble with the Land Board through sending cheques? -—Yes. They never send them back. I wrote to Mr. Houston about it, and he told me to keep on sending cheques. I have taken cheques to the office, and they have told me to take them away and get them cashed. I have had no trouble with the Land Board lately. It was during the previous Commissioner's time. 57. Mr. McCardie.] What has become of the " fourths " accruing from the rent of your land? —The County Council has them. 58. Where have they spent them?— They have not spent them at all, but they have lately promised to spend them on my land. They wanted me to consent to them being spent on the Kawakawa-Russell Road, but that would not have benefited me a bit. 59. Mr. McLennan.] Perhaps the sums are so small that they want them to accumulate until they make a fair show?— They must amount to over £30 now, and that would go a good way towards cutting a track to the place. I think it would be better if the Lands Department administered the " thirds " themselves.
On board s.s. "Clansman," between Opua and Russell, Tuesday, 9th May, 1905. John Pbess examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and hold 850 acres of freehold land. I have held part of it for ten years, and the other part for twelve months. It is situated eight miles from Opua. It is rough land, and 1 use it for grazing sheep and cattle. It is a portion of the old missionary property —the mission of the Williams family. I have been in the colony for twenty-five years, and in this district for eighteen years. I may say that 1 was born in West Somerset, in the manor of the late Earl of Egremont. 1 was born on freehold land. I do not believe in landlordism as applied to country lands. In my opinion leasehold land cannot produce true, manly, independent people. I have many times challenged tenant farmers to indicate any great measures of reform that have been supported by them as a class. I maintain that, as a class, they have never aided in any great land reform. As 1 have said, Ido not believe in landlordism as applied to country lands. As to city lands, 1 have nothing to do with them, and I do not know anything about that aspect of the question. In this colony 1 have found that the existence of the leasehold tenure tends to a feeling of insecurity, and, from my own experience, 1 can" testify to the fact that it tends to break up a family- that the members of a family will not work on the leasehold land when they feel that the land is not their own. The young people do not care to improve leasehold property. 1 would like to mention the case of the Punakitere settlers. That is an instance —a flagrant instance —where the rights of settlers were taken from them while they slept. I refer to a place in the Hokianga County, beyond Kaikohe. This land is an endowment of the City of Auckland and the Borough of Parnell. I do not know the area of those endowments. The security of the freehold is an inducement to people to invest capital in developing land in other ways, as witness the present coal-prospect-ing scheme. 1 may state that I have been actively engaged in connection with the coal-prospecting operations in this neighbourhood, and I am able to testify that under any other tenure than the freehold the scheme would not have been looked at. The recommendation of the freehold is the security of the tenure. In that case I should say that it is the freehold as before 1876 —the minerals all belonged to the property. I have every reason to believe that but for the freehold there would have been no prospecting for coal. It is the security of the old freehold tenure that has brought that about. This prospecting for coal is being done within an area commencing seven miles from Opua and extending over 9,000 acres. 2. Have you discovered anything?- There have been indications, but they are going to spend £3,000 or £4,000 in boring right away. 3. Mr. Hall.] You say that you-have had experience of leaseholds in Great Britain? —1 have had no personal experience. Fortunately, I was born upon what we call freehold land. 4. I understand that you are opposed to the lease in perpetuity? —Yes, because I believe it will lead to the results I have indicated.
0.—4.
686
J. PEESS.
5. Is there any analogy between leasing land in the Old Country and a title given here by the Crown for a thousand years? —There is not a feeling of security here with respect to the leasehold. 6. But you do not suppose that the Legislature would break down a title that it has given, and a contract that the Government has entered into? —We cannot be sure what may be done in the future. 7. Do you not think that an attempt has been made to poison the minds of the people in regard to the lease in perpetuity ? —No. You cannot get over that feeling —it is universal, 1 think. 8. Mr. Matheson.] Do you suggest that the leasehold title is not sufficiently good to encourage men to prospect for minerals ? —As the law stands now the minerals on land alienated from the Crown since 1876 belong to the Crown. Your question does not apply at all. 9. Then, you say that the titles granted by the Crown do not encourage prospecting? —Yes. 10. Can you not get every encouragement to prospecting by taking up a miner's right? —I am referring to prospecting for coal. 11. Have you any proposal to make by which security might be wisely given by the Crown in respect to prospecting? —I am not dealing primarily with minerals now. I am dealing mostly with the land, and, as a member of the Farmers' Union, I go in for the freehold for every one — that is, that leaseholders should have the option of the freehold. In respect to minerals, even although you buy the freehold from the Crown, since 1876 you do not get the minerals. 12. Mr. McCardle.] There are restrictions in connection with leases, but still you can work the coal by paying a royalty if you have a miner's right? —1 have signed away coal rights for 6d. per ton royalty. 13. But the great difficulty in establishing the coal industry is really the financing of the concern? —Yes. 14. And if it is leasehold land you cannot get any one to touch it? —Yes. 15. And in regard to Native land, that is also a bar unless you get the signatures of the owners ? —Yes. 1 may mention that coal lias been struck in one place within the last few weeks — at least, there are indications of coal, but it is on Native land. 16. Are you intimately acquainted with the settlers in the district where you reside? —Yes. 17. How are they succeeding? Are they making a good thing out of the land? —This is a very quiet district. lam only sorry that you have not gone to Okaihau. 18. The settlers are spending some labour and a good deal of means on the land. Are they getting back a profitable return for such labour ? —Yes. 19. Are they getting good wages for that expenditure of labour?— Not town wages. Their wages, I take it, go into the up-lift of the property. I may here point out that the kauri-gum industry has perhaps acted against the progress of this district. It has tended more against the settler than in his favour. 20. The settler does not make very much out of his land as he goes on improving it? —Not in actual cash. 21. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Board? —Yes. 22. Has you experience been favourable? —Yes; I have nothing to say against the Board. 23. Do you think it has been a good thing in the interests of the country, and that the system ought to be encouraged?— Yes. 24. Mr. McLennan.] Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? —I am secretary of the Kawakawa Branch. 25. How many members have you got? —We have very few members at present. There are only seven members just now, but there should be about twenty-five. 26. Did the local branch of the union appoint you to give evidence before the Commission? — No. lam here in my individual capacity. 27. Have you any Crown tenants who are members of your branch of the Farmers' Union? — Ido not think so. There are very few Crown tenants in this district. - 28. Are you acquainted with the working of the Land for Settlements Act in Canterbury and Otago? —No. 29. Would you be in favour of granting lease-in-perpetuity tenants the option of purchase if they did not want it themselves 1- I think the option of making the land freehold should be left to themselves. If a man did not take advantage of the option then he should be allowed to remain in his present position. 30. But would not that be breaking the contract?- It would not be breaking the contract as against the settler. It would be breaking the contract in his favour. If he did not choose to accept the new conditions he would be perfectly free to remain as he is at present. 31. Supposing a settler did not think it was in his favour?— Then he should be left alone. He would not have his lease interfered with. 32. Do you not think it would be a very good thing if the farmers north of Auckland sent, say, two representatives to the South Island to see how the Crown tenants are getting on in that part of the country before they advocate an amendment of the law? —That is a new question, and, on the spur of the moment, I do not see that it would be any benefit at all, because the great principle involved would not be touched, even though there may be some settlers in the South who are doing well on their leaseholds. 33. From what I have seen of freehold land since we left Devonport, my impression is that it is immaterial whether much of that land is freehold or leasehold. Most of that land does not seem to be used to the best advantage? —If you come from a southern district I can quite understand how it would strike you. A few of us who come from the outside world are well aware that this is a backward district. The people here have lived very quiet lives, and it takes an almost superhuman effort to arouse them. Ido not know whether that is owing to the climate or not.
C—4.
J. PRESS.]
687
34. We have come through a great deal of freehold land that is covered with nothing but teatree or gorse, and, strange to say, the only little bit of leasehold we have seen has been fairly cleared? —I know that much of the land is covered with tea-tree and gorse. 35. Mr. l J aul.\ Where is the insecurity in the leasehold? The insecurity is a sentiment, if you like to put it in that way; but, on the other hand, there is a constant agitation going on for revaluation, and that causes a feeling of insecurity. 36. You do not complain of any insecurity of tenure, provided the alteration made is in favour of the leaseholder ? —I propose that the tenure should be made more secure. 37. You said there was insecurity in the case of the leasehold? —I do say so. 38. But you do not mind any alteration so long as it is in favour of the landholder ? —So long as it makes the tenure more secure. 39. Do you fear any alteration in the freehold tenure? —1 am quite aware that the Legislature has power to pass legislation affecting the freehold, but the proposal to do that and the proposal to alter a lease is a different affair. 40. Do you seriously think that the Parliament of a British colony would repudiate a lease? — I know very well that in political matters the Parliament simply expresses the will of the majority of the people. 41. Then, you have not a great deal of faith in the people? —A certain section of the townspeople are agitating for revaluation. 42. It is very clear that you have not very much faith in the power that may be exercised by a majority of the people? —The majority may act in a way that is contrary to the rights of the minority. 43. From your own observation you are quite sure that the stamp of men born on leasehold land,is inferior to those born on freehold land? —I am, and I know it from sad experience. 44. Have you formed any opinion as to the constitution of Land Boards? —I am in favour of Mr. Kirkbride's alteration of the law —that is, that the settlers should have some representation on the Land Board. 45. Do you believe in a system of nomination or election? —It would be election if the representation was to be representation of the landholders. 46. Would that be representation involving the whole or part of the Board? —Part of the Board. 47. And those members of the Board would be elected by the Crown tenants? —Yes. 48. How many members do you think should be elected by them? —I am not conversant enough with the question to state the number. 49. Have you any objection to the Land Board as at present constituted? —I have no cause of complaint, but I would like to see the Crown tenants have some influence on the Board. 50. Mr. Hall.] Did I understand you to say that the farmers in this part of New Zealand cannot afford to pay the same rate of wages as is paid by the sawmillers ? —ln my experience, they cannot do that. 51. Is that for the reason that the sawmillers can fix the price of the output from their mills, .but the farmers have no voice in fixing the value of the products of their labour?— The price of farming-produce is fixed chiefly by the London market, and we have to compete in the markets of the world. 52. Mr. Paul.] Do you think there is any rivalry between the town and country? —Certainly not. 53. You think that their interests are identical? —Certainly. The country supplies our produce for export, and the towns as well as the country get the benefit of the sale of that produce. When good prices rule for our produce that means increased prosperity for the towns as well as for the country districts.
Whangaroa, Tuesday, 9th May, 1905. Thomas Major Lane examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you?- I am a shipbuilder. I have been here for over forty years. I have 200 or 300 acres of land in the district, which I use chiefly for grazing purposes. As a shipbuilder, I am acquainted with the timber resources. 2. I suppose there is still some more timber to cut out? —Very little. The kauri is almost exhausted. 3. Is sheep-farming or cattle-farming making up for the loss of employment owing to the kauri disappearing? —Not yet, but it will eventually, no doubt. 4. This is a very old-settled place —up the Kaeo Valley, and so on? —Yes. 5. I see around the harbour there are more clearings than there were some years ago? —Yes. 6. Are the settlers in a fairly prosperous condition in the Kaeo Valley? —Fairly. Some of the men are still working back in the bush, although the timber is almost worked out here. The Hokianga district is worked from this side. 7. There is very little in the way of farming? —They run just a few cattle. 8. Have you any views with regard to the district, or with regard to land-administration which you wish to place before the Commission? —I think it is important that every facility for settling upon the land should be given to people willing to settle, and unless a man can get the freehold he is not going to endure the hardships .entailed. I do not think there is any chance of getting the land settled on any other tenure. 9. Is there much land still open for selection? —Yes, there is a good deal of fair land, 10. Much Native land? —Yes, a good deal of that too. 11. Have you many Natives here? —A good many.
[t. m. lane.
C.—4.
688
12. The Native land is, I presume, a stumbling-block to progress. The Natives use the roads, and have a lot of dogs, and all that sort of thing?— Yes; the dogs are a great grievance since the dog-tax has been placed in the hands of the Maori Council. The dogs now simply swarm. 13. If the dog-tax were now in the hands of the County Council, as formerly, it would be better ?- -Yes, very much so. 14. Mr. McCardle.] You spoke in favour of the freehold: on what conditions do you think it advisable for the Government to grant land to the settlers?- I think it would be quite possible to have a restricted freehold, so that no one should be allowed to own more than a certain amount of land. 15. Would you give a man a long and easy term of purchase? I think a man who would take up a rough piece of country and break it up should be given the land for nothing. 1 believe the homestead system was the best we ever had in the country. 16. Do you think, in view of the fact that he would not be a contributor to the revenue of the country, it would not be better for him to pay a small price and hand over the interest on the principal to the local bodies to make a road to his land?— That might be well, but it would have to be a very small price. 17. You have land about here better than the other places we have seen?- -I dare say. 18. Is there much settlement at the back of here within easy distance ?—The only settlement of any importance is Kaeo. 19. Is that freehold?—lt is all freehold now. 20. Is there any land still in the hands of the Government in this neighbourhood? —A little. 21. Is there much Native land in the district ?—Yes, there is a fair proportion. 22. Suitable for settlement?" Yes, it is fairly good for runs, and I think at some time or another we shall have the fruit-canning industry established here, just as we have butter-factories a sort of co-operative affair. 23. That would make the land suitable for cutting up into small areas —I mean if the people understood fruit-growing? —Yes. 24. Do you know whether the Native lands have been passed through the Native Land Court? —A good many of them. 25. Are the titles ascertained ?—I do not know. The Natives are always appealing. 26. Have you any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?- 1 know there are some people who have obtained advances. 27. Is it working fairly satisfactorily? —I have heard no complaints. 28. Mr. Paul.] You are quite convinced the freehold is necessary for settlement in this district? —I am quite convinced you will not get settlers to go on this land on any other terms. 29. You have not had experience in any other part of the colony?— No. 30. So that in making those remarks they apply solely to this part of the colony?— Yes. 31. Is the land increasing in value at all?- In some places it is. That is to say, what little good land there is has increased in value; but I do not know that the rough country has increased in value; in fact, I feel sure it has not. 32. Mr. Anstey.] Is there any land in this neighbourhood held"under lease?— There are some Government leases with right of purchase, but Ido not think there are any other leases. The land is not good enough. 33. Is this Maori land you speak of suitable for small settlement? —No; chiefly for runs. There is some of pretty good value in the occupation of the Maoris which would settle a number of people, but the rest of it is mostly hilly country. 34. It is not materially better than the rest of the land about here?—Oh, no. Of course, the Natives have their own settlements, which are the pick of the land. 35. What does it require to settle this land?—l do not know that there is much of this Native land that could be settled. It is chiefly rough country and not fit for close settlement, except that in the occupation of the Natives themselves. - 36. Would white settlers farm the land better than the Maoris?— Yes, because the Natives have no system of farming at all. 37. Do the Natives run sheep on the land at all and export wool?— Yes. 38. Any mutton? —Sheep are sent away from here to Auckland. In sonje seasons the " Clansman " is filled with sheep. 39. Would there be several thousands during the season?—l hardly know. 1 here are others who could give you better information on that subject. 40. Do you export cattle?— They are mostly used in this district. 41. As to the sheep, do you send away fat sheep?— Both fat and stores, just to meet the market. 0 42 Do vou go in for dairying or fruit-growing?—No; but fruit will grow readily. Some day, when we have canning-factories, I have no doubt there will be a fruit-growing industry here. ' 43 Mr. Hall.] When you speak of good land in this locality does that mean as compared with the rest of the land of the district, or is it really good ?—There is some that is really good, but the area is very limited. I have been over a good deal of the colony. The good land is in the hands of private individuals. 44. Mr. Matheson.] Have you any experience of grassing this scrub land here ?- I think it can be done, though I have not succeeded in doing it. lam a shipbuilder. John Begg examined. 45. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am Clerk of the County Council, and have occupied that position since 1886. I have been in the district for forty years. I have no land of my own, but mv wife has a good deal of land—about 1,000 acres The land is used for grazing sheep and
J. BEGG
689
C.—4.
cattle. That land, by road, is about seven miles from here. We have also some freehold land in the Kaeo Valley. 46. What is your view as regards tenure? —I think the freehold is the best. 47. You heard what Mr. Lane, the Chairman of the county, said about the land in the district: do you agree with him in that? —Yes, decidedly. The only land held from the Crown is under occupation with the right of purchase. Ido not think there is any leasehold pure and simple. 48. Mr. Mc,Cardie.] Do many of your roads pass through the Native lands in this district? — No. 49. Then, do you not find the Native lands a great drawback to the country? —We have no means of making roads —that is the trouble, 50. Is there any better means of raising revenue that you know of? —We can do pretty well if we get liberal grants; but some years we have none, and other years we have very little. The trouble is that we have no fixed revenue. 51. What sort of roads are there through this country? —Except between here and Kaeo, we have not a road worth calling a road. 52. Are the roads suitable for taking sheep and cattle along? —Yes, except for the bogholes here and there. 53. Mr. McCutchan.] Have you had any annoyance from the Native dogs? —We have had as many as twenty sheep killed at a time. The Natives do not feed their dogs, and they must find something to eat. 54. When the dog-tax was under the County Council did that state of things exist? —No. 55. Would you advocate returning to the old method? —Yes; it would be much better under the County Council. 56. What is the carrying-capacity of the land, and especially of the land you have? —It is very difficult to give that. The flat land would probably carry five sheep to the acre, and some of the hill country, I think, would carry three sheep to the acre if it was sown down with ryegrass, cocksfoot, and clover. 57. Does that kind of grass stand well?—Not very well, but we have a lot of danthonia. 58. Do you think danthonia will carry three sheep to the acre alone on the land? —It has been a great help, more especially as it comes up again after a burn. 59. What is your rate revenue? —I can hardly say. When the rate is fd. we get a subsidy of 10s. in the pound; but if the rate is increased they will reduce the subsidy. 60. That is fixed by the Local Bodies' Powers Act, is it not? —Yes. 61. Do you think the subsidies shoulcl be in proportion to the rate revenue? —I think so. 62. Would you advocate that in poor districts the subsidy should be in excess of the rate revenue?-—I think the rich districts should have no subsidies, and that all the money should be given to the poor districts. We at one time levied IJd., and our subsidy was reduced by half. 63. What amount did you get in grants last year? —£500; but £100 of that was for a bridge. We had nothing the year before. 64. Do you think that liberal treatment? —No, because that is not the average at all. Exclusive of the bridge, we had £400 last year, and nothing the year before, so that the average for the two years was only £200. 65. Do you think that system of doing work should be abolished? —What we want is assured finance —something that we can depend upon. Grants are all very well, but we do not know when they are coming, and can make no provision. It seems to me that the amount of the grants to County Councils are in proportion to the strength of the member representing the district. 66. Would you be in favour of this question of grants being fixed by statute instead of by the will of the Cabinet?— Yes, I think it would be better. 67. Have you raised any money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act? —No. 68. Why?— This is not a rich county, and we should have to get the consent of the ratepayers. We have not tried that; we have just done the best we could with the little we had. 69. Mr. Paul.] Have you any opinion as to the proper constitution of Land Boards? —No, I have thought nothing about it. 70. Have you had any experience outside this district? —Not much. 71. Do you know that there is some successful settlement under leasehold tenure further south? —No, I have not been south. 72. Mr. Anstey.~\ Is there any Road Board in this district? —No; it was abolished when the county was constituted. The three road districts were merged into the county. 73. About what would be the revenue of each of those road districts?—l could not tell you. 74. Do you think the ratepayers' money is more economically spent now?— Yes. 75. Do you think your road district is large enough now to economically spend the money?— I think it would be better not to have the counties too large, as members at one end might know nothing about the other end of the county. 76. Do you think a revenue of £350 a year is enough to employ men, and so on?—I think so. 77. Mr. Forbes.] Are you fairly well satisfied with the roads?—We are very dissatisfied. 78. Do the settlers have to bring their produce here to ship it?— There is not much produce raised in the district, otherwise there would be a good deal of difficulty. It has been a timber district, largely. There would be a certain quantity of wool, but that would be mostly from Kaeo, and there is a pretty decent road from there, and there is also a tidal creek to Kaeo. 79. Is there much kauri-gum passing through this county? —A good deal, but, of course, less than formerly. Some of the settlers go in for digging, but they are mostly diggers pure and simple. 80. What size holdings are there about there?— Most of the holdings are a few hundred acres ; but some of the people who work mostly in the bush just have little garden-plots.
87—C. 4,
[j. BEGG.
C.—4.
690
81. Has settlement progressed here in the last ten years? —Not very much. Of course, the population at one time was larger; but there were a good many people connected with the sawmills. 82. You have not felt the effects of any boom in land here? —No. 83. Is there any Crown land suitable for settlement? —Yes. 84. Has there been any request that it should be opened up?— Yes; but there has been no response. The land I refer to is in the Kaeo district. It has common bush upon it, but no kauri timber. The land if cut up, I think, would be taken up. 85. Do you think there is a demand among the settlers for expansion of settlement?— Yes. Farmers' sons, who are now working in the bush, would be willing to make homes of their own. 86. Mr. Hall.] What is the extent of the land you refer to?— From 8,000 to 10,000 acres. 87. Do you get anything in the way of subsidy for your roads that pass through Crown and Native lands? —No. 88. Mr. Johnston.'] What is the area of Crown lands in the county?- About 3,000 acres; but some portions of that may have been leased, which would reduce the area. 89. With regard to your 1,000 acres, how many blocks is it in?— It is in two blocks. One of them 401 acres, and the other from 500 to 600 acres. The latter is in the Kaeo district, some miles away from here. It was at one time kauri-timber land. My wife has owned it for probably thirty years. The part where we live —viz., the 600 acres —was not kauri land. '90. How much of that is cultivated ?—I could hardly tell you; but, roughly speaking, about 200 acres. 91. How much stock do you carry ?—Probably five hundred sheep and forty head of cattle ; also some horses. 92. Has it taken thirty years to bring into cultivation this 200 acres?—No; the bulk of the work has been done within the last fifteen years. 93. What were you doing with the land before?—lt formed part of a run, and there were sheep upon it. 94. You say that that land would carry three sheep to the acre?— Yes, the cultivated portion. 95. What is that portion worth per acre, roughly?—l could hardly say; but I would not like to sell it at less than £3 or £4 an acre. 96. How many ratepayers are there in the district?—l suppose there would be perhaps two hundred. 97. Are they freeholders? —Mostly. 98. Are they working on the land?— Some of them are, and some of them are not. Some of those on little bits of land are working in the bush, as I said before. 99. How many ratepayers reside on their land and make their living from it?— Very few of them make their living from it ?—They could make a living out of it if they had, say, 500 acres. 100. Is there any dairying done?— Not a bit. The idea was entertained a little while ago; but I do not think there is enough grass land for that kind of thing. 101. Within the last twenty years, have the settlers improved their land?— Yes; those who have lived on it have. 102. I suppose you cannot tell us what are the sheep returns of the county, as compared with ten or fifteen years ago? —No. 103. Mr. Matheson.] Would a good system of roads enable the settlers to make better use of their land ? —Yes, all the land would be taken up then. 104. Are you aware that other countries have borrowed under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, in some cases as much as £50,000, in order to give them good roads?—l know they have borrowed, but I do not know to what extent. 105. Does it not seem that it might be profitable to borrow money at 3J per cent, and get your roads in good order?— Well, there would be the interest to pay, of course. 106. If the settlers did rate themselves in this way would the Crown be wiser to pay half the interest where people were trying to help themselves, than helping them by giving grants?— Perhaps it would, because we should then have a fixed sum to depend upon. 107. Have you had any experience of sowing danthonia?—No. Danthonia came to my place by itself after burning the fern, and so forth. 108. Does the fern and manuka give you much trouble once the danthonia gets a good hold?— Well, the grass is not enough to destroy the fern ; but as regards the tea-tree, if you fire that after it has seeded again, it does not destroy the grass, which keeps on coming up again, and in time overcomes the tea-tree. 109. Mr. Hall.] When you spoke of the land carrying so-many sheep to the acre, did that apply to the best land?— That refers to the land we have made use of. 110. Mr. McCutchan.] You spoke of destroying the tea-tree by means of fire: is there fern through the tea-tree?—No; once the tea-tree has grown to a certain size it has killed the fern. 111. Will the fern come back to any extent at all after the burn ?—Nothing to speak of. There is more trouble with the young tea-tree. 112. Is it not the case that fern will make headway even with danthonia? —We have not had danthonia long enough yet for me to be able to say that. In any place where it has taken hold with us it keeps the ground clean. 113. Did you say your rate revenue was a little over £200? Perhaps £230. 114. What is the cost of administration? —About £100, on an average. 115. What is the rateable valuation of the whole county?—l forget now. 116. Have you thought out any scheme under which you could get a fixed revenue? —No; but what we want is revenue that we can depend upon. 117. Do you expect to get money from consolidated revenue for the support of your roads?— We do.
118. Can you point to any other county which gets so large a percentage in the way of grants on their local rates'/ —1 do not know much of the working of other counties. 119. Mr. Anstey.] What rate did you strike last year ? —ld.; we used to levy 1 Jjd. 120. Do you always sow grass on the tea-tree land after burning? —Yes. 121. After you have burned the fern what do you do?' —We just leave it. It would be of no use sowing grass upon it. 122. The Chairman.] liat-tail grass was supposed to be doing away with the fern many years ago? —It never did with us. Joseph Hare examined. 123. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am a storekeeper of forty years' residence here. I hold 800 acres of freehold close to the town, in Kaeo district. lam farming a small portion of it. I run a few sheep and cattle. 124. You have heard what the County Chairman and Clerk said: do you generally indorse what they said? —Yes. 125. I suppose you have been in public office? —Yes; 1 am an ex-Chairman of the County Council. 126. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission? —I would like to say, in regard to Crown lands, that when 1 was Chairman of the Council we got up a petition to the House of .Representatives to recommend the Covernment to open up the Omana lands, consisting of 1,500 acres, which 1 was instrumental in purchasing for the Government at 15s. per acre. The Committee of the House recommended that the land should be opened up. That was about ten years ago. 127. Is that land lying vacant now/ Yes, and it would be all taken up to-morrow if thrown open for selection. 128. Has it ever been surveyed? —Yes, into 100-acre blocks, and there is a road cut to the boundary. It is all bush land, but not kauri forest. It consists of undulating slopes and is well watered. 1 personally approached Mr. Mueller to have the land opened. Of course, it was understood there was copper on it. That was the barrier then, but when it was found there was no copper on it I would like to know why it was not opened up. There is copper on the adjoining Native lands. It has never been worked; all that has been done has been to put a drive into the hill. If that land was settled it would be an advantage to this district. What we are suffering from is the want of settlement. The land that is taken up is only in small areas, and a large quantity of Native and Government lands, constituting the bush land in the country, have not yet been opened up. 129. Mr. McCardle.] You have had the same trouble in getting money for roads during your time as County Chairman? —Just the same. 130. Do you think it would be advisable to do away with subsidies, except for such works as new formation and metalling of roads? —I do not know how we could replace them unless we borrowed. 131. If you had to borrow, do you think the money would be better spent in a large sum than is the case now, when it comes in dribs and drabs from the ratepayers? —I think it would. When the Gum Commission sat here 1 recommended that a tax should be placed on all kauri-gum exported, for the benefit of the local bodies. 132. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes, a little. 133. Has the administration been satisfactory and the policy useful to the settlers? —Yes; I know a good many have been benefited by it. 134. Do you know anything about the carrying-capacity of the land about here? —It all depends on the quality and position of the land. I think there is some land that will carry what Mr. Begg says —viz., three sheep to the acre, and there is some that will not carry half a sheep. 135. W T hat would you say in regard to some of the nice hills we saw coming in? —I think those hills will carry one sheep to the acre on danthonia. 136. Mr. McLennan.'] To your mind, would it be a very good thing if the gum and timber industries were done? —I think it would. 137. Do you not think the district would be settled quicker than it is at the present time? — Yes. I think the gum and timber have been the great enemies to settlement, because so long as money is to be made at timber or gum the people will not touch the land. . 138. You think the young people would take more interest in settling on the land if the gum were done away with?— Yes, but you cannot do away with it. All your lands in the county are spoilt by the gum-diggers. They set fire to the whole country every year, and it is never sown, and, in addition, the county is left in holes. 139. If the ground was taken up would it not be hard to grass it now ? —Yes. 140. If you burn the tea-tree and grass the land, how long will it be before the young tea-tree comes up again? —It would be up two crops in the year. 141. Did you ever try to sow fern ground after burning off? —No, but I have seen it done. 142. If the land was fenced off into 20-acre paddocks, and stock was put on to eat the fern down, and that was repeated three or four times, could you not kill off the fern? —Yes, I suppose you could in the end. 143. Mr. Paul.] Is this district progressing from a farming point of view? —From the point of view of running cattle, to a certain extent, it is. That is the main industry. 144. Is land increasing in value? —Yes. 145. Is the land that you said you purchased from the Maoris at 15s. per acre of better quality than the majority of the land? —It is very much better. It is a fine tract of country. 146. Wliat would it sell for now? —£1 10s. per acre.
691
J. BEGG
C—4
147. Do you think it would be taken up if it was offered under any system oi ieasei- Every acre would be taken up under any system. 1 have always recommended the perpetual-lease system, because 1 think that is the best system. 148. Do you think it would be suitable for that land'?- 1 think it would. 1 know the land would be taken up. That system gives a man his capital to expend on the land in felling and clearing and sowing. 149. Would there be anything to prevent a leaseholder from properly developing that sort of land, suppose he had a secure tenure, such as a 999-years lease? —Nothing at all. 150. Do you find that the revenue from your County Council is large enough to enable you to go in for an economical system of road-making? —No. We have never kept an engineer. The riding members attend to the road-making themselves. The county apportions and spends the money under the guidance and supervision of the riding members. 151. Do you not think if you had a larger county and a larger revenue, and employed a proper plant, that you would be able to do the work more economically ? —No. Our experience proved the contrary. When we were part of the Mongonui County we could not do anything at all, because our representatives were outvoted. Since we were separated we have done fairly well, and we iiave improved our roads. 152. How do you compare now with the time When you had three lload Boards? —It is very much better now. All we want is money. 153. Would you be in favour of getting an increased subsidy from the Government, and doing away with spasmodic grants altogether ?- 1 think that would be a better system, but 1 do not think it should be worked on a uniform population basis, because our population is so small. We would get very little. 154. Do you think it would be wise to have a differential system of subsidies, so that the higher rating would receive a greater subsidy ? —Yes, but 1 think there should be a greater subsidy where you have a sparcely scattered population. 155. Mr. Forbes.] Any dairying? —No. Fattening our cattle for butchering, at least, has killed the dairying. 156. You have land suitable for dairying? —Yes. 157. Are these dairy factories in the other counties doing fairly well?- 1 think so. If they have done nothing else they have increased the value of the land. 158. The population has not increased in these parts? —No. It used to be larger on account of the mills and different industries created by the timber traffic. 159. Has the number of farmers increased] —Yes; there is more farming-work done now, That is going on steadily, but only by a limited number of settlers. 160. Have any outsiders come into this district to take up land? —Not in this county. 161. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to the block purchased at 15s. per acre, you say it would be taken up under any form of tenure, and I believe you said it would be satisfactorily worked under lease: what variety of lease do you advocate ? —I consider the perpetual lease is a good tenure, but other people believe in the freehold. I suppose you will find nineteen out of • twenty believe in the freehold. 162. There is the right of purchase under the perpetual lease? —Yes. 163. Do you believe in that right of purchase? —It is a good tenure. 164. You said that when this part of the district belonged to the Mongonui County you suffered through your representatives being outvoted? —Yes. 165. Do you levy only a general rate? —That is all. 166. And was the general rate taken out of the riding and spent elsewhere? —Our riding revenue was not much, but we had no power to control votes, and we could not get out rightful share of grants. 167. Mr. Paul.\ When you speak of perpetual lease, do you mean the lease in perpetuity, and not the old perpetual lease ?—Yes, for 999 years. Thomas Major Lane re-examined. 168. The Chairman.] What is it you wish to further bring before the Commission? I would like to say there is a considerable area of mangrove swamps and flats which I think could be reclaimed. I should think there would probably be 400 or 500 acres capable of reclamation in this district. 169. In what way would you reclaim it? —A great deal of it has been partially reclaimed already by the roads, and it would not be such a very heavy affair to complete the work entirely. I think arrangements could be made whereby these swamps could either be put up to auction, or else the adjoining landowners could be given the preference, because these reclaimed swamps would probably be more useful to them than to anybody else. If they had hilly and broken country they could make a profitable use of it. I think it would be a great advantage to the county if this mangrove land could be made available for occupation. Another advantage would be that the roads would not suffer as much as they do now. At spring tides a large area is covered with water, which makes a heavy scour through the bridges, and plays havoc with the abutments. 170. Did the county ever think of attempting this work when putting up the bridges? —No. At present there is no authority at all to reclaim the land, and under the late Land Board regime there was no chance of getting anything done. We several times applied for land to be opened up for settlement, but there always seemed to be some bar in the road, and it could never be done. 171. Mr. AvMey.~] How do you propose to reclaim the mangrove swamps: would you cart surface soil, or simply drain them and keep the tide out? —That is all. 172. And how would you get the rain-water out? —By putting in flood-gates and letting it out at low tide.
692
HAKE.
0.—4.
693
C—4.
T. M. LANE.j
173. How much could you reclaim? A very large area. What would be dealt with immediately are the swamps that have been practically reclaimed by the roads. They would only take one-third the work to fully reclaim than would otherwise be the case. 174. What would the swamps grow after they were reclaimed?— 1 think they would grow anything. 175. Would not the salt spoil the land? —No, that soon goes out. 176. Have you seen any of it done?--Yes. 177. And has it been a success? —Yes. 178. What would you suggest is the value of land like that?—l cannot tell you anything about land-values. 179. What would you offer the Government for a piece of it?- I do not think the Government should ask anything for it. I think a man who reclaims it should get it for nothing, because the country would be greatly benefited by the reclamation. Of course, legislation would be required to enable this to be done. These swamps are in the hands of the Marine Department. I would suggest that legislation should be introduced to enable these swamps to be reclaimed. 180. Mr. Forbes.J You would not advocate the Government reclaiming these swamps?- No; I would not expect it. If a man had not sufficient interest in the matter to reclaim the land I would say leave it alone. Ralph William Webber examined. 181. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a carpenter and settler. 1 have been here twelve years. I hold 17 acres of freehold towards Kaeo. I applied for a larger section from the Government, but they cut these 17 acres out of the middle of the section I applied for and reckoned the rest as gum land. There lias been much gum on it. There is about 250 acres in the block, and it is still vacant. I have been applying periodically for the lemainder, but I have been put ofi in one way and another. There is about 100 acres of swamp in it, partly mangrove, and it is my intention to drain this area if I get the land. 182. Mr. Anstey.\ On what terms do you want to take it up -leasehold or freehold? —I should take it up on lease with a purchasing clause. 183. Would you require a purchasing clause? —I should certainly prefer it. 184. W T ould \'ou object to take it up under lease in perpetuity? —I would not object if 1 could not get it under any other form of tenure. 185. Mr. Motheson.] Have you applied for the land since the present Commissioner took office? Yes. They have made a move towards giving it to me, but they are very slow. Yerxon Herbert Reed examined. 186. The Chairman.] What are you? lam a solicitor, and County Clerk of the Bay of Islands County. 187. What do you wish to bring before the Commission? —I wish to refer to the fact that settlers cannot take up land on kauri-gum reserves. Since the Kauri-gum Industry Act of 1898 most of the Crown lands in the Bay of Islands County have been reserved, and that is an embargo on settlement in the county. 188. Do you think there is an objection to the Act? —No; but there is an objection to the fact that settlers cannot take up any land on these reserves. I think that part of the Act should be altered, so as to prevent these reserves interfering with settlement. 189. Would you leave it to the discretion of the Land Board to say whether these reserves should be open for settlement? —Yes. 190. Is there any other point? —Another thing has come under my notice in the north. On several occasions I have seen great hardship occur in the case of settlers who have not been able to purchase their occupation-with-right-of-purchase license under ten years. I think that period should be reduced to enable settlers to acquire the freehold earlier. My reason for saying so is that I have seen a great number of persons scrape together the amount of money required to buy the. freehold, and then they have not been able to buy it. They have put the money into the savings-bank at 3 per cent, or so, and in the meantime Ihey have to pay interest on their property. 191. Mr. McCardle.] What is your idea of the best tenure for the settler ?--The freehold, I consider. 192. Lease with the right of purchase, and optional at that? —Yes. 193. In proposing to pay off under the ten years you do not propose to do away with the improvements that have to be completed in the ten years? —Certainly not. They should be completed before the purchase is allowed. 194. As a solicitor, I suppose you have had something to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —I am solicitor to the office. 195. How is it working here?—Very satisfactorily indeed. 196. A proposal has been made to amend the Act to enable advances to be made to settlers up to three-fifths of the value of their improvements: do you think that is a wise thing? —I think three-fifths is rather a big margin for a sound investment. 197. If the Government hold the title to the land, and the improvements are permanent, and Ihe amount of the loan is reduced annually throughout the 36J years, would that not be a sufficient sinking fund to make the Government security good? —Yes; but looking at it from the point of view of an investment, in advancing up to three-fifths you are entirely dependent on your valuer's valuation. I think it is too high. 198. Mr. McCutchan.\ You stated that the settlers labour under a hardship, inasmuch as they are not allowed to acquire the freehold of their leases under the ten-years period, and you substantiated your case by saying that they put their money into the savings-bank, where they get a less rate of interest than they pay to the Government: is that the hardship ?—No, not only that.
C.—4.
694
[V. H. REED.
I know widows who have accumulated money for the purpose of purchasing, and they have put that money into the savings-bank, and eventually circumstances have made them use that money, and when the time for purchasing came they had not the money to buy the freehold. 199. You advocate the change in the interests of the small percentage of leaseholders who are widows? —No. I say if a person is going to have a freehold at all, why should you not let him have it after he has made his improvements and proved himself a bona fide settler. 200. Seeing that the land is crying out for the expenditure of money, instead of putting the money into the savings-bank, would it not be much wiser to put that money into the land to make it more productive than it is? Can you state any number of farms that are clear of scrub? —Of course, a good deal would depend on the class of land. In some cases portions of a farm bear scrub, and if that farm happens to be isolated it would not pay to clear the land and put it in grass. 201. If it will not pay to clear the land and put it into grass, surely it will not pay to put these savings into the freehold? —Yes, because there is bound to be a certain amount of good land attached to it. 202. Mr. Do you mean to suggest that the widows wasted this money in the interim?— No; but it became more or less of a necessity to use it. 203. Do you not think it was rather a blessing that they had this money available when the need came ? —No. I think they could have got along without using it. 204. You spoke of the settlers being hindered by the gum-digging: do you think gum-digging and farming can go on at the same time with advantage? —No, they cannot. If the land was rich in gum, then the gum-diggers would interfere with the settler who tried to farm the land. lam not saying that settlers should go and take up any of the best gum land; but I do not think the whole of these areas should be brought under the Act, because there are large areas that are not gum-bearing at all. 205. Do you think it would be practicable to cut out these pieces and settle them, and allow gum-digging to go on on the remainder ? —Yes, quite. I think that power should be left in the discretion of the Land Board. 206. When speaking of freehold as being the best tenure, do you apply that remark to counties outside this —in other words, have you had any experience of settlement in the South? - I am only speaking of the four northern counties, which I know very well. My experience has been that people very much prefer having a chance to get the freehold some day. 207. On the bush and rough land?- -Yes, more especially. 208. You think some equivalent could be given ? —I do not think so. 209. If the State gave a long lease at a nominal rental, and thus allowed a tenant to put his capital into the land, would it not be better than giving the freehold? —I do not think so.
Peria, Wednesday, 10th May, 1905. George Thomas examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler at Peria, and live on about 1,937 acres, and I have 1,200 acres besides. My tenure is freehold. I came to this place hi 1859. I use my land principally for grazing and dairying. I have only about three hundred sheep on the land now. I keep cattle principally. The hills take grass very well. The hills are bush land, and they have been surface-sown. 2. What grasses did you cultivate on the bush land? —Cocksfoot, rye, clover, and red-top. 3. Have you any danthonia? —I have a few hundred acres. I sowed other grasses, and danthonia has taken their place. It is very good for the hills, but does not seem to take so well on the flat land. It takes very well ou poor land. In my opinion, danthonia is a good " fill belly"; but lam not quite sure as to its nutritious qualities. I can fatten sheep on my land, but'l go in more for dairying. 4. Mr. McCutchan.] What are your views on the land-tenure question? —I am in favour of the freehold. When you have a freehold you can be more independent. If you want to sell it you can do so, but in the case of a leasehold you sell something that does not belong to you. I think that a man looks after the freehold better than he does the leasehold. I do not want to interfere with any one who wishes to take up land under the leasehold system. 5. How are poor men to get on the land if there is nothing but freehold land? —I hear that you can take up, say, 400 or 500 acres, and for four or five years you have not to pay rent. I think that every man ought to have the option of taking up freehold land; but if he prefers leasehold land he should be allowed to take up land under that tenure. 6. Has there been any increase in the selling-value of land in this district? —Yes, in the case of land that has been cultivated. 7. Has there been any increase in the value of land outside the improvements the settlers have made? —I think there has been an increase in value. 8. Have you done anything in the way of keeping down noxious weeds? —Yes. There are some noxious weeds in this district, but to very little extent. 9. Is the Noxious Weeds Act in force?- Yes, I think so. 10. Is very much of the land in this district held by absentees? —A good deal. 11. Would you advocate rating on the unimproved value, so as to catch these people? —I should think that would be a good way to do it. 12. Do you find that your hills now under danthonia, and which were formerly under cocksfoot and clover, have the same carrying-capacity to-day as they formerly had? —I do not think so.
695
C—4.
G. THOMAS.
13. Do you think the sheep are doing as well? —I do not think so. There is more feed in the danthonia than in other grasses, but I do not think the danthonia is so nourishing. 14. Did you give up keeping so many sheep because the scrub was " making " upon the hills? —No, because the dairy factory started I may say that you can burn off everything and kill the fern, but that does not destroy the danthonia. In the spring it will grow so strong again that you cannot keep it down. Just before the rain comes is a good time to burn off, and then three or four weeks afterwards the danthonia comes up as fresh as if it had just been sown, and it covers the land and is good feed. 15. Will it get rid of the fern? —Yes, because you can burn it off every year. The danthonia will kill anything, I believe. 16. Mr. Paul.] Are there any leaseholders in this district?--A few. 17. Are they prosperous? —They seem to be getting a living. 18. Have you had any experience of the Land for Settlements Act —the buying of improved estates and settling them under the leasehold tenure? —No. 19. You could not express an opinion upon that Act? —No. 20. When you say the freehold is best you mean that, in your opinion, it is best as it applies to this district and to this class of land? —Yes. 21. Do you think that (he Land Boards are properly constituted at present? —Yes; but they do not get enough money to expend. 1 have been here forty-six years, and we have not got thirty miles of gravelling done. 22. Are the farmers in this district well supplied with roads?- I think they have got more than they can keep in repair. 23. Are the roads as good as tliey should be?--I think they ought to be better; but we cannot get the money to expend on them. 24. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you sow danthonia on the good flat land? —No, I have not sown it there. 25. What grass have you got on the flat land? —Rye, trefoils, and different mixtures. 26. But not danthonia? —No; it seems to stick more to the hills. 27. Will danthonia do well on any of these hills? —Yes, I believe it will. 28. You think it will get rid of both fern and tea-tree? —Yes, with cattle running on the land. 29. What rates do you pay?—ljd. in the pound —ljd. county rates and £d. hospital rate. 30. Do you do any cropping? —Only oats and potatoes and corn for our own use. 31. Would they not pay to grow for market? —The market is too distant. You can only sell a few sacks locally. 32. Mr. Forbes.] It seems a good road between here and Mangonui? —Yes. 33. Did the County Council make that road?— The Government helped. 34. Would you say that the district around here was fairly prosperous? —The people living about here seem to be getting a living and to enjoy themselves. 35. They are not going back? —I do not think so. 36. Has the dairy factory improved the condition of the settlers? I think it has. 37. What do they give you for milk here? — now. It was 7Jd. ; but there is a desire to .pay off some of the money borrowed before the erection of the factory. 38. Is the factory well supported?— Yes. 39. Are there any Crown lands here that could be cut up and further settled? —There is one block of 5,000 acres that is being cut up now, and there are several other areas that could be cut up. 40. Is there any demand for land in this district?- I believe there are a good few people who have sent in applications for portions of the 5,000 acres. 41. What kind of land is it? —Nearly all hills ; it is grazing land. 42. Would it do for dairying? It may be a bit rough, but I believe it will grow grass right enough. It is, however, too far away from the factory. 43. What do you think should be the size of the sections in order that a settler may make a decent living off that land? —Not under 1,000 acres. 44. Is it bush? —Bush, with patches of fern. 45. Mr. Johnston.'] What is the value of your land?—l think about .£3 an acre; but there is 1,200 acres I am offering at 10s. an acre, but I cannot sell it. 46. What did this land cost you? Roughly speaking, I think it must have cost me £3 an acre. 47. Would you be satisfied to go out if you got simply what the land cost? —I am old, and perhaps others could do better with the land. 48. Have you ever had more than three hundred sheep on the land? —I had fourteen hundred at one time and a hundred cattle. That number of stock ran on the 1,900 acres. There is about 500 acres of danthonia. The balance has not yet got into danthonia, but it will du so. 49. If the place was fully stocked how many sheep to the acre would it carry?—l should think two sheep to the acre under danthonia. 50. Have you kept anything like two sheep to the acre on it? —Yes, I think so. 51. Would it pay you to put the 1,400 acres into danthonia or into English grasses? —I believe there is a lot of the land that would not want sowing. If it were simply burnt the danthonia would spread itself. It spreads very quickly. 52. What would it cost to burn the land and sow it? —It would not cost much. 53. Do you not think it would have paid you to have done that some time ago?- It is not many years since danthonia was known much about here. As to the two sheep to the acre, I was referring to my place right through. 54. How much level land have you got?— About 100 acres. 55. Do you grow turnips? —Only for household purposes. 66. Mr. McCardle.\ How many cattle do you carry? —From one hundred and fifty to two hundred.
696
C—4.
G. THOMAS.
57. What is your average return per cow from the factory? —I should say about 12s. or 13s. a month. 58. Would it amount to £5 a cow for the season? —I should think it would do that. 59. If you were burning off these hills and sowing them with English grasses would they take a hold? —They would for a certain time, but ultimately the danthonia would take possession and smother them out. 60. Would it not pay you to buy danthonia-seed and sow it? —I have got plenty of the seed without buying it. 61. Does it spread without sowing ?—1 think it comes by itself and spreads without sowing. George Wilkinson examined. 62. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am Chairman of the Mongonui County Council. lam a farmer, and hold about 1,100 acres, partly freehold and partly leasehold. About 700 acres is freehold, and the balance leasehold from the Government. The leasehold land is held under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. I have held the lease-in-perpetuity land for about seven years. My leasehold land is valued at 7s. 6d. an acre, and I pay 4 per cent, on that. I was born in this county. I devote my land to grazing, and I also engage in dairying. 63. Do you find your relations with the Land Board satisfactory ?—Yes, as a general thing. 64. Do you approve of the present nominated system?—l would prefer to see it partly elective. 65. On what franchise?— Somewhat the same as that of the members of the County Council. 66. Which tenure do you prefer—the freehold or the leasehold?—l prefer the freehold. If I had the privilege I would convert my lease in perpetuity into a lease with the right of purchase. 67. The last witness stated that the county is often short of money?— Yes, that is so. The total revenue from all sources is £1,500 a year. 68. Do you get any grants from the Government for roads?— Yes; but they are somewhat irregular. 69. Mr. McGutchan.] If you prefer the freehold, what was the inducement that you had to take up land under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —I took up that land soon after the system came into operation. I took it up as a " spec." It was a bush section, and I thought I could make it a success; but if I had known then what I know now I would have taken it up under lease with the right of purchase. 70. Have you any reason for your preference ?—ln the first place, I consider that any settler would do better on land if he knew that he could make the land his own at some future time. I took up that land with the view of putting one of my boys on it in the future. 71. Do you think it would be a fair thing to allow you the opportunity of changing the tenure by paying the 1 per cent, difference? Yes: i have always advocated that that is, the 1 per cent, with compound interest added. 72. Do you think a revaluation clause should be added in the case of future leases? That is rather a knotty question to answer. It may apply in the south, but there are other considerations that apply in this district. I may mention that every bit of our goods has to be packed in to the sections, because there is no road. 73. Speaking of the back country, do you think that if such a clause were introduced into the leases it would be detrimental to settlement ?- I have not had sufficient experience to answer that question. 74. But, speaking with reference to your own district, what would you say?—l think it would deter settlement. We have enough difficulty now to make botli ends meet without revaluation. 75. Has your County Council brought the Noxious Weeds Act into operation ?—No. 76. Why?— The noxious weeds here consist principally of gorse and blackberry. 77. Would it not be as well to deal with those noxious weeds at once?—lf we had no Crown or Native land, perhaps it would. 78. Are the Government taking no steps to clear their own land of these weeds?— Not that I know of in this county. 79. You said the total county revenue is £1,400 or £1,500?— Yes. 80. What proportion of that is Government subsidy I—That does not include the Government subsidy. 81. Does the County Council expend some Government grants ?—Yes; the Government grants are expended either by the Roads Department or by the County Council. 82. Have you any accumulation of " thirds "? —No. 83. The " thirds " are spent as they accrue?— Yes, if we can get them. 84. Have you any trouble in getting them?—On the last occasion a portion of them was '' stuck up." . tit 85. For what reason ?—The Chairman of the Land Board was changed some time ago. We had been accustomed to make out the form for " thirds " in a certain way, and a new system was Was the reason assigned that the proposal of the County Council to spend the " thirds " would not allow of the money being spent on roads which would serve the land from which the " thirds " accrue? —That was the excuse given. 87. Was not that a valid excuse ?—Probably if you knew the run of the county as well as I do you would not think so. . 88. That is a matter that is fixed by statute?- Yes, but there is no limit. 1 lie money is simply to be expended in giving access to a section. 89. Can you sav if, in the particular case you have in mind, the money was expended in giving the settler access to his section ?—I cannot say. I am not in a position to speak definitely with respect to every section in the county.
G. WILKINSON.]
697
C—4.
90. But, as Chairman of the County Council, you are responsible? —I admit lam responsible. 91. You said that you think the Land Boards should be partly elected under the County Council franchise?- Yes. 92. To what extent should they be elective? —If half the number were elected by the ratepayers I would be perfectly satisfied. 93. Would not there be a danger in certain counties, where there are large towns, that those towns would outvote the country districts? —I do not think it would apply to towns. It should not apply to them. The towns have nothing to do with the land in the country. At any rate, it should apply I think to the counties north of Auckland. 94. But might it not happen that some back-country districts would get no representatioi under such a franchise? —It might happen, but, at the same time, it might not. I think if i' were left in the hands of the people the result would be satisfactory. 95. The Trades and Labour Councils are advocating that the parliamentary franchise should be extended to local bodies? —Yes. 96. For what reason? —In this county, for instance, I suppose half of our population consists of gum-diggers —a floating population —and if the franchise were extended to that section they might outvote the rest of the county. Supposing these gum-diggers took it into their heads that a loan should be raised and voted accordingly, and a loan was raised, these men might clear out at any time and leave the whole responsibility to be borne by the ratepayers. 97. You believe in the principle that there should be no representation without taxation ? -Yes. 98. As these people contribute no rates you think they should have no voice in the management of the county affairs ? —Yes. 99. Mr. Paul.] Do these people contribute to the consolidated revenue?- Yes, the gum license only. 100. But do they not contribute to the Customs? —Yes. 101. Does not the County Council get grants from the consolidated revenue? —Yes. 102. And subsidies too? —Yes, but only on the rates. 103. Do you not think these people contribute to the public expenditure in some degree? — Yes, to a certain extent; but, at the same time, they have the privilege of taking up a piece of land if they wish to take a part in local affairs, but they are simply a floating population. The majority of gum-diggers in the north are hard-working men. They make a big cheque, and as soon as they make it they take a holiday. 104. Have a large number of the Austrians been naturalised?-! think a few of them are taking out naturalisation papers. 105. Do you say that people in the towns should have nothing to do with the land in the country? —I do not consider they should have anything to do with the election of members of the Land Board. 106. Do you think they should have a voice in the way the land of the country should be disposed of and settled? —I consider that they should not have anything to do with the election of members of the Land Board. 107. Do you not think they should have a voice in the administration of the Land Board? — No, they do not go into the back blocks. 108. You mean to say that the townspeople have no interest in the settlement of the land? — They have a certain amount of interest. 109. Do you not think there is an interdependence between the two? —There is to a certain extent. 110. You would give these people no voice in local affairs? —Not through the Land Board. I do not say that they want much, but the majority of them axe here to-day and away to-morrow. 111. Do you think that is the case in respect to large numbers in the towns? —I do not know anything about the people in the towns. lam alluding to the people in this county. In the towns a-man has the privilege of getting a little cottage if he wishes to. 112. But you would not give him a voice in the administration of the Land Board? —That is so. I may say that I would prefer the land-tenure to remain as it is. I think it is a very good system —viz., to give every man the right of option of the freehold if he chooses to take it up. 113. Do you think that an ordinary settler can clear his land and improve the country and be in a position to buy the freehold? —Yes, many of them. 114. Mr. Anstey.\ The Auckland Land District is a very large one. Do you think it would be practicable to elect two members of the Land Board?—l am quite aware that the Auckland Land District is a large one. 115. Do you think there would be any community of interest between the people living in various parts of such a large district? I should be in favour of cutting up the district into sections, and allowing the members of the Land Board to represent a certain district. For instance, I would be in favour of dividing the present land district into two land districts —one for the north of Auckland and the other for the districts south of Auckland. 116. Do you think it would be wise to have two land districts —one for the north and one for the south of Auckland? —I should not answer that question at once, because it is rather a knotty problem ; but the Auckland Land District is rather large. 117. Are there any Road Boards in your county? —No. 118. Mr. Forbes.] In reference to the representation of towns on the Land Board, probably you know that the Government is going.largely into the question of establishing workmen's homes: do you not think the workmen in the towns take an interest in that portion of the land law? —Yes, possibly. 119. Is this district progressing—is the farming progressing? —Yes ; during the past few years there has probably been more progress than during the previous eleven years,
88—C. 4,
[G. WILKINSON.
C—4.
698
120. Is that because there are some outsiders coming into the district? —Yes. 121. Do you think more attention has been paid to this district during the past four or five years than during many years before that? —Considerably more. 122. Is there a better class of farming coming about owing to that? It is principally grazing in this district. There is not much agriculture. 123. Is better attention now being given to the class of stock carried? Yes. The stock is improving, principally on acount of the dairy industry. 124. Is there any demand for more land in this district to be opened up? Up to the present I think there has been sufficient land open, but lately there have been a good many people waiting for an opportunity of taking up land. 125. Are the young men who are growing up taking up land in the district? —They either take up land or go gum-digging. 126. Is there much gum-digging done in the county? —Yes, a lot. 127. Are there many Austrians here? —A good few. 128. Do you think they would make desirable settlers? —Yes; a few of them have taken up land and have gone in for vine-culture, and they are making a very great success of it. 129. Do you think it would be a desirable thing to offer them facilities for taking up land, and thus get them to remain in the country ?—Undoubtedly. I think they have been rather harshly treated so far. They are a steady, hard-working, industrious class of people, and I think if numbers of them could be induced to take up land for fruit-growing or vine-culture it would be a good thing. 130. Mr. Matheson.] In what way have they been harshly treated? —I do not altogether agree with the Kauri-gum Industry -Act. They are charged a fee of £1, and they are not allowed to dig on Crown land, whereas Britishers only pay a fee of 55., and they are allowed to go anywhere they like. 131. You think that is not just or wise from a colonial point of view?—l should not like to see too many of them come into the country. 132. But if they are honest and hard-working, why do you object to too many of them coming here? —As far as gum-digging is concerned I have no objection to them, but I look on gum as a curse rather than a blessing. 133. Then, the sooner the gum is all taken out the better it will be for the district? —From my point of view it would be so. There is a very good living to be made out of the gum-digging by any one who chooses to work hard.. 134. Mr. McCardle.] Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes. 135. Has it worked satisfactorily here? —Yes, to a certain extent; but there are complaints that the Department is rather dilatory in dealing with requests for advances. 136. You think the system is a good one if it were only well administered?— Yes, undoubtedly. 137. Is it not a fact that the settlers are making a bare living on the land, and that all their savings are really invested in the land itself? —Yes, as a rule, that is so. 138. And if the freehold were taken from the settler he would have very little left? —There would practically be nothing in the land itself. 139. Mr. McCutchan.\ You are against the extension of the parliamentary franchise in this case? —I simply look on the question as it affects this county. 140. You have not had any experience as to how it would work in other districts?—No, but I think a man should have a little interest in the land before he takes part in county affairs. 141. Would not that argument also apply to national affairs? —I do not think so. 142. You think it is right that there should be the representation you have indicated? —I have very great objection to the general franchise being extended to the election of members of local bodies. 143. Mr. Johnston.] You said that the kauri-gum was a curse to the district: in what way? — In the first place, many a young man in the district, instead of taking up the land and becoming an industrious settler, drifts away to the gumfields, and, after a few years, as a general rule, he can make an independent living out of the gum industry; but if he works on for, say, ten years, it often occurs that he has spent all his money and has got nothing left, whereas if he had taken up land he would to-day be in a better position. The county would be in a better position, and so would the colony as a whole. John Carton examined. 144. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm a little over 600 acres. I have about 900 acres altogether. It is all freehold except 200 acres. The 200 acres is under occupation with right of purchase. My rent is about £1 Bs. lOd. half-yearly for the 200 acres. The land is principally gum land. I engage chiefly in grazing. My place is about three miles from Peria. I have been in this place twenty-seven years. I also engage in dairying, and supply the factory with milk. 145. What is your opinion with respect to the freehold and leasehold tenures? Which do you think is best for advancing the interests of the country and of the settler? —I should say the freehold, without a doubt. 146. What is your opinion with respect to the constitution of the Land Boards? —I think it would be more advantageous to the colony as a whole if the counties were represented on the Land Board, and that the work of the Board should be done under the supervision of the Commissioner of Crown Lands. In that way we would probably get a Land Board composed of members with experience of different kinds of land. 147. Do you mean that every county should be a sort of advisory Board? —Yes, something of that kind. 148. Do you not think that would be rather an expensive system? —I think they should be under the supervision of some other Board.
699
C—4.
J. GAKTON.j
Hi 149. Do you mean that the present land district might be cut up into two or three districts? Probably so. 1 think the present .Land JBoard have more to do liian they ought to have. 150. What, is your opinion in regard to nominated or elective Boards? —1 think they should he elected. 15J.. Do you think all the members should be elected ? —1 do not know that the whole of them should, but li my suggestion were adopted they would have to be elected. li>2. Mr. McUutchan.j Have you had any experience oi' the Advances to Settlers Department J —Yes. 153. Has it been satisfactory 2—Yes, fairly so. 154. i'or what reason has it not been entirely satisfactory 2 —When you make an application there is a certain amount of delay, and that probably causes inconvenience to the applicant. Then, if you wish to pay some of the loan back at intervals no reduction is made in the amount ot interest payable. 155. But you can pay the whole amount back? —Yes; but if a man has borrowed £500 and he wants to repay <£100, he naturally expects that his interest will be reduced. 156. Are you quite sure that is not the case] —I understand that is not so. I understand that you have seventy-two half-yearly payments to make to complete the amount of capital and interest, and that there is no reduction in the amount of interest. 15/. Have you had your "thirds" expended by the County Council? —Not to my knowledge. 158. Has any work been done by the County Council on your by-road? —Not by the County Council. There was a road district a few years ago, and they used to attend to the old road to the section. 159. Are there any other settlers holding land under similar tenure? —No. 160. The " thirds " are really a very small amount? —Yes. 161. Mr. Paul.] How would you propose to elect the Land Board? —I think the landowners — those most directly interested in the land —should elect them. 162. You mean the present landholders should deal with the remaining Crown lands of the colony. Would you understand such election to be the voice of the people? —Well, the voice of the people, I suppose, applies to everybody; but in the country districts the landholders are in the great majority. 163. Do you not think that if there was a change in the law by which Land Boards were made elective, every citizen in the country should have a voice in the disposal and the administration of the national estate? —Well, the people elect members of Parliament, and the Boards are subject to the dictation of Parliament or the Minister. 164. You think so? —Indirectly, they are, of course. 165. Have you any experience of the land-for-settlements policy in the South? —No. 166. Could you say whether it would be wise or not to give those settlers who acquire land on improved estates the option of the freehold ? —That is a thing 1 have not gone into very much. 16/. xVs regards this bush land up here, do you think it would be practicable to give very long leases at a nominal rent, in order to make the terms as easy as possible for the settler ? —1 do not see what could be easier than the present system. 168. Is it easy for the settlers to fell the bush and clear the land and buy the freehold at the same time? —It is not, altogether easy, but they work with a better heart, and they put more time and better material into their improvements. 169. If they put the same time and energy into leasehold land, would they not get the same results] —Yes, barring their interest. My experience is that the leaseholder does not do so well on his farm as regards good substantial improvements as the freeholder does. 170. Are there many Government leaseholders in this district? —I think there are some village-settlement settlers still on the land. 171. Have they been there long enough for you to be in a position to say that the leaseholder does not farm as well as the freeholder ? —The greater number of these village-settlement-lease holders have cleared out and left the land, but in the case of the homestead settlers, where the freehold was given, every one stuck and prospered. 172. Is it fair to compare the homestead settlers, who got the land for nothing, with the village-settlement selectors ?— Well, under the homestead system the settlers have to work for the land. They have to make substantial improvements, and the village-settlement people were spoonfed, and when they got all they could they left. 173. As to the ordinary lease-in-perpetuity system, has your experience extended to that? — No, but I prefer the lease with the right of purchase. 174. Then, you cannot express an opinion as to whether that tenure has been satisfactory or otherwise? —Only from what I have heard. 175. Mr. Anstey.~\ Have you sown danthonia on this poor land of yours? —Yes, a little, but it has not done so well as on Mr. Thomas's land. 176. Have you cleared your bush yet? —Yes. 177. Does the danthonia not do well on cleared bush land? —Yes, it is supposed to, but it has not been very successful with me. 178. Do you know that land in the 5,000-acre block which the Government are taking and throwing open ? —I have been through some of it. 179. What sort of land is it? —Average bush land principally. 180. Do you think danthonia would do on it? —It ought to. 181. You are not a member of the County Council? —No. 182. How do you get on with the roads here? Do you think the rates have been spent satisfactorily? —Sometimes we think so, but not always.
C.^-4.
700
[J. GAETON.
183. Mr. Johnston.J Do you belong to the Farmers' Union? —1 am president of this branch of the Farmers' Union. 184. Are you representing the Farmers' Union now ? —No, 1 am not selected to give evidence here. 185. Mr. McCardle.] There has been a very generally expressed wish in some parts of the north for the reintroduction of the homestead system: do you think it desirable that something of the sort should be done, in order to get some of the poorest outlying lands settled? I do. .186. Would you advocate giving the land for nothing, or putting on a light rent, or charging a small price for the freehold, the whole of the money to be spent on roads? -Of course, it would be a good thing if they could see something coming in from their land towards road-making. 187. With regard to the appointment of members of Lund Boards, do you think it would be a good idea to increase the number of members of a Board, and allow the settlers in the different districts to select their representatives from amongst themselves? —That was something after the idea I had; but if you make the Land Boards too large it might probably be too expensive sending those members from the outlying districts. 188. The members of the Land Boards now only receive 10s. a day for their personal expenses, outside their railway, steamer, and coach fares, so that the expense of, say, three more members would be very small? Yes, that is so; but Ido not think the settlers would take it on. Take the Auckland Board, for instance; a member would have to come from the extreme end of the province, and the loss of time this would mean to him would be too great. John Pearson examined. 189. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler holding 340 acres, which is all freehold, except forty acres. This 40 acrefc is leased from the Government under occupation with right of purchase. 190. What are you paying in the way of rent? —It is valued at 7s. 6d. capital value, and I pay 5 per cent, on that. I have been farming here about seven years, and my place is about four miles from here. Igo in entirely for grazing sheep and a few cattle. 191. What is your view in the matter of tenure in the interests of land-settlement? —I am a strong believer in the freehold. 192. Mr. Johnston.'] How much stock do you carry?— About one hundred and twenty sheep and twenty-five to thirty cattle. 193. Do you make your entire living out of this? —Not by any means. I have to work in the bush, and occasionally 1 go gum-digging. 194. Mr. Matheson.] Are you sowing danthonia? —Yes, a little. 195. When you have got the whole of your place cleared and sown down in grass do you think you will be able to stay at home and get a fair living?—-Yes. 196. Mr. McGardle.] Do you believe in the present optional system? —Yes. William Frederick Thompson examined. 197. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am county engineer, but my principal occupation is Government District Valuer. lam also a settler. I have been only for six months county engineer, and am only doing a little for the Council. 198. You will not have had much experience about the roads? —I have had a good deal of experience, as 1 was a member of the Council previous to this, and, in addition, I have lived in the district practically all my life and know the roads well. 199. Are you well off for metal for the roads?- In this particular district we are, but further north we are in need of metal; and in the winter-time those portions in need of metal get into a terrible state. 200. As Government District Valuer, do you say that the values of land in this district have been going up in the last ten years? —Yes, the values have gone up appreciably both in this county and in the Hokianga County." We have just had a revision of the values. I was not aware I had to give evidence here until to-day, otherwise I should have come more prepared with information. I should say the values have increased possibly 20 per cent. 201. Have there been many appeals from these values ?—Scarcely one in the Mongonui County, though there have been several in the Hokianga County. 202. What is the area of your own land? —50 acres. 203. Mr. McCutchan.] Have you been long Government valuer? —Just entering the second year. 204. You value for the Advances to Settlers Department?- Yes. 205. In making out the Government valuations you have to give the unimproved values?— Yes. 206. How do you get at that?— The quality of the land is the first thing to be considered; then there is its accessibility and various other conditions as to the situation of the land. 207. Suppose a man takes up a piece of land at £1 an acre, and he puts £2 an acre improvements upon it, and the selling-value is £5, what is the unimproved value in that case? —Unless there has been what may be termed an " unearned increment," it would remain the same. 208. Your instructions are to value the land on the selling-value?— Yes. 209. There is the upset value, the improvements, and the interim value: how do you get at that?— The improved value is what has been done by way of increasing its value since the man took it up in the first place. The unimproved value, unless there has been something in the way of unearned increment, will remain the same. The capital value comprises the whole. 210. Is there not some difficulty in accurately assessing the value of the tenant's interest in :his improvements? —There should not be. 211. Are you instructed to value improvements which are not visible to the eye? —No. 212. Might not large interests belonging to the tenant be ignored under such a system?—l do not think so. He gets full credit for all improvements he has put on.
W. F. THOMPSON.]
701
C—4.
213. Would not a lot of the labour that a man has put 011 his land in, say, fifteen years be invisible to you? —No; in fact, the improvements would not exist. They would have deteriorated. 214. Suppose a man has done a large amount of clearing, how would you know the character of the bush that has been felled and what it has cost to fall?- The bush about here is very much alike, and one can pretty well tell, because 011 the low lands the bush is generally heavier, and you can take the standing bush as a fair average. 215. Are you assisted by the owner to any extent? —Yes. 216. Is not that a flaw in the system? Suppose the owner is untruthful? —1 would have to use my own discretion, and if a man is not giving a correct report I would have to give my own experience. 217. Have you had any experience of co-operative work in connection with roads? —Yes. 218. Has it been satisfactory? —It has been fairly popular, but in all cases it is not satisfactory. 219. Why? —Under the old system of tender for the work the best men are employed, but under this co-operative system there are a good many employed who are not good workmen. The co-operative system is not therefore popular with the good worker, though it is popular with the inferior worker. I believe work by tender costs more. 220. You say that the co-operative system is more economical? I believe it is. 221. Do you think the system of day-labour would be an improvement on the co-operative system? —I think so. 222. You are sure the co-operative system is better than the tender system and the contract system? —1 believe you get the work done cheaper and better. Of course, there is a tendency to slum the work unless under competent supervision. 223. The whole of its success depends upon supervision? —Yes. Where you want good and faithful work done the day-labour system is the best, and it requires the least supervision. 224. Is there any land in this district taken up fifteen years ago that has not been revalued since then? —Yes. 225. Are you guided somewhat by the previous valuation? —Yes, to some extent. Igoon my own knowledge of the value of the properties as well. 226. Mr. Anstey.] Are the rates struck upon the capital value in this county? —Yes. 227. And in Hokianga County?— That is under the unimproved value. 228. How do the two systems compare?—ln the Hokianga County they would not go back to the old system. There is a lot of kauri timber owned by the Kauri Timber Company which was practically exempted before, and now they are getting a big revenue from that timber. They are getting a large revenue from laud that is owned and unoccupied ill the county which has practically escaped rates in the past. 229. And you think that is fairer than rating upon capital value? —In that county it is. 230. Mr. Forbes.\ Does the land cleared of bus}) and sown clown last well?- It depends a great deal on the way it is looked after and the season it is sown in. As a rule, it holds for a good number of years. 231. Has the bush land which is sown in the first five years a better grazing-capacity than when it is renewed or sown afterwards ?—Generally that is so. 232. In connection with these bush lands, is there any difficulty in valuing the improvements on a section? —No great difficulty. 233. What would you allow for felling heavy bush and grassing? —If it has not been too long done, about £2 ss. to £2 10s. 234. If it has been done for some time? —If it has been allowed to deteriorate you cannot allow so much, because as the grass runs out the improvements will become less in value. 235. You think, as a valuer, that the tenant's interest in his improvements can be ascertained fairly and correctly?- I think so. 236. You do not think there is any chance of any great injustice being done to them?- No. 237. Mr. Matheson.] Have you any farms in the district of a capital value of, say, £8 an acre? —1 do not know that there is any quite so high. They run about .£6. 238. Suppose you are valuing a farm, the capital value of which is about .£6 and the original unimproved value is 10s. an acre, and the visible improvements are worth £3, would you then put the unimproved value down at £31- Not always. 239. Suppose the owner is one of a number of farmers who had put up a dairy factory in the district, and had'thus increased the value of the land by £1 an acre ? -Well, that would really be earned increment, and I would take that into consideration if they had put up their own dairy factory. 240. Mr. McCardle.\ Have you had wide experience of bush-clearings outside this district? --Yes; in the Hokianga district, or the Bay of Islands. 241. Suppose I say 1 know of bush land which is worth twice as much after being thirty rears in grass?—I would say it is not so in this part of the country. 242. Then, your experience of bush land going back is confined to this district ? —All my remarks are confined to this district. 243. You are engineer for this county, and you say you do 110 work under the co-operative system; still, you think the co-operative labour is cheaper and better?— I think I could get better work done. 244. You have, as engineer, advised your Council to that effect? —No; I have only just started as engineer. 245. Mr. McCntchan.\ Did I understand you to say that if a dairy factory puts £1 an acre upon the value of land in the vicinity you include that in your valuation of the tenants' improvements within his ring fences? —I could not say that. That is scarcely included in his valuation, but it is not added to the unimproved value.
702
C—4.
A. D. LAMBLY.
Arthub Duucan Lambly examined. 246. The. Chair/nan.J What are you I lam a settler owning close on 500 acres of land about tliree miles away from here; but iam not wholly dependent upon the land. My land is mixed fern and tea-tree. Only a little of it is in grass. 1 just run a few cattle on it. 1 was born in the district. 247. You are engaged in other work occasionally ? —Yes. 248. Do you dairy at all ? —No. 249. Under what tenure do you hold your land? —I have 390 acres with the option of purchase, and the balance is freehold. 250. Which tenure do you prefer —freehold or leasehold —for the advancement of the country I —1 am against the lease in perpetuity, speaking for myself; 1 prefer the freehold, most decidedly. 251. Do you think the present constitution of Land Boards is satisfactory? I have not had much experience of the working of Land Boards. 252. Mr. McCutchan.j Are you on the County Council? —No. 253. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? \es. 1 think •it has been fairly satisfactory; tliough the legal expenses might be reduced a little, 1 think. 254. I thought the legal expenses were very moderate indeed? —I had a loan of £.50, and the legal expenses were, 1 think, about £2 10s. 255. That is your only objection to the system?- - Yes. 256. You heard what the county engineer said —that the roadwork could be more economically done under the co-operative system? —1 am against the co-operative system. 1 believe in work done by tender. 257. Do you consider the co-operative system too expensive? —Yes, I have always thought so. 258. You make that statement after close personal observation I—As1 —As a settler, 1 take an interest in it. . 259. Mr. l'aul.] Is there more supervision required for the co-operative system than over contract labour? —I should think not. 260. Is there stricter supervision over contract work than over co-operative work? No; I think they both require a considerable amount of supervision. 261. Some of the work of the County Council is done by day-labour: is that satisfactory? I should think not. 262. Why I—Well,1 —Well, there is no call for a man to do his best. 263. Is not a fair wage enough to induce every man to do his best? —I do not think a man does his best under those conditions. 264. You think a man only does his best when he is driven? —No; but I think there should be some incentive to a man. 265. Will vou. say from your knowledge that the man who takes a contract does ail the work \ No; but with roadwork in this district in many instances men would do more work, and do it better, under the contract system. 1 think they have more incentive to work. 266. Do you think an ordinary labourer who works for a contractor will do more and better work than if he were working and receiving wages paid by the Council itself? I think so. 267. Why? —Because he is in more danger of getting dismissed if he does not do fair work. 268. Do you believe in any system of leasehold, apart from the lease with the right of pur-chase?--None that 1 know of at present. I believe in a man getting the freehold. 269. Have you had any experience of land-tenures outside this district? No. 270. Then, when you express that opinion you apply it to this district and this class of country ? —I think it should apply to all this country. 271. Are you acquainted with settlement under the land-for-settlements policy? I cannot hay 27™ Then, you cannot express an opinion as to the best tenure under that system?— Not beyond saying I believe in the freehold where it is possible to give it. 273. Mr. Aiistey.] Can you give any instances where work under the co-operative system has been wasteful ? —I could, certainly; though I could not perhaps prove my statement, and I should not care to individualise cases. . , , 274. Could you say what any particular work cost under the co-operative system, and what it ought to have cost?- I know of a bridge which cost £70, and which I have heard it asserted should have been built for £40 under contract. I think £40 would have been a fair price tor it. I have done bridge-work myself. t • [Subsequently the witness said he wished to make the following further remarks 011 certain points which he had overlooked: 1 would suggest that Land Boards be given discretionary power to issue Crown grants to bond fide settlers, as soon as the required improvements have been completed without waiting for the specified periods—this in the case of both cash purchase and occupa-tion-with-right-of-purchase leases. That Boards have not this power is, in my opinion, inimical to the settlement of the country and a hardship to many. To cite my own case, in 1894 I took up some 390-odd acres of land under the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system. Some seven years later having completed my required improvements and the purchase-money being available, 1 applied to the Board for permission to purchase. In reply, the Board stated that such permission could not be granted until the ten years had elapsed. This necessitated my paying several years more rent, besides the possibility, owing to the ups and downs of a farmer s life, of the purchasemoney not being available at the later date.] Pebct Fbedekick Johnstone James examined. 275 The Chairman.l What are you?—l am a prospective settler in this neighbourhood I own 500 acres of freehold property in Queensland, and I have come to the colony recently to look for land. I have been in New Zealand for the past three years and a half. I was a victim ol the late drought in Queensland.
C—4.
P. F. J. JAMES.]
703
276. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I am decidedly in favour of the freehold tenure. 277. Are you acquainted with the terms of the lease in perpetuity?- I am, but I prefer the freehold. I am in quest of a freehold now, and unless I get an opportunity of securing land with the right of ultimately getting the freehold, 1 shall not settle in New Zealand at all. 278. Mr. Anstey.] Have you examined any of the lands further south—land held under lease iii perpetuity ? —I have been in Hawke's Bay, and I have been in Canterbury. 279. Would you not care to have one of those lease-in-perpetuity holdings? —No, because I could not call it my own personal property ultimately. 280. Do you know that some of those tenants have sold out their goodwill at a considerable profit?—That does not alter my opinion. 281. Mr. Matheson.] Areyou prepared to take land so long as you are given the right to purchase ? —Yes. Thomas Wallace examined. 282. The Chairm,an.~\ What are you? —I am a carpenter. My wife holds 100 acres of land, and my son 165 acres. The two places are not adjoining. I was deputed by a meeting of Fairburn settlers to appear before the Commission. We did not know you were coming so far, otherwise a number more might have come down. 283. Under what tenure do the settlers you represent hold their land? —They were homestead settlers in the first instance. 284. How many do you represent? —Something like forty. 284 a Have most of them been here long? —From eighteen to twenty-four years. 285. And have they been fairly successful? —Yes. 286. Have they all stuck to their land? —With one or two exceptions. 287. What points do they wish you to represent? —The meeting instructed me to represent that they believed in each settler being given the opportunity of securing the freehold of his land. 288. Of course, the gentlemen you represent have the freehold already? —Yes, but that is their view as regards the general settlement of the country, and they desire the right to secure the freehold in the interests of their own children. 289. How much land do they hold generally?- They began with something like 100 to 150 acres each, but now they have increased their holdings to an average area of something like 300 acres. 290. Do they engage in dairying? —Yes, there is a creamery on the road about eight or ten miles from here. 291. How are they off for access to their places? —Well, the road which was bad at one time is gradually improving. 292. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you advocate the re-enactment of the homestead system? —Yes, with an increased area. 293. With stringent improvement conditions?—-With the same improvement conditions. 294. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —I have had no personal experience, but I have heard a good number of the settlers grumbling about the length of time it takes to receive their money. 295. Mr. Paul.] At this meeting did you discuss the general question of land-tenure? —Yes. 296. Do they think the most of this country should be settled under the homestead system? — Yes, they advocated the homestead system or lease with right of purchase. A good number think that any system which would give them power to ultimately acquire the freehold easily would be of advantage to the country. 297. Do you think the yearning' for the freehold is a matter of sentiment or business? —A matter of business. 298. You think the freehold pays the best?- Yes, it pays the settler and the country best. 299. Do you think it would pay the State to give an equivalent, in the shape of a long lease at a small rent, which would enable the settlers to devote their cash to clearing and improving this rough land? I—lt1—It would not benefit the country. The rents would scarcely pay the Inspector. If the country could get a good settler who would stick to the land the revenue of the State would be increased by his occupation. 300. You think a settler can improve his land and buy the freehold at the same time? —Yes. .301. Mr. Anstey.'] Is this land of yours poor or of fair quality?- It is not poor grass land, but it is not arable land, and while the stumps are in the ground it cannot be ploughed. It is bush land. It is therefore liable to get very dirty, and the grass goes back. It is poor land until it can be brought under the plough, and then it would be fairly good land on the limestone. We have very good roads to it.' 302! How were the roads constructed? —By the County Council and by Government grants. 303. You are fairly well off for roads?— Yes. 304. Do vou pay any rates?--Yes, on the capital value. My rateable value is £175 for 100 acres, and- £125 of that sum is represented by improvements. Percy FREnEiucK Johnstone James further examined. 305. The Chairman.] What do you wish to further bring before the Commission? —I omitted to state that I am here as the accredited delegate of the Oruru Farmers' Club to lay before the Commission the following resolutions on the questions set for the Commission: The constitution of Land Boards: The Land Boards should be partially elective. The tenures upon which lands may be obtained and occupied, and whether in the interests of the colony any alteration of the law is desirable: That the homestead and the right to acquire the freehold should be added to
C—4.
704
[P. F. J. JAMES.
the existing conditions. Whether Crown tenants labour under restrictions inimical to their wellbeing and unnecessary in the interests of the State: The Crown tenants do labour under various restrictions which are inimical to their well-being, and also that of the State. Whether the residential conditions now existing are too exacting and require relaxing, and, if so, in what direction : That the residential clause should be optional, providing that the improvements be doubled. Whether it is expedient that the homestead privileges, as indicated in the Appendix to " The Land Act, 1885," should be reintroduced : That the homestead privileges should be reintroduced, subject to alterations, as in the foregoing. As to the working of the present ballot system, and the dealing with applications for land. That until a system which is an improvement on the present ballot system is unearthed, it is advisable that the present system remain. Whether lessees of the Crown are placed at a disadvantage in borrowing privately or from the Advances to Settlers Office: The operations of the loans to settlers office is far too dilatory in its transactions to be of any material benefit to those seeking its aid. The maximum area which should be held under the several classes, and if in certain districts variations are advisable: The areas available under the several classes requires no alteration. 306. Your resolution on the question as to whether Crown tenants labour under restrictions inimical to their well-being is very general: can you particularise?- I consider the residential clause a restriction. I think it is very hard on a man having a certain amount of freehold who takes up 300 or 400 acres of Crown leasehold that he should be required to reside on it, while at the same time he has a residence on his freehold property. 307. Mr. Anstey.] Is that the only restriction? -That is all I can think of at present. 308. How many members are there in the club? —I am not sure, bat we have between twentyfive and thirty paying members. There will probably be more. The association has only been started about six months. 309. Mr. McCutchan.\ You advocate doubling the improvements instead of residence? —Yes. 310. Would that not open the door to two evils —speculation and dummyism?— 1 think not. 311. Why not? —For the very reason that a man who takes up a piece of leasehold property would naturally look after it himself. 312. I do not think that follows? —I do. 313. Suppose he takes it up for another man, and gets paid for doing so, could not the other man make the improvements through him? —That is a question we did not consider. But I think it is very hard that a man who takes up a leasehold property should have to reside on it when he has a residence on a piece of freehold. I think doubling the improvements is quite equivalent to residence in that case. 314. But it does not always follow that because a man has a piece of freehold that he wants a lease. May not a man go into a district and want a piece of leasehold, and may not a speculator go in and get a dummy to take it up for him? Is not residence the only true check?--Yes. 315. Do you think your organization is wise in advocating this change in the residence conditions? —I am afraid that is a matter we overlooked. 316. Are they all settlers in this association?— Mainly so —all bona, fide settlers. 317. Do you not think that doubling improvements in place of residence is in favour of the man with money? —I do not think so. 318. Mr. Anstey.'] Are you engaged in farming? —Not now; but I intend to settle in the neighbourhood shortly. 319. What is your experience as a farmer in this colony? —None in this colony, but I had five years in the neighbouring State. 320. What is your occupation at present?' —Nothing at all. 321. Are you secretary of the Farmers' Club? —Yes. 322. You said your club is in favour of elective Land Boards: upon what franchise? — Similar to County Council franchise. I think they should be partially elected. 323. Do vou think yon should elect two members, say, for the whole of the Auckland Land District? Do you think the ratepayers at one end of the province would have the least idea of who they were voting for? —As electors, they should have. 324. Do you think the settlers on the borders of Taranaki would know anything of the qualifications of a candidate at Mangonui for the Land Board? —They should make it their duty to do so. 325. How could they? —When the various candidates put up they should make it their duty to study their qualifications, the same as they do with members of the County Council. 326. Mr. Forbes.'] Suppose you go into a district and settle on a piece of land, and you hope that when other settlers come around you a school will be erected and you will get the other benefits of settlement, if the residential conditions are relaxed in the manner you suggest might not the land be taken up by people owning freehold and you be left isolated? Would you not consider that, a hardship ? —Yes ; but I would not anticipate that. 327. If you relax the residential clauses is that not likely to occur? It is possible. 328. Mr. McCardle.] Did you not qualify your position in this respect by stating that you only meant this relaxation to apply to persons who already owned a small holding and yho wished to enlarge them in the interests of their families: was it not really to meet such cases as these that your association proposed this resolution ? —Yes. 329. Because they already have a home? —Yes. .330. Then, you wisli it only to apply to those persons, and not to people who have no land at present? —Decidedly. George Wilkinson further examined. 331. The Chairman.] What is it you wish to further bring before the Commission? —I want to say, in regard to the residence clauses, that I know of cases of people who are residing on 12 or 20 acres of land within easy reach of civilisation, school, &c., whose area is insufficient for them
G . WILKINSON.
705
C.—4.
to live on. These people have taken up land in the back blocks, away from civilisation, where there was no possible chance for their children to be educated, and no chance of roads for a long time. I consider that the enforcement of the residence clauses in these cases is very harsh. I consider they should be relaxed in genuine cases of this kind, but genuine cases only. I fall in with the idea that a man should have freehold adjacent to his leasehold, otherwise the residence clauses should be enforced. 332. You think the Land Board should have discretionary power in such cases? —Quite so. That is one reason why I ask that the Land Board should be elective. You would then get backcountry settlers who had gone through this experience, and who had a very good knowledge of what is required. 333. Mr. Forbes.] Under the present law is not a person whose freehold adjoins his leasehold exempt from residence? —Yes, if it is adjoining. 334. Is not the holder of any lease from the Crown also exempt in such cases? —I think so, but I am not sure. 335. Can they not also get exemption from the Land Board? —Not in all cases. I know a case where the Land Board insisted on residence, and it has undoubtedly been a hardship. William Henry Blyth examined. 336. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I hold about 1,300 acres of freehold about five miles from this place. I have held the land for forty years; but I have been a schoolteacher for twenty years. 337. What is it that you want to specially bring before the Commission? —That on principle I am a freeholder. I approve of the lease with the right of purchase, but I disapprove entirely of the lease in perpetuity. I favTmr the partial election of Land Boards. I have had no experience of the Land Board. 338. Mr. Paul.] Can you say whether the Land Board administration has been good?—I have rio experience on that point. I think the interests of the people and the country would be better met if the people had some sort of controlling voice in the election of Land Boards. 339. On what franchise would you elect this portion of the Land Board? —Much the same as the parliamentary franchise. 340. Mr. Anstey.] You say you disapprove altogether of the lease in perpetuity: what are the grounds for your disapproval? —I think it is a sham. There is no security of tenure at all in it. The settler can get no guarantee that the conditions of the lease will ever be fulfilled. Revaluation is liable to be brought in at any time. Moreover, if a settler is a freeholder the lan(J is attached to him, whereas under the lease in perpetuity he gets attached to the land and loses his freedom. He has to pay interest for ever, and he cannot get out of the lease except at a sacrifice probably. He becomes, to all intents and purposes, a serf. That is my opinion. 341. You disapprove of all forms of lease other than providing the right of purchase? —Yes, except a person wishes the other kind. I think it militates against a man's freedom to be bound by such a tenure as that. 342. You say there is no security of tenure under the 999-years lease? —I do not think so. What is to prevent its being repudiated. 343. Do you think the Government that would revalue that lease would stick at confiscating the freehold ? —I do not know what they would stick at. 344. Do you think the Government that stole the leasehold would not steal the freehold? — They have stolen the freehold, because they passed a law to take a settler's land, whether he likes it or not. 345. They do not pay for the land? —They pay for it, of course. 346. Then, they do not steal it? —It is paid for at their own valuation, whether the settler likes it or not. 347. If the Government have taken the freehold unfairly, as you say, how do you make out that the freehold is any more secure than the leasehold? —If they do it in one case what is to prevent them passing a law in the other. 348. Then, the one is no more secure than the other? —Except this: that if the freehold tenure is general the people will put in Governments who will not favour any other kind of tenure. 349. Do you think if there were more freeholders there would probably be a more Conservative Government? —I do not know about names. I think the names "Conservative" and " Liberal " are misapplied in a country like this. 350. Suppose the people were mostly freeholders, do you think you would get a Government who would not steal your land? —I would not answer for any Government in the future. Our ideas change so that I do not know where we may stop. George Thompson examined. 351. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 228 acres of freehold about a mile and a half from here. I have been here thirty years. lam a dairy-farmer. 352. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission? —No particular point. 353. Mr. McCardle.] What tenure do you believe in ?—Freehold. William Wilkinson examined. 354. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I hold 566 acres of freehold. I have held this land ten years. It is a mixed farm. 355. Is there any particular point you would like to mention ?—I would like to say that I have a very poor opinion of the lease in perpetuity. I have had a little experience of it, and it has not been satisfactory.
89—C. 4.
C—4.
706
Tw. WILKINSON.
356. You might state your objections ? —First, I hold a leasehold is never the same as a freehold. You do not put the same interest and heart into your work on a piece of ground that you know at no time you can make your home or your childrens' home as you would on a piece of freehold. I have had a little experience. I took up a piece of ground adjoining my farm, and the Board wished me to reside on it. They first quarrelled about the tenure. I wished to take up a lease with the right of purchase in ten years, and I made out my application accordingly. The Board said the land could not be leased with a right of purchase, but only under lease in perpetuity, and after some demur I amended my application accordingly. I paid several years' rent, and spent some .£4O on improvements, and then I asked if there was no way of converting it into a freehold. They told me right through that I could not do so, and then I determined to throw the section up. I sent the deeds and all the papers back to the Board, and they were returned, and I was told I could not give the section up in that way. Of course, during the correspondence a certain amount of arrears of rent had accumulated, because I would not pay pending a decision, and when this communication came back I chucked it on one side. I saw the Ranger, and told him I would have no more to do with the section unless I could convert it into a freehold. The Ranger suggested that if I threw up the section it might be offered on one of the other tenures. I was prepared to pay cash or take it up on a lease with the right of purchase, and I would still do so. At present it is lying idle. 357. Did the Land Board allow you to surrender? —They asked me to surrender. I have still got the deeds, and the matter is hung up. lam willing to pay up the arrears if I can get the right to purchase. Under lease in perpetuity this would cost me and my heirs several thousand pounds in rent, and the whole place could be bought for £50. 357 a. Is there any other pofht? —No; I agree with the opinions of the other witnesses. 358. Mr. Paul.] Was there anything in the leasehold tenure that prevented you farming that land to advantage? —Nothing, so far as the lease was concerned. I simply objected to be continually paying rent, on the ground that the sections could be purchased in the first place for a trifle. The land is not rich. I wanted to acquire it to fill a gap in my freehold property, and I wanted the whole area freehold. 359. Mr. Anstey.~\ What is your particular objection to the lease in perpetuity? —It means continually paying rent year in and year out. 360. What rent do you pay on the lease in perpetuity? —£2-odd a year on 180 acres. The land is valued at 6s. per acre. 361. Suppose you invested the 6s. per acre at compound interest for 999 years, do you not think it would amount to the same amount that you pay in rent? —Quite so. 362. Then, what is the difference? —At the end of the term you would have principal and interest, and at the end of the lease you would only have the interest. 363. If you invested the money you would have both principal and interest? —Yes, in an investment, but not in a lease. William Edmund McKay examined. 364. The Chairmani\ What are you? —I am a farmer and storekeeper. I hold 238 acres of freehold. I have been two years at Oruru, and twenty-three years in the district. 365. What do you wish to say? —I was one of the first of the Fairburn settlers under the Homestead Act, mentioned by Mr. Wallace. I am greatly in favour of that system; but I think the previous areas were not large enough. I hold that 50 acres per man is not nearly sufficient. Each settler on that road had a little capital, and that is why I believe in strictly enforcing the residence clauses. I consider the Land Board has used common-sense in its administration. 366. I presume you have no wish to see the present constitution of the Land Board altered? —I do not go into that kind of question. I think the counties round us should be represented. I believe the Homestead Act is a good Act for the country. 367. Mr. McCutchan.] What area of this poor country do you advocate?- Ido not think this country is poor. It is good grass land in the hands of an industrious settler. I would not have a blade of danthonia on it. I consider 100 acres for a single man is small enough, and if he has a family the area should be 200 or 300 acres. 368. Mr. Paul.] Did the Homestead Act promote settlement? —Yes. 369. Did you sell your holding to advantage? —T did. I had a loan from the Advances to Settlers Department, and the only fault I have with them is that the loans are long in coming and the legal expenses are rather high. 370. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think it is wise for the Government to give away land?—l think it encourages good settlers. 371. Do you think it is wise to give away larger blocks? —Yes, in the back settlements. But our land was not given away; we had to pay survey fees.
Kaitaia, Thursday, 11th Mat, 1905. Leo Lecoustbe examined. 1. The Chairman.] You have come to represent the settlers at Herekino? —Yes. 2. How many settlers are there on the land? —Roughly speaking, I should say close on a hundred. It is a very large and scattered district. 3. I suppose they had a meeting: before you came here? —There was a meeting of the settlers some few weeks ago, and it was decided that I should represent them before the Land Commission. 4. How many settlers attended that meeting? —I suppose from fifteen to twenty, but that is a very good muster for so scattered a district.
C—4.
L. LBCOUSTKE.j
707
5. Have you the resolutions come to by the meeting i —Yes. This is the document I was asked to present to the Land Commission: — " Herekino, 17th April, 1905. " To the Chairman and Commissioners, lioyal Land Commission, Mangonui. " Gentlemen, —We, the undersigned residents of Herekino, do hereby authorise Mr. L. Lecoustre to appear lor us before you and express the views of the settlers on the land question, and we wisn lo state tliat we are all unanimous in our desire to acquire the freehold of our sections. —We are, <stc." [_liere follow forty-one signatures.J ti. (Jndei what tenures do tiiose settlers hold their land now'! —Some of those settlers have been there for the last twenty years, and hold their land under the village-settlement conditions. Others are under the lease in perpetuity, and others the lease with the right of purchase, and there are also a few freeholders. t. 1 presume most of these settlers signing the petition are leaseholders, because they ask for the freehold? —Yes. ti. Was the iand originally forest land? —Yes, with a few patches of fern land. 9. Has much bushfelliug been done? —Yes, a considerable amount. 10. Has tlie land taken grass successfully ? -Yes, it takes grass very well. There are patches of very poor land as there are in other parts of the colony, but the difficulty has been that the settlers originally were poor men, and they were not in a position to fence their places properly, and tliey iiave not been able to give the land fair treatment. 11. 1 suppose stock roam over the place? —During the last two or three years more fencing has been done, but still there are numbers of cattle roaming all over the place. There are very few settlers who have even a ring fence. 12. But they are making a little progress? —Yes. 13. Do the settlers there depend entirely on the produce of their land, or do they do other work sometimes ? —Many of them get work on the roads or from their neighbours in the way of bushfelliug, and some of them are employed at the local timber mill. 14. 1 believe the Herekino settlers iiad a great struggle for many years? —Yes, until the last four or five years they had a terrible struggle to make both ends meet, because they have been so isolated that in winter-time it has been almost impossible to get goods in or out of the settlement. 15. It is a dangerous harbour there? —Yes. 1 may say that until the last twelve or eighteen months all the provisions for the settlers have had to be carted in from Awanui, and you can only take 2 cwt. or 3 cwt. in a load in winter-time, and sometimes it has been impossible to get provisions there at all. Now, however, the harbour is open to a certain extent, but still it is not a great deal of benefit to us. 16. Is it a bad bar? —There is very little water at Herekino. At Whangape the bar is better. That place is about seven miles away. There is a boat of 300 tons there now, but the boats running there are of very little benefit to the settlers, because they are all connected with the Timber Company, and the company charges what freight they choose. 17. There is no regular trade there? —That is so. 18. Is Herekino connected by road with Whangape? —No, it is connected by a track, and it is only recently, that boats have come into Whangape. t 19. What do the settlers most desire at the present time? —One of the chief things is that the Government should throw open all the Crown lands of the district as quickly as possible. 20. Is that in order to bring more people into the district? —Yes. The settlers would like the Government to throw open a block between the Awaroa River and Rotokakahi Stream, called the ilotokakahi Block. There are some 7,000 acres in that block. There is also a large extent of land on the bank of the Awaroa liiver and back from the stream, which has recently been forfeited. That land has been held by absentee landlords, and some of it in connection with the Timber Company solely, because of the timber on the land. These sections have been recently forfeited, and a number of the settlers in the district wish to know what the Government intend doing with that land. There is now a Government official measuring all the timber on the land, and we think if that land is weighted with the timber it will never be taken up, because the Government official is measuring much timber which is unsaleable. 21. Is the timber of good quality? —The kauri is, I suppose; but the Government officer has measured other trees, such as miro and rimu, which the local mill will not buy. Trees have been measured which are only 3 ft. in girth, and the local mill will not take anything under 5 ft. in girth. 22. Do I understand that there are several blocks of land in this district which are quite suitable for settlement, but that they are withheld from settlement because the timber on the land is considered too valuable to be cut down and burnt? —Why not give the selectors the benefit of that timber. 23. But if he could not dispose of it? —He could dispose of the kauri, but the other timber would cost more to get out than it would be worth. 24. But the time will come when the other timber will be worth taking out? —Do you not think it would be better even to waste that timber in order to have the place settled. There is a considerable area of country that ought to be settled. 25. But rimu is a very valuable timber? —It is difficult to work it. We contend that this timber is not valuable enough to reserve. There are a great number of forest reserves in the district of Hokianga. There are thousands and thousands of acres locked up as forest reserves. 26. It is a question cf opinion on the part of the authorities whether it would be better to have the timber burnt ofi and the land settled, or whether the land should be reserved for timber purposes I—There1 —There is a great part of this land which is open fern land, and not forest land.
C—4.
708
L. LEOOUSTBB.
-27. Have you made any representations to the Land Board about this land? —Yes, we have written about it several times. As to some sections held by men connected with the Timber Company, some of those sections have already been forfeited. We want those sections thrown open again. 28. In the matter of roads, I suppose that is always an important question with you? —Yes. We have a lot of " paper " roads, but there are very few of our roads that are any good at all. I was riding out the other day to Mangonui, thinking the Land Commission would be there, when 1 came across what was a bridge at one time, but it had been drawn aside as being useless, and there is no bridge across the stream now at all. In case of bad weather a settler would have had to swim across the stream. 29. We heard yesterday that the County Council has a very small amount of revenue, and the area of the county being very large the local authorities cannot do very much with the means at their disposal? —That is so. Besides that there is a large extent of Crown lands and also of Native land. There are thousands of acres of Native land, and Native land does not contribute one penny to the local rates. 30. Have you any Native land at Herekino? —There is a great deal around Whangape, and some round Herekino also. The Natives will not do anything with the land. 31. Has the title of that Native land been ascertained? —I think the title of a little of it has been ascertained, but the title of the greater portion of it has not been ascertained. 32. Are there many Natives resident in the district? —There are ninety-three children attending the Native school at Whangape. 33. Do the Native children and the settlers' children go to the same school? —There are only a few white people at Whangape. Some of the Native children at Herekino attend the Native school at Whangape 34. Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory? —Personally, 1 have found the Land Board to be very just and fair. 35. Is the general opinion in your district that the Land Board is a live body, or do the people think it might be improved in any way? —The settlers seem to think that they ought to have a representative on the Land Board, but they really have no objection to the present constitution of the Land Board. In respect to the petition 1 have presented to the Commission, I may say that I think the settlers are freeholders to a man. 36. Have they had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Department? —1 believe one or two have, but they have had no satisfaction. That is one of their grievances—viz., that they think the same benefit is not given to the leaseholder as is given to the freeholder. They say that if two men go to the Advances to Settlers Office, and one has occupation with right of purchase and the other is a leaseholder without right of purchase, the leaseholder will probably go away without any advance being given to him at all. 37. In other words, the Department select the freehold for giving advances, and they reject the leaseholds?— Yes. 38. Mr. Paul.] Has any instance of a freeholder being given a loan and a leaseholder being refused come under your notice? —No. 39. Then, that is just something you have heard?— These are merely cases that have cropped up in other districts. There is no instance that I know of that has occurred in our district, but we are told that we have the same privileges in respect to loans as men holding a lease with right of purchase, but it appears to us that that is not the case. 40. But it does not appear so from your own experience? —It appears to us that the Advances to Settlers Office is not much better than a farce. 41. But you have had no practical experience of that? —I know of one man who applied for a loan, and they took his fee, but he got nothing out of it. 42. Do you know the whole of the circumstances of that case? —No, except that he applied for a loan and sent in his fee, but he got no loan. 43. How long has Herekino been settled? —I think over twenty years. " 44. And most of the land there is settled on freehold? —No, mostly under lease in perpetuity. 45. How was the land settled in the first instance? —At the beginning I think it was a special settlement in a time of depression, and that some seventy families were dumped down in Herekino on 50-acre sections, and that that form of settlement proved a failure. You might give a man 50 acres of land in the back blocks for nothing, and he would not make a living out of it. 46. The area is too small? —Yes. If the settlement were close to a market a man might get a living from the land, but it is at present so isolated that he might as well be a thousand miles away from the market. 47. Have some of the settlers changed their tenure during recent years? —I believe one or two have. Some of the settlers held their land under the deferred-payment system, and I know that one man has taken up a freehold. 48. Was the lease-in-perpetuity system in force twenty years ago? —No. 49. Have the settlers converted their tenure into other tenures? —Most of the old settlers cleared out. They could not make a living, and they went to the gumfields. 50. Do these petitioners all belong to Herekino? —I believe there is one man residing at Ahipara, but he also holds land at Herekino. 51. What are these men who have signed the petition and who have given no address? —They are Austrians, and hold land at Herekino. 52. Are they good settlers? —They seem to be a thrifty lot, but I would rather see Britishers there than Austrians. 53. Is there anything against Austrians settling on this land? —The only thing I can see is that the Austrian comes along and works where a Britisher will not work, because the Austrian
L. LECOUSTBE.j
709
C—4.
works for less money and he spends practically nothing, and the little he does spend he haggles over. These men save their money and send it home. They do not do the country any good. 54. Does he come up to the British standard of civilisation as to living? —1 believe he does. 1 believe, as a rule, he lives in a respectable manner. 55. Can you say how many absentees hold land in this district? —1 cannot give you the number, but there are a good many. 56. Do you recognise that to be an evil, and to be one that keeps the district back? —1 may say that there are thousands of acres of land around my holding that have been taken up, and that land still remains idle. 57. Is that freehold land? —No, it is leasehold; but I think these men ought to be kept up to the " scratch." 58. Are they paying rent for the land? —1 could not say, but I know some of them are in arrears with their land. 59. Did the Herekino settlers come to any conclusion as to the terms on which they should get the option of purchase? —They are all willing to pay for it. Many of them think that if they were allowed to buy the freehold in instalments it would be a great boon. 60. At what capital value? —At the original value. 61. At 4 per cent, on the original value? —Yes. 62. Do you think a lease with the option of the freehold is more valuable than an ordinary leasehold ? —Yes. 63. Do you not think that you might pay something more for what you consider a more valuable tenure? —We would be willing to pay the difference between the two leases. The lease with right of purchase is, I think, J3 per cent, on the capital value, and the other is 4 per cent. 64. The settler would be willing to pay the 1 per cent, difference? —Yes. 65. If they got the option could they take advantage of it? —Many of them could not. 66. I understood you to say that the majority of them could not fence their land properly? — That is true. 67. Then they cannot buy the freehold and improve their holding at the same time? —Certainly not, but they want to feel freer than they do at the present time. 68. In what way? —They wish to know that at any time they can take up the freehold if they are in a position to do so. 69. Do the conditions of the lease in perpetuity in any way prevent settlers using the land to the best advantage?--No, it is not a case of using the land to the best advantage. They can do absolutely what they like with the land, but they think they are not secure enough —that a man who has spent his whole life-time in improving his section may at any time have his rent raised. And we think the labour party have too strong a hold of the political wires, and that the screw may be put on to the back-block settlers. 70. If your statement is correct do you not think the screw can just as easily be put on the freeholders? —No; I fail to see that. 71. Would not the graduated land-tax be increased? We will suppose that what you say is correct, and that the labour party want to harass the back-block settlers, or any particular class of settler, is it not just as reasonable to think that they would increase the land-tax to a prohibitive degree, rather than interfere with the leasehold, or increase the tax just as readily as they would interfere with the leasehold? —No, I do not think so. We are not strong enough to resist them. We have to knuckle down to them, and the freeholder would not knuckle down to them. 72. If the labour party were in a majority and they wished to do as you say, the freeholder would be compelled to knuckle down to them? —Why are the labour unions interfering with us in any way. We do not interfere with them. Why should they debar us from having the option of purchasing the freehold. 73. That is their affair. I do not think they are interfering with you at the present time. What I want to know is this: why do you think the leasehold tenure is insecure? Can you conceive of the people of this colony repudiating a bargain, or stultifying themselves by going back on the leasehold tenure. Even if they have made a bad bargain, do you not think the people of the colony will stick to that bad bargain ? —They do not seem to have confidence in the Government that they will stick to that bargain. Why is the Fair Rent Bill brought in every year? We are all afraid the time will come when our rent will be raised. 74. Are any of these men paying too high a rent under the lease in perpetuity? —No, not one. They all think it is a fair valuation at present. 75. If there were holders of lease-in-perpetuity sections in other parts of the colony who are paying too high rents, do you not think they should have it reduced? —Certainly. 76. In the case of a man who is paying too small a rent, do you not think it would be fair to the State that his rent should be increased —of course, I am speaking of future leases and the principle of revaluation ? —lf you reduce the rents it would be only fair that you should raise them also, but we argue that we earn every penny by improving the land in the back blocks, and in doing so we are improving the value of the Crown land in that neighbourhood. 77. Would you be satisfied with the lease in perpetuity if it were not interfered with in any way? —We would be satisfied if we had the same privileges as is possessed under the lease with right of purchase. 78. But you want the freehold? We want the option of acquiring the freehold at any time after the Land Board is satisfied that the occupier is a bond fide settler and is improving his land. 79. Then, even if the labour party were not proposing to interfere with the lease in perpetuity you would still want the freehold? —Yes. 80. You spoke of the roads in this district: do you think that in an old-settled district the Government should give as large grants to keep the roads in repair as they should give to newly-
C—4
710
[l.^lecoustbe.
settled districts with no roads? —Why, the Herekino Settlement has been neglected for years and years. We are also of opinion tliat the money derived from timber royalties should be expended in the district where the timber is obtained. 81. But in an old-settled district, where the settlers have been established for thirty years, do you think they are still entitled to Government grants while there are new settlements being opened up which in many cases only have bridle tracks ? —No. 1 think those old settlements ought to be able to help themselves. 82. Mr. Amtey.J How many acres are you farming? 600 acres under lease in perpetuity, and my rent is 4 per cent, on the capital value, and the land is valued at 10s. per acre. 83. Will that be about the same rent as is charged on the whole of the Herekino Settlement? — There are perhaps two or three of the sections valued at from 12s. to 155., but the bulk of them are valued at about 10s. an acre. It is practically all second-class land. 84. Among the settlers signing this petition are they nearly all lease-in-perpetuity holders? —Practically ail. I think there is one man who has a freehold section, but he also has a lease-in-perpetuity section. 85. The land was originally taken up in 50-acre sections?- Yes. 86. Have they built houses on those sections?--The Government allowed them ,£lO for the erection of a house, but many of these houses are now " bushed " in the tea-tree and abandoned. 87. The sections are not fenced? —No. 88. What in the world do you want the freehold for if you have not enough money to build a house on your section? —1 am not referring to those men now. 89. What is the good of 50 acres of land if it is no good to anybody?- 1 was talking about these small sections and the absurdity of cutting up land in the back blocks into 50-acre sections. 90. You say these men are holders of lease-in-perpetuity sections, and that nearly all of them now have more than that area ? —1 said that when the settlement was originally opened the land was cut up into 50-acre sections. There are one or two of the settlers who have signed this petition who have 50-acre sections, but most of them have from 200 to 600 acres. 91. Are these people living on their sections? —Yes. 92. Have they built houses on them? —Yes. 93. 1 suppose the land is fenced? —They are not all ring-fenced, but they have all got some fencing done. 94. Are the farms of 200 acres large enough to make a fair living from them?- Personally, 1 do not think 200 acres is sufficient of that class of land to get a fair living from it. 95. What size do you think the sections ought to be in order that the settlers may make a fair living from that class of land?—l think they should be 500 or 600 acres. 96. Do you not think these people had better take up a lease of 500 or 600 acres rather than buy the freehold of sections which are too small ? —They do not wish to buy the sections, but many of them want the option of acquiring the freehold. 97. If they got the right to buy the freehold would they buy the land for themselves, or with a view of selling to somebody else?— They want to be able to buy the land by instalments of sums, say, from £10 to £20. 98. Would most of them be prepared to fence the land or build houses on it before exercising the right of purchase? —I think so. 99. Do you think there ought to be residential conditions applying to freehold land as well as to leasehold? —Certainly, I do. Adjoining my two sections there is 1,500 acres of land that has been bought simply for the timber that is on it. That land is standing idle, and it is just as great a drawback to the progress of the district as the Native land. Unoccupied freehold land retards settlement. 100. Is your rating based on the improved or unimproved value ? —On the unimproved value. 101. Then the absentee holder has to pay the same amount of rates as the man who improves his land? —Yes. 102. How many of these 50-acre sections are unoccupied? —Many of these 50-acre sections have been taken up by the holders of adjoining sections. 103. Do you know what grants the Government have made to the local body? —No, but there is very little money expended in roading, and what money we do get is wasted, because we get the money the wrong time of the year. 104. Who spends it ? —The County Council. 105. And does the County Council waste it? —I suppose it is not their own fault. It is the wrong season when the money is available, and if it is not expended the vote is struck off, and they do not get it at all. 106. Do you think it would be wise to do away with the system of grants, and increase the subsidy instead? —I think so. 107. Have you a representative on the County Council from your district? —Yes, there is a County Councillor in the settlement. 108. And does he not see that the money is spent within the proper time and in the proper way? The money is voted from year to year, but sometimes we cannot get the money. 109. What is your representative doing that he does not get the money?—He does his best, but sometimes there is no money. It is voted but not expended. 110. Mr. Forbes.] What class of farming do the farmers go in for in your settlement? —Grazing. There is very little agriculture. There are a few flats but not a large enough area, and it would be no good if there were, because we often cannot get our goods in or get our produce away. 111. Do you do any dairying? —No. The Rotokakahi Block would be an ideal place for dairying, but it is all locked up. There is one man who came with the intention of taking up some of that land, and he is now getting bald-headed waiting for the land to be opened up.
C—4.
L. LECOUSTRE.^
711
112. Would you say that the average area of the holdings at Herekino is about 200 acres? —Yes. 113. Is it not all cleared ?--No. 114. Do most of the settlers earn a living on their sections by grazing sheep and cattle? — The majority of them are dependent on getting some outside work during the year. 115. The majority of the men who signed this petition? I do not think there is one man who lives entirely on the produce of his section. 116. Then you cannot say yet with any certainty whether this is going to be a successful settlement, because the land is not yet keeping the population. You say that the settlement, in the first place, was not successful? —I think there were about seventy families put there; but I may say that now there is more work being done on the sections every year. During the last two or three years the settlers have been more energetic, and there are greater clearings being made every year. 117. If you had a dairy factory would it be a great improvement? —If we had roads it would be a good dairying district 118. What sized sections do ycu say the Rotokakahi Block should be cut up into? —From 200 to 500 acres. A man could get a living on 200 acres by dairying. The Rotokakahi land is a great deal better than the land at Herekino. 119. You say that that particular block could be cut up into smaller areas for dairying purposes ? —Yes. 120. Mr. Matheson.] If you and your neighbours had the right of purchase do you think you would probably put your farms into.working-order before you exercised that right? —Yes. I think it would be giving the settlers more encouragement to work on their sections. 121. Mr. McCardle.\ You have got some land suitable for agriculture, have you not? —I think there is very little of it. 122. How much? —There ar« only a few acres here and there. 123. In your own settlement, is there any land level enough for ploughing and agriculture? —In the Rotokakahi Block there is a great deal, but it would require to be stumped. 124. What would it cost you to stump that land before it could be so used? —£7 or £8 an acre before you could plough it. 125. What does it cost to put bush land in grass? —Sometimes up to £3 an acre, the big timber included, and at least £1 an acre for seed. 126. And what would it cost for logging and clearing it fit for stock?—l do not think the land justifies logging. 127. Still, you would require to make it clear enough for stock to get through it. How much would that cost? —I consider that the land would cost you about £5 an acre, with felling, seed, fencing, and a certain amount of logging, but I do not mean stumping and clearing it entirely. 128. It is a very difficult matter to strike the average cost of putting the land in grass; there may be bad burns? —Yes, it will sometimes cost you twice the amount for logging that the original felling did. 129. Do you think the system adopted by the Rangers in fixing the average price to put land into grass is a fair one? —I think the Rangers are very fair in making their valuations, but in some instances they have very little idea of the best rule to act upon. 130. Is it not a fact that when you apply for a loan from the Government under the Advances to Settlers Department, the value put on the land by the Ranger is taken by the Department before any advance is made? —I could not say. 131. I suppose you are aware that if there are any arrears of rent no advance will be made? —Yes. 132. You say there have been drawbacks to leaseholders obtaining advances under the Advances to Settlers Act? —Yes. 133. Do you think the Act should be amended in the direction of giving more liberal support to the tenant farmer in the way of advances? —We think that a man with a lease-in-perpetuitv section should have the same right of borrowing on his improvements as the man with the right of purchase. 134. Ts it not a fact that a number off settlers are asking for the option of the freehold, partlv owing to the fact that they can get no assured assistance from the Advances to Settlers Office without having a freehold ? —Yes, that is a point. 135. In a case where a settler has improved his land up to £3 or £4 an acre, his interest then is five or six times the interest of (he Government? —Yes. 136. In that case, if he wanted assistance from an outside source, having the right of purchase he could obtain it from an outside company? —He could if he had the right of purchase, but he would have very great difficulty in getting money under the lease in perpetuity. 137. The settlers in your district are of a steady, persevering character; but their only sin seems to be that they are poor, like most bush settlers? —Yes: that is through no fault of their own. 138. You are of opinion that what you suggest is in the best interests of the settlers and of the country generally? —Yes; T think every encouragement should be given to men who take up land in the back country. 139. Do you not think it would be well for the Government to encourage such settlers bv means of special votes —say, by advancing £1 to every £2 raised by the settlers in the back blocks— that is, for road-making and metalling?—l think so. At present it is the strong or powerful districts that are favoured. It is those districts which already have means that get the cream, and we get very little. We cannot get even skimmed milk sometimes. 140. Mr. McCutehan,~\ In reference to the Advances to Settlers Department, vou said the holders of lease-in-perpetuitv sections suffered? —Yes. 141. The occupation-with-right-of-purchase-lease holder has this security to offer the Government: his improvements and goodwill? —Yes.
C—4.
712
[l. lecoustre.
14:2. What distinction is made between him and the lease-in-perpetuity holder? —There is supposed to be no distinction, I am informed; but when it comes to valuing for a loan the man with the occupation with right of purchase May get it if there is any money to advance, whilst ihe other man is always refused, unless he has some influence behind him. 143. Is it not the case that valuers valuing for the Advances to Settlers Department have instructions to include goodwill in the security of lease-in-perpetuity holders?—l do not know. 144. If you do not know, why do you make the statement that the lease-in-perpetuity holder is unfairly treated? —I say he cannot get a loan where an occupation-with-right-of-purchase man can. 145. Do you know of any cases? —No; but I would not apply, because I expect that I would be refused, and that is the general feeling of every settler. 146. Do you think you are justified on oath in making a statement based on hearsay? —I am telling the Commission the personal feeling of the settlers in the district. 147. You say that there is a great deal of speculation going on in respect to absentee land: what is the cause of absenteeism here? —Lands were taken up without having been seen by the purchasers. Many of the men taking up such land do not seem to have any intention of doing anything with it. Some of the land in my neighbourhood has been taken up simply for the timber on the land, and not in order to work the land or settle on it. 148. But there has been some check on that, I understand? —Yes, to a certain extent. 149. You said the resolutions passed by the labour unions are causing a feeling of uneasiness in regard to the security of the leasehold tenure. You were asked, was it not as likely that there should be an attack by labour organizations upon the freehold as on the leasehold ? —We cannot see why the labour unions should interfere with us. They say that the Government must not grant the freehold because the land is the people's. If that is so, why should we who live on the land have to pay rent at all. 150. Does it occur to you that the labour organizations are attacking a weaker section of the community first, and if they are successful they will attack the freeholder ultimately? —I do not know what their tactics are, but they are attacking the farmer and leaseholder now, and that is what we are protesting against. 151. Do you think that the intention expressed at the conference of labour unions at Wellington to revalue the land on the transfer of a section or on the death of a holder is an honest and justifiable proceeding? —I do not. 152. You spoke of the pioneer settler improving the value of his own land, and that in doing •so he also improved the value of the Crown land in the neighbourhood ? —Yes. 153. Does that improvement also extend to the cities? Yes; by improving the country we are improving the towns. 154. You spoke of the absentee freeholder as being as great a drawback as the Native owner: is that correct? —If a man is surrounded by absentee land it is a tremendous drawback to him. 155. Is there not,this distinction: that the freeholder pays taxes, whereas the Native owner does not? —The absentee holder is always on the defaulters' list. 156. Then, the fault rests with the local body: they have the power to sell the land for the rates? —Yes, that may be so. 157. You are aware that a new Act has been passed, called the Crown Bush and Swamp Act? —Yes. 158. Under that Act, after half a year's rent is paid no further rent is paid for four years, and no rates are payable? —Yes. 159. Do you think that Act should be amended with a view of making this land subject to rates? —I think it is only fair. 160. You think it is a hindrance to settlement that this land should not be subject to rates for four years? —It is only fair that they should pay towards the maintenance of the roads. 161. Under the Bush and Swamp Land Act there are no rents for four years, and therefore there are no " thirds " accruing. Do you think the State would be justified in paying the amount over to the local bodies, although the tenants are paying no rent? —I think the State ought to form the roads before they throw the land open. 162. Has any money been expended on the roads of the Herekino Block by the Government, independent of the County Council? —Yes. 163. Has that work been done by co-operative labour? —It has been mostly done by day-work. I believe there has been a little contract work, but I do not think we get the value for our money. 164. Mr. Paul.] Who did that work under the co-operative system : was it done by the settlers? —It has been done under the supervision of the Government Engineer ; but I think he generally leaves it in the hands of the local County Councillor. 165. Is the money which is at present spent expended in doing work by co-operative labour? —No ; it is by day-labour. 166. You do "not think that is satisfactory? —No; I think there ought to be more contract work done. 167. I suppose you find serious fault with the labour party agitating for any interference with the present leases? —Yes. 168. Do you also find fault with the Crown tenants for attempting to interfere with the present leases? —No. It is of vital interest to the Crown tenants, but I do not see what that question has to do with the labour unions. 169. It affects the settlement of the land —the national estate —and do you not think that every citizen in the country has a right to express an opinion as to the best way in which the land should be settled? —He may have a voice in it, but he has not one-hundredth part of the interest of the man working on the land. 170. You do not think the agitation for the freehold on the part of the tenants is so bad as any other agitation for a breach of the lease?— Certainly not. The labour unions have agitated
L. LECOUSTBE.]
713
C—4
for their rights, and they have got all the plums, and they are trying to keep everything from us. 171. Do you know they have got all the plums from your own personal experience? —They have got a great many of the plums. 172. You are on your oath, and we want you to speak of what you know? —The town-dwellers have a great deal easier life than settlers in the back blocks. 173. With regard to the labour unions attacking the freehold, have they agitated for an increase in the graduated land-tax or for the putting into force the graduated land-tax? —I am personally of opinion that they are at the back of it. I may be wrong; I would not swear it. 174. Do you think the graduated land-tax is a good tax? —I do not think it is, personally. 175. You think that large areas of land should be held, and that there should be no system of taxation applying to them? —I am against large areas of land being held by one person. 176. Do you not think the graduated land-tax has been a factor in settling some of these large areas, and do you not think that tax is equitable?—Up here we have no large areas of land held by one man. 177. Can you express an intelligent opinion on the graduated land-tax?- I am of opinion that everything should be done to prevent large areas of land being held by one individual. 178. Can you say whether the labour party helped to bring in the land-for-settlements policy? —I cannot say. 179. Do you think that is a good policy? —Yes, I do. 180. I think if you will inquire into the matter you will find that the labour party is just as anxious to have a prosperous tenantry as the tenants themselves desire to be prosperous?— Yes; but I think they are going the wrong way about it. 181. It is just a question of different opinions, and you admit there is no evil intent? —I do not imply there is any evil intent; but we argue that we, the settlers, know more about the land than they do. Isaac Williamson examined. 182. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am a farmer, and hold a little over 1,000 acres on freehold tenure. It is situated at Awanui, about seven miles from Kaotaia. I have been on the section for about forty-four years. I engage mostly in grazing sheep and cattle, and Ido a little dairying. 183. How is this district getting along? —It is not making the progress it ought to. 184. What is the drawback?— Want of roads has been the main drawback. 185. What is your port? —Awanui. A steamer calls once a week, and an auxiliary steamer once a fortnight. 186. Do you export any produce in the way of potatoes? —No; there is a local market for all we can grow. It would not pay to grow produce to ship away. 187. What is the cost per ton of goods between your place and Auckland? —£1 is what it ought to be; but, as a matter of fact, it often costs more than twice that. 188. How much a bale do they charge for carrying your wool? —I think, about 6s. 189. Do you send any live-stock away? —We generally sell it locally. Buyers come round sometimes and buy the stock. There are two sales held in the year. 190. How many sheep do you carry on your 1,000 acres? —I cannot say how many sheep it would carry. 191. Do you find that grass takes fairly well on your land with surface-sowing? —Yes, oh some of the land. 192. What do you generally sow? —Paspalum dilatatum I have favoured lately. 193. We have heard a good deal about danthonia: is that a good grass? —Yes, for high pipeclay hills. 194. It seems to be very hardy? —Yes; it gets into the ground and it stands burning. 195. And does even eradicate the scrub? —You can burn off the scrub periodically, and it is not likely to come again, but the grass does. 196. What is your view in regard to land-tenure? Which do you think is best for the advancement of the colony generally —the leasehold or freehold? —The freehold, undoubtedly. 197. Mr. Paul.] There is a good deal of absentee-held land in this district? —Yes. 198. Does that keep the district back? —Yes. 199. Has the rating on the unimproved value altered the position in any way? —The rating is on the capital value. 200. Is there rating on the unimproved value here? —No. 201. Is land increasing in value in the district? —Undoubtedly; the land is of more value now than it was twenty or thirty years ago. 203. And the district is prosperous? —Yes. 204. Mr. Anstey.] Do you get much money here in the way of Government grants? —We get plenty promised, but the votes are allowed to lapse, and we do not always get it. 205. Do you know why you do not get it? —I suppose for want of funds. They promise somuch, and they have not the money to meet it. 206. Do you think the system of Government grants is a good system?—l think it would be better for the Government to form the main roads of the colony throughout. It would be better than having it done by the County Council or Road Boards. 207. Do you think the Government could do it cheaper and better? —Undoubtedly, they could. 208. Why? —Because they could put a traction-engine on to draw the metal, and so on, which the Council would not be able to do. Another thing is, that the Government would have their own engineers to go and follow on wherever they were required. 209. Do you think it would be wise to introduce the system of rating on unimproved values? jdo no t know. lam not well accustomed with the different methods of valuation. 210. Do the local bodies expend their money economically ?—I think there is a good deal wasted; but, of course, there may be differences of opinion.
90-C. 4.
C—4.
714
1. WILLIAMSON.
211. What is the reason of that? —They do the work in patches. They will metal, perhaps, 10 chains of road and miss out 20 or 40 chains. I prefer to commence at one end of the road, or at each end, and meet in the middle —do the work gradually. Then, again, the Council allow the ruts to go on getting worse, instead of filling them up when it can be easily done. 212. Do you think it would be wise for the settlers to increase their rate, if the Government would increase the subsidy in proportion ? —They could do so now if they wished, as they are not rated to the full. 213. Is it not a fact that when you increase the rates the Government subsidy is decreased in proportion?—lt is so, I believe. Until recently I was under the impression that the Government gave pound for pound, but I saw it stated in a local paper lately that the Government gave only 10s. for the pound. 214. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to increase the subsidy, and do away with grants altogether? —No. I should still prefer the Government should do the main roads. 215. Mr. Forbes.] Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes, I have had some dealings with it. 216. Have you found those dealings satisfactory? Have you anything to say in respect to the work of that office? —Well, you can only deal with that office if you have a freehold. 217. Will they not advance money on leasehold property? —I understand not; but I cannot speak from experience. 218. Has this district progressed of late years? —Yes, it has made more progress during the past ten years than it did during the previous thirty years. 219. Is there any Crown land about here which could be opened up so as to further advance the settlement of the district ? —Yes; there is a good deal of Government land, and there are a large number of sections lying idle which were taken up forty years ago under the old 40-acre system. Many of them appear to have no owners now. Neither the Government nor any one else deals with them. 220. You think that land ought to be reofiered to the public? —I think it ought to be utilised in some way. 221. Why have the sections been left? Was it because the land was cut up into areas too small to be profitably used? —Well, in those days there were no roads, and with the swamps and rivers and so forth it was difficult to get into the land, and the settlers gradually left. There is not a settler in that district —the Maungatata district. The land is lying waste. 222. Was it good land? —It was forest land, which we always reckoned to be good land. 223. Was any of it cleared? —Portions of it were cleared. The bulk of it is still in its native state. 224. You think if those sections were reoffered to the public they would be taken up ? —I feel sure of it. I know several who would buy if it was opened up. 225. Would the demand for it come from the sons of settlers or from outsiders? —Chiefly outsiders, I think; but no doubt some of it would be taken up by sons of settlers. 226. I suppose a settler here with 400 or 500 acres of land has plenty on his hands for some years to bring it into use? —He would have employment for his lifetime, I think. 227. Mr. Matheson.~\ Are those deserted sections paying rates? —Very few of them. 228. Do you think your local body would be wise to exercise their right to sell the sections if the rates are not obtainable, in order that use might be made of the land ? —I think some such steps should be taken. 229. Does it not seem strange that nothing should be done year after year to get rates out of this land? —Yes. 230. Do you remember when more of this country in sight of us here was in grass than at present?— Yes. 231. Was that done by Native labour mostly? —Yes. 232. Is the reason it has gone back largely that wages have increased? —I really think that would account for it in a large measure. 233. Now that roads have come in and dairying is going on, do you think this district is distinctly regaining its productiveness? —Yes. 234. Mr. McCardle.] You say the price of land has gone up in this district? —Yes. 235. Has it gone up to such an extent that a settler, if he sold now, would be more than paid for the work he has put into his land? —No. There is no land in the district that would pay a man for his outlay and the labour he has put into it. 236. The Chairman.'] Do you know anything about the homestead system? —The only homestead settlement I am acquainted with is along the Fairburn Boad, and it has been very successful. 237. Do you think it would be wise to introduce it again? —Yes. 238. Mr. McCutchan.] You advocate the State taking control of the main roads of the colony and maintaining them? —Yes. 239. Do you think that a feasible scheme? —I think so. 240. Of course, the money would have to come out of the consolidated revenue? —Yes. 241. Would not the citizens of Auckland have an equally good right to demand that the Government should maintain Queen Street out of the consolidated revenue? —No; that is different. That is in a city. 242. But there are ratepayers there? —I do not suppose the city would exist if it were not for the country. 243. Does not the city cater to the wants of the country settlers? —Yes; but I consider the main roads of the colony could be more economically made by the Government. 244. Would it not be better that the people should rate themselves to a certain amount, and that the Government should subsidise on a fixed ratio? —We would prefer to get it that way; but, still, I think it would be better for the Government to make the main roads.
I. WILLIAMSON.
715
C—4.
245. Would you advocate some special tax to meet this enormous expenditure all over the country? —We would leave that to our members. '24:6. But, surely, the wish of the constituencies would have some effect on the acts of the members ? —lf the change were made there would undoubtedly be some means of meeting it. Thomas William Portland Smith examined. 247. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am a farmer. 1 farm 250 acres of freehold about one mile from here. I have been farming here about twenty-seven years. Igo in for dairying, and supply milk to the factory. 248. I suppose that dairy factory has added very much to the prosperity of this valley? —Yes, undoubtedly. 249. Has it been the means of raising the value of land to some extent? —In the course of time it will, but people have not yet gone in for it to the extent they ought. There should be double the quantity of milk to make it really a success. 250. How many cows are milked? —About three hundred. 251. Has it been long in existence? —This is the third year, I think. It is a co-operative factory. 252. It will be increasing, I suppose? —I suppose it will as the young heifers come in, but such a bad lot of cattle was brought into the district originally that the farmers think it is better to depend on their own. 253. Is the factory working all the year round? —No. When the roads are bad we cannot take milk to it. It will probably stop working about the end of the month, and may not resume until after September or October. * 254. Wliat do you do with your milk then ? —We make butter ourselves and send it to Auckland. We ship it from Awanui. 255. Mr. Anstey.] Do you represent any body in this district? —I represent the Farmers' Union. 256. Are you the president? —I was until my health broke down, and I had to give it up. I was the first president. 257. What are the chief planks of your platform? What is you chief business as a union?— It was originally started with the object of getting special grants expended in the district, and for urging that all leaseholders should have the right to acquire the freehold. When money was voted for roads and other works in the district it was never expended, and it appeared to us it was not intended that it should be expended. 258. Have you ever considered the question of doing away with grants altogether, increasing the subsidies instead ? —No, not here. 259. Do you think that would be a good thing? —I think either system is bad. I think special grants are the worse, because they amount to a system of bribery. 260. What do you think would be a better system? —I think it would be best for the Government to take over the main roads and maintain them, and let the settlers attend to their own byroads. The Government could maintain the main roads as they do the railways. 261. Out of what fund do you suggest that should be done? —I suppose the same funds out of which such things are done now. Mr. Duncan, I think, estimated it would take two millions, and I think Mr. Seddon is going to put £500,000 on the estimates next year for it. 262. Has your union ever discussed other questions? —Yes; for instance, this dairy factory was established by the Farmers' Union, and we have formed an agricultural club, and have got a doctor here. We do other things as well. We have kept our County Council up to the mark until lately. 263. Your union has been very successful in improving the state of affairs generally with regard to local matters? —Yes. 264. Have you been successful in the chief planks of your platform —the expenditure of grants, for instance? —Partly, but this year the members have not attended meetings as they ought to have done. This year there was £200 voted for this road, and not a single penny of that has been expended yet. 265. Have you any other instance of Government grants being voted and not spent? —Year after year the same thing occurs. 266. So far as your success as a union goes, it has been more pronounced as regards local matters, but outside that it has not been successful? —I think it has been fairly successful. Perhaps if we had confined ourselves to fewer subjects we might have succeeded better. We have gone off on to side-tracks a bit. 267. Have you considered the question of rating on unimproved values? —I have given it very little thought, but I do not think it would work in this district at all. 268. There are a large number of absentees in this district: would it not be an advantage to make them pay a fair share of taxation ? —The machinery is not there to do it. 269. Why do you think rating on unimproved values would not be suitable here? —I do not think you would get anything like the rates for making the roads that you do now. 270. Would not the rates be exactly the same? —They would be made so according to law, I suppose, but it would raise a howl all over the place. 271. Do you not think it would be fair that the absentees should be made to pay the same rates as those residing on the land? —Yes, if the machinery is provided. 272. Mr. Matheson.\ Does not the law provide that a local body may offer for sale a section from which they can get no rates? —The law provides that you must apply to the Public Trustee, and the Public Trustee blocks it straight away. After the application the whole thing ends, and you hear no more about it.
C—4.
716
|T. W. P. SMITH.
273. Mr. McGa/rdle.] Is it not a fact that the reason why all these properties are not sold is that the cost of advertising would amount to more than they could get for the sections? —That may be so in some cases. 274. Would the sections you refer to recover the expense of advertising in your district?Some of them would I think, others would not. I was on the County Council some time ago and we summoned several people for their rates. 275. You did not go and distrain on the property? —We simply got a judgment. 276. And the person never received the summons, really? —No. 277. What was the use of summonsing those persons if you did not intend to go further and forfeit their land and sell it? —We were blocked at once. If you look into the machinery for that I think you will find it is unworkable. 278. Mr. Matheson.] If the option of purchase is granted to the Crown leaseholders, do you think it would be a good thing for the colony at large? —Certainly, there is no question about it. 279. Why do you say so? —Because a man having a freehold will do a lot more to his land than a man having a leasehold. The man with the leasehold is something like a tradesman. He makes what he can out of the business, and does not care what becomes of it afterwards. The freeholder works for his family and people coming after him. 280. Mr. McCutchan.] Speaking of these unexpended Government grants, it is the case that if those grants are not spent by the 31st March they lapse? —Yes. 281. Is it not always the case that the votes are put on the estimates the succeeding year? — Yes, sometimes they go on for six or seven years. Three years ago there was £5,500 on the estimates for this county, and out of that only £780 was expended. 282. Does the local body or ±he Government expend the money? —The County Council has the expenditure of the money. 283. Does the Council submit proposals to the Government Engineer for his approval? —I do not know. lam not on the County Council. 284. Is it not probable that no such proposal went from the Council to the Government? —I think it is very probable with the present Council we have. 285. Why do you think it would cause a howl all over the county when it would reduce the rates paid by those living upon and occupying their lands ? —I think it would increase the rates to a marked extent upon poor lands, which are hardly worth having. Where the land is good it might do, but there is a large quantity of very poor land in this district. 286. There would be no increase in the aggregate amount of rates levied? —I think there would be. A man naturally puts a high value on his improvements. 287. Is it the valuer that does that? —The valuer must consult the owner to some extent. 288. But the valuer is supposed to be an expert, and able to form his own opinion? —I have valued for the Government for some years, and I do not consider I am an expert. 289. Were your values protested against? —Very seldom. 290. Was not that a tribute to you as an expert valuer? —I do not know that it was. 291. Are there not a large number of people who are not going in extensively for improvements I—Yes.1 —Yes. 292. Would not rating on unimproved values force those people to go in for improvements? — Yes, it might do that. 293. Do you not think, with regard to the absentee lands, it would compel the owners to reside or improve? —If I thought so I would vote for it to-morrow. If the machinery was available I think rating on the unimproved value would be all right. 294. With reference to the doctor, do you get a subsidy from the Government in connection with the doctor? —Yes, there was an annual subsidy, and there was a guarantee that it would continue so long as the settlers raised a certain amount. 295. What was the amount raised by the settlers themselves? —£100. The Government gave 10s. from the Lands Department and 10s. from the Native Department. 296 Were you successful in getting a doctor? —Yes. 297. Did you fix a scale of fees over and above the bonus? —We fixed a scale for members of the club. If they paid in advance they got the benefit of that scale. 298. Mr. Forbes.] Has your union had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Department. Yes. We have no fault to find with it, except that the Department is rather long-winded about giving advances when they are applied for. If a man here applies for one the money goes to Whangarei, and there is a delay of about a fortnight before he gets it. 299. With regard to the residential conditions on these Crown leases, do you think there is anything out of the way in those conditions? —I think they are far too strict, because men in this district have often to go out and work away from their holdings, and when the Ranger comes along, if he finds a man away he can recommend forfeiture of his land at once, when that man is just trying to earn a living. 300. Would you give the Land Board power to waive those conditions in such cases? I think a man should not be compelled to reside continuously on his land if he is engaged outside on a contract or anything like that. That kind of thing should be taken into consideration. 301. It has been suggested that if double improvements were placed on the sections the residential conditions should be waived: do you think that would be a good thing? —I do not think it would be as good as my suggestion. I think it might give rise to dummyism. 302. Would you leave it more to the discretion of the Land Board to enforce the conditions? — I would wipe out the Land Board altogether and appoint a good man to take its place. 303. Do you think the Commissioner could do that?—No; I think that would be putting too much on his shoulders. I think there should be a good Government land agent, free from political influence, and I believe any question of forfeiture should go before a Magistrate.
717
C.—4.
T. W. P. SMITH. |
304. Mr taul.\ Has any instance come under your notice where a Ranger has visited a section and, finding the man absent, has recommended forfeiture ? —Yes. Some two years ago, when I was in the Waikato, I was staying with a settler, and his son came in in an awful state, saying that his section had been forfeited. The father wanted to know why. The son replied, on account of nonresidence; but he said he was living on his land. I told him he ought to go lip and interview the Land Board at once. He explained to me that he was living on his land, but as it was harvest-time he had been away for three or four days working elsewhere. 305. Was that simply a mistake or was it the general thing? —I do not know much about the general run of it, but that is one case that came to my mind. 306. Was the forfeiture actually carried out? —I came away that day, and have not seen the man since, so that I do not know. William George Puckey examined. 307. The Chairman.] What are you ?- —I am a settler. 1 have been here all my life. I had over 800 acres of land, which I have made over to my sons under an agreement that they shall keep me as long as 1 live. 1 still own about 74 acres. The land is about two miles from here. 308. Do you supply milk to the factory? —Yes. 309. Do you think settlement has improved of late years? —Yes, a good deal of late. 310. 1 suppose the factory is a good thing for the district? —Yes; that has, of course, helped the improvement; but, still, it was improving a good deal before that. 311. And any little that is done to the roads is a means of pushing the district on? —We are getting very little of that. 312. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think the leasehold or the freehold tenure is the best for the settlement of the country? —The freehold. The leaseholder is a slave to the owner of the land. The leaseholder ought not to sing " Rule Britannia," because he cannot say " Britons never shall be slaves." 313. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think a lease with the right of purchase gives a poor man a chance of getting on the land? —Yes, if there is no better way. 314. What do you think would be better? —I think the Government might give them the land. By paying duty on trousers and coats and waistcoats they would pay for it in about three years. 315. Mr. Paul.] Why are leaseholders slaves? —Because they have to pay something to the Government every year, and if they have nothing to pay they are in hot water at once. 316. Is that the only reason? —There may be others, but that is the only reason I can think of at present. The leaseholder has got a master, and if at any time an election comes round he is bound to vote with the man who let him have his land. 317. Do the tenants in Ireland vote for their landlords? —I think they would prefer to own the land altogether. That is the trouble with them. 318. Do you think that the thousands of residents in town who get a small wage and are compelled to lease the cottage and land they live on are slaves too? —I think they are, only they are slaves to a private individual, which is worse. I think it is a hard case for a person to feel that the land he is living on is not his own. When he has a lease he is really the servant of the owner, and he has got to mind his Ps and Qs. 319. If he carries out the conditions of his lease, can any Government official interfere with him? -I think it is very likely they can. The Government is always forward in looking after the " bawbees." 320. Would it not be better to learn more about the leasing business before you come to the conclusion that the Crown tenants are slaves? —I think they are, for all that. I know if I borrow money from a man I am under his thumb until I pay him back. 321. Mr. McCardle.] You think the people in the country should be granted land free. Are you in favour of the Government granting to the working-men in the towns sections of land to build upon free? —I think the people would like it, but is not the land in towns generally held by private individuals. 322. The Government has the means of getting it. The Government has acquired other lands? —Yes, that is so. William Colinson Bunkall examined. 323. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler at Herekino on a village-settlement section obtained under the Ballance Government. I held 40 acres. We were not allowed to take up more than 50 acres. I have an additional 100 acres under lease with right of purchase. I would like to have the right of purchase on the village-settlement section too. I was one of the original settlers. I have also 200 acres of education reserve on a twenty-one-years lease, with the right of renewal, and, in the event of non-renewal, with full valuation for the then improvements. 324. You have come through all the vicissitudes of that settlement, which, we were told, were very hard to begin with? —They were very hard, but 1 have not made my living off the land. I worked away from it; the land would never have kept me. 325. You are probably now in a better position in regard to your land? —I am storekeeping at the present time. 326. Have you done anything in the way of improving your education-reserve lease?— Yes. I pay £1 14s. per year for it. I have grassed about 100 acres, and I have fenced the lot. The grass takes very well Some portion of it was fern land, and by keeping it well stocked I found the cattle tramped out the fern and the grass has taken. 327. Mr. Paul.\ What were the terms under which you took up your 40-acre village section? —Perpetual lease. 328. Did you get any monetary assistance? —Yes, to the extent of £32 —£20 for a house and £12 towards clearing. I pay the Government 5 per cent, on that, and lam not allowed to pay that back.
C—4.
718
W C. BUNKALL.
329. Is your education lease satisfactory? —Yes. 330. What tenure do you favour? —I would like the freehold, and I should like to see every one get the freehold. I think all men who took up land under lease in perpetuity, when they might have had a chance of taking the land up for cash, should still be given the right to acquire the freehold when they are in a position to pay the cash for it. 331. Is the lease in perpetuity a better lease than your education lease? —Yes; but I took up the educational lease because it was right alongside me. 332. Still, the education lease is satisfactory? —Yes, to me. 333. And you have improved it? —Yes, with the expectation of getting my money back. 334. Is it not possible to get your money back on your lease in perpetuity, seeing it is a more valuable and longer lease? —It is a longer lease; but I would like you to show me where I can get the value of my improvements on it out of the Government. If you can show me that, I can answer your question, but not otherwise. The 999-years lease as a tenure is all right; but I think every man who has a stake in the country would prefer the freehold. But there are many who have no stake in the country, and who merely come into the country to work for wages, say, at Be. a day, and as soon as they see a chance of getting 9s. a day somewhere else they slip out, after having enjoyed the benefits and advantages of this colony. That is why I think the Commission should take a different view of the evidence that is brought before them, and not attach as much weight to the evidence of workers in the large centres as to that of country settlers. 335. If a freeholder could sell to advantage here and buy to advantage in another country, would he not do so ? —I dare say he would. We see a great deal of that at the present day. Men have sold land in Taranaki at £25 per acre, and have gone to England and bought 3 acres for the same price. 336. Then, you do not exactly blame the wage-earner if he tries to better himself ? —No; but I do not think he should have the power to sway opinion by fighting the farmer, who is trying to make a livelihood on his farm and a home for himself and his family. 337. Mr. Anstey.] Have you the right of purchase with your perpetual lease? —No, and I cannot even pay the money back. 338. Are you sure of that? —I have applied to do it, and I could not do so. More than that, some of the settlers in the same neighbourhood who took up land on the same conditions and were backward in their rent were allowed to capitalise and take the land up under lease in perpetuity. They are charged 4 per cent, on the capitalised back rent, and they get a rebate of 10 per cent. I still hold my land under perpetual lease, and I cannot get a rebate either on the rent or interest. 339. Do you think there ought to be any restriction on a freeholder as regards residence? — No further than that he should pay rates on the unimproved value. That is the only thing I can see. 340. Should he be allowed to buy the land and leave it as he likes? —My opinion is that he should be compelled to improve it. 341. Would you put the same restrictions on him as you put on leaseholders? —Yes. 342. Are you in favour of rating on the unimproved value? —Yes; I think that is preferable to the improved value for local rating. 343. Mr. Forbes.] Did this special settlement number other settlers besides yourself? —Yes; I think we mustered from ninety to a hundred settlers when we settled there. 344. How many are left now ? —I think thirty of the original settlers are still on the block, but they are not holding under the same tenure. 345. Have the other sections been grouped? —Yes; almost the whole of the block is occupied only in larger sections. 346. Is it all cleared? —Not by a long way; but in the last year or two more has been cleared than was previously. It is broken land, and we go in for dairying and grazing. 347. Do you think, looking back now, it was a great mistake to put people on the land in small blocks? —I do. It is perpetuating poverty to put men on poor, small sections in a neighbourhood where they cannot get work. 1 think there should be nothing less than 300 acres of good bush "land, and a good man ought to be able to make a living on that. 348. Is this district progressing much now? —Yes; I think this neighbourhood is fast getting out of the mud. 349. Is there much Crown land round here which could be thrown open?— Yes, to the left here. It is good pastoral country, and it will take grass well when the bush is cleared off. 350. Have you done anything in the way of trying to get the land thrown open? —I believe the Government have surveyed it; but the roads are not good enough to get the people back to it. There are only bridle-tracks into it now. 351. Mr. Matheson.] Would the expenditure of £2,000 in roads tend to make your settlement much more productive and give you fairly good access to your port or outlet? —It would enhance the value of the district if £2,000 was spent on the main roads. 352. Are you being hampered much for want of better roads? —We would be a great deal better ofi if we had better roads. 353. I understand from your answer that you are very doubtful whether an expenditure of £2 000 would make your district more productive ?—lt would make the district more productive, because people could come into it. 354. Would it be worth £60 a year to your district as a good investment? —I think the settlers in the district would not object to pay rates to the extent of £60 if the money was spent. 355. Then, why do you not raise a loan and do it: all the machinery is provided for you?— We settlers cannot do that. How are we to do it ? 356. Are you not aware that you can through the Loans to Local Bodies Act raise that loan by paying 4 per cent, on it? —I am not aware the settlers themselves can do it.
W. C. BUNKALL.I
719
0.—4.
357. Mr. McCutchan.\ You said that some of the tenants who did not keep up their payments were allowed to convert to the 999-years lease? —That is correct. 358. What were the terms of this particular perpetual lease that was brought into operation in regard to the Herekino Settlement? —It is a lease for a certain time, and then revaluation takes place. 359. Were the tenants who allowed their rent to fall into arrears inferior to the tenants who made their payments? —Naturally, I should think they were. 360. And you consider the 999-years lease a better lease than the perpetual lease? —Decidedly. 361. The good tenants on the block are not allowed to convert, and the bad tenants were allowed to convert: is that the deduction I—No.1 —No. Those who made their payments regularly never allowed their rents to fall into arrears, and did not apply to capitalise. At the same time, they have the same privilege, and can convert to lease in perpetuity if they wish to do so. 362. If they apply to the Land Board now to convert their leases will they be converted? —I have every reason to believe so. I have been asked to convert mine by the Rangers. 363. And why do you complain, then? —I understood the tenants would prefer freehold to lease in perpetuity. 364. Mr. McCardle.] If you forfeit your section and another man applies for it he can take it up under the optional system? —Of course, he can, but I cannot. 365. If you took the risk of forfeiting and applied, what is to prevent you? —I would run the risk of losing it altogether. 366. Mr. McGutchan.] Did these tenants who allowed their rents to fall into arrears forfeit their sections, or were their leases converted without forfeiture? —They must have surrendered, I think. Thomas Fisher examined. 367. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 340 acres of freehold. It is situated at Fairburn. 368. Was it taken up originally under the homestead system? —Yes. I have been there thirteen years. I took this area up under a family arrangement. 369. Is it in grass mostly? —Fully one-half. I had to clear the bush off. 370. Do you entirely give yourself up to farming, or do you work off? —For five years I was not a night off the place, because I did not feel secure if I left. Then I got the freehold, and I could do as I liked. 371. What is your opinion in regard to freehold and leasehold tenure? Which do you think is better for the settler and for the country? —Freehold, most decidedly, for the country and the settler both. 372. Is your land sufficiently advanced to go in for dairying? —Yes. I have a small dairy of twelve to twenty cows. 373. Are you near a dairy factory? —I am three miles away. 374. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I would like to emphasize the fact that freehold is better, because it gives greater security, which, I think, is very important. It is better, because a man working on a freehold is usually better able to finance his section. It is better because his section becomes more productive. It is better because he puts all his energy and all his resources into his land. That is his bank. That is his hope. That is his land. That is his home for the future for his family. The leasehold, in comparison, does not give a man that confidence. He does not put in capital which he may never draw out. He is liable to forfeiture, he knows, in case of difficulties. He keeps an eye always on the back end of his leasehold, and he takes the heart out of his farm before he drops it. When he drops it it is a run-out farm; it has lost its heart. Among farmers who thoroughly understand their business it is known to be a most difficult thing to get heart into the land again. It requires a heavy expenditure and considerable time. The money that is gained by one tenant in taking the heart out of the land would not anything like bring the land into heart again, nor anything approaching it. It is better for a man to go past land that has lost its heart and pay highly for land in good heart. Land in good heart is very productive. If we can get the freehold throughout New Zealand we shall have security, and we shall have great productiveness, and we shall have a contented people, and we shall have a people—every man of them—with property of his own. In times of trouble, in times of war or invasion of the country, these are the men who will be the safety of the country in every respect, and who will do their utmost personally. They would use their energies, and they would use their last penny in the defence of their country. On the other hand, if we have leaseholders, the men are stripped. They pay away rents. Their rents are raised. It goes from bad to worse. Their lands are not productive, and, finally, when the hard times come on the country they are wanting. It means disaster in the future for New Zealand if she does not encourage her people and put them on the land. It is sometimes said that the people should have the land —that is, all the people—that no man should own land. I dissent from that altogether. The people who use land should have the land. The people who will not use the land have no occasion to have the land. They are probably doing better elsewhere for themselves, and they will not do better elsewhere if the man on the land is not allowed to thrive. These are some of my reasons. But there is also the independence of the nation —that is, the freehold. Now, if we look abroad, I have seen the evils of landlordism. Thev are very great. They would eat up everything, and they become worse and worse as time progresses. I have been in Ireland; I was born there; I was bred on the land there. I have seen, too, what was called a good landlordLord Downshire. I have seen tenants paying Is. 6d. per acre for their land when that land was let on an old lease. When that lease fell in they paid 15s. per acre. That was the difference. That was under a good landlord. The lands there were in good heart. Elsewhere, where the landlords were bad, the country was miserable to look at. Not a stick was to be seen. Everywhere
0.—4.
720
j~T. FISHER,
poverty. Again, the freehold has made Holland what it is on the Continent. It has made Canada what it is. It has made the United States what it is. The freeholder is not sat upon in that great and enlightened country. I will not say any more. The freehold is, beyond doubt, the tenure for us. 375. Mr. Paul.\ Does it pay a leaseholder to properly farm his land and look after it? —It would pay a freeholder, and 011 the same conditions a leaseholder; but a leaseholder has seldom the means, and he has not the security. He would not be a leaseholder if he had the means, because he knows the disadvantages. 376. Well, if a leaseholder seldom has the means, is not the leasehold the only way he can occupy the land? If he had the means you say he would be a freeholder? —If a man wants a leasehold to get upon a freehold Ido not see any great difference in that respecf. If he wants a freehold he buys a freehold, and he can raise money on it. He can get assistance at once with all the security that freehold gives. If you take up a leasehold you have nothing. If you go to a man and say you want so-much money on it to improve your farm he will say he cannot do it. 377. But, as a practical farmer, you know there are hundreds of men in this country whose only opportunity to get on the land is by leasehold?—l did not get on the land by leasehold. 378. You got on by the homestead system, which was giving the land away. Do you advocate that the State should give the land away? —Did it injure the colony when I took that land away? 379. I am not speaking of your case at all: we are discussing broad principles? —So am I. 380. I want to know, do you advocate the State giving away the lands of the colony? —No, I do not advocate it; but I do say, if it was done the colony would be a great deal more forward than it is, and the State would be better and richer. I think it would be a good thing in this respect, but I do not advocate it ui the present circumstances, because we cannot do just as we like. 381. Then, is it not a fact that many men can only occupy land by leasehold? —Men can occupy land by leasehold with right of purchase. That I do not object to, because its objective is good and satisfactory. 382. Then, do you think for that more valuable tenure he should pay a higher price? —More valuable than what ? 383. You recognise that freehold is the best tenure? —Yes 384. If he receives a lease with the option of purchase he has a more valuable form of tenure than leasehold: should he pay more for it ? —I would pay more for it for this reason : I would not have a perpetual leasehold of any kind whatever. 385. Do you think that in time of trouble a leaseholder would defend his country? —I think every man in the country would defend it. 386. Not only the freeholder? —Not only the freeholder; but the freeholder is far abler. 387. You said the people who use the land should have the land? —Certainly. 388. Do you mean by that that a man should only own as much land as he can use personally? —I do not. 389. What do you mean exactly? —I mean that any man who goes and makes his living on the land has a right to be reckoned part of the people on the land. A man who will not use the land and make his living on the land has no right to the land. 390. What becomes of the farm labourer, who uses the land but cannot own it? —What becomes of a man having a trade if he remains a workman? It is the same with the farm labourer. If he is a good man he becomes a master —that is, in a free country. Hard-and-fast rules are the ruin of our position. 391. But must there not of necessity be some farm labourers and wage-earners? —Not of necessity, because you cannot get them here under present conditions. If a settler goes in for paid farm-labour here, well, the labourer would soon be the farmer. 392. Then, how do you farm the land? —We struggle along as best we can. Personally, we work hard and long hours, and we intend to defend our position as farmers, because we think we have earned all the increment we get. . 393. Then, what you want is that everybody who works on the land shall own the land? —No ; Ido not want common property at all. I want that when a man works on the land and wishes to own it he can own it by purchasing. 394. But you do not object to a man earning wages by working on the land? —Certainly not. 395. Do you think there is any comparison between the private landlords you spoke of and the State as a landlord?—l do. I would infinitely rather have a private landlord than the State as landlord. 396. Would you prefer a ten-years lease to a 999-vears lease ?—I would prefer a ten-years lease if I could get the freehold at the end of it. 397. But, outside the freehold, do these private landlords give the freehold at the end of ten years?— You can make your terms to fit your purpose at the time; but if you enter into a 999-vears lease and the terms are altered 011 you you have lost your security and property. 398. But if you got a freehold and the State repudiated your title you would be in the same position? —Yes; but we will take jolly good care the State will never repudiate the freehold. 399. Can you not take good care that the State will never repudiate the leasehold?- We are doing it. 400. Mr. Anstey.] You said those who use the land should have it?— Yes. 401. Would you go the length of saying that those who do not use the land should have it taken away from them? —I would not do that. 402. Mr. Matheson.] Have you followed Britain's policy for the land-settlement of Ireland of late years? Are you aware that' Britain is purchasing estates and leasing the land for fifty years, at the end of which term it becomes the property of the occupier?—l am aware of that. 403. Do you think that is a very sound policy for settling lands?—l think it was the only way the country could right a wrong position. The freehold should not have been taken from the
T. FISHER.]
721
C.—4.
people. They had a right to the freehold, and this policy is giving it in the only manner in which it could be conveniently given. 404. Do you think that such a lease would be well applied in New Zealand? —I do not see the application. William Rose examined. 405. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I hold over 500 acres of freehold. It includes 158 acres of leasehold under lease in perpetuity held in my mother's name. I pay £2 4s. 6d. per annum for it. I have held it two or three years. I was born and bred in the district. I own land in Awanui and Fairburn. 406. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission? —I am representing the Fairburn branch of the Farmers' Union. It is the centre of a large dairying and grazing district. The settlers are all in favour of the freehold tenure? —That is my own conviction. Several settlers like myself have had the misfortune to take up land under lease in perpetuity, and they are dissatisfied witli it. 407. What objection have you to it? —We prefer the freehold. We work with more energy and more heart and more confidence. The position of some of these settlers who have taken up land tinder lease in perpetuity is rather a deplorable one. They long for the freehold, and there is no provision in the Act making it optional for them to acquire the freehold. The only course they can pursue is to continue as they are, or to forfeit or surrender their holdings. If they were to forfeit or surrender they would not be eligible to apply for that land again until the end of a long term, and at the end of that term the property may have been secured by some one else. If the original owner does manage to ge£ it it would in all probability be on a revaluation, and he would have to pay in hard cash for improvements that he had effected perhaps at considerable expense, and at all events by hard labour. I will mention the case of one, only I prefer not to mention a name. He has leased 104 acres under lease in perpetuity. He has held it for about five years. During that time he has fulfilled the conditions of improvements faithfully and well. He approached the Government for a loan of £50 to buy cattle to eat off his grass, which would otherwise deteriorate in value. A Government official was sent up, and was quite satisfied with the improvements —in fact, he valued them at £160. Notwithstanding that, the settler was unable to obtain £50, which was less than a third of the improvements he had effected. I think that there should be an alteration in the three tenures. I think the cash purchaser should be compelled to effect the same improvements as the people who take up land under occupation-with-right-of-purchase leases or lease in perpetuity. I think that a settler who holds land under occupation with right of purchase should be allowed to purchase the freehold when he can, and how he can, and either at the end of one year or at the end of thirty years, just whenever it is most convenient to him, and I think it should be by instalments or in a lump sum. With reference to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. I think that by all means there should be a clause enabling the Crown tenant to acquire the freehold. I know there are some who say they are perfectly satisfied with the tenure, and prefer it to any other. If that is so let them have it, but let those who wish for the freehold have the option of acquiring it. There is a great deal being said about the homestead system, and I think it is a very good one, subject, however, to some slight alterations in the conditions. I think anything less than 150 acres is no use to a person up here. I think also there should be some provision made for a deceased settler's wife or heirs taking over the land in the event of the settler dying before the end of the five years. Ido not think a settler should be allowed to select on behalf of the different members of his family. I would prefer each member of the family being allowed to select for himself or herself when they reach a certain age, say, seventeen years. That is all I have to say. 408. Mr. Paul.'] How many members are there in your branch? —I do not know. It has been lately formed. 409. Can you say what proportion are Crown tenants? —A very small proportion. 410. Is there anything in the leasehold which interferes with you farming the land to good advantage? —No, but there is nothing to prevent revaluation at any time. 411. Is there anything to prevent a considerable increase in the graduated land-tax on freehold at any time? —No, nor on the other either. 412. Is this district progressing? —Yes, it has considerable merit, and that is the principal cause of its progress. 413. The settlers are fairly prosperous? —Yes. 414. I suppose there are some poor freeholders? —Yes, there are freeholders, but they are no poorer than the others —in fact, not so poor, because they are more contented. The others, as I have already stated, are dissatisfied. 415. Are the freeholders mainly old settlers?- Yes, largely. 416. Mr. Anstey.~\ Are the leasehold settlements of somewhat recent date? —Yes, comparatively so. They are within the last five or six years. 417. You say the district has progressed much more rapidly lately than previously: does the introduction of the leasehold system account for that? —Decidedly not. 418. It is rather strange that the increased progress of the district should be somewhat coincident with the introduction of the leasehold settlement ? —I think you have misunderstood me. I did not suggest that at all. 419. We had evidence to-day that the district has progressed much more rapidly lately, and that the old settlers did not progress much until the last few years? —I admit that, but the dairy factory we lately started lias greatly contributed to that progress. 420. I suppose some leaseholders took shares in it? —Not that lam aware of. In fact, I feel quite sure they did not.
91—C. 4.
0.—4.
722
[W. BOSE.
421. Mr. McCutchan.] You have been asked a question about the progress of the district lately in contradistinction to its stagnation before: is not that progress entirely due to the increased price of produce, and not in any way dependent on the matter of tenure? —Very largely, I did not wish to insinuate that the form of tenure had anything to do with the progress of the district.
Mangonui, Feiday, 12th May, 1905. William Gahton, Jun., examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a farmer, and farm 1,700 acres—a sheep-farm. Part of it is freehold and part occupation with right of purchase. Under occupation with right of purchase I have 732 acres, and I have recently got an intimation from the Land Board that I have been successful in regard to 180 acres more. For the 732 acres lam paying 7s. 6d. an acre, and I will pay similar rent for the 180 acres. This property is about six miles from Mangonui. I have been forty years in this district. 2. Have your relations with the Land Board been satisfactory?— Yes. 3. What is your opinion with respect to the constitution of the Land Board ?—I have not thought over that matter. 4. In your opinion, what is the best tenure for the general prosperity of the country, and also in the interests of the settlers —freehold or leasehold ?—The freehold is, most decidedly. A person having a leasehold has not the same interest in the land as a person holding a freehold. The deferred-payment system and the occupation with right of purchase are very good systems. I would like, however, to draw attention to the residence conditions. In the north, on this poor land, a poor man cannot make enough from the land itself to support himself and his family whilst he is improving it. 5. But if there were no residence conditions would not that tend to bring about what is called dummyism ? —I think there should be a certain amount of improvements insisted on, and in such cases Ido not think the residence conditions should be strictly enforced. If the land was really first-class land and you could cultivate it, it would be different; but in the case of my two sections, for instance, there is hardly an acre of land that you can cultivate. There is no land that you can .plough and cultivate, and there are many other settlers who are in a similar position to myself. 6. In our travels throughout the northern part of the colony we have noticed a great deal of unoccupied land, some freehold and some Native land. Is that a drawback to the district ?—-I think that compelling a person to reside on some of these poor sections is almost equal to starving him, because he must go out to earn his living while he is improving the land. 7. Have you had much experience in grazing this poor land ?—Yes ; twenty years' experience. 8. What do you do?— The only thing to do is to burn off and surface-sow. Some of the land will not hold English grasses, and in such cases it nearly all goes back to danthonia. 9. What is your opinion of danthonia as a feeding grass ?—I am not very much in favour of it, I was in favour of it at first, but I am not now. During the dry summer season it is almost useless. It is useful in the case of land subject to tea-tree and fern, because you can burn the teatree and fern off and the danthonia will come up again, but I would not advise any one who has land that will hold English grasses to sow danthonia. 10. What stock do you keep on the 1,700 acres ?—About five hundred sheep and forty head of cattle. 11. You have about 600 acres of freehold?— Yes. 12. What is the rest of your land ?—I have 460 acres of private leasehold land. ,13. Then, you have about 2,000 acres altogether?— Yes. 14. Is the freehold land all under grass ?—No. 15. Is it capable of grassing ?—There is about 200 acres of bush on it. 16. What grasses have you sown on the freehold ?—Cocksfoot, rye, crested dogstail, fescue of different kinds, and the only kind remaining is Waipu brown-top. 17. Have the English grasses died out ? —Yes. 18. Have you sown danthonia?—No. It is just like a meadow in the summer, and the sheep and cattle carry it about on their wool and legs and in their droppings. 19. You do not consider it a good grass ?—lt is only good for clearing land. It is very fair feed during the winter and early spring, but it does not compare favourably with English grasses if they will hold. 20. Can you get rid of the danthonia ?•—No. 21. Do you succeed in making a living off your farm ? —We just get a living. 22. What area ought a man to have to be able to make a living without having to go outside ? —In the case of some of this land 5,000 acres would not keep a man and his family unless he worked outside. I think that when a man has taken up some of this poor land and he has put improvements on the land the Government ought to give him a clear title to it. It really is not worth anything, comparatively speaking. 23. But on the 1,700 acres you succeed in making a living ?—lt is, perhaps, a little better than the general run of the land around here. 24. Will the whole of the 1,700 acres take danthonia?—-Most of it will. The land will not carry the same amount of stock under danthonia as under English grasses. If my land would carry English grasses I would have more stock on it than I have now.
723
W. GABTON, JUN.]
a—4.
25. Mr. Forbes.] Do you know the conditions of the lease in perpetuity ? What are your objections to that form of tenure ?—I do not think a man has the same interest in his land as under the freehold, or as if he had the right of purchase. 26. But he has it for 999 years. Is not that practically a freehold ?—Yes; but you have always to pay rent, and our taxes and rates are heavy enough, without having to pay the rent in addition. 27. You think that if a man has a freehold he will be able to do better?—He has more interest in the land. 28. You have no objection to the length of the term of the lease in perpetuity? — The term is long enough, but I think it should be left open to the tenant to convert it into a freehold. I think that a person should have the right of taking up land under deferred payment, option with right of purchase, lease in perpetuity, or cash. 29. What has struck us in going through the district has been the small amount of improvements done on much of the land in the district. It would appear that the greatest thing the settler wants is capital to make improvements?— Yes. 30. Would it not be better for them to put their money into the land rather than try to buy it ? —I have seen people put their money into the land and hardly get any return from it. 31. Do you not think it would be better if the State let out the land on leasehold, so that a man could put his money into clearing it and making the land reproductive ?—I have not thought over that question. lam in favour of the freehold. 32. Personally, that is your feeling; but does it not strike you that what is wanted in this district to make the land reproductive is capital, and in the case of the leasehold a man would have his capital to clear the land and make it reproductive ?—Yes ; but I have seen many a man come to this district, spend his money on freehold land and in trying to improve it, and he has had to go away without a penny, because the land would not return interest on his money, and sometimes he has not been able to sell it afterwards. 33. Are there many men holding leaseholds about here ?—-There are several that I know of, and there are a good many in the inland districts. I may say that one of the best systems we have had here was the homestead system. 34. Was that a success ?—I think so. 35. Did the men who took up homestead sections remain on the land, or have they sold out?—Some of them have remained on the land, and some of them have sold out. 36. Do you think they did good to this part of the country? —Nearly all the land the Commission came through from Kaitaia was taken up under the homestead system 37. We have heard that danthonia is going to be the salvation of the north : You seem to have a different opinion of it. Has it ever been thoroughly experimented with ?—During a part of the year it is good, but when it comes to the seeding season the sheep will die off amongst it with the grass up to their knees. The grass then becomes just like a dry thread. 38. There is no nourishment in it, then, at that time ?—That is so; but on the other hand, it will take possession of light soils in a very little time. 39. Then, you do not think it is altogether an unmixed blessing?—lt will spread on land that you cannot plough, and it is the only thing that will assist in clearing some of the land. You may burn off the tea-tree and fern and it will do well. But if English grasses will hold on any land I say keep danthonia away. 40. Mr. Matheson.] Have you tried paspalum on your land?—We have been trying it a little lately, but I am not in favour of it. 41. Have you sown in on the hills ?—Yes, I have sown it in numbers of places. 42. How long is it since you first tried some of it on the hills ?—About four years. 43. Will it hold its own against danthonia?—Yes, the sheep will not allow it to go to seed. You will sometimes find a little paspalum in the middle of a patch of danthonia, and the sheep have eaten almost into the roots of the paspalum, and they have left the danthonia untouched. 44. Do you think the homestead system is the best to adopt to settle this poor land?— Yes, land that is worth taking up at all; but there is some of the land that is not worth taking up under any circumstances. 45. But, in the case of land that can be profitably occupied, do you think it is one of the best systems ? —Yes. 46. Do you think the lease with the right of purchase is also good ?—Yes. 47. Mr. McCardle.] You think it is good for the country to adopt a system that will bring about a profitable settlement of the land?— Most decidedly, and anything that will help the settlers. 48. If the country is to be prosperous the land must be profitably occupied?— Yes. 49. The land produces all the wealth that exists in the country, does it not ?—I suppose it does. There is much land about here that you can get nothing from. 50. In that case would it not be the best thing to abandon that land. We are anxious to know from you whether this land is worth settlement, and under what conditions it can be made profitable to the country ?—There is land being surveyed now that is not worth paying taxes upon. 51. Have you got any land here at all that is fit to settle on?— There are areas inland that are suitable. 52. In what way do you think that land should be settled?—l think under the homestead system, or by giving the settlers a chance of acquiring the freehold. 53. You think that, if a man came here and took up a leasehold section and could make nothing out of it, he would leave it ?—Yes. 54. If he had a freehold do you think he would continue to hold it ?—No; he would try to get rid of it if he saw he could make nothing out of it.
a—4.
724
[W. GABTON, JUN.
55. I saw some land that seemed to me to be suitable for settlement ?—ln some of the valleys there is some land that is good. 56. Do you not think that by draining some of the land you could get rid of its sourness and render it suitable for settlement ?—There is a lot of land that could be made profitable if it were drained. 57. Do you think it is a good thing in the interests of the country to find cheap money for settlers. Is it not cheap money that brings about the settlement of the poor country ? —I think that system is an advantage to a man, if his land is worth improving, that he should be able to get a little money at a low rate of interest. 58. Mr. McCutchcm.] With reference to the residence conditions, do you think they act prejudicially to the settler's interest ?—I think, when the conditions involve compulsory residence, they do not allow a man to earn a little extra money to help him along. 59. But is there not a period of years during which there is exemption from residence? —Yes. The objection I have to it is chiefly this: that in many cases it makes it extremely difficult to educate the children, and a man may not have the means to give a private education to his children. For instance, I have had to apply to the Board two or three times to allow my family to reside away from the section for the purpose of the children being educated. 60. If residence conditions were not enforced how would you check dummyism ?—By limiting the area of land taken up. 61. But the limitation of the area will not do away with dummyism unless the residence conditions are enforced, because a man may be holding land for an absentee ?•—I think the Board should have the power, under certain conditions, of allowing a man to reside off his section. 62. How long did you find she English grasses last before danthonia took their place?—ln one case it was only about three years before they began to disappear and the danthonia began to appear. Up to six or seven years you will probably find a little cocksfoot in it. 63. Did you find crested dogstail go out too ?—Yes; the only grass that we found stood on the improved land was twitch-grass and Waipu brown-top and a kind of fescue, which is a spreading grass, and I think it will hold. It is very good for sheep, but I do not think it is good for large stock. 64. You said that danthonia, when it gets old, loses its nutritive value, and that sheep will die on it ?—Yes. 65. You said that the grass went to seed. Do you not think that was the cause of the death of your sheep?— No. 66. Is it not the case that English grasses, if allowed to seed, will sometimes kill sheep if they are allowed to grow long —cocksfoot, for instance?—l do not know. 67. You advocated the reintroduction of the deferred-payment system. Is it not a great disadvantage, the 25 per cent, increase on the capital value ? —I think it should be left open, so that a person may take up the land under that tenure if he wishes to do so. The occupation with right of purchase I really consider the best. It allows a man to take up the land and use his capital to the best advantage, and ultimately purchase the land. 68. Mr. Paul.] Have you had any experience of the land-for-settlements system?—No; only of the deferred-payment system and the occupation with right of purchase. 69. None of the land-for-settlements lands have come under your notice?— No. 70. In giving your opinion as to the best tenure you are not including them? —No, because I do not understand them. 71. Do you think that land that will not support a man decently is a good investment?— No. I think, if a man cannot get sufficient land to make his living upon it, it is better that he should leave it alone. 72. Do you think that the land in this district is suitable for any sort of settlement ?—I am very positive a lot of it is not suitable. 73. There are several timber reserves between Mangonui and Kaitaia. Do you think they should be thrown open for settlement?—l cannot say. 74. Do you approve of selling land straight out for cash?—l think it should be left open. 75. Do you think there should be any limitation of area? —If it is good land, and a man is buying it simply for speculation, I think there should be a limitation of area. 76. Is there much land in this district held by absentees ? —I think there is a good deal. A lot of it is of very little use. 77. Do you not think rating on the unimproved value would be an improvement, and perhaps alter that state of things to some extent ? —I am opposed to rating on the unimproved value. 78. You think that as a man improves his holding his rates should increase?—l am not in favour of that altogether. It is only taxing a man's improvements. 79. Is the absentee land a drawback to the district ?—lf it is good land I should say it is. Otherwise, I do not know that it is. 80. Do you think it would be better if the district were as closely settled as possible ?—Provided that the land is suitable for people to settle on it. 81. Can it be in the interests of the district that land should be held by absentees?—ls it not in the interests of the district. 82. Would it not be fair to compel the owners of that land to pay a proportion of the rates? — They should be compelled to pay rates if those people are holding land that might be profitably occupied by some one. 83. You have a private lease' of 464 acres? —Yes. 84. What is the length of your lease ?—lt is a yearly lease. 85. Is that satisfactory to you ? —lt is merely a homestead for the family whilst the children are going to school.
W. GASTON, JTJN.]
725
C—4.
86. Do you use the land for grazing ? —Only for growing a few oats. 87. Have you improved it at all ? —I have put up buildings and done some fencing, and I also cultivate it. A lot of it is really not worth improving. 88. Would you get valuation for your improvements if you went out? —No. 89. Is that tenure satisfactory?—No; but I have taken it up because it enables me to get my children educated. It is not Government land, and I can purchase it any moment I like. 90. Then, it is not a year-to-year lease ? —I can purchase the land if I wish. 91. Is there any period of time set down in the lease ?—I do not know that there is. 92. You favour the homestead system : do you think the homestead settler should contribute anything towards roads and bridges, or do you think the State should give the land and make the roads and bridges out of the consolidated revenue ?—They are rated, are they not. 93. Is there any dummyism being practised in this neighbourhood ?—Not that I am aware of. 94. Are there no areas being selected for the timber on them ?—There may be, but I am not aware of any. 95. Has the Land Board harshly enforced residence in any case that has come under your notice ?—I do not think so. 96. Then, the Land Board has dealt with these conditions as a sensible body of men ?—1 cannot speak for every one. 97. But so far as your experience goes ? —I am satisfied. 98. Has the Banger been harassing the settlers or doing anything that makes them feel aggrieved ?—Not that I am aware of. 99. Mr. Anstey.] What are the residence conditions that you complain of ? Is a man compelled to reside continuously on his section—must he sleep every night on it ?—I am opposed to the residence conditions for the reasons I have given and in such cases as I have mentioned. 100. Do the residence conditions prevent a man going out to a day's work or stopping away for a week or a month ?—They compel you to reside on the land. Joseph Poster examined. 101. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a settler, and hold about 640 acres of freehold land in the Mongonui County. I have been here nearly all my life. The greater part of my land is cleared. Part is in grass and part is covered with tea-tree and rushes. I run sheep and cattle on it. A portion of it is ploughable. We cultivate produce for our own use. It is freehold land, and was purchased for cash from a private person. 102. Have you had any experience of danthoma ?•—My experience is that it is a very poor grass. 103. What grasses have you on your place ?—lt is nearly all Poci brownii. 104. Have you ever tried cocksfoot ? —Yes, a little bit now and then. 105. Does it do well?—lt does well on low land but not on hills. 106. Mr. Anstey.] Is your land all in grass ?—No, some of it is under tea-tree and rushes. 107. Is the tea-tree more on the hilly land ?—Yes. 108. Could you not grass it down with danthonia or something else, and make it more profitable than tea-tree ?—I could if I were a millionaire. 109. You think it would not be profitable to do that ? —I am sure it would not. 110. You think it better to leave it run into tea-tree than sow down with danthonia ?—You might burn the tea-tree off. There is no use talking about improving that land. I know one man here, and he has been told that he must reside on his land and improve it. I took a member of Parliament one day to see it, and said to him, " How can you improve that land? " and he replied, " I do not know ; " and I said, " Nor more do I." 111. Then, it is better to leave it alone than try to improve it ?—lt is better to leave it as it is than to plough it and make it a brickyard. 112. How many sheep do you keep on your place ? —About three hundred. 113. Do you think you would keep less if you grassed the land ?—lf you could get grass to grow you could keep more sheep on it. 114. What is your idea in regard to the tenure of the land ?—I go for freehold straight. 115. Do you think the leasehold would be suitable for settlement ?—I am not in favour of landlordism. 116. Mr. Forbes.] Is all the land around here of about the same quality?— No. 117. You do not think danthonia is going to be the salvation of the land here ?—I would like some of the members of the Commission to try some of this land. 118. Do you find that stock will not eat danthonia?—They are not fond of it. 119. Sheep do not seem to take to it if they can find any other feed ?—That is so. Danthonia will fill but it will not fatten. 120. Has this land gone up in value?— No. I think it should go down in value, as far as the Government is concerned. 121. How long have you had your place?— About seven years. 122. Is the land less in value than it was when you took it up ?—The land remains very much the same as it did when I took it up. 123. If a man wanted to sell out, would he get any advance in price for his land ?—I am afraid if I wanted to sell out I would not get what I have expended on the land with all my improvements. 124. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the State would be wise to encourage more settlers to come here ?—I think the settlers already here should have the first option. 125. Do you think the State would be wise to encourage more people to come here to settle ? —I think they should have the option of doing so if they wished. The more people that settle on the land here the better.
a—4.
726
fj. FOSTER.
126. What do you think is the best way to encourage them to come?—l could not say. 127. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think it would induce people to come if the Government were to give them the land on the homestead system, on condition that they spend so-much money in improving the land ?—Yes. 128. Would you give them this poor land on the same conditions?— Yes, so long as it is rateable. 129. Do you think the Government would be honest in inducing people to come on those conditions?—A man would come and see the piece of land before he purchased it, or he would be a fool. 130. But numbers of people have gone on land without seeing it ?—I would simply burn the scrub off and let cattle run on it. 131. Do you cultivate some of your land ? —Yes. 132. Have you much you can plough ? —About 20 acres, I should think. 133. Do the rushes come up at all after it has been grassed in course of time ? —Sometimes they do. 134. Do you not think it would be better to drain that land ?—lt is drained. 135. And still the rushes come up ?—Yes, a little. 136. Is that an indication that more draining is wanted ?—The difficulty here is in getting the tiles. 137. But on this stiff clay ground you could drain without tiles ?—You must be a smart man if you could do that. 138. I will show you that it can be done after this sitting. Have you any experience of advances to settlers ?—No. They have advanced me no money. 139. Do they advance to anybody ?—I do not inquire into my neighbours' affairs. 140. You do not watch the trend of politics?— No. 141. Mr. McGutchan.] We have heard a good deal of conflicting evidence as to the merits of danthonia. We had evidence this morning that sheep fatten on it, and we have heard also that sheep die on it. Do your sheep die on it ?—No. On the run, if they do not like the danthonia they can leave it. My three hundred sheep run all over the country. 142. Are they grazing solely on your own ground?— Yes. 143. Is your place ring-fenced ?—Hardly a settler in the north is ring-fenced. 144. Do your sheep die sometimes ? —Yes ; sometimes. 145. Do you think it is the danthonia that has killed them ?—Certainly not. I believe if they were fenced in they would die. 146. Is the place subdivided at all ?—Yes. The cattle and sheep run together here and there. 147. Have you got fat sheep ?—Yes. 148. Have you any trouble in rearing the hoggets ?—We had some time ago, but we introduced romney into the breed, and it seems to be successful. 149. Is it your experience that sheep will leave danthonia and go to other feed ?—Yes. 150. Mr. Paul.] What did this land cost you per acre? —I gave £270 for 414 acres, and I gave £80 for another 200 acres. 151. How does that compare with the Government valuation of adjoining land ? — The adjoining land was sold at 7s. 6d. an acre. 152. Was your land improved when you got it?— Yes. 153. Then, you could hardly compare the land you bought with the land the Government offered for sale?— What the Government offered for sale alongside my allotment was hill country. There was only just a good patch here and there alongside the creek. 154. Do you think it would be better, in the interests of settlement, if a man were prevented from holding large areas, and if settlement were pushed on on the good land and the poor hill country allowed to lie idle?—l think it would be for the benefit of the colony. There is plenty of good bush land, lam told, lying idle and of no use to any one. I have heard there were about half a dozen settlers who went on to Fairburn about eighteen months ago to take up land, and after loitering about there for about six months they could not get it. 155. Were they looking for Crown lands ?—Yes. 156. Is there any land owned by absentees in this district?— Very little. 157. Is there more further away ?—I do not know. 158. Do you think, in regard to this inferior land, the Government should give a settler a bonus to go on it as well as give him the land ? —All the good ground has been picked out of the land that I am talking about, and I think if the Government would sell it for its real value the settlers would take it up and run cattle upon it, and the county would be able to rate it at a fair value. That would increase the rates to a certain extent. 159. Do you think the district would ever be prosperous under conditions like that if the Government opened the land and let cattle run over it ?—Do you not think it would be better than leaving it as it is. 160. Could the district be settled without fencing being done ? —Some of the ground would not pay for posts and wire. 161. Would it not, then, be just as well in its natural state if it carries timber?— The ground I am speaking of does not carry timber. It is simply waste land. 162. Then, it is a mistake to put settlers upon it?— You could not do so. Joseph Edwin Shaver examined. 163. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler holding 165 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have been holding the land about nine years. It is about twelve miles away from here. 164. What rent do you pay ?—ss. is the capital value. It is nearly all swamp land.
C—4.
J. E. SHAVEE.]
727
165. What do you do with the land ?—I started to run some stock on it, but got rid of them when I went away to work elsewhere. I work for farmers—bushfelling and so on. 166. Do you go in for gum-digging ?—Sometimes, but not much. 167. Is there much gum in your locality?— Just a little away from where I live is all gum land. 168. Are there many people digging for gum in your vicinity ?—Yes, in the summer-time. 169. What sort of average wage would they get out of it?— This summer the average man has made very little over his tucker. 170. Then, a married man could not support a family at all ?—I fancy the storekeepers could give you a good idea about that. I think the storekeepers have kept a good many of them. They get into debt with the storekeeper and then clear out. 171. That seems very bad business for the storekeeper?— They do get crippled over it. I would like to say that there are a few odd gum-diggers here and there who have made up to 9s. a day last summer. 172. Is the yield per man getting less and less every year?— Yes ; they have to dig deeper and take inferior gum than they took years ago. 173. Mr. Anstey.] Your section, I suppose, is poor land ?—That is a question I find it rather hard to answer, as I have not got it drained properly. lam of opinion that when it is drained it will be very good land. 174. It is capable of much improvement?— Yes, it requires getting into order ; but I cannot go ahead with it very fast. 175. You are improving it somewhat ? —Oh, yes. 176. What would you suggest ijs the best way of settling men like yourself to bring that land into profitable production ?—lf it were possible for the Government to offer any kind of labour, so that the settlers could go and earn money for their improvements, it would be a good thing. And these loans to settlers would be a good thing. 177. When you have the land fully improved and grassed, is there enough for you to make a fair living ?—Yes. 178. What could you grow ?—lf it was cleared you could grow anything you liked, pretty well. 179. Oats, wheat, and maize ?—I do not know about wheat, but you could grow anything else. 180. Could you fatten pigs ?—Yes. 181. Is there a market for them ?—There is a marked for them at a price, I suppose. 182. Is your holding all swamp land ?—I took no hill country. About forty acres of it is on the foreshore. It is a black, loamy sort of land. 183. Are you satisfied with the lease in perpetuity ?—No 184. What is the matter with it? —So far as I can see, it will be revalued in a few years, and I shall have to pay a higher rent for my land in about fifteen or twenty years. 185. Is that in your lease?— Yes. 186. Have you read the lease ?—Part of it. 187. Which is the clause which says it is to be revalued ?—I cannot remember now. 188. If you were satisfied that there was to be no revaluation for 999 years, do you think it would be a satisfactory lease ?—I do not know. If I were sure there was to be a revaluation I should have no fault to find, because I look on it differently from most people. Some people reckon if they owned the land they would be better off, but I do not see that. 189. Do you think your rent is likely to cripple you at any time ? —No. 190. We are told there are certain lands that pay no rates ? —That is absentee land, I believe. 191. Is it freehold ?—I believe it first came to them from the Maoris—that is, the land near my place. 192. Where is the owner living ?—I could not tell you. 193. Does it pay any rates at all ?—I am not aware that there are any rates on that land. 194. Do you think absentees ought to be made to pay rates ?—Decidedly. Why should the people" alongside of them and who improve their land be made to pay. 195. You do not think the more you improve your land the more rates you should have to pay?— Yes; of course it is right you should pay more rates as the value increases. 196. Do you think the man who does not improve his land should pay an increased rate ?— Yes; because he has got his land as a speculation. 197. Do you think the county ought to introduce the system of rating on unimproved values? —Yes. 198. Mr. Forbes.] Is it true that the land round about here is such that very little can be done to it in the way of improvements ?—Yes ; there is a good deal of land that is really valueless, but there is other land lying idle which, if taken up and well drained, would be very good land. A good deal of it would carry hundreds of cattle where it is not carrying any sheep now. 199. Is there much swamp land of a similar quality to your own ?—Yes; but at present it is within the gum-reserve area, and it is not allowed to be taken up. 200. Are there many men employed about there getting gum ?—Yes, hundreds, I suppose. 201. Any Austrians?—Yes, there are always Austrians where there is gum. 202. Would they make good settlers ?—Yes, in some other country. 203. You do not believe in them for this country ? —No. 204. Do they not make good farmers ? —They are a class of people I do not care about mixing with. lam speaking of them in the mob. One or two of them might make good settlers. 205. Mr. Matheson.] Where is your land?—My land goes down to the shore at Doubtless Bay. 206. Are you anywhere near Lake Ohia?—l am further north, at the end of the bush.
C.-4.
728
[j. E. SHAVEE.
207. Are there any Austrians near you who have taken up land ?—-No. 208. Do you think some of that swamp land near you could be profitably settled ?—Yes. 209. Can you suggest any new way of inducing people to go there ?—The only way would be to throw it open for selection. I believe that people have wanted to take it up—perhaps on account of the gum. 210. Is there gum there ?—There is some gum at the back of my place. 211. Do you think if that land were offered under lease in perpetuity it would be taken up as readily as under lease with the right of purchase?—l could not say. 212. Mr. McCutchan.] How long have you been away from your land?—l have lived upon it very little. I would not be there more than a couple of weeks at a time. I have put up a house, and am making improvements. 213. How long is it since you took it up ?—Nine or ten years. 214. Have the Land Board harassed you with regard to residence conditions ? —No; the Ranger knew of my going away, and he assured me that the Board would not harass me with regard to residence. 215. Mr. Paul.'] Is there much land in the district held for the sake of the gum ?—When a man takes up land you cannot tell what he holds it for. There is some land which I think is taken up entirely for the gum. 216. Is there any land held for the timber alone?—l do not know. I am not in a timber district. 217. Mr. Anstey.] What is the general rate of wage you get for farm-labouring here? —-It runs from about 10s. to £1. Sometimes £1 ss. is paid, but that would be for special work, such as driving a team. I think the average wage would be 12s. or 155., with board. 218. Mr. Forbes.] Is the work mostly contract-work or weekly wage ?—Mostly weekly wage. William John Harris examined. 219. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a County Clerk. I have been twenty-five years in that position. I have other work outside that. 220. Your Chairman told us yesterday that your income was from £1,500 to £1,700 a year for the whole county, and that out of that you have to do what you can to keep your roads in repair? —Yes, and all working-expenses. 221. He said you could not accomplish anything like what was required out of that?— No. 222. Your revenue is sometimes augmented by grants from the Government?— Yes. 223. We were told that these grants are very unreliable?—lt depends on the amount of money the Government have at their disposal. 224. We were further told that money is sometimes voted and not expended ?—Well, we have a good member, and he takes care that there is no humbugging of that kind. 225. Would it not be better that it should be fixed by law what money should come out of consolidated revenue towards roading the country ?—lf the Government advanced a certain sum per annum we could always depend upon getting a certain amount of work done ; but often we get our grants just as the winter is coming on, and then, of course, the cost of carrying out the work is nearly doubled. 226. Do not the Government sometimes do the work independently of the County Council ? —Yes, the Roads Department do that. 227. Mr. Anstey.] What is the number of ratepayers in the district?—We have a roll, but I have never counted them up. 228. Do you know the number of dwellings ?—-I could not say. 229 Are there twice as many ratepayers as there are dwellings ?—Three times as many. More than half the ratepayers are absentees. The bulk of them are 40-acre men, who do not reside, though most of them pay rates. 230. Has there ever been a proposal to introduce the system of rating on unimproved value in this county ?—Yes, but it fell through. The people were not in favour of it, but I think they are working round to it now. 231. Do you think it would be a wise thing ?. —Yes. 232. Would your annual revenue suffer ?—No ; because we could keep on raising the rates to make it equal. 233. I understood you to say the Government grants were always spent. We had evidence yesterday to the effect that a grant of £200 was not spent ?—That might happen occasionally. I was speaking generally. 234. Why was that £200 not spent ? —I could not tell you. 235. Has your member not been as smart as usual in seeing that it was expended? —Yes ; but you cannot account for some things the Government do. 236. Do you think it a wise thing for a local body to depend on these grants ?—No; but, unfortunately, we cannot do without them. 237. Do you think it would be wise to double the subsidy and do away with the grants ?— Double the subsidy would not be sufficient. 238. Suppose they made it three or four times as large ?—Yes; if they made the amount up in some way it would be all right. 239/ Would it not be better to have an assured finance ? —Yes; we should know what we were doing then. 240. Would the ratepayers be willing to pay increased rates if they could get larger subsidies ? —Yes. 241. What is your rate now ?—ljd. 242. Mr. Forbes.] In the case of sections abandoned, what do you do in the matter of rates?— Summonses are issued, and, as time goes on, the sections are sold, but it is a very slow process. We
W. J. HAEEIS.j
729
a—4.
have numbers of sections unsold and in the Court now for sale for the rates, but it takes years to get them through. The matter has to lie in the hands of the Public Trustee for some years. 243. Mr. Matheson.] What have your grants averaged for the last ten years?— They have averaged fully £700. 244. Are there any loans for which special rates are levied ?—No. 245. Are you aware that some counties have borrowed as much as £40,000 in order to make roads in their districts ? —I know they have borrowed large sums. 246. Do you think in such cases it would be right for the Government to pay half the interest on the special loans so raised, seeing that the roads are being made for all time ?—Yes, it would help us to keep the roads in repair. 247. Mr. McCutchan.~\ By whom are the Government grants spent?—A portion by the county and a portion by the Roads Department. 248. Do you think that dual control is a good thing ? —I think the county is better able to do the work than the Roads Department, and we could do it more economically. 249. Why ? —The Eoads Department have a number of officials to pay. I think it would be better if the county took over the entire expenditure. 250. Is there any other reason except the numerous staff?—No, that is the chief reason. 251. Is any of your work done by contract?— Yes, nearly all contract. 252. Can you say how the subsidies are regulated by the Government ?—They give a subsidy of 10s. in the pound on the rates. 253. Is it always 10s., no matter what the rates may be ? Is the subsidy decreased after a of rates is collected? —I think so, but I cannot say positively. 254. Do you levy a general rate-and a separate rate ?—A general rate until this year, when we levied a separate rate for hospital purposes. 255. Do you levy a separate rate for by-roads?— No. 256. Do you keep road accounts ?—Yes, so far as the Government grants are concerned. 257. But not in connection with the rates you levy?— No. 258. How do you do justice to the different localities when the applications come in for money to be expended on any particular road?—lf the county has the funds the road is repaired. 259. In that way might not rates be collected over a period of years from settlers in a particular locality, and when they made application there would be no funds available?— That might happen, but they would get it eventually. 260. Do you not think it would be better to keep road accounts so that each road would get strict justice ? —I think it would mean endless labour. 261. Mr. Paul.] Do you own any land?— Yes, about 1,000 acres. 262. On what tenure?— Nearly all freehold. 263. What do you consider is the best form of tenure ?—The freehold. 264. Have you had any experience of work done by co-operative labour ?—No. The small amount of day-labour we employ is unsatisfactory. 265. It has been represented to us that the Government could do road work more economically than the County Council, because, speaking generally, they had better plant?— The county could beat the Government at roadwork about here. 266. Has the valuation increased in this county ?•—Yes, something like £20,000. 267. Is the rating on the improved value ?—Yes. 268. Has the unimproved value increased ?—ln some instances it has, but not as a general rule. The improvements are the chief value here. Some of the land is not worth Is. an acre. 269. Have the values improved to such an extent that a man might, if he sold now, get back what he had put into the land ?—No. 270. Is it not a mistake to take up such land?— Not in some cases. We have good land as well as bad. Of course, we have more bad than good. 271. If that is so, do you not think it would be better to leave that land alone and confine your energies to better land?— The settlers get good and bad land, and between the two manage to make a living. 272. Have you had any experience of the land-for-settlements policy in the South?— No. 273. You could not say how that policy is working out?—-No. 274. You could not express an opinion as to the best method of settling that land?— No. Robebt Moeeow Houston examined. 275. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a storekeeper, also member of the House of Representatives for this district. I have been here for about thirty years. 276. Do you carry on any farming?— No. 277. We have had a great deal of evidence about the land in this district, the difficulties of roading, the difficulties of grassing, and, in fact, of actual living, and we have ascertained that the people rely very much upon gum-digging and the timber industry, and that the cultivation of the land is a very secondary consideration indeed, the land not being at all responsive to cultivation. You, from your long residence and constant intercourse with the settlers, will probably be able to tell us something about the district which we have not already heard. I should therefore like you to make your own statement about the district generally—how it is getting on, and so forth—and the Commission would be pleased if you could place before them any suggestion which would tend to its improvement?—Do you wish me to keep within the order of reference as set out in the Commission, because I was listening to the last witness, and I could not see that any of the questions put to him were within the order of reference. 278. First, I should like you to give your opinion as to the constitution of Land Boards ?—I am in favour of allowing them to remain as they are, but I think that certain powers should be given to the County Council, who should act as an advisory body along with the Land Board in
92—C. 4.
0.—4.
730
[B. M. HOUSTON.
those particular districts over which the County Council has jurisdiction. I consider the County Councils would be in a better position to inform the Land Board, when a block of land is to be opened, as to the quality of the land and the prices that should be placed upon it. At present it is the surveyors in the different districts who are generally called upon to value the land, and in most cases the surveyors are not competent to value land. Often their valuation is far in excess of the value that should be placed on the land, and the result is that the country is not taken up, whereas it would be readily taken up at reasonable prices. There are many considerations other than the mere nature of the soil to be taken into account when valuing. There are surrounding circumstances, such as its proximity to markets, and means of access, and so on, in connection with which the surveyor is not competent to give an opinion, and I do not think he should be asked to give an opinion. Of course, a surveyor who has travelled from the North Cape to the Bluff, and has seen the different qualities of the lajids and knows the markets in the other parts of the colony, might be more competent to give an opinion; but, as a rule, his duties confine him to a particular district. I would therefore suggest that, in conjunction with the Land Boards as at present constituted, the County Councils should act as an advisory body and assist the Land Board in local matters, and the Bay of Islands electorate should have a representative on the Land Board. 279. Then, you would suggest that the land should be all classified in the different districts with the aid of the County Councils? —Yes, something of that kind. 280. Of course, it would lead to great delay if the Board had to refer to the County Council before placing a value on land to be opened, because the Boards have their meetings at divers times, and if they had to refer matters constantly to the County Councils it would be rather tedious ?—lt would be only when a block of land was to be opened up. The County Council should then be asked its opinion. 281. You would limit it to that?— Yes. 282. Then, with regard to tenure. There is great diversity of opinion as between the freeholder and the leaseholder. What is your opinion ? —Within the last half-hour I have returned from a tour round the southern portion of this electorate, and I can say, without exception, the electors are entirely in favour of the freehold, as I am myself. I have advocated an additional tenure —that is, the homestead tenure —and if a person wishes to acquire a small portion of land as a freehold he should have the opportunity of doing so. With regard to the present tenures, the occupation with right of purchase and the 999-years lease, I would give the holder of a 999-years' lease the opportunity of converting it into a freehold after he has resided for ten years, on paying the 1-per-cent. difference between his tenure and the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system. That is to say, I would allow anyone an opportunity of either remaining a leaseholder or ultimately becoming a freeholder. 283. Would you apply that to the great estates purchased in the South?—No, I would not. We have nothing of that kind in the North, or, rather, there was one estate purchased in the North, which Ido not think is going to be a success. I would not apply it to the estates acquired under the Land for Settlements Act. 284. You would keep them as they are ?—Yes. 285. Closely allied with this is the manner of disposing of the land?—l am entirely opposed to the ballot. I think it is a disgrace to a country to have such a gambling system of dealing with the Crown lands. Under the homestead system, when a block of land is opened the person went out and examined the block, and when he made application the hour and the day and the month was taken down, and he was in possession of the land when he paid his survey fees. He could not get an absolute title until he had resided on the land five years and had done certain improvements. I consider that is one of the best systems we have had, and the settlers under it in this electorate are the most prosperous settlers, and they have had the least assistance from the Government. 286. With regard to those estates which are purchased at a great cost to the State, how would you settle the matter there as between the rival applications, because there might be ten applications for every section that is available ?—I admit there is a difficulty in dealing with that question. I was speaking entirely of Crown lands. I admit there must be a considerable amount of difficulty, but even the auction system with all its evils I prefer to the ballot. 287. I suppose there is no aggregation of large estates in this district ?—No, there has been nothing of the kind. The great majority of the people who take up land in the north do so for settlement purposes. 288. We have had some evidence about the residential conditions pressing hardly on people in the back blocks. The country is very poor, and the parties taking it up really require to supplement their income by working awav from their land, and it has been urged that a rigid enforcement of the conditions as to residence would prevent people from taking up land at all. There is also the difficulty of educating the children. We have had very strong evidence in favour of relaxing the residential conditions. I think they should be relaxed. They are too stringent at the present time. I think those conditions depend upon the administration. We have had a Land Board in the past carrying out the strict letter of the law to an extent which is an absurdity. It appeared to me at one time that the Land Board of Auckland was merely a medium for extracting money out of the people for the Government coffers. However, lam glad to say a change is coming over the scene, and I feel satisfied it is about to be managed in a businesslike way. I think the regulations are too stringent altogether. If a man wants to enlarge his holding he cannot do it if a small section intervenes, which is an absurdity. If a man proves himself to be a bo7id fide settler and wishes to enlarge his holding, I consider, even if the extra land he wants is half a mile away from his present holding, he should be allowed to take it, but under the present conditions he is not allowed to do so. Then, again, there are people engaged in business who wish to settle on the
R. M. HOUSTON.]
731
C—4.
land, but they are not in a position to give lip their situations and go at once. Their families are growing up and they wish to educate them, and in many cases they would take up land and make double improvements, so that as time went on and the children were able to assist their parents they could go and settle on the land. They are prevented now from doing that. It could be ascertained whether the people were genuine. I believe in the principle of the Act of 1892 —that is, settlement versus speculation. If a person shows he is determined to make a home for himself and children in the future I think he should be allowed to do so. It could easily be proved whether his was a bond fide case or not. 289. They would require discretionary power?— Yes; but when you give the Board discretionary power they will not use it. I know the Land Board in Auckland in the past never used their discretionary power at all, but I believe it will be exercised now. That refusal to exercise their power has been the cause of a great deal of grumbling in this electorate, and I believe many people have been converted from leaseholders into freeholders owing to that and nothing else. 290. Although the law admits of discretionary power within certain limits at present, do not the Board in exercising discretionary power frequently ignore the law in doing so ?—I think it is better to obey the dictates of common-sense than even the law, especially in the administration of such an important subject as the land laws of the colony. It is not laid down by law that Magistrates shall exercise discretionary power, but yet they always do so, and I think the same principle should apply with the Commissioner of Crown Lands and the Land Board. 291. We have been told that there are several blocks of land that would be very suitable for settlement if opened up, but that they have not been opened up because there happens to be valuable timber on them : do you think that is another matter which should be left to the discretion of the Land Board ? —I have peculiar ideas on that point. I say that a person who takes up a section of land after the land has been opened for selection is entitled to everything on that land. The Government declare that timber is land, and I cannot understand why the Government should take part of the land from him and only let him have the other part. I say the settler is entitled to the land and everything on that land, whether it is valuable timber or not. To me it is the height of absurdity that a person taking up a section of land in the back blocks should not be allowed the timber on his land. Even if he has to sell part of the timber he is allowed no more than sufficient to put up fencing, buildings, and improvements. As these are perishable articles which require to be renewed as time goes on, I hold he should have sufficient timber to renew them for all time—even for the term of his 999-years lease. If you put a value on the timber, if every stick of it is kauri, I say it is not too much to allow him to fulfill the duties of a settler for 999 years. 292. Suppose every stick of kauri is fine marketable timber, or timber which may some day be marketable, and is a crop which probably may have taken hundreds of years to mature, do you think it would be at all wise for the Land Board to allow a settler to ruthlessly cut down that timber merely to grow grass for a few cows ? —The Land Board have been doing that up to the present. They allow the unfortunate settler to cut down and burn the timber, but they will not allow him to sell it and improve his section. That has been going on for some time until lately. 293. But do you think it wise to put it in the power of the settler to cut it at all: if it is such valuable timber would it not be better conserved for future years ?—lf a man takes up land for 999 years, I say that if every stick of timber on that land was kauri he would require it all before his lease expired, and then the right of renewal would come in. 294. According to the land laws and regulations a settler has to improve his land, which means cutting down the bush and putting in a crop of some sort. It is a matter of degree, of course, but I dare say the Land Board would not offer land for selection with valuable timber on it, but only land with perhaps a few kauri trees on it ? —I feel satisfied of that myself; but, at the same time, I think as the Government declare that timber is land, a man who takes up a section is entitled to all on the land. 295. We have had evidence to the effect that some land has been taken up ostensibly for settlement, but really for the timber that is on it ?—I say it is the fault of the Land Board if that is allowed to go on. It may be happening, but the Land Board should know through the Rangers whether it is going on. It is their dutv to stop that sort of thing. 296. Mr. Anstey.] You said that the County Councils might assist the Land Board in their duties : do you think the Auckland District is too large to work with one Board ? Would it be advisable to divide it into two or more parts?—No; I think the suggestion I have made would overcome that difficulty. If each local body acted as a sort of advisory Board, to assist the Land Board in matters in connetion with land in their particular district, that would meet the case. 297. You think that would be better than having two Boards ? Do you think the settlement conditions are the same north of Auckland as south of Auckland in the land district ? —Probably they are to a certain extent. Perhaps the land is of better quality in south Auckland, but the terms of settlement would be the same. 298. Do you think it would be wise to have a larger Board and more representation from the different districts : at present the representation is practically centerd round Auckland ?—I do not think any person who is a town-dweller should be on the Land Board at all, because, in my opinion, the townspeople know nothing about land-settlement. 299. Would it be wise to have a larger Board?— Yes. This electorate has no representation on the Board whatever, and I think, at the very least, each electorate should have a representative on the Land Board. 300. Would that not make the Land Board too large and unwieldy ?—I suppose you could apply to the Land Board the old adage, that " in the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom " You would get all the different districts represented.
C—4.
732
[B. M. HOUSTON
301. Do you own any land ?—Only 4£ acres, on which my store stands. 302. You said all the land here was taken up for settlement, and the County Clerk told us just before you came in that more than half the land was held by absentees : how do you reconcile the two statements?— They must have taken it up for settlement purposes, but they never went on it. 303. It was taken up as a speculation, then ?—I do not say that exactly, because they have never been able to speculate with it. A good deal of the land was taken up in 40-acre sections under the free grants to parties who came out to the colony, and many of them never ventured to go and look at it. 304. If land is taken up and held by absentees, do you regard that as the settlement of the land ?—-Originally, it may have been the intention of the person taking it up to settle on it; but if he has left it unsettled for a number of years I say it should be taken from him. 305. Then, you mean to say this land that is held by absentees is not settling the country at all ?—Certainly not. 306. In regard to kauri timber on the land, you said that if a man took up a 100-acre section, and it was all covered with kauri, he would require every stick of timber on it for the purpose of buildings and fencing and use on the land during the 999 years of his lease ?—I should say he would. The 999-years lease is a long time. No wooden building would last that time, nor fences, nor culverts. 307. Do you think it would need all the timber growing on 100 acres of kauri forest to build a house and fences on that section ?—I fancy it would. Perhaps the settler would have to build ninety houses in that time. If a house lasts a hundred years it is not worth much then. 308. How do you view the system of grants to local bodies ?—Excuse me, you are getting out of your order of reference. 309. Ido not think so?— Then, I have not read the order of reference correctly. I certainly must decline to answer anything outside the order of reference. 310. Mr. Forbes.'] Do you believe in the lease in perpetuity?— Yes ; it is a very good system. I believe in having it among the various land-tenures. I have no objection to it. 311. Another question in our order of reference is the working of the Advances to Settlers Act: do you know anything about that, or can you suggest any improvement in its methods ?— If no alteration is to be made in the land-tenures I think there should be an alteration of the Act, but if the alterations I suggest are made in the land-tenures I do not think an amendment of the Advances to Settlers Act will be required. 312. Do you think the present principle of advancing up to one-half the value of the improvements is a good one ?—Yes, on leasehold. 313. Would you support a proposal to go further, and advance up to three-fifths of the improvements and the owner's interest in the lease ?—I do not think it is wise to advance to such an extent as that. Improvements are a perishable commodity. 314. How would that affect the case of a man with a lease in perpetuity : the fact of there being other tenures under which land may be taken up would not affect his particular position ?— It would if you made that into another form of tenure. If you make that an additional form of tenure you would be providing six tenures, and you could make provision for that form of tenure as well as for the others. 315. We have heard in our evidence a great deal of dissatisfaction in regard to lease-in-per-petuity sections because the Advances to Settlers Department will not advance an amount anything like adequate for the requirements of bush sections ?—There may be dissatisfaction, but I have not come into contact with it in this district. 316. So far as you know, you say the Act has given fair satisfaction in this district ?—Yes. My object as a member of the House is to see that the Government get proper security for the money they advance. I make it a personal matter. If I hear that a friend is going to advance money on a property that I know is not good security for the loan I advise him against doing it, and so I do with the Government also. • 317. Mr. Matheson.] In opening up a new block for'settlement, do you think it is wise that that land should be loaded for the reading of the block ?—Certainly not, unless the Government make the roads first. 318. As an alternative, do you think it would be wiser to do the work by Government grants after the land has been settled?— There is a great uncertainty about Government grants. 319. I ask you that to show that the question of grants is quite within our order of reference ? —That may be your opinion, but lam going to hold my opinion. I am entirely opposed to the system of loading for roads. I know of settlers who have been on their sections ten and fifteen years, and during that time these unfortunate settlers have been charged interest on an amount of 4s. an acre for roads, and they have not yet got a track to their land. I think it is most disgraceful. 320. Do you think it is statesmanlike to do the reading of these districts by means of Government grants ? —I do not care how the Government do it so long as they do it. 321. Do you think a much sounder way would be for the Government to give assistance where the settlers are helping themselves by means of loans ? —That is a question we have not attempted here. We have never gone in for loans in this county ; we are too poor. 322. Do you think that it is at all reasonable that some counties that have rated themselves to the extent of £40,000 should have a lesser proportion of grants ?—You are going beyond what I consider the right thing. I cannot answer that question. 323. Do you think it is wise for the State to grant the right of purchase to the occupiers of Crown lands ? —Certainly, I advocate that. 324. Where we have spent of late, say, £100,000 in acquiring improved estates for settlement, do these lands then become Crown lands ?—I should say they did.
B. M. HOUSTON.!
733
C—4.
325. If the tenants on such wish to acquire the freehold by repaying to the State all it has expended, what is your objection?—l have said, in reply to the Chairman's question, that my remarks are entirely in reference to the Crown lands in these parts. 326. lam asking you the question?—l decline to answer that. 327. But, sir, as a citizen of New Zealand, do you not take an interest in the lana-for-settle-ments policy? —I approve of it. 328. Then, what is your objection to Crown tenants under that policy who wish to acquire the freehold having the right to do so by repaying all the State's expenditure?—l simply state Ido not include the land-for-settlement lands in the term of ordinary land-settlement. I have nothing more to say on that matter. 329. Do you decline to give your opinion ?—Decidedly. 330. Have you any opinion ?—les, but that is my business. 331. Mr. McGardle.] I think a question was asked by a Commissioner who did not quite follow you : you said the settler has the option of changing from a lease with the right of purchase to lease in perpetuity, and you hold that a person with a 999-years lease ought to have the same option to reconvert ?—Yes. 332. Mr. McGutohan.\ There is another anomaly between the two systems: a lease-in-per-petuity holder has to reside continuously for ten years, and a leaseholder under occupation with right of purchase has to reside continuously for six years: can you show any reason why a distinction should be made between the two tenures in the matter of residence ?- —No; I think that is a mistake. So far as residence is concerned, I think it should be equal in both cases. 333. You spoke of valuation by surveyors and condemned it on the ground that surveyors sometimes had not a practical knowledge of the working of land; but is it not the case that members of the Land Board make It a custom to visit newly surveyed blocks and revise, and, if necessary, correct the valuations put on the land by these surveyors ?—Not in this district. The only one who has ever visited the district is the Commissioner himself. 334. You advocate the system of auction sales in preference to the ballot ?—Anything as opposed to the ballot. 335. Is it not the case that grave evils arose from the auction sales of land : for instance, there have been as many as 150 applicants for a single section at the ballot. If these 150 men got into an auction-room do you not thin)? that settlement would be prejudiced by the competition, giving the land a value which it did not have intrinsically ? —I admitted to the Chairman that there is a great number of evils in connection with the auction system, but anything is preferable to the ballot, in my opinion. 336. Can you devise a better method?—l speak entirely as regards North Auckland, and lam satisfied the principle adopted in the Homestead Act would be suitable to apply to all blocks of land open for settlement in North Auckland. 337. Then, your remarks simply have reference to lands in this vicinity?— Yes. 338. You spoke of the disadvantage under which settlers labour in not being able to take up another section, unless that section is contiguous to the section they already hold?— Yes. 339. Is it not the case already under the law that, after three years and after the conditions of improvement have been fulfilled upon the section, that settler can go anywhere else in the colony and take up a second allotment ?—I do not think so. I think that is what is complained of. I will give you a case in point. Some years ago, a settler in Hokianga County, named Leister, took up two sections of land contiguous to each other. He built a house on one, and did all the improvements on it, and because he did not put any improvements on the second section he was notified that the section would be forfeited. He wished to improve his first section completely before he did anything with the second, but the second was forfeited simply because he had not done the improvements on it. 340. Was that not his own fault ?—He put all the improvements on one, and more than was required by law. 341. Was not the forfeiture of the second section his own fault ?—Decidedly not. It was the fault of the Land Board. 342. If the Land Board have discretionary power, which they have, and which they have exercised in the past in many districts in the colony, to permit a settler to make the improvements upon one section which are required upon both sections, and if the settler does not apply for that permission, is it not his own fault ?—I merely tell you a case that came under my notice, and that section was forfeited, and the excuse which the settler gave, and it was the only and real excuse, was that he had done all the improvements on the one section, intending to finish it first before starting on the other. 343. As a legislator, are you not aware of the fact that power is given to the Land Board : is not a settler supposed to know the law under which he takes up land, and is it not a duty which he owes to himself and to the State to understand the law, and, if under that law there is power to make improvements on one section that are required upon both, do you not think the settler is to blame if he does not take advantage of that power ?—lt may be, but I am telling you the facts. The Government had to pay this unfortunate settler £75 on account of the Land Board having forfeited his section. 344. Why did they have to pay that money ?—Because the Land Board had wrongfully taken his land from him. 345. You approve of nomination, and yet you condemn the Land Board administration : you say a change has come now, and I would like to know to what cause is that change due ?—I need not enter into the details of that. I merely say the Land Board in the past did not exercise that discretionary power, which I say they should have, and that many hardships entailed upon the settlers were due entirely to the harsh treatment of the Land Board. I have given you a case in point.
734
0.—4.
[R. M. HOUSTON.
346. You approve of nomination, and under the system of nomination members representing rural districts are as four to one, the Commissioner being the one appointed by the Government, and you approve of the system of nomination, though you say the Land Board is inflicting hardships on the settlers ?—Tne principle is right enough, but there is a difference between a Board who do not exercise that discretionary power, which I say they have, and a Board who do exercise it. I say the Land Board of Auckland in the past did not exercise their discretionary power. 347. Has there been any change in the personnel of the Land Board in the last few years? — Decidedly. 348. Has there been any change other than the change of Commissioner?—l do not think so. 349. Then, there has been no change in the personnel of the Board ?—Yes ; but the head of the Board can direct the action of the Board to a large extent. 350. Your opening ffcinarks contained a reference to our order of reference, and you found fault with the Commission for asking the Clerk of the County Council questions on matters in regard to which he is an expert. In our order of reference we find a clause dealing with the practice of loading for roads and its working. Are not lands loaded for roads under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act ?—They get something for it. 351. But you objected to answering the question? —The question I was asked had nothing to do with it. 352. This loading by the Government is part of the scheme of the Loans to Local Bodies Act ?—Under the Loans to Local Bodies Act the unfortunate settler gets something for his roads, but under the Government he gets nothing. 353. Is that really the case? —Decidedly, it is. If the Commission go down to Waimamuka, south of Hokianga County, they wiil find my statement is correct. They will find settlers there with not a track to their sections, and they have been there for years paying interest on 4s. per acre, with which the land is loaded for roads. 354. Has any of this 4s. per acre been expended ?—I cannot see it, nor can the settlers see it. 355. Very often money is expended and the traffic upon the road puts that expenditure out of sight: may not that have happened in this case ?—lt is out of sight at present. The unfortunate people have to pack their milk on horseback to the dairy. 356. The inference from your remarks is that the Government have not spent the money, and that therefore they are retaining the principal while at the same time they are collecting the interest on the loading: that is a very grave charge. Can you therefore state the money has not been expended by the Government ?—I cannot see it, and nobody can see it. 357. I do not think that is a fair answer to a fair question ?—lf the Government had spent the money on the road surely it would be seen at the present time, and I cannot see it. 358. You are accustomed to bad roads in the north, and do you mean to tell me that money cannot be expended on a road —and substantial sums too—and that winter traffic will put that expenditure wholly out of sight ?—Still, you would see something remaining of the expenditure, however, bad the winter might be, and I see nothing but a track there which the settlers often cannot get over even in the summer-time. 359. Mr. Paul.] What is the special evil of the ballot system ?—Gambling. 360. Have you any plan for disposing of Crown lands where there is a great number of applicants ?—I would prefer the auction system. 361. The objection urged against the auction system is that men give more than the value of the land : would it be logical to urge the abolition of the auction system for the sale of any article because men are apt to give more than the value of the article ? —lf the auction system was adopted instead of the ballot system, and the principle of the Act of 1892 was strictly enforced —viz., the land must be taken up for settlement purposes and no such thing as speculation allowed —then I say the auction system would suit fairly well. 362. Do you think there is land held in this county for speculative purposes? —I do not think it. " 363. Of course, you are aware there is a lot of land held by absentees ?—Yes, but they cannot be found. 364. Is that true in the main ?—ln ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. 365. If land is settled on the leasehold tenure in the future, do you think the principle of revaluation an equitable one ? —I think it most iniquitous. 366. Do you think that the Government, in fixing the rental of land, can always arrive at the true value of the land?— Well, sometimes the settler is charged too high, I admit; but certainly I am entirely opposed to revaluation. 367. What would you do in the case of a tenant who is paying too high rent?—l say if the assistance of the iocal body is called in in valuing the land it would not have been put at such a price, and the settlers would not be paying too high rents. That is where the evil arose entirely. 368. But, surely, mistakes will occur, no matter how you provide against them ?—That is so. 369. What would you do in such cases ?—I consider the Government would be doing justice to the unfortunate settler if they reduced the valuation. I know what this question of revaluation is. At periodical times all the land is to be raised to a higher value. That is what I understand. 370. Does land ever decrease in value ? —Oh, yes. 371. Then, is it not equitable that the tenant renting the land should get a reduction of rent?— Yes. But if the land had decreased in value through his own fault I hold he should get no reduction. 372. But suppose there is a decrease in the value of the land, is it not fair and equitable that his rent should be reduced?— Yes. 373. Then, the principle of revaluation must be fairly sound as a principle?—No, I do not believe in the principle at all. lam entirely opposed to it.
R. M. HOUSTON. 1
735
a—4.
374. Is the value of leasehold land increasing in this district ?—I do not think so; it is about stationary. 375. Do you find that freehold land is better farmed than leasehold ?—Yes, I think it is. 375 a. Do you see any reason why that should be so?—I can give you one reason, and that is what is frightening leaseholders at the present time and converting them into freeholders. It is the revaluation question. It is the danger that the Government may exercise their power to raise the rent as it suits them. 376. Or lower it?— The question of lowering does not come in. 377. The question of lowering does not come in in the principle of revaluation ? —lt may in the principle, but not in carrying it into effect. 378. Then, if revaluation is brought into force, do you say the Government of the day, whoever they may be, would be so dishonest as not to apply it equitably ?—I consider if the Government introduced the revaluation system in regard to land under the 999-years lease they would be breaking faith with the original selectors, and I would not support any Government which committed a breach of faith of that kind. 379. Do you seriously think it is possible that any Government would attempt such a thing? —T do not believe the Government would if left to themselves, but there is an outside power at work at the present time trying to induce the Government to do so. 380. Do you think it possible, if any attempt was made to do so, that a majority of the people in the colony would stand behind the Government ?—I do not think so for a moment —not the people in the country. 381. Would a majority of the people in the colony?— Well, a majority of the people of the country would not stand behind any Government in supporting a measure of that kind ; I am satisfied of that. 382. Then, it is hardly possible such a thing will ever happen?—l do not think it is likely that an attempt will be made to bring it about. 383. In passing through this district of North Auckland we saw a great area of freehold land which was not being improved—it seemed either to be abandoned or to have been allowed to remain stationary : is that on account of the price of labour ?—That I cannot say. Ido not know of any land of that description in this electorate. 384. You spoke of the settler getting the timber when he got the land : do you think the value of the timber should be added to the value of the land ?—That would be valuing the land twice over, which, in my opinion, would be an absurdity. 385. If there are two sections of land adjoining, one with good timber upon it and the other with none, I want to know whether you would be in favour of valuing the section with good timber at a greater price than the section with no timber?— Decidedly. I say the settler who takes up the land takes up everything on the land. It is all valued by the Government. 386. Do you think it would be better policy to reserve this land with good timber on it ?—lf it contained a large proportion of marketable timber I say it should be kept for timber purposes. The majority of the land is no good when the timber is off. 387. To your knowledge, is any land taken up for the timber and then abandoned?— Not to my personal knowledge; but I have heard of cases in this electorate where that has been done, and the Board have very wisely forfeited the section. 388. Whilst you express some dissatisfaction with the constitution of the Auckland Land Board, is it not a fact that the majority of the Land Boards of this colony have been satisfactory? —I would not like to say. I know nothing about the other Land Boards. 389. Would not the relaxing of the residence conditions, in your opinion, lead to dummyism ? Not in this district, I feel satisfied. 390. Mr. Anstey.\ You say that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the absentees holding sections cannot be found: would you be in favour of the Government resuming possession of their land?— Certainly, for the purpose of handing it over as an endowment to the counties. .391. Would you be in favour of resuming all sections the owners of which have failed to pay rates ? —Yes, if they cannot be found. 392. Upon what ground would you hand that property over to the County Councils?— They have been making roads in the districts where these unclaimed lands are. The result is that the residential settlers have been handicapped making these roads for the benefit of the absentees. 393. Have the roads been made wholly by the moneys of the counties ?—Principally. 394. What proportion has been spent out of the rate-money, and what proportion out of Government grants ? —That is going outside your order of reference. 395. Mr. Forbes.'] You believe strongly in the freehold?— Yes. 396. Do you believe that some legislation should be passed to prevent a person holding more than a certain area?— Undoubtedly. 397. Do you think it possible to limit the area better by the application of the graduated land-tax than by special legislation ?—I should say that when a man applies for a section of land he should prove to the Board what land he holds. I would fix the present limit of 640 acres first-class land and 2,000 acres of second-class land. 398. But 640 acres of land in one locality may be altogether different in quality to 640 acres in another : would it not be better to fix the area by value ?—lt depends entirely where it is situated. Ido not consider that there is any first-class land in the County of Mongonui. If this county was in the immediate vicinity of Auckland, then a large proportion of the land in the county would be classified as first-cl&ss land. 399. What are the conditions which you consider will prevent aggregation ?—I do not think it would pay any one. I am judging by the past. There has never been any large estates in the North of Auckland.
C.—4.
736
[j. T. GILLIBRAND.
John Thompson Gillibrand examined. 400. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer and flaxmiller and launch-proprietor. I hold 400 acres under the lease in perpetuity, and a freehold section in the Town of Mangonui, and, with a partner, another 25 acres of freehold. I pay rent on the capital value of 7s. 6d. per acre. I have held part for seven years, and the rest about four years. It was entirely swamp when I took it up. 401. Have you done anything with it ?—lt is all drained now. All the improvements are my own. 402. Has the draining given satisfaction ?—Yes. I go in for flax-growing principally. 403. Have you a mill at work?— Yes, at Mangonui. 404. Have you any particular thing you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I have no grievance, because I must say the Land Board has been always fair and courteous to me and given me every information, as they would anybody else if they approached them properly. But I want to say that if I thought revaluation was going to take place I would abandon my holding, because I would not stand revaluation of my improvements. 405. I infer from your remarks that you approve of the present constitution of the Land Board ? —Yes. 406. Has the gum-digger the right to go over the lease-in-perpetuity land ?—Yes, and that is one of the drawbacks of being a Crown tenant. By some manner of means you cannot get the same treatment as a man with a freehold. If a man has a freehold the gum-digger seems to respect him more. They take that man's word, and that is the end of the matter; but if you have a lease in perpetuity you can do nothing with the gum-digger, nor can you get any redress from the Crown Lands Board. The -digger is not required to fill in holes or to replace fences, or rebuild your house if he happens to burn it down. 407. Mr. Anstey.] Your 400 acres of swamp are all drained: is it all growing flax ?—Yes, all but a very small proportion, and there are thousands of acres of swamp round the district that would do the same thing. 408. Do you cultivate the flax and plant it ?—Yes. 409. And there is a quantity of swamp land on which it would pay to cultivate flax ?—Yes. 410. Would it be profitable ?—Certainly. I would not take it on if it was not. 411. What revenue would a man get out of 100 acres of flax land?—lf he uses judgment and common-sense—l know I had flax fit to cut in eighteen months, and you could not notice any flax at all when I started. 412. You cut the flax every three years: what would be the gross returns per acre from flax ? —Providing it was a fair amount the flax would cut at 40 tons to the acre, but allowing a big margin and putting it at 15 tons to the acre, you would get a return, reckoning royalty at 2s. per ton, at the rate of £1 10s. per acre. A crop goes on increasing from time to time because flax spreads and accumulates after every cutting. But the gum-diggers often destroy it. 413. Now the Government do not charge you a royalty on this lease-in-perpetuity land of yours ?—I put the flax there myself. 414. You have to pay royalty on flax you cut on somebody else's land? —Yes. 415. So if you get flax on Crown land you have to pay royalty ?—Yes. 416. Do the gum-diggers wilfully destroy the flax ? —They destroyed over 200 acres of mine the other day, aud there is no redress. I took the case to Court, but they plead poverty and ignorance and that sort of thing, and there is an end of it. 417. Can you suggest any way by which the cultivation of flax could be encouraged ?—lt could be encouraged by draining. If the Crown Lands Board would allow any miller to take up the land on the same terms, perhaps as a grazing-lease, there is a big scope of abandoned country which could be drained and brought into profitable use after a certain time. 418. How would a lease in perpetuity suit you ?—Yes ; but if you take it up under lease in perpetuity you have to put on improvements up to a certain value, and there are conditions such as residence and other little things. 419. What does the flax cost you to plant ?—I should say it costs about £4 an acre to drain and plant in flax. 420. Suppose you drained and planted flax and spent £4 an acre, would not that be sufficien improvement on the land?—l should consider it a good permanent improvement, and it doe good to the district, too, because every mill that goes up has a following of thirty well-paid hands behind it. 421. Is there a large area in this neighbourhood suitable for this purpose. Yes. I am willing to take up plenty myself. But if a man puts in £4 an acre I should say he was making the value of the land, and it would not be a fair thing at all for him to be charged anything at all for a certain number of years until he started to see some return for his expenditure. Another thing, is that a man should not be bound to reside on it. 422. Do you think if suitable men took up 100 acres of flax land and guaranteed to plant a given proportion every three years they should be allowed to sit rent-free until such time as they could get some benefit from it ? —Yes. 423. Do you think a large area would be taken up under these conditions ? —Yes. 1 know many others besides myself who would take up such land. 424. How many men are employed at a mill ?—lf they were all white men about twenty-five, but it takes about seventy-two Maoris. 425. What do you pay white men ? —los. down to 6s. per day. 426. What do you pay Maoris ?—I am paying 6s. They are cutting on contract. 427. How much gross wages do you pay per year ?—About £2,000 a year. 428. Mr. Forbes.] You are satisfied with your lease in perpetuity, but object altogether to any revaluation ? —The revaluation could only accrue because of the efforts of the tenants.
.T. T. fIILLIBBANIt.]
737
a—4.
429. Would you consider it a breach of contract if the Government introduced a revaluation clause in your lease now ?—I think so. 430. Have you any fear that that may occur ?—I was given to understand that a certain agitation for revaluation caused this Commission to be sent round. I should say that where the country is grid-ironed, and vacant sections are left among the occupied ones, I think the benefit accruing to these vacant sections by the settlement of the other land should be owned by the State. 431. Where is the condition of your lease that allows gum-diggers to go on your land and dig?— Because I cannot be there all the time night and day to keep them off. 432. But they have no right to go on your land? —-No more than on freehold. 433. Then why do they go on your land and not on freehold?— The freeholder is in this position : from time to time he can let the land to gum-diggers to dig on royalty, and the gumdiggers knowing that leave the land alone, but for years, and until I put my improvements in, I had no right to dispose of any gum or anything else on the section. But that did not keep the gum-digger off it, and naturally when I had drained the swamp a lot of the country became valuable for the gum-digger. I did not drain the land for that purpose, but at the same time I did not care to see the gum-digger taking the gum for nothing. I have now received sanction to charge for gumdigging. 434. Then, the gum-diggers are breaking the law when they dig on your land ?—Yes. 435. Mr. McCardle.] Did you have the option of taking up this swamp under any tenure you pleased? —Yes. 1 could have bought the freehold. 436. Do you desire to get the right of purchase over it ?—Certainly. I would acquire it tomorrow if I could. I would feel then that I did own it. 437. If you were granted the right of purchase, would you pay up the 1 per cent, difference between the tenures? —I would be quite prepared and willing to take it up under the same conditions as an occupation with right-of-purchase lease. 438. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Yes. 439. Have you found it satisfactory ?—No, I cannot say I have. They were too dilatory about it. When I made the application the money would have been useful to me, but afterwards I was able to do the business without help. I did not cancel the application, but I would never attempt anything of the kind again. 440. You recognise the principle of the Act is good, but you say the administration is not so good?— Yes. The administration is too cumbersome. 441. You think some amendment is wanted in the administration to make it useful ? —I think so. And I think it is too costly. What between lawyers' fees and one thing and another I found my loan would be reduced £8 in the £100. 442. Are you quite sure you were charged £8 in the £100, because the costs should not amount to more than a fourth of that sum ?—That is what they amounted to. 443. Who is the agent?—l think Mr. Killen was then, at Whangarei. 444. We have heard a good deal about swamp lands where we have been. Do you think it would pay the State to drain these swamps and plant them with flax ?—I think if instead of planting fancy trees on the pumice land at Rotorua, they drained these swamps and planted flax they would be doing a more useful work, and they would get a profitable return. 445. Do you not think it would be better to have both?— Yes, but it would be better to enter upon the most profitable work first. 446. Would it pay the Government to help settlers who took up these swamps to drain them and plant flax? —Yes. I think that is a very good suggestion. The people would be better employed in doing that than in digging gum. If the Government took the Austrians and gave them 10s. a day to do this work, and gave them 10s. a day besides, it would pay the Government, because the Austrians cost the country £1 ss. a day to keep them here. 447. Mr. Paul.] How do the Austrians cost the country £1 ss. a day to keep them here ? —lt will take some explanation. If the Austrian, when he landed on the wharf, was taken and given 10s. a day to keep him off the gumfields entirely, that would be a loss of 10s. a day. We will allow that a number go on the gumfields, and he is not much of a man who cannot earn 10s. a day. Out of that he takes his living, and the rest goes somewhere else. Perhaps it costs him 3s. a day to live, and that means another loss of 7s. If the gum remained in the ground it would be worth much more to dig in the future than it is now; and the hole has to be filled up again. Then, again, a British digger has generally got another occupation, and directly the gumfields cease to pay him a fair wage he goes in for another occupation. But the Austrian is no use at anything else. He stays on the fields, and, notwithstanding there is no demand m Auckland, he goes on digging and supplying the market. At the present time gum is going into Auckland, and it is fetching 6d. a pound when it should fetch 2s. 6d. The Austrian goes on producing. When we have no other country in the world in competition with us for production of this article, why should we go on producing it, and over-stocking the market ? 448. Do you mean to suggest that the State should control the supply of gum ?—I do not say it, but there should be some method of conserving it. 449. It has been pointed out in evidence that the Austrian makes a capital settler. Do you think that is so? —Yes, he would—he has just about settled us now. I could say Yes or No to your question, but lam not going to say so unless I prove it. In the course of the last ten years other Europeans—Germans, Frenchmen, Danes, Norwegians, or Italians —have left gum-digging and gone in for other pursuits, and made very fair settlers ; but you can number the Austrians who have done so on your fingers. 450. You think they are undesirable immigrants?— They occupy the greater portion of the Court business in this county, and that answers your question.
93—C. 4,
738
[j. T. GILLIBRAND.
C.—4.
451. Has any instance come under your notice of gum-diggers pulling down fences and burning houses?— Not burning houses. They have burnt whares, and in my own case they have burnt fences and flax. It has been mostly accidental, I suppose. 452. Why did you not take this land under occupation with right of purchase ?—That is where I made the error. Certainly I would have done so had I known what Ido now, and I would convert it if I could. 453. What do you understand by revaluation? —Eevaluation is to put an increase on the va^ue--454. You recognise that if a tenant is paying too high a rent he should have his rent reduced ? —Yes, I should say so. 455. If he is paying too low a rent, from the point of view of the State, do you not think it should be increased as a principle to be applied in the case of future leases ?—lt certainly should in cases. 456. Then, as a principle, it would work out pretty fair? —I do not say it would work out too fairly. No doubt the thing is just, but it would be a very hard matter to take up a leasehold if it had that doubtful thing hanging over it. William Daly examined. 457. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I was reared a market-gardener, but lam now a gumdigger. 458. Have you found it a fairly remunerative occupation ?—Up to very recently. 459. Is there anything yeu particularly wish to bring before the Commission ?—I wish to speak in reference to some of the lands taken up here. It would appear to me that some of the sections have been taken up purely for speculative purposes because they contain gum. They have been let from man to man for some years, not only to Austrians, against whom I have nothing to say, but to other people, and instead of improvements going on the land is decreasing in value. Consequently some of the properties in the market have been thrown up. I reckon it is an injustice to the State. The property has been leased, and then it has been fleeced of the gum. I think the properties have been handled just to get the gum. 460. How would you rectify that: you can hardly give a man a lease and say he must not dig it at all ?—lt would be quite right if the man who held possession was allowed to abstract the gum if he lived on the place and improved it afterwards. Most of the sections taken up are adjacent to gum lands, and the people dig outside. Personally I have no grievance, but I thought it advisable to call the attention of the Commission to the way the land is being utilised. 461. Have you ever thought of taking up a lease?— No. 462. Mr. Anstey.] Is this land you speak of as having been taken up for speculative purposes freehold or leasehold ?—lt is taken up under the three systems—lease in perpetuity, occupation with right of purchase, and for cash. 463. Does this happen under all these tenures ?—lt really would look to the looker-on as though it had been taken up for a speculative purpose, because it is leased to dig for gum. 464. That would apply to freehold, because a leaseholder is not allowed to sublet his land ?—I really cannot say. 465. What is the average wage of a gum-digger?—lt varies from £10 to £15 per month. 466. And he may make nothing ?—He would want to be a lazy man who could not make £10 to £15 per month last year.. 467. Is that throughout the year? —During the summer months. 468. You heard what the last witness said about the price of gum being much lower than it should. Do you think anything ought to be done to regulate the price of gum? —Yes. I indorse all Mr. Gillibrand said. I think it would be a wise thing if the State controlled the gumoutput. 469. The last witness said that gum-diggers did not stick at burning down fences and flax and whares and so on :is that so ?—I can account for it by saying you have black sheep in every flock. 470. Is it carelessness or accident?— Quite possibly it might be an accident. 471. What is the object in burning flax and fences :isit to get at the gum ?—Not very often. Probably in going across the swamp the digger might light his pipe and chuck the match down and so cause the damage. 472. We have heard before that gam-diggers do destroy property when burning flax and scrub in order to get at the gum? —Quite possibly, but not with a malicious intent. If I am burning flax or scrub for that purpose, I take the precaution that the fire does not injure any person. 473. Mr. Forbes.] In reference to people who take up sections for gum-digging purposes and then abandon them, have they not put a certain amount of improvement on the land?—l do not know. It is for the Inspector in charge to see that they comply with the regulations. 474. Do they put no improvements on the ground at all?—I think so. There are temporary improvements. 475. No substantial improvements in the way of clearing the bush and scrub?— Yes, that has been done. 476. Then it might be open to be said that a man is going to farm his land as well as get the gum out of it: it would be hardly fair to say that he was only taking it up for the gum in it ?— You might look at it in that way. 477. Mr. McCardle.] You complain that persons take up land and work the gum out and then abandon it: what remedy do you propose to get over that difficulty?—l do not know that I could Suggest anything at all.
W. DALY
739
a—4
478. It would not pay them to do that if they had paid for the land and made it freehold ?—I do not think it would. 479. According to the conditions under which these men take up the land ohey must do improvements or forfeit the land. You say in the first two or three years they dig the gum out and then leave it ?—They have been holding the land a good number of years. They have temporarily complied with the regulations. 480. Have you anything to say about land-tenure ? —No. I have no grievance that way. 481. Mr. Paul.'] As a gum-digger, which is the best tenure from your point of view ?• —I think if I was purchasing to-morrow I would like the freehold. I would like to see the deeds in my box. 482. You recognise that leasehold has been instrumental in putting poor men on the soil ?—I cannot say so. 1 have never given it any thought.
Kohukohu, Monday, 15th May, 1905. George Harris examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer at Broadwood. My place is seventeen miles from Kohukohu. I farm 220 acres, and my tenure is freehold. 1 first took up my land twelve years ago under perpetual lease with the right of purchase, and 1 have converted the land into freehold. lam quite satisfied with my land. 2. Which do you prefer, the leasehold or the freehold tenure? —1 prefer the freehold tenure. My land was originally dense bush. 1 have cleared 170 acres. The grass took well. I planted different varieties of grass. 1 run a few sheep and dairy cattle on the land. During the past year a vehicle-road has been completed to my place, but for twelve years there was only a pig-track. It is a clay road, and is very bad in the winter. 3. Do you represent other settlers before the Commission ? —No. I came here with Mr. George Buchanan to give evidence. All the people in my district are in favour of the freehold. I may mention that there is a large block of land twenty miles long that is practically uninhabited, extending from a short distance from Kohukohu towards Herekino. It is partly Native and partly Crown land. Some of that has been taken up, but only one person resides on it. Some of it was taken up on lease with right of purchase. 1 and my neighbours would like to see every inch of that land settled, and the sooner the better. 4. Have any representations ever been made to the Land Board about that land ? —Yes, and the Land Board replied that it would be thrown open as soon as possible. That reply was given only a short time ago. 5. Have your communications with the Land Board been satisfactory? —Yes, up to the present time. 6. Do you think the present constitution of the Land Board is satisfactory? —Yes. I would like to say this to the Commission, that the one great drawback we have in this district is the want of roads. For six months in the year any one riding a decent-sized horse can touch the mud with his feet without getting off the horse. It is a regular mud canal. 7. Mr. Forbes.] You are very strong about the question of the freehold? —Yes. 8. Have you had any experience of leasehold? —Yes, I was a leaseholder, and went on the land twelve years ago. 9. And you have converted your land into freehold? —Yes. 10. Do you think the freehold is better for working your place? —Yes; 100 acres of freehold is better than 200 acres of leasehold. 11. We have noticed that very little improvement in the way of clearing scrub, &c., has been made on a good deal of the land about this part of the country. If a man puts all his money into the. purchase of a freehold section, how is he going to clear his land? —If he puts down half his money for 100 acres of freehold and keeps the other half of his money in his pocket to work it, I maintain that in ten years he will be better off than if he took up the land under leasehold. Under the leasehold a man is really paying 5 per cent, on his own money. 12. Are there any conditions in respect to improving your land? —Yes, the Government have their land laws and the settlers abide by them. 13. Is the land well improved in your district? —Fairly well. 14. Is it cleared of bush? —Yes, a lot of fencing has been done. 15. Are the settlers doing all right now? —Some of them are doing fairly well, and some of them are struggling along just like settlers in other places. 16. Have you got a lease-in-perpetuity section? —No. 17. You have had no experience of the lease in perpetuity? —No. 18. You say the roads are very bad? —Yes. 19. Have you got a County Council? —Yes. 20. Do you pay rates? —Yes. 21. Do they not make you any roads? —They give us roads as far as the money at their disposal will allow ; but, as I have said, there is 30,000 acres of Native land close to the township, and the County Council do not collect any rates from that land. There are also thousands of acres of land opposite this place that do not contribute rates. Our rate is 2Jd. in the pound on the unimproved value. 22. And that is not sufficient to give you roads? —It is a sufficiently high rate, but the population is not sufficient to raise the necessary amount to make good roads. 23. Have you had any experience of land in any other part of the country? —Yes, in Canterbury.
Hi. HAR&IS*
a—4.
740
24. Have you seen any Government settlement under the lease-in-perpetuity system? Yes. 25. Do you tiiink those settlers are doing all right ? —1 think they are doing fairly well. 26. Do you think there is any difference between this land and that under the lease-iu-per-petuity tenure?- 1 think that the tenure of occupation with right of purchase is far better than the 999-years lease. 27. You prefer the oocupation-with-right-of-purchase lease to any other lease? Yes. 28. Mr..llall.J Is there much Crown land in this district?— Yes, there are a good many thousand acres. 29. Is it suitable for settlement?— Yes. 30. Would that be taken up under the lease-in-perpetuity system without the right of purchase being given ?- It would be taken up with the right of purchase. No one will take up land under the teuse-iu-perpetuity system after this. 31. Do you consider the people will not be inclined to take up the land unless they have the right of purchase? —1 do not think they will. 32. What are the chief drawbacks to settlement in this part of the colony? —Want of roads and bad roads. 33. Is there not a large area of Native land? —Yes, but the Natives live on their land, and in the case of the Crown land there are thousands of acres that are unoccupied. 34. Does the County Council get any rates from Native land?— Not at present. 35. You believe in the freehold?- —Yes, lam a freeholder. Everybody has a right to have a freehold. 36. Mr. Mathtson.\ Have vou had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes. 37. Has your experience beeli satisfactory? —No. 38. How was it unsatisfactory? —I would rather borrow money from a private individual than from the Advances to Settlers Department. 39. What was unsatisfactory about it? —It is ss. here for this, and ss. there for that, and if a man borrows for two years it costs him exactly 8 per cent. 40. Do you find that the charges are heavier than if you borrowed privately ?—Yes. You can borrow privately for 6 per cent. 41. Have you raised any loan in this district for roadwork ? —No. 42. Are you aware that such loans have been raised in other districts? —Yes. 43. Mr. McCardle.] Do you not think that the advances-to-settlers system is a good thing if properly administered? —Yes, it is in a way. 44. Has it not a tendency to bring down the rate of interest paid by the settlers ? —I found that the interest is higher when you paid the amount off. 45. Do you think the Government would have appointed this Commission if it did not intend to give some effect to the report of the Commission, and thus meet the just requests of the settlers? —1 do not see what good the Commission is at all. 46. You come here to advocate the freehold. What is the good of your coming this distance to give your evidence if you do not think the recommendations of the Commission would be of much use? —I do not think the Commission will be of much use. 47. And yet you have come seventeen miles to give evidence?—l believe if the Government had expended some of the money that the Commission will cost on some of our roads it would be much better than sending the Commission up here. 48. Do you think there is any question more important than settling the lands of the colony ? —It is an important question. „ 49. Do you not think it is a question of the first importancel—No; I think the question of the first importance to the north of Auckland is that our roads should be inspected in the middle of June or July. 50. But are we not taking evidence now in respect to land matters, and as to your roads? —It is the wrong time of the year. You should come up here in the month of August when the mud is deep. 51. But we have had the experience and the views of settlers who have had as much experience as you have had? —Perhaps some other witnesses have had as much experience as we have had, but they have never worked as hard as I have done. 52. Do you not think that the existence of blocks of Native land stands in the way of the settlement of the country, when you have to make roads through large areas of Native land, and when such land pays no rates? —We have a large population of Natives here, if that land was cut up and settled by Europeans, who would keep the Natives? 53. The money received from the sale or lease of the land would keep them, or help to keep them, would it not? —The Natives are cutting the timber and selling it, and that is helping to keep them. 54. You have had great difficulty with your roads, have you not?— Yes. 55. The old principle of constructing those roads by the Government was by means of " thirds " and by special votes of Parliament. Do you not think it would be much better in the interests of the settlement of the country, and for road-making generally, if the Government granted the settlers £2 for every £1 expended by the settlers in making and metalling the roads? —It would if the money was expended at the right time of the year. 56. If it were expended under the proposal I suggest it would be expended by the local bodies? — Yes; the local bodies would expend the money at the right time of the year. 57. It would mean that the Government would be helping the settlers to help themselves. Would riot that be much better than the present system of special votes, which it is stated are sometimes unexpended ? —Yes.
C.—4.
G. HAKfilS.j
741
58. Mr. McCuichun.] What will your land carry in the way of stock? —Four acres of cleared land will carry one cow for a year all round. 59. Have you laid down a good mixture of grasses? —The crickets are very bad on all sweet grasses. They have not been quite so bad during the last few years as they were during previous years. 60. Does English rye hold on your land ? —No, not on a new burn, but it appears about four or five years later. 61. Does clover hold all right?— Yes, both red and white clover. 62. Do sheep do well? —Yes. 63. Have you ever fattened lambs? —We can raise a 501b. lamb by Christmas. 64. In the north, do you consider the roading question of equal importance to the question of land-tenure? —Yes. The foundation of the success of the north is the roads. 65. Did you get your grant last year ? —Yes, but it was only expended this year. 66. Who expended it? —A Government official —Mr. Menzies. 67. It was not expended through the local body? —No. 68. Was the work economically done? —Yes. 69. Was it done under the co-operative system? —It was done by day-labour. 70. And the work has been satisfactory? —Yes. It was one of the best jobs ever done in this district. 71. What is your real objection to the 999-years lease? —A man who has 999-years lease is working for somebody else, and not for himself. 72. If you take up your land at £1 an acre, and if you put your money out at interest at the current rate of interest of 5 per cent., would not that be a better way of doing business than putting it into a freehold, when you can get the money from the Government at 4 per cent. ? —No. 73. Have you any sense of uneasiness that the leasehold tenure may be interfered with?- A man should have the right of purchase if he wishes it, because a man who is paying rent all his life will not improve his farm like a man who owns the land. A leaseholder will generally take the last straw off the land if he can. 74. Then, you think the freehold is the best tenure? —Yes, the freehold or occupation with right of purchase, and a man should be able to convert the leasehold into a freehold in twenty-five years if he conducts his farming operations well. 75. Do you condemn the Advances to Settlers Department, from your own personal experience? —Yes. The interest I paid on the money advanced amounted to exactly 8 per cent, in two years. 76. How do you make that out? —You have to pay ss. for this, and ss. for that, and 10s. for the valuer to come up, and that has to be added to the percentage. 77. Did you borrow on the instalment system? —Yes. 78 That is, by making seventy-three half-yearly payments the principal and interest would be wiped out. Why did you pay the debt back within two years? —I did so because I thought it was the best thing to do. 79. Do you think it is right, when you pay off the loan in two years, that you should add all the legal charges to the rate of interest ? —Yes. 80. Was it your intention when you borrowed the money to pay it off within two years? — 1 intended to pay it off as soon as possible. 81. Then you were a fortunate man to be able to pay it off within two years? —I had to work very hard in order to do so. 82. I have no doubt about that, but what was your valuation fee ? —los. 83. What was the cost of registration? —2s. 6d. 84. If you had gone to a private lender, would the legal charges have been as small as they were under the Advances to Settlers? —I could have got the money at 5 per cent. 85. As a matter of fact, you did get it at 5 per cent. ?- Yes, but the extra charges made it up to 8 per cent. .86. But, in the case of borrowing from a private individual, the repayments do not include a sinking fund. Is it not the case that if you pay your interest within a certain number of days of the due date you will get a per cent, rebate? —That has only been in force for a short time. 87. Then, it is in force now?- Yes, but when I got my advance it was not in force. 88. Have you ever borrowed money from a private individual?— Not for many years. 89. Did you have to pay a procuration fee when you borrowed from a private individual? — Yes, but I borrowed when money was dear. 90. Did you pay a procuration fee to the Government? —No. 91. Is not that an advantage that the Advances to Settlers Department has over money borrowed privately? It is to a certain extent. I would like also to say that it takes sometimes six months before a settler gets his money from the Advances to Settlers Department. 92. Did it take you six months? —Yes. 93. Would it surprise you to hear that a settler not far from this district got his money within a fortnight of the date of his application ?— That was not so in my case. 93a. Mr. McLennan.] Have you got any gorse on your land? —No. 94. Is there gorse on any of your neighbours' land?- No. 95. Do you know of any one who has sown gorse for sheep-feed? —Not in this locality. 96. Mr. Paul.] With reference to this block of land extending over twenty miles, is some of it settled ? —Yes. 97. How long has it been settled?— Four pioneer settlers went there fourteen years ago. 98. Is their land freehold? —Not all. , 99. What tenure is their land held under? —Some of it was taken up with right of purchase, some on a thirty-years lease with right of renewal, and some with right of purchase twelve years after it was taken up.
C—4.
742
[G. HARRIS.
100. Is the value of land increasing in your district? —A little, not much. 101. You think 100 acres of freehold is better than 200 acres of leasehold? —Yes. 102. Is that a general statement that you think you could apply universally? —Yes. 103. You make that statement from your own experience? —Yes. 104. Is there any absentee-owned land in your district? —Yes, there are a good many absentees. 105. Has the rating on the unimproved value affected the position at all —has it bettered the position ? —Yes, the county gets a larger amount of rates. 106. You said that if this Crown land was thrown open it would be taken up under occupation with right of purchase, but it would not be settled successfully under lease in perpetuity ? —That is so. 107. In this Crown land there are about half a dozen forfeited sections? —Yes. They were forfeited because the settlers were cutting the kauri timber without the sanction of the Land Board. 108. Do you think the settlers in your district could buy their freeholds within a few years? —Yes. 109. Then the district cannot be a very bad one? —Our district is a very good one, and would be much better if it had more population and better roads. If we had good roads it would be one of the best districts in the North of Auckland. 110. Mr. Anstey.] You referred to land as being held by absentees: which land is that? —It is Crown and unoccupied land. 111. I thought you said there was no one living on it? —That is so, except one settler. 112. Do you know what is the form of tenure of the unoccupied land? —Some freehold and some occupation with right of purchase. 113. Are the people who have the land on occupation witli right of purchase living on it? —No. 114. Are the freeholders living on their land? —No. 115. Do you think it would be a good thing if the Board insisted on the residential clauses being carried out I—lt1 —It would be a good thing to make those who have land on occupation with right of purchase live on their land. 116. Do you think the freeholders ought to be made to live on their laud? - -Yes. 117. You think the same residential conditions should apply to the freeholder as apply to the leaseholder ? —Yes. 118. With reference to these roads that lead to nowhere, who opened up those roads? The Government. 119. 1 presume the local body is expending their rates well and economically? —The local body expend their rates in a proper way as far as it is in their power to do. 120. Does the Government expend all the money that is allocated by way of grants? —Yes. 121. Mr. Johnston.'] You say the leaseholder does not treat his land as well as the freeholder? — That is so. 122. That is to say, if a man leases a piece of land he does not do it justice according to the terms of his lease ?—I say that a leaseholder at the end of his term is not likely to leave his land in the same state as a freeholder would. 123. That is to say, he would be dishonest enough to take out of the land more than he ought to? —Yes; there are a good many who would do. 124. Mr. McGutchan.] With reference to the occupation-with-right-of-purchase sections which have not been resided on, how long have they been taken up? —Some of them have been taken up for a number of years. 125. More than four years? —Yes. 126. You are aware that there is a four-years exemption in their case? —Yes. 127. This land has been taken up longer than that? —Yes. 128. Mr. Hall.] Did I understand you to say that the settlers up here can borrow more favourably privately than from the Government?- Yes. 129. Does that not seem strange, seeing that money is worth from 5 to 6 per cent, on the best securities in and around the City of Auckland? —It is not the percentage, but it is the charges that I spoke of. 130. Is it not a fact that in borrowing privately there is a procuration fee'of 1 per cent., and that that charge is not made in the case of the Government?— That is so. 131. And are not the expenses of mortgages more in the case of private loans than in the case of loans from the Government? —No. 132. As far as my experience goes the cost is more in borrowing privately?— Perhaps the security has a great deal to do with it. A man with good security can get money far easier than a man with poor security from a private individual. 133. Can money be got at 5 per cent, on land up here freely?—l can get money at 5 per cent. 134. Then your security is a good one?—My security is good. 135. Mr. Johnston.] What was your lawyer's bill of costs for making out your last mortgage? -I could not say. 136. Was it £s?—l could not say. 137. Do you know that the lawyers' charges are three times as much when the money is borrowed privately?— The Government should not allow it. 138. You got your money privately. You know that any one borrowing privately lias to pay nearly three times the amount for a mortgage as he would have to pay for a loan obtained from the Advances to Settlers Department?—l do not think so. 139. You say you cannot tell us the amount of the lawyer's charge? —I said that I could not tell you without referring to my correspondence.
G. BUCHANAN.]
743
C.—4
Geohge Buchanan examined. 140. The Chairman.] What are you?- lam a settler living at Broadwood, and hold 252 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have held that land about twelve months, and am paying on a rental value of 7s. 6d. per acre. My land is bush land, and is mostly hilly and undulating. It is situated about twenty miles from Kohukohu. There is a road which was made some years ago, but it is overgrown, and there are many slips on it, and it is impassable at the present time. I have never really been through it. 141. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission? —I would like to have the option of the freehold. 142. Do you not think the lease in perpetuity is a satisfactory tenure? —No. 143. What is your objection to it?--You do not feel quite so secure under it as under the freehold. 144. Is that feeling of insecurity caused by your thinking that the terms of the lease will be altered ? —I am beginning to think it is leading that way. 145. Mr. Forbes.] If you got the option of the freehold would you be able to purchase your land? —I think I would within a given time. 146. You would not like to have to pay down the money at once —the payment would have to be extended over a period of years? —Yes. 147. Is there anything in the terms of the lease in perpetuity which prevents you improving your land? —Not so far ; but I would not do so much in that way as if I knew it was my own land. 148. But you have got the land for 999 years: is not that long enough? —Yes; but it may be revalued. 149. If it were revalued do j*ou not think that would be breaking the lease? —Yes. 150. Do you think it is reasonable to suppose that any set of individuals would think of doing that? —Certainly not; but you cannot fight the Government. 151. Do you not think the same thing might arise in the case of a freehold? If the Government broke the lease in perpetuity could they not also break the freehold ?-*-If you had the right of acquiring the freehold you would have a better chance of getting the money elsewhere to convert the leasehold. 152. Do you find any difficulty in raising money under the lease in perpetuity? —I have never tried, but I believe it is harder to get money under the lease in perpetuity. 153. Did you have the opportunity of taking up the land under any other tenure than the lease in perpetuity? —Yes, I had the option, and I was quite satisfied at the time. 154. How long have you had it? —Twelve months. 155. What makes you dissatisfied? — is so much talk of revaluation. 156. That is the reason that makes you wish to get the freehold? —Yes. 157. Mr. Hall.] Do you consider that in the interests of the district and of the colony the waste lands of the Crown should be settled and improved? —Yes. 158. Under what tenure do you think that settlement could most likely be given effect to? —• I think the old homestead system is the best. 159. Do you think that people are willing to take up land under the lease in perpetuity without right of purchase I—l1 —I have no doubt there are plenty who would; but I have no doubt most people would prefer a lease with the right of purchase, or that they should take up land under the homestead system. 160. What has chiefly retarded settlement —is it the locking-up of so much land? —I cannot get on my land, and I have had it over twelve months. I do not know how I am to get there, unless I pack my family on a horse. 161. Do you think that striking a rate on the unimproved value would be a good thing? —Yes. But we really want more settlers on the land. 162. You want more Native and Crown land thrown open and settled?— Yes; all available land should be thrown open for settlement. .163. Mr. Johnston.] Can you account for so much land between here and Ohaeawai lying waste ? —No. 164. Is it not mostly freehold land? —I could not say. I have only been here a little over twelve months. 165. Where were you before you came here? —In Auckland. 166. In the City of Auckland? —No. 167. You do not know anything about the south of this Island? —No. 168. You have had no experience outside of Auckland? —I was through Taranaki. 169. Is settlement successful there under lease in perpetuity? —I cannot say. 170. Are the leaseholders doing well there? —I cannot say. It is about twelve years since I was there. 171. Do you not think that the cause of so much land lying idle is that there are so many absentees owning land? —There are, no doubt, a good many absentees, and they are a drawback to the place. 172. If the land were held under the leasehold system there would not be so many absentees, would there? —I think there would be just the same. 173. How could the holders be absentees if they held leases and had to make certain improvements on the land?- I cannot answer that question. 174. Mr. Matheson.] If people in the cities have an interest in the Crown land that is leased, and if the State gives people the right of obtaining the freehold, do you think it is doing justice to the people in the cities? —Certainly. 175. Do you think that by granting the right of obtaining the freehold the Government would make the country more prosperous? —Yes,
C.—4.
744
[G. BUCHANAN.
176. What has made you nervous in reference to revaluation? —If a man takes up a place for a certain period he does not want to have his rent raised. 177. What has made you fear revaluation? —It is the general opinion that we will have revaluation. 178. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —No. 179. But you would approve of any system that- would have a tendency to bring down the price of money, so that farming could be engaged in more profitably? —Yes; I think it is a good thing for the settler. 180. What is the value of your land per acre? —7s. 6d 181. By the time you have done your improvements your interest in the land will be greater than that of the Government ? —Yes. 182. Are you honestly of opinion that the freehold tends to assist settlers in being more successful ? —Yes. 183. Are you of opinion that a man holding freehold land should be called upon to reside on the land? —Yes. 184. Do you think there is a danger of large estates accumulating in the district if the option of the freehold is granted to Crown tenants, or that one man is likely to buy up a number of adjoining sections? —There is no doubt that will occur in certain cases. 185. You think it is desirable in the interests of sound settlement that restrictions should be imposed by the Government in respect to the area of land that may be held b}' one man ? —I believe that one man should not be allowed to hold more than a certain area of land. 186. Would you be willing to pay the extra I per cent, to get the right of purchase? —Yes. 187. Mr. Paul.\ Would vou-mind explaining a little more fully wherein the insecurity of the lease in perpetuity lies? —If I wanted to leave the section at any time I could not sell it nearly as readily or as well as if I held the land under occupation with right of purchase. 188. Would it not cost you more to take up the land under occupation with right of purchase? —Yes ; but I would feel more secure. 189. Why would you feel more secure? —If a man knows that he owns a thing or is going to own it, and that he can do what he likes with it, he will do more and feel more secure than if he has to pay rent all his life. 190. But he cannot do what he likes with the land until he owns it? —But he has a chance of owning it. 191. Has there been much discussion about revaluation here? —I only speak of what I have read. 192. What makes you think your lease is going to be revalued?—l speak as a result of what I have read ; and there is another thing, that I think a man would be more secure if he had a freehold. What about the townspeople? Are they not in favour of the leasehold? 193. Do you think they are? —I think so. 194. Do you not think they are quite honest in that belief? —No. 195. Why do you think they hold that opinion? —Because I think it would be a bar to settlement, and the settlement of the land is the backbone of any country. If we do not get the land settled the country will be at a standstill here. 196. You think the land should be settled under the homestead system? —As far as I have seen, that is the best system that could be adopted here. 197. Do you know that that was practically giving the land away, subject to certain conditions? —It would pay the Government to give the land away rather than have it locked up for a, number of years. 198. Would that apply universally? —No, I do not think it would ; but it would apply in such places as this. 199. Do vou believe that the townspeople are wrong in supporting the leasehold and revaluation ? —Yes. 500. Do you not think that a section of the Crown tenants are helping the feeling of insecurity in regard to the leasehold by asking for a change? For instance, you made a contract with the State to take up certain land under lease in perpetuity ; now you want something more than the Slate gave you? —That is so; but I am quite willing to abide by my contract if the State abides by its contract. But if I had my way I should prefer the freehold. 201. But that would be a variation, or a breach of (he contract?- -Yes. 202. And vou do not want that? —I say that if the State abides by its contract lam prepared to abide by mine. 203. Do vou think the lease in perpetuity has anything in its conditions that hinders settlement? —I do not know that it hinders settlement : but most people are in favour of the freehold. 204. Do you think that the want of roads is a greater bar to successful settlement than the question of tenure ?—There is no doubt the want of roads is a great bar to settlement. 205. Would you prefer the lease in perpetuity with good road-access, or the option of the freehold without roads? —I would sooner have the freehold, and trust to the subsequent making of the roads. 206. Mr. Anstey.~\ Suppose you were quite sure there was to be no revaluation, would you consider your form of tenure satisfactory ?—I could go and work with a better heart. 207. Do vou think it would be wrong for the Government to revalue your section ?--T do. 208. You think the contract should be held sacred on both sides?— Yes. 209. Have the Government ever'hinted to you that they intended to revalue your land? —No. 210. Do you not think that you and some of your neighbours who are agitating for a breach of the agreement are more to blame than any one else for this supposed insecurity of tenure? — 1 am not agitating.
G. BUCHANAN.]
745
C— 4.
211. You have told us to-day that you wanted the freehold? —I only say I would rather have the freehold. A man cannot help thinking these things, especially when there are others of the same opinion as himself. 212. Suppose there is a lot of land lying idle in the front blocks, do you not think it would he wise for the Government to settle that first?- Yes, and then extend backwards. 213. We have to-day driven through twenty miles of country between here and Ohaeawai, scarcely any of which has been brought into cultivation. What would you suggest would be the best means of inducing settlement on that land —lands through which roads have already been made? —I should say that a man who takes up a section should have to reside on it a certain time. If he does not reside, then let him throw it up and allow some one else to apply. 214. Would you make that apply to Maori lands? —That is a different question. I do not know about them. I could not go into the Maori question at all. 215. What value do you consider should be placed on your section when you have it properly improved, fenced, and laid down in grass, and have a house built upon it, and so forth ? —About £4 an acre. It would cost me that. 216. Your interest would then be seven times as great as that of the Government, or rather more? —Yes. 217. Do you think the trifling amount you have to pay as rent will ever be a very serious embarrassment to you I—No,1 —No, I cannot say that. It is the revaluation lam frightened of. 218. You took up your land at a rental of 4 per cent, on the capital value. Suppose you were granted the freehold, would you pay anything extra for it ? —Yes; I would pay up the back expenses up to 5 per cent. 219. Would you be prepared to put the land up to auction? —No. 2i20. You would not be prepared to pay the value at the time you wished to buy it? —No. 221. Have you read lately that a Trades and Labour Conference, held in Wellington, suggested the wisdom of revaluing leases like yours at a certain period ? —No. 222. If you had read of such a meeting would that give you reason to be uneasy about revaluation? Is it the reading of such things that has made you uneasy? —It would depend a lot upon who held the meeting. 223. Mr. McCardle.] I suppose you are aware that this Commission is here to ascertain the opinions of the settlers, and to inquire into the different forms of land-tenure, and to report generally what will be in the best interests of the country as regards land-settlement? You presume that effect will be given to that report ? —Well, I hope so. 224. Mr. McCutchan.] Within the past month there was a conference held in Wellington of representatives sent by the trades and labour organizations throughout the colony, and at that conference an official pronouncement was made that the leases should be revalued upon transfer or upon the death of the lessee. Do you think it would be wise to carry that recommendation into effect ? —No. 225. If such a recommendation were carried into effect —that there should be revaluation upon the death of the lessee —the legacy to the widow and orphans would be a revaluation of. their lease? —Yes. 226. Do you think that is a legitimate aim for the trades and labour organizations of the colony to attempt to realise?--It would if the family got the full benefit of it. 227. The object of revaluation is to increase the rent, is it not? —Yes. 228. Under these circumstances could a family get any benefit from revaluation? —I should not think so. 229. Mr. Paul.\ Do you understand the principle of revaluation? —No; I cannot say I do. 230. Then, why are you frightened of it?- I soon would understand the effect of it, but at the present time I do not. Septimus Bacon examined. 231." The Chairman.] Are you a settler? —I can hardly be called a settler, as lam not now living on the land. I have two small pieces of land —one of 88 acres and the other 44 acres. The 88 acres is under occupation with right of purchase and the 44 acres is freehold. I have held the occupation-with-right-of-purchase section about twelve years, and am paying 6d. per acre for it. 232. Do you think that tenure is satisfactory ?—Yes, I think it is a good tenure. 233. Do Vou intend to make it freehold I—-No ; I think the money is better invested without going in for a freehold. 234. You quite believe in the leasehold? —I think if every one would take leases in perpetuity I should be prepared to resign both my present tenures and convert them into lease in perpetuity. I am only sorry to think the time has not yet come when the State will resume the whole of the occupation of the land. 235. Is your land near here?— About seven miles up the river. It is bush land. About 30 acres of one section I have felled and grassed, and the other I have not touched —that is, the leasehold section. 236. Is it grassed successfully? —No. About the second year the caterpillars fairly destroyed it, and the second lot of grass has not appeared yet; but I am gradually getting it back by resowing. 237. Are you using any of your land for dairying?—No; just for running steers. 238. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think you need all your money to improve your section without putting it into the purchase of land?— Well, I am in rather an ambiguous position. I am not really a settler at present. I am interested in sawmilling, and am letting the land alone with eight head of steers on it. 239. Are you making any improvements on it? —I intend to fell about 16 acres of bush this winter.
94—C 4.
[S. BACON.
a—4.
746
240. Have you had any different feeling as between your leasehold and your freehold? No, I think it is only a name. 241. How are the settlers getting on in this district? —Well, 1 have no neighbours. 1 ain bounded by Native land. There are only about four settlers up the river, and I think they are making a comfortable living, but not entirely off the land, because they have outside employment chiefly. 242. Is there any gum-digging ?--No. 243. Do the Natives hold the best of the land in the district?— They have very good land, but they have poor land as well. The majority in this part have good land. 244. Mr. Mathesoii.] Do you think it would be a good thing if all the occupiers of land in the country and in the towns were tenants and paid rent to the Crown? —Yes. 245. Mr. McCardle.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes. 246. What is your opinion of it?—l think it is a step in the right direction, i think the fact that it enables some people to say that they can now obtain money cheaper than they could formerly has had the effect of reducing the rates of interest. 247. You have no fault to find with it? —No. 248. We passed to-day through a large area of bush country, which seemed to be taking the grass well. Do you know on what tenure that land was taken up ? I think it was taken up under the homestead system. 249. What is your opinion of the homestead system here now? I think the land has become too valuable. I think if the land is any good at all it is worth buying. 250. Have you any experience of the manner in which roads are made? —Well, the river is my road; but I think the chief difficulty in regard to roads is the impecuniosity of the County Council. 251. You know something about the principle of special votes being granted by Parliament for special roads, and the tendency to log-rolling and so forth which this leads to: do you not think it would be better to allow the settlers to rate themselves for the raising of special loans, and to receive £2 by way of subsidy from the Government for every one they raise for the making and metalling of roads?— The settlers are not numerous enough about here; they are too much scattered 252. But, still, there is a large amount of land, and the Natives are to be rated under the new Rating Act, and the land ought not to be lying idle?— The chief difficulty is the Native land. 253. But now the Natives will have to contribute their fair share of the rate revenue?— The question is, whether the rating of Native land will ever hold good. The Natives object to it. I think it would be better for the Natives to be given a free Land Court to ascertain their titles definitely, and they should be allowed to sell subject to the subdivision of the Government, and if they become landless let them be the same as landless Europeans are. 254. 1 suppose you know that the Natives are protected in this way: that they must retain 50 acres each for their own use. Do you think it would be well for the State to ascertain the titles and clear up the question as soon as possible? —Yes. 255. The north can never progress until the Native difficulty is settled, can it?— No. 256. Mr. McGutchan.\ Are you a farmer by profession? —No, I am a carpenter. 257. Are you a student of land-tenures?—To a certain extent, superficially. 258. You believe in the nationalisation of the land? —Yes. 259. And you would prefer to hold land under the lease in perpetuity, although you know it is not an equally marketable commodity?—l would be if all the land was held under the same tenure. . , 260. That would mean a depreciation of the occupation-with-nght-ot-purchase tenure and an appreciation of the lease in perpetuity? Yes. 261. How is it that you have not converted your holding into a lease-in-perpetuity holding? —I do not care to make a martyr of myself for my convictions while others are taking up the freehold of the land. 262. So, for speculative purposes you bought 40 acres of land for cash? —Yes, partly tor speculative purposes. 263. You spoke about the caterpillars destroying the grass on your land?—les; but chiefly crickets. . 264. Have you any English birds in the district?— Unfortunately, we have birds here which are a great nuisance. They will not eat the crickets. 265. Did you ever try the introduction of turkeys ?—Yes; but the turkeys seemed to have a superabundance of these crickets and got disgusted with them. 266. Are you a family man? —No. That is one reason why I am not now on the land. 267. If you had a family would you he on the land?— Yes. 268. Mr. McLennan.] Do you treat your lease-in-perpetuity section differently from your freehold? Which do you improve the most?—l do not intend to improve the freehold so long as I can hold it without doing so. lam holding it for speculative purposes. 269. Do vou improve the leasehold? —Yes. 270 Suppose you resided on the place and intended to get your living off the land, which would you improve the best—the freehold or (he leasehold ?—Whichever I was intending to make my h °™ e Yo u would not give them equal treatment?—No, unless I had sufficient capital to do so. If my means were limited I would only improve the one I intended to reside upon. 272 Mr. Paul.] You think all further sale of Crown lands should be stopped? —I think so. 273. How would you settle the land? That is a question more for the Government to fight out It is hardlv fair to ask private individuals to formulate a policy for the land-administration of the colony.
747
S. BACON.J
C—4.
27 4. Witli regard to this rough bush land, do you think it should be leased to settlers on very easy terms during the first thirty or lifty years? —I do not think the terms need be any easier than they are at present. If the option of the freehold were taken away there would be always men, 1 believe, to take the land on any conditions under which it is offered. 275. Do you believe in lease in perpetuity ? —Yes. 276. Do you believe in the principle of revaluation being applied to leases under that tenure? -Yes, always exempting the improvements which the tenant lias put upon the land; but the State should get any improvements that have accrued to the land through the action of others. 2it. Mr. Anstey.J You are holding this 44 acres purely as a speculation? —Yes. 278. Are there many others on the same lay "as yourself in that respect? —I think there is very little land held in this district for speculative purposes. 279. Mr. Hall.J Have you had any experience of earning a living off land alone? —Very little; 1 am not a farmer. 280. But you think other people should not have the freehold of land up here, and that it should be all leased ? —I cannot think it would make the slightest difference to them, as leasehold would give them the same return per acre as freehold. 281. Suppose people will not take it up under the conditions you suggest, what then? —I should want first to realise that such is the fact. 282. Is it not taken as it is? —Well, of course, there are Crown lands lying idle which have been offered to the public for years in this district —in fact, ever since 1 have been here —under the different kinds of tenure, 283. Is it not important that land should be taken up, settled on, and improved? —Yes. 284. And under such tenures as will induce people to take up the lands and improve them? —Yes. 285. Mr. McC'ardle.\ Do you not think if the State refused to part with any more of this land it would raise the value of the land now held by private persons? —It would, probably; but the land-tax should work hand-in-hand with the system. 286. Mr. Paul.J When speaking against the further sale of Crown lands you did not mean that the lands should not be settled? —Certainly not. 287. Mr, McCutchan.\ As a mechanic by occupation, and as one who has taken up land solely for speculative purposes, do you think if a revaluation clause is introduced into these leases it would prevent people going into the back districts, occupying the land, and making it reproductive? —It might have a tendency that way, but it is hard to say until you have tried. Daviii Brown Wallace examined. 288. The Chairman.] What are you ?- 1 am at present a storekeeper in Kohukohu. I have been ill that business about twelve years, and have been resident here about twenty-eight years. 1 have no farm land —merely a few sections around Kohukohu. 289. Has there been steady progress in the way of land-settlement and more produce put out? —The district has progressed more during the last twelve years than it has during the previous twenty years. 290. What do you ascribe that to? —I think what gave it a start first was the mill, and after that the village settlement. Although the village settlement proved a failure people got to know that such a place as Hokianga existed, and a certain number of people became settlers. 291. Why do you think the village settlement was a failure? —Because very few of the settlers remained. 292. But, still, it was a sort of advertisement for the district, and tended to bring genuine settlers ? —Yes. 293. Is there much fiax about? —Not a great deal, but there are two mills —one at Itawene and one here. 294. Is there much gum-digging within the Hokianga watershed ? —Not compared with other places. They dig in the winter months in the State forests. The timber is the principal industry. 295. Is there much dairying? —Not enough to supply our own wants. 296. Is there much slieep-farming? —No; more cattle. 297. Any fisheries? —Not for export. Simply for local use. 298. Mr. Forbes.] Has there been much clearing in the district? —Yes, when I came here there was no land cleared on the banks of the river, except just opposite here. 299. Is there any demand for further land to be opened up? —There is a great demand, but there is the want of roads to get to it. Numbers of people have come from the south in the last few years, but they see that there is no getting to the land in the winter-time. 300. What do you think would be the best way of getting over the difficulty? —The difficulty is want of money to make the roads. There is so much Native land and Government land on which no rates are paid. 301. Would it not be better to put a higher price on the land, so that access could be given to the sections before the settlers took them up? Would not the settlers under the circumstances be in a position to pay a slightly advanced rent? —I suppose so. 302. Is there much land around here that could be settled? —Yes, both Crown and Native land. 303. Do you think the want of roads is keeping back the district? —Yes. 304. Mr. Matheson.] How much longer do you think the timber industry will last here? —I should think another ten or fifteen years. 305. What do you think is the best tenure to offer Crown lands for settlement under? —I think the favourite tenure is the freehold, though I do not believe in it myself. I think it would have been wise if the State had held all the land and had never sold any of it. I think the country would be more prosperous if every one was a Crown tenant.
C—4.
748
I), hi WALLACE
306. Have you any experience of Government advances to settlers? —Yes, and 1 think it is in the interests of the country. 307. Do you think the Government should extend its operationsl do. 308. Do you think the Government leaseholders should be given the preference ? —That is rather a hard question to answer. 309. Do you think the settlers who are improving the land are most deserving of assistance from the Government. For instance, there are large estates being purchased by the Government and cut up for settlement in the South, would it not be proper for the Government to make advances to those settlers? —I think it would be better for the Government to cut up the blocks they have here before they buy estates from other people. They have plenty of estates here which they could cut up and road. 310. You are aware there are a large number of settlers who understand agricultural pursuits, but who know nothing at all about the bush, and that to bring them here would be only to court failure. Do you think the Government should say that those men should come to the north? 1 think it would be better for the Government to spend the money in making roads here than in buying large estates. 311. But you say settlement here is so smail and scattered, and that your lands are at present not bringing in as much to the State as are the lands elsewhere? 1 suppose they are bringing in as much in proportion. 312. Suppose we now proposed a new departure, and said to those people prepared to take up these lands, " If you agree to rate yourselves, we will find £2 for every £1 you raise by taxation to form and metal those roads," would you then get land-settlement along with roads, and could you make tliose roaus maintain tiiemseives V—No; Hie settlement is too far back. Take Broadwood, for instance, about sixteen miles from here, with no settlement between: if you rated the Native lands and (Jrown lands you could maintain the roads. 313. We have a JNative liating Act on the statute-book now ?- But it has not produced any money yet. The only time we had any roads made here was when the Crown and Native lands were rated, but that did not last long. 314. Would you approve of the Government giving the whole of the value of the land to the district for the purpose of making roads ? —lt would be such a little drop in the bucket. It would be of no use. 315. Then, there is nothing that will be of use to you? —Yes, if the Government make the roads. They have the iand, and they should open it up. 316. Mr. McGutchan.] Do you say the total price of the land would not road the country? — I would not say that. 317. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards? —I see nothing wrong with it. 318. Do you consider four members are sufficient to represent a large land district like Auckland, for instance ? —lt might be better to have more members, but 1 believe the present members do the best they can. 319. Would you be in favour of the Auckland Land District being separated into seven of the most convenient divisions, and each division being represented on the Land Board by a nominee of the Government ? —I should like to give the matter a little more study before giving a definite answer. 320. Is this the headquarters of the county ? —No, Rawene. 321. Mr. McLennan.J Is it a fact that in former years wheat was grown on the opposite side of the river ? —Yes. 322. Was much of that land in cultivation? —No, there was just a strip which you can see now across the river. 323. It has been allowed to go back into tea-tree? —Yes. Mr. X. C. Firth, who was a flourmiller by profession, expressed the opinion that the best wheat he got was from Hokianga. That was thirty years ago. 324. Why cannot it do that now ? —lt has been neglected and allowed to go back into tea-tree. 325. Has any of the land between here and Ohaeawai been allowed to go back into tea-tree after being cleared? —1 do not think so. That is different kind of country. The Okaihau Settlement was taken up under the homestead system. That was bush land. 326. Mr. Paul.] You believe in the leasehold tenure: what form of lease do you advocate? — The 999-years lease. 327. Do you think all future leases should be subject to revaluation? —Yes, all leases. 328. Do you think all future sale of Crown lands should be stopped? —It is almost too late in the day now. It would have been better for the colony if it had not parted with any of its land. To stop it now would give the freeholders an advantage. 329. Is it not better late than never ?—lt is my opinion that all the land should be held on lease from the State, 330. Would you extend the most liberal provisions to settlers on this class of land, and give very long leases at a very low rental on this bush land 1 —999 years is long enough for any one. 331. Do you believe in periodical revaluation? —Yes. 332. Do you not think the first term without revaluation should be longer in the case of this class of land than in the case of improved estates? —If a man takes up bush land I think he should have it for a certain number of years for nothing; but, still, I would not give him the freehold. 333. Then, you would be against the reintroduction of the homestead system? —Yes, so far as parting with the freehold is concerned, although that system has been very successful up here. 334. Mr. Anstey.\ Have many.of the original homestead settlers at Okaihau left the district? — Very few of them have gone away. 335. Are the sections still held singly, as originally allotted, in areas of 50 acres? —Well, families have taken them up and they have combined.
749
C.—4.
D. B. WALLACE.
336. Do you think 50 acres is sufficient for a man to make a living upon ? —No : on this class of laud 1 should think he would require 200 acres. He could make a fair living on 200 acres. 337. Are the leaseholders in this district fairly prosperous? —Just on a par with the freeholders, L fancy. 338. Do you give as much credit to a leaseholder as to a freeholder ? —lt depends entirely on the man. Many of them hold both leasehold and freehold. 339. Suppose you were asked to make a small loan to any of them? —I would take into consideration more the character of the landholder than his tenure. 340. Mr. McVardle.] Have you many leaseholders here on the 999-years tenure? —1 think there are a good number, judging from the number of applications put in. 341. But there are a good many applications that never get through. When you give credit to a man, do you ask whether he is a freeholder or a leaseholder ? —No; I take the man's own word. 342. Mr. Hall.] As regards Crown lands, you think the freehold should not be parted with, but should be leased without the right of purchase, the conditions being made as easy as possible, more especially on this bush land ? -Yes. 343. Do you think that is the opinion held by the bona fide intending settlers? —By some. 344. But generally?- I think the feeling of the majority is in favour of the freehold. 345. Is it not necessary that the forms of tenure should be such as to induce people to go upon the land? —I think if people could not get the freehold they would take the leasehold. Joseph Vaughan examined. 346. The Chairman.J What are you? I am Chairman of the County Council, and lam a farmer pure and simple. 1 have been here about twenty years. 1 farm 1,100 acres, 640 being freehold, and the remainder occupation with right of purchase. 347. What tenure do you prefer? The freehold, by all means. 348. I suppose you use your land mostly for grazing? —Yes, cattle raising and sheep, also a little dairying. My place is about seven miles up the Oririra River. 349. What have you to say as regards the progress of the district? —For a long time the district was at a standstill, but lately it has gone ahead pretty well. 350. We have had that ascribed to the timber industry, the flax industry, and so on? —Yes, it is all the industries combined, but 1 cannot say lam satisfied with the settlement of the laud. That has not kept pace with the general trade, and I am afraid when the timber is done there will be a great falling ofi. 351. What has retarded the settlement of the land, do you think? —The principal thing is the Native land. That blocks the way. The greater portion of the county is owned by the Natives. If it was all contained in one large block, and the pakehas could settle on the remainder, it would not be so bad; but the Native lands are scattered all over the country. You require to make long stretches of road from one settlement to another, and at great expense. 352. You are aware that an Act has been passed for the rating of Native land? —Yes; but if you knew the Natives you would know that is a dead-letter. We have tried to collect a dog-tax, and we have had what was known as the " kuri war" in the district. And as regards fencing, we can make a charge on Maori land for feficing, but 1 never bother my head about trying to get it, as it is quite hopeless. 353. Is there any way of remedying that state of affairs? —1 think a good plan would be for the Government to take over all the unused Native land and administer it for them —either sell it or lease it for them, as the case may be. Then the proceeds should be paid to the Natives in small instalments. There are 38,000 acres of Native land at Kaikohe, and only 1,000 acres of it is occupied. The rest of the land is scrub and tea-tree. The Natives own all these river flats, which are good land. The unfortunate white man has to toil away at the poor land. 354. Is there a road running through Kaikohe? —The road just goes through the top of it. I mention that place as one notable example; but all these river flats are fine, rich land, occupied by the Natives. 355. Mr. Forbes.] Is there much land held by absentees? —There are two or three large settlements —one known as the Federli Settlement, but this is mostly sold now. There may be 2,000 or 3,000 acres left. Those people live in Canterbury. That land was bought from a private gentleman here by a company and sold in small sections. Many of the owners live in Canterbury. 356. Do they pay rales? —Yes. We rate on the unimproved value here. 357. Is there much other land held for speculative purposes? —Not a great deal. As a rule, it has been cleared and made use of for farming. 358. Not much of it is held in its native state? —No ; but if a farmer does go away the land gets into a worse state than it was in before. It all goes back to tea-tree and fern in a couple of years. It is almost hopeless for a man to tackle tea-tree and fern in this country. Up my way 1 have known 7 ft. of fern to grow in ten days. 359. How are the roads in this county? —Bad. 360. Why? —Because there is no money. 361. How much does your rate produce? —About £400. 362. How many miles of roads have you to do with that? -About four thousand —that is, taking all the roads and tracks. 363. Then, you can practically do nothing at all? —We can just patcli up little pieces here and there. 364. Do you get any Government grants at all? —A good many on paper. 365. Are they not spent?- A few of them are. If there is £5 left over from last year then the grant is put down again on the next year's estimates, and so it goes on for years. There is a small amount of 9d. that will be on, I suppose, for 999 years, and I would suggest that it would be
0.—4.
750
J. VAIiUHAN.
best to have a drink with that and clear it ofi and start afresh. The whole system is bad, as it gives people a false idea of what is being done. We had £5,000 this year on the estimates, and perhaps £1,000 expended. 366. Who spends it ? —The County Council spend a portion of it, and the Government, through their officers, spend some other portion. 367. You get " thirds "1- -Yes, but they do not amount to very much. 368. Do you take any action against the absentees if they do not pay their rates? —Certainly. We attempted to sell some of these properties, but the Court seemed to put obstacles in our way, and the attempt was abandoned. 369. What Court do you mean?- The Court in Auckland at which the cases were heard. 370. Has this system of rating on the unimproved value which you brought in had any effect in helping to settle these lands at all?—It has the effect of helping the settlers who are here, because all these people who are away have to pay an equal share of the rates now. Before, of course, they only paid a very small proportion indeed. The only flaw in the Act is in regard to the township here. They get ofi too easy. Sections here that were paying £3 before are now paying about 18s. I think special provision ought to have been made in the Act for townships. 371. Would the settlers here be willing to pay an increased rate if they thought the Council were going to spend much money in the town ? —The money is spent in the riding where the rates are collected. 372. Is much revenue used for the purpose of supplying roads in the township or metalling them? —This township is in rather an unfortunate position. The rates are rather small, and the demand for roads is great. We have an overdraft here. 373. Mr. Hall.] Does the haulage of timber, gum, and flax over these clay tracks cause much damage? —Merely a little damage,-and not to the extent that might be supposed, because most of the timber is driven down the creeks. 374. I suppose it is considered that the export of timber, gum, and flax is an advantage to the colony? —Greatly so. 375. In consideration of that, do you think the north should get a little more help for roadmaking? —I think if we got some proportion of the royalty from this timber, which it is only reasonable we should get, then we could do something. We get nothing at all now. A big lot of timber was sold a little while ago, and we never got a penny beyond the ordinary grant. 376. As a lot of Crown land is still unoccupied, and a large extent of land is in the hands of the Natives, and neither pay rates, is that a further reason why the Government should give more aid here in road-making? —I think so. I think they ought to make a difference in this county. It is in an embryo stage, and making a little progress. One difficulty about our road-making is that every road is a main road leading down to the water-way. 377. Mr. Johnston.] You say you have 1,100 acres: how much is in grass? —About 500 acres in English grasses -a little more, perhaps, all told. Some has become overgrown with tea-tree and scrub again. 378. And you have allowed it to come again?- It has come without my allowing it. 379. What is the good of sowing the land down in grass if that cannot be avoided? —It cannot be avoided unless you can plough the land, and some of it is too steep to plough. You cannot really eradicate the tea-tree on such land. 380. Then, really the land is worthless?- It is very expensive to keep clean. 381. Will it pay to put it into grass? —It will grow good grass if you can keep the growth off. You have to keep worrying away at it to keep it down. 382. Will this worrying pay? —It hardly pays. One has to keep putting all one can make into the farm in order to try and bring it into cultivation. 383. Will not cattle keep the tea-tree down ?—Sheep nibble it a little, but it grows at an awful rate. You have nothing to compare with its growth in the south. 384. What does the balance of your land consist of? —It is standing in bush. I am getting it down at the rate of 50 or 60 acres a year. .385. Is it kauri bush or mixed bush?- It is mixed bush. 386. How much can you fell at one time? —As much as I possibly can. I start early in the season. 387. Have you never felled more than 60 acres? -Yes. I chopped down 200 acres in one season. It burnt well, and I have a good sole of grass on it. 388. Is the fern coming up on that land?—No, except around the borders. 389. Does the fern or tea-tree come on the bush land after it has been sown in grass? —No. There are spaces in the bush with a little tea-tree, but we are very careful to chop it down and not allow it to spread. 390. How long have you had bush land in grass ?--Eighteen years, I suppose. 391. And there is still a good sole of grass?— Yes; the grass is all right. 392. How manv sheep to the acre will it carry? —If it was subdivided I could carry three sheep easily and well to the acre. Of course, lam carrying more than that now; but taking the average right through it would carry three sheep to the acre. If this bush land was subdivided, so that you could pass the sheep on from one paddock to another, it would really carry more. 393. What will the scrub land carry after it is cleared?—lt ought to carry two sheep easily. 394. Do you intend to improve the balance of your land? —I will worry at it until I get the whole in good English grass 395. If you felled at the rate of 200 acres a year you would soon get it done?— Yes; and the more you do the more money you have to do the rest quickly. 396. How long have you been on this-farm? Twenty years. 397 You say it is hardly worth while tackling some of the land about here on account of the scrub coming back? —Unless you are a millionaire.
751
C.—4.
J. VAUGHAN.
398. Who does that scrub land belong to between here and Ohaeawai? —That heavy tea-tree land is fairly good, and it belongs to the Natives. 399. I mean a lot of land on the flat by Lake Omapere? —It is ironstone, and will not grow anything at all. It is practically barren. 400. You say £5,000 has been voted by the Government: what for I—Grants1 —Grants for roads. 401. How much do you say you have got of it? —At present we have not more than £1,000 really spent. Of course, there is more to come. 402. The Government have given this to make roads? Some they have handed to the County Council, and some they have spent themselves. I think, if I recollect aright, we have only had two grants of that money, and the rest the Government have spent. We are agreeable to that, so long as it is spent. 403. How is it you do not borrow to make main roads, the same as other counties? —The fewness of the people prevents that. 404. Your rate is 2£d. in the pound? —It is 2£d. on the unimproved value, which is pretty heavy. It is more than Id. on the improved value. 405. Do you consider that high? —It is as much as the people can manage to pay. 406. Mr. Forbes asked you about outstanding rates: do you know what they amount to?— There is not a great deal. We get the bulk in from the white people. 407. Do these absentees pay rates? —Yes, some of them. If they do not we summon them, and make them pay 10 per cent, additional if the rates are not paid before the end of March. 408. Mr. Matheson.~\ Why do you not wipe the unexpended balance oft the future estimates by putting another shovelful or two on the roads? —It is under the control of the Government. We have no control over them, gut until they are spent they will remain on the estimates. - 409. Then, if {hey leave £5 always unexpended you would appear to have a very handsome vote every year? —Yes. 410. Can you suggest a way of making more simple the sale of sections on which rates are owing? —I do not know anything of the legal form through which we have to go; but if the Government would not interfere, but just let us carry out the Act as it stands, I think we might do it. At least, we are strongly under the impression that they do not carry it out. They put all the obstacles they can in the way. 411. Can you tell me one of the obstacles? —They raised all sorts of objections. They said the land was going for nothing, and so forth. That we could not help. I suppose the land was practically valueless, and the people did not care to bid for it; £5 was the most that was offered for ene section. 412. And it was not accepted? —We would have accepted it, but the Government would not. 413. What office does it go through? -I do not know. 414. Is your County Clerk here? —No. 415. Do you think a small royalty on the timber you export would be better than these grants you cannot be sure of ? —I think we ought to have a royalty and grants in proportion to the other counties. We think the grants are our right, and the royalty too, seeing the state of the county and the condition of the roads. If we had a portion of the royalty with the grants then we could do something. 416. Mr. McCardle.] I suppose you have seen it is proposed that the royalty charged on timber and gum licenses is to be handed over to the local bodies? —Yes ; T am very pleased to see it. 417. Have you seen the Native Land Rating Act? —Not yet. 418. I think you will find there is provision made there that when a Native does not pay the State can pay for him, and charge that against the land, so that when the land comes to be dealt with a portion will be cut off and declared Crown lands for the rates that have been paid ? —lf the Government pay we will perhaps get the rates. 419. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Act? —No. 420. Do you know whether the settlers have taken advantage of it here? —I think so. I think they are quite satisfied with it. 421. You cannot make any suggestion that would enable the settlers to get better roads than now exist? —All we want is money. We would soon make roads if we had the money. I think the Government ought to make a difference in these counties where we have practically no roads. We have roads, but they are just formed roads. 422. Would it be a very material benefit to you if the Government handed over all Crown lands revenue to you? —Yes; we could do something then. 423. Suppose they made it a condition you should raise a loan on the strength of that and make your roads, do you not think it would be much better than the present way of spending money in dribs and drabs as it comes to hand and really wasting it? —The money, I would say, is largely wasted in dribs and drabs now, because we have to make the roads passable, and we cannot do anything in the way of metalling. 424. Supposing an Act was passed which enabled you to raise money on the strength of the money derived from the sales of land, do you not think it would be much better to get the money in a lump sum and proceed with your work on a systematic manner? —T think it would be much better, and it would also be better if we could get the " thirds " in a lump sum. 425. If you raised a loan now you could use them towards paying the interest and sinking fund? —Yes. 426. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you find that the system of dual control —namely, control by the Government and control by the County Council—of these roads is satisfactory? —I think so. The Government do a lot of work which we could not do. They have their officers here, and they know the real wants of the district as well as ourselves. 427. You find there is no overlapping? —I do not think so at all,
C.—4.
752
[j. VAUGHAN.
428. Do you employ an engineer? —The County Clerk is engineer. Our means are limited, and we try to keep down expenses as much as possible. 429. On a 2|d. general rate you raised £400 last year? —Yes, and we got a subsidy. 4.30. When you introduced rating on the unimproved value was the rate you struck on the unimproved value sufficient to bring in as much revenue as when you rated upon the capital value? Yes; we brought it up to the same amount. 431. What subsidy are you getting?--About ss. in the pound. 432. Do you think the settlers of the district are helping themselves as much as they should by only raising £400 a year out of a large county like this?- Yes; but look at the extent of the county. We have a thousand square miles, and only two thousand people. 433. Does it not seem a small amount of revenue to raise yourselves?- I think it as much of a burden as we can ask them to bear. 434. What was your total revenue last year from all sources? -I cannot tell you. It was under £1,800. 435. What are your administrative expenses? —They are low. 436. Are they 50 per cent of the rate revenue? —They are pretty heavy in that respect for this season. The rates are low and the travelling and other expenses are heavy. 437. You say you have made no attempt to borrow money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act? —No. 438. Why does your county not take advantage of such a splendid method of raising money for roads? —The difficulty is where the money is going to be spent. If we had one main road we could -do something in that way. 439. Of course, it would be an absurd thing to form a rating area of the whole county; but could not one of your populous districts be formed into a rating area for roadwork in that area? This township is the only place where the population is anything like thick, and they are not many. 440. It seems extraordinary that a county that is only raising £400 in rates should get grants to the extent of £5,000? —Yes, if we get them. 441. If money is put on the estimates does not the expenditure of that money practically rest with you and your confreres on the County Council ? —We worry right away to get it and get it on the roads, but we only get a small proportion. 442. Does not your engineer submit plans of the work to the Government engineer? —We try and get the grants from the Government. They spend some and we spend some. We are satisfied with that; but, even so, we do not get a large amount of the votes put on the estimates. 443. Do you think the whole system of grants should be abolished ?- -If we had an assured finance of some sort to trust to they would be better abolished altogether. 444. As County Chairman, have you ever endeavoured to think out a feasible scheme of getting an assured revenue ?—■-Nothing more than that we might get a revenue from timber and gum and those things. 445. You said you are carrying three sheep to the acre on your farm: that seems a very high carrying-capacity? —Not on bush land which is just down and sown in grass. 446. Can you carry three sheep all the year round? —If my place was subdivided I could. 447. Is the present selling-value of your land £9 to £10 per acre? —I should like to get that. 448. If it will carry three sheep to the acre surely it is worth £9 to £10 per acre? —I should like to see it. 449. What is your rateable value for the whole place? —£2 16s. 450. What quantity of stock have you on the 500 acres now? —Three hundred sheep and one hundred head of cattle, besides horses. 451. You are carrying about a sheep and a half to the acre? —Yes. Some of the land is bush and some scrub. The bush land, I think, would carry three sheep. 452. Does the growth continue all through the winter? —Yes. It is springing now; but there is no£ much grass in the winter-time. There is too much rain. 453. Is there much land in the Hokianga County doing what your land is doing? —Yes, if brought under proper cultivation. Some of the land is not so broken as the rest. 454. But some broken country is much better than easy-lying country? Yes; but it is very patchy here. Part of my land is just mere gum-hills. 455. Can you explain why land capable of carrying three sheep to the acre under grass is not snapped up when it is put on the market at 7s. 6d. per acre?- ! think it would be. 456. Is there not a large area of this land on the market now at 7s. 6d. per acre? —But the land is right away back, and the people cannot get to it. 457. Do you think in these districts the road question is of equal importance to the tenure question ? —Yes, quite. If the Government would give us roads that would largely improve the value of land everywhere. 458. Mr. Paul.'] Do you think it would pay the Government to put in the roads before settlement and charge them on to the value of the land? —No, I do not think that would be a good plan. I think as soon as a few settlers have gathered in a place the Government should then make a road to it. Roadmaking has been a great boon to the settlers. They get a little work and are able to keep the pot boiling. 459. I have no doubt that is correct ; but has not the settler just about enough to do on the holding that he takes up? —Unless he.has capital he cannot live. He must do something —either on the roads or in the bush or on the gumfields. 460. Does the district get good value for the money expended by the Government on the roads? —Yes. We have nothing to complain of in that way. 461. Which do you think the most economical —the County Council or Government construction of roads? —When the Government give us a free hand, and do not tie us down to the co-
J. VATJGHAN.]
753
C—4.
operative system or anything of I hat sort, then the work of both the County Council and Government is good. 462. Is the Government work done by co-operative labour ? —Not now, I think. It was a complete failure. 463. How long has the system been abolished? —I do not know. 464. Under what system do (he Government work? —The best system at the present time is day-labour. Get a good man over a small gang and you get a decent day's work out of them. 465. You believe that is satisfactory?- —I am sure of it. The work is done 50 per cent, cheaper than under the old system. 466. Are the leaseholders in this district prosperous? —Of course, that depends on the individual. Some people will be prosperous under any conditions ; but, taking the village-settlement system, which was a leasehold system, on the whole, I think it has been a failure. Some men have pushed ahead and got a good many holdings and prospered, and a good many have gone away. 467. What is the position of the lease-in-perpetuity holders? —There are very few here, I think. 468. Have you had any experience of the land-for-settlements policy adopted in the South ?- No; I have only read about it in the papers. 469. In giving us your opinion in favour of the freehold, you are not including these estates? -—No; my remarks apply more to the northern district and this class of country. 470. Mr. Anstey.\ How long have you had the rating on the unimproved value system for raising rates? —About six years. 471. Do you find it more satisfactory than rating on the capital value? —I believe it is much better. 472. You have no intention of returning to the other system? —Not at present. The people are quite content. 473. You think it is the fairest way to raise rates? —It is much fairer, because everybody pays whether they are here or not. 474. Is there any gum-digging in this county? —Yes, scattered about, but not in this immediate district. 475. You say you consider the County Council ought to receive some revenue from the timber industry ? —Yes. 476. Should they receive some revenue from the gum industry as well? —Yes. We get the revenue from the gum licenses at the present time —ss. from the digger and £1 from the buyer. 477. What is the unimproved value of your farm now for rating purposes? Is it the same as the original price you paid for it? —It is much lower. I might say that twenty years ago there was a kind of boom in land, and the people gave a great deal more than the land was worth. It is now down to the normal value. 478. What is your land valued at for rating purposes? —7s. 6d. and 10s. 479. You said you paid 7s. 6d. for it? —The land at 7s. 6d. has been raised to 10s., and the land at 10s. has been lowered to 7s. 6d. 480. Practically, there is not much difference? —Very little difference. 481. Suppose your land is valued at 10s. per acre, and you are striking a rate of 2Jd. in the pound, that would be a little over Id. per acre you are paying. Do you think that is an extraordinarily high rate to pay? —It is not a very high rate, but it is quite enough. 482. You say your land will carry three sheep to the acre?- That is the bush land, please remember. 483. Do you not think that land would stand a good deal more in the shape of rates if you had more roads? -If we had more roads we would not object to pay more rates. 484. Then, why not strike more rates and get more roads? —That is perhaps an isolated case. The next land may be poor, and you could hardly make a living off it. It may be tea-tree land, and unless you are eternally worrying at it the land will go back to the tea-tree. 485. Surely, if land will carry three sheep to the acre, Id. for every three sheep is trifling enough? —Yes; but it might not be fair to the next man. 486. Suppose the Government gave you a subsidy on your rates, would that not be better ?- Yes; I think the settlers would agree to a higher rate then. 487. Do you not think that would be better than to be dependent on spasmodic Government grants ?—I think it would be very much better. 488. How many sheep did you shear last year? —About three hundred. 489. How do you reckon you keep three sheep to the acre? —Because these sheep are in a single paddock. They are in the bush paddock, and the cattle are running on the rough country. 490. Your three hundred sheep are running on 100 acres?— Yes; but the cattle and sheep are not running together. I keep them in a clean paddock on account of the wool. 491. Mr. Johnston.] Do you think this gum-digging is advantageous to the settlement of the country? —It is a boon in a way to the settler, but it takes him a good deal away from the land. Gum-digging is something like gambling : when a man starts it he can hardly leave off. 492!°Then, the gum-digger is not advantageous to settlement?— The man who digs gum to help on his farm is, but the gum-digger pure and simple is not. George Henry Kemper examined. 493. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a miner. I have been in the district two years. I am prospecting. 494. Have you any land? —No 495. Have you studied the land question ?—Yes. 496. What is your idea in regard to the constitution of the Land Boards? —I think the Land Boards could be dispensed with altogether, and the administration of the lands placed in the hands
95—0. 4.
a—4.
754
[G. H. KEMPER
of the local bodies. They have the machinery in working-order to deal with every question in each district. That would save a lot of expense and time to the settlers. 497. Have you any views about land-tenures? —It does not matter much under which tenure the people hold the land so long as they are fit to become farmers. 498. Supposing you were going to take up land, would you like it under lea,se in perpetuity or occupation with right of purchase, or under freehold? —I think the option should be given. I am against the freehold personally, because the freehold is an anomaly. It is only of use so long as you can pay 20s. in the pound. Under leasehold, so long as you pay the rent you are equal to the freeholder. The one is as good as the other. 499. Mr. McCardle.] You have had a good deal of experience in the Wellington district? —Yes. 500. And also of the working of the special settlements ?-Yes. 501. How did you find the special settlements answered?--Very well. The men have large banking accounts now. 502. Do you know that large block of land on which is one of the finest dairy factories in New Zealand ? —Yes. 503. Did not a lot of the people go in almost without money? —I think the most of them had money. 504. You opinion now is that the fitness of a man for settlement purposes is of greater importance than tenure? —Yes. 505. But you think the desire people entertain for the freehold is a great impetus to settlement? —I think it is more a matter of fancy than reality. 506. You are also acquainted with the village settlement at Pahiatua? —Yes. 507. You know the success erf a settlement depends largely on the quality of the land? —Yes. 508. Do you know anything of the Advances to Settlers Act? —Yes. 509. Have you found it satisfactory ?—Yes ;it has been of great benefit. 510. You think it should be continued? —Yes. 511. Do you know much about this district? —I have travelled over a great deal of it. 512. Are there any minerals existing in this neighbourhood? —There is no doubt about it. 513. What is the character of these minerals? —I think there is a little of all sorts. I think they will be worked in a very few years from this. 514. Have you observed if the settlers in the district are prosperous? —Yes. 515. Do vou think the land is equal in quality with the land you are acquainted with in the south? —Yes; but it is harder to work on account of being clay land. 516. We have been told that some of the bush land we saw cleared of timber and in grass was taken up under the homestead system : is there much land of the same quality in the district ?—-I think there is. 517. Mr. McGutehan.] You think the administration of the lands of the Auckland Province should be handed over to the local bodies? —I think the duties so far performed by the Land Board could be managed by the local bodies. 518. Would you have a land office in each county? —I do not think you would require anything more than the local body in each district. 519. Would it not necessitate a staff and maps, and surveyors? —No. You have all the things pou want in the county office now. 520. Mr. Paul.] How would you test the quality of prospective settlers? You say it does not matter about the tenure, but it matters a great deal about the calibre of the settler? —That is too big for me. I would not care to undertake that. Appearances are deceptive. 521. Then, things will have to go as they are going? —Yes, much on the same lines. 522. Mr. Anstey.\ What minerals do you expect to find? —I have found some. There is no doubt of gold being up the Waihou, but whether enough to pay for the costly machinery we are endeavouring to find out. 523. Any other minerals?--Silver, calcium, and beautiful marble —quite equal to any imported. There is limestone, sandstone, and slate. Carl Schreider examined. 524. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 570 acres under occupation with right of purchase, about six miles up Mangamuka River, and 150 acres of freehold. lam paying 5 per cent, on capital value of 10s. per acre for the occupation with right of purchase. I have held part eight years and part a year and a half. It is all bush land. 525. Are you satisfied with your occupation with right of purchase? —Yes. I consider for a poor man it is the best tenure one could take land under. 526. As regards tenure generally, do you prefer freehold to leasehold? —Most certainly. 527. Have you got some of your land in grass? —Over 200 acres in grass. I have sown cocksfoot and Chewing's fescue, and ryegrass, and red and white clover —in fact, a good mixture. 528. Has the grassing been successful Yes. The best grass and the one which I consider will be the making of the north is a new grass called Paspalum dilatatum. That is the only grass that will stand in a dry season. I have not seen a single root die yet. All the other grasses stand well in rich, low-lying grounds only. Cattle and sheep are all fond of paspalum, and I consider it is very nutritious. I have seen sheep, cattle, and horses eating paspalum and leaving the other grasses. I have sown other grasses and got a dry summer, and the grasses have died out, and then I have resowed in the autumn with paspalum over the bare ground, and in two years' time I had a close sole of good grass, and the sheep were eating it all the time. That shows'the value of the grass. 529. Mr. Forbes.] Do you use danthonia at all?—I have used danthonia. I think danthonia is something the animals much get accustomed to. They will not eat it if they can get anything
755
C—4.
C. SOHREtDEK.J
else. I have sown it in my mixture, and only this summer in one paddock I saw danthonia 1 ft. high, while the other grasses were eaten short. 1 will never sow it again. 530. Mr. Hall.\ As regards land-tenures, what do you consider is the best tenure to apply to the (Jrown lands here in the interests of settlement, and in the interests of the State ? —My idea is that the occupation-with-right-of-purchase lease is the ideal tenure. It allows a poor man who has not enough capital to buy straight out, to use his capital in improving the ground, and then when he gets a little better oh he can make it his own. I believe no man will work as well on a leasehold section as he will on a freehold, or on a section that he knows he can make his own. I consider it is the best tenure all round. At the same time, a great many people favour the leasehold and consider it is better. I should certainly make the tenures optional. If any one wishes to have a leasehold by all means let him have it. The majority of the people 1 know —all bona, fide farmers —favour the freehold. 531. Do you think the waste lands will be more successfully settled under that tenure than under any other I—Most1 —Most certainly 1 do. 532. Mr. Johnxton.] Is your land all cleared bush or scrub? —The freehold section in old times has been scrub. It is tall tea-tree. The soil is clay. It is pretty well all flat ground. 533. Do you think this paspalum will grow on this poor manuka land? —It will grow anywhere, only it is difficult to get it to take on this hard manuka land. It would have to be ploughed 1 should say. 534. Suppose the land was too steep to be ploughed i—Then I should set in the plants. I have replanted it. You can pull a bunch of this paspalum into a thousand plants, and in the wintertime you can take a mud-puddle, where cows or horses have stood, and stick the plant in. Then you have only to keep the stock off it until the roots have taken. 535. You think it is better than danthonia, or any other grass, for this class of country? —Yes, whether high or low or poor or medium land. It "is good anywhere. 1 have planted about 1 acre of it for seed, and this year 1 have sowed 3 acres of my own seed. lam sowing it as fast as I can raise the seed. 536. What area have you in grass? —About 200 acres. 537. How long have you had it in grass ?--About six years. 538. Would it not pay you to put it in grass quicker than that? —Most certainly if I could afford it. That is what has been keeping me back. 539. How many sheep do you carry? —About one hundred and fifty, and sixty head of cattle, and six horses and three brood mares. 540. Is that tiie most stock you have ever carried? —Yes, on this land. 541. Have you ever grown any crop on it? —No; there is hardly any ploughable land on it. I have a small orchard. 1 have only held my freehold section two years. 542. Have you ever tried crested dogstail? —Yes, but Ido not think much of it. It does not show up. 543. Mr. McCutchan.] Do stock leave the English grasses to eat paspalum? —They will occasionally. 544. They do not prefer it to the English grasses? —Well, I can hardly say whether they prefer it, though I have seen them leave cocksfoot when it gets a little bit dry and go for the paspalum. For instance, cocksfoot and paspalum ripen at the same time, and after the seeds have been cut oft the animals eat the paspalum right down to the roots, because the stalks remain green. But the cocksfoot remains dry and the cattle will not eat it. 545. Does paspalum spread from the roots? —It spreads in this way —the bunches gradually grow larger. 546. Would sheep be apt to kill it off as they do timothy? —They cannot kill it. 547. What do you estimate is the cost of sowing down hilly country to get a fairly good sward right from the start? -If there is any timber on it at all and you can get a good burn, you have some chance then if you sow the seed on it. My experience is that it does not matter when you sow the seed, whether summer or winter, it will come up within eight or nine months afterwards. The first-year it makes very little show, but in the second year you will see it leave the other grasses behind. In the summer-time, when the other grasses begin to dry up, the clumps of paspalum in the paddock will look like little islands. It remains quite green. If you then shut up the paddock and give the plants a show the seeds will spread it. 548. Will it stand frost? —I cannot say. Ido not get any frost. 549. Do you know that poor ironstone land to the north of Lake Omapere? —I have been through it. 550. Do you think paspalum will grow on that country? —I think it would grow even there if you could get the seed to take or planted it. I have tried it on the highest and wrost places on my land, where the fern was very high, and 1 have not seen a single plant die there. 551. Is it your intention to cease sowing English grasses and sow only paspalum? —I mix the paspalum with the English grasses, and I intend continuing that. I have had many offers from people who wanted to buy my seed, but I refused to sell, because I wanted it all myself. 552. You think it is a grass that will redeem the poor lands of the north and make them profitable?- Yes, because it forms such dense root bunches. The sheep cannot eat it close down. Their manure gets caught in amongst the roots of the paspalum and is not washed away, and in the course of time this ground becomes really rich on account of the grass holding the manure. 553. Mr. Anxtey.] Is there anything in the leasehold to prevent a man profitably occupying the land, provided he had a secure tenure? —I object to the very principle of leasehold. 554. Supposing there was nothing else to be got but leasehold, would there be anything in that to prevent successful settlement? —If I could not get a piece of ground on any other tenure but leasehold 1 should go to a country where I could get the freehold.
a—4.
756
[J. F. GRAY.
James F. Gray examined. 555. The Chairman.] What are you? —i am a settler at Hokianga, and hold 360 acres under occupation with right of purchase. 1 have had the land for three years, and am paying 6d. an acre per annum, it is all bush laud. 1 have cleared about 10 acres, it has taken grass well, i run cattle on the land. There is a track to my place, and 1 have access by water to it. lam pleased with my tenure. 556. What is your view with respect to the land-tenure ? 1 believe in the occupation with right of purchase. 557. Is there any special point you wish to bring before the Commission ? —No. Cecil Norman Mardon examined. 558. The Chairman.l What are you ! —1 am a settler, and farm 300 acres under four different tenures—one under occupation with right of purchase, and one section under lease in perpetuity. I have held the laud for seven or eight years, and my rent is £9 10s. per annum. 559. Which tenure do you prefer ? —I believe in the freehold. My land is about seven miles from here at Motukaraka. It is all in grass and is fenced. The bulk of the land was bush when I took it up. I run dairy cattle and horses on it. 560. Have you a dairy factory in this district? —No. The bad roads prevent that. We are anxious to get one, but we do not see our way. 561. Mr. Johnston.] Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? No. 562. Who is president of this branch of the Farmers' Union? —Mr. Yarborough. 563. If your place was fully stocked what could it carry ? ! consider the land here would carry three sheep to the acre —two sheep and a half comfortably. 564. What experience had yofl before you came here ?- I held some other land in the district; but I was brought up in Canterbury. 565. What is your rating value per acre I —l think it is £2 an acre. 566. What is the selling-value? —In this part of the world it is almost an impossibility to sell out, especially a Government lease —people have such an objection to it. 567. Why do they have such an objection? —They do not consider that the tenure is secure — there is a fear of revaluation. 568. Is there not just as much fear of the freehold being subject to revaluation as the leasehold? —No, I do not think so. 569. Have you seen any special settlement in Canterbury since the passing of the Land for Settlements Act ? —No, but I saw something in the newspaper witli reference to witnesses who gave evidence before the Commission, and as to the intimidation of the Crown tenants. It was said in the newspaper that a lot of the Crown tenants were afraid to come and give evidence before the Commission. 570. Did you believe it? —I do not believe it would be in the newspaper if it was not true. 571. If I told you that that statement is an absolute lie, would you still believe it? —I saw this in this room to-day: that most of the leaseholders were called to give their evidence before the freeholders were. 572. I can assure you that that was not the wish of the Commission? —I thought it rather awkward because some settlers had come a long distance in order to give evidence, and the leaseholders I refer to live in the township, and they should have waited and allowed the settlers to give their evidence and get home. I may say that 1 have been delayed getting home and that my cows are unmilked now. 573. There was not the slightest wish on the part of the Commission that such a thing should occur. With reference to what you said as to the alleged intimidation of witnesses down South, what you saw printed in the newspaper is absolutely untrue. They were the finest body of settlers we met, and they gave very valuable evidence. You say there is no selling-value of your land at the present time? -It is very bard to sell out in this district. It is not the fault of the land. The land is good. This fern and tea-tree land is very expensive to deal with. When once you get them, under the land will grow excellent grass. 574. You have heard what has been said by another witness, that it goes back into tea-tree and fern? -It is the seed in the land that is continually growing, but if land is fenced and stocked, and grassed with suitable, grasses, I do not consider that it is an impossible task; but it is more expensive to deal with that sort of land than with bush land. 575. Have you had any experience of danthonia? —Not a great deal, but I believe in the paspal um and clovers. They do very well indeed. Ryegrass grows. If you put on bush burns it seems to disappear, but in a few years, especially if the land is heavily stocked, it comes back again and does excellently. 576. You have had no experience of the working of the Land for Settlements Act in Canterbury ? —No. 577. Do you think the Crown tenants have "been intimidated in this district? —No, I do not. 578. Do you think there lias been any influence brought to bear against the Crown tenants giving evidence at all? - No. I may say that my experience with respect to the Land Board has been favourable. They were rather hard on me I thought in regard to one application. 579. Mr. McGardlt.] Have you had some experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes. 580. Was it satisfactory? Yes, but I think that some of the small charges made by that Department might be done away with. 581. What is the cost of putting land under grass here? —It varies, say, from £1 up to £1 ss. 582. De you generally get a good burn? —During the last four or five years —barring the present one—they have been rather unsatisfactory.
C. N. MARDON.j
757
Q.—. 4
583. When you spoke with respect to freeholds and leaseholds you did not refer to the lands iu Canterbury under the Land for Settlements Act ? —1 cannot offer an opinion in respect to Canterbury, but 1 do not think the Government should buy up big estates while there are thousands and thousands of acres in the north available for settlement. 1 consider that a great blot on the land. 584. Do you not consider that it requires men with special knowledge of the bush to take up bush land and succeed on it? —A number of the most successful settlers here have been Canterbury men. 585. Do you not think it is wise, in the case of Canterbury, to take up big estates for settlement purposes? -No, because those big estates were occupied profitably. Here, the land I am referring to, is unoccupied. 586. But, in the case of Canterbury, there are hundreds and hundreds of successful settlers settled on what were formerly big estates, and they are producing from the soil tenfold more than was produced by the previous large landowners?- 1 do not see that that applies in the slightest. The land 1 speak of here is unremunerative until it is taken in hand, but the land in Canterbury and other places, which is used for sheep-grazing, is returning a revenue and is being profitably worked. 587. 1 hope you do not think that any one wants to stop settlement in this part of the colony. We all want to see the land settled, but we do not wish to set one class of land-settlement against another ? 1 consider it is in the interests of the colony that the unproductive land of the colony should be settled and made productive. 588. But there is plenty of room for both? —Yes. There is another aspect of this taking of big estates. These estates are sometimes forcibly taken from their owners. I consider that that is wrong. 589. Mr. McCutchan.] You say it is difficult to sell property? —Yes. 590. Has that remark application to the three forms of tenure —viz., occupation with right of purchase, lease in perpetuity, and cash? —It is very hard to dispose of leasehold property here. My remark applies to the occupation with right of purchase and lease in perpetuity. 591. Is there any difference in the two tenures in that respect? —I consider that the occupation with right of purchase is a splendid means of settling the country. 592. Is it more marketable than the lease-in-perpetuity tenure?- Yes. 593. Why? —Because the lease in perpetuity does not give you the right to acquire the freehold. That is a decided objection to it. 594. Is not the lease in perpetuity a secure tenure?— No. There is always the fear of revaluation hanging over the settler's head. Different Governments have done very funny things in the past, and there is no guarantee that they will not do so in the future. For instance, they are taking over big estates now, and there is no guarantee that they will not subsequently take over smaller estates. 595. Have the settlers in this district a fear that lease-in-perpetuity land will be revalued? -Yes. 596. Has the Government ever done anything with respect to that tenure to give grounds for such a fear ? —No, but the Trades and Labour Councils are always advocating revaluation, and therefore the more settlers have at stake the more they fear revaluation coming about. 597. Mr. Paul.] Is there anything in the leasehold tenure that prevents you using the land to good advantage? —The freeholder does not mind the amount of labour he puts into his land, but the leaseholder does not work with the same amount of heart. Therefore the freeholder will always do better with his land than the leaseholder. He takes more interest in his land. He takes more interest in the district and in the colony generally. 598. Is that your own experience?- That is the way I should look at it. 599. Do you discriminate in that way in regard to your land? We all have our opinions on that subject, and I am giving you mine now. 600. You discriminate in that way? —Yes, I do. 601. Yet you told us just now that you did not know which was your lease-in-perpetuity section, nor even the area of that section? —That is a mere bagatelle. I hold the land under different tenures, and it is fenced and subdivided. Ido not know where one section begins and the other ends. I have lost my survey pegs. 602. Then you treat your sections under different tenures in just the same way? —I know where the leasehold portion is. 603. But you treat it just the same way as the rest of your land? —A person does that for his own convenience when the bulk of his land is under another tenure. 604. Have you seen any of the land that has been settled under the Land for Settlements Act —I refer particularly to the improved estates purchased by the Government? —No; 1 have notbeen in Canterbury for some years, and therefore I cannot give you an opinion on that subject. 605. But you spoke adversely of the system? I condemned the principle. 606. Do you think there should be a limitation of the area of land a man may hold? —Yes, but 1 do not think that a man's land should be forcibly taken from him by the State. 607. But you recognise that the State pays a fair price for the land so taken? —That is not the question. It is the principle I oppose. The Government should not take a man's land at all if he does not wish to dispose of it. 608. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think it is a wise thing when the State improves the value of private property close to town —improves it by the making of roads, railways, and other public works —do you think it is wise to allow such land to remain locked tip against settlement ?- -I think the State should allow the owner of such land to have the benefit of it, and that any change should be brought about gradually. 609. You said vour particular objection to the lease in perpetuity is that you fear revaluation? -Yes.
0.—4.
758
C. N. MARDON.
610. Do you think that a bargain entered into between you and the State ought not to be held us a sacred compact? —1 think it should. 611. Do you think that if the Government were to offer to revalue your lease they would be guilty of dishonesty? That is a debatable question. 1 will not give an opinion on that point. 612. Do you think it would be unjust on the part of the Government after signing a lease to you for 999 years would it be dishonest on their part if they wished to revalue it? —1 look at the matter in this way: if a man goes out into the bush and cuts out a home for himself, and undergoes the hardships of a bush settler, he is entitled to every consideration. Before he took up that land 1 consider that it was absolutely valueless, and now, after he has brought it under cultivation and resided on it, he ought to have the ownership of the land, or the option of making it his own. 613. Do you think it is right for a Government to break a bargain ?--If it is with the consent of both parties, certainly it is. 614. You think it is not right for the bargain to be broken without the consent of both parties? -Most decidedly. 615. Is there any other land than that you have mentioned suitable for cutting up? —There is a lot of land in the north of Auckland which is being ruined every year through the working of the bush. The fire gets into it and destroys a great deal of it, and tea-tree and fern come up in the place of the bush, and that is increasing from year to year. That is a question that should receive the attention of the authorities. 616. The land is being depreciated in value by so much burning? —Yes. 617. Is there any other good land excepting in this immediate neighbourhood? —There is a lot around ivaikohe. 618. Is the land being better improved in this immediate district than anywhere else in the north? —Yes, I think it is. 619. Do you think there is a lot more of this country that could be described as good, useful land if it were properly broken in ? I am certain on that point. 620. Do you think there ought to be improvement conditions in the case of people holding land I—Personally,1—Personally, I should like to see it. 621. Do you think those conditions should apply to the freehold as well as to the leasei.< —Yes. 622. Do you think they should apply to Maori land ?—I should like to see something done in regard to Native land. 623. Do you think that most of the country north of Auckland may be described as very good medium land if properly broken in?— Yes, I do. I have no complaint to make as to the quality of my land, and I know something of land in the southern part of the colony. Thomas Joseph Danaheii examined. 624. The Chairman.'] What are you? lam a settler, and also a school-teacher. I hold 150 acres in my own right under various tenures, and I and my boys farm about 800 acres. My boys hold their land under lease in perpetuity . 625. Which tenure do you prefer?—lf I could get it I would prefer the freehold. 626. How long have you held this land? —Some thirteen years. It is situated at Motukaraka. 1 teach the Native school there. For the 800 acres my rent is about £24 a year. It was all bush land, but we have cleared 250 acres and put that area down in grass. We engage in dairying. 627. Mr. Paul.] Has your experience of the Land Board been satisfactory?—l cannot say it has been quite satisfactory." AVhen the late Mr. Ballance was here some years ago he told me that if I took up the land with the intention of making a home on it the residence clause would not be enforced, seeing that I have to dwell in a house near the school provided by the Government. I informed the Land Board of the circumstances, but they have given me six months' notice to put up a house. 628. Do you think the constitution of the Land Board is satisfactory ?—I have not studied that question. 629. Mr. Anstey.] Is there any particular reason why you are dissatisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure?— Some years ago I held the opinion that in time the lease-in-perpetuity land would become freehold, and' I hold that opinion still. 630. Is there anything in the lease-in-perpetuity tenure that interferes with your farming your land as you ought to do?— There is always the fear of revaluation, but there is nothing that interferes with the proper farming of the land. 631. Why was the village settlement a failure?— The wrong people were sent there. 632. What was the area of the sections?— The majority were 20-acre sections under perpetual lease, but without the right of making them into freeholds. The idea was that orchards would be established there. Samuel Ernest William Dawes examined. 633. The Chairman.] What are you?- 1 am a settler, and hold 20J acres under perpetual lease. lam a village settler, and have been here twelve years. My rent is £4 2s. 6d. per annum. I use the land for fruit-growing, &c. I am not satisfied with the present tenure; I would prefer the freehold or occupation with right of purchase. There is another ten years of the lease to run. 634. Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory? —Yes; but I think we should be allowed to sublet. 635. Do you think if you had the option of taking up other land that would be satisfactory? No; I should still wish to get the freehold. 636. Mr. McCardle.] Do you want a larger area than you hold now?- Yes; because a man has no chance to grow or improve on a small holding.
S. E. W. DAWES.]
759
C—4.
637. Are you debarred from getting a lnrger holding?—No; but I am compelled to live 011 the place. 638. Are there any of-the old village settlers still remaining? —I think most of them are still on the land. 639. How does the fruit do? —It does very well, but there is no market at all. 640. Mr. Paul.\ If the majority of the village settlers are still on the land the settlement must have been fairly successful? —I suppose so. 641. Is there anything in the conditions of your lease that prevents you using your land properly? —No; but if a man had a chance of bettering himself he could not dispose of it at a fair price—he could not get the value of his improvements. 642. Do you know that in other parts of the colony considerable sums are paid for the goodwill of leasehold sections? —Yes. 643. Mr. McCutchan.] You say that no one would give anything for the goodwill of your lease? —Not nearly the value of the improvements. 644. Is that because there is to be a revaluation at the end of the thirty-one years? —I dare say that is an objection. 645. Mr. McCardle.] If you had the right of purchase you could part with the land? —Yes, I think I could without trouble. 646. And get the value of your improvements? —Yes. 647. Mr. Paul.\ If you had a lease in perpetuity could you sell it? —No, I do not think so. 648. Then, the matter of revaluation hardly alters the position? —No, T do not think it does. Thomas Francis Hartley examined. 649. The Chairman.] What are you?- I am a commission agent and steam-launch proprietor. I hold 200 acres of land, leased from the Natives. It is bush land, and is situated about two miles from here. I have cleared about 8 acres. My rent is Is. an acre per annum, and the term of lease is twenty-one years, and there is revaluation up to £-3 per acre for improvements at the end of the! term. I have a right of renewal after revaluation. I have only held the land for nine months. 650. Mr. Matheson.] Is there any special point you want to bring before the Commission? — Only as regards Native land. I think the Natives ought to have the right of disposing of their land the same as Europeans have. It would help us a lot with our roads. I have Native land on both sides of me, and cannot get them to bear any share of the fencing. 651. Is your lease registered? —It is through the Court, but I do not know if it is registered. 652. Are you prepared to spend money on the place? —Yes. 653. Mr. McCardle.] How many owners are there in the block? —Six in one and four In the other. 654. Have you got all the signatures? —Yes. 655. Your lease has been approved of by the Native Land Council and forwarded for the approval of the Governor in Council? —Yes. 656. Mr. Paul.] You consider the lease satisfactory to you as tenant ? -Yes. I think, however, that the Natives should be allowed to sell their land if they want to. 657. If vour lease is secure you think the tenure is fairly satisfactory?— Yes, under the conditions I have mentioned. Alfred Cook Yarborouoh examined. 658. The Chairman.'] What are you? I am a settler and a timber merchant. I have been here thirty-two years. I hold about 700 acres of land —about 450 of freehold, 270 leasehold from the Natives, and 38 acres of leasehold under the Village Settlement Act. The latter has been converted into perpetual lease. 659. Is your land all in one block? —No. 660. Is some of it under grass now?' —Yes. I run cattle mostly. 661. From your long residence in the district you will have been able to take a good view of it from beginning to end ? —I was the only white man on this side of the river when first I came. 662. What is the general state of the district? —It is progressing steadily. 663. Will the timber industry last for a long time? —At the present rate of consumption, I suppose it will last another twenty years. 664. What about the gum? —That is indefinite, but it is getting less. 665. And the flax industry?—l think there will be a steady industry if the price keeps up. 666. We understand there is no fishing except for local supplies? —That is so. There is a small fruit-canning industry. There is a canning-factory at Rawene and another at Kohukohu. They can peaches mostly. 667. Have you had any experience of grassing land? —I have just the ordinary settler's knowledge of it. 668. Do you know anything about danthonia and paspalum? —We have not had much experience of paspalum, but we believe it is going to be good. We still go in for the old system of mixing cocksfoot and white-clover and other grasses. 669. Will that last well? —About ten years and more sometimes. 670. Mr. Forbes.] What is your view as to the best system of land-tenure? —I am in favour of the freehold or lease with option of purchase. 671. What is the feeling of the district, so far as you know, in regard to tenure? —The feeling of the district is entirely in favour of the freehold or option with right of purchase or the homestead system. The people here believe in the principle of the freehold. 672. Have any resolutions to that effect been passed by meetings? —I am chairman of the Settlers' Association, and, although they have not passed any motion to that effect, I know that to
C—4.
760
JA. C. YARBOROUGH.
be the feeling of the members. I intimately know all the people in the district, and I pretty well know their ideas on the subject. 673. Do you know anything about the lease in perpetuity? —I have a section on perpetual lease. Ido not know exactly what is the difference. 674. Have you any particular objection to the lease in perpetuity? —I have the objection that an Englishman, as a rule, likes to call what he improves his own; but I also have the objection that it is a nuisance to have to pay rent every half year, and if you forget to do so you get a letter from the Land Board saying that you will have to forfeit your section if you do not pay up quick. 675. Do you say that the bulk of the settlers in the district are in a position to pay for the freehold of their land ? —Yes, eventually. It would, of course, depend on whether they worked or not. 676. Mr. Johnston.] What is the difference between paying rent and the interest on the mortgage? —I do not know that there is any great difference. Personally, I am rather opposed to borrowing money at all if I can get out of it; but if I thought it desirable to get a sum of money for a special purpose I would be ready to borrow it at 4 per cent. 677. Say you had 400 acres of land worth .£lO an acre —that is £4,000 —and you had the money to pay it off, but instead of paying it off you used that money for other purposes, do you not think you could get a great deal more out of it than 4 per cent. ? —Yes. 678. It would be good business to have that money available for outside investment and still have the land and pay 4 per cent, on it ? —But in the future the interest might come down to 3 per cent., and I would be paying 1 per cent, for nothing. 679. Well, it has been a long time coming down to 3 per cent. ? —lf I had to buy a piece of land with, and had the option of either buying the land or leasing it at 4 per cent, from the Government, I would put that £100 in the Post-office Savings-bank and I could get 3J per cent., and I should pay the Government J per cent, more than I obtained. 680. Surely you do not consider the Post-office Savings-bank is the best investment. You could invest it at 6 per cent. ? —Not if I were looking for an absolute security. I consider many people lose money by lending on mortgage. You must seek your security from the Government in order to be absolutely secure. 681. It is not an investment that any commercial man would go in for. Havfe you had any experience south of Auckland at all? —A good many years ago I travelled in the Sotith. 682. You have not seen the success of the land-for-settlements policy in the South?— No. 683. How do you account for the fact that there is so much freehold land lying waste to the north of Auckland? We came through a lot of freehold land to-day absolutely unimproved?—As soon as you got away from the good land at. Ohaeawai you went through ironstone country, which is absolutely no good. You then came to Okaihau, which is a prosperous settlement under the homestead system. Immediately after that you came through Native land, which is good, but unoccupied. 684. But there is a lot of freehold land lying idle, more especially south of Whangarei? — That is very poor country, I am told : but I have never been south of Whangarei. 685. Mr. Matheson.] If the Government grant the right to purchase to their tenants, do you think they will be doing justice to the city-dwellers, who at present have an interest in the land?---I think the city-dwellers ought to take a back seat for the present. 686. I would like you to answer my question ? T think they would be doing justice, taking everything into consideration. 687. Is the farmers' wish for right of purchase largely because if he saves money after years' of work he would rather invest it in his own farm than look elsewhere for ar investment?- I think it is more a heredity sort of feeling which English people always have for the freehold. 688. There is a certain amount of sentiment in it? —Yes; but it is not altogether sentiment. 689. Do you think it is a sentiment that ought to be gratified? —Yes. 690. Mr. Mr, Cardie.] How much does it cost to put this bush land in grass, including the necessary clearing, and so on ? —The cost of felling and putting into grass would be about £2 ss. Then, you have to add to that the cost of fencing, which varies according to the country. 691. Do you not require to do logging up and clearing?-Yes ; and you have to do stumping as well. 692. Sometimes, also, you have bad burns, then you have to go over that again? —Yes; sometimes you cannot get a burn at all. 693. Taking into consideration the possibility of bad burns, can you do the improvements at the sum you have named? —No. 694. If you got land from the Government at 7s. 6d. or 10s. an acre, which cost you £3 or £4 an acre, it is like a person holding a first mortgage of a few shillings, while your real interest in the property amounts to pounds. Does it not hinder a man in his usual operations in dealing with his property to have this first mortgage on it to the Government- that is, if he requires to go in for any financial operations in respect of his land: can he do so to the best advantage with this first mortgage on it from the Government?- Yes. He could not raise more money on the lease. 695. Then, there is something more than sentiment in the cry for the freehold? —Yes. 696. Have you any experience of Government advances to settlers? —Yes, T have borrowed money. 697. Have you found it satisfactory? —Yes; but I think one improvement might be made, and that is that the Government should insist that the money borrowed should be spent on the land or spent to relieve liabilities on the land. Care should be taken that the money is not used for outside expenses. 698. Mr. McCutchan.] Is it not the case that moneys borrowed under the Advances to Settlers Act are usually to pav for improvements already made? —Yes.
A. C. YARBOROUGH. ]
761
C—4.
699. Is it not also the case that moneys borrowed upon improvements are used to make further improvement ? —Yes. 700. Do you think there should be a difference made in the amount advanced under each of those headings? —I do not think so, so long as the money is used for the purpose for which it was advanced. 701. Is not the security better in the latter case? —Yes; and I think some steps should be taken in the second case to see that the money is expended where it was intended to be spent. 702. Have not the borrowers to state the specific purpose for which the money is borrowed V — Well, I was asked whether it was for improvements or to relieve a mortgage. I said it was for improvements, and they lent me the money. 703. Then, the flaw in the method is that there is no inspection as to whether you spend the money for the purpose for which you borrowed it? —Yes. 704. Do you think that gap could be filled up ? —Yes. 705. Are you a member of the County Council now? —Yes. 706. In connection with this demand all over the colony for an assured finance for all these local bodies, have you thought out any practical scheme? —I think it is a great mistake that counties or private individuals should be constantly going to the Government for money for a road. Some provision should be made, for instance, that the revenue from the timber forests in this district should be be handed over to the local body, or, at any rate, a portion of it, and the Native land-tax also should be handed over. 707. Do you think the assistance given by the Government should in future be proportionate to what the ratepayers do for themselves ? —lt would act very unevenly if such an arrangement were made. We have a population"of only two thousand, and otir neighbours may have a population of five thousand, and we may have the larger area of land. 708. But as you rated yourselves you would get an increase in proportion from the Government. Of course, the county with the higher rateable value is entitled to more? —But our rateable value is only at present what the settlers can produce. The Crown and Native lands are not rated. 709. The Year-book shows your rateable value to be <£151,875, unimproved value, and we have had evidence here that the total amount you raised in rates was only £400 ? —That was only a guess, I think. lam not sure what the amount is. 710. I suppose you are aware others counties have raised as much as £50,000 by way of loans to help themselves? —Yes; we have considered that question on several occasions, and we find that we could borrow so little that it would not make one road twenty or thirty miles long. 711. It appears to me that the ratepayers in this county are doing very little to help themselves, in comparison with what other counties are doing? —They grumble very much about the roads, and the Maori difficulty is supreme. 712. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board? —I have nothing to say about the Land Boards; but I think it would be better if they were elected. 713. On the parliamentary franchise? —I think so. 714. Would not the towns get a preponderance of power in that way? —I do not know. I have not thought very much about it. 715. Mr. Paul.] On what tenure did you get your original freehold? —On deferred payment. 716. Did you find that satisfactory? —Yes. 717. What was the original capital value? —The third-class land was valued at 55., but for deferred-payment purposes it was raised to 6s. 3d. or 6s. Bd., and the second-class land at 7s. 6d. was raised for deferred-payment purposes to about 10s. 718. What is the value of your holding as it stands to-day? —It is worth about £400 or ,£5OO, with improvements. 719. What do you value the improvements at? —£300. 720. It is all fenced and improved? —It is ring-fenced, and there is about 100 acres in grass. 721. There is still a large area of it under bush? —Fern, mostly. 722. Do you believe that the lease-in-perpetuity tenants should get the option of the freehold? —I think so; but Ido not say that the present lease-in-perpetuity holders are entitled to get the option. 722 a. Do you think they should stand by their bargain?- It would be only fair; but if the Government, as an act of grace, could see their way to give them the freehold, of course, they would be very pleased. 723. What is the term of your Native lease? —Twenty-one years, with the right of renewal for twenty-one years, with a revaluation clause; and at the end of forty-two years the Natives have to pay up to £4 an acre for improvements. 724. Is that satisfactory to you as a tenant? —Yes; they were the best terms I could make. 725. Do you find anything in connection with that lease that interferes with your making good use of the land? —No; only that in dealing with Native lands there are always a number of holders, and it is difficult to get all the owners to sign the lease. 726. From your practical experience as a settler, do you think you can make good use of that land if the title is valid?— Yes, it is a good bargain. 727. Do you know the exact form the Land Board uses when it notifies a settler who has forgotten to pay his rent that his section is liable to forfeiture? —I would not like to say that the settler is threatened with forfeiture on the first omission, but I have heard others say it is. What I meant to say before was that it was a nuisance to have to be called upon to pay rent every half year and afterwards be called upon to pay or forfeit. 728. Are the values of the leaseholds increasing in this district? —I do not think they are. Outside the immediate vicinity of the township I think they are stationary. 729. Is there much absentee-owned land in the district? —There is some, but not a great deal, I should say. Until the last few years the land has been taken up very slowly about here, but
96—C. 4.
C.—4.
762
|A. C. YARBOROUGH.
lately there has been a rush for every acre of Government land that has been opened up, and it is rather early to say whether the people have taken up the land with the bona fide intention of residing and making improvements. 730. Do you believe in the compulsory acquisition of land under the land-for-settlements policy? —I do not know the conditions. 731. You have had no experience of settlement in the South? —No. 732. Do you think it pays a settler to gratify his sentiment for the freehold, or does it cost him something to gratify that sentiment? —I think it is cheaper for him to purchase than to continue his lease. 733. Have you had any experience of trying to raise money on leasehold? —Not that I can remember. 734. I understood you to say in your evidence that a man could not raise money on leasehold? —I meant to say he could not get such favourable terms. 735. The Government do not charge more on leasehold than on freehold? —I did not know that they lent on leasehold at all. 736. What about the advances to settlers? —Well, we have so few leaseholds about here that we do not come across that sort of business. 737. Mr. Anstey.\ What plan do you think should be adopted to bring this Native land under some proper system of settlement?- I have considered the question a good deal, and I think the only solution is to give the Natives absolute free trade, with the provision that they shall have reserves, and that no one shall be allowed to take up more than a certain quantity of land. Ido not see any other way out of it at all. 738. Would not that result In their dissipating their patrimony? —It is a mistake to suppose that the Natives live on their land. They live in the valleys and on the rich land that might be reserved for them. The Maoris do not cultivate the hillsides or put the land in grass except under special circumstances. 739. Suppose the Maoris were to sell their land and get cash for it? —They would spend it, no doubt. 740. Drink it? —Some of them might; but I would like to say that the Maoris, as a rule, are physically more able to work than a great many Europeans. 741. What rate is struck in this county? — on the unimproved value. 742. How does that work out: it surely gives a great deal more than the £400 which was given as an estimate? The Year-book gives the rateable value as £150,000: do you rate on that? —I could not tell you. 743. If these figures are correct, your rating must be considerably less than Jd. in the pound on the capital value?-Yes, I feel confident that that must include Native lands. 744. If you look at the Hokianga balance-sheet you will find that the revenue is £500, and £400 is spent on the roads. The remainder must be cost of administration? —T have pointed this out over and over again, and the answer is that if we had a very much larger income the expense would be practically the same. 745. When you get Government grants who spends them? —A portion is spent by the Government and a portion by the County Council. 746. Do you not think it is unwise of the Government to allow you to spend any of it if it costs you so much? —I think all the money should be put into the hands of the County Council. We could then get a good engineer, and if we had £5,000 to spend the cost of administration would bs no more than if we had £50. The cost of the administration is not the fault of the County Council; it is the fault of the system. I am. myself in favour of Road Boards. I believe it would be a saving. 747. Would not that intensify the evil? —No; because, I understand, Road Boards need not go to the same expense as County Councils. They have practically no expense. 748. You say you are chairman of the Settlers' Association. AVhat questions do your association deal with? —We have to make arrangements for annual shows. We also discuss the Maori-land question and the question of freehold and leasehold, also the best breeds of cattle and sheep. 749. There is nothing else connected with our business to-night that you discuss at your meetings? —I do not think so. 750. Mr. Hall.~\ Do you advocate free trade in dealing with Native land? —Yes; I think it should be open for any one to buy Native land. 751. In that case would not the titles have to be individualised? —Yes; they are endeavouring to get them individualised as it is, and if the individual purchaser went to the expense of doing that it would relieve the Government of that duty, and the work would be done much quicker. It would mean a good deal of expense, but they would get the titles individualised, notwithstanding the expense. 752. Short of that, do you see any way of getting over the difficulty in which you are placed by the Native lands being locked up and the settlers having to make roads without any contribution from the Natives? —The only alternative is that the Government should take the matter in hand and promptly finish it. Of course, the Government could do it in their own way. 753. Mr. McCutchan.~\ In connection with your Maori lease, you say you have a £4-an-acre-improvement clause at the end of the lease? —Yes. 754. What are the conditions? How are improvements estimated? The improvements are to be valued in the ordinary way by an umpire and two arbitrators. In the case of any dispute it is to be referred to the Court. 754 a. What do you do in the case of improvements that are not visible? It is bush land, is it not, and it is for twenty-one years?— Yes. 755. There will be improvements which will not be visible at the end of the term. How will
A. C. YAKBOROUGH.J
763
C—4.
you protect yourself ? —The owners will only pay for improvements that are on the place at the end of the term. Of course, if a fence was rotten it would not be valued the same as if it were new. 756. But suppose you went to heavy expense in the way of logging, and so on? —I do not know exactly how that would be arranged. It would be for the Court to decide in the case of any dispute ; but, in any case, I hope 1 shall be able to buy the land by that time. 757. In speaking about the balance-sheet of the Hokianga County, 1 think you said that the expenditure of £400 would cost something like £900 for administration. Have you analysed the balance-sheet closely? —I have in previous years, but I have not looked at it this year. I could look it up for you to-morrow morning. 758. Do you advocate Road Board control? —I have not had any experience of Road Boards; but I am given to understand that administration by Road Boards is cheaper than that of County Councils. We are thinking of forming ourselves here into a Town Board, because the way which the money is spent here at present is unjust to the district. 759. Mr. Johnston.] Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? —I am president of the Farmers' Union. 760. Is the Farmers' Union an ofislioot of the Settlers' Association? —No. 761. In giving your evidence have you been expressing the terms of any resolution passed by either of those bodies? —No. " Kohukohu, 16th May, 1905. " Deae Sik, —Will you permit me to supplement my evidence given yesterday to following effect: (1.) That it is unjust to enforce a lease on Native lands so long as the owners are restricted from dealing with them. (2.) That the difficulty of dealing with Native lands is added to by the owners having been induced to include every member of each household in the proprietorship of land, which is inconvenient and contrary to practice amongst Europeans. (3.) That Native owners who are unwilling to occupy their land should have facilities to dispose of it. (4.) That the method of classifying State lands is misleading to intending settlers, and is not done with sufficient discrimination. —Yours, <fec., "A. C. Yarbokough. " Chairman of Land Commission." Nui Hake examined. 762. The Chairman.] What are you?—I just live on the land which is owned by a number of us. 763. What do you wish to bring before the Commission? —I want to be allowed to lease to Europeans. 764. Can you suggest any scheme by which that could be done? —No; but now we cannot do it, and I object to that. 1 have heard an Act has been passed under which the Natives are to be taxed on their land. 765. That is the law ? 1 object to a tax being put on Native land. 766. Is it the wish of the Maori people generally that they should be allowed to lease their land? —I do not know about the other Natives, but it is my idea and that of my hapu. 767. Mr. Matheson.j As the Maori is using the roads with the European is it not right that he should help to maintain those roads? —Yes, that is right: but a lot of the Natives pay money to the Government. 768. In what way? —The land which the Government has bought from the Natives has been bought at 2s. or 3s. an acre, and the Government has sold it to settlers for two or three times as much. 769. Do you wish the right to sell as well as to lease? —Yes. 770. Do you not fear then that the Maori would soon be without land? —I do not think they would sell all their land. 771. Do you wish the law to be that each Maori must retain a certain number of acres? —Yes. 772. What number would you suggest? —300 acres each. 773. Mr. McCardle.] Have you any objection to placing your land under the Native Land Councils to lease them for you? —1 have not heard of any land leased by those Councils. 774. Do you know that as soon as you get your land individualised you can lease it yourself, with the approval of the Council? —That may be so. 775. Have you taken steps to do so? —No, the Council has not been working here yet. 776. Do you know that as the lands are rated and roads are made the land will rise in value, and you can get a higher rent for the land? —Yes, that might be, but 1 did not know it. 777. Mr. Paul.] Would you approve of the Government taking over all the Maori lands and leasing them for short periods, and giving the owners the proceeds after paying working expenses ? —No. 778. Why? —Because Ido not know what the Government would do. 1 heard that the Government took over some land at Rotorua, and the Maoris did not get anything at all. 779. Mr. Anstey.~\ How much land are you interested in with the hapu? —1,000 acres. 780. How many are in the hapu?—About 90 or 100. 781. Is that all the land they are interested in? —That land has been passed through the Court; but I am interested in another 3,000 acres which have been passed through the Court, but the list of names has not been put in. 782. That letves a lot short of the 300 acres which you propose to save for each Native? —That is my own idea. There is one thing I would like to mention. As Native lands are being taxed now I wish the Natives to be put on an equal footing with Europeans. I think the advances-to-settlers policy should be made available to the Natives. Another thing is, that when the roads are being made, the Natives are not given any work at all. 'It is always given to the European settlers. 783. Mr. Anstey.~\ Would the Natives be ready to take up road contracts if they were offered to them? —I do not refer to tenders now, but to jobs given to the settlers. The Maoris want day
a—4.
764
iNTJI HARE.
work. I think the Government should give the Natives the same option to select sections as Europeans, either under lease or for cash. 784. Mr. Matheson.] Do you wish that the Maoris should have our rights and share in all our responsibilities I—Yes.1 —Yes. Thomas Augustus Allingham examined. 785. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler. I hold 74 acres of freehold a few miles from here. I am a mill hand. 1 have been here about twenty-seven years. 1 have resided on the land seven or eight years. It is bush land, and about 30 acres is cleared. 786. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission?—Simply that, with the rest of the settlers, I think the freehold or lease with the right of purchase the best tenures decidedly. Then the individualisation of Native lands is a question that interests us very much as settlers. 787. What is the object of that? —We want to see them similar to ourselves. It seems ridiculous to have one law for the Natives and one for Europeans. 788. You think the Natives are sufficiently advanced to take their position along with the rest of the community as individual units? —I do. There are several here belonging to outside tribes who have taken up land from the Government. 789. Is there any other point?—l would suggest reopening the old homestead system, perhaps in a modified form. There is a great deal of land held in large blocks, and prospective settlers might come along and squat on it, and under the Homestead Act they might be able to make that their permanent residence. Of course, they would have to pay for the survey. We want every facility given to encourage bona fide settlers. 790. Mr. Hall.] You are of opinion that Native titles should be individualised? —Decidedly, and free trade as well, subject perhaps to the contract between Native and European being under the supervision of a Stipendiary Magistrate. 791. If that was done, would not the Natives be liable to pay rates the same as Decidedly, and then the rates could be enforced. 792. Mr. Paul.] Do you think there is any extensive area of land still left which the homestead system could be applied to ? —I am not in a position to say. 793. Have you had any experience of settlement further south? —No. I have not been out of the county. 794. In speaking of the tenure question you wish your remarks applied to this district?— Certainly. 795. Mr. Anstty.] Supposing the titles of the Natives were individualised, and they were given free trade in land, would they not soon dissipate the whole of their living and have to be provided for ? —I think that is a very great query. I think they have as much brains as we have in this respect. 796. You have no fear of them dissipating their patrimony? —I do not think so. Robert Holland examined. 797. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler in the Waikato, at Pukekawa, near Tuakau. I hold 450 acres under occupation with right of purchase. I pay 4d. per acre rent. I have held it seven years. lam quite satisfied with my farm and tenure. 798. What particular point do you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I wish to mention the statements mentioned in the Land Guide. For instance, the Land Guide might describe a piece of land open for selection as rolling country, and a man who cannot afford to go and look at the land takes it up, and when he goes on it he finds it is too steep to live on. I think something shoulcl be done to make the description more correct. Further, I think that when a person purchases land for cash the residence clauses should be enforced as well as the improvement clauses. Some people who purchase for cash do not live on the land. They make the little improvements which are necessary, and, after the other settlers have improved the district, they sell out to advantage. They keep the district back because they will not help with the dairy or factory. 799. Mr. Forbes.] What is your idea about land-tenure? —I have no particular opinion at present. I like the present optional system. 800. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think in describing land it would be all right if the different levels were stated ? —I do not mean that. I mean that land that is too rough should not be thrown open at all. 801. Would it be an advantage if the Guide stated whether the land rolled 30 ft. or 300 ft. ? — Or 2,000 ft. 802. Mr. McCardle.\ Has this trouble any personal application to yourself? —No. I saw my land before taking it up. 803. You are only raising a warning voice? —Yes. 804. Mr. McCutchan.] Is it not the case that the altitude is given of all lands advertised? —- The highest point might be given if there is a trig, station on the land. It will give from a certain height above sea-level to the highest point. It does not give a general description. 805. Do you think any prudent practical man would ever dream of taking up land without first inspecting it? —I think so. He will go by the Land Guide. I know plenty who have done so. 806. And they were prudent practical men? —They have got on their sections.
A. P. BLUNDELL.]
765
C—4.
Rawene, Tuesday, 16th May, 1905. Arthur Percival Blundell examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a launch-proprietor. I have an interest in a farm of 50 acres at Waihou, taken up under the old homestead system. It has been freehold for many years. I have also 4£ acres of freehold land at Kohukohu. 1 have been in the district twenty-five years. 2. What tenure do you prefer ?--I prefer the freehold. 1 had a section of 120 acres under deferred payment at one time, but 1 sold out my interest in it. 3. Have you any knowledge of the lease in perpetuity? —1 only know about the homestead and deferred-payment systems. The deferred-payment system was not satisfactory. 4. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission ?- 1 think the Homestead Act has been the most satisfactory system for the settlement of the land in the northern part of New Zealand. All the men who took up under the old Homestead Act are here still, while only one of the original settlers is left on the block of land taken up at Makura under the deferred-payment system. That settler is now making a living by storekeeping, and not off the land. 5. Then, you think the homestead system is the best for this part of the country? —1 am sure it is. There is an idea that because these people got the land for nothing they had not money. But that was not the case. My father and several others brought a lot of money into the county. He spent £4,000 on this place at Waihou, and it is still in existence. 6. Mr. Hall.] Has the homestead system been a success in this part? —Yes. I think Okaihau and Waihou, which were settled under that system, are the only places where the original settlers still remain. There have been a fe% failures in these settlements, but they would have been failures under any tenure. I advocate that the freehold should be given to the settlers, under the Homestead Act, when they have completed their improvements. 7. You think that those who have taken up the land here under freehold tenure have been bona fide settlers? —Those who took the land up under the Homestead Act have been bona fide settlers. They are all well-to-do men now. 8. Will the people here settle under lease in perpetuity pure and simple? —There are very many settlers under lease in perpetuity. 9. Will it tend to successful settlement, do you think? —It has only been introduced of late years. It has not had time to prove itself. 10. You consider the right of purchase should be given? —Most decidedly. 11. Is that the option generally held by settlers in this part? —The general wish is to obtain the freehold in time. Many are not in a position to buy the land straight away, but they work in the hope of owning their farm in the end. 12. Mr. Matheson.\ We find there are four things which cause settlers to be failures occasionally —viz., the quality of the land, want of access, the tenure it is held under, and the men who take it up ? —That is quite correct. 13. Which of these four do you think caused the failure of the deferred-payment settlements? - -It was the nature of the tenure. Of course, in speaking of this deferred-payment system, you must remember my experience is of sixteen years. The district has advanced considerably since then. Many of the men, of course, were not suitable settlers, and would never have made a living on the land if it had been given to them. It was not the fault of the land, but the want of access to markets. Now we have a market here and we can sell everything we grow. 14. Under the deferred-payment system a man was compelled to pay off the capital value within a certain number of years: do you think it is much preferable to give him a lease with the right to pay off when his means permit? —Quite preferable to the deferred-payment system. 15. Mr. McCardle.] You are well acquainted with the country? —Yes. 16. Is there any quantity of Crown lands still available within easy distance of here? —Not within easy distance. Ido not think there is any quantity within eight or ten miles. 1-7. Are there any roads to these blocks? —Clay roads, which are not available at certain times of the year to some of them. 18. Are you of opinion that any system which will produce sound settlement should be adopted? —I think it would be the making of the north if the homestead system was adopted again. 19. Is the Native land any drawback to settlement? —A very great drawback. 20. What has been your experience of the County Council? —I was seven years a member, and our great set-back was the stopping of the subsidy on Native land. In previous years we used to get a subsidy equal to that from the Crown lands, but that has been stopped. 21. What rate do you pay now? —2jd. in the pound. 22. Somebody told us that your rating value was over £100,000? —It appears so on paper, but we do not get the money. We cannot understand it. 23. Do you not think it would be a wise departure on the part of the Government to introduce another system altogether in connection with roads, and wherever new roads are to be made or metalled that the Government should give a grant of <£2 to every £1 raised by the settlers themselves? —Then it would be unfair to the settlers here. We are in a very small minority compared with the Native lands. There is no reason why the Native lands should not be rated. 24. Do you not think that a principle of that kind would be better than the present one of log-rolling in the House for grants? —Certainly, but it would be very unfair to us until such time as the whole county is paying rates. 25. Do you not know that a Native Rating Act has been passed? —Yes, but the county cannot collect the rates.
26. You know that the Government have made provision in the Act that if the Natives fail to pay the local rates the Government may pay for them and charge the amount against the land? —
C—4.
766
[a. p. bltjndell.
Under the old Act we summoned the owners of one Native block for rates, and the Government told us to stop, and it is very likely that will occur again. So long as the rate is collectible the Act will be a very good thing for the district. 27. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers? —None whatever. 28. Mr. McLennan.'] I suppose you have had no experience in the South Island? —I was in the Rakaia district as a boy, but 1 have not been in the South for many years. 29. You are aware that the Government have bought large estates tliere from private owners and settled them under lease in perpetuity? —Yes. 30. Would you give those tenants the same privilege of converting into the freehold as those who have Crown lands? —I would if they wished. 31. Mr. Paul.] Do you know the conditions of settlement from experience in the South? —No. I only worked on a station there. South Island farming is a very different matter from North Island farming. There you can put the plough in right away and take a crop, but on the bush or tea-tree land here you will hardly get any return for five years. 32. Then, do you arrive at your conclusion that it would be wise to give the freehold from your experience in the North where the conditions are so dissimilar? —Certainly, the only way you will ever settle the North is by giving the people the land if they are bona fide settlers. 33. And would you apply "that to the South? —No. There are different conditions altogether in the South. 34. Then, your experience in the South has not been such as to warrant you giving an opinion 1 —My experience is that the men in the South are well off. They are men who can afford to pay for labour and for teams, and they get a regular revenue every year from grain and wool. You cannot do that here. You cannot plough and put in a crop of wheat until the stumps have rotted, or until you have dug them out at great expense. 35. Do you think the men in the South are entitled to get the freehold as well as the settlers in the North? —I do not see why they should not if they wished to buy the land. 36. Does your objection to the old homestead system still hold good?- It does in regard to the North. 37. You propose to apply the homestead system to all the remaining land? —It is the only way to get the North Auckland country settled. 38. Do you think if that land were opened, say, at ss. per acre it would be taken up? —Quite possibly. 39. Do you think the State is justified in giving land away when it can get some revenue from it ? —I do not think the people who took it up at ss. per acre would stop on it. A man would stay on a poor piece of land of his own when he would not stop on a leasehold. 40. But he would pay interest on a capital value of ss. per acre if he took it up under lease? -There are any number in arrears with their rent now. They are continually given concessions. They have not proved a success so far. 41. Have the Government given any concessions under the lease in perpetuity? —Yes, I saw that the luvercargill people as a body requested the Government to refund some back rents. 42. Can you say whether it was done? —I cannot. 43. Do you know whether the Government have power to reduce rents under the lease in perpetuity? —I presume the Government have power to do anything. 44. Without legislation? —Certainly not without legislation. 45. Is leasehold land increasing in value in this district? —It is increasing in value according to the situation of the land. Land anywhere near the front has a greater value now. 46. Then, the .district is progressing? —Fast. There is a great future before us. 47. Mr. Anstey.] You think it is necessary for the Government first of all to give the land away under the homestead system, and then pay for making roads to it? —I did not say they should pay to make the roads. The land becomes rateable as soon as it becomes occupied. We pay our share towards the revenue of the county. 48. Do you know-what share you did pay?--We pay 2|d. in the pound 49. How much was the Government grant last year ? —I cannot tell you. I think about £600 altogether. 50. Are you sure it was not nearly £2,000 ? —That might possibly have been voted, but £600 is all that has been spent. 51. Do you not think it would be very much better that the Government should, instead of giving the land away, road the land first and then load it with the cost of roading? —I think if you did that you would have to wait many years before the land was taken up. The class of men who take up the land now are poor men, comparatively speaking. 52. If it is necessary for the Government to give the land away and then it is not worth roading, what is the use of the Government bothering with it at all? —So long as the land is idle it brings in nothing. The land will pay for the roading after it is taken up. We proved that so in the early days. We made our own roads then, and did not go running to the Government for assistance as they do now. 53. Do you generally go to the Government now for grants for roads? —We generally go to the Government for everything. I think the Government are really too kind to us; but if they gave the people the land I do not think the settlers would bother the Government at all. 54. Mr. McCardle.] You have been questioned as to the wisdom of granting the land to the people and the State making the roads to it: do you not think it is a great advantage to the country to have the land settled? —Certainly. 55. Is not that of far more value to the State than having the land lying idle, even if the State has to spend money in making roads? —Yes. 56. Then it is not the actual amount received from the land by way of sale, but the industry established on the land by the settler ?—Certainly.
767
a—4.
E. MCLEOD.
Ernest McLeod examined. 57. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am County Clerk and engineer. 58. We have been receiving various statements about the revenue of your county, and I have no doubt you can tell us accurately what it really is? —I was disappointed to hear that some statements were made at Kohukohu which are quite contrary to fact. The expenses of administration of the Hokianga County Council for the year ending March, 1904, totalled £551 6s. Id. The rates collected amounted to £778 16s. You will see from the county balance-sheet that the rate expenditure on county roads amounted to .£767 35., on wharves to £78 7s. lid., while the "thirds" expenditure derived from lease-in-perpetuity and occupation-with-rlght-of-purchase sections was no less than £487 13s. Id. The Government grants for the period amounted to £336 Bs. Id., which brings the total expenditure on roads, including wharves, to £1,669 15s. 9d., or an administrative expenditure of £554. The kauri-gum receipts were £156, which was a very small amount in comparison with the other counties. It may perhaps be of interest for the Commission to know that the original settlers to New Zealand actually came to this very jilace you are now sitting at. The burning question we have with us is Native land. You may have heard of this from other sources in other communities, but I do not think you could have a more emphatic demonstration of the necessity of doing something in legard to Native lands than when I show you this map of the county, which comprises almost a thousand square miles, and tell you that all coloured in yellow belongs to the Natives. 59. How much is coloured in yellow? —About 400,000 acres, roughly. There is 300,000 acres of Crown lands. 60. How much is occupied by settlers and alienated from the Crown and Natives? —The following are the detailed figures for the years 1903-4 of how the land is held in the county: Hokianga County, year 1903-4. —Approximate acreage Native land, 200,000 acres; Crown land, 300,000 acres; occupied area as per rate-book, 125,929 acres; thirty Education reserves (scattered), 3,811 acres; fifty Education reserves on I'awene, 27 acres; five Museum endowments, 1,320 acres; one Parnell endowment, 1,000 acres; one Onehunga endowment, 1,000 acres; one Auckland endowment, 1,500 acres; two Catholic Mission endowments, 106 acres; three Wesleyan endowments, 685 acres. No properties, £1,067. Ratepayers, £668. Cash value, £133,919. Unimproved, £78,935. Rate, 2jd. —£820 os. sd. This Native difficulty was alluded to by the former witness, and I wish to place no record that this Council in this very hall some twelve years ago pledged themselves to the Premier to give the Native question every chance if he brought in a Native Rating Act. This was done, and the year following the Native Rating Act was passed. The Council let rates accrue for two years and then sued, with the result that it cost them £50 to get judgment, and when they came to satisfy the judgments the Native Minister declined to take further proceedings. Now, from the remark made by Mr. McCardle, I can quite understand that there are very few people who understand this difficulty of Native rating. In the first case, the Maoris hold the land in common. Repeatedly we have instances of the Court sitting here over long periods, and the Natives practically impoverishing themselves to establish their claim, with the result that three or four hundred names are entered up in the subdivision. It is no earthly good, and the old trouble continues. Then, there are the appeals, with the result that the proceedings are stayed until the next Court comes to subdivide. In my opinion it is utterly useless to try to collect rates from these poor unfortunate beings. It it against the spirit of equity on which Britishers pride themselves to force people who cannot tell where their land is to pay rates. It Is all very well to say they are occupiers and therefore they should pay. Perhaps out of two hundred people whose names appear on the list there may be a hundred scattered all over the place far away, and if you ask them to pay this burdensome rate they say " Oh, no, we are not deriving any benefit from them." On the other hand, immediately it is proposed to sell timber, they step in and endeavour to upset any arrangement you may have entered into with the local millers. It is my candid opinion, after living amongst the Maoris for twenty-eight years, that it would pay the Government handsomely if they would boldly step in and say, "We are going to give the Natives, say, ten years to establish, their claims. We will survey, and we will give you Crown grants, making the land inalienable if you like, and only give them the privilege to lease if they think fit." Although I am a candid believer in the freehold, I cannot but think that when the late Minister of Lands, the Hon. John McKenzie, originated the three systems of land-settlement, he would have gone a long way to meet the difficulties of land-settlement here if he had come north. If he had done so before enunciating that policy lam quite confident he would have included the homestead system in his policy. The settlements of Okaihau, Waihou Valley, and Victoria Valley were under the Homestead Act, and you will not find more thriving settlers anywhere. On the other hand, the Punakitere Settlement has been a great stumbling-block to the county, inasmuch as there are three endowments there belonging to Auckland, Parnell, and Onehunga. These endowments were taken over by the Hon. Mr. Ballance with a view to encouraging village settlement. When the Stout-Vogel Government went out of office, by some means or another the Government repudiated the whole thing, and threw it back on the shoulders of the boroughs, and capsized the whole of the arrangements made with the settlers. They were perfectly willing to be Crown tenants, but they did not like their leases interfered with in that way. One man there who has a freehold is a striking example of what the freehold tenure will do. The other people are all disgusted with their holdings under leasehold, and they point with envy to this man Brennan, who, by some means or another, got the freehold of a forfeited section. Another item of moment to the Council is the closing of roads. The settlers in the back blocks have to put up with various inconveniences through the roads being laid off in the early days by surveyors who ran them up the steep ridges and wherever they thought fit. The closing of these roads entails considerable expense, and the very cheapest procedure runs into £15. These roads are no good at all, and we would ask the Commission to recommend if possible a more simple method of closing the roads. This point of Rawene is held by the Education Commissioners. I feel convinced
a—4.
768
[E. MCLEOD.
that some of you an arrival must have thought it strange to see one of the oldest settlements in New Zealand so backward. There is gorse growing in the streets. Well, the whole cause of this is the absence of freehold and nothing else. The Commissioners for a long period would only give fourteen-year leases, and the people who were venturesome enough to occupy the land found by experience that the tenure was quite unsatisfactory. I am pleased, however, to say that lately the Commissioners have lengthened the term to twenty-one years, with the right of renewal, and things are now looking brighter. About eighteen months ago a number of sections were put up for sale in Auckland, but the notice given was altogether too short, and people here had absolutely no chance of advising their agents in Auckland of the sections they would like to purchase. The result was that only a few sections were purchased, and, although I wired the next day for a section, my money was returned with a memorandum stating that the land had been put up for sale, and it could not be sold unless it was advertised again. I think that is one of the greatest bars to settlement we could have. When a place is put uj) for sale at an upset price, surely any one who comes along should have the right of purchase. 61. By law the land would have to be advertised at least thirty days before the sale? —It may have been advertised in the Gazette, but we did not see it in the newspapers until a few days before the sale. 62. We have had a good deal of evidence about grants from the Government for your roads, and we have been told several times that they only appear on paper, and are never realised by the county —in other words, that the amounts are simply revoted and the money is never forthcoming: is that the fact? —It is, lam sorry to say. I will give you one case in point. The number of Ohuri settlers living about six miles from here have absolutely no means of access to the main road. I think about three years ago the late County Chairman agitated for a grant of £100, because the Maoris to whose land the road would go were then perfectly willing to give the land free, provided they had the making of the road. The £100 appeared on the estimates for Blocks 2 and 3, Waoku, and the settlers rejoiced. We made application and were quietly told it was for another place altogether. Last session there was another vote for Waoku Extension. When we approached the District Road Engineer he could not give us any satisfaction. There are a number of others. The authority which we have had this year is £100 for Waima-Opouteke Road, £98 for Rawene-Kaikohe Road, a distance of twenty-seven miles, and I think £43 for the Pakia-Waimamaku Road. Outside of that, I think £500 has been spent by the Government, but we have no means of telling it exactly. They have men employed in various parts of the county. 63. I understand the Road Engineer resicles here: has he any money to expend independently of the Council ? —Yes, he is a Government officer. 64. Who supplies the money to keep him going?--The Government. A number of grants appeared on the estimates, but they are expended. I think I am quite safe in saying £500 of Government money has been spent. 65. Does the Government Engineer spend this money on the main roads? —No, on roads to open up settlement. Now and again they exercise their privilege of spending money on some of the county roads, and the Council never objects. 66. Does it happen that sometimes both the Government and county engineers spend money on the same piece of road ? —Yes. 67. Is there a conference between you and the Government Engineer as to the fitness of spending money on certain places? —No. We welcome the Government's expenditure with delight. 68. You strongly recommend the homestead system to apply to these lands, and in regard to the Native question, you strongly recommend that ten years be given to the. Natives in which to individualise their titles, and then you think the Government might take the land over and become, as it were, an agent to lease the land; the previous witness said that leasing would never do here, and that the homestead system was the only one that would succeed, and you are of the same opinion : how do you reconcile the freehold for Crown land and the leasehold for Maori land? —Very easily. The reason is that the poor unfortunate settlers always have to take the hill-tops. The Maoris have got the pick of the land. Anybody coming along and taking up the beautiful alluvial flats sees at once that he can get a speedy return from them. 69. So it is not the tenure that decides, but good land? —Yes. 70. You think the poor land must be given gratuitously, as the settler will have quite enough to do to make a living without paying any money, but that the Maori land being sufficiently attractive would encourage leaseholders? —Yes. 71. Mr. Boll.] Are the endowments in the county not worked or administered satisfactorily? —Undoubtedly not. I should have stated before that these endowments and Native lands are hotbeds for propagating all the noxious weeds in the county. I can show you a growth of blackberries 6 ft. high on a place where eight or ten years ago there was not a single root to be seen. On the Auckland City Council endowment there is only one settler residing now. That is another argument against leasehold. If the other settlers could have got the freehold they would all have been there to-day. 72. Would it be better if a longer lease were given, seeing that the freehold of endowments cannot be given? —Yes. That might help the position, but short leases are a bar to progress. 73. I suppose the Native lands are a great stumbling-block to settlement in this county?— They are. 74. Do you think there would be much difficulty in getting these lands individualised? —Not if the Government took that firm stand, but, really, they would have to bear the brunt of the surveying. When the last Maori Councils Act was brought into force two or three years ago the Natives were all dead against it. The then Magistrate, Mr. Blomfield, came up and fairly broke down all opposition, with the result that the Natives placed hundreds and hundreds of acres in the hands of the Council for adjudication. Strange to say, they never got any further. We are
E. MCLEOD.]
C.—4.
769
perfectly satisfied the fault did not rest with the Magistrate. We blamed Wellington, and subsequently when the Magistrate resigned we thought it must be because he was sick and tired of the whole concern. 75. Would it be, in your opinion, sound policy to bring the whole of the Native lands under the Land for Settlements Act, leaving the Natives sufficient reservations for their own use, or do you think the Maoris would resist such a policy? —That is a big question. A little while back we had a Native rising here. It was called the kuri war. But at the bottom of the whole trouble was simply the land question. It had nothing to do with the kuri, but the Natives were diplomatic enough to know that the kuri question would bring them far more support than anything else, and they allowed the laud question to slide. That trouble arose through the Council suing them for rates. I say anything would be preferable to the present unsatisfactory situation. 76. Mr. Johnston.] Are there any education reserves here ?■ —Yes, but the revenue derived from them is very trifling. It is collected by the Education Board. 77. Is the whole of the township an education reserve? —There are only two freeholders holding small sections. 78. Are there any mission reserves? —Yes, there is a considerable area. 79. Do you think the settlers here are doing well? —Yes, astonishingly well. 80. You think it would be wise for the Crown to insist on the title of all Maori land being individualised ? —Yes. 81. Can you suggest any way by which that can be more quickly brought about? —I am in favour of the old Native Land Court. The Maori Councils have had a fair trial. 82. If the titles of Native land are individualised, do you think it would be wise for the State to grant the Natives equal rights and responsibilities with ourselves? —Yes. They are perfectly willing to be treated as Europeans, provided they have the title to their land. 83. Does it seem to you bad economy to keep a Government Engineer to supervise roadwork when you have a local body to attend to such work ? —lt does seen an anomaly. 84. Do you think it would be an improvement and give you an assured finance if the Government subsidised you on the amount you rated yourselves for, and do you think it would make the people feel more independent ?—Much more. 85. Mr. McCardle.~\ Do you not think it would be a wise thing on the part of the State to take over all endowments and value them, and give the value to the different institutions, and thus be enabled to secure the settlement of that land ? —Yes. 86. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?—No, but the amounts advanced seem to me to be miserably low. 87. Do you think it would be a good thing to increase the amount that may be advanced on a settler's interest in the land? —Yes. 88. Mr. McCutchan.~\ I understood you to say that you thought the Government subsidy should bear a fixed proportion to the rating revenue? —Yes. 89. Does not the present system result in wealthy and well-settled counties having a great advantage over such a county as this in the matter of subsidy? —Yes. 90. The road question is practically a burning question all over the North Island, and, as you know, the want of roads has retarded settlement very much, and an effort is now being made to adopt a comprehensive scheme to get over the road difficulty. Do you not consider that the Government should take into consideration the possible development within a county of their own lands, and that there should be additional assistance given?- I am certain that the southern counties, which are in a good financial position, would not be so well off if they had large areas of Crown lands within their area. I think that such counties as have large areas of Crown lands should be entitled to a subsidy of £2 for £1. That would meet the case, and would not do an injustice to anybody. 91. Speaking of the dual control question, is it not possible, under the present system, that the engineer of the county and the Government Engineer may both ride thirty miles on the same day to.inspect pieces of work only a short distance apart? —Yes ; but I may say that in this county we try and work in with the Roads Department in respect to public works and expenditure. 92. Is it not possible for one man to do the whole of that work, and thus avoid the double expense ? —No. 93. This is an evil that exists all over the colony. A County Council may strike,a rate, and the revenue in one part of the district may be all expended in another. Do you not think that difficulty might be got over if road accounts were insisted on, and do you not think that legislation should be brought in to force every County Council to keep road accounts, so that justice may be done to each part of a district? —It seems to me that that would be fair. 94. Mr. Paul.] Are the terms of the education leases at Rawene satisfactory? —Fairly so. 95. Does your County Council employ co-operative labour or day-labour? —The Council is unanimously in favour of letting the work by contract and calling for tenders. 96. Do you employ day-labour at all? —Occasionally. 97. We were told yesterday that the Council had found that day-labour was very satisfactory? Yes, in two cases. 98. Is there much absentee-owned land in the county? —I think there are fifty or sixty absentees who own land in the county. 99. What tenure do they hold their land under? —Freehold. 100. I suppose you find that is working against the best interests of the county? —Yes. 101. Are there many leaseholds' in the district? —Yes, a great number. Our "thirds" revenue amounts to about £500. 102. Are those settlers fairly prosperous? —Yes. 103. Mr. Anntey.'] Would it not be possible to individualise the monetary interest of the Natives in their blocks of land, and not divide tip the land into small sections, as often occurs at
97—C. 4.
JE. MCLEOD.
770
0.—4.
present? —No, I do not think that would be satisfactory, because, as a rule, the Natives like to hold a particular piece of land because their ancestors lived upon it. 104. Do you consider it would not be wise for the Government to assume control of the Native land? —I would be in favour of asking the Natives to individualise their land, and to assist them in respect to the survey fee, arid give them free titles. 105. Do you not think the Government should take over the whole of the Native land and give the Natives Crown grants ? —I am afraid that would strike at the root of a Maori s dignity. He would say that the Government had practically confiscated his land and that of his forefathers, and it would mean trouble. 106. You say that the education endowments are a bar to settlement? —Yes. 107. Do you think it would be wise to pass legislation compelling all administrators of reserves to give a secure tenure? —Yes. 108. If such legislation were passed, do you think it would be a satisfactory solution of these difficulties with regard to these reserves? —I believe it would, but I favour the debenture system that has been suggested. 109. Do you think a tenant has a right to his improvements, whether he be a private tenant, the tenant of a local body, or of the State? —Yes. 110. Mr. McGardle.] In respect to roading, do you not think it would be a good thing, instead of the present system of special grants, if Parliament granted settlers who were prepared to rate themselves a subsidy of £2 for £I?— Yes, 1 think so. I may say, however, that one of the main objects of some settlers in going into the back country is the small amount of rates they will have to pay, and they look to the Government helping them in every way. 111. Mr. Anstej/.] Do you think it would be wise for the Government to adopt a system of graduated subsidies to local bodies on the amount of rate they strike? Yes, and I think that consideration should be given to districts in which there are large areas of Crown lands. 112. Do you think that Government land should pay rates? —Yes, even if only a small rate. 113. Do you think under some such system the local bodies would be able to do without special grants? —It would come to that in the end. Robert Stevenson examined. 114. The, Chairman.] What are you?—l am a settler in this district, and farm 6-34 acres under occupation with right of purchase. I have held the land for two years. The capital value is £1 an acre. My place is about forty miles from Rawene, and in the Pimakitere Survey District. 115. Is there any special matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—' Yes; a grievance or disability under which T suffer. It is a grievance which applies to settlers who have taken up land recently. In March, 1903, six months before the new Bush and Swamp Actcame into force, the Tehuihui Block was all taken up except one section, and in six months' time the new Act came into force, and all the settlers who had not improved their land threw up their sections. I wrote to the Minister of Lands with a view of coming in under the Act, but he would not grant my request. I asked him to allow me to capitalise my rent and pay it off under the Advances to Settlers Act. He replied that he could not consent to my request, and it was intimated to me practically that I must surrender my land. I consider that the passing of that Act has reduced the value'of other land that does not come under it by the amount of the four years' rent and rates, and, besides that, it has ruined the settlement on this block, which would have been a prosperous settlement if it had not been for that Act. Another matter I would like to draw attention to is this: that since I took up my land it has been hedged in by reserves, and that has increased the cost of fencing by about ,£lOO. Besides that, this block is loaded in order to pay interest on the amount expended on roads in the district, and yet we have no road, and we are not likely to have any for a very considerable time. With regard to rating for the year 1904-5, I am practically paying on the capital value, and this county is supposed to be rated on the unimproved value. . The Chairman said he did not think the Commission could very well intervene in such a case when the Minister of Lands seemed incapable of granting relief. 116. Mr. Matheson.] Have you made objection to the Assessment Court with regard to the value at which you are rated? —I am not allowed to object on the 1904-5 valuation. 117. Had you no notice of your valuation before you were rated? —None whatever, except the demand from the County Council. 118. Have you made any use of the Advances to Settlers Department 1 ?— No. 119. Would you not bV doing so get relief ?—Well, the first year I took up my place I did not get a burn, and I have only sown my place down now, and, of course, the valuers will not look at land unless it is grassed. I would also like to say that the Roads Department never sow down the road-lines after they are formed, and the result is that the weeds come up at once and get into the sections adjoining. lam suffering from this myself. I have applied to the Department to sow it, but they have said nothing about it. 120. With regard to loading for roads, do you say that the full amounts have not been expended ?—Not for ""the sections that have been thrown up, and there are only two sections left in the Block now. . 121. Have the others been forfeited? —Some of them have been forfeited and others are nonresident! and I am certain they are allowing their interests to lapse, because they are doing no improvements. 122. Mr. McCutchan.] Have any of the sections which have been forfeited been regazetted under the Bush and Swamp Lands Act?— No. 123. You stated the valuer told you you had no right to appeal against the assessment for the year 1904-5. Was that because your unimproved value was the upset value?— That may be their explanation ; but this new Act has altered the value of the land,
771
C—4.
K. STEVENSON.]
124. Mr. Paul.] Do you think but for this Bush and Swamp Land Act the settlement would have been a success?-- Undoubtedly, it would. 125. Mr. Anstey.] Has the Valuer-General reduced the values on sections similar to yours? — I could not say. It is all Crown land around me. 126. Had you anything else you wished to bring before the Commission? —I only wish to say that it should be made compulsory by law for the Roads Department to sow down in grass the roadlines to prevent the weeds from coming up. When they form a road they clear it a chain wide and burn part of the side-lines, but they should sow it in grass. Hans Christian Olsen examined. 127. The Chairman.] What are you? I am a settler residing about twelve miles from here. 1 have 256 acres under lease in perpetuity, for which I pay a rental of £3 18s. 6d. I have been there ten years. 128. Was your land originally bush? —Part bush and part tea-tree scrub. I have 70 acres in grass now. 129. Are you satisfied with your farm? —To a certain extent; but I am not satisfied with the tenure. I should like the right to purchase. 130. What is your objection to your present tenure? -I am afraid it will be revalued after a short time; perhaps every two or three years. 131. What makes you think that?- I have seen a report that a labour union wants to have all the land revalued. 132. Have you lost faith in the contract the Government entered into with you? —Yes, entirely. 133. Mr. Hall.] Do you think you have good ground for fearing that your lease will be revalued ?—Yes; it is bound to come, because the labour people in the towns are the biggest number, and they stick together. 134. Mr. Paul.] Could you purchase the freehold if you had the option now? —Not at present. 135. Do you not think you have enough to do with the money you have in clearing the remainder of your land without bothering about the freehold ? —I do not want to take it just now, but I should like to have it at some future time. 136. If revaluation were embodied in future leases, what do you think the period should be? It is hard to tell. 137. Do you think it should be something like that of perpetual lease —the first period to be thirty years, and subsequent periods of twenty-one years ? 138. You mentioned just now you were afraid it might be revalued in two or three years?— Well, you never know. They could alter it as they like. 139. Do you think it would be workable to have revaluation every two or three years? —It might cost a lot of money; but you never know how things will come out. 140. Do you not think it would be more likely to be twenty or thirty years? —No. I think it would perhaps be, first, ten years, and the next thing we should have it every five years, and there would be no end to it. 141. Mr. Anstey.] If you were quite sure that there would be no revaluation on the existing leases, would the conditions then be satisfactory? —No, not even then. I prefer the freehold out-and-out. 142. Suppose all the land in the colony were freehold, do you think you would have the chance now of getting on the land you have had? —If you could not get it here you would have to get it somewhere else. I come from Denmark, where nearly everybody is a freeholder, and they are doing very much better than when most of them were leaseholders. 143. Mr. Forbes.] When all the land is freehold the poor men will have to rent their pieces of land from the private landlords, will they not, as they do in England ? —At the present time there are millions of acres of Crown land available. 144. What about the future? —That is too far off yet. 145. You think it is too far off to bother about? —Yes. George Gardiner Menzies examined. 146. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am Government Road Inspector. 147. I suppose the Government grants for roads in this district are principally under your direction ? —Yes. 148. What did they amount to last year? —I could not say exactly; but usually we expend about £500 a month. I have no list of the appropriations for this year. About 75 per cent, of the amount would be in this county. 149. Is there any particular class of roads you expend this money on? —No; wherever the appropriations are made we spend the money on this particular road, to open up new land for settlements and make cart-roads, as we get the funds. 150. Do you have conferences with the County Councils of the counties in which you expend the funds? —Frequently we do. This County Council works very amicably with us, and we always agree together as to the best method of spending the money. 151. I suppose the keeping-up of bridges simply devolved upon what grants are obtained from the Government ? —Yes. The jetties and wharves are under the County Council generally, but one or two are owned by private companies. 152. So, in that particular class of work you have no expenditure?- -No, not so far. 153. Mr. McCvtr,han.\ Do you think this system of dual control is wise? —As far as I know, they have certain portions of roads under their own direct supervision, and the Government have other portions of roads under their direct supervision.
772
C—4.
G. G. JtENZIES.
154. Is there any confusion in the Public Works Act as to what roads are under the control ol the County Council and what under the Government? —I know some of the roads have been renamed recently, perhaps to lessen the confusion. 155. Are you in the habit of vesting roads under your charge, by G-azette notice, as being under the control of the County Council ?• —We have had instructions recently to that effect, where the roads exceed 10 ft. in width. 156. In the past have you been expending money upon roads which were recognised as being under the control of the County Council? —Yes, occasionally. 157. Then, does not dual control come in? —In does not appear to cause confusion. 158. Does it not increase the cost of administration ? —I do not think so. 159. Surely, if there is a stretch of thirty or forty miles of road under your control upon which the County Council is also expending money it must involve two sets of accounts, two engineers, and in nearly every way tend to increase expenses? —It might involve two sets of accounts. When a piece of work on a road like that is to be done the County Council simply subsidies the amount authorised by the Government and we expend it, and the county engineer is perfectly satisfied with our certificate in regard to it; so that there is no extra expense in that way. 160. Would you advocate all roads being placed under the control of the Government or of the County ? —I should think all the main roads should be under the special control of the Government until constructed, and when in proper order I think they should be handed over to the county, whose expenditure would be sufficient to keep them in repair. In a county like this it is impossible for them to construct new roads with their revenue. 161. By '' construction " do you mean metalling and formation? —Yes. 162. Mr. ¥aul.~\ Does the expenditure of the Department compare favourably with that of the County Council? —I think so." 163. I have seen the balance-sheet of the county, from which it would appear that the cost of administration by the county is larger than that of the Government 1— That is, I think, because of the scarcity of the funds the county has to administer; because if the amount of funds was very much larger the expense of administration would not, I think, be materially increased. 164. What labour do you employ ?—Day-labour, co-operative labour, and piecework. 165. Is the co-operative system satisfactory?—! do not think so. That is my personal opinion. 166. What is the objection to co-operative labour? —In the first instance, the men were taken promiscuously in gangs. Some were excellent men, but others were not so good, and the result was there was a great deal of grumbling. The good men naturally did not expend so much exertion after the first week or two as the less competent, and very often when the work was done they grumbled at the prices given. It was not the fault of the price, but of the amount of work done. I have accordingly, as far as possible, instituted the day-labour system, which I have found to be most satisfactory under proper gangers, because we got a better class of work. 167. If you allowed the men to choose their own gangs would it be more satisfactory under the co-operative system? —We have tried it, but it was not always satisfactory. I prefer the daylabour system, because I get a better class of work. 168. Does it require a great deal of supervision ? Under any contract system it requires a good deal of supervision, and it means a certain amount of friction between the men and the officers in charge. 169. Mr. Anstey.] Under the day-labour system, suppose you get men who are less competent or efficient? —We pay them on a graduated scale generally, and increase the wages as a man gets better and deserves it, and if after receiving this increase he is not so diligent we can easily make a reduction again. Most of the men recognise the justice of paying according to the value of the work done, as they generally have a pretty good idea of what is right and fair. We cannot pay a higher wage than Bs. a day. We get a better class of work, as it is not in the interests of the men to scamp the work. 170. What is the cost of administering the expenditure of this money? —I should say about II per cent. 171. Does that include your own salary? —Yes. 172. Is that after the money reaches here? —Yes. When making up the annual balance-sheet I found it to be a little under 11 per cent. 173. With regard to these Government grants, suppose some year the money was not voted by Parliament, would a number of men be thrown out of employment? —Yes, it would mean a great hardship to the district. 174. Are these votes given from year to year? —They are voted year by j'ear for the different roads. During the last two years the grants have not been quite so large, but they are pretty much about the same. The people about here depend a good deal on the work they get out of the Government. 175. Mr. Forbes.'] You have heard a previous witness say the Roads Department ought to sow down the road-lines to prevent the weeds from coming up. Do you think that is reasonable? — Yes; we do so whenever there is time; but with regard to this particular block on which Mr. Stevenson resides, we have no further moneys available. Frequently the County Council do that with their "thirds." They co-operate with us when our funds are exhausted. 176. Are the settlers doing fairly well here? —I think they are fairly contented. At all events, they seem to be beyond want. 177. Do you mean they are easy going; because some people have said the climate here has a tendency to make them easy going? —I think they are as diligent as other settlers. 178. Do you think many of them are in the position to buy the freehold? —I think a very small proportion would be able to buy their land, but they would make an effort, no doubt.
773
C—4.
G. G. MENZIEB.
179. Do you not think in putting their money into the purchase the improvements would suffer? —I think something would suffer. 180. Mr. Paul.] Have the village settlements in this district been successful? —1 consider they were. It simply meant the survival of the fittest. These settlements were started to relieve the congested state of labour in the cities. The people were selected promiscuously by ballot, and the greater number of them had never been engaged in such work before. They had little or no capital, and those who came with the idea that the Government was going to be their step-mother soon left and went somewhere else. Those who intended to become settlers are here still, and their sons will make better settlers than their parents. I believe about 50 per cent, remained. 181. Mr. McCutchan.] In reference to day-labour, when the men work in gangs do you put one of the workers over the rest and pay him more than the rest? —We cannot pay him more than Bs. a day, but we select a man we know is capable.
Omapere, Tuesday, 16th Mat, 1905. George White examined. 1. The Chair num.] What are you? —I am a settler at Waimamuku, about eleven miles from here. 1 hold about 184 acres partly under lease in perpetuity and partly under a special village settlement. I have been there about sixteen years. 2. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission) —1 have written the following statement: 1, George White, being a resident of New Zealand for forty-live years, and a Crown tenant and occupier of lands in Waimamuku for sixteen years, desire to testify before your Commissionfirst, that it is desirable to grant all Crown tenants holding land under any lease whatsoever the freehold when required, for the following reasons: first, that the freehold tenure is less expensive to the holder than leasehold ; second, that the present land laws are too arbitrary and harsh, inasmuch as the Land Board can forfeit a tenant's land, which may be his life's long work, for a few paltry pounds of rent, in arrears; third, because Crown tenants holding eternal leases are humbugged with agitations for periodical revaluations, and consequently increase of rents. I would suggest to your Commision that the country is not ready for land-nationalisation or State ownership of all lands, and may not be until all Crown lands and waste lands have become occupied and utilised by the people.* 1 would suggest also to your Commission that any system acceptable to the people and workable for the Land Boards to aid the bona fide occupation of Crown lands should obtain. 3. Do you feel secure under your present tenures? —No. 4. You are afraid you will be revalued? —Exactly. 5. 1 may tell you that I do not think there is any chance of that myself? —It ought not to be. 6. Were you one of the settlers who came up from Canterbury ? —1 was. 7. Have you got on fairly well and made a nice place of your farm? —It has been a slow process; still, we are making headway. 8. Mr. Mathe-son.] You speak of the country not being ready for land-nationalisation. Do you look forward to that some day as a good thing? —I may say, as a matter of opinion, that the country is not ready yet, and probably will not be ready for fifty years. 9. In the meantime you think it is wise that the State should grant the freehold for the settlers' sake? —I do. 10. Do you think also it will be doing justice to the city-dwellers, who have an interest in the lauds you occupy?- Ido not think the city-dwellers should consider the country people at all. I think we live under altogether different conditions. 11. Have you ever made use of the Advances to Settlers Office? —I have. 12. Did you find it satisfactory? —It was not satisfactory at the beginning. I had made improvements on my place, which, supposing they had been done by contract, would have cost me £160, and they only granted me £40. Of course, I was thankful, because it helped me out of my difficulties, but I think I ought to have had more than that. 13. Mr. McCardle.] I suppose you are aware that the main advantage of the towns is to get the land settled and in a state of productiveness: is that not the share the towns gain from the settlers? —I have not studied the question. 14. How could the towns exist without the country settler? —The towns could not exist without the country settlers. 15. Then, every fresh settler put on the land enriches the towns?— That is so. 16. Mr. McCutchan.] You are under Land Board control now? —Yes. 17. Do you think the Land Board control should cease when you have a larger interest in the land than the State has? —Exactly so ; and that can be done by giving the freehold tenure. 18. Are your roads in a satisfactory condition? —They are not so, and never will be so. 19. Is tlie money available not sufficient to make the roads?—l think not; but it cannot be helped. We labour under a disadvantage in that respect at present. 20. Has the land increased in value? —Apparently it has. My valuation was £70, but the County Clerk objects to that, and says it ought to be put up £30 more, and I have received notice to that, effect. It may be right or wrong; but I have not thoroughly threshed the matter out in my own mind. lam under the impression that the unimproved value is a fixed value. I cannot for the present conceive that it should be anything else. 21. You think the unimproved value has not gone up? —I think it ought not to. 22. Mr. McLennan.\ I suppose you are aware that the Government have borrowed a vast sum of money to buy up these estates and settle tenants on them? —Yes, I understand that.
a—4.
774
[g. white.
23. Would you grunt the same privilege of the freehold to those tenants? —Yes, I would grant the freehold to all who require it. 24. Supposing the tenants are allowed to acquire the freehold, do you know any way in which the colony could get the same interest on the money as the settlers are now paying ? Would the oolong get per cent, for the money that the tenants would pay ofi the land? —Well, Ido not think the question of disposing of the money would trouble most of the settlers. I think we would find ways and means of disposing of the money. But I have never entered into that phase of the question; I consider it out of my sphere. 25. Mr. Anstey.] What rent are you paying for your sections? —I am paying about £5 a year for 149 acres. That is about Bd. per acre. I agree the rents are low, and they ought to be. 26. What grounds have you for supposing that these lease-in-perpetuity sections are likely to be revalued? —My ground is the agitation that is at present going on. We read accounts of your Commission meetings, and we see that certain individuals advocate revaluation for Crown tenants. 27. Where did this happen, do you know? —I cannot state exactly, but that is the impression that runs in my mind. 28. Do you not think it. is a pity to make a statement like that before you can prove it? I have followed the Commission throughout, and I never heard such a statement? —I know I ought to be able to verify it; but I did not know I was going to be questioned like this by a lot of Commissioners or I should have brought the paper. 29. Are you certain that any man ever came before this Commission representing any responsible body and ever asked for revaluation of existing leases?—l cannot say that it is so. 30. Tou have entered into a sacred contract with the Government. If they attempted to do that do you not think it would, be dishonest? —Most decidedly. That is one reason why I seek the freehold tenure. 31. You say it is dishonest for the Government to break a contract solemnly entered into with their tenants. Do you think it would be dishonest for you to break the contract you have entered into? —Yes. 32. Can you tell me why you have come here to-day and asked for a deliberate breach of the contract the Government have entered into with you? —Yes, the possibility of revaluation taking place. 33. Do you not think it is rather unwise for you to come and say that somebody else is trying to break your contract? —So they are. 34. You say you cannot name any man who has done so? —That is true; but I might have brought the papers along with the speeches of some of these individuals. 35. I can name a man who has tried to break the contract on the other side, and that is ycurselt? —Yes, and lam not alone. If we have to fight we believe it is necessary to be prepared, and that is what has brought me here to-day. 36. Supposing you were quite sure there is to be no breach of contract, is there anything in the lease in perpetuity which would prevent you properly improving and producing from your land? —There is this drawback : if we wanted to borrow we have not been able to get the loan that ought to have been advanced. 37. Do you think that your security on which you have not paid the capital value is as good a security to borrow iipon as land off which the capital value has been paid? —Perhaps not; but that is not as I understand the position. It is said that this lease in perpetuity is as good as a freehold, but when we come to do these little things we find it is not so. Again, if a man finds it necessary to sell his property he will not find a leasehold property sell as well as if it was a freehold. That fact has been brought under my notice several times. 38. Have you the land fully improved now? —I value the improvements on the section of 35 acres on which lam living at £200 at the present time. The whole of the land is not fully improved. It is bush land. 39. W T hen you have all the bush down and the land in grass and fences up, would the land then be worth £4 or £5 per acre to sell?— Yes. 40. On land worth £4 or £5 per acre do you think the small rent you are paying will ever be any serious drawback to your success? —No; but when you take a lease for 999 years it is a lot of money you have to pay in that time, whether you live or whether you do not. If a man, especially one with a large family, wants to study economy, the sooner he gets his rent reduced and his improvements secured the better. To buy the section I live on I would, to use a colonial expression, " sell the shirt off my back." Robert Page examined. 41. The Chairman.\ What are you? —I am a settler at Waimamaku. I hold 96 acres under lease in perpetuity. My rent is 4 per cent, on £1 per acre for 46 acres, and 15s. per acre for the remaining 50. T have "been there seventeen years —since the beginning of the settlement. 42. Have you felt coming up here to be fairly satisfactory? —Well, I am better off than when I came, as I think all my neighbours are, without exception; but, as George White said, it has been a pretty hard struggle, for the reason that we have no roads. Otherwise, we have very little to complain of. 43. What use are you putting your land to? —Grazing, almost entirely. We are trying to run a cheese-factory, but it is being run at a loss, chiefly because of the absence of roads. I do r.ot know whether we will succeed in keeping it alive. 44. I suppose bad roads prevent people from bringing milk to the factory? —Yes; that is going to kill the industry. Fifty per cent, of the milk that comes to the factory comes on the backs of horses, and accidents happen every day. Some of the roads are not fit even for pack-traffic. I do not know how many of the original settlers there are now in the settlement, but there were
R. PAGE
775
a—4.
over two hundred people in the settlement two years ago. Only two have died since we came there, and both deaths were caused by accidents. We have a school. 45. Is it beyond your capacity to make roads there with the rates? —Yes. We are talking about trying to borrow under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, but it will be a great burden for a handful of men, and lam afraid we will not be able to do it. We are becoming despondent about getting roads. We have petitioned Parliament for a road every year since we have been there, and at the present time the wheel-traffic from here to the settlement is practically stopped for five months in the year. This is our great complaint. It overshadows all grievances in the way of tenures. I have collected agricultural statistics over the whole county for ten years, and I have visited every section. I have heard very little complaint about tenures, but the complaint about lack of roads is universal. 46. Have you ever tried fruit-growing in the settlement? —Not for the market, because the difficulty of getting the stuff to harbour makes it prohibitive altogether. I tried sending kumaras to Auckland some years ago, and the total charges amounted to £4 165., and I got £4 for the kumaras. When I came here seventeen years ago cartage to the settlement was £2 per ton. It is now £1 10s. in the summer, and anywhere from £1 15s. to £2 in the winter, so you will see there has not been much improvement in this respect. 47. Mr. Matheson.\ Have you had any Government grants spent to give you access by roads? —Yes; many of them in small sums. 48. What would they total? —A large sum. We have had Government grants for fifteen years now. 49. How many miles of road-formation would it need to give all your present milk-suppliers a trap-road to your factory? —Not more than fifteen miles. 50. Do you think it would be wise, where the settlers are willing to rate themselves for a loan, to do such work, that the Government should pay one-half the interest on that loan, instead of making grants from time to time? —It probably would be better, because the load is too heavy for the settlers, for instance, in this district, and this is a type of many such districts in the uorth. If the Government would pay half the interest I am sure the settlers of Waimamaku would jump at it. 51. If the State finds it wise to grant the right of the freehold to those tenants who wish it, and if both parties agree to the alteration, would you call that a breach or an amendment of the contract? —I would not call it a breach if both parties agreed. lam very strongly of opinion, however, that all the land should belong to the State, and that no man should hold a freehold. 52. Mr. McCardle.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes; I am Valuer under the Act. 53. Dees it work satisfactorily? —Yes, generally, in my experience. There have been one or two cases which, from the point of view of the people borrowing, may not have been satisfactory ; but possibly if we knew the other side of the case it might alter that opinion. There has been no difficulty, so far as I know, on the part of leaseholders in procuring advances. 54. I suppose you have seen it proposed in certain quarters to amend the Act in the way of making more liberal advances to the settlers. Do you approve of that? —Yes, I think it is quite safe. 55. What does it cost to put your land properly in grass —clearing, grassing, and fencing? — £3 per acre would cover it. 56. Have you any idea as to the amount of rates collected on your holding? —I cannot tell you. 57. It seems to me that the Government require to be more liberal with you settlers on these small holdings in the matter of roads. Suppose you agree to borrow money, do you not think the Government should give you £2 for every £1 you borrow to complete this much desired work which has been held over so long? —Yes, we want help. We cannot do the work ourselves. There is another way of getting roads. Waimamaku is exporting a large quantity of kauri timber, and a royalty is being paid on that timber. 58. I suppose you are aware that a proposal has been made that the royalty on the timber is to be given to the local bodies to assist in road-making? —I see there is such a proposal. Why this has not been done before I cannot understand. A comparatively small proportion of the royalty on the timber taken from Waimamaku would make our roads. As it is at present, we get no help from the timber traffic which cuts up our roads so much. 59. No doubt yours would be a successful district for dairying if you had good roads? —There is no doubt whatever. It is eminently adapted for dairying. Tt would mean a great additional export from the colony if the roading was carried out. 60. Mr. McCutchnn.\ You do not believe in the freehold tenure? —I do not. 61. You are a lease-in-perpetuity holder yourself? —Yes. 62. Do you believe in the principle of revaluation?- —I do as applied to coming leases. 63. Do you believe that the trades and labour organizations of the colony are justified in asking what their conference in Wellington asked for —namely, revaluation of existing leases upon the transfer of these leases or the death of the lessees? —I do not know. I have seen that, but I am not prepared to express an opinion on it now. But I do think this bargain made by the Government with myself and other lease-in-perpetuity holders is not a fair or reasonable bargain to the State. It is making us a present of the land. At the same time, I am not prepared to advocate a breach of that bargain. 64. How do you get at the apparent fact which you state —namely, that the Government are making you people a present of the land. Illustrate it by your own settlement if you can? —I get 96 acres'of land under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, the average price of which was 17s. 6d. per acre. Just recently the valuer came round and valued one portion of the section on which I live at £3 per acre. Now, that is the unimproved value. T do not think that the unimproved value rightly belongs to me ; it belongs to the State,
a—4
776
R. PAGE
65. What has the State done in the way of assisting you? —The State has not done much in the way of assisting us just here; but it is the increased population, roading, and the increase of public conveniences, &c., which appear to me to have conferred this increased value on the Crown lands or any lands. 66. If. you and your fellow-settlers had not gone into the settlement would there have been any increase in the value of this particular block on which you are located? —Without men and women the value will not increase. 67. Do you think the colony generally is entitled to the difference between the 17s. 6d. per acre you gave for the land and the .£3 per acre unimproved value put on it the other day? —Generally, I think it is. In isolated cases, such as ours, it appears to me that the bulk of the increased unimproved value belongs to the people here, and not to the individual generally. But, in regard to Cheviot and other estates, which are better known to you than to me, the increased unimproved value is due chiefly to the works performed by public expenditure, and therefore that increased value belongs to the public. 68. You have started a cheese-factory in your district? —-Yes. 69. That factory has given an increased value to your sections? —It would have done so had it been a success. 70. Taking the districts where the factories are successful, suppose you are Government valuer sent along to value these sections, although the dairy factory is not inside the ring-fences of the sections, it gives an added value to the land, and you, as valuer, not seeing the added value of the land in the form of improvements, put it down as unimproved value?— Yes; but I consider that increased value belongs to the community, and not to the individual. 71. The Timaru Harbour Bbard have spent £400,000 on harbour improvements, and the whole district has been rated to pay for the work, and the whole district has benefited by it? —I admit that has given an increased value to the land, but I should say the increased value belongs to the whole district, and not to any one individual. 72. Do you think in any part of the colony, except in the towns, that this unearned increment of which you speak is any more than the individual share of each person who has helped to make it? We are not communising wealth; we are individualising it? —I think it is a great deal more than the individual share. 73. You think it is. Are you a family man? —I am. 74. Have you ever heard the adage, the purport of which is that " He who cares not for his own is worse than an infidel "? —I have heard it. 75. Do you not think that may be applied to you, a man with a family, who has worked and slaved for years, and who thinks that the increased value of the land does not belong to his children ? —I do not think so. It certainly does not apply to my own case. I hold that all I have put upon that land belongs to me. 76. Do you not think that the same applies to all the settlers who are working lands in the back districts? —I think the whole of the value of the improvements which the individual settler places on the land belongs to him. 77. When valuing land, as a practical settler, is it not the case that a g;reat proportion of the improvements made by the occupier are not visible to you when you are going over the land ? —Not a great proportion, but part of the improvements are not visible. 78. Is it an instruction to you to take these improvements into consideration? —Oh, yes. 79. Is it not the case that you are instructed to value visible improvements?—l have not read the instructions for a long time; but I value all the improvements I can see, or am satisfied are there. For instance, I value underground drains if I know they are there and doing their work. 80. Are you satisfied with the administration of the Land Board? —I have had a good deal of correspondence with the Auckland Land Board, having been secretary of our association, and I have always been treated with courtesy, promptness, and respect. Personally, I have no complaint whatever to make against the Land Board. I am also very well aware that in a great many cases the Board have been very indulgent. In a great many cases I know of, well, if the letter of the law had been strictly carried out the tenants would have been evicted. Every chance has been given to the tenants where they showed anything like a desire to make a home, even though they were in arrears with their rent and improvements. 81. Are you satisfied that the four members of the Auckland Land Board are sufficient to adequately represent the Auckland Land District? —I do not know. At the same time, I have heard a good many complaints, some of which, I think, were genuine. About others, I do not know. Very often there are delays and difficulties in making the officials of the Land Board understand an apparently simple matter. There is a man present who had a great deal of difficulty in that way. He applied for a section of land, and was informed he could not have it just now', because they said there was valuable building timber on it, and he would have to await a report, though everybody in the district knew there was no valuable timber on it. That man had to wait until he got sick and tired of waiting, and he gave the thing up. 82. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think the present constitution of the Land Board satisfactory?— Yes. lam inclined to think there is no more reason for electing the Land Board than for electing Magistrates or Justices of the Peace. 83. Do you think that four members are sufficient to represent the whole of the land district? Do you think it would be wise to increase their number? It is a large area for four. Possibly more members might be better. 84. Do you think it would be wise to have a separate Land Board for the North of Auckland? —I think probably it would, because the conditions are so different. 85. Do vou think any delay in opening up land is due to the Commissioner having too much to do? —It is very likely. The thing is too centralised and too far away. 86. What local body are you under here? —The Ilokianga County Council. There is no Road Board here. This is the Omapere riding, and one member represents us,
B. PAGE.]
777
tl—4.
87. Do you get a fair share of the rates? —Yes, each riding has its own account. Our rates must be expended here, and nowhere else. 88. What share of Government grants have been spent in this riding? —I cannot tell you. 89. Have you any idea how much money has been spent on these fifteen miles of roading to your place? —A large sum; but we have got it in very small sums, and, what is worse, we very seldom get it until the autumn. I know work is being done now which ought to have been done three or four months ago. I think I may say there has been a loss of 25 per cent, of the total money expended through doing work in the winter that ought to have been done in the summer. 90. Do you think the money would be more economically expended by the local body? —I doubt if it would. Ido not think it matters much whether the money is spent under tiie supervision of the Government or the County Council. 91. You think if the local body had it they would spend it at the proper time of the year? — Undoubtedly, and so would the Government officers if they had it. 92. Was your land taken up originally under a thirty-years lease? —No; under perpetual lease, and we have changed it mostly into lease in perpetuity. 93. What was the reason for the change? —It was a better tenure —999 years against thirty years. 94. Did you get a reduction in rent? —Yes, of 1 per cent. That was one of the reasons for the change, but I think the principal one was the lengthened security. 95. Is there anything in your tenure to prevent you frilly improving your land? —Nothing whatever. 96. Do you share in the fear expressed by the previous witness that your land is likely to be revalued? —I do not think there is any danger of it, and if it was done I do not think I would have any great cause of complaint. 97. Do you think it would be fair to revalue j'ou? —I hardly think it would, and yet if a bargain is unjust it is a question whether it should not be altered. Ido not advocate it. 98. Mr. McCardle.] What is the value of your land now if you wanted to sell it? —I hardly know. 99. Would you get £3 above all you have done on the land, including all the labour you have put on it? —For the section upon which I live I could get £5 more than I have put on it. 100. Mr. Anstey.] You say you do not think it would be absolutely unjust to revalue these leases if the bargain is unfair ? —Yes. 101. Do you think it would be a fair thing to revalue freehold sold too cheaply a few years ago? —The same thing might apply there, but it might be impossible to do either. Ido not think it is fair to sell the land at all. Walter Scott Pullenbury examined. 102. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 2'40 acres of land, partly under village settlement, partly under freehold, and partly under occupation with right of purchase. My freehold was formerly a perpetual lease. 103. Which tenure do you prefer? —The freehold. 104. What settlement are you in ? —lt is called the Auckland Settlement, about eight miles from here. The land was originally bush, and it is all cleared but the portion I have recently acquired. I graze it with cattle chiefly. 105. Is there any particular thing you wish to bring before the Commission? —Yes. I have written the following statement : I am a firm believer in absolute freehold, provided the owners are compelled to improve their land, and can at once obtain Crown grant on completion. The threat used by the Premier some months ago —when asked by a deputation of trade-unionists whether he was in favour of periodic revaluation of leaseholds, that he was, but the time was not yet—has done more to frighten the Crown tenants than enough, as we have been told from time to time that the leasehold was equally as good as the freehold. That one of the best schemes for the settlement of land is, without doubt, the old homestead system. That all leaseholders should have the option of acquiring the freehold by a graduated scale of payments on the same basis as the Advances to Settlers Act. The residence clause is a very serious one, as a person having completed improvement to the extent of (at times) ten times the upset value of land is still chained and bound by the residence clause. The individual having so great an interest is he likely to run away? The same clauses prevent business people holding land as in many cases they would, only they must reside, any way, after three or four years. The ambition in all the mechanics in the centres is to own their house and allotment. In fact, it is the ambition of nearly every man. Why, pray, should not the farmer own his, instead of being a species of serf. If the Government were to treat a party of working-men on the same basis, asking them to lease a house and acre of ground on same terms as the leaseholder, and expend their substance in building, improving, Arc., it would not be a year before they would be clamouring for the freehold. With regard to occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure, why should not a man be allowed, on effecting his improvements and proving himself a hona fide settler, to purchase at once or at any time. The village-settlement scheme has proved a complete failure owing to the general indebtedness of tenants and the ignorance of Ministers in cutting hilly, rough, slippery country in sections of 25 to 45 acres, and asking carpenters to become orchardists and barbers and sailors to become vine-growers—all to be done with no capital. The scheme proved a failure, and the money advanced and back rent were capitalised on the land (the tenants before paying 5 per cent.), and the lease was turned into a lease in perpetuity. A transfer of a village-settlement title cannot be obtained without a man holds less than I acre of land in the colony, and he must alter his title to lease in perpetuity. 106. Mr. Anstey.] You say that if working-men are offered small sections in the towns under lease in perpetuity it would not be a year before they were demanding the freehold? —Provided they had to erect their own houses and improve their sections, and so forth.
98—C. 4.
a—4.
778
W. S. PULLENBTJKY.
107. Are you acquainted with any of the working-men's settlements we have around the cities? —No, I am not. 108. Then, would it not just be wise to find out the facts before making such a statement? —I will answer that by asking you if you can show me any place where these same working-men, who took up the land under lease in perpetuity and erected their own houses and other improvements themselves, are not clamouring for the freehold. 109. I think you could be shown dozens of them? —Where they have already done their own improvements ? 110. Yes? —Then, I do not know of them. Alfred Spry Andrews examined. 111. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a storekeeper. lam a member of the Hokianga County Council for the Omapere riding. I hold about 168 acres of freehold, and a similar quantity of leasehold from the Wesleyan Mission Trustees. 112. What is your view in regard to tenure? —My view is undoubtedly that freehold is the most advantageous to encourage settlement. I think any person applying for land from the Crown should have the option of taking a lease under the different tenures, and at any time should have the right to acquire the freehold. I would suggest that they should have a long period in which to pay off, say, on the same principle as the repayment of loans under the Advances to Settlers Act. ' I have lived in the district thirty-four years, and, amongst other avocations, I was for nine years county valuer, and for a number of years valuer under the Advances to Settlers Office, and had occasion to visit every section in the county, and I am speaking from the firm conviction I had when I say I believe the reqj desire of the majority of the people is for the freehold. 113. As a member of the Council, you will be able to tell us something about your roads? — Hokianga is the largest county in the North, and, I think, the most important. It has a ratable value of something like £400,000, and it is the most neglected as regards roads. The area of the Hokianga County may be divided into three parts. One-third is freehold and partly settled; onethird belongs to the Crown, and the remaining third is Native land. Hokianga is in this unfortunate position: although there is a Native Rating Act it is absolutely impossible to collect the money. The county has only a nominal amount of money for the purpose of making roads —only enough to patch up a bit of road here and there. The Crown grants vary from £6,000 to £8,000 a year, but, although that money is voted, there is not 25 per cent, of it expended. 1 know of roads which have had money voted for l.hem for the last seven years, but the money has not yet been expended on them. 114. We were told to-day by the Road Inspector that he has been expending at the rate of about £500 a month, and that 75 per cent, of that expenditure has been within the Hokianga County —that is, from the Government grant ? —The position is this: that until within a month of the end of the financial year very little of these votes is expended. The votes are put on paper, but the monev is not expended. The County Council has to publish a detailed balance-sheet of its expenditure, but there is apparently no record kept or published of the expenditure of the Roads Department. 115. Mr. Matheson.] Seeing that the local body has all the machinery for road-making and all the officials for looking after the work, do you think it would be an economy if the Government grants for the district were handed over to the local body for expenditure? —Undoubtedly. 116. Do you think the method of expending the money under the supervision of Government officials is unsatisfactory? —I do not think you get the same value as by letting contracts by tender. 117. Mr. AnHey.'] Do you know what the cost of the County Council administration is? —The County Clerk gets £100 and 10 per cent, for engineering work, and he finds his own horse and feed, but there are other expenses of various kinds which are forced upon the County Council. 118. The amount of rates you collected last year was £778, and the cost of administration £554. Therefore, more than two-thirds of your rates are absorbed by the cost of administration ? —A great deal of that expense is forced upon us owing to the Government regulations. 119. Do you not think that the cost of administration in your county is inordinately high? — No. As I have said, we are forced to incur considerable expenditure by the Government regulations. 120. Will you contradict the evidence given to-day by the Government Engineer when he says that his expenditure is about £500 per month? —I will contradict his statement that he expends that amount every month in the year. 121. Will you contradict his statement that he expends about £6,000 in the year? —I say that £4,500 has not been expended in the Hokianga County I would like to draw the attention of the Commission to the large area of Crown land and of Native land in the county. One-third of the area is Crown land and another third of the land is owned by the Natives. There are two thousand Natives in the Hokianga County —that is, including men, women, arid children, and every Maori man, woman, and child owns on an average 100 acres each, and assuming that the average family consists of five that would give each family 500 acres, which, to my mind, is more than their requirements demand. The Natives own the most valuable land in Hokianga. Sufficient land should be reserved for the Natives to live upon, but the remaining Native land should be thrown open for profitable settlement. If that were done it would increase the prosperity of the district very greatlv. The Natives are very anxious to deal with their land and sell it, but their hands are practically tied. I would restrict the area of Native land that may be sold to any one individual. The title of the bulk of the Native land has not yet been individualised. In the case of some blocks of Native land there are four or five thousand Natives who are interested. Some of them have only an interest of £10 or £15 each, and that amount is frequently expended before
A. 8. ANDBEWS.]
779
C—4.
the title to the piece of land is ascertained. I would like to say this, with respect to the valuation of land: I think the Government should cut up the land into suitable areas, and it should be approximately valued. The land should then be thrown open for selection, and when a person makes an application for a section he should deposit a valuation fee. It should be the duty of the Government Valuer to inspect that section and specially value it. Walter Scott Pullenbury further examined. 122. The Chairman.] I understand you wish to make a further statement? —Yes; I desire to say that it seems to me a great hardship that a tenant holding a section of land under lease in perpetuity should be debarred from taking up other land under the same tenure. I think in that respect sometimes an injustice is done to holders of these sections. George Edward Hedger examined. 123. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and hold 300 acres under occupation with right of purchase. My land is at Waimamaku, and I pay £10 a year rent. I have been there about eight years. lam quite satisfied with my tenure and with my land. I have cleared about 100 acres. The track to my section is about 2 ft. wide, and 1 have to send my milk to the factory on a pack-horse. I have to pack it about two miles and a half. I milk about twelve cows. My two neighbours also have to bring in their milk by pack-horse, and one of my neighbour's children has to go over that track to school. 124. Mr. MathesonDo you think if the Government granted you an amount equal to the amount raised locally you would have good roads '? —I think it would be a great help. 125. Mr. McGardle.\ Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —No. 126. Mr. Anstey.] Have you any idea what it would cost to make that track available for wheel traffic ? —I do not know. 127. How many settlers would the road serve I—-About twenty settlers use the pack-track. Thomas Mitchell examined. 128. The Chairman.J What are you 2 —l am a settler, and hold 90 acres under occupation with right of purchase. My land is six miles from here, and my rent is 5 per cent, on 10s. 6d. per acre. lam quite satisfied wiih my tenure, but not with my farm. I believe in the lease in perpetuity. I think there should be no freehold. I have noticed that some witnesses who gave evidence before the Commission in the South Island said that the freehold encouraged people to improve their property, but, from what I have seen of freehold land in the North, the owners sit down on it pretty hard. I can show you a lot of freehold land in the Hokianga district that is still covered with bush, and no improvements have been made on it, and if you desire to purchase that land the owners will ask for £12 an acre. Freehold land is the best for speculative purposes. I have been in other countries where there are no Crown tenants. I am quite satisfied with the Crown as a landlord. There is no one who can complain justly against their treatment. 129. Mr. Anstey.] You say that numbers of freeholders do not improve their land? —Yes. 130. Do leaseholders improve their land? —They are compelled by the Government to effect a certain amount of improvements. 131. Do you think the freeholders ought to be compelled to improve their land? —I think there ought to be no freehold. 132. In the case of freehold, would you be in favour of enforcing residential and improvement conditions the same as in the case of leaseholders? —Yes. Jeremiah Lawrence Bourse examined. 133. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and hold 80 acres of land —40 acres under lease in perpetuity and 40 acres under perpetual lease. 134. What tenure do you favour? —1 favour the lease in perpetuity. 135. What are you paying for your lease in perpetuity ? —The capital value is 12s. 6d. an acre. I have been a Crown tenant for eigEteen years. The amount advanced to us for improvements has been capitalised, and now that has been added to our rents, and we have to pay on that amount for 999 years. I think we should be given an opportunity of paying off the amount as under the Advances to Settlers Act. Many of us went back in our rents. They treated us very leniently in the past, but it came very hard on us when we changed the tenure from perpetual lease to lease in perpetuity. 136. Mr. Anstey.] Is there anything in the conditions of your lease which acts prejudicially to your properly farming and improving your land? —No. 137. You are satisfied? —Yes, thoroughly. 138. Have you any fear of revaluation? —No. I would not mind if they revalued, say, <;very twenty-five years. With respect to the constitution of the Land Boards, I think if the Chairmen of the County Councils formed the Land Board it would be better than the present system, the Commissioner of Crown Lands to be Chairman. Ido not think the expenditure would be very large, and rhe meetings of the Board might be held every three months. 139. For what period is a Chairm&n of a County Council appointed?— Twelve months. 140. Experience is very valuable in dealing with land matters? —Yes; but, as a rule, the Chairman of a County Council is an experienced man, and knows the wants of the people of the district.
fl A lj. —4.
780
E. J. HAWKINGS,
Edgar James Hawkings examined. 141. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am a settler, and hold 400 acres —200 acres under lease in perpetuity and 200 under occupation with right of purchase. 142. What tenure do you favour? —Occupation with right of purchase or the freehold. 1 took up the lease-in-perpetuity section first, and the other sections afterwards. 143. How long have you held this land? —One section nearly twelve years, and the other seven years. 144. What is your rent for the lease-in-perpetuity section? —The capital value is 13s. an acre, on which I pay 4 per cent., and I pay 5 per cent, on 12s. on the other section. My land is twenty-five miles from Omapere. It is on the Auckland No. 1 Small Farm Special Settlement Association land. There were thirty-eight original settlers, and 1 am the only one left. All the rest of the land has been abandoned, and is now growing noxious weeds. The cause of the failure has been, 1 tliink, principally owing to the bad roads. I have only a pack-track to my place. The land through which a partial road has been made to a certain point is loaded for roading up to 4s. an acre. There was a settlement three miles from my place that has been altogether abandoned. Some of the settlers spent as much as £700 and then left their holdings. 145. Do you think you will have to retire from your section? —It all depends on what may be done with respect to the road. I run cattle principally on my land. I tried sheep but found it was not suitable for sheep. 146. Mr. Matheson.\ Can you suggest any way to encourage people to take up such land? — [ consider that a settler should have 500 acres of freehold if he lives on it and improves it. 147. If that were done do you think people with some capital might take up the land, and that that settlement would help, you to raise money to make a road ? —Personally, I would be willing to pay higher rates if 1 could get a road to my land. lam satisfied with the land itself. 148. Mr. McCutchan.] You said thirty-eight sections were originally taken up: how many of those who took up the land resided on it? —I think about twenty. The remainder made improvements on their sections, but they did not come to reside. 149. After spending considerable sums on their sections, did those settlers who resided on the land go away broken in fortune? —Some of them had practically nothing when they went away. 150. Would you say, if the same condition of things exists in other parts of the colony, that these facts are a sweeping condemnation of the present method of constructing roads? —I do not know the methods adopted in other parts of the colony. 151. This question of roading is a very grave question, and there are many other districts in the North Island in which settlers, after years of toil, have had to go out on account of road difficulties. The question I wish to ask you is this: if such things exist in other back blocks of the colony as exist in your particular district would you say that those facts amount to a sweeping condemnation of the present method of road administration ? —Yes, if it is so in other places. 152. In the case of land of similar quality, do you think it is the duty of the Government to borrow sufficient money to properly road such districts in which settlers are placed ? —Yes. 153. Do you think it is justifiable for the State to charge 5 per cent, for the whole term of 999 years on this loading? —No, I do not. 154. Do you think if the amount for loading is recouped—that is, the principal and interest —in twenty-six years that the interest charge should then cease? —Yes, I think so; but I would not have objected to their loading the land if they had made the roads. 155. Do you say that the amount represented by loading has not been properly spent? —I cannot say. 156. It is not the loading you object to so much as the fact that no roads have been made? — That is so. 157. Mr. Anstey.\ I understand that there is some broken metal on this road that has not been spread over the road. How much would it cost to spread that metal? —I could not say, but it would not cost a great deal. There is another thing I would like to mention. We have to pay our rent six months in advance, and I do not think, seeing the improvements I have made, that that should be requisite. There is another thing : owing to the bad state of these roads the valuer has valued my land at Bs. an acre for one section and ss. for the other. I may say I received a letter from the late Commissioner of Crown Lands stating that I had a good road to my place, when such is not the case, and other settlers have received similar letters. Andrew Corfield examined. 158. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer in the Waimamaku district. 1 have 300 acres in grass. Part of my holding is on perpetual lease and the rest lease in perpetuity. 159. Which tenure do you prefer? —The freehold. I think every sane man will uphold that. 160. How long have you been on your place? —Over seventeen years. 161. Do you use your land for sheep and cattle? —Yes, but cattle mostly. 162. Do you dairy? —I have not succeeded in doing much this year. 163. Are vou-far from a factory? —No; I can get my milk through by dray to the factory. 164. Are you well satisfied with your farm, so far as the land goes? —Yes; but I should like to see a clause put in the Act to allow every Crown tenant to get the freehold at some future time, and I think I speak for the majority of the settlers in regard to that. 165. Do you think the lease is a good system to start people upon the land?— Yes, but they should have the option of the freehold when they have fulfilled the conditions. 166. Is there any other point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I should like to say this about the Noxious Weeds Act: a pereptual-lease man, if a noxious weed is on his land, will probably cut it down and leave the roots in the ground, but a freeholder will take it out at the very root. T think that is a very good argument in point. Some years ago a gentleman showed
A. CORFIELD.]
781
a—4.
me some five or six plants in a paddock of his which he said were very bad weeds. I said, "It is a very bad weed. By all means root it out." I saw the same paddock the other day, and there are now about twenty-five plants of the same weed on his paddock. That man is a leaseholder. That is an argument in favour of the freehold. 167. Mr. Matheson.'] Was your land bush land? —Part bush and part tea-tree. 168. How long is it since you got this land in grass? —Some fourteen or fifteen years. 169. Is the grass holding well? —Well, it is rather damp up there and part of it has gone into fog, and the rushes have come up very much, but I have dug them up in the last two years. 1 have also had some trouble with the tea-tree returning, and have sown danthonia to try and get it out. In some parts the grass has held fairly well. I should also like to say this: a part of one of my sections has been slipping down to the lake, and during the last three or four years I have been planting willows on the slopes, and I have also been planting other tilings to try and hold the land. If I did not think we should eventuality get the freehold I should never have gone to that trouble. I have done it in the belief that we shall get it at some future time.
Taheke, Wednesday, 17th May, 1905. James Randall White examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler at Punakitere. 1 hold 50 acres under village settlement and 122 acres on lease in perpetuity. I have been here nineteen years. 2. Are you satisfied with the land 2 —Yes, but 1 think some of the conditions are not quite satisfactory. First, with regard to the lease-in-perpetuity section, 1 have no complaint to make about it, except that 1 think there should be a little more leniency shown as to residence. Since my son has taken up his section he has got work away, and I am looking after the section for him. There is only a road between his section and mine, and his home is really with me. He has had the place only six months, and were residence strictly enforced he would be compelled to surrender, lie has taken up the land for his own use and benefit, and not for speculative purposes. 3. Have you made application to the Land Board on the subject? —No; he has not been twelve months in occupation yet. 4. Perhaps by that time he may find it convenient to work on his own land ? —I do not think he will. I have always been dealt with fairly by the Land Board myself. 5. You recognise that the Land Board is not hard on people when there is a substantial and honest compliance with all the terms 2 —Yes. 6. Do you approve of the present constitution of the Land Boards?—l have nothing to complain of. 7. Is there any other matter you wish to bring before the Commission? —No, but I am prepared to answer any questions. One of the leases I took up from the Government was an endowment lease, and other settlers here are in the same position. When we took up our leases we believed we were dealing with the Government alone. Owing to the settlement becoming a failure the Government handed over the land and the leases to the Auckland and Parnell Borough Councils without saying anything to us about it. When we heard of this we asked to be allowed to get the option of tenure in some other place, and we thought arrangements had been made by the Government with Mr. Houston to allow us to do so. But nothing has been done. The trouble will commence when the revaluation takes place, because the Council are valuing land about here much higher than we can pay, and then our improvements will be confiscated by the Council. Through this the settlement has gone back, and the land is not worth living upon. The Government reduced the values from £1 ss. to 10s. and 12s. when we were dealing with the Government, and if we had believed that we should have to deal with the Councils we should never have taken the land up. 8. Do you pay rent to the Councils? —Yes, under protest, also the interest on the money we have borrowed from the Government. But we shall never recognise the Councils in the matter, and if they send a valuer along to revalue I shall take him up for trespass. If he comes with the authority of the Government I shall give him all the assistance I can. When I proceed against the valuer that the Councils send along that will no doubt prove the ownership. No doubt the Councils can collect these rents, and can revalue under the Bill which the Government passed through the House, but why should the Government pass a measure like that without consulting us. 9. I understand that these endowments were marked ofi for the Auckland and Parnell Borough Councils, and the Minister of Lands at that time was Mr. Ballance. He was sure at the time he could make an exchange with the Borough Councils of Auckland and Parnell, and gave them land elsewhere, so that all this land about your settlement would be in the hands of the Government; but Mr. Ballance went out of office very shortly afterwards, and another Government came in, and the matter did not go any further. You say that demands have been made to rectify it, but I believe that to rectify it would really mean an Act of Parliament. Your statement has been taken down, and although we, as a Commission, have no authority to settle these matters, we may draw attention to it in our report? I hope you will do so, sir. A few years ago we went so far as to ask the Councils whether they would agree to an exchange of land, and they notified us that they were quite willing to take land in exchange, subject to their having some choice of locality. The result of all this has been that we are allowing the land to go back and we want to surrender it. 10. What do you pay for the 50 acres under the village-settlement tenure? —It is valued at 10s., and I pay 5 per cent, on that. 11. What* is the rental of 122 acres? It is also valued at 10s., on which I pay per cent. I am quite satisfied with that.
C.—4.
782
[j. E. WHITE.
12. How do you use your land? —I simply run a few cattle and crop a little for our own use. There are about eight of the original settlers in the same fix as myself. 13. What, in your opinion, is the best tenure for the advancement of the country? —I, as a poor man, consider the deferred payment the best tenure to give me an opportunity of getting the freehold. Of course, under the leasing system, there are many people on the land who would never have been able to have got there in any other way, and they are quite contented. Many of them seem to want the freehold now, but that, I think, is owing to the cry for land-nationalisation, and so on. I myself think the contract should not be broken without the consent of both parties. 14. Have you any knowledge of advances to settlers?--No. I think to get a mortgage on your place is a very bad idea. 15. Mr. McCardle.] Are you making a living entirely from your land? —No, nor is one of my neighbours. 16. If this difficulty you have mentioned were removed could you make a living off your land? —We might attempt to start dairying, but under these conditions we could not attempt it. 17. What about the roads? —They are improving, but there is still much room for improvement. 18. Is there much Government land in the neighbourhood? —Yes, there is a good deal, and there is also a good lot of Native land. 19. Mr. McCutchan,] Under what tenure does your son hold his land? —Under a 999-years lease. 20. Has he not four years' exemption under that lease? —No, only one. 21. Is it open land?- Portion of it is. He has been notified to reside within twelve months. 22. Do you think the exemption from residence should be extended? —Yes, because many of us have to work away from our sectiofis to make a living. 23. What rent are you paying on your own lease-in-perpetuity land? —4J per cent. 24. What is the extra | per cent, charge for ? —I could not say. 25. Was it virgin bush country when you took it up? —It was mixed fern and light bush. 26. Was the J per cent, to cover the survey fees? —There is nothing in my lease regarding it. 27. How much of this endowment land is still unlet? —I suppose half of it. 28. Has there been any further change in the terms of your lease beyond the change of landlords I—No.1 —No. 29. Then, did you hope, if it was Crown land, that the Crown was going to vary the terms of the lease? —We did not know it was endowment land. 30. But the terms of your lease are not altered? —I understand the Borough Councils will claim all improvements. We consider we should have been consulted before there was any change of landlords. The Councils are valuing the land too high. They are wanting £1 ss. an acre for it. 31. Is there a difference between the Councils' valuation and the Government valuation? — Yes, there is a difference of 15s. an acre, because the Government valued it at only 10s. an acre. 32. Have you made any appeal against your valuation? —No. I am satisfied. The unimproved value I consider fair. 33. Mr. McLennan.'] Would you be in favour of giving more discretionary power to the Land Board, so that it would not be necessary to apply to the Minister ? —No. I would prefer to apply to the Minister. I do not think it would be advisable "to leave everything to the Land Boards. I think the Minister should be consulted as he is generally a man of experience in land. 34. But suppose the Land Board could decide the matter without going to the Minister, you could appeal to the Minister ? —Well, in that case I would agree to it. 35. Mr. Paul.] As regards your future rent, is that fixed by arbitration at the end of the term? —No, the Council fix it themselves. 36. Would you have been quite content to hold your land under these conditions of lease with revaluation, provided the land was still held by the Government? —Yes. 37. In the new leases that the Councils are giving, is there provision for valuation for improvements? —No, they take everything. 38. Do you consider that is just? —No. It is most unjust. It is worse than anything that has happened in Ireland. I think the tenant has every right to his improvements. 39. Is the value of the leases around you increasing? —No; I do not think any leases in the district are increasing in value, simply because we have such bad roads. We are locked in here for about six months in the winter-time. 40. Mr. Amtey.] If you are again brought under the Government as the original landlord are you going to ask to be allowed to bring your sections under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —Yes. 41. Have other people who took up land under these conditions had that opportunity ? —Yes. 42. Suppose the rest of the block were opened under lease in perpetuity, would it be taken up? —Yes, every section. 43. And would the people who took it up consider their security sufficient? —Yes. A reason why these sections have been forfeited is that many of the settlers who came to the district were not fit to take up land anywhere. 44. In your lease there is no mention made about valuation for improvements: are you sure you are not entitled to valuation for improvements?- I do not think we are. 45. Are your leases not governed by the Order in Council mentioned in your lease which you have produced ? —I do not know. I have only just taken notice of that. 46. Is it not possible that this Order in Council might grant you more than you know? —It might, but it might be the other way.
J. B. WHITE.]
C.—4.
783
47. Does the village-settlement system give you valuation for improvements? —I do not think so; but we have had a solicitor's advice that all our improvements belong to these Councils. 48. What sort of road-access have you to your land? —It is not bad. 49. To whom do you pay rates on your section?- -To the Hokianga County Council. 50. Mr. //all.] Do you consider the Parnell Borough Council have treated you unjustly in connection with your leases ? —Yes. After the Act was passed through we did not know who was our landlord, and then we were notified by the Borough Council that we would have to pay up within fourteen days or proceedings would be taken. When we did pay under protest, we had a difficulty in getting a receipt from them. 51. The settlers here would be quite satisfied with their tenure if it was lease in perpetuity? -Yes. We know there has been an agitation to have these leases revalued; the people are somewhat afraid about the security on account of that agitation, but we fail to see how they could be upset. 52. I suppose you refer to the agitation got up by the Hon. Mr. Rigg: do you think an agitation of that sort might cause the leaseholders and the Legislature to break the contract? —It it hard to say what it will lead to in the end. 53. Mr. Matheson.] Does your experience of the Land Board lead you to think that if your son applies to have his residence conditions relaxed his application will be granted? —I think so. 54. Mr. McCardle.~\ Did you receive an advance from the Government when you took up your land? —Yes, £20 10s. 55. Well, I think you are entitled to all improvements you put upon your section over that at the end of your lease?—We are entitled to £70 or £75. Our fear is that we shall have to pay on our own improvements. Joseph Gordon Jones examined. 56. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I was one of the original settlers in the block Mr. White was speaking about. 57. You heard the evidence of the previous witness, Mr. White? —Some of it. 58. Do you object to being under the Parnell Borough Council administration instead of under the Government? —I do. The Borough Council may be very good men, but they cannot be fit to administer land. They are in office for twelve months, and the}' cannot possibly in that time gain sufficient experience to enable them to deal with things like that. 59. What do you pay in the way of rent? —£1 7s. per annum. 60. Have you in any way kept back your improvements on account of this unfortunate difficulty? —Yes, I begrudge every shilling spent on the place. It is heart-breaking. 61. You reside on your section, I suppose? —I have until lately; but I have moved away from it two or three miles recently. It is merely temporary. lam really past work. 62. Do you agree entirely with what Mr. White said? —Not altogether, because from my bitter experience of the past ten years I do not care about a Government lease at all. Ido not think it is worth anything, especially in view of the agitation which is going on. I consider we have been treated in the most outrageous manner by the Government. 63. Are you in favour of the freehold? —Certainly. I favour occupation-with-right-of-pur-chase tenure, and let those who prefer the leasehold have it. As to the unearned increment, you may talk about it until you are grey; I say it all belongs to the man who goes into the back country. So long as he goes on making improvements you should not begrudge him anything that comes to him. I trust you will mention our matter in your report, because this does not apply merely to ourselves, but it throws a very grave doubt upon all leaseholds, in my opinion. Faith has been broken with us, and without consulting us at all. I cannot get a straightforward answer to my questions from the Government. Our land was taken under the 1885 Act, and they passed a special Act throwing us over. Now they tell us the land never did belong to the Government. If that is so, I say j r ou are on the horns of a dilemma, because the 1885 Act provides that the Government may administer such lands, and that the Commissioner of Crown Lands may sign these documents in the name of and for the persons to whom the land belongs. At the time these" lands were taken tip we were promised faithfully that we should have an opportunity of getting the freehold. You may remember that at the time Sir George Grey presented a Bill to Parliament he specially mentioned our case —that is, the special settlements generally. He said that on such small holdings they should have the option of the freehold. In order to make a living on a place of that kind you want to do it in the best possible way. As to paying for improvements, it is never done to anything like the extent people suppose. It is difficult to assess what the full value is. I would never have set foot in New Zealand had T known what I had to go through. I have been hammering at this question for the last ten years. I should like to show you my lease, which shows very great carelessness at the very start of things. [Lease produced and read by the Chairman.] You will see there is an indorsement on the lease reducing the rent, but we did not receive that document until the indorsement was on it. Owing to the lease being called a perpetual lease, we understood that that meant it was for ever, and it was not until vears afterwards that we discovered that it was not so. It is very misleading to call a lease perpetual when it is not. 64. It has its special meaning in the Act: perpetual right of renewal. 65. Mr. Matheson.\ Can you tell me what was the object of the Bill you say was passed through Parliament? —I thought I had a copy of it with me. It was a Bill dealing specially with our case. 1 have here a copy of Hansard of the 28th June, 1895, giving a report of the discussion on the Bill when it was introduced. [Report of the discussion read by the Chairman.] 66. Do you know if the Bill passed? —Yes. 67. Your member spoke in favour of it, and Mr. McKenzie assured the House that the tenants' rights would be conserved. What is the chief right which you have lost? —We have no rights at all under the present circumstances.
0.—4.
784
[j. G. JONES.
68. Did the Crown notify you of the change of landlord? —Certainly not. The first intimation I saw of it was in the Auckland Weekly News. I wired the next day to Mr. Houston, protesting against it, and I followed that up with a long letter, and we have been all united in petitioning and writing and protesting to all manner of people ever since, and we mean to keep on till it is set right. It must come right. 69. Mr. Anstey.] How long had you the land from the Government before you had to pay your rent to the Borough Council? —The Bill passed in 1895, and our leases are dated 1890. 70. You paid five years' rent to the Government first, and since then you have been paying to the Council? —Yes. Our present lease is not satisfactory. We want a lease with the option of purchase. After the experience I have had with my lease for ten years, and in view of the agitation that is going on for revaluation and that sort of thing, I feel a lease in perpetuity is not good enough. 71. Mr. Hall.] Do the Parnell Borough Council employ any agency between themselves and their tenants here ? —Not that lam aware of. When I saw the thing was inevitable, I wrote to them, asking what my position would be at the end of the lease, and I have never been able to get a reply. 72. Seeing that the members of the Borough Council are city men, and presumably without the necessary knowledge of land or land-settlement, should they not employ an agent who has knowledge of land and settlement as a medium between themselves and their tenants? —My opinion is that they do not care a rap about the thing one way or the other. 73. But should they not do so? —Of course, any reasonable people would employ agents if they were not able to do the work themselves. 74. Mr. Matheson.\ It seems to me the Crown has power as landlord to hand over its property to somebody else. Is there something in the lease which you wanted altered, or do you find your position under the Borough Council different from the position you were in under the Crown ? — There is no difference that I know of. 75. Then, is your chief objection to the change of landlord? —Certainly. I look upon the Borough Council as a vanishing body, without any interest in the land. Robert Procter examined. 76. The Chairman.] What are you? —A settler at Punakitere, Blocks 1 and 3. I hold 156 J acres under freehold. 77. Do you find the land and your connection with it satisfactory? —Yes; I have nothing to say against the land. lam here to-day to speak principally in reference to the question of freehold, occupation with right of purchase, and lease in perpetuity. I approve of all these tenures, but at the same time I think it is necessary there should be a fresh one added--namely, the homestead system. 78. Give us your reason? —My reason for that is that a part of the land in this part of the colony is really not worth anything to the purchaser, but would be very valuable to many poor people 1o settle on. I think it should be given to them on the condition that if they resided on it for a certain number of years and made certain improvements, then the Crown will give them a title on the payment of, say, 2s. 6d. per acre for survey fees. These people would then know they were working for themselves, and land that is now useless to the Crown and likely to remain so would be turned into homes for the settlers. I think that would relieve the overcrowding in the towns. At the same time, I would like to see the law altered so that those under lease in perpetuity who desire to do so may convert to occupation with right of purchase. I think the freehold is the best thing for the country, and I think a free title should at once issue to any one who pays the cash and makes the best use of the land. I think it is unjust to keep them out of their title for seven years. I have been a settler for forty-two years in New Zealand, and during that time wherever I have been I have always found that freeholders succeeded when leaseholders failed. You can witness the settlements round us here. If this land had been leased to the people with the right of purchase, undoubtedly you would not have heard their grievances here to-day, and undoubtedly the original settlers would have made homes for themselves. They have abandoned their allotments, and many of the houses and other improvements erected with the assistance of Government money have fallen into decay. If the Government had given this land to these people the State would not be that money out of pocket, and the settlement would have been going on in a satisfactory way. Ido not know whether the Land Boards are now nominated or elected; but I believe in elected Land Boards as the more satisfactory method for the people. 79. Mr. McCardle.] What is your opinion of the Advances to Settlers Office? —It is not very good. I think the terms of the loans are too long. Possibly it has done a certain amount of good. I do not know. I think borrowers should be allowed to pay back the money when they think proper. 80. Do you approve of the administration of the Land Board as now constituted? —Yes; but I would prefer election. 81. Failing that as being almost impossible, do you think the number of members should be increased, and that each district should have a member to represent its interests ? —I quite believe in each electorate having a member to represent it. 82. Would you approve of the system of nomination on those lines? —It would be much better. 83. Mr. McGutchan.] You think that when land is sold for cash a clear title should issue at once? —Yes. It would give more encouragement to the purchaser. If I was a younger man and purchasing land, before I got the title I might die, and my wife and family might not be in a position to carry out the improvement conditions, and therefore the land would not be worth so much in the market as if the title was clear. 84. When land is sold now for cash is not a selling title given? —Yes; but you have to wait a long time before you get the deed. 85. In settling a new country like this should not the chief object of settlement be to make the land reproductive? —It should be.
E. PEOCTER.I
785
C—4.
86. Do you not think if land is sold for cash it leaves the door open for speculation if a free title is given as you advocate, with no compulsion on the purchaser to make improvements? —No; because I think when people have a free title to the land they do their best to make it pay. On the other hand, during the eighteen years I have been here I have seen leaseholders take up a piece of land, and when they got tired of it leave the section and go to a new one, and do that over and over again. The country has no hold on the leaseholders; but that is not the case with the freeholders. 87. If good settlers such as yourself purchased a freehold no doubt they would improve it; but is there not a large body of men with means in the colony who are always looking out for land for speculative purposes, and if you give a clear title at once you have no means of forcing these people to make the land reproductive? —I agree with you, there are a few men of that sort, but very few indeed, and I think it is doing the country far more harm to refuse a title to those who require it than to keep it back for the few who take the land up for speculative purposes. 88. If a man buys a piece of land for cash under the present law is it not a condition of sale that within seven years, if it is first-class land, he has to put £1 per acre improvements on it, and it' it is second-class land, 10s. per acre improvements on it, and in consideration of his doing that within seven years a clear Crown grant is issued to him? —Yes. 89. There is no penalty mentioned in the Act for non-fulfilment of the purchase conditions? — No. 90. What do you think is the position of the purchaser, and what is the position of the State with regard to that land ?- -Well, the purchaser, of course, has got his land ; but I consider the State is unnecessarily interfering with the man. 91. A man buys a piece of land subject to certain conditions, and suppose he does not make the improvements specified, then he has violated the conditions under which he bought the land. Do you think the State has a good case against that man for non-fulfilment of the purchase conditions ? —Undoubtedly. 92. Do you think the law should be made more specific in regard to penalties for non-fulfill-ment?—lt ought to be, because I think many people are labouring under a misconception as to that part of the law. 93. Mr. McLennan.] Are there any absentee owners in this country? —There was one party, but I do not know whether he is still in possession of the land. 94. Is that all? —Yes, to the best of my knowledge. 95. Mr. Paul.~\ What franchise would you elect the Land Board on? —I think, the parliamentary franchise. 96. You believe that if the right of purchase had been given to these Punakitere settlers the difficulty they are in at present would not have arisen? —It would never have arisen. 97. How do you make that out? —To explain, I may say that several people have told me that when they came here at first they were willing to settle any way. They never took into consideration the question as to whether the land would be of any value to them or not, or of a future home. Now they have been on the land eighteen years, and they have grown to be old men, and have made substantial improvements, and they have found out that when their lease goes from them they are not in a position to make a new start in life. Therefore they would like the freehold. If they had had foresight they would have looked after the freehold in the first place. 98. Mr. White told us in his evidence that the option of the freehold was of no use to them, because many would not be able to exercise it? —Possibly some could not. 99. Then, the right of the freehold would not have solved the difficulty? —Not all the difficulties, but some. I know some people in the room who are desirous of having the freehold. 100. Mr. Anstey.\ You wish to see the Land Boards elected on the parliamentarv franchise? -Yes. 101. The number of electors in the cities and towns of the colony very largely outnumber the country electors: do you not think it is more than likely that under your scheme you would have nobody but town members on the Land Board, and, if so, do you think they would make a satisfactory Land Board? —I believe in the electors of each electorate sending a member for their own district to the Land Board, the same as they do in Parliament. 102. You would have as many members on the Land Board as there are electorates? —Yes. 103. Mr. Forbes.\ Do you believe in the homestead system of settling lands? —Very much. 104. Do you think these conditions are necessary to apply? —I think so. 105. You state if the State sells a man a freehold there is no necessity to stipulate any conditions. If the State is going to give a man the freehold do you think he should not have it free of conditions as well? —A man who has worked through life and has a certain amount of money in pocket to buy the freehold is a more substantial tenant than one who has no money. The latter is not so much to be depended on by the State as the man with money. Therefore if they have no money, give them a chance to get on the land. The man who has money can go in for superior land, because the land I ask to be brought under the homestead system is not the best land. 106. Have not a number of men got on the land with very little money under the leasehold system and done very well? —Very well indeed. 107. Do you not think it is a very good thing to get them on the land? —A very good thing. 108. In these bush districts does not a man, especially if he is a man with no great amount of capital, need all his capital to clear and grass his land? Do you not think if he uses a large portion of his capital in buying the freehold he will be hampered in improving his section?— Yes; I quite coincide with your views there. 109. Under these circumstances if you put a man with a freehold and a man with a leasehold side by side with an equal amount of money, is not the leaseholder more likely to get his farm into a"productive state sooner, on account of having more money to work with? —Yes; but when a man has money I do not see why the State should prevent him from paying for his title at once. 99—C. 4.
786
[b. Procter.
G.-4.
110. You do not believe in any restrictions about improvements at all on freehold land? None whatever. 111. Under that system might not a settler who was living on and improving his land be increasing the value of a section alongside him owned by a person living in Auckland City, who was doing nothing with his land? Would not that absentee owner be reaping the benefit of the value created by the settlers living in and improving the district? —That is the unearned increment view, but Ido not think there is any such thing. I hold there is no unearned increment in New Zealand, nor in any part of the world. When a man buys a piece of land he buys it, and the rateable value is always there for any Council to rate. 112. Is that not a case which might occur?—lt might to a certain extent, but, I think, only to a certain extent. 113. Mr. Matheson.~\ Do you ask the right of purchase for the poor leaseholders in order that after having improved their sections and worked on them for twenty years or more they may be able to purchase the freehold with any savings they have accumulated?— Yes. 114. It is not to encourage them to spend their capital in an immediate purchase?— No. 115. Mr. Johnston.\ What other parts of the colony have you been in? —I was in South Canterbury about twenty-two years ago. 116. Do you know anything about the land-for-settlements policy there? —No. 117. You do not know that the tenants under the Land for Settlements Act in the South Island are very prosperous? —I do not know much about them. 118. Under what Act did the old settlers you talk about take up their land?—lt was on this Parnell endowment. 119. These are the only ones who have complained ?—Yes. I would like to say further I think it is necessary that the Government should take over the surplus Native lands and throw them open for European settlement. That would make this part of the colony prosperous. It is practically closed at the present time through the Native lands being shut up. 120. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think that the Maori lands when taken over should be offered under the freehold system? —I would offer it under freehold, occupation with right of purchase, or lease in perpetuity, or the homestead system. 121. Without any restrictions as to area?—l would stipulate the quantity of first-, second-, or third-class land a man could hold, and not allow him to hold more than that. 122. What area of first-class land would you fix? —500 acres. 123. Would you allow a man's wife to hold that area also? —No; but if he has a family I would allow each member of the family to do so on becoming of age. Henry George Foster examined. 124. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a builder and settler. I hold 360 acres under lease in perpetuity on Tutainoe Block, adjoining the Marlborough Special Settlement, about twentyeight miles from here. It is bush land. I have held it about three years, and I pay £7 4s. rent per year. 125. Have you got any land cleared?—l have 40 acres felled, but I could not get a good burn because the season was too* wet. Out of the 40 acres not more than 10 acres is in grass, such as it is. 126. Do you feel satisfied with the land and tenure? —I am satisfied with the tenure, but I am not satisfied with the valuation of the land. I think it is valued rather too high, compared with the surrounding district. The Marlborough Special Settlement was valued at 12s. 6d. per acre, and when I took the land up three years ago it had come down to 10s. per acre. The section adjoining me was taken up under the co-operative system, and 50 acres of bush on the section was felled. The land is equal to mine in quality, and the Government have opened it for selection, with all these improvements thrown in, at 7s. 6d. per acre, which I think is a clear proof that the land is of very little value. We have got no return from our money at all. I may say lam speaking on behalf of the Marlborough special settlers, who have been there ten years. I was on a Marlborough section, but, being on a cross-road, I forfeited it. We are paying too much for our land compared with the surrounding district. 127. Supposing there were no other settlers round you, would you then think you are paying too much? —They have got bargains I admit; but, still, I think we are paying too much. Members who have gone there at different times have said that such heavy bush land should not have been given to the settlers, because it was too heavy for them to make a farm of within a reasonable time. We have got no help at all. My father adjoins me, and he has 50 acres felled. My house is built on his section, and I value it at £100. My father has also a house double the size of mine on the section, and he asked for a grant of .£lOO from the Advances to Settlers Office, and they came and looked at the land, and the report they gave was that it was in a dying condition. My father has been there ten years, and has felled 50 acres of bush. He wanted the £100 to help my brother, who had become of age, to take up some land. 128. Having lived alongside this land you had a good opportunity of studying it: under the circumstances, why did you bother to take it" up ?—Simply to be close to my father. Both of us are working together at the building trade. I have to keep at my work to make a living for the farm as well as myself. I employed labour to fell the 40 acres. 129. I am afraid your only relief is to surrender? —Yes, but we cannot risk surrendering a place with so much improvements on it. Of course, the settlers who have not done much have all left. Only about seven are now left of the twenty-seven who took up land there in the Marlborough Settlement. 130. Mr. McCardle.] Your father has held the land ten years and has 50 acres of bush felled? —Yes.
C.-4.
787
H. G. FOSTEE.
131. Have you any brothers? —One under twenty-one and two younger. 132. Have you been constantly employed all the time at carpentering work? —Not altogether. We have spent a certain amount of time on the land. 133. Have you been stumping it? —Between the two of us 90 acres has been felled", and we have logged up. 134. Is it swampy altogether swamp, yet some is of a swampy nature. 135. Do you think under any circumstances you are likely to be successful with the land when you have so little done in all this time? —I think it may be all right if we could get it cleared. 136. Do you think the land will be any good to any one unless it is cleared? —Not such land as that. I think the Government made a big mistake in cutting up such land for farm settlements. 137. Mr. McGutchan.~\ You say that the section next to you has been disposed of at 7s. 6d. per acre with all improvements? —Yes, to a young fellow working for my father. 138. Can you say positively that these improvements have not been loaded on to the section? —Not positively, but I feel almost certain they have not. 139. What do you value the improvements on the section at? —At the same price as I paid for felling —£1 12s. 6d. per acre. Some of it is in grass, and the remainder grew up in fern. 140. Do you not think the Advances to Settlers Department had a sufficient reason not to advance the £100 when it was to help your brother to take up land? —They only refused on the ground that the place was in a dying condition. 141. From whom did you get that information? —The refusal came direct from the office, but Mr. Page valued the land, and he told me that was what he would report. 142. You say that seven out Of the Marlborough settlers remain: why did the rest leave? — Eight came up with me ten years ago and had a look at the land, and directly they saw it they left again. I suppose they did not consider the land good enough. Others also left. They could not get good burns, and they could not get any returns. 143. Mr. Pauli\ Did the Marlborough special settlers hold a meeting? —I do not know. 144. Did they appoint you at meeting assembled to represent them? —No. Two of them asked me to represent them as they could not come here to-day. 14-5. Have you given any study to the question of revaluation of future leases in perpetuity? —I think the land should be revalued. 146. In your case it appears your rent is too high: if the principle of revaluation were in force yon would get a reduction? —Yes, I feel certain we would. 147. You believe, then, it is a sound principle? —I believe it is. 148. Mr. Anstey.] You represent two Marlborough settlers besides yourself: what do they principally want? —They simply state the land is valued too high. 149. What is the value of the sections? —12s. 6d. on the main road and 10s. on the cross road. The settlement is on the main road from Taheke to Kaihu. 150. Can you give any reason why these settlers abandoned their holdings? —Simply because they could not make a living. 151. Suppose you got a reduction of 25 per cent., would that make the difference between being able to live and not being able to live? —I do not think 25-per-cent. reduction would be enough 152. Most of the settlers are under lease in perpetuity? —All of them. 153. Are they fairly satisfied with their tenure if the rent is reduced? —I think they are. I myself do no + see any chance of making anything out of the land to buy it out. 154. Mr. Hall.~\ You say you believe in the principle of revaluation? —Yes. 1 55. Is that because your land is valued too high I—Yes.1 —Yes. 156. If you happened to hold a section valued low, would you believe in it being revalued and raised? Do you believe in the principle of revaluation, apart from your own holding? — Yes, in regard to that land. 157. But in dealing with all lands? —Yes. 158- Mr. Forbes.] What kind of grass did you sow on your land? —I have put in cocksfoot, ryegrass, tall fescue, brown-top, crested dogstail, Chewing's fescue, and white and red clover. 159. Your rent is about sd. an acre. It must be very poor land when it will not more than return that when you have got it cleared? —I run cattle in the bush. It is poor land. It would not pay the rent. 160. Do you not think you are wasting your time in struggling with a piece of land so poor as that ? 1 think so. If I could sell out I would do so, and go somewhere else. 161. Mr. Matheson.\ Did the man who came to select the land for the association reside on a section? —No. 162. Mr. Johnston.] What will the land carry in grass? —If it was cleared it would carry one beast to 5 acres, or one sheep to I acre. 163. Do you think that such land is too dear at sd. an acre? —It costs a great deal to fell the bush. 164. You referred to one settler who has given up his land: has the land gone back into scrub? —Yes. 165. So that, really, the improvements you complain of him losing do not now exist? —Yes, the place has gone back. George Glover examined. 166. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a storekeeper and settler, and also a member of the County Council. I have 90 acres of freehold land. It is within a mile of Taheke. I have been in this district for twenty years.
C.—4.
788
[g. glovek.
167. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission? —1 want to bring before the Commission a notice that a settler has received from the Parnell Borough Council. He has been improving this land for sixteen years. Twenty years ago he took up two other sections, lie has be'en informed that if he does not pay up the amount said to be owing in respect to these other sections that the borough will forfeit all his leasehold land, including the section on which he has built a house. That is a sample of landlordism. I wish also to say this: that the Government have sent up a young man to survey land here, and he has also been instructed to value the land. He has no idea as to the value of the land. That is causing a great deal of trouble. 1 applied to the Government to open up a piece of land owned by them, but two years have elapsed and nothing has been done. The area of that piece of land is 300 acres. 168. What is your opinion with respect to the freehold and leasehold tenures? I think that every one should have the option of the freehold. The leasehold is very good to begin with in the case of a man without capital, but he should always have the option of purchase. I think a leasehold is simply a mortgage on your place for ever. 169. What is your opinion with respect to the present constitution of the Land Board?- It seems to work very well, but I think local bodies should have some representation on the Board. 170. Mr. McCardle.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —No. 171. Is there much land that is so valueless as has been represented to us? —Some. The quality varies. 172. Is it not fair grass land? —Yes, but most of it is held by the Natives. 173. Are the settlers attempting to put the whole of their land in grass? —Only a few. 174. I suppose the reason is because they can get more profitable employment outside? —They are compelled to go and look fof employment outside. A man cannot make a living on 50 acres of that land. 175. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you approve of the dual control of the roads by the County Council and the Government? —No. 176. Which do you think should control the roadwork? —Whichever has the means. In this county the County Council has no means, and the Government should certainly control the roads. I would advocate the Government making the roads and handing them over to the local body, but the local body cannot construct the roads and look after them without any means. I think the Government should metal all the main roads before handing them over to the local body. 177. Mr. Paul.] Have you had any experience of the working of the land-for-settlements policy outside this district? —No. 178. Mr. Anstey.] Do you approve of the present system of Government grants? —We are very pleased to receive them. 179. Can you suggest any better method than the present? —I think if the Crown lands were all thrown open for settlement we would not require these grants. 180. Do you think it would be a wise thing to collect rates on Government land?—l do not think it would be necessary to collect such rates if that land were all settled. In this county the Government only own a small area. It is the Native land that is hampering us. 181. Mr. Hall.] How it is that the Native land is hampering settlement? —Because the title has not been ascertained. 182. Mr. Matheson.] Have you had any dealings with the Land Board? —No. 183. Has the Countv Council had any dealings with the Land Board in respect of " thirds "? -Yes. 184. Have they been satisfactory? —Yes, so far as I know. 185. Mr. McCutchan.] You referred to a surveyor's valuation as being unsatisfactory: do you think that the surveyor does not value the land accurately? —I am certain of it. 186. But surveyors know the values of the adjoining land. They are a guide, are they not? —Yes, but there is no adjoining land that has been settled. It is Native land. 187. Are the surveyors' values revised? —Sometimes, but the tendency is to keep to their values. 188. You do not approve of loading for roads? —I think it is rather hard to load land for a road when the settler does not get a road at all. 189. Then, it is not the principle you object to, but it is the administration? —Yes. Michael O'Connell examined. 190. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and hold 100 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have held 50 acres for eighteen years, and the other 50 for seven years. My rent for one section is 7d. an acre, and for the other sd. an acre. My land is at Punakitere. lam satistied with my land and with the tenure. 191. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I have heard a good deal about the Land Board, but I am satisfied with the present constitution of Land Boards. 192. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Department?— Yes. 193. How did you get on?— Very badly. I applied for £50. They sent up an officer to value the land, and I paid the usual fee, and I was informed that as I already had an advance of £33 10s. I could not get a further advance. 194. Mr. McCardle.] I suppose you got the first advance under the village-homestead-settle-ment system ? —Yes. 195. That is held to be a first'mortgage, and the Advances to Settlers Department cannot make a second one? —I was not aware of that. 196. Mr. McCutchan.] Your land is under lease in perpetuity?— Yes, and I am very well pleased with it.
0— 4.
M. o'CONNELL.j
789
197. You have no fear that your lease will be interfered with by the Government? My opinion is that the Government will not break a contract with any man. 198. I do not think so either; but supposing the labour organizations in the colony, who are working scientifically and thoroughly to break these leases, get sufficient influence to put a Government in power to represent their views, do you not think there would be some danger of revaluation ? —lf they do that they might as well turn New Zealand upside down altogether. 199. Mr. Paul.] Do you not think you would be much better off if you had a freehold? —No, I do not think I would, because if I got into debt and had not the means of paying it the land would be taken from me. 200. You think there is something very substantial in the leasehold tenure? —Certainly. It has been said that some of the settlers' houses on the homestead settlement have gone to ruin, but when rag-pickers, bone-gatherers, and other undesirable persons were sent up as settlers people who had no knowledge of the land—it is natural that their places should go to ruin. 201. Reference has been made to the attitude of the labour party: do you not think that some of the settlers themselves are to blame in advocating a breach or variation of the agreement with the Government? Do you not think the Government should stand to its bargain, and that the tenant should also stand to his bargain? —Decidedly. When there is a contract both parties should stand to it. 202. Mr. Anstey.~\ How much of your land has been cleared? —About half of it. 203. Can you make a living on it? -Yes. 201. Do you work outside? —Yes, a little. 205. Would 100 acres of that land be sufficient if it was cleared to keep a man in comfort? —Yes. 206. Mr. Forbes.] Are the settlers around you clearing their land?— They are doing all they can. The sections will not keep them, and they have to do some outside work from time to time. 207. Mr. Matheson.] If you had a piece of leasehold land and you or your children after you should have sufficient money saved to buy the freehold without borrowing, do you think it would be an advantage to be able to buy the freehold and have no landlord ? —I would have to study that.
Ohaeawai, Thursday, 18th May, 1905. John Betts Clarke examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm 500 acres held under freehold tenure. I have been farming here for forty years. 2. What is your opinion with respect to the freehold and leasehold tenure : which is the best tenure in the interests of the country and in the interests of the settlers ?—I think that in many cases the leasehold has been a wonderful help to settlers, but I am in favour of the freehold whenever settlers are in a position to acquire it. But as a start for any one taking up bush land, or any land of the kind, the fact of a settler not being obliged to lay out so much capital in the purchase of the land, thereby saving his capital for improving the land, is a great help; but I think, as soon as he is in a position to acquire the freehold he ought to be allowed to have it. 3. You believe in the occupation with right of purchase?— Yes; and when the terms of the arrangement are fulfilled X think that at any reasonable time he ought to be allowed to acquire the freehold as he is able to pay it off, i» part or in one sum, the rent being decreased in proportion. 4. There has been a good deal of the homestead-settlement system in this part of the colony. Do you think that is a good system ?—I think it is a very favourable one, and one to be commended in these out-districts. But in respect to the homestead system, the gentleman who is to follow me has been a homestead settler himself, and he is better able to speak on that subject than I am. .5. I understand that you are a member of the Farmers' "Union. Do you represent that union in any way? —Yes. I am'chairman of the local branch, and I have been deputed to give evidence on their behalf. _ , . 6. Is there anything you wish specially to bring before the Commission as representing the Farmers' Union? —No. The only question is that of the land-tenure —the option of purchase— and on that I think we are all unanimous. 7. What is your opinion in regard to the constitution of the Land Board?—l think if two members of the Board were elected by the people and two were nominated by the Government it would be better than the present system. 8. Under what franchise would you elect them ?—-As far as possible they should be people who are well acquainted with agriculture —practical farmers would be the best men. 9. Would the ratepayers of the county do ? —I think they would be very good people to elect the members of the Board. 10. Would you include the towns in the election of members? —I do not object to the small towns. I think they should be elected by the ratepayers generally. I would like to add as a suggestion that, when the Board meets to discuss any land question of importance, one member of the County Council of that county in which the land under discussion is situated should represent the Council as having the local knowledge which might be of service to the Board, such member of Council to have during such discussion the same status as other members of the Board. 11. Is there any aggregation of'estates going on in this part of the colony ?—No. 12. Is the tendency the other way ?—Yes. In the case of good land the tendency is that it should be held in smaller holdings, but in the case of indifferent land and poor land it must be held in large holdings in order to make a living off it. There are no large estates here.
C—4.
790
[j. B. CLAKKE.
13. Do you know anything about lease-in-perpetuity holdings? —There are none in this immediate vicinity. There are some four or five miles off, but lam not well acquainted with that subject. 14. Do you know of any restrictions that are inimical to their progress?- —I do not know. As to cropping, I think they only do sufficient for home requirements. Might I offer a suggestion with regard to Waste Crown Land Boards, and that is that the land should be divided into more classes than at present. What I mean is this: there is good agricultural ploughable land, medium-class land, and indifferent land, and then again there is bush land. Good bush land ought to be treated separately. Then, there is broken country and second-class bush land and swamp land. I think they ought to be under different classes. 15. But does it not happen frequently that several of these classes are in one section of land of, say, 200 acres?— Not very often, I think, here. It is generally one class or another. As I have said, I think that it would be well if the classes were more minutely divided than they are at present. 16. What grasses do you find do best here ?—lt is rather hard to say, because there are different varieties of land in close proximity. Some of the land, as you might have noticed in your journey yesterday, will carry almost any English grasses, but there are other second-class lands that will only carry a few English grasses, and there are some third-class lands that will only carry some indigenous grasses like danthonia. On the better land rye, cocksfoot, and clovers do splendidly, and on medium land you have to do without rye and probably the clovers. Cocksfoot will do a little better, and Chewing's fescue and some of the hard-doing grasses. When you come to the poor land you have to fall back on Poa brownii and danthonia, and other such grasses. 17. We have heard a good deal about the paspalum?—l have had no experience with it. I believe it does well. 18. Does surface-sowing result well when it is properly done ?—On the volcanic land it does well, except that there is great trouble in getting rid of the fern. On some of the clay land surfacesowing will hardly do at all unless the surface of the ground is broken. 19. Mr. McCutchan.] You are a member of the Farmers' Union ? —-Yes. 20. How many members are there in your branch ?—I think there are about twenty-five. 21. In speaking with reference to land-tenure are you expressing the unanimous view of the members of this branch of the union ?—Yes. 22. They advocate the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure?— Yes. 23. Does that mean that your branch of the union desires to see the 999-years lease removed from the optional tenure or done away with?—lt might be done away with. The right of purchase, I take it, would do away with that in a measure. I think the right of purchase should be allowed in every case when the tenant is in a position to pay for the land. 24. Therefore your branch of the union is in favour of allowing the Act to remain as it is, with the alteration that leaseholders under the 999-years lease should, when they have made the necessary improvements, have the right of acquiring the freehold on paying the 1-per-cent. difference ?—Yes. 25. I understood you to say that you thought these people should have the right of purchase when they have made the necessary improvements. Would not that allow speculators to make the improvements within twelve months, and thus get the freehold ?—I do not think that would occur. 26. Would there be anything to prevent that ?—I think a clause should be inserted in the Act to safeguard that. 27. In what way ?—That would be for the Government or the Department to decide. 28. I think that is a difficulty that could not be got over ?—lt might be at a given time, just the same as in the .option with the right of purchase. In that case I think it is only after ten years that they can exercise the right of purchase. 29. Would you be in favour of that remaining as it is?—l do not see any objection to it, but you might alter the tenure to a shorter period, say, seven years. ' 30. You said before that it might take place at any reasonable time—you said you would allow these people to acquire the freehold at any time after making the necessary improvements? —I should say within a reasonable time, say, in seven years. 31. Have you any knowledge of the operation of the Advances to Settlers Department? —Not very much. 32. What are your views in respect to the Native-land question?— That is rather a burning question up here. I may say that I am a member of the local governing body, the County Council, The question of so much unoccupied land which is paying no rates and doing no good to the country is one of our burning questions. If the Maori land could be brought in some way into the same position as endowment lands are —that it could be leased by settlers, of course, under certain restrictions —it would be a good thing. As it is now, I think I may say that the pick of the country is still in their hands and they are doing little or nothing with it, and it is bringing in no revenue to the local body as far as rates are concerned, and, generally speaking, it is a great drawback to the country. In speaking of utilising the Maori land, I wish it to be understood that I do not for one minute intend that any injustice should be done to the Natives, but if the Native land could be taken over by the Government and be administered for the benefit of the Natives, allowing them reserves enough for all reasonable requirements, I think it would be a good plan. The Natives would be infinitely better off than they are at present, and the country generally would be benefited. Owing to the. land not being individualised the Natives are unable to do any improvements satisfactorily. I may mention a case in point. In the neighbourhood of Kaikohe, through which the Commission passed yesterday, and which is one of the picked spots of the county, one of the more enterprising of the Natives started fencing in and sowing-down grass. He fenced in a block of about 150 acres, and after he had got it nicely in grass his neighbours all round
C.-4.
J. B. CLARKE.'
791
began to turn in their cattle and horses. When he expostulated with them they said, " The land is as much ours as yours." So that the Natives are unable to do any good with the land in that way. It is only much capital locked up and doing no good to any one. If this land could be managed by the Government in some way it would bring them in a considerable revenue and it would increase the revenue of the local body, and, in fact, would add to the wealth of the country altogether. 33. Has there been any increase in land-values in this district during the last few years?— Yes. I think the last Government valuation showed a rise all round of 25 per cent, on all property —some of it pretty nearly double, and some of it remaiued about the same. The last valuation for rating purposes was about 25 per cent, higher than the previous one. 34. In speaking of classifying the land you expressed the opinion that there should be a wider classification. As to the poorer land in the North of Auckland, do you think the minimum price of ss. an acre is excessive ? —There is a lot of the land that I would be sorry to give ss. an acre for. 35. Mr. McLmnan.'] You said you were in favour of Crown tenants acquiring their holdings by paving off portions of the purchase-money from time to time. Would you apply that to future leases ?—I think so. 36. You are not in favour of breaking the contract that exists between the Crown and its tenants at the present time ?—Rearranging a contract is not breaking it. 37. You would not compel them to alter the contract ?—Certainly not. 38. Would you be in favour of the Crown acquiring all the Maori land of the colony and investing the money, and settling the Maoris on the land under lease in perpetuity or some other lease ?—I have not gone into details of a scheme of dealing with Native lands, but if the Government could take over management of Maori lands, leaving the Natives sufficient for their own cultivations, and if the Government administered these lands for the benefit of the Natives, it would, I think, be a good thing for the Natives, and would benefit the colony generally. 39. I mean, by leasing it to the Natives and giving them the same privileges as Europeans ?— No. I think I would be inclined to allot them certain portions of land which they could hold as their own freehold. 40. Is the value of leasehold land increasing in a similar way to freehold land?—l do not think so—not unimproved land. 41. Not in the same ratio ?—No. 42. If you are going to interfere with the present arrangement, and if the tenants are to get the freehold, on what terms do you think it would be fair to give them the option ?—I understand that tenants under the lease in perpetuity and under perpetual lease pay 1 per cent, less than those with the option of purchase. I think that with the addition of the 1 per cent, added to their rent they would then come under the same heading as those with the right of purchase. 43. Are there any leaseholders in your branch of the Farmers' Union? —I think so. 44. Have you any idea how many?—No, but I think the witness who is to follow me will tell you more on that point. 45. Are there any endowments in this district ?—There is an endowment at Punakitere and a museum endowment some distance from Ohaeawai. Those are the only endowments I can remember just now. 46. Are you familiar with the position of the settlers on those endowments?— Nothing more than hearsay. 47. Do you think there is anything in the leasehold tenure that prevents a farmer using his land to the best advantage ?—I think so. I think that any one who is sure that his tenure will not be interfered with in any way will put far better work into his holding than a settler with an uncertain tenure. Whether rightly or wrongly, there is a very general impression—and I think it is more than a general impression—that there is an agitation for periodical revaluation. That would practically mean that you are revaluing a man's own work, and in that way it would not be conducive to good farming, for with this revaluation hanging over him a man would naturally think, " Oh, it is no use improving the land," and he would let the farm run out, and the valuation would be lower during his next term. There would be no incentive to improve the farm. If I may go a little off the subject, I might be allowed to say that recently I read an article on how they do these things in Denmark. The article appeared in the Weekly News of the 27th April last. That article is very strongly in favour of the freehold and against the leasehold. That article says more in favour of the freehold than any argument I can bring forward or that I have seen anywhere else. I may say that the article referred to the evidence given before a Scotch Commission which went over to Denmark to inquire into the working of the land laws there, and also into the system of farming in Denmark. 48. Do you think that Denmark and this colony can be compared in any way ? Might it not be possible that a system that would apply to Denmark would not work here?—-To a certain extent the same thing holds good in both countries. I think the same thing is brought very strongly before us in the alteration of the land laws in Ireland. There has been an improved state of agriculture there since the tenants have been allowed to acquire the freehold. I think that is another object-lesson for us. 49. If this is all correct, and there are great disadvantages under any leasehold tenure which prevent a man using his land to advantage, how is it that a man who uses his leasehold farm in the first ten years, and, while labouring under all those disadvantages, is able to save enough money to acquire the freehold?—lf a man knew he would be able to acquire the freehold, that would be an incentive to him to put in better work in every way. 50. The incentive outweighs the disadvantages ? —Yes. The feeling is that in the one case he is working for himself and in the other case he is working to a great extent for his landlord. 51. That is a question of degree is it not?—A question of degree, certainly. 52. Have you had any experience of the land-for-settlement policy in the South?— No.
C—4.
792
[j. B. CLARKE.
53. Mr. Anstey.\ You say you are in favour of Crown leaseholders having the right of acquiring the freehold? —-Yes. 54. Do you think it is necessary to give them the freehold in order to properly develop their holdings ?—I think so. I think it would be a great inducement for them to do so. 55. You think that a leaseholder cannot develop his holding as satisfactorily as a freeholder ? —I do not think there are many who would do so. Ido not think they have the same incentive. 56. Do you think they do not do so, generally speaking ?—I do not think they do. 57. You think it is in the interests of the State that they should have the freehold ?—Yes ; I think it is both in the interest of the State and in the interest of the individual. 58. Would that remark also apply to education endowments?—l have not fully considered that, but I think more would be got out of the land if it was held under freehold. 59. Do you think it would be a wise thing to give the freehold of this land, and that the money derived from it should be invested elsewhere?—lt is a question where the money should be invested. Perhaps it might be invested in State bonds. I think that would be better for the country, and probably for the institution or local body so endowed, that the freehold should be granted. 60. Would you extend the same principle to private leaseholds?— Yes, when it can be done. 61. Do I understand that you are of opinion that people holding leases on which they are paying 4 per cent, should be charged an additional 1 per cent, if they get the option of the freehold, but that, in the case of those who are paying 5 per cent., they would get the freehold for nothing additional ?—Yes. 62. Do you not think it would be wise, instead of restricting the land as to area, the restriction should be as to value ?—-I think that in estimating the area a person might take up, the distance and want of communication with the larger centres, and such things, should be taken into consideration. 63. Would it not be better to make a limitation as to value and not as to area ?—Possibly it would. 64. You are a member of the Bay of Islands County Council ?—Yes. 6*. Does your County Council rate on the capital or on the unimproved value ? —On the capital value. 66. Does not that press rather hardly on those who fully improve their land, seeing that they have to pay for their improvements as well as on the value of the land ?—lt does, rather. 67. Do you not think it would be wise to adopt the unimproved-value system ? —-I do not think so. The present system does not press hardly in certain directions, but under any arrangement you may make it will press more or less on some individuals. 68. You say that freeholders have better heart than leaseholders to improve and develop their land ?—Yes. 69. Can you explain how it is that such a large area of land in this district is held by freeholders and still remains almost in its original state ? —The probability is that the laud is so poor it would be heartbreaking work to improve it. 70. There is plenty of good land that has been pointed out to us which is in the same condition ?—I am not aware of any. 71. You think our information is not correct ?—I do not say that. 72. Do you think it would be wise to impose improvement and residence conditions on freeholders as well as on leaseholders. We have been told that a lot of this land is held by absentees? —I am not aware of any held in that way in our neighbourhood. 73. Do you think it would be wise to impose restrictions in that think that land held for speculative purposes by absentees should be taxed in some way. 74. And thus compel closer settlement?— Yes, because at present such land is practically in the position of Native land, except that it pays rates. 75. Do you think it would be wise to insist on rating both Crown and Native lands, or to rate either? —The difficulty in the case of Native land is that you are unable to enforcce it, and in many cases the ownership has not been decided. As at present constituted we have no power to enforce the payment of rates on Native land. As far as the Crown land is concerned, the rating of that is out of our power. 76. Do you think we should recommend that the County Councils should be given power to rate these lands ? —The Government tell us that they hand an equivalent to us in the form of subsidies, but Ido not think we get the amount. I think if the Government lands were rated in the same way as private land it would be beneficial. 77. Do you approve of the system of a large portion being done by public grants, or do you think it would be wiser to have a larger area for rating purposes, and do away with the special grants altogether? —If that could be done it would be the best plan, but, situated as we are with so much Government and Native land that is not bringing in rates, I think we are entitled to very much more public-money help in that respect than we get. 78. Supposing you got this larger rating area and an increased subsidy on your rates, do you think that system would be better than the system of grants being doled out to you in the uncertain way that is done at present ?—I think so. As the grants are doled out to us at present we see it announced that a grant has been made for a certain road, but the money is not placed to our credit, and we are not even notified when it will be. It would simplify matters very much in respect to public works in our district if, when a grant was made, the local body was assured that at a given time —say, six months or nine months hence—the money would be placed to their credit; work would then be done at the proper time of the year, and the money would go half as far again as it does at present. With the assurance that the money would be paid over at a given time the local body could arrange its finance with certainty and act accordingly.
J. B. CLARKE.]
793
C—4.
79. Does the Government or the local body spend the Government grants?— The Government expend the greater portion, but some portions are handed over for the local body to expend. 80. Which expenditure is most economical ?—The expenditure of the local body, by almost two to one. Local bodies make the same amount of money go thirty or even forty per cent, further than the Government does. 81. Mr. Forbes.] What is your opinion with respect to the present constitution of the Land Boards ?—I have had very little to do personally with the Land Board, so that lam hardly able to speak on that particular point from any personal knowledge. 82. You have expressed the opinion that the present system is unsatisfactory?— Not from personal knowledge. It is only an impression left on me from conversation with other people. Complaints are made that restrictions ought to be relaxed very much in some cases. For instance, where a farmer, and, say, two or three grown-up sons take up sections and work them all together as one concern. By the Act, each one has to live on his own section. I think that is a hardship which the Land Board ought to ease off very much. 83. Do not they ease it off in this district ?—ln some eases they do and in others they do not, but I am only speaking on this matter from hearsay. 84. In connection with Denmark and the question of the freehold, do you know if there are any leaseholds in Denmark? —Very few. I think the article shows that eight or nine out of ten of the small farms are freehold. 85. You do not know how the leaseholders are getting on? —No; they are under private landlords there. 86. As population increases it would be only reasonable to think that there would be a greater proportion of land held under leasehold ?—I think that matter was takeu in hand by the Government of Denmark. It was about 1850 that they started going in for the freehold as against the leasehold system. 87. Would you say that the Crown as a landlord would be better than a private landlord?—l question it. 88. Do you question it from your personal experience or from a sentiment ?—I have had very little experience in that matter, but my experience with a private landlord is that you can explain matters to him, and if he is a reasonable man he will see where to make concessions, but with the Government you do not know who to go to or where to go, and you are kicked from one to another, and you do not know what to do. 89. Mr. Hall.] I suppose the fact that the Natives hold so much land in the district retards settlement? —The difficulty is they are not able to sell the land to private individuals or to lease it. In many cases they would be willing to sell or lease, but they cannot do so legally. 90." Speaking generally, is it a fact that the Natives still retain the best land in the district?— Yes, speaking in a wide sense, it is. If a person passing through the country sees a particularly poor piece of land he will not be far wrong if he puts that down as Government land, and if he sees land that is improved, or partly improved, and of medium quality, he may be sure that has been taken up by settlers ; but if he sees a piece of good land unoccupied he is very safe in his own mind to put that down as Native land. Of course, there are instances where that is not so, but that is the position, speaking broadly. 91. If the bulk of the Native land could be acquired by the Government and dealt with for settlement purposes, would it follow that the inferior Crown land would be taken up?— Yes, I think it would ; but the inferior land would have to be taken up in large blocks. They would be simply open runs, for some of that land is so poor that if it were offered to me as a gift I would rather do without it. In other cases it is capable of carrying a few stock, but it could only be held in large areas in order to pay working-expenses. 92. As regards these inferior Crown lands, I understood you to say that you advocated the giving of the freehold as soon as improvements have been made and there has been bond fide residence on the land? —Yes. 93. I suppose the Native land at Kaikohe is representative of the best land in the county?— Yes, the pick of the county. Although we have land in smaller areas which, I think, is equally as good as Kaikohe, still, Kaikohe is the largest block of really good land, and, with the exception of about 100 acres, I think it is all in the hands of the Natives. 94. If the land immediately around Kaikohe were thrown open for European settlement, would it sell for £8 or £10 an acre ?—I think the more improved parts of Kaikoke would readily fetch £10 an acre —that is those parts nearer the settlement—and further back a block of perhaps 30,000 acres would average £2 or £3 an acre probably, and some of it would fetch £10 an acre. 95. Would you give power to the trustees to sell endowments of city and suburban properties which are revenue-producing? —I think they might have the same power to exercise as they have in connection with other trust properties. 96. I suppose you find great difficulty in raising sufficient revenue to make roads ?—lt is next to impossible. We' are able to keep the main roads in passable repair, but some of the branch roads are disgraceful. We are unable to do much with them. 97. With regard to Government grants, you have already stated that they are too uncertain. What do you think of the idea of the land and mortgage tax being handed over to the local bodies in order to give them an assured revenue to maintain their roads? —1 have not thought of that, but there are a good many other sources of revenue which are raised locally, and which I think ought to be spent locally. 98. Does it not seem strange that a direct tax on farmers should go into the consolidated revenue and then be sent back in the way of uncertain subsidies and grants to the local bodies ?— Yes. If the money went in the way you suggest we should know what we are entitled to.
100—C. 4.
C.—4.
794
[~J. B. CLARKE.
99. The Government in that case to fix a maximum and a minimum rate as a guarantee that there would be a sufficient amount to pay for the roads ?—Yes. The present system is very unsatisfactory. 100. Mr. Johnston.'] Why do you not approve of the rating on unimproved value ?—I think it would come very hard 011 the new settlers just at a time when they require all the means they can raise, and before they are in a position to get any return. 101. Do you think the absentees ought to be taxed more ?—Decidedly. 102. Do you not think the rating on the unimproved value would get at the absentees?— Yes. That is the only thing we have got to go on in the case of the absentees. 103. The difference on the new settler would be very little compared to the advantage of getting the absentees to contribute more in the way of taxation. 104. The Hokianga County rates on the unimproved value ? —I did not know that. 105. Did you know that many of the counties in the South do it ?—No. 106. Is there a large amount of gum derived from the poor land that you speak about ? — From some of it. But as to this gum land, there is a point which I think has been considerably overlooked. We have been treating as a nuisance what we might have turned into one of our greatest blessings. I refer to the Austrians who come here digging gum. It has been shown that this gum land with high cultivation in many cases is well suited for vineyards and the growing of fruit-trees, and we have several instances in our neighbourhood where the Austrians have taken up small pieces of land and are cultivating both vines and fruit-trees. When in conversation with some of these Austrians they have told me that the climate and natural surroundings here are well adapted for such a purpose, and that the climate is very similar to that of their own country. If some of these Austrians had been put on the ground with sections of, say, 50 acres, with permission to dig the gum on condition that they planted a certain amount of vineyards and fruit-trees, it would have been a great advantage to the colony, and it would have been an object-lesson to some of our own settlers. I have had little to do with these Austrians personally, but from the accounts I get from the gum merchants I gather that they are a frugal, honest, and steady lot of men. Of course, there are the exceptions that one gets anywhere. If such a scheme were carried into effect, when the gum was exhausted the fruit industry would take its place. I think that would go a long way towards settling the poorer gum lands of the north. 107. Do the settlers who go on the land take advantage of the way the Austrians have turned it over when gum-digging ?—No. It would require more than turning it over to do any good. 108. We saw some of the land practically trenched by these people?— That is the kind of land I would recommend should be planted in orchards and vineyards. 109. How do you think this small-manuka land could best be utilised ?—I should say by sowing some of the inferior but more hardy grasses upon it. 110. What is, roughly, the value of the good land about this place or Waimate ? —I suppose from £5 to £7, and up to £10 for the best, an acre—the improved lands. 111. Do you approve of sowing gorse for feed?— No. It has been done here, and it would have been all right if it had been confined to the poor gravel soils, but the trouble is that you cannot keep it there. It cannot be kept within bounds. 112. Have you seen any Californian thistle up here? —No. 113. Mr. Matheson.] How is it that the local bodies make their funds go so much further than the Roads Department ? —That is more than I can say. Almost all the General Government work is done under the co-operative system, and the local government work is done under the contract system. 114. Do you think that accounts for it in a great measure ?—Yes, in a great measure. 115. Has your estimate of the State as a landlord been based on their treatment of the Punakitere settlers?— Not at all. 116. Do you think their treatment of those settlers tallies in a measure with your estimate of them as landlords?—No; the treatment of the Punakitere settlers is a case by itself almost. 117. Mr. McCardle.] Referring again to the Native-land difficulty, do you think it would be well for the Government to allot to each Native in the colony 50 acres in any particular spot he might desire it, take over the whole of the balance held, ascertain the monetary interests of the various Natives in the whole of those lands, give them the interest on colonial debentures for the balance, and deal with those lands the same as they do with the lands of the Crown?— That is very much the system I advocate. As to the Maori Councils, they are met with huge difficulties, and, so far as I have been able to find out, they have proved utter failures. Ido not personally know of a single block of land they have put through. The Natives themselves are disgusted with the system, and they say the old Land Courts were better, with all their evils. 118. Is that not largely because the titles have to be ascertained before the Councils can do anything at all with the land?—l do not know, but the Councils have proved a failure. 119. You have referred to the Denmark system of finding freeholds for the farmers. Do you know what the condition of things was prior to the present condition ?—I think the lands were mostly in the hands of private landlords. 120. Was that to foster the butter industry?— Well, it was introduced before the butter industry started. 121. With regard to the endowments you have spoken of, do you not think that if the State were to grant debentures instead of lands the State could deal with those lands in the best interests of the colony ? —Yes, if the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure were brought in. 122. As to a question asked you by Mr. Hall, whether you did not think the land-tax should should be treated as local revenue, do you not think the wealthier districts would scoop the pool and the smaller districts get a mere bagatelle ? —We are in that position now. 123. Would it not be better in these outlying districts if the Government, for the purpose of making roads, granted £2 for every £1 raised locally ?—lf they would do such a thing it would perhaps be better.
J. B. CLARKE.j
795
a—4
124. Then, Mr. McCutchan asked you about putting safeguards to prevent speculation in land. Do you not think if a man goes on to most of the land in this district he will come out of it a poorer and a wiser man ?—Yes. I have heard people say that some of the early settlers ought to be prosecuted for buying some of the lands, which were absolutely worthless, and burdening their families with such properties. 125. With regard to these large tracts of land we have seen lying unimproved alongside roadlines, do you not think the State should step in and compel something in the way of improvements, no matter whether by absentees or Natives?— Extra taxation ought to compel the absentees to utilise their land in some way; but the Native-land difficulty requires to be handled very gently, as the Maoris almost worship their land. 126. You are aware that the great clamour of the Natives now is that they should be allowed to sell ? —Yes ; but it might be different if it came to anything in the nature of compulsion. And if they were allowed to sell I think they would impoverish themselves in some cases. 127. Are you in favour of the Government administering the land laws so that the Natives could not pauperise themselves ?—Yes. 128. Mr. McCutchan.] Speaking about co-operative labour, you think the local body could do the work for about one-half of what it costs to do it by co-operative labour?— Well, I said from 20 to 30 per cent, cheaper. 129. Has not the co-operative system this merit : that at a time when the labour market was congested it drew a large number of indigent people from the towns, and in many instances settled them on the land and made them industrious settlers ? —There may have been a few instances of that, but in more instances I believe the effect has been just the reverse. The people who were put on the land knew nothing whatever about agricultural pursuits, and they simply became paupers, and those people who were sent out of the town as indigent people have become a big tax on the local bodies in the form of charitable aid. We are suffering to some extent from that now. 130. Were they not a burden on the community before they came here ?—Yes. 131. Are not fifty per cent, of them now on the land?—l daresay. 132. Is it not the experience of some of the most progressive County Councils in the colony that day-work under proper supervision is the cheapest method of doing road work?—We have not found it so. 133. We had before us at Eawene the District Road Engineer, who gave evidence to the effect that he found that the most economical way to do the work, and the County Council of which I am a member and our engineer have proved over and over again that day-labour is the most economical way of doing the work, subject to efficient supervision. If such is the case, is it not possible to so improve the co-operative method of doing public works that it would be satisfactory not only to the workers, but to the colony ?—ln our case co-operative labour has not worked out anything like as well or as cheaply as the contract system. In our neighbourhood, where the work has to be done in small patches, the engineer would all his time have to be in the saddle seeing how the different bits of work were going on if it were done by day-labour. 134. Do not the engineers, when they put a gang on to work by day-labour, always take the precaution of placing a man in charge to see that all the men do a fair day's work, and that they are not paid for more than the work they do, because in that respect the wages are regulated according to the capabilities of the men?—We have not found it work here so well as contract work. We have not gone in for the co-operative system where we have had complete control of affairs, and we find that the work done by the local body is better and cheaper than that done by the Government. 135. Is it you opinion that the system of land-settlement by means of co-operative labour has not been justified ?—So far as those people sent out from the towns are concerned, I do not think it has been. 136. Mr. Paul.] Have you given the system of day-labour, as explained by Mr. McCutchan, a trial? —No ;we have not tried it in this county. Very small jobs are done by day-labour. 137. In those cases have you found it satisfactory? —Yes, fairly, and that is because the work is generally repairing roads, which is very hard to let by contract. Ido not think it is generally quite as cheap as if it were done by contract. Under a contract all the work has to be specified properly, and sometimes in repairing a road it is hard to define by contract what is required. 138. Mr. Anstey.] Seeing that many of the cities have immense reserves set apart for them, do you not think that poor local bodies like our own are also entitled to large endowments ? —They are entitled to them, but if it comes in the form of revenue it would have the same effect. 139. Do you not think, if it is necessary that endowments should be given to these cities and boroughs, it would be right to confine those endowments to places within their own precincts, thereby avoiding the evils of landlordism?— Yes, that is one of the drawbacks of the endowments here, such as the endowments at Punakitere and other places. They are almost in the same position as the absentee landlord. 140. Mr. Johnston.] Have you any experience of the land-for-settlements policy in the South Island ?—No. Walter Fuller examined. 141. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer and a freeholder. I own 676 acres of land about twenty miles from here. I have been farming in the locality about ten years. My land is all plain, open country —fern and tea-tree—and is in the Kerikeri district. 142. Have you your land in grass ? —A portion of it. 143. Do you run sheep and cattle ? —Cattle only. 144. Any dairying ?—Only for my own use. 145. What do you consider is the best tenure for the settlement of the country ?—The freehold.
lw. FTILLEK.
0.—4.
796
146. Are you in favour of leasehold as a stepping-stone ? —Yes, certainly. 147. I suppose, in the case of Crown lands, you would exact certain improvements and a certain term of residence before you allowed the freehold to be acquired ? Yes , but if it was very poor land I would give it away, because the very poor land is not worth the rates charged on it. 148. You would give it under the homestead regulations if they were re-enacted ? —Yes ; I approve of the homestead system. 149. Mr. McCutchan.] Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I do not think so. 150. What is the character of your land?—lt varies from a few inches on rock to 5 it. or btt. of good soil. It is very varied. 151. What grasses have you been sowing?—l have been sowing paspalum and danthonia, and also Lotus major and coniculatus. 152. Are those grasses better than paspalum? —Well, the latter is a new grass, and we have not had much experience of it. Paspalum is a good grass in the summer, but in the winter the frost cuts it. . 153. How many years have you been experimenting with it ?—I have had paspalum on my place only about two years, but I have seen paddocks of it in other places. 154. Do you think it will, when it matures, stand the cold weather better? —I do not think so. The frost does not kill the roots, and in the warm weather the grass comes up again. It has good fattening properties. 155. Mr. McLennan.] Have you had any dealing with the Land Board?— No. 156. What do vou think of the present constitution of the Land Board : do you think they should be elected ?—I think thev should be elected and not nominated. 157. On what franchise would you favour election ?—I could not say that. 158. Would it not be an expensive method of forming Land Boards ?—We do not want to put the country to a large expense, but I think it might be done without expense. 159. How ?—I should say that the members of the Board should be elected for the different districts by the people in those districts. The man seeking election could call meetings just as candidates for Parliament do, and they could elect a man without expense to the country. 160. Would you allow people in towns and boroughs to have a voice in the election ?—No. 161. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Department ? —No. 162. Mr. Paul.] How much of this poor land is sufficient for a man to make a comfortable living upon ?—A man cannot live upon it at all unless he has capital to work it. It is of no use for a poor man to go upon poor land. There are thousands of acres north of Auckland that would not feed a sparrow. 163. Are you Mr. Clarke's colleague as a representative of the Farmers' Union? —I am secretary of the Kerikeri Branch. 164. How many members have you in the branch ?—About seventy, including honorary members. 165. How many of them are leaseholders ? —I think, about three. 166. How many have paid their subscription this year ?—I could not say positively. 167. I think Mr. Clarke said about twenty-five? —Probably that might be correct. 168. Are the land-values in the district increasing ? —I am sorry to say they are not. Mr. T. C. Williams, known as the " gorse king," has sown a lot of his land in gorse, and the gorse is spreading all over the place, and no country could progress under those conditions. 169. On what tenure did Mr. Williams hold his land? —Freehold. 170. If it had been leasehold from the Government, would he have been allowed to sow his land in gorse? —I do not think so. 171. Mr. Anstey.] With regard to this paspalum grass, would it be possible to sow down some alternate crop for winter feed ? —No ; but you could mix it with other grasses. 172. What about the danthonia: is that a summer feed only?—No, that does best in the spring and autumn. ' 173. You do not believe in this growing of gorse for feed ? Do you not think a freeholder should be allowed to do what he will with his own ? —I think he should be compelled to keep it away from his neighbours. 174. Would you compel a man to eradicate noxious weeds ? —Only in the case of gorse in this district. On three side 3 lam surrounded by the " gorse king," and on the other side by " King Dick," or the Crown. On the Crown land there is a weed called akia growing, and the seeds are blown across my country, and my ground gets sown in that way. I say the Government ought not to force people to eradicate weeds until they do it themselves. 175. Do you think these restrictions should be applied only to the two weeds you have mentioned? Yes, we have really no other noxious weeds in the North, such as Californian thistle and those things. 176. Mr. Matheson.] Are you aware there is a law under which your local body can make both the " kings " you speak of clear their land of noxious weeds?—-Yes, but it would be rather a hard thing to do, especially in the case of those people who have taken land alongside the old mission lands. 177. Do you think the majority of the ratepayers in the district would like to see the weeds tackled and kept in check?— Certainly. 178. Then, they have power to do it? —But look at the expense. 179. If the question has to be-faced, surely the sooner it is faced the better. Seeing that the people in the towns are interested in the Crown lands of the colony, do you not think it reasonable that they should have a say in the election of the Land Board ? —No. 180." Mr. McCardle.~\ What is this Lotus major grass you have referred to?—lt is a kind of clover or trefoil.
C—4.
W. PULLER.]
797
181. Has it done well in the district ?—Yes, it has spread over the country in many places without being sown. It does very well for cattle-feed. 182. Are you in favour of the Land Board being elected ? —Yes. 183. Do you think the machinery would be so cumbersome that it would be almost a deadletter ?—I do not think so. 184. Do you think a man would travel from this district to attend meetings of the Board in Auckland at 10s. a day for his expenses'? —No. 185. How are you going to make it possible for him to contest au election and attend to your interest on the Board ?—I should not advocate electing a man so far away from the centre. 186. I understood you to say that you would like to see each district elect its own representative from among its settlers? —I did not mean that exactly. I meant they should have an opportunity of electing the best man they could get to stand. 187. Do you not think, in view of the great expense that would be involved in holding elections, it would not be better to add another three members to the present Board—men nominated by the Government on account of their local kuowledge ?—Yes, I think that might be done. 188. Do you not think it would be more reasonable than election ?—I think it would suit very well. 189. You would not object to the people in the cities having one member on the Board ?—No. 190. You would extend that privilege to the workers ?—Yes. John Nicholson examined. 191. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a settler. I hold altogether 350 acres, partly under freehold and partly under occupation with right of purchase, at Okaihau. 192. Which tenure do you prefer ?—Freehold. 193. Do you think it is best for you and the country ?—I think so, decidedly, because the settler is happier and more contented. 194. Are you on some of the good land we have been hearing about ?—lt has been classed partly as first-class land, but in reality it is not first class. I go in principally for dairying and grazing. There is a branch of the Ohaeawai Factory at Okaihau. 195. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I represent this branch of the Farmers' Union with Mr. Clarke. 196. Have you observed the working of the Homestead Act?— Yes, I had experience of it. I think it is the best system devised yet for the middling poor lands we have in the north. 197. Do you think it would be wise to re-enact it ?—I do indeed. It would be to the benefit of this part of the colony. 198. You have had some experience with the Land Board : have you found them satisfactory ?—I have never had any serious difficulty with the Land Board, but I think a better system than the present one would be for the Chairmen of County Councils to be put on the Board, or else let each Council work the lands within the county. 199. In other words, you think more local knowledge would be brought to bear on the administration ?—Exactly. 200. I would point out that if each County Council were a Land Board it would be rather too sectional altogether, and such a system would require a large retinue of officers and maps, and would become rather expensive to work. Of course, you might have four or five County Councils working together as one Board ?—Yes, that might do, or else the Chairman of each Council should go to Auckland to form the Board. Of course, there are a good many of them, and they would make rather a bulky Board. 201. However, you think there should be some elective element in the Board?— Yes. 202. Mr. McGutchan.] You said you preferred the freehold tenure? —I do. 203. Does that mean that you have an objection to the occupation with right of purchase?— No, because it comes to an end. I would object to it if it never came to an end. 201. So you advocate the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure remaining on the statutebook? —Yes. 205. Have you any objection to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ? —Not if it was altered so that the tenants under it could purchase their sections at any time after a certain period. 206. Why do you advocate the change for them? Is not the lease long enough and sound enough? —It is not sound enough. It is not satisfactory in many ways. The man is not working for himself when he is working on a leasehold. 207. Is it not an advantage to him to retain his lease instead of acquiring the freehold, inasmuch as he is getting his money at 4 per cent., whereas if he buys the freehold the money will be charged at 5 per cent., and he would have to pay 5 per cent, in the open market?— Yes; but that does not balance the drawback. Suppose bad years come and he cannot meet his rent, he has to go, whereas if he owns the land he can tide over a bad year. 208. Of course, the object of putting the tenure on the statute-book was to give an opportunity to the poor man to get on the land, and, looking at the question from that standpoint, if a poor man had the freehold no doubt it would be subject to mortgage ?—The leasehold is quite proper for getting him on to the land, but if a person has made a home for himself, and put a little money aside he should be allowed to purchase the freehold at any time he may like to buy it. 209. Your union is composed almost wholly of freeholders —have they any particular object in advocating the freehold for lease-in-perpetuity settlers?— Nothing, except the good of the country and the settlers generally. 210. Amongst the members of your union has any fear been expressed of retrospective valuation coming into operation in connection with these leases ?—Yes ; we are aware that there is an agitation for that sort of thing going on.
C.—4.
798
[j. NICHOLSON.
211. Through the trades and iabouf organizations of the colony?— Exactly. 212. Has this agitation been instrumental in fostering the agitation for the freehold amongst the Crown leaseholders ? —lt helps; but, even apart from that, we would advocate the freehold tenure as against the leasehold for the reason that we believe it is best for the settlers. 213. Do you think there would be any unfairness to the town residents if the freehold is given to the leaseholders at the original upset price plus 1 per cent, and the interest on 1 per cent. ?—I do not see that it is unfair to the town people. 214. Have you any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?— Yes 215. Did you find it satisfactory?— Yes, but I find it is falling behind the times. It was at one time better than the general money-lenders, but to-day you can get just as good and as satisfactory terms from them as from the Government. 216. Is it customary for the money-lenders in this district or in Auckland to charge both procuration fees ? —No; they charge no commission except interest. 217. Can you get the money at as low a rate of interest as you can from the Crown?— Yes, about the same—6 per cent. 218. Do you not get it from the Crown at 4-| per cent. ?—The Government lend it at 6 per cent., and 1 per cent, goes to pay off the capital. 219. Then, it is 1 per cent, less than the average private lender ? —Exactly. 220. Is there not a further 1 per cent, reduction for prompt payment?— Exactly. 221. Then, is not the rate of interest under the Advances to Settlers Department per cent, cheaper than the rates charged by private mcney-lenders ? —I think it can be got even at the same rate from private money-lenders on good freehold security. 222. Is there any difference in the legal charges ?—Yes. You can borrow from the private money-lender at less expense than from the Government. 223. Is it not the case that the scale of fees put in operation by the Advances to Settlers Department was substantially less than the scale of fees usually charged by the legal fraternity in drawing up mortgages?—lt was at the time, ten years ago, but it is not much advantage to-day. 224. Mr. Paul.] Do you strongly object to the agitation for the revaluation of existing leases ? —Yes. I do not think it would be fair to revalue the land, because people take up the lease with the expectation that the value will be the same at the end of term. 225. Do you not think it is in much the same catagory as the agitation coming from the tenants for the option of the freehold, which means giving them something they did not get in the original agreement ?—No; there is a difference. The Government lose nothing by the tenant buying at the original value, because they get interest on the money, and the purchase simply terminates the contract. But the tenant would lose something if his rent was raised on him. 226. Does the tenant gain anything by getting the option of the freehold ?—Certainly. He gets a better, more permanent, and surer tenure. 227. Your principal objection is that one alteration would be against the interest of the settler and the other would be in his favour?— That is it. 228. Then, you do not deprecate any alteration that would work in the interest of the settler?— No. 229. Do you think that revaluation is sound in principle?—lt may be sound enough in principle if the tenant was informed beforehand that he was to be liable to revaluation. 230. I do not want to inquire into your particular business, but I would just like to ask whether you were a poor man when you got this homestead section ?—I was ; and, I may say, I am still. 231. I think Mr. Puller told us that it was no use giving the poor land to poor men, and that any one taking it up must be a rich man, and should get, in addition to the land, some monetary assistance? —Exactly so. I quite agree with that. 232. But in your case it proved beneficial and helpful?—-Yes; I managed to worry through. Ido not know'that my land could be called the real barren land that is knocking about. I think it is fairly good average land. 233. Do you think any of that land would have been taken up at a small cash price if it had not been given away by the State ?—Possibly it would not have gone off if sold ; and I consider it is better for the State to have it taken up that way than to have it lying idle. 234. Have you any direct charge to lay against the Land Board?—No; I got on fairly well with the Land Board. 235. What are your reasons for coming to the conclusion that a change in the constitution of the Board is necessary? —Because I see others getting into difficulty with them, and the principle of having a Board that is not composed of settlers is not the best for the administration of the land laws. There should be practical farmers on the Board. 236. Are there any men on the Auckland Board who are not farmers ?—I think so—in fact, I do not know of any real farmer on the Board at all. lam not personally acquainted with any of them. 237. You do not know whether they are or whether they are not ?—No; but they are all city residents. 238. Do you think that an objection to having the Land Board composed of Chairmen of the County Councils is that you would have a Land Board that was constantly changing? For instance, do you recognise it is necessary that there should be some fixity about the Board, to enable them to gain the information and master the Acts necessary for the administration of the Land Board ?-—That, certainly, is an objection; but at the same time, the County Chairmen would be on the spot, and they would be nearly all practical farmers, so that the administration of the land laws would not be absolutely in the hands of new people.
C— 4.
799
[j. NICHOLSON.
239. Do you think the Auckland Land District is too large at present ? —-I do not know that it is too large for a Board that sits in Auckland. It would be a mistake to have too many Boards. 240. Do you not think that the loss of time in travelling, and the expense which would be entailed by having a Board composed of County Chairmen, would render such a scheme almost impracticable?— That is so. 241. You said that if a tenant had a bad year and could not pay his rent he would be turned out: has any such an instance ever come under your notice?— Yes, in this district. It is some years ago. 242. How many years was he behind in his rent?—l do not know. Ido not remember the exact circumstances. I was acquainted with them at the time, and I know he lost his section. 243. Did the Land Board forfeit his section? — They did. 244. You do not know that it was not for some breach of the conditions?—He simply failed in his rents. 245. Mr. Anstey.~\ Have you any objection to naming this settler?— His name was Henry Smith, and his section was at Otekura.' 246. Do you discuss any point at the Farmers' Union besides this question of freehold?—No, that is the only point. 247. You did not make it quite clear on what terms you would give the right of purchase to lease-in-perpetuity settlers : would it be at the original value ?—Yes. 248. Would that be quite fair as between the settlers who have taken up land under the other tenure, and who are paying 5 per cent. ?—There would be no objection to raising the price to bring it up to 5 per cent. 249. Would you apply that-to lease-in-perpetuity settlers under the Land for Settlements Act?— There is a difficulty there. It would not very well apply to them. The way I would deal with them is this : I think they should have to purchase their sections at about the time when the loan which was raised to buy the land expired. For instance, if the Government borrowed the money for forty years the tenants should be given only a forty-years lease, and be informed that they must purchase within that time, so that the estate should pay for itself when the loan expired. 250. You would give them the right of purchase at the original value at any time within forty years ?—Exactly. 251. You said that all the members of the Auckland Land Board reside in the city. Are you sure there is not one residing at Whangarei? —I believe Mr. Thomson lives at Whangarei, but I am not sure that he is on the Board now. 252. Are you sure there is not one residing in the Waikato?—l do not know. 253. Are you sure there is one residing in the city?— Yes, Mr. Lundon. 254. Mr. Lundon is not a member of the Board now. Apparently you do not know whether the members reside in the city or not?—>l am not very clear on the point. 255. Mr. Forbes.] Did your Farmers' Union get up a petition about giving the Crown tenants the freehold?—No; but a petition was sent to us—l do not know exactly where it originated—and we were asked to get all the Crown tenants in the district to sign it. 256. Did you get many?—We got all in our district. 257. There seems to be a certain amount of discontent with the Government administration of Crown lands : does your Farmers' Union stir up this discontent? —Certainly not. 258. At the meetings of your union are instances brought before you of people being hardlv treated by the Government ?—No. All we have ever been asked to do was to get the names for this petition. Ido not think it originated within the union at all. The Crown tenants originated it, and considered our branches a good medium for getting names. 259. You say you would give the lease in perpetuity the right to buy the freehold at the original value. Suppose that since the land has been taken up the Government have put a railway in, would that not add to the value of the land?—lt would. •260. Would you give the tenants that value which the Government have made by putting the railway through?— The Farmers' Union would not object to any details so long as the principle was arrived at that the tenant should be allowed to purchase his section. 261. Would you restrict the amount of land any one man could hold?— Decidedly. 262. Has your union brought forward any limit ?—The union has not; but, personally, I would say, in the north, where the land is middling poor, that a person should not hold more than 320 acres of what is considered first-class or 640 acres of second-class land. 263. That is less than the present limit allowed by law ?—I believe so. 264. Is it a benefit to the man himself to get him settled on this poor land under the homestead system ?—Yes, unless the land is too poor. 265. Is not a great amount of this land very poor, and would it not mean ruination to a man to settle him on 50 acres of that laud?— Yes. I would not ask a man to settle on some of that land under any consideration. A man should never be induced to settle on land where he cannot be reasonably expected to make a living. The Government do not hold the best land—they only hold the inferior parts. 266. Is not the reintroduction of the homestead system likely to lead men into disaster by stating to men in the cities that they can get 50 acres in the North of Auckland to settle on ? Certainly not; because each man can judge whether he is capable of carrying on a farm, and if the land is correctly classified a man need not make any mistake. But I must say that at the present time the land is not correctly classified. . 267. Is there any use of giving a man 50 acres ?—Certainly not. 268. If the Government brought in the homestead system they would have to give a larger area than that ? —Yes ; at the lowest, 320 acres.
C—4.
J. NICHOLSON. 269. Do you believe that giving a man something for nothing is a good principle ?—lt is not giving the land for nothing. A man has to put in a large amount of money and labour to subdue the forests and swamps and bring the land into cultivation. 270. We had evidence from many men that the rents of this forest land are trifling, and it seems to me the great cost of clearing the land is a far more important consideration than any rental ?—So it is. The rental under occupation with right of purchase is no bar to land-settle-ment. 271. And under lease in perpetuity it is 1 per cent, less ?—Yes; but a good many men would sooner pay a higher rent for an occupation with right of purchase than for a lease in perpetuity. 272. Is it not better for the State to have a man putting all his capital mto improvements instead of using it to pay off the freehold ? Is not the first object of the State to make land reproductive ?—Decidedly ; but a man taking up land has to improve it, and it does not matter to the State whose money he does it with. A person with £200 or £300 could purchase the land and raise the balance for improvements, and it would be better for him to do so than to pay rent for the 999 years. 273. You think a mortgage is better than a Government lease. 274. Mr. Halt.] I understood you to say that the members of the Land Board should be chiefly farmers, and that the Auckland Land Board is composed of city men ?—My impression was that the majority were city men. 275. On the Auckland Board, to my knowledge, there is Mr. Harris, who has been a farmer all his life, Mr. Armstrong, of Whangarei, and Mr. Greenslade, of the Waikato—l do not know the other member —so they should form a Board fairly representative of the farming interest. If anything more were wanted in the appointment of members, how would it work if each county were to nominate one member and the Government were bound to appoint, say, two of those nominated to go on the Land Board ? —I quite agree to anything of that sort. It would be an improvement on the present system. 276. The County Councils would naturally nominate men who were in touch with the tenants and had a knowledge of the country?— Yes. 277. You said that money could be acquired in this part of the country at as low a rate of interest from private sources as from the Government?— That is so. 278. Is that not strange, seeing that at the present time money on what is known as giltedged security—that is, city and suburban securities—has to bear from 5 per cent, to 6 per cent, interest, and, in addition to that, as a general rule, a procuration fee of 1 per cent, has to be paid for obtaining the money ?—lt is strange. I was under the impression, and I believe yet, that money can be raised privately on equally good terms as from the Government. 279. Mr. Johnston.'] You have just told us that money is procurable on freehold mortgage from private lenders at equal terms as from the Government. Do you know that under a solicitor's scale of fees the lowest rate for preparing a mortgage is £3 35., and, as a matter of fact, it is mostly £10 10s. ? Have you ever got money at a less rate than that from a solicitor?—No, I really forget the expense of raising money from a solicitor. 280. The Government have instituted a scale of fees which are about 75 per cent, cheaper than you could get from any solicitor. You never got the work done in your life, nor anybody else either, at the same rate as the Government charge, or under three times the money ?—There is one point in regard to the Government I would like to point out, and I believe the Government could improve on it. If a person goes in for a second loan from the Government he has to pay for a second valuation of his property. I think if a second loan is applied for within a few years of the first one the first valuation should be accepted. As it is, a borrower has to pay for a fresh valuation every time he applies for another loan. 281. The security may have depreciated 50 per cent, on this class of land. The property may have been in grass when first visited, and be in manuka scrub in three years' time, and why should not the Government value again ?—They have a means of knowing. I am going by own experience. In the interval between my first and second loan the value of my property for taxing purposes was increased. 282. Have you had any experience outside this district at all?— Not much. 283. Do you know anything about the land-for-settlements policy ?—No. 284. You said a settler could tide over the payment of interest, but he could not tide over the payment of rent to the Government. Is it not a fact that in many instances in the South Island the Government have reduced the rents of the settlers when they found they were paying too much ?—Possibly it is so. 285. Have you ever known a mortgagee to reduce his interest?—No, I have not. But the idea is, under freehold, that you do not have to pay interest all the time. 286. How many freeholders in this county are free from mortgage ?—A good many of the smaller ones, at any rate. 287. Then, you have been very prosperous about here?—No, we cannot boast of any special prosperity. 288. Is your union a political union ?—No, not in the sense that some other unions are political unions. 289. Would it suit the settlers here if the Land Board held meetings at a central place in the North of Auckland when matters in connection with the northern district were being discussed? —I do not think it would. The principal thing is that the members should have local knowledge. It would be an advantage if members of the Land Board travelled through the whole country and saw for themselves the land that is taken up and settled. 290. Did the Crown tenants themselves agitate for this petition?—No, it did not emanate from them.
J. NICHOLSON.!
801
C.—4
291. The Crown tenants were contented until they were asked to sign ?—They seemed quite eager to sign when asked. 292. You say the Crown lands held by the Government are al l poor lands. Of course, it is poor land for the simple reason that all the good land has been picked out ?—Yes, and because the Government never got the best land. The Maoris never parted with it. 293. You have some pretty good land about here?— Yes, but the settlers in Ohaeawai did not get their land from the Government, but from the Maoris. 294. Mr. Matheson.] Do you wish us to understand that your branch of the Farmers' Union discuss no other question at your meetings but the granting of the freehold ?—No other political question is discussed except land-tenure; but we discuss many questions of local interest to the settlers. 295. Mr. McGardle.\ Is it not a fact that your union is composed of people supporting the Opposition and the Government ?—Yes. 296. You do not make any distinction between the candidates so long as they support your platform ?—Yes, so long as they are sound on the land-tenure. 297. A good many questions have been put in the direction of emphasizing the idea that the best system of tenure for a very poor man is to give him a lease in perpetuity. Is it not a fact that a poor man can succeed better with a lease with the right of purchase than with a 999-years lease, for the simple reason that he by his own labour puts several hundred pounds' worth of improvements on the land, and can get monetary assistance on the strength of that to stock his farm. Is not the small price he is paying to the Government a mere bagatelle compared to the value put on the land by his improvements ?—Yes. 298. Is it not a fact that when the land is fully improved a man does not need a mortgage, but can lodge his deeds in the bank and get an overdraft on terms equal to the ordinary lenders ? —Yes. Arthur Theyr Close examined. 299. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer. I hold 3,500 acres of freehold and 300 acres under occupation with right of purchase. My main property is the Pakaraka Estate, and it is four miles to the homestead. I have been here ten years, but have been absent from the district three years. 300. What do you pay for your occupation-with-right-of purchase section ?—I pay 5 per cent, on a capital value of 10s. per acre. 301. What is your view with regard to the land-tenure ?—I believe in the freehold. 302. Your land is used for a run ? —Yes, for sheep and cattle. 303. Do you cultivate any?— Yes, we keep the plough going, I grow turnips, oats, and clover for consumption on the run. 304. Do you think the Land Board is properly constituted ?—I think we should be represented from this district for one thing. They have a representative in Whangarei, but from Whangarei to the North Cape we have no member. I think the Land Board should be on the same footing as the County Council—l think they should be elected by the ratepayers. 305. Mr. Paul.] Are you of opinion that non-ratepayers should have no voice in the disposal and administration of the lands of the colony ?—I say, decidedly, they should not. 306. Have you any grievance with the Land Board ?—Yes, in regard to my 300 acres. I went from this district to manage a large estate in the Wairoa. I had no land then, and within six months of getting there 300 acres were put up at the back of the run I was managing, and I went into the ballot and got the section. I put up an out-station house—a mere shanty —and I used to live there when I went out to the back run. After that I bought an interest in that big property, and then I gave it up and came here. I tried to get the 300 acres transferred to some one else, and could not do it. 307. You did not take up this occupation-with-right-of-purchase section with the idea of settling on it ?—I would have, only I bought this estate afterwards, and when I came here I did not require the section. 308. I suppose the Land Board have to be very particular, and have to try and prevent dummyism in any form ?—Yes. That is my only grievance. 309. Do you not think that in dealing with you they were acting in accordance with the law?—l do not think so, because I wrote and told them the whole of the particulars, and that is the last I heard of it. The matter is not settled. 310. Wherein have they broken the law in dealing with you ? —ln not letting me transfer to another party. 311. Mr. Anstey.] Is it this property you have at Pakaraka that is being advertised for sale ? —Yes. 312. Roughly, how do you value the land ?—I can hardly tell you. 313. Is it approaching £5 per acre ?—The property is on the market, and I do not care to give my views about it. 314. What size of farms do you think most suitable on that class of land for economical settlement?— The estate has been cut up into sections ranging from 50 acres to 470 acres. The 50-acre sections are the rich volcanic flats in English grass. 315. Do you think that that is large enough for a single man without working off the place ?—He can please himself, but I think so. 316. What are the larger sections ? —470 acres. They are volcanic land, but in a rougher state. Some are alluvial river-flats. 317. How much land do you cultivate?—l suppose about 470 acres were ploughed this last year. 318. Would this land be suitable for a man to farm under alternate cropping conditions ?— Most suitable.
101—C. 4.
a—4.
802
[a. t. close.
319. Supposing that were done, would it largely increase the carrying-capacity of the land?— Yes, it is just what is wanted. 320. Would it grow English grass for summer feed after growing turnips for the winter?— Yes, it is growing English grass now. 321. Mr. Hall.] Do you consider that, in regard to matters solely affecting the lands and settlement of the country, the power should be exercised by people representing the country, or do you think that irresponsible people in the cities, who have no stake in the country and who will not touch the waste lands of the colony, should have equal power in voting on matters affecting the settlement of the country?—l do not. 322. You believe that the power should rest solely or chiefly with those identified with the settlement of the lands of the colony ? —Yes. 323. Mr. Johnston.] Could you get 10s. per acre for your occupation-with-right-of-purchase section now? —Yes. 324. Could you get £1 per acre for it?— No. 325. Could you get a profit on what you paid for it? —Not including my improvements on it. I could not get my own money back. 326. Did you buy this estate from Mr. Williams for the purpose of cutting it up ? —No, I bought it to farm and improve and grass it. 327. For speculation purposes? —No. 328. How long have you been occupying the estate? —Two years next November. 329. You have not kept it very long ?—No. 330. Mr. McCardle.] Have you held the section you are anxious to transfer for four years? — Somewhere about four years. 331. What improvements have you effected on it during that time?—l put up a shanty, costing about £25, and I bought thirty pounds' worth of grass-seed for surface-sowing. 332. You have not had a refusal yet : the matter has been deferred only?— That is all. 333. Mr. Hull.] From your experience, have you found gorse a very great evil, or do you find there is any good in it at all ? —That is a very large question to go into. I can give you my experience if you like. 334. Does not the young growth come in very useful in the winter season?—lt does. Gorse fenced off into small paddocks is a splendid thing. You can keep it under. The trouble with gorse, as a general rule, is to keep it under. I have 4 acres subdivided into acre paddocks, and alongside them another 7 acres in grass. The four gorse paddocks and the grass paddock carried thirty-two Romney rams through the winter by changing them from one paddock to another. If you have the gorse sown broadcast in large areas the sheep do not seem to thrive in the winter at all unless they are changed from block to block. One witness said something about seeing bales of wool on the gorse. That is only a question of the kind of sheep people go in for. At Kerikeri they run Southdown sheep, and the wool is short and comes off very easily. We go in for coarser-woolled sheep and it does not come off. 335. Do you find the gorse spreads through the seed carrying ?—I have never heard of it. The gorse certainly improves the land. 336. Mr. Johnston.] What is the carrying-capacity of Pakaraka ?—-Three thousand four hundred sheep and seven hundred head of cattle. 337. What do you think it would carry in sheep alone per acre ? —1 suppose it would run pretty near two sheep to the acre. A fair amount is still in bush, and so on. Henby Samuel Ludbeook examined. 338. The Chairman.] What are you?—lam a sheep-farmer, and hold 970 acres of freehold. T t is nearly all volcanic land. I have been a sheep-farmer for about twenty-five years. 339. You heard the evidence given by some of the witnesses in the forenoon ?—Most of it. 340. Do you generally agree with most of their evidence?—l indorse nearly all the evidence that Mr. Clarke gave. 341. Perhaps there may be one or two points you would like to amplify ? —There is one point I would like to speak strongly upon and that is the Native-land question. So much Native land being locked up is one of the great drawbacks of this district. This matter should be dealt with in some way by the Government. I think the best way to deal with it would be to reserve enough land for the Natives —that is, for their cultivations and what land is necessary to keep them going—and deal with the balance in some way. lam not prepared to say in what way, but I think the Government should take the land over and possibly pay them interest on the capital value of the land, and then get the land taken up and settled by European settlers. lam a member of the local body —the County Council —in this district, and we have great difficulties to deal with in the way of getting sufficient rates to keep the roads going, and there is so much Native and Government land, and we have to sustain the roads through those districts with the very small amount of rates received from the European settlers, and the little money we obtain from the Government in the way of grants and subsidies. It seems rather hard that we should have to push these roads through when all this land is not settled and when a great deal of the best land in the district is held by the Natives. 342. So that, practically, the settlers are making roads to improve these Native properties ?— Yes. 343. Do you not think the Government, especially in regard to Crown land and possibly in regard to Native land, should pay rates according to the assessment of its value?-—At one time they did pay rates, but it was done away with. It was a great help to the local body. At the present time we receive no revenue from the Government nor from the Native lands. All we get is in the way of subsidies of Government grants.
H. S. LTTDBEOOK. !
C.—4. 344. We have heard at various places that these grants are often voted and not expended?— In some cases the money is voted and it is never spent. There is one very unsatisfactory feature of the matter and that is this : although the vote appears on the estimates and is voted, we do not get the authority to expend it till late in the year—sometimes as late as May, but, at any rate, in March—and we have to start work between that date and the 30th June or the grant lapses. That means doing the work in the very worst season of the year. If the money was spent in the summer months it would go very much further, because it would give time for the formation of the roads to consolidate, whereas doing roadwork at this time of the year means practically throwing the money away. 345. What is your opinion with respect to the growing of gorse on poor land for feeding sheep?— Growing gorse on poor land enriches the soil. Gorse is what they call a leguminous plant. I dare say the members of the Commission have heard a good deal lately about nitrogen and bacteria. The gorse is a leguminous plant which sends its roots down, and it throw# down a certain amount of deposit and decay that enriches the soil, and, as you have observed in going round, there is a large area of poor land that I heard witnesses say to-day is almost worthless. If you could confine the gorse to that particular class of land there is no doubt that in ten or twenty years' time that land would be really good-quality land, but the difficulty is to confine the gorse to that particular class of land. If it were possible to do so I should say plant all the land in gorse that is reckoned worthless, and in twenty years' time it would be a different class of land, but that is the difficulty. The question is whether it is advisable to do so considering the difficulty of controlling it 346. As a feed-plant for sheep, what is your view ?—lt can be made to winter two sheep to the acre, and in the spring and summer months it will carry from six to ten sheep an acre easily. 347. Mr. T. C. Williams's experiment was on a large scale, and I understand that the gorse got beyond control ? —Yes; he went in a little too much for it. If he had put in a limited area and had worked it in connection with danthonia on the poor land I think it would have been a success, but he went into it on too big a scale. He could not control the amount of stock, and, isolated as we are, he was not in a position to go into the market and buy the requisite number of stock to keep the gorse down in the spring months. I think a great deal might be done in working gorse and danthonia together. Danthonia is improved by burning. As the gorse gets ahead of it you can burn it off, and you can get the succulent shoots to come on again, and they are very excellent food for sheep. 348. Have you had any experience with respect to paspalum grass ?■—l have had no experience, but I have heard that it is very good during the summer, but not during the winter. I understand it gives good succulent feed during the summer months, especially in dry weather like we have had this year, but in the winter very little feed can be got from it at all. 349. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to your scheme for settling Native land, would there not be a danger of creating a Maori landlordism ?—I am not prepared to say in what way the Government should deal with it. I think the Government should reserve sufficient land to support the Maoris—that they should not do any injustice to the Maoris—and then deal with the balance of the Native land, in what way I am not prepared to say; but it should be profitably settled by European settlers. 350. With regard to reserves for the use of the Natives, would you individualise the titles to those reserves and make them subject to improvement conditions ?—lt would be an advantage to individualise them, in one way. I think there are a good many Natives who thoroughly understand how to work the land, and I think they ought to be encouraged to do so. At the present there is no encouragement to improve and work the land, because the titles are not individualised, and if one man gets his land into grass his neighbours come down with their stock and take advantage of his work. I think if it were possible to get the title to the portion of land left to the Natives individualised it would encourage a good many of them to cultivate the land. 351. With reference to grants, you speak in condemnation of the present system. Have you any better scheme to put forward in connection with the roading of the country —anything that would be more secure ?—I cannot say that I can suggest any other way, but I think the local bodies should have a more assured finance than they have at present. At present the amount of money that should be granted for any particular district seems to be at the will of the Government, and we up in this part of the colony certainly have come off very badly. We should certainly have a large proportion of Government grants, situated as we are in this district with so much Native and Government land lying idle and not contributing to local revenue. 352. You think that the ratepayers of a county in which there is a large area of Crown and Native land in expending their rates are really adding to the value of the Crown and Native land, and therefore they should receive more help?— Yes. 353. We have heard a good deal about gorse. If it is nitrogen that the soil requires, it seems a rather expensive way in which to give nitrogen to the ground. Do you not think it would be cheaper to have the soil analysed, and by means of artificial manure restore the nitrogen that is chiefly wanted in the soil ? —I am afraid it would be more expensive to deal with this soil in the way you suggest than in the other way. I want to safeguard my statement by saying that Ido not know that it would be a wise thing to do on account of the danger of the gorse spreading to better land, but if it is possible to prevent that I should say put all the poor land into gorse—that is, the land that has been spoken of to-day as worthless. 354. Have you had any dealings with the Land Board?— No. 355. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?— No. I may say that I think two members of the Land Board should be elected to represent the country districts. 356. Do you think that four members are adequate for a large land district such as the Auckland Land District? —I think so.
C.—4;
804
H. S. LUDBBOOK.
357. Do you think that one member is sufficient to represent the North of Auckland district? —I think, if he were a man who thoroughly understood the country districts and the land, one member would be sufficient. 358. Mr. Paul.] Would you advocate the cultivation of gorse on land that might possibly some day be used to better advantage ?—I would not advocate the growing of gorse on any land that could be termed good land. It would be only on such land as has been spoken of to-day as worthless. 359. Mr. Anstey.~\ You are a member of the County Council?— Yes. 360. There are no Road Boards in your county?— No. 361. Do you know how much money was spent in your county last year in the way of Government grants ?—I think only £200 or £250. 362. Do you know how much was voted for the purpose ? —I think all that was voted we had authority to spend, and I think it was from £200 to £250. 363. Do you know whether there were any other Government grants expended?—l think so, but the amount was trifling. It might have been £100. 364. It was less than £250?— Yes, I think so. 365. Do you think it would be a wiser plan to do away with the system of Government grants altogether, and in return give you a larger rating area and possibly a larger subsidy, so that you would have an assured finance, rating the Government land, say, up to a quarter or half its value, and also rating Native land?—We were much better off under the old system than we are under the present system. 366. Supposing the old system were reverted to, either wholly or in part, could you do without Government grants altogether?*—l think we would still want some help. I maintain that we should have greater help in this district. 367. Do you think it is a wise system to supply you with Government grants which are given more or less spasmodically?—l do not think so. 368. You think it would be better to adopt the system under which you could be sure of the amount you would receive? —Certainly. 369. I understand that your farm is under English grasses ?—A great deal of it. 370. Is there any of it under danthonia?—Some of it, but it will hold English grasses. 371. Do you find that you have sufficient feed for your stock—that is, as many as you can keep in the summer ?—I always help it out with hay and a small area of turnips. 372. Do turnips grow well in that land?— They do very well, but we always put in manure in order to start them with. 373. How much to the acre ?—About 1 cwt. 374. You can grow heavy crops of turnips?— Yes. 375. Mr. Forbes.] Is the land round about here increasing in value ?—The last Government valuation showed a considerable rise in the value of land in the Bay of Islands County. 376. Is there any Government land about here that could be cut up for settlement?—l do not hear of any near here. There is not a great deal of Government land left in the Bay of Islands County, and I think what is left is rather the poorer class of land, and is away back. 377. I suppose it is mostly freehold land about here?— Yes 378. Are the freeholders doing well ? Are they actually freeholds, or are some of them mortgaged ?—I think in some instances they are mortgaged, and in other cases they are not. They seem to be doing fairly well. They have done better during the last year or two than previously. 379. Mr. Hall.] There is not a great extent of Crown land in this county?—l think the area is about 15,000 acres. 380. But in the North of Auckland is there a large extent of Crown land ?—I cannot say definitely what is the area. 381. Do you think settlement would take place under leasehold without right of purchase on the Crown land now remaining in this part of the colony ?—I do not think so. 382. Do you think the bond fide settler taking up Crown land is entitled to the most liberal conditions on which he could get it?—l should give it to him provided he fulfilled certain conditions. I would really revert to the homestead system—the area being limited. 383. Mr. Clarke has explained the difficulties that exist in consequence of so much of the land in the county being still in the hands of the Natives. Do you think the difficulty is insurmountable of getting legislation passed dealing with Native land satisfactorily and with justice to the Natives ?—I do not see why it should be insurmountable. 384. Would they be very adverse to pressure being brought to bear to almost compel them to have their titles individualised ?—I think they would. They are most touchy in respect to any dealing with their land, and you would have to use a good deal of tact in dealing with them. 385. Would it do to inform them that if their titles were not individualised within a certain number of years the State would step in and deal with them in some way?— Yes, in some way. 386. With regard to gorse, you have explained how if gorse was allowed to grow on the land for a number of years it would supply certain constituents to the soil. But would not the gorse die in twenty years ?—lt would die naturally. 387. I have seen gorse after living for a certain number of years get weak at the root. If the gorse were burnt off then would not the root be very weak indeed ? —I do not think so. 388. Do you think it would require a team of bullocks to break the land up?— You would have to break it up with a strong plough. 389. Mr. Johnston.] You do not do any agricultural work on your farm. Is that because it is volcanic land ?—Yes ; there is very little of it ploughable. 390. Would it crop if it was ploughable?—lt would grow anything if it was possible to work it.
H. 9. LUraROOK.I
805
C.—4.
391. It is better as sheep country ?—lt will carry, I should say, one sheep and a half to. the acre, and a beast as well—one to 5 acres in addition to the sheep. I am speaking of the volcanic land. 392. Are you a member of the Farmers' Union and one of the executive?— Yes. 393. You say the Natives paid rates at one time —did the Natives or the Government pay them?— The Government paid them. 394. Why would not the Crown land be taken up if they were offered under the leasing system ?—I think that, as far as the land in the north is concerned, it is of such a quality that it should be almost given to the settler on his fulfilling certain conditions. 395. I suppose if it were given at Id. an acre, or something like that, with a long term of lease, it might be taken up ? —There is a desire to possess the freehold. 396. Have you been down South at all ? —Not in the South Island. 397. You have not seen how the settlements are working under the Land for Settlements Act? —No. 398. You have had no experience of it at all ?■—No, only what I have read and heard. 399. Mr. Matheson.] Are you aware that some counties in the colony have borrowed as much as from £20,000 to £50,000 to help on the roadmaking in their district, on which loan the settlers pay special rates ?—I am aware that they are allowed to borrow up to a certain amount. 400. If rates were paid on all Crown and Native land by the Government, and if, in addition to that, they gave £1 for £1 on all money raised by loan, do you think that would be a businesslike and satisfactory way of constructing and maintaining roads, and would enable you to do without special grants ?—I do not know. 401 It would give any district that had large areas of Native land a larger amount in rates, just as if the land was in the occupation of Europeans?—l would not like to say without thinking the matter over. 402. Do you think it would be an improvement on the present uncertain method ?—I think anything that will give the local body an assured finance is what we all want. An assured finance is preferable to the present system of Government grants. 403. Have you thought of any other plan as an alternative to the suggestions which have been made to-day? —I think that a good plan would be for the Government to revert to the old system of paying rates on Native and Crown land. 404. You think that, even if that were done, you could not do without grants ; but if £1 for £1 were given on all loans raised, would that be sufficient ?—Yes, I think so. 405. Mr. McCardle.] You have said that there is no great extent of Government land left in this county ?—-Yes. 406. What area of Native land have you got?—l think, 155,000 acres. 407. Would you favour a system of this kind in dealing with Native land: that the Government should grant the Natives out of blocks now held by the Natives, say 50 acres each, and the Government then take over those lands and deal with them by settling them in the ordinary way and giving the Natives interest on the capital value ascertained at present date—do you think that would be equitable ?—I think that something of that sort would be a very good plan. 408. Do you think the country can longer afford to wait until the Maori is prepared to propound some scheme of settling their lands ? —No; I think it should be pushed on. 409. Do you think the time has arrived when the Maoris should be treated as Europeans are treated?— Yes, provided we do not do them any injustice. 410. I suppose you are aware that there is a great desire amongst a number of the Maoris to have equal treatment with Europeans —equal representation in the House, and the free administration of their own lands ?—I did not know that. 411. The other proposal, you think, would be a more feasible one, the interests of the Natives being protected?— Yes. 412. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think it is advisable and feasible to individualise the monetary interest of the Natives in the land rather than allot them their individual share of a block ?—lt might be more feasible, but it would not give the individual Maori so much incentive to improve his block of land. I think the Native would desire to know that the land was his own. 413. If you individualised his monetary interest in the land, could not that be done?—l could not say. 414. Mr. Hall.] .Pending the settlement of the Native-land tenure, is there any reason why the Government should not pay the rates and register them against the land ?—I do not know of any reason. 415. The same as local bodies do on freehold land belonging to Europeans if they do not pay the rates ?—I know of no reason why that should not be done. 416. Would that hasten a settlement of the question ?—I think it would work in that direction. Jambs Edwaed Day Kemp examined. 417. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer, and hold 300 acres of freehold and 200 acres of leasehold. The leasehold is on an annual tenure. My land is at Te Ahuahu. 418. What, in your opinion, is the best tenure in the interests of the settler and the country ?— I am in favour of the freehold. 419. I suppose you use your land principally for grazing ?—Yes, sheep, cattle, and horses. 420. Is there any particular matter you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I desire to say something in regard to Native land. 421. What is your view in respect to the best method of bringing these Native lands into a better system of occupation ?—lt is a very bard question to deal with, but I think the best way would be to individualise the Native titles. I do not think I would give them the right to deal
806
[j. E. D. KEMP.
a—4.
with private purchasers ; but even that would be better than the present position. I think there should be Government supervision. I think if the Native lands were individualised they would very soon deal with them as Europeans deal with their land. I think there are very few of the Maoris who are fit to work their own land, but, at the same time, I think they could sell or deal with them satisfactorily. 422. Do you think the Maori is, as a rule, fit to be intrusted with his land in the matter of selling ?—I think the average Maori is as fully equal to dealing with his land as is the average European. 423. But after he has sold the land, and got the money in his pocket, what will be his position? —I do not altogether advocate it, but it would be better than the present system, and I think that the State would be better off if such a system were adopted. At the same time, I think that the Government should supervise matters to a certain extent, and see that each Native had sufficient land to live upon. As far as the rent of the land is concerned, I think I would allow the Natives to deal with it as they please. 424. Mr. Paul.] Is the yearly tenancy of your lease satisfactory? —No. 425. What do you use that land for principally ? —Grazing. 426. You have put no improvements on it?—No more than I am obliged to. 427. Do you come to your present conclusion with respect to the freehold and leasehold question on this experience? —No. I rejoice that it has been bred in me to be a freeholder, as I think every Englishman should be. 428. Do you think there is any comparison between this yearly tenancy and the perprtual l ease ? —A perpetual lease would be far better than a yearly lease. 429. Have you had any experience of the working of the land-for-settlements policy in the South ?—No. 430. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think that it would be possible and be better to individualise the monetary interests of the Natives in a block rather than the area to which he is entitled?— The Native-land question is one of great importance not only to this district, but also to the whole of the North Island. I think that the Government might take over the whole of the Native land and apportion a certain amount to each individual, and allow him interest on the capital value of the balance. That is the only way I can see out of the difficulty. I think it is a more costly thing that the land should remain idle as at present. 431. Would it not be very much easier to individualise the monetary interest of the Natives in the land? —Under the system I have just advocated I think that could be done. 432. Would not that be a more feasible scheme than to individualise his share in the land ?— Possibly so. 433. Mr. Foibes.] Have you had anything to do with the Land Board?— No. I think the Land Board should be composed of men who thoroughly understand farming, and I think they should have more local knowledge, and should travel through the country and see the land for themselves. Unless they do that, Ido not think they can do justice to the questions which come before them. 434. If they were representative of the whole of the Auckland Provincial District do you think there would be a better chance of their knowing the wants of the different parts of the country ?— Yes. 435. Mr. Hall.] Do you foresee great difficulty in getting the title to Native land individualised?— Yes. 436. Would the matter be more easily accomplished if the Government took over the land and dealt with it, or would the one be as difficult as the other?— There would be great difficulty in any case, but I think no time should be lost in dealing with this question. 437. Mr. Johnston.] What is the class of your land?— Volcanic. 438. Is it good land ? —Yes, first class. 439. What would it be worth an acre?— About £8. " 440. How many sheep will it carry ?—I have three hundred sheep on the freehold, and the land also carries 150 sheep, 120 cattle, and twenty horses. 441. What is the other land like ? —Similar in quality, but not so much in grass. 442. Was it originally bush?— Mostly fern land. 443. Does it hold grass well ? —Yes. 444. Would the fern come up again if it was neglected ?—Yes, in two or three years. 445. Have you had any handling of the medium manuka land ?—Yes. 446. Will it take grass ? —Some of it will take grass. 447. I refer to the land with tea-tree on it about 6 ft. high?—l have tried a good many experiments with it, and my greatest success was through a mistake. I had the scrub cut in January, and it accidentally caught fire in March and a portion was burnt. I sowed that in danthonia and mixed grasses. The danthonia did well. None of the scrub came up, and the land is still in good grass, considering its quality. 448. Can this scrub be kept down ?—Yes, if once you get the danthonia into it. I have also fallen scrub and let it lie for twelve months with good results by sowing danthonia. 449. Do you consider this danthonia will be the saving of the scrub country ? —I believe it 450. How would it do on the pipeclay stuff? —I do not think that is worth troubling about. 451. Were you born here?— Yes. 452. Can you offer any suggestion for the utilisation of the poorer class of country ?—I think not, except that it might be used for orchards. 453. Have you seen the working of the land-for-settlements scheme in the South P —No. 454. About gorse-growirig, do you indorse Mr. Ludbrook's opinion ?—My idea is that if you have any decent laud you should keep the gorse away from it, but on poor land I am rather a
J. E. D. KEMP.]
a—4.
807
believer in it. I have known men who otherwise would have had to give up their land, but who, through the medium of gorse, have been enabled to make a living. In that case it was not originally grown as fodder, but it got on the land, and they utilised it as fodder. 455. Do you not think the most feasible way of dealing with the Natives would be to give them the choice of 50 acres each, which they are entitled to under the Act, and then take over the balance, ascertain their interest in the land, and grant them colonial debentures, on which they would be paid interest? —I think the idea is very good, but it would require a good deal of working, as it is so difficult to come to the point with the Natives. 456. Are you aware that the Natives are claiming that the only way of dealing with their lands is to give them the absolute right to deal with it themselves?— Yes. 457. You know the Native and his position at present ? —Yes. He is really doing nothing with his land. 458. You are aware that if the titles were ascertained to-morrow the Natives are not allowed to sell? —Yes. 459. Thev are only allowed to lease their land with the approval of the Maori Councils?— Yes. 460. Well, if their titles are individualised, do you think it would be sufficient for the requirements of settlement that they should put their land under the Maori Councils ? —I do not believe in the Maori Councils at all. 461. Do you believe that some change must take place with regard to these Maori lands ?— There is no doubt about that, I think. 462. Why did you lease your 200 acres under unsatisfactory conditions? —Because I required rather more land than I held as freehold, and I could get it in no other way. 463. Could you not buy it ? —No, the man who holds it would not sell. John Julius Lindvart examined. 464. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a back-block settler at Awarua, about nineteen miles from here. I hold 772 acres, which I took up for cash, and 1,134 acres leasehold on occupation-wich-right-of-purchase tenure. 465. Which tenure do you prefer?—l prefer the freehold. 466. What are you paying for your occupation-with-right-of-purchase section?—l2s., capital value. 467. I suppose you use the land for sheep and cattle ?—I have only been there eighteen months, and have not had much chance of using it. 468. Have you any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I applied to the Government Advances to Settlers Office for a loan on the section I took up for cash. I paid the valuation fee, and I was told I could not get the full amount until I had complied with the conditions of residence, and so on. I had not the Crown grant. 469. How much money did you ask for?—£3so. 470. How much did they offer ?—£3oo. 471. Did you manage to get the money in any other way ?—I managed to raise some, but the Advances to Settlers Office ought to have told me before. It was three or four months before I got any information. 472. Is there any other point ? —Yes. I want to say I am bounded by Crown land and by Native land, and neither the Crown nor the Natives will fence. I have to put up all the boundaryfences at my own expense. 473. Well, that is the law with regard to Crown land. If any one takes up a piece of the Crown land alongside you you can charge him with part of the expense of fencing. As to Native land, I suppose you cannot get anything out of them ?—No. 474. Mr. Paul.] Did you refuse the offer of £300 from the Advances to Settlers Office?—l accepted the offer. 475. But the Board will lend money on improvements on a leasehold ? —I had certain improvements on my leasehold too. 476. How much ?—A little over £100. 477. Mr. Forbes ] If you had taken up your land under the leasehold tenure, would not that have left you with money available for what you required ?—Yes ; but if I had taken the land under leasehold I might have lost it because I could not have complied with the residential clause. 478. So you thought it was better to sink your money in buying the land when you really required the money to go on with your improvements ? —Yes.
Hukerenui, Friday, 19th Mat, 1905. Thomas Hedlet examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I farm 200 acres, which I obtained through the homestead system. I have been farming my land about twenty-three years. It is at Ruapekapeka. 2. Have you had it in grass most of the time?— Yes, grass and fern mixed. It was originally bush. I have a paper here which I would like to band in. The settlers of Ruapekapeka held a public meeting, of which I was chairman, and they adopted these resolutions which 1 was asked to bring down.
C—4.
808
[t. hedley.
The following are the resolutions, which were read by the Chairman: — " Tapuhi, 13th May, 1905. " Gentlemen, —Having been asked to give evidence on matters within the terms of your Commission, we, in meeting assembled on the 13th May, presided over by Mr. Thomas Hedley, dealt with the several items with which your Commission deals in the manner as follows: — 4 "1. We recommend that the constitution of Land Boards remain as at present. " 2. That land-tenures remain as at present, with the addition of the old homestead in places where suitable, and also that no new rural lands be offered for selection under any one system of land-tenure only. " 3. That the present working of the ballot system remain in force. " 4. That Land Boards should have power to reduce the capital value in cases where originally it had been fixed too high. " 5. That the Government should make ample reserves for the Natives, and that these reserves should be inalienable, and that the Government have power to deal with the surplus lands as they think fit, for the benefit of the Natives and the State. "Thomas Hedley, Chairman. " To the members of the Land Commission." 3. How many people do you represent?— About twenty-five families. 4. Do you believe that the holders of leases should have the opportunity of ultimately acquiring the freehold? —I think the opinion of the meeting was that if a person had taken up a lease in perpetuity he should stick to whatever contract he makes. 5. Do you know anything about the ballot system? —I do not know the details of it, but we think the ballot is better than allowing the land to be put up to auction. 6. Mr. McLennan.] Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 7. Are you satisfied with the Land Boards as at present constituted? —We are quite satisfied with the Land Board. I myself have had no dealings with the Land Board, except when I selected my land ; but from what I hear people are satisfied. 8. Mr. Paul.~\ Can you express any opinion on the question of periodical revaluation as applied to future leases? —I have no opinion on the subject. 9. It seems that in paragraph 4 of your resolutions you have only provided for cases where the capital value is fixed too high?— That is all we were thinking about. 10. What would you propose to do where it was manifestly fixed too low? —The Government being the stronger party should stand the loss until the revaluation comes in. 11. Would you apply your principle to cash lands? —No; when a person has paid the cash for his land it is done with. 12. But he does not get his title even under the cash system until he has resided for several years? —I did not know that. 13. Would you apply this to the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system? —Yes, and all the leasing systems. 14. Mr. Anstey.] With regard to clause 5 of your resolutions, dealing with Native lands, do you mean that the Government should take the surplus Native lands without payment? —No, after making ample reserves for the Natives the Government should purchase them, and sell to Europeans and Maoris alike. 15. Would you propose that these reserves should remain under existing titles, or would you give Crown grants for them? —My own idea is that there should be settlements reserves for the families, and around those settlements I would have commonages on which the Natives should have the right to run cattle. Then, as the younger men married, they might have the right to take farms while there were sufficient areas left. 16. You would be upsetting Maori customs? —I do not think so. I think it would tend to retain their customs. 17. What about future generations ?—We cannot provide indefinitely for the future. •18. Mr. Forbes.] Is there much Native land about here? —I can hardly say, but there is one block of about five miles square near here. 19. Are there many Natives living on it? —Just on the edge of ;t. They occupy a very small portion of it. 20. After making the reserves you speak of, do you think there will be a good surplus left for cutting up ? —I think so. 21. Do you believe in the homestead system under which you took up your land?— Yes, it was a most liberal law and most liberally carried out. 22. Have your settlers remained on the land? —Yes. 23. Have they cleared the land? —Yes; our settlement is something like twenty families, and there are other settlements along the road you came to-day. 24. Do you think the Government would do well to reintroduce that homestead system? —Yes, where it is suitable. We cannot expect the Government to open some of the finest lands in the country on that system. 25. Is it any good putting men on this poor clay tea-tree land? —Not a bit. 26. Mr. Hall.] In the case of lands which you say have been valued too high, do you fear that some people may vacate their holdings on that account? —I do not know about that. 27. Mr. Mathexon.] Your petition says that you vcant the land to be opened under more than one tenure: do you wish the applicant to have the choice? —Yes. 28. Do you personally approve of the lease-in-perpetuitv tenure? —My own idea personally is that the land as a whole belongs to the people, and that none of it should be parted with; but I do not see how that idea can be carried out now. 29. How long is it since you first put some of your land in grass? —About twenty-two years.
809
C.—4
T. HEDLBY.
30. Has the grass been holding well? —I do not think it is standing particularly well. 31. Is yours hill country? —Yes, most of it is very hilly. 32. Do you see any way of helping it to regain its first freshness? —Well, I cannot. The fern is coming up a good deal. 33. do you account for that?--I account for it by the climate, which has been somewhat different last year. It is excessive moisture that causes the fern to grow. 34. Mr. Johnston.] How many people were there at the meeting over which you presided? Were there twenty ? —Over that. 35. You do not give a list of names of the settlers with the areas they hold? —I could not give them offhand. 36. Does gum-digging interfere with settlement here? —Not much now. If it had not been for the gum I do not think three out of four could have lived on their farms at all. 37. Are the settlers able to live on the land now without the gum? —A good many are, but a good many have fallen back on the timber for work. 38. Do the farmers' sons go gum-digging, or do they attend to the land? —They do not care much for the land, as a rule. 39. Can you suggest any remedy for tliat? —No, I cannot. 40. Do you think it advisable for the County Councils to administer these reserves? —I could not give an opinion upon that. 41. Do any of the gum-diggers settle on the land ? —Some of them have taken up land —in fact, a good many. 42. What area do you consider it advisable a settler should have on this bush country? —It should not be less that 200 acres to a family. 43. What about the scrub land?- It is not easy for me to say how much of that a man should have to make a living. 44. Mr. McCardle.] You say you would not allow any lease-in-perpetuity holder to convert his holding into an occupation-witE-right-of-purchase tenure: when settlers have been compelled to take up land under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, would you treat them in that arbitrary way? 1 am confined to these resolutions. 45. Let us have your own opinion ?— Well, personally, I am a believer in each man sticking to his contract unless there is some extraordinary difficulty in the way. 46. Take the case of the Kawhia lands, for instance, which were advertised as opened under the occupation-with-right-of-purcliase system and withdrawn at the last moment, so that the settlers were compelled to take them up without any option of purchase?- 1 do not know what I should say about that. 47. You say you know nothing about the details of the ballot —the first and second ballot, for instance ? —No. 48. Mr. McCutchan.] In the resolutions you have submitted you say that the Land Boards should have power to reduce the capital value where the price is considered too high. If the price is too high there is a mistake in the original valuation? —Yes. 49. It is generally supposed that the fault lies with the surveyors? —Yes. 50. Would you approve of its being made cumpulsory upon the Commissioner and members of the Land Board, who are generally practical men with a knowledge of local conditions, to visit those blocks and revise the surveyor's valuation before the land is put on the market? —I could not say how it should be done; it is merely the principle 1 go on. 51. Would it not be better to take extra precautions before the land is put on the market, because we have a large area of Crown lands yet to be settled ? —I could not suggest any scheme to prevent valuations being made too high. 52. You think there should he no interference with the terms of the 999-years lease? —All I say is that I should not like to see contracts broken. 53. You are opposed to the principle of the Rebate of Rent Bill? —Yes. If there has been an error made in the beginning it cannot be helped. 54. There was a Bill to give a tenant a rebate if he paid his rent promptly? —The Government would do that from a business point of view. I have nothing to say against that. 55. I suppose you are aware the Trades and Labour Councils of the colony are using the fact that the tenants have been given this rebate as an argument why the rent should be increased when the land has increased in value? Do you think that is a legitimate ground for the Trades and Labour Councils to take up? —There can be no increase in the rent until the lease has expired, that is certain. As for this revaluation, Ido not understand it too well. 56. I suppose you are aware that the trades and labour unions are advocating that the present leases should be interfered with? - I would not approve of any interference with the present leases. 57. Is it not a question of whether the Trades and Labour Councils can place people in power who will give effect to their views?- -I would not approve of anything so high-handed. 58. Do you think the Crown tenants of the colony, in view of the agitation going on against them, are safe under the 999-years lease ?—I do not think anything is solid, because you never know what' Parliament will do in the future. I think there will always be trouble to the end. The leaseholders will be always wanting the freehold, and I do not see any way out of the difficulty. 59. Mr. Hall.] If the conditions of acquiring land in this locality were made more liberal and more in the interests of the settlers, would that, with the timber and gum industry, tend to a greater amount of settlement? - My own idea is that the people who take up land on lease here in the north should be exempt from rent for twenty years. As to the timber and gum industries, they are what help to keep the people going when they first take up land. 61. Mr. Paul.] You have been questioned as to the action of the Trades and Labour Councils of the colony: can you say when they made this pronouncement so far as revaluing the present leases is concerned?—l do not know anything about the action of the Trades and Labour Councils. I am not in the way of hearing about it.
10-2—C. 4.
a—4.
810
[t. hedlet.
62. Can you say when the Farmers' Union commenced to agitate for the option of the freehold to be given to Crown tenants? —No. 63. You cannot say which agitation commenced first?— No. 64. Do you think that a majority of the people of this colony will ever agree to breaking the contract with the Crown tenants without compensation I—l1 —I cannot say what might happen in the future. Henry Johnson examined. 65. The Chairman.] What are you? —A settler. I have 98 acres of land on perpetual lease and 400 acres on grazing lease. 66. What rent are you paying? —On perpetual lease 6d. an acre, and on the other £2 per 100 acres. My land is just close to here. The perpetual lease I have had for twelve years, and the grazing lease for two years. 67. Are you satisfied with the tenure? —No. My objection is being compelled to continually pay rent on it, and there is no possible prospect of getting the money out of the land. I refer to the perpetual lease. 68. Have you any objection in regard to the grazing lease? —Yes. My objection is that a man gets nothing for his improvements. 69. What is the term of your lease? —It is a year-to-year lease of some land in the Puhipuhi Forest. lam running cattle on it. 70. Of course, you took it up knowing all the conditions? —My idea is that the Land Board should have power to see that a man gets the value of the improvements he does. 71. I suppose you would nyt do many improvements with a yearly tenure? —Well, alongside this lease I have a small piece of land which will only grow tea-tree, and a man wants another piece on which he can do something. The timber is all cut off and cleared away from this land I hold on grazing lease. 72. What is your idea about the tenure? —I think it should be freehold. In the case of leases, I think there should be the right of purchase at the original valuation. 73. Is there any other matter you would like to bring before the Commission? —No. 74. Mr. Paul.] Do you mean that the holder of a lease in perpetuity at present should be allowed to purchase on the original valuation ? —Yes. 75. You understand that a man who takes up land under lease in perpetuity pays a rental of 4 per cent., while a man who takes up land under occupation with right of purchase pays 5 per cent. Now you propose to give the, lease-in-perpetuity holder an advantage over the other by giving him the land at 4 per cent. Do you consider the right to the freehold a more valuable tenure ? —Certainly. 76. Do you not think he should pay something for it?—No; I think they pay enough now. 77. Mr. Anstey.~\ Do you think the tenants of education and other reserves should have the right to the freehold? —I reckon any settlers on Crown lands should have the right to acquire the freehold. 78. On these endowments also? —Yes. 79. What about private leaseholders? —Well, a private leaseholder will make his own arrangements. 80. Are you making a living entirely out of this land of yours? —No; I have to work outside. No man who was ever born could make a living out of it. 81. What would be the use of it as a freehold if you cannot make a living out of it? —It is merely to keep my family together. 82. What grass have you sown on it?—Cocksfoot, bay-grass, and several others. 83. Have you sown danthonia on it? —There is danthonia on it, but I have not sown it. 84. Has it grown to any extent? —No. 85. Mr. Forbes.] Ha've you a branch of the Farmers' Union here?- Yes. 86. Do you represent them at all? —No. 87. Is it the general wish of the district that they should get the option of the freehold? —I think it is. At any rate, it seems to be the wish of all the people I have been talking to. 88. Have they any complaints to make about the way the Land Boards are administering these lands ? Are they pressing at all hardly on the settlers ? —Well, the valuations are certainly too high. 89. Are the other conditions easy enough —as to residence and improvements? —Yes, I do not think they are out of the way. 90. Is the land around this place mostly leasehold? —Yes. 91. Are the settlers in a position to buy the freehold if they had the option?— Very few of them. 92. Would they wish to mortgage themselves to buy the freehold?—l do not think they would care about that. What they would like is to have the land at a smaller valuation. Instead of letting these gumfield hills at 10s. an acre and our having to pay rent right away, I think we should have it for a few years for nothing to give us a start. Then let ss. an acre be put on to this inferior land. 93. Mr. Hall.] You say that in regard to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure there should be a clause giving the option of purchase: do you mean that to apply to leases in force at present?— Yes, all existing leases. 94. Might not that lead to interference with freehold and all other tenures? —I do not know about that. lam speaking as a leaseholder. It is this continual rent business we are trying to get over. 95. Mr. Matheson.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 96. Is there much timber being cut in this district on Government land? —There is still a fair amount in the Puhipuhi Forest.
811
C—4.
H. JOHNSON.]
97. Is much of it carted over the roads? —None of it over the roads. 98. How long were you in the district before you took up your section of 98 acres? —About a month. 99. Did you know anything about the land when you took it up? —No, or I should not have taken it. 100. Would you be willing to make it a freehold at the original value? —No. 101. What do you do besides farming? —Just work in the bush. 102. Would you give the tenants under the Land for Settlements Act the right to have the freehold ? —I do not understand that Act. 103. Have you done any gum-digging? —Not since I have been on this land. 104. Do you think the gum interferes with settlement at all? —No; it helps. Most of the settlers around here have got some, and they are able to go and dig gum. 105. Does that not tend to unsettle the boys? —It would unsettle the fathers quick enough if the gum was not there for them to dig. 106. Do you think it is good for the boys to go away gum-digging? —What is a settler to do. 107. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think the Parliament of the country would have set up this Commission to inquire into the question of amending existing leases if they thought it was going to altogether disorganize the land-settlement of the country? —I do not know. 108. Is it not a fact that they set up this Commission to inquire into and report upon that very subject, among others? —I have heard so, but I could not be sure about it. 109. You consider you are justified in asking for the freehold? —Yes. 110. Is the land here capable of improvement if it were drained? —Yes, I suppose so; but it would take money to do it. 111. I suppose you have your Jiome already established on the land? —Yes. 112. And you are anxious to preserve it for yourself? —Yes. 113. Mr. McG'utchan.] How long is it since you took up your 98 acres-? —About twelve years. 114. Under the Act of 1892? —I think so. 115. You have the right of purchase at 10s. an acre? —Yes. 116. What improvements have you put on the land? —I do not know exactly, but it is and above what is required by the Act. 117. It is your intention to exercise the right of purchase? —Yes. 118. Even at the present price?— Yes, if I cannot get it at any better price. 119. What is the reason for your taking a yearly lease of the 400 acres which the timber has been cut off? —I have come here myself to try and find out the reason. 120. You cannot possibly be utilising that land advantageously under a yearly lease?— Well, I have felled the bush on it; I have fenced, and I am sowing it in grass now, and I am going to put the plough into it. I cannot do anything with the 98-acre section. 121. Is there any provision for yourself in regard to these improvements you are making?— No; I will just have to go off and leave it if they " fire " me out. 122. You get no compensation for improvements? —No. 123. There is no reason with which you are acquainted why you should not get the lease for a term of years?— That is what I wanted to try and do. That is my principal reason for coming here. I have ten sons, and lam trying to keep them at home with me, and if I cannot get a piece of land on which they can work I shall have them scattered all over the country. That is why I am trying to do something with this grazing lease. 124. Has the English grass you have sown held well?—I have sown three or four times, but in about two summers these English grasses die right out. 125. Would it not be better to go in for the recognised grasses?—l have put bay-grass on it and danthonia is coming up, but that.danthonia does not seem to me to be the right sort. 126. Do you think a minimum price of ss. an acre on these poor lands is sufficiently low?— I think the law should be altered to give them to a man for next to nothing. 127. The residence conditions in the case of the lease-in-perpetuity tenants is ten years' continuous residence, and for the occupation-with-right-of -purchase tenants six years. Do you see any reason why there should be any distinction made in the residence conditions as between the two tenures?— No. I would rather see the ten years reduced to six; I think that is quite sufficient. Edward Rowley examined. 128. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a settler on 50 acres of land, which I have held about eighteen years. 129. What is the tenure ?—Formerly it was village settlement, and then they forced me on to lease in perpetuity. . 130. How were you forced?— Sir George Grey distinctly told us they would not claim any rent for the village-settlement land. I have brought up a family of eleven on my 50-acre section, and I found it impossible at one time to pay my rent. The consequence was they sent me word that if I did not change to lease in perpetuity I would have to forfeit my little holding. 131. What rent was fixed on the lease in perpetuity ?—£l. I had no road for ten years, and when the revaluation came in it was valued at 12s. I was paying 5 per cent, until they forced me on to the lease in perpetuity. . , iL . 132. Do you sav the Land Board gave you no option of either going under the lease in perpetuity or forfeiting your section? —They gave me no option whatever, because they sent me the ' ' 133 Do you like your present tenure? —No, because I am merely a water-carrier all my life for the Government. I believe every man likes to be cock of his own dunghill; and another thing is, if he has a chance of getting the freehold he will effect more improvements. In the ten years I have improved my section to the full satisfaction of the late Commissioner, Mr. Mueller. When
C—4.
812
[B. EOWLEY.
I first got the lease in perpetuity I thought I was a little more secure, but I have found out since that I am no more secure than I was under the village settlement. They seem to be able to turn the Acts passed in New Zealand upside down. They can do what they like with them. 134. When they gave you the lease in perpetuity did they forgive you the arrears ? —No; the whole thing was capitalised. 135. But they reduced your rental? —They reduced it from £1 to 12s. 6d., but that was before the tenure was changed. 136. Mr. McLennan.] Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 137. Have you had any dealings with the Land Board? —Yes, and I told them that if they would give me the 5 acres round the house, where I have my bit of orchard, they could take the rest. 138. Have you not managed to grow anything on it or bring' it under cultivation? —I have tried to grow oats, and have spent money in sowing grass-seed, but the ground will not grow them, although I ploughed it three or four times. 139. Mr. Paul.] Do you approve of the revaluation which reduced the capital value of your land ? —Decidedly so, because if it had not been reduced I could not have paid the rent at all. 140. Could you have acquired the freehold at the original capital value of £1 per acre? —No. 141. Could you acquire the freehold at present if you had the option? —My boys would work and help to pay it off. I got £30 from the Government at the start, and lam willing to get my boj r s to work and help to pay off the £30 if I could get the freehold. 142. Has this land increased in value? —By my own improvements. 143. Has the district progressed at all? —Yes; we have got the railway here since. That was why they wanted to turn us over, so that somebody else could get the land. That is the reason why they forced us under lease ia perpetuity. 144. Mr. Matheson.\ How far were you behind with your rent when you got notice that you must change the tenure or forfeit? —£18, I think. I was several years behind. 145. Does it not seem just to you that when a tenant is behindhand with his rent the landlord should take steps to get it from him, or get a more favourable lease for him? —Not when a man is rearing a family. 146. Do you not think it is the duty of the Government to do their business in a businesslike way ? —Yes; but they distinctly said that if a man was not in a position to pay they would not force him. 147. Do you really think the Government did you an injustice, when they found you were four years behind with your rent, and said you must alter to a tenure which would secure the State its payments? —Decidedly so. 148. Mr. Johnston.] How long were you a nurseryman in the Old Country? —Five years. 149. You knew the different qualities of land?— Yes. 150. Did you come straight out and go on this land? —No; I selected a section in the Auckland Office, and land which I was told was good bush land turned out to be a swamp. 151. Why did you not "chuck" it up? —I did, and I was told I could select a section on the village settlement. 152. Mr. McCardle.] Have you still hopes of improving the land you are on? —Yes, and my boys would assist me. 153. I suppose you are making a home simply for yourself and your family? —Yes. 154. I suppose your sons and yourself have to work off the land? —Yes. 155. Mr. McCutchan.] When you allowed your rent to get £18 in arrears were you in a position to pay up the £18 if the Government had taken extreme measures for the recovery of the sum? —No, I was not. 156. So, it was an act of grace when they allowed you to convert into the lease-in-perpetuity tenure Ido not think it was an act of grace. It reduced the rent a little bit. 157. When your lease was converted were the arrears wiped out? —No, they were all capitalised. I am not only paying 4 per cent, on the 12s. 6d. per acre, but also on the £18 of arrears and on the £30 advanced from the Government. 158. In what year did you convert the lease into lease in perpetuity? —About five years ago, I think. 159. Was it in consideration of your accepting this lease in perpetuity that the Government capitalised this £18? —It was not in consideration of that. If I did not accept the change they would have evicted me. 160. Have you got the correspondence in connection with the matter? —I think I have some at home. 161. Was this threat made to you in writing? —I got a type-written letter from the Land Office. 162. Is your present rent paid up? —Yes. 163. If the Government, instead of allowing you to convert into a lease-in-perpetuity tenure, had taken measures to recover the arrears of rent you would have had to leave the place? —Yes. 164. Therefore, was it not an act of grace on their part to allow you to come under lease in perpetuity and capitalise these arrears, and thus make matters easy for you? —I think they could have done it in an easier way than by threatening. John Gray examined. 165. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I hold between 90 and 100 acres under occupation with right of purchase. I have held the land about sixteen years. I pay £5 ss. per annum. 166. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —No. 167. What is the cause of your dissatisfaction ?- I do not consider the tenure is secure. I dread a Fair Rent Bill and revaluation.
813
C—4
J. GRAY
168". Is that the only cause you have? —Yes. 169. But you have an opportunity of making your place freehold if you like?- Yes, after a time, if the section is not forfeited. 170. Do you believe in the freehold?- I do. I may say lam secretary of the local branch of the Farmers' Union, and I represent tfie absent members. 171. How many members have you?— About twenty-five. 172. Do you wish to make any statement on behalf of these gentlemen and yourself? —The only statement 1 wish to make is that we are in favour of the freehold, owing to the insecurity of the leasehold tenure. We wish to pay off the capital value by yearly instalments, and the amount of the rent to be reduced accordingly. To substantiate my statement in regard to the insecurity of the tenure, here is a document which says, " If any lessee or any licensee shall fail to fulfil any of the conditions of his lease or license within sixty days after the day on which the same ought to be fulfilled, his lease or license shall be liable to be forfeited, and he shall be deemed upon such forfeiture to be in illegal occupation of the land comprised in the lease or license, and the Commissioner may proceed for recovery of possession of same." There was a man with 19s. 6d. of arrears of rent, and this is the notice he received. 173. There does not seem to be any insecurity of tenure there. It simply says that if the man does not pay his rent he is illegally in occupation ? —That means he can be turned off and get nothing for his improvements. 174. It is a condition of the lease, and if he pays his rent he is all right? —Yes; but there is the insecurity of the tenure. 175. Do you consider.the present constitution of the Land Board is satisfactory? —I do not. I think the members of the Land Board should be nominated by the people through their representatives —that is, that the local- bodies, such as the County Councils and Road Boards and Farmers' Unions, should each have a deliberate vote in selecting a candidate for the Land Board. At the present time they are nominated by the Government. 176. Have you any views on the matter of the Maori lands here? —We are blocked by the Native lands in this district. A large area of land is lying idle, and is not even paying rates, and that is a great drawback to the local bodies. I think something should be done with the Native lands. If only they paid rates it would be something. 177. Do you think the Government should pay the rates on behalf of the Natives and charge them against the land? —I think something should be done. 178. I suppose here, as elsewhere in the north, you have always far too little money to do the necessary road repairs and construction? -Yes. We have no money at all except grants from the Government. Even the local bodies squander half the rates they collect in administration. I think it is time the local bodies were done away with. 179. Do you think the Government should spend their money bj' their officers? —They are doing so, and they are doing it well. 180. Would it be better if the ratepayers' money was spent by the Government officers? — Certainly, it would. I think the Government should take it out of their hands altogether, because they are a useless body in the out districts. 181. And still you would intrust the local body with the nomination of the Land Board ? — Yes, because it is a simpler way than electing a member to the Land Board. 182. Mr. Pavl?\ Is this form you have quoted the usual form sent out for arrears of rent? — Yes, and they go out in thousands. 183. If the amount had been £19 instead of 19s. this form would have been sent out? —Yes. 184. And this extract on the form is taken from the lease? —Yes. 185. Is there anything wrong in the Department sending out these accounts? —Certainly. It is a threatening letter taking away a man's rights. When he gets that notice they take away his rights. 186. In what way? —It is no security of tenure. 187. Is not this extract distinctly expressed in his lease when he takes it up? —It might be. 188. Then, where is the threat?— In the body of it. 189. If you buy goods from the grocer does he send you in an account? —Yes. ' 190. If you lease land from a private landlord and get behind with your rent would he not ask you to pay up, and remind you of this clause in your lease? —Probably he would. 191. Is there anything threatening about that? —Yes; but he does not say the land is to be forfeited. 192. This form is strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions imposed by the law? —They are very bad terms, then. 193. The lessee knows of this when he takes up the lease? —Probably he does or he does not. 194. He knows the law? —A man does not get the laws when he takes up land, so he does not know what is the nature of the law. 195. But he knows the Act? —No; the Act is not published for him to know. 196. Do you mean to say that the Act is not published, and that he does not know the conditions under which he.takes up the land? —He may know about the conditions, but he does not know the Act. 197. If you were taking up land would you not look at the Act before you took it up? —I would if I could procure it. 19"8. You can procure it for a few pence? —You cannot procure it in these out districts. 199. You can always get it from the Land Office for a few pence? —Yes, by paying fees. 200. If you comply with the conditions of your lease there cannot possibly be any forfeiture? -Probably not; but suppose a man is overtaken with sickness and cannot pay his rent, the result would be that his section would be forfeited.
C—4
814
J. GRAY
201. Do you know of any forfeiture by the Land Board where a man has been unable to pay his rent on account of sickness? Do you not think, from your own experience, that the Land Board have treated cases like that very leniently? —They might take these things into consideration. 202. Mr. Anstey.~\ You say you have no security of tenure: you have the right of purchase? —Yes. 203. Are you prepared to exercise that right? —Yes, when the time expires, if it is not forfeited before that. 204. You have not the right of purchase immediately ? —No. 205. How long is it before you can exercise it? —It is a matter of six or seven years, perhaps. I am not allowed to buy until then. 206. Supposing you were a freeholder and failed to pay your debts, what would happen? • —I would be summonsed, I suppose. 207. And failing to pay then, would you not be sold out of your farm? —Probably not. 208. According to the law, if you do not pay your debts you can be sold out of your farm, so where is the difference in the security of tenure between freehold and leasehold, when you can be turned out in either case if you fail to pay your just debts? —Well, if I was a freeholder and not able to pay my debts I could go bankrupt. 209. You would lose your farm if you went bankrupt? —Probably I might. 210. Then, what is the difference between the security of the two tenures? —Under leasehold my land is forfeited, and I am deprived of all my improvements. 211. In both cases? —In one case. lam talking about land-tenure, and not about debts. 212. Mr. Forbes.] Your Farmers' Union is not a political organization? —No, it is not, so far. 213. Was there a petition sent round this district about the freehold? —No. I knew there was a petition. It was a mistake on our part not to send it forward. 214. Do you know of any case of a section being forfeited by the Land Board in this district on account of any reason ? —Yes; the section of the last witness was forfeited. 215. He has a lease in perpetuity, and he is still in occupation of the land? —It was forfeited previous to having a lease in perpetuity. I know others here whose sections have been forfeited. 216. And were they turned off? —No. In one case another member of the family took it up under lease in perpetuity. 217. Were they forfeited for non-payment of rent? —Yes. I know another section that was forfeited, and the man took it up under lease in perpetuity. 218. How would you suggest that the Crown should get their rents in these cases? —I do not object to the Crown getting their rents in a fair and equitable manner. 219. We are here for the purpose of finding out what the tenants think of the operations of the law: can you make some suggestion ? —I would sooner that the Act be altered so that a man could be sued for his rent. It is not the right thing to write and tell a tenant his section will be forfeited and that he is illegally in occupation. 220. You think it would be better to summons him in Court for the amount of the rent. In the case of judgment would you then have the Government enter into possession of the land? — Well, something would have to be done. 221. However, you quite approve of the ordinary mode of procedure through the Court? —Yes. 222. You said, in connection with the election of Land Boards, that the Farmers' Union should have a vote: would you give the labour unions a right to have a vote as well? —No, I would not. 223. Why would you not give them a vote? —Because they know nothing about land. 224. Possibly you know that the Land Boards have to deal with the workmen's homes in the cities now. Do you not think that the labourers know something about workmen's homes near and in the cities? —I do not think they do. Men walking the streets know nothing about land or land-tenures. 225. Mr. Hall.\ Do you say you consider the lease in perpetuity an insecure tenure for the reason that the rents are enforced within a certain time? —Not for the enforcement of the payment of rent. 226. What is the reason given? —Because the land is forfeited, and a man gets nothing for his improvements. 227. It is reasonable to assume that one-half of the freehold farms in the colony are mortgaged. Now, in that case the mortgagee, on the non-payment of interest, forecloses at once, and within thirty days sells the property at auction with all improvements, _ and there is no redress? — Yes. 228. In your case the whole of the money remains on mortgage, and, surely, it is only reasonable that the mortgagee —the Government —should expect the rent to be paid within a reasonable time? —No doubt that would be the case. 229. Mr. Johnston.\ I suppose you were very glad to take up this land under this tenure when you got it? —I was not glad to get the land. I was here in business, and I took it up. 230. Could you have taken up freehold land? —No. 231. Have you been farming always? —Not all the time. I took it up as a business site. 232. I suppose you took it up because you saw money in it?—l did not see any money in it. 233. You did not take it up to lose money?—No, I did not. 234. Were you in business here at one time?— Yes, gum-buying. 235. Do you think gum-digging has been advantageous to this district?- Yes, it has settled this and other districts right north. 236. Mr. McCardle.] I suppose you are aware that this arbitrary and unreasonable notice sent out to settlers is not the fault of the Land Board, but of the Act as it now stands? —I am well aware of it.
J. GRAY.]
815
a—4.
237. What you want is that such a notice should be altered, and your suggestion is that it is more reasonable to threaten him with an action in Court than to order forfeiture under the Act? —Yes, I do. 238. Are you aware that it has been generally felt amongst settlers that this kind of notice is very depressing and upsetting? —I am well aware of it. It is causing a great deal of unrest. 239. Mr. McGutchan.] You said that if a section is forfeited all improvements are forfeited: is it not the case that the State reimburses itself to the extent of the amount of the arrears of rent and hands over any balance to the former owner of the section, just the same as a mortgagee under a deed of mortgage, when he lias satisfied the mortgage, pays the balance to the mortgagor ? —Yes; but the tenants get no balance at all. I have a statement from the Minister of Lands, that the tenant would be turned out without getting due notice and without getting one penny for his improvements if he failed to carry out the conditions. I would have brought the statement, but 1 could not find it. 240. Have you ever known any case where the Land Board have acted hashly with the tenants in the past in this district? —They have forfeited several sections. 241. Of course, the Land Board must administer the law; but is it not the case that they have exercised great leniency in the case of settlers labouring under difficulties? —I do not blame the Land Board. They have to act up to the powers vested in them. 242. Is it not the case that the Land Board stretches the Act to its farthest limit? Can you point to any instance of forfeiture except in cases where a tenant has been several years in arrears ? -—No, I cannot. 243. Mr. Johnston.] Are you aware that a modified form of the notice you have quoted is now being used? —Yes. 244. Do you not think it is very misleading to produce this, dated four years ago, when you know that another form has come into use? —It is only within the last twelve months that the other form has come in. 245. Do you consider it was straightforward and honest to produce this form, and lead the Commission to believe that it was the form now in use, when you knew in your own mind that a new form with a totally different wording is being used now ? —They have only used the new form since the present Commissioner came up. 246. Do you consider it was straightforward- I want an answer, " Yes "or" No "1 —I leave the Commission to take into consideration the circumstances. 247. I want an answer, " Yes " or " No " ? —lt may not be in that instance. George Cliff Oetzmann examined. 248. The Chairman.] "What are you?- I am a settler, and president of the Hukerenui Agricultural Association, and I am representing the said association to-day. lam also authorised to give the outcome of a discussion at a public meeting convened in the Towai district to discuss these questions. I own a little over 1,000 acres —about 681 acres of freehold and the balance under occupation -with right of purchase and lease in perpetuity. I have been in the district about thirteen years. 249. You might state what you desire to lay before the Commission? —I have to make the following statement: — The constitution of Land Boards: Agreed that same be elective, but that in any case appointments should not be made without consulting the wishes of the people of the district from which the appointment is made. The land-tenures of the colony: That occupation with right of purchase and freehold are the best systems of land-tenure at present offered; that holders under the lease-in-perpetuity system should have the option of acquiring freehold upon payment of amount equal to 1 per cent, per annum of capital value of holding from date of lease, with compound interest at same rate added, and upon fulfilling the other conditions of lease. Effects of climate and land configuration on tenures and areas, &c. : No suggestion for alteration. Homestead privileges and their reinstatement : Majority of meeting was in favour of reinstatement. The working of the ballot system: Various objections were raised, but no solution of the problem was arrived at, consequently no suggestion recommended. The practice of loading lands for roads and its working: No experience of the working of same in this district, but it was decided that, in consequence of the royalties and revenue received from the flax, gum, and timber, which should go for this purpose, loading the northern lands could not be recommended. Values of leaseholds now and at date of lease: Great diversity of opinion on above subject was expressed, majority considering that their holding unimproved values had not increased since date of lease or occupation. Working of the advances to settlers system: It was most unanimously agreed that this was a very good Act very badly administered. Condition and position of occupiers under the various tenures: Agreed that holders of land under occupation with right of purchase and freehold are the most prosperous in this district, and that undue influence has been used by the Department in inducing people to take up land on the lease-in-perpetuity system, much to their disadvantage. The aggregation of large estates: Agreed that present limitations were judicious and in the interests of the people of the colony. Separate occupations under the Land for Settlements Act: The members present having had no experience of working of this Act made no recommendations. Pressure of residence conditions on Crown tenants: Agreed that Land Boards be given greater discretionary powers with regard to residence conditions, giving bond fide settlers exemption therefrom on condition that they make extra improvements. Separate recommendations: That deferred-payment system be reinstated ; that Government advance amounts equal to " thirds " to be derived from rents of sections, for the purpose of making roads to sections from which said "thirds" are to be derived, as soon as said sections are selected, taking as repayment the "thirds" as they accrue.
0.-4.
816
[a. C. OETZMANN
250. Have you had any experience in regard to the bad administration of the Advances to Settlers Act? —We had various evidence put before the meeting. I have had no personal experience of the Act. One of the disadvantages of the Advances to Settlers Department is the publicity given to the business, and it seems to me that is going to be accentuated if personal evidence in regard to these transactions is to be given before the Commission. 251. Without referring to any case individually, you might say wherein lies the bad administration ? —ln the first place a common complaint is the length of time it takes to procure any advance. One of the greatest faults is in regard to collecting interest when overdue. In the country districts a settler or storekeeper takes over the post-office, and probably his daughter sees after all the correspondence. Any settler or landowner in the district may be in this position : if he happens to be in arrears with his interest payments, a notice is sent to this little boy or girl at the post-office and the amount that has been borrowed is stated, and the amount of interest due, and so on, and he is asked whether he knows any reason why this person who has borrowed should not be summoned for the amount of interest due. That is the kind of privacy extended to the borrowers under that system. 252. What would you suggest in the case of persons falling behind with their interest? —Any businesslike way at all of dealing with the matter ; any way in which such a matter would be treated by a business firm or company. I certainly think that no loan should be advertised over the whole district, probably to the detriment of the borrower's credit. It is certainly not a good position or a businesslike position to put any person in. I maintain that all due secrecy should be observed. 253. Mr. Matheson.] What royalties are being got out of the district for flax, gum, and timber? —It is hard to state the amount, but certainly royalties are being taken. 254. Does the Crown take them all?—-Yes. 255. Is there no refund to the district? —Not at present. It has been spoken of, but Ido not think there has been any refund so far. 256. Do not the local body get anything for gum licenses? —They may gather the gum licenses. 257. Do you suggest that a refund of timber royalty should be given for road-making?— Certainly half, if not the whole of it. 258. Mr. McCutchan.\ With reference to undue pressure being placed on land selectors to force them to take up lease in perpetuity, what instances can you give? —In my district it has become notorious. A little time ago a settler had an occupation-with-right-of-purchase lease under a former Act, which gave certain facilities for obtaining the freehold at a given period. At the end of that given period notification came to the settler in question that either he would have to buy the land outright or be subject to revaluation, or, as an alternative, he was told he could turn it into lease in perpetuity at 4 per cent., with 1 per cent, capitalised to pay off the rents which should accrue. After many of the settlers has raised the money to buy the land the SolicitorGeneral reversed the opinion expressed by the Commissioner, and these settlers irrevocably lost their chance to obtain the freehold, and they had to become lease-in-perpetuity tenants. 259. Can you give any instance since 1892 of any such pressure being brought to bear on tenants to make them become lease-in-perpetuity holders? —I am quoting the position of the present tenants. The present legislation seems to have existed for the last thirteen years. What I am stating has happened long since 1892. 260. Under the Land Act of 1892 there is the right of purchase in ten years? —I think so. 261. That right continues until the termination of the twenty-fifth year: how can any such force be brought to bear on the tenants under these circumstances? —I never suggested it could be. I say that the tenants whose leases have been converted into lease in perpetuity should have the right to purchase the freehold again. 262. Is not a Postmaster a confidential servant of the Crown?- He is supposed to be. 263. Then, does not your complaint lie against the Postmaster and not against the Crown? — It all depends on the kind of Postmaster one has in the country. A country Postmaster is not in the same position as a town Postmaster. Probably the postal official is the settler's daughter, without any further qualification than that her father owns the store. 264. Mr. Hall.\ Is it not a fact that the wealthy and populous districts in the vicinity of cities derived great advantages and benefits in the early days of settlement? —I think so. 265. Seeing that the country in the North of Auckland is very thinly populated, and that there are large areas held by the Crown and Natives, which pay no rates, and in consideration of the fact that the revenue derived from gum and timber is a very large one —that is, the value of these exports is large —is it not reasonable that there should be special consideration given to this district in the opening-up of roads? —Yes, the Government should have done a great deal more than they have done. T would like to say something in regard to the restrictions imposed in connection with the taking-up of land adjoining the holding already held by a settler. It seems to me very hard that settlers who took up land many years ago, and who have reared a family on it, should have to live away from their own home if they are to fulfill the conditions laid down by the Act. It breaks up families, and prevents the settlement of the land. I could mention an instance in point, in which a settler after securing an adjoining section had to ballot for it again, owing to the office contending that some slight non-compliance with, the regulations had taken place. I think that more discretionary power should be given to the Land Board in dealing with such matters. William Robert Hutchison examined. 266. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a fruit-grower at Hukerenui, and I have been engaged in that occupation for sixteen years. The extent of my cultivation is 14 acres. 267. What fruit do you grow? —Stone fruit and apples. I do not touch the citrus family. My fruit is consumed in Wellington and in other towns in the south.
W. E. HUTCHISON.I
817
a—4.
268. Are you troubled with the codlin-moth and other pests? —I have been, but owing to following the instructions given by the Government Pomologist, I have overcome that difficulty. 269. Is it a profitable industry? —It has not been a profit up to the present, as I have been troubled with pests, and have had a good many difficulties. In the first place, I was a village settler, and the tenancy was unsatisfactory. The late Commissioner of Crown Lands gave me an assurance that my forfeiture would not be executed. Forfeiture was threatened because of being back in my rent. I may say I have a family to rear. 270. How many acres have you? —50 acres. 271. What is your rent? —£3 14s. per annum. My orchard is 20 chains from the Waiotu Railway-station. 272. Mr. Anstey.] You say your fruit goes to Wellington? —Not all; a considerable portion of it goes to Timaru. 273. Have you any organization in connection with the sale of your fruit? —My agent in Timaru is a private dealer. 274. Have you a good market for all the fruit you can grow? —I can get a good market for much more that I can grow. 275. How does the fruit work in connection with the rest of your farm? —My farm is absolutely useless except the 14 acres. 276. Could you turn the rest of your land to advantage in connection with fruit-growing? — The rest of the land is not suitable for fruit-growing. 277. Mr. McLennan.'] Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes. 278. Were they satisfactory? —I desired to extend my orchard, and I thought if I could borrow £50 from the Department it would be of great service to me, and that I would be able to go in for improved methods of fruit-growing, as advised by the Government expert. My improvements were valued at about £300, but the Department would not grant me the amount I desired. I appealed to the Minister, and reduced the amount I asked for to £25, but the Department refused to advance me even that sum. Therefore, I lost my fee, and am not able to adopt the methods advised by the Government expert. Since that time the valuation of my section has been increased. 279. Mr. Paul.\ Is this district specially adapted for fruit-growing? —Yes. 280. Do you think if settlers were helped in some way that it would be a profitable industry? —Yes. 281. Mr. Forbes.] It takes good and careful management to grow fruit? —Yes; but if settlers follow the advice given by the Government expert there can be no failure. 282. Is there any one else fn this district following this industry as you are doing? —I do not think any one has gone into it on commercial lines as I have done. 283. Mr. Hall.] Do you find both the soil and the climate suitable for fruit-growing? —Only the 14 acres is suitable. 284. Is there an abundance of land in the North of Auckland suitable for fruit-growing? — Yes, there is a large area, and the climate is favourable. 285. Sufficient fruit could be grown in the North of Auckland to supply the rest of the colony if there were better means of transit? —There is not the slightest doubt this North of Auckland district is suitable for fruit-growing. 286. Mr. Malheson.] Do you not think the real reason why an advance was refused was because you were in arrear with your rent? —That question was brought up, and I stated the facts fully to the authorities. 287. Mr. -Johnston.] Do you find that fruit-growing pays? —It is paying me now. My trees are coming into maturity. 288. Is your land pipeclay lan'd? —The surplus of my holding is pipeclay land, but the 14 acres is river flat. 289. Is the manuka land suitable for vine-growing or fruit-growing? —Yes. Our tea-tree land has proved a success. That may be seen at Wairangi, near Mercer. I have made a success of peach-growing. 2"90. Do you know if the Austrians have made a success of vine-growing? —Yes. 291. Have they taken up pipeclay land? —I do not know. 292. How long does it take to bring an orchard into bearing? —I should say about six years for apples, and a shorter time for peaches. 293. Mr. McCardle.] Had you any previous experience in fruit-growing? —No. 294. Do you propagate your own trees? —Yes. 295. Are you using the blight-proof stock for your apples?— Yes. 296. Do you not think this stiff clay land would be suitable for pears? —I have had very little experience of the pear family. John Charles Johnson examined. 297. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler and living at Whananaki, and I have been there for twenty years. I hold 900 acres —400 acres freehold, and 400 acres occupation with the right of purchase, and 100 acres lease in perpetuity. 298. Which tenure do you prefer? —I may say, to begin with, that I appear here partly in my individual capacity and also as representing the Kaurihohore and the Opuawhanga branches of the Farmers' Union. 299. Is there any special matter you would like to bring before the Commission? —I would like to refer briefly to several of the questions contained in the order of reference of the Commission. First, in respect to the constitution of the Land Boards. Personally —and in this matter I also speak on behalf of the two branches of the Farmers' Union I have mentioned —I think Land Boards should be elective, because the power they possess appears to be too great to place in 'the hands of any Board appointed by the Government, of the day. In regard to land-tenures, I speak individually, and also as representing the two branches of the Farmers' Union, we Favour
103—C. 4.
C—4.
818
fa. C. JOHNSON.
the freehold. The lease in perpetuity has undoubtedly been popular, but it has been popular because a class of men were enabled to go on land under it who had no other option whatever. I may point out, however, that if a lease-in-perpetuity holder is sixty days behind with his rent, although his improvements may amount to £500 on a comparatively small section, be receives a notice that he has ceased to be a tenant of the Crown. lam not blaming the Land Board, but I think the Act should be altered, and that the improvements should stand against arrears. As regards the freehold, 1 think it is necessary in the north. I am not speaking from a southern point of view, where the land has undergone a certain amount of improvement, and I can quite believe the leasehold being a satisfactory tenancy there; but in this part of the colony and in the back blocks I think the freehold tenure should be given. I think that our land system is too complicated. Attempts have been made to please everybody, and the result has not proved satisfactory. I think that lease-in-perpetuity holders should be allowed to convert their leases on paying the extra 1 per cent., and I think they will be quite willing to pay the 5 per cent, from the time they took up the land, and thus be enabled to obtain the freehold. I would like to say that, in my opinion, the residence conditions have been unduly enforced in some cases. For instance, the residence clause presses very hardly on a resident in the town, who takes up a piece of land with the view of retiring on it when his business career is finished. I think that if double improvements were insisted on in such cases the residence clause should be done away with. With reference to cropping restrictions, I think it is hardly right to allow an officer, who probably knows less about the land than the settler, to determine whether certain restrictions should be enforced or not. I think that experience on the Continent of Europe has shown that land will carry crops for a very long time without the land being injured or exhausted if the land is properly manured. With respect to the homestead system, that has been very successful in this district, but, from my experience during the last twenty years, that has been mainly owing to the fact that much of the land taken up under that system had a considerable quantity of kauri timber on it. As to the working of the ballot system, theoretically it is perfect, but in practice it works out very differently. I know of people who have tramped about the colony month after month, and who have been unable to get a section owing to their non-success at the ballot. I think also that care should be taken that the man who secures a section under the ballot should absolutely reside on it. In reference to the lease in perpetuity, I have spoken to a great many settlers who hold land under that tenure, and they are perfectly willing to pay the extra 1 per cent, in order to convert their lease. I would like to say this, further, that down South there may be such a thing as the unearned increment, but in the North it does not exist. In the South, say, Cheviot, the land was roaded and many improvements were made by the Government, and certainly the Government have a claim on the tenants who took up that land; but in the back blocks we do not know anything about the unearned increment. 300. Under what franchise would you elect members of the Land Board? —The local bodies should certainly have some representation on the Board. 301. You would not elect the members on the parliamentary franchise? —No. 302. What would you substitute in place of the ballot? —I feel almost inclined at times to go back to the old system, because limitation of area will prevent capitalists acquiring unduly large areas of land. 303. You would submit the land to auction? —I would be inclined to do so, but Ido not think it will be carried out for a very long time; but I should prefer it. 304. Mr. Anstey.~\ You have said that a tenant who is sixty days behind in his rent is liable to have his section forfeited? —Yes, but I have known of a longer period being allowed. 305. Have you known of a section being forfeited where a man has been two years behind? —- Yes, I can mention a case at Whananaki, Block IX., Opuawhanga. In that case, although very considerable improvements have been effected, the tenant was three years in arrear, and he received notice that he had ceased to be a tenant. He was ill at one period of the three years. 306. Do you think that special provisions should be made for townspeople in connection with the ballot when there are numbers of country people who are anxious to get on the land? —I do not see why a man in the town should not have his rights as well as everybody else. 307. You said the lease-in-perpetuity settler should be allowed to take up the freehold on the payment of the difference between 4 and 5 per cent.: what would you propose in the case of a lease-in-perpetuity settler who is now paying 5 per cent. ? Do you propose that he should be allowed to acquire his section at the same rate? —Yes, on the 5 per cent. 308. That is to say, you would give such settlers a much more valuable tenure than you would give to others who are only paying 4 per cent. ? —Yes, the same as under occupation with right of purchase. 309. Mr. Paul.'] Did the fact of the railway going through this district increase the value of land here at all ? —Decidedly. 310. Are there any sections at Hukerenui that have increased very much in value? —I fancy they have increased. 311. If there was a case where the original cost of the land was 12s. 6d. an acre, and at the present time the value of that land is £25 an acre, would there be unearned increment in that case? —If there was such a case that might be so. lam speaking of farm land. 312. Is the district prosperous where you are residing? —In a way, it is depending on the timber to a certain extent. 313. Is the price of land increasing? —Yes. 314. Is that a good sign? —Yes; but it has risen in value owing to the efforts and energies of the settlers, and the timber industry. 315. Mr. Forbes.'] We have heard a good deal about the homestead system: do you believe in it? —I think the success of that system was owing to the existence of the timber on the land when the land was taken up.
J. C. JOHNSON.]
819
C—4.
316. Do you think the homestead system would be a success on the poor land about here? —Not on the poor white pipeclay and gum land. My own idea is that viticulture is going to solve the difficulty. I think the Austrians will make a success of vine-growing, and that industry will subsequently develop and assist in bringing about prosperous settlement. 317. Mr. Matheson.] How are you off for roads? —I have a track to my place. 318. Do you think the present system of Government grants for roads is satisfactory? —I think there can be no satisfactory arrangement until the Government takes over the main roads. 319. Do you not think it would be better, and that it would give the local bodies a more assured finance if the Government paid rates on Crown and Native land, and gave a pound-for-pound subsidy for money raised on rates ? —I think that will be a good thing. 320. You have no objection to dual control —that is, by the Government and the local body — in the same district? —No, not if it is carried out in a proper spirit. 321. Mr. Johnston.] How much of your land is in grass? —400 acres. 322. It has taken twenty years to put that area under grass? —Yes, and I have been very lucky to get that done. 323. After burning or clearing, does the manuka or fern come again on your land? —Yes; that is where the good of the danthonia comes in. You can burn off the tea-tree or fern and the danthonia springs up again. 324. Mr. McCutchan.\ In reference to the residence conditions, you said they are a hardship in certain cases; for instance, in the case of the young members of a family growing up, and wishing to take up land: you are aware that there is an exemption of paying rates for four years? —Yes, but I maintain the residence conditions tend to divide a family. 325. Seeing that a four exemption is allowed, is it not a fact that in the case of an energetic young settler who takes up land it becomes almost absolutely essential to his success that he should live on his section? — Surely we should encourage home life as much as possible, and I contend that the residence conditions in certain cases act prejudicially to good settlement. 326. With reference to the threatened forfeiture of the lease you have mentioned, is it not the case that when a loan is granted by the Advances to Settlers Department the Board has no right to recover the rent after the rent has been two years in arrear? —I do not know. 327. Might not that be the reason for the action of the Land Board? —No; the land is not mortgaged in this case. 328. In connection with residence, you consider it a hardship where there is a family that has taken up land that the father is not allowed to take iip another section unless the land is contiguous to his present holding? —Yes, I do. 329. Is it not the case that he is enabled to do so if he has held his lease for three years? —I do not think so. 330. Under the Land Act of 1892, if you have a leasehold section, you can take up another one that is not contiguous ? —I do not see that that applies in the case I have referred to. 331. Is it not the fact that the Government does not usually construct a railway until it sees that the amount of the products in a district is sufficient to pay the average amount earned by the railways, as that is about £3 10s. per cent. ? And if a railway is constructed, and the Government knows that that state of things exists, is it not the residents in that particular locality who have to provide the money for the payment of that line? —Yes. 332. And if there is any increase in the value of the land, are the residents not entitled to the increased value? —Yes, most undoubtedly. 333. Mr. Amtey.] You gave us to understand that in regard to a block of land the loading for roads had not been spent: where is that road-line you refer to? —From Whananaki to Matapori and Tutukaka. 334. Do you know the amount at which it was loaded? —From 45., I think, down to 25., but I am not sure of the figures. 335. Are you sure none of the loading has been spent? —I say no sum has been spent equivalent to the amount of loading. '336. Mr. Johnston.] Do you consider the gum-digging advantageous to the district? —I think from a pounds-shillings-and-pence point of view it is advantageous, but from a settlement point of view I think it is an evil. However, Ido not see how many of us would have existed without it. 337. Do you think the areas of land taken up have been too small to make a living? —Well, the nature of the ground has been against it. 338. Have you had any experience of the South Island or the southern part of this Island? — Yes, in the Waikato and Taranaki. I know nothing of the South Island personally, except through hearing from friends. 339. I suppose you know nothing of the working of the Land for Settlements Act? —No. James Mackenzie examined. 340. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a Commissioner of Crown Lands for the Auckland Land District. 341. If anything has been incorrectly stated here to-day, I would like you to make one or two explanations, not with a view of showing that any of the witnesses have said anything wilfully wrong, but it is possible they may be under a slight misapprehension I—Yes;1 —Yes; the first thing is with regard to the village-settlement sections, and the change of tenure into lease in perpetuity. The practice of the Department has been this: a number of these settlers got into arrears with their rent, some of them running to several years. They have a thirty-years lease, and it seemed hopeless for them to pay up their arrears. The Land Board, as a rule, if the men are deserving, will not turn them off their sections, but they say to these people, '' We will capitalise what is in arrear, and instead of a thirty-years lease we will give you a 999-years lease, for which you will pay a rental of only 4 per cent, on the capital value. If you pay promptly you will only have to pay
C.—4.
820
[j. MACKENZIE
3\ per cent." I cannot conceive, myself, from an ordinary business point of view, that there is any hardship at all in that. The man is in a corner, and we increase the length of his tenure and reduce his rental. Would an ordinary business-man treat a tenant or customer as liberally by saying " You are now £50 in arrear, but I am not going to press you for this £50; you can pay 4 per cent, upon it as long as you like. If you pay this promptly I will let you off with 3§ per cent." Then, with regard to the residence clauses, it is just this: that the Board has ample power to dispense with residence on sufficient cause being shown, and I know of no case in my own experience where on good reason being shown, whether on account of sickness, bad roads, want of schools, and so on, the Board has refused to relax the residence conditions. Ido not say that we will dispense with it altogether. We say we will give you a year off, and see how things are looking in a year's time. If we dispensed with residence for ever, and a man disposed of his holding, the incoming tenant could claim that he also need not reside. With regard to the last witness, he said it was rather a hard thing that the sons of settlers who wanted to get on the land should be forced to reside at once. Now, I have never known this forced in my experience, if application is made in a bond fide manner to the Board. To begin with, if they take up bush land they have four years first, and the Act allows young men and women living with their parents up to eight years, and even more than this is granted. The privileges may be abused sometimes, but if it is a genuine case it is all right. Then there seems to be a misapprehension as to whether a man who has taken 100 or 200 acres of land can extend his holding if he afterwards finds he can do with more. If a man has complied with the conditions for three years he can go and take up a section a hundred miles away in any part of the colony, so long as the total area he holds does not exceed 2,000 acres of second-class land or 640 acres of first-class land. Immediately he has shown his bona fides by complying with the conditions of the Act for three years this power comes in. Ido not think that is quite understood. Then, another matter which I have been asked about on several occasions, and one or two gentlemen have asked me about it to-day. If there is a piece of land alongside a man's section the Board can give him the option of taking that land up, restricted only by the limitations of the Act, without any competition at all. Then, another witness —I forget his name —spoke about 300 acres of land he had leased in the bush here. That 300 acres was part of a large forest reserve. It is the Puhipuhi Forest, and is still under forest regulations, and unless the matter is placed before Parliament we cannot remove the reservation. The only thing we can do, when a man gets a piece of land like that, is to give it to him without competition on a year-to-year lease. When the reservation is removed from that land —which I intend to do the moment the forest is gone, if not before —that man can apply to the Board, and if they find him a genuine settler and so wish it, they can give him a piece to hold on the same tenure as he is holding his adjoining land. Those are a few of the grievances brought forward which it struck me really do not exist. The policy of the Board is to if possible retain and foster every genuine settler on the land, and they can use their discretionary power in that direction; but if they find he is a humbug and not genuine, they will use the same power to get rid of him as quickly as possible. Then, with regard to this question of arrears, it is perfectly ridiculous to think of turning off a man if he owes a few years' rent if he has, say, £300, or anything like it, in improvements. Under present conditions, we exhaust every possible means we know of to keep that man on the land, but the State, like other business people, must get its money in as soon as it can. Our policy is when once a man is on the land to keep him there, and not to turn him off if he is genuine. If he is not genuine he has got to go, and that with as little delay as possible. John Robert Lambert examined. 342. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, farming 100 acres of freehold. I have been in this district twenty years, and am now chairman of the Towai Branch of the Farmers' Union. Before the district was thrown open for settlement it was through my agitation that the far-famed Ramarama Valley was opened. 343. You have heard the evidence given by Mr. Gray and other gentlemen? —Yes. I can save a lo.t of your time by indorsing every word that has fallen from Mr. Johnson. 344. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —When I read in the Weekly News that a tinker gave evidence in Christchurch, that every man who wanted to get the freehold should have his name handed down as an enemy to his country, I did feel hurt. I was indignant that a man in a town should say that we who have cut out our homes in the solid bush should not get our freehold. Why, our homes are not keeping us yet. We are still keeping them, and if it were not for the gum there could be no settlement here. 345. Mr. Paul.\ In expressing your opinion you are confining yourself I suppose to this northern part of the colony ? —Yes. I know nothing whatever about south of Auckland. 346. Mr. Forbes.\ Do you not think any one, whether he may live in the country or in a town, has a right to give evidence on the land question I—l do not. It would surely be presumptuous of me to attempt to dictate to the Mayor of Auckland, for instance, as to the way he should preside in the Mayoral chair, and 1 say that a tinker knows no more about felling bush and farming the land than the man in the moon does. 347. Does not a tinker have to live on the land? —He lives on my energy and that of my neighbour. 348. He must have a house to live in ? —And he would take good care to get the freehold of it if he could. 349. Mr. Matheson.~\ Do you consider the town labourer has a share in the Crown lands of the colony? —Only to this extent, that he has the same opportunity as I have to go and select a piece of land and try and carve out a home the same as I have done. 350. Mr. Johnston.] Have you had any experience of lands outside this district? —I had twenty years' experience in the Kaipara. 351. Is the land about here of poor quality? —Yes, most of it would hardly keep a mouse.
821
C—4.
J. K. LAMBERT.j
352. Why did you take up land that is so terribly bad? —Well, 1 had no capital at all, but I took it up and I am still struggling on. 353. Where is this far-famed Kamarama Block? —It is six miles from here by road. You must have passed it on your way here. 354. What is the area of it? —About fifteen or sixteen miles long. 355. How broad? —Different widths. 356. How is it far famed? —It is famed for what it produces. Recently, when the Premier of the colony was up there he said he had never seen such fine potatoes as our land could produce. Christopher Thomas Mitchell examined. 357. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. 1 hold 450 acres in the Puhipuhi Forest on a year-to-year lease, for which I pay £6 a year rent. 358. Have you any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I would like to say that some years ago this Puhipuhi Forest land was thrown open for selection, and one man got about 1,000 acres for £10 a year. Many others who were living in the bush at the same time wanted to get a bit of land to live upon and run a few cows, because with this and a little gumdigging they could support their wives and families. But when we applied for the land we were told that we would have to pay twice as much per acre as the man who got the 1,000 acres. I have brought with me samples of the classes of land I have referred to. The first is near pipeclay, as you will see, and for that 1 have to pay at the rate of £2 per 100 acres. The other you will see is a light arable soil, and it is the kind of soil that was sown down by the Government in grass some years ago when the fire went through the forest. That land the man I speak of gets for £1 per 100 acres. I have applied to the Board for some redress, but can get no information. I have been appointed by the executive of the Farmers' Union to give evidence. I am not in favour of the so-called freehold that Mr. Massey wants to give the people, because that, in a few years' time, will make us all leaseholders again. lam opposed to the people paying any rent whatever to the Government for the land. I believe there is a natural freehold which should go to the man who will use it, because the land, according to this book we have been sworn upon, was created for every man, woman, and child born into the world, and therefore the land belongs to all. I, therefore, think the Government have no right to make people pay rent for what really belongs to them, and I think that the only taxation that should be taken from the land is what comes from the unearned increment. The freehold Mr. Massey wishes to give will only lead to borrowing, because as soon as a man gets the freehold he will do all he can to enhance the value of his land, and it is not the back-blockers who get the benefit from borrowed money, but generally the men in the towns. Frederick Wyatt examined. 359. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, holding 93 acres at Towai. I have been farming this land fourteen months. It is practically freehold, and lam just waiting for my title. I have been thirty-four years in the country. 360. Did you buy this land second hand? —I bought it from somebody else. Mr. Gray and other witnesses who spoke in the same strain have very well expressed my views. I only wish to say a word or two about an old grievance of ten years' standing, as it may possibly be of some use to other people who are now taking up land. It is regarding the Advances to Settlers Office. 1 applied for an advance of about £100 ten years ago. I was then the holder of 117 acres at Wareora. The answer I got was, "Your application for loan is declined." Thinking I had applied for too large a sum, I made out the application for £50 and enclosed half a guinea. Again I got the answer, "Your application is declined." I wrote to the Minister of Lands, Mr. John McKenzie, who investigated the matter for me, and this is his reply. [Letter read by the Chairman to the effect that the land was too poor to advance money upon.] I then applied to the Land Board, sending a copy of this letter, thinking that the land ought to be reduced in value, and I received the following reply dated the 2nd August, 1898, saying that a reduction could not be made. [Letter read by the Chairman.] In 1897 I received a letter from Mr. Barron, the Assistant Surveyor-General, recommending me to surrender the lease. [Letter read by the Chairman.] Although I was agreeable to pay the full price I could not get an advance. I had no objection to the rent I was paying, but without an advance I could not get along. I have a document which advises me to surrender the lease and accept £130 for improvements, but as I valued my improvements at more than that I objected to it. I explained that there was a prospective value on account of the coal. I have got rid of the section now, but I had to sell for as many hundreds as I should have got thousands. I had no choice. There is one other subject I should like to touch upon, and that is manual education. At present the instruction is given only in the towns, and if a man sends his boys to a town they get town tastes and do not care about coming back to the country, and where, then, are the parents in their old age? Why should the Government not establish a school in the country and bring the " townies " out and give them a taste of the land? Unfortunately, the tendency now is to centralise everything.
Whangarei, Saturday, 20th May, 1905. James. Mackenzie further examined. 1. The Chairman.'] Will you kindly put in the document to show the form of circular which is sent out to tenants in arrears? —Probably prior to this one going out some stifier notice may have preceded it. This is sent out with a view to giving the settlers an opportunity to say how they would pay their rent to suit their circumstances as much as possible, and asking them to
0.—4.
822
[j. MACKENZIE.
state what their circumstances were, and so forth. Of course, I do not mean to say it stops at this. If this, what I might call mild circular, is not accepted in the spirit in which it is sent, then we have, as a matter of business, to send another somewhat harder. The notice is as follows : — " Re Arrears of Kent. " Referring to my previous notices sent you for non-payment of rent amounting to £ , being half-yearly payments, 1 have to state that at present I do not intend to bring the matter before the Land Board, but I should be glad to know what proposals you have to make, say, within one month from this date; and also a statement as to your circumstances, as I am most anxious to meet you in any way that is reasonable; also, if you cannot pay the whole amount, perhaps you could arrange to pay at least a portion of it. If, however, the rents remain unpaid, of course, I shall be reluctantly compelled to take further steps for the recovery of same, although I trust that this course will not be necessary in your case." 2. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you send out the ordinary demand for rent when due?—Yes. 3. And then this notice follows, at what interval after the ordinary demand has been made? — Perhaps three months; I cannot exactly say. Of course, it will depend a good deal on the nature of the case. If we find a man is a good deal behind, and takes no notice of the demands for rent, the Receiver would probably send it out one month afterwards. In all other notices the pen is put through the reference to forfeiture for rent in arrears. The principle we go on now is that we do not forfeit for arrears unless in very extreme cases and there are additional causes for it. If a man will not pay, say, arrears of £5 or £10, and has big improvements, then we would probably sue him, although this course has not had to be followed here. 4. Mr. Johnston.] That is the document that is being sent out instead of the one produced in evidence by Mr. Gray yesterday?---Yes. Speaking generally, a stiffer one may have preceded it, and might also have to follow. Matthew Watson Armstrong examined. 5. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and a member of the Auckland Land Board. I have been forty-three years in the colony. I have had three different farms in my time. My first farm was a sandstone farm of 300 acres in the Kaipara; my second was a limestone farm, and I have now a farm of 47 acres of volcanic land near this township. 6. How long have you been a member of the Land Board? —Not quite two years. 7. Under what tenure do you hold your 47 acres? —Freehold, and my former farms were all freehold. I bought them from the Natives. 8. What tenure do you consider best to advance both the settler and the country? —I think the three present systems of tenure amply suffice for the needs of all genuine settlers. 9. Of course, that gives everybody whichever tenure he prefers? —Yes. 10. I suppose the country round here is settled mostly on the freehold tenure? —Yes; although we have a great lot of Crown tenants between here and Wairoa, and doing well too. 11. We have been told there has been a great deal of successful settlement under the homestead system: is that within your observations? —Yes, in some instances. But I consider the homestead system is scarcely worth reintroducing without making the holdings larger. I think 60 acres are no use to a homestead settler. If you make the area something like 300 or 400 acres, then I consider the homestead system is good. 12. I suppose you would only apply this homestead system to the inferior land: would you apply it to land which would go off at a price? —No; to the inferior land; and I should certainly put some condition as to the improvements that had to be done, say, in five years, and then I would give them a Crown grant. 13. We have been told, and it has come under our observation, that there is a great deal of Maori land, and land which has been purchased and not improved in the North, and that these two are great obstacles to the district. I suppose that is within your knowledge as well ? —Yes, there is no doubt that the Maori lands impede the progress of settlement. We are improving our land in the vicinity, and we are improving their land at the same time, and they are letting noxious weeds grow on it, and we have just to put up with the evil. 14. Do you think there is any plan by which this trouble could be amended, in the way of bringing part of the Native land into profitable use? —I think the Government want to allow the Natives so-much land to live on, and then they should take the rest and either lease or sell it for them. The large area of good land between here and Hokianga and Wairoa locked up by the Natives is a great drawback to settlement all along the roads. The Natives do not pay any rates, and we have to keep all the roads in repair. 15. Have you any knowledge of the Native mind on the subject? Do you think they would be willing to agree to such a proposition as you are now making? —I consider the Natives are quite capable of minding their own afiairs, the same as Europeans. They know all about land and the price of land, and they are becoming very cute. 16. But your suggestion is that the Government should, as it were, intervene between them and the purchasers or lessees of their land? —Yes, I should say so. 17. Do you think they would be likely to concur in that? —I believe they would. 18. With regard to freehold land belonging to Europeans which are apparently not being used, do you think there should be any means adopted to bring about a change in their condition ? —We have not much of that in this part of the country. 19. You have not many absentee proprietors? —There are a few, but not very many. We have no great estates here, nor yet millionaires, and we do not want them. 20. I do not suppose there is any aggregation of estates in this part of the world? —No. 21. I believe the Bickerstafie Estate is the only one that has been bought here under the Land for Settlements Act? —Yes, north of Auckland.
M. W. ABMSTEONG.]
823
C.—4.
22. Mr. Paul.\ In several cases the experience of the men appointed to the Land Board has been questioned. Do you think, speaking generally, that the men who compose the Land Board have had ample experience to enable them to administer the Land Act? —I think the present Land Board is quite capable of managing the affairs of the Board as well as any previous Board, and rather better. They are practical men, I should say. We are all old settlers, and being on the land these last forty years we ought to know something about land. 23. Are they representative of the different districts? —Yes. 24. Do you think the necessity for the homestead system exists to-day the same as it did in previous times when there were no conveniences in the north? You see, the face of the country has been so changed of late years that there may not be the necessity to give away the land to get it settled? —I think it is far better to give it away than to let it stand as it is. There is any amount of land in this country that would have no value whatever if it was not for the gum in it. 25. Do you think that land of no value whatever would be taken up if given away? —You see, that adjoining perhaps 500 or 600 acres of poor land there may*be a man with a bit of good land, and he would certainly take up the poor land for a run. lam beginning to think that when this danthonia gets into it it will be better. I think the danthonia will kill the tea-tree. 26. Do you think this danthonia is going to be the salvation of the north? —Not exactly the salvation, but I think it will go to help the land a good lot. 27. Is the district progressing? —Yes. The settlers are all flourishing around this country; there are no poor people. 28. Is the value of leasehold land increasing? —Yes, but not very much. 29. Are there many absentee landholders in the district? —Very few indeed. 30. Just between Whangarei and Kauri there is a large tract of country in a very bad state, a good deal of it being overrun with gorse and other rubbish. I have been told that is freehold land : is that so? —Of course, the land where the gorse is belonged to the Kamo Coal Company, but now it has come back into private hands and they are clearing it. It is good land, and will soon be cleared and brought under. 31. Does that apply to the whole of that land? —It is more or less coal country there. 32. Surely that was not all held in the hands of a coal company. The area I speak of comprises a great tract of country? —Some of it is in private hands, but it is owned by residents in the district. 33. Apparently they are not doing anything with it? —The fact of the matter is it has been cleared, and the grass has run out and the tea-tree has come up again. Some of it is only poor land. Of course, where the gorse is at Kamo is volcanic land, but between Kamo and Kauri there is some very poor land. 34. Do you think it is in the best interests of the district that land should be held in that state ? —No. 35. You are acquainted with the residence conditions under which Crown tenants labour: is there anything in them which could be amended or improved? —I think the residence clauses are too stringent altogether in many instances. 36. In what way would you amend them? —I have had several letters from Crown tenants suffering from this cause. I will quote you a paragraph from one: " I have two children going to school, and cannot possibly condemn them to ignorance, as there is no school within ten miles of the section, and absolutely no road; so that if the Board is determined to forfeit my section, I consider it very hard on a man born and bred in the district to be condemned to live ten years on 38 acres of gum-land. It is really a terrible sentence." 37. In dealing with these cases do not the Board use their discretion and help such a man in every possible way? —Of course, we have to. We have not forfeited any land scarcely. We give genuine settlers every possible chance. 38. You exempt residence for a great number of years?— Not for a great number of years. We exempt for six or twelve months, and then they are supposed to reside on the land. 39. But on bush lands is there not an exemption of residence, in the first place, of something like four years? —No, not that I am aware of. 40. How long is the exemption? —We generally consider about six or twelve months. 41. If a man had a family would the Board compel him to take that family into the back country at the end of twelve months? —The man or his sons could go in until he got a comfortable home for his family. 42. What were the special circumstances in the case you refer to? Were the Board intending to enforce what the settler considered harsh conditions?— They sent out printed forms telling him the land would very likely be forfeited if he did not do so-and-so, and it frightens a settler. I think it ought to be altered. A settler thinks the land is going to be forfeited, and we have not done such a thing. 43. Do you think the Board should have discretionary power to say what residence should take place? —By all means. I consider if a man does his improvements and brings the land into grass he is doing good to the country even if he does not reside on it. 44. Have the Board power under any circumstances to set aside the residence conditions for four years?—l believe they have. In the case of two brothers taking up a section of land in partnership I think it would be suicidal to force one of them to go and live on it. He has to go out and earn money to buy wire and cattle. We ought to waive the conditions. 45. As a Board, do you do so? —Yes, to a certain extent. 46. Mr. Anstey.] Is that form threatening forfeiture being sent out now?—l think we have stopped it. 47. If it is not sent out now why do you complain of it?—l am not complaining now. It was six months ago when I got this letter. 48. Is it not a fact that you, as a Board, have full power to deal with the matter if you choose to do so? —We cannot break the Act.
C. 4.
824
M. W. ARMSTRONG.
49. Was the section of the man who wrote to you forfeited? —No. 50. You had power to modify the restrictions in his case, and you have done so ? Yes; we allowed him to go on just the same. 51. What particular complaint has he got, then? —We have not told him that. We have given him six or twelve months' extension. He is supposed to reside on the section some time. 52. Has any undue pressure been exercised by the Board in regard to these restrictions? Not to my knowledge. 53. You said there were very few absentees in the district. Can you explain how it is that, according to the Year-book, in many road districts in your county there are an enormously larger number of ratepayers than there are dwellers? For instance, at Parua Bay there are two hundred ratepayers and only fifty dwellers, and at Waikiekie there are ninety-two ratepayers and twentyseven dwellers: that seems to show there must be a great number of absentees ? Parua Bay was settled under the Homestead Act; but 1 cannot account for what you state. There is some very poor land in some parts of Parua*that is not worth paying rates on. 54. According to the Year-book, there are four times as many ratepayers as there are dwellers: does not that prove that at least three-quarters of the landowners are absentees? Yes. I did not think there was that amount. 55. Do you think it is in the best interests of the country that there should be such a lot of land held by absentees? —Well, what can be done with the land? 56. We are here to try and find out, and I want to know if you can suggest anything to prevent this. Do you think we should impose on freeholders the same residential conditions as are imposed on leaseholders?— No. 57. Do you think it would be wise to impose any restriction by law to prevent so much land being held by absentees?— No. If the land is any good the owners would be doing something on it. These sections at Parua Bay are just swamps and tea-tree land and broken gullies. 58. Then, the land is no good at all? —Not at the present time. We would not have it to pay rates on it. 59. Do you think it is necessary to give this land away under the homestead system?— Yes, 1 do. For instance, at Parua Bay there are settlers here and there who would very soon take up that back country if they could get it for fencing it in. 60. Do you not think a wiser way would be to make some conveniences to it—say, roads and drainage if necessary, and load the land with the price of that work rather than to put people there without any conveniences? —In some instances it would be better. 61. You say there are a large number of leaseholders successfully settled on land in this neighbourhood: do you think it is absolutely necessary that these people should be given the freehold in order to profitably occupy their sections? —Decidedly not. 62. Is there anything in the leasehold to prevent them occupying the land profitably and well? —Nothing that I am aware of. 63. You think that in every case the leasehold should be conserved to the lessee with full interest in all improvements he makes himself? —I do. 64. Mr. Forbes.] If the homestead system is reintroduced with larger areas than in the past would it not work in this way: the intention is to apply it to men with very little capital, and if you give a poor man a fairly large area of this land, which needs a great deal of expenditure to bring it into anything like a reproductive state, is it not only courting disaster for him?— Some parts of it possibly may be good. There may be 20 or 30 acres of bush on it. 65. This homestead system is advocated in order to settle the poor lands of the North of Auckland and to get poor men on to them Do you not think that it is men with capital who are needed for this land rather than poor men ?—You will get no men with capital to touch it. They have more sense. 66. Then, do you not think it is a snare and delusion to put poor men on such land! —A man would go out in the morning and make ss. or 6s. at gum-digging. Then, again, this land will grow good fruit-trees. " 67. Is the lease-in-perpetuity system at all favoured in the north? —No, they are not educated up to it yet. I believe it to be good. 68. Do you not think that under a lease which enables a man to use all his money for improvements there is a better chance of bringing the land into cultivation than there is under a system that forces a man to put all his money into the purchase of the land? —Yes. I know one man who took up land, and he has done very well indeed. He is milking cows and saving money. I spoke to him the other dav, and asked him if he would like to pay off his lease. He said, " Well, Ido not know. I bought some property in Whangarei, and it is bringing me in 15 per cent. I do not want to pay off the lease, because I am only paying 3J or 4 per cent, on it, and I can always get sor 6 per cent, for any money I make. lam satisfied." _ . , 69. It struck us that a good deal of the North of Auckland land requires an amount of capital to brin<? it into anything like a state of cultivation. Would not a lease like lease in perpetuity, which does not force a man to sink his money into the freehold, more reasonably be expected to enable a man to bring it into a state of cultivation than any other system?— Yes. I do not know how you would bring some of this poor land into cultivation. If you plough it you would want to be alongside a bone-mill. 70. You said it would grow fruit-trees?— Yes; but they want manuring too. 71. Would it not grow fruit-trees without manure? —It would grow them better with a little. 72. Another statement that was made in regard to this rough land is that a man should be exempt from residence conditions by doubling his improvements : _ do you think that would be a reasonable thing? —I would be quite agreeable to that. I would like the Government to take up 20, 50, or 100 acres, and plough it and work it and sow it down in danthonia or some of the harder'grasses, to prove to the settlers what could be done with the land.
M. W. ABMSTBONG.I
825
C—4.
73. Do you think also that something should be done by the Government to show what could be done in the way of fruit-growing? —Yes, by all means. 74. Mr. Hall.'] Have you any general knowledge of the country north of Mangonui and Kaipara? —I know the country very well from Auckland to here and from here to the Bay of Islands and Hokianga, but I do not know much about the land further north. 75. Evidently the Natives hold a large area of country: is that generally the best land? —Of course, it is. 76. If it could be acquired by the Government and settled would it promote the prosperity of the north I—There1 —There is no doubt about it. It would be all taken up directly. 77. Do you think the difficulties of acquiring that land from the Natives are insurmountable? Ido not. I think the Government could treat with the Natives for the chief part of it. They should make reserves for the use of the Natives, for I would not like to see the Natives landless. 78. Can you suggest any system of dealing with the poor land under any other tenure than at present in force that would lead to successful settlement? Would you make a free grant, say, of 100 acres of land to be taken up and improved?- I believe a good lot of land could be taken up. As regards these gum reserves, I think the best plan would be to convert them into Crown lands and then sell them. I know gum land that is selling at £15 and £20 per acre. That is the value given to the land by the gum. 79. Would Austrians make desirable settlers on small holdings as fruit-growers? —I believe they would. At present the Austrians lease a small piece of ground from a settler to dig gum, and they have their eye on the gum reserve all the time, and they are continually back and forward on it. It would take all the Rangers in the country to catch them. They are clearing all the gum out of the reserves now, and the sooner these reserves are dealt with the better. 80. Do you think they would make desirable settlers on small holdings of inferior land if they had the opportunity under certain conditions?- I do. They are a very hard-working lot of men. 81. Is the lease in perpetuity considered a satisfactory tenure throughout the north? —No. The best tenure is occupation with right of purchase It suits the settlers best, and it is most favoured. 82. I suppose you have a knowledge of the ballot system? —Yes. 83. Could that be simplified and improved? —I think the ballot system is a long way from being right, but I have not heard any better suggestion from any one to take its place. 84. Mr. Johnston.] There is a large area of land between the falls and the town here covered with gorse : is that private land? —Yes. 85. That is pretty good land?--I do not think it is very good land. It is very poor land; it would not keep a cricket. 86. I was told that 13 tons of potatoes to the acre were got from it? —You can grow potatoes on a brick if you have plenty of manure. 87. Is it good to have the gorse there? —No. 88. You know who owns it? —I believe it belongs to several residents in the Whangarei district. 89. Has the Noxious Weeds Act been brought into operation here? —Yes, it is supposed to be. We have an Inspector, and it is being enforced in several instances. 90. Are you rating on the unimproved value? —No. 91. Would it not be better if it was? —I begin to think it would be. 92. Do you think gum-digging is advantageous to the settlement of the country? —Not particularly. They are taking the gum and timber away, and these are our principal products. I do not know what is to become of the north when they are gone. The poor land may possibly have some coal or other mineral in it. 93. Are not settlers' sons following the occupation of gum-digging instead of going on to the land ? —Not many settlers' sons. They go into the bush and get their £2 a week and found there. 94. Do the settlers' sons go on the land at all?--Yes, of course, they take it up. They took up the land at Maungakia. 95. Why did the man with the 38 acres who sent you that letter take up the land if it was not fit to keep a rabbit? —You see, he had other land besides that, and he has fenced it in, and he keeps his dry cows and possibly a few sheep on it. I could show you twenty letters from. Crown tenants complaining about the residential conditions. 96. How much of this land is there that you think a capitalist would be a fool to touch? About an eighth of the North of Auckland. 97. Of course, if a capitalist would be a fool to touch it it would be a foolish thing to put a poor man on it, as Mr. Forbes pointed out?- Yes; but he would make something out of it. 98. If a capitalist could not make something out of it a poor man could not ?—But he would put no capital in the land but his labour. 99. What would you do with the land between Warkworth and Auckland?- I wish you would „ive me something easier. That is about as poor land as there is anywhere in the north. jog. There is plenty more like it? —Something like it. If you noticed, coming out from Auckland, you would see that they are ploughing and cultivating the hills and manuring them, and when the land is near a big town you will see it brought under. The land can be brought under with plenty of manure; but where manure costs, three times as much as it does close to town it is out of the question. 101. That land has been near Auckland for many years and was not touched? —Ihat is so, but they are touching it now. 102. Why are Austrians kept off the gum reserves?--Because the gum reserves are reserved for the settlers and people of the country who pay a royalty. 103. But do not the Austrians do better work than Europeans on gum-fields: do they not dig systematically? —They do not leave much after them. 104—C, 4.
a—4.
826
M. W. ARMSTRONG.
104. You do not want anything left: you want the gum out and be done with it? —That is so. 105. Do you think the gum reserves would be better administered by the Land Board than by the County Councils?--I do not know about that. The County Councils have as good ideas of this land as the Land Board. I consider they should act together. 106. Does not dual administration jar more or less at times? —It has not come under my notice. 107. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —Not personally. I consider it is the best Act the Government ever passed. It has done the settlers more good than anything else they have ever done. 108. Have you heard any complaints about its administration? —You will always get complaints, but, generally, I think it has been fairly satisfactory. 109. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you say that the gum reserves are reserved for _ Europeans to dig on ? —Yes. 110. Then, have Austrians the same rights as colonists ?- -No. 111. Do you not consider Austrians are Europeans? —Yes; but Austrians come here and make money and then clear out of the country with it. It is better that the settler should earn this money, because he will keep it in the colony and improve his land with it. 112. Have you known any Austrians to make good settlers? —Yes, I have known two of them to be fairly good settlers. 113. Do you think it is wise to deny them the right to dig on kauri-gum reserves? —I consider it is better to let the settler have the gum than to encourage these men. 114. Do you think it would be wise to try and encourage them to make use of the land when they have got some money from gum-digging?- Yes, I quite agree with that, because they make good settlers. 115. You spoke of three tenures being sufficient: which three do you mean? —Cash, occupation with right of purchase, and lease in perpetuity. 116. Do you think it would be wise to give applicants for Crown lands the option as to which tenure they would take it up under?- By all means. 117. Under the Land for Settlements Act, when a man gets on his feet would it be wise to give him the right of purchase? —Decidedly not. He took it up under lease in perpetuity, and I say let him stick to it. 118. Is it not sometimes wise for the landlord to agree with a tenant to amend a lease? — Possibly. 119. Do you know whether a number of the old homestead settlers in this district have been in receipt of charitable aid ? —Not to my knowledge. 120. Have men proved that the poor land north of Auckland can be profitably used to grow vines and fruit? —It has been proved on small areas. 121. Then, why do you think it would be wise for the Government to undertake to prove it when it has been already proved?- -I mean they should experiment with the hard grasses, and not with the fruit-trees. 122. Where do you think would be a wise place to give the best proof possible? —On the Mungarei gumfields. 123. Would you sell the gum reserves by auction? —Yes. 124. Do you think if it was done that way the State would get a much bigger return than by licensing the diggers? —Yes. The licenses are merely a nominal thing. 125. What size section do you think it would be wise to cut these reserves into? —From 10 to 20 up to 200 acres. 126. Mr. McCardle.\ You mentioned some number of settlements that have been a considerable success under the leasehold tenure: is that under lease in perpetuity, occupation with right of purchase, or both? —Both. 127. Whereabouts are they? —Some at Ruatangata and some at Whatitiri. 128. Were they opened under the optional system?- —Yes. - 129. Do you know what number were taken up under occupation with right of purchase and what number under lease in perpetuity? —I do not remember, but I could supply particulars. 130. I observe that you are in favour of securing to the Natives a certain proportion of land sufficient for their wants, and that the Government should take over the balance and deal with it? —Yes. 131. I suppose you would observe the conditions of the present Act by granting to the Natives about 50 acres each?— Yes, or more under some circumstances. 132. Mr. McCutchan.] You say occupation with right of purchase is the favourite tenure throughout the north? —Yes. 133. And, in your personal opinion, the three present tenures should remain on the statutebook? —Yes. 134. Occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenants have the right to convert to lease in perpetuity : would you allow lease-in-perpetuitv tenants to convert to occupation with right of purchase? —Yes. 135. For what reason? —They had the chance of the three tenures, and they should stick to the one they selected. 136. In some cases the people did not have the option —for instance, no option was given in regard to the Kawhia land? —No, it was all lease-in-perpetuitv tenure. 137. All down the Ahura Flat the optional tenure was not allowed?— No. 138. Do you know of any good reason why it was not allowed? —No. 139. Was it not an object in giving the lease-in-perpetuity tenure to enable the poorer class of men to get on the land? —Yes. 140. Do you think that the man with a little more means should get an advantage over the poor man in regard to tenure? —No.
M. W. ARMSTKONG.
827
G.-4.
141. Then, why do you object to a tenant having the right when he is in a position financially to convert his tenure into an occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure by paying the difference to do so?--I am against the opportunity being given to convert the lease in perpetuity into freehold. 142. Do you think that the leaseholders should get a rebate of rent? —In some instances, I consider, they are over-rented. 143. Are you acquainted with the provisions of the Rebate of Kent Act? —I have read it, but 1 do not know much about it. 144. Is it not the case that rebates are given generally all over the colony, irrespective of whether the rent is too high or too low? —Yes, I think so. 145. Would you consider the Rebate of Rent Act as interfering in any way with the original contract, which you say you do not want to interfere with? —The original contract would not be interfered with, and the settler would get the benefit if he was given a rebate. In some instances there ought to be a rebate because the rents are too high. 146. Is it not the case that throughout the north the Crown leaseholders desire to change the lease-in-perpetuity tenure into occupation-with-riglit-of-purchase tenure? —Yes, I dare say it is. 1 consider that if a man takes up a section under lease in perpetuity he ought to stick to it, and the same in regard to the optional system. 147. You said you thought the area of the homestead sections should not be less than 300 acres. Would you give the title after five years if improvements were made? Would you enforce the residence conditions under the homestead system? —No; I would leave it to the discretion of the Land Board. 148. If the land was of any value might it not be possible that speculators would go in under certain conditions and take up tlrfe land? Are not the residence conditions in connection with land-settlement the chief preventive of speculation and dummyism? —Yes. 149. 1 am alluding to the Crown lands of the colony, and principally in connection with homestead settlement?--I would not push settlers in regard to the residential clause if they were genuine, good settlers. 150. Is not residence the chief means a settler hsCs of proving his bona fides? —Yes; but they would not settle on these lands. It would be the farmers adjoining who would take the land up. 151. In connection with the residence clause, you are aware that lease-in-perpetuity holders are compelled to reside ten years continuously, and in the case of occupation-with-right-of-purchase holders they are compelled to reside for six years contiunously. Do you see any reason why there should be any distinction in this respect between the two classes of tenants? —No. 152. Would you be in favour of reducing the term in the case of the lease-in-perpetuity tenure to six years ? —Yes, making them both alike. 153. Would you be in favour of anv further reduction in the period of continuous residence? -No. 154. You think that where double improvements are effected there should be exemption from residence? —Yes; but always subject to the discretionary power of the Land Board. 155. In addition to the value of the tenant's improvements, there is also the goodwill, and sometimes an unearned increment: do you think that belongs to the settler upon the land ? —Yes; I consider it belongs to the man who owns the land, 156. Do you know, in connection with these North of Auckland lands, if any systematic analysis of the various soils has been made to see what constituent is really wanting in the land ? -No; but such an analysis is required very much. 157. Do you think the minimum price of ss. for Crown lands should be made lower? —Yes. 158. Mr. Johnston.] I suppose you are aware that Mr. Buchanan got some of the soil at Cheviot analysed, and as a result it was said that that soil would not grow wheat? —Yes. 159. And you also know that splendid crops of wheat are now growing on that land? —Yes. James Milleb Killen examined. lfiO. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a solicitor, and 1 occupy a farm of 235 acres freehold. I have occupied this land for about seventeen years. It is about a mile and a half from the town. Besides that, I have lately purchased for two of my sons some land held by the persons who took it up under occupation license with the right of purchase. One of these farms consists of 314 acres and the other a little less than 100 acres. I am supplying my sons with capital to carry them on. 161. What tenure do you favour? —Unhesitatingly, the freehold. The freehold I consider to be the best for the country, and also the best for the farmer. At the same time, I think that both the occupation license with right of purchase and lease in perpetuity have been advantageous to the settlement of the country as a preliminary. 162. But you think the freehold should be the goal?— Yes, the freehold should be the goal. 163. Is that opinion generally held in this district?— Yes; and there is a considerable amount of doubt, hesitation, and uncertainty with regard to the lease in perpetuity. 164. In what respect? —Interference, both from the Land Board and from the Government. Many of the lessees are afraid of that owing to different things, one of them being this: that Fair Rent Bills have been introduced into Parliament, and certain restrictions are proposed to to be imposed on leaseholds. There is a certain amount of uncertainty felt by the lessees with regard to their position, which, I think, is undesirable, and is bad for the country and bad for the tenants. 165. But a gentleman in your profession, no doubt, is well aware of the sacredness of a contract. Do you think the Legislature would enact anything that would disturb or violate that contract ?—When a Minister of the Crown introduces a Fair Rent Bill proposing to interfere with the lease in perpetuity I think the people are perfectly justified in cherishing a fear in regard to the matter.
C—4.
828
[j. M. KILLEN.
166. But if they do that in the case of the leasehold, might they not also propose some drastic change in regard to the freehold ? -That is so. That is the danger that is making people afraid that the sacredness of a contract might be interfered with by the Legislature. Of course, an Act of Parliament can override anything, and they might take possession of the farms; but if that were done I think it would bring about a revolution, and I think no Government would introduce such a measure. 167. We have heard that the large area of Native land and the unimproved freehold land has been deterrent from the progress of this district? —Undoubtedly, that is the case. I think a great mistake was made in the early settlement of the country by allowing the settlers to settle the poor land before attempting to settle the better class of land. To my mind, the natural and best order in which to settle the country is to allow the best land to be settled first, and subsequently the poorer land will naturally be taken up, improved, and settled afterwards. Probably the circumstances of the country were such as to necessitate the settlers taking up the poor land on account of the better land being held by the aboriginal owners. In many cases the holdings were of such a size that the people who took them up were not able to make a living off them, borne of the sections were 10 acres and some 40 acres. A considerable number are unoccupied at the present time. These sections were allotted in the early days, but no man could make a living off them in those days, and no man could do so now. Poor land of that kind to be usefully occupied must be taken up in larger areas. Experience has proved that, and 1 think any man of common-sense might have seen it at the start. If the best land had been settled first the poorer land would have been settled afterwards. In this district the best land is in the hands of the Natives, and, with few exceptions, the Europeans have been debarred from taking up the better land. 168. Have you any suggestion to make with regard to the acquisition of this good Native land by the Government, or have you any other suggestion to make on that subject ? I have no doubt that many of the Natives are anxious to have the right of dealing with their own land. Ihey look upon themselves as being in every way equal to Europeans, and 1 think it would be only right and fair to place them as soon as possible upon an equality with Europeans. If there is any doubt about their ability to support themselves, a certain amount of land might be reserved for them —whatever area is considered necessary. In no case do the Natives farm to any great extent, and I am quite satisfied that 100 acres would be as much as most of them would be able to manage. I think we should set apart whatever area may be considered sufficient for their support, so that they would not fall back upon the country as paupers. We should set apart these reserves, and then let the Natives have the free right to deal with the rest of their land as Europeans have—either to lease, sell, or mortgage in any proportion they please—except this: that I think it is desirable that we should limit the area of land that any one individual may hold. I think it is desirable that the land of the colony should be distributed as widely as possible and as equally as possible amongst the people of the colony. 169. If that were done in regard to Native land, would you allow the Native to deal directly with the purchaser in regard to the balance? —I would allow the Native to deal directly with the purchaser. At the same time, it would be necessary to take steps to secure the title, so as remove any doubt about the certainty of the title. 170. Can you say how much Native land, approximately, is in the W'hangarei County! JNo, I cannot say definitely what the area may be. I know there are many Natives here who are exceedingly anxious to deal with Europeans, but who are debarred from doing so under the present 171. With regard to freehold land not being dealt with, could any reasonable pressure be brought to bear so as to bring them into cultivation? With regard to lands held by absentees, I think the law as it at present exists is sufficient. It is impossible to compel a man to cultivate his land when he finds that he cannot make a living off it and make use of it. If he pays his rates he is benefiting the country so far To compel him to live on the land or to spend money on the land would, in my opinion, be an act of cruelty, because if he lived on the land he would be bound to become a pauper, because he could never make a living off it. 171 a What are you to do? Are you to deprive him of the land altogether?—ln the meantime he pays his rates, and if he pays his rates, no doubt, in course of time the land will become more valuable Having no security of tenure, he does not spend much in improving it, and when it becomes in a way valuable he may sell it for a small sum. I may mention that some of these 40-acre sections in this neighbourhood have been held by people in Auckland for perhaps forty years. They have paid rates on them for all that time, and in the end these 40-acre sections have sometimes been sold for £15 —a small sum when a man has paid rates on the land for forty years. 172. We have heard to-day that the rating in this county is on the capital value. Do you not think it would be better to rate on the unimproved value?—l regard rating on the unimproved value as an unfair principle of rating, for this reason: the absentee who is paying his rates is making nothing out of the land whatever. It is lying absolutely idle, and he is paying rates all the time. His rates go to improve other land as well as his own. Ihe man who is making improvements is paying heavier rates, but he is getting a benefit from the land and is making a living off it I think that rates, like everything else, ought to be paid in proportion to the means of the people who pay and the benefit that those people receive from the roads. Ihe man who is occupying the land receives a greater benefit, and it is only right, I think, that he should pay a larger amount of rates. If the rates were levied entirely on the unimproved value they would fall equally heavily on the man who is deriving no benefit from the land. 173 There is a large area of Crown land and of Native land in the North of Auckland, neither of which pay rates. Do you think it would be only just that these lands should be assessed and pay rates?— Since the Government lock them up, and do not throw them open for selection, 1 think they ought to pay rates, because they are simply in the position of absentee land so tar as the country is concerned. But if the Government throw those lands open for selection, and allow them to be taken up in fair terms, I do not think the Government ought to pay rates on them, because they are being held by the Government for the benefit of the country.
J. M. KILLEN.]
829
C.—4.
174. We are informed that the Government do pay something in the fortn of votes, but that these votes are rather uncertain; and it has been suggested that if another system were adopted the local body would have a more assured finance ? —There is certainly a difficulty about the matter. It is very desirable that the finance of the local bodies should be put on a better basis than at present. I think there are many evils connected with the obtaining of these grants or votes; but what is the way out of the difficulty I am not prepared to say. 175. Do you approve of the present constitution of the Land Boards? Personally, 1 have not given that subject very much attention ; but I know there has been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in connection with it. Some of the gentlemen appointed to the Land Board would hardly have been selected by the settlers. 176. Supposing the Board were made partially or wholly elective, what franchise do you think they should be elected under? I dare say if three or four counties were joined together the Count}' Council might be allowed to nominate one member for the counties in a certain district. 177. Mr. Paul.] Would you elect the whole of the Board? —No. I think the Government has a right to representation on the Board. I think it would be a decided mistake to put the administration of the land into the hands of an elected Board, because it might give rise to jobbery. 178. Have you noticed any difference in the farming of freehold and leasehold land? — Decidedly. I suppose you are speaking in regard to leases in this part of the colony. 179. I mean so far as your experience goes? —Generally speaking, the leaseholder is—to use too strong an expression to give you the idea a slave. A freeholder is a free man, and is independent, and I think the of the country depends to a very large extent upon the freedom and independence of the men of the country. If you are to have a nation of serfs you will not prosper. If you are to have a nation of men it will be a very different thing. A freehold has a tendency to produce men. A leasehold has a tendency to make slaves and serfs. 180. Do you think the leaseholder is a slave? No; but I say the tendency of the leasehold is to create subserviency and to create serfs. As a matter of fact, in countries where there is nothing but leasehold there is not that freedom and independence of spirit and manliness such as exists in the United States, where there is nothing but the freehold. 181. Could you cite a country where there is nothing but leasehold?- In Egypt the fellaheen is to a large extent miserable, and in India, where the bulk of the people are not freeholders, and in Russia the whole of the land is held by the Czar and the nobility. What are the people in those countries. 182. Do you think there is any analogy between those people and the British people? —Yes. They are men like ourselves, and if they had the same opportunity and the same privileges perhaps they would be in every way equal to us, if not better —some of them. 183. Is that not largely a matter of conjecture? —No; history proves it. 184. Have you had experience in all those countries, as well as Great Britain ? —I am a native of the British Empire, and have passed through some of those countries and have studied the history of other countries, and it is from my knowledge and experience and from what I have seen that I speak as I do now. 185. Do you know of any men who are progressing favourably where there is the leasehold tenure? —Yes ; as I said at the beginning, I think the perpetual lease is a good thing. It enables men without capital to take up land and make a living for themselves —men who would not be in a position to take up land if they had not an opportunity of taking it up under leasehold. 186. Do you look on those men as in any way approaching the conditions of serfs? —No. 187. In this colony a very large number of poor'men have got on to the land by means of the leasehold who could only have done so under that system ? —Certainly, and it was a good thing for them; but at the same time I say it would be a good thing for the country if it enabled those men who wished to do so to acquire the freehold of the land. Ido not say that those men have a right to go to the Government and say, "You must give us the freehold," because I look on a contract as a sacred thing, and those men, having taken up the leasehold, have not a right to demand the freehold. But i say, if the Government can see its way to allow these men to get the freehold these' settlers will take greater interest in the land and will become more independent, and the result will be better for the country. 188. You referred to some restrictions they were attempting to impose on leaseholders? —1 referred to the Matamata Block. When it was thrown open for selection there were restrictions imposed, and I know of people in this district who wished to take up some of that land for their sons, but owing to the restrictions they would not do so. If such restrictions are to be imposed for 999 years it seems to be absolutely necessary to bring about a change before that time elapses, because the world changes and everything changes- even the system of farming changes —and to impose restrictions of that kind for 999 years on a lease is, to my mind, absurd. 189. Under our land-for-settlements policy there are numerous restrictions; do you think it is necessary to have some supervision or restrictions?- I think that all leaseholds should be subject to supervision, because my experience of leaseholds is that tenants very frequently ruin the land. But in the case of the 999-vears lease, that is a different matter. What I object to in the restrictions of the 999-years lease is the absurdity of laying down any plan of farming for 999 years. So far as that is concerned, Ido not think that there is any need for any restrictions. It is* tantamount to a freehold. There are, however, people who are afraid that there will be interference with the lease. 190. Do you think if a man had a certain amount of capital sunk in the land he would abuse the land? —I think if you give a map the freehold he will do his very best with his own. That is the best principle to adopt ; but if you risk land to a man the probability is that he will take everything out of it that he can during his term, and will leave the land in a very poor condition for the succeeding tenant. I think it would be a good thing for the country to say to these people, " We will give you the option of securing for yourselves the freehold."
C.^4.
830
T.T. M. KILLEN.
191. Would you extend that option to the land for-settlements policy ? —I would extend it to all the land in the country. 192. Have you had experience of the working of the land-for-settlements policy in the south? -No. Bickerstaffe is the only estate that has been purchased under that Act in the North of Auckland. I have had no experience of it, but I hear that it is not a great success. I hold that even under the land-for-settlements system it would be better for the country and better for the people who occupy the land that they should be the owners of the land. If there are restrictions as to area, I do not think any danger is likely to result, either to the country as a whole or to the individual holders of the laud, if they are permitted to acquire the freehold. 193. Do you believe in the leasehold tenure pure and simple? —In many cases I do. 1 think those who want leases should have an opportunity of getting them. 194. Do you think the State should charge too high rent? —Certainly not. I think that is a mistake that has been made in this district. 'J'lie land was valued too highly, and the rents are really higher than the tenants ought to pay. I have known of iirst-class land in this district taken up by men who had to go out and work on the gumfields in order to pay their rent, and even after they had struggled on for some years they had to throw up the land altogether. 195. Do you think in that case there should be some machinery for reducing the rent? —No, because I think a contract is a sacred thing, and I think the proper thing for these people to do is to go to the Government and say, " We find we have made a mistake, and we wish to surrender the leases." Then, if the Government thinks fit, and if these men are agreeable, there should be a new lease made, but there should be no modification of the existing lease. 196. Do you think it is wise of the State to give a lease for 999 years at rent based on the then present value ?—-I think that.in some cases the value of the land at present will probably be higher than it will be one hundred years hence. The value of land, like the value of everything else, fluctuates, and sometimes very considerably. To my personal knowledge, land has been thrown open in this district at far too high a figure Even the best land here requires a great outlay of capital to improve it before it gives any return. 1 think the Government might even give the tenants some of this land absolutely free for a certain number of years —say, ten years — and it would be a good thing for the country. 197. Would you give them the freehold at the end of that time? —Yes, if the tenants made certain improvements on the ground, but not otherwise. 198. Would you give them that land also for nothing? —No. The good land of the country is of a certain value, and ought not to be given away absolutely; but I would not ask the people to pay down all the money at once, neither would I ask them to go out and earn their rent, as under ocupation-with-right-of-purchase license, while they are improving the land. Take the Whatatiri Block, of which I have some personal knowledge, it was valued at £2 10s. per acre, and the greater portion at £2 and £2 ss. per acre. It is generally admitted to be good land, but I do not think that any person who took up that land would be able to pay his rent from it during the first four years' occupation. 199. Seeing that you admit that the valuation for this land was too high, and consequently the rent is too high, do you think that revaluation would be sound to apply to future leases? — The difficulty is in regard to making a correct calculation. I think if a man makes a bargain he should stick to it, even to his own hurt. I think it is a bad thing for a Government to encourage people to wish to alter their contract. 200. I think you advocated that if a man is paying too high rent he ought to rather forfeit his section ? —A man takes up land under certain conditions, and if he does not fulfill those conditions he is supposed to surrender. 201. Do you think that absentee-owned land is a bar to the progress of the district? —Yes. 202. Do you not think the community has a perfect right to rating on the unimproved value of the land? —Yes, and they are doing that now. And if the occupier does not pay the rates the land will be sold to pay them. 203. Do you think that an absentee, who is not making use of his land, should hand it over to somebody else who will use it? —A man has a right to do with his own as he likes. I think a man who pays for his land, being the owner of it, has a right to use it as he thinks best, just as you are the owner of your coat. 204. But we are speaking of land —land with which he is doing nothing? —He has paid his money for it, and the State has no right to interfere with the contract it has made. 205. It is a question of taxation? —As long as he pays the taxes he is fulfilling the conditions imposed in the original contract. 206. Is there any difficulty in getting money advanced on leasehold land? —Capitalists are less willing to advance on leasehold land than on freehold, because the security is not considered so good. 207. Is that a question of a lesser amount, or does it affect giving an advance at all"? —The same amount will not be advanced on leasehold as on freehold; and in the case of leasehold the interest charged is higher —the advance given in the case of leasehold is only an advance on the improvements. 208. Is money ever advanced on leaseholds in this district? —Yes, but the interest charged to private people is generally higher. 209. Mr. Anstey.\ You say that tenants should have the right to acquire the freehold? —I think it would be a good thing for the country if they had. 210. Would you extend that principle to tenants of education reserves? —I really think it would be better for the country if that were done. 211. Would you extend it to leaseholds of private land? —I would not make it compulsory to a private individual, because it may be occasionally very desirable that a man should have the right of leasing his land without being compelled to sell it. For instance, he may be placed in
831
a—4.
•T. M. KILLEN.I
such circumstances that he wishes to go somewhere else for a short term, and it may be desirable that he should lease his land during the period of his absence, and if he were obliged to sell the land to the lessee, Ido not think that would be right. I would not make it compulsory. 212. I understood you to say that a leaseholder from a private landlord must remain a serf all his days as long as he is a leaseholder? —I said the leasehold system has a tendency to create serfs, and it also tends to create many other abuses, both on the part of the landlord and the tenant. 213. Could you mention a country or countries where the majority of the people are leaseholders, and from whom they hold their leasehold ? —ln Russia it is the nobility that owns the land; in Egypt it is the Khedive; and in India the landlords of the soil. 214. Who owns the land in England? —In England there is an evil that should be guarded against in any new country, and that is the land has been acquired by comparatively few people. 215. Supposing you allowed the freehold to be given in this colony, what would be the result? —The people who purchased the land cannot occupy it for ever. They must do something with it, and in many ca,ses it will be divided up and handed down to their children. 216. Would you compel the children to live on the land?- -If they wished to do so; but I would give them the right to sell or lease it. 217. Supposing they leased it, would the lessees necessarily become serfs? —Not necessarily. At the same time, so far as they are lessees, they are under the authority of others, and the freer a man is the better for him and for the State of which lie is a citizen. 218. Mr. Forbes.] You said a man has a right to do what he likes with his own? —Yes, provided he does not injure his neighbour. 219. We noticed the other day a case where a man had sown gorse over his place? —The old common law of England provided that if a man sowed gorse and allowed it to spread to his neighbour's land, his neighbour had a good action at law against him. Here, the circumstances are entirely different. That law is in existence here, but the difficulty is to prove the offence. Take gorse, for instance. A man has planted a hedge of gorse, and in a few years gorse appears elsewhere, or perhaps a mile away. Inasmuch as several other people have planted gorse round about, it is impossible to prove where that seed came from; but if you could prove that it came from the particular hedge I have referred to, you would have an action at law against the man who planted it, or the owner of the property. 220. But in this case a man farms with the gorse: would you have an action against him?— If you could prove that the injury sustained was caused by the planting of the gorse, you certainly would have. 221. Was the lease in perpetuity not introduced by Sir John McKenzie in order to deal with the evil of mortgaging freehold farms, thus practically causing the mortgagors to pay rack rents for their farms? —I think a similar evil is just as likely to exist in connection with the leasehold. If men do not manage to get on and be prosperous they will be obliged to borrow, and they will have the same difficulties to labour under, whether the tenure be leasehold or freehold; and the difficulty in the place of the leaseholder will perhaps be greater, because he will have higher interest to pay on account of the nature of his tenure. 222. You do not think the lease in perpetuity will meet that evil? —I do not think it will cure the evil at all. 223. Do you consider that legislation ought to be passed restricting the area of land that a man may hold?—I would not interfere at all with present titles, but I think it would be desirable to prevent a man holding more than a certain area. At the same time, Ido not think there is the same necessity as there is in England, where the law of primogeniture prevails, because there is no danger of the land in New Zealand, under our present laws, being kept in a few hands. The land must necessarily be split up amongst the members of a family when a man dies. 224. Do you not think the better way to prevent the land being held in large areas by a few people would be by means of taxation ? —We have the graduated land-tax at present, and perhaps, to a certain extent, that is right; but to increase the graduated land-tax so as to compel people to split up their estates and sell them at a sacrifice, would, to my mind, be a very harsh and improper act. 225. Would that be more harsh than passing legislation compelling people to divide up their land? —As long as there is plenty of land in the country to meet the demand, I do not see why you should interfere with private rights. At present large estates are being acquired by the Government, and there is no necessity to introduce fresh legislation, because the power already exists. I think, certainly, where one man holds far more land that he can really make use of, and there are others debarred from getting it, it is desirable that they should be given the right to get it; but I do not think it is just to take away a man's land from him and give it to another, merely because that other wants it. 226. Do you think we have sufficient machinery now in our present laws for restricting the area that a man may hold —that is, by a taxation, and so on 1- I think so. 227. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes; I am the solicitor for preparing mortgages in connection with advances to settlers in this district. I think advances to settlers by the Government have been a very great boon to the district. The only complaint I have heard in connection with it is the delay that takes place in replying to applications for loans. Applicants are sometimes kept waiting for three or four months before they get a reply. 228. We have had evidence that the amount offered has been in some cases ridiculous in comparison with the amount of improvements? —The valuation placed by the Government for general purposes is sometimes considerably greater than the Advances to Settlers Department seem to take as a basis for their value when application is made for a loan. Whether the valuer is responsible for that I do not know. It may be that the fault rests entirely with the occupier of the
832
[j. M. KILLEN.
a—4.
land; but I know as a fact that people have sometimes made application for loans, and the value placed upon the property for ordinary rating purposes was such as to justify them in accepting the loan, but the loan was refused. "But, as a genera! rule, the valuation for rating purposes bears a pretty close relationship to its value for the advances to settlers purposes. 229. Would you say it was a safe principle to advance up to more than half the improvements 011 the lands about here? —It greatly depends upon the borrower. 230. Would you say it would be safe to advance up to two-thirds?- In many cases it would be perfectly safe. A great deal depends upon the moral risk. 231. Mr. Hall.] You consider all leases from the Crown should contain conditions giving the right to purchase?—No; I said it would be good for the country if the Crown said to its lessees, " You may, if you wish, obtain the freehold on certain conditions.' 232. As regards existing leases, would you alter the tenure and give the right to purchase ?— I would not do so. But I think it would be a wise thing on the part of the Government to give those people the opportunity of securing the freehold if they wished it. 233. Would that not be retrospective legislation?- No. It refers only to the future. It would confer a boon upon the existing lessees for the purpose of securing a greater boon to the country. 234. Would it not be dangerous to interfere with existing titles to land? —No. It would not be interfering with existing titles, because the lessees could continue to be lessees if they wished. It would be optional with them entirely whether they purchase the freehold or not. I said they bad not the right to do it, and it is simply because it would be good for the country that the Government would grant it. 235. Is it fair to compare the leases in the Old Country—rack-renting for a few years with no allowance for improvements —with the tenure in New Zealand? i\o, the tenures are different entirely; but, at the same time, from the evils which have arisen in the Old Country in connection with the leases, I think wise men will learn something with regard to the leasehold tenure in any country, New Zealand included. 236. With regard to the lease in perpetuity, the whole of the money remains on mortgage tor all time; is not that as safe as if the lands were mortgaged to private individuals?—No; it is not a mortgage in the same sense as a mortgage to a private individual, because, in the case of the lease in perpetuity, the right to secure the freehold is not given. The mortgagor has no right to pay off the mortgage. The mortgage must remain a burden on his back for all time. 237. As regards these irritating restrictions, which make men look upon themselves as slaves, would it not free them from all that if they were allowed to pay a part of the money, and then have all restrictions removed?- Well, a part is better than none; but the whole is better than a part. 238. Another way would be, as soon as they had made improvements to such an extent that their interest in the property was equal to that of the Crown, to remove all restrictions. That would meet the case, would it not?- To a certain extent, it would. 239. Mr. Johnston.'] Are you representing any particular body here to-day?- I was asked by the Whangarei Chamber of Commerce to attend and give evidence, but that is all. Ido not consider I am really representing the Chamber of Commerce. 240. You do not represent the Farmer's Union? —No. 241. Have you visited the South Island and where the Land for Settlements Act is enforced ? -Not since that Act came into force. I have not seen the results of its working. 242. Do you consider gum-digging advantageous to the general settlement of the country? I think the gum industry has been grossly mismanaged from the beginning. T have sometimes entertained a doubt whether it would not have been better for the North of Auckland if there had been no gum at all. At the same time, many people have not only existed, but have made a good living in the north, who would not have been able to do so otherwise. 243. Do you believe in all those areas being still kept open as gum reserves?- I have not given the question verv much attention, but I do not think it is desirable that they should be reserved for all time. ' Some of them it might be wise to close almost immediately, but others, under existing circumstances, should be kept open as reserves for some time, because if you closed them vou would take away the living from a considerable number of people. 244. Is it not true that large areas of land are still under reservation which have been dug over and over again, and would it not be advisable that something should be done with that land? I think it should be thrown open for settlement on some such system as the homestead, under which people would have nothing to pay in the shape of rent or anything else. 245. Have the gum-diggers, as a rule, accumulated sufficient to enable them to take up land? —The bulk of the gum-diggers roam about, and eventually fall upon charitable aid. 246. You said something about the inability of settlers to pay rent for four years?—l meant inability to make the rent out of the land for four years. 247. Are you aware that the Land Boards in the South Island inquire into a man s position when be applies for land, to see if he has sufficient capital to pay three years' rent?—l know it has been done sometimes by the Auckland Land Board, and I think it is an erroneous principle to go on. I think the responsibility should rest with the man himself. It should not matter to the Land Board whether a man makes his rent out of the land or some other source. 248. Wouia they not be considered hard task-masters if they put him oft because he had no capital?—l think if a man is wise and finds he cannot make the land pay he should surrender his holding. . . 249. What is the average interest on loans on leasehold as compared with the interest on loans on freehold from private individuals?- With the Government the interest is the same, but there is at the very least 1 per cent, difference between the leasehold and the freehold as regards private loans.
J. M. KILLEN.]
833
C—4.
250. Can you get money on leasehold at 5 per cent. ? —I have never known of it except in the case of a personal friend. 251. We have been told all up the coast that it is quite easy to get money on leasehold at the same rate as the Advances to Settlers Department charge? —I have not seen a single instance of it in tfris district. 252. Are the expenses in connection with obtaining money under the Advances to Settlers Act less than in connection with obtaining money from private sources ?- Yes, as a rule. I think they are unfairly small in connection with advances to settlers. The charges made in connection with the registration of a mortgage is more than is paid to the solicitor for searching a title and drawing out a mortgage, which, to my mind, is most unjust. 253. You have expressed the opinion that leaseholds tended to serfdom: surely you will not say that about the Old Country, especially Ireland? Well, the experience in the. old days about Ireland was this: that before the ballot system was introduced, the landlord at election-time used to drive his tenants down to the poll like a flock of sheep, and if they did not vote as he wanted them to vote they had to take the consequences. Was not that a system of slavery. 254. Are there any education reserves in the districts ?--Yes, several. 255. I suppose they are leased for revenue purposes? —Yes, but some of them are so poor that no one will take them up. 256. Would you advise giving the lessees of these education reserves the right to purchase? — I think the whole thing wants remodelling, because many of these lands are lying idle for many years, and become a nest for the propagation of noxious weeds and other things, and they are being used by the adjoining settlers in a way they have no right to be used. 257. Under the Land for Settlements Act a lessee pays 4 per cent, to the Government for his land. Do you not think, instead'of wanting to pay off his capital, it would be better for him to invest that money at 5 per cent., and have a margin of 1 per cent, profit? -He might invest his money and lose it altogether, whereas if he pays it to the Crown he has his land. 258. Mr. Matheson.\ Are you a member of the County Council? —No. 259. Are there numbers of unoccupied sections not paying rates? Yes. 260. Do you think the local body should take the necessary action to have those lands sold? In many cases they have already done so. 261. Do you think the necessary legal procedure in such cases could be improved upon?- I think so, but it is a matter which would require more consideration than 1 have given to it. 262. Are you aware that in Britain the land-settlement policy which is being pursued differs in one essential point from ours that is, in connection with giving the tenants the right to purchase? —Yes. 263 Do you think that in dealing in the future with land-settlement here the British method is the wiser one from the State point of view—that is to say, at the end of forty-nine years the freehold is acquired through the rent providing a sinking fund, while here under the settlement policy the rent goes on for ever? T think in many cases it would be advantageous for the settlers if some method of that kind were in existence. I think also it would be a benefit to the bulk of the people and to the State as a whole, because the people constitute the State. 264. Do you consider the lease with right to purchase, when the tenant is able, is better than the deferred payment, which compels him to purchase, say, in fifty years?- Yes. 265. Mr. Mc,Cardie.] There are persons in certain quarters who contend it is ruinous to borrow. Is it possible that money can be profitably lent if it is ruinous to borrow? —Well, you cannot lend if there are no borrowers. 266. And a man would not lend unless he thought he was going to get his money back? No. 267. With reference to the Native lands, there are some people who are afraid that if the Native was allowed to deal with his land he will be made a pauper? To-day, in many cases, he is nothing else but a pauper. He is obliged to apply to others for his food and clothing, although he has hundreds of acres of land. 268. Would you favour, as a means of settling the Maori difficulty, the granting to every Native a holding in some particular block where he might desire it, and the Government taking over the balance and settling the question for him —settling the land and paying him the cash? It. would be better to adopt that course than to continue the present state of matters; but I think it would be better for the Natives to deal direct with Government or the private individual. 269. I suppose you know the Natives are clamouring for that privilege now? —I am aware that there was a large petition presented to the House asking for the right. 270. If that principle were granted would you hedge it round with restrictions so that the Natives might not dispossess themselves of all their money and land? -Yes, although I am not so sure that it would not be the best thing for the Natives if they were compelled to labour like other people. 271. In dealing with the gum lands, do you think it would be desirable that the Government should enforce certain improvement conditions, such as the growing of fruit-trees, and so forth ? —I should impose conditions as to improvements; I would not, however, specify the improvements. I should leave that to the discretion of each individual, as to what improvements would pay him best. 272. We have had a suggestion that the Native lands should be sold by auction, and some of them would bring from £10 to £15 an acre —the gum lands? —I do not think it would be wise to do that, because some of those lands woulcf fall into private hands for perhaps a trifle, as it would be only those who were personally acquainted with the conditions that would have a chance. 273. With regard to Land Boards, you have made a suggestion that they should be partly elective: suppose such a suggestion could not be carried into effect, do you think, in view of the fact that this district is a very large one, the number of members should be increased to, say, seven, who should be selected from different parts of the country to represent the various interests
105—C. 4,
C—4.
834
[j. M. KILLEK.
of the province? —I think it desirable that the Board should be representative of the various districts, so that it should have a knowledge of the land with which it was dealing. 274. Mr. McCutchan.] In speaking of the Advances to Settlers Department in connection with mortgaging lease-in-perpetuity leases and occupation-with-right-of-purchase leases, the money is sometimes raised upon those securities for paying for the land, sometimes for paying off existing mortgages, and sometimes for making improvements. Do you think there can be any distinction made in the amount advanced for those different purposes?--One would naturally think that the money borrowed for the sake of making improvements should have the advantage, but I have not given the question very much, thought. 275. Inasmuch as the money borrowed for further improvements improves the security, do you not think in that case the larger advance would be legitimate I—lt1 —It seems reasonable. 276. Do you think either the Advances to Settlers Department or the Lands Department should exercise supervision over the expenditure of the money, and see that it is devoted to the purpose for which it was borrowed I—l1 —I am afraid that would give rise to too many difficulties. 277. AVhat grounds had you for stating that uneasiness existed in the minds of tenants with regard to the security of their holdings? —Expressions which have come from many of the lessees, and letters which have appeared in the Press from time to time. 278. Do you think the Government would take any action unless pressure was brought to bear upon them?— Perhaps not, though I think a wise Government should act on its own initiative if it is considered advisable in the interests of the country. 279. Do you think that the demand for revaluation comes from a certain class? —I think it comes from people in the towns who have no experience whatever of the land. 280. A conference of the Trades and Labour Councils at their meeting held in Wellington declared for revaluation upon the transfer of the lease or upon the death of the lessee. Do you think that in their own interests, or in the interests of the State, such a proceeding is wise? —I think the proposal is atrocious. I think that when the State has made a contract of this kind with those people it should not be interfered with in any way. 281. The people who are advocating this change are a thoroughly organized body of men? — That is so. 282. If it is the case that the level of intelligence in the towns is, as a rule, higher than the level of intelligence in the country, have not the settlers good reason to fear such an agitation ? - I do not think there is anything to show that the people in the towns have more intelligence. 283. What I meant to infer was that the people in the towns had better opportunities for organization and discussion and so sharpen their intellects?- That may be so. Alexander Gordon McKenzie examined. 284. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I have about 1,000 acres of land at Otonga, about seventeen miles from here. I am under three tenures the freehold, the occupation with right of purchase, and the lease in perpetuity. 285. What tenure do you favour? —The freehold, although I consider the occupation with right of purchase is very good, as it enables people to get a start, and they can ultimately acquire the freehold. 286. How long have you been farming? —About sixteen years. 287. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —No. 288. Mr. Anstey.] What are the areas of your different holdings? —195 acres occupation with right of purchase, 265 acres lease in perpetuity, and tKe rest freehold. 289. What rents do you pay? —On the lease in perpetuity I had to pay £25 down as a guarantee that it was a bona fide affair. 290. That £25 goes towards the rent? —I suppose so. 291. What is the annual rent? —About £4 a year. 292. Do you want the right to acquire the freehold of your lease? —I should like it. 293. On what do you base your claim for the right to the freehold? —1 am afraid they may revalue my improvements, and I may have to pay a higher rent. 294. Do you wish to acquire it at its original value? —Yes. 295. You wish to get something better than you have now?- It might not be worth what I am paying for it. Ido not see why I should pay anything extra. 296. Have you good road-access to that land? —No, there is no road at all; but there is a road to the first block I look up. 297. Mr. Hall.] Is it the general opinion of the settlers that al) future leases from the Crown should contain a clause giving the right to purchase? —Yes. 298. Would you consider it fair to give that right as regards existing leases? —If the Government could see their way to do it, I believe it would be to the benefit of the country. 299. Would It not be unfair to outsiders who had not an opportunity of competing under those conditions? —I do not think so. I may say I should be glad to take the land at a revaluation at the time of conversion, because I feel sure I should not be paying more than I am paying now. 300. Mr. McCardle.\ Would you be prepared to pay 1 per cent, extra if you were granted the right to purchase?— 301. Mr. McCutchan.~\ Would you object to revaluation if you could not get the land at the original price? —1 might then. H. Hawkens examined. 302. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler. I hold 342 acres of land under occu-pation-with-right-of-purchase tenure at Marua, about twenty miles from here. I have held the land for two years, and am paying £10 ss. a year rent. 303. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —Yes, so long as I have the right to purchase.
a—4
H. HAWKENS. j
835
304. You have that, of course? But that lapses after a time, I think. 305. No, I think not? —If that is the case I am satisfied. 306. Have you improved your land much? —Yes, greatly. I have a fair proportion in grass, it was originally all bush country. 307. Is there any particular thing you wish to bring before the Commission?—l was asked to come here by a meeting of settlers on one condition- that I advocated the freehold. 308. How many settlers do you represent? —The whole settlement. 309. Have you any views on the constitution of Land Boards? —It is easy to find fault with the present system, but it is not easy to suggest a remedy. I think if any change is made at all the Crown tenants should be represented on the Board, but I do not think we have much cause for complaint. 310. Mr. Paul.] Do you think there is anything in the conditions of a Government lease that would tend to promote slavery? —I do not attach any importance to that. 311. What was the class of your land? —Heavy bush second-class land. 312. Do you think tlie general settlement of the colony can progress better under a system of improving that land and purchasing the freehold at the same time, or a system of leasehold on good terms which gives the tenant full scope for employing his capital in improving that land? — Most of us started without capital, and so we could not have bought the land. Most of it was taken up under the homestead system, and those who took it up have been good settlers. Those who took up leaseholds did so because they had no capital, and it was the cheapest bargain they could make, but most of them, I think, now would like the chance of getting the freehold. 313. Take the case of two farms —one where the tenant attempts to purchase his farm in two years, and another under leasehold, where he employs his capital in improving: which will be the best farm for the country"at the end of ten years? —Undoubtedly the freehold. 314. Then, the country about here is so good that he can purchase the freehold and improve his land in the ten years? —There is no doubt that the leasehold is the best tenure for the poor man to give him a start, and if he is not able to get the freehold he can keep his land under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. All we want is the option of getting the freehold. 315. Is the value of the leaseholds increasing in your district? -Not to any marked extent. 316. Mr. Anstey.\ Have you good road-access to your farms? Fairly good. But with regard to the loading of lands for roads, my section was loaded ; but the authorities took that money and spent it on another road, although I protested. 317. How much was your section loaded for? —It is impossible to find out. 318. Then, you do not know how much money they took from your section? —No, but they spent it on a road which has no connection with my section. 319. What have been your relations with the Land Board?—I have not had much to complain of, but there is one thing I cannot understand. Although 1 have done more improvements than my neighbour, I notice in the Gazette that my section is advertised as set apart for settlement. 320. Is that the lease-in-perpetuity section? —Yes. 321. Are you sure it is the same section ? —lt is Section No. 22, Block IX., Opuawhanga Survey District, and it is notified in Gazette No. 16. 322. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 323. Mr. Hall.] Was the matter of the leasehold and freehold discussed at the meeting? — No; but we were asked to come as delegates to this meeting, and there were voices throughout the meeting, " Be sure you are freehold, now." 324. Is there much sentiment in the matter? —Not as regards myself. 325. If there is any increase in values around your district, is that brought about solely by the industry of the settlers? —I suppose it is. Certain industries have been started which have no doubt increased the land in value. 326. Mr. Matheson.\ Have you asked the Land Board for an explanation of the Gazette notice you spoke about? —No. •327. Do you not think the explanation might be that the land was not previously legally open for-settlement, and, in order to put you in a sound position, they have had to gazette it now? — No, Ido not think so. There is another rather strange thing that the Land Board has done. 1 was told once that I need not do any more improvements, and that my improvements would suffice for all time. Well, I received notice lately to fire away again and do more. 328. Has the grass you first put in stood well? —Some of it has, and some of it has quite disappeared. 329. Has scrub come up in the place of your grass?--A local weed has come up. 330. Mr. McCardle \ If you were allowed to convert your lease-in-perpetuity section into occupation with right of purchase, on what terms do you think it should be granted? —I would be willing to pay the 1 per cent, extra which has not been paid. 331. Do you think the tenant should be ten years in occupation of his land before he has the right to purchase? —I have not considered that part of the question. 332. Is it not the case that when a man is making improvements, in a very short time the price of the section is a mere bagatelle compared with the money spent on improvements? —The value of the improvements in most cases greatly exceeds the value of the land. 333. Do you think it would be an advantage in this large district if the number of members of the Land Board was increased, so that the people in the northern portion could have a representative who knew the conditions of settlement, and so forth, in that part of the country? —Yes; I consider that the Crown tenants should be allowed to select a man. 334. Do you think it would be an advantage to the settler on the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, if the freehold is not granted, that as soon as they have effected certain improvements they should be free from Land Board control ?—Yes, I think so.
836
[H. HAWKENS.
C.—4.
335. Mr. McCutchan.] You complain that the loading has not been spent on your road? —Yes. 336. What was the area of the block? —About 10,000 acres. 337. What was the loading per acre over the block? 1 do not know. They would not tell me. 338. What was the loading on your own section? —1 do not know. They would not tell me. 339. Can you say the amount of loading has not been spent in roading the block?—l cannot say that. The loading is given out as votes, and Ido not know how much was spent. 340. Did you make application to the Land Board for information ?—I told them they did it under my protest. 341. Do you approve of the principle of loading for roads?—Well, I would not mind paying a small amount for roading, but not a large amount. 342. Was there any considerable amount of money spent in roading this block? —1 cannot say, because Government votes and loading-money were mixed up. 343. Did the Government commence to spend the money before you entered on the block?— Afterwards. 344. Was the work done by means of the co-operative system? —Some of it. 345. Do you consider the co-operative system satisfactory? —I have not seen much of it, but 1 have heard bad reports of some of it. 346. Did the settlers get any work in connection with the expenditure of the loading for these roads? —Yes, they got contracts. 347. Was the whole of the work done by means of settlers' labour? —The contracts were generally open to the public, but most of the contractors were local settlers. 348. Was the money spent by the County Council or by the Government? —Chiefly by the County Council. 349. Can you say that anything further than rates or grants was spent by the County Council ? Yes. I say this loading-money was spent under the direction of the County Council. 350. You are paying 5 per cent, on this loading for the whole term of the lease, and principal and interest are supposed to be wiped out in twenty-six years at compound interest: do you think that you should cease paying interest on the loading at the end of twenty-six years? —I do not know anything about that, but I do know that the Government deduct a certain amount from the "thirds "to pay interest on the loading. I would like to say a word in regard to residence. Several settlers desired to take up more land, but were unable to do so owing to the residence clause, and yet their neighbours can take up land if vacant land happens to adjoin them. In our settlement, which was opened under the homestead system, a man in the centre cannot take up more land, but those on the outskirts can do so because this vacant land is adjoining them. Arthur Robert Crane examined. 351. The Chairman.] What are you?- 1 am an auctioneer. 1 hold 2,000 acres under occupation with right of purchase, about seven miles from Whangarei, and 1 pay 5 per cent, rent on a capital value of 7s. 6d. per acre. The land is swamp, and I intend to drain it for grazing purposes. 352. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission ? Yes. It it nothing in connection with my land. 1 want to bring before the Commission the position of the Oue State Forest Reserve at Mangakahia. There is a block of some 10,000 acres there, from which practically the whole of the marketable timber has been removed. As you are aware, after the timber has been cut out there is every danger of fire going in, and year by year the land is being ruined. It is unproductive as it is at present and no rates are coming from it, and settlers are not allowed to take it up. In consequence of these fires and no grass-seed being sown the land is coming up in tea-tree, fern, and noxious weeds. One settler has a place adjoining, and he applied for 50 acres under the squaring-up clause. He was granted a lease from year to year, but the Board would not allow him to cut any lines, and the consequence was that he could not make any use of the 50 acres. We would like the Commission, if they can see their way clear, to recommend that some special Act be brought in to enable this land to be thrown open for selection. I feel the whole of it would be taken up readily. In connection with the removal of this timber, if a royalty of even Id. had been imposed, as 1 heard suggested yesterday, on the timber taken out of this block, which comprised some 7,000,000 ft., it would have produced £300. If that money had been used towards the roading of this district, it would have been only right and in the interests of the district from which the timber was taken. But, as the Hon. Mr. HallJones stated last evening, he thought it most likely the Government would bring in a Bill to give half the timber royalties received to the local bodies. In the special instance I have quoted a royalty of 3s. was received from the timber. There is another block not far from there containing' 25,000,000 ft. of timber. Tenders have been called for cutting it, but no one has been granted the right to cut vet, and we do not know what is going to be done with it. If the local bodies could receive a portion of the royalty from that timber, it would be a great help towards roading the country. I think if the 10,000-acre block was thrown open it would soon be worth £2 to £3 per acre. Settlers generally have a great objection to touching land that has been in bush and burnt and not sowed and is coming up in tea-tree, and that is the state this land is rapidly getting into. 353. Is there any other point? —In connection with the loading of the lands of the north I may say some 10,000 acres have been taken up, and all the land has been loaded at the rate of 4s. an acre, and no money lias'been spent. Mr. Hall-Jones yesterday remarked that no money was being collected. That is quite correct; but I know two setters up there, one with 2,000 acres who is loaded at the rate of 4s. an acre, and has to pay interest on that loading, amounting to £16 to *£20 per annum, and he has derived no benefit from it. The loading on the whole of the
C—4.
A. B. CRANE.J
837
block would be equal to £2,000 a year, but very little money has been spent. The roading would be easy to make, and the natural outlet for that country is into Wliangarei--354. Mr. Paul.] Part of the first forest reserve you mentioned is leased, but is it all on yearly lease? —I do not think there is any leased now. One man had a lease for fourteen years, but because lie could put no lines in he threw it up. 355. Mr. Anstey.] Do you know if steps have been taken to throw open the 10,000-acre block ior settlement ? -1 know an application was made to the House to have it thrown open, but nothing resulted from it. 356. Do you know if the Board have done anything towards opening it up? —No. Application was made to the House on several occasions, but I understand a special Act of Parliament is required to enable the reserve to be set aside. 357. We were told that the Board were at work trying to get the restrictions removed? —1 have not heard of that. 358. You say some part of the royalty on timber should be devoted to road-making ? —Yes. 359. Would you go further than that and say that the gum industry should contribute something towards the roads? —Certainly. 360. What would you suggest ? I think a royalty of so-much a ton should be imposed, and set aside to repair the damage done to the roads. 361. That would necessitate Customs duties at the port? —I think a way could be devised to collect it through the storekeepers who now collect the gum licenses. 362. Do you think the flax industry should also contribute? Yes, I should say so. 363. Mr. Forbes.] Is there much land around here that could be cut up for settlement besides these State forests? —One block of 11,000 acres has been surveyed, and it will be thrown open shortly. 364. Do you think there would be a good demand for it?—l certainly think so. 365. Do you not think the block the Government are now throwing open will satisfy the demand, or do you still think it will be necessary to throw open these State forests ? —I think they would all go if the money that is charged on these lands was expended on the roads. You cannot expect settlers to go away back unless they have some facilities for getting produce to and from their sections. If this money was expended I feel sure the land would be readily taken up. 366. Would it not be a buisnesslike thing to expend this money before it is taken up?- 1 should think the land would go off more readily. I think the biggest bar to settlement in this part of the country is want of roads. 367. Would these 10,000 acres be taken up under lease in perpetuity?- No; but the same way as the bulk of the land is taken up namely, under occupation with right of purchase. Frederick McDonald examined. 368. The Chairman.] What are you? lam a settler. I hold 900 acres under freehold and occupation with right of purchase on the Marua Homestead Settlement. I have been farming there eighteen years. 369. You began as a homestead settler, and you have got on fairly well, I hope?--I have battled away. I started with nothing, and lam alive and well to-day. 370. What tenure do you favour? —The freehold. 371. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission? —In regard to the settlement of the other land around here —that is, the second-class land —I think the homestead system would be far away the best method of dealing with it. From the experience I have gone through, 1 consider that the land is dearly bought without paying any purchase-money at all when a man goes out to these places and fetches them into cultivation. 372. Mr. Paul.] Is there a large area of the land you speak of which could be settled under that system? —Not a great deal of it in my district, but there is some. 373. Mr. Anstey.] Have you got good road-access to your section?- -Yes ; but I had not when I went there. 374. The loading on your section has all been expended? —Yes. 375. Mr. Forbes.] Did many go on the same land with you under the homestead system? — Yes. 376. Did it turn out satisfactorily with the whole of them? —Yes. I think in the whole settlement there was only one case where a man abandoned his section. 377. Would you attribute that to the system under which you were settled, or to the quality of the land? —To the system, because the quality was none too good. 378. Do you consider that this system would have the effect of settling this poor gum land? — I think if the Government could get people to go on the gum lands they should give them not only the freehold, but a bonus as well. 379. You think that is the only way of getting this laud settled?—l do not know that it is the only way, but it would be a right and just way. The markets are a long way off, and the land requires an enormous lot of manure to produce anything. 380. You think that giving a man 75 acres of this gum land would not insure him making a success of it?—No, because 75 acres is too small even of the second-class land settled under the Homestead Act. 1 think the head of a family should have at least 300 acres, and if the individual members of the family were restricted to 75 or 100 acres eacli it would not be going beyond the mark. 381. Would you apply this to the first-class land such as Mr. Crane was talking about? I think I would. Ido not consider that the primary object is to get rent from the Crown lands at all. I think the object is to fetch them into cultivation and produce something from them. I consider the colony gains thousands more in having this land brought into cultivation than in any rent received from it.
C.—4.
838
i>. MCDONALD.
382. Mr. Crane said that all the land would be taken up without giving special inducements: do you think that is so ? —Very likely so. 383. Then, there is no necessity to bring the homestead system into operation in respect of this particular land?- —I dare say not. 384 Does not a man going on to this poor land really need a good deal of capital? —Speaking of our settlement, none of us had much capital, and we have struggled through. 385. Do you earn a living off the land? —No. I have put hundreds more into the land than I have taken off, or that 1 will take off in my life. 386. Will there be the same facilities in the future of earning a living off the land as there have been in the past? Are not the kauri timber and gum disappearing? —Yes; but I suppose other industries will arise. 387. Mr. Johnston.] Would you give the Crown lands of the south away? —Certainly I would, every inch of it. 388. Have you been south?— Yes. 389. How is it that this land you are on has been so dearly bought, if you say the settlement is a success ? —I went on my land when 1 was sixteen years old, and lam still on it, and I reckon I have put in the best years of my life on it, and I think you are old enough to know that the years between sixteen and thirty are the best years of a man's life. It is not the actual amount of money that is involved as much as the way we bury ourselves in the bush. 390. You do not bury yourselves in the bush any more than the settlers further south do? — 1 do not say we do; but we do it here, whatever they do in the south. 391. They do not get the land for nothing?—l say they are entitled to it. 392. Mr. McLennan.] Do you cultivate any of your land? —Very little. I graze mostly and dairy. I grow a bit of maize and fodder for the cattle. Walter George Barker examined. 393. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler at Marua, and I represent that branch of the Farmers' Union. I have 245 acres of freehold, and I have been there twenty years. 394. Will you just state what you wish to lay before the Commission on behalf of your friends? —I have no instructions from the union, because we did not know what questions would be put at the Commission. The subject I wish to bring before the Commission most prominently first, on behalf of the union and myself, is that we favour the freehold most decidedly. Second, in regard to the poorer class of the waste lands of this part of the colony, 1 believe if they were thrown open under some such system as the Homestead Act, with some modifications in regard to area and residence, it would be a very good thing. I also think that the land here should be placed in three classes, and not two only. This poor land should be called third-class land, and on these very poor sections I would not make residence compulsory. I would favour allowing settlers adjoining this land to take up blocks of it, and I would allow them to become freeholders by improving, say, onetwentieth part of the area each year for seven years. In most cases that would improve the whole of the land worth improving on these holdings. In regard to the constitution of the Land Board, 1 think one-half the Board should be elected by the local bodies in the different parts of the country. I think in all cases where a settler is so far back that his children are prevented from attending school the residence clause should be relaxed. 395. Would you leave that in the discretion of the Land Board? —Yes, provided the Land Board represented the district. 396. Have you had any experience in regard to the working of the ballot system? —I do not suggest any alteration in that. •397. Do you approve of the practice of loading the land for roads? —No. I think the land should be properly valued, and that the cost of loading a block should be estimated when it was surveyed, and I think the Land Board should hand over a sufficient amount of money to the local bodies to'form the roads. The value should be put on the land as though it were roaded. 398. Have you had any experience in regard to the working of the Advances to Settlers Department ?—No personal experience. I favour it, from what 1 have seen of it. 399. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in your district?— No. 400. Mr. Paul.] What local bodies would you say should elect a portion of the Land Board?— The County Councils would be the best bodies. They are the most representative bodies. 401. You have told the Commission what alterations should apply to the land laws in the future: do you wish any alteration in the existing contracts?- I would like to see every one get the freehold. lam in favour of the freehold without exception. 402. Would you favour an alteration of the existing contracts ?—lf it was necessary, but Ido not think it would be necessary to alter the contract. I think the offer should be made to the settlers by the Government to allow them to acquire the freehold. I think it is for the general good of the country that settlers should be freeholders. 403. Have you had any experience outside this district?—l belonged to Canterbury. 404. Have vou seen the working of the land-for-settlements policy in Canterbury? —I have had no opportunity of studying it at all. 405. In making these remarks do you apply them solely to this district?—To the North of Auckland, as a rule. 406. Mr. Anstey.] You do not favour loading for the purpose of roading land f—l am not in favour of the present system. 407. Is not your suggestion-what is being done now? —No; there is a great difference between what is done now, as I have seen it. A certain loading is put on all sections, and settlers take them up under the impression that they are going to have a road; but the loading has been spent under the co-operative system, and the result has been that roads have only been put in half-way through the districts in many instances, and, again, a number of roads have not been touched at all. The settlers seem to have no appeal from this.
a—4.
839
W. G. BARKER.
408. Then, your quarrel is not with the loading at all, but with the spending of the money. You mean to say that the money loaded on to this land has not been spent in the construction of the roads? —It has not been spent to the best advantage, I think. 409. Mr. Forbes.\ Have you applied Canterbury methods of farming to this land of yours? I tried them for the first few years, but I was obliged to give them up. A great deal of my land is ploughable. 410. What was your trouble when you ploughed it? —I will give you an instance. I ploughed a few acres in the beginning of summer, and in putting in the grass-seed just lately I put in 4 hundredweight of bonedust to the acre. I would be satisfied if I get half the crop off the land that I could get off Canterbury land without any manure. And the grass will only last three years. Turnips will not grow without manure. We cannot feed them off on much of the land, owing to the wet climate and the heavy nature of the soil. Maize generally is grown as a help to dairy-cattle. I have lived constantly on my freehold, except at times when I had to leave it to get money enough to keep the flour-bag going. 411. The freehold has not kept you going? —No; I have kept the freehold. 412. Would an area like this be"too small to keep a man even if thrown open free? —Yes; and that is why I favour throwing open areas of land to enable settlers in the district to take up further areas. 413. Have you tried any grasses except English grasses? —I have not tried danthonia. Ido not think it is much better than tea-tree. Paspalum, when you can get it to grow, no doubt puts a different face on the country and improves it wonderfully. I consider paspalum will be the saving of the north, but the difficulty is to get it to germinate. This year I put in 40 lb. of seed, and so far I have not seen a plant, -and the chances are the whole of the seed will be lost, because it will not stand the cold and wet in the winter. 414. Mr. Johnston.'] Was there any reason for your not staying in Canterbury, where you could get good grass? —I had a roving disposition. 415. Would it have paid you better to have stayed in Canterbury ?—'Yes. 416. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that in some instances land worth ss. an acre without roads might be worth 15s. per acre with roads, but to put the roads in would cost £1 an acre? Do you think the Crown would be wise to spend that extra value and sell at a loss? —I think so, decidedly. In the first place, these blocks of land are lying idle and paying no local taxation, and the local bodies are at a great loss to know how to road them. 417. Mr. McGutchan.] Do you think the settlers should bear the entire burden of the roading of these blocks ? —I do not think so. 418. I understood you to say that you would value the land as if it was loaded, and sell to the settler at that price, and then the Government should put in the roads?— Yes. In many parts of the colony, I understand, the land has been roaded before it was offered for sale. 419. But under your scheme would not the settler have to bear the entire burden of the roading of these blocks? —I did not intend to convey that impression. T was under the impression that a similar system was in use in the Hawke's Bay district. 420. Mr. McLennan.] Can you say there is a demand among the Crown tenants for the option of the freehold? —I think so, with the majority. _ # 421. How is it that they do not come before the Commission and ask for it? —I do not know about the other parts of the colony, but here there are very few settlers under lease in perpetuity. Most of us are freeholders. We do not believe in the lease in perpetuity. 422 Can you explain why, if there is this demand amongst the leaseholders, they do not come here and ask for it?—l think only two of the witnesses to-day, besides myself, are legitimate farmers, and they have both been leaseholders- Mr. Hawkins and Mr. McDonald. 423. But they are all freeholders now?—No; they have small sections of freehold, but the bulk of their land'is held under occupation with right of purchase. 424. I mean lease-in-perpetuity tenants ?—There are very few of them here. Henry Wakelin examined. 425 The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a farmer, and the son of a tenant farmer in Essex" I hold land under three systems. I hold 37 acres of freehold at Karno ; I have about 63 acres leased from the Maoris there, and I have an interest in about 350 acres under lease in perpetuity in conjunction with my two sons at Towai. 426 "What do vou wish to bring before the Commission 1- At the start I must say I am here to represent the Whangarei Branch of the Farmers' Union and several other district branches, who have asked me to voice their opinions. There is only one point I have to press for them, and that is for the option of the freehold. I have only found one instance of a gentleman who thought that the lease in perpetuity should be interfered with, but all those who come after should have the option of purchase. I have never in my life met a man who had to make his living out of the land who preferred leasehold to freehold. I would also advocate the remtroduction of the homestead system for settling this part of the colony. 427 Mr Paul 1 You do not wish in any way to alter the tenure of those who are already under lease in perpetuity ?—lt would be a good plan, I think, to give them the option of purchase bv paying up the 1-per-cent, difference when they are able to. 428 And in future would you give them all that option?- Yes, so far as the north is concerned. My knowledge only extends to the' North of Auckland. , , . 429. Mr. Anstey.] Have you had any experience of the Land Board?— Not a great deal. I think they should be elected by the people. . 430. Are your relations with them satisfactory?- I have no fault to find with them m regard to their dealings. 431. You would elect all the members?—l think so,
C—4.
840
H. WAKELIN.
432. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —From what I know, they are careful in making advances; but Ido not think there is much trouble in getting money if any one has good security. 433. Your experience has been satisfactory? —Yes. 434. Mr. Forbes.] Are you earning a living on these areas of land you have given us? —I am under that impression. I have nothing coming from anywhere else. 435. It must be better land than a lot we have heard about? —So far as the leasehold land goes, of course, we are not getting a living off that; but I have helped my sons and they have helped me. I rear cattle at Kamo, and they go up to the run to be raised. I can tell you we can rear just as good cattle, horses, and sheep here as you can in Wanganui, but we cannot fatten as many to the acre. 436. Then, the land must be extra good in this part of the district? —It is second-class land ; but the first few years of a bush farm is where it comes in. 437. Is it possible for a man to earn a living off 100 acres altogether? —I came here with six children in 1881, and I have paid twenty shillings in the pound. I used to work a bit outside my own place when first I came. 438. Mr. Hall.\ Do you think it is sound policy on the part of the Government to interfere with existing contracts ? —Not further than to give the option of purchase, if they want it. 439. Would it be right to upset that tenure and create a new one, and exclude outsiders from competing?- -If an outsider comes in now he can come in on better terms than those who came in before. 440. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think the Crown holds any land in this county on 100 acres of which a man and his family "could live reasonably? —I think 100 acres is too small. I have a small freehold of 37 acres, but unless it was exceptionally good I could not have come through. If it had been leasehold I would have been out long ago. 441. Into what size should the land be cut to enable a man to earn a living?— Nothing under 300 acres. Walter Webb Pulman examined. 442. The Chairman.'] What are you I—l am a settler. I hold 680 acres under lease in perpetuity at Matapouri, on the coast, thirty miles from here. I pay £10 a year rent. I have held the land twelve years. I have a round-about road to it, and I have communication by sea. My land was heavily bushed. I have a portion of it cleared. 443. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —No. I ought to tell you I am the bearer of the following letter from a lot of the settlers there to the Commission. " Matapouri, 18th May, 1905. " To the Land Commissioners at Whangarei. " We, the undersigned settlers of Matapouri and vicinity, holders of land under lease in perpetuity, would respectfully inform you that we consider the best interests of the State requires that all leaseholders, when they have fully complied with the law in respect to residence and improvements, should have option of purchasing their holdings at the upset price at the time of settlement. We have instructed the bearer hereof to fully explain our reasons for this conclusion.— Respectfully, "W.W.Pullman. C.Pullman. B.Clements. Hugh Ferguson. G. C. Verran. Edgar Clements. A. J. H. Currey. Harold Clements." J. W. Langman. W. H. Woolley. The reason, so far as I am concerned, and, I think, it is common with all of them, is that we feel that we cannot trust the Land Board with our interests. There is continual pressure being brought to bear through the newspapers to interfere with our tenure. I presume these men are representing some of the trades-unions, and a part of their platform is that our leases should be revalued. Now, I consider that I am not justified in going to a great deal of expense- I do not feel I am justified even in building a nice house, when I do not know I would not be subject to revaluation as soon as the house is built. It is all very fine to say that the land separate from the man has no value whatever. It is the man on the land who gives it the value. Generally speaking, the lands here in the north have no value separate from the men on them. Therefore, knowing, as I do, that the Land Board is not to be trusted, I demand the freehold as my right. When I settled on the land I supposed I could deal with the Land Board as with any private landlord, but I find that is not the case. Ido not want them to give it to me for nothing, although it was valueless when I took it up. lam willing to pay for it. I may say that lam afraid the contract will be broken. There is a feeling of insecurity with respect to the leasehold. I am quite willing to abide by mv agreement, but I am not sure that the Government will abide by theirs. 444 Mr. Paid.] On what terms do you want the freehold of the lease in perpetuity?—My land is valued at 7s. an acre, and I think, when I am prepared to buy it, I ought to be able to purchase it at 7s. per acre. I think, under all these circumstances, in my case, lam entitled to some consideration. . 445 Are you prepared to pay the 1 per cent, difference between the occupation with right ot purchase and "the lease in perpetuity?- I am prepared to do anything that justice demands I should do in order to get the freehold. , _ . 446. What is the special condition in your tenure that interferes with good farming! ihere is nothing that interferes with good farming, except the element of insecurity. 447. You are quite sure that this revaluation will take place?—l think so. 44-8 By advocating this alteration in vour lease, do you not think you are opening the door for the verv thin" you do not want? You 'want something that will be decidedly in your favour, but somebody else might want something that they think would be just and proper from the point of view of the community, and they might get such an alteration made in the lease. Do you think you would have a good cause of complaint if such a state of things came about?—l look upon the
W. W. PULMAN.I
841
C.—4.
State as my landlord. I have made a bargain with it; it cannot in justice break that bargain. But the State has the right to come to me and say, " If you are agreeable, we will throw over this old bargain and enter into a new one." 449. But that is not saying "If you please." You come here and say that it should be done? This Commission has come here to inquire into the matter, and I am giving it my views 011 the subject. 450. Do you think there is a fear that the freehold will be interfered with? In the case of the freehold we have an ultimate Court to appeal to outside of the colony. 451. Mr. Anstey.] What is the cause of this feeling of insecurity in regard to the lease in perpetuity?— I have already said that I know the Land Board is not to be trusted. 452. What have been your relations with the Land Board? —They have been very good. I have nothing to complain of personally, but I have heard of injustice being done in other cases. I could have mentioned one instance where, in the case of the rent being in arrears to the extent of £15, forfeiture was declared, and serious sacrifices had to be made in order to pay the £15. 453. Suppose you had a freehold, and you did not pay the mortgagee his interest, would he not have similar power ? —lf I had a freehold that was mortgaged up to .£2OO, and the mortgagee knew perfectly well that my interest was still £500, he would not foreclose the mortgage for £15. 454. Then, it is the administration of the Land Board you object to, and not the tenure? —As I have stated,, if the lease in perpetuity is properly carried out I have no objection to it. 455. Then, there is nothing in the lease in perpetuity, provided you are absolutely certain that it is secure, that will prevent you making the best use of your farm ?- My knowledge of human nature leads me to believe that there is too much temptation placed in the hands of the Land Board. 456. Mr. Hall.] Have you any reason to fear the insecurity of the 999-years tenure? Is it because of some agitation that has taken place? —It is the agitation, coupled with the weakness of human nature. 457. Supposing some irresponsible agitators, who would not themselves take up land to farm, were to agitate for the Government to confiscate the freehold, would you then fear the security of the freehold? —I would not fear it so much. 458. But is the lease in perpetuity not a freehold tenure for 999 years? —I supposed it was when I took it up. 459. Mr. Johnston.] In what way do you think the Land Board is not to be trusted? —They have always treated me very well, except in one case, and I suppose I was under a mistake in thinking they would allow the £15 of indebtedness to accumulate. 460. That is your trouble —the £15. Ido not want any more about that. You say the land is not worth 7s. an acre?- It was not worth it when I took it up, but my improvements have made it worth 7s. 461. Then, why did you take it up? —YOll have asked me a bigger question than Pilate asked somebody else. 462. No; this is a matter of business? —A kind of madness sometimes takes people when they want to take up land. 463. Then, you were a bit mad when you took up this land. That will do. If it was not worth 7s. when you took it up why do you want the freehold now? —I have invested so much on it. 464. Is there any timber on the land? —No; I have sold it. 465. Roughly, how many square feet of timber was on the land? —A million and a quarter. 466. A million and a quarter feet, on land at 7s. an acre! That is not bad?- T got 3d. a hundred for it. Richard Cutforth examined 467. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and farm about 120 acres freehold. I have been a farmer in this district for twenty-three years, and have been forty-three years in the colony. My farm is about four miles from Whangarei. 468. Have you any special matter you would like to bring before the Commission ?-~No ; I believe in the freehold tenure. 469. You have never had any experience of leasehold? —No. 470. Is your opinion in respect to the freeholds the general opinion of your neighbours also? Yes, I think so. I think a man would be looked upon as a curiosity if he went to reside on the land and intended to make a living off it if he did not desire to convert it into a freehold, and I do not think he would make a very good tenant. 471. Mr. Paul.] Do you not think settlement could be satisfactorily carried out on leasehold land? —I do not think the leaseholder would ever be_ satisfied, and I do not think the settlement would be satisfactory. 472. Do you believe that the lease in perpetuity is quite secure?- Yes. 473. Are you acquainted with the terms of the present leasehold? —Yes. 474. Do you think a man could satisfactorily farm his land under leasehold tenure? —Yes. 475. Are you acquainted with land-settlement in the Soiith? —No. 476. Mr. Anstey.] Are the leaseholders in this neighbourhood farming their land fairly well? —Yes; but there is scarcely one lease-in-perpetuity tenant —at any rate, very few. 477. Are they putting improvements on their land? —They have to improve. 478. Are thev putting on the land as good improvements as the freeholders are doing? —I do not think so. 479. You think the freeholders would farm better and put more improvements on the land than leaseholders? —Yes. 480. Do you know of any freehold land near here that has been allowed to run to waste, and to be allowed to be overgrown with gorse? —Yes, some absentee-held land,
106—C. 4.
C.—4.
842
[b. cutfobth.
481. There are some freeholders who do not farm so well as leaseholders, are there? —The land is not farmed at all. 482. Mr. Hall.] Do you think it is in the interests of land-settlement that the right of purchase should be given ? —Yes. 483. You think that in future the right of purchase should be given? —Yes. 484. You think that is in the interest of settlement and in the interest of the State? —Yes, as far as the North of Auckland is concerned, I think that is so. 485. Mr. Johnston.\ Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 486. What is the number of members in this branch 1- About twenty have paid their subscriptions. 487. You do not know anything of the land-for-settlements system? —No. 488. Supposing the Crown tenants said they did not want the freehold? —In that case I would let them remain as they are. Henry Wolff examined. 489. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm 600 acres freehold and 340 acres leasehold with right of purchase. I have held the freehold for twenty-five years. 490. Which tenure do you prefer, the freehold or leasehold? —The freehold. 491. Is your land near Whangarei? —Sixteen miles from here. 492. Do you wish to bring any particular points before the Commission? —I think that two members of the Land Board might be elected and two nominated. 493. Under what franchise would you elect them? By the farmers. 494. Would you not give the townspeople a voice in the election —say, the people of the Town of Whangarei? —I think they Would all have to have votes. 495. Have you had any experience with the Advances to Settlers Department?- There has been some dissatisfaction because the settlers applying for money could not get what they wanted. I think the homestead system was a very good one. If it is to be brought into force again, I think a very good plan would be to road the blocks first, and then load the land at so much per acre for the cost of the roads. I think the selectors should have about three years free, and after that they should repay the amount for roading by yearly instalments. Simply to settle people on the land without roads is not satisfactory. It is a very great drawback to settlers when they have no roads and they have to pack everything on horseback. Charles Edward Hetward examined. 4-96. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and hold 1,800 acres under various tenures. I have 1,000 acres freehold, 75 acres lease in perpetuity, 120 acres occupation with right of purchase, and the balance is an education reserve. 497. Which tenure do you prefer? —The freehold. 498. Is the education reserve a lease for twenty-one years? —Yes. I think it would be much better if the education reserve were taken over by the Government. The land I have just referred to is very hilly and is covered with dense bush, and a twenty-one-years lease is a comparatively short period, and before a tenant can make many improvements his time is almost up. I feel sure if a long lease were given, such as the lease in perpetuity or lease with the right of purchase, it would be better for the district and for the country. 499. Are you allowed improvements on the education lease? —On buildings and fences, but I do not think on clearing and grassing. 500. As regards administration, do you think the Education Board is satisfactory? —Yes. 501. Apart from the question of tenure, do you think it would be for the public advantage if the administration of these reserves were handed over to the Land Board? —Yes. 502. Mr. Paul.] Would a twenty-one-years lease with a right of renewal at an arbitration rental be satisfactory ? —I think not. I think a 999-years lease would be satisfactory, but lam a freeholder to the backbone. 503. Why did you take up the 75 acres under the lease in perpetuity?- -I have often wondered myself. I took up that land without giving much thought to it. 504. You thought it was not much inferior to the freehold? —That is so; but after thinking it over since, I prefer the freehold. It is an incentive to thrift. 505. Would you like to pay something for the privilege of changing your leasehold for freehold? —Yes, 2or 3 per cent. I think something should be paid for the privilege. 506. Do you not think it might be as well to adhere to your bargain? —Yes. 507. Have you had any experience of land-settlement in the south? —No. 508. Mr. Forbes.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?—A little. 509. Was it satisfactory I—Yes,1 —Yes, but there was rather much delay. 510. Mr. Johnston.] Does farming pay well here? —It does not pay to employ labour. 511. Speaking generally, do you not think it is just as bad for freeholders to pay interest as for leaseholders to pay rent? —No; there is an opportunity for getting the freehold. 512. Are the settlers about here prosperous? —Yes; the district is prospering. 513. How much of your land is under English grass? —500 acres. 514. How many years has it taken to put the 500 acres into grass? —I have been here about twelve years. 515. Mr. McCardle.] Do yQU think it would be contributing to the success of the settlers under the lease in perpetuity if they were allowed the right of purchase at some future date? —Yes. 516. If he had that inducement it would urge him to greater exertions to acquire the freehold? —Yes.
843
C. E. SEYWAED.]
a—4.
517. If the settler were freed from all restraints by the Government and Land Board, would that be an assistance to him ? —Yes. 518. In that case, would the lease, in your opinion, be equal to the freehold? —No; I think the freehold would be the best. William Fraser examined. 519. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and hold 470 acres of freehold. I Eavfe held the land for about two years. Previous to that it was held by my father. It is nine miles from here. The greater part of my farm is in grass, and I engage in dairying. 520. Which tenure do you prefer? —Freehold. 521. Mr. McCardle.~\ Have you had any experience of settlers who have taken up land under lease in perpetuity? —1 have heard opinions expressed on that tenure by some lease-in-perpetuity settlers, and they said they would rather have the freehold. 522. Do you think it would be conducive to their success ?- Yes, I think it would. 523. The Chairman.] Is there any other matter you would like to bring before the Commission ? I think, instead of loading land for roads, the roads should be made into the Crown lands first. 1 think the money spent on surveying would often make the roads. lam here representing a branch of the Farmers' Union, and appear here together with Mr. Hawken. 524. Mr. Forbes.] It has been suggested by some witnesses that the settlers themselves should have an opportunity of making the roads: do you approve of that? —I think if roads are provided it would pay the settler better to work on his own section. 525. How are the roads here made, as a rule? —By co-operative labour, but sometimes the settlers make them. 526. Mr. McCardle.] Is there Tiot a great objection —namely, that the roads sometimes get overgrown with weeds or scrub before settlement takes place ? —I think the settlers should have the opportunity of getting on to the land as soon as possible after it is thrown open. 527. Is it your experience that land is thrown open far quicker in the north than in other parts of the colony? —I have had experience of surveying, and know the wants of the settlers. 1 know the expense of the present system. William Hawken examined. 528. The Chairman.J What are you?- 1 am a farmer, holding 343 acres of land, 46 acres of which is freehold and the balance occupation with right of purchase. I have been farming thirtytwo years. 529. I understand you represent a branch of the Farmers' Union, and that you have some communication to make ?- Yes, I am chairman of the Maungatapere Branch, and I have a copy of resolutions passed by a meeting of the branch. Resolutions as follow, read by the Chairman: (1.) That this meeting protests against the present system of appointing members of Land Boards, and recommends that Land Board members be elected by the local bodies, the Government to appoint a Commissioner. (2.) That the freehold was the very best tenure, and that every settler had a right to acquire it whenever he was in a position to do so; that selectors of rural Crown lands should be allowed to have their choice of tenure, as provided for in the present Land Act, and that the Homestead Act should be reinstated ; that holders of leases in perpetuity should be granted the right of purchase, on paying a sum equal to 1 per cent., with compound interest thereon, per annum on the original capital value of their holding. (3.) That only ratepayers should have a vote for the election of local bodies. (4.) That Land Boards should use their own discretion as to the enforcement of residence conditions on Crown tenants. (5.) That all unoccupied Native and Crown lands should be cut up and thrown open for settlement before any more private estates are purchased by the Government for closer settlement. (6.) That the Advances to Settlers Act is working very satisfactorily and beneficially. (7.) That this meeting considers the Government have broken their faith with the settlers in neglecting to spend the money which the land was loaded with for roading purposes; that it-is unfair for the settlers to have to pay interest on money that was never spent; that the Government should take immediate steps to right this very important matter, as the settlers so situated are deceived and dissatisfied, and are suffering under a very great injustice —take the Mangakahia district for an instance. 530. In resolution No. 7, you say the Government have broken faith with the settlers in neglecting to spend the money the land was loaded with for roading purposes? —I do not know anything about that particular case, but I know there is an instance of the money not being spent on the Whatatiri Block, where the men are still without roads, and have been so for five years. 531. Do you know how much money was loaded? —I think about ss. an acre, but lam not sure. 532. Can you assure us that none of it was spent ?- If anything was spent it was very little. 533. Was the little that was spent expended by the Government or the local bodies? —I could not say. 534. Mr. Paul.] What local bodies did your meeting consider the Land Board should be elected by? —Whatever bodies might be in existence at the time —County Councils or Road Boards. 535. Would you deny the right of the townspeople to have a voice in the administration? — Any who were not ratepayers. 536. Mr. Anstey.\ Can you not give us some further particulars about the Mangakahia Block and the loading of that block? -No; it was brought up at the meeting. 537. Do you think it fair to bring a charge against the Department without having some evidence to support it? —1 know nothing about it personally. 538. Then you say the Government should purchase no more estates until they have settled all the Crown lands?— That was the opinion of the meeting.
C.—4.
844
[W. HAWKEN.
539. Do you know anything about the estates that the Government have purchased, or the circumstances which have led up to their purchase! —No. 540. Is it not unwise to express an opinion under the circumstances ? —I have merely given you the opinion of the meeting. 541. Mr. Forbes.] Do you say that a man holding a lease-in-perpetuity section has a right to acquire the freehold ? —He has not a right until he is given that right, and we think he should be given an opportunity of getting the freehold. 542. Mr. Hall.] Is it not a fact that there are many first-class intending settlers who are not fitted to go on to the waste lands of the country, which are generally rough bush country, but who would make most desirable settlers on land which is partly improved? —The question is whether the greater advantage would accrue from settling the unoccupied lands or the acquired lands. 543. Are you a married man? —Yes. 544. Have you sons? —Yes. 545. If you lived in Otago where there are no Crown lands and your sons wanted to go on the land, would you prefer to have them settle near to you, or to go on to the bush lands of the north? —I should like my sons to take their own course in life. 546. You would not like to have your family around you?- Yes, if circumstances permitted. If not, no. 547. Is the membership of your union increasing? —It has not been formed very long, but it is steadily increasing. 548. Is it non-political? —Yes, it is entirely to deal with the farmers' interests. 549. Mr. McCardle.] You do not wish to do away with the other systems of land-tenure when you say you are in favour of _the freehold? —No. 1 advocate that each man should have a free hand as to his tenure. 550. Mr. McGutchan.] Would you favour the Government taking control of the roads? —I would favour the Government taking over the main road, and leaving the side roads for the local bodies. 551. What tax would you put on the district to provide for this? —I do not think the district should be taxed, because the whole community reaps the benefits from the roads. William Beadshaw examined. 552. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I hold 150 acres on lease in perpetuity and 280 acres on lease privately, with the right to purchase. My place is at Waikaralta, and 1 have been farming ten years. 553. Which tenure do you prefer? —I should certainly like to have the freehold. 554. To what use do you put your land ? —Simply grazing. 555. Is there any point you wish to bring before the Commission? —Yes, it is with regard to residence. 1 was working a few miles away from home in order to make a few pounds with which to improve my property, when I received notice from the Land Office asking me to show cause why I should not forfeit on account of non-residence. Now, I think if the Government wish to encourage settlement they should allow men to leave their homes for a time to go and work elsewhere without giving notice. There is no regular roadwork about here as there is in the Catlin's River district, for instance. Since the block was first opened and a section or two was taken up, it was closed again for some reason, and then it was opened again, and after a few more selections were taken up it was closed again. If there had been more settlers on the block they would have claimed to have a road. 556. Mr. Paul.] You say you prefer to have a freehold rather than the lease in perpetuity: would you be prepared to pay something extra for it? —I would pay the extra 1 per cent, of interest which has not been paid. 557. Has the Land Board treated you fairly? —I cannot say they have, because they have come upon me with regard to residence. However, as it is in our clauses, I have no right to complain perhaps, but I think they should give me a little more room to move in. 558. Did you apply to the Board to have the residence conditions relaxed ? —Yes, and they granted me nine months' extension. I wanted eighteen months. 559. Did they refuse you any further relief ?-—Yes. 560. Mr. Anstey.] Which of the two conditions are most favourable to settlement —the one under the private landlord or the one under the Government? —The private lease is the most satisfactory. 561. Have you any restrictions in your private lease? —No. 562. Which do you consider the best landlord —the Government or the private landlord? —The private man every time. 563. With regard to loading for roads in the Mangakahia district, which Mr. Hawken has mentioned, bow many acres were taken up there? —8,000 acres were taken up, and 4s. in the pound was put on for loading. There was about £150 spent on roads and tracks, and the rest of the money has not been forthcoming. 564. Are you sure you are correct? —I am pretty well sure. 565. Who was the money spent by? —I suppose it was spent through the County Council. 566. Can you give us the names of the particular blocks included in that area? —The Punakatere, the Okanoroa, and the Kaiko Native Settlement also comes within the block. 567. Mr. Forbes.] With regard to this private lease of yours, can you pay off at any time you wish, and acquire the freehold? —I can buy it right out at any time. 568. When you took up your lease in perpetuity, had you the option of taking the land under the occupation with right of purchase? —Yes. 569. How did you come to take it under the lease in perpetuity"? —That is more than I can tell you. I wish I had not.
845
C.—4,
W. BRADSHAW.j
570. Are not the questions of improvement the same under both tenures? —That may be; but ii' I had the choice to-morrow, 1 would rather have a lease with the right of purchase. I had been away with one of the contingents to South Africa, and when I came back I asked for eighteen months' grace to get my improvements done, and they only allowed me nine months, which 1 thought was very little, as 1 found it very hard to get them done in that time. 571. If your tenure had been occupation with right of purchase, would they have granted you any more?- Possibly not. I think it is a great pity the deferred-payment system was done away with. 572. Mr. Johnston.] Have you ever known a private landlord to reduce the rent? —Yes. 573. Have you ever had your rent reduced? —No. 574. Then, it is only hearsay Yes. 575. Have you ever known of Government lessees having their rent reduced? —No. 576. Not in the Catlin's River J—-No. 577. How long were you there?- Nearly two years. 578. Do you mean to say you have not known that settlers there had their rents reduced? The land was revalued. 579. Will yon answer my question. Do you know that rents have been reduced there? —Yes. 580. What is the amount of your purchasing-clause in connection with the land you hold privately ? —£l2o. 581. What did the land cost the lessor? —Nothing. It was an immigration grant. 582. Mr. Matheso?).] Do you know whether any of the settlers in the Catlins River had to forfeit their sections at the time that these rents were reduced ? —I believe in some cases it did actually go to that length. -Alexander Pollock examined. 583. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler at Mangakahia. 584. Do you know anything about the loading of lands for roads there?- Yes. I believe all the land in the district lamin is loaded for roads, which we have not got. That is our grievance. 585. How long have you resided there?- -About five years. 586. How much land is there in the Mangakahia Settlement ?--About 10,000 acres. 587. Has it been all taken up? —Yes. 588. How much land have you? —497 acres under lease in perpetuity. 589. Is that about the average size of the farms there? —Yes. 590. How much was the land loaded for roads? —I think 4s. an acre. 591. Can you say that only £150 of this money has been spent? —I do not think it is the same district the other witness was speaking about. 592. Has the 4s. all been spent? —I do not think so. 593. Has any been spent? —We have a sort of main road, but apart from that there are no roads at all. I have not got a place I can get a sledge into, and some of my neighbours are worse off than I am. 594. Was the money that was expended spent under the local body? —Some of it, and some by the County engineer ; but very little has ever been spent. 595. Has any representation been made about all the money not being spent?- We did send a petition to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and we got a letter saying that the money was spent; but we knew differently from that. 596. Was the money spent at the wrong season of the year? —Yes; in the middle of winter. 597. Then, I suppose a good deal of it would disappear in mud? —Yes; the work there was simply a disgrace. 598. Was it under the co-operative system? —No; it was done by contract. 599. Is your lease-in-perpetuity tenure satisfactory to you? —No; I would prefer the freehold. I was well satisfied when I took the land up; but I consider the terms of our leases have been broken. The land was loaded for roads, and we have not got them, and are not likely to get them. Then, again, I and some of my neighbours took land on which there was timber, and we -have had the money for that timber impounded, although there is nothing in our leases to that effect. There is one place on which there was kahikatea. I wanted all this timber, and they would not allow me to fell it and realise unless I paid 4d. a hundred. I said I could not do it, so I felled the timber and burnt it. They would allow me to burn it, but they would not allow me to sell it. 600. Mr. Paul.] You are quite positive this land was loaded for 4s. an acre? —I am not sure of the amount, but I am sure that it was loaded. 601. The Chairman.] Remember, you are on your oath, and you said previously that the land was loaded for 4s. an acre? —That is to the best of my belief. 602. Mr. Paul.] How do you know the amount for loading was not spent?—-I could see it by going along the road every day. I could see the work had not been done. 603. In the first place, you did not know how much the land was loaded for to an absolute certainty, and therefore you cannot say whether that amount has been spent or not? —Very little has been spent, notwithstanding. 604. Mr. Anstey.] Was the money spent by the Government or the local body? —Part by the Government and part by the local body. 605. Which of the two local bodies wasted the most of it?- I think both of them have wasted it. It would be hard to tell. 606. How much do j'ou think would be wasted: about 50 per cent.? —Yes, about that. The roads have been shifted two or three times, and. there has been three surveys to my knowledge. 607. Mr. Forbes.] Is your land good?— Second-class land; 200 acres is very good. 608. Are you making a living off this land solely?— No. I am improving it, but I go away to work in the summer months.
C—4.
846
[a. pollock,
609. Could you buy the freehold now if you had the option? —I think so. 610. Mr. McCardle.] Out of what funds was the Mangakahia bridge built? 1 could not say. 611. What was about the cost of it? —I think, about £2,000. 612. Do you think it probable that this money for loading was used for building the bridge? —I do not know, I am sure. William Barker Ramsbothom examined. 613. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am a settler. I hold 30 acres of volcanic land, which I purchased from the Natives. It is about two miles the other side of Kamo. 614. Have you anything to bring before the Commission? —I have had some experience of taking up land from the Government for cash —occupation with right of purchase and lease in perpetuity —and I believe in the freehold and in the homestead system. I have boys growing up, and I would like to see the homestead system reintroduced. The timber and the gum industries are dying out. The people who took up land in the past were able to earn money at gum-digging or working in the bush, but my children will probably not have that opportunity, and I think the land should be given to those who will settle upon it. I have had one trouble in connection with a lease-in-perpetuity section 1 held, and that is that I had to pay for all the fencing where my section adjoined Crown and Native lands. Robert Young Kernohan examined. 615. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler holding 591 acres under lease in perpetuity and acres freehold. I have held the lease-in-perpetuity section about six years, and I pay £14 3s. Bd. per annum rent. My leasehold land is situated at Mangakahia. 616. Are you satisfied with the*tenure? —No; I believe we are on the verge of revaluation. 617. Is that from what you see in the newspapers? There are other causes. I hold that the contract made between myself and the State has been broken by the State. I took up my land for 999 years, believing that I had the sole right to that land and all it produced during that term. Two years afterwards I wished to remove and realise upon a small portion of the timber growing on my land; but, to my surprise, 1 found that I had to apply to the Commissioner before I could remove the timber. I did so, and my application was refused, unless I would pay Is. a hundred for that timber. I journeyed to Auckland and interviewed the Commissioner, but he said that was the law. I said I would not pay him Is. a hundred, and that I would submit the case to arbitration. He replied that he had only a limited amount of time, and he would not entertain it. Eventually I said, rather than waste any further time over the matter, I would submit to paying 6d. a hundred, and this he agreed to. I claim there has been a breach of contract, and I now claim the right to purchase my holding. 618. I am afraid your argument will not hold good, Mr. Kernohan ?- Very well, 1 would be only too pleased to test it. 619. Do you know anything about the loading for roads in your district? —No, I have not made it a study. I have been there about six years, and have no road to my place. I have expended nearly £500 up to the present time, apart from my own labour and trouble. 620. Mr. Paul.] Would the capital value of that land have been higher if you had had the right to the timber? —No. When I took the land up the timber was valueless, but when it increased in value the Land Board seemed to think I had no right to it. 621. Did the timber become valuable in two years? —Yes. 622. Mr. Anstey.\ Was nothing specified in the lease about the timber? —No. 623. Mr. Johnston.] Your lease says you have taken the land under such-and-such an Act. Might not one of the Acts mentioned reserve the timber for the Crown ? —Yes ; but where is my security of tenure. 624. Do you think the Crown should give the right to purchase to all its tenants? —Yes. If the land was my own I would take a much greater pride in it, and I believe it would benefit the community also. 625. Mr. McCardle.] Are you not aware that the conditions attempted to be imposed by Mr. Commissioner Mueller have been upset, and that it has been shown that he had no right to prevent you from taking the timber? —Yes, I am aware of that. 626. Mr. McCutchan.] Was it not the intention of the Land Board to place the royalty on the timber to the credit of your rent? —Yes. 627. The Commissioner wanted to charge Is. royalty, which was to go against your rent,' but your suggestion was that you should get 6d. direct? —Yes. As to my land which adjoins what is called the State forest, I am placed in a difficult position with regard to my boundary, which is a very crooked creek. I applied to the Land Board three years ago for 50 acres under the squaringup clause, and I have been met with a refusal, on the ground that the Board has no power to deal with that land. When I erect my fences on the proper boundary they are carried away by floods, and I wanted this 50 acres of land to give me high ground on which to erect a fence. There have been hundreds of acres of this land burned, and I have reason to believe there had been overtures made to the Board to sow it. I have offered to sow it, but have been refused, and the consequence is that fern and tea-tree are coming up, which will take years to eradicate. These lands are lyingidle and covered with noxious weeds. The land has been denuded of all marketable timber. 628. It seems there is a modification of the law required to enable the Land Board to deal with forest reserves, in the interests of the land itself and boundary-fences, &c. Under what Act did you take up your land? —The Act of 1892. Edwin Griffin examined. 629. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler at Mangakahia. lam interested, with my brother, in a section of 500 acres held under lease in perpetuity. I have been in the land six years. The original rent was £17, but we got a rebate of 10 per cent.
E. GRIFFIN, i
847
C.—4.
630. Have you cleared any of that land? —Yes; 70 or 80 acres of standing bush. 631. Have you got it in grass? —Yes. 632. Is the grass holding well?— Yes, so far. 633. Are you satisfied with that tenure? —No; I feel it is insecure. 634. Will you state in what way you feel it is insecure? —It seems to me that these townspeople are agitating that all Crown leases should be revalued. 635. The townspeople may have that opinion, but I do not think they will turn the world upside down, all the same? —No; but most of them have not had much experience of land. If they had been with me for the last six years on my place, with no road whatever except on paper, they would know what it was. I have no outlet to the main road. 636. Have you any neighbours in a similar fix to yourself? —Yes. 637. Are the roads as laid off practicable if they were made?- Yes, they have very good grades. 638. They have not even been formed? —No; the bush has just been felled, but it is often on a sidling. I offered a man here 10s. a hundredweight to cart grass-seed from Whangarei to m}' house, but he would not take it on. 639. How much is accruing as "thirds " from your rent every year? —About £5. 640. And is there about the same amount from your neighbour, who depends on the same road ? —Yes. 641. Has none of the money been expended on that road? —It is said that a little bit of road from the main road has been done out of "thirds." Besides this amount, we paid £4 10s. in rates this year. 642. What would it cost to form, say, a 6ft. track into your section? —I could not say. I remember, six years ago, we felled bush and formed a 6 ft. track, and I think we got Bs. a chain for making the side-cuttings, and"£l ss. per acre for the bush. 643. You say you have two miles and a half to make, and that would mean 200 chains, and at Bs. per chain it would cost £80 to get this 6 ft.-track, and the money that is available from rates and " thirds " from vour place and vour neighbour's comes to about a fourth of that amount? —Yes. 644. It does not seem very hopeful for you even to get a bridle-track? —But we presumed from the price put on the land that some money would be spent on the roads, so as to give the settlers some inducement to go back. I have been there six years, and I have not had a month's holiday, and I am beginning to get a bit worn too. In regard to the block of land up the Mangakahia River, I may say I spent several months on. it with a survey party, and I know the land. I think it is too dear. I would not mind selling out my share in my property to my brother and taking up land there at a reasonable price, but I would not touch it at the present price. The value seems too high altogether, considering the disadvantages attaching to the land. 645. Mr. Anstey.'] Was any loading put on the block you are occupying for roads? —I do not know. The land was lying open for selection twelve months before we took it up. At that time things were very low, and nobody troubled, but since then cattle and butter have been selling very well, and there seems to be a demand for land. 646. Would it not be as well if you inquired about the loading? —It would be a good idea, because I do not know whether loading was put on it. 647. Could not the "thirds " and rates you and your neighbour are paying be spent gradually in making a formation to reach you? —Some have been spent. T think more than £20 was spent last year. 648. Mr. Hall.\ Do you seriously question the security of your tenure? —Yes, I do. 649. Can you imagine that any Government, for no good reason or for any reason, would break down a title entered into for land? —I do not know. What did a previous Government do but issue titles to these-big estates, which, I understand, can be taken under a compulsory clause in the Land for Settlements Act. 650. That is not breaking a tenure, but taking land for public purposes, and giving full compensation for it, and if they took your leasehold in the same way they would have to compensate you fully not only for your lease, but for your improvements and any loss that you had sustained in losing the property: that is not breaking down a tenure? —Of course, the owner has a representative on the Arbitration Court. But farmers have not got the opportunity to combine that people in the towns have. 651. Do you think any meetings in the towr, will affect your tenure? —I do not know. I certainly do not like the look of things. 652. Mr. Johnston.'] What is the nature of your land? —It is all hilly, bush land. I have, perhaps, 50 acres of flat. I pay £17 per year rent, and there is a rebate of 10 per cent. I have sixty head of cattle on the place now for the winter, and nine sheep and two horses. Sheep do not do well on it. I have sown nearly all the grasses mentioned in Yates's catalogue on it. 653. Which grass came besl 1- For carrying stock and sticking to us in the winter we find tall fescue best. 654. How did the bush burn? —Very well. Of course, we felled it properly. 655. Is it usual to get a good burn? —Out there it is, but not nearer here. 656. You have a river frontage. Is the river navigable for a steam-launch? —In the wintertime it is up to our section, but you cannot always depend on it. 657. Do you expect to be able to carry more than sixty head of cattle on the place? —Yes. We are putting more land in grass now. 658. Do you think the land will carry about a sheep to the acre? —I dare say it will. 659. Mr. Matheson.] Do you know that through your local body you have power to raise a loan and form a road, and use the " thirds "to pay interest on the loan? —I did not know we could use " thirds " to pay interest on a loan, but I understood the local body had power to raise a loan.
C—4.
848
r W. M. ATKINSON.
Wilfred May Atkinson examined. 660. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am County Engineer. I have held the position two years and a half. 661. Did you hear some of the evidence about the Mangakahia Block? —I heard the early part of it. I know the block and the road-lines. 662. You have expended some money there, I am informed, and I hope you will see your way to spend some more, because Mr. Griffen and others are in a bad way for want of a road? —Yes; I think he is about the worst. The road-line leading to his place was on a ridge, and then it was deviated, and an 8 ft. bridle-track was formed until it struck the flat. On the flat a bullock-road is at present in existence, and nothing can be done to the bullock-road until the timber workings are finished. One bridge could be put up, and it was let last year to a contractor, but he wanted to get out of the district, and the work was not done. We have, roughly, something under £10 due for this road, but £5 has not yet been received from the Land Receiver. There is a tidalriver frontage to this section; but, really, it is about the worst situated on the whole block. All through the block, except in one or two places, I think you can take a dray in the summer-time. I have gone into the question of roading with the settlers at Mangakahia. They had an idea the money was not being spent. Since I have been here I have looked into the expenditure by the late engineer, and, so far as I can find out, the settlers have had all the money that was due, and we reported so. I think Mr. GrifEen and Mr. Birch are the only two settlers who cannot get a dray into their sections, and it is simply on account of these skids. However, this time next year, if they have removed the skids, I will undertake to see there is a road through. I would like to point out, as far as payments to the Land Fund are concerned, that I find Mr. Griffen paid £2 3s. 6d., which is his half-yearly return of u thirds " to us, into the Land Board by the 31st January, this year, but that on the 31st Jul}', 1904, he did not pay anything. I find Mr. Birch paid nothing on the 31st January, 1904, and nothing the half-year before. And yet settlers often wonder why we do not spend the money. There was another settler who did not pay any rates, but he sold some timber, which went in payment of the rates. But the County Council did not receive anything of that, and the settlers do not seem to recognise that fact. 663. Several witnesses said that the Mangakahia Block had been loaded to the extent of 4s. per acre for roading, and that the money had not been spent? —I presume if any loading was put on the land it has been spent by the Roads Department. It has not come to the County Council since I have been here. • • 664. Mr. Paul]. A statement was made here to-day that some of this money was spent in midwinter, when there were I do not know how many inches of slush, and that a good part of the money was wasted ? —There is a reason for that. I wanted the work left over to the spring, but the settlers were very urgent that the money should be spent at once. I suppose they thought if the work was not done then it would not be done at all. A certain sum was spent, but it was not done at my request. 665. Then, briefly, you did the best you could under the circumstances? —Yes. 666. Mr. Anstcy'\ There are a number of Road Boards in the county? —Yes. 667. Do you think that is an economical way of administering public funds? Do you not think that one body would administer the funds more economically than two? —Certainly. 668. Mr. McGutchan.] Is it the custom of your Council to do work on overdraft? —I never interfere with the financial part of the business. Ido not think there is much overdraft. I only deal direct with Government grants, subsidies, road ftmds, and "thirds." William Henry Rhys examined. 669. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a clerk. I have been in the colony and in this district five years. 670. Are you concerned about land in any way?—l held 100 acres until six months ago. 1 Ikold 10 acres of freehold now, which I purchased privately. 671. What do you want to bring before the Commission I--Coming here from England, and having had some considerable experience of land in different countries of Europe, and having studied the land laws here and been attracted by them, I came here to seek a home. This was the first place I came to to seek land. What struck my attention most forcibly was the derelict state of Ihe land I went to look at. The land I ultimately purchased had been heavy bush, which had been cut down thirty years, but had never been stumped. It was quite overgrown with gorse, ranging from 3 ft. to 14 ft. high. Nearly all round me was other land in precisely the same condition. Much of this land had been under the plough, and, being held by private individuals and under freehold tenure, they had denuded the land of nature's manure and left it. It seems to me that any tenure that will commit a man to deal with land in such an unjust way requires alteration. I think sucK treatment of the land is an immoral act to the citizens round that owner and to the nation of whiEh he forms a part. It is a common state of things in this district. Hundreds of acres of land are held in that condition under the same tenure. The owners hold the land merely for the enhancement in the value given it by buildings and roads and improvements going on around them, and then they sell. It seems to me this is a thing your Commission should take a note of. I brought a certain amount of capital into the country, and it seems to me thaicapital has been almost wasted in reclaiming land which should have been reproductive almost immediately. I had to spend a great deal of money in undoing the evil effects of the former proprietor. I want to refer to people holding land merely for an enhancement in value in the towns with the one idea of gain fnd grab. These sections they hold produce nothing but noxious weeds, the seeds of which travel, and the farmer who is cultivating his land in the vicinity has to contend with these weeds. Another thing which has struck me in connection with colonial land dealings is the vast number of landsharks in Auckland, who get a living merely out of the exchange of land. Land seems to be viewed as a commercial commodity instead of the basis of natural life.
849
0.—4.
W. H. EHYS.
In a French colony, when a man makes a home, he does so not for himself or his children, but for his grandchildren. 1 will challenge any one to point out a farmer in this district who has laid out a home for the present generation, much less for a future one. lam a leaseholder in principle. Ido not believe in the private ownership of land, because the land is a limited quantity, and the people are not limited. As to the question of freehold, in reality I should say there are very few who are freehold here. I say not 10 per cent, of the freeholders in this district —and I suppose it is practically the same in other places —can say, "that is my land," so the freehold is really a myth. 672. Mr. Paul.] You think the state of things which existed before the inception of the freehold exist to some degree now -namely, that the interest on mortgages was more than a rack-rent in some cases? —I know it was in some cases. 673. You hold a freehold, and some people say it is inconsistent to hold freehold and advocate leasehold : how do you reconcile the two? Do you think a man should do whatever the law allows him to?- If you place me in a country with a river all round me and abolish all the bridges except one, I must use that bridge. I could not get a home unless I went right out. I will not rent land from a private landlord, but I will rent it if I can get it in a suitable place from the Government. All I need is security of tenure. 674. Do you think the lease in perpetuity secure? —Most certainly I do. 675. One witness said leaseholders resemble slaves, or that there was something in the condition of leaseholds which made them partial slaves; in your experience, have you found that so ? It is lack of knowledge. 676. Mr. Anstey.] You told us of the dreadful effecis arising from freeholders neglecting their land: what would you suggest as a remedy ? —That a man should not hold land unless he uses it and does not abuse it. 677. Would you confiscate such land?— Yes, I think I would, because the land is the peoples', and if he is misusing or abusing the peoples' property the people as a whole suffer. 678. To whom would you give the power to say when the land should be confiscated ?- -The State would have to decide. 679. Do you think the system of rating on the unimproved value would assist matters? —It would materially assist. 680. Mr. Forbes.] Were you able to make a living off the 100 acres?- Yes; but the money I spent in bringing the land into a state of productiveness was out of all proportion. My experience proves to me that it would be infinitely better to start farming in England than under such conditions. 681. Is much of the land round about here in the same condition? —Very much. 682. Is it in the hands of absentees or of residents here? —Residents. 683. And the gdrse is spreading from these lands to other lands? —Yes. 684. Mr. Mathexon.] Do you think it would be a good thing if all the country and town lands in New Zealand was occupied by Crown tenants? —I do think so. 685. There should be no freeholders at all?— That is my conviction after much thought and study. 686. Mr. McCardle.] Did you farm the 100 acres and make it a Garden of Eden?—l do not know about making it a Garden of Eden, but I reformed the face of the land absolutely. 687. Whereabouts is it? I would like to see it? —It is at Kamo, and I would be very glad to take you out there to-morrow. 688. Is the man who took up your farm doing as you did? —I do not think so.
Kaihu, Tuesday, 23rd May, 1905. James Trounson examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you?-I am a settler, and hold a pretty large quantity of land, but it is principally on account of the timber rights. I hold 5,000 acres freehold altogether. I have held a large portion of this land for about fifteen years. About ten years ago I bought 3,000 acres of the railway endowment. I am and have been engaged in the kauri industry, and have a mill of my own. I also hold some land for grazing bullocks. 2. Is there any particular matter you would like to bring before the Commission I—l1 —I came to New Zealand with a number of nonconformists settlers forty-three years ago—the Albert.land settlers. I was induced to come here with'others at that time on account of an offer of 40 acres of freehold, and in order to become a settler on freehold land. [do not suppose that lor the other settlers would have come to New Zealand but for that offer. I settled in the bush at Paparoa, in the Kaipara district. I have always been in favour of the freehold. T have done business with settlers from the North Cape down to Auckland, and I have never known a successful settler who was not in favour of the freehold. I also wish to draw attention to this : that a man buying bush land from the Government is handicapped under the system of rating on the unimproved value. Such a settler desires to keep the timber for his mill, but the rates fall very heavily upon him. 3. Are the rates levied on the unimproved value? —Yes. To remove the timber would be to remove the value of the land, and year after year the rates are being levied on the standing timber, whilst a number of us who have mills -would like to keep the timber. For instance, I have a mill here, and if that mill were removed a lot of people would Have to leave. The rating on the unimproved value has just come into force in the Hobson County, and it is already in force in the Hokianga County.
107—C. 4,
C—4.
850
[j. TKOUNSON.
4. You are in this position ; that you have to pay these rates, and that forces you to cut the timber off much earlier than you otherwise would ? —Yes. Year after year we have to pay these rates. 1 understand that in the south tbey do not charge rates on standing timber, but we here are charged rates on standing timber, and it falls very heavily upon us. I would like to also say this, that I and many others have an objection to drapers and other people living in the towns, who know nothing about land-settlement, wanting to make laws in regard to the settlement of the land. The settlers on the land know better how to deal with it than the class of people I have referred to. 5. But, as members of the community, they have a right to give their opinion on the subject? —Yes, but they want to rule the roost. 6. Mr. Amtet/.] You object to the rating on the unimproved value? —I do not go so far as to say that we object. 7. Do you think you ought to be exempt from paying a rate on the timber? —Yes. 8. I presume you use the roads for the timber you cut?— Not very much. 9. Do not the timber wagons spoil the roads? —Scarcely at all in the case of kauri timber. We do not use the roads for the timber I own. 10. Have you any leasehold land? —Yes, 40,000 acres as a gumfield area. I run fifteen hundred sheep on a portion of that land. 11. You have no leasehold property? —No. 12. Have you ever farmed any leasehold property? —No. 13. Mr. Forbes.\ It has been stated to the Commission that there is a lot of wear-and-tear on the roads caused by the heavy timber wagons: are the roads not of service to those engaged in the timber industry? —They are of"service, but the land pays the rates just the same as the land of other settlers. In my case, in the Hokianga County, where the heaviest rate exists, all my kauri timber comes down the river, and yet we pay very heavy rates on the land, apart from the standing timber. 14. I suppose an adjoining settler without kauri timber on his land will not be valued so highly as a settler holding land with kauri trees upon it? —I do not object to paying rates on the value of the land, but I do not think we should be charged rates on the green, standing timber, for as we remove that timber from year to year we are taking away the principal value of the land. 15. After the timber is removed, do you think the land ought to be revalued ?- The land has a value now of 10s. an acre. We pay on that, but then we also pay very heavily on the standing timber —twenty times as much as we do on the land. 16. Is that a separate valuation ? —Yes. 17. You said that you object to drapers and other people wishing to make the land laws: do you admit that they have a right to say something about the laws affecting the land in the towns? —Yes. 18. You think they ought to confine their attention to land in the towns? —I do not say they ought not to have some voice in the matter of our land laws, but they outnumber the settlers in the country, and they are misleading in their statements, because they do not know what they are talking about. If I and other settlers went into a draper's shop and said, "We can manage this shop better than you can," they would call us fools. I have served an apprenticeship on the land for over forty-three years, and I claim that I know more about the land than a draper can possiblv know. 19. Mr. Ma,theson.\ Do you think it is an injustice that the value of your timber should be added to the unimproved value of the land for rating purposes? —I think so. 20. Mr. McCardle.] You appear to have good country around here? —Yes, some good country; but the hilly land is poor. 21. What is the value of the improved land under grass? —I suppose some of the best alluvial land would be worth about £10 an acre--that is, land close to the river. 22. Are there many new settlers coming to this district? There are a lot of new settlers between here and Hokianga. I think there is a good field for settlement on some of the bush land, because when the bush is felled some of it will make very good grass laud, and a considerable area of that land is now in the hands of the Government. 23. Are there any large blocks of Native land in this district suitable for settlement? —Not many. 24. A block of 12,000 acres of land was pointed out to us as we came down the river last night; do you think it is suitable for dairying? —I think portions of it are. 25. Do you think it would be a good thing if some land such as that were taken up by the Government under the Land for Settlements Act? —I think the land is good land. I would not put settlers on poor land on any account. 26. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department?—No; but I think it is generally favourably looked upon. 27. Mr. McGutchan.] In advocating the freehold, would you be in favour of leaving the present optional tenures upon the statute-book? —Yes. 28. If you gave the right of purchase to the lease-in-perpetuitv tenants, would you not compel them to pay the 1 per cent, difference and the interest on the 1 per cent. ? —I cannot see why thev should be compelled to pay 1 per cent, more for having the option. 29. Would you reduce the 5 per cent, to 4 per cent, in the case of the optional tenure —that is, the right of purchase? —I consider that you should make the right of purchase 4 per cent. T think that if you give a man the land for nothing, if he makes certain improvements, it would be a good thing, because it would give him some stimulus to work the land, and would compel him to make improvements. I believe in the homestead system. 30. In speaking of your objection to rating on the unimproved value, you said that the kauri timber is valued apart from the land? —Yes,
851
C.-4
J. TBOUNSON.j
31. Are not the Goveruiuout asseobuieuts made in this way, that the land itself is valued, and the improvements are valued separately ? —Under the present system you pay on the standing timber, as well as on the land itself. 32. Is the amount of the unimproved value, or the rate on the unimproved value, such as to make you think of sacrificing the timber i -It is enough to make one think seriously about it. 33. Mr. McLennan.J Do you think the kauri-gum and the timber industry are detrimental to the settlement of the land in this district? Ido not think so. 34. You said that the freehold is the most successful tenure I- Yes. 35. Have you had any experience of land taken up under the Land for Settlements Act? —No. 36. Then, you cannot say whether those settlers improve their land as well as freehold settlers? 1 cannot say. 1 consider, however, that there is more inducement to improve holdings under the freehold system than those held under leasehold. A man holding a freehold can sell to whom he likes and when he likes. 37. Do you not think that tenants under the Land for Settlements Act do the same thing ?- No. For instance, they cannot sell a right for a road without reference to the Government. They cannot register that right. 38. Do you mean to say that a road cannot be taken through a leasehold property under the Public Works Act I—That1 —That would be very expensive. County Councils and Road Boards are very shy of dealing with land under that Act. 39. Then, the same remark applies to the freehold? —Yes. 40. Mr. Paul.] Are you using the timber on this land? —Yes, sufficiently to keep the mill going; but 1 have large offers even from Sydney for logs, and offers at a better price even than those paying duty, but I am not disposed to sell the logs. I wish to keep the timber for the industry. 41. In the meantime, I suppose, the timber is gradually rising in price ? Probably it is. 42. Can you give any approximate length of time it will take for this timber to be worked out? —1 think 1 have timber of all classes that will probably last me for twenty years. 43. Is leasehold land in this district increasing in value? —1 do not know. 44. What is your opinion with respect to the constitution of Land Boards? —I think the Land Board gives pretty general satisfaction, but I consider that County Councils should Have greater power in respect to the land. 45. Do you think that occupation with right of purchase is better than the lease in pereptuity? —Yes. 46. Do you not think it is only fair that a man taking up an occupation-with-right-of-pur-cliase section should pay something more for it? —I do not see why he should. I consider that if a man is a valuable settler it is a good thing to encourage him in every way, and even give him the land, and not cripple him with rates and taxes. I believe there is no system equal to the homestead system under which land is given to a man on his making certain improvements. 47. Do you think it might be a good thing to give every man in the community 40 acres of land? —Not unless he made certain improvements, and proved himself to be a capable and bond fide settler. 48. Would you, in the case of certain land in this district, give men a bonus to take up the land? —No. 49. Is it not a fact that in many parts of this district land has been sold at 15s. 6d. and 17s. an acre, and that more money has been obtained by selling the timber than the original price of the land? —That might be so. 50. Do you think it would promote good settlement to give that class of land away? —I would reserve all timber rights, except such timber as would be useful for settlement purposes. 51. It has been represented to us that settlers think that in getting the land they should have the absolute right to all that is in the land and on the land ?--Generally speaking, they would be entitled to that. There are certain blocks near the Wairoa liiver that are quite accessible, and 1 think that land should be reserved, but on much of the other land the timber is not of much value.. John Tuohey examined. 52. The Chairman.\ What are you?—l am a settler, and hold 10 acres of freehold at the junction of the Waima and Mangatu Creek. I have been there about six years. I formerly held a larger freehold a mile further on, and took up this smaller area with the view of making it a paddock. I sold the other land and retained this. 1 was a bushman for some years, but during the past two years I have been carrying on business as a dealer and a settler. 53. What tenure do you think is best in the interests of the country and of the settlers? — 1 am strongly in favour of the lease in perpetuity. 54. Have you observed the working of that system in any other place? —Only in the north, and principally in this district. There are a few holdings here under that system. 55. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before' the Commission? —I would be inclined to do away with the residential clause, and compel the settler under certain circumstances to make double improvements. 56. You would not require residence? —I think the residential clause tends to, in a way, handicap a man. For instance, 1 myself would be prepared to take up a block of land if it were not for the residential clause. If I took up the land I would have to go elsewhere for work in the summer. If I were not allowed to do so, it would mean keeping me a longer time from making a home on the land than if I were allowed to do some outside work. 57. But as long as that land was your home there would be no objection to your going away now and again and doing work elsewhere? —A man has to sometimes go a considerable distance for work when he takes up land in the back blocks, and it is not desirable or safe that he should leave his family unprotected.
C—4.
852
[j. TtJOHEY.
58. What is your experience with respect to the Advances to Settlers Department 2 —l started as a poor man and made a certain number of improvements on my land, but found I could not carry on successfully and meet the interest on the mortgage, and, as I had no capital, 1 had to leave my place for a good part of my time in order to get work. 1 thought that by getting an advance from the Advances to Settlers Department 1 would be able to clear off my mortgage and have sufficient money to carry on my farming operations without leaving my home. My place was valued at close on £1,000 by the Government valuer, and I applied for a loan of £600 —£400 to pay off the mortgage and £200 to work on. My application was refused. Eventually, through not having any money to work on, my load became too heavy, and 1 had to sell the place for close on £1,000. 59. Mr. Anstey.] Is there much Crown land in this neighbourhood suitable for settlement? — There is a block of 7,500 acres within a mile of the township. I think that land should be opened up, and a request has been made to the authorities to have it opened up. About six miles from the Mangatu there are one or two blocks of Government land that might be opened up for settlement. I consider that in this part of the country the land ought to be cut up into about 500-acre sections. 60. If that land were thrown open would it be readily taken up under lease in perpetuity ? — I cannot say. 61. With regard to your freehold land, if you had taken that up under lease in perpetuity would you have been able to continue holding it'/ —Yes, because 1 would have had my capital to work it. 62. Therefore, the freehold is no use to you in that case? —No, not as far as assisting me to hold the land was concerned. 63. Could you have held it much better under leasehold than freehold? —Yes. 64. Do you approve of theJballot, or what system do you advocate? —I consider that after land is applied for the leasehold should be put up to public auction, and the highest bidder should get the lease. 65. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it would be a good thing for the colony if the State gradually acquired all the land, so that all occupiers of town and country land should be tenants of the State? —Yes. 66. Mr. McCardle.] Do you not think under the auction system there would be a tendency for the price of the land to run up to too high a figure? —If the land is worth, say, £10 an acre to me I think the Government should reap the benefit of it, and if there is another man to whom it is worth £111 think he should obtain it. If he sees his way to do well with it at the higher figure, then, I think, he is entitled to get the land. I think that if a man has made a purchase and finds he has made a mistake it should be entirely his own loss. 67. Do you believe in free trade in Native land? —No. To a certain extent, I think the Native is getting more enlightened, but I think on that point he is a little weak, and, under certain circumstances, may sacrifice his land for very little. 68. Do you not think that the poorer settler wishing to settle on land should get some protection from the moneyed man who may outbid him at auction? -No, Ido not. If, for instance, I am a competent settler I know exactly what my capabilities are, and what the value of the land is, just as well as the moneyed man, and I can get just as much out of the place as he can. 69. But, supposing the price of the land rose beyond your means?- I have only to find the interest on it, 70. Mr. McCutchan.\ You advocate double improvements and exemption from residence? —I said so, but I did not mean to go quite so far as that. 1 advocate increasing the improvements, and doing away with the residential clause. 71. Would not that leave the door open to interfering with bona fide settlement? —I think if a man improves his land and goes ahead, he should not be compelled to reside on it in all cases. 72. Do you not think there are a number of townspeople —moneyed people and speculators of various descriptions- who would be induced to come into competition in respect to lease-in-perpetuity sections. Would not what you suggest mean excluding a great number of bond fide people from getting on the land? Would you qualify your advocacy of exemption from residence by suggesting that the Land Board should be given discretionary power to inquire into an applicant's bona fides'/- Certainly. 73. In respect to your application for an advance, were there any disadvantages in your case in the way of noxious weeds and floods ?- -No, except that I have no roads. 74. Did the Department give you no reason for declining to make the advance? —No. 75. Mr. Paul.] With respect to the settlement of bush land, do you think it would be successfully settled under leasehold tenure? —Yes. 76. That is, providing the conditions were made easy and reasonable? —Yes. 77. Would you be against any further sale of Crown land? -Yes. 78. Mr. McCardle.\ You know, I suppose, that you get an exemption on bush land for four years, and you are also free from rent for that period ? —Yes. 79. Do you approve of the homestead system? —No. Albert Oliver examined. 80. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a storekeeper in Kaihu. I have been in that business about nine years. I hold no land whatever, except a small business-site which I lease from the Natives. 81. Have you any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? -I am not in favour of any change in land-tenures. I very much favour the lease-in-perpetuity system. 82. Have you observed the working of it in any place? —Yes, in the surrounding settlements. 83. Has it worked successfully? —It has only been a partial success, but that, I think, is due largely to the ballot system, under which the best tenant might draw the worst section in the settlement.
853
C—4.
A. OLIVEK.J
84. Have you any alternative system to suggest'/ —i should be in favour of an auction system, which would preclude capitalists and mere land speculators from taking part. I think the auction should be confined to bond jidc men with not more than a moderate amount of means. I am strongly against stringent residence conditions. 85. What do you think of the working of the Advances to Settlers Department? —1 think it has been a great success. A few complaints have been made about the expenses. For instance, men who have applied for loans of ,£3O or £40 are rather surprised when they get £3 or £4 short. Of course, they cannot expect a loan for nothing. 86. You believe in the lease-in-perpetuity tenure?—1 believe that if the leasehold were done away with it would mean throwing the lands back into the hands of the large landholders, and 1 fail to see any great advantage to a poor man to have the right to purchase, because he would probably place himself in the hands of the money-lender. 87. That is, if they were compelled to purchase? —I think they would go to the money-lenders, and that would only increase their annual expenses, as they would have to pay a higher interest. 88. Could they not apply to the Advances to Settlers Department?- 1 understand loans will be advanced by the Government for improvements only. Another thing about the freehold is, that immediately a settler got the freehold he might sell out to a large landholder, while under the leasehold they are bound to the land. 89. Under the lease in perpetuity they can transfer?— Yes, but I do not think a capitalist would care to buy up the leases. 90. Mr. Anstey.] Is there much Maori land in this neighbourhood? —Not a very great deal. 91. Is much of it occupied or improved? —Scarcely any. 92. Is the tenure you have under your Maori lease satisfactory to you? Yes, it is a ttveyearly lease, and it suits me for"busiuess purposes. There was a building on it when 1 took it up, and I have improved it since. 93. Do you get any valuation for building at the end of the lease? —No. 94. Mr. Forbes.] Are the settlers around here doing fairly well? —Some of them. I do not thing any of them are doing very well. 95. Do the majority make a living on the land without working outside? —No; the majority work at other things. 96 Do you think the land is capable of supporting the population yet in a fairly prosperous condition ? —Not entirely, yet. 97. The previous witness said a draper or a storekeeper should not make recommendations with regard to the occupancy of land in the country: do you think that is reasonable? —Certainly not. 98. Is not the whole population of the colony interested in the Crown lands of the colony? — Decidedly; they are a national asset. 98a. Should not the whole population have something to say with regard to the hours of labour, the hours shops should keep open, and so on ? —Yes, the whole of the public should have a voice in all those matters. 99. Mr. Matheson.] Where a settler goes into the back country and works hard for twenty or thirty years, if he saves enough to buy the freehold, do you think the Crown would be wise to give him that opportunity? —That would depend. I am not in favour of allowing the land to drift into the hands of large holders. 100. Do you think that could be stopped by limiting the area or the value of land any one man could hold? —I think the best way to stop it would be to continue the leasehold. 101. Do you think it would be a good thing if the whole of the land of the colony were occupied by tenants of the Crown, and there were no freeholders? —Yes; I think State control is the system for the country at large. 102. You do not think that would tend to encourage people to go into the cities? —No; 1 think if the conditions were easy settlement would go ahead under the leasehold. 103. Mr. McCardle.] I suppose you have totted up the cost to the country if the Crown were to buy up all the freehold land for the purpose of settling it as you suggest? —No; I am merely advocating that the lands now in the hands of the State should be kept in the hands of the State. 104. Do you not think that the nine-tenths of the land now held tinder freehold might be mopped up by one landlord, which would be the very evil you apprehend? Would it not be better for the Government from this date to limit the aggregation of these estates to a certain number of acres ? —Certainly. 105. You said that under the ballot system people were compelled to take whatever sections were allotted to them : is it not the case that, except under the village-settlement system, a person puts in an application for whatever section he wants, and that if he does not get it he is out of the ballot, unless he goes in for another?- I was under the impression that they ail put in and drew for sections. 106. Mr. McCutchan.] You heard Mr. Touhey's evidence with regard to residence, when he said owing to having a 10-acre section on freehold on which he had his home he was hampered from going elsewhere and taking up a lease from the Government: it is in reference to such conditions as his that you object to the residence conditions, or do you object to residence conditions generally?—l think there should be more discrimination in allowing a man to leave his section for a time and go and work elsewhere. 107. Are you prepared to advocate the elimination of the residence conditions from the Land Act altogether? —I think that is going rather far. lam not prepared to answer that question straight out. 108. I understand that you approve of the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure amongst others. Would you not approve of the Advances to Settlers Department advancing money upon adequate security for the purchase of the freehold by a man who had that right by law? —I think
C—4.
854
[a. olxvee.
it should be always for improving tlie land. 1 understand aivanoes are made ior that purpose only. 109. It is for various purposes. Would it not be reasonable that a man who had the right of purchase by law should be able to go to the Department for a loan to complete his Yes; but would the funds stand it if the whole of the settlers were given the right to purchase. 110. We are speaking about the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenants? —If they were merely isolated cases, I do. 111. Mr. Paul.] In cur travels, especially around the North Island, we have found large areas of freehold land lying neglected. Would.you advocate any restrictions being placed on freeholds as to area, and so on? —Are there not already restrictions in the way of rating on unimproved value. 112. That is for local rating purposes? —Generally speaking, it resolves itself into a question of a man doing what he likes with his own. 113. Is it a good thing for the State that a man should do as he pleases with large areas of land which he has bought ? —Certainly not, if he does not improve his land. I think the law should compel a man to cultivate his land, or allow others to do so. 114. You think the best way to do that would be by taxation ?--Yes, 1 should think so. 115. Do you not think the abolition of residential conditions would be likely to retard successful settlement? —I think keeping the settler continuously on his land would be likely to impoverish him. 116. Do you favour the introduction of the homestead system, which gives the land away? — The homestead system seems to be in great favour up here, and I think settlement should not be hampered in any way. Ido not, however, think people should have everything given to them. I would nor actually give the freehold away. 117. So far as the poor land is concerned you would give a long lease at a merely nominal rent ? —Yes. 118. Mr. McC'utchan.] What, generally, is the condition of the roads in the Hobson County ? —Generally pretty bad, but lately improving. 119. There was an objection this morning to the rating on the unimproved value, on the ground that it would prejudicially interfere with the timber areas : do you think it is likely to interfere with the timber industry? It might raise the price of timber. 120. But, looking at it from a general standpoint, it is not the case that you would get more revenue I—Yes.1 —Yes. 121. Seeing that the timber is increasing in value, is it not only fair that this extra burden should be borne? —Yes, and the owner of the timber must naturally raise his prices. 122. Have not the timber areas purchased some years ago increased enormously in value? —Yes. 123. Do you think the rate has increased proportionately ? —Not proportionately, but I think they have increased more recently. 124. Returning to the question of tenure: you advocate the tenures remaining as they are — namely, the lease in perpetuity, the occupation with right of purchase, and the freehold, but later on in your evidence you condemned cash sales? —I always understood that all leasehold was the lease in perpetuity. 125. You are not aware there is a limitation as to area in regard to the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure? If there is a limitation in that system I am satisfied. Edmund Trounson examined. 126. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and lam at present clerking in the sawmill here. I have 350 acres of freehold. It is bush land, which I have held about ten years. I have farmed a portion of it, and lam now running cattle on it. A portion is in grass. 127. What tenure do you favour ? —The occupation-with-right-of-purcliase tenure. 128. Have you any remarks to make in regard to land-tenures, or sawmilling, or generally ? —I only wish to say that my experience in going around the country has been that the freeholders, as a rule, have done more with their holdings than people who hold their land under other tenures. 129. What do you attribute that to? —I presume they are actuated by the same feeling that I have myself. They like to look upon it as their very own. 130. You are aware that the lease in perpetuity is for 999 years?- Yes; but there is something in my nature which causes me to wish to have a thing for my own. 131. With regard to the timber industry, we have had evidence to-day to the effect that it is becoming irksome to go on paying increased rates from year to year. What is your view? —Well, to some extent lam interested in that. It was my father who gave that evidence; but I might be able to give some information with regard to valuation. It is true that the timber has increased in value of late years; but I would point out that only last year the Hokianga Council revalued. The local body keeps pace with the increase in the value by increasing the royalty-value of the timber, so that the rate is increasing in proportion, or more than in proportion, to the increase of the timber as a marketable commodity. 132. Do you think the principle of rating the timber separately is fair? —The land is valued the same as any other unimproved land, and the timber at so-much per hundred feet, but the land cannot be improved while the timber is on it. 1 would not actually say that the principle is wrong; but it seems to me to be an incentive to get the timber out as quickly as possible, and the local body would be without that rate. 133. You consider it is overrated?--! would not say that, because if it were being sold to-day it might fetch that value per hundred feet, but in a few years' time it might not. In the meantime there is the unimproved rating running on all the time, and the Government land-tax is computed on the same basis.
E. TROUNSON.]
855
C—4.
134. You think it is a question for the owners as to whether they should not convert it all at once or leave it over? —It is purely a question of forecast as to the likely price of timber. 135. Mr. Anstey.] Have you improved this piece of freehold of yours, which you say was mostly bush? —I have felled as much as I was able. I bought my piece from the Natives, and the Kauri Timber Company have a right over it for some years, and until that time expires I can do nothing more on the portion where the kauri timber is. 136. Do you think that those settlers who have the freehold will do more with their land than the leaseholders, who are compelled by law to make improvements? —That is my experience. 137. Mr. Forbes.\ Are you speaking for the whole of the colony? —No; for the North of Auckland only. 138. With regard to the timber, you think it is not in the interests of the colony that a man should be forced by rating to cut his timber ?—I do not think it is a good thing. 139. Mr. Matheson.] With regard to the large estates purchased in the south for settlement, do you think it a wise thing for the Government to allow those who have taken up sections on lease to acquire the freehold at some future date, when they have expended a fair amount of labour and money upon them? —I think so, if the amount that any one man may hold is limited by law. 140. 'Mr. McCutchan.] It is quite evident that it is in the interests of the roads that the rating on unimproved value is imposed, though it may be questionable whether it is in the interests of the people holding the timber areas. Can you show from the rates upon this particular freehold that the disposal of the timber may be unduly forced?--As to the timber owned by my father, none of it comes down the road. The road is not utilised in any way whatever for the timber; it is used merely for packing or carting stores to the camp. I could not say that the cutting of the timber is forced. I only say it might have that tendency. 141. Can vou give the unimproved value per acre of that block, and the amount of the rate levied by the local body?— There is slightly under 3,000 acres, at 7s. 6d. per acre average. Kauri is growing upon 800 acres of that. The unimproved value of the block is just about £10,000. 142. What is the total rate in the pound levied by the local body?—l think it is 3d. 143. That would mean that the local rates would amount to about 9d. an acre? —There is only 800 acres of kauri. 144. Do you think that 9d. an acre is going to prejudicially affect the industry? —It means between £100 and £200 a year. 145. You say there is 800 acres of the 3,000 acres on which there is still kauri timber. Is the balance of that block in grass ?—Practically none yet. 146. Will not the rating on the unimproved value force you to make improvements ?—lt is not good land that is the trouble. 147. How is it that the unimproved value is 7s. 6d. per acre? —Between £8,000 and £9,000 of the valuation is for the kauri timber. If there was any question of the possibility of improving it would be all right, but it cannot be improved until the kauri is taken off. 148. On no part of this 3,000 acres?—We are grassing a portion of it now ; but when you are alongside a big forest like that you have to be very careful about burning, because you might destroy the standing timber. 149. Did vou ever see good farming on leasehold land from the Government? —T cannot say I have. 150. Have you any extensive experience of leasehold land? —Not particularly. 151. Have you seen bad farming on freehold? —I have. 152. Do you think the timber is increasing in value, and that the owner of that timber is getting a proportion of that increase? —I think it has been so. 153. Is there very much to grumble about, then?— The only thing is that in the last few years timber went up considerably, and the question is, has it reached its limit? 154. There are no conditions which are harassing either in local or general taxation? —No more than the one, in regard to which it is a matter of opinion. John Briger Smith examined. 155. The Chairman.'] What are you?— I am a settler. I hold 100 acres under occupation with right of purchase, and have held it close on ten years. I pay a rental of 6d. an acre. My place is about nine miles to the north-west of Kaihu. 156. Are you satisfied with your section and with your tenure?—l am satisfied with the tenure. 157. Was your land under bush originally ?—Yes. I have now about 45 acres in grass. 158. Has the grass taken well?— Not too well. I had a very bad burn to start with, and the country does not hold grass well, because the altitude is too high. It is near the Mangonui Bluff. 159. How do you use your land?— For grazing cattle, and Ido a bit of farming. I used to do some dairying when there was a creamery going, but the milk-supplv was not enough to keep the creamery going. 160. Have you neighbours all around?— Yes; eight or nine. 161. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —Yes. We were charged at the rate of £30 ss. Bd. on each hundred acres for roading. That amount is capitalised, and we pay 5 per cent, on it, and my next half-year's rent will be my twentieth payment. I would not object to 2s. 6d. an acre for roading, but we are charged 6s. I and my neighbour pay £1 10s. each per year for our road, besides local taxes. 162. 'Suppose there was no rofid at all, would it be worth your while paying £1 10s. a year to get the road you now have?— Had I known there was that amount to be put on the land for roading I should have left the land alone; but I cannot afford to throw it up now, as I have spent something like £300 in improvements on it. We pay 6d. an acre on the capital value, and the loading for roads brings the amount up to about 9jd. an acre,
C—4.
856
[j. B. SMITH.
163. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes; if they would only be a little more expeditious in sending the money along. 164. Have you anything to say about the Land Board? —So far, 1 think the Board is working fairly satisfactorily; but I think the country should have some say in the appointment of Land Boards. I would make them elective on the franchise of the County Councils. 165. Mr. Anstey.\ Was this loading of 6s. per acre to give you road-access? —Yes. 166. Has any portion of it been spent in making a road? —A 12 ft. road has been made. 167. Can you say that the whole 6s. per acre was not spent originally in making the road?— Possibly it might have been. 168. Do you think more than 6s. an acre has been spent? —No. 169. Mr. McCardle.\ What class of land do you hold? —It is very inferior, and there are a good number of settlers settled around me on similar land. 170. Is there any suitable land available for settlement in the district ? —lt is suitable for grazing in one way, because after the first few years of the bush being down there is fairly good feed, but then the grass dies out. 171. Is the land you hold able to maintain you? —No. 172. Mr. McGutchan.\ How much rent do you pay half-yearly? —£3-odd, with the loading. 173. Are you quite sure that the £30 ss. Bd. on the 100 acres is not included in the capital value of 10s. per acre? —It is not included. The capital value of the land is now 16s. per acre, or more. 174. Are you confusing the roading in any way with the advance you got from the Department for felling the bush? -None whatever. The first account I got stated the value of land £50, advance £70, and roading £30 ss. Bd. My total payments .amount to £7 10s. odd per year. In reference to the lease in perpetuity, I would like to say that all land opened by the Government whether ordinary Crown lands or acquired estates, should be offered under the optional system. If a man takes up a block of land that is open for selection under the three tenures under lease in perpetuity, in order to save the 1 per cent., I have no sympathy with his desire for the freehold ; but I hold when land is open for selection only under lease in perpetuity the tenant should have the option of purchase, because I consider the freehold or occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure best in the interests of the country. 175. Mr. Paul.] Have you had any experience of the land-for-settlements policy in the South Island ? —No. 176. You cannot say whether the settlements there under leasehold tenure are successful or not? —No. But it is not a question of whether they are a success or a non-success. What I say is that every individual should have the option of either tenure when taking up land. If I, as an individual, preferred to take up land under lease in perpetuity I have a perfect right to take it up under such tenure; but I consider it is wrong to open up a block of several thousand acres and offer it for selection only under lease in perpetuity. I think the difficulty of sale and transfer is a great drawback to leasehold. 177. Have you ever heard of a case where the Land Board have refused transfer? —It is not that I have heard of such a case, as that the law allows them to do so. 178. Under the Land for Settlements Act, or any other Act, the prospective tenant has the option of taking the land up or leaving it alone? —Of course he has; but if a man wants land he must have it, and if the land is settled under lease only he must take that leasehold or leave it alone. The tenant should have the option of purchase, according to my idea. Joseph William Shannon examined. 179. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am Crown Lands Ranger, and a farmer. I have held my official position a little over twelve months. I have been in the north nearly forty-five years; I was born there. lam Crown Lands Ranger for the Bay of Islands electorate. For some time I have been farming 200 acres of freehold, but eighteen months ago I took up 40 acres under occupation with right of purchase and 120 acres of freehold bush land, which I bought from some absentees, and I also have an interest in a leasehold with another gentleman in an educational reserve of 297 acres. 180. You have been a short time in your official position, but so far as you have gone do you think the settlers under the various Crown-land tenures are succeeding fairly well? —Many of the older settlements, which went back for many years, are now commencing to improve again. Speaking of the special settlements, such as those around here, which were included in my district last year, I may say a great number of men went on to them who knew nothing about land. They went on the land in a time of great depression, which really forced them out of the towns, and they failed to make a living on the land. Consequently a great number have gone away, particularly in one settlement in the north, named Herekino. Nearly all the original settlers have left the district, but the land has been taken up and is being farmed by others now. 181. What became of the people who failed and left? —Some went back to the towns, some on to the gumfields, and some into businesses which they understood and have done very well at. 182. So, the original purpose of getting them out of the towns has been served? —Yes. I think it served a very useful purpose at the time. 183. I believe, in your experience, you have given considerable attention to grassing land: and you have heard the various evidence that has been given in regard to danthonia and paspalum and other grasses. Would you give us your views in regard to this question?—l have had considerable experience with grasses. -In grassing land you want to find out, first, the quality of t"he land, and then the grass most suitable to it. A great deal of the land throughout the north is well suited for rye-grass, clovers, cocksfoot, timothy, and the fescues, but they will not do on all classes of country. There is a very large area along the coast, especially the east coast, that is only fit for danthonia, which takes the place of the scrub and fern and enables the land to carry
C—4.
J. W. SHANNON.]
857
some stock in the way of sheep and cattle, when otherwise it would run nothing. These lands will not grow any of the better classes of grass. I think Paspalum dilatatum will grow on most of these lands also. I have had a good deal of experience with that grass. I have seen it on the gum lands —that is, the pipeclay land—as well as on the swamp lands up north, very nearly up to the North Cape. I have sown it on the sands of the west coast, and I have found it do well in every instance. Of course, when I say well I mean that it grows better than any other grass. I think very highly of it. It is a very fattening grass, and very good for renewing old pastures, especially on hilly land. In some localities cocksfoot holds very well, but in others it grows tufty. 184. What about rat-tail grass?—lt is a very useful grass in some places, but it is very hard on stock, although I have noticed that stock reared on rat-tail grass keep their condition. But it requires to be burnt off like danthonia, to enable it to come up fresh and young again. 185. Can you name the particular places where ryegrass grows well?—lt takes in valleys, such as the Oruru Valley, the Victoria Valley, and the small valleys at Herekino and Broadwood and Pakaraka. I am not very well acquainted with this neighbourhood, but I notice it grows very well on the flat land in this district and on some farms below Dargaville. Timothy does very well on the flat land, but requires something, such as the clovers, to give it bottom. 186 Have you any remarks to make in regard to noxious weeds? —In some districts the blackberry is'spreading and becoming a great curse. It is a very difficult matter to cope with, as the birds carry the seeds about and drop them in the bush. In years to come, when that bush is felled and burnt", I fear the blackberry will come up. • 187 What about gorse? —Gorse is also a weed in many places, but in some places 1 think it has done a great deal of good. I speak particularly of the Kerikeri district. There is a lot ot land there that at one time carried very few sheep. I knew that Mr Kemp at one time was running eight hundred sheep on the place, and he considered that was all he could run. He told me himself that when he had twelve hundred sheep on the place it was overstocked. He sold the property to Mr. Williams, and then managed the place for him. Mr. Williams went in for the systematic sowing of gorse. He imported the seed from England, and sowed it in drills with grass in between. I was up there some years ago, and I recommended them to sow danthonia, which at that time had not been advertised. I had taken notice of it then. On m .y advice r. Kemp sowed down some danthonia. I pointed out a piece of ground where danthonia was growing and he saved the seed himself. He sowed the danthonia, and he found it carried fire when ever' he wanted to burn the gorse in order to renew it _ They are now carrying four thousand sheep within the boundaries of that property. In that instance gorse has been a great success. In other places it has practically ruined the settlers. It is just a matter of the quahty o the land. If it is allowed to grow on good land it is difficult to eradicate. On this land at Kerikeri, Mr. Kemp told me quite lately, he had not been able to get anything to grow. After a few years in gorse he stumped it and put the land in turnips and oats and grass, and he now finds the land will carry grass where it would not hold it before. The gorse opens up the land and improves it 188 ' We saw some extensive tracts of country where apparently the gorse had got beyond the control of the grazier ?-A great deal of it has. Still, that land will carry a great number of sheep though certainly, it is an evesore to see good land in gorse. However, one is very diffident about' saying 'anything "against it, seeing there are no other means of bringing the land into.grass. 189." You think under careful management the sowing of gorse and danthonia is not to e pnndpiniiGd so Ions: o-s it csti be controlled 1 Yes. _ , 190 Mr Anstey 1 With regard generally to the tenure upon which Crown land should be taken up, which do you think, from the point of view of the State, is bestf-From the State's point ° f Vi l9l' 1 I^iSre 6^ hinn^the 7 lease'in perpetuity which prevents a man fully improving and developing his holding ?-Nothing whatever so far as I know. I am not saying this now because th J tenure ishere- but when the Act first came into force I thought it was one of the best systems ever brought Sto'force, as it allowed a man to get on the land and conserve his capital to make 'm.'lTtl e re a !ny e thing in the lease in perpetuity to which a settler objects?-Great numbers do <***■„ T . v t „ rminds principally t-It is a matter of sentiment, I think. They require the freehoff At present they have got to" be educated up to the belief that the lease in perpetuity is a \|° 4 od / r f f t ; e e X ol^s f unS I the same restrictions as leaseholders with regard to improvements, usiilence, &c. they should be? —I certainly do. . 196 Taking all classes of settlement-freehold and lease-in-perpetuity holders-what is your 19b. taking all ciasse improving their lands as much as lease-m-perpetuity settlers?—' more freeholders are improving their lands than leaseholders. But then, settler . , land —after paying cash for the land they let it remain idle. ag ain, some do nothing wit settler [ doing that?-Very few of them. They have to do MO pi £. „*<*.«»» £»• 1 •«" k »■— >»?' «* there m<l „ be „or, 1,-eh.ld.rs improving th.i, 1«„<1 " absentees."
108—C. 4.
a—4.
858
[j. W. SHANNON.
200. Can you suggest any fair means which should be placed on freeholders to compel them to use their land properly? —That is a big question to go into. It is a difficult matter to interfere with present titles. 201. With regard to those who have not got titles yet, can you suggest any scheme? —I would suggest that they be put under the same regulations as leaseholders in regard to improving every year. 202. Would you insist on residence conditions?-! think that would be a great help in the settlement of the land, so long as the Land Board had discretionary power to dispense with residence in certain cases. 203. Mr. Forbes.] We have heard a great deal about the homestead system as a means of settling this poor land in the North of Auckland: do you think that system will solve the problem of settling these lands? —I do not think it will. 204. You have seen the working of the homestead system ? —Yes. 205. Has it worked out satisfactorily where the land has been poor? —No. The settlers must be put on good land to make it a success. 206. If good land is opened up in these districts are there plenty of applications for it without needing to bring in the homestead system? —Certainly. 207. There is no necessity to reintroduce it in order to settle good land? —None at all. 208. Then, you think it is not desirable that a poor man should be put on poor land? —I do not think it is desirable at- all to put any man on poor land so long as there is good land in the district. 209. Would you say the poor land north of Auckland requires a good deal of capital to bring it into a reproductive state? —Yes. 210. You think it is not land for the poor man at all? —Certainly not. 211. Do you think it is advisable to allow double improvements on a section to count for residence? —It would in many cases where there were real reasons why a man should live off his property, and where he has proved himself a bona fide settler. 212. Would you think it reasonable to allow, say, a tradesman in town to take up a piece of Crown land and be exempt from residence for some years by making double improvements?—l think in that case you would require more than double improvements to be sure he meant to be a bond fide settler; otherwise a man might speculate in land. If he proves that he is taking up the land for the future of himself or some member of his family, then it is quite right, I think, that he should be allowed to hold it. Ido not hold with the idea thai a man in the town should be allowed to take up a piece of land with no intention of residing on it at any time in the future. 213. Is there not also this to be said: that the fact of non-residence on the land is a hardship on those people who have to reside on the land ? —lt certainly is. The more settlers who go into a place and live there the better they get on. If some of the landowners are living away life becomes very lonely for those who are on the land, and especially for the women folk, and they become discontented and leave also. 214. Would you say the settlers, as a whole, under your charge are doing well now, or better than formerly? —I can say there has been a great improvement in the last year, especially throughout the north. There is a slightly increased demand for land, and the price of cattle and sheep and all kinds of produce has been up. 215. Mr. Matheson.] Do you consider that the poor scrub land in this province could be laid down in danthonia to bring in a fair return for the capital and labour involved ? —A good deal of it could. Most of it could, provided it was done judiciously. 216. You said when men are really well educated on the land question they will be satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —Yes. 217. How was it that, having two freeholds of your own when you took up a third, you did not take up the land under lease in perpetuity?— I will tell you the reason. If I could sell out the whole of my block of land to-day to the Government I would be quite willing to take it back under lease in perpetuity; but, having a freehold here and a freehold there, and this little triangle in between, I thought that if I wanted to dispose of my property it would be better to take it up under freehold tenure than under lease in perpetuity. So long as I wanted to live on my land I would be perfectly satisfied with a lease in perpetuity. 218. Mr. McCardle.\ In speaking of improvements on leaseholds, I suppose you included leases under occupation with right of purchase? —Yes; I think they are worked better than most leases in perpetuity. 219. You are aware, I suppose, that a definite proposal has been made to reintroduce the homestead system. Do you think it would be against the interests of the country if some of the outlying country was settled under these conditions? —I think it might be in the interests of the country at large if a certain area in the middle of a block of land about to be thrown open for selection was settled first under the homestead system. The men who went in under that system would be the pioneers. The land would all be taken up by bona fide settlers. I have never known a man take up land under the Homestead Act who was not a bond fide settler. They would go in and settle and improve, and they would then make other people more anxious to go and select the surrounding land when it was thrown open. 220. You mentioned that you thought that when settlers became educated up to it they would prefer lease in perpetuity: how do you explain that in face of the fact that hundreds of settlers have taken up and are now applying for land under occupation with right of purchase? —The popular cry is freehold. I have been amongst the lease-in-perpetuity settlers, and I know what they say. They do not like to be continually paying rent, and they are afraid that perhaps at some time they may not be able to meet their rent. 221. Is there not another reason too: do they not look forward to the day when the Land Board will cease to have control over them?— That is one of the main reasons.
859
C—4.
J. W. SHANNON.]
222. And is there not another: owing to the low price of the land, when a man has spent considerable money and time in improving his section, there comes a period when he finds it necessary to have capital, and without the freehold does he not find he cannot get the amount of capital necessary to carry him through to success ?- ■■-There is a good deal in that; but you forget that already they have 110 capital sunk in a lease in perpetuity. 223. But is not the capital value of a lease in perpetuity very small compared with the value of the improvements effected on the land by an industrious settler ? —Certainly. In five years' time a settler will have a £4 interest in the land, and the State's will only be 10s. 224. Is that not a reason why settlers agitate for the freehold, because they cannot borrow on that interest as readily as they can on freehold? —Yes. 225. Do you think that after a man has effected his improvements he should be as free of control as the man who has got a freehold, so long as he pays his rent ? —I think he should, if he shows himself to be a really bond -fide settler. 226. If that were done, in your opinion, would the cry for the freehold soon cease? —I think it would die out to a great extent. 227. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department in your district? — I valued for the office for three years. 228. Do you think the Act could stand a little improvement in the matter of dealing more liberally and more promptly with the settlers ? —Yes, in the matter of promptness there is room for improvement. In my district as long as three months have elapsed between the date of the application and the granting of the loan on really good security. 229. Is there much good land in your district suitable for settlement? —There is a good deal in the Hokianga County. 230. I have been told there rs a considerable portion of land in the neighbourhood of the river held in large blocks of several thousand acres. Do you think it would be advisable for the Government to take that land for close settlement, in view of the fact that it is suitable for dairying? — I believe.it would do a great deal of good for this district if it were done. 231. You have heard the evidence in favour of an elective Land Board. Do you not think it would be desirable in the interests of this very large district that the Government should increase the membership of the Land Board, and appoint those members, as far as possible, from the districts now unrepresented? —Yes; I think the Land Board should be increased by two or three members, but no more, otherwise it would become too unweildy. I think clever men might be picked out from the electoral districts, and each electoral district should send a representative- to the Land Board. 232. Mr. McCutchan.] In speaking of the poor lands being brought into a state of partial fertility by means of gorse, do you think that system could be carried out generally over the poorer pipeclay lands of the north ? —Over a great deal of them where there is no danger of the gorse spreading on to good land adjoining. 233. Do you think the expense after a number of years of getting the gorse out in order to get in English grasses would in any way deter people going in for gorse cultivation? —I do not think the expense would be very great on land that could be ploughed; but on land that cannot be ploughed it is very difficult indeed to eradicate gorse. The land at Kerikeri is all ploughable. 234. Have any numbers of sheep been fattened on the gorse? —Yes, a great number. 235. Will this gorse fatten lambs? —Yes, very well, with the assistance of grass. 236. You have spoken very highly of the paspalums; but complaints have been made to us of the low germinating properties of paspalum and the difficulty of getting a good sole of grass: what is your experience? —My experience has been quite the reverse. I have always saved my own seed. I have never bought imported seed. Some Paspalum dilatatum was sent to me by a friend twenty-four years ago, and I divided the contents of that very little packet with a neighbour, and we raised a good many plants, and I always collected my own seed. I find that wherever I sow the seed it grows, and that no matter in what month of the year it is sown it is never lost. Sometimes it is slow in germinating, and sometimes I have not seen the grass until twelve months after sowing. 237. Would there be any difficulty in settlers acquiring the seed if they went in for this grass extensively? —No. It is being imported in large quantities from Australia. 238. Are the germinating properties of the Australian seed as high as those of the local seed? —I do not think so. 239. Would you advocate the Government taking the matter up and cultivating an area for seed-growing purposes in order to bring in these lands? I would. 240. Mr. McLennan.'] Was the area on which the eight hundred sheep were run covered with tea-tree then? —It was open land with low tea-tree here and there. It was mostly covered with fern. Before gorse was sown Mr. Kemp had laid several paddocks down in English grass, but had failed with them. 241. Did he plough the land several times or only once before sowing English grass? —He ploughed it several times and cropped with oats. 242. I suppose by occasionally burning the gorse the young gorse comes up. Do the sheep eat it? —They are very fond of it. 243. Though it is beneficial to the owner of the land who keeps his stock on the gorse, do you mean to say it is beneficial to the rest of the country that the gorse should be sown ?—lt is in the case of poor land like that north land. Mr. Williams has employed a great deal of labour. There are a number of settlers about on fairish sections, but I do not think they could have lived on them if Mr. Williams had not taken up'this land and started gorse-growing. He has found constant employment for them. 244. But supposing you had a farm alongside Mr. Williams, and wanted to use it for some other purpose, how would you like him to grow gorse on his place?—l should object to it.
860
[j. W. SHANNON.
a—4.
245. You do not know whether the Act has been put into force to compel settlers to destroy weeds in the county? —Only so far as blackberries are concerned. 246. Do you think it would be advisable to put it into force in regard to gorse -I do not. Many men would be fairly ruined if thev had to destroy the gorse at once. 247. Do you uiink a man should grow anything detrimental to his neighbour? —Certainly not, and he should not grow the gorse near his neighbour's boundary. 248. Would you favour regulations providing that any one growing gorse for sheep-feed should not plant it within 5 chains of his boundary-fence, and that he should keep that space clear? —5 chains is almost too close; I should say a greater distance than that. 249. Would you be in favour of 10 chains distance?---That might be safe. Ido not advocate gorse being planted on good land or on small farms, but on large tracts of poor land where there are no neighbours to interfere with. Gorse has not proved detrimental in those localities. 250. Have you seen the gorse at Whangarei? —It is a weed there. 251. Mr. Paul.] Have many cases of dummyism come under your notice as Ranger? —A good few. Dummyism is hard to prove. 252. Still, as a farmer, you will have a fairly correct idea as to where dummyism exists, even though it is not always possible of proof ? —That is so. 253. Do you treat these cases leniently? —No. If I feel sure a section is held by a dummy I do my best to have the section forfeited. 254. Do the Land Board help you to carry out that idea? —Yes; they act on my reports. 255. As a practical farmer, is there anything you could object to in the conditions of the lease in perpetuity, or the supervision of the Land Board, ,or anything else? —There is nothihg I would object to personally in the lease in perpetuity. I think the settler who takes up land under it has a free hand as to the way he cultivates his land. He is not hampered by conditions as to how he shall work it, so long as he does his improvements in a certain time. 256. With refernce to the residence conditions, do you think there could be any variation in any other direction ? —No. I think it is very necessary to have that clause, so long as .the Board have the right to waive the residence clause in certain instances. 257. You think the proper place for the settler is on the land? —I do. 258. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in the Bay of Islands Electorate? —Not that I am aware of. 259. Mr. Matheson.] I was told by Mr. Clarke, storekeeper at Waipapa, that land had been laid down in gorse by Mr. Williams at the expense of hundreds of pounds; that he had never put a sheep on it, and that it was now offered for sale at less than the amount that had been spent on it in laying it down in gorse. Can you give any explanation of that? —I know nothing about that. 260. Mr. McLennan.] In travelling through the district I suppose you come across back settlers living within half a mile or a mile of one another : do you think it is desirable that they should be supplied with telephones, if possible? —I do, most certainly. It is a thing I feel rather strongly about. I consider that when a few settlers go in to a block of land they should have a telephone, even before a road. It does not cost much to put a telephone in, and it would give them satisfaction, and perhaps save lives. 261. You do not think it is advisable that they should be called upon for a guarantee for the purpose? —No, I do not; because I think telephones form part of the Government revenue, and because I think they would be a great means of opening up the land. 262. Mr. Anstey.\ With regard to the poor land you speak of to be taken up under the homestead system, which means giving the land away for nothing, do you not think it would be much better for the Government to spend some money in roading the land first, and charge that on the land, rather than give the land for nothing without roads? —Yes; but I do not think there is any need to give that poor land away for nothing. It will never do in small areas. It wants a capitalist to take it up. 263. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think it is advisable that the Government should try and plant some of this poor land in timber, or is the land capable of growing anything? —A great deal of it is .capable of growing timber, but I think it would be very expensive work; and, again, the timber would have to be protected from fires. Most of the poor land, especially in the north, contains gum, and so long as there is gum in the land there is a danger of fire, because the digger will go in and set fire to the fern and scrub to enable him to get at the gum.
Dargavxl,lb, Wednesday, 24th May, 1905. John Matheson McKay examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am Crown Lands Ranger for this district, and have held that office for five years. During the previous ten years I was casually employed by the Government as a timber expert. My district embraces Whangarei County, Otamatea County, and part of Hobsori and Bay of Islands Counties. 2. How many Crown tenants are there in your district? —About eleven hundred. 3. Under what tenures ?—Occupation with right of purchase, lease in perpetuity, and also some village settlers and improved-farm settlers. 4. Are they getting on fairly well? —Those who have fairly good land and who are energetic, and have a knowledge of farming, are doing well. 5. Have there been many forfeitures or surrenders? —Not many. Ido not know of any compulsory forfeitures where the settler ha 3 tried to do his best. 6. We have been told that most of the settlers have retained their land?— Yes. They were a class of people who were adapted in most cases for that class of settlement.
J. M. MCKAY.]
861
C—4.
7. Do you think, it is desirable to reintroduce the homestead system? —Yes, I think it would; but I think the areas should be larger. 8. I have noticed that in this North of Auckland district the homestead settlers have been mostly settled in the good valleys. That, 110 doubt, has, a good deal to do with their success? — Yes, and they have in some cases added to the area of their holdings. 9. It is probably the case that there is not so much of that good land left? —That is so. 10. Do you think it would be advisable or not to throw open the poor land to poor men even in larger areas? —I think that if no one will take up the land under any other tenure it would be better to throw open the land under that tenure than allow the land to remain idle. Ido not think that the payment of a small sum would make much difference in regard to the settlement of that land. 11. In regard to the forest reserves, do you think as they are being cut out it would be well to immediately throw open that land for settlement? —There are a good many areas of such land, which, if thrown open for settlement, I think, would be readily taken up. 12. Can you suggest any alteration in the law that you think would be beneficial in the interests of profitable settlement ? —I do not think I could suggest any improvements in respect to the present land laws. 13. Do you think the present residential conditions are too exacting? —I think the Land Board should be allowed to exercise more discretion in dealing with this matter. 14. Mr. Forbes.] Is there any tendency towards the aggregation of large estates in this district ? —Not of late years, but there are one or two pretty large estates. I know of many settlers who have sold oul to their neighbours, but that has not occurred to any large extent, and it has not become an evil. 15. Is there much land in this district that is locked up and is not productive? —There are some areas that are not as productive as they might be made, but, still, I do not think it amounts to an evil in this district. 16. Do timber companies hold large areas of land? —Yes, but they are gradually getting rid of them. The Kauri Timber Company holds 20,000 acres in this district and 6,000 or 7,000 acres further up the river, but that land is being gradually cut up. 17. When the timber is cleared off they sell the land? —Yes. 18. Would you apply the homestead system to gum land or tea-tree land? —I would not settle poor men on poor land. 19. What do you think will be the position when the timber industry and the kauri-gum industry come to an end? —I think that fruit-growing will probably be a success in these districts. 20. Do you think that outside employment has been a large factor in the success of the homestead system? —Yes. 21. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that poor manuka land can be made useful for fruitgrowing purposes? —Yes, probably so. 22. Do you think it would be wise to give such settlers, say, 50 acres on condition that he planted, say, 5 acres in fruit-trees? —Perhaps it would, but I think that he should pay a fair value for the land. 23. Can you suggest any better method of dealing with Native land? —I have not studied that question. 24. What is your experience of danthonia and paspalum? —Those grasses seem to do pretty well on ordinary gum land. 25. Do you think they can be made to take the place of manuka scrub? —I feel certain they can. 26. Mr. McCardle.\ You have said that there are some fairly large holdings in this district: can you give us an idea of the area? -There is one estate of 40,000 acres. Most of it is gum land. 27. I have, been informed that there are some private individuals who hold large areas? —Yes. 28. Is the land all fairly good? —No. There is a considerable extent of gum land. 29. But is there any considerable extent of good land in the hands of the large holders? —Yes. 30. Is is not a fact that a considerable area of that land is well adapted for dairying? —I think so. 31. Do you not think that the provisions of the Land for Settlements Act might be applied to some of this land? —Yes. 32. While the gum is available, do you not think that if the gum land were thrown open under compulsory improvement conditions —that is, in cases where the land could be ploughed — do you not think that the settlers could plough that land deeply and extract the gum?— Yes, that would be right enough; but there are a great many people who are dependent upon gum-digging for a living, and that would debar them from obtaining a livelihood. 33. I suppose you are aware that there is an agitation in favour of reintroducing the homestead system? —Yes. 34. You think it would be better if such settlers were to pay a small annual rent, rather than the land should "be given to them free? —Yes, if they took up the land under the present system. 35. Are there many tenants in arrears in respect to their improvements? —No. 36. Mr. McCutchan.\ Are the Crown tenants satisfied with their tenure?— They have been satisfied till lately, but some of the lease-in-perpetuity settlers seem now to be afraid of revaluation. 37. Are there many Austrians in this district? —Yes, a good many. 38. If they could be induced to settle on the land, do you think they would be a desirable class of settlers? —Yes.
C.—4.
862
jj. M. MCKAY
39. Do you think they are conversant with our land laws? —I think that those who have been here for some time are conversant with them. 40. Do you think it would be a wise thing to print the main provisions of our land laws in their language, and circulate the information amongst them? —Yes. 41. Mr. McLennan.'] Have you noticed any difference in the improvements made by freehold and leasehold settlers ? —No; the amount of improvements depends on the character of the settler. 42. Do you think it would be advisable where there are two or three settlers at a distance from the township that telephonic communication should be given to them? —It would be a good thing, and I think would help to settle the district. 43. Is there any Crown land in this district besides the areas indicated? —The only Crown lands are forest reserves. 44. If the Crown land were cut up into 50- or 60-acre sections, do you think it would be taken up for dairying purposes ? —I think those areas are rather small, but I think the land would be taken up if the areas were larger. 45. Mr. Paul.] We have had complaints with respect to loading the land : what is your experience? Has the money been expended?—l have had occasion to make inquiries into one or two cases, and I have always found that the money has been expended in the case of both "thirds" and loading. 46. Have any cases of dummyism come under your notice? —I know that some sections have been transferred, and that the holders never went on them. 47. Do you treat such cases leniently? —I have never had occasion to report on such cases. 48 In regard to leasing conditions under the lease in perpetuity, is there anything that you think a farmer could reasonably object to?--I have had no experience of the lease in perpetuity under the Land for Settlements Act. With regard to Crown land, there are no special conditions as to improvements. 49. Do you know of any reason for the fear of revaluation? —No. 50. Do you think that if the lease in perpetuity cau be interfered with that the freehold can also be interfered with? —Yes, I should imagine so. 51. Mr. Anstey.] Are the roads to these back blocks sufficient for the requirements of the settlers?--I would not like to say, but they are not as good now as the old settlers used to have. 52. Do you think it would be wise to increase the amount of the loading, and provide better roading facilities ?—I do not think it would be wise to increase the amount of loading. 53. Do you think it would be wise to compel freeholders to make improvements in the same way as leaseholders are compelled? —I would be in favour of putting them more on an equality. 54. With respect to good land, for instance, like that in the Kaihu Valley, do you think that a certain area of (he good land might be put together with a larger area of poor land for settlement purposes? —Yes. You want a bit of room in the case of this North Auckland land. 55. Is most of the tea-tree land in the neighbourhood of Dargaville capable of being laid down in grass? —I think so. 56. Is the tea-tree land opposite the township a reserve or Crown land? —I think it is a private freehold. The whole of the Dargaville Township is private property, and most of the people here are tenants. 57. I noticed within two minutes' walk from here a paddock in good grass, and immediately adjoining an area of tea-tree land without improvements. Do you think that something ought to be done to compel the holder of the tea-tree covered land to improve the land ? —lf it is private land I do not know that you can interfere with it. 58. Do you think that the owner of private land has a right to keep his land unimproved ?-- That is the law. I would not like to give a further answer to that question. 59. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think it would be desirable to give a settler in the bush, whose land adjoins that of a settler who has occupied his section for some time, a longer time in which to put up his boundary-fence? -Yes; I think it would help the new bush settlers. ■ 60. Do you think that the time might be extended to such a new bush settler being given six months' notice to fence instead of one month? —Yes. 61. Mr. McCutchan.] Would you advocate a change being made in the law in this direction: that the Government should have the right of felling the bush 1 chain wide on Crown land and putting up a fence, the whole cost of felling and half the cost of fencing to be charged against the land, and to be paid by the incoming tenant?- Yes, I think that would be a good thing. Alfred Gregory examined. 62. The Chairman.'] What are you?- I am a draper, residing at Dargaville, and I have been here for four years. I hold a town section. I may say that I was engaged in fruit-growing in England for ten years. 63. Have you any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission? —Yes. I would like to show how the lands are divided up in this country. I have made a special study of this question. I wish to submit the following summary to the members of the Commission. [See Appendix.] I may say that the above summary has been prepared from the county rate-books. 64. You strongly believe in rating on the unimproved value being made applicable throughout the colony? —Yes. 65. Mr. Forbes.] Have you studied the question of the constitution of the Land Boards? —No. 66. You believe that the Crown should not part with any more land for cash? —Yes. 67. Under what system do you think the land should be settled?- I have not studied the question from that point of view, but I think those who take up land should work it, and that whatever improvements they make out should belong to themselves, but that the unimproved value should belong to the Government in trust for the people.
A. GBEGOBY.]
863
a—4.
68. Do you think that people will take up bush land and spend their lives in improving it under such terms? —Yes. 69. It has been stated to the Commission, in reference to the land in the North of Auckland, that settlers will not take up that land unless they have the right of getting the freehold ? —Probably the reason for that is that they do not understand the land question. 70. One witness stated yesterday that he did not think that a draper and people in the towns should have the right of assisting in framing laws as to the settlement of the land? —Every one lives on what the land produces, and, therefore, every one has the right of expressing his views on the question of how it is best to settle the land. 71. Do you think that the settlers in this district are doing fairly well? —Yes. 72. Have you thought out any scheme under which you think the land can be more satisfactorily settled ? —I think that the land should be leased for a term of, say, twenty-one years, with right of renewal, the improvements to belong to the tenant. In the case of a new tenant taking up the land, I think the incoming tenant should be made to pay for those improvements, or, if the landlord, he should pay for the improvements. I think the tenant should get full compensation for improvements. 73. Mr. Matheson.\ Would the renewed lease be given at an increased rent?—ln the case of an increase in the unimproved value I should say that would only be just. 74. Would that increased rent be decided by arbitration? —I think it should be arrived at by some fair method. 75. Do you think it would be a good thing if all the land in the colony were nationalised? — I should like to see the land bear all the taxes of the colony. 76. You think it would be -i good thing if all the taxes were paid by the occupiers of the land ? —Yes. 77. Do you realise that some years ago, when the prices of produce on the London markets were low, that the farmers had great difficulty in paying their way ? —That is very likely. 78. When poor times come and the occupier of the land finds he has a difficulty in paying his way owing to the low prices of produce on the London markets, do you say that the farmer should pay his old liabilities incurred during the time of low prices, in addition to the present demands upon him; could he possibly do so? —Yes; I think he could, quite easily. 79. Do you not think, if the whole of the taxation were paid by the occupiers of the land, it would discourage people going on the land in order to make a living? —No, it would encourage them. 80. Mr. McCardle.] Do you not think, as a single-taxer, that you ought to open your eyes wide and consider the question very carefully before giving expression to opinions such as you have submitted to us ? Is it not a fact that the workers on the land to-day are the poorest men in the colony, and that there are very few who have the property absolutely free? —No. I know many farmers. A young man takes up land and goes in for farming, and he has his life before him. He has perhaps a hard struggle for thirty or forty years, but at the end of the forty years he is generally pretty well off. It is generally forgotten that the land is the bank of the farmer. A farmer may spend several pounds a week on his land, because he knows that in course of time it will give him a return. 81. Mr. McCutchan.\ Speaking about the rating question, although the rating on unimproved value will make it impossible for the big man to hold large areas of land unimproved, will it not also press heavily on the poor settler for a few years? —I would not say so. 82. Surely you must say so? —No, because the value of the speculator's land goes down, and he saves money by it. 83. Close to Dargaville we will suppose there is 100 acres of land, the value of which is £5 an acre, and there is £2 10s. of improvements. The owner of that land is not affected by the rating on the unimproved value because he is just on the line, as it were, but it makes a difference to a man whose capital value is £10, and has improvements to the extent of £7 10s? —Yes. 84. But, then, a poor man going upon 100 acres of bush land, for the first few years is taxed upon the capital value of the land. Would it not harass that class of settler? —No, because he would buy that land cheaper and thereby save. 85. But the Government, in placing their values upon their land, are not influenced in any way by the taxation of the local governing bodies, and, therefore, there can be nothing in your argument. Do you think it will increase the facilities for settlers getting upon the "land ? —Yes, it will put more people upon the land. The speculators will be unloading. 86. That being so, the unimproved value of the land increases, and there is, therefore, an increased rate revenue for roading?—-Yes. 87. What did you mean by the expression you made use of a little while ago, " If the settlers understood the land question " I—l1 —I meant if they understood how the land question affects the towns as well as the country, they would be only too willing that their land should be revalued under the leasing system. 88. If you alter the incidence of taxation so as to get at the entire revenue of the country by means of a land-tax, vou must recollect that city and town values will immediately fall enormously, and the burden will fall upon the part of the country producing the wealth? —No. It will not really reduce the land-values in the centres, because the land-speculators have got a fancy value on their land. 89. If the values fall in the cities you must increase the rate in the rural districts to get your revenue? —The rate would be the same, whether it was in the country or the town. 90. You maintain that there would be no disproportion as between the towns and the country? Certainly I do. 91. Would you carry this principle of the unimproved value into your own business? —Can you tell me the difference between perishable goods and imperishable.
Ta. geegoby.
C—4
864
92. If you were a capable business-man there would be very little perishable goods in your store? —But the land never can perish. The improvements put upon the land might perish, but the land itself can never perish. 93. Mr. Paul.] Do you think it is practicable to limit the area of freehold land? Yes. 94. Would you give the Commission your opinion of the lease-in-perpetuity tenure as it now exists ? —I should say that all leases should be carried for so many years, and at the end of that term the unimproved value should be taken, and the occupier pay his taxes on that unimproved value. That man and his children should have the right to be left on that land as long as they pay those taxes, and should be allowed to renew the lease every twenty-one years. 95. Do you think there should be any breach of contract between the State and the present lessees ? —No. 96. You are aware that under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure the rent is the same for the whole 999 years?— Yes; but if the tenants were taxed on the unimproved value or had a land-tax, that would overcome the difficulty. 97. In some quarters there is an agitation to give Crown tenants the option of the freehold: do you think that would be wise? —No, because the land would pass out of their hands into the hands of speculators. 98. Do you think a poor man going on to the land has quite enough to do to improve his farm and build a comfortable home without attempting to buy the freehold? —Yes. 99. And if he does acquire the freehold it will probably be with borrowed money? —Yes. 100. Do you give that opinion from some experience? —Yes. I have rented land at £6 ss. an acre, which, twenty years before, was 10s. an acre, and a private individual got the benefit of the increased value. I could give many other instances. 101. Why would you abolish all further sale of Crown lands?— Because I do not think the Government have any right to part with the land, which belongs to the people as a whole, and not to individuals. 102. Then, if the Government have no right to sell land they have no right to lease it for 999 years? —No. 103. But, having entered into a contract you believe they should stick to it?—l should not care to say. I think, at any rate, they should pay their proper share of taxation. 104. We have had evidence to the effect that Land Boards should be made elective on a franchise which excludes the cities: do you think that is just? —I should say that the Land Boards should be elected, but I do not see why the cities should be left out of it, because the town lives by the country and the country by the town. 105. You think if there is any change the parliamentary franchise should be adopted? —Yes. 106. Mr. Anstey.] You said "the introduction of the single-tax would encourage settlement on the land. At present the amount of the revenue raised by way of land-tax is, in round figures, about a quarter of a million. The Customs revenue amounts to nearly two millions. You say you would put the whole of the tax on the land, which would multiply the present land-tax by seven: do you think that would encourage people to go on the land? —Yes. 107. One of the first principles of good government is representation by taxation. Now, supposing the land bears all the taxation, would you suggest that the occupiers of land alone should have the franchise? —Certainly not. You have only to read "The Wealth of Nations to see that they would not do so. 108. With regard to the rateable value of the Hobson County, I understand that the amount raised last year was £4,439 12s. 6d. 'Yes, and it was £900 less than that last year. 109. What subsidy will the Government pay on that? —I could not say exactly. 110. What grants have they spent in this county last year?—l do not know. I should say about £300. Horace Hammond examined. 111. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am County Engineer, and have occupied that position sixteen years. 112. What length of roads, approximately, have you in your county to keep up?—l could hardly say from memory. I did not come prepared with any figures, but should be glad to supply any detailed information later. 113. We are informed that you have many roads and very little funds to do anything upon them?— Yes, that is one of our troubles. 114. Do you get much assistance from the Government in the way of grants? —We have had fair assistance until the last two years, when we have been rather left out in the cold. 115. Of course, you are well off as regards navigable water, so, I suppose, your roads will be leally a series of roads leading down to the navigable waters? That is so. 116. I think you have very little metal in this county?—On this side of the river from Scarrott's, which is ten miles from here, there is no metal at all, but the rest of the county is fairly well provided. It pays us best to take the metal used as ballast by the vessels trading here. 117. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it would encourage the farming industry in this district if the single-tax came into operation, and the whole of the revenue of the country was derived from the land occupiers? —I do not think so. 118. Do you think it would be a great improvement if Government grants were abolished and the local "bodies had an assured finance by means of increased subsidies?— Certainly I do. I think the grants system is a failure. 119. Do you think such subsidy should be in proportion to the rate levied?— Yes. 120. What is the cheapest metal you import?—Dunedin is the cheapest port, but the ship gets the advantage of that. We pay the same price all round. We seldom pay as much as 6s. per vard for it at the wharf.
H. HAMMOND.
865
C—4.
121. Is it broken metal? —Yes, broken at in. generally. 122. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think it would be a good thing to introduce the principle of making the Government grants in proportion to the rates levied in the district ? —No. 123. Do you not think it would be a good thing for the Government to grant £2 for every £1 raised by special rate for a special loan? —I do not think it would be a good thing to have to go on one's knees to the Government at all. 124. But the grants would be fixed by Parliament. There would be no knee business about that. If you have some special work to do, could you not do it by special loan under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, more especially if you had the assurance that the Government would grant you £2 for every £1 you raised for the purpose? —The difficulty is that the Government will not lend us the money. We have tried several times, but the Government replied that they had no funds available. 125. But, now that the Government is in funds again, they are granting applications for loans? —We have already borrowed some £8,000. 126. Mr. McGutchan.] Following up this matter of subsidies upon rates, would you make the subsidy strictly in proportion to the amount of rate collected? —Yes. 127. Would that not militate against the poor counties which had a low rateable value? Do you not think it should be a graduated subsidy in favour of the poorer counties, so that instead of giving you 10s. they gave you 12s. 6d., and a rich county '7s. 6d.? —Well, a poor county might say, " The more we rate ourselves the more the Government will help us," and they might say, "We will strike a higher rate possibly this year and get the higher subsidy, but next year we will reduce our rates." 128. You say you have applied to the Government for a loan: what rate in the pound is to be struck to meet that loan ? —I could not say from memory. The County Clerk may be able to tell you that. 129. Was any reason given by the Government for refusing jou a loan? —They were short of funds. 130. Many loans were refused on the same grounds, but now, when applications are being renewed, they are being granted? —A week or two ago we wrote again and asked for the loan, but we have received no reply yet. 131. Do you do most of your work here under the contract system? —Yes, most of it; but we have five surfacemen on regularly for odd jobs and repairs. 132. Have you observed the working of the co-operative system? —Yes; we have tried it, and found it a failure. It has cost us 25 per cent, more for work than the contract system. 133. Have you observed expenditure by the Government on roads in this county? —Not sufficiently to criticise the expenditure, but I find that the work the Government have done has been very good work. 134. Mr. Paul.\ What system does the Government use for roadwork? —Co-operative labour to a great extent; but, in some cases, they use contract work. 135. But you have just condemned the co-operative system, and yet you say the Government has done good work under it? —So they have, but I do not know what the cost has been. 136. Do you think the Government work under the co-operative system has cost 25 per cent, more than if it were done under contract? —I believe it has. Ido not see how it could be otherwise. 137. What is the fault of the co-operative system? —The strong man has to work for the weak, and if there is a good navvy in a party he soon gives up the job and finds work elsewhere, or, if he does stay, he will say, "I am not going to do more than that brute," and he will not give his best work 138. Suppose the men were allowed to pick their own mates, would it work successfully? —• It might in some cases, but in some cases you would not get the work done at all. 139. One engineer in the north especially spoke highly of the day-labour system under competent supervision: have you given that a trial? —My experience is that day-labour pays well so long a's you can pick your men; but it will not pay if you have to put on large gangs in a hurry, because you cannot pick the good ones. If the men are under a contractor, and the contractor finds a man is not doing satisfactory work, he gets rid of him. 140. But the county has to pay the contractor. Could they not also pay a supervisor. I should think the cost would really be less ? —They could on certain works, but not on all works. 141. Has the rating on the unimproved value been a success? —This is our first under it, and it is too early to say yet. Ido not believe in it myself. But that is only my own opinion. 142. I believe the majority of the Council were against it?— I could not tell you. 143. The majority of the people were in favour of it? —Certainly, the majority of those who went to the poll. 144. Mr. Anstey.~\ Who spends the Government grants for roads in the county? —Sometimes I do, and sometimes the Government Road Engineer. 145. Which has the best facilities for spending the money economically —the Government or the local body? —I think the local body. 146. Are the settlers in the county fairly well provided with roads? —Some are and some are not. 147. Can you say whether the loading on any settlement has been sufficient for providing access? —No, that is one of the failures with regard to loading, though I think the loading system is a good system. 148. Can you tell us to what point that loading ought to reach. Ought it to supply the main road to the settlement, and ought the road to be formed and metalled?—l would not say it ought to do the metalling, unless in the case of very rich land, which could stand the extra loading. But
109—C. 4.
C—4.
866
[H. HAMMOND.
I do not think it is possible to lay down a hard-and-fast rule. The Land Board would have to use their own judgment as to what the different lands will stand in the way of loading. 149. Do you think the loading ought to be sufficient to give a good summer road before the settlers are allowed to go on, and could the local body then be reasonably expected to take control ? —Yes. 150. What subsidy was there for roads last year? —Mr. Lambert might tell you that. 151. What was the amount of Government grants last year? —About £300 or £400. Of course, that does not include the old grants which are still on the estimates. 152. Do you know if that was all spent? —We spent £150 which was handed to us recently. 153. Have the Government spent their share? —I think they have a little in hand, but the total was so small that there cannot be much in hand. 154. Mr. McCtitchan.] Is there not one grave objection to the contract system —namely, that a large profit goes into the pocket of the contractor ? —That only applies to big contracts, and the contracts in this county amount, as a rule, to only £100 to £500. There is not much profit in those cases, because there are so many men in the district who are in a position to finance jobs of that sort. 155. You would limit the contract system to small contracts? —I cannot say that altogether, because sometimes it might be absolutely necessary to let a large contract as in the case of a bridge across the river here. I believe we could still save money by letting a contract. 156. Is that not one exception that proves the rule? —Yes. 157. When a new block of land is opened for settlement by the Crown you advocate loading that sufficiently to give the settlers a summer road for vehicular traffic, and you say that it should then be handed over to the local body to do the rest. Well, the local body is getting its revenue from the settlers, and under suCh a system the settlers would have to provide the immediate cost of roading newly settled country. Do you think such a system would be equitable in view of the fact that the Government are borrowing largely annually for reproductive works? —If the Government stopped using borrowed money for roadworks and only used money for loading purposes, then the settlers could get their share of the Government funds by the increased subsidy tax. 158. -If the settlers wanted to metal a road they would say, " We will pay a threepenny rate and will get 6d. out of that from the Government." The Government would then advance such money as a subsidy, which would come out of ordinary revenue, but the settler would pay the interest on the loading? —Yes. 159. And a proportion of the interest upon the subsidy through the Customs? —Yes, he would pay his share. J. Moorhead examined. 160. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler. With my brothers I hold 300 acres of land on the freehold tenure. We have been on this farm about two years. It is at Aoroa, four miles from Dargaville. We go in for dairying, and supply milk to the factory. 161. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission? —I do not know that there is, but I am ready to answer any questions. 162. What form of tenure do you think is best for the settlers and for the country?—l think the freehold is good, but I also think the leasehold is good. If I had had a chance" of getting land from the Government under the leasehold system I should never have bought a freehold from a private individual; but when I bought there did not happen to be any other good land available in the district. 163. What is your reason for preferring the leasehold? —I think it gives a man of small means a good chance to start, and I think he is just as sure of a home, and, in fact, surer under a Government lease in perpetuity than under the freehold. Then, I believe a leasehold places some restraint upon a man, so that he would not be likely to speculate to the same extent as under a freehold. I do not believe this crusade originated with the Crown tenant. It was the speculator and the malcontent who started it. We know that under the leasehold it is impossible for a man to borrow money from a private individual. At least, I should say so. If he borrows money it must be on his personal property, stock, and so on, but the land belongs to the Crown. And it is difficult for a man to raise money on his stock, because the money-lender would naturally be very careful, because if he had to foreclose he would have to get the stock off the place and make liis profit out of it. But, in the case of the freehold, the land does not run away, and all the mortgagee has to do is to foreclose. 164. You think it is an advantage that leaseholders cannot borrow readily?—l think it saves them from themselves in many cases. I believe if the Advances to Settlers Department was revised, and there was a little less red tape about it, money could always be advanced to a Crown tenant by the Government. 165. You still think it is an advantage that a Crown tenant should get money, provided he can get it reasonably? —Yes. 166. Have you had any experience with the Advances to Settlers Office? —None. 167. Mr. Forbes.] Are any of your neighbours occupying lease-in-perpetuity sections? —No; I know of none in the neighbourhood. 168. You have not seen any settled under lease in perpetuity? —Not here, but I have in Canterbury, about Rakaia and Cheviot. 169. Is it from your experience of these settlers that you favour the lease in perpetuity?— Not exactly. I have had no experience with the lease myself ; it is only hearsay. Yet, from what I know of its provisions, I prefer it to the freehold. 170. Do you think it would be a better factor in helping to settle and improve this bush land in this part of the country than if a man sunk his money in the purchase of the freehold? —I do,
867
J. MOOEHEAD.j
C—4
provided the tenant had confidence in himself, and provided his confidence was not shaken in any way, as it is at the present time. 171. You think that want of confidence in the lease is not justified? —I do. 172. Mr. Matheson.] Suppose a lease-in-perpetuity tenant of the Crown, after years of hard work, gets his place in thorough order, and accumulates savings enough to pay off the capital value, do you think it would be wise for the State to give him permission to do so I—l1 —I hardly think so; in fact, Ido not think so. I believe the land should belong to the people, because then nearly everybody has a chance of acquiring a piece of land. 173. But suppose the whole country was settled and was being worked to advantage, what better chance would a new man have of getting land if it was held by tenants than if it was held by freeholders? —In that case, I suppose, there would only be an equal chance. 174. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think that the restrictions now imposed on a lease-in-perpetuity holder by the Land Board should be removed after he has completed his improvements? —I think so. 175. You have spoken in favour of borrowing under the Advances to Settlers Act, but you seem to think that a man should have no power to borrow from any other source? —I would not say that. 176. You are aware that there is a very large number of working-men whose capital is their labour, and they spend a good deal of that labour, until in a few years it amounts to several hundred pounds, and then they have to look round to see where they can find money with which to stock their land. Is it not a necessity that those men should be able to borrow to do that? —I suppose it would be. If a man has no property though, Ido not know what he is going to borrow on exactly. 177. Do you not think that many people who hold lease-in-perpetuity leases now are anxious to change to occupation with right of purchase, so as to be able to borrow on advantageous terms and conditions? —That may be so on account of the dilatory kind of way in which the Government seem to deal with prospective borrowers. 178. I suppose you have seen there is a proposal to make things better, so far as the administration of the Act is concerned? —I have not seen it. 179. I think it is proposed to loan up to two-thirds of the value of the improvements effected on the land?— That would certainly be a liberal measure, to my mind. 180. You know this country fairly well? —Yes. 181. I am given to understand there are large blocks of land held by private individuals here? —Yes. 182. Is that land suitable for close settlement and for dairying purposes? —Yes. 183. Do you think the Government ought to exercise their powers under the Land for Settlements Act and acquire that land? —I do. 184. Mr. McGutchan.] You say it is almost impossible to borrow from private lenders on lease in perpetuity? —I would suppose so. 185. Are you aware that thousands of leaseholders under that tenure have been borrowing from private lenders all over the colony? —I am not aware of it. 186. Such being the case, and the rates of interest being generally higher than those charged by the Advances to Settlers Office, would you not think that one of the disadvantages of this tenure ? —Certainly. 187. You state there is a want of confidence amongst leaseholders with their tenure: to what is that want of confidence due ?- I believe, to the great deal of unrest in the country. There is a class of people throughout the country, and principally in the north, who see the land slipping away from them in this way. They are money-lenders, and they think, " Now, that man is a Crown tenant, and I cannot loan to him; I cannot get hold of his land. If I loan him money, well, I can only loan it on. personal property, and when I take that personal property over I will have trouble in.making provision for it." 1 believe they would do almost anything in the way of an agitation to discourage Crown tenants. I believe that is at the bottom of the whole trouble now. 188. You state that a lender will not lend to a man who has a leasehold, and seeing that that statement is contrary to fact, do you think there is much in an argument based on such a foundation ?—I suppose the only thing I can say —and that would go against me —is, that where the private individual would benefit at all by lending to the leaseholder would be that he could buy the goodwill, probably. 189. By"what means could he buy the goodwill ?--If a tenant became discouraged in any way, and thought he had incurred more debt than he could get rid of, he might sell out. 190. Then, the lender would be in the same position as all the rest of the people in the colony, inasmuch as everybody else would have a chance of competing with him for the property ?—That is so. 191. Would there be any danger in the direction you fear, inasmuch as the lender, if he did buy, would be subject to the land laws of the colony in regard to residence and improvements?— No; I believe that would be a deterrent. 192. Mr. McLennan.] When you purchased the 300 acres of land here, if there had been Crown lands open in this locality under lease in perpetuity, would you have been afraid of the agitation going on? —Not the least afraid. 193. You would have taken up the 300 acres of Crown lands just the same as if there was no agitation at all? —Just the same. 194. You would not be afraid that the Government of the day were going to break your lease? —No; because I would believe I was jny own landlord as well as tenant. 195. How long is it since you have been in Canterbury? Two years. 196. How do the improvements of the settlers under the Land for Settlements Act about Rakaia compare with the improvements of the freeholders in these parts?— That is a difficult comparison. The conditions are so different.
C—4.
868
[J. MOOEHEAD.
197. I mean in regard to fencing and buildings? —They are practically the same. I do not think there is any difference at all, in general. 198. Do you think that a man under lease in perpetuity will cultivate and improve his land equal to those who have freehold? —I do, judging from the fact that I have known many tenants renting from private landlords who attended to the property better than the owner. 199. Before the land-for-settlements policy came into force in the South Island did you know of any who rented land from the large proprietors ?- Yes, many. 200. And what rent was usually charged for general cropping?---! have known land to be rented for this purpose at from 15s. to £1 15s. per acre. 201. Mr. Paul.] You think leasehold has been a success?—-I think it lias. 1 know it is in the south. I know the men are well satisfied with it. 202. If the land of the colony was all held as freehold, do you think there would be any difficulty in a poor man getting on the land ? I do, certainly. I think a poor man would be practically out of it. 203. You have had experience in the south : during your residence in this district have you come to the conclusion that the district is prospering? —Yes, it is prospering under difficulties. 204. Are these difficulties connected with land-settlement?- Yes. 205. What are they? —Large estates are held in this neighbourhood, and very little is being done one way or the other with them. Certainly, some land has been sold, and at a very stiff figure too. 206. You have experience of the working of the land-for-settlements policy in the south: do you think men are being put on the land on such advantageous terms under private subdivision as when the estates are taken over by the Government ? —The Government give the best conditions. 207. Is there much difference ?■- I know two men in Canterbury, and I have known them all my life. One is a tenant of the Crown, and the other is renting land from a private landlord. The land is of the same quality, and the advantages and disadvantages are about the same. The tenant renting from the private landlord pays £1 3s. per acre, and has a five-years lease, or had two years ago, and the Crown tenant pays 6s. 9d. per acre. That ought to be enough for anybody. 208. Mr. Anstey.\ We were told yesterday, coining down the Kaihu Valley, that most of that land is in private hands? —I believe so. 209. We have been told in evidence, until we are almost weary of hearing it, that the freeholder develops more determination and energy to improve his farm than a leaseholder. Seeing that that energy and determination are not apparent in the Kaihu Valley, do you think if that land was cut up and offered under lease in perpetuity, at least as much determination and energy would be shown in improving it as is now shown ? —I believe there would be. I have my doubts, certainly, about the men at the present time, in view of the agitation that is going ahead; but I know in the south there would be no difficulty at all in finding tenants for every acre of it. 210. Do you think if large areas of that class of land were offered here there would be some difficulty in getting tenants to take it up? —There might be until this question is settled. 211. How many suppliers are there to the dairy factory here? A dozen on this side of the river, and more from the other side. 212. Would that dairy factory be more profitable if there were more suppliers? —Yes; its output could easily be trebled, and more. 213. Would that add to the prosperity of this district? —Certainly; it is just the very thing we need. We have land that is particularly suited for close settlement. 214. How are the roads in this district? —We have one good main road, but the others are almost a poor excuse for roads. 215. Are there any Government settlements near you? —None nearer than Raupo, about twelve or fifteen miles from here. I have been all over that country. It is held in small farms of from 100 to 200 acres. 216. Are the settlers, generally, living on the land? —Yes. 217. Have they reasonable road-access? —The roading is very difficult there. They have a frontage to the river. I think they are fairly prosperous. The land is first-class. 218. Is their tenure lease in perpetuity or occupation with right of purchase? —I cannot say. I believe it is principally under occupation with right of purchase. 219. Mr. McCardle.] Is much of the land that is held in large areas in grass?- It is practically all in grass, but in a rough state. It is sufficiently good to carry stock. On our place we have very little land cleared of the rough growth, but it is capable of carrying a beast to the acre. In fact, we have one field, just below the cowshed, that has carried over a beast to the acre for eighteen months. 220. Mr. McLennan.~\ You know something about the cropping restrictions in the south: do you think it is advisable, after a tenant has done improvements to the extent of 30 per cent, of the capital value, besides, perhaps, an interest of 20 per cent, in the land, that he should be free to crop and farm his land as he thinks fit? —I do. Mathew Gregory Lambert examined. 221. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am County Clerk. I have held that position for seven years. 222. What is the amount of your rate? —The rate on the present valuation will be £4,300, speaking approximately. 223. What is your total gross revenue? —About £6,000. 224. That is sometimes supplemented by grants? —Yes; but they are quite uncertain. 225. What subsidies do you get? —It has amounted to between £600 and £700. On the present valuation it will be £800 odd. 226. Is that money all expended, less the cost of administration, on roads and bridges?— Every penny of it.
M. G. LAMBEBT. j
869
C—4.
227. Mr. Matheson.] How many times have you applied for the £5,000 loan the engineer referred to?—-Five or six times. 228. Do you remember about the date when you first applied? —The latter end of 1893. 229. And when was the last application sent in? —About two months ago. 230. Have you received an answer? —Yes, to the effect that the funds in the Treasury were low, and asking us to defer the application for a little longer. 231. Can you explain how it is that some counties are getting loans under that Act, whilst your legal application has been repeatedly refused ? —No. 232. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to the subsidy, is it not the case that if a rate in excess of a three-farthing rate on the capital value is levied no subsidy is given ? —That is a fact. 233. Do you think that is equitable? —I do not. I should like to repeat almost word for word what the Engineer said about a graduated subsidy. I think that would Be equitable and fair. I think that as a county rates itself high or low the subsidy should be paid accordingly. 234. Do you advocate a graduated subsidy in lieu of grants? —I think it would be better. 235. Do you think that would give you an adequate finance? —I think so. I think this county is quite prepared to strike a high rate to get a greater subsidy. 236. Returning to the matter of the <£5,500 loan, would that loan, in addition to the other loans applied for and got within the year, have exceeded the £6,000 maximum borrowing-power of the county? —No; that is not the reason why we did not get the loan. 237. Mr. Anstey.\ What was the total of the Government grants spent this year in the county? A little over £300. 238. Did you get any revenue from the timber industry? —None, except that the standing timber is rateable. The Government recently sold about sixteen thousand pounds' worth of timber, which passed through a block of land containing 15,000 acres of land fit for pastoral purposes. It is fairly good average bush land right through. We have asked the Government on several occasions since this transaction took place to give us some part of this royalty, in order to put a road through this Government block, but we have received no response. We asked for a grant straight out. It was impossible for the county to do the work alone. '239. Do you think it would be wise to provide that the local body could claim a certain portion of the loyalty when the Government sell any block of timber for the purpose of making roads? —■ Certainly. 240. Do you think that would be better than going io the Government and asking for a special grant ? Certainly. If we had had a fourth of the revenue received by the Crown from the sales of timber in this district we should require no grants. We should be roaded right through the district. 241. You are striking a rate of 3d. in the pound. Have there been any objections on the part of ratepayers to pay that high rate? —None. We have just struck that rate. 242. Mr. Forbes.] Has any Government money been spent in this district independent of wKat the County Council have spent? —Yes. I cannot tell what amount, but some few hundred pounds have been spent under the supervision of the Government Engineer. 243. That is, in the direction of opening up Crown lands? —Yes. 244. Mr. McCutchan.] How are the gum-licenses fixed? —A naturalised British subject pays ss. per annum, and a foreigner who is not naturalised pays £1 per annum. There are a thousand Austrians in this district. Arthur John Stallworthy examined. 245. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a journalist living at Dargaville, and I have been in this district for twenty years. I have about 8 acres of freehold land in the suburbs of the town. 246. What are your views in respect to land-tenure? —My object in giving evidence before the Commission is in order to bring under your notice more particularly the conditions that have followed in consequence of private land in this district being held by a few persons. My main purpose is to show the expediency nay, the absolute necessity —of the Government land-for-settle-ments policy being brought into force in this district. The greatest drawback to this district' — and it has been freely stated from the platform and in the Press and at meetings of our various local bodies —is land monopoly. It is called a curse. There are two or three individuals —at any rate, under half a dozen —who practically own the whole district, and who control the price of land here. We have estates in the Hobson County the area of which are from something over 40,000 acres down to 12,000 and 10,000.acres. On account of this, fictitious values have been created, and this is greatly to the detriment of the working settler and the man who would like to take up land here. An agitation has been started —and will be nrosecuted with vigour—against this monopoly, which, as I have said, is felt to be the greatest drawback to the district; in fact, it threatens the very existence of the district in the future. I may inform the Commission that a few years ago the Government was urged to take up the Mangaru Block of 20,000 acres. They were offered that land at ss. 9d. or 6s. 3d. per acre, and it was eventually taken up by a private firm for something under 7s. an acre, and much of it has since been sold at over £2 an acre. A great proportion of that land still remains in the hands of one firm, and the land is carrying many hundred head of cattle. None of that land has been sold under 15s. an acre. Then, there is the Te Karaka Block, which is owned bv the firm of Harding and Co., and there are one or two Auckland financiers in that firm. It is simply a land speculation. The area of the block is 12,000 acres. They bought the land at something under 6s. an acre. They have done absolutely nothing to a great portion of the estate but cut it up. They surveyed some roads, but have not formed any. That land is now bringing in from 15s. to £1 10s. an acre. lam quite on the safe side when I say that the owners are realising £1 an acre on it. That is an instance of how private ownership of large blocks has resulted in this district. These large estates are lying practically idle. There is a portion of one of these blocks of land between here and Aratapu, in respect to which I have the evidence of the
C—4.
870
[A. J. ST ALL WORTHY.
manager of the dairy factory that it would carry two thousand head of cattle —enough to support a dairy factory. The fact of the matter is that that land is only carrying at the present time about a hundred cows, owned by one or two freeholders who have got into this big estate. That land was bought at something less than 2s. 6d. an acre some years ago. It is now being sold at from £7 to £20 an acre. Mr. Moorhead, who gave evidence before the Commission to-day, is one of the freeholders on that land. They paid an average of £7 for the land, and they hold 300 acres. The owner of the land told them when they went on it that he would be willing to give them £50 on their bargain if, in addition to compensation for improvements, they were not satisfied with it afterwards. A little afterwards one of the brothers thought they had paid too high a price, and he went to the original owner of the laud and asked him what he would give him for it. He said, "What do you want?" and the reply was, " £7." He then said, "What about the improvements? " and the reply was, " I will not give you more than £5." At the same time he has refused to sell adjoining sections at less than =£10 an acre. That shows you how private ownership of land has resulted in this district, and that is, no doubt, the case in other districts also. That is a condition of things that we deprecate, and that we pray to be released from. We think that the Land for Settlements Act ought to be brought into operation in this district, and if that is done it will save the district from a period of stagnation which will occur as soon as the current cash is gone after the timber and kauri-gum industries disappear. Those industries are decaying very quickly. In respect to the dairj' industry, the members of the Commission, no doubt, noticed how reluctant one witness was to give his opinion as to whether it was a success or not. The fact of the matter is, it has not been a success, and it cannot be a success until the conditions of the district are altered. It is the small working-farmer who makes the dairy industry a success. The last annual report of the Dairy Company shows that there are only ninety-four milk-suppliers to the Dairy Company-—a company which at one time placed the largest order for dairy machinery that has ever been placed at one time in the colony. This is to a very large extent the result of land monopoly in this district. I may mention that if you want to build a house in this township you have to pay for the land from £60 to £150 an acre. The prices of land in the township are simply brutal. There is another matter which I wish to bring under the notice of the Commission, and that is in respect to our gum land. We have enormous areas of gum land here, and lam of opinion, after some experience and a good deal of observation, that there is hardly an acre of this gum land that could not be made productive under proper treatment. There is enormous wealth in the gum land that has fallen into the hands of private owners. These owners allow persons to dig on the land on paying a royalty, but they have so managed it that in this district there are a thousand Austrians, 99 per cent, of whom have not the slightest intention of remaining in the country. They send cash away out of the colony to a large extent, and in course of time they intend to follow, and they will leave the gum land absolutely bare. In order to give you some idea of the amount of wealth in the gum land, which will compensate the working settler for taking up the poor land, and enable him to make some money with which he can bring that land into a state of cultivation, I might mention that a few weeks ago a lease was given to some Austrians by one of our large landowners —a lease of 1,500 acres. I think it was a ten-years lease, and the Austrians have to pay £2,000 for the right to dig gum out of that swamp land. That land is practically worthless at present, as it has not been drained, but when it is left by the Austrians it will be worth from £1 to £5 an acre. The Commission will thus see how this national asset has gone into the hands of private owners, and how a few people are using the land to their own private advantage and to the disadvantage of the community. I would urge that some system should be adopted whereby the good gum land should be taken over by the Crown and let in sufficiently large holdings, so as to enable the occupiers of the land to improve it and cultivate it to advantage. I think it is a matter that the Commission might take a note of, as it seriously affects the prosperity of this district. The gum land here will carry grass. Rat-tail thrives on it, and paspalum does admirably on most of it, and danthonia will thrive on any of it. Much of that land can be made into useful country, and it is very suitable for poultry-farming. From the township there can be seen on the other side of the river a very large area of land covered with kahikatea. The land is of good quality. You cannot get any of that land from the private owner at any reasonable sum. I think it is high time that the Government; took over some of these estates under the Land for Settlements Act and cut them up into small farms. If that were done it would be good for the dairy industry, and would promote the prosperity of the district and the colony. 247. Have the large landowners done nothing to improve this land?— No. They have even inserted provisions in the leases under which the land monopolists escape the cost of fencing and throws it on the man who takes up the land. 248. Have they sold much land at Te Karaka at £2 an acre?— Yes, a good deal of it. 249. Are these people willing to lease their land? —Only on conditions under wdiich no Britisher would take up the land. These large landowners are not in need of the money, and they say to applicants, "If you want the land you must give us our terms." I recognise the difficulty in the way of bringing this land under the provisions of the Land for Settlements Act, on account of the fictitious value placed on the land. 250. Are there people in the district who would take up the land if it were thrown open? — I think there would be from a hundred to three hundred applicants for every section. 251. Mr. Forbes.] In connection with these leases, under which you say the tenants' improvements are confiscated at the end of the term, do you not think the State could prevent such iniquitous leases being entered into ?-—I think the State should guard settlers being dealt with unfairly in that way. I think that principles of equity and right ought to be established throughout the colony in land dealings as well as in other matters. 252. Is there any aggregation of large estates going on here?—lt is only within recent years that the Mangaru Block was taken up. The Government would not take it up, and it was acquired by a private company. As I have said, a large area of land is already in the hands of monopolists. There is no large area of Crown land in the vicinity of the town.
A. J. STALLWOBTHY.]
871
0.—4.
253. You think that the land-for-settlements policy ought to be brought into force in this district? —I think that is the only way in which the prosperity of the district can be promoted and established. 254. Are there any gum reserves about here? —There are a few. There is an agitation to remove the restrictions from them, and throw them open for settlement. 255. Is that land suitable for settlement? —The Ranger was through here some time ago, and one or two sections were considered, and it was decided to keep them open for two or three years until the gum was taken from the land. I know many small settlers in this district who, when cash was scarce, have been able to go on the reserves and earn a few pounds by gum-digging. 256. Mr. Matheson.] Do you want the Government to acquire some of these estates for settlement purposes? —Yes. 257. But at the present high market value do you think the tenants would be able to pay 5 per cent, interest to the Crown? —Yes. If the Government took over the land at the rateable value, which is supposed to be the market value, I am quite satisfied that the tenants will be prepared to pay that rent. 258. Can you say what is the rateable value per acre of the land comprising any of these large estates? —From 15s. up to £2 an acre. 259. Is that the capital value of the books of the County Council? —It is the unimproved value; but on many of these sections there are very few improvements, and therefore it is practically the capital value. 260. How is it that the people, have not availed themselves of the opportunity to object to such a difference in the valuation ? —These estates comprise a good deal of mixed land, and the Valuer strikes what he considers a fair value over the lot. Our experience has been that the rateable value is much below the actual market value. 261. You said you thought the rateable value was the actual market value?- ! said it is supposed to be. 252. If the Crown took over this estate at the price at which private people are paying for portions of it, do you think there would be many applications from tenants who would be willing to pay 5 per cent, on the capital value? —No ; not if the State demanded the price these people are demanding, for every one knows it is not the legitimate value. It is only a value demanded by the monopolists. 263. Do you think if the Austrians were to take up land that they would make good settlers? -Yes, some of them; but they have no intention of remaining here. 264. In the case of Crown tenants who are actually working the farms, do you think if they prospered that it would be wise to let them invest some of their savings in the capital value — that is, to pay off a part of it? —That opens up a big question, and I would rather not give my opinion on the point at this juncture. 265. Mr. McCardle.\ Then, your real objection to the freehold is that it leads to the aggregation of large estates? —I did not mention any objection to the freehold. 266. Then, it is to the abuse of the freehold system that you referred?—Yes. 267. Do you not think it is desirable for the State at this juncture to pass an Act limiting the area of land any one person can hold under freehold ? —Yes. I do not think that any man should have more land than he can use. 268. You have already expressed yourself in favour of some of these blocks being taken under the Land for Settlements Act? —Yes. 269. Can you say, if the Government took such blocks as you have referred to, whether you would include with them a larger area of second-class land? Yes, and witli a great deal of advantage. 270. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think, if the Government were to take over one of these estates under the Land for Settlements Act and throw it open, that the tenants would be afraid of revaluation ? —I do not think so. 271. Do you think there would be more demand under the lease-in-perpetuity system than undej- the cash system? —I do not think there would be any appreciable difference in the amount of hunger for the land, because the people here are anxious to take up land. 272. Mr. Paul.] Is the price of Crown land also high? —Ridiculously high. 273. To what do you attribute that ? —The same cause. There are only two firms from whom you can get land here, and they are asking in some cases £150 an acre for land in this sparcely populated community, and that is an abnormally high price. I know that £75 was recently paid for half an acre. 274. Is the price rising, or is it stationary? —It is about stationary. I think it is as high now as it will be in ten years' time, when the population will be much larger. 275. Would you limit the freehold by the area, by value, or by means of taxation? —I would limit it by the value, and I would do so by law. 276. Mr. Anstey.] I understood you to say that you did not care to express an opinion as between the freehold and leasehold as a form of tenure?— Yes. 277. In any form of tenure do you think there should be absolute security, and that the occupier should be entitled to all the improvements he puts upon the land? —Yes; I think a man's own labour ought to be safeguarded. It is his capital. 278. Would you apply that to public reserves administered by Education Boards, City Councils, or other public bodies?— That is a matter that would require some thought. 279. With regard to kauri-gum reserves, supposing this land was thrown open on lease — possibly under lease in perpetuity—provided there were certain restrictions regarding grassing, do you think that could be done with advantage?—l think that the gum industry would be tremendously benefited by it. The gum market and the gum-digger have both been harassed very much by the present method of leasing these lands. We have a thousand Austrians in the Hobson
a—4.
872
[A. J. STALLWORTHY.
County, and they are sending their money away from the country. They work night and day, and they go through a swamp and leave it bare of gum* just like a fire sweeps over a prairie. 280. Supposing there were some regulations compelling the lessee to develop the gum land to a certain extent, would that meet the case? —Yes, from the settlers' point of view; but I would not advocate closing all the gum reserves. Many settlers during hard times fall back on earning a little money by digging gum, and that has helped many bond fide settlers to improve their holdings. 281. Supposing a thousand pounds' worth of gum were taken out of a certain area of land, how much wealth would remain on that land from which it was taken ? —Absolutely none. 282. If £500 was spent on that same land in fencing or grassing, how much of that money would remain on the land? —It would all remain. 283. You said there was a considerable area of land here suitable for settlement under the land-for-settlements policy ? —Yes. 284. In other districts the Government have sometimes acquired estates in consequence of petitions from inhabitants of the district. Has any petition been sent to the Government asking them to acquire some of this land under that Act? —Yes, several. Henry Paul Kavanagh examined. 285. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am Crown Lands and Forest Ranger, and I have been in the Government service for eighteen years. 286. You are specially charged with looking after the kauri forests in the Auckland Provincial District? —Yes, since December last. 287. Can you say, approximately, how much land is covered with kauri forest in the Auckland Provincial District? —Not the area of land, but the quantity of timber the Crown holds, in round numbers, is about 400,000,000 ft. of kauri, and private owners hold about 600,000,000 ft. In all, about 1,000,000,000 ft. 288. Is this private and privately owned kauri all fairly accessible? —The kauri is getting more remote, but there are better facilities for getting it out. 289. Have you any idea of the annual output of kauri? About 143,000,000 ft., and of kahikatea, totara, matai, rimu, and other milling timber about 58,000,000 ft. That is,, of course, in the Auckland Provincial District; and the quantity of milling timber other than kauri—that is, including kahikatea, rimu, and totara-- would be about 850,000,000 ft. 290. In the case of kauri that would mean about seven years' cutting, according to the present output?— Yes. 291. Is there any waste that goes on in regard to the opening-up of these kauri forests?— Until recently it was usual to sell kauri only, and that really meant that the other milling timbers left were either allowed to remain on the land, or were destroyed by fire or other means. A great deal depends on the locality. In this district, for instance, which is a floating district, the kauri bein°- a buoyant wood, there is no difficulty in floating it down the streams, but that is not so in regard to some other timbers, Within the last twelve months the other timber in the forest is sold as~well as the kauri, so that the miller buys all the timber whether he removes it or not. 292. How is the estimate arrived at? Do you count the trees, and make an approximate measurement?—-It has been done by surveyors and the Crown measurers. A return was prepared for Parliament some time last year. 293. I suppose it would be somewhat approximate ?—I think it is fairly accurate. There may be isolated clumps of timber not measured, but that would not materially affect the figures. Of course, there is the risk of fires, and the habit of bleeding the trees by unauthorised persons in order to get the gum. If this continues it will go a long way to shorten the life of the forests. At one time there was a license issued to bleed trees and experiment up to a certain number, but no licenses have been given this year. But it is impossible to prevent people from going into the forests and bleeding the trees. 'The idea is that there is a great deal of profit in this kind of thing, and it would take an army of men to protect the forests from the depredations of these people. I think something should' be done to prevent the gum-buyer from buying bled gum. 294. Is it easily distinguishable?— Yes; any buyer knows it at once. 295. Is there no penalty for bleeding the trees or for buying that gum?—No; but if the Department take my advice they will inflict a penalty, because while there are buyers there will always be producers. If the trees were bled judiciously there would be little harm done; but the idea is to get as much out of the trees as possible in the shortest time, and that means the quality of the timber deteriorates. . 296 I suppose if the kauri was left alone it would reproduce itself m course of time h It is a verv slow growth. You cannot hope for much in that direction, because in getting out the large kauri-trees the smaller ones are destroyed, and if they are not used for making roads, bridges, and so on the first bush fire kills them. , > 297. So that, apparently, the kauri is doomed?—l think so. There seems to be a regular svstem of destruction. ~ . , T „ 298 Then, the sooner the kauri is converted into marketable timber the better, apparently. —Yes It would be necessary to put a stone wall round it to protect it. 299 There are about 6,000,000 ft. owned by private parties: do they look after that at all? —They find it very difficult to preserve the bushes. They are more afraid of fire, because bleeding is a new thing and they have not vet realised its effects. The practice is, after bleeding the trees, to remove the gum in time, and then the tree starts to bleed again, and when more gum is removed it bleeds again, and that is continually weakening the tree. 300. Mr. Matheson.] Do you know the royalty received by the Crown for kauri timber?—l could not say.
H. P. KAVANAGH. ]
873
a—4.
301. Do you think it would be wise for the Crown to hand a portion of the royalty over to the local bodies for local works? —1 think it would be a good thing to hand over a very large proportion. I think they should have got it years ago. 302. Mr. McCardle.] Is much of the cut-out land suitable for settlement? —I would not recommend any one who wanted to make a living on the land to take worked-out kauri land, although there is no doubt some portions of it may be fairly good. 303. You have forest reserves where there is no standing timber at present? —Most of the forest reserves contain timber of more 'or less value. The difficulty at the present time is to know the proper kinds of grass to use on this land to the best advantage when the timber is cut ofi. Rattail grass grows well, but it is not fair to introduce that grass where there are other grasses, because it spoils the other grasses; but I think if the Agricultural Department would make experiments as to the best kinds of grasses for fern land and bush land it would lie of great assistance to the settlers. The ordinary English grasses are not suitable. 304. Do you know if in any of the Government plantations any kauri has been planted ?- I do not know. 305. Mr. Paul.] Are the main roads used to any great extent for carting timber? —Where the timber is being worked in large quantities by companies they generally make use of the creeks ; but where there are isolated clumps, where it would not be worth while to make dams, they sometimes carry it out by road. What cuts the roads up mostly is the drays and packhorses, which are used for carrying supplies to the gumfields. 306. Do you think the timber industry should contribute something towards the roads and tracks ? —Yes. 307. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you think it would be wise to restrict the output of kauri? —I cannot say that it would be wise, because of the great difficulty of preserving it, and it cannot, I think, realise a much higher price. 308. Do you think it would be wise to raise the royalty? —I do not think so. Edward John Mulhern examined. 309. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I have 200 acres of land under occupation with right of purchase, which I have held close on nine years. I am paying a rental of 5 per cent, on the capital value of 12s. The settlement is known as the Mangaru Settlement. 310. Are you satisfied with your land and with the tenure? —Very well satisfied. 311. Is there anything you would like to bring before the Commission?- Yes; I would like to state the manner in which we have been treated with regard to roads. I have been nine years up there, and have not got a road to the door yet, although the land has been loaded to the extent of 2s. 6d. an acre to provide roads. 312. Has the money been expended somewhere else?- There have beon various attempts to form roads. In the first instance the line laid down by the surveyors was objected to by the local authorities. The matter was referred to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and he said he had perfect confidence in his officers. Well, they spent £300 on that, and the money was thrown away. Another survey was made, and since then there has been £100 expended now and then. It takes about three years to spend the money after it has been voted, and then it is frittered away in expenses. The roads now are practically useless, but a bridge that has been built is still in use. 313. Did the bridge come out of the £300 expenditure?—l think so. 314. How far are you from any road over which a vehicle can pass? —For the next six or eight months you could not bring a vehicle to within three miles of me. 315. Is there anything else you would like to mention ?—' There are a few settlers holding land under lease in perpetuity in that settlement, and. they asked me to say that they are well satisfied with their present tenure The only thing they are afraid of is revaluation. They recognise that if their leases are surrendered, after a while the big man will step in and have the lot. If they took up their land on freehold, in the course of time there would be very few settlers on the land. 316. Do you know of any instances of such things happening?- I know of one man who owned 1,000 acres freehold, who bought out settlers who were dissatisfied, and until it came to the ears of the Commissioner of Crown Lands he was making the boast that he would soon have the whole lot. 317. That would not be a lease-in-perpetuity section thrown up and sold? —It was a transfer for a monetary consideration. 313. Was the 1,000 acres second-class land?— Well, it had never been classed. It was bought from the Natives, but I know that the Department would have classed it as first-class land. As regards the present administration of the Land Board, the settlers up there are well satisfied. There is a climatic reserve up there of about 2,000 acres. The kauri timber has been removed from it, and we have heard from time to time that it might be thrown open for selection, but I believe that can only be done by Act of Parliament. I hope it will be thrown open, otherwise the fires will go through the old workings and weeds will come up, and the land will be worthless to anybody. 319. Have you represented this to the Land Board?— Yes; but nothing has been done. 320. What do the settlers do with their land in that part of the country ?—Some of them go in for dairying, but" the factory is not close enough to me for that. I depend on the timber industry for a living. 321. Your farm is your place of residence? —Yes, and I run a few cattle upon it. 322. Mr. Forbes.] Are there mfany settlers in the same position as yourself, owing to the roads not being formed? —There are some seven or eight. 323. Would you say that your loading has been spent?—l do not know, because it goes on for such a time. The loading is'a sore subject with the settlers. They know it is there, but they want to see the roads. They do not mind paying the loading so much if they could only get the roads.
110—C. 4.
[e. j. mulhebn.
C.—4.
874
324. Mr. Matheson.J Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Department? —No; but I believe the settlers who have are all satisfied. 325. Would you be as well satisfied if your lease was lease in perpetuity instead of occupation with right of purchase? —Yes; and I believe I will surrender it some day, because the State is the best landlord I have ever known. Some of the settlers get three or four years in arrears, but they are not turned off on that account. If I wanted to buy my place I should have to raise money on my improvements, and then I should be out of the frying-pan into the fire. 326. Mr. McCutchan.] You complain of the aggregation of estates in your district, and said that a man owning 1,000 acres of first-class land had bought out some of the settlers. Is that recognised in the district as first-class land? —I should think it is about the best block of land up there. It has good facilities in the way of water-carriage. 327. What was the area of the lease-in-perpetuity section he bought out?- 200 acres. 328. Did he buy out any further tenants? —He tried to buy out another. 329. What was the area of that'—Another 200 acres, I think ; but it was not allowed by the Department. 330. II there was good reason for refusing the second transfer there was good reason for refusing the first, so, I suppose, it was remissness on the part of the Department? I should not like to say that, because they had to go on the man's statement. 331.' Do you hold a brief for the Department?—No; but I would not like to judge the Department on a transaction of that sort, because the land was never classed by the Department. 332. Do you think it would be better to pay a heavier loading on the land, provided you had the roads made?— Yes; we would rather pay another 2s. 6d. an acre if we got the roads. 333. Is there much more la«d in your neighbourhood suitable for settlement? —About 2,000 acres. 334. You think the land you spoke of is absolutely useless as a climatic reserve?— Yes. 335. In what way is it supposed to be a benefit as regards climate?- I suppose it is to conserve bush for rain areas. 336. Do you think it is necessary that the rainfall should be increased? —No; we have too much of it now. 337. Do you know if there are any large areas held by private individuals which would be suitable for small settlement? —I think I know of one or two. 338. If some of this land was acquired, do you think there would be plenty of applicants under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure?— Yes. The Department had a chance of getting the Mangaroa Estate, but they did not avail themselves of it, and the owners are now cutting it up and getting a higher price for it. 339. Is there any land in the neighbourhood of Dargaville itself? —No. 340. Is there none up the Kaihu Valley?— Very little.
Tokatoka, Thursday, 25th May, 1905. Robert McKenzib Clark examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler and storekeeper. I hold 3 acres of leasehold in the township. 1 have been in the district over thirty years. 2. Is this district progressing year by year in a sort of satisfactory way?— Yes. 3. The farms are not very large around here?—No; they range from 80 to 300 acres. The settlers are engaged in dairying and cattle and sheep raising. There is a creamery here. The timber and kauri-gum are nearly exhausted in this district now. 4. Is the population increasing or decreasing on this side of the river?- The resident population is increasing. 5. How are you for roads into the farms here?--The roads are surveyed, but very little has been done to them. Only the main roads have been formed, and in some places metalled. We are in the Otamatea County. 6. Is the county administration fairly satisfactory to the settlers?—We hear a lot of grumbling about it. Too much goes in charitable aid—about 50 per cent, of the revenue goes in that direction. We are rated on the capital value. The greatest need of the district is metalled roads. We have good metal in the district, and it is well distributed. 7. How are the Tokatoka Swamp settlers getting on!—I am not in a position to speak of them. I hear them complaining that the drains are not quite satisfactory. 8. Mr. Matheson.] Have any of the settlers round here raised loans for road-making?—-I do not know of any. 9. Mr. McCardle.] Do you know if the Advances to Settlers Department is working satisfactorily? —I think so, so far as I have heard. 10. Is there any land suitable for close settlement held in large holdings in this neighbourhood?— Not that lam aware of. The largest holding I know of is about 1,000 acres. The largest holdings in the district are Hardings's, but I know them by name only. 11. Are they suitable for close settlement?— Yes. 12. Mr. McCutchan.] Has there been a substantial increase in the value of land here?— Yes. Land that could be bought at ss. per acre a few years ago is fetching £2 to £3 an acre now. 13. Have your relations with the Land Board been satisfactory ?—Yes. 14. Are you satisfied with the way the Land Board is constituted ?—Yes. 15. Mr. McLennan.] Do the settlers in this district go in for cultivation ?—Not in large areas. 16. What do they grow?— Some early potatoes.
875
K. M. CLABK.j
C—4.
17. Mr. Paul.\ Does your knowledge enable you to say whether the value of land has increased in the Tokatoka Swamp ? —I think there was a bit of a boom there about two years ago, but it is slackening of! now. 1 know people who refused £8 per acre for their land, which they took up from the Government at £2 10s. per acre. But they have erected dwellings and fences, and perhaps oleared the land a little. 18. Did many properties change hands at something about that price? —I know of three or four only. 19. Mr. Anstey.] Did any land in the Tokatoka Swamp change hands immediately after the ballot, and before the original successful applicants went on the land?— Not that I know of. 20. You say you are rated to the extent of ljd., and that half goes in charitable aid. Do you know what proportion goes in the cost of administration f —No. 21. Do you import most of your requirements in the way of produce? —Yes, from the south. 22. Is any of the land suitable for growing the bulk of your requirements? —Yes, the flat land would be suitable, but it is used for grazing purposes at present. 23. What class of land is held in the large blocks near here? —High bush land. 24. Would it be suitable for farming in smaller areas? —Yes. 25. What is the nearest land of the Hardings's to this place? —About ten miles, at Horehore. They have about 6,000 acres. 26. Mr. Forbes.J Have you taken any interest in the question of land-tenure? —No. 27. Have you any definite view as to the tenure on which Crown land should be let? —No. 28. Mr. McLennan.] Are there any absentee landowners here? —A few, but I cannot say how many. William oshorn Thompson examined. 29. The Chairman.] What are you? — lam a settler. I hold 150 acres of freehold. I have been here fifteen years. 1 represent to-day the local branch of the Farmers' Union. We have about twenty members. 30. What views do you wish to place before the Commission ? —I have very few instructions from the members of the union. They wish me to state that the opinion of this branch is that the freehold tenure is the tenure they all desire. 31. Are some of your members on the Tokatoka Swamp that was recently opened? —Yes. There are only two at present that I know of. The bulk of our members are freeholders. 32. What is your opinion about the Land Board: has it been satisfactory so far as your experience goes ? 1 have had some experience with them, and I must say they have served me very well. 33. Do you think it is desirable to continue the present constitution of the Land Board? — So far as I am concerned, I approve of the present constitution. 34. Have you had any experience of the ballot? —Yes; I and my family have in several instances. We have always considered it a fair and satisfactory way of selecting land. 35. Has there been any aggregation of large estates in your district? —Not to any great extent. Several holdings have been increased to 1,000 and 1,500 acres. These places have been acquired section by section mostly from absentees. 36. Are there many absentees holding land in this part of the world? —There are a few. The absentee proprietors are principally being bought out by settlers in the district. Ours is not an increasing population, and that is one of the failings of the district. 37. The previous witness told us that the resident population is steadily increasing? —It is to a certain extent only. 38. Mr. Matheson.] Do you approve of the Crown offering their land under lease with the right of purchase? —Yes. 39. Should that right be restricted to any time, or should it extend to any time that the settler feels in a position to purchase? —I have had experience with that. My time was a limited time, and it suited me very well. At the end of nine years I received a notice from the Land Board to say that my right of purchase would absolutely cease. I consider that was a very reasonable notice, because it gave me time to collect the money to pay. 40. Suppose a man did not get on as well as you, and was unable to save the money in that time, do you think the Crown would be wise in giving him a longer period? —I should think it should be left to the discretion of the Land Board to deal with, because in some instances it is not an advantage to that man or to any one else that he should remain on the land. If a man cannot make enough out of a place in nine or twelve years to purchase it there is not much chance of him making enough later on. 41. Do you think it is wise to provide that if a man cannot purchase in twelve years his opportunity should cease? —I do not know that it is altogether wise, but I feel it is reasonable. 42. Does grass hold well on your land when you have got it into grass? —Yes. 43. Mr. McCardle.] Do you approve of the present optional system for the sale and the disposal of Crown lands? —I do. 44. Mr. McCutckan.] Is the aggregation you speak of going on in first-class land? —Not generally. 45. Do you cultivate any of your land? —Yes, several acres. We grow a little for horse-feed and pig-feed, and potatoes and fruit. 46. Is the land quite capable of growing potatoes?— Yes. 47. How many tons to the acre?—l cannot say exactly. We have generally good crops. 48. Mr. Paul.] Were you appointed delegate at a properly convened meeting of the union? — Yes. 49. Did you consider the order of reference? —We had not the order of reference before us. Our meeting was held before it was published in the district. 50. You simply discussed one question? —Yes, principally.
C—4,
876
[W. 0. THOMPSON.
51. Is the value of land increasing in the district? —Yes, to some extent. 52. Are you acquainted with the settlement on the Tokatoka Swamp? —To some extent. I was continually there when it was first opened up, but I have not been there for a year or two. 53. Has that been a success ? —I think so. 54. Has the value of land increased? —It appears to have. 55. The price put on it by the Government was £2 10s. per acre: do you know if any sales have taken place that have given the tenant value for his improvements and a profit besides? — I have heard of them, but I do not know for certain. 56. Mr. Anstey.\ Did your Farmers' Union discuss the question of granting the freehold to existing lease-in-perpetuity tenants? —No. 57. Do you think they should be granted the right of purchase? 1 do. 58. Do you think it is wise to upset a bargain already entered into with the State and offer them fresh terms ? —ln regard to acquiring the freehold, certainly. 59. What is the result of your observation of the settlers at Tokatoka: are those who have got land under the freehold improving and developing it any better than leaseholders? —There are no lease-in-perpetuity settlers in our district, and I cannot speak for those on the swamp. 1 have practically no knowledge of the Tokatoka Swamp settlers. I cannot express an opinion on that. 60. Do you think that a man who has been on the land nine or twelve years, and is not able then to exercise the right of purchase, should not be allowed to continue as a leaseholder ? —I would let him, if he choose to do so. 61. If in twelve years he is not able to purchase, do you think he should be compelled to take up a lease in perpetuity without right of purchase? —It might come hard on the individual; but from my experience and what I have seen, I think, generally speaking, men who are not able to do anything with a place in nine or twelve years will not do much good with it at all. 62. You think it would be better that they should go off the land altogether? —I think so, generally speaking. 63. Have you given any study to the difference between rating on the capital value and on the unimproved value? —I have thought it out. I think rating on the unimproved value would be premature in this district. 64. Do you think that system is better than the other ? —-In a district a little better settled than this I think it would be. 65. Can you give us any idea of the amount of revenue spent on roads? —Our Councillor informed us recently that 4d. in a shilling was spent on the roads. The balance goes in administration and surveys and compensation for deviations. 66. We were told that 50 per cent, went in charitable aid? —I do not think it amounts to that. 67. Mr. McCutchan.\ With reference to the opinion you expressed, that it is premature in this district to rate on the unimproved value, do you say that because that system would press hardly on new settlers? —My reason is that the district is not settled sufficiently, and it would injure a number of settlers who have not yet had time to make the necessary improvements. Personally, rating on the unimproved value would be a great blessing to me. John Lewis Edson examined. 68. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a Crown tenant on the Tokatoka Swamp. I hold 365 acres under lease in perpetuity and 200 acres under occupation with right of purchase. I have been there a little over four years. I pay 4 per cent, on the unimproved value of £2 10s. per acre for my lease in perpetuity, and 5 per cent, on the same value for my occupation with right of purchase. I have to present the following memorial from the settlers': — " To the Chairman and members of the Royal Land Commission. "Gentlemen, —We, the undersigned Crown tenants and settlers resident on the Tokatoka Swamp, are of opinion that all holders of leases in perpetuity should have the option of acquiring the freehold, realising that the freehold tenure is essential for the successful and permanent development of this colony. And, further, those of your petitioners who hold land under lease in perpetuity desire to place themselves in the same position as the holders of occupation-witli-right-of-purchase leases, and are willing to make up the difference of amount of rental accrued and interest thereon. We would draw your attention to the excessive hardships and loss we have borne as pioneer settlers through the lands being flooded each winter, rendering it unprofitable and the lives of settlers and their families a miserable existence. We would respectfully desire that, as local conditions improve, after having endured the privations, to look forward to convert our leaseholds into freehold tenure." [Signed by twenty-three lease-in-perpetuity holders and occupa-tion-with-right-of-purchase holders.J 69. Are you satisfied with your land and tenures? —I do not like the lease in perpetuity. 70. I presume you would like ultimately to make your land freehold? —Yes, and considering the hardships we have undergone I think it is only reasonable. 71. Are you a member of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 72. The first witness said that the swamp drains are not acting very well in your settlement: is that the case ? —Hitherto the draining has been in a very bad state. The ground is of such a tenacious character that it requires a very large amount of money to be spent on it. It is on a very low level, and before the sea-wall was put round the high spring tides flowed right over it. There are not sufficient drains. The Government drained alongside the roadside and put in flood gates in the first instance. 73. Was what was done efficiently do'ne? —Not altogether. 74. Was it owing to bad workmanship? —I do not like to criticize too much. The place was new, and they have gained experience as they went on, but a lot of money could have been spent more judiciously.
877
o*—4
J. L. EDSON.i
75. What is the extent of the settlement? About 20,000 acres, and of this about 5,000 acres is still bush. 76. Has any Drainage Board been instituted in the district? —We are just about to form a Drainage Board now. A Drainage Board is needed to make a success of the place. 77 How many settlers are interested in the drainage generally?- I should say about forty settlers. 78. Is your creamery fairly successful? —No, the roads are a great drawback. 79. Mr. Matheson.] Have any Government grants been spent in your district during the last four years? —A few. £100 is being spent now on metalling the road from the wharf, but it is only a drop in the bucket. 80. Mr. McGardle.~\ Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? No. 81. Are you satisfied with the Land Board? —I think it would be better if we had more direct representation. I should say there ought to be at least three Crown tenants elected by Crown tenants to represent them on the Board. 82. Suppose the expenses of the election are too great, would you approve of a medium course —namely, the appointment of Crown tenants by the Government to represent the other tenants?—No; I would not approve of that. 83. Then, you do not approve of the present constitution of Land Boards? —I would rather see a more democratic system adopted. 84. Mr. McCutchan.\ Has there been an increase in the value of land at Tokatoka ? —Yes, some. 85. To what is that due ?—I suppose some of the first settlers were greatly disgusted and took their places 86. Was the taking up of the land at first largely experimental? —Yes. 87. And the settlers going on the land took that risk? —Yes. 88. And if the land had not turned out satisfactorily they would have had to bear the brunt of the loss ? —Yes. 89. And you think so far as it has turned out right the settlers are entitled to the increased value ? —Most certainly. Considering the hardships of the last four winters, it is greatly to the credit of the settlers that they have stayed there. 90. Mr. Pciul.\ Was there a large number of applicants for these sections? —At the last ballot there was an uausually large number. 91. Was that after the intending settlers had seen the progress made by the first lot? —1 do not know. 1 think a good many flattering remarks had been made of the place by people who had never seen it that were not altogether justified. 92. There have been a number of sales? —Not a great number. 93. Is it a fact that some have changed hands at a highly increased value? —Yes, some have made something out of them. 94. Was it a mild land boom?—T think it was. Ido not think the value was there. The land is too expensive to get into a high state of cultivation. 1 have been drowned out too many winters now. I lost at least £300 in the flood last winter through loss of grass. 95. Could you sell to-day at a profit? —No. I could not get my own money back. 96. Does that apply to the whole settlement? —I cannot say. Some people have made great improvements, and some are better situated. 97. What is your objection to the leasehold tenure? —So far as I see I do not think there is the security in it that the freehold gives. 98. In what way? —If you have the freehold the land is your own, and you put your whole body and soul into the land, and spend every penny you can get on it. But these cries for revaluation and a Fair Rent Bill take all the heart out of a man on leasehold. 99. Is the agitation for land-nationalisation also shaking your faith in the security of the freehold tenure?--So far as I can see the freehold is the one secure tenure, and if we can get freehold we will feel secure. If the people leave the leasehold alone I think the fears of the leaseholders will" be allayed. 100. In using your two sections do you discriminate in any way in the farming of them? —Certainly I would not put expensive buildings on the lease-in-perpetuity section. 101. Do you know of any lease-in-perpetuity holders who have put expensive buildings on their sections? —Yes, one or two have got decent houses on them. 102. Do you think they are secure? —They do not think so. They were quite satisfied when they took up the lease, but since then there have been so many cries for revaluation and attempts by different classes to upset the tenure that they do not feel safe. 103. Do you honestly believe that a majority of the people of this country would break a bargain entered into by the State? I do not think there is a majority. 104. Then, there is no danger of retrospective revaluation? One never knows. I see that a candidate for Parliament named Barclay, who gave evidence before the Commission at Dunedin, said he would break any lease or contract. 105. Do you know you are quite wrong in saying that?— That is what I understood people to say. 106. Was that reported in the Press? —I cannot say. 107. He was a witness who said he would never interfere with the present leaseholders?— I am glad to hear you say so. 108. Mr. Anstey.] In regard to the cry for revaluation, can you say that at any time you heard any responsible body advocate it, or have you only seen it so reported in the papers?— What I have seen in the Press. 109. What Press do you read? The Herald is the main paper here.
0.—4.
878
[j. L. EDSON.
110. Can you tell us what price was given for the sections at Tokatoka that have been sold? — 1 gave £4 10s. for one lot. That included the improvements. 111. Would that £2 increase more than cover the value of the improvements? —Yes. 112. Have any sections changed hands at a higher price than that? —One was sold at £10, but it was a real good section held under occupation with right of purchase. It was all in grass and in a high state of cultivation. 113. Was the £7 10s. increase much more than the value of the improvements? —Not a great deal. 114. Would that land be much more valuable if you got efficient drainage? —It would. 115. Do you think it would have been better if the Government had spent more money and properly drained it before opening it up, and then charged more for the land? —Yes; we would have been the gainers in the end. We intend to complete the drainage as soon as the Board is set up. 116. Do you think it is better to form yourselves into a Drainage Board, and rate yourselves and get a fair subsidy, than to depend on the Government for grants?--I think so. 117. Are the 5,000 acres of bush settled yet? -No. It is leased at present for the timber rights. Henry Holden Walton examined. 118. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I hold 300 acres at Raupo —100 acres under freehold, 40 acres under occupation with right of purchase, and 160 acres of educational reserve. I have been here fifteen years. 119. What tenure do you favour ?--Freehold. 120. Are you going on fairly well? Yes, after a great struggle. 121. Mr. Anstey.\ What is the term of your education lease ?—Twenty-one years, and I have the right of renewal. 122. Is that a satisfactory lease? —Yes, so far as it goes. On board s.s. "Gosford," Waikoa River, Kaipara, Thursday, 25th May, 1905. Patrick Moloughney examined. 1. The Chairman."] What are you?—l am a settler and storekeeper at Tikarika, and have been in this district twenty years. I desire to bring under the notice of the Commission two matters. The first is with reference to the ballot. My son was successful in the ballot for a section of land. We paid the usual deposit, and subsequently reoeived a letter from the Land Board stating that an error had been made, and that the land had already been disposed of, and returning the deposit. 1 also desire to draw the attention of the Commission to the fact that 1 hold some leasehold land, and also a section under occupation with right of purchase. The distance between the two sections is only about a mile and a half. I received a communication from the Land Board stating that residence was necessary on the occupation-with-right-of-purchase section, and adding that the land might be forfeited if the condition as to residence was not complied with. My occupation-with-right-of-purchase section has not been forfeited so far, but I think it is very hard that residence should be necessary under the circumstances. The Chairman said that these questions were purely matters of Land Board administration.
Hblbnsvillb, Friday, 26th May, 1905. Richakd Monk examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and, with the exception of a few years spent in travelling in other parts of the world, from my infancy I have been a resident in the Provincial District of Auckland. 1 have had considerable experience in connection with the settlement of the land. For the last thirty years 1 have been engaged in making farming homes for myself and some of my sons. I held about 1,000 acres of freehold at Woodhill, near Helens2. Do you approve of the present constitution of Land Boards? My opinion is that in harmonv with our democratic professions Land Boards should be half-elected and half-nominated. 3. Under what franchise ?—I am not very decided upon that, but I think I express the views of the farming community generally when I say that I think the interests of the settlers should be fully represented on Land Boards, and that might be done through election by the County Councils and Road Boards. -i. Do you not include the towns as well?— Not for rural land. I consider that the interests of the cities and of the cultivators of rural lands are absolutely distinct, and 1 am sorry to say that in many instances they are, by legislation, made to be antagonistic. 5. You think the franchise should be confined to County Councils and Road Boards? —To those who are interested in the operations in respect to land that are controlled by the Land Boards. 6. But people in the towns are also interested in the settlement of the land? —Comparatively little. Perhaps I might more clearly explain myself by saying that, in my opinion, there is no more reason why land should be specially taxed than there is why boots and shoes should be taxed. It has simply become a usage of legislation because that land is specially tangible, and it cannot be concealed and removed as is other and more valuable property that is easily removable from
879
C.—4
B. MONK
the grasp of the tax collector, but that should also be equally taxable. I think there should necessarily be separate Boards to control the city interests, and another form of practical knowledge to control the country interests. I feel that the Land Boards as at present constituted are unilateral. 7. With regard to the tenure of the land —leasehold or freehold, or both —which system do you think is more likely to advance the interests of the colony and the interests of the settlers?—lf you will allow me I would like to make a general statement on the question. I should like respectfully to say, as your order of reference embraces almost every form of hardship suffered by the country settler, that 1 speak with the experience of a country settler, and as one who is familiar with the feelings of country settlers and who has their interests in view. I beg to say that, as a settler and taxpayer, 1 utterly disapprove of this Commission itself. Ido not say so in any rudeness, but for the reason that I think it is absolutely unnecessary, and, if I might express myself strongly, I should say that I feel some political aversion to the people who could inflict upon a colony such as ours the disparaging farce of such a Commission, and I hope sincerely that the country also will remember with political aversion the men who have been the cause of the Commission being appointed. 8. I hope you exclude the members of the Commission itself ?-—Yes, present company is always excepted; but it is necessary for one to speak a little brusquely on this matter, because my belief is that the country people as a whole are strongly in favour of the freehold tenure. 1 believe that you will agree with me that the existence of a landed proprietory in the Old Country has impressed on the minds of the masses of the people living around them a yearning for the freehold tenure, and that feeling has brought thousands of people out to this colony with the object of getting a patch of land entirely their 1 have always been strongly in favour of the Government leasing the Crown lands for the purpose of enabling persons with scanty means to get on the land, and thus begin to form homesteads and comfort for themselves, but such a lease should always be associated with the option of ultimately acquiring the Crown grant. In 1887, in Parliament (perhaps you may remember), I strongly advocated the giving of the freehold gratis to those who made their home upon our northern lands. 1 argued that the State would gain by so doing, rather than by allowing the land to lie idle, and I contended that the gift would be a very small return for the pioneering hardships endured by them on account of the want of roads and the paucity of communication. Of course, that would practically mean the reinstatement of Mr. Rolleston's Homestead Act, which 1 regard as the very best effort that has ever been made to settle our northern land. It has been stated by witnesses who have given evidence before this Commission that the system of leasing Crown land had its inception under the Act passed by Sir John McKenzie. I would like, however, to say that, with the exception of the 999-years lease, that statement is incorrect. I think you, sir, had something to do with the Land Act introduced by Mr. G. F. Richardson. Under that Act he threw open for settlement a block of land at Woodhill, close to Helensville, and selectors had the option of taking up either by cash payment at the time of selection, or by leasing, with an' opportunity of converting their holdings into freehold at some future time. That land was let at a much lower rate than the same quality is at the present time. That experiment resulted very successfully. I desire to state that I consider the present withdrawal of the freehold option in connection with the disposition of our Crown land to be an audacious attempt on the part of a few faddists and cranks to warp the best and thwart the strongest predilection of the farming community of the colony, and ultimately to enslave the rural class. And, further, they also hope to secure in the report which this Commission will ultimately furnish to the country an official declaration that the people of New Zealand have recanted and denounced the traditions and the hereditary instincts of the race to which we belong. I may state that I am a freeholder by heredity and instinct, and I have thai instinct very strongly in my nature, and, in addition, I may say that I have studied this question of land-tenure for very many years. Agrarian vagaries are by no means new, and the world's history is so old and ample in precedents to furnish the text-book to guide our statesmen of to-day, and surely this Commission should have been furnished with a single instance as a pretext for its work which will go to show that an intelligent, enterprising, and a progressive community, such as the English people are, were willing to remain as a State tenantry. I affirm that history does not furnish a single instance. Solomon informed his time that there was nothing new under Ihe sun, and with masterly touch he gives directions on every phase of sociology, but he did not dare to risk his crown or his reputation for wisdom by traversing the Jewish prejudice for an inalienable tenure. And Aristotle, two thousand three hundred years ago, in one of his works, epitomized almost every form of policy and Government, but he omitted to suggest even that the citizen should be a tenant of the State. Nor do I think that he furnishes a word that drapers, grocers, or tinsmiths can cite as an authority that the State will be a more lenient mortgagee or landlord than any private individual. In fact, all that is best, enduring, and safe in the politics and Governments of to-day are but amplifications of the principles outlined in the sentences of the great minds I have named; and there is nothing that gives authority to the conception that communities as a whole consider a State tenantry to be an acceptable relation for them to occupy in the commonwealth. On the other hand, I could furnish many instances which would be a very substantial proof that the surrender of the freehold tenure by a people has invariably ended in their slavery and degradation. There was a time when Egypt possessed its yeomanry class, and there came a period of successive years of redundant harvests and of prosperity on the part of the agriculturists, and the corrupt hierarchy of the governing class of Egypt, with a clever Jew for their manager, adopted the policy of storing the overflowing surplus, and, as is usual, those redundant harvests were followed by periods of sterility, and the merciless wheat-combine exploited the freehold tenure of the agricultural class in exchange for wheat to keep the people alive and re-seed their fields. The consequence is that to-day we have the fellaheen of Egypt, a verv downtrodden class indeed. Large portions of India have been overrun by military conquest,
C— 4
880
R. MONK
and no doubt the sternest resistors were put to death and the remainder were permitted to live on the condition that as State tenants they had to till the soil for their rulers ; and I ask you, can you find a more soulless class than the poor ryots of India? Ever since humanity aggregated itself into communities there have always been faddists and monomaniacs, and an unthinking multitude around them ever ready to regard as an evangel the man who in plausible language would outline to them a short cut to make " the other fellow " pay for them. Matthew Decker, in 1743, issued a pamphlet on fiscal matters in which he proposed to raise all the revenue by taxation upon houses. There are some modern theorists who want to raise all taxation from the land. But here are two experts as opposite to each other as a calf's head is to its tail. Matthew Decker was a very clever man, and his pamphlet went through seven editions in twelve years, and produced as much excitement in the community as Henry George's " Progress and Poverty ; ' has clone during recent years. Me was a successful merchant, and was a member of Parliament, representing Bishop Castle, and, in fact, was rather an eminent man. He had this advantage in his argument —of course, he depended a great deal upon the plausibility of his theories -that lie claimed there should be equality of sacrifice, and, while he exempted the houses of the poor, he proposed to impose the fax entirely on the houses of the well-to-do, and, as everybody lived in a house and secured the comfort which a dwelling and good Government affords, he contended that it would be only by equality of sacrifice in the levenue being raised <>n houses, in the shelter of which he may have located the "privilege," instead of in the land. The matter, as he presented it, was very plausible, and created great interest, and, as I have said, he was an able man, and —like our present Premier was remarkably good on surpluses, and he undertook to have a surplus every year of a million, but, unlike our Premier, that surplus was to be devoted 1o the gradual liquidation of the national debt. I merely mention this to. show that in past years there have been vagaries in respect to land-tenure, and particularly on the part of those who have no practical knowledge and who do not use the land I claim that only those persons are fitted to s^ive-evidence before this Commission who have a practical knowledge of the question. For instance, I believe that you, Mr. Chairman, are a member of a very respectable body called the Surveyors' Institute. Now, the surveying community may have grievances, and the Government might set up a Commission to inquire into those grievances, and, if possible, to remedy them. What, sir, would you think if such people as farmers, tailors, sailors, and tinsmiths were allowed to give evidence before that Commission upon a subject of which they have little or no knowledge. It is just the same in the present case. It is only those whose avocation and training have asociated them with the using of land who are qualified to give evidence before this Commission. T claim that the farming community all over the world is a class, just the same as cotton-spinners, tailors, or drapers, and they have their own special proclivities and idiosyncrasies, and only those engaged in farming can understand the feelings of this class. It is a strong argument against the lease in perpetuity without the freehold option that the Government insist upon the appointment of official Inspectors as necessary for the protection of the public interests. I am of opinion that official surveillance has a tendency to destrov that competitive individuality which is the making of a people, and which has especially been a characteristic of the British people. My opinion is that, in the interests of the State and the individual, every farmer in the country should be at liberty to cultivate and use his farm at the direction of his own judgment, supported by experience and even by experiment. I think you will agree with me that the higher the technical knowledge and practical skill a person possesses upon any subject the more galled will he feel if he is required to subordinate his operations to the direction of even a capable person, and how much more so if not capable, and everybody knows that persons are sometimes appointed to such official positions who have been failures in private enterprise, and their positions are conferred upon them as a reward of political fawning. The system which we are practising now I claim to be as bad as the notoriously objectionable farm bailiff and estate steward of the old world, and it is worse, for this reason : that private enterprise in its own interest will always strive to secure the most efficient men for such positions, while here the best credential of ability a man may exhibit is an obsequious resource as a strenuous political canvasser. Another point is this: I believe that to the thoughtful occupier of leasehold land without the option of the freehold the rent will always have the quality and character of a mortgage, with the equity of redemption reduced in value at the expense of his improvements, and the more a leaseholder improves his place the more will he feel fretted at the inelastic nature of the conditions controlling his tenure. Referring back to the Woodhill property as an illustration, those people who are holding that land and bringing it into order will have to expend upon it from £4 to £G an acre in preparing it for farming purposes, and suppose they had not the option of converting the lease ultimately into freehold which they will do —they would be mortgagors, and the Government would be absolutely mortgagees for the 14s. or 165., which is the upset price of the land for all time. I say we would have to go to Bussia itself to find a case of inequity so striking as that. The freeholder, whether actual or prospective, feels a pleasure in improving and beautifying his home, even if in adjusting its worth to the market-value he has to write off something from the cost of those improvements. I also assert this as my belief that the freeholder will endure with more fortitude the vicissitudes and fluctuations of seasons and prices than will those with only a leasehold tenure. The country has been committing itself to the expenditure of large sums in the purchase of improved estates, and, in some instances, I know they have made good bargains. For instance, take the Cheviot Estate. The Government expended an amount in road-making in that district which, if spent in the same proportion in the north, would have resulted in our having three or four times the population we now have. They thus put a bonus on all the Cheviot land. There are, however, more estates which have been purchased by the Government that have been boomed by the fortuitous buoyancy of the prices of our produce, for the maintenance of which there is no assurance of enduring reasons that they may not be seriously modified or reversed ; but there is no responsibility for the future of the farmer, whose welfare may be controlled by prices with which he may not be able to pros-
881
C—4
E. MONK
perously compete. I was very much impressed a short time ago by the fact that the Dominion of Canada admitted into its union three territories as new provinces, each of them with an area of 250,000 square miles, or nearly two and a half times the entire area of New Zealand, and most of that land is known to be of excellent quality, and is open for free selection and purchase at nominal rates for cash. In comparison, when you deduct our mountains and barren tracks, this colony is only a scrap. The leaseholders of New Zealand in the course of a few years may have to battle with the enormous output which in time will be produced by these enormous territories, and I think it is quite possible that there may be such a clamour for reduced rents, at the expense of the general taxpayer, as will be irresistible. But, in my opinion, the prudent statesman will make no loss, but will now provide against complications by affording facilities for the acquisition of the freehold. In my belief, the fitting Minister of our Crown lands is the man who will earnestly strive to have the leaseholds and freeholds taken up, not by speculators but by those whose aim is to make homes for themselves, and to encourage them to do this he will radiate their plans, with the hope of making their leaseholds their savings-bank by ultimately investing the fruit of their thrift in the cost of the Crown grant. I speak like this simply on account of the country which I dearly love, and, although I have very few years more to live, still, I have sons who will have to toil for a livelihood, and some of them I helped to put upon the land. I say, emphatically, that the Minister of Lands for this country, if he is a wise and patriotic thinker, will fearlessly assert that the nutriment of true liberalism is the freehold tenure for the people's homesteads; that it ever was and is still the desire of all the best races; that it is an influence surpassing all other influences to impress upon the minds of the people a sense of inhabitiveness inspiring them with an appreciation of the blessings offered, and also ingraining their sentiments with the love of country. Perhaps these feelings are somewhat foreign to the gentlemen of this Commission, but there are those who have dwelt on their freeholds for years, and in their case the feeling is intense and genuine. 1 will just mention two other grievances which I feel, and which feeling is, I think, common. The Premier has gone round the country and stated that the taxation on land should be largely increased, and that the valuation of land ought to be increased by twelve millions. Now, that was an instruction to valuers, which, I take it, left an impression of oppression in the minds of the occupiers of the land that the Premier should not do. As a result I think the values of land have been inflated in many instances, and that such values have been put on homesteads that, after deducting the cost of management and the payment of wages, very little indeed is left for the occupier. There is another inequitable condition I might mention. A little while ago we had an Assessment Court here. There was a very nice gentleman presiding, no doubt an expert in law, and on one side of him was an architect and on the other a gentleman who, although not a user of land, is a well-known single-taxer. The values were raised all round. There was considerable objection to them, but the land valuer sustained his position by simply asking the objector who had leased land whether a certain price per acre had not been inserted by him in a purchasing clause of the lease, mentioning a rather high price of a very distantly prospective purchase from an owner disinclined to sell as a reason for inflating the value of all the surrounding land. I think the remedy for this would be the appointment of a person with practically a local knowledge to assist the Magistrate. Another point, to be brief, is this: that if the Government buys an improved estate and finds it has made a mistake, I think it is unjust for them to start in opposition to other farmers by stocking the land and paying for an expensive staff. T know of an instance where an estate has been bought at something like £3 to £4 an acre, and in one instance where the interest on purchase is approaching £4,000 per annum, and the Government have put about 150 or 200 hundred head of cattle on the land and appointed an expensive staff, and thus have gone into competition with farmers. I think that is unfair. I shall not say any more, but thank the Commission for its patience. 9. Mr. McOardle.'] You are strongly in favour of the freehold: would you grant the right of acquiring the freehold to holders of lease-in-perpetuity lands? —Yes. 10. Under what conditions? —I think it is only reasonable that they should pay the interest which would be demanded in the case of an ordinary mortgage by the Government. 11. Would you be in favour of restricting the area which any one individual can hold? —Yes. 12. Do you not think that can be accomplished by an amendment of the Land Transfer Act? —I think that legislation can do anything, except turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man. 13. Are you acquainted with the South Island and the conditions of settlement there? —I do not like the method which is now practised, of the Government borrowing money in the Old Country. It means that so-much of our produce is being placed in the hands of the foreign bondholder for expenditure outside of the colony, and this, I think, has been universally admitted to have been one of the great causes of the unsatisfactory position of Ireland. 14. I suppose you are aware that the land-for-settlements policy in Canterbury and Otago has generally proved a marked success? —Yes; but during the last few years there has been a great buoyancy in prices. We hear of farmers getting £1 and £1 Is. for sheep, for which only a few years ago they sold at 9s. 6d. 15. You propose an alteration in the constitution of Land Boards. Do you think that any ordinary man could contest an election for such a large land district as the Auckland Land District?—! think the Land Boards should represent the people who are interested in the land; but I do not think they should be elected on the parliamentary franchise. 16. Do you think that if an elective system were adopted that the number of members of the Board should be increased from four to seven, and that country districts should be represented by settlers having a practical knowledge of the country? —Yes; but the number is a matter for consideration. „ , _ 17. Have you any knowledge of the working of the Advances to Settlers Department?— Yes, but not as a borrower.
Ill—C. 4.
0.-4.
882
[r. monk.
18. Has it proved a success in this district? —I do not think that Department had anything to do with the reduction in the price of money, excepting perhaps hastening reduction by a few months. I consider that the price of money is rulei by the great markets of the world. 19. In regard to advances to settlers in this district, have their applications received prompt attention, and they have been liberally treated ? —I know of many settlers who have been treated badly —their applications did not receive prompt attention. 20. Do you not think it would be fair if you made advances on a settler's interest in his lease? —I do not see why a reasonable advance should not be made upon the improvements made on a leasehold as well as on a freehold. 21. Do large areas of gum country still lie idle in this part of the colony? —Yes. 22. Can you give us any opinion as to how that land could be profitably occupied by settlers? —There are one or two kinds of grass which, I believe, will gradually take upon these lands; but I would not advise any one to take up sterile gum land while there is still so much land available that is comparatively good in quality. 23. There is a great deal of this gum land which, 1 think, might be brought into profitable use, but it would require to be drained and limed ? —I consider that lime is an essential to large parts of that kind of land, but drainage is the first necessity. 24. Do you think it is desirable that the Government should experiment with that land to see what can be done with it? —I think that private enterprise has experimented already, and has furnished many instances of what may be done by private occupation. I think that Government experiments have, as a rule, proved more costly to the taxpayer than the result warrant. 25. Do you not think it would be better in new districts that the Government should give, say, £2 for £1 raised locally, iastead of continuing the present system of parliamentary grants? — I think that would be a very excellent system indeed. It would be a good thing if in the back districts such an expenditure should take place as would enable the settlers to get their produce to market. 26. Mr. McCutchan.\ Are you opposed to the 999-years lease? —I think it is an absurdity, because it is an intangible duration to the individual mind of an occupier. We want something that is given definitely to a man in his life-time and to his successor ; but the 999-years lease does not do that. It is so gigantic in its conception that there is a feeling that the terms will be altered or repealed, and there is a feeling of want of security of tenure such as exists in the case of the freehold. I think that the Act brought in by the Hon. Mr. G. F. Richardson, which limits the period within which a man may convert his leasehold into a freehold, with a few minor amendments, such as compelling occupation and rate of improvements, would be far better than the lease in perpetuity. 27. Are you of opinion that in settling a new country such as this the great thing is to provide every facility for settling people on the land? —That is the very first essential of good landlegislation. 28. That being so, do you not think that a system of leasing at 4 per cent, rental is a veryadvantageous tenure for the poorer classes of the country? —Not unless the option is given of converting the leasehold into a freehold. 29. You advocate the right of purchase, but, of course, you would not advocate anything that wculd tend to the advantage of the speculator or to dummyism? —I feel very strongly against that. 30. In order to exclude the speculator and dummy is it not necessary that there should be proper supervision and conditions as to residence?--I think there should be an indorsement upon the lease providing that the tenant who holds the property must use it, and I would limit the area of land which could be held by any one individual. 31. In reference to the disposal of Crown land for cash, and in the case of freehold lands, would you make improvements and residence compulsory? —I think, in the interests of the State, the Government would be justified in carrying out that suggestion. 32. Have you though of any method of assuring to the local bodies sufficient finance to satisfactorily carry out the roading of the country? —I think that the local bodies are already taxing themselves sufficiently, and while the revenue of the country is so buoyant I cannot see any reason for the Government suffering from want of money. lam ready to make a proposal with respect to that matter when the paucity of revenue makes it necessary, but I do not consider that it is necessary under the present buoyant condition of our finance. Stop squandering, and we save more than enough. My suggestion would be this: I would like to see the American system of making our own roads in front of our own property adopted, and if a man did not do so there should be an assessment made in his case to do the work. I quite agree with the suggestions made by a member of the Commission, Mr. McCardle, that the Government might give special assistance in country districts in the way of £2, or more, for £1 raised locally. But it must be remembered that there are some local bodies that are actually in credit, and they should not receive the same benefits under this system as other less favoured districts. There is a considerable difference in the conditions existing in the back blocks in the North Island, for instance, and the conditions in the more settled districts of the colony. 33. Mr. Paul.\ I am not quite clear as to how your Land Board will be set in operation : would it be democratic to elect a Land Board on a restricted franchise? You made a point of speaking that in this democratic country we should adopt democratic measures ?- It would still be democratic, because the bodies that ultimately elect the representative to the Land Board have been elected by residents or by those interested in the district for which the Land Board member is to be elected. lam thinking of the-expense. There is such a thing as trying to open an oyster with a rolling-pin, and if it is only the election of a representative to the Land Board, I contend it is not necessary to go through all the cumbrous machinery of personal franchise. 34. Is there any strong objection to the present constitution ? —I think there is, for this reason : that there is no certainty that it is actually representative. It becomes very much a matter of favour, and while kissing goes by favour the average person will not participate.
E. MONK
883
a—4
35. Have the present Land Boards given satisfaction? —No; I hear a great many complaints about them. 36. With regard to your Land Board to control town lands, on what franchise would you set that up? —The country settlers should have nothing to do with the Town Board. The country settler elects his representative on the County Council, and he could by law delegate his representative 011 the Council to nominate or to elect a person to represent him on the Land Board. 37. How would it do for the Board who were elected by the County Councils to select a Board to administer the lands in the town ? —lt would not do at all. I consider it would be unfair, because there is no community of interests between the occupier of land in the city and in the country. The man in the country is a land user, and in the city he is a land occupier. 38. In setting up the city Board to control city land would you exclude those residents in the city who own no land? —I certainly would not allow those residents in the city to have any voice in arrangements which were associated with the payments of rates upon land, because I do not think it would be just for a person with no interest whatever in the payments of rates to have any voice in determining the rates an owner of land should pay. 39. It does not matter if he occupies a section of land and pays rent to a private landlord? — ]f he is the occupier of a house and pays rates to the local body I think he should certainly have a voice in the payment of the rates, for the probabilities are that he will be a ratepayer. The tenant is supposed to be indirectly paying the rates on land. 40. You think that both these Boards should be thoroughly democratic? —I think so. The word " democratic," of course, requires definition, but I have not time to go into that. 41. With reference to your other statements, that no person outside those who farmed lands should have a voice in dealing with the land, do you think you would follow that out to its logical conclusion, and say that only thos« men who are bankers should have any say in banking legislation, and so on: do you think that could be carried out? —You have mentioned banking, and I think you are rather unfortunate in doing so, because banking is a matter in which the whole community is interested, but, comparatively speaking, we have very little voice in controlling banking matters. But in the using of land there is no sympathy whatever between the urban population and a rural one. The using of land is a matter of continuous toil and long hours and world-wide competition for the rural dweller, and that is where he differs from the urban dweller. 43. Let us get back to the farmer dealing with land. In dealing with land-legislation in Parliament would you exclude all those members who were not farmers, or who have no knowledge of farming ?—Well, I certainly say that if every honest representative in that House —I mean politically honest —had acted according to knowledge and conviction they would not have sent you gentlemen round here. 44. That is hardly a reply to the question ? —lt answers in this way: that those who know about the country and its interests and requirements would act in one way, and those who have not that experience and familiarity with the vicissitudes of farming life and its hardships would act in quite another way. 45. Do you not think that the safe and best plan is for every citizen in the country to take an intelligent interest in everything that pertains to that country? —I think it is a right thing that every individual should do so, and especially in a democracy where the life and success of the democracy depends on the culture of its units. And one of the very first evidences of good culture will be for people to abstain from interfering in business of which they have no knowledge. While I may have a general knowledge upon every subject —as I have of banking and surveying, for instance —I should say lam not fit to direct the business of a banker. 46. Let us take a personal illustration. When you were in Parliament did you vote on questions that you were not intimately acquainted with? You represented a constituency in a democracy, and did you not feel you had a perfect right to give a vote on every question that came forward, and did you not do that? —Well, I did on matters that I understood, and on matters that I did not understand T invariably tried to get information from those whom I knew to be experts. I felt the position of being a member of Parliament in dealing with matters of which I had no personal knowledge an exceedingly onerous and solemn one, and it became very burdensome to me to acquire the information by which, as general representative, I should use my power for the good of all. 46a. Of course, I suppose from your long experience you understand perfectly that a great proportion of the freeholders can never be freeholders in the real sense, because they have mortgages, more or less, over their property? —Yes; and I do not think it is the business of the State to interfere with the individual predilections of the people. Some persons will try to grasp too much. The proa and cons of sociology in that respect is a business art, and Ido not know that the community will be any better for the State undertaking to direct how far each individual shall speculate in business.' The unfortunate practices which you allude to are the result of their own action, and Ido not see how the State could remedy the position. Very likely their experiences are instructive to others,' and indirectly will be of great benefit to the community as a whole. 47. Before the inception of the leasehold was it a fact that many farmers had mortgages over their property, the interest on which was more than a rack rent? —I know that interest has been very higli in this country, and I knew long before the Government introduced the Advances to Settlers Act that the interest would fall to a very low figure indeed; the same as it is the opinion of financiers to-day that we shall have a very low rate of interest upon money in the future. The output of gold in the world and the accumulations of wealth are so great. 48. Mr. Anstey.] You have reflected rather upon the status of this Commission, and insinuated that we were hardly fit people to judge the questions we are called upon to decide. May I put a question in this way: If you knew that at least seven members of this Commission are working farmers, who, as soon as they lay down their commissions, will go back to their farms, would
C.—4.
884
[a. MONK.
you then say we were fit to inquire into these questions ?—Yes, I should think so, most certainly, if you have a practical knowledge. 49. You made the further statement that only farmers should give evidence before this Commission ? —I said, I think it is reasonable. 50. You mentioned a number of people engaged in other occupations as not being fit to give evidence, and one particular class you mentioned was surveyors?—l did nothing of the kind. 51. You specially pointed to our Chairman, as a surveyor, and instanced him as not being particularly suited to inquire into questions relating to the land. Seeing that one of the most important duties of surveyors in connection with land is to provide road-access, do you not think that surveyors would be our most important witnesses? —You have altogether mistaken what I said. I have a very high opinion, indeed, of surveyors, and I place a surveyor along with the farmer, because nobody studies the land more minutely and intimately than the surveyor. 52. Then, do you wish to withdraw your first statement, that only farmers should give evidence before this Commission ? —My statement was, that I consider only those whose avocations and training have associated them with the use of land are qualified to give evidence, and 1 do not depart from that statement. 53. I am only trying to give you an opportunity to correct yourself. You distinctly mentioned several trades as being unfit to give evidence, and amongst them you mentioned drapers and grocers and surveyors: do you wish to withdraw that?—l emphatically repeat that 1 did not include surveyors amongst them; and I repeat that a grocer or draper or tinsmith is not a fit man to give evidence on these subjects. 54. Have you had any personal dealings with the Land Board ? —No. 55. Upon what grounds do. you say they have not been satisfactory? —That is the feeling of the people around me. 56. Have you any knowledge of anything they have done that has not been satisfactory? —I will not give you any instance. I have avoided strictly anything that was personal. There are instances, but the feeling has been conveyed to me that they are a partial Board representing, as far as possible, the predilections of the administration of the day. I want everything, as far as I can, to be democratic. 57. You say they have been administering their affairs unsatisfactorily, and you refuse to give an instance? —I do, and I give my reason for not doing so. 58. You said the freeholders improve their land much better than leaseholders? —The remark which I made was that a freeholder feels a pleasure in improving and beautifying his home, while a leaseholder will always feel the more he improves his home how inelastic are the conditions which control him. 59. That means that a freeholder will improve and beautify and develop his farm better than a leaseholder ? —Yes; I am quite content to leave it at that. 60. Does that apply to cases which have come under your notice? Do you know of leaseholders who do not improve their land as they ought to ? —I have known endowment leases and that kind of thing, and they are not improved as well as those who are freehold. 61. Does that apply to settlers under lease in perpetuity I—l1 —I know that there is a general discontent amongst them, and I could mention the names of gentlemen who have come to me and said, " Do you think that you will succeed in having the option of the freehold given to the lease-in-perpetuity tenant, because I will do so-and-so if it is given." 62. But you can give no instance where a leaseholder under lease in perpetuity has neglected to improve and develop his farm? —No, because he is bound to improve his farm to a certain extent; but they do not do it with alacrity. 63. Are all the freeholders in the neighbourhood improving and developing their farms as they ought to? —All of them are improving and developing. 64. Are all the absentee landowners improving and developing their holdings as they oughl to? —I do not think we have any absentee landowners here. 65. Are there none north of Auckland? —Yes, and tliey do not improve. They wait for the land to improve, and then they sell. 66. Do you think that people who now take up land under freehold from the Crown should be under the same conditions in regard to developing and improving the land as leaseholders? —I think it is only a right condition under which a Crown grant should be issued, that certain improvements should be made by those holding the land. Otherwise they are keeping persons who want the land from occupying it, and so they are detrimental to the State. 67. Do you think that the conditions should be the same as those imposed on leaseholders? — I have not the slightest objection. Ido not believe in a person holding land and leaving it idle. I would not hold land under such conditions. 68. Do you not think that would be interfering with the freeholder's right, and indicating to him what he shall do and what he shall not do: does not that make it only a limited freehold? — lam not speaking precisely on the matter. 1 believe the State has rights in regard to land, and should require improvements to take place where the area of land is limited. 69. You are aware there is a large number of settlers who have taken up land on purchased estates under lease in perpetuity under the Land for Settlements Act : are you in favour of giving them the right to acquire the freehold of their holdings? —I am. I believe in the freehold under any conditions. 70. Upon what terms? —If they had the land at a lower rate of interest than fair interest on a mortgage, I think they ought to- pay, in addition to what they have paid, only what would bring interest payable to the Crown up to the ordinary rate of interest. Ido not think the Crown should give them special favours in taking up the freehold. 71. What about those tenants who are paying 5 per cent. : should they be allowed to acquire the freehold at the original capital value?— Yes, I think so.
a—4.
S. MONK.]
885
72. Do you think that giving the freehold would be a great advantage to them?— Yes, I do think it would be a great advantage to them; but I think it would be a greater advantage to the State, because if they placed their money in buying the freehold it would not be going into the hands of the foreign bondholder, to be spent out of the colony. 73. Do you not think that the Crown tenants should be asked to pay something for that great advantage I—l do not think the advantage is so great that you should require to inflict a punitive condition on them. I want the freehold, but Ido not think I should pay anything more than the ordinary purchaser would pay. 74. Suppose you took up land some years ago at a capital value of £10, and that land would easily sell to-morrow for £15 hard cash, do you think it would be right for the State to give the option of a freehold of that land at the original £101—That is a very broad question. I think it would be right. On the one hand, if it would be wrong for the State to allow him to have that enhanced value, on the other it would be right for the State, in the event of the land falling in value from £10 to £8, to pay him the £2 of loss. It cuts both ways, you know. 75. Supposing the right to acquire the freehold were granted to the tenants under the Land for Settlements Act, what would you suggest should be done with the money? In the first place, avoid getting any more money from the foreign bondholders, and, in the put the money on one side —not into revenue, as has been done in the past, but to make a special fund foi the acquisition, where required, of large estates in the future. Let us cease getting money from other countries, and let us be self-reliant and live within ourselves. 76. Supposing you gave the right of purchase to these lease-in-perpetuity settlers, would it not almost certainly happen that those who had particularly cheap sections would exercise that right, and that the bad sections would l?e left in the hands of the Government ?—I do not know how you could provide against that. If the operations have been good, you could not find any such instances. If that should be the result, it would only be a reflection on the operations that have taken place under this Act. __ . 77. You have a County Council, and also Road Boards? Tfesj and I wish there were moie Road Boards. I believe in them. _ 78. Do you think that the dual system of local control is economical?—No; I believe we expect the other fellow to do too much for us, and do not do enough for ourselves. 79. Then, you think one local body would be better than two?—No; I would rather have half a dozen men interested in the immediate of their homes than two local bodies. I believe in small Road Boards. 80. In one district ? —Yes. 81. Would you have two Road Boards, both in one district?—l would not object to three or four, but distinctly separate areas. 82. And these three or four local bodies would act over the same area I T.hat would be nonsense. I would divide each district into a number of small local bodies. Reuben Avery Prior examined. 83. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a Crown tenant. I hold 346 acres under lease in perpetuity. 1 pay £6 Bs. 6d. per annum rent. I have held the section 10J years. It is about twelve miles from \Y arkworth. 84. Are you satisfied with your land and tenure? —Yes; but I am not so well satisfied with the land as I am with the tenure. , . 85. Is there any particular thing you want to bring before the Commission; Yes, it is a little complaint in regard to the expenditure of the "thirds." Warkworth lies to the east of our settlement but in spite of our petitions for a road to run east to our local port, which is east loi shipment to Auckland, which is our main port and lies south, our money has been spent on the road that leads north. I have paid £45 for roads since 1 have been there, and the road in front of my section has never been touched. Why should our "thirds" be spent on the north road in order to enable us to go east to get south. All our petitions have been disregarded. I tried to take the case into the open Court, but, after paying 10s. 6d. as solicitor s fee, I found I could not. I think Crown tenants ought to be able to take these matters to open Court. 86. Mr. McCutchan.} Did you petition the Land Board for the expenditure of your " thirds "?—I did petition the Upper Mahurangi Road Board. 87. Did the Land Board require no petition from you before they sanctioned the Road Board schedule?— That is where I might have made a mistake through not knowing better.^ 88. Since you communicated with the Land Board, has any portion ot the thuds been expended ?—I have not got an answer yet. 89 Are you aware that the " thirds " must be expended m giving access to your land?— Yes, but I never got it. They claim that this is the natural outlet, and that we are receiving the benefit of the "thirds." ... 90. With reference to Road Boards spending rates where they like, would you be ra tavour of it being made compulsory on all local bodies to keep road accounts, so that every settler would be able to see the financial position of his road?— Yes, I would. 91 And that rates from his land should not be spent elsewhere than on his road, except with his consent? —Quite so. 92 Mr Paul.] Are you satisfied with the constitution ot Land Boards (—Yes. 93' Are the other settlers quite satisfied?— Quite satisfied. I never heard a bond fide settler who had not the money to pay dotfn for the land wishing for the freehold. I have been trying to persuade myself who had a right to sell the land and whose land it was to sell. 94. You are not clear whether we own it or the Maoris ?—Whether we who live now should own it or the unborn millions should own it. _ 95. Mr. Anstey.] Is there a surveyed road going east from your section (—No.
a—4.
886
[e. a. peioe.
96. Is there any road at all? —None. 97. Then, it would necessitate the buying of land for this road? —It should have been put there in the first place. 98. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office? —1 have, quite unsuccessfully. I owed a man £50, and 1 wanted the money. 1 applied to the Advances to Settlers Office, and I could not get £50. I had two hundred head of cattle, and I could have sold out for £400. The reason given was that there were not sufficient improvements. Leonard Richard Piiillipps examined. 99. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I am also president of the Auckland Branch of the Farmers' Union. 100. How much land do you hold? —I am one of five brothers, and we hold between us 1,600 acres of freehold. The land is at Wharepapa, on the Kaipara River, four miles from here. My father had the property before us, so that I have really been on the land all my life. 101. Are you here as representing the union?—l have come to give my own views as a farmer, and I shall speak also in my official capacity. 102. Do you wish to make a statement ?—Yes. The first question I understand is the constitution of the Land Board. As a practical farmer, I think that it is in the best interests of the State and of the farmers that the Land Board should be partially elective by the rural ratepayers, through the medium of the County Councils—say, giving them three representatives, and the other two should be appointed by the Government. The other would be the Commissioner. That would give ample protection to the general public through the medium of the Government, and would bring to bear in the deliberations of that body a practical knowledge of the feelings and aspirations, and the grievances, and so on, of the settlers in the different districts. As a matter of convenience I would suggest that the County Councils should elect the representatives. As to the question of tenure, I, amongst the vast majority of my fellow-settlers, believe in the freehold, or the right to ultimately acquire the freehold, because it gives to us ail assurance that the whole result of our efforts shall be secured to us, and, in a new country like this, where one takes up a piece of land, if he goes in for systematic improvements, it is impossible for him to get it out in anything like his lifetime. In my place we have been working for thirty-five years, and I feel satisfied I shall reach the end of my life before the place is brought into the condition I should like to see it. A good settler in breaking in his country is working for his children, for the good settler regards his home as a trust for his children; but if it is a leasehold, with the fear of revaluation at short periods, as suggested in some quarters, the result will be that the holder for his own protection will exhaust before the expiration of that time, as far as possible, any money he put into it. And on this question of revaluation I feel very strongly, and it is a point upon wTiicli the Farmers' Union feel seriously, because they believe it will lead to the deterioration of the land. If the tenure does not secure their holdings to them they will, instead of being land-im-provers, become land-exploiters. _Tlie trades and Labour Council have proposed that all existing leases shall be subject to revaluation. And, in reference to this question, they either propose to legislate upon something which they do not understand, or else they want to impose conditions upon another section of workers less favourable than those they desire for themselves. In the first place, if there is to be a periodical revaluation the settlers are not going to put in the improvements they ought, which would increase the wealth of the State and lead to pi osperity generally, but would take all they could out of the land before their term was up. The unfortunate part of the proposals of those people who wish to impose upon the colony certain " fads " and experiments is that they want to appoint an army of Inspectors, who will compel the settlers to do certain things. I feel satisfied that the spirit of the race which lias colonised this country, and other countries, will not tamely submit to any attempt of the kind. We are the sons of Britishers, and it is that spirit which has enabled us to become masters of the world—the leading nation. We are not serfs of Russia, nor fellahs of Egypt. Nor would the settlers of this colony submit to the tyrany which would be essential to make them keep on improving their places if they were subjected to short periods of revaluation. There would be a revolt, and this might lead to the horrors of civil war. I feel satisfied I am voicing the opinions of the farmers when I say they would not tamely submit to anything of the kind. Now, it is claimed there is a considerable amount of unearned increment which should belong to the State. I believe if the Trades and Labour Council appointed a small commission from amongst themselves to go round amongst the settlers and come in contact with them, they would get a more accurate opinion of them and their work, and would be in a better position to judge of what they really obtained by their labour. I say, without fear of contradiction, that a farmer to be successful requires at least a capacity equal to that of a carpenter. Now, carpenters claim that they are entitled to Is. 3d. an hour for an ei°"ht-hours day, and if a carpenter works more he must have time and a quarter, and on Sunday double time. Well, if those conditions are right for one section of the community they are right for the farmer, and if a farmer were to get paid at that rate his income would be about £260 a year. Now, I am led to understand that in the dairying industry, for instance, under conditions most favourable for the purpose, the most one man can handle is about fifteen cows, and the most he can get out of them is about £12 a cow, and even that is exceptional. That would be £180 a vear from fifteen cows. That leaves him far short of what lie should be earning on the basis of what the carpenter claims as fair pay for his work. I feel satisfied if the labour party were to concede to the farming community what they desire for themselves there would be no unearned increment left, because there would be a deficiency on what the farmer ought to earn in wages Now, in reference to the question of the right of the lease-in-perpetuity tenants to acquire the freehold 'if we were sure that the lease-in-perpetuity tenure was secure it would no doubt be equal to a freehold; but the term is so long and there have been so many agitations made for revaluation The resolutions passed at the last meeting of the Trades and Labour Council in the
887
C—4.
L. R. PHILLIPPS.]
south were in ths direction that when the present holders gave up the next generation should have to pay an increased rent. That is a proposal to violate the terms of the contract, because it was supposed to go on for 999 years, and it is quite competent for the New Zealand Legislature to revoke any of its Acts if it thinks fit. And when we know the influence that the trades and labour people has had upon legislation for so many years, we have some fear that their proposal might be put into effect. You may ask whdt advantage there would then be in the freehold. Well, there are only a certain number of tenants under the lease in perpetuity, but there are a great number of freeholders, and if the land-nationalisation ideas were carried further they would have to interfere with all the freeholders of the colony, and those who wanted the freehold would get the strong support of all those freeholders in the colony, and I do not think any Minister would attempt to violate the freehold conditions, as there is the enviable feeling of security on the part of those in this colony who, upon any question, can muster a reasonable number of votes for their protection. Then, as to the terms upon which they should secure the freehold. The union, of which 1 am a representative, holds that the tenants should have it at the original valuation, on payment of the difference in the rent paid as between the lease in perpetuity and the occupation with right of purchase, together with the interest upon that. 103. Mr. McCardlei\ Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —No, but on studying the question from the Year-book 1 thoroughly indorse the idea and the regulations for the protection of the State in connection with it. 104. Mr. Pauli\ Have you any objection to the Land Boards as at present constituted? —I have had no personal experience, but on the broad principle I think it is desirable that an important body of that kind should not be in the hands, as it sometimes happens, of men who are very zealous party henchmen and of defeated parliamentary candidates. 105. "Who proposes revaluation at short periods? —That has come from the Trades and Labour Council as, I think, you must know. 106. What is the period? —That it shall be at the death of the present holder. 107. That is not revaluation at short periods? —The suggestion made by the Trades and Labour Council in the past has been twenty-one years. 108. When did they make that suggestion? —They have made that on several occasions, and 1 think you are quite conversant with it. 109. Would you be surprised if I told you they have never fixed any term for revaluation beyond expressing perhaps a certain amount of satisfaction with the old perpetual lease, which fixes the first period at thirty years, and subsequent periods of twenty-one years? —I should be surprised, because I have seen it in print on several occasions that they favour twenty-one years; but they have distinctly stated now that there should be an increase in rent when the present holder either dies or sells. 110. You speak of the position of the town dwellers —carpenters, for instance —as being much more favourable than that of the farmers. Are you conversant with the position of town dwellers? -I know the conditions under which many of the carpenters live, and 1 know the conditions under which many of the farmers live. 111. You accuse the Trades and Labour Council of an attempt to violate the terms of the present leases: do you think the Farmers' Union are guilty of an attempt to violate the terms of the leases when they ask for the freehold, or do you think it would be better for all classes to stand by any bargain the State may have made with any section of the people? —This question was brought under the notice of the Farmers' Union by the Crown tenants, and the Farmers' Union considered that when these proposals were being made for revaluation, it would be better to settle the question once and for all, and give an opportunity of acquiring the freehold. 112. I suppose you are aware that this last pronouncement of the labour party is the first occasion upon which they have advocated retrospective revaluation in any shape or form? —Well, the position previously could be read both ways, and I think it was the Premier who first made the statement that it was to be for the future. 113. I think you have in your mind's eye the same meeting that I have, and you would know that the deputation agreed that there should be no retrospective revaluation. It happened when a deputation from'the Trades and Labour Council were interviewing the Premier he said it was time they made their position perfectly clear as to whether they wanted retrospective revaluation or not, and they unanimously agreed that there was no desire on the part of the labour party for retrospective revaluation ?- When the Premier made that suggestion they assented, but they did not alter afterwards their platform. It is in print, and I have in my pocket the report of a meeting, held in Wellington on the 6th May, at which they suggested that existing leases should be subject to revaluation. 114. Mr. Anstey.] This freehold question is one of the main planks of the Farmers' Union platform ? —Yes. 115. Has that always been so —the granting of the right to the Crown tenants? —Yes. 116. How long has the union been in existence?- It has been some seven or eight years in existence, but it has only been in what I might call an organized condition for three years. 117. You say this question of rhe freehold was brought under the notice of the Farmers' Union by the Crown tenants, and you admitted that this was one of the planks of the platform from the start ? —The position at first was that all future tenants should have the right of purchase, but it was only last year that the Farmers' Union definitely took up this question of the Crown tenants. It has been discussed by different branches of the union previously, but it was onlv definitely decided upon at the last meeting in Wellington. 118. With regard to lease-in-perpetuity tenants under the Land for Settlements Act who pay 5 per cent., upon what terms would you give them the right of purchase?—l was not aware they paid 5 per cent., but if that is so I should give them the right to purchase at the original valuation.
888
JL. E. PHILLIPPS.
0.—4.
119. What would you say in the case of an estate settled for ten years through which the Government had carried a railway, thus enhancing the value of the land by £1 an acre. Would you give that £1 an acre to the tenants? —Well, the more you assist a settler to develop his land in a legitimate way the better it is for the land generally, and I think you would be justified in allowing the settler to have any reasonable advantage from that, always with this provision, that he should be taxed. I believe in a land-tax on the using value, and the settler would pay tlnough that medium. 120. Do you believe in a single tax? —No. 121. I suppose you believe in the principle of a graduated land-tax? In principle I do not, but as a matter of policy I might. 122. You say every Britisher has a strong wish for the freehold: is there not also a strong desire on the part of every Britisher to get out of debt? A good many do not seem to get out of debt. . 123. Do you not think that a settler who gets upon the land under the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure will be struggling as much as possible all the time he is holding his land to scrape up sufficient funds to purchase, and that the improvements will be thus neglected ?—Not necessarily. . 124. Do you think he will have enough money to make improvements and invest money in the purchase as well? -I think a man should have sufficient discretion to manage his own business. 125. Do you not think that if he has just sufficient money to get the freehold he would put that money into improvements ? —lf a person could feel satisfied that there was to be no violation of his lease it would be different, but we know what human nature is, and we know there is a tendency always to protect I believe the best interest of the State would be served by that tenure which will induce the best production by the occupier. I believe in a man being a landuser and not a speculator. . , , 126. Do you think that the best witnesses to give unbiased evidence are the men who wished to get such legislation passed as will give them the freehold ? Human nature is pretty much the same all over the world, but what about the other people who want revaluation ? 127. We have been told to-day that no one should come before the Commission to give evidence unless he was a farmer: is not a disinterested party just as likely to give valuable evidence as an interested party ?—Speaking for myself, I approach this question without prejudice, and without any personal feeling whatever. I believe it is a question upon which those who have practical knowledge of it are the most fitted to give evidence, and I think the Commission would understand whether a man was giving evidence simply for selfish purposes or whether he was dealing with the question on broad lines. . , 128. Do you think that the man most fitted to lay down the laws m reference to the lands ot the colony is the man who has been all his life following the plough, or, say, a professional man in a town who has closely watched the application of the laws in the past?- -I think the farmer would be the better man, because I think he looks at the subject from a practical standpoint. 129. You think the farmers are more likely to bring out the best land laws, not only for themselves but for the colony as a whole—town lands as well as -country?—l was not speaking about town lands. 130. Land is land wherever it is. You think the townspeople should deal with the town lands, and that the country people's opinion should carry the most weight in connection with the Crown land? —Yes. . 131. Does not the existence of the townspeople depend upon the farming of land! bo tar as the city lands are concerned they require different handling altogether. 132. Do you not think that the town-dwellers are interested in the land laws of the country, seeing that their very existence depends upon the lands being properly used ? -Yes, they are very considerably interested. . . 133. Mr. Matheson.] Referring to the question of the option ot purchase, do you think it the landlord and tenantagree a lease can be amended without breaking it?—lt would be a very peculiar position if it could not. , rl 134 with regard to roading, do you think the present system of grants by Government is satisfactory? —No. . . 135. Do you think an assured finance by means of subsidies on the rates levied would be a better system ?—I believe in the subsidies, but that question would have to be handled very carefully so as to give the assistance to those districts which really required it. ' 136. The rich districts would levy a small rate. Do you think the subsidy should be in proportion to the rate levied?—l would favour that to a certain extent, but 1 would still favour annual appropriations by Parliament. I think a Commission might be appointed, whose duty it would be to allocate the moneys available amongst those districts requiring assistance. There are many back-block districts whose revenue is very small. 137. Do vou not think by a careful elaboration an automatic system of subsidies could be arrived at so as to do away with grants, and that such subsidies might be added to by giving a proportion of the royalty received on timber or gum from districts where that was the chief produce?—l think the County Councils get the fees from gum licenses now. 138. Do you not think an additional subsidy on timber royalties might be given ?—What about the districts which have no saleable timber? 139 It would not apply to them, of course. You think that some system of grants is absolutely necessary ?—I believe the present system is wrong, and that there would be an improvement if some system of graduated subsidy was introduced. 140 Mr. McCutchan.] Do you say that the demand made by the Crown lease-m-perpetuity tenants for the freehold was subsequent to the agitation of the trades and labour organizations of the colony for revaluation?—! believe that to be so.
889
0.—4.
L. K. PHILLIPPS.
141. Do you think the pronouncement made by the delegates of the trades and labour union in Wellington in April last for revaluation upon transfer, or at the death of the lessee, is in any way justifiable? —I do not. 142. If the revaluation is carried into effect as suggested it is merely the improvements that shall belong to the tenant, and all other values in the land shall be reassessed, and the rent based upon that assessment ? —Yes. 143. Going a little deeper into the matter, there are three values in leaseholds —namely, the upset value, the value of the tenant's improvements, and the interim value, known as the goodwill. If the value of the tenant's improvements is secured to the tenant, only the whole of the interim value would go to the State? —Yes. 144. Do not lessees very frequently spend large sums of money upon improvements which do not appear within their ring fences? —Yes; I have known large sums of money spent upon improvements, though if a stranger went over the property he would not see them. 145. There are improvements, such as the building of factories, harbour-works, freezingworks, all from capital provided by the settlers of the country, and this expenditure puts an added value on to the land, and under the system of re-assessment advocated that increased value would go to the State? —Yes. 146. Mr. Paul.] Are you sure that is the way it would work out? Do you not think it would be possible to have a system of valuation which would secure to the tenant any value which should accrue to him from his labour, and to the State any value which belongs to it? —I believe that would be impracticable. 147. You know the Government have purchased an estate called Pomahaka, on which it is stated that some of the tenants are-paying too high rent. Do you think under the circumstances those tenants should get no relief ? —lt would become a matter of policy as to whether it would be better to reduce their rent or not, but as a matter of principle I think a person who has entered into a contract should stand to it. 148. Is there anything inequitable in revaluation as applied to future leases? —My own opinion is that it would be detrimental to the best interests of the State, because the occupier of the land would feel that at the end of a certain time there was a probability that his rent would be increased, and there would not be the inducement to the settler to make the best use of his land that there would be if he had security of tenure. There is one point which the landnationalisers seem to loose sight of, and it is that along with the increased prosperity of this colony the revenue of the colony during the last ten years has increased by 68 per cent., and that the values of our exports has increased by 67 per cent. This shows that the colony is getting its advantage out of the increased value. 149. Does land ever depreciate in value? —Yes. 150. Should a tenant get some allowance for that decrease? —I think the tenant should face the vicissitudes of his business as other men do. 151. You cannot say that the principle of revaluation of leases in the future is inequitable? —No; but in practice, I believe it is in the interests of the State to avoid it. 152. Is there anything in the conditions of the lease of the lease in perpetuity provided that it is inviolable to prevent a man fully developing his land under that tenure? —If the tenure was fixed absolutely it would be all right • but we know it is not inviolable, because Parliament can revoke its Acts at any time. 153. The chief objection is the fear of the terms of the lease being broken? —That is my opinion. Vincent Kerr Taylor examined. 154. The Chairman.] What are you I—l1 —I am a farmer. I have 1,200 acres of freehold land at Waimaku about seven miles from Heiensville. I was born in Auckland and have been farming all my life. 155. Have you anything you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I am a member of the Waitemata County Council, and should like to place my views before the Commission both as a farmer and as a member of the local body. 156. Do you approve of the present constitution of Land Boards ?• —No ; I think they should be elected by the Road Boards or the local bodies. Then as to tenure, I believe the freehold is the best so far as my experience of the north is concerned, but I believe in the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure. The 999-years lease is, to my mind, only an abortive attempt at a single-tax. 157. Is there any aggregation of estates in your county ?—No ; I do not think the north is adapted to that, because if a man takes up too much land it becomes merely an incubus to him. 158. Have you any experience of the ballot ? —Not personally, but I do not believe in the ballot system at all. I believe that the sections should be sold by auction to the highest bidder. The ballot, I believe, only leads to corruption and bribery, and induces a system of betting. 159. In what way does it induce bribery ?—The best settlers do not get on to the farms, and dummyism is going on at the present day. 160. Do you not think that " dummyism " would be a better term to apply ? —Perhaps it would. 161. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ? —Yes ; and I think it has been very unsatisfactory here. For instance, when it was first started, those who were not of the right " colour " did not get the money when they applied for it. 162. Are you aware that the thing is administered by a Board I—l know that when I applied for a loan they would not give it, but wlien a little political pressure was afterwards brought to bear they said they would, but I would not then have anything more to do with it. g|l63. Mr. McCanile.] Do you not think you are making a most serious charge against a number of honourable men who administer the affairs of that Board and who are appointed free from political influence ?—I did not know that they were appointed free from political influence,
112—C. 4.
890
[V. K. TAYLOR-
C—4.
164. Do you think you are making a fair charge I—l1 —I think so. 165. Without having the facts before you ?—I had the facts before me. 166. Presumably you were a supporter of some other party than the present Government, but I can tell you I have known of cases where men belonging to the same side of politics as yourself, and others who belonged to the other side of politics, who in the first place were refused loans, but afterwards when the facts were made known justice was done ? —I know of other instances where it occurred. I have only given you my own case so far. 167. You are on your solemn oath and I am only giving you an opportunity of reconsidering the matter. Do you swear positively that certain people used their position in the interests of a certain party ?—I say it was so when the Department was first introduced. 168. Mr. Forbes.] In making advances to settlers, is there not among other things what is called the " moral risk " taken into consideration ? Might it not have been that in your case the valuer may not have estimated your character very highly ; then afterwards your friend who knew you better placed the position more clearly before the Board so that they felt justified in making the advance t There was no need to go far to find out about my moral character. I was born in New Zealand. 169. Do you not think that there is a certain moral risk which the valuers have to take into consideration ?t —Do you consider the Department should have a private-detective system to make such inquiries. 170. How did you find out that this pressure had been brought to bear upon the Department ? I had the pressure brought to bear. 171. Did it bring about the required result ?—Yes, afterwards. 172. Did you consider that fou had sufficient improvements on which to get a loan ? —Decidedly. 173. You do not know what additional fact was brought forward to induce the Department to offer the advance ? —I could not say. 174. Mr. Matheson.] Have you taken any interest in the administration of Native lands ?—I think there should be a great improvement made in that direction. The Natives are not allowed to sell and they have been restricted so far as leasing is concerned. The only suggestion I could make is that the Natives should have more liberty, if not to sell, at any rate to lease, and they should be called upon to pay rates. 175. Mr. Paid.] Did you ever hear of any other applicants for loans being refused by the Advances to Settlers Department ? —A considerable number. 176. Were any of them of the right " colour " ?—The majority were not of the right " colour." All I came across were not. 177. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to your own personal application for a loan. You said you were offered a sum of money subsequently by the Department ?—A couple of years afterwards. 178. Was it the full amount you applied for in the first instance % —No. 179. Might not a reasonable "explanation of the refusal have been that you asked for more money than the Department were prepared to advance ?—There was no explanation. It was simply refused. 180. May not your security have been estimated rather lower by the valuer than you estimated it yourself ? —No ; because the same valuer valued it for land-tax purposes, and why should he give a different value when he is sent around by the Advances to Settlers Department. In this case it was the same person. 181. And did his valuation for land-tax justify the advance you asked for ?—Yes. 182. It was freehold security ?—Yes. The Department advances up to 65 per cent., and it is justified in advancing a good deal more than was asked for. James McLeod examined. 183. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and am a member of the Waitemata County Council. I hold 2,800 acres freehold, with the exception of 230 acres leased from the Education Board. I came to Helensville in 1862. 184. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I think that Land Boards should be partly elected by the local bodies —the County Council to elect three members, the Government to nominate three, and the Commissioner of Crown Lands to preside. 185. What tenure do you think is most advantageous to the country and to the settler ?—The freehold. The deferred-payment system was a very good one and resulted well in this district. There is very little leasehold land in this district. 186. Is there any aggregation of estates going on here ? —No. 187. Have you had any experience with respect to loading for roads ?—Yes ; I know of one case and the conditions were not fulfilled by the Government. 188. Mr. McCutchan.'] What block was it ? —lt was a museum endowment that was cut up by the Government and there was some difference of opinion with the University authorities which resulted in an unsatisfactory condition of affairs with respect to that land. 189. Mr. McLennan.] Do you use your land for cropping or grazing ? —Mostly grazing. 190. Do the farmers in this district go in for sheep ? —Some of them, and sheep do very well on the land. 191. Was the land originally under tea-tree ?—lt was mixed forest and tea-tree. 192. Is it fit for ploughing ? —Yes, a good deal of it. 193. Is the land fit for growing oats or wheat ?—Yes ; but the farmers only grow for their own consumption. 194. Mr. Anstey.] In your opinion is the dual control of the County Council and Road Boards economical ? —I think the Road Boards handle the money as well as any other local body. There is much expenditure thrown on local bodies in carrying out the law. I think that Road Boards work
891
C.-4.
J. MCLEOD.
very well with County Councils* and I think it would be well to allow the present system to remain as it is. 195. Do you think it would be wiser if a more assured system of finance were provided for local bodies whereby they could get a much larger subsidy on local rates ? —I think there should be a subsidy on rates. lam of opinion that the present system of grants is not a satisfactory one, because it is not the districts that really require the grants that get them. 196. M■>•. Matheson.] Do you not consider that the Land Board is in the position of a steward to administer the public estate for the good of the people ?—Yes. 197. If that is so, how can you justify your contention that the tenants or the people should have the right of electing the stewards ?—I think the local bodies as representing the people of the district should elect them. Ido not think the people in the cities desire to have a voice in the election. 198. As a matter of equity, does it not seem right that the people in the cities should have the right of having a voice in the selection of the stewards who are administering the lands for the public good ? —I do not think so. I should like to say something in regard to Native land. In the riding I represent in the Waitemata County Council there are about 16,000 acres of Native lands all lying idle. There are numbers of people willing to take up that land, but it has not been thrown open. The main road going from Helensville to the South Head runs through that land for six miles, and the County Council have to keep the road in repair and yet they receive no rates from the land. The Maoris are only too anxious to lease their land, but they are not allowed to do so. Even if the County Council recommended the leasing of those lands it can be vetoed by the Government. The Maoris meet here from time to time and discuss this matter, but they get no further ahead, and in the end the land is swallowed up in expenses. There should be some better system of dealing with this land. The present Native Land Act is a very bad one. There is another Act in force, the Kauri-gum Act. We have great difficulty in dealing with that Act. We are supposed to collect license-fees from gum-diggers, but it is almost impossible to do so. It would keep a man continually riding from daylight to dark in order to get the license fees, and then he would not get a quarter of them. I think there should be an export duty on gum and the local body should receive a proportion from the district in which it is eo'lected, and there should be no license at all. Luther John Ambury examined. 199. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and hold 400 acres ; a portion is freehold and a part lease with right of purchase. My land is two miles from Helensville, some of it seven miles. I hold three sections. 200. Are you satisfied with the occupation with right of purchase as a tenure ? —Yes. 201. What is your view on the land-tenure question ? —I believe in the freehold, but the lease with right of purchase is a very good tenure. I*f I could not get a freehold in this country I would take my family and go to another country. As to the constitution of Land Boards, I think it would be only reasonable that the settlers should have a voice in appointing some members of the Board. I think that some members should be elected through the County Council. I am of opinion that one-half of the Board should be nominated—the Commissioner of Crown Lands to have a casting-vote which would give the Government an advantage. 202. Is there any other matter you wish to make any remarks upon ? —With respect to lease in perpetuity and as to settlers having the right of converting their lease-in-perpetuity sections into freehold, my opinion is that where a settler fulfils his obligations in a bond fide manner and on making up the difference, he should be given the right of making the land freehold. I believe there is no farmer in the country who will take the same interest in his land unless he has the right of converting his leasehold into freehold. I may state that recently I spoke to one of the Government valuers. He has a very great knowledge of the country. We were speaking of the Kawhia Block. He said that on going into a country district you can tell by the fences and the condition of farms generally the tenure under which the land is held, and he added that he was quite satisfied that the freehold was the best tenure, and I myself am quite convinced that is so. I have been in New Zealand for twenty-five years. What brought me to this country —and I think the same remark applies to many other people —was the expectation of getting a bit of freehold land. As long as I can hold a piece of freehold I hope to make my home on it and to be a credit to the country. As to the ballot system, I may say that I got a section of land by means of the ballot, but I think it is a system that is abused. There are different views as to the best system to adopt. Ido not know sufficient of other systems to offer a definite suggestion. Some people recommend the auction system. But I think under that persons desiring to secure land are apt to lose their judgment in competing for a section. 203. Mr. McCutchan.] If a man is a good farmer under freehold do you think he would become a bad farmer under leasehold ?—I do not say that he will, but I do not think he will farm his land with the same interest. 204. Do you not think it depends on the man and not on the tenure ?—lt may to a certain extent. 205. Mr. Paul.] Is there any absentee lands held in this district ?—Not that I know of. 206. What is the necessity for nominating any part of the Land Board if the principle of electing half of the Board is a sound one ?—I think the suggestion I have made with respect to election of some members of the Board would be a fair one. 207. Do you think the valuer you spoke of could by looking over a fence pick out a clear freehold from a freehold with a mortgage on it. ?—I do not say that he could. 208. Do you think you could pick out a leasehold from a freehold by looking at the land ?—I do not say that I can, but I know the spirit with which I should go to work on a freehold section and on a leasehold section.
C.—4.
892
L. J. AMBUEY.
209. Mr. Anstey.] Are there many leaseholders in this district ?—Not very many. 210. You have not had much experience in regard to leaseholders ? —No. 211. Are there good roads in this district ?— In the immediate vicinity of Helensville the roads are passable, but they are very expensive to make. Speaking ol roads generally, this part of the colony is called " the roadless north," and I do not think it has had anything like its fair share of public expenditure on roads, taking into consideration what it has produced in the way of timber and gum, and I think we ought to have much better roads than we have. 212. Are these roads expensive to form and metal ? —ln this immediate vicinity all the metal comes by rail from Auckland, which makes metalling very expensive. 213. Do you know whether the funds at the disposal of the local bodies are economically expended 1 —I think they are fairly well expended, but the great drawback is that there are many votes passed which are not expended at all. Charles Fordyce examined. 214. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and hold about 380 acres freehold, situated two miles and a half from Helensville. I have been here since 1882. 215. What are your views with respect to land-tenure ?—I believe in the freehold or leasehold with the option of purchase. 216. What is your opinion in regard to the lease in perpetuity ?—I think that in some respects it is an advantage and in others it is a disadvantage. I think the disadvantages are chiefly that the holder of a lease-in-perpetuity section may have difficulty in dealing with it or disposing of it either by will or otherwise. If he gets intp difficult circumstances that may cause him to fall into arrear with his rent and not be able to fulfil the conditions of his lease, I think the Government is also placed at a disadvantage in that they are not able to obtain a fair share of revenue in the shape of taxation from the holders of these lands. I may state that I was brought up on a leasehold farm in the Old Country and I know the difficulties of leaseholders, and I know how strong is the desire for the freehold. I know that some of the most far-seeing landowners at home are now giving the option of the freehold to their tenants. I may mention the Duke of FyfEe as an instance. If the capital value of the land is obtained by the landowner or by the Government it must be to the advantage of the State in this colony to secure that in lieu of borrowing money from another country, inasmuch as it does not necessitate a' Government Department to manage these leasehold estates, which always means expense, and in that way becomes a burden to the community. In respect to Land Boards I think that a partiallyelected Board would be expedient. In my opinion the principal danger is that nominees of the Government are not always unbiassed, and there should be an element on the Board to counteract that. It has been suggested that County Councils should elect certain members of the Board and I think that is a very fair method. In regard to the ballot, I think that is an iniquitous system. It is simply a lottery, and lotteries have been condemned in some civilised countries, and as a rule they are not permitted in this country. I could mention instances in support of my views in regard to the ballot system. 217. What would you put in its place ?—The system of selection, and when there is more than one applicant for a section I think it should be put up to auction. There may be other systems, but at present I cannot suggest a better one than that. Of course, I know that even under that system there are drawbacks. We can get no perfect system, but as a matter of expediency I think that is the best. If at auction people offer more than the land is worth, they have themselves to blame. I am of opinion also that, the deferred-payment system would be a good one, the selectors paying 5 per cent, subject to making certain improvements on the land as a guarantee for the State. I have an idea that while the present system has been so far successful, it has been entirely on account of the prosperous times that farmers have had during the last few years. In regard to the pressure of restrictions on the holders of Crown lands, I think the better plan would be that they should make improvements up to a certain value in any way instead of being compelled to build houses where they may not be necessary. I think if the Government see that sufficient improvements are made it should be left to the occupier of "the land to use his own judgment in regard to buildings, &c. As to the aggregation of large estates, while admitting that large estates are a disadvantage, I do not think that any hard-and-fast rule should obtain. Ido not think it is expedient to make a hard-and-fast rule as to how much land a man should hold. Personally, I may say that some years ago I had much more land than I hold now, and I mean to hold less by-and-by. I have no desire to accumulate a large amount of land, but my reason for coming to New Zealand was that I thought I would be able to obtain a freehold on conditions that were comparatively favourable. But I think, taking one thing with another, the disadvantages even in the case of the freeholder here counterbalance the disadvantages they have in the Old Country. 218. Mr. McCardle.] Do you remember the old auction system in the case of deferred-payment land ?—Yes. 219. Is it not a fact that the Government had to set up valuation Courts to reduce these valuations of land so taken up by nearly one-half owing to the adoption of the auction system ?—I am not aware of that. 220. Mr. McCutchan.] One of your objections to the lease in perpetuity tenure is the difficulty of the disposal of the property by will ?—Yes ; and not only by will, but in connection with subdivision and the necessary expenses which that entails. John Alexander Wilson examined. 221. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and hold 2,500 acres freehold. I have been in this district sixteen years. 222. What are your views in respect to land tenure ?—I believe in the freehold. 223. What is your opinion in regard to the constitution of Land Boards ?•—I believe that they should be partly elected by the country ratepayers.
J. A. WILSON.]
893
C—4
224. Is there any other point you would like to mention to the Commission ?—The only point I would like to say something on is regarding the timber, the gum, and the Crown lands questions. It seems to me that the roads derive 110 benefit from all the gum and timber that is sold off the land, and I think it is only right that they should have a share of the timber royalties. There has been an agitation for it, but it has not been successful. We get the gum-license fees, but they do not amount to much. Thomas Manning examined. 225. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and hold 73 acres of freehold, and 1 have held that land for fifteen years. I use the land principally for dairying, and it is situated about two miles from Helensville. 226. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I am in favour of the freehold system and leasehold with right of purchase. 227. Have you had any dealings with the Advances [to Settlers Department ? —Yes, and my experience has been quite satisfactory. William Dawson examined. 228. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and hold 144 acres of freehold. I have been farming here for forty-five years on the same farm. I believe firmly in the freehold. I may say that I went on to my farm forty-five years ago when there was not a square yard of cleared land, and I have got the place all laid down in grass owing to the labour of my own hands. I should not have taken such an interest in the property if it had not been for the freehold. There is one matter in respect to which Ido not think-we are well treated. Votes are sometimes passed for road purposes, and they cannot be obtained until well on in the winter, and thus the work cannot be done at the best time in the year. I think the money should be expended during the proper season. Horatio Hjorth examined. 229. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am an orchardist and own 50 acres, and use 10 acres of my land for orchard purposes. I started on my place about twenty years ago. 1 grow apples mostly, but also peaches, plums, and a few oranges, but the latter are not a success. 230. Do you find fruit-growing satisfactory ?—Yes. 231. Do you make your living by that ?—Yes, I do now, after a very long struggle indeed. 232. Were you troubled with codlin-moth and other pests ? —Yes, I have been troubled with codlinmoth. I have tried many remedies but have found none very efficient. I understand the Department sent to America for samples of a new parasite that has been discovered in Spain, and which is said to be very effective in destroying the larvae. It differs from other parasites on the codlin in this respect, that it is capable of penetrating the cocoon larvse, and deposits its eggs inside. If the Department is able to obtain some specimens of this enemy of the codlin-moth, there is no doubt New Zealand may become one of the greatest apple-producing countries in the world. As to colour of the fruit Ido not think we have an equal in any other country, but I do not say the flavour of the fruit is quite as good as it is in some colder climates. The cost of spraying is rather great. As I have said, I think there is a great future for fruit-growing in this colony, especially in the case of apples. Fruit-growing requires good land, just as any other crop does, and to encourage any poor man to go and plant fruit-trees 011 gum lands would be a sin, because a man must have capital to work the land properly and manure it heavily. I speak from many years of toil and experience. The gum lands are deficient in potash. With regard to tenure, lam a firm believer in the freehold. As a Norwegian lam born and bred to the freehold, and my idea is a man will tackle a piece of land which is his own which a leaseholder would not look at. It gives a man a feeling of independence when he knows that his land is his own, and that he can hand it down to his children. That same feeling in the British race has been inherited from us. -233. Mr. Forbes.] Could vines be grown in the land you spoke of without heavy manuring ?— The vine will succeed splendidly perhaps and grow well for a few years even without potash, but after awhile I am confident you cannot grow vines here without eventually having to manure. Auckland, Saturday, 27th May, 1905. George Wilks examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a clergyman of the Church of England in the first place, aud also a farmer at East Tamaki. I hold 367 acres of freehold. I would not have a Government leasehold under any consideration. I have held this land three years, but I have been farming at Wanganui and Feilding previously. I was born and brought up on a farm in England. I would like to state that perhaps it would give weight to my evidence to the general public that in 1891 I was acting as valuer to the Government. lam certain the Department were thoroughly satisfied with my work because I had a letter to that effect, and the settlers were also satisfied with my valuations, because, although there were thirteen objections, not one of the objectors turned up, and my valuations were all sustained. I represent the Farmers' Union of Auckland. Besides that I also represent all freeholders and, I think, every man who has the. good of this colony at heart. I propose to lay before you things that you have not had placed before you previously, judging by what I have read in the papers. I intend to divide the land question into three —the sentimental, the financial, and the statesmanlike aspects. Now the sentimental ms 1 ' be represented by what is set constantly before you, "lam in favour of the freehold.'' I wish to lay before you this statement: —
C—4.
894
[g. wilks.
" I, George Wilks, farmer, of East Tamaki, Auckland, New Zealand, support the freehold because: (1.) If the State sold all the Crown lands to bond fide settlers it would be better off financially than if it retained and leased the said lands, as there is no unearned increment on rural lands in the aggregate in New Zealand. (2.) That the settlers having the freehold or right of purchase will be more truthful, honest, upright, manly, thoughtful, thrifty, painstaking, braver, more patriotic, more enterprising, displaying more originality, and will produce a far nobler race of men than Government leaseholders. (3.) That the logical outcome of the State acquiring all the freehold lands of the colony and leasing the same —which is undoubtedly the set purpose of the Seddon Government —that there would be— absolutely no security for moneys saved by thrifty settlers, no means of securing provision for widows and children, no security for moneys left by generous donors for charitable or religious purposes ; the banks would have nothing but personal security for overdrafts ; the Auckland savings-bank would have to close its doors, doubtless without being able to meet the demands of the working-men whose hardearned savings are invested there ; there would be no security for building societies, as the freehold carries with it all hereditaments —corporeal and incorporeal; the buildings that would eventually be erected by the people of the colony would be of a most flimsy kind, everything used by the settler would be of the simplest and most inexpensive kind ; the savings of the thrifty would be kept in teapots or in the form of personal adornments, rings, &c, and hid from the prying eyes of the tax-collector — i.e., the rent-collector ; it would take away the security for the Public Trust Office, which has a million and a half invested on freehold. (4.) That New Zealand would sink into a lower social condition than ' good ould Oireland ' if all the land were made leasehold, as no house, no room, and not even a wife's bedroom would be free from the prying, inquisitorial inspection of Government rangers. (5.) That the present Government leaseholders a/e perfectly right in their views that they cannot trust the present Government, as a Fair Rent Act would most undoubtedly override mere contracts. (6.) That it is in the interests of the Colony of New Zealand that the present land laws be altered so that all the lands now held by the State be leased with right of purchase, the lessees having the right to pay off sums of £10 or multiple of that sum at any half-yearly payment; that the freehold may be acquired after the expiration of five years from the commencement of lease ; that all lands, whether leasehold or freehold, be subject to the land or property tax, £500 exemption ; that the Maori lands be individualised at once, and that sufficient land be set apart for each head of family, widow, spinster, or bachelor to support them, and that the rest be sold on their behalf on the same terms and conditions as the land now belonging to the State, and that the proceeds of such land be invested in New Zealand Consols. (7.) That, if the above were carried out, it would solve the Native question, and would dispense with a very large army of Civil servants who are now living on the working-men of this colony." In the first place, according to the land report, £151,000 is the income derived from the land under the Laud for Settlements Act. Now, if the prime cost of that which is given here as £3,620,000 were sold to bond fide settlers at 5 per cent., it would produce an income of £181,000. In other words, it would be a gain to the State and to the people of New Zealand of not less than £30,000. That is irrefutable. That is the sum and substance of the result of the Land for Settlements Act. I find by the Post and Telegraph Office Report that the total amount the Government have borrowed for the Land for Settlements Account from the Post Office funds is £3,617,000 out of a total of £3,860,000 which has been invested by the working-men of this colony in the Post-Office Savings- Bank. The Government are paying these men 3 per cent, on sums from £200 to £500, and 3| per cent, on sums up to £200. And this same Government are charging some of these poor settlers on the land no less than 10 per cent, and 9 per cent, and 8 per cent. Here is a case of 8 per cent. I have worked the figures out from the departmental report. At Kereta they are charging a settler no less than 8 per cent, for a piece of land ; at Merivale they are charging 7 per cent., and at Marewhenua they are charging 1\ per cent. As I came along the road yesterday I passed a property of 320 acres, half of which belongs to an institution here and half of which is a freehold. The institution is charging Bs. per acre rent for the land, and the owner next to them wants £1 per acre. In other words the institution are only getting 2or 3 per cent, for land near Auckland, and the Government are charging these poor beggars 8 and 7 \ per cent. '2. You are entirely wrong : by law the Government can only charge their tenants 5 per cent., and that is all they are charging ?—I have worked the figures out, and as a Cambridge man and one knowing something about mathematics I guarantee I am right, with all due respect to you, Mr. Chairman. I refer to two cases to show you the way in which they buy land. They bought Pomahaka, and all I can say is that £10,000 was fooled away. It is in the public record. Another £8,000 was fooled away on the Aorangi Block near Feilding. That block was offered to me and to other people by a land agent, who is now dead, at £10 per acre. There was a little boom, and in a few months that land went up to £11 per acre, but it was bought by the Government and paid for at £14 4s. per acre. About £8,000 of public money was fooled away on that land. Now I come to the most important question, and it is the keynote of the whole position. It is the fight between leasehold and freehold. The leaseholders are the aggressors because we have had the freehold for generations past. It is the leaseholders who have to prove there is such a thing as unearned increment. I declare, and I stake my reputation on it, that there is no such thing as unearned increment on rural lands in New Zealand. Every bit is earned by the settlers themselves. As a settler and as a valuer I know it. One case occurred lately. The Thames Valley Land Company bought their land for £1 ss. per acre from the Maoris, and I was told by a friend of mine that it cost 15s. per acre to buy the land. Therefore that land cost £2 per acre, and it was sold the other day to the Government for Bs. per acre. Where, I ask, is the unearned increment ? I know case after case of the same description where money that has been put into the land has never been seen again. Allow me to call your attention to this fact: You see Canada is going ahead. Why ? Canada does not send advertisements out as we do to encourage people to settle on the land, stating that the principle underlying the land policy of this colony is State ownership. The Canadian Government send out advertisements of this kind : " Free farms of 160 acres." That is free-
895
C—4.
G. WILKS.
hold, mind, and that is the reason why Canada is getting hundreds of thousands of settlers while we are getting a few paltry hundreds. We want men with money and men with brains, and men with energy to settle our waste lands. The history of England is that land has gone down in value from £50 to £20 per acre in the last few years. In the eastern part of Canada it was the same. Again, landnationalisers talk about land-values going up. How high is land going up ? Only so high as will allow a man to live on the land and produce something,- but never any higher. It will depend entirely on the produce from the land. The Chairman intimated at this stage that as time was very limited the Commission would not be able to devote any more time to the witness, who was asked to hand in the following extracts bearing on the points he had made :— " ' Studies of Canada,' by Dr. Parkin. —(P. 12): ' The Canadian-Pacific Railway Company challenges investigation of its lands, and gives free passes to those who wish to examine them with a view to settlement. It sends out experienced agents to assist the individual settler in making a choice. The trouble taken will be well repaid, for of all immigration agents the contented settler is by far the best.' (P. 41) : ' Many are Canadians returning after trying their fortunes in the United States. Most seemed to be bringing with them money, horses, cattle, and household equipment. Best of all, they bring skill in pioneering-work and acquaintance with its conditions, in these points having an infinite superiority over the emigrant direct from Europe. It was striking to observe the confidence and reliance upon their own resources with which these men, accompanied by their wives and children, faced the task of finding homes for themselves north of the Saskatchewan in the months of October and November, when the long, severe winter was all before them.' (P. 117) : 'Land-values have decreased of late in Canada, as in England, and it is easy to buy farms partly improved and with buildings on them at a reasonable rate.' (P. 230) : 'To make farm life attractive should surely be one of the aims of an age perplexed by the problems which have arisen out of an overgrown city population. The steps taken by the Government of Canada to attain this end seem practical and eminently noteworthy.' " ' Social Arrows,' by Lord Brabazon, son of Earl of Meath, 1886. —(P. 233) : ' Remedies for overpopulation and destitution) : (1.) Teaching every child in the National elementary schools some trade or occupation by means of which he or she can earn a living. (2.) Establishing technical schools and colleges where the higher branches of industrial and technical arts could be taught to those scholars who, in the industrial department of the elementary schools, had shown marked ability. (3.) Pounding scholarships in connection with these technical schools. (4.) The reform of restrictions to the easy possession, sale, and transfer of land. (5.) The gradual sale by the Government of Crown lands in small lots on easy terms of payment. (6.) The establishment of companies like the Small Farm and Labourers' Holdings Company, for the purchase of land and its resale in small holdings. (7.) A reform in licensing laws.' " Unearned Increment taken for granted. —(' Jabez Easterbrook,' by Joseph Hocking, p. 101) : ' There are, lam afraid, but few people who really think. In spite of all our boast about mental culture, it is evident that a large number of people allow others to do all their thinking. Politicians to a large extent have their political beliefs formed by the leading articles in the newspapers they read, instead of taking facts as they stand, and deducing opinions from those facts ; or, better still, taking sound principles, and, from a thorough study of them, building their political faith. Hence it is that, unknowing to ourselves, we live the life of parasites rather than of living organisms.' " Unearned Increment: ' The Strawberry Girl,' purchased by Sir Joseph Reynolds in 1773 for the Earl of Carysfoot for 50 guineas, was in 1856 acquired by the Marquis of Hertford for £2,205, or forty-two times the original price. The seven allegorical figures and other compartments of the Oxford window painted by Sir Joseph Reynolds were offered to a nobleman for £300, and after Sir Joshua's death were sold for upwards of £12,000. " Hokitika. —Forty years ago Hokitika was a town of thirty thousand inhabitants. There were one hundred hotels in the main street, all thriving on the imprudence of the miner. It has now a population of two thousand. Decrement, not unearned increment. " Ireland and the Freehold.—' We may observe how the same problem has been tackled by the Government in a happy land not far away, Ireland to wit. Apart from the Acts of 1870 and 1881, we may begin with the Ashbourne Act of 1885, an Act which passed the committee stage in each House in a single sitting. It encouraged tenants to buy and landlords to sell; the Land Commission, if satisfied that the land was good security for the advance, and that the title was in order, advanced the whole of the purchase-money, and the tenant repaid it by a payment of 4 per cent, on the purchase price. In forty-nine years he would have liquidated principal and interest, for of the £4 only £2 15s. was required for interest, and the balance of £1 ss. went to the repayment of the loan. In six years no less than ten millions of public money was lent to Irish tenant farmers in this way to enable them to buy the holdings they cultivated. The Act of 1891 was not so happy, owing to its complicated procedure ; but equally good results have been attained under the Act of 1896, with an easier graduated method of repayment. In short, a tenant may purchase his holding for, say, £1,000 ; the State finds the whole purchase-money, and the tenant repays it by a payment of £40 per year continued for not more than forty-nine years. In this way, in seventeen years twenty millions were loaned, enabling the Irish tenant to become the owners of about 3,000,000 acres of land, for which they had been formerly paying a rent of one and a quarter millions yearly. Lastly, the Government has gone one better, and in the Act of last year has not only provided for a loan of £100,000,000 for this purpose, but also has provided an extra inducement to landlords to sell —viz., has offered them £12,000,000 as a free gift in the shape of a 12-per-cent. bonus on the purchase price. If my estimate is not far out, this will enable every agricultural tenant in Ireland to become in time his own landlord.'"
C—4.
896
[a. jack.
Andrew Jack examined. 3. The Chairman.] What are you ? lam a farmer. I was born at the Wade thirty-two years ago. I hold 320 acres under freehold tenure. 4. Is there anything in particular that you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I am here to represent the Wade branch of the Farmers' Union, and simply to state that, to a man, my union are all in favour of the freehold. They consider it is the only incentive to induce any one to live in a district such as we are living in. In fact lam quite certain that if I had had to pay rent I could not have stayed on my farm, and every one else in the district is of the same opinion to a man. 5. How many members are there in your branch of the union ?—Fifty. I may say I represent several other settlers who asked me to do so. lam the duly authorised delegate. 6. The tenure you favour is the freehold ?—Yes ; we believe also in occupation with right of purchase, as that gives a poor man a show to go on the land. We have no objection to the ballot system, so far as we have seen it work. We are perfectly satisfied with the Advances to Settlers Act. I may say that I have been a valuer for the Government under that Act, and I have always found it satisfactory so far. In regard to the Land for Settlements Act, we believe that in districts where there are no Crown lands it is right that large estates should be purchased for settlement purposes, but we do not favour the Government purchasing estates in the north, such as Bickerstaffe when there is any amount of Crown land to be taken up. We think the Crown land should be settled first. We believe that tenants should have the right of purchase under the Land for Settlements Act. 7. Do you think the right of purchase should extend to those who have already taken up land under lease in perpetuity ? —Personally I do not, but other members of the union do think it should be extended to them. I think th« law as it at present stands is a very good one. A person has the option of taking up land under the three tenures, and if he believes in the lease in perpetuity and enters into a bargain with the State under that tenure I do not see why he should be allowed to alter it. 8. You think that all land should be put up with the option of selection under any of the three tenures ? —Yes. Because that gives a chance to every man. I think the present law is perfectly fair and just. 9. A settler would then be able to make his own choice ?—Yes. 10. What is your opinion in regard to constitutional Land Boards ? —I think it would be better if they were elected the same as School Boards and other Boards. I believe myself in giving people a say in all matters. 11. Would you make them entirely elective ?—No ; I think the Government should be represented too. 12. Is there any aggregation of estates going on within your knowledge ?—No. 13. Mr. McCutchan.] Have advances always been made by the Advances to Settlers Office where the margin of security has been sufficient ?—Yes, I think so. 14. Has there been any dilatoriness on the part of the Department in making these advances 1— Not that I am aware of. 15. Do you think that advances in excess of 50 per cent, of the value of the tenant's improvements on his leasehold should be made ? —No, I do not. 16. Do you think it would be wise for the State to advance 50 per cent, on the goodwill as well as 50 per cent, on the improvements ? —I do not think there is anything in the goodwill. 17. Have you had any recent instructions about valuation ?—Not lately. 18. If any alteration was made in the law do you think it would be wise to introduce a revaluation clause in leases to be issued in the future ? —I do not think so. 19. Do you think that such a clause if introduced would be detrimental to back-country settlers ? —I do. 20. Do you think that settlers would go into the back country if a revaluation clause was intoduced ?—I do not think so. . 21. Has there been any increase in land values in the district ?—A considerable increase. In my district in the last seven years land values have nearly doubled. 22. Do you think the present system of public works in connection with road-making is satisfactory ? —I can assure you not. I think the roads ought to be made by contract. 23. You mean you would do away with the co-operative system ? —Yes. In our district it has been a loss to us. 24. Have you devised any scheme for placing the whole matter of road-construction on a more satisfactory basis ?—I have not gone into that matter. 25. Mr. McLennan.'] Are you acquainted with the South Island ?—I have never been in the South Island. 26. You cannot say whether there is any demand among the tennants there for the freehold ?— No ; I know nothing about the South Island. 27. Mr. Paul.] Speaking of the Lands for Settlements policy : you say you objected to the Government buying any estates whilst there were Crown lands remaining to be settled ? —Yes. 28. To your knowledge are there any large estates in the north which are keeping back the district and which, if settled, would make certain districts more progressive ?—No. Several large estates in the north are at present being cut up by the private owners, and successfully so. Mr. Ford's estate has been cut up and successfully settled, while Bickerstaffe Estate, a little further on, has not been settled. That was owing to the nature of the tenure. If it had been offered under freehold I think it would all have been taken up. 29. Are you acquainted with the Bickerstaffe Settlement ?—I know a lot of people in the district. 30. Do you know the district very well ? —Not particularly well.
897
C.—4
A. JACK
31. Do you know that other private land in the vicinity was settled previous to the opening of the Bickerstaffe Estate, and that therefore the demand for land in that district was satisfied ? —Yes, I believe it is so. 32. Does that not alter the position somewhat: you said it was a question of tenure ? I say it was a question of tenure. 33. Might not that other cause be a reasonable explanation of the trouble ?—lt might. lam not prepared to go into the matter. 34. What is your reason for suggesting a change in the constitution of the Land Board ? —I do not say that there is any particular reason, only 1 think it would be fairer. I have no fault to find with the Land Board, nor has any one else that I know of. 35. Do you think that would be fairer to the whole of the people of the colony ?—Yes. 36. Do you think it would be fair to the whole of the people to have a Land Board elected by a portion of the people ?—I am perfectly willing to have the Land Board elected on the same franchise as members of the House of Representatives. But lam not in favour of the parliamentary rolls being used for the election of County Councillors. 36 a. You recognise that every citizen in the country has a right to say how the National estate shall be disposed of and managed ?—Certainly. 37. Mr. Anstey.] Suppose the Land Boards were elected on the parliamentary franchise : is there not a danger that in that case they would virtually be elected by the town residents, seeing that they have so much more convenience in the matter of voting and that they are so much more numerous ?— There might be that danger, but I do not see why the town need be against the country. 38. Do you think it would be a-good thing to have four town members elected to administer the land laws in the Auckland district ?—They are pretty well all town members now. 39. Do you think that is a wise system ? So long as they are good men, town people are as good as any other. 40. Are there many leaseholders in your immediate neighbourhood ? —There are a few who have the right of purchase. 41. You have no knowledge of lease-in-perpetuity settlers ?—There were one or two, but I think that their tenure has been altered since. 42. The land between Devonport and the Wade is very poor ?—Yes. 43. Can you suggest any way in which it might be properly utilised —I am afraid not. The only thing I know of that it would be good for is growing timber, 44. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to plant a quantity of it ?—-Yes ; I believe it might be successfully planted. 45. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to undertake experiments, such as analysing the land and trying manures ?—Certainly. 46. Do you think that it would generally be a success ?—Well, it would open people's eyes, but I cannot answer for the result. 47. Is none of it fit for fruit-growing ?—Yes ; all our district is more adapted for fruit-growing than anything else. That is what lam principally doing. I have about 2 acres of apples. 48. Mr. Matheson.] If two adjoining counties were occupied, the one entirely by freeholders and the other entirely by Crown tenants, do you think there would be any distinct difference between them in the matter of prosperity ?—Well, as of human nature, I think the freeholder would look best after his land. 49. Is that why you think it would be wise for the State to encourage people to obtain freeholds ? —Certainly. 50. Mr. Forbes.'] Is not the principal thing in settling land that a man will keep his capital free in order to make improvements ?—Well, if he takes up the land with the right of purchase he will have his capital free. If the land will not produce sufficient to enable him to buy it in twenty years' time he is better out of it. 51. Mr. Hall.] You are the representative of a farming community. Is it the opinion of that community that the freehold is the best form of tenure ?—Yes. 52. Do they not approve of the lease in perpetuity ?—-No ; nobody down our way approves of that. 53. And your own opinion is that the freehold is the best tenure, best for the State and best for the settler ?—Certainly. It is my opinion and the opinion of every other man in my district. 54. Mr. McCardle.] I understand that in your neighbourhood there are a number of settlers under lease in perpetuity ?—My brother is one. 55. They had the option as to system, had they not ?—Yes. 56. You say that if there were an amendment to the Land Act you would not make it retrospective ?—Yes. 57. What would you do with those tenants who were compelled to take up land under lease in perpetuity ? —I think an injustice was done, and it should be righted. 58. Would you favour those men having the right of purchase ?—I think the option of taking up the land either under occupation with right of purchase or of purchasing right out, or of lease in perpetuity, should be given to them. 59. On what terms would you give them the right of purchase—purchase by instalments or payment of a lump sum or what ? —Deferred payment by instalments. 60. Mr. McLennan.] Is there a great deal of freehold land between Devonport and the Wade ?— Yes ; a good deal in one direction, but only Crown lands in the other direction. Along the road it is mostly freehold.
113—C. 4.
0.—4
898
A. JACK
61. You said that the freeholders make the best use of their land. Are those freeholders along the road making good use of their holdings ? Are they building, or fencing, or otherwise improving the land ?— Not a great deal. On most of the land nothing is being done because it would starve a cricket to live on it. 62. What I want to know is whether the land is improving ? —I think the men who took it up were fools, and did not know what they were doing. 63. That may be, but you said that those who have freeholds look after them better than the leaseholders ?—Yes, if they are living on the land. 64. Well these people, who are freeholders, are a very poor example for your contention. There is scarcely a house between Devonport and your place, and very few fences, and most of the land is covered with gorse ?—I do not believe the land would grow gorse. William Geared examined. 65. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler at the Methuen Hamlet, Avondale, holding 2 acres of land under lease in perpetuity. I have been there about eighteen months. 66. Are you pleased with your land and your tenure ?— No, I am not. We had a meeting of settlers in the three hamlets at Avondale, and we decided to get up a petition for presentation to the Commission. Every one agreed that they should have the right to the freehold if they could get it. It is the freehold we want. I have two of the petitions here and one was to be forwarded by post. The petitions are as follows : — " To the members of the Land Commission, Auckland. " Gentlemen, —We, the undersigned, being lessees of allotments in the Methuen Hamlet, situated at Avondale, do hereby declare that we are desirous of acquiring the freehold of our respective holdings, and wish the Government to grant us the right of purchase." [Signed by nine lessees.] " To the members of the Land Commission, Auckland. " We, the undersigned, being lessees of allotments in the Kitchener Hamlet, situated at Avondale, do hereby declare that we are anxious of acquiring the freehold of our respective holdings, and wish the Government to grant the right of purchase." [Signed by seven lessees.] I maintain that the freehold is the better tenure, and I believe that all the land in the hamlet would have been taken up and settled long ago if people could have got the freehold. Any number of people have come out and looked around and asked a few questions, but have refused to take up land on finding that they could not get the freehold. Some of the allotments have been taken up two and even three times within the last two or three years, but have been abandoned and not built upon. Many of the sections in my neighbourhood are simply overgrown with blackberry, briars, and gorse. When I fenced my own I had to cut a track through the gorse and since then I have had to top some of the gorse on these sections to prevent it from seeding and depositing seed on my property. I believe that that land would be taken up if the Government would offer it on the freehold system. 67. You have a lease for 999 years : Have you any doubt of the bona fide intention of the Government to keep their contract ? —No ; but the thing that the people want is the freehold. They have no fault to find with the Government, only they say it is a shame that the land should lie idle. If it were offered as freehold people would take it up and put it into use. As it is it lies idle and does not pay interest on the cost. 67a. It is impossible for you to make a living out of 2 acres : I suppose you have just taken up the land as a place of residence ?—That is all I can do. I wanted 2 acres more, but the Government would not allow me to have it. They would rather let it lie idle. That same land has been taken up once, but the selector threw it up. 67b. At the time you took up that land you thought it suited you to do so I—Well,1 —Well, yes, in this way, lam a gardener and come to town to work. The land is near to the train, and on that account I.took it up. The Government have practically a monopoly in the neighbourhood. You have either to take theirs, or go far back where you cannot get the train or other conveniences. That was my real reason for taking it up under this scheme. 68. You are a gardener, and in your odd time you could do a good deal with 2 acres ? —Well, it does not pay you to do it. It pays better to go out to work. 69. Well the tenure will not alter that. The conditions would be the same under freehold ? — Certainly ; but one would be freer and could do as he liked with the land. 70. Mr. McCutchan.\ At the time you took up the section had you any other choice of tenure besides the 999-years lease ?—Perhaps if I had looked round I might have got other land. 71. But in reference to the hamlet itself had you any choice ? —Not a great deal, because the Government have made a monoply by taking up most of the waste land there. 72. But had you the option of taking it up under any other tenure ? —Not the Government land. 73. As to the sections which have been taken up and abandoned : was there any other reason for the abandonment beyond dissatisfaction with the tenure ? —I have never heard of any other. 74. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to group these sections so as to allow the men already on the settlements to obtain larger areas ?—I think so, especially if the land were freehold. 75. Mr. Anstey.] Was this land acquired in order to be cut, up or was it Crown land ?—lt was purchased by the Government. 76. Is there anything in your, lease which prevents you from properly cultivating your land and properly'improving it ? —I have improved my land, but at the same time it does not pay me to do so. 77. There is nothing in your lease that would prevent you from improving your land as much as you']ike ?—The Government look out that we do improve, but they do not improve their own property.
W. GEABED.I
899
0.—4.
78. Mr. Forbes.] From what you say there does not appear to be much demand for workmen's homes in your part of the district ? —The land would, I believe, have been settled upon had it been freehold, but people do not want leasehold. 79. There is no sufficient necessity then to force people to take up the land under lease ? —The position is that people have to take up that land or else go further back. There is not much choice. 80. And they have not taken up the land ?—No ; they rather go without and stay in town, whereas if the land is freehold people would go out from town and every bit of the land would be taken up. In the course of a few years there would be a regular town out there. 81. Mr. Hall.] Do you consider that the freehold would be to the interests of the settlers rather than the lease in perpetuity, or is it only sentiment ? Would there be any real advantage in acquiring the freehold ? —Well, generally speaking, a person who can afford it likes to have a freehold home of his own. 82. Mr. Paul.] What are you paying for the land ? —We are paying 5 per cent. 83. But what is the amount ? —£2 10s. an acre, which I consider is excessive ; in fact, the Government gave too much for the land in the first place. Joseph Flannigan examined. 84. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a farmer, holding 250 acres at Drury, under the freehold tenure. I have been in the district for about twenty-three years. 85. What, in your opinion, is the best tenure ?—I am a strong supporter of the freehold, and I believe that Crown tenants should have the option of acquiring the freehold. I believe that land can never be so well nationalised as when it is in the hands of those whose interest it is to make the best of it. Ido not believe in landlords of any kind, least of all the State, especially when tenants would be at the mercy of trades-unions and socialists, a danger which is not remote but imminent. If the returns from land were anything like regular or uniform, then there might be some excuse for desiring to place people on the land under the leasehold system. But let me give you my experience of working land for the past few years, and I think it is a fair sample of the universal experience. In 1902-3 we had a partial failure of the oat crops in this district from rust. In 1903-4, we had a complete failure from the same cause. This season we had a complete failure of the potato crop from blight, besides, after a most severe and backward spring, dry weather set in at New Year, and the cows dried off their milk soon after, with the result that we lost three months' returns from that source, and now we are in the teeth of what I believe will prove the hardest and severest winter in stock that we have known for many years, owing to the failure of the turnip-crops and no grass. Besides all this, we have to feed all the destructive birds, slugs, caterpillars, and vermin in creation, and our lands threaten to be overrun with all the noxious weeds gathered from the four quarters of the world. In spite of all this, we have people and societies in the towns who pass resolutions dictating what tenures we should hold our land under, and how much taxes we should pay, what franchise we should elect our local bodies under, and many other subjects concerning land, and the less they know about the subjects the more cheerfully they pass their resolutions. My opinion is that, when the natural conditions of farming are so precarious, the artificial condition should be made as secure as it is possible to make them, and the freehold tenure is the most secure we have discovered so far. Instead of penalising those who take up land, I think we ought to assist those who take up an occupation that in eight cases out of ten compels them to a life of toil and drudgery. 86. Have you considered the question of the constitution of the Land Boards ?—Yes. What little experience I have of Land Boards is that they are a cumbrous and unwieldy machine. In my district there are a number of town lots belonging to the Crown. Many of us would buy these lots if they were sold at a reasonable price, but the upset price of these lots about fifty years ago was placed at £20 per acre. After repeated applications from many settlers to buy these lots, we cannot get the Land .Board to recede from this position, and these lots remain an ugly collection, growing furze and blackberries, and an eyesore to the whole district. If this is a fair sample of the work of the Land Boards of the colony, and I believe it is, then I have no confidence in them. 87. Are not the lands open for sale now ?—Yes, at £20 an acre ; but, in my opinion, from £3 to £5 an acre is the full value of the land. The lots are classed as town lands. 88. But the Land Board can alter that ?—I understand that they can reclassify the lands, but in spite of repeated applications we cannot get them to do so. 89. Mr. Matheson.] In what way would the extension of the parliamentary franchise to the elections of local bodies affect settlers prejudicially ?—ln my district I pay about £5 a year in rates, and I do not consider it fair that another man living in the district, who has no interest whatever in it, and is only there to-day and gone to-morrow, should have any voice in the election of the local body. 90. Is it not a correct principle that where there is taxation there should be representation ? — Where is the taxation on people who simply live in a house. What do they contribute to the upkeep of the roads. 91. Your local body gets subsidies and grants from the consolidated revenue, and those people contribute to the consolidated revenue. Should they not then have representation I—ln my district we have borrowed £1,000 for expenditure on the roads. What proportion would these outside people pay towards that. 92. They have contributed something, and they have a claim to representation.—Well, have they not the use of the road, the same as I have. • 93. Well, the principle stands as a sound one.—l do not think so. 94. Mr. Paul.] You do not believe in landlords I—No. 95. And you think the State the worst of all ?—I do.
900
[). FLANNIGAN.
C—4.
96. Why have you come to that conclusion ?—Well, I have had a good deal to do with the Government in other matters, railway matters, for instance, and I find that if you want the least concession— say a siding, or a loading bank, or a road—you have to go through a lot of red tape, and go hat in hand to the officials. I consider that if the whole interest of the country was in the hands of the Government we should have this sort of thing multiplied ten thousand fold, and we should become simply a nation of serfs. 97. Have you held a leasehold under the Government ?—I had one in Ireland, but it was under a private landlord. 98. But you have not held a lease under the Government ? —No, and I never will. 99. Have you been in the South Island ? —Yes. 100. Have you seen the condition of the tenants of the Government under the Land for Settlements Act ?—No, I have only been there as a visitor. 101. Then you cannot say whether they are prosperous or whether they are serfs ? —No, the Land for Settlements Act has come into force since I was there. I understand that many of the settlers under it are prosperous. But you must remember that since these land laws came into operation we have a continuous succession of prosperous years. I have been farming for twenty-three years, and I know what the condition of affairs was before this era of prosperity. In late years we have had good prices for our produce, and the settlers have been prosperous in consequence. 102. You made some objection to the trades-unions and socialists trying to interfere with the leasehold to the prejudice of settlers. Why should they not interfere with the freehold also ? 103. Could they not do that just as well ?—Yes, that is if they have power to do anything at all. With them it is a question of might, not right. 104. But it has not been proved that the trades-unions of this colony want to do anything which will prejudicially affect the interests of settlers. —Well, if the newspaper reports of their meetings are correct, their resolutions will most prejudicially affect the settlers of the colony. 105. Mr. Anstey.] Are there many leaseholders in your immediate neighbourhood ?—Not many. 106. Have you had an opportunity of observing how leaseholders farm their land ?—No, but I know many districts where there are leaseholders. 107. Are noxious weeds spreading in your neighbourhood ?—Blackberries are very bad indeed, and so is furze. 108. Is the blackberry declared by the County Council a noxious weed ?—Yes 109. Are the Council taking any steps for its eradication ?—Yes. • 110. Are there any other noxious weeds ? —We have the wild turnip and the ox-eye daisy. Ragwort is not very prominent, but I have come across it. 111. Do you find that freeholders farm their land better than leaseholders ?—Certainly. 112. They do not seem to cope with the noxious weeds very well ?—Well, in my district, I cannot point to any one whose land is overrun with noxious weeds. The Government is the worst offender with regard to the Crown lands. 113. Mr. Hall.] You say that a large section of the town population are dictating to the settlers as to the tenure under which they should have their land. Do you find many of these people taking up Crown land themselves, and reclaiming it and making it productive ?■—l have never known a single instance. 114. Mr. McCutchan.] In connection with the franchise for local bodies' elections, it strikes me that there is a little more in it than has come out. Is this your position ?—That although grants and subsidies are made out of the consolidated revenue, and though the ratepayer to the local body contributes through the Customs, he gets his representation through his member of Parliament; but, on the other hand, the local body levies rates, and the man who contributes nothing to these rates should have no voice in the election of the local body ?—I do not think he should. I think he has sufficient without that. John Bollard examined. 115. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?—I am a land agent and a professional valuer, and have been in the colony for forty-five years. As a trustee I hold 1,600 acres of land in the Kawhia district. As my own holding I have only some 4 acres in the neighbourhood of Auckland. 116. Is there any particular point that you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I wish to speak on the question of workmen's homes in the neighbourhood of Auckland. I have been charged by a prominent member of the Government with inducing the Government to purchase land for workmen's homes that have proved a failure. Ido not consider that they are a failure, but they are a partial failure. I wish to set myself right in the matter. It is quite true that I did induce the Government to purchase land within ten miles of Auckland on which to establish workmen's homes. My idea was that men with families living under insanitary conditions within the city should be taken out where they could have comfortable homes within easy distance of the city by train. After inspection of considerable areas available by the Government officers of the day, they purchased this land at Avondale. At the same time the Government refused to carry out the scheme I propounded in connection with the land. However, since the purchase was made, a very large number of working men have called upon me with reference to taking up sections in the hamlets. I did not keep a note of the number, but there must have been over a hundred, and every one of them refused to a man to take up the land, because they could not get the freehold. My scheme was that there should be a sinking fund, and that the holders should get the freehold after thirty-six years. However, the Government refused to carry that out. People will not take up small sections, even for their homes, unless they have the right to a freehold. That has been the cause or the partial cause of the failure. It is not that the land is not suitable. It is suitable, and seeing that the occupiers can get into that town for 2s. a week, it is evident that the railway fares are no obstacle. Still, people positively refuse to take up the land because they cannot
J. BOLLARD.]
901
C—4.
get the right to the freehold. In cases where the land has been taken up, it has been done in the hope of getting the freehold by-and-by. The occupiers believe that when there is a change of Government they will get the option of the freehold. I wish to make it clear to the country that it is not my fault that the scheme is a failure. The fault lies with the conditions under which the land is offered to the public. Men who have £100 or £150 will not take up land under the 999-years lease. They prefer to get a freehold allotment, and arrange with some timber company to build them a house which they can pay for by instalments. 117. The Chairman.\ Did not the Government, as an inducement to taking up this land, offer certain conditions in the way of house-building ?—The conditions offered by the Government are that a man who takes up land has to build a substantial dwelling, not to cost less than £30. Just fancy a substantial dwelling for a man with six or seven children at a cost of £30 ! Why, it would not build a hen-house. I wanted the Government to assist him to build a decent house. There would be no risk, because the land was there, convenient to a railway-station, and the fare to the city was moderate. It was not my intention that the man should make a living out of his allotment, but it would be a home for him and his family, and his income would be derived from working at his trade in Auckland. It is only when you spend, say, £100 that the Government is good enough to give you £50 under the advances to settlers system. What is the good of offering that to a working-man with a wife and six or seven children, if he has no money of his own. You might just as well offer him a loaf of bread for 3d., when he has not the money to pay for it, for he is just as far off as ever. If the Government had assisted the men with homes, and given them the right to the freehold, even with a sinking fund of 1 per cent., I am satisfied that the whole of the land would have been taken up within four or five months after it was offered for selection. I have never yet met a man who wanted to go on the settlement who did not want the freehold, and those who are there only took up the land in the hope of getting the freehold by-and-by. Another thing I wish to mention is the loading of these lands. Some of them have been loaded for roads to the extent of £15 an acre. The roads are not made yet, though the people are paying 5 per cent, on the loading. I consider that when land like that is cut up for settlement, it should be roaded before people are asked to settle on it. If I cut up a block of land I have to go to considerable expense in this matter. Only the other day, as a trustee in an estate, I had to provide for 70 chains of roads, which cost £1,500, before the Road Board would sanction the taking over of the roads, so that I might get a deed of dedication, and sell the allotments adjoining. In the district where these workmen's homes are situated Ido not think one-fourth of the money has been spent on roading. This is unfair to the people, because as soon as they complete an improvement, the local body puts extra taxation on them, and at the same time they are paying 5 per cent, on the loading. It is downright dishonest of the Government to do a thing like that. No private individual dare do it. That is another reason why people object to the conditions of settlement at Avondale. It was the Premier who stated that I induced the Government to take up these lands, and that the scheme was a failure. I hope that I have made it clear that it was his own Government that.made the settlement a failure, by imposing conditions that people will not submit to. 118. Mr. McCutchan.] Was it chiefly owing to your influence that this block was purchased ? — •Yes, I think it was. I saw that the Government were purchasing homes for working-men in other parts of the colony, and I did not see why Auckland should not have a similar advantage. 119. Workmen have been settled on a similar plan around Christchurch, and the scheme has been a great success. Might not the failure of this Auckland scheme be due to the fact that the land is of an inferior quality ?—No. With regard to Wellington, there is so little land available that people have perforce to take up what is offered if they wish to get out of the town. But here there are so many chances for men with a little money to buy land privately that they prefer that to taking it under lease in perpetuity. 120. Does it not appear strange that under similar conditions in regard to tenure the scheme has been a great success elsewhere ?—I do not know that it has been a success. As far as I can learn, the other settlements are not a success —that everywhere the selectors, if they speak their mind, prefer the freehold. 121. With reference to the loading for roads, do you assert that the amount for which these lands were loaded has not been spent by the Government ? —I do. 122. Then, the Government hold the principal, and at the same time collect the interest ?—That is so. 123. Is it a recognised thing that when the Government load blocks for roads the loading shall be adequate for the proper roading of the block ? —I do not think they make sufficient provision in the case of country lands. 124. Do you think it is unfair that the loading should be added to the capital value ?—I do not think so, if the roads are made immediately. 125. Would you advocate a change being made in the direction of the loading ceasing as soon as principal and interest have been extinguished ?—I would. I think it is very unfair at present, especially as the roads are not made. In the Kawhia country the other day I met a man who had been three years on rough bush land, and he had not even a track to his allotment. When I saw him he was packing iron upon his back to build his house, and had to carry it three miles, and yet he was paying 5 per cent, on the loading. 126. With reference to the tenure, would you leave the present tenures on the statute-book, or make any change or modification ? —I would simply give people the option. 127. Well, it rests with the settlers themselves now whether they take the 999-years lease or some other form of tenure ?—Yes, but many people are sick and tired of going round trying to get land under the ballot. They would like to get occupation with right of purchase, but as a last resource they take up the land under the lease in perpetuity.
G.—4.
902
[j. BOLLABD.
128. Mr. Matheson.] I know that in the Kawhia district the land was offered under only one tenure, but in most districts the option of three tenures is allowed ? —Not for the whole of a block, only for a certain portion. 129. In practically all the other districts the selector has the option of the three tenures ? —I think you are labouring under a mistake. I think it is only a portion of the land that he can take under these tenures. 130. You consider that the leaseholders under the lease in perpetuity should have the option of converting their tenure to occupation with right of purchase ?—Yes. 131. Upon what terms ?■ —Upon the invoiced cost. 132. Where the occupation with right of purchase is given now 5 per cent, is charged. Under the 999-years lease the charge is 4 per cent. ? —I would make the man pay 1 per cent, with compound interest. 133. Mr. Paul.\ What would you do with regard to land leased under the land-for-settlements system ? —I would give the option just the same. 134. You recognise that the right of purchase makes such a lease more valuable than a pure leasehold ? —Well, it is more valuable from one point of view; but there are so many people talking about revaluation and absurdities of that sort, and that is why the freehold is a more secure form of tenure. 135. Would you give the leaseholders the option of purchase in the case of Land for Settlements Act ? —Yes. 136. What would you charge for the additional value given to the lease ? —They are paying 5 per cent, now, and I would not charge them anything more. 137. You would give them something, a good deal more value than at present, for nothing ?— I would give them what I think they have a right to. 138. Why would you charge an ordinary lease-in-perpetuity settler under the Land Act an additional 1 per cent. ? —Because the holder only pays 4 per cent, instead of 5 per cent. 139. But you admit that the tenant under the Land for Settlements Act would get a very much more valuable tenure, and yet you would ask him to pay nothing for it ? —He is paying 5 per cent, now, and that is quite enough. As long as he is paying 5 per cent, interest on the money he should get the right of purchase. The reason why his farm is more valuable is that he has a better title to sell than the leaseholder. Besides, he can cut it up, if it suits his purpose, to sell to some one else. 140. Are you acquainted with the settlement conditions in the South—l mean the conditions as regards the configuration of the country ?—That is taken into consideration in placing the land on the market. 141. Do you know whether the settlers in the South under the land-for-settlements policy are successful ?—Some of them are very unsuccessful. Take Pomahaka, for instance; and there are also several others if I could call them to mind. 142. Suppose the option of purchase is given in regard to these estates, do you think any evil would arise through the best bargains being taken advantage of and the worst lands left on the hands of the estate ?—I know that there has been the greatest bungling in the allocation of rents of the lands that have been purchased. While some men have got their allotments too cheap, others have paid too much. But any man who has a holding worth sticking to will try to get the freehold. 143. Do you think there is any fear of the worst land being left in the hands of the State ? —You mean the allotments that are not worth the money placed on them ? 144. Yes, if you like to put it that way ? —I believe there is a great danger of their being left in the hands of the State. 145. Suppose the tenant's improvements were conserved and a liberal valuation given, and the holding put up to auction, do you think that would be a fair adjustment of the difficulty ?—I do not think so. I think if a man gets an allotment at the ballot he should not be charged more if he wants the freehold. If there has been bungling on the part of the Government officer who allocated the rents that is no reason why the selector should be made to suffer. " 146. And if he gets a good thing through the bungling of the officers he should be given the advantage of it—that the State should stand it, though the whole thing might be adjusted if the property were put up for auction ? —I do not think there is any good reason for putting it up for auction. It would be a breach of contract. 147. But you were suggesting a breach of contract in giving the freehold to the tenants ? —Nothing of the kind. You do not break a contract by giving a man the option. 148. I understand you to admit that the title would be a good deal more valuable it the tenant had the option \ —lf he gets the freehold tenancy it is worth more than the leasehold. 149. Returning to workmen's homes, are the trains suitable ? —Yes. 150. Is it a fact that the trains get in from one of these places ten minutes too late for the ordinary hour of business % —lt is not a fact. The train gets to Auckland about twenty minutes to 8 o'clock. Most workmen go to work at 8 o'clock. A few go at 7.30. 151. Then, it would not suit those who go at 7.30 ? —The time should be changed to 8. 152. Can you say why the Christchurch workmen's homes are successful, and the holders satisfied ? —I do not think they are satisfied. lam told that the settlements are not a success. 153. Well, I am forming my opinion from the evidence given to us, and visits to the settlements % ■—I cannot answer. 154. Did the law allow the Government to give the freehold to these selectors when they took up the land '? —No, and the Government refused to alter the law when I suggested it in order to put the men in a better position. 155. What rents do these men pay ?—lt all depends on where they are located.
J. BOLLARD.]
903
C.—4.
156. Do the rents compare favourably with those paid to private landlords ? —There are very few private landlords out that way. 157. But you can strike an average according to distance and conditions ?—I think it is favourable, considering the position. If the people had been only fairly and honestly dealt with, and the moneys which they were charged for loading had been put on the roads, things would have been different. But instead of making roads the Government only made what I call rabbit-paths, and put on them a sprinkling of scoria. 158. What is there in the leasehold detrimental to the interests of settlers ?—You know as well as Ido that the freehold is what every Britisher looks for. It is the best form of tenure you can have. If there is one part of the world more than another in which there has been trouble over land-tenure it has been Ireland. The British Government are now buying up estates there, but they are not offering the people the leasehold; they are offering the freehold. 159. What led to that condition of affairs in Ireland ? Under what tenure was the "land of Ireland held ?—Leasehold, principally. 160. And who owned the freehold ? —Private landlords. 161. Is there any analogy between the private landlord and the State as a landlord ?—As far as Ireland is concerned, there is. The great trouble with the Irish tenant farmers was that the large landowners were extracting heavy rents from them and spending them in England and on the Continent. Here the Government are perpetrating exactly the same evil. They are borrowing money in the English market to buy large estates, and letting those estates to tenants under lease. Who is the real landlord ? The money-lenders in England. And the rents received by the Government from the tenants are sent away from thcj. country to be spent in England and on the Continent. That state of things will ruin any country. 162. Independent of what the landlord does, was the tenant under a private landlord in Ireland in a better or a worse position than the tenant of the State in New Zealand as to the length of his lease and the general conditions ? —The Irishman was in a much better position, because when any serious calamities occurred to him a landlord would generally make concessions to him as regards the year's rent, and there is no fear of the Government doing that. 163. Then, in your opinion, the tenant in Ireland was in a better position than the State tenant in New Zealand ? —I do not say that exactly, because the state of things as a whole is better here. 164. Mr. Anstey.] You state that £30 is the amount the Government insisted upon the tenant putting upon the land. Is that the limit ?—No, that is the minimum. 165. Did not the Government assist by way of loans ? —When a man spent £100 they would lend him £50. 166. Is it not a fact that they would lend £1 for £1 up to £50 ?—Yes, after he had spent double that amount. 167. Can you give any other reason why these workmen's homes are not successful —any influence which appears peculiar to Auckland ? Is there anything in the climate ?—No, but there is in the feelings of the people. They all want the freehold. 168. Are we to understand that there is something peculiar in the constitution of an Auckland man that requires specially favourable conditions before he can settle, which are not required by a man in any other part of the colony ? —You are quibbling now. 169. In Christchurch there are a number of workmen's settlements, and the workmen came to us and expressed entire satisfaction with their conditions—in fact, strongly urged us to recommend that the svstem be extended. If the system is so successful there, why is it not also successful in Auckland ? You say that the land is as good in Auckland, and the other conditions seem to be the same. There is no difference as regards climate, so, surely, it must be the people ? —I cannot compare this district with Christchurch. I can only say that from information I have received from people in Christchurch, the settlers there are in just the same position as those in Auckland. They want the freehold, but some of them are afraid to speak the truth. "170. Is it quite correct that Auckland workmen prefer to live in the city, under bad sanitary conditions, rather than go out and make homes for themselves in these hamlets under the lease-in-per-petuity system ?—They do not prefer it, but perforce they have to stay. 171. Mr. Forbes.] In case of giving the option of the freehold to settlers on the land-for-settlements estates —say that the Government are putting a railway into an estate at a cost of £200,000, which raises the value of the land fully £1 per acre —do you think in that case the tenants are entitled to that £1 per acre ? —lf they get the freehold the land is taxable, and the Government can levy an increased tax. 172. Would you put on a special tax to cover that increase in value ?—I would not treat them differently from other people. Those who have large freeholds have special taxation. 173. Do you think that the better way, and the solution of the land question, would be through taxation rather than through withholding the freehold ? —I think the tenure that the people like is the freehold tenure, and even if they have to pay a little more for it they would like to get it; but Ido not see why they should be charged anything more for the land through any revaluation because they are getting the freehold. 174. But I mean because of the railway %—Well, how can it make any difference to the Government after they have parted with the land for 999 years ? They cannot raise the rents or get any profit out of the land tor 999 years, how can it affect the Government if they give them the freehold. They can, of course, tax the land. 175. In connection with these workmen's homes, was there any agitation in the matter in Auckland ? —There was. A large number of men came to me. What drew my attention to the matter was an inspection I made of the city, and I was so struck with the miserable condition in some quarters that I thought it would be a boon to these people to enable them to get into the country, where they could
C.—4.
904
[j. BOLLARD.
rear their families in decency and order. Not only were many parts of the city unsanitary, but the moral condition was fifty times worse. I defy any man, let him be ever so respectable, to bring up children properly under certain conditions without their being contaminated and a portion of them going to the bad. I wanted to try to get these people under better conditions. 176. And it appears that they have not gone out, even when given the opportunity ?—JNo ; Because they cannot get the freehold. 176 a. You v think that is the reason ? —That is the reason they have all given to me. 177. Mr. Hall.] If the option of the freehold had been given would the settlement have been successful ?—I am B satisfied that it would. 178. Did you anticipate that the right of a freehold would have been given when you took measures to have the land set aside ? —The scheme that I put before the Government gave them the right to the freehold on paying 1 per cent., or as soon as they could get the money to buy the land. 179. I suppose you are aware that the land in the suburbs of Christchurch is superior in quality and that there are good roads everywhere, and also that the land set aside for homesteads is much nearer the city than Avondale is to Auckland. Has that much to do with the comparative success experienced there ?—I do not think it has. I believe that if the freehold had been given to the settlers on the land set apart here it would have been taken up readily, especially if a little more assistance had been given in the building of houses. 180. But the freehold was not given at Christchurch, and the system has been fairly successful there ?—I believe that, with regard to land-tenure, Christchurch is behind the times. 181. Mr. McCardle.] You have taken great interest in workmen's homes. Do you not think that the principal drawback to purely working-men is not so much the question of tenure as the question of money to build cottages ? Do you not think that if the State is prepared to relieve the congestion in the city it should advance the whole amount of money to build the cottage ? Are you not of opinion that the State would run no risk, and that the rapid growth of the city would give the Government good security ?—That was my opinion when I brought the matter before the Government—that the cottages should be uniform, and of fair size for people with families. But the Government would run no risk in building cottages for people when they were so situated. 182. Are you of opinion that it is only a man with a certain amount of capital who could avail himself of taking that land ? —That is so. 183. Do you think the State ought to advance more liberally, and assist the settlers more liberally than they are doing ? —Yes. 184. Mr. Paul.] You spoke of the deplorable conditions under which many men live in the city, and yet they do not go out to these settlements because it is under the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 185. Did they have the freehold in the city ?—No. 186. Did they have any chance of getting the freehold in the city ?—Not the slightest. 187. Mr. McCutchan.\ You were asked a little while ago this question : If the freehold were given would not the better sections be bought up and the other sections left in the hands of the State ? Is it not a fact that if the good sections were purchased the State would not be in any worse position than they are now with regard to the poorer sections ? —I do not think the that State would be in any worse position. William Peake examined. 188. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a carpenter and joiner by trade, but I have had some experience in farming both in New Zealand and Australia. 189. Have you any land in New Zealand now %—I own a small property in the suburbs of Auckland, of which lam the occupier. The tenure is freehold. 190. What is you opinion as regards tenure ?—I am tendering evidence on behalf of the Trades and Labour Council of Auckland. lam one of those objectionable unionists. I have been over forty years in this country, and have had some experience in the South Island, and, as a result of that experience, I believe it would be better for the Crown not to sell any more land. I believe it to be to the advantage of the workers and the community as a whole to have the full benefit of the value the community creates on the land. Many years ago I remember some Canterbury land being taken up at £1 an acre. To-day it is worth from £20 to £40 an acre. Now, the individual owner of that property has not created that value. The State has created it by means of carrying railways and roads through it, and it has been further increased by the settlement going on all round it. Therefore I say, in justice to the community or the State, the State is entitled to that value over and above the improvements created by the individual owner. We believe that the settler and the farmer has every right to all he can produce, but we do not think he has a right to what the community creates. The State has the right to such an unearned increment as I mentioned, We believe if the community and the State got that value our present rates would not be so high and our Customs duties would be considerably lower. It would then be easier to get a living than at present for all, and it would be a means of giving to each and all access to the land. In reference to workmen's homes, which an endeavour was made to establish outside Auckland, I attended the first meeting called by Mr. Bollard, and as one who had had some experience in farming, I knew what it meant. I should like to state now the reason why, from a workmen's point of view, the scheme proved a failure. In the first place, the quality of the land is against a workman taking it up, for the greater part of the land which was offered is merely fit for making bricks. If any man wants good land it is the workman, because he has so little time and capital to expend on the land. Take the land at Avondale offered for workmen's homes. It would mean a considerable outlay for manuring, and so forth, before he could get any return at all. Again, if a workman has to get to work in Auckland and work eight hours a day, it must be remembered he has got an hour's journey by train, and as they cannot all live just around the railway-station, it might take from half an hour to three-quarters of an hour to get to the railway-station before the train
W. PEA.KR. 1
905
C.—4.
left. There is pretty well an hour and a half of his time gone. That means he would have to leave his home at 6 o'clock in the morning, and he would have to be up at about 5 o'clock to do a few little things about before leaving. How much time has he got in that morning to spend on his place. At night he leaves off work at 5 o'clock and possibly catches the 5.10 train. That means it is pretty well 7 o'clock before he reaches home. How much time has that man left to put into his place or improve it. On Saturday, if he does get the half-day off, he leaves town at 12, or sometimes 1 o'clock, and it is perhaps 2.30 before he gets home. He wants his dinner, and it is 3.30 before he can do anything to his land. That is the side of the question you have to face. If it were Remuera or Epsom, where we could get a plough into the ground and get our crops without the expense of manuring, clearing, and draining the land, it would be quite a different matter; but when a man has got to take rough scrub land and do all these things, it becomes an impossibility. From a worker's point of view, if the workmen's homes are to be any success at all we believe we should have some of the best land that can be obtained within easy access to the city. We do not want the Government to give us this land altogether, because we are prepared to pay a fair rental, and we think the leases should be subject to revaluation, so that the State or the community should get fair rates from the creative value which the community makes. Another reason is that it will give the workman who has £200 or £300 the full use of his capital to build his house and improve, and give him the opportunity to live for the first one or two years until he can get some return from his land. Another thing with regard to the freehold is this : that those of us who want to buy a piece of land would have to go to a freeholder, and we have to pay him the price he asks, and a greater part of that value is created by the State and the community. We have not the means to do that. We also consider that for the State now to be selling Crown lands and at the same time buying up large estates at an enormous profit to the present holder, which profit the community has created, is a most absurd policy to pursue. For instance, there have been some estates sold in the South Island which I can remember, before the railway-lines were through, could be bought at £1 to £1 10s. an acre, and which have been sold at from £10 to £15 an acre. That value the State and community have Created, and we, as a people, are paying for it. 191. Suppose the Government were trying to make arrangements to buy some land for workmen's homes at Remuera and elsewhere in the suburbs, they would immediately be faced with the difficulty you have found. They would probably have to pay some hundreds of pounds per acre for it—perhaps thousands, as the Compensation Court always allows full value to the owner of land taken by the Crown ? —I believe that good land could be got now within half an hour to an hour's run of Auckland at £100 an acre, just outside Epsom. I was in a land agent's office the other day, and was informed that there were 18 acres offered at £26 an acre within three-quarters of an hour's run by tram or rail from the city. It was reckoned second-class land. 192. The Government sent an officer to see if any land could be obtained somewhere about Otahuhu, but the prices asked were so high and the difficulties in the way of acquiring it so great that they turned their attention towards Avondale, and the trains were altered to suit. On behalf of the Government I was to say there was much attention given to the subject. If you got land highly improved the price would be so high that even 5 per cent, on that would be altogether beyond a workman ? —We do not look for highly improved land, and we should be sorry to be at all unreasonable. 193. How much fairly good land do you think a workman should have for a home in the suburbs ? —It depends upon the qua'ity of the land. I wou'd rather have half an acre at Remuera than I would 5 acres at Avondale ; and I could do more with it and with less labour. 194. Do you not think a quarter of an acre would be enough of that good land ?—I was thinking of giving families an opportunity of keeping a cow, and an acre of good land would enable one to do so and to go in for poultry. I wish to make the workers as independent as possible. At the present time the Government have to deal with the " unemployed " question, and there are many of the workers not in regular employment, and if they had sufficient land to do something with they would be comparatively independent. We do not wish to become independent at the expense of the community at all but I believe it would pay the country and the Government to give the workers an opportunity of acquiring a piece of decent land. There are any number who would be only too glad to occupy land and utilise it to the best advantage. 195. Mr. McCutchan.] You claim to look at this question from both sides, and to be in a position to do so from your previous training ?—Yes. 196. Are your views in accordance with the propaganda of the trades and labour unions of the colony ? —I do not know that I can say that they are altogether, because we, like many organizations, have many extremists amongst us who do not study the question sufficiently. 197. At a conference at Wellington your unions advocated revaluation of existing leases upon transfer or upon the death of the lessee ? —Yes, I believe that to be right. 198. Do you believe in breaking the contract ? —Not with the present individual owner. We only advocate revaluation on the death of the present lessee or upon transfer of the lease. 199. But that is advocating a breach of contract ? —Not with that individual. 200. Surely, if the lease is for 999 years it must be not only for himself but for his heirs ?—We believe the Government made a great mistake in giving that 999-years lease without revaluation. It is wrong both to the community and the State as a whole. 201. You advocate that the contract be broken now ? —I think that there would be nothing unjust to the present lessee if he is allowed to use his land under the present term of contract, but on his death or on transfer I believe it would be only right and just to the State and the community that it should be subject to revaluation. 202. Is that the view held generally by the Trades and Labour Councils of the colony ? —Yes. 203. Do you claim that the unearned increment belongs to the state ?—Yes. 204. Will you be good enough to define " unearned increment " ?—I have known cases in Canterbury where men have bought land at £1 per acre, and afterwards, when the railway came there and
114— C. 4,
j"w. PBAKE.
0.—4.
906
other settlement formed around this land and roads were formed, they got from £5 to £10 for that land. The land was held by men who had the capital to hold it in idleness, and they never spent a penny upon it. We believe it was the State and the community which caused that increase in value and which gave the railway, and we as consumers pay for that through the Customs ; and we believe as part of the State we are entitled to a part of that value so created. 205. Taking your upset value at £1 an acre —a man gets land at that —and suppose in a few years' time he sells it at £10 an acre. Suppose he puts improvements upon it to the extent of £4 or £5 an acre, which would be about the average of improvements on a farm, that brings the amount of his expenditure up to £6 an acre. Well, the selling-value is £10, and you claim that the other £4 belongs to the State ? —We say that he should be rated up to that. 206. You claim that the interim value belongs to the State ? —Yes. 207. Is it not a fact that improvements inside the ring-fences of properties very often do not represent anything like the total amount of money spent by the holder. For instance, when this Commission was passing through the Otago district the operations of the Taieri Dairy Company were brought under our notice. That is an industry started by the settlers themselves, and the late Sir John McKenzie said that that industry put £2 an acre on to that land. But a valuer going on to one of the properties in the vicinity would not see that expenditure within the ring-fences, although it is the enterprise of the settler and his money which puts that added value on. Further, the Timaru Harbour Board spent £400,000 on a harbour that has increased the value of property there, but you will not find that within the ring-fences. Then, in another place the settlers spent £7,000 upon establishing freezing-works, and that is not to be seen inside the ring-fences. You said that a railway adds to the value of property ? —Yes. 208. Does the Government put a railway out into unsettled country ? —lt should do so. 209. But, taking things as they are, when a railway goes out in a district it is because a number of settlers go out first, and they produce sufficient to make that railway pay by way of freight and sufficient to keep up the average earnings of the railway. It is the particular part of the community which goes into the district, develops it, and produces freight which enables the railway to pay. In view of all these facts is it not difficult to define " unearned increment," if it exists at all ? —The Timaru Harbour Board borrowed thousands of pounds, for which the community as a whole are responsible. 210. No ?—lf I am a tenant in a house is it the landlord who pays the rates or is it the man who pays the rent to the landlord. We do not believe there is any philanthropy or charitable aid about it. The landlord may actually hand over the rates, but he takes care that he is recouped by the tenant, and the tenant by the lodgers. 211. Mr. Paul.'] With regard to these workmen's, homes your contention, briefly, is that these areas of 2 acres or so were of no use to the workers —not that class of land—and that it would be better to have a smaller area of land closer to the city ? —Certainly. 212. With regard to revaluation of present leases, do you not think your argument is somewhat illogical. You propose to take the community-created value on a leasehold : what action do you propose to take so far as the community-created value on the freehold is concerned ?—I would rate them up to it by means of the land-tax. 213. Do you know the feeling that the action of the Trades and Labour Council has generated throughout the country ?—-I know the feeling so far as the freeholder is concerned, but I look upon it that the freeholder wants to get the right to the unearned increment. That is why he wants the freehold. I have a freehold myself at present —and individually I like a freehold —but I believe, in the interest of my fellows and the State, that it is better that it should be a leasehold, or that we should have a land-tax so that the community should get the full benefit of their created value. 214. Many leasehold witnesses who have come before the Commission demanding the freehold have given as a reason their fear of a revaluation of their leases. They say the lease in perpetuity would be all right as a tenure if it were not interfered with. They are prepared to stick to their side of the. bargain and they think the State should stand by theirs ?—And we thoroughly agree with them. As long as they live and want to occupy the land they have a right to it, but when the Government have made this great blunder by giving 999 years without revaluation, we believe, on the death of the present lessee or transfer to another, the community should come in and claim their right. 215. Do you think the Government have made a blunder in giving the freehold —Certainly. ■ 216. Do you think it is exactly right to take away the community-created value on the leasehold in the way you suggest, or do it in another way —by land-tax —so far as the freehold is concerned ? Would it not be just as logical to ask that something should be done with the freehold on the death of the holder or when he sells to some one else? Our idea was that there should be an increased landtax —that the land should pay its fair proportion and nothing more ? —I believe in the rating on unimproved values. 217. Do you believe in the land-tax exemption of £500 as at present ?—I think it should be reduced. 218. Do you think it should be done away with altogether ?—Yes. 219. As a city worker, do you find the cost of living has increased out of all proportion to the cost of wages ?—So far as my trade is concerned, when I was in Canterbury many years ago we were getting day just as we do to-day, but the cost of living has gone up 30 or 40 per cent. 220. It has been stated by farmers and others that it is the arbitration awards and the rise in wages that has made the cost of living what it is ?—When the arbitration award was given for the wages of the workers to be raised up to a certain standard up went bread Id. a loaf ; and, although this was all put down to labour, the owner of the shop got something like £1 10s. to £1 15s. profit. 221. You mean the employer really gets a profit by paying a higher wage ? —Yes. A ton of flour pans out so-many hundred loaves, and a penny loaf pans out so-much extra because the charges amounted to so-much per ton. A penny a loaf panned out from £2 to £3, as the case might be, and there was an extra profit of from £1 ss. to £1 10s.
W. PEAKE.'
907
C—4.
222. Now, as to rents, from your experience, is the worker paying a fair rent ? —He is paying too high a rent altogether. 223. Do you think it imperative that the Government should extend the principle of workmen's homes ?—I think it would be greatly to the advantage of the worker and the community as a whole. 224. Do you think the need is very pressing ?—I think it is under the present system of landlordism and the monopoly of land. 2 5. Mr Anstey.] You say your organization is in favour of revaluation of lands held under lease in perpetuity upon death or transfer: do you think a man's wife has no interest in the lease that he has taken ? —Yes ; she has an interest, but we believe that it should be revalued. 226. You think a widow should pay a higher rent than the husband did during his life ?—lf the widow still carried on it might be taken to mean that the husband carried on. 227. Do you think it right that the widow should pay a higher rent than the husband ? —I think a little difference might be made in such cases. 228. How would it apply to the children who were working on his land and improving it : have they no rights ? —Of course, there are many things to be taken into consideration. There is the extra value which the community has created, and if the land is worth so much more they would be in a position to pay the extra rate charged. 229. You did not give a definite answer to this : that if it is right to revalue leases held for 999 years, is it not right to revalue a freehold upon death or transfer ?—Well, that was supposed to be dealt with by rating. 230. What is the opinion of your union ? —We believe, as a whole, it would be better for the State to hold the whole of the land. My personal opinion is that the freehold and the leasehold should be dealt with in the same way, but I'grant you at the same time the occupier should have full right to all his improvements. 231. Suppose land which was originally bought at £2 an acre is not to-day worth £1 an acre, although there are large improvements : do you think the State should make up to the owner the decrement, seeing that you believe the State should take the increment ? —That would be subject to fair rating on the value of the land. The land should be rated according to its value. 232. But that is what is being done now. But in the case of increment, you propose to take it ?— Personally I see very little difference, so long as the community gets the full benefit of the created value, whether it is freehold or leasehold. 233. You seem to be rather evading my question ?—I do not wish to do so. 234. With regard to workmen's homes —which you say are more or less a failure —seeing that you cannot get suitable land sufficient to give areas of 2 acres each to workmen, would it not be better to settle workmen on smaller areas as low as a quarter of an acre ?—Yes. 235. Is there any land just adjoining Auckland suitable for cutting up into quarter-acre sections for workmen's homes ? —I believe there is land to be got at Remuera and at the back of the Veterans' Home, and I believe there are other lands which I am not well acquainted with. 236. Mr. Matheson.\ Are the workmen's-homes sections, or the bulk of them, at Avondale and New Lynn, near to the railway-station ?—I believe so. 237. The maps seem to show that they are. Do you say that the trains take an hour to get to those places ?—I say from three-quarters of an hour to an hour, but I was talking about Henderson. I believe you could get to Avondale in from an hour to three-quarters of an hour. 238. When a merchant comes to a small town he will often have to pay £100 for the goodwill of a business, and if the town grows into a city like this, the value of that business increases by many thousands of pounds. Is part of that goodwill caused by the community ? —Yes ; the community create that goodwill. 239. Do you consider the State should take that goodwill from him ?—I consider there should be some mode of getting the value created by the community. 240. Mr. Forbes.'] How many people do you represent ?—We have fifteen unions affiliated to the Trades Council, and there are about two thousand connected with the various unions. 241. In answer to a previous question you said you would be in favour of taking away the Crown grant upon the death of the holder, just as your union said they would do in the case of the lease in perpetuity. Did you intend that ? —I would not break any contract. 242. In reply to a previous question you said you would be in favour of doing the same with the freehold as you would with a lease in perpetuity ? —I would deal justly with them. I would not take away his land. I intend the State or community should get the value by a land-tax. 243. Is not one of your planks that the unearned increment could be got from the freeholders by means of the land-tax Yes. 244. Do you not think, to be logical, the same principle should be applied to the lease in perpetuity ? —Yes, I believe it would amount to the same thing. 245. Would that not be a more equitable and just way of dealing with those people than breaking a solemn contract entered into ?—Probably it would. So long as the community get the benefit of the value created by them that is all they are entitled to. 246. This pronouncement of the conference in Wellington has caused a great deal of apprehension in the country that their leases will be broken. Some of those men who were not originally takers-up of these lease-in-perpetuity sections have bought in, and now they hear the Council wish to break the leases ? —lt would not affect those who bought in. You could only deal with those at present in existence. 247. Do you think it would be more equitable and just to deal with those leases by taxation ? — Yes, I believe it would. 248. Mr. Hall.] Have there been many instances of members of your union taking up Crown land and making them productive ?—I have known one or two, but, as a rule, most of them have not much capital, and they do not see their way clear to take up land.
C—4.
908
[W. PEAKE.
249. Ifjthey do not understand the working of land themselves, do you think they are fit to advise people in this very positive way ? —Well, we claim that as taxpayers we have the right to express an opinion. 250. You know that among the Native population the practice is to hold their lands in common, and, I take it, that you propose to apply that principle to the community as a whole. Among the Natives, suppose one man is more industrious than the rest, and starts improving and planting a piece of land. Some morning he finds some Maoris in his patch of ground, taking away what he has planted, and when he remonstrates with them they tell him it is common property and belongs to them all. Is that not something like one section of the community saying to another section, " You go out and improve the country, and we will come in and share all alike " ? —We believe a man is entitled to the full value of all the improvements he makes and to all the produce he grows. 251. Is it not the industry of the settlers singly and collectively that creates the value of the land to the country ?—I think he is entitled to the value he creates, but is not most of the increased value given chiefly by railways and roads. 252. I think the settlers have to pay all the rates for roads and railways ? —We in the city know to our cost that we have to pay our share for them. 253. Mr. McCardle.] You said you were in favour of a reduction of the present exemption of £500 that is allowed to the small settlers as regards taxation ?—Yes. 254. Have you had any experience of the back-block settler and his average earnings ?—I have had to get up at 4 o'clock in the morning and work till 9 at night dairying, and I have done my share of draining, stumping, and scrubbing. 255. You did not remain a fool, like many of us, and stick to it. Are you aware that the average that such a man earns with the assistance of the whole of his family does not amount to more than £70 a year, and he pays the same amount through the Customs as you are doing to-day, and yet you would inflict upon those people extra taxation ? —No, we do not wish to do that. 256. The whole of your argument tended in that direction ? —I question that, rather. 257. I want to put you right in one little matter. You stated that many years ago you knew of land being sold at Canterbury at £1 an acre. Is it not a fact that there was not an acre of land sold in Canterbury under £2 ?—I believe you are right. It is a good many years ago, and I have forgotten the exact price. 258. I am very pleased to find that you interest yourself so energetically in the cause of the workers, and lam heartily in sympathy with you. Do you not think it desirable in the interests of the workers of the city that the Government should find sufficient money to enable deserving people to make homes for themselves ?—Yes, I believe in deserving cases the Government would not lose money by it. 259. The difference between you and me is this : that wherever I can see a possible way of advancing the cause of the workers in the city I put my heart and soul into it, but when it comes to those who are struggling in the back blocks, those settlers who with me have to travel miles and miles without a road, you tell us when we have a leasehold you will take it away, and you hold that the interest we are trying to create for our families should go to the State. Do you think that is fair ? —We do not wish to do that. 260. Your argument appears to aim at that ? —I thought I had made it perfectly clear that all the improvements you have created as an occupier of a block of land your family is entitled to. 261. I take you to be an intelligent man, and you are aware that the progress of the country and the town must work hand-in-hand, and yet, according to the utterances of your union, you wish to develop the one as against the other I—l am entirely opposed to anything of the sort, because we could not do anything detrimental to the country without feeling the effect of it in the town. 262. Then, we want to have a better understanding with one another ?—lf any of our arguments are wrong from your standpoint it is only right we should be made acquainted with it, and I should be only too glad to come to a better understanding. ■ 263. Mr. Paul.] Do you not think it would be more practicable if the workers asked for, say, a quarter of an acre for workmen's homes. Do you think if he cultivates a quarter of an acre properly it would be better than holding a larger area which he has not the time to work properly ?—Yes, it would be better than 2 acres not properly cultivated. 264. You recognise that there is more chance of getting a quarter of an acre for a home than if you ask too much ? —Certainly. 265. You know that neither you nor I want to put town against country. Now, I will just ask you this : how many workmen have you known during your lifetime who have died rich, and have obtained their riches by working for wages ? —Not one. But I have known a few farmers and a number of large landholders who have.
At this stage the Commissioners resolved themselves into two divisions, Messrs. McKerrow, Anstey, McCutchan, Johnston, and. Paul proceeding to the Taranaki District; Messrs. Hall, McCardle, McLennan, Matheson, and Forbes remaining in the Auckland District. Taranaki evidence follows Auckland evidence.
C.-4.
F. C. EWEN.J
909
Hamilton, Monday, 29th May, 1905. Fbancis Charles Ewen examined. I. The Chairman (Mr. Hall).] What are you ? —I am a Crown Lands Ranger. I have been in the Waikato a good number of years, and I have a generally good knowledge of the country. |Hj2. Mr. Forbes.] Are the settlers around here doing well I—As1 —As a rule, all the settlers are doing well. |ij 3. Are there many under your charge ?—Not in the immediate vicinity. |U 4. Is there much Crown land around this district ? —Not within a radius of twelve or fourteen miles. Most of the land is held as freehold here. 5. Speaking generally, would you say that the settlers are satisfied with the administration of the Land Board ?—All those I have met are well satisfied. 6. Have they raised any objections to the restrictions under the various Acts ?— They think that the residential clause is rather too strict. They think that a man who improves his land satisfactorily should not be compelled to reside on his section. 7. Do you think if the residential condition was made easier it would be opening the door to dummyism or anything of that sort ?—Certainly, I do. 8. Do you think that the present regulations are good ones ? —I think they are the best. I think a good number of people would take up land if they had not to reside on it, and in that way they would prevent a number of people who did want to occupy the land from getting it. 9. It has been suggested to us that if double improvements were effected residence might be waived. Do you think that would be wise ? —I do not think so. 10. It has been suggested, in the case of a new settlement, that if double improvements were required to be effected instead of residence, employment would be provided for those settlers already on the land ; do you think that is a reasonable suggestion ? —lt is to a certain extent, but I think residence ought to be compulsory. 11. Is there any attempt to evade these residential conditions I—No1 —No ; at the same time, they grumble a good deal. 12. Has compliance with these regulations occasioned hardship in any way ?—I do not think so. 13. What is the class of land that is mostly settled on ?—The majority is rough bush land and broken country. Some of it is fifteen or twenty miles from a centre. 14. Have the settlers good roads ?—No, the roads are bad. 15. Do you think in cases like that the residential conditions should be made easier ?—I think there are a number of settlers who are quite willing to go into the back country if they can get the land, and reside on it. 16. Is there much Crown land yet to be settled ?—I do not think so. 17. Has all the Crown land under your charge been opened to the public ? —Yes, it has all been balloted for. 18. Mr. McCardle.] Are you acquainted with the country south of Kawhia ?-—Yes, I have travelled through the country. 19. I suppose you know the Te Awaroa Settlement, and that it is practically isolated, and has no road at all ? —That is so. 20. Under the circumstances, do you think it is fair that the settlers in that block should be compelled to reside on their sections before they have even a track ? —No, I think it is only fair that they should have a road before the land is thrown open for selection. 21. And is it not a fact that some young married men with families are compelled to reside out of the settlement in order to get education for their children ? —I am not aware of cases of that kind. 22. Do you know the Kinohaku district ?—Yes. 23. I suppose you are aware that the settlers in this district have had to cut miles of tracks to get their stock in and out ?—Yes. '24. Do you think it is in the best interests of settlement that these settlers should be so treated in the matter of roads ? —My idea is that the roads ought to have been made into these sections before they were thrown open. 25. I suppose in conversation with the settlers you have heard them make assertions that the roads were promised long ago ? —Yes. 26. Are there any Government lands still available in these blocks ?—Not that I am aware of, except some forfeited sections. 27. Do you think it is desirable they should be settled ?—I do. 28. I suppose you have heard more complaints from the settlers about roads than about anything else ? —Their principal complaint is about roads. 29. Mr. McLennan.'] Are there any Crown tenants under the Land for Settlements Acts under your charge ?—No. 30. Taking the Crown tenants, as a rule, do they put up buildings and fences equal to the old settlers who took up land under freehold i—l think they do. 31. Do you think, from your own experience, that they improve the land as well as those who have freeholds ?—ln the broken bush country I think they do equally as well. 32. From your experience, is there any demand among the Crown tenants for the option of the freehold ? —No. 33. Do you think it would be advisable, when four or five settlers take up land in a block quite removed from settlement, that they should get a telephone to the nearest township to enable them to communicate with the doctor in cases of sickness or accident ?—I think it would be a very good thing. 34. Mr. Matheson.] Do your duties take you over more than one county ?—Yes, the Rodney, Waitemata, and Manukau Counties.
a—4.
910
[f. c. ewen.
35. Is/here much poor manuka and fern land in the districts you go over ? —ln the Rodney County there is a good deal. Roughly, there are about 8,000 or 10,000 acres. Some of it is Crown land and some of it is not. 36. Can you suggest any new move the] Government could make to encourage the use ol such land ? —As'ja rule, people shyjjclear of that tea-tree land. It costs £3 per acre to get it into grass, and they get jvery poor grass, and the tea-tree comes up again. 37. Do you_think it wise to encourage people to use it for fruit-growing ?—I do. It grows fruit verj. well. 38. To do so]would they not have to spend a much larger amount of capital in improving the land han the land itself is worth ? —-Yes. 39. Do you think if it is offered for fruit-growing it would be wise to give the land free, provided the people set out a certain proportion of the area in fruit ?—Yes. 40. Is there much Native land in your district I—No.1 —No. 41. Mr. McCardle.] In Kawhia South, is it not a fact that the improvements of most of the settlers are a long way in advance of what is required by law ?—They are. 42. And have they not proved themselves a good class of settlers ? —Yes, they are a splendid class of settlers. 43. Is there not a large area of Native land surrounding the Kawhia Harbour ? —Yes. 44. Is it not a fact that that land is a great drawback to settlement ?—Certainly ; there is a lot of good land which could be brought into cultivation at very little expense. 46. You think the country cannot progress until these lands are dealt with ?—No. 47. Mr. McLennan.] Evidence has been brought before us on several occasions to the effect that Crown tenants do not put improvements on their property equal to those of freeholders. Is that your experience ?—No. I have found lease-in-perpetuity settlers do improvements in thejshape of fencing, grassing, and buildings equally as well as other settlers. 48. The Chairman.] Do you think that a settler who goes into back country withjyoung children, out of the reach of schools and the other advantages of civilisation, should be compelled to reside on his section, or do you think the condition should be relaxed, provided he puts substantial improvements on his property until such time as roads and the other benefits of civilisation reached him ?— I think the residence conditions might be modified in the case of a man with young children who takes up land in a district where there is no school. 49. Mr. Matheson.] Have you a personal knowledge of the administration of these Maori lands ? —I have not. 50. Have you any knowledge of the demand for new machinery to make use of them ? Do you think the present machinery enabling Natives and Europeans to deal with Native lands is satisfactory ? —I do not think it is. 51. Can you suggest any improvement on it I—l think the Natives should be allowed a certain area for their own use, which land should be made inalienable, and I think the Government ought to buy the remainder from them in order to make better use of the land. 52. Do you think the Crown should take the land over and sectionise it and offer it for settlement ? —I think so. 53. And secure to the Natives the interest accruing from the capital received ?—Yes. Thomas Carless examined. 54. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer at Ngaruawahia. I hold 33 acres under lease in perpetuity, and my wife has 16 acres of freehold. My land was swamp and bush land covered with noxious weeds. lam paying 10|d. per acre rent. 55. Mr. Forbes.] Do you earn your living off this land ? —No. I have had to go out and work. 56. How long have you held the land ?—Thirteen years. I have spent £315 in bringing it into cultivation, and it is not half cleared yet. 57. It appears it would need a great expenditure of capital to bring it into profitable use ?—lt has cost me £20 per acre to clear the noxious weeds off it. 58. Are there any other tenants near you ?—-Four altogether. 59. Are they in the same position as you ?—They are as badly off as I am. The land has been very difficult to drain. It has cost me about £1 10s. per acre to drain, and in draining my land I have benefited a speculator alongside me who has not paid a penny. If the drainage had been done under a proper system it would not have cost more than ss. per acre. 60. Do you think the Government should have put drains in before they settled the land ? — Yes. 61. If the Government had put drains in before settling the land, and charged more rent, would you have been willing to pay an increased rental ?—Yes. 62. Are you satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—I think the lease in perpetuity is very good. I think the tenure is an ideal one. I consider that the Government have no right to sell the unearned increment, and that no man has any right to buy it. 63. Do you think the lease-in-perpetuity tenure is equal to the freehold ? —Yes, provided the rent is not charged on more than the unimproved value of the land as it is assessed for taxation purposes. 64. Have the settlers around you got the same lease as yourself ?—Yes. 65. Possibly you may have noticed in the evidence that has come before this Commission that there has been a considerable demand on behalf of the Crown tenants for the freehold, because they do not feel secure under lease in perpetuity : would you say that was the feeling of yourself and fellow-, settlers ?—lt is not my feeling. I think the lease in perpetuity is the right tenure. I work as hard on my section as I would if it were freehold.
911
C—4.
T. OABLBSS.]
-66. Do you have any trouble with the Rangers, or any thing like that ? —As far as the Land Board is concerned, I have been here thirteen years, and I have not had a visit from them. The only thing I have to complain of is that if the Rangers had made more frequent visits the noxious weeds would not have been so bad as they are. 67. What could the Rangers have done ?—They could have called the tenants to book before the weeds had got so bad. My worst weed is the blackberry. In regard to Land Boards, I believe that the Crown lands in each county should be under the charge of the County Council. When I came to the colony twenty years ago and went to the Land Board Office, I could get no information from them. If the land had been under the charge of the County Council they would probably have shown me maps and given me information, and sent a man around with me to look at the land, and I should have been settled long before I was. 68. Are not things better now ?—Yes. 69. How are you off for roads —Our roads are fairly good. 70. Mr. McCardle.] You have spent £300 on 30 acres ?—Yes. 71. What is your section valued at now for county rates ? —I do not remember. 72. We had a witness before us in Auckland who said that the land should be revalued on the death of the tenant at present holding the lease, and that the rent should be raised on his widow or children over and above the value of his improvements ; do you think your land would sell to-day at £10 per acre freehold ?—I believe it would, but it is not worth th at." 73. If this suggested amendment were carried into effect, and your improvements were valued at your death, do you think they would be able to see the £300 you have spent : would it show on the ground ? —I do not know whether i,t would. 74. To put the matter briefly, do you approve of the revaluation of your property at your death ? —I think revaluation should take place periodically and before my death. When I took up that land the rent was based at 4 per cent, on the net capital value, and in twenty years' time I suppose that land would be worth double that. I consider if my rent was doubled, and my unimproved value was doubled, that my rent has not risen. 75. Mr. McLennan.'] Are you or are you not afraid that your lease will be tampered with by this Government or any other Government ? —I have no confidence in the Government whatever. 76. How many settlers would be benefited by the thorough draining of the swamp on which you are settled ?—Nine. 77. Do you not think it would be far better to form yourselves into a Drainage Board and strike a small rate and do the work yourselves ?—The difficulty is that the speculator put poor men on their land and they cannot afford to do the work. I maintain that the tenants should not be recognised at all in the matter of draining or fencing or clearing noxious weeds. The liability should be on the owners. 78. Mr. Matheson.] Do you say you have spent £20 per acre in improving your place, and now it is not worth more than £10 ?—I have. 79. Do you think there is any unearned increment there ?—There is unearned increment to a certain extent. 80. Mr. Forbes.] You say the land surrounding your place is let by private owners to tenants ? —Yes. 81. What rental do they charge ? —ln one case 2s. 6d. per acre. 82. Have these tenants got the land for a long period ?—I think it is a-twelve years lease, but they have it under a purchasing clause. 83. They are poor men, and they have not money to assist in the drainage-works ?—Just so. 84. Will they be able to buy their places ?—They will never buy them, in my opinion. 85. The Chairman.] If the improvements on your place have cost you £20 per acre besides your own time, and the land is only worth £10 per acre, where does the unearned increment lie ?—You must remember it would not have cost me £20 per acre had the noxious weeds not been there. 86. Where does the value lie beyond your improvements and the original value of your land ? — There is none at the present time. It is prospective. I would like to read this letter to the Commission, as it expresses my opinion : — " As Others see Us. " To the Editor of the Herald. " Sir, —The socialistic Press of America gives glowing accounts of the good results of the land and labour laws of this country. Having a number of sons, and being convinced that favourable conditions were being established here, I came to take Government land, make my home on it, and have my sons settle about me. Accompanied by a friend, also on the same errand, I started on a bicycle from Auckland to reach the Kawhia lands, which the Government advertised as open for selection. My investigations on the way to Kawhia convinced me that land-values in New Zealand are very largely speculative, and they are much higher than returns from capital invested in lands at prices asked would justify ; in a word, that there is a very pronounced boom in land. We found the Kawhia country very broken and inaccessible, fit only for pastoral purposes, heavily timbered in parts, with limestone cliffs everywhere. The soil, especially in South Kawhia, is excellent and well watered, but the country may truthfully be described as rough, very rough ; a country in which no man of judgment and experience would make a haphazard selection. I was much surprised and disappointed to find that under the system in vogue the selecion is made by a game of chance — a sort of land-lottery—managed by Government. The location of my home (if lucky enough to get one in Kawhia) was to be decided not by agreement between myself and Government, but by a blindfold man picking papers at random out of a hat—practically, by a throw of J the dice'; and on inquiry I found the dice loaded heavily against me, it being a common practice for whole family connections to ballot on desirable allotments to get
C—4.
912
Ft. cabless.
them for one of their number. One young man claimed to represent a syndicate, each member of which would ballot on the only allotment marked first-class in the district, to be improved and held purely for speculative purposes. I found the majority of those looking over the land did not intend making their homes on it. They were speculators, who found the system of allotment, the regulations as to residence and improvement, and the system of taxing holdings less than 2,000 acres favourable to their operations. I did find a few like myself who honestly wished to make their homes on the land, but they were confronted with the possibility that a large part of the district would fall to the non-resident speculator, whose improvements were made merely to hold the land for the unearned increment. For the resident settler this means an almost total lack of that co-operation which is so important a factor in the progress of new settlements. It means isolation, loneliness, and a greater difficulty in getting roads, schools, and every advantage of civilised life. On returning to Te Kuiti we found that the Government had disregarded the expenditures and exertions of both speculator and settler in the efforts to see the lands, and had withdrawn them from selection. They are again to be open for selection, this time under leasehold in perpetuity only. But that does not much improve the chances of the home-seeker. Under the existing method of taxation leaseholds will have a speculative value, and the holder may still be a non-resident. Nothing short of compulsory residence and taxation of land-values will cure the evil. Residence should be compulsory. In Canada and the United States the system has produced the best results. And the lands should be given in reasonable amounts to actual settlers free. I* their present condition the Kawhia lands have no value because they produce nothing. The price asked for them by Government is purely a speculative value that can only come into existence by the lands becoming the place of residence of a settled community. That value is yet to be created. In the development of the Kawhia country two kinds of value will be created side by side. The industry of individual settlers will create improvement values which will be altogether due to individual effort or expenditure, and should belong exclusively to the settlers making the effort or expenditure. This being the fruits of labour, the Government have no right to tax it. But another value will attach to these lands, whether held under freehold or lease in perpetuity. This value will arise by reason of the presence of a settled community and the expenditure which its presence makes necessary 011 roads, bridges, schools, &c. This value the Government ought to tax, because it is created by the whole resident people, and in taxing it they would not take from any one what was created by his individual effort or expenditure. And their failure to tax it makes the operations of the speculator possible and profitable. This is the value the speculators who rushed Kawhia lands hoped to put in their pockets. The breaking-up of large estates by the Government here has encouraged rather than checked speculation. It is simply a system of unloading both improvement and speculative values upon the small holders to whom the Government allots the lands, and assures the large landholders of a certain ultimate sale of holdings with Government security for payment. Who does not know that land-values have largely increased here in three years past, and that a great proportion of this increase is speculative value, and that in breaking up estates no distinction is made between values which came from improvements and values which are made by the community. The Government, in borrowing money to deal in these values, is not remedying the evils which come from speculation in land, but is intensifying the dangers which are an inevitable result of the system. "I like New Zealand; I am pleased with its land, its climate, and its people, and I should like to locate permanently, and bring my family to settle here. But after a close investigation, and calm review of your system of land allotment and taxation, I am compelled with regret to decide to return to America. Your land legislation and labour laws have not in any way remedied the inequality which springs from monopoly and speculation in land. It is only a partial and very paltry alleviation. No arrangement which does not place every man in the same relation to the land from which all men must live, can be permanent or final.—l am, &c., "John Macmillan. " Auckland, I3th March, 1902." Robert Dickenson Duxfielp examined. 87. The Chairman.} What are you ?—I am a settler at Ngaruawahia, my holding being 600 acres freehold. 88. Do you consider that the best tenure ?—I certainly do. 89. Is there anything else that you wish to bring before the Commission ? —First of all, with reference to the constitution of the Land Boards : Ido not consider that at present it is at all satisfactory. What I would suggest is something like this : that one-third of the members should be nominated by the Government, one-third elected by the local bodies, and one-third elected by the leaseholders. 90. Elected under what franchise ?—I should say they should be elected by the Chairmen of the local bodies. 91. Do you wish to mention any other matter ? —I represent the farmers of Ngaruawahia. They are in favour of the present systems of tenure, but amended so as to put it within the reach of the Crown tenants to obtain the freehold under reasonable conditions. I consider that the freeholder is the best class of settler —that he is of just as much value to the State as the leaseholder. The value of any settler to the State is his value for taxation purposes, and the State is not prevented from taxing the freeholder. He is just as amenable to taxation as the leaseholder, and in addition he is better able to pay the taxes. I consider that leasehold tenure has been the ruin of the British farmer. I was bred on a British farm, and speaking from experience, I can say that if the farmer had the option of the freehold a great many who have left the country to seek new homes in other lands would still be in the Old Country as prosperous farmers. I consider that some of the restrictions upon Crown tenants are outrageous. I can see no reason for the system of grouping that was applied to the Matamata property. It seems absurd. I have been in touch with a great many who have had experience of the system, and they complain bitterly of the injustice. It is not as though all the sections grouped to-
R. D. DUXFIETiD.I
913
C.-4.
gether were of the same value. In the majority of cases where men had sections allotted to them which they did not directly apply for they have used their endeavours to get rid of them, and exchange them for other sections. Another injustice to which the Matamata settlers have been subjected, has been that of two-fold rents. In many cases the settlers have had to pay rent for three or four months to the Government, and also the Assets Board in order to get possession. I consider that the Government should not have charged them rent till they were in a position to give possession of the land. I say that what has happened is a disgrace to the Land Board or whoever had charge of the matter. The Government were, I understand, calling upon the settlers to pay from the 30th June, and they were not able to put them in possession until somewhere about October. I would be in favour of doing away with the ballot system, and putting the sections up to auction—of course with a reserved price put upon each section. That would be fairer both to the Government and the settler. With respect to the advances-to-settlers system, T think the law expenses in connection with mortgages might be cut down. There ought to be a simpler method with respect to deeds. The present system plays into the hands of the lawyers It is being urged by a certain class that the granting of the freehold means the aggregation of large estates. I do not see that it follows. You can limit by legislation the area of land a man should hold. 92. Tfo Chairman.l Are you correct in saying that the cost in conveying land from the Government is as great as in the case of land bought from private individuals ?—I am not prepared to say anything like that; but I know of some cases where the legal expenses were much greater than there was necessity for. 93. There are fixed charges which I know are greatly less than in the case of private transactions ? —But the Government should cut" down the expenses to the very lowest. 94. As regard? the Matamata Settlement: are you quite clear that the tenants were paying rent before they got possession ?—I am quite clear that it has been claimed. 9P. Do you say that the tenants paid rent before they got possession ?—Yes. 9*l Is it not that they anticipated the time when they could get possession from the Government, and made an arrangement with the Assets Board !—Well it comes to the same thing; If they had not done that they would not lave got possess'on. 97 Mr Forbes.'] Yor represent the Faimtrs' Union?— Yes. 97a. How many members are there in ycur branch ? —About thirty Altogether. 98. Are you expressing the views of your union as to the constitution o l and Board« ?—No ; on that point I spoke personally. On the question of tenure I spoke for the urion. 99. Do any members of your branch hold sections under lease in perpetu'ty ? —Some of them are Crown tenants, but I could not say how many. 100. As to your illustration of the British farmer, there are no Crown lands at Home as in New Zealand ? —No ; but I consider the restrictions imposed by the Government here are greater than those enforced by the landlord at Home. 101. What are the restrictions that are so hard upon the settler ? —You only need to read the conditions of settlement and you will see that the restrictions are more stringent than those contained in most English leases. 102. But you were referring to the conditions as printed, and not to their working ? —No ; I have no personal experience of them. 103. Do you say that the Crown tenants have complained to you of the conditions ? —Yes. 104. What particular restrictions do they complain of ? —T was referring to the Matamata settlers. Their general conditions, if enforced, would be far more severe than the restrictions in English cases. 105. But they have not had experience yet ? —They have had this experience, that they have been called upon to pay this two-fold rent. I have seen a letter from the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Auckland. He wrote in a cast-iron sort of way stating that the rent must be paid—that he was merely a collector of rents in the matter. 106. Would not any landlord have done the same ?—I never heard of a case of a landlord charging twofold rent. The Government should have charged no rent till they were in a position to give possession. 107. Do you not think that if auction were substituted, for the ballot system people would bid against one another and run the rent up to more than its value ?—That would be the outlook of the individual. The Government would not suffer. 108. One of the experiences of the Government in the past in connection with the option system has been that tenants would overbid themselves, with the result that they were not long able to pay the rent, and the Government consequently had to reduce them ? —Has not that happened in the case of the ballot system when the land has been too highly valued. 109. Have you known cases where the rent has been reduced ? —I have known cases where sections have had to be forfeited. 110. Is it not a first principle in settlement to get the setoler on the land at a reasonable rental, and not at an extravagantly high price ? —Quite so, but I do not think that that principle is carrried out. 111. But you understand that that is the spirit of the thing. Do you not consider that under the auction system there is a likelihood of a man going higher than is reasonable ? —I say that the same evil exists in the worst form under the ballot system. In many cases the land is valued by incompetent men, who put excessive values -upon it with the same evil results as under the auction system. 112. What particular district do you consider too highly vauled ? —Matamata, for one. 113. That is the fault of the valuers ? —lt is a very hard matter to value land. Often a practical farmer will value a section better than a professional valuer. If you leave it to pub'ie competition at auction it is a|man's own fault if he bids too high. Only by competition can you get the true marketvalue.
115—C. 4.
C—4.
914
Tr. d. DUXFIF,LI>.
114. In"reference to the law expenses of advances to settlers, is it your own experience they"are too*high ?—ln my opinion there should he hardly any expenses at all. The Government*should adopt some system of having security without mortgages —say by having a stamped paper instead of a deed. 115. We have had evidence from the solicitor representing the Advances to Settlers Department that the charges made for advances was very much below the charges made in the case of private mortgages ? —That may be, but I do not'see why a settler should have to pay any such charges in dealing with the Government. Ido not see why the Government should stop to consider the solicitor in the matter. The Government's money would be better invested by letting the settler have it than in giving it to the solicitor. 116. Mr. McCardle.\ Is not a great deal of the expense caused through having to search for deeds, remove all mortgages, and so forth ? —ln some cases but not in all cases. 117. I suppose you have seen the scale of charges ? Is it not reasonable enough if it was adhered to ? —I do not see why there should any expense for a mortgage-deed when the money is coming from the Government. 118. Returning to the auction system : are not evils likely to creep in from its adoption through persons paying too much for their land, and would it not be a system that would tend to bar the poorer class of settler from touching land ? —I would give them the optional-system tenure. 119. Still might not the land rise to such a price that the hard-working settler might not be able to meet it I—You1 —You have the same thing under the ballot if the land is overvalued. 120. How many years have you been in the colony ?—About thirteen years. 121. Would you be surprised to hear that some twenty-odd years ago the Government found it absolutely necessary to revalue the lands that had been sold under the auction system, and to reduce them as much as one-half ?—You are missing one point in what I said—that the Government should put a reserve on the sections. 122. That is the lowest reserve. It is the higher one lam afraid of. The experience of the Government was —and I as a member of the Wellington Land Board am well acquainted, because I am one of those who made the revaluation—that land sold at £5 an acre had in some cases to be reduced to £2, to enable the holder to make a living on it at all. Do you not think that in view of that fact it would require much stronger arguments than you have produced to persuade the Government to abandon the ballot system ? —You would have to do the same thing if the land was overvalued under the ballot system. 123. If there is anything wrong in the Matamata valuation, is not that the fault of the Government valuers and not of the ballot system ? If practical men were appointed would they not put on proper values ?—Not in all cases. A man needs to know something about the district, and also to have some experience in farming. 124. That is what I say. Does not the fault lie with the men appointed ?■ —I think a practical farmer would be capable of making the valuation. 125. Exactly what I wanted. If a capable man were appointed to value there would be no such thing as over valuation ? —Yes, and in all cases a capable farmer has not been appointed. 126. Is it not time we had an improvement in that respect ?—Yes. * 127. Are you acquainted with the leaseholders at Matamata ? —A few of them. 128. Do you know if any of them are anxious for the right of purchase ?—Most of them are. All of them that I have come in touch with. 129. If you granted the right of purchase to them, on what condition wouldi ? you grant it ?— Something the same as if they had taken up the land under occupation with right of purchase in the first instance. 130. Of course you are aware it would cost something to the State to alter the system—that it would require a Bill to be put through Parliament ? —But that would be only a small matter when spread over the whole colony. . 131. Do you consider that the Chairmen of counties would be the proper persons to elect the members of Land Boards ? —Yes, to elect one-third of a Board. Their position shows that they have the confidence of the people, and also a certain amount of knowledge. 132. You are aware that these men are appointed principally to look after the -roads of the district, which is a different thing from looking after the lands of the district ? —Some of the men filling these positions are much more capable than some of the men on the Land Board. 133. Do you think that in a large district like Auckland the number of members of the Board should be increased ?—Not necessarily if they are elected. 134. But there are only four members on the Board now, how are you going to divide them into three sections ? —You are not bound to have four. 135. How many counties are there in the Auckland province ?—1 am not in a position to say. I merely suggested the constitution. I have not worked it out. What I do say is that the present system is faulty. 136. Well there are twenty or thirty different counties, and those men under present circumstances would elect one member. could youjfind a representative be known to all the County Chairmen in the province ? —Very much the same thing is done with the Education Board. The School Committees elect the members of the Board. 137. Should the number of members of the Land Board be increased ?—Yes, I think so. 138. Do you not think that it would be more reasonable that the different localities and interests should be represented on the Board apart from the question of election ? —Well, as I say, I have not worked out a system, I have suggested a system because I consider the present method of appointment unsatisfactory.
915
C.—4
B. I). DTJXFIELD.
|fji||l39. Mr. McLennan.] You said the restrictions upon settlers are very detrimental to land settlement. SjWhat were the detrimental restrictions ?—I said that if put in force the restrictionsjare more stringent than the restrictions imposed at Home. 140. You said that the demand for rentjwas :made injja very arbitraryigform]?—ln|the|one case I mentioned it was. k ; 4j141. Do you consider this an arbitrary demand for rent: "\Re Arrears of Rent. —Referring to my previous notices sent you for non-payment of rent, amounting to £ : : being half-yearly payments, I have to state that at present I do not iutend to bring the matter before the Land Board, but I should be glad to know what proposals you have to make, say, within one month from this date ; and also a statement as to your circumstances, as I am most anxious to meet you in any way that is reasonable ; also, if you cannot pay the whole amount perhaps you could arrange to pay at least a portion of it. If, however, the rents remain unpaid, of course I shall be reluctantly compelled to take further steps for the recovery of same, although I trust that this course will not be necessary in your case " ?— What I referred to was the case of the twofold rent. It was a different letter from that. The Commissioner stated that he was a collector of rents and not concerned with the merits of the system. 142. How long ago was that ?—I think it was to be paid on the 30th June, this year. 143. Mr. Matheson.] Do you consider that if the right of purchase was given to the land-for-settle-ments tenants the State would benefit \ —Yes ; the settlers would work with more dash because they would have more heart. They would also be better able to pay taxes, and that is their real value to the State. 144. Do you know that when an estate is taken for settlement the average rent is fixed by law according to the amount paid for the property ?—Yes. 145. And that at Matamata the rents ranged from 3d. an acre to ss. '! Do you recognise that in Matamata an endeavour was made by the Crown to adjust the rents according to the quality of the land ? —Yes, but it failed. There are some sections in Matamata valued at Bs. an acre, and yet there are better sections valued at 4s. 6d. and less. Arthur Furze examined. 146. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I have been a settler in this district for twenty yea" I *. I own 300 acres of land at Matangi. 147. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I wish to speak in reference to the Fencourt Settlement. I knew Fencourt when it belonged to the old Agricultural Company. I knew it when it was cleared, and also when it was cut up for settlement, and I know it now. I live within a mile of it. The settlers there are a good class of settler, and lam perfectly certain that if they had a chance of buying their property eventually they would do a great deal more with the farms than they are doing now. But they have always the fear of their valuations being increased, and if the values continue to increase at the present rate they fear that a time may come when the Government may bring in a Bill enabling a revaluation of their land. That is why they are not improving the property as they could do. 148. These tenants hold under lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 149. Their tenure is fixed unalterably for nine hundred and ninety-nine years ?—But still in the event of the Government buying more properties and leasing them they could perpetuate the same kind of trouble. Such settlers do not keep their holdings up to the same standard as freeholders. 150. You advocate freehold tenants % —I advocate in the future giving tenants a chance of buying the freehold at some, time or other. If they had a chance of buying the property in course of time, and then an increased value were put upon them, they could provide against the increase by mortgaging the properties. 151. They hold an absolute title for 999 years ?—They hold an absolute title till something happens, and you never know what may happen. I have seen some peculiar things done in New Zealand. .152. But you could tax the freehold in the same way ?—Yes. 153. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think that the Fencourt settlers are improving the place ? —They are improving it, but I am perfectly certain that they would improve faster and in a more perfect manner if they had the prospects of getting the freehold at some time or other. 154. Do you think they have a certain amount of apprehension about revaluation ?—I know they do. 155. Do you think that is the reason they wish to have the option of purchasing ?—I cannot say that they particularly wish for it. I suppose some of them will appear before the Commission. Down my way we have seven or eight Crown tenants, and I know they would like the freehold. 156. Do they make complaint as to the way they are treated ? —I have never heard any one of them complain. 157. But in conversation with you they have expressed the wish ? —I have heard five of them say that they would like to buy the freehold, but they have never expressed any particular wish on the question. 158. What are the local rates charged upon Fencourt ? —Last year there was a penny rate for roading purposes, and a farthing for the county, all on the capital value, and these capital values are going up. It is when the values go up that the settlers are frightened. 159. Is it the unimproved value that has risen ?■—Both the unimproved value and the valuation for improvements has risen. 160. Do you think that has anything to do with the wish for the freehold ?—Most decidedly it has. The shifting of the values is creating a fright amongst these men. 161. If the value was going down do you think they would have the same anxiety ? —Decidedly they would not.
C—4.
916
A. FtTKZE.
162. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think it is desirable to increase the number of members of the Land Board so that the outlying districts may have representation ? —lt would certainly lead to better knowledge of locality. 163. Do you not think it is necessaryjjthat|the members of the Board should be possessed of a knowledge of the district—that is pretty general ?—Certainly. 164. You say that these settlers are afraid of, the raising of the values ; do you not think that they are also afraid of the latest pronouncements made by the labour party in conference at Wellington '( They are proposing that after the death of a leaseholder, his property shall be taken and revalued, allowance to be made for improvements, and that an increased rental be put upon the land for his widow to pay ? —Does not that all tend to what I say, that if the settlers were in a position to acquire the land at some time or other, say twenty-five or thirty years hence, they would be more ready to put on the improvements. 165. There is another feature of it, where they say that suppose you were the holder of a lease from the Crown, and you desired to sell your interest to some one else, it should be then revalued and an extra rent put upon the purchaserls that equitable and just ?—That would restrain a man from improving the value of his property. 166. Mr. McLennan.\ How long have the Fencourt settlers been on their land ? —Four or five years. 167. Do you think they have put as much improvement on the land in that period as the man who had a freehold four or five years ? —No, they have not—not on the land. Putting a house upon the place is not an improvement on the place at all. What I call improvements is clearing away rushes, ploughing, fencing, and putting water on the land. 168. What has prevented them putting improvements on the land ? — The fact that they are frightened that some day or other the law will be altered and their improvements will be swept away by means of increases in the rent. 169. If they do not like to pay the increased rent (! they can] go' out and take the full value of the improvements ? Supposing I have a place of 300jacres, 100 cleared and the other 200 in raupo, rushes, and tea-tree. Would there be[any. chance if I held it on leasehold of that 200 acres being put in a high state of cultivation ?—Many people who have the freehold do not put their land in a high state of cultivation. You will never get a leaseholder to put his property in a high state of cultivation under present circumstances. The Liberal and Labour Federation are working to frighten the man who holds the leasehold. 170. But even if he loses the land he gets the full improvements ? —Ah, but he would not. 171. How many people on the average apply for each section ?—I have no idea. 172. How many applied per section for Fencourt ?—On an average about ten for every section. 173. If the present proprietor is entitled to the freehold of his section, what about the nine unsuccessful applicants ? If the law is to be altered the section ought to go up to auction and the nine unsuccessful applicants have the same opportunity of getting the land as the one who bought it and now wants the agreement broken ?—But what I said was within the future all these lease-in-perpetuity sections should be knocked on the head and the other applicants given a chance. 174. Your idea is to allow the option in future leases. You do not wish to break the present agreement ?—I do not see how you can. But the Government can do the same thing in another way by taxation. 175. Mr. Matheson.] Do you consider that the Crown would be wise in giving the right of purchase to the lease-in-perpetuity settlers ?—They have made a contract and should stick to it. 176. Suppose the State sees that it would benefit the country to give them right of purchase, and the tenant is anxious for the right of purchase, do you think the lease might be amended so as to give it to them ? —lf the State thought it right and the tenant was in a position to pay, then it is simply a question of a bargain between the State and its tenants. • 177. Do you think the lease might be amended ?—Yes, I do. 178. As a citizen, do you think the State would be wise in giving that right ? —I think it would be. Walter Chitt Ysf examined. 179. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am chairman of the Farmers' Club in this district, and as such I have been asked to attend before the Commission. I have been farming in this locality for thirty years. I represent the Farmers' Club, which is a branch of the Farmers' Union. My own property is about 1,000 acres freehold. Nearly all the settlers in this district are freeholders, but there are a few leaseholders towards Ngaruawahia. 180. Have you any matter to bring before the Commission ? —The question of tenure has been before all the branches of the Farmers' Clubs about this district, and they are unanimous in asking that all leaseholders shall have the opportunity of acquiring the freehold. There is a diversity of opinion amongst the farmers as to revaluation. My own opinion, and I know it is shared by a great many others, is that if after a time the present tenants wish to purchase their holdings and a fresh valuation were called for, no injustice would be done either to them or to the country at large. Nor do I think it would bear hardly upon the tenant. Those persons who have fully improved their property would have no —what might be called —unearned increment. Their improvements would quite compensate for the fresh valuation. The person whom it would touch would be others who have done as little as they possibly can, and those who took up land for speculative purposes. 181. Mr. Forbes.] How many members are there in your club ?—ln the Hamilton branch there are about fifty, but through the district at large there are about four hundred.
W. CHITTY.I
917
C—4.
182. I suppose that nearly all your members are freeholders ?—Yes. 183. Has'this demand for the option arisen from the Crown tenants ?—Very much. As chairman of local branch I have received requests from Crown tenants up country that we should assist thern as much as possible. 184. Has any matter in connection with the constitution of the Land Board been before the union ? —There are so few members on the Boards now that it would be almost impossible for the different districts to be represented unless the numerical strength of the Board were increased. 185. Has any dissatisfaction been expressed by the tenants with regard to the Land Board ? — Not to my knowledge. 186. Mr. McCardle.] Is the Farmers' Club affiliated to the Farmers' Union ? —Yes. 187. The membership of the club is not in any way based on politics % —No, it is not a political body at all. We have members representing all sides in politics. We just discuss the interests of farmers. 188. The Matamata and Fencourt Estates were 1 fairly improved when taken over by the Government ?—Yes. 189. Are they being kept up to the same conditions of high cultivation ? —There is a great deal of Matamata which I consider was hardly suitable for the purpose. 190. It is land that is likely to go back ?—Yes ; I am afraid that many of the farmers there will not be able to hold their own. 191. You think that if the Government consider the question of granting the freehold to the tenants the land should be revalued ?—Yes. 192. Mr. McLennan.'] Why is it desirable to revalue the holdings if the tenants are allowed to acquire the freehold ? —There wofild be great dissatisfaction throughout the country if it were not so. 193. Would it not be-far better to conserve'the full valuation for improvements and put the allotments up to auction so as to enable those who took part in the original ballot to come up again ?— Certainly not. To the man who is on the land it means his home, and he has a certain attachment to it which a stranger could not have. 194. It may not be a stranger at all. Why should not those who were unsuccessful at the ballot have the same privilege as the holder soMong as his improvements are conserved to him ?—Put the land up to auction in the first instance. Ido not hold with the present system at all. 195. Are there any of the settlers transferring their interest now ? —I expect so. There have been in the past. Very few are taking up leases in this district. They are nearly all freeholders. 196. Have you had any experience in the South Island ? —None whatever. 197. Does it seem reasonable to you that in granting the right of purchase to the lease-in-perpetuity tenants the Crown should make a profit out of it ? —I do not think the Crown will make a profit out of the good settlers, but they will out of those who have been slothful. 198. Has there been an advance in land values in the last four years ? —Yes. 199. Do you say that the Government will make no profit out of the lease-in-perpetuity settlers if they are given the right to acquire the freehold, if the land has gone up in value, say, £2 an acre ?— I think in the case of the good settlers, their improvements would cover that. 200. You do not appear to comprehend my question. When a man goes on to land to value improvements, do you not think there are some improvements which are not visible to him ?—A practical farmer going over the land would soon see what had been done. 201. Could a farmer see what improvements had been done to a piece of originally swamp land or lagoon that had been made similar to the adjoining land ? —Yes, he could see by the drains and the lay of the country what had been done. 202. Suppose the settlers in a district had put up a butter-factory which would immediately increase the value of their land, do you think that would be regarded by a Government valuer as an improvement ? —I do not suppose it would, but the settlers would have the benefit of the factory while it was running. 203. And you think that when revaluation takes place before giving the right to purchase, the State should have the benefit of that increased value ? —I do not think there would be anything wrong in that. 204. Do you consider on farm lands generally there is any increment that has not been well earned ? —No, the unearned increment only comes in in the case of those who do not improve their land, and it is in those cases that the Government should have the right to take the increased value. 205. You have spoken about the increased value of land. You will, I suppose, remember a period when the lands in this locality receded in value ? —Yes. 206. As regards Land Boards, how, in your opinion, would it answer if each county were to nominate one individual, and the Government out of those so nominated, were to appoint the Board ?—I think that would be equitable. 207. Mr. McCardle.] What would you do in the case of a locality, such as Kawhia, where there is no county, and where there are thousands of settlers who should be represented ? —You should form yourselves into a county, and then we should be able to get at you for rates. John French Goodwin examined. 208. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a farmer. I was born in the South Island, on a freehold property. My father owned a freehold farm in the Waikato. At present I hold 147 acres at Fencourt, on the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. This I have held for about five years, and with the consent of the Land Board I have sublet it for five years. I also hold 370 acres under occupation-with-right-of-pur-chase tenure at Maramarua.
C.—4.
918
[j. F. GOODWIN.
209. Are you in occupation ?—I have only had it for six weeks. '"210. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I think all lessees present and future should have the right to purchase. I consider the lease in perpetuity unsatisfactory, in the first place because if the land?goes up in value we do not get the benefit of that, and if the right to purchase was given, it would*give us more'|encouragementjtofput in better improvements, and there would be a better class of settlers induced to go on the land. I know lots of good settlers who would take up land at places like Matamata, BickerstafEe, and Fencourt, but they are too wide awake to take up land without the right of purchase. For my own part, I would have applied for a section at Karipero, but there was not right of purchase. Then in the case of the lease in perpetuity, I consider revaluation would be absolutely cruel, because there are improvements a man puts in to his land in the way of heavy manuring, draining, and so on, that he would never get the value of in the way of improvements. And there are many other improvements, such as clearing the land of stones and stumping, which would not be visible to a valuer. I would like to say that, if the freehold is granted, I think the Government should restrict the area that could be held by any one man. As to Land Boards, I think one-half of the members should be elected by the ratepayers, and the other half should be appointed by the Government. Then, with regard to the labour unions, Ido not think they should have any say in our work, and under what system of tenure we should hold our lands. We do not interfere in their business at all. 211. You do not think it right that they should advocate the confiscation of other people's property ? —I do not think so. I believe thoroughly in the present ballot system, and I think it would be a grand thing if the option of purchase were given in every case, because every one would then have an equal chance. Why do not the labour, unions take up a piece of land as we do and cultivate it ? It is too much like hard work, and there is too much mud about for them. 212. You think they prefer that you should improve the land, and that they should then come in and share it with you ?—Yes. I know this district from Raglan to Gisborne, and I do not know one farmer who says that the lease is a good thing. 213. Mr. Forbes.] Do you mean to say that none of the settlers at Fencourt under the lease in perpetuity are good farmers ? —But there is only one man at Fencourt who holds that the 999 years lease is the proper thing, and he has not cultivated a foot of his land for five years. He is now asking from £8 to £16 an acre for the goodwill. He holds the pick of the land, and has just been grazing it for five years. 214. You say under the lease in perpetuity you cannot sell and get the benefit of an increase in value I—You could not sell it as you could if you had the occupation with right of purchase. 215. Do you know anything about land in the South Island under the Land for Settlements Act ? — of my schoolmates in Kaikoura and Marlborough have got those Government sections, but in the south you have only to prick the surface and stir it about a bit and it will grow anything. Here you have to spend the best years of your life before it is any good. 216. On this land at Fencourt can you grow crops ? —Yes, but at first it was all tall fescue and weeds, and we had to work those weeds out. For a long time I could not get my seed to root, and the birds took it. Even yet, I have not been able to get a payable crop. 217. What rent do you pay % —4s. 3d. 218. Is that a fair price ?—lt was more than it was worth at the time. 219. Is it worth that now ? —I have sublet at 10s., but I have put some money and work into it. 220. You object to the labour unions having a voice in the farming of land. Do you not think the Crown lands of the colony belong to the people of the colony as a whole I—That may be. but I do not think they should have a voice in framing the land laws. 221. You are aware that the labour laws are framed by representatives of both town and country, and the country people have a say in the laws affecting shops and shop-assistants ? —Yes, but I do not think the country people should have a say in regard to the Shop Acts. It does not apply to them. 222. Mr. McCardl■'.] Is it not a fact that all the land reformers come from the cities ? —I do not know. I know very little about the cities. 223. But you have complained about their interference ?—I read in the newspapers what the labour unions are doing. 224. You would advocate that before a man dealt with the Crown lands he should go into the back country and work in the bush for about ten years ? —Yes ; then I would give him as much say as he i'ked. 225. How are the settlers at Fencourt getting on ?—Fa>rly well. They have a creamery at Hautapu, and another in the middle of Fencourt. 226. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Well, I got the forms to fill in for a loan on Saturday night. I thought at first I could get £200, but Ido not now think I can get it because my section is not in grass, though I have spent a considerable sum in draining, fencing, and building. 227. Has the Land Board treated you fairly well ? —I do not think so. But we have a good man on it now, and he takes more interest in it. There was one thing I had to complain about. My neighbour below me would not clean out his drain. I complained first to the Ranger and then to the Commissioner, who advised me to form a Drainage Board ; but as there were only two sections affected, it was not worth while doing that. 228. Is it not possible that the Land Board have nothing to do with your neighbour's drain ?— Well, the conditions say that the lessee shall clean out his drain once a year, and I think the Land Board shouldjmake him fulfil that. 229. Did not the Land Board treat you fairly well in allowing you to sublet your section?— When I had been living on it for five years, I think it was only right that they should allow me to sublet.
J. F. OOOPWTN.I
919
0.—4.
230. Mr. McLennan.] If you had the right of purchase you think you could get a considerable sum for your goodwill ? —Yes. 231. Is that the reason why you are in favour of the right to purchase—because you want to sell your place again ? —I do not say I want to sell, only I think if I did sell, I should have the benefit of the increased value. 232. Do you think that the increased value is entirely due to your own labour ? —Yes. 233. Mr. Maiheson.] Do you think it is greatly to the interest of the city workers to see the farmers prosper ?—Yes. 234. Are they not then wise to try and have the land laws altered, if by so doing they can make farmers more prosperous ?—So far as I can see, the city workers appear to think it a good thing if the land paid all the taxes, and they got off scot-free. 235. Is it not clear to you that if the land paid all the taxes no one in New Zealand would want to occupy land ?—Yes, but that seems to be the trend of the city feeling. 236. Mr. Hall.'] Do you think the chief reason why the people want the right to the freehold is that their property will be more saleable ? —No, that is only one reason. The other reason is that if we happen to have a bit of good luck and get a good season, and make a little bit of money, we think we should have the right to pay off some of our debt to the Government. That is our principal reason. 237. You think that the tenants ought to be allowed from time to time to pay off a part of the capital value, so as to lessen their rent and get restrictions removed ? —Yes ; all but three of us at the settlement hope to die on freehold land. 238. How many of you are there ? —Thirty-four. Edmund Clifton examined. 239. The Chairman.] You represent the Stock Department in the Auckland Province ?—Yes, and I am controlling the agricultural operations of the Department. 240. Mr. Forbes.] The Wairangi vineyards are under the control of your Department ?—Yes. 24]. Has the working of this poor land there for such a purpose been a success ? —lt promises to be successful from the growth of things and from the results so far. Tt is early yet to speak of profits. 242. But has it been a success so far as grassing is concerned ? —Very little attempt has been made to grass any great portion of Wairangi. The principal purpose is to develop a fruit settlement, and the grassing there has been simply for the use of the stock on the place. 243. In laying it down attention has been paid to the fact that it is very poor land, and the grass that has been successful there has been most undoubtedly danthonia. 244. You have not experimented very largely with grasses there ? —Altogether, there have been some 25 acres laid down in grass. 245. Has it been proved that this poor land can be grassed satisfactorily ? —This has been proved that that poor land will remain in danthonia and carry a very useful sward of grass of that description. At the same time, another part was laid down with several varieties of ordinary English grasses, and on that particular part, although it was well treated, no grass remained there but danthonia and some Chewings' fescue. That is to say, the ryegrass, cocksfoot, and clovers had practically disappeared in a very short time. 246. There is round about Auckland, up at Wade, for example, a great quantity of land similar to that at Wairangi. Could you suggest any way in which that land might be utilised and brought into production ?—I am very much interested in it, as I had under my control some land further north— part of the Bickerstaffe Estate —which is under the Agricultural Department. What I did there to bring it into some use was to cut the tea-tree, burn it, and sow the ground cheaply with danthonia. At the same time, in order to show comparative results, I sowed some of the land with the ordinary mixture of grasses, but it is too early to speak of the results yet. 247. It has been represented to us, that this Pasytalum dilatatvm is a grass of very great value on this poor land ? —There is every promise that paspalum will be very useful. I have seen several paddocks laid down in the north last spring which are already promising well. At Wairangi also this last summer this grass has been laid down, but it is difficult to say yet more than that it promises well. At the nursery a few odd plants have been grown, and they have done marvellously. My experience at Wairangi has been that all the exotic grasses we have put in have disappeared. 248. Have you proved yet that this land can be profitably used for vine-growing or is that still in the experimental stage ?—That part of Wairangi is under the charge of Mr. Bragato, and I think it would be only fair that he should be asked about that. At the same time, T may say that the grapes grow exceedingly well, and in most seasons they ripen well, and the product seems to be appreciated generally. 249. What about fruit \—Apples and pears grow exceedingly well. Peaches promise well, but it is rather early to say they are a success. The object in dealing with a part of Wairangi was to establish a community of fruit-growers. It was started some years ago by the Forestry Department, when wattles and gums were planted. Then it languished for a time, and then the Agricultural Department began experimenting with these fruit-trees. This poor land was of practically no use to any one, and the people who held it for some thirty-five years before sold it.to the Government for 12s. an acre. The idea is now that on the 1,200 acres purchased to plough and cultivate and plant it, and bring it up to a point when the fruit-trees will be bearing a crop, then to lease it or sell it in small fruit-farms so as to get a community of fruit-farmers, who would chiefly deal with export and canning. There is no intention of growing there anything to come in contact with the fresh-fruit market. The object is to bring fruit-growing up to conditions somewhat similar to what the dairy industry is to-day. 250. Do these fruit-trees grow on this class of ground without any great manuring ?—The orchards have practically had no manuring at all. When the trees were first planted a little bonedust and
C—4.
920
[E. CLIFTON-
phosphates were scattered, but there has been no further manuring. This year in the old orchard, where we grew a crop of clover for protective purposes, some phosphate manure was put in. 251. Mr. McCardle.\ You have had a wide general experience of the whole of this district ?— Yes, some fourteen years. 252. How do clovers do at Wairangi ? —Just fairly. 253. I have not seen much of the ground in its natural state ; was it principally light fern ? — There was tea-tree on the whole of it, plus rushes on the damper parts. 254. Where there are rushes you require to drain before you make use of the land I—l have"done a good deal of draining. 255. There are a good many of the Northern lands covered with rush and manuka in places, and it struck me if that country was properly drained and worked it could be made fairly useful ?—I quite agree with you. I should be inclined to experiment. 256. Some people think it ought to be left to private enterprise, but the great thing is to get the Government to undertake any experiment of the kind, because they can keep correct records as to cost and so on, and they can advertise the thing so that the general public would become acquainted with it?— That is the idea we have been working upon here. At Wairangi, for instance, you saw the vineyard to-day, but at present we are only feeling our way. That has cost us a great'deal more than what I could do it for if I started another now. 257. Can you give us any idea of what that splendid work is costing ?—lt is difficult to say, because for a long time the work has gone on tentatively. I estimate that the planting we are doing now in those orchards will come to something between £15 and £20 an acre. 258. Do you use the drain-plpugh at all ? —Not here ; I have elsewhere. 259. Judging from the statements we have had to-day it seems likely that this venture will prove profitable I—l think there is every promise that the development of these small fruit farms can be worked at such a price that it will be definitely profitable. Mr. McCardle : I think I may say on behalf of the Commissioners that they have expressed generally great appreciation of the excellent work done out there, and they feel confident that the thing is going to be a great success. 260. Mr. McLennan.] Do you apply sand to the soil ?—Merely for the nursery plants. Sand has a very useful effect, but it is too expensive to get it there. The sand I can get is too much mixed with earth, so that each load I get only about half of it sand. 261. Mr. Matheson.\ With regard to your estimate of £15 to £20 an acre for planting, is that an estimate of the cost up to the time when the fruit-trees begin to bear ? —Yes. 262. Do you know that beautifully-lying land south of Mangonui, towards a place called Taratara ?—I know the north generally. 263. There are thousands of acres quite ploughable so far as levels go ? —I cannot say 1 know it intimately. 264. It seems to me that with your wide knowledge your opinion upon land-tenures would be of great value ?—No matter what they may be, as a Government officer I should prefer very much not to make any remarks on the tenure of the land. I should prefer to confine myself to its use. 265. It seems to me a very serious thing for New Zealand if men of your calibre disfranchise themselves simply because they are Government officers ?—Much as I may regret it I think it is only right to do so. 266. Is it not clear to you that as time goes on we shall be getting gradually a very much larger proportion of Government officers, and as a consequence our best men will be disfranchised ?—The greater the pity. 267. You prefer not to give any information on land-tenure ?—That is so. 268. Mr. McCardle.] You have very little in the way of noxious weeds about here with the exception of bramble ? —I think we have the finest collection of that in New Zealand. 269. Do you think some steps should be taken to minimise the risk that settlers run in getting seed from other places ? —I think that every precaution possible should be taken to ensure that the seed is pure, and to prevent the weeds being disseminated. 270. Do you not think that the only thing to stop the spread of weeds to other districts would be to make inspection compulsory before the grain is ripe ?—That applies to most seeds undoubtedly, but it would embargo a great deal of country. The great thing is to get seed from a pure crop. 271. Mr. Hall.] Have your expectations with regard to Wairangi being realised ?—Yes, considering the nature of the ground. 272. Are the people who visit that place surprised to see the land utilised as it is ? —Yes ; they usually express surprise. 273. Do you consider paspalum a good winter grass ? —Speaking generally, I should think so, though I think it is a grass not likely to succeed in a cold frosty district. 274. How long is it since danthonia was first sown at Bickerstaffe ? —Well a great deal of it was self-sown, and it was only last fall that we sowed any. 275. You cannot say whether it stands burning ?—Yes, it stands it remarkably well. Mr. Hall: The members of the Commission have been very pleased to see such results as we have been shown on the experimental farm at Wairangi, and we consider the work that has been done will be of great value to the country. I have to congratulate you and the other officers upon your success. Witness : I have to thank you,, sir, for your remarks. John Beard Thompson examined. 276. The Chairman.] What are you ?—T am Assistant Surveyor for the Lands Department' Auckland. I have been in this locality for four years. 277. Mr. Forbes.] You know something about the Matamata Estate ? —I cut it up last year.
J. B. THOMPSON. !
921
G.—4.
278. We have heard a complaint that settlers are called upon to make two payments. Can you explain that ? —So far as the two payments are concerned, there was one portion of the estate taken over in June, and the remaining portion was taken over in October. In the pamphlet issued is was expressly stated that certain land would be given possession of in October, and when the valuations were being made that was taken into account, so that any one who paid rent in June knew that they would not get possession until October. Ido not think the settlers are under any disabilities in that respect. 279. You think it was allowed for in the valuation of their places ?—Yes, I think so. 280. How are the settlers at Matamata getting on. Are any of the sections changing hands ?— None. 281. Are the settlers farming the land ? —Yes. Of course, being only twelve months in occupation you cannot expect very great results. Three months after the land was allotted they put up a creamery costing £900, and they have called for tenders for two more creameries, and have guaranteed two thousand cows for the coming season. 282. Do you know anthing about the valuation of that place ?—lt was made by probably two of the most expert valuers in the district. One of them was managing the property previous to the Government acquiring it, and the other Mr. Garrett. 282 a. They valued the whole estate, and it was on their valuation the rents were based ?—Yes. 283. Have you had much to do with the place since the settlers have been there ? —Yes. 284. Is there any general complaint about high valuations ? —No ; I think it has generally been admitted that it is the cheapest land offered in the Waikato. 285. Do you think the place Js cut up into reasonable-sized farms so that the farmers can make a decent living ?—Yes ; they range in area from 150 to 2,000 acres, the average size would be about 400 acres. A large amount of the place was in grass. 286. Would it carry on an average a sheep to the acre ?—I believe the property at one time carried about two and a half sheep to the acre, with turnips. There was something like 18,000 acres in grass. 287. Is there any rough country, or rather unimproved country, under scrub capable of being improved ?—Yes, a large portion of it is ploughable. 288. Do you think the settlement as a whole has been successful ?—I think everything points to its success ; but as it has only been settled twelve months I cannot say for certain. 289. Mr. McCardle.\ What extent of country was covered with Canadian thistle ?—BOO acres altogether. Of course it was very patchy. In some places you might see plants 3or 4 chains apart. 290. 1 suppose there is little hope of eradicating it ? —I think there is some hope. 291. Has it not in Raglan been spreading all the time ?—I believe so. 292. Does it not weaken in the rule and strengthen at the borders, and extend very rapidly every year ? —So they say. 293. Mr. McLennan.] Is therg much Crown land left in this district fit for settlement ? —ln my district there is very little Crown lands left. There is one block at the back of Huntly, consisting of 17,000 acres, but the quality of the land is poor. 294. Is there any demand for Crown land in this district ?—Yes ; of any quality. 295. If there were any Crown lands ready for'settlenient here do you think it would be taken up under lease in perpetuity ? —I am certain of it. 296. Mr. Matheson.] Can you give me an idea of the average rent of the sections that were not taken possession of until October ? —Some of the sections were only 10 acres in area, and the price was therefore exceptional. The others ranged from about 2s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. per acre. 297. Do you mean that the upset price was lessened because of that inability to take possession ? —That was practically our opinion of the matter. 298. Does it not seem to you that those people who got their rent lowered for one thousand years because they could not take possession in the first four months were very lucky ? —Certainly. 299. The Chairman.'] I understand Matamata Estate was acquired by the Government through the Arbitration Court, and that the Government did not pay more than they could help ?—That is so. 300. And the value they put on the estate was only enough to recoup them and to safeguard them against loss \—That is all. 301. They did not fix the price to make a profit ?—No. 302. Are the tenants on Matamata Estate fairly satisfied ? —I have not heard one word of dissatisfaction. They are all fairly well pleased. James Mackenzie further examined. 303. The Chairman.] What is it you wish to place before the Commission ? —I wish to explain the position in regard to the double rents charged on the Matamata Estate. In the pamphlets it was made perfectly clear that any one taking up a section would have to pay rent from the Ist July, although they would not get possession until the Ist October. Another point I want to make perfectly clear is this : As you are probably aware, rents only begin on the Ist July and the Ist January. Well, Matamata Estate was offered for selection in the first week of June. A good deal of it was not taken up at the first ballot, and this extra charge only applied in the case of those who took up land in the month of June. The rent of any person who took up land on the 2nd July did not begin until the Ist January following. 304. Mr. Forbes.'] Would you say an allowance was made in the valuation ? —I only came into office then, and I had nothing to do with the valuations. I was advised exactly as Mr, Thompson told you, that it was taken into consideration.
116—C. 4.
C—4.
922
H IRVTNE.
Tf, Awamutu, Tuesday, 30th May, 1905. Hugh Irvine examined. 1. The Chairman ] What are you ?—I am a settler. I have 100 acres of freehold here, and I have an interest in a block of between 7,000 and 8,000 acres of freehold in the King-country. 2. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I may say that I have had considerable experience with land-tenures in the colony. I have been farming for over forty years, and I have held land under all the tenures with the exception of lease in perpetuity. lam entirely in favour of the freehold, and I consider that the very best tenure for the settlement of the land was the deferred-payment system. In Taranaki, where I came from, the bulk of the bush land was settled under that tenure and the settlement was very successful. We had then, too, the perpetual lease with the right of purchase, and that was a very good tenure, but not so good, in my opinion, as the deferredpayment system. Ido not think the lease in perpetuity is so good. In my experience, when a settler takes up a lease in perpetuity with a moderate capital he has very considerable difficulty in borrowing further capital to carry out the necessary improvements. In fact, he can do so until the improvements are made, and then, of course, he does not want to borrow. 3. Mr. McCardle.] You have been a settler years in the bush country % —I have brought in a great amount of bush land in my time. 4. And you have been living surrounded by bush settlers, and have had experience of their troubles and difficulties %—Just so. 5. And to the poor settler borrowing is almost a necessity, is it not ?—lf a man with moderate means has to carry out certain improvements it is almost a necessity. 6. The price of land is a Bagatelle compared with the amount of improvements a man requires to put on his land ?—Most decidedly. If a man takes up land at the upset of £1 per acre it will take at least £3 per acre before he can get any return. 7. In advocating the freehold you are not doing so in your own interests, because you already have it ? —Just so. 8. You are advocating it in the interests, as you believe, of the settlers and country : you believe that tenure the one most adapted for bush country ?—Most decidedly. If a man has land with a right of purchase he will not grudge his time late and early in clearing that land and beautifying his surroundings, whereas if it is under leasehold he will practically take very little interest in sentimental improvements. 9. I suppose you are aware that quite a number of people think there is a large unearned increment in these back blocks, and that the settlers who are on leasehold should not be allowed to get the freehold because that unearned increment would be lost to the State : have you ever found any unearned increment in bush country ?- —My experience in regard to unearned increment is that it does not exist in the country at all; it is more in the towns. If the whole of a man's time and labour were calculated at the ordinary rate of wages there would be very little unearned increment, if any, in bush land. 10. I suppose you know that quite a number of people who took up land in the King-country had no option but to take it up under lease in perpetuity ?—So far as my knowledge goes the present Act allows land to be taken up under the optional system, but. the optional system was debarred in the case of a lot of the land here and was under lease in perpetuity. 11. In these cases, if there is an amendment of the Act, do you think that these settlers should be granted the privilege of converting, if they think fit, into freehold ?—Most decidedly. 12. You are aware that under a lease with the right of purchase a settler pays 5 per cent, and under lease in perpetuity he pays 4 per cent. : if the option of purchase is granted would you reinstate that 5 per cent. ? —Undoubtedly. I think the lease-in-perpetuity tenants should then be put on the same footing as the settler paying 5 per cent. 13. You are aware that a large amount of land has been settled in the South Island under the Land for Settlements Act, and the circumstances of the settlers on improved estates are very different from those of the bush settlers : do you think in their case it would be wise for the State to grant the freehold I—l am not prepared to give an opinion in that respect, but I think that it would be a general benefit to the country to allow all settlers in the colony the right of the freehold. 14. The Auckland Land District is a very large one and there is only the same number of members on the Land Board as there is in very much smaller districts : do you not think that it would be in the interest of settlements if the number of members was increased from four, say to seven, and the various districts were represented on the Board by men having a practical experience of the difficulties of the settlers and some knowledge of the land on which they are settled ? —I certainly consider that there ought to be an alteration in the constitution of the Land Board altogether, because as at present constituted the members probably know nothing at all about the requirements of bush settlers. There certainly should be a certain number of members with some practical knowledge of the settlement of bush lands especially. 15. In regard to the question of roads, you are aware that roads have been constructed up to the present from various sources : do you think that the time has arrived when it is desirable that the local body should have an assured finance —especially in new districts like this —in the shape of a subsidy of £2 for every £1 collected in rates ?—I should like to see that very much, but lam afraid my opinion in the matter is not worth much. There is one thing I think would be very desirable. Where land is loaded with an amount for roads I think that amount should be handed to the local authority in the district to be spent. In my own knowledge I have known land to be taken up loaded with a certain amount for roading, and for years afterwards the settlers did not even have a pack-track, although they were actually paying interest on this money all the time. 16. You have some knowledge no doubt of the operations of the Advances to Settlers Act ?—Yes. 17. Do you think that the Act is working satisfactorily or is there need for amendment in its
H. IhVINE.I
923
G.—4.
administration ? —I think it is a very good Act and that it has done a great deal of good, but I think it requires Applicants seem to have some difficulty in getting advances and I think it is a hardship man should have to lose the amount that he has to deposit when applying lor an advance in the event of the application being declined. Another thing I would like to remark is that I think the ballot system is an utter failure as a means of selecting land. We see when land is balloted for that there are a very large number of applicants—in some cases as many as two hundred applicants for one section —and the great bulk of these applications come from people who do not want land at all or to settle on it. They see that the land is worth more than the upset price and they go in for the sections as a speculation, and the people who really want the land do not get it in most cases. My opinion is that the best system of dealing with land is the auction system. Under the auction system the people who want the land will get it; and when the land is knocked down I should say the purchaser should then have the opportunity to decide under what tenure he will take the land. 18. I suppose you are aware that that principle was tried and found to be wanting, and that quite a number of people at the heat of the moment in the auction-room gave a great deal more for the land than it was worth, and that the State had to create machinery to revalue the land and reduce the rents down in some cases to one-half ?—That is the people's own fault. It is not the fault of the system. 19. Mr. McLennan.J You say that those who go to the ballot with a desire to settle on the land have no chance with those who try to get the land for speculative purposes ?—They have one chance in fifty, in most cases. 20. Is it within your knowledge that people have taken up land for speculative purposes in this district ?—Yes, in scores of cases. 21. And yet you advocate giving them the option of freehold now ?—I say they should do away with that speculation by putting the land up to auction. 22. You said that scores of speculators went to the ballot and were successful, and now you want to grant these speculators the option of the freehold to enable them to sell out and speculate in the land ?—These people have not settled at all. they took up the land but parted with it again. 23. Are you acquainted with the South Island ?—I was through the South Island a long time ago. 24. Have you been there since the land was settled under the Land for Settlements Act ?—No. 25. You are not able to tell us about the position or condition of these tenants ?—No. 26. Can you tell us whether the tenants are demanding the option of the freehold ?—By what I can read I think nineteen out of every twenty of the Crown tenants would like to get the freehold. 27. Can you tell us if 2 per cent, of the Crown tenants under the Land for Settlements Act in the South Island are demanding the freehold ?—I am only stating what I read in the newspapers and not what is within my own knowledge. 28. If 1 were to tell you that not 2 per cent, were demanding the freehold what would you think ? —I would doubt it very much. 29. There are about one thousand two hundred settlers in the South Island under lease in perpetuity, and I think not 2 per cent, of them are demanding the freehold ?—Then, I think they must be very foolish people. 30. Mr. Matheson.] Are you a member of the County Council or Road Board ?—Not at present. 31. Have you had any experience of raising loans under the Loans to Local Bodies Act ?—I have. 32. Under these loans the capital is paid off in a certain number of years ? —Yes. 33. Do you think it would be wise where the Government load land for roading that the capital amount of the loading should be paid off in a certain number of years, instead of carrying interest as at present for the one thousand years ? —I have not considered that question. 34. Have you had much to do with Native land ?—Yes, a great deal. 35. Do you think that the present machinery for dealing with Native land is satisfactory ?—I do not. 36. Can you suggest any improvement ? —What I would suggest would be free trade in Native land the same as in auy other land, with a restriction as to the area that any particular person should be allowed to hold. 37. If free trade was given, do you think it would have to be through the Crown so that the capital might be invested, say in Government bonds at 3 per cent., to be held for the benefit of the Natives in the future ?—Well it would be a great improvement on the present system if the Land Boards dealt with Native land simply as if it were Crown land, and offer it for lease or sale and give the Natives the proceeds. 38. Do you think if an Act was passed giving the Crown power to do this, that the Natives would be pleased ?—I think the Natives would be glad to get any system. 39. Do you think they are dissatisfied with the present system ?—Most decidedly. 40. Mr. Forbes.] Is there any demand for land for settlement about here ?—A great demand. 41. Is there any Crown land around here suitable for cutting up ?—Yes, nearly all the land is suitable for cutting up. 42. Is it still in the hands of the Crown ?—ln the hands of the Natives or the Crown. The Crown holds large blocks of land in the King-country which are lying idle at present. The land lam interested in is surrounded by several hundred thousand acres of unoccupied Crown and Native land. 43. Is there any agitation to have the land cut up and offered for selection ?—They have been opening up blocks but the settlers have been under a great disadvantage through the roads having been entirely neglected, although roads were promised when the land was taken up. 44. Do you think it is necessary to put roads in before opening the land for selection ?—I think it would be a splendid thing to make the roads first and load the land with the cost of the roading. There would be no difficulty in getting the people to take the land up. At the present time, to my knowledge, there are people miles in from civilisation and they cannot even get a pack-horse to their land.
924
C—4.
|H. IRVINE
45. What is your objection to the lease in perpetuity ; is it not long enough ?—lt is a bit too long. I see where it is stated by Mr. Seddon and other Ministers that in giving the Crown tenants the right of the freehold, the State would be parting with about half a million of money. I fail to see it myself, because they have really parted with the lease for a thousand years, and the State will not get any unearned increment at all under a thousand years. 46. Is it not a good thing from the settlers' point of view ; there will be no increase for a thousand years and no need to expend his capital in the purchase of the land ? —lt is a fetching tenure, but there seems to be a feeling on the part of Crown tenants that they have not got security under it. A Fair Rent Bill is being brought before Parliament 011 several occasions and they think it will be brought up again. If it is passed of course it will entirely do away with their tenure. They do not think the lease in perpetuity is as satisfactory or as secure a tenure as freehold. 47. If they got the option of the freehold are the people about here in a position to buy the land ? —I do not say they are, but they would like to have the right whenever they are in a position to do so. There is not much money made out of bush land for a great number of years, but the settlers would improve the land more and more and work harder if they had the right to acquire the freehold at a future time. 48. Is there not a .danger that there might be an aggregation of estates again ?—I do not think so. 49. Is there any tendency in that direction around here now % —The tendency is in the other direction. The people with large properties are cutting them up. 50. Would you say from your experience that a larger number of people are farming land about here now than there were ten years back ? —Most decidedly. Even within the last three or four years a number of estates have been cut up in this neighbourhood by the private owners. John Mandeno examined. 51. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a settler of forty years' experience. I only hold 60 acres of freehold at the present time. 52. Is there any matter you would like to bring before this meeting (—I have very little to say, but my son is a settler on land in the King-country under occupation with right of purchase, and he feels it to be a drawback and a grievance that after having made sufficient and abundant improvements he is not able to acquire the freehold. He thinks it is a hardship that after having complied with all the conditions, he should have to wait for ten years before he can get his title to the land. Of course, as a settler and a freeholder myself, I feel very strongly upon the subject of freeholds. Ido not think you need go far to find very sufficient evidence to prove the advantage of freehold over leasehold. If you want to compare leasehold with freehold you only have to go along the main street of the settlement. On the one side is leasehold and on the other freehold. On the one side the buildings are of the cheapest possible description, and 011 the other side there are good, substantial buildings which have cost a large sum of money. 53. What length of tenure jdo these leases carry that you refer to ?—The land belongs to the Church Mission, and I think the lease is for thirty-five years. 54. That does not bear any comparison with a tenure for a thousand years ?—No. 55. Mr. McCardle.] If the title to an occupation with right of purchase was granted in five years, what proportion of the improvements would you suggest should be made within that period ?—I do not think there is anything unreasonable in the improvements required under the present law, but 1 think when these improvements are made that should be sufficient. 56. In advocating the freehold do you advocate the granting of the freehold to Crown tenants who now hold land under lease in perpetuity ?—I think the freehold is better than leasehold under any circumstances, and that a man would work with more confidence and better heart if he knew he could make the land his own. 57. You are aware that there is a feeling in certain quarters to-day that if the freehold were granted the State would be done out of what is known as the unearned increment ?—I know there is such a feeling, but it seems to me the most absurd idea ever brought forward. 58. Is it not a fact that the freeholder is subject to a taxation that overtops all this under the landtax ?—Yes. 59. You have expressed an opinion in favour of freedold from the Crown ; would you advocate the same principle to apply to the Church property you have mentioned here ?—lt is a thing I have had advocated for many years—namely, that the Government should take that land and dispose of it in sections. 60. We have also a large number of endowments such as Corporation, educational, and hospital endowments ; do you think it would be in the interests of settlements if the State was to take over these endowments, giving value for them in the shape of debentures, and settle the land in the ordinary way ? —I would not say in all circumstances but only in special cases. 61. Do you not think that if it is a good thing for the State to part with the freehold, and a good thing for the settler, the same thing must apply to the land held in this way ?—I do not think the cases are altogether on the same footing. These endowments have been set apart for the maintenance of certain institutions, and it is quite right that they should be kept for that purpose. 62. I suppose you are aware that it is proposed in certain quarters that if a lease-in-perpetuity holder decides to sell out his interest, his section is to be revalued and the rent is to be raised in proportion to the unearned increment of the section, or that if a husband dies and leaves his lease-in-perpetuity property to his widow, that property is to be revalued and the rent is to be increased in proportion to the unearned increment ?—Yes, and I think it is an immoral proposal. Why should a bargain made with the State be different from a bargain made with a private individual.
925
a—4.
J. MANDBNO.]
63. Mr. McLennan.'] Does it not seem to you that a lease-in-perpetuity tenant who demands a freehold is trying to break his bargain with the State I—Not exactly in the same way as in the other case, because the conditions are different. I think it is nothing but reasonable if we want the country settled that these people should be allowed to acquire the freehold. 64. The country is settled already, and the tenants were quite satisfied with the lease when they took it up and knew what they were doing, and now, when they find out they can do better by trucking in land, they want the freehold ?—lt is not with the object of trucking in land at all. It is the feeling of uncertainty that troubles the leaseholders. 65. Do you not think we should try to keep the bargain entered into between the State and the tenant sacred ?—lf you could give these people a guarantee of security to remove that feeling of uncertainty which has been growing up in the last few years, a good many of them would be quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity. 66. Do you not think that 999 years are quite sufficient ? There is plenty of guarantee in that tenure ?—Yes, unless there is some alteration in the law which allows of revaluation. 67. Do you not think the demands of the tenants for the freehold tends to break the lease 1 — They merely wish to get the freehold in order to prevent this alteration in the lease. 68. Do you think they should get what they are not entitled to ?—I do not know that they are entitled to it. It is a matter of policy whether it would be wise to give the freehold or not. 69. Do you think there is any likelihood of the present Government or any other Government breaking the lease ?—I never would have thought so a few years ago, but the discussions that have taken place, and the opinions that have been expressed, make one feel that we do not know where we are. 70. Do you not think it is strange for intelligent men to take notice of the Trades Council representatives who demand such nonsense I—l should like to feel that it is so. 71. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that one of the reasons why tenants ask for the right of purchase is that it would do away with the supervision by Government officers of the properties they occupy ? —That would be a very great advantage. 72. You said you thought it would be profitable for the State to give them the right of purchase '( —Yes. 73. Does it seem to you that if the State comesjtojfthat conclusion, and the tenants are anxious for it, that the lease might well be amended without any wrong being done ?—I do not see where any wrong would be done if both parties were agreeable. 74. Have you been taking any interest in watching this demand for freehold ?■—Yes. 75. Do you think my colleague is correct when he said to Mr. Irvine that he is sure not 2 per cent, of the Crown tenants in the South Island want the freehold ? —I know so little about the South Island that I cannot answer. 76. Mr. Forbes.] Does not the occupation-with-right-of-purchase lease require ten years' residence ? —Yes. 77. If your son was to make his place freehold, would not all the regulations then be done away with ?—The regulations are already complied with except with regard to residence, which of course, cannot be complied with until the ten years have expired. 78. Do you not think it is necessary in settling people on the land that some provision should be made for them remaining on it ?—Certainly. 79. If a settler is allowed to buy when he has made his improvements, do you think the residential condition should still be adhered to ?—A man is not likely to leave his property after he has made all his improvements. 80. Would he not be likely to sell out to his neighbour or to somebody in the towns ? —That is a thing that is continually being done. 81. But under lease in perpetuity is not continuous residence necessary ? —Yes. 82. Then, is it not more likely that people will remain on the land under lease in perpetuity ?--No, when a, farm is improved it will be occupied. It will not be allowed to return to its natural state. - 83. Might it not be let to a tenant privately ?—That might be possible, but it is not probable; but if it was so, what harm would be done so long at the land is made profitable. 84. Would you suggest that a private tenant should have the same right to acquire the freehold as a Crown tenant ? —Certainly not; the cases are different. In the one case you only get the country settled, and you are supposed to be adopting those methods which are most likely to improve and settle the country, and, in order to do that, you must try to make the conditions as favourable as possible to those people who occupy the land. It does not matter who is using the land so long as it is being used profitably. 85. Do you think in the case of private leases it would be much better for the country and for the settler if the right to purchase was given ?—I do. 86. The Chairman.] Do you question the security of the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—I say there is a feeling of uncertainty. We know there is an agitation, and this agitation is growing to a certain extent. 87. Do you think that an agitation got up by irresponsible people who will not touch the land themselves would have sufficient weight with any Legislature to cause them to do such a thing as that ? —I hope not. 88. If the Legislature did such a thing as to repudiate a title given legally to land and honestly acquired, do you not think the Imperial Government would veto such an unconstitutional Act ?—I certainly think they ought to. 89. Mr. McLennan.'] You say that part of this town is built on freehold and part on leasehold. Do you know if there is any valuation for improvements at the expiration of the lease ? —I never saw one of the leases, and I really cannot say what the conditions are.
926
[t. s. tippetts.
0.—4
Thomas Stephens Tippetts examined. 90. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder ?— I hold about 600 acres under occupation with right of purchase. lam living upon the property, which is situated about twelve miles from here. 91. Have you any particular matter to bring before the Commission ?—I am not satisfied with the manner in which the Government deal with swamp land. My property is swamp land, which is supposed to be first-class land, but we are not given the right to drain that land on account of the outfall being through Maori country. The Government do not take the matter in hand, and we cannot, and so we have to pay rent on a large amount of land which is of no use to us. 92. Do you wish to bring forward any other matter ?—I think that the freehold is the best tenure, but that we should have the right to acquire the freehold at any time when we are in a position to do so. For my own part, I have the right of purchase already, but I think that we should be allowed to exercise that right when we have fulfilled the other conditions without waiting for the expiration of the ten years. . . 93. Mr. McCardle.] Would you extend that right to the settlers under lease in perpetuity <—I think it would be a very good thing if they were allowed to do so. . 94. Have you any drawbacks in the matter of roads ?—I think our land was robbed by the rating on account of the roads. 95. Have you swamp to cross to get to your land ?—Yes, that is where the road is required, lhey have made the approach, but not the road leading to the approach. 96. Was any promise made that the road would be formed within a certain time ?—They have made two " sorts of roads," but we would like to see them start on the principal roadwork. 97. Mr. McLennan.] Have they any money on hand with which to make the road ? —Yes, money was voted for the purpose, but it has not been spent. 98. Do you think the Land Boards should continue on the nominated system % —I think that the people, and not the Government, should nominate the Boards. 99. On what franchise would you have them elected ? —I think that the local bodies might elect them, but I have not given the matter much consideration. 100. Would you give the same privilege to the people living in the boroughs and towns ?—lf the local bodies elected them, the townspeople would have as much say in the matter as those in the country. 101. They are taxpayers, and that being so they ought to have the privilege of electing the members of the Land Board There is a good deal in that. Perhaps the country people ought to have more say in the matter than the town people. Members might be allocated for each district, and the local bodies in those districts elect the members. 102. Do you not think that would be very expensive machinery ? —I should not think so. 103. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think if would be wise for the people to elect policemen and railway stationmasters, and so on. Does it not seem to you that the man who has a knowledge of the district is the man who is most competent to be a member of the Land Board ? —I should think the members of the local bodies would have a better opportunity of judging whether a man had had experience in the district than the Minister. 104. Do you think it would be wise if the County Council had the right to nominate a man for a list from which the Minister should choose ?—I think the Minister should be left out of it altogether, because then there would be no undue preference given to men for political reasons. 105. Do you not think that that might occur when the local bodies were picking the men ?— No, it does not follow. The local bodies would be composed of men elected irrespective of their political P 106. Do you think that there might be this danger if the local bodies elected the Boards ; that, if there was dissatisfaction with the administration, the Minister might turn to the people who complained and say, " Well you would not let me administer the Act. You elected these men, and they are responsible for what has been done " ?—Well, they would have only themselves to blame then. 107. You think, then, that it would be wise to give the County Councils power to elect ? —Yes. '108. Are you able to say with certainty that all the loading upon your land has not been spent ?— I think this road lam referring to was the subject of a special vote. I saw in the newspaper that a certain sum had been voted to make this road, and it has not been gone on with. 109. But a grant of that kind is quite distinct from loading ? —Yes, I think so. 110. What length of drain would be needed through the Native land to give your water an outlet ? —I do not think it would be more than 40 chains. 111. Are you sure you have not legal power to make the Natives give you an outlet ?—When the Road Surveyor was there he interviewed the Maoris, and he afterwards told me that they refused to give permission for it to be done, because they have an eel-weir built on the creek, which dams up the water. He told me that they refused to have the eel-weir touched. 112. Have you laid the case before the Land Board ? —No. 113. Does that not seem to you a reasonable thing to do ?—I did not know whether the Land Board would have power to interfere in the matter. 114. Have you any suggestion to make as to what would meet your case ?—Probably the best plan would be that the Government should take the matter in hand and compensate the Maoris for the loss of their eel-weir, and drain the swamp. 115. Mr. Forbes.] You say that you would like the conditions of your lease altered so that you may pay it off at any time. Is that the only condition you wish altered If you had the right to pay it off any time after you had made the necessary improvements, do you think you should be still subject to the ten years' residence, or is it the residence you object to ? Of course, I reside on my section, but Ido not think that residence should be compulsory. I think a man should be allowed to live where he likes.
T. S. TTPPETTS.I
927
C—4.
116. Then, it is the residence condition you wish altered ? —Yes. 117. It has been said that people will not take up lease-in-perpetuity sections. Has that been proved in this neighbourhood ?—Most of the people whom I have spoken to do not seem to like that tenure. William Makepeace Howe examined. 118. The Chairm,an.\ Are you a landholder ?—I hold 740 acres at Te Rauamoa under occupation with right of purchase, and 130 acres under lease —not lease in perpetuity, but ordinary lease. 119. You occupy this land ?—Well, I cannot say that I do. lam farming it, but not residing on it. The roads in the district are so bad that it is almost impossible to reside on it, especially as there is no school. 120. Mr. McCardle.] You have been compelled to build a house in Kawhia in order to get near a school ? —Yes, on purpose to get my children to school. 121. You know something, then, of the " no-road country " ?—Rather too much. 122. Do you think the settlers have been well treated in the matter of roads ? —Certainly not; they have not been treated at all fairly. In many cases the land has been loaded, and the settlers are paying interest on the loading, and yet they have no tracks to get to their sections. 123. Have not promises been made as to the making of roads ?—Some two years ago Mr. Seddon was in Kawhia, and he expressed great disgust with the backward condition of the district. He made a great many promises to the deputations that were sent to meet him, and the people in the Kawhia district expected that they would soon have passable roads at any rate, but since then there has been no improvements whatever. Money has been voted for roads, and the settlers have had to write for months and months to try and get the money spent, but as a rule, after the 31st March, the Department say the vote has lapsed, and that they will have to wait until it is reallocated. Then, another twelve months go by, and perhaps the same thing occurs. For the road running past my property £250 was voted. We waited six months, and as there was no prospect of the money being spent we wrote to Mr. Burd, District Road Engineer, who replied that the vote had lapsed and it would have to be reallocated. It was eighteen months after the original appropriation before we got any money spent. 124. You know the Kinohaku district ? —A little. 125. You are aware that that land was withdrawn from the ordinary conditions of settlement and thrown open under lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 126. Do you know if the settlers are satisfied with that condition ?—Certainly they are not. In fact, the alteration was the means of driving away a great many promising-looking settlers. 127. You are aware that a good many settlers in the district have applied to the Advances to Settlers Department for loans upon properties on which large improvements have been made, and could not get the loan ?—That is so. 128. Do you think that is a satisfactory state of things ? —Certainly. 129. Do you not think that the first consideration of the Government should be for their own tenants ? —Yes. 130. Is it not one of the principal drawbacks of the lease-in-perpetuity system that, after a man has spent hundreds of pounds on improvements, the Government will not make advances on the property, and private individuals do not advance either ? —That is the principal drawback to the lease-in-per-petuity tenure. 131. Even a greater drawback than the fear of revaluation ? —Yes. 132. It takes a great deal of expenditure upon these holdings before a man has any return ?— Several years' work. 133. You have had some experience yourself on this point. Talking of the drawbacks in regard to roads, have you been able to make any profit at all out of your section '—Absolutely none. If a man holds his own for the first four years he does well, that is, where his section is away on the bad roads. His expenses on stock are three or four times greater. Then when he gets the stock there they have suffered greatly by the way. In fact you are lucky if you get in without losing some of them. 134. I suppose it is within your knowledge that settlers have been heavy losers ? —I know of one case where a settler started with several hundred sheep. He had six miles of bush-track to go over. That journey of six miles took him six days, and he lost two hundred sheep worth about 14s. each. 135. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that the conditions as to loading should be altered to something like the regulations under the loans to local bodies ?—Most decidedly. 136. You do not think a man should pay interest for 999 years ? —That is quite unreasonable. 137. Have any votes lapsed and not been spent for more than two years since their first granting ? —I cannot say for certain. Certainly numbers of them have lapsed from year to year. They will be voted for one year and not spent, and then revoted the next year, when possibly some of the vote will be spent. 138. If the Roads Department can show from their books that all the loading has been actually spent on the roads, does it seem to you that they are doing an injustice in not completing the roads 1— Yes, I think so, because some of the Kawhia land was taken under a promise that it would be loaded as it was taken up. 139. Was that promise on the plans or was it a verbal promise ? —I cannot say. I have an idea that it was in the Land Act, which says that access will be given to land when it is taken up. 140. Do you think that the system of making roads by grants is satisfactory ? —No, I do not. 141. Do you think it would be better if the local bodies got a much bigger subsidy, and that the heavier they rate themselves the bigger the subsidy should be ?—Certainly, for two reasons. In the first place, when the Government spends money it is spent in a very expensive manner. Half the money is eaten up by Inspectors.
C.—4
928
[W. M. HOWE.
142. Mind, you are on oath ; can you say that seriously ?—No ; but a good deal of it, anyhow/ There is more in proportion spent on-inspection than would be the case if spent under the contract system. 143. Do you think that when grant-moneys are to be spent on the road they would be better spent by the local body ? —I think so. 144. Mr. Forbes.'] You said that the Advances to Settlers Department would not advance in Kawhia on lease in perpetuity property. Do you know that as a fact ? —Not of my own knowledge. 145. How do you arrive at the statement ? —By deduction. If a man has a well-improved property and applies for a loan and cannot get it, what other reason can there be ? 146. The reason has not been given by the Board that it was a question of tenure ? —No. 147. Have you had any dealings yourself with the Advances to Settlers Department %—Yes ; when I was in Taranaki I had 51 acres, worth £6 an acre. I applied for £300 upon the property, and they offered me £200. I elected to forfeit my deposit for valuation. 148. That is the amount allowed by the Act, three-fifths of the value ? —ls that so. 149. In reference to the sections at Kawhia that were offered under lease-in-perpetuity tenure, were they all taken up ?—I think they were with the exception of one or two. 150. At any rate the tenure has not had the effect of keeping the land locked up : people went on it all the same ? —Yes, when a man cannot get clean water he will sometimes take muddy. 151. From what districts have the people come who have taken up land in this district ?■ —From all parts of the colony. 152. Would they very much like the option of purchase ? —Yes. 153. Is that for the purpose of putting their savings into the land, or in order to be able to sell out more readily ?—I do not think it is for the purpose of selling out. It is principally because if they want an advance they can then get it under the advances to settlers system. 154. Will not outside money-lenders lend money to perpetual-lease holders ? —I think it is pretty well understood that they will not, in this part of the colony. 155. As to the residence conditions, would it not be reasonable that before they are enforced a reasonable road should be made to the sections ?—I think that would be reasonable. This demand that settlers should reside on their sections so early is the principal drawback to the system. Of course under the occupation with right of purchase you have four years' exemption, but a district does not advance much in four years. 156. Would it be reasonable that when those facilities were granted that the conditions should be enforced ?—I think so. 157. Were you consulted as to the expenditure of the " thirds " accruing with respect to your land ? —No. 158. Did you ever hear of a single settler who was consulted ? —No. 159. Is it not a fact that the Land Board has handed over the " thirds " without considering the settlers at all ? —I never heard anything about what became of them. 160. I suppose that you are aware that nearly all the settlers in the district have made improvements much beyond the requirements of the Act ? —Yes. 161. Mr. Matheson.] Do you know the block that was offered under the optional tenures and then withdrawn and offered under lease in perpetuity ? —Yes. 162. Can you say there was any difference in the number of applications received on the two occasions ? —I cannot say for certain, but I should imagine that there were very many less applications the second time. 163. Mr. Forbes.] What was the reason for offering under only one tenure ?—The reason given was that they had some inkling that there were some minerals in the land. 164. Has that supposition been borne out ? —Not so far. 165. Has any geological survey been made ?—Not that I am aware of. 166. Mr. McCardle.] Is it not a fact that certain members of Parliament who do not believe in the freehold made a claim on the Government in the matter, and that those men boast that they were the" persons who had the land withdrawn from the optional system ? —I have heard so. John Burgess Teasdale examined. 167. The Chairman.'] Do you hold land in this neighbourhood ?—My daughter has 560 acres under occupation with right of purchase, and I am assisting to farm it. 168. Have you anything particular to say ? —I heard the evidence of Mr. Tippetts with regard to drainage. Our land abuts on the same swamp, but we have perhaps a better fall than Mr. Tippetts, though not sufficient to thoroughly drain the land, and we have spent several hundred pounds on drainage. The only remedy I can see is for the Government to take the matter in hand and drain the land, or purchase the Native land ; and I am sure the settlers would be willing to pay a proportion of the cost of draining the land. There are three weirs, and they are only used once a year or thereabouts. 169. Mr. McCardle.] You took up some of the fern land, did you not ? —Yes. 170. And you found it fairly good land when well watered and manured ?—Splendid land. 171. You have spent a considerable amount on manuring ? —lt is not necessary. In the first year you will get a good crop of clover, without it. 172. Do you know the quality of the Government land in the district ?—For at least twentyfive miles southward it is as good as any about here. 173. Do you think that the Government land between here and Te Kauamoa would be readily taken up for agricultural purposes ? —Yes. 174. Is it well adapted for dairying ? —lt is the finest I have seen since I left my native county, Cheshire.
.T. B. TEASDALE.J
929
C—4.
175. Have you had any experience of advances to settlers ? —I have done a good deal of the valuing for the Government. Since the advances to settlers system came in the district has gone ahead wonderfully, from nothing else than this system and the dairying industry. 176. Is there not a disinclination on the part of the Advances Board to make advances on Crown land ?—-I think that if a man makes his improvements he will get his loan. 177. As to the Church land in this town, is that leasehold system satisfactory ?—No ; it has been a great drawback to the settlement. 178. Do you know anything of the administration of the Native Land Act ? —I know that it is working very unsatisfactorily. 179. Do you think it would be wise to allow the Natives a free hand in the disposal of their lands ? —I think it would be wise if the Government took their land over, giving the owners debentures or giving them lands more together than their present scattered holdings. If a Native lives beside you he does nothing but grow rabbits and weeds. 180. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that if the Government took over the Native land the Natives themselves would be satisfied ?—I think he would be thoroughly satisfied, if he was given anything like a fair price. 181. Who has the administration of the mission land ?—A Trust Board. 182. Have they the right to sell ? —They said they had not, but they reckon now that they have, and they have sold 5 acres. Canon McMurray told me the other day that he would renew a lease of mine for sixty-six years. 183. Will they give any right of purchase ? —I do not think so. 184. Would it not be wise to" petition the Land Board about that swamp drain ?—Perhaps it would. 185. Mr. Forbes.'] Do these mission leases carry any right of compensation for improvements ?— No. Canon McMurray told me that when the lease expired I had no claim on it whatever, that one's improvements were confiscated. 186. Do you not think that form of lease should not be allowed ?—I consider that it should not be. It is robbing a man in my opinion. 187. Would the State be justified in legislating to prevent such iniquitous leases being foisted on a tenant ? —I think it should be the law of the land that every man should have his improvements, whether he is a tenant or a landlord. Thomas Weal examined. 188. The Chairman.] Where are you settled ?—I hold 312 acres in the King-country under lease in perpetuity. I was not fortunate enough to get land under the ballot system, so I bought another man out. A road had been put through the property just before I bought it. The Land Board took this land for the road without consulting me, and without making an allowance in my rent for the land taken off, and I have since then always paid my rent under protest. 189. Mr. McCardle.] What, in your opinion, is the best system of tenure ?—The occupation with right of purchase is the best system all round. 190. Mr. McLennan.'] Had you no compensation for the land that was taken ?—No. 191. Mr. Matheson.] Had they the right to take this road through your land?— Well, under the Act they had. They are quite willing to give me a road outside this boundary in lieu of the land they have taken, but they give me no compensation whatever, not even for breaking the property, which I consider is the damage to it, and the extra expense of two fences. 192. Mr. Forbes.] Have you heard any complaints in your district about the residential conditions ?-—I think the settlers are very much of the same opinion as myself, in favour of the freehold. 193. Do you consider it a reasonable condition that a man should reside on his holding ?—I think it rather a hard-and-fast rule that after a man buys his section and puts in the required amount of improvements that he has to wait ten years before getting a Crown grant.
Te Rauamoa, Wednesday, 31st May, 1905. James Edward Noonan examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler ;my brother and I hold 1,254 acres of land about eight miles from here by road, under the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure. 2. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?—Perfectly. 3. Is there any matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—Yes ; the land we hold is burdened with a certain amount of money as loading for the construction of roads, and although we pay the loading and have been on the land between three and four years, and have paid regularly our interest, we have got no roads. I think it is an injustice that we should be called upon to pay for what we have not got. n 4. Mr. McCardle.] Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards ?—Fairly; but I think the bush districts should be represented on the Board as well as the open country. 5. Do you think it desirable that the number of members on the Auckland Board, for instance, should be increased to, say, seven, so that the various districts and their interests should be fairly represented ?—Yes ; I think that would be a good thing. 6. What is your opinion with regard to the land-tenure ?—I think the freehold is the best. 7. -What about the 999-years lease ? —Personally I have no time for the leasehold, nor do I think that any person who has been on the land for any length of time will hold with the leasehold.
117—C. 4.
C—4.
930
J. E. NOONAN.
8. You know the circumstances of the Kawhia Block settlers who took up the land under lease in perpetuity : do you think those settlers should have the right to purchase extended to them ?— Yes ; I think they should be placed in the same position as other settlers under the option with right of purchase. 9. Do you agree that the conditions which compel new settlers to reside on the land for four years should be enforced ?—Yes ; I think the residential clauses should be enforced ; but, unfortunately, there is this difficulty ; that at the present time some of the sections are twenty miles back in the bush and have no road access, and if a man is not blessed with a large amount of money he cannot possibly carry out the residential conditions. 10. Are you of opinion that the Government is not keeping faith with the settlers with regard to roads ?—No ; they are a long way behind. 11. There is a large quantity of Native land around you here. Do you think the Government should take prompt steps to get that land settled ?—Certainly ; it is a curse at the present time to the settlers, and what makes matters worse now is that we have the rabbits coming along. 12. Are you aware that the Natives are most anxious to have a freer hand than at present in dealing with their lands ?—Yes ; years ago I heard from the Natives that what they wanted was to be placed on the same footing as Europeans with regard to their lands. Their complaint was that at present their hands were tied and they could do nothing. 13. Has the land risen in value here recently ? —Just in this immediate vicinity it has gone down considerably. Ido not think you could give a section away now. 14. Do you think there is much unearned increment in the blocks ?—None whatever. 15. You think that the settiers who have gone on the back blocks have done so in order to work, and that they are entitled to any benefits that may come to them from their work ?—Yes, decidedly. Our grievance at present is that, although we have been struggling for a long time, we get nothing in the shape of roads. 16. The roads generally are made from special votes granted by Parliament. Do you not think the Government should do away with special votes and grant to the settlers £2 for every £1 that is raised by way of rates for the making of these roads ?—I think the roads should be made out of the general revenue of the country, so that the people living in the towns as well as in the country should contribute their fair share. The roads to the back blocks are a benefit to all. Ido not believe in the loading of the lands at all, because it is a loadstone on a settler, keeping him down for years, and he has to make the roads for those who come after him. 17. Is there any aggregation of large estates here ?—No, I do not think so. 18. What do you consider is about the proper area to offer as sections here ?—lt is of no use going on to sections of under 500 acres at least. 19. Do you think small settlers should be allowed to extend their holdings ?—Yes. 20. Would you be prepared to advocate that an Act should be passed which would limit the amount of land any one could hold in fee-simple as well as under lease in perpetuity ?—Yes, provided the area was not too small. 21. Mr. Forbes.] You believe that residential conditions are necessary for settlement ? —Most decidedly. If my neighbour who takes up land fails to reside on it he is of no use to me, and, in fact, he is only a hindrance, but while I think the residential conditions should be enforced, the Government should carry out their promises with regard to the making of roads. 22. It has been urged before the Commission that men living in towns who wanted to make a home for their sons should be allowed to take up bush land, and by making double improvements they should be exempt from residence ?—My experience is that where you get one of these dummy town people in a settlement, instead of being a blessing they are the reverse. We are getting too much town legislation in connection with our lands already. Of course, if they did double improvements it would not be so bad. But my experience with regard to these absentees is that they just take a little bush down, and in four or five years afterwards the place is in a worse condition than it was under virgin bush. 23. Are there many of these absentee sections about here ? —We have had a few of them. I have no grievance myself against any one, but the Commissioners can see for themselves close to here a section belonging to a man who is not living on his land, and they can see the condition it is in. 1 believe in the residential conditions, no matter what the tenure may be. 24. Do you think that a man who has taken up land under occupation with right of purchase should be allowed to pay it off in four or five years if he has completed the necessary improvements ?—I would have no objection to that, provided the man kept up his improvements and went on improving afterwards. There is no doubt, however, that it is much better to have the people on the land. We have a factory here and we want as many people upon the land as possible to keep that factory going. 25. Is your land good land ?—Very good I think. 26. Does it take grass well %—I never in my experience saw better. 27. Is it clear of weeds ?—Yes ; but we have below here, about one mile and a half away, a special settlement, and those sections are regular seeding-grounds for noxious weeds. The creek running through takes the seed along and they get distributed broadcast. I was told by the Inspector that there was ragwort and other weeds getting all over the place. 28. How was this small settlement founded ?—From what I can gather, the people who were allotted the sections had to be qualified in some way. They had to qualify, I believe, by being for about three months out of work in the cities. 29. It is an improved-farm settlement ?—Yes. 30. Mr. McLennan.'] What is your objection to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—My experience is that a leaseholder does not take the same interest in his place as a freeholder does. And I feel quite sure myself that, although this lease under the lease in perpetuity may have been made in good faith,
3. E. NOONAN.J
931
C—4.
the time will come when those who come after us will say, " You have this land too cheap, you will have to pay more rent," without taking into consideration the hardships the pioneer settlers had to put up with. 31. Do you think there is any likelihood of this Parliament or any other Parliament breaking their own agreements with the tenants ? —Yes ; they have broken faith on two or three points already. I have no faith in them. 32. Do you know anything about the tenants who have lands under lease in perpetuity in the South Island, that is, on the acquired estates ?—No ; but before I came up from Canterbury to Kawhia I saw what the conditions of those leaseholds were, and I thought I would rather come to another part of the country where I could get a chance of getting the freehold. 33. Do you not think the leaseholders improve as much as the freeholders ?—My experience is that their improvements are flimsy. 34. Do you not think that 999 years is a long enough term to induce them to make improveme',ts ? —Well, under the freehold you please yourself, but under the leasehold you are so dictated toby officers and other people who come round and tell you how you are to crop or trench your land, and so on. 35. Do you think it would be advisable to allow tenants to farm their property as they think fit, and remove all restrictions on condition that they have improvements to the extent of 32 per cent, on the capital value and 18 per cent, on the goodwill ? —No, not from a private point of view. 36. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure is best for the colony as well as for the settler ?—Yes. 37. What amount of loading is put on the sections ?—ln some cases 2s. 6d., and in some cases up to ss. and 7s. 6d. j|3B. Has that always been spent ?—I do not think so. Ng'.* 39. The Government do not guarantee that they will complete the roads out of loaning, but the loading is really to begin making roads ?—I think it is very little use loading at all if there is not something to show for it. 40. In addition to the loading have there been any Government grants for roads %—No ; there is no county in force here. We have to beg for any money we want. We have had some money spent by the Government Roads Department. i 41. Would that not be granted by Parliament ?—Yes, I suppose so. 42. I understand you are thinking of forming yourselves into a county ?—Yes. i ii 43. Will you not then be in a better position ?—Yes ; if the Government will then grant us money, I think we shall have a great deal more to show for it in roads. 44. The Chairman.'] Do you think in a district like this it would be better for the Government to make the main roads through the district before leasing or selling any of the sections ?—Yes. 45. If the sections are to be loaded, would it not be better to make the roads first and then load the sections to pay for the cost of the roading ?—Certainly, we should then be paying for what we had. 46. Assuming that the option to purchase is not given under the lease in perpetuity, would it be an advantage to the tenants to have the right to pay off a part of the original value and then have all restrictions as to how they farm their land removed ?—I should say with regard to agricultural land it would not be a good idea. 47. Do you pay rates here now ?—We would prefer to pay rates if we got roads. 48. Did you take up your land at the first ballot ?—No ; what we took up was a rejected piece. I believe the Commissioner gave the people to understand that the roads would be put through in two years, but we have had to wait five years and we have not got roads yet. 49. There is an impression in the minds of a good many people that settlers are asking for the freehold in these districts simply from sentiment. Is it not a fact that to enable them to make the best use of the property it is necessary for them to have the right of purchase, so as to be able to finance their affairs ?—Yes ; the Advances to Settlers Office do not care to lend money to leaseholders, and even'the Government Life Insurance Department and other offices want freehold as a security. 50. Do you know that some settlers who were applying in this district some two or three years ago were refused advances ? —Yes ; and I know of a freeholder who was advanced £1,000 when many other settlers were being refused. Josiah Easy examined. 51. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler. I hold about 430 acres under lease in perpetuity. 52. You have heard the evedence given by the previous witness. Do you agree with all he has said ?—Pretty well. I object to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure because under it a settler cannot finance his place, or sell it, or get an advance upon it. 53. Can not you get an advance upon your improvements ? —He may be able to, but if he had the right to purchase it would be much easier for him. You were speaking about unearned increment just now ; I do not believe there is any unearned increment. 54. Did you have the option of occupation with right of purchase or lease in perpetuity when you took up your section? — Yes, I thought it better to take it up under lease in perpetuity as the rent was a little easier, but I had not much experience of it then. I did not know how difficult it would be to finance. 55. Mr. Forbes.] So far as the working of the ground is concerned, does the fact of its being a lease keep you in any way from farming it ?—No, except that if I had a freehold I could raise money on it. 56. Mr. Matheson.] If you had the right to purchase do you thmk you would have more satisfaction in leaving the place to your children, who would then have an opportunity of purchasing when they earned the money ?—Yes.
(X—4
932
J. EASY
57. Mr. McLennan.] Did you take up your land by ballot ?—lt was put up at the ballot originally, but I took mine up afterwards from another man. 58. How many went in for it at the ballot ?—Eleven. 59. Now you apply for the option to make it freehold. Do you not think that those who were not successful at the ballot should have as much right to apply for the freehold of that section as yourself ? —Certainly not. I have been on the place for five years now, and look at the money and time I have expended on it. 60. Provided you got full valuation for all your improvements do you think others should be allowed a chance of getting that section?— Yes. 61. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think if a Government officer came to assess the value of your improvements he would allow you anything like the wages a city worker would have earned in the same time and working the same yours I—No.1 —No. 62. You think you would have worked a great deal more than you could be paid for ?—Yes, there is a great deal a valuer would never see. 63. Mr. McLennan.'] Have you a fair amount of improvements on your section?— Yes. 64. Cannot you get an advance from the Advances to Settlers Department ? —My brother applied twelve months ago and could not get it. 65. Would you be surprised if I told you it would be easy to get it now ? —You do surprise me. 66. I have it on good authority that settlers can borrow money on their improvements on leaseholds as well as on freeholds ?—You can get very little. I know cases of men who applied for money on their improvements, and did not get anything like what they expected. 67. How long ago was that ? —About two years ago. 68. The Chairman.] There ha£ been a great deal of talk in the cities about revaluation of the unearned increment. Do you think a man who tackles a piece of bush in the country and spends all his time and labour in getting it into order should be allowed something for that, or do you think only visible improvements should be recognised ? —I think a man should get all he earns. Sydney Clarke examined. 69. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler. I hold 643 acres of land under occupation with right of purchase. I reside on it and have improved it. 70. Is there any matter you wish to speak upon which has not been mentioned by the previous witnesses ? —No, except with regard to borrowing. One gentleman of the Commission tells us it is a simple matter to borrow on leasehold property, as easy as on the freehold. I have always understood that on the freehold you can borrow up to three-fifths, and on the leasehold only about half. 71. Have you ever known of an application being made for an advance up to half the amount of improvements and refused ? —I know that applications have been refused, but I have not been over the property to value the improvements myself. I know the applications have been for advances up to half the value of improvements. Arthur Ormsby examined. 72. The Chairman.] Are you a farmer ? —I hold about 600 acres of Native land about here. It is freehold, of course. 73. Have you anything you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I wish to speak about the way in which the ragwort is spreading all over our lands in this locality, and is doing great damage in the surrounding districts. The grass-seed supplied to the settlers here was sent by the Government, and the ragwort has come in with that grass-seed. There is also ragwort on the Crown lands and it is spreading to our lands. I wish the Commission to take note that it is not being kept under. The Government, through Mr. Greenslade, had it cut down in the summer, but that was no good. It should be taken in hand early in the season. 74. Are the settlers neglecting it ? —Some are and some are not. ■75. Mr. McCardle.] Do not the sheep keep down the ragwort ?—Yes, but here we have cattle and are dairying. We have gone to great expense in building a factory. Where there are cattle it is not kept down, and if the spread of this weed continues we shall have to close our factory down. I think the matter ought to be attended to by the Government because the Government is the landlord, and the land is mostly occupied by Crown tenants. 76. You think they should clear the Crown lands and the private lands ?—Yes. 77. Mr. Matheson.] On the question of dealing with the Native land difficulty, suppose the Crown assisted in getting the lands individualised, secured to each Native a small residential piece, and then took charge of the rest to either let or sell it, putting all the moneys received into Government bonds and then paying the interest only to the Natives, do you think that would be satisfactory ?—lt would be better than the present state of things. 78. If a careful scheme of that nature were gone into, do you think the Natives would raise any objection ? —No, I do not think they would, provided the Natives themselves were allowed to help to work the question out. I think if two or three able men went round to see the Natives and get at their ideas they could adjust the thing. George Frederick Barton examined. 79. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler. I farm 147 acres of land in this locality, which I hold under lease in perpetuity. 80. Have you any remarks to make to the Commission ? —I only wish to say lam against the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. I believe in the occupation with right of purchase. Then, so far as bor-
G. F. BARTON.]
933
0.—4.
rowing is concerned, on a freehold you can get up to two-thirds of the whole value, including the so-called unearned increment. But as for leasehold, you have nothing but the improvements to borrow money upon, and you can only get 50 per cent, on the improvements. 81. Has it not sometimes turned out to be a misfortune to a settler to be able to borrow as much as he wished ?—I have not found it so because it has enabled me to put more improvements on my place. 82. Mr. Forbes.] Had you any option as to what tenure you would take up your land ? —I took it up second-hand from a man who originally took it up under lease in perpetuity. He took it up under that tenure because of the reduced rent. 83. Mr. Matheson.\ Many of the townspeople have a strong feeling that if the lease-in-perpetuity tenure were done away with, or if the option of purchase was given, a great injustice would be done to them in thus parting with the national estate. Do you think it would be against their interests to do so I—l1 —I think the man who has a freehold is the man who is most likely to do the best with the land. 84. Do you consider that by granting the occupation with right of purchase it will be doing a good thing for the town population ?—Certainly. 85. Mr. McLennan.] Is there anything in the lease in perpetuity which would prevent you from improving your land ? —No. 86. Mr. Matheson.\ Does not the disability in money matters hinder you from doing as much as you otherwise could on the land ? —Yes, you cannot do the same amount of improvements. 87. The Chairman.] If the lands had been left in their natural state, would they have increased perceptibly in value ?—No, it is only the advent of people into a district which gives value to land. 88. Do you mean by that that it is the settlers singly and collectively that give the increased value to the land ? —Yes. 89. Do you think they are entitled to that increased value ? —Yes, I think they are entitled to all they can get. Edwin Easy examined. 90. The Chairman.] What are you ?— lam a settler. I hold 256 acres under lease in perpetuity. 91. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?—Yes, but I should like to have the right to acquire the freehold. 92. Is there anything that you wish to bring forward that has not been brought forward by previous witnesses ? —I would like to make a few lemarks about the Advances to Settleis Office I think the Act has been a failure here principally owing to the valuer who was sent here. He valued our improvements too low, and instead of getting what we anticipated—namely, 40 per cent., we only got advances of about 20 per cent. 93. Mr. Matheson.] What was the amount of your application and the amount of the valuation and the amount offered you ? —I app'ied for a loan of £100 and I received £50. I wrote to the Premier about it, and the mortgage was made out for £75, and I was informed I would get the additional £25 when I had effected more improvements. I never got the additional amount and I was able to tide over with the amount I got, but I do not intend to apply to the Government for any more advances. 94. What did you value your improvements at ? —£25J 95. Do you know what the Government valuer valued them at ? —I do not remember. I know I had a two-roomed cottage which cost me £75, and the valuer valued it at £20. 96. The Chairman.] Do you consider that the settlement of land such as this promotes the prosperity of the colony ? —Certainly I do. 97. And you think it benefits every man in the colony, whether he be a town resident or country settler ? —Yes.
Kinohaku, Thursday, Ist June, 1905. Edward Charles Stanley examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a settler. I hold 1,462 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Marakopa Valley. 2. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I may state that I and Mr. Shaw are here to represent the settlers in the Kinohaku and Maungamangero Blocks. In regard to the queston of land-tenure we consider that we should have the right to acquire the freehold. 1 would bring before the Commission the fact that the settlers in these blocks were very unfairly dealt with. We had not the option of acquiring this land under occupation with right of purchase or for cash. We could only take it up under lease in perpetuity, and the fact that the tenure was restricted to that one form of lease was only intimated to us practically at the last moment. The settlers on these two blocks were dealt with worse than the settlers on any other block in New Zeala nd. The blocks adjacent to us have since been opened for selection, not only subject to the benefits of the Bush and Swamp Lands Act, but also with the right of taking up under the optional system. As a fair index of how the settlers value the freehold or the right to acquire the freehold, I may state that all the sections have been taken up under occupation with right of purchase. Speaking of the Kinehaku Block I think every settler should have the right to acquire the freehold as soon as his improvements are completed, on the understanding, of course, that the additional 1 per cent, is added to the price of the land to make the rent equivalent to the rent charged under occupation with right of purchase—namely, 5 per cent. I should not like to see the lease in perpetuity altogether abolished, because that tenure might suit some people. I should like also to see the deferred-payment system brought into force again. It was a very good Act and used to work very well in Nelson when I was there.
3. Do you think that those under lease in perpetuity should have the right to purchase it I do, for the reason that they cannot very well finance their leases. 4. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think those who are under lease in perpetuity are entitled to acquire the freehold ?—I think so. You know what the back-blocks settler has to put up with, and unless you offer some inducement to go back, he will not do so. A tenant under perpetuity cannot finance his section. It is very hard to go on the open market and finance a section. He must depend on the Government Advances to Settlers Office, and they will only give a small margin. 5. Do you not think you should ask the Government to give you the option of the freehold as an act of grace rather than demand it : because you are not entitled to it; you took up the land under certain conditions, which the Government on their part are prepared to fulfil 1 The Government should certainly do so, but will this Government always be in power. Suppose a fresh Government come into power and propose a revaluation of the land. Again, it is very hard to finance a lease in perpetuity unless you are very well known to financial institutions. I think it is a great hardship that the settlers on these two blocks should have been debarred from taking up the land under the optional system, while the settlers on the adjacent blocks enjoy that option. Had the matter been left to our option, I do not think there is a settler but would have taken up the land under occupation with right of purchase or for cash. 6. But you admit that, at the present time that you have no right of purchase ? —I consider there is a moral right if not a legal right. 7. Do you not think it would be far nicer to ask the Government for the option of freehold as an act of grace in place of demanding it, for there is no justice in the demand, because you took up the land with your eyes open ? —Yes, but I think most of the settlers thought that they would get the freehold at some time. 8. Do you not think it ought to be given as an act of grace rather than as a right ?-—You would like us to put it in the form of a request rather than in the form of a demand. Well, I think that is very trivial, but if it suits the Government in that way, personally I have no objection. I think the Government only represent the people, and the wish of the people ought to be respected. 9. Surely there is no sensible man who would believe that the colony would sanction such a measure as revaluation of leases ? —Of course, it is for the colony to decide. 10. Do you think that the colony as a body would sanction such an Act if it was brought forward by this or any other Government ?—I think so. 11. Do you think that the Government would listen to agitators such as the Trades and Labour Councils when they make such a request ?—No. 12. Then you admit there is no fear of the Act being amended in that direction ? —I do not say that. I say Ido not think any Government should listen to such agitators, because they are dealing with a subject about which they simply know nothing. Ido not consider myself competent to deal with labour questions in the large cities, and I think the labour people should leave the land question alone. 13. Have you had any dealings with the Land Board ? —Yes, and I have always found them satisfactory. 14. Do you think that the present system of nomination by the Ministry of the day advisable ? — No. 15. What system would you suggest ? —I think the Land Board should be elected by the local bodies, the same as Education Boards are elected by the School Committees. 16. Would you disfranchise the boroughs and cities ?—I would not go as far as that. They might have a vote the same as any other local body. 17. Mr. Matheson.] If the Crown gave the right of purchase that the Crown tenants are asking for, do you think they would be doing justice to the city dwellers who have an interest in the Crown lands ?—I think so. I think it would be beneficial to the cities, because it would give more impetus to the country. The towns are absolutely useless without the country to back them up. " 18. Have you had any experience with the Advances to Settlers Office ?—No ; I think it is a very good Act, and that every credit was due to the Government for bringing it in. But I think the Government ought to advance up to three-fifths of a man's improvements on his section provided always that two-thirds of the advance were expended in permanent improvements, such as bushfelling, grassing, fencing, &c. In regard to the question of loading for roads, I think that the Government should be compelled within two years of a settler taking up the land, to expend the ss. per acre, or whatever sum has been charged for loading. It is not fair to make a tenant pay interest on this loading, and not expend it. In regard to blocks in which sections have been surrendered or forfeited, I think the Government shoud load these sections with the thirds accruing to them from the time they were thrown up until they are resold. In our block, one section was surrendered and another was forfeited, and some time elapsed before they were placed on the market again, and there was a great loss of thirds, just at the time when we most needed them. The incoming tenant reaps the benefit of our expenditure without his section having been loaded for these " thirds." Again, while the Bush and Swamp Lands Act is a very good thing, I think the Government have gone a little too far. I think they were very wise in coming to the assistance of settlers in so far as relieving them from rent is concerned ; but when they relieve them from paying any taxation to the local bodies, I think that is very unfair. The two sections in our block that I have referred to were put into the market again under the Bush and Swamp Lands Act, and the two individuals lucky enough to get them will pay no rates for four years, while all the neighbours will have to pay immediately the Act constituting the local body comes into operation. I think that is decidedly unfair. 19. Mr. Forbes.] It has been suggested in regard to residential conditions, that double improvements should count instead of residence ; do you think that is advisable in the interests of settlers ?—
934
(3.—4.
[e. C. STANLEY-
E. C. STANLEY.]
935
C—4.
Decidedly, in some cases where it is not convenient for the individual to reside on the section, I think he might be exempt from residence provided he did double improvements, and put in a recognised manager in place of himself. 20. Is there not a hardship in this way : If one or two settlers go back, and a number of others do not, but put in double improvements instead, do not those who go back suffer through the absence of neighbours ; are they not prevented from getting schools and other conveniences ? —I really think it is good for a man to be on his own section. It is beneficial not only to himself but to his neighbours and the whole district. But in isolated cases where very good cause can be shown, I think the question of residence should be left to the discretion of the Land Board. Ido not think there should be a hard-and-fast rule. 21. Is that discretion used now by the Land Board ? —I never heard of it being used. 22. Are there any people here who are not residing upon the land ? —Not that I am aware of. There are some people who are not on this block yet, but this is a new settlement, and the time within which they must reside is not yet up. 23. Speaking from your own knowledge, would you say that the residential conditions were a hardship here ?—Certainly not. 24. Was some of the land opened here in small areas of 100 acres ? —Yes. 25. Do you think they will be a success ?—I think they are too small. They have been taken up for dairying purposes, and my experience is that 100 acres is large enough only when the land is good or level land. I think the Land Board in these cases should allow neighbours to sell out to one another, and increase their holdings up to say, 200 acres. Of course, I think close settlement is very beneficial to a certain extent, but not in a case such as this. Ido not believe in land speculation. I think it is detrimental to any district. 26. Is there any land speculation going on in this district ?—I do not think so. Ido not think there are any sections for sale. I never saw a district where there was less of that going on. 27. Mr. McCardle.] You and Mr. Shaw have been appointed to represent the wishes of the settlers of the district ? —Yes. 28. Is the feeling of the settlers throughout the block in favour of the freehold I—Yes, without exception ; they are unanimous. 29. And while you do not claim the option of the freehold as an absolute right, you think, in view of the fact that the Government have settled land all around you under occupation with right of purchase, and that these blocks were withdrawn under the belief that minerals existed, which belief has been proved altogether correct, you should have the right to acquire the freehold ?—Yes. 30. Have you ever heard of any minerals being found on this side of the harbour ?—I do not think so. 31. You have suggested an amendment in the constitution of the Land Boards, but do you not think that a more practical suggestion would be, seeing that the Auckland Land District is so large, that the number of members should be increased from four to seven, and that settlers with a practical knowledge should be nominated from each part of the district ? —I think that would do if the settlers had the option of electing a member. 32. Do you know anything of the conditions of settlement in the South Island under the lands for settlement policy ?—No, it has been since my time. 33. You are aware that the circumstances of those settlers on the improved estates are very different from those of the settlers in this district ?—Yes. 34. In your case, you took up land valued at 10s. or £1 per acre, and you require to spend £3 to £4 per acre to bring the land into profitable occupation, and you think these lands should be treated differently from the improved estates ?—Decidedly. 35. The other argument against the lease in perpetuity is that, if a settler wants monetary assistance, which is an absolute necessity in a district like this, there is only one source from which he can get it, namely, the Advances to Settlers Office, which office under the present conditions, does not meet the requirements of the case ?—That is so. 36. You are aware that no banker will touch a lease in perpetuity ?—That is so. 37. Mr. McLennan.'] Have you telephone communication with the other side ? —No. 38. Would you be in favour of the people who are settled in the back blocks being given telephonic communication ? —Yes, and I have been working for that for some time. John Shaw examined. 39. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler in the Kinohaku Block. I hold 325 acres under lease in perpetuity. 40. Are satisfied with your lease ? —No ; I wish to have the right of purchase. 41. You have heard all that was said by the previous witness : do you agree with all he has said ? —Yes, on most points. 42. If there is anything outside what he has said that you wish to touch on you might lay it before us ?—As one of the people who came to look at this land when it was first open for selection, I wish to point out that it was first offered under the optional system. I had plans sent to me showing that the land was to be offered under the optional system, and I with a great many others that I know of preferred the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure. After looking through the blocks on this side, and going to a great deal of experience and trouble we came back to Kawhia to find that this land had been withdrawn without any reason being assigned. We had gone back to Kawhia with the intention of putting in an application and attending the ballot at Te Awamutu. The notice stated that fresh posters would be issued in regard to the block, and when they were issued we found that the land had been opened under lease in perpetuity only. The sections that are now divided into 100
C—4.
936
[j. SHAW.
acres were then on the market in sections ranging from 400 to 600 acres. These larger areas were absolutely withdrawn from the public and reserved for a small village-settlement. I speak the feeling of the whole block—being a delegate—when I say there is not an individual in this block who is satisfied with his tenure or with the way the Government treated the settlers in withdrawing the land. I may say that I was told at the time by a man who has had a great deal to do with land business, that if a private individual had done a thing like that we would have had a case against him. The excuse put forward was that there were minerals in the block. The extraordinary thing is that none of us either before that time or after ever heard of any of the minerals named being in the land. We feel we have been very unjustly treated in having had the option withdrawn, and therefore we claim as a right the option of converting our lease in perpetuity either into occupation with right of purchase or into freehold on the payment of cash. I would like to say that any practical farmer who goes into this block and looks at these 100-acre sections will know that it is a sheer impossibility for a man to make a living off anything less than 200 or 300 acres. I think any settlers who are not allowed to hold more than 100 acres of such land are unjustly treated. 43. Mr. McLennan.'] Do you agree with your neighbour that it is desirable*; to have telephonic communication between here and Kawhia ? —Yes ; it is very desirable. 44. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think there is coal in the Kinohaku Block ? —I do not know of a single bit of anything resembling true coal in the whole block. 45. Do you think it was on account of the presence of coal being suspected there that the land was withdrawn ?—Decidedly not. It was on account of the agitation of those members who do not believe in the Crown parting with the people's heritage, as they call it. They also said that this land was magnificent country, which wauld carry four sheep to the acre. As'a practical farmer I say such a statement is utterly ridiculous. 46. Have you had any personal the Advances to Settlers Office ? —No. 47. Do you think it should be managed in a businesslike way, and that the Department should make sure they are getting good security for the money they advance ? —I think they should carry out their agreement. They say they will lend up to half the value of a man's improvements, and and if they did so I do not think there would be half the feeling that is shown at present against the Advances to Settlers Office. 48. Mr. Forbes.] Do you agree with the suggestion that if they advance up to three-fifths of the value of improvements that two-thirds of the loans should be expended in further improvements ? — I think that would be an excellent thing because it would be a good safeguard for the Department. But usually that money is borrowed for substantial improvements and nothing else. 49. Are you satisfied that the Government are carrying out their promises in regard to the roading of these blocks ? —They are not carrying out their promises in any respect whatever. When we took up this land, the map shewed Mahoenui-Kawhia Road constructed for a certain distance with a 16 ft. formation. That road is there to-day and it leads to nowhere, and it is connected with nowhere. Thousands of pounds have been wasted on that work, and it is useless to anybody. If that money had been spent in putting a road inland from the harbour, or in constructing a railway in, it would have been a great benefit to the district. 50. You think that a road connecting with the railway would be of great importance I—Yes,1 —Yes, of the greatest importance. No one who has not travelled stock through hilly bush .country without a road or track can realise the difficulties that settlers have to contend with. 52. Mr. McCardle.] Is it not a fact that you have no road communication whatever between here and the railway, or any other formed road outside the harbour ?—We are altogether isolated.
Te Awaroa, Friday, 2nd June, 1905. William Darnell Humphrys examined. 1. The Chairman.'] Do you hold land in the district ? —Yes, I hold about 1,000 acres under occupation with right of purchase. I may say at the outset that I have been appointed by a meeting of settlers in the district to appear as their delagate before the Commission. I have drawn up a report setting forth the views of the meeting which has been submitted to and approved by all those who were present, and which I will now read : At a meeting of the Awaroa Valley settlers held on the 20th May, I was appointed by them to place their views before the Land Commission. At that time we did not know whether the Commission would come over to Hauturu, but we are very pleased that you have come, and we offer you a hearty welcome. The settlers who attended the meeting on the 20th May were quite satisfied with the land-tenure which they have got, namely occupation with right of purchase, and were unanimously in favour""of the* freehold. [The following were among some of the reasons given in favour of freehold : (1.) That if a settler has a few good years he could save money and buy his land, then if bad years followed, he would not have rent to pay, and the bad times would not be so hard on him. (2.) That a man looks after his land better if it is freehold, and keeps it in better heart, and the idea that it is, or will be, freehold gives him more encouragement to battle with and keep down noxious weeds and other pests that may appear. (3.) That money is more easily procurable on freehold than on leasehold, and also more can be borrowed, if necessary, on the freehold, consequently more improvement could be done on freehold than on leasehold. (4.) That, supposing a man who has a leasehold, becomes incapable of working it through an accident or illness, and wishes to dispose of his goodwill, he must obtain, I believe, the sanction ofthe Land Board to such sale, and they may object, on the grounds that the goodwill seems exorbitant, whereas it may really be quite reasonable, as second and third burns, extra grass-seed and cost of'sowing'same, packing'on bad roads, or no roads at all, and numerous other expenses, besides the man's own labour, all mount up very considerably,
W. D. HUMPHRYS.I
937
C—4.
and may make the goodwill seem large, when it is really not at all exorbitant. If, on the other hand, a man has the freehold, he can please himself with regard to sale, and if he makes what is thought to be a good sale he may cause some people to talk about the unearned increment, but we maintain that there is no unearned increment in bush-farming, and I am sure that if the members of the Land Commission had spent the last five years of their lives in the Awaroa Valley they would be of the same opinion as we are. With regard to the Land Board, we think that a portion of the members at any rate should be elected. With regard to roads and bridges, our land in the Awaroa Valley (amounting to, 1 believe, 11,419 acres) is loaded with about 3s. per acre for roads and bridges ; at 3s. per acre this would represent a sum of £1,712. Now, sir, we wish to draw your attention to the injustice we have suffered through this money not being expended or giving us a road through the block. We have had our sections for over five years, and at the present time have only about five miles of 6 ft. track open, with another mile, or thereabouts, being now formed ; one bridge is now being erected, the timber for which was cut about eleven months ago, and has been lying beside (instead of over) the Kaimanga Creek ever since. In the meantime the settlers have turned out on two occasions and have erected temporary bridges over this creek, the first of which collapsed when a settler was riding over it, and he narrowly escaped injury to both himself and his horse ; and another suffered worse, as he was riding up the track at night, and did not see that the bridge was smashed, and in consequence he injured his horse severely. The second temporary bridge, lam glad to say, has held out till the permanent structure has at last been erected. The reason given for the delay in building this bridge was that the timber required seasoning. I saw a telegram from the Minister for Public Works to this effect the other day. The settlers have also built a bridge over the Te Awaite Creek, and I might mention that it took us two days to do this work, we have alscucut several trees off the track, and have done other work from time to time. The accrued " thirds "on our sections to date amount to, I believe, £406, so you see that in something over five years, all we have got (including Government votes and also from loading at 3s. and accrued " thirds," which latter together represent a sum of £2,118) is five miles of 6 ft. track open, and about another mile being formed, and one bridge erected, the whole of which work we estimate (not including the mile being formed) would cost about £600. Now, sir, we think that when a man becomes a Crown tenant of land which is loaded for roading, he practically enters into a contract with the Government, and the Government with him ; he as tenant, is compelled to do his necessary improvements and reside on his section within a certain time, and the Government ought to fulfil their side of the contract, by giving him access to his section within a reasonable time also ; but it seems that they do not. Now, if the Government do not give a man access to his section, and yet compel him to do improvements, what good are those improvements to the settler, as how is he to get stockin without a road, and how is he to pay his rent without stock ? Also, if grass is not stocked, it goes to waste and is inclined to die out, and the land would have been much better left in standing bush, until such time as the Government thought fit to give access to it, and to enable it to be stocked. If the Government do not intend to make the roads, where land is loaded for roading, immediately after that land comes out at the ballot, they should not compel the tenants to do the improvements and reside on their sections until such time as they give them access to their holdings, and all loading should be spent in the immediate vicinity of the land that carries such loading. Some of the Awaroa settlers cut nine miles of track through the bush to enable them to get stock in, and in places there was a lot of side-cutting and navvying work to be done, and it necessarily cost them a good deal of valuable time, and with what result! The Messrs. Babbage went out to the Waikato and bought 460 sheep, and lost 260 out of the mob bringing them in. In my own case I left my first two clearings, amounting to about 60 acres, unstocked, sooner than take the risk of such losses, and waited until the Government made a 6 ft. track to within about half a mile of my boundary, when, by making tracks through the bush, I managed to get sheep in, but I have had to cut down the undergrowth and sow these two clearings pretty well all over again, as they grew up owing to not being stocked. All the other settlers have suffered great loss of time and money, through not having a formed track to their sections, and I have only mentioned the above instances to give you an idea of what it is to be without roads. Want of roads is also most severely felt by the wives and families of those of us who are married. I might mention that some of the settlers contemplate dairying, but of course that is out of the question until such time as they have a road, so you see that the settlers are kept back in every way through nothaving roads, and cannot make the progress that they would desire, which, if it is the same in other bush settlements, as I believe it is in a good many cases, must be a bad thing for the colony as a whole. When we attended the ballot, over five years ago in Auckland, Mr. Seddon was present, and in the course of a short speech told us that we would have our roads in two years' time. This was naturally most cheering news to settlers about to go back to the back-blocks, but yet, here we are, over five years past since the ballot, and the majority of us have not even a 6 ft. track. I think the above remarks rather substantiate my former statement, that there will never be such a thing as unearned increment, in the Awaroa Valley at any rate. In conclusion, sir, we sincerely hope that the evidence collected by the Royal Land Commission throughout the colony, may be beneficial to the Crown tenants in particular, and to the colony as a whole, and we desire to thank the Chairman and members of the Commission for coming to Hauturu and taking our evidence here. To show the difficulties under which the settlers labour in this district I may mention some of the circumstances of the trip down the river, which I and someoof my neighbours made yesterday on our way to this place. One piece of track which usually takes about twenty minutes to get over took us something like two hours. At one place, where you come out of the bush and get into the river, my horse disappeared under the water, and I got wet through, even my change of clothes being saturated. Further down there is a tree across the'river"which we used to be able to climb over. I thought I would try to lead my pony over it. The result was that he got washed down to the other side of the river, and if I had been alone I should have had to leave him there. Luckily I was able to get him out, Mr. Babbage aiding me with
118—C. 4.
C—4.
938
W. D. HUMPHETS.
a long stick, but the animal was very much knocked about. The last ford on the river had been clean washed out, and I suppose now there is 12 ft. of water there. But with the assistance of young Mr. McArdle we did manage to get the horse across. I merely mention these matters to show the sort of difficulties that the settlers have to contend with. If we had been there only a year or two we would not think so much of it, but in the face of the fact that we have been on the block for six years and that we were promised early road communication we consider that we have been very hardly treated. 2. Mr. Forbes.] What" have been your relations with the Land Board : have they treated you reasonably ?—Yes; as far as lam concerned. They could not have done otherwise, seeing that we have all paid our rent and done more improvements than were required of us. '3. Are all the original settlers on the block still here ?—All with but one exception. 4. Do you find the residential conditions too hard ?—My report gives our views on that point. We do not consider it is fair to compel people to reside on their land at once. Some of us are married men and it is frightfully hard on the women. We consider that it should be optional with the settler whether he goes to live on his section at once. The Government should not compel him to live there until they give him access to his home or at any rate make a start with the formation of roads. In our case it was two years before even they started to form the roads. If it were made optional most of the selectors would in all probability go upon the land at once, but I do not consider it should be compulsory until the Government have done their duty. 5. Mr. MoCardle.] Do you consider that the objections to the Land Boards as now constituted would be met by this district and others similarly situated being allowed to nominate representative settlers from whom the Government should select a member of the Board ?—I do not think that the settlers' representatives should b«? appointed by the Government at all, because the Government have all the nomination on their side and the Crown tenants have none. Possibly what you suggest would be better than the present state of affairs, but I do not think it altogether meets the views of the Te Awaroa settlers. 6. You have here a very large amount of Native land. Even if this track were made up past your place and connected with the Hauturu Road you would still have no connection from the harbour to of the Pirongia Road ?—We have the water, but that does not supply the wants in regard to the moving of stock, does it. There is another way of getting in and that is by the Kaimangu. We could get stock through that way without touching the Native land at all. 7. You know the difficulties in the way of getting road votes spent ?—Yes ; money has been voted and authorised and yet has not been expended. 8. Suppose the Government departed from the principle of special grants and agreed to allow the proposed new local body £2 for every £1 raised by the settlers, and then a loan was raised and interest and sinking fund was to be paid so long as the " thirds " remained accruing to the property : would not that be preferable to waiting for special votes of Parliament ?—I suppose it would, but still the Government have failed in their duty because they ought to have spent the money that has accrued from our loading. We are paying interest on that and yet have no 6 ft. track, much less a full width road through. Mr. Scott, who has been an experienced contractor, has told me that he would put a road through for £2,000. • « • »> 9. Do you know of any settler here who has been consulted as to the expenditure of his thirds ? —No. 10. Do you know where the " thirds " have gone that have accrued from this district ?—None of us have the faintest idea. At any rate they are not on the roads. 11. Mr. Matheson.] It is a very serious thing to say that your land and that of your neighbours has been loaded to the extent of £1,700, not half of which has been spent ?—Well that is our rough estimate. 12. In regard to Mr. Seddon's promises to the settlers, were his words taken down at the time ?— They were taken down in our heads, four of us now present were in the room when he made the promise. . 13. Have you ever reminded him of that promise ?—Yes, when he was in Kawhia. Mr. Bell said " What about the promise you made in the ballot-room " ? Mr. Seddon said that " Ministers promises were, like pie-crusts, made to be broken." In our opinion the Premier would have done better if he merely said "We will do our best for you." But to say that we should have roads within two years was misleading. 14. Do you consider that the Native-land difficulty is a great hindrance to settlement here ?—I am sure it is. 15. Mr. McLennan.] Are there many children of school-age in your settlement ?—Only two or three at present, but there are younger ones coming on towards school-age. 16. You are a long way from a doctor or from means of communicating with one : do you not think it would be advisable to have telephonic communication with Kawhia ?—lt would indeed. We would have had the matter up at our meeting only we did not know it was within the scope of the Commission. 17. Would it not be advisable for the Government to take steps to conserve some of the beautiful scenery we have seen to-day, say in the Rakaunui arm of the harbour ?—I certainly think so. 18. Mr. Forbes.] What is the price of your land ?—The capital value is 10s. an acre and we pay 5 per cent, on that, which is about 6d. an acre. 19. The Chairman.] Do you think it would be better for the Government to do the roading of Crown lands before throwing it open for settlement ?—Not necessarily, if only they make a start as soon as possible after the land is open for selection. Some of the settlers might like to get work on the roads. Let the improvement clauses be optional—at any rate, till a 6 ft. track comes up to the section. 20. Mr. MoCardle.] Is it not a fact that when the Government start to make a road, say ten miles in length, the mile first constructed is often in an impassable state before the last mile is made ?—Yes ; I suppose it would be a case of the settlers looking after that road themselves as we do.
A. w. babbageJ
939
C—4.
Alfred Whitmore Babbage examined. 21. The Chairman.J What is your holding ?—1,177 acres under occupation with right of purchase. 22. Do you agree with all that has been stated by Mr. Humphrys ?—I do. 23. Is there anything further that you wish to bring forward ?—Nothing, except to impress upon the Commission the way in which we are treated in the matter of roads. That is what has kept back our settlement more than anything else. 24. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?—Quite satisfied. 25. Mr. Forbes.] Is the land changing hands in the district to any extent ?—Not much. I think only one or two sections in our valley have changed hands. 26. Then you would not say that the land here is held for speculative purposes I—l should think not. 27. You think that it is genuine settlement all round here ?—Yes. 28. Are there any persons holding land who are not residing on it ?—Only about two. 29. Is it reasonable to think that they will reside on it !—I think they will when they get a road to their section, but they say they will not till then. 30. Do you agree that the residential conditions should not be enforced till decent means of communication is afforded ?—I think the Government should put the roads in at once. 31. Of course you paid the loading from the commencement ?—Yes ; that is why I say the Government should start to put a road through within a reasonable time. 32. Mr. McCarcUe.] You have been a heavy loser for want of a road. I suppose that other settlers have also lost considerably both in bringing in and inability to take out stock when it was ready for the market ?—Yes. 33. Do you think that the Slate would lose anything through the freehold being granted to lease-in-perpetuity settlers ?—Certainly not. 34. Do you think it would improve the condition of the settler who is holding the land \—l do think so. 35. Is the land here of good quality ?—Yes. 36. Are not the settlers on the block making improvements far beyond the requirements of the Act ? —I think they have all done more than is required of them. 37. And have they not had great drawbacks in the way of bad burns ?—Yes they have often been put to double expense in clearing. 38. When valuations are made for the Government do they embrace all the improvements effected on the land ? —No. 39. Does the valuation amount to half ?—I do not think so. For instance, the improvements I am credited with do not amount to half what I have spent on the place, taking no account of my own work, and that is the general experience. 40. Mr. Matheson.] Do you get your stores up by the Te Awaroa River ?—Yes. We were going to take stores back to the sections to-day, but we find that we could not even take back unloaded horses. We shall have to walk through the bush. 41. Approaching from the railway side what is the length of the cart-road towards your place ?— Ido not think there is more than six miles of cart-road. Then comes about nine miles of 6 ft. track, and the rest is solid bush for about sixteen miles. 42. Are you satisfied that the whole of your loading has been spent ?—We can only judge from what we see on the road, for we know of nothing else. It may have been spent somewhere else, but that is no good to us. 43. You believe that you are paying interest to the Crown on money that has never been spent on your behalf I—l do believe that. 44. Mr. McLennan.] Have you had any communication with the Land Hoard with regard to the spending of your " thirds " or your loading ?—Yes ; 1 have written to the Land Board and this is the reply I have received : — " Department of Lands and Survey, District Office, Auckland, 13th September. " Re Loading of Hauturu Block. " In reply to your letter of the 31st ultimo, I have to state that all information connected with the loading of blocks should be obtained from Mr. T. Burd, District Road Engineer, Te Kuiti. He has entire charge of the expenditure of the money with which the various blocks are loaded. This Department has nothing whatsoever to do with the expenditure. The Hauturu Block carries a loading of about 3s. per acre, and Mr. Burd will be able to give you any further information you may require. " James Mackenzie, " To Mr. A. W. Babbage, Hauturu." " Commissioner of Crown Lands." 45. Did they give you no account of how the loading was spent ? —I did not ask that. 46. What has become of your " thirds " ?—That is what we should like to know. We have letters from Mr. Burd, who is practically our local body, because he represents the Government in the matter, and he says that our " thirds " are all expended. He did not say where. At one time some surfacemen were employed, but that would not take much. 47. Mr. McCarcUe.] Is it not a fact that though the loading is done by the Board the Public Works Department has the expenditure of it and the Board has no knowledge what becomes of it I—Yes. Gilbert Macdonald Robertson examined. 48. The Chairman.] What land do you hold ?—784 acres of occupation with right of purchase. 49. Are you satisfied with your tenure ? —Perfectly satisfied. 50. You have heard what has been said by the last two witnesses ? —Yes, and I agree with them entirely.
C—4.
940
G. M. ROBERTSON.
51. Mr. Forbes.] What is the price of your land I—los.1 —10s. 6d. per acre. That is about the general price of landj here. 52. Is it good land ? —Very good land of its kind. 53. Does it take the grass well ?—Yes, when you get to the land. After you clear the bush there is a great deal of peat in this country, and you have to get rid of that before you can grass. Sometimes it takes about two burns before you get through the peat and down to the lands. In some places this peat is 3 ft. thick. 54. Is much of your land cleared ? —About 180 acres. 55. What is the price of bushfelling about here ?—lt varies from about £1 2s. 6d. to about £1 10s. an acre. 56. Mr. McCardle.\ I suppose the track to your block is not more than passable for packing just now ?—lt is not passable. All the settlers who live beyond me will have to leave their horses at my place to-night and walk home. 57. If the settlers had good treatment in regard to roads, is there not much land in the valley that would be used for dairying ?—I believe it would. 58. Would you approve of the number of members of the Auckland Land Board being increased, and if the difficulties in regard to an elective system were found insurmountable, would you approve of the nomination system which I mentioned to Mr. Humphrys just now ? —I should think so. 59. Mr. Matheson.\ On the original litho. plan of the block, was anything said of the intention to form the roads I—No. 60. In the event of a road being formed here, is stone available for metalling ?—I believe there is very good rock in handy places on the hillside all the way along. 61. How much would it cost per mile to make, say, al6 ft. or 12 ft. road ? —I cannot say other than what Mr. Humphrys said—that Mr. Scott gave a rough estimate of about £2,000 for putting the road through Te Koraha, eight or nine miles from here. 62. If that was formed, would it be necessary to'afterwards form any expensive extension ? — The Kaimanga Road would suit us best. 63. Mr. McCardle.] How many miles would it take to bring up the Hauturu Road ?—About a mile has been formed now, and I suppose four or five miles would finish it. 64. Do you not think that in view of the possibilities of the tourist traffic to the Waitomo Caves the Government should put a road through to the harbour from the Hangatiki Railway-station ? —I certainly think so. 65. Would it not be a colonial road in every sense of the word as well as a road in every way useful to settlers ?—I do not know where it would come to but lam certainly in favour of a main road being made through from there. 66. Is it not a most feasible one in view of the depth of water available in the Te Awaroa River as compared with the Kinohaku for instance ?—I believe it would be the shorter route. 67. The Chairman.'] Is there any other matter you would like to mention ? —I would just like to mention a conversation I had with Mr. Burd one night when he was here. I asked him what had become of the money we had paid in loading, and he said that it had all been spent in giving us access. I asked him where our access was, and he said we put it on the Hauturu Road. I answered him, " But we have no access here." " Well," he said, " you see it is all through Native land." 68. Mr. MoCardle.] Do you know that a road has been made from Hauturu to Otorohanga and there are practically no settlers on it, and that the road is overgrown with trees 'That is quite possible. Possibly that is where our roading went. At one time I came in here with 152 sheep. One stretch of four miles from Kauri Creek took us from daybreak till 9 o'clock at night. When we finally got through the sheep were so exhausted that they died like flies and only fifty-two survived out of that 152, and all this for want of a road. Henky Heeschel Babbage examined. 69. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler, holding 1,002 acres of land under occupation with right of purchase. 70. Are you satisfied with the tenure ?—Yes, perfectly. 71. You have heard what has been expressed by the previous witnesses. Do you agree with all they have said ?—Yes. 72. Is there any fresh matter you would like to bring forward ?—I should like to say I left home at 7 o'clock this morning to come here for the purpose of giving evidence ; and at the first place Mr. Humphrys has described in the river I went in over my knee-boots, and at the next place I had to swim nearly a chain. That is the sort of road we have to take stock up and take our supplies over. 73. Mr. Forbes.] You think there is a possibility of taking a road up there ? —Yes, it is quite an easy grade. 74. What hope is there that a road will be made ? Have you been promised anything ? —Only broken promises. 75. Has your member done anything in the matter ?—Yes, he has been doing all he could, but it has led to nothing. For instance, with regard to the bridge, they gave as an excuse that there were no workmen available. I came in here and asked Mr. Gray whether he would do this formationwork, and he said he had a gang ready for it. Mr. Lang then communicated with the Minister and asked that it should be done, but the gangs have gone on, and by this time the place will be up'to'our necks in mud. 76. Mr. McCardle.\ I suppose it is impossible to get fat stock out along that road ?—You might start with them fat, but they would be stores before you got them out. 77. And the demand for stores is not now sufficient to make that pay ? —No.
H. H. BABBAGE.]
941
C.—4.
78. Mr. Matheson.] Do you know this Otorohanga Road, which has been made arid which has grown up again in scrub ?—Yes; there is sixteen miles of it; it was a 4 ft. 6 in. track. 79. Was it made to give access to some land to be opened up ?—There were only one or two sections along it, I believe. 80. Do you know whether any of your loading went to make it ?■—l do not know. 81. Do you know that so soon as you get a local body you can raise a loan to make roadsjmd can use your " thirds "to pay the interest ?—Yes. There is one other thing I should like to say . It is with regard to our loss on sheep in bringing them in. If I had got all my sheep in it would have meant a difference to me of £200. 82. It resulted in that amount of loss ? —Yes. 83. Mr. Forbes.] Have you much stock on your place now ?—Sixty head of cattle and about one hundred sheep, but I intend to get more shortly. If we get stuck in trying to get the stock in we have just to let them stay there and starve. 84. The Chairman.'] There is a lovely scenic spot we passed in coming here today. Do you know whether it belongs to the Government or the natives ?—I do not know. 85. Do you think the Government would be right to reserve that for scenery purposes ?—Certainly. 86. Is there anything more you wish to say ?—Nothing, except that I should like to see the Commission make an effort to get up the river to-day.
Kawhia, Saturday, 3rd June, 1905. George Henry Mackenzie examined. 1. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder in this district ? —1 hold about 40() acres of land at Oparau under occupation with right of purchase. 2. Is there any special matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—No, but I ani prepared to answer any questions. 3. Mr. Matheson.\ Have you had any dealings with the Land Board ?—Only in regard to the transfer of my own section. 4. Have your dealings been satisfactory ?—Very satisfactory. 5. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Yes; I think it has been a good thing. It has been the means of lowering the rate of interest all over the colony. 6. Does your holding touch Native lands at all ?—I have a Native lease alongside of me now. 1 am trying to get it fixed up, but it is a very cumbersome business. I think the Government ought to identify the Native lands so that they could be dealt with. It would save a great deal of trouble and expense. 7. Do you think the Natives would be content that the Government should take over their lands and deal with them, the proceeds to go to the Natives ?—Yes. The Natives would get their rent, it would save time and trouble, and the country would be settled. 8. You do not think that some of the Natives would be annoyed at the Government taking over their lands to administer in that way ?—No. I think they would be just as pleased as the Europeans. 9. Mr. McLennan.] What kind of roads have you in your locality ?—The road to my section is a little better than in other places, but the roads about are really only mud flats. 10. Has there been any money voted for your roads ?—No. There has never been a man working on the road there. If we want to do anything we must do it ourselves. 11. You do uot pay any rates at the present time ?—No. 12. Mr. McCardle.] There has been a suggestion made that the Land Board should be made more representative, and some people have advocated that some of the members should be elected and that the" rest should be appointed by the Government. Further, that the number of members should be increased from four to seven. Do you think it would suit the requirements of this large district if the Land Board was increased from four to seven members, and that some one having experience of, the requirements of this particular district, for instance, should be appointed to represent the settlers here ?—I think it would be a very good thing, because I think the settlers then would have some chance of getting fair play. 13. What is your opinion with regard to tenure as applied to "bush settlement ?—I would give every man the option of purchase. 14. Do you think that those people that hold land under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure would be agreeable to paying 1 per cent, additional from the time they took up their lease—that is, the difference between the lease-in-perpetuity and the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenures—if the Government granted them the option of purchase ?—Yes. I think that would be a fair thing. 15. We have been anxious to discover where the unearned increment comes in in country districts ?—I have seen very little where I have been. 16. Do you think if a settler, after having spent his time and labour on his holding, would, if he were given valuation for his improvements, get anything like what he had put into his land ?—I consider the Government valuations are only about one-fourth of our improvements. 17. You have noticed, no doubt, that at meetings of the labour party in the cities, recommendations have been made that there should be revaluation of leases in perpetuity on the death of the present holder or on transfer of lease ?—Yes. 18. Do you think that, if that were granted, any benefit would be likely to accrue to the workers in the cities ?—Not the slightest.
[O. H. MACKENZIE.
C.—4.
942
19. What is the number of your section ?—Section 2, Block VIII., Kawhia North; it contains 377 acres. . . 20. If the roads were made|in|the district, is there anything to prevent the settlers establishing dairy factories, and assisting push on the progress and prosperity of the colony generally ? No, we could do anything if we had roads. 21. Mr. Forbes.'] Is not the question of roads more important even than the question of tenure 1— I do not know about that, because if a man cannot get any money on his land he is stuck. 22. If proper road access were given, would not business men be more inclined to deal with the settlers than they are at present ?—Not under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. There seems to be no confidence in the leasehold tenure, and it is that tenure which has kept everything back. 23. Are most of the settlers under lease in perpetuity then ? —We have the land under occupation with right of purchase, but there is very little security in that until we can get the freehold ; people will not lend money on that. 24. Are the settlers about here in a position to buy their places straight out at the Government p r i ces ?—Yes ; I would buy to-morrow if I were given the opportunity. We have to wait for ten years before we can purchase, and I think everyone ought to be allowed to get Ins freehold as soon as he wants it. 25. Is it not necessary that there should be residential conditions I—No,1 —No, not unless you make the roads. 26. Do you agree that there should be residential conditions in force after the roads are made ?— Yes. 27. If people were allowed to get their freehold straight away, would that not be opening the door to speculators coming in and buying up sections, and holding them until they increased in value ?— Yes, I suppose you must impose residential conditions. 28. Although the land was bought? —Yes, it would prevent people from speculating; but the roads should be made first. 29. You agree, I suppose, that there is such a thing as unearned increment in the cities I—Yes, that is a different thing altogether. 30. Do you not think that the lands in this district are increasing in value ?—They are going backin value. There was a great rush at first, but now I could buy my place cheaper with the improvements upon it than I bought it originally. 31. Is any land bought straight out for cash ?—There is only one place, I think, and that is Rakanui, and there are some freehold sections in the township. 32. What has made the land go back in value ?—There was a boom here about the year 1883, but the place has not gone ahead as people expected, and values have gone down. 33. Do you consider it an immediate necessity to get a good road from here to the railway ?—J think it would be better to carry a railway through, and it would be cheaper in the long-run. It would open up the whole of the Waikato to this port, and would do the whole district a great amount of good. 34. Mr. McLennan.'] I understand you have come from the south ?—Yes, Tapanui. 35. Do you know anything of the position of the Crown tenants under lease in perpetuity on estates purchased by the Government ? —Yes, I have heard of the far famed Pomahaka Estate. I lie tenants have been growling and kicking up a row with the Government ever since they took up the land. 36. That is only one case : do you know of any other estates taken up by the Government for settlement in the south ?—No. . 37. Mr. Forbes.] In the case of Pomahaka, do you think the Government would be justified in reducing the rents to the tenants there No, because the people there are no good, and that is why they are always growling. The few good ones are doing well. 38. Mr. McCardle.] Do you know the people on the Pomahaka Block ? —I know some of them. 39. Do you know Donald McGregor, who has been on the land from the first and who is the only man that has fulfilled all conditions as to payment of rent, &c. ? —1 do not know him very well. ' 40. Mr. Matheson.] You suggest that the right of purchase should be given, but that when the freehold is obtained the Government should insist on residence I—Yes.1 —Yes. 41. Do you realise the difficulty there would be in the way of insisting oil freeholders residing on their property % —Well, make it deferred payment, which is about the best system we have had in the colony yet. 42. So that the freehold would not be obtainable until after a certain time ?—Yes. 43. Is that not the position you are in at present ? —Yes, I suppose it is. • 44 The Chairman.] Is it not a fact that once the freehold title is given you cannot make conditions —Is that so; I was not aware of it. 45. Is the existence of large blocks of Native lands in this district against settlement i Yes, the trouble is that the lands have not been identified. I think the best way out of the difficulty would be for the Government to take over the land and act as trustees for the Natives, and then sell or lease. James Edward Scott examined. 46. The Chairman.] Do you hold land here ?—Yes, I hold 130 acres of freehold on the south side of the harbour. 47. Do you occupy it ?—Not at present, but I have improved it. 48. Is there any matter you wish specially to bring before the Commission ?—Yes, I have a communication which I should like to read. It is as follows : I respectfully beg to submit to you experiences I have had with the Wellington Land Board, and give them as reasons, why for the future, I prefer the option of the freehold. During the month of March, 1896, I purchased Mr. F. Help's interest in Section 58, Block XVIII., Mangatainoka, consisting of 20
943
C—4-
J. E. SCOTT.I
acres, Village Settlement, for the sum of £320 cash, and took up his obligations with the Government as follows : To pay 5 per cent, on upset value, £20 ; also on £20 advanced to the first tenant to build a whare (I believe that I was the seventh occupier) ; also 5 per cent, on a further £50 advanced to a later tenant by the Advances to Settlers Office. I then entered into possession of the place, renewed the house (six roomed), refenced the whole section, drained a large portion, planted an orchard, &c., totalling an expenditure of £150. During this time, I followed the occupation of general contractor. About 1898 I was interested in the construction of a bridge across the Rangitikei River, which would necessitate my absence from home continuously for nigh on two years. I therefore made application to the Land Board to lease property till the completion of this work, so that I may have my family residing with me. I was informed it was contrary to the Act to lease, but I might put in a caretaker, and lease the grass. These conditions I complied with. At the end of twelve months I received notice to return or transfer to some eligible person; not being in a position to return. I placed the property in agents' hands for sale, and agreed to take a price much below what it cost when the house, which was unoccupied, was burnt, only £100 insurance being on it ; this caused the sale to fall through. The Commissioner of Lands then lodged a caveat of £20 against the insurance. I took exception to this, taking legal advice, but was advised that although the claim was not legal, in view of my wishing to get a transfer, it would be policy to pay this claim. Note, I insured of my own free will, not being compelled to do so by the Board. On the 9th May, 1901, a sale of my interest was effected to another person at £208, two-thirds being left on mortgage. This same mortgage, which my solicitor desired to register as a second mortgage on the property, was objected to by the Commissioner until the £50 had been repaid to the Advances to Settlers Office, which had to be complied with before this business could be wound up. A digest oi my case is this : I paid cash to enter, £320 ; expended on property, £150 ; total, £470; sold or sacrificed the property (chiefly mortgage), £208 ; balance from insurance company, £80 : direct loss, £182. A second mortgage had been taken up on this property several times prior to my application. My only wish in taking up this place was to make a home for my family; I could not make a living out of the place, and obstacles were put in the way of making one away from the place. If my case is singular, Ido not know where I have erred unless by the way of occasional criticism of the actions of Land Board members. But, after one experience such as the foregoing, I have no wish to take up another of the so-called work'ng-men's homes. Another matter I feel very strongly upon is this cry about the unearned increment. After some twenty-five years of actual pioneering, T have come to the conclusion there is no such thing so far as bush settlement is concerned. When you take into consideration the isolation for women and children, the roads (forgive the name), want of schooling and social intercourse, the ruinous cost and destruction of property entailed by use of pack-horses, also the sacrifice of health (and sometimes life) by overwork and anxiety to keep a family from actual want, I feel and know that the settler deserves more assistance in the matter of roads than is ever accorded him. I admit there are exceptional cases, when a speculator draws the picked section of a block and transfers it at a profit, but when dealing with any business whatever, it is necessary to average the extremes. Therefore, on the other side, you take the man, ofttimes with wife and young family, large in hope, health, strength, and small in capital, who builds himself a whare, has two meals out of three by candle-light so that he may push his work, works wet and fine, and carries in on his back, very often on Sunday, food for the week. Waiting patiently for years for the road that was promised him at the ballot, but which never arrives, until too late and until the man is forced off by bad burns, loss of stock, and ruinous cost of access. Prematurely old, broken in health and spirits, and bankrupt in pocket, soured and pessimistic. If he has not been able to transfer his wretched interest, the Land Board may protect them carefully and inactively, until they disappear under second growth, before the section is again allotted. Therefore, I am of opinion, taking the fortunate and otherwise on an average basis, the unearned increment is only a myth. Those that do not think so should put the strength of their convictions to the test and try it. I intended to ballot for a section on the south side of the harbour, but when the option was withdrawn I cared not to, lest I fell into the hands of another Wellington Land Board. But I will say, in justice to the Auckland Board, that what I have seen of their administration leans to the mercy, and I believe their sympathies to be with the struggling bush settler. 49. Mr. Matheson.] Do you consider that the Land Board did all for you that the law would allow ? —I am not conversant with the law, but I suppose it must be so. 50. What is your chief objection to your treatment by the Land Board ? —I wanted the place as a home, and the Government forced me to sell it at a loss of £200. 51. Do you feel that your difficulty has been because of the law or because of the administration of the law ? —I do not know how far the Board could have stretched a point to assist me, but if the law would not allow them to do so then I consider the law is not in the interest of settlement. 52. You think that in such circumstances as yours a man is in a better position if he is enabled to get a title ?—Yes ; the chances are that if I had been able to get my title I should have still been on that section, but as it is I was forced to leave and come up here. 53. Regarding the right of purchase to their tenants : do you think the State will be doing justice to the city dwellers who have an interest in these estates ?—Certainly ; the city people cannot take the land with them when they die, and it is always there to be taxed. It is merely a question of sentiment on the part of the townspeople. 54. Do you think the land is made better use of under the freehold tenure ?—Most decidedly. 55. And you think the townspeople will benefit in the long run ? —Certainly 1 do. 56. Mr. McCardle. ] You have had a long experience in the Wellington and Canterbury Districts as well as this ?—Yes, some twenty-five years. 57. In your opinion is the desire for the freehold a mere matter of sentiment, or does not the freehold enable settlers to be more successful on their land by enabling them to purchase stock and so forth by means of borrowing I—Yes,
C—4.
944
F.T. E. SCOTT.
58. Is it your experience that, as a rule, in a district, like this the capital value of the land is a mere bagatelle in comparison with the improvements placed on the sections ? —Yes, that is so. 59. And if a man had been in a position to improve his land well the mere matter of purchase to the Government would be very little ? —I think so. 60. Has your experience of the Auckland Land Board been better than of the Wellington Board ? —Yes ; I am quite satisfied with the Auckland Board so far as they are concerned. 61. With regard to the constitution of Land Boards, as you are aware, there are only four members for a large district like Auckland : do you think it would be wise to increase the number to, say, seven, so that as far as possible each part of the district should have a representative on that Board; and that a bush district like this should have some direct representation ?—I should like to see the farming community have a voice in the election of two or three members out of, say, seven or ten, the remainder to be nominated by the Government. 62. Do you not think that a system of election would be rather difficult to carry out in a district like the King-country, for instance. Are there many men who would be in a position to go over such a constituency and make themselves acquainted with the settlers and their wants ?—We could not expect a man to incur any very great expense over an election, but I should think the Boards might be elected on very much the same lines as Education Boards. 63. Then you would have to place it in the hands of the Roads Boards or the County Councils ? —Well, we find that the men nominated are out of sympathy with the farmers altogether, and they do not give the necessary time and trouble to the business. We want a man to represent us who is conversant with the troubles of the farmers and the needs of the district. 64. Suppose the settlers were asked to send in the names of suitable men and the Government made appointments from among those names ?—That would be better than the present system. 65. Do you think it would be a good thing if an amendment were made in the Land Transfer Act to limit the amount of land that any one man could hold ? —Yes. 66. Would it not prevent the aggregation of large estates ? —Yes ; but in any case I should insist on a certain amount of improvements being done before a transfer could be made, so that the land would not be held for speculative purposes. 67. Mr. Forbes.'] Have you had any experience of land-settlement under lease in perpetuity on the estates acquired by the Government ?—No, I come from Banks Peninsula, which is entirely freehold, and it is one of the most prosperous places in New Zealand. 68. Do you say that settlers on the improved estates purchased by the Government would not go on improving unless they got the freehold ?—My remarks applied only to bush land. 69. Are not the people on Banks Peninsula very with the way in which the land is held there ?—I think not. 70. We have had evidence that three families there were holding a large portion of Banks Peninsula ? —That is the trouble of large estates. It may exist there to some extent. The room for settlement is very restricted. 71. Should not something be done to cause these estates to bo cut up for closer settlement ? — Perhaps so ; but the prices are too prohibitive altogether. I have always been strongly opposed to the taking over of estates while the Government has so much Crown and Native land still to be dealt with. This land on Banks Peninsula would fetch from £10 to £20 an acre. Well, the owners of those places must be producing something to be able to hold on at those prices ; but here we have thousands and thousands of acres of waste land lying unproductive, and I think the Government should have them opened up and settled before they buy any more improved estates. 72. Do you agree with the previous witness that land values have gone back in this place ? —That only applies to the freehold property in the town. Fabulous prices were originally paid for town sections in the anticipation that the land in the district thrown open for settlement. As it is they are only just beginning to open the land now. 73. As to the land you took up, was it originally under occupation with right of purchase ? —No ; it was an old title granted to William Johnston many years ago. 74. Did you buy it from him ? —Yes, or rather from the Public Trustee, who was holding it on behalf of his heirs. 75. Was it improved ?—No ; it was all overgrown with a second growth of briars and weeds. 76. Did you pay more for it than you would have had to pay for Government land alongside ?— Yes. I was prepared to pay the extra cost because it was a freehold and I could go from it whenever I wished. 77. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think the country can progress properly until there are regulations framed for dealing with Native lands ?—No. It is a great clog on us to-day. We shall have to makeroads out of loans to local bodies and carry those roads miles through Native lands, and it is bad enough to have to carry them through our own. I know the Natives are just as dissatisfied with the present position of things as Europeans. 78. Are they not almost in a state of dependence of relief from the Government ? —I believe many of them are receiving old-age pensions. 79. It has been argued that, the Natives would become paupers if the Government were to take over the administration of their land ? —They are almost in that condition to-day. 80. Mr. McLennan.] There are no Crown lands in the South Island available for settlement ?— I suppose not. 81. Is it not a fact that there are many good farmers in the South who would perhaps make very poor settlers on bush land in the North ?—The settlers who have come up here from Banks Peninsula have been the most successful settlers that I have met with in the North Island. 82. Supposing they did not wish to come to the North Island, would it not be advisable to acquire some areas of land for settlement in the south where the people there would know the conditions and
J. E. SCOTT.]
945
C.—4.
know better how to farm it ? —That may be so, but many of us have to do things we do not like, and I question whether it would be a good thing for the Government to take over these estates with the chance of there being thrown back on their hands. 83. How many estates that have been taken have been thrown again into the hands of the Government ?—I do not know from my own experience, but I believe some of them have been. 84. The Chairman.] In regard to the question of unearned increment, about which we have heard a great deal: if settlers go into the back blocks and fell bush and grass the land, and rate themselves for roads, and undergo half 'a lifetime of privations and hardships, and if their land increases in value, who do you think is entitled to that increased value, the pioneers or somebody who never went near the land ?—I should say the pioneers. 85. Felling bush, and grassing land, and fences, and buildings may be visible improvements, but are there not other means of adding to the value of that land which may not be visible : may not settlers combine and erect creameries and factories and other public conveniences which greatly enhance the value of the land ? —Yes. 86. Do you think it is the settlers who have accomplished all this who are entitled to what is called the unearned increment ? —I consider it is the settlers. 87. Mr. Matheson.] Would you go further than that and say that the great increase in the value of city properties is also due in the first instance to the industry of the country settlers ?—Most decidedly. The cities could not exist without the country. Whenever there is depression in the country it is immediately reflected in the cities. Frederick Alexander Pearson examined. 88. The Chairman.\ What are you ? —I am a settler. I hold 1,452 acres under occupation with right of purchase. 89. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?—Yes. 90. Is there any matter you wish to specially bring before the Commission ? —I want to say lam strongly in favour of the freehold. I think a district is much more prosperous under a freehold tenure or under occupation with right of purchase, which is practically freehold. I think there are many things against the leasehold. I find that all the settlers in these blocks, or wherever you go in the North Island—l do not speak of the South Island because Ido not know much about it—are all anxious to obtain the freehold. They want the right to convert into occupation with right of purchase. I think the occupation with right of purchase is a good tenure for a man with a small capital, because so long as he knows he can obtain the freehold he is satisfied. There is one thing against the lease in perpetuity—l know it is looking a long way ahead—and that is that there is no compensation at the end of the lease. I also understand there is a great drawback in the lease in perpetuity, inasmuch as it is difficult for a man who wishes to divide his property amongst his family to do so. I would also like to say that the Native lands in this district are a great drawback. I think most of the Natives at the present time could deal with their own lands. They can make quite as good a bargain as Europeans, and I think if they were allowed to deal with their own lands it would be far better than leaving things as they are at present. lam certain the Native Councils are a failure. It is too expensive and takes too long to get land put through them. My experience is that it is almost impossible to get land through them. lam not prepared to suggest any remedy at present. That is a matter for the country to decide. I think the Advances to Seltters policy is very good so far as it goes, but I think the Government might go further than they do. Ido not think the Government are sufficiently liberal in their advances to men who go into the back blocks. I think when men are prepared to go into the bush without roads or schools, or any of the other conveniences of civilisation, and when the Government see they are genuine settlers, that the Government should be prepared to help them by advancing money for bush-felling and grassing. If that land is brought into grass the country will be improved and the Government could not lose on the transaction if reasonable care was exercised in making the advances. There is another thing I have noticed in connection with the Commission, that men in the towns with very little land or with no land at all have been giving evidence on the question of country lands. Ido not consider they should have any voice in the administration of back-blocks land. I reckon they do not know how the back-blocks people live. They are living in luxury in the towns, while the poor beggars here are merely existing, without schools or roads or conveniences of any kind. I think if these people in the towns bush life they would not object to giving the settlers the freehold. 91. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the labouring man in the city has any interest in the Crown lands in the colony ?—I think if it were not for the Crown lands, and the settlers going back and settling on them, the labouring-man in the cities would have very little chance of living. I think they have very little interest in the Crown lands. The only interest they have is that they look forward to the country going ahead to keep them in the towns. 92. Are the Crown lands of the colony a valuable asset ? —I think so. 93. And has not the labouring man an interest in them ? —I reckon the man who goes into the country and improves them has an interest in them. 94. The Crown tenants on the improved estates in the South Island would like the right to acquire the freehold, if they are willing to repay to the Crown all that the Crown has expended on these estates, do you think it would be a benefit to the colony to give them the right to acquire the freehold ?— I do. I think every man should have the right of acquiring the freehold. 95. How do you think it would benefit the colony ? —I think a man going on the freehold would improve it with more heart than a man going on leasehold. 96. Mr. McCardle.\ Have you any buggy road to your farm ? —No ; I have not even a track, and I have held the place for five years.
119—C. 4.
a—4.
946
[P. A. PEARSON.
97. Some of the settlers take advantage of your place to get to the other settlements ? —Yes. 98. Do they get their cattle through ? —No ; they get them bushed and lost on the journey. 99. Have you had any experience of the Land Boards ? —Yes ; in Auckland and Taranaki. 100. Have you found the Auckland Land Board satisfactory ?- —Yes, it is the most satisfactory Board I have known. 101. The suggestion has been made that this district should be cut off the Auckland Land District and added to Taranaki: do you think that would be in the interests of the settlers ? —I do not. 102. Do you think it would be an advantage to this district if an increased number of members were appointed to the Board in view of the fact that the provincial boundaries are so extended ? —Yes, I believe in the districts being properly represented on the Land Boards. 103. You think the King-country and these other districts should have a member on the Land Board who is personally acquainted with the conditions of settlement round here ? —Yes. 104. Do you know how the Advances to Settlers Board are working in the interests of the settlers ? Has their policy been generally satisfactory ?—lt has been satisfactory so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. 105. Do you know of settlers who have applied for loans on substantial improvements on lease-in-perpetuity sections and been refused ?—I have heard of such cases, but I have no personal knowledge of them. 106. Do you consider the present system of constructing roads is a satisfactory one ?—No; it is most unsatisfactory. 107. Do you think it would work better in the interests of the settlers if the Government did away with the present system of special" votes by Parliament and granted subsidies in deserving cases such as this, where the people were prepared to help themselves by raising loans of £2 for every £1 raised by the district ? —lt is a big question. 108. Can you propound any other system that is more feasible ? —No. It is a big question to go into; Ido not know how it would act. 109. You have been advocating the bringing into operation of the Counties Act in this district so that you can have control of the expenditure of your " thirds," and some of the settlers have" been advocating the raising of loans and paying the interest and sinking fund out of these " thirds " : do you not think it would be better if that proposal was adopted, and the Government advanced us £2 for every £1 so raised, than to continue the present system of special grants ? —Yes, I would be in favour of that policy. 110. Mr. Forbes.\ In regard to your suggestion that the Government should make grants towards bushfelling, has anything of that sort been done in this district ? —I do not think so, barring in the case of the special settlements such as Te Rau a Moa. 111. Was that settlement a success ?—I do not think it was, because they did not get the right class of people in. Otherwise it would have been a success. 112. Do you think it would be better for the Government to provide good roads to give the settlers a means of getting their stock in and out before opening these blocks for selection ? —That would be a big help to the settlers. It is impossible for the settlers to prosper without roads in these back blocks. 113. You have no local body here and have not paid any rates so far ?—No ; we have been fighting for a county for some two years or more, and I believe it has just been gazetted as a county now. 114. What was the opposition to this county coming into force ?—The opposition came from the settlers about the railway at Te Kuiti and Otorohanga. 115. When the county is formed do you think the settlers will be prepared to rate themselves and do something on the roads ? —I am certain of it. Of course they expect the Government to help them a bit with the main roads as the land has already been loaded for roading. 116. And has that money not been spent ? —Part of it has been spent and squandered. It has not been profitably spent. • 117. How has the road work been done ?—I think mostly by co-operative labour and contracts. 118. By men from outside districts ? —Some of them, and some of the work was done by the settlers. 119. How do you think the " thirds " could be better expended ?—I think if the county administers them and tenders are called, and the works are properly looked after, that it will be done cheaper and better. Edward Charles Falwasser examined. 120. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a licensed interpreter and Native agent. I hold a small area of land under the village homestead system. lam not here at all to state my opinions on the question of land tenures. I would like to make a few remarks in regard to Native land administration. I have had considerable experience in dealing with Native lands. I have no hesitation in saying that the present system is a farce. It is detrimental to the colony and to the present Administration. I have nothing to say against the Maori Councils themselves. If they were allowed to work in their own way they would be quite satisfactory. The trouble is caused in Wellington, where everything has to be sent to be laid before Cabinet. There, questions are hung up for months. It seems quite impossible to get anything through Cabinet, and this delay is detrimental both to the Maoris and settlers, and the district is kept back. We have thousands of acres round the Kawhia Harbour which are at present lying idle, owing to the way the law in regard to Native lands is now administered. The presidents of the Councils are not even allowed any discretionary power. If the Councils had discretionary power, I believe the system would work all right. I know most of the Native owners of the lands round this district are living in the King-country and are not likely to do anything with them under the present state of things. The Natives are quite ready to deal with the lands if they were allowed to do so, and I could get tenants who are prepared to pay higher rents than the Government valuations. Yet we
947
C—4.
E. C. FALWASSER.
can do nothing with these valuable lands, and they are being covered with noxious weeds and other rubbish. 121. Do you think the Native-land titles should be individualised ?—I certainly think so. 122. And after certain lands have been reserved for their own use for ever, you think the Natives should have power to dispose of their surplus lands under proper conditions ? —Yes. 123. Mr. Matheson.] You think the Native Councils should be final, and should have power to definitely deal with the land after their investigations ? —Certainly. 124. Mr. McCardle.] Could you make any suggestion that in your opinion would work out better in the interests of the Natives and settlers generally than the system which now exists ? —lt is rather a big question, and I should not like to formulate a policy at once. 125. Do you think if the Government took over the whole of the Native lands and gave the Natives in particular localties, or wherever they desired it, sufficient land for their own requirements, and then dealt with the balance of the lands, granting the Natives colonial debentures instead of cash as at present, that would work better in the interests of the Natives than the present system ?—I should certainly not approve of that. 126. Would you approve of the principle that the Natives should have the free right to deal with their surplus lands by way of sales to Europeans, such sales to be under the supervision of some Board to see that the Natives were not taken advantage of ? —Yes, I should certainly approve of that. 127. Is it not a fact that under the present system of dealing with Native lands the expenses are so enormous and the delays are so great that the settlement of such lands as those round the Kawhia Harbour is debarred ? —lt is. 128. Is it not a fact that the Natives are now combining to send petitions to Parliament asking for some modification of the present procedure of dealing with applications in regard to Native lands ? —I think so in the Te Kuiti district, but not so far in this district. 129. Mr. Forbes.'] Do the Natives show any tendency to do any farming with their lands ?—Not the slightest. 130. We have been told that they went in for wheat-growing once ? —They did in the old days, but not now. They used to export a great deal of grain in the old days. 131. Mr. McCardle.] If the Natives desired to do so, have they the means to farm their lands ?—- I do not think so. 132. The Chairman.] Do you think the fact of such a large extent of land being tied up here is a great bar to the progress of the country ? —I have not the slightest doubt about it. Charles Campbell Jenkinson examined. 133. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a duly qualified medical practitioner, at present practising in the Kawhia district. 134. Is there anything that you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I wish to speak in regard to the question of " thirds." Whilst several settlers have spoken as to their individual districts, I, as the medical man, have to travel over the whole of the district, and I can speak for the whole of it. I say that no matter how you may stretch your imagination you cannot say there is a single road in the district; and, therefore, no matter what faith the settlers had when they came here, they have not a single road according to the definition of a road as given in any ordinary dictionary. The dictionary says a road is a means of communication from place to place. I can safely say, without fear of contradiction, that there is not existing in this district at the present time a means of communication between one place and another. We have tracks that begin at one place and end nowhere, and more often they begin nowhere and end nowhere. I will agree that we have one piece which even the Govern ment engineers and officials call a 6 ft. track —they have not the impudence to call it a road—and that is the track that you travelled over on Wednesday, and which you will have the privilege of travelling over again to-morrow. It begins at the railway and ends at the ferry at Oparau, where we have to wait- for the tide. What good is that to the settlers and to me, who have to visit the districts, when we have to wait for the tides ? It is far better to get through the bush by the tracks of the settlers than by the road-lines, and yet when the engineers start constructing the roads the first thing they do is to fell trees on the settlers' tracks. I have another suggestion to make. lam the only doctor in the King-country, comprising an area of 2,500,000 acres. Although the Government have cut up 1,500,000 or more acres they have avoided making a reserve of any sort for a hospital. To my mind it is very necessary that a reserve should be made in the Kawhia County. I suggest that as a recommendation to the Commission. 135. Mr. Matheson.] Is there a Road Engineer in charge of this district ? —He is in charge of the district, but he is on the railway, and you would not expect him to come to the Kawhia district. 136. Is his chief work supervising in this district ?—He has an understudy. 137. Do you know what the cost of the officials is per annum ? —No. 138. Do you think it is very unsatisfactory to deal with roading through officials of that sort ? — That the loading is not spent is obvious, or if it is spent then we cannot get a return to show how it is spent. 139. Does it seem to you that if a return was prepared it would show that most of the money had gone in official administration ?—Yes, and in waste. 140. Do you think you will overcome that trouble when you have your county ?—I think the representative of the people will see that the same kind of waste does not go on as is going on at present. 141. Do you think it would be much sounder if Government grants were abolished, and subsidies were granted on all rates raised locally for road purposes ?—That is a question I have not gone into. It sounds better.
C—4.
948
[C. C. JENKINSON.
142. Mr. McLennan.] Knowing the impossibility of forming roads here for a year or two, do you think that telephonic communication should be made between this town and the outlying districts where the settlers reside ?—lt is absolutely imperative. 143. Do you think these 6 ft. tracks are of much benefit ? Do you not think it' would be better to make them 16 ft. wide '? —Yes ; because they have more chance then of drying. 144. Supposing there are ten miles of roads to be formed in a certain place, and there are not sufficient funds to form a 16 ft. road the whole distance, would you prefer to form part of it properly and leave the remainder until such time as there were sufficient funds to complete the work ?—Yes. 145. The Chairman.] You have opportunities of observation over the whole of the district : do you find in your experience that the chief difficulty is the want of road*' ? —lt is. 146. And if you had decent roads constructed the country would progress ? —Yes. 147. You have all the other elements necessary for success ? —Yes. Henry Schreiber examined. 148. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler. I hold a half-share in 312 acres with my brother at Oparau under lease in perpetuity. We are residing on the land, and it is partly improved. 149. Is there any particular matter that you wish to bring before the Commission ? —Shortly after taking up the section we desired to dispose of it, and we found the leasehold tenure very inconvenient. We put our place into the hands of the local agent, and he told us he could have disposed of it several times over if it had been under occupation with right of purchase. The leasehold tenure did not suit the people, and so we were not able to sell. Another time we tried to raise money on it, and the bank wanted 8 per cent., so we tried the Advances to Settlers Department, and we inquired whether if we sent in an application for an amount much over the Government valuation the Government would make us an offer. They informed us that they would. We sent in an application, and they failed to make us an offer. They just replied stating that we had applied for too much. 150. Mr. Matheson.] Did you write again asking if they were willing to lend anything ?■—Yes ; and they replied asking us to make another application, but we were not disposed to spend another guinea, and we did not do so. 151. Are you anxious to get the right of purchase ?—Yes. 152. Do you want the freehold because it is easier to dispose of and to raise money on ?—Yes 153. Do you also think it is more satisfactory to work under occupation-with-right-of-purchuse tenure ?—I do. 154. Mr. McLennan.] You would like the right of purchase to enable you to dispose of your property without any trouble ? —Yes, and to raise money on. 155. When you took up the land, had you the option of taking it up under occupation with right of purchase ? —No ; we bought in. 156. Was the land originally offered under the optional system ? —I believe the original selector had the option, but he was a town man, and drew twosections, and knew nothing whatever about the land. He sold one section for £20, and the other one for £40. He could not reside on the land. 157. Do you think you have any claim to get the option at the present time ? —Not at present. 158. Mr. McCardle.] When you applied for a loan, what was the value of your improvements and your interest in the section? — Something like £500. 159. If it is a fair question, what was the amount you asked for ? —We asked for £250, although we told the solicitor that £200 would do us. 160. I suppose you know it was within the power of the Board to advance you the whole amount you asked for ?—Yes. 161. Was your sole reason in trying to get a title so that you might sell ?—Not altogether. 162. Why were you so anxious to dispose of your section?— There were three of us in the section, and it was too small for us. Since then two of us have bought the third brother out. 163. Do you know any other settler under lease in perpetuity in the district who has been able to get an advance from the Advances to Settlers Office ?—I do not know of any. 164. Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory ?—Yes, very satisfactory. 165. Mr. Forbes.] How are you off for roads ? —We have a road which, so far, has no end to it. It ends with the water, and it is impossible to get a vehicle in without taking it to pieces. I believe the contract for the top end is now finished, and there is yet three-quarters of a mile to be made before we can reach the road, and two or three bridges have also to be constructed. 166. How much per acre do you pay for your land ?—We pay £7 16s. per annum. It is a very cheap section. 167. Was it improved when you got it ?—Yes, partly. 168. Did you pay anything over and above the value of the improvements for the goodwill ?— Yes, I should say so. 169. Would you get more for your property to-day ? —I would not like to sell unless I could get more for it. 170. The Chairman.] Is there a general desire on the part of lease-in-perpetuity settlers to acquire the right to purchase ? —Yes. George Whitcombe examined. 171. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler. My wife holds 669 acres of land at Keretihere, down the coast, under occupation with right of purchase. It was only balloted for eleven months ago, and we have not improved it yet. 172. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I would like to state that the extent of the block is 16,000 acres. There are over 700 acres of education reserve and 3,000 acres of
a—4.
949
[a. WHITCOMBE.
scenic reserves. About 25 per cent, of the block is tied up as reserves. The ostensible purpose of the reserves is for scenic purposes, but we think the land is only held back in order that the Government may get the unearned increment. When the first settlers have made some im-provements, this land will be put up for sale at a higher price. Ido not object to the present price of the land there, but I would like to point out that the average price is 25 per cent, higher than that of the Kinohaku- lands, and there is no road within twenty miles of Keretihere. Ido not know whether any loading for roads has been put on the price of the land. Residence is compulsory under occupation with right of purchase, and I think it is rather hard to ask people with families to go down to sections that have no road within twenty miles of them. 173. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the present machinery for dealing with Native lands is satisfactory ? —No. 174. Can you suggest an improvement ?—I think the only way to deal with them is to treat the Maori and European as one and the same, with the exception that you have to protect the Maori partly from himself. I think the Government should reserve a certain portion of land for each Native for their own use, and allow them to deal with the balance. 175. Would you give them freetrade with the remainder?— That is a question of Government policy. Ido not see why they should not have freetrade with the remainder. 176. Mr. McCardle.\ You have had experience of the Government system of road-formation in the Pahiatua County : Has the Government system of roading been satisfactory in your experience ?— No. 177. Do you think it would be very much better if the Government left the construction of roads in the hands of the local bodies, and granted them a substantial subsidy in the shape of £2 for every £1 on loans raised for road-making ? —Yes. When I was on the Pahiatua County I tried to get the Government to hand over the moneys voted by Parliament for roads to open up Crown lands to the local bodies for expenditure. 178. In your experience as an engineer and surveyor, do you think the local bodies can construct roads cheaper than the Government ?—Yes. 179. Does the Government Engineer or second in command ever go over these roads ? —I see him down here sometimes, and I suppose he does. 180. In your experience, is it desirable that the lease-in-perpetuity holders should be allowed to convert to occupation with right of purchase ? —Yes. I believe in the freehold. I believe in the old Otago system of deferred payments extending over twenty to thirty years with compulsory residence. 181. Do you believe in the ballot system ? —No ; I prefer the auction system to the ballot. 182. I suppose you have heard of the proposal to settle land under the old homestead system : Do you think that system is necessary in the interests of settlement in the North Island ? —I think it would be very good in small sections. I have heard it advocated for the North of Auckland. 183. Is there any land in this district which, if thrown open under the ordinary terms of settlement, would not be taken up ? —No. 184. Then the homestead system is not wanted so far as this district is concerned ?—No. Mr. Forbes: The following letter has been received by the Commission : — " Keretihere, 30th May, 1905. " Dear Sib, —I have been appointed by a meeting of settlers of this district, held on the 15th of this month, as a delegate to give evidence before the Commission at Kawhia, but owing to the distance and roadless state I find it impossible to attend in person. I therefore put my evidence in writing. I took up 1,246 acres of land under occupation with right of purchase, heavy bush, in the Keretihere Block, balloted for last June. The block is situated on the coast, twenty miles south of Kawhia and thirty miles north of Awakino, and, like all other land lying south of Kawhia Harbour, is absolutely roadless, except a few survey lines and old Maori tracks. There has been about 100,000 acres of land taken up in the above-mentioned district during the last three years, held by seventy or eighty settlers. The land is of splendid quality, it costing from 10s. to £1 per 100 lb. to get. goods on to the land, thus completely blocking settlers from improving their sections; besides, it is impossible to get stock on to the land. I believe the Government voted about £3,000 for roads in this district last session, but forgot to spend it. Personally, I got on to the land with my wife and family two weeks after the ballot, felled and grassed 60 acres bush, also split and built a five-roomed slab house, and effected various other improvements in eleven months. The settlers in this district suffer from four causes—(l) The great distance from a centre of population, and being absolutely roadless; (2) the number of speculators who take up land and leave it unimproved. The Land Board should enforce the improvement conditions on all absentees ; (3) the number of bush and scenic reserves, the best land in the district being reserved under these two headings ; (4) the large areas of Native lands. The above conditions all combine to block settlement, being completely against the first settlers who settled on the land, preventing them from having the benefits of civilisation. As to freehold, the result of ballot for Keretihere Block in June last is sufficient evidence —fifty-one applications for right of purchase, one for lease in perpetuity. All second and third class land should be opened under the Homestead Act, and all taxation from the land should be spent on the roads. County Councils, Borough Councils, and City Councils should have the right to borrow locally for purchasing all unoccupied, absentees', and unimproved lands and city slums, under the Land for Settlement Act. The selector to pay the interest and 1J per cent, in addition annually until the property is paid for. One settler on the land is worth twenty absentees. —I am, &c., "John Wouldes, Settler, Keretihere. " Witness —Daniel Robinson, Postmaster, Te Maika. " To Chairman, Land Commission." 185. Was the settler who has signed this letter appointed by the other settlers ?—Yes, he was appointed by the settlers residing there. Ido not reside there.
C.-4.
950
;G. WHIT COMBE.
186. Do you agree with all that is said in this letter ?—No ; I think it goes a little too far. 187. The Chairman.'] Do you consider, in the interests of the settlers and State, that the right of purchase should be given to these lease-in-perpetuity holders ?—ln the interests of settlers, certainly. 188. And of the State ? —I suppose what is good for the settler is also good for the State. 189. Do you think it is right that the title to land should be withheld until substantial improvements are made and certain residence has been fulfilled, so as to safeguard the State against land speculation ?—Yes, I think so. I think the cash system should be done away with altogether, and the old deferred-payment system substituted for it. Heywood Armstrong examined. 190. The Chairman.] Do you hold land ?—Yes ; I hold 590 acres, Section 2, Block V., under lease in perpetuity. 191. Are you occupying the land ? —Yes. 192. Have you heard the evidence of the witnesses who have been examined to-day ? —Yes, two of them. 193. Have you anything fresh to say in addition to what has been stated by the other witnesses ? —I merely wish to say that I am in favour of the freehold —that is, of having the right of purchase. All our sections at Oparau were loaded to the extent of 2s. 6d. an acre for roading, and although I have held my section for five years no road has been made to it. I think that if the Government load sections for roading they should see that the roads have been formed, especially seeing that when the section were balloted for in Auckland Mr. Seddon promised that the roads would be put through straight away. Though that is jive years ago there is no road that comes within two miles of me — that is to say, none that is of any use to me. As to the advances to settlers system, it would be an excellent thing if properly carried out, but administered in the way it is at present I do not think it acts very well. If you hold a lease-in-perpetuity section the Board will not advance upon it to the same amount as if it were a freehold. You cannot borrow from private parties on such a tenure, and this matter of financing is the greatest drawback to the backbloek settlers to-day. Another of our difficulties concerns the fencing of adjacent blocks of Native land. When settlers take up sections adjoining Native blocks they have to put up fencing at their own expense. I think the fences might be put up by the Government and the cost loaded on to the Maori land. 194. Mr. Matheson.] Did you hear Mr. Seddon make the promise that the road would be put through straight away ?—No, but my father did. 195. Do you not think that it might have been a promise that the money with which the sections were loaded would be spent within two years ? —No. I have heard my people say frequently that he promised the roads would be put into the blocks straight away. That is five years ago, and there is still a few miles to be done. 196. Had you the option of taking up the land under other tenures than the lease in perpetuity ? —Yes ; but I chose the lease in perpetuity because I knew no better at the time, and I have been sorry ever since. 197. Do you think that men who took up land under occupation with right of purchase and spent a couple of hundred pounds on improving it could sell out and get any more than they have expended in time and labour ? —lf their time, labour, and money were all counted up I do not think they would get very much more. 198. Do you think that any increase in value is reasonably due to the settler ?—I think that whatever increase in value there has been in the case of the Oparau lands is entirely due to the settler. 199. Mr. McLennan.] Are you in favour of the option being given to a settler to clear his freehold whenever he is in a position to do so ? —I have already said that. lam in favour of the freehold. 200. Do you demand the freehold ?—Yes. 201. Have you any claim to the freehold ? Did you not enter into an agreement with the Government to accept the lease for 999 years, and did not the Government enter into an agreement with you to let the land for that period ?—That is so ; but I took up the land on that tenure because I knew no better at the time. If a man has had experience of the tenure and can say it is a failure I think he should be given a chance to exchange it for another tenure. Any one who has taken up a section' under occupation with right of purchase can throw up his section and take it on again under lease in perpetuity. 202. But cannot you do the same thing ? —No ; you cannot take up a section under lease in perpetuity and afterwards exchange it to occupation with right of purchase. 203. But could you not surrender your lease and let it be put up to auction and balloted for again ? You would have the same opportunity as others, and you would get full valuation for improvements ? —No, not at all. I know of one instance in my section when fencing alone cost more than 10s. for labour, whereas wire and packing it ran to 17s. 6d. or £1 per chain. That valuation was sent to the Land Board, and they wrote back to the valuer to the effect that he was valuing the fencing too high— that 10s. a chain was ample. 204. Do you not think that if the law were amended so as to enable you to clear the freehold a clause might be put in the Bill which would work out to your detriment ? Say that the Government insisted upon making their own valuation of your improvements, and then put the section up at auction and sell it to the highest bidder ?—I am not in favour of that. 205. What I mean is, that there is a danger of such a thing being provided for. Would you be in favour of taking up the land again if it were put up under such a system ? —I do not see why it should be put up again at all. If a man converts his section from lease in perpetuity to occupation with right of purchase let him pay up the back extra percentage and compound interest and then let him have the land.
H. ARMSTRONG.]
951
C—4.
206. What you want is the right of purchase ? —Yes. If the Government would give full valuation for my improvements—not their valuation —I would be prepared to take it. 207. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Department ?—I made an application but I did not succeed. They would not make any advance at all. 208. What valuation had you ?—My improvements were worth over £200. 209. What was their valuation of your improvements ? —I could not say, but Ido know that they brought the fencing down from 17s. 6d. a chain to 10s. 210. Did they give you any reason for that ?—None whatever. After about three months' waiting I received a reply to the effect that the Board were sorry to say that they could not make any advance on my section. 211. Mr. McCardle.\ Have you attempted to borrow money outside?— Yes; and I got it, but had to pay 8 per cent, for it. 212. Do you think any fair-minded Government would call upon a settler to surrender his section, have his improvements valued and go out, and then if he wanted to go in again have to bid against the outside world ? —Certainly, no fair-minded Government would. 213. Is it not evident that the Government do not wish to do that when they set up this Commission to ascertain the wishes of the people in the matter ? —From what I can see the present Government do not want to do it. 214. Are you satisfied with the administration of the Land Board I—l have nothing to complain about ; they have treated me well. 215. Mr. Forbes.] What rental do you pay ? —£2o 10s. a year. 216. Have any sections been changing hands with any goodwill upon them ?—I think there are a few. 217. Do you think that any sections are being held about here merely for the purpose of doing the improvements required by the Act and then selling out % —ln my opinion there are a few around Kawhia Harbour. 218. What is the drawback to the lease-in-perpetuity system ? There is nothing to prevent you working the ground, and no restrictions over and above what the occupation-with-right-of-purchase man has to submit to I—Financing1—Financing is the main difficulty. Men with money will not take up lease-in-perpetuity properties at all, but some of us have had to take that tenure because they had no choice. 219. You think the lease-in-perpetuity tenure is unpopular about here ?—Very unpopular. 220. How are you off for roads ?—I and a neighbour opposite me are the only two on the Pirongia West Block who have not roads to our sections. We were among the first settlers in this district, and our lands are loaded with 2s. 6d. an acre. We have been there for five years, and we have had to pack or carry out everything that we have on the sections. 221. Are there no signs of the Government making a start with the roads ?• —I wrote to some of the officials months ago explaining the position, and I received a reply from Mr. Hursthouse stating that the men had only been taken off temporarily; but though that was months ago, I see no signs of the work being resumed. 222. Do the Rangers give you any trouble ?—I have had no trouble with them whatever. Donald McDonald examined. 223. The Chairman.'] Under what tenure do you hold your land ? —I have 100 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Kinohaku Village Settlement. 224. Are you satisfied with your tenure ? —No, I would prefer the option. 225. Are you occupying your section, and have you made improvements ?—Yes. 226. Is there anything you wish to add to what the other witnesses have stated ? —Only in regard to the roads in this particular block. There are more than fourteen sections to which there is no track at all, and all these sections are already improved. Three miles of track would give them all a road or means of getting to their sections. Out of twenty-seven sections in the block there is a road to only seven. The land is meant for dairying, so it is necessary that there should be reoads, and the properties have been loaded with ss. an acre for the purpose. For myself, lam almost surrounded by a scenic reserve, along which there is 55 chains of fencing. This reserve keeps me out from the beach and blocks me from the only means I would have of getting timber to the section. 227. Are all these sections that you say are without roads occupied ? —There is no one living on them because it is impossible to live there, but improvements have been done upon them. There are no means of getting cattle there. 228. Have you as a block petitioned the Land Board for an explanation as to what has become of your loading money ?—W% wrote to the District Road Engineer, and he has always stated that there is no money available. 229. Has he ever stated that the money has been expended ? —No. 230. Mr. McCardle.] If proper road-communication were provided, is the land generally suitable for dairying ? —lt would be if the holdings were larger, but they are too small. 231. What size should they be extended to ? —At least 150 or 200 acres. 232. Are nearly all the settlers doing improvements on the blocks ?—Nearly all. 233. Mr. Forbes.] Is there any stock at all on your land ? —There are a few Native cattle roaming on the clearings. 234. Is it good land ?—Very fair land. It is called first-class, but it is only second, or, indeed, is only third-class in comparison with what is classified as second in the Kinohaku Block. 235. You do not think the selection made for village-homestead sections was a good selection ?— The holdings are too small and the land is not good enough. There is not 100 acres of ploughable land in the whole of the twenty-seven sections.
C— 4.
952
[D. MCDONALD.
236. Is there any land available for the extension of the holdings ?—There are a few reserves such as the scenic reserve of 250 acres. 237. Then you think that that land should be cut up %—A portion of it. It is of no use for scenic purposes and only good for firewood; and this scenic reserve is the best portion of the land, for it is all flat, and it cuts me off from the beach. 238. What are the terms of the homestead settlement ?—There is no option. 239. Did you get any advance when you took up the land ?—I wrote to the Land Board about it, and I was informed that the Government would make no advances on the Kinohaku Village Settlement. ■240. Did you get any extra concessions ? —None whatever. 241. Then, the only difference between the village settlements and other lands is that it is cut into smaller lots and the rents are higher ?—Yes. 242. Do you pay any higher rents than your neighbours ?—I pay £6 a year for my 100 acres. 243. Do you think that if roads were put in the settlement would be a success ?—Yes; if they would allow a man to take his neighbour's section so that he would have 200 acres, it would be a greater success. One cannot make a living off 100 acres without working elsewhere as well. 244. But a man could make a living in dairying on 100 acres, could he not ? —Yes, but it would be very poor living on that class of land. Anyhow, it would be impossible until you have factories, and before you have factories you must have roads. 245. Mr. McCardle.] What is your idea about the tenure ?—I certainly prefer the option. 246. And you have no particular wish in the matter at present ?—I do not wish to convert it just now' but a man likes to be able to look forward to the opportunity of acquiring the freehold instead of having the chance of a revaluafron hanging over him. 247. Do you think there is any danger of the agitation for revaluation being successful ? —One never knows. . Robert Albert McCardle examined. 248. The Chairman.'] Are you a landowner ? —I hold 100 acres in the Kinohaku Village Settlement, under lease in perpetuity. Of this, about 15 acres is felled. 249. Is there anything fresh you wish to add to what the other witnesses have stated ? —No, I agree nretty well with what Mr. McDonald has stated with regard to roads and the smallness of the holdings. My own section consists of tree manuka. There is no road, and Ido not know how I could pack timber into it. Therefore, Ido not see how people can be expected to live on it as it is. When I took the place over, I expected to get a road straight away. 250. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think that the making of the road that gave access to the seven sections absorbed all the money with which the sections were loaded ?—I do not. 251. Do you believe that you are paying interest on loading money which has not been expended ? I am quite certain of it. 252. Are the settlers satisfied with their tenure ? —I do not think they are. 253. What do they want ? —They would like the right of purchase. 254. Do you think that would make the settlement a more prosperous one ? —Yes. 255. In what way I—A man cannot make a living in that class of country on 100 acres. 256. How would the right of purchase help him to make a living ?—A man like myself, who has very little capital to work on, cannot raise the money from the Government with which to stock his section If you go to an auctioneer and explain to him your exact circumstances, he says, " I cannot do anything with you." Now, if you had the land on freehold he could deal with you, because he would have security. A section of 100 acres is of no use to any one for dairying purposes as things are at at p oS iti o n differently from the way you did when you took up the land ? Were you not satisfied with the tenure when you took it up ?—I thought I would have a chance of extending my property. There is a reserve of 150 acres alongside of me, and I also thought that I would be able to deal with some Maori land which adjoins me. For two years I have tried with negotiations with the Maoris, but I am no further forward than when I started. " 258. Mr. Forbes.] What is you rent ? —About £4 10s. or £5 a year. 259 Is that dearer in comparison than the land round about Kawhia ? —According to the quality of the land it is. I think the price put upon it was £1 2s. 6d. an acre, and it is only very ordinary secondclass land. If it was freehold, you could buy any amount of land just as good for about 14s. an acre. 260. The selection for the village settlement was evidently a bad one ? —I think so. 261 Is it not very much better in the case of a small settlement to select the very best land for it ?—Certainly. 262. Are any steps being made to give you a road ?—None whatever. I think they have forgotten that they ever let the land. 263. Did they give you any promise when you took it up ? —I understood that the roads were to be made immediately. When they loaded the sections with ss. an acre, I took for granted they would give us an outlet somewhere. 264. Was the idea in creating the village settlement that there would be a dairy factory ?—I suppose that was the idea. lam satisfied that if the roads were put through, the settlers would make an effort to get a factory. 265 Do you consider that the.settlers have been misled in respect to getting means of communication % —Yes. . . . . . 266. Mr. McCardle.] I suppose the land was put at a higher price owing to its proximity to the harbour ? —Yes. 267. Mr. McLennan.] Are the other settlers improving their property? —They are all doing well, considering that they have no roads.
E. A. McCARPLE.I
953
C—4.
268. Are many of them living there ? —There are five or six in the village settlement. The others cannot get timber to their sections. 269. If the settlers could clear their holdings, could they be ploughed and cultivated ? —Most of them could, but there are a few that could not. These are too rough even to run store cattle on. 270. What could they grow ?—Turnips or oats, and probably wheat. lam told that wheat has been grown on the section I have, though it does not look much like it now. You could grow potatoes on it, and, at any rate, enough vegetables for your own use. 271. Sufficient for winter feed for your own stock ? —I think so. 272. Do the settlers generally wish to have the right of purchase ? —I have met only one man in the whole of the King-country who believes in the lease in perpetuity—a man at Te Rauamoa. All others I have spoken to are for freehold. 273. Do you think that it would be in the interests of settlement that they should have the privilege ? —I feel sure of it. 274. How much would it cost to clear the land and have it ready for ploughing—that is, the level and ploughable sections ?—lt would cost at least £15 an acre to clear my section —to clear away the manuka and stump it—and I would not care to do it at the price. Ido not think any one would make more than 6s. or 7s. a day at it. The manuka-trees average about 2 ft. through. 275. Is there any fencing-timber on the section? — Only the manuka. It would last six or seven years for fencing purposes. William Davies examined. 276. The Chairman.] Are you a settler in this locality ? —Yes; I hold 1,369 acres in the Pirongia West Block, under occupation with right of purchase. Between my brothers and myself we hold 2,300 acres. We have had considerable experience with land, and we consider occupation with right of purchase the best of the present tenures. 277. Do you agree with what the other witnesses have said on the whole ?—I do agree with them ; I am in favour of the freehold. 278. Is there any other matter you wish to bring forward ?—I think the best tenure ever introduced was the deferred-payment system. There are several objections to the leasehold. For instance, in forming any co-operative dairying company, or any other local industry, there is great difficulty in getting the banks to take leasehold property as guarantee for advances. For that reason, settlers are blocked from getting dairying factories when they have spent all their own money on their properties and cannot get return, consequently the place is at a standstill. 279. Do you consider that the freehold puts you in a better position for carrying on operations ?— Of course. We have tried leasehold, but never again. I think no one wants to try it a second time. 280. Mr. Matheson.] Do you consider that the leasehold gives a poor man a good chance ?—Yes, as long as he has the right of purchase. 281. Under the old deferred-payment system purchase was compulsory within a limited time. .Do you consider it is better to give a man a lease and let him pay out of his savings when he is able to do so, instead of his being compelled to pay one-tenth every year %—Our experience is that, if he was not able to pay the deferred-payment at the time it was due, he would be given a little more time in which to make the payment. 282. Do you think that that is a better tenure than being allowed to make the purchase whenever you are in a position to do so ? —You have not the option under occupation with right of purchase. 283. What is the limit ? —You cannot purchase within ten years, and you have to purchase within fifteen years. 284. Do you think it would be an improvement if you had the right to occupy and to purchase at any time it suited you ?—'Yes, that would be all right. 285. Are you satisfied with your present tenure ?—Yes. 286. Mr. McLennan.'] Have the settlers under occupation with right of purchase any trouble in raising loans ?—No. 287. Mr. McCardle.] Have you known any one in your district to have trouble in raising money ? —I think they all have trouble. 288. Do you know what rate of interest any of them are paying ?—I know for a fact that it is difficult to get money at 8 per cent., and in some cases that they have to pay as much as 12 per cent. 289. What is the lowest rate at which you have known men to get loans under occupation with right of purchase ?—We could get a loan to-morrow without even a mortgage at 5 per cent. The banks will advance on overdraft at that rate on freehold security, whereas under leasehold it is difficult to get money at 8 per cent. Taking two settlers, one under occupation with right of purchase and the other lease in perpetuity, with improvements valued exactly alike, one could get his money at 5 per cent, without any difficulty, whereas the other would have to pay Borlo or even 12 per cent. Another matter that I would like to mention is, that the Land Act enables any one to convert an occupation-with-right-of-purchase title into a leasehold after ten years, but it gives him no chance of converting a leasehold into a freehold, which I think he should be allowed to do. There are many settlers about here who had no option of the freehold, and had to take their land under lease in perpetuity. I think they should have the right of changing their tenure. 290. Mr. Forbes.] What is your rent ? —I cannot say exactly. I and my brother pay the rent of the four sections in one sum. 291. Have you cleared much of your land ? —About 900 acres are cleared and in grass. '■it 292. What would you say it cost you to fell and grass the land ?-—To fell and grass it and fence it and put up buildings, it would-cost us'about £4 an acre. 293. Is the neighbourhood closely settled ? —Yes; and nearly all the selectors are living on their property.
120 —C. 4.
C.—4.
954
W. DAVIES.
294. Have you any roads ?—We have roads in both directions, but there is no outlet from them. About eight miles of road have been made, but though we have been there about five years, we have had to carry and pack in all that we wanted for the farm. A river runs across the eight miles of road I have mentioned, but it has not been bridged, and for want of an outlet we cannot use the road. 295. How much more road is necessary to give you an outlet ?—An extension of a mile at this end would carry us to the ferry, and give a road to all the settlers in the block. At the other end a road was formed about eight years ago, but it has been left incompleted and with rocks lying in the middle of it, so that no one can use the road. 296. Have you approached the Government about the matter ? —Many times, and we have come to the conclusion that Mr. Seddon was right when he told as that Ministerial promises were like piecrusts. 297. Do you think that he actually used those words ? —Yes, I know he did, for I heard them. 298. Was he referring to the promise he made at the time of the ballot ?—He made two promises. He said it here in Kawhia. 299. Was that in connection with the ballot that was held in Auckland when he promised that the roads should be made in two years ?—lt was in reply to deputations in general. 300. Is there anything else you wish to bring forward ? —I have here a clipping out of a newspaper reporting the evidence given by a leasehold witness, which reads as follows : " Mr. Hall.'] Do the Crown leaseholders want the freehold ? Witness : My experience is that the people who are agitating for the freehold are not the people who hold leases in perpetuity, but the freeholders and members of the Farmers' Union, most of whom are freeholders. The feeling does not really exist among the tenants, but is being fostered by outsiders." That is not right. Speaking from a selfish point of view, it would be far better for us to agitate for the leasehold now that we have the freehold ourselves, because it would increase the value of our holdings ; but what we want is to see the whole district go ahead. 301. Is not the large area of Native land a great drawback to this district ? —Yes; the best of the land surrounding the harbour is held by Maoris, and the Crown lands are at the back. If we want to make a dairy factory, or establish other industries, we have to metal roads through the Native lands to get at the water, and although that puts up the value of the Natives' property and there is nothing got out of it, and instead of the land being all grassed and supporting a factory, it is lying idle. Then, about the ragwort. This is a weed that is not generally noticed until it is in flower, and when the Inspectors notice it they give the settlers a fortnight's notice, and if then after going round the district again they see it has been neglected they have to write to the head office for permission to summons the settler. That takes another fortnight. Then, serving the summons means a delay of another few days, and as it might be a month before the Court sits it would be fully two months before they could get at that man, and by that time the damage is done and the seed is spreading all over the country. 302. What would you suggest as a better way of dealing with the trouble ?—I think the Inspector should have full power, after giving two or three days' notice, to summons people straight away. That would be more satisfactory both to the Inspectors and to the settlers. 303. If the Inspector had power to put a man on to clear the ground of the weeds and then charge the cost to the settler, would that keep them up to the mark ? —No ; they would soon hand their sections over to the Government, and those who stuck to their sections would have to bear all the responsibility of keeping the ground clean. 304. But if an Inspector put a man into Court, they could only fine him ; but the mere fact of a man having been fined would not keep the ragwort down ? —I think it would, because if a man saw a single plant on his place he would take the trouble to pull it out. 305. We have noticed a weed called the Bathurst burr growing right in the township here. It is generally believed to be worse than the ragwort ?—lt could not be worse than ragwort. 306. Is it there only, or is it spreading through the district ? —I do not know. I have not noticed it anywhere except here. 307. Ought it not to be cleared away ?—That is a matter for the Inspectors. 308. The Chairman.'] When you stated that you could get money on freehold security at 5 per cent., did you give that as your opinion, or do you state it as a fact ?—I say we could get money at 5 per cent, without going in for a mortgage. 309. If you state that as a fact I am afraid it will discount to some extent the rest of your evidence, because the lowest rate at which any bank in New Zealand will give an overdraft to the best people holding good security is 6 per cent., and as regards borrowing on mortgage, even onnvhat may be called gilt-edged securities, 5 per cent, and upwards ?—Well, I reckon we could get it{at 5 per cent, to-morrow. 310. That is only what you reckon ?—Well, we have not raised money for some little time now, but in Taranaki we had it at 5 per cent.
Otorohanga, Monday, sth Jdne, 1905. John Ormsby examined. 1. The Chairman.] How long have you been in this district ?—I have been in the district all my life, and in this particular spot for the last twenty years. I have a fair idea of the country. 2. Do you hold much land yourselfj?—l, with my family, hold, 2,000 or 3,000 acres of Native land. 3. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission!? —I wish to offer a few remarks in respect to the Native-land question. The Natives in this district are under great disadvantages,
■T. ORMSBY.I
955
C—4.
owing to their lands being restricted in such a way that they can neither lease nor sell except through aVery intricate and cumbersome machinery —that is, the Native Land Administration Council. lam a member of that body, and, although we believe in the principle, I myself think the working of it could be very much simplified. It is the general opinion now, I think, both of Europeans and Natives, that if more power were vested in the Council so as to place it on very much the same footing as the Land Boards, things would go on much better. At the present time Natives who wish to make terms with private individuals have to apply to the Council for the removal of restrictions, and the terms being fair and equitable the Council recommends the removal of the restrictions, but the recommendations are subject to the consent of the Governor in Council. That all takes time, and there are several cases which have come before the Council for the last two or three years, and the matters have not been finally dealt with yet. There is also a feeling amongst the Natives that this land question affects not only the Natives, but the colony as a whole, and that the sooner the country is settled the sooner will it be productive and thus contribute to the revenue of the colony. The Natives, therefore, consider the State should father the administration of the Native lands, in order to meet expenses of administration a deduction not exceeding 5 per cent, should be made from the revenues derived from the land. At the present time the Natives are very backward in placing their lands in the hands of the Council, for the simple reason that they do not know what the cost is likely to run into. As the Act stands at present the Native lands are saddled with the whole cost of administration, and, roughly speaking, we find that this would practically swallow the whole of the revenue and leave nothing for the beneficiary owners. Under the Act at present each District Land Council can borrow up to £10,000. Assuming that to be the strength of the Council, as it were, per annum, or the amount available for them to work upon in throwing, open Native land, the question then is, how much land can they put on the market for that amount ? We have it from the Surveyor-General that the cost of opening up Crown lands ranges from ss. to 15s. per acre. Of course, it depends greatly on the size of the section and whether it is open or rough country. But, taking the average at 10s. an acre, for £10,000 we can only put on the market 20,000 acres. Assuming the fee-simple to be 10s. an acre, that, with the loading upon it, would bring the amount up to £1 an acre ; and, assuming that the whole 20,000 acres were taken up when thrown open, we then have a revenue of about 5 per cent., £1,000. That is the only revenue it is possible to obtain from the 20,000 acres placed on the market. And that is assuming that we were so fortunate as to get the whole of it taken up, which is scarcely likely. Now, the cost of administration is to be set against that, because the land has to bear the whole burden of administration. We have now seven members of the Council, six of whom have to be paid out of the revenue derived from Native lands. Suppose they all attended and had to sit monthly. Roughly speaking, they would require three days for each meeting —that is, a day going and returning, and a day to go through their business ; though, as a matter of fact, it takes nearly three days to go and three days to return. Well, one sitting in a month would run us into £200 per annum for salaries alone. Then, as to the salary of the clerk : considering the amount of work to be done, I do not think £150 a year would be too much— that brings the amount up to £350. Then we have offices, which would run us into about £50, and stationery, and so on. And, taking everything into consideration, we could not put the total cost of administration at much under £500 per annum. Then we have the £10,000 we have borrowed, say at 5 per cent., that runs into another £500 for interest. You will see that it takes half the Natives' revenue to pay the cost of administration, and the Natives have nothing left. That is even looking at it in its most favourable aspect. Now, we have here an Act which has been introduced by the Government evidently with the intention of overcoming this long-standing Native difficulty, but apparently we are not much better forward. But if the Government were to come forward and say that whatever might be the cost of the administration of Native lands the State would pay for it, and the State would only make the 5 per cent, deduction which I have indicated, it might be asked, why should the State for the administration of Native land ? As I have already contended, the settlement of the Native land is beneficial not only to the owners but to the State, and what we want to do in the first place is to insure that sufficient land shall be brought forward and placed in the hands of the Council. Well, there is no inducement to the Natives to place their lands in the hands of the Council, because they are not satisfied as to what the cost is to be; but if the State were to place the matter beyond doubt and say " Whatever it may cost to administer your lands we will see that it does not cost you more than the 5 per cent.," they would then know that they would get 19s. out of every pound. If an insufficient quantity of land were put on the market in the first few years the State might lose, but afterwards the State would gain both directly and indirectly from the enhanced value of the land and enhanced production, as well as from the rates and taxes which the settlers would pay on the lands they occupy. As I have pointed out, though it might cost the Council £500 for administration in the first year, there is no reason why the cost should be materially increased in subsequent years, although the revenue would be materially increasing, and in, say, seven or eight years there would be sufficient land on the market to be on a par with the cost of administration and to make up for the years in which there had been a loss. That appears to be the feeling of the Natives here, more especially in regard to the land embraced in the schedule of the Act of 1894. 4. Are the Natives generally desirous of having their land individualised ?—There is a tendency towards individualisation; but there are certain blocks which could not possibly be individualised, as the expenses would be altogether too great. 5. But where the land could be individualised, would it not pave the way for dealing with these lands by the Government or the Counpil ?—I do not think it would make any difference whether the land was individualised or held in common, if the suggestions I have indicated were adopted. 6. But the Natives are disposed to have their lands dealt with on some fair basis ?—Yes, they are anxious to have their lands dealt with in some reasonable way, provided that they are not absolutely losers.
a—4.
956
[j. ORMSBY.
7. Would it not be greatly in the interests of the country to have the lands'open for settlement ? —That is so. I would also point out that in passing a liberal measure the question of the noxious weeds arid the rabbit nuisance should be dealt with. 8. Are the noxious weeds spreading very much ?—Yes, the ragwort is beginning to show almost all over this part of the country ; and the rabbits, although they may be kept in check, are not, I think, being reduced. 9. What are the principal noxious weeds ? —Ragwort. 10. Are there not also bramble, Canadian thistle, and sweetbriar ? —Yes. 11. Mr. McLennan.\ If the Native lands were individualised, would the Natives settle on the land and make good tenants ? —The only thing that is causing some of the Natives to ask that their lands be individualised is that they are anxious to settle on the land themselves. 12. Do they farm their holdings at the present time like Europeans ? —Some who are in a position to do so, and who have a little capital, make an attempt to farm their lands. 13. I have seen several places lately where the Natives have cultivated land, and after taking out the potatoes they have just left it. They have not even put it in grass. Is that not detrimental to their own interests ? —Yes ; that is their old style of cultivation. They put in their crops, and after taking them out they let the land lie and do not touch it again until next year. But others of us who understand the thing better go in for a more systematic style of farming. 14. Mr. McCardle.'] The Natives have been holding meetings in this district lately in order to try and come to some resolutions as to the best methods of dealing with their lands. Have you in your evidence given us something in the nature of an outline of the resolutions they have come to ? —Yes ; I have a petition now embodying their views on the subject. 15. Would it be possible to get a copy of that petition so that the Commissioners might attach it to their report ? —Yes, I will give you a copy. 16. We have heard that there is very little farming or work done by the Natives on their lands : does that not arise from the fact that although the Natives are willing and anxious to farm their land they have no means to do so ? —Yes ; I am satisfied that a great many would farm their lands well if they had the capital; but, of course, there are some who are now too old to take up any of the new methods of farming. 17. Would not some of the Natives who hold large blocks of land be anxious to part with a portion in order to get capital for farming purposes ? —Yes. 18. Is it not desirable that they should be met in that way so that there would be no advantage taken of the Natives when selling their land ?—That is what the Natives desire now, but the feeling is more in favour of leasing their surplus lands than selling. 19. Mr. Matheson.] Do you consider that the land question could be settled before all the land was individualised ?—Yes ; I am satisfied that the land can be settled to advantage without being individualised. 20. Would you prefer that the Native Council should do the work rather than that the Government should take it over ? —lt would really amount to the same thing. 21. Your wish is that you should have the power of decision without reference to the Governor in Council ?—That is the wish of the Natives at the present time, and we believe that it would facilitate matters and hasten the progress of the district. 22. In that case, would the Council collect the rents and pay out to the Natives ?—Yes. Of course, they would be amenable to the powers that be. 23. Under the present system your contention is that half the present revenue is absorbed by expenses, and you suggest that the Government should bear the expenses ?—Yes. 24. There would be a loss to the Crown of £500 a year on every 20,000 acres ? —Yes, in the first instances, but that would be recouped as years went on. lam satisfied of that, because in the next year you would have another 20,000 acres, and in the next year probably another 20,000, and in a few years the revenue would be on a par with the cost of administration. 25. Do you mean that the expenditure could be capitalised, and out of the revenue received 5 per cent, could be paid, which would in time pay off the debt ?—No ; I mean that the amount could be made up in a number of years by the fact that the amount of land being placed on the market would be increasing from year to year. In five years there would be probably 100,000 acres placed on the market. The Native Land Court itself is not self-supporting. That is to say, the expenses are not recouped by the fees collected in connection with the cases adjudicated upon, whereas under this proposal the outlay would be recouped. 26. Mr. McCardle.'] Could not the Maniapoto and Waikato Council be merged into'one Council ?— Yes, they could, but it is against our wish. 27. You are aware that the Waikato Council is practically defunct, having only met twice ?— I believe so. 28. Is it not a hardship that people dealing with Native lands should be barred from getting their agreements fixed only to the fact that this Council does not meet I—l believe it is a hardship to the people in the district. 29. Mr. Matheson.] Does the present machinery contain any provision for lease with the right of purchase ? —No. 30. Do you think it would be wise that such power should be given ?—The feeling at present is that it would not be wise to adopt that indiscrimately. 31. If such sales were permitted to take place, do you think the moneys obtained from such sales should be invested by the Government, and a fixed rate of interest paid out for the future to the Natives concerned ?—As I said before, selling was against the feeling of the Natives at present, but if it should be adopted I think it would be best to invest the money at a fair rate of interest, the interest to be paid to the Natives.
.T. OKMSBY.j
957
G.—4.
32. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you think, where the Natives have small isolated properties and a fair price is offered, any injury would be done by their being permitted to sell ? —ln isolated cases I do not think there would be any hardship. 33. The Chairman.'] Under whatever system the Native lands are dealt with in the future 1 suppose it is recognised that a sufficient amount of land should be retained to the Natives for their own use ?— Yes, that is beyond dispute. 34. And the land should be individualised ? —Well, there is a difference between individualising and ascertaining relative interests. In some cases it is a very expensive thing to get a block of land individualised. For instance, in several blocks there are almost as many owners as there are acres, and it might happen that one of those particular blocks they might want to retain for their papakainga. If that particular block were individualised the cost of each order of the Court would be £1, and there is the survey fee to be put on to that, so that individualising such a block is placed beyond all possibility. 35. Is it not a fact that where the land is not individualised there is not the same incentive to each Native to work the land as if a portion of it were his own individually, because when he makes improvements he knows those improvements become the property of others as well as himself ? —That is so. But, as I said before, the individual interests in some of these blocks are so small that it would be too expensive to cut them up. Henry Matthew Quin examined. 36. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler. I hold 1,122 acres under occupation with right of purchase about thirteen miles from here. 37. Do you occupy it % —Yes ; and I have spent about £2,000 on it in five years' work. 38. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I think the Government are very lax with regard to roading. They load all these lands for roading purposes, and, although it is five years since I took up my property, there is at the present time standing bush on three parts of the road around my place, and it is likely to be in that state for another five years so far as I can hear. There has been no move made to fell this road, and I think I can say if they would fell the bush we would do the formation ourselves for nothing. And when there is standing bush around one's property one cannot erect fences, and if we want to fell bush on our own account the Government take exception to it. The engineers say we must not do it, because it is easier for them to take out the standing trees than to uproot the stumps. I would also like to say that lam in favour of the freehold. I think the occupation with right of purchase is a very good tenure to enable people with small capital to get on the land, and there is no doubt the lease in perpetuity may suit some people also. With regard to the Native lands, I listened to the evidence given by the last witness, and I am of opinion that the simplest way of dealing with the Native-land question is to have the whole of the Native lands individualised. At the present time there are Natives holding large areas of land, whereas if a white man holds a large area like that it is taken from him by the Crown at a valuation. The Native receives all the benefits that a white man does, and I think he should share the responsibilities, provided he is educated to the same pitch as a white man. I think, in taking over these large areas from the Natives, a fair rate should be paid to the Natives interested, and a certain amount of land should be retained by them, and a certain proportion should be apportioned amongst the landless Natives, so that they should all have a certain amount of land. The balance of the land should be thrown open by the Crown under occupation with right of purchase for Maori or pakeha alike. 39. In which direction is your land ? —Towards Pirongia West. It was all virgin bush when 1 took it up. 40. Mr. McLennan.'] How much was your property loaded for roads ? —I am not quite clear about that. 41. Can you say that the loading on your road was not spent ?—I do not think there was any loading on that land spent at all. "42. Have you had any dealings with the Land Board ? —Yes, and I have no complaint whatever to make against the Land Board. 43. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Board ? —I think the Land Board should consist of men who understand land, and that they should be nominated by the people instead of by the Govern ment. 44. Under what system would you have them elected ? —Just as Mayors and County Councillors are elected. 45. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office ?—No ; nor do I wish to. From what I have heard the Department is not working satisfactorily. 46. Mr. McCardle.] Would not a system of election of Land Boards by the settlers be too expensive : Do you not think a method of appointing the Land Boards would meet the case : For instance, a large district like Auckland is represented by only four members at present, and do you not think it would be better to increase the membership by three or four so that certain localities such as the King-country, which is a bush district, would have its own representative ? —I think that would work satisfactorily. 47. If candidates were nominated by the settlers in the different districts, and the Government were to make appointments from the list submitted, do you think the different districts would be fairly represented ?—Yes, I think that would work satisfactorily. 48. Are you in favour of extending the right to purchase to the present lease-in-perpetuity tenants ?— No ; I think any contract made with the Crown should be strictly adhered to, and not broken in any way except by mutual consent. 49. Suppose the Land Act was broken to begin with, as in the case of the Kinohaku Settlement, which was advertised for sale under the optional tenure ?—Yes, I understand the position there, and that the Government broke their contract. That was wrong.
C—4.
958
JH. M. QTJIN.
50. Do you not think that the people who were treated in that way are entitled to consideration —that they have a right to ask for the option of the freehold ? —Two wrongs do not make a right. It would be a very bad precedent to establish. I think that those people who have made a contract with the Government should stick to it. 51. Mr. Matheson.\ Are you within, proposed to be included in the new county ? —I am not sure. Ido not think are quite defined yet. 52. Mr. Forbes.] What capital value of your land ? —l2s. or 12s. 6d. per acre. 53. Have you done much in the way of clearing ?—Yes, I have nearly 600 acres in grass. 54. Mr.iMcCardle.] Have you much unearned increment in the district ?—No ; 1 hold that there is no such thing as unearned increment in the back blocks. It might occur in the cities, and only then in some cases. 55. Mr. Forbes.] How many sheep will your land carry when it is grassed ?—Two sheep to the acre. 56. Will it take grass well ?—Yes, fairly well. George Caldwell examined. 57. The Chairman.] What are you I—l am a settler. I hold 1,214 acres under occupation with right of purchase in this locality. My wife holds another piece of land near Otorohanga and I occasionally reside here. I have considerably improved my section. 58. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?• —Yes. 59. Is there anything special that you wish ?—I believe in the freehold. lam not a believer in the lease in perpetuity for several reasons. Under lease in perpetuity land is loaded from ss. up to 10s. per acre for roading, and the tenant has to pay 4 per cent, on that loading for the term of his natural life, and in all probability that man has to form the road himself. I consider that an injustice. Under occupation with right of purchase it is true he is debarred from acquiring the title for ten years and the result is that he has to pay 50 per cent, on the capital value of the land before he can buy it. lam a great believer in the old Rolleston system of deferred payments. 60. Mr. McLennan.j|Are you acquainted with the South Island and the tenants there under the Land for Settlements Act ? —No, I have never been in the South Island. 61. Are the oocupation-with-right-of-purchase lands loaded for roading the same as lease in perpetuity I—ln1 —In some places they are. 62. Well, if the land is loaded under both tenures, what is the difference ? —I contend there is a great difference. In ten years a man under occupation with right of purchase is free, but under lease in perpetuity he has to continue paying the interest on the loading all his life. 63. Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory ? —Yes, very satisfactory. 64. Mr. McCardle.] You have had a long experience in bush lands both here and in Wellington 1 —Yes. 65. Do you think it is desirable in the interests of bush settlers and of the country generally that the freehold should be granted to Crown tenants ? —Certainly. 66. Is it not a fact that tenants, even after they have spent large sums of money in improvements and labour, so long as they have the Government as landlord, are hampered so far as financing their properties are concerned, and are thus placed under great difficulties ? —Under great difficulties. A man cannot finance under leasehold as he can under freehold. 67. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office ? —Yes. I consider they treated me very liberally. No doubt in some cases they are dilatory in making advances, and some people complain because they have not got the amount they applied for. But I think there has been a reason for that. As everybody knows, it is not possible to advance up to 50 per cent, on some properties and in other cases it would be safe to lend up to 75 per cent. .68. There is no member on the Land Board representing this large district of the King-country : do n you think it would be advisable that the Government should increase the number of members of the Auckland Land Board, seeing that the district is so large, and select members from the various localities, such as the King-country, so that the settlers might have direct representation on the Board ? —Yes; I believe it requires members selected from the settlers to properly represent them. I think it would facilitate the business of the Land Board. 69. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think the Advances to Settlers Board have been wise in refusing loans sometimes because the security offered was not sufficiently good ?—I do. 70. Have you known any case where a loan has been refused where there has been excellent security ? —No. I have known several cases where loans have been refused and I know there was nothing whatever of value on which to advance. I have gone over several such properties. 71. When a settler loads his land for road-making by means of the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act the capital is paid off in a certain number of years : do you think that when the Crown loads land for roading the sum so charged should be paid off in the same way in a certain number of years ? —Yes. 72. The old system of deferred payments was a compulsory one : do you think it would be more helpful to settlement if an extended time was given and the settler was allowed to pay off in such amounts as suited him ?—My view is that, instead of a period of ten years and an extension to fourteen years with capitalisation, the time should be extended to twenty-one years at 5 per cent., with no capitalisation whatever. 73. Mr. Forbes.] What is the value of your land % —los. per acre. 74. Have you done much clearing ? —I have 525 acres cleared and fenced.
959
C—4.
(1. CALDWELL.
75. What do you reckon it costs to clear and grass ?—About £2 per acre, without fencing. I may say that I had a bad burn and before I can get my land into permanent grass it will cost me double that amount per acre. 76. Is land in this district when cleared and grassed, but not fenced, worth more than £2 10s. per acre ?—I consider it is worth from £2 ss. to £2 10s. per acre without fencing and buildings. Of course, this country is very expensive country to get into permanent grass. A lot of the country is very peaty and several burns are necessary before you can get grass. 77. Do the residential conditions press hardly on the settlers ?—They have not pressed hardly on me, but I would like to go back to the old residence conditions of 1885 which gave the settler the option of making double improvements if he did not wish to reside. Harold William Matthews examined. 78. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler in this neighbourhood. I hold about 500 acres under occupation with right of purchase. 79. I suppose you have heard the evidence given by the previous witnesses : do you generally agree with what they have stated %—Yes. 80. Is there any fresh matter that you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I would simply like to call th>; attention of the Commission more particularly to the Native-land question in this district. I would like to direct your attention to the great danger that is arising not only in this district, but in the whole of the Province of Auckland, and I might say the whole of the North Island, from the fact of the Native lands remaining in the wild state they do at the present time. They are a hotbed for noxious weeds of all descriptions. It is practically impossible for the Inspectors to out their duties. I have been in this district for a considerable time and long enough to gather the knowledge that it is the desire of the Natives and the white settlers that something should be done to make it more easy to settle Native lands. 81. You mean that the Government should take steps to deal with Native lands ?—Yes. It is very important and very necessary that the Government should alter the present state of things in regard to Native lands. I think that- fact would be very evident to the gentlemen of this Commission if they stood on the highest point of my section and saw the country all around me. On one side there are millions of acres of wild country covered with noxious weeds belonging to the Natives, and on the other side there is the Waikato district white with crops and smiling homesteads. It is evident there must be something holding the one back while the other advances. T would also like to say with regard to the quest-ion of freehold and leasehold that I have been connected with the land for forty years, and my experience is, and that of all the people I have come in contact with, that there is instilled in the Anglo-Saxon, or any descendant of the Anglo-Saxon, an inherent desire to stand on his own freehold. My experience is that it is the men who have that desire who go back into the wilds and face the difficulties and overcome the obstacles of nature. 82. Mr. McCardle.] Would you be in favour of any condition that would bring about the settlement of these Native lands ?—Yes. 83. Mr. Matheson.] Have your dealings with the Land Board? been satisfactory ? —Yes, in every way. 84. Do you think the option of the freehold should be given to all Crown tenants ? —I think so. 85. Do you think it might be a loss to the colony as a whole if the freehold was granted ? —I do not think so at all. 86. Mr. Forbes.] Are you troubled with the road question ? —Personally lam not, simply because lam not far out. We are pretty close to one"of the mainFroads receiving more attention than the by-roads. 87. What is the capital value of your land ? —£l 2s. 6d. per acre. 88. Mr. McLennan.'] You say there is a desire in every Anglo-Saxon's soul for the freehold 1— Yes. $9. Is it in order to gratify that desire that you wish the lease between the Crown and the tenant to be broken ?—I do not think the agreement should be broken absolutely. I would not have it made compulsory or anything of that sort. It should be done when it is the wish of both parties. 90. You think it should be done if both parties are agreeable and not otherwise ? —That is so. 91. Are you acquainted with the South Island and the condition of the settlers there under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Not at all. 92. The Chairman.] Do you consider that whichever tenure conduces to bond fide settlement and keeps out speculation must be the best tenure-in the interest of the colony ?—Quite true. Frank Forsyth Thompson examined. 93. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler. I hold 531 acres under occupation with right of purchase. 94. Have you heard the evidence which has been given to-day ? —Only that of the last witness. 95. Are you in harmony with what he says ?—With part of it. 96. Is there anything fresh that you wish to lay before the Commission ? —I would like to say that I think the best land-tenure in the colony was the deferred-payment system. I think the tenants have done better under that system than under any other system that I know of. The chief question to the settlers in this district is this Native-land question both as regards roads and fences. We cannot get any assistance in these matters from Native lands. 1 would like also to state that so far as I know a good many of the settlers who are under lease in perpetuity are in favour of the freehold and some of them have the idea that they will get the freehold. They are very strongly in favour of it. 97. Mr. McLennan.] Had they any promise that they would get the freehold when they took up
a—4.
960
[F. F. THOMPSON.
the land ? —No ; but a certain section of the country is trying to enforce revaluation and therefore the tenants are asking for the freehold. 98. Do you believe yourself that that section will ever have power to do such a thing, or that this or any other Government will ever pass a Bill to revalue holdings and so break an agreement entered into between Crown and tenant ?—lt is quite possible, seeing that they tried to pass a Fair Rent Bill. 99. Did your neighbours have the option of taking up the land under any tenure ?—Yes ; but they found by-and-by that the leasehold had not the same selling-value as the occupation with right of purchase. 100. And they want the freehold now to enable them to sell easily ? —No ; not for that reason. They want to be able to borrow on equal terms with the man under occupation with right of purchase. The commercial value of the leasehold is not equal to that of the other. In fact, it is hardly possible to borrow on lease in perpetuity at all. 101. Are any of the lease-in-perpetuity settlers selling out the goodwill of their sections ?—They cannot round here. I know a good many who would like to sell out.
Te Kuiti, Monday, sth June, 1905. Adam Callender McCaedle examined. 1. The Chairman.\ What are you ? —I am a settler at Waitomo. I hold 278 acres under occupation with right of purchase. 2. Is there any matter you would like to bring before the Commission ? —I would like first to speak in regard to the constitution of Land Boards. I think the country settlers require more consideration and representation on the Board. At present the bush settlers have very little to say in the matter, and I think better results would be obtained it they had better representation. The town members very seldom know the requirements of the bush settlers, whose grievances, therefore, are not thoroughly understood. In regard to tenure, I wish to state that wherever I have been through the district I find the whole of the settlers are unanimous in favour of having the right of purchase. They do not like the lease in perpetuity, as the conditions are not satisfactory. In the first place, if a man does improvements he cannot get any assistance in the shape of borrowed money if he wishes to make further improvements. Again, if he happens to be a little behind with his rent or rates he is always reminded that his section is liable to be forfeited. I will give you my own experience. I had a property in Hawke's Bay under lease in perpetuity, and I received a notice from the Commissioner of Crown Lands that if the county rate, amounting to £1 45., was not paid my section was liable to forfeiture. Again, a lease-in-perpetuity settler has always to pay his rent in advance, and if his rent is not forthcoming in advance his section is liable to forfeiture. In asking for an advance from the Government Advances to Settlers Office I found it was impossible to get anything like a loan in proportion to a fair value of the improvements. I applied for a loan of £500 on improvements worth £1,050, and all that was offered by the office was £240. I think, in the interests of the colony as a whole, the settlers should be given the right of purchase. lam not referring to Canterbury, where the settlers on resumed estates are in an altogether different position to the settlers here. I have no doubt that a number of settlers here, if they had all their improvements done for them, and were only paying a reasonable rental, might be satisfied with their lease-in-perpetuity tenure if they were not afraid of their rents being raised at any time. But in the bush Ido not think that anything short of the right of purchase would satisfy them. I think that all bush lands should be offered under the optional system. In regard to the pressure of residence conditions, I think the residence conditions should be relaxed in a district like this, where it is almost impossible for a man to take his family in, and where there are no roads nor prospect of roads, and no prospect of a school. In my own case I have to live in this township, where my children can get schooling. It would be impossible for me to take my family back to my section. In regard to lease-in-perpetuity land, I would like to point out that a settler might have his section very heavily timbered, but if he wishes to dispose of a portion of that timber or even to sell a few posts he is prevented from doing so. He cannot tell the timber, although he is compelled by the Board to carry out his improvements, and in so doing to destroy the timber. If a lease-in-perpetuity settler finds he cannot fulfil the conditions of his lease, and he wishes to surrender, I think he should be given fair compensation for his improvements. I think, in the interests of the colony as a whole, such a settler should be allowed to nominate a valuer, and the Crown to nominate a valuer, and the Chairman of the Land Board to act as arbitrator in order to assess the value of the improvements. Another thing that is never taken into consideration in connection with the bush settler is the amount of rent and interest and time that are lost in effecting his improvements. As a matter of fact, there is no return from bush lands in any shape or form within five years. Ido not know of any instance where a settler has ever received any return from his section in less than five years, and this loss is never taken into consideration. Only the bare amount of the felling and grassing is taken into consideration. I have found that the present system of loading is altogether unsatisfactory. If a grant is made towards certain roads it is simply wasted in dribs and drabs, whereas if the work was let under a fair contract I know roads in this district which could have been done for pence where they have cost pounds. The " thirds " are simply dribbled away and the settlers receive no benefit. I think if, instead of the present system of loading land, the Government were to grant the rents for fifteen years and allow the local bodies to expend them so could raise loans and form and metal roads, it would be much more satisfactory. I would like to point out that there are large quantities of Crown lands lying idle in this district, and settlers who hold adjoining lands have to do all the fencing and receive no assistance from the Government. Again, there are a number of cases where settlers adjoining Crown lands have only a small holding. They might have
961
A. 0. MoOARDLE.]
a—4.
200 acres, which are insufficient to support a man and his family, but such settlers cannot acquire a piece of adjoining Crown lands without going to the ballot. That means that a settler under these conditions is forced to get rid of his section to enable him to obtain a suitable section. I think he should be given the right to select a portion of the adjoining Crown lands without going to the ballot. This district is surrounded with Native land, and the Natives are in no way dealing with them. The land is locked up and is being overrun with weeds and rabbits. The settlers can get no assistance when their fences abut on Native land. The Natives, although they are only too willing to improve their lands and become profitable settlers, are not allowed to do so. At present the Native land is only preventing the district from going ahead. The settlers cannot get roads because most of the roads would pass through Native land, and these lands would contribute nothing towards their cost. This is a Native township, and the whole position is most unsatisfactory to the settlers in the township. Since the land was placed in the market eighteen months ago a few sections have been offered by the Maori Council and the remainder are lying idle. The settlers cannot get any assistance towards fencing or roadmaking in the township on account of these sections lying in the hands of the Maori Council. I think the prices put on these sections are altogether ridiculous. I think the Natives should be given the right to sell the land in the township right out. 3. Mr. McGarJle.] In regard to your statement that a settler holding a small area of land is not allowed to take up adjacent Crown lands without going to the ballot, the Commissioner of Crown Lands has stated in evidence that a settler adjoining Crown lands has the right to select a portion of that land without competition if his original holding is not sufficient for him to live upon ?—All I can say is that I found my section too small, and I applied to the Commissioner of Crown Lands when I saw that 218 acres of Crown lands adjoining my property were to be placed on the market, and asked that I be allowed to take a section up without going to the ballot. The answer I received from the Commissioner was that the land was being surveyed and would be placed on the market shortly, and thai I would have to go to the ballot for it. That is my reason for making the statement I did. 4. The Commissioner went further, and said that settlers would be allowed to take up unsurveyed land under the same conditions ? —Well, this land has been lying idle for five years, and it is a hindrance to settlement, and the settlers want it opened up. F They asked that it should be put on the market, and the Commissioner said that it would be opened shortly. That was five years ago, and that " shortly " has not yet arrived. 5. What improvements have you done on your section ? —I put 175 acres in grass, 107 chains boundary-fencing, a good whare, and small bridges made, and tracks cut. 6. Would it answer the purpose of the settlers if the number of members of the Auckland Land Board was increased from four to seven in view of the extended area within this province, and if the Government were to nominate, say, a member from the King-country and other districts similarly situated with experience and knowledge of the requirements of the districts ?—I think it would greatly assist the settlers. 7. Mr. Matheson.\ How near to your section does a formed road go ? —I join a formed track, but there is no dray-road formed nearer than two miles and a half of my section. 8. Do you think it would be an improvement if the loading was repayable at the end of a fixed term as a loan is under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, so that a settler under lease in perpetuity would not have to pay interest for a thousand years ?—I certainly do. 9. You said it would be in the interests of the colony as a whole to give the right of purchase to Crown tenants : how would it benefit the colony as a whole ? —I think under occupation with right of purchase settlers would be more content, and would be induced to put more improvements upon the land. I know perfectly well that under lease in perpetuity a large number of settlers only do temporary improvements because they expect to sell out at some future date, and they expect to scrape a few pounds together to enable them to get a freehold. The lease-in-perpetuity tenants do not feel satisfied. They feel that their rents are likely to be raised at any moment. I think it is better to have a contented community than a community of settlers discontented with their land tenure. 10. Mr. Forbes.] You say the residential conditions ought to be relaxed in some cases ? —Yes. 11. I suppose it is of importance that people should go and live on these back blocks ? —lt is important that the back blocks should be settled. 12. Do you think it would be reasonable if the residential conditions were not enforced untilproper means of communication were given to the settlers '! —I certainly think that if proper means of communication were given to the settlers the residential clauses would be fulfilled. 13. Are not the residential conditions in order to prevent speculation ?—I do not really know what they are supposed to prevent, but I know they are a great hindrance to the development of a new district. Many men with sons may wish to go and improve a holding in a new district, but they cannot do so because they are not in a position to fulfil the residence-conditions. There is another point. No money-lender feels safe in advancing on leasehold under residential conditions because if anything goes wrong with the mortgagor he does not wish to have to go and reside on the land. U. Is it not important to settlers who go into the back blocks that they should have neighbours in order to enable them to get schools and other facilities that only an increased population can give ? —If there is decent road-access, and the prospects of a school, there is some reason for enforcing the residential clauses ; but where there are none of these things it is ridiculous to ask a man to take his family into the back blocks. 15. You think the Government should fulfil their part of the agreement and give the settler access to his section? — Yes. 16. Is much land changing hands about here ?—Very little. 17. Is any land held as freehold ? —Very small amount, if any.
121—C. 4.
C—4.
962
Fa. c. mccabdle.
18. Is it mostly under occupation with right of purchase ? —I think there is a large quantity under lease in perpetuity in this neighbourhood. 19. Were these the lease-in-perpetuity settlers who had to take up the land under that tenure only ? —The first blocks that were opened in this district were opened under the optional system, but the other blocks were withdrawn and put up under lease in perpetuity only, and the settlers were compelled to take up under that tenure. 20. And these men are desirous of getting the option of purchase ? —Unanimously. 21. Mr. McLennan.'] You say that tenants under lease in perpetuity do not put improvements on their holdings ? —I said they do not improve their holdings to the same extent as men under occupation with right of purchase. 22. What is the reason ? Is the lease too short ?—No, it is ridiculously long for one thing, and the tenants do not feel secure under it on account of the agitation that is going on for the rents to be raised. 23. Do you not think they are greatly the cause of that unrest by demanding that the Crown should break the agreement entered into with them ?—No ; I think a great deal of the unrest is caused through the Crown not fulfilling their agreement in the first place. In this district, it was pointed out to the settlers when they took up the land that they would have access to their lands by certain roads. When they went to reside and work on their holdings they found there were no roads, and no prospect of getting roads. At the same time, this hue and cry is raised in the towns that the rents should be raised and the land revalued every twenty-one years. The tenants do not feel satisfied. The Government never fulfilled their agreement in regard to these bush lands. 24. Do the Crown tenants themselves try to assist in forming roads by paying rates ? —Certainly ; they are trying in this district to, establish a county for the purpose of rating themselves to get roadaccess. 25. Have they paid rates this last five years ? —No, because there was no local body of any description in the King-country. As soon as the county is formed they will pay rates. 26. Were all the holdings loaded for roads ? —Not all of them. 27. Was the amount of the loading expended ? —lt has been dribbled away in such a manner that very little roading has been done in this district. 28. The Chairman.] Do you think that in these back blocks the roading should be done more expeditiously by the Government I—Yes.1 —Yes. I think the roads should be made before the land is put in the market. 29. You spoke of forfeiting leases. Is it not a fact that there is a rebate of J per cent, for the promptpayment of rent ?—Yes. 30. Have you known any case where the Land Board were unreasonable and unjust in not allowing reasonable time in which to pay the rent ? Are you aware of any case of forfeiture without very strong and full grounds for the forfeiture ?—I know of no case where forfeiture has actually transpired, but I know my attention has been drawn to the fact that my section was liable to forfeiture. 31. Do you feel that there are any good grounds for thinking for a moment that any Government would break down a title legally given for land ?—Yes, I think they would; if a sufficient number of land-nationalises were returned as members of the Government I do not think they would have the least hesitation in breaking the agreement or raising the rents. 32. And do you think that any agitation by any irresponsible people would cause any Government to perpetrate such an unconstitutional act as to break down a title given to land ? Have you ever known of such a thing ? —I do not know of any case, but Ido not think they would have any hesitation in raising the rent, provided there was a sufficient number of members of the House in favour of it. That is my opinion, and I think the settlers feel it so too. Thomas Porter examined. 33. The Chairman.'] Do you hold land in this district?— Yes; I hold 916 acres in the Maungamangero district, on the Ngapinga Road, under lease in perpetuity. 34. Have you made improvements on your holding ? —Yes. 35. And do you reside on it ? —Most of the time, but my wife and family do not. 36. Do you agree with what has been stated by the last witness, Mr. McCardle ?—Entirely. 37. Is there anything further that you wish to say ? —The settlers in my district held a meeting of their Progressive Association, and deputed Messrs. Murdoch, McKenzie, and myself to voice their views before this Commission. The association has a membership of thirty, and the members are unanimously and strongly in favour of the right of purchase. 38. Have they given you any document to that effect ?—They have given me this document: " Messrs. T. Porter, D. Murdoch, and Dan McKenzie were elected in open meeting to attend the Land Commission at Te Kuiti, and to give evidence on behalf of the Maungamangero Settlers Progressive Association, whose membership is over thirty members. —D. J. Joll, Secretary ('pro tern)." I may state that our block was offered under lease in perpetuity, without the right of purchase, but they were not fully aware of the conditions that the tenure entailed upon them. They only found that out afterwards. The greatest objection to these conditions is this : Suppose a man takes up, say, 1,000 acres, worth £1 an acre, and places improvements upon it that make it worth £5,000. When that man dies, his heir may be a boy only a few years old. The Land Board forces that boy or his guardians to comply with the conditions under which the land was taken up. It is practically impossible for the child to do it, and unless he can show reason why he should not his land is liable to forfeiture, and the boy suffers a loss. There is a valuation, which is all very well if it is a just valuation. But it is well known that the valuers allow only about half the real cost of the improvements. In the open market the boy could get about £4 an acre for his interest in the land, but the valuer gives him only about £2 or £2 10s. an acre. He is compelled to take that amount, and there is a complete dead loss to the family.
963
C— 4.
T. PORTER.
If that land were freehold the trustee for the boy would be able to either manage the property for him, or lease it person, but in this case there would be no option ; not being able to comply with the conditions he would have to forfeit. That is one reason why the freehold would be so much better than a leasehold. I think that when a man is residing on his section, and has done the improvements required by the law, he ought to be allowed to use the section as he wishes, provided that he pays his rent regularly. |As it is, if he wants to lease it for a short time he has to get the permission of the Board. Ido not consider that he should be interfered with so long as he complies with the conditions and pays his rent. 39. Mr. McCardle.] Have not the valuers a fixed rule in valuing improvements ? —lt seems to me that they have a fixed rule that they are not allowed to value beyond a certain amount, no matter what has been the cost of the work. 40. What are your own improvements valued at ?—About £2 an acre. 41. Would that pay for the bushfelling and grassing, and fencing ? —Certainly not. 42. And have you done other work, such as logging-up and clearing generally ?—Yes. I have done probably miles of track-cutting. 43. How much land have you cleared ? —250 acres ; all cleared within the last three years. 44. Have you a family ? —Yes; but I cannot take them out to the section because of the want of roads, and because there is no prospect of a school. I have been compelled to buy a place in Te Kuiti for them to live in. 44a. Is it not a fact that the first cost of grassing is not the greatest, but that the work you do in subsequent years does more in the way of permanent improvement than the mere felling and grassing ?—I could not say that it is the principal matter ; about half, perhaps. There is a great amount of stumping and clearing, and the building of the houses, and gardening, and things of that kind. 45. Are you satisfied with the administration of the Auckland Land Board ?—I have been quite satisfied except in the matter of valuation for improvements. 46. Do you think that it would improve the position of the settlers if the number of members of the Board were increased, and a representative nominated from this district were appointed ?— I certainly think it would be a great improvement. 47. Do you think it would give general satisfaction to the settlers ? —Yes, it would give general satisfaction. 48. How are you situated in regard to roads ? —Very badly. When we took up our sections we were given to understand that our distance by road to Te Kuiti would be twenty-one miles. By the route along which we have to travel now the distance is thirty-one miles, because the road which we were told we could use has not been formed. I think the Government have failed in their contract to the settlers in not giving them this road. One settler took his wife in there, and for two or three years he was unable to get out at all. 49. Instead of the system of forming roads out of parliamentary grants, would it not be much better if the Government were to make an advance of, say, £2 for every £1 raised by the settlers for road-making by way of special loan ? Do you not think by using the " thirds "in paying interest on a loan the results will be much more satisfactory ?—The present system is very unsatisfactory. The " thirds " have been fritted away in various ways. If we had spent the " thirds " ourselves we could have made the roads much better than they have been made. 50. Do you not think it would be better to use the " thirds " in paying interest on a special loan ? — Far better. 51. Mr. Matheson.] Has the Te Kuiti end of that twenty-one-mile road been formed ?—None of it. 52. Was the Maungamangero Block offered first under the optional tenure ?—lt was first offered under the optional system, and then withdrawn and offered under lease in perpetuity. The settlers are most anxious to get the option. 53. Have you ever known the Land Board to forfeit a man's section for non-residence ?—There has been no occasion. I know of one section the selector of which did not reside upon it, and I understand this has been forfeited. 54. Do you think the forfeiture was reasonable in that case ?—The selector forfeited the section himself ; he would not go on the land. 55. Mr. Forbes.] Are the settlers on these blocks felling their bush ?—Yes; but there is one person there who, owing to the hardships he has to put up with, may have to forfeit and leave the place. 56. On the poster setting forth the conditions under which your land was taken up there is nothing about roads. Was anything said besides about giving you roads ?—We were led to understand through the roads being marked on the advertised plan that those roads were being formed, and that they would be gone on with and completed. The fact that the roads are marked " twenty-one miles to Te Kuiti" would lead one to suppose that the roads led to Te Kuiti. 57. Do you mean that the settlers will not be able to carry on these places uuless they get reasonable roads ?—They are carrying on, but under tremendous odds. The cost of everything they take out is doubled — stores, wire for fencing, and stock. Instead of being able to drive cattle out in a day, it takes two days. 58. Do you not think it is a great mistake to cut up land in the back blocks unless reasonable road facilities are given to the settlers ? —Certainly; the roads ought to be made first. If they are not finished before the land is offered they should certainly be made at an early stage, and the district should not be left entirely to itself. 59. Mr. McLennan.'] Do you demand the option as a right ? —Yes; I think the settlers ought to have a right.
964
[t. porter.
a—4.
60. Not as an act of grace on the part of the Government ?—No; I do not consider it would be an act of grace. 61. Did you not know the conditions of the lease before you took up the land ?—I was not aware of all the conditions —for instance, the difficulties that would arise in the case of the death of a settler. 62. You were aware that the term of the lease was 999 years ?—Yes. 63. And yet within five years you demand the Government should amend the Act so as to give you the option of the freehold ?—Yes. 64. You say that in the event of a tenant under lease in perpetuity dying his wife and children are put to a great disadvantage. What is the disadvantage ? —That of having to forfeit the section if they cannot fulfil the conditions. 65. Have you read your lease ? —I suppose I have. 66. And you found that in your lease ?—I do not think it is mentioned in the least 67. Have you ever read the Land Act of 1895 ?—No. 68. The Chairman.'] Do you say that in the leases there should be no restrictions placed upon the lessee at all —that having completed a certain amount of improvements he should be exempted from the necessity of residing on the property, and be allowed to do what he likes with it so long as he pays his rent ? —Yes. 69. Do you think that any one holding land should be allowed to 'et it depreciate in value — say, by noxious weeds and that sort of thing ? —The Inspectors of Noxious Weeds would see to that. (Jf course, a man should be compelled to make substantial improvements before he is given a free hand. James Smyth examined. 70. The Chairman.] Are you a landowner ? —I hold 307 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Arai Survey District. 71. Are you satisfied with your tenure ? —Yes ; and I represent fifteen settlers in the district, all of whom are very well satisfied with the lease in perpetuity. They are agreed that in letting land there should be only one system. They do not think it is fair to let one block under lease in perpetuity and the adjoining one under the optional system. They would like to have had the option so as to be able to choose the tenure for themselves. In regard to roading, they think the main roads of the colony should be a national undertaking, and that instead of fifteen years' " thirds " being given back for road-making there should be twenty or twenty-five years, for the settlers, if the district is closely settled, can generally raise a loan, and in most cases the " thirds " accruing will pay the interest on that loan. If the time were extended it would give them a great chance. In regard to the loading we also think it would be better to make it a separate charge on the land. Something in the nature of a loan that would clear itself in forty-one years at 3£ per cent. As to the Land Board, our settlers have got on very well with the Board, but as lease-in-perpetuity settlers they think they should be represented on the Board —not because they have any fault to find with the present members of the Board —but they think the lease-in-perpetuity settlers would have more confidence in the administration of the law if they were represented by one of themselves. 72. If the local body of a land district were allowed to nominate suitable persons from whom the Government should select a member of the Board, do you think such members would be sufficiently representative ?—I think that would be better than an election. 73. As regards roading, do you think it would be better if a sufficient amount of loading were put on the land to provide a sinking fund which would liquidate the loan in a given number of years ?— I think the present ss. loading is sufficient to carry on the work ahead, for the settlers can borrow then, and the " thirds " meet the interest. The interest on ss. an acre should clear itself just the same as the loans to local bodies in forty-one years. 74. Mr. McCardle.] How long have you been holding your land ?—About fifteen months. 75. Are the settlers generally improving their holdings ?—Yes ; they are working on co-operative works, and also improving their farms. 76. Have you been appointed to represent the settlers of your district ?—Yes. This document is my authority : "At a meeting of Totoro and Aria settlers held at Mr. Baker's residence on the 2nd June, 1905, consisting of Messrs. G. Baker, C. Heglin, E. Bennet, J. Hearn, J. Macready, R. O'Connell, H. Russell, J. Smyth, E. Davis, A. Morgan, R. J. Dunn, and P. D. Smyth, Mr. Davis was voted to the chair. After discussing various matters with regard to the existing land laws, it was unanimously decided that we be represented by Messrs. J. Smyth and E. Davies, which gentlemen were appointed to lay our views before the Land Commission, Mr. Smyth representing us if Mr. Davies cannot attend.— J. H. Hearn, Secretary." There are thirteen on this list, but the weather was very bad and it was difficult for people to get to the meeting. Since the meeting I have met three others, and they were very well satisfied that I should speak on their behalf. 77. You will soon have a County Council will you not ? —We have one now—the Clifton County Council; but we want to be put into the new Waitomo County. 78. You think there ought to be a member of the Land Board representing the lease-in-perpetuity settlers : how many suitable men are there in your district ? —I mean a representative lease-in-per-petuity man —not necessarily one from the district. 79. Do you not think that if you had a good working settler acquainted with the difficulties and hardships under which the settlers in the King-country labour he would represent both the occupation-with-right-of-purchase and lease-in-perpetuity selectors ?—The lease-in-perpetuity settlers would not be satisfied unless it was a man holding under the same tenure as themselves. 80. Mr. Matheson.] Do you say that the men you represent prefer the lease in perpetuity to any other tenure ? —Yes ; they are of opinion that the lease in perpetuity is best for the country, and therefore best for themselves.
965
C—4.
J. SMYTH.
81. Do they think it best for themselves independent of the interests of the country ? —Yes, in this way : that under lease-in-perpetuity system there will be no absentee, and therefore there will be no closing of their factories or their schools or their post-offices, whereas under occupation with right of purchase it only means a certain number of years before the holders can sell out or start subletting their property, a thing that will not occur while the Land Board has control. 82. Do you approve of the Crown acquiring land and letting it as it has been done in the south 1 — Yes, but at the same time it would not be right to allow the selectors to acquire the freehold. 83. Do you look forward to a time when the Crown will acquire the whole of the land of the colony and become the general landlord ?—That is the time we hope to see coming. 84. Do you think that will bring prosperity to the colony ?- —Yes. 85. Mr. Forbes.] Are your neighbours residing on their sections ?—This land was let fifteen months ago, and at the present time I dare say there are about twenty-four or twenty-five selectors on the block. They all have improvements done, and there are a good many buildings in the locality ; in fact they are as far advanced as other localities that have been settled for five or six years. 86. For how long were they exempted from residing on the land ?—For twelve months ; it is pretty open land. 87. How are you off for roads ? —The roads are going on. The Government Engineer is pushing on the work. 88. Then there is a reasonable prospect of your getting your roads ? —We have roads up to the settlement already. We are in Taranaki province, but we use the Auckland road, from which we are able by crossing the country about four miles to get to the roads under construction in our own block. 89. Your meeting strongly supported the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —Yes; but they thought that if the option was given to one district it should be given to all. They heard and approved my views on the land-tenure question, and they gave me a freehand as regards all other matters. 90. Then anything else you have said apart from the land question represents merely your own views ? —Yes. 91. Do your neighbours wish to have the option of the freehold ? Do they feel that they have not been fairly dealt with in having to take up their land under lease in perpetuity ? —They do not feel it in that way. But they think that they should have had the option of the freehold, seeing that it was given in the block alongside of them. Nevertheless they say that if they had had the option they would probably have taken up their land under lease in perpetuity. 92. Then they do not say that they have been unfairly treated ?—On the contrary, they think that in every other respect they have been treated well —as regards roading and matters of that kind. 93. What is the size of the holdings in your block ? —From 200 to 1,000 acres. 94. Do you think it is a good plan to cut up this rough country into too large areas ?—lf it is not rough country it is better in lots of 300 or 400 acres. It is no use cutting it up into small areas. It is a bad thing to have a big section among small ones if it is good country, because the holders have no interest in common with the small man. 95. To what use do you put your land ? —We intend to start dairying as soon as we get the roads made. 96. What is the price paid for the land in your block ? —From lOd. to Is. 3d. per acre. 97. Would you say that that price is fairly reasonable ? —There is no question about the price. The settlers think they have made a good bargain. 98. Mr. McLennan.'] Are you afraid of the trades-unions bringing about a revaluation to your land ?—That would be breaking the agreement, and I do not think any reasonable man would be in favour of doing that. 99. Mr. McCardle.] Are you aware of the agitation raised on [this point by the Trades and Labour Conference in Wellington ? —I am aware of it, but I think we can afford to laugh at it. If they could alter the laws in regard to the revaluation of lease-in-perpetuity holdings they could also interfere with the freehold. 100. Would it not be better to act against them than to laugh at them. ? —We have the freeholders to act with us, because they have a common interest with us in the matter. 101. Suppose the labour party were to put in a Government which would give effect to their wishes, where would the strength of the farmers be ? —lf it ever comes to a contest I am with the farmers in the matter. But it would never come to that because there is too much common-sense among the representatives of the people. James Summerfield examined. 102. The Chairman.'] Do you hold land ?—Yes, I hold 1,100 acres under lease in perpetuity at Maungamangero. 103. Do you reside on the land, and have you made improvements on it ?—Yes. 104. You have heard what has been said by the previous witnesses ?—I heard only the latter part of Mr. Porter's evidence. I think that we settlers should be given the right of purchase considering the hardships we have to put up with in the way of roads. I think the roads should be pushed on faster than they are. When, we took up the land it was stated plainly that we would only have twentyone miles to Te Kuiti by the main road. In point of fact we are about twenty-seven miles from Te Kuiti. My section is the first in the block that was taken up, and the road has just got passed my lot and has not yet gone beyond the second section. The settlers further back have no roads at all, and they are mostly men with families. One man four miles back from me has a wife and six children, and his wife has to stop out there for the mud in the road is up to the saddle-girths. 105. You think this is greatly against the settlers ; that it retards settlement ? —Decidedly. 106. You think the Government should use more expedition in pushing through the road when a district is first settled ? —I do.
a-4.
966
|.T. STJMMERFIELD.
107. Are there many lease-in-perpetuity settlers in your district ?—Yes. 108. Do you know the minds of the people there ? —They are unanimous that they should have the option. 109. Did you hear the evidence of the last witness ? —He is not in our block. He and his neighbours must be greatly favoured in comparison with us. Possibly they come under the Bush and Swamp Settlements Act, which gives exemption for four years. That is the kind of district that gets roads, and we who are paying rent get hardly any roads. 110. Have you taken any notice of the administration of the Land Board ? —I am satisfied with the Land Board. 111. Do you think it would be an advantage to the district if the number of members of the Board were increased and a member appointed from your district who has knowledge of the requirements of the settlers ? —I have never thought about it. In fact, the Land Board seems to give general satisfaction and I would leave it as it is. 112. Then do you not approve of having representatives of the districts ?—I suppose it would be an advantage to have a man who would represent us on the Board. 113. Have you had experience of the advances to settlers system ?—Yes, and it has been satisfactory. 114. Mr. Forbes.] What do you pay for your land ? —About Bd. an acre. 115. Have you much of it cleared ?—Over 200 acres. 116. What does it cost you to clear and grass the land ? —From £2 to £2 10s. an acre according to the price of the seed and the heaviness of the bush. 117. Are you successful in getting burns I—Fairly so. 118. When you got the bush felled and the land grassed, what stock will it carry : how many sheep to the acre ?—The country is rather new for sheep, but if it takes a good sole of grass about 100 acres of it will carry about forty head of cattle, taking the young and the old together. 119. How are you off for roads ?—Fairly well. There is a 6 ft. track and we can drive on it in the summer time, but from May to December you cannot get heavy traffic along it. 120. Are most of the people residing on the land ? —All except one, and he lives in Christchurch and has exemption from residence for four years. 121. Do the Rangers cause you any trouble ? —No. Of course, we have had our improvements done beyond the requirements of the Act and they do not harass us in any way. 122. It has been complained that the Advances to Settlers Office do not make advances in reasonable proportion to the value of the improvements ?—I believe that too. They gave me about one-seventh of the value of my improvements. 123. You think you are entitled to more I—l1 —I think any one going out there is entitled to half the value of his improvements. They are substantial improvements, such as grassing and buildings. 124. It has been suggested that advances should be made up to three-fifths of the value of the improvements. Would it be safe if provision were made that, say, two-thirds of the money advanced should be used in making further improvements : would that be a help to the settlers ?—I am sure it would. 125. Mr. McLennan.] Is there anything in your lease to prevent you from putting improvements on the property equal to those who had the option of purchase ?—I do not think so ; but when you hear agitations in Parliament every year for having the land revalued it makes you anxious. 126. But even if there were revaluation that valuation belongs to you ?—Yes ; but why should we slave for twenty years and then have our properties revalued and have to pay higher rents for our improvements ? 127. As a reasonable man do you think that any Government would bring in a Bill to revalue the present leases ?—I do not think the heads of the Government would, but what is to prevent a lot of members bringing forward a private Bill and getting it passed. . 128. Would the public at large permit such things to be done ? —I do not think they will in the future. 129. Do you think the Farmers' Union has as much to do with this agitation and unrest as the trades-unions ? —I have had no dealings with the Farmers' Union. 130. The Chairman.'] Your only reason for anticipating the revaluation is the agitation raised in the city ?—That is the main reason, and you generally notice that before anything is done in such matters there is an agitation about it. 131. But you have heard nothing outside that agitation which has caused you to expect revaluation ?—Nothing. 132. Would any country tolerate its Legislature repudiating the titles to land ? —One would not think so, but if the Government get what is called " hard up " and want to raise more revenue they might put a bigger rent on you. There is no telling what they might do if they got hard up. 133. Would it not have the same force if the agitators asked to have the freehold broken up as to have leaseholders' titles interfered with ? Is not a title given for 999 years as sacred as one given without limit ?—lt is as far as we are concerned, but while the land belongs to the State they are more apt to tamper with their own land than with other people's titles. 134. It will only belong to the State at the end of 999 years or on forfeiture ?—Yes ; but the State is our landlord and not the freeholder's landlord. The freeholder holds his own title but the State keeps ours. 135. Mr. McLennan.] Are you aware that the freeholders as well as the leaseholders are paying taxes—that the machinery for taxation is provided already ? —Yes. 136. Then is it not far easier for the Government to put on two or three more screws than to break the agreement ?—I do not know. When the freeholder gets extra taxation we leaseholders will be taxed too. When they put the screw on the freeholder they will put it on us too.
D. MURDOCH.]
967
C.—4.
David Murdoch examined. 137. The Chairman.] Aie you a landholder ? —Yes; I have 712 acres in the Maungamangero Block--1 am one of those appointed to speak on behalf of the Settlers' Progressive Association. 138. Do you agree with what a previous witness, Mr. Porter, said ? —Yes, I agree with all he said. 139. Is there anything fresh that you wish to bring before the Commission %—I have some personal grievances, though Ido not particularly wish to air them. In the matter of roads Ido not think the Government have kept faith with the settlers. In my own particular case the nearest point on a road that a dray can get along is about 80 chains from my corner. There has been some work put in hand at that particular part, but the work has been abandoned by the contractors, and the track to my place I had to make at my own expense. Then, the bush all along my frontage is still standing there, and although the conditions of my lease force me to make certain improvements, I cannot fence or comply with the conditions because of this standing bush, and I am not allowed to cut down the bush myself because the Road Engineers say that when they are forming roads it is much easier for them to clear away the standing trees than to grub up the stumps. I have written to the Land Board about this bush standing on the road-line, but in their reply they said nothing about it except that the matter was under the Public Works Department. 140. Do you consider the Government are not doing as much towards roading as they should do ? —Yes ; the want of roading is a great hindrance to the progress of the district. 141. Mr. Matheson.] Have you had any business with the Advances to Settlers Office ? —No. 142. Do you think it would be a good thing for the colony as a whole if the right of purchase was given to the Crown tenants ? —I think it would. 143. Why I—Because1 —Because a large number of the present holders would pay land-tax, not that any one particularly wants to pay land-tax. 144. Do you not think it would tend to make the country more prosperous if all settlers were freeholders ? —Yes. 145. Mr. Forbes.'] Is it the wish of the lease-in-perpetuity tenants to pay land-tax ?—No ; but they would rather pay that if they could have the freehold-tenure. 146. When you went into this block you knew the conditions of your lease ? —No ; I had not read the lease at that time. 147. Do you think it businesslike to take up a block of land without knowing the conditions ?—lt is not very sound business, but in any case there was no option. I have been an applicant for land for I do not know how many ballots, but I was never fortunate enough to strike a section. 148. How many ballots have you gone in for ? —I cannot remember the exact number, but ever since I was eighteen years of age I have been applying for land at different times. But for eight years of that time I had a place of my own. A man holding a lease-in-perpetuity lease in this block is in a different position from a man holding the same sort of lease under the Land for Settlements Act in another part of the colony. The conditions are slightly different. I think the climate is more moist than in other places and the nature of the soil is different. It does not come into grass as quickly. 149. You think as a compensation a settler going into the back country and undergoing these hardships should receive some consideration ? —Yes ; I think he should be given the option of getting the freehold. 150. But having taken it up with your eyes open you are not saying the Government should not keep to the terms of the lease ? —No ; I have no objection to raise on that score. Of course, I would like to better my position, but I do not say I have been treated unfairly in any way. 151. You think it would be an act of grace on the part of the Government to give you this as compensation for having gone into the back blocks ?—Yes. 152. Do you think that it would be of more advantage to you to get roads rather than to get the freehold ? —Probably it would. 153. Mr. McLennan.] Is there anything in connection with your lease to prevent you from making improvements on your property as other people do ? —I do not think so. Possibly a tenant might not feel so disposed to improve as a freehold settler, but it has made no difference in my case. 154. The Chairman.] Do you consider the rental charged on lease in perpetuity is reasonable ?— Yes. 155. Do you think the wish for the freehold is partly sentimental ?—Yes, partly. Daniel Mackenzie examined. 156. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder ?—Yes, I have 660 acres in the Maungamangero district. 157. Do you reside on it ?—Yes, and the place is partly improved. 158. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?—Yes, up to the present. It is lease in perpetuity. 159. You have heard what the previous witnesses, Messrs. Porter and Murdoch, have said. Do you concur in that ? —Yes. 160. Have you anything you wish to bring before the Commission yourself ? —With regard to the Advances to Settlers Office, although I have had no dealings with it as yet, I do not see why a settler should not get an advance on the full value of his improvements on a bush section. Ido not think a half is sufficient. 161. You think if a certain portion of the advance is to go into permanent improvements on the section you should get equal to the full amount of the present improvements ?—Yes. 162. Mr. Matheson.] Suppose a man takes up 500 acres and fells bush or does other improvements costing £500, do you think the advance should be up to £500 ? —I certainly think so. 163. Do you think if he spends half of it in further improvements he should get it ? —Yes.
a—4.
968
I'D. MACKENZIE.
164. That would leave him with £250 to do what he liked with ? —Yes. 165. Do you not think there would be a great danger that some men when they got the advance would put it into their pockets and clear ?—No, because he would be sacrificing half of his improvements if he went ofE. 166. Do you not think it would be better if the State withheld one-half the advance and only paid the money out when they saw the additional work was done ? —Yes, perhaps it would. 167. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think the residential conditions on this land press hardly upon the settlers? —In some localities I know some of the settlers would not have taken up sections if they had known there were no schools. There are men whose children have to go without education, and it is a bad look-out for the State if they allow the rising generation to go without education. 168. Has there been any case where the Land Board has been hard on the settlers with regard to residence ? —I do not think so, and I think residence conditions should be strictly enforced when facilities have been provided in the way of schools and roads. 169. You think residential conditions should not be enforced until proper communication is afforded the settlers ? —That is my opinion. 170. The fact of having neighbours in these back blocks is of very great value ? —Yes. 171. Mr. McLennan.'] Do you cultivate any of your land ?—I do as much as can be done in this country, but you cannot grow crops when you have stumps all over the place. I have grassed over 150 acres of it. 172. What grasses ?—Just the ordinary English grasses, such as. cocksfoot, clover, rye. 173. Does ryegrass grow well here ? —lt starts well enough, but I do not know how it is going to hold. Jeremiah Ormsby examined. 174. The Chairman.] Do you hold land in this locality ?—I do not hold any Crown lands but I have different areas of Native land. I could not tell you the exact area at the present moment. 175. You wish to bring some matter before the Commission ?—I should like to speak on the question of Native-land tenures if it is within the scope of the Commission. There seems to be a prevalent idea among Europeans that there should be free trade in Native land. lam not at all a believer in that, and the Natives in this district are totally against it. We think all dealings with Native land should be under certain restrictions. The present method of dealing with Native land is exceedingly bad both for Natives and Europeans, and T am surprised that other witnesses who have given evidence to-day have not mentioned the hardships that it entails on European settlers if Native lands are not contributing anything to the rate revenue of the district. I hope the Commission will look into this matter as it affects a large portion of the North Island. We are at present debarred from either leasing or selling land except by permission of the Government, and that permission is very hard to obtain as it entails a great deal of expense and there are very few who are able to bear it. We had a meeting here some time ago and the question of whether these restrictions should be removed or not was thoroughly gone into, and the opinion of the meeting was that j>apakaingas or rather reserves should be made for the Natives, and that any surplus lands should be administered by the Native Land Council. The owners it was considered should not be allowed to do as they liked with these surplus lands, but it should be under supervision. We have had free trade in Native land in the past, and the carryingson of that time Ido not think should be allowed to take place again. lam convinced that 75 per cent, of the Maoris at present are incapable of dealing with their lands. But we are anxious that those lands should be dealt with, because as settlement proceeds it is very hard that so much of the land should be lying idle and contributing nothing to the rates. But then it is unfair to rate Native lands until there is some reasonable opportunity given them to dispose of their lands so that they may pay rates, and to ask Maoris at the present time to pay rates is like asking a man to fight with his hands tied. We are satisfied that if the Council constituted under the Native Lands Administration Act were given full power to deal with this matter it could be settled satisfactorily. One great trouble at the present time is the fixing of the titles, and it is almost beyond the power of Natives to get their titles settled without some assistance from the colony. The settlement of the Native land is practically demanded by the colony, and I do not think the expense of ascertaining the titles should be saddled altogether on the Natives. Now, take as an example a small block of land of, say, 400 or 500 acres, when the owner gets his title to it and pays the survey fees it costs a good deal of money, perhaps running into £40 or £50, and in the past the Government have been buying land for from 10s. downwards. Well, even if they have to sell a lot of this land to pay for expenses it is a big slice off the land after the titles are investigated. You will see, therefore, it is a very heavy cost for the Maoris to have to pay. To remedy this the first thing I think would be for the country to pay for the fixing of reserves for the Natives, and then I think the balance of the land should be handed over to the Native Land Council to administer under the Native Lands Administration Act, if that Act is amended. The great reason why the Act now is unpopular with the Natives is that in the first place the Natives are asked to hand over land to the Council, and there is no limit set to the time the Council may hold it. This very township furnishes an example in point. We have handed this township over to the Council, and the Council can practically do as they like with it. There is no limit set to the time they can hold it, and that is very unsatisfactory. The amount the Council may deduct for expenses is unlimited, and of course people do not care to hand land over to the Council under those circumstances. Another thing that could be greatly improved is in the matter of Natives exchanging with one another. A Native may hold interests in twenty or thirty blocks of land, and to make an exchange it may cost him anything from £5 upwards. The fact of his holding small interests in different blocks presents great difficulties, and expense is the great bar to exchanging. If exchange were facilitated, and if they were allowed to sell even in some cases and buy other land so that it would consolidate their interests, it would be a great improvement.
J. ORMSBY. :
969
C—4.
176. Do you think the present machinery for dealing with Native land is too cumbersome, too expensive, and too tedious in its operations ?—Yes. 177. Do you think the Natives as a whole would like to have their lands dealt with in a fair way, provided there was not too much eaten up in expenses ? —Yes, they are very anxious to have them dealt with. 178. Of course with reservations for their own use made inalienable ?—That is so. 179. Mr. Matheson.~\ How many Maoris were present at the meeting you spoke of ?—There might have been about three hundred. 180. What size do you think the reserves should be that the Council should make for Natives ? Five acres might be sufficient for some Natives, while 200 or 300 acres would not be sufficient for others. It should be left to the Council to supervise. 181. Would you judge of the size by their heritage or their fitness for working the land ?—I should say by their ability to work the land. For instance, in the case of an old man land would be of no use to him. Sufficient to put a whare on would be enough for him ; the rest might be disposed of and the money invested for his benefit. 182. Suppose there were two able-bodied men, would you give them an equal acreage ? —I think so. 183. Might you not then be in this difficulty: that one might be hardworking and the other lazy ? —If there was a Council to inquire into these things and they made a mistake it could not be helped, but there certainly should be some person or body to supervise. 184. If the colony recognise the need of sharing the expense of ascertaining titles, what proportion of expense do you think the colons should bear ?—I should like it to be about 75 per cent. 185. Do you think there ought to be any means taken to recoup the colony in the future out of the revenues derived from these lands ? —That might be arranged but I think the colony ought to bear the greater part of the expense. This matter is being forced on the Natives by the demands of settlement and civilisation, and it would not be fair that everything they have should be eaten up in expenses. 186. You agree, I think, that it would be a great benefit to the Natives it some better use was made of this land, and if the Crown assists him in that direction is it not reasonable that there should be a sinking fund to pay back these costs in time, even it if takes fifty years to do it ?—I think something should be paid by the Natives, but the greater portion should be paid by the Government. 187. Do you think the Council's power should be increased so that it would not be necessary to submit matters to Cabinet for approval ?—Yes. 188. Mr. Forbes.\ You say the Natives do not believe in free trade in Native land. Under what system would you settle the lands if they were offered to the public ? Would you lease with the right of purchase or lease for a number of years ?—You will understand there are some Natives with very little land, and others with a large quantity. I should say after fixing a certain amount and making it inalienable, the surplus land they should be allowed to sell or lease under the supervision of the Council. 189. Mr. McCardle.] Is it not a fact that a large portion of country around here could be settled if the Natives had the power to deal with it through the Council ? —Yes. 190. The difficulty I suppose is owing to long delays, principally on the part of the head of the Native Department at Wellington ? —Yes, it takes a good deal of time to get the approval of the Native Land Council, and then the Government may take six months considering whether they shall agree or refuse to sanction the transaction. 191. Do you think before the Native Land Council approves of a lease a valuation of the land should be made and the Council should decide how much of that land should be contained in one lease ? I do not approve of any one taking up too much land. 192. Should not the Council have power to say before a block of 2,000 acres is parted with whether the -land should not be more profitably occupied in areas of 200 or 300 acres ?—I think the Council should certainly use discretion in that respect. I would not approve of the Council granting a lease over a large block of land, or selling a large block of land where smaller areas would be more beneficial to the district. 193. The Chairman.] You consider it would be unwise to allow free trade in Native land on the ground that it would lead to land speculation and other evils ?—Well, the principal reason for my objection is that very few Natives would have any land at all if free trade were permitted. They would lose it all within a year or two, and then it is unsatisfactory to have private people dealing with these lands before the titles are settled. James Rehill Daly examined. 194. The Chairman.'] Are you a landholder? — Yes, I have 885 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Maungamangero Survey District. 195. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?—I believe the occupation with right of purchase is better. 196. You have heard the several previous witnesses who have favoured the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure to-day. Do you agree with what they have said ? —They have voiced my opinion pretty well. 197. Mr. McCardle.] Do you know whether the Roads Department is spending money fairly and equally amongst the settlers ?—I do not know how it is being spent, but I know the old people will be dead and the young ones will be old before we have roads. 198. Do you not think that the older settlers should have the first consideration in the expenditure of money on roads ?—I dare say.
122—C. 4.
[j. R. DALY.
C—4.
970
199. We have had evidence to-day that a settler who has been for five years on his section is a long distance from a road, while there is a large amount of road-work going on around the settlement that has been in existence only fifteen months ?—I know that to be a fact, and I cannot make it out. I am at present ten miles from a cart-road or track, and we have had to cut our own back-track. 200. Have you had any experience of the Land Board ? —No, but I am satisfied with the present Land Board. 201. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Department 1— Not personally, but those who have had are not satisfied. 202. Mr. Forbes.] How did you come to take up a lease-in-perpetuity section if you are not satisfied w ith it ? When I came I was satisfied, but I find it is not nearly as saleable as land over which there is the right of purchase. I believe the lease is secure enough, but I know that money can be raised on an occupation with-right-of-purchase section much easier. 203. Why is this lease in perpetuity not so saleable % —Because money cannot be raised upon it. 204. Will the money-lenders lend on an occupation-with-right-of-purchase section? — Yes, because they can buy and make it a freehold. 205. But they cannot buy until after ten years of residence ? —I do not know the length of time. 206. The Chairman.'] Do you think it reasonable that the question of facilities for selling the land by settlers should be taken into consideration when the lands are being loaded for bond fide settlement ? I think so. I think people should be able to get their money out of it whenever they want to. 207. Does that not look like speculation ?—No. People may simply want to get back their money.
Ongarue, Tuesday, 6th June, 1905. Walter Keith Williams examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler. I hold a Maori lease in the Ohura district of between 3,000 and 4,000 acres. I have large improvements on it in the shape of grass, fencing, and stock. 2. Is there anything special that you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I would like to state that our roads are in a very deplorable state, and that on account of this many settlers at Ohura have been unable to come here to-day, and they have asked me and Messrs. Hunt and Hyde to represent their views. 3. Is the state of the roads due to the fault of the Government or the local body ? —So far as the local bodies are concerned, we would like to be cut off from the Clifton County. We are at the extreme end of the Clifton County, and the Council get our rates and " thirds," and they do nothing for us with the money. It is the wish of the settlers at Ohura to become separated. So far as the Government and their administration of the Land Acts are concerned, I think we are generally satisfied. 4. Mr. Forbes.] Who are the people you represent ? —The three of us have been asked by a great number of settlers in the Ohura and Aria Survey Districts to represent them. 5. Under what tenure are they holding the land ? —At present under lease in perpetuity and improved-farm settlements, besides a few Maori leases. 6. Are these special-settlement settlers satisfied with their tenure and conditions 'Under the present circumstances they seem satisfied, but most of them would like to have the option of acquiring the freehold if they could do so in the future. 7. Are they making any headway at all ? —Yes, they are all working dilligently on their sections. They are felling the bush and grassing the land, but they are not getting any returns yet. 8. Are the roads the great trouble ?—Some have no roads at all. They have to pack and carry their food and materials through the bush.. 9. How do they keep going ?—The Government assist them by paying them for their bushfelling and supplying them with grass-seed, and allowing them so-much for building houses. That is helping them along. 10. Do you think there is a good prospect of success before them ?—The soil right through is supposed to be the best in New Zealand, and the people have very great heart. All they want is roads. 11. Are any roads being formed in the vicinity ? —Yes, the roads are being made, but very slowly We are unfortunate in being on the border-line between Auckland and Taranaki, and in Taranaki they seem to be pushing the work ahead quicker than in the Auckland Province. 12. Mr. Matheson.] Are they doing the road-work by co-operative labour or contract ? —By cooperative contracts. 13. Are the men satisfied ?—I think so. It lies with the Engineer whether the work is satisfactory. 14. Do they pick their own men ?—Yes ;it is really a system of small contracts, only the work is done on the co-operative principle, which has proved very satisfactory to all connected with it. The price is fixed before the work is taken up. 15. Have you had any business with the Advances to Settlers Office ? —Not personally. 16. What is the feeling with regard to tenure ? —I think I may safely say that 80 to 90 per cent, are in favour of the option of purchase. 17. How do you look at it as an outsider. Do you think it would be good for the colony if the option of purchase was given to them ?—Personally, I think it would be. They would become more attached to the soil, and they would become free British subjects, and they would be more satisfied in every respect. 18. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think the roadwork could be done better by the County Council ot by the Government ? —That is a question I have not considered.
W. K. WILLIAMS.]
971
C.-4.
19. Did the tenant under lease in perpetuity have the option of taking the land up under occupation with right of purchase ? —They did not. They had to take it up under lease in perpetuity or leave it alone. They feel very keenly about it because the adjacent blocks were let under the optional system. They ask for the same privilege. They do not wish to restrict any one who desires to do so from taking up land under lease in perpetuity. 20. Are they putting good improvements on their properties ?—Yes, considering the distance they are back they are doing very well. 21. Would they do more improvements if they had facilities in the way of roads and bridges ?— It would give them greater heart, and they would be able to do their improvements cheaper. 22. Do you think if they had roads to take their stock in and out from their holdings that they would be so anxious to obtain the option of purchase ? —I think the majority rather prefer to have the option later on when they could afford to buy the freehold. 23. How long have they been on the land ?—The first block was opened from two and a half to three years ago, and others have been thrown open since. 21. Mr. McCardle.] Are you satisfied with the operations of the Land Board ?—Yes. We are under the Taranaki Land Board, and they have dealt very fairly with the settlers, but I think it is only fair to the settlers, as all their interests are at stake, that they should elect at least two out of the four members of the Board. 25. The Chairman.] Is the Ohura land the very good land it gets credit for ? —My opinion is the soil is real good. Thomas Devere Hunt examined. 26. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a settler. I hold 470 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Ohura Land District. 27. You have heard the evidence of the previous witness. Do you agree with the opinions he expressed ?—Yes. 28. Is there anything fresh that you can lay before the Commission ?—I think that Mr. Williams has touched on all the points the settlers agreed upon. I was asked to form one of the deputation. The settlers had a meeting and discussed the matters in general, and I think Mr. Williams has expressed their views pretty clearly. I have nothing more to add. 29. Mr. Forbes.'] Were there many present at the meeting ? —Yes, a good number. All who spoke to us were in favour of the option of purchase. The settlers feel very sore at having been debarred from taking up the land at Ohura under the option system when other lands in the vicinity were thrown open under the optional system. 30. If all the land was under lease in perpetuity, would they have the same feeling I—Perhaps1—Perhaps if the whole country was under that tenure it would alter matters. These lands are principally bush lands, and the settlers have been there about three years. 31. Have you got a school ?—No, but I believe tenders were called for a school at the last Board of Education meeting. 32. Are any of the settlers earning a living off their sections ? —They principally depend on outside work such as road work and Government work. The Government are making roads slowly, and the settlers get first chance. The roads are very bad, and I may mention that last week the settlers had to form a working-bee to make the road passable at one or two points. 33. How long do you think it will be before your roads are finished at the rate they are going now ? Not for a very long time indeed. All that land has been loaded for roads, and very little money has been expended. This place is our outlet, and I live about nineteen miles away. The road is all formed, but owing to the heavy nature of the land and low-lying flats, the road becomes impassable after heavy rains. There is no local body. The Government Engineer for the county is the sole man in charge. The settlers have been so busy getting their improvements done that they have not given the question of local Government the attention they should have done. However, I suppose in the future we will look more closely after these matters. We are paying rates to the Clifton County Council for the Ohura main road. 34. Mr. Matheson.] Has your experience of the Land Board been satisfactory ? —Yes. 35. Have you had any business with the Advances to Settlers Office ? —No. 36. Do you think it would be a good thing for the colony if all the Crown tenants were granted the right of the freehold, or do you think it would be better if every one was a Crown tenant ?—I think we could get a more independent peasantry it the people had the freehold or the right to acquire it. 37. Is most of this roadwork being done out of Government grants Yes. 38. Do you think it would go much further if it were spent at the right time of the year ?—I am sure of it. 39. How is it that it is spent at such a foolish time ? —I cannot understand, unless it is that the money is only available about the beginning of winter. If the grants were available in the spring or summer it would result in pounds being saved. 40. Mr. McLennan.] Are the Crown tenants putting improvements on their holdings ?—Yes. 41. Does the lease-in-perpetuity tenure prevent you from improving your holding I—No.1 —No. 42. You have no fear that eventually the Act may be amended to revalue your property ? —Yes, I have that fear. 43. Is it that fear that is causing unrest among the Crown tenants ?—-It helps a good deal. And when a man has a freehold he is free from restrictions, and his place is his own, and he can do what he likes with it. He could will it to his children, whereas now it cannot be willed without the sanction of the Land Board.
a—4.
972
| T. D. HUNT.
44. And if he wants to sell it, will it be easier to dispose of as a freehold ?—Yes, and if the settlers want to start an indutsry such as a creamery or cheese-factory, they will have better security. We have no security at present, because money-lenders will not look at the lease-in-perpetuity sections. 45. For what reason ? —Because if anything happens to the man holding the section, the next tenant who comes in is not responsible in any way. The money-lender cannot touch the land, and he does not like to advance money on the security of improvements. 46. They will not advance money on improvements ?—Not in cases like that. 47. You have not tried it ?—No. Of course I am not referring to the Government, but to the private money-lender. 48. Do you think there is any chance of a revaluation Bill being introduced ?—lf the present Government keep in office they will fulfill their agreement, but we do not know what another Government might do. 49. Do you think any Government would break an agreement entered into between the Crown and tenants ?—They will be lead by public opinion. 50. Do you think the public will ever favour breaking an agreement entered into between the Crown and tenants ?—No ; but so long as both parties are agreeable, I do not see why the freehold should not be granted. 51. Have you a Farmers' Union ?—No. 52. Mr. McCardle.\ I suppose you are aware that there is an agitation going on now, and that the programme put forth by the leaders of the labour party in the cities is to allow your lease to run on until you die and then revalue your holding, and force your widow and heirs to pay an increased rentalvalue on the land, or if you find it necessary to sell your interest to charge the incoming tenant a rack-rent ? —Yes ; I see that is the proposal. 53. Ts that not enough to make the Crown tenants feel dissatisfied with the leasehold and anxious to be placed on the same footing as the freehold settlers or those under occupation with right of purchase ? —Certainly. 54. Would many have taken up land under lease in perpetuity if these blocks had been thrown open under the optional system ? —I can safely say that 80 per cent, are willing to pay the 5 per cent, to get the right of purchase. 55. If the settlers in this district had the right to acquire the freehold, would they be prepared to pay the 1 per cent, that is being lost to the State during the time they have been in occupation under lease in perpetuity ? —Most certainly. 56. The Chairman.'] Do you think any attention should be paid to the agitation carried on by a section of the people in the town who want the Government to break down titles given to land ? — Certainly. This is a free country, and everybody has a right to express his opinion. 57. Do you think any Government would attach any importance to such opinions ?—Well, considering these town people are not nearly as interested in the question as the settlers, I think the settlers' opinions should have most weight. 58. Do you think any Government would be justified in doing such an outrageous thing as to break down a title legally given to land ?—Not unless both parties were agreeable. Alfbed Hamond Hyde examined. 59. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a sawmiller in the Ohura district, and I hold 297 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have felled and grassed a good part of it. 60. Do you consider that a good tenure ? —I would much prefer the right of purchase. lam quite prepared to pay the additional 1 per cent, for the option of purchase. I may say that lam one of those asked to form a deputation to the Commission. 61. Do you agree with what has already been said ? —Yes. 62. Is there anything fresh you can bring forward ?—We think we should get more money spent on the roads than is being spent at present. We had to form a working-bee the other day to make out road passable. We have no local body, but we intend to hold a meeting to see if something cannot be done to form one. 63. Mr. Forbes.] Why are you dissatisfied with the lease in perpetuity ?—Well, we are endeavouring to start butter-factories and creameries, and it seems that the companies are not very favourable to advancing money unless they have some better security. If we had the right of purchase we consider we would have more security than we have under lease in perpetuity. Then we have a great deal of trouble if we wish to sell out. We have to get the sanction of the Land Board. I may say I have had no personal experience of that yet. 64. Have you ever known a case where the Land Board has refused a transfer ? —No ; but they can do so. 65. But you have not got anything to complain of about the administration of the Land Board ? — No. I believe they have treated the settlers fairly. It is the opinion of some of the Crown tenants that they should be represented on the Land Board, but that wish has not been brought about by any unfair treatment on the part of the Land Board. 66. Mr. Matheson.] Have you considered the wisdom of raising loans under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act to form your own roads ?—We have thought the matter over. 67. Were the settlers to do so do you think the Crown would be doing a wise thing to grant them a subsidy of £1 for £1 on money so raised ?—Well, I think, personally, it would be better to let the Government make the roads first and let the local bodies take them over and maintain them. 68. If it is impossible for the Government to make all the roads and the settlers raise the money as I have suggested, do you think it would be wise for the Government to give them a subsidy of £1 for £1 ? —I think so.
A. H. HYDE.]
973
C—4.
69. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you not think, in view of the fact that the Government are really committed to make the roads for the settlers, that if the settlers raise a loan themselves the Government should go further than £1 for £1, and give £2 for every £1 so raised by a district such as yours ? —lt is a question we have not gone into, but we require a lot of money in a new district like ours. Our roads are somewhat difficult to make. 70. Would the settlers be able to pay a rate equal to the rent they are paying on the land at the present time ? —That would make a very high rental, and it would take some of us all our time to P a^71. Do the settlers in asking for the freehold consider it will be in the interests of the colony for the Government to grant it ? —Yes. They fail to see where the colony would lose, and if they paid up the £1 deducted under lease in perpetuity there would be a financial gain to the colony. 72. The Chairman.] Under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act a good many districts have got money at a very low rate of interest ?—Yes. 73. When the Government have done all, if they ever do, they are supposed to do in the way of roadmaking in your district do you not think it would be a good plan for the county to go in for a loan from the Government at a low rate of interest, with a sinking fund attached and push on with the roads ? —Yes, I think it would be. 73a. Do you think the Government should do their part before the Council takes the roads over ? —I certainly think so. Charles James Ryan examined. 74. The Chairman.'] Are you a landholder ?—I hold 300 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Ohura Valley. 75. Do you agree in general with what the previous witnesses said ? —As a settler I see nothing wrong with the lease in perpetuity ; lam quite satisfied with it. I think it would be bad business, even if I had the cash in hand, to buy the freehold to-morrow. It would be to my advantage to hold the money and use it in other ways. 76. Is there any other matter upon which you wish to speak ? —The question in which I am most interested is that of the work on the main road. The expenditure of the money seems to be always left to a very bad time of the year. Instead of starting in the summer time they leave the work to be done towards the end of the season, and the money is almost thrown away. Ido not quite know who to blame in the matter, but I believe that the Roads Department state they do not get the money to spend at the proper time. 77. Should not the money be voted in such a way that it would be obtainable at the proper time of the year ?—That is my grievance against the Government. I think they are very lax in the matter. 78. Should not the money be voted at such a time that it will reach the local bodies in the spring or the early summer ?—Certainly. lam speaking, however, of the main road. There is a considerable amount being spent on the branch roads all the time. It is the money spent on the main road that is mostly wasted. 79. If the rules of Parliament prevent the money being voted early might it not be guaranteed, so that its expenditure might be anticipated ? —That would be better than the present practice. 80. Mr. Forbes.] Have you any fear of the revaluation of the lease-in-perpetuity holdings ? —A certain section of the public are agitating for it, and I would say that if there is danger of revaluation give a man the option straight away. 81. Do you think it is reasonable to suppose that Parliament or the people of the country would break one of these leases, and insert a revaluation clause ?—We do not know what the people might have to do. When the population increases they might do many things. For instance, under the Land for Settlements Act they can take away a man's freehold after paying for his improvements. When they could do that there is nothing to prevent them from revaluing the leaseholds. 82. Are not all land-tenures subject to the overruling of Parliament ? —Has not Parliament power to bring in legislation affecting either freehold or leasehold ?—lt appears so. 83. Might there not be just the same fear about their touching the freehold as the leasehold ? — They have the authority. 84. If there is any fear about the leasehold ought not the freeholders to feel the same kind of f ear I—J do not know ; because under the lease in perpetuity you are exempt from taxation, whereas the freeholder is paying a tax according as the value of his land increases. The outside section of the public might say that it was a bad bargain to give a lease in perpetuity, and in time they might introduce an Act to increase the rental. 85. Do you not think that the lease-in-perpetuity man ought to pay taxation ?—I think it is feasible that he should do so ; but if he pays taxation you might as well give him the freehold straight away, for there would be no advantage then in the lease in perpetuity. I consider that the lease in perpetuity is a good thing for a man that has it. In twenty years' time, when there are macadamised roads and railways, I reckon that I shall be in a good position. 86. Is not the lease-in-perpetuity man subject to taxation ?—No. 87. The goodwill a man may have is subject to taxation. If your land is worth £1 an acre and is valued for local purposes at £4, you are, after the £500 exemption, liable to taxation ?■ —Then there is not such a great difference —simply £1 or £1 ss. an acre to pay less taxation on. Ido not in that case consider that they should be justly exempted. 88. Mr. Matheson.] You say that lease-in-perpetuity settlers have a good bargain : if some of them want to pay the Government the capital value of the land, does it seem to you that it would be good business on the part of the Government to let them ? —I think it would be better for the State as a whole if all land in the colony were under lease in perpetuity.
a—4
974
[C. J. RVAN.
89. Do you think if they were all State tenants it would be good for the colony ?—Yes. 90. Seeing that your lands are loaded for loans do you consider it is your money that is being wasted by carrying out roadworks at the wrong time of the year ?—Yes, I share with the rest. Our land is loaded to the extent of 10s. to 15s. an acre, and we are paying interest on the money. 91. Mr. McLennan ] Is there anything in the lease in perpetuity to prevent you from putting improvements on your holdings equally with the freeholder ? —No. I reckon that I am as good a farmer under the lease in perpetuity as I would be under a freehold, except that there are difficulties in regard to borrowing. Still, if you were a freeholder and borrowed money, you would be a tenant of such financial institution or some money-lender instead of a tenant of the Crown. 92. Mr. McCardle ] Is not the expenditure of votes solely in the hands of the Engineer of the district ? —Yes. 93. And when Parliament votes money is it not available as soon as the Public Works Department say that they are ready to expend it ?—Yes, but they do not say so. 94. They leave most of the expenditure till the winter sets in ?—Yes, in the case of the main roads. Any alteration there might be in the system of voting grants cannot improve the position unless the Engineer in charge makes a point of expending it while the weather is good. 95. The Chairman.] Is it not positively wrong that works on these roads should be done at the time of the year when they are expensive ?—lt is really bad business. 96. Is it not a wrong that should be remedied by some means ? —Yes ; I cannot understand the authorities at all. 97. Is there any other matter you wish to speak about ?—Only in regard to the Native-land legislation. I think it would be far better if the Maori Council were placed in the position somewhat like that of a Land Board. If a man wishes to acquire a Maori lease it is now a protracted and expensive process. If the Council had the powers of a Land Board the expense and delay would be much reduced. As things are it may cost £20 or £30 and much loss of time, whereas under the Land Board it only takes a week or two. In our district where there is a great area of Native land the present system is a great drawback to the success of the district. John Austin examined. 98. The Chairman.] Are you a settler in this locality ? —Yes; I hold 325 acres at Ohura under lease in perpetuity. 99. Have you improved the land ? —Yes ; I have spent about £500 on it. 100. Do you reside on your holding ? —Yes ; I spend about three nights of the week there. 101. You have heard what the other witnesses have stated : is there anything further you wish to add ? —I quite agree with Messrs. Hunt and Williams in regard to roads and matters of that kind. The only matter I wish to add is that my land is classed as first-class land, whereas it is so hilly that I have not room to build a house on it. 102. But is it first-class soil ?—ln places it is. I have about 125 acres felled and there is about 40 acres that cattle can really graze upon. lam paying for it as first-class land, whereas I really think it is third-class. 103 Mr. Forbes.] Did you not know the state of the ground when you took it up ? —No ; I merely went through a little of it. I applied for two or three more which were rather better, but it fell to my luck to get the rough one. 104. What rent do you pay ? —About £16 a year. 105. Would you like to get the option of purchase of this land ? —Yes. 106. Although it is so broken and bad you would still like to buy it ? —I would sooner buy it than lease it. 107. Would you be able to make a living off it ?—lt would take me all my time, but of course, if I could purchase it I would stand a better chance of selling it. 108. Mr. Matheson.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ?— Yes. 109. And was it satisfactory ? —Yes. 110. The Chairman.] You admit that it is a good policy on the part of the Government to provide land for bond fide settlers and not for speculators ? —The only thing I find fault with is the classing of my land as first-class land. 111. Is it not a pity that you did not inspect the section before taking it up ?—Yes.
Cambridge, Wednesday, 7th June, 1905. John Christie examined. 1. The Chairman.] Do you occupy land ? —Yes ; I and my wife have a section apiece in the Karapiro Estate under lease in perpetuity, making together 79 acres. The land was taken up under the Land for Settlements Act. 2. Was the land improved when you got it ? —Yes ; and it was in English grasses. 3. Have you any particular question to bring forward ?—With Messrs. Swayne and Morgan, I was appointed by a meeting of settlers to wait upon the Commission and impress upon them the necessity of the right of purchase being granted to Crown tenants on their paying the difference between the two terms. In my own case, however, there would be no difference, because Mr. Morgan and I pay 5 per cent, as it is. My land is valued at £7 an acre, and we pay 7s. an acre, so that we pay 5 per cent, already. We think it is necessary to obtain the freehold of our holdings because of the insecurity of the present tenure. It is provided in the regulations that the land may be forfeited
975
C—4.
J. CHRISTIE.
without notice for an infringement of any one of the regulations. Ido not think there is one of the Crown tenants in the colony who is not infringing the regulations. For instance, we are prohibited from selling straw; straw might be taken to include chaff. A farmer cannot farm his land and not sell chaff, so that if the Board were so minded they might jump on us this question at any moment. Our meeting considered that when the option of the freehold is granted the Government ought to be prepared to accept small portions of the purchase-money whenever a man is able to pay them and to reduce the rent proportionately. In regard to the cropping regulations, they do not affect us very much because our land is comparatively poor, and we do not want to take more than three crops running ; but there are other districts in which the conditions come very hard upon the farmers, and we think that they should be relaxed to some extent. 4. Do you mean that as soon as there is a certain proportion of the purchase-money paid off the restrictions upon cropping should be removed ? —I would not say that, but we think that the cropping restrictions should not be too severely enforced. 5. Should they be removed altogether when part of the purchase-money is paid ? —I would not insist on that till it is all paid. 6. Mr. Matheson.] Do you wish to have the right to complete the purchase as time goes on ?—- We think that, after five years' occupation and compliance with the conditions, one ought to have the right of purchase. 7. Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory ?—They have and they have not. For instance, about two years ago I had the misfortune to dislocate my elbow and I got behind with my rent. My holding is too small to employ all my time and Igo out working as a carpenter. The Board sent me notice that if the rent was not paid up my holding would be forfeited. I wrote to the Board explaining matters and asking for a little time, and in reply I received a telegram from the Commissioner of Crown Lands saying that the rent must be paid up—l think it was within two days after the telegram reached me —or the holding would be forfeited. Consequently, I had to obtain an overdraft, and also to sell some of my stock at a sacrifice in order to make the payments, and under the circumstances I think I have a grievance. 8. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Board ? —Yes ; we consider that on the whole the system is very satisfactory and one of the best things the present Government has done. But as to my own experience ; I asked for £100, and, whilst the valuer assessed my improvements at £400, the Board would only advance me £75. 9. Was that £400 over and above everything you had found on the land ?—Yes. 10. Are you well served as regards roads ? —We have no complaint to make as regards the Government. 11. Mr. MoCardle.\ How many are there on the settlement ?—I could not say exactly, but there were over forty at the meeting. 12. Are all the settlers in favour of the freehold ?—There was not a dissenting voice at the meeting, but I believe there are two who do not agree with it. However, they were there and did not object. 13. Are you prepared to offer any further concession to the Government if they give you the freehold ? —I think we ought to be all on the same footing. I rather boggled at the 5 per cent., but I wanted to come to the district and could get no other land at the time. Personally, I would have no objection to paying a little more for the right of purchase, but at the same time I do not see why one should pay more than another. 14. Has the agitation in the towns had anything to do with your desire for the right of purchase ? —Nothing whatever. We look upon these Boards rather with contempt. There is another question that I meant to bring up. We think that the Land Board ought to be partly elective, and that only Crown tenants should have voting-power in the election of the Board. 15. But have not the city people the same interest in the matter, seeing that they are taxpayers ? —The city man's interest is nothing compared with that of the farmer, and we think that the nominated members would be quite enough to represent the city people. 16. Do you not think that the case would be met by increasing the number of members of the Board, and allowing the leaseholders of the district to appoint one of their number who knows their wants ?—Yes ; if the leaseholders had the appointing of the member. 17. You are satisfied with the Advances to Settlers Board and its operations ?—Yes ; although my personal experience was not very satisfactory. 18. Suppose the Government were to remove the restrictions, after you have made substantial improvements, and place you in the same condition as the freeholder, except that you would be paying rent to the Crown : would not that meet your case ?—Our position would not be the same, because we do not know how long that might last; another Government might come in with quite opposite views. 19. Do you use any manure ?—We cannot get along without it. 20. Mr. McLennan.'] When you took up this land could you have purchased another freehold farm of 79 acres %—I had not the capital to do it. 21. Was there any other competitors besides yourself in the ballot %—I did not take up the land until after the ballot. These two sections were left out as being too small. 22. Do you not think it is rather dangerous to meddle with the Act by trying to amend it: might not a clause be put into it that would be detrimental to you ?—I do not think so. Ido not think that a fatherly Government, like the Seddon Government, would do that. 23. Suppose they said " We will conserve to you all your improvements, and will put the property up to auction, and let all others who ask for land compete as well as you " : would you be satisfied with that ?—We would not be at all content with that. 24. Mr. Forbes.] Why are not the lease-in-perpetuity settlers satisfied with their tenure !—Because of its insecurity, and also of the restrictions as to cropping, &c.
C—4
976
[j. CHRISTIE.
25. In what way is the tenure insecure ?—Because the lands might be forfeited at any moment. 26. But it could only be forfeited for infringement of the regulations about cropping ?—That is the case to some extent, but at the same time we would not feel satisfied with anything less than the option of purchase. A man puts much more heart into his work if he can make the place his own. 27. Has any place about here been forfeited ?—I do not know of any, but there has been plenty of threatening. 28. Has that not been on account of non-payment of rent ? —ln many cases they have threatened to forfeit. In my own case I was not six months in arrear, but only five months. After I took up the second section in my wife's name we got notice that she must reside on her section straight away or action would be taken. There was a lot of correspondence, and at last the Board said they would recommend the Minister of Lands to allow her to reside with her husband, and afterwards we were notified that the consent had been obtained. This is the sort of thing that makes one feel rather doubtful about the Land Boards. 29. Do you know of any case in which anything harsh has been done by the Board to Crown tenants ?—I cannot say that I do. 30. When you were pressed for payment of rent, had you fulfilled all the other conditions of your title ? —Very much more than fulfilled them. I was residing on the section and had made over four hundred pounds' worth of improvements. 31. You ask that you should have the option of acquiring the freehold whenever you are in a position to do so ? —We think that a tenant ought to reside on his land for five years and make the improvements required by the Act before being allowed to acquire the freehold. 32. If selectors were allowed to acquire the freehold, would there not be a danger of their selling out to one another, and therefore of the aggregation of large holdings ? —The tendency here is quite the other way. For instance, the Gorton Estate has lately been broken up into small sections. 33. For what class of farming was your settlement established ?—I intended to go in for vinegrowing, but I found that it would take more capital than I could command. We, therefore, have gone in for milking, and I work at my trade as a carpenter. My neighbours also go'in for milking and do a small amount of cropping. 34. Is the land in the district good ?—Not in comparison with the land in the south. 35. How many cows will your 79 acres carry ? —This year we have been milking fifteen, but the grass is pretty well worn out. When we get new grass laid down we could run twenty-five or thirty. 36. Do you think you could make a living on twenty-five cows ? —Not a very satisfactory living for a man with a wife and six children. 37. In case of your getting the freehold would it not be a case of selling out in order to make the holdings larger ? —I do not want to sell out. I want to live there, and go on working as a carpenter. 38. Mr. McCardle.] In a district like this do you not require to make large provision for winter feeding, and in this way is not your pasture very much reduced ? —Yes. Robert Swayne examined. 39. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder ?—Yes, I own 100 acres freehold and hold 264 acres under lease in perpetuity. 40. What particular matter do you wish to bring forward ?—I consider freehold the best form of tenure. All lands disposed of by the Government should be disposed of under the optional system. All tenants under the lease-in-perpetuity form of tenure should have the option of converting their holdings into freehold at any time they thought fit to do so. It would be a good idea were tenants allowed to pay the principal by way of a sinking fund, on the same lines as settlers repay their loans under the Advances to Settlers Act. I object to revaluation. I think sufficient care is not exercised in inspection of improved estates, with the result that the Government pay more than the market value of many of the estates acquired. The Government paid more than the market value of Fencourt at the time. I think it highly improper that Crown Land Rangers should be called as they have been to give evidence. Is it likely they would give evidence to dispose of their services ? I think not; the evidence of public servants should not be accepted. I think if a tenant complied with the residence conditions for five years, he or she should be at liberty to do as they thought fit with their holding. The conditions say ten years ; I consider that too long. Land Boards should be elected by the people (ratepayers); failing this, the Board should be increased to five members, and two of those should be Crown tenants. If one has to raise money from a bank the freehold is a good security, and the lease in perpetuity would not be accepted as sufficient. Settlers should be enabled to borrow, provided they have security to offer. The cropping conditions are not what they should be ; they should not be allowed to sell straw, oaten hay, &c. The following is an abstract of the resolutions passed at our meeting : Mr. Christie moved, " That this meeting, being of opinion that the option of purchasing the freehold is essential to the welfare of the farming community, delegates be appointed to wait on the Commission, and impress on the members thereof the necessity of granting the right of purchase on a leaseholder paying a sum equal to \ per cent, per annum on the original capital value of his holding, dating from time of selection." It was decided to appoint five delegates, and Messrs. Christie, Swayne, Andrews, Morgan, and Lake were selected; that the delegates give evidence before the Commission as to the necessity of having the Land Boards elected instead of nominated by the Government; that the delegates urge on the Commission the desirability of more secure tenure as regards leaseholds. I represent twenty-nine out of the thirty-four settlers on the Fencourt Estate, and this is the authority of myself and Mr. Christie and others for appearing before the Commissioners : " We, the undersigned Crown tenants, would ask the delegates appointed at meeting of Crown tenants or their representatives, held at Mr. Qualtrough's Barn, Fencourt, on the evening of the Bth May last, to give evidence before Lands Commission in
B. SWAYNE.]
977
C.—4.
accordance with resolutions passed at above-named meeting." [Signatures of thirty Crown tenants.] 41. You speak of revaluation : do you mean that there should be no revaluation of existing leases ? —Yes, for we have taken up the land at more than it is worth. 42. There can be no revaluation when the title is fixed for 999 years ? —We have no guarantee of that. It will altogether depend on what class of representatives the Trades and Labour Councils may put into the House. 43. Have you not the same guarantee as the freehold ? —No, the freehold is always a freehold, and you cannot rub it out. Even Parliament cannot do that. 44. If the Legislature could make a leasehold invalid, could they not do the same for the freehold ? —If they go in for land nationalisation, and so put all on an equality, I also would be prepared to go in for that. 45. Mr. Matheson.] Do you, like the previous witness, feel contempt for the agitation of the tradesunions ?—I do. 46. If your valuation is too high, would it not benefit you if the trades-unions suggestion were put into operation ? —I do not think so. 47. Mr. McCardle.~\ Suppose the Government were to remove all restrictions from the property ? —I would still ask for the freehold ; there is no secure tenure but the freehold. 48. Do you think that in asking for that you are asking for anything that would injure the State —On the contrary, it would benefit the State. 49. Mr. McLennan.'] In what way would it benefit the state ? —We should have a better Mass of settlers, and the country would be better worked. 50. Would you be a better farmer if you had a freehold than you are under a leasehold ?—I am farming my place as it should be farmed, for the simple reason that I saw the freehold was coming. 51. Mr. Forbes.] Did the Government spend much money on the property after buying it ? — Very little. They have hindered us in every possible way. In fact we have had to form a Drainage Board to drain the land which really belongs to the Crown. It is true the Government gave subsidies to the extent of £600, but the work has cost £1,000, and we have to pay interest on the difference. 52. Was there any promise in the pamphlet issued in connection with the land to the effect that it would be drained ?—The Board reserved a drain and threatened to prosecute us if we interfered with it, and yet they would not do the work themselves. As the result of the non-formation of the drain, we have been blocked for five years, and 50 acres of the land for which I have been paying has really been swamp. 53. Was it not necessary to reserve the land for the formation of the drain to avoid having to purchase it afterwards ? —Yes, but the Board failed to carry out drainage works. 54. Had your neighbours the same expectation of getting the freehold as you have mentioned in your own case ?—Yes. 55. The Chairman.] Has the Hrain-site you speak of been reserved by the Government as a drainsite ?—Yes. Arnold Blackman examined. 56. The Chairman.'] What area do you hold ? —Two sections in the Fencourt Estate, comprising 126 acres altogether, under lease in perpetuity. 57. Do you reside on your land ?—For the first year I did not, but on account of pressure being brought to bear on me Ido now. I consider it unfair that I should be compelled to reside on my section under a threat of forfeiture, while my next-door neighbour is not compelled to do so. I was living in Cambridge and carrying out all the necessary improvements on the section, and I consider it an injustice that I should be compelled to reside on the section while the last witness is not compelled to do so. 58. Mr. Matheson.] Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Board ?—Yes. 59. And have they been satisfactory ? —Very satisfactory. So much so that I will have more as soon as I can. 60. Mr. McCardle.] You think that optional residence should be granted you as well as to your neighbour ? —Yes, because I have carried out all the other terms of my holding. 61. You believe in the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—I do, because it is a very good one. WalterTCrisp examined. 62. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder % —I hold 50J acres at Fencourt under lease in perpetuity. I have resided on it for more than five years. 63. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I am entirely in favour of the leasehold as I think it is better both for individuals and for the country at large. lam intimately acquainted with the Fencourt Estate. I know every section and most of the tenants, and I say, without the slightest hesitation, that the bulk of the people there could not have got hold of a piece of good land under any other tenure. The Fencourt Settlement contains 7,045 acres, and it occupies an exceptional position —the nearest portion of it is only two miles form the Borough of Cambridge. When it was allotted it was mostly in grass and was subdivided as far as possible to suit the then existing fences. It was roaded, and there was not a section which was not getatable, and the people who took it up were able to make use of the land with scarcely any delay. I saw nothing would have been heard about the freehold if it had not been for the increase in value. Many of the sections on Fencourt have increased in market value by 100 per cent. The section I hold myself increased by from 100 to 150 per cent., and the others range about the same. The upset price of my section was £6 per acre, and I feel sure if it was put on the market next week it would fetch quite double, and probably £15 an acre in exactly the same condition f in whichT got it. I say that the rise in value in the Fencourt Settlement is not due to the exertions of the present tenants, though on the whole they are an? industrious
123—C. 4.
C.—4.
978
]W. CRISP.
class, but the land in the district for miles around has gone up in value during the past five years owing to the influx of people from other provinces, and more especially owing to the success of the dairying operations. I therefore say if it had not been for the fact that the settlers are hoping to get this land at the upset value, nothing would have been heard about the freehold. 64. If the price of produce suddenly went down, might not the land go down also ?—Yes, but f the settlement had not been successful, and if the land had gone down in value, and if it had not been for the success of the dairying many of those sections would have been thrown back on the hands of the Government again. 65. Mr. Matheson.] You believe that the lease in perpetuity is a good thing to enable poor men to get on to a piece of land under the Land for Settlements Act ?—I can only speak with regard to Fencourt. 66. Suppose one of those men labours hard with his family for twenty years and accumulates a few hundred pounds savings, do you think the Crown would be wise to allow him to pay off a portion of the capital value and so reduce his rent ?—No. 67. Do you think it would be doing the colony harm if he were allowed to do so ? —I think it would. I do not believe in private speculation of land at all. 68. You believe that if all the land was in the hands of the State, and every one paid rent to the State, the colony would prosper under it ? —Yes, I believe it would be better than if there was speculation in land. 69. Mr. McCardle.\ You are about the first man we have met who holds that there is a large amount of unearned increment in rural lands, and you are apparently of the same opinion as those in the cities who say that you are holding something which is of too high a value, and that you should therefore be subject to revaluation, so that you would have to pay about twice the rent you are paying ?—The question of revaluation is a matter for future consideration. I think when the tenant makes a bargain with the State or a private individual it should be binding. I have not the slightest fear for my own part that the townspeople are going to alter my agreement with the State. 70. But still you acknowledge you hold more interest in it than you ought to have ? —I consider I have made a good bargain. 7J. Too good to continue ? —I have put on a large amount of improvements. 72. What has increased the value of your lands in this district ? Is it the joint efforts of the settlers, or would the land have gone up in value without their efforts ? —I think it would. 73. Has not the erection of a dairy factory had something to do with the increased value of the land ?—The success of dairying has tended to increase the value. 74. Is that your expenditure ?—I am not a shareholder. It is the expenditure of the community at large. 75. Does not a portion of the increased value belong to those who were instrumental in putting up the dairy factory ? —I consider it belongs to the people of New Zealand. 76. Do you not think it belongs to the people who have increased the price of butter and mutton in the Home country ?—I do not think so. I think the tenants of Fencourt have got a good bargain, and they ought to be satisfied and hold their noise. 77. Mr. McLennan.] We have had evidence before us in several places that tenants on lease-in-perpetuity sections do not make the same amount of improvements as do freeholders ? —On my section, 50J acres, I have up to the present time spent £600. 78. Have your neighbours improved as fully ? —I consider they have put on quite as much. They would, I think, work the land quite as well as any freeholder. 79. Mr. Forbes.] Has the Land Board treated you fairly ? —Yes, I have resided at Fencourt for five years, and I have never heard of a single instance of unfair treatment of any tenant there. 80. With regard to drainage, did the Government form the drain that has been spoken about ?— The drain was formed by a private company. 81. Do you think it is the duty of the Government to keep that drain open for all time ?—Well, there was nothing in the agreement under which the land was taken up that the Government was going to keep the drain open, nor was there anything in the pamphlet about the esta t . 82. It has been stated that some of the settlers went on to the place with the idea that they were going to get the freehold. Did you have that feeling ? —No, I never heard such a thing mooted in the settlement, and I have been in daily intercourse with the tenants. 83. Is there a branch of the Farmers' Union here ? —Yes. 84. With regard to the petition got up by the tenants asking for the freehold, was that got up by the Farmers' Union here ? —The petition presented to the House fifteen months ago was got up by a private individual, and he has worked up almost the whole of the agitation in Fencourt. He has presented a petition to you to-night. He has convened meetings, and has written letters to the papers advocating the granting of the freehold at the upset price. 85. If the freehold was granted to these lands, do you think it reasonable that it should be at the present time or at the original price ?—I think if a law is passed that the freehold is to be granted, the land should be revalued. That would be only fair to the people of New Zealand. If the freehold was granted at the upset price, it would be a gift to me of from £300 to £400, and a corresponding loss to the State. 86. In connection with the Ranger, have you noticed any different treatment on his part to different tenants on the Fencourt Estate ? —No, I have been always treated well myself. I know the case the previous witness was referring to ; it Was a case of residence. I may say that the individual who worked up the agitation held, with his wife, the two very best sections on Fencourt. He has not lived on them, and his improvements are next to nothing. It would mean simply a gift of £1,500 to him if the freehold was given at the upset price.
W. CRISP.]
979
C— 4
87. Have you any experience of the working of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—I fiave not applied for any advance, but, from what I hear, the Department has not given Crown tenants as much as they might have done according to the improvements, but I believe that is to be rectified. 88. It has been proposed to advance up to three-fifths of the improvements ; do you think that reasonable ?—I do not know about other settlements, but so far as Fencourt is concerned, I think it would be perfectly safe. 89. Mr. Matheson.] You say that if the .gentleman who presented the petition to-night was allowed the freehold at the upset price, it would be a present to him of £1,500 ?—Mrs. Swayne holds 49| acres ; the upset price was £6 an acre, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the market value of that to-day is quite £12, and probably £15. 90. Do you think the erection of a dairy factory by the settlers in this district has put as much as £2 an acre on the land ? —I could not say exactly. 91. Suppose we take it at £2, for argument's sake, do you think the State has any right to that advanced value ?—I consider the State has the right to any unearned increment. 92. Do you not think if the settlers have put their hands in their pockets to put up a dairy factory, and by so doing have increased the value of the land by £2 an acre, that they have entirely earned that extra £2 an acre ?—I suppose they have. 93. As to the other £4 of increased value, do you feel that that is due to the general state of prosperity in New Zealand, brought about by good prices chiefly I—l1 —I supopse so. 94. Is the State to be given tlie enhanced value caused in that way ? —I do not see why it should not. 95. Has the State done anything to cause it % —I consider this asking for the freehold is immoral. 96. Mr. McCarcUe.] values went down, do you expect the State to reimburse you or to reduce your rent ? —I think the tenants should stick to their bargain. 97. If it is a bad bargain he has got to stick to it, but if it is a good bargain the State is to get the benefit of it ?—Just so. 98. How much settlement in the colony under such conditions would go on in the black blocks, where the people have to put up with all sorts of privations and hardships ? —I do not know anything about the back blocks. lam speaking about the Fencourt Settlement. 99. You have a good deal you think the State ought to get ? —I do not know about that. William John Andrews examined. 100. The Chairman.'] What are you I—l1 —I am a Crown tenant on Fencourt, holding 157 acres at a rental of 4s. 6d. per acre. 101. You have heard the evidence given by previous witnesses, have you anything further to bring forward ? —I should like to say, with regard to the evidence of Mr. Crisp and Mr. Blackman, that I think they are more or less prejudiced towards Mr. Swayne. Mr. Crisp says that Fencourt was well roaded. I say it is only within the last twelve months that I have been able to get a baker or grocer or butcher to call at my place. I made repeated complaints to the Land Board. 102. Have you a Road Board ?—Yes. The petition which Mr. Swayne handed in represents the feeling not only of the Crown tenants of Fencourt, but Crown tenants generally, because there were representatives from Whitehall, Matamata, and Karapiro Estates, as well at the meeting. Mr. Swayne is blamed as being the prime mover in that petition, but I think there are many of us who can share the blame with them. I spent two days with my own horse going round with it. 103. Are you satisfied with your tenure I—l1 —I am in favour of the occupation with right of purchase, because I consider the freeholder will make the best settler. 1 think the success of an estate depends upon the interest the people have in it, and when times of depression come, the freeholder will work for the future, while the leaseholder will work for what it is worth at present. In Queensland, I have seen many changes of Government. Some Governments were very good to the leaseholders, but others were very severe on them. I would like to point out that there have been other large areas in this district cut up for close settlement. The Gorton and Eureka Blocks, for instance, went ofE as freehold far better than Fencourt or Matamata. These were cut up by the proprietors, and offered under freehold tenure. With regard to Land Boards, lam in favour of electing under the County Council franchise. This would bring the Land Boards and the local bodies into closer relationship, and we should have amicable settlement instead of disputes, and drainage would be carried out more satisfactorily. I have two neighbours who have never cleaned out a drain since I have been there. I have cleaned the whole of my drains every year, but I was served with a notice by the Government that if the annual cleaning was not done within so many days it would be done at my expense. When the Commissioner was down here, I asked him to come and look at my drains, but he said he had not the time. lam not satisfied with the treatment I have received at the hands of the Land Board, because they put me off several times on some red-tape pretext during the last five years. 104. Mr. Matheson.] Do you consider that better access should be given to settlers in bush districts before the settlements close to towns are dealt with ? —I think the Crown should road the estates before cutting them up. 105. Should that apply to the back country as well ?—Certainly. Before throwing a property open for settlement they should give a road to it. 106. Mr. Forbes.] When you put in for the ballot for this lease-in-perpetuity section, were you not satisfied with lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—I got it after the ballot. I wanted a bit of freehold, but I fancied the Fencourt land. 107. Do you not think a bargain is a bargain between two parties ? —Yes, the bargain may last while this Government is in power, but lam convinced the leasehold is very shaky. Another Government coming into power may be compelled to alter the conditions. I have seen it in other British colonies. I think if a better title were given, it would be better both for the State and for the settlers
C—4.
980
[W. J. ANDKEWS.
108. Do you ask that the agreement should be broken by the State ?—I want it to be broken on their side, not on ours. Ido not want the Government to be dictated to by the trades and labour unions. And to neutralise things, I want to give our side of the question. 109. Do you think it fair and reasonable that such a proposal as the violation of a solemn contract should be entertained at all ? —No, Ido not. I think Mr. Crisp is altogether out in this assessment of the present value of the Fencourt property. Ido not think it would realise anything like what he says on the market. 110. Do you think it would bring the value that the Crown gave for it ?—Yes ; but 1 could buy property in and around the neighbourhood at considerably less than the amount stated by Mr. Crisp. 111. Do you think it has increased in value at all ? —Yes. Some of it is due to the settlers working up a dairy factory. I lost several days myself in going round and working up a co-operative dairy factory. 112. Do you think if Fencourt in its original state were cut up to-day it would bring a higher price than it did when it was placed on the market ? —I do not think it would. 113. With regard to these private estates, Eureka and Gorton Estates, were as favourable terms given to the settlers as were given by the Government ? —I do not know any of the settlers that are dissatisfied. They are treated well as long as they comply with the conditions. For my part, lam pleased with my own section at Fencourt, but I would like to get the right of purchase. 114. Would not a man need more money to go on to Gorton or Eureka ?—He might need a little more, but not a great deal. 115. The Chairman.] Do you question the security of the tenure of your lease ?—Yes, I do. 116. Is not the freehold only a bargain between the State and the individual "Yes ; but the freehold is more substantial. 117. Is it not a bargain just as much as the other ? —I think the freehold is the better bargain. George Rose examined. 118. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder ? —Yes ; I hold 58J acres under lease in perpetuity at Fencourt. 119. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?—Yes. 120. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I do not think the regulations for cleaning out drains are strict enough. On my little section I have 27 J chains of main drain. I keep it cleaned out, but my neighbour is allowed to block me up in spite of the Ranger being notified of it several times. There is a clause in the lease which is supposed to protect us in the matter, but it simply means nothing. 121. Do you think the Ranger should enforce the clause for cleaning out the drains ? —Yes. With regard to my section I think it is safer with me under the lease in perpetuity than it would be if I had a freehold. 122. Mr. Forbes.] It has been said that a man holding a lease in perpetuity has not the same heart to farm his land as a man who has the prospect of working on a freehold ?—I feel perfectly secure so far as my tenure goes as long as they do not pull the lease to pieces, but once they give us the option of the freehold the contract is broken. 123. Do you think that if those men around you bought the freehold of their places you would then get the drains cleaned out ? —No. John Fisher examined. 124. The Chairman.'] Are you a landholder ? —Yes, I own 372 acres of freehold land at Pukerimu, where I have resided between thirty-eight and thirty-nine years ; and I am deputed by the Waikato Farmers' Club, Cambridge, to give evidence before this Commission in favour of the freehold tenure of land. I have always been in favour of freehold tenure, and would never have been a settler in Waikato but for the chance of securing a freehold farm. I consider the freehold the best tenure for the individual and the State; a freeholder is likely to be more contented than a leaseholder; contentment will generally cause a person to be more enterprising and industrious, and thus the individual and the State will benefit. While advocating the freehold, I do not object to leasehold, provided the right of purchase is granted, and I have at various times commended the action of the Government in purchasing where necessary large estates for close settlement, but at the same time I have contended that it would be better for the country generally and for the tenants as well, if they had the option of acquiring the freehold. Practically the whole of the large estates in the neighbourhood of Cambridge have been cut up and sold for close settlement. In some instances this has been done by private individuals, who, under certain conditions, give a freehold title; in other cases the Government has purchased the estates, and subdivided and leased them for 999 years. By the latter process many people with limited capital have been enabled to secure, at a reasonable rent, farms of sufficient size and quality to insure to the industrious a comfortable living, and as far as my observation goes these settlements have been eminently successful, but apparently the tenants are not satisfied with existing titles, and I believe nearly every one of them desires to acquire the freehold of their sections. In my opinion it would be wise to grant their request, but I differ from the tenants, and from many others also, as to the terms on which a Crown grant should be given. I consider it is only fair and just that a revaluation should take place, such as would be made between private individuals under similar conditions. It is claimed for the Government that in apportioning the cost of an estate, the rent of each section has been fixed at a rate just sufficient to prevent loss to the State, evidently then the State, besides working for the good of the settlers, has run the risk of some or all of these lands being thrown up through overvalue, bad times, or thriftless tenants, and if on revaluing an increased value is shown, some allowance should be made for this risk. I also think that, where the Government has executed public works on
J. FISHEB.j
981
C—4.
or near such estates after their settlement, the State has the right to the increased values caused by such works. The tenant has agreed to pay rent for 999 years, and, at the end of that time (however remote that may be) the land, together with all improvements, reverts to the State, without compensation, the compounding of these conditions should in all fairness be considered before a Crown grant is issued. On the other hand, I consider that the tenant should have the right to all the increased value effected on his section by his improvements, not only direct, but indirect. By indirect I mean enhanced value caused by the erection of cheese and butter factories, &c., in the neighbourhood, by improved roads made by rates, and for the risk he has run in making the settlement a success. The revaluation should be as between man and man, equitable and just for tenant and landlord, not only where values have increased, but also where sections have been overvalued when let or depreciation is shown to have taken place. It is right to state that while the Farmers' Club was unanimous in respect to granting the option of freehold to the tenant, it was not unanimous about revaluing the sections, and though a majority favoured my ideas, on division, that majority proved to be only one. The homestead system was not considered at the club meeting, but 1 am strongly in favour of it, as it provides an industrious man, whose means might debar him for applying for a leasehold section, an opportunity of making a home for himself and family. Ido not think the State can be too liberal in its land laws. A contented, prosperous, rural population must be good for the community generally, and will amply repay in various ways the assistance that has helped to create it. I consider that in placing settlers on land, even where the right of purchase is given, that the Government has a perfect right to frame regulations that will prevent indiscriminate and ruinous cropping ; but these regulations should be reasonable, and, if possible, framed to apply to each estate separately, and not generally for the whole colony. lam opposed to the grouping system as applied to the Matamata Settlement; to my knowledge, Nos. 6 and 7of the grouping conditions of the directions to applicants for sections in that settlement prevented many persons from applying, and as these persons were all accustomed to farming somewhat similar lands, under practically similar cropping and manure conditions, their non-applications were, to my mind, a loss to the settlement, but probably a gain to those who had courage to apply for a section. I think an applicant should have the right to apply for any lot that takes his fancy, but in the event of his drawing a lot, he should decide at once whether to accept this and withdraw all his other applications, or decline and take his further chance of a draw. 125 As regards this question of drainage at Fencourt, do you think the difficulty would be got over by forming a Drainage Board ? —Yes ; that is the right step. 126. As far as you are aware has the Government done their part ? —They have done something, but I do not know whether they have done enough or not. 127. Do you consider that the right to purchase should be given in the case of estates purchased by the Crown for settlement as well as in the case for ordinary Crown lands ?—I think it should apply to all lands. 128. Do you think when a man goes into the back blocks on to rugged bush country without roads, and by his own industry and that of his neighbours the land increases in value he is entitled to that increase ?—Yes, most decidedly ; I think he has earned it. 129. If the country was left unsettled would it increase in value ? —No ; settlement makes the value. 130. Do you consider that what promotes settlement promotes the welfare of a country as a whole, both town and country ? —Yes. 131. Mr. Matheson.] If a settler wants the right to purchase and the Crown thinks it wise to give it, could it be done by amending the lease, or would you call it a breach of the lease ? —Well, it would mean new conditions. 132. If the State is repaid all its expenses you think it should be secured something still further ? — 1 think the State should be paid something for the risk it has run. 133. Would you limit the advanced price to some additional percentage on the original price ?— It would depend upon circumstances ; whether the increased value that might be on the land had been caused by the tenant or the landlord. 134. Do you think it would be difficult to assess the increased value which had been caused by the tenant directly or indirectly ?—I do not think so. 135. Do you think there are some improvements which are not visible to the eye, but which may enhance the value of an estate very much ?—Yes. 136. Would not the State have great difficulty in giving a man fair value for those invisible improvements ?—That would depend upon the spirit in which the State went into it. 137. Do you think the tenant should be secured if the right to purchase is given by limiting the increased price he would be called upon to pay the State ? Do you think there should be a limit of, say, an additional 10 per cent., or some percentage on the upset price ? —I should think so. 138. Do you think 5 per cent, would cover any risk of loss the State might run ? —I think if all the land was taken up 5 per cent, would cover all the Government risk. 139. Mr. McCardle.'] You have had a long experience in this district ?—Yes, ever since 1866. 140. We have had instances of tremendous increases in values of land and unearned increment in the neighbourhood : has this sort of thing been apparent to you ? —There has been an increase in values in the Waikato during the last few years. 141. How do you account for it ? Is it not on account of the united efforts of the settlers who are using the land to the best advantage ? —Yes, to a very large extent. 142. Do you think if this Fencourt land had remained in one holding the value would have increased by anything like the amounts stated ?—No. 143. Have you any fear that this agitation in the cities for revaluation of existing leases will succeed finally I—lt depends on the number of people agitating I suppose. 144. You think then there is a real danger ?—Combination can do a good deal, but there is the
C—4.
982
<J. FISHER.
danger of the Crown tenants combining and forcing the Government to give them the freehold, that is, if they like to form a union. 145. Do you think if the freehold were granted there would be again the aggregation of large estates ? —There might be a little, but nothing like to the same extent as in the past. 146. Would you be in favour of placing a safeguard against that by so amending the Land Transfer Act as to limit the amount of land that any one man could hold in fee-simple ?—Yes ; because I think a fair-sized farm is best for the individual and best for the community. And if that is done there is no cause for alarm in granting the freehold. 147. Mr. McLennan.] You are aware that there is a certain amount of unrest among the Crown tenants at the present time. Have the Farmers' Union had anything to do with that ? —I do not think the Waikato Branch have had anything to do with it. 148. Have they been advocating the option of the freehold during the last two or three years ? — During the last twelve months they have, but I expect the agitation came from the Crown tenants in the first place. 149. Where I—All1 —All over the colony, I reckon. 150. Did the Crown tenants in the various parts apply to the Farmers' Union for a start with regard to getting the option of the freehold ?— 1 They did in Cambridge here. 151. Mr. Forbes.] In what way do you consider the occupation with right of purchase would be better for the tenant ?—ln the heart of almost every Britisher, I believe, there is the hope of having a piece of land of his own. I believe the great majority of settlers in New Zealand came here for the purpose of getting a piece of freehold. When I left Glasgow as a boy, in 1856, the inducement was a free grant of land, and I came out with my father and took up land under the old Whittaker land regulations. 152. Are there not a great number of Britishers who can never get a freehold ? —That may be. 153. Do you think that the tenants on private estates should have the same right to purchase in their leases I—That1 —That is a matter of bargain, and to my knowledge that kind of thing has taken place at various times. When a tenant has become prosperous and wanted to purchase his place the right has been given him. 154. Why do you think it is necessary to reintroduce the homestead system ?—Many people cannot carry out the conditions of the leasehold, and under the homestead system they can utilise their own labour. 155. Under the homestead system the settlers get a free gift of land ? —Yes. 156. Do you think it is necessary to reintroduce that system in order to settle the lands round here, or would the land be settled by men willing to pay for the land ?— Round here there is no land available. I would not advocate that estates should be purchased in order to settle them under the homestead system. It should only apply to Crown lands. 157. As the remainder of the Crown lands are mostly bush or poor lands, would it not mean disaster to put poor men on them far away from settlement even if they were given a small section for nothing ? —I do not think it is advisable to put poor men on poor land under any circumstances. The homestead system might help a settler very largely on heavy-bush land provided he was allowed to utilise the timber. 158. It has been mentioned that the homestead system might be used as a means of settling the poor lands north of Auckland. Do you think it would be reasonable to apply that system to these lands I—l1 —I have not been north of Auckland for forty years, and from what I saw then I would not advise any poor men to go there on any homestead section. 159. If a man with capital could be induced to take up the heavy-bush land, would he not be more likely to bring it into a state of productiveness than a poor man, even though the latter was granted a section for nothing ?—lf we had homestead settlers amongst men with capital the two could work well together and help each other. 160. Do you know of any land where this system could be applied ?—I have no particular locality in my mind. 161. The Chairman.'] Do you think the real incentive to successful land-settlement is the option of purchase ?—I think it is a good incentive. 162. You have heard a good deal about this agitation in the towns by irresponsible people, who think the community should share in what is called the unearned increment or the increased value given to land by the settlers of the country ? —Yes. 163. You have known of lands going down a great deal in value in the Waikato ?—-Yes. 164. At that time did you know of any agitation in the towns to recoup the settlers the losses they sustained by their lands going down in value ?—No. 165. But they think that when the settlers, after years of toil and labour, improve their lands and make them more valuable they should come in and share the spoil ? —lt seems so. William Chapman Morgan examined. 166. The Chairman.] Do you hold land in the Waikato ?—'Yes. I have 604 acres, of which 110 acres is under lease in perpetuity and the remainder freehold. 167. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring forward ? —I am a Karapiro settler and I attended the meeting at Fencourt, and I am one of the delegates appointed to represent the settlers at this Commission. 168. Have you anything to state that has not been brought forward by previous witnesses ?—You have heard three gentlemen on Fencourt, and I would like to say that two of them were not at that meeting. Out of twenty-nine settlers there were twenty-four who signed that paper, and all at the meeting that night were in favour of the freehold. I consider some of the previous witnesses very
W. C. MORGAN ]
983
C—4.
much overestimated the increased value of Fencourt land, and made other statements about the settlers that were altogether uncalled for. My idea of Fencourt is that it may have increased a matter of £3 to £4 per acre in some cases, but only in exceptional cases. A lot of the land is not worth more than £1 to £1 10s. per acre over and above the £1 original value, apart from improvements, and in some cases with improvements added. As regards the revaluation of properties I fail to see where it comes in, for the simple reason that the settlers in a great many instances have actually more capital invested in the land than the Government, and they have to pay their rent whether the seasons are good or bad. As regards tenure I think the freehold is the only thing a Britisher would go in for if he could possibly get it. I know my father left England simply to get a freehold in New Zealand. I consider the farm is like a bank and the proper place for a farmer to put his money in. 169. As regards restrictions on the leasehold : do you think that as soon as the tenants have improved their sections to the extent that their interest in the lease is more than the interest of the Crown the restrictions should be removed ? —They are absolutely unnecessary. 170. Mr. Matheson.] Who do you consider is the real landlord of these land-for-settlements people, the people of New Zealand or the English capitalists with whose money the estates are bought ? —The English capitalists, most decidedly. 171. Would you say they are tenants of absentee landlords ?—Practically so. 172. Do you think it would be good for the colony if the tenants repaid the money and freed themselves of the liability ?—That is precisely my view of the matter. The Government apparently, from what one reads in the papers, have not sufficient money to give advances to the settlers. 173. Mr. McCarcUe.'] Do you think there is money enough now in the hands of the settlers, or of the people of the colony, to pay off the foreign money-lender ? —My idea of the business is to work it something on the lines of the advances to settlers policy —have a sinking fund and let the settlers pay off the capital value as it suits them, in sums, of course, of not less than 10 or 20 per cent, of the capital value. Charles William Keeley examined. 174. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler at Whitehall. I hold 1,262 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have been asked to come here at the request of several settlers to represent them and to present the following statement: " We, the undersigned Whitehall Crown tenants, hereby authorise Mr. C. W. Keeley to represent us before the Land Commission in support of the optional freehold at the original valuation." [Signatures of seven Crown tenants.] That is all I have to say. 175. Mr. Forbes.] If the settlers got the option of purchase added to their lease would it make it a better lease ? —lt is a better tenure. 176. Would it not be worth more money in the market ?—Yes. It will make the lease more valuable in that it will give a man more facilities to work his land. The lease in perpetuity is unpopular decidedly with money-lenders. The banks will not advance on lease in perpetuity. 177. Seeing the option of purchase is more valuable, would the men you represent be prepared to pay something more for this extra value ? —I would say no ; they want a better tenure. 178. For nothing ? —They want it at the present valuation. Francis Hicks examined. 179. The Chairman.] Do you hold land ? —I hold 850 acres of freehold. 180. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I would like to draw the attention of the Commission to the spread of noxious weeds on Maori leaseholds in this neighbourhood. These leases are so insecure that the tenants do not care to tackle the noxious weeds, which are spreading to such an extent that they are ruining the whole country about here. There is one place about four miles from here practically covered with blackberry, and nothing is being done to eradicate it owing to the present unsatisfactory position of Maori lands. The occupants of these lands are simply tenants at will, and they can do nothing. If something is not done shortly a lot of the adjoining land will scarcely be worth owning. I think the Government should take the matter in hand immediately. Another block of Native land, which is also surrounded by settlers, is fast becoming covered with ragwort. Two or three years ago I did not know what ragwort was, and now there are hundreds of plants on my property and it is spreading rapidly. These Native lands are a menace to the district. 181. Have you any other itiatter to place before us ?—I would like to say that I came to this colony from England forty-five years ago to get the freehold. I saw something of the injurious effects of landlordism in England, where the tenants were simply in the hands of the landlords. Of course, I mean private landlords. lam a freeholder out and out, and I can assure you that I feel it is in the very best interests of the country that the freehold should be given under certain conditions. 1 am sure a man will work harder and make a much better settler and stand by his country better under freehold, when a man with a less secure tenure would go elsewhere. 182. Mr. M<theson.~\ Do you think the Government should take action to deal more effectually with noxious weeds on Native lands ? —Most assuredly. 183. Mr. Forbes.] You say you left the Old Country after seeing the evils of private landlordism, and you came to New Zealand to get the freehold : Do you not think it is the duty of the State to see, by legislation, that that sort of thing does not occur in New Zealand ?—I think it is the sacred duty of the State to see it does not arise here. 184. If you allow the country from end to end to become freehold might not the same evils arise here % —No. I would be the first to assist in putting them down by legislating that no man shall hold more than a certain area of first- or second-class land. 185. You think that under such legislation there would not be the same chance of these evils arising here ' —I do not think it could do so.
It. heslop.
C—4.
984
Thomas Heslop examined. 186. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a settler at Fencourt. I hold 42 acres under lease in perpetuity. I would like to say lam in favour of of the freehold to Crown; tenants, though personally I am satisfied with the tenure I hold. 187. Do you think* it would be good policy for the' Government to give the right of purchase ? I think it would be. I would like to say, as settlers are expressing a wish to elect the Land Board, and thereby might be leading the public to suppose that the Land Board had been|treating them badly, that in my experience the Land Board have treated the settlers rather too well. 188. You are satisfied with your treatment by the Land Board ?—Yes.
Matamata, Thursday, Bth June, 1905. John McCaw examined. 1. The Chairman.'] Do you hold land? I hold about 1,000 acres under lease in perpetuity. la. Do you reside upon it? —Yes. 2 What remarks have you to make to the Commission ?—At a meeting of the settlers on the Matamata Estate, held last Saturday, I was appointed as one of the ten of their number to represent their views before the Commission. The general opinion amongst the settlers seems to be that they would like the option of purchasing their holdings. There is a feeling that something may come along to interfere with the lease-in-perpetuitv tenure—such as revaluation or something of that kind. As to the loading of lands, I think it would be better if the money so raised were placed to the credit of the local body of the district, which would then carry out the work oil the roads That would be a much more satisfactory system than the present one. Then, there is the question of Native land. The difficulties in this respect are keeping back the progress of the settlement, and we think that something should be done to acquire that land. There is about 2,000 acres on the estate that cannot be got at unless a main drain is formed, and that drain would pass through Native land, which would thus be improved at the expense of the community. The best course would be for the Government to acquire this land before the drain is formed. Another matter is that the Natives use our roads and cut them up, while they get off scot-free in the matter of taxation. I think that in this respect they should be put on the same footing as Europeans. On the question of tenure, I think that those who want the leasehold should be allowed to have it, but that the desire of the Britisher to make his land his own some day should be acknowledged, and therefore that the leaseholders under lease in perpetuity should be given the option. As regards the poorer land in our district, I think that the homestead system is the best. Unless this land is taken up and settled it will be overrun with noxious weeds. 3 Are the tenants, on the whole, satisfied with the Land Board ? —I have heard no complaints, and ' personally, I should say that the Land Board is very satisfactory. At the same time, a representative elected by the settlers on the Board would not be a bad thing. 4 Mr McCardle.] Would it not be a wise thing on the part of the Government to increase the number* of members of the Auckland Land Board to seven, so that there could be representatives of the various interests in the province I—Sometimes five or six men can do business better than double the number. , , , „ . , , . 5. Is it possible that four men, as at present, can represent the whole of the interests in this great province? —I do not think that four are quite enough. 6 Do you not think that if the Government were to so appoint men, that as far as possible districts and interests should be represented, that would meet the case?-As far as the representation ot the settlers is concerned, I do not know if that" would be the best way. , 7. Say that he were one of themselves, and was a practical man? I dare say it would meet the case if he were a practical man. . , 8 Have you formed any idea of the increased rental or the other consideration which the lease-in-perpetuity settler should give to the Government in case he were allowed the right of purchase I—He1 —He should pay more rent to the extent of from Jto 1 per cent., according to the value of the a))[e fQ do anyth i ng to check the spread of noxious weeds?-I have not been able to eradicate them, but I have been able to prevent them from doing much harm, as far as pastoral lands are concerned, by cutting them down at the proper time. 10 What is your worst weed? —On the ploughable land Canadian thistle is the worst. Ragwort vou can plough, but it is a terrible thing in a bush district. 11 In the South it is claimed that wherever there are sheep ragwort disappears. Some men claim that it is the best pasture for sheep?-! can give you an instance. On a certain estate in this district ragwort was fairly bad. We had plenty of sheep at our command and so were able to keep it down that year. The only plants that, flowered were a few that the sheep could not get at. In the following year the same number of sheep were not available, and the weed got beyond control. WheT it gete very bad you cannot get it eaten off by sheep unless you have plenty of them, ,U ' d beei' 1 stated that if you feed the sheep on ragwort the butchers will not use them?— The carcases get quite yellow, and become so unpresentable that they are not considered up in a shoPcarried on in the digtrict to any extent? Yes. I think this is going to be a great 'dairying country. Last year we started with about eight hundred cows and a large creamery. This year there are two additional creameries to be erected, and I should not be sur- + n finrl flint fhpre are from sixteen hundred to two thousand cows, '""li H,,ftel»dhe" 1. ~>»e .i» the Mlotl-I do no, know th.t it h., creased very much beyond what the settlers have put on their farms.
985
C—4.
J. MCCAW.
15. I suppose you are aware that the workers in the towns are claiming that there is a large unearned increment in the country districts, and they are moving in the direction of getting hold of it as the property of the people? —It might apply to the towns, but not so much to the country. It is the farmers themselves who increase the values of their properties. 16. Is it not a fact that the roads and the creameries are being constructed at the expense of the settlers themselves? Yes; the settlers are paying for the roads through the loading, and they are also buying the sites for the creameries. 17. Mr Forbes.] Do you think it would be more reasonable, seeing that these estates have been acquired by the Government to give men with small capital a chance, that when a man has made money off them he should go elsewhere and seek for a freehold? I think a man would like the chance of acquiring the place where he has been living, and that he should have the option of doing so. 18. Where is the poorer land that you would like to see offered under the homestead system?— There is any amount of it further back, worth anything from 10s. to 2s. 6d. per acre. 19. Do you think it wise to put a poor man on poor land? —All these lands will carry grass of a certain description. Danthonia, for instance, will grow on some of the poorer land, and perhaps make it carry a sheep to the acre. I certainly would not charge very much rent for such land. 20. What area would you think it necessary to give to a settler? —It would vary, according to quality, from 1,000 to 10,000 acres. 21. Do you not think that the actual fact of giving it away for nothing would not help a poor man, because without a lot of capital he could not go on the land? —In a few years he would bring in country which is producing nothing now. 22. Do you not think that a poor man would be given a far better chance by providing him with really good land near a centre? —Yes; I think that is the intention of the Land for Settlements Act. It is wonderful what a poor man and his family can do with poor land. 23. Do you think that the fear of revaluation is real or only assumed? —One cannot help entertaining it when he sees what is going on. 24. Would it not be a far easier process to put on a few more screws in the way of graduated land-tax, instead of breaking the contract made with Crown tenants? —Looking at it in another way, if you give these men the freehold they can afford to pay part of that land-tax, and so help the revenue. 25. Mr. McLennan.] Would the present Government, or any other Government, ever dare to bring in a Bill to break the contract made with the Crown tenants? —I should hope not; but you never know what might happen. 26. But do you think it is likely? —Such a thing might happen. 27. Were there many applications for the Matamata allotments when the land was balloted for? How many applied for the various sections? —I could not say, but Ido know that for one of the best sections there were only two applicants. 28. How many applicants were there for your own section? —I think there were five or six. 29. And yours was the successful application? —I did not go to the ballot; I was the only one who fulfilled the conditions as regards the homestead. 30. Supposing the present Crown tenants were to be allowed fidl valuation for their improvements, and each allotment was put up to auction so as to give the unsuccessful applicant a chance of acquiring it, would the tenants accept that? —I do not think they would. 31. Do you not concede that those applicants who were not successful have as much right to come in when the land is put up under a different system as those who drew the land? —There is other land that could be thrown open for them. I do not think it would be fair to the man who wants to acquire his freehold that it should be put up to auction. 32. Neither is it fair now to demand the freehold after entering into a contract for 999 years? —Well, it is the option they want. 33. Can you say, in the event of an Act of Parliament being passed to give them this option, what amendment might be put into the Act? Do you not think it would be a dangerous experiment to try? —I am not prepared to say. 34. Do you not think it is better to have what we know than what we do not know ? —Perhaps there is something in that; but in every Britisher's breast there is the desire to acquire the freehold if he can. 35. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think it would be a good thing for the State to allow their tenants to acquire the freehold ? —I do not know that it would do very much harm to the State. The State could make up its revenue in other ways. EnwARD Corrigan Banks examined. 36. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder? —I hold 365 acres of second-class land under lease in perpetuity, and reside upon it. 37. Have you made improvements? —I have made improvements to the value of £1 10s. an acre in the last eleven months. 38. Are you satisfied with your tenure?— Not altogether. I think it might be improved upon by giving the tenants the option of the freehold. 39. Is there any other matter that you wish to bring before the Commission? —There is one little matter, which is that the settlers who took up about thirty sections here paid rent from the Ist July, and yet did not get possession of their sections until the Ist October. Until some Act of Parliament is passed they cannot receive a refund of that three months' rent. Another matter is this: I believe that the Government put £2,250 on last year's estimates for roading Matamata. That money has been very badly spent. It is now, I believe, very nearly gone, and they simply raised the middle of the rond. It is like taking a cart over a ploughed paddock to go along these
124—C. 4,
C.—4.
986
[e. c. banks.
roads at present. It would have been much better to have given that £2,250 to the Road Board that was being formed by the settlers, and they would have made much better use of it. With regard to the constitution of the Land Boards, I think it would be desirable to give the settlers representation —not necessarily by one of themselves, but by some man in whom they had confidence. Let the Commissioner of Crown Lands be Chairman, and then let every one hundred of the six or seven hundred tenants in the Auckland Province send one representative. With regard to tenure, I think the deferred-payment system is the best we have ever had. With regard to the ballot system, I think it is working out very well. I have heard it suggested that the land should be put up to auction, but Ido not think that would be right. I think, however, that I can suggest an improvement on the ballot system. Let every man when he is applying for a section indicate which section he would like to have. Then, when he is being examined by the Land Board they could decide how much capital that man has to work upon. The most popular section —that for which there are the greatest number of applications —should be balloted for first. Each of the approved applicants should have a certain ball to put into the ballot-box. Say that the land comprises three or four hundred acres, and that £1,000 of capital is required to work it. He could have his name on a certain ball, representing the amount of money. Thus, anybody with £1,000 would have his name put into the revolving box, and if successful he should get the block. And so the process should go on to the finish, till there would be only one man wanting one section. With regard to the increase in value since the date of lease, the whole of the increase in the case of Matamata has arisen from our own improvements. In my own case I have put on improvements to the extent of upwards of £1 10s. an acre, and the land is valued between £5 and £6 an acre. Most of the people on Matamata have improved to the extent of £1 10s., and even £2 an acre. Any risk that the Government took in acquiring the land is thus completely done away with, though we have not yet been a year upon the land. With regard to the aggregation of large estates, I consider that when a man's landed property in New Zealand amounts to, say, £10,000 in value he should be made to part with a portion of it. 40. The Chairman.] Regarding this matter of paying three months' rent before occupation, I remember that the arrangement was made in the interests of settlers themselves. There were turnips growing on the land in question, and if the Assets Board had not been given time to get the turnips eaten off the crops would have had to be purchased, and so the tenants would have had to pay a higher price. It was with a view of getting the estate at as low a price as possible that this was arranged, and, if I remember aright, the sections were valued subject to this three months' arrangement. If this had not been done the valuation would have been higher?—lt must have been done wrongly, because the tenants have had to pay a double rent for three months. Why could not the land have been taken three months later, and so let at the proper rental. 41. Mr. McCardle.] You said that there were six hundred Crown tenants in the Auckland Land District, and that they should have the right of voting: would you be surprised to learn that there are 5,050-odd tenants?— Well, if there are nearly six thousand, let there be one member for every thousand. 41a. How would you divide them up?— Either in districts, or where there are more than five hundred, let them have a representative, or you could let them have one ballot for the whole Board. 42. What is to become of the other persons interested in land—of the people in the cities and boroughs? —They have nothing to do with the matter. 43. Have they not an interest in the lands of the colony?— But when we are appointing, say, a Land Board it is the ratepayers who vote. 44. Your proposal is quite an impossibility? —I do not think so. 45. All the people of the colony had to agree through Parliament before the Land for Settlements Act was brought into operation ?—Yes. 46. And yet you would give the right of electing men to administer the lands of the colony to certain sections only?—No; I say that after the parallel of the Road Board those under the lease in perpetuity should control their own business. 47. But what is to become of the bulk of the population of the colony?— They have their representation in Parliament. . 48. So have you lease-in-perpetuity people?— Yes; and whatever Act is passed by Parliament the Land Boards have to abide by. . 49 Would it not meet the case if the Government increase the membership ot the Auckland Land Board to seven, and let each section of the community be represented as far as possible amongst those seven?—l think we should have at least seven members, and that they should be either elected by the whole district, or, better still, be divided into six sections, and each of these sections send a representative. 50 We want to get at possibilities, and the possibilities are that you would get representation through nomination by the Government?— But we do not want the Government to nominate 51. If the Government appointed a settler who would be a useful member would that not meet the case?—No; we want the members to be elected by the tenants, who are the interested parties. 52. You know that the members of the Land Board receive only 10s. a day for their services? —We might happen to elect the same men the Government would appoint, but we say, let us have the best men we can get. . 53. Whoever you appoint, he would have to contest an election, and 10s. a day would not pay for his outlay on stamps?—lf he was a good man he would not need to contest an election. 54. Mr.' McLennan.] How many tenants were there at your meeting?— Between thirty and forty. That is all we could get together. 55. But there are 165 tenants on the estate?— That includes the holders of town sections. This meeting was representative of the farmers. 56. Was it a Farmers' Union meeting?— No. There were about thirty farmers present out of about a hundred.
E. C. BANKS.]
987
C.—4.
57. You do not know the feelings of the others? —Yes, I do. It is in favour of the freehold. 58. How can you know that? —By conversation with one and another. 59. Do you swear that the feeling of the balance is in favour of amendment of the Act so as to enable the acquisition of the freehold? —I will swear that the majority are in favour of the freehold. 60. But what about the minority? —The minority at that meeting was one person out of thirty. If you go through the estate it will probably be three out of a hundred, or perhaps less. 61. How many applicants was there at the ballot for the section you acquired? —There were ten. 62. Do you not think that the other applicants have as much right to compete for that land in the event of a change of tenure as you have, provided that your improvements are conserved to you ? — They competed in the lottery, and as the land fell to me they have nothing more to do with it. I have put improvements into that land which no man can ever know of, because I have been making it a home for myself for the rest of my days, and I do not want any other man to come in and acquire what is mine. 63. Are not the others just as much entitled to a chance as you are? —No, because they lost at the ballot. 64. Do you demand the freehold as a right? —I think so. 65. Were you promised it at the ballot? —No; but if I can get a sufficient number of members of Parliament to support my view I will get it. 66. Mr. Matheson.] Who do you really think is the landlord of these tenants under the Land for Settlements Act : the European bondholders, with whose money these estates have been bought, or the Government of the colony ?—Well, the Government of the day control my land. 67. Do you think it would be good for the colony if the State gave you the right to repay all the expenses the Government have incurred, so that the loans with which the estates have been bought might be repaid? —Certainly, I do. I think we have been borrowing too much money, and the sooner we are allowed to pay back what we can the better it will be. 68. You really think that in asking for the freehold you are asking for something which will be for the good of the colony as a whole? —Yes, I do. 69. Mr. McGardle.] You came here on the invitation of the Commission to give evidence on the land-tenures of the colony? —Yes. 70. And do you not think you ought to be treated with every civility while stating your views before the Commission ? —That is the least I could expect. 71. We are here to hear evidence, and to decide according to that evidence, and it is nothing to us what the Government may do afterwards? —That is so. 72. The Chairman.] What I understand Mr. McLennan wanted to know is this: These lands were balloted for without the right of purchase, and had the option been given when the land was thrown open many other people would very likely have competed for the sections, and it is only natural to expect they should have a chance again if this change of tenure is given ? —That is right enough; but we took our chances at the ballot, and deserve what we get. 73. But they had no chance at the ballot? —That is their own fault. We took the risk of keeping under lease in perpetuity when we went to the ballot. 74. They had not an opportunity to ballot under the conditions under which you took up the land, and they will naturally think they should have an opportunity when the conditions are changed I—Yes;1 —Yes; but we took the risk. Edgar Shield Smith examined. 75. The Chairman.] Do you hold land in this settlement? —Yes; I hold 380 acres under lease in perpetuity. 76. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission? —I wish to state lam strongly in favour of the lease in perpetuity as a poor man's tenure. I have seen settlements elsewhere get on remarkably well under it, and I have passed eight years on a lease-in-perpetuity section, and lam thoroughly satisfied with it. In regard to roads, lam in favour of more power being given to local bodies in the expenditure of Government moneys. I have nothing further to say in addition to what has been already said. 77. You think the money voted by Parliament should be handed over to the local bodies? — Yes, because the local bodies have a staff of engineers and overseers, and if the Government carry on the work in these districts it only means doubling the expenses. 78. Mr. Forbes.\ You are in favour of the lease in perpetuity. Do you feel you have any heart to work'your section? —When I am working I never think anything about the tenure. 79. It has been said that the tenants on lease-in-perpetuity farms have a great fear of revaluation: do you think that is a reasonable thing to fear?—My opinion is that not even the worst Conservative Government we ever had would dare to take such a step as that. They might put a revaluation clause in future leases, but I do not think any Government would do such a thing as to break an existing lease. 80. Mr. Matheson.] Are you aware that the trades-unions, at their conference, suggest that revaluation should take place in existing leases? —I do not think any Government would attempt it. 81. If the right of purchase was given by the State, do you think it would be harmful to the tenants?—-I do not know about the tenants, but I think the future generations would suffer if the right of purchase was given to Crown lands. 82. Do you think they would suffer because they owned the land they lived on? —No. I think freehold leads to land monopoly, and that is the worst kind of monopoly. 83. Then, do you think it would be well if the whole country was nationalised and we were all tenants of the Crown, in town as well as country?— Certainly; I think we would have fewer taxes.
0.-4
988
|>\ BBABBINGTON.
Frank Bbassington examined. 84. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler here. I hold 368 acre.-; under lease in perpetuity. 85. You have heard what has been said by the previous witness: is there anything fresh you wish to add ? —I came here mainly to see how it was we were charged rent for our sections when we did not get possession until the Ist October, but since I have heard the matter explained here to-day I feel more satisfied. I would like to say lam quite satisfied with my section, and more particularly with the lease. I was balloting eight or nine years in the South Island, and I had bad luck everywhere. I think there are others to be considered as well as myself. I think if we do away with the lease-in-perpetuity system it will deprive a poor man of the chance of getting on the land. In regard to the ballot system, Ido not hold with the grouping of sections. I think a man should be able to apply for any section he likes. 86. Mr. Forbes.] Are you troubled with Native lands in this district? —Yes. I think the Natives should be compelled to fence the same as Europeans. I have Native land adjoining my section, and I will have to bear the cost of all my fencing. 87. Would you say, speaking for the whole, that the settlers are doing all right on Matamata? —I think they are. 88. Do you think the rents are fair and reasonable ?—Yes, very reasonable, I consider. Robert Thompson Abbot examined. 81). The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler here. I hold 345 acres under lease in perpetuity. 90. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I am in favour of the settlers having the option of purchase. I think the choice of tenures should lie with them. I presided at a meeting held in this woolshed on Saturday night last when a vote was taken on the question, with the result that thirty-six voted in favour of having the option of the freehold and two against it. I may state also that I have exceptional opportunities of meeting the settlers on the Matamata Estate, and I am strongly of opinion that that vote fairly represents the opinion of the whole of the settlers on this estate. I think the settlement of the waste lands of the Crown generally would be more popular than it is if in every case the choice of tenure lay with the applicant. I do not mean for a moment to say that all lands should be offered as freehold or as leasehold only. There are some who prefer the leasehold, while the majority, in my opinion, prefer the option of purchase. I think quite as good a method for a poor man to obtain the freehold would be the resumption of the old deferred-payment system. So far as the Advances to Settlers Act is concerned, 1 would like to say that the difficulty of borrowing is one of the principal objections that settlers have to the lease in perpetuity. The security under that tenure somehow or another does not appear to be looked on with the same favour as freehold, either by the Government as moneylenders or by private money-lenders. I have known of a case where a settler, who held a considerable amount of property, applied to the Advances to Settlers Department for a loan of £1,000, and after some time his application was declined. He then started to realise on the securities he had offered, with the result that he sold about one-half of his property only for £2,300, and the balance left at a very low estimate would be good value for £2,000. That means he offered an approved security of £4,300 and could not get an advance of £1,000. I think a great deal more might be done in the way of helping the settlers through the Advances to Settlers Act. In regard to the constitution of Land Boards, I am of opinion they should be made elective, and that with regard to the system of election that might fairly be left in the hands of the local bodies. This would insure a fair representation of both the town and country. I think the system of loading lands for roads is a good one, and on that point I do not agree with Mr. Banks. I think in most cases the best results would be got by the expenditure of the moneys by competent road engineers. I think all Crown lands should be roaded before being offered to the settlers for selection. I am also of opinion that it is only fair and right that the occupiers of leaseholds who desire to convert the same into freehold should submit to revaluation in cases where the value of their land has been improved by the expenditure of public money. 91. Mr. Forbes.] Would that opinion in regard to revaluation apply to this estate? —No; there has been no expenditure on this estate other than the amount the land has been loaded with. 92. Would you say that Matamata has increased in value since the settlement has started? —Any increased value has been brought about entirely by the efforts of the settlers. I have no doubt in my mind that the value will increase in the future. 93. If you wanted to sell now, do you think there would be any goodwill over and above the value of the improvements ? —I do not think so. 94. Was this objection to the lease in perpetuity brought up at the time of the ballot for the sections? Could not the settlers who are objecting now have gone elsewhere for land if this tenure was so unpopular ? —I am not aware of any settler making any objection to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, but they prefer the option of the freehold. That is a very different thing from objecting to the tenure. 95. They have entered into a contract between themselves and the Government: is it not reasonable to think that if they wish the contract altered they are not satisfied with the tenure? —They prefer having the option of the freehold. Of course, in a sense, it implies dissatisfaction with the lease in perpetuity. 96. Did they not feel this dissatisfaction at the time of the ballot? —I cannot say; probably they did. 97. They went into the ballot with their eyes open, and knew the terms and conditions? —Yes; but I believe"they mostly went in with the idea that they were going in for a good thing; but they think the option of the freehold would be better.
K. T. ABBOT.]
989
C—4.
98. Would they be prepared to pay anything for this better bargain? I think I have just said so, and, in the case of change of tenure, I think those lands more especially should be submitted to revaluation where they have improved in value through the expenditure of public moneys. lam referring now to the question generally. 99. Do you think if the freehold is not granted this settlement will be a failure? Not at all. 1 think the tenure is a good one, and I do not fear any immediate disaster if we do not get the option. 100. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be in favour, after the tenants made improvements equal to 33 per cent, of the capital value of their holdings, of all restrictions being removed, and the tenants having a free hand to farm their lands as they think lit? —So far as my knowledge goes, I do not think it matters whether the restrictions are removed or not. I think all the restrictions with regard to this property are quite right, and just about what the ordinary settler would do in the ordinary course of events. 101. Mr. Matheson.\ When a landlord gives a tenant a lease for a thousand years, do you not think he is giving him something very nearly as good as a freehold? —Yes. 102. Suppose that tenant conies to the landlord and says, " I have a sentimental feeling that I would like to pay you the capital value of this land, because 1 would feel safer," do you think that landlord as a business-man would be wise to accept the capital value? -I think so, and if he was a landlord dealing in a large way in land he would put more land on the market. 103. The Chairman.] Is it your opinion that all lands leased from the Crown should carry the option of purchase? —That is my opinion. 104. As regards the appointment of Land Boards, would you approve of this system: that each district or county in Auckland should exercise the right of nominating one member for appointment to the Land Board, and that the Government should then have to make the appointments from the names so nominated? Would that not ensure fair representation, and save expense as well ? —I do not approve of that. I think the Land Boards should be directly elected by the representatives of the people. 105. So far as you are aware, have the Land Boards given satisfaction? —That has been my experience. William Thompson examined. 106. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler here. I hold 372 acres under lease in perpetuity. 1 am well satisfied with my lease. I think it is a very good tenure, and it gives a chance to the agricultural labourers who make the best settlers. I have seen a good few Crown settlements, and 1 consider Matamata has been surveyed into nice-sized blocks. The farms are well laid off, and the rents are reasonable. 107. Mr. Forbes.] You think the tenants had better stick to the bargain they have made with the Government? —I am sure of it. 108. Do you think there is a great fear in this settlement of the leases being broken and the sections revalued? —I have no fear of it whatever. 109. We have been told that a man must see the freehold ahead of him before he can put very much heart into his work: have you that feeling? —1 work as hard as any freeholder, and my improvements are equal to the improvements on any freehold section. 110. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think if the freehold was granted it would spoil a poor man's chance of getting on the land ? —I am sure of it. 111. Suppose the right of purchase was granted, do you think a man is as likely to stay on his section as if it remained lease in perpetuity? —I do not know at all. 112. If he is as likely to stay on it under either tenure, then there is no opportunity for the poor man to come in in either case; but suppose one improves his lanH and gets the freehold and sells out, is it not probable that his improvements will stop the poor man from coming in ?- Yes. 113. Independently of the fact of it having been made a freehold? —Yes. 114. The Chairman.] As regards the insecurity of the tenure and the fear of revaluation, do you think any Legislature would repudiate a title to land once given? —No, I am sure they would not. 115. Mr. Matheson.] Do you realise that in passing the Land for Settlements Act with a compulsory clause the Government have gone back on a bargain to a certain extent? —I do not know of a case. 116. If the Government, having once granted a titie, say to a man, "We will take it back whether you like it or not," does it not seem to you that that is going back on their bargain? —- I do not know of any case where that has been done. 117. Have not the Government taken estates in Hawke's Bay and elsewhere against the owners' wishes? —Not very small farms. 118. But from very large holdings? —It is quite right to break up large estates. 119. Do you think that what is dishonest dealing with a poor man is honest dealing with a rich man ? No man can work a large estate as well as a small estate. 120. You think that policy is for the good of the colony?— Yes; 1 am sure of it. 121. Suppose it was for the good of the colony that revaluation should come in, do you think that would be an honest thing? —I think the sections should be revalued for rent. Edward Henry Button examined. 122. The Chairman.] What are.you?- I am a settler here. I hold 181 acres under lease in perpetuity. 123. Is there any matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?- These are my views: Land Boards should be elected on a franchise similar to the election of County Councils, and not nominated by the Government. I have always found the members of the Land Board, the
C—4.
990
[e. h. button.
Commissioner, and the officials exceedingly just and courteous. I believe the freehold tenure of land to be the foundation of a country's real and abiding prosperity. My opinion, gained from history and observation, is that it is the only tenure that will engender a race of free and independent farmers with principles and convictions of their own, and courage to give utterance to their opinions. I was so persuaded when I took up a section of Matamata that pressure would soon be brought by the independent farmers and all true lovers of their country, to change this objectionable form of tenure into freehold that I did not hesitate to accept the present tenure. The following are some of the reasons why I object to the lease in perpetuity: (1.) The delay there is of obtaining consent to transfer, and the long period of five years before the same can be applied for. (2.) The inability of getting a loan under the Advances to Settlers Act until a year's occupation, even if improvements have immediately been effected. (3.) The impossibility of transferring a portion of the holding. (4.) The perpetual rent, which does not admit of any reduction from year to year. (5.) The cropping and other restrictions. (6.) The fear of revaluation. (7.) Under the lease-in-perpctuity tenure a settler often has considerable difficulty in borrowing money, either from the Advances to Settlers Department or from private sources. I consider that the holders of the lease in perpetuity should be allowed to obtain the freehold at the original valuation, as the increased value, if any, of the land is due to the labour and capital expended on it by the settlers themselves. The unearned increment applies only to land in the vicinity of large towns, and can hardly be said to exist in the country. The Government did not purchase Matamata and similar estates in order to make a profit by the transaction, but to enable the settler of limited means to acquire a farm at wholesale price, so why should not the settlers be entitled to any increase in value solely due to the expenditure of their labour and capital. The aggregation of freehold estates could lj,e prevented by giving the Government power to acquire any land privately owned in excess of the maximum area to be allowed. I prefer the old deferred-pay-ment system of land-tenure before any of the forms under the Land for Settlements Act, it being, I consider, preferable to the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure in that provision was made under it for the payment of sinking fund and interest. 124. Mr. Forbes.] You thought when you took up the lease you would eventually get the freehold ? —I thought it decidedly likely. 125. It is said the lease in perpetuity is a very unpopular tenure: was it generally thought by the others who went to the ballot that they would get the freehold ? —I think numbers of them hoped for it. 126. Do you think that a bargain made between the tenant and the State is a solemn thing which should be adhered to J —Yes, until an Act of Parliament annuls that bargain. 127. You say in your statement you have a fear of revaluation: do you think it would be wrong to break this bargain and revalue the lease? —Not if it is passed by a majority of the people's representatives. 128. You do not think the Government of the country could commit a wrong act? —If the present occupation with right of purchase can be changed at the end of twenty-five years into lease in perpetuity, why cannot the lease in perpetuity be changed into occupation with right of purchase, or any other tenure. 129. Was not provision made in the occupation-with-right-of-purchase lease to allow of that conversion ?-'-Yes. 130. There is nothing in the lease in perpetuity that leads any man to think that he will get the freehold of the land? —No, but it is a consummation devoutly to be wished for by every settler. 131. In the event of the lease being altered, do you think you ought to pay something for the extra advantage? —No, I think not, as the Government did not take up the land for the purpose of speculation, but merely to retail it out at the price at which they bought it. The State had no idea of profiting by the transaction. 132. If a profit can be made, is it not reasonable that it should be made? —By the settlers who have risked all their capital and given up so much in taking up the land. I think they should be the ones who should get any profit or unearned increment. 133. Do you think there is such a thing as unearned increment? —Not in country districts. 134. If the lease is altered and a more valuable provision is put in it, do you not think in equity and fairness you should give something for this extra value?- I would not object to an additional 1 per cent, if the settlement had been opened for five or seven years, but not in a settlement such as Matamata, which has only been recently acquired. Robert Joughin examined. 135. The Chairman.\ What are you? —I am a settler here. I hold 468 acres under lease in perpetuity. 136. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —Yes, I am very satisfied with the tenure, but I would like the right of purchase. The only other point I would like to mention is, that I think a settler should be compelled to reside on his section within six months of taking it up. 137. Mr. McOardle.~\ Is any option allowed to the settler before he resides? —I do not know. I know in some settlements three or four years elapsed before the settlers took up their sections. 138. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. James Kilbride examined. 139. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler here. I hold 411 acres under lease in perpetuity. 140. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission? —I only wish to say lam in favour of this lease in perpetuity. I think it is the best system for the public. I think the ballot system should be retained as it exists at present. There has been some complaint about the Noxious-weeds Inspector, but I think the Government should be stricter than they are with regard to the eradication of noxious weeds.
J. KILBRIDE.]
991
G.—4.
141. Mr. Forbes.] Do you find you have the heart to farm your land under lease in perpetuity? —There is nothing to frighten me. Ido not fear revaluation. 142. Mr. Matheson.] Who do you think would suffer if your lease had a clause in it giving you the right to purchase? —Very likely 1 would. George Given examined. 143. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a settler here. I hold 1,500 acres. 144. Under lease in perpetuity? —No, it is freehold. Ido not want any leasehold. 145. Is there any matter you wish to bring forward? —I would like to say I think it is best for the country and best for the man to give the freehold tenure. I have a freehold, and I think it is right to help others to get it. William Stoup examined. 146. The Chairman.] What are you?—-I am a settler here. I hold 258 acres under lease in perpetuity. 147. Is there any matter you wish to bring forward? —I only wish to state lam in favour of the present tenure, because I know that had there been any thought when the ballot was taken that there would be an opportunity to convert it into freehold we would have had a great deal more opposition than we had. I know of several who would have gone into the ballot had the option been given. lam quite satisfied with the tenure as it is, and I think it should remain as it is. Sydney Gunn examined. 148. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I hold 221 acres under lease in perpetuity. 149. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —Yes; but I think it would have been better if the land had been thrown open under the optional tenure. The lease in perpetuity is very good for a man of small means to make a start, but I think he would feel safer under the optional system. 150. Mr. Forbes.] If the option of purchase had been available at the time of the ballot would there have been more applicants? —Yes. 151. And your chances of getting the land would have been less? —Probably.
Te Puke, Friday, 9th June, 1905. William Harray examined. 1. The Chairman (Mr. McCardle).] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold about 400 acres of land under lease in perpetuity in the Maketu Survey District. lam secretary of the Farmers' Union in this district. At a meeting some time ago we discussed the various matters you are inquiring into. First of all, we considered that the Land Board should be partly elective and partly nominated by the Government. That is, one-half should be elected bv the tenants of the Crown, so that they should be better represented upon the Land Board. The meeting also decided that the freehold should be given to those holding sections under lease in perpetuity after full improvements had been completed and all other conditions as to residence and so on had been complied with. We think that so long as the Government are selling land at all, a poor man going on to a piece of land under long lease should not be debarred from acquiring the freehold, so that if he had money coming to him at any time, instead of investing his money elsewhere he should have the privilege of buying his own selection. Then, there is the law relating to the disposal of timber on these sections. As you are aware, there is an Act which prohibits a settler from selling his timber without paying a royalty. We consider that is a hardship, and we hope the Commission will recommend that that Act be repealed. As regards the ballot system, we have no great fault to find with that. The only thing is the bona fides of the applicant should be inquired into, so as to as far as possible stop dummyism. In the case of second- and third-class lands, we think that on double improvements being effected the residential clause should be either abolished, or, at any rate, not strictly enforced. Then, with regard to roading. At present the settlers have very little in the way of roading to their blocks, and they have to put up with a good deal of hardship in carrying provisions and other things on their backs. The present method of loading land for the purpose of forming these roads might perhaps be justifiable if it applied only to branch roads, but the main roads, we think, should be formed at the expense of the country. There is also the question of borrowing or getting accommodation upon leases in perpetuity. I have never myself tried to raise any money in this way, but I believe others have found a difficulty in getting the accommodation they required. With regard to unsurveyed lands, those applying for unsurveyed bush lands are required by the Land Board to pay a heavy deposit, with a view of meeting survey and other preliminary expenses. Even then there is still a large margin left in the hands of the Board —pretty well half the amount asked for —and the tenant asking for the "thirds" to be allowed from this money is refused. There are not "thirds" available for road-making, and we think that is not quite right. There also seems to be a difficulty in getting lands which have been surrendered placed again on the market. We think there should not be unnecessary delay before any section which has reverted to the Crown is again made available for selection. 2. Mr. Forbes.\ I understand ypu to say the opinions you have just expressed have been adopted by your union ? —Chiefly so. 3. As to your suggestion that the option of the freehold should be given to lease-in-perpetuitv tenants, does your union consider that the freehold should be given at the present price or at the original valuation? —At the price at which the sections were taken up, with an additional 1 per
a—4.
992
[W. HABEAY.
cent, added. I think that is the general feeling, although I am not sure that that particular point was discussed. At any rate, that is my own feeling in the matter. I think it would be altogether unfair to revalue the land to-day, after the settler has spent about three times as much money on the land as the land was worth. 4. Are you referring to Crown lands only, or do you include lands purchased by the Government under the Land for Settlements Act? —I am referring chiefly to Crown lands. No improved estates have been purchased by the Government in this district. 5. Are the members of your union Crown tenants? —Some of them are. 6. Are those who hold land under lease in perpetuity dissatisfied with their tenure? —Yes. 7. Is it at their instigation that your union has brought this matter forward? —Yes, principally so. lam a Crown tenant holding a lease in perpetuity, and lam secretary of the union myself. 8. Do you consider the roading in the back blocks satisfactory? —The settler generally has to go on to the land before there are any roads, and I think in all cases the Government should put main roads through blocks of land before they are thrown open for selection. 9. Mr. Matheson.] Do you depend upon Government grants for roadwork here? —We ask for a good many grants, but we do not get much. 10. Are you a member of the local body? —Not at present, but I have been. 11. Can you tell me what the grants from the Government average during the last few years? —I could not. 12. What is your county? —The Taurauga County. 13. Have you Road Boards in the county? —Yes. This is the Te Puke Road District. 14. Do you think it is wise to have two local bodies working in the same area? —I do not. 15. When grants are given are they spent by the Roads Department, or are they handed over to the local bodies for expenditure? —Lately they have been all spent under the supervision of the Government Engineer at Rotorua. 16. Would it be wise that all grants should be handed to the local body for expenditure?— Yes, provided there was a good engineer to see that the money was well spent. 17. Would it be wise, instead of handing grants over to local bodies, to give assistance by means of increased subsidies on the basis that the heavier they rated themselves the greater the assistance they should receive from the Crown? —I think that would perhaps be better. 18. With regard to Land Boards, if a man had to put up as a candidate for election to the Auckland Land Board it would mean a very heavy expenditure, and it would be difficult for him to make himself known. Do you not think that the object might be attained by the County Councils having the right to nominate men, and that the Government should select men from the lists submitted I—That1 —That might be a shorter way of getting at it, but whether it would meet with the views of the Crown tenants I should not like to say. 19. Do you think the County Council would pick as good men as the settlers?—l suppose so. 20. The Chairman.'] Before any system of election of Land Boards could be of great value to the district, do you not think that the numbers of members should be increased to, say, seven in such a large district as this?— Yes; I think the districts like the Bay of Plenty, the Waikato, and other districts should be represented on the Land Board. I think seven would be about the right number. 21. You raised the question of not being allowed to use the timber on your section? —I think there was a time when the Board insisted that the settlers should pay some royalty or hand the royalty over to the Board. 22. I fancy that has been changed, and that the Board does not now insist on the settler burning his timber : I think the settler now has the right to use his timber ?—lndeed. 23° How long have you been in the district ? —About sixteen years. 24. Is there much in the way of unearned increment in the district? —That is going on, I suppose, in every district to a certain extent; but I think those who talk so much about the unearned increment should take up a bush section for a couple of years, and carry all their stuff to their sections on their backs. We should not then hear so much about the unearned increment question. Henry Albert Vercoe examined. 25. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a settler. I have 274 acres of swamp land under lease in perpetuity. t 26. Is there any matter you wish to bring forward? —I wish to say I took up this swamp land about two years ago. The Government loaded it with Bs. an acre for roading. They have spent most of this money, but it has only been sufficient to do a certain proportion of it; the balance is left for us to do ourselves. 1 had the first contract for putting a road through the swamp, but the work has been left just half completed. I cannot get at my own section, and all the other settlers are barred from getting on their sections. We have every year to pay the Government interest on this Bs., and we are paying £1 4s. an acre for the land. I think myself it would be better if the Government completed the roads before selling the land to the settlers. There are some thirteen of us on the block, and I do not think one man can get out by road. 28. Do you think the whole of the Bs. has been spent?— Yes, by the Government Engineer at Rotorua, and now we are stuck for want of drains. 29. Have you thought of forming yourselves into a Drainage Board? —Yes; but we also consider it would be to the interest of the Government that they should complete the roads. If not, we shall have to make the roads ourselves. We have made representations to the Government on this matter several times. . 30. Are your settlers fairly successful on the swamp lands?—lt is quite a new settlement, so that they have not had much chances of being successful yet.
H. A. VEItCOE.]
993
C—4.
31. Have you had any experience of Land Boards? —Very little; but my own opinion is that it would be advisable that the settlers should nominate a certain number of the members, and the Government should appoint the rest. I think there should be a certain number from amongst us to air our views. 32. Do you think the number of members in a large district like this should be increased?— Yes; I think it would be better if there were six or seven. 33. Are you satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —I should like to have the right to purchase. I have a family of sons, and I would like some day to make my property freehold and leave it to my children. 34. Mr. Forbes.] Ts there any reason why you cannot leave the lease in perpetuity to your children? —No; but there is always a chance that they may revalue it some day, and consequently we shall not be able to leave so much behind us as we expected. 35. Do you seriously think the Government would break their contract with you? — I could not say. 36. Do you think that fear of revaluation is felt by the settlers, or is it one of the reasons brought forward to upset this lease?—l think the labour unions nowadays have a great deal of power, and they might bring pressure to bear which might force the Government to bring in a revaluation clause some day. 37. Do you think the labour unions are a great power in the land? —I think they are a bigger power than the farmers, any way. 38. What rent do you pay for your land?— Something like £13 or £14 a year, and my County Council rates are about £5 a year; but the County Council has done nothing in connection with my road. 39. Is the ground in the same swampy state as it was when you took it up? —Yes, except that a certain portion of it has been partly drained. It is of no use to any one until the main drains are completed. 40. Do you not think it would be more business-like to drain the land before putting the settlers upon it? —Yes. The Commissioner of Crown Lands told us on the day of ballot that when we took up the land we would have the main drains made. 41. Did you consider that the Bs. was sufficient to make the main drains as well as the roads? —When making the main drains you are making the roads. They have made a main drain right through the centre of it. They have only just stripped 2 ft., and for about a mile or a mile and a half they deepened 4 ft. or 5 ft., but as the money has come to an end there it stands. 42. Would it not be more reasonable to finish the drains and put an extra price upon the land, so as to let the settlers get something off the ground? —The amount of the rent is a very small matter if we can use our land. 43. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think another Bs. an acre would provide enough money to complete the roading? —Yes. 44. Do you not realise that under the Loans to Local Bodies Act you can raise that amount yourselves, and repay the capital and interest in forty years? —Yes; but I think, as the Government promised to make tRe roads they should do so. 45. Would you be pleased to sell out your interest in the property if you could get back the money you have expended upon it? —No. I think I have made a fairly good bargain. 46. Then, is it not reasonable that you should take some means to provide funds to finish your road by means of a loan? —Yes, 1 suppose so; and I think we could make the money go further if we spent it ourselves. 47. Do you mean that if the settlers had the expenditure of the money they could make it ge further than the Government Engineer? —I think so. 48. Have you followed the land-for-settlements policy? —I have a slight idea of it. 49. Do you think the Crown would be wise to allow the settlers on those improved estates to purchase the freehold? —I think if the Crown sold their own lands and left the private estates alone for a while it would be better for the colony. 50. But seeing that they have borrowed large sums of money to settle people on those lands, do you think it would be statesmanlike to allow the tenants to obtain the freehold, and thus pay off that borrowed money? —I think so. 51. The Chairman.'] I suppose you know you can use your "thirds " to pay interest and sinking fund if you raised a loan ?—'Yes. 52. Have you applied for a loan yet? —No. When we took up this land we supposed the Government were going to cut the main drains, but the roads and drains have been left uncompleted. Samuel McDougall examined. 53. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder? —Yes. I have a small grazing-run of 6,200 acres. There are six tenants in the same position as myself, and I am asked to represent their views here. I am asked to make the following statement : We do not think the small-grazing-run tenure can be called a success in this district for several reasons. The runs are the roughest and most inaccessible of the Crown lands, and have least security of tenure. They will not carry a hoof when first taken up, and it is quite three years before they will give any return. Land must be burnt and surface-sown and the fern heavily crushed for quite three summers. Stock must be bought in the spring, when prices are high, and sold or grazed in the winter, when prices rule lower. Good hills and sidings will take English grasses, but before many years it dies out, and as this class of country is too rough to plough, all that can be done is to scatter danthonia or microlcena and wait for a pasture. There are too many restrictions on the liberty of a tenant: he cannot sublet or do anything without permission of the Board, and this is a hard matter to obtain. Government valuation for improvements is a good thing in its way, but on this class of country it will never represent more than a half of what the improvements cost, If a tenant is forced to
125—C. 4.
a—4.
994
[S. MCDOUGALL.
leave, and cannot sell, which is more than probable, he surrenders; but should no one take up the lease at the valuation the country goes back into its original state, and the first occupier loses everything. It is nearly impossible to sell these leases at anything like the amount of money expended on them. Some people talk of the unearned increment, but in these parts the earned increment has cost just about twice what it is worth. What we would like is to make 2,000 acres lease with option of purchase. This would give us a security which we sadly lack at present. But failing that, we would be glad if the present Act was made so plain that we could without any trouble make 2,000 acres lease in perpetuity. The amendment to the Land Act gives us this privilege, but it makes it necessary that the whole run should be taken up by the members of one family, an impossible condition for a man without a family. There is a general impression that the Land Boards place every obstacle in the way of these runs being made lease in perpetuity, even when the family conditions are complied with. The Act should be made so that it' a tenant has fulfilled the terms of his lease it should be only a matter of form to secure the 2,000 acres lease in perpetuity. There is a clause in the Act which gives a tenant the right to select 150 acres, and we all have taken up our holdings with the idea that this means freehold, but we find that it apparently only gives us the right to select 150 acres, through which no roads can be made. 54. Mr. Forbes.] What do you pay for your lease?—l pay £40 a year rent for my place. 55. Your suggestion is that you should be allowed 2,000 acres under lease in perpetuity or occupation with right of purchase. What about the rest of the land? It should be offered to the public in those sized blocks. 56. You think that the 6,200 acres should be further subdivided and offered under tenures you have suggested, giving the present holder the first right over one of these sections I -^Yes. 57. The present lease is twenty-one years, with the option of renewal for another twenty-one years? —Yes. 58. How long have you had this lease? —About seventeen years. 59. Will the land be revalued at the end of the twenty-one years and the rent increased?—l suppose so, on the unimproved value. 60. Has the unimproved value gone up since you took up your lease? I do not think there is any unimproved value at all. The value all depends on the amount you have spent on it. 61. Have you agitated in this matter before?— No. 62. Do you fear that when revaluation comes you will have to pay a higher rent?— Yes. 63. Your improvements would be conserved to you? I do not think the valuation for improvements would give me anything like what I have spent upon it. 64. What class of land is it?— Fern, tutu, and tea-tree. I have surface-sown it. The Government will not allow me anything for knocking down the tea-tree, and if it is heavy tea-tree it costs me a good deal. 65. Would not the cost of grassing be taken into account?—No; and with regard to the fencing, they would not give you the value for the fencing you have done. They would just take the fences as they stood at their present value. 66. But you are supposed to have had the use of those fences, which only last about twentyfive years. Is that not reasonable?—lt is reasonable in one way but not in another. 67. You expect them to give you the same valuation as if it was a new fence?—No; but I think we have a certain amount of interest in that land over and above the valuation, and the valuer cannot see all the work we have put into it. 68. If the valuer is a practical man, would he not be able to arrive at a fair estimate?—l think he would be foolish to give more than the exact value of the improvements he sees. 69. Mr. Matheson.] Have you ever written to the Land Board asking if compensation would be paid where you felled heavy tea-tree and laid it down in grass?— No. 70. I think your mind would be more easy if you did? —Perhaps. 71. The Chairman.] What stock are you able to carry?— About four hundred head of cattle. We cannot carry sheep because of the Maori dogs. 72. Have you had any experience with regard to the Advances to Settlers Office?—l have had no personal experience, but I do not think money could be raised on small grazing-runs. 73. Mr. Matheson.'] If your tenure was made more secure, would you do a good deal more in the way of improvements? Yes, I think so. 73a. Do you pay local rates?— Yes, on the unimproved value. 74. Have you found that the unimproved value is increasing? —I could not say. 75. You sav the Native dogs prevent you from carrying sheep: can you suggest any remedy? —The only remedy I can suggest is to bring the Native lands under the same regulations as European lands. If you force the Natives to pay rates they would have to make use of their lands, and they would do away with the dogs. 76." Is there not power to rate the Native lands now?—l do not think the Native lands are rated. Thomas Lemon examined. 77. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I, with my two brothers, hold 1,000 acres of freehold. 78. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I wish to say this: the Natives here use the road as much or more than the Europeans, and they do not contribute a penny towards the maintenance of the roads. 79. Mr. Forbes.] Do you suggest that the Government should take over Native lands and settle them?— Yes; I should take them over at a fair valuation, and pay the Natives with Government debentures. 80. What is your view with regard to land-tenure? —I believe in the freehold out and out, and I think the right to purchase the freehold should be extended to the lease-in-perpetuity tenants.
995
0.—4.
T. LEMON. !
81. Do you think the State would lose anything by making this concession to the Crown tenants? —I do not. 82. Do you think the leasehold is a useful means of allowing n.en with a small amount of capital to get upon the land?- 1 consider the deferred-payment system better. 83. Would not that mean larger payments? —Yes; but if the payments were extended over a period of thirty-six years it would be all right. 84. But, under the lease in perpetuity, if a man took up a section he would be able to use his lttle capital in improving his land ? —The difference between what he would pay on deferred payment would not give him a great amount for improvements. S5. Mr. Matheson.] Have you taken any notice of the Government policy of purchasing improved lands for settlement? —No; we know nothing about it in this district. 86. You are aware they leased to tenants for a thousand years? —Yes. 87. Do you think it would be wise to give those tenants the right to purchase? —I think every one who gets his living by the land should have the right to a freehold. 87a. Have you taken any notice of the proposal to introduce the old homestead system, which gives to the occupier the freehold of the land on making certain improvements and residing a certain time? —I think it is a very good system. John Ward examined. 88. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a bush farmer. I hold 264 acres of Crown land under lease in perpetuity. 89. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission? —1 would like to get the freehold. 90. Have you thought out the conditions on which you should obtain the freehold? —I have not gone into it very much. 91. You know that persons who hold an occupation with right of purchase pay 1 per cent, more than you do: would you be prepared to have your land put up so that the State would cover that 1 per cent, it has lost since you took up the land? —I think that would be fair enough. 92. Mr. Forbes.J Had you the option to take up your land under any other tenure? —No. 93. Were you satisfied at the time you took up the land under this tenure? —I had to be.' It was only offered under the one tenure. 94. Could you get no other land except lease-in-perpetuity land in the district? —None suitable around here. 95. What rent do you pay for it? —About 4d. an acre. 96. How long have you had it? —Nearly three years now. 97. Do you reside on it? —1 do. 98. Why are you dissatisfied with your tenure? —I reckon if a man gets the freehold it is better for him. He can call it his own. It is not a continual drag on him. 99. Did you get your Jand at the ballot? —No; I applied. 100. Is it heavy bush land? Yes. 101. Would you be prepared to pay the difference in rent between lease in perpetuity and the occupation with right of purchase if the right to acquire the freehold was given you? —Yes. 102. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 103. Mr. Matheson.] Are you quite sure you did not have the option of tenure? —Quite sure. There was only one form of tenure offered. 104. Was there more land in the block than you took up?- Yes; there was somewhere about 500 acres. 105. Was it advertised as Crown lands open for selection? —On the Crown lands map it was. 106. Is yours flat land? —Fairly flat. 107. Would it be ploughable when the timber is off? —Yes. 108. Is it capable of holding permanent grass? —Yes. Samuel Douglas examined. 109. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, holding 1,000 acres under lease in perpetuity. 110. What is the particular matter you wish to bring forward?—l wish to support the proposal to give Crown tenants the right of purchase, because a settler has more encouragement to improve his property when he can have it as his own. 111. Would you be prepared to pay up the difference of 1 per cent, between the two tenures? I would. Another matter that I wish to speak about is our claim to "thirds." When this land was taken up it was an unsurveyed block, and we had to pay down £50, which went towards the survey fee. I consider that upon this sum we ought to be allowed the "thirds " for expenditure upon the roads. 112. Did the survey cost the whole of the £50? —I could not say, but Ido not think it could. 113. Did you not get the land cheaper on account of having to pay " thirds " ?—I cannot say that we did. 114. Is not the survey payment counted against your rent? —It counts as rent paid in advance, and carries us on for four years. 115. Was the price of the land fixed when you took it up?— Yes, at 7s. 6d. an acre. We are to get no " thirds " till we start to pay rent, and as yet we have not had the land for four years. 116. Mr. Forbes.] Did you ever ask whether the whole £50 was absorbed by the cost of survey? —The block was 2,000 acres in extent in the first place. It was taken up in one block, and £100 was paid down amongst four of us. I reckon that £40 would survey the block. 117. Had you the option of taking up land under any other tenure? —We had to take it on lease in perpetuity.
a—4.
996
S. DOUGLAS.
118. According to law nothing but lease in perpetuity can be granted in a mining district, and this seems to be a mining district? —One of our neighbours, who is within the mining area, has the option of buying his land. 119. What is your reason for wishing to have the freehold? —Because of the restrictions we labour under. 120. Do you not think that those restrictions in regard lo residence are necessary in the interest of settlement? —I do. 121. If you were allowed to buy the land, do you think that those restrictions should continue in force? —Yes. 122. Do you wish to purchase the land at the original valuation? —I do. 123. Would you be prepared to pay for the land straight away if you got the option? —Yes; I would buy it for cash. 124. Has not the miner the right of access to your land under lease in perpetuity? —Yes. 125. Under the freehold that would not be the case? —I do not think it would. 126. Has not the miner the same interest in the country as you have? Do you think he would be in favour of allowing a tenure to be given which would shut him out from the use of the land? —I do not suppose he would. I could quite understand the restriction if there were any minerals in the land, but Ido not think there are. The property adjoining is the Te Puke Gold Reefs, but whether there is any mineral of much value in the reef remains to be proved. 127. Do you not think that when it is proved that there are no valuable minerals would be the time to object to the restrictions usually confined to mining areas?- But, when are they going to prove that? Gavin Wallace, Jun., examined. 128. The Chairman.] What are you? —My father is the holder of a small grazing-run of 8,540 acres, of which 1 have been manager for the last ten years. 129. What particular matter do you wish to bring forward? —1 indorse the statements submitted by Mr. McDougall in writing. I have three brothers, and we are willing to take over the whole place on lease in perpetuity or freehold in 2,000-acre blocks at the original valuation. We prefer the freehold if we can get it. We have spent between £4,000 and £5,000 in improving the •property, but I believe that if the Government came in to value it to-day the compensation they would allow would not amount to two-thirds of the money we have expended, leaving our own labour out of the question. 130. Mr. Forbes.] When your father took up the land, did he know the term of the lease? — Thoroughly. Since then we have found that our improvements run out about every three years. 131. If you are losing on the property, is it not reasonable to expect that when a revaluation comes about there will be a reduction in the rent? —I am afraid it will be an increase. Ours is very rough country'compared with that around us. 132. If the valuer is a fair man, would you not get a fair valuation? —Not one that would anything like compensate us for the labour we have put into the land. The breaking in of some of the flat country has cost at least £3 an acre, but the Government valuer now puts it down as £2 an acre. 133. But you get the option of renewal? —Yes; but if we had the country to take up now we would not take it at nothing per annum. 134. Do you not think that by having it for another twenty-one years at a reasonable rent you can recoup yourselves for the improvements? —We prefer to have a title under which, we can do something with the land. We could only sell now at a very heavy loss. 135. But you have security for another twenty-one years; there is nothing to force you to sell unless you are dissatisfied with the valuation ? —At the end of twenty-one years, if one is not prepared to continue paying the rent, the property is put up at auction, subject to valuation of improvements. If the valuation is placed at the same rate as the country round about us, we could not continue to pay it. The land would then be submitted to auction, subject to the value of our improvements, but the allowance made nowadays for improvements would never compensate us for our expenditure. We certainly would not wish to continue in possession of the land unless we got some other tenure. 136. You say that you are losing money over the land, aud that it is not worth the rent you pay, and yet you wish to buy it ? —We wish to reap the benefits of the improvements we have made. The land as it stands is worth far more than the Government would allow us, for we would get what is called the unearned increment. 137. But the land is not worth more than it will produce? —The Government value our ploughed land at £2 an acre. It is worth more than that. Eight or nine years ago we borrowed some money on the place. There were 70 acres lying fallow. The Government Valuer valued the land at 10s. an acre. He would not allow for the state of fertility to which we brought that land, but set it down at 10s. an acre, simply because it was lying ploughed. 138. But in valuing the ploughed land something would be allowed for your having the use of it for a number of years and getting the return?— Yes; but if we had the freehold tenure we would get the full value for our labour, and not merely the Government value. 139. In the case of grass which had run out, though it has cost you a good deal of expense to put it down, even a buyer of the freehold would not pay you for that? —We would get the value of the carrying-capacity of the land. 140. You say that the land does not pay you: do you think, then, that any one would buy at present prices if you showed from your books that the land had not paid you? —I think we would get a purchaser. Other people can sell, and Ido not know why we should not. 141. Mr. Mathescn.\ What limit is there to the compensation for improvements?— They allow us £2 an acre for ploughed land, and £1 an acre for surface-sown. The surface-sown at £1 pays us better than the ploughed land at £2.
C. J. COLLINS.]
997
C.-4.
Charles James Collins examined. 142. Ihe Chairman.] What are you? lam a farmer. I hold 692 acres under lease in perpetuity ; all swamp, partly drained, but still very wet. 143. Is there any particular matter which you wish to bring before the Commission J—Only that I wish to have the option of purchasing the freehold. 144. Mr. Forbes.] What rent do you pay? —About £3 an acre. 145. Do you reside on your holding?—lt is too wet to reside upon. 146 Do you expect to be able to get the land drained? —Yes, in time. 147. For how long have you been exempted from residence?—l got permission not to reside upon it because the land was so wet. 148. Had you the option of taking up the land under any other tenure?—l bought the land second-hand. J 49. Do you know whether the person from whom you bought had the option?—l do not think so. Nearly all the properties in the neighbourhood are held under lease in perpetuity. 150. Why do you dislike the lease in perpetuity ?—I do not like a lease in any form. 151. You do not feel secure under a lease? —No. 152. Do you think that the restrictions under the leases are necessary? —To a certain extent, they are. 153. Mr. Matheson.] Are you in the mining area?-I do not think so, but lam not far from where the supposed mines are. 154. Would it be for the good of the colony to grant leaseholders the option of the freehold? —I think so. 155. In what way would it be-for the good of the colony?—lf the State sold the land it would get the value for it. Walter Tyrrell examined. 156. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. I hold 656 acres under lease in perpetuity. 157. What matter do you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I would like the option of getting the freehold. 17)8. On what condition? Do you want to pay off the cost at once? —Yes; and it is inconvenient to reside on a section when it is too far from a school. 159. How long have you held your section? —Only a few months. 160. Then, you are not required to reside on it as yet? —But in a few months I shall have to. 161. Mr. Forbes.] Are there any roads to the place?- -Yes; but they are not accessible at present for vehicular traffic. 162. How far are you from a school? —I think the Matai Maori School is the nearest, and it is about seven miles away. 163. Have you brought the matter before the Land Board? —No, for that would be no excuse with them. 164. We have been told that in other instances where a settler has been at a disadvantage in education of his children he has been exempted from the residence conditions till a school came reasonably near? —There were a great many applicants for my section, and they have stated that they intend to see that lam kept up to the letter of my conditions. One of these is residence, and I want to be prepared beforehand. Ido not think there is any chance of getting a school in the district for some time, as there are very few children of school age, and till there is a school a man should not be compelled to take his family there. 165. Mr. Matheson.~\ How far are you from the nearest Board school? —About ten miles 166. Are you not aware that the Land Board have discretionary power in regard to enforcing the residence conditions? —No; I thought it was absolutely compulsory that one must reside on the section within twelve months. 167. Where the Crown have let improved estates, and there are schools, do you think that it is wise to grant the right to the freehold ? —Yes. 168. Good for the colony as well as for the tenant? —Good for every man. 169. Why good for the colony? —Because a man takes more interest in the place if it is his own, and from that fact the colony will benefit. 170. Mr. Forbes.'] Do you not think there is a danger in regard to these estates that if you grant the option they may be bought up in large areas again? —There is that danger, certainly. 171. The cost of a number of these estates has ranged from £10 to £15 an acre, and it would take a long time for a man to thoroughly make such a property his own ? —I think a man should have the freehold at the original unimproved value. It should be optional for him to take it. 172. What rent do you pay? —£29 a year. 173. Is the land swamp? —No; part of it is open. 174. Are you farming it? —Yes; I have stock upon it. 175. Suppose you got exemption for a few years till your children are big enough to go a distance to school? — Then I would be satisfied. 176. The Chairman.'] Would it not be possible to prevent aggregation of large estates by an amendment of the Land Transfer Act to debar any person from holding more than a certain area of land? —Yes, lam in favour of such an Act being passed. Even under the ballot system there should be more examination, so as to reduce the number of applicants to a smaller number of eligible applicants than at present.
998
JO. P. C. MCNAUGHTON*.
C.-4.
Colin Peter Campbell McNaughton examined. 177. The Chairman.] What are you 2—l am a farmer. I hold 300 acres under lease in perpetuity and 90 acres freehold. 178. What particular matter do you wish to bring before the Commission?- -I took up this land about ten years ago. It is in the Papamoa Special Settlement. When we took it up we had no option but the lease in perpetuity. I think it would be more satisfactory if we had the freehold. 179. On what terms do you wish to have the freehold—cash down or on terms ?—Optional. For' my part, I would buy it out straight away. 180. You would be prepared to pay the diSerence of 1 per cent? —Yes. 181. Is there any other matter that you wish to mention ?—There is the question of Native land. Between this town and Tauranga about half of the land belongs to the Natives, and the way in which they keep their land idle is obstructing the progress of the district. The properties are getting overrun with noxious weeds —Bathurst burr, the Canadian thistle, and ragwort and the seed spreads over the adjoining country. 182. Mr. Forbes.'] What would you suggest in regard to Native land?— That the titles be individualised. Until this is done the Stock Inspector cannot enforce the Noxious Weeds Act. 183. Were you satisfied with your tenure when you took up your land?—No; but it was the only tenure that was available to us. We could get no other suitable land. 184. Is there anything in the lease that presses hard upon you?— There are the clauses as to residence and improvements. _ i 185. Is it to get rid of those conditions that you wish to get the freeholdi—JNo; but 1 think any man makes a better farmer \i he has the freehold than when on a leasehold, whether a landlord is a private individual or the State. 186. Did you make any objection to the title at the time when the lease was ottered to you /— We wanted to get land under occupation with right of purchase or purchase for cash, but could not fe e g 7 an y _^ ou not th j nk that |.j ic residential clauses are necessary for the settlement of the country?-—ln some cases, but in others 1 think that double improvements would be sufficient. 188. Do you think it would satisfy the neighbours if a section were left vacant and double improvements put upon it? —I think it would. • 189 Do you think they would be willing to waive the advantage of having neighbours f—lt does not' suit every one to go on his land at a given time, and double improvements would meet the case. It would prevent land being held for speculative purposes. 190. But do you think it would satisfy those who go back?—lt might not please all ot them._ 191! If you had the right to buy the land outright you would become free from these restrictions : would this be better for the settlement of the country?- I think it would. 192 Mr Matheson.] Do you think it would be wise if an Act were passed making the mdividualisation of Native land compulsory, and loading the land with the cost?—l do think so 193. The Chairman.] I suppose you are aware that the Crown claims any minerals that may exist in the land, and that this is the reason why the option is not given in districts that are supposed to contain minerals ?—That does not apply to this particular land. It was not m the mining district at the time it was taken up. . 194. Do you think there are no minerals existing in the land ?—I think there are none. 195 If that is given as the reason, do you think it would suit the settler if the Government were to say, "We reserve from this particular land the right to seek for minerals upon it? — lhat does not apply to this particular land, because it was not in a mining district at the time it was taken up. claimed that t i iere are minerals: would it not be better for the Government to reserve the right to mine on the land and grant you the freehold? Certainly. Alfred Bossons examined. 197 The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a settler. I hold 400 acres in this district under lease in perpetuity, and'about 60 acres at Te Aroha, part freehold and the rest leasehold. 198. What matters do you wish to bring forward?—ln the first place, I consider that, the nresent Land Board is very reasonable and considerate, but I think the districts should be represented, and the Board should perhaps be elected. This district, for instance, is unrepresented, alld 199 mfikUt nit meet the case of the settlers if the number of members were increased to seven ' and if a man should be appointed from this district haying an intimate knowledge of the requirements and difficulties of the settlers?-Perliaps that would answer the purpose. 200 Is there any other matter?—As to tenure, I belong to the Papamoa Special Settlement. w«. nrmlied to have the right of purchase, and even had our applications filled out, but then canceUed them. It wTs aTe Aroha association, and most of the members living in Te Aroha dropped out on account of the tenure. Nine others were afterwards obtained in this district. We were refused the right of purchase point-blank. 201 How long ago was this?— Ten or twelve years ago. 902' That was before the Act providing for the lease in perpetuity was passed?-1 think so. We think that, considering that we took up rough land, we should be allowed the right to purchase 11 ' 203 Will vou pay the difference of 1 per cent, between the terms?— Yes; but I think we should have the land on reasonable conditions as to valuation. I do not think there is much unearned increment in the land of this district, for we have had to pay rates to provide for our own roads. Wp have had very little in the way of Government grants. . 204 What about the residence conditions think if the residence clauses were strict enforced it would stop the working-man from getting land. He cannot make a living from a barr-
A. BOSSONS.I
999
C— 4.
piece of land. In my own case, if I had been compelled to live on the land straight away the lease would have had to fall to some one else. I went working on contracts in other districts, and spent my money on the land, and now I am able to reside 011 it. If you force a man to reside on the land at once he must give it up. Then, as to holding land: there is one neighbour of mine who holds 800 acres by living upon it. I have 400, and if the Land Board chose to be nasty they could forfeit 200 acres of it. It is unfair that I should be in that position. Another neighbour beyond me took up 600 acres with the right of purchase. I put in for 200 acres in the same block, and was refused, and then another man came along and was allowed to have the land with the right of purchase. It is wrong that there should not be one law for us all. I think that the land is mixed up in the mining area, and that the Warden must have interfered. 205. Mr. Forbes.] Have you inquired at the Land Office as to the reason why you were exceptreated? —I did, and was told that the best thing would be for me to surrender my lease and take up the land again. I cannot afford to surrender it, because I have spent about £1 10s. an acre upon it. 206. If a man were allowed a certain amount of exemption in the case of bush land before the residence was enforced, would not that meet the case?--Yes; it would give a man a chance of getting work done before the condition as to residence was enforced. Yery often a man is forced off his land because he cannot reside on it, and a neighbour is able to take it up, and by virtue of his residence on an adjoining section is allowed to hold it. 207. Have you any suggestion to make as to residential clauses? Do you think that as they stand they are reasonable enough? —Sometimes a man gets harassed about the residential clauses, and he is in danger of losing his section. 208. Do you know that if holds a lease for three years, and makes all his improvements, he can select a residence on another section that he may hold, and this is considered sufficient? —I was not aware of that. That meets my case, as far as the holding of two sections is concerned. William Atherton Bennett examined. 209. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, and holding 200 acres, in two sections, under lease in perpetuity. 210. What matter do you wish to bring before the Commission? —I am one of the settlers on the Papamoa Special Settlement Block. I think that all the settlers prefer the freehold. 211. Do you confirm what the other witnesses have said on that point? —Yes. 212. Have you any further matter to bring forward? Only this: that it appears to me that the only people who do not comply with the conditions are those who are rewarded by being able to get the freehold. For instance, if a man is not satisfied with the residential and other conditions he can forfeit the land, put a value on his improvements, and take it up under occupation with right of purchase. Another settler, who resides and complies with the conditions, cannot get the freehold, because he has to surrender, and where he has a residence he does not care to do that. The man who has no house does not care, so long as he has good value for his improvements. 213. Do you think that the Government should extend the right of purchase to the lease-in-perpetuity settlers? —They should extend it to the whole lot, if they give it to any. Then, again, if you hold two lease-in-perpetuity sections it appears that you cannot take up a third, no matter what the acreage may be. Ido not think that is right. You are allowed to take up 2,000 acres of second-class land, but you may have two lease-in-perpetuity sections of 100 acres each, and in that case you cannot take up a third. That is one reason why Ido not think a lease in perpetuity as good as a freehold. 214. Did you get your land at a ballot? —Yes. Twelve settlers had a block surveyed, and then balloted amongst themselves for so many acres each. 215. You would be prepared to pay the extra 1 per cent, in order to get the freehold? —Yes. 216. How long have you held your leases? —Eight or ten years. 217. Have you improved them and complied with all the conditions? —Yes, residence, and all. .218. What rent do you pay? —4 per cent, on the capital value. It was to average 15s. an acre. 219. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think that, as a citizen of New Zealand, you have a great interest in the tenure question? —Yes; and I should have more as a freeholder than as a leaseholder. 220. Do you think it would be wise to give the leaseholders the freehold ? It would be better for the colony and better for the settlers. 221. In "what way would it be better for the colony? —The settlers would take more interest in the land as freeholders. 222. The Chairman.'] Is not the right of purchase of greater importance to a working-man than the lease in perpetuity, in enabling him to finance? —Certainly, he can finance much better under the freehold than under lease in perpetuity. Edward John Matthews examined. 223. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I, with my brother, hold 413 acres of freehold, and I myself have 137 acres under lease in perpetuity. 224. You have heard the evidence of the previous witnesses? —Yes. 225. Do you confirm what they have said? —Yes. I only now wish to emphasize the necessity of something being done as soon as possible in connection with Native lands. We are bounded on one side by a large block of Native land, on which ragwort is spreading very rapidly. We have been out for several days gathering it up and burning it, but we cannot devote sufficient time to keeping the Native lands clear. We think fresh legislation is necessary in connection with Native lands. It would be best, I think, for the Government to purchase the lands from the Natives on somewhat the same principle as land is now purchased by the Government for settlements, or else blocks of land should be reserved for the Natives, and the Natives should be allowed to sell the remainder to Europeans. Failing that, greater facilities should be given to enable settlers to
C—4.
1000
[E. J. MATTHEWS.
lease lands from the Natives. At present the cost is too great. Although leases may be obtained through the Native Land Councils, the cost is very great, and the difficulty of obtaining signatures is a great bar. I think that in cases where there are a number of owners in a small block of land the signatures of the majority should be sufficient, because it frequently happens that when there are, say, fifty Natives interested in a block one man may have a half-acre share, and there may be more difficulty in getting that man's signature than in getting the signature of a man who owns perhaps half the block. 226. Mr. Forbes.] Are there any other weeds on this Native land? —It is chiefly ragwort up near my place, but I believe there is also some Bathurst burr, as well as the usual briars and gorse. 227. You think that in itself makes it of great importance that this Native-land question should be settled ? —Yes. 228. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think the first step to be taken is to make the individualisation of lands compulsory ? —I do not think that would do it, because if you have fifty owners in a 100-acre section, and one man owns a half-share, even though you individualise it you have just the same difficulty in leasing that 100 acres as you have now. You have got to get his signature. 229. Suppose the second step was that the Crown take over all the land not needed for the immediate use of the Natives under the land-for-settlements system, would that be satisfactory? — I think so. Walter John Sfooner examined. 2-30. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a coachbuilder. I have only rnv small section in the township. Immediately close to the township there is a block of 500 acres of Maori land which we are unable to deal with. Several people have tried to get a lease of this land, but there is the difficulty of dealing with it that*the previous witness has informed you, because there are over seventy Natives interested in this block. Some of them are agreeable to lease, but others will not lease. I think the Government ought to step in and either take over the land or place it under a Board, who should have power to lease it for the Natives. 231. You think the present Act does not meet the requirements of settlement? —I have been trying for the last twelve months to get a small section on which to run a couple of horses, with a cow, and I have not been able to do so, although I have spent money in trying to get a lease through the Council. You will have noticed, no doubt, that there is a large amount of neglected rough land close to the township, which is a great drawback to the district. 232. Mr. Matheson.~\ If the Crown took over Native lands and leased or sold them, do you think the moneys collected should be set aside and the interest paid to the Natives yearly? I think it would be better if the lands were individualised, and then leased by a Government official, and the rents paid to the Natives in proportion to their interests. 233,. Suppose a Bill were introduced to do that, would the Natives feel they were being harshly dealt with? —I do not think so. I believe there is an Act already in operation in the Taranaki district having a somewhat similar object. A number of the Natives at present are anxious to lease on account of the noxious weeds. 234. Are they signing a petition for some improvements to be made in the machinery for dealing with Native lands? —Not that lam aware of. I know a number of them have been trying to lease the particular piece of land I have spoken of, but they are not able to do it. David McCracken examined. 235. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler in this district. I hold something over 700 acres of freehold land. 236. What matter do you particularly wish to bring forward? —I wish to state the tenure I consider would be best for the working-man. The first land I took up was under the old deferredpayment system. I worked on the land and fulfilled all the conditions, eventually paying for the land and getting the freehold. After that I took up a perpetual lease. That system I did not get on so well with. The reason Ido not like that system is, that you have officers going round, and if you want to deal with your property you cannot cut it up or do anything without the Land Board's consent. If you want to lease part of your ground to your neighbour it is more than probable your neighbour would have 640 acres of land, and you would be refused the right to lease. I think every one should be allowed to have his bit of freehold, and I think the first and best step to bring that about is to reintroduce the deferred-payment system. 237. Do you believe in the extension of the deferred-payment system from ten to twenty years—that is, to increase the period within which all payments are to be made to twenty years?— Yes, I do. 238. Mr. Forbes.] What is your objection to the occupation with right of purchase? —I have no objection to that, because under it a man has a chance of getting the freehold. 239. Do you not think a man should have the option of taking land under any system of tenure he likes, including the lease in perpetuity? —Well, of course, if a man has his choice it is his own fault if he takes up a lease in perpetuity. I wanted to say Ido not think the Government should buy estates while there is a large area of Crown and Native land which the Government could acquire at a cheaper rate. 240. Do you not think a poor man, who gets a piece of improved land, would do better than if he got on to a piece of tough bush land to try and make a home for himself ?—Well, a poor man on a piece of bush land might perhaps have to struggle for a year or two, but I think he will come off best in the long run. 241. Do you think a man can get a return off bush land in two years? —Yes. If I fell my bush this winter I can take a crop of grass-seed off it, and I can get it down in grass. 242. We have had in evidence that it takes five years before a man can get anything off bush
D. MCCEACKEN.]
1001
a—4.
land? —I think that a man who says that is not a bush settler at all, or he does not understand his work. I have been working land for the last forty years, mostly bush land. I have been in Taranaki and Rangitikei, and I have always been able to get a return in two years. 243. Hare you had any experience of these improved estates the Government have taken up? —No, but I know the tenure, and Ido not believe in it. 1 think it is better to open up the Crown lands. I should say that in three years, at any rate, a man who understands bush land would be all right. 244. The Chairman.] How do you take money off a bush section in the second year? —I sow it down in grass and turnips right away immediately after my burn. I put on sheep and cattle immediately, and the grass I take will bring in a return of about £1 10s. an acre. 245. But if you put on cattle you will have to pay £7 or £8 a head, and you will not be getting any return from your stock for the first year or two. Some men say it takes them five years before they get a return ? —lf you put on calves you will be able to sell them before that time. And in twelve months I should have good grass, and I could make something out of dairying. 246. What about roads? You cannot do anything till you have a fair road? —The question of roads is the main trouble. I think the Land Board should not open land for selection until it is roaded. Robert Seddon examined. 247. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer. I "hold 192 acres of freehold and 300 acres of leasehold. I have been in business for seven years as an auctioneer, and have had a good deal of experience of the different kinds of land-tenure you are inquiring into. I believe the best tenure we have had is the deferred-payment system, though I consider the occupation with right of purchase is very good, because it gives the right of purchase. 248. Is it your experience that a man holding land under lease in perpetuity finds it difficult to finance if he wants to buy stock and so on ? —lt is. The only channel through which he can borrow is the Advances to Settlers Department. A great deal of our land about here is held under lease in perpetuity. Tenants had no other option. This Te Tumu land was thrown open without any option. 249. We have been told that people want the occupation with right of purchase simply in order that they may have the right to sell? —I do not think that is it at all. 250. Do you think it would be any injury for the State if all tenants were given the right of purchase? —I do not think so. 251. In your opinion, anything which assists in wedding people to the soil must be in the interests of the country? —Yes. 252. Mr. Forbes.] Why cannot people finance on a lease-in-perpetuity section as they can on an occupation with right of purchase? —They have not the same security to offer. 253. Is there not the same danger of forfeiture for non-compliance with conditions within a certain time in connection with an occupation-with-right-of-purchase section? — Yes, within a very short time; but that is very different from 999 years. 254. But the occupation with right of purchase is not as good as the freehold to advance money on? —It is nearly as good. The only difficulty is the residence clause. 255. Do you think the residence clause is necessary? —I do not think so. I think there is a good deal of humbug about it, and it is evaded in nine-tenths of the cases. 256. Is it not reasonable for people who go into the back blocks to wish to get their neighbours there also? —It is a reasonable wish, but in many cases you will find that people do not go out to reside, and if they were forced to reside in all cases a good many would have to part with their land. 257. Does not a man get four years exemption from residence on these back blocks? —Yes, But I do not think that is sufficient. I think a man should have a certain amount of capital before going on to the back blocks. 258. Under the Land for Settlements Act applicants have to undergo an examination as to their means, because it is considered they cannot work the land profitably without a certain amount of capital. Do you think the same regulations should apply to these bush lands? —I think it is a very good system. 259. Do you think, in connection with these bush lands, if men have to live there a long time without roads it only means disaster in the end —that is, if they have not sufficient money to wait for some years?--Yes. One great hardship in connection with these bush lands is that the selectors have been led to believe when they took up land that roads would be open, and roads have not been open in ten years time. I believe in the Government putting in the main roads and main drains to these swamp lands before the people are placed upon them. 260. Do you not think it is more important to have roads than to have the land at a very low rental? —Certainly .it is better, even if it is necessary to load the blocks and make the tenants pay an extra price. 261. Mr. Matheson.] Do you agree with the previous witnesses that something must be done to deal with the Native lands which are said to be a harbour for noxious weeds?— Yes; some steps must be taken to deal both with the Crown and Native land. 262. The Chairman.'] You think the Government ought to open up the roads before settlement? —I would like to say Ido not believe in the ballot system ; I prefer the auction. John Aberdeen McGhie examined. 267. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I hold 165 acres under lease in per petuity, 250 acres on Maori lease, and 165 acres leased from my neighbour, who has made his section a freehold. Since taking up my lease-in-perpetuity section I have changed my mind as to
126—C. 4.
C.—4.
1002
lj. A. MCGHIE.
the best tenure to have, and I would be glad to have the right to purchase. I would gladly pay the extra 1 per cent., which I should have had to pay if I had taken up my section under occupation with right of purchase. 267 a. Do you agree with the evidence given by previous witnesses on the subject ? —Yes. Daniel Donovan examined. 268. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer. 1 hold 98£ acres on perpetual lease and 150 acres freehold. 269. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission?- I took up my section twenty years ago. There were eighteen sections altogether in a block of 2,000 acres, and there are only five settlers now residing on that block. The balance of the block was taken up by people outside the district for the purpose of running cattle. I think that the residential clauses of the Act should be strictly enforced, otherwise those settlers who live on the block have to suffer for the want of schools and other things which come with closer settlement. I prefer the tender system to the ballot system. As regards revaluation, I agree with those who say that there are improvements made on a bush section which would never be given credit for by any valuer. With regard to the Land Boards, I agree that the number of members should be increased to seven. The Commissioner of Crown Lands should be one, and the others should be chosen from among the Chairmen of the County Councils. 270. You are aware the Chairman of County Councils are elected annually: would not the Commissioner be constantly employed training the County Chairmen in thier duties? T think the County Chairmen are pretty well up in those duties already. I am of opinion that the whole of the waste lands should be thrown open for selection as unsurveyed lands, and they should be offered to selectors rent free for the first few years, provided the settlers made the roads. The counties would be able to rate those lands when taken up, and the country taken up would soon be so improved that there would be a rush, for the remaining lands. 271. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think the country would be a loser if the freehold were granted to the Crown tenants? —Not at all. John Poenia Taylor examined. 272. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am an intending settler, and I have already 43 acres under occupation with right of purchase. 273. What do you wish to bring before the Commission? -Seeing that so many have been advocating the freehold tenure, I thought I would like to advocate the leasehold, 274. Is that merely by way of creating a diversion, or do you believe in the leasehold? —I am strongly of opinion that the leasehold is the best. I have spoken to hundreds of settlers here, and they are all in favour of the leasehold. I never heard any one give an opinion in favour of the freehold from a national point of view. It is always from the point of view of the individual. 275. Do you believe if all the lands were leased by the State for 999 years it would be greatly in the interests of the colony? —Yes. 276. You can easily convert your own holding into a lease in perpetuity ? I am not going to do that while others are given the right to purchase. 277. Do you approve of what the other witnesses have said with regard to the Native lands?--Not altogether. The difficulty about the Government taking over the Maori lands is this: there are large areas of Maori lands which were worth only about 7s. 6d. an acre, but by the draining and fencing and other improvements made by adjoining Europeans they have risen in value to £8 to £10 an acre. The Maoris themselves have done nothing to bring about this increased value, and yet, I suppose, the Government would be called upon to pay them that increased value. 278. Mr. Forbes.\ We have been continually hearing it in evidence that all the increased value in these country lands has been brought about by the occupiers themselves ?—I 'do not hold with that. Ido not think any man takes up a section with a view of getting value for his improvements. He takes it up in the hope of a rise. 279. You think there is unearned increment in country lands?- 1 would not call it unearned increment, because it is earned by the neighbours. James Henry Fenton examined. 280. The Chairman.] What are you? -I am a farmer. I hold 224 acres of freehold and 170 acres under lease in perpetuity. I should like to be in a position to get the freehold. 281. Do you agree with the evidence of the previous witnesses who have given evidence on the same side? —Yes, I agree with Mr. Donovan's evidence and with those who have advocated the occupation with right of purchase.
Rotorua, Saturday, 10th June, 1905. William Seddon examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a settler at Ohinemutu. I hold two sections in the township on ninety-nine years' lease under the Thermal Springs District Act. I wish to say that lam strongly in favour of the freehold. I think that leaseholds generally are of no value. 1 feel that a man who holds a lease is like a borrower; he is the slave of the lender.
H. S. W. KING.]
1003
C.—4
Horace Stephen Walter King examined. 2. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler. I hold 315 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Arawhia Block, in the Mamaku district. 3. Is there any matter you wish to bring before the Commission 2 —The settlers in my district talked this question over, and, as none of them were able to come to town, they suggested that I should come along and represent their views to the Commission. All I have spoken to are strongly in favour of the option of purchase, with the exception of one man, and he is a land-nationaliser. But even that man says he would rather have the freehold as things are now. The chief trouble with us is that there does not seem to be adequate control by the Land Board. We only see the Rangers occasionally, and when they do come apparently they overlook things. I have made representations, for instance, that noxious weeds should be tackled on Crown lands, but nothing has been done. There are too many Crown lands in our district unoccupied. Some of them are supposed to be occupied, but the tenants do not reside. Kagwort is spreading, and although we have made representations nothing has been done to make the absentees come forward and do their duty. We feel something ought to be done. 4. Is the Noxious Weeds Act in force in your district? —1 presume it is. I would like to say I was a freeholder at Manurewa up till ten years ago, and I came to the Mamaku district and took up a Government lease, presuming that I could not have a better landlord than the Government. I have since found that idea to be a fallacy. 5. Mr. McCardlc.] Is your reason for asking for the right of purchase that you may get a better tenure than the one you now hold? —I am very well satisfied with the lease as it stands. My only wish for the freehold is that I feel now, after live years' experience in the hands of the Government, that the Government is not a good landlord. A good landlord would look after the district and see that these things 1 have mentioned did not occur. A good landlord would spend money on reads of some use, and would not spend money on roads of no use at all. 6. Are you aware whether settlers are able to finance their position as well under leasehold as under freehold ? —I have had nothing to do with the Advances to Settlers Office, but I presume private money-lenders would rather advance on freehold than on leasehold. 7. Have you made any improvements2 —Yes; I have spent £500 in five years. 8. If you got short of money and wanted to borrow £250 on your leasehold, do you think you could get it? —I do not think so. 9. Is it not an advantage to a man working land that he should have such a tenure that he is able to compete with other landholders in the money-market? —Certainly. 10. Do you not think that when a tenant has done sufficient improvements of a permanent character on his land, he should be placed in the same position as a freeholder, and be out of the control of the Land Board altogether I—Yes,1 —Yes, I think so. 11. 1 suppose you know that the Land Board have nothing to do with the enforcement of the Noxious Weeds Act: that is a matter for the local authority? —I presumed that the Land Board, being the landlord, it is to their interest to see that the land is kept in proper condition. 12. A good number of witnesses who have come before us have advocated that a number of the members of the Land Board should be elected, while others favour nomination: do you think if you were a member representing the interests of the settlers in this district your wants would be better attended to? —Certainly, 1 am in favour of an elective Board. 13. You know that this is a large district, an'd that the present Land Board only comprises four members: would you be in favour of the number being increased to six or seven, so that each district should have fair representation 2 —l would be in favour of increasing the number even above that. I think that the laud district should be divided into portions, and that each portion should be allowed to elect a member to the Board. These members would then know if a person was taking up land simply for the purpose of speculating in timber, and they could prevent that. 14. Mr. McLennan.\ Are these absentees freeholders? —They are mostly under occupation with the right of purchase. 15. Did you have an opportunity of taking up your land under occupation with right of purchase? —No; I bought it from another man. 16. You say you think it is advisable that Crown tenants should have representation on the Land Boards: suppose you were a large land-proprietor and had tenants yourself, would you permit your tenants to elect a steward to look after their own interests? —I would certainly do so if I had to depend on the votes of my tenants to keep me in my position. 17. Others have the privilege of keeping the Government in their place as well as the Crown tenants? —Yes, but I think this puts them in a different position than the ordinary landlord. 18. There are over five thousand Crown tenants in this land district: do you not think it would be a mistake to allow them to elect a member to the Land Board ? —I have heard no reason against it. The tenants are the people most interested in the lands. 19. The towns are interested in Crown lands as well as the tenants: surely you would give them the privilege of electing a member 2 —The Government should have the nomination of a certain number of members to the Board. I should have no objection to that. 20. The Government nominate already, and if you extend the privilege of electing a member to.the Crown tenants, surely you should extend the same privilege lo the towns as well? —I would not object so long as there is a certain number of members on the Board to represent the tenants themselves, and to explain to the Board the local conditions of the different districts. With the few members on the Board now it is simply impossible for the Board to understand the local conditions of the different districts. 21. Supposing there was a member on the Board to represent each county in Auckland, would that not suit you as well 2 —That perhaps might be sufficient. There is no doubt the membership is insufficient now, as is evidenced by the condition of things in our district.
C.—4.
1004
H. S. W. KING.
22. The Chairman.] Have you studied the matter of land-tenures? —I cannot say I have studied it very much. 23. You said the leases should carry the option of purchase? -What I wanted to convey is that lease-in-perpetuity holders should have the option of converting to freehold. lam simply speaking from my own experience. 24. Mr. McLennan.] Were you elected at a meeting of the tenants to represent their views here to-day ?-— There was no meeting. They were unable to attend a meeting. James Bishop examined. 25. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —Not at present. 2G. Is there any matter you wish to bring before the Commission? —I held some land, but it was taken from me. In 1893 I took up a section of 570 acres under lease in perpetuity, about six miles from Rotorua. There was no road to it, and I made a road of five miles and built two bridges of 60 ft. each to provide access. I held the land for two years, and then I found the roads wanted to be improved. I saw the Surveyor-General, and told him I could not pay my rent unless I could get a road. I might say I was surrounded by Maoris, and I could not get in or out of my place unless I paid for permission to cross their land. I saw the Surveyor-General here, and l came to an agreement with him that my roadwork was to go towards my rent. I asked the Minister of Lands to send some one to inspect my work and value it, and then the next I knew was that my land was forfeited for £29. I petitioned the Waste Lands Committee, and they recommended me for compensation, but I can get nothing out of the Government. The following letter explains the whole position: — " Rotorua, August, 1902. " Sir, —I wish to call your attention to the forfeiture of my land, which was held on lease in perpetuity at Rotorua, for arrears in rent, and also to call your attention to the correspondence that passed between me and the Government. On the 21st October, 1900, I wrote to the Minister of Lands, stating that when I first took up the lease there was no road to it, and that I had to make a road to the section, and also to make two bridges over two streams, each bridge being 60 ft. from end to end, and made of rough timber. I also requested the Hon. Minister of Lands to send some honest person to inspect the work, and also to inspect my clearing, and to allow me 100 acres out of the 570 acres; and I also offered to erect a new bridge in place of the old bridge, which is now rotten, the bridge and the approaches to be completed in accordance with specifications, and the cost of erecting the bridges to be allowed for payment of rent which is now due. I also stated that I had had bad luck in losing my cattle, crops, and draught horse, and that I thanked God that I had my hands and could work, and would the Government give me work. In reply to the above, the Hon. Minister of Lands sent rue a very encouraging letter, saying that it would receive consideration; but another letter, dated the 17th January, 1901, states, ' In further reply to your letter of the Ist instant, on the subject of your forfeited lease, I am informed by the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland, that your rent is in arrears to the extent of £29 95., and as there was another applicant for the land which you forfeited in accordance with law, your application could not be entertained.' Here is another letter, dated the Bth February, 1901, ' I am directed by the Hon. Minister of Lands to inform you that inquiries have been made into your case, and it appears that the reason of your failure with the land selected by you is principally because you were without sufficient means to work so large an area, and you consequently got into arrears with your rent, and the Land Board, in carrying out the requirements of the law, forfeited your interest in it accordingly. Your application to be allowed to reselect 100 acres of the cleared land came too late for consideration, as it had been in the market and applied for by a selector who had the right to acquire the laud. lam to add that the Minister regrets the position in which you are placed, but is unable to assist you, other than giving you a share of Government work, which, it is understood, you now have.' I was kept in the dark in reference to the land being open for selection. The first information I got was from Mr. Hay, from the Waikato, who came to inspect the land, and I at once wrote to Wellington to inquire whether the land was opened for selection, and received the following letter : ' 7th January, 1901. —I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the Ist instant, and to inform you that it will receive consideration.' The first notice that I got from the Government in reference to the land being opened for seleection was a telegram, dated the 16th January, 1901, which I copy here: 'James Bishop, Rotorua, —Your land opened for selection to-morrow at Auckland.- —A. Barron.' All applications for the land closed on the 16th January, and for what purpose was this telegram sent? My application was made on the 21st October, 1900, and I was told that I was too late, as the land had been put in the market and applied for by an applicant who had the right to acquire the land. That is, certainly, plain speaking. In a letter dated the Bth February, 1901, lam told that my application came late for consideration, and in a telegram dated the 16th January, 1901, that my land ' will be opened for selection to-morrow.' I have lived on the land about seven years, and consider it hard lines to be turned out after all the work that I have done without getting anything for it. When Mr. Percy Smith was at Rotorua about five years ago I saw him at the Sanatorium, and I told him then that if I could not get a road to the section I could not pay the rent, and an agreement was made between him and me that what roadwork 1 did should go to pay the rent. About two years and a half ago I wrote to the Surveyor-General (Mr. Percy Smith), saying that 1 had got a cheque for £15, and wanted to know what to do with it, and he replied and referred me to the Receiver of Land Revenue; but I was advised to write to the Commissioner of Crown Lands first, which I did, and got a reply saying that if I paid the full amount of rent that only the land which I had improved would be given back to me, and I did not send the money, but kept it. I do hope that inquiry will be made, whether it will do me any good or not, and it would be to the benefit of Auckland if there were something done to reform the Land Board. The members ought to be elected. The Commissioner of Crown Lands has stated that I have not been dealt harshly
1005
C.-4.
J. BISHOP.]
with. Here is a man with a large salary, and who has the power to do and say what he likes, and to take the land from one man and give it to another without paying for any improvements. This is a copy of a paper which I sent to Wellington twelve months ago, and I have to ask you again to let Sir Joseph Ward read it. —Yours sincerely, "James Bishop. "Mr. W. H. Herries, Wellington." 27. Mr. McCardle.] Had you done any improvements? —Yes, a hundred and fifty pounds' worth. 28". Did you get anything for them? —No, I was not allowed for improvements, and I got nothing for my roadwork. 29. Is your full statement contained in the document you.read? —Yes. Archibald Campbell Turner examined. 30. The Chairman.] What are you? —1 am District Road Engineer 31. Mr. MathesonJ] How large a district do you look after? —My district extends from Waihi to the East Cape and south to Taupo. 32. Are the moneys you expend Crown grants? —Yes. 33. Is the work done by contract or by co-operative or day labour? —By co-operative and day labour. 34. Could you tell us what the administration costs in proportion to the amount expended on the roads in actual labour? —I cannot without going into figures. 35. Could you tell us what the grants you have expended during the last five years have averaged per year?—l could not say positively, but I think I had about £10,000 last year. I would like to make a suggestion -in regard to roading blocks of land which are loaded under the Loans to Local Bodies Act. The moneys are voted out of the loans, and in many cases there is no access-road to the block. It costs more to road a block when there is no access-road to it, because the materials have to be packed in through the bush, and we have to value the work higher to the men on that account. I think it would be better to make the approaches first to the block. 36. Is it customary to start roads in new blocks which have no connection with the outside world? —It has been lately, and we have to value the work higher to give the men a fair wage to make up for the loss of time. 37. Is one of the difficulties here the large areas of Native land which bring in no revenue to the local bodies? —Yes. 38. And in order to give access to the Crown blocks you have to road for miles through Native blocks? —Yes. If we could use the loading money to make approaches to these blocks and then have money afterwards to make the roads in the blocks the work could be done cheaper. 39. Mr. McCardle.] Are the loading and the "thirds" spent on roads other than the roads directly interested? —I spend the "thirds" on the blocks interested or on the roads approaching them. I consult the wishes of the settlers, as a rule. 40. Do you not think the Government ought to find the money for the roads approaching a block, and then use the loading and " thirds " towards roading the block itself? —I think so. 41. Is not a large amount of the £10,000 you mention spent in the township here? —No; the township is under the control of the Town Council, of which I am Chairman. 42. Is anything like a satisfactory amount of money voted by Parliament to meet the requirements of settlement? —There is not sufficient money. 43. Have yau many settlers in your district miles away from roads?-—Yes, there are a good few. 44. How long have they been in that state? —Some few years. 45. Is it in broken bush country? —Yes. 46. Have they to cut their own tracks through the bush? —They have to get in and out the best way they can. 47. Do you think, as a practical man, that is a satisfactory state of things for the settlement of the country 1— No ; I think the roads should be made first. Of course, it is a question of money. 48. Is there any other object of greater importance to which money could be devoted than making roads to settle the country? -I do not think so. In regard to the question of " thirds," 1 would like to point out that "thirds" are lost in the case of people who buy lands for cash. I think the Act ought to be amended, and that cash lands should contribute something for roads. As a rule, I think the loading is too low. 49. Would it not take the whole value of the land to make the roads in many instances? —1 suppose it would. 50. Would it not be better to allow that money to go towards making roads, and allow the settlers to raise a loan on the strength of the " thirds "1 —It might be. I think in some cases the prairie value is fixed too low. We can only load for roads up to one-half the prairie value. 51. Mr. Matfieson.] Do you think it would be wise to load the land with a sufficient amount to make roads before the land is opened for settlement 1- I think so. I have heard the settlers say in the Wellington Province many times that they wished the land had been loaded 10s. more than it was to give them roads. There is another point. In opening up large swamps I think it is very advisable to make the main drains and have a proper system of drainage laid off before the land is offered for selection. The land could then be loaded with the cost of making the main drains. 52. Mr. McCardle.'] We had complaints at Te Puke about the drains you refer to: the settlers say the land was loaded to the extent of Bs. per acre, and the whole of this money was spent, and the difficulty now is that if they want to raise a loan to complete the drains those settlers whose land is already drained will not vote for the loan? —That is so. There has been great trouble with drains between Whakatane and Matata. The land was disposed of before it was drained, and there is a difficulty now in completing the drainage. 53. Mr. MathesonA Have you a personal knowledge of these swamp lands? —I have.
£1.-4.
1006
[a. c. turneb.
54. Do you know if Government money has been spent there without the levels having first been taken ? —That was the case at Kaituna. When I started the drainage there I found it necessary to take the levels. 55. In the first instance the Government spent money on drains without the levels being taken? We started on the work, and I found 1 could not do it. It is a very difficult swamp to drain properly. 56. The Chairman.] Is it a fact that the outlet from the sea is blocked? —The river is tidal from one end to the other, and that causes trouble. We have drained some of the swamp, and so far it has been a success. It could all be drained, I think, sufficiently to grow flax.
Auckland, Monday, 12th Junk, 1905. Jambs Mackenzie further examined. 1. The Chairman.J You are Commissioner for Crown Lands for Auckland? —Yes. I have to lay before (he Commission the following statement of my views: I should like to precede what I have to say by asking the indulgence of the Commission on account of the short time I have been in charge of this very extensive land district. I may say that prior to your visit 1 had only made, flying tours through a few of the districts, and many of the localities I visited for the first time when recently accompanying the Commission. Taking the leading headings of the order of reference seriatim: With regard to Land Boards, I am decidedly of opinion that the principle of their present constitution is aTgood one. The only alternative I could suggest is, that in a large district like this the number of members might possibly be increased with advantage, not but that the present number is ample for the business put through, but some of the outlying districts, such as the far North of Auckland, Tauranga-Rotorua, and the King-country, sometimes complain of inadequate local knowledge and representation. If the elective element is to come in at all, then 1 take the view that it should come from Crown tenants to the extent of, say, 25 per cent, of the Board, exclusive of the Commissioner. But, as before stated, I prefer the present nominated method, which has worked well, and is more likely to administer our land laws consistent with the policy of any Government of the day than any elective body could ever expect to accomplish. Regarding the land-tenures of the colony, in the Auckland District we have no fewer than twentythree different tenures, a copy of which I have for convenience sake run out in the attached schedule, with a very brief precis of the conditions of each. From this it will be seen that the State has no less than 5,054 tenants ol' all classes in this district, holding 1,348,385 acres, the rents from which amount annually to £44,040 9s. 6d., whilst the total area of our alienated Crown lands, in addition to this, amounts to 2,154,718 acres. In round numbers there still remains 1,706,556 acres of Crown land, of which 827,170 acres are at present open for selection, and 879,386 acres not yet opened. Of the latter area 338,000 acres are being prepared for settlement, and it is estimated that something like 150,000 acres of entirely new country will be ready for application during the current financial year. The kauri-gum and forest reserves absorb 229,412 and 256,767 acres respectively, which I have also scheduled, making an approximate grand total of about 486,179 acres to be added to the above Crown areas. In reviewing the tenures at present existing in Auckland, it is unnecessary, I think, after what the Commission itself has observed during its tour, to mention that the main interest here is concentrated in the closer settlement conditions of ordinary Crown lands, particularly those under Parts 111. and IV. of "The Land Act, 1~892," in contradistinction to the pastoral runs and land-for-settlement tenures in the South Island. As noted in the return I have supplied, there still remains under the Act of 1885 and its amendments forty deferredpayments and 236 perpetual-lease holdings. Both of these tenures are gradually being worked out —the former into freehold, and the latter either to freehold or lease in perpetuity. Doubtless a great deal of solid settlement has resulted under , these tenures, and many persons still like them, yet, personally, I would not now favour their reintroduction, their place having been taken under the 1892 Act by the conditional cash and occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenures. I might here mention that my views are generally more in the direction of the reduction and consolidation of tenures than in their increase. In fact, as far as practicable, I should like to see everything bearing on close settlement gathered, so to speak, under the optional system of Part 111. of "The Land Act, 1892." Coming, then, to the optional system of our present Act—namely, Part 111. —my attention has often been drawn by settlers to the difference in the respective residential and improvement conditions of the three tenures namely, conditional cash, occupation with right of purchase, and lease in perpetuity and if the law is to be changed it might well be considered in the direction of bringing them all on one plane. The nearer you get to buying for cash the conditions lighten, and the purely leasehold tenure is the hardest of all to comply with, whilst the man it is presumed to benefit is very likely the poorest of the three. It has struck me that an element of equality would be perhaps introduced if the occupation-with-right-of-purchase conditions in this respect were adopted for all. Coming, then, to the lease-in-perpetuity section of the 1892 Act, there is a considerable difference both as to the conditions and circumstances of how the different classes of our tenants have taken up their holdings under this particular tenure. For instance, we have- First, those selectors, who, when they took up their holdings, had the option (had they wished) of taking conditional cash, occupation with right of purchase, or lease in perpetuity, and elected to select the latter. Second, those again who from the first only had the option of selecting under lease in perpetuity. Third, those lease-in-perpetuity tenants who, having had special concessions made to them by the Land Boards, have never, or perhaps only partially, resided on their selections. Fourth, those who have had special concessions already granted" to them of converting from a less favourable tenure, such as small grazing-runs or the
J. MACKENZIE.]
1007
C—4.
1885 Act village leases, to the 999-years tenure, and in this category are included those who, but for the conciliatory treatment of the Boards in the way of capitalisation of arrears of rent and advances for improvements, in addition to obtaining a sounder and cheaper tenure, would in all likelihood have lost their sections years ago. Fifth, and, lastly, those who are included in the above first and second classes, who, from the first to the last, have gone through all the hardships of pioneer back-block life, and have complied with all conditions to the very letter. The above, of course, do not refer to the lease-in-perpetuity holdings under the Land for Settlements Act. J may also mention that there is no doubt whatever in my mind that the dread of revaluation has clone more to cause unrest in the minds of many of our Crown tenants, particularly within the last year or two, than anything else that has ever occurred. The Commission, I feel sure, will fully agree with me in this from what has transpired at almost every meeting held in the north. If confidence in this direction could be restored, and the tenures stripped of some of their present encumbrances, my opinion is that the .discontent thus occasioned would soon be a thing of the past. What I mean as encumbrances are that, as years roll on the genuine tenant's position every day gets stronger, and the conditions of his lease probably have been complied with five-fold, he might well be freed from all restrictions or control of the Land Board, except under proper precautions for the payment of rent, and the prevention of disposing of his section to any one who already holds too much land. In these suggestions you will understand that I am referring particularly to ordinary Crown land tenants, and not to land for settlements, but eventually as the interest of the tenant increases over that of the State the same rule will apply, but, of course, in a lesser degree. Coming on to the small-grazing-run tenure we have only nine here holding land under this system, and its conditions generally arc giving satisfaction. Respecting pastoral runs, these comprise forty-one holdings, with a,n area of 210,331 acres, and do not present any parallel with the conditions obtaining in the south under a similar tenure. In the Auckland District the runs comprise the very poorest of our lands, often in manuka send) find fern, with indifferent soil and formation, and which to make reasonably reproductive often means a large expenditure. The tenure here is chiefly of service in the way of producing some sort of return for lands often otherwise valueless. Looking at it, therefore, from purely an Auckland standpoint, I see no necessity for any alteration. Respecting village settlement under the 1885 and 1892 Acts, the former being thirty-year leases, with the conditions of renewal of right to convert to lease in perpetuity under the 1892 Act, the areas being up to 50 acres: Those under the 1892 Act are simply lease-in-perpetuitv holdings, limited to 100 acres, with assistance given by way of advances, &c, in order to help the settler in making a start. This class of tenure has often been condemned as a failure: but in this view I do not concur, if for nothing else than that in periods of depression it has been specially useful, relieving the cities when labour was congested, and giving employment, and generally uplifting those who otherwise would have been sorely pressed. I quite admit that possibly not more than 15 per cent, of those taking up land under these conditions are now in occupation. Many of the 85 per cent, balance, however, are to be found on larger holdings, or employed in various capacities, whilst their sons are probably either now found in the ranks of our other Crown tenants or employed in some way or other connected with land. In this way the system has done good service to the State, and if abolished it should only be for the reason that the necessary class of Crown land to make such settlement successful is not now obtainable. Practically the same remarks are applicable to the improved-farm settlement tenure. Both systems have been the means of putting many deserving persons on their feet who otherwise might have gone to the wall, and whilst it must also be admitted that in many instances the assistance given by the Covernment lias been abused by many of those selected for the different settlements, full credit, however, should be given to those tenures if only as in the light of stepping-stones to a better class of settlement. The mining district land occupation, as also the Hauraki pastoral tenures, both of which have special application to mining districts, the object of each being to allow the lands to be used for settlement and grazing purposes, but in such a way that mining cannot be interfered with : Both tenures in their way are popular and useful. The length of lease is twenty-one years with renewal rights, and at present T have no alteration to suggest, although there are indications that a more permanent tenure, in some instances, is desired by selectors, such as 999-years lease. I would only favour this, however, in districts where absence of minerals makes it unnecessary to still keep the land under the Mining Acts. Coming to special settlement, vou will see that eighty-four selectors still hold under these conditions, but the ordinary optional system is now largely taking the place of this class of tenure, and there is a likelihood of its gradually becoming less and less as time goes on. Homestead lands: Undoubtedly a great deal of most successful settlement, amounting in all to 76,096 acres in 464 sections, has taken place under these regulations, which, however, have long since been repealed. Their reintroduction within certain proclaimed limits with larger areas no doubt would help to settle our poorer lands. I do not, however, quite favour the idea of land being entirely given away free. The cost of survey would, as a matter of course, be deposited, which in itself would be evidence of good faith. In addition to this, say, 2s. 6d per acre, payable by instalments, extending over five years, and entirely spent on roads giving access to the holdings, might reasonably be charged, the first instalment to be paid at the end of the third year after selection. A great deal of the land will be of inferior quality, but its settlement would be an immense advantage to the northern districts generally. Other tenures, except lands for settlement, I hardly think call for special notice beyond what is given in the schedule, but I will gladly answer any question that might be asked respecting them Lands for settlement: As indicated previously, this class of settlement in the north has not assumed the gigantic proportions like it has in the south. This doubtless is largely accounted for by the fact that here we still have considerable areas of Crown lands unselected and obtainable at much lower rates than it is possible to offer improved country for : still, there are 430 tenants on the books in occupation leasing 79,006 acres, with a gross rental of £12,767 17s. 7d. All the settlements may be classed as fairly prosperous, some of them especially so. In the neigh-
C—4.
1008
[j. MACKENZIE
bourhood of Auckland, I regret to say, a number of the workmen's homes allotments have not been taken up as readily as might have been expected. The total area under the Act, as hamlets, amounts to 996 acres, whilst the area selected is 230 acres, leaving still on hand 766 acres. Regarding residential and other restrictions under the Land for Settlements Act, a good deal of complaint has come from settlers living on their original somewhat small holdings in districts where estates are being acquired, and subdivided on account of their being unable to acquire sufficient additional land for the reasonable maintenace of their families. Numbers of these would also like to be able to secure sections for their sons, so as to keep the families together in the one district with residence dispensed with until the young men get properly established. With this exception, tenants seem generally satisfied with their position and prospects, numbers of them apparently recognising that but for this opportunity they would hardly ever have been able to become possessed quickly of money-producing lands- not thai 1 wish to infer that the estates in question would not have been otherwise taken up —but it would probably have tended to prevent those with limited means doing so. The cropping difficulty here is practically unknown. The great object of our settlers apparently is to get their holdings into permanent pasture, and keep it in rhat state as long as possible, generally for dairying or pasturing purposes. With respect to restrictions generally amongst our ordinary Crown lands tenants, the one regarding residence affects them most, and arises largely through indifferent access, want of schools, and even through lack of employment to supplement the maintenance of families during the earlier and harder years of settlement. The Auckland Land Board in such cases, so far as my experience goes, has never hesitated to postpone residence where good cause for so doing has been clearly shown. The first thing considered by the Board is the genuineness of the applicant. If this is assured the discretionary powers allowed by the Act are generally sufficient to meet the majority of cases. With a view, however, to give a further impetus to settlement in remote districts, I should, at anv rate, like to see the spirit of the resolution given effect to which was passed at the recent conference of Land Boards held in Wellington. This was to the effect that under certain restrictions for the prevention of dummyism and the aggregation of large estates, residence could be postponed for seven years in all forest and second-class land in the remoter districts of the colony. This would only be operated on within certain proclaimed blocks, and with the Minister's consent. The real object of this, of course, was to enable the people in cities to take up land either for themselves or for their sons, and be enabled to carry out all their improvements prior to taking up permanent residence. With reference to the working of the ballot system, many objections have been raised, and, although much criticized, so far as I know none of the objectors to the system have solved, to my mind, any better way of determining priority when two or more persons have equal rights to any given thing than the drawing of lots for it in some way or other. With respect to ordinary Crown lands, at present any one over seventeen years of age is eligible, provided the applicant does not hold already more land than the Land Act allows. I would suggest that in all cases there should be the power given to Boards to examine all applicants, and to reject from ballot all those that are undesirable, and that there should be no appeal from the Board's decision. I feel that the ballot as a ballot is perfectly fair, but greater power is needed to exclude from it those who are not genuine. The effect, I know, of such legislation would be that the offending class intended to be reached would never put in an appearance before the Board. I have in my mind two large land ballots held in this district since I came here: one for a lands-for-settlement ballot, where examination was necessary. In this not more than 2 per cent, were rejected. The other was for ordinary Crown lands without examination, and if there iiad been the power to do so probably MO per cent, would have been thrown out. Under lands for settlements, applicants, so far as Auckland is concerned, the grouping of sections and the second ballot is strongly objected to, and even prevents good settlers from applying. I can understand, however, in the south, where the number of applications so far exceeds the number of sections being offered, that the grouping system might be applicable. I think, however, that for all ballots, if the principle of examination of applicants is upheld with the power to make regulations for special districts and cases, it would give satisfaction, and would tie in keeping with the varying interests that govern the different land districts of the colony. Regarding loading for roads, the schedule put in shows loans raised for the different Crown lands blocks in the district, together with amounts spent, as also additional money spent outside of the different blocks. It will be seen that 112 blocks have been loaded with sums in aggregate amounting to £140,907. The spending of this money, however, is not under my control, but, so far as my knowledge goes, I have no grounds for thinking thai it litis not been spent to the best advantage ; but the great trouble is, that even the money that it is possible to raise under the Loans to Local Bodies Act is at times insufficient to give complete access to every section. Again, with regard to "thirds," I feel that frequently the best use is not made of them, and I say this without reflecting in the slightest degree on local bodies, whom I know are often at their wits-end to know what to do with the small sums coming from these sources, and at the same time to give satisfaction to the settlers from whose sections the "thirds" were derived. The only remedy I can see for this, if the capitalisation of the "thirds " is not practicable, and cannot be added to the money set aside for the construction of roads, is that encouragement should be given to local bodies to'raise loans within defined areas, pledging the "thirds" for the payment of interest. With reference to the working of the Advances to Settlers Act: Whilst in charge of the Taraniiki district settlers there, at times, complained that some advances made were insufficient for their requirements and less than private money-lenders would advance, although the latter, of course, charged a heavier rate of interest. Since I have been in Auckland no such complaints have come under my notice. In -fact, on the contrary, several settlers have told me that, with the exception of the delay in finally granting loans, matters in this respect are satisfactory. Coming to the general conditions of settlers under the various tenures, personally, I have not been long enough in this district to form an independent opinion. The reports of the different Crown Lands Rangers, all of whom your Commission have had an opportunity of examining, tend to show that
J. MACKENZIE.]
1009
C—4.
the Crown tenants as a body are making substantial headway. Many who started with nothing have now comfortable homes. Dairy factories are being established in the districts, where a few years back it was hardly thought it would be practicable to erect them. In the Auckland district there are many ways, independent of the return from his holding, that the settler during the earlier years is enabled to supplement his income from several sources that are not available in the southern districts of the colony, such as the timber, kauri-guni, and flax industries. These, in their way, although indirectly sometimes perhaps a drawback to permanent settlement, prove a great help to the struggling man at a time when assistance is most needed. Coming to the schedules, the first is a general risume of tenures showing a precis of the conditions —information that I thought would be useful to the Commission. [Vide Appendix.] I think it will at a glance place before the Commission in a handy form a sort of digest of the whole of our tenures. Another return I give you is one showing the Crown land in every county, indicating what is now open and also that remaining unopened. [Vide Appendix.] Of these latter, as previously mentioned, 228,000 acres are being got ready, and about 150,000 acres of new land will, I hope, be put in the market this year. Another return is that giving our State forest areas. [Vide Appendix.] These also indirectly touch on settlement, because some of these, after the milling timbers have been cut out, will probably have the reservations removed, and will in due course be opened for settlement. The same remark applies to kauri-gum reserves, of which I give you similar details, because as soon as it becomes evident that it is no longer profitable to keep any one of these areas back for the purpose for which they were set aside, the reservations, after all reasonable precautions have been taken, are removed, and dealt with as ordinary Crown lands. [Vide Appendix.] As the question of Native lands generally has very often come before you in your northern tour, I am giving j r ou a schedule showing for «ach county the land in Native hands that has passed the Court and the land unadjudicated. The gross areas amount to 3,539,775 acres and 540,735 acres respectively, the grand total being 4,080,510 acres. [Vide Appendix.] Another schedule Is that of the roads opened under the Loans to Local Bodies Act. [Vide Appendix.] The total amount of loading is £140,907, which is spread over 112 blocks, and the sum of £62,121 Bs. Id., which Eas been expended out of special votes, in addition to the loading, to give access. The roads in the Auckland Land District are subdivided into three separate road districts, District Road Engineer Wright being in charge of the Auckland District, which extends to the North of Auckland and takes in a portion of the Waikato, Ac. District Engineer Burd's district comprises the Kingcountry and the other portion of the Waikato, and Captain Turner has control of the Rotorua, East Coast, and Thames districts. Alfred Sanford examined. 2. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —Yes. I have been a settler in the colony for forty years. I hold Rakino Island, comprising 360 acres of freehold land, acquired from the Maoris. I wish chiefly to give evidence on one or two points that have been raised by your inquiry. The only tenure I would support is lease in perpetuity, in that it is more free than the freehold. The day is past when a pure freehold can be allowed to any individual. I cannot get away from the fact that the lease in perpetuity is better than the freehold. The people are now protected from land getting too dear by making roads and railways through new lands, which when settled creates many forms of "spare value," on which our increasing prosperity depends, and of which our wealth is chiefly composed. Labour products do not represent a very large percentage of the "value" that we convey to London. There is more going in title deeds and other forms of securities than in wool, gold, and lamb, hence our prosperity. Ballot system: At its best this is a vile system of gambling, and unjust to all concerned The State does not get full value for the land selected, and the would-be settler seldom or never gets the land most suitable for his requirements, even with cash to pay for it. The aggregation of estates: Land held by any one individual should be restricted in area, and more particularly in the amount of value held. The restriction of value is, in my opinion, far more important than area in aiming at a more equal distribution of wealth. Values of leaseholds now and at date of lease: The State in its wisdom may relax restrictions or abolish regulations which become obsolete with our increasing knowledge in regard to methods of cultivating and using land, but to give Crown tenants the freehold at less than its present value is a corrupt proposal that no honest politician could make. At the same time, if freehold is given at present value the money gained by the State would be so much less that the rich people would need to pay in taxation. It would not be likely to raise wages or the purchasingpower of the money. Still, it is not honest to make a present of what is practically money to any section of the community. Advances to settlers: It is doubtful if this measure is any permanent benefit to the colony. Interest is going to London —paid in produce at prices fixed by world-wide competition. A debt owing to residents in the colony, even at a much higher rate of interest, is not so severely felt, because the consumer who draws the interest is our exclusive customer, and the price of the produce he consumes is fixed by local competition, and being higher in sympathy with wages a lesser quantity of produce pays the interest at the higher rate. Too much borrowing and too little work is a great evil encouraged by the Act. The advances-to-settlers system, in saving 1 per cent, interest, has in the case of a local £500 mortgage on a farm saved the farmer a paltry £5 a year. The effect is that the local lender loses purchasing-power, and the London moneylenders have increased purchasing-power, and to that extent the farmer is brought into open competition with producers in foreign countries. He pays his interest in produce at London prices, and gives work to English ships and English people to distribute it, whereas if the selfreliant policy of Mr. Ballance had been carried on every acre of land opened up would have found employment for local capital at high rates of interest, and a high standard of living would have been maintained without getting into debt. The savings of the workers would be a much greater help if interest as well as wages were high. I believe myself that there should be at least one-fifth of the lands of the colony held as endowments, the freehold of which should never be parted with. You may get depressions' at times, and then it is verv hard to maintain the level of taxes, and it 127—C. 4,
1010
[a. sanforp.
a—4.
would be very handy to have these endowments to fall back on. For instance, the unemployed difficulty could be met by putting the men to work on State farms. Again, hospitals and many other institutions could be maintained out of revenue directly derived from endowments. The advantage which a leaseholder lias in times of depression is that he cannot mortgage it, which is a very good point. I think a great deal of my success in the world is due to the fact that my first land was held on lease, and I could not very well mortgage it. So far as unearned increment is concerned, is it unearned increment or the exchangeable value of the land? You can take the land, but you cannot take the unearned increment, unless you say to the freeholder, " Well, when you sell your land we mean to take all over what you paid for it." As you increase taxation and destroy land-value so you destroy the value on which you levy taxes. I am fully convinced that the taxation of land in any form tends to put it out of use. The freer you can have land the better. When there is no free land left in the world, my opinion is that civilisation will cease. 3. Mr. Forbes.] Have you been a farmer yourself ?—Yes. Practically, when I went on to Rakino Island it was as God had left it, apart from the damage done to it by the Maoris, and I improved it and put it all into grass wholly by my own labour. I also had a bush farm up country, but I sold that place, because I believe there is very little in farming even at the present time, when you have to cut down the bush and contend with blackberries and other weeds. I believe the backblocks settler deserves all the unearned increment he can get. i. You said you do not altogether believe in the Advances to Settlers Act ? —No. 5. Do you recognise the advances-to-settlers policy has had something to do with reducing the rate of interest to farmers, and has given the struggling settler a chance to improve his land?I honestly believe it has. 6. Is that not a good thing? —No, it is wrong. It is an interference. If it has reduced the rate to the borrower it has also reduced the rate paid to the saver—namely, the worker. Ithas reduced his interest, which is a bad thing, because it is just the same as reducing wages. 7. Would you be in favour of handing the settler over again to the mercies of the moneylender without giving him any help from the State at all?—No; I am not in favour of making any such change at the present time, for the reason that the State in stepping in and guaranteeing the Bank of New Zealand must carry the thing through and guarantee everybody in the colony. Samuel Augustus Browne examined. 8. The Chairman.\ What are you ?—I am a settler at Clevedon. I hold land under three tenures. I hold 310 acres of freehold, 136 acres of short leasehold, and 109 acres under lease in perpetuity. 9. Have you anything to bring before the Commission I—l wish to read the following statements: As father of the Farmers' Union and a Crown tenant, I give my evidence—(l) The constitution of Land Boards: Land Boards, I consider, should be elected—two-thirds by the Crown tenants and one-third by the general public through the Government. (2.) The land-tenures of the colony: The land-tenures of the colony are, in my opinion, unsatisfactory, the homestead and lease in perpetuitv being the best. The so-called freehold is generally a greater burden to the farmer and colony than the long lease. I think the so-called " freehold " should be called the " mortgagehold." As far as I can see, that is what it is chiefly wanted for. The reason why the so-called freehold is bad is because it denudes the average person of his funds before he can become a farmer, and then he requires to mortgage to carry on, and is worse than any leaseholder, because he can only get short terms for his mortgage, and in bad times might be foreclosed on at a great loss to himself; and, anyway, at the end he has to pay back his mortgage before he can become owner of his improvements, whereas with the lease in perpetuity he has his capital left to him, and at the end gets compensated for his improvements. I consider that any one wanting Crown land should have the site of the farm given to him free, and be merely charged rates and taxes on the site value or unimproved value, and that he should have all his improvements free. (3.) Residence conditions on Crown tenants: These conditions often not only cause hardship, but deter persons settling on waste lands. I consider that all that is required is to limit the area—half a mile of first-class land, one mile of second-class, and two miles of third-class lands—and see that the rates and taxes are paid. (4.) Pressure of other restrictions: I consider all specific restrictions should be removed. Each person knows his own condition best, and if he does not do as well as he might guc h is human nature; and, anyway, he is better there than on the Charitable Aid Board or gaol. (5.) Effects of climate, &c, : This is partly answered in the foregoing, and serves to emphasize the fact that rents and rates or taxes shouid be on site values only. (6.) Homestead privileges, &c.: I consider the homestead system requires a lot of amplification, although the base —that the waste lands should be settled—is a good one; also, that the farm-sites should be given to settlers. (7.) The working of the ballot system: I consider the ballot system altogether bad. "First come first served " should be the motto,' and the first applicant for a section should get it without any delay. (8.) The practice of loading lands for roads is altogether bad, and should be abolished, and in its place special subsidy to waste lands rates, or, better still, a graduated subsidy, put in its place. (9.) The values of leaseholds now and at date of lease: The site values or unimproved values of land should never become the property of the occupier. They are not required by the farmeronly by the land-speculator to gamble in land, and such gambling is a distinct drawback and debar to good farming and causes mortgaging. Besides, gambling in land is the greatest of evils a country can have. The German Government prohibited gambling in breadstuffs, and on the same argument the material from which the breadstuffs are received should all the more be defended from gambling. (10.) Working of advances-to-settlers system: The advances to settlers, though it did some good, is cumbersome and antiquated, and very little better than any other mortgage, except that the State has more soul than the private money-lender, can be got at better. What farmers want to <*ive them abundance of cheap money is agricultural banks on the Raffeisen system, with or without State guarantee. (11.) Condition and
S 4 A. BKOWNE.j
1011
C.—4*
position of occupiers under the various tenures: As a Crown tenant under the lease-in-perpetuity system, and as a freeholder, I consider the lease in perpetuity better than the freehold, not only for myself, but for the country generally; and the only ones to complain are the money-lender and land-gambler. (12.) The aggregation of large estates: The aggregation of large estates should be prevented by special law and site-value taxation. (13.) Separate occupations, &c.: The best system of occupation I consider the lease in perpetuity, except that it should be revalued at the original lessee's death, or every twenty-five years, but not before he dies if he continues to hold it. 10. Mr. McLennan.] You believe in the lease in perpetuity, but you think the only drawback is that there is no revaluation. Would you be in favour of revaluing the present leases on the death of the lessee? —Not the present leases. I hold that a bargain is a bargain, and should be adhered to. If it is proposed to amend the present leases, then 1 think the present lessees should be fully compensated. 11. Mr. Forbes.] You state you are the father of the Farmers' Union? —I consider I am. Mr. Glass said that it was my action in trying to stir the farmers into unity that started him going. 12. The opinions of the Farmers' Union have altered since you commenced it? —They have altered. 13. Are the views you express now the views of the Farmers' Union? —They may not be the views of all of them, but I believe they are the views of a great number of farmers. 14. Is there not an official platform laid down by the union? —Yes. 15. The views you express are different from those contained in the platform? —I know they are. Ido not hold with the official platform. 16. You state you do not beljeve in the ballot system; and you think that "first come first served " would be a better principle? —Yes. 17. How would it work where there were forty applicants for one section? —There would be forty letters, and you cannot open forty letters at once, and I would give the applicant whose letter was first opened the section he applied for. 18. Would there not be a chance of a particular letter being pushed towards you?— Not if you have honest officials. If you have dishonest officials to deal with you cannot help yourself. 19. Would you stir all the letters up in a heap?— Not of necessity. They would be tumbled out in a heap, and no one knows what is in a letter until it is opened. 20. Does not the element of the ballot come in again ? —Yes, you can call it balloting if you like; but there is no waiting in connection with that, which is the great fault of the present ballot system. Again, an applicant would get the section he wanted. 21. Do you think that the men who go into the ballot have to put up with a great deal of delay? —I have heard it is so. I have had no experience of a ballot except what I have read in the papers. 22. We have had a good deal of evidence from Crown tenants, but they have never complained that the ballot system means delay?—l know the tenants my way who went in for the ballot grumble about the delay. 23. Would you apply your system also to the Land for Settlements Act, where there are sometimes as many as a hundred applicants for a section? — Yes. 24. You say you think it necessary to reintroduce the homestead system to settle the lands of the colony ? —lt would be better than the present system. 25. Do you not think that there are men able and willing to pay for the land if it is opened up ? —Lots might be, but there are lots who are not. 26. Under the homestead system you would give away a certain amount of land for nothing? —Not for nothing, because the State gets the benefit by the increased population. 27. Mr. Matheson.] You said the freehold is a burden to colonists because they mortgage heavily: do you not think leasehold is mortgaged just as heavily?— They cannot mortgage as heavily in proportion. „ ~ , 28. Under the Advances to Settlers Act the State will advance 50 per cent, of the value over and above the upset value to the tenant, and is that not just as heavy in proportion as any freeholder can mortgage? —It cannot be. 29. In saying that the lease in perpetuity suited you best, would, it suit you best it it was revalued every twenty years ?—I do not say every twenty years. It would be more equitable to me and more satisfactory to me as a lease-in-perpetuity holder, to "know that I was doing a fair thing by the country. But, as I said before, I do not believe in the lease business at all, but as we have the lease-in-perpetuity system I think it is the best. , 30 If you do not believe in the lease system, and you think the freehold is bad, what tenure do you'suggest?—l would give the people the land. If there is any Crown land lying idle I would give it to the person who would improve it and make use of it. 31. Would you propose giving the improved estates that are purchased tor closer settlement to anvbody who would go and live on them? I should. 32 You would give the land to the applicant whose letter was opened first?—l should. You might think the State was losing something, but the State is losing nothing if the people are waiting to go on the land. . 33. Mr. McCardle.l How would your system of revaluation apply in the backblocks, where, perhaps, the settler has been as many miles back as the period you name without access to roads for perhaps close on twenty-five years?-I think under fair and honest revaluation his unimproved value should not be increased. , , 34 We have had ample evidence given us that the valuation placed on the holding by the Ranger and the valuation allowed by the Government Valuers do not approach more than one-half of the actual improvements put on the property. If that is a sound system ot valuation, and it at the end of twenty-five years that land is worth £5 per acre and the improvements are only valued at £2 10s. per acre, who is going to get the £2 10s. not included in the improvements ?- I think all the improvements should belong to the man who puts them there.
C—4.
1012
JS. A. BROWNE.
35. If the land is sold at £5 per acre, and the settler is only credited by the Lands Department with £2 10s. for improvements, then there is a discrepancy of £2 10s. between the prairie value and the improved value, although the settler has spent that amount on improvements? —I do not think that would be fair, and I do not think that would work out at all. 36. You have seen' dairy factories established? —Yes. 37. The settlers tax themselves, and these factories raise the value of the land, although that value is not shown on the surface of the soil: is that not so?— They raise the value of the improvements, but they do not necessarily raise the value of the land. Robert Nesbit Smith examined. 38. The Chairman.'] Are you a landholder?—! am. I hold 500 acres of freehold and about 150 acres of leasehold in the Thames district. lam a freeholder, and I think it is the desire of every one to possess some freehold, however small —some place they can call their own. I consider it to be better for the State and better for the people that they should have freeholds. The best way to nationalise the land is to apportion that land to the people of the nation who are desirous of obtaining and can work it, and it is the duty of the Government to assist those people in securing the freehold, so that they shall have vested interests in their nation, and have hearths and homes to defend in case of need. As to unearned increment, I contend there is no such thing as unearned increment, especially in rural lands. As to lands contiguous to large towns, if an increased value is created by the people it was by no effort on their part, hence it would be a very dangerous precedent to admit the claims of labour unions to a share in that in which no effort of theirs has helped to produce. 1 claim that they get their share weekly in increased work and better wages. The system of preventing any dealing in Native lands has greatly retarded the prosperity of this county.' It has taken from the Natives the selling-value of their lands, and it has prevented many people from settling on land who otherwise would, but who prefer to remain landless rather than become a tenant of the Maoris, and I commend their spirit. I think it would be rather a retrograde spirit to see a lot of Britishers subject to and tenants under the Native race. Even the majority of the Maoris are not in favour of these Maori Councils, and would prefer to deal with their own in their own way. 39. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think there is any unearned increment in the cities?- It is a very moot point. 40. The Chairman.] Do you consider that the pioneer settler who reclaimed the waste lands of the colony is entitled to the products of his labour? —Decidedly. 41. If there is any unearned increment, you chink he has earned it? —Yes. Donald McKinnon examined. 42. The Chairman.} Do you hold land?— Yes. I and my brother hold 3,300 acres of freehold in the Waikato district. 43. Is there any matter you wish to speak on?—I think I have had as much experience as most men farming. I have been farming thirty-six years. I had a leasehold and a freehold in the south. I had 640 acres under Board of Education lease and 300 acres of freehold near Waimate. I have been farming in the Waikato for the last twenty-seven years. Part of my property there I took from the Crown under lease with the right of purchase. I believe in the Advances to Settlers Act for it gave me a chance of making that part of my land freehold, and in more ways that one I find it is giving help to some of my neighbours when it was hard for them to get the money otherwise. I believe in the freehold, and I found it paid me better than leasehold in my first start in life. I think for a man with capital and experience there is nothing more profitable than the land as an investment. I took up some swamp land and paid £2 per acre for it, but some of it cost me £20 per acre to drain and stump. Still, I am satisfied, because it has paid me interest on the money I spent on it. If it had been leasehold I do not think I would have gone to the expense 1 did. I think any man who has land will always wish to make it freehold some day. I believe in the Government giving a lease with a right of purchase. I believe always in giving the option of the tenure to the settler. 44. Mr. Forbes.] You say you spent up to £20 in stumping and draining land, and that you would not have undertaken that expenditure if the land had been leasehold?- That is so. 45. If the Government are leasing swamp lands such as yours, do you not think it would be better that they should drain them properly before putting settlers on it?—l think that is the right way, because the Government have the money to do the work properly. 46. There is a great deal of swamp land in the Auckland province still in the hands of the Crown: do you not think that policy should be carried out in regard to it?—l consider it would be a very wise policy for the Government to adopt. 47. Do you not think that a lease for 999 years gives as great a fixity of tenure as freehold?—l would not feel anything like as secure in my own mind. 48. Do you think the freehold is for a longer term than 999 years?— The freehold is yours for your life-time; but, still, you like to say, " I have a freehold, and 1 can leave it to whom I like." 49. You have the same right of leaving the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes; but if you want to sell out I know vou cannot get the same value for the leasehold as for the freehold. I had an experience of that" in the south. I got five times as much out of the freehold as I did out of the leaseh°lrlso But, then, you had a short lease?—lt was for twenty-one years, with the right of renewal at a not a difference between leases for twenty-one years and 999 years ?—Certainly, I will admit there is.
1013
C—4.
i>. MCKINNON.J
52. Mr. Matheson.] Do you consider the city people in New Zealand have an interest in the disposal of our Crown lands? —I do not see that the city people have much interest in the Crown lands. I think the city people have their businesses to look after. 53. Do you consider the prosperity of the cities depends on the prosperity of the country? Undoubtedly. 54. Then, have they not a very clear interest in the way these country lands are disposed of'/ —They do not take the interest in the matter that they ought to. 55. Do you think if the State gave all its Crown tenants the right of purchase that that would be in the interests of the country and city people alike? —I expect it would, but the townspeople have not the same interest in the matter as those on the land. 1 consider the right thing to do is to give every man the option of taking up the land on whatever tenure he likes. 56. Do you think the man who has the option of the freehold makes the best settler? —I do. 57. Mr. McCarcfle.] If the Government are prepared to grant the freehold to the tenants already on the land, on what conditions do you think it ought to be granted ? —I think if they are getting the land at lower than the ordinary rate of interest they should pay up the difference in the interest, and then they should have tKe land at the value at which they took it up. 58. You are aware that these leases are for 999 years: do you think the State would be a gainer if this 1 per cent, difference was paid up 1- I think so. And I think they ought to pay interest on that 1 per cent. 59. What is your opinion about the homestead system ? —I have had nothing to do with it, but 1 think if you are going to give land to people you ought to give them good land, and not poor land. 60. Have you had any experience of the lands under the Land for Settlements Act? —No, but 1 understand the principle of the Act. 61. The Government buy these improved estates, and the settlers who take them up are able to make a profit out of the land right away: if the right of purchase were extended to these settlers, on what condition should they get it? —I would have them pay the usual interest for it, and then let them have the land at the price the Government gave for it in the first place. 62. Mr. McLennan.] Are you acquainted with Canterbury? —Yes; I was there for fifteen years. 63. Can you say whether the settlements on the various estates purchased in Canterbury are successful? —They are. 64. You know the Waikakahi Estate ? —As well as 1 know my own farm. 65. Can you say whether the settlers there and on Teschmaker's estate are successful? —I should say they are, from what I hear from friends passing up and down. 66. What rent did men pay for land at Waimate in your day for cropping? —I have seen them pay as high as £2 10s. per acre for turnips. I paid £1 ss. myself for 600-odd acres. 67. Do you think it advisable to give the option of purchase to the Waikakahi and Teschmaker's estates tenants at the original capital value? —I think the State ought to give it to them. Of course, I believe it is more profitable to the State to place them as Crown tenants on such lands as these. 68. Do you think it is to the benefit of the State to hold them as they are? —Yes; but I think it is to the benefit of the tenants to let them have the freehold. •James Wallace examined. 69. The Chairman.] Do you hold land?- I had for six years a farm over at Lake Takapuna. The area was 30 acres, and until lately I had a cattle farm of 500 acres. They were both freehold. 70. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission?- I want to enter my protest against the system of leasehold in operation under the present Government, and to speak in favour of what has been the great civilisation agent of nations —namely, the freehold. I object to the present leasehold system on the ground that the object of the Government is to make the State the sole owner of all the land in the colony, and then to grab the rent and make that the revenue of the colony. 71. I would ask you not to import anything political into your evidence, and to make it as brief as possible as we are limited to time? —I should like to go into the question fully, but I will content myself with saying I am in favour of the freehold, and against the leasehold as carried on by the present Government. The leasehold has been tried in all ages and by all nations, and ft has ever been found a failure. Among other countries it proved the ruin of India. In biblical times it was introduced by Joseph, who was a good man but a bad statesman. You will remember that there were seven years of rich crops and seven years of famine, and Joseph deprived the people of Egypt of their freehold, and made Pharaoh and the Egyptians the sole owners of the land, and from that day to this —three or four thousand years —Egypt has been an object-lesson with regard to land-tenure. The leasehold has been a failure everywhere. The sole ownership of the land by the State would be the most mischievous and unfair system that could be devised. It would throw the whole of the taxation upon one section of the community—that is, the agricultural population—and that is what we are promised is to be done. All fair taxation must be according to means and ability to contribute, and must be based upon equality of sacrifice. The whole of the property of the United Kingdom amounts to ten billions, of which the land yields two billions; and if the State becomes the sole owner of the land, what is the result? —that eight billions of the property in the United Kingdom is exempted from taxation, and the whole of the taxation is thrown upon ihe two billions. Again, if you take the income of the United Kingdom, you will find it amounts to about £1,400,000,000, the income from the land being about £200,000,000; and if you throw the whole of the taxation upon the land, which appears to be the object of the great Liberal party, then there is £1,200,000,000 of the income of the United Kingdom untaxed,
0.-4.
1014
[J. Wallace.
and £200,000,000 a sixth part —lias to bear the whole of the taxation. To give another illustration : There are in the United Kingdom about seven millions of agricultural population, the whole population being about forty-three millions. Therefore, if this State ownership system is to be brought into operation, the whole of the taxation will be thrown upon seven million people, and you exempt all the rich men who are not landowners from any taxation whatever. The system would have exactly the same effect here, and it would be the means of destroying all constitutional Government, in this way : it would mean that the Government would be no more dependent upon the annual votes of Parliament for their supplies, because they would be drawing every year the whole of these rents from the land, and you would make them independent of the people together. The Government would then be able to remain in power, and defy the people, and so constitutional Government. With regard to the freehold tenure, I approve of that, because it has been adopted by all civilised nations. Freehold has made America the great power it is to-day. Freehold has made Great Britain and other civilised nations what they are, and yet we, the people of New Zealand, are going to endeavour to abolish freehold and make the State the sole owner of the land. It is neither prudent nor wise. Again, 1 believe every one should have the right to the fruit of his own labour. This unearned increment is a delusion. An owner of laud has the same right to his land and what it produces as the city man has to the profits he makes out of his merchandise, or the workman what he earns in wages. It is the fruit of his own effort, and upon that ground I defend the freehold. Then, there is another thing: the freehold is a means of developing a race. Without the freehold you will be keeping back the population of New Zealand. Men will not come to this colony unless there is a prospect of getting a piece of land they can call their own. I myself came to this colony, as every other settler has done, in order to get the freehold, and now legislation is trying to take it away from us. Then, again, the freehold is the greatest incentive to industry. You have no doubt heard the words of the great traveller, Arthur Young, who said, If you give a man a rock which is absolutely his own property he will convert that rock into his own garden." It has also been said by a great statesman that if you give a man an acre of land which he holds as his own property, that man has a gun in his cottage and that gun is all ready to defend his country. Those were the words of a great French Premier. The English system seems to be, on the whole, the very best that can be adopted, and no Government holding land could discharge equally well the duties that are now discharged by the landed proprietors in the Old Country. Then, remember that the landowners at Home will do a great deal more for their tenants than it is possible for any General Government to do with theirs. The Earl of Aberdeen and other landowners build most of the houses, and do most of the drainage. They pay the road rates, provide for the schoolmasters' salaries so that education is very cheap in Scotland, and they also contribute to the support of religion. Those are benefits which, although I am not saying the State should undertake them, the State could never give if the State ownership of land became the ruling system of this colony. We hear about advances to settlers by the Government. Are you aware that the landowners of England, much as they are abused, lend money to their tenants at 3 per cent., and the Duke of Bedford has let his land as lowas 1-per-cent. rental on the capital value? No State could do that. 72. Mr. McLennan.] You say the land-proprietors of Scotland, have done more for their tenants than the New Zealand Government? —More than the New Zealand Government can possibly do. 73. Are you aware that many tenants have been evicted at different times and in different places in Scotland? —Yes; I am aware there are sinners in Scotland as well as anywhere else. 74. Have you known of any large number of tenants being evicted in New Zealand?- I have known the people being evicted from their houses in New Zealand, and if the Government does not get its rents regularly it must evict its tenants. 75. Mr. Forbes.] Have you had any experience of the operations of the Government in settling acquired estates? —No. 76. Then, you cannot speak from your own experience of what the Government have done in the South Island ? —No, but I base my arguments upon pure science and upon the history of the world. 77. You have gone a good deal into ancient history: are not the people to-day a little more enlightened? —All the civilised nations of the world have adopted freehold, and I regard the freehold as a sort of thermometer by which you can gauge the different stages of civilisation. 78. Has not New Zealand struck out for herself a new course in other matters besides the land laws? —I do not look upon the people who brag that they are the great Liberal party as being advanced at all. I believe they are going backwards. 79. You quoted from some one who said that if you gave a man a piece of rock it would soon be a garden : we have travelled through a good deal of poor land in the north which is freehold, but we cannot find that the freeholders there have converted it into a garden? —What they want is roads. While the Government have been spending millions of money in the south Auckland has been neglected, and many of the people can do nothing with their land for want of roads. 80. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it would be a bad thing for the colony if one section of the community had to pay all the taxation of the colony?— Yes, it would be most mischievous and unfair. 81. Is your objection to our 999-years lease that you think it is a step towards putting the whole of the taxation of the colony on one class?— Yes, that is the principal objection. 82. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think that there should be large landed proprietors in New Zealand? —No; I think the law might be improved in that direction. I believe it would be better to have the land settled in small holdings. 8-3. Would you be prepared to restrict the amount any one man could hold in fee-simple? —My ideas are in that direction, but it is a wide question to deal with.
J. G. RUTHERFORD.]
1015
C—4.
Jajies Gillies Rutherford examined. 84. The Chairman.\ Are you a landholder? —Yes; 1 have 884 acres of freehold. 84a. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission? —With your permission I would like to make the following statement: I am in favour of the freehold, and also that it should be optional for selectors to take up land either for cash, occupation with right of purchase, or lease in perpetuity. I consider lease in perpetuity is a most unsatisfactory contract for the State. The lands pass out of the hands of the Government for 999 years at a low rental, without any revaluation, and the New Zealand Government is not even the landlord, for in that respect we are very little better off than Ireland, whose trouble has been her absentee landlords. Our landlords are the English capitalists, who have advanced the money to purchase estates for closer settlement ; our Government merely collect the rents and remit them to the English capitalist as interest on the money borrowed. They get the rents, and the State does not even get land-tax from these leases, nor any increase of rent for 999 years. This lease in perpetuity is also an unsatisfactory arrangement for the tenant. He does not feel that he has any security of tenure. The first land sale was held at Auckland in 1841; the land was sold by auction by the Imperial Government, and Crown grants issued by the Queen. An Act has been passed about ten or twelve years since by our Parliament nullifying Ihese Crown grants, and empowering them to take any lands over 1,000 acres for closer settlement in defiance of the owner. If that can be done with a title granted by the Imperial Government, what can lease-in-perpetuity tenants hope for from a lease granted by the New Zealand Government? The proposed Fair Rent Bill would upset their leases and increase their rents. The Trades and Labour Council take every opportunity to advocate the revaluation of all leases, and we have the case of the tenant at Ohakea, brought before Parliament by Mr. Vile, member for Manawatu, during the debate on the Land Board Bill, where he showed that this tenant was threatened with eviction because he was Is. in arrears with his rent. It was really neglect to add exchange Is. when sending on cheque for his rent. I do not think any person believes for one moment that these leases have the ghost of a show to run for 999 years on their present conditions. The people I find who principally approve of these leases are single-taxers and land-nationalisers. The only reason I can see for their approval is that they see an easy way of having these leases revalued and the rents increased. I think the occupation with right of purchase a very good sj'stem. Ido not see why a man, when he has completed the necessary improvements required, should not at once get his title, nor do I see why he should pay per cent, more rent than a lease-in-perpetuity tenant. The Homestead Act worked very well; it was a good system on which any poor man could take up a piece of land. We have had several liberal land laws in this province. The 40-acre system under the Provincial Government, when every person over the age of twenty-one years on arrival from Great Britain was entitled to 40 acres of land. A lot of well-to-do settlers arrived under that Act, and, unfortunately for them and for the province, they were in many cases allotted miserably poor land, and, after spending their all upon it, had to throw up their holdings and turn their hands to something else. Then we had the Waikato military settlers (50 acres and a town acre). Wherever they were placed on good land they have been most successful and useful settlers. Of course, many of them only joined the Waikato regiments for the love of adventure or the pay, and these very soon moved off. About 1864 we also had 10-acre settlers from Great Britain and 5-acre settlers from South Africa. Their holdings were altogether too small, and some of them were placed on poor land. They had hard times for a number of years, but most of them have made successful settlers, and own good farms in the surrounding districts. We also had the military settlements of Onehuriga, Otahuhu, Panmure, and Howick. In Canada the Government are giving grants of land free to new arrivals who are prepared to take up land and settle on it. Thousands are arriving monthly to take advantage of these liberal land laws. The ballot is a most unsatisfactory method of disposing of our lands. A bond fide settler who really intends to improve and settle on the land may apply for sections time after time and not succeed in drawing any. He has all the expense of inspecting the various blocks that are thrown open, then, waiting for the ballot, only to find he has to start all over again when the next block is opened, often with the same result, his loss of time and his expenses mounting up in the meantime. I consider the constitution of the Land Boards and Assessment Courts should be altered. Their constitution is something like an arbitration case in which one side appoints the two arbitrators and the referee The parties most closely affected should in all fairness have the privilege of appointing a representative on both the Land Board and the Assessment Court. I do not see that there is any great danger of the aggregation of large estates, as long as the law as at present prevents the owner of 640 acres of first-class land, and so on for second- and third-class, procuring any land at Government ballots. If he purchases from private individuals the Government can then take the best of his land under the plea that it is required for closer settlement. But we find that large holders are frequently cutting up their blocks and offering them for sale. In other cases blocks are subdivided amongst the heirs on the death of the late owner. It does not appear to me that the tendency is towards the aggregation of large estates. I believe that if the Maoris were allowed to sell or lease thbir lands on the same terms—namely, 640 acres of first-class land, or 1,000 or 2,000 of second-, and larger areas of third-class, after reserving sufficient for their own use —we would soon have the greater part of the Native lands settled, and we would find that there was not the slightest necessity to purchase lands for closer settlement in this province, while we have hundreds of thousands of acres of Government and Native lands superior in quality to land we have been purchasing for that purpose. These lands are lying idle, and, in many cases, assisting the spread of noxious weeds, whereas the estates purchased were paying a considerable amount in land-tax and employing a fair amount of labour. I would be in favour of the Government lands being settled before we purchased estates in this province. So far as my district is concerned, there is no unearned increment. I have a farm of 884 acres freehold. Thirty years ago I was offered £8 per acre for it. I have since felled bush, stumped, ploughed, fenced, and sub-
a—4.
1016
J. G. RUTHERFORD.
divided it, and I have offered it recently at £10 per acre, and so far have failed to find a purchaser, and the improvements could not be effected for the money the estate would now realise. During this time the railway has been constructed, and there is one station within two miles and another five miles, eight trains passing each way daily; also a regular 'bus service, several creameries, one about a mile and another adjoining the property. The land is volcanic, fairly good, and level. I might say in proof of this that I have threshed out 75 bushels of oats to the acre, and sold 4 tons of oaten chaff per acre, in both cases without any artificial manure. I have also had 18 tons of potatoes per acre with 6cwt. of artificial manure. Over three-quarters of the total exports of this colony is the product of the land. The land-users pay both direct and indirect taxation. They pay land-tax, county, and Road Board rates, hospital and charitable-aid rates, export dues, and their share of import dues and Customs, and contribute a large proportion of the railway revenue. I think the people who are doing so much to promote the prosperity of the colony should have more say in fixing the tenure under which they hold their farms. Many of the farmers in my district during the Maori war fought to protect their homesteads- they turned the Pukekohe Church into a blockhouse, and held the position against the attack of several hundred Maoris. This blockhouse was on a portion of my farm. I need hardly say these men were not leaseholders. They were fighting for their freeholds, and it would be a gross breach of faith to confiscate their property now which they virtually acquired for this nation at the risk of their lives, and from what I know of them and from opinions I have heard them express they are quite prepared to go to any extreme to protect their homes. I have myself farmed in this district when it was necessary that each man should have his rifle and ammunition within easy reach, and one man posted as sentry. 85. Mr, Forbes.] You say yoji do not believe in the ballot system : what alternative would you suggest when there are a number of applicants for one section ? —I do not think it is fair to call upon me to make any suggestion, but I might say that I think even the auction system is better than the ballot. I think, as we have thousands of acres of Crown and Native lands, those lands should be opened up while there is a demand and in sufficient quantities to satisfy that demand. 86. It has struck us that settlers in many cases have been placed out on these back blocks before the Government was in a position to road the land: do you think the Government should make provision to properly road the land before opening it up? —Yes; I think the main roads, at any rate, should be made, and they should be made a first charge against the land. 87. You think the Government would have no difficulty in finding the money to road lands before settlement ?- -The Government are able to borrow for other purposes, and surely they can borrow for the purpose of opening up land. They could make it a first charge against the land. 88. Do you think it would be a good thing for settlement? —I think it would be a good thing for the settler. Adam Kelly examined. 89. The Chairman.'] Do you hold land? —I am a freeholder, and a leaseholder tinder the Auckland Corporation. I hold 40 acres of freehold at Waitakerei, and I pay about £200 per year for the leasehold, part for the Corporation endowment and part for the Crown. 90. Is there anything further that you wish to say? —As to the composition of the Land Board, I think half the members should be elected and half appointed by the Government. I have had some very sad experiences of men being elected by the popular vote, because very often they are elected on account of their popularity rather than their qualifications. Next, as to the conditions and restrictions: I am opposed to all conditions and restrictions except those that are necessary to prevent dummyism. I have been a farmer and a pioneer for forty years, and Ido not think T would accept land as a gift if I were dictated to as to liow I would manage it. The cropping restrictions are simply preposterous. If a man knows his business at all he knows much better than the Government how to farm his land. I want absolute freedom in cropping and in the management of farms. Another thing which I have advocated for many years is that free selection before survey should be allowed on the gumfields. I know that part of the colony very well, having resided there for six years, and I can say that there is only a little land here and there which would give a return for labour. I think that the residents should have the right of selection under the usual conditions. In Victoria if you are making a selection abutting on a creek you take twothirds of back country and one-third of frontage, and the Crown reserves the right of making roads for thirty years. I think that the gum-diggers should have an opportunity of making homes for themselves.' I do not consider that grouping people together on rather poor land is at all a good thing. In the olden days, when land was more plentiful, to have a back run was a great advantage to the settler. The 999-years lease without revaluation is a thing I cannot understand at all. One tKing which I think is largely responsible for the prejudice against the leasehold from the Government is the insecurity of tenure. I demand perfect security of tenure for the man who takes up Crown land. There is no revaluation, so that if a man wished to secure the freehold after twenty-five years it would be as well to let him have it. He would then come under the land-tax, and it should be at the value of the later date when he acquired the land. A great many people seem to think that there is no difference between the profit from land going into the public purse and its going into a private pocket. The difference is simply that- of State ownership versus private ownership, and I distinctly prefer State ownership. In Australia I have had experience of State ownership, and a better and more generous landlord than the State I do not wish to be under. I defy any one to show an instance in the whole of Australia where an eviction has taken place when a man has through drought or other adverse circumstances been unable to pay his rent. My brother has been Chairman of the Agricultural Bureau of one of the other colonies for fifteen years, and I am in regular communication with him. After the back blocks had suffered from drought for four years a Commission was sent to inquire into the condition of the settlers. As a result the leases were called in and issued anew at Id. and id. per acre. In the following season
a—4.
A. KELLY. 1
1017
the farmers had returns to the extent of 25 bushels per acre. If that had happened under a private owner the tenants would have been sold up in order to pay the back rent. I distinctly say that State ownership is infinitely preferable to private landlordism. In the Auckland Herald _ a short time ago there appeared a series of articles on the state of the slums in Auckland, showing that their condition, on account of congestion of population, was such as to conduce neither to health nor morality. If such slums existed under State ownership would it not form a crushing indictment of the system? Possibly the State would be asked to buy out that slum property in order to give the people room, just as it has been asked to buy up big freeholds for closer settlement. Private ownership complicates the problem of settling these social questions, and the land problem is a social question. A great deal is being said about the poor settler in the back blocks, and the hardships which he has to undergo. I know them only too well, seeing that I have been a homestead settler myself, and under such circumstances that when I have been asked for a dinner all I had to offer was potatoes and a cup of tea. But I would ask, why are settlers living under such conditions? They are driven to the back blocks on account of land-speculation. If those results could be attributed to State ownership it would be a crushing indictment. Then, if a man gives too much for his land, either by way of purchase or in rent, it means sweating. Did not the British Government have to come between the rack-rented tenants in Ireland and their landlords, and was not the process similar in the case of the Scottish crofters? I believe that land-sweating, or sweating through the high prices of land, is worse than all other forms of sweating—in fact, it produces other forms of sweating. Then, as to land-booms: have we not know land-booms to bring banks to the verge of bankruptcy? Had not the Bank of New Zealand to rush to the arms of the Government to save itself from bankruptcy? And have not thousands of people been brought almost to destitution through land-booms? Could any one imagine these land-booms existing under State ownership? I could not. If these booms are the result of private ownership in land, then it must be admitted that private ownership is an evil. Yet people who profess to be anxious to do much for humanity want to give Crown tenants the right of purchase, so that we should gradually come to a condition of things when there would be no State property whatever. Then we should have reproduced the state of things that exists in the Old Country and America. These are my reasons for upholding State ownership of land, and my objections to private ownership. . . AT n j -11 91. Mr. Matheson.] Do you hope for a time when all the land-occupiers in New Zealand will be tenants of the Crown ?—I would like it. , , , 92 Would you, then, think it wise that all the revenue of the colony should be gathered in the shape of rent?— Yes; but I wish to say that under freehold conditions, where you have the right to tax the unimproved value of land, as at present, it amounts to the same thing. I think that by increasing the number of private owners you increase the number of persons whose interests and the interests of the community cannot be reconciled. 93. Then, I understand your aim is that the whole of the taxation of the colony should come direct from the land ?—Yes. , . , . 94 And that the only question in vour mind is whether to get it by increasing the land-tax or by resuming all the lands and leasing them?—l prefer the system of gradually taking the unearned increment by taxation, but it is a complicated question. 95 Have you had any experience of producing an income from rough lands or from improved lands?—l was manager of two estates in New Zealand, but I have never had a small farm. 96. Suppose the whole of the farmers of New Zealand suddenly found their rent doubled, do you think they could pay their wav?—No, because that would be sweating. 97. Do you realise that if the whole of the taxation were put upon the country people the rents they pay would have to be doubled?—No, Ido not realise that. 98. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think that the holding of the freehold is the only system that raises the price of land?—lt has most to do with it. ' ■■ 99 Would you be surprised to find that there has been a much greater rise m the value ot leaseholds during the last five years than in the value of freeholds ?-It would depend on the quality lOtTls not that Pegging the question ?—I must explain that I recognise no land-value in the case of rural lands except what the land will produce and the facilities for getting the produce to market For three or four years I tried to get a farm, but owing to the prospective value I could not do so When I raised an objection to the price asked, the vendor said, bo-and-so has bought that land, and some public work is to be done in the district which is going to double its price." That is the kind of increase I object to. 101 The Government have come to the rescue, and purchased estates which stood between the centres and the back blocks. All these lands have been settled and these are the lands particularly increased in value. You spoke of the slums: have you taken any steps to put forward the scheme which would enable the workers of the city to be established m comfortable homes under reasonable conditions ?-I know what has been done beyond Avondale. The land there is too poor. If you get land that will produce anything it will be taken up, whether there as a purchasing clause or not I think the Government have been very badly advised in the purchase of that land. 102. Is it not the duty of the Government to provide suburban lands where working-men can establish homes under such a scheme ?_No; but it is difficult to find land that can be bought at reasonable prices near the facilities of communication. If land had been purchased such as that around the Three Kings every bit of it would have been taken up straight away. By and by the trams will run to that district, and we shall see what d hi h d cate you would get pioneers to" go into the back country and reclaim the waste lands ?-Distmctly so, if thev were practical men. 128—C. 4.
a—4.
1018
[k. KELLY.
105. Do you think men would go back and take up waste lands under the conditions of tenure you advocate? —Most intelligent people do not care, so long as they make a profit, whether the tenure is leasehold or freehold. 106. Do you think that the users of land should be the only taxpayers in the country? 1 think that all revenue should be derived from the land. 107. Mr. McCardle.\ What would become of all the industries that have been established in the colony if you were suddenly to bring about such a change as that? —You could not bring it in suddenly. 108. Would you not gradually crush out the many industries which have been established through a tariff which favoured those industries?- I think the conditions would adjust themselves. Indirect taxation is the poor man's income-tax, and the poorer he is the more in proportion he is relieved. If you take pro rata what is paid in indirect taxation, those with 50 acres and under pay about 13s. an acre. Of course, if the indirect taxation were not remitted as we increase the landtax it would be a downright hardship, but I believe (he conditions would adjust themselves as one tax increased the other would diminish. 109. The Chairman.] Then, you believe in a process of gradually bleeding the settler to death? —I do not believe in bleeding him at all. Samtjet. Hodge examined. 110. The Chairman.] What land do you hold? —Nearly 500 acres at Papatoitoi—333 freehold, and the balance on lease from a private owner, with right of purchase. 111. Is there any matter that you wish to bring forward? —In regard to the constitution of Land Boards, I consider that Land Boards should be elected by the local bodies of each district, thus obtaining representative men of all classes. The Chief Lands Commissioner would be the ex officio representative of the Crown. Nominated Boards would probably represent only the views of the Government which appointed them, and as the present Government apparently favour leasehold, naturally the Boards would hold the same views, which is undesirable. The best landtenure is undoubtedly freehold. This system makes a man more sturdy, more energetic, more independent—just the class we require. ' The desire to own our farms is a trait in our national character. To sit under his own vine and fig-tree man will undergo years of toil and hardship. To enable persons of limited means to take up land it is desirable to open the lands on lease with right of purchase, so that the occupier, when his circumstances improve, may be able to purchase it, and thus become an independent voter. Lease in perpetuity is objectionable. It does not meet with the views of land-nationalisers or freeholders. Occupiers are afraid that the rent will be raised by a so-called Fair Rent Bill. In the future there will be considerable friction over that law. It is very objectionable that an applicant for land should be compelled to reveal his circumstances to a Board before he can compete for a section, and not then if the Board consider he has not sufficient means. One man will be a success with half the capital of another who fails. Improvement conditions should not be so heavy, and cropping restrictions are objectionable. A man will do the best he can with his own. Rough, broken, and poor lands require to be held in larger areas and sold at a cheap rate. The ballot system has some drawbacks; but when there are a large number of applicants for one section it would be unfair for the Board to hand it over to any one they choose. They would soon be charged with favouritism. Loading lands for main roads and main drains is not objectionable, provided the money is economically spent. In the case of large swamps it is impossible for selectors of limited means to work them unless the main drains are first cut. Leaseholders should have the right of purchase by paying values at date of lease, with 1 per cent, compound interest added to make 5 per cent, in all, from date of lease. The Advances to Settlers Act is one of the best we have, as it gave the settler cheap money; but it should not be pushed too far, as it is mortgaging our lands to the foreign money-lender. It would be better if we could so borrow from the colonial money-lenders, so as to keep the interest in the country. The aggregation of large estates by companies or individuals is not desirable, but must be regulated by circumstances —quality of soil, nearness to markets, &c. ' 112. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think that your plan for the election of Land Boards by the local bodies is a good and workable one? The local bodies would know of thefitness of their candidates for the position. I think it would be better to have a Board of mixed views. Under that state of affairs we would get a better Board than when only one party was represented. I have no complaint against the Board as now constituted ; they have always treated me well and fairly. 113. Is it not reasonable to think that the Government when bringing down a land policy would not feel satisfied if that policy was to be handed over to people who did not believe in it, and were even hostile to it? —For all that, I think, in the interests of the country, it would be better to have the Boards made elective. They would then represent the people, and those who were desirous of settling on land would have more confidence in them. 114. Mr. Matheson.] Might not the Government of the day be very pleased to see the Boards elective, so that in the event of the failure of any system they propounded they would be able to say, "Well, you did not allow us to carry out our own policy." You put in hostile men to administer the system?— The Government that enacted the law would still be responsible for its administration. 115. Does it not seem wise that the Government that originated the system should have the nomination of the officers to carry it out ?—Perhaps; but, still, such a Board does not represent the people, but represents the Government . 116. You think it would be .better for, the country if the Boards were elective? —I do. We should then have men who have a better knowledge of the requirements of the country. 117. Do vou think that the local bodies are better able to pick out the suitable men in the district than is the Minister of the Crown, taking the colony as a whole?—l think so. They would have a better knowledge of the persons available,
S. HODGE.
1019
C—4.
118. You are aware that selectors under the Land for Settlements Act are now paying 1 per cent, more in interest than the lease-in-perpetuity settlers. Would you make them pay still more if the right of purchase were granted to them?- I think they should have the right of purchase at the value put upon their land at the time of leasing. The Government gets its money at 5 per cent, interest, and therefore when a man pays 5 per cent. I think that is all that should be required of him. 119. Do you think it would be good for the colony, as well as for the settlers, to give them the right of purchase?— Yes, because it would make the settlers more intelligent. 120. Mr. McGardle.\ Do you not think that the land-for-settlernents selector should give some consideration to the State if he gets the freehold ? When the leases were drawn out an increased value should have been put upon the land, so as to cover any loss in the event of purchase. 1 think the State would be justified, when it purchases an estate to be cut up, in putting an increased value upon it. 121. In regard to the Land Boards, do you not mean that the men elected or appointed should be men with a knowledge of the land laws, and also with a knowledge of the requirements of bush settlers ?—'Yes. 122. Is not the honorarium of the members of a Land Board so small that it would be impossible for a man other than a capitalist to offer himself as a candidate? —The expenses would be nil. The election would take place on the same basis as the election of the Education Boards, which is very simple. 123. Mr. McLennan.] Would you not allow the Borough and City Councils to take part in the election of Land Boards? —Yes, because they also have an interest in the settlement of country lands. _ i Henry Hunt examined. 124. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —For nearly fifty years I held 300 acres in the Kaipara district, but I lost it, and my sons bought it and are living on it. 125. What particular matter do you wish to bring forward?— I believe in the occupation with right of purchase, the freehold system, and the homestead system, but especially in the homestead system. 1 believe that if the homestead system were in force hundreds of people now working on the gumfields would take up land, to the great advantage of the country. In my opinion, land sales by auction would be preferable to the ballot system, because they give a man a better chance of getting the land he wants. I think that a square mile should be enough land for any man. It is unreasonable to suppose that people will come fourteen thousand miles to take up land on a leasehold system. I would certainly never have left England merely to take up a lease. Peter Edward Cheal examined 126. The Chairman] Are you a landholder? —No. I am a surveyor, and have been so for the last forty years. 127. Will you state the question you wish to bring forward ? —I take it that the main question which this Commission has to decide is whether the lease-in-perpetuity settlers should be allowed to acquire the freehold. On the principle of f< the greatest good to the greatest number," I consider that the lease-in-perpetuity system has been most beneficial to this colony. Not only has it led to a large increase in settlement, but also to the very large export trade we have at the present time. lam satisfied that if Sir John McKenzie's land legislation had not been carried out as it was —had the large estates not been broken up, and had there been nothing but freeholds —we should not have anything like our present export trade. As to the proposal 10 give the freehold to the lease-in-perpetuity settlers, one of the serious disadvantages to the colony as a whole would arise from the difficulty as to mining rights. Under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure all mining-rights belong to the Crown. If the. right to acquire the freehold is to be given it should be merely a conditional freehold, conferring only surface rights and reserving the minerals to the Crown. Great Britain is to-day suffering under the royalty system, which is due to the individual owner having the right to minerals. Sir Christopher Furness has shown in evidence that from 4s. 9d. to ss. 6d. is paid in royalties for shipping plates, pig iron, and steel rails, whereas on the Continent, where the royalties belong to the State, it is not more than from 6Jd. to Is. l|d. That is one reason why the lease-in-perpetuity settler should not be granted his freehold, except with the reservation of minerals to the State. Another serious objection to granting the right of purchase is the interference with fixity of tenure. Once interfere with fixity of tenure and you never know where it is going to stop. If we grant the leaseholders the right of purchase then we interfere with fixity of tenure. I believe that this is going to be a manufacturing colony in the main with a larger population in the towns than in the country. Therefore, there will be a larger representation of the towns in Parliament, and if suddenly in the future the people, seeing the necessity of the State holding the lands of the colony, should carry legislation to resume those lands, the holders could not complain that they had been unjustly dealt with, because the fixity of tenure had already been ihterfered with. All local bodies like to obtain lands as endowments, and what is good for the municipal bodies and for the idividual is good also for the State. To-day the State has something like twenty thousand leaseholds, which bring in .£400,000 a year. Is not that a splendid endowment for the State. I do riot look upon the increased indebtedness under the Land for Settlements Act as a very heavy burden. In regard to the constitution of the Land Boards, 1 , think the present system is the right one, though I also think the Government should exercise a little more care in the selection of the members. On the Auckland Board we have men who have been in business all their lives- who know nothing of the land, and have never been more than twenty miles from their own homes. Men well acquainted with the interests and requirements of the country are the people who should be .put upon these Boards. With regard to the working of the ballot system, it seems to me that the object of those who introduced the system was to give
C—4.
1020
[P. E. CHEAL.
every man a chance of getting a piece of land. The great object of the system is to limit the choice to bond fide settlers. As a matter of fact, thousands of people perjure themselves under this system by declaring that they want the land for their own sole use and benefit. We know very well that young fellows apply for land, and not content with this, get their sisters and their cousins and their aunts to apply also. There may be forty applications made in the interests of one person, and thirty-nine of these perjure themselves. This is an evil which 1 think could be met without interfering with the ballot system. More power should be given to the Land Boards as to the method of deciding who are bond fide settlers. The concessions under the Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Act, good as they are in principle, only accentuate the difficulty lam speaking about. The applicant knows that in the case of land of this kind he is not required to reside on the section for four years. The ballot system has become something like the totalisator. Many men put their money into the land under this system simply with the object of gambling. 1 have known instances where a man who has been successful in the ballot for land has sold the property that he has drawn before leaving the room in which the ballot was going on. 1 can say of my own knowledge that men who had not two pennies to jingle on a tombstone have spent hundreds of pounds in felling bush, grassing the land, and fencing. This means that there are people behind them who are rinding the money, and it is these moneyed men who are urging the people under them to go in for the freehold. 1 take it that there is no question that the intention, when the system was brought into force, was that every man in the colony should have the right to obtain a piece of land —but only one right in his lifetime. But what do we find now 'I That very often a man has taken up land and improved it and sold it, and then taken up another section and gone througli the same process, Ido not think that is right. Once a man takes up a piece of land he should be debarred ■■• from coming into the-ballot again, otherwise he is simply shutting out other men. I represent what may be called the landless section of the public. But 1 consider that those of us who are in the town and do not go on the land have a voice in the question of land-tenures. From the Year-book we learn that half the population of New Zealand live in the towns and their suburbs. Every acre of land belonging to the Crown estate has been purchased, and the improvements upon it have been carried out by means of public funds. Therefore, every resident in the town has paid his share towards it, and 1 take it that every acre of Crown estate which is allocated in freehold has virtually disinherited some of us who are residing in the towns. It is the desire to get hold of this unearned increment that is causing so much speculation in land-values. I will give an instance which 1 can vouch for. Some years ago tiie VVaikato Land Association let their land by ballot. A gentleman, who is in business in one of the small towns of the Waikato, drew one of the best sections. He did not want the land himself, for he had no intention of settling. There was another gentleman hailing from the south who had a wife and family, and who had been waiting for some time to go upon the land. This gentleman had to pay the tradesman a bonus of £400 in order to secure that sectiou. I say that the tradesman had legally robbed the settler of that £400, for he was not a bond fide settler, and having no desire to go upon the land he ought not to have put in for it. I hope that the Commission will make a strong recommendation on this point, and obtain for the Land Boards increased powers in the matter of ascertaining the bona fides of applicants. They should have power to shut out those who, in their opinion, are going in for land simply to make money out of it. I would not interfere with the present tenures or with the tenures of the past. I believe that the present land laws giving the option of the freehold, occupation with right of purchase, and lease in perpetuity are very liberal. In fact, i believe all the tenures of the colony are liberal at the present time. I would like to point out, from what I can learn from the Year-book, that, after all, the lands really interested in this question of the freehold do not comprise a much larger area than the lands held under occupation with right of purchase. I find the freehold acquired in the past ten years average 31,000 acres per annum, under occupation with right of purchase they averaged 139,450 acres per annum, and under lease in perpetuity they averaged 154,800 acres per annum. There is only a difference of about 14,000 acres between the area taken up under occupation with right of purchase and the area under lease in perpetuity. Another serious question with regard to these lands is this: suppose it is decided by referendum by a majority of the people of the colony to give the freehold to the lease-in-perpetuity holders, the question is whether it should only affect the State or all other endowments as well. In the south, where persons holding under lease in perpetuity are asking for the freehold, we find those holding endowment leases are also asking for an alteration of their tenure. If it is possible that those who hold the lease in perpetuity now in good faith should have the right to get the freehold from the State, I do not think the State should be placed in a worse position than the local bodies or local institutions, and, therefore, the lessees on these endowments should also have the right of the freehold. In fact, I would go further, and I would say that if this policy is made applicable to the State it should also be made applicable to the private owners of land. That, I take it, is the logical sequence. Another thing makes me feel and I realise lam under oath that there is a power behind the landholder to-day which is trying to upset the leasehold tenure of the colony. When travelling lately I fell in with two lease-in-perpetuity holders,, who complained that when they gave a bill of sale over their stock the auctioneer charged them 2 per cent, more than he charged the freeholder. I take it that the idea in the minds of the people who do this sort of thing is simply to cause the people to become disgusted with the leasehold tenure. I think that is very wrong, and I think it should be looked into. One gentleman on the Commission said something about evictions, and that is one of the reasons why I think the private ownership of land has been more of a curse than a blessing in any country. One cannot help being appalled at the number of evictions that have taken place in Scotland, and they have been the outcome of the private ownership of land. I believe if the land belonged to the State in a democratic country such as ours that no Government of the day could ever go in for such evictions. I think there should be more stringent regulations in regard to' the ballot system. Under the present
1021
C—4.
P. E. CHEAL.
system a person makes a declaration that the land is taken up for his own sole use and benefit. It has been suggested, and 1 think the suggestion is worthy of the observation of the Commission, that in addition to that he should state, " I take up this land and I intend to settle 011 it and live on it." If that man is not found on the land years afterwards he should be had up for a false declaration. 128. Mr. Matheson ] Do you look on the contract between the State and the tenant as a thing which should never be broken'! I think it should not be broken during the time the contracting Government are in power. Ido not think we can legislate for another generation though. 129. If we as a State think it would benefit us to alter the contract and the tenant thinks it would benefit him, then do you think it would be wise to alter the contract? —I have already said it is a mistake to interfere with the fixity of tenure, but if the two contracting parties agree 1 do not think we can say much about it. If the majority of the country as represented in the House are in favour of altering the tenure it will have to be done. 130. But, so long as the contract stands you would like to see it carried out?- Yes. 131. Do you realise that under our present law, if a man fails to pay his rent for twelve months he is liable to eviction 1 That is so, and so he would be with a bank or any other institution. 132. Do you realise that scores of men are liable to eviction now, and that we are not carrying out the law in their cases? —That may be so. 133. Does it not seem to you that if the law is to be administered it should be administered whichever way it cuts ?- That is so. 134. Do you think those people should have been evicted for having failed to pay their rents? -If they can show 110 extenuating circumstances, I take it the State is in the same position as any private landlord, but I believe the iState as a landlord is far better to deal with than a private landlord. 135. If tiie lease in perpetuity had contained the right of purchase, do you think settlement would have been deterred in any way? —I do not think so if there had been no other tenure. 136. I think you said that if the land-for-settlements tenants were given the right of purchase we should lose a large revenue?- Yes. 137. Do you realise that the whole amount we get from the land-for-settlements tenants does not come to us at all, but is merely handed over to the English capitalists ? —I believe the amount in favour of the colony is very little. 138. Mr. McCardle.] Do you think that under a system of small freeholds the State could exercise its power of taxation much more readily than under a system of small leaseholds?- I do not think so. 139. I think you know the law of the colony, and I think you know that under the land-tax there is an exemption of .£5OO, and it will take the leaseholder under the present system a long time before his interest will exceed the £500 exemption ?- Yes, and a great many small freeholders as well. 140. But will not the freeholder reacli the exemption limit much quicker than the leaseholder, the fee-simple of whose land is held by the Government? —He will. 141. Then, do you not think that a system of small freeholds will be much more profitable to the State, because the land would then be more accessible to taxation?- I do not look at the thing from that point of view. I think, taking the welfare of the colony as a whole, the land should be in the hands of the State rather than in the hands of the private individual. 142. But 999 years is a long way to look forward before the State can see any profit? - That is so. 143. And if the State can get a profit by abolishing the lease, it always has the power by taxation to recover from the freeholder anything the State may want in the way of revenue? —That is so. I would give the present freeholders of the colony the benefit of being a most upright and honourable set of men, but one does not know what the future may bring forth. If you give the freehold to the private individual, you run the danger of making the people serfs. 144. Who do you think is the serf in New Zealand to-day ?- I do not think there is any question about either freemen or serfs at the present time. 145. Do you not think that the back-block settler without roads or schools or any of the conveniences of cvilisation is the man who fills the bill? I believe they are the men who do the hardest work and get the least for it. 146. The, Chairman.] You do not believe in the freehold? Ido not believe in altering the present land-tenures. I think State ownership is better than private ownership for the colony as a whole. 147. As regards the principle of the thing, do you think it is not in the interests of the State that the land should be held under the freehold tenure?- I think it would be better if 110 more freeholds were issued. 148. How do you account for the extraordinary prosperity of Denmark under the freehold system?- -They are very small holdings. 149. But, still, they are freeholds?- -Yes. 150. Is it not the intention here to limit the area a man may hold? That is so. There is a limit so far as grants are concerned, but you cannot limit it in other ways. Supposing the whole of the Matamata settlers were to sell their land to a certain monetary institution, the land would still remain in the different names, but that institution would be virtually running it as an estate, and you could not stop it. 151. Do I understand you to say that the townspeople have the same right to express an opinion 011 land-tenure as the settlers themselves? —I think so. 152. Are they equally interested or equally responsible?- They are all interested, inasmuch as they are all taxpayers and pay their share towards opening up the back blocks.
C.-4
1022
P. E. CHEAL.
153. About fifty millions of borrowed money have been spent, and this money has pushed the towns ahead : have not the cities grown up in a great measure owing to the expenditure of these borrowed millions ? I do not think so. 154. Has not the expenditure on public works and railways, and so forth, been of great benefit to the cities ? —They have been of more benefit to those who make use of them in the country districts, 1 take it. 155. But, seeing it is the settlers' laud and stock which are mortgaged for these borrowed millions, are they not chiefly responsible? —1 do not think they are personally mortgaged, so far as the State mortgage is concerned, any more than the individual who has to pay heavily through the Customs. 156. What is the security the money-lenders look to for their millions ? —The securities are supposed to be the lands of the Crown, and the railways and public conveniences. 157. Seeing that three-fourths of the exports of the colony which pay the interest on the loans are taken directly from the soil, do you not think the money-lenders look to that as their chief security, or do you think they look to the towns? —Certainly, they look to our exports. It is the great increase of our exports that has given them confidence in this colony. Harry Osborne examined. 158. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder? —Not at present. lam a builder, but I intend to go on the land as soon as I can get some. 1 have had long experience of farming in the back blocks. 159. Is there any matter vou wish to bring before the Commission? 1 wish to read the following statement: I believe in the freehold as the best tenure and a sound one for the country. It will help the country in time of trouble, while the lease in perpetuity would help to break the country. It is not a safe tenure, being subject to a revaluation of one's own improvements, the same as the present infamous land valuation, which taxes every man's house and labour. If a man is allowed to acquire the freehold he will look after his land, and, in case of an accident,, he leaves something to his wife and children. In the case of the lease in perpetuity he only leaves the goodwill of his farm, and that may not be worth a farthing. There should be more back country opened up for settlers who would sooner obtain bush land. The balloting system is a disgrace and a field for disgraceful speculations, and the man most suited for the farm and having a practical experience, is left out. in the cold. Hence this.Government's justice in land affairs. I believe the farmer should be allowed to apply for the section that suits him, say, under the old deferred-payment system, which is a Stepping-stone to the freehold. The present high price of land is due to the Government practically closing up the back blocks. The Government should be careful not to cut up any estates that will be valuable for wheat- and corn-growing, as the present subdivision of estates at high prices can be carried too far. 160. Mr. Forbes.] You said the leasehold is subject to revaluation?- It is subject to any alteration this Government or any other Government may deem suitable. 161. The lease is given for 999 years, and there is nothing in it which says it is to be revalued? It is the general opinion of those under the leasehold that their land will be valued the same as freehold, or any other, tenure. 162. You think it will be subject "to the same law as the whole of the lands of the colony? —Yes. 163. Is it not fair and equitable that the lands of the colony should be subject to the laws of the colony? —Yes ; but I do not think any man's improvements should be taxed. 164. Are not improvements exempt? —Not under the present system. The Government tax the house and everything else. 165. Under land taxation, are not your improvements exempt? —Even if they are, would not the freehold be better. I say it would. I say there is a probability of the leaseholds being revalued if the socialist party come into power. 166. And you think they might do something with freehold as well? —That is quite likely; but, still, it would not be under the same disadvantage as leasehold. Edgar Edwin Partinoton examined. 167. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —No; lam a city worker, but I have had experience on the land. My people owned land both here and in Otago. I have a few notes here, which I will read to the Commission. Moses spoke to the children of Israel, saying (Leviticus, chapter xxv., verse 23), " The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me!" Again (verse 28), " But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hands of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee: and in the year of jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return into his possession!" Again (verse 34), " But the field of the suburbs of their cities may not be sold ; for it is their perpetual possession !" 1 believe in elective Land Boards by parliamentary franchise. I think one man should not hold more than one freehold, because the land should be held for production and not for speculation. I believe in compulsory residential qualification and the abolition of the ballot system, and the substitution therefor of allotment on application. I think the Advances to Settlers Act should be extended to everybody. 1 do not think the individual should be restricted in his method of working his land, and I think.there should be no Inspectors coming round. I would suggest the alteration of the 999-years lease to one of fifty years, with periodical revaluation every ten years. I would have no more heirs and assigns for ever. One generation cannot bind another. All economic writers say that the land of a country belongs to the people of that country. I think taxation should be on land-values, and I would advocate the introduction of a Fair Rent Bill, to apply to the whole of the colony. Crown tenants should not be granted the freehold, and they should not be allowed to sublet or subdivide their holdings. If they do so it should be at the present value
E. E. PARTINGTON.]
1023
C—4.
in the open market, and the State should then take control. I think absentee landlords should be taxed to the extent of 20s. in the pound. No more Crown lands should be sold. I think that idle city sections should bear a penalty tax of ss. in the pound. No syndicates or churches should become landlords. Natural laws cannot be broken without suffering, but human laws can be altered for human development. No generation can bind an unborn generation. The Crown tenants, after being helped by the Government, are now wanting the freehold in order to become landlords, and to secure the unearned increment. Some of the witnesses before the Commission have said there is no unearned increment, but I will quote cases later on to show the fallacy of that statement. When there is an exodus of people land-values go down, and when there is an influx they go up. It would be almost suicidal policy for the Government to buy up large estates from landlords and then sell them to create fresh landlords. In point of fact, a very large proportion of Crown lands are now disposed of for 999 years. The rentals are based on the assessed value of the land at the time of disposition, without increase or recurring valuations. Under this system there is a fixity of tenure practically equal to the freehold, and which, like freehold, necessarily carries with it the power of sale, sublease, mortgage, or disposition by will. This should never have been allowed. To do no injustice, I would suggest giving the lease to man or wife until death, and then revalue, and if the children like to take it up let them do so; or give the Crown tenants £1,000 each for distribution amongst their children. I believe in the principle of the Bush and Swamp Lands Act. I think we should abolish minors, both male and female, as this system only encourages dummyism, because these minors do not take up the land for their own use. Land may also be taken compulsorilv for workmen's homes within a borough having a population of at least 15,000 persons, or within a radius of fifteen miles from the border thereof, and the area is restricted to 100 acres yearly. I think the distance is too far. It should be, say, four to eight miles; and the basis of population is too high, and should be, say, five thousand persons. Then you could include suburbs. Workmen's homes are not for agricultural purposes, but to enable industrial workers to obtain homes to live rent-free, and grow a little fruit and vegetables and keep a few poultry for their own use in off time. I think agricultural and industrial workers should be kept balanced —say, half of each —for each depends upon the other. In opening railways I think the Government should reserve a mile on each side of the line and a circle within a radius of two miles. The Government should take over the land agency business, and send all the land agents to the plough. The definition of a freehold is, " The land or tenement which is held in feesimple or for term of life." Unearned increment is created by the community, not by the individual. The individual creates the earned increment, and security of tenure gives him the full reward of his labours. Henry George is the Moses of the twentieth century, and the the single-taxers are the Children of Israel, who will lead us all into the Promised Land. To prove that there is unearned increment, I may state that the block of buildings at the corner of Queen Street and Welleslev Street, occupied by the Milne and Choyce Company (Limited), has been sold to Messrs. A. R. Watson and A. D. Watson, of the North Shore. The frontage to Queen Street is 67 ft. 9 in., and the land runs back to Lome Street, the frontage to Wellesley Street being 165 ft. 7 in. The building on the property is a brick one of three stories. The price at which the property has changed hands is stated to be £40,000, which is equal to about £588 per foot on the Queen Street frontage. Again, the Government bought a piece of land in Albert Street a little while ago, and the Condensation Court awarded the owners £5,000. The owner originally bought that land for somewhere between £75 and £80. I say if the Government had put a tax on the unimproved value of that land it would have been brought into use many years ago, instead of lying idle as it did. I think these are fair samples of unearned increment, especially in city lands. 168. Mr. Forbes.] You said that there was a three-storied building erected on the land in Queen Street: was that included in the price? —Yes. 169. That building cost money? —Yes. 170. For your illustration to be of use you should have given us the original price of that land and the price lately paid without the building? —I could not get the price to give you. I suppose the building would be worth from £2,000 to £3,000. 171. You said you did not believe in the ballot system: what system would you substitute in its place? —I think a man who desires a section of land should apply to the Commissioner of Crown Lands for it. 172. What would you do in the case of improved estates, where very often fifty men apply for one and the same section? —I would put their names into a hat and let them draw for the sections. I. may say that, if no better scheme can be devised, I have no obection to the ballot ; but I would be very pleased to try an experiment that would stop land monopoly or dummyism. 173. Mr. Matheson.] Would you be pleased to try an experiment which you thought would run a great risk of killing out the farming community?- I would not kill any one with experiments. 174. In looking at the farming lands do you think there is an increment which is often unearned? —No. I think a farmer who is a legitimate and bond fide farmer has all he can do to earn his living off the land; but when a community settles round him an artificial value is created which is unearned increment. 175. If a number of men go into a new settlement, and each take up a section of land, do you think the increased value of the district is due to the work and industry of these settlers?— There is an increase put on the land by their labour, but there is a certain community-created increase. 176. Do you think they are entitled to that increased value which comes by their living together in a group? —No. T think that should go to the State as direct taxation. 177. When a man takes up land worth £1 per acre, and puts improvements on it at a cost of £4 per acre, and the Government Valuer comes and values them at £3 per acre, to whom do you think that odd £1 should belong?—l do not think he should be allowed to tax improvements.
1024
|E. E. PARTINGTON.
C—4.
178 L>o vou realise that it is impossible for an assessor to judge the amount of improvements that have been put on land i—l think it is very difficult, and therefore Ido not believe in taxing ' 179 Do you realise that vou are bound to tax a man's improvements unless you give him the freehold of his property? If'you cannot value his improvements you cannot exempt them I 1 do not say vou need tax improvements. . 180 You just said that you cannot value a man s improvements, and vet you are going make him pav taxes on the unimproved value 2-1 would tax the unimproved value of the land 181. Do you look forward to the time when everybody will be a servant of the State I We aie ay\ forwalT ] t0 the time when everybody will be receiving his salary direct from the State?—No ;I am not quite advanced enough for that. 183 Mr. MeCardle.] I suppose you are aware it is only the poorer class of settlers who go into the back blocks to hew out homes for themselves?—l would like a bit of land, but do not (■are to go bevond the bounds of civilisation when there is so much idle land lying about here. 184. 1 suppose you admit it is only necessity that compels men to go into the back blocks? and iR fhe cftsei do you think the men who ballot for this land will have the speculator amongst them?-Not at the start, but they will have the speculator amongst them as soon as the Government run a railway up to it or a road passes through it. 186. You are a worker in the city, and you say you have some idea of going on the land' PS 187 Under what conditions do you propose to go?—To live on the land as a home. 188' Years ago there was an Act on the statute-book which enabled a man to take up a section of first class land from 50 acres up to a maximum limit of 350 acres, under these conditions. he had ten years' optional residence and ten years in which to pay rent, and he was compelled to pay so-much out of his earnings every year until the whole of his improvements were completed and then he could go and live on the land. Would a system of that kind meet the workers of the citj . —That is an old Act, and I am very glad it is gone. 189 You would rather go and be shut up in the bush for the best years of your life and earning hardlv a bare living?—l have had acquaintance with logging-up in rough bush and and laying down grass for cattle It was hard work, but I did not regret it. I only regretted that my say there should be no inspection of lands leased from the Crown, and no restrictions put on them? —Not if they paid taxation on them. I<)] Would anv landlord let land and make no conditions at all as to the way it was to be handled ?-I think they place too many restrictions on the poor tenants. T think the Government is a better o/the great profit made out of the sale of city property lately, but what about those in'the past who had to sell for half what the buildings cost them ?-You see, the landlords created fictitious values by land-booms, and if the values go down everybody must be prepared to suffer. 6overnment have latelv bought the property of the Thames Valley Land Company at a price which represents about a third of what the improvements cost. If the State is to get the'benefit of anv rise in value, should not the State make up any loss? By a proper system ot taxation, as values went up the taxes would be increased, and they would go down when the value, Ml ' 194 Do vou think the State should make good the loss suffered by people through falling values ?—The & makes good everything. The State is responsible for everything, and should provide everything. Edmund Sale examined. 195. The Chairman.] Do you hold land?-I rent land at Parnell, and I have a few acres of freehold at Remuera wish to bri ng before the Commission ?-I have been in the colony 19b. Is there anym g y S T n)ado a ji the inquiries I could about the land here three years I brought oua f wag much q eaaier to get land than I found it before I left^ondo, visite to the Land Office, and I have always found the officials to be. I paid p Government do not help one much. It is quite possible I courteous, but seem , withou t being able to get information from the Lands Office that the believe, to ge very ' in , ta nce the land that was purchased for workmen's homes in the imU^on ""..a t.» buUdbp e »,d A man if he knowss the «md on | ecome ' a socialist in New Zealand after seeing the conthe Independent Labour Leag . repeated in these colonies all the conditions which dition of things here I believe vou will have repeated in t obtain in England unless g , 'i, o i,i 1 have been verv much amused in listening to the *SuL n S."'tS 9"™ "i. long enongl,. I, i. «,»*•■». evidence here at the idea that n(m Tdo not know wh at their idea can be, unless rs*2z?Su .51, & .*««« u» s & 1 "" •«- °' ,hem -
1025
C—4.
E. SALE.!
not doing something more useful. I was sent to the Wade country by one of these men, and they wanted £850 for a farm there. I made inquiries, and the valuer told me that the utmost value he would place on the farm was £400. Therefore, an utter stranger coming into the community needs protection, because the conditions of land are so different here from what they are in England. Of course, from the individualistic standpoint it is a case of the devil taking the hindermost, but I do not think the State should adopt that motto when dealing in land. My idea is that if a man goes to the Land Office they should be prepared to give him all the information he wants. I think a man can very easily spend a very large amount of money in running about New Zealand looking at land. Here is a suggestion, and it is one that has been adopted in Western Australia. If a man goes there and wants land the Government put the raliway at his disposal. The State owns our railways, and I think the Government should afford a man coming to this colony every facility for getting about and seeing the land. I got tired of running about looking for land, and at last I put some money into suburban land, and, although I am a socialist, I will admit that I put the money in to get some unearned increment. Already my land has doubled in value,-and I have not done a stroke on it. But I would much rather have been in the country doing some work. 197. Mr. Forbes.] Were you induced to come out to New Zealand by representations made to you at Home that you would be able to get land here? —Yes. 198. In what' way were you disappointed 2—The ballot is so slow and so uncertain, and you get so little information about it. I think the whole process should be quicker and more certain. 199. Did you get your information from the Agent-General's Office in London?— Yes. I also bought a Year-book, and pamphlets were supplied to me by a man in London who was lecturing on New Zealand. 200. Do you think the Government of this country is painting the prospects of land-settlement in New Zealand in colours too rosy in order to induce colonists to come out here?—l think the people in England are apt to think that they can get land very much easier in New Zealand than they can, and they are disappointed when they come out here. 201. You spoke of the land agents in the colony as an evil: do you not think that they are useful in helping a man to dispose of his property, and by bringing buyers and sellers together ?— So long as the present system obtains they have their uses, no doubt; but I personally think they are rather an abuse than a use. I would put a stop to the transfer of land entirely. When a man ceases to use land he should have to go off it altogether. 202. Mr. Matheson.] Do you consider the information supplied to you by the Agent-General at Home was very misleading?—l think it was misleading, though perhaps not intentionally so. 203. Do you consider the State would be the best landlord we could have here?—l do. 204 Are vou aware that we are letting farms now, and that the tenants thereon are liable to eviction if they cut scrub without a written permit from the Commissioner of Lands, or if they put in a crop without a specific amount of manure?— Those conditions are very mild compared with the conditions exacted by the landlords in England. 205. Do you think such conditions are reasonable to farm under and live under? 1 am not sufficiently well up in the question to be able to reply. Theophilus Leslie Stevens examined. 206. The Chairman.'] Are you a landholder? —Yes; I hold land in the city and at Mount Albert —iust an allotment in each. Both are freehold. 207. Have you any remarks to make? —I have here a written statement showing the number of leaseholders, which I obtained from the Land Office. It shows that the total number of Crown tenants on the 31st March last was 21,101. Of these only 11,000 hold pastoral leases or leases in perpetuity That being so, it is onlv half the tenants who are concerned in getting the option of the freehold, and I say it is the people at large—the people of the cities, as well as the people of the country—who should decide as to whether the freehold should be granted and the conditions under which it should be granted. I should say that if the people are to get freehold instead of leasehold the same law should apply to all leaseholds, including endowment lands and private lands. I should like to hand in this statement in reference to the leaseholders It has been furnished to us officially. The question, to my mind, is not so much a question of freehold versus leasehold, but it is a question as between land-speculator and land-user. If the and-specu ator forces the land-user to pay practically to him-if not directly at any rate indirectly-it is blackmailing the farmer, who has to pay the larger proportion of the cost. I was for a number of years at farming work in the South/and T was valuer for the Government and for local Bodies on many occasions in the country, so that I have had plenty of experience. My experience is that those who have the freehold at the present time-the great bulk of the larger farmers and the sma l farmers as wellare mortgaged. T was acting for the New Zealand Insurance Company at one time, and the work I had to do in connection with that office brought it forcibly to my knowledge that pretty well all lu m holders were mortgaged. Now, a man might ust as well be a leaseholder as be living under a mttgage Tnd I tWnk g th g e State would be a very much better landlord than any private indiis though there may be a few good private landlords here and there. We all admit that speculation in land is an evil, and the only remedy you can apply to speculation in land is to tax K on S unimproved value sufficiently heavily to make speculation in land absolutely unprofitable. The farmer would not have to pay half the purchase-money he now pays but for the prosnective value which leads to speculation in land. -itu n *i? 208 Mr McLennan.] Are you a member of the Trades and Labour Council? No. 209' Mr Matheson.] Do you sa,y if land was more heavily taxed it would be better for the 1-Yes most decidedly 'so, and I know fifty young farmers who would say the same. farmer . > " a free hold with a mortgage is no better than a lease. Do you realise that there is one great difference between them, which is this: that the freeholder with a mortgage
129—C. 4.
C—4.
1026
[T. L. STEVENS.
has an opportunity of at some time paying ofi that mortgage, but the Crown tenant who pays rent under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure has not that privilege? —Just so; but the lease-in-perpetuity tenant is not subject to revaluation. He is reaping the advantage of the increased value of his land. 211. Are you aware that the Trades and Labour Council recommend that a lease-in-perpetuity tenant's property should be revalued at his death? —I am not aware of that. 212. Knowing this now, do you still maintain that the freehold with a mortgage is not better than a lease in perpetuity ? —No, 'it is not. Of course, it depends on the amount of the mortgage. George Stevenson examined. 213. The Chairman.] Do you hold land?— Yes, I hold a section of suburban land on freehold tenure. 214. What matter do you wish to speak upon?— With regard to the constitution of Land Boards, I think that elective Land Boards are right, and that landless people, as well as landowners, should have a say in the election. I consider that all the people of the colony have an equal interest in the manner in which lands are distributed and worked. Then, I am not a believer in the ballot system. My father was one of the first to take up land under the lease-in-perpetuity system, and' in order to make sure of getting a section several of the sons put in applications with him. It was his only way out of the difficulty. A single man who wanted a section would have only one chance, while a man who was in a position to put in other names would have four or five chances. I would suggest that, instead of Ihe ballot, the lands should be let at a competitive valuation—that is to say, that the man who places the highest value upon the land should be allowed to take it up* because he is undoubtedly the man who will make the most use of the land. Those who wish to take up land without using it for a time would then have to wait and get land later on. With regard to the question of freehold versus, leasehold, the leasehold has one great advantage, and it is that it enables the poor man who has very little capital to get on the land and spend all the money he has on improving and stocking. If it had not been for the leasehold there would have been many more men about the city competing with the other workers for employment. The worst of the freehold is that the prospective value runs the price up to such an extent that the legitimate users of the land are debarred, and the poor man has to put all his money down for the land, and then has to mortgage his property in order to get enough money to improve it. I know of no other method of coping with the difficulty than putting an adequate taxation on the unimproved value. I think that would be to the benefit of the whole community, as well as for the landowners themselves. I recommend that the freehold be not granted to the Crown tenants until freehold is paying its proper duty to the State. 215. Mr. Forbes.] You advocate the tender system, as opposed to the ballot, where there is more than one applicant? —Yes. 216. Would not that competition tend to increase the price of land, which is the very thing you have been deploring ? Would not the price then be prohibitive to a poor man ?—What I meant was that the want of adequate taxation on freehold land enables the owners to let their lands lie idle until they can demand a high price for it, and result is that the poor man cannot get it. 217. Would there not be a tendency on the part of intending tenants to offer more rent for a piece of land they wanted than they could afford to pay, looking to the produce the land would yield ?—I do not think that position would come about at all, because a tenant would be stupid if he offered more rent than the land was worth. 218. Do you not know that in the past history of this colony that position did come about under the auction system, and the Government had to go in for reducing rents?—l did not know that. But that is only one side of the question, because T recommend that adequate taxation be put on freeholds. 219. It would be necessary to do that before you could do away with the ballot system? —I do not think so, because neither I'nor any other tenant would pay more rent than we could afford. 220. But a farmer, in the excitement of the auction, might give more than the land was worth, as he has done in the past, and the Government had to come to his rescue?—l think the fault was that there was so much land held for speculative purposes. 221. Mr. Matheson.] Do you say that it will help land-settlement if freeholders are called upon to pay taxation equal to rent?— Yes, equal to the using-value of their land, provided the other taxes are removed. 222. Mr. McCardle.] You hold that when an industrious man takes up a piece of land and spends a good deal of money on improving it the Government should step in and increase his taxation? No, I am not in favour of taxing improvements ; I would tax the unimproved value. 223. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 224. Do vou know anything about the lands set apart for workmen's homes?—No; I would not bother to go and look at them. The land is in such a poor locality, and it was bought at such high prices, that workmen cannot take them up and work them with profit. 225. If a large number of workmen established their homes there would not the land raise in value? Yes; but they could not do it at the present time, because of the speculative price the Government pays, which has made it absolutely prohibitive for men to live on it. Frederick Maskell King examined. 226. The Chairman.'] Are you a landholder ?—I have some freehold land in the city. 227' Have you any remark's to make?—l wish to refer to the cropping restrictions under which land is placed. lam of the opinion that such restrictions should be abolished. A man has a right to use his land to the best advantage, on condition that he contributes to the State the annual rental value of that land. Then, lam not in favour of the present ballot system, nor am lin favour of the option system. I would rather favour a tender system, which would do away with undue com-
1027
petition and the excitement which takes place at an auction. The valuation placed upon the land by the applicants would be likely to be genuine if men who are taking up land knew that instead of taking up an asset they were taking up a liability, the liability being that they should pay to the Government the annual rental value of the land. As regards loading lands for loading, approve of that, because it is Government expenditure, and that Government expenditure increases the value of that land, and therefore those who take up that land should pay for the money the Government have spent upon it. Ido not think the town workers should be taxed on their food and clothing and other necessaries of life to provide roads for the country districts. It should be an axiom, 1 think, in our land policy that the community-created value by the expenditure ot public funds should belong to the community, while the value which is given to the land by the labour and industry of those who use it should belong to themselves. There is no such thing as unearned increment. The increment is always earned, only that it is earned sometimes by the Government and sometimes by the individual, and it is only the latter that should belong to the individual. That which is earned by the expenditure of public funds belongs to the people of the colony as a whole. Now, large estates would not be a curse to the country if those who held them paid the annual rental value to the Government, because people would not then hold any more than they really required. The reason why people are being forced into the back blocks while valuable land is held idle is obviously because this useable land is held above its using value by those people who have got hold of it. As to the question of leasehold versus freehold, for myself Ido not see that it matters whether land is held under freehold or leasehold. I do not suggest the breaking °f the present leases. 1 think they should be held as at present without revaluation because it must be remembered that the settlers have to pay taxation on the Customs duties and we do not want to make them pay twice over. 1 wouM not increase the rent to the leaseholders until 1 increased the taxation on the unimproved value throughout the whole colony. I wish also to say that am Secretary of the National Single-tax League of New Zealand. 228. Mr. McLennan.] \ou would be in favour of removing all restrictions on the present tenants under the Land for Settlements Act? Yes. 229. Suppose tliey did not farm their lands properly, and allowed weeds to grow up, and failed to keep their fences in repair?—lt is obvious that if adequate taxation were levied upon their lands they would keep their farms clear of weeds, because they could not aftord to do otherwise. 230." But sometimes you get bad farmers?— Well, they would have to suffer for it. cannot tell a man how to manage his own business. 231 But the land belongs to the Crown, and that is different altogether from an ordinary business J—l do not think the land belongs to the public at all. I believe every man should own lUh °232 la You would grant the freehold t-Yes, certainly, with the restriction that the annual rental value is collected by the Government by means of taxation. Ido not think the question of title has 233. Mr. Matheson,\ Do you think it would be wise to give all Crown tenants the right to purchase, but still collect the rent?—l would give the title to the freehold only when the annual value of the land and the amount of Customs duty derived were even. 234 And in cases where the tenants have already paid to the Crown the capital value of the land, do you propose to refund the capital value ?-No, because the Government does not sell the future unearned increment; it sells the present value. •. u u 235 Suppose the Government sold a thousand pounds' worth ol land to-day, it would _ be selling value which had been created by them in the past. Have you ever known of a tailor going into a citv and buying the goodwill of a business for, say, ±100. les. 235 a And, then, in another twenty years that goodwill will be worth owing to increasing value. Do you think the Crown is entitled to that £900 of increase? No, because the 1 a ll °230 Do' yon o t aH s e that a farmer often increases his capital value on his place by his own labour I —Yes, and he is entitled to that. Alexander Dewar examined. 237. The Chairman.] Do you hold land?-Yes, I hold about 60 acres in the country, and close upon an acre in town. It is freehold in each case. 239' Are V ll lere y° reim r u wish to make to the Commission? I would like to say to any of those who hold that the value of freehold land has gone up considerably of recent years that I will be "l id to sell them my land at one-fourth of the price I paid for it forty years ago. I approve o the freehold or of leasehold with the right of purchase. I think nothing else will satisfy the human • 1 Tf •»' nprson <*ets a leasehold, especially on the terms under which leaseholds are now offered bv"! Government, not onlyT. tf» individual injured, tat the country which borrow, the money in,l sends away interest every year to the money-lender is also injured. I consider the lease and sends away inte e H q{ land under that tenure to a state of serfdom. perpetuity is calculat mau who will take a i ease in perpetuity and saddle posterity 1 hey cannot be called fr( ;L > lunatic asylum. When the Matamata Estate was £ f olrfd linquired into H, and got a piglet giving ail particulars. The estate was reported to be capable of'o.rryi.g nearly two sheep to the acre The fir,, section I » acres, and the = who lease. th.thas got toj.y rest, si,if his°well & build and buy stock. There are some trees on it, but the tenant does not cut a limb of it his well, build, ana >uy circumstances 110 one can make a living without the Comniissmner s I a and his desce ndents must be serfs also* "itineans ta OMyZs i/h.v, to pay £M,9«0 for the right occupy that
C.-4.
1028
La. dewar.
land, and the tenant runs the risk of losing the whole of it if he neglects to pay a quarter's rent. I say the whole thing is wrong in principle, and such a system should never have been foisted on the settlers of the country. I was brought up in the Dominion of Canada, and all the land on a certain island there was at one time held on lease for 999 years. There was not an acre of freehold. The proprietors lived in England, Ireland, and Scotland. Now, in Matamata there is nothing but poor land, while on this island I speak of three-fourths of the land contained timber. There was enough timber upon it to pay the rent for fifty years, and every acre that was put in cultivation was very fertile. You would think that under the circumstances the people would have been perfectly satisfied and would never grumble, but they certainly were not satisfied. They worked away until they found a means of getting the freehold. The Government purchased the land, and gave every farmer the freehold on his paying ss. per acre. 1 was there two years ago, and there was not a farmer there who does not own his own land. I say this 999-years lease should not be tolerated in a new country, and the sooner the people rise against it and alter it the better it will be for the country. 240. Do you say the settlers on Matamata are paying too much for their land? —I do. 241. Do you think the Government made a mistake in purchasing this estate for close settlement ? —I do, under the circumstances. 242. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think leaseholders, as a rule, improve their property as well as freeholders do? —I cannot tell you. 243. Have you improved your 60 acres? —No. 244. Then the freehold is no good if you do not improve it? —That is bad reasoning. 245. Mr. Forbes.] You consider the tenants are paying too high rent for the sections at Matamata? —Yes. 246. Do you think that the Government are making a profit out of it? —I have not entered into that. I only know they are charging the settlers a good deal more than they gave for it. 247. Mr. Matheson.] What is the name of the island you were speaking of where the land was at one time under lease for 999 years? —Prince Edward Island. 248. Were they prospering under the freehold tenure when you were there two years ago? — Yes, the freehold was given sixteen years ago. Caleb Wood examined. 249. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —Yes; but I came here more particularly to represent my son, who holds 14,000 acres in the Tarawera Survey District on pastoral lease —twenty-one years' lease from the Crown. About four years ago I was in that district, and saw that this land was unoccupied. I waited upon the Land Board, and ultimately the land was put up for selection with other lands adjacent. It is of very poor quality, as a rule, and water is scarce. Therefore, the land was put up in considerable blocks in order to give access to water. During the last two years my sons have ploughed 50 acres of land, fenced it in, built houses, and fenced an orchard, and put stock on the land. This morning the Commissioner of Crown Lands stated that our pastoral leases are not similar to the leases in Canterbury and C'tago. I have been in both those provinces, and I say advisedly that the leases in the district I speak of are not tussock land but fern land, which require a very much larger outlay. During the last two years we paid the railways £140 for carrying the stock and other requisites for opening up the land. My sons have asked me what advantage it is to them to make improvements on the land, seeing that those improvements will ultimately go to some one else. The land is twice as hard to bring into cultivation as the land in Canterbury and Otago, and 1 would suggest either that there should be a valuation of improvements made at the end of twenty-one years, or that the period of the lease should be extended. Why should such conditions be attached to the land as debar young men from putting their whole life into it while there? The land is not of bad quality, and if the land in that locality, both Government and Native land, were brought into occupation the advantage to the railway would be very considerable. For instance, we had two hundred pounds' worth of wool braught away from that property last year. I think that some encouragement should be given to every person who will take up land at these places, far away from the centre of population. There are other leases in the locality the holders of which have wanted to give them up, because they cannot make them productive without the lands being fenced. I do not hold with theorists to come here to tell us about how the land should be occupied. I would say to those men, "Go upon the land yourselves, and at the end of ten years you will be better qualified to say what the system of tenure should be." It is the men who goes upon the land and puts his life into it who most deserves consideration from the Government. Every settler becomes a user of what is produced in the town. In the past the people of this country, and of the towns especially, have benefited by the progress made in the country districts. It is not so very many years ago that flour cost £24 a ton in the Auckland market simply because the land was not occupied, and yet the workers received no better wages than they do to-day. Now, thanks to the opening-up of the land, the workers in the towns get their food at half the former prices. The city workers seem to think that the country settlers are the only persons who have benefited by the progress of settlement. They forget that every settler who goes into the country has necessities to supply, and those necessities must be met by the workers in the town. I maintain that the interests in the city and the country are collective and cannot be severed. I object to the people of the city dictating to the country settlers as to what the tenure of land should be. The country people on their part do not dictate to the city as to what the rate of wages shall be. I maintain that the tenure of land should be on whatever system the selector desires. 'If he is a poor man give him a piece of land on lease if he wants "it; if he is a rich man and wants a freehold let him have it, but in a limited area. There should be no fancy tenures; let the tenure be whatever the selector thinks will suit liirn S best. The question of the settlement of Native lands is another important factor in the problem. In the dis-
C.-4.
1029
C. WOOD.j
trict I speak of there are blocks of 8,000, 10,000, and 20,000 acres held by Maoris, and not producing a penny, though they could be made to produce great wealth. Our railways would not carry all the produce that could be obtained from those districts. I am informed that during the last two years the traffic on the Rotorua Railway has increased threefold. If all this country were settled the needs of the people living upon it would give the town workers ample employment, and we should have such a condition of prosperity as never before existed. 250. Mr. McLennan.] Are your sons entitled to compensation for improvements at the expiration of their lease? —Only for three years' rental. 251. Are they not entitled to any valuation for grassing? —No. 252. Would your sons be satisfied if at the expiration of lease the land were put up again by arbitration, their improvements conserved to them, and a revaluation made for their rent? —They would be most agreeable to that, ft would meet their case. 253. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not think that the city dweller should have as much voice as the resident in the country in saying how the land of the estate should be disposed of I—He1 —He has just as much interest as the country resident has in saying how the question of wages should be dealt with, and no better right. I would not be averse to the city man having a general voice in the matter, but when you come to particularise in regard to the occupation of land, I maintain that where there is such a disinclination to go upon the land every facility should be given to the country settler. 254. Is there that disinclination to go upon the land ? —Notoriously so. I am speaking in regard to the population of the towns generally. 255. Do you not know that in the ballots of some improved estates they are competed for tenfold and a hundredfold? —That is in consequence of the sons of farmers desiring to get land, and not so much because of people wanting to. go out of town. 256. Do you not consider that the prosperity of the cities depends largely upon the lands of the colony being made productive, and not kept idle for speculative purposes? —That is my whole purpose in coming before the Commission. I believe that every acre of land occupied is a benefit to the people of the town. 257. Do you not think, then, that the resident in the town is justified in demanding some voice in making the land laws of the colony so as to prevent land being locked up for speculative purposes? —I do not think there is any great detriment to the country while the Government are taking every possible means to meet the needs of those who desire land. 258. Mr. McCardle.~\ Have you watched the ballots for bush lands in this district? —Yes, and I am informed that there has been a considerable amount of dummyism, and that should be stopped, 259. Will any man dummy on purely bush land where there are no roads? —I think it is very possible that he might be employed by another who desires to get the timber on the land. 260. But on the land that I speak of in the King-country there is no milling timber? —Yes, but in (lie Kaipara district there has been dummyism. 261. Do you think that the advances-to-settlers system is in the interests of settlement? —I do. It is the most humane system that was ever introduced into this country. 262. Do you think it ought to be extended? —I do. 263. And that its administration should be made more liberal? —I cannot find fault with Hie administration. A friend of mine, who had a family of ten children, spent five years on swamp land before he got any returns. His sons, sixteen, eighteen, and twenty-two years of age, had to sell their 8 lb. of butter a week to provide themselves with groceries, and in their determination to succeed they lived on dripping, and succeed they did. Alexandeb Finlayson examined. 264. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder? —Yes; I hold about 800 acres of freehold at Maungaturoto. 265. Have you any matter you wish to bring before the Commission? —As so many townspeople have given evidence I have been asked to put forward my views. When eighteen years of age I.went into the back blocks, and I have been there ever since. Every young man who will go back and do what I did ought to get 100 or 200 acres of land free from the State, and will then have paid dearly for it. For instance, I have carried on my back every Saturday a full week's provisions—carried it twenty miles, and if Mr. Fowlds and some of the others who have given evidence here had done that they would be better able to give an opinion on the question of land-tenure. The labouring-men of New Zealand are making great complaints, but there is no country in the world that has treated the labouring-man better than New Zealand has done. New Zealand is the best place I know of for a labouring-man, and one of the worst for a poor man who wants a piece of land. 266. Mr. McCardle.] Do you advocate the right of purchase? —I do. 267. And do you consider that you are advocating a principle that weds the people to the land? —I do. 268. And one that is calculated to bring about the best results as regards settlement and the development of the resources of the colony? —Yes. 269. Is it not a fact that when you took up bush land it had no value: that your labour has made it what it is to-day?— Yes, my labour and that of my neighbours. 270. You require a tenure that will enable you to procure money at the lowest rate of interest? —Yes. 271. With the right of purchase, is a working-man more likely to succeed on the land than with the lease in perpetuity, which is'not looked upon by the money-lender as a sufficient security? -Yes ; my experience is that the idea of the men on the land is that they are wanting the freehold, and they "are making every effort to get it. One of their reasons is that they do not want to be paying rent all their lives.
1030
G.—A.
[A. FiNLAYSON.
272. Suppose the produce you have taken from the land and the price of the land to-day were put together, would you have earned a fair wage if you had both those in your pocket to-morrow ? Just about, I think. I believe that any young man who likes to go on a fair piece of land can make himself independent in twenty years. 273. Is it not a fact that a man earns but little on bush land in his youth: that it is only when he comes to the years when he should retire from labour that he is making profit from the land? —That is true. 274. The Chairman.] Leaving sentiment aside, do you think the lease-in-perpetuity settlers desire to acquire the freehold ?—Yes, by far the greater number of them. 275. And do you think it would be in their interest, and also in the interest of the State, that they should be allowed to do so I—Certainly.l—Certainly. Alder Fisher examined. 276. The Chairman. Do you hold land? —Not at present, but I difl for about twenty-five years. 277. What do you wish to say?—lf I have any preference it would be for the lease in perpetuity with periodical valuations, or for a freehold. I am not particular which, though I would take a lease in preference. For the average man who wants to take up a farm £-100 is a very fair capital. If he has to purchase land he would get land of very good average quality for £1 an acre. He would thus have to part with, say, £200, or half his capital. Then, he would have to board his family in town, because he cannot take them on land such as I first went to, for there was no track to it. I had to buy a punt to take my stores up, and to carve my way on to the land. That was in 1865, in fhe Kaipara district. I had to pay wages in putting up a shanty on the land, and in that shanty I lived for eighteen months, when the house was destroyed in burning off. I had to log-up the land, grass it, and fence it, put up another house, and buy stock. The chances are that it will cost the settler £50, and he cannot hope for any return for two years. All this time he has to keep his family in town, and this exhausts the whole of his capital. Consequently he has to apply for accommodation to the money-lender in town. These are the men who want people to get the freehold, so that they can farm the farmer. These are the men who want to make a catspaw of the Farmers' Union. For this reason I believe in the lease in perpetuity. Under it a man can get his lease and keep the whole of his capital in his pocket, merely paying interest to the State on the value of the land. Then he can. make a living without going to the money-lender. 278. Mr. McLennan.] Would you apply the valuation to the existing leases, or only the future leases?— Only to future leases. As to present leases, we have made a contract, and cannot get out of it. 279. Mr. Forbes.] You prefer the lease in perpetuity to the freehold? —More than that, I deny the right of the Crown to sell the land. That right was never given to them by the people. 280. We have not met with any farmer using the land who prefers the lease in perpetuity to the freehold ?—No, because they think that the revaluation means that their improvements will be revalued, which is a most iniquitous thing. 281. Would you have confidence that any revaluation of any property you held would be fair and equitable ? —I would. 282. Mr. Matheson.\ When the State sent a valuer to assess the value of your improvements would you expect him to put in his improvements all those things which he could see?— Far more than he can see. If lam on your land and drain it that is more than you can see. 283. How would he arrive at that? —He can look at my book. 284. Would it be reasonable to take a farmer's books as the basis of valuation? —Yes. 285. Have you ever known a case where twenty farmers clubbed together and put up a dairy factory, which increased the saleable value of the land by £1 an acre : in a case like that do you think the Government Valuer should put down that £1 increase as unimproved value or as improvements? —I do not know. 286. Would he not be "stumped," just as you are, and very puzzled to know what to do?— It is a very puzzling question. 287. Mr. McCardle.] You assume that there is only one clause under which a working-man can take up lease in perpetuity? —If he has limited capital that is the only one. Some people seem to forget that he has a saleable interest in his lease. 288. But under the lease in perpetuity he can only borrow at a higher rate of interest: does not that handicap a man? —Not at all. 289. Would you let him struggle along for want of capital?—He would not struggle, because he has his capital in his pocket. 290. Do vou not think that a man should be able to borrow £100 for stock if he wants it? Yes. 291. Why, then, handicap him with the lease in perpetuity, with the higher rate of interest it entails?— The Government are not charging 8 per cent. Samuel Cochrane Macky examined. 292 The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —I do not. I simply want to express my opinions as to land-tenure and other questions of over fifty years standing. So far as the lease in perpetuity is concerned, I consider if a- man wishes to change his tenure to occupation with right of purchase or to actual purchase of the freehold, it would be advisable to let him do it, on condition that he pavs the additional rate of interest, and also compound interest, so as to put him on an equality with the man who took up his land under occupation with right of purchase. In taking up land now I think it would be advisable in a great many cases where the optional tenure is
S. C. MACKY.I
1031
C.—i.
allowed that the purchase of the freehold for cash should be done away with. Then you would make sure that there would be no land speculation At the last sitting of the Commission in Auckland a question was asked as to what would become of future generations if the Government sold all its land. But the same question would arise if the Government parted with all its lands under lease in perpetuity or in any other way. Unfortunately, we are not going to get people in the country so readily. This evening something has been said about the unearned increment. One member of the Commission asked the last witness to whom would belong the increase of value created by the starting of a co-operative dairy factory, and the witness hesitated. Under the circumstances 1 would not have hesitated; the increment undoubtedly belongs to the farmer. I contend that on farming land there is no unearned increment. The farmer has earned it, and earned it very hardly. While a man in town is working forty-odd hours a week, the man in the country is working sixteen hours a day, in the summer, at any rate. Again, it has been asserted that the increment belongs to the people. But what about the decrement. Take the history of the Waikato. After the war land there was bringing good prices; then it suddenly went down. Wool declined in value, and there were no butter factories and no frozen-meat export trade, and the result was that a great many people sold their land for less than half what it had cost them. 1 know of one instance where a property that had cost £12 was sold for £4 10s. It was only when we got the refrigerator and the cream-separator and when we started our dairy factory that prosperity came. These changes, and not the increase of population in the town, were the cause of the increase in the value of land. The farmers could get on without the towns so long as there were wharves here for the shipment of their beef and mutton and wool and butter to Great Britain. For that reason I have been advocating for years the abolition of protective duties, in order that the farmer may have a better chance, especially -at the present time when we must have preferential tariff with Britain, and the only way we can get it is to give her something in return. In my opinion, there cannot be two questions as to land-tenure. I believe that the occupation with right of purchase is the best system. In the early days the Provincial Government of Auckland gave 40 acres of land to every adult emigrant. Then, there was John Ballance's Homestead Act, which would have worked well only for the wave of depression that came along. If that Act were in force now I believe it would be a good thing for the colony. 293. Mr. Forbes.] Do you consider that the question of land tenure should be left to the country settlers? —In a great measure 294. Is it wise to leave these matters in the hands of the persons interested: are they not likely to have laws passed which would give them a certain amount of extra favour ? —Possibly you are right there. This country has been run lately by the trades-unionists; the farmers have had no show. I want to see the farmers have an innings now. 295. Is it not better that the whole community should take an interest in these questions and see that they are justly and equitably administered? —Undoubtedly. 296. Should not the farmer take an interest in labour questions, and the labourer take an interest in land-tenure, so that the land should be made as productive as possible? —That is exactly what I find fault with at the present time. The farmers are paying the piper, and the other people are dancing. They are not content in getting so much benefit for themselves, but they are interfering with the farmers. 297. Is it not a fact that the farming coriimunity have never been so prosperous as at the present time? —The position is better than it has been; but you must remember that we are competing against the lowest priced labour in the world —Siberia sd. a day, and the Argentine 10s. a week. The Argentine can send Home enormous vessels filled with chilled meat —not frozen meat such as we have to send -and put it on the London market in splendid condition. 298. Mr. McCardle.] What you object to is not the towns taking an interest in the land laws, but you think they ought not to propound the land laws that should govern the man who is a practical worker, and who has the practical difficulties of farming? —You have just put the matter as I would have wished to put it. 299. The Chairman.'] Do the farmers leave commercial matters to the Chamber of Commerce? —Yes. 300. And you think that the settlers of the country know more about land-tenure than the Chamber of Commerce do? —I do. William Brierlet examined. 301. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —No; but I know something about land. I have been in this country for a good number of years, and for many years I was a director of the Land and Building Investment Company. In that capacity it was my duty to visit properties both in the city and suburbs, and also in the Waikato, so that I have a fair idea of the requirements of the country and what it produces, and of the difficulties the farmers had to contend with. There are two ways of looking at the land-tenure question: what is best for the individual and what is best for the" State. It may be better for the owner of a property to have the freehold, or the right of obtaining that freehold. I wish to speak principally in reference to the land set apart for workingmen's homes near Auckland. It has been stated that the land has been poor. I admit that it is not first-class land, but its position is very suitable for the purpose to which it is devoted, and the prices are not excessive. In the Methuen Township the most distant sections are only six or seven minutes' walk from the road or railway, and the fare from the settlement to Auckland is only 2s. a week. That practically brings it, as regards expense, only a hundred yards outside the junction of Symonds Street and Kyber Pass Road. The journey to the city occupies only about thirty-five minutes. I have heard it stated that the unsuitability of the land for gardening purposes and the inability of the selectors to obtain the freehold are the objections to working-men taking up allotments. In my opinion, it is the conditions under which the land is leased that prevent it from being taken up. The first condition is that the applicant shall not have £300 capital. In the
C.—4.
1032
[W. BBIERLEY.
first year he has to put up a dwelling worth £30. The Government will make him a loan of £50. In the second year he has to get the land fenced. He has to hold the land for twelve months before he can obtain his lease. The selector cannot put up a decent building for less than £225, so that the conditions has been the means of causing a lot of hovels to be put up at a very low cost. They are not comfortable to the occupants, and they are no benefit to the district. In area the sections range from 1J acres to 2 acres, and the rental runs from about £4 a year to about £6, which cannot be considered excessive. The area is large enough for anybody, if not too large. The lessee is not supposed to let any portion of his holding, and he is unable to borrow upon it, and consequently most of the sections still remain idle. What I would suggest is that the Government should build houses for these people worth, say, £220. They could have the building insured for the full amount and make the lessee pay the premium. Under such a system men with families would be able to go upon the land, and you would have fifty persons balloting for each house, and the best working-men in Auckland would be running in numbers to get possession of such desirable dwellings. There are also other lands in the vicinity of Auckland that could be settled under such a system as I have sketched, but few men will take up land under the present conditions. The lease in perpetuity is quite as good as the freehold, with the further advantage that the lessee does not require to spend his capital in the outset, but has it available for improvements. His contract with the State is just as binding as a Crown grant, for it is issued on the same authority, and no law can alter it. Of course, it is still open to the State if need be to take the property, but it would have to pay full compensation. The leasehold tenure is suitable for the great number of people who have not the means of buying land for cash, and it is much better to be a tenant under the leasehold system than to be under the thumb of a mortgagee. I understand that a petition is being presented by some of the people in the hamlet, setting forth their desire to obtain the right of purchase. Some of these people have said to me, "Is it not as well for us to have the right of purchase? Some of the sections have 600 ft. of frontage, and cost us only £4 a year. That means £80 for the section. In a few years' time that land may be worth £1 a foot, and then we can get £600 for it, and puy off our £80 and have the rest to ourselves." 302. Mr. McLennan.] Would you say that the present demand for the option of the freehold is due to the desire to acquire the freehold and then sell it ?^—They would have that power, and they would use it. 303. Can you say as a positive fact that that is their object? —No; but they would have the opportunity. 304. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the Government would be wise to build £200 cottages for all the workmen who applied I—Not1 —Not for all, but they could do a great deal by supplying some. 305. If they build for one why not'for another? —I do not think that is a fair question. 306. Would it not be better to do the thing in a wholesale way instead of in a single instance? —I do not mean that the Government should only build one cottage. 307. Would you propose that the rent should increase as time went on ? —No. 308. Would it be the same rent for a thousand years? —Yes. 309. Mr. McCardle.\ Would you create a sinking fund in connection with the rent to pay off the loan the Government had advanced on the building? —Yes. 310. You also said that the Government could take the lease in perpetuity from a settler, the same as they did under the freehold system, by paying him the value of his improvements? —Yes. 311. It has frequently come under our notice, and we know it from practical experience, that the improvements as valued by the State are far below the value that they have cost the settler —they may have cost the settler twice the amount that he is credited with in the way of improvements, so that if the Government took over the lease the tenant would possibly get only one-third or one-half of the actual improvements he had put on the land during the term of his tenancy: would that be a fair thing? —No. 312. How would you arrive at the value of the improvements? —By having competent men to judge. 313. Under the present system the Government allows so much for bushfelling and grassing, and so much for fencing, and so much for buildings: for instance, they allow £2 ss. per acre for bushfelling and grassing, but a settler may not have a good burn, and he may spend another £3 in clearing the surface and bringing the land into an improved condition, and he gets no valuation for that?—l look at the matter in this way: the very fact of the Valuer knowing that the land was under bush at one time will enable him to estimate the value of the improvements, and what it has cost to clear and improve it. My opinion is that the leaseholder should be allowed to know that the land is his. He should not be treated in the way he is at present. 314. The Chairman.] In regard to workmen's homes, if such a scheme as you advocate were given effect to, do you think the workmen would be disposed to go out four or five miles and pay a reasonable rent and occupy the cottages?—l think so. I feel certain they would, because they could walk in ten minutes to the train and come to Auckland in thirty-live minutes. George Joseph Garland examined 315. The Chairman.'] Do you hold land? —I hold 500 acres of freehold at Awitu. I have also half an acre in the Grey Lynn Borough. 316. What do you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I believe entirely in the freehold tenure, for the simple reason that I have acquired what I have now for the purpose of, if possible, leaving it to my posterity. Every man should do the best he can for his children, and I am imbued with the opinion that land as we hold it is one of the best things that could be left to a family of children. That is my individual opinion. I believe that no man should be restricted in the right of taking up land under any of the tenures which the Government under the various Land Acts have given us. The one which I prefer above freehold is the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system, but the lease in perpetuity is a useful tenure to many who wish to go into the
G. J. OAKLAND. 1
1033
C—4.
back blocks. But, what I complain of is that large blocks of land have been thrown open and only one tenure has been available —namely, the lease-in-perpetuity system. That has been claimed by the Minister of Lands only to apply where minerals exist, but that contention, to my mind, has not been satisfactorily cleared up. I refer more particularly to the blocks of land in the Kawhia district. If a man wishes to take up land no obstacle should be thrown in his way. I think the present restrictions of 640 acres of first-class and 2,000 acres of second-class land are reasonable and in the right direction. I think the Land Boards should be elective. I think there is plenty of room for improvements in the Boards as we know them. I have no individual quarrel with any of the members of the Auckland Land Board, but I think it would give greater satisfaction if the Land Boards were elected, perhaps by the local bodies. Certainly some representation should be given to the Crown tenants. I think it would be a very great advantage if workmen's homes were put on better lands. In the Auckland District they are at present on poor land, but if the right of purchase was given I believe, even poor and all as it is, it would be readily taken up. I think the passing of the Advances to Settlers Act was calculated to give a great deal of relief to a great number of people, but, from my experience as a trustee in an estate, I find there is a great deal of difficulty in getting the office to accept money to liquidate a loan. They charged our estate six months' interest, although we gave them notice we were ready to pay the money on a certain day. I understand the same thing has happened in other cases. With regard to the freehold, I believe every British subject desires to possess it. I came to this colony as a child, but I soon became imbued with the opinion that I could not put my savings in a better place than in freehold land, and I naturally did that. 317. Mr. McLennan.] Have you improved your 500 acres of freehold? —Yes. 318. Are you living on the land? —Not now. I went there as a boy, and I worked on it for twenty-five years, and now I am taking a well-earned rest. 319. I believe you are secretary of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 320. Are you representing them here? —No, lam not. lam representing myself and my own private opinions. 321. Was a petition sent to you from the Crown tenants some time ago demanding the freehold? —Not that I have seen. It may have been sent to Mr Wilson, the general secretary of the union, but it did not come to me. 322. Can you say it did not come to your union? —I cannot say it did not come to our union, but it did not come to me, and I have never heard of it. Te Aroha, Tuesday, 13th June, 1905. Joseph Nathan examined. 1. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder ?—I hold a Government lease of a town section at Paeroa 2. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission? —I wish to get the freehold of my section, and I understand it depends on the findings of this Commission whether or not we will get the freehold. 1 may state that there are ten sections in the block in which my section is situated, and the position is as follows: Nos. 1 and 2 are freehold, No. 3is leasehold, No. iis freehold, No. 5, which is mine, is leasehold, and Nos. 6to 10 are freehold. I have been gridironed in there with a leasehold whilst my neighbours on all sides are freeholders. 3. Have you the same claim to the freehold? —I consider 1 have as much right to have the freehold as the person on each side of me. They have been granted the freehold by the Government. 4. Was your lease exactly the same as their lease? —Exactly the same as theirs was, but they have been granted the freehold and I and others have not. I have only stated the position in one block. There are something like twenty or thirty of us in exactly the same position, and, of course, the Commission can readily understand that having a leasehold, and only four or five years to run, buildings which cost about £1,400 are going to rack and ruin because I cannot spend money on them until I know what my position is to be. 5. Did you anticipate that you would get the freehold? —I always understood I was going to get the freehold. I have that in writing. I was informed that these leases were to be put up to auction by the Government and sold. But that was not done. This is a copy of the notification : — " Department of Lands and Survey, District Office, Auckland, 29th June, 1904. " Mr. J. Nathan, Paeroa. "Criterion Theatre. "As it has been decided by this Department to hold an auction sale of lots in the Paeroa Township at Paeroa, I should feel obliged if you would be good enough to inform me whether I can have the use of the Criterion Theatre one Thursday in August, or early in September, to hold the sale. If so, will you please let me have an early reply, with full particulars regarding hire of hall. &c., in order that I may complete my arrangements. " Jas. Mackenzie, Commissioner of Crown Lands, per J.P." I replied, stating the terms, and got this reply: — "Mr. J. Nathan, Paeroa. " 21st July, 1904. "Criterion Theatre. " I have to acknowledge receipt of your memo, of the sth instant, having reference to the hiring of the Criterion Theatre for the purpose of holding an auction sale of Paeroa lands therein, sale to be held one Thursday in August or September next. I have to state that you will be notified in the course of a week or two of the date of sale. "Jas. Mackenzie, Commissioner of Crown Lands, per J.P."
130—C. 4.
C—4.
1034
J. NATHAN.
I may explain that they wrote me as agent for the theatre. We have not yet been notified. A deputation of the leaseholders interviewed the Premier recently, and he told us that it depended on the finding of this Commission whether we were to get the freehold the same as it has been granted to these other people. I may also tell you that it was through the agitation of the people at Paeroa that the Government purchased this land from the Natives, and they have given the freehold to some and not to others. I think it is very important that we should have the freehold. We cannot improve our property, and our buildings are going to rack and ruin, because in a little over four years the leases fall into the hands of the Government, and we lose our improvements. Again, if we want to borrow, of course, we cannot do it. It is impossible to raise any money on the leasehold as it now stands. We were told by the Government that if we surrendered our leases they would then grant us the freehold. We did surrender our leases, but we have been granted nothing. I have the letters referring to the surrender of the leases. Here is one: " District Office, Auckland, Bth February, 1904. " Mrs. M. A. Nathan, Paeroa. " Re iSections W5 and WlB, Block Fl. " In reference to the application made by the leaseholders in the Township of Paeroa to the Government, requesting that the lots be submitted for sale by public auction loaded with the value of improvements, I have to inform you that, before you can be given an opportunity of acquiring the above land as freehold, it is necessary for you to sign the enclosed form, in the presence of a witness, and return it to this office on or before the 29th February, 1904. The land will then be submitted for sale by public auction at an upset price of £140, loaded with the value of improvements to the amount of £650. The arrears, which now amount to £1 17s. 6d., must be paid to the Receiver of Land Revenue, Auckland, forthwith. " G. Mueller, Commissioner of Crown Lands." The conditions in that letter were complied with, and the arrears of £1 17s. 6d. were paid, and the applications were signed. This was the next letter I got: — " District Office, Auckland, 21st March, 1904. " Mrs. M. A. Nathan, Paeroa. " Paeroa Leaseholds. " I beg to acknowledge receipt of your memorandum of surrender of Sections W5 and WlB, Block Fl, Town of Paeroa, and, in reply thereto, I have to state that if you have mortgaged the land, or leased it, or part of it, to sub-tenants, such surrender can only be accepted upon your forwarding to this office the written consent to the surrender by all sub-lessees or mortgagees (if any), together with your lease indorsed with the word " surrendered," and signed by yourself and duly witnessed. On receipt of these documents the date of sale of the section by public auction will be fixed. In 'the event of a non-sale of the section, the acceptance of your surrender does not in any way bind the Crown, or make it liable for the value of the improvements, and the lease will then continue to run to the end of its term, unless other arrangements are mutually agreed upon between yourself and Government. " Kindly forward above-mentioned documents as quickly as possible in order to expediate the sale of Paeroa land. " G. Mdelljsr, Commissioner of Crown Lands." 6. You simply asked the Government to put the leases up to public auction, reserving to the lessees the value of the improvements? —Yes. 7. Did the other lessees acquire their freehold by public competition? —No. The Government gave them the freehold at the time the Government bought their interest from the Natives. 8. Mr. McCardle.j Did the Government offer any reason why they refused the right of purchase? —No. All we were told was that the Government could do nothing until they had heard the results of this Commission's deliberations. 9. How long is it since the freehold was granted to the holders of the other sections? —Between five and six years ago. 10. On what conditions were they granted: was a fixed price agreed upon by both parties? — Yes. A fixed price was paid in cash and land to the original owner of the lease from the Natives. 11. You are satisfied you complied with the conditions that the Land Board laid down ?- Certainly. 12. And what you want now is that the Land Board should fulfill the contract they entered into with you? —That is right. 13. Other people are in the same position as you are in? —Yes. 14. So your case covers all the persons who are interested in the same way? —Not exactly. It governs a good many of them. A number of them have appointed gentlemen to speak on their behalf. 15. Have the Land Board given you any reason why the sale was postponed? —Nothing further than I have read to you. 16. Mr. Forbes.'] What is the length of your lease? —I think it was originally for twenty-one years, but the unexpired portion is four years from the Ist February next. 17. Can you give any reason why the Government sold all the freehold of the land around you and left your leasehold sections there? —I cannot, except that the person who owned the land originally was bought out by the Government, and given so-much cash and so-much land, and he was allowed to select his land, and, of course, he gridironed it in the manner I have shown you. That has happened all over the town. 18. Have the' Government given anybody else besides this man the freehold? —I do not know of any other case.
C—4.
J. NATHAN.]
1035
19. And the Government offered the rest of the land to the public on twenty-one-year leases / — No. They only got it for the unexpired portion of the lease then running. When I bought my predecessor out I understood that in a very short time we were all to receive the freehold of our sections from fhe Government. At that time an agitation was going on to get the Government to buy out one or two men, who held all the land on purpose to give the others the freehold. The Government bought out these people, but they did not carry out the rest of the bargain and give us the freehold. 20. Is ail the land built on 2 —A large proportion is. All the freehold sections are built on, but no man will improve his leasehold. 21. Is there any compensation for improvements? —In the event of my section being put up for public auction, any one bidding over my head will have to compensate me to the extent of £650, which is the Government's valuation of my improvements. 22. At the expiry of your lease, what happens? —The lease falls into the hands of the Government, and I lose all. 23. And you receive nothing from the Government? —So I understand. 24. Did all the leaseholders who received the letters you read comply with these conditions? - That I canot say. I believe a large proportion did. 25. Mr. Matheson.] Can you think of any excuse that might be put forward on the other side? - None at all. 26. Do you think our decision will in any way alter the validity of the promise you received? I think it depends on your findings whether the promise is carried out. 27. Mr. McLennan.] Did the occupants of Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 have the leasehold of their sections previously the same as yours? —Yes, and their sections would have fallen into the hands of the Government at the same time as ours if the Government had not bought them out and given them the freehold. 28. Is there any difference between your leasehold and their leasehold? —No. They were the same leaseholds originally. Frederick Cock examined. 29. The Chairman.] Do you hold a section similar to the last witness? —-Yes. My section is No. 21 of Block Gl. 29a. Have you anything fresh to state in regard to these leases? —Yes. I will read these letters: — " District Office, Auckland, Bth February, 1904. " Mr. F. Cock, Paeroa. " Re Section SE2I, Block Gl. " In reference to the application made by the leaseholders in the Township of Paeroa to the Government, requesting that the lots be submitted for sale by public auction loaded with the value for improvements, I have to inform you that before you can be given an opportunity of acquiring the above land as freehold it is necessary for you to sign the enclosed form in the presence of a witness, and return it to this office on or before the 29th February, 1904. The land will then be submitted for sale by public auction at an upset price of .£25, loaded with the value of improvements to the amount of £40. The arrears, which now amount to £3 155., must be paid to the Receiver of Land Revenue, Auckland, forthwith. This includes other portion of lease. " G. Mueller, Commisioner of Crown Lands." " District Office, Auckland, Bth February, 1904. " Mr. F. Cock, Paeroa. " Re Section SE2, Block Gl. " In reference to the application made by the leaseholders in the Township of Paeroa to the Government, requesting that the lots be submitted for sale by public auction loaded with the value of improvements, I have to inform you that before you can be given an opportunity of acquiring the above Jand as freehold it is necessary for you to sign the enclosed form in the presence of a witness, and return it to this office on or before the 29th February, 1904. The land will then be submitted for sale by public auction at an upset price of £75, loaded with the value of improvements to the amount of £200. The arrears, which now amount to £3 155., must be paid to the Receiver of Land Revenue, Auckland, forthwith. " G. Mueller, Commissioner of Crown Lands." I have been in the neighbourhood of Paeroa for thirty years, and know all the particulars connected with the township. It was originally leased from the Natives, and was afterwards sold to the Government. It was sold because we were all agitating to get our freeholds. A deputation, of which I was one, waited on the Premier a short time ago, and these are his remarks as reported in the newspaper: The Premier said that "no one Minister had a right to make promises to the people that would change the whole policy of the Government with respect to the whole or any portion of the colony." He also said, " They thought they had a promise from the Minister of Lands that the freehold was to be sold; but the Government could not be bound by every promise made by Ministers " ; and later on he said, "It would be inadvisable, in face of the Commission at present sitting, to come to any definite conclusion." If the Commission will call for the papers dealing with the alteration of the boundary of the goldfields to include Paeroa, and then cutting it out again after they had purchased the freehold, they will see that this lease was purchased by the Government so as to enable the lessees to get the freehold. If the papers are produced you will have a lot of information before you to show that we are quite within the bounds of reason in asking for the freehold. We have been fighting for this for years, and people are gradually leaving the part of the town which belongs to the Government and going to where they can get the freehold. The buildings on the leasehold are going to rack and ruin, and the leases are so
(P. COCK
C—4.
1036
short that we cannot get insurance on them. The Commission will therefore see the awkward position we are in. 30. Mr. Forbes.'] Could you have got the freehold from the man you were leasing from before the Government bought the land? —No, because it was held from the Natives. That is the reason why the Government came in and bought. It was expressly at the wish and instigation of the lessees that the Government bought the land. Mr. Cadman, ■when he was our member, promised he would do all in his power to get us the freehold. 31. Have the Government granted the freehold to any one else besides the man from whom they bought the lease ?- Yes; to the Bank of New Zealand, for one. A question was asked just now whether we could form any idea as to why the Government should not give us freehold. The only idea I can form is this: that the Premier has a great antipathy to part with the land. He says that the land is the people's inheritance, and that we have no right to part with any of it. If that is so, then we have no right to be here, because the land belongs to the Maoris. There is no reason I know of why we should not get our freehold. Other people have got theirs. The present position is greatly retarding, the progress of the district. 32. The Chairman.] Is there any other matter you wish to state? —I appear here in a dual capacity. I also represent the Thames Valley Dairy Factory, comprising 159 shareholders, who regret very much the Commission did not sit at Paeroa to enable them to give evidence. As their mouthpiece, they desire me to say that they are entirely in favour of freehold or lease with the right of purchase. I believe in the freehold, for the simple reason that every man, no matter how small his section is has then an incentive for perseverance and energy. The freehold makes him a loyal citizen and a good neighbour. I think there should be an alteration in the law regarding Native-land dealings. I think, that it is quite time the Natives were put on the same footing as Europeans in regard to the dealfng with their lands. John Borrie examined. 33. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler at Waihou. I hold 800 acres of freehold. 34. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission? —I represent, with another gentleman, the local branch of the Farmers' Union. I only wish to say that, with one exception, the members of our branch are entirely for the freehold or the optional tenure. We say, give a man the freehold when he feels that he is able to pay for it, but give him every opportunity to get on the land in the meantime. The following are resolutions adopted by our branch in regard to Land Boards: We reckon we have a serious grievance against the Land Boards as at present constituted, and these resolutions express what we would like to see adopted. They are as follows : " (1.) That the power of forfeiture now exercised by the Land Board and Minister of Lands be withdrawn. (2.) That the power of forfeiting any settler's holding shall be vested in the Supreme Court. (3.) That in the event of the Board wishing to forfeit, the settler interested shall be cited to appear before the Court; the Land Board to show cause why forfeiture should ensue; the settler to have an opportunity to state his own case. (4.) In the event of forfeiture the Court to declare the amount of compensation, if any, payable to the party forfeited." We see at the present time in Auckland and in all the leading districts that amalgamated labour have secured an Arbitration Court to look after their interests, and if an employer tries to " skin " a boy or girl of 6d. per week in contravention of an award that boy or girl can go to the Arbitration Court, with a Judge of the Supreme Court presiding, and obtain redress. But in the case of a Crown tenant, who may have spent years of labour and hundreds of pounds on his section, the Land Board have power in the event of any slight default to confiscate that man's property, and he has no redress from them. It seems rather hard that a settler should have no protection. I know of several cases in this district of this kind, and if as many have happened in the different land districts as I know of here it is a serious business. I took up a deferred-payment section twenty-five years ago. The land was put up at £2 per acre at that time, and I am within the truth when I say it was not worth 10s. per acre. I paid four years' instalments on that land amounting to £90. After a time my money got short, and I knocked off paying. After that a Revaluation Bill came in, and the land was revalued, and the price was reduced to £1 ss. per acre. I maintain that when the agreement was broken the settler had a right, as they had in other parts of the colony, to have a say as to the value of this land. When the Government reduced this land to £1 ss. per acre they were selling their own land at 10s., and private land and improved land was also selling at 10s. per acre. I would not pay the £1 55., and the last communication I had from the Land Board was to the effect that if I did not pay up by so-and-so proceedings would be taken to compel me to pay. That was what I wanted. I wanted an opportunity to state my case. Instead of that, they quietly forfeited my section without notifying me. It was forfeited nearly six months before I knew. I found the section was not only forfeited, but posted up to be sold within fourteen days of that time. The price put on it was 15s. per acre, and my improvements were chucked in, although, according to the official valuation made by the Lands Department, they amounted to £176. This was in addition to the £90 I had already paid. I offered them £1 per acre for the land, burthey would not take it, and they put it up at £15 less money than I had already paid for the land. I had no remedy against them. I consulted a solicitor, and he told me he thought 1 could claim for the improvements, and he would hardly believe me when I told him that no allowance was being made for my improvements. But, on inquiry, he found that the section was not loaded with my improvements. 35. When did this take place? —About six or seven years ago. 36. What was the reason for the forfeiture? —Non-payment, of course; but there was a difference of opinion about the amount of money due. I did not want to lose the land altogether, and when Mr. Seddon was in Auckland I applied 1o him to get the land withdrawn from sale, which he did. Then I applied to the Land Board to rescind their resolution of forfeiture, which they
1037
C—4.
I. BORHIE.]
very kindly did, and the upshot of the matter was that before I got the section, which the Land Board had offered for £75, I had to pay £153 Bs. lOd. 37. What amount was due for rent?- £35 lis. 6d., and I had to pay interest on that to the extent of £16 17s. 3d. before I could get the section. It had run on for fourteen or fifteen years. 38. This is the form sent out now: " lie arrears of rent.--Referring to my previous notices sent you for non-payment of rent amounting to £ . : : , being half-yearly payments, I have to state that at present I do not intend to bring the matter before the Land Board, but 1 should be glad to know what proposals you have to make, say, within one month from this date; and also a statement as to your circumstances, as I am most anxious to meet you in any way that is reasonable; also, if you cannot pay the whole amount, perhaps you could arrange to pay at least a portion of it. If, however, the rents remain unpaid, of course, I shall be reluctantly compelled to take further steps for the recovery of same, although I trust that this course will not be necessary in your case "1 —That may be so. I believe things are altered for the better now. They charged me £16 17s. 3d. for interest, and from what I can read of the Deferred-payment Act, they cannot charge interest at all. All the settlers capitalised their payments, but I never would, and never did, because the settlers were rhen liable for interest. Therefore Ido not think I was liable for interest ■39. Mr. McCardle.] Capitalising really meant wiping off the outstanding debt, and the bare value of the land then stood against you, and a rate of 25 per cent, was charged, and when you capitalised you got all the credit for that, so that it would carry on your rent three or four years? I never capitalised. 40. No doubt, yours was a hard case, but I think things have changed now'? - Yes; but it shows how the Land Board can act. give you another case. I had. a neighbour —Jack Jones, a blacksmith--who took up a section. After a time he could no longer work at his trade, and he went to Matamata, where he was offered a job as groom. The Land Board came down on him and forfeited his section for non-residence. That man came back and tried to mollify the Land Board by spending his earnings on the place in improvements. But they would not be mollified, and they turned him out, and that man died a little while ago in Te Aroha of a broken heart, and his wife has been a charge on charitable aid ever since. 41. Mr. Forbes.] Have there been any instances of such treatment recently? —I have not heard of any. I think things are different now; only the powers of the Land Board are the same now as they were then. I think before forfeiture takes place the matter should be heard before the Supreme Court and evidence taken publicly, so that people would know how they were standing. It should not be decided on the whim of some fellow who has a bit of political pull. 42. How many members of the Farmers' Union do you represent? —We had about fifty members last year. The books have not been made up this year, but there would be a slight increase. 43. Are many of them Crown tenants? —A good few. 44. Are those lease-in-perpetuity tenants?—Yes. 45. Were they all at your meeting? —Yes. 46. Are they anxious to get the freehold?- Yes, bar one, who is here, and will be able to give you his reasons. 47. Do they wish the freehold at the present value? -Yes, with the addition of the 1 per cent, they had the advantage of by taking the land under lease in perpetuity. 48. Mr. Matheson.] You say the upset price of your section was £2? —Yes. 49. Did you apply to the Crown for it?- Yes. 50. And then you broke your agreement by failing to pay the rent?- Yes; but they broke their agreement also. 51. Do you blame them for having forfeited your section when you failed to pay the rent?— I blame them because they charged an exhorbitant price for the land. 52. But knowing the upset price was £2, did you not go and ask to be allowed to have it? Yes. 53. Do you think it wise that these things should be done in a businesslike manner? Yes. I think when the Government offer land as good agricultural land, and place a high price on it, they should be compelled to give good agricultural land. 54. Mr. McCardle.'] The sections which were overcharged for were reduced in price, and that being so the breach of contract was on the part of the Government to begin with? —Yes; it was done by the Auckland Land Board. In other parts of the colony it was done differently, and the prices of the sections were reduced according to their real value; but the Auckland Land Board, which messes up everything, passed a resolution that all the lands in the district be reduced by a certain amount, irrespective of whether the amount that was being overcharged was much or little. Xo one came round to revalue any of the sections, so far as any settler knew, whereas in the south, the cases were properly heard and considered by the Land Board. The settlers could be at the Land Board office to object to their valuations if they liked. James Buchanan Thomas examined. 55. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —Yes, I hold 294 acres under lease in perpetuity and 200 acres of freehold. The lease is at Rungiatea and the freehold at Waihou. lam chairman of the Farmers' Union, and 1 can confirm what the previous witness has said about the resolutions passed. We think these matters should come before a Judge of the Supreme Court, or that the tenants should have some Court of Appeal. It is true that all the regulations in connection with land are not strictly enforced, but if it liapened that the Ranger was not a sensible man it might go hard with us. We think these cases should come before some impartial tribunal, before which evidence could be heard on both sides. We think if the Land Boards were partly elected by the local bodies we should get men who understood agriculture, and who would see that the interest of the farming community were IcoEed after better than they are by some of the men appointed by the Govern-
C.—4.
1038
[j. B. THOMAS-
ment that happens to be in power at the time. I believe our union almost to a man is in favour of allowing option of tenure, so that a man could take up land on any tenure he thought fit. If a man has taken up a section under occupation with right of purchase, we think if he happens to have had a good year and has managed to save £50 or so, he should be allowed to pay that much off. In that way the Government could get their money back, and they could use it either in the purchase of more land or in opening up by means of roads the valuable Crown lands still unoccupied. 56. When you ask for the right of purchase, do you include lands that have been acquired by the Government for settlement? —I have had very little experience of the Land for Settlements Act, but I think if the extra percentage is paid —that is, the difference between the lease in perpetuity and the occupation with right of purchase —no one would be injured, and most people would be satisfied. 57. Do you pay 4 per cent. I—No,1 —No, 5 per cent. My section is on an improved estate. 58. The occupation-with-right-of-purchase holders pay only 5 per cent, and you pay the same percentage: do you think if the Government grant you a better tenure you should pay something extra for it ? 1 fail to see why we should pay anything extra for it. They money the Government obtained for acquiring these estates is on the same footing as the money for advances to settlers. It seems to me that we are paying a little more in the way of rent here than they are in other places. 59. Mr. Forbes.] Has your land been rented too highly?- The lease-in-perpetuity sections in some parts are only charged at 4 per cent. We have to pay 5 per cent. 60. All land under the Land for Settlements Act is at 5 per cent? —I did not know that. 61. When you went in for these sections, did the settlers object to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —If we could have got it on any other tenure we should not have taken it up under lease in perpetuity. 62. Do you think the lease in perpetuity deters people from going in from ballot? —I do. It would be more difficult to sell a lease in perpetuity than a freehold. 63. If it had been offered on freehold or occupation with right of purchase, would it not have been more difficult for you to get your section? —Possibly. 64. Is there any profit being made by the Government out of the interest on that estate, which covers to a certain extent the risk they are taking? —By allowing the tenants to pay off they would gradually extinguish their debt, or they would have the money available for buying further estates or for loading the country. 65. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it right that a private landlord should be allowed to evict a tenant who does not pay his rent? —Yes. 66. Why, then, should you want a tenant to have the opportunity of taking the case before the Supreme Court if the Crown evicts him for failing to pay rent? —A private landlord would have to take a tenant to the Supreme Court to do so, would he not. 67. Why do you think the Crown should do it? —If we were sure that the Hangers would always be reasonable men, as our Ranger is now, the question would not trouble us; but this man will not live for ever, and we might get a man who would take a narrow view of the regulations. 68. Have you eve'r known of a tenant being evicted for some trivial reason? —No. So far as my experience goes the present Land Board and the Rangers are reasonable enough, but it is possible we might get in people who might abuse their position. 69. Seeing that we have thousands of tenants on the land, does it not seem to you that it would put them in too secure a position if they had to be taken to the Supreme Court before being evicted for a breach of their agreement? —1 do not think so, because they would have to pay costs if they lost their case. 70. Would it not be better to take more trouble to insure that the Land Board was reasonable and efficient? —I do not see how you could be certain of getting that, and I think it. would be better for both sides to state their case. 71. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be prepared to pay the present value of your land if you were allowed to acquire the freehold? —No, because I should have to pay for my own improvements. Herbert Osmond Cooper examined. 72. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —Yes, I have 231 acres under lease in perpetuity at Rangiatea. 73. Is there any matter you wish to bring forward which has not been dealt with by previous witnesses? —I wish to say, first of all, that Mr. Thomas, who is a neighbour of mine, stated that he did not know of any case of forfeiture for non-payment of rent. That seems a curious thing, because my own section was forfeited. 74. Is that the section you hold now? —Yes. 75. What was the reason for the forfeiture? —Arrears of rent, but I do not want to go into an old matter now, because the present Commissioner has rescinded that resolution, and I suppose I can sav I am "as you were." 1 agree with the previous witness that it would be better if we had some independent Court to which these matters could be referred. I have a large family, and I had to build a house and do other things, and what with one thing and another my rent went into arrears against my will. I have had no trouble with the Rangers, as they have always complimented me for everything 1 have done. There is one matter in connection with the Advances to Settlers Office I should like to refer to. I applied to the office for a temporary loan, and they sent their valuer to value my property.. I only applied for £90, because I just owed the Land Board some little amount and a few other local debts, and I wanted to get level and feel my feet. I had put up a seven-roomed house, two chimneys and iron roof, and when the valuer looked through the house he said he had no need to go any further than the house, as all I asked for would be
C—4
H. O. COOPER.]
1039
granted on the house alone, although there were other improvements, such as fencing, draining and grassing. 76. What value did he put on it? —I do not know. I was not in his confidence, but the loan was refused. 77. Did they offer you anything? —No. 78 Was there any reason given? —Not at that time. I saw while the Commission was sitting down south one witness said that he had his application money returned to him, and so I wrote and asked that my 2s. should'be returned to me. I then got the reason why a loan had been refused to me. They wrote back and said they only returned the application fee when it was not used, and that the reason they declined the loan was that the valuer had only put £70 on the improvements. Just lately we have had a good deal of trouble and worry in connection with the Land Board, and I thought it would be as well to get rid of my holding. lam satisfied so far as my tenure is concerned, but 1 asked the Board to send their valuer along to value my improvements, and that gentleman valued them at £650. 79. Mr. McCardle.\ Are you quite sure that the valuation was £70? —I am only quoting the reason the Board gave me. 80. Were you indebted to the Land Board at the time? —Yes. 81. If there is anything owing to the Land Board they do not advance anything. I think you would have seen that if you had read through the paper upon which you made your application for a loan, but it seems an extraordinary thing that the valuation of your improvements should liave been only £70, and the case ought to have been reported to the Board?- -The name of the valuer was Mr. Casey. If you will permit me to add that when the valuer for rating purposes, Mr. Garrett —I think his name was —cgme here a few months afterward I mentioned this matter to him, and he said, "Are you quite sure of what you state." I said, "I am quite sure." He said, " Surely you must be wrong," and he asked me whether there were any arrears. I told him that I had applied to the Advances to Settlers Office in order to clear off some arrears, and he said that it was very strange, because I should have had £125 on the house alone. I may say that I used to live at the Thames, and the Farmers' Union there have asked me to represent them here to-day, and to state that they are to a man freeholders. 82. Mr. Forbes.] Before the Board forfeited your section, did you write to them stating your position and asking them if they could give you more time, or did you defy them? —There is nothing of that about me. I wrote to them again and again, but lam glad to say we have had a change in the head of that Department, and that has made a great difference to me. He has just rescinded the motion, and he said he hoped things would now be satisfactory. I am satisfied with my tenure, only if I could get " tin " enough I should like to make it my own. 83. It has been represented to us that if tenants will approach the Board and state the true position, and the Board see that a man is trying to do his best and is not trying to defy them or shuffle, they will never be hard on him: It is extraordinary that in this part of the country there should have been so many instances of tenants being treated in this way?- From my own experience I believe a good deal of this worrying does not come from the head of the Department at all, because on one occasion I received a telegram of forty-two words marked " Urgent," and signed for "Gerhard Mueller." The man who really signed it was an understrapper, because Mr. Mueller was away at Kawhia with Mr. Seddon. The telegram stated that if my arrears were not paid by Saturday my section would be forfeited by Monday morning. Before church-time on Sunday it was all through the district that my section had been forfeited. However, lam not going to complain, because we have now a new head of the Department. 84. How is the Rangiatea Settlement doing? —Fairly well. We all have to turn to flaxcutting when rent-day comes along to enable us to raise the rent. 85. Is the land worth the money you are paying for it? —It is reasonable I think. 86. Has the land gone up in value, do you think? —It should have done, seeing that we have put about 14s. an acre into it in manure. My own land was a very poor section when I took it up. 87. Has the land all been taken up since the ballot? —Yes, but a good deal of it has changed hands. Some of it two or three times, 88. Has any goodwill been given for it? —I am not in a position to say. 89. Mr. Matheson.\ How many half-years' rent were you in arrear when your section was forfeited? —The amount in arrear was £42, and a half-year's rent of £17 7s. 4d. 90. Was it a forfeiture or a threat to forfeit? The Board you say passed a resolution that your place would be forfeited if something was not done, and Ihe resolution was rescinded? —It was not rescinded because I did something. I think it was rescinded on account of that valuer coming round and seeing the place for himself, because he is one of those men who are few and far between. 91. The Chairman.] Do you hold that no threatening notice should be sent out unless signed by the Commissioner of Crown Lands himself? —I think it would be superfluous for me to say how the Land Board should conduct its own business. But Ido not think the signature of a Commissioner should be put on with a stamp, as seems to be the case sometimes. Edmund William Porritt examined. 92. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a solicitor, practising in Paeroa. I appear for twenty-six Paeroa leaseholders, who are asking for the freehold. lam also aware from my own knowledge that all the remaining lessees for whom Ido not appear are desiring their freeholds. I was present at a meeting at which they were asking for it. I have some correspondence here in reference to the sale of the Paeroa Township, which I will read for the information of the Commissioners. The following was sent to all the lessees: —
C— i.
1040
Te. w. pobritt.
" Department of Lands and Survey, District Office, Auckland, 28th May, 1904. " Re Surrender of Section , Block , Paeroa Township. " In reference to my memorandum to you of the 21st March last, I have to inform you that unless your lease endorsed ' Surrendered ' this day of , 1904, and signed by yourself and witnessed, and signed also by all sub-lessees or mortgagees (if any), is returned to this office on or before the 11th June, 1904, your section (or holding) will be omitted from the first sale by public auction of the Paeroa Township lands, " G. Muelnek, Commissioner of Crown Lands." Arrangements were made for the sale as detailed by Mr. Nathan. On the 23rd June, 1904, the following telegram was received by my partner: — " Which is the best day in the week to hold the sale of Paeroa Township lands at Paeroa, and also give the name of hall. Kindly reply. Collect. "J. Mackenzie, Commissioner of Crown Lands." A reply was sent to that, and arrangements were made with Mr. Nathan as deposed by him. On the 6th July, 1904-, the following telegram was received by my partner, Mr. Mueller: — " Date of sale of Paeroa Township is to be fixed in Wellington. " Hugh Boscawen, for Commissioner of Crown Lands." That was the last we heard of it. All the lessees had their leases returned to them, the greater number of them through me, with a notification that the Government did not intend to put the sections up for sale, and a demapd for arrears of rent for the twelve months which had not then expired. This was the form of notice which was forwarded to the lessees for their signature: — " Paeroa, , 1904. " To the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland. "I, , the lessee of sections , Township of Paeroa, hereby agree to accept the value of improvements amounting to £ : : , and bind myself to forthwith surrender the lease of the above lands to the Commissioner of Crown Lands for the purpose of having the said lease terminated and duly cancelled. " , Lessee of the above sections within the Paeroa Township. " Signed in the presence of 93. Was there any reason assigned by the Department for the withdrawal from sale? —No. I have only seen from the newspaper what was said to the deputation, of which Mr. Cook formed one: that it was a matter which would have to await the decision of this Commission. With respect to the title to the block, it was originally Native land leased to Jackson and Russell, solicitors, Auckland. They assigned their lease to Messrs. Cassrells and Bennett, and they subleased to the lessees. The matter has been before the Government, to my personal knowledge, for the last eight years, and all the time they have been led on in the hope that freeholds would be obtainable. Some time previous to this the Government purchased the Native interest, and Messrs. Cassrells and Bennett became tenants of the Crown under the Native lease. Owing to pressure brought by the leaseholders, Mr. Cadman, who was then Minister of Mines, brought about the purchase of the lessees' interest by the Government, and we were always distinctly led to understand that that was for the purpose of giving those people the freehold. Certain sections were granted as freeholds prior to the lessees' interests. The Bank of New Zealand section and another section were cut out of the Native title before the Government acquired the interest, and the position is as detailed by Mr. Nathan and Mr. Cock. Most of the tenants are now arranging to remove from their sections on to freehold sections down in the lower part of the township. They are voluntarily leaving what are good sections to go and reside in what is practically swamp so as to own a bit of land. The buildings and so on are falling into decay. They have no heart to do any improvements. The insurances are getting into jeopardy, and they cannot raise money. On the strength of these representations some of them had made arrangements to borrow money, and they paid interest on it all the time so as to have money available to purchase the freehold when the land was put up for sale. They also made all arrangements for discharging their mortgages and getting the consent of the mortgagees and the consent of their subtenants. That is all I wish to say about Paeroa. Now, for the information of the Commission I will read the following list of the different methods of holding land in our district: — Crown and TjCtnd Board Titles. —Land transfer; land transfer, subject to mining or resumption for mining; deeds register ; deeds register, subject to mining or resumption for mining; occupation with right of purchase; perpetual lease, and variations of same (under the Land Act and under Land for Settlements Act); lease in perpetuity, and variation of same, or subject to mining or resumption (section 121, Land Act, 1892); occupation leases under "Mining Districts Land Occupation Act, 1394 "; Hauraki pastoral licenses, under regulations of 2nd March, 1905: village homestead special settlement leases. Mining Titles. —Business sites held under Mining Acts, 1886, 1891, and 1898; business sites subject to conditions as to resumption for mining, &c. ; residence sites under Acts of 1877, 1886, and 1891 ; residence sites under Act of 1891, with conditions as to resumption for mining and restrictions of various kinds; residence sites under Act of 1898; residence sites under Act of 1898, with conditions as to resumption for mining and restrictions; proposed township leases under "The Mining Act, 1898," section 39 (not sure if any have been obtained in Ohinemuri); special sites for various purposes connected with mining: occupation licenses under "Mining Act, 1891 " (about done); agricultural leases under "Mining Act, 1891 " (about done). No mention of the various titles for mining or minerals. Native Titles. —Land transfer with pakeha title: land transfer without restrictions; land transfer with restrictions as to sale and mortgage; land transfer absolutely inalienable; land
E. W. PORBITT.j
1041
0.—4.
transfer, subject to mining under the Ohinemuri agreement, proclaimed 6th July, 1875, and section 35, "Mining Act, 1898 "; deeds register without restrictions; deeds register with restrictions of various kinds; land held under memorial of ownership, orders on investigation of title, &c.; lands leased to Europeans; lands occupied by Europeans under incomplete titles, recognised by Native owners, but cannot be completed owing to state of the law, or awaiting means of having title confirmed; Native land held under customs and usages, the title of which is not ascertained. Miscellaneous Titles. —Paeroa leaseholds, with four years to run from Ist February next: Lipsey Town, Te Aroha (all improvements have to be left for Native owners, and the business sites subject to revaluation every twenty years); endowment lands, such as High School reserves, &c., over which Government has control, wholly or in part; High School Board leases, no compensation for improvements; European lands, subject to Ohinemuri agreement of 1875; special settlements, such as Gordon, Tairua Block (under " Tairua Land Act, 1893 "); simple squatting, where cannot get any title at all, and where the buildings and improvements are assigned from one to another as chattels; big blocks held by private companies or bodies, such as Kauri Timber Company reserves. Nearly all these titles are calculated to make occupiers unsettled, they being liable to disabilities and resumptions of various kinds. It is considered these tenures might be simplified and reduced. There are too many of them. With regard to the mining titles which are held for residence and business sites, the feeling is practically generally in favour of some form of surface freehold with the mining rights preserved. We have instances of that already in the district. With regard to the Native lands, lam speaking for both Natives and Europeans on the matter, because the Natives have represented to me strongly that they would like a free hand to deal with their land just as Europeans do with theirs. There are a large number of Natives who, as regards area of land, are wealthy, while as regards means they are paupers, and they have to borrow a few pence when they want anything. It is recognised throughout the whole district that the amount of Native land lying idle is keeping the district back. There is another question in regard to which I know the feeling of the district. Timber on Crown lands in goldfields is sold under two different authorities. Timber sold by the Warden is treated as goldfields revenue, while timber sold by the Land Board is treated at territorial revenue. The feeling is that the whole of the mining timber should be sold by the Warden, and should be goldfields revenue, and used for the purpose of opening up roads to goldfields. Goldfields revenue is paid by the Government to the local bodies. There is a feeling among a number of those who have taken up mining district occupation licenses that the valuations upon which their rents are based are excessive. In some cases the payment of a few years' rent exceeds the value of the freehold. Only recently the Land Board allowed the cost of survey to be credited to the lessees as rent paid in advance, but it was found that was ultra vires, and they have to pay survey fees as well as their rents, and in most cases it is a hardship. There is a feeling among a large number in regard to revaluation. They are afraid of it. L know a good many instances myself. I will just mention one, where a person who took up an occupation license under the Mining Act at £3 an acre, and brought it from tea-tree waste into pasture, at the end of his license had that same land valued at £6 an acre per annum, and got two acres of it out of his fifteen. It is such instances as this that have created a strong feeling in favour of a surface freehold on the goldfields. 94. Mr. McCardle.] Are the leaseholds for which the freehold is desired within the mining area? —No, they are excluded from the goldfield. 95. Would there be any difficulty iri the Government legislating to grant the freehold of land within a goldfield, and reserve to the Crown the minerals contained therein I—No. At the Thames the Grahamstown portion of the borough is freehold, and the Warden still has power to grant mining rights under that freehold. 96. Then, there is not much in the argument that the freehold cannot be granted in a mining district? —I do not think so. 97. Mr. Forbes.'] Does the Warden allow miners at the Thames to go upon the worn freeholds and carry on prospecting? —No; they have to purchase the surface rights. 98. Then, the moment the freehold is granted it prohibits prospecting? —Yes, in the townships. 99. Are the Paeroa leaseholders working on the old leases? —Yes. 100. When the Government bought out the rights of the lessee did they issue fresh leases to their tenants? —No; they kept them on under the old leases, only that instead of paying rent to Mr. Cassrells they paid it to the Receiver of Goldfields Revenue. The Crown became the assignees of the lessor. 101. Would it be wise to give the Natives a free hand in dealing with their land: are they sufficiently advanced to be able to conduct business transactions? —My experience is that they are harder people to make bargains with than Europeans. 102. Would there be no danger in allowing them to sell their land and do as they liked: would there not be danger of their becoming a burden on the State in the future? —I think it would be wise to make reservations for them. They are very improvident. 103. Would it not be better for the Government to take over their land and place the pur-cha'se-money to their credit, allowing them interest on it? —I think that would be a good plan. The trouble with them in the matter of dissipating their capital is that they have so many relatives and dependants, and when a man once gets some money they cut it up with him. Maoris cannot make provision for a rainy day, owing to their communistic system. It would be necessary to issue any money that was due to a Maori at intervals. 104. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that the first step in solving the Native-land difficulty is to make individualisation compulsory, and make the cost of it a charge upon the land? —I think it would be a good thing if the Native titles were individualised.
131—C. 4.
C—4.
1042
|_E. W. PORRITT.
105. When we are granting freeholds for the purpose of settlement does it not seen reasonable that the Crown should in all cases reserve the rights to the minerals ? —Personally, I do not see any objection. On the goldfields that is the very form of tenure we are advocating. 106. Do you think that all leases, private as well as public, should contain a clause giving the tenant compensation for improvements ?—I think it would be only fair. 107. What, in your opinion, was the real reason why the Government did not keep their promise in regard to the Paeroa Township ? —lt is impossible to say. I would like to know myself, but it is a puzzle. 108. Mr. McLennan.] Supposing the Natives were allowed to realise on their land: do you think they have practical common-sense to make as good use of the proceeds as a European would ? —I know of instances where an individual Native could do so, but as a whole I do not think they have the power. 109. Is there much Native land in this part of the country? —A great deal. 110. Is not dealing with Native land a very tedious operation? —One of the most disheartening things you can do is to try and buy out a Native title 111. Would it be fair to the Natives to give them, say, five years to establish their ownership, so that the land could be individualised and dealt with? —I think something like that should be done. A number of the Natives are coming forward voluntarily and getting their titles individualised, so that they can deal with the land. 112. Would it be reasonable for the Government to insist upon fixing the ownership within a given time?—l think that if the Native title were individualised it would improve the position of the Natives themselves. 113. Would you give the Natives a free hand in selling their lands? —Yes, subject to the reservations for their own use."* We can see the difference between the Native land and the freehold in our district. One is waste land —all tea-tree and swamp —and the other is in grass, and in other ways improved. 114. The condition of the Native land is a serious drawback to settlement? —A very serious drawback indeed. 115. And there are no rates from them? —You cannot collect rates from Native lands. 116. Mr. McCardle.] Is there not rather a drawback to individualisation in the fact that after it has taken place you require for any transaction to get the signature of a great number of individual owners? —In some cases it would be impossible to get all the signatures. I know of one block of 13 acres to which there are 139 owners. In our district if leases could be obtained the whole of the Native land could be taken up. 117. Do you think that would be satisfactory to the settlers? Will they take up the land on lease? —If they cannot get freehold they will take leases. 118. Then, it would not be necessary to individualise the titles? —Not in all cases. 119. Mr. McLennan.] If you gave the Natives a free hand in selling their land would you let them have a free hand in the spending of the money? —In the majority of cases that would be safe enough, but I know of a great many in which it would not. 120. Mr. McCardle.] Are there not a large number of Natives receiving old-age pensions now, though they own thousands of acres? —I know that a great many Natives are receiving the pension, but lam not aware that they own land. I also know that a great number of Natives are worse than paupers. They have become beggars, although they own very large areas of land. Allan Alfred Bowler examined. 121. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —I have a section of 367 acres at Matamata, for which I pay ss. 3d. an acre. 122. What special matter do you wish to bring before the Commission? —At the time the Matamata land was thrown open twenty-six sections were reserved of which occupation was not given till the Ist October, but, still, rent was charged for the preceding three months. Most of the selectors of those sections thought that there must be some mistake; it was not quite clear from the pamphlet that they would have to pay rent from the Ist July. They thought it ought to be from the Ist October, when they would get possession. At the time of the ballot a question was put to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, who said he thought there must have been some oversight on the part of the previous Commissioner, but he was going to Wellington and would inquire about the matter. We never heard whether anything was settled in Wellington. I have been told that the Commissioner stated at Matamata that the rent would have been lower if the land had not been in turnips. In the pamphlet issued before the land was thrown open twenty-six sections were deferred until the Ist October, and of these fourteen had no turnips on them. They were simply held for the convenience of the Assets Board. At the same time that the Government charged this three months' rent to the lessees I am told that the Assets Board was paying interest on the sections for three months. We consider that an injustice has been done to us, and we think that we should have a refund of the three months' rent. One reason why we thought there must be some mistake in connection with the pamphlet was that one of the regulations provided that no native bush or scrub must be cut down without the consent of the Commissioner. In my case I have some 20 to 30 acres of tea-tree land that can produce nothing till the tea-tree is cut down and grass is sown. It seems ridiculous that I should have to refer the matter to the Commissioner before I can cut down the tea-tree, which is the first step towards clearing the land. I wish to indorse what has been stated by the representative of the Waihou Farmers' Union as to the desirability of bringing questions of forfeiture before some kind of Court. I know something about the cases of Messrs. Borrie and Jones, and I consider that a hardship has been inflicted As to the question of timber on goldfields land, I know, as a member of the Ohinemuri County Council, that for years we have been trying to make roads and tracks into that kind of country. A few years ago some 17,000,000 ft. of timber at the back of the ranges was sold by the Crown Lands Board, and the
1043
C—4.
A. A. BOWLEB.J
local body got no revenue from it, whereas if it had been sold by the Warden the County Council would have got the revenue, and would have been able to make the necessary tracks. The selling of timber rights by the Crown Lands Board is a great drawback to the goldfields district. 123. Ml-. McCardle.] Was there not a tapering-off in your rent on account of the condition as to the turnips? —No; mine is a good stiff rent compared with the others. 124. What is your idea of the tenure? —I believe in the freehold. 125. On what conditions do you think the right of freehold should be granted you? —On the same conditions on which we took up the land. 126. Do you think that the freehold would be a more valuable tenure to you than the leasehold? —It is always liked more, because it is easier to deal with. 127. Do you not think that in that case the tenant should be ready to make some advance in the price as consideration for the change of tenure? —I do not see why there should be an increase. 128. Then, you do not think very much of the value of the freehold? —I would rather have the freehold. 1*29. How much would that '' rather "be worth to you? —It would be very hard to say. 130. At any rate, you think you are entitled to the freehold without paying any more: you do not think that any injury would be done to the State by granting it? —No. 131. You think that if it makes for a contented population it is worth the while of the Government to grant the option of purchase? —Yes. 132. Would you acquire the property on long terms? —I think it was a wise suggestion that the settlers should be allowed to pay the price in instalments when profitable seasons enable him to do so, and have his rent reduced accordingly. 133. Do you think that for settlement purposes the estate is going to prove a success? —I think it will. 134. Mr. Forbes.] You knew that Matamata was offered under lease in perpetuity: did you make any objection to that? —No. 135. Then, your objections were not strong enough to make you go elsewhere for land? —I could get no other land in the district suitable to my purpose. If Matamata had been offered under the optional system I would probably have tried for the freehold. 136. But in that case would there not have been more applicants for it? —I cannot say. 137. Do you think that the fact of its being lease in perpetuity kept people away from it — people who did not care for that tenure? —1 do not think it did. 138. Mr. Matheson.~\ What is the amount of the three months' rent that you speak of ? —I think it is about £15. 139. Do you approve of the members of the Land Board being nominated, as at present? — No; I approve of the suggestion that a certain number should be appointed by the Government and the rest by the local bodies. 140. Do you not think that the members of the Land Board are as fit to decide whether a settler's grievance is reasonable as a Judge of the Supreme Court? —I think it would be better to let each side state its case before a Judge, and let the Judge decide whether there is sufficient ■ grounds for forfeiture. 141. You would prefer to leave the decision to one man rather than to a Board? —It has been shown this afternoon, and I also know of my own knowledge, that great hardships have been inflicted, and there ought to be some remedy. 142. Do you not think that a Judge of the Supreme Court would read the Act rather more strictly than the Land Board does? —His rulings would be just, whatever they were. 143. Would he not be bound to rule according to law? -I suppose so. 144. Then, according to the law the land is liable to forfeiture as soon as the rent is a year behindhand? —That is provided the question was whether his rent was behindhand. There might be other reasons for forfeiture. 145. Mr. McLennan.\ Supposing you were to get the option next year, would you be prepared to pay the value of the land next year, your improvements being conserved to you 1 Suppose, for instance, the land is worth £6 an acre this year, and next year it rises to £8 an acre? —I would not pay £8 an acre. George Devey examined. 146. The Chairman.'] Are you a landholder? I appear as representative of some of the holders of land in Te Aroha Township, and I hold some town sections myself. Our tenure is under the goldfields regulations. At one time we were promised the freehold of our sections. At the expiration of our original titles we were granted by the Government leases for forty-four years, but we still remain under the same conditions as in the case of the goldfields business sites, in that any one could " jump " our holdings if the rent was not punctually paid I know one man who had paid for his business-site for twenty years and then got his forty-four-years lease, and yet his title was " jumped "by another person. What, then, is the use of the lease to us? The effect is that we cannot borrow money on our property, because we have no stable tenure. If we go to the Government they also refuse to make advances. Twelve years ago we were negotiating with the Natives for the purchase of the freehold, but the Warden stepped in and stated that if we allowed the Government to buy out the Natives we would be given the option of acquiring the freehold. The Government bought out eleven Natives, but still they do not grant us our freeholds. We are thus at a disadvantage, and we do not feel inclined to improve our properties, and that is why Te Aroha does not make progress. The town had no right to be included in the goldfields, for it never was a goldfield. As matters stand one-half .of the.town belongs to the Government and the other to the Maoris, the pakeha Maoris. I have an allotment on which I have paid £5 a year for twenty-five years, and I am paying to-day £3 a year under the forty-four-years lease, which, however, is literally useless, because if I do not pay up I am likely to be ousted.
0.—4.
1044
[Gi DEVEY.
147. Mr. Forbes.] In reference to the '' jumping " case of which you speak, in what way was the " jumping " done? —It was done by the tenant of the lessee. He found that the lessee had not paid his rent, and therefore " jumped " his title under the goldfields regulations. The tenant was held to be the residential occupant of the property. The Warden said that the transaction was a piece of rascality, but that it was within the law and he could not override it. 148. If you had your forty-four years clear, with compensation for improvements, would not that be satisfactory? —Yes. 149. Mr. Matheson.] Was the promise that you would have ilie freehold merely a verbal promise by the Warden ? —That is all. 150. Mr. McLennan.] If the township was taken out of the goldfields area, would not the forty-four-years lease be satisfactory?--Yes, in a sense; but we would sooner have the freehold. On these small township sections you do not feel inclined under a leasing system to put up good buildings. 151. Do you not get compensation for improvements at the expiration of the lease? —Not as a rule. Anyhow, at the end of such a long period there is very little value left in a wooden building. Charles Ernest Hanson Allen examined. 152. The Chair man. ] Do you hold land? —Yes, I hold 400 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Hunterville district, but I was unable to attend the sitting of the Commission at Taihape. 153. What particular matter do you wish to bring before the Commission? —In 1902 I was residing upon a Native lease which I held. At first I had taken up a Government lease of property, to which there was no road or even a track. As I could not get to my own land I took up a Native lease alongside. In 1902 I received a notice from the Wellington Land Board to show cause why I should not reside on my lease from the Crown which adjoins this Native land. I had had the Crown lease cleared and fenced, and otherwise improved, but 1 was not residing on it. I went to Wellington and saw Mr. Strauchon, Commissioner of Crown Lands, and asked to be exempted from residence under Part 111. of the Land Act of 1892, which provides that in case a settler is residing on land adjoining his holding residence may be dispensed with. Mr. Strauchon said that this provision did not apply to residence on Native land. According to my reading the Act does not say anything of the kind. The Land Board at once gave me three months' notice to reside on the land or forfeit it. Next, I received a letter from the Commissioner in about a fortnight asking what steps I had taken to comply with this notice. I replied that I had men at work cutting timber for the house and others making roads to get this timber out, and that I could not see how I could possibly reside on the land within the three months stated in the note. The timber had to be hauled out to the site of the house —a distance of a mile and a half —for which purpose I had to make a road, and then the timber had to be seasoned before being used. I pointed out that it was impossible to comply with the Board's notice and asked for an extension of time, as I was pushing on the work as hard as I could, but it could not be finished within twelve months. The reply to this was that the resolution of the Board had required me to reside on the section within three months or forfeit, and, therefore, it would be necessary for me to make arrangements to do so. I happened to be travelling to Wanganui at the time I received this final notice. When I got to Hunterville I ordered enough iron to make a 20 ft. by 10 ft. hut, and had to pack it over a road that was to the horse's girths in mud. I put up this hut, and had to take my wife out to live in it in the midst of snow and ice. She had to go out because she held the section adjoining mine, and was also required to live upon it. Residence upon my section was held to be sufficient in her case. As my wife was subject to rheumatism I consider it was a cruelty worse than you would find in Russia to compel her to live under such conditions. At this time I was hard up, and in order to go on with further improvements had to raise money wherever I could. First I applied to the Advances to Settlers Department for a loan of, I think, £750. The property was valued by their valuer at about £1,400, though he had not made allowance for the actual value. For instance, fencing, which cost me £1 3s. per chain, and was just newly put up, he set down at 16s. a chain, and other things in the same proportion. The Department offered me only £500, and I was forced to take it. Later on I completed all my buildings and further improvements on the place at a cost of about £800, and then applied to the Board for a further advance. They offered me another £250, but I considered that this was not sufficient and declined it. Next, I applied to a private firm and obtained a loan of £1,000 at 5 per cent., with which I paid the Government off. My wife held a lease-in-perpetuity section of 400 acres, and she also applied for a loan of £300 from the Advances to Settlers Office. I do not know what the valuer's assessment was, but the Department offered her £150, which I declined. My own valuation of this property would be about £800. I went to a firm in Wanganui and borrowed £550 upon it at 6 per cent. Recently I sold my Native lease, and sold it well, but through the action of the Board I consider that I am a loser to the extent of £1,000. My land was loaded with ss. an acre for roading, and the reading was never done. 154. Do you complain that the residential conditions are unreasonable? —Undoubtedly they are unreasonable, and they are too rigidly enforced. 155. Mr. McCardle.] Your section is under lease in perpetuity? —Yes. 156. Is that the section on which you received a loan? —Yes. 157. Is it your opinion that the Land Board of the Wellington District require some amendment ? —U n doubtedly. 158. Do you think it would meet the case in that district if these positions were filled by men who had had experience as settlers? —Yes. I may say lam residing on my land. lam only here on a visit. 159. Mr. Matheson.] Are you satisfied that the ss. loading for roads have never been spent?—lt may have been spent, but it was not spent there. lam sure of that.
160. When you spoke of making a road yourself, did you mean by means of a loan?— Yes, through the County Council. 161. Have you had any grants for roads or bridges'/ —Yes} we had a grant of £350 in my neighbourhood last year. 162. Do you think it would be much better if grants were done away with entirely, and subsidies were given in proportion to the amount of rates you levied yourself? —I think undoubtedly it would be much fairer. Fhank Dillon Allen examined. 163. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —Yes, in the Hunterville district. 1 hold 200 acres under occupation with right of purchase and 400 acres under lease in perpetuity. lam occupying the land. 164. Is there any matter you wish to bring before the Commission? —I know what the previous witness has stated to be quite correct from beginning to end. I would like to say in regard to the residence conditions, that the Land Board have power to dispense with the residence if a settler resides on land contiguous to his lease, and land is deemed to be contiguous if it is only separated by a road or stream, or by such space as the Board may from time to time determine. The Board have also power to dispense with residence where good cause is shown. That appears to me to give the Board almost absolute power to dispense with residence altogether. I think as the Board have been given this power to assist settlement they should use it to assist settlement, and not to retard it. I am quite satisfied, from cases I know in the Wellington district, that the Board's power has been used to retard settlement. That has been the effect although it may not have been intended. There are several people in my district living on land adjoining their own holdings, and these people have been made tT> shift from one part of their land on to the Government leasehold, although there has been no division between the land except an imaginary line drawn on paper. When the attention of the Land Board was called to the section of the Act I have referred to, they said it meant a settler must reside on Government lands contiguous to his holding. But the Act merely says " land." These people have been forced to build new houses across this imaginary line. I know people who have been induced to throw up their holdings on account of such things as these, and 1 know of others who have been deterred from taking up land. I think the Board should not be so strict, but should use their discretionary power in the interests of settlement, and should exempt people from residence where good cause can be shown for it. I wish to call attention to complaints that settlers in my neighbourhood have. The old settlers who first took up land, and stuck to it, are at a disadvantage as compared with the newcomers. In what is known as the Hunterville Special Settlements, which contain fifty sections of 200 acres each, there were 150 settlers in these associations. At the present day only sixteen sections are held by the original selectors. These men can only hold 200 acres, but the new settlers who applied for the land thrown up —two or three after the first ballot —were allowed to choose either of the three optional tenures, though the first men could only take up under lease in perpetuity. Further than that the new men were allowed to select up to 640 acres. The consequence is that the majority of the new men took up under occupation with right of purchase or bought for cash, and the original men who stuck to the land through thick and thin are still struggling along under lease in perpetuity. I think they should be put on the same footing as the newcomers. Again, the original settlers are still bound by the special-settlement conditions. Either they have to remain on their holdings, which are too small for that rough class of country, or they must go away. They cannot buy each other out, but if one throws up his land and a newcomer takes it up, then one of the other original selectors could buy that man out. In this respect I think they should all be put on the same footing. I wish to refer to the Advances to Settlers Act, and the difference made by private people in lending money on the different tenures. It is quite clear to me that the people cannot get anything like as big an advance on lease in perpetuity as they can on occupation with right of purchase. The Government again do not help those under lease in perpetuity by advancing the amount which a private individual will if the borrower has the right to acquire the freehold of his land. The Government are in quite as good a position as any private lender would be if his client had the option of purchase. The Government have the land absolutely if they have to foreclose, yet they will only lend up to one-half of the tenant's improvements when there is no right of purchase, but will advance up to three-fifths if the tenant has that right. Ido not think there should be that difference. 165. You complain that the Wellington Land Board are rather unreasonable and harsh? — Yes; but I would say the Wellington Land Board have been much easier of late. 166. Mr. McCardle.] Did any of your neighbours ever visit the Wellington Land Board and express dissent at their ruling in such cases as these? —Yes. 167. And what sort of justice did they receive then? —In the worst cases they received no satisfaction whatever. 168. I suppose you are aware that the Government had to take pretty strong action, and show they did not wish the settlers to be harassed in the way the Wellington Land Board were harassing them? —I understand it was so. 169. Does that trouble arise through having members appointed to the Board who have no experience whatever of the difficulties bush seltlers labour under? —I think so. If they really knew the position they would be much easier. 170. Have not the members of the Land Board passed through that district during the last year or so? —Yes, but they have never been there before. 171. Mr. Forbes.\ These residential clauses are necessary for settlement? —Yes. 172. It would not be in the interests of settlement to do away with them altogether?— Not altogether. 173. The Chairman.\ Does not the private money-lender require a much higher rate of interest than that asked for by the Advances to Settlers Board? —Not so far as my experience goes. lam quite clear on that point.
1045
C, E. H. ALLIENij
a—4.
C—4.
1046
jE. MACKIE.
Robert Mackie examined. 174. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —I am a Crown tenant within seven miles of here. I hold 187 acres under perpetual lease. I heard Mr. Borrie mention the case of a man who died here through his section being forfeited. We are in the same box. We were both forfeited at the one time. I took up my land and fulfilled all the conditions to the letter. It cost me a lot of hard work to make a road to the land, and I did a lot of hard work to satisfy the Ranger. The grass 1 sowed proved a complete failure. I told the Ranger that I thought the regulations were extremely absurd, having regard to the local conditions of the district. Again, the capital value was £1 ss. per acre, and I said it was too much rent altogether, and the Ranger agreed with me. I exhausted my resources and the rent fell £40 behind, and my land was forfeited for non-payment of rent. The rent was reduced to 155., and I asked if I could take up the land at the reduced rent as from the first day of my occupation to get credt for the rent I paid. The Land Board rejected that proposal. The land was put up and I applied for it, and I was told my application would not be entertained until the 21st September, 1897, when I could apply if nobody else had taken it up in the meantime. I again applied then, and again my application was rejected under clause 160 of the Act of 1892, which was as much as saying I was not fit to take up the land. I replied saying that that clause could not apply to me, because I had been a farmer from my youth up and had had any amount of colonial experience. After a time my land was divided into two sections of 60 acres and 127 acres, the latter being the bush portion. I applied again twice and was rejected every time, and the Commissioner told me it was no use continuing the correspondence. He said I must pay my rent or take the consequences. A third time I applied and my money was returned. It seems another party had bought the land. I said before I would give up possession I wanted some arrangement about my improvements, and I drew attention to the fact that my lease contained an arbitration clause and that I wanted it acted upon. The other man took possession and erected fences, which I cut down twice to allow my cattle out, and for doing this a third tiipe I was sent to prison for a month. I kept in communication with the Land Board, and at last got a letter saying they would reduce the outstanding rent of £40 to £14, and that I could keep the land under perpetual lease. I said I would agree to tEis if they would give me something for my improvements. I had made a road into the bush where there was a large amount of firewood, for whigh 1 had a local market in Te Aroha. Thomas Macindoe examined. 175. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a land agent in Te Aroha. 175 a. What is it you wish to say? —I have been asked to state my experience as an agent with reference to the leasehold question. I may state at the present time a number of holdings on the Rangiatea Estate, near Waihou, are on the market. The holders are willing to sell, even at a loss, in order to get clear of the lease aud get a freehold. They are prepared to sell at a sacrifice, although land has increased very much in value in the neighbourhood. These farms were taken up, and for the most part are held by the original selectors under lease in perpetuity. I say with scarcely any exception these people are thoroughly dissatisfied with the present tenure. They all hold that they should have the right of purchase. The difference is most marked between the tenures when going through the district. One can always tell which are leasehold farms. The buildings and fences, as a rule, are not as well kept, and the leaseholder does not seem to have the same heart to work his farm. 176. What benefit would these people gain by acquiring the freehold? —They would benefit in having something in which to invest their savings. At the present time they find their families drifting away because they cannot subdivide their property. 177. Mr. Forbes.] When you make the statement about leaseholders being slovenly farmers and having no heart to work their land, do you refer to the Rangiatea settlers only? —Yes, as a rule. 178. You said they would sell out in some cases for less than what they have put in the place? —Yes. '179. And, again, you said they want the option of the freehold so that they can put their savings into the purchase of it? —Yes. 180. Do you think if they are making enough money to buy the freehold they will sell out for less than the value of their improvements? —The freehold will give them heart to make the land. The land requires making. 181. What is wrong with the lease in perpetuity; it is secure enough and long enough for allpossible contingencies? —Yes, but it is very irksome to have the possibility of revaluation being brought forward. That point has been mentioned, and it has had a very disconcerting influence on a lot of the farmers. If they wish to sell out they very soon find the value of the lease in perpetuity. It is practically valueless. 182. In this district? —Yes. 183. You have had no experience in any other district? —No. 184. When these men went on to the land they knew the conditions under which they took it up? —They did, but they did not know the land was as poor as it is. The land has been in most cases very disappointing. The bulk of the land requires manuring for every crop. 185.' Then the estate is not what you could call a very prosperous example of the land-for-settlements policy? —It is not. 186. Was the estate bought in response to representations of the settlers in this district?— I do not think by the settlers in this district. 187. Was any petition got up from here asking the Government to acquire the estate? —I think not. 188. Do you think the Government gave too much for the land? —Yes. 189. Mr. Matheson.~\ Do you think it would be good for the colony if all Crown tenants had the right of purchase? —Yes.
T. MACINDOE.]
1047
C.—4.
190. How would it benefit tlie colony? —Tlie money coming from this source could develop the unused lands of the colony. 191. Mr. McLennan.] I suppose if they had the option of purchase they could sell out far more freely than they can at the present time?— Yes, and they could also borrow to develop. 192. You are a land agent? —Yes. 193. The Chairman.\ Is the land you speak of similar to the Waitoa Estate?— No. It is not so good. Frank Hubbard examined. 194. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —I do, in the Hapuakohe district. I and my family hold 1,600 acres of land. It was originally under occupation with right of purchase, but it is now mostly freehold. Some of the settlers are under lease in perpetuity in their districts. As member of the Road Board, it is my duty to go amongst them, and consequently I hear a good deal of the experiences of the settlers there. Having made a freehold of our own land, I need not say we believe in the freehold tenure. The district as a whole all advocate the option of freehold. I only know one man in that district who believes in land-nationalisation, but I can say for him he has taken care to buy a freehold. Those who hold under lease in perpetuity would like to have the right to purchase. They say they have more heart to work if they know they have a chance of making the land their own some day. I have seen frequently, so far as money matters go, that the man under occupation with right of purchase stands head and shoulders above the leaseholder. 195. Mr. McCardle.] Are there many settlers holding under lease in perpetuity in your district ? —Several; but those are best satisfied who took up under occupation with right of purchase. 196. Do you think it is a benefit to the settlers to have the right of purchase? —Yes. They are more satisfied, and if they need money to develop their land they can always borrow it under occupation with right of purchase. 197. Do you think if the right of purchase was extended to all the settlers they would be prepared to pay something extra for the land? —Under occupation with right of purchase we pay 5 per cent., and those under lease in perpetuity pay 4 per cent., and I have heard them say they would a great deal sooner pay 5 per cent, and have the right of purchase. 198. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —A good deal. 199. Has it worked satisfactorily in your district? —I cannot say it has always been satisfactory. Pukekohe, Wednesday, 14th June, 1905. George Hodgetts White examined. 1. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —Yes, I have some quarter-acre allotments in this township, some in Auckland, and some at the Thames; all freehold. lam a land agent in this district, and in my capacity as land agent I can say that the preponderance of inquiries received by me are from people wishing to settle on the land with small capital wanting farms on lease with right of purchase, and 60 per cent, of these only have sufficient money to stock and equip a small farm systematically. The Government advances to settlers has undoubtedly greatly assisted the farmers, and has in a large measure been responsible for the prosperous condition of the colony. This district is especially adapted for close settlement, as the climate is suitable for high-class farming, together with rich soil, the tendency being still smaller farms with superior methods of farming giving better results. 2. Mr. Matheson.] What is your opinion about land-tenure in connection with Government lands? —I do not think there is anything wrong with the tenure if a man is allowed to select his tenure. But the majority of inquiries are for leases with right of purchase, so far as my business is concerned. 3. There are a great many Crown tenants who never had the choice? —I would be in favour of giving them the option at any time, provided they could find sufficient funds. 4. Would you give that option to all Crown tenants? —Certainly. 5. Do you think it would be good for the colony as well as for the tenant? —Yes I do, but I think there should 'oe certain restrictions. 6. Mr. McCardle.\ This is a fairly successful dairying district? —Yes. 7. You are aware that the tenants who take up land under occupation with right of purchase have to pay a rental of 5 per cent, while lease-in-perpetuity tenants on Crown lands pay only 4 per cent. : in the case of lease-in-perpetuity tenants, who are allowed to convert into occupation with right of purchase, would you be in favour of their being charged the extra 1 per cent., which they would have had to pay if they had taken up their land originally under occupation with right of purchase? —Yes, and I do not think the tenant would object to that. 8. Have you had any experience of settlements under the Land for Settlements Act? —Yes, I know the system. 9. Would you extend the right of purchase to those tenants? —Certainly, at whatever price it originally cost the Government. 10. In what way would you arrange the payments? —That is a matter of administration afterwards. 11. Would you give them long and easy terms? —Yes; I believe in giving as long terms as possible, even if it went for ninety years in some cases. 12. Are there any large areas of land in this district suitable for cutting up for settlement ? —Not close to this particular spot.
C—4.
1048
[u. H. WHITE.
13. Will you be prepared to restrict the amount of land that any one man could hold either on freehold or any other tenure? —Yes. 14. Do you think that could be done by an amendment in the Land Transfer Act which would bar any one man from registering in fee-simple over a certain area ? —Yes. 15. Have you had anything to do with the obtaining of loans for persons under the Advances to Settlers Act?— Yes. 16. Have there been any unnecessary delays in granting applications? —In some cases I think there have been, but I think it is only due to some little fault in the administration. 17. The Government have been fairly liberal in their advances on freehold? —Yes. 18. The Chairman.] Assuming that the freehold is not to be given to tenants under the Land for Settlements Act, would you advocate that a tenant should be allowed to reduce his indebtedness to the Crown, and by that means reduce his rent? —Yes. 19. Do you think as soon as a certain portion of the principal is paid off all restrictions should be removed ? —Yes, if it was a fair proportion and sufficient to make it safe for the Crown. Henry Evan Robert Luxmore Wily examined. 20. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —Yes, I hold land at Pukekohe and Mauku —about 1,300 acres of freehold. 21. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission? —I am chairman of the Mauku branch of the Farmers' Union, and vice-president for the Auckland Provincial District. I represent a large section of the Farmers' Union on this question. First of all, with reference to the constitution of Land Boards, I may say I have given a good deal of study to this question, because 1 had to go into it on behalf of the executive of the Farmers' Union when certain complaints were made in reference to restrictions imposed upon tenants. My report on the subject was adopted, and forwarded to the Land Board and also to the Government. 1 found on making inquiries that in many cases members of Land Boards were unfamiliar with their districts, and I felt that a certain proportion of the members, say, half or third, ought to be elected by the local bodies, which is practically by the ratepayers. With regard to tenure, I am a firm upholder of the freehold. My father, and a good many of our fathers, came out here to obtain a bit of freehold, and I think the best class of settlers we have ever had are the freeholders. I would advocate the granting of the optional tenure in all cases, except in the case of large grazing-runs, which might at some time be cut up for closer settlement. 22. Mr. Forbes.] Have your union discussed the lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —Not since the Commission was set up, but previous to that we did discuss it, and we were instrumental in getting a petition signed for the right to the freehold to be given to Crown tenants. 23. Did that petition come from the holders of the leases? —Yes. 24. Did you confine the signatures to lease-in-perpetuity tenants, or did you take anybody? —Only lease-in-perpetuity tenants signed. There were very few of them in the district. 25. How many names were there to the petition? —Five or six—all that there were in the district. The petition was forwarded to Parliament. 26. What was their particular objection to the lease in perpetuity? —Insecurity of tenure for one thing. It is very different to the freehold, in this way: that on the decease of a man his holding does not necessarily go to the widow and children. It depends on the Land Board, who, if they think fit, may hand it to the widow and children ; but they need not do so. It is practically only a life tenancy. 27. Has any instance of such a thing come under your notice? —I cannot say it has come to my knowledge personally, but when I was working up this matter for the Farmers' Union we had a complaint from a widow that her husband's property was not allowed to pass on to her. We had no direct evidence of it except the written statement of the widow. 28. Did you investigate the case at all? —No; it was a case in the far north. 29. We have come across cases in which there were two sides to the question? —Of course, but I did not go into this matter any further. 30. Is the principal objection to the lease in perpetuity that it can be dealt with by will?— No, the principal objection was insecurity of tenure. But there are other objections. A man may want to use his land as security for something, and the leasehold is not a good security for that purpose. 31. In discussing the merits of the lease in perpetuity, do you not think your union should have gone into it more thoroughly before coming to a conclusion? —We only desire to have the option of tenure. We look upon the lease in perpetuity as a most excellent stepping-stone to the freehold. 32. You are in favour, then, of the occupation with right of purchase? —Yes. 33. Do you not see a danger of aggregation of estates under it?— No. 34. If you give the freehold does that not sweep away all restrictions? —Not necessarily, because the State could restrict the amount of land which any person might take up. 35. That class of freehold would differ from the ordinary freehold? —Yes. 36. Do you think a restricted freehold of that nature would be satisfactory? —Yes, I think so, provided it did not apply to the areas already taken up. But, in any case, Ido not think there is likely to be any further aggregation of large estates in this colony. 37. Do you see any advantage in the lease in perpetuity for the puropse of keeping some amount of settlement on the land? —I think there would be less settlement on the land under it. People would be more satisfied with a few acres of freehold than they would be with a larger area under lease in perpetuity. 38. Have you had any experience of land-settlement in other parts of the colony, or are you only speaking for the Auckland Province? —I have had no experience of Crown lands outside this immediate neighbourhood.
H. E. R. L. WILY.]
1049
C.—4.
39. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think it would be wise to divide a land district into ridings, each riding to have a member on the Land Board? —Yes. 40. Would you have the Board elected as an Education Board is elected from the members of the local bodies? —Yes, but I only suggest that one-half or one-third of the members should be elective. 41. Mr. McLennan.] Are there many Crown tenants in your particular branch of the Farmers' Union? —There are only thirteen members in the branch altogether, and three or four Crown tenants. 42. Would you be in favour of giving the option of the freehold to tenants on borough endowments, education endowments, and so on? —I do not think it would be right to interfere between the owners and their tenants, though I think it would be a good thing if those bodies could "be induced to give the freehold. Ido not think we should coerce them. 43. Do you think it would be detrimental to boroughs and cities which have land to compel them to give the freehold to their tenants if there was an Act passed to that effect? -I have not gone into the subject ; but, at any rate, Ido not think the proceeds should be treated as revenue. If the local bodies were to sell their reserves and spend the money as income it would be a very bad thing. 44. Suppose they sold the reserves, put the money out on security, and spent the interest on the money?- 1 do not think it would be any better for those bodies than having the land. 45. The Chairman.] Do you think that taxation in the future will be the means of preventing the building-up of large estates? —I fancy it should do so, but when these big estates first came into existence land was very cheap, and there were not enough people to go upon the land. Now, the position is reversed, and I believe the price of land would prevent the aggregation of large estates. 46. Do you think the graduated land-tax will prevent the acquisition and holding of large estates?- I think a man is hardly likely to go in for more than a certain area with a graduated land-tax in existence. 47. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you think a better way of preventing the aggregation of large estates would be to pass an amendment on the Land Transfer Act, limiting the area of land any one person might hold? i think there might be difficulties in the way of applying that universally. I do not think freeholds which have been in existence previous to the passing of such an Act should be restricted in that way. 48. Ido not- suggest that: all I want to do is to prevent those men who hold large areas already from acquiring any more?— Yes, I am agreeable to that. 49. With regard to Land Boards, do you think, considering the great size of this district, the number of members should be increased to, say, seven? —Yes. I think there are seventeen counties in this district, and I suggested the number of members should be increased to six—that is, grouping the counties into threes, and each group returning a member. 50. There are large districts with a large number of settlers where there are no local bodies at all, and under your scheme they would have no representation : would it not meet the case if good practical men having experience of land were appointed from the different parts of the province, in the same way as members are appointed now ? —lf we could be sure that such men would be appointed I should wish for nothing better ; but while there is party Government I am afraid the Land Board will continue, to a certain extent, to be a refuge for political deadbeats, and men who have failed to get into the House. That is why I should like to see the Board partially elected. 51. Mr. Mathesou.\ Are you a member of the local body? —No; I have been. 52. Is settlement in the district suffering from want of roading? —Yes. 53. Do you think it would be wise that all grants from the Crown for roading should be abolished and heavier subsidies take <heir place? —I would like to see the matter put entirely outside politics. 54 On an automatic footing? —Yes. 55. Do you consider that the heavier the county rate is the heavier the subsidy should be? — Well, I would place a limit to it. 56-. But you think it is a sound principle? —Yes. James White examined. 57. The Chairman.'] Do you hold land? —Yes. I and my son between us hold 500 acres of land under lease in perpetuity in the Otau Block. 58. Is there any matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?- I would like to make the following statement which I have in writing: "I knew nothing of farming when I took up the section, yet I have, managed to carve out a home for myself,, passing through many trials and difficulties, which brought out the little grit I had, and lam none the worse for it. Had it not been for leasehold I probably should never have settled on land at all. lam perfectly satisfied with my tenure, and desire no alteration. I look upon the present agitation for the freehold as unfair in principle, in so far as it aims to render void a contract; as impolitic on the part of lessees, as they are striving to do the same thing they so unceasingly have condemned in the trades-unionists -namely, to tamper with the contracts made between the Crown and the lessees. Ido not believe in revaluations during the currency of a lease, because I think it would be a constant source of worry and dissatisfaction throughout the country, and would also have a tendency on the part of the lessee to depreciate his holding as the time closed in. I would prefer to see the lease definite and permanent for whatever term was fixed upon. Roads are the most important factor to the lessees. They should come before trunk railways, for God alone knows the misery and deprivation endured by a large number of lessees for the want of safe and passable roads, and, unfortunately, the women and little ones are the greater sufferers. This, to my thinking, is the one blot on the present land system; otherwise I consider the system most admirable and one of the best, if not the best, known to civilization, and I think, by judicious management, will keep the
132—C. 4.
1050
[j. WHITE.
0.—4.
country prosperous, as its prosperity has grown and grown from its inception. Give the lessees roads quickly—they are our right. Give them before they become broken in heart, body, and pocket, and settlement will go forward in 'leaps and bounds ' Ido not think the country should grant the freehold, for I would rather see the Government mop up the freeholders than see the capitalist mop up the leaseholders. lam perfectly satisfied with the administration of the Lands Department, and have great satisfaction in stating that I have always been treated with the greatest courtesy and consideration by every member of the Department with whom I have come in contact. I also know this to be the experience of others besides myself. I consider the system wonderfully perfect for its age, and the country will act wiser by aiming at a greater perfection than by being misled by a number of reactionists, who are assiduously working on the cupidity of some and on the ignorance of others for the purpose of introducing changes, which if brought about will prove inimical to the best interests of the bond fide settler and his sons, and may, and probably will, prove disastrous to future progress of this fair land. As to the Advances to Settlers Act, 1 consider it the best Act passed by this Government, and the most helpful to farmers, both directly and indirectly." 59. Mr. Forbes.] What class of land is this which you and your son hold?- Bush land. 60. How long have you been on it? —Since 1890. 61. Do you feel sufficiently satisfied with your tenure to go on making improvements ?— Perfectly satisfied. 62. It has been said that there is a great fear coming over the holders of lease-in-perpetuity sections that their holdings will be revalued, and that the contract between them and the State will be broken: have you that feeling? 1 have never had that fear, because, having made a contract with the Government, the Government cannot alter my contract without my consent. 63. Do you think that that alleged fear is one of the reasons why the freehold is being asked for by the Crown tenants? —Most decidedly. 64. Mr. Matheson.] Do you hope for the time when all the land-occupiers in the colony will be tenants of the Crown? —I would prefer to see that than to see all the land freehold. 65. You think it would be a good thing if that did come about?— Yes. 66. If two parties made a contract and afterwards see that by amending it it would benefit them both, do you think it would be wise that they should so amend it?— Certainly. 67. Do you remember that Parliament or the State put a compulsory clause in the Land for Settlements Act without asking the freeholders' permission—a clause to allow the Crown to take a man's propertv against his wish for close settlement ? —I am aware of that. 68. Suppose the labour party became a strong power in the country, and got a majority in the House, would it not be as easy for them to bring in a Revaluation Bill as it was for the Crown to introduce and pass that compulsory purchase clause? —Just as easy. 69. Mr. McLennan.'] It has been stated in evidence that Crown tenants do not farm their holdings as well as those who have freehold: do you farm your holding just the same as if it were a freehold?—lf the land was my own, just as a freeholder calls his land his own, I would put no more exertion into it than I do to-day. 70. Mr. McCardle.] You have done a good deal of improvements on your land?— Yes. 71. Do you know what valuation is placed on those improvements by the Government ?—I do lOt 72. Have you spent more than £2 an acre on the land?—l should say it would be somewhere between £4 and £5 an acre. 73. Are you aware that if the Government were taking back your land you would only get paid for the improvements shown on their books, and that any increase in value in your property outside the improvements would be treated as unearned increment, whereas the amount of improvements shown on the books might not cover much more than half the real value of your improvements?—l have no complaint with regard to the valuation of my improvements. 74. You would soon have a complaint if you found you were losing half the value of your improvements if revaluation came about? T should complain about that, of course. 75. Do you think the true valuation is put on your improvements?— Yes. Edward Moboan examined. 76. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder ?—Yes; I hold 225 acres of freehold land. Part of it is in the Papakura Valley and part of it in the Maluiri Valley. 77. Is there any matter you wish to bring before the Commission?—! wish to give evidence as a native-born New Zealander—as one of the first white men born in this district. I believe in the freehold, because I am interested in the country, and I feel that the freehold is the best system for the occupation of the land. Besides being a farmer, T am a land-valuer, and also clerk to a local body, and, of course, as such I come into contact witli a large number of people and hear a food many views on the land question. In the course of discussion of this land question we hear a great varietv of views, and some of the arguments which have been brought forward in favour of the leasehold, to my mind, do not hold water. I might say that I have also held land in the Taranaki district, which was acquired under the deferred-payment system, and, while I am not against the occupation with right of purchase, 1 think the most favourable terms on which anybody can take up land, and the system under which they are most likely to succeed if they have not very much money, is that old system of deferred payment. Each individual is somehow constituted' that if the efforts he is obliged to put forth are not beyond him he puts forth efforts in accordance with the amount required. If a man has to make up a certain amount of rent he will do it probably; but if he is called upon to do more, and not only make up an amount of rent, but something to pay off a portion of the capital value as well, he will probably do that. Most of the land in the back blocks are taken up by young and vigorous men, and if they have the option of purchase given them, so that they can look forward in the course of a few years to obtain the
1051
B. MOBGAN.j
C—4.
freehold, it gives them more heart in their work, and consequently they are better settlers. With regard to leasehold land, there is one point which does not appear to have been touched upon in the evidence 1 have seen so far. It has been contended, in favour of the leasehold, that leaseholders have been very successful; but we must remember that since the inauguration of the leasehold system in any popular form the country has been prosperous. We must, however, not forget that hard times may come again, and when they do come it will be found that those leaseholders who are not making the thing pay will be raising an outcry for a reduction of rent, and they will have an immense political influence in that direction, which possibly will be for the bad. That is one reason why they should be encouraged while times are good to make the land their bank and put as much money as they can into it by the system 1 advocate of deferred payment. There is another point 1 should like to touch upon. I have followed the evidence given before the Commission fairly closely, and 1 see you have had some land-nationalisers. Well, 1 class the system as an ideal system, but it requires an ideal people for it to fit, and as we have not that ideal people, but have to deal with human nature as it is, 1 say the system is not at all adapted for the world in its present state. Then, again, the question of sentiment appears to have been overlooked. When times were rather hard, and it was difficult to make ends meet, people who became attached to the land through having the hope of getting the freehold would put up with inconveniences and difficulties which as leaseholders they would never have faced, hi the course of my experience as a land-valuer 1 have come across such cases, and 1 feel convinced when hard times come and the leaseholders have some difficulty in making up their rent they will do what they can under the Advances to Settlers Act and afterwards throw the whole thing up. The value of the improvements they have put on, although they may be in a sense fully up to the money advanced, will not return that value to the country which-owns them. The country will then go back, and the place will become neglected, and, in fact, be a hot-bed for noxious weeds. With regard to second-class land about here, 1 feel the Government have made a great mistake in opening some of the land they have in very broken clay country. It is generally bush country, but after the bush is cut down and the grass is gone off and the roots have lost their hold the land begins to slip, and it becomes valueless. 1 think it is better to leave that steep land alone and make forest reserves of it. I think the Land Board have made a mistake in opening these steep clay lands for selection at all. In many of these back blocks 1 think the old homestead system might very well be brought into force. There is some second-class land which could be settled with benefit to the country, and I think that men who would have the hardihood to put up with the inconvenience of going into these places should get the land on paying the cost of survey. Although you are giving away the people's heritage in a sense, I believe the prosperity of the country would be very much advanced by so doing. 78. Mr. Forbes.] In reference to the homestead system for settling poor lands in the back country, is it not essential that a poor man should be put somewhere where he can get work if he has not sufficient capital to make his living right off the land? If he is a poor man, yes. 79. Well, if you put him on the back blocks on a small area of poor land, would that not be likely to spell disaster for him ? 1 would not advocate putting him on the back blocks on a small area of poor land. I think under the old homestead system they did not give a sufficient area of land to justify a man going to the back blocks. We must bear in mind that a large amount of land to the north of Auckland is unoccupied Government and Maori land, and in many instances these lands are bounded by gumfields, and it seems to me that the gumfields of the colony might iiave been made much more serviceable. There are many settlers in the north who have taken up land on lease, and who have eventually paid for it, and their standby has been the gumfields. 80. We have been informed in the north that many people have simply been holding land and earning their living on the gumfields, and that settlement has not gone ahead as it should have done, because they have done very little in the way of improvements ?- But, as against that, there are numbers of people who have made their whole living on the gumfields, and the country is no better from a settlement point of view. There are men who might- have done better if they had put some of their time into land, and if they were gradually bringing their land into cultivation we would not blame them if they were not doing it as quickly as they would like. 81. Do you not think in settling men with little capital we want to put them near a market where they can get something for their labour ?—-Undoubtedly, a man who is placed in that unfortunate position would be in a way of getting on more quickly than a man who is placed on poorer land; but we must take into consideration the fact that the poorer man must be dealt with, because we have not enough good land to supply everybody. 82. Would you suggest giving them some Government assistance in the way of advances of capital to bring this poor land into cultivation ?- Not unless the Government had ample security for their capital. Ido not think it a good thing to press capital upon a man if he can possibly do without it. 83. Mr. Mathexon.] Do you advocate deferred payments, which is compulsory purchase?— Yes. 84. Have you not known of many men going into the back blocks turned into old men in ten years' time through struggling to fulfill the compulsory clause? Do you not think it would be wiser to allow the payment of certain sums at such intervals as the tenant is able to meet them? — Yes, I would call that deferred payments. 85. Would you give the holder a longer term in which to pay?—l think the system should be made more elastic, so that settlers could pay off portions of the capital value as they desire. 86. Mr. McCardle.\ You have spoken of land which slips in this province: where is that land? —The land I had to do with was in the Otau Block, part of which was occupied by one of the previous witnesses. 87. You know the land iu the district? —Yes. 88. Would you not find there as many slips in one day as you would find in the whole Auckland Province in a winter ? —I do not think so.
C—4.
1052
E. MORGAN.
89. Some of the best land in the Wellington district is papa formation, and the men holding that look upon it as the most valuable land in the district, although it is liable to slips?- But 1 refer to the steep, red-clay land. 90. Do you think the option to acquire the freehold brings out a settler's energies more than if he had not that option? —Yes. 91. Do you think the inhabitants of towns who have no stake in the country have the same right to say what the land-tenure of the future should be as the settlers, who have all their stake in the country? —I think the settlers who have had practical experience are better qualified to express an opinion as to the best tenure than the theorists in the towns are. 92. If your money was invested in a company would you consider that the employees of that company should have the same voice in the management as you and the other shareholders who have their all at stake? —I think it would be a good thing to give the employees a bonus as an incentive to work, but not an equal voice in the management. 93. Mr. McLennan.] Have not the people in the towns an equal interest in the land of the colony as you or I ? —Some have, and some have not. The dwellers in the towns may be here to-day and away to-morrow. 94. You would not take the opinions of the people in the towns as to the settlement of the Crown lands in any way whatever? —Only just as a layman's opinion should be considered in the construction of a road or a bridge as against that of a practical man. 95. Mr. McCardle.] You know there are many land-reformers in the cities? —Yes. 96. Do j'ou think it would tend to the prosperity of the country if they were given full power to frame a Land Act?- I think Jt would be better to put them on the land, so as to give them actual experience before they did so George Ballard examined. 97. The Chairman.] Do you hold land? —I own a freehold of 358 acres at I'ukekohe, and also a small lease in perpetuity in Raglan County. 98. What particular matter do you wish to bring forward ? —First of all, I believe in the optional system at present in vogue. The lease in perpetuity ought to be as secure as the freehold. It is the best tenure, unless the selector has a considerable amount of capital. I will illustrate this by giving three examples. We will say that there are three men, with a capital of £1,000 each, and three sections of land of 1,000 acres each, of equal value in all respects. A takes up one section for cash, and thus pays away all his capital; B takes up another section under occupation with right of purchase, and pays £50 a year rent, but has his capital to work with; and C takes up the other section under lease in perpetuity, pays £40 per annum rent, and has his capital to work with, the same as B. Let us say that these men are equal in intelligence and energy and in knowledge of practical farming. A has no money to pay for labour, but being an industrious man and having no rent to pay, he manages to make a living. B employs labour to improve his section, but for the first three years gets no return, but after that he becomes prosperous. C goes to work on the same lines, but having only £40 a year to pay, he has £10 a year more than the others to spend on his section. At the end of twenty-one years A will be very little better off than when he commenced; B and C will have made comfortable homes, and will hold improved farms, but C will be £500 better off, I think the single-taxers and those in favour of revaluation are responsible for most of the unrest amongst the leaseholders; but if they ever become powerful enough they would tax the freehold in preference to the leasehold, and, in my opinion, they are injuring the colony by keeping out desirable immigrants. The best thing to do with them would be to put each of them on 100 acres of land ten miles away from any station or store, and let them carry in their stores on their backs, the same as the people in this district did forty years ago. If the lease in perpetuity is not as secure as the freehold it ought to be. When an agreement is made, either between private persons or between the Government aiid the individual, it ought to be inviolable. 99. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not think that the Farmers' Unions are responsible to a very great extent for the unrest you speak of? —I think the single-taxers are. 100. The Farmers' Union have got up petitions on the subject, and made it part of their platform: does not that cause the general people to take it up?—l think it is just an election cry —a bribe to the leaseholders. 101. Mr. Matheson.] Referring to your A, B, and C, does it not strike you that at the end of a hundred years B's descendants would probably be living on a place for which they paid no rent, and C's people would have a nicely, improved property which they would have to hand over to the State ?- But B would probably get his freehold, for he has the occupation with right of purchase. 102. His people would pay no rent after the first hundred years : do you not think they would be able to purchase? —If they had the capital and purchased the property they ought to get interest on the amount. A man who spends £1,000 on land is entitled to get £50 a year on it. 103. Take the C family. As years went on they would have made a very fine estate, and some time in the thousand years the Crown would resume it with all improvements and no compensation. Which family would work from generation to generation with most satisfaction? —I do not see that it makes much difference a thousand years hence. You do not know what might happen. Caleb Hosking examined. 104. The Chairman.] What land do you hold? —375 acres of freehold in the Waiuku district 105. Have you some matter to bring before the Commission? —Only that, as an old settler, I am interested in the land question. I have been farming in New Zealand for fifty-five years. I arrived in the colony about 1855, and took an axe on my shoulder and went into the forest to carve out a home for myself.
1053
C.-4.
C. HORKING.
106. What tenure do you prefer? The freehold I was brought up amongst leaseholders in the West of England, and spent most of my youth among them. There was a sprinkling of freeholders amongst us, and you could always pick them out at a glance. The freeholder went to market with his stock, and took better stock, as a rule, than the leaseholder; wore a better coat, and lived in better style, because he was a free man. In this country, if we go on as we have been doing, we shall have a very large number of electors who are not free men. Political pressure will be brought to bear upon them to compel them to do as they are told. In the Old Country many of them dare not shoot a rabbit without the permission of their landlord. As to their votes, they were not their own. I want every man in this country to have his vote, and to do as he pleases with it. But there is pressure brought to bear by the Government at election time. At one time I held a small lease, but at the earliest opportunity I converted it into a freehold. I never felt comfortable as long as I was tinder the lease. Emphatically, as an old settler, I would say, " Give us the freehold." It was this objection' to leasehold that brought me to New Zealand. 107. Do you consider that the best tenure is the lease with the option of purchase? —I have no objection at all to that. 1 think it is an excellent system for a man with small capital. 108. Is it in the interests of the country that that should be the tenure? —I think so. 109. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it would be in the interest of the town-dwellers to give the Crown tenants the right of purchase? —I do. 110. How would it benefit them? —I do not think it would benefit them more than us. The country would be prosperous, and they would feel the reflection of it. 111. Mr. McLennan.] Would you grant the same privilege to the lessees of educational reserves and borough endowments? I would not meddle with those; they are not Crown lands. 112. But do you not want tfie country to be prosperous ? The small amount of rent obtained from those endowments would not affect our prosperity very much. Those leases are very badly farmed, and are not a good advertisement of the effect of the leasehold system. 113. Mr. McCardle.\ Do you not think that if there were a very large number of leaseholders they would be able to dictate to the Government the conditions under which they should get their land? —Probably, if they became strong enough. Charles Duumgooi, examined. 114. The C'hairman.\ What land do you hold? —About 600 acres of freehold —part at Tuakau, part at Raglan, and part at Mercer. 115. What matter do you wish to speak about? —First, I consider that the members of the Land Board should be elected by ballot, and more especially by the settlers in the districts where there is the largest amount of Crown land. 1 believe that the freehold is the best tenure. The optional system should be continued, but I consider that the deferred-payment system is the best that the colony lias ever had. The homestead system is, mmy opinion, a great mistake, because under it the settlers are spoon-fed—they get Government assistance from the day they go on the land, and directly they have got all they can from the State they leave their sections. There are large areas of land that have been lying waste for forty years or so, and 1 think the Government should give them to anybody who will go and live upon them, and let the settlers have Crown grants at the end of six years. 116. Mr. Matheson.] You think the Crown is too slow in cutting up land for settlement? — They put too high a price on the land, and consequently it lies idle. Charles Thomas Barriball examined. 117. The Chairman.] What land do you hold? —320 acres in the Waiuku district —freehold. 118. What matter do you wish to bring forward?- 1 wish to express my opinion in favour of the freehold tenure. I believe it is the best tenure for the country. A man puts more energy into his work if lie knows that the land is his own. Like Mr. Morgan, 1 am a New Zealander. My father arrived here about sixty-three years ago. For a number of years he worked as a leaseholder, and when he had got together about £1,000 he bought land, and gave his sons, as far as he was able, 100 acres each in the Waiuku district. It was bush land, and had we not felt that we were making homes for ourselves, and freeholds, we should not have gone at the work with the energy that we did. 119. Do you think it would be well if some of the town agitators followed the same course? — I should like to see it tried. The Government might give them a full set of tools, and even a plough, and put them on bush land for twelve months. At the end of that time they would wish themselves back in town. 120. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not think that the town-dweller has a certain amount of interest in the disposal of the Crown lands of the colony? —Every person in the colony should have a certain amount of say in the management of its affairs, but I do not think the town people should dictate to the country people as to the tenure on which they should hold their land. Most of the town agitators, if they were offered a day's work, would not do it. If a few men get out of employment in Auckland the agitators mount their beer-barrel and demand that the Government should give them work. I have no sympathy with that. 121. If vou and another person had an article to sell, would you not have an interest in the method of the sale? —Certainly. 122. Are not the people of the colony the joint owners of the land, and have they not the right to.express an opinion? —Yes; but 1 do not think that their opinion as to tenure should have as much weight as that of the country dwellers. 123. Mr. Matheson.] Is it good business for any State to give a tenant a lease for a thousand years at a fixed rental?- -I think it is wrong altogether. 124. Mr. McCardle.] If a ploughman came forward to do the work of a medical man, would it be satisfactory from the medical point of view? Certainly not.
a— 4.
1054
[C. T. BABRIBALL.
125. And is not that the position of the man in the town, if he has to make the laud laws for the country? —To a very great extent. In regard to land-tenure, I think it is nonsense to think that townsmen should know so much about it. William Hknhy Clauk Glasson examined. 126. The Chairman.J What land do you hold?— 700 acres freehold in Raglan County. 127. Is there any particular matter that you wish to speak about? 1 am a freeholder, and 1 advocate the freehold. [ consider that the occupation with right of purchase is the best tenure. At the same time, I think that the principal thing the country settlers require at the present time is better roads and bridges. If we had better roads and bridges the question of tenure would be a secondary consideration. 128. Mr. Forbes.] Do you not think that before the Government offer any of the back country blocks they should make provision for the proper roading of the land ? I do think so. 129. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it is wise that the County Council should do all the roadwork within a district?--! think the Government shouid give assistance by taking over the main roads, at least. 130. Would it help the roading of the country if subsidies were given, increasing as the rates increased? —I should think so.
New Plymouth, Monday, 29th May, 1905 James Burgess examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer holding just over 100 acres of land at Warea, twenty-four miles from New Plymouth. It is a freehold and I have been twenty-four years farming in this district. I represent the Farmers' Union at Warea, which is the largest branch in Taranaki. There are 78 full members and about twenty-five honorary members. 2. What do you wish to bring before the Commission ? —First, I wish to object to the very short notice we have had. Our branch appointed three members to attend, but two are away through previous engagements, and we think it is rather unfair to this part of the district that such short notice should have been given. The opinion of my branch is that the freehold is the only tenure that is suitable to this part of Taranaki. In our opinion the old deferred-payment system was the best system for this part of the colony, and we recommend that it be reverted to. We contend that if a man took up land under the deferred-payment system it developed in him habits which were of the greatest use to him in developing his land, and those habits never left him throughout life. We contend that the freeholder becomes an independent man able to give his vote as it suits him, without fear or favour. Of course there are many leaseholders who can do the same, but still I think that the leaseholders are not all in quite as independent a position as the freeholder, and that fact should be considered in the interests of the colony. Another matter is that we have a very great objection to the present method of valuing land. For instance, in my case I took up a lot of swamp land and I started to drain it. First of all I put down a drain 4 ft. deep, and after four or five years it settled down to 1J ft. I then sunk itj another 4 ft., and I have sunk it from start to finish quite 10 ft. When the valuer comes round he sees a drain 3 ft. deep and only the value of that drain is allowed for without any consideration for the whole of the work that has been done. The full extent of the work is not taken into consideration in the valuation ; it goes to unearned increment, and that is where we contend the Valuation is unfair. Another thing we contend is that if the State gets the value of the freehold they have the capital to work with, and are thereby relieved from the necessity for heavy loans. We advocate that every man should be allowed to have a small freehold of his own. We do not want landlordism either on the part of the State or the private individual; we fully agree that restrictions should be put on the amount of land a man might hold, but at the same time a man who farms his own land gets more out of that land than under any other system of tenure ; it induces in him habits of thrift and industry, and is better for himself and the State as well. Through having been a freeholder ever since coming to the colony I have never had to go to the Advances to Settlers Department, and I am so satisfied with my own tenure that my fellow-settlers have deputed me to put my views on the question before the Commission. 3. Are there any lease-in-perpetuity settlers in your district ? —Some. 4. Are they dissatisfied with their tenure ?—They would all like to get the freehold. 5. Are some of them members of the Farmers' Union ? —Many of them are members, but there are also a great number of leaseholders holding Native leases from the Public Trustee. 6. Mr. Paul.] Has your branch discussed the constitution of the Land Boards ? —No. 7. Have you any personal opinion as to the best constitution of the Land Board ? —I have not, as I have not had anything to do with the Land Board since I took up my land, being a freeholder. 8. Are you acquainted with the conditions of settlement under the lease in perpetiuty in the south ? —No. 9. From your own knowledge you could not say whether they are a success or a failure ? —No. 10. One order in our reference is the question of roads and the loading for roads, and whether faith has been kept with the settlers on that matter. Can you say anything about that ?—I am fully of opinion that all loading for roads should rank as a mortgage on the land. I think the value of the yearly rates should be capitalised and rank as a mortgage to be deducted from the taxable value of that land. 11. Then you do not approve of the present system under which the land is loaded for roads and interest charged in perpetuity ?—I have had no experience of the matter.
1055
C—4
.1, BTJRftTCSI.
12. Is the value of the leaseholds increasing in your own district ? —Yes, it has increased. 13. You are a staunch freeholder : Do you think that under the freehold system a poor man would have a chance to get on the land ?—I do not object to beginning with a leasehold, but give the man the opportunity of turning it into freehold. By all means let him begin with the leasehold if he chooses, but I object to any form of lease without a purchasing clause. 14. Then I take it you strongly object to the lease in perpetuity 'Yes, and many of those holders have found out their mistake since they took their leases up. When they want to borrow money they have had to pay in some cases double the rate of interest that the freeholders have had to pay, and consequently their expenses are far more than the others. 15. When all the land had been acquired as freehold, what chance would a poor man have of getting land ? —lf all the land is leased he will have no better chance ; leasing will not increase the quantity of land available. 16. You mentioned the advances-to-settlers system : what is the experience of that system in this district ? —I do not speak personally because I have had nothing to do with it, but I have heard of a man applying for £300 or £400 and getting only £70. 17. You say the settlers object to the lease in perpetuity : What is their objection ?—I have not found fault about it excepting the uncertainty as to whether the contracts would be observed for 999 years and the high interest that has to be paid for loans. 18. You think there is uncertainty under that head ?■—Most decidedly I do. 19. In what direction ? —That it will never be observed for 999 years. 20. Do you think the freehold will be observed ? —That is impossible to say, but at the same time it is more likely than the other. 21. Do you think there is a majority of people in this country who would throw aside a bargain entered into between the State and a portion of the settlers ?—They have done so already. 22. In what direction ? —By acquiring estates which have been already sold. 23. Can you say that is a successful step or not, and one in the interests of the colony ?—lt is possible, but it may be found out also that it is in the interests of the colony to vary these leases. 24. You say the State has broken faith with these people ? —Most decidedly. 25. Do you not think the interests of the minority must always be subservient to the interests of the majority ? —Quite so. 26. If the State thought it to its interest to break or vary the contract do you think it should be done without compensation being given to the lessee ?—Certainly not; but you know that the demands of the labour party at present are very much in that direction. 27. Yes, they propose to revalue a lease at the death of the lessee or on the transfer of a lease ? — Is not that breaking the contract if they do that ? 28. As a Farmers' Union what do you propose to do with the present leases. Do you propose to vary them, or are you prepared to stick to your part of the bargain if the State sticks to its side ? —We think people should have the right to purchase, which would be in the interests of both themselves and the State. 29. Then you do not object to any valuation so long as both agree ?—No, there is no breach of contract, and it may be in the interests of the settlers and for the good of the State. 30. What proportion of Crown tenants are there in your union out of that hundred members ?— I do not think there would be more than ten or twelve Crown tenants, but at least one-half would be Maori tenants under the West Coast Settlements Act. 31. Mr. McCutchan.] You are a freeholder ? —Yes. 32. And an advocate for the restoration of the deferred-payment system ? —Yes. 33. And in what respect do you consider that system has a preference over the occupation with right of purchase ?—When a man started under the deferred-payment system he had to pay so much off by instalments, and that induced in him habits of thrift and industry which made a man of him and never left him all his life, whereas in the case of the leaseholder if he raises his income from £200 to £300 it is very hard for him to keep his expenditure under that £300, and so he never gets any nearer being able to purchase his farm. Under the deferred-payment, system he was bound to pay off the price of it and it made him independent. 34. Were you in the district when the Mountain Road was settled ?—I was down the coast. 35. You are aware that some blocks are loaded to the extent of 25 per cent, for their roads ?— Yes. 36. You are also aware that the tenants pay interest on that loading for?the whole term of the lease of 999 years. Now, instead of loading these blocks for roads if the land was sold without the loading and the tenants had to provide roads themselves and got assistance under the loans to local bodies, the interest would be extinguished in twenty-six years : would not that be a preferable system to loading the laud for the whole 999 years ? —Yes, I should be in favour of that, although I am only speaking for myself because I had no instructions from my union to present any views on that matter. 37. You spoke of the unearned increment and said there was no unearned increment in your district ? —The so-called unearned increment so far from where any public works have been carried out, is simply created by labour and expenditure that the valuer takes no account of. 38. What is your opinion with regard to Government grants for roadworks ? —I believe the local body should have the expenditure of the money and it should not be left to the will of the' Minister to spend it or not as he likes. . 39. Do you think the present method of obtaining grants is a wise one ? —I do not. 40. Have you devised any scheme for securing to local bodies an assured finance ?—No, but my opinion is that local bodies should receive grants in proportion as they rate themselves. 41. Would you abolish grants altogether ? —I would special grants.
Tj. BTTBOESS.
C.—4.
1056
42. And arrange for a subsidy of £1 tor £1 on all rates raised and spent ? —That would be most decidedly the best system. 43. With reference to cash sales, do you think the " thirds " from land sold for cash should be available for the local bodies ?—I do. I think the " thirds "of the'fall value of the land sold for cash should go to the local bodies equally with the other. 44. Would you be in favour of making the purchase-for-cash lands subject to residence and improvement conditions similar to leaseholds ? —I would not object to it; and we are in favour of limiting the area a man could acquire. We object to landlordism in any form, State or private. 45. With reference to purchasing under the lease system is there not a danger of tenants raising money at fairly high rates of interest, and possibly in adverse times of losing their holdings ? —You could not meet the difficulty with legislation in that connection. 46. Would you be in favour of so arranging the means of acquiring the freehold that the means will come eventually from the tenants' savings instead of from mortgagees ?—I should not be in favour of that. I believe in allowing every man to raise the money as he likes, and so letting him rest on his own bottom. If a man cannot rely on himself he is sure to go to the wall in time. 47. Is there not a very grave danger that if the freeholds are given without any proper safeguards that we shall have a reaccumulation of estates from the small freeholders ? —I think it is [as easy to prevent the reaccumulation or aggregation of freehold estates as it is of leaseholds. 48. Do"you think it is better to prevent the reaggregation by means of taxation rather than by prohibitive legislation ? —I should not have the slightest preference for one or the other, but taxation seems to be the simplest method of attaining the object. 49. Mr. Anstey.\ Do'you advocate giving the right of freehold to tenants under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Yes. 50. Upon what terms would you give the freehold ? —That really has not been decided ; we only advocate the principle so far, but once there is a chance of getting the principle ratified we could go into the question of terms. 51. You think the freehold would be a great advantage to those tenants ?—I do. 52. You think they ought to be glad to pay something for the optional privilege ? —Yes. Twentythree years ago land was sold for more money as a freehold than it would be sold for as a leasehold. I know land of equal quality with land down our way sold for £3 an acre that was let for Is. 6d. an acre as leasehold ; if put up as a freehold most likely it would have realised from £2 to £2 10s. per acre. 53. You advocate that every one should be allowed to acquire the freehold ?—Yes. 54. You say you object to landlordism, but if a man has to borrow to acquire his freehold then many men will not be able to take up land. He would have to borrow from a private individual : do you not think then we should be returning to the state of landlordism that you strongly object to ? Yes, but if you limit the area to the amount now provided for by statute there is not much fear of a man becoming a big landlord. 55. Is there any difference between renting land from a landlord who only owns one farm and renting it from owns a dozen ?— be a greater number of people benefited by it; with every 320 acres of land let to a single man there would be two families living out of that one farm. 56. Is not that what you object to under landlordism ? —My chief objection is that the State must make regulations to protect itself against the depreciation of that land, and in that respect the interests of the State must clash with the tenants' interests to some extent. 57. That does not follow ?—I think so. I have been a tenant in the Old Country and it was simply because I could not get the freehold tenure there that I came out here. 58. I gather from your remarks that you object altogether to landlordism, but that that objection does not hold good when the man only owns oneTfarm ? —As far as"we can prevent landlordism lam against it. Edward Mordaunt Murley examined. 59. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a farmer and grazier, holding 196 acres under occupation with right of purchase. I have held it about thirteen years. It is in the Uruti district, thirtythree miles from New Plymouth. 60. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?—Yes, It contains the right of purchase. lam an out-and-out freeholder. I pay a s "rent , "of ! '£l3 a year. My relations with the Land Board are quite satisfactory on the whole. 61. Do you think the present constitution of the Land Board satisfactory, that is nominative instead of elective ? —No ; I think it would be better in the interests of the Crown tenants and leaseholders that they should be elected ; certainly a number of the members should be elected, the franchise being according to the area of land a man held. 62. Simply landholders should have the franchise ? —lt should be those who have a stake in the country. . 63. You would not give votes to townspeople ? —I have not gone into that question, but I would not give the votes to people who were not interested in the land. 64. Mr. Paid.~\ You say you would only give those people holding a stake in the country a vote ?— I think so, as it should not be allowed to those who did not know anything about working land, or who had no interest in land. 65. Do you not recognise that the lands of the colony are the national estate, and every citizen in the colony has a right to say how it shall be administered ? —I do not think that it is a national estate, and I do not think that every citizen should have the right to say how the land affairs should be dealt with.
1057
a—4.
E. M. MUELEY.I
66. You think every citizen is entitled to a vote in respect to national affairs ? —I think he is entitled to a vote for Parliament. 67. If it would be wrong in the case of the election of a Land Board would it not also be unwise to give a man a vote in the general affairs of the colony ?—You must cast the responsibility on some man, and the elector in the case of the parliamentary vote uses his discretion, and puts men in Parliament who will do the fair thing. 68. But you do not think that the people in general in the towns should have any right, to say how the Land Boards shall administer the lands of the country ?—No. 69. What is your special objection to the leasehold ?—Although I am a freeholder I had no objection at one time to the lease in perpetuity until I first heard of the Unfair Rent Bill and the threat of revaluation. 70. You mean the Fair Rent Bill?— Yes. 71. Do you think there is any possibility of the State breaking the contract with the tenants ? — A Fair Rent Bill has been brought in session after session, and some of its terms are most unfair. I should expect such an Act to emanate from a Government like Russia or Turkey, but not from a British community. 72. Do you think the principal of revaluation should apply to future leases ? —Certainly not where an agreement has been made. 73. But if the laws are amended do you think that would be sound a principle to apply ? —I do not see anything against it then. 74. Do you think the State should hold to its bargain and the tenant stick to his part ?—Yes ; the only difference is that the tenant now, if the State would stick to its bargain, would probably be satisfied with his lease in perpetuity. 75. Do you think that is the feeling ? —I think so, and I have spoken to a great many. 76. I take it that you are opposed to giving the freehold to the present leaseholders in perpetuity ? —No ; I should let every man acquire the freehold, but if he has taken a long lease with 4 per cent, interest, I would make him pay an extra 1 per cent, for the occupation with right of purchase as the latter does now. 77. Then you would break the present contract with the State ?—I would allow the tenant to take up the land on any sort of tenure he likes. 78. I gather from your remarks that you are opposed to any alteration in the present laws which may not be in favour of the landholders, but of no alteration which will protect the interests of the country ?—No. I should certainly go by the voice of the people, if you can get at the opinion of the majority. In the case of an election of a member of Parliament, some electors in the district I have to do with are unable to record their votes on account of the state of the roads. If we had a referendum I do not think you would get the opinion of the majority, and there would be a danger of the minority ruling, but I think the opinion of the country is in favour of the freehold. 79. Are you acquainted with the conditions of settlement in the south ?—No. 80. Was your land loaded for roads ?—My land was not loaded for roads, but it was loaded for some improvements done by the last tenant. lam not the original tenant. 81. Have you had any experience of the advances-to-settlers system ?—Yes. It is a very satisfactory system. 82. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you mean you would make the four members of the Land Board elective ? —A certain proportion. I would have three members elected, if not the whole of them. 83. If you advocated three out of the four should be elective you recognise the principle that the people in the towns should have a voice in their election. Do you not ? —They should not have the same voice with regard to the disposal of agricultural and pastoral land that the farmers should have who are going to use that land. 84. But you recognise that they should have some voice ? —I have not gone into that question sufficiently, but I think my views are right. 85. Would you be in favour of dividing the land districts into wards, and of giving the Government power to nominate one member for each ward ?—I think the present system is preferable, because a Land Board properly constituted is quite able to deal with the land question 86. Do you think the number of members should be increased ?—No. 87. You think there is no necessity to do so in the Taranaki Land District ? —I have not gone into the question deeply, but I do not see why they should be increased from what I have seen of the working of the Land Board here. 88. With reference to the question of revaluation, I understand you see no objection to that being done, but do you not think it would militate very much against settlement in the back country ?— Yes, and therefore I would rather see the Government sell the land out and out, and let the people say how they were going to work that land. You might possibly restrict them in regard to area, but there is such a thing as being over governed, and it suggests itself to me that this country is going to the opposite extreme with regard to its land laws to what a prosperous country like Canada is doing, where they are selling the land outright. 89. Then you are in favour of selling the freehold subject to restrictions ?—I should certainly sell the land. 90. Would you make the restriction? by area or value ?—I have not gone into that. 91. About the question of a breach of contract: were not the Crown tenants advocating a breach of the lease in asking for the freehold after the State and the Crown tenants agreed on the contract ? If they now agreed to a rearrangement of the terms of the lease would you consider that a breach of the lease ? —The Crown tenants take up this lease because they have no option,
133—C. 4.
[e. m. mueley.
C—4.
1058
92. The Crown tenants took up these leases under certain conditions, and now they are asking for the freehold. That is a very radical change from the original conditions, but if the State and the tenants agree to this change you would not consider that a breach of the lease ?—• No, it would be a rearrangement, because I consider that the land should never have been leased in the first place. 93. Mr. Anstey.] Do I understand you to say that you think there ought to be some limitations with regard to the area of land a man should hold ?—Yes. 94. What limitation would you suggest \—l could not say, but in some districts probably 2,000 acres would not keep a man, while in other districts 50 acres would keep him. 95. Then I take it that it would have to be regulated by value rather than by area ?—"Yes. I have one settlement in view where the land was brought out in 100-acre selections, and it was intended to put about fourteen settlers on the block —it was very rough land too. It was intended to give them 50 acres each, but eventually it was cut up into 100-acre sections. Now there are three men occupying six sections, and they are fairly successful. As a settlement of seven settlers it was not a success. 96. Why \ —First of all the Government offered inducements to these men to take the land up to get it settled; but I think the principle is wrong to take men indiscriminately from towns, perhaps they might be seafaring men, and simply put them on the land. 97. Do you think the original area of 100 acres in that case was too small ?—Yes, in this particular case. 98. You said you were in favour of electing the Land Boards, and that the franchise should be regulated by the area that a man held. If that were done would not there be a danger that you would have the bulk of your Land Boards .composed of men representing large holdings ?— l On the principle that the man who is interested in the country and has to make his own way by thrift, industry, and hard work should be the man who should have the say, and therefore I am against the men in the towns who know nothing about land in many cases being allowed the say in the matter. 99. That is to say the larger a man's interest the larger should be his voting power for the Land Board ?—I do not say that it necessarily should be so, but certainly the man who owns the land ought to have the voting-power. 100. We have had a good deal of evidence concerning workmen's homes adjoining the large centres do you think that those workmen who want homes have any right to any say in the election of Land Boards ?—I think there are lots of ways in which those men could get homes without the Government interfering. . 101. Do you think the Government should not interfere with regard to starting workmen s homes < j would not like to say that for certain, because I have not looked into the matter sufficiently. 102. Do you think the ordinary working-man should have no say in the election of Land Boards ? —I think not. 103. Are you a member of the Farmers' Union ? —Yes. 104. Has your union discussed the question of the freehold ?—We had a debate on the question; I was not there, but I heard the majority were in favour of the freehold. 105. Have you discussed any other question excepting the freehold ?—Yes. 106. But not for presentation to us to-day ? —No. 107. You think it would be wrong on the part of the State to introduce revaluation as regards the lease in perpetuity ?—I certainly think it would be wrong. 108. Still you do not think it would be wrong for the State to break the contract to the extent of giving them the right to take the freehold ?—ln the one case the majority of the people would wish it, and in another case it would be simply the tenant himself who would bring this question in and force it on the people, and I maintain that it is not right. 109 Supposing you were a landlord and you had a dozen tenants, and a majority came to you and wanted the right to buy the farm at a cheap rate, would it be right for you to give way to that majority request ?—I would leave the landlord then to use his own discretion in the matter. 110. Do you not think he would probably say they should stick to their bargain ?—Very probably 111. Do you not think it would be very much better now for all parties to lay down the principle that a bargain entered into should be adhered to ? I certainly think so. 112. Do you not think it is wrong for you to advocate a breach of the contract on one hand, and the labour party on the other ? —There should have been no lease of this description in the first place, but the people had no say in the making of these laws. If they had their way they would certainly say that this wrong should be set right. There is going to be a great trouble over these wrong laws, as there will be a great temptation for the owner of the land to increase the rent. Henry Okey examined. 113. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer holding 1,400 acres of freehold, and 520 acres of leasehold with the right to purchase. I have been farming all my life. My homestead is about three miles from New Plymouth. lam paying 12s. 6d. an acre for the occcupation with right of purchase, and I am satisfied with that tenure. _ 114. What tenure do you think is best for the settler and the country f —l think that in laranaki the right to purchase is the best tenure. 115. But you think that the leasehold system is very advantageous to the settler when starting ! — Yes. 116. Are your relations with the Land Board satisfactory ?—Yes, I have had no difficulty with them I think that the tenants should have a say in the election of a certain proportion of the members of the Land Board, I recognise, however, that the Government of the day should by means
H. OKKY.j
1059
C.—4.
of nomination be able to take the responsibility of carrying out their land laws, but I think the tenant should also be represented. 117. Under what franchise would you elect them ? —ln the case of the tenants, it would have to be those who are interested. To show that the tenant should be represented, I can mention one instance where a tenant wished to borrow £350, and he ultimately arranged to get the money at 10 per cent. He went to Board and asked their consent to the loan The Land Board said they would approve of the loan, but they could not approve of the rate of interest, and that they had received instructions from headquarters not to sanction any loan at a rate of interest over 8 per cent. The tenant went back to his solicitor and said: " I must have this money. I have to pay for stock and make improvements." And he had to capitalise the 2 per cent, for the whole of the five years that the loan was for. If you work it out, you will find that the tenant paid 11£ per cent, and not 10 per cent. The lease would show the payment of 8 per cent., and the balance would be deducted to make up the extra 2 per cent. 118. Did he try the Advances to Settlers Department?— The difficulty in that case is that the settler cannot get the amount of money on leasehold property he requires. 119. But recognising that the Government is the landlord they have to protect themselves. Perhaps they thought the tenant was going beyond his depth ?—The trouble the Government does not assist the leaseholder. The Government has the security, and I think they should assist the leaseholder more than they do. 120. Is that man still on the land ?—Yes. 121. Mr. Paid.'] Is that the general experience so far as the Advances to Settlers Department is concerned ?—No, but the general is that the leaseholders cannot get a sufficient advance. A man with a few pounds may be able to make improvements and get a little stock, and by-and-by he may want more stock, and he will require money to buy that stock, and he will expect to get an advance on his improvements so as to be able to borrow the money he requires, but the difficulty is that he finds that he cannot get a sufficient advance. 122. Do you think that the amount advanced by the Government might be increased with safety ?— Yes, because the Government hold the land. 123. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in this land district ? —I do not think so. 124. Are there cases of one neighbour buying out another and adding to his holding ? —As a rule onlyin cases where the areas are too small. 125. Is the value of leasehold land increasing?—lt must increase to a certain extent as the land is improved. 126. But is it increasing in proportion to freehold land ?—No. 127. Does the settler get value for improvements ?—Yes. 128. Would a valuer be so unfair as to go on the land and value it just according to what he could see, and not try to learn the exact position I—That is going to be the trouble. There should be something to show the position of the land when it was first taken up, but it would be almost impossible for a valuer to say what the condition of that land was in its original state. We have very little to complain about in respect to our valuations in this district. I think, however, that valuers would be prepared to give the Commission evidence in accordance with what I have said. 129. Has the tenant a voice in the fixing of the rent on revaluation ?—I suppose the improvements are protected, and he would have to pay rent on the unimproved value at the end of twenty-one years. 130. Do you not think the settler has every right to the improvements ? Do you think it is right that he should be asked to pay rent on the improvements ?—No, that is one of the difficulties. 131. Do you think it is possible to allow the tenant valuation for all improvements ?—I think it would be a hard job to find out the amount that had been spent in improvements. 132. Is your occupation-with-right-of-purchase section rated for roads ? —Yes. 133. Has faith been kept so far as that expenditure is concerned ? —No, we do not know what becomes of this money. It is supposed to go to the local body, but we cannot see where it is expended. I think there should be an alteration in this respect. 134. What would you suggest should be the alteration ?—I think the amount paid to local bodies should be sent to settlers interested in different blocks, so that they may have some idea of the amount to be expended. 135. How was that money expended—by co-operative labour ? —No, it was expended by the local authority. 136. Mr. McCutchan.\ With respect to the Advances to Settlers Department, you complain that no adequate advance is made to settlers. Is it not the case that the Government are now increasing the amount that may be advanced on the tenant's improvements ? —Yes, and that no doubt will be an advantage. 137. Do you think that there should be any difference made in the amount lent in the case of a man borrowing in order to make further improvements ?—I think you can lend more money to the man who is going to make improvements. 138. The maximum amount is 5 per cent, on improvements and 50 per cent, on goodwill I—Yes. 139. What further amount do you think should be lent to a man who is going to do further reproductive work on his land ? —I think the Government would be quite safe in lending up to 80 per cent. 140. You are aware that the Government only advances up to 65 per cent on freeholds ? —Yes. 141. Do you think it is safe for the State to advance up to 80 per cent, on improvements ? —lt all depends on circumstances. I think it is safer to lend a larger percentage to a small holder than to a man with a larger holding. 142. Do you think the Department should supervise the expenditure of money borrowed to make improvements ?—I think there should be some supervision. For instance, if a man borrows money to fell bush, I do not think the money should be paid to him until the improvements are completed.
0.—4.
1060
[h. okey.
143. Do you think the Land Board has sufficient discretionary power at present in respect to residence, &c. ?—I think ifjthe Land Board were left alone they would have sufficient power, hut they are not always left^alone. 144. With reference to this question of improvements that are no longer visible, do you not think that will make the rating on the unimproved value farcical ?—I should think it would to a great extent. 145. What is your opinion with respect to the unearned increment ? —There is very little doubt that it is very hard at times to find the unearned increment. In prosperous times land may be of more value than first cost and amount expended upon it, when at less favourable this extra value may disappear. 146. Is it not possible that freezing-works, dairy factories, harbour-works, &c., which are provided by the settlers, give an added value to the land. Yet the valuer does not allow any portion of that expenditure on the part of the settlers as having increased the value of the land ?• —Yes, that is so. 147. Dealing with the question of roads, several County Councils complain that the £6,000 allowed under the Loans to Local Bodies Act is inadequate ?—I think that in counties where there are no Road Boards the amount should be increased. 148. Do you agree with the principle of loading land for roads ? —Of course you want some assistance in getting roads, but I think that if the law is such that you can borrow upon the loading, it would be an advantage. 149. Of course the loading is put upon the land, and the Government expends the amount of the loading ?—Yes, they are supposed to. 150. Is it not the case that in nearly all of these blocks the Government is expending the money ?—• They are expending the grants. 151. You are aware that when the Government is opening up new blocks that they generally put on 25 per cent, for roads ? —Yes. 152. As Chairman of the County Council, do you think the finance of the local body could be put on some satisfactory footing ?—Yes, I think it should be —in the direction of increasing the subsidies and assisting those who help themselves. 153. With reference to the question of grants, do you think that the grants are fairly apportioned over the colony ? —No. 154. Would you say that grants are generally given in proportion to the strength of the parliamentary representative ?—To a great extent, no doubt. 155. Do you approve of that system ?—No, I do not think it is the best system of grants, but I would not like to say that grants could be done away with altogether. 156. If there was any increased subsidy on rates, would that not do away with this wretched cadging for grants ?—To a certain extent it would, but there are no doubt cases in which you could not raise sufficient money in the back blocks for their requirements. The back-block settlers would no doubt be sufferers if they had to depend on the amount raised by rates and the subsidies given on the amount so raised. 157. If the subsidies were increased by ss. in the pound, on say a three-farthing rate, and if the subsidy were increased to £1 for £1, and also a subsidy given where special rates were levied equal to paying interest on the loans, do you not think that would produce an adequate finance ?—That, no doubt, would be a great assistance to the local bodeis. 158. Do you think that the Government should retain the control of the main roads until they are metalled ? —Yes, I think the Government should take over the control of the main roads. 159. Are you in a position to say generally that settlement has been very severely hampered by poor roading facilities ? —Yes. 160. The financial position of the colony being sound, would you advocate a borrowing policy for the purpose of giving better roading facilities ? —Yes, it would result in an increase of the produce of the colony. A great number of the settlers of the back blocks at the present time are worse than slaves ; they are worse than people who are in gaol. I can mention instances of people who have been on the land for ten years, and they have no roads yet. 161. Have any instances come under your knowledge in which genuine settlers after years of struggling have had to leave their sections broken in health, hope, and fortune owing to the want of roading facilities ?—Yes. 162. In respect to the introduction of the parliamentary franchise for the election of members of local bodies, would you have any objection to that ?—I object to any one voting for local bodies who does not pay rates. 163. Is it not a fact that the grants come out of the consolidated revenue which is contributed to by the people of the whole colony ? —Yes. 164. You must admit that people who get the benefit of these roads also contribute to a certain extent to the consolidated revenue, and that the roads are there for the use of all the people, and you do not think that those who do not pay rates should have a voice in the election of local bodies ?— Yes. 165. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think that a system of subsidies graduated on the rates struck would provide an adequate finance and do away with grants altogether ?—I am doubtful whether you would be able to do without grants altogether. I was a member of the Conference of County Councils, and we found that there would be great difficulty in getting such a measure. Some of the local bodies in the south are well provided with reserves, and are in such a financial position that they are enabled to strike the lowest possible rate. 166. But under the system I suggest they would get very little subsidy ?—But they will not agree to the subsidy being taken off. It was proposed at the Conference that no subsidy should be given to a local body which did not strike a half-penny rate, but the southern members would not agree to that.
1061
C—•£
H. OKEY.j
167. If such a measure were got through would it be fair, and would it provide local bodies with adequate finance ? —Yes, I think it would be a fair system, and would work all right. 168. Ib there much Native and Crown land in this district ?—There is a considerable area of Native land. 169. Do you think that land should contribute to the rates I—Yes. 170. If you brought in this larger contributing area and had a substantial subsidy, do you think that would provide adequate finance ?—Yes, I think the Government should assist these new districts. I do not think the Government should put settlers in the back blocks without first opening up roads. 171. In opening up new land for settlement how far should the Government go in respect to providing for roads ? Every settler should have road access to his holding. 172. Should the road be both formed and metalled ?—I would not say that the Government should metal every road. I think that a portion of the cost of metalling should come out of the land. 173. To what extent do you think the Government should go before handing the roads over to local bodies ?—I think the roads should be made and the streams bridged before they are handed over to the local bodies. 174. What is your opinion with respect to the system of dual control by Road Boards and County Councils; do you think that it is an economical and satisfactory system ? —ln the past it has been satisfactory, but the position is altering now. Most of the local bodies have got metalled roads, and their principal work is to keep the roads in repair. I think the time has come when in the case of moderate sized local bodies there is not much to be gained by dual control. 175. You mentioned an instance of a settler who paid 10 per cent, for an advance ; is that a usual charge ? —No. 176. Is that price often charged ?—lt is in a great many cases. 177. Has anything been done by the farmers themselves in the way of combination to regulate this sort of thing ? Have the Farmers' Union not taken it up ?-—No, we have no farmers' cooperative associations here to assist the farmers. 178. Would not that be a very good thing to take up and deal with themselves ?—I am afraid the farmers in many cases have enough to do with their own money for their own purposes without forming a fund to assist other settlers. 179. But a combined security has the same effect as money itself ?—No doubt. 180. You said that the tenants should elect the Land Board ? —A portion of it. 181. If they were to elect half, and supposing for the sake of argument the other two members were absent, you would have the land administered by the tenants themselves ?—I think if a man is appointed a member of a local body it is his duty to be present. 182. Would you as a private landlord with a number of tenants give those tenants the right to elect their own steward ?—No, but it would not be a wise policy for me to appoint a steward that would annoy the tenants. 183. You would probably appoint the steward yourself ? —Certainly. Edward Stevenson examined. 184. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a builder and I have had a good deal of experience of farming. I lived on the Pomahaka Estate for a year or two and I know it intimately. 185. What do you specially wish to bring before the Commission? —My opinion is that those who happen to be on the land as farmers have no more right to frame the land policy of the colony than the inhabitants of the colony generally. 186. Do you think the Land Boards should be elected ?—Yes, wholly. And I hold that the parliamentary franchise should apply all round. In regard to the freehold and leasehold lam satisfied it is simply beating the air to talk about it without going into the matter more exhaustively. Personally I do not care a rap whether you call it freehold or leasehold ; but I am convinced that the State should colleot the whole of the unimproved land value and that the whole of the people should be equally landlords and equally free to become tenants. 187. It would be really a universal leasehold system ?—Yes. 188. And the Government would collect the rents ?—Yes. 189. You said the whole of the unimproved value should go to the State ?—Yes ; and to the local governing body. I think it should be divided between them. I also think there should be periodical revaluation. 190. What term do you think should elapse between the valuations ?—ln some districts the value would increase so slowly that it would not be worth the expense of revaluing every two or three years, whereas in other districts where values are rapidly increasing I think it would be desirable to revalue once every three years. 191. Do you think that would be satisfactory to the tenants ?—Yes. I think what the tenant wants is security of possession and he ought to pay back to the State a fair amount. As far as the land question is concerned I am satisfied that the land of this or any country does not belong only to this generation, but to our children, and to our children's children; and when our population numbers six or seven millions this pernicious freehold, advocated by the opposition, will work disaster here as it has done in other countries. I have no objection to the name freehold, but Ido object to the unearned increment going into the pockets of the private landlord. 192. Mr. Paid.] You say that the Land Board should be elected : what is your complaint against it ? —I say that as a general principle it should be elected by the whole of the people. 193. Did you have a section at Pomohaka ? —Not in my own name, but I travelled around Pomohaka doing buildings and culverts in the early stages of development of that estate. 194. Was Pomohaka a success when you were there ?—No.
C.-4.
1062
[E. STEVENSON.
195. Do you recognise that the rents will have to be reduced ? —Yes. Where the Government have paid too much for land the rents will have to be reduced until the unimproved value rises up to what the Government paid. Spotswood in this district was bought at too high a price. 196. There is a lot of that settlement unoccupied ?—Yes, and it is likely to remain so. 197. Is that owing to the position being unsuitable ? —Yes ; partly to that and also to the high price paid by the Government. 198. Do you favour the lease in perpetuity ? —Yes ; with revaluation. But without revaluation I am convinced that it will work out worse than the obnoxious freehold that is advocated by the Opposition. lam convinced that the lease in perpetuity without revaluation is a bigger blunder than the freehold, because it is exempt from taxation and the holders have the whole of the unimproved value for 999 years, and at the same time they have no lump sum to put down to get that privilege. 199. If it is a choice between the lease in perpetuity and the freehold you would favour the freehold ?—Only if the lease in perpetuity has not a revaluation clause. 200. Then you are in favour of the freehold because there is the right of accession of the freehold ? —I maintain that we should exercise that right more. 201. Buo there is taxation of the leasehold ?—Yes, with the £500 exemption, unfortunately. 202. Do you think if revaluation had been in force that Pomohaka might have been settled and farmed to advantage to-day ? —Yes ; I think at first the rents would have been considerably lowered, but it would not be long until the land would reach the vlaue paid by Government and even get above it. 203. Do you not think it would be a great mistake to advocate periodical revaluation every few years ? Ido not advocate periodical revaluation every few years with all land, but I think twenty-one years is too long in some cases where land-values are growing very rapidly. 204. But the occupier of the land must have security of tenure, and if there is revaluation every five or seven years, do you not think that would have an unsettling influence on the tenant ? —No ; I think he ought to be willing to pay what any one else would be willing to pay. 205. Would you be in favour of selling the remainder of the Crown land ?—No ; I favour leasing it under lease in perpetuity with a revaluation clause, and without those restrictions in regard to cropping and burning straw on the land. As long as the tenant pays his rent the State has no right to interfere as to how he farms his land. 206. You recognise that in the case of bush land the State must give the tenant some inducement to take it up ?—I would propose to give him a great advantage and that advantage is security of possession, and no immediate charge on the speculative value. 207. But these settlers can have that in two or three different ways. Supposing they take up land under the occupation with right of purchase, that is security of possession ?—Yes ; but if the tenant is wise he will not purchase. If the right of purchase is obtained with the lease in perpetuity a shrewd business man will not purchase whether he is rich or poor, because he will be subject to taxation, and he has already got his money at a low rate of interest; but a good many settlers would require to borrow money from private money-lenders at a higher rate of interest in order to purchase; but we must remember that it is landlordism that drives people into the back blocks. 208. What inducement would you give bush settlers under your system ?—They would have security of possession for themselves and their children and grandchildren for ever, as long as they paid such a fair rent as others would be willing to pay —rent to be struck on unimproved value. 209. Mr. McCutchan.] Are you a member of the trades and labour union ? —I am a member of the Political Labour League here, and I would probably have been sent to the Commission as a delegate if the notice of the meeting at New Plymouth had not been so short. 210. Are you in favour of periodical revaluation ?—Yes. 211. The State has entered into a contract with Crown tenants : are you in favour of breaking that contract ? —I am for this reason, that the State is continually breaking or altering the laws it has made. You cannot possibly bring in a new law unless you break some other law. 212. Do you think it is just or honourable to try and induce the State to break a contract which is entered into % —I do not approve of trying to induce the State to break a contract; but I think if the bulk of the people recognise that the unearned increment does belong to the people it should be taken by them. 213. The Government have entered into a contract and you advocate a breach of that contract ? jdo not advocate a breach of the contract. I would let the present tenant die or transfer his land, and then I would revalue it. I think that some tenants want to break the contract in asking for power to make their holdings freehold. 214. Do you think the tenant's interest ceases at his death ?—His interest ceases. 215. Is it not a contract for 999 years, and therefore not only a contract with him but with his h e i rs % It is simply preposterous to enter into a contract with our great-grandchildren and I would certainly break such a pernicious contract. 216. What do you mean by the unearned increment ?—I mean that increased value which attaches to the industry of the whole people. 217. Do you think that increased value belongs to the State ? —I think what the local bodies have spent roughly should be collected as their legal right. 218. Do you think it belongs to the State ?—lt belongs to the local governing bodies. 219. But it is the settler's money, and is it not the increased value which that expenditure has given that belongs to the settler ?—Yes ; but everybody is a settler. 220. But everybody is not a ratepayer %—Yes, they are. 221. To the local body ? —Yes, and to the same extent. If you pay rent you pay the rates on the land, and the landlord hands it on to the local body.
E. STEVENSON.I
1063
C—4.
222. lam not speaking of centres of population. lam speaking of the settlement of the rural lands of the colony ?—Yes. 223. Are those settlers paying rates ?—Yes ; those tenants are paying rates. 224. As to land purchased under the Land for Settlements Act, do you think that a restriction should be imposed as to the area that may be held by any one person ?—I think you should allow a farmer as much land as he can profitably use, and he should be given a free hand in regard to cropping. If the full annual value was taken by the State I would not restrict area. 225. Can you not decrease the value of land by injudicious cropping ?—Only temporarily. 226. Mr. Anstey.] Would you go a little further and propose to revalue existing freeholds ?— Certainly I would. I would revalue both freeholds and leaseholds. 227. You had some experience of Pomahaka : had you some experience of the work done on the roads there ? —Yes ; the roadwork was done while I was there. 228. Was it done by co-operative labour ?—Yes. 229. Was the work done economically ? —No. 230. Do you condemn the co-operative system as a system or only when there is bad management ? —I would condemn it as a system because the man in charge is not directly interested in the work, and therefore cannot be successful. I think the money should be expended on the contract system. I would call for alternative tenders. Whatever is the cheapest is the best for everybody. 231. Do you think Pomahaka was too highly valued ?—I think it was at thai time, but I also think the land is very good, and that in the future it will become a valuable property, but some of it is a long way from any centre. 232. Do you think the land is too dear to-day ?—I have not been there for seven or eight years and therefore cannot say. 233. Do you think it would be wise to revalue it now ?—I would want to know a little more about its present value before giving an answer to that question. 234. If the value is too dear would you be in favour of revaluing ? —lf the value has not increased much beyond the price paid by the Government I would not be in favour of revaluing. 235. If the tenant has taken up his farm at manifestly too high a price would you be in favour of revaluing it and letting him have it at a reduced rent ? —Yes ; of course, I would want it to cut both ways. Richard Price examined. 236. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a farmer and farm 320 acres —300 acres of freehold and 20 acres of leasehold. The 20 acres is leased from the Education Board on perpetual base with revaluation every twenty-one years. 237. How do you like that tenure ?—lt is a very good tenure. 238. How long have you had your freehold land %—Thirty years. 239. Are you in favour of the freehold or of the leasehold ? —I am in favour of the lease in perpetuity. I consider it to be one of the best systems of land-tenure ever instituted. The tenant has more privileges under lease in perpetuity, because the unearned increment becomes his asset to sell, whilst he also has his improvements. 240. You are in favour of conserving all improvements to the man who makes them ?—Yes. 241. Do you think there is such a thing as the unearned increment in the case of rural land ?— There is the unimproved value that increases as expenditure takes place in a district. 242. Does the goodwill include the unearned increment ? —Yes. 243. Do you think the present constitution of Land Boards is satisfactory ?—Yes. I think that probably under an elective system unsuitable men would be elected. So long as the Government nominate good men to the Land Boards I think it would be better to adhere to the present system. 244. I suppose you recognise that in administering the public estate it is very important that members of the Land Boards should be independent ?—Yes; and they should be practical men also. 245. You think that the best result is more likely to be achieved under the nominative system than under an elective system ? —I do. 246. Mr. Paul.] Are you in favour of giving the option of the freehold to Crown tenants under the lease in perpetuity ? —No ; I think they are better secured under the terms of their lease. If you give them the freehold it tends to become landlordism. In many cases freeholders go to the moneylender and eventually the land comes back to the old landlord system. 247. Is the value of leasehold land increasing in this district ?—Not a very great deal now. There was a land boom a few years ago, but the values are not increasing very much at present. 248. Are there many private leaseholds in this district ? —I really cannot say. 249. As to the advances-to-settlers system, are the settlers getting the benefit of it ? —Yes. 250. Where the security is sufficient they get a loan ? —Yes; it has never come under my notice that a loan has been refused where the settler had security to offer. 251. Are the conditions of your education lease satisfactory ? —I am quite satisfied with them. 252. Do you think that system should be generally applied ?—Yes. 253. What is your opinion in regard to the old perpetual lease ?—lt is a good system. 254. Would it be an improvement on the lease in perpetuity ?—No ; because the lease in perpetuity is as good as a freehold and even better, because the lessee can leave it to his heirs. I consider that the lease in perpetuity is one of the grandest land laws ever instituted in this colony. I would have taken up my land under that system, but there was no land at the time available to be taken up under it. 255. Do you think the settlers of this country will ever get land on such advantageous terms as under the lease in perpetuity ? —I cannot imagine any other system that it would be better to put in its place.
a—4.
1064
[r. price.
256. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to your education lease there is revaluation every twentyone years. Do you not think that there may be many improvements put on the land that will not be visible to the valuer at the end of twenty-one years ? —They may not all be visible, but I have the right to call in an arbitrator. 257. But will not the arbitrator be in exactly the same position as the valuer in respect to improvements that are not visible ?—Of course, a man cannot make any calculations as to the value of improvements he cannot see. I have been an old valuer myself and I know you cannot value anything you cannot see. 258. As a lessee under that tenure is it not probable that you will suffer more severely inasmuch as the valuer is unable to value improvements he cannot see ?—That may be so. 259. Then how can you say it is a satisfactory form of tenure ? —lt is a great improvement on the old twenty-one-years leasing system with no right of renewal. 260. Then you say it is satisfactory because it is better than the old system ?—Yes. 261. Under the lease in perpetuity you said that the whole of the interest in the improvements should belong to the tenant ?—Yes. 262. Do you know that one Commissioner of Crown Lands refused a transfer because the Board thought the consideration given was excessive ?—I was not aware of such a refusal of transfer. 263. Such being the case as I have stated would you be in favour of an alteration of the law removing that discretionary power from the Land Board ? —I think the Land Board should have discretionary power and should take evidence. 264. You say that the entire consideration should belong to the tenant. Do you mean that the goodwill and the value of the improvements should belong to the tenant ?—Yes. 265. If the Commissioner of Crown Lands prevents certain consideration being given to the tenant surely that is depriving the tenant of his goodwill to that extent ? —Yes. 266. Would you advocate a change in the law removing that discretionary power ? —Yes. 267. With regard to the disposal of the lease in perpetuity by will, I may tell you that the law is that the will is subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Crown Lands ?—Yes, but I think it is an understood thing that no Commissioner would refuse his approval, but I think there should be an appeal to a higher tribunal than the Commissioner of Crown Lands on the matter. 268. Do you think is it a wise thing to place so grave a responsibility upon the shoulders of one man as that of interference with a will ?—I think one man should not have to do it. 269. Would you make it subject to the will of the Land Board ? —Yes. 270. Do you think it is wise that the Land Board should exercise control over a matter of that sort ? —They are the best fitted in the district to do it. They could take evidence and satisfy themselves that everything was right before they agreed to it. 271. Say I took up a piece of land and spent my whole life on it, and left a will; would it not be a great source of anxiety to any man in his last moments if he thought his will was going to be interfered with and that his wishes in regard to the disposal of that property be left entirely at the discretion of another power ?—Yes. 272. Would you withdraw that clause from the statute-book altogether ? —I would. 273. Mr. Anstey.] About the disposal of this property by will: are you aware of what the law is in that respect ?—I am not. 274. Are you aware that the Commissioner of Crown Lands for Christchurch deliberately stated that transfers are never referred to the Land Board when property is left by will, but simply passed to the Registrar without reference to the Land Board ? —That is then the law. 275. The question has been put to you once or twice with regard to the security which a tenant will enjoy under the lease without revaluation. Do you think a settler would go into the back blocks and take up land if his improvements are not to be protected to him ? —I do not believe in thejrevaluation, 276. I think you said you would favour leasing with a periodical revaluation clause ?—I did not say anything of the kind. 277. lam not speaking of the lease in perpetuity but of the lease with a revaluation clause. Do you believe in a revaluation clause such as would properly secure the tenant the full value of any improvements he might have made ? —lt would not secure him. 278. Would you agree to give a settler a lease equal to the lease in perpetuity, but to secure him in all his improvements ? —That would be a great improvement, and I would agree with that. 279. Several witnesses have advocated the elective Land Boards—l notice you think the present system is the best: do you think it would be wise that the tenants should have some representation on the Land Board ? —I do not think it follows. If the Land Boards are selected by the Government carefully, as they should be, then the Boards should be intrusted with the administration of the land, because they are in a better position to judge who'are the most suitable men to place in that position; but the electors are not in the position to do that as well as the Government can do it. 280. Should it not be mandatory on the part of the Government to appoint to the Land Board a man who is a Crown tenant, if there are any in the district ? —That would not make any difference so long as he was a man of practical knowledge, but I object to commission agents, town men, or lawyers being put on the Land Board. 281. Mr. Paul.] Are there any.of that class of men on the Land Board at present ? —I am not aware of any. The opinion I have given on thejmatter is only my own. John Brown examined. 282. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 500 acres under the freehold tenure in the Mangorei, about ten or eleven miles from town. I have been there practically all my life. I was elected to represent the Carrington Road Branch of the Farmers' Union. They are in favour of
J BROWN.I
1065
C— 4.
the freehold being given to Crown tenants. They consider that as they have to compete in the markets of the world with countries like Canada and Russia, that give away the land, we should make the land laws of this country as attractive to the good farmer as we can. We recognise that the price of produce is fixed in London, but we have to compete with countries where greater privileges are in vogue than we have here. There is also a feeling that a bonus should not be given to the young men to leave the land and come into the centres of population, as is given at the present time through the Customs. We have to pay about 25 per cent, on our boots and I think about 30 per cent, on our carriages that come from America, yet they still come in, and it is practically giving a bonus to people to keep off the land. 283. You think we should not aim at nursing our manufactures at all 'We consider that the better the class of people you can get to farm the land the greater will be the income. 284. Would you make every one as far as possible a producer on the land ? —Yes, to produce the income through the exports, as the greater the exports the greater the revenue. That money is really spent in the colony. 285. Do you not think it is a wise policy, in order to utilise the leather from the hides of our animals, to give a subsidy or a little encouragement by way of duties in order to develop these industries ?— I quite agree with the Customs revenue, but if you put the duty on an imported article put it on the local article as well. At present you are not encouraging men to go on the land but to come into the centres of population, and I do not think there is any country in the world that is getting the population into the centres as fast as we are. 286. Mr. Paul?\ You think the settler is not being taken care of at the present time ? —I could not say that he is not being taken care, of, but certainly there is a feeling that a great deal of money has been borrowed, which he has to pay for out of his income, and spent in the centres of population, and possibly for electioneering purposes in some cases, and not enough on the roads and railways. 287. Do you not think you are drawing the long bow when you speak of money being spent for electioneering purposes ? —No, it is only human nature, and I do not think this Government is worse than any other Government in that respect. 288. Do you think the tenants should get the option of the freehold ?—I believe in the bargains being kept, but if it suits both sides to alter it I do not see why it should not be altered. 289. Do you think the Government should give away the land in New Zealand ? —I think the Government should fix the value of the land, and it does not matter to us on what system a man takes it up. Unless it suits both sides to alter, the man should stick to it. 290. But would you advocate the Government giving away the land ?—ln some cases it would be cheap to give it away. 291. Where ? —All round Taupo, and even then I do not think you would get it occupied if you gave it away. 292. You think it would be an advantage to the poor man to give him the land ?—Not to put him up there at Taupo. 293. You have come to the conclusion that it is not the place to put a poor man ? —Certainly not, until some big man has planted that land. 294. Do you think a big man will go to that country ?—lt is just a matter of dollars where capital will go. 295. Do you think that it will pay him ? —I quite approve of the present experiment of putting prisoners there. The best way is to plant it. 296. Mr. McCutchan.] Have you any experience of the ballot system ? —None. I live close to a lot of Crown tenants, Block VI., Bgmont, and on that property now there is not one of the original tenants, but many of my neighbours on the freehold are still there. Some of the leasehold land has changed hands three times. 297. Is it still under the original tenure ?—I think so. One section has been made freehold. 298. Are the new men better than the original tenants ? —I do not know. One man who wished to take the transfer was refused it. 299. Was not any reason assigned for that to the tenant himself ?—lt was bought from the original tenant by a man who lives away from the land. He bought so-much of this land from the original tenant and the Board sanctioned that, but they would not sanction its transfer to this man who lived in the neighbourhood, and the reason given was that he was paying too much. I know nothing about the ballot system. 300. You say that something should be done to prevent young men going into the towns ? —No, I say it is a mistake to offer a bonus to people to go into the towns as is done through the Customs by putting 25 per cent, import duty on boots, &c. 301. If you take off these duties do you propose to increase the land-tax to get the revenue which is necessary ? —I am not adverse to Customs taxation, but I would put it on the local article as much as on the imported article. 302. I am afraid you will kill your local industries ?—Possibly, because they are established on false grounds. .303. Do you not think that these industries should be fed for a few years until they are able to stand ? —Not to the extent of ss. in the pound. 304. What tenure did you speak of as being a success ? —I think the occupation with right of purchase. I also think the freehold a success, but to encourage the best men I would give any tenure so long as the land was occupied and improved. 305. Did you discuss any other question besides the freehold with the Farmers' Union ?—They have discussed roads and the tariff, &c. 306. Was anything else discussed for bringing before us to-day ? —Not while I was there. 307. What is?your view of the present constitution of the Land Board ?—I doubt if you could improve on it.
134—C. 4.
r .T. BE OWN.
1066
C—4.
308. You have had no dealing with them yourself ?—None. 309. Have you not discussed the question of the advances to settlers ?—I am seldom at the union meetings as I live a long way away. I have heard it mentioned, but we have not discussed it as a Um °3lo What is your idea of the value of that system ?—Speaking for myself Ido not believe in class legislation, and that is class legislation. It has been a good thing for the Government who had the land to sell that they have been able to lend men the money By getting money cheaper they get a better capital for the land In the case of my land bought from the Crown I paid 10s. an acre for it and now land adjoining has been sold for £1 2s. 6d. an acre, and the man gets it for 4 per cent, under the eternal lease. The Government have doubled their capital, and it has been a good thing for 311. Do you think it has been a good thing for the settler ? —He will have double the capital to 312. Do you know anything about the working of it ? Has it been satisfactorily administered ! —I have heard them say that with the eternal lease the holder cannot get as much as the freeholder can when he wants to borrow. William Holland Davies examined. 313 The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer holding 760 acres under lease in perpetuity and the lease with the right of purchase. I prefer the occupation with right of purchase. lam paying 10s for the lease in perpetuity, asd 12s. 6d. on the capital value per acre. lam satisfied with both systems as long as the Government does not break the contract. lam opposed to revaluation, but it was not mentioned under the tenure I took up, and in those days we thought it was the best system. 314. How do you get on with the Land Board ?—I am quite satisfied with it. I think the present constitution is quite satisfactory. Ido not think we could manage the elective Land Board ; to have that would mean putting the colony to a good deal of expense and trouble, and I think the Government should select men who are capable of giving us fair play. On one point the Land Board are a little bit easy. In the case of my block they have allowed some selectors to take up land and not reside on it, and if the residence was compulsory roads and bridges would be constructed and we should advance quickly. Those people simply make the place a cattle-run. 315. Mr. Paul.] Do you also believe in the present cash system ?—Yes. 316. You would leave the land laws just as they are at present % —To a certain extent. I should adopt the deferred-payment system and the cash system. I think people should have the option of the old tenures. 317. Do you think there is any necessity for the deferred-payment system while you have the occupation with right of purchase ?—The deferred payment in Taranaki seems to have been a very successful system. 318. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office (— Yes. 319. Is it satisfactory ?—Yes, I borrowed from them. 320. Was your land loaded for roads ?—Yes, but lam sorry to say the roads are not made. We have a miserable 6 ft. track at present. The rivers are not bridged, the creeks are not culverted, and the tenants who took it up in the first instance went off it. There are very few of the original tenants there now. lam a second tenant. 321. Can you tell whether the loading has been spent '? —I do not think so. 322. Mr. 'McCutchan.] In respect to the question of residence, you have two properties : are they adjoining ? —Yes. 323. Which section do you reside on ? —On the right of purchase. 324. There is a distinction made in the residence conditions between the occupation with right of purchase and lease in perpetuity. Do you see any reason why that distinction should be made ? 325. Would you advocate the lease-in-perpetuity term being reduced from ten to six years ?— Yes, I would make it the same as the occupation with right of purchase. 326. Have you had any experience of the ballot ? —No. 327. Would it be a beneficial change if all applicants for the ballot were examined by the Commissioners of Crown Lands before being admitted to the ballot ?—Yes. I have seen instances where good men have been shut out by men who were quite unfitted to occupy the land. 328. In the case of sales for cash, would you advocate the same residence and improvements conditions as in the case of leases ?—Yes. 329. Do you think under the present system of " thirds " from lease in perpetuity and occupation with right of purchase and of " fourths " from grazing lands, given to local bodies, the Government should also pay them the " thirds " from cash sales in order to assist their finance ?—Yes. 330. Can you say whether the loading for your block was adequate for the roads ? —I do not know. 331. If the loading had been spent would it have assisted the tenants to continue on their land 1 —Yes. 332. Mr. Anstey.] How many of the settlers have left that settlement ? —The majority. 333. Have the sections been taken up again ?—Yes, it is fully occupied. 334. With regard to the loading, do you think it would be wise to put an additional loading on the land provided the full value was spent ?—I do not think it would be, because we have no administration of that expenditure, and do not know how it would be spent. It would not do to pay an additional rent if we got no roads. 335. Do you think it would be wise that tenants should be represented on the Land Board ?— I trust the powers that be to select people to represent those tenants. 336. Do you think it would be wise that one member of the Land Board should represent the Crown tenants ? —I do.
J. W. FOREMAN.J
1067
C.—4.
John White Foreman examined. 337. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a farmer, farming about 400 acres of freehold and 600 acres of leasehold. lam under the perpetual lease in the case of the Native land I hold from the Public Trustee. I have held some of the freehold for forty years, and the leasehold for a shorter term. I favour only two tenures for the class of land we have at present available—the cash purchase and the other a lease similar to the lease in perpetuity with the right of purchase if the tenant desired it. I do not think the leasehold should be abolished, because it has enabled men with moderate means to get on the land, but I think if they had the right to purchase it would be a great incentive to them and give them a sense of security that they do not at present possess. I should go further, and say they should be allowed the right of purchase by instalments at any time. Nothing should be done to force a man into the position of being a borrower, but he should be allowed to purchase his holding if he wished to from time to time by means of his savings. 338. Do you find the Public Trustee a satisfactory landlord ?—Yes ; although there are certain aspects of his administration that are not satisfactory. When these leases were first offered I was rather taken with them. I thought it was a means of obtaining land without the outlay of any considerable amount of capital, but I do not suppose they are valued to-day as they were ten or twelve years ago, and in fact the tenants would be very glad to exchange them for a freehold. 339. Supposing the same tenure were maintained would those leases be better managed under the Land Board than under the Public Trustee ?—We have nothing to complain of with regard to the conditions that are being imposed by the Public Trustee, excepting perhaps the question of insurance. He insists that the insurance shall be effected in his name, which some hold he has no right to do as the improvements do not belong-to him. Outside that he is a very good landlord. Then the question is vexing them as to what is going to be done with regard to revaluation, and whether, if the rents are assessed on the unimproved value, it will not put a tax on them in the shape of loading that will really confiscate their improvements. 340. Your improvements are not secured to you ?—They are by the terms of the lease, but there is just a doubt as to whether the tenants will benefit to the full extent of them. 341. Supposing a tenant is a little behind with his rent, does the Public Trustee grant an extension of time ?—There has been no need to do that under the leasehold, but I take it that if tenants wanted time to pay their rent it would be given. 342. Mr. Paul.] You are in favour of two systems ? —Yes ; they would meet our wishes. 343. The cash and the lease with right to purchase ?—That is so. 344. I suppose you do not see how a lease with a right of purchase can be given under a capital value of 5 per cent. ? —I have never been able to understand why the lease in perpetuity pays a lower rental than the other unless it was to tempt people to take up the lease. 345. Can you see any advantage there is in offering such inducements I—l cannot see any advantage, unless it is that people knew that there is going to be some revaluation of, or a Fair Rent Bill to deal with, these leaseholds. Otherwise there appears to me to be a loss to the State under that system. 346. Do you imagine that the State has entered into this bargain with ulterior motives ?—I could not say. 347. Do you think there is any possibility of a revaluation being applied to existing leases ?— The thing would be unfair, but the dominant party in New Zealand to-day —the labour party —are instigating legislation in that direction, and I do not remember seeing a single meeting or conference of theirs where revaluation has not been advocated. 348. You know that until the last conference they were not in favour of the revaluation of existing leases, but at the last conference thejr made a pronouncement that leases should be revalued on the death of a lessee or the transfer of a lease. Do you think that is a fair demand ?—I do not. I think it is a most unfair one. 349. Do you not think that if the State compensates their freeholder when it took his land that it should also compensate the leaseholder when it took something from him that he has a right to ?— Yes, undoubtedly. 350. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Personally, no. 351. Do you know whether it has been giving satisfaction in this district ? —The opinion I have formed of it is that on the whole the advances to settlers have been a benefit to the people, and has achieved the object it was brought into existence for. 352. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in this district ?—I think it is rather the other way. 353. Mr. McCutchan.] Your Native land is subject to revaluation at what periods ?—Of twentyone years. 354. There is a valuation twenty-one years subsequently ?—Yes. 355. Practically the old tenure of the land passes away in that time, and if there is to be a correct revaluation of it the valuer should have knowledge of the state in which that land was then originally taken up ? —Yes. 356. Such being the case, is it not very probable that you will suffer very severely under this revaluation clause ?—I think so. 357. Is not there a further objection: are not we creating a system of black landlordism under this system ? —Yes ; and my neighbours, their wives, and their children are working from early morning till late at night in order to pay the rent, while the Native landlord does not do one day's work in a month. 358. As time goes on of course this land will increase in value, and the evil will thereby become accentuated ? —Undoubtedly. I know of lands which were valued ten years ago at about 4s. and 55., and the unimproved value is assessed by the district land valuer to-day at from 7s. to 10s. an acre.
C.—4.
1068
[t. W. POKEMAN.
359. You were asked if you thought there was any reason why the State should place an additional 1 per cent, on the lease-in-perpetuity tenants, and I think you made the statement that the State at 4j>er cent, could not make any profit out of it, but is not this to be taken into consideration ?—My remark to that question was that I could never see why theJ3tate gave the concession of 1 per cent, on the lease in perpetuity as against the occupation with right of purchase. 360. Is not the explanation palpable when you remember the fact that the occupation-witli-right-of-purchase tenants have the right to convert into lease in perpetuity, whereas the lease in perpetuity has not the same right ?—That may have something to do with it. 361. Mr. Anstey.] Can you suggest any remedy for the unsatisfactory lease you have : do you suggest that you should be allowed to acquire the freehold ? —Yes ; to give the present tenants the option of purchase. 362. At what price ? —lt has not been discussed whether they should get it at the capital sum of 5 per cent, or at a price which would be fair to both parties. 363. Is there the same objection to leases of education reserves '( —Yes. 364. Would you allow the tenants of education reserves to acquire the freehold ? —I would not advocate that at present. 365. The Chairman.'] Is there anything you wish to add ? —I was asked to attend here by the Waitara branch of the Farmers' Union, and lam also Chairman of the Clifton County Council. With regard to the conditions of residence on Crown lands, I may say that the lands that are being taken up now and have been taken up for some years past are in rough broken country, which is very difficult to road. In such a case the compulsory-residence condition is rather a cruel one. It means in many cases the taking of a man's wife and family into the back country, where they have only a 6 ft. track for miles which is simply a mud canal during the winter months. The settler has to pay as much to get a doctor in case of illness as he would save in two years. Then there is the question of school accommodation; in the back country there are children growing up absolutely without education of any kind. Therefore I consider where there is no road the residence condition should be relaxed. In the class of country we have here it is an unwise provision. With regard to the practice of loading land for roads, we find that though the lands are so loaded the tenants have no information as to what the amount is, or whether it has been spent on the roads. Such a system is wrong. I have had applications from settlers asking if the Council cannot do something for them in this matter, and I have referred them to the men who could give them the information. I think the system should be altered. Another unfair thing is that when the land is loaded in this way the tenant is charged it in his rent for all time under the lease in perpetuity, but if the land was not loaded before he selected it he would not have to pay that interest for all time, it would be paid off in thirty or forty-two There has been a lot of discussion of late as to the question of the unearned increment. With regard,, to that my contention is that a man who goes into the back blocks and takes up land is fully entitled to any increased value that may take place in his holding beyond the value of his improvements. Another matter is that people have been led to believe by the Lands Department that if they took up sections where there were no roads, and the land was loaded for the roads, that the road would be made, but there are such people in my county who have held their land for eight or ten years and have not got a road yet, leaving them to a continual struggle to live and pay the rent. If some concession is not made to them, or their roads made in the near future, they will have to abandon their holdings, as their condition will be hopeless. With regard to the construction of roads by the Government, my local body has done as much as it could in that matter, but they find the task is beyond their means to construct roads and maintain them too, and unless the State gives more assistance to construct the main roads settlement cannot progress. The difficulty with regard to giving discretionary powers to Land Boards is that pressure is liable to be brought to bear on the Boards to favour certain individuals, and the Boards are placed in an awkward position, as perhaps other men are entitled to the same consideration which they do not get unless they can bring the same influence to bear. 366. You would have a rigid law*on that matter ?—Yes. I think that until there is a fair road to a" holding the residence condition should be held in abeyance. Igo further, and say that the first duty of the State is to put the whole of the waste lands in a condition to be taken up and made productive, and as long as the land is made productive it is a secondary matter whether there is a family living on it or not. 367. You think the loading of sections for roads should be published so that people-would know what was set aside for that road and what was spent ?—Yes. It is a matter of question whether the lands should not be let at the lowest possible prices on condition that the settlers themselves should borrow the money to make the roads. 368. Mr. McCutchan.'] That question is hedged around with difficulties, but the solution is very simple, and that is to road the country before they put the settlers on ? —Yes. 369. Do you not think the Government would be fully justified in raising money for these works and bringing our public works up to the requirements of the colony ? —I entirely agree with that, and the money would be most profitably employed. 370. Mr. Anstey.] Can you give us any instance of hardship owing to these residence conditions being insisted on ? —Yes ; I have a daughter living about seventeen miles from the nearest school, and we are keeping one of her children now in order that it might be sent to a school. £ 371. You think in that case residence ought not to have been insisted on ? —YeS. There is another case of a young man owning a freehold at Marhonui, and who got married on the understanding that his wife should reside in New Plymouth owing to the outlandish place he, lived in. He was married about three years when the wife realised the discomforts of the separation, and went up there to live with him. At present there are families living at Urenui who would send their children to school if the residence conditions were relaxed. I believe the Land Board would man to live away for six months, but the tenants should not be obliged to go to the Land Board to get an extension of absence from their sections.
J. WERE.]
1069
C.-4.
James Were "examined. 372. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and hold 120 acres freehold at Omata. 373. What tenure do you approve of as best for settling the country ? —Freehold. 374. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ? —No. I favour the freehold, and I think the present constitution of Land Boards is satisfactory. ',15. Mr. Anstey.J Have you had any leasehold under the Government ? —Yes ; some years ago 1 had a lease with right of purchase. 376. Was that tenure satisfactory I—Yes.1 —Yes. 377. Have you ever held lease-in-perpetuity land ? —N.o ; and I would not take up land under that tenure. 378. Do you know anything about the system of loading for making roads ?—I have heard a great deal about it, and no one ever seems to know where the money is expended. 379. Do settlers complain that the loading is not expended ?—Yes. George Thomas Murray examined. 380. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am District Engineer, Taranaki. 381. Have you anything to do with the spending of the money on loading blocks ? —Yes. 382. It has been stated in evidence that settlers do not know whether this money is expended or not, and that they have got no roads in many cases for the expenditure ?—lt has all been expended up to the last two years. Since then it has not been all quite expended, but it is being spent. I have a list of the blocks on which loading has been expended, and it shows that the sum of £76,371 has been expended—-that was from 1892 up to 1905. 383. Some settlers say they can get no information about this expenditure ? —That information is all given in the last table attached to the annual report of the Lands and Survey Department. 384. I suppose the serious matter is that the money is not sufficient to make the roads required ? —That is so. 385. Has any estimate ever been made of the amount of money required to form the roads sufficiently ? —Yes ; and for this district it is a very large amount. 386. In addition to the £76,000 for loading, have any grants been made I—On the same blocks, from 1892 to the present time, £50,586 has been expended on fifty-five blocks —that is in addition to the loans to local bodies. There have also been loans raised by the local bodies themselves. 387. Is there any road-metal available in the district ? —That is a great want in Taranaki. There is only burnt papa in many places. 388. How does that do ?—Very well. 389. What is about the cost of it ?—lt costs on an average about 12s. per cubic yard, but during the last two years it has got down to 9s. perjjcubic yard, owing to improved methods of treatment. That is as cheap as shell rock, and it lasts much better. 390. Apparently there is no hope of getting these roads made in a satisfactory way except by the expenditure of an enormous sum of money, which it is beyond the power of the settlers to raise ?— Yes ; besides which it is very difficult country in which to maintain the roads in good order. 391. Mr. Paul.] The general complaint of the settlers is that they take up the land and are promised roads, and do not get them. You are sure that the amount of loading is spent ? —Yes, up to within the last two years. 392. By what system of labour is that money expended ?—ln the early days it was by open contract, but for the last ten years it has been by co-operative contract. 393. Is that satisfactory ? —Yes, for bridle-tracks and for roads very far back, but it is not quite so satisfactory for bridges. 394. Why '? —Where a large plant is required, it is not so satisfactory. 395. In forming these roads are modern appliances used or is the whole of the work done by wheelbarrows and out-of-date methods ? —In the case of bridle-tracks they only require wheelbarrows, but in the case of dray-roads other methods are adopted. 396. Do you think the settlers get the best value for their money under that system ?—Yes. 397. Do you think that the co-operative-labour system is satisfactory ? —For bridle-tracks it is as cheap as any other. 398. Mr. Anstey.] What system is followed in fixing the amount for loading ?—lt is on the value required. 399. It is fixed on the requirements as to the roads ? —No, by the value of the land. 400. Roughly speaking, would the percentage be 25 per cent, on the value of the land ?—lt is usually about 20 per cent, on the value of the land. 401. Do you consider that the loading is sufficient to give the necessary access to the land ?—lt is not sufficient. 402. Do you think it would be wise of the Government to put on a much heavier loading and provide suitable access to the land, charging possibly a somewhat higher price for the land ?—Yes. 403. Do you think that would be better than cheap land with no roads ?—Much better. 404. Why has not the last two years of loading been expended ? —We have not had time to expend it. We are expending the money now at the rate of about £8,000 a year. 405. Do settlers go on the blocks before there are any roads made to them ? —Yes, generally. I think the main roads shoud be put through first. The settlers do most of the work now. 406. But they go on the land first ? —Yes. 407. Is that a better system than doing the roads first ? —lt is a great help to the settlers to be able to assist in making the roads.
C—4.
1070
[G. T. MURRAY.
408. What is your opinion as to the best method of administering the local bodies' funds"; either by one local body or by two ?—I could not answer that. 409. With regard to your own expenditure, would it not be more economical for the local body the money ? —I do not think so. We have been asked by some of the local bodies to expend their " thirds," and I have been doing so. We have the machinery for expending that money, and we can do it more economically than they can. 410. Mr. McCutchan.\ What do you mean by co-operative contracts ?—Contracts are let to men who band themselves together to do a certain piece of work at an estimated price given by the engineer 411. Under such circumstances it is really at the price fixed by the engineer ? —Yes. 412. Do you not think it would be preferable to let the work in small sections and invite tenders ? It can be done, but I think the prices given now are very fair according to the capacity of the man. We pay the men according to the amount of work they do. 413. Is there not a complaint that if the men worked long hours on one piece of work, and thus earned big wages, that the price of the next piece of work is cut down ?—I have heard that said, but there has been no variation in price in this district excepting in bridge work. The wages have been very uniform. As to the loading and the money expended on that account, I think it should be sufficient to give bridle-track access. 414. And then the road is handed over to the local body ?—No, Ido not think so. I think the main roads should be made by the Government before the blocks are opened up. 415. You are of opinion that the roads should be formed before being handed over to the local body ?—Yes. 416. Has it not also been the practice of the Government in the past to metal all the main roads? — Not so far as I know. 417. Is it not the case that a large amount of money is frittered away in maintenance ?—lt would have been cheaper to have formed and metalled straight away one road that has been mentioned (Ohura). 418. Do you not think that no road should be considered a county road until the Government ceases expenditure upon that road and vests it in the local body ? —Yes, it would be more satisfactory if the Act said so. 419. Mr. Anstey.] What point do you think the Government ought to reach before handing over roads to the local bodies ?—Under the present regulation the road must be made at least 10 ft. wide. 420. Can you suggest any way in which these roads can be made ?—They throw open the land too quickly I think. The Government cannot supply the money quick enough to open up these lands and make them fit to live upon. 421. In that case would you suggest going in for a larger loan for the purpose of that system being carried out ? —Yes, or keep back the settlement of the land. Thomas Morsan examined. 422. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and hold 126 acres of freehold. I may say that lam an old deferred-payment settler, and I have come here in support of that system. I farmed a deferred-payment section in this district for twenty-four years. I favour that system, especially for working-men, as it enables them to get along successfully. 423. Is there any point you wish to emphasize? —Yes, I am of opinion that the present constitution of Land Boards should be retained. I may say that I have always been treated fairly by the Land Board. lam in favour of the freehold tenure or the deferred-payment system, which is practically a freehold, or the lease with right of purchase. I would make residence compulsory in the case of both leaseholders and freeholders. As to the homestead privileges, I consider the deferred-payment system preferable. As to the present system of loading for roads, I think we are pretty well unanimous that it does not work satisfactorily. Having been an old back-block settler I know the hardships and inconveniences they suffer. Personally, I would give the settlers the land at the lowest possible price, and allow them the privilege of making their own roads. As to the advances-to-settlers system, I am well inclined towards it, but I think that some slight improvement might be made in its working. For instance, no refund is made to an applicant if he does not get a loan. 424. Mr. Paul.] Do you represent any body of settlers before the Commission to-day in what you say ?—Yes, the Tikirangi and Waitara branches of the union. 425: Were you appointed by resolution ?—Yes. 426. How many members are there in that branch of the Farmers' Union ?—1 think there are between thirty and forty members. 427. Have you any objection to the occupation with right of purchase ? —No, but I think the deferred payment gives a greater incentive to a young man to improve his place and make it his own. 428. Do you object to any system of straight-out leasing ? —There is a feeling of insecurity about it- . . 429. Is it not just as likely that the freehold will be interfered with as the leasehold —that is if the State is disposed to break any contract ?—I do not think it would. 430. Do many freeholders get into the hands of the mortgagee ? —Yes, a fair number, but they get out again. 431. Were many deferred-payment holders in the hands of the mortgagee ?—I do not think there are any who have a mortgage, except when they wish to add to the area of their holdings. 432. Do you not think the system of leasehold is necessary to enable the poor man to get on the land on advantageous terms ?—I think the poor man will get on the land just as well one way as the other. 433. Is it not easier for a man to pay his rent under lease in perpetuity than to get the freehold, because in the former case the price of the land is not paid ? —The actual cash needed when the settler starts is less, but I maintain that the man who has a freehold makes the best settler.
T. MORGAN.]
1071
C.—4.
434. Is there anything in the conditions of the 999-years lease which prevents a man farming his land to the best advantage ? —Leaseholders say that they do not feel in the same position as if they were freeholders. They have a feeling that something might happen which they cannot foretell. 435. Is there any aggregation of large estates going on in this district ? —No. 436. Mr. Anstey.] You said you would be in favour of doing away with loading and of letting the settlers make their own roads ?—Yes. 437. Where do you propose that they should get the money from to make the roads ?—They would have to borrow it from the Government, as at present, but they would have to see that it was advantageously expended. 438. If they borrowed the money and paid the interest on it they would have just the same amount of loading on the land except that they would have something to say in the expenditure ?—Yes. 439. Do you think that settlers on a newly opened block of land would have the means of expending the money better than the Government ?—Yes, I think so. 440. Supposing only half the sections in a new block were taken up, what would be the position then ? —I am only referring to the main roads. 441. How are you going to put the main roads in ? —lt must be done by the Government. 442. Is that all you would expect the Government to do—the main roads ? —Yes, and I think the settlers would do the rest of the work if they could get the money to do it with. Henry Waite examined. 443. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and hold 264 acres lease in perpetuity at Tarapa, and I have been on that section for six years. My rent is 15s. per acre, capital value. 444. Are you satisfied with your land under that tenure ? —I am not satisfied with that tenure ; I prefer the occupation with right of purchase. 445. When you took up your land had you any choice ?—Yes, at that time I preferred the lease in perpetuity. 446. Who has altered your opinion on the matter ? —The main point is that you cannot finance nder the lease in perpetuity like you can in the case of the freehold and occupation with right of purchase. 447. Is there any other point you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I prefer the old perpetual tse. According to my observation in this district, the deferred-payment system is before any other. All the small holders at Inglewood are perpetual leaseholders —at any rate the majority of them. T may say that 1 represent the Tarata settlers. We held a public meeting, and there were twenty-five settlers present. 448. Are they mostly under lease in perpetuity ? —No, I think they mostly have the right of purchase. 449. So that in advocating this system they are only advocating it for the general good of the country ?—Yes. 450. Have you had any dealings with the Land Board ?—I think the Land Board as at present constituted is very satisfactory. 451. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Yes. 452. Has it been satisfactory ? —Yes. 453. As regards the opening up of new blocks, what do you think should be done in the way of giving access to the land ?—I should strongly advocate that a 6 ft. track should be made by the Government before the block is thrown open, and that the cost should be put on the price of the land. I think that the feeling of the settlers in the bush blocks is that they would willingly pay the increased amount instead of having to rely on promises, when those promises are frequently not fulfilled. 454. Mr. Paul.] Do you prefer the perpetual lease to the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 455. Why ? —lt is much easier to finance. . 456. Is that because it contained a freehold clause ? —Yes. ■457. Why do you prefer that ? —Because under it a settler can pay for his home in small instalments, and he is more assured of it than he is under a perpetual lease. 458. You are a straight-out advocate of a system with an option of purchase ?—I am. 459. Have you tried to finance this holding of yours ?—No. 460. Then the only objection you have against the leasehold does not apply to you personally ?— No, but from what T have heard from others who have tried, I am sure I would be in the same position that they have been. 461. You expect to get as much in the way of advance on reasonable terms on a leasehold as you do on a freehold ?—No. 462. You recognise that you cannot reasonably expect that ? —No. 463. Where does the disadvantage come in ?—Do not you get an advance in proportion to the amount it costs in the case of a leasehold ?—No, I think that anybody lending money would fight shy of a perpetual lease altogether. It is not my experience, because I have not tried, but it is with others. 464. You mean to say that it is impossible to get a loan on a lease in perpetuity ? —I do not say it is, but it is very unlikely. 465. Is there anything in your conditions of lease which interferes with your using that land to the best advantage ? —No. 466. Mr. McCutchan.] In respect to the perpetual lease as a security, you are of opinion that it is almost impossible to get money on 'that security ? —ln perpetuity. 467. Is it not the case that the Government office, where formerly they only advanced 50 per cent., are now advancing up to 50 per cent, on the goodwill as well ?—I do not know. 468. Would that go to prove that it is a better security than formerly in the opinion of the Government ?—Yes.
a—4.
1072
Ph. watte.
469. You advocate the deferred-payment system inasmuch as a man acquired the freehold by easy payments: you would extend the term so as to make the payments as light as possible ? —I should give them every possible advantage that I gave to any Crown land occupier. 470. Do you think if the term were extended from ten to twenty years it would be a preferable tenure to the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure ? —I think it would be. 471. If the occupation with right of purchase were amended in the direction of allowing a man to pay in his savings from time to time, and of so reducing his capital value and of proportionately reducing his rental, would not that overcome your objections ?—I think it would bring it to one and the same thing as the perpetual lease. 472. Of course, with the occupation with right of purchase, you have the right to pay off the land in the bulk sum, but the amendment I suggest to you is that the State should take the capital value by instalments and reduce the rent accordingly. Would you consider the tenure then as good as the deferred-payment tenure ? —Yes. Frederick John Virgin examined. 473. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer farming 982 acres of freehold at Tarata. I have held part of it for twelve or thirteen years. It is all bush land, originally obtained from the Government. All excepting 50 acres are cleared and in grass. The grass is holding very well. 474. Is there any matter you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I have come here as representative of the Tarata branch of th» Farmers' Union, which has had as many as fifty members. They passed a resolution in favour of the freehold, and that the option should be given to leaseholders to acquire the freehold, with a restriction as to the aggregation of large estates. Some of the members are leaseholders, but principally freeholders; but those who are leaseholders would like the option of getting the freehold. They say there is a difficulty in financing the leaseholds as the banks would not do business so readily with them as with those who have the right of purchase. They are dairying in my district and there is a dairy-factory there, but I am grazing myself. 475. Mr. Paul.] You think the main objection to the lease in perpetuity is the difficulty in financing 2—Yes. At present the feeling of insecurity is so great that the banks will not advance money so freely on that lease. 476. If they get the option of the freehold you think the banks would lend money ?—Yes, I know they would. 477. How do you think the average tenant would come out under that system if he started to acquire the freehold whilst in the hands of the banks ? —I think a man with fair education and business ability would come out all right. 478. You think that is a good system ?—Yes. 479. And if the option is given, is that the means by which the majority of the tenants would acquire the freehold ? —Some would do it under the advances to settlers. 480. Do you think the settlers are not in such a good position that they can acquire the freehold out of their own money at the present time ? —Not the majority. 481. Therefore the freeholds which would be purchased if the option is given would be all borrowed money ? —To a great extent. 482. Mr. McCutchan.] You think the lease in perpetuity is a poor security ?—Yes, it appears to be. 483. In view of the agitation of the trades and labour unions of the colony, do you think it would be a negotiable security in the future ? —lt appears to be growing less. It is owing to this agitation of the Trades and Labour Council that security has been destroyed. People are afraid that the time will come when there will be revaluation which will take away the value of their property. 484. Do you think this agitation will be fatal to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—I do not think settlers will be prepared to go on to the lands of the colony under that system in future in view of that agitation. 485. Mr. Anstey.] You say your union has had up to fifty members : what is the membership now 2—l cannot say. It is slightly under that of last year. 486. Have you discussed the question of the freehold ? —Yes. 487. And you decided to favour the freehold ?—Yes. 488. Did you discuss any other question ? —Yes. With regard to the constitution of Land Boards we were unanimous that as regards Taranaki the present system has been satisfactory. 489. Did you discuss the advances-to-settlers system ?—Yes. My experience of it was satisfactory as far as it went, and I think the settlers generally are of that opinion. 490. Did you discuss the ballot system ? —Yes. We thought the ballot system could not be improved on much, but we thought that the Land Boards should have discretionary power in cases where men had been applying for the land at the ballot for several years and had been unsuccessful. I know of cases where a man and his wife had been applying five and six times. They would have made very desirable settlers, but have had no luck in getting a section through the ballot. I think in cases where it was shown that a man was a desirable settler and wished to get the land that the Board should have discretionary power to grant that man some land. The man I speak of is one with small means and only wants a small piece of pretty good land, and, of course, it is useless for him to apply for the best section, and he has not sufficient capital to take up any of the large second-class sections which are often available after the best of the land has been alloted when a block is first opened up for selection. 491. Are there many leasehold members in your union ? —I know of only four. 492. Are there many leaseholders in your neighbourhood ?—Not many. 493. Are there any holding lease in perpetuity ? —I know of four.
F. .T. VIRGIN."]
1073
a—4
494. Is there anything in their lease to prevent them developing their farms to their full extent ? —Only this feeling of insecurity. 495. Do leaseholders improve and farm their farms as well as the freeholders ?—No. The leaseholds I know of have changed hands two or three times. They are leases in perpetuity. 496. Does your union propose to give the right of purchase of all leaseholds ?—Yes. 497. Including the leaseholds under the Land for Settlements Act ? —We have no experience of that Act in our district, so we did not discuss it. 498. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to the ballot, would you give the Commissioners of Crown Lands the power to examine all applicants for land in order to reject the undesirable applicant ? —Yes. 499 Would you give a married man any preference over a single man ?—Yes. 500. And unsuccessful applicants at previous ballots the preference ?—Yes. 501. The Chairman ] Is there anything you wish to add ?—As regards this loading for roads it seems desirable when land is opened up that the main road should be put through as well as a 6 ft. track made, so that the men could see their sections. I think the cost of that should be put on the land, but as it is done now the loading is put on in the first place and you have to wait for years before the road is made. I would not object to the loading if the road was made first. Some witnesses to-day advocated a larger amount of loading. I think it would be better to do it by way of loans. On the Motukawa Road, where I live, there was 6s. 6d. an acre put on that land by way of loading and the money spent by co-operative work ; but I think it would have been better expended under the local bodies. The settlers would be able to earn some of that money spent on making the roads, and it would help a poor man taking up new land. Under this system of loading land, which is rented at 17s. 6d. an acre with 6s. 6d. for roading, we have to pay interest on it in perpetuity, whereas if we had the loans we could pay the loan off in twenty-six years at 5 per cent. I think we are losers to that extent in having to pay the interest for all time instead of wiping it off in twenty-six years. 502. Mr. McCutchan.'] You advocate the Government putting in the main roads and the settlers making the by-roads ? —Yes. 503. I suppose you are aware that the Government under such a system would make a very substantial profit out of the land ? —Yes. 504. Do you not think, under a system of borrowing for reproductive public works, that is too much of a tax to place on the settler to road the country seeing that that road was a colonial work ?—I say the land should be let at a cheaper rate if the roads are not made. 505. I suppose you know that numbers of these Native blocks have been acquired very cheaply by the Government ? —I cannot say as to that. 506. Draw a contrast between the railways and roads —the State puts in railways, and why should not the State put in all roads ?—That is rather a large question, but the country has to pay for it in whatever form you put it. 507. Does not every part of the colony benefit by it ? —Under the present system of the Government putting in roads they simply add it to the value of the land,[so that it amounts to the same thing if we raise'the loans ourselves. & ' David Herlihy examined. 508.f The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer holding 290 acres under the freehold tenure at Kaimati, twenty miles from New Plymouth. I have been two years there and farming previously for sixteen years. My land was bush land, but is now mostly cleared. 509. What tenure do you think best for the country and the settler ? —The perpetual lease, the deferred payment and cash right of purchase. 510. Do you know anything about this lease in perpetuity ? —I have had nothing to do with it. 511. Do you dairy on your farm ?—Yes, we supply the creameries. We have very good roads, but we have paid for them ourselves and are not under any obligation to the powers that be for them. We got no grants that I know of. We pay 3s. an acre for rates. I represent the Kaimata branch of the Farmers' Union, and we advocate the freehold or the right of purchase. 512. Mr. Anstey.] How manv members are there in your branch ?—About thirty-five. j : George Bocock examined. 513. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer with 99 acres. I am under the deferredpayment system, and previous to that the perpetual lease. I favour the freehold. I have been seventeen years on this land at Kaimata. lam dairying ; I live on the main road ; my rates are fairly high. When I say it was previously under the perpetual lease I mean that one side of the road was deferred-payment and the other side was perpetual lease. But we got no chance. The man with small means would not be able to do much on such an area, but, as the sections on one side were larger than on the other, I took it all up on perpetual lease, and after some years I paid an extra 25 per cent, to have it on the deferred payment. I converted the lease in order that I might have a place of my own when I was old and could not work, and should not have to go on charitable aid. That sort of thing I saw a good lot of in the Old Country: small tenants, principally from Ireland, had to go to England in harvest time to earn money to help to pay the rent, and I do not want to be placed in that position here. I strongly object to landlords, Neither State or private individuals. I would make it illegal for any man to hold beyond a certain amount of land, Neither freehold or lease, in order to give every hardworking honest man a chance to make, a home for himself. I would leave Land Boards as'they are as lam perfectly satisfied with the treatment I have received from the Board. Ido not think an elective Land Board would be an improvement on the present system, and that seems to be the feeling of the Kaimata branch. The feeling I have indicated is also their opinion in regard to the deferred-payment system. In that locality practically the whole of the perpetual leaseholders have either converted to
185—C. 4.
C—4.
1074
[ft. BOCOCK.
the deferred-payment system or bought the land out; and having borrowed the money they saw their way clear to repay it back, and now they are the flower of the country. 514. Mr. Paul.] Do you recognise the system of State ownership of land to be an improvement on Irish landlordism ? —I prefer the Irish system. 515. Mr. McCutchan.] Following up the parallel between land legislation in New Zealand and in Ireland, is it not the case that the British Government are acquiring properties in Ireland at the present time by purchase in order to make the tenants of those estates the freeholders ? —I believe that is the case, and it is also being sold on the deferred-payment system. 516. Do you think it would be wise to do the same thing in this colony ?—ln the the colony, and of all classes, decidedly it would be. 517. With regard to your advocacy of the deferred-payment system, was it not the fact that under the deferred-payment the settlers found the greatest difficulty in keeping the instalments paid up ? — If you set a man to do a certain thing he will put his best foot forward to do it if he has his own strength. 518. Do you not think if the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system were amended in the lirection of allowing the leaseholder to put in his savings from time to time, and thus reduce the capital value and rent proportionately, that that system would be preferable to the deferred-payment system under which 25 per cent, is placed on the capital value of land ? —lf he could pay his principle off in instalments when he had the cash it would be certainly preferable. 519. You advocate the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system being amended in that direction ? —Yes ; because that would be an improvement on the deferred-payment system. Charles Tait examined. 520. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I hold 612 acres under the freehold at Manaia, and have held some of it for over twenty years. I took up four sections for cash and one on deferred payment in the days of the freehold. I haye improved it and the holders are dairying on it. 521. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I maintain that any man who is a true man ought to have a freehold section by means of the deferred-payment system. He is more independent. The Manaia country has been settled through it, and it is now the best district in New Zealand. All the settlers are doing fairly well there. Where my land is the roads are very good; lam on the Manaia Road. 522. How did you get on with the Land Board ? —I was not under them. I think the constitution of the Land Board is fairly satisfactory. 523. Is there any aggregation of farms going on in the Waimate Plains ? —Yes. 524. Much buying of one another out ? —Some, but not much. 525. What is the largest farm there ?—I do not know. A Mr. Glenn is the largest holder there now. 526. Mr. Anstey.] You say you are in favour of the freehold ?—Yes. 527. Do you think that tenants ought to have the right to acquire the freehold ? —Yes. 528. You have had some tenants on your own land ? —Yes. 529. Did you give your tenants the right to acquire the freehold ?— No. 530. You do not think they ought to have that right ?— No. Harold Trimble examined. 531. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer and also the Chairman of the Moa Road Board. I farm about 300 acres under the freehold tenure, and have been farming about twenty-six years here. I believe in the freehold. Nearly all the land round about where I live was taken under the deferred-payment system, which was a good system. It is not the law now, but it enabled those people to acquire the freehold. My land was bush, but it is clear now. I live on the main road, so that I am all right, but as to the roading generally I wish to say that in the back parts of the country the roads are fairly good on the whole, because the settlers have borrowed money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act to construct them. We have borrowed about £25,000 altogether in that district, but there are many out-of-the-way parts where the roads are very bad, and there seems to be great difficulty in getting them made, because they were never made properly to begin with. They were not bridged, and the settlers in the back blocks have not the same chance of raising loans as they are always outvoted by those in front of them. In addition to that there are places where the roads were laid off very badly in the first instance. One place is about four miles from Inglewood, and only one man lives on the bad part of the road. The road is fairly good up to this land, but he is prevented having a good road because he cannot raise a loan by himself to make it. Unless the Government provide a grant to improve it Ido not see how he can ever get a road. The country is all taken up ; it is hilly country, but he is the only one in this really bad position. With regard to the overlapping of Road Boards and County Councils I think one or the other ought to be abolished as there is no necessity to have two local bodies exercising the same jurisdiction over the same country. Ido not favour very large counties because of the difficulty of administration, but I think the present Road Boards are rather too small. One or the other ought to go, and the counties, or whatever you call them afterwards,' should not be too large. My district is in the Taranaki County. 532. Could one Council work the whole of the Taranaki County without Road Boards at all ? —I think it would be better with more than one county. You want to retain the community of interest, and you would not'be able to do it if you kept the whole of the Taranaki County in one. You want smaller counties larger than the Road Boards at present so as to keep community of interest as'much as possible.
H. TKijVIBLE.j
1075
a—4.
McCutchan.] How many Road Boards are there in your county ? —Twenty-two, and I suppose they must have separate staffs of engineers and other officers. 534. Does not that absorb a large portion of the revenue ? —I thinklit must do. There are some down here who have only one road to look after. 535. You advocated the abolition of Road Boards ?—Yes. 536. How do you insure your finance under the County Council ? —We have very large ratingpower now. 537. Do you not think the subsidies should be proportionate to the rates ? —Yes. A pound-for-pound subsidy would give them ample for finance. 538. If all grants were abolished and a pound-for-pound subsidy given by the Government, not only upon the general rates and special rates, but on the special rates for loans, would not that supply sufficient finance to the local bodies ? —I think we should have too much. There would be more than there would be any absolute necessity to spend. 539. Supposing there was a pound-for-pound subsidy and you required £2,000 a year, you would levy your £1,000 in rates and get a subsidy for the balance ?—We levied more than that in special rates, but I think the subsidy would be more than is necessary. 540. You would make it 10s. in the pound ?—I think that would be ample. 541. Do you not think the Government should give a special subsidy on the rates for new districts ? —Yes, but I think the land must bear the cost of the roads. 542. That would be sound policy if we ceased borrowing, but while we continue borrowing for public works surely they are entitled to some portion of the money, seeing that they are also helping to pay the interest ? —Yes, if the subsidy is used for new works, but not if it is used for ordinary maintenance. William Hale examined. 543. The Chairman.] What are you ? —A farmer holding nearly 300 acres, partly freehold, and partly leasehold from the Education Commissioners. One of my leases has nearly expired and the other has twenty-one years to run. They were for thirty years and twenty-one years. My terms and conditions are satisfactory. I have it with compensation at the end of the term, and lam rated for improvements up to £4 an acre with the right of renewal. At the end of the term the question of the rent goes to arbitration before renewal, each appointing an assessor. 544. What do you think is the best tenure for the country and the settler ?—The freehold. I have been in New Zealand forty-two years. I represent the Lower Bgmont branch of the Farmers' Union, and they sent me here to advocate the freehold ; they are unanimously in favour of it. There are between thirty and forty in our union. There are some leaseholders like myself holding land from the School Commissioners and Maori leaseholders, but in the case of Maori lands there is no compensation at the end of the term. I pay for one piece 4s. an acre, and for another lid. an acre, but the latter was all swamp when I took it up. 545. Mr. Paul.] Are the conditions of this education lease satisfactory?— Very satisfactory, indeed. 546. Do you think a system for the Crown lands with similar conditions should be inaugurated ? —I think it would be an advantage to people with small means. If they were treated as well as we are treated by the Commissioners they would have no cause to grumble. 547. Mr. McCutchan.] You have a revaluation clause in your lease ?—Yes. 548. At the end of what term ? —Twenty-one and thirty years. 549. Do you think your lease a better lease than the 999-years lease without revaluation ?— I do not know, not having had any experience of it. 550. You were asked a question, if you thought it was a satisfactory form of lease : would you consider it as satisfactory if you had had a lease for a long term without a revaluation clause ?—-For a long term I should prefer the lease in perpetuity if there was no revaluation. 551. Mr. Anstey.] You say you favour the freehold for all Crown lands ? —Yes. 552. Why that particularly % —I should say give the leasehold as well, but not make a hard-and-fast rule to sell all land as freehold. If a man wanted to take up land I think he should have the right of purchase. 553. Do you think you ought to have a right of purchase of this education lease ?—lt would be all the better if we had it. 554. Do you think you have any right to get it ?—I do not think so with the agreement we have. 555. Do you think the leaseholders of the Crown have any right to it after they have entered into the lease %—I do not think so. Having made the bargain, I think they ought to stick to it. Chotwill Billing examined. 556. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 400 acres under the lease in perpetuity and occupation with right of purchase. lam satisfied with my tenures, but would rather have the occupation with right of purchase than the lease in perpetuity. I have held the occupation with right of purchase for about four years, and the lease in perpetuity only a few months. I had to take the lease in perpetuity to get access to the block. My farm is about ten or eleven miles from here, on the Upper Carrington Road, and is still mostly bush land. We have no roads, and that is what we complain about. There is a bad river to cross, and when I took up the land I had no idea the fresh would rise as high as it does. It is a dangerous stream. 557. Is there any chance of getting a bridge across ? —I have tried to get one, but have been unsuccessful.
C.—4.
1076
[C. BILLING.
558. Are there any road-operations going on in your district ?—No. 559. What is your opinion with respect to the constitution of Land Boards ?—I am quite satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Board. 560. Mr. Paul.] Did you have the option of taking your lease-in-perpetuity holding up under any other tenure ?—No, I took it over from another man. He found he could not make a living there, and I shall be in the same predicament if I cannot get a bridge. 561. Is there anything in the conditions of your lease that prevents you farming your land to the best advantage ?—lf you want to sell out you will hardly get the value of your improvements for the lease in perpetuity. 562. Mr. McCutchan.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ? —No. 563. Mr. Anstey.] Do you advocate having the right of purchase in connection with your lease in perpetuity ? —Yes. 564. Do you think you have any claim to that right ? —No, Ido not say that I have. I think that it is only right I should adhere to my agreement, but we know that the Government alters such things, and if an alteration is to the advantage of both parties, surely it would be better to make the alteration. 565. With regard to the loading on the land, do you think it would be wise to put on a larger loading, providing the money was economically spent and the necessary access was given to the land ?—I thinkthat access should be given to the land before it is thrown open and then loading put on, because if it is put on before selection we are paying rent on this loading and there is nothing done for it. 566. It has been pointed outlhat the making of these roads is an advantage to the settlers ? —Yes, it is in one way. 567. You think it would be wise to put a little more loading on the land and make better roads ? —Yes. William Thomas Jennings examined. 568. The Chairman.] What are you ?—ln the early days my family were farming, latterly I have been employed at printing, and at the present time I am a settler and a member of the House of Representatives. lam interested in a partly improved farm in the Auckland Provincial District, and I have freehold land here. 569. What tenure do you favour ? —I believe in the restricted area of freehold, but I would retain the present three optional systems. If you will permit me I would like to make a general statement in respect to one or two points affecting the settlement of the land, the advances-to-settlers system, &c. I have a very extensive electorate to go through. It extends into three provincial districts— Auckland, Wellington, and Taranaki. I find on conferring with the settlers that there has been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in connection with the advances-to-settlers system, so much so, that last session I moved for a return in the House of Representatives, and a return was furnished, showing that there had been about 760 refusals to settlers that had applied for loans since the inauguration of the office. These refusals had been to settlers holding under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. There is another cause of dissatisfaction freely expressed by the settlers. They say that when they apply for a loan, although a valuation had been made for some time previous to the application, they have to pay the extra guinea or two guineas, as the case may be, for a fresh valuation. In regard to the loading of land for roading and accrued " thirds," that has been a source of discontent amongst the settlers in my electorate. I heard the District Road Engineer give the figures to-day; but still there is a feeling amongst the settlers that they cannot get sufficiently clear information as to what becomes of the loading-money and also of the " thirds." Let me give a case in point. A settler on the Piko Road came into town some twelve or fifteen months ago, and asked me to get information about his " thirds." I took him up to the then Commissioner (Mr. Mackenzie) and I asked him what was the position of the " thirds." We were told the amount. I may say that that settler has since been told by the Clifton County Council—the body that has jurisdiction over his road—that there is nothing equal to that amount told him standing to the credit of that road. That is typical of a good many other cases. In reference to ( lam in favour of the present system of nomination. An elective system would be too expensive, particularly in widely scattered districts such as some parts of Taranaki, Wellington, and Auckland Provincial Districts ; but I think the Crown tenants should certainly have a representative on the Land Board. Heretofore they have been to some extent debarred from that. Another disadvantage in respect to Crown Land Boards is this : For instance, Taumarunui is in the Auckland District, the other side of the river is in the Wellington Land District. One of the settlers there, at Manunui, who has been for two years in the district, informed me that he had made an application nearly two years ago to the Wellington Land Board in respect to the opening-up of land at a place called Mamanui, near Piriaka. I brought the matter under the notice of the Wellington Land Board, and also under the notice of the Minister of Lands. That matter has been before the various authorities for the last two years. This particular settler, who wished to build a house for his family and further improve the place, has written to me stating that the settlement of the question is as far off as ever, and he was now disheartened at the delay, and would throw up the sponge. This settler lives very far away from the Wellington Land Board, and it would be very expensive for him to come down to Wellington to represent matters. I think there should be some central authority at Te Kuiti capable of dealing with questions affecting land in that district, as well as in the Auckland and Taranaki Districts. For settlers to come down here would mean that they would have to go to Auckland, thence here, and on to Wellington. That would mean an expense to them of nearly £20 if they wish to represent matters to the Commissioners or Boards. I think that difficulty might be very easily settled if some central authority were stationed at Te Kuiti to deal with questions affecting would-be settlers. There is one other matter
W. T. JENNINGS.]
1077
C.-4.
which I wish very strongly to bring before the Commission. Ido not know whether it comes within your order of reference, but it has reference to a regulation as to carrying goods on roads under Government control. Up to the beginning of this year there was in force a regulation from the Roads Department to the effect that settlers could not cart the absolute necessaries of life—that is, a storekeeper could not send them over certain roads. This is a very grave question to many in outlying districts where there are no local authorities. Let me mention a case in point. In December last the weather was very bad for over a month, and the steamer could not get out from the Waitara to the Mokau River. The road also to the back blocks in the district were absolutely impassable, particularly over Mount Messenger. The mail-coach could not get through. The result was that the settlers were absolutely in the position of wanting provisions, and when the steamer got in to Mokau the storekeeper took some of the provisions to the settlers along the route. The result was the driver of the vehicle was summoned to appear before the Court at Hamilton, nearly a hundred miles away from Mokau. That appeared to me to be a most undesirable state of affairs, and I brought the matter under the notice of the Premier and the Minister for Public Works. The result was that the regulation has been relaxed in so far as what are called " necessaries of life " can now be carried. Only yesterday I received the following letter from a settler at Mangapapa, in the Matiere district:— " Matiere, Ohura, 19/5/05. " Dear Sib, —I am not in the habit of making complaints, and have never laid a complaint before any authorities up to the present time, but I think I have just cause for bringing under your notice a case in which lam directly interested at the present time. lam a settler in the above district, and my wife obtained our section at the ballot of last March twelvemonth. I felled some scrub during last winter, and have since burnt and sowed somewhere about 30 acres. I and my wife arrived here in the early summer, intending to build a house and reside on the section. As there is no timber available on the section for building, I went to the sawmill at Matiere, about four and a half or five miles distant, and bought my timber. I have repeatedly tried to get a bullock-driver to cart this timber, but the only answer I could get was that as soon as two culverts were in my timber would be brought out. Sir, would you believe that the places for those two small culverts were cut out during last winter. That is a fact, and yet, in spite of urgent representations, no action has been taken in regard to those culverts until last Monday week, the Bth instant, when a man was sent up to put them in. An excuse was made that there was no one in the district who could put them in, but I know of at least two men who could do it and would have done it any time during the last three months. I have been waiting all this time for timber, and now that the culverts are almost finished (they will be completed on Monday next) comes the news that the Government overseer has issued orders that no bullocks shall travel on this particular road until next summer. How, then, am Ito get my timber in ? How am Ito do any improvements on the section ? I want to build a house, I want to fall a lot of bush, besides other improvements, but how am Itodo it ? I cannot condemn my wife to live in a tent during the whole winter, and she will not live away from me, so unless I get my timber I suppose I shall have to leave the section to itself for twelve months or so, minus the improvements. Why should I have to wait twelve months before I can build my house ?" " W. T. Jennings, Esq." Those two instances are typical of other cases; and they show the very grave disadvantages under which the settlers in the back blocks are placed at the present time. I wrote back to that settler saying that if I were his wife I would apply for a divorce if he did not get the timber, and I would put up the house in spite of the regulations. Those are typical cases of the troubles of settlers in regard to roading. In respect to the " thirds" and loading for roads, most settlers are placed in such a position that they cannot really ascertain how these moneys are expended. 570. Mr. Paid.] I take it that the settlers desire some method by which they can find out just how the matter of loading stands ? —Yes; the Chairman of the Clifton County Council has given evidence here to-day. That county extends right away to Ohura, but owing to the peculiar configuration o'f Taranaki it is impossible for settlers in the Ohura, who are paying their rates to the Clifton County Council, to come here except by going to Auckland and then coming down by steamer, or by coming down from Te Kuiti through the Mokau or through the East Road. These settlers in the Ohura have represented to me that they are suffering under a great disadvantage, for if a settler wants to get information about his rates, " thirds," or loading, or to make representations to the Land Board or County Council, he has to come down here, and that involves a large expenditure. If a settler writes to me, asking for some information, and I send the letter on to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, I cannot get a direct answer owing to some Government regulation, and that letter has to go to Wellington. It then has to come back here, when I get a reply. It sometimes means a delay of two months before I get a reply. 571. I understand that the settlers in the Taranaki Provincial District do rate themselves very heavily for loans for roads ? —ln some cases there are special rates on some roads up to a second and a third special rate. I might mention one case, the Stanley Road, in regard to which the settlers are paying three special rates at the present time, in addition to the general rate. 572. Then, the question of roads is as important as the tenure question ? —To a very great extent; and in many cases it is more so. 573. From your experience, can you say if the settlers can do any more towards providing themselves with roads, or must the State come to their assistance ?—The State should come to their assistance. The roads are as necessary as railways, and the greater the output of products, owing to good roads, the better it is for the colony as a whole. 574. The settlers have done their best, and now you think the State should assist them ?—Yes, decidedly. It is impossible for the settlers to continue in some parts of my electorate under present conditions.
C.—4.
1078
[W. T. JENNINGS.
575. You think the colony would be justified in going in for a large borrowing policy to do this ?— As far as I am concerned, my vote will readily go in the direction of increased expenditure for roads, bridges, &c. —for borrowing in order facilities and advantages to the back-block settlers. 576. It is generally argued that if£the colony goes in for a large public-works policy it attracts a surplus population from other countries, and it may lead to depression ?—I was born in New Zealand, and I have seen that occur on several occasions. I was in the South Island when the public-works policy was inaugurated in 1872-73, and I know there was a great influx of people to this colony, which did cause temporary disadvantages. 577. Do you think that could be obviated in any way by applying the policy gradually. I understand that the settlers want the roads as quickly as possible I—l1 —I think that gradual expenditure would meet the case, without attracting to this colony large numbers of people who have no intention of settling here. 578. Is it a fact, as stated here to-day, that the method of constructing some of these roads leads to a large amount of money being wasted ? —Sometimes roads are constructed up to where settlers live, and then other settlers go further back into the country and they naturally complain of want of road-communication. Road-construction follows settlement instead of preceding it. 579. Do you think the authorities have done their best under the circumstances ?—Yes, I think so, in many cases ; for it is a difficult matter in bush and swamp country. 580. Mr. Anstey.] You said there were 760 refusals by the Advances to Settlers Office ?• —Yes ; about that number. 581. How many advances were granted ?—I cannot say from memory. I generally sympathize with the man who is refused an advance —not with the man who is successful. 582. Do you not think that some of the land districts are too large ?—Yes, decidedly. 583. Would it not be wise to reduce the area of some of the land districts ?—Yes ; they are unworkable in some instances, and will be so for some years, until improved roading and railway facilities are given. 584. Would that not be the best way out of the difficulty, rather than to increase the size of the Land Boards or to have agencies ? —I may perhaps be unfortunate in my district; but, as I have pointed out, my constituents in some places have to deal with Land Boards, in one instance over two hundred miles away, and difficult of access. How would it help the people at Manunui, Taumarunui, and Pukerimu, nearly two hundred miles from Wellington ? While these troubles exist I think that some temporary means should be provided to meet the difficulty. I think there should be an officer or some central authority at Te Kuiti to whom the settler might pay his money or ascertain particulars of any matter, instead of having to write to Wellington or come here. 585. Would it be wise to appoint a Sub-Commissioner of Crown Lands there ? —Yes, in my opinion. To illustrate further what I mean about difficulties of those away back from central places : if a child is bom at some of these out-of-the-way places, unless the father registers the birth at Hamilton, 110 miles away, he is subject to the usual fine. Some of these settlers were summoned for not registering the births of their children within the specified time, and I brought the matter under the notice of the Government, and they have since authorised Postmasters or policemen to take a tentative registration. I simply mention this as showing some of the disadvantages the settlers labour under in the back blocks. Samuel Hill examined. 586. The Chairman.] What are you '( —District Valuer for a portion of the Taranaki Provincial District. I have occupied that position for eight years. 587. Can you say whether the district is really going on steadily or not ?—ln my opinion, it has increased with wonderful leaps and bounds. I have been in Taranaki from boyhood and know the district well. 588. Within how many years has this increased rate of progress taken place ?—Within the last ten ye&rs. 589. It is due, I presume, largely to the dairy industry ? —Yes. It is due, in the first place, settlement of the Native difficulty, and then I think it has been due also—and principally due—to the cheapening of money. I think the cheapening of money has been the greatest factor. 590. I suppose you have to do with applications for loans ?—I value land for the Advances to Settlers Office, the Public Trust Office, and the Government Insurance Department. I see by a speech made recently by the Hon. Mr. Mills that, in round numbers, over £800,000 has been lent in the Provincial District of Taranaki—that is, from the Advances to Settlers Department alone. I think this provincial district in that respect stands fourth in the colony. Since I have been a valuer for eight years I have never been called upon to hunt up any one for arrears of his interest. 591. We were told by Mr. Jennings that there have been seven hundred refusals I—l1 —I suppose that was for the whole colony and included a number of years. 592. How many applications have been granted ?—I could not say ; but I believe—according to Hon. Mr. Mills —the total amount lent has been over £5,000,000 sterling. At the start of this system the authorities thought they were not going to get the money out quickly enough, and so they allowed persons to borrow up to a very large sum —£3,000. That was a great mistake ; but latterly the Department has altered that rule and very considerably reduced the amount they are prepared to lend up to. Now it is proposed to allow lessees something on their interest in their property —that is, half the value of the improvements and their interest in the goodwill. I think the main cause of the refusals has been owing to the fault of the applicants themselves. 593. We have heard both here and in other places that the objection to the leasejn perpetuity is that the holders of such leases cannot raise money under that tenure ?—I think the lease-in-perpetuity
1079
C—4.
S. BILL.]
holder lias not much to complain of now in this respect, because he has the advantage of any increase in the value of the property. 594. Mr. Paul.] At what periods do you value for valuation purposes ?—I receive instructions from time to time to value particular districts. I make it a rule whenever I revise any particular district not to alter the valuation of that district for lending purposes —that is to say unimproved value— unless improvements have been made. It would be unfair, in the case of a district that perhaps has not been valued for the previous five years, if a man applied for a loan, and if his valuation was immediately to be taken on what is on the Government valuation rolls, as further improvements and increased value might have taken place. 595. You said that leaseholds are increasing in value in this district ? —Yes. 596. Is that increased value created by the Crown or by the tenant ?—To a great extent by the progress of the colony and also on account of roading-facilities. 597. Mr. McGutchan.\ Until quite recently the custom of the Department was to advance up to 50 per cent, on the tenant's improvements ?—Yes. 598. But there has been a recent instruction given that advances may be made up to 50 per cent, on the improvements and 50 per cent, on the goodwill ?—Yes. 599. Would you consider from that instruction that the whole of the goodwill belongs to the tenant ? —Yes. 600. Is it an acknowledgment—the 50 per cent.—that the goodwill belongs to the tenant?— Yes. 601. You take the character of the applicant into consideration in making an advance ?—Yes ; we have to answer the question as to what is known regarding the character and circumstances of the applicant. 602. Does not that fact explain why the State does not advance up to 50 per cent. ?—Yes, it may be so. 603. A man who has got the name of being a good manager and of working his property satisfactorily will be more likely to get the advance he asks for than a man who has the name of being incapable I—Decidedly.l—Decidedly. 604. Do you think the State would be justified in making an advance beyond 50 per cent, of the improvements and 50 per cent, of the goodwill ?—No. 605. Do you not think a distinction should be made between an advance that is asked for to make further improvements and an advance wanted for other reasons ? —The Department considers matters of that kind, but I do not know where you could draw the line. 606. Do you not think there should be some supervision over the expenditure of such money ? —Yes. 607. And if there was such supervision exercised do you not think a further advance might be made in the case of a settler wishing to make further improvements ? —Yes ; I agree with you that in the case of a good man I would myself lend him an increased amount. 608. Mr. Anstey.] If a man paid for his improvements and had not paid his rent up to date the Department will not make an advance, whereas if he has paid up his rent and has not paid for his improvements they will make an advance : what is the difference between the two ?—I do not think there should be that distinction made. 609. Is there any particular reason why that regulation should not be modified ? —I think it should be modified, more especially in newly settled districts. A man may be behind in his rent owing to various circumstances—for instance, he may have bought cattle at a large'sum, and may not be able to realise the money he paid for them. 610. How often do you revalue the land ? —There is no rule. I sometimes recommend that, in my opinion, a certain district should be revalued, and I receive instructions accordingly. 611. Then, in some instances districts may be revalued almost every year, and in other cases they may not be revalued for very many years ?—No. They cannot be revalued for unimproved value until two years have expired. I know some districts that will probably not be revalued for ten years, except for improvements. Edward Metcalf Smith examined. 612. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a settler, and have been here since 1860. I am a member of the House of Representatives for and have been returned to that position four times. 613. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I do not wish to go over ground that has already been traversed, but I should like to draw attention to the great difficulties we are labouring under in this district, especially in respect to our want of roading-facilities. We maintain that the true policy to be adopted in this part of the country is for the Government to make and to take charge of the main roads. That should be the duty of the Government, because those roads become the property of the State for ever. When the late Sir John McKenzie was Minister of Lands he said that when the settlers helped themselves the Government would help them, and the Government gave a pound-for-pound subsidy, but now that subsidy has been withdrawn, and it is very hard to get from the Government any assistance whatever towards the making of roads. I could mention many instances in which settlers have imposed upon themselves four or five special rates for the making of roads. I think the Government should carry out the policy of giving £1 for £1, and also of taking over the main roads. I wish to draw your attention to the position in which we are situated in this district. We have to go by sea from here to Auckland, owing to the want of roads. All the streams and rivers, except Mokau and one other little river, have been bridged. The road at present is impassable. That road has never been metalled, although it has been promised for many years. It should be metalled in the interests of the settlers and of the colony generally. Another difficulty that we labour under is in connection with the Native land. The Natives themselves are thoroughly disgusted
1080
C.—4.
;e. m. smith.
at the way their lands are being administered. This is a very burning question. If you travel through a district like mine you would find that this subject is much discussed by the settlers. I would like to say that I have met a good many Crown tenants holding land under lease in perpetuity, and while they were very well satisfied, still there is a desire on the part of many of them to get the freehold ; but they would not ask for the freehold if they were not frightened by the bogey of revaluation every seven years. If it was proposed to revalue the leases at the end of thirty years I believe we should not have had this trouble in regard to the land. Then, there is the question of the Native land down the coast that is administered by the Public Trustee. The Maoris are really thoroughly dissatisfied, and, as far as I can see, they have just ground for dissatisfaction. Within two hours' drive of New Plymouth there are considerable areas of land covered with forest and with blackberry and other noxious weeds. If those lands were dealt with in a proper manner and brought under cultivation we should not have this trouble with the Maoris. I think that the more land the State holds the better it will be for the country. I could mention the names of people in the Taranaki district who have actually sold their freehold property and gone in for leasehold land. I have always advocated in Parliament that the present land-tenure is the proper one for a young country like New Zealand. In regard to land-nation-alisation, it is too late in the day to think of that. I have advocated the sale of lands for cash and deferred payment, and also the giving of land free to those men who had no money; and lam sorry to say that some of those people who were taken from the large towns and put on the land by means of the Government policy, and who were provided with work on the roads, and who were paid for felling their own bush, and who were given fencing-wire and grass-seed—those men have now become some of the most dissatisfied settlers. I think it is very wrong and ungrateful that they should turn round on the Government now. When you ask them the reason they say, "If we were sure that a Fair Rent Bill would not be carried, or that revaluation every seven years would not be made law, we would be satisfied." Although I believe, and always have believed, that when a man goes on to a bush section away from roads, and he carves out a home for himself in the bush, that man should have a Crown grant given to him, and he should not be called upon to pay stamp duty. I believe that whatever the majority of the people desire they should get. Therefore this Commission will do very good work in ascertaining the desires and feelings of the majority of the settlers. Ido not wish to detain you longer. I think that if the Commission will make a strong representation to the Government as to the unsatisfactory condition of the roading question in this district it will render a signal service to the ' " 10n 614. In regard to roads, I suppose it comes back to this: "more money" ?—Yes. The Premier made a statement at Stratford recently, that he is prepared to borrow another £500,000 to be expended on roads in the back blocks. If the Lord spares me and lam there I will support that proposal to the very best of my ability. 615. Mr. Paul.] You think that the road question is of the greatest importance to this district < Yes ; the general progress of the district increases when good roads are provided. Good roads are of the very greatest importance for country districts. 616. May I point out that there never was a proposal to revalue the lands periodically every seven yearß 2 You only want to watch some of the people in the towns when they speak at public meetings. It is not done in "Parliament. It is the short duration of the period of revaluation that is frightening the people. If the period was valuation every thirty years Ido not think there would be the same feeling of insecurity. . . . , , 617. Do you fear any retrogressive policy in this country or that there is a majority m favour of such a step ? —I think as we get to the top there would be a tendency to go the other way. 618. Do you think the State would go back on its bargain like that ?—I have always told the settler, with regard to the Fair Rent Bill, it is to give relief in times of distress, and as long as they do not increase the percentage the settler would have to pay it would be all right. 619. Supposing a Fair Rent Bill was brought into Parliament would there be any objection to this : that where a tenant finds he has paid too high a rent under that Act he could have his rent reduced, and at periodical intervals his rent would be revalued ? Supposing his rent is too high and he has it reduced, in altered times it might be too low, and it would have to be increased. What do you think of that I—l think that would be fair ; if he gets a reduction when things are bad he ought to submit to have it increased if the circumstances demand it. But the men who get the land at 4 per cent, are crying out that the Government might break the contract and charge them more, and that is the reason why they want to get the freehold and get clear of the State. 620. If the Government are such a terror, might not they increase the land-tax ?—I do not say the Government is a terror. It is the fairest and best Government that was ever in power in New Zealand. you f j o not think that the Government would introduce retrogressive revaluation ?— I believe they will not, but there is undoubtedly the fear that other people will do it. The land agents and speculator tell the settler that there should be nothing but the freehold in this country, and when we took up a piece of land here the other day under the land for settlements for workmen's homes we could hardly get it taken up, because the land agents said to these people, "You must be mad to pay this rental half-yearly for 999 years when we can let you have a home of your own on easy terms." 622. Then, you do not blame the land agent for advocating something that pays him very well ?— I do not say I do, but we ought to have in this country a land law with regard to leasing if the people so desire it. I would not vote for any one land-tenure. I would give them the optional tenure. I would give them the freehold, but surround it with such conditions that they must reside on the land for a certain number of years, and if they sold it again it must be sold to the State, who should have the first refusal if it so desired. If a man got land from the State and resold it to some one else I would prevent him taking up land again from the State for a number of years. In this district, a great majority of people are, rightly or wrongly, in favour of the freehold ; but if a vote was taken in the four electoral
K. M. BMITH."
1081
C—4.
districts of Taranaki, in my opinion, a very large majority of those people who are upon the landjnow would vote for the freehold or the deferred payment. 623. Is there anything in the lease in perpetuity which prevents them using their land to the best advantage ? —No, they can use the land, and they have even a greater security with the lease in perpetuity than with the freehold. There may be some little difficulty in financing the lease in perpetuity over the freehold, but they never earn the freehold, only in name, as the mortgagee takes charge of the deeds. 624. If the lease-in-perpetuity holders get the option of the freehold, do you think they could take advantage of it excepting through the assistance of the mortgagee ?—I am perfectly sure that not 5 per cent, of them could take it up within twelve months, if they had the option, without going to the mortgagee and getting the money from private sources. 625. Mr. McCutchan.] Do we take that as a reflection upon the well-being of the lease-in-perpetuity settlers, when you make the statement that in your opinion none of them are in a position to acquire the freehold if they get the option ? —That is my opinion, and I believe it is true, otherwise I would not make the statement. 626. For that reason, would you remove that tenure from the statute-book I—No, I would keep it there. I believe in it. I would give men the right to take up land on what tenure they thought proper. 627. Is it not- the case that the settlers in Taranaki are very prosperous They are very industrious, and therefore they are very prosperous. 628. And you make the exception in the case of the tenants who hold the land under the lease in perpetuity ? —No, Crown tenants have told me very recently that they have been satisfied with holding the land from the State. Then, I have always tokl them of the evils in the Old Country and pointed to the enormous wealth accumulated by the Duke of Bedford, and told them of his huge rentroll always coming in. In view of such facts, I have always said that the State should hold the land, and should use the proceeds of that land to reduce taxation. 629. Are we to take up the other position, and say that the lease-in-perpetuity settlers in Taranaki are doing fairly well ?—Yes, they are doing well, and have been able to resell their goodwill at an enormous advance. 630. If they are doing fairly well, and they get the option of the purchase in order to pay off the capital value by instalments, and they are making a little more than a living, would it be wise or unwise to permit them to pay the surplus into the Consolidated Fund and reduce the capital value of the land, and thus reduce the rent ?—lt would be an excellent thing if they had the right to pay off half the cost of their land ; it would be better for the State, and the settlers would not lose anything by it. 631. Would you limit it to 50 per cent, or allow them to pay off the whole ? —I think it would be in their interests to allow them to pay off one part out of their savings. 632. Does it not follow, then, that it would be well to allow them to pay off the balance ? —lf the people demanded it by ballot I would support it, as that is true government of the people. 633. And therefore, as the poorer people gradually work into a good position under this tenure, you would allow them to pay off a portion of the capital value of the land ? —Yes, but I believe it would be against their interest to do it. Unless there were very great restrictions'the land would go back to the capitalist. 634. Is there any reason against setting up that restriction ? —I think you might provide for the Registrar at the Register Office, only allowing a certain amount of land to the one occupier. 635. You would place a law on the statute-book preventing the aggregation of large estates from Crown lands ?—Yes. Whangamomona, Wednesday, 31st May, 1905. Arthur Coxhead examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, holding 1,600 acres in this district under occupation with right of purchase, which I have held for five or six years, and for which I pay £84 per annum. I am satisfied with the land and with the tenure. I have felled and grassed about 1,100 acres. I also own 400 acres of freehold in Waimate Plains, but that is leased with right of purchase, and will pass from me in eighteen months. 2. What do you think is the best tenure in the interest of the State and the settler ?—As one who has made New Zealand the home of his adoption for forty-seven years. I could not countenance anything but the freehold. 3. Have you had any dealings with the Land Board ? —Yes, and they have always been satisfactory. So far as I have seen, I have had no occasion to find fault with the constitution of the Land Board. It is satisfactory, so far as lam concerned. I feel, however, that the Land Board should be constituted of members representing the whole of the outlying districts. Ido not think that the towns should be in any way largely represented on the Land Boards. The majority of the members should be practical settlers, and drawn from the various parts of the land district. 4. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Very little ; I do not know much about that. 5. Have you any remarks to make on the roading question ? —I think the Government are making a verv great mistake in not making and maintaining the arterial roads. Loading might be put on the section abutting on the main and arterial roads that would be made and completed. It would be fair to put a certain amount of loading on these lands, but I feel that lands on the by-roads should not be loaded. The by-roads could be made with assistance from the Government at the expense of the settlers. It is almost as broad as it is narrow.
186—C. 4.
1082
lA. COXHKAP.
a—4.
6. You think that the by-roads should be made by the Government, supplemented by rates from the settlers ? —Yes. 7. So thatTpractically both the settlers and the Government to operate in both classes of roads ?— Yes; but I with regard to the main roading being made from the whole of the district, the settlers abutting on those roads can afford to pay a loading, and it simply means that the price would be put on them as against the others. With regard to spending the loading, after carefully watching the co-operative principle of making the roads, I have come to the conclusion that it is a most expensive and unsatisfactory mode. In districts such as this I think the settlers should have the preference, and if the work was let under small contracts it would be more satisfactory and the work would be better done. The settlers who really find the roading for their lands would get more satisfaction for their money, and it would give the settlers employment. I would also like to point out the fallacy of laying off the lands in rough country under the present system. Take a short road that goes only to three or four sections. The Government have got to make the road to the far-away section, but if the sections were made longer the Government would be saved many thousands of pounds. 8. Your plan would give an immense frontage to the other section?— No. A large amount of money would be saved to the country if the sections were narrower in frontage and of greater depth. I would also like to make a remark with regard to the question of burning in country such as this is. I have been burning bush in Taranaki for fifteen years, and the difficulty with a climate like this, where we will have five fine days and one wet day, is to get a burning season. We are bound by the land laws to fell and grass a certain amount every year. But if we have alongside us a neighbour who is saving for grass, we cannot burn just when we please, or at the time that would perhaps be most advantageous to a good burn for fear of burning him out. In the event of our burning out such a neighbour we are liable for the damage done. Thffre are thousands of acres which have been felled but have never had a fire through them just because of that danger, and that is a great loss. Provision sould be made whereby a man may burn his bush, say, during a certain period of four or five years, without risk of liability for damage done to his next-door neighbour. * I may say I am strongly in favour of the three tenures —lease in perpetuity, occupation with right of purchase, and freehold; but I am strongly in favour of allowing the lease-in-perpetuity holder, on the payment of 1 per cent., the privilege of converting into a freehold in, say ten years. 9. With regard to lease-in-perpetuity holders converting to the freehold, do you include settlers on estates purchased by the Government ?—I am referring, of course, to settlers in country such as we are at present in. It is quite a different matter in the case of a man who goes on to an improved estate, and who can get returns straight away. In bush country a man, however, has to spend five years with practically no returns. If you reckon a man's time, over and above eight hours a day, which he puts in on his land in the first five years at 6d. per hour, no amount he would get for the land would recompense him for that labour. Before coming to the North Island I spent a large part of my time in the busy centre of Dunedin, and was mixed up with artisans and what may be termed the leaders of the Trades and Labour Councils. If you take the members of the trades and labour organizations, you will find, as a rule, 80 or 90 per cent, of them have got their little sections, with their comfortable cottages on them; but yet they say to us in the bush districts that we shall not have the freehold and must be satisfied with the leasehold. Yet those same people have done the same as myself, they have debarred themselves many pleasures in order to get the freehold. At the same time, they advocate the leasehold as against the freehold, and, like the big drum in the band, they make the biggest noise but do not make the music. The majority of those who are spokesmen for the Trades and Labour Council, and who are advocating the leasehold, are those who have not been prudent enough to save sufficient to pay the first deposit on a section, and would not allow a prudent man who had debarred himself luxuries to acquire a freehold. I took up the occupation with right of purchase with the intention of buying. I was brought up in New Zealand with the idea of getting a claim in it, and it is the idea of nearly every man in the colony that he should have a freehold, and if we have got to be under the rule of those who are advocating the leasehold the home of my adoption will be a land not worth living in, but a land that is well to be out of. 10. Mr. Anstey.] Are there many people in this district taking up lease in perpetuity ?—A good many. For ten miles up this road the land was laid off in 100-acre sections, and they are all lease in perpetuity. Outside of that the larger proportion are occupation with right of purchase. 11. Outside purely Crown lands are there still many who are taking up land under lease in perpetuity? —I should say not more than 25 per cent. 12. With regard to land for settlements, there are one or two instances in this district where the Government have acquired land. Is that only let under lease in perpetuity ? —That is so, I believe. 13. You say that all should finally have the option of the freehold ?—Yes. 14. There are a number of freeholders in this district and elsewhere who have, like yourself, leased their farms ?—Yes, but not in this district. The farm I referred to was fifty-five miles away ;Tbut there are a number of freeholders leasing their land. 15. Do you think the tenants of private owners should have the same option as you advocate State tenants having ?—Yes, I think a tenant who has a farm only on lease will not keep it in order. 16. You think that should be a legal condition of all leases ? —Not necessarily, but I certainly advocate giving every man the option of making his leasehold into a freehold if he pays proportionately for it, and I should like to see every man have a freehold. 17. Do you think the tenants of education reserves should have the option of the freehold too ?— No. Those are what might be ternled " assets of the State," that could be left as they are at present. On bush land a man will not get £500 in five years, and, considering the time he has put in and the money he has spent, I do not know what could be stronger evidence in favour of the freehold.
A. COXHE.AD. ;
1083
C—4.
18. In the case of a man wanting to burn, you would be in iavour of ms giving his neighbour six months' notice of his intention so to do, and you think that should be sufficient to shield him from liability in the event of damage being done ?—Yes, I think that would be a good thing. 19. Do you know whether a large amount of Government grants are expended in this district by way of subsidy ?—There has been a large amount, but I cannot say to what extent. 20. Would you say they have all been expended ?—No. 21. Do you think the system of grants is a suitable system for financing road-making, or do you think a system of Government subsidy on rates would be more satisfactory ?—I think that the whole of the arterial roads should be made and maintained directly from the Consolidated Fund. They are really for the convenience of the whole of the travelling public. We are getting a road made from here to Auckland, and why should the settlers on that road have to pay for the whole of it. 2j. You think that should apply to the whole of the colony ? —Yes. 23. What local body have you here ?—A County Council. We have no Road Boards. 24. Do you think a single system of local bodies is the most economical system for administering local funds ? —That is so. 25. Mr. McCutchan.] If you give the right to acquire the freehold of the 999-years lease is there not a fear of the tenants mortgaging their leaseholds, with the danger of their losing their holdings should times become bad ?—Not in the case of a provident man. 26. Do you not think it would be wise to have legislation to protect the improvident man against himself I—Yes, if possible to do so ; but I am no advocate of going so far as trying to save a man who is past redemption. 27. With regard to the giving of the option of purchase to the lease in perpetuity, the danger of aggregating large estates has been pointed out. How would you safeguard against that ?—At present a man is not allowed to acquire from the Crown more than 2,000 acres of land, and I would suggest that the transfer of a lease-in-perpetuity section should not be given to a man who has more than 2,000 acres. 28. You would favour legislation preventing a man holding more than 640 acres of first-class land or 2,000 acres of second-class land, either privately or acquired from the State ?—Yes. 29. With regard to the leasehold, do you not think it wise to prevent a man mortgaging to more than 25 per cent, of the land for the purpose of acquiring the freehold ; in other words, do you not think it would be wise to force him to pay 75 per cent, from his earnings ? —I do not think 25 per cent, is enough, because a man has to have a long purse in order to do with only that amount on his property. 30. Do you think a system of loading sections abutting on the main road and allowing others to go free is equitable ? —Those sections abutting on the main roads would be really paying for their share of the loading on their sections, and in regard to the other sections, the rates with Government assistance would make the roads. There are many roads which are not required to be made for the full distance, and they would not be made then at that time. If the land was sold at 10s. instead of £1 ss. the settlers would perhaps be satisfied with a less expensive road. 31. It is felt that this system of giving assistance by means of grants is a very inequitable one, inasmuch as some settlers get more than their fair share. Do you not think that a system of subsidies proportionate to the rates levied would be more equitable ? — I think if the roads were made past the main sections and subsidies given on the rates for the by-roads would overcome a large trouble. 32. Would you make that subsidy payable on the total rates of the county ? —Yes, I think it should be on the total levy. 33. Do you think a lOs.-in-the-pound subsidy on the total rates levied would give adequate finance ? —I would not like to give an answer to that, because Ido not know. 34. With reference to loading, a man who has his road made by the county under special, rate pays off the loading so incurred in twenty-six years, whereas the lease-in-perpetuity settler who is loaded for roads pays that loading for 999 years. Do you think it would be more equitable if his loading also expired at the end of twenty-six years ? —I think that would be equitable. 35. Do you advocate the small-contract system a against the co-operative system ? —Yes. 36. Is it not the case that in most counties certain works require expensive details in the shape of teams, and so forth ? —I was referring to this district. 37. Would you invite tenders ?—Anything would be better than the present system. I think that the men working on small contracts should be allowed to choose thgir own mates, and it is their look-out if they take in with them a poor man, but it is the contrary to conducive to good results to compel three good men to work with one poor man and all to draw the same pay. Ido not care what work men may be engaged in, but it is a fact that a fast worker never works so well when he is alongside a slow worker. 38. Would you advocate a change in the system by which men, if they choose to work long hours, shall be allowed to make 125., 145., or 16s. a day, provided the roads get full value ?—I an advocate of long hours, but I have no objection to allowing men in the summer-time to work ten or twelve hours a day to make up for the time that they necessarily lose in the winter owing to bad weather. 39. You advocate the system of small contracts in lieu of the co-operative system ?—Yes. 40. Under the small-contract system the profits of big contracts are eliminated ?—Yes. 41. Have you any knowledge of the ballot ? —Very little. 42. It has been advocated that the Commissioner of Crown Lands should examine all applicants and reject those that seem to him to be unsuitable, by which means practical men would have a better chance of getting land ? —That is a hard question to answer, but I know there are cases where men have been unable to get sections, and I think it would be an advantage if the Commissioner had a certain amount of power to help them to get a section.
0.—4.
1084
Ta. cox head.
43. Do you think that the " thirds " from cash sales should go to the local bodies, the same as they do from grazing-runs ? —Most certainly. 44. And that those " thirds " should be spent on the roads to the lands from which the " thirds " came ?—Certainly. 45. It has been suggested that the man who pays cash for the land should be brought under the same residential conditions as the man who takes up a lease. Do you think that should be brought into operation ?—A man might purchase a property ten or fifteen miles away from where he is living in order to properly work his stock, and I do not think he should be interfered with. 46. You are aware that under the present leasing system if a man makes the required improvements he has the right to take up another section, even though it does not adjoin ? —Yes, 47. In the case of a man who holds land and buys a cash section for speculative purposes, do you think as a check on that tendency he should be required to reside on the section?— Yes. 48. Could you give an estimate of the loss in this district through tutu-poisoning?—l can give an idea with regard to my own place. Last year I lost fifty-six bullocks, through slips and tutu, that were worth £5 2s. 6d. per head. Some of the cattle were smothered in the slips, and those who got off were turned over by the tutu. I lost fifty-six out of 240 head. 49. There is a further loss than that, inasmuch as fences are carried away by the slips also, and in the loss of grass for three or four years ? —Out of 1,000 acres I lost 200 acres last year, and there was an absolute loss in repairing about 50 chains of fencing—2o to 25 per cent, of my fencing. 50. Are you aware if the settlers have any disability in the matter of marketing their stock owing to the condition of the roads for eight months of the year ?—Most decidedly. In my case I practically sold my bullocks at £5 2s. 6d., but I lost my market owing to the state of the road, and they are on my farm now. 51. Do the settlers generally labour under that disability ?—Yes, more or less. 52. In this district it would mean a considerable sum of money ?—Yes. 53. Sufficient to grass several thousand acres of land ?—Yes. 54. Are you aware if the sheep have suffered under the same disability in shifting about ?—Yes, it has been almost impossible to shift sheep. It took me from 7in the morning till 3in the afternoon to shift my sheep over three miles of road. 55. The value of the sheep is depreciated also ?—Yes. 56. Has the success of the factory been seriously handicapped by the condition of the roads ? —Yes. Thousands of gallons of milk have been absolutely wasted. 57. Have you seen settlers emptying their milk on the roadside in order to lighten the weight of their carts ? —I have not seen it, but I know it has been done. 58. Can you say whether the settlers have laboured under any disadvantage in the past through not getting advances from the Advances to Settlers Department, and have had to pay more by going elsewhere ? —Yes. I know of one man who borrowed £50, and by the time he got here he had only £34. £6 of the £50 went in his travelling in and out to get the money, and the other £10 was spent in charges and the first six men*h-' interest. 59. Speaking generally, in view of the fact that the country is exceptionally prosperous, do you think it would be wise and prudent for the Government to obtain adequate funds to bring the roading and transit facilities of the back blocks up to the reasonable requirements of the settlers if the money was carefully expended ? —With a proviso, yes. 60. It is said that there is a very fine block of Native land in this vicinity. Do you think the time has arrived when the Government should tackle this Native-land difficulty and make that good land reproductive by throwing it open for settlement ? —Yes, provided that proper provision is made for the Native owners. 61. Mr. Paul.] Do you think there is any advantage in having a lease in perpetuity at a 4-per-cent. rental on the capital value, as against an occupation with right of purchase at 5 per cent. ?—I am strongly in favour of the lease in perpetuity being retained on the statute-book because it gives many men an opportunity of getting a footing on the land which they otherwise could not. But I think the lease-in-perpetuity holder should have the right to purchase by paying an additional 1 per cent. It is within my knowledge that a man is handicapped by the lease in perpetuity when he goes into the money-market. The whole of the settlers have to borrow more or less to make their way, and judicious borrowing has paid them, but the lease-in-perpetuity holders are handicapped by having to pay a higher rate of interest than is charged the freeholder. 62. Is there anything in\he conditions of the lease in perpetuity which prevents the settler using his land to the best advantage ?—Only so far as he is handicapped if he wants to finance to push his way along. 63. Does it resolve itself into the fact that the money-lender considers the occupation with right of purchase better than the lease in perpetuity ? —Very slightly. 64. Then, the freehold is undoubtedly a better scecurity, because, of course, the settler had expended either labour or money in getting the freehold and he had something to offer, but that is hardly an objection in the case of the lease in perpetuity I—l1 —I do not object to the lease in perpetuity. I prefer that lease; but I say leaseholders should have the right to make it into a freehold after complying with the conditions and terms for, say, ten years. 65. Do you think that is workable ? —Yes. But 1 advocate allowing the three tenures still to go on, allowing the man who likes his occupation with right of purchase and the man who wants the lease in perpetuity to have it if he works his land well. But if he is a speculator I would not help him one iota. Only if he were a bona fide settler would I allow him the freehold of the land. 66. Seeing this district as we have done, with an acquaintance of two days, it seems to me that the question of roads is of a great deal more importance to the settler than that of tenure, seeing that
1085
C—4.
A. OOXHEAD. 1
this lease in perpetuity is secure ?—Yes ; the roadiug is of very much more consideration than the tenure of the land. 67. Therefore it seems to me, from a casual glance, that the settlers have tried to help themselves, and have put a great deal of labour into the land ? —Yes ; and they want encouragement with roads. 68. Do you think a large borrowing policy might be entered into now in order to form or finish these main roads and such public works ? —Yes ; if a proviso were put in that the money should be spent on the roads ; but I am not advocating a large borrowing policy if the money is not going to be spent on reproductive works, and roads are reproductive works. 69. In speaking of the representation on the Land Board, I understand you to favour nomination, or that the settlers should have most of the representation, but you would not go so far as to say that the towns should not be represented on the Land Board ?—No ; but I think that the majority should come from the districts distributed throughout the whole land division. 70. You spoke of the position of artisans, and said that those men who advocated the leasehold were rather improvident and could not save enough money to buy their sections. In that you were slightly wrong, because there is not a majority of the artisans who own their houses, and ground-rent or land-value is increasing so enormously that there is no possibility of a poor man buying a section and building a house. Are you acquainted with that aspect of the case ? —I spent some years of my life in Dunedin, and I am safe in saying that 75 per cent, of the artisans of that town have got their freehold sections. I speak of the time I was there. 71. When did you leave ?—ln 1891 ; but I went back again in 1899. 72. That is fourteen years ago, and in the meantime you cannot say what has been the increase iu the cost of living, rent, or land-values ?— No ; but that was the position of affairs when I was amongst the working-people of Otago. 73. You referred to the bad condition of leasehold farms generally, but is it not the fact that if the tenure is secure a leasehold farm is as well looked after as a freehold ?—No. If you take some of the farms in the Waimate Plains you will find that men can only get a valuation of £5 an acre on their improvements, as there have been no improvements for years, and the fences and buildings are rotting. In the case of private leases, you find that unless there are strong provisions the places are neglected, and that brings me to the noxious-weeds question. The noxious weeds are being neglected throughout Taranaki, and in this place, where three years ago the whole of the weeds could have been cleared off by three men in two days, it would now take three months to do it, and in another two or three years we will be smothered with them. Leases generally are neglected during the last few years of their existence. 74. Do you arrive at that conclusion from your own observation ?—I do. 75. A certain proportion of this area here is under occupation with right of purchase. Are the weeds spreading on that land the same as on the lease in perpetuity ?—I cannot really say. 1 hope not; but on a lot of the improved-farm sections the weeds are very much neglected. 76. There is the question of limiting the freehold in order to get the best out of the land. People are very prosperous in small areas, and in the case of a block of 2,000 acres of first-class land, if that is subdivivded into blocks of 640 acres each, that means that there is room for three families on it. Is it in the best interests of the colony that that land should be held in the larger block of 2,000 acres ? —No. When the question was put to me, whether I was in favour of limiting it, I wished to convey that where land is available and suitable it should be surveyed into from 150- to 200-acre blocks—that is, where it is suitable for dairying. The finest dairying land in New Zealand is divided into blocks of 200 acres, and when I saw it in 1890 I said that it was going to be the most wealthy district in New Zealand. lam of the same opinion still. lam cutting up mine in the same way. I have bought 400 acres there, and am going to cut it up into small farms ; they are the most profitable farms for a poor man if he can work. I advocate the cutting-up of good land into small sections. 77. If the limitation were made by value instead of by area, would not that get over some of it ?— It should be overcome by survey, because the head of the Department would say, " Survey your block into 150 acres," but to give 200 acres to a man in this district is putting a stone round his neck, and you might as well throw him into the river, as he cannot make a living out of that area. 78. But this country is just out of the hands of the surveyor. On some of the recently purchased estates there are three farmers on 640 acres making a good living. If the option of the freehold is given to these farmers, ultimately that might become one farm, and, although it is only 640 acres, it is practically a large estate, because previously it would be keeping three families in comfort ? —That is so, but you cannot call it a large estate. That matter would be a question of detail, which I can hardly express an opinion on, but I am in favour of cutting up good land into small areas. 79. You told us of the large losses last year by reason of the slips. Would that be a recurring loss ?—lf I thought it would be I should be amongst the missing, as I could not stand it. We had exceptionally heavy rains at that time, and this little stream here was running 25 ft. deep opposite my place. 80. lam told this country will stop slipping by-and-by. Is that so ? —I think it will after the roads are made and the first slips are done with. 81. Mr. Anstey.] What is the cost of freight from the nearest railway-station to Whangamomona % —The summer freight is £3 a ton from Stratford. We have had to pay from Oruru at the same rate as from Stratford. £3 is the lowest freight paid into Whangamomona in the meantime, but in the winter-time we pay, according to fanpy, from about £8 to £10. That would be to Whangamomona Township. 82. Would it be higher to the farms ?—Yes ; because the goods are packed in winter, and some just now are paying 4s. a hundredweight for packing to their farms from Whangamomona. 83. Is there a large quantity of Native land in this neighbourhood?— Yes, in the north-east district.
C—4.
1086
[a. coxfeap.
84. What quality is it ?—-The Inspector of Roads here tells me it is good, and from what I could see of it from the highest peak it looks fairly good and equal to the rest. 85. Mr. McOutchan.] Is it not the fact that the summer freights have this year been £4 a ton ?— I may be letting the cat out of the bag, but the lowest rate I have paid the last three years is £3, but I have been charged up to £4. 86. Is it not the fact that goods cost consumers as much as £4 for freight, as the local storekeeper has to recoup himself for the additional packing to the sections ?—Yes. George Stockwell examined. 87. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler in this district, holding 490 acres as a small grazing-run, for which I pay £6 Is. 6d. per annum. I have held it a little over five years. It is about nine miles from Whangamomona, and is all bush land, with 140 acres cleared. 88. Are you satisfied with your occupation of this land ?—Not exactly ; I would like the option of purchase. I have it for twenty-one years, and at the end of that time I will get a revaluation and the opportunity of carrying it on again if I accept the valuation. 89. What is your objection to the present tenure ? —I believe a man would make a better settler if he had the option. There is also the chance that a man's improvements will not be recognised at the end of twenty-one years. I have had a very bad experience here, and I wish to back up Mr. Coxhead's remarks in reference to the loading. I have experienced great hardship and difficulty in effecting required improvements during the five years I have been a Crown settler owing to want of access. During the first year of occupancy I felled 5 acres. As the track was made only to a point four miles from the section, it was necessary lo swag everything required on my back for that distance. As the country is very broken this was a difficult matter. I asked repeatedly for better access, and was informed as often that no funds were available, but as soon as there were any they would improve the track. During the second year I felled 25 acres, and had to swag the grass-seed to sow it down. A little was done to the track, and I did a lot myself gratis. When the section was fit to stock I put on sheep. I started with 240, and arrived with 220. I lost twenty in the bush, and L had two men to help me. During the third and fourth years about two miles of track were made, but slips coming down, and no funds being available to clear them, I was practically cut off—in fact, I would have been quite, only a neighbour came to my rescue and allowed me to go through his section. During the third year I felled and grassed 40 acres, and had to swag seed for a distance of a mile and a half. Supposing it cost £9 a ton from Stratford to Whangamomona, it would cost about £6 to get it from the end of the track to the section. I could swag two loads per day of 80 lb., making 160 lb. a day, allowing Bs. per day. My section fronts Marco and Mangawata Roads, and is in Clifton and Stratford Counties. I have paid rates to both Councils five years, and the road-line fronting the section has never been touched since the surveyor left it seven years ago. It is all standing bush. The land is sloping above my fence-line, and lam therefore unable to fence until the road bush is cleared. Cattle can and do stray where they please. lam prevented from doing improvements until this road is cleared. I was led to believe I would have the road long ago, and I have lived in hope of getting it, but the hope has been in vain. The first difficulty started when the block was surveyed. A surveyor is not necessarily an engineer, and may not run these roads out to advantage. If the sections were larger the one road could go right to the section, whereas with the small sections the road has to go past the section, and the track becomes worse and worse. 90. Do you think that your area of 490 acres is sufficient for you if you had a road to it ? —I think so, as the land is good. 91. I suppose you are sticking to sheep alone ? —I have cattle on it. 92. Mr. Anstey.] You say you have been there five years and have no road yet?— There is a bridletrack, such as it is. 93. How long has it been there ?—They make first a quarter or half a mile. It has been in progress for five years. 94. How long is it since that track actually reached your farm ? —About twelve months ago. 95. Do you think it would be wise on the part of the Government before opening up lands to load them if necessary with sufficient loading to give access to them ?—That is so ; but the better thing would be not to open up this rough country in small areas. They would not need one-fourth of the roads if they had large areas. 96. Would you rather put an additional loading on and have a good road, than have the land but no road ? —Certainly; 1 think it would be an advantage. 97. Mr. McOutchan.] Seeing that the money is borrowed from year to year for reproductive public works, do you think it would be a just and equitable thing to ask the settler to bear the entire burden of the outlay ?—I do not think it would be fair that he should bear the entire burden. I think he should be prepared to bear a little more, but he should have better roads. 98. Is it the case now that the land is loaded practically to 25 per cent, of its value, and do you not think that the necessary expenditure should come out of the consolidated revenue ? —I think it is more of a national affair than a local. 99. Drawing a parallel between railways and roads, is it not the fact that the State provides the entire cost of a railway ? —Yes. 100. As against that, those who use the railway are only called on to pay sufficient to provide a return of £3 10s. per cent. In view of that fact, is it equitable to ask the settler to bear the whole cost of his road ? —Putting it that way it is not equitable. 101. With reference to revaluation, there is revaluation for improvements at the end of your term. Do you think that the settler will get justice, or do you think that a large amount of improvements will not be recognised at the end of twenty-one years ? —I think you will not get full compensation.
a. STOCKWRLL.I
1087
a—4.
102. With reference to this revaluation, have you any fear that the trades and labour unions of the colony will gather sufficient strength to interfere through Parliament with the terms of your lease ? —From what I have read I believe there is a danger on that point. 103. They have distinctly affirmed that upon the transfer or death of a lessee that that should be done. Would you not say that is a dishonest proposal ?—lt is most unfair and almost dishonest in a country like this. 104. Do you think the tenants under the 999-years lease would be contented, satisfied, and prosperous if it was possible to assure them that their lease would never be interfered with ? —I certainly believe it would be, but there is a great desire for the freehold at the same time. 105. Speaking of the disabilities under which you have laboured, and which are typical of what other settlers have gone through : do you think the residence conditions press too hardly on settlers living in remote positions ?—They are most unfair and monstrous. 106. Did you, in addition to packing your grass-seed, have to pack the materials for your dwelling ? —I carried the iron for the roof. 107. In respect to the raising of rates by the Clifton and Stratford County Councils, you complain that although they levied those rates no portion of them has been spent on your road. Is it not the case that your road has not been done by either of those local bodies up to this day ? —Yes. 108. Do you attribute any blame to those local bodies in view of that fact ?—I do not. 109. Do you think the Government should, in all cases when they place these roads under the local bodies by Gazette notice, give power to them to expend the rates which have accumulated ? —T would rather not answer that question as I do not understand it. 110. Mr. Paul.\ Your lease is for twenty-one years ? —Yes. 111. You recommend that you should have the option of purchase—would that be a more valuable tenure ? —I should say so. 112. What would you be prepared to pay for that option ? —The original valuation. 113. Suppose at the end of twenty-one years your improvements were protected and the section put up to auction, would that be satisfactory ? —No. 114. Why do you arrive at the conclusion that you will not get value for improvements ? —There are a lot of improvements that a man is doing every day which are not visible to the man who assesses the lease twenty-one years hence. 115. Are your rates likely to be increased in the twenty years ?—Yes. 116. Then your land must be revalued at periodical intervals to base these rates on a proper foundation ?—Yes. 117. Would not that give you a fair idea of what the country was twenty years ago ?—Perhaps it would, but it is a question which is rather beyond me. 118. Do you suppose that at the end of twenty years if your means of transit are not improved that your rent will be raised ?—I have had an idea that it would be increased. 119. If the railway were put in here I suppose you could stand an increased rent ?—I hold the land for twenty-one years, and I would say there should be no increase during that time. After the twenty-one years I do not like the idea, and I would rather have the right of purchase and do away with that sort of thing. 120. Could you pay a higher rent if there was a railway through to Whangamomona ?—Yes. 121. You spoke of the construction of these roads : do you think the present system of piecemeal construction is economical to the State or satisfactory to the settler ?—I do not. William Gleeson examined. 122. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler holding 163 acres under the lease in perpetuity. I have held it for nine years. It is a mile and a half from here, and lam paying about £10. lam satisfied with my land and tenure. lam all right for a road, but only since lately. I had my trouble too in that respect. It is pretty rough country, but I manage to dairy on it. We are handicapped here through not having transit facilities for the settlers. The price of provisions presses hard on large families. We cannot get to our dairy factories through the want of good roads. If this state of things continues for another five years I do not think there will be one Crown tenant of the settlement left in Whangamomona, as they are already leaving in ones and twos. Ten went away during the last twelve months, and things have been going to the dogs altogether. Their places seem to fall into the hands of the mortgagees, who step in and take possession of their hard earnings. It is the capitalist and money-lender who are reaping the benefit from the people who are leaving the district. 123. But surely others are coming into the farms ?—There is a little bit of aggregation going on, and that should not be allowed in this locality. 124. It is only going on in the freeholds ?—No, in the lease in perpetuity. 125. But that can only be done by leave of the Land Board ?—The Land Board has given that permission. Then, again, the people here formed a factory and were bound jointly and severally, but ten of the shareholders have left the district, and it puts the burden of the factory on the remaining people, and eventually it may help to close the factory to the loss of the working-classes. 126. Is it still in operation ?—lt is leased for a certain number of years to Mr. McCluggage, of Whangamomona. On account of the high price of provisions and the low price of our produce in the shape of butter-fat it is impossible to farm in this locality unless we have direct communication by railway. Last year we only received 6|d. per pound for butter-fat. 127. I suppose that is owing to the high price of taking the butter down ? —Yes; the transit charges between here and Stratford are so high that it takes away a lot of the profit. Then there are the bad roads. The factory does not get a sufficient supply of milk. I only supplied milk for six months this year, and some of the settlers for four and five months only.
a—4.
1088
W. GLEESON-
128. Mr. Anstey.] You say, owing to the want of travelling facilities the district is going back ? —Yes. 129. What do you think is the best way to proceed to get those facilities ?—Give us the railway very quickly. 130. Supposing you got a good metalled road to connect with Stratford ?—No ; we want the direct communication. » 131. In that case, would it not be better if the Government spent not much more money on the road ? —No. They should send the railway direct. They only metal one mile of road a year, and we want the railway. 132. How long would it take to get a railway in here ?—lf the section to Mangaire were completed this year it would help this locality very much. 133. Is there any considerable section of the railway finished ? —There is twelve miles finished to Oruru, and they are working on the third section, about twelve miles in length. The railway is twenty-nine miles from here at present, and an effort should now be made to concentrate their efforts on this railway. Merchants and others in New Plymouth and Stratford have been working against us, because it does not suit their interests that the line should be constructed, as we might be able to get goods cheaper from other centres than from them. 134. Do you find you can farm your land well under the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes; I would have no other system in the colony. 135. Do you find you can improve it ?—Yes. 136. Do you let your farm run for weeds ? —No, there is not a weed on it. The only thing that prevents my going ahead with the lease in perpetuity is that we have got no railway. A number of other settlers are contented with that lease. 137. Mr. McCutchan.\ There are twenty-seven thousand members of the trades and labour unions, and if they state they want to revalue your leasehold at your death you would consider it very hard on your family ? —I would have nothing to do with the revaluation. I entered into the contract with the Crown and I expect them to keep faith with me. 138. No doubt the Government purpose keeping to their contract; but if a section of the community wish to bring about a change in the direction of making the revaluation retrospective they will put people in power, if they can, who will carry out their wishes. As a British citizen, in the event of your predeceasing your wife and family, do you think you would go to your grave satisfied that that property under those circumstances would be secured to your wife and family ? —I certainly think so. 139. Have you any fear that this party will make headway and endanger your position ?—No ; but I do not think any party would like to take away my right to leave my lease in perpetuity to my wife and children. If such a thing were done it would not be tolerated by the people. 140. Is it your opinion that this demand for the freehold is largely due to this agitation in the centres ?—No. 141. You have never heard that the people fear revaluation on account of this agitation ? —No ; I have never feared it. 142. You speak of the Crown tenants leaving the district. Do you refer to the Crown tenants generally or the Crown tenants under the improved-farm settlements ?—To some of the originals under the improved-farm settlements. 143. Can you state what percentage of those settlers are now on their land ? —About 30 per cent. 144. Speaking generally of the settlers who have gone away, have they been forced away by the extra cost of living and by bad transit facilities ? —Yes ; excepting the few who have been driven away perhaps by spite, but most of them went away on account of the high rate of living and inability to obtain work. 145. Has there been any aggregation of estates outside the limits fixed by the Act ? —Not perhaps over the 2,000 acres, but there is aggregation going on all the same. 146. But that aggregation here has been allowed by the Land Board ? —Yes ; of those who have left'the district. You have done a little out of it, Mr. McCutchan. You had one section yourself at the upper end which was originally in the hands of a Crown tenant. 147. Do you state that on your oath ?—lt was one of your boys, I think. Ido not know whether it was your boy or yourself, but one of you have had it. I might mention other men who have got sections —Mr. Coxhead and others. There are several more who have taken up sections who have added them to their land. 148. I am not disputing the fact, but the question is, has there been any breach of the law ?— That is a critical question. 149. You have made the charge, and I ask you again, Has there been any illicit aggregation of estates in this district ? —Not what you call illicit, especially if you mean to say that there has been tampering with the Act. I could not say that. I did not mean to say that they had been obtained by fraud. There has not been any instance of that to my knowledge. 150. If the settlers in the district had not been allowed to take up additional land would, those men have been able to continue in the district ? —The original Crown tenants had their holdings increased from 100 to 200 acres. 151. Some of them got 300 acres ?—Yes. 152. Do you mean to say that the Land Board has connived at this breach of the law I—Certainly not, but there are cases. 153. Mention one instance ? —I could not, because I have not tried to find any, but perhaps I could give you a name or two later on. 154. 1 think it is wrong of you to make a general statement that you refuse to substantiate, and cast reflections, not only on the Land Board, but on the settler ? —What I say I stand by.
W. GLEESON.I J
1089
C.—4
155. I ask you to substantiate the statement you have made : can you do so ?—We know there are people who have taken up land in this locality, and we know there are no houses on their sections. 156. You are aware that there is a four-years exemption ? —Yes. 157. Can you mention one instance in which, after the four-years exemption has expired, the Land Board has not called upon the holder to fulfil the conditions ? —Who is living on Mr. Monkhouse's land ? 158. But that land was taken up in such a way that it did not necessitate residence % —I did not know that. 159. Would you advocate compelling people to buy land for cash to fulfil similar conditions as to residence and the improvements as those who take up land under leasehold ?—Yes. 160. In the case of the lease in perpetuity and the occupation with right of purchase, the term is in one case six years and in the other ten years. Do you think the term should be made the same in both cases ? —I think that both should be put on the same level in the matter of residence, and that the term should be ten years. 161. Is it the case that many of the improved-farm settlers in this district made applications to the Advances to Settlers Department for loans and were unable to get them ? —Yes. 162. Was the result of that refusal that many of these settlers were forced to go to private moneylenders and get advances ? —Yes. 163. And they were able to get what they required from the private money-lenders after they had been refused by the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Yes. I have known cases in this locality where settlers have been forced to pay 12 per cent, for the money they have obtained, and in many cases 8 and 9 per cent., and in some cases 6 per cent. 164. Have you seen any bills_of costs in connection with these loans ? —I know that the legal costs are something outrageous. I consider that it is practically a case of the lawyers being all Jews. 165. Is it the fact that in many cases these loans were only given for three or four years ?—Yes. 166. And were procuration fees charged in addition to the 10 per cent, interest ? —Yes. 167. And were the law costs very high ? —Yes, I believe they amounted to about £7 or £8 per £100 in some cases. 168. These loans have been-maturing at the same time ? —Yes. 169. Has the Advances to Settlers Department lately been given an opportunity of taking up these loans as they matured ?—Yes. 170. And is the Department advancing the money that it formerly refused ? —Yes, in some cases, but not in all cases. I think the Department would be justified in advancing in all cases here. 171. Is it a fact that the Department formerly was only prepared to advance 50 per cent, on the tenants' improvements, and that it is now advancing 50 per cent, on the tenants' improvements and 50 per cent, on the goodwill ?—I do not consider the Department is advancing as much as it might safely do. 172. Are you aware that there is no distinction made in advances made for further improvements and advances for paying off a mortgage or for buying up more land ? Where a man wants a loan for the purpose of improving his land, do you think the Government would be justified in going beyond 50 per cent. ?—Yes. 173. The freeholder is allowed an advance up to 65 per cent. Do you think the leaseholder should be put on a similar level ? —The leaseholder under the circumstances you have indicated should, I think, be put on the same level as the freeholder. 174. With reference to the disabilities under which the signatories in the case of a dairy factory labour under jointly and severally, do you think that the responsibility could be attached to the land, so that that responsibility might be handed on to a new settler taking up that land ?—Yes. 175. It was chiefly men with families who left the district. Did they leave the district better off, as a rule, than when they came here ten years previously ? —I do not consider they did. When we came here we were poor. We were hungry, and the present Government fed us ; we were naked and they clothed us, and we were thirsty and they gave us water. That was the position of the early settlers in this locality, none of them had anything. I had not a threepenny-bit myself. 176. Is it not the case that men came here in the prime of manhood with large families, and after undergoing great hardships and expending all they had on the land they had to go away, in many cases broken in fortune and in prospects ?—Yes. 177. Mr. Paul.'] You have drawn a doleful picture of this district ? —Yes, but it is true. 178. Are the holders of the land here improving their land ?—Yes ; most wonderful progress has been made in this district. 179. Are you improving your holding ?—Yes. 180. The settlers have not lost faith in the district \—No; but I think they will lose faith in the Government if it does not give us the railway and good roads. If a borrowing policy was established, and if fifteen or twenty millions was borrowed to complete our railways, that money would not go out of the country. Half of it would go back into the revenue of the colony, and in many other ways the Government and the colony would gain by the expenditure of that money. I think that close on ten millions of it would be spent in the country itself. It would not be lost at all. 181. You said that it would not be much use to go on spending more money on this road ?—lf that road is to be treated in the way it has been for the last five of six years, I think we will nearly all be compelled to leave this district. 182. Do you think there is more likelihood of the Government making the railway if they leave the road alone ?—Yes, I think so. 183. Do you know of any sound reasons why the settlers in this district should not have the railway and the road also ? —Hthink the railway should be made. It would enable metal to be brought here, and so the road could be made much more cheaply and satisfactorily. I f." '"*;
137—C. 4.
C—4.
1090
r W. GLEESON.
184. You mentioned some exorbitant cases of interest charges. Did the Land Board sanction those high rates of interest ? —I do not think the Land Board knew of those high rates. Everything does not come under the notice of the Land Board. Cattle and other things can be mortgaged. I think the Advances to Settlers Department alone should lend money to Crown tenants. lam convinced that no private person should be allowed to lend a Crown tenant money. 185. Do you not think the freeholder would have good ground for objection to such a system 1 — He could go to the Department too if he desired, but I consider that the Crown tenants should only borrow money from the Advances to Settlers Department. 186. Do you think that a majority of the people of the colony are in favour of the State repudiating its bargain with the Crown tenant ? —I feel sure that the majority of the people will not repudiate the bargain the State has made. The Trades and Labour Council and the working-classes comprise 65 per cent, of the population of the colony, and if they wanted to do an injustice to the country settlers they could do so, because they have the largest vote at the present time. 187. And do you think they could just as easily interfere with the freehold if they desire to do so ? — Yes. 188. Do you think that a man should be asked to reside on his land before access is given to it 1— No; the early settlers in this district and their families had to undergo the greatest hardships. It is only right, in my opinion, that men with means who take up land should be compelled to fulfil the residenceconditions as well as the poor man. Nicholas Benjamin Feyday examined. 189. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler, but I hold no land just at present. I have been a settler for twenty-five years in the Ngaire Survey District. I held 210 acres of land there. lam simply passing through Whangamomona on my way to Ohura. 190. Have you any special matter you wish to bring before the Commission ? —When we took up the land we paid £1 an acre under the deferred-payment system. We were supposed to get 6s. Bd. out of the pound in order to give access to our sections. The Government gave us that money. I contend that the deferred-payment system is the best that was ever introduced in the colony, because you have fourteen years in which to pay the full amount on making certain improvements. After that, I and other settlers went in for a dairy factory, and we had to guarantee the bank jointly and severally. We borrowed the money at 8 per cent, from the bank, and that debt was liquidated by the deduction of Is. on every 60 gallons of milk. We also went in for a loan under the Loans to Local Bodies Act for the purpose of making a road to give us access to the factory. I consider that the Loans to Local Bodies Act is very good so long as it is properly administered. What I complain of is that the Valuation Department steps in and increases the unimproved value, in our case by something like £3 an acre. We actually bore the heat and burden of the early settlement of the land, and we made great improvements in the district without any help from the Government. I paid £1 an acre for my land, and now it is valued at over £11 an acre. I therefore complain of the increase in the unimproved value put upon that land. The railway was made when we bought the land, and any improvements that have been done have been effected by the settlers themselves. Still we are taxed on our improvements. The people there are a very industrious set of people. They are not large holders of land. There is no aggregation of large estates there. In fact, the only fault is that the sections are too small. A man with a family of six or eight has to pay a big price in order to get an additional piece of land to maintain himself and his family. I would also like to call the attention of the Commission to the land-administration. At that time, 20 per cent, of the Land Fund of Taranaki had to go to the New Plymouth Harbour. Owing to the change in the land policy and the establishment of the lease in perpetuity and other tenures, a much smaller sum of money now goes to the harbour, leaving the whole of the increased liability to be borne by the remaining struggling settlers. The position is that about £160,000 has to be made up by a certain number of these settlers owing to the change in the land policy of the colony. There is another matter I desire to refer to. Some three years and a half ago I was appointed chairman of an association of some forty-six settlers who desired to take up land. A long delay occurred, and after all the land was given to other men under the improved-settlement system or to co-operative workmen working on the Main Trunk Railway-line. I think that an injustice was done to myself and other settlers in that matter. lam a freeholder, and I believe in the freehold. I need hardly say that lam an Irishman by birth. Forty-five Land Acts dealing with Ireland have been introduced into the British Parliament, and it has ultimately been found that the freehold system is the only solution of the land problem in that country. I think the Land Boards ought to be elected by the people on the same basis as County Councils. I think in that way men of good practical experience and men who know the requirements of the district would be elected to the Land Board. I may say that, in my opinion, Whangamomona has been cut up into too small sections. I think, also, that the pacification of the land is far from being perfect. First-class land, in my opinion, is very scarce. 191. Mr. McCutchan.\ Would you be in favour of giving the Land Board power to examine all applicants as to their suitability ? —Yes. I know that great injustice has been done by unsuitable people being allowed to take up land, thus shutting out a bond fide settler. 192. In the case you have referred to, in which you say that an injustice has been done to yourself and other settlers, is it not possible that the Minister disapproved of some of the conditions under which you wished to get on the land ?—He did not say so. 193. The great difficulty is to put poor people on the land under suitable conditions. Do you not think it is a wise policy to endeavour to put the people on the land ? —That is reasonable enough. I omitted to state that about the time I have referred to people were allowed to take up land in an adjoining block, and now all the eyes have been picked out of that land under the system then adopted. 194. Were the co-operative settlers settled along the main arterial line of road ?—No,
N. B. FHYDAY.j
1091
C—4
195. Do you think it is possible for the Government of the country in placing the poor people on the land to devise a better system than giving them work on public works, and at the same time allow them to take up reasonable-sized sections, and thus provide homes for themselves and their family ?— The lease in perpetuity is a great handicap to a poor man. If he wants to improve his place, he perhaps goes to the bank for a loan, and the bank will not give it to him, and neither will the private moneylender. 196. Is it not very desirable, if the Government have reasonably good land to dispose of, that they should give these humble people an opportunity of going on the land ? —Yes. 197. You and your association were in a position to help yourselves and did not require assistance. Do you not think it is desirable that the State should assist men in humbler positions to get on the land, and let those who are in a better position look after themselves ? —The majority of those who were associated with me are only working-men now. 198. Would you make the whole four members of the Land Board elected ?—Yes, all except the Commissioner, who should have a knowledge of survey work. 199. Mr. Paul.] You approve of the County Council franchise for the election of members of the Land Board I—Yes. 200. And you contend that citizens in the towns should have no voice in the settlement and administration of the national estate —that is, the land ? —No, because they do not get their living out of the land. If residents in the towns desire that right they ought to come and live in the country for a few years, and pay £1 ss. for a bag of potatoes, and £1 2s. 6d. for a bag of flour, and then after a few years they will change their opinion very quickly. 201. You recognise that the Crown lands are the greatest asset the country has. Do you not think that every citizen of the colony has a right to say how the land should be disposed of. Before you picked up your land do you not think that you had an equal share with everybody else in saying how the land should be administered ?—The townspeople seem to look very well after themselves, and I think if they looked after the country people a little less it would be all the better. 202. That is probably because you do not know the townspeople ? —I have seen the platforms of certain townspeople, and I have come to the conclusion that the townspeople do not really know what they are looking for. In regard to the election of the members of the Land Board, I only desire what I consider is fair and right. 203. You want the back-block settlers represented directly on the Land Board ?—Yes. 204. In this settlement you have a Crown tenant standing for election to the Board. Do you not think the more popular centres near Stratford and New Plymouth would elect the four members of the Land Board, and leave the sparsely populated districts unrepresented ? —I do not think so, but I can see that the more thickly populated districts would outvote the back-block settlers. Still, I think it would be a good reform, and would be better for the community if the members of the Land Boards were elected. 205. Have you had any dealings with the Land Board ? —Not very many. 206. You have no grievance against the Board ?—No. 207. What system do you think is the best to put the poor man on the land ? —The deferred-payment system. 208. Do you think a poor man can go into this country, fell the bush, make his improvements, and buy the land in fourteen years ? —I think so ; that is if the land is worth working. 209. Mr. McCutchan.] You said that the settlers labour under a disadvantage inasmuch as the change in land legislation prejudicially affects the position of the New Plymouth Harbour ? —Yes. 210. Was it not the case that under the land legislation prior to 1892 the harbour got 25 per cent, of the land sold I—Yes. *211. And a change in that respect has been brought about owing to the land legislation of the colony ? —Yes. 212. Now they are getting 25 per cent, of the rentals instead of the capital value, and that necessitates a higher rate being struck ?—Yes. 213. Are you of opinion that the settlers in the district should be recouped the loss sustained by the change in legislation ? —Yes. Eric Roberton examined. 214. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler, and hold 1,200 acres —900 acres occupation with right of purchase and the rest lease in perpetuity. My rent for all the land is £38 a year. I have held this land for five years and a half. It is fourteen miles from Whangamomona. 215. How are you off for roads ? —There is a mile that as not yet been made. By dray I can reach to within a mile of my homestead. 216. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?—I am satisfied with the occupation with right of purchase. I would like to get occupation with right of purchase for all the land. 217. You want to have an opportunity of making it freehold ? —Yes. 218. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I simply wish to draw attention to the question of roading. I have been there five years and a half and have not got a dray-road to my house yet. The land, however, is loaded for roading, but the money has not been spent. I wrote to the Road Surveyor asking what had become of the loading, and he informed me that a great deal of it had been spent on another road outside the loading-area altogether. 219. Did you expostulate ? —Yes, and he said although the money had been spent outside the loading-area it was legal, as it gave access to another road that was within the loading area. Ido not think that is fair, because the other road has its own loading-area. 220. Who spent the money ? —The Government. 221. Are there other settlers also interested in this road ?—Yes, two besides myself.
C— 4.
1092
[b. robebton.
322. What do the other two settlers pay (—About £iti a year. 223. That makes the amount of the three " thirds " about £24 a year ? —Yes. 224. Has that been expended ?—No. 225. Mr. Anstey.] Is there anything in your lease that prevents you farming the land well ? — No. 226. If you were sure there would be no alteration in the lease, there is nothing to prevent farming the land successfully \ —No; but I would never have come here to take up land if there had not been the option of purchasing it or a part of it. I may say that I bought the goodwill of the lease-in-perpetuity section. 227. Did you pay any more for the goodwill than was sufficient to cover the improvements ?— There may have been a little more than was spent land, but not more than the improvements were worth, because I consider the money was badly expended. 228. Mr. McCutchan.] On what terms do you wish to convert your lease-in-perpetuityflease ?— I would be willing to pay the extra 1 per cent, and the interest on the 1 per cent. 229. With reference to the loading on your block, you said it had been expended elsewhere ?— A great part of it. 230. So that you are in a position of paying for 999 years to the Government interest on money that has never been expended by the Government ? —Yes ; or if I convert into freehold I pay it forSjlall time. 231. Were any of the " thirds " pledged for interest on the loan you raised ? —No. 232. Are these " 1 hirds " still in the hands of the Receiver of Land Revenue ?—I could not say. 233. Have the settlers applications to the local body to have the " thirds " scheduled for expenditure on roads ? —No. I believe the amount of " thirds " accruing for expenditure in that locality is about £70. 234. Mr. Paul.] You said that you would not have taken up the land except for the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure ?—Yes. 235. Why did you take up the lease-in-perpetuity section ?—To give me a little more ploughable land and a better site for a homestead. 236. But you now say it is an unsatisfactory tenure ? —I did not say it was unsatisfactory. 237. Is it an unsatisfactory tenure ? —lt is if I can get the freehold. I would sooner have the freehold than the lease in perpetuity. 238. Do you say that the lease in perpetuity is an unsatisfactory tenure ?—I do not know that I would call it unsatisfactory. 239. Do you know how the advances-to-settlers system is working in this district ?—No. William Hallett examined. 240. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a settler, and hold 185 acres under lease in perpetuity, and I have held the land for ten years. My land is ten miles from Whangamomona, and my rent is £11 15s. a year. 241. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?—No, I prefer the right of purchase. It seems to me that the labour organizations are becoming so strong that they will ultimately carry everything before them. I believe that as soon as they are strong enough to get into power they will make a change in the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, and that there will be periodical revaluation of land. My land was all bush when I took it up, and I have put 140 acres under grass. I went in for dairying for two years, but suffered a considerable loss owing to unfortunate circumstances, including what I might term a convulsion of nature, which destroyed my fences and otherwise did great damage to my land. The result has been that after having spent ten years on the land I have to become a navvy again in order to earn a living for my family. 242. Was it an earthquake that shook the country ?—No, a heavy storm. I made application to .the Land Board at the time for a remission of rent for two years with the privilege of making it up at the expiration of the time, but I find I will not be able to make it up, as it takes me the whole of my time to make a living. I heard nothing more about it except that it had been forwarded to Wellington. 243. How long is it since you represented the matter to Wellington ?—The damage was done twelve months last February, and it was a few months afterwards. I got a reply from the Land Board stating that what I asked for was very reasonable, and that the application was forwarded to Wellington. I was told to lay the case before the Commissioner when he was here. 244. Did you manage to clear your debt by selling the cows ? —No; I had to borrow money on mortgage to pay it ofi. 245. Have you a road to your place ? —The main road runs past the door, but it is impassable for six months of the year. 246. Mr. Anstey.] You fear that your tenure is not secure owing to the agitation of the labour party ?—Yes. 247. Supposing the labour party is strong enough to induce the Government to vitiate your title, do you not think they would be strong enough to interfere with the freehold title if they wanted to ? —Yes ; but I think every man is entitled to an amount of freehold as his inheritance. 248. When you entered into an agreement with the Government for 999 years you have a title as good as a Crown grant ?—Yes, hut the labour party are trying to upset that title. 249. You think that an agreement entered into should never be broken ? —That is so. 250. Can you say, then, why you come here and ask for a breach of your agreement ?—Because I am frightened it is going to be broken, and I want it as my own property.
1093
W. HALLETT.]
C—4.
251. Supposing you are assured that the Government is going to keep its contract with you, would you be satisfied ? —lf I was given an assurance that my lease was not going to be tampered with during its term I would be satisfied, but I have not got that assurance. 252. Has any one in authority told you your lease is going to be broken, or is your fear the result of reading ?—The result of reading. 253. Could you acquire your freehold ?—lf I had the right of purchase I might be able to accumulate the funds. 254. Did you apply for your loan under the Advances to Settlers Act ?—I have now. 255. Did you not apply to the Government when the accident happened ?—No; I got the money privately and it is now about due, and I have asked the Government to take it over for me, but the Department has refused. They will only give me half the value of my improvements. 256. What interest do you pay on the private loan ?—8 per cent. 257. Mr McCutchcin '] Is your wish for the occupation with right of purchase subsequent to and in consequence of this agitation for revaluation from the towns ?—lt is probably based on that. 258. As an intelligent settler of the colony, do you think it is possible for any Government to give you an assurance that your lease will be in no way tampered with ?—I am afraid it is not. 259. Do you think it is probable or even possible that the labour party are sufficiently strong and well organized to place a Cabinet in power to carry out their wishes ?—I believe it is working very strongly that way. 260. Have you had any loss through tutu-poisoning ? —No, I keep it all cut. 261. Can you say if the settlers generally throughout the district have suffered as severely as you have ?—Some of my neighbours .have. 262. Has a general application gone from the district for a remission of rent ?—I think so. I know a good many settlers have applied for compensation. 263. With reference to your application to the Department for a loan, did you apply for an amount in excess of half the value of your improvements ? —According to the value they have placed on them it is in ?xcess. 264. You know the Department has no power to advance more than half the value of their assessor's valuation of the improvements' ?—Yes. 265. Do you think it would be safe to advance more than 50 per cent. ?—Yes. 266. Have you applied since the regulation came in allowing an advance up to 50 per cent, of the improvements and the goodwill ?—T have applied again and three weeks ago got a reply again refusing the request 267. Mr. Paul.] You think the general trend of legislation will be against you if the labour party come into power ? —I am afraid it will. 268. Why do you think that ? —I think they will bring in periodical revaluation, which will break the agreement I have entered into. 269. When did you come to the conclusion that you were dissatisfied with the lease in perpetuity ? —Shortly after I took it up and got more knowledge and information about the land laws. 270. That will be nine years ago ?—Within the last six years I became convinced that it was safer to have the freehold. 271. What was the attitude of the labour party on the revaluation question six years ago ? — As near as I can remember the attitude of the labour party since I have taken the thing into consideration at all has been for periodical revaluation of all leases issued under lease in perpetuity by the Government. 272. I suppose you would believe me if I tell you that the labour party never proposed the revaluation of existing leases until last year, and that they then decided that it would be wise to revalue existing leases on the death of the lessee or at the transfer of the lease ? —I may be mistaken, but I understood that the revaluation referred to all leases until this last occasion that you mention, when they made the amendment that the revaluation was to come into force at the death of the tenant or at the transfer of the lease. 273. Can you tell me what object the labour party, if they became the dominant party in this country, would have in harassing the settler or bringing about conditions which were against his welfare ? —They might not definitely go to do it with that intention, but I am under the impression that the labour party, having no knowledge or experience of the hardships of the back-block settlers, are not in a position to pass a law affecting them. 274. Is it not reasonable to suppose that the majority of the labour party are sensible and levelheaded men, and know that the welfare of the country and of the towns is so wrapped up that one cannot be injured without the other ? Is not that a reasonable view to take of it ?—lt would be reasonable, but it is quite possible for them to pass legislation that would injure the back-block settler without injuring the towns at all. 275. Do you think it possible to injure the settler without affecting the towns ?—Yes, the backblock settler under lease in perpetuity. James Moir examined. 276. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler, farming 393 acres under occupation with right of purchase, about eleven miles from Whangamomona. About 250 acres of it is cleared of bush. I have been in possession for about-three years, and pay between £15 and £16 a year rent. lam satisfied with the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure. A dray can come to within two miles of my homestead, and I am indebted to the courtesy of my neighbour for a track through his paddock from that point to my house. I bought the section from a person who had more sense than I had. 277. Do you think you gave the outgoing tenant anything over and above the value of the
a—4.
1094
[j. MOIR.
improvements ?—I paid nothing for goodwill. I paid what I considered a fair amount for improvements. 278. Was the land loaded for road-making ? —Yes. 279. Has the loading been expended ?—I do not know. I wrote about the " thirds," asking that they might be held over. The Government, however, have been doing some work which will be no use to me, because the road they are making leads to a creek which I cannot cross. 280. Are there many people interested in this particular piece of land ?—Above me there are some, but below me the land belongs to the Crown, and is unopened. 281. There cannot be a large amount of " thirds " for this road, then ? —No. 282. You are rated in addition, of course ? —I pay rates to the county and rent to the Government, and cannot get access from either. 283. The county do nothing for you ?—They cannot. It is not a county road. 284. Has any money been expended by the Government by grant over and above the " thirds " ? —I cannot say. 285. It is the Government that has done anything that has been done ?—Yes ; but the Government has never made the roads, and that is a condition of the occupation license—that the roads are to be made. 286. Was this land worse situated in regard to roads when you took it up three years ago than it is now ? —No, it was the same as now. 287. Mr. Anstey.] Do you know how much loading was placed on the section for roads ?—lt is valued at somewhere about 15s. per acre, and about a fourth of that would be for roads. 288. Do you say none of it has been spent ?—The Government has been doing something lately, but they may as well throw theit money into the fire. 289. You are quite sure that the money has not been spent ? —From the point where the road junctions on to another nothing has been spent. 290. If it had been spent, would it have been sufficient to give you access ?—I could not say. It is not a difficult portion of road to make. 291. Supposing this money is not sufficient for roading, do you think it would be right for the Government to put an additional loading on all lands before opening them up so as to road them at first ? —I take it that when the Government send out surveyors they send men who are capable of estimating the cost of making roads, and that they would put sufficient on the land in the first place. 292. You think there is sufficient for all the roads at present ?—There should be. 293. Mr. McCutchan.] As the country has developed and as the revenue has increased, do you think the Government grants should have increased proportionately ? —Certainly. 294. Are_you aware that between 1881 and 1891 grants fell from £352,000 to £168,000 ? —No. 295. You are an advocate of the freehold tenure ?—Certainly. 296. Do you think the freehold is the best in the interests of the State I—Most decidedly so. 297. Do you not think that under the freehold there is likely to be an aggregation of estates, and that the good work of the land-for-settlements policy would be nullified ? —No. 298. How would you prevent it ?—The people in New Zealand must be credited with a certain amount of brains. In France, where it is all small holdings, there is no tendency to aggregate the estates, and I think the people of New Zealand would be equally anxious to pass on their properties to their families. 299. Would you limit the amount of land one could hold privately or under leasehold ?—Certainly. 300. Seeing that there is no law of entail in the colony, and that properties are usually divided on the death of the owner, do you think these two factors present sufficient to guard against the aggregation of estates ? —I should think so, especially as the land-tax rises in proportion with the area held. 301. Have you ever been a leaseholder under lease in perpetuity ? —Yes. 302. Did you find it satisfactory ?—No. • 303. Had you any reasons for dissatisfaction—did you find a difficulty in financing or working your place % —I have this reason : Very shortly after I took up the place I saw that all those who preached lease in perpetuity were fighting shy of it. With the exception of Mr. Vile, of Manawatu, there is not a single M.H.R. that I can discover who holds a lease in perpetuity at present. Mr. Hogg, of Masterton, held a section in an association, but when the time came for him to do the improvements he got out. The only conclusion that I could come to was that members had some information, which they will not make public, which induced them to keep clear of lease in perpetuity. 304. In view of the fact that it is a wise thing to make the payments as light as possible, do you not think the lease in perpetuity has served a useful purpose in enabling people with little capital to get on the land ? —Decidedly. 305. Do you advocate that tenure being removed from the statute-book ?—No ; but I think a man should have a chance of acquiring the right of purchase within ten years, on the payment of 1 per cent, from the date that he took his lease. 306. From your knowledge of the district and the settlers, can you say that the residence conditions press hardly on the settlers % —I think that the residence conditions is a matter that should be left a good deal to the discretion of the Land Board, because in some cases I know they are carried out very laxly, whilst in other cases I know they are very strictly enforced. 307. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board ? —I think the Board should be elective on the County Council franchise. 308. It was pointed out to-day that it was really unfair to exclude certain sections of the community having views on the land question, and they would be excluded under the County Council franchise. The whole colony is interested in the money used for the purchase of the land from the
T. moir.l
1095
C—4.
Natives, and seeing that the whole of the colony is interested should they not all have a voice in the election of Land Boards ?—No ; I am not prepared to admit that, because there may be a good-sized town in the land district, and you may as well say that the settlers have a right to appoint a man to a seat on the Trades and Labour Council as to say that the trades-unions should appoint a man to a seat on the Land Board. 309. Do you advocate the whole of the members exclusive of the Commissioner being elected ?— Certainly. 310. And do you think the Commissioner is fairly representative for the other party —the State ? —The Commissioner is a man who should certainly understand the land question. 311. What is your opinion of the co-operative-works system ?—lt is very good if properly carried out. 312. You think it could be made better ? —Certainly; by allowing each party to choose their own mates. 313. Do you think it is wise to bring outside labour into a district where there are a lot of struggling settlers ? —That is a question that is very difficult to answer. 314. If the local labour provided by the settlers in the district is adequate to cope with the work of the district, do you think it should be given to them and outsiders excluded I—Certainly.l—Certainly. 315. You do not advocate the abolition of the system ? —No ; I advocate its improvement. 316. Is there any direction in which you would advocate a reform ?—Yes. I should treat cooperative workers the same as small contractors. Each party should be supplied with schedules of the work and plans, so that they would know what they are doing. It would relieve a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the men. 317. Is there any limitation as regards hours ? —I do not know that there is a hard-and-fast rule, but eight hours is recognised as a fair day's work. 318. Would you advocate a change in the direction of allowing men to work as long as they liked, and to make as much wages as they can ?—ln summer weather I would allow a man to work as long as he liked. 319. Subject to these changes, do you think work can be done as economically under the co-opera-tive system as under the contract system ?■—l do not see why it should not. 320. Would you invite tenders for the work ?—I would let the engineer place a fair estimate on it, and allow the men to choose their own mates and go to work at it. 321. And make as much as they can ?—Yes. 322. Mr. Paul.] You have a fair knowledge of how long it takes a man to work himself out in a day. Do you think eight hours is the limit ?—He may put in another hour, but that is about all I would give him. 323. You said you would not like to take advantage of the Rebate of Rent Act. Could you have if you wanted to I—Certainly. 324. Have you refused to do so ?—I have not taken advantage of it yet. 325. What voice would you give to the Crown tenants in the towns in the election of the Land ■Boards ? —I do not say that there are any Crown tenants in the towns. 326. Do you not know that the Government have acquired land in the towns and settled people on them under lease in perpetuity ?—They may have acquired building-sites, but that is quite a different thing to coming out here into the back blocks. 327. You would not give them a voice ? —lf they were leaseholders they would have a voice, I suppose, but no one not holding a lease could have any voice. 328. Would you give the freehold landowners in the towns a voice ?—I was referring to the country landowners. 329. You would give the town leaseholders a voice ?—They can only be suburban leaseholders at best. 330. They hold land under lease in perpetuity in the City of Christchurch, for|instance ? —I did not think there were any within the bounds of the cities. 331. Would you give them a voice or not ? —To a certain extent I say give them the county franchise. 332. Do you simply want country settlers to be represented on the Land Board 'Those are whom the Land Board governs. 333. What do you think those members of Parliament have in their minds that they are keeping back from the country with regard to lease in perpetuity ? —They must know something of the working of the labour unions. 334. Do you think Mr. Vile knows anything about labour unions ?—I do not suppose they would let him know much ; but he acquired his lease in perpetuity before he was elected to Parliament, and he did not come out into the wilderness. 335. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think any more satisfactory method is desirable for the making of assessments of the unimproved value and the value of the tenants' improvements ?—I can give you my own experience of it. The lease in perpetuity that I hold was valued by the Government at considerably over £6 per acre. I wrote back to the Department saying that it was too much, and after a considerable amount of correspondence they agreed to reduce it by, I think, £80, but they made the deduction from the value of my improvements, and let the unimproved value stand as assessed by the valuer. That is not just or fair. The man never saw the section. 336. Do you mean to say that an officer of the Department made an assessment in which he stated quite clearly that your valuation was made up of so much improvements and so much unimproved value, and that when you objected he admitted he would make a reduction provided you agreed that it should come wholly from the improvements ?—Yes ; he said they would deduct £80 from the valuation of
0.—4.
[j. MOIB.
1096
my improvements, and as far as I could discover the officer who valued me never set foot on the property. 337. Do you think it should be the law of the land that no officer should make an assessment except after going over the property with the occupier of the property ?•—Most decidedly. 338. Can you state that these assessments are made with any frequency without thorough examination ? —I cannot say as to that. I will only speak of what I really know, and Ido know that when finally I sold the property I had to sell it for less than the reduced value. 339. If your statements can be made good by other evidence you think there is a grave danger in connection with this method of revaluation, inasmuch as there is a tendency all over the colony to increase the unimproved value at the expense of the occupier's actual work on the land ? —Yes. 340. Mr. Paul.] We will suppose that the present system of revaluation is abolished : is that any reason why it should be continued or would be in operation after the revaluation of future leases in perpetuity ?—Judging by the way in which it is going on lately it is not likely to be amended. 341. Is there any reason why it could not be amended ? —No ; but there is a grave danger that it will not. 342. Why ? —Simply because the towns would be all against it. 343. Can you tell me what factor there is at work in this district to set the country against the town ? —I do not know that the country is against the town, but it is an evident fact by all the newspapers that the towns are pretty dead against the country. 344. A few witnesses who have come before the Commission to-day have exhibited a most pronounced bias against the towns ?—The witnesses from this district know to their cost and sorrow what it is to live in the back blocks, and the townspeople do not. The townspeople are getting all the pickings in the way of buildings, whilst the poor country settler is up to the knees in mud, and has to pay three or four times what it ought to co'st him for living. Ernest Massy Izett examined. 345. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler, holding 80 acres under lease in perpetuity, and I have held it for nine years. It is situated six miles from here, and I pay £7 per annum. I have a dray-road and am very well satisfied with the tenure, ram one of the Whangamomona improvedfarm homestead settlers. 346. Are any of your neighbours clearing out ? —The land seems to be in the hands of the mortgagees. 347. Have some of the tenants left altogether ?—Last week there were five sections vacant. All the best land in the place has been vacated. I would like to get a larger place, but these sections are all too heavily mortgaged for me to take any of them of the five vacant sections was taken up last week. 348. Are there many improvements on these vacated sections ? —Yes. 349. Did the people leave the district ? —Yes. 350. I suppose the Government have advanced a good deal of money on them ?—They have advanced up to the amount of the regulations. 351. There would be about £100 on some of the sections ? —About that. 352. The mortgagee is really the Government ? —No ; private individuals. 353. Besides what is owing to the Government ?—Yes. 354. Is there anything particular you wanted to say ?—I wanted to say that it is a pretty rough thing that I cannot get a piece of land when there is an area lying behind me under a forest reserve. This land that is forest reserve is suitable for settlement, whilst there is other country in the neighbourhood which is only fit for forest reserve, but is thrown open for settlement. 355. Are you dairying ? —For the home only. I run a few sheep and cows and horses. 356. Mr. Anstey.] These farms are too small for men to make a living on them ? —Yes. 357. What size do you think these sections should be to enable a man to make a fair living ? Up to 300 acres. 358. You think it would be a wise thing for the Government to allow you to put two together ? Yes. 359. Would not that do men with small means out of an opportunity of taking up these sections— that is what they were intended for ? —lt might. I have never been able to stay on my section without going away to work. If I had 200 acres I could make a good living. 360. Why will not the Government give you that forest reserve ? —The Minister said that if he got a favourable report from the Land Board he would grant the request, but the Land Board wrote back to say that they had not the power —whether they meant that they had not the power to make the report or to grant the request I do not know. 361. How are these small settlers farming their land ? —They are working day and night on it. 362. Are they building on it ?—Most of them have buildings. 363. Are they all satisfied with the tenure ? —lf they got more for butter-fat they would be. 364. Mr. McGutchan.] How did these sections get into the hands of the mortgagees originally ? I suppose to pay the tucker bill they borrowed. 365. Did they get this money at reasonable rates ? —ln some cases they did not. 366. Can you say if application was made to the Advances to Settlers Department originally ? I W as under the impression that the Government would not advance sufficiently. 367. Did you make application ? —No. I knew some who did and who did not get satisfaction, so I did not apply. 368. Do you know what interest is paid on these mortgages ? —I pay 7 per cent, myself, but 1 know one case that is paying 12 per cent.
E. M. TZETT.I
1097
C.—4.
369. Did that get the sanction of the Land Board ?—lt was gazetted at 12 per cent., but I do not know whether it went through the Land Board. 370. Have you seen any bills of cost in connection with these loans ? —One of my neighbours showed me his bill in connection with a loan of £150. It came to £22 10s. £7 of that was rent and the rest was expenses. 371. What did the expenses consist of ? —£4 was for guaranteeing the loan, and there was a procuration fee of £3. 372. 2 per cent, for procuration fee ? —Yes. 373. The balance was ordinary legal charges ?—Yes. 374. Do you know what the charges would be under the Advances to Settlers Department for a similar loan ? —Something like £2 10s. 375. So that in this case the charges were six times or more what the Advances to Settlers Department would have charged if the money was available ?—That is so. 376. In these cases where applications were made to the Department was the advancing power to meet the needs of the settlers ?—The settlers applied for sufficient to wipe off the mortgages. It is no use offering them anything less than sufficient to meet their requirements. 377. Do you think the extortionately high rates of interest charged by outsiders was due to the fact that the security was inadequate ? —No; I think they used the fact that they could not get the money anywhere else as a lever. 378. Do you know of any loans being taken up by the Department lately ?—I have known one or two. 379. They got the amount of the loan advanced to them by private parties ?—Yes; I have known two who got more. 380. Do you think the State might safely advance up to 50 per cent, of the improvements and 50 per cent, of the goodwill ?—Decidedly. 381. Do you think any further advance would be wise and prudent ? —I think if a settler can pay an extortionate-rate to an outsider he could very well pay the Government charges on cheaper money. 382. Mr. Paul.] So far as your dealings have gone you are satisfied with the constitution and administration of the Land Board ?—Quite so. 383. The Chairman.] You spoke of 12 per cent, being paid for money : was that money advanced on the land ? —I do not know. The bill of sale was gazetted at 12 per cent. 384. Mr. Anstey.] Do you know whether there is any political reason behind private lenders charging Government settlers a high rate of interest ?—lt seems to me that there is a political reason, and that is that the Government will not back up their own legislation by backing their own settlers. We had one case quoted by Mr. Massey where a man got £1,600 and they cannot let another have £500. 385. You are aware that there had been no loans beyond £500 in recent years ? —Not that I know of. Ernest Jennings examined. 386. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler with 89 acres lease in perpetuity, three miles from the township. I have held it ten years, and pay £8 ss. a year. lam pleased with my tenure. It is all cleared bat 3 acres. I have a road and do dairying. 387. Is there any matter you wish to bring before us ? —Yes. Regarding the constitution of Land Boards, I prefer the Government nominee system to any elective system. I would be against the proposal of the local bodies nominating Boards. It is the duty of the Land Board to administer the laws made by Parliament. Regarding the lease in perpetuity versus the freehold my idea is that the value of land can only be determined by what the producer can get from his holding. Supposing I have 100 acres of land in good grass, thirty cows would produce 2 tons of butter. lam a lease-in-perpetuity holder and my neighbour has the freehold. Supposing his freehold is rough, and he can only run twenty cows and produce 1| tons a year • does it follow that the value of his freehold is worth any more than mine ? It is a question of security of tenure, and I prefer a 999-years lease to buying a freehold. If I had to buy the freehold it would inflict hardship on me, because I would have to spend money in doing so, and with the money I paid for the freehold I could buy my cattle for cash instead of paying the auctioneer 10 per cent, for the cattle I would buy on credit. The cry about periodical revaluation is only a bogie of the money-lender, and if the time comes when periodical revaluation of Crown tenancies takes place, the freeholder will have to pay his quota also in increased land and income tax. If my tenure is secured to me lam as pleased with the present lease in perpetuity as with the best freehold in New Zealand. A witness stated that people who held land under the lease in perpetuity let their places go to ruin. I disagree with him, for in the case of a great many of the freeholds taken up under the occupation with right of purchase near Stratford and Toko, there are plenty of noxious weeds growing. There is not a great deal of difference in the manner in which a man looks after his place under the two systems. The greatest grievance we have here is the want of transit to the outer world by roads. We only get about a mile of road per year —in fact, we have not that much. We took up this land in 1895 and not ten miles of metal has been put on that road since, and we are a long time getting a metalled road, and we are not going to get it. What is most pressing here on people with families is that the railway should be completed to the East Road, so that every settler could take advantage of it. It is now too far away from Whangamomona, and until it reaches a point nearer to us it will not be useful. It should be completed to Mangaire. The Minister for Public Works must know that the railway is not up to a paying-point at present. If a man gets out to Douglas Road he does not take advantage of the railway, but drives on to Stratford, and the line is of no benefit to him. 388. Mr. Anstey.] Are'your holdings large enough for a man to make a fair living out of them? —No. That was the great mistake in this settlement. They cut the sections up too small, and settlers
138—C. 4.
C—4.
1098
Te. JENNINGS.
who had rough sections had to leave, and after that the sections were grouped in some cases. Unfortunately for me there has been no vacant section alongside mine. 389. What size would be necessary for a man to make a fair living ?—The smallest size here would be not less than 200 acres, and at least two of them should be put together. 390. Supposing they were made so in the first case, would people of your means have gone in for the bigger sections ?—I believe they could. When we took up this land we only had one year gratis, and then had to pay rent. Regarding the Advances to Settlers, a great many private mortgages were taken here in the first place because the improved-farm settler had to hold his land twelve months before the Advances to Settlers Act recognised him. Consequently they had to go to private moneylenders for money, and had to pay often 10 and 12 per cent, for it. We held the sections here before the Government decided to give us our leases, and when we got them and wanted a little money to improve our homesteads we could not get it through the Advances to Settlers Department until we held the leases twelve months. I have heard on good authority that one man who applied for £240 from them was only offered £40. Another man wanted £175 and they offered him £35. The improvedfarm settler here cannot take advantage of the cheap money from the Advances to Settlers Department, and I think that the Department ought to be more liberal to the poor man. 391. Are there any freeholders here who neglect their farms ? —There are not a great many here; but I cannot see any difference between either class—all farm fairly well. There are some noxious weeds, but not a great many. There are a good many about Toko, where it is all freehold. It would be a good thing if the local body would look after them a little, because they are gradually spreading from Toko to here. 392. I suppose the Government tenants are so well looked after now that they do not allow these weeds to grow ?—I suppose so. . 393. With regard to transit, one settler considered that the railway should be pushed through at all cost to the neglect of the road. What do you think should be done—the road or the railway first ?— I think we should get a portion of the road metalled every year, but at the same time the Government should not relax their efforts in bringing the railway out to the East Road as soon as possible. At present it is at Douglas Road, and the next stage brings it within seventeen miles of this township. 394. Mr. McCutchan.] Is it not the case that all these noxious weeds came in in seed ? —I do not think so. They might come in with seed, but lam strongly of opinion that they came in by horse and cattle from outside, and that is borne out by the fact that some of this land has been grassed for eight or nine years, and it is only lately that these weeds have made their appearance. I refer particularly to the buttercup with a little flower, which is a most dangerous and destructive weed. 395. Is it not the case that the oxeye daisy came in here with the seed originally ? —I think so. 396. I think you made an unwarrantable charge against the outside freeholder ?—Well, a neighbour last year would not allow me to graze a horse on his place because in his opinion seeds would be carried from the outside land and fill his place with noxious weeds. 397. Is it not the case that the Stratford County Council has rigorously enforced the Act all over the County, and the noxious weeds are being brought under subjection ?—There has been a lot of ragwort round Toko. 398. You are a great advocate of the lease in perpetuity provided there is security of tenure ? —Yes. 399. You said that it was better for a man to buy cows with his money than to pay off the capital value of his land. Do you think your savings could be more wisely expended in that way than in gradually paying off the capital of the land and having a free property ?—lf the lease in perpetuity is a secured tenure I consider that the farmer could always utilise his money by bringing his land up to a more productive point than by paying money for the freehold, because he then sinks his money for all time. 400. You complain that your area is inadequate for a living. If a man does make some savings would that money be wisely expended in taking up a further area under the lease in perpetuity ?-— Yes, and I advocate that in preference to applying the money to pay for the freehold. 401. Mr. Paul.] You consider a good road is of more consequence to the settler than the tenure ? —I do. 402. Do you know of anything in the conditions of the lease in perpetuity which interferes with the tenant in farming his land ?— Not in the case of tenants occupying Crown lands. 403. If the Land Board was elected do you think it would be right to prevent a section of the people from having a vote on the constitution of that Board ? —I think the Crown lands are a colonial estate, but if Land Boards were elected they should be elected on the parliamentary franchise. 404. Do you not think it would be just as logical to ask that the Warden of a mining district should be elected as to ask that a Land Board should be elected ? —Quite so. 405. Or that the Magistrate should be elected ?—Yes. 406. Is there anybody in this district working to set the country against the towns ? —No; that is simply a bogie of the money-lenders, who tell the people that the leasehold is going to be violated, but I tell them if that is done the freeholder will also have to bear his share in the shape of increased land-tax. 407. Do you think there is a party in sufficient power to wish to violate the contracts entered into between the State and its citizens ?—I do not think it would be judicious for any party to do it, and even the labour unions must see it is to their interest that the producer should be helped in every possible way. 408. Is not the Land Board a purely administrative body, and there to administer the laws as they find them ?—Yes,
1099
E. JENNINGS.]
0.—4.
409. Mr. McCutchan.] Is it strictly accurate that the Land Boards are a purely administrative body to administer the statute-law as they find it ?—I thought they were simply a nominated body, nominated to carry out the land laws as they are laid down in the statute-book. ■110. Is it not the case that the Land Boards have large discretionary power ?—They cannot go against the statute-book. 411. Yes, there is the residence condition ?—Only under extraordinary circumstances, such as sickness. 412. Is it strictly the case that they are purely an administrative body ? —I do not know that they have any power farther than that of exempting a person from residence if he can show good cause. 413. You are a great advocate of the nominated system on the ground that it is well to have men nominated who are in sympathy with the land laws of the colony ? —I did not say that. 414. Would it be wise to nominate men to the Land Board who were not in sympathy with the land l aW s \ —l cannot say that it would be wise, and Ido not say that it would be detrimental. 415. In order to get proper representation, would you be in favour of dividing the land districts into ridings or wards, the Government to have the power of nomination in each ward in order that each part might be fairly represented ? —I think so, if they were nominated. Patrick Toohey examined. 416. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler holding 340 acres under the lease in perpetuity, about fourteen miles from here. I have held it about five years and am paying £7 Is. 4d. yearly. It was bush but some of it is now cleared. lam satisfied with my tenure. There is no road within two miles and a half of the land. There was a track but it has slipped away, and I cannot live there just now. I got twelve months' exemption as I could not live without a road. I would not promise to return as soon as I got in a better position, but I will endeavour to go back. I want the road access. 417. During the whole five years has the making of the road been stagnant ? —Some progress has been made, but not much —the Government are doing it. I got a subsidy under the pound-for-pound principle. My land is loaded for road-making, but I have no reason to believe that the money has been expended. 418. What do you want to bring before us ?—I consider that the regulations are somewhat stringent and might be relaxed to enable a man to go off his section in order to get work to make a little money to go on with. I believe in the lease in perpetuity because it places the man in some relation to the land. Ido not say it is perfect, but in time I believe our politicians will be able to put it right. I am opposed to the freehold tenure on the ground that the individual who wants the freehold is asking the community to do what he would not do himself. The good land has nearly all gone under the freehold, and that enta'ls a certain amount of hardship on the Crown tenant, because what is left and especially the land is of little value to them. The freeholders are also very powerful : they have the making of the laws in their own hands, and are placing new burdens on the unfortunate Crown tenants and especially on the workers by means of taxation. The rents are somewhat heavy, the land is loaded for roads, and the Crown tenants have not much chance of getting on. I think the rents should be reduced and the Advances to Settlers Act should be amended so as to enable the Crown tenants to obtain more money on the result of their labour. lam against private borrowing as people who go to private lenders are only able to obtain loans at an extortionate rate of interest. The monetary powers are all strong in the colony, and combine to hamper those people who are endeavouring to make homes for themselves, and there is also a set who are endeavouring to set the town against the country. I reckon the people who live in the towns have a perfect right to a say in the disposal of the public estate. With legard to the co-operative system I believe that system is more conducive to the well-being of the country than the contract system, which is competitive purely and simply. We have had a great deal of experience with contract-work here and elsewhere, and I see nothing to urge in favour of the system. It tends to make the working-classes the slaves to toil in which they have no interest. The, great difficulty here is regarding roads. I would like to see the roads prosecuted more vigorously, and at the same time the railway should be pushed further in to this back country as quickly as possible. 419. Mr. Anstey.] Have you any idea what it would cost to put that road up to your place in order ? —About £300 or £400. 420. That would be much more than the road is entitled to on account of your loading and " thirds" ? —Yes. 421. Has the Government made any promise to do it \—No. 422. Is there any one else interested in the road ?—There are a couple more settlers. 423. Still, their loading and " thirds " would not be sufficient ?— No. 424. You state that the residence conditions should not be so strictly enforced ; yours has been removed I—Yes. 425. Do you know whether there has been any instance where the Board has refused exemption ? —No. 426. In that case then, apparently, these residence conditions are acting fairly well ?—I believe if a man makes his case good, the Board will try to re) ; eve him as much as possible. 427. Do you think there ought to be residence conditions for freeholders as well as leaseholders ? — They should both be the same. 428. Why do you oppose the freehold %—On the ground that it is inimical to the best interests of the country. If we all paid rent to the Government the people as a whole would be more prosperous, as under the present system the land goes into the hands of a body of people which is always growing larger, and those people will be a great power over the workers. I have seen it here, in Australia, and in Ireland.
a—4.
1100
[P. TOOHEY.
429. What do you propose to do with the existing freeholders ?—I propose to give them compensation. I would buy them all out. s j 430. You think it would be wise for the State to buy out all the freehold ?—Yes, gradually. At the same time, lam opposed to freeholders being allowed to mortgage to private individuals also. They should only be allowed to mortgage to the State, and in the event of a freeholder losing his land under the mortgage, that land should revert back to the State —the State to take the mortgage up. 431. Mr. McCutchan.] You made a statement that the loading had not been expended —I think it has not been. 432. You mean it has not been expended on your road, but might not it have been expended on other roads in the block ?—Yes, it might be. 433. If the loading originally was not sufficient for the road, do you think that the Department would be justified in spending it as they thought fit to the best advantage of the block generally 1 — Yes. 434. You are an advocate of the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—Yes. 435. Do you consider there should be a revaluation clause inserted in leases to be issued in the future ?—I am a believer in revaluation, because I know that the land derives the benefit through the labour of the worker. I would not be inclined to bring about a periodical revaluation at once, but in time. It would be only just, because the increment at present is being received by the wrong party. The man with a 999-years lease gets all the unearned increment. 436. You think he ought not to have it I—Oh, it is all right for him, and I consider the Trades and Labour Council has a perfect right to advocate revaluation if the majority of the people are in favour of it. 437. Would you be in favour*of a revaluation clause being put in your own lease ?—I would agree to it if the majority decided it should be. 438. I am asking your own opinion ?—Yes, I am a believer in revaluation. 439. Do you think it should be made retrospective ?—Yes. i 440. What area have you grassed on your holding ?—About 35 or 40 acres. 441. You took it up five years ago I—Yes.1 —Yes. j 442. What area are you supposed to put in grass annually ? —I am supposed to do 10 per cent, of improvements. 443. You have grassed 35 acres in five years, whereas you ought to have had 150 acres in grass ?— If I had had roads I might have had more in grass. 444. You advocate revaluation, you have had the land five years, and you have had twelve months' exemption, and now you have a further twelve months. Are you running with the hare or hunting with the hounds ?—No, I am giving my own opinion, because I have always held strong opinions on the matter. 445. Have you made your land reproductive as a settler ?—I did my best according to the facilities I had. 446. Have you complied with the law ? —Yes, according to the regulations. 447. What is the law with regard to your improvement conditions ?—I should make 10 per cent, improvements. 448. Have you done so ?—I have. 449. You put how much in grass ? —4O acres. 450. Is that 10 per cent. ? —I got two years' exemption at once. 451. Do you think your opinion on this land question is valuable in view of what you have done with your own holding ? —I think it is. 452. Mr. Paul.] Do you think a man should be found fault with because through lack of means he has not been able to do as much as he otherwise might have done ? —I think it is a great injustice when he has done his best. 453. Are there not good settlers everywhere who would be perhaps a little behind if the strict letter of the law were adhered to, and who, if they receive a little consideration now, will eventually make good settlers ?—Most undoubtedly. 454. Do you think the Land Board is to be blamed because it relaxes the conditions somewhat in that direction ? —No. 455. How do the poor men get on under the freehold tenure ?—They do not make a success of it. They generally sell to some one else, and get a bit of money out of it. 456. Does a poor man get on the land under the freehold system ?—No, he is a slave to toil in which he has no interest. 457. You express yourself in favour of revaluation of existing leases. Do you not think that would be a grave injustice to a man who objected to the revaluation of his lease ?—lf a man buys a freehold he is not more secure on that than he is on the leasehold, because if the State likes to tax him he might have to pay very heavily, but if the majority decide in favour of revaluation, the individual must adapt himself to it. 458. Do you think the majority of the leaseholders would be agreeable to have their leases revalued ? —I do not. 459. Do you not think that if revaluation be the solution of the argument, the State should compensate the leaseholder if they want to vary the terms of the contract ?—Yes. 460. Do you not think that is a sound policy ? —Very. 461. Is there any factor in this district working to set the country against the town % —There are certain men who have that object in view, and they get up this cry of revaluation and Fair Rent Bills simply to scare unthinking people and those who hold Crown lands. 462. Mr. Anstey.] Have you any stock on your farm yet ?—No. 463. Mr. McCutchan.] Was a Fair Rent Bill introduced into Parliament I—l1 —I believe it was.
1101
C—4.
f. TOOHEY.j
464. If so, how can you say that people have got up a fictitious cry because of the danger of a, Fair]RentT3ill ?—That Bill did not pass Parliament. 465. You attributejthis uneasiness to local men ?—I do, sir. 466. Do you think the settlers were in favour of a Fair Rent Bill ? —I do not know that. They would not be in favour of any thing that would touch their pockets. 467. Can you say if the feeling in the district is in favour of retrospective revaluation ? —I presume if the majority of the people are in favour of it, I must comply with the regulation. 468. But personally you advocate retrospective revaluation ? —I do not know I would, but it would be reasonable that this land should be revalued in time. 469. I put the question to you, if you personally are infavour of retrospective revaluation ?—I am. Michael Geever examined. 470. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, holding 1,350 acres under occupation with right of purchase. I have held it since last March. I bought it from the Crown. I pay £33 a year. It is five miles from here, and all bush. I have another section in the Wellington Land District, at Hunterville, lease in perpetuity, for which I pay £17 per annum rent. I prefer the occupation with right of purchase. I have my place at Hunterville, and have been there for about ten or eleven years. I have a road within a mile of the occupation-with-right-of-purchase section here. It is not very good ; in fact, you have to climb up a precipice by a vine to get on the land. I think there will be a road very soon. 471. Is there any thing you wish to bring before us ? —Yes ; only the lease in perpetuity. I do not believe in it at all. It is no use to a .poor man, as he cannot go into the bush without capital. 472. You have had some land ten years. Have you got it all in grass ?—Yes, with the assistance of capital. 473. But supposing you have the freehold, you would require much more capital to meet your expenditure ?—But see how easily you can get it on the freehold. You have to pay double interest on the leasehold, and then you cannot get any amount either. 474. What do you think of the security of the tenure of the lease in perpetuity as compared with the freehold ? —999 years is too long. It will never last; but if you have a freehold it is there, and there is no more trouble with it. lam not satisfied with the lease in perpetuity, but lam with the occupation with right of purchase. 475. Mr. Anstey.] How much loading is there on this new farm of yours ?—I could not say. Something about 3s. or 45., but they never told me. I did not ask. 476. Have you any idea what would be sufficient to give you access ? —I think with the " thirds " it might be sufficient to give me access. I think the loading is sufficient. 477. With regard to the lease in perpetuity, you say it is fully improved. Does it grow good grass ? —Yes. 478. Would it grow any better if it were freehold ?—I do not suppose so. 479. Do not the stock do just as well on the leasehold as on the freehold ?—Yes. 480. Then, as far as the productiveness is concerned, there is absolutely no difference ?—None ; it is only with regard to the improvements. 481. But you have them for 999 years, and most of them will be rotten at the end of that time ? — Yes. The only drawback is in regard to improving your place. The land is in standing bush, and if you have not capital what are you to do. There is only a difference of | per cent, between the two, and it is worth more than that to have your freehold, to do what you like with regard to improvements 482. Mr. McCutchan.] You have excellent land in this district?— Partly. 483. You think it is satisfatcory in quality ?—Yes. It is reasonably good grass-growing country, and pretty good sheep country. 484. If you had had no option but only the lease in perpetuity, you would not have taken up this block ?—No. 485. Have you found any fellow-settlers come into the district lately ?—No. 486. From your practical experience, do you think they would be prepared to come to this class of country and take it up under the lease in perpetuity only in future ?—No. 487. Do you think the lease in perpetuity is decreasing in popularity with the settlers ?—Yes. 488. And there is the risk of the occupation with right of purchase increasing in favour ?—Yes. 489. If the tenure were made absolutely secure, do you think the 1 per cent, difference in the rental would induce people to go on the land under that system ? —I do not think it would make much difference, but the trouble is to find the capital to improve your place. 491. Mr. Paul.] Can you assure me that a poor man solely without capital can do better on an occupation with right of purchase than on a leasehold I—He has more encouragement, and he can get more money on it. 492. Will a money-lender grant a man with an occupation with right of purchase a loan unless he has some improvements ?—ln some instances they will advance the money to make improvements. 493. Speaking generally, the freehold tenure pays the settler handsomely ? —Yes ; he can improve his property and get a return from it. 494. It is generally for his financial benefit that he takes up the freehold ?—Certainly. 495. Is there any sentiment in it ?—Yes ; every man likes the freehold. 496. Luckily it pays him to gratify that sentiment ?—Yes. Norman Robert Cleland examined. 497. The Chairman.] What are you t—l am a settler, and between my brothers and myself we hold 3,300 acres under lease in perpetuity, perpetual lease, and occupation with right of purchase. Under
0.—4.
1102
[N. E. CLELAM)
lease in perpetuity, 150 acres ; perpetual lease, or a grazing-run, 2,900 acres ; and 340 acres under occupation with right of purchase. We have held the land for five years. 498. Which tenure do you prefer ?—The occupation with right of purchase. 499. Where is your land ? —About nine miles from Whangamomona. 500. Is your homestead fairly accessible ? —lt is about a mile from the main road. It is grazing country, and there is about 2,500 acres clear. 501. Has it taken the grass well ?—Most of it has taken it very well. 502. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission ? —There is the question of roads. It is five years since we took up that land, and for two years we paid rent without being able to get on the land, and we have not yet got a dray-road. There was £150 voted on the estimates this year for the road, but only £80 has been expended. 503. Mr. Anstey.] Has all the original loading on the land been spent ?—No. 504. Has the road been made out of local rates ?—I have just been informed that it was made out of the loading on neighbouring land. 505. Is your perpetual lease subject to revaluation ?—Yes, at the end of twenty-one years, and we are allowed up to £4 for improvements. 506. Is that a fairly satisfactory lease ?—I do not think so. By the time we get the place into good working-order at the end of twenty-one years we will have spent practically the £4. 507. Do you think the land will be valued at more than £4 then ? —I do not think so. 508. How do you like the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ? —lt is very difficult to borrow anything on it. 509. If you could finance on it as well as on any other tenure, would it be as satisfactory as the other tenure ? —I think so. 510. Mr. McCutchan.] Does the grazing-run lease cease at the end of the renewed term of twentyone years ? —Yes. 511. Have you suffered much from landslips ?—-Yes, a great deal. 512. What proportion of your grazing-land has been carried away by slips ? —2OO acres. 513. Have you suffered from tutu poisoning ? —Yes ; about twenty beasts. William Hallett further examined. 514. The Chairman.] I understand that you wish to make a further statement ?—Yes. I think that a great mistake has been made in connection with the surveying of these small sections. They run in straight lines, and when slips occur the fences are continually getting broken up. Nearly all the land if it had been surveyed in a proper way could have been surveyed with ridge boundaries, and that would have saved a lot of extra labour and expense. This is a matter of great importance to the settlers of this district, I understand that nearly all the land that is now being surveyed is being surveyed with ridge boundaries.
Strathmore, Thursday, Ist June, 1905. Charles Ralph Finnerty examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler, and hold 250 acres under occupation with right of purchase. My land is two miles and a half from Strathmore. I have only had it two years. My rent is £21 per annum. 2. Are you satisfied with your land and with your tenure ? —I am satisfied with my tenure. I may say that lam not satisfied with the Land Board as at present constituted. I think two members of the Land Board should represent settlers. They should be elected by the Crown tenants, the other two members to be nominated as at present. As regards land tenure, I favour the occupation with right of purchase. 1 believe it is the best tenure. I think that cash purchasers should be entirely abolished, and I am of opinion that people should be compelled to hold their land for five or six years before they get the right to purchase the land. I think that the Government should let the settler have the land at the cheapest possible rate. I think that after the actual cost to the Government has been made up, the Government should not stand to make anything out of the land, but they should let the settlers have it as cheaply as possible. Bush land especially should be given at the lowest possible price. It is utterly impossible for settlers to make the land pay for the first seven years, and therefore I think they should have the land free of rates and rent. There is no way in which settlers can make a living out of the land within that time. If they buy stock in this rough country they must stand to lose from 10 to 15 per cent, per annum, and, in addition to that, the settlers have to pay about 10 per cent. The settler must stock his land in order to keep down the second growth. As to residence restrictions, I think they are necessary, and that the people should be made to live on the land. I would, however, give the Land Board some discretion in regard to the residence conditions. But as to other restrictions, I do not think they are necessary, and I think that settlers should have full opportunity of borrowing money as they think best. I feel sure that most settlers are fairly careful in respect to borrowing, and that they are not likely to borrow too much. The advances-to-settlers system as at present worked is not, in my opinion, altogether satisfactory, because the settlers have to wait about three months in order to get a loan, and by that time probably a great deal of the necessity for the money may have passsed. They may have wanted to borrow in order to get stock, and by the time the advance has been made by the Department the price of cattle may have gone up. The fact is that in such cases the settler should get the money almost at once. I have known instances of 10 per cent, having been paid by settlers in order to get money at once. As I have said, it is most necessary that they should be able in many cases to get money without delay. In my opinion there is a great
C. E. FINNERTY.I
1103
a—4-
deal of unnecessary delay in connection with the advances to settlers. In respect to the classification of land, I think there should be six classes of land. They call this land first-class land. As a matter of fact it is barely second-class land. On 100 acres of first-class land a man can make a good living. The land in this district I do not call first-class land by any means. 3. What area of land would you require here in order that a settler might make a fair living ?— In order to make a decent living I think a settler would require between 200 and 400 acres. The rougher land is very poor, and I think you would require to have 600 or 700 acres of it to make a living. lam satisfied with the present ballot system. I think that is the only system under which the land can be fairly let to the people. I think, however, the Board should examine persons who wish to become tenants. Ido not see how the ballot system can be improved upon. I think that the system of loading for roads is most unfair. I may point out that lam loaded £1 an acre for roading, and I have not got a road yet. I have got al2 ft. track. All these difficulties total up and make the position of the settler very hard to bear. It is suggested that freeholders would be better for the country, and that they would make more out of the land. I am of that opinion, that the freehold would be better for the country, because as a matter of fact everything comes from the land. lam against any leasehold at all. Ido not think it pays either the people or the country. There is a feeling of insecurity in respect to the leasehold. As to large estates, lam satisfied as to the way they are worked at present. They give persons with large families a chance of educating their children. In respect to these large estates I think the freehold should be given. I approve of the purchase of large estates by the Government, for the reason that they give the poor man a chance to take up land and work it, and at the same time to educate their families. I think the Government is doing well in purchasing these estates. I would be in favour of forcing these people to cut up their properties within ten years. Otherwise the Government should have the ch&nce of buying these estates at their present value at any time. As to the question of separate occupation, I think that should be left partly to the discretion of the Land Board. lam aware that there is a certain amount of dummyism going on in that respect, and, as I have said, I am in favour of the Land Boards having discretion in respect to making people live on the land. 4. Do you represent any association in coming before the Commission ? —I am a settler, and do not belong to the Farmers' Union. lam simply stating my private views. I would like now to draw the attention of the Commission to the state of the roads in this district. I have been here for ten years, and it is very hard for any one who has not lived here to realise the hardships of the back-blocks settlers, or to have any idea of the state of the roads or the want of roading facilities. I know of many settlers who have not even got pack-tracks to their homesteads, and yet they have to pay rates and taxes upon the land. 5. Have you had any experience in reference to the Advances to Settlers Department ? —Yes ; but there is a general feeling that there is unnecessary delay in granting applications for advances. 6. You say that the loading is very unfair ? —Yes ; I am paying £1 an acre for loading. 7. Was the money expended on the road you are paying for ? —I could not say. 8. You think that all leaseholders should have the right of purchase ? —Yes. 9. You approve of the purchase of large estates ?—Yes. 10. Would you give the right of purchase to settlers taking up such improved land ? —Yes. 11. Would you exact any corresponding payment for it. For instance, if you gave lease-in-per-petuity holders the right to convert their holdings do you think they should pay something for that ? — I think I would make a small demand on them. 12. Mr. McCutchan.] You recommend that two members of the Land Board should be elected and two should be nominated by the Government ? —Yes. 13. As to the members whom the Government nominate, who do you consider they should represent ? —I think they should represent the persons in towns. I think they should represent those people who consider that the land is the heritage of the people, and that the other members of the Board should represent the far ter. lam a great believer in fair play in all matters. 14. Why do you advocate the election of two members of the Board by one section of the community ?—I think the settlers should have the right to nominate two members. The country settlers are more directly interested in the land. 15. You favour the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure ? —Yes. 16. Would you eliminate the 999-years lease from our land system ?—Yes. 17. Has not that form of lease been the means of settling a large number of poor men on the land ? —I think the occupation with right of purchase would have settled the people on the land just as well. 18. If that was so why did so many people take up land under the lease in perpetuity ?—Because I think they misunderstood the tenure at the time. They thought they were getting the land 1 per cent, cheaper, and they did not consider the insecurity of the tenure. In my opinion it is very insecure. 19. In what respect is it insecure ?- —Because the Government by passing a law can revalue the property at any time, and there are lots of ways in which they can enforce restrictions to the disadvantage of the settlers. 20. Do you think the Government can render nugatory a system of land settlement which they have established in this way ?—Yes ; because a different lot of members of Parliament may be elected. I have seen various schemes proposed by members of unions in the towns. For instance, I noticed that one witness who gave evidence before the Commission at Christchurch said he was in favour of revaluing all land. 21. Do you think that that section of the community is likely to gain more political power ? — Yes. I feel that at any time such an injustice as revaluation may be done. 22. Do you not think that the freehold may be interfered with in the same way ?—I do not think
1104
C.—4.
Fa R. FTNNERTY.
so, because it would mean a greater revolution to interfere with the freehold than to interfere with the leasehold. 23. You said that you think cash sales ought to be abolished ?—Yes ; I think that those who take up the land should be made to prove that they intend to improve the land, although I think if they lived on the land and work it they are entitled to the increased value. 24. If land is sold for cash, where it is made subject to residence and improvement condition similar to those under which leasehold settlers are working, would you then be in favour of not eliminating cash sales I—No.1 —No. I think the cash system is a bad one, because it tends to bring about dummyism, but if those persons taking up the land under that system are compelled to reside on the land for a certain number of years I would be in favour of it. 25. You advocate all settlers who take up unimproved land being exempted from rates and rent for seven years ? —Yes. 26. Would you capitalise the rent so that the State would be recouped that loss ?—Yes, I would, provided the land had not been charged more than the actual cost to the Government in surveying, and also in cases where they bought the land from the Natives. I think the settlers should get the land at the cost of surveying and other administration expenses. I think that 4s. is a reasonable charge for surveying. 27. What is your estimate of the cost of that land to the Government ?—I can only guess at it. In my opinion the total cost of the land to the Government would be, say, 10s. 28. You say that you would put no restrictions on the settler as to borrowing ? —That is so. 29. Do you not think it is a wise precaution on the part of the Minister of Lands to limit the rate of interest on these leaseholds to 8 per cent., seeing that you can get money from the Department at 4| per cent, if you pay the interest promptly ? —I believe in leaving this matter to the settlers themselves. 30. It has been shown that in the Whangamomona district several settlers took up loans at high rates of interest, and the result has been disaster to them ?—There are some persons who do not make a success of life, and such persons are not likely ever to make a living out of the land. It is through want of ability no doubt, but it is probable the same result would occur whatever the rate of interest might be. Ido not think that the State should interfere with the rate of interest at all. 31. You complain of the classification of the land. Is it not the case that all over the colony first, second, and third class land are purely relative terms ?—•"Yes ; I think the land should be classed differently. I think there should be about six classes. 32. You think there should be no separate occupation because dummyism may creep in ?—I think it should be entirely at the discretion of the Land Board whether they will enforce the residence on the land. 33. Were you in occupation of your land before the loading was spent ? Were you on the ground before the Government commenced to spend money on the road ? —I cannot say. 34. Do you think that a method of paying interest and principal should be adopted, as is done under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, in which the amount is wiped out in twenty-six years ? —Yes ; I think it would be a better policy on the part of the Government. 35. Do you think the interest on the loading should cease after twenty-six years ?—Yes. 36. Mr. Paul.] Regarding the advances to settlers would you advocate a general reorganization of the system ?—Not exactly. Ido not think the valuers get around the country quick enough. They do not like the mud and rain. I think myself it requires more energy and experience in land matters on the part of valuers, but I would not altogether advocate a reorganization of the Advances to Settlers Department. I fancy it could be worked more expeditiously than is done at present. 37. Do you approve of the system ? —Yes. 38. But you do not approve of protecting the settlers from outside money-lenders, seeing that the Government are not able in all cases to lend money themselves ?—I would leave them the choice. 39. Are you acquainted with the lands settled under the land-for-settlements policy in the south ? —No, only from hearsay. 40. You advocate giving them the option of the freehold from hearsay ? —Yes, from my reading. 41. You spoke of the people in the towns harassing the country settler : can you tell me how they would gain by it ?—They expect to make the position of the town person better by practically seizing what they can of the unearned increment, which is practically the only thing left on the farm to the farmer. They call it the " unearned increment," but some of the increased value is produced by the farmers themselves. 42. Could the towns seriously injure the country without injuring themselves. They are interdependent, and if the towns brought in legislation which would seriously injure the country would it not react on the towns ?—Yes ; it would in course of time, but their idea seems to be to get all they can. They seem to lose sight of the fact that the farmers support the towns. 43. I suppose you give them credit for trying to see things in a fair light ? —I give them credit for trying to get as much out of the settler and the land as they can. 44. Mr. Anstey.\ You are in favour of doing away with loading : would you do so in respect of loading newly opened blocks ? —The settlers now in many cases have to make their own roads. I think the country does so well out of this land that it is only fair the country should make these roads. I think that the generations to come will get the benefit of these roads ; and, therefore, I think it would be perfectly fair to charge the State for the formation of these roads. 45. You say there should be no rent for the first seven years and no loading : consequently the State would have to cut these roads into newly opened districts ?—Yes. 46. Therefore you are advocating that other portions of the colony should open up new roads in this part of the colony, which is practically asking the Canterbury farmers to contribute to making the roads in this part of the country ?—Yes.
C. R. FINNERTY.]
1105
C—4.
47. You think the land you speak of is not able to make the roads for itself ?—Yes, only the poorest land is left. 48. Supposing this land is not worth making the roads to : do you not think it is better to leave it remain idle rather than incur this expense ? You think it is worth making the roads, however, if you can get somebody else to do so ?—I think it is fair to tax the whole country, because in course of time the increased exports will make up the cost. 49. You object to the insecurity of the leaseholds ? —Yes ; the settlers are afraid to make certain improvements because they fear that some alteration will be made in the tenure in the future. 50. You said you were in favour of certain restrictions being placed on freeholders as to residence, &c. 'Yes ; I may say that I would myself never take up land under perpetual lease, because lam quite convinced it is not a secured tenure. 51. Where does the insecurity of the tenure come in I—lt1 —It would be a greater revolution to take freehold land away from people and charge them increased values on it than it would be to revalue leasehold land. 52. You think there would be more difficulty in interfering with the freehold than with the leasehold ? —Yes. 53. I suppose you are aware that there is a graduated land-tax ? —Yes. 54. Do you think there would be any particular trouble in doubling that tax ?—I think it could not be done so easily. 55. Could not a resolution of the House do it ?—Yes ; but it is quite evident the people in the country think the leasehold tenure is insecure, because you cannot borrow money to the same extent on leasehold that you can on freehold land. Michael O'Neill examined. 56. The Chairman.\ What are you ?—I am a farmer and hold about 650 acres under various tenures —occupation with right of purchase, deferred payment, and perpetual lease. I have held the land for over twelve years and some of it for four years. It was originally bush land but is all cleared now. I engage in dairying and mixed farming. 57. Which tenure do you prefer ?—I prefer the occupation with right of purchase. lam virtually in favour of the freehold, but for a poor man I think the occupation with right of purchase is a very good system to start with. 58. What is your opinion in regard to the constitution of Land Boards ? —I am satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Board. I think the Land Board is necessary where there are such various systems of tenure and condition as exist in these back blocks, and in my opinion it is necessary to give the Land Boards discretionary power to deal with the various questions' that come up before them. As to the residential condition, I think when a man takes up a piece of land after a certain time it is necessary that he should reside on the land. It undoubtedly tends against the progress of a district if the owners are net compelled to reside on the land after a certian time. As to the working of the ballot, to my mind the present system is all that can be desired. When two or three people apply for the same section I think the fairest method is to allow them to ballot for it. Under the auction system the rich man has an advantage over the poor man. I have had considerable experience in regard to loading for roads. It is to my mind a most one-sided system. I may instance the case of the Ma.ngaire district where the settlers undoubtedly suffer under a hardship. In one case, for intsance, a section abuts on the main road and the land is loaded £1 an acre, and there is another section probably 5 chains farther on which is only loaded 9s. an acre. The man who is only loaded with the 9s. has as muct use of the road as the man who ha.-i the land that is loaded £1 an acre. As ro the working of the advances-to-settlers system, it is all that could be desired. It is about the best ever introduced into any country. In former years I myself, as well as others, had to pay up to 8 per cent, for money, and now a settler ian get his money at 4J to 5 per cent. 59. Did you get your money promptly from the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Yes, reasonably promptly ; of course the Department has to make some inquiries. I got the money as quickly as I wanted it, and had no trouble in getting it. In reference to the aggregation of large estates I think it is good for the country to break up these very large estates. Ido not believe in landlordism. 60. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in this district ?—No, Ido not thmk so. I wouk; give the people Wiio lake up land here the option of making ii: freehold later on. I would allow them to take it up under any conditions they like best almost, and on making certain improvements I would allow them to make the land freehold, and I think that would be a good thing for the country and would help settlement ge lerally. 61. Mr McCutchan.] You think the ballot as at present is nearly perfect ? —I do not know anything better at present. 62. Is it not the case that under the present syptem many desirable people do not get sections ? -Yes. 63. Is it not the case that many desirable settlers have to put in for many ballots before they can get a section?— Yes. 64. Would you advocate a reform in the direction oi giving the Commissioner of Crown Lands some discretion in this matter ? —Yes. 65. Surely the road you have referred to will be necessary to you ?—Yes, but what benefit am I deriving from that £1 an acre more than is derived by the man who '.s three chains away and who is only loaded 9s. an acre. 66. Surely it is the case all over the colony that a main road should have an advantage over byroads ?—Yes, but not to the extent of £1 an acre
139—C. 4.
[m. o'neill.
0.—4.
1106
67. At 5 per cent, a man is supposed to pay the whole amount of principal and interest in twentysix years. Do you think the interest charged should then cease ?—Yes. 68. Mr. Pavl.\ Have you had any experience of land settled under the land-for-settlements policy in the south ? —No. 69. How long have you had your deferred-payment section?— About twelve years. 70. How long have you had your perpetual lease ? —About four years. Charles Henry West examined. 71. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a settler and farm 311 acres under deferred payment. My land is at Huiakama, about a mile and a quarter from Strathmore. I have held the land about eleven years and a half. 72. Are you satisfied with your tenure ?—Yes. 73. Was it bush land ?—Yes, and it is all cleared now. I engage in dairying. 74. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission ?—Yes, I am a strong believer in the freehold. I have no objection to leasing. I would like to see both forms of tenure retained. I consider the deferred-payment system one of the best systems. 75. Have you had any dealings with the Land Board ?—Yes, and they have been very satisfactory. I have no objection to the present constitution of the Land Board. 76. What is your opinion with respect to the ballot ? —I consider that the present system is quite satisfactory. 77. How are you off for roads ?—The road went originally round my section, but they have cut me off by means of a by-road. T|ie want of metal is a great cause of trouble in this district. 78. Is this district progressing fairly well ? —Yes, it is getting on fairly well, but it would get on far better if roads were provided. 79. Mr. McCutchan.\ In reference to the deferred-payment system has it not this disadvantage, that the capital value of the land is put up 25 per cent. ?—Yes, we are paying more; but it is a great advantage to know that you can make the land your own at a certain time and that if you make permanent improvements the land will not be revalued. 80. You think that compensates for the extra price put on the land ?—I think so 81. Is there not another disadvantage in the deferred-payment system, that the payments are heavy for the first few years %—They are out a bit, but if a man has got a deferred-payment section and wants to make it a home, he does not mind the extra payment which is not very heavy. Of course he has to take up land according to his means, and he will do better on a section within his means than on a large section. 82. Would you advocate, if the system was reintroduced, an extension of the period within which the payments should be made, say, from fourteen to twenty or twenty-five years ?—lt would be easier on them if the term was longer. 83. Do you think the deferred-payment tenure better than the occupation with right of purchase ? —Yes. 84. In what respect does the one have an advantage over the other ? —ln the deferred payment you are paying off from the beginning. It is like a savings-bank to the settler. 85. Mr. Paul.] Has the leasehold not an advantage inasmuch as it gives a tenant an opportunity to use his capital in developing his farm ? —As a rule bush settlers do not have much capital to start with. When we started we had not much capital, and most of us had to work away from home to make a living. 86. Has not the ordinary settler enough to do with the little money he has when starting in developing his farm ? —I think the little extra he has to pay gives him a secure tenure. No doubt he has enough to do with his money, but on a small holding he can manage all right. 87. Can a man take up this bush land and clear it and develop it and buy the freehold in twelve years ? —lf he has not too much land. 88. Mr. Anstey.] Have you any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ? —Yes. 89. What was the result ?—Satisfactory. 90. Could you compare borrowing privately with borrowing to the Advances to Settlers Office ? —I have never borrowed privately, but I know the Advances to Settlers Office. It has*kept money down. 91. Can you tell us what is the difference in the cost between getting a loan from a private lender and from the Government ? —I could not tell you. 92. Are you in favour of giving the freehold to lease-in-perpetuity settlers who are on estates which have been purchased by the Government ? —Yes. 93. On what terms should you suggest they should get the freehold ? —I think they should'pay up the 1 per cent. 94. Those lease-in-perpetuity settlers are paying 5 per cent, now ?—lf they are paying 5 per cent, they should get the freehold at the original value. John Diggings examined. 95. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler farming 690 acres which I hold under three different leases —occupation with right of purchase, lease in perpetuity, and education lease. I prefer the occupation with right of purchase, which I reckon is the best for the individual and for the State. The land is about five miles from here. The land is roaded, but practically by ourselves raising loans. We can get out and in. The land was originally taken up by an association who clubbed together and paid the surveying expenses themselves, and in some cases they had to pay two years' rent in advance.
1107
C—4.
J. DIGGINGS.]
96. What was the first tenure you started with ?—Before I came here in I started with the right and I bought lease in perpetuity second hand. The original settlers of the association had no option but the lease in perpetuity, and it is a curious thing that several sections which were forfeited by the original lessees, who were people with town billets and did not care to go on with the conditions, were put up again subsequently with the optional clause, whereas the original settlers have had no option at all. 97. When did you get the education lease ?—Four years ago. It comprises 280 acres 98. Your land would be all bush originally ? —Yes. But I have 500 acres cleared now. 99. Do you dairy ?—There is a man milking on one of my places now—the lease-in-perpetuity section, which I have sublet with the permission of the Land Board. 100. Is there any particular point you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I think that the leaseholder should have the right of purchase. I reckon it is better for the individual and for the State. If settlers want money they can get it cheaper and with less trouble when they have the right of the freehold. We cannot do without money in the back blocks—at all events for several years. 101. Some people who take up land under the lease in perpetuity pay less than tenants under the occupation with right of purchase. I suppose before you would allow them the freehold they would have to pay up the additional 1 per cent. ?—Yes, I think that would be quite right. 102. What has been your experience with regard to the Advances to Settlers Department ?—I do not altogether approve of it so far as I was concerned, but I may have applied at the wrong time. About twelve months ago I applied for a small advance, but I believe the difficulty at the time was that there was not so much money to advance. The amount they offered to advance to me was as much as to say that I was not to get any. I had to refuse the amount because it was not worth my while taking it. I got the money privately. I offered the whole of my security to the Department for a certain amount and I was only offered a little over one fourth. I met a private individual and mentioned my case to him, and he said, " I will give you four times what the Government offered you for half the security. If you had not the occupation with right of purchase I would not advance at all." 103. How much land have you under occupation with right of purchase ! —2OO acres. 104. Mr. McCutchan.\ Do you think the fact of the original holders in this block not having the option of the occupation with right of purchase is a claim for their having their option of the freehold now ?—I do. 105. Have you given a purchasing clause in connection with the lease-in-perpetuity section you have sublet ?—Yes, of my interest. 106. Which security did you offer to the Advances to Settlers Department ?—The whole lot. 107. What was your estimate of the value of the improvements ? —I cannot exactly tell the total value, because I did a lot of the work myself ; but if I was selling the land I would expect it to be worth close on £3,000, inclusive of goodwill. Exclusive of goodwill, the improvements would be worth, I suppose, £1,500 or £2,000. 108. What advance did you ask from the Government ? —£soo, and they offered me £150 109. When you got the money elsewhere, had you to pay a higher rate of interest ?—I had to pay 7 per cent. 110. Had you to pay a procuration fee ?—No. 111. Were the legal charges much higher ? —Yes, considerably. That is one point in favour of the Advances to Settlers Department—the legal charges are considerably less. 112. If you had got the advance from the Department under the instalment principle you would have paid 6 per cent., of which 1 per cent, went for a sinking fund, and if you paid the interest promptly there would have been a reduction of \ per cent., so that you would have been paying really only 4\ per cent., whereas you are now paying 7 per cent., in addition to having paid high legal charges. Through the Department not having advanced you the money on such security you have suffered a heavy pecuniary loss I—Yes.1 —Yes. _ 113. Mr. Paul.\ Can you explain why financial institutions are so much morewilling tollend money on occupation-with-right-of-purchase as against lease-in-perpetuity security ? —Yes. In some cases there are residential clauses to be complied with, and also they do not value the lease in perpetuity as worth anything at all. 114. Is the money lent with the ultimate object of getting a certain farm into their possession ?— Ido not think so. I think their object is that they do not consider the lease-in-perpetuity security as good as the other. 115. Mr. Anstey.] What are the terms of your education lease I—lt is a lease for thirty-one years, and lam supposed to get full value for improvements at the end of that term. I have the right of renewal at an arbitration rent. 116. Will the private money-lenders lend on an education lease 'Yes. 117. They prefer that to the lease in perpetuity ? —Yes 118. What do you think is the reason for that ? —There are not so many restrictions with regard to the education lease. They seem to think that there is not so much trouble in transfering it from one party to another in case they want to seize for their money 119. They consider that a lease which provided for revaluation is better than a lease for 999 years without the revaluation ? —I do not know about that; but the education lease has no residence clause connected with it, and I think that is the main point. 120. Do you think there is any political reason in it'( —No. 121. Mr. Paid.] Are you satisfied with the condition of the education lease ?—Yes. Charles Stepney Gatton examined. 122. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler, and was formerly secretary and organiser of the Palmerston Special Settlement, which took up 30,000 acres in this district. I hold 400 acres myself on Tahora Road. lam under lease-in-perpetuity tenure, and have held the land for about ten
C—4.
1108
[C. S. GAT'I'ON.
years. My annual rental is about £23. lam not satisfied with the tenure, and approve of the freehold. My principal objection to the lease in perpetuity is the insecurity of the tenure. 123. It is a 999-years contract that the Government has entered into with you. Do you think that is insecure ? —Yes. It seems to me to be attacked on all sides. In the first place it is attacked by members in the Houses, it is attacked by the Trades and Labour Council, and, in my opinion, the Government attack it in presenting to Parliament such a Bill as the Fair Rent Bill, that on occasions they have laid before the House. 124. You think the Legislature might break their contract ?—I think if Mr. Seddon says it might be so, we may take it it will be so. 125. Mr. Seddon is only one man, and I presume it would only be if the tenants were agreeable ? —I do not think the opinion of the tenant would be brought into the question whatever. Three or four years ago, when the Bill was introduced into Parliament, I wrote to Mr. Seddon and asked him if the Fair Rent Bill as introduced would interfere with our leases, and he wrote back to me and said that our lease would be affected by the Fair Rent Bill if passed. I think on that we may naturally feel that if the Fair Rent Bill is again introduced and passed we have not a very secure tenure. Again, with regard to the lease in perpetuity, it is a tenure upon which we cannot finance readily. Moneylenders are shy of lease in perpetuity, and so, also, is the Advances to Settlers Office —an office that was instituted to help the Crown tenants, who by reason of their tenure could not go to the open market in the same way as the freeholders Advances to Settlers Office fight shy of the lease in perpetuity just as much as does the private money-lender. 26. What is your opinion of the Land Boards ? —I am quite satisfied with them. 127. Do you think that the pressure of the residence conditions is troublesome to the settlers here ? —I think not. I think there coul"d be no true settlement without residence, and after four years I think it is in no way irksome. 128. Are there any other restrictions which you think might be relaxed ?—As far as my experience goes, I think when a case is brought before the Land Board in which they have any discretionary power they are as lenient as they possibly can be. 129. Have you any remarks to make about the ballot system ? —I think it is the fairest system we can possibly adopt. 130. Have you any remarks to make about loading for roads ?—I think it is monstrously unfair that our land should be loaded for all time for road-making, when if the money was obtained by the settlers through the local body under the Government loans to local bodies the debt would be extinextinguished in a given number of years. 131. You think that the same principle should apply in the case of loading for roads ?—Yes. 132. Is there any other point you would like to refer to ?—ln respect to the advances to settlers, my first experience of them was rather unhappy. I applied for £100, and they offered me £80. I declined that amount, and had no difficulty in getting what I wanted from a private source at an increase of 1 per cent, interest. After declining the Government loan, the next I heard was from the Landand Income-tax Valuation Department, raising the valuation of my section from £175 to £300. I got nothing from the Advances to Settlers Office, but I got my valuation raised all the same. I consider that a slap in the face. I can understand that the reason of the increased valuation is that the valuator in going round has his attention drawn to the fact that it is fairly decent section, and to present as good a face as he can in the settlers' interest to the Advances to Settlers Office, he puts a further good valuation on to such sections. But those sections to which his attention has not been drawn remain under the one valuation for years. A section near to me which was valued by the Government at £160 ten years ago, is still valued at the same amount, and another section which was valued at £440 still remains at that figure. It affects a settler this way : when the value is increased from £1 2s. 6d. an acre to £2 per acre he has to pay not only an extra amount to the ordinary rates, but he has also to pay a proportion according to value of special rating. 33. Mr. McCutchan.] Are you resident on portion of the Palmerston Block ?—Yes. - 134. Had you the option when you took up the land ? —No. Under the regulations we have had to take up our land under lease in perpetuity. 135. You consider having no option originally gives you a claim now to the right of purchase ? — Undoubtedly. 136. Originally if you had the option would you have taken it up under occupation with right of purchase ?—Certainly. We asked for the freehold, and that was declined us, and only the lease in perpetuity was offered. 137. And the new settlers who came in after the block was opened got in on better conditions than those who had been there from the start ?—Yes. 138. Are there any minerals in the block ? —No. 139. If you got the right of purchase would you be prepared to take it up at revaluation ?—Certainly not. I consider we should have it at the original valuation plus an additional 1 per cent. I maintain that we have paid for that land over and over again by the enhanced cost of living compared with the towns, by the struggle we have had to keep our heads above water, by the fact that we are debarred many social, religious, and educational advantages that are open to the townspeople, by the fact that we are paying through the consolidated revenue for the advantages which townspeople have —we have been paying for roads and railways which we cannot possibly use —and, notwithstanding the fact of the land being loaded, we have had to borrow the money wholly, or in part, to make our own roads. Considering the disabilities under which we as pioneers of the back blocks lie, we should meet with very favourable treatment, and the least the Government could do, supposing we have the option of freehold, is to give it to us on the same terms as those who came in after us. 140. Would you be in favour of all lands, cash, or otherwise, being made liable to the same residence conditions as the leasehold ? —Yes.
1109
b. s. gatt6n.J
0.—4.
141. Do you think that the " thirds " from cash sales should go to the local bodies for roadmaking ?—Yes. jsjj 142. And would you favour making that retrospective with regard to the back blocks ?—I do not like the idea of retrospective legislation. 143. You think it would be imprudent to ask for it in view of the feeling in the country with regard to retroactive legislation. 144. You are aware that the maximum for the Advances to Settlers Office is 50 per cent, of improvements ?—Yes. 145. When you made your application did you have sufficient margin ? —I ascertained after my loan was refused that my improvements were valued at £200, and that my interest in it as a leaseholder was £100, so that I had an interest in the section of £300, so that the Department would have been perfectly safe in advancing up to £150. I 146. Do you think that the valuer's estimate of your improvements and goodwill was excessive ?— I think it was unfair. 147. Do you think it was unfair to put up the valuation for ordinary taxing purposes ?—Not to the extent of 75 per cent., while other places are left to remain at the original valuation for a number of years. 148. You consider that the values around you have gone up, and that if there is a revaluation all should be revalued and put up ?—Yes. 149. Mr. Paul.'] Are you in favour of giving the freehold to the tenants under lease in perpetuity on the improved estates thatjthe Government has purchased ?—I have not considered that phase of the question. There is nothing of that sort in the district. 150. If the country is injured, do you not think the towns would most surely feel the effect of it ? —Yes. 151. Do you know Mr. Seddon's most recent pronouncement on the question of the retrospective action of revaluation ?—No. 152. Did you not read the report of the Trades and Labour Council's interview with him ?—I saw the resolution of the Trades and Labour Council to the effect that all leases should be revalued on transfer or on the death of the lessee, and I take it that they are a powerful organisation, and might be a big factor in respect to any legislation with regard to this question. 153. You do not know whether that resolution was carried unanimously, or whether there is a majority of the people behind it ?—No. 154. You do not agree with that resolution ? —Certainly not. A man might hold a lease for two or three years, and on his death, according to that resolution, it must be revalued. There is nothing just about that. 155. Do you think any claim will be successful, no matter whether justice underlies it or not, so long as a majority is in its favour ?—Perhaps I have overdrawn it a little, but I say that the weight of a powerful organization like the Trades and Labour Council is bound to tell 156. You said the Advances to Settlers Office were discriminating as against the leasehold. Do you know of any advance that has been refused as against the freeholder ?—No. I do not know of any advance made to a freeholder, but I know that the freeholder has a better chance with the office. It shows plainly that there is an advantage in favour of the freehold, that by law the Advances to Settlers Office can advance up to three-fifths of the valuation of a freehold, and only up to one-half of a man's interest in his leasehold. The security cannot possibly be as good, or they would be allowed to make a higher amount of advance. Although Mr. Seddon said recently that he would put leaseholders on the same footing as freeholders, and that they should be enabled to get advances up to three-fifths of their valuation, there is nothing mandatory about it. 157. You said you did not know of any case where the office had advanced on a freehold, and you also say that the office looked on the freehold as better security ?—The law says so. 158. Mr. McCutchan.] When you obtained this loan privately, were you charged the valuation fee ?—No, for the reason that I produced my valuation from the office. 159. Were you charged procuration-fee ? —No. 160. How did the bill of costs compare with those of the Advances to Settlers Office ? —I should say that the Department's costs would be less. 161. What rate of interest had you to pay ?— 6£ per cent. ; that was practically 2 per cent, more than the Department would have charged. 162. Through the Department not taking up this loan, you practically had a monetary loss annually of 2 per cent, on the loan ?—Yes, so far as that particular amount is concerned. I may say that I borrowed it for a short period of three years, until such time as I could get my improvements done. Then I again applied to the Advances to Settlers Office with an increased valuation, and obtained from them an increased amount. 163. Did you get an amount more in proportion to the security than they offered to lend you in the first instance ? —Yes. 164. Was that due to the increased prairie value of the land ?—No, I do not think there is any increased value in the land. There is no such thing as unearned increment either, as applied to country land. 165. Mr. Paul.] If the Government puts this railway through to Whangamomona and spent an additional £50,000 on the road, would that increase the value of the land ?—I think it would have a natural tendency to do so. If this block was to be placed in the same condition as it was ten years ago, it would not be a bit more valuable now than then. 166. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think, if the Government spent £35,000 more and put the railway through, it would be more than a just proportion of money which this district is entitled to ?—Certainly not.
C.—4.
1110
[C. S. GA.TTON.
167. Do you think if the Government put the railway in here at all they would do so until a they saw that there was sufficient trade to pay the average cost for the colony ?—No. ij] 168. Mr. Paul.] Are all the railways paying ?—I doubt it. ",J§ 169. Then the Government do put railways in that will not pay for the grease for their wheels 1— Railways jnight be in places where they do not pay, but I am quite satisfied that there was every probability of their paying when they were made. 170. You as settlers could not bring this railway in yourself ?—No, it takes the united of town and country. Owen McLoon examined. 171. The Chairman.] What are you ?—1 am a settler, holding 140 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have held the land for twelve years, and pay 2s. 6d. per acre. It is rented on a capital value of £2 ss. per acre. lam on the main road, and am satisfied with the land, but lam not satisfied with the loading for roads. We are loaded £1 per acre for roads, and I think it is too much. The money was not spent on the roads. £1 per acre would make and metal the road in front of the land. 172. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think the loading should cease when the Government is recouped the principal and interest ?—Yes. 173. Mr. Paul.] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Yes. 174. Satisfactory ?—Yes. 175. Was the time within which you got the loan reasonable ?—Yes. 176. Mr. Anstey.] Do you consider that all the loading for your land should be spent on the portion of land actually fronting your section ?—I do not say that altogether, but Ido not think we should pay on more than the roads cost. 177. Do you mean to say that you consider the £1 an acre was too much I—Yes 178. Has it been spent I—-I have no doubt it has. 179. Was it sufficient for the purpose ?—Quite sufficient to make the road in the portion of the block that was loaded for it. 180. If spent within the block ?—Yes. 181. Do you think it should all be spent within the block ?—No, but I do not see why a block should be marked out to pay more than any other block in the district. George Russell Moir examined. 182. The Chairman.] What are you v—l am a settler, holding 400 acres of lease in perpetuity, about two miles from here. I have held it nine years, and am paying £1 for 200 acres, and 17s. 6d. for the other 200 acres. In addition to that £1, there is a loading on that section of ss. an acre. lam satisfied with my tenure, and with the land generally. 183. Have you any objection to this loading %—I do not think it has been properly spent. It was years before we had a track of any sort. Then the Government put in a 5 ft. track, but it slipped away. They considered that expended the amount of the loading. Besides the loading, we had to specially rate ourselves under the Loans to Local Bodies Act to carry the main road through to our property. There was a freehold property between us and the main road, and we had to make the road through this property. Then we had again to rate ourselves to form a road to give us access to our sections. If the Government, instead of laying-off these bridle-tracks, which are only temporary, would form a dray-road, it would be more beneficial, and the money would not be wasted as the bridletrack is only of service for a year or two. Over the Mangau River the Government put up a temporary bridge, at a cost of something like £850, but that was only meant to serve for a year, until the track was formed into a dray-road. It was then no use for dray traffic. You could only get a pack-horse across, but when the dray-road was formed, then the bridge had to be altered. That was done out of special loan money at the cost of the settlers. 184. Is there any other point ?—Yes, the matter of the lease in perpetuity. There is a considerable amount of land in this district, about 30,000 or 40,000 acres, taken up under the association rules, and the members had no option. They could only take it up under the lease in perpetuity. In the case of those original members, I think they should be allowed to alter their tenure, seeing that after a section in the block was forfeited, the Government removed those restrictions, and gave the new applicant an optional system. 185. Mr. McCutchan.] Can you state what amount under the special loans the settlers in your district have made themselves responsible for ?—Considerably over £20,000 as near as I can give it to you now. lam not quite sure of the amount, but it is about that. 186. That is under a system of roading the country and under a system under which the country is borrowing largely for public works. The settlers have had to make themselves responsible, in this small district round here, for over £20,000, in order to get access to their properties ?—Yes. 187. Mr. Paul.] Have you had any experience of the advances to settlers ?—Not personally. I think, however, that the amount offered to the small settlers is inadequate. If a settler requires to fell and grass 100 acres he would require to expend about £175, but the Government would not lend him that money under any condition on the standing bush. He has to effect improvements to that amount before he can apply for the loan. If an applicant applied for £150, say, I think the Government should advance him the amount in the form of progressive payments 188. Do you think that the .sum might be increased up to 50 per cent, of improvements with safety 1—75 per cent, would be quite safe. 189. Mr. Anstey.] You think the Government should form dray-roads to these settlements to start with instead of tracks ? —Yes ; in these back blocks under the optional system, excepting the purchase for cash, residence is compulsory. Nine years ago some of the country here was taken up,
1111
C—4.
O. R. MOIR.I
butlit is only just, now that a road is reaching within a few miles of it, but through the tenants being compelled to reside on it within four years it led to all this forfeiture. If the Government had made the dray-roads to it right away they would not have had the same cause for forfeiture. 190. Out of what fund would you propose that these dray-roads should be made ?—I would be in favour of an additional loading rather than having to rate ourselves for doing the same work. It would pay the Government, because you would have the dray-roads straight away. I would not object to fairly heavy loading provided we got fair roads. 191. Mr. McCutchan.] Under that system of constructing roads, would not the settler have to provide the full cost of roading the land. Do you think that would be quite equitable, in view of the fact that the Government are borrowing largely for reproductive works ? —I would not say that the settler should be charged the full amount, because the Government is charging a higher interest than the actual cost of the land to them. So that I presume they still have the benefits from that sum and could assist us by way of subsidy. 192. Do you think, as a general principle, the subsidy should be proportionate to the amount of rates, separate, general, and special ? —Certainly. 193. Do you think an assured finance could be got by abolishing grants and bringing in that system of operations ? —No doubt it would. 194. What proportion should the subsidies bear to the revenue raised bv the settlers themselves ? —£1 for £1. 195. Would it provide an excessive finance in the old settled districts ? —lt would if we were rating ourselves to the full amount. I presume they would be rated according to their requirements. Thomas Hastie examined. 196. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler holding 1,400 acres—l,ooo acres occupation with right of purchase, and the balance lease in perpetuity. I have held it about five years, and am paying £40 for the occupation with right of purchase and £16 for the lease in perpetuity, but I favour the freehold. 197. Then, why did you take up the lease in perpetuity ? —I had no option. 198. Are both your areas contiguous 'Yes. My land was bush, but I have cleared 850 acres. It is seventeen miles from here, at Punewhakau. I have a road. 199. Any further point you wish to mention ? —I do not favour the lease in perpetuity. It is a good tenure for a man who has capital enough to enable him to fell and stock his section ; but in this back country, where a man has to effect improvements, it is absolutely no good to him because he cannot finance with it. 200. Have you had any experience of the advances to settlers ?—Y es ;it is not too satisfactory; they do not offer enough. I accepted what they offered me and got it promptly, but the amount was not satisfactory. My land is loaded and the money has been expended, but we have nearly two miles of road now to form ourselves. I think the money set aside for loading was all expended. If properly expended, I think the amount set aside would be sufficient to make the roads. 201. Mr. McCutchan.] You have a seat on the Stratford County Council ? —Yes. 202. That is the body under which the loans have been raised to make the roads ?—Yes. 203. You heard the figures Mr. Moir gave ? —Yes. 204. Is that amount accurate ? —I think he might put a bit more on to it. 205. The settlers throughout this district, in order to provide adequate roads, are making themselves liable for practically a sum of £24,000 'Yes. My rent is £56 a year and the improvement rates are within a fraction of £40. 206. That is apart from the special rate for the £24,000 ?—No ; that includes my proportion of the special rates. 207. What is the rate the Stratford County Council is now levying for the district ?—2Jd. on the unimproved. 208. Mr. Paul.] Your evidence goes to show that the majority of the bush settlers must borrow money to get on the land ? —Yes. 209. Mr. Anstey.] You say the lease in perpetuity is not a good one for a man without means because he cannot borrow under it ? —Yes. 210. Why is he not able to borrow under that tenure ?—For the simple reason that the Government restrictions regarding the amount do not make it worth his while applying for it. 211. Cannot he borrow from private lenders ?—Yes ; but he can only get about 50 per cent., and he will have to pay from 3 per cent, to 4 per cent, more for it. 212. What is there in that tenure that makes it so much worse to borrow under ? —lt is the insecurity of it. People are afraid of periodical revaluation in the future, which is the greatest weakness of it as a security. 213. Supposing it was subject to revaluation, one witness said he could borrow under an education lease, which he held, better than under the lease in perpetuity. What would you say to that ?— I am speaking of borrowing chiefly from the Advances to Settlers Department, and they will only give you half the actual improvements. 214. But everybody cannot borrow from that office, because the amount to lend is only limited ? —True ; but if the Government will not do it, of course, outsiders will not. 215. I think the Government are'advancing on the lease in perpetuity ? —Yes ; but in such small proportion that it is not worth while applying for it 216. Under the lease in perpetuity are there any special conditions which the private money-lenders object to ?—I do notfjknow.
C—4.
1112
T. HASTIK.
217. Is it not the fact that under the lease in perpetuity the money-lender has not the right to foreclose without the consent of the Minister ? —Yes. 218. Is not that the chief trouble ?— Not the whole trouble, but it is part of it. 219. Do you think it would be wise if that trouble were put right, if the lease-in-perpetuity settler had the right to mortgage his lease as he thought fit ?—Yes. 220. If that were removed do you think the tenure would be a fairly good one to borrow money on ?—Not unless the Government will advance more. 221. Mr. McCutchan.\ How do the banks look on this security ?—Absolutely as worthless, and they will not make any advance on the lease in perpetuity; but I have a small freehold, and I can take the deeds of that to the bank and get whatever I want. 222. And then is it not the case that no mortgagee can foreclose without the consent of the Land Board ? —Yes. 223. The Chairman.] Is there anything you wish to add ?—Yes. My wife has a section, which is contiguous to my own, of 598 acres under lease in perpetuity. It has been held for nearly ten years, and, although it is loaded for roading, there is no road and not even a pig-track within 35 chains of it. I ask you if this is fair. 224. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think the residential conditions ought to be enforced until reasonable access is provided % —Most certainly. I think no holder should be compelled to reside until he has a full-width road to it. 225. Would it not be still better to put in the roads, as far as possible, previous to offering it for settlement ? —That is what I would contend.
Stratford, Friday, 2nd June, 1905. ( i > . , Joseph McCluggage examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a storekeeper and farmer, and have been eleven years in Whangamomona and twelve years in the district. I hold 400 acres lease in perpetuity, and have held it since 1893. I pay 4 per cent, on £1 10s. an acre, which includes roading. lam not satisfied with my tenure. I think the optional system should remain on the statute-book, but we should have the right to convert it into freehold after complying with the conditions of the lease and paying up the 1 per cent, difference between the occupation with right of purchase and the lease in perpetuity. The reason I advocate is on account of the extremists in the cities preaching revaluation and a Fair Rent Bill, which is causing a lot of distrust among Crown tenants. They think their tenancy is insecure. Then they say in the cities that the unearned increment should not belong to the Crown tenants, but in our back country the increased value is brought about by the settlers' own industry. In some cases they have to carry their stores on their backs for eight and ten miles, and the first settlers had to carry it twelve miles. Then, again, their families are shut out from all social intercourse: some women cannot visit their neighbours for years, in fact for eight months out of the twelve they cannot get out of their gate without being bogged. The unearned increment on this land should go to the tenants. I do not believe in giving the land-for-settlements tenants the freehold because they started with very good prospects. They are close to the railway, the land is highly improved, and the social conditions are good in every way ; they are close to schools and towns, and are very well situated. The improvedfarm settlement at Whangamomona has been a very great success, as fully 60 per cent, of the original settlers are on their way to becoming independent farmers if they had better access. They are mostly from 100 to 200 acres. The success of that settlement is due to Mr. Strauchon (who was the Commissioner of Crown Lands), Mr. Robinson (the Engineer), and Mr. Nathan (Road Inspector). Mr. Strauchon is a first-class administrator, and was ably assisted by the other two. I think the residential conditions in this back country should be relaxed ; in fact they should be extended and in some cases done away with altogether. In some of our back country those conditions should not come into force for eight or - ten years, and not then if there is not a summer road to the place. In some cases, under the discretion of the Land Board, residence should be done away with, provided a resident employee was on the place. That would enable a man in the city who had a family of sons growing up to take up the land for their benefit, and they would not be hampered with the residence condition. It would be the means of making a lot of our rough country in Taranaki productive, which is useless at present, as it is too rough for small men to take up. If the Government were to put it into the market at Id. an acre, in 2,000-acre blocks, it would be better than offering it at 6d. an acre and not getting it taken up at all, The Land Board should have larger discretionary powers in these cases than they have at present. I think the ballot system is absolutely a fair one and can only be improved by the examination of intending applicants. If they had the same power to examine applicants as under the land for settlements they could get better applicants. Coming to the constitution of Land Boards, I think the present constitution is the best. Practically the Land Boards are nominated on a parliamentary franchise, because the Government is elected by the people, and if the Boards were elected directly on a parliamentary franchise the Crown tenants would be disfranchised altogether, because the towns would outvote the country in every case. I think the Land Boards should have larger discretionary power than they have, even to the extent of allowing a remission of rents, and I think the Act of 1892 should be amended to allow the occupation-with-right-of-purchase holder to surrender his lease in the same way as the lease-in-perpetuity holder can surrender his. At present one can do so and the other cannot, and that causes great hardship in the case where a man has a very rough section and has not got a building-site ; very often he has to surrender or would surrender if he had the power, but he cannot—he must forfeit. As to the Advances to Settlers Office, that, until quite recently, has been the most conservative[moneylending institution in New Zealand, and, as far as the Crown tenants were concerned, it has been a dead
t/. 4.
1113
.r. mcoljUogage.]
letter. Within the last two months they are lending up to 50 per cent, of the value of the land, which has helped the settlers in my district under the lease in perpetuity considerably. They now recognise goodwill. It would be a good thing if they would lend three-fifths of the selling-value the same as on the freehold. It is the want of cheap money which has crippled half the settlers in Taranaki. The present lease in perpetuity is the only security the money-lender has got, and he gets 8 per cent, for it and if the Government would advance the same as on the freehold it would put these settlers in a'very different position. As to loading for roading purposes, that presses unduly harshly on Crown tenants, especially the lease-in-perpetuity holders, as they have to pay the 4 per cent, for all time. I think this system should be abolished, and it would pay the colony well to go m for a large loan and road all this back country and push the railways on as well, because we cannot exist very far back of Whangamomona unless we get railways and good roads. There was an amendment of the Public Works Act last session giving the Land JBoards power to give the local bodies notice to schedule the " thirds " and apply for them. That is going to act very harshly on Taranaki back blocks, because some of these by-roads which have got accrued " thirds," in some cases, are not formed—there is a bridle-track—and they are not vested in the county. If this idea is carried out it means dual control between the County Council and the Public Works Department. The "thirds" are simply fritted away now and the work is of no use to the Government or settler. I suggest if the Government formed the by-roads, and then allowed the settlers to capitalise the, " thirds " for metalling them, it would put them in a much better position. At present the " thirds " are being spent every year, and when the winter is over the roads are just as bad as when they started. If something is not done m the east of Stratford to give us better access by railway or roads, a lot of the settlers cannot possibly exist. Some are twenty-eight miles beyond Whangamomona, which means they have to pack everything they want Besides that the dairying industry, which is very important to the small settlers there, is languishing for the want of roads. " At Whangamomona the dairy factory cannot pay for butter-fat within 3d a pound of what the factories alongside the railways pay to-day. On account of the bad roads in the early spring people cannot get to the factory, and others have to stop early in the season also on account of the bad roads. We have to pack cream to one creamery up to the middle of December ; we did that last year. I admit £100,000 has been spent on the Ohouru Road, but that is 108 miles long so that it is not much per mile. The road is formed for dray traffic fifty-five miles from Stratford, and then there is a bridle-track for about ten miles, and for another ten miles there is no track at all; then there is nearly forty miles of good dray-road to Ongarue, but it is not metalled. For the want of this gap between these two places the Taranaki farmers are losing thousands of pounds per year We have a first-class market in Waikato and Ohura for steers, sheep, and cows but we cannot get them there on account of this block. Steers for the last two or three years have been from £2 to £2 10s. per head dearer there than they have been in Taranaki on account of the want of access to get them through It would only take a few thousand pounds to complete that link, and it would give through communication between Taranaki and Auckland. To give you an idea of the cost of hving under present conditions in Whangamomona district, in two years we lost forty-eight working-bullocks and thirty pack-horses through tutu and mud. I saw one bullock standing dead one day smothered up to the yoke Last year we carted 600 tons into Whangamomona, and a lot of this had to be packed from the store for twenty-eight miles. That cost the farmers nearly £5 a ton. If the main road had been metalled right through and the by-roads formed, and the settlers allowed to capitalise the thirds to metal them, they could get it carted at an average of £2 10s. a ton, thus saving them £1 500 a year forTe stuff we cart alone That £1,500 would pay interest on £30,000 and would metal the road right through The Stratford County Council, in including Mangonui Road Board, have rated themselves and borrowed £100,000, and the "thirds" have been spent up to £15,000 ; so that, between the " thirds " and the money borrowed under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, we have raised £150,000. If the railway was done to Whangamomona all the goods could be carted out and in at an average of £1 per ton if the roads were formed and metalled, and that makes the difference between bankruptcy and prosperous settlement. There is some talk of the Government handing over the mam road to the focal bodies. If so it would be suicidal to us, because the whole of our rates m the two ridings could not keep the main Ohouru Road in repair. I admit that it is a very difficult thing to maintain but it has not been put in proper order since it was formed. Coming to the question of slips m the back country, I think the Government should give some assistance to the farmers who suffered very serious loss from slips last winter. They have a precedent for it in the rebates they gave to the Crown tenants in 0 ago who suffered on account of the snowstorm about eight years ago They should get a rebate of rent for two or three years, more especially when they have to pay rent from the jump. Tenants now get four years' exemption under the Bush and Swamp Lands Act It cost some formers hundreds of pound through the slips last winter shifting fences and loss of stock. Some of the settlers m Whangamomona during the May floods never had a secure paddock. Their fences were washed down on the road Tnd their cattle were bogged and smothered. In two cases the families had to shift out of their Louses and th" Land Board ve'ry properly recommended them to the Minister for a rebate kst meeting I Think the Government should give some compensation to these people considering the hardships they have had for the last ten years and are likely to have for longer, 2. Mr. Anstey.] You are a member of the Land Board ?—Yes. 3. But not of any local bodies ?—No. " 4 The Chairman.] How long have you been on the Land Board?-Two years and a half 5 You think the present lease-in-perpetuity tenure is unsatisfactory on the score that there is ffrea t insecurity about it ?-Yes. It is a good tenure to give a man a start, but when he gets into the Position to convert it into freehold he should be allowed to do so in order to secure it. position w mmeQt has entered intQ a cQntract you . Do you apprehend that there is any likelihood of their attempting to break it ?-The present Government, no; but we do not know what may happen in twenty years' time. 140— O. 4.
a—4.
1114
F,T. McCLTJGGAGE.
7. Then it is really the Legislature ? —They can do it and there is the feeling now in the cities that our land should be revalued, as we have such a good thing on. On that ground I advocate the freehold. Then, again, in borrowing, you cannot finance as well as you can a freehold. 8. You think those who have taken up land under the lands for settlement should not have the option of the freehold ? —No, but I think they might be allowed to pay something off when they have saved the money in prosperous times instead of leaving it in the bank to earn only 2 per cent, interest. 9. But the insecurity of the lease in perpetuity will also apply to others ?—No ; under the lease in perpetuity the interest of the lessee in the lease is from 200 per cent, to 800 per cent, more than the Crown's interest. The land for settlements is entirely different; the Crown there has from £10 to £30 more in it, and the tenant only from £2 to £3. 10. With regard to the residential conditions being relaxed for eight or ten years as you suggest, would not there be a little danger of dummyism in that ? —No, the Land Board would use their discretion and have greater discretionary powers. There should be a careful examination of all people applying for land. 11. You think the country towards the Ohouru Valley should be cut up into 2,000-acre blocks ? —Not the good land but the rough land back of Whangamomona, which would then be taken up as good sheep country. It should be cut up under lease in perpetuity. It is not capable of being settled in small areas. 12. It would mean but a small population to pay rates and keep up the main roads, would it not ? —All the good land is taken up now along the main road to Whangamomona, but beyond that it is not. 13. You say ten miles is only a very poor track. Ts that where some of this high country is ? —No, there is some very gooS land twenty-eight miles from Whangamomona like this Toko land— nice undulating land. 14. You think the Land Board should have more power in the direction of allowing remission of rent ? —Yes, but of course always with the sanction of the Minister. 15. You think the Advances to Settlers Department so conservative that practically the settlers could not get money from it %—lt was a dead-letter here amongst the Crown tenants. 16. It has not been that everywhere ?—No, they are taking up loans that they refused two or three years ago. 17. You say the lease-in-perpetuity tenant can get money at 8 per cent.; we have been told some pay higher ? —The Taranaki Land Board will not pass any. There are cases that come before us sometimes, but they are isolated. There was one case where a man's mortgage was called up and he had to pay 10 per cent, for the money on account of chattel security. The banks will not touch lease in perpetuity without a guarantee. 18. With regard to loading for roads, do they not capitalise the " thirds " in some cases ? —Yes, but according to the amendment of last session they will be crippled altogether and the system will be a dead-letter because they have to pass it over to the Roads Department if the local bodies do not expend the money. 19. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the land should be loaded at all for roads I—Yes,1 —Yes, unless we had to pay a rate, while the Government should borrow the money as cheaply as possible and lend it to local bodies, that is, for the by-roads ; the main roads should be formed and metalled out of the Consolidated Fund. 20. If it was a choice between loading as at present carried out for 999 years, or of allowing the settler to take advantage of the Loans to Local Bodies Act and do the roadpiimself, which would you prefer ? —To do it under the Loans to Local Bodies Act. 21. Did you have the option when you took up this land ? —No. 22. Did you believe in the tenure when you took it up ?—Yes ; but there is the difficulty of financing. 23. But if the Government are coming to the assistance of these tenants would not that get over "the difficulty ?—Yes. 24. Then there is only the other objection of the action of those who are called extremists in the towns ? —And the insecurity of the tenure. 25. You are a man of wide observation : do you think there is a majority who will repudiate a bargain entered into between the State and a citizen of its citizens ?—At present there is not; but twenty years hence you do not know what might be done. 26. What might be done in regard to the freehold twenty years hence ?—lf they can pass an Act to take the freehold from a man, they can pass an Act to revalue the leasehold. 27. Well, there does not seem to be much choice then between the two ? —There is the feeling that you cannot hand your property down to your family as you would perhaps like. Town people think that we have got such a good thing on that we ought to be revalued, but I would like to see some of those people go into this back country for ten years, and then say what they think'of it at the end of that time. 28. You say there is no unearned increment for the settler to get ?—Not in our country. 29. Then, it is an impossibility for the town people to get it ?—There is a goodwill in this way, that the increased land value is brought about through the industry, energy, and enterprise of the settler. 30. You think the settler is fully entitled to that ?—Certainly he is, but the townspeople say no. They want to make the valuation on the improvements in the future. Very few have argued that it should be retrospective, but you do not know what might be done in years to come. Who is responsible for the dairy factory at Whangamomona, forty miles from the railway ? The settlers themselves, when they sunk their capital for ten years waiting for their return. That puts a goodwill on the land. Some extremists have also advocated that a man should simply get his improvements in the case of the death of the lessee or the transfer of the lease.
J. MCCLUGGAGE.]
1115
C.—4.
31. All those improvements in your case are due to the expenditure and labour by the settler, and you say the increment should belong to him ? —That is the position I take up. 32. You say that if the railway were put through, and the road metalled, the latter should only be done out of the consolidated revenue ? —Yes. 33. That would put a value of £1 an acre on the land ? —Yes. 34. Could the settler well afford to pay the rent on that £1 an acre ? —Yes, if he had the railway there. 35. But so far as retrospective revaluation is concerned you object solely to that ? —Yes. What about the roads and railways in the South Island which have gone through freehold property. We have helped to pay for them, and the State does not get anything out of it. If we had had the leasehold from the start in New Zealand it would have been all right, but when we have only the remnant of the land left the thing is most unjust. 36. But the freeholders pay land-tax ? —That is so ; but they get the best of the land and for all time. I know land in Manawatu which was bought for £2 an acre a few years ago and is now being sold for £40. 37. If the State sees it made a mistake in selling that freehold, might it not be a wise policy to conserve the remaining lands by the leasehold system ? —No. It is too late, because the remnant that is left is rough and unbroken. 38. I do not mean to say that you should have retrospective action with regard to present leases, as they have entered into the bargain, and should stick to their bargain and the tenants should keep to theirs, but you propose to alter that bargain by giving the tenant the right of purchase ?—The Government recognise goodwill in the case of these leases by lending up to 50 per cent, of the selling-value of the land, and the Land Board recognise it when they pass a lease by allowing the transfer to go through. 39. Supposing the tenant got the freehold, would that give his tenure any additional value ? —It would make it more secure, and he could sell it easily, probably for a larger amount. 40. As a resident of Whangamomona, which do you think is of the greatest moment: the question of roads or the question of tenure ?—That of roads. 41. Do you think that roads should precede settlement ? —Yes. Unfortunately settlement is a long way ahead of roads in Whangamomona ; but on account of the cry for land the Government were forced to take up this land in the back country. 42. You spoke of relaxing the residence conditions: do you not think good settlement depends on residence —it brings along conveniences like schools ? —Yes. I should qualify it by saying that I would extend the condition to the case of rough lands, which are not fit for close settlement. It would give people a chance to take up land for their sons, who would then have an improved farm to enter into. It would pay the colony to road those lands, and give them to people for nothing in order to get it taken up. 43. Do you not think that might lead to injustice, as there might be some genuine settlers wanting land immediately ? —I would give the Land Board discretionary power to examine applicants and classify them, and I would put the people I referred, to in about the third class. There would be a margin. 44. If there is land available over and above the demand you would then give the concession indicated ?—Yes. 45. Do you know of any instances of borrowing at a prohibited interest in the Whangamomona district ?—Settlers have been compelled to pay high rates. There are few who have got money privately under 8 per cent. 46. That is due solely to the refusal of the Government to apply the advances-to-settlers system there ?—Yes ; and the insecurity of tenure as well, because outside institutions see that the Government will not lend it, and the Government Advances to Settlers Department's action brought the lease into contempt. 47. Why does the money-lender look on the freehold as the better security ?—Because the freeholder is not hampered by the Land Board. There is no residence condition, and no absolute right of foreclosure. 48. Can you conceive it is a good thing for the settler in many instances like that to be a leaseholder ? —ln the case of foreclosure it might be a wise provision to save some settlers from themselves; but what is good for them is just as good for the freeholder, for he often runs amok. 49. Do you think it would be good policy for the State to let that rough land on pastoral lease at Id. an acre on the lease in perpetuity ?—lt would be. 50. When I say perpetual lease, I mean the periodical revaluation ?—No. 51. Will not the railway greatly enhance the value of that land ?—lt would be years before this land would be in working-order —I refer to the rough gorgy land away back near the Tangarakau— probably ten or twenty years, through slips. 52. It would not be fair to revaluate it under twenty years in that class of country you say, but if the settler first got it on a fifty-years lease before the question of revaluation was considered, would it not be a good policy for the State ? —Yes ; I think that should satisfy them. 53. Mr. Anstey.) We were told that there were five sections vacant in the Whangamomona Improved Settlement ? —-Yes. 54. Are they large enough to make a fair living on ?—No. If they had good roads they could dairy on them, as the grass grows all the year round. 55. Do you think it would be wise to put two of these sections together ?—Yes. They are not forfeited yet. They are not Crown lands. 56. Would 150 acres be more than required ? —A man could make a good living on that area if he had access to the factory. I think the Land Board have allowed them to group in some cases.
C—4.
1116
[j. MCOLUGOAGE.
57. Do you not recognise there is some difficulty in allowing the Land Board to make a reduction or to give a rebate I—No. . _j._ 58. Supposing a man had a seat on the Land Board, and he might be in business in the district, and the question came up, might it not place him in an invidious position, as it might suit him to vote for the reduction to a man who owed him money. Of course lam not referring to your position personally, but taking the general principle ? —No. Speaking for myself, I would look at it from a broad point of view, and then there are four members besides the Commissioner, who would also have a voice in the matter. 59. Suppose there was another storekeeper on the Board, would it not place the Land Board in a rather unfair position ?—Well, it might in that case ; but still the Land Board should have more discretionary power than at present. 60. With reference to the advances to settlers and the lease in perpetuity, is it not a fact that the whole trouble is that the landlord has no power of taking possession ? —No, it has to go through the Land Board. 61. Supposing that difficulty were removed and the landlord had power of foreclosure, would that make the security sufficient to lend money on ?—No ; then the element of a Fair Rent Bill and of revaluation crops in as well. 62. Supposing the State repudiated their bargain, and said the tenants got the land too cheap, and wanted to revalue him and put it up, you would equally say to the freeholder, " You bought your land too cheap, and therefore we must put it up to its highest value, and charge you what you ought to pay ? —They could fire the leaseholder out, and only recognise his improvements, and just give him that. 63. You say you expect the Government would probably raise the rent. Then I say if it is fair for the Government to raise the rent of the leaseholder after they have entered into a deliberate bargain with him, is it not equally fair to revalue the freehold l . —Supposing they did revalue the freehold, how would they do so : would they take it on the buying value or the selling value. 64. Supposing the Government were to revalue and the lessee were to sell out at a price including goodwill, he would only be valued over and above the excess he paid ?—Yes. 65. Would not that prevent the possibility of valuing leaseholds at all ?—1 should think it would. There is a feeling of insecurity throughout the country in regard to leaseholds ; then there is also the Fair Rent Bill. There are a number of politicians in New Zealand who are advocating the passing of the Fair Rent Bill. 66. With regard to main roads you say that if the local bodies had charge of them they could not finance them % —That is so in this particular instance. 67. Supposing there was a system of finance assured under which the local body should take charge of the main road, would that be better than dividing the administration of these main roads between two or three different bodies ? —The cost of administration would be less under one body. 68. Do you not think it would be wise that one body should have full control of all the roadwork in the district ? —Yes. I think it would be better if the Government were to borrow money and earmark that money for roadwork in this back country. 69. Supposing you had a graduated system under which the subsidy would be largely increased : would not that enable the local bodies to undertake the whole of that work ? —ln my opinion that would put us in a far better position. 70. Have you ever given any attention to the question of the cost of these Crown lands to the Government, and the price at which they have been sold ? —Yes. In some cases Native land has only cost the Government 2s. 6d. an acre, and in other cases the Native land was confiscated and thus cost the Government nothing. We may allow 2s. 6d. an acre for surveying and 2s. 6d. for administration expenses, and this land has been sold at an average of £1 an acre, which gives a profit of about 10s. an acre. 71. How much money has the Government spent by way of grants in opening up this land ? —1 could not say without going into figures. I think, however, that if the figures were worked out in regard to the East Coast country it would be found that that district would be in credit about quarter of a million. 72. Mr. Johnston.] When this block was opened up, under what conditions was the land disposed of ?—A considerable portion of it was under the optional tenure. 73. What part of the colony had you experience of prior to settling here ? —I have had experience all over the colony, farming and gold-digging. 74. Have you seen any of the settlements under the Lands for Settlements Act in the South Island ? —No ; but I have heard that they are a great success. 75. Do you know whether settlers have been absolutely refused advances by the Advances to Settlers Department ? —Yes. 76. What were the reasons given ?—ln the early days when they applied they were told that their sections were too far away and that the tenure was leasehold, and therefore they had no chance of getting what they wanted. They could not even get up to 50 per cent, on improvements. 77. Was that state of affairs represented to the Government I—l1 —I have told some of the members of the Government that myself. 78. How did those settlers get money ?—They had to go to private money-lenders and pay 8 per cent. 79. They could not get it at 5 per cent, from private money-lenders ?—No. Private moneylenders took advantage of the tenure to charge a higher trate. 80. I suppose in your business you sometimes advance money to settlers on their lease ?—We have been doing so, but we are drawing out of it.
J. McCLUGGAGE.]
1117
C—4.
81. Where do they principally get their advances ? —We have guaranteed a lot of their accounts bank, but we are drawing out of that. 82. The banks holds their lease as collateral security ? —Yes. 83. Could any of these settlers sell out to advantage %—Yes. 84. Are there many sections changing hands ?—Recently there have been two or three at Whangamomona. 85. At how much above the value of the improvements ? —One gentlemanjsold other day at £7 10s. and he had £7 of improvements, so that he only got 10s. for the goodwill. He had only 100 acres of land and it was very highly improved land. 86. Was he tired of his holding ? —No ; the place was rather smalHor_him. In another case the holder sold out at £1 an acre goodwill. None of them have sold out at a large goodwill. 87. Do you approve of transfers being granted indiscriminately by the Land Board ? —No. The Land Board always exercises discretion in dealing with transfers. We consider whether the incoming tenant is likely to be as good a settler as the outgoing tenant, and when he has complied with the residential conditions and has done his improvements we pass the application. 88. You simply pass him if he is a suitable settler and has complied with the regulations ?—Yes. 89. Do you consider the amount that is proposed to be given for the goodwill ? —Yes ; and we have hung up a lot of applications on that account. 90. If you consider that the incoming tenant is giving too much for the goodwill you refuse the transfer^? —Yes. I consider that if a man has carried out all the conditions in this back country he is entitled to all the goodwill he can get. If the Board has the least suspicion of speculation we do not allow transfers. 91. Would a railway to this block pay ?—Yes, it would pay handsomely. 92. What is the carrying-capacity of that country \ —Two two and a half sheep to the acre. You can fatten sheep and cattle there without having to grow artificial food. 93. Under the Land for Settlements Act would you approve of revaluation for future sales %—No. 94. You believe in the 999-years lease ? —The land-for-settlements people in the south are differently situated to settlers who take up Crown lands in the north, because in the former case the land is close to markets and the settlers have roads and other conveniences ; but the conditions are quite different in the case of Crown lands in this district. 95. If the Government put up these Crown lands for sale would you agree to the freehold being given without any restrictions whatever I—Yes ; I think the freehold is a good tenure for the colony, because a man who has the money to acquire a freehold employs a lot of labour, and that enables numbers of poorer settlers to obtain work near their own home. 96. If the settlers are given the freehold of this land will not they have to mortgage pretty heavily ? —The mortgage will be nothing, because they have only to pay from 12s. to £1 10s. an acre for it; they could finance 13s. to £1 to get the freehold if they wanted to. If a man, for instance, has 100 acres and has borrowed £400, and was paying 8 per cent, to the private lender ; if he could get the freehold he could go to the Advances to Settlers Office and get up to 75 per cent, of the value for 4 per cent, interest. 97. But a man is better off paying 4 per cent, than he is in paying a mortgage ? —He is in one way, but in another way he is not. There is a great deal of difference between land for settlement and ordinary Crown land. Land-for-settlements land is highly improved land as a rule. 98. If the Government were putting bush land into the market, would it be an improvement, instead of doing that, if they put roads or railway into it and improved it before disposing of it ? — That would never do. Ido not think it would be very satisfactory. At any rate it would not suit me, because I would like to fell the bush in my own way. 99. Mr. McCutchan.'] In reference to the ballot system, would you advocate the Commissioner of Crown Lands having the power to examine applicants, so that those who were deemed unsuitable should not "be included in the ballot ? —Yes. 100. Would you give a preference to married men ? —Yes. I would classify them as follows . 1, Men who have never held Crown land ; 2, men with families who have been unsuccessful with ballots ; and 3, any other applicants. 101. Would you give a man who has been unsuccessful at one ballot a preference at the succeeding ballot ?—Yes. 102. In speaking of the Advances to Settlers Department you advocated largely increasing their lending power ?- —Yes. 103. In lending money do you think that the Department should make a distinction between money borrowed to make further improvements and money borrowed to pay off an existing mortgage ? —That might be a benefit to the leaseholder. I think it would be. 104. Do you not think the State would be safe in making a larger advance for further improvements ?—Yes. I would advocate that strongly. 105. Do you think that the Department should exercise a supervision over the expenditure of the money ? —No. Probably it might be as well to let the borrower make a declaration that he has expended the money and hold back a certain amount of it until he makes that declaration. 106. You would accept his declaration without any supervision I—Yes.1 —Yes. 107. In the Public Works Act the word " road " is defined to be a road in which any survey-pegs are put in ; but, as a matter of fact, they are county roads from the time the survey-pegs are put in ? —I understand that the county has no jurisdiction over a road until it is vested in the county. 108. Would you advocate alterations of the law providing that no road shall be a county road until it is so gazetted ?—Yes. 109. In speaking of the families who have gone away from Whangamomona owing to the difficulties of transit and road-communication, can you say if any of these families went away with practically no means whatever ?—Yes.
C—4,
1118
[j. MCCLUGGAGE.
110. Can you give us an indication of the number of such families ? —About seven or eight. 111. What would be the average number of each family ?—Five. 112. These people were beaten in the struggle of settlement ? —Yes ; on account of the bad access to their land. 113. You gave it as your opinion that large tracts of this country were secured by the State for very little ? —Yes, 2s. 6d. per acre. 114. Is it not a fact that under the lands-for-settlement policy, where have not to undergo the hardships of the bush settlers, that the State allows them to take up that improved land at a low rental ? —Yes. 115. I have here a return furnished by the Lands Department in which the particulars are given as to the conditions, &c., of their settlements : do you think such a wide distinction should be made in the different classes of settlers I—That return shows that they are paying 40 per cent., instead of 4 per cent. The settlers on that block have largely borrowed for local purposes. That proves that we settlers in this part of the colony are severely handicapped compared with settlers on land-for-settle-ment sections. I think that shows clearly that the Government ought to road this country. 116. I suppose you are aware that some sixteen miles of the East Road has been vested in the local body ? —Yes. 117. And you stated that the whole of the available money of the two ridings had been expended in the upkeep of the first sixteen miles ?—Yes. 118. But you did not point out that the road was £16,000 in debt ? —I did not have the figures at hand. 119. Would it not be a hopeless~)natter for the settlers to attempt to maintain the road ?— Absolutely ; the settlers could not do it. 120. With respect to the residence and improvement conditions, do you think that the freeholder should be put under the same conditions as the leaseholder ?—No. 121. Why ? —I think the cash man or freeholder is a big help to the smaller man in a district, but I would compel the freeholder to have a resident employee on the land. 122. Do you not think that would leave the door open for speculation ? —lf a man pays cash for his land he can do what he likes with it. 123. That is the present law ; but would you advocate a change in the law ?—I would advocate that in such cases there should be a resident employee or registered substitute. 124. Would not that mean admitting the speculative element ?—That must come in to some extent. The man who pays cash for the land improves it, and, in many cases, gives work to other settlers. 125. Do you think it is any hardship for a man to be forced to live on the land when he takes up a section ? —I have given a good deal of thought to this question of the residential conditions since I have been a member of the Land Board, and my opinion is that I think they should be relaxed. I certainly think if a freeholder took up land for cash he should be allowed to put a resident substitute or employee on the land. 126. Is not the sanction of the Land Board to the deed of mortgage an acknowledgment that the power of foreclosure is in the hands of the mortgagee ? —Yes. 127. Have any instances of that kind come under your notice as a member of the Land Board ?— No. 128. Has there been any interference by the Land Board in such cases ? —No. 129. In regard to transfers, do you think the Land Board should in any way interfere with the consideration given ?—No, but under the present Act we have to. 130. Why ? —Simply because it is the general belief that the Government does not approve of too large an amount for goodwill being given to the outgoing tenant. 131. If the Advances to Settlers Department advances up to 50 per cent, on the goodwill, do you not think that is an acknowledgment on behalf of the Government that the goodwill belongs to the tenant? —Yes. As far as I am personally concerned, [ think the tenant is entitled to all the goodwill he can get in the back country. 132. Do you not think the State is sufficiently safeguarded by the improvements on the land, without any interference between the vendor and the purchaser ?—Yes. 133. Is it your opinion that the State should not interfere between the purchaser and the seller in such cases ? —Yes, if the residence and improvement conditions have been fulfilled. 134. Mr. Anstey.] Would it not be wise if all the land were loaded sufficiently to give proper access to the land ? —I think it would be a fair thing under all the circumstances if the Government gave us the road and constructed the railway. 135. In regard to the figures quoted by Mr. McCutchan, were not the amounts of the grants omitted ? —Yes, but they could be easily obtained. 136. Were not the costs of administration also left out ?—Yes, but they would be very small. 137. Mr. McCutchan.] The grants amounted, I understand, to £54,000. Do you think that £54,000 is any more than this district is entitled to from the borrowed money for public works ? —No, it is nothing near its fair share of borrowed money. 138. From your knowledge of the whole position, not only of the back country and elsewhere in the North Island, do you think these districts have received a fair amount ? —Certainly not. 139. In view of the hardships and heavy losses of the settlers on Crown lands in this part of the colony, do you think, if any distinction should be made between the two classes of settlement, that preference should be given to settlers taking up land under the Land Act of 1892 ? —Yes. 140. Do you know of any other disability under which the settlers labour in this district ?—Yes, tutu-poisoning of their cattle.
J. MCCLUGGAGE.j
1119
a—4.
141. Do you know of any herds of cattle in this district having been practically wiped out by tutupoisoning ?—Yes, I know of one man who has practically lost his whole herd by tutu-poisoning. Every settler in this district has suffered more or less from tutu-poisoning of his caltle. 142. Do you know of any cases where settlers have lost, as much as £600 from tutu-poisoning ?— Yes. 143. And therefore, as to cattle, do you think the value of cattle should be substantially discounted ? —Yes. 144. Have you known of sheep having to be held back by the farmer owing to his not being able to get them into market ? —Yes, I know of cases where both cattle and sheep have had to be held back by the farmer owing to want of road facilities. 145. Have any promises ever been made by the Government that road facilities should be given ? — Yes, repeatedly. 146. Do you know of any Ministerial promise having been made that proper road-communication between the northern district and the railway in Taranaki would be provided ?—Yes, such a promise was made by the late Sir John McKenzie, and also by the Hon. Mr. Duncan. 147. Mr. Paul.] Would you give it as your opinion that the State should not under any circumstances make any profit out of the land ; we are referring now to land under the Act of 1892, and not to land under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Under the Land for Settlements Act, the people get the land at the actual cost, whereas land is disposed of in this district, at any rate a great deal of it, at a profit to the State, probably of 10s. an acre. 148. You are quite sure that settlers under the Land for Settlements Act get their land at the actual cost ?—At any rate, at a very small profit. There may be J per cent, above the cost, but Ido not think there is any more. 149. You think there should be no profit whatever made out of the remaining Crown lands ?—No. James Brodie examined. 150. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and hold 850 acres under lease in perpetuity and occupation with right of purchase, in the Mangamina Block, and I have held the land for twelve years. My rent is from Is. 3d. to Is. 6d. an acre. 151. Which tenure do you prefer ?—Occupation with right of purchase. 152. As a general land tenure for the colony, do you think the occupation with right of purchase is better for the State and for the settler ? —Unquestionably. 153. Therefore you believe in the freehold ? —Yes. 154. What is your objection to the tenures that you now hold ?—I have no objection to the occupation with right of purchase, but I have a decided objection to the lease in perpetuity. My great objection to the lease in perpetuity is that it is not what it is given out to be. Settlers taking up land originally under that system looked upon it as being practically a freehold, but experience has, unfortunately, proved that it is nothing of the sort. I think there are very few people who have held land under lease in perpetuity for any length of time who hold that opinion now. 155. Is that because of the fear of revaluation ? —lt is a great deal more than a fear. What we looked upon as being absolutely the property of the tenant has been depreciated in value, in many cases by 50 per cent, on account of the agitation for revaluation and the interference on the part of the Land Board. I admit that the Land Board in this district does not vexatiously interfere with the tenants. I also object to the lease in perpetuity on the ground that it is neither satisfactory to the individual or to the State. In the first place, it was supposed, and it is held by a good many people still, to be the best tenure for a poor man. Ido not believe it is anything of the sort. The best tenure to a poor man or a man with very little capital is a tenure that will give him security of tenure on which he can borrow to the best advantage, because if he has not the money himself, he is bound to borrow. The only argument that can be used in the lease in perpetuity being a poor man's tenure is simply the 1 per cent, difference between 4 per cent, and 5 per cent, in the case of occupation with right of purchase, but that difference is far more than discounted by the fact that a settler under the lease in perpetuity cannot possibly do the best with his land at times when he really wants assistance. I think, further, putting aside all other side-issues, that there is no possible land-tenure that is likely to be so satisfactory or that will produce a contented and prosperous people as the freehold. 156. Would you give the freehold in the case of land acquired by the Government under the land-for-settlements policy, and leased under lease in perpetuity ? —I would. If the freehold is good for one class it is good for another, so long as care is taken that there shall be no aggregation of large estates. I believe that the State and the settlers would be better under the freehold tenure. 157. In regard to the freehold, would you limit by law the amount of land any man should hold ? —Yes. 158. How do you think that should be done ? —I do not know that I could on the spur of the moment suggest the best method of doing that, but I approve of the principle. There is no reason why a satisfactory measure could not be introduced to prevent the aggregation of large estates and yet give the freehold to the men who are toiling on the land. 159. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ? —Not for many years. Some years ago I made several applications but was unsuccessful, but I have heard the experience of other settlers in regard to it. I would like to make some remarks in regard to other matters. First, as to the constitution of Land Boards. As far as my experience has gone in this district I have no complaints to make against the Land Board. My relations with the Board and its officers have been satisfactory. At the same time I think that one member, or a portion of the Board, should be elected, If on no other ground than that there are two parties interested—viz., the landholders and the State, and I think the interests of both would be probably better safeguarded if the landholders elected at least
C—4.
1120
[j. BBODIE.
a portion of the members of the Board. In addition to what I have said as to the freehold, lam of opinion that the present land laws should be amended in the direction of entirely abolishing the lease-in-per-petuity tenure. Ido not think that there is anything to be gained by keeping that system on our statutebook. I consider that the occupation with right of purchase is the best form of land-tenure, and I also think that in this district the deferred-payment system would provide an ample opportunity for poor men or men with very little means to get on the land and to ultimately become successful settlers. In respect to residence conditions, I think that in a district such as this they ought to be considerably relaxed. I hold very strongly that there are numbers of men in business with the necessary capital to take up land and gradually improve it, and who would ultimately reside on it and become useful settlers if they were allowed to do so without personal residence being enforced within, say, ten years. During the time the necessary improvements are being made, of course any practical man knows that it is necessary to have some one residing on the land, but I see no reason why, under certain circumstances, personal residence should be compulsory. There are a great number of people who have the necessary experience who will be glad of the opportunity to do the work and find the necessary money themselves if they were allowed to take the place in a certain number of years. That ought to be sufficient for all requirements. By that means I consider a very great extent of country that is likely to lie idle for many years to come would be brought into occupation, and our natural products would be greatly increased and the State as a whole would be benefited as well as the individual. With regard to the ballot, I think that, all things considered, while no doubt there are certain disappointments, if the system were altered somewhat along the lines of giving a preference at future ballots or examining applicants, the system could be perfected. At any rate I think it is better than reverting to sale by auction of otherwise. As a practical farmer and a man who mingles a great deal with the settlers, I think that there are very few cases where an increment has occurred that it has not been earned. In this district, at any rate, there is no such thing as an unearned increment. With regard to the question of allowing the present holders of lease in perpetuity to have the option of the freehold, I think there is only one just way of dealing with that, and that is to give those men their leaseholds at the price put on by the Government at the time plus the 1 per cent, which has been the difference between their tenure and the other tenures. With regard to the land for settlements, I have already said that I think the principle of the freehold ought to be recognised there and that these men ought to have the opportunity of acquiring with the necessary conditions, because my opinion is that if the freehold is a right thing for the lease-in-perpetuity holder it is a right thing for the man under the Land for Settlements Act. A considerable amount of evidence has been given on the question of loading, but in no case have I seen the amounts put on the land for loading given. I thoroughly approve of the land being loaded for the purpose of making roads before people are asked to go on the land. It is the utterest nonsense to send settlement ahead of roads. There is one very strong argument that I think ought to apply in regard to the granting of the freehold, and that is the amount of interest held by the State is so small in proportion to that held by the tenant that it seems nonsensical not to give the right to the tenant to buy out that interest on a small section. I think two of my own sections are loaded to the extent of 15s. or 16s. I am not absolutely positive, although I have very great reason to believe •that that is so. I was anxious to get the information some time ago, but the office would not give it to me, evidently believing that that was State information which should not be given outside. If lam right the Commission ought to know that that is so because I think it will be found that in this block I am interested in which was one of the first to which this principle of loading was applied, that the loading was applied that the loading was excessive and altogether, out of proportion to the benefit derived by the settlers in the way of roading. I believe that since then several co-operative works have been effected in this district with perfect satisfaction to everybody, but with regard to this particular block Ido not think such was the case. I made the same statement to the late Sir John McKenzie on more than one oecasion. 160. Mr. Paul.] Can you give any instance of what you term Land Board interference ?—What I meant when I said that was that there were so many things that had to come before the Land Board that l'enders of money naturally fought shy. As a matter of fact financial institutions will not touch lease in perpetuity at all, and that is one reason why it has been depreciated in value, simply because it has not the facilities for borrowing, and I know of one case'where'a lease-in-perpetuity holder has paid as high as 9 per cent. 161. You do not wish it to be inferred that the Land Board has interfered outside the law??— No. In all my experience tenants have been very well treated by the Land Board and its officers. 162. In the case of the 9 per cent., could the charges be compared with the charges under the Advances to Settlers Department I—l could not tell you. 163. Is it your experience that settlers on these lands must borrow in every instance ?—Probably in ninety-nine cases out of every hundred. 164. It was stated in evidence this morning that the Government are now lending up to 50 per cent, of the goodwill as well as of the improvements. Do you think that meets your objection so far as borrowing is concerned ? —That all depends on how that is viewed by the other institutions. I have had a good deal to do with assisting neighbours, and I know for an absolute fact that the Advances to Settlers Act has been practically a dead-letter so far as being of any use to the struggling settler. If you take the statistics of the colony you will find that on all classes of leaseholds the State has only advanced £1 to every £5 lent on freehold, and if you take the other tenures on which the institution lends I am afraid that the amount lent to the lease-in-perpetuity men will be found to be a very small sum indeed. The Advances to Settlers Department, which was undoubtedly instituted with the view and intention of helping the poor man, has done nothing of the sort. It has helped the rich man. 165. You think the office has discriminated as against the leaseholders ?—I am not prepared to say that, but I know that the facts are as I have stated. Of course, what in my opinion was in a, large
J. BRODIE.I
1121
C.—4
measure accountable for it was the very low value placed by the Government valuers on the improvements of these back-block men. If it is the case that the selling-value is now to be recognised up to 50 per cent., but why it should be 50 per cent, and not 75 per cent, as in freehold I cannot understand; but even 50 per cent, will be a great benefit to many men. 166. You think it is safe for the State to advance up to 75 per cent.?— Absolutely safe. 167. Have you had personal knowledge of the settlement conditions under the land-for-settle-ments policy in the South Island ?—No, my experience is entirely confined to the North Island. 168. Why do you think the freehold is a much more valuable tenure for these men \—Because if that tenure is given them it would entirely do away with the disabilities under which the lease-in-perpetuity settlers hold their land at present. 169. On what terms ? —I would allow them to purchase at the original price plus the 1 per cent, they have been paying less than the man who took land up Under cash or with the right of purchase. 170. Do you know what percentage the tenants under the land-for-settlements policy are paying ? —5 per cent. 171. What would you charge him for the option, then ? —I do not see that there is any use in charging him any more. If the land has been assessed at its full value I see no reason why he should be asked to give any more for it. 172. You would give him something considerable for nothing ?—I fail to see that. 173. You admitted in answer to another question that he was getting a much more reasonable tenure, and you propose to give him that for nothing ? —No, I say he is getting a better tenure, but only what he is entitled to. That which was his own and is his own has been reduced in value, not only by agitation, but also by the threatened Fair Rent Bill, which was introduced into Parliament by the present Government. Ever since that Bill was brought into the House I have felt that the value of the lease in perpetuity was depreciated more than it had any right to be because it raised the question of revaluation. 174. You say emphatically that the tenant, if he gets the option of the freehold, is getting no more than he has a right to at present ?—He is getting no more than he has a right to at present. 175. Can a tenant under the Land Act of 1892 on Crown lands get more than he is entitled to if he gets the option ?—I do not think so. 176. You are going to ask him to pay 1 per cent, extra ? —That is only fair, because if he took it up under other tenures he would have been paying 5 per cent. 177. You are now giving an opinion on conditions of settlement, that you have had no opportunity of inspecting or judging, and yet you say the tenants will get nothing more than what they have a right to ?—I have told you that I have had no experience under the Land for Settlements Act, but if the freehold tenure is good for one man, and a right tenure, it is good for the other. So far as the actual conditions under that tenure are concerned I have no experience. 178. Do you propose to limit the area of freehold one man can own ?—I think in the interests of the general body of the people the aggregation of estates requires to be guarded against. 179. Can you fix a limit, either by value or area ?—I take it that the restriction under the present •Land Act would be a fair limit—64o acres of first-class land and 2,000 acres of second-class land. 180. You know that in these settlements which contain first-class land there are perhaps six families on 640 acres, and they are prosperous and doing well. You would see no wrong if the freehold was given in that 640 acres being turned into one farm ? —That of course in a large measure depends on the quality of the land, and I think as years go on and population increases, that will remedy itself. In this district there are instances of men cutting up their places. 181. The State has remedied it to a great extent ? —Certainly, to some extent. 182. And at an enormous cost ?—I am not prepared to go into that. 183. Mr. Johnston.] How do you account for the fact that when Cheviot was first offered, every second section was for sale but only two were taken up ?—I cannot reply to that without local knowledge. 184. The leaseholds were taken up and the freeholds were not ? —That might be accounted for by the fact that the people wanted their money for the purpose of stocking their farms. 185. What would be the value of your property if it was freehold ?—That is the question I am not prepared to answer, for my idea of valuation and that of the Government valuers might be two different things. 186. What would you take for it if it was put on the market ?— I have spent twelve years of my life there, and done a lot of hard work, and have made the place my home, and am not prepared to say what I would take for it, seeing that I do not want to sell. 187. Would you want £20 an acre ?—No, I would be glad to get £10 an acre, provided I wanted to sell. The original cost of that block I believe was very high, and out of all proportion to its real value, and a good many of the sections were surrendered and revalued, and it was at that time that the trouble of the excessive loading was brought to light. There was one case of a loading of 15s. an acre put on to land of an actual value of 10s. an acre. No one can reasonably complain of paying interest on 10s., which represents the land value, but it surely is an unfair thing that a man should be asked to pay interest on the 155., when the amount would liquidate itself in forty-two years at the outside ; he should not be asked to go on paying that interest for 999 years. 188. What was the original value represented at ? —£l ss. an acre, including loading. 189. What would be the carrying capacity %—Three sheep to the acre. 190. Are the settlers on the Government lands, generally speaking, successful ? —Yes, under ordinary circumstances, unless in cases further back where the conditions are not so favourable. 191. They are capable of making a living ? —Yes, when the men are good men. 192. Are you a member of a Road Board or a County Council ?—I have been for many years. 141—C. 4.
C.—4.
1122
[j. BRODIE.
193. Are you a member of the Farmers' Union ? —Yes. 194. Are you president for this district ? —Yes. 195. Are you representing them here to-day ?—Yes, 1 am. I was appointed by the executive some time ago to attend the Commission and give evidence. 196. Are you representing a section of the community ?—I am representing a very large number. I think I can claim to represent the views of the province in this far, that I was appointed by the provincial executive to give evidence, and, being president, I can speak of the feelings of the people in this direction. 197. How many farmers would you represent ? —One thousand five hundred. 198. How far does the district extend %— From Patea to Awakino. 199. Mr. McCutchan.] When farmers have to make their own roads, they get a loan through the Council under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act, and under one rate of interest that the loan is liquidated in twenty-five years, and under another rate in forty-one years. Do you think that the loading for roads on Government sections should in a like manner cease at the end of twenty-five or forty-one years ? —Undoubtedly. 200. It is the case in connection with these lands in this district that a third from the rents goes to the local bodies, and also that 25 per cent, of the revenue goes to the New Plymouth Harbour Board. Except in the case of cash lands, no part of the money goes to the New Plymouth Harbour Board. The areas sold for cash in these blocks is small compared with the area leased ? —That is so. 201. Therefore, roughly speaking, no part of capital value goes to the local body. In addition to the expense that the State goes to in the purchase of these lands, we have to add on survey fees and grants, but practically the whole of the Ipading for roading has been provided by the settlers ? —Yes, and even more. In this particular block lam interested in, a heavy loading was put on the land, the money was spent, and we still have no road, and the result was that as settlers we had to go to the County Council and borrow £3,000 to put that road in anything like a passable condition. So that we have not only got this excessive loading to pay for all time, but we have got a further mortgage on our properties to liquidate the loan, and, in addition, pay a heavy ordinary rate to keep the roads open. 202. In regard to grants, it is very difficult to get at the statistics on the matter, but notwithstanding the increased revenue and the general prosperity in the last twenty years, the total amount of grants has fallen from £352,000 to £168,000. Does it not follow from that fact that this back country is inadequately treated in comparison with the time when grants were largely in excess of what they are now ? —That is so. There is a large amount of ignorance prevailing in regard to the back blocks. The distance from centres and the quality of the land should have deserved consideration of anentirely different character. 203. Do you think the Government would be justified in inaugurating a substantial borrowing policy with a view of roading this country and providing the requisite transit-facilities in order that the work of the settlers might go on without being seriously handicapped, always stipulating, of course, that great care should be exercised in the expenditure of the money ? —Provided there is proper supervision. On that point, I may say that, while I believe in most cases there has been fair supervision and fair attention in regard to the expenditure recently, I feel very strongly that a better system could be inaugurated than what is in operation at present. lam satisfied that better results could be got if the expenditure of the grants was put into the hands of the local bodies. In place of so many doles of grants —which are sometimes granted under political pressure —I think it would be an improvement if there was a system of graduated land grant, according to the amount of which people rate themselves. Of course, there are circumstances under which there would be necessity for a grant over and above. 204. Mr. Anstey.] You said that you thought the loading upon land should cease after a man had paid 5 per cent, for twenty-five years. Do you not think that the settlers under the Land for Settlements Act who are paying 5 per cent upon the cost of the land, after having Ipaid theirrents 'fortwenty-five years, should not get their lands without further payment ?—No. 1 ' ' 205. It is on the same principal is it not ?—No, the Government borrowed a certain amount of money to road the land. 206. They borrowed in both cases ? —There is a material difference. In one case, that for which the money was borrowed (the land) remains, but the roads do not remain. Before half the period has elapsed, we will have to find another loan for those roads. gf] 207. The settler, after paying 5 per cent, as his rent, has recouped both the principal and interest in twenty-five years, and if it is right that the loading for roads should cease at the end of that period, it is not right that his rent should also cease ?—You are assuming that the 5 per cent, for rent includes principal and interest. : f- pp] 208. No, Tdo not. I say in both cases ? —lf it does not include principal and interest there is no comparison at all. There was no sinking fund ever intended in regard to the land taken from the Crown. 209. The money was borrowed at the same price|in both cases ?—Probablyfso, but I do not think the principle is the same by any means, 210. Mr. Johnston.\ How many Government leaseholders are members of the Farmers' Union ?— That is a poser ; but this I know, that a very large number of leaseholders signed the petition here, but I cannot give you figures. In the lists of the Farmers' Union we have men under all tenuresj It would be impossible to give the information you require. 211. How many leaseholders who signed the petition are members of the Farmers' Union ?— That I could not tell you, because a good many who are not members"of the-Farmers' Union also signed the petition. p*| 212. Were three-fourths members of the' Farmers' Union ?—There is nothing to guide us in that, and I could not say. It was entirely treated as a tenants' question, and not as a Farmers' Union question. 213. It did not originate with the Government tenants, did it ?—I understand so.
1123
C—4.
J. BKODIE.
214. Why did you take up the lease in perpetuity when you are opposed to it ? —For the reasons stated in my evidence that I, along with many others, who had given the question considerable consideration, believed it was|a freehold to all intents and purposes, and it never entered our minds that there would be any doubts raised for hundreds of years at any rate, and yet, after only a few years, the whole thing is shown to be unstable and unreliable. We would not have changed our opinions if the conditions had not changed. 215. If you had a definite assurance that there would be no interference whatever, you would be perfectly satisfied with the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes, if we were perfectly assured that all our improvements would be retained fully to us. 216. Mr. Paul.\ If there was an agitation got up to-morrow for land-nationalisation, would that shake your faith in the freehold ? —I do not know that it would not, because what is an agitation to-day we very often find is the legislation of to-morrow, and it would very likely come to this, that if such an agitation assumed gigantic proportions, then, of course, the freehold would not be safe. But of all the tenures we have now, we know that the freehold is the most acceptable, and we will stick to it until we get something better. 217. Does not it take more than an'agitation to reforms or change in this country ?— My experience, after close observation of recent years, has been that a small agitation has sometimes resulted in a mighty change in the legislation. 218. Would you include an agitation for the freehold by the Farmers' Union ?—No, I am referring to agitations of recent years. 219. Can any agitation ever be successful unless justice underlies the^demandsj?—Certainly not; and it is because we are satisfied, that justice is on our side, that we stand for it. It is not a question of theory with us, but of practical experience. 220. You are perfectly satisfied that no agitation can be successful unless justice underlies the demands. Do you think it would be just to revalue existing leases ?—Certainly not. jyj 221. Then you are quite sure that no agitation to interfere with that lease can jbejsuccessful ? — Ido not go as far as that. It is hard to say what might be successful, but it might only be for a time. It is not what might ultimately be done, but it is the effect that the unsettled state of things has on our property. 222. Why do the mortgage companies favour freehold ? —Because it is the best form of tenure. 223. And one on which they can get their hands on afterwards ? —Very likely. Harry Campbell examined. 224. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a labourer, and attend here as a delegate representing fifty men belonging to the Independent Political Labour League of New Zealand. I reside at Midhirs't, and have been twelve months in the district. I hold no land whatever. lam strongly opposed to granting the freehold. I think it is in the interests of the country that the present leasehold tenure should not be altered. I understand we have nearly 8,000,000 acres of Crown land, and I hope to see that land leased to people, and under no condition allow them to secure the freehold of it. I hope to see that land return to this country a fair amount of revenue. There are many farmers in this district leasing land f-om private landlords who are far worse off than those occupying Crown land ; and if all the Crown land were sold such a thing might happen with the private tenants, and they would be worse off under private landlords than under the Crown. Roads should be made into Crown lands before they are open for selection, and the men who go on to the Crown lands should be given preference of employment in public works. If the law is to be altered to give Crown tenants the right of purchase, both private tenants and tenants of local bodies should have the same right. lam in favour of revaluing all lands which are alienated in the future. In the case of those far back, I think the Government shoiild give their tenants at least ten years free of rent to encourage settlement, afterwards revaluing the holdings at ten-year periods. I am opposed to making the revaluation retrospective—it is the policy of the party that I am firstly opposed to it. 225. Supposing you had 100 acres of land freehold, and supposing there was no right of purchase in the case of a part of that block that you had let to a tenant, and supposing he came to you and said he would pay you for the freehold : how would you treat him ? —lf the law is altered for the Crown tenants it should be altered for the others also. 226. I mean so that you would be compelled, whether you liked it or not, to sell your land to the lessee ?—The law would have to apply to everybody. 227. Mr. Paul.] With reference to revaluation : were you present at a conference which considered this question at Easter ? —Yes. 228. Was there a resolution carried on the question ? —Yes; I strongly opposed it, but it was carried by a bare majority at the conference of labour delegates. 229. From what you know of the party, do you think it is likely to be retained ? —No. I thiui. the revaluation clause in our land reform will be wiped out at the next conference so far as retrospective action is concerned. Why the feeling of those who oppose it is so strong that, had it been advocated before the workers strongly, they would not have sent delegates to vote in such a direction. 230. Do you think it was not properly considered ?—I do not. 231. You advocate giving the tenants ten years' free rent on heay bush land ?—Yes ; on the present Crown lands, but not on lands which have been bought for closer settlement. 232. Then at the end of that time you would revalue the lands ?—Yes. 233. You would not revalue the tenants' improvements ?—No. It would be very unfair to revalue improvements. Only the unearned increment should be revalued. We have a railway say, or a road, and very often, as the result of making that railway or road, land which is only worth £1 an ace previously is raised to £s—that5 —that is unearned increment.
C—4.
1124
H. CAMPBELL.
234. You make that statement with a knowledge that the settlers in this district contribute to the consolidated revenue and share the responsibility of the borrowed money ? —Certainly. 235. Several witnesses advocate the restricting of the freehold. If that is done will not that be undermining the principle of freehold ? —lt is not freehold once restrictions are placed on the area a man shall hold and as to what he should do with it. 236. Do you think the unrestricted freehold should be granted ?—I do not. That would be against the present system of buying land for closer settlement. 237. Mr. Anstey.] You have no land at all ?—No. 238. Do you live in a rented house ?—Yes. 239. Would it not be better if you had a house of your own ? —I do not require one. lam not a married man. 240. Supposing you were ? —Decidedly it would be, if on land leased from the Crown. 241. Would you not rather have it on a bit of freehold ? —I think the land leased from the Crown would be just as satisfactory as the freehold. p 242. Would you be perfectly satisfied to build your house on ground leased from the Government ?—Yes. 243. Would it be preferable to having it on your own land ?—I do not say it would be preferable ; but I look at this question from the national point of view and not from the individual. 244. From a selfish point of view you think the freehold is the best ? —Yes ; as a man likes the freehold because he can sell it. 245. Is it not a part of your objection to freehold that you wish to secure the unearned increment for the State ? —Yes. 246. You say you have no objection to the lease in perpetuity : does it secure the unearned increment to the State ? —I do not think the existing lease does. 247. In order to secure what you want the lease in perpetuity is unsuitable ? —No ; but I propose to revalue those who take up Crown lands in the future. 248. You are quite certain you would not touch existing leases ? —Positively. 249. Is it not the fact that the majority of the conference in Wellington was more than two to one ?—I am certain. I think it was carried by two at a conference of twelve delegates. 250. Not by three to seven ?—I am not positive ; but Ido not think so. I cannot recollect the voting on all occasions as we had a great deal of business to put through. 251. Do you know anything about workmen's homes ? —I have not gone into that matter. 252. Mr. McCutchan.J This conference in Wellington was representative of the twenty-seven thousand members who belong to the trades and labour unions ?—Not at this particular conference which drafted the constitution. At that particular time two conferences were being held in Wellington, and my conference had nothing to do with the Trades and Labour Conference. This resolution was carried at a conference of delegates of the Independent Political Labour League of New Zealand ; but I ?m not aware if it was carried at the other conference, but I cannot swear it was not. 253. Did you vote on the matter I—Yes1 —Yes ; and spoke against it. I voted with the minority. 254. Were there any more in the minority than another and yourself ? —I think thee were at least four. 255. It is extraordinary that on a matter of vital importance you cannot remember how the voting went ? —We passed eighteen resolutions of vital importance. 256. How would you get at the unearned increment which you say you would revalue ?—lf this railway, which has been constructed to Whangamomona, increases the value of the land from £1 to £5, that £4 is unearned increment, and the taxpayers have to pay interest on the cost of constructing that line. 257. To get at that there would have to be a valuation : how would you get at it ? —I propose that the roads and railways should be put in before the land was opened. 259. lam not speaking about that, but taking the Crown tenants leases as they are ? —I do not propose to make it retrospective, but only to Crown lands that are to be settled in the future. 260. You said the unearned increment should be applied to the people now occupying it. Supposing a man is in occupation of a piece of land for seven years, how would you assess the value ?— The improvements he effected upon the land belong to himself. 261. How would you get at their value ? —The improvements are valued at the present time, and it is easy for a competent man to value them as improvements are valued in the cities. 262. Is it not the fact that the unimproved value is going up all over the district at the expense of tenants' improvements I—l do not know. 263. Have you had any experience of that particular matter yourself ?—I have had many years experience of land-settlement; and, in the case of the land I occupied, it was very easy for any valuer to value the improvements at the end of ten years. 264. Is it possible for any man to go into the standing bush, value the land, and ten years' subsequently to accurately estimate the improvements put on the land during that term by the tenant ?— Certainly he can, if he has any knowledge of the work. 265. With reference to this unimproved value, how would you arrive at the improvements the tenant puts on outside his ring-fence ?—I do not think men put on any improvements outside their land. 266. Surely it is evident, if the local bodies have spent £9,000,000 of money in public works, that that has given an increased value to the land ?—I do not know what the expenditure has been. 267. The settlers here have spent a loan of £200,000 on the New Plymouth Breakwater. Has not that expenditure increased the value of their land ?—That is a bad system. Those improvements should be effected out of the revenue of the country.
H. CAMPBELL. 1
1125
C—4.
268. With reference to the dairy factories and creameries established all over the district at a cost of many thousands of pounds : you do not find them amongst tenants' improvements, and yet it adds to what you call the unimproved value of the land, and, therefore, the unearned increment. How would you assess that I—The1 —The people who have spent the money in building those factories have a good investment. 269. And secured the unearned increment to the State ? —That does not increase the unearned increment. 270. It increases the goodwill and does not bear on the tenants' improvements, and therefore it would not come within the scope of the assessor's valuation ; and yec you claim that it belongs to the State as unearned increment ? —I am not aware that that has very much improved the national estate. 271. 1 thought you started out on the supposition that you understood the question ?—Thank you, I think I am doing so. Mrs. Dougherty examined. 272. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a member of the Taranaki Education Board, and vice-president of the Taranaki Liberal Federation. My family earn their living by dairying. I have 300 acres lease in perpetuity on the Bast Road, four miles from Toko. I have held it over a year, and on 113 acres I pay 10s. 4d. an acre, and on 194 acres lis. 6d. an acre. In addition I pay £40 a year for the buildings. I pay £105 10s. 6d. a half-year, or £211 Is. a year. 273. What do you want to bring before the Commission ?•—With regard to the constitution of Land Boards, I think they are simply perfection, and the constitution cannot be bettered. The members of the Taranaki Land Board are excellently suited for their position, and both the present and late Commissioners are excellent men for the position. All the members should be nominated by the Government, but there ought to be two Crown tenants on the Board if possible, to keep it in touch with the Government. I think that if there were twenty elections you could not get better men on the Taranaki Land Board than we have. With regard to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, I think all the land should be bought by the Crown, and then leased to tenants without revaluation. There is a provision in Ireland called " the Ulster tenant-right," which would meet our case. Under that provision the tenant could not sell the freehold, but could sell his tenant-right—that is, all his improvements— and there was never any trouble under the lease. I think that the idea of revaluation must have been Satanic suggestions, because no sensible person would ever suggest that a man should be punished for his hard work. The chief difficulty with the lease in perpetuity is that of financing. I think the Government should make the lease-in-perpetuity holders independent of those lenders who do not think the lease is of any value as a security. The Government seem to think the same, and in some cases they will not lend on it, so that the lease-in-perpetuity holders are between the devil and the deep sea. On our land we have to pay £24 in rates and insurance during a little over a yea l -, but the freeholders have their land on much better and cheaper terms. If it were possible, I should like our place revalued by some practical men. The smell section is much better land than the larger one. On the section where the homestead is the land is very poor, and the dairy herd does not do so well as it does on the small section. 274. Did you not know your land was poor when you took it up ? —We had not seen it before, but my husband thought the land was good, and the Commissioner suggested that we should apply for the small section as well, and had it not been for taking that section up we should have been starved out long ago, because we went and lived on the homestead section and paid the rent. We are all practical people, my husband is a good manager, has a good idea of land-values, but he says no person can pay the rent of that place and live. We have lost one hundred pounds' worth of cattle through accident. It is suitable for a dairy-farm, but too expensive for a sheep farm. The timber on the section was valued as £91 lis., which ought to have gone to our credit, but it has all been cut out and £10 is all we have been allowed. 275. Mr. Paul.] When you said revaluation was a suggestion from his Satanic majesty, you meant as far as retrospective action was concerned ?—I think it would not be right that one should be punished for working hard, and have to pay for what they have earned through the medium of retrospective action in the future. Ido not like it from my own point of view, but I think of everyone in general. 276. You say your rent is too high ?—Yes ; we have proved it so. 277. Is it not the only equitable method of adjusting rents by a system of periodical which, in your case, would have the effect of reducing your rent, and perhaps in some other cases of increasing the rent ? —Yes ; but it would require to be done by very special experts on the question. 278. Do you not think that would be an equitable principle to apply, leaving out the question of any interference with present leases ? —lt is difficult to foretell the future, but it seems to me not to be a fair idea. 278 a. Is it not fair in the event of land-values being increased by public works that there should be an increase in rent, simply because the tenant is then able to pay ? —I think the Crown should stick to their bargain, and any agreement they have made should be sacred. 279. Do you think the principle of revaluation is equitable ?—I would want to consider the question more fully before answering it. 280. We have had it in evidence that monetary institutions will lend to a borrower on a freehold on better terms than on a lease ? —That is possible, but I have not had any experience. 281. Are not things generally speaking much higher than they have been for many years ? —Not here. Cattle have been unsaleable. Our cattle have been taken to the sales and brought back dozens of times since we went there. 282. Do you think it would be fair for the State to buy land at the owner's valuation plus 10 per cent. ? —I suppose that would be fair. 283. Mr. Anstey.] You are a member of the Education Board ? —Yes.
G.—4.
1126
TMES. DOUGHERTY
284. Does your Board hold any land as endowments ?—A good bit. We lease them. The School Commissioners manage that matter. 285. Do you know the terms of their lease to your tenants ?—No. 286. In regard to the disabilities of married women : you are aware that a married woman under the Land for Settlements Act is not allowed to hold more than 320 acres. What is your view of that question ? —I think that ought to be repealed. It is absurd, seeing that all have now equal rights. 287. Do you think your farm ought to be revalued ? —I would like some practical men to revalue it. 288. I presume you are aware that if you pay your rent promptly you are entitled to a rebate of 10 per cent. Do you think it would be a better plan for the Government to make alO per cent, rebate to all tenants under the Land for Settlements Act, instead of making special rebates in cases where the rents are too high ?—Where the rents are too high there should be a rebate. 289. Is there any necessity to do so where the rents are too low ?—I have not met that case. 290. Have you heard of tenants selling out their goodwill of small farms and making £2,000 or £3,000 on the transaction ? In such a case is there any necessity to make a rebate of 10 per cent. ? — It is the custom, and habit is second nature, and if they make a rule that they are going to do that, they must stick to their rules. William George Malone examined. 291. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a working-man, and, by the way, a solicitor, and also, by the way, a farmer. I have 445 acres of freehold rural land, 54 acres of freehold suburban land, and about 3 acres of town land. It is in this district. I have also, with a partner, 1,300 acres occupation with right of purchase, and 400 acres of lease in perpetuity. I have been twenty-five years in Taranaki. I also held 400 acres deferred payment land with my brother, but do not hold it now. 292. What tenure do you think is best for the settler and the country ?—Certainly the freehold 293. What about the administration of the Land Board ?—lt is very satisfactory, and the present constitution is a suitable one. 294. Have you had any personal experience of advances to settlers ?—I have not personally borrowed money from them, but professionally I have had experience of the Act, as my legal firm are solicitors to the Department here. I think it is a very good measure indeed. I have found that the lease-in-perpetuity holders have had difficulty in raising money from the Crown, but since the inclusion of the tenant's goodwill in the valuation, and the increase of amount from £500 to £1,000 that the Department will lend, I think they will be better satisfied. 295. Is there anything you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I try to do my own thinking, and I think our first duty is to see what we are doing in New Zealand in the way of building up a race and nation. Setting aside the individual for the people should be the real object in this colony. We must all agree that the people we want to build up here into a nation should be independent, free, thrifty, sturdy, and clean, both physically and morally. I feel, therefore, that, in order to get an independent people, sturdiness and independence within the country itself must be encouraged. In America they say all the good men come from the country, and undoubtedly we find that from the country you get the very best men in every respect. That being so, it seems to me that we must, as it were, endeavour to start with countrymen right through.' We will leave out the question of the townsmen necessary to carry on certain businesses of the country. We must therefore have every one in the community, as far as possible, occupying land and using it. When we get that far, we must consider how we shall induce people to take up the land. That brings up the question of tenure. I know the tenures of this colony, and I say at once that the freehold is the best. And, when I speak so emphatically about the freehold, it is not merely from sentiment. I feel confident that the man who has the freehold has a feeling of independence that no holder of land has under any other tenure ; and that makes for the chief ingredient in the character of a nation —namely, independence. The man who is a tenant has not that feeling of independence that the other man has, and therefore we take away from him the chief ingredient of character I would like to see him have. We have here the freehold, the occupation with right of purchase, the lease in perpetuity, and some other tenures. Most Crown lands in Taranaki have of late years been put up on the optional system. Freehold for cash, or occupation with right of purchase, or on lease in perpetuity. I can but think that the very people who claim to put men on the land have forgotten that that system is a class legislation, because the man who has plenty of money can pay his cash and get his freehold ; the man who is between the poor man and the rich man can take it up with the occupation with right of purchase ; but the poorest man is the only one who is not to have the right of freehold. That is as the law now stands. That is a grave iniquity, and one which the advocates of the lease in perpetuity are really urging. Commercially, to the well-to-do man, and, personally, as far as 1 am concerned, the tenure does not matter very much, as long as money is at its present worth, but if it falls considerably below 4 per cent, it will matter very materially. But to poor people it matters considerably, especially if they are holders of lease in perpetuity. They are not able to make their land reproductive without money—they have none or very little. They must borrow. I hold rather strong views of what money a man should borrow, and can afford to pay for. I believe that a man can afford to pay even up to 10 per cent, for money to fell and grass standing bush with. I have been ten years in my solicitor's business, and engaged in raising money for these poor people. People are constantly coming to me who have been to lending institutions, and have been refused even consideration of an application for a loan because their tenure was lease in perpetuity. Practically, the whole of the lending institutions refuse to have anything to do with it. Trustees again, as they are situated, cannot look at such securities. We have then this unfortunate individual, the pioneer (whOjperhaps may. if the Chairmanjwill excuse my using the words, a " damned fool" for being a pioneer), debarred from getting money except at high rates. Apart
W. G. MALONE.I
1127
C—4.
from the institutions I have mentioned, he has only the outsiders who are called money-lenders to go to if he wants to borrow, and it is felt that undoubtedly a man borrowing on lease in perpetuity must pay up to 8 per cent, for his money. That is a very common rate. Thus the poor man is compelled at his very first step to take up that class of land, because he is poor, and then, because he is poor, he has to borrow money, and so is handicapped very heavily. I believe in restricting the area that the individual should be able to take up as a freehold. I believe he should not be allowed to calmly take it up and let it remain idle, while his energetic neighbours improve his property. I believe, either by himself, or by some person representing himself, there should be residence, so that the district should not be kept back by the non-residence of some. Ido not care if it is the man who owns the land, or a competent person living there with his wife and family who does the work for him, so long as we have a visible and actual occupation. I think, therefore, that the men who want the freehold should be allowed to take, up the land on that system, or with the right to the freehold, subject to residential and improvement conditions. With regard to the objections of people in the cities to the granting of the freehold, I have heard some of these objections, and I think that a number of people say that the land should belong to the State —the State should have it. The State is simply a majority of ourselves —that is, the people. I quite agree that the State should have some benefit from the land. To my mind what is contended by some who favour the lease-in-perpetuity system is really an absurdity. The only fruit the State gets from it during its continuance is when money falls below 4 per cent. If it falls to 3 per cent all the State gets is 1 per cent. I believe it has been boldly declared by some people who do not own land that there shall be revaluation, and that it shall be retrospective We have to consider that we are a nation, and I say if the country is going to set up such an interference as revaluation it will cause trouble and strife, and will not help to make us a happy and contented community ; in fact, lam quite suTe if that is done it will assist to make us a thriftless people. It stands to reason that if a tenant knows his property is to be revalued from time to time he will try to show as little improvement on his property as he can, and I say that you will be putting a premium on want of thrift, and you will destroy that sturdy spirit and that independence that makes a great people. If it is desired that the burdens of the country should be borne fairly by all the people, that can always be done by means of taxation. If it turns out in the future that the freeholder is getting a benefit and it is desirable that the burdens should be readjusted, there will be no great difficulty in apportioning to him his fair share of the burdens according to the benefit he receives. There is a cry (and it is only a cry), " the land for the people " ; there is also another cry, that " the birthright of the people is the land." It seems to me that the people who makes those cries do not own any land, and would not go on the land even if they were asked to Without wishing to put any reproach on them it seems to me that townspeople are making this cry of " the land for the people." They are wise in their own way, but it is a very selfish and narrow wisdom. The selfishness is, perhaps, unwitting, but it is there all the same. Probably, from the point of view of the townspeople, the pioneers of the colony are —excuse me using the phrase —" damned fools." I, personally, however, look upon the pioneers as being heroes —greater heroes than men who simply perform some single act of bravery. I say that those men who go into the forest and back country with their wives and families and hew out homes for themselves, and live there their lifetime are true heroes. The men in the towns generation after generation are becoming less fit members of the nation. Life in the towns does not conduce to that sturdiness of mind, body, and even soul, which we desire to see in a nation. I think that after looking at both sides of the question, one must come to the conclusion that the freehold is the only tenure for such a country as this. If we are to encourage a country life we must see that the conditions of that life are favourable. In regard to the question of road-making and railways, no party in New Zealand up to the present time has tackled that matter properly. We have heard for many years that the land question and the road question are the paramount questions of the hour, but in the past the money that has been voted for this work has only been expended in dribs and drabs. Only thirteen miles of railway have been made on a railway-line running from Stratford inland, and it has taken many years for that small section to be made. Settlement has gone into the country far in advance of the railway. In my opinion, prior to the opening-up of land, the Government ought to road the land. That brings us to the question of whether that should be done by way of loading the land, or by subsidies, or by an absolute grant. lam not prepared to say more than this, that I think the system of Government grants is a vicious one. My experience has been, and, lam sorry to say it has been common to say, " it is near election-time and now is the time to ask for grants for public works." Although that is often said as a joke, still I think the system of grants is a vicious one. Those people who are most persistent and those who have most political influence get greater benefits under this system than those who are more modest and retiring and those who have less influence. I think there should be a general principle governing expenditure, and applying throughout the whole colony, and it should be independent of political influence. In my opinion, I think this might be adopted : some form of subsidy in proportion to the amount of rating in the pound that people are prepared to put on themselves. I think that would work reasonably fairly. It is a large question, and one that I do not want to be at all dogmatic upon, but I think some system of subsidies would work out better than the present system. With respect to loading, Ido not think it is just to put on to the land the whole of the cost of making the roads, or even a considerable part of it. Other parts of the colony derive benefits from settlement of the land, and they should bear a portion of the cost of roading. In reference to the ballot, I really do not see that there is any better system to adopt. I think it is a most vicious system that intending settlers should bid at auction against each other for sections, and thus be tempted to give more than the fair value of the land. If it could be secured that bona fide settlers should get the land it would be a good thing. As to the aggregation of estates and the right of resuming land, I certainly think that when there is not enough land to divide among the people, those who have large areas must give some of their land up to the State for settlement on fair terms.
a—4.
1128
FW. G. MALONE.
I think that any man who makes idle land reproductive should be regarded as a good settler. lam not, however, in favour of any aggregation of land that would prevent those who want to get on the land securing a section. 296. Mr. Paul.] What is your opinion with reference to the present constitution of Land Boards ? I think it is satisfatory. I have had a good deal of experience of the Land Board of this district and I have always found it fair and reasonable. 297. Leaving out the bush land, has there been an increase in land values at Stratford —that is, during the last five years ?—There was an increase up to about a year ago but values have gone down a little since that time. 298. What has been the increase in the price of land during a period of ten years ? —lt has probably doubled in value in ten years. 299. Can you say whether the cost of procuring a loan under the advances-to-settlers system is more or is it less than the cost of getting a loan from private lenders ? —lt is very much cheaper to get a loan from the Advances to Settlers Office. 300. Is it a fact that the Government sweat their solicitor in his work in connection with granting loans to settlers ?—They cut us down pretty closely, but I would not say that it is sweating. We are not obliged to do the work unless we like. 301. You think the settler has nothing to complain of with respect to the legal charges \ —Certainly not. If the settler has had any experience of the two systems he ought to think he is not charged at all, practically, under the advances-to-settlers system. 302. You spoke in favour of the poor man, but in the case of a cash purchaser you propose to allow him to put a substitute on his land, and thus you will allow a man to live in a city and send out a substitute to live on his land ? —-1 did not propose to encourage it. I said that I thought he should be allowed to do so. 303. Do you think it would conduce to successful settlement if such a system were adopted ?—Yes, I do. In the interests of settlement I think there should be a mixing of people with means and those with small means or no means. 304. Is it not an absurdity to send any man into the bush without means of access to his land ? —Some people have been hereoic enough to go into the bush country and take up land without means of access to it. I think the Government should make the roads before the land is thrown open. 305. Do you not think that roads should precede settlement ? —Undoubtedly. 306. Which man do you think is better off at the end of his days—the pioneer settler or the wage-earner in the city ?—lt depends, of course, on whether a man is living for the time or is living for the future. The wage-earner is living for the time, and a very good time he has compared to the pioneer. The pioneer is living for the future. Among my own friends I have heard them say that they question whether the shepherds are not really better off than they are themselves. ( In most cases the employee gets his wages regularly and he does not work long hours compared with those often of the employer. 307. Mr. Anstey.\ You say that one of the difficulties of the lease-in-perpetuity settler is his inability to finance under it ? —Yes. 308. Do you not think that these difficulties could be removed ?—I do not think so. The moneylender is a very shy animal. 309. Is it not a fact that the money-lender has no right of foreclosure before obtaining the consent of the Minister ?—ln New Zealand you cannot foreclose. You have to sell and the matter has to go before the Land Board. I know of some cases where tenants have been behind with their rents, and the Board has recognised that they could not get on without borrowing, and they have given these tenants plenty of time in which to pay their rents. That has removed this difficulty, and, without that arrangement, no money would have been lent at all. 310. Can you suggest any further improvement with respect to getting money advanced on land ? Yes, give the holders the right to obtain the freehold. ■ 311. Is that the only remedy ?—I think so. 312. Can you suggest anything which would place the lease in perpetuity as an investment on a par with Education Board leases, for instance ?—No. 313. You are in favour of the existing lease-in-perpetuity tenants having the right to acquire the freehold ?—Yes, I think every one should have the right of getting the freehold. 314. What do you think of the proposal of the labour unions to introduce a revaluation clause in respect to existing leases ?—I think it is an utterly monstrous proposition. My idea is that there should be only one tenure throughout the'colony, anil that the State should 'get its fruits from the land by way of taxation. 315. Are you aware that there are twenty-nine different forms of tenure in the Auckland Provincial District alone ?—I know there are very many. 316. Do you think that tenants of education leases should also have the right of acquiring the freehold ? —lt is a question whether that is public land. Ido not think it is looked upon as State land. It is regarded as being State land set apart for a certain purpose under certain trusts, and you have to be very careful how you deal with trust property of that sort. 317. Would you propose to give the holders of lease-in-perpetuity land the right to the freehold ? —Yes. 318. At the original value ?—Yes. Those men have borne all the heat and burden of the day, and if there has been rise''in 'the value P of land there is no doubt a good deal of it is due to their own energy. hiSTS^; f |FPb'! ... 319. Would that not mean tha t^the^bestrsections 5 , would"-be 5 taken up and the poorer sections be left on the hands of the State, and, if so, do you think the State should bear the loss ? —Yes.
W. G. MALONE.j
1129
C.—4
320. You think that in the case of the State buying the land too dear and having to sell it at a lower figure that the State must face the loss ?—Yes. 321. In the case of the Government buying the land cheap and being able to sell it at a higher price should not the State reap the profit ? —I do not know that the unimproved value is any more than it was originally. 322. Mr. Johnston.] Would you approve of lease-in-perpetuity land being revalued every fifty years ? —Not at all. Ido not believe in it being revalued at all. 323. If you do not believe in it being revalued you might just as well give the freehold ? —Yes. 324. Have you not known of large areas of land having fallen into the hands of mortgagees and thus become a detriment to settlement ?—Yes, but holdings are small in this district. 325. But the same thing might happen in regard to small holdings ? —I have not heard of such instances. 326. Have you ever known the Government to reduce rents during the currency of a lease when times were bad ? —No. 327. Have you not heard of the reductions in rents after the great snow-storm in the south in 1903 ? —I do not remember that. 328. You know that a large percentage of the farmers in this district will have to borrow outside if they were to get the freehold ?—Yes, a great many. 329. As a solicitor do you prepare a mortgage for a private individual from a private money-lender at the same rate as you charge for a loan obtained from the Advances to Settlers Department ?— Certainly not. 330. Would it cost three times as much ? —Four or five times as much. 331. Then the Advances to Settlers Act has reduced the cost of mortgages ?—Yes, it has reduced the cost of borrowing money. 332. Have you had many transfers under the lease in perpetuity ? —A fair proportion. 333. Are these transfers to the advantage of the settler ? —That is rather a delicate question which I, as a solicitor to the parties, would prefer not to answer. 334. You say that revaluation would cause annoyance and strife ?—Yes, I think so. 335. How is it that it has not caused strife in the South Island in connection with the reletting of the big runs ?—I think if it was a common thing it would cause trouble and strife. 336. Have you had any experience of land under the Land for Settlements Act ? —Not personally. 337. Mr. McCutchan.\ Do you think it is a crime for Crown tenants under the Land for Settlements Act who have a goodwill to have the advantage of that goodwill : do you see why Crown tenants should not in that respect have equal advantages with freeholders ?—I see no reason whatever. 338. This question was put to you : that under the Land for Settlements Act the best land would be taken up and the poor land would be left on the hands of the Government ? —Yes. 339. Would the State be in a worse position than they were before as regards the property ?—I do not think so. I take it they got the original price which was paid for the land, and if there was any loss of course that must be borne because there must be losses in every business. 340. Since the State made the mistake in the original leases, should not the State bear the brunt of any loss that would arise ? —Yes, that occurs in every business. 341. Do you think in the case of properties held under leasehold tenure when they come to be handed down, say, from father to son, there should be any restrictions placed over the wills of the deceased persons ?—I do not think a person ought to be allowed by his will to contra vert the law of the land. If a man by his will proposed to do something against the land laws of the country he should have no right to do so. 342. We will suppose that under the law of the land there are no restrictions as to the manner in which I may bequeath a property in which I have a greater interest, and the State has a small interest over the upset price : do you think any restrictions should be imposed when none exist now ? —No. 343. Then putting it the reverse way you think the restrictions should be removed ?—I think so. 344. You approve of residence conditions in connection with cash sales ?—I do. 345. Subject to the qualification that a man may put some one else on the land in his place ? —Yes. 346. Do you not think that land speculation would creep in under such a system ? —I am afraid you cannot eliminate speculation altogether. 347. But in framing land laws is it not wise to eliminate speculation merely for gain without the land being made reproductive by the person taking it up ?—There must be compulsory improvements. I think if a man makes his land produce all it will produce I cannot see how you can say that he is not a bona fide settler. The land is made reproductive, and there is a man with a family on the land, and therefore I think that in such a case the person who takes up that land is a bona fide settler, although he himself is not residing on the land for the time being. 348. Mr. Paul.] With reference to these improved estates, you propose to give the tenants the option of the freehold under the Land for Settlements Act ? —Yes. 349. At 5 per cent, on the capital value at the original valuation ? —Yes. 350. You propose to give these settlers a more valuable tenure and charge them nothing for it ? —I do not agree that it is more valuable. 351. You have been telling us during the past hour that the freehold is manifestly a superior tenure to the leasehold : do you mean valuable from an £-s.-d. point of view or from the point of view of 142—C. 4.
C.--4.
1130
TW. G. MALONE.
the State and the building-up of a sturdy independent people ?—I am not going into the matter from an £-s.-d. point of view. 352. I am afraid the tenants willlook at it*"from an £-s.-d. point of view ? —lt" is a pity all the same. 353. The Chairman.] Supposing two properties of equal value were put on the market—one under the lease in perpetuity and one under the occupation with right of purchase —which of the two would bring the higher price ?—I think the occupation with right of purchase would because in my opinion the majority of people prefer the freehold. 354. Mr. Paul.] Then, you admit you are going to give these tenants a more valuable tenure, so far as £s.d. is concerned ? —I suppose that is so. I see no reason why you should not. 355. Following up the point as to the best sections being taken up and the worst sections being left on the hands of the State, you think it would be right that the State should bear the loss where there is a loss ?—Yes, because I am not looking at it from that point of view. 356. There will be a loss. Do you not think a fair way, seeing that you propose a general readjustment and alteration of the conditions of tenure, would be this : that the whole thing should be revalued, and the State protected against loss ?—I think it would be a difficult thing to do. It is a great pity that from the beginning there was not some such constitution as I have been endeavouring to represent. 357. It is a pity that you and I did not land in New Zealand at the first ? —Yes, perhaps so. 358. Take the Cheviot Estate. There is a large profit being made on it annually by the State, and the people are doing well. The Government propose to construct a railway to Cheviot. That will increase the price of the land, and, in that case, the State will be giving the tenants a more valuable tenure. Do you not think the State should be reimbursed in any way ? —Yes, I think when the State wants more money to car r y on the administration of the country they will tax these people more. 359. You do not mean that the settlers of Cheviot will be taxed more than the settlers in other parts of the colony ?—They will all be treated proportionately in the same way. 360. You can therefore see that the settlers of Cheviot have practically got a bonus of several hundred pounds in each case, and that they are in a much better position than the settlers in Taranaki, for instance ? —Yes, but I take it these people will be taxed more than the people of Taranaki. 361. I think that would be a more difficult thing to do than what you propose ?—I think they can well afford to pay the extra taxation, and they ought to be taxed in proportion to the benefit they receive James Jeken Elwin examined. 362. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, holding 500 acres under Native lease, which I have held for twenty-one years/ It is'at Warea, on'the coast. It was a thirty-year lease from 1884, but has been extended for another three years. lam satisfied with the tenure so far as it goes. As representing a large number of settlers on the coast, and particularly Native leaseholders, I am requested to express their great sorrow and indignation that the Commission did not go round to Opunake, so that they could lay their position before them. This Native tenure is a totally different thing from any tenure that has been before the Commission hitherto, and they wished particularly to bring it before your notice. I may say that a large number of settlers in our neighbourhood are practically freeholders, and are, of course, very favourable to the freehold, having worked up to it through the deferred-payment system. The whole of the freeholders and the most of the leaseholders are in favour of the deferredpayment system, in that it practically pins a man to the land from the beginning, and induces him to continue to improve the land, even under mosfadverse circumstances. Thirty years ago the coast was in a different position to what it is now. Many "'had to go away because it was utterly impossible to make a living. Others —and I was one of them—struggled 'through under immense difficulties, quite as great in proportion to those inland now —in fact, we went through all the disabilities that have been mentioned to-day ; but our troubles are now of a different character. I can remember the time when the deferred-payment settlers were working not so much to get remuneration for their labour, but to obtain means to pay their deferred-payment demands, even taking at the rate of 2s. 6d. a day. On the back blocks when troubles prise in the shape of slips, lease-in-perpetuity tenants want Bs. a day before they will turn out and clear their roads.J In the early days we did a lot of free work for the State. Now we are met with the fact that while the'leases were coming to an end the conditions are considerably altered from the time we took them up. That is to say, we have been revalued every three or four years, and the portion of the value of our lands whith we considered would belong to ourselves at the end of the lease is "being diverted in what we consider an unfair way. The unimproved value is being increased to the detriment of our improvements. The leases contain a clause that at the end of the term all improvements belong to the tenant, and we are beginning to wonder what will be improvements at the end of the term. We imagined that improvements we made on the land and what improvements we made in the district, outside our fences, would become part of the improved value of our land at the end of the lease. We find, however, that the total value is fixed on the basis of sales made in the district, irrespective of cash or on terms ; and then the unimproved value is arbitrarily fixed at a certain other sum, and the value of our improvements is the difference between these two sums, and we are told that if our improvements are in excess of the amount stated, we can have our valuations raised, and pay an increased taxation. It puts us in a very difficult position, because in one instance we are liable to lose the value of our improvements at the end of the lease, and if we maintain that our improvements are worth a certain sum we have to pay increased taxation on that value during the next ten or twelve years. There are other points, but-that is the principal one. The whole business of the Native lease is one which opens a very large question, and which is open to great difference of opinion. The 1 system of leasingsthese!Native lands r thefworstifphasesjof absentee landlordism, in that the landlord'has'neither/knowledge or interest|in his tenants. We have large tracts of Native lands which are not let, and which pay no rates whatever for the maintenance of roads, and which do not help the district
C-4
J. J, ELWIN.I
1131
in the slightest degree. If these were European lands the public bodies would step in and be able to make the rates a claim on|the lands. At the present time, these lands are lying idle, or, if occupied by Natives, pay a reduced rate. The Natives are considerably the largest users of the district and of the improvements which the settlers have paid for by rates and otherwise in the''way of harbour, roads, factories, and so on. The settlers are not receiving, and are not likely to receive, the slightest allowance for sinking their capital in these things, because the valuer only recognises, the actual improvements which are visible on the land at he visits'them. The unimproved value of the Egmont County was put up half a million, and though the improvements certainly were raised from what they were before, certainly nothing in proportion to the unimproved increase. Settlers claim that there is no unimproved value. We have no railway ; we have a road to New Plymouth of forty miles to maintain ; we have all our by-roads to open, which is being done out of loan money, and we maintain that the system of valuation is altogether wrong. In some instances, the settlers on roads, for which,they have raised special loans, are having their values raised for taxation purposes, from the very fact that these roads are made, so that they are paying the rate for the special loan, and they are also paying an increased rate for the general purposes of the district. As a district and as settlers we have a very strong sympathy with those people who have taken up land in the inland districts, because we know from experience what sufferings they will have to undergo. know what , a "great benefit the deferred payment has been to us, and we can feel what a great benefit it would be to them if they had the right of purchase, the same as we had. There is a large question as to whether it would not be better for the State to take over all these Native lands and convert them into State lands. The argument is exceedingly strong that the Natives would be far better off if instead of receiving their rents from the Public Trustee they were able to go to the Post Office and receive the interest on the debentures which the Government would give them for their lands, which would then become State lands, and be let in the ordinary way. As far as the Native leaseholders are concerned, they are of one mind in the matter. They do not look upon it in any selfish-way, but considering it from their intimate knowledge of the Natives on the coast, they are sure the Natives would be infinitely better off if the Government acquired the land and gave interest-bearing debentures in exchange. There are some thousands of acres of this land unoccupied which are unproductive, and for which many applications have been made to the Public Trustee to get available for settlement, so that they can be rated for the roads ; but, as the matter stands at the present time, the Trustee seems to be unable to have these lands brought into use, and the result is that in our district, though we have lands which would produce enough revenue if occupied to keep our roads in fair order, we are unable to do so. The question of a railway has been raised, and I think the whole difficulty of increased value given by the construction of a line can be met by the application of the betterment principle. 363. Had you a public meeting of the Native leaseholders ?—Yes, some time ago. 364. The Public Trustee is really your landlord ?—Yes. 365. You say there is a large area of Native land unoccupied, and which is paying no rates.V Has the Public Trustee any power to devote any part of the rents towards roading ?—Not in unoccupied lands ; he is simply a receiver. 366. Mr. Paul.] How many miles have you had to travel in order to attend this meeting ?—About sixty. 367. Mr. Anstey.] Does the Native land pay no rates ? —No, but they only pay a very small rate. It is supposed to be half, but the valuers value Native land in occupation of Natives at much less than they value Native land of the same quality and in the same neighbourhood in the occupation of Europeans. 368. Taking into account the fact that the Natives only pay half-rates on their low valuations, you are practically rated at 300 per cent more than the Natives ? —Yes. 369. With regard to the Native-land taxation, are the Natives paying rates ?—The Public Trustee pays them ; but, unfortunately, the public bodies cannot find out on what system he pays. The public body gives him a list of the sections in the occupation of Natives, and he sees if there is any money coming to the Natives which will pay the rates ; if he has no money coming to the individual Natives he pays no rates. The County Council may imagine that they are entitled to £300 or £400 from Native rates, but the Public Trustee will send down £80, saying that that is all he has. 370. Is there any way of getting over that difficulty ? —That is not the great difficulty. There is a large amount of land which does not pay rates at all. The Public Trustee has not dealt with it, and no revenue comes in ; therefore he is not able to pay any rates. 371. So that from' some Native land you get no rates at all, though the law says it has to pay half-rates ?—That is so. 372. Is it a large area that is in this condition ? —Yes. 373. What is the remedy ?—The remedy was fixed by the Act of 1888, which allowed rates to accumulate, and when the land was dealt with these rates were a first charge on revenue. But the Act of 1892 did away with that. The Natives made a great disturbance about their money being taken from the mto pay these rating and other charges. After some lands were let, the Natives for several years received no money whatever, through having to pay these back rates. If the clause in the Act of 1888 were re-enacted the present difficulty would be eased. 374. How do you account for so much of this land not being dealt with at all ?—lt is highly suitable for settlement; but if the Natives have land in profitable occupation the Public Trustee has no power to take it, and Te Whiti, whenever he finds that the Public Trustee is likely fe to take a block of land for European settlement, sends a few Natives down to comply with the Act; They put up a whare and turn over the corner of a section. That complies with the the law, and the Trustee is not able to deal with the land. We have had great trouble through and blackberry, which has spread all over the district from these lands. Two or three years ago I was in
C.--4.
1132
fj. J. EL WW.
communication with the Public Trustee and the Noxious Weeds Inspectors with regard to these lands, and it was only about a fortnight or three weeks ago that we got any definite action taken. The ragwort was cut, but the Public Trustee's agent told us he did not take any notice of the blackberry, which is still rampant all over the district. 375. Did those weeds spread from the Native lands to the lands of European settlers ? —The first seen of them was on this Native land. m 376. Did the Natives bring it themselves ?—We do not know. We attribute the noxious weeds to the war, believing they were brought out in the hay. 377. With regard to this question of roads, have you sufficient for your purposes ?—No ;we have insufficient roads, and we have a difficulty in maintaining them. 378. How are they maintained ? —The main road is entirely maintained by the rates, and the by-roads have been constructed out of special loans under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act. Many of the sections are doubly and trebly banked in regard to loans, and yet the roads are falling into disrepair. The Egmont County is over £1,000 in debt at the present time. 379. What are the local bodies ?—The Egmont County Council and the Parihaka Road Board. 380. Is that economical ? —Had we one local body there would be a great saving. 381. You have really three governing bodies—the Government, the County Council, and the Road Board—and you think it would be better if one did the lot of the work ?—We would save considerably. 382. If you had one local body, and a proper system of rating, by which all contributed accordingly, could you finance the road-works without the assistance of grants I—Undoubtedlyl—Undoubtedly ; if the whole of the district were rateable we would be in a good position with good roads and a fair subsidy. 383. Mr. Johnston.] Your road is a good road ?—lt is a good road, but it is a rotten road. It was a fairly good road on Sunday, but we have had two days' rain since. 384. It was a good road twenty years ago I—That is a different thing altogether. It was a good road eighteen years ago ; but, unfortunately, it was good at the top and had no bottom. The A.C.s, when they were making the road, threw in anything they could get for a foundation, and threw boulders in on top of that and then gravel. Sixteen years ago the boulders were cropping up, and the system of repairing adopted was to pick them up, crack them to pieces, and put the bits into the holes again. 385. When did the ragwort appear ? —Four or five years ago. 386. It could not have come from the A.C.s, then ? —Where did it come from, then ? It appeared suddenly on the Newall Run and has been spreading ever since. 387. Is there any Californian thistle there ? —No. 388. Any gorse ?—Any amount. 389. Is there any on the Native land ?—The Natives are tackling their gorse now. That is one thing where the Public Trustee has done a great deal of good. He has got them to cut the gorse down. There is, however, a great deal still. 390. This map shows an area of 184,750 acres of Native land, principally around that quarter. Is the whole of the land under settlement ? —I think it will include what is not under settlement. The larger portions of the unoccupied land are around Parihaka. 391. Are the Natives doing anything with this land ? —Practically nothing. They have dealt with the frontage and are cultivating to a certain extent, but the whole of the back country is being left in its original state. 392. Do you know the object of that I—No.1 —No. Now and again the Public Trustee gets his foot in and takes possibly 1,000 acres, but it is not much good as far as the present rating is concerned. 393. You could not give us an idea of the area settled under lease ? —There is about 200,000 acres altogether, and I take it there are 12,000 to 14,000 acres not settled. 394. Has the gorse generally been destroyed at the coast on freehold land ? —lt is a noxious weed, but the great bulk of it has been cleared out. William Monkhouse examined. 395. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer, farming 950 acres of freehold at Tahora, twelve miles outside of Whangamomona. I have been four years in occupation. I have been asked to give evidence by the local branch of the Farmers' Union, and other settlers. They wish to press for the retention of the freehold, which they think is the best tenure, not merely from the point of view of the individual, but also for the State, on account of the greater efficiency of working and the more substantial character of improvements. In substantiation of that contention they would point to the better character of improvements in this district on the freehold land as compared with the leasehold. The gentlemen of the Commission went from Stratford to Toko the other day, and if they could go from Stratford to Ngaire, six miles the other way, they would see a great difference between the freeholders' and the leaseholders' improvements. They urge the reintroduction of the deferred payment as being one of the best means of the poor man towards the freehold, and they would submit that the deferred-payment system has this advantage over the occupation with right of purchase : that the settler is not called upon to make a large bulk payment, and there is a better chance of his keeping out of the hands of the money-lenders. They also urge in favour of the freeholder the very much better way in which, in this district at any rate, the noxious weeds are kept down on the freehold as compared with the leasehold. I have seen something of the ballot system and Ido not think it is a good system. I sold a farm, wishing to get more land, and I went to a ballot in New Plymouth. There was a small block of land thrown open, which,- if occupied by good settlers, would carry a large population, and there were over three hundred applicants for every section, and I have no hesitation in saying that there was not one bona fide applicant in twenty. The sections went to those who drew them, and I am informed that there is not a single dwelling on that block at the present moment. The block is at the junction of the Uruti and the Moki Road. The large majority of the applicants had no intention
W. MONKHOUSTS.]
1133
C—4.
of becoming bona fide settlers, but went in for the sections in order to speculate in them if they were successful in drawing them. To my mind the system which preceded the ballot system-—the tender system —was an infinitely better system. My reason for saying that is, that there is often great variation in the valuation of sections. If one or two sections are known to bej'good; there is a rush for them, and very often the bona fide settler is crowded out. The ballot system introduced speculation. With regard to thejloading for roads, it strikes me that it is undesirable that those settlers whose lands are loaded for roads should get that money on less favourable terms than those settlers who go in for loans under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act. If a man takes up land under the occupation with right of purchase his land is loaded, and he has to pay 5 per cent, for twenty-one years, and then if he purchases he has to purchase on a 5 per cent, basis ; and if he borrows under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act for his roads he pays for twenty-five years and the debt is extinguished. We think that the settlers under the lease in perpetuity should have their loading put on the same terms as those who borrow under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act. 396. Did you say which pays 5 per cent. ?—The occupation-with-right-of-purchase holder pays 5 per cent., and if he converts to the lease in perpetuity he pays 4 per cent, for all time. If under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act he pays 5 per cent., and works it out in twenty-five years. It seems to me that settlement should never go in advance of reading, especially in the case of small settlements. Then there is another point, which is perhaps local to Taranaki, and that is the apportionment of the unimproved and improved values in certain cases. I would give an illustration to show what I mean. A small section of 102 acres is taken up in the early days, and there was just a rough bullock-track along the main road, and a by-road of a similar character. The settlers decided to make a bridge, and metal the main road, and they raised a loan paying a rate of 2§d. in the pound. The immediate result of that was the raising of the unimproved value of the whole district from 10s. to £1. The settlers on this road went for another loan to make a by-road, and they rated themselves with another rate of 3|d. in the pound, and the immediate result of that was the raising of the unimproved value by another £1 per acre. Later on they combined and went in for borrowing money from the bank to build a co-operative dairy factory, and eighteen of them signed a joint and several guarantee for £1,800. They built the factory, and immediately the unimproved value of the land was put up another £2 an acre. There are hundreds of these cases. The settlers contend that the improvements made by these works, and for which their lands are mortgaged, should be added to the improvements and not to the unimproved value. They also think that, where they burden themselves with a joint and several guarantee, and mortgage their land and stock, they should be allowed in dealing with the land-tax returns to rank that as a mortgage. 397. You think the tender system is better than the ballot ?■ —The district I first settled in was opened up under the tender system, and I never heard a whisper against it, but the ballot system has had enormous drawbacks in this country. 398. How far do you live from here ?—I live at Stratford at present. I did not care to take my wife and family fifty miles from here at present. 399. How long ago did the ballot at Uruti take place ? —About five years ago. 400. Do you know what has been done to do away with bogus applications ? —They have tried to avoid them, but how far it has been successful Ido not know. During the last twelve months 1 saw one case where there were seventy-five applicants for one section. 401. You said there were no settlers on the Oruti Block ? —I was credibly informed that there were no houses on it. 402. It was settled under occupation with right of purchase ? —Yes. 403. Do you know if the Board has forfeited any of those sections ? —I do not know. 404. Do you think the Land Board should give exemption from residence where there is not sufficient means of access ? —I think that the Board would act in the interests of the country if they allowed, under certain conditions, absence from residence on double improvements being made. That is to say, instead of a man putting on £1 per acre he should put on £2, the result of which would be that if he did not live on the place himself he would have to put some one in charge to work it. 405. Would that not work hardly on the others ?—No. 406. Mr. Johnston.] What is the nature of this land at Uruti ? —lt is good land—a long way above the average of papa country. 407. Do you not think the ballot system would be the best if it was a straight-out ballot ?—I think the advantage of the old system was this, that it remedied marked inequalities in valuation. 408. Would there not be a disadvantage in the tender system in people going in for land who did not know its value ? —As a rule a man applied, and in nineteen cases out of twenty he got it at the upset price. If there was competition, and two applied in one day, only those two could tender. The system entirely discouraged speculation. Of course under it a man might pay too much for his section. 409. Do you not think that the restrictions at present stop speculation I—Not1 —Not entirely. 410. You think there should be more restrictions ? —I question if the ballot system will ever be a good one. 411. How would you arrive at the unimproved value of land if you did not make your capital value and take the improvements off that %—My point would be that this burden should be reckoned as an improvement. If a man spends £200 of his own money or mortgages his land for the making of a road, that should be considered an improvement. 412. Do you approve of the Board making inquiries into the position of applicants ?—I believe the tender system would do away with that. 413. Are there any noxious weeds about Taranaki ?—Yes; ragwort and blackberry, oxeye daisy, and a little of the California!! thistle. The ragwort is on the leasehold sections going to Toko, at the
C.—4.
1134
[W. MONKHOUSS.
back. The sheep keep it down, but a good many farmers here do not keep sheep, but cattle, and it can only be kept down by/sheep. The Californian thistle is being kept down, but it is not as bad here as in some places ; it does not take possession. 414. What is your experience about the Advances to Settlers Department ?—I had a loan which was quite satisfactory, but I heard from applicants for loans under the lease in perpetuity that they have not been able to borrow from the office under that lease. 415. Mr. McCutchan.\ Are you satisfied with the present constitution of the Land Board ?—I think so. 416. Would you favour a division of the land district into wards, the Government having the power of nomination within the wards in order to secure equitable representation for all parts ?—I should feel doubtful about it. A good man is a good man wherever you get him. 417. But there might be parts of a district with which a man might be closely acquainted, and would it not be better to select that man to represent that area ?—lt might be an advantage, but there might be two good men in the one ward, and you might have to consider which should be selected, and that might complicate the position. 418. Do you not think that under the system of tendering for land wealthy people would get an undue advantage ?—I am inclined to think the small farmer as a rule is not handicapped in that respect. He can afford to give slightly more than the larger man. lam assuming there would be a precaution against excessive quantities being allowed to be taken up by one person. 419. Do you not think that a close scrutiny of the applicants by the Commissioner would do away with the speculator element ? —To some extent, but it is open to the drawback that there might be either favouritism or charges of favouritism. 420. In advocating the reintToduction of the deferred-payment system can you point out in what respect that system holds an advantage over the occupation with right of purchase ?—ln this way : it is very often inconvenient to the small capitalist to pay off a large sum at the end of a term of years, and if the deferred payment were extended to twenty years instead of fourteen years, a small man could go on paying his rent and at the end of twenty years he might be in a position to take his occupation with right of purchase. But if he had to pay off a large sum at the end of the shorter term, it might be the means of getting him into the hands of the money-lender. 421. As he saved the money and applied it to the reduction of the capital value, would not that place the occupation with right of purchase on a better footing than the lease in perpetuity, in view of the fact that the payments would then be much lower for rent ? —I think it would be much better than the system I speak about. It would be a deferred payment, with an easier payment in the first few years. 422. If the amendment were made it would satisfy you ? —Thoroughly. That would be the deferred-payment system with improvements. 423. Mr. Anstey.] What is the value of your land ?—About 17s. 6d. for one section, and 16s. for the other. That is on the unimproved value. I have spent, roughly, £1,000 on it. 424. What land do you allude to when you say it was largely raised in value for rating purposes —That was the farm I held some years ago, on the western side of Stratford. 425. What is the value of the land now ? —Probably £16 an acre. William McLachlan examined. 426. The Chairman.'] What are you I—l am a farmer, holding 200 acres of freehold in Warea, Egmont County. I have been there eight months. I have been sixteen years in Taranaki, and practically pioneering all the time. I was away back for over two years, quite long enough for me. I have held land under a good many tenures : first, deferred payment, which suited me very well; secondly, from a private landlord ; then the freehold ; and after that the State and the lease in perpetuity ; from that I got back to the freehold. I was so well pleased with the lease in perpetuity that I sacrificed a good deal of labour and money to get out of it. I could not see my way to carry it "on and rear a family ; it may be quite right in theory, but it was not right for me in practice. I came to a deadlock with regard to finance. I found when I bought cattle from the auctioneer that I would be better with the freehold. I promised my fellow-settlers that I would do what I could to get them relief, and what they were entitled to. 427. Mr. Anstey.] What is the chief thing your fellow-settlers want in the back blocks ? —What the Premier claims for the State —security of finance and tenure. 428. Are the roads of any consequence to them ?—Certainly. 429. Is not that one of the chief wants ? —Yes. 430. Which is the most important ? The alteration of the existing tenure or good roads ?—Good roads they must have in every case. They are most important at present. 431. Mr. McCutchan.] The back block you settled in is the area known as the Lone Area, near Strathmore ?■ —Yes. 432. That is the district which has made itself liable for rates on £27,000 under the Loans to Local Bodies Act I—Yes. 433. After they had borrowed all this money did you find there was a possibility of getting reasonably good road facilities in the district ?—I could not see it in the immediate future, but I thought I was going to get some reasonable facilities. 434. And it was that fact, together with the difficulty of financing the lease in perpetuity that induced you to dispose of your land ? —lt did not induce me, but it was for my family's sake—their comfort and health. 435. Mr. Paid.] Then it was just as much a matter of locality as it was of tenure ?—I was quite satisfied with the locality, but I had a family growing up, who were not old enough to fell bush, but
C.—4.
W. MCLACHLAN.]
1135
were old enough to milk cows, and I thought it better rather than slave our lives out in the back blocks to go somewhere where we could live in more favourable conditions. And I saw my little capital would be eaten up before I got those facilities. It was the want of facilities that compelled me to get out and take up a block in this vicinity. Thomas Cuthbert examined. 436. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, holding 76 acres of freehold about four miles from here, at the Pembroke Road. I have been eighteen years there. I was well treated by the Land Board. I had my land under the deferred payment, and I think the Board as a rule made three inspections, and if sufficient improvements were made up to that time they troubled me no more. T do not agree with there being any local bodies ; my idea would be to centralise the whole thing and sweep out all the local bodies. On the Pembroke Road we have about eight miles of roadway, and there are about eight local bodies out there, not all direct taxing bodies—the Land Board, Education Board, Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, Egmont Forest Reserve Board, Taranaki County Council, Manganui Road Board, and the Stratford Borough. 437. What in your opinion is the best land-tenure ?—The deferred payment was a grand system, if not abused. All the land on the road I live on was taken up under that system, and lam the only one who paid my land off in the ten years. I paid £1 an acre in ten instalments. All the rest made freeholds at a very early date; but in the case of people who hold their land on the deferred-payment system, if they have to make freeholds at a very early date, we all know what that means, so that I would not be in favour of reintroducing the deferred payment. I think it is just a splendid system for the money-lenders, and they like to deal with it. No man should borrow money if he can help it on these bush sections, for there is nothing much to be made out of them by people with no experience. Land is running up in price in this district. 438. Well, what system do you think is the best for the settlement of the lands of the colony ? —I think the nationalisation of land is the best, and I think all the land should belong to the Government. 439. Is there any aggregation of estates going on here ?—Not so much here as in some parts. 440. Have you any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ?—I think it is a very good svstem. With regard to borrowing from private people I can give you an instance of what they charge. In 1880 I borrowed £50 at 15 per cent,, I kept it for three years, and it cost me £90 to get rid of it. I was living in Canterbury then. Now I can go to the Advances to Settlers Department and borrow it at per cent. 441. Mr. Paul.] What system of lease do you believe in ? —I should take it up on the long lease. 442. Do you believe in any system of leasehold ?—I believe in the long lease. 443. Do you believe the leasehold is superior to the freehold ?—lf I had a quarter-acre section and wanted to put a house on it I should like the freehold. One man told me that he was paying over £1 an acre in rates, and I think he would be better under the leasehold system. 444. Mr. Johnston.'] What could you get for your farm if you sold it now ?—I could not say. It is not for sale, but there is land in the vicinity that a man is asking £20 an acre for, and it is hard to get a purchase*- for it. The land is similar to mine, and my land is not as valuable as it was when the bush was on, barring improvements. Frederick Mills examined. 445. The hairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer with 166 acres under lease in perpetuity under the Land for Settlements Act. lam on the Tokara Estate, Livingston's, and have been sent to represent the settlers there. I have been three years there. I pay 18s. 2d. rent per acre. 446. What views do you represent on the land question ?—With regard to Land Boards our opinion is that Crown tenants should have representation there. This could be done by electing one or more Crown tenants members, as is done in the case of the directors of companies, the voting being done by post. As regards tenure, we think we should have the right to the purchase. 447. I that after improvements and residence is complied with ? —Yes, after what we call reasonable restrictions such as are enforced in connection with the occupation with right of purchase at present. We think we should have the righo to pay off at any time any sums towards the purchasing-price, the rent to be reduced accordingly, and any amount which has been so paid towards the purchasing-price to be available for payment of rent in case of default. We also submit that that principle might be applied to the Advances to Settlers Department. We have now the advantage of paying off any sums towards the principal, but we consider that any sum which has been paid off of the principal might be available for the payment of interest in case we are not in a position to meet that payment. We are strongly of opinion that the right to the freehold should be granted on the original price. We think the leaseholders should be treated quite as liberally at the freeholders in connection with the Advances to Settlers Department, as to the Government the leasehold is quite as satisfactory as the freehold. 448. How are the settlers getting on down at Livingston's place ?—They are making a living, but not fortunes. Recently we erected a creamery in connection with the factory. They are mostly all dairying. We have no trouble about the roads. The land is all occupied by the original settlers, with one exception, and our rent averages £1 Is. all over. 449. Mr. Paul.] Would your tenure be more valuable with the option ?—Yes, it would be negotiable and a security upon which we could raise money, and I see no reason why it should not be granted. f. ■ 450. If your improvements were conserved to you, and the land was put up to auction, would it bring more than the present capital value '?—lt depends upon the way the improvements are looked at. The term " improvements " is meant to include everything which comes as the result of our
C.-4.
1136
Tf. mills.
expenditure and labour upon the p'ace, and if that were taken into account I question if it would bring more than we are giving for it. 451. Would you object to it being put up to auction if all your improvements were conserved ? —I have no wish to shift. 452. Mr. Anstey.] Upon what franchise would you wish the representatives of the Crown tenants on the Board to be elected ?—Only those who are direccly interested—Crown tenants alone. 453. Would it be satisfactory if it was mandatory on the Government that at least one member of the Board should be a Crown tenant ?—I am not sure about that. In the case of our settlement I could pick one man I should not like to see on the Board, and if the Government picked that man it would not be satisfactory to us. They might pick a servile follower of the Government. In every district where the tenants put forward a man he would be a suitable man. 454. Supposing they picked all the suitable men—you might have fifty—which one would they select ? —There would probably be some concerted action in the district to pick a suitable man for the position, and in our own district there is no reason why they should not fix on somebody whom we would all be prepared to nominate and support. 455. What about that settlement at Whangamomona : could they take concerted action there to do that ? —They could do the same. 456. With regard to paying off a portion of your purchase-money and allowing the payments to go towards the rent in case of default, you advocate that the same principle should also be applied to the Advances to Settlers. That would be something of the principle of a State bank ?—I should hardly like to say. • William Joed an examined. 457. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a farmer, holding 210 acres of freehold at Kupara Road, eight miles from Tariki. 458. What particular point do you wish to bring before the Commission I—l am a representative of the Kupara Road Branch of the Farmers' Union. It consists of twenty members, and they are all in favour of the freehold. They are mostly holders of the freehold, which they got under the deferred-payment, system. Our roads are not very good, but there is no roading. We are on the " thirds." 459. Was this sufficient to keep up the roads ?—No; I am paying on three loans for metalling, and still I have no metal within two miles of my place. lam eight miles from Tariki Railway-station. lam dairying. We have a small creamery there. It was all bush land, but is mostly grass now. I have had no connection with the Advances to Settlers Department. I have no fault to find with the Land Boards. 460. Mr. Paul.] How many Crown tenants are there in your branch ?—I do not know that there is one. 461. Mr. Anstey.\ Did your branch discuss any other question than the freehold ?—Yes, the sterilising of bones and the question of noxious weeds. William McLachlan Kennedy examined. 462. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler at Toko, holding about 400 acres of lease in perpetuity, 313 acres occupation with right of purchase, and 80 acres education reserve. I have been twenty years in Taranaki and thirteen in Toko. I believe Crown tenants should have the right to acquire the freehold. The occupation with right of purchase is about as good as any. The lease in perpetuity Ido not believe in, either for State or tenant. The State is only getting 4 per cent, for the land, and it has to borrow money at 4| per cent., and take the cost of administration out of that, and it is not a good investment for the State. I believe it is best for the lessee to have the freehold, because sentiment leads him to believe it is the best tenure, and those who hold the land on the freehold tenure make better settlers than the men who hold leases in perpetuity. 463. Do you put all your strength on the occupation with right of purchase in the matter of improvements more* than on any other lease ? —I put the improvements equally on all. The tenure does not affect the preparation of the land for what it has to produce. Ido not think it would be advisable for the State to give the tenants of education leases the right to acquire the freehold of them, because they are trust lands set apart for a specific purpose, the education of the colony. 464. Do you believe in the present constitution of Land Boards ?—On the whole they are acting very fairly, but I think that two members ought to be elected by the tenants on a County Council franchise. 465. Have you had any experience with regard to the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Not very much. I tried to get some money, but I was offered about one-third of what I wanted, and T did not accept it. All I want I can get from my bankers. 466. What are your roads like ?—They are good summer roads, but inland they are only a track. Some of our sections have been loaded for roads, but the money might have been better expended. I should like to see special grants abolished, and a certain sum set apart for the main roads, and a 6 ft. track made on the by-roads before the land is opened for selection. 467. Mr. Paul.] Why do you advocate the partial election of the Land Board ? —Probably because [ think the settlers would know better the kind of men to put in to meet their requirements. Some of the men who are appointed through influence have no consideration for the wants of the settlers. ' 468. Has that been the case in Taranaki ? —lt has been said so, but I cannot speak from experience. With regard to residence on Crown lands, I think that should be made less stringent. A man in a situation or business, who has a family coming on, may want to provide some land for them, and he cannot possibly keep up that land unless he is allowed to continue in his situation or business, but the
W. M. KENNEDY.]
1137
C—4.
Land Board forces him to leave his situation and go on this land before he has sufficient capital to work it. As long as he is putting his money into the land he is a bond fide settler and not a speculator, and the residence condition should be waived. 469. If he continues to be successful in earning a salary, is there any objection to his refusing to go on the land at any time ?—I should say not if he was in a position to do so, but he must put his family on, although it would be a hardship to send him on the land himself. 470. Do you think none but landowners should be represented on the Land Board ?—I do not. 471. Your method of personal election within each ward would deprive the landless of representation on the Land Board ? —Not necessarily so. If the member were a just man he would give all a chance of acquiring the land under the land laws. 472. You propose that two members shall be elected on the County Council franchise and two be nominated by the Government. Would you object if one was a non-land owner ?—No, I should allow the Government to nominate their two men. 473. Would you as a settler have any objection to the Government nominating a landless man ?— No. 474. Mr. Johnston.] Are you a farmer pure and simple ? —No, I have been doing nothing for some time. I have been a sawmiller for some years, and that is one reason I advocate that there should be some allowance made in certain cases in regard to residence. I had a place at Toko, and could not sell it or lease it. The Board was forcing me to reside on the land I had leased. I bought it with the intention of holding it, but because I could not reside on it they wanted to stop me having tenants. 475. You held those lands for speculative purposes ?—ln other words, I could not reside on them, because circumstances did not permit it. 476. Why did you take up the lease in perpetuity if you were not satisfied with it ?—I would not have taken it up. I bought the goodwill of the section. 477. Did you buy it voluntarily ? —Yes. 478. Why did you buy it if you did not like it ?—I was not forced to buy it. I bought it because it was reasonable in price, and it suited me. 479. You bought it because you saw money in it ? —One will not buy anything unless one sees some profit standing in it. Jacob Marks examined. 480. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer, holding 376 acres of freehold at Mangatoki, Hawera County. I also represent that branch of the Farmers' Union. I have held my land eleven years. 481. What matter do sou wish to bring before us ?—With regard to tenures, our feeling is that the option should be given to the lease-in-perpetuity Crown tenants. With regard to residence, we feel strongly that that condition should be relaxed. I have been for some years a member of the Hawera County Council. We have a lot of country to administer occupied by Crown tenants, and we feel that to insist on people residing on those tracks is simply monstrous. No words are strong enough to express our disapproval of compelling families to reside there. As a matter of fact, the tracks are not there. 482. Where is the land you speak of ? —East of Eltham. I have been there with the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, and the Commission will do a good thing if it brings about an alleviation of that condition of compulsory residence. 483. What do you think about the constitution of Land Boards ? —I think they should be partly elective and partly nominated by the Crown. 484. On what franchise would you elect them ?—I think something after the local bodies. 485. Would you elect them on the County Council franchise ? —That has worked well with regard to the administration of Hospital and Charitable Aid Boards. 486. Mr. Paul.] Are there any Crown tenants in your branch ?—No, but a few education-lease holders: 487. Mr. Anstey.] You know what the conditions are of the leases of education tenants ? —After a period they are subject to a revaluation, and also have a compensation clause. 488. Do they get full compensation ?—I am not clear on that point. I think it is probably limited. I cannot be sure about the right of renewal. 489. What do you think is the most important question in this district : that of roads or land tenures ? —I think the question of roads to give access is the most important. The difficult country should be laid off in larger blocks because we cannot do anything with it without a road. John Bangham Richards examined. 490. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am farming 189 acres of leasehold land from a private individual, with a purchasing clause, practically freehold. I have held it about six months. It is at Cardiff, about five miles from here. I have a bad road. lam on the staff of Newton King, and on the principle that onlookers see a great deal of the game I should like to put the following remarks before the Commission : The Land Board in Taranaki is a capable body, and one which conducts the business entrusted to them in a manner entirely satisfactory to the Crown tenants. So long as the Government appoint to the Land Board men who have experienced the hardships and trials of pioneers, and who exercise the knowledge thus gained, there is no pressing need for an elective Board. But the right of the Crown tenants to representation on the Board appears to stand good. The occupation with right of purchase is undoubtedly the best tenure to acquire land under. The burning question now is whether the Crown tenants under the lease in perpetuity should have granted to them the option of securing the freehold. So far as the benefit to the tenant is concerned there can be no doubt. He would be granted a distinct advantage. He would be able to finance on much better terms and
143—C. 4,
C—4.
1138
[j. B. RICHARDS.
consequently would have less interest to pay. He would have greater security of tenure and would be removed from the bugbear of revaluation. The added value of the land he acquired would become his property, and in nearly every instance it is just the prospect of ultimately becoming the possessor of this increment which induces him to assume the manifold hardships, the risks to life and limb, the denial of comforts and pleasures of civilisation which are invariably imposed on the man, the wife, and family who have grit and courage enough to break away from the towns and tackle the task of breaking in a bush farm. From the point of view which may be taken by a statesman having the progress and welfare of the colony at heart, would it not be sound policy to offer a just reward to the man who is willing and able to convert unproductive tracts of land into revenue-producing farms ? There is a wrong impression abroad that a fortune may be picked up by any one who is lucky enough to obtain a bush section, but before even a profit is available many years of careful management and hardship have to be spent. There are few, if indeed any, bush farms which will provide interest on capital invested, a decent living, and fair wages for work expended during the first few years of occupation, and surely the State does not wish the labour of these good pioneers to go unrequited. The best men in a country are the self-reliant, and is not the pride of absolute ownership of the land likely to foster these. There is no loss to the State because the wealth of the colony lies in the possessions of its inhabitants, and no matter under what tenure those possessions are held, the more valuable—the more productive—they are the wealthier the colony becomes. The rougher portion of Taranaki should be disposed of in areas of not less than 500 acres, because land which is too rough to plough is too rough for dairying, and unless dairying is carried on a far larger amount of land is required to enable the farmer to make a living. The term " unearned increment " is a misnomer. The increased value of the land is due'more to the settlers of the district than to the action of the Government, and in the case of work done by the Government which enhances the value of the land, the advantages acctue not only to the settlers of the district but to the State as well. The values of the land rise and taxation proportionately increases. More imported goods are required in the district and duties have been paid on them. In the case of a railway, as the district progresses does not the value of the railway increase. The positions of many of the lease-in-perpetuity tenants out east are such that unless concessions are made and communication improved—the railway for preference—many holdings will be abandoned. Ballot system fairly satisfactory, but preference should be given to the most suitable men and those who have been unsuccessful. As to roads, I have no intimate knowledge as to how to improve, but they should be improved. As to the question of the values of leaseholds now and at date of lease, I think the values have in most cases risen, but not so much as is generally imagined, and not more than would reasonably compensate the holders for their work and worry. 491. That is the result of your observation and experience, and you have had great experience in connection with the settlers in this district ?—Yes ; I once took up land under occupation with right of purchase. I would not take up land under lease in perpetuity. There has no doubt been a great change of opinion about the lease in perpetuity. There are a number of farmers under lease in perpetuity, and they would be glad to sell out at the cost of the improvements, and they have spent some years working on their sections. 492. The difficulty of the lease-in-perpetuity people who may wish to sell out with the improvements is that they cannot get money very readily ?—Yes, that is the main reason. If you take up a piece of bush country it costs 15s. an acre, and you pay 4 per cent, on that, which is practically a mortgage for 999 years at 4 per cent. On the face of it it sounds a good thing, but you are only in possession of land valued at 16s. per acre, and you have sometimes to find £3 or £4 per acre to make the property reproductive. If you have to pay 8 per cent, for the balance of the money on account of having this first mortgage at 4 per cent., you would be much better without the mortgage at 4 per cent. In regard to fully improved land held under lease in perpetuity under the Land for Settlements Act, that land requires very little money to be spent on it, and practically the tenants have 90 per cent, of the capital they require to hold this land at 4 per cent. Ido not think the "improvements are very great. So that the difference between the man struggling away in the mud and in the bush tracks and the man who takes up improved land is very great. 493. Underlying the whole land question in this district there is the road question ?—That is a very great question. 494. Mr. Paid.'] Owing to your position you are conversant with the position of many of the settlers in this district ?—Yes. 495. Are they doing well ? —Some of them are doing very well and some are not doing well. Speaking generally as to the lease-in-perpetuity tenants, Ido not think they are doing well—at any rate there are many of them who are not. 496. The reason of that is the unfavourable way in which mortgage companies which lend money look on the lease in perpetuity as a security ?—Yes, principally; and not only that, there is also the bad means of communication. 497. I wish to show that the occupation-with-right-of-purchase holders without roads are in a much similar plight as the lease-in-perpetuity holders ?—ln saying what I did I did not want the question of roads to be overlooked. 498. If the option were given, what percentage of the occupiers of the land would be able to buy the freehold with their own money ? —I do not think there are very many who could, but I could not say what percentage. 499. There manifestly could not be many when you say that the main drawback is their inability to borrow on leasehold security ? —That is so. 500. In your remarks about the unearned increment, did you apply them to bush lands solely or to other land in the vicinity of towns —keeping in view this particular town ?—I only wish to give evidence on a matter with which I am fairly conversant, and my remarks would apply to the bush settlers, leaving the other question an open matter.
1139
J. B. RICHARDS.]
0.—4.
501. Mr. Anstey.~\ You say there is some difference between the claims of lease-in-perpetuity settlers on Crown land and land purchased under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Yes. 502. Do you think both ought to have the right of purchase ?—I do not think that the need, from the point of view of*the welfare of the country, that the freehold should be given is so necessary in the case of land purchased under the Landjfor Settlements Act as it is in the case of land that is taken up in the rough state. 503. With respect to the land-for-settlements lessees, you do not think they are suffering any particular injustice from not being allowed the right of purchase ?—So far as my experience goes I do not think they are. 504. Is there anything in the lease that prevents lease-m-perpetuity holders under the Land for Settlements Act developing their farms to thejfull extent ?—No. 505. Mr. Johnston.] In reference to the land in theJWhangamomona district, do you think if it had been freehold in the first instance it would have been a great advantage to the settlers ?—I think so. 506. If it had been freehold in the first place, how in the name of conscience could they have paid for it ? —You would have had a different class of settlers. 507. You have said that good settlers would not go into the back country, and you also said that it is not fit to send people there at all ? —I do not think so, 508. Mr. McCutchan.\ You stated that settlers under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure in the back country in several cases were prepared to get out of their holdings at the bare cost of their improvements ? —Yes, some of them are. 509. Does that refer to the Whangamomona district ? —Yes, I think there are some there. 510. I can verify your evidence in that respect. With reference to settlement in the back country, is it so much a question of tenure as of road facilities ? —I think that the two go hand-in-hand ; but I am almost inclined to think that the means of communication is the most important. 511. Is it not a fact that men who went in there with ample capital have suffered equally with those who had inadequate capital and had to be supplied with work by the Government in order to carry on ?—That is so. 512. Did the settlers go back into that country on any promise that they would be provided with adequate roading facilities ? —I cannot say. 513. Mr. Paul.] Have any settlers told you of cases where they have had to pay 12 per cent, on stock ? —Not that I am aware of. 514. Do you know of any cases where they have had to pay 8 or 10 per cent. ?—Yes, I have heard of such cases. Francis Simpson examined. 515. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am Commissioner of Crown Lands and Chief Surveyor' Taranaki. I have occupied that position for twelve months. I have been in the Land and Survey Department since 1875. 516. Do you wish to make a statement to the Commission ?—Yes; as to tenures obtaining in this district. Dealing first with the tenures abolished by " The Land Act, 1892," there are twenty-two holdings still existing under the deferred-payment and perpetual-lease systems. Then came the farm homestead special settlements, also selected under the Act of 1885, and which were brought under lease in perpetuity under the Act of 1892 at the option of the selector. There have been no selections under this tenure of late years under the Act of 1892, principally because the country available is not, as a rule, suitable for division into small holdings. The principal selectors are under the occupation with right of purchase and the lease in perpetuity. We have only three village settlements, in sections from 1 to 20 acres, and they have not been a success, partly owing to the lack of suitable employment for the class of men for whom they were intended. There are a number of improved-farm settlements held on lease in perpetuity; and of these it may be said that only a few out of the original settlers now.remain, and these have augmented their holdings by taking up sections abandoned by people leaving the settlements as soon as the Government assistance in the way of bushfelling, grassing, &c., ceased, and the road expenditure was reduced. Those remaining on the land are, in most cases, doing fairly well; but in some localities the cost of living is very great owing to want of proper roads. There are practically no selections under the small-grazing-run system ; all the lands at present open are in heavy bush and difficult of access. Only three small estates have been purchased in this district under the Land for Settlements Act, and two of them are all occupied. The other, near New Plymouth, was acquired for workmen's homes and small dairy-farms, and laid off in sections from \ acre to 19 acres ; this during a time when a great amount of building and public works were going on in the town, but up to the present only half of it has been selected. Would-be selectors complain that the rents placed on the lands are too high. The sections have recently been grouped into larger areas, but even yet no selections have been made. The only other tenures are the miscellaneous leases and endowment leases, such as university leases, the former being mostly small pieces of Crown lands or reserves let from year to year or for short terms subject to resumption if the land is required for public purposes. The endowment leases are mostly let for terms of thirty years. As to whether the Crown tenants labour under unnecessary restrictions, I do not think that they have reason in this district to complain of any undue harshness in the administration of the law by the Land Board. No settler's default of observance of the conditions of his lease is dealt with before ample opportunity has been given him tc explain, and a great amount of leniency in the way of extension of time has been granted to deserving settlers. lam not aware that the power of the Board to grant an entire exemption from residence has been exercised. Various amendments of the law have, I believe, been suggested by other Commissioners. There is one of importance to small settlers, and that is to allow the Board discretionary power to allot a selector who has complied with the conditions of his lease, say for three or five years,
C—4.
1140
[f. SIMPSON.
an additional area of land, whether adjoining his section or not, without competiton, in such cases where it is apparent that the selector cannot make a living owing to the size of his present holding. Another point for consideration is whether the provisions of section 114 of " The Land Act, 1892," should not be amended to allow a person holding more than 640 acres of second-class land to acquire additional land up to the limit of the Act. I venture to suggest that the framers of the Act of 1892 meant 640 acres of first-class land, and omitted to make any reference to second-class land. I think the ballot system, as prescribed by the Regulations under " The Land Act, 1892," works well and fairly in this district, and I am not aware of any reason why balloting for sections under the Land for Settlements Acts should not be conducted in the same manner. With regard to the lands loaded for roads, the money borrowed upon the security of the various blocks, particulars of which I have already handed to you, has, in most instances, all been spent; but, notwithstanding this and subsequent direct votes by Parliament, some sections have not yet reasonable access by road. This is principally owing to the heavy cost of construc-. tion and maintenance of roads in hilly bush country, the land not being of such value that sufficient money can be borrowed for the purpose of giving proper access. The average loading per acre has been about 55., but I note that in, I think, two instances, sections on main roads were loaded as much as £1 per acre. On the 29th instant Mr. Jennings, M.H.R., when giving evidence before your Commission, mentioned difficulties experienced by settlers in obtaining reliable information as to the amount of accrued " thirds " to the credit of their holdings, and instanced a case where he had been present at an interview between a settler and my predecessor, and that upon subsequent inquiry at the office of the Clifton County Council it was found that the amount as stated by the Commissioner of Crown Lands was incorrect. I may mention that on the same afternoon Mr. Jennings made his statement an officer of the same local body applied at the Land' Office regarding a discrepancy between the amount ef " thirds " on two sections as stated by me to the settler and that shown on the schedule supplied by me to the county. For simplicity and uniformity in making proposals to expend the money, the sections are scheduled according to the road on which they abut, and it was pointed out to the county officer that he had noted only one section and omitted the other that fronted a different road. The schedules are supplied to the local body regularly every six months, and it follows, of course, that as rents are paid in day by day there must necessarily be a discrepancy between the amount to credit of " thirds " as in our books, and as shown in the schedules supplied to local body, but this is quite understood. On the 31st ultimo, at Whangamomona, Messrs. Moir and Cleland, when giving evidence before you, spoke as to their want of proper access to their sections, and emphasized the statement that the loading on their sections had not been expended. I wish to say that our books show that the total amount of loading on the blocks in which the holdings of these persons are included has all been expended, as will be seen by reference to the Kohuratahi and Marco Blocks in the schedule supplied to you by me. With regard to a schedule which I furnished you showing the original price per acre paid for Native blocks, and the value per acre at which they were disposed of, I think that some explanation may not be out of place. For instance, on to the original price paid must be added the cost of survey and administration, say, 3s. per acre. It must be remembered also that the New Plymouth Harbour Board receives one-fourth of the total land revenue of the Taranaki District. The following example will show the ultimate disposal of rent of a section : Take a section of 500 acres valued at £1 per acre, the capital value is therefore £500, and on this is borrowed for road, say, £100, making the prairie-value £400. The annual rent at 4 per cent, is £20. Out of this, 7 per cent, per annum is repaid to the Government loan, £7 ; the New Plymouth Harbour Board receives one-fourth of the whole of the land revenue, £5 ; and the local body will receive one-third of the rent on prairie-value, £5 6s. Bd. : leaving £2 13s. 4d. per annum that the land revenue derives from the land. The above example shows the balance of rent remaining to land revenue if the original purchase had been made out of ordinary funds, but it must be remembered that in this district large purchases of Native blocks were made out of the North Island Main Trunk loan, and when lands within these areas are disposed of by us the available balance from such disposal is placed to the credit of the above-mentioned loan. ■ 517. You said that in the case of the improved-farm settlers only a few remain of the original settlers ? —Yes. 518. One witness stated that in the Whangamomona district they were a great success, and that at least 60 per cent, still remained on the land, and that in respect to the balance of the sections that were abandoned or given up those sections were grouped together, and that some sections which were 100-acre sections are now 200-acre sections. Is that correct ? —Yes ; I can quite believe that is so. 519. If that is correct there must be some other places where they have been a failure ?—Yes. 520. Could you mention them ?—I could not mention them from memory. 521. With reference to the ballot, are you familiar with the second ballot ?—Yes ; I was present at several second ballots in Hawke's Bay. 522. Was there any difficulty in working it ?—No ; but it seems to me that this grouping is unsatisfactory. 523. Were there any persons that got sections who did not want them ?—Yes ; that is an objection to that system. 524. With respect to loading up to 205., I suppose those are exceptional cases ?—Yes. 525. Mr. Paid.'] We have heard some references to a purchase by the Government of some land near New Plymouth for workmen's homes ? —Yes. 526. They were not a success ?—They were not. 527. Was the land and the position suitable ?—The quality of the land was fair. It was situated about three miles from New Plymouth. 528. Do you think the position was suitable ? —I think that New Plymouth was, perhaps, too small for such a settlement. I know of one man who has thrown up his section because he said it was too far away, and that he could not get to his work.
1141
C—4.
P. SIMPSON.]
529. What did the areas average ? —From J acre up to 19 acres. 530. Are the tenants in the Taranaki Land District complying reasonably with the improvement and residence conditions ?—Yes ; their improvements are very much in excess of those required by law. 531. Is it fair to assume that generally speaking they are prosperous ? —I think so. I see nothing to the contrary, with the exception, of course, of the hard battle the back-blockers have got. 532. Mr. Anstey.] You say with regard to workmen's homes that you are putting some of these sections together ? —Yes; it was decided to put the sections into larger areas and try them. 533. What size did you put them into ? —2O and 30 acres. 534. Are they being taken up now under the larger areas ?—No. 535. What is the land in the immediate neighbourhood being used for ? —Small farms ranging from 50 acres upwards. 536. Would it not be wise to turn the bulk of that land into two or three farms, and let it at reasonably long terms, say, fifteen or twenty years ? —That would be well worth consideration. 537. How much rent are you getting from the land that is now idle I—We1 —We are letting some of the land on temporary lease. 538. Could not you let the land for a term of say fourteen years ?—I suppose there is always a chance of things improving, and our being able to let the land according to the original intention. 539. On what terms are the education leases ? —Twenty-one years as a rule, with a right of renewal, and with valuation for improvements. 540. Are they satisfied with them ? —I have not heard of any objections to them. 541. In the case of the leases falling in is there any competition for them ? —As far as I have seen there appears to be no trouble in getting them off again. 542. In a general way tenants are satisfied with a lease of that description ?—So far as I see they are all quite satisfied. It may be that they cannot get anything else. 543. Do you think it would be a fair thing to insist on the same residence conditions on all kinds of tenure of Crown lands ?—I do not see any objection why that should not be. 544. You know at the present time that this condition is much more onerous in respect to lease in perpetuity than any others ? —I know that, and have never been able to see the reason. 545. You would recommend that the residential conditions be the same in all ?—I would. 546. Do you think generally it would be a wise plan for the Government to put additional loading on the land and provide better access before or immediately upon opening up the land ? —lt seems to me as fair a way as any of raising the money. The money has to be found somewhere. This loading is really a loan, which the Government apparently borrow from themselves. It is raised under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act. 547. The price charged to the tenant would not be increased at all by the increased loading ? — To some extent it would, because if you raised this heavier loan you would get better roads, and the land would be worth more, but whether shilling for shilling it would be worth more is a question. If you put on a heavy loading you might perhaps have to lower the prairie-value, and if you did that to any great extent the rents would not pay the loading, because a man pays 4 per cent., and 7 per cent, on the loading has to be paid away at once for the loan. 548. The loading now in extreme cases runs up to how much ? —I think there are two blocks where the loading is as high as £1. 549. What is the prairie-value of that ? —I cannot tell you. 550. It would be, say, 50 per cent. ?—I should say quite, if not more. 551. You can go to 70 per cent. ?—No ; I do not believe you can go as high as that for loading without unduly reducing the prairie-value. 552. Is there any objection to that course ?—lf you go too far the rents would not pay the interest on the loading. 553. Well, you can go up to that limit ?—I suppose you could. 554. Would not that show the financial position of the block much fairer than it does now ? At the present time the letting value of a section, say, is £1. You have loaded that with 55., which makes the prairie-value 155., which really it is not, because the prairie-value is only 55., and the intermediate 10s. has been made up by grants, which does not show the position at all. Whereas if you had taken the land at ss. and shown 15s. as the loading, would that not be more satisfactory ?—I am not clear where the grants come in. These blocks are new lands without roads, and the first expenditure is the roading. 555. And after that the grants ?—Yes. 556. In the case I have cited there would be a profit of 10s. shown if the original cost was 55., but the whole of that 10s. may have been spent in grants. Would it not be better to show that 10s. as loading ? —I am not quite clear on that. It requires thinking out. 557. Mr. Johnston.] Are there any estates in this district that could be advantageously cut up for small settlement ?—There may be some, but I cannot remember any. 558. As far as you can tell, what is the average rate that tenants have to pay on their mortgages from private sources ? —We are not allowed to pass anything above 8 per cent., but it is more frequently up to 8 per cent. 559. Is there nothing at 5 and 6 per cent. ? —Scarcely any. They are more often at 7 and 8 per cent, than they are for 5 and 6 per cent. 560. Have you had any sections thrown back on account of regrowths of bush or through getting into a bad state with fern ? —Not many, if any, that I can remember. 561. Have any rents been reduced ?—I think there have been two instances. 562. Can you suggest any way of getting over the difficulty in regard to Native blocks ?—I could suggest nothing further than that they might be administered by the Board. It is more of a policy question.
0.—4.
1142
[V. SIMPSON.
563. Would you suggest them being taken over by the Government and administerd by the Land Board instead of by the Public Trustee ? —I think they could be administered very well by the Board, but I could not express an opinion as to whether they would be better administered or not. 564. Are the education areas satisfactorily administered ?—I have not heard any complaints beyond what I have heard here. I have not been long a School Commissioner, but in any correspondence that has come before me I have seen no complaints. 565. Was your predecessor the Chairman ?—No, he was a member but not Chairman. Mr. Cock is the present Chairman. 566. There is a very large number of school allotments here ?—Yes. 567. Do you not think it would be far better if the Government capitalised them and handed over an equivalent to the various Education Boards, and handed the endowments over to the Land Board to administer ?—ln some districts they are administerd by the Land Board. 568. Where ?—ln Hawke's Bay, for one. 569. What is the area of our education reserves ?—For school sites 964 acres, for school sites for Natives 137 acres, for primary education 40,739 acres, for secondary education 5,484: acres, and for university 9,546 acres, making a total of 56,870 acres. 570. Could you give us the revenue for each of these headings ?—lt could be obtained possibly. 571. Generally speaking, are settlers satisfied with their tenures ? Previous to coming here were you of opinion that the majority were dissatisfied I—Yes,1 —Yes, quite distinct from anything that would come before the Board. I cannot hide from myself that there is a distinct wave of popular desire for the freehold. A year or two ago we never heard of it. 572. Are the settlers generally prosperous ? —Yes, fairly so. We have had more arrears in the last year than previously, but it must be remembered that we have opened up a lot of new land lately. 573. You do not offer any suggestion to get over the difficulty as to roads ?— I do not say only now, but I have said for years that no block should be opened unless there was certainly a main road formed through it. 574. Mr. McCutchan.] In respect to arrears is it not a fact that a large amount of these during the last two years is due to the fact that the settlers have suffered from slips and have made application to the Government for some concessions, and it is owing to the delay in settling the matter that the arrears have been piled up, the settlers being aware that if they pay their rents they will get no concession ?—I do not know that that is what prompted them, but there is no doubt that settlers in Taranaki have suffered very much in the last eighteen months from slips. 575. Is it in view of the magnitude of the number of settlers that the Land Board does not feel justified in exercising the power vested in it to grant remissions ?—I think that is more of a policy matter. 576. In your opinion, do you think there is a good case for the remission of rent in connection with these slips I—The1 —The trouble is where would we stop. 577. The position is that there is property in the back country in which there is a joint interest— the interest of the State and the interest of the tenant. A national calamity comes along, and is it not unfair that only one party should suffer, and is not that in itself a claim for the settlers receiving a remission ?—ln the back country settlers must naturally expect this loss by slips and tutu, though lately this district has suffered unduly in that direction. 578. You are aware that there are cases where a man has had to give up on account of the loss he has suffered. Do you not think it is time for the State to interfere when ruin faces the settlers ? —If a man got into that state I fear that the remission of one year's rent, which is all the Board can submit for the Minister's approval, would not stand between him and ruin. 579. There is a large accumulation of " thirds " in connection with the back blocks, is there not ? —Yes. . 580. And a considerable portion is still in the hands of the Receiver of Land Revenue ?—Yes. The county have not made proposals with regard to the money to their credit. 581. Is it not the case that proposals have gone from the County Council to the Board for the expenditure of the " thirds " for the roads vested in the county, and that it is only in regard to " thirds " belonging to roads not vested in the local body that no application has been made ?—That is the position. 582. Under the amendment of the Act last year this expenditure can be forced, and the local body given notice from the Lands Department that if the money is not spent in eighteen months the Department will resume control and spend the money ? —We have to place the position before the Minister, and I think the notice comes from the Minister. 583. The initiation starts with the Land Board. Do you think it wise to force this expenditure on roads still controlled by the Government ? —There is only a Government vote of a certain amount, and it would seem a pity that that money should be held up while the settler is crying out for a road. The votes may have been used up and the settler be still crying for roads, and at the same time funds be lying to the credit of the county. 584. Will not the effect of this amendment be to force the local bodies to spend " thirds," while the total amount of the loading has not been completely expended by the Government ? —lt is possible there are cases, but I do not call any to recollection in that position at present. 585. If such is the case might not great confusion arise through two bodies being at work on one section of a road at the same time ? —lt might, but Ido not exactly see where they would clash. In some cases, in my opinion, the local body might hand over the funds that they receive to the Government Engineer to spend, and thus save the cost of supervision and that kind of thing. 586. Seeing that the settlers are burdened with the cost of this loading, and seeing further that the local body levies rates not only on the value of the land but also the loading, do you not think it
1143
a—4.
F. SIMPSON.]
would be a better course if the Government before they forced this expenditure were to expend their own funds, and then vest the road in the local body ? —Yes, but in the meantime the unfortunate settler is without a road in many cases. 587. Do you think it wise to enforce the expenditure of these " thirds " under present conditions ? —I certainly think that something ought to be done. Reading the section of the Land Act that applies to it, it is fairly clear to me that that money was not to be held back for any considerable time. It was not to be held back for metalling. It was for giving access to the lands. 588. Seeing that this new legislation interferes with vested interests, do you think that the Minister has the power to enforce the expenditure by the local body of these " thirds." Do you think the legislation has a retroactive effect inasmuch as it affects vested interest ?—That is distinctly a question for a legal opinion. 589. With reference to this tabulated statement in your report in connection with the first cost of the lands and the Government expenditure, you have a statement in which you show that on 500 acres of land sold at £1 per acre the amount of revenue to the State only amounts to £2 13s. 4d. I notice you make the calculation at 4 per cent. ?—lt is merely an example, not a case. 590. At 5 per cent, there would be a larger margin of profit. Is it not the case that the large proportion of lands offered for sale are taken up under the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure ? —That is coming more into favour. 591. And therefore there would be more land at 5 per cent, and the margin would be larger than stated here ? —Yes. 592. And in the land sold for cash there would be a large profit to the State ? —Yes. 593. Can you explain why 7 per cent, is charged by the Government in the repayment of these loans ? —I do not know exactly why, except that the loan has to be paid within a given time. 594. Do you know in what number of years money recoups principal and interest at 7 per cent. ? —I think in about twenty-six years. 595. Even at 4 per cent, the profit instead of being £2 13s. 4d. would at the tenth year be £9 13s. 4d., and at 5 per cent, it would be considerably larger ? —That may be so. 596. Mr. Anstey.] Is it not the position that the Government have borrowed the money and actually pay 4 per cent, on the money, so that £4 out of that £7 has to go to pay interest, and only £3 goes to the sinking fund ?—That is quite true. 597. Do you give the rebates for prompt payment in all cases ? —Yes. 598. Would it not be wiser, seeing that the Government have means to make a rebate, to make the rebate greater where there was necessity for it, and less where there was little or no necessity for a rebate ?—The rebate seems to act very well, because there are numbers who are most anxious to get their money in in order to have the advantage of the rebate. To do otherwise than to give it all round would cause a lot of discrimination. 599. It would be a lot of trouble for the Commissioner ?—Undoubtedly it would. 600. Still it would be just I—Yes.1 —Yes. 601. You do not approve of the second ballot. Is there any objection to grouping the applicants according to their means for the purpose of restricting applicants only to sections for which they are financially suitable ? —I do not see any objection to it. 602. Do you think it would be wise ?—lt would be very unwise to allow an applicant to go on to a section that in a few years would kill him. If there is to be grouping it should be grouping according to ability. 603. Mr. Johnston.] Are you making any provision here for the retention of forests for millingpurposes ? Do you lease land at a royalty for taking the timber off of it ? —There is very little of that going on here, but I think we have more reserves here in proportion than is the case in Auckland. 604. Are you retaining reserves for that purpose ? —For forestry purposes generally. It may eventually be milled. ■ 605. Would you advocate being allowed to go through the land before they are thrown open for selection ? —Where there is valuable timber it would be a very good idea, and better than having it destroyed. 606. As far as you know, are weeds bad in this district ? —ln some places I understand they are. 607. Have you seen much Californian thistle ?—No. 608. Have your Rangers reported the growth of any on*the sections ? —Speaking from memory, I do not think that they have. Ernest Crellin Robinson examined. 609. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am engineer to the Stratford County, a position I have held for about thirteen months. There are'over eighty miles of main road, of which a very considerable portion is under my care. 610. You work conjointly with the Government Engineer ?—Yes. 611. How many district roads have you ? —A great number. The whole'of the north riding" is managed by a Road Board, with the exception of the main road. 612. What are the boundaries of the district ? —From fifty to sixty miles eastward, thirteen or fourteen miles westward, about five miles southward, and seven miles northward from here. 613. Do you know your revenue for the year ?—The available rate revenue is about £9,000 approximately, and together with " thirds " and Government grants and subsidies will come up to about £12,000. In addition to that there is £6,000 of loan money that can be spent annually. During last year it came to over £20,000 altogether. I have prepared a statement which, with your permission, sir, I shall read: In connection with the proper administration of counties, having regard to true economy, and efficiency of work done, much depends on the available rate revenue. Counties could,
C—4.
1144
[E. C. ROBINSON.
with advantage, be of such extent as to allow of an annual revenue of at least £10,000 ; this amount to include ordinary rates, " thirds," and Government grants and subsidies, but not to include loan moneys. If such were the case, a reasonable percentage would provide for the cost of engineering and office expenses, and, at the same time, insure the employment of competent professional men, thus obtaining full value for all money expended and obviating all leakage due to waste, or want of system in management, &c. As regards the roading policy of a county, I respectfully beg to bring the following matters under your notice : First, that as eventually counties have to accept charge of all roads within their boundaries they should have a voice in the manner in which these roads are laid off, as badly located or unnecessary roads are a perpetual and unnecessary tax upon the ratepayers, who are, in many cases, not in a position to stand the strain. Therefore, all expenditure in forming, metalling, and maintaining roads could with advantage be placed under the control of counties. After a block of Crown land has been surveyed with a view to settlement, a plan showing the proposed roads could be forwarded by the Commissioner of Crown Lands to the County Engineer requesting him to (a) inspect and approve, or suggest alterations to, these roads ; {b) furnish a detailed estimate of the cost of (1) felling, forming, culverting, bridging, and metalling the main roads ; (2) felling, forming, culverting, and bridging the side roads. These estimates would require to be thorough, clear, and definite, so as to admit of being easily checked by the Government Engineer. Second, that Government then decide upon the prairie-value of the land so that such value, together with the amount of roading-estimates, will be such as settlers can fairly be expected to bear. Also, that in the case of leasehold sections, by the payment of a slightly increased rent, a sinking fund be established which would pay off the initial cost of roading in a certain term of years. Third, that amounts be handed over to the county on the requisition of its engineer, to enable the work of opening up the roads to be proceeded with, each succeeding requisition being accompanied by a declaration signed by the Chairman and engineer of the county, and indorsed by the Government Engineer, that all previous moneys granted for the work in question had been judiciously and economically spent, and in accordance with the original estimate and proposals. Fourth, that main roads be felled, cleared, and formed to dray-road width before the land is sold, in order that selectors may be able to get to their sections to commence settlement, and to bring stores and other necessaries within reasonable distance by wheel-traffic. The bridging and metalling of the main roads could follow, together with the construction of the side-roads, as necessity required. Fifth, that in order to properly maintain main roads Government should grant annually, out of the consolidated revenue of the colony, graduated subsidies fixed by the amount of rate levied on sections abutting the main road ; and to provide for the metalling and maintenance of side-roads, Government assist by granting for not less than twenty-one years one-half instead of one-third the annual rental of all leased lands, and the same proportion of all freehold sales. The advantages of any such system would be : (1.) That the whole of the initial cost of roading the country would be borne by the land, and, with a properly established sinking fund, paid off in a certain number of years. (2.) That instead of the present system of indiscriminate votes, Government assistance in this respect would consist of the annual fixed subsidies on main arterial roads. (3.) That the system would be automatic, and whilst admitting in every way of an easy and thorough examination by Government, would, at the same time, be free from political element. As regards the engineering portion of county administration, the utmost endeavour should be made to obtain full value for every pound spent, and in such manner as to insure ultimate economy as well as reasonable first cost. To this end it is most advisable to carry out works with a due regard to permanency where possible. Wooden bridges, especially those built of material with a life of under twenty years, should be avoided where it is possible to use iron or steel. The difference in first cost is, in the majority of cases, of not sufficient importance to counterbalance the ulitmate economy. The same applies to culverts and every other class of construction. Of course, first cost in every case merits due consideration, but, at the same time, effort should be made to carry out works in such a manner as to avoid more or less frequent renewals. In connection with the maintenance of roads, and particularly as regards metalled roads, a system which would entail a fairly even annual expenditure is to be recommended. In such case the necessary expenditure in a county could be estimated with a fair degree of exactitude for a year or two ahead, and its finances thus kept in a satisfactory condition. In order to carry out such a system of maintenance of metalled roads, the life of metal on roads in various parts of a district would have to be decided upon. A certain proportion of each road would require to be renewed every year, so that at the end of the assured life of metal the whole length of road would have been treated, and the first portion would be again commenced on. This, together with careful and economical methods in ordinary maintenance, would be the means of avoiding the necessity (such as sometimes occurs) of having to remetal several miles of road simultaneously, and thus crippling the finances of a county. Included in any system for the maintenance of roads, in counties liable to suffer seriously from heavy rains and floods, in the way of slips, and damage by rivers, a fund set apart specially to execute the consequent necessary repairs would be of great value. The annual amount required would no doubt be somewhat difficult to estimate, but, taking an average over a period of past years, an approximation near enough to strike a suitable rate for the purpose might be arrived at. Referring once more to the fundamental portion of county administration, and assuming that the land must —with the exception of the graduated Government subsidies on main roads —bear the whole of the cost of roading, &c, it therefore follows that the land must be treated to the very best advantage, and divided up in accordance with its carrying-capacity. It has in the past been clearly proved that to overestimate the carryingcapacity of land, or to class it as dairy country, when it is only fit for pastoral purposes, is even more detrimental than to underestimate it. Land in course of time must find its true practical value, and a step forward in so doing is to be preferred to a step back. The matter of deciding into what areas a block of land should be subdivided is, therefore, a work for experts,*'who'are"competent to decide soundly and in the interest of both Government and settler such questions as the following : (1.) The
1145
C.—4.
E. C. ROBINSON.]
true carrying-capacity. (2.) If dairy land, the number of cows necessary to support a settler and average family. If pastoral land, the amount of stock necessary to support the same settler and family, having regard to —(a) the distance from the nearest market, and the consequent depreciation in value of products in reaching the same ; (b) the probable annual percentage of loss of stock due to roughness of the land, slips, floods, diseases amongst stock, or other causes ; (c) the fluctuation in the value of products ; and (d) the cost of living in the district in question. It is only when matters of this kind are carefully gone into and fully allowed for that a result fair to both Government and settler can be arrived at, and one which will give the latter an average chance of success. In order to facilitate, as far as possible, any system of roading Crown lands, it is necessary that the utmost care be exercised in locating and surveying the proposed roads. The cost of extra care in this respect, no doubt adds to the cost per acre of survey on a block of land, and from a superficial point of view does not show so well to the credit of the surveyor ; but it would pay well to expend twice the amount per mile on road location as is usually expended, in order to secure the best possible grades and route. To insure success in such a matter it is also necessary that the surveyor have some practical knowledge of the value of road and bridge work, otherwise he cannot be competent to decide accurately when alternative routes are in question. In conclusion, I beg to submit that the question of providing for the construction and maintenance of roads, being in many parts of New Zealand a difficult one, and entailing at best heavy expense, it is therefore to the interests of the colony that a sound system of administration be adopted, which would arrive at the greatest possible economy coupled with satisfactory and permanent construction. 614. You think that after it has been surveyed the County Engineer should go over it ? —Yes. 615. It might be better it the County Engineer went with the engineer who has to carry out the work ? —lt is only to find out a probable estimate of the cost, so that in loading the land the Government would know how much to put on, otherwise they would be loading it in the dark. 616. Speaking of the back blocks, I am afraid that unless it was laid off in large blocks it would break down —there would be more roads than the land could afford to maintain ? —Could not the land be cut up to meet the area of the roads it could maintain. 617. Mr. Paul'.} At the present time the counties are spending money on roads and the Government are spending money. Does the Government expenditure compare favourably or unfavourably with the county expenditure ?—I think the settlers would get better value for their money if the work were carried on on a larger scale, because where it is carried on on a small scale the necessary cost of supervision and management runs up to a fairly high percentage. 618. Do you think the present system of the piecemeal construction of main roads is a wise one ? —No ; because the whole of the work that is done under that system has to be done again and again, necessitating unnecessary expenditure. 619. You think it would have been economical if it could have been done, so far as the Whangamomona Road is concerned, to have metalled it from one end to another in one year ? —Most certainly ; the larger the work the cheaper it can be done. 620. What system of labour do you find' best in the county ? —A system of day-labour under thorough supervision would, I think, prove the most satisfactory. It would be practically a contract system, with the county as the contractor, and it would be productive of the best results, because the engineer would have the power of a contractor to take on and dismiss men as he considered advisable. 621. Have you had any experience of the co-operative svstem ?-—Not in the county. 622. Does it come under your notice ? —Not directly. 623. Mr. Anstey.] You recommended the creation of a sinking fund to pay olf the cost of roading ? —On leasehold sections. 624. That is to say you would charge an additional rent on these sections in order to pav off the cost of this roading ? —On the same principle as the special rates in the case of loans to local bodies. 625. Is that a wise system. Do you not think that settlers coming into new land should have their-rents as low as possible, and if there is to be any increase make it later '—Perhaps so, but the term for paying up the loan under the lease in perpetuity should be such that the increase would only have to be levied for a time. 626. Is there any necessity to institute a sinking fund for a road which has not been destroyed ?— There is always the question of manitenance. 627. At the present time I think there are three bodies spending money over the same area in this county, the Government, the county, and the Road Board. Do you think it would not be much more economical for the one to do that instead of three ?—Yes ; the cost of administration would be less. 628. Do you think that one body could undertake the whole work, and so abolish the Road Board here now ?— I do not know sufficient about the boundaries of the Road Board to answer that question straight off. I think as few bodies should administrate as possible, and it would be cheaper. 629. You have jurisdiction over the whole of that county ? —Only in connection with the main road. 630. Would it pay to have a competent engineer to supervise the whole of the Stratford County ? —I think not. 631. You say it would be wise for a local engineer to be called in to advise the Department in the case of the laying off of new roads ?—Simply to inspect the roads in the interests of the county authorities, who will eventually have to take charge of them, and to suggest any alterations he deems necessary. 632. Do you think this County Engineer will be able to give valuable advice owing to his local knowledge ? —I say he should be in a position to do so. 633. Would it be wise to consult the engineer of one of these small Road Boards ? —I am only going on the assumption that the counties are in large areas when they can afford to employ competent men to do this business.
J 44—C. 4.
634. Mr. McCutchan.] I understand from your report that you consider the land should bear the whole cost of roading %—The money for roading has to come from somewhere, and if when the amount of loading is ascertained by previous estimates the prairie-value of the land could be so fixed on that the two together will not overburden the settler who goes on to the land, I think that is a simpler way of arriving at the amount that is required. 635. If the colony were not borrowing large sums of money for reproductive public works that would certainly be a sound position, but in view of the fact that we are borrowing largely for public works do you not think that new districts are entitled to a proportion of that expenditure ?—Yes. 636. In view of that fact do you still consider the land should bear the entire cost of the roading ? —Not if the policy of borrowing large sums for public works is continued. 637. Can you state the amount of loan money which has been raised by Stratford County Council over all the roads % —Not exactly ; but I should say it is very considerably in excess of £100,000. 638. Do you think that when roads are vested in local bodies by the Government the County Engineer and the Government Engineer should go over these roads, say a month before the vesting takes place, so that the County Engineer would have a voice in the taking over of those roads for which he was to be responsible subsequently ? —Most certainly ; because in the case of grants granted by the Government and spent by the county the Government Engineer inspects the work, and until he is satisfied he will not approve of it. In like manner, then, the county should have a voice in the roads which are formed and which are handed over to the county by the Government. 639. It is the case now that as soon as pegs are put in a road becomes a county road. Do you not think it would be preferable that when a road was laid off into new country it should not become a county road until the Government expenditure ceases and the road has been vested in the local authority by Gazette notice ? —Under present system, yes. 640. There is some confusion as to definition of roads in the Public Works Act: if this change were brought about it would overcome that difficulty ?—Yes. 641. Can you outline the injustice of forcing a local body to spend " thirds " on roads that are not under the County Council control ?—Yes. I might take one instance. On the Ohuru Road at the present time there is £800 in " thirds " accrued on the Government portion of that road. It is a main road, and is maintained by Government. If the local body spent that £800 it would do very little or no good to the road, because it is in Government hands at the present time, and is maintained by them through summer and winter both ; but if a portion of it were handed over to the county suddenly without notice, the county would have no money to go on with to maintain that portion, so that the amount accrued in " thirds " is a very valuable asset to the county in such a case. 642. Mr. Anstey.] Did you not in your evidence say that a system of graduated subsidies on settlers' rates would enable you to make and maintain the roads ? —I said the whole of the initial cost of roading would be borne by the land, but I mentioned that a system of graduated subsidies would serve the purpose of maintaining the main road. 643. What do you call the initial cost —do you mean formation and metalling both ?—Forming, culverting, bridging, and metalling it in the first place. 644. The whole of the roads, both arterial and by roads ? —Yes. 645. You think that could be borne by the loading of the land ?—And by half the rent in respect to " thirds," as I said. 646. And then the maintenance could be done bv a reasonable subsidy on rates ? —Yes.
Taihape, Sunday, 4th June, 1905. Albert Pulman examined. . 1. The Chairman.'] What, are you ? —I am a dairy farmer, and my holding is three miles from Taihape. I hold 100 acres —60 acres village homestead and 40 acres under occupation with right of purchase. I prefer the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure. With rebate I pay £10 2s. 2d. for the 60 acres. The 40 acres is held under the Bush and Swamp Act, and I have not yet had a notification as to what my rent will be. It was all bush land. The grass has taken very well. As to the constitution of the Land Board, I think they should be elected by the members of the Farmer's Union. Farmers best understand questions affecting land settlement. They are men of experience, and only men of experience should be called upon to administer the land law. In reference to land-tenure, large numbers of people have come to this colony in order to acquire a piece of land of their own, and if the freehold is abolished it will be a most effective means of stopping people coming to this colony. I am in favour of the freehold. In some cases I think that land may be taken up at first under leasehold, but I think that in all cases they should have the option of converting their leasehold into freehold. I think that residence should not be compulsory in all cases. I think there should be an exemption in cases where there are no roads or a school within three of four miles of the holding. I think that this question should be left to a great extent to the discretion of the Land Board. With reference to the pressure of other conditions, I think there is one condition that acts very unfair. For instance, if one man has Crown land adjoining his section he may take up some of that Crown land, but in the case of another man who has no Crown land adjoining he cannot take up further Crown land. This provision of the law acts very unjustly. I think that all tenants should have equal rights to increase the area of their holdings without competition. If one man has that right, all tenants should have that right to make up their holdings to a certain area. In land has been wrongly classed in many cases. For instance, hilly sheep country has been classed as first-class dairy country. Ido not is right. 1 " ; I do not£think|that land£surveyorsJ'or CrownjjLand Rangers, or members of Land Boards are the proper persons to determine the areas, classification, and value of new country. I think
1146
r E. C. ROBINSON.
C.—4.
this could be more satisfactorily done by farmers with local knowledge of the climate and capabilities of the land. I think the homestead privileges should never have been abolshed, and that they should be reinstated as soon as possible, and improved by increasing the area given to applicants to 200 acres, With respect to the ballot, I think that applicants should be classified, and that men possessing certain qualifications should have preference over " undesirables." In regard to the loading of land, I think the amount of loading should be immediately available for expenditure. With reference to the value of leaseholds, I think it should be plus 1 per cent, and interest thereon from date of issue. In reference to the advances-to-settlers system, I think that at pressnt it is too slow and cumbersome, and the proportion of value of improvements advanced is insufficient. With reference to the position and condition of the occupiers of land under the various tenures I think the freehold is the most satisfactory tenure. As to the aggregation of large estates, T think provision should be made that no man should be allowed to own or occupy more than a certain area of land. 2. Mr. Anstey.] Do you represent the local branch of the Farmer's Union ?—Yes ; three members of the local branch were elected to give evidence before the Commission on behalf of the Farmer's Union here. There are between sixty and seventy members in this branch. 3. On what terms do you propose that holders of land under the Land for Settlements Act—that is, acquired estates —should have the right of acquiring the freehold ? —I think it would be satisfactory to the whole country it these settlers were given the right of acquiring the freehold. 4. You propose that they should get the freehold at the price they are now paying on ? —Yes ; they are paying rent on a certain capital value, and I think they should have the right of getting the freehold on that capital value. 5. Then you approve of giving these leaseholders a valuable tenure for no extra consideration ?— Every man who makes a success on~the land is a valuable asset to the country. 6. Do you not think it would be wise to allow settlers on Crown land to acquire the freehold also ? —I think they should be all on occupation with right of purchase. 7. Do you think there are from five hundred to one thousand settlers in this district ?—I think there are nearer one thousand than five hundred. 8. You said that you thought the Land Boards should be elected by the Farmers' Union, and you also said that this branch of the Farmers' Union numbers sixty or seventy members. In this district there are nearly one thousand settlers, and yet you say that the members of the Land Board should be elected by the members of the Farmers' Union in this district. Would you prevent other settlers outside the members of the Farmers' Union voting ?—Yes ; I would penalise them for not being members of the Farmers' Union. 9. Mr. McCutchan.~\ Has there been any dilatoriness in this district in spending the amount of loading ?—Yes. 10. To what is it due ?—I cannot say. 11. Has there been any expenditure since the Namanui Block has been taken up ?—No, I do not think so. 12. Might not the delay in expending the money be due to a desire on the part of the Government to give work to the settlers who have taken up the land ? —lt might be so. 13. Do you think the interest charged for the loading should continue for the whole term of the lease I—No. I think it would be unjust that it should continue for 999 years. I think it should only continue until the whole amount is extinguished. L 4. Under the Loans to Local Bodies Act in twenty-six years the principal and interest is extinguished. Do you think that the interest charged on the loading should cease after twenty-six years ? —Yes. 15. Can you give any instance of dilatoriness in connection with loans under the Advances to Settlers Department ? —They kept me waiting a considerable time some years ago, but I cannot give the reason of the delay. John McKenzie examined. 16. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler residing at Taihape, and hold 101 acres under occupation with right of purchase. I have held my land for nine years, and I pay 5 per cent, on the capital value. My section is an improved farm in Block IX., Section 5, Hautapu Survey District. lam in favour of the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure. My land was bush land when I took it up, with the exception of 15 acres. It is pretty well cleared now. My farm is about five miles from Taihape. I have only got a summer road to my holding. I consider that the members of the Land Board should be farmers. They should be men who are acquainted with the land. I have, however, no complaint to make against the Land Board. lam in favour of the freehold. I have had no experience of the advances-to-settlers system. I consider that if you have not got the right of purchase, you cannot borrow money in the same way as you can as if you have the right of purchase. My land was loaded for roading at ss. per acre. A track was formed to my holding, but Ido not think we will ever get a road up our way. We have no metal there. The areas of the holdings are so small in our district that we could not pay the cost of the metalling of roads to such small areas of land. If we had larger areas I think it would be much cheaper for both the Government and ourselves, because we could then do with fewer roads. In some cases the cost of fencing is more than the value of the land. . ... 17. Have any of the people who have taken up 100-acre sections left them ?—Yes, some three or four of them have done so, but fresh settlers have taken their places. 18. Mr. Anstey.] Is there both a County Council and a Road Board in this district ?—Yes. 19. Do you know whether these two local bodies expending money over the same area is an economical way of spending it ?—They have taken our rates for nine years and they have not spent a penny
1147
A. PULM'AN. 1
a-4.
C.-4.
1148
|j. MCKENZIE.
in our district. In reply to our request for expenditure, the local body replied that they were in debt and that they could not clear the slips because they had no money. There are twelve other farmers who use the road I am interested in. 20. What area do you think those farms ought to be in order that a man may make a comfortable living from them ?—I think that no man should hold less than 200 acres at least. 21. Mr. McCutchan.] Would you be in favour of legislation being passed to force the local bodies to keep road accounts so that the settlers might know that the money was expended ? —Undoubtedly. 22. You say that lenders discriminate between-the 4 per cent, and the 5 per cent, tenures. Can you give us any instances ? —I have never applied for any loan under that Act, but I have no doubt that the man with the right of purchase can borrow when the holder of a leasehold cannot do so. Thomas McKean examined, 23. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a settler holding 200 acres under lease in perpetuity. I have held my section for twelve years, and my rent is £13 16s. a year. My land is section 20, Block XVI., Hautapu Survey District, and is about thirty miles from Taihape. We have very good roads. I may say that my father and one of my brothers and myself hold 600 acres between us. I infinitely prefer the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. The first and the greatest reason for disliking the lease in perpetuity is that we think the day will come when a Fair Rent Bill will be passed. That fear has overshadowed us ever since we took up the land. Sir John McKenzie, who introduced the lease-in-per-petuity system, also introduced within four years a Fair Rent Bill, and although many people declare that he never intended it to be retrospective ; he emphatically declared that it was to be applied to all the land in the colony. Mr. Seddon himself has Bill several times since then, and that Bill contained a provision that it"should apply to all cannot help thinking that the day will come when such a Bill will be passed—that is, unless the whole political aspect changes A its present course. 24. Do you not think that if the Legislature endeavoured to break a contract with the tenants that they might deal similarly in respect to freehold land ? —Leaseholders under the lease in perpetuity are a very limited number —perhaps not more than ten thousand in the whole colony—but we have a huge army of freeholders, and I think in view of those numbers no Government would dare to interfere with the freehold. 25. What is your opinion in respect to the constitution of Land Boards ?—I think tiu.t Land Boards should be elective. I suppose it will always be necessary to have the administrative officer—viz., the Commissioner of Crown Lands —appointed by the Government, because the Government must be represented ; but I think the remaining four members of the Board should be elected by the settlers interested. 26. Under what franchise ?—I think that all occupiers of rural land should have a vott in the election of members of the Land Board. 27. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Yes, and I have no complaint to make against it. I would like to give the Commission an instance of what banking and mercantile people think of the lease in perpetuity. Some years ago we had a dairy factory in the district, and in one part of the district it was desired to erect a creamery, and eight of the farmers in that district were prepared to sign a joint and several bond for a loan —and I may say that some of the settlers were worth very much more than the amount of money required—but the bank would not advance the money on the ground that a Fair Rent Bill might be passed at any time which would destroy our interest in our land. In any such dealings financiers have always raised the point that the lessees simply hold a tenure which might be interfered with at any time. 28. When you took up your land had you any option of tenure ?—No, the lease in perpetuity was the only tenure under which we could take up the land. 29. Upon what terms do you consider you ought to get the freehold ?— By paying the 1 per cent, for the number of years we have had the land, I consider we ought to get it at the original valuation. 30. Do you think that all settlers ought to be given a similar right ?—I think that all Crown tenants should be given that right except those who have taken up improved estates. The country has borrowed money to acquire these improved estates, and I think as long as the country owes that money the Crown ought to own the land as an asset against the indebtedness. 31. Do the lease-in-perpetuity settlers farm their land as well as freeholders do and put on as substantial buildings ?—I think so. 32. If you were quite secure in your tenure do you think it would be satisfactory ? —Yes. Of course, there is always liable to be some trouble as long as you are under the thumb of the Land Board. 33. Do you not consider there should be some restrictions imposed on freeholders ? —Yes, I consider that the primary cause of land troubles in most countries has] arisen from the large areas held by individuals. I think if we had restricted areas in New Zealand the land question would be settled once and for all. lam of opinion that the residence conditions are very often harsh and exacting, and I consider that the Land Board should have more discretionary power. 34. Mr. McCutchan.'] How long ago is it since the bank refused to advance the money on a joint and several guarantee ?—About eight years ago. 35. Have you been able to finance the creamery since ?—The Dairy Company guaranteed the account and we got the money. John Kraigek examined. 36. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler holding 83 acres under occupation with right of purchase, and I have held my land for ten years. My rent is £13 17s. 4d. My section is twentyone miles by road from Taihape, and it is Section 14, Block X, Hautapu Survey District. I have a good metalled road to my place.
37. What are your views in respect to land-tenure ?—I approve of the occupation with right of purchase. I would like to draw the attention of the Commission to this, that there is a considerable area of Native land in this district, and I think the Government should acquire that land. There is close on 18,000 acres of Native land which is at the present time idle, and there are some 4,500 acres of that land which is suitable for settlement at present. 38. Mr. McCutchan.] You raised a loan under the Loans to Local Bodies Act for your road ? —Yes, and we got a subsidy of £160 on a £200 loan. 39. For how many years do you pay sinking fund on that loan ?—I think there are nineteen years yet to run 40. The " thirds " will pay interest on the sinking fund for nineteen years ?—Yes. 41. What is the rating in the pound on your valuation It is merely nominal. 42. Do you think the Government could help the settlers in the way of giving work in bushfelling and road-making ?—Yes, and I think that system should be continued. Hans Peter Glerup Mortensen examined. 43. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a watchmaker and jeweller, and have been about eighteen months in Taihape. lam the occupier of a section in the Kawatau district- I hold 1,348 acres under occupation with right of purchase in this district I felled 250 acres of bush last year. My rent is £50 10s. a year. I have got a road to within five miles of my place, and there is a very bad track the rest of the way, in fact the track is almost impassable. The Government has promised that the road should be completed, but that promise has not so far been fulfilled. Some men were puton to work on the track, but not on the bad portion. I think it is the duty of the Government to make this road, seeing that they have promised to do so. The settlers have promised to pay a portion of the cost of the formation of the road. I may state that my relations with the Land Board have been satisfactory. I think the lease with right of purchase is a very good system, and lam of opinion that if the residence claims were struck out it would be very much better. Owing to the want of a road, and there being no school within a reasonable distance, the section is not fit to take a family there. If a man were given the right to acquire his freehold at any time, it would improve his position very much. If I could make the land freehold I could get money at 5 per cent, in order to make necessary improvements, whereas now I would have to pay 7| per cent. I may add that I have already effected a great many improvements on the land, and I propose to do more. Michael O'Brien examined. 14. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer and hold 99 acres under occupation with right of purchase, and have held the land for eight years. My rent is £10 a year, and my land is situated four miles and three-quarters from Taihape. Tt was originally bush land, but I have cleared and grassed a good deal of it. lam satisfied with the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure. My relations with the Land Board have been satisfactory. I have had no experience in connection with the Advances to Settlers Department. 45. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission I—There1 —There is a big block of Native land adjoining my holding. The Natives will no nothing with it. I think the Government ought to acquire that land and throw it open for selection. There are a great many settlers in the district who would be glad to take up some of this land. The area of the Native land I refer to is about 4,000 or 5,000 acres. 100 acres is too small for a man to make a living off. At the very outside a man can only graze two sheep to the acre. If you get a good summer you can fatten lambs. The settlers in the district cannot supply half the demand for stock. 46. Mr. Anstey.] What sized farms do you think you ought to have in order to make a good' living off them ?—Not less than 200 acres. Most of the farms are 200-acre blocks. The sections in the im-proved-farm settlements are 100 acres each. I think, as I have said, that the Native land adjoining the settlement ought to be cut up for settlement purposes. 47. Mr. McCutchan.] Are there any Natives living on that block ? —No. 48. That land is being increased in value by the public works going on in the district ?—Yes. 49. And the owners are not contributing in anyway to the local rates ?—No. Albert Pulman further examined. 50. The Chairman.] 1 understand you would like to make a further statement to the Commission ? —Yes, I would like to say something with reference to the valuation put on my land recently. There was some land opened up not quite twelve months ago, and although it is very broken and hilly—that is, the portion I took up —it has been valued at £2 16s. 6d. per acre. The area was 40 acres under occupation with right of purchase. In the case of the adjoining land it was valued at only £1 165., and the latter was better land and was taken up only two months previously. It appears to me that the valuer has not done his work properly. The lesser price has been put on the better class land. T did not get my section at the ballot. The Minister decided that we ought to have the right to increase the area of our holdings and we increased them to 100 acres. It is an excessive valuation. 51. Mr. McCutchan.'] Do you think the present method of valuing the land is satisfactory ?—No, I think the valuer should be a farmer 'or one who has local knowledge of the climate and capabilities of the land. I think the members of the Land Board should visit the blocks and revise the valuations. If the Government nominated a member of the Board from each district I think that would be an improvement on the present system.
1149
J. KRAIOER.]
C.-4.
C -4
1150
r T. MCKEAN.
Thomas MoKean further examined. 52. The Chairman.'] I understand that you wish to submit to the Commission a letter that you have received from Thomas C. Revell, representing the Polionui Branch of the Farmers' Union ?—Yes. Two gentlemen who were appointed by the Pohonui Branch of the Farmers' Union came into Taihape yesterday expecting the Commission to sit here, but owing to the exceptionally bad weather resulting in landslips on the railway line and road, the Commission could not reach Taihape, and, as these settlers wish to reach their homes before dark, they had to return early in the day. They, however, asked me to read the following letter to the Commission : — " Taihape, 4th June, 1905. " Dear Sirs, —I regret not being able to wait to give evidence before you on the land question; I was to have given evidence on behalf of the Pohonui Branch of the Farmers' Union; lam leaving my evidence in writing. (1.) The Pohonui Branch of the Farmers' Union is unanimous on the limited freehold. (2.) They uphold the right-of-purchase system. (3.) That land should be classified properly, not as it is now, rough and broken country classed as first-class land. (4.) Roads promised should be made; some have been promised for the last ten years, and have not been made yet, and settlers are loaded with ss. an acre to make the roads. (5.) That all waste lands be cut up and sold or leased with right of purchase in limited areas. (6.) That a law be passed to prevent the aggregation of large freehold properties. (7.) That Maori land be treated the same as land held by Europeans. In conclusion, we strongly urge the Government to make the land law limited freehold.—Yours &c., " Thomas Charles Revell. " The Chairman and Members, Land Commission." Harry Lundius examined. 53. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am Crown Lands Ranger of the northern portion of the Wellington West Coast district. 54. I understand that you have been acquainted with this district for a long time ? —Yes, since 1891, and there has been wonderful progress in the district during that period. The settlers are now doing fairly well. Want of roads is a great trouble. A fair number of transfers have taken place— generally at advanced figures. 55. With reference to the block of Native land which has been referred to, do you think it would be taken up readily if it were acquired and thrown open for settlement ? —Yes. 56. Is there any other matter you would like to refer to ?—I think it would be a great benefit to the district if greater borrowing-powers were given to the local bodies. In most districts the settlers are only too willing to rate themselves, but loans to various local bodies have already been bespoken for some years ahead. I think the Government would be quite safe in granting these increased powers because there is ample security. 57. Has the amount of the loading been expended ? —I think it has, and I also think some additional money has been expended in the way of grants. 58. Are the settlers carrying out their improvements fully ?—Yes. 59. With reference to residential conditions, are there any great cases of hardship ? —Yes, but in any case that has been brought under the notice of the Board in which it has been found there has been general hardship, the Board generally grants some exemption from residence. I think the law ought to be altered so as to give more latitude to the Board in dealing with these cases, but I think that residential conditions should be enforced except in certain special cases. Ido not think a man should be forced to reside on his land until he has reasonable access to it, but after that, I think residence should be enforced. 60. Mr. McCutchan.\ Then the cure in regard to the trouble as to residence is that there should be a satisfactory roading policy ? —Yes.
Mangaweka, Monday, sth June, 1905. David Henry Guthrie examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler holding 630 acres under lease in perpetuity, which I have held lor about thirteen years. It is situated in the Ruahine district, nine miles from Mangaweka. The tenure is not satisfactory to me. I come before the Commission to give evidence on my own behalf and as representative of the Rangiwahia Branch of the Farmers' Union, and also as representing the late conference of the Farmers' Union held at Wanganui ; and, in addition, I am here as the special representative of the settlers of the Marton Small-farm Association Nos. 1, 2, and 3. On their behalf, and in order to put before you our views in a concise form, we have reduced our statement to writing, which, with your permission, I will now read : — "We, the undersigned Crown tenants in the Marton Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Small-farm Settlement, and in the surrounding districts of Rangiwahia and Ruahine, beg to state that we desire the right of converting our holdings from lease in perpetuity to freehold for the following reasons : (1.) Most of us never were given in the first instance the option of taking up our sections under any tenure except the lease in perpetuity. (2.) Settlers afterwards taking up unselected, surrendered, or forfeited sections in this district were given the option of taking up these sections either for cash, occupation with right of purchase, or lease in perpetuity, thus giving them a distinct advantage over the original selectors. (3.) The insecurity of the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, which has already been attacked five times by the introduction of what is called a Fair Rent Bill, embodying the principle of revaluation, has had a very detrimental influence on the Crown tenants' interests, the aim of this periodical revaluation being to raise the rental as soon as the tenants by the expenditure of their time, labour, and money
1151
P. H. rrTITHRIE.J
C—4
have increased the value o! their holdings. (4.) Because, by the action of the Valuation Department, the Crown tenants' interests are sacrificed through writing down the value of their improvements and adding this to the unimproved value so as to unfairly increase Government interest in the sections. (5.) Because of the power any Government might exercise through an Act of Parliament in changing the original terms and conditions of lease, which really destroys the security of tenure and thereby enormously reduces its value. (6.) Because we wish to free ourselves from that most unjust imposition of loading at ss. per acre for roads, which, under lease-in-perpetuity tenure, is to go on for 999 years, so that a 200-acre section will pay in that time £1,998, while a cash purchaser of same section has only to contribute £50, and selector under occupation with right of purchase £75. (7.) Because of the difficulty of transfer and stringency of residential conditions, which require on lease in perpetuity a residence of ten years, while a selector under occupation with right of purchase has only to reside for six years. (8.) Because at the decease of a Crown tenant there is a danger of his family losing his property through not being able to comply with all the stringent and irksome conditions. (9.) Because of the difficulty of subletting either grass or bush for milling owing to Land Board restrictions. (10.) Because all the above, working together, renders our leases practically useless as a security in the money market, and renders it almost impossible for Crown tenants (outside of the Government Advances to Settlers Office) to borrow on the security of lease-in-perpetuity tenure ; in the few cases where tenants have been able to do so, it was only at a much higher rate and because the borrower was known to be a reliable and honest person. (11.) Because it is desirable, in the interests of the individual Crown tenant as well as of the State, that all sections of the farming community, forming as they do the largest number of wealth-producers, should be placed in the position of enjoying the fullest sense of security and confidence in their undertakings. (12.) Because we believe that this condition can only be found in its truest and fullest sense under freehold occupancy of the land, which tends to give every man a pride in making the best of his surroundings because it is his own and family's home, thereby calling into activity his best energies and endeavours. (13.) Because, seeing this lease in perpetuity is such a ridiculously bad bargain for the colony, it must break down sooner or later, and therefore at the present time, while it is possible to do justice to the Crown tenants, they ought to be granted the option of obtaining the freehold title to their sections, if they so desire, by paying for same the same amount as would be required had they taken up their land under occupation-with-fight-of-purchase tenure." [Signed by fifty-six Crown tenants.] " We, the undersigned, having had charge of the above petition, hereby affirm that we obtained a unanimous signature in our districts showing that the settlers are unanimous in the desire to obtain the right of converting their titles from lease in perpetuity to freehold. " Alex. Caird. "R. H. H. Guthrie." T would like to say that I brought this petition before the conference of the Farmers' Union, at Wanganui, on the 30th of last May, which was composed of delegates representing the whole of the Wellington Province. This is the indorsement which they have put to that petition : — " Mr. Guthrie brought this question up at the conference of the Farmers' Union of the Wellington Province, held in Wanganui on the 30th May, 1905. The members of the conference, having heard the objections raised and carefully considered them, passed the following resolution : ' That we, the representatives of the Farmers' Union of Wellington, met at Wanganui in conference, thoroughly indorse the objections in the accompanying petition raised by the settlers in the Marton Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Smallfarm Association to the lease-in-perpetuity terms, believing that the objections raised by them are valid and well founded.' I affirm that this is a true copy of the resolution passed. "James G. Wilson, Chairman." I might say that the notice of the Commission's meeting in our district was so short that we have to rush the petition through, and because of bad weather we have not been able to get the whole of the lists of signatures in. So far, we have not received one solitary objection to signing the petition, which shows a unanimous desire on the part of the Crown tenants to convert the lease in perpetuity. 2. Are the petitioners all Crown tenants ?—Yes. In connection with the general scope of the Commission, I would like to make the following statement : The Commissioner of Lands ought to be appointed by Government; all other members should be elected by vote of the landholders of the district. The tenures should be freehold, deferred payment, occupation with right of purchase, lease in perpetuity with the option of making it freehold when the tenant so desires. Crown tenants certainly labour under restrictions which are inimical to their interests and unnecessary in the interests of the Crown, as follows : (a.) Difficulty of transfer. (b.) Danger of forfeiture through tenants' interests may be five times that of the Crown, (c.) Stringency of residential clauses. (d.) Insecurity through threatened danger of revaluation (e.) Danger in case of decease of tenant that the holding may pass from lessee's heirs. (/.) Difficulty of subletting either grass land or bush for milling, (g.) The Land Board having the power to change or alter the regulations by sanction of Minister, (h.) That blocks of land, notably Marton Small-farm Association Nos. I, 2, and 3, were not given the option of taking up the sections under any tenure except lease in perpetuity. (i.) All the above, working together, have the effect of lessening the value of a Crown tenant's lease, and place him, as compared with a freeholder or licensee under the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure, at a great disadvantage in the money market. Residential restrictions are certainly too exacting at present. So long as improvements are effected and land worked properly, it should not matter who occupied or farmed the land. Plenty of Crown tenants now struggling for a living on their sections would have been more successful had they been allowed to follow their trades or professions until they had their sections improved sufficiently to make a living off them. In cases of non-residence, it might be wise to require an increased amount of improvements each year. No hard-and-fast rule should apply to all land as to occupancy, seeing that conditions of climate, character of land, situation, and access vary to such
C—4.
1152
fD. H. OUTHRTE.
a great degree. In some places occupancy might be required within one year, while in others, with equal justice to selectors, it would be unfair to insist on occupancy for 'seven years. The terms firstand second-class land are only comparative terms referring to one particular locality or block, and have no value as comparatively descriptive terms applying to the lands'of the colony; their onlv effect is to restrict the area of holdings. Land of good quality, suitable for agricultural purposes, with fair access, should be classed first-class, all broken country and difficult of access, fit only for pastoral purposes, should be second-class land. In many cases the amount of loading for roads has been spent fully by Government on co-operative works, but this method has not resulted in the districts receiving a full or fair return for the amount expended. Much better returns would have resulted had the money been spent on the contract system. Loading on lease-in-perpetuity sections is ridiculous. Crown tenants are certainly placed at a great disadvantage in borrowing, either from private sources or the Government Advances to Settlers Office. Their leases are only recognised as a very unsatisfactory security by private money-lenders owing to the restrictions under which the leases are granted and their liability to alteration. Any loans obtainable are charged a much higher rate of interest, and, further, the reliability and honesty of the borrower are really the determining factors in all such loans. The Government Advances to Settlers Office only lends small sums in proportion to what a freeholder can obtain in the money market, and, before granting any loan, requires a revaluation of the section, and insists on improvements been valued according to its schedule rates. The condition and position of those holding freehold or the right to obtain same are far more satisfactory, and better than the occupier who has only a leasehold title to his lands. The tendency of the present time is towards the cutting-up of big estates rather than the aggregation of large areas. 3. Is that statement on the* same authority as the petition ?—lt was discussed at our meeting and thoroughly acquiesced in, but we did not get a resolution on it authorising* it^to*come*"from the meeting. 4. It is your own, so to speak ? —lt is my own as representative of that district. I would like here to bear out my statement in regard to borrowing, and to show that what I said is perfectly true, that the lease-in-perpetuity holder is at a great disadvantage in the money market. This is portion of a circular sent out by a money-lending firm when starting a new branch of their business in this district. The circular is dated the 22nd May, 1905, and says : "We take this opportunity of notifying that we have money for investment at 5 per cent, on good freehold securities. The mortgage deed gives borrowers the right to repay their loans in sums of not less than £25 on their giving not less than three months' notice. We can in all cases advance moneys to persons desiring to convert Government leaseholds into freeholds. We have practically an unlimited supply of money for investment on occupation licenses, small grazing-runs, and education leaseholds. We can in many cases make advances against lease in perpetuity." 5. Who is that circular from ? —From Messrs. Fullerton-Smith and Miles. They are a very large money-lending firm doing a large amount of business in this district. I came before you as a holder of a lease in perpetuity, and you may wonder that I have taken such a lease when I am opposed to it. I was one of the first to take up that lease, and I took it up because it was 1 per cent, cheaper, and because I was advised by those who I thought knew more than I did that I was saving 1 per cent. I no sooner had taken the section than I was sorry, because I could see from the Press that public opinion was that the thing could not stand. It was an eye-opener to myself and others that three times in the late Sir John McKenzie's time and twice in Hon. Mr. Duncan's a Fair Rent Bill was brought before the House, and on one occasion when introduced by Mr. G. W. Russell, of Riccarton, was only beaten by two or three votes. That showed that the fulfilment of our leases depended on the will of the people of the day. Any Government having a majority of Parliament behind it evidently can pass a law providing for revaluation of our leasess. Had that idea been given to us in the first instance not one out of one hundred who have taken up the lease in perpetuity would have done so. 6. Was it specially proposed in the Fair Rent Bill to revalue lease-in-perpetuity settlers' land ?— Yes. It was to apply, as the Hon. John McKenzie said, to every acre of land in New Zealand. It was also said that it could not be retrospective because the Crown had issued a lease, but that lease is subject to the will of Parliament. 7. I want to be clear about the Fair Rent Bill. You have indirectly answered my question, but have said it was not to be retrospective : all those who took up land under lease in perpetuity up to the passing of the Bill, supposing it had passed, were perfectly secure ?—No ; I take it the other way about. The Hon. John McKenzie was asked the question in the House, and he said it was to apply to every acre in New Zealand. 8. You said it was to be retrospective ?—Yes ; and that was only an argument in favour of it used by the party bringing forward the measure. 9. Supposing they passed the most fantastic Fair Rent Bill in the world, if it was not retrospective it would have no influence on your lease ; Parliament would never break a sacred contract entered into with yourself and the State ? —One would think not, but you have only got to look at the force behind that Fair Rent Bill; it was brought in on the tide and forced on by a section of the community who said it was to apply to all the land in New Zealand. A copy of the Bill will be placed before you at one of your sittings. 10. You said the Land Board should be elected : do you mean that all the settlers in a particular land district, meaning all those who have an interest in land, should elect the Board ? —Yes. 11. People in towns hold an interest in land ?—I would not deny them the right. 12. That would be very expensive ?—We adopt many expensive processes in our legislation, and it would be reproductive even if it was productive of expense. 13. What are your objections to the present constitution of the Land Board (—Personally, I have no objection. I have no reason to object to the Land Board, which has always treated me exceedingly
D. H. GUTHRIE.]
1153
0.—4.
fair; also, so far as the whole of the personnel is concerned, I have received nothing but courtesy from the Land Board and its officers. The position is that the Land Boards are quite willing to do what they, as sensible men, would deem to be right, but they are hedged round by legislation and restrictions which are more powerful than they are. There is discretionary power given them which carries with it responsibility, and the Land Board recognising that responsibility will not exercise it. Those restrictions ought not to be so placed, but should come direct from the law and not be left to the will of the Land Board. At the present time the Government of the day make regulations and appoint their own men to administer them according to their own way. That is only natural. Therefore I think they would have much greater confidence if the Board was elective, and especially so as I consider that the Land Boards of the colony are amongst the most responsible and important institutions which we have, seeing that we are practically an agricultural country and that the land has to make the wealth and living of the people. Seeing that it is considered necessary and right that the people should elect the administrators of the affairs of the colony generally, they should have the right to elect the people who administer the land. 14. You may have an election of a Land Board that differs from the ordinary election of Parliament. The Government of the day simply represents the majority of the people, and they have a policy to carry out, and if they have the nomination of the members of the Land Board the thing will work sweet. In other words men are appointed who are in touch with the prevailing sentiment of the time, but if you have an election, say, in the middle of Parliament you may get in an altogether adverse set of men ; and, as the law now stands, the Land Board and the Minister for Lands have to work in concert; therefore, if what is proposed was carried out a deadlock might occur and no business would be done at all ? —Your argument establishes my case, for this reason, that that is exactly the point. It is the people whom the law affects that ought to have the voice in the administration of it. If the Government passes a law and then appoints a Board to administer that law, the people have no voice at all except in the election of members of Parliament. 15. Mr. Anstey.] You think the residential conditions too exacting ?—Yes. 16. If your views were given effect to, and a little extra improvement made to suffice for residence, there would be a great many people holding leases who would not reside on the land, and the really bond fide settler who goes with his wife and family would lose the benefits of schools, churches, and general social life ?—I take it that I have got the people at my back in this view : that if you put on an increased amount of improvements and force a man to make those improvements somebody must be on that section, because no man is such a fool as to spend money without getting some return for it; it matters very little whether it is John Thompson or Bob Smith is on the land so long as a man is there, and the land is brought into productiveness. If the land is a wealth-producing factor it does not matter whether one particular man is on the land. There is also this to remember, that there are numerous men who are anxious to get on the land, but have not sufficient money to buy it right out and to make all the improvements. They cannot do it by the present regulations, which compel them to live on the land. In connection with the lease in perpetuity many of the holders have not made their money on their sections, but have to find work off it, and yet the Land Board say that they must reside on their land. There is also this grievance that is felt. Take the case of two brothers who are unmarried and have sections adjoining one another; even though their house may be quite close to the boundary of the two sections they are not allowed to live in the same house, but must each erect and reside in a house on his own section. The Land Board, as reasonable men, might, if they had power, prevent a thing of that sort, but, as the law stands now, they cannot help themselves. 17. You think the law should be amended ?—Yes. 18. Mr. Anstey.] You say that the money-lenders think the lease in perpetuity is not a good security, and that it is only their personal confidence in the lessee that induces them to lend money at all ? —lf they have not personal confidence they will not lend the money. 19. I did not clearly gather on what franchise you thought the Land Boards should be elected ? — lam not prepared at a moment's notice to say. The parliamentary franchise, if the country determines it. It is the principle of election that we are decided on. 20. The question of franchise is the most important factor in the whole thing: do you think the parliamentary franchise is the best ? —ln justice to the landowners in the towns we must agree to something of that kind, although it would include many who have no right to have a vote on the land question. 21. Supposing you had the right to elect on a parliamentary franchise, and, considering the many conveniences the people in the towns have of attending polls, say, in Wellington, four agitators were elected, would that be satisfactory ? —lf it was the will of the people that those four should be elected we would have to grin and bear it, but I think the good sense of the people would make it all right. 22. You say the Land Board should only be administrative : do you say the restrictions should be removed by law I—The1 —The conditions should be amended to make them less restrictive. 23. Supposing you did away with residential restrictions altogether, do you think you would have any population at all ? —Yes ; in our locaility we would, would have helped the settlers in the early days to get over the difficulties they had to face. 24. Supposing you take away all the discretion from the Land Board, what would be the advantage of having the Board elective; you might as well have the affairs administered by a policeman ?— I do not propose to do away with the discretionary power of the Land Boards, but I propose to do away with the great discretionary power and onus thrown on them at the present time. 25. How would it be possible to pass a law fixing the conditions of settlement all over the colony : is it not much wiser to elect practical men in each district with discretion ?—Yes. 26. If you lay down one strict law for the whole colony it would bar settlement ?—I never meant for a moment to say that the Land Board was to have no discretionary power ; I meant to infer that 14-5—C. 4.
C—4.
1154
I'd. h. gutheie.
the discretionary power given to them should be such that they are not afraid to administer and act on. 27. Does the Wellington Land Board not exercise a wiae discretion in dome away willi residence ? —They do as far as I am personally aware. 28. You think it would be wise to have that discretionary power retained, and even increased in certain cases. For instance, if there was no road, would it not be wise to give the Board discretionary power to allow residence conditions to stand in obeyance ? —Yes. 29. You think the discretionary power should be increased ? —Yes. 30. That is opposed to your original statement ? —I say that that discretionary power should not place the Land Board in conflict with the policy of the Government of the day. They are Government appointees, and it would be an invidious and absurd position to put them in. 31. Are you in favour of restricted holdings 'Yes. 32. How about the anomally of first- and second-class lands ? —A man with a family can make a living on 640 acres of first-class land outside. I think we ought to have another classification. As I say, a man on agricultural land can do well on 640 acres, but if you put that man on to 640 acres in the bush it is not enough. I admit that there are certain lands, even in the bush and open land, which are different from other lands, and therefore first-class bush and open land should be divided into two classes. If the broken land is of good quality it should comprise a second section of first-class land and be allowed an arear of, say, 1,000 acres, and retain the present area for what we now call secondclass land, 2,000 acres. 33. Is all bush land second-class land ? —No ; in the Kiwitea district there is bush land that in time would become to be most decidedly, and is to-day, first-class land. 34. Do you think it would be wise, in opening up that land, to open it up in areas of 1,000 acres ?— No ; because it is what I consider first-class now. 35. Would it be wise to have a limit up to 1,000 acres ?—Yes. 36. Would that apply to most of the bush land ? —ln my experience it would. 37. According to that the present settlement, which is going on in areas of from 100 to 300 acres, is totally wrong ? —The position of those tenants to-day is this : that now they have got over their initial difficulties they can make a living, because sheep are at boom prices; but no one expects that sheep and wool will remain at those prices. 38. Do you think it would be wise to allow them to aggregate those sections ? —Yes, within reason. 39. Up to 1,000 acres ?—No ; because I consider a good deal of that lanrl would be classed as first-class land and become good agricultural land. 40. There is a very small quantity of land about here that is level, and you think it should go up to 1,000 acres ?—Yes. 41. Are there any education reserves in this neighbourhood ? —Yes. 42. Are they kept occupied ? —Some are occupied and some are lying idle. 43. Do you know the terms of the leases ? —Twenty-one years, with payment for improvements. 44. What proportion of these are lying idle ? —I could not say, but most I should say are taken up. 45. You said that if leased with a revaluation clause not a single section would be taken up in the whole district ? —I said that not one would have been taken up in the Marton Small-farm Blocks if it had been thought at the time that revaluation was to come up, 46. Supposing there was a form of lease giving really good terms, notwithstanding the fact that it contained revaluation, do you think sections would be taken up to-day ? —They would take them up with their eyes open. 47. What is your attitude with regard to lease-in-perpetuity settlers under the Land for Settlements Act ? —We are not brought into contact with those settlements up here, but my own opinion is that, if the Government sold any of this leasehold land, it is only a matter of a small calculation to prove that the wealth of the colony would be very much increased. 48. You think it would be better for the Government to revert to the occupation with right of p-urchase ? —Yes, I think that the occupation with right of pure>ise will give a better class and more contented settlers. 49. On what value would you give the land for settlements lease-in-perpetuity holders the right of purchase, having regard to the fact that they are at present paying 5 per cent. ? —At the original value. 50. Mr. Johnston.] Have you seen any settlements under the Land for Settlements Act ? —I know the r Ohakia Settlement and the Aorangi Settlement. 51. Are they settled successfully ? —Yes, so far as I can tell.** 52. You say that Land Boards ought to be elective: if you had a large estate and you leased it out, would you allow the tenants to elect a member to dictate the terms of lease ? —No, if I leased a large estate to tenants, those tenants would take up the land under certain conditions"which would be agreed upon and which they could force me to abide by. 53. There are certain regulations which might be necessary in managing this estate later on ?— There is no analogy between them and Land Boards. 54. You said that ce tain regulations were made, and that the Land Board had to administer them: if a law was made, would not the Board have to administer that ? —Yes. 55. What is the difference ?—This, that the law-makers should not appoint the administrators. 56. If the tenants elect the Land Board, are they not electing their own masters ? —No, the Crown is their master. 57. What is your objection to the advances to settlers': [have you had any experience of them, and they would not give an advance satisfactorily ? —The general impression is this : that they only lend up to 50 per cent., and that 50 per cent, is not what they will offer. lam not prepared with figures, but there are known cases where the amounts offered have been simply ridiculous in comparison with the improvements. There is one case that strikes me now, where the man applied for [something like £200 on a fair valuation, and he was"offered £46.
1155
1). H. GUTHRIE j
C—4.
58. They offer up to 50 per cent. ? —They have power toi P? 59. Would you class Kiwitea land the same as the Manawatu Hats ? —There is a great difference between the Kiwitea jand the Manawatu flats, and the land you see about here. 60. What is the best way to classify land ? —You cannot get any classification that would meet every case, but on a broad principle I think that agricultural land, such as you speak of and in Kiwitea, which I think will become magnificent agricultural land, ought to be classed as first-class land, and any such land, no matter whether in the bush or not, should be first-class land, and the area restricted to what I say. 61. Do you think it is possible to classify the whole of the lands of the colony ? —-I do not know ; but as the land comes in, it ought to be possible. 62. Would you restrict the area to the carrying-capacity of the land or to the area of first-, second-, and third-class land I—To allow a man to make a living for himself and family it would not matter which. In the first instance, you cannot find out the carrying-capacity of the land, and before the time you do, your classification would have to be completed. For that reason I say area is the best way. 63. When the Marton Farm Settlements were first thrown open, was there not a rush to take up the land on any terms whatever ? —They were told at the ballot that the land they were taking up and the tenure it was offered under was as good as freehold. Nobody had had any experience of lease in perpetuity at that time, and it being a 999-years lease, and a Government lease at that, it was supposed it would be a gilt-edged security in the money market, but we found out it was nothing of the sort. 64. Your objection is that not being a negotiable security, it is not in the best interests of the colony ?—That is one. 65. You do not think it is necessary to have these restrictions so as to put down dummyism ? —I think it is quite right to put down -dummyism, but I do not think the restrictions were necessary to the extent to which they were made. 66. Mr. Paid.] You believe that sooner or later the lease in perpetuity must be altered ?—I do. 67. You think it is a bad bargain for the State I—l do. 68. Is it a good bargain for the tenants ? —lf we could rely on it it would be all right. 69. Up to now there is one solid objection to it: that it is not regarded by financial men and institutions as security for money ?—-Is that the only objection you have to it. 70. Is that your only objection to it ? —No, it is only one. 71. What are the others ? —I have given you thirteen. 72. Is there anything in the conditions of the lease in perpetuity which prevents the holders making every use of the land and getting the best out of it ? —No, provided he has the means of doing it; but the uncertainty of tenure robs him of that means, because we know perfectly well that the majority of the settlers have to go to the money-market. 73. It is your experience that the large majority of bush settlers must borrow ? —Yes. 74. Although you had a string of objections, you find that there is one solid objection, and the others are based on that one ?- —No. 75. Tell me what some of the others are ?—I gave you an instance of the difficulty of subletting the land, and I gave you an instance of a holding passing from a lessee's family at his decease. A Crown tenant might die, and if his heirs are not eligible, or if they are not prepared to carry out the conditions it must pass from them. 76. Have any such instances come under your notice ? —One very serious case has come under my notice. 77. What was it ? —lt was a case where a man died, and the widow petitioned the Land Board and special representations had to be made to the Land Board on behalf of the widow, and had those representations not been made she would have had to pass out of the section. There is another case of which I am not thoroughly master of the details, but I understand that the family really did not lose the section. 78. Do you think the Land Board went outside the law or did not administer it with fair discretion in the first case you speak of ? —No, I think the Land Board met the representations made on behalf of the widow in a very reasonable and just way, and did all they could to help the widow. 79. Was the ultimate result fair %—Yes. 80. The widow came into her own ? —Yes. 81. Then that case ended up all right ?—Yes, but had the Land Board been other than just and reasonable men it would not have so ended. I know that the Land Board and the officers went to very considerable trouble with a view to help on the case. 82. Is it not reasonable to suppose that the Land Boards will be composed of reasonable men ?— I only speak of what I find myself, and I say I have always found the Land Board perfectly reasonable. 83. If the leasehold is the creation of the will of the people and subject to their will, is the freehold in any different position ?—Not under the present law, except to a limited degree. For instance, under the Land for Settlements Act the Government have the power to take any freeholds. 84. If the majority of the people would repudiate the bargain of the leasehold entered into between the State and the people, do you not think the same majority would repudiate a deed of fee-simple ? — They cannot to the same extent. It is not so easy. They have the power and do exercise it now. 85. The second statement that you read, that is your own statement ?—I can have it substantiated by numerous witnesses, and you may take it as representing the views of the people here. It has been discussed in public, but I omitted to take a resolution from the meeting authorising me to put it in. 86. Do you know how the expenses of providing an advance from the Advances to Settlers Office compares with an advance through an ordinary legal firm I—l1 —I think it is cheaper, but there are certain expenses in connection with it that ought not to be incurred at all. Before the Government office will make an advance, even though the farm may have been valued the day before for the Yaluation Depart-
C--4.
1156
D. H. GUTHKIE
ment, they will insist on a fresh valuation, and the tenant has got to pay for it. Ido not think if the Valuation Department take their valuation as reliable, it ought to be taken for all purposes. The point I want to make is that this is one of the expenses that should not be incurred. 87. Would an ordinary legal firm take that valuation ?—No, none of them would accept it. 88. You know, as a practical farmer, that under certain conditions a property might deteriorate in value : do you think it right that the Government should take their own valuation after a reasonable time had elapsed ? —No, but I say that even if it is only a day after they will not take it. 89. You have not covered that point as to the cost of getting a loan through the Advances to Settlers Office and from a private firm ? —ln my opinion, the cost would probably be less in the case )f the Advances to Settlers Office. 90. You could not say whether it would be three or four times less ? —I would not think so. 91. We have had evidence from solicitors that it is so ?—I would not think it was so. 92. I suppose you advocate an extension or a more liberal administration of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Yes, I think they ought to advance what other firms advance if they go into the money market as they are doing. My own private opinion is that the Government Advances to Settlers Office is a very dangerous undertaking. 93. It is an instruction given to the office that they are to advance up to 50 per cent, of the improvements and 50 per cent, of goodwill in the case of leaseholds: do you think that is safe ? —Certainly, it should be safe. 94. Wherein does the insecurity of the undertaking lie ? —They lend money at 4 per cent., and if any losses are made with the price they are paying for the money the colony is running a risk, and because they are running that risk they are tied down to 50 per cent., and they require also their own value by their own valuer at schechile rates, which reduces the value of the security to the very lowest point, thereby making themselves secure. That is not doing to the settler what the office was supposed to do. 95. You do not know whether the State is losing money on the Advances to Settlers Office ?—I do not know, and I would be very sorry to hear that it was. 96. You expressed yourself in favour of giving the option at the original value to lease-in-perpetuity holders: would you deem it a calamity if a number of those sections were aggregated ?—lt is an easy matter to restrict the area. 97. To 640 acres 'Yes. 98. At the present time, on some of that good land, 600 acres is now supporting three families : do you think it would be better that it should continue supporting three families or go back to one man ? — Ido not think that 640 acres is going to support three families. It may support three men, but it would give them no hope for the future of improving their position of the prospects or their families. 99. Mr. McCutchan.] Will you point out how valuation discounts the value of the improvements ? —We all know perfectly well that the valuation at present is made on the selling-basis. Land is valued at, say, for argument's sake, £1 per acre. The full value is not given to the man for his improvements because the unimproved value requires to be raised, and the value for the improvements being the difference between the selling-price and the upset price there is no margin for the unimproved value except when you write down the improvements, and I hold that in the majority of cases where land has been valued, if the tenant who was the original owner or occupier got paid for all he did, no man in New Zealand would buy his land. It has cost him really more, if he charged for the improvements he did, loss of time, interest, &c., than the actual selling-price of the day; and the position is this, that the valuer values the land and has to put a certain unimproved value on it, and, in order to get that margin for the unimproved value, he must write down the improvements or the allowance that ought to be made for them. 100. What reason have you for believing that he must extend the unimproved value of the land ? —We were told in the Assessment Court that their idea of the value of land was a certain amount. 101. You said distinctly that they have instructions to place a certain unimproved value on the land ?—I do not know whether it is a definite instruction, because none of us have the opportunity of finding that out, but it is a well-known fact that they must make provision for an increase in the original value of the land. 102. Is not this the true reason : that it is impossible for any valuer to go on to bush land after it has been worked for a certain time in certain directions and truly assess the amount of the expenditure, inasmuch as a large amount of those improvements are no longer visible ?—But where would you put the cost of invisible improvements ? Would you deduct that, tax his improvements, and add it to his unimproved value ? I take it that whatever a man has put on there in the shape of improvements he ought to get credit for it. 103. Then the whole trouble is the method of making the assessment: can you suggest a better means ?—I think their starting-point is wrong. They work from a selling-price and work downwards. If they worked on a different foundation probably they would get at the true value of the land. 104. Do you think it is possible that by having regulated values made, and a record kept that the tenants' improvements would be protected and not discounted as at present by putting them on the unimproved value ?—My experience is the other way about, that our improvements are discounted. 105. Can you suggest a remedy so as to protect the tenants' improvements ? —I could not on the spur of the moment. 106. You object to the principle of loading ? —On the lease in perpetuity, yes. 107. Do you object to the principle on the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure ?—I do not object to the principle of loading, but I think if the people were let alone in place of doing that, if they were allowed to borrow money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, and that loading went to pay the interest, it would pay off the principal and interest in forty-one years, and I think the loading would be very much better spent.
B. H. OiUTHEIE.]
1157
0.—4.
108. On the understood principle that the interest chargeable would cease after forty-one years instead of continuing for the whole 999 years ?—Yes. 109. You described the co-operative system : do you know of any instance where there has been a wasteful expenditure under that system ?—I cannot particularise, but I know the general impression is that the principle of co-operative works was a very good one. That is to say, to help the struggling settler in the back blocks, but in many instances that money was not spent f<?r that purpose ; other men were brought into the district to earn the money which should have been given to the settlers who were already there. Then again, all classes of men were brought in, and poor men were placed alongside of good men, with the result that the good man had to come down to the level of the poor man, and thereby there was not a fair return for the expenditure. 110. If the work was reserved for the settlers on the land would you be in favour of the system s —The co-operative contract system I think is very much better. 111. No, by inviting tenders and the overseer fixing the price ?—Provided you got good men that would be all right, but it is very hard to get one man who would give satisfaction all through. It stops favouritism; that causes great discontent amongst the people. They reckon one man has a good job and another a bad one. 112. You advocate the lease-in-perpetuity settler getting the right of the freehold ?—I do. 113. You say, on the 4-per cent, basis, that 999 years is a bad bargain for the colony ?—Yes. 114. Do you think it would be a good bargain to allow them to pay off such a small sum as the 1 per cent, difference and then give them the freehold ?—lt is a bad bargain for this colony, because they are giving the land away for 999 years, and none of us can estimate what that means. 115. They will give it away for_ever by the freehold: there is surely a contradiction there ?— Give them the freehold and let them invest the price of it and see what it will produce then in that time. 116. You made a calculation in connection with the loading that if the land was sold for cash it would be so much. Under the occupation with right of purchase it was 75 per cent, and under the lease in perpetuity it would be £1,998, but is not the one calculation running through the lot: are not these figures very deceptive ? —I do not know that they are, because 999 years is a long time, and it is very easy to make it up in that time. 117. Your figures are correct but the deduction you made from them is erroneous ?—I do not think so. 118. We agree that the loading-charge should cease after forty-one years at 4 per cent., and aftei twenty-six years if it is the occupation with right of purchase ?—That is right. 119. With regard to the difficulty of transfer, why is there a difficulty in respect to the transfer of this lease ? —There is not the same difficulty now as there used to be. At one time the difficulty arose in this way : that if a man took up his section and lived on it for four or five years, and put on to that section his time—that represented money—and he denied himself a great deal—which certainly ought to represent money —when he came to sell it, if he asked for anything o\ er and above what was a fair return on his improvements, the chances were his transfer would be blocked. And so much so was that the case that I understand that sellers had to descend to deceptive means b) returning a less price than they had really got for it to get it through the Land Board. 120. If the transferee is a desirable party in the opinion of the Land Board, do you think all these transfers should go through irrespective of money consideration ?—I do. 121. You stated that schedule rates for valuing improvements were set up : it is the first time I have heard of schedule rates in connection with the matter ?—I understand that there are such things, and, if you are acquainted with the Department, if you will just get one of their books that they issue to the valuers, I think you will see it. 122. Is that confidential ?—I do not know. 123. Have you seen it ?—I am not going to say that they are in it. 124. How could schedule rates be set down for general valuations ?—lt is an absurd thing, but it is said" that their instructions are that they are not to allow, say, more than 10s. per chain for fencing. 125. You spoke of the difficulties and hardships of some residence conditions, and instanced the case of two brothers living on adjoining sections who would be prevented and not allowed to reside on one brother's section. Would you be surprised to know that the Board can exercise wide discretionary power in the direction of allowing such a case ?—I know that, but I also know that that was done and these sections were forfeited. 126. But it would be some years ago ?—No, a very short time ago. 127. You know of no other reason why that has been done : may not there have been other circumstances in connection with the matter ? —I do not, but I know the settlers are absolutely good and true settlers. They improved their land and lived on it, and did everything barring that one thing, and it was certainly a matter of hardship. There was no dummyism in the case, as the one man was making as good use of his land as the other. 128. You advocate that in some places people taking up lands should make increased improvements, and in order to do that a manager would be put on, and in that way the population of the district would not suffer in respect to getting schools, churches, and doctors ?—You rather draw out my evidence a little further than I intended. 129. It was pointed out by the Chairman that great evil might arise by allowing extra improvements and counting them as against residence, inasmuch as the genuine settler would not be able to get schools, churches, and doctors. You overcome that, inasmuch as no man would put on extra improvements without putting a manager on the property, and in that way the population would be secured ? No sir. In the restricted areas we have you cannot afford to pay a manager; you have to do it yourself.
a—4.
1158
JD. H. GUTHRIE.
130. That was the objection made by the Chairman, and you used the word "manager" ? —I do not think I used the word " manager." 131. I think you said that the population would be secured, inasmuch as no man would make extra improvements without having a man to supervise them ? —I said to work the farm. 132. That was not the point, but to get the population for the school, and the population was distributed over the estate ? —I never mentioned the word " school." 133. But the Chairman did ?—Yes, and I still say so, that the moment the land is improved the man must continue to work it and not allow it to go to rack and ruin. If the land is> improved the man will be handicapped. 134. The point is in connection with the population of the district : if there are, say, any of our lawyers and doctors in a town making a certain amount of money, and they were anxious to acquire property under your system from exemption from residence by adding improvements, a population for a district and a few bona fide settlers might be secured ? —I grant that they would be, but at the same time it might be a bachelor doctor or other professional man, and who would send a working-man out there who might have a large family. 135. You know it was stated recently that good land here is very scarce, and that a doctor, who is drawing emoluments from the pursuit of his profession, by taking up land in the back districts, might exclude a genuine man who is prepared to go on the land ?—I do not think so. I have known of no case of hardship on that account. 136. Of course there is no case because the law does not permit it, but you are advocating a change of the law in the direction of increasing the improvements to exempt you from residence ? —I do not see the danger. 137. Is it not the case that when a desirable section is on the market there are forty or fifty applications in for that section? — Yes. 138. If you widen the doors and let other people come in, will there not be far greater objection to this, taking it for granted that these forty are all eligible men ?—How do you know that they are eligible men ? 139. Do you think the Commissioner of Crown Lands should have the examination of apphcants on the Land Board who are to be admitted to the ballot ?—I do not. I think it would not be a very wise thing to do. 140. Where lands are sold for cash would you make the cash purchasers subject to the same regulations as the people who take up leased lands ? —I would as to improvements, but not as to residence. 141. Why not? —Because it is not freehold. The only thing is to give them the freehold. You could withhold their title for a few years until the necessary improvements had been effected. I would be quite in favour of doing that. 142. You say you cannot restrict the freehold sales by residential conditions. Is there such a thing as a freehold ? It is subject to taxation and improvement conditions. Is not your contention absurd ? —I do not think so. 143. Then you would not subject the freehold to residence and improvement conditions ? —I would certainly as to improvements. 144. Of course you can by legislation ? —Then I think you would be destroying the idea of the freehold. John Willoughby Marshall examined. 145. The Chairman.] You are a settler ? —Yes ; I hold about 2,000 acres of freehold. I have lived forty-four years in Rangitikei, and am also the Chairman of the Rangitikei County Council. 146. What matter do you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I want to give evidence most particularly in connection with the expenditure of " thirds " and " fourths." There is no particular land revenue for the local bodies with the exception of rates, in some cases on small grazing-runs, and rates from the leasehold tenures from the Crown tenants, in fact. With regard to the " thirds " and " fourths," it is naturally supposed that the County Council as the local body is entirely responsible for their expenditure, which are paid by the Crown tenants to the Land Board. The Act mentions the local body as the power which is to expend the money, but the point I wish to make is that the local body has practically no voice in the expenditure. It acts as the agency by which the money is expended, but as an active administrative body it has little or no control. The system has varied from time to time, but as it now exists the Land Board, which was originally supposed to exercise a supervision over the expenditure of " thirds " and " fourths," now exercises a supreme control, and, in fact, lays down the conditions under which they are to be expended. The Board insists that before the local body makes any proposal for the expenditure of " thirds " and " fourths " it must first obtain the written consent of the payers of the " thirds " and " fourths "to its proposals. When the County Council has done that it passes it on to the Land Board for approval. It goes through the list of proposed works and either approves or condemns them. If they condemn them then they are referred back to the County Council, and the Council sends them back to the payers of the "thirds" and "fourths." or the ratepayers, to get them, or him, to alter their, or his, consent. You can see that such a system is fraught with a considerable amount of friction and delay. The County Council meets once a month, and the Land Board also, and if the proposals are not absolutely approved by the one or the other it means a very great delay, and perhaps it is impossible to get anything done. Then again, the " thirds " and " fourths " are strictly located on to the roads, and you see a statement put in the newspapers that there is, say, £2,000 to the credit of the County Council which is unexpended, and the public naturally want to know why this large sum of money is lying in the hands of the Receiver of Land Revenue and unexpended by the local body. It is omitted to be stated that perhaps that,£2,ooo has to be spread over one hundred different road-lines or sections, and a separate proposal has to be made out for every
J. W. MARSHALL.]
1159
C.^4.
section. Here are thirty sheets [exhibited to Commission] showing the individual amounts accruing from each section, and in the case of every one of these sections we have to write how it is intended to expend that money. Attached you will find a list showing the number of roads over which the " thirds " accrue, and you will see how greatly the amounts vary. This list shows the aggregate amount accruing on different road-lines ; there is an amount of 3s. lid. and we have to submit a proposal for that. The largest amount is a little over £270. The total amount now accruing is about £2,843, and you have to split it up over one hundred roads. Some time ago, when there was a considerable amount of these " thirds " in hand, it was suggested the Government Engineer should be the proper person to expend it. The County Council was very willing to fall in with that idea as there was so much trouble under the present system. The Government Engineer made proposals which were passed on to the payers of the " thirds " and " fourths." Then these payers post them to the County Council, and the latter pass them on to the Land Board, and if there was any trouble they went through the same routine again. The Government Engineer tried it for one year and gave it up. He sent back all the money he had in hand and begged to be excused having any more to do with it. 147. Are there not the rates to be expended as well ? —Yes ; but that is quite a distinct matter. 148. But the County Council administers both ? —Yes. 149. There is one item in these sheets of 3s. lid., but probably the County Council would be expending a lot of money besides that and you would put the two together ?—We should have to get the consent of the Land Board to put the 3s. lid. in. 150. Because it is due to a certain road, but the rates obtained in that particular part of the district might amount to several pounds ?—Sometimes they do ; but most of the back-country lands are valued low, and if you take off the cost gf administration and the hospital and charitable aid it leaves but a small balance arising from this back part. To maintain our roads is very expensive. Last winter it cost us over £4,000 —over and above the ordinary expense—for clearing the roads of slips in the country north of Hunterville and Taihape. 151. But you are not bound to expend this 3s. lid. on the particular road opposite the section that the 3s. lid. refers to ?—Yes; unless that road is completed and finished. The Land Board insists on the money being spent near to the section. Of course, it is according to the Act; lam not finding fault with the Land Board. 152. Could the 3s. lid. not be expended on a road leading up to this section ? —lf the Land Board considers it is within a reasonable distance of the section. I have known cases where we obtained the consent of the Board to the " thirds " and " fourths " being expended on a particular piece of road. The settler wanted this particular piece done and we agreed to do it on receiving his consent without waiting for the permission of the Land Board ; but the Board disallowed it on the ground that the expenditure was too far away from the section and did not benefit it. 153. Have you any proposal to make to remedy the difficulty ?—Yes. The great object of the local body has been to encourage the settlers to obtain money under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act, and to hypothecate their " thirds " and " fourths " for the payment of the loan and then to get the roads completed right through. I think it would have been better if the Government had started on such a principle from the first, and instead of loading land with 55., 65., or 10s. an acre—an insufficient capital sum to make the roads —they had loaded it with a special rate for the forty-one years of the loan to raise a sufficient sum to make the roads at once throughout the block, everybody would have been the gainer. At present it works out in this way : these " thirds " and " fourths " are paid and the land is loaded so much when the settler first goes into the wilderness, but there is not sufficient money accruing to justify the local body making any proposal to expend it. After a few years the settlers begin to find out the want of roads. They see so much " thirds " and " fourths "in hand come to the County Council. We always recommend them to borrow money under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act, and hypothecate the " thirds " and " fourths "to meet the rate. Very little of the road under present circumstances, perhaps, has been made, generally a 6 ft. track, and our Engineer has to go over the whole work again and prepare his plans and specifications for making it into" a cart-road, whereas if that had been done by the Engineer in the first instance we should have had the road made with money borrowed under the Government Loans to Local Bodies and everybody would have been the gainer. 154. Just taking the matter at the present stage, you have all this money accumulated : would it not be well now to capitalise it and get a large sum of money by which you could carry out a comprehensive scheme ?—We should be delighted to do it, but then we are bound by the amount of money we can borrow within one year, £6,000. That is the amount we can raise in one year, and for the last four years we have never been less than two years ahead in the amount of loans proposed in our books. We get £6,000 in one year, and £6,000 approved for the next year, £12,000 in all. For the last four years we have never had less than £12,000 approved, and thousands waiting, but it is beyond our power to borrow it. 155. Then the amendment wanted is to go in for larger borrowing powers ? —Certainly. Our estimate of the moneys required to complete roads in this particular part of the country is just on £50,000. That does not include all metalling, but only formation and metalling on roads that are most likely to require it, or where metal was to be had cheaply. lam satisfied it would be very much better to work on under such a system as I have suggested. Instead of loading lands with an actual cash payment if they were loaded with a special rate for forty-one years, to make the roads thoroughly at the time the land was occupied, it would be a good thing for the settler and the country. 156. Mr. Anstey.\ There are no road districts in your county ?—No, it is all in the county. 157. What subsidy do you have by way of Government grants ? —I could not tell you. They have made grants to be expended under the control of the County Council, but it has not been a very large sum. The Government have expended a good deal on roads under their own officers, but the direct grants to the Council have not been a large sum. Last year we had a special grant of £500 in consideration of extraordinary damage to the road which was expended by the Council. There are votes each year on the estimates which are expended by the County Council also. Votes for particular
a—4.
1160
[j. W. MAESHALL.
roads are often handed over to the local body for expenditure. This year, taking it altogether, I think, we have had about £2,000 of Government money including the £500 grant given in consideration of the damage to the roads. That £2,000 would be expended under the control of the county officers, approved and certified to by District Engineer. 158. Do you think the system of grants is a good one ? —lt is very necessary to assist the local bodies to develop these roads. The rates could never look at it. 159. What rate do you strike in the county ? —About fd. This year it would be Id. to pay for the losses of last year. 160. Mr. McCutchan.\ Is there a separate rate ?—Yes ; very often in addition to the ordinary rates. I was speaking of the general rate. 161. Mr. Anstey.] Does that include the special rates under the local bodies' loans ?—No. In many cases the special rate struck is 2d. or more. 162. There are two bodies spending money in your district, the Government and yourself : is that the most economical way of spending money ?—I should think it would be better for one body to have the whole expenditure of grants. The Government have had a large staff up here, but I cannot express any opinion as to whether the money has been expended economically. 163. Supposing you had an assured finance in the shape of financial subsidies on rates, would you be able to finance your roads without grants ?—We must get money from somewhere. 164. An increased subsidy then is necessary ?—I think probably a graduated subsidy in some way for districts that needed it and who would be prepared to tax themselves accordingly in order to make their roads. They should receive a higher subsidy than any other. 165. Supposing you were offered a much larger subsidy than you now get on the understanding that you would rate yourselves higher would that be satisfactory ? —Yes. 166. What subsidy do you get now ?—ss. in the pound on a three-farthings rate. 167. Supposing you were offered a loan on the same subsidy now payable, 10s. in the pound on Id. rate —the proportion of subsidy would be higher in proportion to your rate —you would have a larger rate and a larger subsidy : would that give you a satisfactory finance ?—lf it was so arranged that it could be localised it would be satisfactory, because such a high rate and high subsidy would not be needed in our part of the district where the roads only require maintenance. But such a proposal would be acceptable in a country where roads were needed. 168. Would you make it apply to each separate-riding ?—Yes, it could be done in that way if the Act admitted it. 169. But we are inquiring as to whether an alteration is necessary ?—I think that would be an improvement. 170. You say the total amount any local body can raise is limited to £6,000. Do you not think that that amount ought to bear the same proportion to the amount of revenue of the local body ?— Certainly to the revenue derived from any particular rate. This county is a large one, and our revenue from Id. would be over £10,000. We can only raise the same amount by way of loan as some smaller counties who do not raise one-tenth part of the revenue. And they do not require the money. They do not exercise their power of borrowing, but they cannot pass it on to anybody else. 171. Do you think it would be a wise thing to make a change in the law ?—I should do away with the loading entirely, but burden the land with a spec'al rate for forty-one years under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act to raise a sufficient sum of money to make the roads where the colony agreed to 172. Would it not be fair to load the land with, say, £1 an acre, and reduce the capital value to 10s. an acre ? —I should put the land at a fair market value, and calculate the money for the roads on a rate of so much In the pound for forty-one years. It is exactly what the settler does now, only I would do it at the first outset instead of last. 173. Is there sufficient in the loading to provide access to the roads ?—I do not think so. • 174. Would it not be very much wiser and fairer to put sufficient on to load the land before it was offered, and thereby reduce its capital value ?—I think not. To put the cost in cash on the land would be too much. 175. No, it would be the other way about. We are dealing with leasehold land ?—I was thinking of the freehold land. 176. Supposing you load the land like that, how do you arrive at its actual value at present—there is no knowledge of what the value of the land is and what the cost of the loading is ? —You w'll find out from the expenditure on roads what the cost of the road would be. roughly speaking, it is about as much as the land sells for and about as much as it is worth. 177. Mr. Paul.] What system of labour do you employ in the country ? —Contract, or daylabour. 178. Much day-labour ?—Yes, removing the slips, &c. We had seventy or eighty men employed last year on the roads about here on day-labour. 179. Did you find it satisfactory and economical ?—Yes; as long as you can get a good overseer in charge of a gang. 180. Mr. McCutchan.] It is quite satisfactory you say. Is it satisfactory in view of the fact that an overseer would pick his men ?—Yes. 181. But if he had not power to select the labour would it be satisfactory ? —I should not expect it to be. 182. You would not lay it down as a general principle that day-labour would be satisfactory ?— No ; only for that particular class of work; generally our work is done by contract. 183. But with picked labour and under supervision it was satisfactory I—Yes. 184. With regard to the " thirds " and " fourths," the main Act of 1892 is the governing statute in connection with that matter ?—I could not say. 185. Is it not the case that under that statute the Land Board has to exercise very careful supervision over the expenditure, inasmuch as it is laid down that this money must be spent in giving access
•I. W. MARSHALL.I
1161
C.—4
to the sections from which the money accrues. Is it not a wise and prudent course on the part of the Land Board to get petitions from the settlers as to how these " thirds " and " fourths " are to be expended ?—Under the Act it is no doubt. It is the Act I was criticizing, not the Land Board itself. The total amount of " thirds " and " fourths " that are paid to the Rangitikei County Council amount to £1,300, of which £300 is hypothecated. In connection with the expenditure of that £1,000 there is more clerical work and correspondence than with the £14,000 and £15,000 we expend direct. We raise £10,000 by rates, and a portion of it is paid by exactly the same people who pay the " thirds " and " fourths." 186. Do you find any friction in your county in connection with expenditure of rates. In other words do you keep road accounts ? —No. 187. Is there not often great friction and dissatisfaction amongst ratepayers when they find that the rates which have accrued on their roads are taken away and expended elsewhere by the County Council ? —Those assertions are made, but I think the local body has got on very fairly with the ratepayers, in fact there is a desire from several parts to be added to the Rangitikei County. 188. Do you not think it is a wise precaution on the part of the Land Board to make quite sure before they accept the schedule of expenditure from the County Council that these " thirds " and " fourths " are actually expended on the roads on which they accrue ? —lt is their duty to do that. 189. You recognise the principle that the Government should expend a certain proportion of borrowed money on roads for the benefit of the settlers, seeing that the settlers are entitled to a certain proportion of it ?—Quite so, I agree with you. 190. Passing over the whole question of " thirds," do you think that sections sold for cash ought to pay " thirds "to the local body ?—I think they certainly ought to pay something. 191. Under the occupation with right of purchase there is the right of purchase in ten years. Do you think that what the Government gets in the way of capital value in the shape of " thirds " should be handed over to the local body I—lt is necessary to do so, because these sections have been paying the " thirds," but these are quite insufficient to make the roads. In fact, it would require all the money that came from the sections to make the roading that is necessary and wanted by the settlers. 192. You are aware that " thirds" cease after fifteen years. Would you advocate that " thirds " should be paid for the whole term of the lease—999 years ?—-It would require a good deal more than they pay for fifteen years to meet the necessities of the country with regard to roading; probably— and almost certainly —before the term of lease elapsed the road would be completed. There is another matter I would like to refer to which has relation to the rates of local bodies on small grazing-runs. This has been a difficulty with us in the matter of raising loans. Under the Land Act the rateable value of small grazing-runs is such a sum as will give 6 per cent, on the capital value. A difficulty arises where these lands are mixed up with lands held under freehold tenure. If the local body wishes to raise a loan under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act it is confronted with this difficulty, that the power of rating small grazing-runs is not perhaps one-tenth that of the power given to rate the adjoining property of equal value. I would like to submit to the Commission two tables which will show clearly the unfairness T have referred to : —-
Small Grazing-runs.
Compare adjoining Sections.
146—C. 4.
I I - ~ I r, No. of i Area in Capital 0 . „. Rateable „ , . „, Occupier. Run. Acres. Value. Kate at p. Va , u0 Rate at fd. , £ £ s. d. £ £ s. d. W.Duncan ... ... 33 2,984 13,589 42 9 4 1,243 3 17 8 G.E.Anson ... ... 32 2,900 12,728 39 15 6 1,208 3 15 6 W. Death ... ... 7 381 1,398 4 7 5 159 0 10 0 G. E. Swainson ... ... 1.1 1,190 3,385 10 11 7 496 1 11 0 R. Ireland ... ... 8 and 9 631 2,704 8 9 0 263 0 16 5 T. U. L. Powell ... ... 19,20 300 1,633 5 2 1 125 i 0 7 10 M.Hale ... ... ... 2 686 2,387 7 9 2 286 ; 0 17 11 j 9,072 37,824 118 4 1 3,780 11 16 4
Occupier. Section. Area in Acres. Rateable Value. Rate at |d. £ £ s. a. Duncan Bros. ... ... 5, Otairi 2,515 9,218 28 16 2 P. McLean... ... ... 2,4,3,6 2,364 4,954 15 9 8 A. W. F. Smith ... ... 1 and 1 1,317 4,137 12 18 6 J. Lambert ... ... 2, Otairi 997 4,245 13 5 4 P. R. Earle... ... ... 4, Otairi 867 3,100 9 13 9 S. Skerman ... ... Rawhitiroa 945 2,713 8 9 7 T. U.L.Powell ... ... ' 17 150 1,360 4 5 0 J. Mason ... ... ... 18 150 989 3 1 9 9,305 30,716 95 19 9
1162
|j. W. MABSHALL.
C.—4.
In my opinion, the occupiers of small grazing-runs should be able to be rated on the capital value, and i think the law should be amended to remove this difficulty. 193. Mr. McCutchan.] Is it not the case that where small grazing-runs are laid off by the Government it is usually in rough, rugged, and remote country 'Yes, I believe so. 194. And in order to get these grazing-runs taken up the rental is usually fixed at about one-fourth of the rentals of land in more favourable localities and of better quality ? —Probably that is so. 195. You stated that in the particular case you quoted the land was of equal carrying-capacity. Generally speaking it is not so, and is much more difficult to work and the road access is much worse : consequently it has been considered necessary by the Government to reduce the rating-powers of the local body on this land, so as to offer greater inducements to settlers to take up this land ? —Yes, that is probably so. There is another point in reference to which I wish to say a few words. There ought to be some provision by which the Land Board may assist the local body in the collection of rates from Crown tenants. For instance, cases occur where a Crown tenant repudiates his rent or throws up the section and the local body has not got the same remedy against the land as it has against the land of a freeholder. For instance, you cannot register the amount as a debt against the land, owing to it being Crown land. There have been several instances where the land has been abandoned by the original occupier after two years' rates had accrued on the land. The local body with which lam connected was under the impression that there was a clause in the Land Act providing that the Land Board should assist the local body to recover the rates due on the land, but the Land Board said it was not part of their duty, and declined to do so. In the case of a leaseholder of private freehold land, if the leaseholder makes default the local body has its remedy against the owner or the mortgagee or the land itself, but the local body has no remedy against Crown land. I think that is a matter that should occupy the attention of the Commission in order to see if some way cannot be devised by which the Land Board in cases of defaulting tenants can assist in recovering the rates due on the iand by adding it to the price of the land at which it is taken up by the incoming tenant. 196. To be paid by the incoming tenant ? —Yes. In one case the Commissioner of Crown Lands asked us for the names of the tenants who were two or three years in arrears, and we sent him the names, but the Land Board determined that it was not within their province to collect rates for local bodies, and thus the local body had to put up with the loss of the rates. The local body ought to have some remedy against the land as in the case of land owned by private individuals. 197. Mr. McCutchan.] It would be in very few cases that this contingency would arise ? —Yes. 198. Is not the simplest way out of the difficulty to suffer the loss ? —You have to account to the Auditor for the loss. Thomas Fitzpatbiok examined. 199.f The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and hold 200 acres on the small-farm homestead system. I have held my land for thirteen years and my rent is £7 per year. The tenure is lease in perpetuity. It is situated some distance beyond Taihape. 200. Are you satisfied with your tenure ? —No, that is the trouble. My son holds a section alongside of me and my place is too small for the family, and yet neither of us can hold two sections and make one homestead for one of us. The Act only allows us to hold 320 acres. The present area held by me and that held by my son is too small to live on for each of us. My son is an independent settler, and he holds his land under the same system as myself. Our land is situated far back, and 200 acres is too small. Under the Act we could not even go partners in the 400 acres. I brought the matter before the Land Board, and the only way we could do it was to surrender one section and the land would then become Crown land, and would have to be balloted for, and we might lose it. 201. If you could get more land are you satisfied with the tenure ? —No. I would like the Act amended so that one of us could hold the two sections. Both of my neighbours can hold 600 acres, but we can only get 320 acres. 202. Mr. McCutchan.] Is it classified as first-class land ? —No, second-class land. 203. Are you precluded from taking up more land under the ordinary tenures of the Act ?— No. 204. Are you debarred from taking up land under any other tenure than the homestead system \ —No ; but as I have said 200 acres is too small for us. Michael John Reardon examined. 205. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a journalist, and I have a thorough knowledge of the Rangitikei electorate. I have been in this district for three years. Ido not hold any land at all. 206. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I want to enter an emphatic protest against the present system of special grants for roads and bridges in such a district as this. I consider it is a blot on the land system. I would also like to take exception to the present constitution of Land Boards. I think that where settlers sign an agreement to carry out certain conditions under the Act, it is quite within the capabilities of the heads of Departments to see that those terms and leases are properly carried out. At the present time a man is appointed, we will say from this district. If he has friends who have a grievance those friends can very easily get their grievances remedied, but, if a man has a grievance who has not any friends on the Land Board, at times it is very difficult for him to get a remedy. I think under these circumstances the head of a Department would be very much harder to approach, and there would be fewer favours granted than are given under the present system. Another point is in regard to the taking-up of land. I think the Government make a mistake in letting the settlers have land too far in advance of the railway. If a man had only to wait a year or two for the'railway he wouldjhave'better heart in doing his work, but at present he is sometimes toiling and waiting patiently for ten years or more for the railway, and when the railway comes along
a—4.
1163
M. J. KEAKDON.
his heart is withered with disappointment and he sells'out at a loss. In very many instances the settler is compelled to fell the timber on the land with the reuslt that there is a very heavy loss to' the countryI am one of those who hold that it is better to wait eight or ten years and allow the sawmilling industry a little scope than to have the bush felled at once. I would preserve the timber. 207. Mr. Anstey.] You say that the land has been settled in advance of the railway. Does that mean that the railway is going too slow for the settlement of the land ' 1 erhaps some of both. I think the better plan would be to cut up some of the large estates in the more settled districts. 208. Are there many large estates in this neighbourhood ?—There are plenty down the line and in the Wairarapa. 209. Mr. Paul.] Do you not think if the Land Boards were elected they would be of the same political " colour " as the dominant political party at the time ?—Certainly, but I did not advocate elective Land Boards. 210. Do you advocate the abolition of Land Boards ?—Yes, the nominees. 211. And vest the whole power in the hands of the Commissioner of Crown Lands ?—Yes, m the Commissioner and his assistants. 212. Do you not recognise that the members of the Land Board generally supply the Commissioner with practical experience, and advise him as to the conditions existing in the various districts ? If I lease a section from a private individual he holds me to the letter of the law, and if 1 lease a section from the State I do not see why I should have any special privileges. . 213. Do you not think the head of a Department might recognise his friends ?—He is less likely to do so than others. 214. Have you any views as to the best tenure under which land should be held ! —1 should say that a ninety-nine years' lease would be more understandable than the present lease. Those who have a 999 years' lease seem to be labouring under the delusion that they are going to be robbed of it. I am not aware that any of the most advanced thinkers have yet put forward the proposition to rob these tenants of their holdings, but, seeing that these tenants have that idea, perhaps it will be better for the future only to grant a ninety-nine-years lease —quite long enough for a man to hold a section and not too long from the point of view of the State. . t . 215. You think the general idea of a 999 years' lease is too long a time for |a man . to understand 1 Many level-headed settlers in this district—holders of 999-years leases—are perfectly satisfied with their tenure, and, although the Farmers' Union has been creating the impression amongst some of them that they are going to be robbed of it, they see that so long as it is left alone it is the best tenure in existence, because it costs them very little and there is very little outlay of capital required. 216. An organization the other day carried a resolution in favour of revaluing present leases either at death of the lessee or on a transfer of the lease being made. How do you view that ?—I am not in favour of altering any existing contract, but at the same time it is clear to me—whether it is lease in perpetuity or a freehold, if it is essential that taxation should be levied—there is no difference between one and the other. If the tax must be levied, it must be levied on the land. f '2217 You say there should not be any interference with present leases ? —No. If it is a bad bargain for the State the State must suffer. Taking this electorate as a criterion I should say that the majority of the people are in favour of the freehold, but if we cannot bring the majority of the people—that is to sav the 75 per cent, who do not own land —to realise the seriousness of the position, the first thing we should do is to give the balance of our unsold land to the Education Boards and to the Old-age Pensions Department Otherwise before very many years the colony will be called upon to meet a big taxation to provide for the requirements of our Education Department and our Old-age Pensions Department, and we will have to call upon the freeholders for a progressive land-tax, and then we will have the same cry as at present for the freehold, whereas, if the Government will give the balance of their land as a perpetual endowment to such institutions as I have named, we will be saved, at all events, from a progressive land-tax for very many years. Michael Tansey examined. 218 The. Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and hold 800 acres under occupation with right of purchase. I have held my land nearly ten years, and my rent is £42 a year. My land is close to Mangaweka. lam satisfied with my tenure. .... n . . ~ , , . 219 Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ; —1 am chairman of a committee appointed to represent the Farmers' Union in this district, and I suppose I may express mv own views at the same time. Mr. Guthrie in stating the views of the branch of the union at Rangiwahia has put the matter fairly well before the Commission, and as the Commission is rather pressed for time I will not traverse some of the points he has dealt with. 220. Generally speaking, you indorse the views he has expressed ? —Y T es, pretty well, in regard to Land Boards, there is a feeling in the district that Land Boards should be elected. I have never heard any workable suggestion made as to the method of election, but I think the mam view held is that they should be elected under the parliamentary franchise. I have been a Crown tenant for twentytwo years both in Hawke's Bay and in this district, and during all that time I have been in contact occasionally with the Land Boards, and I can safely say, as far as I am personally concerned, that I have always found the Land Boards willing to administer the Act m a fair and sensible spirit; never quibbling and as far as I know, never administering the land laws in a harsh way. I have always found them willing to meet the settlers fairly. I cannot agree with the last witness about the administration of the Land°Department. I think if the law was left to the officials to administer it would be ten times worse than it is at present. It seems to me that to leave the administration to officials would be absolutely a mistake. Officials are not in touch with the people. Ido not say that they would willingly inflict any injury on the people, but they do not understand what is required. With regard to the tenure
C.-4.
1164
flf. TANSET.
of the land, the most popular form is the lease with right of purchase, because in most cases settlers have not the cash to pay down for the land. No doubt if they had the money cash purchase would be the most desirable. The next is the deferred payment. Under that system, a man could in course of time pay off the whole value of the land. Under that system at present prices, most settlers would be able to meet their half-yearly payments, and, instead of having to borrow at the end of the term, their places would be cleared. That is the main reason why the settlers advocate the deferred-payment system. The next is the cash system, and then there is the lease in perpetuity. With respect to residence conditions, there are cases where the condition is very hard on individuals. As to the system of loading for improvements, I believe it is a fairly good one if the money was spent to the best advantage. But there is no question the money has not been spent to the best advantage. I know cases where men have earned lis. a day, and they were not worth the half of it; and I know of other cases where good men would take up a contract at an overseer's valuation, and if they did well the next contract would be cut down in price. The co-operative principle would be right if it were carried out properly. I think a good deal of the difficulty in connection with that system arises from the manner in which itis administered. As to the Advances to Settlers Department, I have had experience of that, and personally I could not complain, but I have known instances where advances might have been made and where they had been refused. I consider that a settler should be allowed to get an advance up to at least two-thirds or three-fourths of the value of his improvements. The Crown owns the land, and I think it is absolutely safe for the Government to advance up to two-thirds or three-fourths of the value of the improvements put on the land. If that were done, I think it would do away with a great deal of the objection that is raised against the lease in perpetuity. It would also assist settlement, and would do away with men having to go to private money-lenders to get money at an exorbitant rate of interest. No money could be spent in a better way than that expended in making improvements on Crown lands. With regard to the aggregation of large estates, I may state definitely, that it is the policy of the Farmers' Union to use all its influence against the aggregation of large estates. We have got it in our platform, and we have carried resolutions at different branches of the union in favour of limiting the area that could be transferred to one individual; not doing anything to interfere with present holdings, but in the case of future transfers that the area should be limited. I think if a law was passed to that effect it would not make any difference to the country what tenure the land was held under. 221. Mr. Anstey.\ Are there many members in your branch of the Farmers' Union ? —About thirty. 222. Are there many Crown tenants amongst the members ?—I think they are mostly Crown tenants. 223. I presume there are a number of lease-in-perpetuity tenants in your district ?—Yes. 224. Are they doing well ?—Yes. 225. Are these lease-in-perpetuity holders farming successfully ?—Yes. I do not consider that the tenure under which the land is held makes the slightest difference in regard to the farmer. I have seen some of the best tilled holdings in New Zealand under lease in perpetuity ; I refer to holdings at Cheviot. I drove through that district for thirteen miles, and I have never seen a district with a greater air of prosperity, nor have I seen land cultivated to better advantage than I saw there. So far as the tenure is concerned, there is no particular objection to it, but the great objection to the lease in perpetuity is that, first of all, the people are frightened with respect to the security of their tenure. The Trades Council or some other body that knows nothing about farming has tried to get a law passed which will shake the security of this form of tenure, and that frightens many leaseholders. The next objection is that we cannot get money advanced on it, and another thing is that, in giving transfer under lease in perpetuity the Land Board seems to exercise more authority than they do in regard to transfers in the case of other tenures. Personally, I would not refuse a section under lease in perpetuity after working on one, although I do not prefer that tenure. 226. What is your opinion with respect to residence conditions being enforced ?—lf you do not enforce residence in the back country the land will fall into the hands of two or three persons, and it is not fair to allow some of the men who take up land there to reside on them, and not enforce the residence in the case of others. 227. Would you make it a condition that residence should be compulsory where reasonable access is given, and that it should not be enforced unless reasonable access is given ? —I think I would leave that to the discretion of the Land Board. 228. Mr. Johnston.] You say you have been at Cheviot ? —Yes. 229. Do you consider that Cheviot would be in a better position if it had been settled under the freehold than it is under leasehold ? —I was not very long there, but from the appearance of the place, and after conversation with the settlers, I do not think that it could be more prosperous than it is at present. 230. Are the improvements substantial and good ? —They are fairly astounding. I saw some of the nicest homes there I have seen. It is beautiful-lying country. The houses were good and the gardens and homesteads very pretty. I might mention that a friend of my own went on that land penniless ten years ago, and now he is making £1,000 a year off a small holding. 231. In spite of that, you believe in freehold ? —Yes. 232. Do you not think a man believes in what pays his pocket best ?—I say that as far as working land goes it does not matter what tenure it is held under. 233. Candidly, a man believes'in what he thinks will fit his pocket best. If a man could make as much out of the leasehold as the freehold, would he not as soon have the leasehold ?—I do not consider that I could make any more off my land if it were freehold than if it were leasehold. 234. Is it not a fact that the success of Cheviot is attributed to the inability of the settlers to obtain money on their land ? —I asked the friend of mine at Cheviot how it was that the place was so very
M. TANSEY.I
1165
C.-4
successful, and he said, " When we came here at first nobody would lend us any money—the banks would not lend us any money. They all intended to make the scheme of the Government a dead failure. One settler telegraphed to an auctioneering firm asking to buy a cow on credit, and the reply was that the settlers must depend absolutely on themselves. We started in a small way and we paid as we went along, and when things took a turn and we did not want their money, then they came round us offering us any advances we required." In that case I believe it was a good thing for those settlers that they were unable to borrow money too freely at the start. 235. We have had it in evidence in the South Island that settlers holding lease-in-perpetuity land can get any amount of money at 5 per cent. I—l believe, as far as Cheviot is concerned, the settlers can get any amount of money almost from any of the monetary institutions. 236. Can they get money up here ?—I could not say, but I know there have been difficulties in that respect. 237. Do you think the country would have been settled to anything like the extent it is now if it had not been for the leasehold ? —I do not think it would. 238. Do you think it would be right for the Government to allow these settlers under the Laud for Settlements Act the right of acquiring the freehold ?—I take a different view from a good many. I think they should have the right. If the Government passed a law to prevent the accumulation of large estates, Ido not think it matters under what terms the settlers hold their land. As it is now there will be continued agitation for the freehold at every election. 239. You consider the lease in perpetuity would be perfectly secure if there was no chance of revaluation ?—Yes, I believe it would. 240. And the settlers would be_ contented with the lease in perpetuity if their title would not be interfered with ?—Yes; and, personally, I do not think that our constitution would allow revaluation without our consent. 241. Do you think for one moment that the Government would bring in a law which would break a contract it had entered into ?—I would take up a section to-morrow without the least fear of that coming about because 1 do not believe even it they could do it that public opinion would allow the Government to do so, and, moreover, I do not think they could constitutionally do so. 242. Mr. Paul.] You think that the power of the number of Crown tenants is a menace to the general welfare of the State ?—Yes; if they have anything to gain by any Act passed, whether fair or unfair, the chances are that they would put a party into power which would grant them this advantage. There may be thirty thousand tenants under the lease in perpetuity in a few years' time, and they might carry eighty thousand votes, which might be sufficient to put a party into power pledged to give them a monetary advantage which would not be in the interests of the country. 243. Might not the same thing happen if these eighty thousand tenants turned into freeholders and a hundred thousand freeholders agitated and insisted on getting something which was against the benefit of the rest of the colony ?—lt might happen ; but it seems to me that the real disabilities of the lease in perpetuity have been magnified, and you could not get them to rally round the same as they might when holding the lease in perpetuity. There are real disabilities, and they have been made the most of in some quarters. 244. Do you think the leasehold system has .been of benefit to the country ? —Yes ; it has given men a chance of making homes that they could not have made otherwise. 245. And having put them on their feet, and, in the case of Cheviot, as you say, enabled them to make thousands of pounds a year, they should get the freehold of that land without revaluation ?— 1 would not pass at) opinion as to valuation, but I think means should be devised for giving them the freehold. »• 246. You believe in the lease in perpetuity as the best system of leasehold ?—Yes ; unless you have the lease with the right of purchase. 247. How do you view a lease for fifty years ?—I would rather have the lease in perpetuity. 248. You think it is better for settlement ?—Undoubtedly. Fifty years is not long for a tenure. I believe in seeing all the settlers of the country freeholders. Ido not think it is advisable in the interests of the State to have too many tenures. 249. A large portion of Cheviot is settled on twenty-one-year leases ? —That is the small grazingruns. 250. Were they prosperous ?—Yes ; I was rather surprised at that. The homes on those were very comfortable-looking. In fact, those homes were alongside an estate held privately, and as soon as you crossed the boundary you could see the difference at once. You could almost see the mortgagees' stamp. 251. It seems rather an astonishing thing that you went and found all these fine buildings and the best-farmed land in the colony and all the other advantages of the leasehold, and still favour the freehold which bears the mortgagees' stamp ?—I do not know that lam here to debate the question. I could give you my views on that point too. Ido not think this mixed tenure is in the interests of the community, and if Cheviot was peopled on the same areas as now under freehold, and restricted as to aggregation they would enjoy the same prosperity. 252. Would it be freehold if all these restrictions wore placed on it ? —Yes. I understand that most of these settlers are willing to have the freehold title indorsed in such a way that no man can ever hold two of the sections. 253. You said that the Farmers' Union favour small holdings. What do they propose to do with the present large holdings ?—I do not know that that has ever been discussed, but my own private belief is that the very first thing that should be done is that an Act should be passed to restrict the area to be transferred to any one man. 254. You advocate the deferred payment and said that the good times prevailing now would enable the settler to meet his half-yearly payments, and save him borrowing as he will have to do
c;— 4.
1166
[m. tan set.
under the present occupation with right of purchase in order to get his freehold by-and-by ?—The deferred payment before it ceased was altered so that a man paid off in fifteen years the®! total upset price of the land at 7J per cent, each year. What I mean is that the settler at the end of fifteen years would pay off entirely. Most of us who buy land under the lease with the right of purchase will have to borrow money to pay the Crown for it. 255. If a man could purchase his holding under deferred payment by so much per half-year, whilst under occupation with right of purchase he has to borrow at the end of the time money must be lost somewhere ?—lf a man gets hold of money and has no direct use for it he will generally put it to some other use or else spend it. 256. Mr. McCutchan.] It seems to me that one flaw in the occupation with right of purchase is that when the ten years have expired the settler has to find a lump sum to acquire the freehold : would you be in favour of an alteration of the law to allow of the capital value being received in instalments as the settler can spare it from his earnings ? —I think that would be desirable. Reginald Ernest Beckett examined. 257. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a sheep-farmer farming 3,500 acres, 2,400 of which is freehold and 1,100 education lease. 1,980 acres of it was orginally perpetual lease, but I have since made it into the freehold. I have been farming for the last fifteen years. The bulk of the land is situated across the river at Pemberton. I think the great objection we have to the lease in perpetuity is that the settlers under, having to borrow money, do so at very great disadvantage. Cheviot and other places have been brought forward as instances of the prosperity of those who have taken up land under the lease in perpetuity, but it has to be taken into account that these are lands easily brought under cultivation. Bush land is not the same, and it is absolutely necessary for the tenant to spend £4 or £5 an acre before he can get any return at all. People who go on the land are generally in needy circumstances, and do not recognise until they get on the land the actual amount of money they have to spend before getting any return, and the result is that they find they have to go to the money-lender to get assistance. Money-lenders here, whatever they do in Canterbury, refuse to lend money on those securities under 6| and 7 per cent. The real trouble of the whole thing is that they fear revaluation. It is all very well to say there is no chance of it, but revaluation schemes have been brought down on several occasions. In 1894, Sir John McKenzie said, " The people of this colony desire to be in such a position that they will have a home that they can call their own and that it will never be revalued for themselves or their children." Within a very short time Sir John McKenzie himself brought down a revaluation scheme in 1895, another brought was down in 1899, and another in 1901. You asked a question of a previous witness, I think, as to whether this land was likely to be taken in by these Bills. In the interpretation clause " land " was thus defined : " Land means land of every description, by whomsoever owned, and by whomsoever invested, and includes Crown land, public reserves, and Native land." 258. That does not include lease in perpetuity ? —They are Crown lands. That is the definition of " land " in the Pair Rent Bill. 259. Was that Bill to be retrospective ? —Undoubtedly it must be. There was nothing in the Bill to say it was not to be retrospective. With regard to residence, I think the people ought to be allowed, if they do not reside themselves, to find a substitute. It cannot matter to the Crown whether Aor B occupies the land. There is no reason why B, who is manager for A, will not have as many children as the owner of the land. Managers are not that particular class of people who do not have families. It was said that you cannot afford to have managers, but that is not of any consequence at all. There are many people in shops and businesses who would make excellent settlers, but they find that they cannot take up land because circumstances will not allow them to do so because they cannot reside on the land. It could not possibly hurt the State to allow them to put on a manager. I certainly think that the lease in perpetuity is a very bad bargain for the State. At the present time the rent is 4 per cent. They make an extra allowance for prompt payment, and that brings the amount down to 3| per cent., and we may assume that it takes another per cent, to collect the rent. Consequently the State only gets 3 per cent, from which it pays " thirds " and " fourths," so that the State gets really below 3 per cent. ; 3-per-cent Government stock is worth 94, so that if the Government invested this money in buying back their own debentures it would not only realise £100, but would realise £106. Consequently it would be a great advantage to the State if it did not want to do anything else with the money, to invest it in our own debentures at 94. In regard to the aggregation of estates, statistics show that very large estates are not increasing in size, but are going down, and are decreasing in number. The smaller of the larger ones have, perhaps, increased, but that is due to the bigger ones having been cut up. With regard to the advances to settlers, the difficulty is one that most of us suffer from : that they have not the money to advance. When they had the money they were in the awkward position that people on Crown lands could not take the whole of it. People who were well-to-do and had an overdraft from the bank immediately thought that it would be a good thing to apply to the Advances to Settlers Department to get the money, and the result was that the money which should go to the settlers was mopped up by people in the well-populated districts. The Department has lost its money through letting it out to first-class people instead of lending it to the people who are poorer. 260. Mr. Johnston.'] Would you advocate giving leaseholders on education endowments the right of purchase ?—No ; because I think those endowments are required for a purpose, and their position is entirely different to that of the lands of the State. If the people are prosperous then the State is prosperous, but these special endowments were put by for a special purpose. 261. Would you give the large runholders in Otago the right to purchase their leases ? —No, I would not; Ido not think we should give the right of purchase to anything beyond the small grazing-runs, because it might be necessary in the future to cut up the larger runs.
C—4.
B. B. MACKENZIE.]
1167
Funding, Tuesday, 6th June, 1905. Robert Bruce Mackenzie examined. 1. The Chairman.] Wliat are you? —I am a farmer, living in Carnarvon County, Manawatu. I farm 1,200 acres freehold. I have been on the present farm a little over five years, but I had a farm in the same district for twenty-five years before that. I have been living in the Rangitikei district since 1854. 2. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission?- There are three points on which I would like to give evidence —namely, land-tenure, the ballot system, and loading for roads. In the first place I would like to say that lam here on behalf of the Rongotea Branch of the Farmers' Union, which comprises ninety-three members. They are unanimously agreed as to the tenure of land. I say that they are unanimously agreed because at the last meeting when this matter came up, one member made a proposition somewhat varying from what we had agreed upon and he could not get a seconder. Our branch of the union has discussed this thing in every way in which it could be taken, and we have arrived at this conclusion, that the freehold tenure is the best tenure, not only for the farmer himself but for the country as a whole. In fact, the view we take of it is more in respect to the good of the country than for the good of the farmers themselves, because most of us are already freeholders, and it does not really affect us. I would make it perfectly clear, however, and to be very emphatic that we are not opposed to the leasehold, and we have never been opposed to the leasehold. I want to be clear about that, because it was stated on the platform and in the Press of the country that the Farmers' Union was opposed to the leasehold. We are not opposed to the leasehold, provided that they have the right of purchase. It has been argued at our meetings from all points and with those outside also. It has been said that it would be immoral and unfair tt> make a breach of contract and to give the lease-in-perpetuity holders the right to acquire the freehold. It would not be immoral to alter the present condition of things provided both parties were agreed to it. If both parties agree to an alteration there is nothing immoral about it. Supposing two men apply for land, and one, on being asked what tenure he wishes to have, replies that he desires the freehold. He is asked if he has the money, and he replies that he has plenty of it, and he gets the freehold. The next man comes in and he is asked what tenure he desires, and he replies that he would like the freehold, but, as he has not sufficient money, he will be content with the leasehold, and he is told that he will get a leasehold. He asks if he will be placed on the same footing as his rich neighbour when he has got the money, and if the reply is " No, you are a poor man and have taken a leasehold and must remain a leaseholder for ever," it appears to me that there is nothing liberal about that. We are anxious that farmers shall be placed on an equal footing, no matter whether they are poor or rich, or whether they are fortunate in getting a freehold, or so unfortunate that while preferring a freehold have to be content with a leasehold. Then, of course, there is the question of stability of settlement under the freehold tenure as against the leasehold tenure. A man on a freehold feels a free man. He is not hampered or encumbered in any way by inspection and so on. Under the present arrangements I know of some of our neighbours who have been very much hampered in the matter of cropping. I know one farm on which the first crop was a failure, and after the second crop the land was hardly in condition to be sown down in grass, yet this man, although the rushes were springing up all over his land, had to comply with the regulations and sow down in grass. It has been suggested that those regulations should be relaxed, but, for my own part, I think it is quite necessary that there should be regulations with regard to leasehold land, and that they should be enforced. The only remedy in my opinion is that the man should get the freehold, and then there is no necessity for inspection or anything else. The land will be the man's own, and he will attend to it. There are many other reasons that might be given. On the question of loading, I think the easiest course for me to pursue is to give an example. I know of friends of mine who have taken up land in a district which was loaded for roading, and it worked out this way: some three years after they had been there, and paying interest and rates, they applied to the local body for some work to be done on their road, saying that their accrued " thirds " or " fourths " — I am-not sure which —must be sufficient to make the road. The County Council said there was not sufficient money. They said, "We have paid our rent for so long and the money must be there." The County Clerk said that that seemed feasible, and they then went into the matter and wrote to the Department, and the reply they got was that they were paying rent on a value and loading of £1 ss. per acre. The land was valued at £1 and there was ss. loading, their rent being Is. 3d. per acre, and that they were entitled to " thirds " or " fourths " of the rent —namely, Is. per acre, but the other ss. was interest on the money advanced for the roads, and they were not entitled to any part of the 3d. charged on that as " thirds " or "fourths." They next discovered that they had been paying interest on that ss. from the day they had signed their lease, but the money had not been spent on the roads for three years after paying interest on it. They also found that if they had borrowed the money under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act they would have repaid it in twenty-two years, whereas it has to be continued for 999 years, and the principal is still owing at the end of that time. It would be much better for these people that they should be allowed now to borrow under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act and pay off the ss. an acre, and so get rid of that incubus. The interest on ss. seems a small thing, but it is 3d. per acre, and in many instances it amounts to more than the general rates in the early stages before they have improved their land. Another thing is that this money was, in the case I have mentioned, spent by co-operative labour, and I feel quite certain in saying that if they had £100 spent they did not get fifty pounds' worth of work for it, and the settlers themselves, who were paying the loading, were not allowed to work on the roads and to earn that money back again, but it was given to co-operative workers who were not settlers on that block. I think it has been shown that the system of loading lands for roads is a bad one and ought to be discontinued. With regard to the ballot system, I would like to say that this evidence is on my own account, and not on behalf of the
1168
[B. B. MACKENZIE.
C—4.
Farmers' Union. I have for a long time thought that the ballot system is a very bad way of .deciding who should have a section. It seems to me that the only circumstance under which a ballot should apply is where the conditions are exactly equal. If two equal men apply for a section the system of ballot would be justifiable; but, as a matter of fact, it appears to me that when you go into a room to ballot for a piece of land, any one who puts in an application in due form is taken for granted to be equal to all the others who have applied. In my opinion, the man who is born in the country and grown to manhood there, and has paid rates and taxes, as well as his father before him, to make the country what it is, that man surely has a greater interest in the country than the man who only landed yesterday, or a man who even lands twelve months hence, because a. resident of the colony who goes in for a ballot to-day and is not successful may go in for a ballot twelve months hence and be superseded by a man who has only just arrived in the colony. That principle is already admitted in regard to old-age pensions, where a person has to be a certain number of years in the colony before such person qualifies for a pension. The only occasion when a ballot is admissible is when the conditions are exactly equal. 3. What would you put in place of the ballot system for the general disposal of Crown lands? - 1 suppose you would have to fall back on the auction system. 4. That has been tried and found to have many defects, and the ballot was taken up in lieu of it?-- I think, perhaps, if all land was sold by auction, it would do away with the idea that those who are taking the leasehold are getting more than they pay for. If land is worth £1 an acre, the man who wants it will pay £1 for it, and if it is worth 10s. let him pay that, and if it is worth £100 an acre let him still pay what it is worth. The way to get at the worth of land is to submit it to auction ; but if we say land is worth £10 an acre, and we will make the upset £5 per acre and ballot for it, we give the man who is lucky enough at the ballot £5. 5. There is an attempt always on the part of the Department to put a fair price on the land before it is put up I In some cases I believe they put it too high, and in some cases too low. There was the old system by which applications were received for sections, and if more than one applied for a particular section that section was submitted to auction. Some men gave too high a price for land, but they do that in any case. I have heard of a case, which I believe to be correct, of a man w'ho had drawn a section being offered £250 for the section before he left the ballot-room. I think the State should get that £250, and not the individual. 6. Mr. Johnston.'] Have you a personal experience of leasehold property? -No. 7. Have vou ever been a'lessor or a lessee? —I am both just now. I have got a small Native lease at the present time adjoining my property —at least, my son holds the lease, but we hold the two places together 8. Is that lease satisfactory? —No, it has been rather unsatisfactory, because we have not been able to get a prop.er lease. 9. Is that the only practical experience you have had of leasehold land? Yes. 10. Your evidence is practically hearsay, except in these particular instances? - 1 would not like to say that they are practically hearsay. I am a farmer, and have been living amongst farmers all my life, except for a time when I was auctioneering, and that gave me an exceptional opportunity of meeting the farmers. 11. Have you had any personal experience under Government lease? —I have had no Government lease, but I have had land under deferred payment. 12. What number of farmers are there at Rongotea ?—There are ninety-three in our branch. 1.3. What is the farming population of Rongotea?—lt is merely a guess, but I should say about one hundred and fifty. . . , 14. Are the farmers there all freeholders ?—Most of them, I think, took up land in the Douglas Special Block under the freehold system. 15. Did they pay cash?- I think some paid cash and some had terms from the Douglas Company (Robert Campbell and Sons), and some bought Government land there. ' 16. The small settlers at Rongotea would never have been on the land but for the leasehold?— Y.es : all the Government land was cash, excepting what we call the Taipo district, where the land was under the deferred-payment, system. 17. These men could not have got on the land if they had got terms?—l think they could. 18. Could 75 per cent, of the farmers on this coast pay cash for their land if it was put up for freehold sale to-morrow?—l think more than that could. If you mean that they were to pay absolute cash without raising money, perhaps not; but I think that more than 75 per cent, of the farmers on this coast, or round about Rongotea at all events, could raise the money or arrange to pay cash for it. lam a poor farmer myself, but I arranged to pay over £10,000 for my farm five years ago. „ rn , 19. What is the difference between paying Government rent and interest on mortgage!—lhe o-reatest difference of all is that the interest on a mortgage is a thing that a man can look forward to clearing off some day. He has the right to clear it off, but the rent under lease in perpetuity »-oes on for ever, and there is no getting rid of it. The moral effect of it, to my mind, is, that if a man takes up land, so long as he can meet his rent when he starts farming as a young man, he is satisfied, and thinks he is doing well if he is paying his rent; but when he gets an old man he is not able to do it. There are two kinds of leasehold under exactly the same tenure. If a man takes up bush land, and only pays Is. per acre, and the improvements are his own, it does not matter so much ; but in the case of the land acquired under the Land for Settlements Act, where a man has to pav on the full value of the land, and, in some cases, pays as high as £1 ss. per acre rent at a time when land stands at its highest point in the history of the colony, if he thinks_ he is going to have 999 years of prosperity without a bad year, he does not think as I do. I think that bad times will come, and, although a young man may succeed for a few years in paying his interest vet, when his familv grows up, and have left the old man and old woman at home, there
B. B. MACKENZIE.]
1169
C—4.
will, I think, be a difficulty about the rent. On the other hand, if they had the freehold, they could under the circumstances do something with the land to maintain them in their old age. 20. Have you had any experience of the Land for Settlements Act? —Not personally. 21. Mr. Paul.~\ You mean to say that the leaseholder is generally thriftless? —No; but, for all that, I do not think he will pay off small sums in the same way as he would if he had a mortgage. 22. The real point is, what is to prevent the leaseholder saving his money and generally improving his position ? —Simply because he has not got such a spur to keep him up to it. He knows his rent will go on whatever happens. If he has £200 he may spend it on something he really could do without, although I do not mean that he is thriftless. 23. Do you think a man is a fool if he is a leaseholder? Do you not think he could value other possessions just as much, independent of whether he was a freeholder or a leaseholder? —That is so; but, as a matter of fact, so far as my experience goes, he does what I say. 24. What system of straight-out leasehold does the Farmers' Union believe in? —Any system that would give the tenant the right to acquire the freehold. 25. You do not believe in any system of leasehold? —We believe in any system of leasehold, provided the tenant has the right of purchase. 26. Do you think the leasehold is a very bad tenure, and against the best interest of the community? —Yes; I am fully persuaded of that. 27. Would you give the freehold to the leaseholders of endowments and of private owners? — No; an endowment is made for a special purpose, and in regard to them, it is not the farmer that has to be considered, but the purpose for which the endowment was provided. 28. Let us rather consider the position of the tenant outside that of the endowment. Do you think, in the case of the endowment, he should put up with all the inconveniences and drawbacks which the leasehold gives him? —The chief thing in making an endowment is to maintain and improve some institution for which that endowment has been made. The tenant is not considered at all. The intention of the legislative body in making the endowment was to care for the institution, and if you are going to consider the benefit to the tenant you are getting away from the original intention of the endowment. 29. Do you know of any endowment on which the tenants are making a decent living? —I know of several educational reserves in our district where the land is fairly good, and the tenants are making a decent living. 30. You think that the leasehold puts a poor man at a disadvantage as compared with the rich man, who can buy land for cash? —Yes, certainly. 31. In another part of your evidence you wish to put the poor man at a disadvantage as compared with the rich man, by putting the land up to auction: how can you reconcile those two positions? —I do not wish to put the poor man at a disadvantage by putting the land up to auction : but I say the poor man, who has in the first place to take up a lease because he cannot afford to buy for cash, when he is in a position to acquire the freehold, he should have the right to do so. 32. That is restricting his choice of land, is it not? —No. 33. You admit that he cannot compete with the rich man at auction? —He competes, and has the option of whether he takes the lease or not. It is merely a question of whether it should be decided by auction or ballot. My own private opinion is that it is better to decide the matter by auction than by ballot, except where two cases are actually equal. 34. Do you think that the principle of examination of applicants, provided by the Land for Settlements Act, should be extended to the Land Act of 1892? —I think that would be a good thing. 35. Mr. McCutchan.] You think that where lands are loaded for roads the work should be reserved for the settlers? —I think the loading is a bad system altogether ; but if a man is unfortunate enough to be in a district where the land is loaded for roads, the money should be handed over to the local authorities, and my experience of local authorities is that they can do just about twice as much as can be done under the present system. 36. Where land has been loaded for roads, and the loading has been expended, you advocate that the borrowers should have the right to borrow under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act, so as to extinguish their loading? —Yes. 37. You spoke of a block which had been loaded for roads, and no expenditure incurred for three years: what is the name of that block? —It is in the Ruahine district, but I have been misunderstood. I did not say that no roading had been done on the block, but that no roading had been done to these particular sections. 38. Can you state that no part of the loading was expended for three years?— No. Part of it was expended, but the road for these particular people was not made for three years. 39. The loading was expended in giving access as far as the loading would go?— That may be so, but Ido not know. What I was speaking of was more particularly the " thirds" or " fourths " which should have accrued. 40. If they got the third of the rent from the capital value of the land, exclusive of the loading, and they got the loading expended on the roads, any claim for a third from the loading is inequitable? —I claim rather that the loading should be done away with altogether. 41. Do you think that the loading should cease as soon as the State is reimbursed? —Yes. 42. And you advocate now that the settlers should have the right of borrowing the amount of the loading under the Local Bodies Loans Act, so as to extinguish their obligation tinder their lease? —Yes, if they wish it. 43. Mr. Anstei/.] In view of your opinion as to the leasing of endowments being retained, do you not think that the country should cease to make any reserves for any purpose? —Yes. 44. Seeing that the leasehold is not in the best interest of the colony, should it not be compulsory on all private owners who lease land to insert a purchasing clause in their lease? —If the interest of the country only were considered, it would be a good thing to do so; but it is another question in arbitrarily dealing with a man who has bought. land and paid rates and taxes on it. It
147—C. 4.
C—4.
R. B. MACKENZIE.]
1170
might be argued that it would be in the interests of the country to have a fair division made of the whole capital of the country, but the question of the right of property at once comes in, and I would not advocate anything in that respect. 45. You think it would be right in the interests of the country but would trench on the interests of the individual? —Yes. 46. Is your experience of the Advances to Settlers Department satisfactory or the reverse! Satisfactory, so far as the amount they would advance. In my case 1 applied for £1,500, on land which they valued at £4 an acre, and they only gave me £1,400, but within two or three years I sold the place for £7 10s. Gd. per acre. 47. Is it a good system?— Yes. 48. Mr. Paul.\ This Native lease that you have: do you find it satisfactory to lease land?Generally speaking, yes. It is most satisfactory for my sons, as it is the only thing they can do. 49. Can you tell me how many Crown tenants there are in your branch of the Farmers' Union ? —I do not think there are any; they would be in the Sandon Branch, a little distance away. 50. Mr. McCutchan.] Is the reason why there are no Crown tenants in your branch because there are no Crown tenants resident in the districts your branch deals with?— Yes, that is so. We asked the Commission to sit there and see the advantage of special settlement under freehold. The Manchester Block is another example, and the Sandon Block another. These three settlements are to-day, I think, about the three most prosperous in the Colony of New Zealand. Allan Robinson examined. 51. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer, holding 1,250 acres of small grazing-run leasehold and 500 acres freehold in the Maungakaretu Block, in the Wanganui County. I have been twenty years in that district farming. lam paying 7Jd. per acre for the grazing-run. As a leasehold, lam satisfied with the tenure. Generally speaking, lam in favour of the leasehold, with the option of the freehold at any time the farmer is disposed to buy it. 52. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission? —I have no objection to the constitution of the Land Boards, but I think there should be a right of appeal against the Land Board's decisions. Sometimes they are apt to be too arbitrary. With regard to landtenure, I am quite satisfied, except that each tenant should be allowed the option of the freehold whenever he is in a position to acquire it. For various reasons it adds to the farmer's sense of security, makes his capital liquid and so adds to his prosperity, and makes his position equal to that of the adjoining freeholders. It also encourages reforestation, and helps with the roading of the country. Ido not think that the residence condition on Crown lands should be compulsory. It seems to me that the settlement of the country is somewhat retarded because of the residence conditions. Many persons in city employment and tradespeople are desirous of getting a piece of land in the country for their children, but they are not allowed to do so because of the condition which requires them to reside on that land, and which bars them from following their ordinary avocations. In many cases, owing to the land-configuration, the area allowed to be held by any one man is insufficient, and I think that the classification is absolutely wrong as it stands at present. The law provides that land sold at over £1 per acre may be classed as first-class land, and land sold at under £1 per acre as second-class land. I think that land ought to be classified by experienced men acording to configuration. My land was taken up when land was not classified at all, and now I am in the position, apparently, of holding more land than I am entitled under the Act, because having leased this at a rent at more than £1 per acre it is regarded as first-class land, although the land around it which was sold at less is considered second-class land. Leasehold destroys selfrespect. Numbers of leaseholders who take up land sign a declaration that the land is for their own use only, and such declaration is in many cases not true. Nevertheless, that is done all over the colony, and so I say the leasehold tends to dishonesty. I have no alteration to propose in the ballot system, except that if one has been unsuccessful in one ballot he should have priority in another. I have been in three separate ballots, and in no instance have I been successful. There should be an opportunity for every one getting land in some way or other, without having to buy from the owners of the freehold. Where I come from there is no such thing as loading for roads, but it must be patent to every one that it is far better for the local bodies to expend the loading for roads than the Crown. Although the co-operative system is a good system so far as the men are concerned —and they are not overpaid for their work —still, £100 will not go so far when spent by the Government as when spent by the local body. I cannot tell the reason why, because lam not underneath the surface. With regard to the price at which the freehold should be given—l am thinking now about my own particular district —if the freehold is not given at the original value, it presumes that the land has a value that the settler had nothing to do with. In bush districts I think the land has no value that the settler has not wholly to do with. The fact of his going into that country and taking up the land in its wild state, and clearing the bush and farming it successfully, gives it a value which has been produced by his time and labour, and therefore that value should be returned to him in the event of his taking the freehold. Let us take two instances. I take up land under the optional system, and my next-door neighbour obtains a freehold. lam as good a settler as he is, and clear as much bush and put as much ground into grass, and erect as substantial and as much fencing as he does, but at the end of ten years his position is better than mine, possibly by 25 to 50 per cent., simply because he had enough money to take up the freehold at the start, and I had only enough money to take up a leasehold. At the same time, I have been as good a member of the community as he has, and I do not see why my position in the country should not be as good as his is. I consider that if the freehold is given it should be given at the original value. The Act has been altered with regard to small grazing-runs with respect to rating purposes, but on the leasehold-tenure blocks they are borrowing under the Loans to Local Bodies Act to get their roads. That state of things should not exist. The regulations under the Loans to Local Bodies Act provide that at least half the rating area must be freehold before a loan can be granted.
1171
0.—4.
A BOBINSON.j
That seems to be a distinct diminution of the leasehold system. I do not see why a number of people taking up a large area under the leasehold system should not be able to borrow money to road their land in the same way as is the case in connection with a large area taken up under the freehold system. Therefore, I think the Act would require amendment so as to enable that to be done. With regard to the question of the aggregation of large estates, 1 think that if the land is not suitable for close settlement the aggregation of estates is going on ; but from my experience where the land is suitable for close settlement the reverse is the case, and the estates are being broken up as time and opportunity serves. Holders of 100, 200, 300, and even 600 acres of very rough country are very anxious to get away. They are a long way from markets, they are not able to make sufficient to live on, and, therefore, they are desirous of selling out and buying land where they can make more money by dairying, and that is my answer to that question. 53. With regard to Land Boards, while you approve of the present constitution you think there should be an Appeal Board: what do you think that Board should consist of ? —The only Appeal Board, as a rule, is the Supreme Court. 1 think decidedly that a settler, on submitting his case to the Land Board, ought, on being treated as be thinks in an arbitrary way, to have the right to appeal to some Court, which is able to overrule or confirm the decision of the Land Board 54. By law, there is now a power of appeal to the Supreme Court on the question of the interpretation of the law, but if the Supreme Court had to be the Appeal Court on questions of administration it would be a very unworkable tiling--in fact, it would lower the Supreme Court very much to begin with, and would be positively unworkable? —Is it not generally the opinion that there is no appeal from the decision of the Land Board. 55. There is an appeal to the Minister, who represents the Government, and the Government represent the country? —But jf the Minister had a Court of Appeal it would be satisfactory co the appellant. 56. Have you had any experience of the Land Board acting in what you call an unreasonable —an arbitrary —way ? —Personally, I have only had one experience, but it has not been with the Land Board; it has been with the Chairman of the Land Board. I made an application for a section, and was told that, although the application would be considered, the Land Board would have to decide as to whether the application could stand, for the simple reason that I was the holder of more land than 1 was entitled to hold in conjunction with the section 1 already held. My contention was that I was, and in making the application I mentioned the possibility. 1 considered they might think so. I stated my case, and if 1 had been a successful applicant I would not have been allowed to hold it. 57. There was a difference of opinion between you and the Commissioner. Did he refer it to the Land Board? T was not successful, otherwise it would have been a distinct injustive if I had not got that land. 58. Then, you cannot suggest any other Appeal Court than the Supreme Court? —No. 59. Speaking of roads, you said the co-operative workmen earned all they got, and did the work cheaper, but at the same time you could not explain how it was that the local body would get more work done for £100 than was done under the co-operative system? —I said that I could not understand it, and that I was not underneath the surface in the matter. In this district I know of two or three fairly large sums of money which have been voted for the construction of roads, and I hold that if that money was expended upon the road then the road has cost something like £900 per mile. 60. By the local body ? No; it was expended by the Government under the co-operative system, and the value of the work done was not £500 per mile. 61. Then, such a glaring difference as between the actual worth and the actual expenditure requires explanation. Can you explain how it came about? Did they dawdle over the work? — It does not matter whether they dawdled or not, their work is done by contract at so much per cubic yard. As a matter of fact, the money was voted, and it is said to be expended, and there is only a certain mileage of road constructed. 62. But, supposing the local body had expended £900, in what way would they have proceeded —by day labour? —No, by contract. 63. You say the two systems are analogous—co-operative and contract? -Only in so far as the contract is by the mile and the other by the yard. 64. Well, you cannot explain why there was this glaring difference in the construction of this road?—l have my opinion, but I do not want to state it. 65. Mr. Johnston.\ Are you representing a number of farmers or only yourself individually? —Solely myself. 66. Are vou satisfied with your tenure of the lease of this grazing-run as a leasehold? —As a leasehold I am satisfied with it. 67. Could you have taken it up had it been open to you as a freehold? —Yes. 68. Why did you take it up as a leasehold? —Because it was not offered as a freehold. 69. Are" the settlers generally up there satisfied with their tenure? —Yes. They would change it if they could, but they are satisfied with it as leaseholds. 70. What is 'at the bottom of their objection? Is it the insecurity of the tenure, or is the freehold more advantageous financially to them? —More advantageous financially. 71. That is the true reason why they wish to have the freehold? —Just so. 72. Mr. Paul.] You know the right of appeal now given is to the Land Board in the first place and then to the Supreme Court: you can take the case right to the Land Board and then appeal from their decision to the Supreme Court? —I was under the impression that that was not the case. 73. You will find that the Act gives you that right?—l was reading the other day that the Land Board's decisions are final.
a—4.
1172
[A. ROBINSON.
74. With reference to the expenditure on roads, is the money really expended? From your results I gather that a certain amount was said to be put against a certain road to be expended, but you do not think that money was expended? —I did not say that. The amount is expended, but it has not constructed the necessary mileage of road. 75. Do you not think you should add something else, having made that definite statement? — You would not wish me to say where the money goes. 76. I would like to know? —I do not know, only it would amount to this: that if the cost of road-making is lOd. per yard, on this particular road the cost of road-making has been something like Is. Bd. per yard. 77. And the co-operative labourer has not got that money? —He has not got the difference between the lOd. and the Is. Bd. 78. In respect to original valuations —you spoke of bush lands —have you any knowledge of the settlements under the Land for Settlements Act in the south ? —None whatever. 79. Mr. McGutchan.] Have the residence conditions operated harshly in your own case? —I was not required to reside, and, therefore, they have not borne harshly. 80. Being a resident on your freehold, that fact has been allowed to count as residence on your small grazing-run? —Under the peculiar Land Act of 1882, any one residing within nine miles of their section were not required to reside. 81. You had the grazing-run prior to 1892? —We have it under the Act of 1885. 82. You made a remark that one-half of a rating area must be freehold or else a loan could not be raised ? —Yes. 83. Are you quite confident of that? —That is to say, that if half the rating area is freehold a security is not regarded as sufficient to enable the loan to be granted under the Loans to Local Bodies Act. 84. Would you be surprised to know that the Loans to Local Bodies Department makes advances where the whole of the rating area is leasehold ? —I am not surprised at anything; but that is the law I am telling you. 85. I think not? —I have been the chairman of a local body for some time, and that is the reason given why the loan has not been granted, because the security is not sufficient. I think it it a half, but lam not certain. A large proportion must be freehold. 86. Is it then not a strange fact that the Stratford County Council has raised twenty loans, where the rating areas were composed entirely of leaseholds? —We raise a loan where there is very little freehold in the area. At the same time, it was not the law. 87. Then you charge the Department with making advances in direct contradiction to the law of the land ? —I have made no charge, but mentioned simply a fact. 88. You made a statement which is tantamount to that effect? —My statement is quite correct. 89. You said you are the holder of more land than you are entitled to hold? —I thought not, but the Chairman of the Land Board considered that I would be the holder of more land than 1 was entitled to hold in conjunction with the section I was applying for. The position is that the 1,250 acres are valued at £1 ss. per acre —that is, ss. over the £1. Therefore, from his point of view, my land was first-class land. 90. Do you know of any land in the Wellington District with a capital value in excess of £1 which is classified as second class? —Plenty of land just immediately adjoining my section was sold at over £1, and is classed as second-class land, and that is a case in point where I consider the decision of the Land Board ought to be appealed against. 91. Mr. Anstey.\ You say that tenants in your district are generally satisfied with their tenure as leaseholders? —Yes. 92. What tenure are they on? —Small grazing-run chiefly, but there are several settlers in the village settlement under that portion of the Land Act. 93. What tenure is your small grazing-run? —The right of purchase. 94. Burdened with valuation for improvements? —Yes. 95. Are there a number of settlers with the occupation with right of purchase?— There were, but-they have all acquired the freehold. 96. Are there any holders of the lease in perpetuity? —None. Walter Watson examined. 97. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, farming about 1,700 acres, partly leasehold : 918 acres is a small grazing-run; there is one small reserve of about 60 acres, leased from the Government; a bridge reserve, and the balance is freehold and leasehold from private persons. About fifteen years ago I took up that small grazing-run, and, of course, we generally believed that the leasehold tenure was all right in those days; but I found out since my lads commenced to grow up that they objected to work on leased land. They said to me, "What is the use of working away there when our time will soon run out." The lease was only for a term of twenty-one years, and I have great difficulty in getting my lads to take any interest in farming on that land. One got very dissatisfied, and went to South Africa with a Contingent, and on his return he went away carting, and I never could get him to take any interest in the land. We believe the freehold is the best. Last Christmas I took up 600 acres occupation with right of purchase, and that altered the whole matter, and since then the lads never talk about going away from home, but have settled down to work, and I have no trouble with them. This convinces me that the freehold is positively the best tenure. As far as the small grazing-run is concerned, I have nothing to find fault with as a leasehold, but I really do think tliat the freehold is very much the best, because it gives so much satisfaction and encouragement to our boys. 98. What rent do you pay for the small grazing-run?—6d. an acre. It is broken second-class country. A very small portion could be ploughed.
W. WATSON. 1
1173
C—4,
99. Is there any other point you wish to refer to? —I also represent the Apiti Branch of the Farmers' Union. It is a large district, fairly well scattered, and I thought it was only right to bring the views of the people before the Land Commission. I thought upon a scheme accordingly. I got those two papers you see in my hand, headed " One in favour of Leasehold," " One in favour of Freehold." As I travelled the district in the interests of the union, and in connection with the tire insurance for settlers, I took around these papers. When I started out I had no idea of who would be in favour of the freehold and who would be in favour of the leasehold, but I was very much surprised when I handed these papers to the settlers—l used no influence with them to get them to sign -to find that a very large bulk of them wanted the freehold. A large number of these are Crown tenants, and I have here the names of seventy-nine persons who wish the freehold, against two who are satisfied with the leasehold. I only canvassed part of the district, through want of time, as the Commission came on us so quickly; but I think the general feeling of the back-block settlers who have the leasehold is that if they had the freehold it would give them borrowing powers. Many of them seem to be' in rather a bad way, and I think if they had the freehold it would enable them to borrow sufficient money to fell the whole of the bush, put it into grass, stock it, and I feel sure that they would have a better living than they are having now. They are very hard up, their places are very little improved, and that is the objection they have to the leasehold. 100. Mr. Paid.\ What is the term of this private lease? —There is only one private lease —a ten-years lease with a right of purchase. 101. Your son got dissatisfied and went to South Africa? —Yes. 102. Was it on account of patriotism for his country or dissatisfaction with the leasehold tenure? —I think it was general dissatisfaction all round. I could not get him to stay on the land, as he saw there was nothing for him in the future. 103. Do you know of any young men, the holders of freehold land, who went to serve their country in South Africa? —Not very many went from our district at all. 104. Mr. McGutchan.] You say you have recently taken up the leasehold on the occupation with right of purchase. After ten years that right will be available. Is it the disadvantage of that tenure that the man, when he comes to purchase his land, has to find a lump sum to do it with? — No, Ido not think so. That does not alter my case. We have, in fact, paid off another amount, and will pay the balance at the end of ten years. 105. It is not a lease from the State? —No, a private lease. 106. Do you not think that in the case of a struggling settler that having the right of purchase in ten years might lead to heavy borrowing? —It might be so; but it would give very much more satisfaction to the settlers and their children, because the land would be theirs some day. 107. Do you think it would be desirable to change the law in the direction of allowing tenants to pay off the capital value by instalments after ten years have expired? —I certainly do. Ido not know that it would be as good for the poor settlers as the deferred-payment system. 108. Would you consider, with that amendment in the occupation with right of purchase, it would be equivalent to, or even better, than the deferred payment, inasmuch as the payment in the early years of the settler would be smaller? —I am not quite clear on this point. 109. Mr. Anstey.\ You say that the fact of your having the leasehold was what induced your son to offer himself to fight for his country? —I did not say that, but that he was generally dissatisfied. 110. Supposing you had a freehold, he would not have gone? —I am certain. Last Christmas he was going to clear out again, but I have induced him to stay by taking up the occupation with right of purchase. 111. Then, according to you, the only soldiers we will get to fight the battles of the country will be leaseholders? —I do not say that at all. I think if men were necessary plenty of our boys and men would be ready to fight 112. Would the fact of your having a leasehold have anything to do with your boy going away.? —No; only he was dissatisfied with the conditions on the land. 113. Are all these people whose names appear in the papers you put before the Commission freeholders or leaseholders? —No. Unfortunately, I forgot to jot down who were Crown tenants, but the bulk of them were Crown tenants. 114. These documents are not worth the paper they are written on. They do not put any position before the people who are asked to sign them?--In our opinion, they are worth something. 115. Among the members of your Farmers' Union are there many leaseholders? —They are mixed up—some freeholders and some leaseholders. 116. In about equal numbers?—l could not say. 117. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —A little. 118. Was the result satisfactory or otherwise?--At first it was not satisfactory. After I took up a leasehold I applied for a sum of money, and had great difficulty in getting it. In the first place, they offered me £200 for £1,000 of improvemens. After a lot of trouble I got it increased to'about £250, which was of very little use to me. Later on, a private person offered me £500 on the same security, and I took that and paid off the Advances to Settlers. 119. You think they are not sufficiently liberal?— No. 120. How are your relations with the Land Board generally? —I do not think I have had any trouble with them. 121. Are they satisfactory I—l think so. 122. Mr. McCutchan.] Did you get this money from the private source on as favourable terms as the Advances to Settlers Department are giving: did you pay a procuration fee?—l did UOt 123. What was the rate of interest?—lt is years ago, and I have forgotten. I think it was about 6or 7 per cent. Later on this man required his £500, and offered to get the same sum
0.—4.
1174
[W. WATSON.
from the loans to settlers. I agreed, and he aranged it, and so 1 have it just now with the Advances to Settlers Department. Ewen Alexander Campbell examined. 124. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer holding practically 1,700 acres of a small grazing-run. I have held it nineteen years. I also own now 374 acres of freehold. I pay 6d. an acre for the grazing-run. I am chairman and managing director of the Wanganui Freezing Company. 125. Are you satisfied with your holding under the small-grazing-run system?—l am not satisfied with the tenure at the present time. My views on some of the matters mentioned in the order of reference are as follows : I believe in the present principle of appointing Land Boards, but more care should be exercised in the men appointed. It would be quite as reasonable to select a Board of farmers on banking business as to place men who have never made their living off the land or had any experience of bush country on Land Boards. Ido not know how the land tenure affects bush holders on the other Island, but on this Island its application has many crude restrictions. For instance, if land is valued at more than £1 per acre it is classed as first-class land, and though there may not be an acre of flat on it and covered with bush a man is only allowed to take up 640 acres, or the same area as he would be allowed out in the open of level land worth £10 per acre. Another absurdity is that tenants may burn the timber, but they must not sell it, and if he dies and leaves his lease to his family it remains with the Minister and his self-appointed Land Board to say whether a transfer shall be given or not, so that it is not a secure lease, as at the death of a tenant it may be broken. Many men in towns would like to take up land to spend their savings on for their children when old enough, but the residence clause stops them. What use would it be to compel such mfcn to live on the land? Their means of improving it would be gone; and yet one hears the cry of encouraging people to go out of the towns on to the land. The greatest advantage to this country would be that all rough land now in bush should be improved and made productive. Therefore all land sold for cash or leased should be under stringent improvement clauses, and should be under the supervision of the Ranger for at least the first ten years. If land is improved some one must live on it. Much of the land is valued too high in the first instance. There is land in this district not twenty miles from a railway-station which was offered by the Government nearly twenty years since, and is still unlet; also many thousands of acres of land up the Waitotara River which no one will take up. No doubt the better class leaseholds in some districts where good roads have been made have increased in value since date of lease, but in the rough and more inaccessible country they have not done so. This is partly owing to the land being valued too high in the first place. To give an instance: My leasehold, S.G.R. No. 27, Tokoinaru, taken up nineteen years, and nearly all improved, was valued in 1886 at £1 per acre, and when valued again in March this year by the Government Valuer the unimproved value was put at £1 55.; and my neighbour's, taken up at the same time, was valued at the same as when taken up. It is rough country. At £1 ss. my lease land would be called first-class. I borrowed money on my lease from the Advances to Settlers Office, and have now received notice that I must pay it all back before my first lease of twenty-one years expires. Ido not know why, as the improvements are more than double what they were when the money was borrowed, and valued at more than four times the money owing. This may come very hard on many who were led to believe they would have thirty-seven years to pay it back. Within the last ten years most of the large estates in this district have been cut up and sold or leased. Even some of the small grazingruns have been cut up. There is no tenure as good as the lease with the right of purchase, and all tenants should have the right to purchase where their interest in their holdings is greater than the value at date of lease, as they never can get what their improvements have cost them. For illustration of this, take 100 acres of average bush, valued at £1 per acre. The owner fells the bush, gets a good burn, and a good sole of grass at an actual cost of £2 per acre. The land would stand him then £3 per acre, but if he wanted to sell it or had it valued the price or value would be at least £3 10s. per acre, because it is in grass already to put stock on, and all risk of no burn or having to sow it twice over is passed, and so on. When the fires sweep over the 100 acres, burning the timber on the ground, also fences, gates, and sometimes even the buildings, all have to be renewed and the burnt ground resown. The Government Valuer comes round again, and he says this land has greatly improved, but he always sticks to the original cost, and any increase over that is always on the unimproved value. 126. Have you any suggestion to make with reference to the question of loading on roads? 1 do not know anything about it, excepting what I know from hearsay, and I would prefer not to give any evidence respecting it. 127. Have you any information of any case in which the widow and family were turned out or required to leave their holding on the death of the lessee?— None. I merely say that it could be done. It is like a verbal lease; the man might be well suited and never turned out, but it is not right that there should be the power to turn him out. _ 128. Of course, you are aware that the law requires residence and improvements? —yes. On all Government leases' it is so, and I am a great believer in the strictness of insisting on improvements, because that is a benefit to the country as a whole. 129. You think it is possible a man might be allowed to take up land and to put somebody else on to improve it for him—in other words, put his savings into the land?— Yes, as long as the improvements were strictly carried out. 130. There is the difficulty which many of us see, that it opens the door to speculation and dummyism?—l quite recognise that to a certain extent; but dummyism takes place all over the country now, and Ido not know it would be any the less if you did what you mention. Ido not think a man could do much dummying if improvements were strictly carried out, and he cannot go in for speculation when improvements are carried on; or the law might be altered to make the improvements greater when a man did not live on the land. Double it if you like, but that iR the principle.
E. A. CAMPBELL.!
1175
a—4.
131. I am surprised at what you say about your experience of the advances-to-settlers system. I thought that in the case of money borrowed under that system you had a period of thirty-seven years and a half for repayment? —I was under that impression myself; but lam sorry I did not bring my notice with me. 132. Have others got a similar notice? —I think so. It is a general thing, 1 believe. 133. There was no reason given for calling the money up? —No; only it was to be paid before the first twenty-one years, and there was not a hint given that it would be lent again. 134. Do you get a written notice before the date of payment? —Six months before the lease expires, speaking from memory. 135. Of course, there is the right of renewal, subject to revaluation? —That is so. 136. It may be a precaution on the part of the Office to make quite sure that if you do not get your land again they will get the money? —But, still, if the land is not in my possession it is there with all my improvements, and they are worth four times the money. They are valued at a little under £4,000, and I borrowed £900. 137. Are you satisfied with the lease? —I am not, because the land taken up since 1892 is taken up on very much more favourable conditions. Settlers have waited on the Minister of Lands, who promised the lease would be made into perpetual lease. He did not make our leases perpetual. He merely made us philanthropists, because we have benfited those who came after, and did not in the least benefit ourselves. 138. Would you be satisfied with the lease in perpetuity? —I would be very much better pleased to be rid of it, and not be bothered with the Government or Land Board, and have the freehold, if I could: Ido not want any of your perpetual leases with a clause in it. 139. Mr. Johnston.] Surely-jour mortgage protects you against that notice; it seems absolutely beyond comprehension ?- I am very sorry I did not bring the notice. 140. Have you read your mortgage? —No; I have not seen it for seven or eight years. 141. Will you undertake to send us a copy of the notice? —Yes. 142. You do not know if any one else has been treated like that? —I have no idea. 143. How long is it since you got the notice?- I think, six months ago. 144. There has been no alteration in the notice since that? —None. 145. Are you representing a body of settlers?--I cannot say I am. There was a discussion at the Farmers' Union, of which lam a member. I was asked if I would attend here, but Ido not know that my evidence would be in accordance with theirs, because they do not know what ideas I was advocating. 146. How would you classify land, taking the Wellington Provincial District?—l would classify it possibly in prices, but I would not have several classes, and I certainly would not class land at £1 ss. an acre and £10 an acre as one and the same. 147. Can you suggest the best method of classifying it? —I could suggest it if I had the time, but to explain it here and give you a complicated principle would be asking rather too much. 148. Would you classify it all in one block or in districts?— No. What I object to is that there is too much difference between the first-class land and the sacond-class land. 149. You think that these timber restrictions should be done away with on the Crown lands —Certainly. 150. And the farmer should be allowed to sell his timber in preference to having to burn it? —I should rather think so. I think that whatever you can give the farmer is better for him and the country; but it seems by the Act that there is a fear lest the farmer should make a profit. 151. What class of land is it you say that has not been taken up?— Broken hilly land. Two small grazing-runs, with a road made within a mile of them. 152. What is the carrying-capacity ? —I do not think more than one sheep to the acre. 153. What is the rental?—6d. an acre. I speak from memory, but it is not yet sold. 154. What is the reason that it has not yet been taken up?— All that class of land is so poor that it will not be taken up unless people can buy it very cheaply. 155. Is there much dummyism, to your knowledge?- -! have heard of some, and am quite sure that the residence clause has not had a very great deal to do with it ; and if the law was made ver\ much more strict with regard to improvement conditions where people reside off the land it would have a much better effect as far as dummyism is concerned. 156. Would you advocate giving the freehold straight out, or giving it with very strong restrictions as to improvements first I—Yes1 —Yes ; I would allow nobody to buy Government land here and let it lie idle. 157. Mr. Paul.] Do you know of a case of dummyism where the lessee has resided on the land ? —I know nothing about dummyism. I believe there is dummyism, but would rather not say anything about it. . 158. Why do you prefer the idea of the perpetual lease to the lease in perpetuity f Because 1 do not believe in leaving myself or my heirs to the mercy of the Land Board and a Lands Minister. 159 Is that the only one? —Yes. I do not think the tenure is a good one for the country. 160. You think the old perpetual lease, with a first term of thirty years and periodical revaluation in terms of twenty years, is better? Yes, I would sooner have it. I would sooner have the freehold, and so would everybody I have met, if they spoke the truth. 161. You think it is rather too much for the State to give a lease for 999 years?— Yes. 1 think that many hundreds of years before that time expires the lease will have been broken or the holders will be taxed out of it. . . 162 Do you not think the freehold is a still bigger thing to give?— No. There is the land-tax. 163. Would you give the freehold to tenants of endowments, or would you conserve those lands for the purposes for which they were set aside? I would say, Keep them. 164. Mr. McCutxhan.] It is said that under revaluation a tenant's improvements are largely discounted, because a large number of the improvements are not visible to the valuer. Might not
C—4.
1176
[B. A. CAMPBELL.
the Department consider the security depreciated in that way? —The improvements are all there to be seen still. lam not blaming the Department. 165. Mr. Anstey.] With regard to the larger areas of unoccupied land, what would you suggest in order to bring them into profitable occupation ? —I think they should be given at the very lowest price possible to those people who have heart enough to take them up. 166. That is, sell them the freehold? —Yes. 167. Would that apply also to education reserves in the same position? —I am not an advocate for education reserves being sold. 168. Seeing that some of them are idle, would it not be wise to try and arrange to bring them into profitable occupation? —Yes. 169. If you had a lease conserving the whole of the tenant's improvements to himself, do you think that land would then be taken up ?—Yes, I think it is very possible, if they did not ask too much rent. 170. Would not the Government land be taken up on the same terms?—lt is possible it might. 171. Mr. Johnston.] You contend that there is a large amount of money and a large amount of labour expended in connection with bush land that is not visible? —That is so. Jambs McFarland examined. 172. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler at Aorangi, and I hold 68 acres under lease in perpetuity, and I have held that land for five years. My rent is 15s. 6d. per acre. 173. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission?—! wish to say that our settlers have come here.in a body, and as one of those who will speak on their behalf I desire to call attention to several matters. " First, as to the restrictions in regard to cropping. Our land being heavily timbered with a large amount of stumps in it, we find that it is not profitable for us to lay it down within such a short period as is provided by the regulations. We consider that we are suffering hardships that ought to be removed. It is very rich land, and, in the first place, our crops are partially valueless owing to the richness of it. It requires a number of years in order to give us a payable crop. 1*74:. Have you asked the Land Board if they will give you that concession? —I think the Land Board is considering that matter. As to the homestead system, Ido not understand much about it, and with respect to the ballot I do not know anything myself that could be substituted for it with advantage. 175. Have they loaded your land for roads?—l hardly understand the question of loading, but as far as I do I cannot say that I approve of it, and I think it is generally condemned. We have very good roads in our settlement, but the Government did not complete our roads, and we had to enter into a scheme for the completion of the roads by raising a special rate. The Government left the road in a very unsatisfactory state. The sections are very small, and we are deprived for going in for any more Government land. Even if we have grown up boys we cannot take up more land until they "are of age and separate from the family. I think we should be allowed to acquire some more land. We are at a great disadvantage in respect to the borrowing of money. Some of the settlers at Aorangi wanted a little money to help them in the first instance for the purpose of buying stock, &c., and stock and other things at that time were at a very high price. The amount advancsd bv the Advances to Settlers Department hardly meets us at all, and some of the settlers I might say have been ignored in the matter and others have received very small advances. The Government have one valuation of the improvements for the tenant and another for the Government in too many cases. In the case of such land there are numbers of improvements that the valuer never sees at all. I would like to point out that the settlement is affected by the river, and we consider that we are very unfairly treated by the Government, because they do not give us some assistance in order to protect that valuable land. I would say, too, that we respectfully ask for the right of purchase. We feel that our tenure, owing to the clamour of people in the towns, is getting very insecure, and we also find that buyers do not care for purchasing the lease in perpetuity. I did not think at one time that tenure was very insecure, but lam beginning to doubt it now. I have no fault to find with the Land Board or the Ranger in the way they carry out their duties, but I think the Board might have done more to assist us in connection with the encroachment of the river. We had an understanding that they were to do something. Mr. Marchant, who was then Commissioner of Crown Lands, told me that he had tried to get the Government to set aside a certain sum of money to protect this land, but that he could not manage it, and I understand that some of the settlers, before the land was taken up, were given a promise that something would be done in this matter. Do you not think it is a great hardship that we should be paying rent and taxes on land that has been swept away. If I had the right to acquire the freehold I could raise money to protect my land. 176. Mr. Johnston.'] When that settlement was opened the river was in a very bad state?— Yes. 177. And there was talk at the time that certain protective works would be done to help the settlers?—l have heard it stated that a River Board was likely to be set up, but it has never come about. 178. A large area of land has been swept away since the sections were taken up?— Yes, the river has affected some of the settlers very much. 179. Is the settlement fairly prosperous?— Yes. 180. Are the settlers satisfied with their tenure?—l cannot say that they are just now. 181. What do they want?-They believe that the right of purchase would be a very great improvement. 182. Do they want the right of purchase because it would pay better to have a freehold than a leasehold? —Yes. 183. If their tenure was secure would they be satisfied? —I do not know.
1177
0.-4
J. MCFABLAND.I
184. Can a man make a good living out of the areas generally held there? —No, it is not possible for a man with a family to make a living off 24 acres. 185. These smaller areas were cut up for workmen's homes? —Yes. 186. Is it a fact that several sections have changed hands, and that considerable premiums were paid? —Yes. 187. I suppose you could easily double what you gave for your property? —My property is in the market, and I have not so far had one inquiry. 188. Mr. Paul.] You said that you were debarred from taking up any additional land: is it to the advantage of the district that the areas should remain as at present ? —That is a question Ido not know how to answer. I suppose every one who has a small piece of land would like to keep it as long as he can, but if one settler is leaving the place and another wishes to increase the size of his holding, I should say it would be an advantage to allow him to do so. 189. Is this the position : that some settlers went there very poor men, and they have got on pretty well, and now find they can manage larger areas? —I think they could have managed larger areas from the beginning, but they were greatly hampered owing to want of money. They could not get it from the Advances to Settlers Department, and if they borrowed privately they had to pay 10 per cent. 190. You say you are now debarred from taking up any more Government land: supposing you were allowed to take up an additional area by giving the Land Board an assurance that you would part with your present section inside, say, of twelve months, that would leave the section for a smaller man, and you could take up a larger area, would that be a satisfactory alteration in the law? —In some cases it would. It would suit me very well. 191. But you do not want to get rid of this land until you get hold of some other ? —No. 192. You said the lease in perpetuity is not so saleable as if the right of purchase were given? I am certain that if our land were freehold we could sell it at a much higher price than under the lease in perpetuity. 193. Do you think for a moment that a lease-in-perpetuity section should sell at the same value as a freehold ? —As far as the tenants' interests are concerned the lease in perpetuity is of less value than if they had the right of purchase. 194. Have the settlers who have sold out of this settlement come out fairly well? —I do not think they have lost money. 195. If that land were settled under freehold, would it make any difference in the production, or in the method of farming? —I do not think it would. I think the farmers are doing their very best to work the land to the best advantage. 196. They are a good class of settlers, and the only thing that would be achieved if they got the freehold would be that it would pay them very well finacially? —They would gain more advantages than that. There is a certain amount of rein of terror at the present time owing to the threat of revaluation. 197. I suppose the freeholder is under the same rein of terror owing to the chance of an increase in the land-tax? —1 do not know about that. 198. Is the advantage to be gained a financial one? —There are several advantages to be gained. For instance, to be free from restrictions as to cropping would be a very great advantage. 199. But you say the Land Board is considering that question? —Yes, and I think they must see that the restrictions are a hindrance to the tenant. 200. Is the main advantage a financial one? —1 cannot say that. 201. Do you think the settlers would lose money by taking advantage of the option of the freehold? —No, 1 think they would rather gain money. 202. Mr. McCutchan.] Is it the case that the settlers, through what is considered the insecurity of their tenure, have had to pay for loans raised privately more than twice the rjites asked by the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes. Ernest Joseph Cartwright Tunnicliffe examined. 203. The Chairman.\ What are you? —I am an Aorangi settler, and hold 50 acres. I have been there five years, and my rent-is 15s. 3d. per acre. My land is under lease in perpetuity. 204. Is there anything you wish to bring specially before the Commission ? —I am in favour of the lease-in-perpetuity system as against the freehold, and I believe in the nationalisation of the land. I have no fear of my lease being tampered with. The land is first-rate land. I engage in dairying. I think the Advances to Settlers Office should be a little more liberal in lending money to settlers starting operations. However, as far as I am concerned, my experience has been fairly satisfactory, 205. Mr. Paul,.] Is there anything in the conditions of the lease which prevents a settler making the best use of his land? —I think not. 206. Are there any cropping restrictions which interfere with you?- I think they are in the best intersts of the settler. 207. Mr. McCutchaii.\ Do you believe in a revaluation clause being inserted in your lease ?-- I would not object to it 208. Do you think your lease is likely to increase in value? —Yes. 209. Therefore, you would have to pay an increased rent?--Yes. 210. And you would not object to paying an increased rent? —No. Joseph Whittle examined. 211. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a settler at Te Matua, Aorangi, and I have been there two years. I came from Lancashire in order to get a piece of land in this colony. I am satisfied with my land, but the. area, is not big enough for a man with a family. I engage in dairying. The land is of very good quality. I may say that I believe in the nationalisation of
148—C. 4.
C—4.
1178
[J. AVHITTLE.
the land. I would like to ask this: if they carry the freehold to its ligitimate conclusion, where are we going to put future generations? In my opinion, nationalising the land is the only means by which the State can get what belongs to it —namely, the unearned increment. It seems a strange thing to me that this agitation for the freehold arises from the very parties who opposed the Land for Settlements Act. I think that under the lease in perpetuity the tenans have got a good thing. The State will never get its own back. Ido not believe in that. If we take an honest view of things we must consider the welfare of all the people in the State. We cannot " run " the New Zealand Government for the benefit of its farmers. We have too much class legislation both here and in the Old Country. I have suffered from it in the Old Country, and I know what it is leading to. You can take Ireland as a sample of a freehold country. Where are they to-day. The same thing will obtain here in course of time if a change is not made. We are advertising the colony in England, and we are inducing men to come out here, but soon there will be no land for them. Where are you going to put the people —on the mountains. With regard to the encroachments of the river, one settler informed me that he has lost 15 acres through the encroachment of the river. 212. Mr. Paul.'] Are the settlers fairly prosperous on this settlement? —Yes, they are doing fairly well, and have been enabled in some cases to sell out at a profit. Although I paid £320 I could sell out at a profit. I hold that the unearned increment does not belong to me. It is caused through the construction of railways, roads, bridges, &c., which all contribute to making my land more valuable, and why I should pocket the increase passes my understanding. 213. You paid £320 for this section: what proportion of that was for improvements? —Not more than £100. 214. Then you paid £200 for the goodwill? —That was a burden put on me by the tenant who preceded me, and that burden is really on the State for all time. 215. But did not the original tenant by improvements put that value on to it? —No, not to that extent. 216. Is there anything in the conditions of the lease that prevents you making the best use >)f the land ? —No, not so far. 217. What inducement would you give to a bush settler to go on the land? —I think that a man who goes into the bush and takes up land is a fool. Why should a man go and bury himself in the bush when there are thousands of acres available in settled districts. 218. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you supply milk to a factory? —Yes. 219. Have you taken shares in the factory? —Yes. 220. Did the man who held the land before you have shares in the factory? —Yes. 221. Did you take them over? —Yes. 222. I suppose that factory was put there at the expense of the settlers? —Yes. 223. Has it given an increased value to the land? —Yes. 224. I suppose that would be included in the improvements vou paid for? —I paid for the shares separately--225. Do you get credit for the increased value given to the land by the settlers in putting up the factor}' ?—-I hold that the unearned increment belongs to the State. 226. Do you not think the increased value given to the land belongs to you I—Of1 —Of course it does, but I am not including that in the unearned increment. 227. What has the State done for you since you went there to produce this unearned increment? —I cannot say, except what it has done for the community at large. 228. Where do you sell your butter? —In England. 229. Has the State done anything for you in that respect? —Yes, in grading the butter, and in other ways. 230. Do you not pay your proportion of that through the Customs? — Ido not know that I do. 231. Where do these men's salaries come from? —Partly from taxation. . 232. Do not some of the taxes come from you? —Yes, partly. 233. In what way has the State done so much as to produce this £200 unearned increment, which you say the State holds in the land? —By making public works. 234. Were not your roads there, and were they not taken into consideration in the price of the land when you took it up? —I do not know. 235. Are you quite confident that the whole of your goodwill, over and above the improvements, belong to the State? —Yes. 236. Although you have paid for it "yourself? —Yes. 237. Mr. AnateyP\ You say you believe in land-nationalisation? —Yes. 238. Do you regard the lease in perpetuity as a fair form of lease? —No, not for the State. 239. What form of lease do you consider to be fair? —I could not say. 240. Do you think a lease should contain a revaluation clause at considerable periods?— Yes. 241. Would you be in favour of putting such a clause in existing leases, or only in future leases?— That is a difficult question to answer. The State never disturbs contracts it has made. The State, as a rule, regards its contracts as sacred. 242. Do you think the State should regard this contract as sacred? —I suppose it should. 243. Do you think it should regard a contract for the sale of the freehold as sacred? —Yes. 244. You think that the contract entered into between the settlers and the State in regard to both the freehold and the leasehold are equally sacred? —Yes. George Wheeler examined. 245. The, Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and am Chairman of the Oroua County Council. I farm 930 acres of freehold. I was the first settler on the Manchester Block. I have been asked, first of all, by the chairman of the Feilding Branch of the Farmers' Union to present
1179
C.—4.
G. WHUELEK.
to you this document containing ten signatures. It was signed at a public meeting of settlers near Apiti: "At a public meeting of the settlers on the Apiti Main South Road, at Roper Brothers, on the 31st May, a resolution was unanimously carried, to be forwarded to the Land Commission to sit in Feilding on the 6th June, stating that, in their opinion, leaseholders should have the right of the freehold, and that great dissatisfaction exists with regard to loading land for roads, which have not been completed after ten years' residence." There are numbers of settlers in this room who are prepared to express their views in favour of the freehold, but, as the time of the Commission is limited, they will not have time to give evidence, and, therefore, I would ask the Commission to take some notice of their numbers. Nearly all the gentlemen present are in favour of the freehold. 1 may say that 1, like many others, came to this colony to get a piece of land. We left Ireland, England, and Scotland because those countries are not freehold countries —they are leasehold countries. As a young man, I could not. get a freehold in England, and I and others left the Home-country in consequence of the inherent love which every one has for a piece of freehold land. lam now interested in the land on behalf of my sons. I wanted to get a section for one of my sons, and, although the land laws of this colony are excellent, in my opinion, unless the law provides for a choice of tenure, things will not be satisfactory. In regard to the ballot system, it is no doubt far from satisfactory to the would-be settler. I have had no personal experience in applying for land under the ballot system, because I found on making inquiries that I was debarred as I had land already, and my son was debarred because he was not twenty years of age, and it is necessary that he should lie twenty-one years of age. I think it is only keeping back settlement to have hard-and-fast rules of that kind. In talking with those who have taken up land, I find that there is universal dissatisfaction with the way in which lands are loaded. The dissatisfaction takes this form: Ihe settler complains that while the powers that be are strict in enforcing the land regulations there it not {he same care in fulfilling their obligations, and it will be seen from the document presented to the Commission that these unfortunate people have had to bear the loading for ten years, and they have not yet got a road. 246. Mr. Johnston.] Have you had any experience of the Land for Settlements Act? —Only in the way of attempting to get a piece of land for my son. 247. You think the age-limit of twenty-one years should be reduced? —Yes. 248. Have you visited the estates in Canterbury under the Land for Settlements Act? —No, I know nothing of the South Island. 249. Do you approve of the ballot? I hear from almost all hands that the present ballot is so unsatisfactory that some change should take place. 250. Would you be satisfied with the straight-out ballot?- No, I think the grouping is most unsatisfactory. In respect to the straight-out ballot, there is a good deal of dummyism. People are induced to apply for land, and I have heard of partners being allowed in afterwards. I am afraid the regulations are all right for the scrupulous man, but they are no use in the case of the unscrupulous man. 251. Mr. Paul.] In respect to applicants for the ballot: did you ever hear of a Land Board demanding a bank-book showing an applicant's financial position ? —No. 252. Have you ever heard of a further case where the Land Board has thrown an application out because the bank-book showed a big deposit a few days before the application was made, and the Board had reason to believe the applicant was a dummy? —No. I may here state that a previous witness said that Ireland was a land for freeholders. It is nothing of the kind. The trouble in that unfortunate country is that the land is leased to tenants. Give those tenants the freehold as they are giving it 1o them now, and I have no doubt Ireland will become a contented and happy country. 253. Who owns the freehold laud in Ireland? —The landlords, and the landlord in New Zealand is the State. When the State does wisely here it will part with the freehold as the landlords in Ireland are being made to part with it now. 254. Is there any analogy between the tenant in Ireland under a private landlord and the tenant in New Zealand under the State?—A very great analogy, only he is worse off here. As a rule," you can move a private individual, but a Board is so hampered by regulations that it becomes a piece of machinery. 255. And from your experience you make the definite statement that the tenants in New Zealand under the State are in a worse position than the tenants in Ireland under private landlords?—l have not been a tenant in Ireland, and I am not a tenant in New Zealand. 256. Ido not want you to hedge the question. I want you to say whether it is so or not? —I have no hesitation in saying that I would sooner be a tenant under a private landlord than a tenant under the State. 257. The question is, whether you have come to the conclusion that the tenant in Ireland under a private landlord was in a superior position to the tenant in New Zealand under the State as a landlord? —Yes. 258. You say that the tenant in Ireland was in the best position ?—Yes. 259. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think the arrears under which the colony is settled at present are sufficient to enable people to make a reasonable living off them? —No, not in many cases. In the case of small areas, like 40 acres, so long as the men are doing outside work it is all right, but the moment that work is done it is found that the area is too small. 260. But the tenant may sell out and take up a larger area? —He is not allowed to take up a larger area while holding the smaller area. Why make a man, whose family has increased and is "rowing up, sell his home, and be c.ompelled to go back further into the country in order to get a larger holding. , John Ferguson examined. 261. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a storekeeper at Ohakune, where I was a Crown tenant for twelve years until recently. I had 200 acres under lease in perpetuity. I sold out after I had stumped and improved the land, but got no more than the value of my improvements.
C—4.
1180
[J. FEBGttSON.
262. Just say what you wish to bring before the Commission ? —The people of Ohakune held a meeting 011 the 27th April, and we expected that the Commission would sit at Raetihi. We appointed delegates to appear before the Commission there, and were very much disappointed to hud that our district were not to receive a visit. Had the roads not been as they were, the deledates would have waited 011 the Commission at Taihape on Saturday evening. I have received a wire from the delegates who were to give evidence at Taihape, asking me to represent them here to-day. I acted as secretary of the meeting, and they unanimously resolved in favour of the option of the freehold being given to Crown tenants, for the reason that they considered there was a difficulty in financing on a lease in perpetuity. Private individuals will hardly lend money at all 011 the lease in perpetuity, and even the Advances to Settlers Office, which I consider a good institution, will not lend the same amount of money on a lease as they will do on right-of-purchase property. The meeting was also in favour of Lands Boards being elective. 263. Were they dissatisfied with the administration of the Land Board as at present? —In some ways. They are not altogether satisfied with the Land Acts. They are mostly Crown tenants under the farm homestead settlements, and they consider it unfair that after having opened up the country that they have to continue under their original tenure, whereas in the event of any section being forfeited that section is put up to the ballot under any tenure that is desired. It gives the incoming tenant an advantage over those who have been on the block from the start, and have had all the rough work to do. Another objection is that the homestead settler is barred from buying out his neighbour in order to increase his holding, but if a section is forfeited and he is fortunate enough to secure it he is eligible to hold it. If he is entitled to do that we think he should be also entitled to buy his neighbour out. The meeting considered that residence should be compulsory, otherwise the other settlers who do reside are put at a disadvantage in the matter of' schools, &c. 264. Are there any people who hold land and do not reside on it there? —Yes, there are some. Another matter referred to was the shutting up of certain sections that have been forfeited. There are sections in our district having valuable timber on them that are not open for selection. They also consider that the Advances to Settlers Department should lend on a Government lease as much as they lend on land with the right of purchase or on the freehold. 265. Mr. Johnston.] How many tenants do you consider you represent? —Between twenty and thirty. 266. How many Crown tenants are there in your district? —Between thirty and forty. 267. It is principally on account of financing that they wish to have the right of purchase? — That is their chief reason. 268. Is there any other ? —lt is much more difficult to sell a leasehold than a freehold. 269. They would get more money for it if they had the freehold? —People do not like to bu. the leasehold, for the reason that they cannot finance with it. 270. I suppose you know that the Land Board is endeavouring to amalgamate the holdings under the farm homesteads? —I have not heard that they were. 271. Mr. Faul.\ In your personal experience, have the Advances to Settlers refused to lend as much on the lease in perpetuity as they will lend 011 the occupation with right of purchase? —They do not pretend to lend as much on the lease in perpetuity, and I believe in a good many cases they will not lend up to half the value of the improvements. 272. Mr. Anstey.\ Have the settlers you represent got good roads? —Yes, in the summer-time. 273. Have the settlers all got good access to their sections? —No. We have been loaded with ss. per acre for roading purposes, and have been there for twelve years, and even now we have not got good roads. 274. Has the loading all been spent? —It is supposed to be, but 1 do not know whether it is or not. 275. Have the settlers rated themselves for road maintenance? —Portions of the roads have been handed over to the local body, and they have to maintain the road, although the settlers have to pay 5 per cent, on the loading for 999 years. 276. Is there sufficient rating in your local body to keep these roads retained in order? —No, 1 do not think so. 277. Have you raised any money under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act? —Yes. 278. Is it sufficient? —I think it will be. We are just raising the loan now. It has not been spent. William McKean examined. 279. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer holding 200 acres under lease in perpetuity, which I have held for eleven or twelve years. It is situated about twelve miles beyond Rangiwahia, on the Marton Homestead Block. I wish to make the following statement: (1.) The settlers in special settlement homestead blocks were not granted optional tenure, but were compelled to take up leases in this block (Marton I and 2). Some of the sections were not taken up, some abandoned, and some forfeited. Government afterwards put those sections in the market under optional tenure. Most of them were taken up with right of purchase, Government itself making the first breach of the law by varying the conditions, and granting to later comers what they deny to the pioneers who came into the block first. Why grant some optional tenure and deny it to others? If good for one party, surely good for both. (2.) We have no confidence in the lease under Government, seeing they can alter the conditions at any time, which a private landlord would be compelled by law to observe. This and the threat of revaluation is a grave menace to settlers who have made their farms out of the standing forest, and who have spent much time and money in doing so. Revaluation would mean to us repudiation and robbery. (3.) The lease in perpetuity came into existence in 1892. In 1895 the first Fair Rent Bill was introduced. It has been before Parliament four times since then. The latest pronouncement by the Minister
1181
a—4.
W. MCKEAN.j
of Lands is that he will bring it before the House again as soon as he thinks it will pass. Now, seeing this Bill, if passed, would give power to the Government to review our rents every two years if they so wished, and that by their own nominated officials, notwithstanding the agreement made that we were to hold the land at a fixed defined rental for 999 years, 1 ask, what is the value of our leases? Is it any wonder we want the option of converting to freehold? Should this iniquitous measure become law it would mean ruin to many of us, who have spent many years of time and all the money we could scrape together converting what was a standing dense forest, utterly unproductive and useless at the time we took our sections, into productive farms. Ihe option of converting to freehold would give us security, and enable us to escape this injustice. (4.) Another grievance is the loading for roads of ss. per acre, amounting to ,£SO on 200 acres. This at 4 per cent, is £2 per annum. This for the currency of the lease would amount to £1,998, £10 sterling per acre, forty times the amount of the capital sum. Had this been raised as a special loan by the County Council in the ordinary way, in forty years capital and interest would be paid off and the loan extinguished; but after paying to Government £1,998 the debt still remains. (5.) The laws and Land Boards governing this block were unsuitable, and not wisely administered—(a) Compelling the destruction of milling timber; ( b) hampering transfers; (c) residence clause enforced unwisely; ( d) Land Board too much power, settler not enough. (6.) Valuations: Government appropriating improvements as unimproved value. (7.) Inheritance cannot will a lease without approval Minister and Board. (8.) We believe the option of freehold would not only be best for the individual, but best for the State also, and, instead of aiming at the so-called unearned increment, which is such a popular cry with a small section of the community who have neither knowledge nor experience in connection with land, Government should aim at settling a contented people on the land under a secure tenure. As the prosperity of New Zealand depends almost entirely on the direct produce of the land, anything that tends to swell the volume of our produce must add to the wealth of the colony, consequently increasing the prosperity of the community. We believe the freehold and the security it would give would promote this to a large extent, and as the State would still retain the power of taxation, resumption, and limiting the quantity, this would act beneficially to all. Hugh Fraser examined. 280. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 1,400 acres, 600 of which is small grazing-run, and the balance is freehold. I have held the small grazing-run for the last twelve years. It is in the Pohangina district. I have come here to represent the Pohangina branch of the Farmers' Union. I may say that they are, every single man of them, in favour of the freehold tenure; and I may also point out to you this as one reason why the Government should give them the right to change their tenure from leasehold to freehold. In the Pohangina district, or, rather, in the part that I represent, there are two special-settlement blocks, which were cut up into 200-acre sections and leased for 999 years. There are a great many of those sections that have been forfeited, some because they have not completed their improvements, and some on account of the residential clause. All of those sections have been put up to ballot on the optional system, and the consequence is that they have all been taken up for cash or lease with the right of purchase. I maintain it is not fair to the original settlers, after them going theie when there were no roads and when they had to pack their things through the bush in muddy tracks, and after having rated themselves and borrowed money and made the roads, that outsiders should' be allowed to come in amongst them and take up those forfeited sections on the optional tenure, while the people that went there in the first place and put up with a good deal of inconvenience are not allowed that privilege. In conclusion, I may say that the whole of the settlers in my district, to a man, are in favour of the option of obtaining the freehold.
Palmerston North, Tuesday, 6th June, 1905. George Augustus Preece examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a land-agent, residing in Palmerston North. 2. Is there any particular subject which you wish to touch upon2—l wish to give evidence particularly on the lease in perpetuity. I have been in business in Palmerston North for about twelve years, and 1 find that a large number of people holding lease in perpetuity come to me from time to time, and the general concensus of opinion among them is that they wish to have the right of purchase—that is, that the holders of the lease in perpetuity and holders of small grazingruns should have the same option of turning their leases in perpetuity and small grazing-runs into the right of purchase that the occupants with the right of purchase have now of converting thentenure into the lease in perpetuity. I may say that the holders of the lease in perpetuity have the greatest possible trouble in raising loans for the purpose of bushfelling and other improvements, and the only way they have of obtaining loans is under the Advances to Settlers Act, and under those conditions they can only get a very small advance, whereas by obtaining "ages from private people they can often improve their sections quicker than they could by obtaining an advance under the Advances to Settlers Act, and to wait till they get further improvements made. The number of applications now under the Land Act for occupation with right of purchase far exceeds that of the lease in perpetuity, where the applicants have the option of the tenure Of course, there are some lands, such as those under the Land for Settlements Act, that they have no option in, but if the land is put up under the optional tenure the applicants for the occupation with right of purchase will in all cases far exceed those for the lease in perpetuity. The general feeling among them is not to do away with the lease in perpetuity in any way, as that is the first step to getting on to the land, but they wish to have the right of converting that tenure into
1182
|_.G A. PBBEtE.
C— 4.
occupation with right of purchase and pay the difference between the 4 and 5 per cent, from the time the lease was originally taken up. I think that all landholders would be perfectly satisfied if that alteration was made in the law. With regard to the Land Boards, I think the leaseholders should have the right to have one member as their representative 011 that Board, lhat member could be elected by the landholders in the several land districts. Otherwise Ido not think there is any feeling against the present system of Land Boards. I think that the homestead system should be reinstated. It might not be taken advantage of to any large extent, but I think it would be an advantage in some districts if it were reinstated. There is also great feeling as to the practice of loading land for roads and not expending the amount. In some cases the land has been loaded for roads and the roads have not been opened up for some years afterwards. I think that when land is loaded for roads the roads should be opened up at once in order to give the settlers access to their land. With regard to the working of the advances-to-settlers system, I think that sometimes settlers are at a disadvantage because the very lowest value is given to their improvements, and they can only get a very small advance. I think that the amount advanced should be increased. They can only get an advance to the half of the value of their improvements, which are often cut down to a very low sum. In giving to the holders of the lease in perpetuity the light of purchase I do not think there is any wish that there should be any aggregation of large estates. There should be the same precautions taken as now to prevent that, but the settlers should be allowed the right to purchase their sections. 3. Your views are very strong in favour of giving the freehold ultimately to every settler 2 Yes. 4. Do you apply that to the settlers under the Land for Settlements Act? 1 am not so strong on that point as in the case on Crown lands, who, I think, certainly should have the right of purchase. 5. You say the settlers suffer when they go to borrow because they cannot get the money so readilv as if they had the right of purchase? —Yes. 6! You have experience of that?— Yes. A man wishes to obtain money for improvements, and he cannot get money to improve in the same way as if he had the right of purchase. 7. Is it also in vour experience that the settler sometimes refuses the small advance that is offered him by the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Yes. 8. What does he do then? —Obtains a temporary loan and pays a big interest for it. 9. What do they pay?— That depends altogether. You cannot get a loan on security like that without paying from 8 per cent, upwards. 10. Mr. Johnston.] Is that the only drawback to the lease in perpetuity the inability to obtain money?— That is one thing, and the inherent wish of the settler to obtain the freehold. 11. Does that exist everywhere ?—I think so. 12. You say they pay 8 and 9 per cent. ?—Yes. 13. Are you sure of that ?—They will not get money under 8 per cent. 14. Would you be surprised to hear that in Canterbury the money-lenders are running after the holders of lease in perpetuity with money at 5 per cent. ?—I should be surprised. 15. What other difficulties do the settlers suffer under under the lease in perpetuity ?— I here are many reasons. A man might wish to sell out through some circumstances, and he cannot so readily sell. „ 16 Have you ever known the Land Board refuse a transfer? —They refuse them sometimes. I do not say that the Land Board throws any obstacles in the way if the transfer can be granted 17. The main reason is that a man cannot get the same for his land under leasehold as it it was freehold: is not that the case?- -He can get more for it if freehold, and he can get better interest. He may have to go Home or leave the country, and he cannot so readily sell his interest. 18. Supposing it paid him better to have the leasehold, as is the case in Canterbury, I suppose he would be perfectly satisfied with his tenure? -I do not find that they are satisfied with their tenure. 19. Mr. Paul.] Will the tenant lose anything by gratifying his desire for the freehold?— Undoubtedly he would not lose. 20. Will it pay him to gratify that desire?— Yes. 21 Are there any endowments in this neighbourhood —education or borough I Yes; but do not think there is any wish to have the freehold given to the tenants on education, borough, or university endowments. 22. The tenants on them have no wish to get the freehold?—No, because there are no conditions of occupation with them. . ~ , 23. What are the terms of those leases?- Generally with the right of renewal after twenty-one years with compensation for improvements. In the education leases there is compensation under the Act of 1885 for full improvements, which means bushfelling and everything else. Under the Act of 1892 the improvements for which compensation is given only include planting, building, and fencing. . , , , i i a 24. Is it agricultural land? —Some is agricultural and some is pastoral land. 25 You think that the tenants under those leases are perfectly satisfied ?—Yes. 26. Are the financial institutions anxious to lend money under those tenures?— Yes, because there is compensation for improvements. 27. Better than the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 28. Mr. MeCutchan.] You complain of the dilatoriness in spending loading: has that occurred in many instances in this district?—lt has in some. 29. Can you mention the blocks? —Tirirakau, at Hunterville, was one. 30 Did complaints come to you from the settlers?— Yes. 31. Was the complaint that the loading was inadequate or delayed?--It was delayed in expenditure.
1183
C.—4.
G. A. PIiEECE.
33. Do you approve of the principle of loading for roads? —Yes, if the money is expended: but I think that the roads should be opened up as early as possible to give the settlers facilities for getting on to the land. 34. Do you think the loading should be sufficient to make the roads? —Yes. 35. You would advocate the settler being burdened with the whole cost of making the road? —Yes, if it is put on to the land. If the money is expended I do not think the settler would object. 36. In view of the fact that we are borrowing largely for public works, do you think it is fair to burden the settler with the whole cost of making the roads ? —lf the Government are borrowing for public works otherwise, perhaps it would not. 37. In the case of loans from the Advances to Settlers Department, do you think there should be discrimination between a man who borrows to buy cattle or the man who borrows to pay off a mortgage and the man who applies for a loan in order to make improvements? —Yes. 38. To what extent should they discriminate between the two? —I would give a bigger amount on the improvements of the man who wants to make improvements, and hold portion of it back until the improvements are made. 39. The State is now advancing up to 50 per cent, on improvements and 50 per cent, of the goodwill. To what extent would you increase that? —If they are advancing up to 50 per cent, on both that seems to be a fair sum. 40. Would you reduce the amount in all cases where the money is not required for further improvements? —I could hardly say to what extent, but I think a man should get a larger proportionate amount when he is putting the money back on the land. 41. Do you not think it woirld be safe for the State to make a greater advance than 50 per cent, on both where the money is spent on improvements? —I do. 42. To what extent? —I could scarcely say. You could advance 75 per cent. 43. You said there was a difficulty with the lease in perpetuity when a man wanted to sell. Is it a difficulty in obtaining a transfer or of getting a purchaser? —It is a title that will not sell as readily as the occupation with right of purchase. 44. Do you think that the Land Board should exercise any control over the consideration that passes between the leaseholder and the purchaser? —I do not think they should. The State is not affected. The holder has the goodwill, and it is worth a certain amount, and I do not think that the State should interfere with that so long as the improvements have been made and the whole of the conditions complied with. I do not think that the State should exercise any control over the consideration. 45. Are you satisfied with the constitution of the Land Boards? —Yes; but I think that the leaseholders of each land district should have a representative on the Board for their district. 46. Upon what franchise would you have the member elected?—l have not thought that out. Alfred Richards examined. 47. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a holder of a lease in perpetuity on the upper blocks of Pohangina. I hold 653 acres. It was originally a small grazing-run, but four years ago I converted it into a lease in perpetuity. When my lease was converted it was 10s. an acre, and we were paying rent at 5 per cent. I received the permission of the Board to convert, and afterwards I had notice that the land was to be valued at £2 an acre. Being a little surprised, and knowing the land was valued at 10s. before we went into the back country, we had no option but to surrender the lease or carry it on. We carried it on. 48. Were not you aware of that before you committed yourselves? —We had no idea until we received information that the valuer would be there at a certain date to revalue it —that is, the area being part of the small-grazing-run lease, which, during the last few years has been greatly cut up by floods in the river. A lot of this section is between two streams, the Pohangina and the Makaki, better known as Coal Creek. I estimate fully 60 to 80 acres has been carried away by the river, therefore, under the circumstances, I have been hardly dealt with. 49. Did you make known your loss to the Land Board? —The Ranger was aware of the loss by the river. 50. Have you any views on the question of the Land Boards?- I maintain they should be elected on the same principle as Education Boards or Hospital Boards. We have not got sufficient representation on them, and I would like to see them meet periodically in different parts of the district. It is very hard for a small settler to go down to Wellington; some of them cannot afford it. There is many a complaint they have that they would like to ventilate. 51. Do you never see the Ranger here? —I have often accommodated him with a night's lodging in the early days. Ido not believe in the ballot system of getting land. I prefer auction or tender. I could give you instances where, under the ballot system, good men have had to leave the colony on account of being unable to get land under that system. One person waited for the Tamaki Block, but had no luck and went away disheartened, but under the auction or tender systems he would have had a fair show of getting a section. 52. Are you aware that both these systems have been tried for some years in the colony? —Yes, but I think, from my experience of the tenants and landholders of the colony, they would prefer to have them back again. Witli reference to the question of the value of leaseholds now and at the time they were taken up, I maintain that the tenants should have the benefit of any increased value on that land, or lease, in conjunction with the Crown. I have not much to say with regard to the Advances to Settlers Department, but my experience is that it is a very difficult thing sometimes to obtain what you want from the Department. I know of one case in this district where a section was held in Pohangina before we got the advance required. In another case we had to get it privately. In regard to the question of the conditions and positions of various tenures, I maintain the freeholder is far better off than the leaseholder. I can give you an instance at
C—4.
1184
[A. EICHAKDS.
Pohangina, where different associations have taken up land on the deferred payment, and others on the lease in perpetuity, and where the farmers are practically well-to-do —able to buy their stock, and pay for it —whereas some holders of leases in perpetuity have to obtain advances from auctioneers. They are unable to buy their stock, excepting on the auctioneers' accommodation, and cannot get advances over and above those they have already on it. In connection with the aggregation of large estates, I do not know of one large estate in this district, or in the Pohangina, where the country as a whole has not benefited by it. It does not pay the owners to hold these large estates. They are splitting them up every day. Take, for instance, Judge Prendergast's property in the vicinity of this town. It is now held by some fifty settlers, whereas before one shepherd looked after it. In our own district we have very few sections over 1,000 acres. 53. Mr. Johnston.] Are you nominated by a party or association to give evidence, or are you giving it on your own behalf solely? —I came here voluntarily without fear or favour to say what I think. 54. You do not represent a number of settlers? —No. 55. Have you had any experience of the land-for-settlements tenure? —No, the only experience I have is under this small-grazing-run lease and the lease in perpetuity. 56. Would the Pohangina have been settled if it had been exclusively offered as a freehold in the first instance? —All the lower part of the Pohangina was offered as a freehold and taken up very quickly. 57. But, would part of the country have been settled at the present time if it had been offered as a freehold? —I am not quite sure. I know a good many settlers who went there would have been able to take up the freehold in the first instance; some would not. I think people who were not able to take it have sold their interests and gone, not being able to hold it. 58. Do you think the leasehold system has been advantageous to the settlement of the country ? —It has been advantageous to those who had no capital to start with. 59. Then the leasehold system has assisted people with small capital to get on the land? —In some cases. 60. Could your friend who ran away from the country have taken up a piece of freehold land ? —The section he wanted was a small area, perhaps from 100 to 200 acres of cheap land, which he had sufficient capital to work .6*l. Could he not have bought that freehold? —He did not seem to be able to do so. 62. He thought it more advantageous to go to the ballot than to get it on the freehold? —That is where the bulk of them do go. 63. They prefer the ballot although they would like the freehold? —They have no option. 64. Who was your friend who told you this? —The gentleman I have mentioned is Mr. McLenzie. He has a wife and family, and it did not suit him to go away to the back blocks and hew out a home there. He preferred to come nearer town and take up one of these sections which had been split up. 65. Have you known the Land Board ever to refuse anything in reason in connection with their administration ? —I could not exactly mention a case now, but I know of several cases in our district where an application has been held over, and so forth. Ido not say there has been anything unreasonable. 66. Can you give an instance of absolute hardship that the Board have refused to redress? — Not in our district. 67. Mr. Paul.\ When you were considering this small grazing-run which you took up on lease in perpetuity, did you not know that it would be revalued? —Not until.afterwards. 68. Did you expect to get a 999-years lease instead of a twenty-one-years lease at the same valuation I—Our1 —Our lease was almost expired, and, going by reports from Land Board meetings in other parts of the colony where the leases had run out, I noticed that they were offering but small compensation, from £2 to £2 10s. for improvements, and I did not feel justified in accepting the same. . 69. That is not the point: did you expect to get a 999-years lease in preference to twenty-one years, with a rent based on the same capital value? —Certainly. We fully expected to receive a 999years lease at 4 per cent, on the 10s. an acre. 70. Which do you think would have paid the State best, the twenty-one-years tenure or the 999-years tenure? In the case of the small-grazing-run lease, we had the option of renewal at the increased valuation. We could not say what the Land Board would have increased the rental to. 71. In your experience the deferred-payment settlers are much better off than the lease-in-perpetuity settlers? —Certainly; T do not know of one in my district where they have made it a freehold. 72. How do the dates compare? —In the Pohangina district some sections were taken up before and some after I took mine up —that is, the deferred-payment sections. 73. In your evidence you made a statement that the deferred-payment settlers were prosperous and made their freeholds, and it was a much greater success than the leases in perpetuity : I ask you, how do the dates agree? Which was the longest settlement? —The deferred-payment sections were the longest settled, barring one block in that district. There was one block taken up under deferred payment, and then there was some land which came under the lease in perpetuity. On the opposite block, on the opposite side of the river, there was some land taken up on deferred payment. lam alluding to the Harbour Board block in the Awaho, on the lower portions of the river. There are some portions on the upper parts of the Pohangina. 74. Are the two settlements a fair comparison? —Fair. The lower portions have an advantage over the open country. 75. That is the deferred payment? —Yes. 76. Mr. McCutchan.~\ How long ago is it since you took up this grazing-run?—About eighteen years and a half to run.
1185
C—4.
A. MOHABDN.
77. You have it under the Act of 1885, and do I understand you to say you are paying B per cent, capital? —6d. an acre. We were paying 5 per cent. 78. What do you reckon your improvements were worth per acre? —The lower part was worth £4 per acre. 79. Would it average £4 an acre all over? —No, a lot of the felled bush would not quite fetch that. 80. Would it amount to £3 10s.? —That was a fair average right through. 81. What was the selling-value of the property, in your opinion 1— Between £4 10s. and £5 an acre on the average. 82. That would be the selling-value of your interest? —If it had been freehold we would not have received that for it. 83. Is it not the case that these small grazing-runs contribute much less to local rates than the sections under the other tenures round about? —-Yes, we are paying more rates on it now. 84. Was it due to your exertions that the freehold value was raised from 10s. to £2? —Yes. I maintain that if we had not gone out there in the early days it would still have been worth tOs. It is through our labour and exertions that the capital value was made. 85. Do you consider that there has been generally an increase in the value of land in that district? —The increase is only during the last two or three years. It was almost unsaleable there three years ago. 86. If you consider the £2 an acre placed on the land by the Government when you converted it into lease in perpetuity excessive, why did you not surrender the lease, knowing you had the right of renewal? —The only part we had was surrendered and lost after competing for it at public auction. We had a right of renewal. 87. Why did you not tase that right of renewal instead of forfeiting it? —I did not accept it, because we did not know what we should have to pay per acre for it. We thought £2 quite safe in taking it on a lease in perpetuity on a 4-per-cent. basis on the same valuation. 88. You consider the Crown tenants are inadequately represented on the Land Board: would you approve of the number of members being increased? —In this district, taking the Upper Pohangina right through as the crow flies right on to Mangaweka, all that country is held by Crown tenants, and lately taken up sections. We want more representation. 89. You think the four members of the Land Board nominated by the Government, together with the Commissioner, do not give adequate representation ?—We would have better representation if we had another member. 90. Would you advocate the land district being divided into ridings, and the Government having the power of nomination within each riding? —No. I would advocate the different local bodies and County Councils having the power to nominate members. 91. On the County Council franchise? —Yes. I think we would get a better representation. 92. Would the other people be properly represented? —I believe in the different wards —every man would be in his own ward, and have his own personal representative. 93. How about the people in the cities and towns, who are responsible for the interest on the loan money invested by the Government in these lands before they were settled by the Government? —I have to look after our own little place. 94. You would require to act fairly. Do you not think that those people should have representation ? —I suppose so; they have an interest in these different properties. I would make the Board a nominated one by the local bodies —Town Boards, City Councils, and other local bodies. 95. Do you not think you might be swamped in the country by the town votes, and get less representation than you have now? —There would be no harm in giving the system a trial. 96. You said you had great difficulty in getting advances from the Adavnces to Settlers Department, and had to get the money privately: when you did get it privately, did you get it on equally advantageous terms? —I think the money was got at 4 per cent, from the private source. 97. Did the legal expenses compare favourably? —I do not think there was any extra charge. 98. Was there any procuration fee? —I could not tell you. 99. Do you mean to say that the money was got at 4 per cent, on the security of the lease in perpetuity? —This was a freehold. We had an advance from the Advances to Settlers Office on a small grazing-run. 100. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think that the Land Board should be elected on the same franchise as the County Councils, or would the County Councils elect them ?—I would like the County Councils and Road Boards to elect the members of the Land Board. 301. Would you give each Council one vote for each member? —Mostly one vote. 102. How would you group the County Councils and local bodies for voting purposes? —You would have to form them into different districts, and when the nominations were received eacl Council or Road Board would have to be prepared to vote for the member the people wanted. 103. For the full number of members? —For one member. 104 Then you would have to group the local bodies? —In districts. 105. Would you put the County Councils together, and Town Boards and City Council, together ? —I would keep it in large districts, the same as the parliamentary electorates. 106. Divide the land districts into four? —Yes, the local bodies to have the right to return one. 107. Are you in favour of giving the right of purchase to the lease-in-perpetuitv tenants? —Yes. 108. And under the Land for Settlements Act as well as to Crown tenants? —My experience rests entirely with Crown lands. I have no experience of the Land for Settlements Act. 109. With regard to the present rent of this land which you hold, is it too high, or more than it is worth? —Putting it this way, the Crown is deriving all the benefit from my labours on this land.
149—C. 4.
a—4.
1186
la. bichabds.
110. Did you think that there was a revaluation clause at the end of your existing lease? —Yes, with a compensation for improvements. 111. Supposing you continued under the old lease, the Crown woul'd have been in the same position as they are in now? —We would certainly have had the option of working it; but then, again, if we were not satisfied with the improvements they allowed us, the lease would have been put up to public auction, and the outsider would have had the opportunity of competing for the same section. 112. Is the rent now being paid too dear? Supposing you had allowed it to go to public competition, if you say it is too dear, you would have had a chance of getting it at a lower amount? —We might have had a chance of getting it cheaper, or of having to pay more for it. 113. Who values your improvements? —I think it is Mr. Gardner. 114. Is that the representative of the Board? —It would be the Government Land Valuer. 115. Have you no say in the valuation of these improvements? —We have no say. 116. Have you not the right to challenge the valuation of improvements? —No; the only right is that if we are not satisfied with it we have to say so. 117. Cannot you appoint a valuer in conjunction with the Government valuer if you are not satisfied with the valuation ?—Under the older Act —I do not know which it was —I think we have the power to appoint an arbitrator. 118. Was not there any power under your tenure? —Not that I know of. 119. Mr. McCulchan.\ I understand you to advocate the deferred payment as against the occupation with right of purchase? —The lease in perpetuity. 120. You do not draw a contrast between the occupation with right of purchase and the lease in perpetuity?—ln the case of tire deferred-payment sections at Pohangina the farmers are practically independent. 121. Do you think the first one is preferable over the other? —Of course, they have the right of purchase. Ido not know of any leasehold there. They are mostly all deferred payment. 122. I am not speaking of that, but asking your opinion between the two tenures- -the deferred payment and the occupation with right of purchase. Which do you think is preferable? —The deferred payment. 123. For what reason? —I have had no experience of the occupation with right of purchase. 124. You remarked that there was no aggregation of estates going on, because the big owners cut them up themselves? —Yes. 125. To what do you attribute that?— The value of land in the district rising, so they find it would benefit themselves to do so. 126. Is it not on account of the graduated land-tax? —I could not say. John Stevens examined. 127. The Chairman.'] You are a very old settler, Mr. Stevens?- Yes. I have been on this coast for fifty years. 128. Do you hold any land now?—l do. I hold land privately, and, together with my partners, I hold a considerable area of country. 129. On what tenure?— The freehold. 130. You were a member of Parliament?--Yes, for twelve years. lam also a member of the Land Board, and have been for many years. 131. Which tenure, do you think is the best for the settlement of the country, and, generally, for producing the best results? —That entirely depends upon the circumstances under which the intending occupant of the land is placed. It is, in my opinion, highly necessary that there should be at least two very distinct phases of the question dealt with. I will take, in the first place, the residue of our Crown lands, commonly called waste lands. In that connection, speaking from long experience as a land and estate agent, I am of opinion that there is too much sentiment talked about the question by persons who are intending settlers, and those who would formulate the regulations for the settlement of the land. The residue of the land, in my opinion, is now such that it can only be dealt with in considerably large areas, and is principally unsuitable for close settlement. The laws and regulations which had to be applied to close settlement of Crown lands twenty years ago cannot apply practically to-day. In my opinion, it is highly desirable that all the lands which pass out of the hands of the Crown into the hands of private individuals shall be properly cultivated —that is to say, improved so that they may produce something to the State, and what I mean by cultivation is, that where there is bush that it shall be felled and the land shall be properly grassed, fenced, and subdivided. In the early settlement of this coast it was quite a simple matter to cut up a block of land and give to each settler 100, 200, 300, or 400 acres, and he could prosper upon it, whereas to-day, taking the upper reaches of the Wanganui River, and taking the faces of various mountains alone through the middle of the North Island, and also taking the country with which I am very well acquainted in the South Island, it is impossible now that these lands can be dealt with as the good lands have been dealt with, and were dealt with in the early days. Quite recently there has been a very large sum of money invested by capitalists in Government securities, which I think is a very good thing for the colony, but it would be a very much better thing if our land laws were such as would enable these capitalists to invest their money in land and improve it. One great drawback I have found in my experience as a member of the Land Board, and also in onversation with a great number of persons who would otherwise take up land, is that compulsory residence was a difficulty. I hold, sir, that if, for example, 1,000 acres of land were taken up by a person who had sufficient capital to deal with it and fully improve it, assuming that the 1,000 acres was worth £2 an acre prairie value, tliat would be £2,000, and with a proper provision of all the farmsteading necessary, and proper subdivision, it would cost £4 an acre to grass it; but the law at present requires that the person willing to spend £4,000 upon 1,000 acres of rough land shall go there and live, That I consider is a mistake, and it is retarding settlement; retarding
1187
C.—4.
J. STEVENS.]
settlement in tins respect: tliat tlie owner of the property may nave a son, or two sons, who are not of the age perhaps to be intrusted with the whole management of such a property, and the capitalist would employ a manager. In that case 1 cannot see the difference. Supposing the capitalist's name was Brown and the manager's name was Green, the manager would have to remain there, and, therefore, the land would be occupied; and it is, to my mind, a theory which does not work out in practice to compel the owner of a piece of land to reside on it. It cannot work out in practice under such circumstances. And that the land will be occupied is certain, for the reason that, assuming that it were leasehold land, with a capital value of £2 per acre, the capitalist would improve it, he would have double the amount of interest that the Crown would have in it, and would therefore be compelled, perforce, to occupy the land, because it would have to be stocked, and where there is stock there must be some one to attend to the stock. My idea with regard to the future settlement of these waste lands is, that the Crown should throw them opem in such areas as will enable the person to make a living, and a good living, because I hold that the people should not be put on the land to remain there in the same indigent position they were in before they went upon it. They should be put upon the land for the purpose of making some progress, and getting a step further on for themselves and their families. Therefore, no harm, in my opinion, can come if we had two differential systems under which land could be taken up; for preference, I should say deferred payment. The lease-in-perpetuity people may not care for any different kind of tenure. With regard to the settlement of these waste lands, that, I think, is very important, inasmuch as our sheep have depreciated in numbers very considerably during the last few years, that being largely due to the acquisition of estates which used to run sheep, and now run cattle for dairying purposes, and in order to keep up our sheep then, so we should put our settlers on those lands which are only practically tit for rjunning sheep, and we should by all means, in my opinion, have such legislation and regulations as would induce the professional men in the towns, the merchants in the towns, and the Civil servant to invest their money and develop the country by placing their sons and daughters upon these waste lands, and so make them return two blades of grass where they return nothing to-day. Therefore, lam and always have been strongly in favour of giving a freehold. In 1882 the late Mr. Rolleston introduced a Bill called the Perpetual-lease Bill, with revaluation at the end of each period. I was a member of the Waste Lands Committee before which that Bill was considered, and 1 moved for the introduction of a purchasing clause, and I had very few sympathizers then, but to-day I know some gentlemen who were on the Committee, and they are the strongest advocates of the freehold to-day. Therefore, I wish it to be understood that 1 am very strongly in favour of giving only such title in regard to the remnant of the waste lands of the Crown as will induce capital to improve them, consistently always with seeing that the area is reasonably restricted. Coming to the question of Land Boards, I have read the evidence given before the Commission, and I find that there are a number of people in favour of the election of Land Boards. I have been a member of the Land Board for many years, and there are two great objections to elective Land Boards. The first is that the elective system would introduce political strife into a body which has fairly administered the legislation, and that, I think, would be one objection. The other objection would be the enormous cost. I presume if Land Boards were elected they would have to be elected on a parliamentary franchise. For that franchise the nonlandowners would clamour very strongly. The landowners would say " Restrict it to we landowners only." That is a debatable question, but there would be these two questions to consider. There have been a great number of statements made derogatory both to the Land Boards and also to the Commissioners who preside over them. So far as the members of the Land Boards are concerned, I do not object at all to any aspersions which may be cast upon me as a member of a Land Board, but 1 do think it manifestly unfair and unjust that a gentleman in the position of a Commissioner of Lands, whose hands are practically tied by reason of his office, should be abused, as many of the Commissioners are abused, for doing what is their duty to the settlers and the Crown. I have very often felt inclined to express my opinions through the public Press with regard to the very unfair and unjust statements which are frequently made against the Commissioners. The Commissioner of Crown Lands has a difficult duty. He has first to see that the administration of his office is carried out properly and correctly. He, secondly, has to see that no injustice is shown to the settler, and, as a member of the Board, 1 must say that, notwithstanding all these aspersions which have been cast on them, the Commissioners have gone out of their way to endeavour by all possible means to do that which is fair and just to the settler. Coming again to that class of the community which are not in the position to avail themselves of the Crown lands of which I have spoken —that is, the artisan class, the workmen who are living in cities and who are employees of firms, who have very little money indeed, but have strong right arms, plenty of knowledge, and many of them willing workers. If we ever break down the system which has been instituted under the Land for Settlements Act, of acquiring estates and forming close settlement, then I fear that our settlement of the colony would not progress as rapidly as we wish it to. The settlement, in my opinion, has been very slow indeed, and should be carried on at a much greater rate than it has done hitherto. For example, an intending settler under the Land for Settlements Act, with £200 in his pocket, would be able to take up 100 acres of land valued at £15 per acre, say. That £200 would be necessary for the purpose of enabling him to acquire his stock, erect a small house, make some subdivisions, and fence, if they did not already exist. But if that land were offered to him as a freehold he would be required under ordinary circumstances to possess not £200 but £700, because he would have to put down one-third of the value of the land, and borrow the remaining two-thirds. That is about the proportion, therefore no settlement can take place excepting by persons who are small capitalists. My idea is that our present legislation, and future legislation, are bound in the direction not of giving that which belongs to some other person or to the Crown, but of giving every individual, whether he be rich or poor, an opportunity of getting a home, if he desires it. Every facility should be given him to do so, and it matters not so long as the settler is upon the land what his title may be. The title to his land will not enable him to produce any-
C—4.
1188
|#. STEVENS
thing. Some of the settlers who have been placed on the land have changed their character. They ave gone there under the lease in perpetuity and have become prosperous under that system, and, after doing so, they have said " We must have the Crown grant," and having the Crown grant some °. ~ el ? speak so strongly about the Administration which has given them the opportunity that it the Crown grant were offered to them they would ask whether the parchment on which the grant was written had been made from a sheep which was grazed on leasehold. They say they do not think their title would be secure; that is the feeling some of them have in that connection. Ido n . ot ° b J® ct to an y klnd of tenure which will make people happy, but Ido say that it is the duty of the Crown, in my opinion, to be quite sure that we do not retard our laud settlement. Therefore, we must continue, in my opinion, under the land for settlements to have the lease in perpetuity or any system which will enable a deserving person with his family to get the land with the least possible cash. If we were to restrict it to persons who have money only, then it will mean the aggregation of our numbers of unemployed, and cause the indigent person to develop in the cities of the colony. 132. With reference to townspeople taking up land, that is a very good idea, but may it not open the door to dummyism?—l have considered the question of dummyism, and I think we ought now to consider it as munimyism, because it is as dead as an Egyptian mummy. 133. Mr. Johnston.] Have you been north of Auckland? —Yes. 134. Do you know the country?— Not very well. i j, 13 P°J OU kn ° W that there iire large areas of land there—unimproved land held by absentee landlords? —Yes. J 136. How do you account for that ?—Because of the system under which they were allowed to take it up. 1 consider that anjj person who takes up land before getting his title should be compelled to improve the land—to fence it and grass it. Are J° u f ware tllat some of these large areas of land that are now covered with manuka scrub 7 ft. or « ft. high produced 60 bushels of wheat to the acre at one time? —Yes. 13 j?' y° u . 11(> t think that non-residence, except in isolated cases, would tend to have the same effect down here?—l do not advocate non-residence. I should insist that some one shall reside on the land. 1 39. Would you advocate the putting of poor men on land under the Land for Settlements Act f —Yes. -Yes 40 PaUl D ° y ° U consider the lease perpetuity superior to the old perpetual lease? 141. Do you think there is any ground for the fear that has been expressed with reference to the insecurity of the lease in perpetuity ?—I do not think so, for this reason, that it would be absolutely unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional by retroactive legislation to interfere with the vested rights of citizens. .U u ls2 ' YoU thin | t - is absolutel y no possibility of the New Zealand Parliament repudiating the bargain entered into between the State and the tenants ?-These statements have been made for a purpose that lam not going to say anything of here. These statements have tended largely to disturb the mind of a number of tenants holding land under the Land for Settlements Act but in my opinion, there is no ground whatever for the doubt that has been raised in their minds'. e , r , e y°u in Parliament when the Fair Rent Bill was brought in? —Yes, there were several I air Kent Bills introduced by private members. 144. Did any Minister of Lands introduce a Fair Rent Bill while you were in Parliament? —1 cannot say definitely, but I am under the impression that Sir John McKenzie did, or if not there was some talk of it. 145. Would that Bill have had retroactive action ?—No; I think it was only to deal with future leases. lam not certain, but that is my recollection. 146. If it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Fair Rent Bill, where would be the necessity for such a Bill if they introduced a revaluation clause into the leases ?—A revaluation clause would be practically a Fair Rent Act. 147. Are you aware that at a conference of delegates, representing twenty-seven thousand members of trades and labour unions, which met in Wellington in April, revaluation was agitated on the transfer of a section or on the death of a lessee? —Yes. 148. Do you think that agitation has in any way tended to produce the feeling of uncertainty in the minds of Crown tenants ?—Very largely, I should say. 149 How do you reconcile that with your statement that it is purely a political move?— Because the agitation of the Trades and Labour Council is political. luO. It was to that political influence you were referring?— That is one side of politics Then, we have the strong advocates of the freehold on the other side, and their representation in regard to land-tenure is directly political. 151. Were you in the House when there was an alteration in the land law under which vested interests were very seriously imperilled in connection with the rating-powers within the New Plymouth Harbour rating area? —Yes. 152. Would you consider that retroactive legislation ?—There was a reason in that case that was unique in itself, inasmuch as this was not property held by an individual or by any bodv of individuals, but it was held by a public body, and the finances of the remainder'of the coionv were being jeopardised because of excessive borrowing on the part of the Harbour Board and therefore the colony did that for its own protection. I do not consider that was on all-fours with a case anecting an individual. 153. A great number of Crown tenants throughout the colony think that the rebate of rent vitiates the contract if it comes to a question of title?—My opinion is that the granting of i per cent, rebate does not vitiate the contract. The Crown is not compelled to take from the lessee its full pound of flesh. A reduction in the rent, cannot vitiate a contract, but an increase in the rent might vitiate a contract.
C—4.
J. STEVENS.]
1189
154. You are of opinion that a lease cannot be interfered with without compensation? — Clearly. I think that even if such a law were passed it would be found to be unconstitutional. 155. You advocate the of the deferred-payment system?— Yes, any system which will enable a man with a little money to get upon the land. 156. Will you point out in what respect it is preferable to the occupation-with-right-of-pur-chase system? —1 cannot see that there is very much difference. 157. Would you advocate a change in the law under which the capital value could be taken from the tenant by instalments after the tenth year?— Yes; I do not think there could be any objection to that. 158. Mr. Anstey.] You referred just now to the doubt which exists as to the security of the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ? —Yes. 159. You said that doubt was largely raised for political purposes, and you also spoke of the labour unions suggesting revaluation: do you think that the agitation that is being got up by a certain organization for the granting of the freehold is one of the factors that raises a doubt in regard to the security of the tenure?- 1 know there are organizations advocating the granting of the freehold. 1 do not object to their doing so, but I do object to their making representations to Crown tenants which have no foundation in fact, because they make a great number of Crown tenants very unhappy, and they give those tenants a feeling of insecurity that ought not to exist. 160. Do you think the title in its present form should be maintained in its entirety ?—With regard to land-for-settlements land, I think so, for this reason: that the State is not dealing only with the present occupiers of the land, but also with future generations. 161. You think it is perfectly right to give a tenant a better title when he asks for it?—l do not see what objection there can be to that. 162. You are a member of the Wellington Land Board, and you are engaged in opening up more land in this neighburhood ? —Yes. 163. In what sized areas are you opening up that land ?—The. areas vary, say, from 100 acres up to 1,500 acres in the case of the opening up of large blocks, according to the configuration of the land. 164. And in the case of the land you are opening up you are of opinion that none of it is suitable for letting in small areas? Very little of it. I think it would be unwise to put settlers on small pieces of land unless the laud has good access, and is also fairly fertile. 165. Do you think that many of the existing holdings are too small? —No. In some eases the holders ask for the right of amalgamation. 166. Do you think there are many sections in regard to which it would be wise to allow two or three to be put together ?—Yes, a great number. 167. That is in the case of small areas of under 100 acres? —Yes. I know lots of instances of 200- and 300-acre blocks, when the land was originally taken up, say, ten or twelve years ago, or more, the family consisted of a man, his wife, and two or three small children; but since then the family has increased, and the children have grown up, and a larger area of land is required to maintain the family. 168. Cannot the grown-up members of the family take up sections for themselves? —Not always. Ido not know why these persons should be prevented from acquiring, within reason, as much land as would enable them to better their position slightly. Job Vile examined. 169. The Chairman.} What are you?—l am a settler and a member of the House of Representatives, and hold about 250 acres at Ohakea. My land is held under lease in perpetuity, and I have been there for six years. I have a written statement here expressing my views, which I shall read to the Commission. The constitution of Land Boards should be somewhat as follows: To consist of five members, as at present, the Commissioner of Crown Lands ex officio. Two members to be nominated by the Crown; to be nominated for their special qualification as experts in lands administration, and for no other reason. Two members to be elected by Crown tenants, and by ballot, the qualifications for a member to be the same as that necessary tor the House of Representatives. The form of election to be by the distribution of ballot-papers with candidates' names thereon through the post, and returned to the Returning Officer in the same manner, anil free of postage. Tenants of the Crown only to vote. The Board to hold office for five years, when there shall be a fresh election and nomination. I recognise that Land Boards are Courts of arbitration, and Judges as between the Crown representing the taxpayers of this colony and the tenants, and consequently should be representative as between the Crown and tenants, and not one-sided, as at present. Under my proposal the Crown would have the Commissioner as chairman, with an ordinary and a casting vote, and its interest would be well protected, as it should be'. Members of the House of Representatives and members of the Legislative Council to be debarred from election or nomination to the Boards. Land Boards would act wisely in using more discretion than they do at present in sending out notices of intention to forfeit for trivial and frivolous reasons. This sort of thing causes friction and soreness amongst tenants. Then, Boards should suppress names in giving information to the Press. As an example: James Brown, say of Hataupu, applies to the Wellington Land Board to transfer Section 1, Block , Hautapu, to James White. Now, then, all the Press notice that is necessary is that an application to transfer Section 1, Block V., Hautapu, was agreed to, or otherwise, as the case may be; and the same should applv'to all transactions btween Boards and Crown tenants. What is it to outsiders? The transactions" that take place between Boards and tenants, and it will save a good deal of unpleasantness I have already called the Minister's attention to the fact that names should be suppressed from publication, and I understand that he has given instructions to suppress names in connection with notices of forfeitures; but it should be made general. It would save a great deal of irritation which is quite unnecessary. In this connection, and touching further on band
C—4.
1190
J. VILE.
Boards administration, the Rangers should be their own appointees, and not, as at present, the appointee of the Minister. The successful administration of all lands administered by the Boards depend to a very large extent upon Rangers' reports, consequently Rangers should be under the direct control of Boards, and their duties laid down and specially defined, and Rangers should be instructed to desist from prying or inquiring into tenants' personal affairs, which should not concern the Board. It only causes irritation and friction, which is undesirable. Rangers should in all cases be enjoined to use their eyes, and not their tongues, to acquire information, and in no case make suggestions to tenants with regard to their holdings: Neither should they use a system of espionage by seeking information, or even acceping such, from one tenant to the disparagement or otherwise of another tenant. The utmost care is necessary by Rangers in supplying reports to Boards that they should be correct in every detail and without prejudice. As to landtenures : I am a freeholder, and, with the exception of certain pastoral country in the South, and probably some in the north, there should be but one tenure, and that tenure should be a lease with a right of purchase, if desired. The lease should not be external, but one limited to, say, forty-one years, and no longer, with compulsory improvements and occupancy, which I will refer to later, during the first five years, after which 1 would allow the tenant the option of purchase by, say, deferred payment for thirty-six years, on the principle adopted by the Advances to Settlers, by a payment of 6 per cent, on the capital; or he could purchase for cash, or he could continue his Tease if he so desired for the balance of the term, when the land should again be placed in the open market loaded with the tenant's actual improvements. This form of tenure 1 would make retroactive to whosoever may desire, and in any case 1 would give the option of freehold to lease-in-perpetuity holders throughout the whole colony to all those that had occupied their holding for five years and complied with improvement conditions; and in the case of lands-for-settlement tenants to those who had resided, say, five years and complied with improvement conditions. I think all lands should be reclassified as first-, second-, third-, and fourth-class lands. With respect to first-class lands consisting of rich, level land, the maximum holding should be not more than 400 acres; in second-class lands, consisting of good agricultural country say, rolling downs—the maximum should be 640 acres; and in third-class lands, consisting of, say, fair to good land, but more or less broken, the maximum should be 2,000 acres; and in fourth-class land, consisting of poor to medium country of a broken nature, the maximum to be from 2,000 to 20,000 acres, and no more, according to quality. These larger holdings, where possible, to be provided with a small homestead site of fair quality land. Referring to pressure of residence, I should say residence should be imperative for the first five years under the lands for settlement, allowing, of course, a reasonable time for erection of building, and certain improvements must be effected, as at present, on lands other than lands for settlement, otherwise designated waste lands. Where there is a road to the land residence to be compulsory for the first five years, allowing, of course, a reasonable time for erection of building, or in lieu thereof double improvements. Where there is only a 6 ft. track to the land, or, as in some cases, no track at all, the ordinary improvements should be sufficient. The present statute law relating to residence on bush lands is irksome under certain circumstances, and in some cases is being fulfilled under most trying circumstances, and under threat of forfeiture. Land Boards should be more reasonable in their demands for residence. They are not restricted in their interpretation of "contiguous land," and should be more reasonable in this respect. Fathers and mothers of families should not be compelled to reside upon lands where there are no schools at hand, or where the roads are unmade. As a rule, these people generally are only too anxious to settle upon the land, and compulsion should not be used. With regard to pressure of other restrictions, and referring here to the cropping regulations, &c, I do not favour the Boards having any power to withhold or refuse any reasonable thing. It is humiliating for any man, in this colony, at all events, to be required to go cap in hand to a Land Board for concessions. I would make reasonable regulations for Boards to be guided by in their administration. In the case of cropping, 1 would alter the present regulations somewhat as follows: I would classify lands into four classes for this purpose, and, beginning with fourth-class land first, I would say that land occupied at a less rental than 4s. per acre only one green or root crop and one grain-crop should be taken from the land. Rape may be sown in laying down pasture, and the land so used must be grazed for three years before breaking up again. In third-class land land rented at anything between 4s. and Bs. per acre- two grain-crops, with aforementioned privileges as to green crops, &c. In second-class land, or land rented at a value of between Bs. and 12s. per acre, three grain-crops with aforementioned privileges as to green crops, &c. In first-class land, or land rented at a higher rental than 12s. per acre, four grain-crops may be taken, with aforementioned privileges, &c. In this case and in the second-class I would allow the occupier to cut his first year's grass if he choses in lieu of one grain-crop, always providing that it must be laid down for the three consecutive years after cutting grain or first year's grass. This is the only way, in my opinion, in which this question of cropping can be satisfactorily settled. Personally, as a tenant, I would not ask the Land Board for any concession that is not given by statute law or regulation. Then, as to the burning of straw, no restriction should be placed upon a tenant as to how he should deal with the products of the land. Conditions are different here from what they are in the Old Land. Cattle are not housed much, and the straw cannot be used to make manure, and it only encumbers the ground if allowed to remain on the land. And here I would like to say that all classes of tenants should not have any embargo put upon them in their desire to borrow money. The Minister and the Boards should refrain from dictating at what rate of interest a tenant shall borrow at. It is no business of theirs. The lease sets forth, of course, that the tenant must first get the Board's sanction, and such sanction should not be withheld unreasonably in any case not as to the rate of interest. Further, I think all payments of rent by tenants should only be paid the first half-year in advance; the further payments as they become due at the end of six months, and not at the beginning. It is asking for a rental before it is earned, and it must come from the
1191
a—4
.T. VILE
land. Then, as to payments of rent: I think arrangements should be made whereby the tenants could pay their rents when due at the nearest post-office. Referring to the effect of climate upon tenure, I have been in the north of this Island and in the South Island from end to end. Excepting in the case of pastoral runs, I cannot see why one part of the colony should be placed on any different footing to any other part in respect to tenure. Excepting under the homestead system, there are lands in the north of Auckland and south of Auckland, in southern parts of Otago, Nelson, Marlborough, and Westland which might be well given away to those who desire to settle upon them for nothing, the only conditions being occupation and improvement. With respect to the ballot system, Ido not know how you can replace it by any other method equal. It places all applicants upon an equal footing. It is, of course, a lottery; but better a lottery than that it should be run up to a fictitious value by auction, and the law later to be altered to reduce first value. The practice of loading land with roading as adopted by the Crown is quite wrong. Let the settlers themselves load their lands through the controlling local bodies for those purposes. They can spend the money much more economically than the Government, and would consequently get more for their money. And, then, the money coming from the same source as the Government get their money —namely, the Government loans to local bodies —would be paid off in a given period, whereas by the system of loading the sum remains externally upon the land. This is neither fair nor just. Then, as to the values of leaseholds now and at the date of lease. Well, so far as lands held under lease in perpetuity are concerned on waste lands, I should say that if there is any value or increment other than what has been put upon the land it belongs only to the occupant. He, and he alone, is entitled to and deserves all the increment there may be. In the case of his desiring the freehold, I would place him in exactly the same position as the occupa-tion-with-right-of-pur chase holder,-and he should pay the 1 per cent, extra with interest added, and no more. The same thing may be said with respect to the lands-for-settlement blocks. It has, in my opinion, been brought about chiefly by the settlers themselves. They have caused by their occupancy two, and in some cases three, blades of grass to grow where previously only one grew, and also the great demand for their products in the Mother-land and elsewhere. And, further, in numbers of cases lands-for-settlement settlers have undertaken monetary responsibilities in erecting dairy factories and creameries, and in increasing facilities for transporting their produce to market, and have thereby added increased value to their holdings. Will any one claim justly this value does not belong to the tenant? I claim that the occupier is entitled to the freehold of that land, if the freehold is granted, at first cost to the Crown. As I understand it, the only object of the lands-f or-settlement policy was to increase the productive power of our lands by closer settlement. It surely was not intended originally to make this policy a means to increased taxation by rack-renting through a Fair Rent Act or a Valuation Act by the seizure of an increment, anyway. Now, let me say, if there is to be a seizure of any increment if the freehold right is granted, there should be a maximum rate fixed by law somewhat on the following lines: In the case of land rented at 12s. per acre and over a maximum of not more than £1 per acre might be demanded; IBs. per acre on land rented at a value between Bs. and 12s. per acre; and 10s. per acre on land rented at between 4s. and Bs. per acre; and where the land is rented at 4s. per acre less ss. per acre should be the maximum, and these claims should only be charged where proved that there is an increment which the Crown is entitled to. Now, we have about 750)000 acres of land occupied under the Land for Settlements Act, and presuming that the average increased value to the purchaser was 10s. per acre all round, it would add £375,000 to the Land for Settlements Fund. In case the freehold is granted under the land for settlements, I would not allow any transfer of any instrument of these lands to other than those who could make the same declaration as the original occupier. As to the working of the Advances to Settlers Department, I know but litfle of its workings. A relation of mine once applied for a loan, but was refused. He, however, got the money at J per cent, less privately, and later renewed it at | per cent, less than the Government charges. I am inclined to think that there is just a little patrimony under the Advances to Settlers. All the same, I believe it to be a good Act if properly administered. In the interests of settlers it should not operate in cities. I certainly object to the aggregation of large estates, and, in my opinion, the day is past when aggregation other than what is desirable will occur. 170. You said you thought the Land Board should be partially elected —two to be elected and two to be nominated —and that the election should be confined to Crown tenants. Do you not think that would give too much preponderance to the Crown tenants, because the Government is the landlord, and they might be outvoted? —The three to two Commissioners' casting-vote would keep that right. 171. You think that the Crown Lands Ranger, who is an important officer, should be appointed by the Land Board. Do you not think that would be rather curious, because the Ranger requires to be in an independent position, and might be in conflict with his masters in away ? —I do not think so. I think, of course, that the Board would be the proper authority to appoint a person who has to report to them. It is an arbitration really. 172. You are altering the Land Board very much by making them the appointees of these people, because they have no appropriation to pay him from? —The appropriation should be allowed them. 173. The Government of the day are the parties to pay out the money?— The Government of the day can make an appropriation to the Land Board. 174. Mr. Paul?\ Is it not a fact that a good law can be spoilt by bad administration? —No doubt. 175. You admit that the Land Boards are more of an administrative body than anything else? —Thev should be only an administrative body. 176. Ts it not a fact that the Land Board should be as much as possible in sympathy with the land-legislation of the day? —I think so, as between the tenant and the State.
a—4.
1192
[j. VILE.
177. Do you think that is likely to be achieved by election? —Yes. 178. If a political opponent of the Government of the day were elected to the Land Board, could he not do a great deal to shake the confidence of the people in the Government of the day ?- Ido not think so. He has only to administer. 179. Can you give any instance of the Rangers harassing the settlers or the Board being unreasonable in its treatment of settlers? —I do not care to bring in special cases in that connection. I have had letters from tenants, who have satisfied me that that is so. 180. You have come to a conclusion without hearing the Land Board or the Rangers in defence? —1 do not know that I want to hear the other side. I am satisfied with the side I have heard. These people would not write to me in the strain they have if it was not so. 181. Of course, it is entirely your affair as to what you base your opinions on; but as a general principle is it not fair to hear both sides before you make up your mind ? —Perhaps it is not; but in this case I think I am perfectly justified in making up my mind with the one side. 182. Are you in favour of limiting the area of freehold? —I have already said that. 183. In your statement did you lay it down that all tenants under the Land for Settlements Act under the lease in perpetuity should have the option of the freehold? —Yes. 184. Would you extend that option to the tenants of endowments? —Yes. 185. Would you take it further and apply it to private tenants? —I do not think it is possible. Of course, what is good for the goose is good for the gander ; but the position is, as far as private lands are concerned to-day, that the large holders who are giving leases are giving the right of purchase. In the case of small holders who are leasing their lands that is principally done for some specific purpose, sucli as for the benefit of the family, and they could hardly be expected to part with their land. But the l#rge landowners are giving purchasing clauses. 186. Do you also know of cases where they are not doing so? —No. 187. Would you apply that principle to large holders? —Yes. 188. Is it really leasehold if you place such restrictions on the land —such as limitation of area and preventing a man leasing unless he gives the right of purchase? —Yes. 189. Is the settlement you are in successful? —Very. 190. Have there been any sales? —One, I think. 191. Was that to the advantage of the seller? —I could not say. 192. What special advantage would it be to give them the option of the freehold ?— I The advantage which every Britisher considers it is best to adapt himself to —that is, the right to occupy what is his own. A man will do with land which is his own what he will not do on land which is not his own and cannot be made his own. 193. What would leaseholders do that they are not doing now in the way of farming- their land? —They might take off four crops, instead of being restricted to two. 19H:. Did you visit the Cheviot Settlement? —Yes, 1 have been all over it. 195. Would vou give the settlers on Cheviot the option of the freehold at the original value? —Yes. 196. You saw the estimate of the profit made out of Cheviot annually? —Yes. That profit belongs to the occupiers—at least, that is my opinion. 197. You know that the State putting that railway in is increasing the value of the land? — I have not considered the question of the railway being put through the estate. That is quite another matter altogether. Leaving that out of the question, anything that these people have got in the matter of increment is their own. 198. You cannot leave the railway out of the question in Cheviot; it is going there shortly —I do not profess to say that there should not be something attached to that fact. 199. You know that on Cheviot a large area was let on twenty-one-years leases: what would you do with that —small grazing-runs ?—I would give the people the right of purchase. 200. At the original valuation ?—Yes. 201. I should think that would be a good bargain for the tenant? —It might be. It would be no loss for the State. 202. There is a revaluation at the end of twenty-one years? —Yes. 203. Do you think it is likely that some will pay an increased rental? —They may when the railway gets through. 204. But you would sell at the original value? —Yes. 205. That would be no loss to the Crown? —No. 206. Mr. McCutchan.] You are aware that "thirds" go from cccupation-with-right-of-purchase leases to the local bodies, and after ten years there is a right of purchase: do you think that the third of the capital value should go to the local body? —I do. Previous to the Act of 1892 a third of the cash went to the local body, and it should go still. 207. Do you think that a third from the cash sales should go to the local body? —Yes, I should in certain circumstances where the roads are not made. 208. If you establish the principle that the "thirds" from cash sales should go to the local body, does it not follow that the " thirds " from the 999-years leases should go to the local bodies for the whole period of the term? —Yes, if the lease is in existence all the time. 209. Mr. Anstey.~\ I think you said you were in favour of parting with the freehold of all the land of the colony excepting the poorer grazing land—the pastoral country? —That is, the high pastoral country, which could not well be occupied. There are some lands in the North being rented 60,000 acres for £60 per annum. 210. Do you think it is well to sell the good land and keep the bad? —What is the value of the bad land to any one. 211. Do you not think it is wiser to sell the bad and keep the good? —No, I do not. The State can better afford to keep bad land than the private individual can. 212. You gave us a list of what you thought would be proper cropping restrictions. Do you think they should apply to the whole of the colony? —Yes.
J. VILE.]
1193
C.—4
213. That a man paying 12s. an acre or more for his section should be allowed to take oft four crops ? —Yes. 214. You have visited the South Island? —Yes. 215. Are you familiar with the cropping restrictions of the South Island? —They are the same as in the North Island. I quote Cheviot as an example. There is land near the Waiau which is paying something over 12s. or 15s. an acre, and they are only allowed to take two crops, am there are some downs a few miles distant which are paying ss. 6d. an acre, and they have the same cropping privileges. Is that fair to the man occupying the 125.-land? 216. You believe that all land paying 12s. rent should be allowed to take off four crops in succession ? —l2s. and over. 217. You spoke of the homestead system as one that you would like to see introduced? —I have no objection to its introduction. 218. You think it is wise to give that poor land away altogether? —I do, so long as you get settlement on it. 219. Do you think it is wise to give it to people of very little means? —I do not know that it would; it depends on circumstances. 220. The land you would give away is only suitable for settlement by men of considerable means? —It depends on the area you give him. 221. You would have to give a fairly large area of it to be of any use? —It depends on whether it is adapted for special purposes, such as fruit-growing, and so on. If it is adapted for fruitgrowing there is no need to give a very large area. 222. In that case you would only give the land to men of large means? —A man with small means could take up a small area. .If he had a large area and only small means he could not work it. The area must be according to means. 223. If the land is so poor as to be worth nothing is it wise to send a poor man there? —I am not in a position to say that. I only make a proposition, and say that where lands are poor and people choose to take them you should give them to them. 224. Do you think that if you were a landlord of a large estate you would allow your tenants to elect their own steward? —No, certainly not; but if there were five stewards I should probably give them the liberty of electing Iwo. I think the Land Board is a board of arbitration as well as an administrative board really, and justice should be secured. 225. Mr. Johnston.] You say that the Rangers make personal inquiries : is that within your personal knowledge? —Yes. 226. Unnecessary personal inquiries? —From my standpoint, unnecessary personal inquiries. 227. What would you call unnecessary personal inquiries? —Inquiring from me the number of stock that I held personally on my land. There is no necessity for any of that sort of thing. 228. Do you not think that is very necessary information to be required?—l do not think so. The Department, if they require the information, can get it from the Registrar-General. 229. What harm could there be in giving this information? —Tenants do not care about it. 230. You have to make a declaration in any case at the end of every year? —Well, let them take that return ; one declaration is surely enough. 231. What is the objection? —You are duplicating a return, which is not necessary. 232. You wish the Rangers to be appointed by the Land Board, instead of by the Government as now: do you not think the officers of the Land Board are efficient? —Yes, as far as I know. 232 a. You would substitute for the lease in perpetuity the lease for forty-two years? —Yes. 232b. Would you give the lessee the right of renewal at an arbitration rental? —Yes, I dare say that would be fair. 233. You said in your statement that you would put it up for sale again ; but do you not think the holder is entitled to his interest in the property outside its real value? Would you not advocate giving him the right of renewal at an arbitration rental, less, say, 5 or 10 per cent, for his unearned interest in the country? —I think it would be sufficiently protected by his interest in the property. 234. That is to say, in the arbitration rent? —Yes, and the improvements he has got on the land. That is the check on outsiders. 235. Would vou tell me how you would class the rich flats of Manawatu and, say, the Rangitikei or Sandon land? —Certain parts of the Sandon land I would call first-class. Some of it is superior to the Manawatu land. 236. Take the land about Oroua Bridge and the land at Mr. Harris's place at Sandon: you would not class those together, would you? —Yes, I think so. 237. You would not put them down at the same value? —I think so. One is specially adapted for cropping and the other for grazing. 238 Would you class Balsille's land, at Kairanga, the same-as Mr. Harris's at Sandon?— Ido not know that I would; but Ido not know that there is much real difference in value. 239. One would realise twice as much as the other at present? —Yes, because one is easier to get at, and closer to population. 240. Would you classify the lands of the Provincial District of Wellington by themselves, or would vou cut the Wellington district into areas and classify it? —You would have to do something of that kind," no doubt, in classifying. 241. You consider residence of five years is sufficient? —Yes; the Government considered it sufficient so far as the Land for Settlements Act was concerned. 242. Do you not think that double improvements would lead to dummyism?—l do not think so, to any extent. 243. Do vou not think that double improvements allows for speculation on the part of capitalists who have money available for investment by improving the land with the view of selling it again?— That has occurred in the past to some small extent; but I do not think it is likely to
150—C. 4.
C—4.
1194
[j. VILE.
occur again. There has been too much trouble in that connection by litigation, and it is not likely to occur again. 244. Can you give one instance of the Land Board being arbitrary or unreasonable? —I do not care to bring any individuals into this matter. I have my own opinions about it, and I have various letters which have been written to me which have led me to believe it is so, and that is the only answer 1 care to give. 245. Do you know of no cropping land in the South Island which is let at £1 per acre? —I suppose there is some at Waikakahi, and, if so, they only get the same privileges as people settled on land at 2s. 6d. per acre. 246. No; they are allowed to take off three crops, and in some cases they are allowed to take a fourth? —That is news to me. I did not know that such discretionary power had been given to the Land Board outside the regulations. 247. Do you not think it would be a very slipshod way, to allow rent to accrue, and not to have it paid in advance: do you not think it would be better for the State to have it the other way? —Perhaps that is so; but it is not the right thing for the tenant. In some cases the settler may be more or less impecunious, and he should not be asked to provide the rent beforehand, except as a guarantee of good faith in the first instance. 248. Have you ever know a tenant crop his land and walk away without paying rent or anything else? —I have never heard of any instance of the kind. 249. Would you give this land in Auckland away entirely? —I say there are lands in Auckland which might fairly be given away. 250. Do you not think there is a large area of land in the Auckland Province that it woul< be a crime to even make a present of to any respectable man ? —I do; but, all the same, if people are willing to take them let them do so. 250 a. Do you not think the very substance of the people would be taken out of them by trying to farm these lands? —They seem to be perfectly satisfied to do so. 250b. Do you not think it would be much fairer to put a man on good land than to put him on the poor clay stuff in Auckland ? —The better the land you put a man on the better for the country and for the man. 250 c. Do you not think it would be better to have a straight-out ballot, the applicants being grouped financially? —As long as every one has a fair show, I do not think there is any necessity for having a double ballot. 250 d. Do you not think that the Land for Settlements Act has been of great advantage to the colony ? —I do, more particularly where it has not been used compulsorily. 250b. How many families are there on the land where you are at present? —Fifteen. 250f. How many living souls were on that land before it was cut up?—I cannot tell you, because I did not know the position at that time. James Dudley Ryder Hewitt examined. 251. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, farming about 2,000 acres of freehold and 286 acres of college lease for twenty-one years, with full value for improvements at the end of the term, when the lease will be put up to auction again loaded with the improvements. I have no grievance of my own. I simply come as a member of the branch of the Farmers' Union, of which I am chairman, and of which there are over two hundred members. 1 may say I am in favour of the freehold and the lease with the right of purchase. The freehold I look upon as the most advantageous to the nation. There seems to be a very mistaken idea about the freehold tenure. The agitators against the freehold do not seem to recognise the duties that are attached to freehold. It is not an absolute ownership of the land. It is holding the land for the nation, and carrying out certain duties connected with it —that is to say, we have to pay the rates which make the means of communication all over the country; we have to maintain hospitals and other duties which can be put upon us because we are freeholders. The freeholder stakes probably the whole of his property in buying the freehold, and many of us have gone a good deal further than that, and we have raised money to improve our lands as well. That binds us to the land and to the colony, and in a time of depression we cannot get away with the same facilities that the leaseholder can. The leaseholder can sell his stock —it may be at a loss —but he does not trouble about it, not having any money in the land. So that the freeholder is the back bone of the nation and the men whose welfare is bound up in the colony. The objection to the leasehold is the inspections and things of that sort which we Britishers do not like. We do not like to have people continually coming and telling us that we must not crop this year, and must lay down in grass. We want to be free to farm to the best of our ability. One of the great advantages of the Farmers' Union now is that we are disseminating knowledge as to the best system of farming by means of our conversations and meetings. The deferred-payment system was an admirable system, but the 999-years lease, if it was strictly carried out, is one of the most foolish things for the colony ever introduced. The idea of letting people have land at 4 per cent, on its present value for 999 years is most foolish, but, still, we Britains have the idea that if we have made a bargain we must stick to it, whether it is good or bad. You have given your word for a thing, and you have no right to go from it, and therefore, I cannot hold with what is called the Fair Rent Bill, but I would not let another acre go under the 999-years lease. I maintain that those people who are given the right of purchase should have it at the original value, because it is their labour that has improved and given value to the land. By their payment for roads they made means of communication all through the country, and in many cases they 'have raised special loans and practically mortgaged their lands for those roads, although the Government Valuation Department will not allow that such is the case. That is one of the grievances we have against the Valuation Department, and which makes us hesitate very much before we would allow or give our consent to any other system which would entail more inspection upon us, or more valuation of our interests. This is a freehold district,
1195
G.~ 4
J. D. E. HEWITT.]
and we have nothing to do with the Land Board; but, so far as my own knowledge of the Land Board and of the Land Commissioners goes, I must say they have been very fair men, and have tried to do their duty to the best of their ability. 1 will say that of all the Government Departments, but very often they interpret Acts in a way which presses unfairly 011 people. 252. You think the freehold produces a better class of citizens than the leasehold ?- -Yes, because a man with the freehold puts his whole backbone into the work of farming. 253. Mr. Johnston.] Suppose a man has got a freehold valued at £6,000, with a mortgage on it of £3,000, and a leaseholder has got a leasehold on which the improvements are estimated at £3,000, what is the difference between the two in times of depression ?- -There is no difference in the actual money, but in that case it is probably the freeholder's all, whereas it is not the leaseholder's all. 254. Why not as much the leaseholder's all as the freeholder's all ? —lf it is it is a more marketable commodity in a time of depression. 255. Evidence shows that that is the very reason why it is not a marketable commodity? — Nobody would buy a leasehold. But I would like to say that you are going in for very large leaseholds with £3,000 improvements. 256. Well, what is the difference between a man with £300 in his freehold and a man with £300 in a leasehold? —1 do not suppose there is any difference in the actual money. 257. Then, it is practically a matter of sentiment? —It may be a good deal. You may have come across an exceptionally good lot of men who have put their money into improvements, but you will find that, as a general rule, they will not put the same backbone into leasehold as into freehold. 258. Do you know of an honest man who is a leaseholder who has not treated his land in the same way as he would were it a freehold? —To a certain extent there is a certain amount of dishonesty about it, but there is the tendency to do a good deal more for your freehold, where you know that you can pass it on to your children, than you would with the leasehold. 259. Do you treat your college lease in the same way as you treat the freehold? —Exactly, except that I would not go in for a lot of improvements 011 it whilst I have a freehold. lam limited in the amount of money I have got, and I will spend my money in improving my freehold before the leasehold. 260. Suppose you had a 999-years lease at the original rent with full security against interference? —I would chuck up the freehold to-morrow and take a 999-years lease, because it would mean so much money capital to me. 261. You think the 999-years lease is a great deal better than the freehold provided nothing can interfere with you? —That is just what we are afraid of. 262. The reason for your advocating the freehold is that you are afraid of the 999-years lease being broken ? —Yes. 263. Would you for one moment think that any British colony would tolerate interference with a bargain like that? —1 hope that 110 British colony would, but when we hear these socialistic ideas that are going about we do not know where they are going to end. 264. Do you know of any undue interference on the part of Inspectors?— No. lam a freeholder and do not have inspection. 265. What you say is only hearsay, then? —Of course it is. 266. Have you visited any settlements under the Land for Settlements Act in the South Island? —No. 267. How many of the two hundred members of your branch of the Farmers' Union are Crown tenants? I cannot form an idea. There would be very few. They are nearly all freeholders in this district. 268. Mr. Paul.] You referred to sentiment being something very substantial in the case of freehold: does it pay a man to gratify that sentiment? —He will pay a good deal for sentiment. 269. Generally speaking, does it cost him anything to gratify it? —Yes. Take it in this way: supposing you have worked at a farm and made a home for yourself and your family, and a man comes along and offers a price really above what the place as a farm is worth in your estimation, yet, for the sake of sentiment, you will not sell the land. If there was no sentiment in the world we would go very far wrong. 270. What I want to know is this: voii are advocating giving the option of the freehold to Crown tenants, and you say that sentiment enters into that: will they lose anything financially by gratifying that sentiment, or will it pay them? —Probably they will lose money to gratify their sentiment. 271. You think that the leaseholder converting his holding into freehold will lose money by doing so ? —He will be willing to lose money. 272. Will he lose money? —Yes, in order to get the freehold. 273. You referred to socialistic ideas in regard to the leasehold: did you never hear of any socialistic ideas about freehold which might interfere with that tenure? —Yes. 274. Why are you so much afraid of them when expressed with regard to the leasehold? —I think some of us will fight for the freehold, and it will be a bad day for the country. There will be civil war as sure as faith; but when it comes to the leasehold, Ido not know that we are so much in love with that as to fight for it. 275. Is it not a fact that if the State tried to rob any body of men of anything that they would fight? Supposing they wanted to take so much money without giving an equivalent, do you not think there would be a fight ? —Yes, if there was enough of them to induce them to think they would succeed. 276. Is your lease satisfactory to you? —Yes, because I knew what I was doing when I made my bargain.
C—4.
[j. D. B. HEWITT.
1196
277. Did not the lease-in-perpetuity holders know what they were doing when they made their bargains ? —I suppose they did to a certain extent. 278. You. made a great point about Britishers sticking to their bargain : do you think that of the section of the Grown tenants who want to convert their holdings? —Yes. You may say, of course, that he wants to get out of a bargain that he has made, and why I want to let him oft that bargain is because it is such a bad bargain for the State. 279. If he is a Britisher he will stick to his bargain, whether it is good or bad? —If you ensure that he will not have his rent raised then he will stick to it, because he has got such a splendid bargain. The only unfortunate thing about it is, that people have such little faith in it that they will not lend any money on a lease in perpetuity. 280. Is it not generally time enough to bid the devil good day when you meet him? —I have not had any truck with the devil. 281. Why is the lease-in-perpetuity bargain a foolish one for the State? —Because they take a man's land at the 10s. an acre, and it is let at 4 per cent, on that; and the land is not subject to land-tax, because he is not the owner of that which, under the freehold, is subject to land-tax. 282. Is not the leaseholder's interest in the land subject to land-tax? —There comes in the difficulty. The great difficulty is to estimate that correctly. That is one of the things which is rubbing the people up now very much. The Valuation Department have tried to do their best to put a fair value on all lands, but there are no regular rules laid down for them, and it is so very difficult to get a really fair estimate of what a leaseholder's interests in the holding is. 283. Is there any difficulty over valuing the freehold for the purposes of land-tax? Have you ever heard any grumbling? —We all grumble about the way the improvements are run down. 284. Is the difficulty only wtth regard to leasehold ? —We do not want to have any more deductions made from improvements. 285. Would you limit the area of freehold that one man could hold? —I would limit the treehold that any one could acquire from the Government by making it liable to the graduatde tax. That would limit the area which anybody could hold. 286. Is your land of good quality? —Some of it is good, some of it right up in the heart of the Tararua Range. 287. Comparing it with some of the other settlements, how many families would it support if it was cut up?—ln what condition of life? 288. The average condition of a settler ? — I That is to say, that a man could bring up a family, say, of five children, and bring them within the reach of schools. Well, I suppose that it would take about 300 acres to each family. 289. Mr. McCutchan.\ In connection with your lease, you get full value for your improvements at the termination of the lease? lam supposed to. 290. Was it bush land originally? —Yes. 291. Do you think it would be possible to value improvements at the end of the lease so as to compensate you in full ? —I hope they will. 292. Is there any other value excepting that of improvements which would have to go to your land? —No, there cannot be. 293. Have you spent any money in roading it? —No. 294. Have you contributed to a dairy factory? —It is about one mile and three quarters from a dairy factory. 295. Does any of the milk go from your farm to the factory? —No. 296. Did you take shares in that factory? —No. 297. You pay rates? —Yes. 298. Does the road give an added value to the land? —Yes. 299. Would the valuer be able to estimate that in valuing your property? —I think he ought to. 300. Will it go to you or to the State? —It should go to the State. 301. Do you think that is just? —No; every road that I use has been made by special loans raised, which practically are a mortgage on im property, but I am not allowed any value for that, and the Government levy land-tax on it. Ido not consider that right. 302. Over and abote the tenants' improvements, in some instances it means that dairy factories, harbours, and freezing-works, and settlers have given an added value to the extent of £5 an acre in the case of good land under this system of valuation that has not in any way added to the tenants' improvements : is it added ? —No. 303. Do you think there should be reform in the method of valuation, so as to secure the increased value given in this way to the occupier? —That, of course, is a difficult question —whether there is an unearned increment or not. I would certainly advocate a reform in the method of valuation in order to secure the increased value to the tenant. 304. You think the present method it quite unfair? —I do. 305. Would you go so far as to say that the method of valuation has a tendency to increase the unimproved value at the expense of the tenant? —Certainly it does. 306. You advocate the reintroduction of the deferred-payment system? —Yes; I think it was one of the fairest systems that it was possible to have. 307. Was not the disadvantage of the system the fact that the capital value put on, in some cases 25 per cent., and in other cases 50 per cent., as against the occupation with right of purchase and the lease in perpetuity ? -But, then, a considerable amount of that was returned for the roading. It was called a " road third." 308. Was not that a disadvantage, inasmuch as it made the payments so heavy to a struggling settler at the beginning?- It made the payments heavy; but, of course, it was spread over a term of years. 309. Was it not the case that many of these men who held land under the deferred-payment, system were forced by the heaviness of the annual payments or half-yearly payments to capitalise?
J. D. B. HEWITT.]
1197
C—4.
-I do not know of any case. 1 know 1 had three deferred-payment settlers as my neighbours, and they were all able to purchase their freehold in a short time. 310. Do you think the deferred-payment system holds any advantage over the occupation with right of purchase? —The only way would be that the deferred-payment system, to a certain extent, forces a man to take care and make his payments correctly, whereas under the occupation with light of purchase, unless it is fixed definitely at a certain time, he is not forced to make his payments promptly. I think a great deal of encouraging people at the outset of their lives to be careful, and to look out for a rainy day, and I think the deferred-payment system to that extent forces them to be ready with their payments at a certain time. 311. Do you not think it is a wise thing in the settlement of the country to provide an easy means for the employment of a close population on the land ? —Certainly it is. 312. And is not that better done under the present system than under the deferred payment? —Of course, the lease with right of purchase is what I advocate. 313. Would you advocate a change on these lines: instead of the tenant having to find the whole amount of the purchase-money after ten years have expired, that they should be allowed to reduce the capital value by instalments by means of their savings? —I would be quite willing to do that ; the only thing is that we want to encourage our young men to be thrifty during Ine first years of their work. 314. You are aware that the settlers are struggling against great difficulties in regard to roads: have you considered any scheme under which the present unsatisfactory method of financing the roads may be improved? —I cannot say that I have. lam quite agreeable to the special loans for the roads with special rates for the loans, if it is allowed to be one of the improvements which the settler is to put upon the land. 315. Do you advocate a fixed scale of subsidy in connection with these rates?—To a certain extent the subsidy system is a right one, because the whole of the public have a right to the use of these roads. 316. Is there not a further reason, that the Government are borrowing largely for public works, and that, therefore, each district is entitled to its share?-—I do not think that, because if the Government will lend the money for the special loans at the same rate as they can get it at, and pay their expenses, then I think they will have done as much as we can expect from them . 317. Then a settler should go into the back country, and be quite content to road the country for himself? —On the same terms, yes, I think so. The Government give the land for the road, they grade it and lay it out, and I think that the public have done enough for the settlers there. Then, I think it is quite right that the settler should make the road, but he should be given the facility to raise money to make that road. 318. Do you not think, in the back blocks, if the charge is entirely put on the land, that it will cripple the settler, and men may not take up the land on those conditions? —I do not know. I rather hold that the Government should put such a price on the land that it would pay for the roading, and it does not matter much whether it is done by the special loans which the Government give them. 319. Then, you would advocate the entire cessation of borrowing, excepting for works which would pay the full interest on the loan straight away? —Yes. I did not say that we should borrow for nothing else now but remunerative works, but I should like to see the public works finished up as soon as possible to a remunerative stage. 320. Then, you advocate the entire abolition of grants and subsidies to local bodies? —No. I do not think that, because here we are giving another thing. The local bodies do works which are a benefit to the whole community. They get their revenue from the rates, but why should not the rest of the community—l am not going to raise the cry of town against country —who get the benefit or the roads and means of communication help to bear the cost. How are we to get anything out of them to assist to pay for these facilities excepting through the Government subsidy. 321. Then, you advocate that if the country settlers are prepared to rate themselves heavily, they should proportionately be helped from the loans raised by the Government by way of subsidy? —I "quite agree with you there. •322. Would you abolish grants altogether? —No, not in the way of subsidy. Ido not believe in the present system of grants at all. 323. Would you abolish them? —Yes. 324. Mr. Anstey.~\ Do you not think that the objection to the lease in perpetuity is also due to the agitation of another organization -the Farmers' Union —nearly all of whom are freeholders? I do not think it is. 325. Do you think it is quite right for one body to advocate a breach of a contract in one direction, and yet deny another class the right to agitate for a breach in another direction ? —lt is such a bad bargain for the colony, this 999-years lease, that I am not advocating a breach of it, but the stopping of it. I would not let another acre go on that tenure, but I would stick to the bargain you have made; but let those men who have made no bargain have the advantage of the difference. 326. Did you advocate giving lease-in-perpetuity settlers the right of acquiring their holdings at the original value —that is not sticking to their bargain? —Well, if it is going to be done, I am only going on the supposition that they are going to alter the terms of the lease. I think that this sentiment 1 spoke about will make them quite willing to throw up that bargain if they can get the freehold, and if they can get the freehold they ought to be allowed to get it on the original value. I am only going on the supposition, that this sentiment is so strong that they will be ready to throw up this jolly good bargain that they have in order to get the freehold. If it is only half an acre of land we want to own it, but not always to hold it at the mercy of anybody. 327. But, do you think that it is quite right for any organization not interested in the bargain, or a party to it, to advocate a breach of it? —We are not advocating a breach of the bargain. You can throw up a thing you have got.
C—4.
1198
[j. D. R. HEWITT.
328. Mr. Johnston.] Is there not a very considerable amount of " unseen " improvements in the shape of labour and capital in the case of bush selections? —Of course, there is a great deal, because the laud-tax people have laid down a rule that you are not to allow more that a certain amount of bushfelling. 1 have paid £2 ss. an acre for bushfelling, but I believe now that the Land-tax Department will not allow more than £1 10s., and, therefore, have swept away 15s. of my improvements. 329. Then, there are real improvements that cannot be valued in the case of bush lands? —They cannot be valued unless you are taking the words of the people who have formed those improvements. George Frank Ranby examined. 330. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, and one of the Aorangi Crown tenants. 1 hold 90 acres lease in perpetuity. I have held it five years, and am paying about 16s. an acre. lam not satisfied with my tenure, but would be if I had the right of purchase with it. 1 was of that opinion before 1 took it up, but I had no option. I am quite satisfied with the land. 1 have been very well satisfied with the Land Board and the way I have been treated, with the exception of one little matter which caused a good deal of expense. It was not very much as far as the Board was concerned, or the Ranger. I believe the Crown tenants should be represented on the Land Board. In the first place, the members of the Land Board should be men who understand the wants of back-block settlement. They should be practical men. 331. Is your desire for the freehold occasioned by what we have heard so much about, the insecurity of the lease and dread of revaluation? —It is not on account of the agitation of the Farmers' Union. Before they brought it up I was of opinion we should be allowed to have the purchasing clause, and 1 went roand amongst the settlers and asked them to sign a petition to the Government to that effect. Some did and others did not, as they did not want to show their hand. Soon after that the union took the matter up, but I thought it would have been better if we had placed our grievances before the Government then instead of allowing the Farmers' Union to do it. In the settlement there are over twenty Crown tenants, and only one or two against the freehold. That was the man who spoke against it here, and another man who I understood was an out and out freeholder, but have heard since he would not put his name to any document to say he was a freeholder. As to the uncertainty of the leasehold tenure there is something in that suggestion, but there is a stronger feeling in my case. I maintain I have done my share for the State, and that my improvements should belong to me. I feel that the restrictions of the Land Board are irksome, and that I can run my own business without outside supervision. 332. Have you felt that the cropping conditions prevent you doing what you would like to do ? —To a certain extent they have. But I crop the land as it should be cropped, and I was not afraid of the Land Board or Ranger. 333. They did not interfere with you in any way?- Only gave me notice that I was not to crop above a certain number of crops, and about removing the bush from the place. There were 32 acres of bush when I took it up which I felled to get the ground in grass. I left shelter bush on the place. 334. Was there any timber? —No milling timber. The mill had been through it. 335. Did they check you for doing that? —They drew my attention to the condition of the bush. 336. Mr. Johnston.] What was the value of your improvements? —I spent about £1,100 on the place, or rather more, apart from labour. That included a house, stumping, grass-sowing, roading, fencing, metalling, and cowsheds. 337. Do you live on the place now? —I have just sublet it. 338. What rent are you getting for it? —£2 an acre. 339. Your original rent was 16s. an acre: you have a fair margin of goodwill on that? — Just fair, but you cannot say any more. •340. About Bs. an acre? —It is no more than I have deserved for my five years' work. It is not as much as my neighbours are getting, who took up land in the same block for cash. 341. What would you get per acre for it if it was a freehold? —For part of the block the owper refused, last Saturday night, £60 an acre. 342. Who was the owner? —Mr. Campion. 343. For the homestead block?— Yes. It is not very far away from us. 344. Opposite the road Mr. Fituherbert was offered £42 an acre nine months ago?- 1 have been away from the property about a month. 345. Had you sufficient money to take up this land without taking it up under the Land Board ? —I had. 346. What induced you to take it up under the leasehold Act? I had no option. 347. You were quite satisfied with your section? —Between the time I put in the application for it and the time I drew it was about three or four weeks, and in the meantime I was rather sorry 1 had applied for it. 348. Why did you throw it up? —I had not got it, but on getting it I thought I would keep it. I had been working so hard all my life that I had hardly sufficient brains to know one tenure from another. 349. You do not look like it?— Well, I had had a hard time, and I had spent all the money I had made in improvements on the place. I understood that the Government would by-and-by grant the freehold. A gentleman you are all acquainted with whom I spoke to about it advised me to take it up, and get as many of my friends as I could to take up leases under the same system, because he said " In time to come the-more there will be to fight for the freehold." 350. You have not made a bad bargain? —No, but you must consider my five years' work. •351. I suppose now you want to invest in a small piece of freehold? —I have not made up my mind what I intend to do.
G. F. BANBY.
1199
C.—4.
352. Mr. Paul.J Who told you this was to be converted into a freehold? —No one. 353. Who was the gentleman who told you that the more lease-in-perpetuity tenants there were the greater the agitation would be for the freehold ? —I am not prepared to mention names here. 354. Was he a Government servant?—1 will not answer that question. I would tell you if 1 thought lie would not mind. 355. Seeing that you refuse to give the name, I suppose it is reasonable to assume that your statement is not worth consideration? —You can please yourself about that. I cannot help it. If I told you privately about it you would see I was quite right, and if you want the name after the meeting is over I will give it to you privately. 356. What is the term of the lease you have given to this other tenant? —Ten years. 357. Was there a purchasing clause? —Subject to the consent of the Land Board. 358. What is the rent? —The rent is 5 per cent, on the purchasing clause. 359. What is the amount at the end of ten years ? —£4o an acre. 360. Mr. McCutchan.] What was the estimated value of the improvements you put on this land yourself, irrespective of the £1,100 you spent in cash? —I could not give you the amount as I have not kept a record. 361. You cannot make an approximate estimate? —Say, another £100. 362. What taxes do vou pay annually? —I do not remember. 363. Mr. Anstey.\ You say you took up this land with the deliberate intention for agitating for a breach of the contract? No. 1 never thought of that when I took it up. 364. You said you had a conversation with a gentleman about that aspect of the matter? —After I took it up. I was exempt from the residential clause for a year until I went on the place, as I had a year to run on the lease I had in Taranaki. 365. It was a little while after you got it that you formed the deliberate intention of agitating to get it altered ? —Two years. 366. Seeing that you had a deliberate intention of trying to get that lease broken, do you think there is any harm in another party suggesting a breach of the law in the direction of revaluation ? — The other side was the first to commence it. 367. If it is right for one party to break the law surely it is right for the other'? —I do not know which party you are getting at. 368. You say it has cost you £12 an acre, and you are paying a rent of 16s. an acre? Directly, it has cost me that; but what has it cost me indirectly. I have put that value on to the land no matter how it is worked out. The farmers who do the work put the value on to their places, and I do not, see why I should not have the benefit of it. 369. Supposing, instead of the land being worth £40 an acre, it was worth less than £20, would you be very keen about agitating for the right of purchase?- I think so. It would make no difference to me. 370. Mr. McCutchan,j What is the value of your buildings on this allotment? —Between £515 and £600. 371. What would be fair interest for depreciation? —10 per cent. 372. In view of that fact, do you think you are getting more than an ordinary rate of interest upon your property ?— -Not very much more than the market rate of interest. 373. The Chairman.] Is there anything you wish to add? Yes, as to the balloting. I think the ballot system far preferable to putting the land into the open market, for the reason that under it no man will give fictitious value. Under the auction system there are many speculators and well-to-do men competing against small men. I consider young men born in the colony should have the preference over men coming here only a few days before the sale. As to roading in bush country, I think that if the Government would put roads or railways into the back blocks or unsettled districts it would pay them far better than leaving the land idle, or allowing it to crawl into a state of existence. Young men with grit and spirit ought to get on in New Zealand. If they cannot they should get out of it. Alfred Richard Mato examined. 374. The Chairman.J You are a nurseryman? —Yes. My wife holds a lease in Aorangi, consisting of about 24 acres under the lease in perpetuity. I would like the right of purchase. I have held the lease five .years, and have been living on the section a little over three years. If I had the right of purchase I could purchase it, and if anything happened to me my family would be able to get a living on the section. Now, she could not take it up if I died unless she had the permission of the Land Board. Of course, lam sure she would get that permission under the present circumstances, but if we have a Labour Government in they might want to revalue our leases, and I should have to lose on my improvements, which are very considerable. I would like to feel more secure in regard to the lease. If I were secure in the matter I could get more for my money and hold it under the right-of-purchase tenure. than what I am paying the Government for the land, but I would rather pay 00 the Government 375. Mr. Johnston.] You think it is the labour agitation that is causing the trouble? —They seem to have pretty good times in the cities, and having not much to do after 5 o'clock they discuss these matters, and tell us what is good for us and how to run our business. 376. You do not think the majority of the city labouring class really would force the Government to repudiate the bargain they have already made? —One or two labour agitators can lead the Government whichever way they like. They had a monster meeting a few months ago when they were in favour of bringing in a Fair Rent Bill. 377. You do not think the colony would do what amounts to repudiation ?--The colony would do what the Government want. Look at the trouble in Australia at present. 378. Have you any fear of such a tiling here? —It is possible. 379. Mr. Paul.~\ Who was the political agitator who led this monster meeting to declare in favour of a Fair Rent Bill? —It was in Wellington a few months ago. Perhaps lam referring to a conference.
C—4.
1200
JA. E. MAYO.
380. They carried a lesolution to revalue existing leases on the death of a lessee or transfer of a lease? —There was a Fair Rent Bill introduced into Parliament not many years ago, and was lost by one or two votes. 381. Do you think the leasehold is against the best interests of the country? 1 do not know about the country. I ain talking about my own interest. 1 would have liked the right of purchase. 382. You must have felt fairly secure in your tenure, Mr. Mayo, when you improved your place so highly as we saw it to-day. Is there anything more you could have done to it if you had the freehold? —If I had had more money 1 could have done more. 383. Independently of the tenure I—Yes; we took the land up expecting to have the right of purchase in time. 384. What gave you that idea?— That is the idea 1 have always held. Before the Government took up this land I tried to get a piece from Mr. Bull in the shape of freehold. 385. Mr. Anxtey.\ Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory?- Yes. Albert William Gould examined. 386. The Chairman.] What are you ? 1 am a flaxmiller. I am a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, and have been practising for twenty years, but during the last twelve months I have taken up flaxmilling and have ceased to practise. I have no land now. I formerly acted in Pahiatua for the' Advances to Settlers Department and the Government Life Insurance Department. During the fourteen years I was there I look an active part in forming and acting as sercretary and treasurer to four special-settlements associations, and I have had a good deal to do on behalf of clients and others in connection with Land Boards. 387. What is your opinion with respect to the present constitution of Land Boards? —I know there has been some talk in the direction of making Land Boards elective, but I must say 1 do not believe in elective Land Boards. I believe in the present constitution of the Land Boards. With respect to land-tenure, I am an out and out land-nationaliser, and 1 have come to that conclusion after twenty-five years' close study of the question in all countries, and after reading all the authorities on the subject for and against it. Therefore, I say that this Commission should not only hear settlers who are taking up land, but this is a question which really ought to be referred to a referendum of the people. Every man, woman, and child irt the colony owns the land, and therefore it is not only a question purely for the settler himself. I have studied this question from the Old Country point of view. I have been thirty years in the colony, and have made a close study of the colony, and I agree with the Premier when he said that it would be a sorry day for New Zealand if the freehold of lease-in-perpetuity land is granted. I am very pleased to see he has taken up that attitude. lam also pleased that he set up this Commission, but I would be more pleased if the whole matter would be referred to a referendum of the people of the colony, and lam quite sure what the verdict would be. We have only a few million acres of the public estate left, and if we grant the freehold to such land it will be the worst step that the colony could take. The absolute ownership of land is only the creation of the last few hundred years'. The leasehold was introduced into Great Britain by William the Conqueror, and it is the feudal system under which we hold our land now. For instance, a man is never supposed to own a piece of land like he owns a horse or a cow. He owns an estate in fee-simple. That is the theory of our law. The theory of the feudal system was leasehold. We have departed from that system. By reason of the rise in our manufacturers and different inventions our commerce lias extended to" the great exchanges of the world, and we have lost sight of the feudal system, but I am pleased to see the Premier has stated that it would be a sorry day for the people of the colony to give up their rights in the land. In the case of township sections, the unearned increment is far greater than in the case of country lands; but, on the other hand, there are many things that "could have been made more pleasant for the farmer. I think that improvements will be done just as much without the stipulations as to improvements. There is, to my mind, a great objection to Land Boards preventing transfers. I think it would be justifiable for the State to sav this with regard to the land of the colony: " You are dealing with something now that is not the special creation of wealth by man." Man has an equivalent to a creative power. By the co-operation of capital and labour man can increase or diminish almost anything on this planet, but he cannot produce one extra inch of land. Although I started on the opposite side of thought on this question, after much study I have seen the mistake under which I formerly laboured— namelv, that there can be the same ownership in land as in other things. My contention is especially apparent in the case of young colonies. Land, labour, and capital produce all wealth. What do we see in the distribution of wealth? I ask the question: Is it not impossible for any colony to go ahead when it sows the seeds of destruction ? We have a population of eight hundred thousand people. When there are eight million people what labour laws fixing the minimum wage will have any effect. The landowner will get the cream of the thing all through if this is allowed to go on, and we will gradually get into the position of older countries. When I look round and see what'the Scotch and Irish have done for Great Britain in the battlefields I wonder how it is thev have been driven from their countries as they have been to seek an opening here. Why? Because the whole of the land, the rent of which is worth £320,000,000 per annum, is in the hands of the landlords of Great Britain, and the principal profit goes into their pockets. We have to think of the future of the colony as well as of the present. Many men have not an inclination to consider this question. I have read the works of all the greatest thinkers on this question. Surely it is worth while people of this colony reading the works of the great thinkers on this question and considering the matter carefully. My hope is that in New Zealand there will be some economic training given to the youngsters in the highest standards, and until that comes about I am afraid there will be no permanent advance in our legislation on the land question
A. W. GOULD.]
1201
a—4
even under the universal franchise. 1 am very glad to give expression to my opinions here. 1 know that they are not popular opinions, but I think if, after studying the question carefully, one has come to certain definite conclusions on such an important question, it is his duty to give expression to his opinions, and to state what he considers best in the interests of the colony. We have gone a certain distance in one direction in connection with land-settlement, and we should not recede from the advance we have made. I support the Crown leaseholder in this. Very often it happens that his rates are nearly as much as his rent, and in some cases I believe they are even more. Everybody in this colony, whether he owns or leases land or not, ought to pay rates to assist in making the roads of the colony. It is the people of the colony who own the public roads. If what I suggest were done the leaseholder would not be continually asking for the freehold. The main reason they ask for the freehold is that a little less money can be obtained on a leasehold than on a freehold. But there is no reason why that should continue. There is no doubt that the State has a good security in the investment of its funds in the lease in perpetuity. I do not believe in the lease in perpetuity. It does not carry out what it was intended to. The lease in perpetuity is certainly an obnoxious lease, and I think that legislation ought to be forthcoming as soon as possible to —I will not say abolisß it, Ido not know what to say about it. The State has made a contract for 999 years. It is a question whether it can get out of that obligation to continue the lease, but I say that legislation ought to be forthcoming that will provide for revaluation, say, after twenty, thirty, or forty years. The particular term is immaterial. There ought to be a cessation of any further sale of town sections. I know the argument is, "Do away with the Crown Lands Department. Let everybody have the freehold. The State has always the right to impose a land-iax." No doubt the State has that right, but if one looks at Great Britain one sees that a land-tax was imposed very many hundred years ago, and one sees how little has come from it, and it is always possible to evade it. As I have said, I cannot see why the Land Board should object to any transfers. I think the State, on behalf of the people, has a right to look into this land question, and say, "We will give you the full value of your improvements, plus, say, 8 or 10 per cent., but we will not allow the bleeding of the purchaser to go on." With regard to non-residence, if double improvements were affected I believe that surely would be effectual. 388. Mr. Paul.'] You referred to the Advances to Settlers Department: can you say how the legal charges for preparing a mortgage under the Advances to Settlers Office compare with the charges made in the case of a mortgage on a loan from a private lender ? —Of course, they are ridiculously low. 389. Is the lease in perpetuity any better for the State than the freehold? —Most decidedly it is. If the State sells the land it is the last transaction the State has to do with it. The difference between the lease in perpetuity and the freehold is this, that at the end of the term in the case of lease in perpetuity the land still belongs to the people, and, besides, would be producing territorial revenue the whole time. 390. Do you believe in the lease in perpetuity or in a lease with periodical revaluation? —I believe a lease with periodical revaluation is best. 391. With respect to township sites sold by the Government. During our inquiry we have seen cases where the Government have sold township sites, and where the buyers have not done a hand's turn, and the land has increased ten times in value within two years. Do you think that is a sensible national policy?- -No, I think it is ridiculous. It is questionable whether the Government have the power to sell the people's land in this way. I would ask, as I have said, that this question should be submitted to a referendum of the people, and I have no fear as to the result. 392. Do you believe in the system of leasehold for the towns and freehold for the country? —I believe in all leaseholds. 393. Do you think the people should make the roads unless they own the land —whether the land is held on leasehold or freehold? —I think leaseholders from the State should be exempt from local taxes, road or no road. 394. What I want to know from you is, whether you believe that every one in the country should contribute to the roads, when the land which is improved in value by those roads is owned by private individuals? —There would have to be some differentiation there, no doubt. lam only looking at it from the point of view of the remaining Crown lands.
Dannevirke, Wednesday, 7th June, 1905. Matthew Tanset examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a settler, and hold 1,400 acres—Boo acres freehold and 600 acres of occupation with right of purchase. I have been here twenty-one years. For the occupation with right of purchase my rent is £1 ss. on one section at Aparura, and £1 15s. on another. lam satisfied with the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure. One of my places is twenty miles from here, and the other about four miles. I engage in sheep-farming. 2. What tenure do you favour in the interests of the settlement of the country and for the benefit of the settler? —I resided at Coonoor for about ten years. It is the centre of a settlement between Makuri and Pongaroa. I am well acquainted with that district. I lived there on a section of 450 acres under perpetual lease under the Act of 1885, and about the same time a large portion.of the land was settled under the new Act of 1892—the lease in perpetuity—and lam quite satisfied that the lease in perpetuity is a complete failure there. I had an opportunity of seeing the two systems together. A good few sections came out in 1891-92 under the perpetual-lease system, and when the Act of 1892 came into operation a large portion of the land was settled under
151—C. 4.
1202
C—4.
M. TANSEY.
the lease-in-perpetuity system. A great many people were dissatisfied with it at the start. They took it up thinking it would be all right, but they found later on that they could not raise money to get on with their improvements —that is, under the lease in perpetuity. 3. Was that a reason for the failure?— That was principally the reason; in fact, it may be said it has been the sole reason. Unless a man is a capitalist he cannot take up land under the lease-in-perpetuity system. lam not speaking of land under the Land for Settlements Act. 4. What became of those- people who failed? —I may mention that a man started with acres and with £400 capital, but after spending that he could not make a living off the land. It took so long to get stores in, and the expense was so great, that after his capital was gone he could not make a living off the land. He had put down 140 acres in grass, and after residing for four years on the place he sold out for about £450. He was an industrious, hard-working man, and if he had been able to raise money on the place he could have carried it through successfully. He could easily have done so if he had had the right of purchase. I have lived amongst these settlers, and I know that they are all dissatisfied. There may be two or three in the whole district who are not, and I think that very few will maintain that the leasehold is best for the country, and in those cases they are men who would learn nothing from experience, and they are men with no desire to work the land. They are not men who would make a success of settlement anywhere. I think a man should have the right to make his land freehold after improving his place and holding for five or six years. If he resides on the land and has fulfilled the conditions lam quite sure that there is not the slightest danger of his property forming a portion of a large estate. The land is so situated and of such quality that a man cannot make a living off a section under 500 or 600 acres in area. In .the case of men holding smaller areas they can only fell a small area of bush at a time, and they have to obtain grass-seed from storekeepers and take anything they can get, and thus they grass the land badly. 5. Is your experience of the Land Board favourable?—l have never had any difficulty in getting on with them, but I know of instances where the Board has inflicted unnecessary hardships on settlers. I will give you an instance, and I suppose it is not a solitary case. A hardworking man took up 120 acres, and built a good house on it. He got the land cleared, and held it for twelve years, and then took up 700 acres of second-class land. The Hawke's Bay Land Board insisted on him living on the land. Ido not see what you are to gain in the way of settlement if you are to compel residence in a case like that where a man has a good house on his section five miles away, and has a school in the neighbourhood. If he had gone to the other section he would have been put to inconvenience, because there was no school near there. 6. You think that the residential conditions ought to be somewhat modified?—ln a case like that I think they should be, because that seems to me to be against the spirit of the Act. I think that a Land Board that does such a thing as that is liable to do other things that are not sensible. I, on the other hand, know of cases of men who own Crown land, and have done so for six or seven years, and they have not been compelled to reside on it. The settlers have no confidence in members of Land Boards who have not got practical experience. 6a. Do you think there should be any alteration in the present constitution of Land Boards? I think if half of them were elected it would be an improvement. The men elected to the County Councils are usually sensible men, and they generally have a grasp of what is wanted in regard to settlement. I think that half the members of the Land Board might be elected by the ratepayers in the district and the other half be nominated. The settlers would then have somebody to represent them. There are men on the Land Board whom the settlers do not consider at all fit for the position. 7. Mr. Anstey.'] Are there any public reserves in the neighbourhood? —Yes, there is one reserve unoccupied. It would be fairly good if it were sold up to 7s. 6d. or 10s. an acre. It is now simply a harbour for noxious weeds and rabbits. 8. Do you think that land should be profitably occupied ?—Yes. 9. Are there any other reserves?— Yes. ' 10. What are the terms under which they are held. I think they are twenty-one years' leases with revaluation or right of renewal at the end of the term. Ido not consider that tenure satisfactory. 11. Do the tenants improve the land?— They do not care to spend much money on the land, and, in regard to grassing, in some cases they plant any amount of rubbish. 12. Do you think the tenants on these and other reserves should have the right of purchase y eSj I think it would be in the best interests of the country. I know that at present the most is not made out of the land. 13. Do you think that, generally speaking, the leaseholder does not develop his farm as v, as a freeholder ?—I am quite satisfied he does not look on his interest as being sufficient in case of the leasehold. 14. Would you extend the right you suggest to the case of land leased from private owners? —If I leased land privately I know very well the land would be liable to be neglected, and I know the tenants would want watching. 15. Yet you complain that the Land Board is watching you too closely?— There would not ho the same necessity to watch a man if he had the right of purchase. 16. Do you think it would be wise that leaseholders of land from private individuals should have the right of purchase?— They might adjust that amongst themselves. 17. You do not think it should be made compulsory ?—I do not think it should be. 18. Notwithstanding the fact that leaseholders are not able to develop or improve their land as well as freeholders, vou do not think they ought to have the right of purchase ?—Leaseholders do not improve their land as well as freeholders. I do not complain of the Government looking after leaseholders; they need it all. 19. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office?— Yes, and it has been
1203
M. TANSBY.
C— 4.
satisfactory. I consider it has been a wonderful help to the settlers; in fact, it has been the best thing that has ever happened in this country —the introduction of that system. 20. From your remarks I gather that you consider the administration of the Land Board not by any means good —that there are theorists on the Board? —I do not object to Land Boards as at present constituted, if good practical men were appointed. 21. You told us that there were several existing members of the Land Board who were not suitable men? —Yes; political agitators or partisans, and such men who often are not practical men, and they get there by pushing themselves forward. 22. Can you give us any instances in which they have unfairly carried out their duties?— I have given you one instance, and I consider that in that case the man on the land was unfairly treated, and I maintain that the men who would act thus would be likely to do other foolish things. 23. You know what the law is, and you know the members of the Land Board have to administer the law: can you give us any instance where they have unfairly administered the law ? —I have had a good deal of experience with Land Boards, and Ido not say for one moment that they try to unfairly administer the law, but they do not seem to me to always grasp the law, or the spirit of the Act, and carry the law out in a sensible way. 24. But you cannot give any specific instance? —It is pretty difficult to bring up specific instances all at once. 25. It is rather a serious charge, and ought to be supported by an instance? —I have given you one instance. Perhaps I could mention others. The members of the Land Board perhaps do their best. The Land Board has always acted fairly towards me; but I have known of plenty of instances where men complained of being harassed by the Board in their effort to keep to the letter of the law. 26. You think they ought to administer the law more liberally? —Yes, more liberally, and with judgment. 27. You think Land Boards should be given more discretionary power? —Yes; and in the case of settling Crown lands they should take more evidence before allowing an application, and they should give preference to genuine settlers. 28. Do you not think it would be rather a dangerous thing to give more power to political agitators? —I said that if reasonable sensible men were appointed the Board should have more discretionary power. 29. Is there, generally speaking, good road access to the settlement? —Some places are more fortunate than other places in that respect. Back in the Pongaroa district —which is an important district —the roads are bad. 30. Can you suggest anything that will improve it? —I think that a large amount of money has been expended on roads in the back blocks —expended under co-operative labour —that could have been spent to better advantage if tenders had been called for and the work let in small contracts. In such cases the settlers would get the money just the same —in fact, more of it. 31. Who does this roading chiefly? —The Government have been doing the roadwork back there. 32. Does not the local body do any of it? —I was there for ten years, and the local body did not spend a shilling on the roads. 33. Did it collect your rates? —Yes. 34. Did the local body get the "thirds" and spend them on the roads? —They have spent the rates, but not the " thirds." 35. Who do you think ought to have the expenditure of this money —the County Council or the Government? —I think it was successfully done under the Land Boards at one time when there was a resident engineer in the district looking after the work. The work was then let on the tender system. 36. Are the County Councils expending their revenues beneficially in most cases? —I believe so. 37. Have the local bodies enough money to attend properly to the roads in the district? — No- The County Councils should not be asked to do construction work in new settlements. 38. Do you think it is necessary for the Government to continue the present system of grants, or would it be wise to give larger subsidies to the local bodies? —I think if larger subsidies were given to County Councils it would be a very good system. 39. Mr. McCutchan.] You spoke about the Land Board exercising some supervision over applicants for land: do you mean before they are admitted to the ballot? —Yes. 40. Would you give preference to one class of settlers over any other class at the ballot? — I think that men who have been brought up to the work and are familiar with the bush should get a preference over men in business in the towns. I think in the case of people from the towns there are a great many chances that they will not go on the land. 41. Do you think that men who are unsuccessful at one ballot should get a preference at a succeeding ballot? —Yes. 42. Would you give married men a preference over single men?— Yes. 43. You mentioned a case in which you thought the residence conditions were enforced with undue harshness: do you- think in that case the man could satisfactorily work his second holding of 800 acres without residing on it?—He was doing so successfully, I consider. He was a hardworking man. 44. Do you think if extra improvements were put on the land that they should be taken in lieu of residence?—l am very much in favour of residence on Crown land being enforced. The object should be to get the people on the land. Ido not believe in being loose in respect to residence conditions. 45. There is a four years' exemption from residence now. Is not that ample for the bona fide settler? —Yes. 46. Was the land originally loaded for roads? —Yes.
C—4.
1204
[M. tansey.
47. Was it through the dilatoriness on the part of the Government in expending the loading that the Government retained control of the road for ten years? —I am not quite sure. 48. Were the "thirds" accumulating during those ten years? —Yes; but in one case the money was spent outside the settlement altogether. 49. By whom? —By the county. After nine or ten years had elapsed we applied to the County Council, and found they had dribbled the money away somewhere. They said the money was spent outside the settlement on other roads. 00. But it would be in order to give access to the settlement? —Yes, 1 suppose so; but the money was not expended in the way the settlers thought it ought to have been. 51. Did the settlers send in a petition to the Land Board in reference to the matter? —Not until it was too late. 52. Do you think the local body should have the right to levy rates over a district the roads of which are not vested in the local body? —I do not think they should. We had no access except what we made ourselves. Ido not think that the people in new settlements should pay rates until the roads are under the jurisdiction of the county. 53. A general rate may be expended anywhere within the county; so that the County Council acted quite legally in the case you have referred to? —Yes. 54. Would you advocate that every local body should be compelled to keep road accounts, so that the settlers might know the exact position ? —Yes. 55. Do you think that subsidies should bear a proportion to the rates levied by the settlers upon themselves? —Yes. 56. Mr. Paul.] Regarding the -personnel of the Hawke's Bay Land Board, how many farmers are on that Board? —It is very hard to define who are farmers. 57. How many political agitators are on the Hawke's Bay Land Board? —I do not think it is fair to expect me to answer such a question. 58. Is there any one holding a seat on the Land Board who is not well qualified to fill it? 1 would rather not answer that question. My remarks apply perfectly well, and most of the farmers in this district will understand what I have said. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I might say that Mr. Hall is one of the best and most sensible members that ever sat on the Board. 59. Why single out Mr. Hall from the rest? —I did not wish to single him out. 60. You are quite prepared to say that there is one man sitting on the Board who should not be there? —I will not say that that is not so. 61. Do you believe in any system of lease without the option of purchase? —I look on the perpetual lease as being a better system of land-settlement than either of the leases under the Act of 1892. 62. You hold that the perpetual lease is better than the lease in perpetuity? —It was a better system, as far as my experience goes in this district. 63. Do you favour the perpetual lease because it contained a purchasing clause? —Yes; it encouraged a man to improve his land. 64. Do you believe in any system of leasing without the option of purchase? —I do not. 65. Would you advocate partially elected Land Boards? —I think the Crown should be represented, and I think half the members of the Board should be elected by the ratepayers in the district. I would not have them elected under a universal franchise. 66. Would it not be fair to let the landowners elect one member and non-landowners elect the other? —I do not think non-landowners would take much interest in electing members of a Land Board. 67. Do you think they should have the right? —Yes, they should have the right; but I do not think they would take the interest. 68. Would you give them an opportunity of taking an interest in the matter? —I do not think it would be practicable. 69. Do you think a good farmer on freehold would be a bad farmer on leasehold? —There is no doubt the conditions would affect most men. ' 70. Have you ever visited land in the South Island acquired and settled under the Land for Settlements Act? —No. I look on those settlements as being quite different to settlements on ordinary Crown land. 71. Are the leaseholders in your district inferior as farmers to the freeholders? —I think I can safely say they do not take the same interest in improving their land as the freeholders do. I know that the men who had the right of purchase under the Act of 1885 were more successful settlers than the others. 72. What percentage of bush settlers are compelled to borrow money on mortgage? —I cannot say that in my experience of them that I remember one who did not have to borrow. 73. So that practically every man who goes into the bush must borrow money? —There is not very many men who go into the bush with capital, and it would require more capital to take up a lease-in-perpetuity section in the bush than a lease with the right of purchase. 74. Do they come out all right in the end? —Yes; a man, if he is industrious, invariably comes out right. 75. You bought your property at Coonoor from Mr. Pharazyn? —Yes. 76. How much land does he hold there? —7,000 to 8,000 acres. 77. How many settlers has he bought out?— Two; but he is not likely to buy another. 78. Are there any large estates in Hawke's Bay? —Yes. 79. Are they suitable for close.settlement?— Yes, some of them. 80. Do vou think it would be a wise policy to subdivide them? —Yes; there are some not far from Dannevirke that might be subdivided. 81. What areas should they be cut up into in order that the settlers may make a fair living ofi them? —On suitable dairying land a man could make a good living on a couple of hundred acres, but in the case of sheep land he would require 600 acres and upwards.
1205
M. TANSEY.I
C.-4.
82. Mr. Johnston.] Are you representing any other settlers besides yourself? —No. 83. Is it a general thing here for a man to go into the bush with limited capital? —Yes, and in some cases men go there without any capital. 84. How is a man to finance for the first six years if he has got an occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure any more than he can with a lease-in-perpetuity tenure? —He can get money advanced easier with the right of purchase than under lease in perpetuity. 85. How? —Money-lenders will advance much easier in the case of occupation with right of purchase. 86. Why? —I do not know, but that is the fact. 87. Have you ever got it yourself? —Yes; but 1 never had any difficulty in getting what 1 required. 88. In respect to getting money on the lease in perpetuity, you are simply speaking from hearsay? —I never owned any land under that tenure. 89. You referred to a case where residence was not made compulsory: is that person a business-man in Dannevirke? —Yes. 90. You advocated doing away with the residential clause to a certain extent, although you object to this man living in the town ? —I only mentioned that case as an instance of unfair administration. 91. Who are the members of the Hawke's Bay Land Board? —Mr. Hall, Mr. Hyde, and Mr. Groom are members. Ido not remember the other one. 92. What are the noxious weeds on the reserve you referred to? —Californian thistle and other weeds. 93. Is Californian thistle prevalent in this district? —It is getting worse. 94. Have you got any on your land? —Yes. 95. Have you taken any means to eradicate it? —Yes. 96. Have you ever been in the Government employ? —Yes. 97. Where is your freehold land? —Matama. 98. What is the value of the land per acre? —About £6 or £7. 99-. Did you sell out well to Mr. Pharazyn? —I got £7 per acre after living on it for eleven years. 100. What was the capital value in the first instance? —£1 13s. 6d. 101. Was it second-class land? —It was reduced second-class land. It was dry mountain tops, and cost me all I got from it to improve it. It was reduced to 15s. per acre. 102. What would the land carry? —A couple of sheep to the acre. 103. Where are the estates about here that want cutting up? —Otaunga —about 6,000 acres — is convenient to Dannevirke. It belongs to the Rathbones. 104. You said there were several? —A lot of the land around here is in big estates under Native leases. August Frederick Ferdinand Dittmer examined. 105. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, holding 141 acres of education reserve under twenty-one years' lease. I have held it for nineteen years, and took it up from the original holder. It is at Umataoroa, and I pay Bd. per acre, with a limitation of improvements of £3 per acre. Witness then proceeded to lay before the Commission a grievance which he had with the School Commissioners regarding necessary improvements for the proper working of his land for dairying purposes. A bridge was necessary, and he had applied for assistance from the Commissioners, but they were unable to comply with his request, and he had also approached the Commissioner of Customs, the Hon. Mr. Mills, who had laid the matter before the Minister of Lands, but who was unable to do anything in the matter. The Chairman expressed sympathy with the witness, but informed him that the subect was outside the scope of the Commission's inquiry. James Livingstone examined. 106. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a settler, holding 400 acres under right of purchase, which I have held for about four years. 1 pay £1 7s. 6d. per acre on the capital value. It is in the Ngapaeruru, about thirteen miles from Dannevirke. It was all bush originally, but is now cleared, except about 20 acres. 107. Has it taken the grass fairly well? —Yes. 1 have only sown the very best of grasses, 108. Have you a road into it? —Yes. We raised a special loan to metal the road, which was formed by the Government. 109. Is there anything particular which you wish to bring before us? —I represent a lot of the settlers on the No. 1 Block, Ngapaeruru. A public meeting was held, at which there were about twenty present, and on their behalf I wish to make the following statement which was submitted at that meeting and approved : Being a settler in the Ngapaeruru Block, land-tenure occupation with right of purchase, I strongly support the freehold tenure, for the following reasons: If a man takes up land with the right of purchase he looks forward to the time when he can call it his own, and he knows that all improvements he puts on the land are to be his own, and therefore he is more likely to do his work well and make a good settler; whereas, on the other hand, with regard to leasehold, the more valuable such a property becomes the more discontented the owner gets, because he sees his neighbour has a valuable asset, on which he can borrow to improve, while in his case he is only allowed about half the cost of his actual improvements, the rest being set up as unimproved value, and therefore belonging to the State. If the Government were prepared to let out all land with the right of purchase, giving the tenant the right to make it his own at any time, the funds accruing from such would go far towards the purchasing of more land for settlement, and at the same time do away with a lot of the borrowing
0.-4.
1206
IJ. LIVINGSTONE.
that the State has to resort to at the present time. There is a great difference of opinion as to the value of improvements. Now, I hold that subdivisional fencing adds greatly to the carryingcapacity of the land, thus increasing the value of the land, and should by any broad-minded man be put at a value far in excess of the actual cost of erection. Further, would any man set out to improve his place if he thought his improvements would not pay him more than 5 per cent, on its capital value? I say, most assuredly, " No." I think all improvements should be value on the merits of the value they are to the place; not as we have at the present time. A man comes round to value the land. With him it is like a problem in Euclid, and he says that all fences are the same fences, and all bushfelling and grassing are the same bushfelling and grassing; whereas in reality they are as widely different as day to night. For instance, one man in fencing uses the best English wire and the best of totara posts. In felling bush he fells everything green, and sows the best English grasses and clovers he can buy. Another man, in fencing, uses the cheapest material he can buy, and for posts uses anything that comes to his hand. His bush is felled in such a way that the fire will go through —that is all —and he sows the cheapest seed on the market. Now, did any one ever hear of valuing these alike? It is like valuing the settler's new house at the same value as his old slab whare; and yet such is the valuation we receive in the back blocks. I can say, with regard to my place, that I never saw the valuer till I met him in the Courthouse in Dannevirke, and, to my knowledge, he never was on the place. Yet when my returns came in the unimproved value had gone up from £600 to £1,200. The improvements, as valued by him, were valued at the lowest possible rate; in fact, truly absurd. For instance, fencing that had cost me from 18s. to £1 a chain was valued at 10s. a chain, with a depreciation of 10 per cent, yearly. I hold that the fence could not be erected at less than 125., let alone the cost of material. .This is but one instance. Another thing that adds to the value of the land is the settlers rating their land for special loans for road-metalling and construction, and such value should be added to the improved value as work done by the settler —not as it is at the present time, added to. the unimproved value. There are those that hold that, seeing we pay for our loans out of "thirds," we should not complain; but it is a purely optional matter with the settler whether he pays it out of "thirds" or his own pocket; and if the latter, he could apply to have the "thirds" spent before his own door or property. Besides, the "thirds" lapse in a few years, and the loans have still to be paid for. 1 challenged the valuer's valuation on the above grounds in the Court, and, while admitting the justice of my argument, he said, the values would be adjusted by the higher officials, as he was only there to value as he found things; and I can only say it has not been done yet. If the above is to constitute the class of revaluation that the leaseholder is likely to receive at the hands of the Government, is it any wonder that there is a cry going through the country for the freehold tenure? Do you think one single settler would take up land on the leasehold tenure if he thought for one moment he was in a few years to be valued out of his place, when it takes at least three years on a bush section before a man can look for any return, and is he to work on half-pay for that time, for such is what the present revaluation means 1 He naturally looks to what is termed the unearned increment to carry him through, for that is his wages. Without a face value, I hold that in the back blocks there is no such thing as an unearned increment. The settler earns every penny that his place will realise if placed on the market. In many instances he contracts diseases, which stick to him for all time, through the privations he has to endure in the first years of a new settlement, and I hold that it would be nothing short of downright robbery to deprive him of the unearned increment by a revaluation system. Another matter I would like to bring before the Commission is compulsory insurance and its effects on settlers. In the first place, most settlers were formerly just working-men, and yet by compulsory insurance there is a distinct line drawn between them. The one is deprived of any cover in case of accident, while being at the same time responsible for the life or limb of the other. Not only this, but if a settler wishes to fell a piece of bush by contract, and he has summed up the matter carefully, and in conclusion finds that he can raise the money at 5 \ per cent., he has further to insure the capital value of the work at 5 per cent., making him liable in the first year of his loan for 10J per cent. How many settlers do you think could stagger under that? Why not make the workers contribute to their own insurance, the same as any other individual. It would not be a great hardship, and a great inducement for them to save their wages. I think the restrictions imposed on the land by the Government are an insult to any practical settler, for in most instances, if the settler is a real honu fide settler, he knows more about the land than the Government can tell him, and it is only under the leasehold tenure that such restrictions could be thought of. Give the settler the right to make his farm freehold and he will study his farm and need no restrictions; whereas in the leasehold tenure a man is more apt to study his pocket than the land, because he can rise out and leave it at any time, as under a revaluation system his interest is cut down to the smallest limit. If the land is to be loaded for roading, such loading should be handed direct to the County Council, and they should let the roads by contract, as the cheapest and best mode of procedure. The co-operative system is a downright failure, as the following figures will show: Part of Mangahe Road was let to contractor; co-operative estimate, £500; contract price, £298. There is no doubt the advances-to-settlers system would have been a grand thing for the settler, especially freehold settlers, as they were entitled to more than a leaseholder, if it had not been for the Government issuing colonial short-dated debentures at 4J per cent., making it impossible for them to lend money at the same rate of interest; consequently if applied for now we are told that there is no money in hand. The aggregation of large estates is impossible in Ngapaeruru, as one settler is only allowed 640 acres of first-class land, and by the time he can acquire the freehold dairying will have put the land beyond the price of sheep-farming, and the improvements done in the way of fencing and building would not suit a large estate-holder at all, as they would constitute dead money. Besides, it is quite possible for the Government to bring in a Bill limiting the area to be held by any individual. As to pressure of residence con-
J. LIVINGSTONE.^
1207
C—4.
ditions, there is a block of land in Ngapaeruru at the presnt time —about 1,500 acres —belonging to Maoris. This land should be occupied in some shape or form, for at the present time it is overrun with rabbits and noxious weeds in the shape of Californian thistle, which is spreading at a rapid rate. I also think it unfair that this land is not rated for roading purposes. The settlers are bringing in roads and opening it up, increasing its value, and it is costing the Maoris nothing. The rabbits also are a great menace to adjoining settlers. In regard to the constitution of Land Boards, I think that rebate on rent punctually paid should be given to all settlers, on these grounds: The Government are the only landlords that demand rent in advance, and I think that, considering that they get it six months before it is earned, it is only right that they should pay interest for it in the shape of a rebate. 110. What do you require to pay in the way of premium to insure the men who take up bush contracts? —We are charged on the capital value of the contract, and bush land is the highest rate possible. 111. Can you say how much it costs you ? —£s 6s. per cent. 112. If you are felling 50 acres of bush at a cost of £2 per acre that would be a £100 contract, and you would have to pay £5 6s. ? —Yes. 113. It really means 2s. per acre?— Yes. 114. Mr. Anstey.] You say the workers ought to insure themselves: would not that be a cumbersome way of collecting the premiums? —What I was alluding to was that they should form bodies and pay in so-muclx to cover themselves in case of accident, so that the tax should not come so directly on the settler. 115. Do you think it well to have universal insurance, the insurance to be paid, say, out of the Customs to which all contribnte? —I really have not gone into the matter deep enough to understand what you mean. 116. You spoke of your improvements being undervalued, and the unimproved value having gone up: does that apply principally to the purpose of local rating? —The instance I was citing was. About twelve months ago it was put up for rating purposes. 117. Do you think that would apply in the case of a lease subject to revaluation? —I should say it would. 118. Do you think there could be any equitable way of securing to the tenant the full value of his improvements? —It is so hard to reckon what a man's real improvements are. There is the logging-up and grassing, and that kind of thing; he has no face-value. If you clean up clean enough so that no sign of the old bush is left the valuer says there has been no bush there, and allows nothing for all that work, and values the land as if it had always been clear. 119. Do you think it is impossible to secure to the tenant the full value of the improvements without giving him the freehold ? —I cannot think of any other way. 120. What about the tenants of educational reserves ? If their improvements disappear will they not suffer a loss? —Yes. 121. So that they should get the freehold? —That seems like it. 122. The tenants of private owners should be treated in the same way? —Yes. 123. You have never received any rebate? —No, and when we have written about it we have been told that we paid too punctually, and therefore had no need for a rebate. From what I can hear, there are very few rebates given in the Hawke's Bay district, except in the case of Hatuma. 124. Do vou think that either all the tenants or none of the tenants should get the rebate? —Yes. 125. Do you think the rebate should be allowed in accordance with the dearness of a section, or that it should apply all round equally? —All round equally, because when the Government let out land it should Be properly classified. 126. Supposing a settlement was so dear that settlers could not make a living on it, do you not think it wise that a rebate should be made to them, rather than that they should have to give up the section and have it revalued? —In cases like that it might be well to revalue, but, of course, we oppose revaluation. 127. Can you suggest any way by which these Maori lands can be profitably occupied? —We were advocating that they should be individualised, but it seems that there is nothing to individualise. 128. Do you think that they should be taken over by the Government and leased?— They should have a capital value put on them and be worked. 129. Do you consider that the land held as it is is a menace to the other settlers? —It is. 130. What about the block that you spoke of. Are there a number of Maoris living on it? — None at all. 131. Where do the owners live? —I have not the ghost of an idea. 132. Have you any idea of the number of hapus interested? —No. 133. Mr. McCutchart.] In connection with these blocks of Native land upon which no Maoris are living, seeing that that land is not necessary for the Maoris to get a living out of, would you advocate such properties being taken under the Land for Settlements Act, and placing the proof of ownership on the Natives themselves? —Yes. 134. There would be no delay in the settlement of blocks? —That would be the right and proper way to take it. 135. Do you think in the case of valuations being made that it should be an instruction to the valuers that they are not to enter on the land without the owner or the person in occupation accompanying them? —I do. Unless the settler is present the valuer cannot know what has been done on the place. 136. Is it within your knowledge that valuers have made valuations without having any communication with the owner at all? —As far as I am concerned, I never saw or met the valuer until I met him in the Court at Dannevirke.
C.—4.
1208
[j. LIVINGSTONE.
137. You spoke of the contrast between the cost of co-operative work and contract: was the work actually done for £298 by contract? —Yes. 138. How did you arrive at the estimate of £500? —We got it from the Inspector of Roads. 139. Did the men make fair wages? —Yes. 140. Was the work done by the local body or under Government supervision? —I could not tell you for a certainty. 141. Mr. Paul.\ Are you positive chat the co-operative estimate as you state it is correct?— The Overseer of Roads told us it was that. 142. Were you successful in appealing against your valuation? —I own two sections, and I got £50 taken off one section. 143. Mr. McCutchan.] The reply you got from the Department with regard to the rebate of rent was that you paid too promptly? —I never actually applied for a rebate, but I was told that there was no rebate, and that some who had written had got that reply. 144. Is that an inference that the lands were taken up at such a reasonable figure that the settlers were doing very well, and that a rebate was not necessary? —That, of course, is a question for the Government to decide. If they let land too cheaply it is not for us to say anything about it. There is a rebate, and if it is granted to one it should be granted to all. They collect the money six months in advance, and it is only natural that they should pay interest on it for that time. 145. Do you think it would be well to put this money into a fund for helping and assisting settlers who, like those on Pomahaka, are paying too much for their sections?- It would be better to do that than not use the money at all. John Alexander Robertson examined. 146. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer and surveyor. 1 farm about 1,100 acres in the Maungata Special Settlement, and pay about 7s. an acre. It is open land and has originally been bush. It was cleared and grassed and partly ring-fenced when I got it. I am satisfied with the land and the tenure. I hold the land as a small grazing-run. I was asked by the settlers in the settlement to give evidence on one or two matters. I understand that the settlers are quite satisfied with the Hawke's Bay Land Board, but the general opinion is that it would be an advantage to the district all round if one member was elected by the settlers. The meeting were unanimous that the terms of all leases of Government lands should include the option of purchase after the usual conditions on which the land is held are carried out. Some of them are lease-in-perpetuity people and some are small-grazing-run holders. We are under the impression that the system of loading land for roads is radically wrong, because from our point of view the settlers pay for all time on that loading. In the case of small-grazing-run leases it increases the value of the land, and it adds to the rates they have to pay. We think it would be a great advantage if the Government in cutting up an estate were to give the applicants an idea as to what the rates would be. 147. It would be rather difficult for the Government to give that, would it not? —They could do it pretty closely. The matter of residence conditions opens up a very large question, and 1 think that no land should be thrown open without the roads being first made, so that a man can have decent means of access. 148. Do you mean the road to each section? —I mean the main roads through the block. All roads giving access to settlers should be made passable for them. 149. Do you mean simply formed? —Yes; not necessarily metalled. In this particular settlement, before the land was opened up, it was mentioned that the Government was going to spend a certain sum of money on certain roads. One of those roads has been formed and partly metalled, but the other roads have not been opened for stock yet, although it is over three years ago that that statement was made. A start has been made, but that is only in consequence of settlers urging it. There is another part of the same estate to be thrown open at the end of this month, and the people will have practically no means of getting on to the land. 150. Is it part of the Maungatara Estate also? —Yes. A great deal has been said about the difficulty of getting settlers to reside on the land, but one can hardly wonder at that. Take, for instance, a married man with a family, who has to go back to one of those sections. He knows that if once he gets back there, and anything happens to any of them necessitating a doctor, it will cost him a month's wages, and, not only that, but he also knows that it is next to an impossibility to get any of his family out should it be necessary to do so. The same thing applies in the case of a young fellow who is looking forward to marriage. He stands a chance of his intended wife saying to him that she will not go in to be buried in such a place. This want of roads to the back blocks has kept the country back. We heard some little time ago a good deal about the birth-rate not increasing, but if you give men the chance of having homes they will get their wives out there: but, as it is just now, the women say we cannot go to live in places like that. So by giving good roads I think you will very much help the settlement of the country. The general opinion is that there is far too much money spent in the towns. Of course, every town wants its buildings ; but, speaking from the settlers' point of view, I think a great deal of money has been spent on the buildings in the towns which would have been very much better spent on the roads in the country. 151. Mr. Jnstey.\ What are the terms of your lease of the small grazing-run? —Twenty-one years, with revaluation for rent and valuation for improvements. lam quite satisfied with it. 152. And why is not the lease in perpetuity satisfactory?—lt is just the old story, that a man wants to have his own in his own name. 153. Do you not want to have yours in your own name too? —I would like to, but my lease is a short one, and is more of a lease than th'e other. The other is a lease in name only. 154. You think the other lease is better than yours? —From one point of view, it is.
J. A. BOBEETSON.]
1209
0.-4.
155. Do you think you ought to get the freehold too? Have you the same claim to it as they have ? —I hardly think I have, because I have taken it more as a lease than they have. I would like to have it as a freehold, but I do not know I would put myself in a position to claim it the same as they have. 156. Mr. McCutchan.] You have the right to take it on for a further term? —Yes. 157. Is there an extension for a third term? —I understand that it goes on with a revaluation. 158. Do you think there ought to be some more systematic way of valuing the unimproved values in connection with tenants' improvements in all cases where there is a revaluation clause? • —I cannot say much about that matter. One trouble we have is in regard to our rating. In the case of a small grazing-run they capitalise our rent, and we find that we are paying a much higher rate than our neighbours under the lease in perpetuity. 159. And in the case of the Crown tenants they have a much lower valuation under the Land Act of 1892 ?--It depends on the valuation and the rent. 160. Yours is capitalised at 6 per cent.? —Yes. If you capitalise the land at 6 per cent, that land which is valued at 7s. an acre recently could be run up to a very high rate in value, and in this district a short time ago we had a revaluation, and the leases in perpetuity were all lowered, but the small grazing-runs were not lowered because the Department said it could not affect us. They lowered our valuation but could not lower our rating value. 161. They lowered your rental? —No. 162. The head and front of your objection is that the local body levies a rate on the capital value of the land? —That is one objection. 163. You think the loading is to cease when the Government is reimbursed? —Certainly. 164. After twenty-six years you calculate that under the Loans to Local Bodies Act the principal and interest are wiped ouf, and you think the loading charge should then cease? —Certainly. 165. What would be the present position of the lease-in-perpetuity tenure in that case? —I never thought of it. I could not tell you the position. 166. We will say the piece of land is taken up at £1 ss. an acre —£1 is capital, ss. is loading -and suppose they borrow under the Loans to Local Bodies Act to extinguish the loan, would Uiey have to pay the £1 ss. to extinguish the £1 after ten years ? Probably they might put a higher valuation on the land. 167. It is a simple matter for equitable calculation? —It seems to be a matter for calculation. I have never reasoned the thing out in that way, but have always thought that after a certain number of years the whole thing should be wiped out. 168. Some settlers advocate that where the land is loaded for roads they should be able to raise a loan under the Local Bodies Act, and be able to extinguish the loading in twenty-six years if at 5 per cent., and forty-one years if at 4 per cent. : do you think the Government should legislate in that direction ? —I have never thought the matter out. 169. You stated that your rates were £70: what do you allude to? —County rates only. 170. Are you getting the expenditure where you want it?-—-As far as the county is concerned, I suppose they are treating us in a fair way, but the Government promised to make certain roads which they have not carried out. 171. Can you say if the total amount of loading for expenditure on roads in the block has been spent? - ! cannot say, because I do not know the ground. 172. With regard to the difficulty of getting doctors in the back blocks, do you think the Government might reasonably take the matter in hand, with a view of getting suitable doctors from Home? —A doctor would not stay there a month in many places if he was there in winter. 173. If people of gentle birth are prepared to come from the Old Country and go out to the back blocks and endure the hardships, they should be sufficiently compensated. Do you not think there are many young doctors of the class I referred to who would be prepared to come out here and endure the hardships of the back blocks if they are amply compensated ? —I do not think they would stay in the back blocks. If you had had any experience of a real back block Ido not think you would expect them to stay. • 174. Thank you. I have only had thirty-one years' experience of the back blocks of the North Island, at Whangamomona. Then, your, cure for the whole position is an adequate roading policy? —That is my cure. 175. Mr. Paul.\ Ycu say the settlers want one member elected to the Land Board? —There is an impression that the settlers should have a say in the constitution of the Board. They are quite satisfied with the constitution, but they think there should be one member there to specially represent their interests. 176. That is the Crown tenants only you refer to? —Yes. 177. Do the settlers consider that if the option of purchase were given that it would be a more valuable tenure? —Oh, yes. 178. Do they propose to pay anything to the State for the right? —I do not think they do. 179. Do you think that they might? —They are under the impression that it might be included in the lease just as an option. 180. Do they propose to pay anything for the more valuable tenure? —I do not think so. 181. Mr. Johnston.] What does that rate of yours run into per acre?—l have not worked it out. 182. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office?— No. 183. Mr. Anstey.\ What is the county rate? —There are several rates, but the general rate I could not tell you; I think there are four different rates. Thomas Stewart examined. 184. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, farming about 1,500 acres of freehold. My land is near Ti-tree Point, on the coast, twenty miles from here. I have been forty years farming, in the back blocks all the time.
152—C. 4.
0.-4.
1210
T. STEWART.
185. Are you representing any one but yourself? —Only myself. lam in favour of the freehold, for the reason that a farmer feels with a leasehold tenure he might be disturbed, and might lose the value of the improvements he has put on the land. The system I consider the best is the leasehold with right of purchase. Most of the men who take up small areas have a limited capital, and what they have is required for improvements. 186. Have you been a witness in any way of the leasehold system? —I saw a good deal of it during the first few years of my experience. I have been in the back blocks all the time. 187. How are you off for roads? —Very badly, indeed. 188. Have you gone in for any local loans in your district?- Yes. lam not a member of any local body, but I have to pay my share of the taxes. 189. Mr. Anstey.] Are there many leaseholders in your immediate neighbourhood? —No, they are mostly freehold; they were leasehold at one time, but have now acquired the freehold. 190. Mr. Paul.] Has the leasehold been successful in placing any poor men on the land?It has placed a good many poor men there, especially this 999-years lease. But 1 think it has also been the means of doing many poor men an injury, whom I think would have been much better off the land until they could have got there in a proper manner. A good many people have been induced to go on the land under that system without thinking of what they were doing. 191. Do you think it was against the best interests of the colony to put them on the land? —I do. 192. Mr. Johnston.] Have you ever been a leaseholder yourself? —Yes. 193. And you have made it a freehold? —I did. 194. Could you have gone on to that piece of land if it had not been a leasehold? —I might. 195. I want you to give or No? —It is hard to say. I really could not tell you. 196. Is it not a fair presumption that you could not have acquired those 1,500 acres unless it was first a leasehold ? —I would not say that. 197. You know perfectly well when you took it up that you were in a position to acquire the freehold ? —I could not truthfully say so. Ido not know what I might have done if I had been asked to try. 198. How far did your experience of the leasehold extend? —About eleven years. 199. What experience have you had outside this particular district? —I have had no experience outside Hawke's Bay Province. 200. No other experience? —No. 201. You have never seen any settlement under the Land for Settlements Act? —Yes. 202. Where? —Around the neighbourhood here. Francis Andrew Cunningham examined. 203. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, holding 1,100 acres. It is a small grazing-run. I have held it seven years, and pay 3s. 6d. an acre rent. lam in Mangatoro Settlement. I have been there three years. lam satisfied with my tenure. I have never had any difficulty with roads ; I am living on the main road. I was asked by our branch of the Farmers' Union to support the freehold. We have about twenty-five members, and they are all in favour of the freehold. 204. Are they all Crown tenants? —1 am not quite certain, but, as far as I know, they are all in favour of the freehold. At the meeting that was held those who were there were unanimous, but I do not think they were all there. 205. How many were there? —About a dozen. They are all leaseholders. There are only about five small grazing-runs on the place. 206. Mr. Anstey.] You are quite satisfied with your tenure? —Yes. 207. You are not one of those who want the freehold? —I think not myself, but I would like to be able to acquire it in time. I think it ought to be optional. 208. But, still, you are quite satisfied to remain as you are?- -I must say I would prefer to be able to acquire the freehold if possible. 209. What are the terms of your lease? —It is subject to revaluation at twenty-one-year periods. 210. Do you consider it is as good terms as-lease in perpetuity?--It is very much of a muchness as far as 1 can see. 1 have a right of renewal with a revaluation. I think I am paying about the same as if it was lease in perpetuity. 211. But, supposing at the end of twenty-one years the land increased in value, your rent would probably go up, while other people's would remain stationary? —The unimproved value may not be very much in twenty-one years. 212. Still, it may, and we have had one or two witnesses who say that the unimproved value is going up? —I shall have to take the chance. 213. But if you take the chance of a rise in rent you will not then have what is as good as a fixed rent? —It is hard to say, but I think the chances are about equal. 214. Why do these people want the freehold? —It is more a matter of sentiment than anything else. One feels more contented and satisfied when one knows that he can acquire the freehold, even if it was occupation with right of purchase or a small grazing-run. 215. Is that the only thing why they want it —sentiment?—l should think that was quite sufficient, because it induces a man to work, and makes him more contented. 216. Could he produce any-more off his farm if he had a freehold than he could off it as a leasehold? —It depends on the nature of the man to a certain extent. Some men do more under certain conditions than others. Some do their best at any time, whether working as managers for some one else or working for themselves.
1211
a—4.
V. A. CUNNINGHAM.j
217. Is there any difficulty in borrowing money under this lease? —Yes, there is. You could not get nearly as much for it. You would have to put down a good deal more money yourself first if you had a lease in perpetuity than you would if it were a freehold. 218. I am speaking of borrowing money? —Yes. 219. You would have to put down more money when you borrowed? —You would have to nave more. 220. You mean you would have to have a larger margin of security? Yes. 221. Then there is some difference besides sentiment--there is a great deal of difference there ? -Yes, but you would be able to get money on better terms with the freehold. 222. Supposing a man wanted to sell out his interest, which would be the best, the freehold or the lease in perpetuity? —The freehold. 223. There is something more than sentiment there? —Yes. 224. Do you think it would be wise for the State to entertain the idea of making this alteration in its own agreement with the tenants? —I think they would be quite safe in doing so, because, if the Land Board carried out its duty properly, there would be no fear as to the aggregation of large estates. 225. lam not speaking of aggregation at all. The Crown and the tenants have entered into a bargain —do you think it would be wise to interfere with that bargain? I have not thought it out sufficiently to give an opinion. 226. Mr. l'aul.\ Are the small-grazing-run holders satisfied with their tenure? —Yes, as far as 1 know. 227. You feel very strongly on the question of freehold? —Personally, I think it would be very much better to have the freehold. 22'". Was it the committee of the Farmers' Union which asked you to come here and give evidence? —Yes, our branch of the union. 229. Did they have to press you to come here? —No, they asked me if I had the time to come here; nothing more. We have not discussed the matter in any way which was wrong. I think we ought to have met several times and discussed the whole business, so that I would have been better prepared in corning here. 230. Do you mean to say the branch has never discussed the question?—Not in my hearing, barring the one time. We might have done a little more in that way. They only asked me once if I would stand, but they never notified me that I had to give evidence. I did not know for certain till yesterday that I was expected to attend the Commission, but they asked me last night to come in. 231. Do you think the lease in perpetuity would be a more valuable tenure if it had the option of purchase with it? —I think so. 232. Do the settlers propose to pay the State anything for that more valuable tenure? —I should not think so. 233. In other words, they want something for nothing? —I do not know that they do. 234. You admit that it will be a more valuable tenure if they get the option, but they do not propose to pay anything for it: is that the position ? —Yes, I suppose it is. 235. Mr. Johnston.] Had you been a settler on the land before you took up this land? —No. 236. Did you not discover that you wanted the freehold before you put in an application for the leasehold? —No. 237. You were satisfied with the tenure when you applied for it? —I said before that I was satisfied with my tenure, but I thought at the same time I would like to be able to get the freehold. William Wylie examined. 238. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer, holding 461 acres of leasehold with the right of purchase. I havg held it about six years. It is in the Ngapaeruru, sixteen miles from here. It was all bush land originally, but is all in grass excepting 12 acres. lam paying £26 a year, the upset price l>eing ,£1 2s. 6d. an acre. We have very good roads, for the reason that the settlers rate themselves to raise loans to form, bridge, and metal the roads. Had it not been that the settlers exerted themselves, I do not think the roads would have been formed yet. The settlers are also loaded with 7s. or Bs. for roading, and they have to pay interest on that amount of money, and at the end of ten years, when they make the sections freehold, they have to pay the whole of that money back in full, and pay interest on the amount as well. Also, owing to the settlers having rated themselves to raise these loans, the expenditure of which has increased the value of their holdings, they have to pay extra rates besides. This is very hard on settlers in the back blocks. I have no private grievance, but was simply delegated to come here and express the opinion of the settlers as to the freehold. The settlers here have taken up the land under the occupation with right of purchase mostly. A few are under the lease in perpetuity, but the feeling is, without exception, in favour of the freehold. A number took up sections under the lease in perpetuity, not knowing what they were doing. They found out their mistake afterwards when they went to raise money to improve their holdings. In bush districts men without capital require to raise money, but they cannot raise sufficient on the leasehold, and, therefore, they are handicapped with respect to improvements, and cannot get the return they ought to get within a given period. Not only that, but should a settler through unforeseen circumstances come into a little capital and wish to take up a large holding, he cannot sell out to the same advantage, because people will not give as much for a lease in perpetuity as for an occupation with right of purchase. I understand that the reason the Government brought in the Land for Settlements Act was to stop the aggregation of largs estates, but I think they might have provided for that under the present Act. Under the Act a person may declare before a Justice of the Peace that he only holds a certain area of land. If the Land Transfer Act were amended to compel a man to do the same
C—4.
1212
[W. WYLIE.
in that case, he could only acquire a certain quantity of land; but, under the present law, if you have the capital, as soon as the land becomes freehold you can buy fifty thousand pounds' worth. The Government should positively say the amount of land an individual should be allowed to hold. In some of the back districts 640 acres would not be'equivalent to 320 acres near a large centre, and 1,000 acres of first-class laud ought to be the limit. 239. Do you mean to apply the restriction to Crown lands only, or to lands in general? —To all lands in general, because under the present Acts if you make it optional every person is satisfied. 240. Of course, in New Zealand now there are some very large estates. Would you leave them alone or compel them to subdivide? —I do not know. 241. Would you compel them to divest themselves of the land now, or would you wait until they die and probably divide it amongst their families? —I do not say I would wait until they die. If the land in these large estates was good agricultural land, as long as they employed labour and paid rates and taxes I would not cut tliem up. But there are hundreds of thousands of acres of Native land which I would cut up first before I would take the other estates which are suitable. 242. Mr. Anntey.] You object to paying interest on the loading and then adding the whole to capital. Supposing you borrowed money on mortgage for ten years you would have to pay interest on thit, and I suppose the mortgagee would expect you to pay back the principal as well? —I understand you can borrow under some system for a number of years, and you pay off the interest and principal in instalments. 243. "You would have to pay interest and principal back if you borrowed money, would you not? —Certainly, I would have nothing to complain of then. 244. Mr. McCutchan.] In connection with the loading of lands leased under the occupation with right of purchase, after ten, years there is the right of purchase. During these ten years the lessee not only pays interest, but pays a sinking fund as well, and he has the sinking fund then back, inasmuch as he had it to pay tip the capital with in order to acquire the freehold of his section. Is that your position? —Yes. 245. Mr. Paul.] Would you place any other restriction on the freehold? —I would not place any restriction on the freehold, but I would limit the area. 246. When a man had the freehold you would allow him to do as he liked with it? —Certainly, to a certain extent.
Waipukurau, Thubsday, Bth June, 1905. William Cowper Smith examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a member of the Legislative Council, and have been a resident in this district for thirty-five years. I have an interest in a bush farm. 2. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission? —Yes. I may say that as a member of the Legislature I express no opinion as to the question of leasehold versus freehold. It will be time enough to express my opinion when the question comes before Parliament for decision, and before making up my mind on that important question I would like to hear what the Commission has to say upon the matter, and to have the full evidence before me. I desire, however, to bring before the Commission a proposition that has been mooted between the settlers and myself. It is this: That leaseholders should be allowed to pay at any time to the receivers of land revenue any savings or spare capital they may have, either on account of future rents, in which case interest should be allowed on such advance payments, or, if preferred, to go towards the reduction of the capital value of the leaseholder's section, in which case the future rent to be reduced in proportion to the amount paid. This would encourage thrift, and provide for future bad years and old age, when the settler's working-power will be reduced. With reference to that proposition, I sent the following telegram to the Premier: — " Right Hon. R. J. Seddon, Dunedin. . " Settlers wish to know if regulations could be made allowing leaseholders to pay to the receivers of land revenue any savings or spare capital they may have from time to time, to be credited, with interest, to their rent account, and thus provide for future bad years or old age, when their working-powers will be reduced. " W. C. Smith." To that telegram I received the following reply: — " Hon. W. C. Smith, Waipukurau. " Being a large policy question, I am unable to give you a definite reply to question submitted in your telegram, as to Crown tenants depositing any spare capital with Government on rent account. This question should be submitted to the Commission, so that the Commission could report on it. It seems to me at first blush to be reasonable. "R. J. Seddon." That telegram was dated the 31st May. Having been a member of the House of Representatives for this district for many years, I had a great deal to do in the early days with the settlers and with the questions affecting the settlement of the land. In the case of shorter leases it may be a different thing, but I have formed the opinion that when a man's improvements belong to himself, and he can sell them, that regulations interfering with the settlers are not required, and causes ill-feeling on the part of the settlers against the leasing system. I therefore hold that all regulations as to cropping, or other restrictions affecting leases in perpetuity should be abolished as irritating and unnecessary, there being no risk of a 999-years leaseholder injuring his farm. Another point is this : That in the case of improved properties the present system of uniform improvements should be modified so as to allow of each improved section to be treated separately on its merits when fixing the improvements to be made by the tenant. If a farmer has a house and other improvements on his section it seems to me ridiculous that he should be made to do the same improvements as a man who has little or no improvements on his section. Those are the
W. C. SMITH.]
1213
a—4.
three questions I specially wish to bring before the Commission. I might point out that the rental in the case of ordinary Crown lands is 5 per cent, with the right of purchase, and 4 per cent, without the right of purchase. If the 4-per-cent. people are given (he right of purchase there is no doubt the 5-per-cent. settlers will come to Parliament and say, "We want that extra 1 per cent, we have been paying all these years returned. We were paying it because our lease had a freehold clause in it, and now the other settlers who have only been paying 4 per cent, are to have the right of getting the freehold." There is no doubt claims amounting to many thousands of pounds from settlers will be made, and I think they will in that case have very good moral claims too. That has to be taken into consideration. There is another thing affecting this district. It will, however, be more for Parliament to consider than for this Commission. That is the question as to whether it is right to part with the freehold of land to one person in the case where that land has been compulsorily taken from another person. I am strongly in favour of the resumption of large estates. I was the first member of Parliament in this district who, in 1881, stood up and declared, at Waipawa, to a hostile audience that I was in favour of the resumption of absentee-held estates, and I said that Hatuma should be taken; and, strange to say, Hatuma was the first estate taken by the Government nineteen years afterwards. The question to be decided is whether the Crown, having taken land compulsorily from some people, should part with the freehold to other people. I think it is perfectly right that they should have the power to resume land for settlement purposes. It has been pointed out to me by settlers that supposing the freehold is granted and residence is done away with -of course, there can be no compulsory residence once the freehold is granted —the fact of certain holders of land not being compelled to live on their sections would be unfair to other settlers in the same district who are compelled to live on their land, because it would have a bad effect in regard to schools, post and telegraphs, and other conveniences that settlers require." I bring up this point because my attention has been drawn to it by some settlers who are unable to attend personally and give evidence before the Commission. 3. You think that restrictions as to cropping might be done away with? —Yes. 4. And you are of opinion that a man who takes up a 999-years lease will not spoil his land by overcropping? —I think so. 5. The evidence taken by the Commission in the south showed that there are many cases where it is evident there should be some restrictions? —I have stated what I believe to be the general feeling of the settlers in this district in regard to this question. I am not a practical farmer, however, and do not pretend to argue that question. 6. Mr. Anstey.] You spoke of the unfairness of enforcing residence conditions in some cases and not in others: do you think that the same regulations in respect to residence should apply to freehold land as to leasehold land? —It is not freehold if there are regulations. 7. Is there any freehold land now at all? —It is called freehold. 8. Is it not subject to restrictions now? —It is not subject to restrictions of that kind. 9. Has a man got to live seven years on freehold land before he gets his title? —I mean when he gets his freehold title. 10. Are there any restrictions on leasehold land? —Yes. 11. Do you think the same restrictions should apply to freehold as to leasehold? —I say that is impossible. That is my answer. 12. Mr. Johnston.] You object to these cropping regulations. Supposing a man who is cropping land is mortgaged up to the hilt, and he puts all his land down into crops in spite of the Land Board in one season, and threshes and sells the grain, and then walks out, what position is the Land Board in ? Such a thing has been done in the south ? —I have had no experience in this district of that. 13. That is one of the reasons for these restrictions? —I am speaking from my own local knowledge. 14. The Land Board must be guarded. Supposing you did get a bad settler, he might overcrop the land to its detriment and mortgage the property: how would you deal with him? Do you not think it is necessary to have these restrictions to meet that class of settler? —There are always special cases that will arise. I do not know how he can get the money. The property belongs to the Crown. Ido not think that in this district they would lend him anything like the full value. 15. You allude principally to these new settements? —Yes, entirely. 16. Has the Land Board ever refused a settler the right to take more than the regulation number of crops?—l do not remember any such case. 17. Do you know the Land Boards to be at all unreasonable in dealing with settlers? —No. 18. Have you seen the settlements in the South Island under the Land for Settlements Act? --No. 19. Has Hatuma been a success? Yes. 20. Have all the settlements that have come under your notice been a success? —Yes. 21. And are the settlers contented ? Yes. They had a struggle during the first year, but they have got over that now. 22. The Government have met them? —Yes. 23. Do you not think the Government is as likely to meet them as reasonably as any one outside the Government can do? —Most decidedly. 24. Mr. McCutchan.] In speaking of allowing settlers' rent to go against the land —that is in the case of lease in perpetuity, is it? —Yes. 25. Do you advocate that also under occupation with right of purchase, or would you let the savings go against the capital value? —I would give the settler the option. 26. After a settler has got his section and pays rent for ten years he has the right of purchase? —Yes, under that system.
0.—4.
1214
fw. C. SMITH.
27. Do you advocate that his savings may be taken prior to the time the right of purchase is exercisable, and so reduce the capital value of his land?— Yes; I do not see any difficulty in that. I was speaking absolutely in respect to the 999-years lease. I did not before consider the other case. 28. When a man buys land for cash now he has to put certain improvements on within seven years. In addition to the improvement conditions would you advocate that he should be made subject to residence conditions I—That1 —That is a question that I would like to give more consideration to. As I am a member of Parliament, that question will probably come before us, and therefore I would rather not reply to it now. 29. Mr, Paul.] Do you think it would be conducive to better settlement if some restrictions could be imposed on freehold land? —Does not that mean the same thing? 30. You are doubtful whether such restrictions could be imposed, and whether, if they were, it would still be freehold. If reasonable restrictions could be framed for that purpose, would that be for the good of the district? —It might turn out so. That is a matter that requires very careful consideration. I say that when a man gets his title no restrictions will hold good. 31. Are the settlers in this district generally prosperous? —There have been good seasons, and they are fairly prosperous. Since I was first elected to Parliament in 1881 there has been an enormous increase in this district both in population and in settlement. 32. Has closer settlement been in the best interests of the district? —Yes, no doubt it has. We have not got the full benefit yet, because the settlers of Lindsay, Argyle, and Hatuma have been putting all their money into their property, so that the townships have not received the full benefit of the increased settlement, but after a few years, and they have saved up money, they will be able to spend more in the townships around. 33. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you think it is quite right that a freeholder, when he has got his title, should be allowed to do whatever he likes with it? —That is a question I decline to answer, because I have not gone into it; but I know that some years ago legal opinion was given that restrictions would not hold. 34. Are there no restrictions on existing freehold ?—No. 35. Is a man allowed to do whatever he likes with his freehold? —Yes, if he has got his title. 36. Is he allowed to let it run to weeds? —He is subject to the laws of the colony. A man is allowed to do what he likes subject to the law, but he cannot go into a baker's shop, for instanee, and take a loaf of bread without paying for it. John Williamson examined. 37. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am a farmer, and farm 190 acres under lease in perpetuity. My land is part of the Hatuma Settlement. I have been there four years. My rent is Bs. 4d. an acre. 38. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —No, I have no security. 39. Surely you have a 999-years lease? —Yes; but we are subject or may be subject to revaluation or a Fair Rent Bill. 40. That is not the law? —But we are frightened it might come about. 41. Are you a delegate appointed by the rest of the settlers? —Yes, I represent forty-five Hatuma settlers. At a meeting held some time ago Mr. Merrikin and I were appointed delegates to give evidence before the Commission. 42. What tenure would you prefer if you had your choice? —These forty-five settlers are in favour of the option of the freehold being granted, subject, of course, to improvements. That is all I have to say as representing the other settlers. Now, I will speak for myself. First, as to the residential clause. I should say that should be adhered to strictly. Then, as to the constitution of Land Boards, I should say they should be composed of practical men, and a majority of them should be farmers. I think that three members of the Board should be elected. 43. You think that men are apt to be nominated who are incompetent? —Yes. 44. How do you think the three members should be elected? —On the County Council franchise. "45. Does it not occur to you that if they were all elected, especially where there are many settlers holding land under lease in perpetuity, the tenants would practically rule the landlord, because the State would only be represented by one member? —If they were elected as I suggest they would be all practical, conscientious men. 46. But conscientious men are apt to be swayed by their interests at times —unwittingly, of course? —It is not necessary they should be tenants. 47. But in this district the majority of ratepayers and electors would be lease-in-perpetuity holders? —There are other ratepayers besides them. With reference to the ballot system and grouping, I think that grouping is a huge mistake, because it simply amounts to this, that you compel a man to take up land that he really does not want. The practice of loading land for roads I think is quite correct, but I think the distribution of the funds should be in the hands of the local body. 48. Was there any loading of the Hatuma land? —Yes, and it was heavily loaded too. 49. And was the money properly expended? —I sometimes think it was not properly expended. Then, with reference to the value of leaseholds, I do not think they have been improved at all beyond what the tenant has put on them. 50. You mean there is no unearned increment?—At the present moment Ido not think there is. With reference to the aggregation of estates, Ido not think that is possible if you retain the same conditions —namely, that a man shall not hold more than a certain area of land. As to the cropping conditions, I should say that after a man has complied with the improvement conditions he should be allowed to farm as he likes. I think, however, it would be wrong to allow a man to take two or three crops in succession, and thus throw the land back for some years. But if a man made the necessary improvements, I think he should be allowed to crop as he likes.
J. WILLIAMSON.]
1215
C—4.
51. Mr. Anstey.~\ You wish to get the freehold of your lease-in-perpetuity section, as you think the tenure is not secure? —I do. 52. What makes you think it is not secure? —Because of the agitation for revaluation, and for the passing of a Fair Rent Bill. 53. Do you think it would be wrong to have your land revalued? —I do. 54. Do you think it would be wrong to interfere with your title in any way? —Yes. 55. You have entered into a contract with the Government, and you expect that contract to be carried out? —Yes. 56. But you do not think it would be wrong if you were given the option of making the land freehold ? —That would not be a breach of the contract; it would be only a variation. 57. You think it would not be wrong to try and get a variation to suit yourself —you think it would not be wrong to alter the terms so long as it does not injure you ? —I cannot see it in the light you put it.. We would like to have the option. 58. The restrictions bother you, as well as the insecurity of tenure? —Yes. If we could be relieved of the restrictions it would help us greatly. 59. Would the tenure you desire be no better than the tenure you now have? —We want the option, whether it is better or not. 60. In respect to the ballot, you condemn the grouping system: would the single straightout ballot be satisfactory? —Yes. 61. On Hatuma what crops are allowed to be taken?— Two green crops and one cerial crop. I think the cropping regulations should be altered. 62. Do you think that on the better sections of Hatuma you ought to be allowed to take more than two cerial crops ? —As far as I am concerned, the crops I have taken out have not paid me at all. 63. The question is, whether Hatuma is suitable for more than two crops being taken in succession ? —Yes; some of the land is suitable for taking four or five crops in succession; but I would not like a man to take two or three crops and throw the land back on the hands of the Government. 64. Mr. Johnston.] What is the total number of settlers on Hatuma? —I think there are fit'i seven. 65. Why did not the balance of the settlers sign this petition ? —Ten or twelve of them did not sign it because either they would not or could not understand it, and they would not join with us. 66. Are they satisfied with their tenure? —Yes. 67. Is this a branch of the Farmers' Union, or simply a number of settlers? —They are simply settlers. Some of the settlers do not belong to the Farmers' Union. 68. Then, you represent these settlers and the branch of the Farmers' Union as well? —Yes. 69. Do half of the settlers belong to the Farmers' Union? —Yes, I should say so. 70. You want the Land Boards to be elected: do you not think the four members of the Land Board represent the farmers? —I do not know the men personally. 71. Have you had any trouble with the Land Board? —No. 72. Have they treated you properly? —Yes. 73. Have the settlers done pretty well? —I think so. 74. Then, do you not think it is well to leave well alone? —Not if we think we can improve upon it. 75. Do you think it would be an improvement to have an elective Board? —There are some settlers who say that the Land Boards are wrongly constituted, and they contend that the members of the Board should be practical men. 76. Have they found any fault with the Board? —I have found no fault whatever. 77. Could you get a better price for your land as freehold than as leasehold? —I could not say. 78. Could you sell it as easily? —I could not tell you. 79. Could'you sell it as it stands at present? —I have never tried. 80. Have any of the sections ever changed hands? —A great many. 81. At an advance? —I dare say most of them have been at an advance, 82. Over and above the value of the improvements put on them? —I could not tell you that. 83. You think that a great deal of the work put into these sections is not visible when the valuation for improvements is made? —I do. 84. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Department? —No. 85. Could you have taken up your section unless it had been a leasehold or occupation with right of purchase?—l could have bought it as an occupation with right of purchase. 86. But you could not have bought it as a freehold? —No. 87. Do you not tfiink it is an advantage for a working-man to be able to go upon the land under lease in perpetuity ?—I do not know—if he has to pay for 999 years, especially in view of the threatened revaluation. 88. Mr. McCutchan,\ You said you would rigidly enforce the residence conditions?—l would. 89. Have you any knowledge of Crown-land settlements in the back blocks? —Yes, some years ago. 90. It is in reference to present conditions that you make the remark you have done? —Yes. 91. You say the settlers on this estate are of opinion that the expenditure of loading money could be done more economically by the local body than by the Government? —Yes. 92. You observed the expenditure of the loading money?— Yes. 93. Was that done by means of co-operative works? —Yes. 94. Do you think that the interest charged upon loading should cease as soon as the Government is reimbursed?— Yes. 95. You object to the interest charges continuing for the whole term of the lease? —Yes.
1216
[j. WILLIAMSON.
C—4.
96. Do you think that after twenty-six years the interest charged upon the loading should cease, seeing that the State is reimbursed principal and interest in that time?- Yes, 1 believe that would be quite correct. 97. Mr. Paul.] Are the farmers using their land to advantage in Hatuma? —Yes. 98. What is there in the lease that prevents them using the land to the best advantage? —I do not know that there is anything in the lease that prevents them using the land to the best advantage. 99. Do the settlers consider that if they had the option of the freehold it would be a more valuable tenure?—As to the forty-five settlers, they consider they would be more independent if they had the option of the freehold. Ido not suppose that those forty-five men could say whether they would be better off than they are at present. 100. Supposing you were given the option of the freehold free of all restrictions except as to the limit of 640 acres of first-class land, would that be satisfactory ?—That would be all rig if there were no more restrictions. 101. If there were no more restrictions, would it be a more valuable tenure? —Yes, I dare say it would be. I believe it would be. 102. Would the settlers be prepared to pay anything for that additional value? —I cannot tell you that. 103. The settlers did not discuss that point? —No. 104. You mean to say that these forty-five settlers came to the conclusion that they wanted a change, but they did not know whether it would be to their advantage ?—They wanted to be independent. 105. If they had the would that be an advantage ?- They would be more independent. 106. Do they propose to pay anything for that additional advantage ?—They do not propose to pay anything more than their rent, and they wish to take over the land at the same valuation. 107. On the original capital value? —Yes. 108. Are they very keen on it? —No, I do not think they are. 109. Would they be prepared to have their improvements conserved to them, and the land put up to public competition ?—I dare say a great many of them would be pleased to do that. 110. Would they be satisfied with their tenure if there was no alteration in the future in the tenure?— That was not discussed, but I have discussed it privately with a few of them, and I know that a good few of them would be satisfied with that, so long as there was no alteration in regard to revaluation. 111. You want three members of the Land Board elected? —Yes. 112. Are you going to give the non-landowner a voice in the election of the Land Board?— I think three should be elected and two should be nominated. 113. Do you think the citizens in the towns should have a voice in the administration and disposal of the national estate?— Yes, I do. 114. Are there any farms of 300 and 400 acres? —Yes. 115. Are thev large enough ? —Yes. 116. Would "it be a bad thing for the district if two of these farms were grouped together? I would restrict the area to 640 acres of first-class land. 117. Although there is a limit, do you not think it would be better to have two families making a fair living on two farms of 300 acres than to have one family living on 600 acres?— Yes, If the 300 acres is first-class land, the holder, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, would be thoroughly satisfied. 118. What I gather in visiting these estates is that, generally speaking, the area is suitable. In some cases it is a little too small, but, generally speaking, the area is suitable, and the settlement is in the best interest of the district. If the option of the freehold was_ given, and the area made 640 acres of first-class land, there would be plenty of room for grouping, and it seems to me that that grouping would be against the best interests of the district? That might apply to first-class land within reasonable distance of cities. " 119. Mr. Anstey.] Would you think it well to allow two or three farms on Hatuma to be sold and joined together? —In one or two cases that would be advisable. George Edward Merrikin examined. 120 The Chairman.} What are you ?—I am a settler at Hatuma, where I hold 324 acres under lease in perpetuity, which I have held for four years, and for which I pay 7s. an acre. There was a meeting at Hatuma at which a petition was signed in favour of the freehold lam in favour of the option, and I consider that any man who is on the land, no matter what his holding, if he had the opportunity he would like to have the freehold. . . . - 121. Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory? \es; L consider that the Hawke's Bay Land Board has treated the Hatuma settlers in a very fair way. I think that on a Land Board the more practical the man is the better an officer he will make. I know personally all the members of the Land Board, and two or three of them are as good as could be found. 122. Are you in favour of continuing the present system of the Government nominating the members of the Land Board? I am. 123. Have you had experience of the advances-to-settlers system?— Yes. 124. Has it been favourable?—lt is a complete farce. We had a very bad season in our first vear at Hatuma, and through representations which we made to the Commissioner and the Minister we were allowed'a third year in which to meet our rent. After the money had been practically lent to the settlers the Commissioner of Crown Lands was anxious to get the matter put on a business footing again, and sent out notices asking for the payment of the rents. I wanted £50 for a couple or three months, and, with several others, I applied to the Advances to Settlers, but had no
G. E. MEBEIKIN.j
1217
C.—4.
chance at all. I had spent about £1,400 on the section on fencing and improvements, and yet, although I only wanted £50 for a few months, I could not get it. 125. When you made the application, were you aware that the Department did not advance money to any one in arrear with rent? —I did not, and I was not told so. If that was the rule, 1 should not have had to pay for the valuer coming out, and all the expenses connected with it. 126. Mr. Anstey.~\ Upon what do you base your claim for the right of purchase?—My idea of the thing is this: Taking the majority of settlers all through New Zealand, and especially those that are on the Government sections, we have not got the money to buy the freehold. That is a matter that is at the present time beyond the means of the majority of people. I think we ought to have the right to pay into the Commissioner of Crown Lands what money we can afford from our good seasons up to, say, 90 per cent of our capital value, and that we should be allowed 5 per cent, on the money that we pay in. Under such an arrangement we would in time practically get the freehold. 127. Is there anything unjust or unfair in the present bargain with the Government?—l should not like to say there is. 128. Supposing you bad the right to buy the freehold, would you have a better tenure than now ? —Yes. 129. Much better? —It would be a better tenure, but I would not like to say by how much. The rentals of these sections are fully what they are worth. In the Old Country the rental is supposed to be one-third of the ordinary takings of the farm. If my rent was multiplied by three I would have to take off £1 Is. per acre under the rule which guides rents at Home. 130. On what terms would you expect to get the right of purchase?— The capital value at which it stands. 131. You would not be prepared to give anything more for the additional advantage? —No. 132. You are aware that a number of tenants on Crown lands have come before us and offered to pay an additional 1 per cent.: would you be prepared to pay that? —I do not know. I have never thought the matter over. 133. Have you received a rebate for prompt payment of rent? —Yes. From what I can understand from the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Napier, that is a matter that he would prefer to have taken out of his hands. There is a discretion allowed the Commissioners up to 10 per cent., and, I think, seeing it is only a matter of discount for prompt payment, that the amount should be a fixed thing. We only get 5 per cent., and there is not much in it. 134. Why do you get 5 per cent, and not 10 per cent.? —It is left entirely to the discretion of the Commissioner of Crown Lands. I think that all should get the same whatever the amount is. 135. Do you think that should apply where people have got particularly cheap, and therefore valuable sections, and also to those whose sections have been valued too high? Would it not be better to give this as a reduction to those whose rents are too high? —The land is supposed to be valued by experts, and all are supposed to be on an equal basis. 136. We were told that for the first year the Hatuma settlers did not pay their rent? —That is so. 137. They did not recive the reduction then? —10 per cent, was offered to the settlers to pay up their rent. 138. Did they get it? —Those who were in a position to pay it got it. 139. The others did not? —Certainly not. 140. Do you think that is a wise way of making a rebate? —I thought the Government were hard up for money, and it was a catch to get as many sovereigns as they could. 141. Do you think it is a good way of making a rebate, to give it to a man who is on a good section and who can pay his rent easily, whilst the man who is struggling gets no rebate? —The fair way is, I think, to have one rebate all over the colony. 142. Mr. Johnston.'] Are you president of this branch of the Farmers' Union? —Yes. 143. Were the settlers at the meeting all members of the Farmers' Union? —I suppose so. "144. You refer to a petition: did it originate from the settlers themselves? —I believe it came from the Farmers' Union. 145. The head branch? —I believe it did. 146. Supposing your land was your freehold now, could you sell it to an advantage? —I have heard of land that has been sold near Waipukurau at a slightly higher price than what mine is valued at. 147. The true reason why you want the freehold is that you can get a better price for the land? —No. I should prefer to have the right in good seasons to pay in to the Commissioner of Crown Lands up to 90 per cent, of the value, and to be credited with 5 per cent, on the amount he receives from me, and so have my rental reduced by that means. 148. Could not you achieve exactly the same end by taking out an insurance policy? —I would rather make a savings-bank of mv section. If bad times came, I might not be able to pay up my premiums. 149. Have you been long farming? —Pretty well all my life. 150. You have had practical experience in the colony? —Sixteen years. 151. Was it possible for you to get on to this land except for the conditions under which it was put on to the market? —Ninety out of every hundred who are on these sections could not have got on but for the conditions of settlement. 152. Are the four members of the Land Board practical farmers? —One is not. 153. You think your sections are rented at their full value?— Yes. 154. At the present time? —I mean at the time they were taken up. 155. Is this land overvalued if times were bad? —It would take settlers all their time to pav their way.
153—C. 4.
a—4.
1218
Cr. E. MERRIKIN.
156. What is the necessity for the freehold, then, if they would have to mortgage? —They would like to have the option to pay off as fully as they are able to. 157. Do you think mortgagees would treat the settler as well as the Government did when you first took up Hatuma ? —I should not think so. 158. They would have acted on the mortgage, and put you out? —I would not like to say so. I have had a little experience of them in the Old Country, and they are not so severe as that. 159. Do you object to the cropping restrictions? —Not personally, but I think it is very hard lines for the man who occupies high-priced land to be practically tied down to the same conditions as a man who occupies poor land. 160. Have the Land Board refused any extensions of cropping conditions? —I have not heard of any. 161. What weeds are on Hatuma Estate? —Cotton-weed and hawk-weed, but, taking Hatuma right through, it is very clear of weeds. 162. Is there any Californian thistle? —There are one or two patches. 163. Is it being eradicated? —I notice that the settler is doing his best to eradicate it. 164. Is there any ragwort? —No. 165. Mr. McCutchan.] Was there an agitation among the settlers for the freehold prior to the petition? —There was no agitation. 166. Did the agitation spring from the Farmers' Union? —There is no agitation. 167. You came here as a representative of thirty-five settlers, who held a meeting and resolved in favour of the freehold. Does the desire spring from the settlers or from the Farmers' Union? — From the settlers themselves. 168. Was it the settlers who moved the Farmers' Union to assist you in the matter? —There was no moving in it. 169. We will suppose that the present Government passes away in time, and a new Government comes in which will introduce fresh legislation, and we have a system of nomination of members of Land Boards as now. Do you think it will act equally well, or do you think the position of the State with regard to the land will be safeguarded sufficiently by statute, and that the members of the Land Board should be elected in order to safeguard the position of the settlers ? —I think that the Government should nominate the members of the Land Board. 170. Do you think it is likely that any Government will nominate men to the Land Board holding adverse views to those they hold themselves on the land question ? —I do not think so; but, still, they should be thoroughly practical men. 171. Do you think that if the Government nominated men to the Land Board who were opposed to their views that a sympathetic carrying-out of the land laws of the country would be the result? —Of course they would not; that is certain. I mean that men" on the Land Board should be thoroughly practical men, no matter what views they hold. 172. Do you think it is not necessary to have men on Che Land Board of thorough business instincts, and who will look on the business from a commercial standpoint, inasmuch as the State has got a pecuniary interest in these lands?- —The Comissioner is the man who has that knowledge. 173. The Commissioners of Crown Lands are men, as a rule, who have spent their lives in a groove, and also perhaps excellent men with figures, still, they are not financial figures. Where there are five men, do you not think there should be one representing other interests than the interests of the settlers? I would not like to express an opinion. 174. You got a remission of twelve months' rent on Hatuma? —Yes. 175. Was that rent wiped out completely? —Certainly not. I cannot speak from actual knowledge, but I believe when the time expires, which it does in the beginning of July, that practically the whole of the debts will be paid up. 176. It was simply a delaying of payment of the first year's rent for three years? —That is so. 177. I suppose you know that the Advances to Settlers Department has no power to advance money for three or six months?—No; but my point is, that if they knew they could lend me no money they should not have taken money from me for the valuation. 178. Mr. Paul.'] Are the conditions of your lease satisfactory?— Yes. 179. Do you want to take any more crops off than the lease allows? —I am not a believer in white crops myself. I think, from what I can make out, that the Ranger has no objection to our cropping in the shape of rapes and turnips, but he does not bother me, and I do not bother him. 180. The restrictions do not bother you?— No. 181. Why are you not keen on the freehold?—l think if a man is allowed to pay off up to 90 per cent, he is as well off as a freeholder. 182. You think whatever ready cash they have that they have quite sufficient to do in improving their holdings, without bothering about the freehold? —That is the position. 183. You say that three of the members of the Land Board are practical farmers: what interest does the fourth member represent?— The industrial, I suppose. He is a storekeeper. 184. Have there been any transfers on Hatuma? —Yes. 185. To the advantage of the tenant?—l could not say. 186. Did the seller seem satisfied? —You cannot tell. A man might tell you he was satisfied, and still not be satisfied at heart. 187. Do you think the majority of settlers on Hatuma to-day could sell to fair advantage?— The majority of settlers on Hatuma have gone in for great improvements, and I should say it was very doubtful whether they would get back all their expenditure and something for their labour. 188. Have the land-values in the district increased outside this estate?— Yes. 189. Mr. Johnston.'] You said just now that it was the settlers who agitated for the petition, but in reply to me you said the petition originated with the Farmers' Union?—l did not understand that there was any agitation about it. Ido not want to make a mistake. I barely saw the
G. E. MEREIKIN.
1219
C—4.
petition. I was asked if I was in favour of it, and I signed it, hut I know nothing about any agitation in regard to it 190. The agitation did not come from the settlers, but it came from the Farmers' Union! — There was no agitation. 191. Well, the petition? —That came from the Farmers' Union. 192. The settlers did not get it up? —No. 193. Mr. I'aui.~\ What were the terms of the petition? Was it to be presented to this Commission, or to be sent to the Minister of Lands? —I do not remember. 194. Did you sign it without reading it? —It was six or eight months ago. 195. Is that the petition which we have heard so much about that the Farmers' Union circulated throughout the colony?- As far as I know it was only in this district. Albert Edward Jull examined. 196. The Chairman.J What are you? —I am Chairman of the Waipawa County Council. I have an interest in 200 acres of freehold. 197. Is there any particular point that you wish to bring before the Commission? —I wish to put several matters in connection with Crown lands and lands under the Land for Settlements Act before the Commission from the point of view of the local bodies. All Crown lands are exempt from rates, even where they are part of a special district over which a loan is raised, as the lands acquired under the Land for Settlements Act are Crown lands. Local bodies are in some cases deprived of rates for a whole year over a large block of land. This happened if the land was not disposed of prior to the 31st March, as the valuation rolls were made up at that date, and only the properties which were rateable at that date could be put upon the rate-book. To give an illustration : The Hatuma, Forest Gate, and Argyll Settlements were taken possession of by the tenants subsequent to the 31st March in the year that they were acquired. The tenants were not put upon the roll. Certainly the Crown paid the rates to the local body in the case of Hatuma and Forest Gate after a deal of delay and a great amount of badgering, but in the case of Argyll they have not paid anything. As a contrast the Mangatoro Estate was tenanted as at the Ist April, and those tenants were placed upon the roll by the Valuer-General, and had to pay their rates. This shows that the treatment is not uniform. In addition to this, where the properties acquired are subject to a special rate —for instance, on a loan such as Mangatoro was —the effect of the present law is intensified, as, owing to the valuation being based upon the rentals paid by the tenants, that portion of the estate acquired by the Crown was immensely increased in value on the roll, and the remaining 11,000 acres owned by the Assets Board, not being raised proportionately, the tenants had to pay an undue proportion of the special rate. The remedy, in my opinion, is to do away with the exemption from rates on Crown lands acquired under the Land for Settlements Act, and put such lands upon the same footing as Native lands under section 2 of r< The Native Lands Rating Act, 1904 " (paragraph 1), which provides that all such land that has been at any time acquired by purchase, lease, or in any other way for valuable consideration from any person shall be liable to the full amount of rates (including special rates) from time to time levied in the district or in any subdivision thereof. The small grazing-runs are treated in the most contradictory way. The valuation for rating purposes is based upon the rental capitalised at 6 per cent. As the rents are fixed, and flie original value is, say, £1 per acre in the bush country, the result is that the valuation of property is constantly increasing while the rateable value remains stationary. As an illustration: In one small grazing-run of 4,020 acres in this country, the unimproved value of the land is £3,015, while the rateable value remains at £419. This is a distinct injustice to the neighbouring properties, and in the case of special rates for loans to make roads the position is intensified. Turning to small grazing-runs under the Land for Settlements Act the position was reversed. The rental was a fixed one, and based on the capital value. This rental for rating purposes is capitalised at 6 per cent., and, as the Waipawa County rates are on the unimproved value, I will cite a small grazing-run in the Mangatoro of 1,162 acres, where the unimproved value of the land is £5,810, while the rateable value is £6,657. Obviously, the remedy is to put all these lands on the same footing as regards valuations for rating purposes, and let them be valued in the same way as privately owned lands. If grazing-runs in the South Island require special treatment, that could be provided. Another anomaly is the amounts that can be borrowed by local bodies under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, which provides that counties can borrow up to £6,000 in one year, and Road Boards up to £3,000. As an illustration of the borrowing limits, take a small county such as Eden County, which has an area of about forty-three square miles, and has about thirteen Road Boards. These Road Boards and county could borrow (provided the Colonial Treasurer was simple enough to let them) £45,000 in each year, while such a county as Hawke's Bay, which has no Road Boards, with an area of about 3,000 square miles, can only borrow £6,000. An amendment is required giving borrowing powers in some proportion to size of counties and Road Boards and their respective rateable value. I am of opinion that the present system of balloting for land is not a good one. I believe that it encourages a large number of people to encourage others to put in applications for sections with a view to their own advantage, and that there is a speculative element in the balloting system which, if possible, should be eliminated, and, although my idea is one that may not work out in practice, still, I would like to give it. Before going further, I would like to say that although the values of the different allotments in this settlement are adjusted as well as possible, and the best persons are got to adjust the values, still, there are inequalities, and it is because there are these inequalities in the values that we find that there are some sections in the different blocks, which are called the " plums " of the blocks, which are eagerly sought after, and you find that probably a very large number of applications are in for a very few sections. My suggestion would eliminate the speculative element, and retain only the bona fide settler or applicant. It is briefly this, that every applicant would
C.-4.
1220
[a. b. JOIiL.
have to satisfy the Land Board that he is properly qualified in every way, and when he has done that the upset values of these properties should be set out, and if there are more applications than there are sections, that there should be competition amongst the applicants themselves for the allotments, and if they are prepared to pay more for them than the upset price, then they should be allowed to do so, and to secure the section; instead of which we find it is currently stated —how truthfully I do not know —that very substantial premiums have been offered for the purpose of securing a section that some one else has drawn, or they have been offered substantial premiums for their sections which they have refused. If that is so, then somebody is losing this money, and it has been suggested that the original owner of the property is the man who is losing it. But that does not follow, because, in the case of many of these properties, the chances are that there are sections which are overvalued, and probably there are applicants for them in the tail end of the ballot. These sections are taken up certainly, but they always remain overvalued sections under the present conditions. It is a very difficult thing to deal with that question, but where those sections are overvalued I would suggest that any money which is received as premiums on them should be devoted to the roading of the blocks, and if there is any more required for 'the roading that the roading should be done by means of loans under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, so that, if there are any inequalities, that they will not be intensified by having a perpetual rent charged for the loading for their roads and other purposes. 198. You would do that by auction when you came to decide who was to get the sections? — Yes. It seems shocking to some ears to suggest holding an auction, but there are auctions going on now in the roads outside the room after a ballot, and it is not a bond ficle auction, and there are cases where people are pestered with applicants who are anxious to cut in. The objection to an auction sometimes is that the poor man sometimes has no chance. It is suggested that the man who has the dollars would get the section. That does not follow at all, because you could make your auction pay your increased rental. I should give the man who is prepared to pay down the premium the right to do so, and the man who wishes to repay the premium over a period of years should have the right to do that under similar provisions as obtain under the loans to settlers in connection with repayments. 199. Coming to the first question, as to the losses which the local bodies are liable to in connection with the cutting up of these big properties: the practice was a few years ago that for the broken period the owner of the estate, say, Hatuma, for instance, put in a statement of the rents he paid for the whole year, and the Government said, " Very well, we shall pay our share whenever the property is handed over, and give you credit for what you have overpaid." Would that meet the case? —That does not meet the case a't all. In the case of Mr. Russell, of Hatuma, the position was this: The property was purchased from him in February, and his rates would be paid up to the 30th June, and he would get the proportionate rebate which he was entitled to from the Crown. 200. When the Crown makes it up? —It pays it to Mr. Russell. That is all right, but we are not claiming that. 201. But Mr. Russell had paid beyond the end of March? —We are not claiming that, but for the nest year from the Ist July after the settlers took possession. 202. Do you not rate the tenants from that time? —No. You cannot put them on the roll, and they are not " occupiers " as at the 31st March, which is the period for which the valuation roll is made up. 203. Is that the point, that you will not have all the rates for the whole year? —That is the point. It has happened in Argyll, and after various applications the Government made a contribution to us by a vote. In the case of Hatuma, after three years' agitation, the Government gave a vote to us based upon the old valuation, not upon the present one. But there is no continuity of practice at all about the matter. 204. Mr. Anstey.] Have you any Road Boards in your county? —Four or five. 205. Do you think a system of two local bodies working in the one area is economical or the reverse ? —My view is that there should be no dual control, and if we are to have Road Board administration better let it be the Road Board alone. If it is county administration it should be the county alone. 206. In regard to the expenditure of other moneys, Government grants, <fec., do you think that they should be expended by the local body, or would you introduce another spending body namely, the Government Department? —I would not. I would abolish the grants excepting in exceptional cases, which would be dealt with by the Government in the same way as they treat men who are injured in their service. 207. Supposing you had full rating-power over Maori lands, some rating-power over Crown lands, and subsidies in addition, would the county then have sufficient finance to do without grants altogether? —The question of subsidies demands more than a passing allusion. My view is that the subsidy should be based not upon the total amount of rate which is collected, but upon the rate in the pound which is levied —that is to say, that those local bodies who are prepared to tax themselves most should be the bodies who should receive the most assistance. 208. You want a graduated subsidy on the amount of the rate? —Yes. 209. You have already actually lost some rates owing to this difficulty about the tranfser of this land from the owners to the Government, and then to the tenants? —Yes, and we are losing a considerable amount because of the method of subsidising which is at present in force —that is to say, that there seems to be no end to the anomaly of the subsidy system. Even in the case of a county which has Road Boards, the basis upon which the Government pay a subsidy is not upon the rate which the county strikes, but upon the rate which the Road Board strikes. In those counties which have no road districts they receive a subsidy upon the amount of their rate, and where you have got some Road Boards in outlying districts you are mulcted very considerably in the amount of the subsidy you can receive. 210. In regard to Native lands, have you succeeded in collecting your rate from them this year? —The Act only came into force on the Ist April, 1905, and we have not struck a rate yet.
A. B. JULL.j
1221
C.—4.
211. Will it be possible to collect it? —It will depend a good deal on who is Native Minister. 212. Do you find the rating 011 the unimproved system is a better one than rating on the capital value? —We find it very satisfactory. The difficulty in the matter is this, as to the definition of improvements. There is dissatisfaction in a good many cases, because it is contended that the valuation allowed for improvements is very inadequate. 213. Mr. Johnston.] Do you know that some years ago the system you advocate of selling the land by public auction was tried, and the result was that in the majority of cases the Government had to come to the rescue and reduce the rents? —Very well; will the Government come to the assistance of the man who purchases land with a goodwill of £500 and comes to grief. 214. The Land Board have no right to pass a transfer if they think the man is giving too much for it? —It is throwing a great responsibility on the Land Board. 215. The Land Boards have such power that if they think there is any suspicion they can stop the transfer or forfeit the section? — There is no way I think by which they could prevent it. 216. Mr. McCutchan.] In the case of special loans you pointed out a strange thing —that if an estate which is purchased is included in a special loan area, and that estate is cut up and some of the sections are not taken up, the burden of the special rate will fall upon the settlers who are in occupation of the land, and the original owner will pay nothing ?—That is so. 217. W T hen your Council propose to raise a loan the security is the rating area? —Yes. 218. But it is only a security to a certain extent. You calculate the rate in the pound which would produce the interest on the loan, and it is only to that extent that the rating area is liable? —No, because the rate varies according to the valuation. It is the fixed rate based 011 the valuation at the time the land is valued, but it varies from time to time. Otherwise how would you strike your rate? Supposing a block of land were subdivided, how would you get at what the original value was of a particular part. 219. If there is an assessment later 011 there is a variation in the rate, of course; but there is no variation in the amount that the particular district is liable for, and if the Government, after purchasing this estate, leave the particular sections out of the rating area until they are occupied the responsibility rests with them, and I do not think that the other selectors would be liable at all. Of course, this is only a layman's opinion, but, still, I think it is fairly correct? —Unfortunately, it is only a layman's opinion, and the opinion of leading counsel on the other side to whom the question has been submitted is against you, and, I am sorry to say, that we have got no redress; but, I think that, in order to get the point settled in a case like Mangatoro, I would like them to go to the Supreme Court and obtain the ruling of that body on it. 220. You have taken the best opinion on the subject? —We have taken leading counsel's opinion. 221. Regarding the question of subsidies and their anomalies, there is the rule that, as against the fact that people are prepared to load themselves, the Government will pay no subsidy on a rate struck under fd. in the pound? —On the capital value. 222. Do you not think that if the ratepayers are prepared to rate themselves heavily that the subsidy should be increased in proportion ? —Yes, and I would say that no subsidy should be paid below a certain minimum. 223. Mr. Paul.] Your proposal to supersede the ballot by the auction system is, that after the Land Board examines applicants, those who are approved by the Land Board should enter into competition for the sections? —Yes. 224. And by that you hope to eliminate a large number I—The1 —The sisters and the cousins and the aunts to begin with, and the goodwill would go to the people who need it, and the premiums I would utilise for roading the properties. 225. It would not bring in any additional revenue to the State except indirectly, but would prevent the successful applicant getting something for nothing? —Anything over and above the cost of roading would go into the Land for Settlements Account. 226. How do you propose to remedy the anomaly in regard to the rating of small grazingruns in bush districts? —To alter the interpretation so as to allow the small grazing-runs to be rated in the same way as other lands on their actual value. 227. Mr. McCutchan.] To what extent would you advocate increasing the borrowing powers of local bodies? Would you advocate its being increased beyond the present limit of ,£6,000? —rl think the principle that counties may only borrow up to £6,000 is a wrong one. Of course, you must have some regard to the rateable value of the county; but surely you would not give the same rating power to, say, a small county as to another where the area was conspicuously large. 228. Would joil fix a maximum at all? —The Government have fixed a maximum in regard to the total amount which may be raised in the whole county in any one year. I do not know whether a maximum should be fixed, but if so I should certainly double it. 229. Do you levy a separate rate as well as a general rate? —Yes, in respect to special loans. 230. But not others ? —No. 231. You spend a portion of your general rate upon by-roads? —We have a number of road districts which are merged in the county, and we maintain the whole of these roads out of our general rate. We keep no separate road accounts, but we keep riding accounts. 232. Would you advocate the keeping of road accounts?- —I am in favour of riding accounts, but not road accounts. There is a very interesting decision of the Appeal Court on this matter just now, but the question of roading accounts is a big one, and would take a long time to discuss. 233. There are sometimes complaints that the settlers 011 by-roads cannot get rate expenditure, and in order to prevent that do you not think it would be wise for every County Council to be forced to keep road accounts, not necessarily that the money should be spent elsewhere, but in order to secure the repayment of it 011 its own particular roads? —I do not think I should burden the local bodies with a complex system of that kind. The expense would be enormous in the case of a big county, and I do not think it would be any good.
C—4.
1222
[A. E. JtJLL.
234. I know of counties where, although it is not a necessity by law to keep road accounts, they actually do keep them so that the ratepayers can see exactly the position of the road?—l believe that the Hawera County keeps road accounts, but you have to go only a little further and say that every man shall keep up his own road in front of his property, and do away with the local body. 235. Mr. Anstey.] You spoke of certain local bodies being too small, and you said one local body could expend the money more economically than two or more: do you not think that some of the counties are altogether too large to be economically administered? —The proposal was made last year for the division of Hawke's Bay County, but on reflection the petitioners went back on their proposal, and were contented to remain a happy family. 236. Do you not think it is in the best interests of settlement that there should be one local body to expend all moneys, and that that local body should be of reasonable size? —I think, certainly, it should be a reasonable size. The larger the better. Thomas Butler examined. 237. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I hold 584J acres lease in perpetuity, for which I pay ss. 5Jd. per acre. lam pleased with my tenure, but if we could pay off, say, as much as 50 per cent, of the capital value as we could afford it by instalments, it would be a good system. The rent could then be reduced proportionately. I am an original settler on the Hatuma. I have signed no petition for the freehold. lam quite satisfied with the Land Board; both it and the Minister have treated us well. At one time we were twelve months in arrears, and were not bothered, and if I have not got the money when it is due I am quite sure I shall always receive very lenient treatment. I would get the freehold to-morrow if I had the opportunity, "assuming 1 could get the money to pay for it, but where can I get it? 238. Mr. Anstey.'] Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 239. Do you think you would ever be able to pay off a portion of the money if you had the option ? —lf we had the right it would settle this war-cry, because every man is not in favour of this agitation. Of course, if forty-five settlers signed the petition which has been referred to, the majority must rule. 240. Do you not think it is really an agitation for the freehold?—l did not hear of it in Hatuma until to-day. lam not in the Farmers' Union. 241. But people outside the Farmers' Union do not agitate for the freehold? —Not that I know of. 242. Do you not think this agitation for the freehold is a little unfair?—l think it is. 243. Mr. Paul.] Why did you not sign that petition? —1 was not asked. I never heard of it before to-day. Robert Hewitt Falconer examined. 244. The Chairman.] What are you? I am a settler on Hatuma, holding 215 acres, for which I pay 6s. 7d. rent. I am well satisfied with my tenure. It is one of the best things you could have for a young man. 245. What do you wish to bring before the Commission? —Nothing, so far as the settlement is concerned, but I wish to refer to another matter. We all got twelve months' rebate of rent, and I came to the conclusion that the best thing I could do was to get an advance from the loans Department and pay the arrears off. I applied for the loan about the end of January, but did not get it until the Ist June. I think they might have managed to let me have it sooner, as I was worried over the matter. I heard that one reason was that Mr. Griffin, the Government valuer, was away at Flaxbourne, and left his work in the hands of another gentleman, who could not find time to do it. Mr. Griffin came round about two months after I had applied for the money, took the particulars in about ten minutes, and then went away. Brit, still, I had to wait for the money, so that it was from about the end of January till the Ist June before it was settled up. 246. Did you get all the money you wanted? —£5 less; but it was a very small sum. Another matter is that the Hatuma Reserve has never been cut up, and I have been put to a good deal of inconvenience with regard to the roads there. When I bought the section the plan showed that the roads were very convenient to the section, but the Government decided to alter the railwaystation, and they had to alter the roads accordingly. I had to ask the present tenant of the reserve to let me get out at the back, otherwise I should have to go round a mile or a mile and a half to get to the siding. What is wanted is a road straight across the siding to join the two main roads, which would be a great convenience to Hatuma. I took up the section with the expectation of getting proper roads, and that matter should be put right. 247. Mr. Johnston.] What road is that shown on the plan just to the corner of your section? That is a by-road; the main road has been altered. 248. Mr. Paul.] Is the settlement progressing satisfactorily? —As far as I can see, it is. We lost money in the first eighteen months, but we have recovered wonderfully. The sections have paid for themselves. 249. Have there been any sales on the estate? —I understand several people have sold out, but Ido not know whether they have sold to advantage or not. I would want to be offered a good sum before I would part with my section at present. 250. Do you think you could sell it and make a fair profit out of it?—l dare say I could, but I have never tried. John Parsons examined. 251. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer on Elsthorpe. I hold 485 acres, and pay 4s. sd. an acre. I was an original settler at the start, nine years ago. 252. Are you satisfied with your tenure? —The lease is right enough in a way, but I would like the right of purchase, not in order to make a freehold of it, because that is out of the ques-
1223
C—4.
J. PARSONS, j
tion, but I would like to have the right, so that I would know I could pay it off some day if I wished. 253. Then, you do not approve of borrowing money in order to finance the freehold? —No. 254. It is a very successful settlement, is it not?— The place is right enough, but, of course, the rents are enough. 255. Are you running sheep there? —Yes, the place is stocked. 256. It has taken the grass very well? —The country is not looking bad. 257. Is there any matter you wish to bring before the Commission in particular?— No. I have not been chairman of any meeting. I am in the Farmers' Union, but I come here on my own account. 258. Mr. Anstey.] Do you do any cropping out there? —A little for my own use. 259. Do you find the cropping conditions interfere with you at all? —No. They are very satisfactory, so far as I can see I think it is only right that after a year or two that country should be put down in grass, to keep the weeds from coming in. 260. Did you get this 10 per cent, rebate of rent? —Yes. 261. I suppose you always paid promptly, and got it? —Yes. 262. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 263. What are your relations with the Land Board? —They have never worried me; but I really never had anything to do with them. 264. Mr. Johnston.] What is the value of your land now? —Something like £3,000. 265 : How much do you value it at per acre? —About £6 10s. 266. What is the rent? —4s. sd. an acre. 267. You want the am in favour of the freehold, or the option of the freehold — not the freehold altogether. 268. If you had the freehold you could sell it better? —I am not wanting to sell it. It is a foolish thing to want to go running all over the country for another place if you are satisfied with your own. 269. When did you get dissatisfied with the tenure? —I am not dissatisfied. 270. You got it for 999 years?— But, still, it means rent to pay as you go on. 271. Four per cent.? —No, it is 5 per cent. 272. Could not you reinvest the money you would devote towards paying off the principal at a better rate than 5 per cent. ? —I would sooner have the right of purchase, and pay off so-much every year, and make the rent less. 273. Mr. Paul.] What is the carrying-capacity of this land? —I run sheep and cattle. I suppose you could carry two sheep to the acre. 274. All the year round? —It would mean artificial feed to carry well two sheep to the acre. 275. Ido not quite understand you. Will it carry two sheep? —Yes. 276. You think if you got the option of the freehold it would be a more valuable tenure? — I cannot go into that question; but, taking the seasons all round, I think that if myself and other settlers had been able to purchase the freehold we could have paid off something every year as we made it. 277. Is the option worth anything? —It would be worth something. 278. What would you give the Crown for the right of the option? —I do not know. I cannot deal with that question. 279. Have there been any sales on Elsthorpe ?—Two or three. 280. Did they sell to advantage? —I think they came out fairly well. John Duncan examined. 281. The Chairman.] Do you hold any land?— Yes, 509 acres of lease in perpetuity on Elsthorpe. I have been there nine years. I am paying about ss. 3d., and would be satisfied with the tenure provided I could pay something off the capital value, and so reduce the rent. I do not care whether you called it a freehold or anything else, so long as the rent was reduced so-much at a time, and I had nothing to pay off at the end of twenty years. I have seen so many bad years in New Zealand that even the rents we pay at present could not be got out of the land. It is not an agricultural district, but purely pastoral, and in good years I would like to be able to pay off something, so as to provide against bad years, when it is difficult to meet the rent. 282. Is that a common view amongst the settlers in Elsthorpe? —Yes, it is pretty well a general opinion. We want to have less rent to pay in case times get bad. 283. I have heard that you are very prosperous there? —The settlers were a very good lot, and stuck to the land. There have been two or three transfers, and I think in two cases the people had to go away because they were pretty well run out and could not carry on. 284. Mr. Anstey.] Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office? —No. 285. Is your treatment by the Land Board satisfactory? —Yes, they are always very courteous. 286. You would not express an opinion on the constitution of the Land Board? —No, provided there are always such men on it as there are now. Ido not know you could do better. 287. The cropping conditions do not interfere with you? —No. 288. Mr. Johnston.] Do you think the Land for Settlements Act is a good Act for putting people on the land ? —Yes, with the one proviso, as to the right of purchase. 289. Did you think at the time you took up the land it was a very good Act? —Yes. I have seen several Acts or provisions with regard to land-tenure that were better. There was one system —the deferred payment —which was rather a better one. I would prefer that, because, taking the colony right through, it suited its conditions very well. 290. Do you think if it was all freehold tenure here it would assist in putting men on the land? —I would not say that. I approve of the present system, but I think it might go a little further, and allow people to reduce their capital value, in order to get over the bad seasons.
1224
[j. DUNCAN.
a—4.
291. If you had a sinking fund, so that you could reduce your rent after twenty years, would that be satisfactory ?—No; I would like to pay it off a little at a time, and I would not care whether you called it a perpetual lease or not, provided there was no rent to pay. I would like to leave it clear for my widow. 292. And you would be satisfied if there was a fund provided to allow you to do that? Provided that after I had paid the full amount of the capital value I was not interfered with for the remainder of the 999 years, I say Yes. 293. You would not expect the Government to repudiate that lease, would you? —You never know. We might belong to the Japanese nation by that time. Henry Thomas Wright examined. 294. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer with 188 acres at Hatuma; lease in perpetuity; rent, ss. s|d. per acre. I am satisfied with my tenure at present, but it could be improved on if we had the right of purchase. 295. Did you sign that petition we heard so much about? —No. 296. Were you asked to sign it? —No. ...» 297. What is your obection to the present tenure: is it this so-called feeling of insecurity? I think it would be more secure if we had the right of purchase. 297 a. Have you had any dealing with the Land Board? Are they satisfactory?—l suppose they do their duty, but they are a bit sharp sometimes. 298. You do not think there is any need for a change in the constitution of the Land Board? —I think it would be better if they were partly elected to the extent of at least two members. 299. Have you had any dealings with the advances to settlers? —Not here; but in the bush I did. I found them a bit slow. 300. Mr. Amtey.'] Upon what franchise would you propose to elect the Land Hoard f—Un the same as Mr. Williamson suggested in regard to the County Council franchise. That franchise would give a good representation. It does now in the case of the county. 301. Do you not know that the land district is very much larger than the county district?— Yes. 302. Do you think that the settlers in one part of the land district would be likely to know who another part was voting for ? —I think most of the settlers in a radius of thirty miles around would pretty well know who they were voting for. 303. Take the Auckland Land District, which runs from the North Cape to laranaki: do you think the settlers in that district away up in the north would be likely to know who they were voting for?— Perhaps they would not know the man personally, but they would take the opinion of the majority. „, . j-j j. i 304. How would the settlers know if they were in favour of him or not if they did not know the man ? —I suppose he would give his opinion to them through the Press or the post-office. 305. Would not that make it rather expensive to a man to carry on an election campaign on those lines?—l do not think so.
Hastings, Friday, 9th June, 1905. Frances Ross examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you?—l appear on behalf of my son, John Ross. He holds 11 000 acres tinder pastoral license. He has held the land for four years. Ihe rent is £< 0 a year The holding is in the Mohaka district. We have expended £1,600 in four years m permanent improvements —bushfelling, laying-down the land in English grasses, fencing, sheep-dips, house &c There is no postal communication within twenty miles, and we have no roads, ihere were 'roads surveyed to our holding, but nothing whatever has been done in the way of making them The place was not occupied during the period of twenty years before we took it up, except for one term of six months, and the gentleman who took it up surrendered it lhere are two runs under the same tenure near us, and they have been surrendered because the holders could not make their way owing to the rabbits. The rabbits are just coming in on us a little, and we are afraid if we do not take great care to check them we will have to surrender, and under our lease we have no compensation. „ TT7 , , , . ,1 2 1 think you would be allowed £240 compensation ?-Yes. We would like to improve the run further, but, having no compensation for improvements, it seems unjust that we should further improve the land. The term of our lease is twenty-one years. We wish the law altered so as to give greater compensation for improvements than is allowed at present, or that we should have the option of a further term, subject to valuation. 3 Is there nothing that could be done in the way of roading?—lliere are roads laid out, but they have never been made. We have only the roads we have made ourselves. We cannot get a dray up to our place. Everything has to be packed, and there is only a sheep-track, which we have 'somewhat improved ourselves. If we had the small-grazing-run tenure we would be satisfied, but wo hold a pastoral license. The land is not fit for close settlement. It would only nay to hold it in large areas. We have improved its carrying-capacity from six hundred sheep fo 'twentv-five hundred sheep in four years. It would be a great advantage to us if we could avail ourselves of an advance of Government money, but under our present tenure we cannot ge an advance, and we would have to pay a higher rate of interest to private lenders because ou only security is our stock, and we would have to mortgage the stock to work the land. If our tenure were a better one we could borrow on the land, and it would be very much cheaper. 4. Mr. Paul.] Is there unoccupied Crown land in the vicinity ?—No, with the exception of the two surrendered runs at the back of us.
F. ROSS.]
1225
C—4.
5. If you had the small-grazing-run tenure with right of renewal would you be satisfied? — Quite satisfied. 6. Mr. Johnston.] Who had this run before you got it?—lt has never been occupied. 7. What class of country is it? —Very low country, fern and manuka country, and patches of bush. The bush country is very good, but I would not say there is above 2,000 acres of good bush country. The balance is very poor. 8. Will it take grass? —In places it will. We burn it in patches and turn sheep on it. 9. After you burn do you sow grass-seed? —No. 10. Have you got danthonia? —Yes; it helps to keep down manuka a good deal. It is not a good grass. 11. You really cannot improve this land? —Tou cannot improve the very poor land. After it has been burnt two or three times it seems to consolidate and take the grass a little better. 12. Who had the station where the rabbits are coming from? —Mr. Peddle. 13. Did he give it up because it would not pay? —He was summoned a good many times and fined pretty heavily, and it ended in his surrendering. 14. Is it occupied now?— No. 15. Is the Government trying to destroy the rabbits? —Yes, they send up a gang of men to poison them, 16. Where have the rabbits come from? —Over Pohui and down the Mangahereru Range. They have come through Peddle's, down the range, and into Guthrie Smith's property, and from there on to ours. 17. Are they on Mr. Donnelly's place? —Yes, 18. Are the settlers clearing them? —Yes, I think so. They would naturally do that in their own interest. 19. If you had a right of renewal at an arbitration rent, would you renew? —Yes. 20. You would be satisfied with that? —Yes. 21. Mr. Anstey.~\ What was the length of your lease? —Twenty-one years. 22. Was there anything placed on it for roading? —No. 23. You are paying some rates? —Yes, for a road eight miles away. 24. Has the County Council spent any rates in providing you with road-access? —Not yet. 25. Was it owing to the dilatoriness of the local body that the Government vote was not expended? —Yes. We have now got up a petition to get £100 voted for the purpose, and I think we could get the local body to supplement it by another £100 subsidy. 26. Is there any land in the district suitable to cut up into smaller areas? —It would never pay unless it were cut up into pretty large areas, at the present time, at any rate. William Edwin Griffin examined. 27. The Chairman.'] What are you? —I am District Valuer for the Hawke's Bay district, and have occupied that position for five years. In the course of my duties lam brought into contact with a number of settlers, and I think I have a good idea of the views of many of them, at any rate. I think the desire for the freehold —if there be one amongst the settlers —is promoted entirely by fear of revaluation; but, in my opinion, the more thoughtful settlers take the view that this system of cutting up our land for settlement was inaugurated with the idea of enabling people with a small amount of capital to become farmers, and that if the freehold is given that end will be defeated. A man, for instance, who takes up an area of land on the plains here at a high price would become a capitalist if he had the freehold, even though it were subject to an ordinary mortgage. I think the more thoughtful settlers recognise that it would not be fair for them to have this land sold to-day at the capital value upon which their leases were based. lam limiting it entirely to land for settlements at present. I think most of the settlers recognise that it would not be fair that the contract should be broken, and that they should be allowed to acquire the land at the original price when the value has been so largely enhanced. I do not think the leasehold settler, if he were absolutely sure that he was not going to be disturbed in the matter of his rent, would be particularly anxious to get the freehold, because he is simply asking for the privilege of paying land-tax, which he is exempted from at present; but he has a feeling of unrest, because he fears revaluation. Revaluation would on the face of it be very unjust, because many 'of the original holders have sold out for large sums of money. They sold the increment in the value of their sections for cash to incoming settlers, and it would manifestly be most unjust to revalue them as between themselves and the Crown when they had paid another man a substantial sum of money to go out. The only argument against the leasehold that I can see is that a man has a difficulty in subdividing. A man cannot divide his holding between, say, his two sons, and it is a kind of attempt to return to the law of primogeniture, which, I think, is very much against it. There are many cases in which land was considered a small enough holdingsay, 500 acres—ten years ago, and to-day it is capable of being divided into three holdings. A man might in some cases wish to divide his land between three of his children, and at present he cannot do so, and that is an injustice to the settler. It is easily conceivable that a man might have a frontage of a value largely in excess of its farming value, and I cannot see why he should not be allowed to sublet, or even allow the incoming tenant to become the tenant from the Crown. It would be a transfer and a new lease from the Crown. Of course, there would be consideration which he would be entitled to. Another argument against the leasehold—and the only other one that I know—is that a farmer in his days of prosperity has no means of putting his money into his farm, and that is where he ought to put his money, because he knows very little about anything else, and, as a rule, his attempts to find investments are not successful, and I can see no reason why he should not pay off a portion of the capital value of his land and so reduce his rent. At the same time, it would only be fair that, having paid off, say, one-third of the capital value of his land, he should have his rate of interest reduced from 5 per cent, to, say, 4J per cent, Indeed,
I£4—C. 4.
a—4.
1226
[W. E GRIFFIN
I think I am right in saying that the lease in perpetuity of land other than that taken under the Land for Settlements Act is 4 per cent. One of the objections that presents itself to me to allowing the freehold to be acquired is that I think it would be immediately followed by a rise in the rate of interest, which is the very worst thing that could happen to the farming community, and it would lead, of course, to a large crop of private mortgages; but at the present time, when prices are good and values are high, the settlers could, no doubt, obtain very large loans on their freeholds. If times became bad again, I think we would have a very great chance of seeing the aggregation of large estates again. The mortgagees would foreclose, and some one would come along and buy the property, and thus large estates would be formed, or the purchaser would hold it and sell again at better times. At any rate, I think that the intention to allow a man with small capital to become a farmer would be defeated, because these holdings would then become the property of the enterprising capitalists, instead of the enterprising man with small means. Now, as to cropping restrictions, I think they operate unfairly, because it is not sensible that the same cropping restrictions should be imposed upon all the different kinds of land. There is plenty of land in Hawke's Bay here that might grow white crop after white crop for many years without it materially affecting the land, and there is a lot of other land here that is seriously damaged by taking two consecutive white crops off it, which is now allowed by the law, and it will take years to recover after the second white crop. It must be apparent to anybody that what would be an excellent restriction in one case would be absurd in another. I think the restrictions as to cropping should be made specially for each lease. 28. Then, you think that the farmer would be very much privileged in good times if he 1. the opportunity of banking his money in his own farm? —Yes. 29. And paying off one-thjrd, and then he might have his interest reduced from 5 per cent, to 4 or 4| per cent. I—Yes.1 —Yes. 30. You think if the freehold was given one result would be an increase in the rate of interest, on the assumption that the settlers would all go to the money-lender to find money? —Yes. 31. That could be obviated by allowing them to only pay off the money in instalments, leaving them still mortgaged to the Crown ? —Yes. 32. With regard to the cropping restrictions, the present regulations are very moderatetwo white crops and one green crop ?■ —That is sufficient to materially damage the land in some cases. There are cases in which it damages the land, and there is land which you might go on cropping for ten years and not injure it. 33. We have had a good deal of evidence on that point, and it has been suggested that the Land Board should be allowed discretion in these matters? —Yes, I think that ought to be, and to restrict further if necessary. 34. Mr. Paul.] Do you think if settlers were allowed to pay off at intervals that would have an effect on the money-market? Do you think the effect of these payments being extended over a certain period will remove your objection ? —I think when a man wanted assistance in his finance he would have to take his mortgage away from the Government and give it to somebody else. I presume he would not be given the freehold until he had paid off a substantial sum. I am perfectly sure they would ultimately drift to the money-lender. 35. At what intervals do you value land in the Hawke's Bay District? —There are no special intervals. There are none by Act anywhere in the colony. Districts are valued as it becomes necessary. 36. Has there been a general increase in the value of land in this district? —Yes, a material increase. It has varied according to the quality of the land; but I should say in the case of some land it has been 30 per cent., and possibly 35 per cent. 37. What would be the general average increase over the whole provincial district? —Some of the poorer land has not very much increased in value, because it does not produce very much. 38. Do you value for the Advances to Settlers Department? —Yes. 39. Do you know of any cases where the office has given preference to occupation-with-right-of-purchase land as against lease-in-perpetuity land? —No. 40. Evidence has been given that the Department frequently discriminates in favour of occupation with right of purchase as against lease in perpetuity? —That is absolutely unheard of here. As far as the tenure is concerned, it does not make any difference at all. 41. Can you see why there should be any difference in the case of lease in perpetuity? The Crown owns the land: do you think there.is any reason why the Department should discriminate? —I cannot see any reason; at any rate, I have never discriminated. Provided the margin is there, the settler can get his money, and if the margin is not there he cannot get it. 42. Has any complaint been made 1o you as to delays in granting of loans?— No. 43. A case was mentioned to the Commission yesterday where a man applied for a loan at the end of January and did not get it till June? —I cannot imagine such a case. Can you give the name? 44.'Mr. Falconer? —I know how that arose. He is a Hatuma settler, and I had to go to Blenheim, and it was handed over to some one else, and thus delay occurred. I do not know of any other complaint. It must be apparent to every settler that the District Valuer is not übiquitous and cannot be in two places at once. Delay is inseparable from any lending department that requires the valuer to travel over a large area of country. 45. I can see the difficulty, but, of course, you can see that the settler when he finds he wants money must have it? —I find that settlers never put in applications for their money until they actually want it. If they were wise men they would send in their application, say, a month in advance. 46. But in many cases settlers want to buy stock when the market is suitable? —That is the very reason why thev should not delay sending in the application, because when the application is granted the settler can take up the money when he likes, or he can leave it for two months before he lifts it.
1227
W. E. &BIFFIN.]
a—4.
47. You know of no unnecessary delay in granting loans? —Absolutely none. 48. Mr. Johnston.] Have the Hatuma, Forest Gate, and Lindsay Settlements increased materially in value? —Lindsay has not increased at all. It has not had time. 49. What about the older settlements?— Forest Gate Settlement is getting about level now. There is not much margin; there is a little. 50. Was Forest Gate not worth the money? —I do not think so 51. Was Hatuma?—l think Hatuma was about right. 52. Have transfers at Hatuma been made at an advance? —Yes, in some cases. 53. Do you think the incoming tenant has paid too much? —I think probably they have pi i a fair price for the sections they have bought. 54. You say that some lessees want the freehold on account of fear of interference with their leases. Would the granting of the freehold benefit the production from the soil to any extent? — Not in the least degree. 55. Is the desire for the freehold due to the cause you mention, or is it because the settlers think they can make a better bargain by land that they can sell? —I do not think they could. There is a tremendous number of men of small means who are in a position to buy a leasehold at a fair price, but if it were freehold it would be out of their reach. They could sell more readily as leaseholders, I think; but it would require a man of decent capital to buy one of these holdings now, because they are not all very small holdings. They run up to 600 and 700 acres, and even more. 56. Have the settlers generally done well? —Yes. 57. Are the improvements made, as a rule, substantial and satisfactory? —Yes. 58. Are they as good on leasehold as freehold? —Yes. These people are all of small means, and they often build small houses, but they are nearly always good houses. 59. You say you value for the Advances to Settlers Department. Do you approve of a settler getting an advance on his interest, including the enhanced value of his property, as well as his improvements? —My personal opinion is that I am not in favour of it, because it is so easy for our margin to disappear altogether. 60. You do not think it is in the interests of the State to advance only to a fair margin on improvements? —My own personal opinion is what I have stated. 61. Do the Crown tenants treat their land in the same way as freeholders would? —Yes; but, of course, there is just a chance of a man coming along who would be capable of cropping the life out of the land and then leaving it. 62. Have you heard of that being done? —I have had no experience of it being done, but 1 have heard of a case in another part of the colony. 63. Have you visited the land-for-settlements lands in the south? —I have seen the Marlborough settlements, but not those in Canterbury. What I saw in Marlborough led me to think that they were good farmers. 64. You referred to the classification of lands: how would you classify land in the Hawke's Bay district? —I would classify them as first-, second-, and third-class pastoral land, and first-, second-, and third-class agricultural land. I have not thought the matter out, but I should say that that is the way I should set about doing it. 65. Have you visited this property of Mrs. Ross's? —I have been on it. 66. What would you class that as? —I should say it is third-class pastoral land, or fourthclass, if there was one. 67. Bush land of a capital value of over £1 an acre is classed as first-class land, and these flats here are classed as first-class land: is not that ridiculous? —Of course, it is. 68. Would you give lease-in-perpetuity tenants facilities for obtaining money at a lower rate of interest than at present? —They can borrow at 4i per cent, through the Advances to Settlers Department, and that is the cheapest money in the colony. 69. We have it in evidence that lease-in-perpetuity holders cannot get money under 8 per cent, in certain districts, and in this Island the evidence shows that the interest charged them is 8 per cent, and upwards. How can the tenant obtain his money at 4| per cent. ? —He can borrow up to half of his improvements at 4J per cent. 70. Have you ever known a tenant to be refused an advance when he only asked for an amount equal to half the value of his improvements? —No. Of course, if it were an undesirable person, it might happen that he would not get the money, but if he is reliable he would get it. 71. You think that the Advances to Settlers Department have given the money where advisable up to the full extent without any trouble?— That is so. Of course, there is often a difference between the tenant's idea and the valuer's estimate of the value of the improvements. 72. Have you known any settler to damage his land by taking two white crops in succession off it? —I have known it result in detriment to the country. 73. They do not put back to the land by way of manures what the crop takes out of it? —I do not think so. The land I am referring to cannot be cropped twice in succession without injury resulting. 74. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think the land is permanently damaged by two crops?—lt would take some time to recover. 75. Do you think it would be all right with a green crop in between?—l think so. 76. Would there be any objection to a man taking off as many green crops as he chooses?— No. 77. You think that in regard to poor land there should be a regulation that not more than one straw-crop must be taken off, with as many green crops as the tenant likes?— Yes. They would soon give it up when the land became foul. It would rectify itself. 78. Is it not a fact that these farms now are supposed to be cut into as small areas as is profitable for occupation ?—Yes; but it is conceivable that as time goes on and settlement progresses smaller holdings could be used.
C—4.
1228
W. E. GBIFFIN.
79. Would it not be time enough to alter that regulation when it becomes necessary J—That is the argument against it. 80. There would be no difficulty in allowing the Land Board to have the right to make a concession in regard to the dividing of a holding on the death of a tenant? —No; but the law does not allow them. 81. What difficulty would there be in the way of allowing a man to bank his money with the Government instead of in his land, as you suggest? —That is what he would do, by reducing the capital value of his farm. 82. He acquires the freehold? —No. That is what I say he should not do. He can pay off half the capital value, and so reduce bis rent by a half. 83. Would it not be simpler to allow him to pay the money into a Government fund, and draw the interest regularly from it? —To do that would allow him to be in the position that he might draw it out at some time and lose it. He should be allowed to permanently reduce the rent of his home. 84. Supposing he wanted help? —If times came so bad that he ;ould not afford to pay the reduced rental it would indeed be a bad look out. Ido not want to face that position. 85. Supposing he wanted to. extend his holding, or to put his son on to a farm, he would have his money locked up, whereas if it were in a fund it would be available?—l am wanting to protect the farmer. 86. Is there any difficulty in his investing his savings now? —Any aurtount. 87. Could not those difficulties be easily got over by the Government establishing the form of investment? —Yes; but they might offer a rate of interest that would not tempt him. 88. You said just now that the value of grazing land had not gone up because the price of sheep had gone up to such a high price? —I was referring to grazing land, not breeding land, and I say a man cannot afford to pay the same rent to-day as he could ten years ago. The products of a sheep are not worth more to-day than they were worth ten years ago, but the price of sheep has risen very considerably; therefore I say that ten years ago a man who could buy wethers at 18s., and got the same price for his wool as he gets now, he could afford to pay a higher price for his land than he can now, when he has to pay a much higher price for his sheep. 89. Mr. McCutchan.] In making valuations do you value at the market selling-value?— Yes. 90. Do you have any difficulty in separating the unimproved from the total value? —Not the slightest. 91. Supposing you were to leave the district, and another valuer was to come in who did not know the history of some of those back-country sections, do you think it would be possible for that valuer to properly estimate the value of the work done? —Yes; the duty of the valuer is to value what he can see. 92. You admit, then, that what is not seen is not valued? —Yes. 93. Does not the settler suffer?— No. You value the felling of the bush and the grassing of the land according to what you think it would take to do. You cannot go into the ancient history of the land, because in twenty years' time the probabilities are that there will be no one who would know anything about it. 94. Is it not possible for a man to lose the value of his stumping? —No; I do not know of a single instance. 95. If I take up bush country and put it in grass, will you allow me anything beyond the bushfelling and grassing? —I will allow you for stumping. 96. Can you estimate it? —I think it is quite possible for a man to spend £8 in stumping land the year after he has felled it, instead of waiting for a few years, when it would have cost a very much less sum. 97. Supposing he waits ten years, it is not possible for him still to spend £8 in stumping? —No. 98. Is not the tendency of the valuer to put up unimproved values? —I do not know about other valuers, but it is not my tendency. 99. You stated that the desire for freehold was prompted by a fear of revaluation? —Yes. 100. Is it a fear on the part of the settler that the Government will revalue? —It is a sort of bugbear to them that some one will come along with a Fair Rent Bill and put up their rent. 101. Do you think the Government would do so? —No, I do not; but, unfortunately, the settler is afraid. It seems to me to be a monstrously unjust thing to do. 102. You spoke of the difficulty of the division of land by will: do you think a tenant's will should be subject to revision by any officer of the Crown? —Certainly not. 103. You said that if the freehold was given it would lead to an increase in the rate of interest, and the aggregation of estates again: do you think that under the Land for Settlements Act these settlers are doing fairly well?— Yes. 104. What would you define by that? —Paying their rent, living comfortably, and, I hope, laying by a little money. 105. If that is the condition of tilings, allowing him to pay off the capital value of the land out of the money he is laying by from year to year would not cause an increase of interest? —No. 106. If the position were safeguarded in that direction, do you think there would be any danger of the aggregation of estates again ? —I think immediately you part with the freehold you run that risk. 107. It would not come from the mortgage company if it was a condition that they were only to acquire the freehold out of their savings; the State would safeguard that by forbidding the registration of mortgages? —I do not see how the State can trace the source of a man's money. 108. They say that no mortgage was to be registered against the property? —Then you would make his financing exceedingly difficult. 109. You say many are saving money, and, clearly, then, it is possible for them to acquire the freehold out of their savings? —In the course of time, if times continue good.
W. E. GKIFFIN.j
1229
0.—4.
110. And if you had a limit as to the area to be held by any settler in the colony, you would have a sure safeguard against the reaggregation of estates? —That is so, but you would limit the field in which the holder of the freeholder could borrow. If you limit the area a man can hold, he is restricted should he require to sell in his purchasers, because a person could only buy who would not have more than the fixed area by purchasing. Immediatley you do that, you give the money-lender an opportunity of asking for an extra rate of interest, because the value of the security is reduced. 111. You stated that, generally speaking, there was an increase of 30 per cent, in land-values over the district: to what is that due? —To increased price of produce and increased settlements largely. 112. Was it due to the establishment of dairy factories? —To some extent, but dairying land in Hawke's Bay is limited. 113. You said that there was no discrimination made by the Advances to Settlers Department, between occupation-with-right-of-purchase and lease-in-perpetuity securities? —That is so. 114. Is it an instruction to valuers now to make advances on goodwill as well as on improvements? —In all cases. 115. Is not the goodwill of the occupation with right of purchase worth more on the market to-day than the goodwill of lease in perpetuity?- —I can see no difference. 116. How is it that there is such a run on occupation-with-right-of-purchase sections —we are talking of waste lands, of course —and lease-in-perpetuity sections are at a discount when you come to sell ? —I learn to-day for the first time that that is so. 117. You are not aware of any distinction in the market-value of the two securities? —No. One man gets his money at 4 per cent, and the other at 5 per cent., which is a compensating influence in the matter. 118. Do you know of any case where the Advances to Settlers Department have refused to lend up to 50 per cent, of the improvements? —No. 119. Is it withm your knowledge that 50 per cent, of the improvements are advanced by the Department?- I could not help knowing. 1 advise the loan, and the amount lent is reported to me. 120. In all cases it is 50 per cent, of your valuation? —Unless there is some extraneous matter that operates against the security. 121. Do you think there should be any discrimination as to the amount lent in connection with the purposes for which the money is borrowed ? You quoted a case in which a man put up a house worth £200, and got an advance of £100 on that house: do you think there should be a discretion made between such a man and a man who borrows for reproductive purposes? —I do not know that I would. £200 is not an extravagant amount to spend on a house. We did not give him the money to build the house, but he got it after he had built. 122. Take the case of men on adjoining sections. They each have improvements worth £500. One wants £250 to pay off the improvements on the place, and the other wants £250 to make further improvements. When that man makes those improvements they are worth £750. Do you not think it is advisable, therefore, for the State to make a large advance in cases of that kind? — I would first want to see what he did with the £250. 123. Do you not think that is a fault with the Department, inasmuch as there is no supervision exercised in the expenditure of the money? —Pardon me, supervision is exercised. We do not pay anything until the settler has something to show for it. 124. I think you are in error there. If I have five hundred pounds' worth of improvements, and I borrow £250 for further improvements, no supervision is exercised over the expenditure?— That is so. 125. Do you not think that is a weakness of the Department's position? —No. I think it would be an act of inquisitiveness which would be resented for the Department to claim the supervision over the expenditure of a loan advanced on adequate security. 126. Where a man has improvements worth £500 and he wants £250 to make further improvements, you stated that you thought he was entitled to a larger advance than another man who had the same amount of improvements, but wanted the money for improvements already made'? — No; but immediately the first man has expended his £250 he can come along and get another £125. 127. That multiplies expenses'? —He only pays a guinea. There is nothing heavy about that. 128. Then there are legal expenses as well? —They are very small. You cannot obviate that. I do not see how anything could be done in that way. 129. You said that money was advanced on the lease in perpetuity at the lowest rate of interest in the colony: is it not a fact that the interest is really 6 per cent., that is, 5 per cent, for interest on the money loaned, and 1 per cent, sinking fund, but there is a rebate of J per cent, for prompt payment? —That is so. 130. We have had a series of evidence that advances have been refused to the leaseholders who have had to go to private money-lenders to get their money, and the Commissioners of Crown Lands of the colony, or, at least, the Land Boards, have to give their sanction to the mortgages, and the rates of interest went as high as 10 per cent., until the Minister was forced to issue an instruction that no mortgages should be registered where the rate of interest exceeded 8 per cent. Had you any evidence of that in Hawke's Bay?—l can quite imagine that it was so. People go on to those sections without any money at all. They have to go to a merchant to buy their stock for them and finance them for their fencing, and to see them through. 10 per cent, seems exorbitant, but a man in that position could not expect to get the money for less, because he has got no margin on anything. 131. Mr. Johnston.'] Is there any Californian thistle in Hawke's Bay? —There is a lot of it about.
C—4.
1230
[W. E. GBIFFIN.
132. Is any attempt being made to eradicate it? —Tliey have an Inspector who makes the people cut it. 133. Do you find it increasing on the Crown lands? —I do not know that it is increasing on Crown lands. 134. Have you got an instruction in making valuations of bush sections to only allow a certain amount for bushfelling, irrespective of what it cost? —I have never received an instruction as to what value I put on anything since I have been in the Department, nor have I received a suggestion. 135. We have had sworn evidence in Hawke's Bay that the valuers are only permitted to allow a certain fixed amount for bushfelling, and fencing, and grassing? —You never got that statement from any one connected with the Department. 136. We have had evidence from settlers?—lt is a fancy of their brains. No such suggestion has been made. It is left to the valuer to value at what he thinks a thing is worth. 137. Mr. Anstey.~\ We have had several complaints lately that lease-in-perpetuity settlers are unable to sell out their interests. You just told us they could sell out their interests as well as the occupation with right of purchase: have any instances of farms under these tenures come under your notice? —A tremendous number of sales have taken place, but I have never noticed any marked difference. . 138. Can people borrow under the lease in perpetuity as easily as under the occupation with right of purchase?--With us, certainly they can. We make no difference. 139. You can give no idea what private lenders think?—l can quite imagine that where the tenants' interests largely exceeds the Crown's interest they could better deal with the occupation with right of purchase. 140. Mr. Paul.] Is it a fact that no schedule rates have been issued by the Department, giving the amounts to be allowed for bushfelling?—l have heard for the first time to-day that that is so. I learn it with very great surprise. 141. If such a thing was in circulation you, as a valuer, would have it?—l should think so. 142. In valuing land, do you go over the land in company with the owner?— Sometimes. If he is not there I will go over the land without him. I cannot wait for the owner to turn up. 143. You know that the Act stipulates that the sanction of the Minister much be given as a formality to any will made interfering with the property? —I do not like the sound of it. If a man has a large stake in a section, it seems very hard that the disposal of his property should be interfered with. 144. Supposing a man made a ridiculous subdivision, do you think that the Minister should allow it and not trv to adjust it on common-sense grounds? -I think it becomes absolutely essential that it should be so divided to conserve everybody's interest, including the Crown's. Where the interests of the Crown are not in jeopardy the Crown has no right to say anything about it at all. 145. Can any sensible man conceive of the Minister interfering unnecessarily in such a case?--No, I cannot. Robert Wellwood examined. 146. The Chairman.'] What are you?—l am a settler, holding 142 acres in Raureka, under the lease in perpetuity I have held the land about ten years. It is in two sections, on one of which I pay £118 15s. per annum rent, and on the other £39 15s. It is situated about three miles from here; 50 to 60 acres is shingly, and the rest is rich alluvial land. I have the old homestead. 1 am satisfied with the tenure. . , 147. Is there any particular thing you wish to bring before the Commission? As far as the Land Board of Hawke's Bay is concerned, I do not think the settlers have anything to complain about. We have always been well treated, and all our applications have been met with consideration, and granted to the utmost that lies in the Board's power. I would like, however, to see the various parts of the district considered in making appointments to the Land Board. The land district is a very large one, and, whilst the affairs are very well administered by the Board, I think settlers would feel better pleased if the northern part of the district was represented. At present all the members reside in the southern part, and I am not sure if one does not reside outside. Ido not think, however, that there is any particular feeling on the part of settlers in the matter I think it is quite right that the members of the Land Board should be nominated by the Government I am in favour of the optional system of land-tenure. I am a member of the Farmers' Union, and I think I can speak for nearly all our members, that they are of the same opinion. At the same lime, Ido not oppose the lease in perpetuity, which I look upon as one of the most liberal forms of land-tenure ever introduced in any part of the world—in fact, it is thought by some that it is ultra-liberal, and lam not prepared to argue against that. At the same time I think it is inherent in all our natures to possess something that we can call our own. If you give a boy of twelve a pony and tell him it is his own property, he will take a great deal more care of it than if you tell him he has got the loan of it. We cannot get over the fact of human nature It it in us I could take the members of the Land Commission around here and show you the difference between land held as leasehold and freehold. There are ever so many small places here that are owned by tradespeople and others in employment, and they are all well kept and have tidy flower and vegetable gardens, and there is a distinct difference between the way in which they are kept and those that are held under lease. What applies to Hastings applies to every town in New Zealand. Whilst it is true that the artisans in the towns take a great deal of care of the interest in their freehold, it is they who are opposing the farmers in the matter of the freehold They are agitating that no one should be granted the freehold, and that all land should be nationalised. 1 am not a learned man, but I think that history teaches us that the nation that has no freeholders, but all leaseholders, deteriorates both physically and morally, and T am positive that were New Zealand all leaseholders we would be a generation of dwarfs, both phvsic'illv and morally But give every man the freehold and we will have the makings of a
C—4.
R. WELLWOOD.]
1231
nation, and our sons and daughters will grow into men and women and not be warped physically and morally. Where a man has a little money he should have the opportunity of putting that into his land. Ido not think that the mode proposed by Mr. Griffin would meet the case. I think that the man who has money lying to his credit in the bank ought to be able to put that money into his land and make it his freehold, but I do not like the milk-and-water arrangement proposed by Mr. Griffin. By that arrangement a man would have his money sunk in his land which he could never call his own. It has been said that if the freehold was given it would demoralise the moneymarket of the colony, but I do not think that that would be so. If the freehold was conceded to-morrow Ido not think that 10 per cent, of the leaseholders would avail themselves of it. If I could get the money with which to acquire my freehold, I would rather remain as I am. If I had a certain portion I might borrow a little more so as to be on the safe side. I believe, however, that about 10 per cent, of them would avail themselves of the opportunity to purchase, and in this way a little more money might be put into the coffers of the Treasury for the first month or two, but Ido not think it would upset financial arrangements. After that, new leaseholders would come in and counterbalance things. With regard to residence conditions, Ido not know that there is any trouble about here. The Land Board has a discretionary power which they exercise liberally. 148. Is there any restriction, such as cropping, for instance, which acts injuriously to the tenants? —Not around here. We have never been interfered with. Although we are allowed a free hand almost we do not abuse the trust. 149. Do you grow much grain? —No. 150. You go in mostly for green crops? —Green crops and sheep. 151. Do you dairy? —No. 152. Have you anything to say about the ballot system?—-I remember that when the auction system was in vogue the Press of the colony was crying out against it, and, no doubt, it has its evil effects. We all know that at auction sales there is a danger of being carried away for the moment and bidding more than a thing is worth, and that is so especially in the case of land, particularly where there is competition. I think of two evils the present system is the lesser. There can be no perfect system. 153. Have you any knowledge of the Advances to Settlers Department? —Some years ago i applied for a loan, but there was such a lot of bother over it that I did not pursue the matter. I had to pay more to a private individual, but I got the money. 154. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in this district? —No, and I do not think it need be dreaded at all. The only danger tßere will be of aggregation of estates will be in poor country. 155. The Government gave £26 per acre for the land you are on? —Yes. 156. Was it cheap? —It was bad times when it was out up. It could not be got for that price now. Land has been increased in value by the increased price of produce. If produce goes down the value of land will go down. Mr. Griffin said that if the freehold was conceded it was unjust that it should be at the original value. For the life of me I cannot follow him. The enhanced value of that section is caused by the increased price of produce. Take the case of two brothers, each of whom has £2,000 at his disposal. One prefers to have the freehold and the other goes in for the leasehold. After working the land for a while they both decide to sell, and the freeholder gets his money, but the unfortunate leaseholder is told that he has to undergo revaluation. The thing should be logical, and if there is to be unearned increment in one case there should be in the other also. 157. Mr. Paul.] Is your settlement prosperous? —Yes. The potatoes have failed through floods in some instances, but otherwise it is prosperous, 158. You say you have no objection to tie lease in perpetuity? —Not a bit. 159. You can farm the land to advantage under its conditions? —Yes. 160. You spoke of a boy and a pony: suppose you gave that boy the pony and told him it was his as long as he liked, what would he think about it? —He would think a lot of it. 161. Supposing you told him he could have the loan of it as long as he lived?—He would not think so much of it. 162. Do you think that a leaseholder will not farm his land as well as a freeholder will? —I think there is'more made of that than there is anything in it. I farm my land just as well as if I had the freehold. 163. Do your brother leaseholders do likewise? -There are exceptions. At the same time, there is that feeling about having what is your own that a man would do things with a freehold that he would not do with a leasehold. 164. Did you understand my previous question? I asked you if your brother leaseholders farmed well? —They do, but they do not perhaps take the same interest in the land as they would if it were a freehold. 165. There are exceptions to the rule? —They do not all farm well. 166. Is it not to their advantage to take as much interest ? —lt is. 167. Why do they not?— There it is; it is human nature again. 168. You think the leaseholder, as a man, is morally and physically inferior to a freeholder? —I believe that that would be the tendency if it went on in perpetuity. I feel that it would have the tendency in generations to come to lower the standard of the farming community. It is so in all parts of the world. Look at Russia. 169. We cannot compare that nation with ours? —Well, look at my native land, Ireland. I remember as a boy the curse of landlords there. I have seen the unfortunate tenants in bad seasons going down on their bended knees to their landlords trying to get some concessions in their rents. 170. In a freehold country?—lt is not a freehold country. And look at the state the population are in now.
[b. wellwood.
C—4.
1232
171. Was it not a freehold country then? —Certainly not. It was a freehold held by large landowners, who let their land to private tenants on lease. It was land held by private individuals and leased to farmers, and what has caused all the trouble? The landlordism; and if you make all the farmers in New Zealand tenants of the Government, God help the Government in future generations when bad times come. 172. Is there any comparison between a tenant in New Zealand under the Government and a tenant in Ireland under private landlords? Which would you prefer to be? —I would prefer to be here under the Government, but I believe in Ireland it is better now than it was. 173. You say that only 10 per cent, of the leaseholders could acquire the option if it was given them ?—That is my estimate from local experience. 174. Do you think the rest of those men will be morally and physically inferior to the 10 per cent, who acquire the freehold?—We might not notice it in our time, but if it wgre perpetuated it certainly would be so. That is shown by history all over the world. If you have a freehold community who own their land they live up to a high standard, then it is only human nature that they should grow up physically and morally a superior race. 175. If all these things are true, why have you no objection to the lease in perpetuity? — Because I cannot have anything else. 176. Mr. Johnston.] Have you ever visited the Hatuma Settlement? —I have not been through it except by rail since it was cut up. Of course, I knew it before it was cut up. 177. You remarked that you thought the Government paid rather too much for it?—l reckon they paid too much. 178. Are you sure they paid too much?— Under present circumstances it is all right, but should depression come then those settlers will not be able to pay that rent. 179. I wish you to answer me, Yes or No. Do you think they paid too much for it?— Yes. 180. Do you not think that if all the large estates here had been leased in the first case, instead of being made freeholds—suppose they had been leased for forty years—and the leases were falling in now, it would not have been a great advantage to the country? Certainly. 181. It would have been better than a freehold ?—Certainly. 182. Then it was a mistake that these lands were ever made freehold?—No, it was not a mistake. 183. Would it have been better if they had been kept as leaseholds, and were cut up now for close settlement? —I cannot say that. Archibald Low examined. 184. The Chairman.] What are you?—l farm a section held by my mother, who is a widow, at Mahora. It is 20 acres of lease in perpetuity, and I pay £20 16s. lid. rent half-yearly. 185. Is that a satisfactory lease?— Yes, and the land is well worth the money. I have been there about six years. 186. What'use do you put the land to?— Practically dairying. At present we can run fourteen cows, but we have grown cereals as well. We have grown 2 acres of potatoes each year for outside sale, and half an acre of fruit, but that is not for sale. We have never been flooded. 187. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission? No, only to say we were satisfied. 188 I hope that is pretty well the opinion of your neighbours ?—I do not see any of them here, so I presume they are satisfied. They generally " sing out "if they are not satisfied. 189. Mr. Williams is carrying on a great fruit-growing business there: is any one copying his example? —Yes. , j . , .. 190. And do they take the fruit to his canning factory ?—There are two men, but both sell [ii BelJ( j ;t a i on g the line?— Yes, wherever they can sell it to the best advantage. Mr. Mosen, of Tomoana Settlement, has had a very successful year He sends his fruit pretty well all over the place. He has 5 acres. ■ 192. Mr. Paul.] To your knowledge, are the settlers doing fairly satisfactorily (—Yes, as tar as can be judged. . „ 193 Mr. Johnston.] Did you as a Crown tenant ask the Farmers Union to petition the Commission for the right of purchase?— No. We are connected with the Farmers' Union. 194. Did many of the settlers ask Mr. Wellwood to appear for them?—l could not say. I had no conversation with any of the settlers on the matter. 195. You are quite content?— Yes, the only trouble is what Mr. Griffin called the unfounded fear of revaluation. There is a positive uneasiness over that, 196. But if your lease remains as at present you are perfectly satisfied, provided it is not interfered with?— No. . 197 You do not think the Government would repudiate their agreement with the settlers? —That is what I should think. If they did so it would amount to a breach of contract. 198. Mr. Anstey.] Are your relations with the Land Board satisfactory?— Absolutely. 199. Have you any cropping restrictions with respect to these small areas? I think we are subject to two white-crop restrictions. . 200 Is it one of the conditions that you must grass down after having two crops / 1 cannot say I have read the conditions, but I suppose we have not infringed them, otherwise we should have heard. fhose conditions would not be suitable for small areas? You cannot keep it unploughed longer than two years?—We do not, because we dairy; but it is quite possible they would press that in case we wanted to raise white crops. 202 Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Yes; it was quite satisfactory My father, who is dead now, drew money from them, and said that is was the cheapest money and the cheapest obtained he ever had in his life.
B. WELL WOOD.]
1233
a—4
203. And the legal expenses were the lowest? —Yes, absolutely the lowest. 204. And there was no delay in getting the money? —Practically none. It was got when it was wanted. 205. Mr. McCutchan.] You consider your rent a fair one? —Yes. 206. How many years ago it is since you took up the section? —About six. 207. Had you any difficulty in making headway at the start? —Yes. 208. It is the good times which have made the rental fair? —The difficulty 1 spoke of was the want of finance to start with —insufficient capital. 209. Did you get a rebate of rent?- Yes, on rent promptly paid within one month. 210. What is the amount of rebate? —10 per cent. 211. Did you get the full 10 per cent? —We paid a little under £20 half-yearly. 212. If your rent is fair and reasonable, why do you take the rebate? —For the same reason that a boy would take an apple. 213. You had your lease under certain conditions originally I—Yes. - 214. And those conditions were fixed by Act of Parliament, were they not? —Yes. 215. If a very radical change is brought about so that fresh legislation is to be brought In, would you consider it an interference with the terms of your lease? —Not a vital interference. 216. Do you think a change that cannot be brought about without fresh legislation is not a vital change from the terms of your lease?- -That is a question I have not thought of. 217. There are certain Crown tenants who have refused to take this rebate of rent, believing that it is an interference with the terms of their agreement with the Government. They have done that in order to protect their position: do you think that they are acting wisely? —Yes, if that rebate suggests a breach of the agreement. 218. What is the object of the rebate? —To relieve any tenants that are excessively rented. 219. Were you injuriously treated with regard to your rental? —No. 220. Therefore, you had no claim for rebate?--No. 221. And you are taking a thing you had no claim to?— Yes, that is right enough; but I think it is simply a matter of ignorance if you put it in that way. But the rental notice comes along with a note that if it was paid within a certain time there would be a rebate. 222. Would you look upon it as a discount"? -Yes, it practically is. 223. If it is a discount under the Act for the benefit of the whole of the tenants, why does one Board give a discount of 5 per cent, another 8 per cent., and another of 10 per cent.? Could you consider it a discount when there is a discrimination in that way? —No. 224. Do you think the people who are agitating for a revaluation are justified in doing so, inasmuch as the tenants themselves have practically brought about a revaluation by accepting a reduction of their rental?- No, not altogether. Thomas Stephen Percival examined. 225. The Chairman.] Have you any land? —I have Sections 6 and 7, Mahora, consisting of about 77 acres, under lease in perpetuity. 1 pay about £114 a year. I am an original settler. Section 6 was my wife's, and 1 hold that under will. Section 7 I drew myself. 226. Is this lease satisfactory to you? —I would like it better if 1 had the option of purchase. If we had the option, it would give men some encouragement, and I would like the option under a similar system to the deferred-payment system, so that a settler could pay off so-much by instalments, instead of making an absolute freehold of his place at once. It would be an investment for a farmer, and if he met with bad rimes he could get his rent capitalised again, and continue paying it on the reduced capital value. It would come out of his savings. 227. I suppose you are quite satisfied with the land? —Perfectly, and with the lease in perpetuity, because at that time I could not have taken the freehold. 228. Do you dairy? —No; graze and crop. 229. Do you grow white crops? —I had 11 acres of oats this year, and they are doing very well; but, as a rule, the white crop is not a success. The land is too strong. 230. How many sheep have you? —About '650 sheep, four cows, and three or four horses. 231. According to that, you are carrying about eight sheep to the acre? —Yes; but I have grown 2 acres of mangolds, and I cut 40 acres for grass-seed, and 6 acres for hay. 232. Is your drainage fairly good?— Fairly good—better than some of the sections. It was not drained before I got it. There were a few hollows that the drain did not serve, but I ploughed them up and raised the bottoms, and now the drainage is fairly good. 233. You are quite free of the Ngaruroro? —No, it is right up to Section 7, and two years ago I got the flood. 234. Mr. Paul.] Are the settlers doing well?—I think so. 235. Is there anything in the conditions of your lease which prevents your using the land to advantage ? —No. 236. Could you do much better with it if given a free hand?—As far as the cropping goes, we have a free hand enough, because we can grow one paddock in green crop so long as we feel inclined; but it is not advisable to go on too long with that, because the ground gets full of weedß and becomes too foul. Therefore, it is a great advantage to put it in grass for two or three years so as to allow the weeds to die out. 237. There is nothing in the lease which interferes with you?—l think not. 238. Would it be a more valuable tenure if you had the option?—l think so. 239. It would be worth more? —It would not be worth any more to me, but it would be an investment when I had any surplus cash at any time. _ 240. Do you not think it would be worth any more? —I do not see why it should be. It would grow no more grass or fatten any more sheep ff it were freehold.
155—C. 4.
[t. s. pebcival.
C—4.
1234
241. You think the lease in perpetuity is worth as much as the occupation with right of purchase? —If a man wanted to sell he might get more money for the right of purchase than he would for it as lease in perpetuity. 242. Would not that be worth something? —It might be if a man wanted to sell. 243. Do you think those tenants who want the option should offer to pay something for the increased value? —I do not see why they should, as it is through their energy that the thing has been made a success. When we went down to Mahora we were told that we would be starved out, and I think we are entitled to some consideration for having the pluck to take it up. 244. The tenants took up the land under a certain tenure, and now they want the option in addition: is it not fair to ask that they should be prepared to pay something for it, or whether they want it for nothing? —I do not see why they should be asked to pay for what they have already earned. 245. They have the option of it now? —No. It does not give us very much more than an investment for our money, and I would like to make it easier for them. 246. Do you think the lease in perpetuity is as valuable as the occupation with right of purchase? —No, I do not think it is; but with the occupation with right of purchase a man is likely to make his place his own. 247. Under the Land Act of 1892, a man who takes up the lease in perpetuity pays 4 per cent, on the capital value, but under the occupation with right of purchase he pays 5 per cent. ? —We pay n per cent, on ours on the lease in perpetuity. Ido not know how you get 4 per cent. 248. This is a Crown-lands lease, and your's is an improved estate. You do not see that you should pay anything for the option? —Not when we have helped to make it ourselves. 249. Mr. Johnston.'] Have-any of these sections changed hands? Are the original settlers there? —Three sections down our end of the settlement have changed hands. 250. Do you know what they got for their sections? —I could not tell you exactly, but Ido not think they got very much over their improvements. In one case I heard of the Land Board was satisfied that they had not got more than the amount of their improvements. If they got anything in the other two cases, it was very little. , 251. Do you farm your land as well now as you would do if it were a freehold? —I think I should do much the same with it. 252. Mr. Anstey.] Have you had any experience with the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes, I had a loan from them. 253. Was it satisfactory? —Yes. 254. What are your relations with the Land Board? —They have always been satisfactory. 255. Mr. McGutchan.] Does the Land Board exercise any scrutiny over the consideration that passes between the vendor and the purchaser of these lease-in-perpetuity sections under the Land for Settlements Act? —All have to be referred to them, I believe. 256. Have you known of any transfers being refused on account of the consideration being excessive ? —No. 257. Do you think that the Land Board ought to exercise any supervision over the consideration? —No. If the place is worth £10 an acre for the goodwill, I do not see why the tenant should not have it. 258. You think it is satisfactory? —Yes, because it is through his efiorts that it has become valuable. There are pounds and pounds spent on these sections that the valuators cannot see, will not see, and do not want to see. I have expended a good many pounds, but no one can see the result of that expenditure now. 259. Did you hear Mr. Griffin's evidence this morning? —A portion of it. 260. Did you hear his evidence with reference to the point you are touching on now? —Yes; he says he only values what he can see. 261. Therefore, it follows that tenants are making a large amount of improvements for which they can get no credit? —Certainly; a man can fill up hollows, for instance. On my place there were hollows that I have ploughed in, and in a wet season I have seen two or three acres on my place with no grass on it. I ploughed the hollows up and raised the bottoms, but I did not do that for nothing, and now they will drain themselves. 262. The Chairman.'] Is there anything you wish to add? —You asked the last witness why this 5 per cent, rebate was given. If I remember rightly, we approached the Land Board on the matter. The Mahora, on the lower end, is subject to a River Board rate. I think it was l|d. in the pound on the capitalised value. Then, they have sprung another rate on us for the Pakowhai Bridge, a bridge which has been in existence for about twelve years. In view of these rates, we sent a petition to the Land Board before this rebate was given. That was how we got the first rebate, and it has been extended over the whole of the settlers. 263. Mr. McCutchan.J Do you look upon that rebate as a discount for the prompt payment of rent? —Certainly, I do. I consider if a man pays his rent promptly he should be entitled to some consideration over the man who allows his rent to get in arrear. 264. Is not one tenant's money as good as another's? —Certainly. 265. Then, why should one get 10 per cent., another 8 per cent., and others 5 per cent, rebate if it is a discount? —I was not aware they were getting it. We got it because there was some dissatisfaction at the excessive rates we had to pay to the River Board. *266. The Chairman.] You say you got one of these sections by will: did you show the will to the Commissioner of Crown Lands?—l did it all through my lawyer. 267. Mr. Paul.] Do you know that some tenants get no rebate? —No, not in this district. Here there are practically no arrears. 268. You pay your rent in advance? —Yes. They give you one month. Say the rent falls due on the 30th June, you have a month to pay it; but if you let it go to the Ist August you do not get the rebate.
1235
T. S. PEKCIVAL.]
a—4
269. The whole matter is left in the hands of the Commissioner of Lands and Receiver of Land Revenue as to whether there shall be any rebate, and, if so, what sum up to 10 per cent, shall be given ?- -Yes; we get 5 per cent, for prompt payment within one month of due date. 270. Mr. Mr.C'utchan.l In connection with the property which you hold by will, was there a subdivision of the section, or was the whole section left by will? —It was all left. 271. Do you hold any other land? —I hold a bit of freehold in Hastings —25 acres. 272. Were you compelled to reside on the land you selected? —No. 273. Residence on the freehold was counted as residence on the other —one counted for the other during my wife's life. 274. Mr. Johnston.\ During your wife's life you were exempt from the other section, and you are still exempt?— Yes. Thomas John Thompson examined. 275. The Chairman.] Are you a farmer? —Yes, and also a butcher. I have 46 acres at Mahora, and 2 acres, on which I reside, at Havelock, both lease in perpetuity. I am paying for the Mahora land about £32 half-yearly, and the rates on that land are very high. The portion I hold is in the borough, and the rates amount to 4s. 2d. an acre. 1 pay over £9 in rates. In addition, I have to pay harbour rates, about half the borough rates —£4 10s. a year. 276. What do you do with your land? —I graze it principally. I crop a small portion of it to break up the ground occasionally. 277. What do you wish to bring before us? —The principal thing that I wish to say is that I prefer the right of purchase. I think most people would like the freehold. It is a desire which is almost inherent in mankind. I was very satisfied with the lease, and I think it is the best Act ever passed in New Zealand, as it gives the struggling settler a chance to take up land, which he could not do under the freehold system. I think, however, that if a man could manage to save a little money on his farm, and with it pay off a portion of the capital cost it would be a great encouragement to him, and would be an incentive to thrift. He would also be able to get his rent reduced in proportion to the amount he paid oft the capital value. Sometimes it is a struggle to get the rent at the due date, but if we could in good seasons pay off something and so reduce the rent we might hope in time to make the land a freehold. In my opinion, the quantity of land we are allowed to take up is too small, and, personally, I would like to be allowed to take up some more land under the same tenure and conditions, provided the option of purchase were allowed. I have no fault to find with the Land Board; the constitution is all right, and I could not suggest anything different. I have had no connection with the Land Board. 278. Mr. Paid.] You are getting too big for your section now? —Yes. I have a very large family, and I find the section is too small. 279. Under the Land for Settlements Act you are debarred from taking up any more? —Yes. 280. Would it be satisfactory if you had the option of taking up a larger area on condition that you sold this section you have, or otherwise disposed of it? —Not altogether. It might not suit me to dispose of the one I have got, because it is convenient to my business, and I do not think there would be any chance of my getting a larger section within reasonable distance of Hastings. Otherwise, it would be satisfactory, if I could dispose of the one I have and take up a larger area. 281. Mr. Johnston.] Where do you live? —I live at Havelock. 282. Did you put any buildings on it? —No. 283. The Land Board exempted you from residence on it? —Yes. 284. You use it just for grazing and fattening? —Yes. 285. How long have you been in the district? —About thirty-one years. 286. Have you been farming all the time? —I have been butchering for about twenty years. 287. Mr. McCutchan.\ Having one section under the Land for Settlements Act, are you precluded from taking up a section under the Act of 1892? —I believe so. 288. You are barred in both ways? —Yes. Eustace Lane examined. 289. The Chairman.] Are you a holder of land? —Yes; I have been for eighteen months. I have a section on the Argyll Settlement, formerly known as The Brow. 290. How many acres have you? —634. My wife has an interest in another section. Both are lease in perpetuity. We are paying 4s. an acre for one and 6s. 6d. an acre for the other, which belongs to my wife. Mrs. Lane's section contains 609 acres. 291. Are the two contiguous? —No, for the reason that there is only half an interest in one. 292. Are you satisfied with the tenure? —Not entirely. I think it should be improved. The main trouble is that we cannot get transfers. 293. Not until you are a year there? —Five years. That is a great drawback to a great many ; in fact, when I wanted to get some land eighteen months ago I had great difficulty. I came from Western Australia, and my application was approved by the Land Board, but was refused by the Minister of Lands, because of a letter which was sent to him raising objections to my application, and making entirely false statements respecting myself. The letter was written direct to him, and the writer achieved his object, which was to make the Minister refuse my application. He said he had no option. It contained false statements, and stated that if the application was granted questions would be- asked in the House. 294. What was the objection to your application ? —The land did not adjoin; it was a section away from my wife's section, and the point is this: if a wife's section adjoins her husband's he will not reside on it any more than he would if it did not adjoin. On the other hand, if i' does not adjoin she is more likely to employ labour on it, she being at a distance, than she would
0.-4.
1236
[Ei LANE.
if it adjoined. The original section I took up, which was my own, was a very poor one, and could not keep a family. 1 only took it up on the understanding that I could get another section in my wife's name, but there was no land adjoining which I could get, only two grazing-runs, which exceeded the area which is allowed. It seems absurd that a wife's section should have to adjoin her husband's, if it is in the same settlement. That is the point I wish to call attention to. My wife has an interest in the section I refer to now. 295. Is it in her name? —She is a tenant-in-common, and that tenancy was recognised by the Land Board and approved by the Minister; but it is objectionable, and it would be far better if the section were given to her. It was only an objection, but, because of this letter to the Minister, it blocked me. 296. Still, after it was looked into, you got the land, so that the letter you refer to did not have much effect. It is quite evident that, after investigation, the Minister found this letter was not reliable, and acted accordingly: you got the land? —No; I only got an interest in it. I am burdened with a partnership. 297. Your wife has a half-interest in 609 acres: who has the other interest? —This other party—the original holder. He is the original Crown tenant on the section. 298. Is he living there? —Yes. It is practically a tenancy in common in regard to this section, and it would be far better if one were allowed to get a straight-out transfer and take the whole of the section; but the arrangement we made was the only one we could make to get more land under the circumstances. 299. Did your wife and this man, who has the other half-interest, agree that they would take this section, which now, you say, is held as a tenancy in common? —No. This other man undertook to take my wife into it as a partner and tenant-in-common. 300. I do not quite understand it yet. Is there any other matter you wish to bring before us? —Yes. I think a married woman should be considered to have attained her majority on her marriage. Had my wife attained her majority at that time she could have taken up the section I took up, and I could have taken up the adjoining grazing land. With regard to the balloting system, I think it is a very bad one. I think the suggestion made by Mr. Jull is an excellent one. It has been made to me before —namely, that the applicants should be required to fulfil the conditions, and that then the sections should be put up to auction, and if any section fetches more than the upset value, the money over the value should go to a fund, which the Government would require to provide all sorts of things out of, to make good roads or to finish roads left unfinished. Ido not think men are encouraged to offer more than the thing is worth. If they do, it is their own look out, and the extra money so obtained should go to the Government fund I have mentioned. On the Argyll Settlement we are all loaded to an equal amount to raise the amount provided, or supposed to be sufficient, to make the roads. But it is not sufficient. We have only half a road made, and some are paying for roads they have not got. We cannot get our roads finished by the Government or the County Council. We cannot get drays along the sections, and yet we are paying a certain sum towards the cost of finishing the roads. Under the system which has been suggested the Government would be able to complete the road. I think the ballot system encourages men to speculate more than the auction system. I also think that transfer should not be delayed for more than five years. Continually men will take up sections that they find do not suit them, and they want to transfer them, and it is very hard that they are not allowed to. At present the transfer is optional, and depends on the will of the Land Board. It is one of the objections to the leasehold that you are hindered in giving a transfer, but with freehold there would not be any such trouble. Regarding the question of giving the optional right of purchase, the objection to that is that the Government might be saddled with all the bad land. Suppose the occupier was in a position to buy the land, he would buy it where it was worth buying, and would saddle the Government with all the sections which were not worth purchasing. That is the objection which is urged against the optional right, but if there were such a fund as I speak of the Government would have something to make up the deficiency, or to help them to carry the burden of the land that they could not sell. The great danger in Government administration is that corruption may creep in. I think it would be a mistake to abandon the leasehold system, and I am of opinion that it is a capital thing to buy up large estates and settle them in larger areas. 301. Mr. Paid.] Is there not another disability married women labour under, inasmuch as they are not allowed to take up the same area of land as single women ? —Not that I know of. 302. In order to prevent speculation, do you think if a man is successful at one ballot and sells his section he should be debarred from balloting for some time? —Yes, I do. 303. Mr. Johnston.] Do you not think that settlers and their sons residing in the country, and who want land, should have a preference over strangers coming in ? —No; we are all one, and I think, if anything, strangers should have a preference. 304. Could you have taken up a freehold if you wanted to? —I could not just then. M money was in business in Australia. 305. As to your wife's interest in another section, was that not practically dummyism? I do not think so. 306. She has paid the holder so-much for the half-share? —Yes. 307. How much did she pay him? —The whole value of the improvements. We have to wait five years until we can go out. •308. What did the improvements amount to? —£150. 309. She paid £150 to go in? —Yes. 310. Therefore, she paid £75- for goodwill and £75 for improvements, if he is still halfowner ? —He is not half-owner in the improvements. 311. Then, he is simply a dummy, pure and simple?—l do not see that. 312. What wages do you pay this man?— £2 a week. He is working the stock. 313. Mr. McCutchan.] You said the roads were not satisfactory on the Argyll Settlement? — The road is unfinished.
0.-4.
1237
E. LANE
314. Was the block loaded for roads? —Yes. 315. Was there a condition that access to each section would be given? —Yes. 316. And that condition has not been fulfilled? —That is so. 317. Was it not a condition that the road would be formed and metalled?—l understood that the road was to be made. 318. In connection with this section in which your wife has a half-share, does this man get half the profits in addition to the £2 a week?—No; he gets £2 a week for looking after the stock. John Anderson Kerr examined. 319. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am a farmer. I have a small piece of freehold land here, and I have a section of 217 acres in the Lindsay Settlement. I have just acquired this section. It is under lease in perpetuity, and my rent is 13s. an acre. lam very glad there is a lease-in-perpetuity tenure so that I can secure a section of land. There is one point that two or three of the settlers have talked over. There is some years' growth of noxious weeds in the riverbed— Cafifornian thistle and blackberries—and apparently we are held responsible immediately we take possession for these past years' growth of noxious weeds. There are acres of California!] thistle on the low-lying land, and nothing has been done to eradicate it. 320. Has the Inspector of Noxious Weeds visited the district? - I am informed that he will hold us responsible. 321. You saw the land before you took it up?— Yes; but in the future I think the Government ought to take steps to clear the land before settlers take it up. The grouping system under the ballot is not satisfactory. In connection with periodical revaluations, I think that would be advisable if it could be possibly as-ranged that the valuer should co-operate with the valuer of the section—that is, for rating and other purposes. 322. Mr. Johnston.'] Are you in favour of the straight-out ballot? —I do not know what else you could do. The grouping system is unsatisfactory. 323. Is the Californian thistle getting hold of the land?— Yes. 324. How are you trying to eradicate it?— Nobody has done anything yet. The settlers have only been two months in possession, and they have taken no steps so far. 325. Would it be satisfactory if the valuer were to send you notice a few days before he came round?— Yes, I think that would be more satisfactory. 326. Are you satisfied with your farm?- Yes. 327. You have got some pretty good land, have you not? —Yes. 328. You are quite satisfied with the lease in perpetuity ?—So far, I am. 329. You are not asking for the right of purchase?— Not just now. 330. 1 suppose you are waiting for a year or two? —I am quite satisfied I would not have got the land if the lease "in perpetuity had not been in existence. James Hawthorne examined. 331. The Chairman.] What are you?—l am a farmer at Mahora South, and hold 43 acres under lease in perpetuity. My rent is £1 6s. per acre. I have been there about six years. 332. Is the tenure satisfactory ?—I consider the rent is a little high in my case, as I have a good deal of shingle-bed. 333. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ? lam thoroughly satisfied with the lease in perpetuity. I consider it a very good system. It suits a working-man. He can go on the land with very little capital. It is all very well for the man who has cash to buy the freehold, but the working-man can take up land under lease in perpetuity and work himself up They should not push him too much in respect to residence clause, unless he has enough cash to live on the land. He requires a little consideration. I mean where the holdings are small. I wish to draw your attention to this matter of loading for roads. I object to that very strongly, when the money is not expended upon the roads. ■334. Have your relations with the Land Board been satisfactory I—Yes, and we are satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board. lam not altogether satisfied with the Valuation Department. I refer to the valuations of Mr. Griffin. He is like other people, and can commit an error 335. If the valuation is too high you can appeal to the Court? —Yes; but you cannot make Have you had any experience in borrowing money from the Advances to Settlers Office? —Yes, and it was not satisfactory. „ , 337. Mr. Paul.] Are the rates heavy on those sections? —They are not so heavy on mine. There is only part of it under the Borough Council. 338. Is the settlement prosperous?—ln my opinion, it is. 339 Mr Johnston.] Do you know what your rates are? —There is about il los. on each section'for harbour rates and £1 2s. 6d. on each section for river rates Then, .there is the County Council rate, which I think is about £3 7s. 6d. on each section, and then there is £1 Is 2d for borough rates. I have been there for six years. There is misunderstanding between the Land Board and the Borough Council, and nothing has been done to the roads since the Land Board you how many ge ttlers in your district are members of the Farmers' Union?— 341. Did the settlers get up this agitation for the right of purchase, or was it the Farmers Union?—l think it was the Farmers' Union. My belief is that the settlers did not get it up. Three settlers who spoke to me said they were opposed to it. 342. Then, the majority of the settlers are satisfied with the lease in perpetuity, and do not want the freehold ?—Yes; but I cannot say as to settlers in other parts of the settlement.
C—4.
1238
[s. HAWTHOENE.
343. Has this agitation been got up with the view of speculation, or owing to a general wish to get the freehold? —I think it is simply got up as a political agitation against the land policy of the present Government. 344. Have you noticed any instances where the Land Board has insisted on residence vexatiously? —No, not vexatiously. 345. If the settlers on such a settlement as this were allowed to live away from their place, do you not think that would injure the settlement? —Yes. 346. Do you think it would be wise that there should be sufficient loading put on to give access to the land ? —Yes. 347. Mr. McGutchan.] Do you think the Roads Department, after spending the loading, should vest these roads in the local body? —Yes. Epic Charles Gold Smith examined. 348. The Chairman.] What are you? —I am Commissioner of Crown Lands and Chief Surveyor of the Hawke's Bay Land District. 1 have occupied that position for eight years and a half. Generally speaking, I should say that the settlers in Hawke's Bay are very prosperous, and they are very excellent settlers. We have not the slightest trouble with them, and we are quite a happy family. They seem to be satisfied with their tenures. We have no trouble in collecting rents. The settlers are doing their improvements in a very satisfactory manner. In fact, I think they compare very well with other districts. As an instance of this, I will give you the improvements that have been effected on the land for settlements. There are thirteen settlements here under land for settlements, containing an area of 115,026 acres. The improvements required under the Act are £41,644 lis. -fd. The improvements effected are £125,576 17s. 9d. That gives £83,926 6s. 6d. improvements above that which was required by the Act. I think that is a very satisfactory state of things. You must treat the question in two ways. There are the ordinary Crown lands, and there are the land-for-settlement lands. In the case of ordinary Crown land it may be taken up for cash, or occupation with right of purchase, or lease in perpetuity. People could hardly expect a more generous Land Act. It should, I think, meet the requirements of all settlers. But when you come to land for settlements you then come under quite a different set of circumstances. In the one case the land is generally virgin country, where a man has to expend capital and labour to bring it under cultivation. In the land for settlements it is improved land, which has been bought by public money at a large expense, and the tenants are put on that land merely paying 5 per cent, on the capital value. These lands are held under lease in perpetuity. In my opinion, the lease in perpetuity is a very bad lease —a lease that you will not find anywhere else, and you will not find in any other form of lease the same conditions given--that is to say, giving a lease for 999 years at a rental of 5 per cent, on the present value of the property.. Most leases are for a certain term, and very often at an increased rental. In fact, you hardly ever get a lease in which there is not an increasing rental, and generally for a very much shorter term. In my opinion, it would be a very great improvement to have this land under land for settlements leased under leases with a perpetual right of renewal- that is to say, they should have a lease for twenty-five or thirty years —the term is immaterial—at 5 per cent, on the capital value, subject to revaluation at the end of the terms. At the end of the terms there would be revaluation on the unimproved value, but the tenant would have the right of renewal —the perpetual right of renewal. I suppose the rent would be fixed by arbitration. I think that would be a great improvement on present lease in perpetuity, which, according to my idea, is a most unbusinesslike lease for the State. 1 am speaking of the interests of the State. 1 may say, speaking generally, that among the Crown tenants of Hawke's Bay I have heard very little expression of a wish for the freehold. If there had been anything of the sort it has been quite recently. There is another thing I would like to point out: that under tlie Crown land conditions land can be purchased for cash which, of course, gives the freehold, but we have had very few sales indeed. Under the optional system land can be purchased for cash, but it was quite the exception to get applications for .cash purchases in Hawke's Bay. The constitution of Land Boards is a thing I shall not give opinion on. As to the pressure of residence conditions on Crown tenants, there is a great deal to be said about the residence conditions. We very often hear of a settler complaining about being compelled to reside, and this is particularly so in the case of the back blocks. There is a certain amount of hardship in compelling settlers to reside in the back blocks where roads have not been constructed. On the other hand, we have heard of great complaints of want of schools. Settlers say that if they had schools they would reside. That is absurd, because residence must take place before there can be schools. If residence is compulsory and is enforced you get a lot of families to go out in the back blocks when they can possibly get there, and then schools and other things follow. I think it is necessary therefore that the residence conditions should be carried out. With respect to the working of the ballot system under the Land for Settlements Act, the grouping system is very bad. lam aware that owing to the grouping system many really good intending settlers have been kept from going to the ballot. It is very natural that a man does not wish to be forced to take up a section that he does not want. There is a very great difference of opinion about sections. They may be valued at the same sum. They may be at the same rental, and they generally have the same physical features, but every man has his own idea or his ideal of a farm. Grouping, I consider, is decidedly a mistake. If any grouping is done it should be rather done on the principle of the amount of capital required for working the sections. For instance, you would start with small farms of probably 10 or 20 acres. Then you would have dairy farms and ordinary farms, 'and then there would be the grazing-runs. A man should be allowed to go in for as many sections as he liked, but he must keep within the limitation he can take up under the Act, but he can only hold one section. I think that would be a great improvement on the ballot system. With respect to fhe practice of loading lands for roads, when you get a block cut up you get a certain amount granted for roaHing that block. 1 understand that
E. C. G. SMITH.]
1239
a—4.
amount is expended by the Roads Department. I cannot say anything as to the working of the advances-to-settlers system. I think the other questions mentioned in the order of reference of the Commission have been referred to by me in my remarks on the Land Act. 349. Mr. Paid.~\ With regard to grouping at the ballot, would you allow a man with plenty of capital to compete with a poor man for the small sections, or would you begin with the small men first? —I think it is hardly likely that men with large capital would compete with the small men. A man with a large capital would not want to go in for a 20-acre farm, and, even if he did, I hardly see how you could take exception to it. 350. 11' there are six groups, so far as capital is concerned, the poor man through his limited means is restricted to two, but the man with plenty of capital has his choice of the six? —That is true; but would not the man with a large amount of capital want a larger farm than the other man. 351. What is the highest rate of interest allowed by the Hawke's Bay Land Board for private mortgages? —8 per cent. 352. How does the Board view transfers? Do they allow unrestricted sale, or do they supervise them? The application comes before the Board, and on the face of the transfer is shown the amount of consideration. If we see there is a large amount given we make inquiry, and if it looks like a case of speculation, as a rule, the transaction is bailed up, and we do not allow it to pass. 353. The Board exercises an intelligent supervision over transfers? —Yes. 354. What are the conditions as to tenancy in common, and what part does the Board playin them? —A man applies to take in another man as a partner or tenant-in-common, and one of them must reside on the land. 355. Do you think there should be residence without roads on bush land? —No, I do not. I have great sympathy with the back-block settlers, and it has been a trouble in all back-block settlements that they do not get sufficient money spent on their roads. I do not think that residence should be compulsory unless there is a fairly good road made. Of course, in the back blocks they expect bridle-roads to be made first. 356. Do you think successful settlement would take place under the land-for-settlements policy with periodical revaluations? —I do not see why it should not. 357. Of course, you do not anticipate any interference with the present leases? —No; I do not suppose that any Government would do such a thing. 358. You do not think it possible? —I do not. 359. Is there something in the lease in perpetuity that the ordinary mind cannot understand? —I think some settlers have an idea, or they have been told, that it is insecure, or that there may be revaluation or a Fair Rent Bill that will interfere with the tenure. 360. You are of opinion that what you suggest would be a common-sense lease? —Yes. 361. Mr. Johmton.] You heard the evidence of Mr. Lane: in that case, is it not purely dummyism? —An application was received to take Mrs. Lane in as a tenant-in-common, and, as far as the Land Board kuows, they are holding it as tenants in common. 362. According to the evidence the man has no interest in the section whatever, except that he is there as a dummy? Ido not know that he has no interest. What we know of it as a Land Board is that these two parties hold it as tenants-in-common. 363. Do you consider that is advantageous to the country? —I do not see that there is any objection to it. One of the parties has to reside, and you have a residence on each section in the settlement. You may have a dozen tenants-in-common. 364. Are there many tenants-in-common? —Not a great many. 365. Will you send us a list of the number of tenants-in-common and the monetary interest given to come in as a tenant-in-common ? —I can furnish you with all the information we have about it. 366. What arrears in rent have you got?— They are very light this year. I will send you a list of them. "3G7. Can you give us any idea of the area of land in this district suitable for closer settlement under the Land for Settlements Act? —No. There are estates suitable for close settlement from Woodville down to Napier. I should say it would run into hundreds of thousands of acres, but I would not like to risk naming the area. 368. Do you approve of the present classification of land? —Yes. 369. You call Mahora first-class agricultural land? —Yes. 370. And you call certain parts of Hatuma first-class agricultural land? —Yes. 371. But the land is not of equal quality ? —No, but it is not defined by the Act. Land that is ploughable or fit for cropping is agricultural land. We classify the land as first-, second-, or third-class agricultural land. 372. You would not allow a man more than 640 acres of first-class land? That is so. 373. But is there not a considerable difference between two classes of land that are classified as first-class ? —Yes, they are classified the same, but their price is different. 374. Do you not think the rich flats ought to be classed as one class, and it should go in proportion either to the value of the land or to the cropping-capacity of the land ?—Yes, that would be an advantage. 375. You have no proposition to offer in connection with it? —No. 376. What is the area of Native land in this district?—l could not say, but there is a large area. 377. Is that Native land being used? —In Hawke's Bay most of it is leased, but in Wairoa and Poverty Bay it is not being used for profitable occupation. 378. Do you not think it is a great drawback to settlement when there is so much Native land unoccupied ? —Yes.
C.—4.
1240
JE. C. (i. SMITH.
379. Is there any aggregation of estates going on in this district? —Not that I know of. 380. Is the tendency the other way ? —Yes, lately. 381. In connection with the transfers, has there been any speculation, or are the majority of the transfers genuine? —We can only deal with what is put before us. 382. Have you ever come across any false applications by persons wanting to go in to a ballot? —Very rarely, indeed. 383. Have you come across any misrepresentation as to the amount of their capital? —That is a thing we can hardly check. A man states his capital, and unless we inquire at the bank we cannot tell whether his statement is true or not, and we accept it, 384. Other Boards ask for information and check it ? —I was not aware of that. 385. Do you think it would be advisable to give the educational lessees the freehold and invest the capital value ?—Probably if you could capitalise them and the institutions get the same revenue, it would make no difference. 386. Would it be advisable to do away with the educational reserves, and hand over debentures bearing interest to bring in an amount equivalent to the present rent, and have the reserves administered by the Land Board ? —I think that would be advantageous, and the revenue would not suffer in any way. 387. Have any of your Crown lands or educational endowments been lying idle? —We have some Crown lands in the back of the Motu that have not been brought under the survey. 388. I mean surveyed lands? —No. 389. Mrs. Ross said that the runs at the back had been thrown up? —They have been surrendered lately, and are waiting to be reoffered. 390. Have the rents been increased or reduced in the last few years?— The tendency has been to reduce them. The tenants did not seem to get on with the land, and it was supposed that they might be overvalued. 391. If wool ten years ago was worth 6£d. and to-day is worth 10£ d., why should the rent of these runs be reduced if the capacity is the same?—lt is a matter of whether it is not better to reduce the rents than allow the runs to lie idle. 392. These runs were in occupation? —Yes, not so long ago. 393. Why are they not so readily taken up? —The runs there were given up because the men were prosecuted for rabbits. 394. It is the rabbit nuisance that is deteriorating the value of the land? —Yes. 395. Is the Crown taking steps to eradicate the rabbits? —It is not under my jurisdiction. 396. You have no jurisdiction over what is deteriorating the value of the country?— No. 397. Do you not think that is wrong? —I do not see how it could be remedied. They have Rabbit Boards and Noxious Weeds Inspectors. 398. Do you not think you should have some say in the eradication of pests which interfere with the land from which you get your revenue ? —We do not want to have anything to do with it. 399. Are noxious weeds increasing on Crown lands? —I have heard that they are increasing lately. Californian thistle was not here I Believe some years ago on Crown lands. Of course, steps have been taken to get rid of it. 400. Mr. Ansley.] I think you said that the residence conditions should be enforced where there are reasonable means of access, but not otherwise? —That is so. 401. Do you think the same conditions should apply to people taking up land for cash as well as leaseholds? —I do not think it would be fair. 402. Freeholders should have advantages which the leaseholder has not got? —He has the advantage, any way, that capital gives him. 403. Do you think it is right to give him that advantage?—lf you touch on that you open up the whole question of the advantages that capital has over the poor man. I do not see how you could have compulsory residence on land purchased for cash 404. Do you think that the amount of loading, generally speaking, is enough to give access for the settlements ?—lt is not enough, but it is all we can put on it. ' 405. In what way? —Because it brings the value of the land up so high. The more loading there is for roads the more value you put on the land. 406. Can you not reduce the value of the land? —No. You value the land and then put on the loading. 407. It is valued too high if it will not stand the price of the roading? —That is not so. It is ridiculous to expect the back blocks to be entirely roaded by the amount for which they are loaded. 408. We are talking about giving reasonable access to them. If you have valued the land so high that it will not bear the loading, you must have valued the land too high?—l do not see that. 409. The value of the land is the value of the land plus its roads, is it not? and if you put the capital value so high that it will not bear the cost of the roads it is valued too high to begin with?—lf you were to follow that out it would be all loading. 410. Then vou would know what you are doing. Would not that be better ?—Perhaps it would if you could get the actual money and make the roads at once. 411. Would that not show the actual position of the blocks better than at present? Many of the blocks do not pay half the roading?—lt is never supposed that the loading will make the roads without assistance from some other sources. 412. It makes the roads fit to hand over to the local body?— What do you call a road—a bridletrack ? 413. That might do for a sheep-station? —If you do that the settlers immediately want it open for dray-traffic. People look for better things than a bridle-track now. People in the back blocks have to be content with bride-tracks, whereas macadamised roads are made for those nearer the centres of population.
C—4.
E. C. G. SMITH.]
1241
414. Do you think means of access ought to be given to every block before it is opened at all f —It would be an advantage. 415. AVhat system do you follow in regard to making rebate for rent? I think it is 5 per cent, throughout the district. _ 416. Have you any reason for not making it 10 per cent., the same as other districts?—We did not think it necessary. In fact, for a long time no rebate was given here at all. We had an excellent class of settlers who were paying their rents well, and we did not think there was any occasion to give a rebate, and lose that amount of revenue to the colony. 417. Why have you made a 5-per-cent, rebate when they are paying up so well?— They began to think they were badly treated when all the other parts of the colony were getting it. 418. They began to hang back in payment?—No, they did not. We considered the heavy rates they were otherwise paying, and decided to give the rebate to all the land-for-settlements land. 419. Mr. McCutchan.\ Why did you not make the rebate to tenants under the Land Act of 1892, seeing that they are going through great hardships with regard to roads and other disabilities?—We did not think it necessary. _ 420. Was there any particular reason why the Department did not think it necessary ?—lt is not a matter for the Department. It lies with the Receiver of Crown Revenue and the Commissioner. , 421. I know that, but it seems an extraordinary thing to me that tenants with good roads and living in the front, and whose properties were highly improved when they took them up, should have this rebate at a time when they are getting a high price for their produce, whereas the back settlers get no rebate?— The back settlers do not pay high rates. They do not pay River Board and Harbour Board rates in the back blocks. . , 422. You stated that there were a few cash sales in the district: how do the occupation-with-right-of-purchase leases compare with the lease-in-perpetuity leases in the last few years?— They are keeping pretty even. There is not a great deal of difference. 423. Are you including lease in perpetuity under the Land for Settlements Act in the compare 424. In the Hawke's Bay Land District applications are about even under the Land Act of 1892?— That is so. , , 425. You advocated revaluation every twenty-five or thirty years, the rent to be fixed on the unimproved value? —That is only in regard to land-for-settlement lands. 426. If such a system were brought into operation with regard to the waste lands, do you think men would go on to them? Probably not. 427. Can you say why it is in repaying the loans that are raised under Government Loans to Local Bodies Act the Department charges 7 per cent, as interest and sinking fund?—l the lal)d lawg of the co l o ny offering three tenures—lease in perpetuity, occupation with right of purchase, and cash-in connection with waste lands: we find that in some districts, under the Act of 1892, no such option has been offered, and the settlers had to take up the land under lease-in-perpetuity tenure. A little later some of these sections were forfeited, and these forfeited sections were put up under the optional tenure: do you think that was fair to the original settlers? —No, I do not. _ 429. With the exception of where there are minerals, do you think that all waste lands should be offered under the optional system of tenure?— Yes 430. Do vou think the lease in perpetuity has become unpopular with the community, and that there is some dissatisfaction amongst those who hold that tenure, and that it is desirable to make that tenure as good as freehold if possible? Do you think it is possible to make the people as satisfied under that tenure as under freehold?—l do not think it is possible. I think it is natural for a man to want his freehold, but I do not think that they have the capital to acquire it 431. Do you think they should have the power to make the freehold their own by thrifty living, and therefore out of their savings ?—Yes, ordinary Crown lands. a 0 „i ora 432 I suppose vou must be aware that there is a change now in the Advances to Settlers Department under which both the goodwill and tenant's improvements are valued, and the tenant can get an advance up to half the amount of his goodwill? Do you think that is an acknowledgment by the State that the goodwill belongs to the tenant J-That is a matter I have really not considered ; but the very fact of allowing an advance on goodwill is an acknowledgment that it belongs to the tenant, becaus'e he gets the benefit of the loan. T , „ , . . , . 433 If the goodwill belongs to the tenant, do you think the Land Board is justified in questioning the consideration that passes between the purchaser and the vendor? I imagine that that clause was put in rather to prevent speculation-that is to say transfers were being made very rapidly! and suppose a man only held for twelve months and then transferred, it would appear that at e it fr om a broad standpoint, if the interest and goodwill belong to the tenant, in what way can the State claim the right to interfere with the consideration ?—ln equity they 435 And we like to base our laws on equity? Yes. _ _ _ 436. Therefore, the Land Board should exercise no supervision over the consideration that passes?-NoUn ;n n Rection exceerls the interest of the State, do you think that Land Board supervision should cease?-Not as long as he remains a tenant of the Crown, no matter ho. Act ot MM, <lo vo„ think that . third ot th, purchase-money should go to the local bodies? Yes.
156—C. 4.
1242
[e. c. g. smith.
a—4.
439. Is there a large amount of money in the hands of the Receiver of Land Revenue in Hawke's Bay? —Not to any extent. 440. Mr. l'aul.] With reference to education leases, is it not most likely that they will increase in value in years to come? —Yes, in accordance with other increases. 441. From the point of view of those institutions, do you think it would be wise to interfere with them? —It struck me when I was asked that question that there was a possibility that the lands might increase in value. 442. You were asked the question as to the advisability of restricting the purchase of the freehold to a man's own savings: can you imagine how the State could know whether a man was purchasing the freehold directly out of his savings? —I do not remember being asked that question. 443. The question was asked you, whether it would be advisable to allow lease-in-perpetuity holders to purchase the freehold from their own savings? —I do not remember being asked that question; but if I was asked my own opinion about the lease in perpetuity, I would say they should never be allowed to get the freehold. 444. Do you think it would be possible to know whether a man was purchasing the freehold out of his own savings or out of borrowed money? —I suppose you could ascertain whether he was borrowing the money. 445. Mr. Johnston.] How much, in your opinion, has the value of leasehold increased in this district within the last three years? —I could not say; I have nothing to base an opinion on. 446. Base it on the transfers that have gone through the Land Board? —Transfers that go through the Land Board merely keep about the value of the improvements. They hardly show that the vendors are making anything. James Anderson Kerr re-examined. 447. Mr. Johnston.] You are secretary of the local branch of the Farmers' Union. Was any petition sent to you about the freehold?—-A petition was sent from the colonial president to be signed. Ido not think we got more than twenty or thirty signatures altogether. 448. How many were Crown tenants? —Four, I believe. There are only four members of the branch who are Crown tenants. 449. The petition originated from the headquarters of the Farmers' Union? —The copy came from headquarters, I believe.
Pahiatua, Saturday, 10th June, 1905. Thomas Nestor examined. 1. The Chairman.] Are you a settler in this district?—l have been a farmer for about thirteen years, and lam a member of the Farmers' Union, which had its inception in this place. I hold 1.000 acres of freehold about eight miles from here. 2. What matters do you wish to bring before the Commission ?—First, as to the constitution of the Land Boards, I would stick to the present system, or else do away with them altogether. If you adhere to the present system the selection of members ought to be made from more practical men, and two members of the Board should not belong to the same family, or be closely related to the same family. 3. At present they are nominated : in what other way do you suggest they should be selected ? j would do away with them altogether, and put in their place the Commissioner and his officials. Havinc two members of the same family on the Board creates a feeling of uneasiness in the minds of people who have to do business with the Board. With regard to land-tenures, any tenure from which the right to obtain the freehold is excluded is not at any time acceptable, for the reason that the leaseholders think—and quite rightly—that there is no certainty as to these tenures. The Government of to-day may not be the Government of to-morrow, and something might arise to completely alter the circumstances of that tenure. The keen competition of the world's outside markets allows no room for landlordism, either State or individual. The freehold is a tenure acceptable to the great majority of the producers —to ninety-nine out of every hundred. It is a great incentive for a person to acquire and remain on the land. It will cause better farming, and inculcate in the settler habits of economy and perseverance. A farmer's ambition is to call his farm his own—suppresses speculation, as if the farmer finds that everything belongs to him he will not be anxious to move. It will give a reliable security as to tenure, and create a community of interest amongst farmers, and bring them into line to protect themselves. It will cause more independence in the farmer, and induce him to work his farm to the best advantage. It will do away with harassing restrictions, and the money paid to officials to carry out the regulations, and which he has to pay indirectly, he can place to his own credit to assist his children at some future date who are helping him on his farm. With regard to pressure of residence conditions on Crown tenants, I consider that, wherever possible, compulsory residence should be insisted on. It would be the means of forcing the carrying-out of all conveniences necessary to civilisation, such as education, roads, post and telegraph, &c. With regard to pressure of other restrictions, within reason the farmer is the best judge of what is necessary with regard to improvements, repairs, and cropping. As to cropping, certain soils may be good for cereals and not much good for root crops, or vice versa,; consequently if a farmer was obliged to put in a crop not suitable to the soil it would be very disadvantageous to him and a waste of time and labour. Cropping does not affect the soil, but only the gases in the soil. Still, he should be allowed to grow the most remunerative crop, for it is by turning up the soil and exposing it to the weather, and probably using a suitable artificial manure, that he makes the soil much better and acceptable to receive any crop. As I said, cropping does not affect the soil, but only the gases in
T. NESTOR.!
1243
a—4.
the soil, some of which may be superabundant. With regard to the effects of climate, where it can be shown that the climate is injurious to health and the country is too rough residential occupation should be dispensed with. Then, the homestead privileges would be a good thing. As a great deal of our country is snow-covered for months in the year, sufficient land should be attached to the homestead to tide the stock over the snow season of the year. With regard to the classification of the land, I consider that is a fault, as the areas are too small. In the case of sheep-country a man should have sufficient to graze three thousand sheep, and in the case of dairying, about forty cows. In fixing the area the question of working-expenses and improvements should be taken into consideration. I believe that homestead privileges should be given in the cases I have referred to. As to the ballot system, I think a man should not be compelled to take up land which is unsuitable to the class of farming he wishes to follow. Eegarding the question of loading lands for roads, &c, I think the present system is a mistaken one. What I would suggest in place of it is that an estimate should be given by competent engineers as to the amount required to road a block, and that the amount should be advanced by the Government, under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act, to the local body where the land is situated, and should be expended by that body under the contract system, a special rate being struck and collected by the local body to pay the interest on the loan, in the same way as they do in the case of other loans handed over to them. If necessary the expenditure should be earmarked and spent under the supervision of a Government engineer, or else under a board formed from the settlers interested. If freehold is to be given to the settlers I think the present value should be the assessment for that purpose. I hold that the occupier and the Government in this matter really run in company, and according to the interest of each in the land the unimproved value should be divided accordingly. Then, there is this to be considered in reference to that matter, viz. : I might be the original occupier, but the property may have passed through two or three different hands, and, although I may not have the least idea that it is so, the present occupier may have paid both for the improvements and the unimproved value, and that fact should be taken into consideration. With regard to the working of the Advances to Settlers Department, it has been a good thing for all. No doubt it has given the settlers cheaper money, but it can be improved on in its application to the Crown leaseholder. He should be placed on the same footing as the freeholder by giving him three-fifths of the valuation, less the amount owing to the Government, or less the capital value when he took up the land. With regard to the position and condition of occupiers under the various tenures, there is dissatisfaction in this respect where the freehold is excluded. The areas are to small in many cases to enable a farmer to make a living. lam not in a position to say that there is any aggregation of large estates going on in this district, but there might be a couple of sections here and there to which that might apply. The Commission will know better than Ido on that point. I have no experience as to the question of separate occupations. Under the land-tenures now in existence the lease in perpetuity seems to be the most favoured by the Government and its officials, for all the best lands are classed under that tenure, and a man who desires to obtain the freehold must take up inferior land or be forced to become an occupier under a tenure which is distasteful to him. If the revaluation clause by any means came into the land-tenure it would be worse than the worst class of Irish landlordism, for the reason that the more you improved your property the more you increased what is called the "unearned increment" or" unimproved value." Consequently you would be taxing your own industry, and Ido not think any successful man would allow that. In my opinion, the improved value creates the unimproved value. There are certain things a settler can show as an improvement on his land. He has gone there and put up probably with the hardships of a bad road. He has to pack his tucker on his back and everything needed to work his farm, and you cannot put those things as an improvement on the property. Still, there it is, the man gets no allowance for the hardships he has had to put up with in getting that land into a state of productiveness, and so the only thing that will repay him is by giving him the unearned increment or what some people call the unimproved value. If you grant the freehold under the present valuations, all restrictions are done away with. The occupier will not growl at all, and so far as the loss to the revenue of the country is concerned I think that can be overcome. All the Government has to do is simply to take the capital value, turn it into a mortgage, and probably they will get a little more revenue out of it. They have the same security by turning the capital value into a mortgage. 4. You mean the Government if they allowed the freehold and got the money for the land would lend the money out ?—No. Supposing my capital value is £5 an acre and I am paying interest on that—6s. Take that and turn it into a mortgage. Supposing I had 100 acres valued at £600, I would be quite willing to pay my 15s. in the pound and probably a little more. 5. You would pay the rent and call it interest? —Yes. 6. You would have the name of being a freeholder then ?—Yes, I would have the name, and I should pay off the capital value on the land when I had the money. With regard to workmen's homes, I think that policy is a mistake. I believe the more you can take out of the city the more you will get into it. Instead of relieving the congestion it increases it, as it causes more of the rural population to congregate into the centres. 1 think if this money was expended in taking the surplus labour out of the cities and sending them to the country it would be better. You could take one of the large stations, cut it up, and put those people there as fanners and labourers, and you so relieve the surplus in the cities. I think if the Government were to do that they would be doing more good for the country and humanity. I believe if you took one man out of a house in Wellington you would have two looking after that particular house, and you would at once decrease the number of surplus workers in that centre. 7. With regard to the constitution of the Land Board, you think the Board should be done away with and the administration left entirely to the Commissioner and his Department?—l believe in the present system as long as practical men are put on the Board, but if you do not have
1244
|t. nestoe.
C—4.
practical men on the Board, then I would do away with it altogether, for I cannot see the use of the Boards. There are very few Crown lands in the province at the present time, and I think the Commissioner and his officials should be able to deal with them, making the Miaister responsible to the House. 8. The object of having a Board composed of various members is that you get men from all parts of the district who have a knowledge of the district, and there are many matters in regard to which, of course, the Commissioner is very much assisted by their advice. They are simply an advisory Board?—l admit that fact; but select practical men, and do not have two members of one or nearly the same family on the Board. 9. You are very decided about the freehold?—l am. 10. But you do not advise dispensing with the lease ?—Not at all. I think that it is a step to the freehold. 11. You think there should be no restrictions in regard to cropping?— None. 12. Do you think it would be right in the case of rich lands in the South Island acquired under the Land for Settlements Act to leave the settlers free to take what they like out of the land?— Certainly. If the settler were a farmer he could not injure the soil, because he would very soon renew it. 13. Might it not be possible that he might crop a piece of rich land to death in a few years by keeping it in a high state of cultivation?—ln that case it would be only right to stop him then. 14. Then, you would not do away with all restrictions?—l would provide for a certain amount of discretionary power. 15. Do you think the Government having entered into a contract with you and some thousands of people would be likely to break it, or the Legislature be likely to allow them to do so ? —Not the Government of to-day, but that Government is not the Government of to-morrow, and you do not know what body might be at the head of the country on another occasion. 16. Do you think any British community would repudiate a contract ?—Certainly not as between parties ; but supposing I was a lessee, if I died is the contract not broken then to a certain extent. 17. No ; it goes to your successor?— But it does not, for the very reason that he might have another 640 acres, and is thus debarred from taking up more land. 18. What are your views with regard to taking safeguards to prevent the aggregation of large estates ?—We are against the aggregation of large estates, and I would like to see a law passed to prevent it. The land speculator is a greater drawback to genuine settlement than anything else, or than the aggregation of large estates. The owner of a large estate farms the land, but the speculator farms the occupier. I would like to see such a restriction enacted that if a man at any previous time held land under the Land for Settlements Act he should be debarred for ten years from again applying for land under the Government, the time to be counted from the date he sold or surrendered such land. 19. Would you limit the amount of freehold a man should hold?— Certainly, but I would give him sufficient to make a decent living. The areas at the present time are too small. Six hundred and forty acres of first-class land is too small, more especially in the case of sheep-country. Your classification is at fault also. 20. Sheep-country is generally called second-class country, is it not?— No. We have it here under the first class, 640 acres. We might run from a thousand to twelve hundred sheep on it, and we can make a living now out of it, but three or four years ago we could not do it. It took us all our time to make an existence. 21. Mr. Anstey.] Do you mean to say that the men on the Land Board now are not practical men ?—I will not express an opinion. 22. It is almost a pity you do not do so, because that is one of the main questions we have to inquire into ?—That is going into personalities. 23. Can you give any instance where the administration of the Land Board has been what it ought not to have been ?—None whatever. 24. Then, I take it that the administration of the Land Board is now satisfactory?—l could not give an opinion on that point, because I am not a Crown tenant at the present time. 25. Have you any experience of the Land Board ?—Yes. 26. Is it satisfactory as far as your experience goes? —Undoubtedly. 27. Are there any tenants leasing land from private owners in this district?— Yes. 28. Do you think it would be wise to apply the same principle to them that you advocate for the Crown tenants, that they should have the right to acquire the freehold of their holdings ?—I do. 29. You think the law should be made universal, and that all tenants should be allowed to acquire the freehold ? —I do. 30. With regard to cropping restrictions, you do not do much cropping in this neighbourhood?—No, but I have had a little experience elsewhere. 31. Where?—ln the Home-country. I was born on a farm I have had no experience of cropping in New Zealand. 32. Mr. Johnston.'] Do you represent the Farmers' Union?—l do ; the Pahiatua Branch. 33. Are you giving evidence on your own behalf only ? —I was asked to represent the branch. 34. By resolution? —Yes. James McCaedle examined. 35. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler at Pongaroa. I hold 400 acres—occupation with right of purchase. I have been there three years. I have been a Crown tenant for twenty years, and have held land under deferred payment and perpetual lease. 36. Which tenure do you prefer ?—Deferred payment.
a—4.
J. McCARDLE.]
1245
37. Are you here representing the Pongaroa settlers?— Yes. A public meeting was called, and the following resolutions passed: (1) " That the Land Commission be asked to visit Pongaroa and hold a sitting to take evidence." On behalf of the settlers I wish to enter a protest that the Commission has not visited our locality. This resolution was carried at the meeting, which was attended by about sixty-seven Crown tenants : " That this meeting of Crown tenants is in favour of the freehold tenure." Two members of that meeting voted against the resolution, but one who voted has informed me since that he was a bit hard of hearing and did not understand the resolution, and was really in favour of the option of the freehold. The third resolution is " That the Government have not fulfilled their contract in regard to the making of the roads in this district as promised at the drawing of the original associations." That promise was that the main roads would be metalled, and the by-roads formed. I have here the names of twelve gentlemen who heard the promise made. I need not give you the names. They were asked to attend the Commission if held in Pongaroa, but have not been able to come to Pahiatua on account of the time and distance. The fourth resolution is " That the administration of the Wellington Land Board has been unsatisfactory." Mr. McDonald was also appointed to give evidence at the Commission, and he is here. There are 356 Crown tenants in the district of Pongaroa, and, speaking for them and myself, I wish to say that one of the reasons why we want the freehold is that our interests in the land is about £4 10s., as against the Government's interest of £1 ss. per acre. The Land Boards, in the past have acted anything but justly in a great many cases, but whether wilfully or from want of knowledge I do not know. I should say, from want of knowledge. Here is one case: A man went on his section, felled 150 acres of bush, and put on some fencing improvements. His wife died. He had a family of four children, and he was given two months in which either to forfeit his section unconditionally or else reside. He went to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and asked for permission to live with his family on a 60-acre freehold place he had twenty-three miles away, where his family lived for two years. He asked to be exempted from residence on the other section, but the Commissioner told him that if in two months' time he did not reside on the section in question it would be forfeited unconditionally. 38. How long ago was that ? —Some years ago. I could give you the man's name privately. In another case a man asked for a transfer. The man he was transferring to was eligible to hold the land, and the man who was selling had complied with all conditions ; therefore at law one would have thought he would have been able to get his transfer, but owing to a letter written by another resident in the locality the Land Board refused to grant the transfer of this settler. Another settler in there had his section forfeited. He wrote to the Commissioner of Crown Lands —this was some years ago—who replied that unless he paid his rent the section would be forfeited. He had over £300 of improvements and over half a year's rent in arrears. The settler did not receive the Commissioner's letter. He lived in an out-of-the-way place and did not receive the reply. In the meantime the Land Board said that because he had not been courteous enough to reply to the letter they would forfeit his section. The settler had meanwhile sent a cheque for his rent, and the Receiver of Land Revenue had the money in hand. In the meantime his section had been forfeited, but as soon as the Commissioner of Crown Lands became acquainted with the fact that the money had been sent he brought it before the Board, and they rescinded the forfeiture. Another settler was a contractor, or away on a contract. A bush-fire burnt his dwelling while he was away on this contract. The Land Board held a meeting, and the section was forfeited. As soon as the man heard his section had been forfeited he went home and said, " I will give you £200 for the interest in this section if you can get the Board to rescind the forfeiture." The Board decided that they could not rescind the forfeiture, and the section was put up on the morrow loaded with £110 improvements. Although this man had offered £200 for it, the man who owns it now actually got it in the ballot for £110. Another matter is that Crown tenants in arrears with their rent have had their names published in the public Press—the New Zealand Times aud Evening Post as though they were common criminals. In one case a settler was told that they would give him to the end of March to sell his stock and pay up the arrears of rent. This is very hard on a struggling settler dependent on the auctioneer for accommodation and the storekeeper for stores. Credit is one of the mainstays of a bush settler. Another settler wrote to the Land Board expostulating on the fact that his name was published in the Press, and the Land Board at their meeting read his letter out, and it was published on the same day. At the same time one of the members of the Board said, " If Mr. So-and-so paid his arrears he would save himself the trouble of having his name put in print." 39. Mr. Johnston.] I hope the names and dates connected with these accusations will be forthcoming, because it is a"very serious matter to have these accusations made without there being some chance of repudiating them. Have you the names and the dates ? —I will give you the names in every instance, but the dates I am unable to furnish, because these happened in years gone by, and it is hard to get the dates. I am not here to bring any charge against the members of the Land Board, but to criticize their administration generally. When the settlers passed that resolution they, of course, have to bring some evidence to show that their case is good. 40. The Chairman.] I think those cases date pretty far back ?—Some of them are some years back, generally before the present Land Board were in office, but some have happened under the present Land Board as at present constituted. There is another matter in regard to which the original settlers in Pongaroa have a great hardship. All the Pongaroa was settled under the Special Settlements Act. A settler can take up any area up to 320 acres under that Act on the lease in perpetuity. These settlers have this to put up with : There is a man there who had 320 acres, and after taking up the section and doing certain improvements, he found he was charged £1 15s. an acre. His neighbours had to pay the same price. Some of the other settlers adjoining threw their allotments up. The Government revalued that land after it was forfeited, and instead of being put into the market at the same money they put it in at 17s. 6d. A man with the right of purchase can hold up to 2,000 acres, and that is the injustice that the original settlers in that district have to
1246
C—4.
[j. McOARDLE.
put up with. The first settlers are restricted to 320 acres ; they have the original valuation to pay and no right of purchase, but the people who go in for the sections that are forfeited get the land at a reduced price. This man was informed that he was allowed to hold only 320 acres of bush land, but his neighbour could take up 2,000 acres, and has the right of purchase, and gets the land for half the price. There have been cases also where Crown tenants have had to take cases to the Supreme Court to prove that the construction that the Land Board put on their applications was wrong, and they have beaten the Land Board, but at great expense to themselves. There was one case which occurred at Feilding where a man had to take his case to the Supreme Court because the Land Board insisted that his wife, family, and himself should live on the land. The Judge ruled that his wife and family need not live on the land with him. 41. Mr. Johnston.] What was the name? —Thomson, Feilding. 42. The Chairman.] Do you think the present constitution of Land Boards is satisfactory, or should it be altered?—l think it is a good system ; but, looking at the interest of the Crown tenants in the land—in the case of bush country it is three times as great as the Government's interest— they should have equal representation on the Board with the Government. The Board should be partly appointed by the Crown tenants and partly by the Government. In the past the members of the Land Board have been put there because the Minister of Lands may have a pet theory of his own and wished that any member of the Land Board who was appointed by him should hold the same opinions. 43. On what franchise would you elect the members of the Board ?—I think the election should be by the Crown tenants themselves. But we do not want the whole of the Board. 44. On what franchise would you elect them ?•—All Crown tenants to have a vote. 45. Are the residence conditions too restrictive?— Yes, I think they are. When a road is made to the section it is time enough to expect a man to take his wife and family on to that section. If a man goes on to a bush section he must employ labour to work that section and to secure his full improvements, but when he gets the road it is time enough for the Board to insist on his residing there. 46. The term " road "is a very wide one ?—I mean a formed road—a dray-road. 47. Would you expect it to be metalled ? —No. 48. Are there any other restrictions that Crown tenants suffer under ?—I think the cropping restrictions should hardly apply to bush land. At present a business man in town is absolutely debarred from taking up bush land or Crown land, because he must reside on it. Under the old perpetual lease a business man could put on double the improvements, and he was allowed to hold the lease. It was a good thing, because it was the means of helping men on adjoining sections who wanted work. Labour in the locality got employment, which was a big help to settlers who were occupying adjoining sections. 49. You think a town resident should be allowed to take up land on non-residence conditions, but with double improvements ? —Yes. 50. What is your opinion of the working of the ballot system ?—I think it is a fair one, but a good many are unfortunate. I have drawn myself, but have not got any land. 51. What about the loading of lands for roads P—ln the Pongaroa the Government charge was ss. per acre for roads. In the case of my section there is £100 loading, and I paid £45 for rates, but it is impossible to get to that section except on horseback. In bringing sheep out to shear them I lost forty-three on the road through the mud. 52. Was the money actually expended ?—I think so. We contracted with the Government that the main roads should be metalled and the by-roads formed. They had not completed a single road, but are compelling the County Council to take over the roads. 53. Was the money badly expended?—l believe a contractor would do the work as it has been done in the past for a good deal less money. It was done under the co-operative system. They went at it in an amateurish way, but since Mr. Nathan has been placed in charge the money has been expended to greater advantage. 54. Has there been any increase in the value of leaseholds in your district ?—Very little. I think if you put the improvements made by the tenants against the value which you get for them the settlers throughout the district would be out of pocket. 55. Have you ever had any experience of the advances to settlers?—l have met other tenants who have applied for advances, and in one instance a man with 400 acres was only offered £200 on it. Since then he has borrowed £2 an acre on the same block. I have never applied myself for a loan from them. In the case I refer to where they offered the man 10s. an acre it may have been that they were short of funds at the time. 56. Is there any aggregation of large estates here ? —No. In the old days there was one large estate here—the Balfour Estate —but it is being sold by the owners themselves. They have sold 1,000 acres, and I think they held 5,000 acres originally. 57. Is there any other matter you wish to bring up ?—Yes; the Rakaunui settlers, which is part of Pongaroa, have sent me the following letter which I will read to the Commission: — " Mr. James McCardle, Pahiatua. Rakaunui, 9th June, 1905. " Crown tenants here are unanimous in desire for option of freehold at original valuation. The cost of improvements is greatly underestimated by Valuation Department, no allowance being made for the cost of resowing and damage caused by bush-fires, and re-erection of fences until timber is cleared and land finished slipping. Tenants favour the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system. Also object to action of Government in loading land for roading purposes and not fulfilling their contract; thereby isolating us in winter and causing us to raise heavy rates for road construction and metalling, which we can ill afford. Great disappointment is felt at the Commission not sitting in Pongaroa. The mail is closing or we would say much more." [Signed by fourteen Crown tenants.]
1247
J. MCCAEDLE. !
0.—4.
58. Mr. Paul.] When was this Pongaroa Block opened ?—About twelve years ago. 59. What Commissioner made the promise about the roads ? —Mr. Baker. 60. You say you are not sure whether the whole of the loading has been spent or not ?—I am not sure. I have never gone into the figures. 61. Did the settlers do the roadwork?—Yes; they did a lot of work ou the roads. 62. Have you had any further experience of closer settlement under the land-for-settlements policy further south?— No. 63. You confine your evidence to the conditions of bush settlement ?—Yes. 64. In your opinion, was the deferred-payment system a better one than the occupation with right of purchase?—l do not think it was really better, excepting that a man could purchase as soon as he had done his improvements, while under the occupation with right of purchase he must wait ten years whether he does his improvements or not. I thmk the Government should encourage all settlers to get their improvements fully completed. Then the Land Board and Banger would be done with the Crown tenant, and the latter ought to be able to demand his freehold. Under the present position he has to wait ten years before he can make his place his freehold, but if he does the improvements in five years he ought to be able to get it. 65. Out of these sixty-seven settlers who were present at your meeting, how many were lease-in-perpetuity holders?—l could not say, but there are 356 Crown tenants in Pongaroa. 66. What was the total number of settlers on the block?— Three hundred and fifty-six as near as I can ascertain. 67. Has the administration of the Wellington Land Board ever been satisfactory?—l think it never will be until you get practical men on the Board. In the past it has not been satisfactory. 68. It has neuer been satisfactory ?—No. 69. How many members of the present Board do you think are practical men?— There are no men on the Board who have gone through what the Crown tenants in this district have gone through. 70. When you say there is a section of the Wellington Land Board who are not practical men, you mean they have never gone through the vicissitudes of the bush settlers?— That is so. 71. Which do you consider the most important question to the Pongaroa Settlement—roads or tenure ?—Boads. 72. The complaint of the settlers is that the promises in respect to roads have not been kept? —Yes; and the tenants have, naturally, grave doubts about the Government. When the Government has broken a promise with respect to roads the settlers begin to feel that the next thing will be that their lease will be interfered with. 73. Could you give the Commission the exact nature of the promise ?—There are twelve names to the document, and there are persons present who heard the promise made. One witness will be able to say that the reply was the road would be carried out before he was ready to go on the land. 74. There could be no misconception that a certain amount of money had been set apart for loading and that would be expended?— No. 75. Mr. Anstey.] How much of the road to Pongaroa is metalled?— Some of it has been done by the county and some by the Government. Four miles have not been metalled. 76. Does the promise extend to all the main roads?—lt is just as much a main road to Masterton as it is to Pahiatua. 77. A main road is not a main road until it is declared to be one?— Then, Ido not think there are any main roads in this locality. 78. If there are no main roads, then, there is no broken promise ?—I say there are main roads. The road from Pahiatua to Pongaroa is a main road, and there are other main roads. 79. How much of these by-roads is formed ?—There are a good many miles formed. In the case of one road the settlers raised a loan of £1,800 under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, and I am paying £5 2s. a year on that special loan. We are doing that out of our own pockets. We are borrowing the money at 3J per cent., and a repaying it off in forty-one years. When we applied to the Government to form the road so that we might metal it they would not give us one shilling. 80. Have there been any grants spent there? —Yes; but I could not state the amount— probably some thousands. 81. Has all the amount of loading been expended?— Yes. 82. And probably a lot more ?—Probably. 83. Can you give us any scheme whereby your roads can be kept in proper order?—lf the Government will give us a large enough grant it would do. I think there should be some scheme by which one-half the rent paid to the Government should go as a sinking fund towards the construction and maintenance of the roads. If that were done the roads would be constructed in a short time, instead of, as at present, dragging along year after year. There are women and children living on some of the sections in these back blocks who are almost living uncivilised lives. I reckon that this is one of the greatest hardships the bush settler and his family have to put up with. 84. Do you think it would be wise on the part of the Government to provide a suitable subsidy on the rates raised locally?—I think the proper thing would be that the money ought to come out of the rent in the first place. When you take up a bush section there is, perhaps, ss. an acre of loading for roads. When we took up our land we thought the Government would make the roads, as promised. Now lam paying £15 a year for roads that I understood the Government were going to construct. 85. The amount of loading would not put the roads in order?—No; I think the loading is a mistake. The bush land is not producing anything, and in order to make it produce something
C—4.
1248
[j. MCCAKDLE.
you must have a road. It would pay the Government to make the roads, because it would mean an increase in our exports, and it would take some of the surplus labour from the labour-market. I think it would be better if half the rent were taken and devoted to the making of roads in the way I have stated. 86. Would not that simply be loading? Would it not be much better to borrow the necessary money rather than load the land with an inadequate sum and trust to Providence for the rest?—l think it would be much better if the work could be done straight away, and thus give access to the land, instead of spending the money in small sums as at present. 87. Mr. Johnston.'] Would you give the tenants under the Land for Settlements Act the freehold ?—I do not know that they have much to complain of. At any rate, they have less to complain of than the bush settlers. 88. There are 365 Crown tenants in your block, and sixty-seven attended the meeting : were the others represented by proxies ? —The roads were too bad for the others to attend. 89. Was that meeting held under the auspices of the Farmers' Union?—No; it was a meeting of Crown tenants. 90. In the bush settlements are there not a lot of improvements that are not visible when a valuation is made ? —Yes. 91. You say you would give the certificate of title to a tenant when his improvements were completed, instead of keeping him for ten years : would not that lead to speculation ?—After all farming is only speculation, and a man who goes into a place in the bush does not go there unless he thinks he is going to make something out of it. 92. Do you not think it wcuild be against the occupation of the land by genuine settlers ?—I do not think so—if you gave them five years. A man with cash can buy the laud, and as soon as his improvements are done he gets his title—perhaps in six months. It is the man who has the cash who is the speculator. 93. Can settlers get as much money on mortgage privately as the Advances to Settlers Department will give them ?—They can get more. 94. What are your rates per acre?—ld. in the pound. 95. What are your total rates per acre?—l am paying 2d. in the pound, and my valuation is something like £1,300. 96. Are the settlers who were charged £1 15s. for their land capitalised still paying that?— Yes. 97. And the other settlers alongside them are still paying 17s. 6d. ?—Yes. 98. Have representations been made to the Government about it?—We were waiting for this Commission. I cannot say whether other representations have been made. I think, however, the Government have been approached in past years, but it takes a long time to get anything done. 99. W 7 hat did the Land Board say ?—The Land Board could not rectify it. 100. Was not your father on the Land Board for a long time?— They put him off because he was too much in favour of the freehold, I think. 101. There is nothing to justify the great difference in the charges?— No. 102. Did the settlers petition for a reduction at all ?—Some settlers did, and they were informed that the rule was they must throw their sections up for a year, and if at the end of that time no one else took them up they were allowed to take them up themselves. 103. Would you be in favour of the freehold being given to tenants on education reserve and other endowments ?—I have often thought that a man who took up a section on an education reserve was a bit foolish. I think they ought to get more valuation for improvements ; and I think that settlers taking up bush sections should have the right of the freehold, because the interest of those settlers in the land is much greater than the original value of the land. 104. Mr. McCutchan.] In reference to the sections which were forfeited, can you say why the optional tenure was not given in the first place? —The original tenants who were under the Special Settlements Act sent in their names to the Minister of Lands. Subsequently the land was allowed to be taken up so long as the settlers did not hold more than a certain area. 105. The hardship is that when the sections were forfeited the incoming tenant had a choice of tenure?— Yes. 106. With reference to the road question, do you think the confusion that exists as to what is a main road in this district is due to the faulty classification of roads?— Yes. 107. Are you acquainted with the Publie Works Act?— No. 108. I suppose you are aware that a road becomes a county road as soon as the surveyor puts the pegs in ?—Yes. 109. Do you think that is right?— No. 110. Do you think that a road should remain a Government road until the Goverment expenditure upon it ceases?— Yes. 111. And then should be vested in the County Council by Gazette notice?— Yes. We would be satisfied if the Government formed the by-roads and metalled the main roads. 112. You advocate that the Government should bring the roads up to that condition before handing them over?— Yes; the Government, above all, should keep the promise they have made. 113. Why do you prefer the deferred-payment system to the right of purchase ?—I think ten years is too long to keep a man waiting. A man can borrow money to much better advantage if he can get his deeds and hand them' over as security. 114. Do you not think that would be playing into the hands of the man with money ?—A man with money at the present time can take up land for cash. 115. Is not the proper way to rectify that evil to make the cash man fulfil residence conditions the same as the leaseholder ? —To my knowledge there has been little or no speculation in land from the back of Paketere Range—very little buying out or selling to advantage.
J. MCCARDLE.]
1249
C.—4.
116. You used the argument that because the tenant has greater interest in the improvements, as against the Government's interest, that he should have the right of purchase : does that lessen the claim of the Government to retain the position it now occupies?— The tenant's interest is sometimes more than three times that of the State. My opinion is that after five years if the tenant fulfilled the conditions he should have the right of acquiring the freehold, so that he would become a free and independent man. 117. Do you think the Land Board should exercise any supervision over the consideration given after a section is sold?— The Land Board's duty should be to help the tenant who is unable to help himself. If a Crown tenant is unable to comply with the conditions the Land Board should say to him, " There is no good you trying to go on, and as soon as you can get a man to buy you out we will give you a transfer." 118. You complain of publicity in connection with defaulters : is there publicity in connection with mortgages?— No. 119. You think no good purpose is served by publishing the names of tenants in arrears with their rent ?—That is so. 120. You say that it militates very much against the settler's interest in lowering his credit ?— Yes. 121. In regard to the £1,800 which the settlers raised under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, was that raised to metal a portion of the road which the Government promised to metal when the land was taken up ?—Yes. 122. Is there any difference in the value of, or inquiry for, occupation-with-right-of-purchase sections or lease-in-perpetuity sections in this district ?—Yes. 123. Which is looked upon wifh the most favour?— The occupation with right of purchase. 124. Can you say if private money-lenders will lend more on occupation-with-right-of-purchase sections than on lease-in-perpetuity sections ?—Yes. 125. Do you know if the Advances to Settlers Department discriminates between occupation with right of purchase and lease in perpetuity ?—I have not heard of them doing so. James Donald examined. 126. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler at Pongaroa. I hold 20 acres under lease in perpetuity and 259 acres under occupation with right of purchase. I have come here with Mr. McCardle to give evidence before the Commission. I have heard what he said, and, generally speaking, I indorse his statements. There was one thing that Ido not think he was quite right in. Instead of the land being loaded with ss. an acre for roading lam informed it was 6s. I was not at the original meeting. The meeting was called at Pongaroa. Sixty-seven settlers were present, and they were nearly unanimous in favour of the freehold, and Mr. McCardle, Mr. Nelson, and myself were appointed delegates to attend and give evidence before the Commission. As I said, I indorse nearly everything Mr. McCardle has said, but I do not think he made enough of the advances-to-settlers question. I might mention a case in point: A friend of mine had three hundred pounds' worth of improvements on his section—a 20-acre section—and his house was insured for £130. He applied for an advance of £150, and paid the usual valuation fee of one guinea to the Department. A valuation of the property was made, and I believe it was satisfactory. The Department, however, only agreed to let him have £90, and then they wrote to the insurance agent, telling him to see the settler and say he would have to insure for £150 more before they would advance him the £90. He wanted the money at the time, and he had to take the £90. His interest in the section was £300, and the interest of the Government was only £40. I do not consider that fair. Some months ago we saw by the newspapers that the Premier had announced that it was the intention to advance up to three-fifths of the settlers' interest in the case of Crown tenants, and this settler wrote to the Department about it. A reply was received stating that if he sent in an application he would have to forward another fee of 10s. 6d. and then his application would be considered. The Department had already valued the property and wanted him to pay another fee for a fresh valuation, and they added that whether they advanced him 50 per cent, on improvements was a matter entirely at the discretion of the Board. In respect to the freehold, the settlers are unanimous, or nearly so, in favour of it, and I consider that any Crown tenant who has any sense would approve of the right of the freehold being given. One reason is this : that there is a chance of a Fair Bent Bill being passed. Some people do not believe that the Government will alter the present tenure or increase the rents, but I understand that one of the ablest solicitors in New Zealand has given his opinion that if the Fair Bent Bill is passed the Government could revalue a holding every twelve months, and we do not doubt but they would. The present party in power might not do so, but we do not know who may come into power after them. We want security of tenure, and I think the most secure tenure you can get is the freehold, although it is not always secure. I could mention other cases to show that the occupation with right of purchase is the better tenure of the two. 127. Have you had any personal experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ?—No. 128. Mr. Paul.] What are the legal charges for a loan from the Advances to Settlers Department as compared with a loan from a mortgage company?—l have not had personal experience myself, but in the case of a neighbour of mine it cost him £3-odd to get £97. 129. What would it cost him to get £450 from a private firm ?—£B, I think. 130. What was the name of the solicitor who said that the Fair Bent Bill would be retroactive in its effect ?—I think it was Sir Bobqrt Stout. I have that opinion referred to in print here. 131. On glancing at the printed slip I see it is a reference made in a letter written by some one else ?—I do not think the writer would say anything that is not true. 132. You have a good road to Pongaroa for most of the year? —We have in the summer-time, but from this time on there is six miles of road that is nearly unfit for wheel traffic.
157—0, 4,
C.—4.
1250
[j. DONALD.
133. Does the mail-coach go through to Pongaroa regularly during the winter months ?— No. Ido not think the coach has gone through for the last month. 134. What do you suggest would be the proper way to get the road done ?—The proper way would have been, in the first place, for the Government to have kept its promise to form and metal the main roads and to form the by-roads. 135. Where could they get the money to do it with ? —They loaded the land for the purpose. 136. Is 6s. an acre enough for the purpose?—lt depends upon who has the spending of the money. I think that 6s. would have gone a long way towards it. 137. What scheme do you propose for completing the metalling of these main roads?—l propose that the settlers should raise a loan and that the Government should give them £1 for £1. 138. Would the settlers at Pongaroa be prepared to rate themselves sufficiently, together with the subsidy of £1 for £1 from the Government, to complete this road ? —We are going to call a meeting to see if we can do so. I and some others would agree to it. I cannot speak for the whole district, but I think they would be in favour of it. We cannot get our sheep out in the winter— I am referring to fat sheep —without the greatest trouble, and buyers will not take them owing to their being so knocked about. 139. Mr. Johnston.] What is your rental ? —On the occupation with right of purchase 5 per cent, on £1 ss. an acre (£7 ss. the half-year), and in the case of the lease-in-perpetuity section the rent is 4 per cent, on £1 12s. an acre. 140. Could you have taken up your land if it had been freehold ?—I could have taken it up under deferred payment or occupation with right of purchase. I was in a position to purchase it clean out at the time. 141. Mr. McGutchan.] There seems to be a good deal of dissatisfaction with the loading of the land for roads, and the question is how to remove that dissatisfaction. If the settlers were allowed to pay off the amount at 5 per cent, the principal and interest would be extinguished in twenty-six years :do you think that would be a good method ?—I think it would be a very good thing. It seems very feasible. 142. Have you carefully looked at that opinion of Sir Robert Stout's?—No; I only got it from a neighbour yesterday morning. 143. Reading the opinion hastily and reading the letter it seems to me that there is quite an erroneous construction put on the opinion. There is nothing in that opinion as far as I have read it to show that any Pair Rent Bill would have a retroactive effect. Do you think that any Government bringing in a Fair Rent Bill to periodically revalue other leases to be issued in the future or to have a retroactive effect could retain power for any continued period?— Yes, very likely; because the people who vote for a Government that would do that are landless people, and they are in a majority and therefore can drive the Government. 144. We have a Government in power who have brought in land legislation, and they are themselves administering their own legislation : do you think it is likely that such a Government would be so foolish as to bring in so radical a change as mentioned in that Fair Rent Bill?— You cannot say what will be done in the future, and perhaps at no far distant date. 145. You do not fear the bona fides of the present Government with regard to the tenants? —No. 146. You fear that the Trades and Labour Council would be the power that would carry that into effect ?—Certainly. 147. Do you think they have sufficient power to do that?— They can put in their own men, and if the present Government will not do it they will put another Government in that will. 148. The settlers would resist any such movement, and you must also recollect that there is a very large body of honest people outside of the settlers who would oppose such a change just as strenuously as the settlers themselves. In the face of that, do you think that any portion of the community could carry such a proposal into effect?— There are so many people in the large centres whow ould not believe if told the hardships that the settlers in the back blocks suffer under, and public opinion in the towns carries them with it, and there is no doubt that a great many people will vote because their neighbour votes in a particular way. 149. Mr. Paul.] Could such a party injure the settler without injuring the towns : is not there an independence between the settler and the towns, and if you injure one is not the other bound to feel it ?—Certainly. George Baillie examined. 150. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and I come from Kumeroa, where I have 79 acres, for which I pay £63 per annum. I am dairying. I have been there about three years. The settlement is getting on fairly well. It is about thirteen miles from here. 151. What have you to say?— There was a meeting of settlers held at Kumeroa, and this statement of their views was agreed to, and signed by ten settlers : " We, the undersigned settlers of the Kumeroa Settlement, hereby wish to express our views on the various subjects herein enumerated: —(l.) The constitution of Land Boards : We are of opinion that at least one member of each Land Board should be elected from among Crown tenants by ballot at the general elections; and, further, that all members of Land Boards, other than the Commissioner, should belong to the farming community. (2.) That we hereby petition the Government to grant the option of right of purchase on all land held by Crown tenants on the original value—i.e., the value on which rents are now paid. (3.) That the residential clauses as now existing should be so altered as to allow a man to take up more land at any future time up to the recognised limit of 640 acres of first-class or 2,000 acres of second-class land, whether contiguous to his present holding or not. (4.) That the restrictions on cropping at present applied to special settlements be greatly modified. (5.) That exception be taken to the
G. BAILLIE.]
1251
C—4.
present system of grouping of sections for the purpose of balloting. (6.) We are not in favour of any lands being loaded for the purpose of roading unless such roads be completed before the lands be disposed of. (7.) That any additional value the land in the Kumeroa Settlement may have is due to improvements made by the settlers themselves. (8.) We are of opinion that half the value of improvements will be a fair advance to make to all settlers requiring monetary assistance. (9.) We are of the opinion that a duplicate of lease should be issued free of charge at the time that the lease between the Crown and its tenants is signed." 152. Mr. Paul.'] There is a proposal now to allow the Advances to Settlers to advance up to three-fifths of a man's improvements and to half of his goodwill: do you approve of that ? —Yes. 153. Then, why do you say in your statement that half the value of improvements would be a fair advance to make ? —The meeting carried that. 154. You do not recognise that the landless and the citizens in the towns have a right to a voice in the Land Board ?—I do not think they know anything about land. 155. The land is the national estate, and surely every man in the country has a right to say how it is to be disposed of and managed ?—Yes; but sometimes it is to the disadvantage of the man who understands farming. 156. If three of the members of the Land Board were farmers, one of whom was a Crown tenant, and a fool comes in as a fourth member, would not the other three outvote him every time ? —Yes. 157. There is no harm, then, in having a man on the Land Board who does not understand farming?— No. James Cabolan examined. 158. The Chairman.] What aue you ?—I am a farmer with 250 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Pongaroa Settlement. I pay £12 10s. per annum rent. I have been there eleven years. I agree generally with what the other settlers from Pongaroa have said. I think that the Crown tenants ought to have the right to appoint two out of the five members of the Land Board. One matter that I would like to bring before the Commission is that of transfers. Cases have occurred, and I have seen it in cold print, where the Land Board has refused to pass a transfer because they thought the tenant was getting too much for his improvements. I think the man is entitled to get all the money he can, and that belongs to him. The residential conditions are very unjustly enforced. I know of one case where a man has an educational lease, on which he has a cottage, and has effected other improvements. The section next to him, which is under the Land Board on the village system, was offered to him, and he secured it and got a transfer. Shortly afterwards he got notice to reside on the new section, and they actually tried to compel him to remove his house on to it, although it was only situated about 20 chains from it. I brought the case under the notice of the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, who saw the place, and said he would lav the matter before the Minister of Lands and see if there could not be some redress. I have not heard how things have got on since, but the man still lives on the education leasehold. We pay on a ss. or 6s. per acre loading, and we also pay Id. in the pound to the local body, and we get very little for either. We were led to believe that the Government would make the roads and metal the main road, but before they were completed they had them gazetted and handed them over to the local body. There is about twelve miles of the main Pongaroa Road in the Akitio County, and the Government have metalled about seven miles; but in a great many places they did not put in sufficient culverts, and the water washed away the metal. The County Council, of which lam a member, considered they had no redress, and took over the road after much hesitation. A little later the Government gazetted the Alfredton and Weber Boad as a county road, and the Council, reckoning that they had not much chance in fighting the Government, have taken it over. In this case again sufficient culverts were not put in, and slips on the road and banks have occurred in consequence. The Government has also gazetted other roads which the County Council should never have taken over, but they wrote to the Department, but could get no redress. I suggest that the Government should give us a grant to make these main roads, and the settlers contribute by rate to help to metal them. We have to get in our stores in March or April before the roads break up for the winter, and that means an outlay of £50 or £100 for a man with a family. Not only that, but he has to pay more for his goods than the man outside pays, and his cost of living is directly increased by the fact of the bad roads. He is also unable to take advantage of fluctuating markets, through not being able to get his stock out. There is about forty-five miles of main roads in our county, of which about eleven is metalled. About eight miles of that was done by the Government, but of course it got out of repair. There is ouly one metal-pit in the county of any value, and burned papa is used as a substitute. That acts well where the country is dry, but in places where it is not exposed to the weather it gets very soft in the winter-time. It costs about 7s. per yard for metalling with papa. I think that the Government should make and maintain the main roads out of the general revenue, because a great many people outside ratepayers derive a great benefit from them in travelling and in the carrying-on of their businesses. In regard to the byroads, which only serve the people residing on them practically, I think they should be metalled out of loans raised by the settlers. On main roads, where it costs £560 a mile, it is difficult for the settler to do it. 159. Mr. Paul.] Is the present method of piecemeal construction inimical to the people ?— Very little of it is done now, but in the past it was piecemeal and did not give value for the expenditure. 160. You think a more progressive policy should be pursued in the making of roads ?—Yes. 161. What rebate do you get on your rent for prompt payment ?—lO per cent. 162. Mr. Anstey.] Do you know anything about the promise to the Pongaroa settlers for the opening of the road ? —I understood from the start that that promise was made. I was not there.
C.-4.
1252
[j. CAROL Att.
163. What constitutes a main road ?—A road leading between two recognised centres. 164. It is not a main road until it is declared a main road ?—That is so. But these roads were handed over to the County Council and declared main roads. 165. When were they gazetted?— Some were gazetted twelve months ago, and others six months ago. 166. The promise only referred to main roads ?—lt would be a quibble to get out of it. 167. The promise could be held to refer to only one main road?—l always understood that there were to be two main roads. 168. Was there a promise? —I cannot say; I have only heard so. 169. Are you rated on the capital or unimproved value ?—On both. We have taken a poll lately, and we are to be rated on the unimproved value. We do not believe in taxing industry. We do not know how it will pan out. 170. What has been your total rate in the pound?—ld. on the capital value. 171. It will be higher on the unimproved?— Very likely. 172. You said that the cost of burning papa was 7s. a yard. We were given to understand that you were doing it cheaper ?—lt costs 4s. 6d. or ss. to burn it, but the expense of putting it on the road brings it up to 7s. 173. You said that the main roads should be formed and maintained out of general revenue : would you apply that to all main roads all over the colony?— Yes. 174. Would you include main streets in the cities?— Except where corporations or private companies put down tramways, and they should be liable for a portion of expenditure. 175. Do you not think that would be rather a large order for the Government?— Yes. 176. Do you not think bodies could do it much cheaper?— Yes; but the Government should give the money, and the taxation would bear more equally all over. 177. Do you think it a wise thing to get Government grants to assist local bodies?— Yes. 178. Do you think that each of the local bodies would get fair treatment ?—There might be room for improvement in many cases 179. Do you not think that Government grants depend at times on political influence ?— Things are not always what they appear, but it does appear that that is sometimes the case. 180. Do you not think it would be better to get substantial subsidies on your rates than to depend on Government grants, which are more or less erratic ?—Yes. 181. Could you do without grants, then ?—No, Ido not think we could. There are some things of an urgent nature that may require a grant at any time. 182. Mr. Johnston.'] Did you anticipate a change in the tenure to freehold after you took up this section?— No. 183. You were satisfied when you took it up ?—I was satisfied as far as I knew it. I thought I could give it up if I wanted to. The Board, it appears to me, claims that the increment belongs to the Crown. 184. How do they claim it?—l have known instances were men tried to transfer sections and the Board refused to sanction it because the price being given for the improvements was too high. 185. Do you not think that is a just thing to do in the interests of the country ? Have you ever known cases where land was bought at too high a price and the Government has had to reduce the rent? —Yes. 186. Do you not think the Board is acting in the same way when they refuse transfers because they consider the amount being given for tLe goodwill is too high and that the man would not be able to pay the rent after paying so much capital away ?—Where two people agree to pay a certain price for a right in a section, and the person buying has not more land than he is legally entitled to, the Board has got no right to interfere. 187. Supposing a man is not paying more than the land is worth, do you not think the Board is justified in refusing the transfer?—No ; it is a matter of business, and the Board should have no jurisdiction over it. 188. The Board should take anybody has a tenant, and if he does not pay the rent they could put him out ?—I suppose they would. 189. Why should a settler on a by-road be made to maintain his road while a settler on the main road does not maintain his? Is that just?— The Government should maintain the main roads. 190. Mr. McGutchan.] Seeing that the tenant's interest in the section is so much greater than that of the State, do you think that the interest of the State is jeopardized at all no matter what passes between the vendor and the purchaser?—No, I do not. 191. You think that the Land Board's supervision over what passes in the transfer of these sections should cease?— Yes. 192. Do you think that a man who holds a section under any tenure whatever which is too small to enable him to make a living should be allowed to take up another section and be exempt from residence on it ?—Yes ; subject to the discretion of the Land Board. 193. Is the papa convenient to the road in your county ?—Yes. 194. Is the firewood convenient ?—They have to cart in 3ome places. 195. What time does it take to burn the papa from the time the fires are lit ?—Three or four days burns it, and it requires a week to cool it afterwards. 196. What is the length of the Makuri to Pongaroa Road in your district ?—Seventeen miles. 197. Do you know how much-has been spent on that road?— No. Edward Johns examined. 198. The Chairman.] What are are you ?—I am a farmer holding 200 acres mder lease in perpetuity, for which lam paying £12 a year. It is at Puketoi, in the Pongaroa district. I indorse most of the evidence that has been given by the Pongaroa settlers, but I would like to make some
E. JOHNS.]
1253
C—4.
explanation. I think that farmers ought to have more say in regard to Land Boards, and I think they should be allowed to elect three members, the Government to nominate the fourth one. The Government own the bush lands, but they have got very little interest in them, because we have practically made the roads so far as they are made, and also improved the land. The Government have not got a third interest. 199. What is your opinion as to tenure ?—I think the lease in perpetuity is a great injustice to men like myself and others who went out into the dense bush sixty miles from a railway. We should have the right of the freehold, which we have never had, whereas a forfeited or surrender section can be taken up with the right of purchase. My neighbour has the right to purchase his section, whilst I, who am one of the original settlers, cannot. I think there should be residence conditions, because it would be against the establishment of schools and creameries if outsiders were allowed to hold land. This is, of course, provided there is fair access to the land. 200. Are there any other restrictions that press on the settlers?— Yes. I knew a man who felled and grassed 94 acres of bush and who hanged himself, and all the widow and orphans received was £80. We are too much under the control of the Land Board. The improvements on this section that 1 speak of were valued at £160, by, I suppose, the Banger, and the section was first gazetted with improvements to the value of £150, but they afterwards brought it back to £80, which was all the widow and family got. 201. No one took it up at £150?— No. 202. After a time the improvements depreciated?—No, they did not. I am speaking of the actual improvements at the time it was sold to the incoming tenant, and he had the right of freehold, which Chapman had not. 203. The Board tried to get £150 for the widow to begin with ?—Yes. 204. Have you any knowledge of loading for roads?— Yes. A man in the district with 100 acres pays £1 a year, and he has to pay that for 999 years. A man with 200 acres pays just short of £2,000, which is ample to make the road to his place. Thousands of pounds have been spent out there, but the money was only squandered. 205. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Yes; it is a very good institution, but they do not advance sufficient. The Act says that we should get half the value of our improvements, but we cannot get that amount. The valuer did not value me at anything like the amount that I am on the rate roll for. With regard to the promise by Mr. Baker, I wish to say that we made a distinct bargain with Mr. Baker. He offered us the option of the Government making the roads for ss. an acre or making them ourselves. We accepted the Government's offer to make the roads for ss. an acre. 206. Was it understood that he promised that there would be metalled roads?— Yes, metalled roads. 207. Did Mr. Baker say it was to be a metalled road?— Yes. 208. Mr. Paul.] How many settlers could buy the freehold if they had the option to do so?— I believe I could. Some one has been round and told my wife that they would advance the money for it. , 209. You would not be buying the freehold if you borrowed money ?—My wife would be more secure at my death. 210. It would be bought with borrowed money ?—That does not signify at all. I could sell my stock and rent my grass and do it that way. I would like to say something about the high price of land. One man in Pongaroa took up his land before we went there at 10s. an acre for cash, and we pay £1 an acre and ss. loading for roads. 211. Mr. Johnston.] How many lease-in-perpetuity surrendered sections have you known put up under occupation-with-right-of-purchase system ?—There are only nine original settlers out of fifty in the Masterton Reform No. 2. 212. Who was it told your wife you could have the money for freehold?— She did not tell me, but some one did. 213. Has anybody been round telling the settlers to agitate for the freehold?— No. This was years ago. It might be six years ago. 214. But you have only had the section four years? —Twelve years. I have been out there over ten years. 215. Why did you put the section in her name ?—The section is not in her name; it is in my name. 216. Mr. McCutchan.] At the time Chapman committed suicide was his family living on this section?— No. That was the one thing that worried him. His wife would not go out to reside there, because there were no roads or a school. He asked me if I thought the Land Board would compel him to reside on his sections, and I said, " Yes." He seemed quite downhearted about it, and the next thing I had heard that he had hung himself. 217. The Land Board conserved the widow's interest inasmuch as they put her under a better tenure than he held it under—that is, the occupation with right of purchase. Do you not think they acted very fairly towards the widow?— No. If the Land Board had allowed the widow to dispose of the section by giving her the freehold she would have got the £150. 218. Was there anything to prevent the widow letting the section ?—I do not know. 219. Did Mr. Chapman desire to let the land ?—I could not tell you. 220. Do you not think there is a great weakness in your case when you do not know the facts? —I live opposite the section, but Ido not inquire into Mrs. Chapman's business. 221. Were the residence conditions at the time Chapman committed suicide being complied with ?—No. 222. Did the Land Board insist on selling the section?— They must have done, because they sent a letter to the widow, asking what she intended to do, very soon after the man was dead.
1254
[e. smith.
C—4.
Robebt Smith examined. 223. The Chairman ] What are you ?—A settler holding 421 acres of freehold and a Native lease of 100 acres. I have held it thirteen years. I represent the settlers in a pare of the McKenzie Block, the Mangahau. I represent all those who are under the lease in perpetuity. I represent that part of the district in the Pahiatua County Council. With regard to land-tenure, thev are all of one opinion : they want the option of taking up iand either on the freehold, lease in perpetuity, or perpetual lease with the right of purchase. The settlers there are engaged in dairying, and are fairly successful. They have a feeling of insecurity in regard to the lease in perpetuity, but if that feeling were removed they would be satisfied. Tnere is a great deal of trouble about the road question, but I do not think we can get much redress. The loading is a great grievance. In seven places in the riding I represent the loading was kept, and the settlers have to continue the payment of it, but it is a moral certainty that they will not get the use of the money. Ido not think the loading could have been meant to make the roads, for any one with experience in bush districts knows that ss. an acre would not go very far. 224. I suppose that if they got this money to expend through the Council they would be more satisfied ?—Very much so. It is the one grievance that they do not get the control of the money. They are very glad to get the grants for the roads, but the grants are uncertain, and it is not a good system. If our rates were subsidised we would be able to obtain a good amount. We have raised from seventy to eighty loans in this county. Money is put on the estimates for our roads, but it never comes here. I think the subsidy system would be a superior way of assisting the settlers to the present system of grants. We bear a lot about the lease in perpetuity being the best system of settling the land, but from Masterton to Takapau all along the road where you see much prosperous settlement there is only one little block—the McKenzie —which was taken up under this system. It was taken up on perpetual lease with a deferred payment. It is the only system a poor man can take up land on. As to the aggregation of estates, I defy anybody to show me where that is the case. There may be some back places where settlers are afraid to go and live that the big owners buy each other out. But taking the main roads where the good land is, I would like anybody to show me where any aggregation is going on. 225. What about the residence conditions? —When I was on a station myself it seemed to me very hard that I should be compelled to go and live on 100 or 200 acres of land when I could spend my money on an improved place, and go and live on it when I get it roaded. I think these residence conditions might be relaxed without much loss to the colony. 226. Have you had any experience of the advances to settlers? —No; but there is a very great grievance regarding that system. Say, for instance, a man forfeits his section it is put up to auction, and the valuation that is put on it is, say, £205, but all the money that can be raised on it by the holder is £40. There must be something wrong there. 227. What is your opinion about the constitution of the Land Board?— There is a feeling amongst people that the constitution of the Land Board is not what it should be. Personally, I have notiiing to say against them, because I have always acted up to their rules, but there is a feeling that the men on the Board are not practical men. You have heard a good deal to-day about°Mr. Chapman. Ido not know whether it was correct or not, but Mr. O'Meara stated on the floor of the House that Chapman was driven to hang himself because he was compelled to reside on land at Mangatainoka and could not take his wife to his section. If the Crown tenants had one man on the Land Board to watch their interests it would be better than it is now. I think such a member should be elected by the local bodies franchise. 228. Mr. Paul.] Where is the insecurity of the lease in perpetuity ?—lt may be the fact that Government brought a Pair Rent Bill before the House. It failed to pass, but we do not know when it may come. 229. Well, you see the effect of that Bill would be to revalue existing leases?—Of course, we saw the other day that it was demanded by the labour unions. They demanded that leases should be revalued every five years. " 230. Where did you see any time stated? —Over and over again at their meetings. 231. lam afraid you are labouring under a delusion as far as the time is concerned?—l am not, but I will undertake to find the report for you. I cannot do so to-night. 232. You have also men getting up and talking about confiscating the freehold?— They practically do it in some places now, because a man has to give up his freehold if it is wanted. 233. Then he is paid a full market price ?—Sometimes they say he is and sometimes he is not. . . 234. Do you believe that the policy of purchasing large estates and cutting them up is in the best interests of the colony ?—I do. 235. Then, you are not complaining about that?—l am not. 236. Mr. Anstey.] I understand you wish to alter the existing lease-in-perpetuity tenure ? — Yes. 237. Do you think it would be wise to alter the terms of that lease ?—I do. 238. Suppose you allowed the alteration in one respect, would it be wise to allow the labour people to agitate for revaluation ?—I do not, because a man is paid full value for it in the first place. 239. Then, it is right to break it in one way and not in another ?—No, it is not reasonable to do that. 240. Mr. Johnston.] Do you. know anything about the Land for Settlements Act?—l have seen some of the settlements. 241. Would you give the tenants under that Act the right to purchase the freehold?— Yes. 242. Have you seen any of those settlements in the South Island?—No; but I have seen Hatuma.
E. SMITH.]
1255
C.—4.
243. Is that a success ?—I heard some of the settlers were satisfied. 244. Could the settlers have gone on to that land if they had not got an easy tenure in the first place ?—They could have gone on it if they had held the perpetual lease with the right of purchase, or the deferred payment, just the same as they went on under the present Act. 245. Have you ever known of large blocks of freehold to revert to the mortgagees ? —Sometimes. 246. Are there not at the present time immense areas of land held by mortgagees?— Yes, and to the very great advantage of the people who have the money from them. 247. Are there any large areas of land that have reverted to the mortgagees and are still held by them?— Quite right, but that is perhaps as much the fault of the man who borrowed the money as the man who lent it. 248. Was there not overspeculation and overborrowing in regard to freehold land at one time ?— I do not know what it was due to, but it might have been that the troubles those people experienced were due to the fact that they did not know how to run the show. 249. You know the land between here and Napier pretty well: were there not large areas of land held there at one time by the mortgagees simply through overspeculation and overborrowing ?—I know one such estate, Mr. Herbert, but they are doing well there now under different management. 250. And you will not admit it was through overborrowing?—l will not. 251. How did the-most of that land get into the hands of the mortgagees ?—I suppose the man who takes up land goes on continually improving it, but some can make a success of their work and others are a failure uilder the same conditions. 252. Are the County Council blamable for a lot of these very bad roads?— No. I am sure that they are spending their morftey properly. 253. Do you not think Mr. Nathan would spend the Government money equally as well as though the work was let by contract by the county ?—I do not know that he would. He is a very praccical man, but there are other matters connected with the carrying-out of the work that he cannot control. 254. What noxious weeds have you got here?—Californian thistle and ragwort. 255. Is it depreciating the land at all?— Not the Californian thistle as much as the ragwort. 256. Have you any on your place?— No. 257. Are the settlers taking means to eradicate it?— Not as much as they should do. 258. Is there any land between Takapau and Hastings suitable for close settlement ?— Lots of it. 259. Would you advise the Government to take that land and cut it up for close settlement? —I am not sure that they would take my advice on anything, and I would not advise them to do it, but I would not blame them if they did take some of it. 260. Have you had any personal experience as a Crown tenant? —No, unless you consider the time I took up land on perpetual lease with the right of purchase as such. 261. Did you find that the Land Board generally treated you well at that time?—No, I did not. 262. How many men on the Land Board at the present time are practical farmers ?—I have no knowledge of them. 263. Do you know them at all ? —I do. 264. And you say they are not practical farmers?—l could not tell you. 265. Mr. McGutchan.) Can you make a definite statement in regard to the expenditure of loading in your riding?— Yes. 266. Has it been spent?— No. I will give you the road from the Mangatainoka Biver to Marima. 267. What was the amount of loading due to that particular road ?—ss. 268. Could you tell me the aggregate amount ?—I could not; it is a very large district. 269. Do you know the amount they expended ?—I could not tell you. • 270. Is it from hearsay that you made the statement just now ?—No, from my own personal knowledge. I have represented the district on the Council for the last ten years. This road is eight or nine miles long, and if you-want the figures to work out the amount of the loading I could give you the number of acres on the road to-morrow morning from the office papers. Another matter that affected the settlers there was that there was a totara reserve set apart for the purpose of building a bridge over the river, but the timber was taken away to another place, although we objected to it being removed. There was a clear understanding that the timber was to be left there so that we would not have to cart the timber far to the bridge. We have arranged for a loan for the bridge and the Government to subsidise it. 271. Was there sufficient timber for the bridge, or was the royalty to go towards the building of it ?—There was sufficient timber, but they have sold it and carried it away, not put it into the bridge. 272. What is the name of the bridge?—Marima-Tukokara Bridge. 273. What is the amount of loans raised by your Council under the Local Bodies' Loans Act? —Between £60,000 and £70,000. 274. Did you get any subsidy on that?—We got grants simply. 275. Do you know the particulars of Chapman's case? —I only know what I read in the evidence. 276. Can you state if residence was due at the time he committed suicide ?—I believe it was. 277. You do not know if his wife was desirous of holding the section after his death ?—I do not. 278. How many years ago is it since this happened ?—Only seven or eight years.
C.—4
1256
[b. cade
Robert Cade examined. 279. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler at Mangatainoka, and I hold 130 acres —two sections containing 50 acres under lease in perpetuity, and an education reserve of 79 acres. I am paying £2 on one lease in perpetuity section, for the other lease-in-perpetuity section £1 17s. 6d., and for the education reserve £8 3s. 4d. I have been there twelve years. I represent the Mangatainoka Branch of the Farmers' Union; there are thirty-seven members in it, and I indorse practically the whole of what my brother unionists in Pongaroa have stated. I believe in the elective Land Boards. I consider the deferred payment the best tenure we ever had, as you can finance easily under it. As to the constitution of Land Boards, I consider that three members ought to be elected by the Crown tenants, and my reasons are that the bulk of their administration relates to the lands of that class; also consider that practical farmers are the most suitable men to administer the lands of the colony. Regarding the three land-tenures of the colony, the three land-tenures of the Rolleston period were the best the colony ever had for all-round settlement, and has produced the best class of yeomen in the colony to-day—for instance, the old Pahiatua Block, the BalanceWoodville Blocks, and the second Rangitumau Blocks, &c. In regard to those three tenures —i.e., cash, lease with right of purchase (spread over a number of years), and deferred payment, the last, in my opinion, was the best settlement tenure that ever existed in the colony, and for practical financial purposes, which the bulk of settlers have to take into consideration, the easiest managed, and the best terms under settlement conditions were procurable under it. With respect to the pressure of residence conditions on Crown tenants, I consider that settlers in bush country should be granted at least three to four years' non-residence before compelling a man with a small family to reside on his section ; also that the success of the settler's first burn and reasonable facilities for education purposes should in many cases entitle a practical settler to a further extension of non-resi-dence. As to the effects of climate and land-configuration on tenures and areas held under them, and the need for consequent alterations of the land laws or regulations, I say that undoubtedly climate, especially in high country, should be a condition for larger areas, as climate affects the amount of stock that land will carry, and stock in its various degrees of wool, mutton, beef, and butter constitute the stock-in-trade of a bush settler for at least the first ten years of his occupation, and by the sale of such he pays his rents, &c., and keeps his family. I also consider that surveyors should be compelled to take into consideration when laying off boundaries the best fencing-lines procurable. In many instances within my own knowledge a slight alteration would have given section boundaries a sound and permanent fencing-line free from slips and likewise permanent water. With respect to homestead privileges and their reinstatement, I may say that I have had no experience, but from statements made by friends I consider it would exactly suit for the settlement of poor country in large blocks. By large blocks I mean area sufficient to give a living-wage—say, winters from five to six hundred sheep, with cows for home purposes. With respect to the working of the ballot system, I consider that all genuine settlers if unsuccessful at, say, two ballots should have the privilege to select areas suitable to their requirements and capital at the earliest possible opportunity ; also that the size of a settler's family should be taken into consideration when striking the area; also that grouping of sections should be abolished. Regarding the practice of loading lands for roads and its working, I have had no experience on that point, but the principle seems right when properly administered; but I think the payment of interest on the loading should carry some fixed term of extinction. With respect to the values of leaseholds now and at date of lease, I may say that when I as a settler took up a lease in perpetuity—i.e., for 999-years tenure at a stated sum—l expected that lease would hold good in its entirety for that term, and undoubtedly I was told so by the late Hon. John McKenzie ; consequently no alteration in value can honestly be assumed by the Government of the day who granted it without breaking the conditions of the said lease, which in my opinion would constitute an unparalleled crime. With respect to the working of the advances to settlers, I have had very little experience of it. Have assisted in a few instances to procure advances, and always failed to see why the valuation done should be such a secret matter. Have had experience in a matter of a transfer of a mortgage, and for the life of me could not understand the paltry charges that I had to pay and the perpetual recurrence of them for months, such as the searching for this and that. Think transfers of all descriptions should be made as easy of completion as the sale of an animal by auction. As to the conditions and positions of occupiers under the various tenures, the freehold is the best tenure, both financially and socially. As regards the lease in perpetuity, had no Fair Rent Bill been proposed, with its periodical valuation for rent, that tenure would have been as equally secure up to the extent of the lessee's own improvements, but under the circumstances I consider the farmers are quite justified in endeavourin" to acquire the option of the freehold ; and should socialism on New Zealand lines ever become the ruling power here, God help the struggling farmer ! The aggregation of large estates is well provided against by the present restriction of 640 acres. 280. Was it at a meeting that you were appointed delegate, and was this statement drawn up at that meeting ? —I proposed that two delegates should come here, but they have gone home. Their views would be practically the same as mine. 281. Mr. Paul.] Did you draw this statement up ? —I did. 282. Do you want all the members of the Land Board elected?—No; three out of the five. The Government to appoint two, and the Crown tenants the other three. 283. Mr. Anstey.] Upon what franchise would you elect the three ?—I think it ought to be by the Crown tenants, but I would pot mind as long as they were elected. The county franchise would satisfy the purpose. 284. How would the parliamentary franchise suit you ?—I should pick out the farmers. 285. You just want to elect them amongst yourselves ? —Just the farmers.
1257
C.—4
E. CADE
286. I think you consider that the lease in perpetuity should be held inviolable ? —I do. I was the one who got the village sections put up to ballot and the lease altered from thirty-one years to 999 years, and I thought I had done myself and fellow-settlers a great stroke, but when we heard of a Fair Rent Bill we changed our opinions. The farmer must have security of tenure. 287. You say that it would be an unparalleled crime to interfere with the lease. ?—I do. 288. Have you not come here to attempt to break it?—We have to do so when they hold the other thing over our heads. The Premier stated that it would affect us. The Fair Eent Bill was to put right a few cases that were overvalued, but we have been told it would affect the whole of us. 289. You say this dread of revaluation has been held over your heads: do you know the name of the only organization which has made any attempt to break your lease ?—I do not suppose you take the trades and labour organization into account. 290. They have not come before us as an organized body ?—There is one gentleman here. 291. Do you think that they are the only ones who have come to us asking us for a breach of your lease and therefore are guilty of this unpardonable crime?—We are asking for it now. 292. Are you not, then, the ones who are guilty of committing this crime?—l consider we are partners in the action we are taking. 293. Mi. Johnston.] Who started this agitation, the tenants or the Farmers' Union?—l think it has grown from a very small beginning to a very large thing. 294. Do you think it came from the headquarters of the Farmers' Union ? —I am sure it did not. It came from a branch of the union at Mangatainoka. 295. What quarter was it you referred to from which you said you got the information about the Fair Rent Bill?— I saw it in_ the Times, and I presume they stated truthfully what the Premier said on the subject. He stated it, but I did not think that the labour organization would think of altering any lease under the Land Act until they got more members in the House. 296. Are you satisfied with the personnel of the Land Board at present ?—I have no objection to them. 297. Would a majority of the tenants be satisfied with the present tenure if it was not for this dread of a Fair Rent Bill ?—I believe they would. 298. There are thirty-seven members in your union : how many settlers are there in the block ?—I believe they are all settlers but one. 299. Are they all Crown tenants?— Not quite all. There are twenty-eight or twenty-nine Crown tenants. 300. How many Crown tenants are there in the block altogether ?—I could not say. 301. Are there sixty?— More than that. 302. How many does your branch represent?—We go from the Tiraumea Road to the Manawatu River. I suppose there are three hundred votes. William Bayliss examined. 303. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 200 acres lease in perpetuity in the Kakariki Settlement, and I pay £16 12s. a year. I have held the land three years. lam the oldest settler between Mauriceville and Woodville. 1 have been twenty-five years in the district, and I was Clerk to the Eketahuna Road Board for nine years. I have a full and intimate knowledge of land-settlement in this district. I think Land Boards should be partly elected. From my official experience of nine years with the Land Board, and since, I can safely say that I have had nothing to complain of in respect to the Wellington Land Board. I think, however, Land Boards should be allowed considerably more discretionary power than they at present possess. I am entirely in favour of the freehold system; it is the best for the State and individual. I think some of the residence conditions should be relaxed, and I will cite a case to illustrate my opinion. My neighbour, with his wife and son, and son's wife, came out from Scotland three years ago. They took up a section close to me, and the son took up a section adjoining his parents. They had a small family and found it convenient for the time being to live with the old people. The Land Board; however, was obliged to harry them on the ground that they were not complying with the conditions of the lease. This is a case where the present restriction imposes a great hardship. In another case a man took up a section in the Hutt Special Settlement, adjoining Kakariki Settlement, and as it was on the deferred-payment system he acquired the freehold. Being an enterprising man with a small family he felt desirous of making some provision for the future, so he took up 100 acres in the Waiwera Special Settlement, about three or four miles away. None of the children were big enough to go and live on that section, and to escape forfeiture he had to part with it and sell it. In such a case the conditions of residence press very unfairly. With regard to the effects of climate and land-configuration, I indorse what was said by another witness on that point. lam in favour of a modified form of the ballot system. I would appoint a competent tribunal to examine and satisfy themselves as to the fitness of applicants to take up land, and then I would let them ballot for it. I think applicants should satisfy the Board as to having sufficient capital, as to capacity for farming, and as to general character. lam entirely against the practice of loading the land for roads. I have come to the conclusion that it would be far better to let the local bodies raise loans under the Loans to Local Bodies Act. That would obviate a good many difficulties. If time permitted I should like to refer to several other matters, but as the Commission is shortly leaving by the train I shall not say any more. James Henry Escott examined. 304. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and hold 180 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Hall Special Settlement. My rent is 4 per cent, on the capital value of £1 12s. 6d. I have been there ten years. I also hold 200 acres of a private lease with a purchasing clause, and I hold 20 acres of freehold. I want to say that we desire the option of the freehold at the original
158—C. 4,
C—4.
1258
[j. H. ESCOTT.
valuation with the 1 per cent, additional. lam satisfied in respect to the Land Board, although, no doubt, the Crown tenants would be better with one representative on the Board. The ss. for loading does not work equally, because some settlers have sections fronting the main road, and they have the roads formed past their holdings, whereas the settlers in the back blocks do not get the same advantage. Although I have been there ten years I have only a 6 ft. track. I believe the full amount of the loading has been expended, but it is not sufficient to fonn the roads. William Matheson examined. 305. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and hold 180 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Hall Settlement. My rent is £13 os. lOd. a year. I have been there ten years. I am a leaseholder, and am in favour of the Government keeping the lease and not selling any land. I am in favour of the lease-in-perpetuity system, and there are several settlers in the district who hold the same opinion as myself. I say that the Government is a very good landlord. lam not satisfied with the Land Board. Several of the witnesses who have given evidence to-day would not be in the position they now occupy if it had not been for the lease in perpetuity. 306. Mr. Anstey.] Would you abolish the present optional system ?—No. 307. You are in favour of the present tenures as well as the leasehold ? —Yes. 308. Mr. Johnston.] Do you believe the majority of settlers in that block are in favour of the leasehold as at present ? —Perhaps one-half are. Henry Dunne examined. 309. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler, and have 265 acres lease in perpetuity and 173 acres freehold. Myjand is partly in the Bketahuna County and partly in the Masterton County. I have held the land for twenty years. I just wish to say that I support the leasehold mainly. lam of opinion that the leaseholders are every bit as well off as the freeholders in every respect, and in some ways they are a great deal better off. I do not think that those witnesses who have given evidence advocating the freehold really represent the Crown tenants. I think that is evident from the evidence brought from Pongaroa, where sixty-seven settlers advocated the freehold, and there are 350 settlers in the block. I think that the Crown is foolish to part with the freehold of any land whatever. The restrictions put on the land by the lease prevent the aggregation of large estates. That is one of the main things we have to contend against. Although some people say that there is no aggregation of large estates in the Forty-mile Bush district 1 am certain there is. I do not think that the Crown has any right to revalue the land, and I do not think they can pass an Act that will give them that power. Ido not think that any Crown tenant need have the least dread of revaluation. An agreement has been made between two parties and that agreement is binding to both parties. The lease in perpetuity is an agreement between myself and the Crown, and the Crown cannot break that contract and revalue my land, and I certainly cannot break it and demand the freehold. At the back of this demand for the freehold there is free trade in land, and that means the aggregation of large estates. The Labour Conference at Wellington passed resolutions in favour of revaluation. I say that the settlers are committing themselves to a most suicidal policy by demanding the freehold, because men with money will buy up the sections, and thus the land will get into larger blocks, and by that means they Will be reducing the country vote. Nothing else will keep a heavy land-tax off the country land but the power of the farmers to resist it. If there are enough settlers on the land to resist the labour unions we will be able to resist them, but if we reduce the country vote, as we are doing, we will be reducing our power and increasing the city vote. There is no question but the land-tax is coming, and it is only a case of how we can stand. 310. Mr. Paul.] Do you think the labour unions can do anything to injure the settlers without injuring themselves ?—That is just the point. Do they understand how far they can go without injuring us ? 311. Is not that the check ?—That is a check, but they will put a tax on us so heavily we will be hardly able to bear it.
Masterton, Monday, 12th June, 1905. William Joseph Buck examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a Crown tenant and hold 349 acres under lease in perpetuity, and 546 acres which was under perpetual lease, but which I have converted into freehold. I also hold 90 acres under right of purchase—the latter being a private lease. My land is at Tauherenikau, about twenty miles from Masterton. For the lease in perpetuity I pay £14 a year. I have been there for eighteen years. Why does the Crown tenant ask for the freehold ? The question can be put in a nutshell. The tenant takes up a 200-acre block of land, valued at, say, £200, for which he pays the Crown £8 a year. Now, this land is not bringing in a cent, to the State, and it is only by the tenant's thrift and hard labour that it is made profitable. In a very few years the tenant will put £4 an acre on this land. It stands thus then : The tenant puts £800 of improvements on this 200 acres ; now, what value was this land to the State till the Crown tenant made it valuable by hard toil ? I say none; and yet the Crown receives rent from this thrifty Crown tenant. Very well, the Crown claims for a start £200 value for which the tenant pays rent—as before stated, the tenant's interest is £800, just four times as much as the Crown owns. Now, there is a talk of bringing in a Revaluation Bill and a Fair Rent Bill. By whatever name the Bill is called the tenant knows it is a rack-rent Bill. This means the Crown can raise the unimproved value from £1 per acre to £2 and even £3 or more, as the Crown thinks fit, and, of course, every £100 of unimproved value means £4 extra rent to the tenant per annum. Now, sir, the Crown tenant's trouble is not ended here, even when his rent is raised and the tenant has paid the rent. The tenant is beset with a large number of clauses in the lease, and
1259
C.—4
W. J. BUCK.]
in many cases he will find it impossible to fulfil the conditions and satisfy the Land Board. And so the tenant remains in dread lest the Land Board should take an unfavourable view and compel him to forfeit. And to forfeit what ? Why, what he has been struggling and working and toiling at for a number of years—namely, a home for his wife and family—that is what it means to a poor unfortunate tenant who happens to break one of the clauses in the Land Act. Is it any wonder we are asking for the freehold, and is it any wonder that the colonial youth will not undertake to make a home in the bush as his father has done before him ? No, the colonial youth has seen the hard toil of his parents, and he goes to other work or in many cases to another country. I say if we want to settle people on the land it must, to make it a success, be a free, self-reliant, and independent people—a people that is not disturbed in their home ; and they muso have a free and secure tenure, and the only tenure that is a secure tenure is a freehold. lam of opinion that every Crown tenant should have the right to convert into a freehold. Ido not consider that the tenant's improvements are secure. Ido not think the lease-in-perpetuity tenure is a sure tenure for my heirs, because the Land Board has the power to refuse a title. I have lost all faith in the lease in perpetuity since the Government tried to pass a Fair Bent Bill. I consider that as soon as a tenant has effected substantial improvements he should be exempt from the control of the Land Board, and he should be able to sell or will it to any one, so that the title would be certain and the deed secure to his heirs. I may state that my family have been helping me to make and improve my place, and I have willed my property to my family. I find, however, from a case in which a Mr. Pilkington was concerned, and which recently came before the Land Board and the Supreme Court, that if there is a small hitch in connection with a lease-in-perpetuity holding it is insecure, and the Land Board may force my heirs to surrender the lease. That is a very serious thing. There is my son, and he, owing to the decision in the case I have mentioned and on account of doubts which exist in connection with the lease in perpetuity, is not now working on my property more than he can help, and Ido not blame him for it. He wants to see my lease secure before he works on it. There is no such thing as the unearned increment in the case of the average Crown settler. In certain cases there may be an unearned increment, but in the case of the average Crown tenant it all belongs to the settler who has worked hard for it. What lam greatly concerned about is the system of valuation. The valuers are depriving the settlers of the improved value and putting it to the unimproved value, and the Fair Rent Bill would rent the tenant on the unimproved value; so if such a Bill was passed it would be confiscating a large amount of the Crown tenants' hard-earned improvements. To illustrate my view I will quote my own case. I took up 546 acres occupation with right of purchase. The Crown valued it at £378 10s. That was nineteen years ago. I want to make it clear that at that time this land was there for anybody to take up at £18 18s. 6d. per annum. Very well, the original value was £378 10s.; to-day they make it £680; increase on the original, £301 10s. Let me explain how this is made up to-day by the Valuation Department: Capital value, £1,827 ; unimproved value, £680; improvements, £1,147. Now, what has been done for this £1,147 ? 546 acres felled, cleared, and grassed; five miles and three-quarters of fencing, a house, a dairy, a stockyard, a cowshed, a woolshed, a sheep-dip, sheep-yards, leads to sheep-yards, draining, logging-up, and making tracks over rough land ; also a plantation. And for all this lam allowed £1,147. It will be asked, why not dispute the valuation; because if I had got them to allow me fair value for my improvements they would have risen the. unimproved value in proportion. Now, I want to say, and make it as clear as I can, that if as a Crown tenant I was subject to the administration of a fair rent it would mean confiscation of £301 10s. of my hard-earned improvements. I wish here co state that if the Crown had granted this land for nothing it would not have paid fair wages for improvements. My own valuation of my holding is £2,000, and I will sell it at that price. Some of my improvements have been put into the unimproved value. I want to make it clear that if as a Crown tenant I was subject to a Fair Rent Bill it would mean confiscation of £310 on my hard-earned money. If the Crown had granted me this land for nothing it would not have paid me a fair amount for the improvements I have made. 2. Your main point is as to insecurity ?—Yes ; insecurity as to my improvements and as to the tenure. 3. The Government has entered into a contract for the long period of 999 years. Do you think it is possible that the Legislature would pass a law to the injury of yourself or your heirs in view of your contract ?—Yes ; I believe they would do so if they had the necessary number of votes to enable that to be done. 4. You referred to the case of a Mr. Pilkington. Can you shortly state the circumstances of that case %—I think it is "very unfair to compel an heir to surrender. I think that the heir should have five years at least in which to dispose of the property. My son would not be able to fulfil the conditions because he has a family growing up and he wants to be in town. Therefore, if I were to pass away, my son would not be eligible to take over my property unless he lowered his dignity and had to go begging to the Government to get a concession, which I consider no settler ought to have to do. 5. Mr. Anstey.\ Can you give us any particulars about the Pilkington case ?—I know that there was some hi tch which led to the surrender of the holding. Ido not find fault with the administration of the Land Board. In the case of Pilkington he was given twelve months in which to deal with the land, but he must have spent a good deal of money in bringing the case into Court. It seems to me that the power of the Land Board in such matters is too great. 6. With respect to Mr. Pilkington, could you assert that he has been robbed of any portion of the value of his estate ? —He was ordered to surrender it. but I notice that he was subsequently given twelve months' time, and he lost a good opportunity of dealing with the land because he could not get a title to it. 7. Have you never known of a case in which freehold land has been left in which the heirs have disagreed and gone to law, and the lawyer has got the lot ?—No.
C.—4.
1260
[W. 3. BUCK.
8. Do you really think there is any more uncertainty when the whole interest is being conserved by the Land Board than when it is left to the tender mercies of an ordinary lawyer ? —I am not prepared to give an opinion on that. 9. You say you are afriad there is going to be revaluation or that there will be a change because a Fair Rent Bill may be passed ?—Yes. 10. And you think that that would be brought about by the labour agitators or others introducing a Bill which will result in what you call confiscation ? —Yes. 11. Supposing any party in New Zealand were to go in for breaking a direct bargain between yourself and the State, do you think chore would be any more likelihood of their confiscating your leasehold than there would be of confiscating the freehold ? —That would come under the same heading no doubt, and that is just what the agitators will do if they can. 12. If such a thing comes about, how much better will the freehold be than the leasehold ?—I "am glad you asked me that question. The leaseholders are only small in numbers at present, and we look on the freeholders as our big brothers and they will stand by is the same as the Farmers' Union is doing. There are only five thousand Crown tenants at present who are really dissatisfied, and perhaps there are one hundred thousand freeholders, and if the leaseholders are put on the same footing as the freeholders, the freeholders will fight for us and we will all fight together. But now they are dealing with us in detail because we are only a small body. 13. Is that not a silly argument to use that the freeholders will not help you now but they will by-and-by when you become freeholders ? You admit that if the bargain between the State and the leaseholders is to be broken, it will not be long before an attempt is made to break the bargain between the State and the freeholders ?—I did not say that the freeholders will not help us, but I say that we are detached from the main body of landholders at present, and when we are put on the same footing as the main body they cannot treat us without hitting the freeholders also ; but if they attack us successfully now they will no doubt attack the freeholders later on. 14. You think that if you got the right of acquiring the freehold you would become freeholders ? —I have no present intention of buying the freehold, but if the Government will grant me the right of purchase I should be prepared to pay the 1 per cent, for the time I have had the land 15. You are willing to pay something for the freehold ? —Yes. I do not want the freehold for nothing As I have said, in my opinion, the Land Board has too much power in such matters. 16. Have you had any trouble in satisfying the requirements of the Land Board as to cropping and other things ?—I have received the following letter from the Land Board : — " Department of Lands and Survey, District Office, Wellington, 3rd November, 1899. " Sections Pt. 531, 532, 534, Block VIII., Waiohine. " In reply to your letter of the 16th ultimo, I have the honour to inform you that the Land Board on the 26th ultimo resolved to grant you exemption from residence on the above section for the present, on the understanding that in the meantime you commence to prepare for making your home on the land. The Board did not approve of your request to be allowed to reside on your freehold property instead of this section. " J. W. Marchant, Commissioner of Crown Lands. " Mr. W. J. Buck. Nikau Valley, Featherston." I took over a lease-in-perpetuity section from another party. It was a tolerably cheap place. The man whom I took the section over from was allowed to reside within ten miles of the holding. He had no roads. The Land Board approved of me as a tenant when I took up the section, and I took up the adjoining land under the Land for Settlements Act. I was then satisfied, and occupied the land for two years. The Land Board then wrote me a very stiff letter demanding to know why I was not residing on my leasehold. My home at the time was on the freehold. The Land Board knew the position perfectly well, because I had explained it to them. I wrote back and stated that there was no road to the property, and that it was many miles from a school, and I said I thought I was entitled to the same privileges as the previous tenant—viz., that I should be allowed to reside within ten miles of the holding, and I received the reply dated the 3rd November, 1899 already quoted. I said that if they made a road to the place I would fulfil the conditions and make my home there. I subsequently received the following letter : — " Department of Lands and Survey, District Office, Wellington, Bth February, 1900. Sections Pt. 531, 532, 534, Block VIII., Waiohine. " Reverting to your interview with Mr. Marchant on the 24th ultimo, I have the honour to inform you that the Land Board on the Ist instant under the circumstances resolved to grant you exemption from residence on the above section for the present unconditionally. " C. V. Wright, " Mr. W. J. Buck, Nikau Valley, Featherston." For Commissioner of Crown Lands. 17. Do you think that residence ought to be enforced or done away with altogether ?—I consider that as soon as a settler has done a fair amount of improvements all restrictions should be thrown on one side. 18. Do you not think that would be prejudicial to the interests of the settlers who do reside on the land ?—I do not think it would be prejudicial to them. 19. You referred to several cases of forfeiture. Can you give us any instance of unfair forfeiture by the Board ?—No, I have never gone into that, but I have read the proceedings of the Land Board and I think what I have said is true. The Board had power to make me forfeit. It is the power they possess in this respect that I object to. I may say that we did not know what the conditions were when we took up the land.
G.-4.
W. J. BUCK.]
1261
20. Do you think that the conditions ought to be published in a concise form and given to intending settlers ?—I think that four-fifths of the conditions could be wiped off the statute-book. jj£-< 21. Mr. McCutchan.] You made a remark about young men not going on the land. Can you'say whether that is the general feeling among young men in your district ?—Their general feeling is to wait until the Government cut up some improved estates. They will not go into the bush districts. 22. Your opinion is that unless the settlement conditions in these out-of-the-way places are made a little more attractive the young men will not settle on the land ?—Yes, I believe that is the feeling of the majority of the young men in that district. 23. With reference to property left by will, you have mentioned a case where the interest of the settlers was more than four times the interest of the State. Do you think that in such cases it should be clearly laid down by law that there should be no interference by the Land Board with the provisions of a will ? —I think the heir should have at least five years in which to dispose of the property. 24. Why should he be compelled to dispose of it at all ? —I do not see why he should either. 25. Mr. Johnston.] What is the average carrying-capacity of your 546 acres ? —One and one-third sheep. It is second-class hilly country. 26. Do you think it is fair to bring forward evidence with regard to the case of Pilkington when you admit that you know nothing about it ?—I do not admit that I know nothing about it. 27. Was Pilkington beaten at every point in the Supreme Court I—l1 —I cannot say Yes or No, because I do not know how many points there were. 28. You knew the conditions of this lease when you took it up ?—I did not know that residence was expected. 29. Do you think it right of the Land Board to make fish of one and flesh of another ?—Apparently that is what they were doing in my case. 30. What did you pay for the goodwill of the place ?—£Bo. 31. How much was the increase then ? —The improvements were worth about £120. 32. Mr. Paid.] Did you pay £80 in addition to the £120 %—I only paid £80 altogether. 33. You got a good bargain %—Yes. 34. Why did you buy it when you knew the Government was bringing in a Fair Rent Bill?— This section was a great nuisance to me. It had changed hands four times and gone through the Land Board twice. The neighbours wanted all sorts of favours from me, and I thought I would save the trouble about the road if I bought it. 35. It adjoins your own section?— Yes. 36. Were the four other tenants bad neighbours ?—No, but they were a nuisance because the Land Board would not give them a road and they disturbed my sheep. 37. Is there anything in the lease which prevents you using the land to the best advantage ?— No. 38. Would you lose money by buying the freehold \—Yes, about £60. It was under the small runs which pay 2£ per cent., and I would have to pay the difference between that and 5 per cent, for a few years, and after that I would have to pay 6 per cent., which would bring it up to £60. 39. Would it suit you if the improvements were conserved to you and the lease put up to public auction ' —If the valuation was satisfactory it might suit me, but the valuation is not correct. If I could only sell out now and be paid fair wages for what I have put on the property, I could take a trip round the world. 40. Do you know of any case where the unimproved value of land has increased ?—Yes. 41. You want security of tenure ?—Yes. 42. Is a freehold with a mortgage on it a secure tenure ?—Yes. 43. Are there many freeholds with mortgages ?—I do not think there are many without. 44. Who do you think is in the best position, the man with the lease in perpetuity who pays 4 per cent, on the capital value, or the nominal freeholder who pays interest to a mortgagee ?—The nominal freeholder. 45. Even though the rate of interest is 3 per cent, higher ?—Yes. 46. Can you tell me why the large freeholders are fighting for the Crown tenants at the present time ? —He has to pay a graduated tax on the same scale that the Crown tenant might have to pay. 47. Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the large freeholder is working for the Crown tenant to-day in the hope that by-and-by the Crown tenant will help the large freeholder ? —The leaseholder is not a free man, and I presume that they see that by striking at the Crown tenant they are striking at our freedom. 48. The Crown tenant is not free, but the man with a mortgage is free ?—The man with a mortgage has a judge and jury to decide in the case of a dispute, but with the unfortunate tenant there is no remedy. 49. You are afraid of revaluation ? —That is the real objection. 50. Why did you not give the Commission a statement on the other side as to~the improbability of any interference with the lease in perpetuity. You know that several have been made in high places ? —And I know that there have been four, if not five, Fair Rent Bills before the Legislature in the last eleven years. 51. Do you know what would have been the exact effect if these Bills had become law ?—I know what effect it would have on Crown tenants, because it included Crown lands. 52. You are sure that there is no possibility that your interpretation was wrong ?—I would not be surprised at my interpretation being wrong, but there was sufficient to show me that they wanted to interfere with me. 53. Did that Bill touch the tenants who held land from private landlords ?—Yes. 54. Do you think that private tenants should have the right of the freehold ?—1 believe, if it was a general thing, that it should be as good as the freehold so long as he paid his rent.
a—4.
1262
[W. J. BUCK.
55. Do you not think it would have been better if the Government had given a shorter term of lease ? —No, I would not like to go in and fell trees 7 ft. and 8 ft. through on a shorter lease. The lease is all right, it is the administration of the conditions of the lease that hurts me. 56. You are quite satisfied that the Land Board is not exceeding the law in any one case ?— Yes, if they were to put the screw on and make everybody fulfil the exact conditions of the Act, in place of there being ten thousand tenants on the land there would not be five thousand, because all the sections would be forfeited. 57. Do you approve of the Land for Settlements Act ? —I do not approve that the land should be taken from any man at the decision of any small number of administrators. I think it would be all right if Parliament decided what land should be taken. 58. Do you think that a majority of the people in the colony favour a close-settlement policy ? —The majority who are crying out for land to be taken for close settlement do not want land. 59. In the case of bush settlement, it is the difficulties that have to be overcome more than the tenure which is preventing young men going on to the land ?—That is so. 60. If there were not land-monopolists in the colony men in your position would not have been forced out into the bush before there was access to those sections ?—I could always have got land ever since I was in the colony if I had had the money. James Christopher Cooper examined. 61. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 400 acres lease in perpetuity, for which I pay £22 per annum. It is situated six miles from Mangamahoe, and I have held the land for fourteen years. I represent about twenty leaseholders in two branches of the Farmers' Union, and I wish to submit to the Commission a statement with regard to the land systems of Ireland and Denmark, which I have prepared at the request of the colonial executive of the Farmers' Union, to whom it has been referred and approved : The system under which the lands of Ireland have been worked for nearly twenty years past has been a kind of dual ownership between the landlord and tenant, brought about by the exertions of Mr. Parnell and the Irish party to better the conditions of the tenant farmers of their native land. The term of the lease under the new conditions was practically eternal, for (except under certian conditions) as long as a tenant paid his rent he could not be interfered with. The land, however, was subject to revaluation every fifteen years, and the rent adjusted accordingly ; this valuation is carried out by Government officials, and a special Court is set up to settle all cases. Although the term is nominally fixed for fifteen years under the provisions of the Fair Rent Bill, on the application of either landlord or tenant an alteration could be effected before this term expired. The rent is payable every six months in advance. In the event of a tenant not paying his rent for a full year, the landlord (on getting the judgment of a law-court for three half-years' rent, that is, the past year and the half-year in advance, known as the " running gale "), when the judgment for this has been secured, can, if necessary, enforce an eviction of the tenant. The result of this system, which at first sight appears to be all that could be desired, has not been nearly so successful as was confidently expected, but on the contrary has had the effect of seriously injuring the farming industry of that country. The great element that was entirely overlooked in the framing of these laws was human nature. When the first term rentals were arranged, it was at a time of political unrest and agricultural depression, and the rents in consequence were fixed very low. With the advent of better times the rental value of land has not improved, but on the contrary has steadily fallen. The cause being the fact that, if better prices prevailed, or if through improved methods the farmer succeeded in making bigger returns from his land, the tenant knew that he stood the risk of having his rent raised at any time, and at the end of his first term (in any case) this was certain to come about. Therefore, robbed of the incentive to make progress, the Irish farmer did what is being done on a small scale in this colony by short term leaseholders—i.e., he made the most out of his land for the time being, without making any adequate return to the soil for what was being taken from it, without taking advantages of improved machinery, up-to-date methods, or-even sufficiently working the land in many cases. An example of how Ireland has fallen away in this respect is shown through her butter trade, which but a short time ago held by far and away the premier place among the foreign butters on the English market. Now it is Denmark that holds the lead, whilst France, Holland, and the colonies are ahead of the great bulk of the Irish butter. Of quite recent years a far better position has been taken up by a portion of the Irish article, the chief cause for which I shall explain presently. The reason of the advance of the Danes and others was the adoption of improved methods and scientific machinery, while the Irish stuck to the old Conservative methods (for the reasons I have already given), and had in consequence to take prices which in many cases were about one-third of what they formerly received. Perhaps the most striking proof of the failure of the revaluation system has been the steady depopulation of many of the best and fairest portions of Ireland. With the failing of the producing-capacity of the land, and the drop in the value of one of the staple products (butter) the difficulties of living became harder, and the tenants steadily emigrated. The abandoned holdings were, for the most part, transferred to those who remained, and these having enlarged holdings for the time being found it less difficult to live. As a matter of fact, through these enlargements of holdings, Ireland is now a large sheep-country. Seeing the deplorable itate into which their country was falling, a number of patriotic Irishmen (among the most notable being Father Kelly and Horace Plunket) endeavoured to rouse their countrymen to action, but soon recognised that before anything effective could be done, it was necessary to secure for the farmers a more secure land-tenure. Through their influence, and pressure brought to bear upon Parliament, a Bill was passed authorising the expenditure of £2,000,000 per annum in buying out the landlords' interests in the most congested districts —i.e., those districts from which there had been the least emigration. In these districts, the holdings being smaller, the farmers found it difficult to live —in fact, in a bad season they were dangerously near a famine. To give effect to this measure, Local Boards were set up known as Congested Districts Boards, whose duty it was to arrange for the purchase of estates
1263
J. 0. COOPER.]
C.—4.
and resell to the tenants. The conditions of purchase were very similiar to the deferred-payment system so well known in New Zealand. The tenants could buy the land by paying interest and sinking fund in ten, twenty, thirty, or forty years. The result has been in most cases simply marvellous ; notwithstanding the fact that in many cases where the tenants chose the shorter terms to buy the freehold, they had to pay a heavier annual charge than when they paid only the rent to the landlord ; but they had got rid of the incubus of revaluation, and knew that all they made (over and above the interest and sinking fund) was entirely their own. Now came Plunket's opportunity. Money to buy improved machinery and to start butter-factories and creameries was at first difficult to raise, but principally through the medium of farmers' banks this trouble was overcome. The butter produced from these factories now often competes successfully with the best; in fact, at one competition held recently, the Irish butter entered beat all comers. The general result of freehold was better-worked farms with far better returns, better homes, and a contented people; but the example before them of what could be done with the advantages of a secure tenure only had the effect of increasing the discontent of the tenantry throughout Ireland. To intensify matters, the Land Purchase Act fell into disuse through the fact that the Government stipulated with the selling landlords that half the purchase-money had to be taken in Government Consols at par value. This was satisfactory while the selling-value of consols remained at par or above it, but when they fell below that value, the landlord wanted an increased price for the land to make up for the loss. This, however, the tenants refused to pay, with the result that the Congested Districts Boards had to cease operation. Matters, however, were brought to a climax when the first term of fifteen years' rental expired. The Government then undertook the work of revaluation, with the result that it was found necessary to lower the rents throughout the whole country from 25 to 33 per cent., notwithstanding the fact that times were in every way better than they had been when fixed fifteen years before. Alarmed at the result, and seeing that another fifteen years of exhaustion and bad farming would mean that their interest would be worth nothing, they (the landlords) joined with the tenants in demanding that some alteration in the land laws of the country should be made. A large conference of delegates representing landlords and tenants was held in Dublin, resulting in a unanimous agreement: " That the only way to settle the land troubles and to improve the condition of the agricultural industry was to give the tenantry the right to buy the freehold of their holdings." And the Conference called upon the Government to pass such legislation as would give this effect. On this united request, the Government took the matter up, and Mr. Wyndham, Secretary for Ireland, brought before the House of Parliament his Irish Land Purchase Bill. This Bill, when first read, did not provide for the entire purchase of the freehold by the tenants, but only seven-eighths, the State retaining a one-eighth interest. The reason given by the Minister for this was that where the freehold had been sold entirely, it often led to cutting up land into too small holdings. This generally came about by a parent dying and dividing his already small holding among his family, and, notwithstanding improved and better results, still led to congestion. However, the Irish party insisted on the freehold or nothing ; arguing that in the great part of Ireland the holding had already become too large, and to subdivide them in the way that had already taken place, would be a gain to the country ; and as we know, they got their way. The Bill that finally passed gave the tenant farmer the absolute right to buy the freehold. There is, however, no compulsory clause to make the landlord sell, but instead a provision to pay the landlord as a bonus 12 per cent, over and above the value of his land —this as a gift from the State. The value of the land is fixed by mutual agreement between landlord and tenants. It is generally fixed at what is known as twentythree years purchase—that is, the rent is capitalised for twenty-three years—for instance, if a tenant is paying £1 per acre rent per annum, the purchasing-price of his land would be £23 per acre. In some cases the price has been fixed as high as twenty-four years, and in many others as low as twenty-two years purchase. These purchasing-prices are on second-term rents ; in cases where farmers have not yet entered their second term, the price is fixed at from seventeen to eighteen years purchase. The terms of purchase by the tenants are that they pay 3J per cent., which covers interest and sinking fund, for a period of seventy-one years. It will be seen by this that they are in most cases buying their land at slightly lower rates than they paid in rent to the landlord. It is too soon yet to tell what the effect of this great measure will be, although the Irish farmers are very confident of the ultimate result —so much so that agrarian agitation is dying out, and the emigration from the country in 1903 and 1904 was the lowest since the year 1846, when the famine caused the Irish exodus, which has been going on ever since. Irish newspapers are pointing out to the people that there is now no cause to leave their own home, as they have a better prospect in their own beautiful country than they are likely to find in any other ; and yet for the first year the Land Purchase Act was in operation, or rather for the eight months of the year, only £8,000,000 had been spent by the Government for this purpose. The reason for this was that it took some time for landlords and tenants to arrive at what was a fair value, indeed, in many cases, they are still trying to settle this matter. However, during the year of 1904 and 1905 the purchasing is going on at a heavy rate. Mr. Wyndham has promised that the Act shall be amended. The total cost of this great undertaking is put down at £112,000,000. A hundred millions is to be paid back by the tenants, with interest and working-expenses added. The balance of £12,000,000 is a large sum of money for the British taxpayer to find, but if it will settle the Irish question, as is confidently expected, it is the best bargain ever made by the British Government. To properly describe the land system of Denmark with the result that it has effected on the farming industry and of the people of that country, it is necessary to study briefly the agrarian history of Denmark during the nineteenth century.. During the early years the peasants were practically serfs of the soil, having for the most part no security of tenure other than the will of the landlord. However, a great agitation was set on foot, resulting in the tenantry securing a fixed lease for life, covering both the lives of the husband and wife ; at a later date this was improved by another form of tenure—an eternal lease, very like our lease in perpetuity, generally, however, subject to revaluation—but not
C.—4.
1264
[j. C. COOPEB.
in all cases. The holder having the right to sell or even subdivide. As a rule, the rent was paid both in money and in kind, and by this'means the landlord shared with the tenant the good and bad seasons ; for if the price of farm produce was high or low the landlord received a proportionate amount for his part of the produce. The actual amount of rent received, therefore, varied year by year. Before going further, it will be as well to describe the condition of the farming community during this early period. The system of farming was of a most primitive character. The implements used were of the same kind that had been in use for centuries. Wooden ploughs and harrows were the best in use, the ground being merely scratched and not worked ; manures of any kind were not generally used. A piece of land when worked out was abandoned to weeds and rubbish ; as a result, what are now the best cultivated and fertile lands of Denmark were then for the most part overrun with hazel bush, blackthorn, sweetbriar, and other noxious weeds. The produce of the country comprised a little wheat, rye—the staple food of the people—oats, and a little dairy-produce was also exported to England. However, unlike now, it occupied a very unimportant place upon the market. Compared with our modern ideas, the condition of the people was deplorable, and emigration from their native land was the order of the day. Strangely enough, it was the war of 1848 and 1850 that led to a better state of things. Duke Ludurg of Holstein attempted to seize the Crown; although he was assisted by the North German States, the Danes were victorious, but the country was plunged into such depths of misery through the exhaustion caused by the war, that the tenantry clamoured to be relieved from a part of their rent, and this was generally obtained. This reduction in the rent at the time when the landlords had to face increased taxation through the war, had the effect of making many of them willing to fall in very readily with the altered conditions that were soon to follow. The year of 1852 and several years after were very good for the agricultural industry. Prices for all kinds of farming-produce went up enormously, and farmers for the first time for generations past found themselves well off; a great many of the most saving having large sums of money to their credit. The fear also of having the rent again raised had the effect of causing a general demand on the part of the farmers to be allowed to buy out the landlord's interest in their farms. The agitation was backed up by many landlords for the reasons I have already explained, but was fiercely resisted by others. However, an Act was passed breaking the entail of estates, and at the same time giving the landlord the right to sell. Amongst the first to sell his land was the King (Frederic the Seventh), whose tenants had all eternal leases. The war of 1848 and 1850 may be said to have been the means of introducing the freehold, but the war of 1860 and 1861 had the effect of causing its general adoption, as this war caused still further burdens to be placed upon the lands of Denmark, which made the position of the landlords almost intolerable, and it soon became apparent that a tenant farmer did not make the same returns from his land that a freeholder could. Almost immediately on the introduction of the freehold better systems of farming were adopted, also the best implements that the world's market could produce were steadily brought into use, resulting in better returns. With closer cultivation noxious weeds began to disappear. The ownership of the land brought with it other responsibilities ; the taxes previously paid by the landlords now had to be paid by the tenant, but what was formerly a crushing load was now, through largely increased returns, a very small burden. Land rapidly rose in value, but now another danger began to loom up. The more progressive farmers, i.e., those who were first to adopt better methods and better machinery, in fact, those who for the first time reduced farming to a science, began to steadily buy out their less progressive neighbours ; among the most progressive were many of the sons of old landlords. Fearing that the country was likely to become depopulated by this means, and to prevent this, the Government passed a law to limit the amount of land that one man could buy. I will endeavour to describe this limitation system as follows : The unit or acre in Denmark is called a tonde land, equal to 1.363 of English acres, and the taxable limit for land-tax purposes is called a tonde harikorn, that is, a given quantity of land that will produce a given quantity of hard corn (rye). It will be seen by this, that taxation by the Government is on the producing-value of land. The tonde harikorn varies from 8 acres (English) of the best ploughing land to 300 of the poorest. Farms of between one and twelve tonde harikorn are called bdndegaarde (peasant farms) ; such a holding cannot be lawfully joined to or entirely merged into another. They may be subdivided and portions added to another holding, but the homestead—or if it is preferred, a new homestead of equal value—and portion of the land must be preserved as a separate holding. In 1895 there were in Denmark, 73,889 gaarde (farms), of which, 2031 were assessed at 12 tonde harikorn or more, a few exceeding 100 tonde harikorn, their total assessment being 56,832 td. ht., or 15.4 per cent, of the country. Only thirty of these gaarde were not freehold. This class, of course, includes the herregaarde, or seats of the nobility. The freeholder of any of these holdings cannot buy an acre of land in his own name in Denmark ; they are not, however, penalised in any way, but if they once sell a portion of their estates they can never repurchase it again. There were 71,858 holdings called bondegaarde (peasant farms), their total assessment being 267,302 tonde harikorn, or 72.9 of all the land according to its value. As regards size, 44,557 were assessed at from Ito 4 td. ht. 23,638 were from 4to 8 td. ht. A very small percentage are leaseholders. There are besides, in rural districts, 159,147 hum (cottages), with land assessed at less than 1 td. ht.. of which, 141,439 or 89 per cent, were freehold, and occupied by the owners. There are besides, 32,496 cottages without land, 61.5 per cent, were freehold, and occupied by owners. Of recent years, an annual sum has been voted by Parliament, out of which loans are granted to cottagers to purchase freehold plots, as much as 90 per cent, of the purchasing-price is advanced. There are no restrictions in regard to aggregation of holdings, amounting to less than 1 tonde harikorn. It will be seen by the above that nearly all the land of Denmark is freehold, that is, owned and farmed by the. occupier. TheTwoodlands of Denmark cover an area of 665,584 acres, and are considered of so much importance'Tto the country owners are restricted as to the annual amount that is cut down per year, and provision has to be made for replanting ; further efforts are also being made to plant the worst lands of Jutland. The total area of Denmark, not including the Island of Bornholm, is about 9,393,945 statute acres, of which nearly 80 per cent, is agricultural.
J. C. COOPER.!
1265
0.—4.
The balance, 20 per cent., is waste land, nearly all in Jutland ; this is mostly light land, but on the Island of Zealand and neighbouring isles, the land is very fertile. It will be seen that the total area is less than the Province of Canterbury, having, however, a larger quantity of fertile land. For so small a country the total area is very large. The exports and imports together come to £50,000,000 sterling, or about double that of New Zealand. The exports are almost entirely the products of the agricultural and pastoral industry, dairying taking the chief place. Such a large export of farm produce is a proof of the improved methods that have been introduced. Agricultural technical education has been very much fostered and encouraged, the State even going to the trouble and expense of sending children from the cities and towns out into the country to learn farming, and to encourage them to take to country life. More than half the total population is at present directly engaged at farming. Perhaps no greater proof of the success of the freehold can be found than the way the population of the country has increased of recent years. In the year 1800 the population was less than one million, this including the Province of Sleswig, which was a part of Denmark proper, but not Holstein, which was really a German Duchy. In 1900 the population numbered nearly two millions and a half without Sleswig. During the early years of the century the emigration from the country was very heavy, preventing the possibility of an increase. This emigration was heavy even as late as twenty years ago, and this colony has been one of the gainers, as quite a number of the pioneer settlers of the Forty-mile Bush are Denmark's sons. In the year of 1900 the emigration from the country only amounted to a little over three thousand. As a matter of fact, there are at the present time more people actually going into the country than are leaving it. The demand for labour at the present time and for a few years past is largely in excess of the supply, and according to a recent arrival to the Forty-mile Bush the wages of skilled and unskilled labour, taking the cost of living into account, is better in Denmark than in New Zealand. This statement is largely supported by Danish newspapers. The general result of the freehold tenure during the past forty years led to the breaking up of the large estates except in a few instances. To such an extent has this gone, that there is a move on foot at the present time co stop the cutting up. The total wealth of the country has increased enormously, and—unlike the great manufacturing country where the wealth belongs to a few, to the degradation of the masses —in Denmark it has elevated the masses, while the extreme wealthy are very few, and the competition to excel among farmers has reached an acute stage, the result being that every export from the country takes a leading place in the market of the world, notably butter, which has a hold on the London market, and in spite of keenest competition of other countries keeps a leading place. This leading place is only maintained by education of the masses, particularly the scientific education of the rural population. In fact, in all the sciences, art, and progress, she is among the most advanced in Europe, but perhaps above all should count the vastly increased health and physique, improved social conditions, and happiness of the entire population of Denmark. 62. Are the compilations the result of your reading ? —So far as the Irish particulars are concerned, I have principally taken them from a paper known as the Irish Freeman, which is perhaps the most valuable paper in Ireland. I got the Danish information largely from Danish books. I may say I am living among a colony of these Danes. As far as the statistics are concerned, I went down to Wellington and ransacked the whole of the books in the Parliamentary Library for this information, I found it in the " Encyclopoedia Britannica," which contains an extract Starky's " Le Denmark," a book published by the Danish Government and sent to the Paris Exhibition. 63. Is there anything else you wish to say ? —I have come here as a leaseholder myself who am looking for the freehold. My reason for asking for a better tenure is the high rate of interest I have to pay on borrowed money, and above all the present insecurity of tenure through the continual talkabout revaluation and Fair Rent Bills. I have also been a witness of a good deal of annoyance by Land Boards, and that is perhaps one of the strongest reasons why I desire to be a freeholder. Personally I have received no annoyance, but I have been a witness of annoyance to others, principally in respect to the residential clauses. Some few years ago I was taking the members of the Land Board who came up as a visiting Commission around our district. We stopped one evening with a settler named R. Brown. Mr. Brown was the occupier of 210 acres of freehold and he held at the same time a lease in perpetuity of 100 acres about a mile distant from the freehold. He had at the time a comfortable homestead and farm buildings on the freehold property, and he naturally thought that that would be quite sufficient to get him out of building on the leasehold. The freehold was a larger property and better situated for homestead purposes. He brought this matter before the Commissioner and the members of the Board, Mr. Hogg and Mr. Stevens, and asked if he was not residing sufficiently within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Marchant, the Commissioner, replied, " Oh, certainly, it is not our intention to inflict any hardship on any one. We are satisfied you are not a dummy, and we think it would be a hardship after building this comfortable homestead to make you reside on the leasehold, which is not suitable for the purpose." Mr. Marchant, as Commissioner of Crown Lands, really endeavoured to do his best for the settlers. He was shifted out of his position and the present Commissioner took his place. Very shortly afterwards Mr. Brown was notified that he was not residing on his place, and that he would have to do so. Brown objected, and urged that he had already been given an exemption, but the Commissioner would hear none of it, and finally Brown received a letter giving him three months in which either to comply with the demand of the Land Board or forfeit his holding. Mr. Brown complied, costing him from £250 to £300 to build a house on the section. 64. How long ago was this ? —About two years ago. Another case was that of a man named W. Nation. He was the occupier of 200 acres of lease in perpetuity, and he still has the same place. His land was all bush, and he had 70 acres of it felled and in grass, which was not sufficeint five or six years ago when wool was at 3d. a pound for any man to make a living on. He succeeded in getting a billet to look after a neighbour's place. This section was convenient to his own section and he could look after both. The money he was earning in this way he was putting into improvements on his own 159—C. 4.
a—4.
1266
[j. C. OOOPKR.
section so that he would ultimately be able to live on it. He was, I believe, likewise told by Mr. Marchant that as long as the Land Board was satisfied he was not committing dummyism no objection would be taken to the course he was following. However, after the change of Commissioners took place Nation also received notice that he would have to live on his holding, and he complied after receiving a final notice. The real hardship of the case was that Nation had a young wife with two small children. There was not another woman within many miles, and he had to go away to earn a living, leaving his wife on the place. The result of being left in such a lonely place was that the wife contracted a nervous complaint, and he had to bring her and the family away. His term of residence has now expired, and he is not compelled to live on the section any longer. 65. Is he living there now ? —He has had to buy a place near the railway-station which has put him into financial difficulties in order to keep the section. Another case is that of W. Petersen, who is the holder of 100 acres of land unsuitable for dairying purposes. It is lease ain perpetuity subject to residential restrictions. The man had been occupying the land for eleven years, and how he comes to be under the thumb of the Land Board is as follows : He was actually in occupation of the land for eighteen months before the Act of 1892 was passed. Although he had been holding it under the then tenure he could not get a lease of it until such time as that Act was passed. He had actually been residing on it twelve years, but his ten years' period of residence under the conditions of the lease had not expired in January, 1903, when he was off the place. A dairy factory was established in the district, and the farmers took advantage of the fact to start dairying, but Petersen was in the unfortunate position of not being able to go in for dairying, principally through the fact that his land was unsuitable, He arranged with a neighbouring settler who had a suitable place to take a share in his dairy farm, and to milk the cows on shares, and as Petersen had a growing family, 15, 16, and 17 years of age, who were well able to milk cows, he took this place and was able in consequence to make a very good living. A short time after he was in occupation the ranger came round and discovered the fact that he was not residing on his own place, notwithstanding the fact that he had been an actual resident for twelve years. He then received a notification that he had to reside on his place, and after two or three letters passed he received a final notice that if he did not do so his holding would be forfeited. It placed him in an awkward position, and he came to me and asked my advice. I told him that as far as I knew the Land Board could not compel his wife and family to go back and live on his holding, but that he should go back and comply with the Act himself. This he said he did. Though he replied to the Board that he was residing on it and could prove so, they kept harassing him almost up to the expiration of his residential term. 66. Of course he still holds the land ?—Yes. Another matter we complain about very much is that of the loading on our places. Our lands were loaded to the extent of 6s. an acre for 999 years, but we had no voice in the expenditure of the money. We did not know whether it had been spent or not, but we did know that we were paying interest all the time, and that we had to borrow money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act to make the road ourselves. We are thus paying interest on the 6s. per acre loading as well as on the local loan. 67. What became of the expenditure ?—I could not say. I cannot find out, but certainly there has been a lot of Government money wasted in the district, I will not say spent, because it has been absolutely wasted. 68. In what way I—ln1 —In the first place they made a number of tracks under the co-operative system, and the work was done in such a bad manner as to cause the money to be watsed, for the reason that when we came to make the roads they had to be laid out in a different manner and the tracks were useless. The turns were too acute. 69. You mean they had to deviate the road ? —Yes. 70. Through bad grades \—Bad workmanship form the start. 71. To deviate a road means to take it another way. Did they abandon the track which was already made \—Yes. In places you could find although one track was made another one was afterwards made at a lower level to avoid the bends. " 72. But it sometimes happens that you cannot make the best road at the beginning, you have to take the natural features into account and slightly alter it afterwards. Was that done in this case ? Did it go over a hill instead of round ? —lt did not. The road was surveyed correctly. It was under the control of the co-operative overseers. 73. It was made under the co-operative system ? —Yes. 74. Is there any other matter you wish to mention ? —Yes—viz., the fact that settlers who take up land under the homestead system are restricted to 320 acres. This fact was pointed out to me by a settler living at Pongaroa, who asked me to bring it before the Commission. The land is not of very good quality there, and 320 acres is not sufficient to enable a settler to make a living. This settler urges, and I think very justly, that this limit should be done away with, and that a settler should be allowed to take up land up to 640 acres, which would enable neighbours, where they are unable to make a living now on their present holdings, to buy a man out, thereby raising the holding to 640 acres and so make a good living for one. 75. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers ? —Yes, I have got money from them on one section, and I have got money from a private money-lender on another. 76. Which do you think is the better way of raising money ? —Of course, being a leaseholder, the Advances to Settlers is the best system on which you can get money, so you would think, but unfortunately in many cases the opposite has been the rule. 77. What was your experience ?—I did not apply personally for this money. The section on which it was raised I bought from a neighbour. 78. Do you think the system is a good one if you can get the money ' That is so. I have nothing to say against the system, but from what I hear in my district the Advances to Settlers Board do not appear to attach the same value as a security to a lease in perpetuity as they do the freehold or lease with right of purchase.
J. C. COOPER.]
1267
a—4.
79. Mr. Anstey.\ Can you give us a comparison as between the advances-to-settlers system and the system of raising loans privately ? —I paid 8 per cent, to a private money-lender on a lease in perpetuity, and to the Advances to Settlers Department 5 per cent.; but at the same time that I paid 8 per cent, my freehold neighbours were getting money at 4J per cent. 80. How did the expense of getting the loans compare ? —ln my own case I believe it was about the same, but, of course, lam not going to say that for all cases. My expenses were very low. The unfortunate part of the Government system is that many a settler has had to pay the valuation-fee, but he has not got the money. I did not do that. 81. But they do that in the case of private firms ?—No doubt that may be so. 82. Were the charges low in both cases ? —I do not complain of the charges. 83. That is not quite an answer to my question. We want to find out if the Government charges are reasonable or not as compared with outside charges ?—lt was the first time I had raised a loan, and I had no previous experience of raising money. Certainly I thought it dear enough, but the charges were about the same in both cases. 84. Can you give us the amount of the charges ? —The total cost of raising £500 on my place privately was £7, and in the case of the Government loan I think it was for £320 about £5. I have never heard complaints of the charges. Of course in the case of raising loans privately it is very much a matter of bargaining, and I made the best bargain I could. The Government charges are fixed. I should say the Government charges are lower. 85. You are representing the executive of the Farmers' Union ?—No, excepting in regard to the papers which I have already placed before you ; but I am vice-president of the Wellington Provincial District. 86. You are not authorised tcr represent the union ?—No ; I represent the branch of the union. 87. Have the branch of the union approached the Government with a view of granting the right of purchase ?—ln my particular district they did. With two or three exceptions I believe every settler sent in a request for the freehold, but Ido not know that that has been done generally. A good deal has been said as to the Farmers' Union having begun the agitation for the option on the part of the Crown tenants. I may here say that lam a member of the colonial executive, and I was present at the meeting when this matter was arranged, and if it is of any interest to you I will shortly explain what took place. 88. We would like to have it ?—Well, we received one day three petitions from settlers up the Rangitikei line asking that the union should take steps to send out petitions to the settlers to sign asking for the freehold. One of the members of the executive suggested that the petitions should be circulated throughout the whole colony to every settler to sign—whether freehold or leasehold —but I objected, owing to the expense. I thought it would be rather a big order for the union to take on, and I suggested, on the other hand, that petitions should be drawn up for the leaseholders to sign if they wished, and that copies of this petition should be sent to branches of the union, but not to the settlers themselves. 89. You say that three petitions came to the union from Rangitikei. To whom were those petitions sent ? —To all leaseholders. 90. They came to your executive, and thereupon you circulated a petition amongst all the branches of the union, all over the colony practically ? —Yes. 91. Supposing that you got the option of the freehold, upon what terms would you want it ?—At the original value plus the 1 per cent, difference between the lease in perpetuity and the lease with right of purchase. 92. Have you considered that there is a difference in value between the two forms of tenure ?—- Yes. 93. Do you think that a freehold is worth 1 per cent, more than a leasehold ?—Certainly I do, if it is only in respect to raising money. But there is a greater advantage. At the present time our leaseholds are practically unsaleable, and then the Valuation Department do not allow by any means the same value for a leasehold in my district that they would upon an adjoining freehold for land-tax purposes. My land is valued at the present time at say, £5, but a neighbouring freehold of the same quality, and in many cases inferior, is valued at £8. 94. You say the lease in perpetuity is practically unsaleable. Is that the case in this district ? — Yes. When I say practically unsaleable, I mean at a reasonable value for your improvements. 95. We have had evidence that the leases in perpetuity are very readily saleable at enormous premiums ■? —I believe they are in the South Island. 96. But we have evidence to the same effect close to your own doors ?—Upon bush land ? 98. Yes ? —That is not the case here. 99. With regard to giving the right of purchase, would you include in that the right of purchase under the Land for Settlements Act ?—I think it would be only right to do so. The circumstances are very different. The bush settler, or man who takes up his land under the Bush and Swamp Land Act or the Act of 1892, has practically to make his land, while the settler in the other case takes up his land readily improved. Furthermore he has a larger interest in the land. My land is valued by the Crown at £1 10s. an acre, or I am paying interest on that amount, and the Crown's interest I assume to be worth between £4 and £5 an acre. Therefore they have the bigger interest in it. That is not the case under the Land for Settlements Act, but I do believe that you will get better farming if you give these people the right to buy the freehold, and they would make more out of it. 100. Supposing we gave these lease-in-perpetuity settlers under the Land for Settlements Act the right of purchase, upon what terms, should they get it ? Would you charge them rather more than 1 per cent. I—Under the Land for Settlements Act the settlers are paying 5 per cent., and are allowed a rebate which brings it down to 4£ per cent.
0.—4.
1268
[j. C. COOPER.
' . You say that these people have affixed tenure and that they want a tenure worth at-least l.per cent, more.; fjlfjyoujare going to give themjthat tenure, would you not charge them something more than.Llper^cent.J —No. You amount which the_.Government put on it at the timejt wasjtaken in the case of bush lands should have any concession have paid cent. ; jjbut, in those settlers who pay the 5 per cent, under the right of purchase, I think the man who holds his land under the lease in perpetuity should be called upon to pay the same rate. 102. You told me distinctly that the freehold was at least 1 per cent, a better tenure than the other % —I gave you the reason for it. I said for raising money. 103. If the freehold is a 1-per-cent. better tenure, why will you give the lease-in-perpetuity settler under the Land for Settlements Acts, who has a much better tenure, the freehold without charging him something for it ? —Why should you charge them something for it ? There is no comparison. i t 104. Then you advocate giving them something for nothing ? —But they are paying an increased percentage at present. They are paying 4|- per cent.,- and we are only paying 3J per cent. It only brings us to the same level as they. 105. But, notwithstanding the fact that you are giving them a much better tenure, you are not charging them this additional 1 per cent. ?—No ; Ido not do anything of the sort. I would give them the right of buying the land at occupation value, as they pay a big rate of interest. With us it is quite different. paying per cent, on out (money by taking advantage of the rebate, and it is only fair to those people who took up land under the land for settlements that we should be called upon - to i pay t the same rate as they pay. With regard to the Land for Settlements Act these settlers are already paying the same rate as the settlers who took up land under the lease in perpetuity and have the option of the freehold have been paying :. so that, why should they be called upon to pay any more ? If it conies to the question of the increased unimproved value it is a different question altogether. 106. You gave us several instances of hardship with respect to residence conditions mostly. Do you think that the residence clause should not be insisted on in regard to the settlement of Crown lands 1 —It all depends on the circumstances. There are instances, such as I have quoted, where the Act gives the Land Board sufficient rope to enforce them or not. 107. You think they have not administered it fairly ? —No ; they have administered it according to the letter, but not according to the spirit. 108. Then it is in reference to such cases that you object to the principle of insistence on residence. Do you object to the principle generally ?— No. 109. You think it a wise provision then ?—I think clause is a wise provision,because if you do not have such a clause the chances are a large proportion of our colony would not be inhabited at all. 110. With regard to Crown lands which are under the optional tenure, do you think the same conditions should apply to them —and, in fact, to all tenures ? —I do, particularly the freehold. I think that no man because he has money should be given the option of escaping the residential clause. I think the conditions should be all the same. At the present time the poor man is penalised. 111. Is there any objection to the cropping regulations which the Act enforces in this district ? — I have read the cropping regulations and I think they must act harshly in this district, but, at the same time, unless you give the settlers the right of buying the freehold, I fail to see how you can dispense with some such restrictions. 112. Do you say that the same restrictions should apply to the freehold as to the leasehold ?—You are speaking now of cropping restrictions ? 113. Yes ? —lf a man has got the freehold of his land that is. a sufficient restriction. He would not be likely to wear it out. 114. But do you think it would be wise to impose cropping restrictions on the freehold ?— Certainly not, because his own title would protect the land. 115. Supposing he chose to lock it up and allow it to run to weeds, you would not interfere then 1 —The man who does that is ruining his own land and himself. 116. Unfortunately we have seen many such cases in our travels ?—There you have had an advantage that I have not had. 117. Well, you think a freeholder should be allowed to do what he likes with his own without any restrictions as to cropping ? —I have always been under the impression, from my own experience, that a man having the freehold of his land has what is always a sufficient restriction in the way of improvement which would depreciate his land. If it were not so I should say there was a very good case for the Land Act to step in. 118. Mr. McCutchan.] You made the statement that in Ireland revaluation led to depreciating the fertility of the soil ? —Yes, not in all cases : that is a general statement. 119. Was that information got from the Freeman's Journal ?—Yes, and also from Irishmen themselves. 120. You are aware that that is an ultra-Radical paper i—Yes. 121. Do you think that they might have overstated the case ?—No ; the facts and statistics which they quote go to bear out their statement. 122. You said that in Ireland excessive subdivision was a result of the freehold ? —Do you think it might have the same result in this colony ? —lt is having that effect, unfortunately. In some cases in Taranaki, I believe, the holdings are now too small. 123. Do you know of any individual instance ?—No ; only hearsay instances, but I still believe that it is the case. \ r 124. You cannot give any exact instance Not individually ; but land has been cut up and sold in Taranaki where the holdings are too small.
1269
C—4.
. 0. COOPER.I
125. You mean under the Land for Settlements Act ?—That has been a blunder in the same way. In some cases, while the estates have been cut up too small, I think, perhaps, in other cases theyihave been a bit too large. I am speaking of the§Bubdivision|offfreeholds] generally,' during thej : boom in dairying. [ J- r . 126. I 'come ,from |Taranaki,|andJ]l know the provinceffairlyj'well, butfTfcannotficall to mindf'a single instance where such subdivisioni ihas'|been; going on. Therelmay have some| sections a little small in. the beginning, but I am not, aware of anyf'excessive^subdivision ? —Do you not think it would be excessive subdivision if the price of butter-fat fell, jfrom' 9d. -to '6d.—that is'jwhat I mean. 127. It is possible.. Are you aware that the'purchase'of estates by the Government has induced, to a certain extent, the private owners of large estates to cut them up ? —Yes. 128. Has the action of the British Government in Ireland had the same effect ?—No. As a matter of fact there has not been sufficient time for the Act to operate. 129. Is it not the case that, in the Counties of Roscommon and Tipperary, several large estates have been cut up by the owners and disposed of to tenants on eighteen years' purchase ?—Yes. You are speaking now of the present Irish Land Act ? 130. Yes, under Mr. Wyndham ? —Certainly. I made that statement in the paper I have placed before the Commission. 131. Is not that Act having the effect of inducing private owners to cut up their estates themselves ?—Yes ; but it is Government money which is buying them. I understand that the matter was arranged between the landlord and the tenants, the Government merely finding the money to buy out the landlord's interest. I explained that in the statement. 132. You spoke of a doubt in the minds of Crown tenants with regard to the passing into law of a Fair Rent Bill and revaluation. - Can you state definitely that the Fair Rent Bill was to have a retrospective effect ? —Yes, I believe it did. 133. Have you seen the Bill?— Yes. 134. What provision was there in the Bill which led you to assume that ?—Where it specially dealt with Crown lands. 135. But was it to apply to the Crown lands now settled under this Act, or to public settlements in future ? —That was ambiguous ; but according to the statement of Sir Robert Stout it undoubtedly affected existing leases. If it did not effect existing leases there was no necessity for the Bill. 136. Is it not the case that no legislation of a retroactive nature is ever adopted unless there is provision for compensation ?—But not in our case, because it only applies to the unimproved value of land. 137. Is it not the case that the Government have acknowledged that the goodwill, which is really the unimproved value, is the property of the tenant ? —Under the present title, yes. 138. Where does your trouble come in, then ?—Under the Fair Rent Bill we should lose that. 139. If it were retroactive ? —Yes. 140. I have had an opportunity of seeing the opinion of Sir Robert Stout, and I have not read it in the way you have ? —I took it for granted from what I saw of Sir Robert Stout's statement in the House and outside, that it was retroactive. 141. Did you see a letter written to the papers by Mr. Vile, in which Sir Robert Stout's opinion was quoted ? —No. 142. If a revaluation clause were inserted in leases to be issued in future, what effect would it have in your opinion upon the settlement of the remaining waste lands of the Crcfwn ?—lt would have the immediate effect of barring any poor man from taking up land, because the men who go into the back country to carve out homes are invariably poor men. I can speak of that from experience. We went there with our labour, and we had to rely on the money-lender to raise money to enable us to improve the land, stock it, and put up buildings, and if we had had such a title as you speak of we absolutely could not have touched those improvements. It would have meant that men with money only could have taken up that land and cleared it with the intention of making a certain amount out of it. 143. If the aims of the Trades and Labour Councils with regard to revaluation are carried into effect, and their desire.is that the land should be revalued upon the death of the lessee or the transfer of a lease, what effect in your opinion would that have on the colony ?—lt must have a disastrous effect, inasmuch as it would paralyse improvements. Taking my own case, I cleared my land, grassed it, and fenced, but in some cases I had to do the grassing and fencing several times over on account of slips. I have improved my place to the extent of several pounds an acre, and if I sold the land it would not bring what it has cost me. If I were subjected to revaluation I would not do that improvement work, I would not cut a Californian thistle, but simply take all I could out of the land for the time being. I would let it " rip," and take what I could out of it. 144. Do you think there is any real danger of the desire trades and labour people being carried out, or of their carrying their wishes into practical effect ? —I would not like to say that there is, because I believe that if the matter were put to a test we landowners in the colony would be prepared to fight to the bitter end for what we have, and I think the Trades and Labour Council would not be able to tackle us on our own ground. 145. Is it not likely that in the event of any such attempt to carry retrospective revaluation into effect that such attempt would be resisted not only by the settlers upon the land, but by a large majority of the people in the towns, and by the far-seeing men in the ranks of this trades and labour organization ? —I hope you are correct, and I believe you are ; but I would point out that the very talk of revaluation and the Fair Rent Bill is practically ruining your holding as a security upon the market, and it must also have a very serious effect upon every acre of leasehold land in the colony. 146. You are aware that the people of the colony cannot call themselves a prolific race, the law of family tenancy is fairly strong throughout the colony: do you think that if a revaluation clause
1270
[j. C. OOOPWR.
C.—4.
were inserted in this Act it would have a deterring influence upon a most desirable class of immigrants ? —I am sure it would. 147. You have brought up this question of an increased population, but I would point out that as far as the country settler is concerned that charge cannot be laid against them. It only applies to the large centres, to the towns. Therefore, if we want the population to increase we must encourage our people to settle on the land. 148. This question of loading is a cause of great heartburning amongst the settlers : is it not possible to do away with the loading by the Government, and provide a finance to enable the settlers in these blocks to borrow the amount required for roading under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, and thus wipe out both principal and interest ?—That would be a cheaper and more satisfactory way, because then the settlers would get £1 value for every £1 spent, and at the present time I can give instances where they have not got more than 7s. 6d. for every pound spent. 149. Do you think the expenditure would be more economical if the money were placed at the disdisposal of the settlers themselves ?— I The settlers would spend it faithfully. 150. Is it not the case that in respect to many of these blocks the settlers actually get the work themselves ?—That is so. 151. Where does the unnecessary expense come in ? —lt is under the supervision. 152. Is there not very efficient supervision in the Wellington Provincial District ? —I think it is too efficient. I think there is too much supervision, and no necessity for any other supervision than that of the local body. They are quite competent to supervise these works, and have an adequate staff to control the work without other interference. 153. Are there any Road Boards in your county %—None. I am a member of the Mauriceville County Council, and we control the whole of the county. 154. Do you think the dual construction of works by the Government and the local body, within the same area, is unwise ? —Most unwise, expensive, and unnecessary. 155. Do you think a system of contracts is a more economical way of expending money than daylabour or co-operative works ?—Generally, yes. 156. Is it not the case that in your county, under County Council control, you get work more economically done by day-labour under efficient supervision than under the contract system ? —Yes, we generally adopt that, provided we can get a good overseer to take charge of the work. 157. In reference to the statement that there is discrimination on the part of the Advances to Settlers Board between the lease in perpetuity and occupation with right of purchase and the cash tenure as securities, we had the statement from Mr. Griffin, in Hawke's Bay, that there was no discrimination, and that the State looked upon the lease in perpetuity as equal in value with regard to the raising of money to the'occupation with right of purchase ? —I do not believe so. 158. He made the statement quite clearly ?—He may be speaking for himself, but such is not the case in the Wellington Province, and in my own district in particular. 159. Can you give me any concrete instance ?—Yes ; but if you will only wait for a settler who is to follow me, and who is better posted with the particulars of the case, he will give them to you. 160. Mr. Paul.] You said in examination by Mr. McCutchan that if you had a farm and there was a revaluation clause in the lease you would not cut down a Californian thistle : was that a fair statement or an extreme one ?—lt was a fair statement. I would let the place " rip." 161. How long .would it take to ruin your land under those circumstances ?—I would judge, by what I have seen of the Californian thistle, that it would take but a very few years. 162. And your income from that land would be correspondingly less as it became overrun with weeds ?—Yes. _ 163. Do you think that would be sensible from your point of view : —lt would not be perhaps taking one view of it, but from another view perhaps it would be, because I would be making all I could out of it for the time being, and letting the next man look after it afterwards. 164. But you cannot make anything out of a farm if you let it run to weeds ?—I should protect it-sufficiently to see my term out. I can quote an instance : Some time back I was given the opportunity on a man's land of looking at some hoggets; they were a splendid lot of hoggets, and he had a fine crop of turnips to run them on ; I said " That is a very good crop of turnips," and he said " Yes, lam going in for continuous cropping ; this is an education reserve; I have twelve years to run, and I am taking all I can out of it during that time, and when I am done with it will not be worth much to anybody." . x . 165. Is it not understood that a green crop fed off the land does not necessarily depreciate the land ? —But he was not going to fatten off the green crops, but to grow more crops. 166. What were the conditions of the education lease in reference to cropping ?—None whatever. Under the lease there was absolutely no restriction. 167. Where was the lease ?—lt would be in the Wellington district, up Rangitikei way. 168. Can you tell me exactly where it is ? —Waitahuna West. 169. You are sure there were no cropping conditions % —He told me there were not. 170. You have seen other holdings that are leased ?—Yes. 171. And, generally speaking, they are badly farmed ? —As a rule they were farmed for all that could be made out of them. I come from Canterbury. I have seen farming under all conditions. I have seen leasehold farms in Canterbury, and the man who lets his farm on lease, unless he is able to keep a very watchful eye on it, is a very foolish man. T1 , 172. Speaking of leasehold lands in Canterbury, did you ever see the Timaru Education Board endowments ? —No. . . 173. There is a big endowment there, and I have had the pleasure of visiting one and seeing the improvements on the farm, and I did not see any bad farming there 1 Are you a farmer. 174. No, I am not ? —How are you to judge, then.
■T. C. COOPER.]
1271
C—4.
-175. A man of ordinary common-sense and discernment can tell ?—lt is not a question of commonsense, but of practical knowledge. 176. I say a man of ordinary common-sense and judgment can tell whether a paddock is fertile, and well farmed, or whether it is being allowed to go to pot ?—Can he tell whether the generating substances of that land have been exhausted or not. 177. Do you know if the price paid for land under the Land for Settlements Act is a fair price or an excessive price ? —There is a good deal of controversy about that question. After all the price may be high, but it is often a question of bargaining. As far as I can ascertain in some cases the price paid may be dear, while in others it would be cheap. It is a very hard matter indeed to determine. 178. Do you know the law of mortgage in Denmark ?■ —I do not know much about it, but I know there is a limit as to the amount of interest allowed to be paid. I think the limit is 5 per cent. 179. Do you know how many freeholders are mortgaged in Denmark ?—No ; but with regard to the question of a freeholder being mortgaged, I would point out that I could take up a freehold, and, provided I have the advance of cheap money, I would carry as much mortgage on it as I could get, provided that I could see my way to make the interest and a bit more out of the investment. It is a question of financial arrangements. 180. In your experience are there many mortgages on freeholds in this district ?—That I cannot say, but I have no doubt there are a good many. Why should not there be ? The leaseholders are also mortgaged. 181. You think the constitution of the Land Board is satisfactory ?—No. I should suggest elective Land Boards. 182. Wholly?— Yes. 183. On what franchise ?—lt would be right to have it on a universal franchise, but for the expense. You must recognise that every one has an interest in the Crown's estate, but I am rather afraid that the expense of such a proceeding would be out of the question. 184. What would you suggest ?—The cheapest way would be through the medium of the local bodies, which of course represent ratepayers only. 185. You think that would be fair and democratic ?—I do not think it would be, but it would be cheap, and I think effective. 186. Then you would rob a large number of citizens in the country of any voice in the control or administration of the lands of the colony ? —Nobody has any voice but the Government themselves at the present time. 187. But the Government nominate from the people ? —lf it could be shown that such an election could be carried out cheaply, I would certainly say have ; t on as democratic a principle as possible. 188. For preference, the parliamentary franchise ?—Yes. 189. Has the general administration of the Wellington Land Board been satisfactory ? —I should say not. 190. You mentioned Mr. Marchant having been shifted : did you wish to imply that that was done under political influence I—Nothing of the sort 191. You think the transactions of the Land Board in the past have been unsatisfactory ?—The transactions apart from the Commissioners. Mr. Marchant was a first-class man for the position. 192. How many men are there on the Board who are not suitable for the position ? —From my experience of them I cannot call any of them suitable. They are all generally unsuitable. 193. Is it a fact that, owing to the very high price of land, many men who wish to take up land have had to put up with too small areas ?—That I could not say, but if a man cannot afford to buy more than a certain quantity of land, and he wants more to meet his requirements, of course he must put up with the want until he can make more money to buy more. 194. Do you believe in any system of leasehold from the State without the option ?—No. 195. Reverting to the Land Board, you do not know where hitherto any of its administration has been satisfactory ?—I would not say hardly any. lam speaking in general terms. I am not going to condemn the whole system because the Board did not do what I thought they had a right to, but I can give you an instance of bad administration. They have cut up land into too small areas for a man to make a living on. 196. You quoted the case of Mr. Brown, and in that connection you mentioned Mr. Hogg's name : did you wish it to be inferred that you thought Mr. Hogg had acted harshly in connection with that case ?—I said at the time that the Commission who visited the district were Mr. Marchant, Mr. Hogg, and Mr. Stevens, and that they granted the request of the settler in question. 197. You are a candidate for Parliament for this constituency ?—Yes. 198. You are not making any of these charges for the purpose of political capital ?—No. 199. I do not wish that to be inferred from my questions for a moment, but from what I understand, Mr. Hogg and Mr. Stevens are on the opposite side of politics from you, and I just wish to ask you the question, Are you making any of these charges for the purpose of political capital ?—No. If I wished to use the matter politically, I would not have mentioned a name at all. Harrie Keene examined. 200. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler, and hold 275 acres under lease in perpetuity, at Putara, Nireaha, seven miles from Eketahuna. My rent is 4 per cent, on 155., and I have held the land since 1894. lam here to represent a number of other settlers in the Nireaha district. I represent twenty-one settlers, and on their behalf desire to read the following letter : — " To the Members of the Land Commission, sitting at Masterton. " Sirs, —We, the undersigned Crown tenants of Nireaha, seven or eight miles beyond Eketahuna, respectfully request that you will accept our joint views on the land-tenure question, as presented by deputation
G.—4.
1272
[h. keene.
in writing, as we are unable, through exigencies of farm life and the distance to be travelled, to attend the sittings of the Commission at either Masterton and Pahiatua. We respectfully submit that, as Crown tenants, we are labouring under serious disadvantages. We are unable to procure that financial assistance which is necessary to the proper and speedy development of our holdings, through the nature of our tenures. We are of opinion that, not only upon sentimental reasons, but for the encouragement of thrift and industry, the option of the freehold should be granted. We would point out that several holdings in the Nireaha Settlement, which had been surrendered, were allowed to be taken up under the right of purchase, and at reduced rentals. We object to the loading of our sections for roads for perpetuity, and would be prepared to pay for our freeholds the difference between the lease-in-perpetuity rentals and the rental paid under the right of purchase." [Signed by twenty-one Crown tenants.] The settlers I represent, who have taken up heavy-bush land, consider their case is totally different from that of the settlers who have taken up improved land under the Land for Settlements Act, under the lease-in-perpetuity system. A settler taking up heavy-bush land is not able to take anything out of the land until he has spent considerable time upon it and done a lot of hard work. As a rule, men who take up this class of land are without capital. Most of these settlers, after doing certain improvements, have obtained small loans from the Advances to Settlers Department. That has been of some assistance to them, but they sometimes require more money, and when they have applied they have in certain cases been refused, and in others the amount offered has been so small as to be useless. It is no use applying for an advance to any one else, because the security is not looked upon as a good one. The land has been loaded from 2s. 6d. to ss. an acre for roading. This the settlers object to. They thought the money would be spent without delay and that they would be given access to their land. There is no doubt that some of the money has been spent, but the settlers have never had any account of it. The settlers, without exception, have had to get large loans through the local bodies to make their own roads and metal them. They have to pay interest on that money, and at the same time they are paying rent and interest in perpetuity to the Government for the loading of their land. I might mention that the loading on our block was £750 ; £370 of that was expended in an education reserve, and until three years ago that reserve did not contribute anything towards the road nor towards the loan. We consider that that reserve ought to contribute its far share towards the roads, and it ought to have contributed years ago. We took up this unsurveyed land, and a promise was given that access would be given to the land, and we deposited the survey money before we took up the land. The work of surveying, I contend, was not properly done. I would like also to draw attention to the fact that the Mangatainoka River encroaches a good deal on the property along its banks, especially on the rich flats. Some settlers have done protective work, but others are not in a position to do so. In one instance, an application was made to the Advances to Settlers Department for a loan to protect the land from the encroachment of the river, but the application was declined. With regard to the freehold, the land in this block was taken up under the optional system. Some settlers —I amongst them—believed at the time that the lease in perpetuity was as good as freehold, but we have learnt by experience that it is not. It appears that the improvements in the case of a lease-in-perpetuity section are not valued the same as under occupation with right of purchase. My brother-in-law has been able to put part of his section in grass, and reap the benefit of it last year by the good price of wool, and he nearly paid off the value of the land, and he had not a sixpence when he went on the land four years ago. If I had the opportunity to do the same as he has done I would be in a similar position. I could mention instances in our valley where sections have been unfairly forfeited. I desire to point out that, in the case of settlers taking up unsurveyed land, it sometimes happens that only a triangular survey has been made, and, having some knowledge of surveying, I can mention instances to prove "what I havejsaid the unsatisfactory nature of the survey. 201. Mr. Anstey.] Are all the settlers who have signed the document you have read lease-in-per-petuity tenants ?—Yes. 202. Have you any idea whether the ss. was sufficient to road the block ?—Yes. 203. And the block was not roaded ?—No. 204. Then either the loading was not spent, or it was wastefully expended ?—Yes. 205. You say that the amounts advanced by the Advances to Settlers Department are not sufficient ? —That is so. 206. There is a proposal to increase the advance on improvements up to two-thirds : do you think if that were done there would be ample security for the loans ? —Yes. 207. If you were a money-lender would you lend up to two-thirds of the value of improvements on leaseholds ?—Yes. 208. Are there many settlers who would be prepared to purchase the freehold if they were given the option \—Not many. 209. The object of some settlers in desiring to get the right of purchase is simply to enable them to finance better, is it not ?—Yes, that is one reason, and also that they may get the freehold. 210. Supposing the trouble in respect to finance were to some extent removed, would not that make the tenure satisfactory ?—No, Ido not think it would, our. minds are so unsettled. I also wish to say something about timber rights. Some three years ago certain parties had such very heavy timber on their land that they could do nothing with it, and sawmillers offered to buy the timber. Immediately it was heard in Wellington the Department asked that the money be sent to Wellington, and added they would allow it to go for rent. That question was threshed out and the Crown Law Officers decided that the Department had no right to ask the settlers to deposit the money. 211. Mr. McCutchan.\ You say that the education reserve is not included in the loan area ?—lt will not be until the land is occupied. We contend that the reserve ought to have been paying the whole time. It was not occupied simply because it was not put in the market. 212. You spoke of the river encroaching and settlers being subject to loss to fires, floods, and land-
H. KEENE.]
1273
C.-4.
slips. Would you advocate the abolition of the rebate and using such funds to meet severe losses incurred by river-encroachments, &c. ? —Not unless we get the option of the freehold. 213. Are the settlers generally doing fairly well ?—Yes, I suppose so, but for a number of years they did nothing at all. It is the good price of produce that has enabled them to do fairly well. 214. It was an act of grace giving you the rebate ? —lt was not promised when we took up the land, but I understand that in some instances Land Boards give rebate and in other cases they do not. 215. Then other considerations besides prompt payment are taken into consideration ?—Yes, I suppose they are. 216. Mr. Paul.] What experience of the Land for Settlements Act have you had \—l would rather not say anything about that, because the conditions under which that land is taken up are totally different from land in rough bush districts. 217. In respect to the way in which people look on lease-in-perpetuity land in the matter of advances, is it the condition of bush settlement or is it the tenure that makes the difference ?—There is no doubt that it is the tenure that makes the difference. 218. Have you improved your section \ —Yes, I have done a good deal in that way. 219. You will not say that the loading has not been spent, but you do say that the settlers have not got access to their holdings ?—Yes. 220. Do you think the Crown spent ss. an acre ? —They say they did, but we have not been able to get any statements of the expenditure. 221. You cannot tell the Commission what is the real position so far as the loading is concerned ? —I can tell them that these settlers are confident that not half the money has been expended. Sinclair. Munro George examined. 222. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer holding 200 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Mount Vicker Block, about six miles from Alfredton and eight miles from Eketahuna. I have held the land about ten years, and pay £12 4s. per annum rent. lam not satisfied with the lease in perpetuity, and would prefer the right of the freehold, because of the agitation for the Fair Rent Bill. I bought the section after it had been taken up by another man. I always held an opinion in favour of the freehold, and I was told at the time I took the section that I could get the tenure changed. I was misinformed. I object to the loading of sections for roads. We are loaded 6s. per acre and have had to raise a loan to form our own roads. 223. In your case was the loading not expended ?—lt was not expended in giving access to our lands. Bridle-tracks were made in the centre of the blocks for some of the settlers. 224. Is there any other objection you have ? —I am representing one or two others in Rakaunui. My brother took up a lease in perpetuity of 20 acres. He felled the bush and grassed it, and did his share of the fencing. His neighbours were not in a position to do their share, and consequently the land was of no value to him for putting stock on. He had at that time teams of horses and bullocks, and most of his time was working away from the section. He received notice from the present Commissioner that he must reside on his section. He informs me that he wrote to the Commissioner stating that the place was too small for him, and that he really could not stay on the place as it would not keep him, and that consequently he had to be away with his team in order to make a living. After receiving the letter he went to live on the section, on which he had built a house, and remained there about three months. At the end of that time he left the section to do some metalling in Alfredton. The next thing that occurred was that he got word from the Commissioner that the section had been forfeited for non-residence. It is pretty well three years now since that took place, and he is of the opinion that the section has never been offered since. The house is empty, and everything is going to ruin, and he thinks that when it is offered he will get very little out of it. He was not quite clear as to whether the section had been offered or not, but has written a letter asking for information to which no reply has been received. I think that £74 was put on the house and fences at the time the section was forfeited. He thinks it very hard that he should be treated in this way. He did more than any other settler there, and should have been treated more leniently. 225. Mr. Anstey.\ Was the loading of 6s. per acre sufficient to have roaded the land ? —Quite sufficient. 226. You are sure of that ?—Quite certain. 227. Was the money spent ? —lt was spent, but wasted. It was done under the co-operative system. 228. If spent properly it would have been enough to road the block ?—Quite sufficient. 229. Mr. Paul.] Did the settlers do the work ? —No, it was mostly done by gangs from Wellington and Canterbury. 230. What is wrong with the co-operative system, supervision or the system itself ?—I think they had bad overseers or engineers. There is a place where they formed a road, and when a competent engineer came along afterwards, another road had to be made, and the one first formed is high and dry and never used. 231. It was more the fault of the supervision than the co-operative system ?—Yes, I think so. 232. Would you be satisfied with the lease in perpetuity if there was no Fair Rent Bill?— No. 233. I understood you to give that as your objection ? —That is my main objection. 234. If you held a lease in perpetuity and paid too high a rent, and a Fair Rent Bill came in, and it rested with you whether you got the rent reduced or not, would you be in favour of such a Bill ?- — No, I do not believe in the Fair Rent Rill at all. 235. You think a tenant should stick to his bargain with the State ? —Not exactly. The lease in perpetuity is put in a very funny predicament. A man on the lease in perpetuity cannot borrow. I have a section which is valued at £1,174, and all that I have been able to get on that section from the Advances to Settlers Department is £125. A man can do nothing with that. 236. Could you not get more now if you asked for it ? —No, I do not think so.
160—C. 4.
C.—4.
1274
[P. COBBIGAN.
Patrick Corrigan examined. 237. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer holding 200 acres under lease in perpetuity in the Pioneer Farm-homestead Association, about six miles from Mangamahoe. I have had it for fourteen years, and I pay £12 Bs. per year. It is all in grass except a few acres. I would like to have the option of the freehold. My great objection to lease in perpetuity is the fear of revaluation. Even with that fear removed I would rather have the option and pay the difference in interest. The freehold is a more secure tenure. I cannot say much about borrowing. I got a small advance about nine years ago without much trouble, but it was easier to get an advance then than now from the Advances to Settlers Department. I object to the loading because in our case it was wasted, and we had to make the road ourselves. 238. Supposing you got the right to purchase these lands, would there be many in a position to exercise that right ? —I do not know anything about the private affairs of other people, but, to a certain extent, I would. 239. Would it be an advantage to you ?—Yes. 240. Upon what terms do you want the right of purchase ? —At the price at which we took the land up —viz., £1 lis. an acre. 241. You are paying 4 per cent, on that ?—Yes, but I would be willing to make up the difference of 1 per cent. Foster Percy examined. 242. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 380 acres under lease in perpetuity, and 100 acres of freehold at Mount Baker Block, in the Pioneer Homestead Association. I pay £12 a year for my leasehold, and Itim satisfied with the tenure. What would suit us best would be for the Government to help us with the roads, which are bad all the year round. I also think that the farm-homestead settlers should be allowed to hold larger areas. The present area is too small,especially where there is no dairy-farming. The limit at present is 320 acres, and, the sections being 200 acres each, one settler is debarred from buying another out. We should be allowed to hold up to 400 acres in the front and up to 1,000 acres in the back blocks. 243. Mr. Anstey.] Can you suggest any better system of finance to enable you to get the road ? — We have gone to the expense of putting the roads there ourselves, and we think the Government ought to metal them. 244. What rates do you pay to the County Council ?—I think it is fd. in the pound general rate, and Ad. in the pound special rate. 245. Do you suggest that the Government should make a grant to metal the roads ?—I think they ought to. 246. Would it not be much better to give you a subsidy proportionate to your rating ? —None of these rates go to metal roads that we have at present. 247. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you get the whole of the separate rates spent on the by-roads ?—No, it is mostly spent on the main roads. 248. Do you think that the rating expenditure should be legalised, so that the expenditure wherever it was would be stated ? —Yes. 249. Are you satisfied with the administration of the Land Board and the constitution ? —Yes, but there have been cases of harsh treatment. 250. To your own knowledge ?—There s only one that I know of, to my own knowledge. It was the case of a man who was managing another's place and was sent back by the Board to his own section.
Wellington, Wednesday, 14th June, 1905. Horatio Everett examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a settler, and hold 84 acres of Native reserve and 153 acres freehold. I have been in the district twenty-five years. My land is at Riwaka. 2. Is there any particular matter you would like to bring before the Commission ?—Yes ; I desire to draw the attention of the Commission to the various tenures existing in the district. There is a considerable area of reserves. There is the ordinary Native reserve, there is a large piece of Wakarewa Trust, and there is a portion of a hospital and charitable-aid reserve, and there is the Nelson College Reserve, while there are a few minor reserves, such as diocesan trust and education reserves. The total, as near as I can give it, of the reserved area in the Motueka Borough and Riwaka district is 3,800 acres. In the Motueka outlying district there are other areas with which lam not so familiar. These different trusts are all held under different tenures. There is the Native reserve, which is the largest block, and I think the area of that reserve is rather over 2,000 acres, and it is held under " The Nelson and Westland Native Reserves Act, 1886." Then, there are the Wakarewa Trust lands of over 1,000 acres, held under ordinary tenure ; they are held in trust in connection with the orphanage at Motueka, for the upbringing of poor children. Then, there is the hospital and charitable-aid reserve of about 300 acres, and the Nelson College Reserve of about 300 acres. There are also lesser reserves of about 60 acres. In the case of the Native reserve, compensation is allowed the tenant for his improvements, and each lease is renewable after a period of twenty-one years, the rent to be fixed by arbitration. Some of the Wakarewa leases have lately been granted on similiar terms, and the remainder of the leases which have not yet fallen in exist under ordinary leasehold conditions—that is, at the expiration of the lease everything'reverts to the landlord. The hospital and charitable-aid reserve lands are leased in manner somewhat similar to the Native reserves in regard to improvements, the rent, however, being fixed by the landlord. The Nelson College reserves allow no valuation for improvements to the tenant, and they fix the rent at their own discretion. You will observe that, in respect to these different
H. EVEEETT.
1275
G.-4
leases, they are held under different tenures. These reserves together form a very appreciable portion of the district. In the borough there is a population of one thousand people, and in this portion of the road district there is a population of about eight hundred. I imagine that in respect to the tenants there are about one hundred and twenty Native-reserve tenants, fifty Riwaka Reserve tenants, six hospital-reserve tenants, four Nelson College tenants, and six tenants of the less important reserves, making a total of 186 tenants. The rents of the tenants in the Native reserve in the smaller areas in the Mofcueka Borough are about £1 an acre. Those are old leases, where the sections have been transferred from one tenant to another; but within the last few years certain pieces of Native reserves have been thrown into the market, and the tenant has gone in without paying anything in respect to goodwill, and the rents may be put down at £2 an acre. But in the outlying parts of the district—good agricultural land—the rent is about 14s. That is in Riwaka. There are a few sections of comparatively poor land further out which pays very much less. Under the Act of 1886 the tenants of the Native reserves are allowed in respect of their improvements—to wit, whenever the lease expires and the rent is fixed no notice is taken by the assessors of the improvements for renting purposes. There is a right of renewal to the existing tenant; we have a right of renewal, and the valuer offers it to us at a price, and if we refuse the offer the matter can go to arbitration. Under the Act of 1886 it applies differently in different parts of the country. I believe it is differently applied in Nelson and Greymouth to what it is in Motueka, but in Motueka it is as I have stated. The Wakarewa tenants are in a kind of transition stage. The trustees have allowed them in respect to the leases I have mentioned which have fallen in similiar terms to the Native reserves. There are some leases that will not fall in for six or seven years, and they exist under the old conditions, and are entirely at the option of the landlord, whether he will grant them any concession or not. I have stated the tenure of the hospital and charitable-aid reserves. The tenants are of opinion—and I speak also for myself—that in common fairness in a district like that where the lands are side by side, and where the Trusts are of a similar character, there ought to be uniformity of tenure, and they think that no trustees should be allowed to act towards its tenants so notoriously as do the Trustees of the Nelson College, on which reserves the tenants work all their lives, and at the expiration of their lease their improvements are taken from them by reason of the increased rent, and thus they are taxed on their own improvements. I have selected the College reserves as being those which differ most widely from the Native reserve leases. At the expiration of the leases of these College lands, the tenants are subject to be additionally rented in respect to the improvements which they ha\e themselves put on the land. There are four of these tenants, and the area of the land is about 300 acres. lam decidedly of opinion that in a matter of this description there ought to be more equitable treatment meted out to the tenants, and, as far as possible, there should be uniformity in the tenure, especially as these are practically public lands vested in the College, and as the tenants have no right of renewal. I might mention the case of a section rated at 14s. in the case of the Native reserves, and in the case of the College reserves the charge for similar land is £1 ss. The increased price in the latter case is no doubt caused by the fact that a house has been put on the land, and a good orchard has been planted on it. Directly any improvements are made the rent has been increased, and thus the tenant improves the land to his own detriment. The tenants of course have to improve their land in their own interests, and we think that when men live on such land for a long time, and bring up a family on it. it is monstrous that they should be subjected to such treatment by their landlords. The landlords have been approached, and, I believe, they have agreed to grant some slight concession, bat we tenants are of opinion that by statute an amount should be fixed beyond which they shall not go, and that their (College reserve) conditions should be as similar as possible to the tenancy of the Native reserves. In respect to the tenancy of the Native reserves, although that is the best tenure, and although the tenants are fairly well satisfied with the treatment they have received, yet it does not mete out to us the justice we think we should receive. When you take up a section of land at a certain rental it is taken at a rack rent, but the district is being improved rapidly ; we form the roads and metal them, we pay our rates, we construct our wharves, we do our drainage, and the Government have given us better communication with Wellington by steamer, and when the river breaks through its banks we have fb protect our land. None of these things are improvements allowed by the Act, so that although we are improving the district as a whole, yet the Act takes no cognisance of these improvements while it increases the unimproved value of the land. We think that in all these matters, as far as the unimproved value of the land is concerned, there certainly ought to be some provision whereby the tenant's right shall be conserved. Under statute we can only claim in respect of improvements on the land we occupy, but improvements are being effected and have been effected at Motueka and Riwaka to the extent of thousands of pounds, to which the tenants in common with all the freeholders have contributed their quota, and yet they can claim no compensation in respect of those improvements. We claim that there should be an alteration made in the Act whereby the tenants shall be in a position to reap the reward of their labours. Although it is not his own property on which these improvements have been made the tenant wants some portion of the unearned increment as well as the landlord. 3. Your argument does not go so far as this that there should be no raising of rents at all ?—No ; not under present conditions. What I myself would rather prefer would be this : That, taking present rentals and assuming them to be just, I would like to see the Government capitalise on that and fix the rent. Supposing lam paying a rent of 10s. an acre, and it has been justly arrived at by arbitrators, I would think it was a proper thing for the Government to capitalise that and charge me a rent on 10s. an acre, and then I could improve the land to my heart's desire, and would not run the risk of being penalised for my improvements. But even if the Government can resume land in our part of the country —and I take it that there can be no objection to their resuming these trusts on a reasonable basis— then they should let us have it at such a rent that there would be no fear for the future. That is so far, I think, as we might go and do no wrong to anybody. These Native reserves were set apart in old times for the maintenance of indigent Natives. These indigent Natives are getting fewer and fewer
C—4.
1276
[H. EVEftETT.
in number, and I think it is not right that our rents should be raised in order to add continually to the wealth of a fast decreasing population. 4. Supposing the Government were to capitalise as you say and bring the land under theTpresent tenures, what tenure would you like ?—lf the Government does not see its way to go beyond leasing —of course I would like to see the lease made something like the 999-years lease—but if the Government sees its way to adopt the views of those who urge the granting of the freehold, then I should be quite willing to purchase from the Government if I had the option given me on the basis I have set forth. 5. You would like the occupation with right of purchase ?—Yes, by preference, or if I could not get that, then I would like the lease in perpetuity. 6. Could you furnish us with copies of the conditions of these leases ?—Yes, I will do so. 7. What class of land is this ?—I am speaking more particularly of the leases of the Nelson College Governors, and that land has always been spoken of as first-class land. 8. It is grazing or agricultural land ? —ln that district it is good enough for either, but we are not going in for much grai» growing. It is good, open, flat land, and is largely devoted to hops and fruit growing. It is mostly in 50-acre blocks and, roughly speaking, the rent is £50 or £60. 9. What were the rentals about twenty years ago ? —About 10s. an acre. 10. Were they not rented at peppercorn rentals with the object of allowing the occupants to improve them ?—Possibly that was so from the landlord's side of the question, but as times wear on the humour of the people changes, and the humour of the people now is to conserve the tenant's interest as against the landlord. I have been there for twenty-five years, and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, full and fair rent has been paid for that land without requiring anything in addition from the tenants. 11. Was that the opinion of the Nelson College Governors ?—I think the opinion of the Nelson College Governors was that the tenant was a sort of animal to be treated as they thought fit. It is with the Nelson College Governors that the tenants and the people have the greatest quarrels. 12. Who are the Nelson College Governors ? —There is C. Y. Fell, solicitor, Nelson ; F. Hamilton, merchant, Nelson; — Bannehr, editor, Nelson; A. Bisley, merchant, Nelson; J. Graham, M.H.R., gentleman, Nelson; T. N. Franklyn, gentleman, Wakefield ; —Richmond, gentleman, Nelson; P. Best, farmer, Appleby; and James Blair, secretary. I can only remember those names at present. 13. Is there a majority of farmers or practical men on the Board of College Governors ? —The only man who is really a first-class practical farmer is Mr. Best. 14. Would you advocate the Government taking over all these leases, and giving the Education Board bonds bearing interest at a rental that the lands would'produce, and at a valuation, and that the Waste Lands Board should administer the land ? —That is precisely what we think should be done ; that is, after a just rental has been agreed upon. 15. Allowing them no increase in value in the future ?—Yes. Let us have something like a termination of the matter. 16. What is the number of tenants on the Nelson College Reserve ?—There are only four in the district I come from, but there are other reserves belonging to the college. 17. You say you would prefer a 999-years lease ? —Yes ; if we could not get occupation with right of purchase. 18. Do you not think you might just as well have the freehold as the 999-years lease ? —Not altogether ; because most people are of the opinion that, with respect to the contention of the freehold versus the leasehold, they are not altogether as free agents as they are when they are freeholders. But if freehold land could be kept within limits, even as leasehold land is kept within limits —if, in other words, the aggregation of estates might not exceed a certain fixed point to be determined—any objection I might have to the freehold would disappear. Ido not personally care whether you call it freehold or leasehold. If you can conserve to the tenant an absolute fixed right to his portion of the land, personally, lam satisfied, and you can give it what name you please. But, under the leasehold tenure lam speaking of, the tenant's rights are not conserved, and in the Motueka district it makes a material difference whether your land is on tWfe leasehold or freehold side of the street. If people can get the freehold they will take it at almost any price. The improvements on the freehold side of the street are five or six times as great as on the other side. 19. Do you think that in the leaseholds there are improvements that are not visible when the valuator makes his valuation ?—Oh, yes ; but if the valuator happens to know when the land is cleared and stumped, and the manure is put into the soil, and the length of time the manure will act before it is exhausted, he can justly appraise the land at its true value. 20. There is a considerable amount of the improvements on the land that is not visible to the naked eye ?—Yes ; it depends, of course, when you consider the improvement is exhausted, and that is just the rock on which the valuer and the occupier often split. 21. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you not think that if these leaseholders got a 999-years lease the trusts would suffer very much ? —They would, in so far as their expectations in regard to a future rise of rent would not be realised. That would be the extent of their suffering. 22. In a young colony like this are there no chances that these lands will increase rapidly in value in the future, and that the trust will consequently suffer if bonds were issued at the present value and the tenants were ro get the 999-years lease ? —Not to an appreciable extent, as our districts are valued. I think, to ask for rents higher than those than are already exacted from the tenants would be passing beyond the bounds of reason, and to capitalise them in order that they should continue to receive them they would then have an assured revenue and the tenants an assured position. 23. If these lands have reached their maximum value, then the trusts would not be detrimentally affected by a change, but if the trusts have not reached their maximum value the trusts would suffer : would not these lands increase in value as population comes in ?—I do not say they would not increasa,
H. EVEBETfJ
1277
C—4.
or, on the other hand, that they might not get lower in value, because there is a good deal of speculation. Take the hop industry, for example : we know what effect is likely to accrue to the land if prohibition is carried in New Zealand. The hop industry would virtually be killed, or, at any rate, very prejudicially affected. Then there are great areas of land being put into orchards, and we all know how problematical is the ultimate success of that enterprise. 24. Can you outline any change in the present methods of revaluation, so as to secure that increased value to the tenant ?—lt seems to me a grave injustice in putting up the unimproved value so that the tenants' interests are practically confiscated, and if the present methods largely remain unaltered the only way would be by the Government halving the unearned increment. 25. You think the tenant, by putting in roads and making other improvements like that, put on themselves a good half of the increased value of the land : do you think that would be a fair basis ? —Circumstances, of course, alter cases, but I believe half and half is about the difference at present, so far as our district is concerned. lam willing to give the Native trust this credit, that in making their assessments they deal fairly well with us in respect to the rent. They have not pressed us to the ultimate, but that is not a condition of affairs that ought to continue, seeing that it depends upon the goodwill of the landlords. If the landlords choose to press us very hard, they could very prejudicially affect our position. 26. How are these trustees appointed: by the Government or nominated ?—Nominated by the Government. 27. Mr. Anstey.] Do you consider generally that the tenants ought to get compensation for improvements and the right of renewal and an arbitration rent ? —Do you mean with respect to private land ? 28. Yes, the State or private tenants ?—I do not think one section of the State has a right to be exploited for the benefit of another section. These tenants whose case I am representing fulfil the duties of State tenants. 29. The State tenants and the tenants on reserves, you think, should all get compensation and have the right of renewal and an arbitration rent ?—Yes. 30. That would not apply to private institutions ? —I do not think any leases now current should be interfered with. But, as new leases are drawn out, these private tenants should have the same privileges as the tenants of the State. 31. Can you not see a difference between the leasing of land by the Government and the leasing of land by a private individual, who may only wish to let his land, for instance, until his son shall be of age ? —Then he should let it from year to year. 32. Would you allow it to be let from year to year with revaluation or compensation ?—lt is a difficult question. 33. Would you advocate that the tenant should get the benefit of the improvements on the property actually of his own creation ?—That is entirely my view. 34. Do you think that that ought to apply to all lands ? —Yes ; and if those of us who hold from the Crown now should in our turn let lands to others, we should also accord these conditions to our tenants. 35. You spoke about the improvements that had been made on the lands leased in your district: you said you and your fellow lessees had borrowed money and made a lot of improvements ; that you had taxed yourselves for drainage and for harbour-works, and that that expenditure should be represented by a reduction of rent ? —I say it should not be represented by a rise in the rent. 36. Is it not a fact that your improvements are largely created out of loan-money which you have rated yourselves to pay for ? —ls that not in he nature of a mortgage on your lands ? —Some may regard it so, and some will hold that it is not a mortgage on the land. But the unimproved value of the land rises hugely, and we are rated and rented for it. 37. Is it not a fact that every increased shilling on the rates is represented by a reduction in rent ? — That is as it ought to be, but there is the stress of circumstances to be taken into account. It causes a great deal of people to come there, and when you get them there you can do almost what you like with them. 38. You told us that pe pie do not care for the lease ? —I say they prefer the freehold. 39 Can you tell me why it is that when the Crown cuts up an estate and offers sections on lease in perpetuity you get prices of £100 per section and sometimes more, while for freehold land there is apparently no buyers ?—That is because there is so many people with but little ready money who want to take up land. 40. Is it not a fact that the leasehold is more suitable for the small farmer ? —lt is more suitable certainly for the man who is beginning life. As a rule he has no option, but if a man gets on in life, especially if he has a wife and children, you will find that that man becomes more anxious about the future than in the days of his youth, and if he can improve his position he will do it. 41. You think, then, that every one should have the option of taking the freehold ?—Yes, providing you determine his area and do not allow it to go beyond a certain point. 4-2. If you are to give every one a portion of the freehold, how will it be for the next generation : how will the young people get on the land ?—The logical outcome of it all is this, that if you grant the right to the freehold you must also allow a similar measure of justice to the succeeding leaseholder. 43. The logical outcome of it, then, is that the freehold you would propose to give would be a more limited freehold ?—ln area ? 44. In several ways. The land, you see, would be subject to the limitations of the Act, and would be under the review of the Crown ?—lf the Crown finds it necessary in the interest of the public welfare to enact limitations with respect to the way in which to lease their land properly, I contenn the thing is required; in other words, the public must be considered before the individual. I contend that if I
0.-4.
1278
I"h. eveeett.
should have certain privileges granted to me, I in turn should be compelled to grant them to those under me. Ido not wish that one section of the community should be favoured more than another. 45. Would it not be as well for the State to take the bull by the horns and administer the whole of the lands ?—The State, by its taxation, can get there every time it wants to. 46. Supposing you had a lease in perpetuity of this section you now hold, would that be satisfactory to you ?—Speaking for myself, it would be abundantly satisfactory. 47. Would it be satisfactory, providing you got a perpetual lease subject to renewals at periods of twenty-one years, burthened with the full value of the improvements ? —That is the trouble with these reserves ; we never know where we are. We would like to know the extent of our liabilities. 48. With respect to the Nelson College land, you consider that the rent fixed to-day should be the rent for all time ; but the population of New Zealand may immensely increase and the obligations of the College may also increase: is it not fair that the revenue should increase in proportion ?—That is the landlord's point of view, and theoretically it is right. 49. But do you think as a tenant you have a right to get a lease in perpetuity and fix the rent to-day, when possibly the land may be worth double to-morrow : does that not give you something to which you have no right ? —Who should get it ? Who should more properly have it than the tenant ? 50. Do you think it proper that the tenant should have the whole of the unearned increment I — No, but-if you establish a fixed point—say the Government capitalised it—there is such a thing as land depreciating in value instead of rising in value, and the tenant takes his chance knowing his limitations. At present, as I say, we never know where we are. 51. You think the tenants should have the right of purchase ? —That is the thing which they would ultimately prefer, but I believe the greater number would be satisfied if they could have it on similar terms to the lease in perpetiuty. That would meet their aspirations for the moment, although ultimately I believe they will take the form of occupation with the right of purchase. 52. Do you think that the College Governors are in the same position as the Land Boards, viz., that they almost invariably think they have to consider their tenants' rights ?—I do not. 53. Do you consider that no body of men should be allowed to control the public estate unless there is a fair proportion of farmers on that body ?—Not necessarily. It should depend on the conditions of the case. What would be the good of having the public estate in the towns controlled by farmers. 54. Supposing they were dealing with farming lands ?—Then there should be a fair modicum of farmers, but they should not all consist of farmers. It is as well to have a mixed body. 55. Mr. Paid.] In the election of the Land Board, would you be in favour of its election under a restricted franchise ?—As far as the Land Board is concerned, I believe it ought to be elected by the ratepayers of the district on as broad a basis as possible. 56. Would that not be the parliamentary franchise ? —Yes. The more you get the people to pai ticipate in public affairs the better they will be. 57. Increased responsibility is good for them ?—The more responsibility you give people in reasoj the better. 58. What do you consider the most satisfactory form of lease for endowments, considering the interest of tenants and the interest of the body for which those endowments are set aside ? —Providing thev are limiting the leasehold, I think the present system under the Nelson and Westland Act is an admirable one, but provision should be made for the tenant acquiring his just rights. 59. May that be arrived at in this method : The tenant and the valuer in the first place try tc arrive at some equitable conclusion as to the capital value of the land on which the rent is based: is that done now, or is it possible to do it now ? —Most of the leases are old leases in respect of which large sums of money have been paid for the goodwill. Now, the goodwill value is in excess of the actual value of the improvements. For a period of twenty-five years the Native trust has always made a certain allowance to the tenants, and that, when capitalised, has increased the value of the goodwill, but the continuance of that depends largely upon the goodwill of the trust. My idea, say, with respect to old leases, is that if the bottom value is assessed by arbitration, they should allow half and half of that unimproved value —credit half to the landlord and half to the tenant —and make hat the basis for the future ; that would do justice to both parties. If the unimproved value rose in value the landlord would stand to credit, say, £2 10s., and the tenant to the same amount, and the tenant might expect a rise of 2s. 6d. in his rent. If, on the other hand, the land depreciated in value, half of the loss would be the landlord's and half the tenant's. I think that is the fairest way of dealing with these trust lands, and would do injustice to no one, you secure the landlord in his rights and the tenant also in his rights, and provide that both tenant and landlord have what is due to them. 60. Is that not a more reasonable position to take up than to ask for a 999-years lease of the endowments ? Not altogether, because there is always the question hanging over their heads of what the arbitrators will agree to. At some time these leases will fall in, and that feeling of unrest is abroad. You never know what the outcome is to be, but when it is all over the tenants feel that it is all right for another twenty-one years. 61. Under our present system there are periodically times of unrest owing to several causes : the man who takes a freehold or a 999-years lease is not afraid of the unrest ?—And he knows the measure of the liability he incurs. When it is a question of a falling market it affects the tenant. Then there is a lot of political unrest that affects both parties. But the tenant does not think he ought to be subject to this continual additional worry with regard to the ultimate, outcome of his ventures in the land. The lease in perpetuity gives him a certain fixity. Is it not a good deal better that those doing the work should have their right conserved, that is to say, that the bulk should be considered rather than the individual ? 62. The endowments are set aside really for the benefit of the whole people, because there are various endowments set apart for different sections, therefore the whole of the people of the colony
H. EVERETT.-
1279
C—4.
are vitally interested in anything which is done with the endowments ?—But for the colony I think it would be a very good thing to have that rent fixed, so that by its fixity confidence is established for the future. 63. Is it not the fact that the land sometimes depreciates in value and that sometimes it rises in value ?—Yes. 64. Would not revaluation fixed by arbitration be an equitable provision for the tenant ?—The tenants would rather know what their liability is and have done with it. In the Borough of Motueka on one side of the street you have the best buildings and fences. The explanation is that that side is freehold and the other is trust land. The Native-reserve tenancy is the most liberal of all. 65. Is that of general application ?—Yes. 66. Do you think that if the system you outline, in the first place—that is, the equitable value—were fixed by arbitration, you would get over any difficulty which exists so far as the leasehold tenure is concerned ? —lt would, in my opinion, be a step in the right direction, and go a long way towards satisfying the people. 67. It is very easy to understand your dissatisfaction with some of the provisions of the leases. What you want to arrive at is something which shall work out equitably ?—Yes, that is all. 68. Is it not true that the Nelson College Governors let land now at a price below its value almost on account of giving the valuation for improvements ?—That is the highest rented land of all. 69. You know that land is sometimes let without valuation for improvements at a low rent ?— This is not. In fact it is far more highly rented than Native lands, where we have the right to improvements. I have a section rented for £32 10s., and just across at the corner there is land not one whit better which is paying a rent of '£60. 70. Do you think that land in your district at present is at its highest value ?—Yes, at about its highest, and I believe it is just about as high as it is going to get 71 Would not this be an inopportune time to fix the rent ?—From the tenants' point of view, but we prefer that some sort of permanent rent should be arrived at. 72. If the land is at its highest value now, there cannot be any great objection to the form of lease which you outline ?—I do not think there can be any objection. There is a borough in the vicinity, Motueka, and as the people begin to build the land will increase in value, but the people are afraid to build on the land we are dealing with, because they do not know what the rents are going to be. But if they knew there was a certain fixed rent which they had to face they would cut their coat accordingly. Instead of that, there is this uncertainty, which causes a feeling of unrest that cannot be a good thing for the country. 73. If the period were lengthened above twenty-one years would that meet you ?—lt would make the position less acute. The endowments belong to the nation, and it seems strange that the nation should profit at the less expense of a few tenants. 74. You admit yourself that an equitable arrangement can be come to between the tenant and the Land Board whereby both interests are protected ?—I believe it can be done. 75. Outside of 999 years ?—Yes, though we would prefer the other. 76. Is there anything you wish to add ?—Yes. In regard to the valuation of improvements there is a very serious matter which affects our district. There are hundreds of acres, and it will run into thousands eventually, of fruit-plantations. When these are valued as improvements they only allow us in respect to the cost of the trees and the labour of putting them in. It frequently happens that we have to wait five, six, seven, or nine years, according to the class of tree, before the fruit is of any service to us, but in the meantime the labour and charges are going on. That orchard is going to be worth, in time, £50 an acre and over, but the Government only allow us what it has cost to put the trees in. It is a great industry throughout the whole district, and will be worth many thousands of pounds annually, but, as I say, they only allow us the actual cost of planting. The valuation made with respect to hops, small fruit, and large fruit was made merely in respect to the cost of preparing the ground, planting the trees, and the cost of the trees. You have to consider that these orchards will be worth £50," £60, £70, or £80 an acre in a few years by reason of the improvements, but now they only allow us about £10 an acre. That is one of the questions in connection with the valuation for improvements which has become a burning one. John Stuart Wratt examined. 77. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 400 acres of freehold and 400 acres of leasehold under the Whakarewa Trust. My term of lease is fourteen years, without the right of renewal or improvements. Thirty acres of it is agricultural land for which I pay 15s. an acre, and for the balance I pay Is. an acre. I have occupied the land for nearly twenty years. 78. Do you agree generally with what Mr. Everett has said ?—Yes, in most of the points, but I differ largely with him as regards the lease. I believe in the freehold myself. In addition to the areas I have stated I should say that I am just taking up another 450 acres of freehold, but for which I have not yet got the grant. The position, as far as lam concerned in connection with my leasehold, is that I have received notice that on the termination of the lease thirteen months hence, it is not to be renewed. When I bought the goodwill of the lease it was a bankrupt estate. I paid £130 for the goodwill, but, although the lease when shortened by two years, my goodwill was increased by £150. After occupying the land and bringing it from a wilderness to a condition of fair fertlity, I feel it is a hardship to be turned out. There are other tenants of the Trust who have received notice that certain portions of their land, amounting to 50 acres in the aggregate, are to be reserved, and for which a yearly tenancy will be given. That is, of course, regarded as the thin end of the wedge and that that land will be soon taken from them altogether. The tenure is very unsatisfactory. Some of these people have occupied the land for fifty-five years, and of course they will often be racked down with heavy rents sooner than leave
a—4.
1280
[j. S. WEATT
their homes when they have been so long on the land, and they feel the uncertainty of the position very acutely. 79. What are the rents applied to ?—To the upkeep of the orphanage. 80. Is there any other point you wish to mention ?—No, but I would like to emphasize what Mr. Everett said with regard to leasehold and freehold in Motueka. Three-fourths of the land there is leasehold, and there is a fair illustration of it in our main street, where all the principal buildings are on the freehold side, the leasehold being only used in cases of emergency. 81. Mr. Johnston.] What is the area of the Whakarewa Trust ?—A little over 1,000 acres. One sheep an acre is about the carrying-capacity of the poor land I occupy. I may say that when I took up the land it was overrun with fern, tutu, and rubbish, and practically would not carry one sheep to 10 acres, and I have broken it up and attempted to put it into English grass, but I find that it will not support English grass. 82. What is the nature of the balance of the land ?—I think I can safely say lam occupying the only poor land in the Trust, most of the other is good agricultural land. I think lam paying full value for my agricultural land, and of the balance in the Trust there are isolated bits that are perhaps more valuable. 83. Can you give us any idea of the income of the Trust ?—The rents bring in under £550. 84. What is the size of the orphanage ?—I suppose it has capacity for fifty children. It was, I believe, given by Sir George Grey for destitute Native children and Church of England children. For many years the Bishop of Nelson was the sole trustee, but the present Bishop of Nelson has two cotrustees with him—viz., the Rev. Mr. Kempthorne and the Rev. Mr. Grace. They all belong to the Church of England. They are the controlling Board, but we have been very fortunate in the fact that the Board's agent is a very reasonable man. That, however, does not gi\e us a secure tenure. 85. Have the tenants materially improved the land ?—Undoubtedly. 86. Built houses ?—Yes, and made their homes there. 87. What do they exist on ?—Gardening, hop-growing, and poultry-keeping. 88. Are they prepared to give these religious ministers a fair rental for the land and still be refused a renewal of their lease ?—Probably they do not intend to serve them all as they served me, at least I hope they will not. 89. Are there any private leaseholds there ?—I think not. 90. Mr. Anstey.] At how much do you value your improvements on the leasehold ?—About £400. 91. Is there a house on the property ?—Yes, but it is very dilapidated, and I am not living in it; it was built by the Trust and is the only house they have built. 92. To whom do you think in all honesty that £400 of improvements belong to ?—To me. 93. Do you think there should be a universal law conserving to the tenant his improvements within, of course, proper limitations ?—I do, most decidedly. 94. Do you think the law shovild be altered giving to all tenants a freehold in their improvements ? —Yes, I do. 95. Do you think it would be a fair form of lease, such as the Native trustees are giving—a fairly long lease with right of renewal and full compensation for improvements ?—Yes, I think that is fairly equitable. 96. Do you think that the trustees of this particular Trust are dealing in an unfair manner with their tenants ?—I do. Before ever I bought into this Trust I went to the agent of the Bishop of Nelson and asked about the right of renewal, and I was told there would be no trouble about the renewal at the expiration of leases, provided I was a reliable tenant, and I was informed that a desirable tenant was one who paid his rent. The lease was renewed for another fourteen years, and that is terminating and I have received notice to quit. 97. Is this orphanage the one about which there was some scandal some years ago ?—No. 98. Do you think it is wise that reserves shou'd be set aside for educational purposes and be administered by people who are not farmers ?—No, Ido not. I think practical men should be on the Boards. 99. Mr. Paul.] Do you concur with Mr. Everett so far as the constitution of the Land Board is concerned I—That1 —That is a question I am hardly qualified to give an opinion upon, inasmuch as I happen to be a member of the Land Board. 100. What is the object of cancelling your lease : is the land wanted for closer settlement ?— I think they intend to attach the land to the institution. They have 50 acres now, and I believe that they intend to keep the children a bit longer on the land. 101. Mr. Johnston.] Do they want to take this other 50 acres away from the leaseholders before the expiration of the leases ?—I think it is at the expiration of the leases. 102. What is that land to be taken for ?—lt is to be attached to the land of the orphanage. 103. How many children are in the orphanage ?—Probably about forty, principally boys. Joseph Albert Askew examined. 104. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler at Riwaka. I hold 14 acres of freehold and 50 acres of lease. lam under the College Governors. I have been living there about thirteen years, but have only had the place myself four years. My father held it before me, and we have held it altogether about twenty years. lam paying £1 an acre rent for the 50 acres. I cultivate hops, and go in for dairying. There is a dairy factory there, and we supply milk to it. 105. You have heard what your two friends have said about various matters: do you generally agree with what they have said ? —Yes. With regard to this lease there are a lot of improvements that it is impossible to see after twelve years. The land was a lot of it a swamp, and in rushes and under water. I drained it, stumped certain portions of it, and put in hops. Now, if it is valued, a lot
1281
C—4.
J. A. ASKEW.
of those improvements cannot be seen. I think we should be allowed to share in the value of the improvements. My lease has four years to run. I would prefer the freehold for choice. 106. Do you fear that your rent would be raised considerably when the four years are up ?—I have no say in that matter, because when the four years are up I have nothing more to do with it. 107. Does it not go to arbitration ?—No. Three or four years ago we petitioned the Governors on the matter, but at first got no answer. We tried again two years ago and still could not get any satisfaction : they said that I had the ground until end of lease, and all the improvements went to the Governors at the end of the term, and that they could not see their way to allow me anything. We then petitioned the House, and Mr. R. McKenzie took the matter up. Then they sent me a letter saying that they had given me a small concession, but as to the house and buildings that we bad erected, they claimed them all. I have here the letters : — " Nelson College, Nelson, New Zealand, Ist May, 1905. " Dear Sir, —With reference to the petition from yourself and others respecting the conditions of lease of College lands, and to the visit of a Committee of the College Governors to Riwaka in November last, and their interview with the tenants of College lands there, I am directed to state that the report of the committee was submitted to the Council of Governors in November last, when it was referred to a later meeting. Before this meeting was held, the fire at the Boys' College took place, and the many matters of urgency which arose from that event caused consideration of the report to be deferred. It has now, however, been adopted by the Council, and lam directed to state, should you in the future desire to make any permanent improvements on the property occupied by you, that upon first obtaining the consent of the Council to the particular work, and also satisfying them of the prime cost thereof, the Governors will, at the end of your term, pay to you the then value of such improvements, such value to be arrived at, if necessary, by arbitration. The Governors trust that this concession, which will be held as in force from the date of the visit of the committee, will meet your wishes. —Yours &c. " Jas. Blair, Secretary. " Joseph A. Askew, Esq., Riwaka." " Nelson College, Nelson, New Zealand, Ist May, 1905. " Dear Sir, —I am directed by the Council of Governors of Nelson College to call your attentiou to the desirability of your insuring against fire any houses or buildings upon the College land occupied by you. Should a fire take place you would be liable to make good the loss sustained, and it is therefore advisable, for your own sake, that you should protect yourself by insurance—Yours, &c. " Joseph A. Askew, Esq., Riwaka." "Jas. Blair, Secretary." " Foxhill, 14th March, 1905. " Dear Sir, —Enclosed please find the report of the Lands Committee of Parliament on the petitions of Motueka and Riwaka residents, which you handed to me in Wellington during last session. I am of opinion that the tenants interested in these leases should now follow this matter up until they receive redress from the Board of Governors. I will be most happy to help them all I can.—Yours, See. "Albert Askew, Esq." "R. McKenzie. " Nos. 905, 906, and 907. —Petitions of Martin Wilson and 5 Others, Horatio Everett and 39 Others, and Albert Askew and 107 Others, Motueka, Nelson. " Petitioners pray for valuation for improvements and fair rent on land leased from the Nelson College Board of Governors. lam directed to report that the Committee is of opinion that, within reasonable limits, compensation for improvements should be allowed all occupiers of public reserves and endowments, and recommends the prayer of the petition to the favourable consideration of the Government. " 4th November, 1904." With regard to the permanent improvements that we have to make, they only recognised stumping, draining, and building. They would not recognise the hops or the orchard. 108. Mr. Johnston.] What is the rental of this place at present ? —£l per acre. 109. What could it be rented for if the lease were up now ? —I think it is rented for the full value. 110. What do you reckon your improvements were worth ?—About £500. 111. You say you petitioned them and got no reply ?—No. 112. Was Mr. Holloway the secretary at that time ?—Yes. 113. Was he a good and reasonable secretary ?—I never had any trouble with him. 114. How many people signed the petition ? —I did not count them. 115. You indorse what Mr. Everitt said that these men are nominated by the Government and not elected ? —They are nominated by the Government. 116. Do they administer all the lands in their trust in the same way ? —As far as I know they do. There is one piece of country in regard to which it is said that their administration is just as bad as it is down our way, and there are several pieces in town, but, of course, I do not know anything about them. Town matters are out of my line. 117. You do not know the total area they administer ?—No. 118. And you got no satisfaction whatever when you applied to them prior to the letter you have just read ?—I got no satisfaction before that. 119. Is this the first time that they have paid any visit to your land ? —Yes, that I know of. 120. They practically know nothing whatever about the state of their endowments ? —No. I think we should get along with them all right if it were not for Mr. Fell. 121. Is he a stumbling-block ?—He is the worst one. 122. Is he the chairman ? —I could not tell you. 123. That is, Mr. Fell the solicitor ?—Yes. 123 a. Mr. McCutchan.] Is there any one on this Board of Governors who is recognised as the representative of the tenants ? —No
161—C. 4.
1282
0.—4.
J. A. ASKEW.
124. The tenants are unrepresented on the Board of Governors ?—We have nothing to do with them. 125. Has the Government nominated any particular man to represent your side of the matter ? — Not that I know of, unless it is Mr. Best. He is a farmer and the only one on the Board. 126. Is he a lessee of the Trust ?—No ; a freeholder in the Waimea. 127. Has your land been recently valued ?—Yes, quite recently. 128. Is the draining and stumping taken into account in the valuation of the tenants' improvements ? —I do not know. 129. Have not you a return of your value stating the improved and the-unimproved value and the total value ? —I could not say. 130. Mr. Anstey.\ Are you sure that the Government nominate the whole of this Board of Governors to look after these trusts ? —I believe so. 131. You told us that the Board of Governors demanded that you should insure this building : was it to be insured in their name or your own ? —ln mine. 132. You are very fortunate, because they demanded in my case that they should be insured in their name ? —No, not with me. They said I would have to replace the buildings. 133. Mr. Paul.] Was the house they asked you to insure erected by yourself ? —Yes. 134. Would you be satisfied if you had the right of renewal at an arbitration rent and with full revaluation for improvements ? —I think we should have such a lot of improvements that it would not be possible to see them. 135. I said at the full Value for improvements ?—No. I should think we should have a say in regard to any rise in the property that was brought about by our own labour, because that rise may be in respect to those improvements that are unseen. 136. Do you not think you could get value for them if there was a proper system of valuation ?— Yes ; but you would have to have men as valuers who were on the place at the start and knew what it was like then and now. The present valuers know nothing about what it was like at the start. Could you not appoint one of your neighbours as an arbitrator and by that means none of your improvements would be lost in arriving at the valuation ?—Of course, you only have the one say. 137. Do you not think that would be satisfactory ?—lt would be fair better than the present system, but it would not then be what we wanted. 138. You think you ought to get full value for improvements ? —lf we got full value we would we satisfied, but it is impossible to get it. 139. Why ? —Because it does not matter who you send there to value it, he does not see the unseen improvements. Say the ground at the present time is worth about £1,000, when we have completed our improvements it may be worth £1,500. That increase is brought about by our work, but £500 of it cannot be seen. I refer to all that stumping, ditching, draining, and so on. 140. But the value would be very real, and surely that could be arrived at ?—I do not think it could be. William Henry Hampton examined. 141. The Chairman.'] What are you \—l am here to represent the Trades and Labour Council of the City of Wellington. lam the president of the Council, and I have occupied the position since March last. There are about 2,500 members; it runs from that to 3,000. Since the Commission sat in the South Island and had our previous witnesses before them, namely, Messrs. McCullough and Scott, we have had the annual conference of the Trades and Labour Councils, and we have come to a decision on the land question. I believe we can claim now to represent the whole of the affiliated unions of the colony, numbering about twenty thousand people. There are over twenty-seven thousand unionists, and we claim to represent twenty thousand of them. lam a journeyman carpenter. 142. Would you like to make a statement in reference to the various tenures ? —Yes. With regard to the tenures, the labour party desire to give their very emphatic testimony in favour of the leasehold as against the further sale of any of the Crown lands of the colony. They consider that as practically there is only a limited landed estate left to us, the workers in the cities have as much right to speak to the disposal of the remaining Crown lands of the colony as anybody else, and are of opinion it is inadvisable that any more of the remaining Crown lands should be sold or leased with the right of purchase. We find that as the population increases so also is land increasing in value in the same ratio, and that as the colony is not yet populated to the extent it can carry, in a very short time, unless the further sale is stopped, there will be no lands left. We therefore think that the State should be careful as to how it disposes of any of its lands. I have made extracts from the Year-book setting forth the increase in the value of the lands of this colony : Taking Birkenhead in 1891, the unimproved value was £42,000, and in 1904, it was £50,000 ; Devonport, increase in value from £163,000 to £243,000 ; Auckland City, from £2,470,000 to £3,734,000 ; New Plymouth, from £165,000 to £660,000 ; Hawera, an increase from £37,000 to £177,000 ; Feilding, from £68,000 to £167,000 ; Palmerston, from £310,000 to £818,000 ; Onslow, from £70,000 to £147,800; Karori, from £74,000 to £211,000. We have the same increase right down throughout the North Island, and in the South Island similar increases have taken place. Timaru, from £151,000 to £324,000 ; Alexandra, from £2,955 to £10,257 ; Winton, from £17,000 to £19,000. This increase is all on account of the making of public improvements, such as the construction of roads, railways, and the expenditure generally of public money. We say that these are our reasons why the community should hang on to the remnant of the Crown lands. Of course, we have considered the question of the freeholder and the leaseholder, and we consider that giving the freehold is merely playing into the hands of large loan companies of this country. And even if the area which any man might hold under the freehold were limited it would be only a nominal
W. H. HAMPTON.I
1283
0.-4.
limitation, for some of the loan companies would practically own the land as mortgagees. We have gone into the question which has been put before this Commission by many witnesses —viz., that they find it almost impossible to borrow on reasonable terms under the leasehold, and we consider that this is one of the strongest reasons why this Commission should report in favour of the leasehold system of tenure as against the freehold. If the leasehold were adhered to as against the freehold, we consider that there would be less necessity for those who go on the land to borrow, because instead of sinking their capital in the freehold they would be able to hold it and use it for general working purposes. In many of the districts of this colony—and taking in particular the district from which I come, the Ashburton district —it is well known there that the majority of the freeholders are merely nominal owners, that nearly all are mortgaged to the different money-lenders throughout the district, and in the event of one bad season, should the mortgagees foreclose, they are thrown absolutely out of their holdings. Of course we labour people, although we have got a bad name in some quarters, recognise that we are part owners in the land of the colony, and as part owners we contend that we have a right to a voice in the disposition of the land. We advocate the periodical revaluation of land held on lease, and as regards existing leases we advocate that revaluation shall only take place on the death of the present lessee or on the transfer of a lease to another party. We consider that if they were subject to this revaluation it would go a long way towards stopping the trading and speculating in connection with our Crown leases, such as I believe is going 011 at the present time. I believe that as much speculation is going on in regard to some of our Crown leases as goes on in connection with freeehold land, and if we can prevent the fictitious or speculative value of land by these proposals, I think we will have done more for the«mall struggling settlers in the back blocks than has ever been done previously in the history of this colony by any Government. 143. You have given us some increases in the case of town land that have taken place within a comparatively short period: you have not referred to country land ?—Some of the land is country land, for instance, Winton and Alexandra are small places. 144. But what as to rural land ? —We recognise the back blocks of to-day will be the villages and towns of to-morrow, and the towns of to-morrow will be the cities of the next generation or so. Land in this city was not worth much fifty years ago, and yet it is worth, according to the last valuation, £6,913,000, an increase of over £3,400,000 in thirteen years. As I said before, if we can get the revaluation of all existing leases 011 the death of the present lessee, or on the transfer of his lease, we shall do a great deal to kill this fictitious value —for I believe that is all that this amounts to —but it is a value which we have to pay for, and it is a value which tends to keep many of the town dwellers landless. It is a value which prevents hundreds of people in each of the centres from going on the land as they ought to do in a young country like this, which is more suited to agriculture than to manufactures. 145. Are you aware that under the lease in perpetuity the Government has entered into contracts for 999 years with each of these tenants : do you think it would be just to break those contracts ? — They have already been broken against the interests of the Crown, and in the interests of the tenants. 146. Assuming that you are right in that statement, do you think that it is right that a contract should be broken ? —The Government must have thought it right, or I suppose they would not have done so. Our proposal is for revaluation on the death of the lessee, and surely if it is not revalued previous to the lessee's death his full interest in it has been conserved, and no right which he had acquired under the lease has been taken from him. 147. But it has been taken from his widow and family % —Yes ; but if it is left with them it simply means that the fictitious value of that land still continues, and the right is taken from some of the town dwellers and their children to go on the land, should they see fit to do so; and, furthermore, the increased value which is accruing is being taken from the community. 148. But you are taking it from the widow and the children in the first place, and that is a serious thing, I think ? —We have widows and children in this city who do not know where they are going to get their tea to-night because of the land-speculation and the freehold tenure as it exists in this colony. 149. But do you not think that the sacredness of contract is one of the very foundations of all order in the community ? If there is to be no faith kept, where are we ?—Every mistake we should do our best to rectify, and if a great injury is being done to the community I say we should rectify it as soon as possible. 150. Mr. Johnston.] You said that you represent twenty thousand people : what is supposed to be the number of the working population of the colony, unionists and non-unionists ? —I have not looked up those figures. 151. But, roughly speaking, what would you say ?—I would not venture to give an opinion, but I know that from the last returns there were about twenty-seven thousand unionists. 152. How many non-unionists are there ?—I would not care about making a statement on that point. 153. You say that twenty-seven thousand is the number of unionists; is not that a small proportion of the population of the colony to dictate such terms to the country: how much of the colony have you been over ? —I have been over the Wellington, Canterbury, and Taranaki districts. 154. Have you been outside the Town of New Plymouth ?—Not to any great extent. 155. Have you been outside any of the towns of the colony ? —I have been pretty well through this district, but I have not been in the back blocks. 156. You have never been in the back blocks ? —No ; I have been absolutely prevented from getting on to the back blocks, because of the present monopoly of land through the freehold system. 157. Have you ever tried the ballot ? —No. 158. Then you have not been prevented from getting on the land, because you have not tried the ballot for a section? — But thousands have been.
1284
[W. H. HAMPTON.
C—4.
j 1 T 159. Thousandspiave gone 011 the land: have you been twenty miles through the bush? — No. 160. You have had no experience of a bush settler in the back blocks ?—No ; but I have met one or two people in Wellington who took up freehold land, and who are now back in Wellington through the mortgagee. 161. But have you had personal experience of working in the back blocks ? —No. 162. You do not know what it is to live twenty or thirty miles from the town, or to milk cows ?— I know about milking cows. 163. You have referred to increased values owing, as you said, to the construction of public works within the last thirteen years : will you tell me what public works have been done in Alexandra within the last thirteen years ?—The Otago Central Railway, I believe, is approaching that town. i" ; 164. Is that the only thing you know of in respect to Alexandra ? —There is the increase of population throughout the colony. 165. Do you attribute that increase in value to the expenditure of public moneys ? —Yes ; and also to the increase in the population. 166. How far is the railway from Alexandra ?—I suppose it is about fifteen or eighteen miles. 167. It is more than that; but suppose you were told that this increase in Alexandra is owing entirely to the gold got from the river, and not to the expenditure of public money, what would you say % —I should say that it is owing to the discovery of national wealth that should be conserved to the community instead of going to the individual speculator. 168. Do you own any land now ?—Unfortunately, Ido not. Many of us would if we could. 169. What public money has been expended in Palmerston North in the last thirteen years ? — I could not definitely say. 170. Do you know that practically no public money has been expended in Palmerston North within the last four years, so that the expenditure of public money does not account for the increase in that town, and Winton is practically in the same condition now as it was thirteen years ago ?—Then, it would be owing to the increase in the population. 171. Were you one of the delegates at this conference ? —Yes. 172. Are you prepared to assert that if a referendum were taken of the workers of this colony they would, as Britishers, repudiate the 999-years least ?—I am not prepared to say what the workers would do under any circumstances. I, for one, would vote in favour of revaluation of all existing leases, even without the qualification which the conference added to it. 173. Would you go so far as to repudiate a lease made by a British Colonial Government and revalue that lease ? —I would be prepared to rectify a wrong that had been done to the whole community by granting those leases in the first place. 174. If a referendum of those twenty thousand men were taken, would that referendum show a majority in favour of revaluation ?—Yes. 175. You are absolutely positive of that ?—I am pretty well sure it would. 176. Are you positive of it ? —You can be sure of nothing. Yau cannot swear to anything when it comes to a ballot, "but speaking from the opinions of men I have met at the conference, and by mixing with unionists in this city—and lam connected with several unions here —I feel sure that they are very strongly in favour of periodical revaluation of all lands held on lease. 177. The British working-man, then, has deteriorated to such an extent that he would repudiate contracts made by a Government ?—I do not know that he has deteriorated, but I believe he would do justice to the community. 178. Can you produce any evidence about these properties at Ashburton being mortgaged ?— I have not access to the desks of those gentlemen down there, but when I was passing through there it was the common talk of the district, but that was the position in which they were : Friedlander Bros, and the New Zealand Loan and Mortgage Agency. 179. If you had a freehold section in town, would you go to the Government and say to them, capitalise this section and make it a leasehold ? —I do not see any reason why I should not do so. 180. Supposing the back-block settlers had a union, and they said we will come down and fix the rate of wages of the men working in the towns, would you agree to that ?—We already have a tribunal for periodically fixing our wages. 181. But would you like back-block settlers to form a union and come down to Parliament and say, we insist that the wages in the towns shall be so-and-so ; do you not think that is every bit as reasonable as it is for you to interfere with the tenure of the settlers in the Country ? —No, it is not. Our wages have very little to do with them, but the tenure of the land is a question which affects every man, woman, and child in the colony, and, as I said before, we, as colonists, recognise that we have an interest as shareholders in the remaining Crown lands, whereas the man in the back blocks who would set up a tribunal to fix our wages has no interest in that matter. 182. We will allow that you have an interest in the tenure of the land : have they not got as much right to dictate as to what wages shall be paid in the towns as you have to dictate as to their rentals ? — No; one is a matter affecting the whole colony. 183. Do you know of any land anywhere in the colony that is selling at a less price now than it was twenty-five or thirty years ago ?—I believe that Napier has a lower value now than it had thirteen years ago. The population fluctuates in different towns, and the figures show that population and increased value go hand-in-hand. 184. Has Napier decreased in population ? —lt is lower now than it has been for some time, but perhaps not in the last thirteen years. Hastings has increased in value and population. 185. Do you know of any rural land that has decreased in value ?—No, I cannot say that I do. The increasing demand for land throughout the colony would affect rural land in the same way as it does town land.
W. H. HAMPTON.]
1285
C.-4.
1 86. Supposing I gave you an instance oi land which thirty years ago was worth £18 an acre, and which three years ago was only worth £10 an acre, what would you say ? —I would say that in the interests of the tenant it is time that land was revalued. It cuts both ways. 187. You have quoted long lists of increased values, but you have said nothing of decreased values, of which there are numbers of instances ?—I think there are very few. 188. There is a very large area of Southland that is not worth within 30 per cent, of what it was worth twenty-five years ago ? —Apart altogether from the amount of the increase of the amount of the depreciation in value, this is a matter of principle. 189. lam not going into the question of principle. Do you think, when a revaluation takes place in a bush settlement, that all the bush settler's improvements are perceptible on the surface ?—No, I believe that the Land for Settlements Act sets out what shall be regarded as improvements. 190. lam not referring to the Land for Settlements Act; there is very little virgin bush under the Land for Settlements Act. Do you not think that there is a great deal of labour and capital invested in a bush section that is not represented in a valuation when a valuation is made ?—Surely the tenant should make that clear. They know the state in which the land was when the settler took up the land in the first place. 191. Do you think that a valuer can state the exact amount of money a man has spent on a bush farm ?—No, not the exact amount. 192. Mr. McCutchan.] Were you a delegate at this Conference ?—Yes. 193. Did you take part in the division when this question of revaluation was decided ? —Yes. 194. What was the division-list ? —The division-list was on the present proposal or on one that was slightly more stringent. 195. What were the numbers ?—The present resolution was carried by eight to four or five against the more stringent resolution. We were all unanimoulsy in favour of revaluation, but we were not decided as to when that revaluation should be made. 196. You were unanimous on the question of revaluation ?—Yes. 197. There was a division when you came to revaluation retrospectively ? —Only as regards the proposal that was carried, viz., that it should be made to apply on the death of the present lessee, or on the transfer of the lease, which might occur first. That was carried as being the less stringent of the two proposals. 198. Do you think there would be much occupation for people in your own pursuits when you made the leases all over the colony subject to an hour-to-hour revaluation ? —Well, it would be hardly from hour to hour, and it would conserve to the tenants their full right to the improvements. I believe some of the gentlemen who were giving evidence previous to me would be glad to have their leases on these terms preferably to those they have them on now. 199. Revaluation on the death of the lessee ? —Yes, or at definite terms of twenty-one years. 200. Do you think this agitation you are fostering tends in the direction of realising your hopes ?— It will ultimately. 201. Do you think it possible it may have the opposite effect ? —No. 202. Are you aware that from the North Cape to the Bluff you have produced a sense of uneasiness both amongst the leaseholders and the freeholders ?—No, I do not believe there is any serious uneasiness at all. 203. I will give you four names : McLean, Clive, Winks, and Fantham, I believe, is the fourth : These are four capable, bright, youtig, country settlers who have left the colony with £20,000 of capital since the declaration, and largely owing to the declaration, of your organization in Wellington of its policy in regard to the land ?—They have left the land to us, and we have still got the labour to work it. 204. They have taken £20,000 of hard cash out of the colony, and they are all practical young farmers. You cannot find many of the same class of these young men. I may mention that the district they have left is the Hawera district. Your Council can verify this information if they care to do so. You say it is almost impossible to borrow on the leasehold ?—That is, going by the evidence I have read as given before this Commission. 205. What you say is that that is one of the strongest reasons for the leasehold ?—Yes, simply because the freehold causes the man to be at the mercy of the mortgagee. 206. What is the connection with the freehold in this respect ?—We are speaking of the 999-years lease: what has that got to do with the freehold ? —That was according to the evidence. 207. The evidence is that it is almost impossible to borrow on these leaseholds, and you say it is almost impossible to borrow on these leaseholds ? —Yes, the borrowing places the man in the hands of the mortgagee every time. 208. Are you aware that the Advances to Settlers Department have lent out several millions of pounds ?—Yes, but most of the applications have been made by outsiders. 209. That is owing to the insecurity brought about by your agitation ?—Perhaps so. 210. You say that speculation in these leases is destroyed by revaluation, and you give instances where speculation is going on with regard to these leases ?—I was reading Hansard of last session, and I find that there are very few of the original settlers at Cheviot, while the land there has been changing hands at large premiums. It was not contradicted, so I presume I was right in accepting it as fact. 211. Do you think the leaseholder should not have the right to dispose of his lease if circumstances required him to go elsewhere ?—Yes, he can give it up now, but when the welfare of the colony demands that land, it is not right that it should be placed at the mercy of a few holders. 212. You state that you are a shareholder in the 11,000,000 of acres of land held by the colony ?— I have a small share of it. 213. Has the outsider a share in it too ?—So long as he makes a home for himself on it and does his share towards the upkeep of the community.
1286
[W. Et. HAMPTON.
C— 4.
214. If a Chinaman comes in and gets naturalised, does he get his share ?—They will not naturalise him now. . . . . , 215. Is that division you spoke of on the question of the revaluation of existing leases fairly representative of the feeling of the members of your organization ?—Well, yes, you can take it that the majority were in favour of the proposal as we carried it; the rest of them were in favour of a more stringent proposal, but we, who were defeated, will accept the less stringent measure and throw in our lot with the majority and go for a little if we cannot get the whole. 216. The resolution was carried in favour of revaluation on the death of the lessee ?—Yes, that was carried. . . . 217. I suppose you are aware there are a number of these lessees m the position of wanting to buy for cash and take up lands they were quite satisfied with until recently ?—They are not debarred now from buying for cash ; there are plenty of speculators in land who are only too glad to sell for cash. We only took up our stand with regard to Crown lands ; we do not want any more of the Crown lands of the colony sold. As for those having a hankering for the freehold, let them buy from the freeholders, but not from the Crown. . 218. Are you aware that your agitation is unsettling those men who were in favour ot the leasehold ?—I do not believe it. 219. Have you followed the evidence throughout the colony I—Yes. 220. And still do not believe that ?—No. 221. Mr. Anstey.] Do I understand that the whole of the members of your organization were unanimously in favour of revaluing existing leases ?—That division-list was eight in favour of the proposal which was carried, and five against it. The five who voted against it were in favour of a more stringent one. . 222. You are all in favour of the revaluation of existing leases ? —Yes. It was deemed advisable that the labour party should make its attitude with regard to existing leases quite clear and definite. 223. I understand the labour party are unanimously in favour of repudiation ?—We are in favour of righting a wrong it if means repudiation in that respect, but not so far as the existing lessee is concerned ; let him enjoy the lease for the whole of his lifetime. 224. Supposing a man goes on a section and takes it up under lease in perpetuity, and that the man has a wife and possibly a family, do you mean to say when that man dies, and the wife is deprived of the assistance of her husband, that that is the proper time to select for raising the rent on them : is that the unanimous opinion of your organization as representative of labour ?—' Yes. 225. Do you think that that is honest, right, or just ?—lt is right that the interests of the whole community should be the first consideration. 226. Do you think the interest of the community is to seize the opportunity to worry the unfortunate widow because her husband has happened to die 1 We made the proposal that during the lifetime of the man the rent should remain as it was. 227. Supposing when a man dies the land is going to be revalued, and supposing the man has two or three children, and that they have been working on the place for years to get a home for themselves, do you think that as soon as the father dies, and they are deprived of his assistance, that you should select that as the time for raising the rent ?—lt is to be subject to revaluation, and if the land is not worth an increase they will not have to pay an increase. 228. You think that is quite honest, after deliberately entering into a bargain, to vary it ?—lt is in the interests of the community, and they have a right to override the interests of the individual. 229. You say the lease for 999 years is a deliberate bargain entered into between the State and the individual ?—Yes, it is a bargain. 230. Now, when the Crown sells for cash they enter into a deliberate bargain s—lhey5—lhey sell it. 231. Is there any difference between the two kinds of bargains ?—No. 232. Then, if you are going to repudiate on the one hand, why not the other also ?—lf it is shown to be in the interests of the community to do so, I say do so. The interests of the community should be the first consideration of the Government. . 233. Millions of acres have been purchased from the Government at any price from a few shillings to pounds per acre ] some of these lands are now worth £20 per acre . do you think it would be right to resume them at the original price ? —We put forward no workable scheme for land-nationalisation. 234. Do you not think it is as honest in the one case as in the other I—l think the unearned increment should accrue to the State, and that the State has a right to tax on the unearned increment. 235. You have not answered my question. You say it is right for them to repudiate the lease-in-perpetuity contract. Now, with respect to men who have purchased land at, say, £1 an acre which to-day is worth £20 an acre, is it right that the State should take it back at the original £1 an acre which was paid for it ?—lt might not be able to take it back in that way ; it might tax it out of him by the imposition of taxes. ..... 236. You think it would be fair to do that ?—I think it is fair and just tor the State to impose whatever taxation they see fit without any talk of repudiation. 237. Will you tell me what particular lease you favour, what you consider a fair lease ?—Twentyone years with revaluation. . . 238. Do you think at the end of twenty-one years you can give the man a fair position ? —I have not gone into the length of the period, nor has the labour party, but that is the general idea running through all our discussions, from fourteen to thirty years, but I think twenty-one is what might be termed the average. 239. You gave us figures about the unimproved values in the various towns : are you aware there are continual complaints with the valuations now, continual complaints about writing down the improvements and writing up the values. You think that is quite fair t Of course they are taxed on the valuation.
W. H. HAMPTON.]
1287
C—4.
240. They are taxed on the unimproved value, which, generally, is more than they have a right to pay ? —1 have read that there is some land the owners of which objected to a valuation of £30 an acre, and part of the same land was sold at £60 an acre. It when it is for taxation purposes that they complain the values are too high. 241. In the case of a man who has got 100 acres and showed he had expended £4 an acre in improvements while its original value was £1, would it not be a just thing to write the improvements up to £3, and the value at £1 ?—We are absolutely in favour of the tenants having the right to all his improvements. 242. Can you tell me how you could conserve his rights ?—ln the event of a dispute there is the Assessment Court. They may assess and he can bring what evidence he likes, and on that evidence they can assess his improvements and the unimproved value of the land. I believe the Assessment Court would deal out justice to them. 243. You gave us instances of town lands that had gone up largely in value : can you give other instances of rises in value in Crown lands in the back blocks I—Unfortunately the figures relating to the increases in these Crown lands are not quite so handy as in the case of some of these others. I have tried to get hold of them, but in the time at my disposal I could not get them. 244. Are you aware that we have had evidence from time to time that there has been no absolute increase of value in these back blocks, and if you take the existing Crown leases there is no increase in the value except in the labour applied to them. Why not give us some of these figures to prove your case ?—lt is simply a matter of principle. I say these town lands show a large increase. The back blocks of to-day are the towns of to-morrow. What was Wellington itself worth fifty years ago ? It is now worth £6,000,000. 245. You have told us of the immense increase of the unearned increment in the cities, and you have failed to show us any unearned increment in these remote Crown lands. Would it not be wise for your unions to turn their attention to where there is a large increase in the increment in the Crown lands and cease worrying and deterring people from going to the back blocks ?—I think we are going on fair lines to do our duty to the country as we see it, without fear or favour. 246. With respect to Ash burton, you said the freeholds are practically all mortgaged ?—Yes. 247. Did you ever see a bad season in Ashburton ?—I could not cast my memory back. 248. Did you ever see a general stampede among the farmers: you say they have all mortgaged and one season would throw them all out ?—I am meeting fellow-tradesmen here in town every day that have been in the back blocks and have had their freeholds, and through bad seasons and foreclosures they have had to take to their kits again. 249. It was Ashburton we were talking about. Did you ever see a bad season at Ashburton that cleared the lot out ?—No. 250. Then, your statement must be grossly exaggerated You said they were all mortgaged, and with one bad season they would be all thrown out. Is that not a gross exaggeration of the truth 1 —I do not see that it is. 251. Mr. Paul.\ From the examination you should gather that the position of the bush settler is not altogether a happy one ?—No, I agree with that. 252. Do you think, as a representative of a large party, that there would be any solid objection to making the conditions for the bush settler as liberal as possible, even to giving him a long lease, part of which would be without rent ?—Yes, I believe that the Government should make it as easy as possible for the man in the back blocks, even if they do without rent, and erect his dwelling in the first place to get him to take up the land. 253. Do you think, as a representative of a large and influential section of the community, they would object to the Government giving him a long lease for the first term, of which he would have it practically without rent ?—I do not object to that, providing there was a proviso in it for a revaluation. 254. You would give him what would be a very good equivalent for the freehold, only it would have the'immediate advantage of being somewhat definite instead of something that might happen if everything goes on all right ?—Yes. 255. Now, with regard to this revaluation of present leases, you know that under the Land for Settlements Act, at all events, some settlers who have bought from the original selectors have paid a very large amount for goodwill: how would they come out under your proposal ?—You mean with regard to existing leases ; that would only apply to other leases after the first revaluation had taken place. With regard to existing leases the other revaluations would follow on periodically at intervals of fourteen or twenty-one years. 256. That is not the point I want to find out. What is the position of the man who buys in, who has bought the goodwill of the section ? —He would have to take up that lease subject to its revaluation. 257. At present there is no provision for revaluation. You know that many of these sections have been sold, and that men have paid for the goodwill of these sections to the holder: in what position does the man findjhimself who buys in in this way and pays for the goodwill ?—He is in the same position as the original lessee. He would apply for the lease at what he thought it was worth, and would be allowed to enjoy it for the best part of his life. 258. He bought something that he honestly thought would go on for 999 years, and the State comes along with a proposal to take away the community-created value of something he has paid hard cash for \—Yes ; but he would be allowed to enjoy it for the full term of his life. As long as he desired to hold that lease he can enjoy what he has paid for. 259. Why should you confiscate the freehold when the State requires land for closer settlements 1 —I do not know why some of the larger prices are paid for land. I have never been able to understand it yet.
0.—4.
1288
[W. H. HAMPTON.
260. Do you not think it would be just as logical for the labour party to say, " We will take over the land we require for closer settlement without compensation, or take the community-created value for nothing and give him the bottom price for his land " ?—That is so ; we have a right to take it by taxation and the right to tax it away absolutely without any talk of repudiation. 261. Can you not see the position of the party is not logical where they pay cash when they want freehold for closer settlement and part of that price, or the larger part of that price, may be a communitycreated value : when they want that they pay cash for it, but now you propose to take that same value from the leaseholder and pay him nothing for it ?—We do not advocate paying this large price for the community-created value. Our position is not illogical, because we do not advocate the reverse position which you outlined. 262. Is it not a fact that the labour party took a very big part in bringing the lands-for-settlement legislation into operation ? —We have been blamed for any bad points in connection with it, but other parties took advantage of it at once. 263. Is it not a fact that the labour party played a very large part in bringing in the Land for Settlements Act ? —I believe they did, but they were not acting then as a labour partv. Their lot was thrown in then with the Liberal party; they were mixed. 264. One of the Commissioners asked you if you had a freehold would you give it up : do you not think you would be a fool if you did ? —Nothing of the kind. Well, under the present circumstances, I suppose I would be a bit of a fool to give it up, because it might leave me at the mercy of the other freeholders, and I do not think I would benefit by that. 265. If it came to a question of giving up your freehold and taking a lease, providing the rest of the freeholders were placed ou the same footing, I suppose you would have no solid objection ?—No ; I understood, as I said when the question was put to me previously, the State was to capitalise the value of the freehold. 266. Do you mean to say that there was not one man at the conference opposed to the resolution as carried ?—Those who opposed it were in favour of a more drastic one., 267. You wish it to be conveyed to the Commission that this resolution which was carried at the conference was unanimous Yes ; you may say that, with that exception. 268. There was not one man at the conference opposed to revaluing present leases ?—He did not express himself. The man strongest against it was the man who moved the motion which was carried, and that was Mr. Scott, of Dunedin. 269. You know we have had several labour delegates before the Commission and, with three exceptions, they were against revaluing existing leases ? —I believe Mr. Scott, in his evidence in Dunedin, was against revaluation. 270. Perhaps a dozen other witnesses were against revaluing existing leases ?—I cannot help their individual opinions. What I have given was the decision of the labour party of New Zealand in conference. 271. You wish to carry that further and say that not one man at the conference was against the resolution carried ?—Eight voted in favour of that, and the five who voted against it were in favour of a more drastic proposal. I can only go by the expression of opinion at the conference, and there was no expression of opinion, as far as I can recollect, against the proposal here set forth. 272. If I say there are five members who were at the conference who are against the revaluing of existing leases, will you contradict that ?—lf they were there they kept silent about it, and either voted for the decision arrived at or for the more drastic proposal. 273. Was not the resolution carried at the conference a compromise : was it not a question of those who were against any interference with existing leases voting for that or the stronger one being carried ? —There were some members of the conference who were arguing against any alteration, and, on Easter Monday, they were saying that they were against it on principle, and so on. We had a general discussion. Ido not know whether we were serious or not, but, when the conference opened, the outcome was an amendment which I moved to a proposal that was before the meeting. Mr. Scott, who was one of those who argued against it when we were outside, and previous to coming to the conference, was the one who moved the amendment as a prior amendment to the one which I had tabled, and his amendment is the proposal which was ultimately carried. 274. Was it not a question of Mr. Scott getting his amendment carried or a more drastic proposal being carried ? —Not if, as you say, there were so many who were against it. Even if it did, it simply means that those who were against it throw in their lot with the majority and are prepared to stand by their conference decisions. 275. You think there is no doubt about that ?—No. They are loyal labour men and will stand by the decision of the conference. 276. Are there not times when the loyalty of a man to any party must cease if against his convictions ?—Yes ; I think so, but they would not have voted for the resolution which was carried as against my motion if it was against their convictions. 277. If that was the best that could be done under the circumstances they could hardly be blamed ? —Yes ; I do not believe to any great extent in compromise when it is a matter of principle. 278. Can you tell me the object of four men leaving this colony with £20,000 in their pockets when there is plenty of freehold for sale ?—I think they wanted to tour round and enjoy themselves. 279. Do you think there is a possibility of their coming back when they have spent their money ? —They nearly always do, but if they do not we can do without their money so long as the land is left, and they cannot take that. 280. Can you say from your own knowledge whether the cost of living has increased in Wellington ? —I know it has within the last ten years.
W. H. HAMPTON.]
1289
C—4.
281. Is it a fact that there has been an increase in wages during the same time ?—No, with one or two exceptions, the principal trades have had no increase in wages. One or two small trades*have had an increase, but generally there has been no increase in wages whilst there has been a large increase in the cost of living. 282. Can you give an opinion roughly as to the proportionate increase in the cost of living ? — Yes, a minimum of 25 per cent. 283. Do you find in the city that rent increases out of all proportion to any rise in wages ?— I know it does. 284. Is there any land suitable for workmen's homes in Wellington ? —There are a few areas within our extended district which might be used for the purpose. 285. Is there any demand for such homes ?—Yes. 285 a. Is it easy for workmen to rent houses at suitable rents ? —No ; it is almost impossible to get a house at a reasonable rent. 286. A man told the Commission that eighty per cent, of the workers in the cities own their own houses : is that correct ?—From the opinion of different land agents in this town, and from my own observation, T say that eighty per cent, of the workers are unable to dwell in a house by themselves. Eighty per cent, have either to take lodgings themselves, or rent a house and then take in boarders, or let rooms to pay the rent. That is generally owing to the high rents. Take a man earning Is. an hour, and that means for dry weather, and in winter-time will not mean £1 10s. a week. If he has five or six of a family he will have to pay from 14s. to £1 a week rent, and he cannot do that out of his wages and support his family as well. It means letting rooms ; it means overcrowding. 287. It does not seem as though the back-block settler has a monopoly of the misery ? —No. 288. Mr. Johnston.'] We want to definitely understand the position. Do you represent the whole of the affiliated unions of the Trades and Labour Council, or do you simply represent a majority of the majority of the various unions ?—I am representing the whole of the affiliated unions of the Trades and Labour Council. 289. You absolutely represent twenty thousand people ?—The decision of the last conference was the decision of twenty thousand unionists throughout the colony. 290. You were selected by that conference to give evidence ?—No ; I was selected by the Wellington Trades and Labour Council as their president. 291. This motion which was carried was the less drastic of two motions ?—Yes. 292. And the only compromise that could have been got ? —I do not know. No further amendment was moved. 293. You were asked a question to which you repiled that no land-nationalisation scheme had definitely been put out in detail. Is there one in prospect ?—I hope there will be. It is time there was. 294. Do you think that a man who never had anything to do with the hours of labour should dictate what hours should be worked. Do you think that the capitalists of the city should say that the labouring class are to work eight or twelve hours a day ?—No. 295. Well, then, do you think it is just that men who have had no earthly experience of any kind on land should dictate what terms should be extended to a settler in the matter of revaluation ? — We are not dictating terms. 296. Your evidence said twenty-one years ?—I did not give any definite term, but I said that twenty-one years seemed most reasonable. 297. You said that you had met a number of men who had forfeited their sections because of the state of the back blocks : could you give us between now and Saturday morning a list of the names of those men and the blocks they resided on ?—I would have to get their permission before I could use their names. lam giving this evidence on oath. 298. Will you give us a list of the number of men ?—I know of three men at this moment who have had the freeehold and have been forced in to the town through the mortgages. 299. Mr. Anstey.] You did not make it clear in reply to a question by Mr. Paul what would have happened in the case of a man who had paid a large sum for the goodwill of a lease in perpetuity. For instance, supposing £1,000 has been paid for a goodwill, and this man who paid that did so knowing that the property was to belong to him, and his wife and family afterwards; suppose that man dies twelve months afterwards : would you steal that money ? —I would submit the section to revaluation. He takes the risk of a speculation. 300. There is no risk if he has entered into a definite agreement. If you break an agreement which cost a man £1,000 it is like stealing the money from him ? —lt is the same as a man investing money in land under one system of taxation, which taxation is shortly afterwards considerably increased. That man might consider that you are practically confiscating his income by land-tax. 301. You think it is perfectly fair to steal that £1,000 ?—The good of the community must override the interest of the individual. It is a question of principle. 302. I think you misunderstood Mr. Johnston's question as to how many you represent. You represent the Wellington Trades and Labour Council, but at the same time you think that the opinions you express represent the feelings of the majority ? —That is so. 303. You do not represent the executive of the Trades and Labour Conference ?—No ; I said that at the start. 304. The New Zealand executive of the Trades and Labour Council is not represented ? —That is so. 305. The Chairman.] How many do you really represent in Wellington here ? —Our numbers run from twoithousandjjfive hundred to three thousand. My opinions with regard to land-tenure and revaluation are indorsed by the whole of the councils.
162—C. 4.
C.--4.
1290
Fr. a. oosse.
Robert Alfred Gosse examined. 306. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a carrier at Lower Hutt, and a settler in the Epuni Hamlet. I have 1 acre lease in perpetuity, and am paying £6 4s. a year rent. I have held the land for three years. lam satisfied with my lease, and also with the land. I should like a periodical revaluation, as I consider it would be perfectly just. We have had a meeting there, and I think lam expressing the views of half the settlers there. lam not here to represent I will be here themselves to-morrow in force. 307. Is there anything else you wish to bring before us ?—There is one question which affects the leasehold there, and that is in order to enable that land to be profitably worked for agricultural purposes, for which they took it up, the rent must not be more than £7 per year. The present rent is £5. and with rates and taxes it is brought up to £7. For the past few years the value of the land has been gradually increasing, until it bids fair to get past the price at which the settlers can make a profit out of their labour. 308. That will remedy itself, as the people will not take it up if they cannot make a profit ?—lt is a perpetual lease, they cannot throw it up. It is a fundamental clause in this lease in perpetuity, and if it does not affect them at present it will later on, because with rates and taxes the rent threatens to get past that point at which the farmers can make a living. They are restricted to using the land for agricultural purposes. 309. Are you speaking of the Epuni Settlement solely ? —Yes. 310. What is the area of the sections ?—l, 2, 3, and 4 acres. 311. But you cannot call those settlers farmers ?—They make a living off the ground. 312. Horticulture ? —No, agriculture in some cases, and in others pure farming. 313. You are carrying on « business and using your section as a residence, I suppose ? —Yes ; I have stables there and a residence. But it is a fundamental principle in the land laws of the colony that the farmers can only use that ground for one purpose. They cannot cut it up ; but as the rates are gradually increasing they cannot make a living off it. The Government bought the land for £90 an acre, and it is worth £400 an acre now. There has been a tremendous rise in the value, and the rates and taxes threaten to go past that point at which they can make a living out of it. 314. I hear the Chinese are paying £10 a year for land there ?—They cannot do it profitably. If the same principles as I have mentioned are applied to the lands of the colony as years go on, then the lands cannot be profitably worked, and it is a matter that should be remedied if possible. 315. Mr. Johnston.] Did you expect the Government to cui it up for you to make a living off 1 acre ?—lt was cut up for workmen's homes, and for them to make a living off it. I may say lam a single-taxer and land-nationaliser 316. Mr Anstey.] Da I understand you to say that you object to a fixed rent because you think that with your rates and taxes the rents are likely to be too high ?—Yes. later on. 317. And you think as rates and taxes go up the rent should come down ?—Yes. There is a clause in the tenure under which you can only use the land for certain purposes. 318. Then when the land is worth £200 an acre it will be too dear for growing crops, and will have to be used for building-sites ?—Yes. The Government will have to remedy that. 319. Supposing the land is now worth £400, and the Government paid £90 for it, you mean you will not "be able to pay the rates ?—lt is giving us the land for nothing. It is too good for us. 320. Mr. Paul.] You think you would be better off in the settlement than if you had to pay rent to a private landlord ? —Far better off ; but a working-man cannot get a chance there with freehold ground. 321. Is it not generally contended that if the single-tax were in operation there the rents would be higher ?—No ; I never say that. I think the single-tax would bring the rents down. 322. Is not that the general contention of those who are opposed to single-tax ?—No ; I think it is opposed to their contention. A single-tax makes the taxation very low. 323. Is there a demand for more of these settlements similar to that at Lower Hutt ?—Yes. 324. Is land available for that purpose ?—No. 325. Is the land too valuable ?—Yes. It is getting scarcer and scarcer, and workmen will have to go further afield every day for it. 326. Then if land is getting scarcer and scarcer the position of the worker is getting worse ?— Yes, every day. He is not getting a chance. If I bought a section at the Hutt it would cost me £150, and to build a suitable house would cost me £350, that is £500 in all. The landlord wants 10 per cent, on his capital, and that means that a workman has to pay £1 a week for a house. How can any workman do it. Houses are so scarce and rents are so high that there are three families in some cases living in the one house. I know some cases where there are two families living in one house. 326 a. Are there not any houses to let at 10s. a week ?—No ; £1, £1 25., 15s. There are none at a decent rate. 327. Mr. Anstey.] You are a master carrier ?—Yes. 328. You say you believe in the single-tax ?—Yes. 329. Do you think the colony would get on better if you had the single tax ?—I think it would get on better. 330. And do away with all Customs duties ?—Yes. 331. How would the manufacturers get on then ? —They would have to take their chance in the open market.
A.. OSBORNE.]
1291
C—4
Wellington, Thursday, 15th June, 1905. Alexander Osborne examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a bookbinder residing in Wellington, and have resided here for a period of between twenty-five and thirty years. I hold an acre section in the Epuni Settlement, Lower Hutt. It is held under lease in perpetuity. I have been there for two years. It was a transferred section from an original holder. My rent is £6 4s. a year, with a rebate for prompt payment. I reside on that section, and go into town to attend to my work. 2. Have you anything special to bring before the Commission ?—Nothing beyond wishing to express my approval of the system of leasehold, and one or two other little things that have occupied the attention of the settlers out there, which I think might be of some guidance to the Commission. I desire to read the following petition to the Commission signed by fourteen settlers at Epuni : "We the undersigned settlers on Epuni Hamlet desire to express our approval of the present system of leasehold, and, with certain amendments, believe it to be in the best interests of this country." I wish to add a few remarks with regard to the amendments referred to in the petition. The amendments that the settlers think would be advantageous are in connection with valuation. One of their grievances is that in valuing the property the valuers take the same view of the leasehold that they do of the freehold, and the Epuni Settlement is unique in one respect—namely, that it is in the centre of a large number of increasingly valuable freeholds. They consider that if the system is continued of valuing leaseholds in the same way as freeholds are valued, it will be a considerable hardship to them as time goes on. Already their taxation has considerably increased, and it is becomsng a hardship to those who are holders of 4-acre sections. „ It is not such a hardship to the man who holds 1 acre, but there are some of them who took up sections with the view of trying to make a living on them, but they find that with the increased taxation they are afraid they will be forced to part with their sections reluctantly. Another question is that with regard to the increase in rent. The original sections were taken up at certain rents, and as values go on the Government have increased the rent to the tenants who have come in on forfeited leases. One or two cases where the tenants have forfeited and the sections have been taken up by other people, the rent to them has been charged higher than that charged to the original holder, and that tends to cause a feeling of dissatisfaction amongst the settlers, especially in the case of those who are living next to men who are paying, say, £6 an acre. The man who takes up the section next to him is asked to pay an increased rent, notwithstanding, perhaps, that the adjoining land may be more valuable. He really only wants to use it as a ressidential site, and an added value is given to his land and he feels that it is a hardship that he should have to pay the increased rent. There are one or two cases of serious hardship in that respect. I believe these two things are causing considerable trouble, and will help to spoil what is a good system. There is no doubt in my mind that the system of acquiring these holdings for workmen's home is very beneficial. If these settlements are established near towns, they are likely to have a bearing on the rent question especially. If the Government were to acquire land for that purpose I am quite convinced that they will be successful. Perhaps the holdings might be smaller —even half-acre sections might be an advantage-—but I am quite convinced they are good if properly worked. 3. You say that the valuation is increasing ?—Yes, very considerably. 4. In the case of the rents that have been increased, may that not have been owing to the improvements done by the tenants ?—ln some cases perhaps that is so. I may state that in one case the holder was asked to forfeit because he had not effected any improvements. Even in that case the rent was subsequently increased. 5. Mr. Paul.] You bought this section from the original holder ?—Yes. ti."Did you pay anything for goodwill—-for the value of the improvements ?—Yes, a little, I think about £50. There was not much changed hands in the way of goodwill. That was understood to be the actual value of the timber and the house. 7. Do you consider you have an advantage over the ordinary working-man in Wellington by holding one of these leases ? —Yes, in many respects, especially with regard to the rent problem I believe if I were living in the City of Wellington in a house similar to the one lam occupying—to say nothing as to the area of the ground—l should be paying three times as much as lam paying now 8. Is there any suitable land in the vicinity of the Hutt, or within a reasonable distance of Wellington that the Government might acquire and let under these conditions ?—Yes; I think there are considerable areas of land about here that might be acquired. The Government might have to pay a little more for them, but if they cut them up into smaller areas, I believe that the working-men would— assuming that it was easy to get to them—take advantage of the opportunity and take them up; in fact, I am quite certain of it. 9. Regarding the area, do you find you can cultivate and attend to this acre as well as to your ordinary every-day business ? —No ; and that is the real reason why I believe if the area were smaller, say, half an acre, or in some cases where land is valuable it might be cut up into quarter-acre sections, and that would be, I think, an advantage to the men living on the land. Personally lam not able to use the whole of my land, but I have an idea that later on, when perhaps I shall have more time, I may be able to use the whole section ; but the land is not doing any harm as it remains at present, and although it is not under cultivation, it is being improved gradually. 10. Then the size of the holding might be brought down to a quarter of an acre 'Yes ;to meet the convenience of men who work in the town for a living, but I believe there are areas of land —4 acres, for instance —where, if the conditions were not too harsh, I am sure they could provide a living for a man. Then there is the question of valuation. 11. Do you mean valuation for taxation purposes ? —Valuation and the increase in the value of the land.
a—4
1292
[A. OSBORNE,
12. Have you given any consideration to the question of the revaluation of future leases ? —Yes ; I have —not a very deep one, but I have considered it in relation to the little holding I have. 13. Do you think it would be an equitable principle to revalue the leases in future ? —Yes ; I believe it would for certain fixed periods. I believe in giving a lease, say, of twenty-five years. Perhaps it would be equitable to revalue at that time if the leaseholders were to take up the land again. Ido not see anything wrong in that. 14. There was a proposal made before the Commission yesterday to revalue existing leases : how do you view that ?—I cannot say I agree with that. 1 think that the contract should be kept. The Government have made an agreement with their tenants, and I believe in equity it is fair they should keep it. 15. Both the tenant and the Government ? —Certainly. 16. Mr. Johnston.] Do you not think it would be quite sufficient if in cutting up these sections the Government should cut up just a sufficient area to give good breathing-space to a section and a garden in front and at the back, and sufficient room for a good-sized house ?—Yes, I do. I believe that is the best way to settle the difficulty. 17. These settlers who object to the increased rental : do they object to it because you have paid for improvements and something for goodwill, and therefore you should get the interest on your money ? Do you not object to anybody who buys in paying for the goodwill ?—I do not know in many cases whether they do object to it; but in the locality in which I live there is very little goodwill obtained. Holdings have changed hands at a value representing the bare improvements, but without any added value for the goodwill. The experience there has been that there is no goodwill. 18. The evidence yesterday practically allowed for a considerable amount for goodwill ?—I do not know of any instance of that. 1 have watched the transfers that have taken place and Ido not know of any in which there has been any profit for goodwill. 19. There was a certain amount of profit in your case ? —ln what way did I give that impression ? 20. You said that it was about £50 and then you corrected yourself % —I did so, but I had in my mind the timber ; but when I come to think of it there cannot have been very much goodwill. 21. It must have been something I—lt may have been a little—it was not a great deal. 22. One witness stated that what the Government bought for £90 an acre is no w worth £400 an acre ? —That is a correct statement so far as the value of the land is concerned for taxation purposes. 23. I think he said that that sum could be obtained for the land ? —I am not so optimistic as that witness in that respect. 24. Mr. MoCutchan.] What do your local taxes amount to on this acre ?—£2 12s. 25. Do you think that is likely to increase in the future—the burden of local taxation ? —Yes ; there is a general impression in the settlement that it will increase. In fact, they have given notice of an increase in the notices we have received. 26. Is it possible that in the future, as fresh conveniences are supplied involving further expenditure, that local rates may exceed the rent I—Yes1 —Yes ; it is possible, but under some conditions. 27. Is it for that reason that you advocate revaluation periodically ?—I was asked if I believed in the revaluation, and I said that I thought it would be more equitable in the case of future leases. 28. Is it with the knowledge of the conditions of rural settlement that you make that remark, or do you mean it to apply only to suburban lands ? —I mean it to apply only to land I have an intimate knowledge of —not to the land question generally, but only to homes for city workers ; although, of course, I suppose it would apply to all land. 29. In the case of this forfeited section that has been referred to, what was the increase in rent put on by the Lands Department ?—I think it went up from £6 to £10 a year. 30. What period of time elapsed ?—About two years. 31. There was an increase of £4 a year rental in two years ?—Yes. 32. Mr. Anstey.] You say there is a danger of the local taxation increasing so much as to render this land unprofitable to the occupier for any purpose but building-sites ? —That is so. 33. It is too dear for market-gardening ?—lt has been proved to be too dear for that already. 34. Do you think it is wise for the Government to resume possession of that land and offer it to workmen in as low as quarter-acre sections, at the same time fully conserving the tenants' interests and allowing them sufficient land for their purposes ?—I do not think that would be a bad thing. 35. Do you think it should follow in all cases that dispossession or breach of title should only take place on full compensation ? —To me that seems equitable. 36. Generally speaking, do you think that workmen's homes should consist solely of a site merely sufficient for a house and garden ? Has the average workman time to devote for farming land ?— Very little. In places where land values are likely to remain fairly even there would be no harm in leaving a man on a fairly large section which he might ultimately make use of as he grows older. A man's hours of labour vary and he might have a day or two a week to spare, and in that case he might make better use of his land if he had an area to draw upon, assuming, of course, that it does not get too valuable. In the main, where a man is occupied all the week it is better to have the holding smaller. 37. Would it be wise to set aside 4 or 5 acres for these holdings on the chance of a man being sometimes out of work ? —Not if the land is likely to increase rapidly in value. 38. I take it that the system of providing workmen's homes, pure and simple, should be confined to small areas —say, quarter of an acre ? —I believe that would be the best plan. 39. Is it wise also to provide small areas for men between workmen and gardeners —say, for marketgardening and so forth ? —That would be a wise provision. 40. Should not such settlements be in districts more remote from the town %—Yes.
A. OSBORNE.]
1293
C.—4.
41. Is it of no use setting aside workmen's homes a distance from the town ? —No. I believe the closer the land is to the cities the better. 1 Where we live we have to leave home at 6.30 in the morning, reaching town at twenty minutes to 8, and getting home at 6 p.m. 42. Are you a member of any labour union ? —I am a member of the Bookbinders' Society, which is affiliated to the Trades and Labour Council. 43. We had the president of the Wellington Trades and Labour Council as a witness yesterday, who spoke as the mouthpiece of twenty-seven thousand labour unionists. In his evidence he advocated the reverse of what you advocate —viz., that we should go in for revaluation of existing leases. In fact, he held it was quite right to do with leasehold what was advocated to be done with the freehold— confiscation. Do you agree with that view ?—No ; Ido not agree with the principle of revaluing existing leases. 44. Can you say whether the view expressed by Mr. Hampton is a fair expression of the labour unions generally ?—lt is the view of a large number of workers who are in this position : that they have, through difficulties, been unable to get anything of their own, and that has embittered them to some extent against some of the existing circumstances. I think Mr. Hampton was pretty correct in saying that that view is very largely held. 45. You think that labourers as a rule would better their position by going in for a straight-out steal ?—I would not like to express any approval of a sentiment of that kind. It is a rather strong statement to make. There are lots of things that are required by the State that are not called " steals." They are acquired. When licenses are taken away as the result of a local-option vote the term —" steal " is not applied. 46. Supposing a man purchas£s a site from the Government, pays hard cash and gets a title : is it not a straight-out steal to appropriate that ? —To appropriate it without compensation, certainly. I cannot go as far as my friend yesterday, although he may, in his view of it, be more correct than I am. 47. You could not say whether the majority of unionists hold Mr. Hampton's view or not I—No ; because I am out of touch with the labour movement now, and if I were to say so I might not be expressing a correct view. I might explain that in the past I took a very active part in union matters in Wellington, and in many of their movements I am in sympathy, but living so far from the city I am prevented from taking an active part in their work. 48. How long ago is it since you actively worked with the Trades and Labour Council ?—lt is seven or eight years since I was a delegate. 49. The Council considered the land question at that time : was it ever considered that revaluation of existing leases should take place ?—I have no recollection of the revaluation of existing leases being one of their planks. At that time their principal views were in the direction of acquiring land for settlement and getting people on the land. 50. Is it a fact that the Trades and Labour Councils of the colony took a very prominent part in helping to bring in the closer-settlement policy ? —lt is an undoubted fact, and it is generally admitted by most people that the Trades Councils of the colony have done the main part in bringing it about. 51. Mr. McCutchan.\ Was the retrospective revaluation of leases discussed eight years ago? — As far as my recollection carries me back, I do not think it was. 52. Have you any recollection of its having been discussed ? —Not very largely. 53. You admit it was discussed eight years ago ? —I think the safest thing for me would be to say that I do not remember it being discussed. 54. Mr. Anstey.] You say the unions took an active part in helping forth the land-settlement policy : was the proposal to take the estates without compensation at the current value of the land ?—That was the idea. 55. Can you tell me when the views of the labour unions changed. You say they were in favour of paying the current value at that time, and to-day you admit there is a proposal to take the freehold at the original cost ? —I could not tell you the exact date when they changed on that question. '56. Have they changed recently, or have they held these views all along and hid them ?—Possibly, but there has been no reason to express them. I would not make any definite statement regarding that, because my memory is not very clear. 57. Do you know now that they would advocate taking these estates at the original value ?—No, I cannot say that, but I believe you would find a number of them who, like many holders of the land, want to buy at the original value. 58. Mr. Paul.] Do you know whether seven years ago there was a plank which provided for periodical revaluation of future leases I—Yes,1 —Yes, there was. 59. Can you say whether the official pronouncement to-day is that the estates should be acquired at the owner's valuation for taxation purposes, plus 10 per cent. ? —I believe it is. 60. Mr. Johnston.] If revaluation of existing leases in perpetuity was carried, would you advocate compensation to the tenant for the breach of his lease ? —Yes, I think I should have to advocate that in equity. William James Newton Adnams examined. 61. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a commercial traveller. I have 2 acres at Epuni Hamlet, for which I pay £5 Bs. Bd. per acre. I have been there three years, and in the Wellington district for nine years. Yesterday afternoon I heard that a petition had been taken round the hamlet, and last night, in company with a friend, I visited twenty-six people in order to get their views on the subject. I found that three people had signed the first petition under a misimpression as to what was implied by the word " amendment." I took round this petition with me which was signed by twenty-five out of the twenty-six whom we called on : " We, the undersigned settlers of Epuni Hamlet, do not favour leaseholds as granted under the present tenure. The restrictions at present imposed are most
1294
IW. J. N. ADNAMR.
0.—4.
unsatisfactory, and vender the working of our land to advantage a matter ofimpossibilitv. In our estimation the only remedy that will fully overcome our grievances is to grant settlers the option of purchase." We cannot raise money, we cannot sell, we dare not pub up another house, and we are rated on the basis of residential purposes. In the last few years land in the Hutt has boomed very much. One syndicate bought land within a quarter of a mile of the hamlet for £260 an acre, and sold it at auction at an average of £1,054 per acre. Our land was opened to workmen, a term which was defined as working for a wage. Only a casual can make anything out of the land, because we have to leave so early in the morning and get back so late in the evening that we cannot do anything at all in the way of working the land for more than a month or two in the year. 62. Your-difficulty is that you have too much land ?—No, lam rated as a gentleman's residential site, and the only benefit I can get from it is fresh air. The tenure may be all right, but the conditions are such that if anything happens to a man he cannot dispose of his holding. I know one case of a widow, whose husband died two years ago, who has been trying ever since to dispose of the place, but she cannot get a buyer for the reason that she is not allowed to take time-payment. 63. We heard from the previous witness that not much passed for goodwill, but you get value for improvements ?—The goodwill comes to very little. We cannot borrow except through the Advances to Settlers Department, which will advance us very little. 64. Have you tried the Advances to Settlers Department ? —Yes, I got £150. lam rated afc £845, and I applied for £200 and got £150. 65. Have you cultivated your section ? —I have a quarter of an acre in raspberries, and I have a flower-garden, but I cannot spend more in labour because it does not pay. 66. Mr. Paul.] What are the exact conditions which interfere with your land ? —I am not allowed to sublet any part, and I must not put up another house. I can find no time to get any benefit from the soil, and, moreover, lam unable to get any advantage if anything happened to me. lam unable to get a'buyer, and even if I did get one the Government have a free hand in rejecting anybody. * 67. You have got more land than you can use yourself or profitably employ your labour on ?—I have an acre and a half of land, a house, and the use of breathing-space, and that is all I get from it. 68. How does your position as a Crown leaseholder compare with that of a leaseholder from a private person ? —I am under a disadvantage compared with a private tenant, for the simple reason that my house is no security to a creditor, and consequently I can get nothing at all if I want financial assistance. 69. Could you not sell that holding if you wanted to ?—Yes, I could at the Government valua--70. You said that land was going up to over £1,000 an acre in the Hutt ? —Yes. 71. There has been a boom on ? —There has been a big boom on, and consequently we unfortunate settlers suffer jyro rata. 72. Is it not possible to sell your holding ? —No, I cannot grow one more flower or one more raspberry, and that is all as a tenant I am getting from the land. 73. Do you mean to say that, while the land in your vicinity has increased enormously in value, you cannot sell your leasehold %—No, and the public are frightened of the leasehold. I could not get one-half of the improvements if I wanted to sell. I can buy land adjoining our own settlement for £250. It is a better locality than ours. 74. Is there not margin enough to allow you to sell to advantage \ No, for the simple reason that they will not allow you to sell to an advantage. 75. Have you a definite knowledge of that fact'( —No, only hearsay. 76. I advise you to inquire at the Land Office as to your real position I—l applied for a permit as to my position.' I got a certain form, which I had to fill in, stating my improvements and my price for the property, and the name of the person I might propose to sell to. 77. How many settlers are there at the hamlet ? —Forty-one, I believe : at any rate, about that number. . , . . ■ 78. Could the majority of these settlers buy if they had the option of the freehold 1 think the majority of the settlers would be glad enough to leave the large cities, providing they have that option. If they had that option they would have security. 79. For borrowing purposes ? —Security to borrow and sell. At present it is almost impossible to sell. 80. What terms do you want that option on—the option of purchase J—Providing we had that, terms could be arranged, either by arbitration or otherwise. 81. You would like it at the original valuation ? —I think sufficient should be added to cover the incidental expenses, and if the Government had their interest on the whole of the amount, including the expenses, I do not consider they should be entitled to any more. 82. You think you should have all this increase in value ? —Decidedly, because it is due to our expenditure and settlement in that district that the land has gone up. 83. Do you know of any land in your vicinity that has not been improved in any way, or increased in proportion with the rest: is there any such land ?—You should take the Epuni Hamlet itself. It was ofiered about fifteen months before the Government took it up at not more than £60 an acre. 84. I want you to say whether there is a block of land in the vicinity which has had nothing done to it and which has increased with the general increase in land-values ? —I might mention the Taine Estate. Of course it is improved, because buildings have gone up, but before that the land increased in value from £280 to £1,054 an acre. 85. Was there any work done on the estate to justify the increase ?—No work. It was a block of about 70 acres, and was cut up into small holdings. 86. Is not a large sum of this general increase in the Epuni Hamlet due to the same cause ? Decidedly. The settlers, by taking up their residence in the Epuni Hamlet, have improved that locality.
W. J. N. ADNAMS.I
1295
C—4.
87. If it had remained unsettled would it be worth more to-day than five years ago ? —lt would be worth more to-day, but very little more. The roading, for a start, was not there, and there are sundry other items. It would have cost a certainfsum to have brought about the improvements, and it would have increased also to some extent. 88. Without any labour at all ? —Yes, without labour. 89. Mr. Johnston.'] Are you affiliated with any trades union ?—No. 90. You are simply a labouring-man and you cannot afford to employ labour at present ? — Yes. 91. As a labouring-man you advocate the freehold as against the leasehold ?—Not altogether. I have every respect for the leasehold. I think, however, we should have the option of purchase in order to give the leaseholder the security he wishes. 92. The fact of the matter is, if you get the freehold of this land, you could make a good profit out of it : that is the real truth ? —We have spent a lot of money and work on it, and I think we are entitled to the option. 93. What are your improvements ? —A house, trap-shed, and stables. 94. What is the value, of them ?—£445 I am rated for. 95. What is the value, then ? Is that what it cost ? —lt is about what it cost. 96. What is the Government capital value ?—The lessor's interest is £217, and the lessee's interest in the unimproved value, which I consider valueless in my case, is £183. 97. Explain what you mean. Your interest is £217 ? —That is what lam paying rent on. My interest in the unimproved value they say is £183. 98. Then £663 is the capital value of the holding, is it not ?—£663 would be the improvements plus the amount it has risen in value in proportion to the land in the vicinity. 99. No, £663 is the net cost: is that right ? —No, sir. 100. Well, what is the net cost ? What is the cost of the improvements and the cost of the capital value of the land put together ? —I am rated for £445. 101. Ido not ask what you are rated for. You say your house cost £445 : where is the rest of the capital value ?—lt goes with the land. 102. What does it cost the Government ? What do they charge you ?—£loB 10s. and £183 is the addition which has recently come out. 103. Will you give us the net capital value you got it at ? —£loB 10s. an acre. 104. And you have 2 acres ?—Yes. 105. And you have put £445 of improvements on it ? —Yes. 106. Therefore the net cost is £663 : is that right ?—Yes. 107. What are the rates ?■— in the pound. 108. What are the total annual rates on the property ?—I have not worked that out. 109. What do you pay a year or half-yearly ? What did you pay last year ?—£4-something. I think it would be £5 ss. for the year. 110. Say your rate is £6 a year, well, that £663 is revalued, and you have to pay £40 a year for the section and the house ?—Yes. 111. Is that not a reasonable rental ?—Yes, but possibly if I were called away I would have to take from £250 upwards for my improvements —what I could get in fact. 112. Do you not think that is quite contrary to your other evidence ? You have already stated that land has been sold beyond this settlement at the rate of £1,054 per acre. You have 2 acres ? That is nearer the Hutt. 113. I understood it was further from the Hutt ?—No. Land adjoining that I can buy at £250 an acre at the present time. 114. Adjoining this ?—Not adjoining my section, but adjoining the hamlet. 115. And your capital value is nearly £217, so you must, if you wanted to sell, get good value ? I am debarred from selling to the man I would like to sell to, because the Land Board has the option of vetoing any man I propose. They will not allow any man who has over three hundred pounds' worth of property to buy the section. 116. Do you not think it is a good thing that the Land Board have that veto ? —I do in certain cases. 117. Do you think it is a hardship to the working-man that the Land Board should have that right of veto to prevent his land going into the hands of the capitalist ?—lt is really a hardship, because the settler who goes on to the section is unable to get any benefit from the land except fresh air, and has to pay the same rates as the big capitalist would for a residential site. 118. If it were a freehold, could you get £1,000 an acre for it ?—No. 119. Could you get £500 an acre ? —I doubt whether I could get more than £250. 120. If it were a freehold ? —Yes. 121. Mr. MoCutchan.] You said you could not raise money on it ?—Outside the Advances to Settlers Department. 122. It is looked upon as a bad security by the money-lender ?—lt is looked upon as no security at all by the private money-lender. 123. For what reason ? —Because they cannot seize the house for debt amongst other reasons. ; , 124. Has the question of security of tenure anything to do with it I—No. 125. You think the tenure is absolutely secure ?—So far as the lease is concerned, I am quite satisfied myself, although I do not think that the settler will keep upon it for 999 years. 126. You said the general public were frightened of the leasehold, and you questioned whether get more than £250 for your section ?—No one likes to bind himself to live in one place for ever, and one does not know when he may want to leave.
C—4.
1296
[W. J. N. ADNAMS.
127. Can you mention instances where the Land Board has refused its sanction to a transfer ? — Yes, Mr. Petherick. He was offered over £300 a few months ago for his section and improvements, and last night he offered me the same section and improvements for £200. 128. Was the reason he was refused the right to sell to the person who offered £300 that the transferee could not comply with the conditions ?—The transferee was possessed of more than three hundred pounds' worth of land. 129. Is that not a valid objection ?—So far as the Government is concerned it may be, but it is a hardship on the man who wants to sell. 130. If the Government do not keep these wise restrictions over the sites they have provided for workmen's homes in the vicinity of the big cities, would the provisions they have made be rendered nugatory ?—I maintain it gets the workman into bad credit from the start. 131. You advocate entire abolition of this proviso ? —I think it requires a good deal of amending, and the only amendment I see that overcomes the difficulty is to grant the option of purchase. 132. Then the capitalist steps in again and reacquires the sections, and deprives the workmen of every opportunity of getting homes for themselves ?—I think not. As soon as the land was secured to the worker he would put his labour into it, and would not be likely to go into it for speculative purposes. 133. What do you reckon the selling-value of your place is ? —lt is a question very hard to answer on the spur of the moment. 134. Do you think the assessment is a fair valuation ? —I would be glad to sell at the valuation. 135. Is that not a contradiction of what you said that you could get land alongside for ?—That would be freehold, and I could do what I liked with it. 136. Were you dissatisfied with the amount of the advance you got from the Advances to Settlers Office ?—I say I wanted £200. The valuator told me I was foolish not to apply for more, and, as the terms were easy, it would pay to get more as a speculation ; but even then they cut me down by £50. 137. Do you think the Land Board should exercise some control over these transfers beyond saying that the transferee is to comply with the conditions ? —I think when a man has fulfilled his obligations in respect to the land he should be free to go or come. 138. Hampered by no restrictions whatever ?—I think not. Why should the working-man be hampered with restrictions no syndicate would dare to impose. 139. I suppose you know that all rural settlers are hampered by restrictions, and they do not complain that they find it a hardship ?—I think there has been an outcry of hardship. MO. So far as the law relating to transfer of sections is concerned, there has been no outcry at all— so far as lam able to form an opinion ?—I think the workers' homes and these outside leases are on a very different standing. In the case of the workers' homes, the worker is not allowed to put up more than one house on his section ; he is not allowed to sublet any portion, and if he is an honest worker he swears that in his declaration. He has no time to improve the whole of his holding, and yet it does not prevent the valuation going up to a certain amount. In the case of the country lands, probably the man is able to get the benefit of every pound of improvements he has put on it. That is hampered by no restriction. 14]. With regard to the increase of the equitable value : Is it not the case that the worker enjoys the same advantage from public works in these localities as the capitalist does ? —No ; you take the case of the road. The land was put up four years ago this month, and since then only 9 ft. of metal has been laid down upon the road. When winter came on it was impossible to walk along the road. Since then we have had one strip of 9 ft. Certainly they are putting drainpipes down now. 142. Was the block loaded for roading ? —Yes. 143. To what extent ?—I believe the difference between the purchase-money and the cost of the first lease. 144. Was the loading adequate to provide roading facilities ?—I think so, providing it had been carried on in a businesslike way, but I think the less I say about that matter the better. .145. Why ? —Because I think any private man would have made a good job of it for considerably less. 146. Was the work done by the local authority ? —Yes, it was done by the local authority on a grant received from the Government. 147. What is the local authority there ?—The Hutt County Council. 148. So your complaint is against the Hutt County Council and not against the Government ?— I have nothing to say against the Government. 149. Has the County Council expended this loading ?—They say they have expended considerably more. 150. What is your grievance ?—That only the centre of the road is passable. 151. So far as the loading is concerned, you have no complaint against the local body ?—I did not come with the intention of making any complaint against the Hutt County Council, but still more money has been wasted than would have put the road in decently passable order. 152. Mr. Anstey.] Is this steep or level land ? —All level. 153. Where is it ? —Two miles from the Hutt Station. 154. Is it nearer Wellington than the Hutt ?—Further from Wellington. 155. Where is this land which fetched £1,000 an acre ?—lt is the Taine Estate, at the corner of the Waiwetu Road and the main road. 156. Is that between Epuni and the Lower Hutt ?—Yes, about half-way. The Taine Estate faces the main road —part of it. In other parts they have put in decent roads to give access to all parts of the property. 157. How long do you say it is since this road was metalled ? —Do you mean our road.
1297
a—4.
W. J. N. APNAMS.
158. Yes ?—Nearly three years since it was metalled. They left us the first winter without metal at all; it was just impassable. It was metalled after the first spring. 159. Do you think you were treated with gross unfairness in having to live for a whole year without a metalled road ? —I think it was most unfair, but still I think it was more oversight than anything else. 160. You say you were worse treated than back-blooks settlers ?—Have you ever heard of settlers in the back blocks being on their sections for ten years without a bridle-track ?—My complaint is that as the road was promised it should have been made to enable men to get to and from their sections. My chief complaint is that we are not allowed to get the benefit we should get from a section. 161. You want the right of purchase ? Is that what you want ?—I have no means of borrowing except I have the right of purchase. 162. Would you be prepared to put your section up to public competition again ?—Yes. I think the £108 10s. an acre, with me paying the interest on any improvements, should be sufficient for me to purchase the land. 163. You would not put it up to public competition ?—No, decidedly not. I have had my lease for three years, and why should other people have the benefit of my labour and money. 164. That would be given to you if you put if up to public competition ?—Yes, I maintain that the hardship is he is unable to borrow and unable to go away. It is not everybody who wants to go away, but still we want to go away at times, and under the present circumstances, the land is locked up, and we cannot do so. 165. You waftt the right of purchase at the original price ?—Yes, or a little over. 166. How much over ?—I would be prepared to pay another 10 per cent. 167. Supposing the land had gone down in value, would you be prepared to purchase it from the Government at the original price ?—I would still have been in favour of having the option of purchase. lam not in favour of being compelled to purchase it—l simply want the option. 168. But because it has increased in value, you want to compel the Government to sell it to you ? If it went down in value would it be fair for the Government to compel you to buy it at the original price ?—You misunderstand me. As far as the value is concerned, I have nothing to say against it, but I maintain that unless I have the option of purchase I have no security over my property —I could not sublet it without a very special permit, and I know of only one instance in the case of the workmen's homes where such permission has been given. If I had a dozen customers for the purchase of my property I do not believe that I would be able to get rid of it, because they would say it was unsuitable or undesirable as an investment. I believe I would still have the place on my own hands. 169. You told us that land similar to this is worth £250 an acre, and the original price was about £110. If you want the Government to make you a clean present of £140 an acre on 2 acres, do you think it is fair and reasonable to make that request ? —I do. 170. Do you wish that principle to apply to the land all over the colony ?—I think a settler who has been a number of years on the property, and made his improvements, should have the right to purchase it. 171. You have only been there three years. What is the use of talking about a number of years ? Are you prepared to give the same right to similar settlers all over the colony ? —I am. 172. To all the settlers under the Land foT Settlements Act ? —I am. I think they should have the right to purchase it at the original value. 173. Do you think any Government in the world would be able to continue the land-for-settle-ments policy under such conditions —if they were compelled to sell this land when the price was high and to continue the leasehold when there was a fall in values ? —The Government, in this case, have acted as land speculators, and because our improvements have raised the value of the land £90 to £200 an acre, they are charging new holders the increased rent on £200 an acre. 174. Do you not think these sections are altogether too large ? Would it not be better if they were cut up into quarter-acre sections—you would then have room for four workmen on the present holdings ? —I do not agree with that, for the simple reason that a workman would not take a holding of a quarter of an acre on leasehold. He could go and pay his £10 deposit and get his freehold, and he would very much rather have it than the leasehold. 175. Do most of the working-men have £10 of ready money in hand ? —They have, and they can in the first year put a house on it worth £30. 176. Can they buy freeholds for £10 ?- —You can with a deposit, and payments of 5 per cent, in six months, and 5 per cent, in twelve months, and the balance for a term of years at 5 per cent. 177. At what price per acre can this land be obtained in or near the City of Wellington ?—A small holding you would not get as cheap as if you took up a big section and cut it up. A man can get a quarter of an acre for £90 quite as close, if not closer to the station than I am. 178. But you got a whole acre for £90 ?—Yes, and they have raised our valuation from £600 to £800, and there is no knowing where they will stop when the next valuation comes round. 179. You think that there is sufficient land that workmen can get : if so, there is no necessity for the Government buying any more land for workmen's homes ?—I think there are many working in the hamlet who are really sick of their holdings on account of the restrictions which are imposed on them, and are sorry they went in for these sections. We would have been treated much better by the freeholder on paying a small deposit. 180. You say you cannot develop -that land properly, because the price of labour is too high ? — The price of labour is high, and I have to earn my living all day. tf »181. Do you not think in that case that there is so much waste land because wages are too high l"do not object to the price of labour, but on a small place in the country if a workman has to employ labour he cannot do it out of his wages and keep the house as well.
163—C. 4.
C.—4.
1298
|W. -T. N. APNAMR.
182. If the price of labour is too high, surely there is something wrong, and we ought to make a reduction in wages so that you could get the advantage from your section ?—No, the workman who has to earn his living at a fixed wage cannot turn market gardener when he gets home at night, and he may not be a suitable man to turn into a market gardener. 183. If these sections are too large for a workman's use, do you think a quarter of an acre would be much more suitable ?—lt may be more suitable, but not as a workman's home, because I do not think he would ever look at such a small holding. 184. Then what sort of a section does he really want to live on ?—I think a workman would very much prefer to have one-eighth of an acre of actual freehold to 2 acres of the present leasehold. 185. Have you had any difficulty with the Land Board ?—I applied for a permit to sell. 186. What are your relations with the Board generally ? —I have never had any difficulty with them. Having always paid my rent they have never worried me. 187. What do you think about the constitution of the Land Board ? —lf it would be workable, I think it would be better for every district to appoint a representative, but in the case of a number of districts it would be hardly workable. 188. Do you mean to appoint one or elect one ? —To elect one. I think there would be too many representatives if there were many districts, but at the same time every district should have fair representation. 189. Mr. Johnston.'] You said you applied for a transfer. At what price were you going to sell your land ? —I had no intention of raising that question, but I wanted to find out what form I had to go through in the event of my wanting to sell. 190. You asked, and you sai«l the Land Board refused ? —That was Mr. Petherick who was refused. I applied for a permit, and they asked me the name of the intending purchaser, the value of improvements, and the price I wanted for my section. I have never replied to that. 191. Mr. Paul.] You want the right to sublet ? —Amongst other items. 192. Do you not think that is just the very thing the worker is trying to get away from, private landlords ?—lt is, but we find at the present time that land is obtainable on such easy terms that it is easy for him to become his own landlord. If a man pays £20 on a section, and another £25 or £20 to a builder the latter would be quite willing to put up his house for him, and wait for his money until he could get it with interest. 193. Why did you take up this land if land is so easily got in the City of Wellington ?—I am afraid it was done in an evil moment. 194. Do you not think it would pay you now to get out of the section at any price and take advantage of this freehold land you say you can get nearer Welllington ?—I would go out to-morrow if anybody would pay me what I am rated at. 195. Do you think it would be in the interests of this settlement to allow you to put three other houses on your 2 acres and sublet them ? —I do not think it would be in the interests of my pocket, because I do not think any workman would care to live so far away from the station when he would be able to get land as cheap closer to town. 196. But from the point of view of the landlord, do you think it would be advisable to allow you to subdivide it and let it out to other holders ? —I think it would be just possible if the by-laws of the Hutt Borough, providing that no dwelling should be erected on a less frontage than 40 ft., were applied to the hamlet. I think a4O ft. frontage and a depth of 10 chains would be quite sufficient area for anybody. 197. Then you have too much land ? —I have more than I can work profitably under my present tenure. 198. Would you take the costs of your improvements and go out ?—No ; then I should lose the interest on the money I have been paying out for several years. 199. Would you take the cost of your improvements and the interest ? —I would take what lam valued at. Charles William Howard examined. 200. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a settler in the Epuni Hamlet. I hold 2\ acres of land, and I pay £5 Bs. an acre. I have held it between three and four years, and am the original settler. 201. What do you wish to bring before us ? —I cannot very well work the land under the leasehold tenure owing to the grievous restrictions under the lease. The rating value also is so high that I cannot use the land agriculturally and pay rates on it as a building section. 202. Do you agree with what the previous witness said ? —Not all of it. I work my land as hard as ever I can, from daylight to dark, Saturdays and Sundays. lam trying to make a bit of money to lay by for my old age. I put all my spare time into the section ; but since I took it up the rates have increased so much that I cannot farm the land and make it pay. 203. What is your business ? —I am a storeman. In my spare time I grow potatoes and other vegetables. My produce has been sold mostly at auction-rooms. I have my own work to attend to in the daytime, and I took the land up to make a little money as a standby in my old age. I got a fair price, as a rule, for the produce I sold. 204. Was it all in cultivation ?—Not all, but very nearly all. I have only realised a few pounds for my produce, not very much. 205. Supposing you had worked eight hours a day, would your produce have given you a fair remuneration for your labour ? —No. 206. Supposing you had paid Is. an hour for your work, would you have made a fair remuneration ? —I have not got 3d. an hour out of it.
0. W. HOWARD.]
1299
G.—4.
207. Apparently your trouble is that you have got too much land to use under your present circumstances I—No ; although I work hard it does me good. lam better at work than visiting theatres and music-halls and knocking about the streets. 208. Mr. Paul.] What conditions interfere with your using this land to advantage ?—Supposing I was turned out of work for a few weeks I could work this land during that time ; but supposing I was offered employment which was more profitable than working on my own place, if I could sublet a piece of the ground to another man I could share the profit with him. I cannot do that; I must call in labour and pay labour wages straight out. Many a time, if I could have got a man to assist me by taking a piece of my land, it would have been a great advantage to me, and I could have kept at other work. 209. You might have formed a communistic settlement ?—That is what I mean —you could call it a co-operative settlement; but we are not allowed to do that. 210. How does your position compare with the average working-man outside this settlement who is paying rent to a private landlord ? Do you consider your position worse or better than his ? —Much worse. I had a house before I went on this settlement. I had a piece of freehold ground at Newtown. I had sufficient to buy the land, and £80 to provide a shell for the dwelling. In my spare time I worked at the dwelling and finished it. I stayed there four years and a half. I did not work as hard as I have worked at the Epuni Hamlet, but I came away with £400. 211. Have you lost that £400 in the leasehold ?—I have lost it in this way, that the house is on the land, and if I had a better show and wished to get out of Wellington I could not possibly sell the land for the simple reason that no man would buy it or the house. 212. What is the house worth ?—Say, £300. 213. Are there any other improvements ? —There is an orchard. 214. Have you lost money by going in for this leasehold property ? —Undoubtedly, because I cannot use the money that I have put into it. 215. Are you a poorer man to-day than when you went on that land ? —Yes, undoubtedly. 216. And are you gradually getting poorer through going to that hamlet ?—Undoubtedly. Through the land increasing in value it has become valuable building-sites, and it has to pay rates accordingly. A Chinaman closes up the land if it costs him more than £7 an acre rent. The European farmer throws it up if he has to pay £6 a year. We are paying in rent and taxes about £6 10s. a year, and therefore we cannot make it remunerative. 217. You have got too large an area to work profitably if you have to employ labour ?—lf there were no rates it would not be too great a value. 218. If you had the freehold there would be rates to pay ? —Yes ; but see the advantage. If it was freehold and I found I could not work it profitably, I would then cut it up or make another use of it; but now lam bound, because I can only put up one house, and I cannot sublet it and so take up other land. 219. You could not sell to advantage at the present time ?—No. 220. Although you have just told us that land is selling all round there at a very enhanced value for building-sites ?—That is correct. 221. Would you recommend the Land Board to subdivide your 2| acres into five sections, allow you to take one, and settle other men on the other quarter-acre sections ? —Undoubtedly ; they could cut it up as much as they liked provided, of course, that I were paid for the labour I put on the ground. I do not wish to make a profit, but 1 think that for the four years' work I should be paid something. 222. Would that land yield any more produce if it was a freehold ? —Of course not. 223. You said grievous restrictions prevented your using the land to advantage ?—Yes. If it were freehold, and I could not work one end I would leave that end bare, or I would sublet it or work it on shares. lam now prevented from working it. Perhaps for three months I cannot put a crop in because I have to work somewhere. If I was a freeholder I could let that land to another man who would put a crop on it. 224. You have more land than you can profitably occupy : is not that the real position ?—On the leasehold, Yes, as freehold, No. 225. As a freeholder you would let it and become a landlord. Is that the position ?—Yes, a landlord on a small scale. 226. You know as a worker that the workers are now trying to get away from that position ?— What sort of a landlord would Ibe with that piece of land. The trouble is that my landlord steps in and says, " you cannot sublet it," and so the land must remain idle and be worthless for three months —all because they will not give me the right to let it to another man for three months. 227. Then if this land were freehold it would be cut up into building-sites ? —That is correct; it would in a month. 228. Do you represent anybody but yourself ? —Myself and my wife. 229. Have you ever applied to the Land Board for the right to sublet ?—No. 230. How do you know they would refuse you Because my lease says that I shall not sublet. 231. But you have never asked the Land Board for that privilege ?—No. 232. Mr. Anstey.] One reason you wish to get the freehold is that you wish to put your savings into the property ? —Yes ; it is my savings-bank. 233. Do you think it would be wise to allow you, all the Epuni settlers, and all others to do the same thing—to keep this land as a savings-bank and put your money into it ? —I think it would be much better to encourage the men to use their sections as a savings-bank than to give them no encouragement at all. 234. You think then that the land should be used for that purpose, and that it should be allowed to remain idle until the settler was ready to occupy it ? —But they might put it to worse uses than that.
1300
[C. W. HOWARD.
C—4.
235. Are you aware that there are a number of people who are protesting against people being allowed to monopolise the land and keep it idle ?—I have heard so. r 236. Does not that apply just as much to you with 2| acres as it does to, the man.,with 2,000 or 10,000 acres ?—Certainly not, for the reason that I am living there. 237. You say you are only using a portion of the section I—No1 —No ;I am using the whole of it. 238. If you were to let some of your land to a neighbour you would be prepared to give him the right of purchase ?—Undoubtedly I would, always provided I was paid for all labour and improvements I had put on the land. I think that would be only fair. 239. Supposing you get the right to buy the land, on what terms would you want to buy it i— I think it would be only fair that I should be able to buy it at the same price I am paying interest on. 240. Would you be prepared to extend similar conditions to settlers holding lease-m-perpetuity land under the Land for Settlements Act ?—I have not considered that question. 241. Are you a member of the labour union now ?—No. 242. Is the reason that you have left the labour union because you are now breaking the rules laid down by them ?—No ; I formerly belonged to the Sailors' Union, but I have not belonged to it for eight years. 243. Would they allow you to work on Sunday or for 3d. an hour :—I do not know. 244. Do you think it is fair that you should now be working long hours and under such conditions as would not be allowed to members of the union, and thus get an advantage over them ? I think it is only right that I should have the right to work in my off time in any way I choose, m order to pay my debts, and I have to work long hours and very hard in order to keep my head above water. 245. Do you think it is quite fair that labourers generally should be allowed to work as many hours as they like ? —I find my pleasure" in working about my own place, and I prefer that to walking about the streets and talking. 246. Do you think it is fair to allow labourers to work as many hours as they choose i—l have come here to tell you my grievances in regard to my land, and your are now trying to entangle me in a discussion in regard to the labour question. 247. Do you think it is fair that labourers should be allowed [to work these [long{hours at the ridiculous wage of 3d. an hour ?— Certainly not. It is not fair to ask them to work those long hours for a daily wage. I think that if a man does eight hours good work for his boss, he has done enough for a day, and he should be allowed to employ the rest of his time as he thinks best for himself. It is more pleasure to me to take a spade and dig in my garden than to simply walk about the streets and talk on all sorts of questions. 248. You have 2| acres in the Epuni Settlement, and that appears to be too much for you to use. Do you not think it would be a wise thing for the Government to take that land over and cut it up, if necessary, and pay you for the improvements you have put upon it ? —Yes ; but I think I should be paid fully for the labour I have expended on the land. Then there is the inconvenience lam put to in getting to and from my work. It takes me an hour and a half to two hours a day to get to and from my work, and I think it is only fair I should be paid for that. 249. Should you be paid for all the time you have been going to and fro for the last four years ? — Why not ? Why should I work for nothing 1 I wish to say that I was one of those who went round with the petition. I believe one or two persons signed the petition under a misapprehension, because they did not know the meaning of one word in that petition. Since that word has been explained to them they have signed the second petition. 250. Mr. Paul.] I would like to point out that there can be no possible mistake as to the meaning of this petition. It expresses approval of the present system of leasehold, and adds that certain amendments might be made in the terms with advantage ? —Some of the settlers did not know what the amendments were, and they think if one of the amendments was that we should have the option then they would be quite satisfied. Every man has not got the same education as you have, and some of them did not understand what the word " amendments " meant in the petition. It is because they did not understand the word " amendments " that they signed the second petition. 251. If a man signs a petition in favour of the present leasehold system, it is not likely that he wants the option of purchase ?—The position of the settlers in regard to the petition is as I have stated. Thomas Young examined. 252. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer, and until a few months ago I resided in the King-country. I had 1,000 acres of land there under lease in perpetuity, but sold my interest in it. I held it for three years, and my rent was lOd. an acre. 253. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I desire to make one or two suggestions with respect to the advances to settlers. I think it would be in the interests of the settlers if there was a branch of the Department in each district to deal with the buisness of that particular district. That would avoid the delay that at present occurs in sending the applications on to Wellngton. I may say that formerly I was at Cheviot, and some of the settlers there asked me to assist them in making their applications for advances. No reply had been received up to the time I left. If there had been a local Board in that district there would not have been that delay. I think one-third of the number of members of Land Boards should be elected by the Crown tenants, the balance to be appointed by the Government. 254. What tenure do you think best for settling the country ? —I think the freehold or occupation with right of purchase. 255. What was your tenure at Cheviot ?—Lease in perpetuity. 256. Had you much land there ?—I had 337 acres. I was there before Cheviot was cut up, and remained there for eleven years. I was a settler there for seven years. I should also like to refer to a
T. YOUNG. I
1301
C—4.
question"*affecting the unimproved value. If a man takes up 200 acres he is in some districts rated on the unimproved value. A poor man can only fell, say, 20 acres of bush a year, and yet he is charged on money that was not productive, whereas a man with capital can fell the whole of the bush. This is practically a tax on the poor man. I think in the interests of the back-block settlers every man should have an eight-years limit on the unimproved value. I think he should not pay taxation on the unimproved value for eight years. 257. Would it meet the case if a man had the land for two or three years for nothing ?—-Yes, that would give him time to knock down a certain amount of bush and grass the land and make a living on it. I think the bush should be felled and the land grassed, and the amount capitalised at the rate of 5 per cent, before the settler goes on the land. 258. What would it take per acre ? —About £3 per acre. 259. Then he would pay 3s. an acre rent ? —Yes, but he would get a return from his land right away; but under the present system it is many years before he gets any return. 260. Mr. Paul.\ Do you approve of the policy of buying large estates and settling them under the Land for Settlements Act ?—'Yes; I think the time has come when the large landowner has to make way for settlement. I think, however, that instead of buyiug up large estates it would be a good thing if the Government roaded and grassed land in the back blocks. 261. You think the money should be expended in the back blocks instead of buying up large estaLes ? That would mean chat these improved estates would increase in value, and a \ erv much higher price would have to paid for them when they were ultimately acquired ? —I think there should be a fixed price on these acquired estates, and the Government should be able to take them over at the price so fixed. 262. If settlement in the back blocks were carried out under the conditions you have mentioned— felling the bush and grassing the land —would you in that case give the freehold ? —Yes. 263. Would you give the freehold in the case of improved estates such as Cheviot ?—I think they would be both on the same footing. I think the freehold is the more secure tenure. 264. Do you think the freehold would be the best tenure for Cheviot ? —I do not see that it makes much difference so long as revaluation of existing leases does not come about. I would just as soon have a leasehold as a freehold if there was no revaluation. It is the insecurity of the tenure that people do not like. 265. Would you regard the leasehold with periodical revaluation an insecure tenure '(—Yes. 266. For what reason ?—Because you are practically taxing yourself on your own improvements. As you improve your section it is possible that the price of the land will go up. 267. Did you ever hear of land decreasing in value ?—Yes. 268. Do you know whether there is a profit made by the Government on Cheviot at the present time ?—Yes. 269. Do you know whether the settlers labour under any disabilities ? —I do not think so. 270. Do you know whether the grazing-runs at Cheviot are satisfactory or not ?—I think there should be a right of renewal at the end of twenty-one years. 271. You say there was some difficulty in the north in getting loans on leasehold properties ?— Yes, there was delay. 272. Can a leaseholder borrow money on as favourable terms as the freeholder ?—No ; and even in the case of borrowing on improvements you cannot get as much on improvements on a leasehold as on improvements on a freehold. 273. Have you ever tried it ?—I have tried it in the case of a leasehold. 274. Did you find a difficulty in getting money from the Advances to Settlers Department ?— Yes, and I lost the fee that I had to pay. 275. Did you sell your Cheviot section to advantage ?—No, I got the money back that I paid for it. I got it from another man. 276. Did you pay him any goodwill ? —No. 277. Do you know of any Cheviot settlers who have sold out to advantage ? —I believe there has been a boom during the last two years, but previously they got nothing to speak of. 278. Did you sell your land in the King-country to advantage ? —-Nothing special. 279. Are you looking for land now ?—No. 280. In buying and selling these properties you have not lost money ? —No. 281. Do you think that a man who is successful at a ballot, and sells his section should be debarred from participating in the ballot for a certain time in the future ?—I do not think so. 282. Do you not think it is against the best interests of settlement to have a man going into every ballot'? —No, not if he has sold his interest ill his section to a man who is without land. 283. Have you had any experience of the ballot outside of the Cheviot section ?—I have only been in one ballot. I bought my interest in Cheviot. 284. Do you think that every citizen in the community has a right to representation on the Land Board ? Do you think that the landless should be represented ? —No, not in this case. There would only be one-third elected by the Crown tenants and the rest by the Government. 285. You would not go so far as to say that there should not be a town member on the Land Board ? —I would not go as far as that. The most able men, wherever they are or whatever they are, should be on the Board. 286. Mr. Johnston.] What sort of buisness have you been in ?—Butchering. 287. You recommend that there should be district Boards for the advances to settlers ?—Yes. 288. What is the object of that when a local man does the valuing ?—I advocate that because of the delay that at present exists. District Boards would have a local knowledge of the land. 289. How long did you hold the section at Cheviot ? —About five years.
1302
[t. young.
C—4.
290. What was the area ?—337 acres. 291. What did you pay to go in ? —£4so. 292. What was the capital value ? —£6 an acre. 293. What were the improvements valued at ? —I valued them at £450 when I went in. 294. What did you sell for ? —£7Bo. 295. Did you put the difference on in improvements ? —I did. 296. What is the number of the section ?—I could not tell you just at the moment. 297. Who is the present occupier ? —A. Wells. 298. Whereabouts in the King-country did you take up land after being at Cheviot ? —ln the Ahura. 299. Is that a Government block ? —Yes. 300. Did you get the section you wanted at the ballot ? —No, I took up one that was left. 301. What was the area ? —l,OOO acres. 302. What was the capital value ?—£l per acre. 303. What improvements did you put on ?—I grassed 150 acres. 304. What did you sell out for ?—£3oo, but I also put other improvements on the land. 305. Did you erect a house ?—A whare. 306. How long were you on the section ?- —About two years. 307. Was there any trouble over the transfer ? —No. 308. Were you butchering there at the time I—No. 309. Do you not think the Cheviot Settlement has been a success ?—I do. 310. Do you believe in the freehold or the occupation with right of purchase ?—The occupation with right of purchase. 311. You think that the Cheviot settlers are satisfied with their tenure ?—They were until this question of revaluation came up. . 312. Would you be surprised if you were told that more than half the settlers are satisfied with the tenure as at present ? —I admit that. They would not be with revaluation. 313. Do you not think it is a pretty large order to ask the Government to fell and grass a large block of land '—Not a larger order than acquiring these improved estates. 314. Do you not think it is rather a difficult thing to see that the land is properly sown down ? —Not more so than making roads. 315. They would have to fence it ?—Not necessarily. 316. When would you put it on to the market %—As soon as it was felled and sown. 317. What would you do with the grass in the meantime ? —I would not allow the grass to go to waste. I would allow a man to go on when the grass was there for him. 318. It would have to be fenced ? —There are hundreds of thousands of acres in grass that is not fenced, with stock running on it. 319. Did I understand you to say that you would give the tenant under the Land lor Settlements Act the freehold ? —I think it would be the best tenure. 320. At the original valuation ?—I think so. 321. Would not that be giving the tenants on Cheviot a very valuable present ? —lt is themselves who have brought the increased value about. 322. It was an improved property when they went there ? —They went up there and spent their lives in improving the estate. 323. Do you not think that much more capital and labour is put on to a bush section which is not visible than is the case in lands under the Land for Settlements Act ?—I do. 324. Do you think that the labour organizations threatening the repudiation of present leases without compensation is doing a great deal of harm %— I do, more especially in the back blocks where men are trying to make a home. 325. You advocate that these large runs should be valued at their present value. Would not that be a foolish thing to do ? If a tenant of a large run knew he was to be taken over at £6 an acre at any time it suited the Government to take it over, would he not neglect the property and allow it to go to the bad ?—The improvements would have to be kept up to that valuation. 326. Do you think the grassing would be kept up ?—The amount in grass would have to be there when the place was taken over. 327. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ? —I applied for a loan some years ago and paid the guinea, but never got the loan. I think it is better now than it was thell 328. Do you approve of the double ballot as at present; that is, the grouping and the two ballots ? Grouping, to my mind, seems a bit ridiculous, because a man might get the section he does not want. 329. Do you think the straight-out ballot is better ?—I think so. 330. It has been suggested by a Commissioner of Crown Lands that applicants should be grouped according to their means. What do you say about thatl do not think I would agree to that, because one man can do so much better than another on the land. 331. Supposing there are sections that the landlords consider each applicant should have £300 of capital before going on with them : would you approve of the grouping of the whole of those sections in one and then balloting for them amongst the applicants who can fulfil the condition in regard to capital I.—No, I would not agree to that. 332. Mr. McCutchan.] Was the land that you took up in the King-country mixed land near Mungaroa 9 y QCI 333. Have you had considerable experience in working high country ?—Not till I went there.
1303
a—4.
T. YOUNG.I
334. You advocate the State felling and grassing rough country before putting settlers on ?—Yes, and roading it. 335. Do you think that an experienced man with capital would submit to the conditions of the Government as to how the land was to be worked ? Is it not a fact that men with experience prefer to do the work themselves ?—lt is all a matter of capital; men with capital do not go into the back blocks as a rule. 336. Have you known any men of experience and capital take up this back country ? —Not where I live. 337. Is it not a case that men in that country find it necessary to fence before they grass ? —There is a lot of delay in the country in getting fencing material. 338. Is that not where experience comes in 1— It is not a question of experience but conditions that count in the back blocks. 339. Is it not a fact that the Government sectionise the country in areas to suit the capital of the various class of settlers prepared co take it up ?—Does that not meet the requirement of settlers in regard to experience and conditions ? —That means that men labour under great disabilities because of no capital or very little. 340. If the Government go to great expense as to grassing, they will have to do all the work, because in regard to this rough hilly country, unless adequately stocked in the first few months, the grass, as you know, runs out, and the land gets back into scrub ? —I take it that the settler would stock the land right away, and fence it the same as he would in the case of an improved estate. 341. You think that practical men who know what they are doing will submit to the class of supervision which will take place if the Government do the work ?—I would not fence the country ; I would only grass it. The selector would fence it. " 342. Do you think that practical settlers will take up that class of country without fences ? They will not have sufficient time to crowd their stock on in the first twelve months, and unless they do that, the grass will go back ?—I think the men will stock that country and work it the same as they would work a piece of land on an improved estate. 343. Was the block you were on loaded for roads ? —Yes. 344. Was it spent ? —A little was. 345. Was it adequate for the roading of that country ? —No. 346. What is your opinion as to the stage roads should be brought to in connection with the settlement of this rough country before they are handed over to the local body ? —I think all the money that the block has been loaded for roads should be spent before they are handed over. 347. Is it not the case that the Government spend large sums of money in addition to the loading on the blocks I—On1 —On the main roads. 348. Would you advocate the construction of the main roads before they are handed over to local bodies ? —Yes. 349. How far should the by-roads be made ?— I They should make a road to every section. 350. A dray-road ? —I think that would be best and most profitable to the selector. 351. Would it be fair to the State to do so much ? —lt would not make much difference fo the State if the land was loaded for it. 352. You would load the land with the whole cost of the roads ?—Not for main roads ; that, I think, should come out of the consolidated revenue. 353. You spoke of the rating on unimproved value, and you mentioned that settlers were practically rated on the entire value of the land. Does not the Bush and Swamps Act overcome that difficulty ?— That has only lately come into force. 354. So far as new blocks are concerned, that difficulty is overcome ? —That is a splendid Act. 355. Do you think the settlers should be exempted from rates ? —There is a misconception about that. I will give you a case. A neighbour and I had two sections and the back country was not taken up, but under the Bush and Swamps Act it was taken up. These people had the use of our road for four years without payment, and we who had been there from the first had to pay all the maintenance. 356. Do you think the Bush and Swamps Act should be amended in the direction of allowing exemption from rent, but still calling on them to pay rates ? —I think that would be more fair to the settlers. 357. Did you have the option ? —No, the Commissioner said the land was coal-bearing. 358. With regard to Land Board representation—the Land Boards represent certain interests in the colony. These interests are lands sold for cash to which no title is given until the final payments have been made, deferred payment, occupation with right of purchase, and lease in perpetuity lands. The deferred-payment and cash lands will be removed in a year or two from Land Board control; consequently, the only interests the Land Board is called upon to watch over are occupation with right of purchase and lease in perpetuity, purely tenants' interests and the interests of the State. There are five members of the Land Board, a Commissioner and four nominated members. Since the interests are wholly tenants' interests, do you think that one Crown tenant on the Board is adequate representation ? —I should say there should be two chosen from the Crown tenants. 359. You think that the Crown tenants of the colony would be satisfied if the Government nominated two Crown tenants to watch their interests on the Land Board ?—I do. 360. You think that would be fair representation ? —Yes. 361. Mr. Anstey.] You say you have transferred your sections : had you any difficulty in either case ?—No. 362. Was there any difficulty when you bought ?—No. 363. Do you know whether generally that is the case orjiot ?—At first there was some difficulty in Cheviot, but lately there has been none. 364. What loading was placed on the block in the King-country ? —I could not give you the exact amount.
C—4.
1304
[t. young.
365. You do not know whether it was spent or not then ? —I think it was loaded to make al2 ft. road. 366. How much would it cost to make a 12 ft. road ?—Roughly speaking, £300 a mile. 367. How much voting per acre would it take to road a block with 12 ft. wide roads ?—I could not give you that. 368. Mr. Paul.'] Are you in favour of giving any preference at the ballot under any circumstances ? Only so far as to see if he has put more land on the market. 369. In your own case you have held two lease-in-perpetuity sections : you have competed, perhaps, against a man who has been in half a dozen ballots, and yet you are not on the land ? —A man has many reasons for leaving the land, just as he has for leaving the town. 370. lam not questioning the right of a man to leave his section ?—A man should have free right to leave his section if he finds it does not suit. 371. That is exactly what I want to get at: you think it is fair that a man should go in every ballot he is qualified to go in for, and sell if he likes after each ballot if he is successful ? —I do not think he should sell under five years. He would then have to stop there for five years, whether he liked it or not. 372. You object to the labour organization talking about revaluation ?—Yes. 373. That is, revaluation of present leases ?—Yes. 374. You do not think they should wish to break the agreement entered into between the Government and the tenant ? —I do not think they should advocate breaking it. 375. Do you think the tenant should advocate the breach or abolition of the contract ?—No. 376. Then you do not think the present tenants have a right to the freehold ? —I do if revaluation is brought about in any way. That is the only security they have for the land-tenure. 377. Unless the revaluation is made law you would be against giving the option of the freehold ? Yes, the bargain must stand as it is. The man sees that there is an uncertainty now about the tenure, and so he must clamour for the freehold. 378. What is to prevent the labour organization, if it is strong enough to break existing bargains, from confiscating the freeholds ? —They would not have such a good show to get at the freehold as they have to get at the Crown tenants. 379. Why I—Because1 —Because the Crown tenant has not got the monetary aspect. 380. You think he would give up the leasehold more quickly than a freehold ? —Yes. 381. Do you not recognise that a lease is just as sacred as a freehold ?—No. 382. Then you must think that the labour people are justified in breaking something which is not so sacred as a freehold ? —I do not say that; as far as the lease is concerned, Ido not thinkjt^is so sacred as freehold. 383. Why ?—Because the lessee has not got the same interest. 384. But up to the amount of his interest it is just as sacred to him \—lt is to him. It would be more easy for the Government to break it than a freehold, because the Government have a hold over it. 385. They surely cannot overlook the tenant's right I—l do not know about that. 386. Can you tell me whether the labour party, or any party, can do anything to seriously injure the country settler without injuring themselves ? —No, I do not say they can do that. 387. Can you tell me what object they would gain ? —Their object, I take it, is on account of taxation, to increase the taxation on land, and then have taxation taken off the Customs. That is their object. 388. Do you think it was wise to give a lease in perpetuity—that is, for 999 years j—No ; I think they should give the option. 389. You would give a man whatever tenure he wanted ? —Yes. 390. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think the wisest way is for the settlers to have all their lands felled and grassed before they went into occupation ? —The man would make a living off it much more quickly tlUn 39l. Would he be able to manage it ? —lt all depends upon the size. I think if it were 50 or 100 acres he could stock it. ■"*'392. Do you not think he would require more stock on it for a short time ?—Yes. Supposing you had a 200-acre farm, would it not be better to fell, say, 50 acres at a time, say each year, and break in that amount ?—I think it would be best to have 100 acres clear ofjforest, and then break in the rest gradually. Alexander Reese examined. 394. The Chairman.'] I think you are a member of the Wellington Land Board ?—Yes ; I happen to have been in that position for eight years this last time. 395. You know the object we are met here for—to inquire into the land-tenures of the colony ? — Yes. 396. Have you any land yourself ? — I have a lease of 42 acres, Wellington Corporation endowment, adjoining the Borough of Pahiatua. I have had that just about twenty years. 397. Mr. Johnston.] Are you a settler ? —Yes. I am also a trained mechanic. 398. The Chairman.] What rent are you paying ? —los. an acre. 399. No right of purchase ?— No compensation. 400. Full compensation for improvements I—Yes, for visible improvements. The term of the lease is for twenty-one years. 401. Your time is nearly up ?—There are about eighteen months to run.
A. EEESE.]
1305
a—4.
402. Is there any right of renewal ? —There is a right of renewal. It is put up to auction at the end of the term, saddled with my improvements. 403. Do you not get the preference of taking it up ? —No. I have a continued interest in it. 404. So far as relates to the improvements only ? —Yes. 405. At present the Land Boards are nominated. Some people think they could be improved by being elected : what is your view of that matter ?—I think the present system is all right. Ido not know that it would be an improvement to elect a portion of it unless you could put all under the one franchise. 406. In the matter of tenure, what is your view of that ? Which tenure do you think most likely to promote the settlement of the country, its advancement, and the welfare of the settlers ? —The lease in perpetuity. 407. You think that the best ? —I do. 408. Do you wish to make any remarks about it ?—I may say I have taken the trouble to work it out very carefully, that is, taking the occupation with right of purchase and comparing it with the lease in perpetuity. I find the comparison is very much in favour of the lease in perpetuity. For instance, if you take two sections of equal quality of the price of £1 10s. an acre —say 200 acres—and you compute the value of money, say, at 6 per cent., I find that at the end of the tenth year, when the person who took up the right of purchase has the right to exercise the right of purchase, he has paid on the whole twenty instalments of £1 10s. in excess of the lease in perpetuity, which amounts at the end of the ten years to £30. If you compute it on a basis of 6 per cent, at compound interest, at the end of the tenth year it represents a sum of about £60. Now, the value of that investment at the end of the tenth year on a basis of 5 per "cent, would be £3 a year, so at the end of the tenth year the man who has secured the right to purchase stands to lose £3 a year for the securing of that year. That is, over and above the actual cash payments the man would make on lease in perpetuity. Supposing at the end of that time he thinks it worth his while to purchase his Crown grant, if you assume his money is worth 6 per cent, to him, that is £18 a year. Now, the actual amount required to be paid by the lease-in-perpetuity man is £10 16s. per annum, or a difference of £7 4s. With the £3 he has lost already, he stands to lose £10 4s. a year. So it is easily seen from that—and this is from a careful handling of the thing —that the man who has the right of purchase is at a very great disadvantage as compared with a man who takes up the lease in perpetuity. He is further penalised to this extent: Taking an average section—l know hundreds of them in my neighbourhood—where the average increased value upon the unimproved value of the land would be £3 per acre. There are some where it has increased more than £10 in our neighbourhood, but £3 would be a fair average. The lease-in-perpetuity man and right-of-purchase man are then within the scope of the operation of the land-tax. Under the lease in perpetuity the original assessed value could never be assessed to the settler —as it belongs to the State. In this case it is £300. Taxation at the rate of Id. in the pound on this amount would be £1 ss. a year less than if the man exercised the right of purchase. So that the man who has exercised the right of purchase is penalised to the extent of £1 ss. a year, added to the other disability of £10s. 4d. That makes £11 9s. That is altogether in excess of the amount the lease-in-perpetuity man has to pay in rent. So the lease-in-perpetuity man is £11 9s. better off per annum than the man with the right of purchase. Therefore, I say the lease in perpetuity is infinitely better for the settler than the freehold. 409. In regard to the pressure of residence conditions on the Crown tenants, have you any remarks to make I—l think that the regulations that govern the position at present should be so relaxed as to enable the Boards to say to the man who has no access to his section, who has no cleared road, that residence should not take place in his case. I think the Board should have that power. 410. They have that power now ?—No. 411. Oh, yes ? —The settlers are compelled to go and reside on the land where they have a track to it. 412. But under certain circumstances you can ameliorate the position by extending the time, and under some other circumstances you may dispense with residence altogether ?—lt is not so generally understood, and certainly it has not been so administered. It is not so understood among the settlers, neither has it been the custom of the Lands Department to administer it in that spirit generally. However, recently we have got away from the old condition of things, and have been able in some cases to exempt them altogether during the whole of the ten years. But these settlers say, why should they go to the Board and ask for a concession of that kind, which they say they should have as a right. It ought to be made clear that no man should be called on to reside on his section until he had a cleared road to his section to bring his produce out. The Chairman read sections 141, 142, and 143 of the Land Act of 1892. 413. The Chairman.'] You see that gives you great power ?—lt does not give the settler the right. I think the settler ought to have the right to say, " Until the road is made I ought not to be compelled to reside on my land," and I think it would relieve the position very much if that were done. The difficulty with a great number of settlers is this : they somehow or another have an impression that the Boards generally are not favourable to their interests, and consequently they do not like to go to them. I do not mean that there is anything in that view, but it is from their standpoint. Ido not think there is anything to warrant it, but at the same time it exists, and therefore I say, without hesitation, no man should be compelled, where a road had not been cleared for him, to go into his section; and after that road had been cleared, I would say no man should be compelled to reside more than, say, in the case of a married man, four months in the year, and in the case of a single man not more than eight months in a year. The difficulty in the back blocks is this : the men very often find it convenient to go from their sections to take work on contract, or to earn money in other directions. They cannot do so at present without first consulting the Board, and that is an irksome circumstance that ought to be wiped out. I believe it. could be got over in the manner I suggest.
164—C. 4.
C—4.
1306
[a. eeese.
414. Are there any other conditions you think should be relaxed for the settlers ?—I cannot think of any just now. 415. As to the effects of climate, and so on, and the need for a consequent alteration of the Land laws ? —I think the time has come to consider the need for circumscribing the actual amount of land they are allowed to take up. At present it is 640 acres of first-class land, and in addition 1,360 acres of second-class land. I think this is obviously too much. The Boards are put in this position, if a man holds 200 acres of first-class land which may be ample to give him a first-class living, yet if he gets the opportunity to purchase a neighbour out the Board has no right to say nay, although he may be aggregating a very fine estate. For that reason I suggest it would be an advantage if the Government were to say, " You will not be allowed to go beyond a certain area of something less than 640 acres " ; I should say 300 acres of first-class land and 700 acres of second-class land ought to be quite sufficient for any settler 416. With regard to the homestead privileges, do you think there is any portion of the Wellington Province where the land is so poor or unfavourably situated that it would be wise a thing to re-enact those privileges ? —I do not think so. I think whatever the value of land is the State should receive a certain rent from it. 417. What are your views on the question of the ballot system generally ?—My view is that you cannot have a fairer system than the straight-out ballot, but in connection with the land for settlements, I think it is desirable that grouping should take place, that is, grouping of the values of the sections and the grouping of the experienced and willing farmers, so that no man should be allowed to go in for a section that he could not handle to advantage. On the other hand the Board should have the power to select them in such manner as to see that each section falls to the man who is equal to the occasion. And I think that can be obtained under the system of grouping which has been devised by Mr. Humphries, of Christchurch, and which was presented at the Conference of Land Boards held here in December last. I think he managed this in the best possible way, because it is possible for every man to get the section he really wants, and no man would be obliged to take the section he did not want. 418. Do you know anything about the practice of loading lands for roads ?—I think that is a huge mistake, and it is one of the biggest bugbears that tbe bush settler has to contend with. The inference drawn from the system by the average settler is that the loading should suffice to make the roads, but it does not go one quarter of the way. Consequently, when that fund is expended, they have to fall back on the member for the district and fight him to get amounts put upon the estimates to finish the roads. That is a wrong system. I suggest a method. Nearly every local authority in our district— the Forty-mile Bush —has recourse to a method of raising loans on the hypothecation of their " thirds " under the leasehold, and under the freehold they have to include themselves in a special-rating area to raise the loans to complete the roads. In both cases these people penalise themselves for the benefit of every settler in New Zealand by completing the public works. Ido not think that they should be penalised in that way. At the present time I know of cases in our own district where men who are paying about £6 a year iand-tax are actually also paying local rates amounting to about £50. In that case the thing is out of proporton. We see the land-tax is gathered upon a uniform value, and that is fair. But why continue a system of rating for roads and bridges for the use of everybody, which penalises settlers in one part of the country to the tune of £50 per annum and allows settlers in other better-roaded districts to go free ? Let the Government take over all the loans to local bodies and recoup themselves in some other way. The solution is to have recourse to the land-tax. Then every voter in New Zealand would have to contribute his quota towards the completion of these roads and bridges which are constructed for everybody's use. 419. Have you had any experience of the advances-to-settlers system ? —Yes, I have had a number of complaints from time to time from settlers who wished to borrow. It is impossible for the Advances to Settlers Department to meet the requirements of everybody, but in the case where a man goes to borrow from that Department and he pays for a valuation, he should receive a copy of it. At present he does not know anything about the valuation of his property, and when it comes before the Board, if he is refused the amount required, they should either give him a copy of his valuation or return his fee. I know of cases where men have gone two or three times and have not got the amount they required, and have had to go to private sources. 420. Do you think the lease in perpetuity financially is very much more advantageous to the settler than the occupation with right of purchase ? —I do. 421. The evidence we usually got on that point was the other way ?—I think that used to obtain in our district, but Ido not think it obtains now. I made it my business some time ago to go to one of the largest lending firms in our neighbourhood and ask them the value of the 999-years lease as a security. The principal said, " I reckon it is good enough. Moreover, if you have been paying attention to what has been going on at the Land Board recently, you will have seen that during the last two or three months my firm have put out something like £8,000 on the properties of the Crown tenants, and that was out of a sum of £12,000 we had to lend, and had I £20,000 more I would lend it quite freely on the 999-years lease, but I want to know first who the man is I am giving it to." Ido not think there can be any doubt about the security of the 999-years lease. 422. There is fear that there may be some revaluation to interfere with that land ? —No doubt that is so, and it would be a terrible shame if it should ever come about without due adjustment in the shape of compensation for the tenant's interest in the section. 423. And only then with their concurrence ?—Just so. 424. Do you think there is a general prejudice against the Land Boards ?—The prejudice which you have heard in this district is not warranted. I will give you a case in point. Seven years ago I had this impression on my mind, and the Board went to Mangaweka and one deputation waited on us who were singularly unfortunate in the respect that they had spent all their money in improving their sections,
1307
A. BEESE.]
C—4.
and they had absolutely not a track into their land, and through having no track they had no chance of utilising it to advantage. They got practically stranded. They came to us in fear and trembling, and it is one of the best experiences the Board has had. These men went away delighted because they got a lot of information of a useful character concerning the hypothecation of their " thirds," which had been lying to the extent of thousands of pounds to the credit of the road, and had not been applied for by the local authority. These men knew nothing about these " thirds." When it was pointed out that the money had accumulated and therefore was available for the purpose of raising a loan to make a road they went away rejoicing, and they told us before going away that they thought we had come there specially to take their properties away from them. There is, however, here and there a few settlers who are still very sore with regard to the administration, but I am not aware of a single instance to justify their statements with regard to bad administration. Over and over again I have made inquiries and I have not been able to discover one case. There are here and there a few unfortunate circumstances over which we scarcely had any control, or where perhaps a mistake had been made. 425. Mr. Paul.'] You lease an endowment ? —I do. 426. Are the conditions of that lease satisfactory ?—The conditions are that for the first seven years the rent was 4s. 6d. an acre; at the end of that term it was increased 50 per cent, to 6s. 9d.; then, at the end of fourteen years, it was increased 50 per cent, more ; so that you will see that I began at 4s. 6d. an acre, and am now paying over 10s. My interest, although it does not actually terminate, still is very much jeopardized at the end of the first term, and I have no real claim on them excepting the improvements and the fact that I would have a voice in assessing the value of the land, so that in the event of anybody not outbidding me I would receive it back at perhaps a hundredfold value. 427. Do you want the right of renewal as well as valuation for improvements ? —That is not satisfactory. I want a 999-years lease with the right of renewal. 428. You think that would be serving the purpose for which ten endowments were set apart ? — No ; obviously the endowment was set aside for the purposes of the citizens of Wellington. 429. You know that there are endowments for various purposes ? Do you think it would be wise to lease all those endowments under the lease in perpetuity ?—My idea is that there ought not to be any such thing as endowments for any special purposes. I think the land is too big a subject to deal with in a piecemeal fashion like that. It ought to be under one uniform system. I submit that the State should take over all public lands, and that endowments in cash should be given instead, and then that all the leases should be subject to a refund in the rent of, say, 4 or 5 per cent., as the case may be, on the then assessed value. Thereafter the increment on these leases should be subjected as the freehold is to the conditions of the land-tax, and that would suffice for all purposes. 430. Then you would lease them under the lease in perpetuity and apply a land-tax ?—I would. 431. Would you apply the present land-tax to the lease in perpetuity ?—I would, just as on the freehold. 432. What is the revenue of that tax per annum ?—£350,000. 433. From the tax on lease in perpetuity ?—I do not think that they pay land-tax on that yet. 434. Is that the tax you would place on endowments ? —I would apply the tax to all leasehold lands—that is, upon the increment of leasehold lands, just the same as I would upon the freeholds. There are 14,000,000 acres of freehold, every acre of which is subject to the operations of the land-tax when the exemption of £500 is deducted. The same thing should apply to all leasehold lands in excess of the assessed value when it was taken up, so that the increment in both cases should be penalised in exactly the same ratio. 435. Do you think the exemption under the land-tax should be taken away ?—To a large extent. 436. Do you not think that successful settlement could ensue in the case of a perpetual lease with periodical revaluations ?—I do not think it is fair; but my answer to that question is that I have a comprehensive scheme, which, if carried out, would affect all land-owning people alike. If you continue your penalty of revaluation you rob the leaseholder through a charge on his increment while you leave it with the freeholder. 437. Could not a system of valuation be encouraged which would give the tenant a share in the increment while conserving something of it to the State ? —I do not think so. Taking my own case, I apprehend that in eighteen months' time the property I now occupy will be reassessed at its marketable value, and I will be saddled with 5 per cent, on the assessed value as rent, or as much more as I like to pay, because the officials here will say, it is a fair thing to ask 5 per cent, on the assessed value and then put it into the market, and whoever likes to pay more would get it. 438. Do you know of a better system that could be inaugurated ? —The one I suggest would be perfect. 439. Would the Land Board refuse permission for a settler to be away from his holding for four months in the year ?—I think so; but it ought not to rest with the Land Board. I submit that the laws should be altered so that the settler would know that he was not compelled to reside continually until the roads were made. 440. Do you think that successful settlement would take place under those conditions ? —I do. 441. Is not the success of a settlement due to the fact that the whole of the settlers are residents permanently on the land ? —lt is a most cruel thing to see such a condition of things as obtains occasionally, and which you have no doubt seen lately. 442. When I say permanent settlers, I mean after the roads are made ?—As soon as the roads are made I would make it absolute. There should be no escape then. 443. Do you see any objection to. giving the option of purchase to Crown tenants under the Land for Settlements Act ?—I do. The objection is that if you give the right of purchase, aggregation necessarily will ensue. The land would run together again like grease in large areas. 444. Could you not avoid that by the land-tax ?—Yes; but that will come very slowly.
C—4.
1308
| A. REESE.
445. Do you think that 200 acres would be a sufficient quantity, or do you think it would be better to group three sections together and have one family living on the six sections ?—ln?many|!cases it would be a pity to lose two good settlers when good provision has been made for them on 200-acre blocks. I know a case —I saw the figures—where a man upon 75 acres of lease-in-perpetuity land, paying 13s. 9d. an acre rent, milked nineteen cows, had 27 acres in oats, and made £350 10s. in his first year. That was his gross turnover. 446. You know, from your own knowledge, there are many families on these improved estates making a good living on 200 acres ?—I do, and on much less than that. 447. Mr. Johnston.\ Are you a farmer by profession ? —No, I am a carpenter. I am almost anything. 448. I mean are you farming for your living at present ?—Yes. 449. On a small area ?—Yes. 450. Did you hear Mr. McCardle give his evidence in Pahiatua ?—I did. 451. Can you refute his accusations against the Land Board ?—I did not know he made any specific charge at all. 452. He made serious charges ?—He emphasized his views right enough, but they were not necessarily correct. I know he referred to a case, but he did not state it correctly. I refer to the case where he said a man was away on a contract and the Board cancelled his interest. I think that case is one of the most unfortunate you could imagine. The man was away and the Department communicated with him on several occasions, but got no answer, and finally they cancelled his interest. That happened about two years ago. I was ill at the time and not sitting on the Board, and the man came to me and told me the position. I took him to the Commissioner, Mr. Strauchon, and the Commissioner said he would give him what help he could. He said the section would be in the market in a short time, and the man could put in his application. The man said that would suit him all right, since nothing else could be done. The Commissioner said, " I will let you know when the section is to be gazetted so that you can put in your application." He did so, but the man was away again on a contract, and did not get his notice, and did not know that the section was in the market until it had been allotted to another person. The unfortunate part was that the person who got the section was prepared to give £220 for it. The improvements were worth £110, so that the man got it for £110, and the man who lost it was exceedingly sore about the matter. It was not through any fault of the Department, unless they made a mistake in regard to forfeiting in the first instance. 453. Take the case of Chapman : how long ago is that ?—I suppose about three years ago. 454. Were the facts given by Mr. Johns correct \—They were wrong. He did not know that. There are certain phases of it that it would not do to go into. This particular section—after being saddled with the value of his improvements, £150—was in the market for perhaps six months. It was then reduced to £81 10s. It then remained in the market for another six or eight monsth, and was ultimately taken up. 455. The Land Board did its best for the widow ?—Yes, we did our best. There was not the slightest chance of getting £150. 456. Will you tell us the reason why certain sections inland from Woodville were put in the market at £1 15s. an acre, and were subsequently reduced to 17s. 6d. an acre ?—lf you remember, about seven or eight years ago there was a great clamour got up for a Revaluation Bill amongst the settlers themselves in order to have their sections revalued, because they thought they were too high, and undoubtedly they were too high. There was a kind of Commission set up to revalue them. Before revaluation could take place the settlers had to surrender their interests. Some of them would not surrender because they thought they had a good thing. Others surrendered and had their places revalued and put on the market, and they were lucky enough to get them back again at the reduced rent. That Commission only sat for a limited period and could only deal with certain districts. 457. Were not the other tenants entitled to the same considerations ?—They could have done as others did, but for reasons of their own they did not do so ; but when they saw that other settlers had their rents reduced they felt hurt. - 458. Do you not think it was a very hard thing for the settlers that their sections should be put up to public competition again ? —I suppose it was considered to be the best way out of the difficulty. 459. You are a member of the Land Purchase Board ?—Yes. 460. Do you not think it was absolutely absurd to put £1 15s. on that land ?—I do, and I said so at the time 461. Do you think that the cases of hardship quoted|to|the Commissi could be substantiated ?-—I do not think so, or else we would have had the cases in black and white long ago. 462. Why would you not substitute the 999-years lease for the present tenure of small grazingruns if you consider the lease in perpetuity to be the best tenure for other land ?—Many small grazingruns are suitable for subdivision hereafter, and it would be a very unwise thing on the part of the State to grant a lease in perpetuity in such cases ; but if the land was not suitable for subdivision I would give a 999-years lease. I think that every Crown tenant should have a 999-years lease. 463. Do you not think the 999-years lease is a perfectly absurd lease ?—No, I think it is one of the most perfect leases ever invented. 464. Do you not think you might just as well give the freehold ?—No ; under the 999-years lease the State has a splendid thing. 465. Supposing the 999-years lease had been given in the case of the southern runs, what would have been the position to-day ?—I say that all land that is suitable for subdivision hereafter ought not to have an eternal lease. 466. Do you not know that some of these runs are not bringing in anything like the rental to-day that they brought in, say. forty years ago ?—That is so.
1309
A. BEESE.]
C—4.
467. Do you hot think these areas would have been better with revaluation ?—Why should you take away from the Crown tenant his portion of the increment and leave it to his neighbour on the other side of the fence. 468. Is not the lease in perpetuity practically the same as the freehold ? —No, there are advantages to the State in case of the lease in perpetuity that the freehold does not give. 469. Do you not think in the interests of the colony it would be better to revalue at certain periods ? —There is a splendid remedy for both, and that is you have the right to tax. 470. The land-tax is on the freehold ?—Yes, and it is also on the 999-years lease. The pastoral runs are exempt from it. 471. You are a firm believer in the 999-years lease ? —I believe it is a splendid way out of the wilderness, and I believe in it because it makes uniformity of condition, and with uniformity of condition you can get equality of sacrifice and not otherwise. 472. Do you not think that non-residence would tend to dummyism ? —No, you can stop anything like dummyism in connection with Crown tenants by making it cond tional that residence shall not take place until there is road access given, and thereafter until the roads are formed and metalled the settlers shall only be compelled to reside from four to eight months respectively. I should not go so far as to say that a man should be allowed to employ another as a substitute for his improvements. 473. Then would you advocate storekeepers in the town or country taking up land and doing more improvements than the resident tenants ?—I think, perhaps, their condition might be met in the way that has been suggested by setting blocks apart to be dealt with in that way, but as far as I can see, the trouble is this, how to meet the requirements of the bona fide man who wants to get on the land to earn his living. 474. Do you not think the bonrufide settler who wants to live on the land is the man who should be considered first ?—Certainly, and we have not sufficient land to meet his requirements. 475. In regard to classification of land, take land at Raetihi and land at Mangaweka and Hunterville ; there is first-class land at those places. Would you consider that a man could make a good living out of 300 acres at Raetihi ?—A man can make a good living at Raetihi on 200 acres. 476. I want you to take the case of land at those places being of equivalent quality ?—A man with land at Hunterville who is nearer the market and has better facilities could do much better with a smaller area than a man holding land further away. 477. Do you not think that 640 acres in the broken country, say, at Mangaweka, is as small an area as a man can get a decent living from %—I have been informed by a man from the east coast who had a sliecp-farm of 200 acres, and who made a handsome living from it, that he began with 100 acres and he has now got several thousand acres. 478. Do you think that the rates quoted by settlers giving evidence at Pahiatua—that is, rates paid to private companies for loans —were correct: 8 and 10 per cent.?—l know they are paying 8 per cent. 479. Do you know if they are paying any more ? —I have known them to be asked as high as 12 per cent., and the Board would not allow such cases to go through. 480. Do you mean to tell me that the Rangitikei County Council did not know about the " thirds " that you have referred to ?—lf they did know they did not apply for them, and they were left lying to the credit of the settlers. I know of another district where £13,000 was lying to the credit of the local authorities, and they did not apply for it. 481. Can you give us any reasons why some of the settlers under this Board appear discontented ?— About eight years ago there was a seat on the Board vacant, and three political aspirants were tugging at the Minister to get appointed, and it rather surprised them that he should have appointed me over their heads. One of them, by the way, was the member for the district, and for a considerable time after he was very sore about it. 482. Do you think that this agitation has been got up by some other bodies ?—I do, but I do not think there is anything to warrant it. 483. In your opinion, has the agitation for the freehold been got up by the settlers themselves ? — No. 484. Has it been got up by the Farmers' Union ? —lt is a fact as far as I know. 485. You think the Farmers' Union is a good deal to blame for this agitation Yes, I do. 486. Would you approve of education, harbour, and borough endowments being valued and capitalised by the Government, and bonds bearing interest equal to the present revenue being handed to the local bodies, and the land taken over by the Government and administered by the Land Board ? — Yes, I think that would be a statesmanlike thing to do. It would help to put the land question on a more equitable basis. 487. Mr. McCutr,han.\ In referring to the occupation-with-right-of-purchase lease and the lease in perpetuity, you made your comparison from a rental and taxation standpoint, but you just gave one side of the question ? —I simply took the financial aspect of the question. 488. You did not take into consideration that the man with the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure would get a considerably larger amount for his interest than the man with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure \—No, because I think that is a fallacious opinion to hold. I know there are freeholders in New Zealand who would gladly accept the present value of their freeholds, and thereafter take up a 999-years lease at 4 per cent. 489. Is it not the case that the occupation with right of purchase is a more marketable commodity than the lease in perpetuity I—l cannot.say that is so, because we have a large number of both tenures, and there is a very considerable amount of money in some of these leaseholds 490. As to the nomination of members of Land Boards, are you prepared to lay down as aj)rinciple that representation should be as far as possible in proportion to the interests involved—to the interests of the tenant and of the State ? —I do not know that the Crown would be justified in giving any special
C.—4.
1310
[a. eeesb.
representation at all. The tenant merely takes up che land subject to certain conditions. The tenant's interest is not greater than the interest that the general public have in the whole property ; for that reason I submit that the Board should properly fulfil the requirements of the whole community, and not of any special section of it. 491. Are there any Crown tenants on the Wellington Land Board ? —There are two. 492. Can you state the proportion which the Crown tenants' interests bear to the total value of the lands you are administering ? —No, I could not give it. 493. Do you think the tenants have three times the interest the State has ?—I should not say so. 494. So far as the representation being proportionate to the interests involved is concerned, that is fairly carried out in the Wellington district ?—I think so. 495. Giving to the State the right of nomination, do you think that on the tenants' behalf it should be laid down that two of the four men should be Crown tenants ?—No, Ido not like special representation in that sense, because the whole of the colony is interested in the land, and therefore the fitness of the men should be considered, and that is a matter for those who have the appointment. In regard to the proposal for the election of Land Boards, I do not think any satisfactory franchise could be arrived at. 496. The matter of election of Boards has been exploded, but the question has been raised whether the representation should be proportionate to the interests involved under the nomination system ?— I was appointed to the Land Board over twenty years ago, as the result of a public meeting of the settlers of the Ballance Association, and I was appointed at a time when Mr. McCardle was also a member of the Land Board, and for some years we were both members. That Ido not think was quite right, because one would have been quite sufficient to have looked after the interests of that particular district. 497. Do you see any reason~why lease-in-perpetuity tenants should be called upon to reside continuously for ten years whilst the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenants only have to reside six years continuously ? —None whatever. 498. Do you think the residence should be reduced to six years in the case of lease in perpetuity '?— I would reduce them as I have suggested, and have no permanent residence until the roads are made. 499. With reference to the discretionary power which the Boards have to give exemption to residence, you would advocate the tenants' rights being more clearly defined ? —Yes, so that they need not go to the Board at all. 500. You say the loading is the biggest bugbear the settler has to contend with ? —Yes. 501. Throughout the North Island the same thing applies. Have you worked out any clearly defined scheme to place the roading system on a more satisfactory footing (—Yes, I suggest that the Government should take over the whole of the loans to local bodies, consolidate them, and recoup themselves by an increase in the land-tax over the whole colony. 502. That is what has been done in the past, and we have not got roads ? —There should be no such thing as loading for the purpose of making roads in the back blocks. Settlers should pay 4or 5 per cent, on the assessed value of the land when taken up, enjoy exemption from rents under the Bush and Swamp Lands Act, and thereafter all money for roads should be taken out of the consolidated revenue, and spent by the Government and not by the local authority. lam satisfied there would be better results. 503. You agree that every part of the State benefits by every road put in it ! —Yes. 504. With reference to the £30,000 of accumulated " thirds," does your Board send schedules of the accumulated " thirds " periodically to the local bodies ? —Yes, and to the particular selector whose " thirds " have accrued 505. In some districts, there are large accumulations of " thirds " which have accrued owing to the Government retaining control of the roads for a number of years, and consequently there being no need for the settlers to spend their " thirds " until the Government expenditure ceased. Does that apply here I—Yes, and in some cases the Government has had to step in and spend the " thirds." 506. You are aware that legislation was passed last session to force the hands of local bodies in this respect ?—Yes. 507. Do you think that the Advances to Settlers Department should supply applicants for loans with copies of the valuations placed on their improvements by the valuer ? —I am not in a position to speak about that I have no doubt the Department have good reasons for not giving the valuation. I think, however, that they should hand back the valuation-fee in cases where the loan is not granted. 508. You are aware that the valuation-fee is a very trivial matter ? —lt is not a trivial matter to a man who is wanting to borrow. 509. A man applies for a £100, and the valuer may have to ride sixty miles and the fee is only 10s. 6d. ?—lt does not pay him at all. 510. Supposing a man who makes an application for a loan misrepresents his improvements, which may have deteriorated through neglect, and when the valuer goes there lie finds that there is no security. Do you think from the State's standpoint that the valuation-fee should be returned to such a man making an application for a loan ?—I do, seeing he does not get his loan. He has not even the satisfaction of looking at his valuation paper. 511. You made reference to occupation with right of purchase and lease in perpetuity, and referred to the fact of £8,000 having been lent by a private firm to Crown tenants. You did not differentiate between occupation with right of purchase and lease in perpetuity ?—lt was advanced on the lease in perpetuity within two months. 512. Was that recently ? —ln Septeniber and October of last year. 513. Did you get any information as to the extent of the advance in proportion to the improvements ? —No, I was only querying as to the value of the lease as a security for advances.
A. REESE.]
1311
C—4.
514. Was goodwill taken into consideration ?—The person I referred to was perfectly competent to appreciate a matter of that kind. 515. Do you think the aggregation of estates should be safeguarded against by straight-out legislation ? —I do not think it is necessary. 516. Do you believe that that would be an interference with colonial interests, and would in any way upset matters ?—lt is not necessary. 517. Do you think the graduated land-tax would do it ? —Unquestionably it will. 518. You are perfectly well aware that there is a certain amount of aggregation going on ? — I am. 519. You would put on another turn of the graduated land-tax ? —I would relieve settlers from the grievances of the present rating system. I think that many would be willing to pay a further landtax, and so get rid of the penalty they pay under local rating. 520. You mean an entire freedom in the matter of local-government taxation I—Yes.1 —Yes. I know of cases where men are paying local rating to six different rating areas, and where the land-tax is £6 and the local rating amounts to £50. 521. Where the interests of the lessee are seven or eight times the interest of the State, do you think the Minister should have discretionary power to interfere with the provisions of a will ?—Certainly not; it is entirely a matter for the trustees to deal with. 522. You think there should be no interference in any way with the provisions of the will ?—I understand that he has no control. 523. How about the clauses in the Act of last year ? —I know that is the position in regard to one or two cases our Board has deait with. As a matter of fact, we called the Public Trustee before us to give an account of his stewardship in connection with one of these matters. 524. The clauses of last year's Act are a dead-letter, then ? —That is so. The real position has been misrepresented. 525. Mr. Anstey.] Is it not a fact that this clause referred to is only operative when the legator wishes to divide his estate I—Possibly that is so. 526. You said you wished to have the lease in perpetuity of the section you now hold ? —Yes. 527. Do you think that would be quite fair for the trust for you to have the lease in perpetuity at the original value ? —No. 528. How do you fix the rent under lease in perpetuity ? —lt would be done by arbitration. 529. You said you should have had it under lease in perpetuity when first you took it up ?—No ; I said I would have liked to have had the lease in perpetuity. 530. Are there not other lands in the same position as this ? Do you think the tenant should have the land for all time at a low rent ?—lt would be better to do that than to sell for cash. 531. You oppose granting the right of purchase to lease in perpetuity —does that apply both to existing and future leases ? —Yes. 532. What about occupation with right of purchase ?—I think the State should stop selling land altogether, and that all land should be let under lease in perpetuity, except where it is necessary to deal with land which might subsequently be suitable for subdivision in which case I think it should be let under short-dated leases. 533. You would oppose this proposal for the revaluation of existing leases ? —I think that is a cruel thing. 534. Would you apply your ideas with regard to the control of Crown lands to all public reserves ? I would. I think the Government should take them over and recoup the trusts by a money grant. 535. We have heard that the lease in perpetuity is not a good tenure to borrow under. Do you know of anything in the conditions that might be removed ? We have been told that the lender has no power to seize ?—Except in the case of a village settlement, when a man becomes bankrupt the interest passes to the Official Assignee. 536. Does that apply to lands under the Land for Settlements Act ?—I do not know that it does in that case, but it is so in regard to ordinary Crown lands. 537. They can be sold out without the consent of the Land Board ?—No ; but in the case of a bankrupt the interest would revert to the Assignee, who would deal with it. 538. It is necessary for a man to go bankrupt before the lender can recover I—That is a legal matter which I cannot possibly give an opinion upon. 539. Do you think a man should be able to lend as freely on a lease in perpetuity as on a freehold ? I think it is wise to guard against men being ruined through want of knowledge. 540. Do you think a man's borrowing-powers under lease in perpetuity should remain restricted as at present ?—Yes. 541. Would you apply the same to selling ? We have had two or three witnesses who have told us that they could not sell out their lease in perpetuity ? —I know of cases where the lease in perpetuity has been sold out, and the tenant has got as high as £17 an acre goodwill. 542. Are there many cases of settlers selling out at a premium ? —A tremendous lot are selling out. 543. Can they sell as readily as if the land was freehold ?—I could not say that, but there are a large number of sales at premiums. 544. Have any sales come under your notice where the amount that has passed has been less than the tenant's improvements ? —I can only remember the case of Chapman's, and that was due entirely to circumstances. 545. Do you think it wise that the Bush and Swamp Lands Act should exempt settlers from rates when their neighbours have to pay rates all the time to make roads for them %—Yes. 546. Do you think that is fair to the others ?—I have known a whole district to be penalised by the local authority for rates, and not a penny being spent on the roads.
C—4.
1312
[A. REESE.
547. Do you think it would be fair for the Government to take over and maintain out of consolidated revenue the whole of the main roads of the colony ? —Yes. 548. Would you consider revaluation repudiation ?—Yes. 549. Would it not be repudiation to take the onus of maintaining the roads in Taranaki from the people of Taranaki, and put it on to the people of Canterbury ?— No. Why should the settlers of the back blocks make roads for the whole of the colony. 550. Is it not a fact that these particular settlers you speak of have acquired their lands at a few shillings per acre, and that the expenditure of their own money has increased the value of their land. Now that the land has increased in value you say that the cost should be taken off their shoulders and placed on the shoulders of others in the colony —is that fair ? —Yes. These men have penalised themselves for eight or ten years for the purpose of raising loans for making roads which are for the vise of the whole of the people of the colony. 551. Do other people use these roads ?—Yes. Any person may use a public road. 552. Do you mean that loading should be done away with altogether ? —Yes ; that is what increased the cost of the lands in our neighbourhood to the settler. There was a loading of 7s. per acre. 553. Was that sufficient to make the roads ?—No. 554. Would it not be more sensible to put on sufficient to make the roads and reduce the capital value ? —No. The land should be put upon the market at a proper assessed value, and the roads be made out of the consolidated revenue. 555. With regard to workmen's homes, we had a good deal of complaint from settlers at Epuni, who seem to be troubled with too much land, which they have to leave idle. Do you think it would be wise when providing homes fo* workers to allow for only small areas, say, a quarter or an eighth of an acre ? —Seeing that development has been so rapid at the Hutt, I think the Government should compensate everyone in the Epuni Settlement, and subdivide the land again. 556. Would you insist on exactly the same residence conditions to a man who purchased for cash as you would in regard to a man who takes up under a lease ?—The man who purchases for cash is beyond control, and nothing can be done with him at all. 557. What is the gross income of the 200-acre sheep-farm you mentioned ? —He worked it out for me and showed £136 a year. 559. He has to pay interest and everything out of that. What has he left out of the £136 ?— I think he took into consideration normal conditions. I gave abnormal conditions when I told you about the man paying six rates. He said he went out there twenty-five years ago, and started on a 200-acre section, and then he took the present price of sheep and his own gross returns. He now owns about 6,000 or 7,000 acres, and he took the profits on the estate, and said that people who have 200 acres of that land can make a really good living. 560. That comes to Bs. Id. a day as gross income, and out of it has to be paid rent, and everything else ?—He reckons he makes that clear of his rent. That would be £12 a year. John Jacobs examined. 561. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a carrier and contractor living in the Epuni Hamlet. I have a holding of 1 acre 2 roods 14 perches. 562. What rent do you pay on it ?—I pay £15 17s. 6d. per annum. 563. Have you been there long ?—Eleven months I think. 564. Did you buy in from somebody else ?—I got it from the Government, but I think the section had been taken up before. 565. It was one that had been forfeited ? —lt must have been. 566. How are you pleased with your section ? —I have come to lay a grievance before the Commission, but Ido not expect I can get redress of my grievance. I thought I should bring a few thoughts before the Commission which should perhaps open the eyes of other aspirants to workmen's homes. I took up the section and knew what I had got to pay, but I believe the system of working these homes is entirely wrong. It is too dear. The original rent for that section in June, 1901, was £4 10s. 3d. 567. Per annum ?—No, half-yearly. On the Ist June, 1904, the rent for the same land was £7 18s. 9d. Ido not see where this revaluation or penalisation ought to come in to the workman. The Government, if they have disbursed anything and want to recoup themselves for it, should have charged a certain sum, and not charged it at £4 or £5 an acre for a thousand years. I also believe successful workmen's homes can never be established on the areas we have there. They are too big for the man to make them paj>. I have just made a small calculation as I sat here, and this is not what my rent would be for tne land only, and I think it comes to very nearly £26 a year for the land, and I find I can do nothing with it—only build one house. I thought in giving my idea of it here some of these people who are always clamouring for workmen's homes might see the folly of going in for such large areas, and the danger of having the value rise on you in such a manner. There was nothing there when I went on the land. The section was there as it was after subdivision, and nothing at all had been done to it. I have done what there is myself, and still my rent has been risen twice. lam one of a group of five in the whole settlement. The others, I think, pay a rental on something like a valuation of £1,000 an acre, and we pay a rental of £200 an acre. I think there is something wrong in the working of the thing. We were told we should not be revalued, and in this case we are revalued at the option of will of those in powef. We have no redress at all. I give you that suggestion for the benefit of those who may come after me. 568. You say it has been let at three different prices ? —The first was £4 10s. 3d. half-yearly. 569. That is £9 os. 6d. yearly ?—That was the original rental. From the Ist June, 1901, until the Ist June, 1904, the difference has taken place. From what source we wonder.
.T. JACOBS. 1
1313
C.—4.
570. It has been by the Land Board. They have the fixing of the prices ?—Have they power tore value ? 571. Yes, they have. You have gone on the land at a time when the land has gone up immensely in value, and the Land Board have a right to take cognisance of what is going on. You thought it was worth your while and you have taken it up ? —I did so, but it is' not worth my while. It is too dear as a workman's home. 572. Are you using it as a workman's home ? You are a carrier and I suppose are using it for your horses and stable ?—Yes, but it does not alter the value. 573. Supposing the Epuni Hamlet had not been there at all, and you wanted a place in the same locality, could you have got the same area any cheaper from anybody else ?—I would not have tried. 574. Would you have gone without ? —Yes. I do not see I have any interest in that land at all, seeing it is valued at £317 now. That is the full value I think, and beyond the value if anything. 575. Have you any other point ? —No, that is my main point. 576. Mr. Paul.] You have too much land ?—Yes. 577. And you find the rates and rent come very hard on you ?—Yes, they are too hard for the privilege of living on a piece of land. 578. Was this section vacant until you took it up ? —Yes. 579. No previous occupier ? —No one had lived upon it lam one of those five in this settlement who are penalised in this way. There is one man, or there are two, who have 2 acres, and the rent is so high that they will have to forfeit. Section 104 is one. 580. What is the rent the holder has to pay now ? —He pays £14 ss. half-yearly. 581. His rate is practically double what the original assessment was ?—Yes. 582. Do you consider you are in a better position than the outside working-man who is under a private landowner ?—Not at all. I consider my position there is a loss. 583. Supposing you had a quarter-acre only in the hamlet, would you be all right then ?—Not under the Government. I would not take it. 584. What is the objection ?—I would go in for a section in the Hutt Borough, and better myself a great deal. 585. Can you get a quarter-acre at a quarter of this rental for ground rent ?—They told me some land had sold there at £400 an acre. I should not like to say I can get a quarter-acre at that rate, but, as a matter of fact, Ido not believe such is the case. Ido not think I could get a quarter-acre for a fourth of that amount. 586. Then you must be in a better position. It would have to be considerably less than a quarter of the amount to enable you to better your position ?—My condition is bad now on this piece of land. 587. You are in the position of being a land-monopolist. You have got more land than you can profitably use and profitably employ labour to work ?—Yes. 588. Then your position cannot be satisfactory ? —Yes. 589. Then if you had a quarter of an acre, and the rent was correspondingly low, that would be an improvement ?—Certainly it would be an improvement. 590. Mr. Johnston.] Have you put any improvements on it ?—Yes, the Government valuation of my improvements is £270. 591. What did these cost you ?—Rather more than £270. 592. You knew what you were doing when you took the land up ?—Yes, at least I thought I did, but my position, as far as I find it to-day, is such that if any one will give me the amount of the Government valuation and 6 per cent., I am willing to give any workman who wants a workman's home the opportunity to take my place. 593. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think it would be a wise thing for the Government to resume that settlement ? Nearly every one complains of the sections being too large altogether. Would you be satisfied to be secured in the value of your improvements and have the land cut up into smaller sections ? —That is what I believe ; that is the only remedy. The Epuni Hamlet is in the wrong place. It is planted in the middle of a valuable borough, and in a short time the land will be so dear that it is no use taking it up under the restrictions. You cannot realise a sufficient income on it except you put up another house on your section. The best thing I can see, if the Government is going to cut it up, is to resume the whole block and resurvey and reroad it. 594. What size do you think is suitable for workmen's homes ? —Ordinary sections of a quarter of an acre. 595. Do you think it advisable to cut it up into a number of eighth, quarter, and half acre sections ? —Yes. 596. Would that be satisfactory to all the settlers ? —lt is difficult to say. 597. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to resume possession if the majority wish it I—Yes, if the Government pay compensation I think it would be quite right. 598. You told us your rent was £15 17s. 6d. a year, and later on it was £26 ? —I pay actually £15 17s. 6d. to the Government. I have put £250 worth of improvements on the place, and I want my interest at 4 per cent, on that. That would amount to £10. I also, as a reasonable business-man, want a giving fund on the house, for thirty years is a reasonable life for a house. 599. Do you mean that your home costs you £26 a year ?—Yes. 600. Do you think you could get a' home as good at 10s. a week in the town ?—I would not try. I have laid out £250 of my own money. 601. But you are charging interest on that ?—lt is difficult to find £250 and find 10s. as well. 602. I ask, can you get a house and, say, a stand for your horses anywhere near town at anything like 10s. a week or £1 a week ?—No, I dojjnot think I can near the town. I would not try it, because Ido not depend on the horses only for the present. lam looking at the thing at what it is worth.
165—C. 4.
1314
[W. LAWSON.
C—4.
William Lawson examined. 603. The Chairm,an.\ What are you ?—I am a settler in the Epuni Hamlet. I hold a 1-acre section I am paying £6 6s. 9d. a year, less 3s. rebate. 604. What is the section ? —Section 81. 605. How long have you been there ?—Four years. 606. Are you satisfied with your position ?—Yes, I am thoroughly satisfied with it, and I believe that any one who weighs the evidence on both sides as to what they were before they went there and what they are now must admit that the bulk of them are infinitely better off now, and, as one of those who took round that paper on the leasehold-tenure, in respect to which there was some dispute as to the signature of several names, I may say that we made it clear to every one who put his name down that it had nothing to do with the freehold whatever, that it was leasehold pure and simple, and on any one asking us what the word " amendment " meant we stated it was some readjustment of the rates, because that is really the sore point with all of them. 607. You are in favour of the lease in perpetuity ? —Yes. 608. You do not find an acre too much for you ?—An acre is certainly not. I think there is about £2 of rates on mine ; that is far cheaper than I could get anywhere else. 609. I suppose you are a tradesman—l mean a worker ?—Yes, I work in town. lam a furnaceman. As to the profitable use of the land I consider that I shall be able to . make a fair thing out of it by using it in its proper way : putting up a glass house, and things like that. At present lam very pleased with what I have got. 610. Do you consider you are in a better position than workmen outside the hamlet ?—Oh, yes, I believe I am. I believe most "of the people in that hamlet think so too. 611. Can you get a more reasonable house if you looked around outside the hamlet at the same rate ?—Nothing approaching it. 612. Mr. Anstey.\ Do you think these sections are of a suitable size ? Would not much smaller areas suit some people ?—I think that when a man finds his section too big for him to make a profitable use of it he should be able by application to the Land Board to have it subdivided, and I consider that the man who finds that he can work it at a profit and wishes to keep it should be able to retain his original contract. 613. You think he should be allowed to hand back one-half or three-fourths to the Board if it is too large for him now ? —Yes. 614. Do you think two acres are too much for an ordinary working-man ?—lt depends upon what he does with it. If a man is going into town to work every day it is certainly too large. 615. Are you regularly at work as a furnaceman ?—Yes. 616. Do you find time to work the acre ?—I find time for all the garden material I require from it, and I am looking forward to getting a good deal of my income from that acre. 617. Your complaint is that you have the rates heavily raised on your holding ?—No, it does not press so heavily on me with an acre section. The danger is in future years ; it is accumulating all the time. 618. As the land becomes more valuable you will be getting it without any increase in the rent ? —No, we are deprived of all increment above a certain extent because we cannot utilise it. I could not get more from my land in ten years than Ido now. All the profit is what I can produce from it. 619. You said you hoped you would be able to produce a lot more from it I—l1 —I can if there is the capital to do it. 620. Do you think it advisable to subdivide these sections ? —lf I found my section too big to hold I think I should be allowed to cease holding part of it. I would like to make clear that point about the petition upon which I touched before. It has been stated that names were obtained to it by misrepresentation. That is altogether untrue as far as I was concerned, and, if it was thought necessary by the Commission, I could take you round to these men who signed to convince you that we did not misrepresent things to them. William Henry Westbboof examined. 621. The Chairman.'] You wish to give evidence ?—I have been asked to make a statement on behalf of the Trades and Labour Council. 622. Are you in business ? —I am a carriage-painter. 623. Are you residing in Wellington ?—Yes ; I have been here for fifteen years. 624. Do you possess any land ? —I have a small freehold in the city about 30 ft. by 90 ft. 625. You represent the Trades and Labour Council, do you ? —Yes. 626. We have had evidence from Mr. Hampton. Do you represent the same body as he does ?— There were four of us appointed to give evidence. Mr. Hampton is president. lam simply a member of the body and was deputed to come here. I wish to make a statement in favour of the leasehold over the freehold. We believe that the tenure of land should be limited, both in area and in duration of holding. We believe that the Government has no right to hand over for all time land belonging to the nation. With regard to the difference in value of the leasehold and freehold tenures, Ido not see that there is anything in the contention that is being brought forward by the leading journal in Wellington in favour of the freehold—that is the Times. They said the other morning they thought the main value of the freehold over the leasehold was its sentimental value. The sentimental value, it appears to me, does not appertain in the colony at all. The amount of business going through the Land Transfer Office proves that people are not attached to the soil. It is a s : mple matter: the advantage of the freehold over is that it enables the man who owns the freehold to reap what he does not sow. As far as I can see the leasehold is quite equal for practical purposes to the freehold.
C.—4.
W. H. WESTBKOOK. I
1315
It is most men's ambition to own land of their own. It may be laudable, but no more laudable than their desire to own a balance at the bank, or any other means of providing sustenance in their old age. At any rate, if this ambition can only be satisfied at the expense of the community—the nation at large—l say it should not be encouraged. The land is limited in quantity, the population is unlimited. If we were to apportion the land equally among the population to-day, in the next generation there would be a large number of landless. Of course, agricultural chemistry and other sciences have helped us to some extent in this dilemma ; the land we have to-day has been increased in productiveness very considerably, and it appears from lectures I have been reading that in the future a piece of land which is now supporting one person will then support four. That is an additional reason why the Government should keep hold of the tenure of the land, and why it should not be parted with for all time. The land, if it increases in capability in supporting human life, should be at least revalued, I think, every lifetime—every fifty years, say. So far as the Crown tenants —practically those who are members of the Farmers' Union —complaining of the insecurity of their tenure, I may remark there is no absolutely secure tenure of land. Parliament may pass an Act this session and repeal it the next. The very fact of these tenants agitating for the Government to alter a bargain they have made is weakening already the security they are grumbling about. At any rate, if the landowners or the Crown tenants of this colony succeed in compelling the Government to alter their bargain and grant them the freehold, in the near future, I believe, the landless ones will return men to Parliament who will repudiate this bargain in its turn and make one much more favourable to the people at large. I wish to refer to the early days of Canterbury in this connection, if it is not out of order of your reference. I was in Canterbury at the time of the abolition of the provinces and the first announcement of Sir Julius Yogel s public-works policy, and I saw there the rush for the spoil. I have known men to purchase land at the upset price of £2 an acre, and sell it within a few weeks afterwards at the rate of £5 an acre. In one case one man bought 2,000 acres at £2 an acre and sold it at £5 an acre, reaping a profit of £6,000. This money undoubtedly should have gone to the State. The effect of this was to make every man a land-gambler, and hundreds of small settlers were ruined by it. They mortgaged their small farms to the fullest possible margin, and when four or five bad years came they were simply in the hands of the money-lenders. This could not have occurred had the lands been leased instead of sold. Another reason why I think the Government should keep a hold on the land-tenure in the future is that the Premier has announced his intention of borrowing money in order to utilise our streams and waterfalls for electrical-power purposes. I notice also where the hardwood furniture comes from, particularly Pennsylvania, they have some of their factories in the heart of the bush, many miles away from any township, and there they manufacture the article by taking advantage of the raw material on the spot. In this colony, if we have the power of electricity, it would still be more advantageous to manufacturers in the bush. Therefore, all bush lands in the vicinity of these streams or waterfalls will be enhanced in value ; but if the State sells the freehold of these lands the chances are that the speculator will get the advantage of the enhanced value and not the men who manufacture the chairs and tables. That is a powerful argument why the State should not sell any more Crown lands. With regard to the argument of the different positions of one man taking up the freehold and another the leasehold. On the one hand the first man expends his capital in purchasing the freehold, but the other, who takes up a leasehold, must have the advantage over the freeholder because he keeps his capital, and so is in the best position to improve his farm. 627. You referred to land speculation in Canterbury, and following up the lines of your argument, should not the Government also protect the people who take up railway shares and gold-mining shares ? —No sir, because the Government do not own the gold-mining shares, but they do own the land. 628. But if you wanted to protect the people from losing their money, why not apply your argument also in those cases ? —Because in the case of the land the Government hold it in their own hands and can do so in that case. 629. Have you had any experience of holding leasehold land ?—Yes. Not farming land. 1 held a lease in Greymouth under the Maori Reserves Act. It was for twenty-one years with the right of renewal with revaluation, and at the conclusion the lease was put up to public auction and the purchaser compensated the lessee for his improvements. I found it very satisfactory, because it enabled me to go into a house of my own when I could not have done so under the freehold system. 630. Do you agree with the system of refusing the right of renewal and confiscating the improvements. We had evidence yesterday that some trusts are doing that ?—No. 631. Do you think the tenants' improvements should be conserved to them \—As a labour man I think that every man who works should have what he earns. Whatever improvements he puts on the property he has an absolute right to have their worth. 632. To all the value he has created ? —Yes. 633. What is your view of revaluation ?—I think it is a fair thing. It is the only way of stopping the tenant from reaping that which he does not sow, from acquiring that unearned increment which comes with the expenditure of public money. 634. You would apply that principle to the present leases I—The1 —The Trades and Labour Council has advocated that the present 999-years lease should be revalued at the death of the tenant or at its transfer. lam here on behalf of the Trades and Labour Council, and I think that might be regarded as an answer to the agitation of the Crown tenants for the right of purchase of their leaseholds. This was never advocated by any Trades Council, as far as I am aware, until last year. The revaluation of Crown leases was advocated, but it was never intended to be retrospective until last year ; but in answer to the agitation of the Crown tenants to get the Government to grant them the freehold, when they only bargained for leasehold, this resolution was passed at the last conference. I was not on the last conference. , 635 You think this change of front by the labour party can be attributed to the agitation of the Farmers' Union and the Crown tenants for the freehold ?—Entirely. The labour party advocate that
0.—4.
1316
|W. H. WESTBHOOK.
every man should get what he earns. I think it is right that his lease should be revalued, but tha'4 he should have the right to his improvements. Where a bargain is made is a matter Ido not wish to express a personal opinion on. 636. You are quite positive that up to last year the position was that revaluation was to apply to future leases only ? — lam quite positive that that was my understanding of it. I have been on many Trades and Labour Conferences, but I have never heard any labour man advocate retrospective action with regard to revaluation until this agitation started. 637. Are rents reasonable in Wellington ? —They are unreasonable. 638. Can you say whether the cost of living increases out of all proportion to any increase in wages ? —Yes. 639. You have heard the evidence of the Epuni Hamlet settlers ?—Yes. 640. Is it generally understood that these men have an advantage over outside workers under private landlords I—Yes.1 —Yes. 641. Do you think there is a demand amongst the workers for an extension of this poilcy ?—Yes. 642. Do you know of any suitable land for the purpose ? —I know of plenty of suitable land, but lam not aware of its marketable value. It is a matter that requires consideration as to whether any land in the vicinity of Wellington would be low enough in value to cut up and place it under these conditions within reach of the working-man. 643. Is the present position this, that the Council think that land for closer settlement should be acquired at the owner's valuation for taxation purposes plus 10 per cent. ? —Yes ; I think that is generally recognised as fair. 644. That is the official position of the labour party ? —I think so. 645. Mr. Johnston.] You say in the early days you were in Christchurch ?—I was in Ashburton most of the time. 646. Did you ever know of individuals, commission agents and land agents, buying land at £2 an acre and selling it to the farmer at £4 an acre and only giving him the usual terms ? —I could not point to a specific case, but I know it was a common practice there. I knew of two men twenty-five years ago, Turton Brothers —I do not suppose publicity matters now —who were for a long time carrying on the business of land-speculation. If a man had a few hundred pounds and wished to invest it in land, these men would select a piece for him ; he would buy it and he would hold it until he could find some unfortunate farmer who wanted to take up land, and he would sell it then at double the price he had paid for it, and on easy terms. 647. Supposing a farmer had £100, which would be sufficient to give him a start, you mean they would buy the land for him at, say, £2, and let him have it for £4 on easy terms with a purchasing clause at the same price ? —I could not say that, but I know of cases where it was a common practice for men to buy land at a speculative price and sell to the farmer on deferred payment at a very much advanced price. 648. Have you had any personal experience yourself in bush settlement ?—I have not resided longer than a few weeks in the outlying parts. 649. Have you ever been in a place like Raetihi or Taihape during the middle of winter ?—No. 650. How would you arrive at a valuation of your improvements in the case of a bush back-blocks section ?—I am not a valuator, but it should not be a difficult task to ascertain how much a man has improved his section by his own labour. 651. Take the case of a farm of 200 acres in standing bush when a man took it up, and now it is turned over with the plough. How would you arrive at the cost of that improvement without knowing what the land was like previously ? —I should not attempt to arrive at the cost without finding out what the land was like before. Then I would try and find out the cost of bringing about the change. 652. Do you know the Manawatu district at all I—Onlyl—Only from passing through it at different times. 653. To my personal knowledge, I might tell you that there is a large amount of capital and labour spent by a bush settler that is not visible to the eye at any time, and it is really hard to arrive at the value of the improvements thereby affected. I want to know whether the labour organizations would allow valuation for those unseen improvements ? —Yes, if the improvements were real. As I said before, the labour agitation is to obtain fairness, and to provide that a man shall have what he has earned. If he has made an improvement on the estate that he shall get his share of it. I believe every labour organization in the colony would be willing to allow the settler the fullest benefit of his labour. 654. To the fullest possible extent ? —Yes. 655. All you want to have is what you term the unearned increment ? —That is so. 656. Did you hear Mr. Hampton's evidence yesterday ? —No. The unearned increment is not all we wish to guard against. We wish to conserve the interests of the State in the future with regard to the subdivision of the land. The land may be able to support a greater number of people in the futuite than it can now. 657. Do you indorse what Mr. Hampton said ? —Not without knowing what he said. 658. Do you represent a body of the Trades and Labour or are you giving evidence individually ?— I was appointed by the Trades and Labour Council with four others to come here. 659. Would you advocate the cancellation of the present leases and their revaluation ? Would you repudiate the present lease altogether without compensation as suggested by Mr. Hampton yesterday ? —I can only refer you to the resolution passed by the Trades and Labour Council, which was that the lease in perpetuity should be revalued at the death of the present tenant or on its transfer. 660. You advocate that ? —As a delegate from the Council I advocate that. 661. Do you advocate that as an individual ?■ —I am not here to give expression to my views as an individual. 662. Do you think the bulk of the labour organizations would indorse this ? —I must think so, seeing that it was passed at the last Trades and Labour Conference.
C—4.
W. H. WESTBEOOK.]
1317
663. Then you"practically take up the stand that Mr. Hampton took ?—I do not know what stand heHook on that question. If he advocated the revaluation of this long lease at the the tenant or at transfer of the lease, I support him. 664. Do you decidedly assert now that this repudiation would not have been passed by the Trades and Labour Council if the Farmers' Union and the Crown tenants had not agitated for the freehold ?— Yes, Ido not believe it would ever have been broached but for that agitation. I never heard it mentioned in any labour conference. The same resolution has been passed at the annual conference for six or seven years, viz., that there should be no further sale of Crown lands, and that there should be revaluation of all Crown lands ; but, as far as I know in my conversations with other labour men, it was never intended to apply retrospectively until this last conference. 665. And it would not have been proposed to make it retrospective but for this agitation which has been generally got up ?—I say No. The Crown tenants have established a precedent. 666. You will not state decidedly that it was not meant to be retrospective ? —I could not state that. Ido not know what may or many not occur in the future. I have never heard of it before, but I place the two circumstances together, and I conclude that it is a result of the agitation of the Crown tenants. 667 Do you think the Crown tenants were the first to start this agitation ?—Yes. 668. Do you approve of the members of the Epuni Hamlet Settlement being granted the freehold ? —No. My opinion is that those people want the freehold in order to sell the land. They could not make any more out of it if they had the freeholdj'except subdividing or selling it. lam inclined to think the Government have erred on the side of giving too much land in the case of those sections. 669. Do you think the settlement has been in the best interests of the working-classes by helping them to obtain homes ? —Yes. 670. Mr. McCutchan.] Was your conference of Trades and Labour Unions in Wellington held in camera ?—No. 671. Was the Press admitted ? —Usually, but I do not know whether the Press was admitted to the last conference. 672. Does it occur to you as being strange that a conference of delegates did not state in the resolution what was the justification for this agitation on the part of the Crown tenants for the freehold ? — No ; the resolutions are all bald statements of fact; they give no reasons at all. 673. Are you a member of that conference ? —Not of the last conference. 674. Do you read the Press reports ? —Certainly. 675. On the discutsion which took place, do you see any account of this resolution having been carried on account of the agitation of the Crown tenants for the freehold ? —I do not distinctly remember anything of the kind. 676. Can you understand why it was that the delegates from the Trades and Labour Councils of Dunedin, Christchurch, Auckland, and here, until you have spoken yourself, made no such plea as justification ?■ —No, I cannot understand it. 677. Does it appear to you to be an extraordinary fact ? —No. 678. Are you prepared to say that it was not an afterthought ? —I am. 679. Are you prepared to say that it was not an afterthought on the part of the Union you represent ? —Certainly, I am. I come here entirely without instructions. lam a representative, not a delegate. 680. You think that this matter was discussed at the time the resolution was passed at the conference ?—Probably, but I could not say. 681. Are you aware if the matter of the Crown tenants obtaining the right of purchase of the freehold was fairly discussed before that resolution was carried ?—I think we talked the matter over in all probability ; I know it has been talked of amongst our labour men from time to time. 682. Is it not a strange thing that the Press made no reference to the matter ?•—Are you quite sure they did not ? 683. I speak from memory, but I do not remember seeing any accounts of it in the newspapers ? — Memory sometimes is defective, and it by no means follows that because the Press did not report the statement it did not occur. The Press reports were very curt. There was a conference of the Political Labour League, a conference of the Trades and Labour Council, and something else on at the same time, and the Press reports were very meagre. 684. Mr. Anstey.] Would you give us your own personal opinion with regard to this question of the revaluation of the lease ? —Certainly not while I am giving evidence for the Council. 685. Well, we would like you to give it now ? —I shall be glad to when I have finished speaking on behalf of the Council. 686. But you told Mr. McCutchan that you are a delegate ?—No, I am the representative, and I should be disloyal to the Council if I gave evidence in any other way. 687. But cease to be a delegate for a moment and become a personality, so that I can ask you one question ? —I do not call myself a delegate, but a representative on this question. 688. Will you give me your personal opinion as to the justice of the revaluation of existing leases ? —I think it would be absolutely just. 689. Then do you think it is just to break an agreement entered into between the tenant and the State ?—I am not advocating it as a question of policy, but I think it is just. If a person makes a grossly unfair bargain it can be taken into a Court of equity, and that bargain would be upset. The State has made a very unfair bargain with the tenants when it entered into the lease for 999 years—practically giving the land to the tenants for twenty-two generations. Therefore, I say it is an unfair bargain and the Crown is justified in revaluing the land at the end of the present lessee's right or on transference. 690. Do you think it is just to repudiate the bargain in a case of the lease in perpetuity, and that it is also just to repudiate the bargain in the case of the freehold ?—That is a matter of policy, and I feel a great deal of hesitation in answering that question.
C. 4.
1318
[W. H. WESTBBOOK.
691. Would it be wise to do so if it were expedient ? —Most certainly. 692. Do you think it would be wise if it were expedient to do so in the one case and also to do so in the other ? —I see no difference. 693. Then the security of the freeholder is not greater than that of the holder of the lease in perpetuity ?—No. Parliament may pass an Act this session and it may repeal it next session. 694. Do you think it would be just for the State to revalue lease in perpetuity at death ? —The tenant has entered into a bargain with the State which confers certain rights upon himself and his heirs. That tenant, we will say, has a wife who has assisted him in establishing his home, and immediately he dies is his property to be submitted to revaluation and his rent raised ? Is that just ?—Not in the way you have put it. It is perfectly just that the unimproved value of the land should be revalued. The tenant will get compensation for his improvements. 695. And you would select the time when the husband dies to revalue the property ?—That might happen. 696. Still do you think it would be an unfortunate time to revalue the land and deprive the widow or heirs of the goodwill ?—I think it would be better to have one upset, and have done with the difficulty. 697. Mr. Johnston.\ We will assume this —and it frequently happens: That a man has bought a lease in perpetuity for which he has given £300 for improvements and £200 as goodwill, making £500. He has paid that to the man to go out, and he goes into this property and takes possession of it, and farms it. Shortly afterwards, owing to an accident he is killed, would you revalue that property for the widow and children, and include the goodwill he paid and the £200 ? —No, I would not; he has bought something that does not belong to the man who has sold it. 698. We will say that a you tig man takes up a property expecting to work it and making a living for his wife and children, and is she to be deprived of the £200 owing to the accidental death of her hushusband ?—lt is an unfortunate case, but I do not see any help for it. 699. Can you account for the fact that Mr. Hampton in his evidence never suggested anything in the way you have just done now regarding Crown tenants and the Farmers' Union ?—No, I cannot account for it. 700. He was a delegate to the conference ?—Yes. |s! s 701. Do you not think it is more than likely that if your statement is correct he would have made some allusion to it ?—Probably he did not think of it. 702. Mr. Paul.\\\s it a fact that the labour party helped to bring in the closer-settlement policy carried out by the present Government ?—Yes. 703. Did they approve of giving compensation for freehold land taken for the purpose of closer settlement ? —Yes, I suppose they did. 704. And do they not approve now of taking freehold land under the terms you have outlined, namely, at the owner's valuation for taxation purposes plus 10 per cent. ?—Yes. 705. Do you not think if they want any variation in the leasehold title it would be fair to give compensation for that variation ?—Yes ; but it does not end there. I have given my own private opinion, but I believe the labour party would be willing to give compensation. 706. Compensation for any alteration in the present leasehold tenure ? —Yes. 707. Do you not think it would be a better policy and more equitable to do such a thing ?—Yes, perhaps it would be a better policy. Robert Freeman Hall examined. 708. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a gardener, and hold 3 acres in the Epuni Hamlet, and my rent is £28 10s. It was a forfeited section. I have been there about eighteen months. 709. Are you satisfied with your holding ?—I think the leasehold is a very good start for a workingman, in fact, it is the only start I can see that a poor working-man has got; but I think there ought to be some better security of tenure. I cannot, however, suggest in what way that should be brought about. 710. How do you feel insecure ?—I think it would be a good thing if tenants were able to pay off a certain portion of the capital value and so reduce the rent. The main thing is to reduce the rent. The rent and rates are very large, especially in the case of some of the forfeited sections. We would like the freehold, but I do not see that there is any possible chance of getting it. 711. If you had the right to acquire the freehold, could you buy your place ? —No ; it took me all my time to make a start, but I would like the opportunity of buying it. My principal reason of coming here is in reference to the increase in the rent. It is the common talk of the hamlet the great increase in our rent. In the course of two years and a half, from when the land was first put in the market, it has increased about double. I may state that I have worked under great hardships since I took up my land. I put in a crop of potatoes, and they were destroyed, in the first place through the watercourse being blocked below our sections, and then the blight ruined the later crop, and now my cabbages and cauliflowers are not worth bagging. I may state that I have been going out and doing two days' work a week in gardening, but everything else has been a failure. I thought that if I could get a good season I might put up a glass house and make my section pay, but, as I have said, everything has been a failure. I applied to the Advances to Settlers Department for a loan to give me a start for another season. I might point out, also, that my neighbour pays £5 and I have to pay £9 10s. for the same class of land. 712. Mr. Johnston.'] Have you'approached the Land Board and asked for a reduction of rent ?— I have explained everything to the Board. It was in a bad state owing to couch-grass when I took it up, but it is practically clear now. The Land Board said they could do nothing for me unless I forfeited the section, in which case it would have to be put on the market again, and I would have to take my chance of applying for it.
B. F. HALL.]
1319
G.—4.
713. What do you estimate your improvements at ? —£l4o for buildings and £10 for live fences, and a 3 chain cross-fence. 714. Mr. Anstey.] Are any of these sections at Epuni unoccupied ? —Yes, five sections were taken up recently, and those sections have been idle for some time. 715. Why has the rent been increased in your case ?—I do not know. 716. Did you think the rent was too high when you took it up ?—Yes, but I thought if I had a good season and could put up a glass house I could make it pay. I think that if the sections were cut up into smaller holdings perhaps the land could be worked to better advantage. 717. Would not the wisest course be for the Government to cut up some of the sections into smaller areas, and leave some of them to remain at a fair size ? —Perhaps that would be better. T. O'Brien examined. 718. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a labourer, residing at Kai Iwi, near Wanganui, and I have lived there about eight months. 719. What do you specially want to bring before the Commission ? —I desire to refer to several matters set out in the order of reference of the Commission. First, respecting the constitution of Land Boards, seeing that those Boards are purely administrative, I think if they are to be altered and if the members are to be elected, it should be on the parliamentary franchise. I say the Boards are not faulty, but if they should be faulty it is merely a question of administration. In regard to land-tenure, I think we should have one tenure, and that is the lease in perpetuity. As to the pressure of residence conditions on Crown tenants, I think when a man takes up land and pays his rent, there should be no restriction at all. In regard to the ballot, I think that a better system would be this : that applicants should state what class of land they would like, and that the ballot should be exhausted, and the applicants should be allotted sections of the class of land for which they apply. I would not like to see the ballot system altered in favour of either the tender or auction systems. I favour the systems that is generally adopted in the United States. I think that loading lands for roads is wrong. Land in cities is not loaded specially for roads, and I do not see why land should be so loaded in the back blocks. We are told that the leaseholder is frightened of revaluation, but we have revaluation now, pure and simple, in the Act which provides for the periodical revaluation of lands for land-tax purposes. Ido not believe that the value of the Crown tenants' land is the true value at all. It has been caused by cheap money. It has been said that the value of land has risen because of the price of products, and that the price of the products has made the prosperity of the colony. To show that that is not so, I say that in the ten years 1894-1904 the exports increased by 61 per cent., whilst in the same time the imports increased 95 per cent. It is the imports that has given the elasticity to values all through the country. Another proof that the present land-values is fictitious is to be found in the fact that one dry season puts our dairy-farmers in debt. When the land valuer goes along he does not value land at its worth in regard to labour, but he takes the price that land is letting at and assesses accordingly. Ido not think the Advances to Settlers Department is being worked honestly. The lawyers of Taranaki , are borrowing money from the Advances to Settlers Department at 5 per cent., with a | per cent, rebate, and are letting it out again at 8 per cent That is common knowledge in Taranaki, and Mr. Symes, the member for Patea, declared it on the public platform at Waitotara. I went to the Land Transfer Office and searched the deeds, and I found that Mr. Alpen, a solicitor in Hawera, had borrowed £950 at 5 per cent., giving as security Allotments 38 and 39, part of Allotment 34, Section 12, Borough of Hawera, containing 1 rood 9'9 perches. He borrowed the money in August, 1903. I have tried to get the true value of this security to show the margin between what he drew and what he was entitled to draw, and I have worked it out and I found that he was entitled to £10 more than he got with the addition of another section, part 37, which the Department could not separate, and £10 does not make up the difference in the value of the security by reason of having this added section. This man has really borrowed up to the full limit which was in force at that time. They accepted every improvement, and they will not do that with regard to the country settler. One can only come to the opinion that there is favouritism. The Commission has had evidence before it from Southland that the tenants there applied for money and could not get it until Sir Joseph Ward interceded for them. I know also for a fact that the Maoris have borrowed money through the Advances to Settlers Department, and are spending it on tohungas. An inquiry into the matter has been held by the Department in Wellington, and the Commission can get the information regarding it without trouble. Ido not think that tenure has much to do with the success of settlement. Hawke's Bay and Wairarapa are the most successful sheep districts in New Zealand, but at the same time there is more Native land held there than anywhere else, and the lessees have no claim to even a staple in the fences when the leases have expired. The greatest drawback to the country settler is the Customs tariff, and I think if the Government would open a store in the back blocks and supply goods to the settlers there duty free it would be much better than giving any rebate. Ido not think that the lease-in-perpetuity tenants have broken their lease by accepting the rebate of rent. That rebate was given under statute, and if it is held to be an abrogation of the lease, all a private lessor would have to do would be to give a discount of ss. when his tenant was paying in order to break that lease. In regard to the settlement on improved estates, I would like to point out that by taking over these estates we have lost £100,000 in land-tax. I think the land is valued too highly, and that a reduction in the rents will have to be given very soon. The proper way to break up big estates is to extend the late Mr Ballance's land-tax as a progressive land-tax without exemptions. With regard to the aggregation of estates, I think that the figures are misleading, and that many estates have only been cut up in name. By that I mean that many sections have only been nominally sold, and until the whole of the purchase money has been made there is no transfer of the fee-simple. 720. Mr, Paul.] Has not the moiiey-lord anything to do with the prosperity of Taranaki ? — tainly.
1320
r T. O'BRIEN.
C—4,
721. Have you any opinion as to the value of leaseholds, whether they are increasing or decreasing ?—The general opinion of the country is that they have increased, but I do not think that they have increased really. 722. Do you believe in lease in perpetuity without revaluation as a future system of settling the land I—l believe in lease in perpetuity, and we should not increase the tenant's rent. If his land has fallen in value he should get a decrease in rent. 723. That would be revaluation ? —Yes, but I would bring him under the land-tax and never let the land-tax go above 4 per cent, of the unimproved value. 724. You would not interfere with the present contract at all ?—Only in the incidence of taxation. 725. What is the position of private tenants in Taranaki ?—Worse than the tenants in Ireland a lot of them are. 726. Do you think they are better off than the Crown tenants ? —I do not. 727. Do you know of any six-months leases in Taranaki I—No,1 —No, but a man who is milking on shares is only equal to a man with a six-months lease in Denmark. 728. Mr. Johnston.'] What is your occupation ? —I am a labourer. 729. What personal experience have you had on the land ?—I nearly wore my soul out on land under deferred payment before I was fifteen. That was in Brighton and Buller Creek. 730. Do you belong to any labour organization ?—No, I resigned from the labour party two or three weeks ago because I could not agree with their revaluation policy. 731. Mr. Anstey.] Have you had any dealings with the Land Board ?—No. 732. Have you had any experience of their dealings with settlers ?—No. 733. Do you know any Ranger ? —No, not personally. George Groves Burdan examined. 734. The Chairman.\ What arp you ? —I am a farmer and hold 100 acres of freehold at Wainuiomata, twenty-four miles from Wellington. I bought that land three months ago, but I have worked on the same farm from boyhood. My four brothers and myself each hold a section of land there. 735. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I may state lam chairman of the Wainuiomata Branch of the Farmers' Union, and practically all the members of our branch wished me to represent them before the Commission. There are twenty-six members of our branch. We held a meeting at which there were thirteen members present, and I have also spoken to other members privately. They wished me to appear before the Commission and speak in favour of the freehold on their behalf. They are all in favour of the freehold—they are all freeholders themselves. I may state that I engage principally in dairying on my farm, but I have also two thousand sheep on the place. I have had very little to do with the Land Board. As far as I understand the present constitution of Land Boards is fairly satisfactory. I have no objection to the leasehold system, but I think that a lease with the right of purchase would be more satisfactory than it would be without it. Ido not see why the two systems should not go hand-in-hand. We are practically all in favour of the present land-tenures with probably some minor alterations. I think in the case of the rougher country if the Crown tenants had the right of purchase they would be more satisfied. I consider that a freeholder has really more stake in the country than a leaseholder, and he will improve his land to a greater extent than the leaseholder will because it is more to his benefit to do so. 736. Is there such a thing as an aggregation of large estates in your district ?—There is one large estate there. I consider that it is wrong for any one individual to hold a very large area of land when it can be more profitably occupied in moderate-sized holdings. I consider that 640 acres of first-class land and 2,000 acres of second-class land is sufficient for any one person to hold. I understand that the large estate I refer to in my district has an area of about 6,000 acres. It is partly good land and partly inferior. 737. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think that all Crown tenants ought to have the right of purchase ?— If a Crown tenant wishes to have the right of purchase I do not see why he should not have it. 738. Do you think that he would farm his land better if he had the right of purchase ? —Yes. 739. Do you think it would be in the best interests of the colony if he had the freehold ?—Yes. I may add that personally if I could not get a freehold I would not remain in the colony. 740. You think that every tenant ought to have the right of acquiring the freehold ? —Yes. 741. Upon what terms—at the original value ? —No, Ido not think so. John Ward examined. 742. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a farmer holding 300 acres —100 acres of private leasehold and 200 acres of freehold. My farm is at Waiwetu, Lower Hutt. The land is of poor quality. I have been there for eighteen years on the leasehold and for six years on the freehold. 743. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I desire to protest against the unfair system of the Land Valuation Department in valuing the leaseholders' interests as against the owners' interests. Some time ago I had a long correspondence with the Tax Department with respect to my valuation. They valued our interests in the seven-years lease at £1,840 on the unimproved value —that is the valuation of the unimproved portion of the lease. The capital value is £7,000, and they say that our interest in the lease is £1,840 of that amount. It practically runs to £252 a year. My rent is £150 a year. The Department cannot show me how they arrive at that valuation. I might add that seven years ago we paid £10, and this year it is £110, including the Government taxes, and I might mention that the whole of the rates for loan works would not amount to £20 out of that sum. My place is within the borough. The general rate was 2|d. in the pound on the capital value, and the special rate for loans was ?d. That is the total rateable value.
1321
C—4
J. WARD
744. Is there nothing for charitable aid ?—That comes out of the general funds. 745. And it comes to £110 a year ?—With the £7 155., and there is something for land-tax also. 746. Will you pay on the freehold besides ?—Yes, lam not including that. It is only the leasehold I am speaking of. 747. Mr. Johnston.] What are the rates on the freehold—double the leasehold I—No,1 —No, it is further away and of less value. It is not so heavily rated. The rates on the other are about £36, or something like that. 748. Are you rated on the £9,000 of capital value ? —Yes. 749. Are you paying that rate, or is the lessee paying it %—The lessee has to pay all rates. lam the lessee. 750. I mean the lessor ? —The lessor pays nothing. It is the custom that the tenant pays the rates. 751. What was the valuation ?—The valuation before this year was £3,600, or something like that, and this year they raise it to £11,000-odd. But we got a reduction of over £50 an acre when we appealed to the Assessment Court. Then the Government said they would take the land at £100 an acre unless the owner agreed to pay that value. 752. What is your lease ? —Six years from the 20th of this month. 753. Who is the owner ? —Mr. P. J. Nathan, of Messrs. Nathan and Co., of Wellington. 754. What do you do with the land ?—I have a milk-round at Petone. We supply the settlers at Petone. 755. Do you sell your milk profitably ?—Yes. I might say, to put the matter in a short way, that owing to this system of racing it practically means that out of three brothers of us one of us works solely for the purpose of paying the rates. I have heard one gentleman here say that a man should not be taxed on his labour : what do you call this ? 756. Mr. Johnston.'] Can you give us any more light ?—I can give you no more light. 757. When was the borough formed ? —Twelve or fourteen years ago ; we were in the county before that. 758. Who owned the land before it was sold to Mr. Nathan ? —lt belonged to Heath's estate. Itwas originally taken up from the New Zealand Company at the foundation of the colony. 759. Then it really means that you are paying now three times the amount of rates ? —Yes. 760. Your rental is £150 ? —Yes, and the rates are £110. 761. The Chairman.'] You pay £2 12s. an acre altogether ? What number of cows do you carry on the land ?—Thirty cows. It simply means that had we not been thrifty and saved money we would have had to go off the land. 762. Mr. Johnston.] It is a warning to the tenants of private landlords ?—The Government tenants will be practically in the same position in time. 763. The Chairman.] You are quite close to the Epuni Settlement ? —No; our land adjoins the racecourse. In looking at the racecourse you look straight across at our buildings. 764. You are in a tight place ? —I am the worst of all. The Government say we ought to have seen the land boom coming. The Government did not see it for six years after our lease was signed. They passed an Act in 1903 that forced this system of rating on us. Before there was no system of apportioning the tenant's improvements on the unimproved value. He would be a curious man who could see six years beforehand what Parliament was going to pass. 765. Mr. Johnston.] Could you not have bought that freehold ?—No. Possibly I might, but it was sold before it was really put in the market. We had made inquiries about it before, but we were told there was no chance for us. Mr. Thomas Mason was the agent. What makes the thing more unfair is this : I laid it before the Assessment Court and asked the agents what compensation they would allow if we surrendered the lease. They said they would allow us nothing —we could go off without any compensation, although the Government say we have an interest of £1,800 in it. I think that is within your jurisdiction. The August Bros, only own half the ground we do, and their rates are £97, I think, and it is practically similar ground to ours. 766. What causes these heavy rents ? —lt is because they have sent up the values. 767. Mr. McCutchan.] The explanation is this, is it not : that when you took up your lease you took it up for farming-purposes, and this was its farming value ?—Yes. 768. And it has since reached a very high value for building-purposes ?—There has not been any demand for building-sections. It is simply because a land-boom comes in and buildings have gone up in the middle of our district. 769. The instructions issued to the valuators is to give the selling-value ? It is not the sellingvalue to you, but only the value for us ? —Yes. The Government say it is our fault for leasing land of a boom-value, that we ought to have seen it coming. 770. Mr. Johnston.] There is no possible chance of a town in your part of the land unless it is made on the racecourse : there are two rivers to cross to get to it ? —No, only one. 771. Mr. Anstey.] Is your interest in the selling-value ?—lt is included in the selling-value. 772. Have you no right of interest in the value ? —No ; that is where I and the Government can arrive at no satisfactory conclusion. They say we have an interest of £1,800 in the selling-value ; the owners say we have no interest whatever. We are between two fires and we cannot sell, but we can give it up. If we throw up the lease we throw up our business, and would have to start afresh somewhere else. That is not fair. 773. If there is a selling-value of £1,800 in it you ought to be able to sell it, otherwise it is not a selling-value ?—That is what we contend. 774. Mr. Johnston.]- We had a Post sent to us with the correspondence on this subject. 775. The Chairman.] I have never seen it ? —The Evening Post charged me for sending copies to the Land Commission when it was sitting down south.
166—0. 4.
0.—4
1322
J. WABD
776. Mr. Johnston.] I got the Post, but I did not know what it was for : it was not marked ? — They sent one to every member of this Land Commission. I asked them to do so. 777. Mr. Anstey.] Was not this case mentioned in Parliament last session ?—Yes ; we got Mr. Wilford to mention it, but we got 110 satisfaction. The Hon. Mr. Mills wrote, in answer to my coriespondence. Here are two copies. You will gather from that what he contended, and there is my answer to it. [Papers put in.] The correspondence fills seven columns of the Post. 778. What is the amount of the road rate previous to taking this lease : you say it is 2|d. now ? —Before that it was rated on the rental value, and consequently it was simply so much in the pound. Roughly speaking it would be Is. 3d. or Is. 4d. on the annual value. 779. Now they are rating on the unimproved capital value ? —Yes ; it is owing to the land-boom that has come on, and we are taxed on that value for local rates. 780. The Chairman.] That is where the heavy burden comes in ?—Yes. The farmer who signed a lease before this taxation came into force should not pay anything above a fair valuation. I might explain that up to the last valuation the value was not so bad. We took it at £1,700. Then it rose to £2,600, and in the course of the next ten years it only rose to £3,000, and remained at that until the last valuation twelve months ago, when it was put up to £11,000-odd, and we got it reduced to £9,600. 781. Mr. Paid.] Has the land adjoining increased in the same ratio ?—Speaking roughly, yes. 782. Mr. Johnston.] What is the racecourse valued at I—l1 —I could not say exactly, but I think about £4,000. lam a member of the Borough Council. 783. The Chairman.] Is this jjnormous increase all through the Council ?—I am only a member since the last election, but I might say that a former Council borrowed money, and during the last year they applied for a loan, and they used as a threat the statement that if they did not get the loan they would have to increase the rates enormously. Well, practically speaking, they got the loan and they left the rates at the same amount on the capital value. Before that they increased the rates on us to three times the amount. That is the way they get at it. Our last rate was £35 for this place, and then they increased that 250 per cent, for two or three years before that. Last year they raised it to £103, and then the land-tax on this valuation runs it up to £110 3s. and something. 784. Really you excite the sympathy of myself and brother Commissioners here, but we are powerless to assist you. But your evidence is taken down and it will appear in our record. Still, we can do nothing in the matter ? —You cannot put in a recommendation ? 785. It is out of our province as being altogether private, and it would be overstepping our bounds to make any recommendation about it. But we have heard it and it will be on record so far as our reports are concerned. You will have to do the best you can. You are in the Council yourself ?— I have only one voice. I might say, with regard to my opinion about the leasehold, that I consider the freehold is the best tenure. Ido not say, speaking as I have considered the matter, that the lease in perpetuity is a fair system of tenure —not in the long run. Of course, if you have 110 revaluation, when the man over the fence is paying £10 in rates the man with the lease in perpetuity is only paying £1. There is another way of looking at it; that in the event of land-values going up anywhere near it it does not seem fair that a man can escape with £5 an acre simply because he has been lucky enough to get hold of a Government leasehold, while the man over the fence is taxed ten times that value. 786. The value of the lease goes up with the value of his land ? —Then the tenant will soon be taxed out of it the same as we are. Some of those who have come from the Epuni Hamlet to-day can see already how it is going to affect them. It must do so near the centres of population. 787. It is inevitable. In your case the valuation has been jumped up quite unreasonably ?—All land in the Hutt Borough has a certain value put on it as building-sites, and it simply means that itis done twenty years before it can be built on, which I contend is an unfair system of valuing land. 788. But the fact is, the land for the last year or two does bring an enormous value there ?—Yes. 789. Mr. Paul.] Would it not be possible to tax the freeholder out of it as well as the leaseholder ? —In that case it is nothing less than confiscation. 790. Yes, but for local taxation ?—ln either case it is nothing but confiscation. Supposing we bought property for £5,000 at present, then you would begin to tax us out of the place to force us to sell. That is, practically, you would be robbing us of that £5,000 we paid for the property. 791. lam not speaking of taxing you out of it. You mentioned the case of the Epuni settlers. If they owned the freehold would they not be in the same position, the rents would go up ? —No ; not in the same position, because they cannot sell. 792. There is a difference of opinion whether they can sell ?—I will point to one case of hardship in the Epuni Hamlet. It is the case of a widow, Mrs. Evenson, whose late husband took up land there a couple of years ago. They sank all their money on it in buildings, and they borrowed from the Advances to Settlers Office to put up a good substantial house. Soon afterwards the husband died. The widow practically has to go to Petone for work to enable her to bring her children up. She has had plenty of offers for her property, but only a certain amount down. She finds out that, supposing she went out on these terms, she would have no remedy if the people to whom she sold did not pay her. She would have no recourse at law against them. 793. Do you know the Epuni Settlement ?—Yes. 794. Are the sections too large ?—By all means, while the taxation is going up. 795. Mr. Johnston.] The fact of the matter is that you think the Epuni Settlement should be cut up into sections of a quarter-acre or an eighth of an acre instead of the area into which it was cut up ? —Yes. 796. Whoever expected then that the Hutt Valley was going to rise in value at the pace it did ? The Government did the best they could for the settlement ? —No doubt. 797.*1f they had foreseen the rush for land and cut it into greater areas the rush would have been greater than it is ?—Yes.
J. WARD.]
1323
C—4.
798. Well, they are putting the land up now equal to residential sites instead of valuing it as farming-land ?—Yes. \ 799. What it was intended for was to enable the settlers to make a living out of the land. It has increased'already to such an extent that some of it would not enable anybody to hire labour to make a'living out of it. The Government bought this land with the intention of encouraging working-men to go 011 the land. They found there was a great increase in value, and when some of these sections were forfeited they put up the valuation. Has this widow you speak of approached the Land Board to allow her to sell ? —Yes. !" ' 800. Would they not allow her to sell ? —Yes ; but if she took a portion of the money down she had no remedy supposing the purchaser did not pay the rest. I maintain there should be some remedy for meeting cases of this sort. Robert Hogg examined. 801. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a reader on the New Zealand Times. 802. How long have you been in that position ?—Two years. 803. Do you hold any land ? —5 acres on lease in perpetuity in the Paparangi Settlement, and 144 acres of a private lease with the right of purchase in Shannon ; it is one of Mr. Waring Taylor's sections. 804. Have you any knowledge respecting the Land Boards ? Which constitution do you think is the best for the Board ?—Being an administrative body, I believe in the Land Board being elected on an adult franchise. I have no knowledge of the working of the Land Boards in this colony. 805. What is your opinion regarding the land-tenures I—l think the lease in perpetuity is far better for me than the freehold. Land near my section is selling for about £400 an acre, and that means that I am getting an advantage over the rest of the community in being able to hold my 5 acres at a capital value of £150 for the 5 acres ; that is what I pay rent on—4 per cent, on the capital value of £150. I think we should look at this question not from the personal aspect, but from the point of view as to how it will affect the whole community. Personally, I would stick to the terms of my lease, but as a member of the community, I believe in revaluation. At the present stage of capitalistic development in New Zealand Ido not object to the freehold. Mr. W. H. Hampton, giving evidence here yesterday, expressed, according to the morning paper, the socialistic idea on this question ; but as a socialist, I wish to say the view he expressed is not the socialist position. The socialist has no objection at present to the man who is holding the land having the freehold, but he does object to a man holding land and not working it. He thinks that a Fair Rent Court should fix the rent of all land, including private leasehold, at a fair percentage on the rateable value, and also that there should be a purchasingclause based on same value, under which the occupier should have the right of purchase. This would mean that every tenant would secure the freehold during tenancy by borrowing the purchasing-money from the Advances to Settlers Office. 806. Then you believe in what is called the occupation with right of purchase ?—Yes, with the restriction that I must work the land. I hold that no man should hold land simply to draw rent out of it. I would make the principles I advocate apply to all the land in the colony, and only the State should draw the rent. Regarding the raising of loans, it is absurd to say that a man with the lease in perpetuity cannot borrow to the same advantage as the man with the freehold. The lease-in-perpetuity tenant can borrow as advantageously as the freeholder. Only some few months ago, I managed to secure the full amount for a young man who wished to buy out a lease-in-perpetuity settler. I secured it at 7 per cent, in this town from a private lawyer. 807. Had it been freehold you would have got it for 6 per cent. ? —I know that many freeholders are paying 8 per cent. 808. Was this mortgage got on the security of the lease which was purchased ?—Yes, the mortgage was sent to the Land Board and they endorsed it. 809. Is it an improved property ?—Slightly improved ; a two-roomed house is on the section and a small garden. Five years ago I was offered a farm at Awahuri, in Manawatu, at £20 an acre. On the other side of the road, Mr. Whittle, who gave evidence before you at Palmerston North or Feilding, paid at the rate of £25 an acre for a lease-in-perpetuity section. He bought a Government settler out. It is one of the sections on the Saunders Estate. 810. Were there many improvements on the section ?—No, there was two-roomed house and an open lean-to cowshed. On the section I was offered at £20 an acre there was a good house, two houses in fact, and a splendid covered-in cow-shed with, I think, twenty bails ; it was Mr. Bennet's place. Further up, in the same direction, there is a lease-in-perpetuity section held by Mr. Johnston; his place is rented at 14s. 6d. per acre, while over the river from him is a section not so good, and subject to damage when the river is in flood, belonging, I think, to the same Mr. Saunders from whom the lease-in-perpetuity land in this district was purchased, but one year after these lease-in-perpetuity sections were taken up, when I was after that place, he wanted £1 an acre without any improvements. These figures show how the rents drawn by private individuals compare with the rent that the State draws for lands of similar value. 811. There has been a boom since then, and the State could not buy the land now at the same price ? —I do not think so, but if the value has gone up, why should it not be rated proportionately. I believe in revaluation although I am a lease-in-perpetuity settler. 812. What are your views on the question of the pressure of residence conditions on Crown tenants ? —I consider that you cannot pay in money the man who goes back into the bush and hews out a home for himself in the wilderness. Anything you can do to lighten his load by the making of roads ought to be done, and his rent should be made as light as possible. I think the residence conditions should be relaxed according to circumstances. I would also point out that the hardship these people endure
C—4.
1324
[B. HOGG.
is brought about by the past action of the State in allowing all the land adjacent to the cities to fall into private hands, thus compelling these men to go back into the bush, in many cases single-handed. The right way would have been to have settled your lands adjacent to the towns, for the State to fell the bush, and not to have sent men out to burn good timber, but to put mills there owned by the State, to cut down the timber, to put it through the sawmill, and then to grass and let the land on rental, the State drawing the rent. 813. Would you apply your system to the back blocks now ? —I should steadily work on in that direction even now, and I would not ask a man to reside on the land or to pay rent for it until the roads were through, and the land reproductive, 814. What is your opinion as to the effect of climate on land-configuration ?—I do not know that that enters much into the question ; and let me here say, that what may be a solution of this land question to-day, may be of little use a few years hence, for as it is a biological fact that no living thing can exist unless it adapts itself to its environment, the same law applies to any Act you may pass. It will have to be altered some day to suit the circumstances of the times. 815. Do you know anything about the homestead privileges ?—I do not think there is any land in New Zealand which is so worthless that you should give it away for nothing. It may not be valuable now from an agricultural point of view, but that is not the only value land has. 816. Mr. Johnston.] You say there is no land in New Zealand fit to give away ? —I do. 817. You take a trip up the north of Auckland. It would not feed a rabbit ? —A gentleman down south said his leasehold would not feed a dead duck, but he wanted the freehold all the same. 818. The Chairman.] As to loading lands for roads ?—I am against that system ;itis an injustice. The roads should be made by the whole community, for whose benefit they are constructed. The unearned increment I have no right to ; I only created it as a member of the community, and it is unfair and unjust to the rest of the community to give it to me or for me to take it, although the law allows me to do so. 819. Why do you take it ? —What I would do under the present system is different from what I believe is right and just. 820. What rent are you paying for your 5 acres ? —£6. 821. Do you think you are not paying enough ? —As long at the State is willing to take it I shall be willing to give it, but it gives me a great advantage over my fellows in the towns who are paying heavy rents and high prices for the necessaries of life. 822. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Department ?—I have a loan of £1()0, and it is the cheapest way of getting money with the exception of an overdraft from the bank. Everybody has not a banking-account, and so cannot get an overdraft. I have had no trouble in having my wants attended to. 823. Do you believe the area of land a man can hold should be limited ? —As I said before, at the present stage of capitalistic development in New Zealand, I do not believe in the limitation of estates at all. The impression has gone abroad that the socialists do, but Ido not. You cannot limit the estates for the reason that you have to adapt yourself to your environment. The farmer in New Zealand has to compete in the world's markets with scientific farming carried on on large estates in America and the Argentine, the produce of which is sent to the London market, which is also our market. Therefore, the New Zealand farmer will have to adopt the same means to compete with them, and to put his produce on the London market as cheaply as they can. I have no objection to large estates provided they are worked by those who own them, and worked to the advantage of the general community. The time may come when the State itself may have to work these estates on a large scale in order to enable this country to compete in the world's markets with the countries I have named. 824. Mr. Paul.\ Do you believe that the lease in perpetuity is a reasonable tenure ?—Exceedingly reasonable for the man who is in it, but not for the man who is out of it. 825. Would you say it is a sensible tenure from the State's point of view ?—No, it is a most senselfess tenure. 826. Do you believe in revaluation ? —Decidedly. 827. Do you support the view of Mr. Hampton that the present leases should be revalued ? —I believe in revaluation being concurrent with that for rating-purposes. 828. You would interfere with existing contracts ? —What is a contract ? Since I entered into a contract with the State under the lease in perpetuity the conditions have altered —the value has altered ; but the increased value does not belong to me, and I ought to be made to pay the extra value. Ido not think anything else would be equity. 829. Do you believe the freeholder should be compensated when we take his land for closer settlement ?—1 do not believe in compensation at all. I heard Mr. Ward talk about " confiscation "; I have another word for it: I call it " restitution." We are living in a democratic State, and whatever the State decides becomes the constitutional principle, and the law of the land, and therefore cannot be called confiscation. 830. Do you believe the State should pay compensation to the freeholder when they take his land for closer settlement ?—No, they should buy it at the rateable value only. 831. In the case of the taking of land for closer settlement, then, you believe the State should buy it ? —I believe in taking the path of least resistance, and if the majority decide to buy it I should do so rather than go without. I myself should prefer to tax them out —but lam a democrat. 832. You would fall in with the. majority ? —Decidedly. 833. Then, in the case of the leasehold, why would you take the community-created value and not give the unit of the community something for it ?—He would get his share as a unit of the community — that is all he is entitled to.
1325
C.-4
R. HOGG
834. Do you recognise that you are a unit of the community, that you have certain influence in the community, and that you are advocating what you believe in as a unit in the community ? —I do ; but I also believe that no man should have the power to take what does not belong to him, and the community-created value does not belong to him, excepting so far as he is a unit of the community. 835. But how do you get out of the illogical position that in the case of the freeholder you buy the community-created value, while in the case of the leaseholder you propose to confiscate it ? —Because the present state of the law compels you to do so. If the majority say you should alter the law, do so. I have already said I should buy out estates at the rateable value. The unearned increment can be secured by land-tax increased from time to time. 836. Would you allow a man to hold land and work it by day labour ?—No, unless he was working it himself, while paying for assistance. 837. Is that what you are in favour of as a freeholder —Yes. He must work it himself, and hold no more land than what he can manage to use. 838. But one man may have the capacity to manage 100,000 acres and would have to employ labour to do so ? —Yes! 839. Would you be against that ? —Not under a competitive system. 840. Do you think that is in the interests of the community ? —I do not think the competitive system is in the interests of the community, and under such a sytsem a man would not hold 100,000 acres unless he could make it pay ; but if he were holding it against the interests of the community you have the remedy in the land-tax —increase your land-tax. 841. Leaving the competitive system out, do you think it is in the interests of the community to allow one man to hold 100,000 acces ?—I do not believe it is. 842. Do you think the policy of closer settlement has been in the best interests of the community 1 —I believe it has been so far. 843. You believe that roads should be constructed out of the consolidated revenue ?—I do. 844. Would you be agreeable to the Government making roads out of the consolidated revenue and then selling the land to private owners \ —To private workers on the land. 845. Mr. Johnston.'] Supposing a man was a cripple and could not work on the land, what would you do with him ? —We could find much lighter work than farming for our cripples. I was crippled on my farm (right arm broken), that is why I had to leave it. 846. What did you do with it I—l1 —I have put a man on to work it. 847. Do you not think that a scandalous thing to do ? —Decidedly not. 848. I thought you did not approve of it ?—I do not approve of it, but the system under which we live compels me to do so. 849. Do you believe in honesty ?—I do, absolute honesty. 850. Would you give the back-block settler the freehold ? —I think I said that in the case of the man who went out in the back blocks and hewed out a home for himself you could not compensate him in money. 851. You think it would be a good policy for the Government to fell the bush ? —Yes. 852. Would you approve of fencing it also ?—Yes ; I believe you could do it co-operatively much cheaper and easier than individually, and with less hardship to the workers. 853. Do you think it would pay the country to carry out the work that way ?—I think it would. 854. Provided you could get the stock for the land, would you be in favour of putting stock on it also ?—I think the stock would come along all right. One reason which has induced me to offer the suggestion with regard to the felling of the bush by the State is that a gentleman who is well known to you told me not many months ago that he had got so-many acres up the Wanganui River for the sake of the bush on a twenty-one-years lease. He was going to put a sawmill into it and cut it down. He was to pay so-much an acre, and also a royalty on the timber. He agreed to pay down the money within three months. But four weeks after he took the lease he got the offer of £1,000 on his bargain. You see what the State is losing there. Wellington, Friday, 16th June, 1905. James Glennie Wilson examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer residing at Bulls, and I farm about 4,000 acres of freehold. I have been in the colony since 1873. lam colonial president of the Farmers' Union. 2. We would be glad to hear from you, Mr. Wilson, your opinions regarding the various matters in our order of reference, but particularly we would like to have information from you regarding the grassing of the pastoral areas of the country, and also the keeping of these pastoral areas up to their standard of fertility ?—You are aware, of course, that I had no intention of coming forward as a witness, and I only come now in response to a summons from the secretary. Therefore, if lam asked any questions, I must simply answer to the best of my ability, without having brought forward any statement. At the time the matter of giving evidence on behalf of the union was discussed at our meeting, the various branches were requested to put evidence before the Commission. The opinion of the Farmers' Union is laid down in our platform, and I can add nothing to it so far as tenure is concerned. Of course, one naturally reads the evidence that has been given, and one sees the various views that have been expressed, but it seems to me that the ethical point of view has been somewhat overlooked. The desire of all of us, no doubt, is to improve humanity, and to raise up the standard. The desire of people who wish to see the nation go forward, is to give the people such a tenure as will produce the greatest quantity from the land. We want to make the people happy, contented, and prosperous, and we want to turn out the largest quantity of produce that it is possible to do. It is obvious, it seems
C—4.
1326
[j. G. WILSON.
to me, that if you do not have security of tenure, a man will not put forth his best efforts of production. If he fears something in the future, which will take from him a portion of his earnings, or he suspects that it will do so, he will not put forth that effort of production which is in the interests of himself and the country. In Scotland, where the system was twenty-one-year leases, it was found that towards the end of the term the tenant began to exhaust the fertility of the land, and not to put manure into it. So it is here. If you give the man the leasehold, he is only human, and it is human nature to look after his own interests, and at the end of the term, or if revaluation took place, he will allow the farm to run to waste, so that he will be able to show the valuers when they come round that the farm is not a productive one. That is a thing which it is exceedingly dangerous to encourage, and I think the leasehold tenure or revaluaion would do that. Therefore, I think that the greatest benefit to the greatest number is best assured by giving to the producers of the country that tenure which will cause them to put forward the greatest effort of production. 3. What you say with regard to Scotland would not apply here under the lease in perpetuity ? — No ; but so far as my information is concerned, what has caused this great fear and unrest on the part of the tenants is that they are constantly seeing in the newspapers agitation for a revaluation, and also that they see every session a Fair Rent Bill brought before Parliament. Had it not been for those two causes, the unrest would not have been present. I may add that the tenure in Scotland has now been altered, and gives them the right of unexhausted tenures, which has counteracted the evil considerably. 4. I suppose in the matter of tenures you favour the freehold ?—Personally, yes. What the Farmers' Union asks for is that every tenant should be enabled to have the option of purchase if he desires it. If it suits him to hold lease in perpetuity or any other tenure, let him have it. There should be tenant option. 5. In the matter of taking up Crown lands and lands under the Land for Settlements Act, do you think'residence for a certain period should be enforced ? —To show the bona fides of the tenant, I think it should be, but it should be left to the Land Board. I know of one case where a son has a lease-in-perpetuity section adjoining his father's farm. He naturally continued to live with his father, but he received a pre-emptory notice from the Land Board that he must reside on his own section, and I believe they also went so far as to say he should have his meals on his own section, although his father's house was only 100 yards away. I think the Land Board should have power to say that in certain conditions there is no need for strict compliance with the residence clause. 6. Do you think it is necessary to have cropping restrictions for the land-for-settlements land which are, you know, improved estates ? —ln many cases 1 think the restrictions are absurd, because they are restrictions set up for the whole of the colony without particular attention to the class of land they are dealing with. It might be very necessary to have restrictions on light land, but oil heavy land where the exhaustion would not be so continuous they might very properly be relaxed. I saw that one witness, Mr. Bowrie, of the Agricultural College, said that there was no necessity for restrictions at all. Ido not know that I would like to go so far as he did, but it is obvious to any one who goes over New Zealand that the land even in the purchased estates is of so different a quality that it is impossible for one set of regulations to suit every locality. 7. Still, you would have restrictions ?—Yes, I think it is only right when the State purchases land of that nature it should impose some restrictions, which would not be necessary if the tenant were allowed to purchase his farm. 8. Supposing you leased 1,000 acres of your freehold, you would hardly give the tenant carte blanche ? —I would, personally. But I may say that 1 would not lease land to any person in New Zealand. 9. You think that some restrictions should be imposed, but that they should be under the control of the Land Board, who should have a large amount of discretion in their enforcement ?—Yes. I think that some of the Land Boards are more easy than others, but I suppose that will always be the case. 1 think that great consideration, even leniency, should be shown to the country settlers. In fact, since so much has been said in public about this the Land Boards are more lenient. It is impossible to find out the exact conditions under which they live without going into the blocks where they are. I know some places in the centre of the island where women have been for three years without seeing another woman. Where there is a family the children have no school, and grow up shy and reserved. That is a very serious matter and is a strong reason why the Land Board should give these settlers every consideration. 10. Have you any remarks to make on the question of climate and land-configuration ?—ln New Zealand I think we have been over anxious to settle the land, and have settled it to such an extent inland, without that communication which we ought to have provided, that the settlers have had to endure great hardships and been put to a great deal of unnecessary expense. I may also say that I believe there is a considerable amount of land in New Zealand which it would not pay to road. Settlement should go on on the fringe of settlement so that means of communication can readily be afforded. In the Waimarino Block a great number of settlers there are completely cut off from all others in the yearly expectation of the railway going through. 11. You are aware that there is a great pressure brought to bear on the Government to open up land, and it is almost impossible for them to disregard that pressure ?—Yes, that is so, and I should say this to these people, "You can go on the land if you make your own roads." 12. Following on that, would you give people land for nothing under the homestead system ?— Very largely I believe that would solve the difficulty. In cases where the land is completely isolated, and where it is inferior, to do that would be doing a good work for New Zealand. 13. Is there any land in Wellington that you would give away ?—You might give away the hills on the opposite side of the harbour with great confidence. 14. Have you any knowledge or observation about the loading of land for roads and its working ? —Not personally, except the usual complaints one hears frequently. I hear complaints made that
J. G. WILSON.]
1327
C.—4.
the local bodies are lax in applying for " thirds." Unfortunately the local body lam connected with have no " thirds "to collect, or we would apply for them. There is a good deal of friction between local bodies and the Department over the restrictions placed on the expenditure of these " thirds," and in cases it has led to the local body being unwilling to take the expenditure under its control. 15. Have you any knowledge of the advances-to-settlers system ? —Personally I have not. i| 16. Is there any aggregation of large estates going on in your district or in the colony ? —Since I have resided in my present neighbourhood the large estates have been practically all cut up. One estate, the Carnarvon, which you, Mr. Chairman, and myself inspected when it was suggested that it should be purchased for land-settlement, has since been sold for £8 an acre and resold again and again at a higher figure. That was the largest area of land in that district. The Moutoa Estate has also been sold and cut up, and all the estates in our neighbourhood, as far as I know, are in a similar position. The Oroua Downs, also offered to the Government, has been all cut up and sold. Sections of this estate also have been resold at higher figures. 17. In your district it is seggregation, not aggregation that is going on ?—That is so. 18. Have you had any experience in surface sowing ?—I have had considerable experience on my own farm, but I suppose it is the higher and more broken runs in the South Island where there is more need for this evidence. 19. Your experience is on fairly good land ? —Yes, but I have observed the matter whenever I have had an opportunity. 20. Have you had an opportunity of witnessing the effects of surplus sowing on country up to, say, 3,000 ft. ?—Close to the Rangitikei River land has been surface sown up to 3,000 ft., and it has been a great success. It was bush land and papa formation, so that I saw it under the best possible conditions, and it took remarkably well. 21. Have you cultivated any of the grasses at all ? —Yes. : '22. What do you think are the best for a sound pasture ? —That is such a wide question that it would be very unwise for me to answer it. It depends upon so many things —climate, soil, heat, rain, and so many other conditions, that I would require to know the conditions under which the pasture is to be laid down. 23. There are large areas of pastoral country in the South Island which have depreciated very much in the last ten years, and the question is what can we do to restore the fertility of this country and bring it up to a cultivable capacity ? —I do not think we can expect land to grow anything unless it is first sown after the Native grasses are eaten out, but whether the sowing would be a success I am not prepared to say. My experience in the south has not been so great as up here. There are certain excellent grasses which have taken possession of a great deal of the North Island, but I am doubtful whether they would succeed to the same extent in the south. The danthonias are grasses that require almost tropical heat to germinate. They are found all over New Zealand, and they only succeed where they have a considerable amount of heat. They oust English grasses in dry seasons on land of a hard and clayey nature, whereas English grasses if they are sown and have a reasonable amount of rain can hold their own. I never could make up my mind whether danthonias would succeed in the South Island as they have done in some portions of the North Island. I sent a bag of it to Mr. Scobie Mackenzie some years ago. That gentleman had taken a great interest in the question of grassing in regard to Mount Ida Run, but he died before he could really observe how it was going on. Mr. Scobie Mackenzie's letter in relation to this subject, written on the 20t,h May, 1899, says, " I will be delighted to accept a bag of grass-seed. The danthonia was a common grass not far from Kyeburn some years ago, but overstocking and drought have apparently killed it. I will sow the seed in a good place next spring, and see what it comes to. I had a paddock of 20 acres at the back of the house which was ploughed and sown with English grasses twenty years ago. In course of time every blade died out —even cocksfoot—and the paddock gradually got covered over with a little blue wiry-looking grass which makes a good sward. Kirk said it was related to the hard fescue. Geo. Thompson (of the High School) says it is the Atropis pucilla, allied to the danthonia. lam quite satisfied the latter is nearer the mark, and that the grass is a dwarf variety of what we call the blue-tussock grass of the mountain —rare good grass. The other grass is a curious little bronze-coloured tufted low-growing grass. Thompson calls it Poa Mackenzie, and it answers to the description in Buchanan." I have heard, since giving evidence, that Mr. Mackenzie's sowing has greatly improved his lease. Mr. Bernard Chambers, of Te Mata, Havelock North, writes on 16th April, 1898, of the danthonia, says : " These grasses are the salvation of the country up the coast north of Napier, as they burn so readily and recover so quickly, thereby enabling the settlers to clear manuka and tauhine by fire. On my hills they are quite equal if kept down by cattle or fires to English grass, and withstand drought far better." In the North Island there is a considerable area of land which is almost taken possession of by danthonias owing to (Jry seasons which has enabled them to spread. I know some of the country which is particularly good pasture and carries sheep very successfully in the Wairarapa, for instance. The only opportunity I have had of observing the pasture lately was at Flaxbourne, and I had to go very minutely over the estate, and I noticed that the danthonia had not spread in the way I had expected, but that was perhaps because the pasture had only just recovered from what was practically the extermination of all the grasses by the rabbits. In Hawke's Bay and in other places where there are dry seasons I have noticed that danthonia has spread and has taken complete possession of some of the runs. For instance, in the case of the Mount Vernon Estate that is almost completely covered with danthonia, not on the plains so much, but on the hills. On the hills there is scarcely anything else but danthonia. There is another grass which grows very rapidly on the coast lands ; I refer to Microlcena stipoides. On the coast hills at Napier it has taken very well indeed, and is very successful in resisting the drought. However, to show how it is only suitable for certain classes of land, a friend of mine seeing a beautiful sward growing on a run took a piece of it into the Hastings district and planted it in a garden and it disappeared. He did not know whether that
a—4.
1328
| j. a. WILSON.
was owing to the treatment of the gardener or not, but it did not thrive there. Perhaps it wanted the sea-air. My experience is more in a practical way, but Mr. Kirk's knowledge of these grasses is very great —in fact I do not know of anyone who has the same knowledge of Native grasses in New Zealand as Mr. Kirk has. There is a book that has been published by the Government, a book written by Mr. Buchanan, and his book is quite the best on the subject in New Zealand. I sent a copy Home to Mr. Carruthers, late of the British Museum, and now of the Royal Agricultural Society, one of the best authorities on grasses, and he said that he had never had an opportunity of seeing Mr. Buchanan's book before. He thanked me very much for the copy and said he had read it carefully. Ido not think that Mr. Buchanan has ever got the recognition he deserves for what he has done in connection with New Zealand grasses. I would like also to say that there are different varieties of danthonia. There is the semi-annularis which gets its name from the half-round little hairs sticking out of a portion of the seed. That is supposed to be the better of the two best-known varieties of danthonia, but in my experience it does not make so close a sward as the Danthonia pilosa. This species gives a closer sward, but it is of a harder nature. I may state that I have sold the seed of this variety to be sown on manuka runs which had been almost abandoned or which were sold at a very cheap rate because the manuka had become so thick, and the owners bought the seed for the purpose of sowing it in the " burns," not expecting the manuka to be killed by it, but thinking it would remain there till the next burn and would help to carry the fire through. The gentleman who did this used to be a regular customer of mine, and he told me that it had succeeded admirably for that purpose, and that it had improved the run very much. Ido not think my opinion in regard to the suitability or otherwise of this grass in the South Island would be of any value because I have no knowledge of it in that part of the colony. 24. There is another grass which is being grown in the northern portion of the North Island, the Paspalum dilatatum ?—Yes ; that is almost a forage plant. It grows in certain localities nearly as big as toitoi. It grows a wonderful amount of feed, but it must have heat. It does not grow sufficiently well, even in our neighbourhood, on account of the cold winters, and owing to the want of heat in the summer. There is only one place where it grows well in our distirct, as far as my knowledge goes, and that is on the late Mr. W. T. Owen's place, on the banks of the Wanganui River, and I suppose it gets the necessary heat there, as in the valley the temperature is very high often. In Queensland the Paspalum dilatatum has been a most complete success. Of course, lam only speaking from what I have read in the Australian newspapers. It has not succeeded in our district, but I believe that in the Auckland Provincial District, where there is the necessary degree of heat, it will probably succeed very well. 25. Do you believe in any system of leasehold without the option of purchase ?—No. 26. Do you think the lease in perpetuity is a secure tenure ? —lt depends entirely on whether it is altered or not —it depends entirely on Parliament. 27. Do you think the freehold is a secure tenure ?—That also depends entirely on the people of the colony. 28. It depends on Parliament ? —Yes ; if any person under the present law attempts to take your freehold you can prosecute him, and you have a good secure tenure, but if the Parliament of New Zealand thought it right to pass a law to interfere with the freehold it could do so. 29. Do you think the holders of lease-in-perpetuity land should have the option of the freehold ? —Yes ; I have already stated that that is included in the platform of the Farmers' Union. 30. All lessees ?—Yes, all lessees. 31. Land-for-settlements land as well ? —Yes. 32. On what terms would you give it to them ? —I did not expect to be asked any question on that subject, and I therefore speak from memory. The land-for-settlements conditions are that the tenant pays 5 per cent, on the value of the land, but the tenant on other Crown lands 4 per cent., with a rebate ; the cash purchaser or the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenant 5 per cent. Our opinion is that all should pay alike, and that the tenant who desires to purchase should pay an acturial amount equal to the difference during the term of his tenure and the occupation with right of purchase ; that is, between 4 per cent, and 5 per cent, when he purchases his land. 33. Would you charge the holder of a lease under the Land for Settlements Act anything extra for the option ? —No, I do not think so. 34. Do you think it would be a more valuable tenure if the option were given ? —ln my opinion it would be more satisfactory to many tenants. Some might not think so. 35. However, you would not charge him anything for it ?—No. 36. Do you think the homestead system is suitable for the poor man ? —I should not advise him to take poor land up if he could get other land. It would be an enormous benefit to the colony if he did so. It would be a greater benefit to the colony than to himself. 37. Do you think a rich man cotild take it up ? —No ; I do not think so, unless he gets a large area of land and so can make it profitable. I may say that the agitation for homestead land comes from the Auckland Provincial District. It is obvious that if you have first-class land in a humid climate it will grow more than first-class land in a dry climate, and also that inferior land will be better for the occupier in a good climate than inferior land will be in a poor climate. In the Auckland Provincial District the climate is so good that the land is capable of growing fruit, and that might make it pay to take up land under homestead conditions in that part of the colony. 38. Do you mean to say that inferior land will grow fruit ? —Yes ; what I would call inferior land for the purpose of growing grass will very often grow fruit very well. 39. We have had evidence that in order to grow fruit well you must have good land ? —I have seen very good fruit grown in the North of Auckland on very poor land. 40. If the option were given to the present tenants, would you limit the area that could be held by any one man ?—Yes. The platform of the Farmers' Union provides that the limit as to area shall be the same as under the Land Act.
J. G. WILSON.]
1329
C.—4
41. Under the Land for Settlements Act you are aware there are farms ranging up to 200 acres. If the option were given that three of these farms should be grouped together—at present they are keeping three families in comfortable circumstances—do you think it would be against the best interests of the colony to have three such farms grouped ? —I am not prepared to say unless I saw the particular land. 42. If my statement is correct, and if three families are living comfortably on 200 acres each, do you think it would be against the best interests of the country if they were grouped ?—I do not know. I am not a great believer in cutting up land to such an extent that a settler would have to live an indifferent life. lam not prepared to answer that question without seeing the land. 43. Do you know of any land where 200 acres is sufficient to keep a family in very good circumstances ? —Yes ; I know of a good deal of land round about Palmerston North where 200 acres would make a very comfortable farm. 44. You have made very definite statements at different times with respect to the labour party and its aims in regard to the land-tenure question ? —Where. 45. In several places ?—Yes. 46. Can that party, or any other party, do anything that will seriously injure the producers of the colony without seriously crippling themselves ? —No ; they cannot, but I think they are so foolish in their requests that they would seriously cripple themselves as a result of their demands if those demands were acceded to. 47. Do you think they make these demands because they do not exactly understand them ? — Yes ; largely from ignorance. 48. I suppose you give them credit for being intelligent men ?—Yes. 49. And also that they are honest and conscientious ? —Certainly. 50. I desire now to refer to statements contained in a circular which the president of the Farmers' Union issued when the Commission was appointed. You are aware of the contents of that circular ? — I that a circular was issued. 51. I suppose the statements in that document, as quoted by the newspapers, were correct ? —I have no reason to suppose they were not. 52. These words occur in that circular, " I hope members will carry out the wishes of the executive " ?—Yes. 53. You are quite sure the workers in the towns cannot do anything to injure the farmers without injuring themselves ? —I believe that the Trades and Labour Council are doing something that is upsetting the farming community, and that they themselves will not be benefited by it. There seem to me to be two classes of these people—there are the trades-unionists and there are the socialists. The socialists seem to have different aims to the trade-unionists. The trade-unionists seem to wish to place taxation on " the other fellow," and the socialists seem to take a different view of the question— they seem to take rather a higher view of it. 54. From that would you say that the socialist was a better man for the community than the tradesunionist ?—I would not like to say that. 55. As you know well, there is at the present time an agitation for revaluation of leases ?—Yes. 56. Do you know the proposal of the last conference of the Trades and Labour Council ? —Yes. 57. Do you agree with that proposal ?—No. 58. Do you know what the object of the labour party was in regard to revaluation at the last conference ?—I do not know. I imagine it was to get more rent out of the unfortunate producers in the country. 59. At the previous conference they favoured a revaluation scheme to apply to leases in future. Was not that a distinct difference ? —Yes ; I suppose it would be distinctly different, but it was obvious that that was only the beginning of the thing. 60. Do you think that any such proposal brought forward at that body has an ulterior motive behind it ?—No ; but it has caused unrest in the minds of the people who hold land under lease in perpetuity. 61. Is it not just as reasonable to-day to say that because there is a land-tax on freehold land that that is only the beginning, and that by-and-by the whole value of the land will be confiscated ?— Possibly. If the Trades and Labour Council has its way it will possibly desire to confiscate the whole of the land. 62. But will there not be some equity or justice shown in dealing with this matter ?—Fortunately the people of the colony have a feeling in favour of justice and equity, but I do not gather that a certain section of the people, who wish to rack-rent country settlers, have that desire for justice in their mind. 63. Under a system of revaluation, do you think that any party in this colony would rack-rent another ?—Do you know anything about valuation ? 64. I know something about it ?—Have you had anything to do with the land ? 65. I have been asked that question by two or three members of the Farmers' Union, and I may say that I had a good deal to do with land before I engaged in my present business ? —Have you ever seen a valuer go over the land and value the improvements ? 66. No ; unfortunately many of the farmers, whose farms are valued, have never seen a valuer go over their land ?—lf you had any experience you would recognise that no farmers ever get their improvements valued fairly and equitably. 67. Granted that the present valuation is not fair to the farmers, is there any reason why that system of valuation should be followed in the future ? —I do not know of any, excepting that it is not done now. 68. But it is not a question of what they or anybody else want —it is a question of what is absolutely fair and just to the farmers ?—Yes
167—C. 4.
1330
[j. G. WILSON.
a—4.
69. Could you outline a system of valuation which would give the farmer the value of his improvements ?—Not except you put competent men to do the work. It is a mere question of personal appointment. It means the appointment of an individual who knows his business, and who is prepared to do a fair thing between both parties. 70. It can be done under those circumtances ? —Yes ; it has never been done in the past. 71. But we hope to improve on the past. Do you know of tenants who are paying too high a rent at the present time ?—I know a geat many tenants who think they are paying too high a rent. 72. Do you not think a system of revaluation would be a good thing for them ?—I think it would be very profitable for them. The Irish people say they pay too high a rent, and they want revaluation, and it is going on in that country now. 73. Would it be unjust to revalue a man's land who was paying too low a rent —granted that this principle should only apply in the future ?—The lease in perpetuity does not involve the revaluation of the land. 74. You believe there should be no breach of the present contract ? —No ; I think that remissions of rent should be given where they are too high, but that question is a very intricate one, and a very large one —to say how the country is going to assess a man. Because I hold that a man himself very largely puts the value on an estate, and gives the value to the land, and there is also the London market. Very little improvement in value is given to country property by the towns. 75. Would you make a definite pronouncement as to the unwisdom of either the town or the country party trying to harass each other ? —No ; you are going into a question quite apart from the land-tenure. You are going into a debating-society discussion. 76. No, we are going into something that vitally affects the position and condition of the farming community. Do you not think it is a mistake for either party to attempt to harass the other \— Decidedly. 77. That is against the best interests of the colony 'Yes, undoubtedly, and the Farmers' Union have never taken up any attitude that is not fair. They simply desire to live at peace with .everybody. 78. Mr. Johnston.'] Is the Farmers' Union a political organization, or has it anything to do with politics ?—lt has nothing whatever to do with party politics. It has undoubtedly taken a very vivid and very strong interest in such portions of politics as relate to the farming community, and I understand it will continue to do that in the interests of the farmers. 79. One of the vice-presidents of the Farmers' Union in the South Island said it was purely a political organization ?—He may not have understood the distinction we make between party politics and politics affecting the farming community. We have no desire to turn out one Government and put in another, but we wish that all Governments should take the same view that we do, and we desire to influence any government which happens to come into power. 80. You have alluded to the treatment of leasehold land. Has such a case come within your knowledge in this country ? —I said that I had seen the evidence given by a witness before the Commission, and in that evidence he stated that if power were given to revalue his land he would allow it to run to waste. 81. That was in reference to leasehold land in another case, and the statement was that the result of giving leases in Scotland was that the farmers did not improve their land as leaseholders would ?— The reference was to Scotland, but I said I had seen one Crown tenant giving evidence who had said if his land was revalued he would let it run to waste. 82. What experience have you had of the Land for Settlements Act ?—Not very much. 83. Have you visited any of the settlements in the South Island, such as Cheviot, Waikakahi, or Windsor Park ? —Cheviot is not under the Land for Settlements Act. I have passed through Waikakahi, and I saw some very successful settlements there, but I heard that some of the farmers further back in that district were dissatisfied in respect to their rents. I could see that some of them were prosperous, and had done very well. Ido not know of Cheviot, except by hearsay, and it is not under the Land for Settlements. 84. We have had a lot of evidence in connection with the agitation for the freehold, and in connection with the Farmers' Union. Could you give us any idea as to where the first agitation took pl ace —that is, the agitation to obtain the freehold ? —Among the tenants. 85. We have it on record that certain petitions were sent, and it has been stated that those petitions originated from the Farmers' Union, and that the Farmers' Union sent round to settlers holding land under the Land for Settlements Act asking them to sign these petitions in favour of the freehold. That statement has never been refuted by anybody. It has been admitted on all sides that such was the case. 86. We want to get at the bottom of the fact whether this originated from the settlers or the Farmers' Union ? —Speaking from recollection I will tell you exactly what is in my mind. The Farmers' Union was first started up north, and there a platform was laid down. One of the planks of the platform was that the tenants should have a right to the freehold. I cannot speak of my own knowledge, because that was originated in the north, and I had no connection with the union then. Ido not know who originated it. But when we came to consider the platform of the union, we had a conference in Wellington, and a considerable number of the gentlemen who were at that conference were Crown tenants. In discussing this question of the freehold tenure, those who were Crown tenants were strong on this particular plank of the platform, and after long discussion it was decided that it should stand as it stands at present. Then some time elapsed, and the question of a Fair Rent Bill came on. It takes a long time to get the settlers of the back blocks to talk of what is going on happen in the future, but at last they saw that in Parliament a Fair Rent Bill was being brought forward, and they became alarmed. Their experience was that they would not get what they considered justice in the event of their land being revalued, and they approached the Farmers' Union and urged on those who repre-
J. g. Wilson.l
1331
0.-4.
sented them to take up this matter as fully as they could ; but the actual first application, as far as I can recollect, was from a number of Crown tenants above the Hunterville district, who presented a petition to Mr. A. E. Remington, member for the district, asking him to bring forward some propo sal to give them the right of purchase. As far as I can recollect, Mr. A. E. Remington was not able to present it to the House, because the petition was headed by his name, and no petition headed by the name of any individual can be presented to the House. He retained it therefore and the following season, when these people found this to be the case, they sent it on to us. They were not members of our union. We brought the whole subject up for discussion on our executive, and the executive, seeing this was the expressed desire of a number of Crown tenants that they should have the right of purchase, determined to give them the opportunity of signing a petition if they desired it. There was absolutely no touting to get these people to sign it. We only wanted an expression of opinion, and we formulated a petition which was practically in the words of those who presented the petition originally to Mr. Remington. That was sent round to the different branches and they were told that if any person wished to sign this petition he might do so. It was addressed to Parliament. That is as far as I know the whole circumstances of the case. There was no canvasser sent out. All we desired to do, seeing that the Crown tenants were very anxious about the matter, as far as our information went, was that they should have an opportunity to make a combined effort. 87. There were no definite instructions issued to secretaries or presidents to endeavour to get this signed by Crown tenants ? —As far as I know, none whatever. The instructions were that we understood there was a great demand by Crown tenants to get the option of purchase, and if any Crown tenants desired to sign this we desired to give them the opportunity, but absolutely no instructions were sent to get these people to sign. 88. Can you give us an idea of -vifhat the result was as far as the Crown tenants are concerned ? — I have forgotten altogether. 89. We were told that the president of the Farmers' Union at Fairlie, or a place next Fairlie, Mr. Trotter, said in his evidence that because he was a lease-in-perpetuity tenant he was told at an executive meeting his presence was not wanted. You have no recollection of that ? —I have no knowledge whatever of that. 90. You quoted an instance of a man having to reside on his land, and he was living at his father's residence. He took up the lease knowing those were the conditions, did he not ? —Of course, everybody knows what residence means. I should have imagined it was sufficient to reside across the road from his land. 91. The evidence we have had as to the treatment by the Land Boards has been most favourable, especially in the South Island, on the question of residence, because the Land Boards have got considerable discretion ?—I do not want to make any remarks about Land Boards. I only happened to give this instance on another question as showing that restrictions might reasonably be placed in the hands of the Land Boards. 92. Seeing that you are the president of a very large body in the community that is deeply interested in our reference, and having regard to your experience in the country, and especially on this coast, do you not think it is only fair and reasonable that you should have given evidence as president ?—I do not consider it so. 93. There was an organization got up to give evidence by the union I—No organization from the executive. This Commission having been appointed, tiie executive considered what we were to do, and they thought it would be a misfortune if tne Farmers' Union did not have itself represented before the Commission at various places they met at, because they would be able to represent the opinion of the particular district before the Commission. It would be impossible for one man at the head of affairs to give an opinion for the whole of New Zealand, and therefore it was considered much wiser for those who were interested, and with a special knowledge, that they should be asked to give evidence before the Commission as it went round on its journeys. It was never desired on the part of the union that I should give evidence. I have said from the outset that I was not going to give evidence unless requested to do so. 94. You say some land is not worth roading : what district do you allude to ?—Close here, across the bay. 95. Is there any up in your own district ? —Oh, no. 96. I thought from your remarks you meant your own district ?—No, I should not like to make such a remark as that. 97. Do you not think the back-blocks settlers in Wellington and Taranaki sufEer as much from want of roads as in the far north that we hear so much about, and where there are so many waterways ? —I do not know the north sufficiently to express an opinion. It is certain that in bush land the very life of the settlers is concerned with roads. It is quite different where you settle on open level land, and can go along the plains and make a road wherever you like. It is different, for instance, on the plains in Canterbury, because there you can get along, although perhaps not so satisfactorily as with roads ; but in the bush land it is absolutely necessary, if you are going to have any settlement at all, that you should have roads for the settler to have an outlet to get his produce to market. Therefore it is a vital matter in the bush districts that the lands shall be opened up by roads ; if not, you cannot expect settlers. They are at enormous extra cost in living, and very little can be made there. 98. Do you think that if the settlers bad even decently passable roads a great deal of this agitation and discontent would not have existed ?—The want of roads must have increased the agitation decidedly. I think one can see one's-self that a great deal of the evidence before you is from people who have a grievance about roads. 99. Now, Mr. Wilson, how would you suggest that the land should be classified—that is to say, allowing 640 acres of first-class land as the maximum for one individual to hold ?—I do not understand the question.
J. G. WILSON.]
1332
C.—4.
100. Supposing you know land yourself up the Rangitikei River classified as first-class land —the flats at Oroua Downs are classified as first-class land —do you think that if there is a maximum acreage of land that both should be termed first-class land of which a person may hold 640 acres ?—I do not see how it is possible to compare the two. 101. They are classed at the present time ?—I suppose they are. I know that there is a great deal of land that is classed as first-class land which is not first-class in the eyes of a practical man, but it is very difficult to say what it is. First-class land is defined in the Land for Settlements Act as agricultural land ; third-class land is defined as pastoral land, and second-class land is defined as a mixture of the two. I should say that is a very fair classification. 102. Do you think that the classifications of the land in this case are decidedly wrong ?—ln many instances decidedly wrong. 103. Would you advocate that 640 acres of the Kairanga Flats is too much or too little for one man to hold ?—I recollect the Kairanga Flat when a man could not go on it except up to his middle in water ; under those conditions, 640 acres would not be too much. 104. I want to get at what area of that class of land alluded to—call it, say, first-class, and call the other second-class land ?—You cannot very well make the comparison, because there is no such land as that in New Zealand to open up. 105. There are the Waimate Plains ; there is a good deal of good land there ?—The Waimate Plains have nothing approaching that in extent, and the land there is all settled. 106. In the North of Auckland there is some swamp land that would be pretty well on a par with what I mentioned ? —Possibly. I was told by one of the Judges who has been up in Auckland lately, there is a block of Native land there which is as fine a block as ever he saw, and no move being made to settle it. 107. You would not like to express an opinion, then, on the point I have put to you ?—I have not thought of it, and am not able to express an opinion. 108. Do you think that the resolutions passed by the late labour conference here were most detrimental to the interests of the settlers in general ? —They struck me as such. 109. I mean the resolutions passed by the Trades and Labour Conference in connection with revaluation ?—I took it naturally that you were speaking of those. 110. Have you had any experience of the land laws of Australia of late years ?—I lived in Australia for some years, but I have not watched the land legislation there lately. 111. Would you express an opinion on those laws at the present time ?—No. 112. You have made a considerable number of valuations have you not ? —Some. 113. In valuing bush land, is there any capital and labour sunk in the improvement of bush farms that is not visible to the valuator when he makes his valuation ? —There are evidences of much of the improvements that are made ; the only invisible improvement is drainage. 114. The visible results of the bush up to a certain time is seen by the settlers ? —lf you wait for a long time they disappear, but up to a certain time there is evidence of the character and quality of the bush. The practical man knows exactly whether some is matai or tawa, and he would consider the size of the trees, and probably in remote cases the value of the bush. I think, therefore, there is evidence to go upon. 115. Sufficient to give the entire amount of time and labour expended ?—No; there are many things that occur to destroy the evidences ; for instance, a slip that carries away half a mile of fences. You would see the slip, but you do not know whether as regards the fencing it was second-class fencing or not. It is impossible for the valuer to see the whole of the improvements. The greater experience and knowledge of the valuer the more evidence he will see. 116. You have known men sow bush land three times ?—No. 117. Well, twice ?—Yes. 118. That is not visible %—No. 119. Look at a burn —that is not visible always ? —I admit that. I have known, in the Fitzherbert district, after a very bad burn, that the owner sowed oats in order to burn the lying timber. By waiting he got a good burn, but all that expenditure would be invisible. 120. What is the value of the Carnarvon Estate at the present time ?—lt is very hard to say; I know some of it has been sold at £18 an acre. 121 The original cost was £8 ?—Something less, originally, to Mr. Larkworthy. It was offered, I think, at £7 to the Government. It has been rapidly increasing in value since the dairying industry was started there. 122. In your observations in valuing, is the Californian thistle bad for the cows, and the ragwort ?— Well, the Californian thistle, I am sorry to say, is very considerably in evidence, but it is very questionable, if we except the agricultural land, whether it makes very much difference. I have heard some people say that it would be a very good thing to sow it on inferior land —they actually do it at Natal. 123. You have positive proof of that ?—Yes, I know that, and the sheep, when it is cut and willed, will eat this as they will eat the big variegated thistle when it is similarly treated. On this coast there is a very much larger extent of land with Californian thistle than many people imagine. 124. Is it increasing ? —I do not think it is. I think that the settlers are only coming to recognise it now. I think it has been there nearly all the time. It has been sown with the seed, and has extended and spread, and I think the people are only now becoming aware of this Californian thistle in the bush districts. 125. Do you think it would depreciate the value of a farm if it was there in evidence ? —On agricultural land, most undoubtedly. 126. You think it would not in the bush ?—I do not think it would cause so much damage. 127. Is there much attempt to eradicate it ? —Great attempts.
J. G. WILSON.]
1333
C—4.
128. Have they been successful ?— Almost completely unsuccessful. 129. Have you ever been in Southland ?—I have passed through it a couple of times. 130. You have not seen the immense amount of damage it is doing there ?—No, but I think a great deal of the seed came from there, and so I would not sow one single ounce of Southland seed unless I were to see it growing. 131. We had a lot of evidence given about danthonia : you say you would not like to express an opinion of the Southland runs. Mr. Murphy, however, said he thought you would say what grasse are most suitable for, say, the Mackenzie Country and Central Otago ?—I can only tell you that if I had a run there I should most undoubtedly make experiments, and it is only by experiments you can find out which is the most successful grass. If the conditions are suitable in Central Otago, danthonia may be sown with advantage. I think the conditions might be suitable, because there is a considerable amount of heat there in summer, which one might not expect from its geographical position, and I think it is very likely danthonia would do very well. It is killed by the frost with us—we know that from experience; but we do not know from experience whether the sowing of that particular grass would benefit the land or not, except as I say, as far as my knowledge goes, the late Mr. Scobie Mackenzie did sow this grass on the Mount Ida Block. 132. On what part of the Mount Ida ? —I do not know. 133. You know the country ? —-No, except from a distance. 134. You know that homestead ?—No. Mr. Scobie Mackenzie took a great interest I know in this grass, and made the experiment of sowing it. [ ;| 135. Is this paspalum anything like tall fescue ?—No, it has not the disagreeable properties on our land that tall fescue has. 136. You would not offer any suggestions as to the regrassing of these southern runs ?—I would not like to, except that if I had it I would make extensive experiments in resowing them. 137. Would you advocate the Government making these experiments ? —I think it is distinctly in the colony's interests that that should be done. Your Chairman, who has a more complete knowledge of these runs than any other person in New Zealand, says they have gone back within his knowledge. If these runs have gone back, as they are Government land, it is in the interests of the colony to find out the best way of renovating these places. Therefore it is a proper thing for the Government to make the attempt. lam reminded that I made some remarks before the Agricultural Conference some years ago about these Native grasses, and Mr. Stead bought a place up in Canterbury some time after, and seeing these remarks he directed his son, who was managing it, to come and see me about this question of sowing danthonia grass, because he felt it necessary to sow a considerable area of it. I told him what little I knew about the subject, and he did sow some. Ido not know that he sowed danthonia, but he told me afterwards he had succeeded fairly well with cocksfoot in many instances. That is his experience. 138. Would you advocate the granting of these freeholds to the large runs in Otago ?—That subject has not come before us. 139. You would not express an individual opinion ? —I would not desire to do so. 140. Will you express an individual opinion as to the advisability of giving to tenants of education endowments the right of purchase ? —No, I do not wish to. 141. Mr. McOutchan.\ In your own remarks you said that in order to secure the prosperity of the colony it was necessary to have a contented and happy people, that the land should be made productive, and you went further and said that in order to secure these things security of tenure was absolutely necessary, and you went still further and also said that there was a sense of insecurity in the colony owing to the demands for revaluation and the introduction of Fair Rent Bills. Would it not be a very good thing if this sense of insecurity could be removed ?—I think it would very largely help in the productive result to the colony. 142. Settlers everywhere have expressed their fear of this Fair Rent Bill. I wish to ask you if you have seen the provisions of that Bill ?—I have. 1"43. Do you think it was intended to make the provisions of the Bill retroactive % —I have forgotten that point, and I would not like to say. It was not introduced last session, and Ido not remember whether that was the case or not. 144. Where large vested areas are involved can legislation be brought in to interfere with those interests without compensation ?—-It is done. There are vested interests in other walks of life which have been interfered with by legislation. 145. But is there not a right of appeal to a higher power ?—No. 146. You think it is rightly due to these Fair Rent Bills that the settlers have this feeling of insecurity ?—Almost entirely so, I think. At least, so they have expressed it to me. I never have been a leaseholder and I never desire to be one, but I hear a great many opinions expressed by settlers from all parts of New Zealand, and it is that particular Bill which has given them the sense of insecurity, in my opinion. In regard to Native leases, the Fair Rent Bill would have a very serious effect on the colony. You must remember that the Maori is a very litigious individual, and would be quite ready if urged on by other individuals to go in for litigation as to rent. Therefore, in connection with Native leases, you can easily understand that with a Fair Rent Bill there would be a great deal of litigation. In the case of a Fair Rent Bill being passed on the occasion of a lease running out, it would have a very serious effect from that point of view alone on the tenants of the colony. 147. A representative of the Trades and Labour Council gave evidence before this Commission yesterday, and said he believed that the resolution which was carried recently advocating revaluation on the death of the lessee, or transfer of the lease, was entirely due to the agitation on the part of the Crown tenants for the freehold. Do you think that that is so ? —I eould not possibly offer an opinion on that matter. I have not the slightest idea regarding it.
a—4.
1334
[j. O. WILSON.
148. With reference to the whole question of insecurity, do you not think that there is a substantia] majority of people in the colony who would put their feet down on any attempt to revalue existing leases ?—I should hope so. 149. Do you think these people are in a majority in the colony ? —I believe they are. 150. Then, you think there is no real danger from this agitation ?—I do not think there is as much danger as one would expect, because the Fair Rent Bill has received scant courtesy in the House as well as in the colony. 151. You made reference to back-block life, and there is no doubt that the settlers in the back blocks of the colony have not received proper treatment from the State in the past. There has been a great deal of unnecessary hardship and slavery gone through by these settlers. Now, there seems to me a very determined effort being made by the settlers to get justice from the State, and, of course, the drawbacks are the question of residence, schools, doctors, and the cost of the necessaries of life. It all hangs on the one point of roads. In dealing with the question of roads it divides itself into two headings —what should the State do, and what should the settlers themselves do ? I wish to ask you if you have thought of any wide system by which to settle the matter as to how road-construction might best take place ? —I intimated that in my opinion we had oversettled the country of New Zealand, because we ought not to put settlers on the land till the district was connected with the roaded system of the colony, and connected by road also to the railway system of the colony, and go into the centre of the island and so have to make a very expensive road, but that if the settlement of the colony had gone on by the gradual process of accretion, these difficulties would have been largely got over. Many people think, too, that the State ought to fell the bush and grass the land before they open it to the tenants. I do not agree that that is an economical proceeding. I believe the tenant—who is, after all, the master of his own labour —would bring his labour into play, and would do it more economically and probably better than the State would do it. The only question is whether we ought not to provide a larger sum of money for the purpose of roading the country before it is opened up, and I believe that therein largely lies the solution of the difficulty. We must realise, and any person who has any knowledge of country life must realise, that the roading is as important as the tenure for the greatest production from the land. Now, the suggestion I would offer would be this : the Government should find the money for the local bodies to put the main road right through on a very liberal scale. The main roads of a block should be specified by some disinterested individual, to decide what he considered was the main road for the purpose of opening up such-and-such country. Then I think the local bodies would spend the money in a more economical way than the State would do it. I think that they should be given very liberal terms, and I think the best way would be to offer them, say, £3 for £1 raised by them on very much the same terms as under the Roads and Bridges Construction Act brought in by Major Atkinson, who had a complete knowledge of the class of country you spoke of. And then the land would be raised in value in consequence of the roads and bridges having been completed. Then, as far as the by-roads are concerned, the State should equally, I think, find the money for the local bodies under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, but in that case the lands ought to bear the whole cost, but it ought to be advanced in such a way as to enable the local bodies who undertake the work to complete it. In the case of the main roads there ought to be a larger subsidy from the Government, and in the case of the local roads I think money should be found and should be charged to the land. 152. With reference to the Loans to Local Bodies Act, there are some of the most progressive local bodies in the colony who find that the lending-power under that Act —namely, £6,000 a year— is totally inadequate for the requirements of these big districts. In many.counties they want two or three times that amount. Do you think the Government would act wisely in extending the amount the counties can borrow ? —lf they want to settle the country they, the House, must give larger borrow-ing-powers. I have been the chairman of a council for a number of years, and I know you cannot road the county out of rates, and especially so in a bush district. The Government must find the money if they want such country settled. 153. With reference to the " thirds " on the blocks of Crown lands which are sold, do you think that where land is leased on the occupation with right of purchase and is purchased by the tenant at the end of ten years, that one-third of the capital value of the section should go to local bodies. Of course they get a third of the rent for the first ten years, but then the State gets the capital value for the land ? —I think most decidedly so. If the one is equitable, the other is only a corrollary of it. 154. Do you think the " thirds " from cash sales should go to the local body ? —I would not like to deal with that question until you state the case a little more clearly. Is it not the case that cash land has a less capital value than lease-in-perpetuity land ? 155. No ; under the Act of 1892 the capital value is identical in both cases ? —I think, broadly speaking, it should be so. There are many cases in which the Government have spent a considerable amount of public money on roads before opening up the land, and since the opening-up of that land with bridging and roading. lam not quite prepared to say that they should at the same time hand over the " third," but as a general principle, I think it is only reasonable that if the one is right the other should be right also. 156. We had a return furnished in connection with the back blocks of Taranaki. It was shown in the return that the cost to the State of this land ran from Is. 6d. to 4s. 6d. These lands were disposed of at a price running from 12s. 6d. to £2 55., which allows a substantial margin for the State, which amount was meant to be applied, or at least some of it, to the roading : in view of the fact that the State made such a large profit on the land, do you not think it would be perfectly equitable that they should return the " thirds "on the cash lands ? —I should say justifiably so ; but what you state is only the first cost. There was additional cost of surveying. 157. The Commission in travelling around noticed various blocks of Native lands which were not occupied It is one of the great drawbacks to the districts in which they are situated. They are not reproductive.
J. G. WILSON.]
1335
a—4.
158. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to take these lands under the Land for Settlements Act, placing the onus of proof of title upon the owners, in view of the fact that these lands have been largely increased in value during the last few years by the expenditure and enterprise of the white settlers ? —The union holds a strong opinion on that point, and they never could understand why the large proprietors in New Zealand should have their land compulsorily taken, and these same proprietors were probably good citizens, and returning a considerable amount in taxation, and producing a large return off the land, while the Native owner did not do anything, but held the land for its future value. We never could understand the principle which guided the Government in not passing such an Act in order to enable the country to take these lands. In many cases it has retarded settlement to a degree which no person unless he visited the actual settlements would believe. 159. There is some heart-burning throughout the rural districts of the colony with regard to the demands from the labour party that the parliamentary franchise should be extended to local bodies elections in view of the fact that if that franchise is extended to suit the popular will, it will be the means of controlling expenditure for which there will be no responsibility as far as the electors under that franchise are concerned, and will place bond fide settlers in an unfair position. Do you think that should be possible ? —That is the opinion held by the Farmers' Union. 160. It is stated that since the people who are travelling about contribute through the Customs to the consolidated revenue, that they should have a voice in these elections, as the grants from the consolidated revenue are given to the local bodies, and therefore they should have a voice in the local bodies' representation. Do you think that there is anything in that contention ? —I should not like to say. You have stated that the grants come from the consolidated revenue, but I should rather say they came from borrowed money. I think it is unfortunate and an unwise action on the part of the labour unions to demand such a thing. I*can see no object to be gained by them, but I can see great danger for the ratepayers who have to find eventually the money for the loans and rates. 161. Even supposing that the money does come from borrowed loans, is it not the case that these men say they should have a voice inasmuch as, through the Customs, they help to contribute towards the funds which pay interest on the loans, and in that way they should get representation ? —I do not know that they should. I cannot see that they should have representation in that case. They are a floating population—they have no abiding interest in the country —they can go to-morrow, the security which they offer is that of the rent, and it is not that of the individual, and, where the security is such, I think they ought not to have a voice in the borrowing of the money. 162. Would you say that inasmuch as grants from Parliament are largely relied on through the influence of the representatives, and as these men have the adult franchise, and get the representation in that way, they are not entitled to representation on local bodies, and in consideration of the fact that they contribute nothing to the local rates ? —I should not like to say that the politician has very much say in the grants, I should rather say that the Minister has the say. 163. That is quite true, but all over the colony we have heard great complaints that these grants go by favours, like kissing, and the amount of the grant depends very largely on the strength of the representative who is sent to Parliament ? —Possibly. Sometimes the weakness of the politician is a distinct advantage to him, because then the Government rather favours him. 164. With reference to the question of valuation, you spoke about the unseen improvements in reply to Mr. Johnston, but there are what may be called extravagant improvements made by the tenant himself outside his fences, such as his contributions to dairy factories, and freezing-works. These under an equitable system of valuation, do you not think should be included in the tenant's improvements ?—Most undoubtedly. 165. And they go to the unimproved value I—Most unfairly. A man assumes a responsibility, and pays a certain amount of taxes for the very purpose of increasing the value of his land in the eyes of the valuer, and it is, I must admit, a most unfair thing. 166. You think there ought to be an alteration in the regulations under which the valuer makes the assessments ? —I am afraid that you could not do so. lam afraid the Act would not allow the valuer to take that into consideration. It has always seemed to me most unjust that a set of individuals should borrow money and find taxation to pay for it, and then have their unimproved value increased by so doing. It seems to me exceedingly unjust, and it ought to be undoubtedly remedied. 167. Mr. Anstey.~\ Do I understand you to advocate the reintroduction, practically, of the old Roads and Bridges Construction Act ? —No ; I spoke of the system of subsidy under it. 168. You are aware that under that Act there was a great deal of money very wastefully expended ? —I cannot say that from my experience. In my opinion the money was very carefully and economically expended. 169. You are aware that under that system the Government found two-thirds of the money, while the local body found only one-third, and there was a great temptation therefore to get money spent in the district —that was our experience in the south —in order to get hold of Government money ? —That was not my experience. From my knowledge of the work done under that Act I emphatically say that there was no money wasted, and if the local body has to find £1 for every £3 for a main road, they will be very chary about borrowing money, seeing that they would have to go to the ratepayers to ask for tliat £1. 170. It was not our experience in the south ? —I am sorry to hear that, because mine is the other way. For instance, under that system we built a tramway which has been a great convenience to the district. 171. With regard to the question of grassing, you have tried both danthonia and Paspalum dilatatum, and you say that they are practically only suited for a very warm climate. Have you had any experience of grasses that would be suitable in a colder climate ? —What I said about danthonia was that it almost required a tropical heat to germinate. !Cp! 172. Then it would not be suitable for the South Island ? Have you had any experience ofvany grasses which would be likely to thrive in the South Island ? —There are a large number of grasses
C—4.
1336
[?. G. WILSON.
which would grow under very cold conditions —cocksfoot, and ryegrass, if it is suitable land as far as climatic conditions are concerned. There are quite a number of grasses which will stand very severe seasons. For instance, crested dogstail. 173. But none of them are satisfactory as far as the southern lands are concerned ? —Perhaps not, but I do not know what could be done in regard to those lands, because I have had no experience of them, and Ido not wish to ofEer an opinion. Having taken a great interest in grasses all my life, and having lived fifty-five years, I have become sceptical as to whether I know anything about grasses at all. I used to fancy I knew something about them, but now lam afraid I know very little. 174. You said you were in favour of settling the lands near the centres first, before pushing settlement far back. Do I understand you to say you would approve of the Government acquiring land from private owners near the centres ? —I think that should be the last thing they should do. Settle the back country first, but keep the roads up to the settlement. 175. There is no suitable land near the centres except in the hands of private owners. What would you do in that case ? —I think you misunderstood me. I think I said settle the Crown lands only on the fringe of settlement. It seems to me, from a practical point of view, an absurd thing to buy land at a high price to settle it. 176. You say you want to settle the remote Crown lands, but there are no Crown lands excepting those that are remote; but you want to settle land near the centres also. Where would you get the land to settle ? —I said on the fringe of settlement. I would not settle land that is near the centre, but beyond the fringe of settlement. I would settle that first before going far afield. 177. Where is that land on the fringe of settlement ? Is there any in New Zealand ? —Quantities of it; Native land. 178. Do you think it would be wise to resume the title to these Native lands and to settle them ? —I think so most undoubtedly. Ido not understand why people do not agitate more for it, for it seems to me a very proper thing. 179. Then, I take it, you advocate the cessation of settling the most remote lands, or the settlement of private estates until you have completed the settlement of the Native lands ?—No. If there were a block of Native land near where the country is roaded, or connected by road with a railway, I would cut that up first and settle it, because the roads are close to it. 180. But is not there an immense amount of Native land, freehold, near the railways and roads lying idle ?—Not an immense amount. 181. We have seen it all over the colony ? —There is not a great amount so far as my knowledge goes. 182. Then in the case where this land was roaded and near a railway you would have it settled ? —Most undoubtedly. 183. Supposing there was a private estate owned by a white man, almost as close and lying unproductive, would it be wise to take it ?—Sometimes. I do not object to the Land for Settlements Act if it is administered fairly and reasonably ; but what I would like to see would be the Crown lands which are suitable for settlement taken in hand first and settled before settlement is pushed too far back. 184. In advance of roads ? —I should rather say, settle the Crown land on the fringe of settlement first, and then resume private lands if necessary. 185. I have not seen any of this land on the fringe of settlement that you refer to. There is really no Crown land available unless you go right back now ? —You see the Commission only went to one little fringe of settlement, Whangamomona, and apparently they found the journey so unsatisfactory that they did not go any further and have remained close to the railway ever since. 186. Is there any land of that kind we do not know of beyond Whangamomona ? —There is, I believe, some. 187. Have those men gone too far back ? —Yes ; they did when the first went. 188. Is there any land between Stratford and Whangamomona that could have been settled before that ? —I should imagine so. 189. Is that all settled now ? —lt is gradually becoming settled. 190. Is there any Crown land between the two places ? —I could not say. 191. Speaking in favour of the freehold, you said you thought the leaseholder was likely to depreciate his farm ? I presume that would not apply in the case of tenants under lease in perpetuity ? —No ; I stated that previously. It would not be human nature for him to depreciate what is his own. 192. I understood you to say that your union proposed to give the right of option of the freehold to existing Crown leaseholders, and I understand that the terms on which you wish to give that option to tenants on Crown lands is on their payment of 1 per cent, in addition to their present rent ?—The proposal is that you should find out actuarially the amount which, capitalised for the number of years they have held their lease, would represent the difference betwen 4 per cent, and 5 per cent. 193. Do you consider that the right of freehold would be worth the difference ? —I cannot say ; that would have to be considered by the individual. One man might think it was and another might not. I think the interests of settlement would be improved by giving the option. 194. Why do you advocate giving similar privileges to tenants under the Land for Settlements Act without making some charge for that privilege ?—They have already paid 5 per cent, on more than the land cost the Government, and they should have the same terms as the other Crown tenants. 195. I presume they took it up with that knowledge, and also that the people who took up the Crown lands at 4 per cent, were in the same position, yet you propose to make a differentiation in the charge ? —I want to equalise the two leases and place the man who has been paying 4 per cent, on the same footing as the man who has been paying 5 per cent.
J. G. WILSON.]
1337
C.—4
196. The annual value of the land is all the tenant can pay for it, is not that so ?—Yes. 197. If you charge one man 4 per cent, and the other 5 per cent, the difference is in the capital value ?— I think it is in the rent. The land is valued at a price per acre, and 4 per cent, or 5 perYent. charged as rent, according to the tenure. ! 198. Supposing you have two sections of land, each worth £1 an acre, and you rent one at 4 per cent, and the other at 5 per cent., the difference is in the capital value ?—You are working it backwards. 199. The value of land is its only value to the tenant ? —I presume so ; but, unfortunately, the taxation-value of land is based on the selling-value. 200. In the case of two sections, each valued at £1 an acre, one of which is leased at 4 per cent, and the other at 5 per cent., the difference is in the capital value ?—The capital value is fixed, the rent is charged on it. 201. The capital value is fixed on the rent ?—No ; vice rersd. 202. You say that the freehold tenure is a much better tenure, in the interest of the country, than the leasehold. Would you propose to extend that principle to others than Crown tenants. For instance, there are large public reserves. Would it not be wise to extend the freehold principle to them too ? —There certainly has not been the same feeling of unrest or the same demand from the tenants on these reserve®. 203. You think there is not the same necessity ! —I do not say there is not the same necessity ; but, as far as I know, there is not the same demand for the freehold. I have seen a great amount of evidence which has been put before the Commission that has astonished me. For instance, I noticed that you had evidence from the Nelson district, and that there was a demand made for the freehold of leases there, held as a college endowment, I think, and showing that there was a very unfair state of things on account of the trustees' action. 204. You say you have followed the evidence. Do you think there is not a considerably larger portion of these reserves tenants who have come before us and demanded the freehold than of Crown tenants I—l really could not say. There have been good reports in the New Zealand Times, and I have followed the evidence in that whenever I have had the opportunity. I have no doubt you can count the numbers up when the evidence is printed, and can prove for yourself what the result is. 205. With regard to giving the freehold to Crown tenants, would it not be wise to insist also that private freeholders, who lease their lands, should be brought into the same lines ? —I think the two things are not analogous. 206. You would not give the right of option to private tenants ?—I should not. They do so in Ireland ; a voluntary sale by a proprietor is made, and the British Government finds the money, and I believe it will solve largely the difficulty of land-tenure there ; but the circumstances are quite different in New Zealand. 207. Do you think it advisable that all the land in New Zealand should be farmed by freeholders ? —I think it would be to the benefit of the colony. 208. Supposing you give the right of option, what will happen in the next generation when everyone will have the freehold, we will suppose ? How will people who wish to farm land who have not the money to purchase the freehold do ? —I do not know. That is a long way to look ahead, and there may be altogether altered conditions. 209. By giving the freehold to individuals you are simply creating the same trouble that you are trying to get away from, with this difference, that you are going to substitute private lessors for the State ? —No. For all practical purposes the State has already parted with the freehold of lease-in-perpetuity land. The State cannot get that land back until a thousand years have elapsed. 210. You think the lease in perpetuity is a bad lease from the point of view of the State ?—I should say distinctly it was. They get no taxation from it and very little net rent. 211. Do you think, in the case of lands leased from the State, that there should be provision for periodical revaluation at suitable periods ?—No, Ido not. I think it would be better to let the Land Act stand as it is and allow people to take it up under lease in perpetuity, with the option of converting into the freehold. 212. You think there should be only two tenures —lease in perpetuity and freehold ?—I think we should take the Act as it stands and allow the individual who takes up the land to work under whatever tenure he likes. 213. That turns all into the freehold ?•—The individual might not exercise the option. I think, too, deferred payment should be added. It has created a very good class of farmer, who have had the land at a reasonable price and by their energy and self-denial have bought it. I think the homestead system was another useful system under certain conditions. I think the deferred payment should be added to the existing tenures, and the option of taking up the land should be entirely left to the individual himself. 214. You would have deferred payment, occupation with right of purchase, and lease in perpetuity ? —I would. 215. You told us the Crown tenants were very strong for the freehold. Would you be prepared to deny the fact that what has practically been the main cause of the withdrawal of the membership of your union in the south has been the fact that you have advocated this freehold ? —I am not so informed. Patrick Joseph O'Regan examined. 216. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a solicitor in Wellington. I have been here as a permanent resident for about five years, and have been in the colony all my life. 217. Have you got any land ?—No.
168—C. 4.
1338
[p. j. o'regan.
0.—4.
218. Would you state the particular point you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I have one or two points. Ido not wish to go into details in connection with the land question. I prefer to deal rather with certain leading principles. Details apply more to particular localities, whereas principles are of universal application. I desire, first of all, to make a reference to the land-settlement policy at present in operation, and to point out in connection therewith certain characteristics which I regard as fundamental defects. I should like to say at the outset that lam totally opposed to the principle of the land-for-settlements policy. As a member of the House in 1894, I voted against it, and would do so again, and I propose to give to the Commission very good reasons for the faith that is in me. To begin with, I think it is wrong from the point of view of public policy to borrow money, whether within the colony or without it, for the purpose of acquiring land, the value of which has been largely made by ourselves. We are merely borrowing to buy our own, and I would point out that there is no provision for the ultimate extinguishment of the principal, so that although, if we were guided by the name, we are engaged in a policy of land for settlement; we are really converting money-lenders into landlords, and some of them absentee landlords. I prefer in considering this question to look, not at its immediate consequences, but into the potentialities of the system. The potentialities of the system are these. We shall in the end create a landocracy of comparatively small holders who will be a reactionary force in this country. Between the money-lender from whom the money is borrowed, and the person who gets the lease in perpetuity, the great mass of the people will be wronged, and, as far as the freehold —that is to say, the fee-simple—is concerned, if we go on with the present policy of acquiring estates, it is only a matter of time when the tenants will become numerous enough to enforce their demand. Instead of calling the system a land-for-settlements policy it might be called a policy of recruiting for the Farmers' Union. These are the fundamental objections I have to the policy of land-settlement, but I want to point out that in"the practical application of the system, admitting the princpile, there are defects that require to be remedied. When the Land and Income Tax Act was passed in 1891 there was a special provision in the statute to the effect that in the event of a disputed valuation the Government, by adding 10 per cent, to the owner's valuation, could acquire the property, and it was under that special provision that Cheviot Estate was acquired. If you look at the Land and Income Tax Act of 1900, which is a consolidating measure, you will find that no such provision now exists, the reason no doubt being that it was considered superfluous to have such a pro\ision in the face of the Land for Settlements Act which had been passed in the interim. But what I wish to point out particularly is that the Land for Settlements Act contains no guiding principle as to how the value of land for purchase is to be computed, with the result that a very large latitude is allowed to the idiosyncrasies of the Court or the Land-purchase Board as the case may be. I would point out that the most extravagant prices are invariably paid for estates taken compulsorily, because in that case the Land-purchase Board has nothing to do with the purchase which is effected by a Judge and two assessors, one of whom represents the owner. I have here a return to substantiate what lam saying. The return was laid on the table of the House in 1902 on the motion of Mr. Lang—Parliamentary Paper C-sa.—containing particulars as to the purchase of four estates taken under the compulsory provisions of the Land for Settlements Act—viz., Ardgowan, Hatuma, Kumeroa, and Forest Gate. The aggregate value of these four estates for land-tax purposes was £200,206, and the price paid by the colony was £253,606, that is to say, an increase of £53,000 on the amount they were assessed for land-tax purposes. A more glaring example, but one which occurred subsequent to this return, is to be found in Flaxbourne, where the colony paid about £70,000 more than the land-tax value of the estate. From these facts either of two inferences is inevitable. If the land-tax value is correct the colony has paid too much for these properties, and the tenants must pay rent on a spurious value. Of course I shall be told that we must give a value for what is called the sentimental value, but the tenants must make their living out of dairy-produce, and sentiment is not a factor in that. Sentimental value, in other words, does not help these tenants to make more out of the land than it will produce. I will give a concrete example in the Forest Gate Estate. The owner of that estate, who is a lady, declared that on account of the delay in the negotiations in the purchase of the property she had lost the opportunity of buying an adjoining estate, and thereby of making £15,000, and the Court took the extraordinary step of giving her that £15,000 which admittedly was no part of the value of Forest Gate, but was simply to compensate her for the sentimental loss of not being able to buy another estate. 219. Mr. Johnston.'] She proved to the Court that she had lost the £15,000 ?—To the satisfaction of the Court, yes. But I maintain it is a monstrous thing to play with public money in that way. The tenants on that estate have to make up that £15,000 out of the produce of their property. It is a public scandal, and lam here to condemn it with no uncertain sound. The best of the story, however, is still to be told. As soon as the transaction was closed the same lady acquired the estate for which she had received £15,000 from the Government as consideration for having lost the purchase of it. My authority for that statement is the late Commissioner of Taxes, Mr. McGowan. The point I wish to make out of that is that legislation should lay down some guiding principle for the determination of the value of estates bought for settlement. No such guiding principle exists at present. Parliament should determine it and leave the Court, as an administrative body, to carry out the will of Parliament. The Court is more than administrative now. It has a latitude in carrying out its own ideas which it should not possess, as to how value should be computed. lam only pointing that out on the assumption that the principle of land-settlement is admitted, but, "of course, I would gladly see the Land for Settlements Act repealed altogether, believing it is going to land us in serious difficulties, financially and socially. The other point I wish to refer to is this talk of the limited freehold. I wish to show that the limited freehold is a specious name for doing an irreparable wrong to New Zealand. At this stage I should like to point out that a certain amount of ambiguity is created by the looseness of popular language. What is meant by freehold I presume is estate in fee-simple. We have any amount of experience to show us that the unqualified fee-simple is really the buttress of land-monopoly. If the
p. j. o'regan.]
1339
C—4.
small freehold would have settled the land question, it certainly would have done so in Belgium, which is the most densely populated country in Europe, and is pre-eminently a country of peasant proprietors, but the. labour difficulty is just as prominent in Belgium as in any other country. Those who have no land are in the same state of unrest as in other countries. Then, you can take the case of France. It is popularly supposed that France is a country of peasant proprietors. Nothing of the kind. There are few countries where landlordism runs riot to a greater extent than it does in France. But, as a matter of fact, to find concrete examples there is no need to go beyond our own country. The district of Taranaki is a district of small freeholds, and yet there is no district in New Zealand which displays the incipient evils of landlord and tenant more forcibly than Taranaki does. I say " incipient " advisedly, because when population increases, as I hope it will increase, the evil will appear in a much more aggravated form than it does now. I would like to point out at this stage that it is incorrect to suppose that the holders of lease in perpetuity are necessarily untaxable under the land-tax. That is a popular error which ought to be removed. It is quite correct that at present the lease-in-perpetuity holders pay no land-tax, but that is due to the fact of the £500 exemption under the land-tax. I can best illustrate the position by giving you a concrete case. Supposing a tenant acquires a lease in perpetuity the present value of which is £400 ; he will pay rent of course on that £400, but he will pay no land-tax until the unimproved value plus the value on which rent is payable exceeds £500. At the present time the system has been too short a time in vogue to allow the excess to be greater than the £500 exemption, and that is the reason why the holders of lease in perpetuity pay no land-tax. When later on the values have exceeded that £500 they undoubtedly will pay their quota. In this connection, by the way, I wish to point out a few facts regarding the effect of that £500 exemption, because it has an important bearing on the demand for the freehold. I have placed in the hands of each member of the Commission a parliamentary paper laid on the table of the House in 1902—8.-20 a. From that return it will be seen that there were then 115,713 freeholders in the colony. Out of that total number there were 92,925 freeholders the value of whose individual holdings did not exceed £500. Then there were 10,136 who owned between five hundred pounds' and a thousand pounds' worth of land. That makes a total of 103,000 landholders, and 92,925 of them paid absolutely nothing because of the £500 exemption. I may add that their aggregate unimproved value is £11,000,000. The next number is 10,136 who are allowed to deduct the £500 exemption. You will find that 103,000 landholders own an unimproved value of £18,000,000, upon which practically no land-tax is paid. The colony, in other words, loses £70,000 a year land-tax, although we have to go to the expense of valuing that land. The next point I wish to make is this. There are about 23,000 Crown tenants in the colony. From these Crown tenants we collect an annual revenue of about £150,000 a year, which, of course, is a continually increasing asset. If we allow these men to acquire the freehold we, of course, lose that £150,000 a year, because being small landholders they will come within the £500 exemption. I noticed some time ago that Mr. Massey, speaking at Stratford, pointed out that the land-tax revenue would not suffer because if the Crown tenants got the freehold they would pay land-tax. That statement is absolutely incorrect. He must have forgotten about the £500 exemption, the effect of which would be if these Crown tenants got the fee-simple to deprive us of an increasing national asset. I suppose it will mean that the Customs taxation of the working-man will be increased to make up the difference. That is the usual thing when the Government want more taxation—to make the working-man pay for it. I should like to say at this stage that as far as the tenure is concerned I would not care as to that provided the public interests are conserved by collecting its proper revenue from the land. If the £500 exemption were abolished—and it ought to be abolished—and land-tax levied without distinction, I would not object to allowing Crown tenants to have the freehold because tenure does not matter very much. That is merely the shell, the essential thing is the kernel. Ido most decidedly object— and I feel sure that the great bulk of the people of the colony would take that view if the facts were placed before them, which, unfortunately, is not the case —to a permanent asset of £150,000 a year being taken away as would be the case by granting freehold to the Crown tenants. Regarding Land Boards I think they ought to be electhe just as Licensing Committees are elected by the people of the colony. One of the evils of the time is the tendency to centralisation and to bureaucracy. It is far better to decentralise administration even in the case of Land Boards. In 1892 the late Sir John McKenzie introduced a Bill to make Land Boards elective, and he declared that the Bill was measure of the Government, but it was shelved and nothing more has since been heard of the measure. 220. On what franchise would you elect Land Boards ? —On universal suffrage. The land belongs to the people of the colony. Of course, individual occupiers have the right to their improvements, but the fact remains that every citizen of New Zealand has an equal interest in the land of New Zealand. 221. What qualifications do you think a member of a Land Board should possess ?—I would leave that to the people to decide. 222. But what is your opinion ?—My opinion is that any intelligent citizen is fit for any public position, whether it is that, of a member of a Land Board or anything else. 223. Do you not think that a knowledge of farming and conditions of land-settlement and a fair general knowledge of the land districts are important qualifications for a member of the Land Board ?— No doubt they are useful qualifications, but it does not follow that because a man has a knowledge of farming he has also an absolute knowledge of the vicissitudes and troubles of back-block settlers. Take my own case ; I think I may claim to have the greatest sympathy with the back-block settlers, and there is no one who more earnestly desires to see people settled comfortably on the land in happy homes. Why claim a monopoly of positions of that kind for the landowner ? I may add that I was brought up on a farm, and I am even proud to admit that I have done " cow-spanking " in my time. 224. A man without experience would not be able to discriminate between essential and trivial matters simply through want of knowledge. You know that if a practical question were brought up before you you would be able to gather the bearings of it from your experience, which could not be
o—4.
1340
[p. j. o'began.
done unless you had that experience ? —lt is no use our labouring the point. My principle is " Trust the people." 224 a. Mr. Paul.] You have alluded to the fact that Mr. Mackenzie, when Minister of Lands, brought in a Bill to make Land Boards elective. Do you remember if they were to be elected on parliamentary franchise ?—lt is twelve years ago since I read the Bill, and I cannot remember what the franchise was, but I know that a number of members of the House objected to the franchise proposals in the Bill, and suggested that the local bodies should elect the members of the Land Board, but the Minister of Lands would not listen to the proposal, and the Bill was shelved. I cannot remember what the franchise was. 224b. A witness representing the Farmers' Union suggested that the members of the Land Board should be elected by the Farmers' Union ? —They should have their say by a'l means, but they should not have the monopoly. You might as well allow the brewers to elect the Licensing Committees. 225. If the exemption from the land-tax were abolished, would not that remove it from the position of a class tax ? —Yes, certainly. The present tax is a class tax, because out of the 115,713 landowners, less than ten thousand are free from the exemption. The exemption, however, does not really benefit the small holders, for it would be much better for them to pay more directly and less indirectly. 226. What in your opinion is the object of the Crown tenants in wanting the freehold ? —I have mixed with a great number of Crown tenants, and, in my opinion, it is to a large extent an artificial agitation. The Crown tenants have grievances most decidedly, but the great bulk of their grievances are in connection with matters of administration, and in other matters* in which they deserve sympathy of all colonists. For instance, in the back blocks there is the question of roads. I think that we have prematurely settled these back blocks, and what also strikes me is the destruction of our forests which this premature settlement involves. The real reason why these men are forced to go into the back blocks is that the best land in the colony is already in the hands of large landowners ; we should put a heavy tax on their estates, and thus compel them to subdivide. That would obviate the necessity of so many men having to take up land in the back blocks, and lead the laborious lives they do. 227. Did you say it is impossible to limit the area ? —I think that it is not necessarily desirable to limit the area ; the best method is to put proper taxation on the land. 228. You are in favour of limitation, but you would obtain your object by means of taxation ?— Yes, I would let a man own a countryside if he paid the colony proper compensation for doing so, but you would find that in practice he would soon subdivide rather than pay. 229. If the right of option were given, on what terms do you think it should be given ?—lf the option were given, the first thing should be the abolition of the £500 exemption, to which I have alluded. 230. You are a resident in a city. Do you know anything about the position of the city workingmen ? —Yes, and a very deplorable position it is. Although I admit the hardships of the back-blocks settler, still I would rather be a back-blocks settler than a city worker. In this city the working-man gives two days out of six to the landlord ; that is the direct payment he makes. 231. Is it possible that if the option of the freehold were given, the rate of interest would rise ?— No, I cannot see any connection between the rate of interest and the freehold ; there may be a connection between the rate of usury, which is a very different thing from the rate of interest. There are usurers in this city who are doing a thriving business in that particular way. 232. Do you mean to advocate that no land should be taken compulsorily for settlement ?—Yes ; why take it at all if you can tax it ? 233. You would take it by taxation ?—Yes, let the owners do the subdivision. 234. Has not the effect of the present Land for Settlements Act been to induce landowners to cut up their land because of the fear of it being compulsorily taken ? —No, the effect of the Land for Settlements Act has been to retard the cutting-up of large estates —many landowners holding on to their land expecting the Government to buy them out. 235. You have heard the case mentioned by Mr. Wilson, where the Government offered £6 an acre and the owner got £8 privately ?—That is because of the land hunger. The general policy of the Land for Settlements Act must be to encourage squatters to pay the graduated land-tax rather than subdivide, in the hope that their land may be bought by the Government. 23?. In that case, had the Government taken the land at £7 an acre, clearly the owner would have lost £1 an acre ? —Yes, but that is an isolated case ; I am speaking broadly with respect to the effect of the land-for-settlements policy, which must be to counterbalance the tendency of the land-tax —to induce subdivision. 237. You said something about the present system of valuation. Is it not generally understood that the present method of valuation is inequitable ? —There are two sides to the question. A great deal depends on the capacity of the individuals who are appointed valuers, and I am bound to confess that, in certain cases, incompetent men have been appointed. I think, however, that the principle of the valuation system is perfectly sound, and the very best argument you can have in support of that view is the small number of cases in which the Assessment Court reduces valuations ; and if you want another proof, you will notice the extravagant demand of the landowners when land is taken for settlement purposes. They will complain of the high valuation for taxation purposes, but when their land is taken under the Public Works Act they want sometimes four times the value of the land. 238. But so far as the Assessment Court is concerned, is not that looked upon unfavourably by the settlers ? —Some settlers may regard it unfavourably. 239. You quoted figures to show the enormous amount paid by the Government above the taxation value when estates were acquired. Therefore, if their contention as to the methods of taxation is correct, and the taxing-value is too high, then your figures make out a stronger case than at first appears on the surfac ? —lt shows that the inequity is against the people of the colony.
P. j. o'began.]
1341
U.—4.
240. You would bring about closer settlement by taxation ?—Yes, a graduated tax would do the whole thing if properly applied ; it ought to be doubled at least for a start. It is a public scandal to-day to see some men holding 70,000 acres of splendid land, whilst some are crowded together in cities, and others forced into the bush. 241. You would object to the lease in perpetuity ? —Most decidedly ; that is not a satisfactory tenure ; but if the £500 exemption were abolished, its bad potential effects would be modified very much. I want to assert and secure the common right of every citizen to the national estate, and we can do all that by taxation. 242. How is the poor man to get on the land under your proposals ? —These large-estate owners will not give the same terms that the Government does ? —lf the land was made cheap, the poor man could look after himself. 243. But good land is not cheap ?—No, because private speculators are allowed to make a monopoly of it. 244. I think that all rich agricultural land has always stood very high in the market. How is the poor man to get on to that land ? —lf the land was made cheap, as it would be by proper taxation, the people would put themselves there. There is too much paternalism in this age of ours —the Government doing things which the people could do for themselves if they were allowed the chance. 245. Do you think if it had not been for the present generous land laws so many settlers would be on the land at the present time ?—I admit that the prosperity of this country is due almost entirely to the land policy, which has been enforced since the present Government came into office. The openingup of so much land must relieve competition for work and benefit everybody ; the same would apply, however, if the land had been thrown open under freehold tenure, because the opening-up of the land, no matter what the tenure may be, must immediately do good. It is the ultimate consequences that we must consider. 246. You know very well that if the land had been opened up on the freehold tenure it would mean the aggregation of estates ?—But there are just as many large estates in New Zealand now as ever there were. 247. Will you tell me how you would put a man with little capital on land ?—I would make the land cheap for him, and let him get there himself. 248. Supposing a man has only got enough money to purchase his stock ?—The State can give him assistance in various ways, for instance, the Advances to Settlers Department is a great assistance to a settler, and there are other ways in which the Government could assist the settlers. I find on reading Mr. Foster Eraser's valuable work on " The Real Siberia," that the Russian Government practically gives land away in Siberia, and certainly land might well be given away in the first instance ; that is done in Argentina. 249. That is paternalism ?—That may be so, but it is not unduly interfering with private concerns. In 1895, as a matter of fact, I introduced the Free Land Bill, the object of which was to give land free for the first three years. 250. Mr. Johnston.\ Do you know there are thousands of acres of land which is not good enough to give free to a man ? —Yes ; there are areas which would be little use for agriculture. 251. Will you tell us how you would put a man without capital on the land ?—1 simply would not put him there. To begin with, to speak exactly, we are all on the land. You are not treating the small man fairly in putting him on the land unless you put him where he ought to be. At present you put him away in the back blocks, entirely cut off from civilisation. How much better would it not be to compel the speculator and squatter, who holds the monopoly of land in the vicinity of the railways and cities, to relax his grip and make way for the people. 252. You have no way ?—I have a most effective way. The first step is to compel these owners of large areas to let them go —that is to tax their lands. 253. You think it better that they should dictate any conditions they like to intending settlers, and let them get it in any shape ?—Certainly I would not let them dictate conditions, because in that case they would not pay any taxation at all. They should have to sell the land for what it is worth, and that is the reason why they call taxation confiscation. 254. Practically, I have had a large experience of these settlers going on the land, and it is absolutely impossible for a man with a little capital to go on the land and make headway unless he gets it on such terms —that is to say, gets it on such a small rental that he may use his labour as his capital ? —That is exactly what I want. 255. Under your conditions it is absolutely impossible '( —I will put it in another way : The first consideration is to get land for settlement. We have not got very much left, because if you substract the land which is, as you say, unfit to support a rabbit, the balance is not so very large. The best parts of the Canterbury Plains, the Waimate and Wanganui Plains, and the Napier lands, have been sold. They are not, however, by any means settled, and never will be until we apply scientific and just taxation. That is the best way of dealing with the problem. The first thing is to get the land. 256. You say the workers have it in their own hands to stop these high rentals in the cities : how would they do it\ —By that I mean the workers have the power to do what they like, because they are in the majority ; but unfortunately they are side-tracked by such fallacious proposals as by workmen's homes. It would be far better to levy taxation to compel speculators to cut up land and bring down the boom prices. 257. In Christchurch these workers' settlements are an absolutely unqualified success in area and so on, are they not ? —That may be so far as the tenants are concerned, but the very fact of these settlements being started must enhance the value of all private property in the vicinity, and, therefore, you prejudice the interests of the tenants of private landowners. 258. Ido not agree with you. Where these areas where taken up tliey were originally large areas, and when the centre of them is used for a purpose of this kind they do not really enhance the value
a—4.
1342
[p. j. o'began.
of any of the areas to any great extent. Wellington is an exceptional city, because there is only one outlet from it, and that is through the Hutt ? —Yes, I admit it is exceptionally situated, but the principle applies everywhere. You select an area near Christchurch for workmen's homes, and you construct a railway to it as a convenience to the tenants, and as a consequence you enhance the value of all the land which it traverses. The making of electric tramways in Wellington, in the same way, has prejudiced the interests of the poor man by raising his rent. 259. Mr. McCutchan.\ You would like to see the working-man get on the land ?—Yes. 260. Do you think removing the £500 exemption in the land-tax would help you ?—Yes. 261. You mentioned in connection with this return to which you referred, that there were 92,000 owners the unimproved values of whose properties was £11,000,000 sterling ?—Yes. That is practically about £120 each. 262. If you remove an exemption of this sort would you place the burden on them ? —£l2o each is a little less than 10s. a year, and if you removed the duty on sugar it would give about the same measure of relief. 263. But the farmer is getting advantages in the shape of free education for his children in return for the taxation ?—That is why I regard the exemption as wrong from a social point of view. I have not made that point quite clear, perhaps. At present a very large portion of the land-tax is being wasted. As the process of subdivision goes on the number of exemptions will increase, and so more and more land revenue will be lost. Notwithstanding the immense increase in land-values the landtax revenue does not increase because of the exemption. 264. Is there not an exemption of £2,500 ? —Yes, but it is practically nothing. Five hundred pounds is the exemption that every landowner is allowed to deduct whose unimproved value does not exceed £1,500. Above £1,500 the exemption diminishes at the rate of £1 for every £2 of unimproved value, and hence the exemption disappears at £2,500. 265. If the exemption was abolished you would give the Crown tenants the freehold ? —I say I would be prepared to consider it. 266. In drawing attention to the Irish tenants, you stated that quite lately by taking over their holdings they had loaded themselves with debt ?—Yes. 267. Is that an accurate statement ?—Well, the landowners have to be bought out, and the persons who advance the money for that purpose have to be reimbursed, and who pays it ? 268. The tenant pays it ? But how does he pay ? I think it is sixty-five years they give the tenant to pay. Is that not putting him in a better position than he was in before ?—Yes, anything is better than being a tenant at will. But you must remember that the tenant farmers of Ireland are, after all, six hundred thousand in number, and there are four million people outside them who have got to be considered as well. 269. Is there not a great deal of nonsense talked about " land for the people " ?—-No doubt there is. 270. And about " land being the inheritance of the people " ? —Yes, but for all that the statement is a moral truth, which should never be forgotten. 271. It is the inheritance of those who will make use of it ?—Quite so, and every one should have the chance to use it. Every man has the right to live,- and without land he cannot live. 272. I have known people by thousands come out to this colony without anything but bone and muscle and thrift, and a desire to get on, and some of these people are worth thousands to-day. Are they not entitled to what they have got ?—Decidedly they are ; but I want everybody to get the same opportunity. 273. Do they not get the same opportunity ?—No. 274. I think the opportunities for men getting on the land are better now than they have been for thirty years past ?—That is quite true as far as legislation is concerned, but we have not the same area of laud. 275. This feeling which has been got up between town and country is solely due to the fact that these trades-unions are trying to get for themselves the profits of the trades and the profits from the land also ? —I object to that statement. I belong to no union, except that I happen to be a member of the legal fraternity ; but I think the cry of town versus country is a most unfortunate one, and a most contemptible one. The man who would endeavour to make political capital out of it is a public enemy, who ought to be scourged out of public life. As far as I know this feeling between town and country has no real existence, but is engineered by a few journalists and politicians, just as the Hon. G. H. Reid, in Australia, is trying to flog a bogey into existence for his own purpose. 276. There is this feeling, but it is simply because the country people have no proper knowledge of the lives of the town people, and because the town people have no proper knowledge of the lives of the country settlers ?—Hear, hear. 277. When you make the statement that you think the country people have a better life than the town people, I think you hold an erroneous opinion ? —I did not put it quite that way : I admit that both have hardships, but if I had my choice of two evils, the life of the town worker and that of the back-blocks settlers, I would choose the latter, because in the bush you are able to get wood, and the town worker has got to pay £2 a ton for coal, and the country settler has also got some place to breathe in, while, even for breathing-space, the town worker has to pay some one who does not work. 278. Mr. Anstey.] I think you advocated taking these estates under the Land for Settlements Act, providing they are got at the valuation plus 10 per cent, above the land-tax valuation ?—I said I am opposed per se to the principle of buying land for settlement, but if we admit the principle we ought to have a proper method of doing it. We had a method at the time the Cheviot Estate was taken, because the Land and Income Tax Act provided for it. It is not so now, and too much is left, as I have said, to the idiosyncrasies of the Compensation Court.
p. .t. o'regan.
1343
C—4.
279. Would you approve of a recommendation that that should be done by adding 10 per cent. 011 taking any one's land ? —I commit myself to no statement, but that Parliament should fix the conditions under which land should be taken. 280. That is rather vague. We want something more definite. We want to find when you are going to take this land at an addition of 10 per cent. Would you take it at a moment's notice ?— Not necessarily at a moment's notice, fam dealing with principles, and not with details. 281. Are you going to take the crop as well as the land ?—Certainly not, unless it is paid for. 282. Would you give twelve months' notice ?—There must be some arrangement between the State and the owner. 283. I am afraid your 10-per-cent. margin is quite unworkable? —Ft was not unworkable in the case of Cheviot. 284. It would not suit me as a practical farmer ? —But practical farmers are hardly concerned with that question. We do not buy farmers out, but large squatters. 285. You talk about the land simply making the absentee money-lender the owner of the land : in what way have you disadvantaged the community ' You may not immediately disadvantage the community ; but by the fact of buying the land without extinguishing the loan che money-lender who advances the money has got a permanent interest in it. 286. Do you think that is worse ? —lt may not be worse, but it could be much better. 287. You tell us the lease-in-perpetuity settlers do not pay land-tax : are you aware that some of them do ?—Yes ; because the return from which I quoted is three years old. 288. You gave us to understand that so long as landowners were not paying land-tax they were escaping their share of taxation : do they not pay the ordinary Customs taxation of the colony ?— lam afraid you misunderstood me. I maintain this : indirect taxation should be reduced and direct taxation should be increased. 289. Would you admit that these people are paying more than their share of taxation ?—No, I would not. I say, as between the man who has five hundred pounds' worth jf land and the man who has no land, there is no comparison whatever as regards competency to pay. 290. Are you aware that the man with five hundred pounds' worth of land already pays his share of Customs duties % —So d.oes the man who has no land at all, and more than his share. 291. Now, you propose an additional land-tax for these people ?—No ; I propose alternative taxation. 292. Would you say there should be no exemption in respect to the income-tax ?—No ; because there is no comparison between land-tax and income-tax ; one is a tax on unearned increment, while the other falls on earnings. 293. Your answer to another question has struck me as rather peculiar : you said in regard to the election of Land Boards that a man did not require to have any knowledge of farming in order to enable him to be a good member of a Land Board '] —I said it did not necessarily follow that because he was a non-landholder he had not, therefore, a good knowledge of the wants of settlers. 294. Do you think that the steward or factor of an estate requires some expert knowledge of farming ?—Most decidedly. 295. Do you think that would be attained by having him elected by popular vote ? —Yes ; if you admit the principle of trusting the people, as I hope you do. 296. Certainly not for a case like that ? —You might as well say you would not elect the members of Licensing Committees by popular vote, because they would not all be hotelkeepers and brewers. 297. You say all these should be elected by popular suffrage ? —Certainly. 298. You have seen lately that the Government have been obtaining the opinions of experts on the utilisation of electrical power : supposing you should put up to popular election the selection of these experts to pronounce an opinion on the question of electrical power ? —That is a different thing altogether. 299. Ido not think it is. You say the members of a Land Board should be elected by popular vote.: how do people nowadays know the qualifications of persons for this purpose ?—I think they know just as well as the Government do. 300. Do you think, supposing we had a popular election for members of Land Boards, that practical farmers would almost invariably not be the set of men who would be appointed ?—Not at all; the preponderance of our population is not in the cities. The great bulk of the people are country residents. 301. Do you think there would be anything like the same number of practical farmers elected on the Land Boards under such circumstances as there would be of people who would not be experts or practical farmers ?—I might get elected myself, and I consider that I would be a very good member of a Land Board. 302. Do you consider that the people should have the power to elect say, a committee of farmers for the purposes of taxing solicitors' costs ? —Yes ; I would be quite willing to trust myself in their hands. Farmers are just as fair as other people. John Griffiths examined. *303. The Chairman.'] What are you \—A modeller and carver. My wife holds a lease in perpetuity in the Paparangi Settlement, and we jointly hold the improvements. The area is 1 acre 3 perches, and we pay £3 per annum. It is an extremely satisfactory lease, and lamin a much better position than paying rent in the city. It is 600 yards from the station, and is really worth more than we are paying for it. 304. What matter do you wish to bring before the Commission ? — The leasehold Act, as far as workmen's homes is concerned, is certainly very advantageous, because under it a workman can take
C— 4.
1344
l"j. GRIFFITHS
up laud in one of these settlements and devote his spare time to improving it or when he. is unemployed. He does not need to buy a Sandow developer if he has a spade and pickaxe and likes to do a bit of digging. Also, it gives a chance to a town worker like myself to serve a kind of apprenticeship on the land. He has not to pay a very high rent, and some day it may mean that he may become a permanent worker on the soil. Owing to the low rent lamin a position to unfairly compete with my fellowworkers in the same line in the cities, and I have a great advantage over them. I gather that the Land for Settlements Act was a provision to increase the number of settlers, and to allow the workers generally to participate in its advantages. It was pointed out by one witness that in France, where there were many small holders, the people were not very successful; but in the book on fields, factories, and workshops of France, it is pointed out that the artisans that hold land there are among the most prosperous workers in any country. And the same thing will apply to New Zealand. The institution of these workmen's settlements will also modify the evil effects brought about by the congestion in large centres. Many workers, whose trades run in certain seasons, can manage to put in their time on their little sections until trade gets brisk again, and I believe that the system will have the effect of minimising the number of unemployed. One witness said the drawback to the Land for Settlements Act was in regard to the borrowing of money to pay for this land ; but I understand that when the estates are purchased it is done by the issue of bonds under the nation's credit. 305. What is your opinion on the question of land-tenure ? —ln my individual case the freehold would be very advantageous, because I could split up my section into two, and sell part of it for as much as the valuation of the whole section ; but my duty to the community tells me that this increased value belongs to the whole community, and not to the individual who happens to be lucky enough to drop into it. You have had a number of witnesses in favour of the freehold, but they are not always honest in their convictions. For-instance, Mr. Wilson, this morning, was very willing that the nation should part with the land, but he was not willling to part with any of his land if one of his employees wanted the freehold. The present land-values are going up in our settlement. The adjoining section to mine has been revalued. It was previously rated at £2 Bs. per annum, and now it is rated at £3. I have heard on good authority, although I cannot prove it, that the present tenant paid £25 for the transfer without improvements. If the Government take over the Manawatu Railway-line the probability is that land will rise still higher in value, and the settlers there and in the Hawtrey Settlement will reap the benefit of the purchase of the line. 306. Have you any opinion to offer about the constitution of Land Boards ?—I think it would be more to the State's interest that they should be elected on a universal suffrage. Regarding the ballot system, I think that system is a gamble, but if it is to be maintained landless men of experience, with families, should have the first chance in the ballot. If the system is done away with the land might be put up to public tender, but not necessarily the highest tender should get the preference. Men who have no land, but are experienced, should be studied first. At present the Land Boards have discretionary powers in this matter, and that should be continued even if the land is put up to public tender. The Land for Settlements Act has done a good deal towards bringing about an improvement in the settling of people on the land, but the question is not wholly solved yet. With regard to the Advances to Settlers there is a loan on my present section ; it was there when we bought out the improvements. I know one settler on the Saunders Estate whose improvements ran from £450 to £500. He applied for £100 from the Advances to Settlers, but only got £50 or £70, and suffered a decided hardship thereby. He had to take that amount rather than nothing. It is a difficult thing to get money on the lease in perpetuity privately. The only way to raise money is to get it on your stock. In another case a settler on the Saunders Estate only got half of what he applied for. The shortness of money was generally given as a reason, but not by the office. 307. Mr. Paul.] Are the other settlers on this settlement satisfied with their general conditions ? —Generally speaking, things are progressing favourably. Certain settlers want the freehold because they think they will get the increased value. Five or six are decided in favour of the leasehold, but they cannot get here in working-hours. . 308. Do you think the fact that it pays is at the bottom of the freehold agitation ? —I think so, largely, as instanced in Mr. Wilson's case. 309. Mr. Anstey.] You say they want the freehold so as to secure the increased value ?•—I think there are other reasons as well. Under the freehold tenure they can do what they like. There are not any restrictions in regard to raising money. 310. Do you find this section of yours too large ? —lt depends on how you utilise it. Ido a lot of work on mine. There is one man who has 5 acres, and the improvements he has put upon it in three or four years would astonish you. He is a labourer. He works on Sundays, holidays, and in his spare time, morning and evening. 311. Is he a member of a labour union ?—No, not that I know of. 312. Is it not against the rules of the labour unions that a man should work unlimited hours ? — The point is, where does pleasure end and work begin. It is a very debatable point. When I am at work I often consider I am playing. 313. I suppose none of these workers consider it is play when they are asked to work three hours overtime for the boss ?—That is a different point. One change of labour is rest. 314. Supposing he took him away from carrying sacks and asked him to haul the sacks along the floor ? —ln both cases it is hard labour ; but the labour I allude to, in connection with the workmen's settlements that the men do in their spare time, is rather conducive to health. 315. Do you think it would be wise to extend these settlements|'seeing you are so pleased with yours ? —Yes, with revaluation. 316. You do not approve of the principle of the lease in perpetuity ?—Not without revaluation. 317. In the case of these settlements do you think it would be wise to cut the sections up smaller
J, GRIFFITHS.]
1345
C—4.
or larger ?—I believe if you could extend the system close to the towns it would be very beneficial to'the workers, and I would not make the sections less than J acre. 318. Do you think the vast majority of workers have got time to look after an acre or two acres ? —I do not think they would have the time in the case of a settlement like the Epuni Hamlet, which is so far away, but in the case of Paparangi it is an advantage to have a large section. I looked at a section at Epuni but came to the conclusion that I should spend nearly three hours in getting to and from my work. 319. Would it not be advisable to provide in the case of similar new settlements areas of £ acre, J acre, J acre, and 1 acre, so that a man could take up the area he was able to work ?—I think that would be a great advantage to the workmen. 320. Is there a demand for small areas in these settlements ?—Generally speaking I believe the workmen would prefer that, but new settlements are taken up slowly. 321. One witness told us that the workmen preferred to stick to the towns and knock about theatres and music-halls of an evening instead of working on a section ?—I do not think that is the case. A very limited number may be so inclined, but it is not the rule. 322. You think the majority would rather go out of the towns and carve out homes for themselves on these settlements ?—I believe it. Harry Martin examined. 323. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—A market-gardener or nurseryman at Epuni. I hold 2 acres of lease in perpetuity and am paying £10 17s. 4d. a year. I was one of the original settlers, and have been there since the Ist August, 1901. The lease I hold is a fairly satisfactory tenure, but it has its drawbacks. I make a living off the section, but sometimes I take casual work in the winter. I had a little capital when I started. I have found the Land Board fairly satisfactory, but I think it should be an elective body subject to the public veto. The lease in perpetuity is fairly satisfactory, but requires to be modified so as to allow money to be borrowed on it. I would not prefer the right of purchase ; the lease is the fairest thing for the community and the individual. It might be modified to allow the holder to borrow money from the Advances to Settlers, or to get larger advances than we can get at present. I hold the same views regarding the lease as Mr. Reese, who was before the Commission yesterday. I think he said that the leaseholder should be allowed to get the same amount on mortgage as a freeholder would obtain on the same amount of property. With regard to the residential conditions, it is only right if a man will not reside on his section in a settlement like ours that he should give it up, and another man should have the opportunity of living on it. Married people with families should have the same consideration. When the Epuni sections were first opened up there was not a great rush for them, and those who applied first got what they wanted. 324. Was your section loaded with any money for roads ?—Yes, the same percentage as the rest, but people complained about the bad expenditure of the money. We have got a metalled road now, but as we live so close to the borough and have to pay heavy rates the settlers expect to get something more than they have got. We ought to have a good road, and the present road might be better. We , are under the Hutt County Council. 325. You have some forty settlers there and should have some influence with regard to putting a member into the County Council ?—The Epuni Riding is of large exent and you do not get much show as against the rest of the riding. 326. Have you any experience of the Advances to Settlers ?—I have a small mortgage, but did not get half of what I wanted. I could get more now, I suppose, seeing that my improvements are greater. 327. Mr. McCutchan.] You want the lease in perpetuity to be made as good as the freehold ?— Yes, as regards getting advances for making further improvements. 328. Mr. Anstey.] We were told yesterday with regard to the Epuni Settlement that the sections were too large ?—They are not too large for my purpose, but the valuation has made the rates so heavy that with the rent it does not pay to market-garden unless one can afford to have glass houses. 329. It was suggested that the State should take the land over and put it into smaller areas, of course conserving the interests of existing tenants ?—That would be a good thing. Llewellyn Cwilliam examined. 330. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a gardener in Wellington, and I have lived in the district for twenty-five years. I reside on J acre at the Hutt, and have 11 acres of land in other parts of the colony. 331. What is your view of the land-tenure in the colony ?—The lease in perpetuity is the best tenure I know of. 332. Do you think people should reside on the land as a test of good faith ?—Yes. 333. Do you think there should be restrictions as to cropping and so forth ?—Yes. 334. Is there any point you wish to speak on ?—I think that in the Epuni Settlement 15 per cent, of the areas are too large. I believe I thoroughly understand the working of land, and I find J acre is quite sufficient for myself to work in my odd time. 335. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think there is anything in this cry for revaluation ?—I believe in revaluation, certainly. 336. You do not believe in lease in perpetuity ?—Yes, I do with revaluation. 337. It is the perpetual lease with'periodical revaluation that you approved of ?—Yes. 338. You think it is wise to insist on residence in all cases ?—I was not speaking with regard to bush lands, but more with respect to workmen's homes. 339. Do you think it would be wise that there should be just one residence in respect to one section ? —Certainly.
169—C. 4.
C.—4.
1346
Tf. N. MCVICKER.
Frederick Neil McVicker examined. 340. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding 5J acres under lease in perpetuity in the Paparangi Special Settlement, for which I pay £7 15s. per annum rent, and 4 J acres of private lease at Horokiwi. lam representing half of the settlers in Paparangi. We wish, if any alteration is made as regards the lease, that we should get the option of the freehold. There was a proposal a few weeks ago to create Johnsonville into a borough, and if that had been carried into effect our valuations at Paparangi would have been so increased as to very considerably handicap us. The sections in Paparangi are either too small or too large. If we could buy out our neighbours we could do something, but if that were not possible we would be blocked in getting from our land sufficient to pay our rates and taxes. The majority of us are against the co-operative system for making roads in the opening of settlement. When Paparangi was formed it cost the Government £3,000 to buy the estate, and when the settlers got on to it they were paying on £5,000, and we have only got a 12 ft. road and that is of rotten rock and is a great source of trouble to us in wet weather. I consider that workmen's homes should not be more than 1 acre in extent, which is quite enough for a man to look after. 341. Has the country done anything to your road at all ?—The Government have made a grant of £50, but I am trying to block the local body getting that until we are assured that they will put fifty pounds' worth of metal on the road. With regard to the evidence given by Mr. Hampton on Tuesday, we think that the Trades and Labour Council are rather out of place in coming forward and speaking on behalf of the back-block settler. These unionists are accustomed to knock about towns having blocked streets and pavements, and those in the back blocks do not think any notice should be taken of those people. They do not know what the settler of the country has got to put up with. Many of the Paparangi settlers have been in the back blocks and know what it is to be there, and they are prepared to go back again, provided proper roads are made into the sections. 342. Mr. Paul.'] Have you had any experience of the back blocks ?—Yes, from Auckland southwards. 343. Do you not think it a good sign to see every citizen in the country taking an intelligent interest in the country's affairs, even though you do not agree with them ?—I do. 344. Do you not think it is rather churlish to find fault with men coming before the Commission and who find fault with the tenure ?—I do, but people living in paved towns should mind their own business on the matter of land. 345. Do you not think there is a phase of the queston above that ?—No. 346. Do you not think that there is any underlying principle in the land question ?—I do not know, but my idea is that these people are interfering with questions they do not understand anything about. 347. Do you not ever express an opinion about things you have not been engaged in ?—No. 348. Have you never expressed an opinion on anything that you never had practical experience of ?—No. 349. What union were you connected with in Wellington ?—The Boilermakers'. 350. Mr. McCutchan.] You have settlers in Paparangi who were settled formerly on the back blocks. What induced them to go away from the back blocks ?—The want of roads. 351. What district was that ?—The Forty-mile Bush. 352. They were bond fide settlers there ?—Yes. 353. Are you desirous of going to the back blocks ?—I want to. 354. On a place with no roads ?—I will not say that, I will have a look round before I decide. 355. In your opinion has the opening-up of the back blocks been hampered by no roads in the North Island ?—Yes. 356. You think that state of things should be remedied ?—Yes. 357. Do you think the country is in a position financially to tackle this question of roading the back blocks ?—Yes, I think it would be a great advantage to road the land first and throw it open for settlement after. James Burns Finlayson Sutherland examined. 358. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am Crown Lands Ranger for the East Coast - Wellington District. 359. How many lease-in-perpetuity tenants are in your district ? —There are about 1,125 tenants under all tenures. There are thirty-nine settlements, including village settlements, there are eighteen farm homesteads, sixteen village-homestead special settlement, and village homestead under lease in perpetuity. There are three under the Land for Settlements Act, and there are two improved farms. 360. With respect to the farm-homestead association, how are they getting on ? —They are all practically well settled. Most of the original settlers have gone out, and new settlers have come in. They are all well improved. Generally they have all sold out with advantage, but some of them found they could not carry on, and they have gone back to the towns. 361. Are they a good class of settlers who are now occupying the land ? —Yes. 362. They were restricted to 320 acres each ?—Yes. 363. I suppose that area is quite enough ? —ln some cases it is not. Where the land is poor they could do with putting two holdings together, and in some places three holdings. 364. You have got three land-for-settlements areas in your district ? —Yes; Langdale, Longbush, and Tablelands. 365. How is Langdale getting on ?—lt is supposed to be one of the greatest successes under the Land for Settlements Act. The improvements made are good, and the settlers seem satisfied with their holdings. 366. How is the road there ?—There is a fair summer road.
1347
C—4.
J. B. P. SUTHEBLAND.
367. Are there any obstacles or difficulties which the settlers have to labour under ?—The greatest difficulty is the want of road access in some cases, but there are very few settlers who have not some access ; sometimes they have a fair bridle-track, but they naturally desire a road. The want of road access is a great drawback, no doubt. 368. Mr. Paul.] How far do roads affect settlement ? —lf a settler takes up bush land no access to it, he is at a great disadvantage in taking his goods in and out of his homestead. 369. Are there many in that position at the present time ? —There are very few in my district at present. There has been a lot of roading done during the last two or three years. 370. Are any of the settlers asked to reside before they are given access to their sections ? —Yes, in some cases. 371. And, as a general rule, is residence insisted on without access being given ? —Not without good access ; but that may be a bridle-track. If a settler has no formed road of any kind he is not asked to reside. 372. Have any of the lease-in-perpetuity holders made any complaints to you that they are restricted in their borrowing ? —No, I cannot say that they have, but I have heard an occasional report that they could not get what they wanted. 373. As a practical man, are there any duties that you are obliged to carry out which you would resent if you were a settler ?—No, I cannot say there are. 374. You are not called on to demand anything from a tenant which you would not comply with if you were a settler ? —No, not if I were placed in the same position. 375. Mr. Johnston.] With reference to Langdale, what is the carrying-capacity of the land there ? —About one and a half sheep to the acre, they carry more than that on some holdings, and that is with cattle and horses ; there are twenty-three settlers there. 376. What is their road like ' They have a good summer road, there is no heavy metal on any of it. 377. For how many months of the year is the Pongaroa Road impassable ? —Sometimes six months, but it has been passable for wheeled traffic for nine months ; but during the last two years it has not been so bad. 378. Has it been impassable for a long time this winter ? —lt has only been closed since the beginning of May, or end of April. 379. How do the settlers do ? —They pack their goods in. 380. How long has this road been in existence ? —I think it has been in course of construction for eleven years. 381. How many settlers are in the block affected by this road ? —I suppose it affects about five hundred. 382. They are affected in respect to wheel traffic for six months of the year ? —Yes. 383. What is the length of the portion of the road that is affected in that way ?■ —The part that is really bad is about four miles. 384. Who is responsible for the position of the road ? —I think the traffic on the road is responsible. 385. What local body ? —lt has been a Government road, but I think the Akatea County Council has taken it over recently. 386. Generally speaking in the settlements you have got to do with, are the tenants prosperous ?— Yes, the great majority of them seem prosperous. 387. Are they satisfied ? —Yes, they seem very well contented. 388. Do they express any satisfaction as to their tenure ? —I might say that recently they expressed a little discontent owing to what has been said as to revaluation and the Fair Rent Bill. 389. It is the Fair Rent Bill that has caused discontent ? —Yes. 390. Previous to that they seemed satisfied ? —Yes. 391. What is the average holding at Pongaroa ? —2OO acres. 392. Can a man make a good living out of 200 acres and keep a family ?—ln places he can, but in other places that area is too small. On the rolling country a man ought to do well on 200 acres. 393. Are they doing well ? —The settlers on the land now are all fairly prosperous, and the land is more improved. 394. Is the ground well grassed as a rule ?—Very well grassed. 395. What is the class of improvements in the way of buildings ?—Not so good—mostly slab whares. 396. What does that refer to ?—All through the district. Within the last two years, however, two sawmills have been started. They get the timber out cheaper than they do in town, and buildings are improving in consequence. 397. You heard some evidence given at Pahiatua the other day ? —Yes. 398. Is that to your own knowledge substantially correct ? —Some of it was not. 399. Whose evidence was not correct^? —Some of the statements made. Of course, it is correct in a sense. 400. Only half-true ? —-True to a certain extent. When they said they had no roads they had bridle-tracks, which have been there for years. 401. Were you there when that Chapman case took place ? —No ; I do not know anything about the Chapman case, it was before my time. 402. Are there any of the settlements in your district that have been a failure, or a partial failure ? —Not that I know of. 403. They have all done well ?—They have all done fairly well. 404. Have many transfers taken place ?—A good number. 405. At an advance over and above the improvements ?—-Mostly at an advance.
1348
0.—4.
[j. B. P. SUTHERLAND.
406. At a fair advance or an exorbitant advance ?—Far from an inflated advance. 407. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to this road survey and the Pongaroa settlers : you said it was repaired with hard papa rock ?— A portion of it was. 408. Is it enduring ?—lt is about three years since it was put down. It tears up in very bad weather. They have only about two miles of it down. 409. Is it rock that melts down under the action of the weather ? —Yes, it is hard papa. 410. Do you think that is an economical way to repair the road 1 Is it not a makeshift on account of inadequate money ? —I would not like to say that. It is the only stuff they have, and they are compelled to use it. 411. Why do they not burn it ? —They are burning where they can get any particular place. 412. Will this particular papa not burn ? —They have not tried it. 413. Is it not a great drawback that there are no adequate funds with which to do this work and place the road under the local body instead of patching it from year to year, and completing nothing ? —Yes, it is a big expense that way. 414. Do you think in a case of Crown tenants that Government supervision should cease as soon as the tenants' improvements exceed in value the interest of the State in the sections ?—No, I do not. 415. Where, say, the tenants' improvements are in the proportion of four-fifths of the total value : do you think then supervision should cease ? —No, they know the conditions under which they take the land up. Some tenants are in a position, perhaps, to put on a portion of the improvements during the first year. 416. That is not the point. The point is, are any alterations desirable in the present regulations in the interest of settlement ? I)o you think State supervision is necessary when the tenants' interest is four or five times as great as the interest of the State ? —Not in that case. The tenants will look after their own. 417. Do you think the tenants resent supervision ? —ln some cases, not often. 418. In the case of men who have made substantial improvements and are practically the best tenants ? —I cannot say that. 419. It is not in the case of discontents that they resent supervision ? —Mostly men who are generally behind. 420. You said that the Akitio County Council had taken over this road recently ? —To the best of my knowledge ; I would not like to say definitely. I know there was one county that refused to take over a portion of the Alfredton Road, and the Akitio County Council may have done the same. 421. You know that the county is practically not consulted and that the first intimation is that the road is within its boundary. Do you think that County Councils should have a voice as to whether the time has arrived for taking over these roads ? —I suppose they should. They have got their own interests to look after. 422. You said there were more lease-in-perpetuity than occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenants round Pongaroa : is that because there is not option ?- —Yes, because most of the settlements were settled under lease-in-perpetuity conditions. 423. If they were settled to-day and the option was given, which tenure do you think would be the better ? —As far as the present feeling goes, I think they would take it under the right of purchase. 424. Some of these sections were forfeited —some of the original lease-in-perpetuity sections were forfeited, and they were put up again, in many instances at a reduced price, and with the option. Do you think that was fair to the original settlers who had no option ? —No, it did not seem fair; but I suppose it was according to the Act. These farm-settlement associations were banded together and compelled to take the land up under lease in perpetuity ; they had no option. 425. In justice to the tenants who were under the hardship of taking up the lease in perpetuity and had no option, who forfeited their sections, and have since taken them up, do you think they should have the right of option now I—No.1 —No. 426. For what reason ? —They entered into a bargain, and they should keep it. 427. Do you not think it gives rise to discontent when there is such great inequality of treatment introduced, as in these cases ?—lt gives rise to a certain amount there is no doubt. 428. Has it not caused a great deal of heart-burning amongst the settlers in this district ?—Tes. 429. Do you think the State would suffer if it gave the right of option now ? —I am not prepared to say that. 430. Mr. Anstey.] Do not these people who are now on the land have the same option as those who forfeited the sections : do they not know when forfeiting that they can take up under the new tenure ? —No, the original man had no option. 431. Had they not the option of surrender ?—Yes, they could have surrendered and come under the same conditions as the others. 432. Is it not a fact that some of these forfeited sections are held now by the original men ?—Yes they forfeited and then reselected them. 433. Some of them did not accept this opportunity ? —Yes, some of the settlers would not surrender as the others did. 434. Do you think there is any hardship in the residential condition as now administered by the Board ?—Well, I could not say there is any hardship in it. 435. Do you think it would be wise that these residential conditions should be further relaxed than they are ? —Yes, in certain cases ; to suit different cases they should be relaxed. 436. Should they be further relaxed ?—No, the Board has discretion now to exempt residence if a man has no road. 437. They have sufficient discretion, or are they obliged to break the Act ? —I think they have got
1349
J. B. F. SUTHERLAND.]
a—4.
sufficient now. They can extend residence under the conditions, if the circumstances are such that a man cannot get to his section, they can grant him a term of exemption. 438. You think it wise not to insist on residence conditions except for very grave reasons ? —I should certainly insist on residence in a case providing the man had fair access to his holding, and was in a position to go there. 439. You told us this Pongaroa Road was impassable. We were told that the road there from Pahiatua was metalled for four or five miles ?—Some four or five miles of it was metalled. 440. Is it not a fact that the mails stopped running ? —Yes. 441. Then it is not passable for four-wheeled vehicles ? —Oh, you can get a vehicle along. Peter Heyes examined. 442. The Chairman.] You are Superintendent of the Government Advances to Settlers Office ? — Yes. 443. How long have you been in that position ?—Since last November. 444. But you have been connected with the Department for a long time ? —For seven or eight years previously I had been Inspecting Accountant. 445. Well, in the course of our travels we have heard a great deal about your Department, and about settlers' application for loans, and so on, and in many cases this question of loans has been the subject of complaint. Some witnesses have said that it takes a very long time to go through the various forms of application before they receive a final reply, which sometimes is in the nature of a total refusal, and in many cases that have come before us, the witness said a part if the amount only was offered —perhaps half of what he really required. We have made inquiry from some of your officers, and they have all told us that the Department used every means to satisfy the settlers' demands as quickly as possible, and give them the amounts they applied for, subject, of course, to valuation and report. But in some cases it does seem a very long time ; in some cases four months from the time of application until the applicant has got the Department's final reply, and we thought it was only our duty to make you aware of these facts I—As far as the office is concerned there is no delay whatever. The principal causes of delay are in cases mostly where the valuation has been delayed. In other cases, when the solicitors found the titles defective, and solicitors requiring to be satisfied causes delay ; and in other cases the delay in receiving the consent from the Land Board, but this has much improved of late. In some cases the settlers themselves have been the cause of delay. One instance that occurred to me happened just recently. Some of the applicants are not good correspondents, and they do not reply to letters promptly. There was one instance particularly that I should mention to the Commission. An application was made on the 25th January last, and an offer was made of an advance to him after the application had been received, but the applicant did not reply accepting the same until the 6th March ; then we instructed the solicitor, and wrote to the applicant telling him what to do, and the deeds were not in the hands of the solicitor until the 12th April, although the Department had notified the applicant on the Bth March previously what he had to do. 446. Was he far away in the back blocks ? —Yes, in one of them away from the centres of population; still, any of them can reply in a day or two. 447. You were making up a return for us were you not ? —Yes, I have here a statement showing the amount applied for, the amount granted, and the security offered. In going over that, I found that about 5 per cent, of the applications were for amounts from 100 to 300 per cent, of the value of the security offered. Some of the applications were for sums three times above the value of the security they had to offer. [Return put in.] 448. Of course, there was a refusal in that case ? —Yes. I also found on going through the list that about 25 per cent, of the applications were for amounts from 75 to 100 per cent, of the security offered. 449. You only lend up to two-thirds of the value on the freehold ? —Yes, on instalment mortgages of first-class agricultural land, and three-fifths "on fixed mortgages and other instalment loans, and on the leasehold 50 per cent, of the realisable value of the lessees' interest in the lease. 450. That is, about 5 per cent, of the applications were for amounts from 100 to 300 per cent, of the value of the security offered ?—Yes, and about 25 per cent, asked for from 75 to 100 per cent, of the value of the security offered. Some exceeded in their applications that amount, but these are notorious cases of asking for so much more than they had security to offer. That list gives every case of application, the amount applied for, the amount offered, and the amount of security offered. 451. I do not see a single case that has got an advance up to the limit ? —Oh, yes, there is a great number. In the early days under the late Superintendent they were very chary of lending up to anything like the amount authorised by the Act, as the late Superintendent and the Board were afraid of it. But recently we are lending up to the utmost limit of the Act in every case where the report is favourable ; on the leasehold 50 per cent, of the realisable value of the lessee's interest in the lease, two-thirds in the case of instalment mortgages on first-class agricultural land, and three-fifths in the case of fixed mortgages and other instalment loans for freeholds. 452. You give the " Granteds " but not the " Refuseds " ? —There is a statement showing the aggregates. 453. I see that about one-fourth have been refused ? —A great number did not apply for anything like 25 per cent, of the value of the security offered. It brings down the average well under the margin. Quite a good number applied for very much less than they were entitled to receive on the security. 454. Mr. McCutchanJ] For what period is this list ? —lt covers the whole period from the commencement. 455. The Chairman.] When did it begin ? —lt extends from January, 1895, to the present date. 456. Ten years, practically ?—Yes.
a—4.
1350
[p. HEYES.
457. I observe that~rather more than one-fourth of the applications have been actually refused ? —No ; about one-sixth. 458. And that the"average loan has been a little over £100 in the case of applications for £110 ? —Yes We are making a practice now of lending up to the full limit the Act allows if the report is not unfavourable. We get some unfavourable reports. These are taken into consideration and the offer is made accordingly. 459. Just tell the Commission the process the application goes through from its inception ? —The applications are generally made to the local office or the District Valuer. If the local office is not convenient it is sent to the Head Office direct. The valuer is instructed to make the valuation, and his report is received with the application, and comes before the Board at the next meeting. The Board meets weekly, and no applications are left over from one week to another. All the applications received within an hour of the Board meeting are put before it, dealt with on the spot, and the offer is made according to the decision of the Board. When the full amount is granted, or on receipt of advice that an offer for a reduced amount has been accepted, the office Solicitor is immediately instructed to prepare the necessary mortgage, and upon receipt of his certificate that the mortgage has been executed the loan-money is promptly remitted to the Solicitor's official account at the Bank of New Zealand and is available for payment. 460. Does it not require to go to the Commissioner of Crown Lands as well ? —We generally, as soon as the application is received, send to the Crown Lands Office for their consent and report. That has been one source of considerable delay in times past, but now they are very much more expeditious. 461. All this preliminary work will be done before you come to a final decision ?—Yes. In some instances, perhaps, the valuer has been sick, in another case he has been away in another district, and some delay occurred in consequence. • 462. Is there not another matter that causes delay : is not the valuation fee, in some cases, quite inadequate for the amount of the application ?■ —That is not a difficulty. 463. May not this happen : supposing there is an application from a distant part of a province, and the valuer is unable to deal with that one application until there are other applications from the same locality, so that he can report on them at the one journey ? —I do not think this is so, because others may not be received, and it is impossible to say when others may be received. That is a Valuation Department matter. I have no control over the Valuation Department at all. 464. Mr. Paul.] Some witnesses before the Commission have said that your Board discriminates between the lease in perpetuity and the occupation with right of purchase: is that so ? —No, decidedly. It is incorrect. 465. Are the advances governed by the amount of money the Department may lend annually ? — For about twelve or eighteen months the amounts were restricted to £500, owing to the scarcity of money. That was until quite recently. They have never been entirely refused. I have seen it stated that it was owing to there being no money. That was never the case, but the amount was limited owing to the restricted money-market. In January of last year the Cabinet desired the Board to give preference to those who wanted up to £500, and the Board restricted the lending to any amounts up to £500. 466. Supposing there was a great demand for money from the Advances to Settlers Office, could the office supply that demand at present ?—We have raised the limit to £1,500 or £2,000. The Act allows up to £3,000, but the funds have not been sufficient to keep up to the full limit allowed by the Act, but we have raised it during the last four months from £500 to about £2,000. As money gets a little easier we are extending the limit from time to time. 467. Is the total amount the Board may lend in one year fixed by Act ? —lt was at first, but it is not so now. There is no limit now. 468. A valuer made the suggestion the other day, regarding the matter of loss of time, that when a settler required a loan for the purpose of purchasing stock it would be good policy for him to apply for it before he wanted it. This valuer said that that would get over the difficulty. Do you think it was a good suggestion ? —No doubt the settler left the matter to the last moment and then expected to get the money within the next day or two. 469. Yes, that was borne out by the official evidence ? —No doubt it is so. 470. There has been a great demand made to the Commission that the valuation fee should be returned if the loan was not granted ? —We do return it if the work has not been done ; but where the work has been done Ido not see why the valuation fee should be returned. In some cases we have found, on the face of the application, that there would not be anything like the security to justify the loan, and so we have returned a letter saying that there was no prospect of the applicant getting anything like the amount asked for, and unless we heard further we would return the fee and go no further in the matter. But where the application is received and the valuer has been instructed to report and has gone to the expense of three or four times the amount of the fee I do not see why we should return it. 471. The settler generally wishes to know what his valuation is : is there any objection to your office giving him that information ? —No. Generally the valuers, if there is any one on the place at the time, give them an idea of what their valuation will be, but they do not give them the full report, which is confidential. 472. Would there be any objection to giving the settler the amount of valuation ?—I do not see any difficulty ; we invariably do this. 473. Of course, you know that at present the valuation for taxation purposes and the valuation made for the granting of a loan do not coincide ; there is a great difference ?—I do not know about a great difference ; there may be a difference in some cases.
1351
C.—4.
P. HEYES.I
474. The settler contends that the difference is always against him when he requires a loan : is that correct ? —I do not think that is correct. I think it is invariably the other way. 475. Settlers have urged very grave complaints against the Board in this way : They have applied for a loan of £200, and the office has made a valuation and offered them only £100. The settler has refused that, and it is said he has gone to a private money-lender and got £300 without any trouble ; but, of course, with the drawback that he has to pay a big interest. Is that complaint justified ?— Very often there is collateral security given over the stock and other things to the private money-lender He takes a mixed mortgage of stock and land and charges a higher rate. I knew such a case, which happened a few months ago, where the settler had been paying 8 per cent, on a mixed mortgage. 476. That is something your Department cannot take ? —We cannot take any chattel securities. 477. Have you any knowledge, directly or indirectly, of loans having been obtained from your office for large sums and put out again in smaller sums by the settler obtaining the money at a higher rate of interest ?—I do not see how that is possible. 478. We have had evidence to that effect, but, unfortunately, evidence is not proof in all cases ? —There may be cases where a man has been entitled to receive a large sum and does not require it to spend, and he may let it out to his neighbours. 479. Of course, there is no possibility of your checking that ? — No; we could not possibly prevent it. 480. If he made a genuine application, and had the security, it would be the duty of the Board to advance the money ? —We must advance it to any person who applied, so long as the security is there and there is nothing against the application. If the report is favourable and the security is there we must grant it. 481. Can you see any reason why the Board should discriminate in favour of the occupation with right of purchase as against the lease in perpetuity ? —I do not see any. 482. Latterly the Board has been administering the Act more liberally, has it not ? —Yes. Under the present policy the Board is doing everything it possibly can to fairly help the settlers. We are doing that as far as we can within the limits of the Act. 483. Mr. Johnston.'] We have had complaints in evidence respecting the action of the Department in refusing applications for loans, and I think it is only right you should have the opportunity of presenting the Department's reply to those complaints. Have you seen those complaints ? —Yes ; I have watched the newspaper reports. I have the reports of the cases here and also my replies, which I will read :— 6. R. Hilton, market gardener, said, at Invercargill, he had been offered by the Land Board a loan of £75 on improvements valued at £235, and he had had to get the assistance of a Minister of the Crown to make the Board offer more. There followed a long catalogue of trials, culminating in the giving of a mortgage to a private lender over the improvements because the Land Board would not give enough, and he was told that he would have got more if he had had the freehold. Witness's opinion was that there was a general feeling of dissatisfaction amongst the settlers round about him at the disabilities under which they laboured, by reason of their being leaseholders, in the matter of obtaining loans. Incidentally, witness mentioned that from his own experience as next-door neighbour of freeholders, he was of opinion that leasehold land, as a rule, was far better cultivated than freehold land. Witness, when seeking for a loan, had been told by a lender that he would have given him £200 on his house had he had the right to the freehold, however remote. In explanation of certain views of his own, witness said he thought the Government was so impoverished that it had to make a big show with the valuations in order to raise money. In this case an advance of £100 was asked for upon a perpetual-lease interest in 10 acres situated in the Seaward Bush Township. The improvements comprised four-roomed house valued at £190, clearing (5 acres) £15, and 30 chains fencing £15, total £220. A loan of £75 was offered and accepted. I may say that the Board is entirely independent and free from Ministerial influence. The Minister has a seat on the Board in order to represent the views of the Government on questions of policy, &c., when necessary, but does not exercise any preponderating influence in respect of advances made by the Board. Advances are made solely at the discretion of the Board, 50 per cent, of the value of the lessee's interest on the valuation of the Government District Valuer being the limit, which may not be exceeded by the Board. The decision in every case is arrived at after a very careful consideration of the valuer's report, and of a variety of circumstances surrounding the application. In addition to ascertaining the extent and character of the improvements, management, condition, and quality of the land, whether the rent is paid up, and whether the annual payment is considered by the lessee as satisfactory, there are the prospects, general character, and financial position of the appliant to be considered, and it is safe to say that every resolution of the General Board in respect of an application is regulated by the amount which a sale by public auction of the relative security may be estimated to realise, as well as by the risk of any loss. Crown tenants, generally speaking, seem to ask for more money than they expect to obtain, and not infrequently do they apply for advances exceeding the capital value of their holdings. For the classes of security upon which the Department is authorised to lend money I will refer to the pamphlet issued by the Department:— " The Government Advances to Settlers Act, 1894," provided for the lending of money to settlers on the security of land in the colony other than urban and suburban land. Under the amending Act of 1899 these provisions have been extended so as to include urban and suburban freehold land, and so make it eligible for loan purposes. The following explanatory memoranda are issued with the view of placing before thee public the chief provisions of the original Act of 1894 and the various amending Acts. 1. All communications to the office should be addressed as follows, and when so addressed will go free by post: " The Superintendent, Government Advances to Settlers Office, Wellington, New Zealand." 2. The business of the office is the advancing of money in New Zealand on first mortgage of lands and improvements held under the following classes of tenure, free from all encumbrances, liens, and
1352
[P. HEYES.
0.—4.
interests other than leasehold interests, that is to say : (1.) Freehold land held in fee-simple under " The Land Transfer Act, 1885," or freehold land held in fee-simple the title to which is registered under " The Deeds Registration Act, 1868." (2.) Crown land held on perpetual lease under " The Land Act, 1885." (3.) Crown land held under Parts 111. and IV. of " The Land Act, 1892." (4.) Crown land held on lease as a small grazing-run under " The Land Act, 1885," or under " The Land Act, 1892." (5.) Crown land held on agricultural lease under " The Mining Act, 1891." (6.) Crown land held on lease (not being for mining purposes) under " The Westland and Nelson Coalfields Administration Act, 1877." (7.) Native land held on lease under " The West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881," or under the Act of 1892. (8.) Land held on lease under " The Westland and Nelson Native Reserves Act, 1887." (9.) Land held under " The Thermal Springs Districts Act, 1881." (10.) Educational and other reserves which are subject to the provisions of " The Land Act 1877 Amendment Act, 1882," by virtue of Proclamation made under section 50 thereof, or " The Land Act, 1885," by virtue of Proclamation made under section 237 thereof, or " The Land Act, 1892," by virtue of Proclamation made under section 243 thereof, and are held on perpetual lease or lease in perpetuity, or on deferredpayment or small-grazing-run systems. (11.) Crown land held by license on the deferred-payment system under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1885." (12.) Land held under lease from a leasing authority, as defined by " The Public Bodies' Powers Act, 1887," and providing for the payment by the incoming tenant of valuation for improvements made upon the land, whether by the lessee named in such lease or any former lessee as tenant. With regard to classes 10 and 12, a lease is not eligible if it provides for absolute forfeiture (without compensation) for breach of conditions, or if on the determination of the lease compensation is to be allowed for certain improvements only. 3. Mortgages are granted either on the instalment or the fixed-loan system (fully described hereafter), and the margins of security required by the Act are as follows : (1.) On all freeholds (other than urban or suburban) three-fifths of the value may be advanced either on the instalment or fixed-loan system : Provided that in the case of first-class agricultural freeholds instalment loans may be advanced up to two-thirds of the value. (2.) On leaseholds (other than urban or suburban) one-half of the value of the lessee's interest in the lease may be advanced on the instalment system. No loans are granted under the fixed-loan system on leaseholds. (3.) On urban and suburban freeholds, loans are granted on the instalment system only, and the amounts of loan are limited as follow : (a.) On urban freehold on which buildings exist, three-fifths of the value of the land, plus one-half the value of the buildings, may be advanced ; (6.) on suburban freehold on which buildings exist, one-half the value of the land, plus one-half the value of the buildings, may be advanced ; (c.) on urban or suburban freehold on which no buildings exist, one-half the value of the land may be advanced, but on such security no loan shall be granted except for the erection of buildings on the land : the loan to be advanced by instalments at the discretion of the Board, as the erection of the buildings proceeds. 4. " Urban land " means land which is situate in a borough having a population of at least 2,000 inhabitants and is not used for farming, dairying, or market-gardening purposes. " Suburban land " means land which is situate in a borough having a population of less than 2,000 inhabitants, or in any town, or in the vicinity of any town or borough, and is not used for farming, dairying, or market-gar-dening purposes. Lands situated within towns which are used for farming, dairying, or market-gar-dening are treated in accordance with paragraph 3, (1), (2), hereof. The right of determining what land may be considered " urban " or " suburban," or " first-class agricultural," is imposed by the Act on the General Lending Board. 5. The security which the applicant offers for the loan must consist of one or more holdings of the several classes of tenure mentioned in the foregoing paragraph 2, and must, of course, be of the necessary value ; and, if the security is leasehold, all the covenants and conditions of the lease, including the payment of rent, must have been regularly complied with. Crown lessees should note that " The Land Act, 1892," provides that leases under that Act must be at least twelve months in existence before they can be mortgaged. 6. Any person desiring an advance should make a written application on the form provided for the purpose, a copy of which can be obtained from any Postmaster in the colony. The Postmaster will also supply an envelope in which the application may be forwarded free of postage, and will afford to the applicant any explanation which may be required respecting the filling-in of the application. 7. In the case for an application for an advance on the security of an interest in land held under a lease or license issued from the Lands Department (and belonging to one or more of the classes of tenure numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, in paragraph 2 hereof), a notice of the application must be forwarded to the Commissioner of Crown Lands for the district in which the land is situated. The requisite form and an envelope for forwarding it free of postage may be obtained from any Postmaster in the colony. 8. No loan of less than £25 or more than £3,000 can be granted, and in the case of " urban " or " suburban " lands the maximum loan is fixed at £2,000. All applications must be accompanied by a valuation fee according to the following scale : On an application for a loan not exceeding £100, 10s. 6d. ; exceeding £100 but not exceeding £250, £1 Is. ; exceeding £250 but not exceeding £500, £1 lis. 6d. ; exceeding £500 but not exceeding £3,000, £2 2s. 9. If the applicant has already obtained any advance under this Act and is desirous of obtaining a further advance, either on the same security or on a separate security, the amount of the application, added to the amount of the advances already obtained, must not exceed the limit mentioned above— £3,000 for farming and £2,000 for urban or suburban lands. 10. Mortgages granted on the' fixed-loan system may be for any period not exceeding ten years, and the principal is repayable at the end of the term. They may also be repaid in whole or in part on any half-yearly due date during the term, as explained hereafter. Interest at the rate of 5 per cent.
1353
C—4.
P. HETES.I
is payable"half-yearly, reducible to 4| per cent, provided payment is made not later than fourteen days after due'date and no arrears remain outstanding.^*^ 11. Mortgages granted on the instalment system are repayable by seventy-three half-yearly payments of principal and interest combined. They may also be repaid in whole or in part at any time. Interest is charged at the rate of 5 per cent., reducible to 4| per cent, provided payment is made not later than fourteen days after due date and no arrears remain outstanding. 12. Every half-yearly instalment, except the last, is at the rate of rebate of interest in case of prompt payment) for every £100 of the loan. 13. The mortgagor, under the instalment system, may pay to the Superintendent at any time, and under the fixed-loan system on any half-yearly due date, the whole balance of principal owing with interest to date of payment, and obtain a discharge of the mortgage on payment of the fee prescribed for such discharge. 14. The mortgagor may also from time to time pay to the Superintendent, in addition to the halfyearly payments, sums of £5 or a multiple of £5, and in the case of fixed loans such deposits will be applied in reduction of the advance, and interest will be charged on the balance only ; or, if the mortgagor so directs, such deposits will be held on his behalf and applied in payment of the half-yearly instalments of interest as they fall due. In the case of an instalment loan, money paid in advance by a mortgagor may be applied in one of the following methods, according as he directs : (a.) It may be held on his behalf and applied in payment of the half-yearly instalments (consisting partly of interest and partly of principal) as they fall due, until the deposit is exhausted. (b.) It may be applied at once in payment of as many future half-yearly instalments of principal (but not of interest) as it will cover, and, as far as such instalments are concerned, the corresponding interest will not be charged. On the next halfyearly date, however, the mortgagor will be required to continue his payments as before, the advance payment having the effect of reducing the period (thirty-six years and a half) during which he would have to pay such instalments. For instance, a mortgagor has a loan of £100 : On the due date of his eighth half-yearly instalment he pays, in addition to the amount due, a sum of £5. This is applied in payment of his ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth instalments of principal—l2s. 2d., 12s. 6d„ 12s. 10d., 13s. Id., 13s. 5d., 13s. 9d., 14s. 2d. (see table), making a total of £4 lis. lid., and the corresponding interest—£2 7s. 10d., £2 7s. 6d., £2 7s. 2d., £2 6s. lid., £2 6s. 7d., £2 6s. 3d., £2 ss. 10d.—is not charged. A balance of Bs. Id. remains in his favour. Then, on the next due date he has to make the half-yearly payment as usual (less Bs. Id.), but, instead of being the ninth, it counts as the sixteenth instalment, and by this means the whole loan is repaid three years and a half earlier (seven half-yearly payments) than it otherwise would be. (c.) It may be applied as provided in paragraph 15. Advance payments in reduction of the mortgage, unless made on the due date of a half-yearly payment, take effect only from the next due date. Readjustment of Loans. 15. On the due date of any instalment, after a least one-tenth of the loan has been repaid, by means of the half-yearly instalments or of moneys repaid in advance, or both, the mortgagor (provided he is not in arrear with any instalment or other payment due under the mortgage) may, with the consent of the Superintendent, readjust the loan by treating the balance of principal then unpaid as a fresh loan duly granted on that date for a fresh term. But no readjustment is allowed unless the balance of unpaid principal amounts to at least £100. Under this arrangement the mortgagor will be relieved of paying interest on the original amount of the loan, and will pay only on the balance of principal not repaid. 16. The law-costs payable for preparing and completing the mortgages under the Act are as under, but the mortgagor will require to pay also a reasonable fee for any additional work that the solicitor may have to undertake : Mortgages under " The Land Transfer Act, 1885 Law-costs of perusing title, preparing and registering mortgage (to be deducted from the advance)—lf advance be not exceeding £250, 7s. 6d. ; exceeding £250 but not exceeding 7 £soo, 10s. ; exceeding £500 but not exceeding £750, 15s. ; exceeding £750 but not exceeding £1,000, £1 Is. ; exceeding £1,000 but not exceeding £1,500, £1 6s. ; exceeding £1,500 but not exceeding £2,000, £1 lis. 6d. ; exceeding £2,000 but not exceeding £3,000, £1 17s. 6d. : with cash disbursements, which are the same in every case, namely—Mortgageforms, 2s. ; search fee, 2s. ; registration, 10s. (with an additional 2s. for every certificate of title after the first). Mortgages under " The Deeds Registration Act, 1868 " : Law-costs of perusing title, preparing and registering mortgage (to be deducted from the advance) —If advance be not exceeding £150, 18s. ; exceeding £150 but not exceeding £250, £1 os. 6d. ; exceeding £250 but not exceeding £500, £1 ss. ; exceeding £500 but not exceeding £750, £1 13s. ; exceeding £750 but not exceeding £1,000, £2 3s. ; exceeding £1,000 but not exceeding £1,500, £2 13s. ; exceeding £1,500 but not exceeding £2,000, £3 13s. ; exceeding £2,000 but not exceeding £3,000, £4 13s. : with cash disbursements. Fee chargeable by solicitor not residing in registration centre for employing agent to register mortgage, ss. ; solicitor's charge for obtaining Land Board's consent to mortgage of leasehold land—lf advance be not exceeding £250, 2s. ; exceeding £250,|55. ; fee for partial or total discharge of mortgage, 5s ; fee for execution of consent by the Superintendent to any document, ss. ; fee for production of title-deeds held by the Superintendent, ss. 6d. 17. No commission or charge or procuration fee for the promotion of an advance—that is, for the successful result of the application for the loan —should be paid or levied. The Government Advances to Settlers Office, P• Heyes, Wellington, Ist February, 1904. Superintendent. Michael O'Connor, of Tetua, said he farmed 780 acres under the lease-in-perpetuity system. His improvements on one section totalled £265, but a request for a loan of £70 was refused. His desire for freehold was due to his experience of his desired loan. He believed that, in whatever position the
170—C. 4.
C.—4.
1354
TP. HEYES.
generality of settlers were now, if they were taking up land again they would want the right of purchase. His objection to his present form of tenure was the difficulty of obtaining a loan under it, or of disposing of the land to advantage. This applicant applied for an advance of £70 upon his lease-in-perpetuity interest in Section 5, Block XVI., Longwood, containing 398 acres 3 roods. The improvements consisted of clearing (65 acres), £100; 60 acres grass (surface-sown), £25: and 120 chains fencing, value £30 : total, £155. Applicant, who was two payments of rent in arrear, bought the lease of an adjoining section, to which he removed the building formerly upon Section 5. Improvements appeared to be neglected, and property reported very slow of sale. Supervising Valuer could not recommend advance. Application declined accordingly. * Dunedin, March 24.—The evidence given before the Land Commission by Pomahaka settlers was that the sections were too small, and the land was too dear. 2,000 acres of Pomahaka at present were unoccupied. The Advances to Settlers Department had refused advances to Pomahaka settlers, stating that the land, even with improvements added, was not worth the rents settlers were paying. One settler, Donald McGregor, declared that the official reports concerning Pomahaka, sent from Wellington, were falsified. All the witnesses preferred the freehold, characterizing the lease in perpetuity as a " bastard freehold," and not good for anybody. In this case £100 was applied for on the lease-in-perpetuity interest in Section 20, Block XIII., 247 acres and 6 perches. As, however, the applicant was paying rent on a capital value of £799, and the total value of the proferred security was assessed at only £710 it is obvious that no loan could be granted. Moreover, rent was in arrear for nearly two years, the sum owing being £80 65., and it was considered by the Board that if a lessee is unable to keep his rent paid up he would only be still more embarrassed if he had the instalments on a mortgage as well as rent to meet. Edward S. Smith, occupying 685 acres of the Elderslie Settlement at 6s. 6d. an acre, expressed himself well satisfied with the tenure. He was not satisfied with the Advances to Settlers Department. With £750 of improvements he had asked for an advance of £300, and was offered £150. He refused this. The Government should be prepared to advance money on their own property. Three-fifths would be a reasonable proportion.——Three hundred pounds was applied for on the lease-in-perpetuity interest of Section 15, Block XI., Awamoko, 685 acres. The improvements were valued at £637, and the lessee's interest in the lease at £575. Two-thirds of the property was good undulating agricultural land, the balance comprising steep faces, being suitable for grazing purposes only. The annual rent appeared high, and the property reported to be occasionally affected by droughts. An advance r of £150 was offered and accepted, but the mortgage was not completed. Thomas O'Connor, a freeholder, objected, at Oamaru, to the compulsory insurance under the advances-to-settlers scheme against liability under the Employers' Liability Act. Arrangements have since been made whereby the whole cost of mortgagor's accident indemnity insurance in respect of Department's mortgages is borne by the Advances to Settlers Office. Gerald Casey, holder of 200 acres of freehold at Claremont, complained of the Advances to Settlers Office. A year ago he had applied for a loan, and had given notice to his landlord that he intended to buy his holding. After waiting two months, the Department had written, refusing the loan. The office was no good whatever. This applicant applied on the 23rd October, 1903, for a loan of £1,500 to complete the purchase of freehold of Lot 6, part Rural Section 15800, which he held under-lease from Mr. G. H. Rhodes with a purchasing clause. The amount asked for was granted on the 10th November, and the solicitor was on the following day instructed to prepare the necessary mortgage. Mr. Casey, however, did not require the money until the Ist of April—five months later—and the matter was not completed. The application was renewed in March, but owing to insufficient funds it could not then be entertained. r fr'' Robert Norrish, settler on lease in perpetuity, complained, at Timaru, that he had had dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office, but had been uanble to get the money he required. The Department does not appear to have received an application from a settler of this name. . Edmond Vague, holder of 300 acres on lease in perpetuity on the Levels Estate, said his experience of the Advances to Settlers Office had not been satisfactory, and he preferred dealing with private financial firms. In this case an advance of £350 was offered in response to an application for £400 upon the security of freehold land situate at Papanui, comprising 5 acres rural and 1 rood 24 perches residential. The value was assessed at £462 and £368, respectively. Buildings formed a large portion of the security, and this, doubtless, was the reason for not granting the full amount applied for. The offer was not accepted. John Diggins, who holds 200 acres on occupation with right of purchase, 200 acres education lease, and 294 acres on lease in perpetuity, all within five miles of Strathmore, wanted the right to acquire the freehold. His experience of the Advances to Settlers Department was not encouraging. Some time ago he applied for an advance, but the amount offered was so small that it was not worth accepting. He believed the money was not "there to advance. Afterwardsfjwitness the money from private sources. This incident occurred in respect to a deferred-purchase lease.——One hundred and seventy-five pounds was advanced to this applicant in April, 1903, in response to an application for a loan of £350 on his lease-in-perpetuity interest in Sections 4 and 31, Block XV., Ngatimaru, containing 288 acres —the security being valued at £427. Five hundred pounds additional was applied for in May, 1904, when £150 more was offered, the realisable value of his interest in the land being set down at £751. The total amount granted, £325, was within £50 of the margin allowed by the Act. The clearing and grassing and fencing were considered to be too highly valued, and this, doubtless, influenced the Board in not authorising a full advance. At Stratford, Joseph McCluggage, storekeeper, farmer, &c., a member of the Taranaki Land Board, said that a few years ago the. Advances to Settlers Office was the most conservative money-lending institution in New Zealand, so much so, in fact, that for a time it was a dead-letter so far as Crown
1355
C.--4.
P. HETES.
tenants were concerned. Leaseholders should be able to borrow up to three-fifths of the value of their holdings. To Mr. Johnston : The Advances to Settlers Office had absolutely refused money on the grounds that they were too far back, and their holdings were leasehold. The result was that settlers had to pay 8 per cent, to private money-lenders. In the first years of the working of the Department the operations of the lending Board may have been open to a construction of this kind, but this is not now the case. Money is freely advanced, within the statutory limit provided by the Act, to Crown tenants situated almost anywhere in the colony on their leasehold interests—provided the Board is satisfied that the security is there. J. McFarlane, holding 68 acres under lease in perpetuity, on the AorangijjSettlement, dealing with the Advances to Settlers Office, said the sums offered were usually insufficient. Mr.? McFarlane obtained an advance of £90 in response to an application for a loanjof £100 on his lease-in-perpetuity interest in Section 12, Block XIV., Oroua, containing 68 acres 1 rood 4 perches, the realisable value of the applicant's interest being £182. The full amount (50 per cent.) allowed by the Act was granted.; Charles Alfred Finnerty, settler, said, at Stratford, settlers should not be restricted in the matter of borrowing money. They were as well able to manage their financial affairs as any other class. He had known instances where settlers had paid 10 per cent, in order that they might get the money at once. Too much delay occurred in the Advances to Settlers Office. To Mr. Paul: He considered the valuers under the Advances to Settlers Department should get through their work more expeditiously, but he was not prepared to advocate a general reorganization of the Department and its system. No application has been received from this man. Michael J. Corrigan, Waikakahi, Timaru : An advance of £300 was sought on applicant's interest on a farm-homestead allotment, Section 14, Block XV., Mangaone, 200 acres, lease in perpetuity. The valuer valued the improvements at £461, the realisable value of which was assessed by the Supervising Valuer at £250. An advance of £125 was offered and accepted. Later on Corrigan applied for £250 additional, when £200 was granted and accepted, the total value of his improvements being assessed at £650. It will be seen that the full margin of the security allowed by the Act (50 per cent.) was granted in this case. This applicant expressed the opinion that it was necessary for an applicant to ask for considerably more than he required. He also stated that his improvements were worth £700. William E. DeC. Hughes, at Tokorahi : After I received notice about the forfeiture of my land I had to make arrangements for putting on my improvements, and I applied to the Advances to Settlers Department for a loan of £400. They offered me £250, and were to retain £100 of that as security for the erection of the house I proposed to put up. 211. Did you accept that offer ?—No. [Witness here read correspondence between himself and the Department with regard to his application for a loan.] The house, as a matter of fact, was finished before I got my reply from the Advances to Settlers Office about the loan I asked for. They would only advance me £250, but I was able to get from a private source £500 at 5 per cent, for five years, with a right of renewal. I consider that a tenant ought to be able to look to his own landlord for the money that he requires for improvements and not to have to go to private individuals. There is also too much delay in sending applications through so many officers. The tenant has no confidence put into him. The Prime Minister, who is a member of the lending Board, speaking at Stratford the other day, said that he must put his finger on the spot where the weakness was. All these things point to the fact that the Crown tenant would be better off under the freehold. 212. Mr. McCardle.] Have you got any sound reasons to advance why the freehold should be granted to Crown tenants ?—I think they would be in a better position with the freehold. It would be beneficial to them and to the State. 213. With reference to the Advances to Settlers Department, can you suggest any amendment I —l. think they should be able to advance up to three-fifths. 214. In lending money do you think the Government ought to first consider their own tenants ?—Yes. 215. If the Advances to Settlers Department advanced up to three-fifths of the tenant's interest you think that would be more satisfactory to the tenant ?—Yes. 216. Do you think the State would run any risk if these moneys were paid back by instalments ? —I do not think so. Four hundred pounds was required for building purposes on the applicant's lease-in-perpetuity interest in 367 acres 3 roods 36 perches, Maerewhenua Survey District. The improvements were valued at £341, and the Board offered an advance of £250, £100 of which was to be retained till the proposed building was erected and insured in the Superintendent's name, as mortgagee. The offer was declined. E. Vague, Pleasant Point : 107. Have you had any experience with the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Yes. 108. Was it satisfactory ? —No. 109. Do you think the Act could stand amending in the direction of being more liberal ?—They could amend it how they liked, but a I wouldjhave no more to do with it. 110. You do not think, then, it has been a good thing for the country ? —I am straight-spoken. I came here with £500 cash, and I had other property in North Canterbury. I found the £500 was not nearly enough to enable me to carry on, so I went and mortgaged my place to a small extent. First of all I went to the Advances to Settlers Office, and, after being interviewed by a young man, I was told he did not think the office had any money to lend. I said it was a peculiar thing that the office was kept open when they had no money. He said he would write and see. He asked me how much I wanted, and said I might as well sign a form, which he filled in. I said I wanted £300, and he said he would send the application to Wellington. It was sent to Wellington I got a reply from the Board stating they could not grant me as much as I wanted. They offered me a sum that was short of my requirements. I may say that before the application was sent away they took fine care to collect £1 10s. from me. My property was worth considerably more than they offered. I then went to an outside firm and told them my case and how much money I wanted, and they said all right, and the money was transferred to my account in the Bank of New Zealand without the slightest trouble. 111. Then, from a public point of view, but not from a personal point of view, you think the Act requires amending ? —Certainly, I do. I applied to a private firm for £150 more than I asked from the Government Department, and I got it without any trouble. 112. Notwithstanding your experience, do you not think the Act has had a good influence on the money-market in the
C—4.
1356
r P. HEYES.
colony ?—I can only speak of my own experience. 113. Mr. McCutchan.] You speak a little harshly about the Advances to' Settlers Department ? —Yes. 114.i You said youfpaid a fee of £1 10s. when you sent in your application : fee ?—I do not know what it was. 115. Did not a valuer inspect your property and see what your'improvements were ?—He may have done so after I went away. T know I paid £1 10s. and I got nothing for it. 116. say'that the valuer did not visit your property? —No. 117. Are you aware the Department, on leasehold property, only advances up to 50 per cent. value of the improvements as"estimated by their valuer"?— Yes ; but it seems to me a peculiar thing that IJ could' go [to an outside firm and get £150 more without any trouble. 118. At an equally reasonable rate of interest ? —Yes ; I paid 5 per cent. 119. Did you pay a procuration fee ? —No. 120. Were your legal expenses asfreasonable as under the Advances to Settlers Department ?—Quite. Four hunderd pounds (not £300 as stated by the applicant) was asked on 5 acres 1 rood|24 perches of freehold security, situated at Christchurch, and valued at £830. An advance of £350 was offered but not accepted. Buildings formed a large proportion of the security. A valuation fee of £1 lis. 6d. was collected, which is the correct|amount> payable|an on application for a loan exceeding £250. j|| L. W. Murray, Tokorahi : 40. Mr. Anstey.] Can you tell us in what way the Advances to Settlers Department did not suit you ?—I made an application through the agent here for £100 to enable me to complete my buildings. The house was in course of erection at the time. The rents are payable in advance, and I did not pay my rent in advance for the second half of the year. Owing to the reason I have indicated I dropped negotiations with the Department and made arrangements with a private party. 41. Is there any more difficulty in a lease-in-perpetuity settler getting an advance than any other settler ?—I have had no difficulty in dealing with agents, and I believe if I wished an advance on my farm I could get it without any trouble 45. Mr. Matheson.] You referred to bad seasons. Do you think it would be right for the Government to give a rebate in the case of very good seasons ?—That opens up a very wide question. While the Advances to Settlers Department has a surplus I think it is quite right that they should make concessions to a tenant who has had the misfortune to take up land under extraordinary conditions, and who has suffered owing to bad seasons. One hundred pounds was asked for on the applicant's lease-in-perpetuity interest in Section 9, Block VIII., Maerewhenua, containing 462 acres 3 roods 5 perches. The improvements comprised house and hut valued at £207, and fencing £20 : total, £227. The application declined, because the rent was in arrear to the extent of £78. The sum available, after satisfying rent, would have bse i inadequate for the applicant's needs—viz., building house ard erecting fences. Isaac Curt's, Albury Settlement, Canterbury : 87. Do you know anything abo.it the Advances to Settlers Office ?—I borrowed £100, and want to get more. I put £497 or the-'eabouts on the place, and £100 was all 1 could get from the Department, and it took me six months to get it. 88. Do you think that a higher amount should be granted to the tenants ? —Yes, I do ; and it could be done with safety. One hundred and fifty pounds was offered and accepted in response to an application for a loan of £200 oi the applicant's lease-in-perpetuity interest in Section 30, Block XV., Tengawai, containing 326 acres 2 roods, which was assessed at £324. Later on an additional advance of £175 was sought, the applicant's interest being then valued at £430. Nothing further was granted, because the lessee, who had expressed dissatisfaction with the rent he was paying, owed £114 in respect of the same. Further, a considerable area of the holding was infested with Californian th'st'e. Eliza Waite, Seadown, Canterbury : 345. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Yes. It appears to me to be a swindle. I applied for an advance of £60 for building purposes. [ had to pay a fee of 10s. 6d. to the Government valuer, and then the Board only offered me an advance of £40, which I could not eccept. But they offered, if I would put up more buildings, to give me more money. I put up further buildings, and then I asked for an advance of £100. I had to pay another 10s. 6d. for the valuer's fee, and word came back that they could not advance the money, and when I inquired they told me they would not advance anything. The valuation was £590, and the Advances to Settle :b would not advance me anything on it 348. Mr. Anstey.] Is your valuation of £590 for improvements a valuation made for the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Yes; Mr. Allen came and valued it, and sent the valuation up to the Advances to Settlers Office. In 1899 £100 was required on applicant's lease-in-perpetuity interest in 26 acres 1 rood 16 perches, situated in the Kereta Settlement, for the purpose of adding two rooms to her house. The improvements comprised—house, three rooms, value £70; and cow-shed, £30 : total, £100. An advance of £40 was offered and declined. The application was renewed in March, 1903, and whilst the house had been added to, thereby increasing her interest to £190, a loan was not recommended because of a dispute between the applicant and a neighbour about a watercourse ; owing to an overflow of water about 5 acres of the proffered security was waterlogged. The Department was advised that the dispute was solely the result of obstinacy on the part of applicant and her husband in not giving their neighbour peaceably an outlet for surplus water. The Chief Valuer endeavoured to settle the matter, but did not succeed. Charles E. Baynon, Riccarton : I applied for a loan of £50, in order to put up two more rooms. I was earning fairly good money at the time. I applied, as I have said, for £50, and they only let me have.£4o, so I had to borrow £10 from a friend. I think such a system as that adopted by the Advances to Settlers Office is likely to lead to abuse, in this way : that an applicant will apply for more money than he really requires, thereby making provision for a possible reduction. I got the loan very promptly. I notice some people have complained of the delay in obtaining loans from the Department. I think I got my loan within a week. It was necessary that I should get it promptly, as I thus obtained a discount on the price of the timber. The loan of £40 cost me £2 9s. I thought at the time it was a very high charge, as it came to a little more than 6 per cent. I had to go to a lawyer in obtaining the loan, and I strongly object to that. I think if the Government lend money to settlers they should complete the whole business, and not necessitate the applicant going to an outside lawyer. I had to pay £1 18s. 6d.
P. HEYES.]
1357
C.—4.
for costs and 10s. 6d. for the valuation fee, so that the loan cost me altogether?£2[9s. In looking up thejjYear-book^ gthatjlgwwats t Therejis 6s. that I cannot account for. 289. Mr. Johnston.] Do you not know that there is a regulation charge ? —The facts are as I have stated, and there is 6s. that 1 cannot account for 293. Mr. Anstey.] Did you have to pay £2 9s. for the loan of £40 ?—Yes. 294. Then, you only actually got £37 lis. ? —Yes. 295. And upon that £37 lis. you have to pay interest upon £40 ? —Yes. 296. Do you think the charge is too high ? — Yes. Fifty pounds was required on applicant's lease-in-perpetuity interest in Section 19, Block X., Wharenui Settlement, containing 2 acres 2 roods. The improvements comprised a partially built house worth £85, and fencing, £5. An advance of £40 was offered and accepted. A further advance of £90 has recently been granted upon security the total value of which is assessed at £260. J. H. McLean, Te Tua : lam a farmer in the Te Tua district. I have 260 acres on lease in perpetuity, and have resided on it for three years and a half. At the time I took up the land 1 had no capital. When I say I had no capital, it was bound up in a big family and was very slow at returning interest. That accounts for my taking up land under that tenure ; otherwise I would have taken it up under the optional system. My position now is that if I wish to get money my capital is not fully developed, and if I want a little money to work it I can only get it at a very high rate. I could not get it from any private firm, and the Advances to Settlers Department gave me to understand that they did not favour my position. The valuer said that should there be a default under that tenure the Department has very little hold upon the improvements. Should there be a default the Land Board steps in and takes the property, and disposes of t,he t improvements as they consider to the best advantage. lam in favour of lease with right of purchase. Most people hope to become freeholders, and I think that all holders of the lease in perpetuity should have an opportunity of making the land their own at some time or other. Possibly £he defect could be remedied in some way by giving the Advances to Settlers Department some more say in the administration of the estate Supposing the Advances to Settlers Act were amended and they treated the settlers liberally, would not that meet the case of a settler who wanted to borrow ? —To a certain extent only. This applicant asked for a loan of £100 on his lease-in-perpetuity interest in Section 8, Block XVIIL, Longwood, containing 262 acres 2 roods 33 perches. Although the lessee has been in occupation for six years, the only improvements effected on the holding were—house, valued at £30 ; dairy, £12 ; 25 acres cleared and grassed, £49 ; fencing, £20; stumping, £2 : total, £113. The security offered was practically valued at £71, as the buildings, being uninsurable, could not be taken into account. A loan of £30 —almost the full margin allowed by the Act —was offered and accepted. Samuel Soper, Te Aua : 157. You think the lease in perpetuity is fairly satisfactory ? —Yes ; but still you do not feel the same as if the place was your own, and you do not feel as if you could do the same amount of work. There is another thing : if you want a few pounds at any time you cannot borrow money on the leasehold. Hardly any one will lend you a few pounds on a leasehold like that. I went to the Government on one occasion when my improvements were valued at some £200 or £300, and, although I only wanted a small amount, I could not get anything at all. 158. Did they give you any reason for not lending I—They said my improvements were not such as would warrant a loan. My improvements were a house and stable, and Mr. Green, who valued for the Advances to Settlers Offices valued them at £100. 159. Did you succeed in borrowing from any private individual ?—Not then, but I have since. 160. What interest are you paying on the money you borrowed ? —I pay 6 per cent, on leasehold. 1 could have got it for 5 per cent, on a freehold property. 161. Mr. McCardle.\ Is that your main reason for objecting to the leasehold ?—That is one of the chief reasons. 162. If the Government amended the Act and treated settlers more reasonably than they are doing now, do you think the leasehold would be a good tenure ? —I do. There is another thing. I have paid £100 for four years, and 1 can go on doing that until I am grey-headed, and my children after me, and then we will be no nearer to owning the place. In 1898 an advance of £75 was asked for on the applicant's lease-in-perpetuity interest in 503 acres, situated in Nokomai Survey District. The only permanent improvement on the holding consisted of some 100 chains fencing, valued at £50. It was considered that sufficient progress had not been made to warrant an advance being then authorised. Application declined. Ann Leggett, Highbank: 2. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ?— Yes. They did not grant me what I asked for, but I consider it was wise on their part not to do so, because it prompted me to rely on my own resources. I overcame the difficulty, and I see nothing out of the way in the Advances to Settlers Department. They kept on the safe side, and Ido not blame them. One hundred and fifty pounds was asked for upon her lease-in-perpetuity interest in 138 acres 3 roods 35 perches, situated at the easternmost end of the Highbank Settlement. The improvements, comprising house, £160 ; stable, £30 ; a small quantity of fencing and the planting of one acre of trees, totalled £230. Upon this valuation the Board offered a loan of £100, which was accepted. T. G. Pearce, Otahu : lam a sawmiller by trade, but at present I am a farmer living at Otahu and at Waikapotu. I have 1,100 acres at Otahu and about 100 acres at Waikapotu. The 1,100 acres is under lease in perpetuity, and the 100 acres is under lease in perpetuity and partly under perpetual lease. .... With respect to borrowing money, I may say that I put in an application in respect of Otahu, on which I have improvements to the value of nearly £800, and 1 asked for £200. It was refused, and no reason was given. 259. Did the valuer of the Department value it ?—He looked at place. This applicant required £200 on his lease-in-perpetuity interest in 109 acres 2 roods 7 perches, situated in the Waiau Survey District, and assessed at £200. The application was declined, and the applicant was furnished with the reasons, which were that the holding offered as security was of little use for agricultural or pastoral purposes. Its chief use was for sawmilling purposes, but its value in that respect was decreasing, and the valuer was of opinion that the place would not be readily saleable. F. B. White, Glenham : 110. You are fairly satisfied with your present holding ?—Yes. With respect to the advances to settlers, I made an application for a loan and it was granted. I went on the
a—4.
1358
[P. HETES.
property with £400, and put up a seven-roomed house and a cow-shed 27 ft. by 23ift. I expended pretty well the whole of'it he £400 and'"then wentjjto the Advances to Settlers Office to see what they could give me on it if I .'spent the-'moneyvfon''improvements. The valueryvalued them at £333, which was a great deal below what they'cost me.| ]I only|jwanted £150. After waiting about two months word came from Wellington, and I |was'informed they my case and would advance me £100, and by the time I paid the expenses! got'£97. 111. If you had borrowed privately you would not have got such good terms ? —I could havelgot the|money from a neighbour at s'per cent, if I could have given land as security. 112. But under the lease in perpetuity you got it at easier terms from the Government than you could have got it 'from any one else ? —-I could not have got it at all from any one else. I think, if a man takes up a place and improves it in, say, five years to the extent of £1 an acre, he^ought to have the right of purchase. I did not apply for the freehold 117. No reason was given for only advancing the £100, although you were entitled to half of the valuation for improvements ? — No reason was given 121. Mr. McCardle.] Supposing the Advances to Settlers Act were amended so that you could borrow up[!to three-fifths of the value, would you be satisfied with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure ?—No- I do not want to borrow any more than I can help. One hundred and fifty pounds was required on applicant's lease-in-perpetuity interest in 219 acres I rood, in the Wyndham Survey District, which was valued at £323 : £100 was offered and accepted. Buildings formed the major portion of the security. It has been stated by Mr. James Milne that a weak point in the advances-to-settlers system is that a settler has to be on the land before he can apply for an advance —he has to reside twelve months. This is not correct. The reason that a Crown tenant cannot obtain an advance during the first twelve months of his lease is to be found in section 85 of " The Land Act, 1892," which provides that " the interest of a lessee shall not during the currency of the first twelve months of his lease be assignable at law or be capable of being charged or encumbered." 484. You have only recently taken over responsibilities of your present office ?—Yes. 485. It is quite evident that considerable alterations have been made in order that immediate attention may be given to the wants of the settlers ? —Yes ; since I have become Superintendent I have made every effort to facilitate matters in connection with advances to settlers, and to help these settlers to the full extent that the Act allows with a moderate risk. In the past the policy of the office has been that there should be no risk. We have got larger reserves now—£l94,ooo. It was advisable to go cautiously at first, but now we have got the business so well established, and have large reserve funds and are making considerable profits, the policy is to do as much as possible with a fair amount of risk. We must take some risk. A man in business endeavours to do as much business as he possibly can with a fair amount of risk, and not with absolute safety. That is the policy we are going on now —to facilitate business and lend to the settlers to the utmost extent we can with a fair amount of risk 486. In the past very large sums have been advanced on freehold security at low rates — per cent. ?—Yes. 487. Is it within your knowledge that anybody has borrowed money on freehold and deliberately lent it out again at 8 and 10 per cent, on the lease in perpetuity and occupation with right of purchase ? —No, I think not, I have not heard of any in the office ; I have rather a suspicion that there is something of the kind going on up Stratford way. 488. Seeing that so many lease-in-perpetuity and occupation-with-right-of-purchase settlers are anxious to get advances, and are paying up to 8 per cent, and over, it seems strange that the Department should lend on freehold in preference ? —There is no preference. 489. Do you give your valuers any specific instructions as to how they shall value % —None whatever. 490. There is no such thing as a schedule as to valuing bushfelling, fencing, grassing, &c. ? You do not lay down hard-and-fast rules as to how these improvements shall be valued ?—No, there are different rates in different parts of the colony ; it is left entirely to the option of the valuer. He has an entirely free hand in making his valuation. 491. I suppose he has to answer certain specific questions ? —Yes, he has to say how many acres are in grass, &c., and we are able to form an opinion as to whether it is on the high or low side. 492. He puts on the value and not the Board ?—Yes ; and when the Board considers the application they consider the whole report together, and if they think that in that locality he is valued high we do not make any objection to it, but it would have some influence with the Board in respect to the amount they lend. 493. Now, as to the delay, is there any possibility of expediting the despatch of business, say, from Invercargill ?—The endeavour of the office has been to expedite it as much as possible. Formerly the applications were all sent to Wellington, and were sent back to the local office for report. Now we instruct all applicants to send their applications to the local office or the valuer. Generally speaking, that is done, and we know nothing of the application until it comes to our office with the valuer's report attached. 494. Does the Valuation Department value for you ? —Yes. In some cases the Valuation Department engages a valuer for a special valuation, but in all cases they supply us with the valuation. 495. Assuming that the Valuation Department makes a valuation, say, on the 31st of March, and then in the month of July you get an application for an advance, do you consider it necessary to send an officer to report on it again ?. —Yes. 496. Suppose a man had a valuation of, say, £1,000, and he asked for an advance of £200, would you consider it necessary to send a valuer ? —The Act provides that there must be a valuation made whenever an application for a loan is received. We must conform with the Act.
P. HETES.I
1359
o.— 4.
497. Is there not delay in connection with the granting of loans ?—None whatever. The Audit Department has to pass these payments, and they would not pass a payment unless the present valuation was attached to the application. 498. Is not a great deal of the delay in the valuation attributable to the fact that the fee is so small it does not pay the valuer unless he has got half a dozen applications in the same district to visit that district ?—I do not think there is much in that. It could not be ;no one can say how long the valuer would have to wait for such a group of applications. One of the greatest causes v of delay is when valuers are removed from one district to another, or in cases of sickness. An application was received, and we got a telegram asking us to expedite a certain loan, and we had not received the application or report, and we at once wired to the local office and found that the valuer had been ill, but the matter is now being attended to. In another case the valuer was away from his district on Government business for a considerable time, and the applications which were sent to him were hung up till he returned. 499. It happens very often that the valuer may be doing one valuation in a certain district, and he may have to go seventy or eighty miles away to do a small valuation elsewhere. Is there any means of getting over that difficulty ? The fee is very small for a man to ride thirty miles ? —I will make representations to the Valuer-General on the point. Generally, if a valuation is required, and the permanent valuer is engaged elsewhere or not available from any cause, a local man is engaged to make the valuation. 500. Of course, you control the whole colony as Superintendent of the Department ?—Yes. 501. In regard to the Auckland advances, have any of them fallen back into your hands ?—We have had several, but we have got rid of them. We have had none, however, on which we made a loss. 502. Where do most of your foreclosures take place ?—There have been a few in Auckland and a few in the Wellington Provincial District, and one or two on the West Coast and down South, but there have been very few. In fact, they are quite exceptional. I think they are spread pretty well throughout the colony. 503. Generally speaking, what class of land are they on ?—Nearly all on freehold. In one case I had personally to inquire into myself, it was the case of a man who had made up his mind to go to Western Australia, and he thought he would get all he possibly could and clear out. As soon as the man got the money he cleared out, and it was thrown on our hands, but we just managed'to squeeze out of it without a loss. 504. Was that urban land ?—lt was rural land. 505. These losses are not on town sections ? —No. We have had no losses at all. 506. Mr. McCutrhan.~\ Have you sufficient money now to meet the applications ?—Pretty well, all that are coming in now. In regard to the amounts advanced, probably since about Christmastime, we have been gradually extending it, until now we have got up to £2,000, but we would not refuse applications even for a larger amount. 507. You are still entertaining applications on freehold ?—Yes. 508. You said your Department does not differentiate between the lease-in-perpetuity and the occupation-with-right-of-purchase securities ?—No. 509. If there was any differentiation, it would not come in in your Department but in the Valuation Department ? —lt would be a question of what amount we should lend on it. 510. Then, you do not make any distinction between lease in perpetuity and occupation with right of purchase ? —No. 511. Was it not the case that until quite recently you could only advance in 'these cases up to 50 per cent, of the improvements ?—No, it was not in the Act, and as soon as I found it was not in the Act I urged the Board to advance as it was provided in the Act—viz., 50jper cent.£on the realisable value of lessee's interest in the lease. 512. Fifty per cent, on the goodwill and 50 per cent, on improvements are advanced by your Department ? —Yes. That comprises the 50 per cent, of the lessee's interest in his lease. 513. Is it not the case that the selling-value of the occupation with right of purchase is greater than the selling-value of lease-in-perpetuity sections, the conditions being similar ? —lt may be owing to the sentimental value of the freehold in some cases:. 514. Would there be differentiation ?—No, not under the Act. 515. The valuer's instructions would be to value on the selling-value. We have had evidence to the effect that the occupation with right of purchase is a better selling title than the lease-in-per-petuity title, that it is worth more money, and, therefore, there must be some differentiation between the two titles ?—Probably so, owing to the sentimental value attaching to the freehold, but I do not agree that it is more valuable to the owner. 516. Have you any means by which you can ascertain from the rolls when a loan is applied for whether there is sufficient security to enable the loan being granted without going to the expense of valuation ? —We have no means through the rateable valuations of checking the tenant's estimate of his improvements before sending the valuer out. When loans are declined it is invariably owiny to an unfavourable report, and not on the amount of security offered. 517 I mean in this way : Sometimes an application 's sent <n and the tenant's estimate of the value of his improvements is altogether erroneous, but he is put to the expense of the valuer going out. Is there any means of avoiding that ? —Wherever possible we a void it, and sometimes we advise the applicant that it is unwise to press his application, and suggest 1 e should withdraw it. 518. So that the Department does everything that is possible to avoid that unnecessary expense to the tenant ? —Yes, we have had instances to my knowledge where an applicant has put in on his own valuation for a much greater advance than it was obvious his valuation would bear, and we have written
C.—4.
1360
fP. HETEfI.
to him pointing out that he could not get anything like the money he asked for, and suggesting that he should withdraw his application. If he says he would rather go on with it, him that he should pay the valuation fee before the valuation is made. 519. With reference to the case supposed to >?xist near Stratford, where money was borrowed and reported to have been lent out again at a greater rate of interest, is it not the case that the applicant has to state the purpose for which the money is borrowed ?—Yes. 520. Do you not think that there is a slight opening for improper use of the money, and that that might be avoided by exercising some supervision over the expenditure of the money ? —lt would be very difficult to do that. Ido not think there is much of that attempted. For one or two isolated cases it would be rather unfair to put any difficulty in the way of others. 521. Do you think that the Department should differentiate in the amount of the loan as between two cases : for instance, one in which a loan was required to pay for improvements already made and not paid for, and the other on the security of improvements made and paid for to make further improvements ?—ln the case where improvements have been made and not paid for—in such cases we do not ask any questions —we could not. 522. If there is two hundred pounds' worth of improvements the tenant might have paid for them, and might be in arrears in other ways ?—That opens up a large question. Ido not see how it is possible to interfere. 523. You are really doing that by holding back the money, or part of the money, until the improvements are there ?—ln a number of instances (and it is quite common practice) where we have had any idea that the applicant may not spend it on improvements, or the Board thinks it desirable, we say that we will lend him so much and hold back so much until improvements to that amount are effected ; this is quite the usual practice of the Board. That insures that the money is being expended to a great extent, in accordance with the application. Common-sense is exercised, but we do our best to facilitate matters and help the settlers as much as possible, and cause as little inconvenience as we can. That is our desire. With respect to getting reports from the Land Board, where we have found that an unnecessary delay has taken place, we have written to the Board and asked them for an explanation of the delay in such cases. Similarly, with delays on the part of valuers, and any other delays that arise. This is done to prevent a recurrence of the delay. 524. Mr. Anstey.] You have already been asked a question about charging the fee to applicants whose application has been found to be inadmissible : is there any objection to intimating the amount of the valuation where you refuse to grant the loan ?—No, in most cases the valuer supplies the figures. If we were asked for it we would supply the information, but in nine cases out of ten the valuer will have given figures ; in most cases where loans have been declined, it is owing to an unfavourable report, not so much on the value of the security offered. 525. We had several instances where the applicants did not know the figures ? —lf the valuer sees the owner of the property, the instructions of the office are that he should give him an idea as to what the valuation is going to be. There are some cases in which we have not given reasons for declining to grant an advance ; we could not do so, valuers reports being confidential. 526. How much money has your office lent out in the aggregate ?—£2,742,766. 527. How much of that money has been returned to you by way of repayments ?—There is none of it—that is the amount outstanding at 31st May. 528. I would like to know the total amount you have lent ?—I will furnish the Commission with the total amount to-morrow morning. [The total amount invested to 31st May is £4,185,355, and the total amount of repayments to 31st May is £1,442,588.] 529. With regard to the money that has been repaid to you it has been invested with the Public Trustee ?—1 per cent, of the money repaid is so invested. 530. How does he invest it ?—ln mortgages. We leave 1 per cent, in the hands of the Public Trustee for investment as a sinking fund, and the balance is reinvested by the Advances to Settlers Office, and in addition to this all the profits are invested with the Public Trustee as an assurance fund. The total amount of the sinking fund and assurance fund together is £309,612. 531. You retain 1 per cent. ?—1 per cent for sinking fund. He pays us back 99 per cent. 532. What do you do with that ?—We use that for relending. The Public Trustee holds 1 percent. for the repayment of the loan. There is a special assurance fund, and together with the sinking fund there is now £309,612 in the hands of the Public Trustee. As far as we can under the present Act we are withdrawing the whole of that money for reinvestment. We are withdrawing it now, and that is my own desire. 533. What is your fund derived from ?—Wholly from loan-money. 534. Has this money been constantly added to by more loan-money ?—We have not drawn any more during the last eighteen months. 535. The only money advanced during the past eighteen months has been repayment-money ?— Yes, money withdrawn from the Public Trustee. 536. There was a less sum of loan-money granted to the office for advance on capital account and for investment ?—lt shows in the balance-sheet. I have not got the actual figures. It is somewhere about £3,000,000 (actually £3,200,000.) 537. Supposing you required to make more liberal advances there would require to be a sum added to that out of loan-money ?—We should have to draw on the Treasury for it. 538. You alter the limit of lending according as money is available ?—Yes, it must be so ; we can only lend according to the funds available. 539. As the people begin to pay their loans back you extend the amount of the loan ?—According as our funds accumulate. If we have £20,000 one week and £30,000 next week, we go on extending and advise the local offices, valuers, and solicitors that we are extending the limit.
P. HEYES.]
1361
C.—4.
540. How do the public know when you are prepared to advance, say, up to £1,000, and when you are only prepared to advance up to £500 ?—There has been no advertisement, but we really get the applications in. They apply to the valuers and those who are acting as agents for the Department, and these tell them. 541. There seems to be a weak spot there : If you apply for £1,000 this week you may get it, but not next week ?—lt is extending now and not going back. 542. A little while ago you advanced only to £500, and if a man applied for £1,000 you refused it ?—Only in a few cases did the applications come to us direct. Most of them came from the local offices, solicitors, and District Valuers. 543. You understand there would be a complaint on that score. Suppose I applied for £1,000, and you refuse me it because it is too much. A few weeks later a friend of mine applies and gets the £1,000, I would think my friend had used political influence ?—There is certain to be that sort of statement if you refuse anything. Most of these applications come through the valuers, officers, solicitors, and local offices, and the valuers tell them when the applications are made to what limit the advances are being made. 544. If the valuer tells one man that you will only advance to £500, and next week advances are being made up to £1,000, it looks like favouritism, does it not ?—Yes. 545. Can you not see any way out of the difficulty ?—No, it is a question of the funds available. With any financial institution they must be guided by the funds they have available. It has to be guided by the actual funds it can lend. It is the same with us : we cannot lend if we have not the money. 546. At a time of tightness, when the Government should make extensive loans, you may be short of funds and lose the chance of helping-the public ?—That is so. When the public are tight we are tight. That is the law of supply and demand, and no power on earth can regulate that. 547. Have you had to refuse loans simply through want of funds ?—Over £500 we have refused a number, and many who did not put in an application were told when they approached the valuer and others connected with the Department that we were restricting loans to £500. 548. Have you not refused below £500 for want of funds ?—No, never. 549. Have you offered smaller amounts than that as owing to tightness of funds ?—Not under £500. 550. That has not been the reason for offering a less sum than the security warranted ?—No, it is simply because the Government could not approach the London money-market for loans at a reasonable rate, and they advised us to give the preference to loans under £500. 551. There is no chance of this three millions being withdrawn : you will not have a less sum ?— We have got it and invested it, and they could not get it back again. 552. This amount is always available for advances to settlers ?—Yes. We are authorised up to four millions, and as soon as the Government have got more funds we shall have more money available. There is still a balance of £800,000 to draw upon. Wellington, Saturday, 17th June, 1905. Peter Heyes further examined. 1. The Chairman.'] I understand you wish to make some remarks with reference to a question you were asked yesterday ?—Yes. Mr. McCutchan asked me did we not consider that there would be a tendency to a better value under the occupation with right of purchase than under the lease in perpetuity, and on the spur of the moment I thought possibly there might be, but on thinking it over afterwards I wish to make a correction. We have always held on the Board of the Advances to Settlers that the lease in perpetuity is better value than the occupation with right of purchase, for this reason : Supposing there were two farms alongside each other, the capital value of each of which may be £500, both leaseholds to start with. We will say that each of the settlers have spent £200 on improvements, and that they are both subject to a rental of £25 ; then we will say that the land has gone up in value in that locality to the extent of a goodwill of £200 on the realisable value of the lessee's interest. That makes a total value in both cases of £925. There is not a bit of difference as long as they are leaseholds, but then there is a fallacy abroad that there is a better value under the occupation with right of purchase because of the option under that tenure of acquiring the freehold. That is entirely erroneous, for the reason that the man who has the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system of tenure and acquires the freehold and pays £500 for it, if times of depression ensue and land-values come down, say, to the extent of £200, that means he loses part of his capital to the extent of £200. Now, the man who has the lease-in-perpetuity tenure stands to lose nothing; as long as they are leaseholds they are both on the same footing, but as soon as the occupation-with-right-of-purchase settler has acquired the option of the freehold he stands to lose, so that the Advances to Settlers Office has considered that there is better value in the lease in perpetuity than under the occupation with right of purchase. There is a fallacy abroad, and it has been advanced in evidence I think before the Commission from time to time, that the Advances to Settlers Board will lend more and more freely on the occupation with right of purchase than on the lease in perpetuity. That is a complete fallacy. We do not consider that the occupation with right of purchase is anything better than the lease in perpetuity—if anything it is worse ; certainly in times of depression it is not anything like the security. 2. Mr. Anstey.\ Would that apply t.o the earlier operations of the Advances to Settlers Office ? —All the way through as long as we have been lending on leaseholds. 3. The returns you showed us last night indicate that there was a very much larger margin allowed then in the lease in perpetuity than there is now ?—We do not make any distinction. We have always allowed the same margin on the lease in perpetuity as on the occupation with right of purchase.
171—C. 4.
1362
fP. HEYES.
C.—4.
4. Mr. Hall.] Do I understand you to say that the option of the freehold does not improve the security of the loan ?—lt is rather the reverse in times of depression. As long as they are on the same footing as leaseholds one has no advantage over the other, but in times of depression the man who has acquired the freehold stands to lose where the other man does not. 5 Then the lease in perpetuity is a substantial security right through ?—lt is a better one we consider 6. Then you think the lease in perpetuity nas not the fluctuating value over the other ?—lt has a fluctuating value just the same as the other, but the man with the lease in perpetuity does not stand to lose'any part of the capital value of his land 7."''Mr. McCardle.] Are the valuers instructed to differentiate ?—The valuers are the only people who could make any difference, and their instructions are that there is no difference between the two. 8. I suppose you are aware that there is a widely spread idea that there is a difference ?—lt is quite visionary—it is a delusion. 9. Would it not arise from the fact that if an application for a loan had been before you—on the occupation with right of purchase —and you have refused it, that the outside money-lender has been much more ready to lend money on the occupation with right of purchase than on the lease in perpetuity ? —I do not know about outsiders. I can only speak for the Board and the Government valuers. 10. Have you watched the reports ? —Yes. 11. I suppose you have seen that we have had some instances where applications to you have been refused, but have been granted by other institutions —of course, at considerable advance ?— It is quite possible, but probably their stock was included in the security. There are mixed mortgages occasionally. I can give you one instance, which came before me last Monday, of a mixed mortgage where the applicant borrowed money from a company at 8 per cent. He came to me and asked if he could get money from our office in order to reduce this mortgage. He had borrowed more than the gross capital value at 8 per cent., and it is quite a common thing to get more than the capital value from outsiders. Outsiders will lend on chattel or personal security; we cannot. 12. Are you aware that banking institutions refuse so accept the lease in perpetuity by way of mortgage ?—I do not know why they should. They certainly do lend money to leaseholders, to my own knowledge, on the security of the lease and other assets, sometimes more than the Advances to Settlers Office can lend. 13. Perhaps they are under the impression that they are unable to seize and realise so readily ?— It is the same in both cases from my experience. I have not found it more difficult to find a purchaser for a lease-in-perpetuity property, in case of foreclosure, than a freehold ; because less capital is rerequired to purchase, and you have a much greater number of eligible purchasers to apply to on this account. As far as the security for lending is concerned, the view the Advances to Settlers Board have taken is that the lease in perpetuity is fully as good a security as the occupation with right of purchase or freehold when properly established, and we have never made any difference ; but we take it that the lease in perpetuity, for the reasons I have stated, is a better security than the occupation with right of purchase. There is a good deal of sentiment no doubt attached to the fact of a man acquiring the freehold. Alfred Richard Lyons examined. 14. The Chaiiman.] What are you ? —lnspector of properties for the Loan and Mercantile Company and the Land Association throughout New Zealand. I have been about ten years in that position. 15. Before that I understand you were managing some large properties ?—Yes ; I was the property superintendent and manager for the Assets Board for one of their properties. 16. We have asked you to come here to give evidence with regard to the pastoral lands belonging to the colony. Those runs are deteriorating from various causes. The better grasses are disappearing and coarser ones are taking their place. We wish to ask you whether, in your experience, surface-sowing would bring the natural pastures round, or would subdivision, or perhaps a greater security of tenure for the tenants, help to bring about the improvements that is desired ? —As far as surface-sowing goes, different conditions require to be reckoned with. As you know the pastoral lands of the Crown are spread over a large area, and the conditions that may apply to one area will not apply to another. Some of the land lies in moist districts, and other land lies in dry districts. For instance, you take Central Otago and the Mackenzie country ; that is country which lies in a high plateau and has a very limited rainfall, and is very dry. My opinion is that in those parts of the country surface-sowing, excepting in the favoured gullies where there is moisture and shelter, would be of very little or no use. In other parts again, where there is a fair rainfall, I think surface-sowing of proper grasses would do a great deal of good. Taking the pastoral lands of the Crown, however, the low country, or what you might call the foothills as it were, has nearly all been taken away for the purposes of closer settlement. That country would take surface-sowing, because it is lower, and it has a better rainfall, but you must bear in mind that the bulk of these lands are at a very high altitude. When I tell you that plenty of their homesteads are 2,500 ffc. above sea-level, that will give you some idea of the altitude of the country and the severity of the frosts. The question of surface-sowing is a very difficult one indeed. If you get a very favourable season, it is possible that it might do occasionally, but it would be a very great risk, because if you sow in the spring the hot weather is on, and it is very hot indeed in that high country —the heat is on you before the grasses have taken root. If you sow in the autumn the severe frosts lift the grass out of the ground. Speaking generally, of course, you will understand me clearly when I say that there are favourable places where surface-sowing would do well; but in the case of the pastoral runs in the middle of the South Island, the Mackenzie country and Central Otago, I think the best way to recover them is by understocking and subdivision. To do that security of tenure
1363
C—4.
A. R. LYONS.]
should be given. At present there is no inducement to the pastoral tenant to do anything to conserve the interests of his landlord. He is there for a short time, and he is going to get as much out of it as he can. Besides it is not a very profitable business, sheep-farming in the back country, and I know of no man who has made a fortune out of it; but I know of plenty who have lost, and if you want to preserve the large estates of the Crown (because they are a valuable asset) you must give some encouragement to the men who go into those places and risk their money there. It is not'j a country for a poor man. It is not a country that can ever be cut up for close settlement, and it is all nonsense to think of close settlement there, because any one who understands it will see at once that the country is no use for that purpose. I think that the best way to conserve the interests of the Crown is to conserve the interests of the tenant; that he should be given a mutual interest in it in the way of security of tenure, with valuation for improvements. At present we are only allowed not more than a three-years rental, and there is no encouragement to improve. The man who has it now wants to get something out of it, and he is not going to spend money for the benefit of some one else, and I think the system of letting is wrong. It only encourages speculation with very disastrous results sometimes. I think subdivision would be useful, but you might do as much harm by fencing as you do good. In lots of cases, if you are not careful with the fencing, you will have your sheep caught in the snow and they will not be able to get away; but judicious subdivision and understocking is necessary, and, in my opinion, the rents of the runs should be assessed on the carrying-capacity, and the tenant should not be allowed to carry more sheep than he is assessed at. The rents should be assessed on the carryingcapacity per head, and if the tenant carries more sheep than he ought to, he should be fined. As it is there is an incentive to overstock. At present a run is let at a certain figure, £500, £600, and so on, up to £1,200. Let the tenant feel that when he has his lease for twenty-one years, if he goes in and spends money on improving it, he will either have the option of getting a further renewal of that lease, or, if he does not like to take it at the rental then put upon it, that he shall be paid for the proportion of the improvements that he has put upon it. That, I think, is fair. 17. You advocate security of tenure, restriction of stocking, and security of improvements ? — Understocking will do more, in my opinion, to bring back the|runs to their old state than anything else, except in certain places where there is a fair|rainfall and sufficient moisture to cause the grass not only to grow but to keep on growing, and not to be burnt„up by the heat of the sun in summer or perished by the severe frosts in winter. 18. Mr. Anstcy.] I take it that you do not strongly advocate sowing any grass upon the very high country ? —I would not quite put it like that. 19. Do you know of any grass which it would be worth while going to the expense of sowing? — I would rather put it in this way : That on a run there are some parts that might be surface-sown, but they bear such a very small proportion to the area of the run that, speaking broadly, I do not think it would do much good to surface-sow it. At the same time spots and gullies and creeks which it would pay to sow if a man has the inducement to do it. 20. We have been told that there are several grasses that have been introduced into the country which might be very suitable for certain portions—danthonia and Paspalum dilatatum imported from Australia. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to make some experiments and endeavour to find out what grass would be suitable for this very high country ? —I think it would be a very good thing if they would make the experiment. It would be worth while trying and they might spend a few hundred pounds on it. 21. Do you think there would be any chance of those grasses taking in that country ?—That is rather a difficult question to answer. Individually Ido not think there is much success to be expected. I have heard a good deal about the paspalum from Australia, and there are some people in the Waikato who have tried them, it has been tried too in Hawke's Bay, but as far as I can gather it requires fairly good soil. 22. Do you know of any grasses growing in the higher altitudes in any part of the world which it would be wise for the Government to import ? We heard there are some in Thibet and there may be some-in the Andes ?—Of course, the stock chat live there are wild animals. They are not the comparatively delicate animals that sheep are. They can live in snow better than sheep. I think money might be better spent in some other way than in an experiment of this sort. It might be worth while, trying this Paspalum dilatatum. 23. We have had evidence that it was only suitable for tropical countries ? —I know nothing about it. It is an entirely new grass to me. Chewing's fescue is, I think, as suitable a grass as any we can find for the high country. That and dogstail and a little cocksfoot would do. It is no use sowing ryegrass. 24. Do you mean that the existing runs should be subdivided into paddocks or into smaller areas ? —What I meant by subdivision was that more subdivisional fences might be put on existing runs. The runs as at present let are fairly suitable, and I do not think it would be advantageous at all to make them into smaller runs. They are quite small enough. 25. Would it be advisable to put two runs together ? —ln some cases they could be put together with more advantage than they could be subdivided. 26. You spoke of restricting the number of sheep, but if the tenant went in for surface-sowing in the parts you spoke of it would increase his carrying-capacity ?—Yes. 27. Under those circumstances how would your system work ?— If surface-sowing was a success and increased his carrying-capacity it would be necessary to approach the Land Board and ask that the rent should be reassessed. 28. You would then raise his rent ?—But he is carrying more sheep. 29. That does not seem to be quite fair when he has spent money in grassing the land to enable him to carry more sheep ? —ln that case I charge him no more additional rent. But Ido not think you are going to increase the carrying-capacity of these runs very much by surface-sowing.
C.—4
1364
[A. B. LYONS.
30. In regard to understocking, would there be any good purpose achieved by dividing the run as you suggest and allowing a portion to remain completely idle for a year so as to allow it to recover itself ?—That would do a great deal of good ; but then you must remember that every run—l speak of the runs I know of—has not enough low country in proportion to its high country. It has not got enough country to carry its hoggets and ewes. It cannot carry enough ewes to keep up its numbers, because in that high country their percentage is small, and the good country has been taken away to such an extent that every run has not got as much lambing-country as it ought to have, 31. At what time of the year does this overstocking do most damage ?—ln the winter-time naturally. 32. Is there any practical way of dividing these runs you speak of, and insisting on, say, a third of the run being absolutely unstocked for the whole year or six months of the year I—You1 —You have already, by taking away the low country, limited the lambing capacity. You would limit it still more because it would be the good country you would take away. Nearly-every run has a certain area of summer country which is useless in the winter-time. 33. I understood you to say that it would be a good thing if a portion of the country was absolutely unstocked ?—I suggest merely that it should be understocked, not that it should be unstocked. 34. Do you think it is not practicable to absolutely unstock a proportion of the country for a fixed time ?—I do, otherwise you would have to compensate the tenants considerably. 35. Mr. Hall.] Do you think it is want of security which makes the tenure of these runholders unsatisfactory ?—Yes, the tenure should be more secure ; it should be a twenty-one-years lease : biit if you want the runs improved you must give the tenants some assurance that they will get back a portion of the money, and that he will not be simply improving the run for somebody else. 36. Would it not be difficult to restrict the carrying-capacity of runs —to restrict the number of sheep that they carry ? —No. Air practical men know what high country will carry. 37. Is there a great deal of overstocking now ?—Not so much as there was in the past, because the rabbits are kept in hand pretty well, and most people in their own interests are understocking. We have a large run iti Canterbury called St. Helen's. When I took up the working of that run it was very bare and bad with rabbits. It was carrying sheep badly. I have always lightly stocked it. I have got the rabbits down, and now that country, instead of being bare as it was, is one of the best runs about. 38. Are the runs generally too large : do they admit of being reduced to advantage ?—Some runs might be reduced, but very few ; others again want increasing. There is a great deal of country which might be increased with advantage. The great want is safe country. 39. Overstocking eats out the finer grasses ?—Yes. 40. Do you know anything of this danthonia-grass grown up north ? —Yes, danthonia as a Native grass is spreading pretty well all over the North Island, and to a great extent in the South. 41. Being so hardy and tenacious of the soil, would it not be likely to be successful in the high country ? —There a great many varieties of danthonia, and the species which is growing in the high country is not a very good grass; it is an innutritious grass. I believe there are from twenty to twentyfive different kinds of danthonia, some are good and others are worthless. It is not good fattening pasture. 42. Are you aware that fire does not injure it ?—Yes, that is one great advantage. 43. Mr. Johnston.] You think if a better tenure was given it would be generally better for the country ? —Yes, I think it would be better for all parties concerned. 44. Would the runholders improve the land if they had this secure tenure up to its full carryingcapacity ?—That is a difficult question to ask one man, but speaking personally, I should be inclined to do all I could in the way of improvements provided we had either security of tenure, or if, in the event of there being no extension of the twenty-one-years lease, we got fair valuation for improvements. 45. You think the runholders would accept a tenure of that description ? —Yes, I think so, and I think it would be of advantage to the colony. At present, Ido not think we are treated fairly. Whereever there is an application for a little bit of low country, it is taken from us. - 46. There is a certain amount of improvements on these runs which would not be visible on valuation ?—Yes, that is the difficulty I see. 47. But still the runholder would be satisfied with the bare valuation of improvements at the end of his term. Would it not be better if he had the option to renew at an arbitration rate three or five years before the termination of his lease ?—Not necessarily five years, but certainly one year; three would be better for him, but in any case, it ought always to be one year. 48. Supposing he did not intend to renew at one year, might he not be able to eat the country right out ?—That is not likely so long as the high price of sheep continues. 49. We have no guarantee that it is going to continue, but as far as tenure is concerned, it is next door to impossible for a runholder to invest capital at the high price sheep are at present ?—lt might be unless he has some security of tenure. 50. Has the carrying-capacity been reduced by the cutting off of winter country ?—Yes, decidedly so. 51. You suggested assessing the rental on the carrying-capacity; is that possible, and can it be carried out properly ?—Yes, there should be no difficulty about it, because the Land Boards assisted by the Stock Inspectors, who should all have an intimate knowledge"of the runs, ought to be able to arrive at a just estimate of the carrying-capacity, and the area of the runs also is known. 52. Roughly, what do you think it should be charged at per head "You open up a wide question, because what would be a fair rental'in one place might be exorbitant in another. 53. How would you base it with all the fluctuations in the market and the value of sheep %—I should say the fairest way to do that would be to take an average. Not to take one year or two years, but to take an average over a number of years. A fair estimate could then be arrived at.
A.'R. LTONS.J
1365
C.—4.
54. Within your knowledge in the South Island, has the carrying-capacity been reduced on the runs generally I—lt has in the high country, but I must tell you there is a lot of country which no matter what you do you cannot improve it. In the early days the country was all grassed, the higher parts being more thinly grassed than the rest. Before it was stocked, there was nothing to bring the travelling shingle down. Then the rabbits came on, and they began to eat the grass out, and drive the sheep higher up. This shingle then became loose, and the thinly grassed patches became denuded of grass altogether, and what I can remember as fair grass country is now in some places a waste of shingle. You cannot do any good with that country even if you do not stock it at all. 55. Generally speaking, what height of country would you term winter country '! —Taking the Mackenzie country for instance, our winter country runs up from 4,000 ft. to about 5,000 ft. The summer country goes up to 7,000 ft. or 8,000 ft. 56. How high would you advocate wintering with practically no risk ? —There is no country that is not covered with snow occasionally. 57. I mean ordinary winter country ? —We take the risk up to, say, 4,000 ft., but we know we are taking a risk all the time. 58. Is this danthonia on all kinds of country ?—Yes, you find it everywhere ; it is spreading, but it is not good grass. 59. Have you read Mr. Tripp's evidence, or were you a party to that petition from runholders who appointed Mr. Tripp to give evidence before the Commission ?—I read the petition and told our manager in Timaru to sign it. 60. Did you approve of the prayer of the petitioners ?—I cannot remember now just what it was, but I must have done so. 61. Do you approve of what Mr. Tripp said about cocksfoot—viz., that it was practically the only grass which, after many experiments, had proved successful on the high country ?—ln the high plateau country which runs from Central Otago through the Mackenzie country to Canterbury, where there is a limited rainfall, and it is very hot in summer and very cold in winter, it and Chewing's fescue would succeed better than any other grasses. Mr. Tripp's country is lower down, though it is a fairly high altitude, but he has a heavier rainfall. 62. Do you think he speaks with a fair knowledge of all the country ?—Yes, I do. 63. With regard to paspalum grass, we are assured by experts that it will stand frost in winter, and that it is a splendid grass for the summer ? —lt is a grass I know nothing about. 64. What about the Californian thistle : is there any in your part of the country ?—There is very little in the Mackenzie country, but there is a good deal in Central Otago. So far as the Canterbury runs I am conversant with are concerned, I do not know of any Californian thistle upon them. 65. Is it prevalent in Southland ?—Very much so, with ragwort. 66. What is it like in the North Island ? —lt is very bad in the Waikato, and whilst I do not think you can get rid of it without very great expense, on good land it will pay you to go to the expense, and if you keep on ploughing, and whenever it shows its head above the ground put the cultivator through, in a couple of years you could pretty well get rid of it; another way is to keep on cutting it. 67. In the poorer country is it ultimately going to become a cause of great depreciation ?—lt is a very serious question indeed. 68. How serious is it in the Wairarapa, Hawke's Bay, and the west coast of this Island ? —Not so bad, though there are traces of it everywhere. 69. Generally speaking, are the rabbits being kept down in the South Island ?—On the pastoral runs they are being kept down. 70. Do you think the rabbits are being reduced ?—Oh, yes. 71. Have the Land Boards with which you have dealt given the pastoral Crown tenants fair consideration, in your opinion ?—I have no fault whatever to find with the Land Boards. Whenever I have asked them to do anything they have alwaye done what was reasonable so far as lay in their power, but speaking from my own point of view, there is one thing in connection with which I think the Land Boards are quite fair. On one occasion, for instance, a piece of country, vvhiclr Mr. Humphreys knows, was offered for lease, and there were no applicants. The Board said " Will you lease this for three years." We said " Yes," and we have gone on leasing it, and they raised our rent the next three years. It was safe country on the Hanmer Plains. Now an application comes from two people who want to secure a bit of that country. We consider this is very unfair, as we lease a very large area of cold high country. We have a run now which the Government could not get a tenant for —the Acheron country—we at first refused, and the Land Board asked us to take it and rabbit it. We agreed to take it for £300 a year, and we have got it for three years. Whenever a piece of low country is applied for, the Land Board say that settlement must be encouraged, but I say that fair play is bonny play, and I think when a man takes up high country, he should not have his low country suddenly taken away from him like this. But, speaking personally, I have always found the Land Board fair and reasonable. 72. Mr. McCardle.] Have you had any experience of ragwort : Has it injured sheep on any of the runs with which you have been acquainted ? —Thank Goodness it has not been bad enough on any of the runs I have had to do with. 73. Is it not a fact that where runs are well stocked with sheep, ragwort does not make any headway at all ? —I do not think it is, because I know plenty of runs which are well stocked with sheep on which the ragwort is still growing. 74. We have a great deal of clean country still to be laid down in grass in New Zealand, and when in Southland we saw hundreds of acres, some in stook, and some in stack, with the ragwort all through it : do you think those people should be allowed to sell and send all over the country filthy seed of that description ? —I think some check should be put upon it because that is the only way you can put a stop to the spread of noxious weeds into clean country.
75. We had evidence about a large run of some 300,000 acres—the Lindhurst Run I think—the manager said he put a large number of rabbiters on to muster. Do you think a man could properly muster a run with rabbit-dogs ? —I should not like our runs to be mustered like that. 76. Would a run like that be better managed if it were possible to divide it ?—lt must of course be divided in some way, and to what extent it should be divided depends on the country. 77. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think it advisable that tenants should be compelled to fence off a small portion of their holdings from year to year, and keep that portion clear of stock so as to allow the native-grass seed to get a hold and spread ?—As I said before, we could not do it. We should have to abandon our runs, because our good country is so limited already. If we were compelled to shut up a quarter or half of it we should have to overstock the other portion. 78. I mean simply small paddocks of from 100 to 200 acres in different localities, so as to let the grass seed and spread I—l1 —I do not think it would do much good, because it would be a mere drop in the bucket, and, of course, the part that you would shut up this year would be eaten the next year. But at the 'present time we spell the country because in the summer the sheep are turned into the high country, and the low country gets a spell, and vice versa. 79. Mr. Paul.] You have devoted a good deal of attention to weeds : do you know of any instance where lessees of pastoral runs have sown screenings from a seed-cleaning machines '—Personally, no ; though I have heard of such a thing. 80. You do not doubt the truth of it ? —Anything is possible, but it has not come under my knowledge. . . . . , 81. You spoke of excessive subdivision, and said that it had decreased the carrying-capacity ol runs YC3. 82. Is that pro rata—a relative term—or is it just merely the fact of taking away 1,000 acres of country from a big run decreases the carrying-capacity. Do you mean that taking away 1,000 acres of good country from a run will decrease the carrying-capacity of that run by much more than the 1,000 acres itself will carry ?—lt does more injury than if you took away 4,000 or 5,000 acres of the high country, because as I have tried to impress upon the Commission the area of low country available for breeding and for carrying our hoggets is very limited. If you go and take away 1,000 acres of that country it means more to us than if you take away 10,000 acres of high country. 82a. Take a pastoral run from which three small grazing-runs of 1,000 acres each have been cut off : could you say whether the whole area of the four runs would carry a greater or a lesser number of sheep under the subdivision? —I cannot answer that, because one does not know what the small runs might be carrying. . , T 83. Do you think it is more likely they will be carrying more sheep or less ?—ln answering the question in the way in which you put it, I should say the total number of sheep carried would be reduced. That is my opinion. I cannot give you chapter and verse for it. 84. If you followed the Commission's sittings in the south you will have noticed there has been an agitation for a further subdivision of some of the runs : for instance, Puketoi was singled out for subdivision : do you know it ? —Yes. 85. Within your knowledge is it suitable for subdivision ? —No, I should not say it was. Ido not know what amount of safe country there is on it, but I know it has a great area of country under bll ° W ß6. Do you know anything about Ross and Glendining's three runs —Blackstone Hill, Lauder, and Home Hills \ —l do not know them sufficiently to give an opinion. 87. Your general opinion is there should be no further subdivision of the pastoral country without very careful consideration ?—Yes. 88. Mr. Hall.} On these runs is it merino and down to half-breds that are kept ! — Principally merinos. Most of the country is not good enough to carry half-breds. The lower country will, but the higher country is better suited for merinos. 89. Is it not necessary for the maintenance of flocks for export that the merino blood should be maintained ?—lt is a very good thing indeed that the sheep-farmers on the low country and the small farmers should be able to renew their flocks from the merino, because that is what has made CanterbUry9o!UThen, if the breeding of merinos went down, the flocks on the plains which supply the frozen meat would depreciate ? —We should not be able to maintain the quality of the piutton. 91. If that is the case is it not in the intersets of the colony that these runs should be kept on a footing which would enable the breeding of such sheep to be continued ? —I think so. 92. Mr. Johnston.'] If a man feeds his cattle in winter from troughs on country, say, from 1,500 ft. to 2,000 ft. above sea-level, on the screenings from seed-cleaning machines is it detrimental to the country '—Nobody could afford to go to the expense -; oi doing so. You could not do it on any large 93. We had evidence that there is a farmer in a large way who is doing so : in your opinion is it detrimental to the country ?—Yes, it would spread weeds all over the face of the country. 94. Would not the wind blow the seed all over the country as well ?—Yes. It would be a very foolish proceeding indeed. . , T . 95. Have you ever known the screemngs from machines to be sown in the high country ! —lt has not come under my personal knowledge. Thomas Humphries further examined. 96. The Chairman.] Your statement is before us in print: do you wish to supplement it in any way ? —No. 97. In regard to cropping, you say there is a great difficulty in keeping tenants within the regula-
1366
[a. e. lYons.
C.—4.
T. HUMPHRIES.]
1367
a—4
tion, and that the Land Board have no statutory power to give concessions, although they have done so ?—That is so. It has been unavoidable. 98. You think it is necessary you should be armed with statutory power ?—Yes. 99. Mr. Anstey.] Do you definitely recommend that the cropping restrictions should remain exactly as they are in the lease ?—Yes. My recommendation is, and it is also the opinion of the Land Board, that there must be some standard laid down. The tenants should be allowed to deviate from that according to circumstances, and the Board should have discretionary power to allow them to do so. 100. Do I understand you to say there should be one standard lease which should apply to all ?— Yes. 101. Do you really think that is the wisest way of doing it: you have plenty of land in Canterbury that is quite suitable for growing three crops, while there is plenty of other land for which one crop is quite sufficient : would it not be very much wiser to put a limit in the lease suitable for the section ? —I think if you went over the farms that we have been over you will find that one paddock varies from another on a section. The Board very carefully went into this matter paddock by paddock, and the conclusion it came to was that you cannot lay down a distinct rule for each section. 102. Is it wise to allow a limit of two crops upon land that is quite unsuited for it, and which is only suitable for one crop ?—The Board considers it is necessary to have a limit and that the existing one is a fair average. Of course this is not my expert opinion. It is the opinion of the members of our Land Board, who are practical farmers. 103. We had the opinion expressed by Mr. Lowrie, Director of Lincoln College, who is supposed to be an expert, and he thought it was utterly useless to have any cropping restrictions whatsoever : do you think any serious damage would be caused to the land if the lease-in-perpetuity tenants had unrestricted cropping-rights ? —Yes. I say that from experience. 104. Would the State's interest be prejudiced by so doing ?—Certainly. 105. In what way ?—I have one case in my mind now of a young man who went on steadily cropping his place until with very little more of it he would have had the land cropped out. He applied to the Board to sell out, and as soon as the new man came in he asked to be allowed to go on cropping, otherwise he coidd not pay the rent. Ever since that the Board have been very careful to acquaint the incoming tenant with what he had to expect. In the case of parties who have heavily cropped, the Board does not now allow them to transfer until they have brought the ground into something like order again. 106. Would not the interest of the State be sufficiently protected it a man effected sufficient improvements to protect against anything like deterioration of the land ?—No, because the sections might be thrown on our hands. 107. But suppose sufficient improvements were put on to protect the interests of the State : could a man really deteriorate land by ordinary cropping more than, say, £2 per acre ? —I am not in a position to say, but a man could, as some have done, neglect his fences and other improvements, which were all a part of the valuation of the land. The view taken by the Board is this : Land let at Bs. per acre might by bad treatment and neglect of fences and improvements so deteriorate that we could only get rid of it again at a rent of 6s. an acre. 108. Your answer is that land could be depreciated by more than the value of the improvements ? —Yes. 109. We have had evidence from people that in the case of lands near towns, for instance, that are not suitable for sheep, they grow a straw crop and a green crop in rotation : do you think any detriment would come to the land if that were followed continuously ? —I cannot say. lam not an expert. I leave all the expert work to the Land Board, who are farmers. 110. There has been some trouble with regard to the small grazing-runs on the Cheviot Estate : can you tell us what the position is now ? —They are twenty-one-years leases and the lessees get valuation for improvements at the end of the term. 111. And they have no right of renewal ? —No. 112. What does the Crown do with them then ? —The Crown is in a position to do what it likes with them. 113. The statement has been made that you have no power to re-lease the Cheviot runs again ? —Not to the present parties. 114. Do you think you should have power to re-lease them to the existing tenant ?—Some of the holdings that are leased now want dividing so that I do not think in these cases they should be leased as they stand. 115. In the other cases would there be any hardship in allowing the present tenants a renewal of their leases, subject to any land to be taken for closer settlement ?—There would be no objection. I think they should have the right of renewal. 116. You have no right by the Act to give them a renewal ?—No. 117. You think it would be wise for that power to be conferred on the Land Board ? —Yes, except where the land is required for closer settlement. 118. And would you offer such part of a run that is not required for closer settlement to the existing tenant ?■ —I would not be adverse to that. 119. To your knowledge have there been any experiments in Canterbury with grasses suitable for regrassing the high country ?—I have not heard of any. 120. You are aware of the introduction of some grasses from Australia, such as paspalum, which have been used more or less successfully in the north ? —I have heard of them. 121. Do you think it would be wise for the Government to make some experiments with grasses that would be likely to be successful in the very high country in the south ?—I should think so. I see no objection to it.
C.—4.
1368
[t. humphbies.
122. Mr. Forbes.] In your statement you say there is a number of tenants under deferred payment and perpetual lease, which number is diminishing as they convert the leases into lease in perpetuity or freehold : do you find that deferred-payment people convert their holdings into lease in perpetuity ? —I think it is the perpetual-lease people who are changing into lease in perpetuity. The land under deferred payment in Canterbury in the past is principally freehold now. 123. There is the right of purchase in the perpetual lease ?—Yes, but there has been a new ruling lately in regard to that. There was a certain limit of time during which it was said they could purchase, but under the new ruling there is no limit. A great many people converted into lease in perpetuity because it was considered that the time-limit within which they could purchase had expired. 124. If they had remained under perpetual lease they would have had the right of purchase for an unlimited period I—Yes,1 —Yes, unlimited during the lease. 125. In your statement you have given us the area of pastoral runs, and it shows an increase since 1891 from 3,140,000 acres to 3,528,892 acres : how has that increase taken place ?—lt is largely due to the fact of the Nelson runs being taken over by the Canterbury Board when the alterations in the boundaries of the district were made. 126. In reference to the demand that a larger allowance should be made for improvements on pastoral runs to encourage the lessees to improve them, do you think that is necessary ? —So far as Canterbury is concerned it is hardly necessary. 127. According to your statement they have not availed themselves of the amount they could have ?—That is so. 128. And at the same time they are asking for a larger allowance ? —Yes. 129. Do you think it is owing to the fact that the allowance was so small that they did not attempt to avail themselves of it, seeing that the proper subdivision of the runs would run into a large amount ? —This is how the matter has appeared to me. If there was so much benefit to be got out of this grassing it is surprising to me that when they started on a twenty-one-years lease they did not spend a little money in it in grassing. 130. You think they would get the value back in twenty-one years ? —Yes, and yet we have not got a run that has been regrassed to any extent. 131. Do you think that the extension of their leases will encourage them to regrass to any appreciable extent ? —I do not think a right of renewal should be given unless they have done enough by the end of the first term to justify a renewal. 132. You heard Mr. Lyons's evidence, and do you not think he made a very sensible suggestion when he said you should limit the amount of stock these runs should carry, and assess the rent accordingly: do you think such a provision should be inserted in your pastoral leases ? —I would not like to answer that offhand. There is a great deal more in it than appears at first sight. I may say I have only had experience of these runs during the last three years. My other four districts had no runs of similar character in them, and my experience is chiefly gained through having been one of the Classification Commissioners two years and a half ago. I was then associated with Mr. McMillan and Mr. Pringle. We went over thirty runs and found one or two that had been eaten out by overstocking. But it is generally admitted that the runs in Canterbury at the present time are understocked. 133. That is on account of the high price of sheep, is it not, and is not due in any way to any desire to improve the grass ?—That is so. 134. You agree, though, that it is most important that these runs sould not be overstocked ?— Yes. 135. Then should not provision be made to prevent that being done I—Yes,1 —Yes, if possible. 136. We have been told that in the case of twenty-one-years leases men with those leases will overstock towards the end of them, and you have no power under the present conditions to stop that ? —That is so, but the carrying-capacities of a run for various reasons might be quite different from what it was two years previous, by reason of seasons and so forth. The capacity varies, but there is no doubt that something should be done, although I hesitate to give an opinion as to what would be the best course. 137. You think that the present provision with regard to preference to married men at the ballots should be amended ? —Yes. 138. You would give married men two chances to a single man's one ?—Yes. 139. If the Act was amended in the direction you suggest, you think it would give satisfaction ? —Yes. 140. You say you would exclude all over three members of one family in a ballot : but do you not think that when every one over the age of twenty-one years is a separate person in the eyes of the law that they should have a right to go in for the ballot I—lt looks right, but our experience is that in nine cases out of ten it is dummyism. 141. Cannot your examination disclose whether it is dummyism ? —They at times deceive us, after all. <142. They must have a certain amount of capital? —Yes. We have a case before us now. An hotelkeeper in another part of the colony and his nephew applied for a section, and both showed that they had sufficient capital. The hotelkeeper got the section, but the nephew is on the land, and the former still carries on his business. There is little doubt but that he was duplicating the nephew's chances. 143. It is nve years before tie can transfer, and in that time cannot you insist on the conditions being complied with ? —Yes. If the conditions are not carried out he can surrender and we will safeguard his improvements. Our experience in Canterbury has been that as a rule several members of a family will apply in the hopes of one getting the section. 144. Do you not think that that system of dummyism among families has been due to the lax way in which the provisions have been carried out in the past ? If the provisions were enforced they would
T. HUMPHRIES.]
1369
C.—4.
be frightened to carry on any of those tricks. As you are getting stricter do you not think it is getting less ?—We had less of it in connection with Rosewill, but that was due to an announcement in the newspaper that the Board would only allow two of one family to go to the ballot. 145. Do you think that if a provision to that effect was inserted it would be satisfactory ?—Yes. 146. On one hand we say that large families are a benefit to the State, and on the other we say that large families should be restricted in their opportunities to get land ?—As an example, take the case of a man with three sons, all of whom have sections ; the Board feels convinced that although the sons are occasionally on the land it is being largely worked in the interests of the father. 147. Speaking from your experience you say that is an evil which should be stopped ?—Yes. 148. Has your Board made concessions to lease-in-perpetuity holders for losses by hailstorms, See. ? —About four years ago one person was granted a concession. 149. Do you know the estate on which it was given I—No1 —No ; it was only on a small property. 150. Do you think it is a good principle ?—I do ; but I think it is a thing that wants to be watched very closely. 151. Do you not think that when a tenant has been helped when overtaken with disaster that it should be regarded as a loan and not as a gift ? —I think that would be a better plan if means could be devised for doing it. There were applications before the Land Board two years ago on account of floods, and the Board declined the request on the ground that the tenants had had several very good seasons. The Board held that it was not reasonable that they should reap all the benefit of the good years, and immediately an accident occurred to expect to get assistance from the Government. 152. Would you agree that any concessions that are made should be regarded in the light of a loan to be returned in a given number of years, instead of being an absolute gift ? —Perhaps it would be more satisfactory. 153. In connection with the small grazing-runs on Cheviot: you say compensation is given for improvements ? —Yes. 154. Does not the Act read that improvements are protected that are necessary for the proper working of the run, and if a man puts up a house worth £1,500 would he get compensation for that ? —I think so. lam not acquainted with the details of the Cheviot Disposition Act, but he will get compensation at the end of the term. 155. The Act says compensation for improvements necessary foV the working of the run. A £1,500 house is not an improvement necessary for the proper working of a grazing-ran of 2,800 acres ? —I should say he will get compensation for all his improvements. 156. Would it be reasonable to say that a man would be allowed to load a run with such improvements as would prohibit another man coming in at the end of the term I—l1 —I am not sure whether the Land Act is incorporated in the Cheviot Disposition Act. If it is we can soon cure that, because if we find that the rim does not sell at that amount we reduce the loading for improvements. 157. The original holder would, of course, have an advantage over any outsider, and if he wished to carry on that run he could get it ?—That is so. We are in that position with land for settlements land, small grazing-runs, and all others. 158. Have you got any schedule fixed of what are necessary improvements ? —No. I think when the time comes the Board will give the tenants their full improvements. 159. Do you not think encouragement should be given to persons to make plantations —give compensation for them ? —I think so. 160. There is also nothing in the Cheviot leases about valuation for surface-sowing ? —lt is a question whether grassing is a permanent improvement. I regard grassing in bush land as a permanent improvement for which a man should have compensation, but there is a question in regard to the grassing of other lands where it is turned up in two or three years time. 161. lam referring to the grassing of small grazing-runs ? —I cannot speak with confidence on the Cheviot conditions without looking them up. 162. You think all improvements should be allowed for ?—That is my feeling. 163. Some of the witnesses have said that the examination of applicants under the Land for Settlements Act is somewhat of a farce, and it is very easy to get round the Board : do you think that is borne out by your experience ?—I should say the very fact of having such a magnificent tenantry as we have in Canterbury is a very good proof of the fact that our examination has weeded out the bad ones. Taking the Canterbury settlers as a whole, I think they are a class of tenants that could not be beaten. At the same time we are sometimes deceived. I have it from a most reliable source that in one instance an examinee represented and proved, in a way, that he had a certain amount of money, but at the same time a financial company had lent him the money and also that for his deposit. 164. Is not that a common thing ? —I do not know. 165 Have you not noticed in applicants' bank-books that there are deposits of quite recent date, which might be financial institutions' money deposited for the purpose ?—Directly we see that, we ascertain from them where the money has come from. Of course, I may explain that all our examinations are confidential and the parties are given to understand that. The only record kept of it is the shorthand-writer's notes, which are never brought into longhand, but kept for future reference. 166 In the case of Cheviot there was no examination : how does that estate compare with other estates on which a severe examination of applicants has been made I—The1 —The Cheviot tenants are a very tfood lot of people. We find that the inefficients drift out of the estates and the better class of people remain so that in five or six years' time yte have a better class, if anything, that we had at the beginning. 167 You think that examination has effected an improvement in the tenants ?—Yes. 168! With regard to goodwills, is there not a danger of the incoming tenant, by paying too much for his goodwill being handicapped byghaving to pay a large sum of interest in addition to his rent ? — There is a risk.' The Land Board does not object to a goodwill. The principle the Board acts on is
172—C. 4.
a—4.
1370
[T. HUMPHRIES.
this : If a man is giving what we consider an excessive goodwill we generally if he knows what he is doing and is satisfied. If we find he has sufficient means to enable him, after paying the goodwill, to be a good tenant to us no exception is taken to the goodwill. 169. Is there not a possibility that the interest of the goodwill added to the rent will make a rackrent on these tenants ?—I admit there is that danger. 170. The cropping-restrictions on Cheviot differ from the cropping-restrictions of land for settlements estates :do you not think they ought to be brought into line with the others ? —I think it will be quite time enough to make the alteration when the time for doing so arrives. 171. One regulation states that the tenants must not bum or remove straw. Cutting straw into chafi is removing it, and under the regulations a man can be prevented from doing that ? —Those regulations are not insisted on. It would be most absurd to do so in many cases. 172. The evidence went to show that the rents on Lyndon No. 2, at Waiau, were too high : do you think it is reasonable that they should go on as at present or that they should be revalued ?—That there will be a difficulty in the case of the runs, I think, there is no doubt; but the Legislature has been very adverse hitherto to reducing rents on the land-for-settlements land, and I would not like to make any suggestion on the matter. 173. Would you say that these men have had great difficulty in meeting their rent in the past ? —Certainly, on the runs. 174. Mr. Hall.\ Your remarks about cropping apply to Canterbury only ?—Of course. 175. Do you consider that the Board should have discretionary power as regards cropping ? — Certainly. 176. And that it would be. a mistake to allow overcropping:?—Up to the point of deteriorating the land, yes. 177. Do you consider, on the other hand, that the growing of green crop for consumption on the land should not be reckoned as a crop at all ?—The experts on our Board do not treat green crops as a crop. 178. Does not the regulation restrict the tenant to one green crop ?—Yes ; but the Board does not. 179. I understood you to say that a young man of twenty-one years of age is disallowed to compete if his father succeeds at a ballet 'I—Not more than one son ; that is our view of the matter. We have had guarantee from a father that he would put his son on the land and find the money ; but, in examination, we discovered that after finding the guarantee for the son the father had nothing left for himself and family. 180. On the whole, are the lease-in-perpetuity tenants in Canterbury contented ? —Certainly. 181. There is no great claim for the option of the purchase ? —No, not as far as my personal knowledge goes. 182. Would they be more satisfied if they had the right of paying off a portion of the capital so as to get rid of the restrictions*?—l may say that I have travelled over every settlement, and have seen practically the whole of the settlers under the Land for Settlements Act, and until the last few months, I only heard the matter of the freehold mentioned by three tenants. 183. I mean as to paying off a portion of the capital ?—They have never mentioned that to me in any of our interviews or conversations. 184. If the interest of the tenant became as great as the interest of the State, then there need be no restrictions as regards the farming of the land ? —ln my main evidence, I stated that I did not believe in that at all, and I gave my reasons for it. 185. Are the areas of the sections as a rule right as to extent, or should they be larger or smaller ? — They are laid off according to the character of the land and the requirements of the various classes of would-be tenants. 186. Would you approve of the single ballot so that no one would be compelled to take a section he did not apply for ?—Yes, I said so in my main statement. 187. Mr. Johnston.] Did you say that you heard no complaints against the tenure, and that the tenants are all satisfied, and there was no asking for the freehold until within the last two or three months ? —That is so. Only three tenants mentioned it to me. 188. As to the classification of land, do you not think there is a fault in the present method of classifying land as to quality. For instance, at Eltham, the flat land is first-class land, and a man is allowed to hold 640 acres, and away back at St.rathniore, where the land is also classified as first-class land, a man is also only allowed 640 acres : is there any comparison between the land as tojjuality,Commercially speaking ?—No. 189. How would you propose to reclassify land properly ? —I have not considered that question. 190. Do you not think it is necessary that it should be reclassified ?—Yes. 191. Do you approve of people in towns taking up land for the benefit of their children and themselves in their later years ? —I would not object to that in outlying districts so long as there were not people prepared to take up that land at once for the purpose of living there in the near future. In the case of a man with a family who was prepared to go on the land at once, I would give him preference over those in the towns who could only go on the land perhaps ten years hence. 192. How would you provide for people in towns who wish to take up land for themselves or their children ?■ —There is an element of speculation in that. 193. There is a danger of speculation, but I am assuming that the thing is absolutely genuine ?— I would only provide it in the way I say—namely, in outlying districts and what are termed backblocks. 194. When small grazing-runs are surrendered are they put up to auction ? — When surrendred they are thrown open for application : but auctioned when the tenant under an expiring lease has been offered a renewal and declined,
1371
C—4
T. HUMPHKIES.j
195. Why are they put up to auction and not other Crown land '! Do you not think that is a mistake ?—I think they should be thrown open for application in the same way as other land. 196. Have you had to lump together many of these grazing-runs ? —No, 1 do not know of ajsingle case. I may add that at Cheviot in two cases grazing-fdrms did not go off, and the people adjoining were allowed to take them up. 197. Are those the only instances ?—Yes, but those are not small grazing-runs. J 98. Do you think it is desirable to cut up a run and then lump it together again ? —The grazingfarms in question were lying unselected for some time, and, as I pointed out with respect to the Cheviot lands when relet, in some cases the holdings would have to be divided again. 199. Would you object to the owner of a small section applying for a larger area on condition that he sold the smaller section —Yes, I have recommended that in my first statement. 200. You make it a practice to accommodate settlers by having the meetings of the Land Board sometimes at Timaru ?—Yes, in the last three years we have had four or five meetings at Timaru and Waimate. 201. Have you found it satisfactory ?—Yes. 202. In the cutting-up of runs, has the aggregate rental subsequently received at any time been .below the rental previous to the run being cut up ? —There is only one case I know of, andjjthat was before my time at Ashwick, near Burke's Pass. The better part of the land was taken out and put into two small grazing-runs, and in respect to the back part, nobody would now be likely to take it up except the adjoining runholders. 203. Is that the only instance in your district of a reduction in the aggregate of the rents ?—I do not know that that was really a reduction in the aggregate of the rent as the runholders took up the back parts of the run at a smaller rent and the front part at a little advance. 204. Would the Crown gain any advantage ?—Yes, possibly it would gain a little advantage so far as money was concerned. 205. Would you approve of granting the freehold to the big runholders in Canterbury ?—No. 206. Do you get many requests asking you to cut up the large runs ? —I do not remember any petitions during the three or four years I have been there. 207. Do you not think the winter country in these big runs has been taken away quite sufficiently already I—l1 —I do. 208. And it is not advantageous or in the interests of the country to take any more away ?—That is so. There may be one or two instances where the run may be divided, but taking them as a whole, the Canterbury runs are small enough for the low country they have ; in fact, the low country that is being worked now is mostly freehold. 209. The poor or high country is being lost because of the want of sufficient winter country to work with it ? —Yes. 210. Would you advocate systematic planting of trees in any of that country '!—There are parts that might be planted, but in other places there is sufficient planting done already. 211. Would it be an advantage to the colony if the Government undertook the planting of large areas or gave grants to County Councils to assist them in planting areas in certain districts ?■ —The County Councils have grants given to them now. They get revenues form the land in the Mackenzie country, and are planting trees there. 212. Do they do so with advantage ?—Yes. 213. It has been successful ?—Yes. 214. You gave us a list of transactions that have taken place under the Land for Settlements Act, but you did not give us the amounts. Has there been much profit over and above the improvements ?—Yes, I have given the figures in my main statement. 215. Do you consider that the number of members of the Land Board at the present time gives fair representation to Canterbury ? —Yes. 216. But supposing the land district was cut into four, do you consider the number would be sufficient representation of the various interests in that district ?—Quite sufficient. 217. 'Has the homestead-settlement system been a success ? —lt has not been in operation in Canterbury. 218. Would you advocate it being brought into operation in Canterbury ?—No, I do not think there is necessity for it there. 219. Generally speaking, has the advances-to-settlers system as far as you know given satisfaction ? —I have heard no complaints about it. 220. Are there any unreasonable requests that have been made to the Board for transfers ?—Yes ; some of them have tried to transfer even before the twelve months are up, and we invariably refuse them. 221. Do you think there are considerably inflated values given for such transfers ?—That is so. 222. Have you ever known of an instance where a tenant —I do not mean exclusively in the case of Canterbury—has bought into a holding and after has had his rent reduced, and subsequently the section bought over and above the improvements ? —No. 223. Do you not think it would be advisable for the Crown Lands Rangers to keep a record of the tenant's output of grain and of his stock ?—I do, as far as stock is concerned. He always has that. 224. How many sections were offered at Cheviot under the freehold system, and how many were taken up ?—I cannot say, but I will supply the information if you wish. 225. Are there any deferred-payment lands in Canterbury still running ?—There are nineteen sections. 226. Is there much rent in arrears in Canterbury ? —No ; it has been less this year than it has ever been before ; that is in proportion to the amount of the rent. 227. Do you approve of the rebate in the rent ? —lt brings the rent in.
C—4.
1372
T. HUMPHRIES.
228. Mr. McCardle.] In respect to the ballot, I understood you to say that a young tnan of twentyone years of age was rejected : was it only on the score that his father was unable to guarantee him ? — Yes.' 229. Do you not think it would be a legitimate thing it a young married man could go into the same block as his father ?—I do not look on a young married man as of the same family. I should consider him as quite distinct. 230. Do you not think that settlers' sons brought up to pastoral pursuits should be encouraged to establish homes for themselves ?—Yes. 231. Do you not think that these men make the best possible settlers ? —We find tnat those we call tne " croppers," and who are experienced, have been anything but a success. They will persist in their cropping, and have no other desire. 232. With regard to cropping restrictions, do you not think it would meet the case if you made it a condition that where a man put in an extra crop he should also put in so-much manure ?—No. I think that we should take every case on its merits. Our expert Board is opposed to making such a condition. 233. Would not what I say be taking the case on its merits ?—Our land in Canterbury does not need manuring to that extent. 234. Do you not think the best way to guard against overcropping is to insist on a certain amount of manure being put in ?—lf a man wanted an extra crop, and was going to let the land lie fallow this year, he would not be asked to put in manure in such a case. 235. What would be best in the interests of the country if you are going to exercise restrictions ? —That is clearly a matter I leave to the Board. Ido not pass an expert opinion on those matters. 236. But I presume you have an opinion of your own ?—I have, and my opinion is that every case should be taken on its merits. There are cases where it would be a necessity to manure the land, and the Board when then insist on its being done. 237. Are not there cases where they ought not to insist ?—Yes, certainly. 238. Mr. McCutchan.] There was a statement made by one witness that there were very few original settlers of Cheviot who are there now I—ln my statement the other day, I said that one-third of the sections have been transferred, but on looking into the matter a little more closely I find that the proportion is even less than that. There are nearly three-fourths of the original settlers on Cheviot at the present time. 239. And they are quite contented and prosperous ?—Yes. 240. Is that the case with the rest of Canterbury ?—Taking Cheviot and the lands for settlement selected during the last ten years, there are just three-fourths of the original selectors on the land. 241. Mr. McLennan.] With reference to the question Mr. Johnston asked you as to whether people in town should have an opportunity of taking up sections in the back blocks provided that they put double improvements on the sections, in your opinion, do you think that is advisable ?—I think something of the kind would be a good thing to do. As I said before, I would not allow a person to do that where there was a man with a family wanting to go on the land. I think he should be considered first. 242. But there are men in the towns who could easily afford to make those improvements to their holdings, but at the same time are unable to reside there without losing good employment. They might have boys who would like to go on the land eventually, but at present they are debarred from taking up sections in the back blocks. Would you give those men the opportunity of getting sections ? —I can only repeat that I believe in encouraging them, but I would not like to see them standing in the way of the man who wants to go on the land and live there. 243. If a certain area of land was opened up, do you think they are justly entitled to a holding on condition that they should put double improvements on it that are necessary under the Act ?— Yes, subject to the conditions I have stated. 244. Do you think there is any land in the North Island which has been under crop for forty years ifl succession ? —I could not say. 245. You have been in the Auckland Province ?—Still I should not be able to tell you that. 246. You know there is a good deal of land in South Canterbury which has been in crop for fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen years : do you uot think it is desirable to do away with the cropping-restrictions altogether ?—No. 247. Why ?—That is my opinion from the experience we have had and from what I have heard from the experts. 248. Seeing that the tenant had 33 per cent, of the improvements on the capital value.of the land, you would not think he would be inclined to spoil the land, would you ?—What might be done if a man has been in possession of the land for ten or fifteen years is another thing altogether, because then you find out whether a man is the genuine settler or only occupying it to get all he could out of it. 249. If he was in possession for ten years and had 33 per cent, of the capital value besides the goodwill, would you be inclined to give him full control providing he would always keep the land clear of noxious weeds,? —I do not think there would be any great objection to it, but I would not like to say positively. 250. As a man who has a great knowledge, do you think that this restriction is going to continue for 999 years ?—No. 251. Is it not just as well to take it off now and give satisfaction to the tenants, say, at the end of the first term of ten years ?—That is what lam saying. I would not like to speak positively, but I would not like to do away with it under that time. 252. The man who has a Crown lease is compelled to comply with certain restrictions in that respect, and I suppose it is not necessary in his case to demand certain improvements ?—We leave them alone after ten years.
1373
T. HUMPHRIES."!
0.—4.
253. I mean under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Yes, something of that kind might be suitable. 254. Mr. Paul.] Do you favour the ballot system as against the tender system or auction with the suggestions you have made ?—Yes. 255. While the Commission was travelling through Canterbury several witnesses advocated a second Land Board : do you think that is necessary I—Not in Canterbury. 256. Do you think the Ranger is asked under the regulations to do anything which injures the tenant so far as making him feel he is a slave or serf ?—Oh, no ; a capable Ranger would never do that. 257. A Ranger is not called upon to do anything that you, for instance, would resent if you were a settler ?—No. 258. There is another demand made that the Timaru Land Office should be open daily ?—I do not know that it would justify the expense. It would mean putting an officer there. It is open now every Saturday for the country people. 259. Do you think that meets requirements ?—I think it does, as there is railway communication twice a day. 260. Mr. Johnston mentioned a case as to the reduction of rent in a certain case, and one witness swore that the rent of a lease in perpetuity held under the Land for Settlements Act had been reduced : is that correct ?—I do not see how it could have been done. There is no law for it. 261. What provision is there for subletting on an improved estate under the Land for Settlements Act ?—A man can sublet, with the sanction of the Board, in the case of the ordinary rural land, but he cannot sublet in the case of workmen's-home settlement. That is prohibited by the regulations. 262. Do you think it would be wise to dispense with the examination as to a man's financial position under the Land for Settlements Act ?—No. 263. Do you inquire into the financial position of a man who is buying in ?—Yes. 264. In the south, and also in the north, tenants have complained that there is no right of appeal under the Land Act : is that so ?—No. A tenant can appeal to the Supreme Court on giving notice within a certain time. 265. There have been objections to the Land Board not allowing a tenant to hold up to 640 acres of first-class land. If they held about 200 or 300 acres they could buy their neighbour out, but under the Land for Settlements it is not permitted. Do you think a Land Board might be given discretionary power in these cases ?—lt is permitted, so long as the land adjoins, and if the Board is satisfied that the original holding is insufficient for the maintenance of the tenant and his family. 266. Do you think it would be a mistake to lay down an absolute rule on the subject, that a man can buy land in any of these settlements up to 640 acres of first-class land ?—lt should be in the discretion of the Board as it is now. The Board should first be satisfied that the man is unable to make his living on what he already holds. In the case of some of the sections at Albury, on which it was patent a man could not make a living, the Board allowed those people to buy out their neighbours, but if it had been £20- or £30-an-acre land, possibly they would not have been permitted thus to aggregate. 267. Do you not think it would be a grave mistake from the country's point of view to have three farms grouped into one so that one holder could make a very good living ?—Certainly The Board endeavours to keep the settlements so far as their subdivisions are concerned intact, but there are special cases where amalgamations are allowed. The Board has allowed thirty amalgamations in the case of small areas such as from 10 to 50 acres. 268. Mainly with very small areas ?—All small areas. 269. Do you not think it would be very unwise to give the Rangers any further powers of an inquisitorial character ?—I would not give them any more powers. The Ranger has quite sufficient power if he is a tactful man. lam glad to say that our Rangers are really very capable men, and have no trouble with, tenants, with whom they are on good terms. 270 Do you not think that generally speaking it is wise that the Ranger shall just get the information which is absolutely necessary ?—The information he gets is always of a necessary character for our annual reports. It shows the condition of the settlements and the advance made, the quantity of crops, and the stock. We have always been able to get that without any friction. 271 You must admit that everything depends on the Ranger ?—Yes. 272. As regards cropping, you necessarily find that out because he has to comply with the cropping restrictions ?—Yes 273. W8 heard in one or two cases tenants ridiculing the idea of one Ranger being able to get over the large tract of country Mr. Williams had, for instance, although the general testimony was that Mr. Williams carried out his duties in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. Do you think that generally speaking the Ranger's duties are too onerous ?—At the time that complaint was made a third Ranger had been at work for six months, and evidently the complainant was not aware of it. There are quite sufficient now. 274. Mr. McCarcLle.\ Do you think in the case of poor settlers on country and small areas, that there ought to be an amalgamation of two sections to enable them to get a suitable holding to get a living. Taking the case of Mayfield, do you know it is very poor country ? —Yes. There would be no difficulty there about getting two sections, they are ordinary Crown lands. 275. They are leased under the lease in perpetuity ?—There would be no difficulty. 276. Mr. Anstey.] With regard to loading, more especially in the north, I notice in your report, although generally speaking the loading is small, there is nothing like the amount spent. In the case of Pareora No. 1 the loading is equal to Id. per acre, but the roading is nil. On Highbank the loading
C.—4.
1374
It. ht'mphbiks.
is id. per acre, and five miles and three-quarters of road have been constructed. How is that explained ? —You must bear in mind that they had to deal with twenty-two miles of old roads as well, which is shown in the statement. 277. Does that include dealing with the old road as well ? —Yes. 278. In the case of Pareora No. 1, has that Id. per acre all been expended in repairing the old roads ? —Yes, and a lot more in the shape of grants. The grants are not included in the amount shown there. 279. Within your knowledge, has all the loading here mentioned been expended ?—I think there are a few pounds in hand in one or two case?. In Rosewill chere are over one hundred miles of road, and the County Councils in the case of the old roads have provided pound for pound. This settlement having been only lately acquired the bulk of the money for roading has not yet. been spent. 280. There has been a good deal of doubt as to the right of a lease-in-perpetuity holder to leave his property by will: will you explain the true position of that matter ? —On the death of a lease-in-perpetuity holder who leaves the leasehold by will, there is in the ordinary course a transmission to the executors, over which the Board has no control. Since two of the Commissioners spoke to me on the subject yesterday, I have ascertained that the opinion of the Crown Law Officers has been obtained on this question, and it is to the effect that the acquisition of the property bv the devisee from the executors it a " transfer," and consequently needs the approval of the Land Board. The approval appears to be in a degree somewhat of a formal marter. lam not aware of the practice followed in most of the districts, but I believe that in Wellington, as well as in Canterbury, the District Land Registration Office has hitherto dealt with such cases, and the change of proprietorship is recorded in the books of the Land Office. 281. In case of its being left to the wife, you have to approve the transfer ? —We have not done so yet. There are several widows so situated in Canterbury, but we have had no trouble in their cases. A widow can apply for transmission, and with thejjjconsent of the executor obtain it, in which case it would not be a transfer, and presumably would not require the approval of the Land Beard. 282. Supposing a man left 400 acres to his wife, would she be unable to hold it ?—No, she could apparently hold it legally. 283. Is it a fact that if the legator held 630 acres he could leave that 630 acres to another lease-in-perpetuity settler who also held 630 acres \—That is a new phase of the question. I think it would become a matter for the Land Board to consider, but such a case has not yet arisen in my experience. 284. In that case a man can hold 1,279 acres of first-class land under lease in perpetuity ?—lf a question of that kind arose it would be for the Board to consider whether that should be held to be outside the limitation. 285. Could you refuse it ? —I could not say. It would have to go before the Law Officers. 286. As a matter of practice the Board do not in any way interfere ?—No case has arisen where it has been necessary for the Board to interfere. 287. In your experience, can a lease-in-perpetuity holder sell his holding as easily and as readily as a freeholder can sell his ?—lf all the conditions of his lease are fulfilled he can sell quite as readily. 288. How many transfers have there been in the Canterbury Land District under the Land for Settlements Act ?—The total number of transfers is 512, but it must be remembered that some of the sections have been transferred over and over again. 289. That is to say, at least one-third have been transferred ?—Not a third of the sections, because, as I have said, some sections have been transferred several times. 290. Has there been that proportion of transfers of freehold in your district do you think ? —There probably has been. 291. Would you infer that the lease-in-perpetuity sections are more readily transferable than freehold sections ?—Personally I think a lease-in-perpetuity man has a much better chance of selling than a freeholder, for the reason that as there is no capital value to pay there would probably be many more people after his leasehold than if it were a freehold. " 292. In the case of a lease-in-perpetuity holder transferring, does he get as full value for his interest as a freeholder would do I—l should say, quite. 293. Then you mean to say that the amounts paid for goodwill are fully as much as they are worth ? —I believe they are. 294. Then a lease-in-perpetuity settler is under no disadvantage so far as the value of his section is concerned when transferring ? —No, I think he sells better than a freeholder. Of course a man purchasing from the freeholder has to borrow money at 6 per cent, or 7 per cent., whereas a lease-in-per-petuity man has his capital at 4 per cent, or 5 per cent, in the case of land-for-settiements land. 295. In all forms of leases under the Crown I notice that the tenants have full security Tor improvements \ —Yes. 296. Do you think that piinciple ought to be extended to all tenants, including private tenants ? —That is a difficult question. 297. Do you not think that property created by the tenant should belong co the tenant ?—lt would be necessary to look at it from this point of view : does the tenant hold the land at a low rental to compensate him for putting on improvements ? In the early days education reserves were let with the understanding that there would be no protection for improvements at the end of the leases, and the tenants oil that account got their land at low rentals, but in that case there was no compulsion on the tenant to improve. 298. Now to come back to the question I asked you : do you not think it wise that every tenant encourage him to improve his holding ? Is ic wise that the land should be aliowedgto liegidle for want of improvements —In the case of public lands I think the tenants should have full security for improvements.
T. HUMPHRIES. !
1375
C—4.
299. Do you not think the same principle should apply to private land ?—That is a question I could not answer. 300. Do you, as a Land Board, visit your tenants periodically —that is, apart from the visits of the Ranger ?—There is an understanding now that the Board will do so. The Board has visited the largest settlement we have—viz., Waikakahi, and also Albury, Chamberlain, and other places. 301. In the past that kind of thing has not been done ?—No, but the Board has resolved to do so in the future. 302. Do you think that will have a good effect on the tenants ?—I am sure of it. 303. Mr. Forbes.] In the roading figures you have given I do not see the cost of roading on Cheviot ? —I can supply the figures. 304. On Cheviot there were a great number of sections offered for cash—nearly half of them— and there were only three cash sections taken up there ?-—I know there was only a small proportion. 305. Do you not think that is a proof to some extent that the demand for the freehold has arisen from the improved value of land ? —I should not like to speak confidently upon that, because we have to judge according to the conditions. The conditions at the time Cheviot was opened were altogether different from what they are to-day. 306. Farming was not such a profitable occupation at the time Cheviot was taken up, and land has gone up considerably since then ?—Yes. 307. And it is only of late years we have heard this demand for the freehold : might one not infer from that almost that this was due to the improved price of land ?—I could hardly answer that question. 308. When a man wishes to purchase the goodwill of a lease-in-perpetuity section, do you make any stipulation that he must have a certain amount of money to pay for the goodwill and make improvements ?—There is no particular rule, but the Board inquires as to his means, and if it is found that he has what they consider is sufficient to work the place they pass the transfer. 309. Do they consent in a case where a man says " I can raise the money to buy this man out " ? —No, but they will allow him to mortgage a certain part of it. If he is giving £500 they might allow him to mortgage £200 of it, other circumstances being favourable. 310. You would not allow him to mortgage three-quarters of it ?—Not unless he had something behind. 311. And in your ordinary examination you insist upon three years' rental ? —What the Board does is this : As a basis they put three times the annual rental against each section. Then, at the sitting of the Board prior to the examination being taken, the particulars concerning the section are read out —so-many chains of fencing, so-many pounds for house, and so on. Take, for example, two adjoining sections. One has no improvements, the other has. The rental is the same in both cases. Say three times the annual rental is £300. There are no improvements upon that first section, and probably £350 would be placed on that. Then, coming to the next section, there is a house or cottage £85, yards so-much, fencing valued at £60; in such a case the requirements would be lessened because so-much is already done. Before the examination takes place the particulars of every section are carefully gone into and the capital required decided. 312. But you ask, as a general rule, that somewhere about three years' rent should be the basis on open ground ?—Yes. 313. Then in the case of a section being thrown open and loaded with improvements do you insist upon a man having the money for improvements ? —We should require him to have some. For instance, if the loading was £250 probably £300 would be required of him. 314. Mr. Johnston.] Did you hear Mr. Lyons's evidence ? —Yes. 315. How do you think his suggestion would work in connection with large runs on a carryingcapacity basis ?—I do not like to express an opinion on that. 316. You think it requires a great deal of consideration ? —Yes. 317. Do you consider these large runholders should have some further concessions to enable them to put on improvements ? —ln Canterbury, as a rule, the allowance for improvements is nearly four times as much as they have on. They have not taken advantage of it, for in the thirty runs we have lately relet the improvements amounted to £11,000. Three times the annual rental came to £41,000, so that there was £30,000 they did not take advantage of, which should have enabled a lot of fencing to be done. 318. Mr. Forbes asked you a question about the examination of witnesses as to their means, and so on : do you allow anything for the experience and capabilities of a man in lieu of capital ?—We give a certain allowance for that. I remember the case of two young fellows who were brothers. One came before us and his evidence was unsatisfactory. The other was a hardworking, straightforward man with experience, and he gave us the impression that he would make a splendid settler, and although he did not come up to the cash requirements we gave him a chance at the ballot; the other was rejected. 319. You think it advisable to allow something for a man's experience even if he has not the capital necessary ?—We do. 320. Mr. McLennan.] In your experience does a Crown tenant put as much improvement on his property as a freehold alongside him ?—I think the lease-in-perpetuity people improve quite as much as the freeholders ; in fact a great deal more in many instances. 321. Seeing that there are so many transfers in Canterbury, do you think it advisable to prohibit those who have sold from going to the ballot for five or six years ?—I think two years is sufficient. 322. At the present time it seems to me that some of them are making a business out of it ?— Two years is a long time if you have to wait for it.
0.—4.
1376
I J. MACKENZIE.
.Tames Mackenzie further examined. 323. The Chairman.] How long have you been Chief Surveyor and Commissioner of Crown Lands for Auckland ?—About one year. I was Commissioner in Taranaki for two years and a half previous to that, and altogether I have been in the service over thirty-eight years. 324. You have already delivered your statement before the northern division of the Commission ? —Yes. 325. You might repeat it again to refresh our memories \ —l will do so. [Statement repeated.] 326. You would leave the Land for Settlements Act as it is ? —Yes ; it is satisfactory. It is, however, not a prominent feature in my district. The only point is this : when a man, with a small area in a settled district near him, sees a block of land opened he might wish to get a piece of it for his "sons, or even for himself, but he would like to make his present homestead the homestead for the whole of the land, and under proper precautions this, I think, is reasonable. 327. You think that after a tenant has improved his land to a very considerable extent he should be free from all restrictions ?—I feel you should make all our leasehold tenants as free and contented as possible when they have highly improved their holdings. They all resent and magnify having'to come to the Land Board about things which they think ought to be under their own control. I mean after they have thoroughly established themselves, and proved by complying far in excess of requirements their bona fides. 328. You refer to the homestead system as having been a success while it was in operation ?— Yes ; there have been 76,000 acres settled by some 400-odd people, and they all seem to have done very well. Of course, in those days they had a much better class of land to deal with than"we' have at present. I think the areas now-would have to be larger because the land is poorer. 329. Do you not think a poor man on a large area of poor land would always be poor : would not some of the poor lands require a man with capital to bring them into shape ? —That may be so in some cases and it would not do to give them all poor land. There are grasses that will take on the poor northern lands that would make the holdings profitable. Every one I have met who has had anything to do with the homestead system speaks highly of it and it is most popular. 330. Mr. Anstey.\ With regard to the Auckland Land District you have suggested that there should be larger representation : do you not think it would be wise that the district should be divided either in two or portions cut off and added to other districts. Would that not meet the difficulty better than by adding members to the Land Board ? —I do not think it would be practical to do it. Auckland has been established as a centre for all business, and then there would be great cost in dividing, in copying deeds, &c. 331. Would it be wise to have a sub land district: say, for instance, the North of Auckland to be a district under the control of a Sub-Commissioner with possibly a separate Board ?—There might be some advantage in having something similar to what obtains at Gisborne. They have a sub-office there Board meets, I believe, quarterly. 332. It must be awkward for the Wanganui people to attend meetings in Auckland ?—You can get from Wanganui to Auckland in twenty-four hours. 333. Take Hokianga and Kataia ? —You can get to Auckland within twenty-four hours from Hokianga. There is a daily steamer from Whangarei, and twice a week the coach connects with train and steamer at Whangarei. 334. You say the district is rather large for adequate representation ?—A Board of four is ample for the business, but people imjthese a say in things from a local representation. 335. You think the creation of a subdistrict is worthy of consideration ?—I would not say that the district should be entirely separated, but there might be Land Offices at, say, Whangarei, or other important centres, and it might be an advantage for the Board to sit there occasionally. 336. Do the Board visit the settlers at all ?—Since I have been there they have done so twice, but they do not do it periodically. . 337. The district is too large to do it ?—I would not say that, as we could get through the district" comfortably enough in the summer months. 338. That is being done in other Boards and with great profit ? —I was not aware that it was a general practice in other Boards in the North Island, but it is a very wise thing to do. 339. Could the members of the Board devote sufficient time for the purpose of going through such a large district to make themselves acquainted with the needs ? —I think so ; I would prefer it to breaking up the district. 340. Generally speaking, you oppose the election of any member of the Board and only suggest it as an alternative for the election of one member ? —Yes ; I prefer the nominated system, but if they are going to have elected Boards at all I look at it that the State on the one part as landlord and the tenant on the other are the only two parties that need be considered, and the tenants might have, say, 25 per cent, of the Board. 341. Would it not meet the case just as well that one member should be a Crown tenant? — Certainly, it would. 342. Might there not be two Crown tenants both nominated by the Government ?—I would not go beyond one unless Boards are enlarged. I would not prohibit two, but I think it would be better if only one Crown tenant was there. 343. T suppose it is absolutely necessary that people sitting on the Board, if not actually farmers, should be men thoroughly acquainted with farming requirements ?—Most decidedly ; the whole of them. 344. The Commissioner will provide the necessary expert office knowledge ?—Yes. 345. With regard to workmen's homes, do you not think that these should be provided in smaller areas and close to the towns ?—I think J-acre sections would be better than nothing, but, if possible.
J. MACKENZIE.]
1377
C.—4.
to give up to 3or 4 acres to each section if the rent was kept down. It is the temptation to get more land that will take these people out, and they can go in for poultry-farming, &c., do a little work in slack times, also keep a cow ; but I would not like to see them loaded with a heavy rent. 346. We have had evidence that men working in town can do no farming, and that all that they can do is a little gardening ?—I do not quite agree with that. I lived outside Wellington for twenty-six years, walked three miles night and morning, did all sorts of work on my land, often including milking a cow, and I thought very little of it. 347. With regard to the poor manuka land, would it be wise for the Government, before throwing it open for settlement, to undertake experiments by burning off large areas, analysing the soil, sowing grass, and providing manure for bringing the soil to fertility I—l am not altogether an expert in that matter, but I think these soils might be tested by experts. 348. Would you favour, when opening up this poor land, the Government first burning off the manuka and sowing the grass before allowing a poor man to occupy it ?—After having a preliminary test, I would like to see a little bit sown on each section —say, the best homestead-site of 20 acresafter having established by test that certain grasses will grow. 349. With regard to different forms of tenure : would it not be wise to make the residential conditions extend to ten years in all cases ?—No ; I think the occupation with right of purchase of six years' residence in bush long enough for all. 350. You mentioned some cases where lease in perpetuity have been given under different conditions : what were you leading up to ? Do you think they have any claim to the freehold?—l do not want to say anything about that; but they are not on the same plane, and I want you to know the position. 351. You do not suggest that any of them have a particular claim to the freehold ?—No. I do not wish to give any particular lead, only some have already had more concessions than others, and you might think they have had sufficient, and, possibly, in certain cases, further concessions might be granted. 352. What is the position of the thirty-years lease man at the end of the term ?— He has security for improvements and the right of renewal, simply the perpetual lease of the 1885 Act.' 353. Lands in mining districts are all under twenty-one-years leases ? —Yes. 354. Does that in any way interfere with the mining rights on the leases ? —No. 355. Do the twenty-one-years leases provide security for the tenants' improvements ? —Yes. 356. How does the miner exercise his right: has he the right to mine on the land without compensation ? —I believe, from memory, compensation for surface-damage. 357. Is that limited ? —I do not think it is. 358. Does that work satisfactorily ? —I have heard no complaints. All goes through the Warden first. 359. You suggest that residence conditions might be done away with in some cases : is it not a fact that the doing-away with residence conditions would in many instances be detrimental to the many people who do reside % —I would not do away with them everywhere. There would be a block open under these conditions. It is only in far-back districts I would suggest it; also prevent transfer except to members of family for five years. 360. Do you think it is wise that residence should be pretty well compulsory in all cases where there is good road access to the land except in exceptional cases ?—I do. 361. Have you power under the Act to regulate residence ? —Yes. 362. Mr. Forbes.] A case was brought under our notice in Auckland of the Board having forfeited a section at a man's death and dispossessed the widow ?—I never heard of it. 363. Under what circumstances would that be done : would it be a case where the widow was really helped by forfeiture ?—lt might be that they had got hopelessly in arrears, and forfeiture took place to give her a fresh start, but I never heard of the case, probably it was before my time. 364. In all cases at a man's death, is it not the policy of the Board to deal as generously as is possible under the Act ? —Yes ; but no cases have really come up like the one you have mentioned that I can remember. 365. There is a homestead settlement, Te-Rar-a-moa, which is a failure, is it not ? —I do not admit it a failure ; the ragwort certainly has taken possession of some lots, and got beyond the control of some of the settlers. 366. Are the settlers residing on the land ?—As far as I know they are. 367. There are residential conditions, I suppose ? —Yes ; but these may have been dispensed with in some cases. 368. The neighbours around were complaining that this special settlement was a breeding-ground for weeds which were getting on to their sections : has not the Government spent money there in clearing the ragwort ? —Yes, perhaps £120. 369. What was done with that money ?—The ragwort was cut down last February to prevent it seeding. 370. Was that a free gift to the occupiers of the land, or do they return the money ? —Possibly so. It was simply considered that it was a menace to the whole country-side, and it was decided to cut it down for the public good, so to speak. 371. Do not the conditions of settlement provide for the clearing of these weeds ? —Not in this particular tenure, except through the ordinary channel of the Noxious Weeds Inspectors. 372. You have not the same conditions as under the Land for Settlements Act, under which you could compel a man to keep down noxious weeds ? —No. 373. The settlement, as far as you know, is a success ?—I know nothing against it except through the noxious weeds.
173—C. 4.
a—4.
1378
T,T. MACKENZIE.
374. It seems they are hardly working up to the spirit of the thing when the Government have to clear their land of weeds ?—lt was not quite because it was a failure that they did that; it was simply that the weeds were doing damage to the surrounding district, and prompt action was necessary. ! 375. Would you say that the Board should have power to call on the tenants to clear their land of noxious weeds ?—I think it would be a desirable power to have in regard to all Crown leases. 376. The Matamata tenants complain that they are liable to forfeiture because of cutting scrub. Is there not some misconception as to the meaning of that ?—I can only think that the word " scrub " is brought in there to give us power to protect Native bush. We have never dreamt of stopping men cutting scrub. 377. The tenants point out that as one of the disabilities they labour under: do you not think it should be made clearer ?—There would be no harm in striking it out; it has never been enforced, and I do not think it frightens any one. 378. In reference to the poor land in the North of Auckland, what system of farming do you think it suitable for that class of land ? We have been told of fruit-growing, vineyards, &c., as the only way of bringing it under cultivation. If that is the only system of farming to be applied to that land, is there any need of cutting it into large areas ?■ —You saw for yourselves that danthonia was running there of its own accord, and with a little encouragement in many places might be brought under this grass and made reproductive. 379. You do not agree that the only way to bring it under cultivation is by fruit-growing ? —I am not a practical man in that respect, but we are told that danthonia and paspalum grow on a lot of that country very well. 380. Have you tenats in thcjse poor lands who are successful ? —I do not know of any personally, but I would not like to say there are not, as I have only been a short time in Auckland. 381. We were told before visiting the district that the North of Auckland was the fruit-growing district of New Zealand, but we came across very little that was being done in that way ?—Beyond a few decent orchards in which the fruit is doing pretty well, they have not been making a business of it, but the Commission must have noticed that wherever fruit was tried it did well, and we were kept in free fruit all through our northern tour. 382. The application of the Homestead Act to these poor lands would be a mere matter of experiment ? —Yes, at first. 383. We were told that a poor man was not able to do anything on these poor lands ? —At Mongonui, a man said that even on poor land, by sowing danthonia, he could run three-quarters of a sheep to the acre on land that he only paid 4 per cent, on 10s. an acre for. If it can do even a quarter with moderate expenditure, it looks as if there was something in it. 384. Do you think you would be justified in trying to settle poor men on these lands ?—Not without testing the land first. 385. In settling back country like Kawhia and places like that, do you not think roading should precede settlement, or at any rate go hand-in-hand with it ? —I think most decidedly if the finances would allow it, that at least the main roads should be laid off through these blocks, and the land loaded sufficiently to make them. 386. When land is let at a low rental or given away for very little, it is not so much appreciated as if a fair price were charged ? —I know the settlers would be better satisfied with that, but often there is not the money available. 387. Do you find when opening up Crown lands there is a good demand ?—Generally, if the land is good, or moderately good. 388. There is no reason for offering special facilities for settlement: under present conditions you have plenty of applications ? —As you get further back you find your land does not go off, and encouragement is needed. 389. Would not the want of roading militate against settlement ?—Yes, it does. The further you go back you find people hesitate about going further back, and people want inducement to go back. It is the want of roads that does that. 390. If you opened up with proper roads there would be no difficulty ?—I do not think there would be if the land were fairly good. 391. It is not absolutely necessary for the settlements themselves that three years' exemption should be allowed. Is your idea in the direction of giving men in the towns a chance ?—lt gives the poor man in the cown a chance. As the law is at present, if a man is rich enough to take up land and is not forced into residence, it seems reasonable that the poorer man who goes into a leasehold should have the same opportunity, and perhaps he will get his sons on to put in a little labour. It would only apply to the far-back land. 392. Do you think that the cash system applies to that class of land and meets his wants ? —I would like to meet the poorer man as well, who may be juft as deserving and with moderate means ; that is my object. 393. You mentioned about the examination of applicants under the Land Act: is it not necessary to have a certain amount of capital to take up bush land as it is to take up improved lands ?—No, sometimes it is not, because the land is cheaper. 394. How soon would you say it is possible for a man to get a return frcm bush land ?—lf he has got money, and could fell all the bush quickly, he may get it in the first or second year. 395. Would you say he gets a return from the portion he knocks down ? —lf he is lucky with his burns, he may get it the next season. I know of one place where a settler got his stock on the next spring. 396. Would you say there is not so much capital needed ? —lf he is going to knock the whole down it would need it. But you often see men felling 20 or 30 acres, and the next year, getting a little more,
1379
C.—4.
J. MACKENZIE. I
they then get a house up and get along gradually ; they live on very little. In the back blocks you find families living on 10s. or 12s. a week. 397. You have found men with very little capital making a success of it %—Yes. I have known men in Taranaki starting with very little, and they have got good homes about them now, and seem to be all right. 398. The further you go into the land away from settlement it would need more capital in order to get supplies in \ —You often find men away back getting a little roadwork to help them ; they may get work from richer neighbours in the felling season to help them. 399. We find people holding 1,000 and 1,200 acres of bush : do you think that is rather a large amount of bush land to give to any one man ? —No, I do not think so ; 2,000 acres is the legal limit, and if a man sees his way no questions are asked ; in fact, there is no right to do so. 400. It takes £4 an acre to knock it dc wn ? —But the man may be looking forward to getting his boys as they grow older to help him with their labour. Three pounds is ample for felling and grassing. A man, say, takes up 1,000 acres, and at 10s. per acre that is £500 capital value. He may have a family of boys, and he may have the view of breaking it up later on for them; his rent would only be £20 on lease-in-perpetuity tenure. 401. It means that the bush land is held for years ? —lt is astonishing how it gets down when you get a genuine man on it. With the speculator it is a long time, as he waits for a road and blackmails the genuine settler if he can. 402. You have not got an opinion about limiting ? —I think I would not limit it. Ido not think 1,000 acres of bush is too much when the man sees his way ; 1,000 acres of bush is no uncommon thing for a man to take up with even small means. 403. In connection with the Kinohaka and Mangamangero Blocks, they say the Government has broken faith in the tenure : do you consider it to be so ? —Where there is sufficient evidence of coal existing in the land, it is provided in the Land Act that the Board should only give lease-in-perpetuity tenure, and I think it is a very proper provision. Providing there is reasonable evidence of coal, I think that is the right thing to do. I did it myself in the Ohura, and would do it to-morrow so as to protect the State and the people. It is not the Government who does that; it is the Commissioner and Land Board, and I take the responsibility of recommending it first to the Board. lam not familiar with the Kawhia. On the block I referred to there was some evidence of coal. A settler in Kawhia told me recently that on his own section coal was found, and it was understood that it was to be kept with lease in perpetuity ; but it was outside the limit, and secured an occupation with right of purchase. This only proves that the lease-in-perpetuity tenure did not take in all the coal-bearing land. 404. It was clearly on the understanding that there was minerals on this block that the lease-in-perpetuity tenure was offered ? —Speaking of the Kawhia Blocks, I have no knowledge of it personally. It was offered years before I came, but the Act says chat where there is reason to believe there are minerals, it shall only be let as I have indicated. Besides, all these areas were originally purchased as endowments for the North Island Main Trunk Railway, and the spirit of the Act governing their disposal is that the tenure should be leasehold. 405. Can you give any explanation of this grievance of ten settlers at Paeroa. Has your Board forfeited any sections ? —No. 406. For non-payment of rent or any other cause there I—No,1 —No, I think not. 407. For non-payment of rent or any other cause in ordinary lease-in-perpetuity sections ? —Oh yes, I think we have. 408. Has it been for non-payment of rent practically ? —No, practically for lack of improvements or lack of residence, or through people abandoning, and very often for surrendering; within the last few months for non-payment of rent, only we do not forfeit. 409. That principle has been brought in lately ? —Yes, that is the instruction. 410. You exhaust the value of improvements before you forfeit ? —No, we do not forfeit at all, but take other means. 411. In connection with settlements and swamp land, of which you have a large area under your charge, do you think it a reasonable thing to have that properly drained % —I think it should be drained, and that we should have such main drains that the settlers could connect their drains with them, and a reasonable price loaded for the cost. 412. What about more security being given to holders of pastoral leases ?—There is the annual valuation which Mr. Humphries mentioned to you to-day. The same thing applies here. Of course they get tneir land for very little, so they have an advantage in that way. 413. You think there is no necessity for altering that? —No. I think you must keep in view that the letting under purely pastoral tenures in the north is temporary tenure, but of more use than allowing them to lie idle. It is generally the very poorest of our country that we deal witn in that way. 414. Do you think it reasonable to divide the lease in perpetuity amongst members of a family with Land for Settlements sections ? If a man wished to divide his land amongst his family on his death, do you think that provision should be allowed ? —I think it perfectly reasonable, providing they did not make the holdings too small. 415. Mr. Hall.] How do you classify lands throughout the colony. Is it one standard throughout, or has each province its own standard as regards the quality of the land : would there be a secondclass land in Canterbury that would be classed first-class north of Auckland ?■—That is governed, I should say, by districts. If a man could make his living out of 300 acres I would cut into 300-acre sections, and, possibly, call it first-class land. But, in Canterbury, it would be considered too hilly to be classed as such. 416. Is the great drawback to settlement in the back blocks the want of roads and the want of
C—4.
1380
fj. MACKENZIE.
assurance for maintenance of roads ?—Well, I would not say it is the only one, but want of roads is the main drawback to far-back land. 417. The Government having made main roads through the back blocks, and loaded the lands to cover the loan, would it not be better to furnish an assured revenue by subsidy rather than by grant ? If it was fixed on some assured principle—and I mean by " assured " fixed for a year or two in advance— so that the settlers would not be in doubt, even for six months ahead, whether they would grant a subsidy or not ?—I am afraid Ido not understand it exactly. You mean some fund they could always draw upon for road-making. 418. There is supposed to be a subsidy for road-making, but it is of a very uncertain kind ?— You refer to local bodies ? 419. Certainly ?—Well, I have not had experience of quite what you mean. 420. I mean that instead of a grant there should be a subsidy ?—Well, I have not thought that phase of it out. Of course it is common enough for the Government to subsidise local efforts by special grants. 421. If it were done and the rates of the local bodies brought in the full amount, and the money was obtainable without loss to the State, would it not help settlement ?—Of course it would, and I believe in local bodies borrowing on " thirds." 422. With regard to Patetere : the bulk of that land is very inferior, and hardly fit for settlement 1 —I hardly agree with you as I consider most of it could be made available for settlement of some sort or other, except the forest, which will be milled in years to come at least I hope so. 423. And some portion of it might be made available for the purposes of a State farm ?—Yes, if needed, but I have not heard it suggested. 424. As regards sites for workmen's homes, the land in Auckland obtained for that purpose is very inferior ?—Some of it is of inferior quality, and some of it good enough. 425. Would it not be much better to set apart small portions of good land rather than larger areas of inferior land ?—I do not favour J-acre sections, but all land should be good. 426. Would not a \ acre of good land supply all you want for vegetables, garden, and orchard \— If a man does not want anything more than a cottage and a moderate garden, I say Yes, but if he wants a little more I should say, Give him 3 acres, provided it does not make the rent too high. 427. Mr. Johnston.'] What is the area north of the City of Auckland, roughly ?—I could not give you that without looking up maps, &c. 428. Can you give us the area of pipeclay land north of Auckland ?—No. 429. Is two-thirds of the land north of Auckland pipeclay ?—I certainly would not think so. 430. Do you think half of the land north of Auckland is ? —I have not taken it out, and cannot help you. 431. You have an idea, surely ?—No, I have not. 432. Well, there is an immense area of pipeclay north of Auckland ?—There is a good deal, but 1 have made no close examination. 433. Do you not think that it is a great mistake considering the riverways and waterways north of Auckland for any Government to waste money in roading that useless land ?—That is a matter of policy; Ido not care to answer that at present. 434. You admit that this land is not worth loading for roads ? — Well, there is a good deal I would not load ; but the whole question requires going into carefully before I would care to answer your question. 435. Can you account for so much freehold land lying idle and covered with manuka in the Auckland district ?—No. 436. Is there not a large area of land north of Auckland which was originally under cultivation, and is now lying idle under manuka ?—I cannot say definitely, I have no personal knowledge. 437. Is there any considerable area which in time past has grown wheat and has now manuka standing on it 10 ft. or 12 ft. high ?—I was told of some at Kaitaia, but I have no personal knowledge. I consider it would be good land that would carry manuka that height, and would grow wheat again. 438. Can you account for the want of improvement about the farm lands north of Auckland ?— No, I cannot. 439. Is there much dummyism ?—Well, we have had to forfeit for dummyism. There are people who go in for unimproved lands, often with milling timber, and they do not carry out their improvements, and we have had to close down on them. We have had, perhaps, a dozen such cases. 440. Do you not think the settlers generally north of Auckland are well served by waterways ?— They are well served as compared with the people in Taranaki and other southern Auckland districts, but, of course, I should like much better roads than they have got all the same. 441. Do you not think they are much better served than the Taranaki settlers are ?—Take it in globo, I suppose they are, but the land north is poorer. 442. We heard a lot about fruit-growing up there: how is it, or can you account for it, that it is in such a poor way : at Whangarei we were given to understand they import vegetables and fruit from Auckland during winter I—l do not know how it is. I cannot account for it. I know that if I lived at Whangarei I would not import much, the land is good enough. I suppose they do not give it sufficient attention. I saw fruit-growing on very poor land towards Helensville, and they seemed to grow fruit easily there, and at other places. In orchards that we all noticed in the far north they would not even collect their apples. 443. Do you not think there is 'a great want of energy on the part of those settlers compared with the Taranaki settlers, for instance ?—I should not like to say that; neither you nor lin flying through a district know what early settlers had to contend with. 444. Mr. McCutchan.] In connection with the Bush and Swamps Act, would it be reasonable that settlers should be called upon to pay rates when they are exempt from rent for four years ?—
J. MACKENZIE.]
1381
C—4.
It is seldom that you hear of settlers complaining that they have got too many concessions. The provision" in the Act was no doubt passed with the best of intentions, and I hardly see why, if they are very anxious to spend the should not raise a special loan, and keep the relieving Act intact. 445. may not have the local body to administer it ?—I have never heard that phase of the question raised before. 446. Mr. Humphries made a statement that perpetual-lease holders under the Act of 1885 might purchase at any time : has that been made known generally to perpetual-lease holders ?—I do not know whether that is so or not. 447. Mr. Paul.] What was the real cause of the failure of workmen's homes in Auckland ' l . —I do not quite know; the land is poor, but I rather think it was because the railway did not run to suit them. The land grows potatoes and fruit well. I have not been in charge of the district long enough to know what the real reason is. 448. In view of the success of some of the homes in the South, say at Christchurch,[can it have been the tenure that was the cause of the failure ?—I do not think the tenure has anything whatever to do with it. Tenure, in fact, wherever I have been has never impeded settlement. 449. Do you think that poor land in the North of Auckland would be taken up under the homestead system ?—Some of it would. 450. Do you think it would be wise for thejßtate to put poor men on that and just yet ?—I would not until I saw what it would do. There are some blocks on which I would like them to have a trial. I would not without great caution and inquiry. 451. Do you think that men with capital would go on it ?—I think they would go on some of it, with proper inducements. 452. My idea is that it would be wrong to put poor men on it, and that men with capital would not touch it ?—I think your remark is right in regard to some of the land, but there are other portions that would be worthy trying; there is a great deal of useful country amongst it. 453. You heard some complaints made at Hukerenui by village-homestead settlers : one or two men complained that their contract had been broken, and they had been forced to take up their land under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure %—The position of those men was this—that is, in the one or two cases I enquired into : They held their land under the 1885 Act for some thirty years, and some of them got into difficulties, and were unable to pay their rent or pay their advances, the Board capitalised the whole, and gave them the 999-years lease instead of the thirty-years lease at 4 per cent. That is the only way in which it is being enforced, so that, instead of their having anything to complain of, they have been treated leniently. 454. Mr. Hall.] Are you aware that Wellington is chiefly supplied with fruit from Auckland ?— Some fruit possibly comes from Auckland, but a great deal comes from Nelson, Napier, and the Islands. 455. There are orchards in the north of Auckland of 15 to 20 acres equal to or surpassing anything in the colony, and as regards lemons, they can be grown there \ery cheaply, whilst Italian lemons are being imported to the colony and sold at a much higher price ?—I do not know the facts as you do, but I will take your word for all you say.
GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, 21sT JUNE, 1905. William Knox Chambers examined. 1. The Chairman.] Do you hold land in this locality ? —Yes. I hold 6,000-odd acres of freehold. I may say I appear as delegate from the Patutahi Branch of the Farmers' Union. 2. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission ? —I am deputed to lay before the Commission the opinions held by the farmers in my district. Personally, I may say I have had no experience of Government leaseholds. 3. What is the membership of your union ? —There are about thirty in the union, but I represent about one hundred settlers altogether. The general feeling amongst the settlers is against the Government leasehold. Those who are under lease in perpetuity are all very keen to have the right of purchase given to them. The objections they have to the leasehold are practically the same as those scores of people have already put before you. There is a difficulty in financing them, and there is also a feeling of insecurity as to whether the Government contracts will be carried out in their entirety or whether another party, who are very strong at present, will be able to bring about revaluation of the leases. There is also a feeling inherent in us all that a man would sooner be working on the land he owns than on a leasehold. 4. Mr. Forbes.] Did your union consider this question at a meeting ? —Yes, about three weeks ago. The whole matter has been frequently discussed since the Commission has been sitting and that is the general opinion of the small farmers in my district. 5. Are there many lease-in-perpetuity settlers «amongst them ?—Not more than three or four. Some of them are on town sections at Patutahi. 6. Has the question of the insecurity of tenure been brought before your union by these lease-in-perpetuity settlers ? —Yes ; and the system has been condemned even by those who are not interested. There are very few in favour of any form of Government lease that does not give the right of purchase. I think it is due to this fact : The farmers have sons growing up and they want to take up land for them, but they fight shy of the lease in perpetuity. They would like something more tangible than the lease in perpetuity for their sons. 7. Is occupation with right of purchase the form of tenure they favour \—Yes ; or a small-grazing - run lease with the right of purchase.
C.-4.
1382
W. K. CHAMBERS.
8. Is it difficult to borrow money on Government leases in this district ? —Personally, I cannot say, and Ido not think the men I represent have had much experience of that. One man who has ceased to be a leaseholder told me he could not get the same advance for breaking-in purposes on a leasehold that he could on a freehold. 9. On what terms do the lease-in-perpetuity holders consider they should get the right of purchase ? —I am afraid they are rather greedy there. They want it at the original valuation. 10. Is that the view you are supposed to represent ? —They are not unanimous on that point, but the majority hold that they should get the freehold at the original valuation. 11. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the right of purchase is an advantage to the occupier ? —I should say so, especially in rough country. 12. Then you think it is quite natural they should want to get it ? —Yes. 13. Do you think it would be good for the colony as a whole if they were given the freehold of these lands —Undoubtedly it would. 14. How would it benefit the colony ! —lt would benefit the local bodies here, because if the land was freehold they would be able to rate it at its full value. 15. Do you think that tenants are anxious to get the freehold in order that they may be able to pay more rates ?—I think a great many of them are foolish enough to wish it. They are willing to pay for this feeling of independence. 16. In the case of land-for-settlements tenants, do you think it is reasonable the Crown should let them have their land at a price which covers all the Crown's expenditure on it ?—I do not think the Government should charge them the full value of the land at the time of purchase if the settlers have been in occupation for ten years. or so. The tenant's money and labour have put an increased value on the land quite apart from what is called the unearned increment. 17. Do you think there is any unearned increment ? —There is, undoubtedly, in some districts. 18. Do you think the State is entitled to the unearned increment ?—Not to all of it. 19. What proportion do yo*i suggest the State should take ?—That is a question I am not prepared to go into. It would require a lot of consideration. 20. But you think the tenants should not get the land at the original upset price I—That1 —That is my own personal opinion. 21. Mr. McCarcUe.\ Do you know whether the settlers who now hold under lease in r perpetuity had the option of taking up the land under occupation with right of purchase ? —I do not know. 22. Are you satisfied with the administration of the Land Boards as now constituted ?—I have heard very few complaints about them here. 23. Have you representation from this district on the Board \ —Yes. 24. Do you know how the Advances to Settlers Act is operating here : has it been beneficial to the small settlers ? —No doubt it has induced an immense number of settlers to take up land who would not otherwise have been able to do so. 25. In regard to the question of freehold versus leasehold, do you not think the State could derive revenue from the land under freehold much more readily by the land-tax than under leasehold ? —I should say so. In any case the local bodies would benefit more if the land was freehold. 26. Are you satisfied with the principle now obtaining in regard to advances by the Government to assist in opening up country ? —lt has not been satisfactory in this district. 27. Do you think it would be better if they departed from the present system, and in place of it gave substantial subsidies in the case of settlers who were prepared to help themselves by raising loans to complete and metal roads ? —The Government give a pound-for-pound subsidy on all special loans now. 28. Has that been sufficient ?—No, nothing like enough. 29. Is there much Maori land here ? —Yes ; something between 500,000 and 750,000 acres. 30. Do you think the settlement of these lands has been progressing fast enough for the requirements of the district ?—I think so. The Government have still a fair amount of Crown land unsettled in this district. 31. Mr. McCutchan.] Have you sat on any local body here ?—I am Chairman of the Ngatapa Road Board. I have also held a seat on the Council and Harbour Board. 32. Throughout the colony exception has been taken to dual control by local bodies as being expensive : do you think it is wise to have two bodies operating within one area ? —As a general rule I should say one body is sufficient, but in a new and partially unsettled country like this, the County Council cannot give reasonable attention to small outlying districts, and I think it is necessary to have a Road Board then. But in more settled districts I think two bodies are unnecessary and against economical administration. 33. Do you advocate smaller counties ? —No. I do not think counties should be reduced one acre. 34. In speaking of the terms upon which tenants wish to get the freehold you expressed the opinion that they are a little selfish : the desire of the tenants is to pay up the 1 per cent, difference and compound interest on the 1 per cent, in order to get the freehold : do you not think that would be an equitable arrangement ? —Not altogether. My view of the matter is this : If the value of the land has been increased by Government expenditure on railways or roads the Government are certainly entitled to recoup themselves as part of that expenditure, and they should not sell the land at the original value. If the roads of the settlers have been left in a state of nature then the settler is entitled to every penny of value that he has created. 35. Speaking of the insecurity of the tenure and the fear of the Crown tenants of revaluation : do you think that is due to the agitation got up by the trades and labour organizations of the colony ? — Undoubtedly.
W. K. CHAMBEBS. 1
1383
C—4.
36. I suppose you know there is a very large percentage of these people who are opposed to the view expressed by their representatives at the conference at Wellington ? —Quite recently I saw assort of apology for some of the wilder statements. 37. Do you think there is any real danger to be feared from these people ?—Judging by Australia, I think there is a very real danger. 38. Is it your experience that the minds of the settlers are thoroughly unsettled on account of this agitation for revaluation ?—So far as my little district is concerned, yes. 39. Speaking of the Land Board representation, are you in favour of the system of nomination or do you approve of the election of these Boards ? —For choice I should say election. 40. Then upon what franchise would you elect these members I—l should say on the county franchise. 41. Do you think that would be fair ?—Yes. 42. The Chairman.] Do you think any legislative body would bring in a Bill or attempt to repudiate a title legally given to land I—There1 —There is no knowing what the Legislature would do under present circumstances. 43. If any Legislature did do so, do you not think the Imperial Government would veto such an enactment ? —I should hope so. William Douglas Lysnar examined. 44. The Chairman.] Do you appear as a landholder ?—Yes. I am a solicitor but I hold two freehold station properties and a small Government grazing-run of 3,100-odd acres at Waimata, about eighteen miles from here. I may saji I appear principally as the chairman of the Gisborne Branch of the Farmers' Union. 45. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I may say the Gisborne Branch of the Farmers' Union, in common with the union as a whole, are practically unanimous in asking that the tenant should have the right of freehold. The question of the method of granting that right has not received final consideration nor has it received full consideration, so I would like it to be clearly understood that what I say in that respect is my own opinion. So far as lam able to judge, the unrest of these Government leaseholders is brought about in the first instance by the present Government introducing a Fair Rent Bill. That is at the bottom of the whole agitation, coupled with the repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction of the local bodies regarding the difficulties they are labouring under so far as rating small grazing-runs is concerned. They are always urging that some legislation should be introduced to put them on a better basis for rating purposes. Personally, Ido not much dread this labour agitation. I think any sensible Government will see they are going too far, but I dread a strong Government like the present repeatedly bringing up a Fair Rent Bill. Our branch of the union passed strong resolutions on this matter when the Premier first brought the Bill in, and these resolutions have been sent forward to the Government from time to time. If it were not for these two phases Ido not think there would be much agitation on the part of the Crown tenants for a change of tenure. There is no doubt they labour under difficulties in regard to financing, but that is substantially counteracted by the many advantages they get in other ways. A man will probably have to pay 1 per cent, more interest under leasehold title than under freehold, and a lesser amount will be advanced to him. I have experienced that in regard to my own Government lease. If there is to be any change in our legislation it should not be for revaluation at all, but to give the tenants the option of converting into freehold. An important phase of the question is the basis on which they should be given the right of purchase, and, speaking individually, I do not think that the present valuation or the original valuation is a fair basis. I have worked out one or two cases, and the suggestion I would make is this : I hold that whatever the original valuation was the Government are entitled to that without any question. Then, if the original value has increased I would take the difference between the present value and the original valuation and allow half to go to the State and half to go to the tenant. Taking the land in this district that has been leased from the Government we may safely say that on the average the unimproved value has increased about three times. For instance, where land was taken up ten or sixteen years ago at a capital value of 10s. per acre, it is worth about £1 10s. per acre to-day. Certainly there has been a very substantial rise in the unimproved value. I will take the case of a small grazing-run as an illustration. A run of 3,000 acres at the original value of 10s. per acre represents £1,500. The rent is fixed at 2i per cent, on that value and amounts to £37 10s. per annum. The unearned increment is £1 per acre, and if the amount was capitalised as I say it would mean that the Government would get the original 10s. per acre, and they would also get half of the amount of the increase in the unimproved value, amounting in all to £1 per acre. That should be worth 5 per cent, to the State, and it would mean that on that basis the Government would get £150 per annum in place of the £37 10s. they now receive. On the other hand, for rating purposes the local bodies are tied down in regard to this class of tenure to 6 per cent, on the capitalised value of the rent, which in the case I have quoted would be £625. That is what is causing the local bodies to complain so much. While the unimproved value of the property may be £3,000, they have only the right to rate on £625. If the land was converted into freehold the ratingvalue would be increased by £2,375, so there would be a direct advantage to the local bodies for rating purposes. Now, take the case of a lease-in-perpetuity section, the rent of which is based at 4 per cent, on the capital value. On the same figures the Government rent would be £60, and if that was capitalised and sold to the tenant it would produce £150 to the Crown. Of course the rates in this instance would be the same as freehold. Then, under the Land for Settlements Act where the rent, based at 5 per cent, on the capital value, is £75, if the lease was^converted into a freehold it would be £150 to the State. Therefore I say it would be good business both for the colony and for the people if the Crown tenants were allowed to convert into freehold. But I would not give the right of purchase without
a—4.
1384
W. D. LYSNAB
a substantial portion of the unearned increment went to the Crown. The difficulty of rating in regard to small grazing-runs is a matter that has been acutely felt. It has been specially brought before our branch of the union, and we in turn have brought it u rider the notice of the Government. In the Hungaroa Township there is a body of Crown tenants, and they have practically no road. The settlers are all holding under small grazing-run leases. They have applied to be allowed to pledge tneir lands to enable them to get a, road, and they are prepared to rate themselves, but the authorities cannot accept their tenure as a security. The County Council is helpless, and these people are precluded bv law from giving a security over their property for rating purposes. They sav they would be only too glad to convert into freehold if they had the chance, and then the local authorities would have the right to rate them fully. 46. Mr. Forbes.] Why does your union feel so strongly on the question of the Crown tenants getting the right of purchase : are your members principally freeholders ?—We have a large proportion of leasehold members in our union. I think I have already said it is owing to the Premier's repeated efforts to get a Fair Rent Bill through. 47. How many members are there in your union ?—Over a hundred members on the books. We have about sixty paid-up members. I may say it is a generally recognised thing amongst us that anv attempt to alter existing contracts should be resisted. We think that the existing contracts should remain intact. 48. I think anv reasonable man would say that ?—That was not so when the Premier brought in his Fair Rent Bill. 49. We have had the evidence of small-grazing-run holders who say that their rents are too high, but that the only way they can get a reduction is by forfeiting, and they feel it is a great hardship to have to forfeit and run the risk of losing their place when it is put up to competition again at a reduced rental. They have asked us if something cannot be done to enable the present tenants to get the property at the reduced rental ?—That has not been the case here. 50. May not that Fair Rent Bill have been brought in to meet tfiese cases ?—That was the reason put forward, but I always regarded it as a bogey. If it was for that purpose why did it not state it was simply to relieve Crown tenants who are paying too big a rent ? Instead of that it was introduced as a general measure to either increase or decrease rents. It would be quite sufficient to meet the oases you mention if the Land Board were given power to reduce rents where they thought fit. 51. If it is merely a matter of raising more revenue, would it not be much easier for the Government, instead of attempting to interfere with existing contracts in the way of revaluation, to give another screw to the land-tax ?—I think the land-tax is heavy enough as it is. I think other ways should be found to provide money than by breaking these contracts. If thev are to be altered it should only be done voluntarily and by mutual consent. 52. You think no reasonable man would anticipate that his contract would be broken ?—I am afraid many men do anticipate it. I may say I feared very much that the Premier was going to get his Fair Rent Bill through. The leasehold is bad enough now to advance on, but under a Fair Rent Bill it would be absolutely impossible to finance it. 53. What is it that tells against a leaseholder in the matter of financing I—Well, I maintain, myself, that a small-grazing-run lease is better than a freehold, but it is very hard to get people to believe that. There are restrictions in leases which are not attached to the freehold. They are really the trouble. 54. Is it the conditions attached to the lease in perpetuity that make it harder to finance ?—Yes, it is hard to finance any lease, and more particularly a Government lease, because of the restrictions in regard to residence and area attached to it. 55. Do you not think these restrictions are necessary ?—I say they are necessary where a man acquires the freehold of the land for ordinary occupation, but where a man mortgages and foreclosure takes place, I think the mortgagee should not be subject to the same restrictions. I think there should be no limit as regards area where an individual or corporation is compelled to buy in as mortgagee. I think the mortgagee should be allowed a reasonable time in which to move off these foreclosed properties. I would allow him to purchase in and give him five years in which to find a purchaser. 56. Mr. Matheson.'] Do you consider it is a lease if landlord and tenant agree to add a amending clause ?—No. 57. Supposing the State decides to give the right of purchase to such tenants as that, would that be a breach of the lease ?—Not if it is voluntary for them to take it. It would be appreciated. 58. Do you think the lands purchased for settlement have become the lands of the people of the colony, or are the money-lenders with whose money it is bought the real landlords ?—No, it is the tenants'; they pay the interest. 59. Are not the money-lenders in Europe the real landlords of these lands ?—ln a very remote degree. When you acquire land under this land-for-settlements scheme you load each man's section with the cost of roading, cutting-up, and interest on the loan. Whentyou cut the land up for settlement those who take it up are paying for the whole thing. 60. He is paying rent on the whole thing—on the estate so purchased with European money ? —But when he pays interest he takes the load on his own shoulders. The property is loaded with it. 61. Can you see any way in which the colony would suffer if the tenants Vin the land for'settlements were allowed to repay that debt ?—None whatever. 62. Do you think it would be .a benefit to the colony I—Yes, because it would reduce the amount of the liability. 63. Do you think the colony would be more likely to prosper by encouraging the individual in that way ?—lt certainly would. In my own case I pay more attention and attach more value to freehold properties than to leasehold. Where it comes to making improvements you let the leasehold go.
1385
W. D. LYSNAR.]
C— 4.
64. You are aware that a great many of the city dwellers think otherwise ?—Yes, because they cannot understand the difficulties those in the back blocks have to suffer. 65. Do you consider town and country interests in this way are inseparable ?—Those living in the country should be considered first. The country should not be ruled by the town. 66. Is the prosperity of the town dependent on the prosperity of the country ?—Yes, that is so. 67. Do you consider that in giving the right of purchase to the tenants of the Crown that the townspeople would eventually benefit ? —ln an indirect way, by making country people more stable. 68. Do you think they will benefit ?—Yes, by making the country people more stable and prosperous, they would have more money to spend. 69. You think they would be better off ?—Yes, the towns would be in a better position, because the country people would be in a better position to finance. 70. Are you a member of the local body here ? —Yes. 71. A previous witness stated that on all loans under the Local Bodies Loans Act there was a pound-for-pound subsidy ? —That is not correct; he made a mistake. 72. Do you think the land question depends much on the roading to give access to the settlement of land ?—There is no doubt about it. 73. Do you think it would be a wise thing to abolish grants and put local bodies in a sound position by increasing the subsidy ?—lf something could be done to give them a specific rate according to the capital value or their proportion of revenue, that would be the best thing for them. 74. You think that an automatic system of that kind would be much better than the system of grants I—Very much better. 75. Do you think it would be best to pay more subsidy as the rates increase ? —Yes ; that is a very good sound principle. 76. Mr. McC'ardle.] Do you think that should apply to a district where new roads require to be made. Do you not think that to construct them and then for rates to be raised locally for maintaining or metalling the new roads would be a more satisfactory thing to a district like this ?—Of course, there is that phase of it to be taken into account. If we get any fair proportion of our revenue here for road purposes, we should be in a much better position than we are in now. 77. You say it is a difficult thing to raise money on Government leaseholds —more difficult than to raise it on freehold %—Yes. 78. You also said that if the settlers obtained the freehold it would not benefit the towns : is it not a fact that if the settler could borrow at a lower rate of interest and develop the resources of his land, the output of the land would be increased, and the towns would benefit therefrom ?—Yes ; in the direction that they would be better able to finance and would have greater spending-power. 79. Is it not a fact that the reason why these lands are not taken as security by monetary institutions is that there are too many restrictions covering these lands ?—Yes. 80. Would it not be a reasonable thing that as soon as the settler had made improvements equal to those made by the settler who holds the right of purchase, he should get free from the Land Board ? —When he has done what is required of him the Government should free him from all restrictions. 81. Have you ever come across any question where a person leaving a lease in perpetuity has any difficulty in getting his estate administered, or getting a free title for the legatees \—l have. 82. Is it not a necessity that some amendments should take place that would enable a man to leave his property as he thinks fit % —Yes; I had a case of that kind a little while ago. The bank was interested, and I was acting for it. 83. Do you know the case of a man named Pilkington, in Wellington, who had a brother and a partner with him, and the brother died in England, and they had to override the Act in order to put him in possession of the land ? —I do not know of that case, but I know the case I spoke of just now, in which they really had to let the thing go. There was absolutely no alternative. If the Land Board had exercised their power strictly, the representative of that deceased person might have lost all interest in the property. The Act had really to be set aside, and it was the good nature of the Land Board that let the whole thing through. 84. With regard to the revaluation question : I suppose you are aware that the cities are clamouring now in favour-of revaluation on the death of the present tenant, or upon the present tenant transferring to some one else. That is put forward as an electioneering cry in the cities. Does it not show that there is a danger of revaluation taking place ?—There is no doubt about it. 85. That it shall take place on the same basis as the Land for Settlements Act: would it be possible for the State to do that, and still say the thing was quite fair ?—lf that is good for the freehold it is good for the leasehold. 86. Do you not see the danger that if the Government did that the tenant might suffer. They have now the valuation made by the Land Board of the improvements effected on the land, and there is generally a wide difference between that and the amount expended on the property. If it is held that the State holds that the unearned increment belongs to it and the improvements only are the tenant's, would not the tenant be a heavy loser ? —He would be a heavy loser. The tenant has an interest in the unexpired portion of the lease, which he is entitled to consideration for. 87. Do you not know that the cities do not allow that ? —-The cities are evidently looking at the matter from an entirely selfish point of view. The settlers should be considered. These people in the towns do not understand the difficulties the settlers in the back country are labouring under in many ways. 88. You have had experience of the Advances to Settlers Act ?—Yes. 89. Has it worked satisfactorily ?—Yes, as far as it has gone. The only difficulty is that they have not sufficient money to lend out.
174—C. 4.
0.—4
1386
Tw. D. LYSNAR.
90. Would it be advisable to advance up to three-fifths or two-thirds of tenant's interest in the land if they had sufficient money. They now advance up to one-half, and they are very careful it should only reach one-third ? —Very often below one-third. 91. Does it not force them to go into other channels for money, and pay higher interest ? —lt might be dangerous to advance more freely. It depends on the leasehold. 92. If it is money for timber or money for improvements on the land ? —lf it is money for improvements I would do it. If the money was for other things, such as paying debts, I would be dubious about it. Two-thirds is a great proportion to lend on leasehold land : three-fifths would be more reliable. 93. Land is steadily growing in value through the efforts of the settlers ? —Yes. 94. Has the dairy industry got a hold here ? —Yes, it has got a very fair hold. Of course, our values for dairying-land have not gone up in proportion to the other districts outside. 95. You have a great industry in Poverty Bay ryegrass ?—Yes. 96. Have you any noxious weeds ? —Very little in this district. They are coming in at Wairoa. Our district is practically free, you may say, owing to the efforts of the farmers to keep the weeds out; there are a few cases which are the exception. 97. There is an impression that a great deal of this Poverty Bay ryegrass is from seed grown in Southland ?- —That is so. They buy the seed in Southland, take a crop off it, and call it Poverty Bay ryegrass. 98. Do you not think that steps should be taken to prevent men seeding the country with polluted seed ? —Yes ; we have a special committee to fight this question. 99. Do you not think that the most reasonable way to check that would be to inspect the fields in an infected district ?—Our branch has asked the Government to prohibit grass-seed being imported from infected districts. It comes in practically with the clover-seed and in oats. In the case of the Californian thistle and ragwort, they are not ripe when the ryegrass is ripe. It matures first. The kind of seeds we get from Southland are cowgrass-seeds. We buy that very largely from the south. Our branch has asked the Government to take steps to prohibit the importation of seeds into this district from any infected district in the south. 100. Should not that apply to the whole of the clean portion of the colony ?—Yes. I think your suggestion that the Government should inspect these paddocks and stop them getting seeds from places where the paddocks are contaminated would meet the difficulty. 101. I understand the danger of that is increased by the grass-seeding machines ? —That is what we have to look out for. 102. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you transact business for the Land for Settlements Office ?—No ; Mr. Sievwright is the solicitor for that. 103. In your opinion is there any difference between the lease-in-perpetuity and occupation-with right-of-purchase security for the purpose of lending money on ?—Only that for the one there is 4 per cent, charged, and the other pays 5 per cent. 104. For the purpose of borrowing money, which is the better security, other things being equal ? —I should prefer the one with the right of purchase. 105. Is it generally regarded that the right of purchase offers the better security ? —From the money-lender's point of view. 106. Is money freely lent locally on lease in perpetuity ?—Yes, the banks take it. 107. We had evidence elsewhere that the banks would not look at lease in perpetuity ? —They have been doing it here. 108. The security is improving ? —Yes, if agitators would only leave the matter alone. 109. You are aware there is a great amount of agitation, not on account of the Fair Rent Bill, but on account of the Rebate of Rent Bill. The agitators say the Crown tenants are getting a rebate, and therefore it is only fair that on the other side the rent should be put up ?—That is not a cry that comes comes from here. There is none of that here, except under land-for-settlements tenures. 110. They do not get the rebate ? —I do not think they do. There was request made from the Farmers' Union that they should get a rebate for prompt payment, but that is a different thing. 111. The townspeople say that on account of this Rebate of Rent Bill there should be a revaluation of the leases, and there is an agitation in favour of that ?—lf that is done, make provision that when the land goes up again you put up the rent. Make special legislation for that class, and confine it to those who want the rebate. If a man is paying too heavily reduce his rent, and if things improve put it up again. 112. The Act says this is a rebate for prompt payment all round ? —That is so. 113. If that is so, should it not apply to all districts ? —Yes. 114. If this is a rebate for prompt payment, should there be any differentiation ?—lf it is for one, it should be for all. 115. It does not vitiate the contract ?—The giving of the concession is a voluntary act on the part of the Government, but on that account they must not attempt to take something of the tenants' right. I think where these rebates are asked for they always allow this. If you have a tenant in arrear he will walk out. 116. That is not the point. Do you not think there is a great deal in the contention of the trades and labour organization that where a rebate of rent is given, it is only fair there should be a revaluation ? —I do not think these people sfwuld be considered at all. These settlers have taken a lot on their shoulders, and the townspeople are not affected. 117. The townspeople are liable for the borrowed money ?—That is only where default is made. 118. Not at all, they are paying interest day by day through the Customs ?—There is no such experience as that in this district. In this district the tenant is rated for the full cost of the loan, and he pays interest on that in every instance.
C.-4
W. D. LYRNAE.]
1387
119. And a good deal more besides ?—Yes. 120. In the towns they say if it is right for the State to reduce the rent by giving the settlers a rebate it is equally right for the State to revalue the land and increase the rent ?—I do not agree with that. If the lessor choses to make that concession he should not come back and say, " I will take away the right youlhave." 121. Are you aware there are Crown tenants who have absolutely refused to take the rebate because they consider it is a moral vitiation of the contract ?—No, I have not. There are no tenants here who have got the benefit of such a rebate. 122. You fear the Fair Rent Bill very much ?—Yes, I think from the way in which the Premier brought it up there is very great danger. '"i 123. Have you read the Bill ?—On one occasion I did. ' : 124. Where vested interests have been concerned, should legislation have retroactive effect without compensation ?—lt should not, but very often it does do so. 125. Is there right of appeal ?—No. 126. Not to the Privy Council ?—No. 127. Even if vested interests are interfered with ?—Even if vested interests were finterfered with. You may, of course, ask the Governor not to consent to the Act. The great wrong is that if the Act is brought into force there is no appeal. 128. There are two classes of Crown lands, those already settled and those to be settled Is it not quite clear that it is a Bill to deal with Crown lands yet to be settled unless clearly laid down it was to have a retrospective effect ?—lt was to have a retrospective effect on Crown lands. If you offered Crown lands with a Fair Rent Bill the people would not touch Crown lands. No financial institution would advance on a tenure of that sort. 129. You raised the point that one-third of the land must be freehold lands or else a loan area could not be formed for the purpose of raising a loan ?—That is for small grazing-runs, following the same basis. 130. Do you mean that the lease-in-perpetuity people could not form a special district ?—Yes. 131. Then you will be surprised if I gave you a loan area that was formed of these lease-in-perpetuity lands, and told you that the State made a loan to it ?—Then it is contrary to the Act. That is the accepted position of the law here by the local authorities. They require one-third of it to be freehold, and if you got a bunch of Crown tenants in one locality that was going to be a rating district, you could not get a threepenny-bit on it if you were going to make it a loan area. 132. Are you aware there is a rating-area comprised only of lease-in-perpetuity holdings ?—No. 133. I think the local authority here is labouring under a misapprehension, because if the thing is done in other districts with the sanction of the authorities, it may be done here ?—Yes, if that is so. I was talking with the Clerk of the County Council this morning on that very point, and he agreed with me that was the position. 134. You said there should be no limitation where lands were mortgaged, so that the mortgagee, where it was necessary, might on the foreclosure buy the property I—lt is very necessary. 135. That would strike at the root of the thing—it would help the financial people to accumulate land ?—The financial people do not want the land ; they want their interest. You have this principle, under the Native-land legislation you cannot purchase from a Native if you hold over a certain area, but you can take a mortgage from a Native. This restriction hits hard a lot of Crown tenants. 136. Arid financial institutions ?—Yes, it makes them hesitate. I remember on one occasion a loan was applied for from a private individual who lends very largely in this district. He would not touch any leasehold—would not entertain it at all because of these leasehold restrictions. He said, " How do I know, if I have to foreclose, that I have even a temporary holding. I want my money; I do not want any risk." 137. If you do away with that you may have a large accumulation of estates ?—I would give a more reasonable time to find another purchaser. You would have to give him at least five years. 138. Is it not the case that the mortgagee is practically carrying on many places ? We have in mind several places where the mortgagee has kept up all the payments until he gets a purchaser ?— He may foreclose and run the place for twelve months with the consent of the Land Board He cannot sell and buy in. 139. If he gets a suitable purchaser ?—He cannot buy in himself, and that is the crux of the whole question. 140. Certainly not, because if the law provides that a man cannot hold more than 640 acres of firstclass land and 2,000 acres of second-class land, it would be a wrong thing to allow a financial man to step in and accumulate a larger estate than the limits fixed by the law ?—You are assuming now that the financial men and institutions want the land ; that is not so. If that phase were dismissed you would understand the question better. These large men who lend money do not want the land; it is the same with money-lending institutions. It is very essential that some amendments should be made in the law. There should be no restriction on a man holding a mortgage whether the holding is of large amount or not. But I would restrict him by compelling him to sell to a bona fide purchaser within a specified time. 141. Seeing that the consent of the landlord has to be got before the mortgage is registered, and seeing that the Land Board has allowed the mortgagee to carry on, do you not think his position is sufficiently safeguarded ?—As far as it goes it is very good, and if it was not for that little concession, no bank and none of these strong financial men would touch it with a pitchfork. 142. There is the further provision that the mortgagee can sell after foreclosure, providing he gets a purchaser who can make the declaration that he has not already more than the specified limit of land ? —That is so.
C.—4.
1388
hv. D. LYSNAS.
143. So your whole advocacy is in the interest of the financial people ?—No, in the interest of the farmer, because he can then go to these people who are refusing to lend him money now. If there was such a provision as I have mentioned, these people would lend money in this district. I would say a reasonable time to allow for finding a purchaser would be five years. 144. Have you a seat on any of the local bodies ?—I have. 145. Can you not load for roading purposes generally up to 25 per cent. ? Blocks of Crown land put on the market if they were generally loaded to the extent of 25 or even 50 per cent., the tenant paying interest on the loading at 5 per cent, on the Loans to Local Bodies, principal and interest are extinguished in twenty-six years. Do you think that the tenant should be relieved after twenty-six years, seeing that the State is reimbursed ?—There is something to be said in favour of that, but then you are holding a bait in one hand to knock it down with the other. I would leave the thing alone, because if there is going to be any change the townspeople whom you have been referring to would say because of this concession, " You will have to consent to higher terms." 146. We will suppose there are two blocks, the capital value of both being £1 per acre, one block being loaded and one not. One party comes under the Act ?—I say the concession should be granted in that way, but do not disturb any of the present leases, because that would only give the townspeople the opportunity they clamour for to change all the terms of the lease. 147. Do you believe in dual control ?—I do. In a district such as this we have a very large county, and it is impossible for the County Council to give proper attention to every portion of the district. 148. For what reason ?—They would want a bigger staff. It would be too cumbersome. We would take a district over thirty miles from here : the County Engineer cannot keep up his knowledge of that district without visiting it, and these visits would take up too much time. 149. But you have nine ridings in the county and nine members on the Board ?—Yes. 150. Surely one member for each is sufficient ?—They would not get attention. There should be right to form Road Boards. Ido not believe in these bigger and settled parts being divided, but I do believe in the outlying districts having the right to form Road Boards, say thirty miles from the centre. 151. Under this system of dual control, not only have you to have a second staff, but you suffer seriously financially. Where there is no Road Board you can obtain up to £2,500 on the subsidy ; where there are Road Boards you are limited to £500. Is not that a serious loss ?—Of course you get better subsidies by having your Road Boards than otherwise. That is the experience here, however. In several cases they have formed Road Boards for the purpose of nobbling the subsidies. They get a better subsidy by having a Road Board. 152. That may be because the county has struck a very low general rate ?—The county here has always struck this three-farthings rate. The Road Board gets a subsidy also. It is better for it to go in for 10s. in the pound than for the county to go in for ss. in the pound. 153. Not always, because the Road Board only forms a small portion of the rating-area and the county rates over the whole area ?—That is so. I think that any area within thirty miles of the county office would be a reasonable area to include within the county jurisdiction, and have no road Boards there ; but for the extreme portions of the district it is absolutely necessary. I know of one property lam interested in forty-five miles from town to which that applies. It is two days' ride for the County Engineer to get to, and he has not the time. If you leave it for the people there who are travelling every day on the road, they will attend to their own wants. 154. Do you think the local authorities, the county, or Road Boards should be forced to keep road accounts ?—They do now. 155. No; they keep rating accounts ?—lt would be unfair to say particular portions of the rates should go to particular works. 156. This county has never kept a road account ?—No, I do not know anything about it. 157. The Chairman.] Regarding the Fair Rent Bill to which you refer, is that the Bill drafted by the late Sir John McKenzie ?—I do not know who drafted it; it was fathered by the Premier. 158. Was that intended to apply to Crown lands ?—Yes, as I understood it. 159. It was not limited to cases generally, where leases were being taken up in a time of boom and proved afterwards to have been taken at an excessive value. It is simply an adjustment of rent ?— It applies to all tenants whether they took up in a time of boom or not. The boom people would redress themselves, but the other people who endured hardships should not suffer because the land was taken during a time of boom. 160. Was the Bill retrospective ?—Yes. 161. The Government was to enforce it without the right of appeal ?—Yes, if Parliament passed it. 162. Would not that be repudiation of the tenure ?—lt would. 163. Surely there was the right of appeal %—lf the Legislature do tnat, that is sufficient; we are helpless once the Governor signs the Bill. 164. Yes; but the Imperial Government must sanction the Bill?— The Governor may of course refuse to sign it. We have an instance of that in a minor degree in respect of an Act which was passed this last session to deal with the case of a person holding a certificate of title under the Land Transfer Act, in regard to a piece of ground near Tolago "Bay. An Act was brought in and passed, cancelling the title and giving the Nati\e Land Court power to make further investigation and give a title. 165. Is not that because of a complaint of defective title ?—lt is a complaint made by some people, who got the Government to bring in legislation on the subject. 166. As regards financing, do you say that the Crown tenants l woud be in a better position to finance if they had the freehold ?—Yes. 167. Would that apply only in cases where the unimproved value has risen greatly—where there has been a great increase in the unimproved value ?—No ; that is if the value stood as it was originally.
W. D. LYSNAB.]
1389
a—4.
168. As it stands now, the whole of the capital is on the land. If the Government made an advance on that security, the tenant is supposed to get an advance up to 50 per cent, of his improvements. If he got the freehold could he get that amount ?—No. 169. Would he not be at a disadvantage in borrowing then ?—No ; by his industry and other resources he would reduce the amount down so that be could borrow on the very best basis. 170. But he would not possibly borrow as much ?—That is so. Do not mistake me as being against the leasehold. I say it is very good. It is only because of this agitation and the dread that something in the present conditions the Government will be forced to alter. 171. As regards givng the tenants the right of purchase, would not the public claim the right to have this land put up under a fresh ballot ?—Why should they ? 172. When the land was balloted for in the first instance, it was a lease pure and simple without any right of purchase. With the right of purchase put in, many more would be likely to go in for the ballot, and, if so, if the conditions have been substantially changed that land should be thrown open to ballot ? —I do not think there would be sufficient to make any change. The person who has improved the land has a bigger right. 173. On broad principle is it not dangerous to disturb the tenures of land ?—lt is. 174. Does it not give these agitators a real reason for agitating further and it might be very farreaching ?—I agree with you there ;it is dangerous and it is far better to leave it alone. I blame the Premier's Fair Rent Bill substantially for the whole thing, backed up, of course, by this labour agitation. When you see the Premier of a strong Government going in this direction, and then the labour agitators of the colony backing him up, and perhaps going a little further, it makes you think there is something in the wind. 175. Has not the Premier stated strongly there shall be no disturbance of tenure brought about by the Bill ? —lt does not say so in the Bill. 176. As regards the residence conditions, I dare say there are many cases where the inhabitants of a city—be they mechanics or business-men—have saved money, and perhaps they have sons growing up but not of age. These men might like, out of their savings, to take up sections of Crown land, and out of their savings improve them. Should not the residential conditions be relaxed somewhat to meet cases of that kind ? Supposing, for instance, the tenant or applicant was required to make 50 per cent, more improvements on that account than the ordinary applicant, might not the restriction as to residence be relaxed to some extent rather than drag him away from his employment in the town or force him to send his sons on to the land before they were of age ?—I think the restrictions as to residence, as well as to transfer, are made unreasonably severe. They might be relaxed ; so long as the man has done up to a reasonable quantity of improvement, the conditions might be relaxed. People, of course, should not be allowed to take up land and not use it. But so long as the land is being improved the residential clause should be entirely secondary, if there should be any at all. 177. As regards the responsibility for the borrowed money, we have had up till now £50,000,000 borrowed for expenditure in the colony. Have not the towns benefited very much by this expenditure ? —More so than the country. 178. And is it the townspeople's lands or the settlers' lands that are mortgaged for these millions ? —It is the settlers' lands that are mortgaged in common with the lands of the townspeople, but in the case of the latter to only a smaller degree. 179. But the man who has no real estate can pack up and leave the country to its fate. Are not the lands of the colony mortgaged for those millions ?—Yes. 180. And is it not the productions of the country that the people export to pay the interest ?— Yes. 181. In that case should not these people be considered and not induced to leave the land ? — Yes ; I think the labour agitators are going too far on these land questions. John Wilson Bright examined. 182. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am manager of the Gisborne Branch of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Company (Limited). 183. You have some matters to bring forward ?—Yes. There is one matter in connection with the land-for-settlements system, the conditions in connection with which are pressing harshly, I think, on some of the settlers. I know one settler who took up 33 acres, and according to the regulations his wife, of course, could have taken up a contiguous section, but he was not in a position to do so at the time. He later on applied for another section in the name of his wife, and, if it had been contiguous, the residential conditions could have been dispensed with, but the Land Board has insisted that his wife shall reside upon the section. [Position of section pointed out on map.] I think, in cases like that, the conditions could be easily modified. His wife could have been exempted from the residence conditions if it could be shown that this section he held was insufficient to enable him to get a living. The Land Board had made it a condition that the wife shall reside separately on the section she has applied for. 184. Is that being done \ —l cannot tell you. 185. You think the conditions should be changed to meet such a case '{—Yes ; that is the object with which I brought the matter under your notice. There is another matter I wish to call attention to in respect of the ballot system. My observation from eighteen or nineteen years' residence here is that the ballot system has been grossly abused. When an eligible section is offered for application, and the right of purchase is given, and it is known that the settlers in the district want to purchase it, there have been as many as two hundred applicants for it. Many times there have been eighty or ninety applicants, while forty is a general thing.
C—4.
1390
J. W. BRIGHT.
186. Does not that arise from the fact that the section is undervalued ?—No ; it is owing to the adjacent position of the settler and the knowledge that the settler would give the higher amount. There are many men about the streets who put in applications who have no intention whatever of residing on the section or complying with the conditions. There is another matter with regard to finance : I do not know whether it comes within the scope of this Commission to recommend that the Public Trustee should be empowered to use his funds for the purpose of financing Crown tenants. At present the Public Trustee has a large amount of money available for investment, but he will not accept anything but freehold securities. 187. That applies to all trusts ? —Yes ; except that the Public Trustee's Department is a Government Department. If the Government security were added, or it were backed up by that, it would assist this Department—the Advances to Settlers Department having withdrawn for some time past owing to having no money to lend. 188. That could be done by one Department being empowered to borrow from another Department I—Yes. I have a clientHe here of a very large number of Crown tenants indeed, and, as far as my observation goes, the lease-in-perpetuity tenure is considered to be a very good tenure indeed. It is the favourite tenure here, and to my knowledge there is a very large number at the present time of prosperous deserving settlers who, if there had been no other tenure but the freehold, would have had no opportunity of getting on the land and making homes for themselves. 189. Mr. Forbes.'] In reference to this abuse of the ballot : is there not a term of residence insisted upon before a transfer can be granted ? —Nominally there is. A transfer, if converted into cash, cannot be obtained until twelve months' holding, and until a certain amount of improvements has been done, but I think that is moje honoured in the breach than in the observance. 190. What would you suggest to stop that I—One1 —One thing that strikes one at times is that the State perhaps offers the land at too cheap a price, which induces such a large number of applicants to apply for it. That phase of the question opens up the further question as to whether the State is not parting with its land at too low a value. 191. Is there any large demand for land in this district?— Yes. Perhaps for fifty or sixty miles back there would be forty or fifty applicants for a section. 192. Do you think it is reasonable that lease-in-perpetuity tenants should have to undergo the same sort of examination as they do under the Land for Settlements ? —I think there should be some steps taken to correct the abuse of the ballot. 193. I mean by examination, ascertaining whether a man intends to go on the land himself or not. Do you think something should be done in that direction in connection with all Crown lands ? —I fee) sure that something should be done. 194. You say that the lease in perpetuity is the favourite tenure ?—Yes ; a man with insufficient capital prefers it. 195. On what ground ?—His land is cheaper, and the settlers regard the title as absolutely as good as the freehold. I regard it so. 196. We have been told that it is almost impossible to finance with this lease-in-perpetuity tenure ? —I do not think so. The only difficulty is as to the restrictions with regard to residence, which hamper one in finding a purchaser. In practice, I think, the objection does not work. 197. Would you have no difficulty in finding purchasers for lease-in-perpetuity lands ? —No ; in this district you have a purchaser for almost everything valuable. 198. Are there any large estates round about here that could be taken for closer settlement ?— No doubt there are estates. 199. Suitable for small settlement ?—Yes. 200. Are there no Crown lands ?—Yes ; a considerable distance back, but not suitable for dairying or anything of that kind. It is mostly bush and scrub. It is steep land, but good pastoral country that could be improved. 201. What is the difficulty, want of roads ? —That is one difficulty, but not very much, because wliat was produced would be valuable according to bulk, such as wool, which can be packed as cheaply as being carted, while stock can be taken on their legs. 202. Has any of this land been opened up recently ?—Yes ; there was a ballot taken only a week or two ago for one or two sections. 203. If land is available near a town do you think there is any immediate necessity for dealing with large estates ?—lt is suitable for different classes of settlement. The one would be taken up for cropping and dairying, while the other would be purely pastoral. 204. It would not be suitable for close settlement ? —No. 205. In connection with the Advances to Settlers Department, would you say it is working satisfactorily in this district ?—The only thing unsatisfactory is that they have not got enough money to lend out. 206. Is that the reason given when they refuse loans ? —Up to recently they notified they were not lending anything in sums above £500, but I believe the Department has intimated that it is again prepared to receive applications for such sums, so I suppose it has got a fresh supply of money. 207. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it is good business on the State's part to grant a lease to anybody for a thousand years at a fixed rent ? —No, I should think not; but having done so I regard the contract as sacred and it should not be interfered with. 208. You regard everything dope as sacred ?—ln respect to land. 209. Do you not think it is possible to amend a bargain with benefit to both parties ?—Yes ; if both parties are agreeable. 210. And suppose the State granted terms of purchase, would that not be reasonable ? —No doubt; but it should not be at the will of one party to make any alteration.
J. W. BBIGHT.I
1391
C—4.
211. Can you see any way in which the colony would suffer if the Crown tenants were given the right of purchase ?—I do not think it would. 212. Do you think it would be a benefit to the colony in the end ?—I hardly know, it is a big question. It is a question whether many of the tenants would avail themselves of it. 213. The question is whether it would benefit the colony to give them the option ?—There are so many land systems at the present time ; but if we were starting in a fresh country I should say " Do not part with anything." 214. Do you think it would be a wise thing to aim for taking back by purchase all the land in the colony ?—Not now. 215. Do you think the nominated system for members of the Land Board is a wise one ?—No. 216. Do you think the average intelligence of the electors is better than that of the Government ? —I think a Minister is not in a position to know who is the best person to represent the settlers. I believe in election every time. Nominees are often appointed on account of friendship or through political influence. 217. Do you think it would be wiser to take more interest in returning members to the House ? —There you come to manhood suffrage, because the people of the towns elect the members. 218. If you made the Land Board an elective body, would you bar the townspeople ? —Certainly ; they have no interest in the administration of the Department, or, if so, it is indirect. 219. Mr. McCardle.] Did I understand you rightly to say that where the option was given the preference was for lease in perpetuity ? —You did. 220. How is it that in the great majority of cases the applicants all over the colony want the right to purchase ? Your people must haye been unfortunate at the ballot ? —No, Ido not think so. 221. In two hundred and fifty applications there is only one for the lease in perpetuity. Is this not because the speculator has the better show ?—Yes ; but he cannot so easily obtain a transfer. 222. There is no difference so far as the Land Board is concerned in extending the transfer, and he cannot exercise his right of purchase for ten years ?—Yes ; but he must perform the residential conditions. 223. Does he not have to do so in both instances ? —He does not. I know cases in which the residence conditions have never been complied with at all. 224. You know a great deal about finance. Do you not think that if a man wants to speculate his safest plan is to go for the freehold ?—There is not the slightest doubt about that. 225. I think you will find on inquiry in this district that where there is the option it has always been for the right of purchase ?—I was only speaking of the bond fide settler. 226. You do not mean to cast any reflection, but you say the lease-in-perpetuity holders can sell quite as readily as the other in this district ?—I say that all classes of land can easily be paroed with. 227. In that case why single the man out with the right of purchase as a speculator ? —I was referring to the ballot system. What I said was that applications were put in by lots of people who had no intention whatever of residing on the land. 228. I have witnessed hundreds of signatures and I could not tell the man who did not intend to settle. If a man has complied with the conditions and improved the country in the back blocks, he is a greater gainer to the State than to himself I—l thoroughly agree with you in that. 229. Mr. MoCutchan.] You are anxious to stop speculation in Crown lands ?—-I am anxious to see that the bond fide settler is not elbowed out of the land by the man in the street. 230. You also think the residence conditions are a little stringent ?—I do. 231. Do you not think the residence conditions are a safeguard to bond fide settlement ?—Yes. 232. Where the land is sold for cash would you make the conditions the same as when the land is taken up on lease ? —I do not think you could with the freehold exact conditions of that kind. 233. You are exacting improvement conditions in regard to that land : why not residence conditions? —In the freehold it is only when the application is made and the time given to make it freehold that you can do it. They have to satisfy the Land Board that they have a good title. 234. Of course they are subject to improvement conditions, and the question is what further difficulty would exist in making them subject to residence conditions, so as to provide a safeguard against speculation ? —I do not think it would act in the case of freehold land. 235. You do not think the residence conditions in connection with cash sales would be advisable ? —I have not thought enough about it to give an opinion. 236. With reference to occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure and the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, do your own people give other security Collateral. 237. Would you accept the lease in perpetuity without collateral security ? —lt is contrary to practice to take landed security by itself. 238. Would you not take a freehold by itself ? —Not by itself. We have other channels in a liquid business. 239. If there were two sections equally improved, one lease in perpetuity and the other occupation with right of purchase, which would be the better selling property ? —I think the occupation with right of purchase I should regard as the better security. 240. You would regard that as the best security in the interest of the State ? —I think I would. 241. Would you advocate the abolition of the lease in perpetuity ? —I think the present system of giving the option is working very well. The land laws are a question of evolution, and at present they are working very well. 242. An occupation-with-right-of-purchase lease under the present Act cannot be purchased before ten years and not later than twenty-five years : would you advocate altering the law to provide that instead of having to find a lump sum for paying off the amount the tenant should get a mortgage ? —I do not think the tenants would avail themselves of it, because they could invest their money better.
0.—4.
1392
[j. W. BBIGHT.
* ']243. They are on the land for ten years ? —A good many of them have to do pretty well to perform the improvements with their own and their family's labour, and in ten years they cannot do much in some cases. 244. The Chairman.\ Do you not think it a pity that anything should set town against country, but that they should be linked together ?—I think it is only done by agitators. 245. Every man has a voice in framing the general laws of this country—the criminal laws and the moral laws—and every one has a right to exercise his vote ? —Yes. 246. But when it comes to specially dealing with the opening-up of the back blocks of the country, do you not think the settlers of the country have a special knowledge not possessed by the townsmen ? —I do not think there is a doubt about that. 247. With regard to matters affecting commerce, such as are dealt with by Chambers of Commerce, the settlers do not interfere ?—The settlers can become members. 248. They do not interfere much with commercial matters ?—As a rule questions dealt with by Chambers of Commerce affect the town and country alike. Our interests are entirely linked with those of the country. The production of the country is what the town depends upon. 249. Is not the prosperity of the town dependent entirely on the country ? —Certainly. Francis Bates examined. 250. The Chairman.'] Are you a landholder ? —Yes, I hold a section on the Willows Estate of 40 acres 3 roods. 251. And the tenure ?—Lease in perpetuity. 252. Are you satisfied with your tenure ? —No. 253. Perhaps you will give us your reasons ? —The reason is that the land is overvalued that I occupy, and there is no remedy for the revalue of the land. I hold Section 14. 254. Mr. Forbes.'] What rent do you pay ? —£l 3s. sd. per acre, and the present Government value of the land is £658. There is land on the Willows Estate that will carry double the stock that my land will carry. U 255. That is not a matter of tenure but of overvalue ? —lt was valued at that amount through the fresh water, and there is about 2 acres of it which is of no value to me. I lose a piece of ground which I cannot get through on account of the water. The lagoon is included in my section. 256. There were some improvements on the section when you got it were there not ?—The boundaryfence was on it when it was forfeited by the former tenant. It was loaded with some £40-odd, but that was taken off eventually. No one would take it up, and it was taken off and the section let by ballot. 257. The Chairman.] You took it second-hand ?—Yes. 258. How did you happen to take it up at this value ? —I did not know the land was so poor. I took it up in the spring when it looked all right, but I should be only too glad to get out of it now if the Government would pay me for my improvements and for the grass I have put on it. I went to the Land Board and they said they were fully convinced that the land was too high, but could not do anything. I was told that my only chance was to come before you gentlemen. 259. Mr. Forbes.] Under the Act I suppose you have to forfeit the section before you can get out 0 { it ?—Then should I not have to forfeit all my improvements ? 260. Was it forfeited before ?—Yes, I think the tenant only paid one half-year's rent. 261. It was loaded with improvements ? —Yes. 262. The incoming tenant would have to pay for those ? —Yes, if they can get the incoming tenant to take them. 263. When you went into it did you have a look at the ground ? —Yes. It was let three years last October. This last summer I got into grass all but 6 acres. I had sixteen cows on it, but I cannot carry that number —only about ten or twelve. lam buying hay from one of my neighbours. It was valued too high in the first place. - 264. At what valuation does it stand in the Land Board's books ?—£9so 18s. when I took it up, according to the Land Board, and I pay 5 per cent, on that. The next section to mine is paying 14s. 4d. per acre, and there is only the boundary-fence between us. 265. Do you consider the section should be revalued ? —I consider my section should be revalued, and the Government should lose by it. Ido not say they should break the other lease to do sc. It is an error I think on the part of the Government officers. 266. Is that the highest section in the block ?—There is one higher, which is good land—about the best in the Willows Estate—and it is a twenty-five-shilling section. 267. Are your fellow-settlers satisfied ?—Yes, I believe so. I think they can all testify to the overvalue of my section. 268. The valuation is made up by another Department ?—Yes. 269. The Land Board told you they could do nothing except by Act of Parliament ? —They said they could not recommend anything except revaluing the whole of the estate. 270. That would not be satisfactory to your neighbours ?—No. 271. Mr. McCardle.] You could surrender and have the section reduced in value in that way; there is provision made for that. If you had a fair value for the improvements you would not object ?—No. 272. You have put on improvements ? —Yes, I have built a three-roomed kauri house, and sown 20 acres in grass, besides planting. 273. That is all included in the rating-notice you produce here ?—Yes. 274. If the rate were moderate you would be quite satisfied with it ?—Yes. 275. You would not be particular about the freehold ?— rather have the section with the right of freehold. 276. At this high price do you think it advisable to apply for the freehold ? —No.
F. BATES.]
1393
C.—4.
277. You would like to have the freehold granted under what conditions ?—To allow me to pay it off by instalments. 278. You say it will only carry about twelve cows on the 40 acres ?—Yes, that is all. 279. A portion of it is swamp ? —lt is very broken and there are 2 acres of lagoon. 280. Do you not think there should be more care taken in the valuing of this land ?—Certainly 281. Do you know the man who valued it ? —Mr. Smith, I think, valued it. He is in Wellington now, I believe. George Redpath examined. 282. The Chairman.] Are you a settler ?—I am a settler in the Motu district. 283. What is your holding ? —7OO acres lease in perpetuity. 284. Are you satisfied with your tenure ? —I was satisfied until the agitation arose for having the lands revalued. As a matter of fact, when we took up our land there was a big number of applications for the lease in perpetuity. The 1 per cent, cheaper land drew us, but when we saw people agitating to have our land revalued, and a Fair Rent Bill brought down, we thought we would rather now have the right of purchase. 285. You were not one of the persons who agitated ? —No, I would not agitate. I did not agitate until I began to get frightened. If they agitated for extra rent I thought I would have a hand in it too. 286. That cannot be done until the lease expires in 999 years ?—That seems rather strange, because we see our politicians saying on the one hand that they do not see why the land should not be revalued until the right of purchase is given. If the Government say the settlers may hold the unearned increment for 999 years, surely the Government's unearned increment must be a very small item. We have been paying 4 per cent., and the other settlers with the right of purchase 5 per cent. It is quite reasonable we should make up our back rent. I cannot see that the Government hold any big interest in it if they give us a bargain for 999 years. I think if they took it for any purpose, they would give us whatever the land was worth for the unexpired term of our lease. 287. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think it is reasonable to think the Government will break this contract: you say you have a fear of revaluation ? —A Bill was introduced to do so. That is the strongest ground we had for being frightened. The agitation of the towns we paid little attention to. 288. Was not that Bill brought in at the request of the tenants ?—I did not notice that it was. 289. If Mr. Bates asked for a revaluation in order to have a fair rent fixed, would that be an unreasonable thing ?—lf it was to be applied to those only undervalued it would. For my own part, lam not greatly in favour of interfering with any contact, but would stick to it once it is made. However, the land laws of New Zealand have been invariably broken, and there have been several revaluations. There have been many cases down south almost on a par with Mr. Bates's case, where they surrendered, and got a reduction in rent. No one objects to that. 290. Do you not think provision should be made to meet cases where there has been an unfair revaluation, so as to make the rent a reasonable one : it is not good for the country that people should be working at rack-rents ? —lt is not reasonable to suppose it is in the interests of settlement that they should work at such rents. As far as the Government of New Zealand is concerned, I daresay they have been honestly striving to fix the land-values so that men may make a living off the land. 291. In circumstances like that do you think there is any need for a Fair Rent Bill, if that is the spirit of it, to meet cases where people are overrented ? —lf it was merely brought in for those cases we would not have any objection to it, but it was meant to apply to those who, by their industry, raised the value of the land. 292. Did you ever read the Bill? — No. 293. You are speaking of what you heard ? —lt is from what we read from speeches made in Parliament on the matter. The principal source of our information is newspapers and reports of parliamentary sittings. 294. Do you not think it would be better to get the Bill to find out exactly what was meant: you can hardly gather its contents from newspaper criticisms ? —lf we had been preparing evidence for the Royal Commission we might have done so, but we are not altogether posted on that subject. 295. Under the lease in perpetuity is that the only reason you have for wishing the change ? — The only reason is the insecurity of tenure. Ido not object to the leasehold, because it allows a man of small capital to devote it to improvements. But I should certainly, seeing how things have turned out, rather now pay the extra 1 per cent, to have the right of purchase. 296. Do you think your rent might be made higher ?—I expect it to be tried anyhow. 297. Mr. Matheson.] Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory ?—Perfectly. 298. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Department ? —Yes. 299. Have they been satisfactory ? —Not at all. The Advances to Settlers Department is supposed to advance up to one-half the valuation on the lease in perpetuity, but they value your improvements, and then offer about one-third of that value instead of half. 300. Do you know the value sent in by your valuer ? —I do not know that that is a fair question. 301. Do you know whether they agree to lend you one-half of what you sent in for ? —I do know that. Ido not know whether it is a breach of faith to state that. 302. Mr. McCardle.] You think there is a general prospect of a Fair Rent Bill if the town carries it at the general election ? —I think it will be seriously tried for, but lam not afraid of it. 303. You think they will have to revalue your improvements ? —ln revaluation we rarely get what they are worth. 304. Is your section bush land ? —lt was ; it is now in grass.
175—C. 4.
[g. kedpath.
C—4.
1394
305. You find that the valuation of your Ranger is very much below what it has cost you for falling, grassing, and fencing ? —Yes. 306. He does not make any allowance for logging and the toil after that ? —The Ranger values tolerably well, because the valuation came in at the time it was done. We spend money on cartage of wire and so on, and if the improvements were valued when we get the railway through, we should get no value for that, and they would value all the improvements under the Fair Rent Bill. 307. After you have done your burn, do you sit down and do nothing ?—No, you very often have to chop your bush down again. 308. Do you get any value for that ? —None whatever. 309. The Chairman.'] Do you not think that the Fair Rent Bill was intended to apply to such cases as that of Mr. Bates % —I have no doubt it was intended to apply to his case as well, but not principally. 310. Do you think it is meant to apply to all the leases, and if a lease was considered too low the rent could be raised ? —I think that was the underlying principle. 311. But to do that without the wish of the tenant would be a repudiation of the title ? —lt is not different from taking a freehold from a man at the present time. 312. That can only be taken on compensation being paid ? —The labour agitation claims there is no interest. 313. If they could revalue and raise the rent could they not do the same with the freehold, and insist on you paying more : the one title is guaranteed by the State as much as the other ?—They claim the right to take the freehold now, and, besides that, the State never quitted its right to tax the freehold for public purposes, which is really an application of rent. 314. Do you think the one title is as secure as the other ? —I do not think it is at present. 315. Mr. McCardle.] Have you been long on the land ?—I have been farming on my own account for twenty-two years. 316. Since that time there was an agitation amongst the settlers, and the Government brought in an Act allowing Land Boards to reduce the rent ? —Yes. 317. That was to meet cases like that of Mr. Bates ? —Yes. 318. So that a special Act is not necessary for that purpose, as they already have the power ? — I do not know whether the Act is still in force or not. William McLean examined. 319. The Chairman.] Do you hold land ?—Yes. 320. To what extent ? —One thousand acres occupation with right of purchase, at Rakaauroa. 321. Is there any matter you wish to bring forward ? —I have been deputed by the Rakaauroa Farmers' Union to place their views before the Commission. 322. How many members do you represent ?—About thirty. I wish to put their views before the Commission on the freehold and the right of purchase. 323. Is there any other matter ? —They consider that the interest of the Crown in a 999-years lease is practically nothing, beyond the original value. That is, if the original value was £1 per acre, the State's interest after the land had been improved is worth nothing, so that the people would lose nothing by selling the land at £1 an acre —that is, with the 1 per cent, to bring it up to the 5 per cent, which has been paid by the purchaser. At the same time the lease-in-perpetuity settlers pay no landtax, and they only pay 4 per cent. If they were given the right of purchase they would pay 5 per cent, until such time as the purchase, and they would also pay land-tax. This, if the Government intend to hold to the contract for 999 years, would surely be a good thing for the colony. There is a general feeling of uneasiness amongst the settlers owing to the agitation of the labour councils, and so forth, in favour of the revaluation of these leases. There is the greater difficulty of financing them than there .is in financing settlers with the right of purchase. Although in this district there are not so many lease-in-perpetuity as there are occupation-with-right-of-purchase settlers, if you look into the land agents' books you will see there are a great many more lease-in-perpetuity sections for sale than occupa-tion-with-right-of-purchase sections. It is not good for the settlers to have this feeling of unrest. If you are to have a sound nation, you must have a population that is satisfied with its surroundings. In the matter of loading the land for roads, the usual thing is to put about 25 per cent, on for making the roads. I would like to point out that the land is valued for purposes of sale at the time of loading, then the additional amount is put on, and the settler has to pay rates on this additional amount until such time as he puts in labour, and makes the original unimproved value with the addition of the loading. He also has to pay interest on the additional loading during the whole term of his lease. I would like to refer to the question of the ballot. A good many people put in applications for land when they have no intention of becoming bond fide settlers. They are a great drawback to the genuine settler. He puts in his application alongside the speculator, and he is ousted out of the ballot, and then if he wants the land subsequently, he has to come in and buy the speculator out, and he pays for goodwill what should go towards making improvements on the land. It has been stated that the residence clause should be eased. lam not of that opinion at all. In this district, if the roads are made, there is no great hardship in having the residence clause in force. It seems to me it is the only means of checking the speculator. The speculator will not reside on the land, and the genuine settler will. I would suggest that no transfer should be allowed until the residence clause has been fulfilled, or until a man has resided at least two years on his section. If a settler avails himself of the four-years-exemp-tion clause, then he should not be allowed to transfer until he has lived two years on the land after the expiry of the term of exemption. I would also apply that suggestion to cash lands as well as lands taken up under the other tenures. I would like to say in regard to land-valuations in this district, that no allowance is made for improvements caused by a settler, or a body of settlers, forming themselves into
1395
G.—4.
W. MCLEAN.
a rating district, and raising a loan to make a road in the district, which may, perhaps, raise the socalled unimproved value of their land 10s. or, perhaps, £1 per acre. That sum is immediately clapped on to the unimproved value, although it is entirely the result of the money they have borrowed, and on which they are paying"interest. s Sj. 324. Is it not the fact that the representatives of these labour unions do not advocate interfering with the existing leases, but only that revaluation should apply to future leases ?—No. Only the other day in Wellington the president came forward and one of the points he emphasized was that there should be revaluation of the existing leases at the death of the present occupier or upon transfer. 325. Mr. Forbes.'] The Premier stated that he had never heard any member of Parliament make a suggestion of that sort, and that he would not countenance in the slightest such an immoral proposal as the breaking of existing contracts : is that not a sufficient assurance ?—We are very glad to have the assurance of the Premier or any other gentleman, but we see the trend of labour opinion. We see all the principal labour organizations working that way. You say also you never heard a member of Parliament countenance the breaking of an existing lease. I believe there are several members of Parliament who have done so. 326. Have you any facts or dates to support that statement ?—I know Mr. Ell and Mr. Laurenson advocated revaluation. 327. Of existing leases ?—I cannot say definitely, but I feel certain they did. 328. The whole point is whether they advocated breaking a lease entered into between the State and tenant or whether they advocated legislation to apply revaluation to future leases ?—I would not take up land under those conditions, but, of course, I suppose it would be optional whether a settler did so or not. 329. Do you not think that people might be perfectly genuine in advocating that ?—They might be genuine, but they are very unwise. 330. You say the labour unions are causing all the unrest in regard to the tenures : have the farmers' unions had anything to do in causing this agitation ?—Not in the direction of revaluation. 331. But in the direction of giving the freehold ?—Yes, lately. 332. Do you not think that has had something to do with causing this feeling of unrest and with causing antagonism between the labour unions and the farmers' unions ?—I do not think so. It is some eleven years since the lease in perpetuity was brought into force, and if you look up the records at that time you will see there were then a great many applications for land under that tenure, but ever since the labour unions started to agitate, and long before the farmers' unions ever thought of agitating, the applications have dropped away. Now there is hardly an applicant for land under that tenure. 333. You say the occupation with right of purchase is more popular than lease in perpetuity ? —Yes. 334. Are there many Crown tenants amongst your farmers' union ?—I think all are Crown tenants. There are some holding under lease in perpetuity. 335. You said the freehold would be better for the colony because the land would come under the land-tax ?—Yes. 336. Do the tenants wish to come under the land-tax ?—They wish for the right of the freehold, and they are quite prepared to pay the land-tax if they get it. 337. Mr. Malheson.] Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory ?—Yes, quite. 338. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Yes, I was valuer for the office for a short time. 339. Do you think it has worked satisfactorily in your district ?—I think it might be improved. 340. Have you ever known cases where they have refused a loan up to one-half of the valuation sent in ?—Yes, I have only heard from the settlers the amount that was granted. There is one thing where the Advances to Settlers Department are at fault. I think too much time elapses between the date of the application and the granting of the loan. Then, if the loan is not enough the settler is prejudiced in going to fresh quarters. 341. Do you think the granting of the right of purchase will secure the State against loss in the event of bad times. If settlers are not allowed to get their titles and really bad times come, will not thousands of tenants have a very strong case for a reduction of rent ?—Yes, I think if bad times came a great many of these leaseholders would throw up their sections. They are not bound to their sections under that lease as they are under the occupation with right of purchase. 342. Do you think the granting of the right of purchase would be a good thing for the community as a whole ?—I think so. 343. Mr. McCardle.\ You referred to the agitation for revaluation and quoted the meeting in Wellington : was not that a meeting of the delegates and leaders of the labour party in all parts of the colony ?—I believe so. 344. And were not their resolutions exactly in the direction you stated ?—Yes. 345. It does not matter what the Ministry in power may say, if these men can carry their wishes and have a sufficient majority in the country do you not think they will give effect to the principles they have enunciated ?—Yes. 346. Mr. McCutchan.] Do you think the residence conditions are a sure safeguard against dummyism ?—Yes, and they also tend to make life very much better for the other settlers in the neighbourhood. No man has the same interest in the land as the occupier. It is to his interest to make the social atmosphere better. He will go in for schools and libraries and all the other things which make country life a little more attractive. A non-resident has an interest in nothing except in the selling-value of his place, and whether he can get his wool in and out. 347. Do you think the present period of four years' exemption in the residence clause should be curtailed ?—ln some cases it would work rather hardly. The hardship consists in not having roads. When there are roads the hardship disappears.
C.—4.
1396
[w. Mclean.
348. Do you think it is reasonable to make a distinction in the residence conditions as between the lease-in-perpetuity holder and the occupation-with-right-of-purchase holder—namely, that one should have to reside for ten years and the other only for six years ?—I do not see any reason for making that distinction. 349. Would you increase the six years to ten or reduce the ten to six ?—I think six years constitute a sufficient safeguard. 350. At the time you were valuing for the Advances to Settlers Department were the Department making advances against the goodwill as well as against the improvements ?—No, I simply had to value the improvements. 351. If you were valuing for the Department now and had to value two sections adjoining one another—one under occupation with right of purchase and the other under lease in perpetuity, and all things were equal on the two sections —which section would you consider the best security for the State ? —The occupation with right of purchase. 352. Were your instructions as valuer to value to the selling-price ?—I was instructed to value the improvements at the selling-value. 353. Your opinion then and also at the present time is that the occupation-with-right-of-purchase section is a more marketable, commodity than lease in perpetuity ?—Certainly. 354. Do you think applicants for land should appear before the Commissioner to be examined before being admitted to the ballot I—l have never given that matter consideration. I think residence is the only safeguard. 355. The Chairman.] As regards members of Parliament agitating for revaluation, have you known any member doing so in the House ?—I cannot say I do. 356. Is not this agitation for'the freehold playing into the hands of those who agitate for revaluation ?—Certainly not. 357. Would it not be better to adhere to the present tenure and ignore the agitation to deprive you of your just rights ?—We are quite satisfied with the present tenure if it was not for this feeling of unrest. 358. Mr. McCutchan.] It was stated in Wellington by the president of the Wellington Branch of the Trades and Labour Council that it was his opinion that the agitation on the part of that body of workers for revaluation was subsequent to the agitation on the part of the Crown tenants for the freehold :as a representative of the Farmers' Union can you speak on that matter ?—I am sure it is not so. 359. That organization said also they felt they were justified in agitating for a revaluation since the tenants themselves agreed to a variation in their contract by accepting a rebate for the prompt payment of rent: do you think there is any force in that contention ?—We have never had a rebate in the Motu district. 360. Were the settlers aware it was possible to get a rebate ?—Yes. 361. Was any application ever made for it %—Not that I know of. The matter was discussed some years ago at the Settlers Association, and it was considered better to leave it alone. 362. Mr. Forbes.] Is not a section under occupation with right of purchase a better bargain in the market from a money point of view than lease in perpetuity ?—Occupation with right of purchase is the most valuable tenure. 363. Does not that explain very largely why it is preferred ?—All people who go in for land are not land-speculators. The great majority are genuine settlers who take up the land to make a home on it. '364. If you have the option of two tenures, and one is the better bargain, is it not natural that you should take the better bargain ?—lt is not a better bargain for me if I want to make a home on the land, and lam sure the tenure is right. I think the lease in perpetuity is the better tenure under those circumstances. 365. Could you not dispose of an occupation-with-right-of-purchase section to better advantage ? —Yes. 366. Then, is that not one of the reasons why it is preferred ?—No doubt, but it does not wholly explain the preference. It would no doubt influence a settler. George Redpath further examined. 367. Mr. McCutchan.'] Did the settlers in the Motu district make application for a rebate of rent ? —They did not make an application, but they applied that the Act might be brought into force in this district and a rebate given for the prompt payment of rent. 368. What was the reply to that application ?—That it had not been*done in the Hawke's Bay Land District. 369. If it is a rebate for the prompt payment of rent is not the money of the settlers in this district as good as that of the settlers in any other part of the colony, and are they not equally entitled to the rebate if they pay their rents promptly ?—Perfectly entitled. 370. Was no other reason given by the Land Board than the fact that no rebate had been made in the province ?—I never heard tell of any other. 371. We had evidence at Hastings that a rebate had been given under the Land for Settlements Act ?—I have heard it mentioned, but I have never had any assurance that it has been done. Owen Gallagher examined. 372. Th-i Chairman.] Do you hold land ?—I am both a freeholder and leaseholder. I have 40-odd acres of freehold and about 50 acres of leasehold. laman ex Crown tenant. 373. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission 2 —l have been appointed to come here by the small farmers who went on the first settlement ever cut up on the East Coast, at Patutahi.
1397
C.-4.
0. GALLAGHER.
Where there was formerly only cattle and sheep there are now one hunderd families. They have all got the freehold, and with the exception of one or two who have mortgages they are all independent. That is what the freehold will do. But my object in coming here is not altogether to advocate the freehold being given to the Crown tenants as much as to advocate the abolition of private landlordism. Landlordism is a system which should be condemned by every person in the community. No private individual should be allowed to hold more land than he can profitably work. When a man holds more land than he, can use himself and leases that land out I say legislation should be passed to enable those tenants to buy the freehold at the original valuation or perhaps at an advance of 10 per cent, on that valuation. There is no Crown tenant in New Zealand, if you give him the right to the freehold at the original valuation, but will avail himself of the privilege ; but if you ask him to purchase at the present valuation he will say " No." I say give every tenant, whether he holds land from-the Crown or from a private individual, the right to purchase the freehold of his land at the original valuation or at a percentage beyond it, I would not interfere with the Land for Settlements Act. I think that is a very good policy, but 1 think it should be carried on more vigorously. 374. You advocate the freehold ? —Yes. I say you cannot build a country up under a leasehold system. 375. Mr Forbes.] Do you consider the lease in perpetuity a good lease ? —All the Government tenures are good. I would not touch it. 376. Are there any large estates about here that ought to be cut up I—Unfortunatelyl—Unfortunately there are, but the Government are not game to tackle them. 377. Have you ever got up an agitation asking the Government to move in the matter ?—Yes ; our farmer?' club got one up, but the-manager of the estate came in and said we were not to deal with his estate, and he made away with the petition 378. Mr. Mntheson ] Do you know the present land-for-settlements policy in Ireland, whereby the State is buying up large estates and letting the land to the tenants who, by paying fifty years' rent, then get the freehold of their sections. Do you think that is a very admirable way of settling the land ? —I believe in it under the circumstances. 379. Do you think it would be better than our land-for-settlements policy ? —They have taken their example from our laws ; they cannot improve on them. 380. In Ireland the tenant becomes a freeholder in fifty years, but here he pays rent for a thousand years and then loses all hold on the land : do you not think the Irish land law is better ?—No ; I stick up for the laws of New Zealand. 381. Right or wrong ? —Yes, right or wrong. 382. Mr. MrCanUe.] You say there is suitable land here to be cut up into small holdings ?—Yes. 383. Has the settlement on land that has already been cut up been a fair success ?—Yes. 384. Do you think the people here are anxious to settle under the Land for Settlements Act ? — Yes. 385. Do you believe in limiting the amount of land any one man can hold ?—Yes. 386. Do you think an amendment of the Land Transfer Act in that direction would be an improvement ? —Yes. I think we need never be afraid of the aggregation of large estates while we have our present machinery and keep men at the wheel to work it. 387. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Act ?—Yes. 388. Do you think it is a good Act, and in the interests of the country ? —lt would be if there was not so much red tape about it. Frank Stephenson Smith examined. 389. The Chairman.] You are District Surveyor and Land Officer in this district ?—Yes. 390. You have a knowledge of the various settlements : are they in a satisfactory condition ?— Yes. 391. The tenants on the whole are satisfied So far as we know they are very satisfied. 392. Are the roads fairly good in +hese settlements ?—No ; they are very bad. 393. Would it not be better policy on the part of the Government to make a main road through a district before proclaiming the land open for settlement ?—Most decidedly, if they could afford to do so. 394. Mr. Forbes.] Is there much Crown land yet unopened ? —Very little now. 395. Is there a demand for Crown lands when you open them up ?—Yes, a great demand. 396. Is there any land coming on the market ?—There is some coming forward as soon as the survey is completed. It is bush land. At present no attempt is being made to road it. It would be worth more if the roads were made into it, and it would be more satisfactory to the settlers. The land varies in price from 10s. upwards according to its quality and accessibility. 397. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think it would be wise to stop the Land Board from opening a block unless they can see their way to give a cart-road within five years ?—I think that would stop settlement altogether. 398. Do you think it would be a better land-settlement policy if all blocks were sufficiently loaded to enable them to be roaded within five years ?—lf the country could afford it I think it would be wellspent money. 399. Do you think it would be well to wait until we could afford it ? —I do not know. The people are very anxious to get land now. 400. Do you think the present method of making roads by means of direct grants from the Government is wise ?—Yes. 401. Do you not think it would be much sounder if the tenants or ratepayers were subsidised according to the way they rated themselves : the grants would be automatic instead of being an act of grace ? —I cannot say. I have not thought about the question.
C—4.
1398
[9. S. SMITH*
402. Mr. MrCardle.\ The want of roads is the greatest drawback to successful settlement here ? —Yes. 403. Do you not think it is the duty of the State to come forward with some reasonable scheme for roading the country ? —Certainly, it would be to the advantage of the settlers. 404. You have been three years in the district and I suppose you have seen the necessity for this ? —Yes. I may state I have nothing to do with the roads. 405. The Chairman.'] Have you much knowledge of the Native lands of the country ?—I have a slight knowledge gained by riding through them. 406. Have you ever given much consideration to the question as to how Native lands should be dealt with ?—Every one has his ideas and I have mine. I hope to see the Native-land trouble settled some time. 407. Do you think the Government should give the Native population reasonable time, say, a year, in which to prove ownership, and then arrange to set sufficient land aside for the Natives for their own use, which land should be inalienable, and then deal with the balance of the land in the same manner as they deal with European lands under the Land for Settlements Act ?—I do not see why they should not take the land under the Land for Settlements Act immediately. The question of the ownership of the lands could then be settled afterwards. 408. Is not the presence of this large area of Native land, which pays no rates, a great bar to settlement here ? —lt is the greatest trouble we have in this district. 409. Do you think, in the interests of the Natives, something should be done ? —Certainly. 410. Do you think the bulk of the Natives are desirous of having something done ? —Yes. I do not think they have any particular desire to do it themselves; but it would be in the interests of settlement. Alfred Ford Mathews examined. 411. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a surveyor in this district. 412. What is it you wish to place before the Commission ?—ln the matter of roading I would like to point out to you that on account of the difficulty in obtaining metal the making of winter roads is almost prohibitory. Therefore, I think, light railways are wanted to open up the country for winter traffic. 413. Mr. Forbes.] When settlement takes place in the back blocks, do you think proper roading should be made to give the people access ?—Perhaps I have a fad, but my own idea is that you cannot make metal roads under anything from £1,000 to £2,000 per mile for the reason I have stated. You can make a light railway for that amount, and to my idea that is the best method of opening up the lands in this district. 414. How do you do at present for metal ? —We get it out of the river-beds where we can find it; but, excepting our main roads, none of our roads are metalled. 415. Mr. Matheson ] If your light railways were constructed you would still want roads ?—We should want roads leading to them but not of any great length. 416. Would you not want just the same amount of roads as you do at present ? —We should have the roads, but all the heavy traffic would be taken by the light railways. 417. Your suggestion is that there should be light railways, not in place of roads but in addition to roads ?—Yes. 418. Mr. McCardle.] You could, by the aid of light railways, make the roads much cheaper because you could carry the metal at a cheaper rate ? —Yes, undoubtedly. 419. Mr. McCutchan.] The construction of roads and railways is all a question of money ?—Yes 420. Every district wants railways and roads as feeders to the railways ?—Yes. 421. This is papa country and there is practically no metal in papa country. Do you know if the Roads Department have tried burning papa here as has been done elsewhere ? —I have the statement of the County Engineer, who said he had tried it, but that it was a failure. It has been suggested that he should burn clay, and his opinion is that if there is bush handy it answers in some cases. But the bush has mostly disappeared in this district, and it is hardly possible to carry out that suggestion. 422. The Chairman.'] If these light railways were made your clay roads would still be sufficiently good for driving stock ? —Yes. George Dunn examined. 423. The Chairman.] Do you hold land ? —No, but my wife holds 32 acres under lease in perpetuity, in the Willows Estate. We reside on the section. 424. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission ?—We want the freehold of it. I have nothing to say against the Land Board ; they have treated us very fairly. The lease in perpetuity is a very good tenure, but still when one gets on and saves £100 or so, I think the State ought to allow one to put that into one's section, and so reduce the rent. My position would then be stronger in the event of bad times coming along. I want to convert the lease in perpetuity into a freehold. 425. If the tenant was allowed to reduce his rent by paying off, say, half the capital value of his section, and if all restrictions were then removed, would that answer all purposes ?—We want to pay off the lot. We want to have something we can call our own. 426. Mr. Forbes.] If you were granted the freehold of your section you need not reside on it ? — No, but I would all the same. 427. Do you not think the wish to get rid of restrictions has something to do with the desire for the freehold I—No,1 —No, I think residence is necessary. 428. Do you think the settler should still be subject to the Land Board and to the residence conditions if he is granted the freehold ? —Yes, so far as residence is concerned. I think it is necessary a settler should reside on the land.
C.-4.
G. DUNN.]
1399
429. Is it the danger of revaluation that makes you ask for the freehold ?—No, I have confidence that the lease will not be broken. 430. What is your rent ? —£l os. lOd. per acre. It is good dairying land. 431. Mr. Matheson.] Was the estate on which you are settled purchased with borrowed money ?— Yes. 432. Can you see how it would hurt anybody if the settlers were allowed to pay off the capital value, which would enable that debt to be repaid ? —I cannot; I think it would be very good, because the money could be used to purchase more estates. 433. Mr. McCardle.] You think the right of purchase would be better than the tenure you hold under now ? —Yes. 434. Would you be prepared to offer any extra amount for the land if you are given the right of purchase ?—Yes, the amount the Government have spent on the estate, including the cost of roads, surveys, and other charges. 435. It would cost the Government something to change the tenure, and, of course, they would lose the high rate of interest, namely, 5 per cent., they are at present charging : in view of these facts, would you be quite prepared to pay a little extra amount to get the freehold ? —Yes, I would be willing that the Government should put a little more on the land. 436. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Act ? —No. 437. Has it worked satisfactorily with your neighbours ? —I have heard them complain that they are too long in getting the money. 438. Is there any suitable land in this neighbourhood for small holdings like your own ?—Yes, plenty. 439. What is it worth per acre ? —From £30 to £40. 440. Would it pay settlers to pay a rental on these prices ? —I do not think so. 441. Mr. McCutchan.\ Do you know what your rates amount to ?—£3 10s. a year ; but that does not include the Road Board, who a rate which will mean another £1 10s. or £2 a year. Thomas John Dunstan examined. 442. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —I am a leaseholder at the Willows Estate ; I hold 33 acres 3 roods 32 perches. 443. Do you wish to make a statement ? —I want to speak about the loan business. About four years ago I applied for a loan to the Government Advances to Settlers Office. I had a house on the land, and my improvements altogether amounted to £200. In due course they sent out a valuator, and I got a reply that they would give me £50 ; I had asked for £60. I wrote expecting that I would get the money at once, and when I got it, three months afterwards, it was of no earthly use. I had to sacrifice my crop of linseed, and I had to make other financial arrangements. If we got the money more promptly it would do away with all that trouble. 444. You think they should be more expeditious in dealing with applications ? —Yes. I had to sell my crop at a disadvantage in order to get the money I wanted to pay off the debt on the house. 445. Mr. Forbes.'] Do you reside on the lease ? —Yes. 446. What rent do you pay ? —£l os. lOd. per acre. 447. And are you satisfied with the lease in perpetuity ? —Yes, but I would sooner have the freehold. 448. There is nothing in the lease in perpetuity that prevents a man from improving his place and making a home of it ?—No. 449. You think that if the right of purchase were added, it would make it a better tenure ?—I would be better pleased if I had the right of purchase. 450. You would be agreeable if the restrictions as to residence should remain as at present ?—Yes. 451. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think that, if the right of purchase were granted to Crown tenants, it would be wise for the Government to charge some additional percentage on the original price to cover any loss that might occur % —Yes, if the Government spent some money on the roading so as to secure the benefit of the settlers and some more on drainage that ought to be added to the valuation, and we ought to have the land on those terms. 452. That is supposed to be a high rent you pay ?—Yes. 453. Do you think it would be reasonable to add something for the risk of the State having undesirable sections left on their hands ? Would you be willing to pay a little more on the original price if you could get the right of purchase ? —Yes. 454. Mr. McCutchan.] Whom did you make application to for your loan ? —I forget now. I know I paid 10s. 6d. to fill in a form to send to Wellington. 455. How long after paying the 10s. 6d. was it before the valuer came ?—lt was not very long before he came ; about a week or so. WW 456. Have you any information as to the valuation put on your improvements ?■—No. F f 457. Are you quite sure the £200 you place on the improvements was a reasonable valuation ? — Yes, because there was new fencing and a new house and sheds up at the time. 458. You cannot account for the delay ?—No, I went to Mr. Sievwright about it, and he got'tired of me calling ; he said, " When the reply comes I will send it on to you." 459. Did you not get a communication from the Department ? —I asked for £60, and they sent to me asking if I would take £50. That was nearly three months after I had applied for the loan.
1400
C.-4.
[j. S. BEID.
Ormond, Thursday, 22nd June, 1905. Jambs Sheddon Reid examined. 1. The Chairman.'] Are you a landholder ? —I hold a lease in perpetuity. 2. Situated ? —Waimarie. 3. What extent I—Fifty1—Fifty acres. 4. I suppose there are some matters which you wish to speak of ? —I am very well satisfied with the lease in perpetuity and with the way I have been treated by the head of the Department —by the Land Board. I think that the lease in perpetuity ought not to be done away with. 5. You think it is a good tenure I—Yes, it has put many people on the land who otherwise would not have been on the land, but when people begin to be a while about a place and make it homelylooking, they like to make it their own property —a freehold. For that reason, I would prefer the freehold, but I would not approve of the leasehold being done away with. 6. You think it enables many men to get on the land who otherwise could not do so ? —I has put thousands on the land who never could have got there. The only thing is that people are afraid that there might be a change of Government which would upset their security of tenure. That is about all I wish to say on the subject. 7. Mr. McCutchan.] You think the lease-in-perpetuity tenure should remain ? —Yes. 8. But still you want the right of purchase ?• —Yes. 9. You have the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, and know what the occupation with right of purchase tenure is : which do you prefer ? —I am not conversant with the occupation with right of purchase. 10. The occupation with right of purchase provides that after ten years, if you fulfil the conditions laid down by law, you have the right of purchase ?—Yes. 11. Do you think that that is better than the lease in perpetuity ? —lt is difficult to say. Is the interest the same ? 12. The lease in perpetuity is 4 per cent, and the other 5 per cent. ? —The worst thing about the lease in perpetuity is that I have not enough land, and cannot get any more. It is very good land ; I value it at £20 an acre. 13. Are you under the Land for Settlements Act ?—lt is lease in perpetuity. 14. You have no right of getting a second section ? —No, although some of the sections are lying idle and producing nothing. 15. Right adjoining you ?—Yes. 16. Do you think it is reasonable that you should have the right of taking up one of those sections ? —Yes, I think so. 17. Was your block loaded for roading % —Yes ; I pay £6 a year for rates. 18. The Government did not load the block for roads ?—No. I have to pay Harbour Board and county rates. 19. Have you had any experience with the Advances to Settlers Department ? —No. 20. You are satisfied with the Land Board control ?—Yes. 21. Do you think that members of Land Boards should be elected or nominated as at present ? — I have not considered the question. 22. Mr. Forbes.\ How much rent did you say you were paying ? —£l an acre. 23. And you say that some of the land is not occupied ? —lt is all occupied, but there is no return coming out of the land at all. 24. Is that land settled on the same terms as your own ? —Yes. 25. And the people are living on it 'Yes, but they are not making the land produce anything. 26. What are they using it for ? It must be a great loss to pay £1 an acre for land which is doing nothing ? —Yes, the lessees may have a couple of cows and a horse. The holdings"are'too"small, and the men go away working, with the result that the land is neglected. 27. How many cows can you carry on your 50 acres ? —Thirty cows and young beasts and a couple of horses. 28. Could not a man make a good living on these sections ? —They are not big enough. 29. Are they not as big as yours ? —No, they are only 14 and 15 acres. 30. Was it thought that when this land was cut up that people would be able to make homes on it ? —Yes, but a man cannot afford to get machinery to do anything with the land. 31. Do you think it is a mistake to cut up land into such small areas ?—A very great mistake ; it is only wasted. A man should get as much as he could be employed on. 32. And if for a home it should only be a few acres ? —Yes, a few acres for that purpose. 33. You said you would like to be able to get the right of purchase over your place ?—Yes, I would like the right of purchase. 34. You thought it was on account of the change in Government that might affect your lease ?— Yes, or revaluation. 35. Is it reasonable to think that in any alteration that might be made in your lease, you would be compensated in any way ?—That is what I hold, that if the Government were to break our agreement they would have to compensate us. 36. The experience has been that if they give a freehold over the land, when they break this by taking land for settlement, they compensate the settlers ?—Yes. 37. Is it not reasonable to suppose, then, tnat if they broke the lease in perpetuity they would compensate the settlers in the same way? —Undoubtedly so. 38. Under those circumstances, if it were thought to be in the interests of the colony that these leases should be broken and compensation given, there would not be much injury done ?—No.
A. 0. STEELE.]
1401
a—4.
Alexander Campbell Steele examined. 39. The Chairman.\ Do you hold land ?—Yes; I hold 1,987 acres under small-grazing-run lease at Hangaroa. 40. What is it you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I come before you representing eight settlers in the Hangaroa district. Their tenancy is small-grazing-run lease, and under that tenure we are unable to rate ourselves to form our roads in the different blocks. This, to us, is a very great grievance, because, although we are quite willing to pay all these rates, yet the Government, under the present law, will not accept a small grazing-run as security for any loan we might propose to raise. I have been there some four years, and have developed half of my property. My neighbour has developed some 1,500 acres, and another neighbour 300 or 400 acres, and in fact, we are all progressive settlers. Yet we are considerably handicapped, inasmuch as we have to pack a distance of ten miles everything into our properties. We have to bring all our wire and grass-seed, and everything to our places by this pack-track, four miles of which I made myself. We have approached the Government with a view to getting an alteration in this respect, but, so far, we have been unsuccessful, and the last advice we have is that a sum placed on the estimates will be the solution of the difficulty. But we do not consider that to be a solution. We think that what is wrong is our tenure. If under another tenure we should be able to rate ourselves, and make our own roads, and be independent of everybody. I have been requested to come before the Commission and state the case for the settlers. I shall be glad to furnish any further information that is desired. 41. Are you within a county area ?—Yes, we are under the Cook County Council. We have approached the County Council to raise a loan. We came before the Council with a proposal for a loan of £3,000. The Council were unanimous in approving of this proposal, and it came before their solicitor before going to the Government. We drew in the Tahora country. It was Native land vested in trustees at the time, and we thought it would be taken as security for our loan, because by law we have to have a set proportion of freehold to enable us to borrow. The Council approved of it, but their solicitor said that for the purpose of rating this must be considered Native land, so that our scheme for rating was thrown out. That was some four years ago. We have approached the county since, but still without success. We still have to pack our goods ten miles, and bring all our wool over the track, which at present is impassable. 42. Mr. McCutchan.] First of all, what have the Government done in the past in regard to giving road access in this district ?—Absolutely nothing. 43. Does your road go through the Ngatapa Station ?—Yes, and then goes over a stock-track and four miles of a bridle-track. 44. The Crown had a considerable area at the back of the Ngatapa Block ?—Yes. 45. The road goes through the block for eighteen miles ?—lt goes ten miles, and then there is a piece of road for four miles —that is fourteen miles from Ngatapa. 46. And made by these settlers ?—Yes. They have a certain benefit from the side track to my place, outside that Ngatapa Station. 47. What has the Government done with regard to roading these small grazing-runs ?—On a portion of the Hangaroa they cut a track called the Hangaroa-Waikaremoana Track, without giving anything to benefit my place and the adjoining neighbours. 48. And do the settlers propose to take the whole of the roading on their own shoulders ?—Yes. 49. In face of the fact that the Government road the whole of the colony ?—Yes. 50. Do you think this is wise on the part of the colony ?—I do not. 51. You think you have a claim on the Government for that expenditure ?—Yes. 52. Is it a forlorn hope that you are proposing to raise money for roads under the Loans to Local Bodies Act ?—Yes. 53. And you find the law is such that you cannot raise the loan ?—That is so. 54. Do you know any valid reason why the law should stand in the way ?—I am unable to see why they prevent us doing a benefit to ourselves and a benefit to New Zealand. It will eventually be a main arterial road. 55. You simply wish to have the legal objection removed to enable you to raise a loan ?—Yes ; but it must be a difficult matter to alter the law. It was brought before the Government four years ago, and still they seem unwilling. 56. The difficulty is that the small grazing-runs were got at a low rental because they were in rough country ?—Yes. We have no objection to the tenure, except that it prevents us from rating ourselves. 57. The difficulty is perhaps this, that the first term of the small-grazing-run lease is twenty-one years, and if you wish to raise money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, even at 5 per cent., you cannot get it for a lesser term than twenty-six years, repayment of interest and sinking fund being spread over the whole of that term, which exceeds the term of the lease itself by five years ?—Yes. 58. That is not a valid objection, inasmuch as you are making improvements from year to year ? —I consider that our holdings are ample security for the money. 59. The loan would still remain a charge against the land ?—Yes ; if at the end of twenty-one years we decided not to continue our holdings that holding would carry what remains of the loan. I have the opinion of three solicitors on that point. I was informed that under any other tenure we could have obtained our loan. We have a right of renewal. We have six months' notice in which to decide whether we will take our land for a further term. 60. Is there not some difficulty inasmuch as you can only get a valuation for visible improvements on the land when you may have gone to considerable expense for improvements that are not -visible ? —Yes ; in our country you make a lot of improvements that are not visible. 61. You think that the present method of making the valuation should be modified, and that a more equitable method should be adopted ?—Yes, I certainly do.
176—C. 4.
C.—4.
1402
lA. C. STEELE.
62. Does not the same objection in regard to raising money for roads apply in getting money from the Advances to Settlers Department: if a settler endeavours to get money he only gets it on condition that for whatever proportion of the loan is unpaid when the twenty-one years has expired he has to pay in a lump sum ?—Yes. ■ 1 63. And instalments under the Advances to Settlers scheme runs for twenty-six years ?—Yes. 64. Is there any reason why the Government should not call on the holder of the lease for the unpaid balance ?—I should say not, as there are enough improvements on the land to meet it. There is another objection, that when you attempt to raise money their valuer takes into account the inaccessibility of the land. 65. Although the valuation is on the prairie value, they still cannot charge you more than 2J per cent, on tnat \ aluation for the second term ?—Yes, that is tne case. When you endeavour to raise a loan they point oat the inaccessibility of the land. 66. You want an alteration in the law to enable the holders of the small grazing-runs to raise loans in order to make roads ?—Yes. 67. Do you think tnere is any way to secure to you the \alue of your improvements except by way of the right of purchase ?—The Government nav valuation. 68. Do you think that many improvements made are out of sight ?—Undoubtedly. No one could develop the back country unless he made good tracks and culverts. 69. You think the only way to secure the value of all the improvements is by the right of purchase ? —Yes. The incoming tenant or the Government would reap considerable benefit. 70. You think that by tenants raising a loan in order to get road access would be doing a very great benefit to the colony ?—Mgst certainly. 71. Do you think that when they are prepared to do so the colony should subsidise them pound for pound ?—lf it would benefit the country behind I certainly think they should get some concession from the Government. 72. Have your dealings with the Land Board been satisfactory ?—I have only had to approach the Land Board on one occasion, some three years ago. Thfe block I took up was 4,000 acres, and it was too much for my limited capital to work. A friend of mine decided to come in with me, and we intended to divide that block We commenced the work at once, and we got the surveyor to survey it, which was approved by the Land Board. If we had applied to the Land Board for the division of the block before taking it up, they would probably have granted the survey, but we had to pay at the very start of the place a matter of £50 for cutting the line between us. We made application to the Land Board for payment of this, but the Board did not see fit to pay and refused our application. 73. They were reasonable in this way, that if they were to grant your payment it might lead to very heavy expense, inasmuch as it was not authorised. As business men they should have been approached before being asked to grant the money ?—But they knew that we took the land up with the view to cutting it up. We could not ha\e settled that block had we not worked together in this way, and we certainly thought we should ha\e had the sarvey done. Blocks were afterwards cut up and surveyed. 74. Did you apply to them to divide it for you ?—I applied for payment. 75. But did you apply to them to do it for you ?—No. 76. Mr. Forbes.] Have you known any case of unfair valuation by Government valuators ?—No, I do not. £ 77. You cannot say that in valuing the improvements on these places the tenant will be unfairly treated I—No, except that frequently -valuers are appointed who are, in my opinion, not competent to value. 78. That is the valuation in the ordinary way for taxing and rating purposes ?—Yes. 79. Have you known of any case in which the outgoing tenant has not received a fair valuation ? —No. 80. The Chairman."] Is there a large area of Native land in your locality ?—There is the Tahora No. 2 Block, which is vested in the East Coast Native-land Trustees. It is a block of about 78,000 acres. 81. What is the condition of it ?—Unimproved. Ten thousand acres of it were sold the other day, and the balance cut up into sections, and they are now offered to the public on lease. 82. There is no great drawback in that locality otherwise ?—Only in the_Native blocks, the land being tied up. 83. Have you much knowledge of the Native country ?—No, I cannot say that I have. 84. It is a great bar to settlement is it not in some parts ?—I know it has been in this particular district in the past. 85. Do you think that the Legislature should deal with that matter ?—Yes, very strongly. 86. After securing to the Natives sufficient for their own use, do you not think the rest should be dealt with in the interests of settlement, probably on the same lines as the Land for Settlements Act ? —Yes. I* 87. That would be in the interests of the country ?—Yes. 88 And also of the Natives themselves ?—Yes, because they will not work as a community. The Native says, " What is the good of my working if the rest of the pa will not ? " The Natives I have met with in my part would be in favour of that. 89. Sufficient land being made inalienable and retained for their own use ?—Yes. They would like to have their land individualised, so that each man could deal with his own. Many of the Natives would like to work the land for themselves, but not for the community. P| i 90. You think that many of the Native lands should be dealt with by the Government, and the revenue distributed by the Government amongst the Natives for all time ?—Yes.
W. H. TUCKEB.]
1403
C.—4
Gisborne, Saturday, 24th June, 1905. William Henry Tucker examined. 1. The Chairman.'] You are Chairman of the Cook County Council, I understand ?—Yea, but I have not come forward to give evidence in my official capacity. lam the lessee of Campbell Island from the Southland Land Board. It is with reference to that I want to speak. 2. Under what kind of tenure do you hold ?—Pastoral lease. The circumstances are entirely singular, and I think ought to be treated exceptionally. Campbell Island is more than four hundred miles from New Zealand, and it is very expensive to communicate with the island. It costs £250 for every trip of the steamer. When the land was offered by the Southland Land Board it was stated that there would be two trips per annum of the Government steamer, and the Government steamer at that time was running two half-yearly trips. That was subsequently discontinued, and periods greater even than eighteen months sometimes elapse without a trip, so that no dependence whatever can be placed on the casual visits of the Government steamer. I have, of course, no expenditure of Government money of any kind—no railways, no telegraphs, no roads or bridges, and no harbours ; nothing at all. The Government does not spend sixpence on the place. All such works as bridges, tracks, and particularly shipping facilities fall upon me and have been borne by me up to the present time. I did ask the Government to be kind enough to give me one or two fender piles, but I got no reply to my request at all : so they have given no assistance of any kind. Under these circumstances —the great distance of the place from New Zealand, the extreme costliness of communication, the fact that no Government money has been spent, and the fact that considerable moneys must be spent by me and have been spent by me in order to render the place workable—l think lamin an entirely singular position. I know of no other, save, perhaps, the Kermadecs or the Auckland Islands, which would come in the same category, and I would respectfully represent to this Commission that I am entitled to some better tenure than I have at present. Ido not ask for the freehold unless the Government wish me to buy the place, but I do say I am entitled, by reason of my having gone to considerable expense, to some protection for my improvements, or in the alternative that these necessary works should be performed by the Government. The ordinary landlord, I think, would meet his tenant in a reasonable way. It has always been my custom to meet my tenants either by giving them reasonable improvements made by myself, or else if they make the improvements giving them some protection for those improvements. If the present case were one of ordinary pastoral license, or an ordinary Government lease on the mainland, I should be quite willing to abide by the ordinary regulations which affect such tenants, but I say this is an entirely singular case for which no provision of any kind has been made and which probably never has been contemplated in the land leases which were framed with respect only to tenants on the New Zealand mainland and not with regard to these outlying islands. That is all I have to say, gentlemen. I respectfully request that you will consider my case and make such representation as you think will enable me to be treated with fairness and justice. What I would myself suggest is that I should be given a lease of the same description as is given with respect to tenures on the mainland—occupation with the right of purchase, lease in perpetuity, or the right of purchase by auction —or in some other way that I may be enabled to protect the very expensive improvements which I have been compelled to make. 3. You think this is a case where the ordinary land laws of the colony are not applicable ?—lt seems that they are not, sir. 4. What is the length of youi lease ?—I think there are about fifteen years unexpired. 5. What was the term from the beginning ?—Twenty-one years. 6. With no right of renewal ? —No. 7. What revenue does the Government derive from the island ? —Well, as to my rent, they put it up ac an upset I think of £2, but there was bidding for totally other reasons than for the purpose for which I have taken it. It was supposed to be the habitation of seals, and there was bidding in consequence, and it was run up to £15. That is not the only revenue the Government derive, because they charge me Customs duties on whatever I consume, and if it comes to a visit from the Government steamer they charge me more than if I chartered a vessel myself, so I prefer to charter a vessel. 8. Do you think the Government should allow you for your substantial visible improvements ? —I think they should give me a better tenure than I have. They may turn me off at a moment's notice : that is not fair. 9. Not until the expiry of the lease ? —I think they can in the case of a pastoral lease. There is not the faintest chance of any other person wanting the island. It could not be worked except by a man with the control of capital. It would cost you £250 to even go and look at it. They might pay me for the house and the woolshed. I doubt whether they would for my wharf. 10. Mr. Matheson.) Does your lease provide any compensation for improvements ?—Yes, I think there is something. Ido not know whether the lease says they will assess it at two or three years' rental. 11. What is the acreage of the island ? —Twenty-five thousand acres. 12. What are you using it for ? —A sheep-run. It is not fit for anything else. 13. Your chief export is wool, of course ? —Wool and sheep. 14. What does your wool run into per annum ? —lt depends on the number of sheep. 15. What number of sheep are you grazing there, roughly ?—Six thousand. 16. Do you feel that the Government have broken the conditions of the lease you took up ?— Yes. 17. By stopping this regular service ? —By not fulfilling the conditions. 18. Apart from that these troubles were troubles which you were aware of when you took up the. lease ? —No, it was an experiment.
C.—4,
1404
[w. H. TUCKER.
19. You were aware of the question of compensation ?—I am not laying any stress at all on that. 20. Is not your grievance that at the expiry of the lease you have no compensation, and you are asking for an alteration in the tenure in consequence ? —My main grievance is this : I say I have no safe tenure at all, but may be put off at any time. It is not likely conditions would arise that would lead to that, because I do not think the land could be used for close settlement or for any other purpose than that for which I at present use it. 21. Do you consider you have any claim against the Government for conditions which were in existence when you took the lease up : the only alteration of the conditions is the stopping of the steamer, is that not so ?—I do consider I have a claim. Ido consider it is fair to take into consideration the singular circumstances of this outlying island, and to make provision for them. They would put them in no worse position, at any rate, than they would on the mainland. 22. Does it not seem to you that it would be more businesslike that, having accepted the lease on these conditions, you should allow it to run its term, and that fresh conditions should be made under the new lease ?—lt is not for me to dictate to the Government or to suggest how iu should be done. I should not object if they said, " You must continue under the existing conditions, but at the end of the present term we will give you a fresh term." That would satisfy me. 23. Mr. Forbes.'] If you had the right of renewal for a further term of twenty-one years, would not that conserve your improvements ?—For that time it would, of course. 24. If you had the first option of taking it on for another twenty-one years ? —That would be a great step in my favour. 25. In the case of people who are holding pastoral leases in very high country in New Zealand there is an arrangement something like this : The Government say that they will give them the first option of renewal, seeing they have gone into this back country and put up with the loss of stock, with snow-storms, and so forth. If the first option of renewal for a further term of twenty-one years were given to you do you think that would meet your case —It would be a great amelioration of my conditions, but at the same time that there is considerable similarity between their holdings and mine, yet they are much more favourably situated than I am, because they are on the mainland. It does not cost them £250 each time they visit their leasehold. They probably are within a short distance of telegraphic and telephonic communication, they may not be many miles from the railway, and participate in all Government improvements. But all these things lam shut out from, so that, even compared with the others, my condition is one I think which might fairly be treated exceptionally. 26. These other islands which you mentioned, are they let on the same tenure ? —Yes. The Auckland Islands are let, but the leaseholder has done nothing with them. He did take two loads of sheep there —I am speaking of Mr. Fleming—but Ido not think he is doing anything now. He found, as I found, the expense was very great and that all expenses of improvement must be borne by himself, and he does not seem to me now to be going any further in the matt: r. 27. Mr. McCutchan.] Was thi' land taken up under the Act of 1885 or the Act of 1892 ?—I could not tell you, Ido not know. It was taken up subsequently to 1892, and therefore I suppose would be under that Act. 28. Was this fact about the Government steamer running twice yearly a condition ?—Yes, it was announced at the sale by the Commissioner of Crown Lands. 29. But it was not in the printed terms of the salf ?—No, I suppose not, but at that time it was a fact that the Government steamer was running about twice a year under Captain Fairchild. 30. Did the Commissioner state at the time that it would continue to run twice a year ? —Yes, in my presence it was stated. Mr. Batger went with me and said, " You know one of the conditions under which this land was taken was that the Government steamer should run down there twice a year ? " The reply was, " Yes, that is so." 31. Is the island entirely free from rates ? —I do not pay any rates. 32. There are no rates leviable ?—I pay none. The Commissioner of Taxes did send me a valua-tion-paper, " Take notice you are valued so-and-so," but no one has demanded anything. 33. There are no local rates leviable ?—I may, perhaps, form a Road Board and rate myself. At present I pay heavy rates because every work performed there is performed by myself alone. 34. Is it not the case with reference to these areas that they are let under this tenure with a viewin the future to closer settlement ?—I apprehend it is so, but I have already pointed out already that closer settlement could not possibly take place there. 35. You are running six thousand sheep now and it may be capable of further improvement: surely there is room for closer settlement ?—I should be very sorry to take it up for anything else than I do. 36. Is it capable of further improvement ?—Everything is capable of further improvement so far as I know. 37. Is it Native grass these six thousand sheep are being depastured on, or have you laid grass down I—Partly the one and partly the other. There was some grass there as well as a quantity of indigenous herbage, but I have been sowing grass which I have taken there. 38. Your desire is that instead of getting compensation you should get a better tenure ?—Yes ; Ido not ask for compensation. I ask for some form of tenure similar to that which is given by the Government on the mainland. 39. You are Chairman of the County Council here ?—Yes. 40. Are you averse to answering questions with reference to local government matters ?—No, 1 will answer if I can. 41. We find that a large number of settlers are very much hampered by the inadequacy of transit facilities ?—I can well understand that.
W. H. TUCKEE.J
1405
C.-4.
42. As Chairman of the Cook County Council, you are aware of this difficulty: that while the settlers of the want of these facilities the County Councils are complaining that their funds are inadequate for the purpose ?—Yes. 43. Have you ever thought out any scheme that would place the matter on a more satisfactory footing ?—I think the greatest cause of complaint we have is this : That although the Government occasionally gi"ve you a grant for tnis. that, or for the other purpose, yet that you do not receive anything from the Government as a matter of right; that you have no right to go and ask the Government to give you £1 because of the area, because of your population, because of your imports, or because of your revenue, and there is no fund from which you can obtain any grant. There is no proportion between the grant that you might obtain and any one of these things, and I maintain there ought to be. 44. Do you think that advances should be fixed by statute instead of by favour as at present ?— I think there should be legislation in that direction. I think it should be oar right to go to the Government and say, because of one of these things—because we have such an area, or such a population, or such a revenue —we are entitled, and they should be forced to make us, a certain grant. 45. Do you think road-construction should be a charge on the revenues of the country, and that road-maintenance should be'the duty of the local bodies ?—I cannot help thinking it would pay the Government, before they dispose of the land, that to some extent they should make and form reasonable roads that would give access, because I think that the enhanced price the land would thereby bring would pay interest and sinking fund on the expenditure. lam quite certain that the settlers give infinitely less where they fancy that they themselves will either have to make these roads or else go without them. I would say it would be wise economy to make sufficient roads to enable access to be given. 46. Now, if the Government make and metal all main roads and simply form for wheel traffic all by-roads ?—lf we are to continue as we are now, receiving nothing at all by right and only getting an occasional dole by favour, then I do think that system should "be adopted ; but I should prefer to see the finances of each county put on a much stabler and better footing. I think some portion of the revenues produced from the settlers should be returned to them, and I think the construction and maintenance of these roads would be rather better done under the supervision of the local bodies than under that of the Government, because I am not at all in love with the Government manner of construction. There is an instance in this district where I am quite certain that a priv ate company or private persons would have constructed the road for at least two-thirds perhaps, or even one-half, of the cost at which the Government have done it: therefore I should prefer that all local public works—roads, bridges, and so on —should be constructed by the County Council say, or by the Road Board ; but they should receive from the Government a fixed proportion of the revenues produced in the county or district. 47. You mentioned Road Boards. I understand you have got dual control in this county. Do you think that is economical ?—I think it is a matter really to be considered by the ratepayers. If they choose to put their hands in their pockets for the purpose of paying for the expense of a Road Board—finding the salary of a Secretary and the expense of an office—l do not think we should forbid them. It is a matter for their own consideration. 48. Do you think it is an economical way of carrying on local government I do not think it is. At the same time I think it is a right given by law, and Ido not see that it hurts anybody. 49. It hurts the County Council with regard to subsidy, does it not ?—lf a Road Board exists in the county does it not limit the Government subsidy to the County Council ?—I am not prepared to say whether it does. 50. The Government subsidy is given upon a general rate of fd.—that means that on £10,000 you will get a subsidy of £2,500. But if Road Boards exist in the county your subsidy is cut down to £500 : is not that a serious loss ?—-'Yes. 51. Mr. Matheson.] You go still further and say your local body should do the whole of the work instead of having the Government working over the same area ?—Yes. 52. You said you had no right at present to claim any fixed road subsidy, but you have a right to a subsidy from the Crown ?—Yes ; I said that we had no right so far as I know to claim a road subsidy. I asked a Minister of the Crown on what basis these grants are made and he could not answer me, and I said, " I suppose it is a case of kissing going by favour." He answered, " Yes." 53. Do you feel it would be wise to do away with all grants and make the Government help come in in an automatic way by graduated subsidies ?—Yes ; I think we should come not as suppliants to the Government but as a matter of right. 54. In many cases blocks of settlement lands are rating themselves for the purpose of raising loans under the Local Bodies' Loans Act for roading. Do you think it would be reasonable, where they are making roads for local use, that the Crown should subsidise these rates pound for pound ?—I can see no reason why it should not, and I think it is a fair ground to help those who are helping themselves. 55. You think whatever is done in that way should be done automatically by law ?—Yes; if £1,000 is raised locally that should carry with it the right to a certain proportion from the Government, and the grant should not be regarded as a mere favour. 56. Going back for a moment to the question of Campbell Island, are not your disabilities there in a large measure balanced by the low rent you pay ?—I would rather pay a higher rent and be placed in a similar position to that occupied by those on the mainland—pay a good rent and have a good title. 57. But if that property was on the mainland a very much higher rent would have to be paid ?— Yes ; and there would be a better tenure and all disabilities would be removed. 58. The tenure would still be the same if it were pastoral lease ?—I suppose it would. I suppose if it were on the mainland there would be some method of bringing it under these other land regulations by which you get occupation with the right of purchase, purchase right out, or lease in perpetuity, or perpetual le^sc.
C.-4.
1406
W. H. TUCKER
59. The holder of a pastoral lease has no right to that unless there is some alteration of the law. He has no opportunity to change his tenure at present. If an alteration was made in your lease and your improvements were secured to you, would you be willing your run should again be put up to public competition loaded with your improvements ?—Oh yes, I have nothing against that. 60. Mr. Forbes.'] In connection with Campbell Island and the half-yearly trips of the Government steamer, for what purpose were these trips made ?—To visit the various depots, to keep up the supply of provisions, and see if there were any castaways. On her last trip she rescued a great number of castaways on one of the islands. 61. Now that the place is settled it does away to a certain extent with the necessity for the Government steamer going so often to Campbell Island ?—I do not know quite that it does, because, even in any case, you have only the possibility of being able to render assistance to people there. There might be so many persons there who were in distress for aught you know. A man may have broken his leg or broken his arm and be in need of medical aid. 62. I mean to say that the reason for the trips being discontinued may be that as the place was settled there would not be as much necessity for calling so often ?—I do net think that is the reason, because that is a reason that would apply to Campbell Island only, whereas the fact is that, while they have discontinued the visits to Campbell Island, they have also discontinued visiting the Auckland Islands, the Snares, the Bounty Islands, and the Antipodes. They have discontinued the whole round and thrown them all out. Adam Gilmoor Knox examined. 63. The Chairman.] You hold land I suppose ?—Yes. lam here to represent my wife and myself > we are both holders. 64. Where is the land situated ?—Matawhero, on the Willows Estate. I hold 30 acres myself, and my wife holds 20 acres, both under lease in perpetuity. 65. You have some matter to bring before us ?—Yes ; I want the freehold if I can get it. lam in favour of the freehold. lam not dissatisfied in any way with the amount I have. 66. Is not a 999-vears lease long enough ?—lt is quite long enough ; but I would like to make the holding a freehold if I can. I would like to have the right to leave a bit of freehold behind me if I can. 67. Mr. Matheson.] When you took it up you knew it was a lease \—Certainly. 68. Have you since found it was not so good as you thought it ?—We have had a boom during the last four years in the Poverty Bay district, but I have seen the time when it was different with the freehold, and in my neighbourhood the bank could not get £22 an acre for it. No one would touch it. 69. This land of yours was bought with money borrowed outside of New Zealand ?—Yes. 70. You see no harm in the tenants getting the freehold if they repay that debt ?—No. 71. Supposing the right of purchase is refused and bad times come, do you think these tenants would be able to pay their rent ?—lt would take them all their time, 72. And the Crown take the risk of not being able to collect the rent ?—Yes. 73. If there is a possibility of that occurring then the Government would secure themselves against loss by allowing you to purchase the freehold ?—I do not see they would lose anything by it as long as we paid it off. I want the right to pay it off as I can. 74. You are willing to pay an additional percentage on the upset price to secure the Department against loss ? Do you think it is reasonable that an additional percentage should be charged ?—At present, say, the land is at boom prices, it would not pay me then. 75. lam not asking you whether you are willing to pay present values; say an additional 5 per cent, on the original upset price ?—Yes. 76. Are your dealings with the Land Board satisfactory ? —Yes. 77. Have you had any dealings with the Advances to Settlers ? —Yes. 78. Have they been satisfactory ?—Yes. 79. Mr. Forbes.] There is a certain amount of regulations in connection with these settlement holdings. If the land was made freehold it would do away with all these regulations, and a man might be able to buy his neighbour out ? —I believe in one being restricted to holding not more than a certain amount. Ido not want to see the leases go back to one man again. 80. Under the present law, you know that 640 acres of first-class land may be held by one man : that would pretty well mop up the whole of the leases in your district ?—Pretty well. But you know that 30 acres is not enough for a man to live and rear a family on. We are compelled to build there and make improvements. I have made improvements on my 30 acres, but it is not enough for a man to stop there and rear a family there. 81. Is not that the fault of the land being cut up so small ?—Yes. 82. When these leases were cut up there was a demand, I suppose, for that size of holding i—The demand was there, and we were glad to get the land. 83. Did they think that would be suitable for working-men ?—I would say they cut it up rather too small, but big enough for the settlers who took it. With the capital I had it was big enough for me, but as a man gets on in life, he would like to leave something in the nature of a freehold behind him. 84. Would it not be better, instead of trying to pay off the Crown, if you wanted to give your son a start, to have the leasehold yourself, and you would then have the capital to do it; whereas, if you are paying off the purchase-money, it would keep you busy for years, and perhaps leave nothing to spare ?—Yes, but still this is something to look forward to. 85. Do you think it would not better the position of your son to put him on a larger piece of ground than to put him on a small piece ?—Supposing I passed out, I must leave the land behind. 86. You think if the right of purchase were given there would be a chance of the holding being bigger ? —No, I want it no bigger than the holding I have got; Ido not want to add to it. The only thing is that it is very nice to have a bit of freehold.
C—4
A. G. KNOX.]
1407
87. You would feel better pleased ? —Yes. 88. Were you satisfied when you took it up ? —I had to be satisfied and I took it. Last session they were talking of a Fair Rent Bill by valuation. Ido not think our holdings would stand it. 89. Do you think that would be honourable or fair ? —No, I do not. 90. Mr. McCutchan.] Have you had any trouble with the residence conditions ? —No. 91. Does your wife's section adjoin your own ?—Yes. 92. And residence on your section counts for residence on hers for that reason ?—Yes. 93. But if the two holdings were not adjoining, would you have had any trouble for non-residence ? —Yes. I reckon when a man does not hold over 100 acres, that should be relaxed. 94. You would leave discretion with the Land Board to relax the residence conditions ?—Yes. 95. The Chairman.] Assuming the right was given to people holding lease in perpetuity all over the colony, and that the right was exercised entailing the freehold, do you not know that when a period of depression came the improvements on these farms would be mortgaged ? —No, I do not. 96. If it would lead to the mortgaging of the farm if the freehold was acquired, the tenants would be in a worse position surely by paying interest and being at the mercy of a lending institution than in paying their present low rate of interest to the Government I—Still,1 —Still, there is no man with good security but can get money at 5 per cent. David Shaw examined. 97. The Chairman.] Are you a landholder ? —Yes. 98. To what extent ? —One thousand acres. 99. What is the tenure I—lt is. freehold in the Nuhaka North Survey District. I represent the Nuhaka Branch of the Farmers' Union. 100. You are authorised to speak for them ? —Yes, at the last meeting they held I was appointed to appear before the Commission. A great number of the people there have places under the 999-years lease, and they wish to be allowed to convert it into freehold. We have no settlement there under the Land for Settlements Act; it is all bush and fern country, and they think they should have the right by buying it out to make a freehold of it. It has been a great struggle for the early settlers to make homes there. There were no roads when they went in there first, and they think after all their hard work they should be allowed to make it into freehold. In fact, most of them took it up with the right of purchase, but most of them altered to lease in perpetuity. 101. It was taken up as perpetual lease with the right of purchase, and most of them converted it into lease in perpetuity ?—Yes, and they now find they have made a mistake, and are anxious they should get back the right of purchase. Some of them have grazing-runs, and they would like to have a freehold of them. 102. Do you not think it is too much to expect ?—Properly speaking, I do not think they should have any right to the grazing-runs, the land being so good and no rates to speak of. But I think those who took up the land originally in the Nuhaka Block have the right to get the freehold on paying up the money. 103. Mr. Matheson.\ Do you think there should be revaluations of improvements ? —Yes, after twenty-one years. 104. Referring to ordinary bush land, do you think it would be a good thing for the tenants if they had the right of purchase ?—Yes. 105. And good for the colony ? —Yes. 106. How I—They tax them just as much. 107. Do you think they would be more contented on their land ?—Yes, they have had to struggle very hard at first. 108. Do you think the city dweller would really be more benefited if the settler had the right of purchase ? —Yes, if the city man was there he would know it too. 109. The Chairman suggested to the last witness that if the freehold were given and bad times came, these freeholds would be heavily mortgaged. Would not that apply to the leaseholder ?—I am not speaking of the land for settlements. It is quite right that land which has been cut up like that should be kept in the hands of the Government. 110. The land-for-settlements land was bought with British capital, not New Zealand money. It was purchased in order to settle the land. People have settled on it, and what possible harm can come to New-Zealanders if these tenants are allowed to repay the British capitalist ?—I do not think there would be any harm as long as they paid interest and gave the Government a little for their trouble and expense. 111. If they did that would it not be equally as good for the country ?—Yes, but we are not interested and I am not authorised to speak on that. 112. Mr. Forbes.] Do you think that it would be reasonable, seeing that these settlers had the option and knew what they were doing, and took up lease in perpetuity —do you think it a reasonable thing that they should ask the colony to chop and change about ? —As long as they paid all expenses what is the difference. 113. How are they worse off under the lease in perpetuity ?—They think so ; every Britisher likes to say " This is my own." 114. A man has the right to sell out if he dislikes the tenure ? —What sale can you get. The man simply wants the freehold. 115. That may be in this part of the country. There are different conditions in other parts. A lease in perpetuity in the South Island can be sold very readily at a high rate, just as high a rate as the freehold ? —You would not do that thirty years ago.
C— 4.
1408
[d. rhaw.
116. You say here that they will not look at it ?—That is the feeling of the people. Every week there are people coming to us, hut they shy off the lease in perpetuity. There is a difficulty in financing. 117. The lender will not advance money ?—Yes, I know several in our district who wanted to borrow a little more, and when they took steps to see if it could be financed, the lenders shy off. 118. Do you not think the conditions imposed on these holdings are necessary for the settlement of the country ? —My own idea is this, that the right of purchase is the best law ever introduced into New Zealand, and I do not think you could have a better. 119. Is not the great object to get people settled on the land and not have absentees or men living off the land ? —There is not much absenteeism nowadays ; it does not do. 120. Under the lease in perpetuity you insure that it does not occur ?■ —That is to a certain extent, but if people are willing to pay for it, why should they not have a freehold. 121. Would you give that same right to tenants in respect of any class of land ? —I have got my own opinion, but I have no authority to speak as to that. 122. You say the tenant has the feeling that he wants the freehold, and you can never make a satisfied colonist of him until he gets that right. If he is settled on private land he is still on the land ? — I do not know, I do not see why if he is willing to buy it out he should not have it. 123. Do you think that a man will be satisfied with a restricted freehold ? —I think so. 124. Mr. McCutchan.\ You say there is a difficulty in financing on these lease-in-perperuity leases ? —I do not know, but men have told me so. 125. Surely they can finance these loans with the Advances to Settlers Department ? —To a certain extent, but it is only some small amount they allow. 126. They are advancing 50 per cent, on the goodwill now : do you not think that is a fair advance ? —Yes ; but what difference does it make if people want to purchase the freehold. 127. Are the settlers in the district you represent satisfied with the working of the Land Board ?— Yes. 128. And satisfied with the present system of appointing its members ? —I think so ;we have not had any trouble in that way. 129. Are the roads satisfactory ? —The roads are the great trouble. Settlement is advancing so rapidly in some of the back settlements that it is impossible to keep up with the demands. It is different in the south. 130. Do you think the roads should be made before the settlers are put on the land ?—I think so. 131. Do you think the land would then sell at an enhanced price ?—Yes. I had to cut my tracks before I could get my grass-seed in. T had not a quarter of an acre of cleared ground on my section, and have not an acre of flat country. 132. Are you in the Cook County ?—No, in the Wairoa County. 133. Are there any roads in that county ? —No. George Russell Joblin, Nuhaka, examined. 134. The Chairman.] Do you hold any land ?—My sons do. 135. On what tenure ?—Lease in perpetuity. 136. You wish to put a statement in ?—Yes. My statement is as follows : I am here to express my opinions on a subject which is of interest to every settler of the colony—that is, on our land laws and their administration. It appears to me that the main subjects demanding attention have a threefold aspect which comprehends that of the past, that of the present, and that which is to be, of the future. The subject is one that has received my unfailing and careful attention for a period of nearly half a century. After reaching the colony I soon arrived at the conclusion that its future prosperity must hinge upon the effective initiation and administration of a system of land laws that should possess as its pre-eminent characteristics liberality and stability, incorporating progressive powers in their nature. " The laws of the Medes and Persians " are inapplicable here, being inconsistent with vitality, and denoting stagnation and degeneracy —evils from which our laws must be exempt. The system of land legislation with which I first made acquaintance was known as " the Canterbury land laws." They were largely and widely, but not wisely, eulogized. One effect of their action was to establish a uniform price of £2 per acre for the land of the province, without reference to the locality, accessibility, or quality of the land. Thus, for land of Al quality and easy accessibility capable of producing from 70 to 80 bushels of wheat per acre, the price was £2 per acre, cash down. For land badly located, land of inferior quality and often difficult of access, capable of producing 7 or 8 bushels per acre, the terms of acquisition were precisely the same as those appertaining to the acquisition of the land of Al quality. Under no conditions was any modification admissible. The terms were inexorable. The effects of this system were as might have been foreseen, prejudicial to the best interests of the colony, as their tendency was to increase the riches of the rich and the poverty of the poor. The course adopted was this : men having money or the means of obtaining it went in for large blocks of the best land. They or their agents would select in a given district all the land of the Al class, and that which was inferior was left, and was all that was available for selection by the bond fide working-settler, and the access to these inferior lands was often designedly made as difficult as possible by the selectors of the Al blocks purposely to deter the working-settler from reaching them. This state of things was exactly the reverse of that which was necessary to secure and advance the prosperity of the province. It was akin in its nature to an enactment which would constrain the working-settler to pay for his pint of beer a sum equal to that paid by the rich man for his bottle of champagne ; or, if this illustration just at this period possesses a flavour unduly alcoholic, substitute one that is bucolic, and I say it is akin to that of the poor man being constrained by legal enactment to pay for the skim-milk he may buy for his children a sum equal in amount per pint to that paid by the rich man per pint for the cream abstracted from the said skim-milk. So far as the land was concerned, the Al blocks remained unimproved for a period till the worker concluded that as life was short he had better buy from the good and acces
G. E. JOBLIN.]
1409
C—4.
sible blocks than from those that were inferior and often practically inaccessible. To accomplish this he commonly paid about five times the amount paid by the original purchaser ; half the purchase-money would be paid in cash, and a mortgage would be given over the area purchased as security for the unpaid balance, for which, as a rule, a high rate of interest had to be paid. In palliation of this state of things, it may be urged that would-be settlers should have tried other parts of the colony rather than submit to such extortions. But this is more easily said than done. At any time travelling in a mountainous and semi-civilised country is a costly procedure, but at the period to which I refer such a recourse was prohibitive to the class of settlers in question, though available to the rich and adopted by many of them in their ceaseless and insatiable land-grabbing operations. This brief recapitulation of some of the features and effects of the land legislation of the past should enable us to appreciate more vividly the progress made in this department of colonial jurisprudence, and the distinctive and .beneficial nature of the changes subsequently introduced. I now reach the second aspect of the question, which relates to the existing state of our land legislation, and I am pleased to be able to say that I contemplate the same with measureless gratification, and shall leave the world with comparative satisfaction, in that my life has been extended to a length that enables me to be a witness thereof. And to John McKenzie was accorded the high honour of inaugurating this gladdening period by the introduction of those unique and beneficient measures the Land for Settlements Bill and the Advances to Settlers Bill. These measures by their culminating and patriotic results have, in my opinion, surpassed those of all others. In this estimate I do not overlook the Penny Postage, the Education, the Women's Enfranchisement, and the Old-men's Pension Acts. All of these are distinguished by transcendent characteristics, and reflect credit upon the legislators who placed them in the statute-book of our colony. But the Land for Settlements and Advances to Settlers Acts seem to be pre-eminent, and are in an emphatic manner associated with John McKenzie's name, and for prompt and widespread effectiveness they constitute a record of records. All the Acts enumerated confer high distinction upon the Government responsible for their existence, and the influence of these measures not only enhances the exaltation of this colony but also permeates victoriously every other region of the Empire. Under these auspicious circumstances I regret to be under the necessity of finding fault or making any complaint, but I must do so. The administration of the Advances to Settlers Act is of a most unsatisfactory character. I know from personal experience acquired from and among my neighbours that great and long-continued causes for complaint exist, and I think that a searching investigation should be made to ascertain the reasons for their existence. No grounds of justification should be permitted to mar the efficiency of so valuable a measure. I could adduce instances in which advances were made from 20 to 30 per cent, greater than the Advances Office would furnish. This was done in three days, while the Advances Offices took nearly three months in which to reach a decision. Further, there is an absence of consistency in its operations, and, basing my judgment upon facts, I can only arrive at the conclusion that some influential person or persons are reluctant to see the manifold operations of the Act flushed with success. Tennyson voices the aspiration— Oh, for the time When wealth no more shall rest in mounded heaps; But, smit with fiercer light, shall slowly melt In many streams to fatten lower lands, And light shall spread and man be liker man. And John McKenzie inaugurates the prophetic aspiration. All hail, John ! you have gone to your resc, leaving the world better than you found it, and in the odour of gratitude that emanates from the heart of the people. Thus you have not lived in vain. Well done ! 137. You have gone into the matter fully ? —Yes, it is my own experience. 138. Mr. Matheson.] Do you think the lease in perpetuity could be still further improved by the Crown granting the freehold ?—lt would be just possible. 139. Do you think it would be a good thing if all the land of the colony were acquired by the Crown, and we were all made tenants of the Crown ?—That is taking such a wide view of the matter that I would not like to say offhand. I have not tried to get any advances from the Advances to Settlers Office myself, but I have known persons who have tried and have not got anything. Thomas Todd examined. 140. The Chairman.'] Do you hold land ?—Yes, a small grazing-run at Waingaromia. I have no fault to find with my tenure, but I think friction could be removed in two or three ways, and our conditions could be made much easier without any loss to the Government. We have had from the first a freedom from rates, and this was considered quite right at the start, but, unfortunately, it has been the cause of a lot of friction. Neither the County Council nor the Road Board can give us any assistance, and we have to keep our roads up ourselves. Most of us would rather have power to rate ourselves in order that our roads could be kept in order. At present we have to go round with the hat for the purpose, and this is found to work very unsatisfactorily, because where some of the settlers will subscribe £6, £7, or £8, others will not give so much. If one man stands out and says " I will give £5," another will say " I will only give £3," so what was considered to be a privilege has worked very badly, and the grazing-run holders are willing to give up this privilege of immunity from rates. Another point is this : My lease runs out in ten years, and I cannot tell what may happen with regard to my second term. The Advances to Settlers Department sent me a notification that my lease runs out in 1912, and that within twelve months I would be required to pay off every penny I owed them unless I arranged satisfactorily for a second term. These are points not so big as that of the freehold versus leasehold, but they are important to us. Let us know what the second term of our lease will be put at, and I for one would not ask for the freehold. I would be content to give up the one privilege for the other. In these matters of administration we sometimes find ourselves face to face with the problem of either knuckling
J 7 7 —C. 4.
C—4.
1410
fT. TODD.
down to what is wrong, or fighting with the Department. In another ease a neighbour of mine who has made improvements worth £20,000 got a notice that if he did not pay his rent, amounting to £15, he would forfeit his lease. He was threatened for that small amount, and we do not like such threats. It is such cases that have caused a good deal of friction and agitation, and I think the Commission has a good chance of removing them. 141. Are you satisfied with the action of the Land Board ?—Yes, they have treated me well, and so has the Government. 142. But you want rating-powers?—l would like the present privileges of immunity from rates taken from us, as it is hopeless for us to raise money. 143. Are you satisfied with your tenure ? —I should like to know six or seven years before the end of my lease whether we should be able to apply to the Land Board for another lease. It would be to the country's interest if we had some idea given to us of what the second lease was to be. 144. Mr. Mathf.son.] Is yours the title which escapes the Local Bodies Act ?—That little addition was put in in the Swamps Act. 145. Was not an Act brought in afterwards to remove it ?—Yes, but it was dropped. 146. Supposing it was brought in again, would you not anticipate the same opposition to it ?—lf we could get the same terms of lease I would not object. 147. Have you the right of renewal ? —I have the option for the first renewal, and for another lease after that. 148. And if you decline to accept another lease are your improvements secured to you ?—I do not get the value of them from the Government until they get it from the other man. The improvements we effect are very much more valuable than the land, and I want to know six or seven years before the end of the lease what the next rent is to be. 149. Do you not see very great difficulty in fixing the rent years in advance of the termination of the lease ?—When we first went up the land was only worth ss. an acre, while it is now worth £1 10s. The Government could say, "You must pay us £2 an acre, and if not, you must wait until the end of your lease." 150. Do you think that if you had the knowledge of what the future rent would be you would be encouraged to put more work into the place ? —Yes. I have considerable confidence in the faith of the Government, and if times were to be hard I would go on to the end of my lease. 150 a. But supposing you agreed to pay a rent of £2 now, and bad times came, you would find yourself paying a higher rent than if you had waited until the end of your lease ?—The certainty of what you are going to do is always worth money. The question of the future rent should be gone into and the tenant have a chance in the fixing of the rents of the second lease. 151. Would eight years satisfy you ?—ln clearing bush land I would say five years, but after the bush is cleared three years would be quite enough, or even two years. Three years would do for anything but the heaviest bush clearing. 152. Mr. Forbes.] Your wish is not because you think your rate might be made too high, but because you want to know what it will be now ? —I wish to know whether it will pay me to go on clearing the bush. 153. Have you had any experience of any of these leases being renewed ?—None have run out in this district. The only case was where a grazing-run holder wished to transfer to a lease in perpetuity, and he was told that before he could take advantage of the Act he would have to surrender his present grazing-run and take his chance. I have a lease of 2,000 acres with the right to surrender, and I would like that altered so that I could see what I was laying it down for. 154. When you surrender it is open then again to the public. How did you get your grazing-lease —by auction ?—Yes. 155. If you surrendered would it not go to auction again ?—I do not know. I understood that a grazing-run holder had the chance of surrendering from one to the other. 156. Of course it would be revalued ?—Yes, I am quite willing to pay the present value of the land. 157. What rent do you pay for this place ? —ljd. per acre. 158. What is the area of it ? —Fourteen hundred acres—£B 15s. If it were freehold I should have to pay more in rates and taxes. 159. You wish people to have the power of rating for the purpose of making roads ?—Yes. 160. Were there any roads constructed when you took it over ? —The nearest road was 12 A miles away. I had four miles of road to make. 161. Have you continued to keep this road in repair ?—For five or six years we had occasional grants from the Road Board, but during the last three years we got nothing. The Road Board struck no rate^themselves —all their funds come from the Government subsidy, and they gave us a share of them.'- I had 1,000 acres and it cost me about £1,000 for repairing my own road. 162. Mr. McCutchan.] Are you in a Road Board area ?—I am in the Tolago Riding. The road leading to my place is under the Waimata Riding. 163. With reference to grazing-runs the object was twofold ? —These grazing-runs were thrown open because they could not get them taken up in any other way. 164. You desire to know the terms of your second lease seven or eight years before your first lease expires ? —I want to sacrifice one privilege in order to get another. 165. What is the carrying-capacity of your land ?—The full carrying-capacity is two thousand five hundred sheep. 166. Do you think it is desirable to have these areas around Gisborne cut up for closer settlement ? —You could not cut up some of the land because it is so steep. If I wish to go about the place I have to cut tracks to do so. It is very steep. 167. If an area of land is capable of carrying three thousand sheep, and the Government put in you never expected, it is only reasonable to suppose that the Government will one day want
T. TODD.]
1411
C—4.
your area, and will cut it into three blocks ? —ln that case I have no power to object, and will have to stand back and see them do it; but Ido not think my land is suitable at the present time. 168. Do you not think it a little unreasonable to ask for the terms of your lease seven years before your lease expired ? —No ; it would be a benefit to the country. 169. With reference to the Department, you said you laboured under a difficulty in connection with the working of the Department I—l said we did not like to receive threatening letters, and that we were not sure of getting a second lease for our grazing-runs. 170. Do you think there is a chance of the Advances to Settlers Department allowing an unpaid portion of a loan to stand against the improvements on the land ? —There was no provision made for that in the mortgage. 171. There is no difficulty in the way beyond an alteration of the law ?—I think it would be a good alteration. 172. With reference to forming these grazing-runs into rating-areas for the purpose of making roads, we had it brought under our notice that the Department would not take grazing-runs as security for loans raised for making roads ? —The difficulty is that you cannot rate yourself for more than £1 a year, and on my holding it would only amount to £2. That is the basis on which loans to local bodies are negotiated. That is all the security we have at present —£2 a year. 173. If several grazing-run holders desire to mortgage their areas for the purpose of placing loans their security is ample ?—The improvements are there if the Government can hold them. 174. That is under the present law, but suppose there were an alteration ? —We could then approach the Department easier. 175. Mr. Matheson.] Suppose your grazing-runs were made rateable the same as other properties, would not other tenants claim that the Government were breaking their agreement %—Yes ; unless we got something for it. 176. There may be a large proportion of small-grazing-run holders who do not want the concession and who would have to come in with you ? —I am only speaking for myself. 177. Does it appear on your lease that you are free from rates ? —No ; I think it was the then standing law ; but it is not a thing we should fight if the law were amended. 178. Do you think it would be an equitable thing that you should be rated in proportion to other property surrounding you, apart altogether from your present position ?—lt would not be fair, but for this other fact that times have gone so well with us that we can stand it. 179. Do you think other people should be brought into line at the end of the present term ? —I think that would be a very good time to bring in the change. 180. Do not the conditions under the grazing-runs justify the tenants in making the improvements ?—-In the present state of the market they do. 181. Do you think if the tenure were made more liberal it would have a tendency to cause the tenants to make more improvements ?—The only justification for making improvements is to have a substantial security for the next lease. 182. You think the tenants should be quite willing to pay a higher rent %—Yes, with the better Security. 183. Mr. Forbes.] You pay a County Council rate I—l pay a rate on £146. I pay no land-tax, and the local body rates are nothing. 184. All your neighbours pay county rates ? —Yes. The Road Board manages to exist on the subsidy from the Government. 185. Do you think that a wise way of working —to have a little petty Road Board spoon-fed from the Government ? —I do not think so, but it avoids friction. 186. Mr. McCutchan.] Does not the Road Board levy its own rate and get 10s. in the pound subsidy —the County Council only gets ss. subsidy ? —I have never been in the Road Board district. I am in the Tolago Riding. 187. The Road Board being in existence its total subsidy cannot exceed £500 ?—I cannot say. 188. You must get more than your proportion out of it ? —They look after that. Philip Thornton Kbnway examined. 189. The Chairman.'] Do you hold land ?—I hold a share, with my brothers, in 5,000 acres. 190. Where situate ?—ln the Waimata district, and I am managing director of a sheep-farming company which holds 16,000 acres. Our private land is mostly freehold, but there is a small grazingrun of about 2,000 acres. 191. I suppose you have some remarks to make ?—I have to speak of grazing-runs from the point of view of the freeholder and the small-grazing-run holder. In our grazing-run we would be quite ready to be rated so as to pay for our share of the roads, and we would naturally want something for that, either the right of acquiring the freehold or possibly the advantage that Mr. Todd suggested. Our grazing-run and Mr. Todd's form a block of mostly rich land. It is a very big block of unrateable land. We contribute practically nothing to the county rate, and it is exceedingly awkward in making arrangements for special roads. lamin a district in one part of which they are just proposing to make a bridge. Part of the special district they propose to rate themselves in for this consists of grazingruns. At the same time they would have to pay on so exceedingly small a value that they would escape from paying rates almost entirely. I believe the grazing-run holders have no special desire to escape, but there is no way out of it, and it is .obviously unfair to the freeholders. I think that is the main point I wish to bring out. 192. Mr. Matheson.'] Do you think giving the right of purchase to the small-grazing-run holders would do justice to the neighbouring freeholders, and if given at the present valuation would the Crown be helping the freeholders of the district ?—Some of the holders would not take it.
1412
[P. T. KENWAY.
a—4.
193. If the option were given it would help the local revenue on account of those who did take it up ? —Decidedly. 194. Mr. Forbes.] Could the grazing-runs in time be broken in for closer settlement ?—I do not think so in this district. The land is exceedingly broken and there is hardly a place to put a yard on. 195. Is it not the case that most of the flatter land around here has been settled with the right of purchase ? —I fancy so. 196. These small grazing-runs apply only to the rough ground ?—Yes. 197. You would want a better tenure for rough land ? —You would. 198. Is it bush land that you have ? —Yes, all this block. 199. Have you got it grassed ?—Our grazing-run is partly grassed. We are felling it now. 200. What rental do you pay ? —I think it is 3d. per acre. 201. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to the alteration in rating : the calculation for rating purposes is 6 per cent, is it not ? —I am not very well up in it. I could not tell you anything except that it amounts to practically nothing. 202. You advocate that a rate should be raised to the same value as that of the surrounding freeholders ?—lf we get a quid pro quo. 203. You get a quid fro quo in the shape of the rates ? —Prom the County Council. We are not getting it from the Government. 204. You are getting certain advantages in rates which you are not paying : why ask for a quid ■pro quo I—ln1 —In taking up that land we have the exemption, and it is not good business to give up a thing like that unless you get something back from it. 205. It does not give you any claim in equity if you are enjoying certain advantages from the rates ? —That might be the view the Government might take. Ido not know that I should be prepared to fight it very hard. i George Edward Darton examined. 206. The Chairman.'] Do you hold land ? —No, I am a land agent here in Gisborne. 207. You do not hold any land ?—Only a small residential site. 208. Have you something to bring forward ?—Yes, on behalf of the Crown tenants. I might say that I was in the Government Land Office for sixteen years. I was Receiver of Land Revenue here for six years, so that the tenants know me, and several of them have asked me to bring some matters before the Commission on their behalf. The first point is that they want a rebate on their rent. They did not get any rebate of rent in this district under the Land for Settlements Act, but settlers in the adjoining land district do. I mean a rebate for prompt payment of rent. The rent is due on the Ist January, and when paid before the 31st January in other districts they get a rebate —in Auckland and other places. In the Hawke's Bay District they do not, and they contend that the practice should be made universal, and if they pay their rent punctually they should get a rebate. They do not want the power placed in the Commissioners hands to say whether it should be paid or not. That is the main point I have to bring forward on behalf of part of the settlers. Many of the settlers say that they are paying a large rental —say Bs. an acre —and they would like some power to have it reduced and to make it, say, nominal. Another point is in reference to fencing. The Fencing Act is not farreaching enough. On a straight line pieces are left when laying off, and they cannot always fence all the boundary and they want a clear title to the pieces cut off. Supposing a piece is cut off the Crown fence, the leaseholder does not want it taken into his lease, but wants the freehold of it, and more easy facilities for getting it. Several tenants say they ought to have also a voice on the Land Board, that they are parties to proceedings on the Board, and they should have at least one person to decide for them. The Land Board works splendidly in this district, but, as a rule, they do not know who is going to get on it. The settlers are a party to the agreement and think they should have a say in the election of one man. They are complaining greatly in this district—especially in the bush settlements —as to the expenditure of money under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act. A block is opened, and burdened with, say, ss. an acre under this Act. If they buy for cash they pay this money cash down, and if their land is taken on lease they pay interest on the amount. They do not know where that money is spent, as they do not get any returns. The particular case in connection with this is the Motu Settlement, and if this money is being spent by the Department they feel that they would like to be furnished with returns as to how the money has been raised on their block, and the road on which it has been spent, and the amount. 209. Is it the lessees of Crown lands that complain that they get no rebate —that is, those who pay 4 per cent. ? —Yes, 4 or 5 per cent. 210. You say that some of the tenants would like to pay off part of the capital so as to reduce their rent ?—Exactly. 211. And when they have paid off a part they wish the restrictions to be removed as regards farming their land ?—No, only for the purpose of reducing their rent. If they have a little money on hand they feel that they would like to pay off in order that they might reduce their rent. 212. As soon as they put themselves in that position would they not have the right to expect that all farming restrictions should be removed ?—No ; the lease remains exactly the same if only a penny remains unpaid, and the conditions would have to be fulfilled, except as to the payment of rent. 213. Mr. Matheson.] You approve of tenants completing their payments ?—Yes, leaving a little nominally for local purposes, and also keeping their land on lease. 214. What is your objection to making the holding into a freehold—do you think they should abide by the law whether it is right or otherwise ?—Yes. 215. Do you not think we should give them the option ?—lf it injured the State it would be unwise to do so.
Q. E. DARTON.]
1413
C—4.
216. Have you any objection to parting with the freehold ?—Yes. My first objection is this : If you grant a freehold the Board or Government have then no say whatever in any further dealings with it. Therefore, if you once grant the freehold that piece of land could go to a man owning any other area of land. That refers to the disposition of the land. Now, regarding the working of it, the Land Board have no say as to the way in which the land shall be worked, and a large piece of land might have only one man employed on it —perhaps the shepherd only. t>Si 217. Do you not think the average farmer knows better how to deal with his land than the Land Board does ? —Certainly not, otherwise the Land Boards would not have been forced to put these restrictions on. 218. These lands were taken up for the purpose of closer settlement, and the system has been successful. The tenants are asking for the right of purchase, and the objection to that is that it might lead to the aggregation of estates. Do you not think that there would be a legal remedy against that ? —That would get over one objection. 219. Your second objection is that if they had the freehold they could work the farm as they liked ? —Yes ;if they had the freehold they would not be compelled to reside on it. 220. Do you think it would be a benefit to the colony if the whole of the farmers had to farm according to the dictation of the Land Board ?—lf the Government own the land they have a perfect right to say whether that land shall be worked so that everything may be taken out of it so as to run it to death. 221. It is the interest of the colony to see that the land is made productive ?—Certainly. Unless the Land Board imposed restrictions as to cropping and the cutting of hedges, many farmers would do as they like, and the consequence would be that the land would be deteriorated. 222. Do you think it would be a good thing if the Government were to acquire more of these estates and dealt with them, and that more people became leaseholders of the colony ?—Yes. 223. And that we all became tenants of the Crown I—Yes.1 —Yes. 224. Mr. McCutchan.\ Were you Receiver of Land Revenue when the Rebate of Rent Bill was passed % —Yes. 225. What was the object of the Bill ? —I think its object was simply to give a discount. 226. Why is it that no rebate has been given in this district % —I cannot give any explanation. 227. Were the rents paid promptly ? —Certainly. 228. The Rebate of Rent Bill was for the purpose of encouraging prompt payment ? —Yes. If they pay promptly they do not get it, and yet the people get it in other places. 229. The Act provides that the Land Board shall have discretionary powers to grant the rebate ? —Then why should not the tenant get it here ? 230. That is just the question: why should they not get it here ?—I know of no reason. 231. Do you think it is a wise measure to place on the statute-book ? —I have my own opinion. Personally, I do not think it was wise. 232. Would you consider it is a moral interference with the contract between the Crown and the tenant —giving him the rebate ? —li is an interference the tenant would like. 233. That is not the point. There are plenty of people who hold che opinion that the contractmade with the Crown is broken if the tenant has taken the rebate ? —But that point is not raised against this rent. 234. Under the Act of 1892, certain rules were framed for the purpose of settlement, and certain conditions were laid down as a basis of contract; in order that these conditions should be varied, a special Act had to be brought in which was called the Rebate of Rent Bill: do you consider that was a vitiation of the contracts formerly made ?—No, I cannot see how it could possibly be construed in that way. If I lease a place to a man who has got to pay me 10s. a week, and he comes and pays me promptly and I give him something off for paying promptly, that is discount. That is what the Rebate of Rent Bill is. 235. If the Rebate of Rent Bill provides for giving a discount, would it not follow that the discount should be the same all over the colony ? —lt ought to be. 236. Do you think the Crown tenants here are treated unfairly in not getting the rebate ?—As compared with other places, certainly. It is unfair that men settled in one part of the country should get a rebate and men in another part should not get it. 237. With reference to the evidence and your advocacy of a freehold being given for these rough corners on boundary-lines, I suppose that that depends on the idea that the freehold tenure is going to prevail in the colony ?—Yes. Supposing that a man is holding under occupation with right of purchase, then this occupation-with-right-of-purchase man should be able to include the rough corner in his new lease. But the machinery should be made as easy as possible for it. 238. In the case of these pieces that are cut out, if there is any dispute the Magistrates decides it. There is always an arrangement that some payment should be made with regard to these pieces. Do you advocate the freehold for these pieces ? —Yes. Little pieces like that ought to be allowed to be thrown in to be held on the same tenure as the adjoining ground. 239. Is there any disadvantage under present arrangements so far as the working of the country is concerned ?—The leasehold is working all right. Freeholders seem to be working under a disadvantage. 240. In connection with these pieces that are cut out ? —Where they get no title and cannot get it. I saw the other day 3 acres held under a small grazing-run whilst the adjoining owner was a freeholder, and he wanted to get his yards on it. But he could not get a title, although it was his ; he could not insure his buildings or mortgage his buildings, because he had no title to the ground on which these buildings were situated.
C—4.
1414
[g. e. dakton.
241. That is an exceptional case. If the ground is suitable for buildings there is no reason why the boundary should be altered. The only reason why there should be a variation from the surveyline is on account of the roughness of the land.'flWith reference to the loading, can you explain why the Receiver of Land Revenue in wiping off this loan under the Loans to Local Bodies Act pays 7 per cen t. ? —lt is fixed for the purpose of a sinking fund, so that the amount will be extinguished in a certain time. The tenant is not paying 7 per cent. 242. lam quite aware of that. But why do the Department fix that rate ? —To pay it off more quickly. The tenant pays 5 per cent. ; the Government set apart 7 per cent. 243. Do you think it is right that the tenants should pay 5 per cent, for the whole 999 years ? — I do not. 244. Why should the State call on the tenant to pay interest and sinking fund for the whole term of the lease I—lf1 —If a block is loaded under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act, and a section is taken up under lease in perpetuity, that tenant is not paying on the land for 999 years. 245. He has to pay principal and interest upon it ? —Not for 999 years. When the loan is extinguished the payment is discontinued. 246. You are under a misapprehension. It continues for the whole length of the lease. Do you think that is just ? —No, it is not; I was wrong there. 247. Do you think it should cease when the loan is paid ofi ?—Yes, as soon as the sinking fund pays it off, the rent should be reduced by that amount. 248. With reference to the settlers being loaded, who inspects the accounts to see if the land is properly loaded ? Do they not have the right to inspect the accounts on paying a shilling fee ? —I thought it was 2s. 6d. 249. Would you advocate a statement of accounts in connection with this roading ? Do they not keep that in the Land Offices throughout the colony so that the tenants by paying a small fee may have the right to inspect these accounts ? —Yes, I think also the proposals for "thirds" should be submitted to the Land Board, so that tenants should have the right to say whether the money should be spent in a road ten miles from the block, which is very often what is done. It should be done the same as with the " thirds." 250. Mr. Matheson.] You said freeholders are working under a disability: in what way ?— As against the leaseholder. He gets his land by paying interest at 4 per cent. One hundred acres at £1 per acre costs him only £4 per year, whereas if he holds a freehold, he is paying more. 251. You mean to say if he wants to raise a mortgage ? —No, he is either standing out of it or else he is paying 5 per cent. 252. Do you not think that the man investing in land often has to pay more than 5 per cent. ? — Yes, but this leaseholder has only to pay 4 per cent. The freeholder has to pay more than 4 per cent., and that is the disadvantage. 253. If people are willing to pay for that disadvantage, you still object to it ?—Certainly, because the agitation is not by the settler, but by the man who provides the money at this high rate of interest. 254. What agitation ?—The agitation set up by the money-lender. 255. Are you aware of the Land for Settlements Bill in Ireland ?—No. But I think our land-for-settlements plan is excellent, except in one modification in the direction of repayments. Say they were allowed to reduce the capital value of the land, and that all money received from the acquirement of perpetual leases and occupation with right of purchase —the whole of that interest—instead of being paid to the Consolidated Fund should be paid to the Land Fund, it could be utilised for the purchasing of more estates for the people. 256. Do you think that the granting of a lease to one man for one thousand years at a fixed rental is good business ? —Certainly. 257. On behalf of the Crown ? —Certainly. 258. The Chairman.] As regards the rebate, is any reason assigned for not granting it in this district ? —I know of none. 259. Do you think it is because the land here is good and the settlers are fortunate in getting hold of it ? —I suppose it is, but Ido not know. 260. Or do you think it is because the tenants in this district are more conscientious, and would like to pay in full ? —Certainly not. They have applied for it often, but no rebate has been given in this district. Julius Pulst examined. 261. The Chairman.] Do you hold land ?—Yes, in the Rakauroa district. 262. What extent ?—One thousand acres under a lease with the right of purchase. 263. Have you some matter to bring forward ?—Yes, I think the Land Board should have more discretionary power about the residence clauses. 264. Do you think that they should be more elastic ?—Yes ; for instance, my sons are working on the land there, and in a year I will have to live on it. At present lam living with my wife on a section she holds in the Willow Estate, under the lease in perpetuity, and so I shall be forced to live on the place, and still I have spent my money on it. Ido not want to leave my wife, and therefore I want to see the Land Board getting more discretionary power, so as to exempt me from the residence clause. 265. Mr. Matheson.] You have made two bargains with the Crown: one is for a piece of land held by your wife on the lowest tenure, and one is this occupation with right of purchase ?—Yes. 266. And you find you cannot fulfil the conditions of both of them ?—Yes. 267. You cannot keep to the terms of your agreement with the Crown because it is impossible to live on both of them ? —Yes, because I would have to separate from my wife. 268. You knew your terms before you entered into them ? —Yes. I have gone into the bush district since, and I want to place my sons on the land there. Ido not want to give away my right
J. PULST.]
1415
C—4
to my sons, because I have spent my money on it. If I gave it to them and they sold out I might perhaps have to get the old-age pension. 269. What did you intend to do with it when you took it up ?—lt was intended for my sons, I did not live on it. I want to delay the transfer to my sons as long as possible. They are working on it now. They have improved it and are still improving it; but it would be rather awkward for me to live on it. 270. Do you not think it is reasonable you should transfer to your sons ?—Then I lose all control, and they might go and sell it after my money has been spent on it. 271. Mr. Forbes.] Can you not take a mortgage over it ?—Yes, but still that would be expensive. 272. Do you not think that to give the Land Board more discretionary power about residence would apply to all the lands of the colony, and this is to meet your own particular case ? Do you not think it would be far more expensive, having to alter the law to meet your particular case ?—I think they might give the Land Board more discretionary power. The section is occupied all the same, and what does it matter to the Government whether I live on it or not. 273. Has not the Land Board got discretionary power now ? —I do not know. As regards the lease in perpetuity, my wife would like to buy the freehold. 274. Mr. Matheson.~\ If the Land Board give you exemption from residence until you die, might they not be doing your sons a great injustice 1—- No. 275. Supposing they worked on the land, say, until your death, and then they found you had left it to somebody else I—That1 —That would not be fair. But it is only a matter of a few years until both are of age ; the elder one is now of age, and I could only transfer it to one now. 276. Is it your intention to transfer the land when they are both of age ? —Certainly. 277. When will that be ?—Thrge years from now. 278. Mr. McCutchan.] The land of the Willows Estate is under lease in perpetuity, and this other land which is being worked by your sons is occupation with right of purchase ?—Yes. 279. You can do either of two things. You can transfer it to your son now or sublet to him with the approval of the Land Board. When a young fellow is seventeen years of age he can take up land under the Act of 1892 ? —That would meet my case. 280. The Chairman.'] You had better write to the Commissioner of Crown Lands and explain your case. Alexander Jerome Cameron examined. 281. The Chairman.] Do you hold land ?—Yes; I hold 1,100 and some odd acres under lease in perpetuity, one hundred miles from here 282. Where is it situated ?— In the Matakaoa district, Waiapu County; it is Section 2 of Block XV. 283. You have some matter to bring forward ?—Yes ; I want to advocate the right of purchase. The reasons are that there is a fear of revaluation and that the holders of such leases find great difficulty in financing. Ido not know why it should be difficult to finance the lease in perpetuity. I have not had occasion to raise money on my section, but for my own information I made inquiries. I asked one financial person what sort of security the lease in perpetuity was regarded as. He said, " I will not touch it with a forty-foot pole." I asked, " Why ? " He said, " Those are our instructions from headquarters," so I could get nothing further. I went to another and I said, " What do you think of the lease in perpetuity as security for a loan ? " " Well," he said, "we do not touch that kind of security, but, of course, perhaps in your case it might be arranged." I said, " This security is worthless," and he replied, "It is not of much account." I asked, " Why ? " But he could not explain : " Those are the instructions from headquarters." That is all I know about the worth of the lease in perpetuity as security for money that the settlers sorely need sometimes. That is my objection principally to holding a lease in perpetuity. Of course, Ido not know whether the fear of revaluation or inability to raise money is the stronger reason for asking for the right of purchase. Another reason why the settler should have the right-of-purchase holding is this : when he has cleared his bush—l am not speaking of agricultural land, but of a rough bush section, and in our district all the sections are rough busii sections —when the settler has fully improved his holding, and is paying his debts, he naturally expects that there will be profits accruing through the working of his section. The question arises, what is he to do with these profits. He may be a thrifty man or he may not. He may say, " I cannot buy the land; I have plenty of money; I will take a holiday for six months." But if he had the right to buy he might put his profits into his land and secure the profits for himself against the time when he is ill or when, perhaps, misfortune overtakes him ; or he may be able to take his money out of the property and start his family in whatever line of life they choose to take. As I have already stated, my section is about a hundred miles from here. I find the holdings too small. By the time I have built a woolshed and yards —it is well fenced, into probably ten paddocks, with substantial wire-fencing and proper posts —I find that the cost per acre is too high on 1,100 acres in such country. I find that the cost of bringing sheep to the Gisborne works is too costly in the case of small flocks. In consequence several settlers have to combine and run their sheep together. The sheep probably arrive in the afternoon or evening, and, having all kinds of marks on them, it is difficult to sort them out in the dark and there is a loss. If the settler had a larger holding he could probably run a larger flock and employ men to bring them down. As a matter of fact I lost twenty wethers, worth £1 per head, in the last lot that I brought down. If there is a section adjoining mine that I could acquire of 1,100 or 1,200 acres say, 50 acres over the area I may hold —I apply to the Land Board and they tell me that it is 50 acres over what I have a right to hold, and they cannot entertain my application. I know that every man on the Land Board would help the settlers if he could in every possible way. I have no axe to grind, and, I believe, it is the same with members who occupy seats on the Board, for in no case';have they acted harshly towards the settlers. Any harshness displayed is owing to the interpretation;of the law that fetters them, which prevents them from granting settlers what they would like, and it would be
1416
[a. j. cameeok.
a—4.
a benefit to the settlers and to the country if more discretion were allowed to the Land Board. In order to gain a section a settler'has to descend to some subterfuge or other. He has to get his wife probably to take up a section.'*. Why cannot he go to the Board and say that his section cannot be improved further, without having to do this ? By this means he would be able to employ men and give them plenty of work. Why should not the Land Board be allowed to grant him an extra area although it might be a little over the prescribed amount. It is a strange thing indeed that the Crown tenant, who is regarded as the backbone of the country, should have to descend to such subterfuges. It is the settler who takes the wealth out of the land which keeps the towns going, and I believe that if the Land Boards had the power they would remedy a great deal of this. Now, with regard to the residence clause, the Land Board has never troubled me ; but I listened to the examination of a witness when it was pointed out to him that if a settler expected a rebate on his rent his agreement with the Crown would be broken. At any rate, the question was asked if it would not be broken, and if it were broken in that way it might be broken in other ways. Now, I say that no man is able to carry out the residence conditions, because they are like the ten commandments, which no man can really keep. I have resided on my place, and have spent a lot of money in travelling backwards and forwards that could be spent to greater advantage in the employment of men and with profit to myself and to the country generally. We settlers will probably never get this chance again of placing these matters before a Commission, which, I believe, is well qualified to hear our troubles and trials, and I am pleased to have this opportunity. With regard to his lease a settler is asked to pay his rent six months in advance. The same settler may get a Government loan, on which I believe the charge is 5 per cent. I have not had a loan myself, but I believe 1 per cent, goes for the sinking fund and 4 per cent is charged on the money. The settler has to pay his rent six months in advance, as I have said, and on that money the Government demands 5 per cent, per annum, which is a queer thing for settlers to have to submit to. Why should a settler have to pay six months in advance ? The Government say they are going to give us cheap money and yet they want this six months' rent in advance. The whole thing savours of Shylock. Now, with regard to the rebate, I have applied for a rebate but I cannot get it; the Board will not grant it. The branch of the Farmers' Union to which I belong applied to the Minister of Agriculture, but his reply was an evasive one. It was to the effect that the Chief Commissioner had to deal with that, and the result was that we got no rebate. I will not pay my rent six months in advance if I cannot get the rebate. I might be made to forfeit my section, but, fortunately, the Land Board is composed of men who temper justice with mercy. I have something to say with regard to the difficulties that settlers have in getting plans from the Land Office, and, I suppose, in all parts of the colony the settlers labour under the same disadvantage. I have an area which was left to me by my brother and I had occasion to go to the Land Office to find out something about the land. I found that the plan I required was an original plan, and the officer to whom I applied for it said, " Well, Mr. Cameron, I cannot let you see that plan." I told him that I was willing to pay a fee but he said " You cannot see the plan by yourself, you must bring a surveyor with you." 1 told him it was very hard, but I had to go away and get a surveyor. I was shown a rule to this effect in some Crown Lands Guide, or something of that kind, which read: " Original plans and block sheets and record plans are open to surveyors and professional men only, under the supervision of an officer." This again appears to me to be a queer thing. The Land Office is supposed to be established for the benefit of the settlers, and yet the very plan of land we want to see is refused to us at any price when we want the right to examine 284. Mr. Matheson.] We are told by some of the witnesses that by giving the right of purchase to tenants we should be parting unwisely with the people's heritage I—The land is not the people's heritage, it is the property of the man who can work it. 285. Do you believe the land is an asset belonging to the people of the colony ?—Yes. 286. And that the townspeople have an interest in the way it is disposed of ?—They have a money mtcrGst. 287. Do you think it is in the interest of the townspeople that the freehold should be granted ?— I" think it is in the interests of everybody. 288. How would the townspeople benefit ? Do you think if the freehold were granted the colony would be made more productive or in any way be more contented ?—Certainly, they would be more contented. ion 289. If the country people were contented, would that be a benefit to the townspeople s—Certainly. 290. Mr. Forbes.] Is your place away back ?—lt is within ten miles of the sea. 291. Are there settlers living around it ?—Yes. 292. Do the settlers with the residential clause not enforce the same condition on their neighbours ? J (Jo not mean to say for a moment that the land should be neglected. They would certainly object to the land being left idle because they want people there. I made inquiries in the Land Office, and they want a man to reside there four days a week although it may not be his permanent home. lam a married man and would not take my wife to live there, if I forfeited my place in consequence. I think it is very hard that one should be compelled to take his relatives to an out-of-the-way place in order that he may carry out the residence clause. The land should not be put in occupation unless the settler can show the Board that he is able to carry on the improvement. There are plenty of young fellows who take up a section who have to go and work in the bush to earn money with which to make improvements, and many of these might not be able to live on the land for two years. They are making money to spend on this land. 293. Did you get your land by ballot ?—Yes. 294. Are there not men looking for land in that position who desire to go and live on it ?—You cannot discover what a man's wishes are.
A. J. CAMEEON.]
1417
C—4.
295. But is it not the duty of the Government to cater for men who want to go and live on the land ? Is it not a fact that having neighbours is of some value to the people who live out in the back country ?—Yes ; and in my case I have seven or eight men employed always in bushfelling, fencing, and looking after the sheep. I had a brother who was lost, and his property fell to me, and I had to come here and look after it. The greater part of my time is spent on the road between my two places. 296. After ten years are you not exempt from residence ?—I believe there is a time in the case of bush land when one is exempt. I have done my best to live on the land and to comply with the spirit of the Act. 297. You agree that some residential clauses are necessary for settlement in the back country ? — Certainly, but there is the case of the last witness. He has a son there, and it is a very wild place. To make that man live there would be a dead loss to him, and it might wind up with the loss of his life. 298. In places of inaccessibility you think the residence clause might be made very much easier ? —I think it is a matter the Board should deal with. Most of the members are familiar with this country. Our Commissioner knows the rough life that these men have. I have not known the Board to act harshly, but they have the law to administer, and if a crank got on to the Board and chose to enforce the law, we should be placed in a queer position. 299. Mr. McCutchan.] Of course you are aware that the residence conditions are imposed as far as possible to check dummyism, land speculation, and to benefit the settlement, and that the land cannot be worked to the best advantage unless the settlers are resident on it. There are some cases in which the residence conditions might be relaxed, and when the time comes that a settler might want more land. Your case is the reverse : you hold a piece of land and have inherited another piece, and, therefore, do not want the residence Conditions ?—I mean that I should be allowed to go on the place a stated number of times in the year. 300. But residence is defined as making the place a home, and if you have another place for your home you cannot reside on the two places ?—lt is a very difficult thing to carry out the residence conditions, and at the same time make a living. 301. But your argument is weakened to this extent, that you have four years' exemption ?— Yes. 302. You think that if a man is living on other land, and making it reproductive, that should be termed " residence " ? —No, I maintain that the residence clause should be relaxed to the extent that it should be called " residence " if the settler lives on these places a certain number of times a year. 303. Then you open the door for the speculator ? —I do not think so. 304. Suppose I were a speculator in Gisborne : if I bought a place twenty miles away I might go there thirty or forty times a year, and yet hold it for speculative purposes ? —Well, I say that everything that we do is a speculation, more or less. If you take up a piece of land and fulfil the conditions, why should you not hold that land and give employment to others ? —I consider that a man has every right to hold land, providing he goes on to it a certain number of times in the year. He employs men, and feeds and clothes them, and the product of their labour goes to keep the towns going. 305. But the man who does that should be prepared to give way to men who desire to take up land and reside on it ? —I know of no other trade than that of agricultural and pastoral farming, and I know of no such cases. 306. Suppose twenty settlers go into a new district, and half of them find it desirable to reside away from their holdings : those who remain want a school, and because the others go away they may not be able to get a school for their children ? —No matter how perfect a system may be, you will find something that may be said against it. 307. The Land Board has the widest latitude at present, and it has power to exempt from residence conditions where good cause can be shown. Have you applied for exemption ?—I have never applied to the Land Board to be exempt, because I consider I have carried out the residence conditions, but I have felt that it would be very little use applying. It is outside the law for them to grant me anything worth while. Ido not know that there is any reason why I should apply. 308. You spoke on the rebate question : the trades and labour people say that on account of the tenants taking this rebate they are not carrying out their agreement with the State in its entirety ? —You may say that there are many other conditions which are not carried out in their entirety. There are fifty ways of not doing so. I have to build a house which will cost me £300 at least. 309. Do you advocate an unrestricted area being given ? —Say from 3,000 to 4,000 acres. 310. You are aware that the limit is 2,000 acres now, and that a man's wife has a right to take up another 1,000 acres ? —A man's wife's proper place is in her home. 311. Do you not believe in women having the right to own property the same as men ? —Yes, if they are widows. 312. There is special provision in the law for them ?—I do not care to answer this question, because itjhas not been brought under my special knowledge. 313. You advocate 3,000 acres, and you at present have that right between yourself and your wife ? —What about the man who is not married ? lam confined to 1,100 acres, although lam entitled to 3,000, and if there is an area of 50 acres I want I cannot get it. If I want to improve my position lam stopped. lam willing to spend more money and to give more employment to others, and why should I be stopped up to 3,000 acres. 314. The point of your argument is that the area allowed should be raised to 3,000 acres ?—Yes, and that if you want it you should be allowed to take up 50 acres in addition to what you have settled upon. 315. The Chairman.'] You say there is a difficulty in financing with the lease in perpetuity 1— That is the difficulty.
178—C. 4.
C—4.
1418
[A. J. CAMERON.
316. Under the lease in perpetuity the whole of the capital value remains on the land. To secure the freehold it would be necessary to pay this off, or, in another way, if that section were mortgaged to the full capital value, would there not be the same difficulty in getting a second mortgage ? —Yes ; I should have a difficulty in getting a mortgage up to the full value. 317. The intention of the Government is not to give facilities for selling, but for occupation ? — I was placed in very peculiar circumstances. To show you how this lease in perpetuity is looked at, I may tell you a man who came along said to me, " I believe your section is for sale ? " I said, "Yes." He said, " What is the tenure." I answered, " Lease in perpetuity," and he would not touch it. 318. You spoke of the difficulty in seeing original plans in the Land Office ? —Yes. 319. I have no doubt it is necessary to safeguard these original plans. It would be a serious matter if anything happened to them ? —But the public would go and inspect them at the counter. They would not harm them, and they are willing to pay a small fee. 320. I suppose you will acknowledge that original plans have to be safeguarded very carefully ? —Yes. 321. As regards the settlement of the country do you consider that the successful settlement of the lands of the country promotes the prosperity of the cities %—Yes, I do. 322. Are not those the means by which prosperity is promoted in the cities ? —Yes. There is just one more matter I would like to speak about. There are seven or eight settlers, not in my neighbourhood, who hold small-grazing-run tenures, and I believe there is great difficulty about their roads. They cannot rate themselves to get sufficient money to make their roads. It is a very hard matter, indeed. I know the country well. They have to pack their stuff I would not like to sav how many miles, but a very long distance. William Lissant Clayton examined. 323. The Chairman.'] Are you a landholder ? —Not at present. lam a land agent. lam also the secretary of the provincial executive of the Farmers' Union, and I appear before you to represent the executive. I have been asked to appear to support the optional freehold tenure as far as possible, and to answer any questions the Commission may desire to put to me on the subject. The real main thing that the Farmers' Union wish to emphasize particularly is that the lease-in-perpetuity holders should be enabled to acquire the freehold if necessary. We think, on the whole, it is rather unfair that the occupation-with-the-right-of-purchase man, for instance, can change his holding to lease in perpetuity if he likes, while the process does not work the other way, and we think on every occasion every man who takes up land should be entitled to have the opportunity of acquiring the freehold, if possible. 324. Mr. Matheson.\ Are you satisfied in asking for the right of purchase that you are doing justice to the city dwellers, who have also an interest in the Crown lands ?-—Undoubtedly. Of course, there has been a great deal of discussion about the unearned increment, and I tnink that the unearned increment in the great majority of cases is much exaggerated. The unearned increment is brought about probably by the roads with which the Crown tenants are weighted. They are weighted with ss. or 2s. 6d. an acre, as the case may be, for the purpose of making roads, and these people say that they think that they have produced the unearned increment by reason of their good roads. 325. Do you think that in country lands generally there is an unearned increment ?—I think it is very slight, if there is any at all. 326. Do you think it reasonable, the settlers having undergone a great deal of risk to get that increment, that they should be entitled to it ?—I do. On some occasions there may be a slight reason for modifying it, but I think in the great majority of cases the settlers have well earned it. I had a property in Crown lease and had a freehold in this district, and I am quite satisfied that settlers in that district, by reason of the difficulties they had to labour under at first, are quite satisfied in saying there is no unearned increment. 327. If the right of purchase is given to land-for-settlements tenants do you think it reasonable that 5 per cent, should be added to the original upset price to cover all possible loss that might arise in some cases, instead of getting it at the actual upset price, that there should be a slight addition to cover any loss the Crown might sustain in respect of sections which people would not buy ? —That would be reasonable. In some cases it might not be, but in the great majority of cases it would. 328. Do you think a nominated Land Board is a good system ?—No ; in a great number of cases it would be better if elected 329. Would you elect it under the parliamentary franchise ?—No ; it is a matter I have not gone into very deeply. I hardly like to give evidence on that point, because you might think on maturer reflection that your opinion was ill-advised. 330. Mr. Forbes.] Are there many Crown tenants belonging to your branch of the union ?—Yes, in the Poverty Bay district it is safe to say more than half the members are Crown tenants. 331. Is it their desire that you should come forward to advocata these objects ?—lt is, because the branches have unanimously decided that they should have representation on this question of the freehold tenure. The branches intimated to the executive that they desired their views to be explained to the Commission. 332. Do you consider that the lease in perpetuity is a good tenure ?—I do not think the lease in perpetuity is just to the State. In the first case, because in 999 years money may increase in value, and it might go back to what it' was some hundreds of years ago, and then the rent would be much too large, and it would not be fair to the tenant in that case. On the other hand, probably it would not be fair to the State. You are giving a lease out of all reason. I*7" 333. You would say then you would strike it off the statute-book altogether ?—Yes, and in preference, I would give occupation with right of purchase to all tenants, but I would advocate that the
1419
W. L. CLAYTON.]
C—4.
tenant be obliged to hold|the land for ten years before he could acquire the freehold. That would give him the opportunity to save money to pay it off by small instalments, and it would be practically a return to the deferred-payment system. 334. Do you think that would be better ?—Yes; there are many disabilities under which the Crown tenants labour, for instance, in the matter of financing. The lease-in-perpetuity man has security which undoubtedly is not accepted by the financial institutions as in the case of the man who holds with the right of purchase. I had one small lease-in-perpetuity section, and I know no financial institution would take it on any consideration at all, except as collateral security. 335. Would you charge these men who hold lease in perpetuity at the present time anything for giving them the right of purchase ?—I think it might in some cases be unjust to make the law retrospective, but if they were prepared to pay an additional 1 per cent, which the right-of-purchase people do pay, I think that possibly a slight percentage to cover any expense the State would be put to as suggested by Mr. Mathesen—probably, say, 5 per cent.—would be perfectly fair and equitable. 336. You would not have the sections revalued whenever a man wished to avail himself of the purchasing clause ?—No, I think in many cases the additional value is brought about by the settlers' hard work and enterprise. In the case of Matatua, when they took up their land they had little to hope for. They had to pack their own stuff out, and twelve or fifteen years ago when they started their homes, they carried their lives in their hands. They have brought about the unearned increment themselves, and have been a benefit to the State, and are undoubtedly entitled to any enhanced value their land may bring at the present time. 337. Do you think if this were granted, many would avail themselves of it ?—I certainly think so as they got on their feet. The Crown tenant should be put in this position, that he could pay off as he felt himself able to do it, and pay interest on the capital value of the portion that is not paid off. I know of two small settlers who had occupation with right of purchase. The Government gave these terms to them in common with others, and they changed it to lease in perpetuity with the consent of the Land Board, which is always eagerly given. I say if the Land Board has the power to allow them to change to lease in perpetuity, it should also be enabled to change the other way about. 338. A great many of these men had the opportunity of taking up the land with the right of purchase, and they preferred the lease in perpetuity ?—lf a man makes a mistake and it is not injurious to the State, Ido not think the State should punish him for that. That is practically the position. 339. If he wishes to alter this position, and wants to go back again once more, do you think the State should go on chopping and changing about ?—Not indefinitely ; that is as long as the State is not put to any financial loss, I do not think the State should object. 340. Do you believe a man should stick to his bargain ?—Undoubtedly. 341. Do you not think there is more security felt if these bargains are looked upon as sacred, and that men feel more security in holding these leases ? —The main thing in the mind of the settlers themselves is that these bargains are not regarded as sacred. Before your Commission, the president of the Trades and Labour Council has stated that he had no particular regard for the sacredness of a contract between the State and the individual. That has raised a feeling of uneasiness on the part of the settlers and the financial men who are advancing their money, and their security is not of the same value. 342. Do you think that is the principle ?—No, I think a bargain should be kept between both parties as between private individuals, but it may be abrogated by the consent of both parties. If I let a piece of land on lease for twenty-one years, and after five years a man comes and says he would like to buy it, and I sell it, I cannot see that there is any injustice done to him or me. 343. Do you not see that if the Trades and Labour Council on the one side do not look on this as a sacred contract, and the Crown tenants are also agitating to get it altered, are they not justified in believing it is not sacred ?—lt is only in sheer self-defence that the option is asked for. I understand that the average Crown tenant is perfectly prepared to pay what is just and fair for the alteration. The State should meet him in the same way as a private landlord would. 344. By agitating in this way, do you not think the Trades and Labour Council and the Crown tenant also do not look upon it as sacred ?—On the part of the settlers that has only been brought about in self-defence. The Premier has brought forward a Fair Rent Bill, and has stated he was in favour of it. 345. He has stated that he would be no party to breaking existing leases ?—I do not know that I have seen that. 346. Mr. McCutchan.] Have you been requested by the settlers you represent to make any statement with regard to roading questions ?—Just if I were asked on the subject. 347. What are your views with regard to the roading question in the back blocks ?—My private impression is that the present position in which the County Council stand is distinctly injurious to the country district, especially when it is like this. I think arterial roads should be maintained and made by the Government themselves. I think that the grants the local bodies receive should not be purely dependent on the will of the Minister. For instance, this County Council, to my knowledge, applied for a sum of £15,000 or thereabouts in grants for this district which were urgently wanted. They ultimately only received £2,100. 348. But they get a large amount in subsidies do they not ?—The subsidies cannot amount to much, because they cannot exceed £2,500, and where there are Road Boards, £500. The Council subsidises the Road Boards to the extent of ss. 349. But the counties do not get 10s. ? —The county strikes the whole rate. 350. Does the County Council devote a portion of the general rate towards the by-roads ?—Undoubtedly, where there are no Road Boards. 351. Do you think dual control is wise ?—I do not, generally speaking, but I think in outlying districts it is wise that the settlers should be permitted to look after their own affairs, because otherwise
C.—4.
1420
[W. L. CLAYTON.
they would be neglected. Ido not think in a thickly-populated district or close to the centre that Road Boards are necessary, and I think it would tend to a greater economy if the County Council had jurisdiction over the bulk of the county. 352. Your statement is that Road Boards are called into existence because settlers in the remote districts do not get justice ?—I think that was the origin of them. 353. Would not that difficulty be overcome by legalising road accounts ?—lt might be ; I would hardly like to be very definite about that. i 354. If Road Boards have been called into existence by the fact that the portions of the county which have strong representation get more than their share of the rate-revenue then the remedy is legalised road accounts, so that the settlers can insist on the expenditure of their rates on particular roads ?—The only disadvantage with regard to that would be this : We will take for example a Road Board that I know of some twenty-five miles from here. These people, to come into town, have to go over the main arterial roads which the county has to support. The nearer you come to the town the more traffic there is on these roads, which of course accumulates as it comes down from the back country. The consequence is there would have to be some system by which the County Council could be reimbursed for that additional expenditure. It would be unfair to put the expense of maintaining the road between here and the big bridge at Te Arai purely on the members of that riding. 355. That difficulty is overcome in the Counties Act. In most counties they strike a general and a separate rate. The separate rate must be spent within the riding, but the general rate can be spent all over the county. If that were done, your difficulty would not obtain ?—lf it did not obtain, I think the road accounts instead of Road Boards would probably be fair. 356. You would advocate it*?—l would not say that, but I think it would be fair. 357. Do you not think you are asking too much in asking the Government to make and maintain the main roads ?—No, because they benefit the whole community. 358. If you called on the Government to make and also maintain the main roads, surely the byroads in the remote districts would suffer?—lf there is some scheme devised to automatically subsidise the various counties in proportion to their rateable value, it would be rather hard to arrive at a fair and equitable way of doing so, because, if you did it on a population basis, wealthy places that do not require them might have more subsidies than were necessary. But I certainly think the easiest way out of the difficulty would be for the Government to maintain the main arterial roads. 359. It has been advocated that the Government should form and metal the main roads, and then pass them on to the local bodies, and also form the by-roads sufficiently for wheeled traffic, and then that a system of subsidies should be set up. For instance, counties that strike a rate of less than fd. get no subsidy, those that strike a rate of fd. get a subsidy of 55., and increasing in proportion. How do you think that that would work ?—I think it would work very well looking at it roughly. 360. Have the union which you represent taken into consideration the question of extending the parliamentary franchise to all local bodies' elections ?—Yes. 361. Do you think that the public generally should not have the franchise ? —We think it is distinctly unfair that the people who own property in the country should have, we will say, their loans raised at the dictation of those who have no stake in the country. 362. Do you advocate deferred payment in lieu of lease in perpetuity or occupation with right of purchase ?—Not in place of them. I think occupation with right of purchase should be modified so that the holder in purchasing his section should not be limited to ten years after taking it up. I think it might be amended so that a man might have the right of purchasing by paying an additional 1 per cent. 363. If you allow a man going on a bush section to purchase before the tenth year, is it not possible that he might have better utilised the money required for the purchase to improve his holding ? —I think most men are possessed of common-sense, and if their capital is limited they would probably take the easier terms that are offered them and use their capital in promoting the prosperity of their place. 364. Do you think it is possible for a man going on a bush section with a reasonable amount of capital to be able to improve and fence that section and at the same time acquire the freehold within ten years ?■ —With good times it may be possible. It depends on the proportion of the man's capital to the area he takes up. 365. Do you think that the man who purchases for cash should be subject to the same conditions as those who take up a lease —residential and improvement conditions ?—I think that residence should probably be compulsory. Residence in the usual run is complied with, but I think there are cases in which there should be some latitude for exemption. 366. The Land Board has discretionary power now ?—The Land Board is human and is apt to make mistakes. It probably may not give that exemption to the settlers who needed it. 367. If the Land Board is in sympathy with the settlers' wishes is it not likely that a reasonable request brought before them will be acceded to ?—lt is likely, but there are cases in which grave injustice may be done. 368. You think the conditions should be further relaxed ?—I think so. I think with regard to the cash purchaser he should have certain restrictions with regard to the improvements to be put on his property before he gets a transfer. 369. He has to make improvements within seven years : do you think it would be wise to make him subject to the same residence conditions as occupation-with-right-of-purchase holders ?—I think in most cases it would be wise. ■It has been stated that the freehold would give opportunity for the aggregation of large estates and by acquiring the freehold without restrictions that you would practically encourage the aggregation of large estates, but Ido not think it would have that effect. You have a safeguard in the Land for Settlements Act. It is impossible under that to acquire large estates to the injury of the colony.
1421
C—4.
W. L. CLAYTON.
370. The Land for Settlements Act only provides for cutting up large estates ?—Yes, but no one would be so foolish as to pay a high price for land that probably the State would take from him. ■ [' ! f: 'I 371. Would you advocate the taking of an estate providing the land be fit for closer settlement ? —Yes, I think you have sufficient safeguard for land-settlement. If you have these restrictions you spoil the saleable value of the land. You prevent men financing with any facility. I think every man likes to feel that everything is his own. A man might hire a horse at so much a week, but he would certainly be in a hurry to acquire it by paying for it. A man likes to feel that his land is his own, and I think that sentiment is inculcated in the British race all over the world. 372. The Chairman.'] Do you say the lease in perpetuity is not in the interest of the State ? —I do not think it is, because you are making too long a lease. You are making a bargain you cannot see the consequence of. 373. Do you think it is in the interest of the State to part with the freehold and get the cash ? —Undoubtedly. 374. Does not the State with the lease in perpetuity get full interest on the money ? —lt gets rather more now, but it is impossible to say what a hundred years hence will be the value of money. If the value is less it is against the State and not fair to the State, and it if is more it is against the tenant and unfair to the tenant. 375. Do you think there is any difficulty in financing under the lease in perpetuity ? —I do, undoubtedly. I know that financial institutions object to it. 376. But if a tenant is in a position to buy a freehold he does not want financing ? —I know the financial institutions are enabled to finance a man with a lease with the right of purchase. 377. But where a man is in a position to buy the freehold does he want financing ? —No. 378. If he were not in a position to find the money he would have to borrow it and perhaps pay a great deal more for it ?—He would probably get a bigger margin by getting the freehold which would enable him to make improvements. 379. Under the lease in perpetuity the whole value of the land remains and no financial institution would advance so much ? —Not under the unimproved value, but they would advance him more taking the improvements under the occupation with right of purchase. 380. Under the advances to settlers he could get better conditions ?—That is a most excellent Act, except in its administration. Nine times out of ten the applicant sends in his application for money, and that application is probably under consideration for a considerable period. He is kept waiting a long time and then probably it is either refused or the amount is reduced. I know of one instance where a man had improvements worth £1,760. His application was for £800, and the ultimate offer he got was £400, which he rejected. 381. Do you think the State would have been wise to rush into the money-market and borrow on unfavourable conditions ? —I think not. 382. Those conditions are now passing away and the Government can borrow more freely ? — I think the Advances to Settlers Department should have been honest and told people when they applied that they had no money to lend in the same manner that financial institutions would have done. 383. Do you consider that the lease in perpetuity is insecure and uncertain ?—I think it is rendered insecure by the agitation which is going on in some of the larger towns —not in a town like this where there is no such agitation —but I think the Trades and Labour Council are desiring to nullify the contracts. 384. As any tenure is a contract between the individual and the State, whether it is lease in perpetuity or freehold, is not one contract as likely to be broken as the other ? —There is the question of whether if a Bill were brought into the House of Parliament to enable the State to acquire the freehold, that Bill would be approved by the King. It would probably be vetoed unless it were clearly shown to be for a public benefit, and the probability is that it would never be passed. 385. If an Act were passed providing for revaluation which would make invalid the existing leases, do you think that would be vetoed by the Imperial Parliament ?—I do not know that it would be because it is more open to argument, but I think it probably would be vetoed. 386. Mr. McCutchan.~\ You instanced the case where a tenant with £1,760 of improvements applied to the Advances to Settlers Department for £800 and was offered £400 ?—Yes. 387. Was the £1,760 the selling-value of the land or the improvements ?—That was the sellingvalue according to the valuation I had. 388. You are aware that the Advances to Settlers Department until recently were only making advances up to 60 per cent, of the improvements ? —Yes. 389. Do you know the value of the improvements and goodwill in this particular case ? —lf my memory serves me rightly the £1,760 would have included the cash payment for the freehold. The right of purchase was at 7s. 6d. an acre. 390. How long ago is that ? —About eight or ten years ago —soon after the Act came into force. 391. The Chairman.'] Do you think it is wise to take any notice of this agitation as regards making the existing leases invalid ?—I think it is wise, because otherwise it might be considered that the Farmers' Union were indifferent about it. 392. Do you not think it is an agreement that cannot be broken by any Government ? —I think it has always been proved that it is far more satisfactory, especially in the case of farmers, to make as much noise as possible. 393. Is that not an acknowledgement that the labour unions are justified in setting up this agitation ? —We know that there have been occasions when Parliament has done a good many things it was not justified in doing. 394. Do you consider that the settlement of the Crown lands of the country is of importance to the
C—4.
1422
[W. L. CLAYTON.
nation ? —I think so undoubtedly, and that it should be fostered in every way possible. That is why we advocate giving better security and as easy terms as possible. 395. You think that the settlers going into the wilderness and making the land productive are benefiting the State largely ? —Very largely; far more than results to the farmers from their efforts. 396. Do you think that the people of the cities are also benefited ?—Undoubtedly, because the bulk of the products come from the primary producers. 397. If there is anything in the way of unearned increment you think the settlers are entitled to it ?—Yes, if the State's costs are paid, undoubtedly. Margrave Thomas Trafford examined. 398. The Chairman.} Are you a settler in the country ?—Yes; I hold a small grazmg-run in the Hangaroa district under the Act of 1892. 399. I suppose you have some matter you wish to bring forward ? —I was requested by the farmers of the Hangaroa Branch of the Farmers' Union to advocate the granting of the freehold. The tenants in the Hangaroa district are all in favour of the freehold, and lam authorised to represent them. There are several who hold small grazing-runs and find considerable difficulty in the making of roads. Settlers in the lower Hangaroa, wishing to raise a loan for the purpose, are unable to do so, because they are not; able to rate the small grazing-runs. If the Government allowed us to rate ourselves it would be far better for the settlers and the country too. We hear a great deal about the unearned increment, but, I think, that so far as the back blocks are concerned, there is no such thing. Having gone there when the land was practically nothing and put in years of hard work, and what little capital they had, the settlers consider that they have, earned all this so-called unearned increment. As regards the Land Board. I think it should be constituted by farmers more than it is at present —I mean the farmers in the back blocks. 400. Mr McCutchan ] You want the rating-power altered so that the grazing-runs can be rated at the selling-value ?—Yes ; that would give the settlers the opportunity of getting roads made. 401. Is that the wish of the small-grazing-run holders generally 2 —That is the wish of the settlers on the small grazing-runs in the Hangaroa district generally.
Nelson, Wednesday, 21st June 1905. Thomas Pattie examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding about 680 acres of freehold, with the exception of 50 acres of deferred payment on which I have a few payments to make. It is situated in the Riwaka district of the Kaitairere Survey District. I was born in the district and have been on the land ever since. Igo in for mixed farming, fruit-growing, cultivating, and I also have a small sheep-run. 2. Do you approve of the present constitution of the Land Board? ? —I would rather approve of the Land Board being elected on the county franchise. I have done business with the Land Board here, having acquired a great deal of my property from the Land Board, and my dealings have been fairly satisfactory. 3. What tenure do you think best for the settler and the country generally ? —All the Crown lands in Motueka or Kaitairere or Takaka Survey District are of a mountainous and rough description, difficult of access and difficult to improve. I notice that in those three districts all the land which has been proclaimed as open for selection of late has been proclaimed under the lease in perpetuity ; but that tenure is not good enough to induce men to undertake the improving and bringing into productiveness of these lands. It is not land which any settler without means can undertake to improve. Approximately speaking, in part of the Kaitairere Survey District and Takaka there is a block of land of about 30,000 or 40,000 acres, and every inducement should be given to get this land occupied. It is now occupied on all sides —round the block. Every year fires spread from the adjoining lands and burn some of the bush on the Crown lands, with the result that in a few years time the blackberries spread to all these Crown lands, and there is a great danger that the best of this land will in time become simply a huge blackberry-bed. The tenure which I consider would be the most suitable for the occupation of that land would be the right of purchase straight out or the deferred-payment system. That system seems to have always been a satisfactory tenure in our districts. I have acquired land under that tenure myself, and I consider it is a very good tenure indeed. I consider the lease-in-perpetuity tenure is objectionable to the tenant and it is also bad for the State. I know Crown lands which are held under the lease in perpetuity, in regard to which, if the provisions of the Noxious Weeds Act were enforced upon the tenants, they would simply walk off and forfeit their tenure, and it would pay them to do so. There is a great cry against the freehold tenure, especially in the towns, but the townspeople have no idea of the every-day life of the man on the land or of the obstacles he has to overcome ; but they appear to be led by agitators who claim that our unimproved value is the unearned increment, and they persist in advising the townspeople to take steps to participate in this unearned increment. I contend that if the men who agitate in this direction had the experience of some of our farmers on the land to-day the unearned increment would be the last thing they would want to take away. In our district we have a great many settlers who are tenants of the various trusts, and you had before you in Wellington three delegates from our district who were tenants of those trusts. Some of those leases are very unsatisfactory, under the College Trust especially. There are some great hardships suffered under that tenure. 4. Do you know of any pressure of residential conditions in your district which are unreasonable ? No. A great many —in fact, the most, of the Crown tenants holding land in our district are not subjected to residential conditions, as their holdings are on the mountains. Residence is not enforced.
T. PATTIE.]
1423
C.—4.
The cropping-restrictions do not affect us as there are no agricultural lands held under lease in perpetuity in our district. It is more of an agricultural and hop-growing district on the flats, and on the hills the land is used for sheep and cattle grazing. 5. You spoke of this area of 30,000 acres which is very hilly and very broken. Do you think, considering the very uninviting nature of that land and its configuration, that the homestead system should be adopted there ? —I hardly think that system is suitable for it. It is too rough and mountainous and too difficult to road. It requires men with some capital to take it up, and it should be taken up in areas of not less than 500 or 600 acres. The ballot system has never been applied in our district. The system of loading for roads I have had no experience of myself, but I think it has been adopted lately in the district. There is a main road going over the Takaka Ranges, and leading from Riwaka to Takaka. It is a good road and there are branch roads from the Canaan Track which runs through this block of land. The main road is a good road for light traffic, but it is not fit for heavy traffic. It was constructed by a Government grant. 6. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ? —No. I have had no advance myself from the Government, but there are some who have had money under that Act. I have not heard of any complaints. 7. Is there any aggregation of estates going on ? —No ; it is the other way. The holdings are very small; in fact, too small. 8. Mr. Johnston.'] Do you represent any local body ? —No. 9. Or any section of the community ? —I came here voluntarily ; but I was appointed to give evidence along with the three gentlemen who went to Wellington. After they were selected the Commissioner advised us that the expenses of two only would be paid, and, as I was not a tenant under any of the trusts, I voluntarily stood out. 10. Are you a member of the Farmers' Union I—Yes; we have a very small branch, but they have not appointed me. 11. Are you the president ?—No ; I hold no office whatever. 12. What is the total area of land that your family occupy in that district ? —There are my cousin and my brother adjoining me. 13. What is the nature of this country?— Very heavy-bush land with limestone formation. It is good sheep-country in the summer, the highest altitude being about 2,500 ft. Mine is about 2,000 ft. 14. Can you winter sheep at 2,000 ft. ? —Yes. 15. What is your carrying-capacity ? —Taking winter and summer it would perhaps average two sheep to the acre. 16. What is the value of your land per acre ?—lt is very difficult land to improve. 17. What did it cost you ?—Part of the land which is under the deferred payment cost me 14s. an acre, and I paid over £2 for some and £3 for another part per acre for clearing the bush alone. It is mixed bush —brown-birch, red-pine, and rimu. 18. What could you get for that land now in the open market ?—I might get £5 an acre, but not more. 19. Is it all cleared and in grass ? —lt is all cleared, but I have not got it all grassed yet. It is very difficult land to burn owing to the formation and to the land being always damp where there is any fallen bush, and not in one year in twenty can you get a burn. I have had to sow some of the land three and four times. 20. You believe in elective Land Boards ? —Yes. 21. Is the Land Board as at present nominated not satisfactory ? —Yes; but I am inclined to think that an elective Board would be more satisfactory. 22. Are they practical men who are members of the Land Board now ?—Our member, Mr. Wrett, is a practical man. 23. Are the rest of the men like him ? —I am not personally acquainted with some of them, but I do not think they are all as practical as he is. ■24. Really you have not had sufficient acquaintance to state whether you are satisfied or dissatisfied with them ? —I have done business with them. 25. Has it been satisfactory ?—Yes; but what I mean is that, in working, an elective Board, I think, would be more generally satisfactory. 26. Is this Crown land you spoke of bush land or open country ? —All bush land, some parts very heavy bush. 27. Cannot it be used for timber ? —No; the part which adjoins me on the north is too difficult of access for getting timber. 28. Could it not be used for milling purposes ? —No ; timber would have to be very dear to make it payable to bring it out: it is too mountainous. 29. What areas should it be cut up into to get it settled ?—lt is generally cut up from 300 acres upwards, but a man ought not to hold less than from 600 to 900 acres. It is second-class land. 30. Then he can hold more than 600 acres. What total area, to be payable, should it be cut up into ? —I should say 1,000 acres, but the tenant ought to have the option of taking more if he chooses— say, 1,500 acres in all. 31. Would not this land be more suitable under the lease in perpetuity ?—No ; I would never touch it under that lease because I have no faith in it,. 32. Have you ever held any lease-in-perpetuity land ? —No ; I have never held any land under that lease. 33. Then how have you had any experience of it ? —I have had no personal experience. 34. Then what you say is only hearsay ? —No, I have my own opinion. 35. Where have you had the experience ? —I have had the experience from my own knowledge. 36. From observation ? —I know what the tenure is and the conditions of the tenure, and, there-
1424
C—4.
[t. pattie.
fore, I consider that the tenure is not good enough to induce men to undertake the work of improving this land. 37. That is only your opinion and not experience ?—I told you I had no experience. 38. Then it is only an opinion you are giving ?—That is quite right. 39. Have you had any experience of the settlements under the Land for Settlements Act ?—No. 40. How does this blackberry come to spread if this bush is so very heavy ? —The bush on this area I speak of is not so heavy, The limestone area is very limited, but there the bush is very heavy. 41. What is the other bush like ?—lt is open ; it is a mineral formation, and that would burn better because the land is harder. 42. You distinctly said the blackberry was spreading : where does it come in ?—-It is all round us ; from year to year the fires spread into it from adjoining lands. 43. Is the blackberry on your place ?—I have not got one root that I know of. 44. Have you got an Californian thistle ?—No. 45. Well, where does the blackberry come in ?—The blackberry in the Takaka Valley is in evidence everywhere. You find it on the hill-tops and on the flats and in the gullies. 46. What steps have been taken to eradicate it ?—We have the Noxious Weeds Act in force, but •the blackberry here is a very difficult problem to solve. 47. The Act is not being enforced ?—lt is being enforced, but I do not know exactly how far it could be enforced. I know that in regard to certain sections the Inspector uses his discretion, so that the enforcing of the Act should not be made too great a hardship on the settler, but the blackberry is so extensive and so many plants go to seed every year, which means hundreds of new plants, that it is extremely difficult to bring about any perceptible improvement. 48. Where are these lands that are full of weeds, and which you say the tenants would have to leave if the Noxious Weeds Act were enforced ?—They are on the Takaka Hills, and part is in the area I have been describing. 49. But this area is not occupied ?—Yes, the part I refer to is occupied. 50. You said a lot of tenants would have to leave their lands if they were compelled to clear them ? —I did not say a " lot." I said I knew of a lot of Crown lands which are occupied under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure on the Takaka Ranges, and those lands had weeds on them before they were taken up. Once it was""timber, but now it has been burnt and these blackberries are there now. 51. Do you think the present number of settlers on the land could have got on the land if it had not been for the tenures offered by the Government ?—Yes, I think|so. I think under the deferredpayment system the land would have been occupied more freely. 52. When Cheviot was put on the market a number of the sections were offered on the freehold tenure, and others under the lease in perpetuity, and the freehold sections were not taken up at all ? —I have no knowledge of that district. 53. Do you approve of giving the freehold of education reserves ?—No, I do not think it would be wise to sell them. If the tenants can get a satisfactory tenure I would advocate that they should be retained as educational reserves. 54. You think they should not be sold on deferred payment ?—No. 55. Mr. Paul.'] What would be a satisfactory tenure for these reserves—satisfactory to the endowment, and also to the tenant ?—I think the tenant holding land under Native trusts are in the most satisfactory position, and are generally satisfied. By Act of Parliament they have a right to their improvements. 56. You think that if the tenant had a right to his improvements and a right of renewal at an arbitration rent on, say, a twenty-one-years lease it would be satisfactory I—Yes, but the tenants are agitating for more than that. They are agitating that they should participate to some extent in the unimproved value, in what is called the unearned increment; that is in respect to their rents they should have the benefit of probably to the extent of 50 per cent. 57. It is contended that they create some of this value, and that they should not pay rent on that portion which they create ?—As to the unimproved values—that is as the land is valued at the present time —I consider that a great deal of it really does belong to the tenant. 58. When you spoke of the people in the towns advocating certain views, did you mean to say that there was no such thing as an unearned increment, or did you speak only in relation to your own district What is claimed as the unearned increment is the unimproved value. I contend that a very high percentage of the unimproved value under a right valuation belongs to the settlers on the land. 59. But do you consider there is any sucn thing as an unearned increment—is there any value beyond what the tenant creates ?—Yes ; I think there is a small percentage of unearned increment. 60. Then such a thing does exist to some extent ?—Yes, to some extent. 61. Have you studied carefully the question of the election of members of Land Boards ?—I cannot say I have studied the question carefully, but I have given the matter some thought. 62. You do not think that every man, woman, and child in the country has a right to a voice as how the land shall be disposed of and administered ?—No. 63. You think that only those who are about to buy the land should have a voice in saying how it should be disposed of ?—No. 64. You mean to say that those who have bought land and hold land shall be the only men to have a voice in saying how it shall be disposed of ? —No, I do not say that. 65. You say they should be elected on the county franchise ?—Yes. 66. Then you deny that those people holding no property should have any voice in the election of the Land Board ?—Under that franchise they would not have. 67. Do you think that is fair ?—Yes.
T. PATTTK.I
1425
C—4
68. Is the Noxious Weeds Act enforced very stringently ?—lt is enforced, but if it was enforced to"the fullest extent I am afraid it would prove ruinous to a great manv of our settlers. 69. Would that be the effect on the freeholders ?—Yes. 70. Are there any Crown tenants in your branch of the Farmers' Union ?—I think there is one 71. What is the total membership ?—I think there are about six. It is hardly worth calling » branch. 72. What is there in the lease in perpetuity which would prevent intending settlers taking up that land and using it to the best advantage ?—The tenure is not secure enough. There is an agitation going on now—perhaps there may not be any great risk in it—but it is creating a doubt in the minds of settlers. There is not the least doubt that the agitation going on has a detrimental effect in the minds of men who woiild be likely to occupy land. 73. Is there not an agitation going on in regard to the freehold. Is there not a certain set of men who advocate land-nationalisation, or a prohibitive land-tax ?—I believe the men on the land almost as a body are agitating for the freehold. 74. How do you get that knowledge ?—By following the evidence given before the Commission to a great extent. 75. As reported in the newspapers ?—Yes. 76. You are an old settler, and you are a man who exercises some thought on these questions. Do you seriously think that a colonial Parliament will break the conditions of a bargain entered into between a section of its citizens and the State ?—Well, I should hope not. 77. Do you think it is likely to take place ?—lt is hard to contemplate what might take place, it appears to me so at least. 78. You have not much faith in the representatives of the people ?—I would not say that. 79. Have you not got an opinion as to whether it is likely or unlikely to take place ?—To speak out my mind plainly I do not think it is likely to take place, at any rate not in the near future. 80. And you hope that the colony will improve with age ?—Yes, I do. 81. Mr. Anstey.] What do you consider the weak spot in the lease in perpetuity?—l consider that in a colony like this the great question is to put people on the land, and there is no tenure that will induce young men who have been brought up on the land to remain there like the freehold tenure. 82. But is it not impossible for many young men to acquire a freehold without mortgaging themselves beyond a hope of doing any good ?—Yes ; but he should have a lease with the right of purchase. 83. Would you give that right in the case of all leases ?—No. 84. In regard to Native trusts what claim have the Native owners on the unearned increment: how do the Maoris contribute towards it ?—I do not see that they contribute at all. 85. Therefore, the unearned increment cannot belong to them ?—I consider it belongs to the man on the land. 86. Do you think it would be wise to let Maori land, securing to the lessees their improvements ? —I would not go so far as to disturb existing arrangements. 87. Would you give every tenant, including tenants on public reserves of various kinds, the right of purchase ?—Yes. 88. As to the land in your neighbourhood, you have stated that many of the holdings are rather small : would it not be better if they were taken up in larger areas under leasing conditions ?—No ; they would rather have a less area of freehold land. 89. Notwithstanding that it is not so profitable to them ?—That is a question. 90. Can you state the terms granted in the case of these various trusts ?—From fourteen to twenty - one years. 91. And do they provide for valuation'for improvements ?—ln certain cases. 92. Do you think that the tenants of all these public, lands should have the right to valuation for their improvements ?—Yes. 93. Do you not think there should be a law that every tenant should have full security for his improvements ?—I do. I could mention a case where after greatly improving the land a tenant's rent was raised, and he never got sixpence for his improvements. 94. You think that every tenant should have thorough security for any improvements he effects ? —Yes. 95. Mr. Johnston.'] Do you not think it would be a good thing for the Government to take over all these reserves, and give the trustees bonds bearing 5 per cent, interest equal to the capital value of the land ?—Yes, I believe it would be in the best interests of the tenants. 96. Mr. Paul.'] Would you make it statutory law that tenants of private landlords should also have the freehold ?—No. 97. Would you prefer a Maori lease on the conditions you have stated—you seem to have lost faith in the lease in perpetuity ?—I would not care for a lease under any of their tenures. William Frederick Pellew examined 98. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a tradesman residing in Nelson, and have been here for fifteen years. I have 2 acres of freehold land in the city. lamas a worker strongly in favour of the lease in perpetuity, because under it the worker is practically secure and cannot be turned out into the street by his creditors should any misfortune overtake him. Therefore, I consider the leasing system is better than the freehold. In fact, I would forfeit all my land for a lease from the Crown. 99. Might that privilege not be abused in some way ? —lt might be abused, but I think that if all workers had a leasehold it would encourage them to improve the properties to a far greater extent than they do at the present time. If they had leaseholds they would know exactly what they were going to pay per annum, and it would be better than mortgaging their freehold land.
179—C. 4.
1426
!"W. P. PPXLEW.
C.—4.
100. Taking your own case with the freehold of your 2 acres, would you prefer to have a leasehold of the same land ?—I would certainly. 101. Do you cultivate your 2 acres ?—I cultivate all my land, and it would honestly pay me at any time to pay a small rent to the State ; we would be in a much better position than at the present tlme 'lo2. Mr. Paul.] By " worker " I take it you mean a man who works his land ? —Decidedly. If I was on the land I would prefer a lease to the freehold at any time. 103. What is your occupation ? —Wood-working machinist. 104. Would it pay you to give up your land and take a lease ?—Yes. 105. What did you pay for your land ?—Fourteen years ago when T bought the land it was very low in price, and roughly speaking it was £300 an acre. 106. What is it worth to-day ?—I could not exactly say. I have improved it considerably since I have purchased it. . 107. After being paid for your improvements would you make enough if you sold it to-day . Very little; I might make £100. ' 108. Still you are so convinced that the leasehold would be best that you would forego that £IUO to take a lease ?—Yes, willingly. 109. Mr. McLennan.] Do you belong to the Trades and Labour Council ?—T am a member of a trades-union. . 110. Are you in favour of the revaluation on the system of'leaseholds ? —Decidedly. 111. And lease in perpetuity j—Yes, I think it should be valued at least every five years. 112. Have you studied the question ?—I have given the question a good deal of thought. 113. Are you in favour of revaluation upon a persons' holding, say, when transferred to another party If a worker improves his land to the extent of £300 he should be compensated for it, and he should also be revalued as regards the rates and roads. 114. As regards the lease in perpetuity, that breaks the lease ? —To a certain extent. 115. You would break the contract between the tenant and the Crown by revaluation ?—Yes, you do certainly by that. 116. At a Council meeting in Wellington a motion was carried as to the revaluation at the death of the present holder or if the present holder wished to transfer it to another ?—lt should be revalued when it is transferred from one leaseholder to another. 117. And should the present holder die the property, you think, should still be revalued ? —I am not altogether clear on that point. 118. It is a lease in perpetuitv for 999 years I—You mean that if a person occupying land should die the land would have to be revalued again to go into the hands of another tenant, I should say yes. 119. Have you studied that question ?—I have given it fair consideration. 120. What position would that put the wife and family in ?—That would make it very awkward infthat case, but I do not see any way out of it. 121. Do you think it is a fair way ?—From a worker's point of view it is not. 122. Why do you advocate it if you think it is not fair to revalue the property if the owner dies ? —I do not see any way out of it. Ido not think it is a fair way, placing it that way. 123. That is the only way you can place it. If you are to revalue the property if the present holder dies, what about the wife and family ?—They would have to bear the brunt of it. 124. Do you think that is fair ? —No, I do not. 125. Do you think it is fair that the Crown should break their agreement with the present tenants ? —No. 126. And why then do you advocate revaluation at the deaoh of the present leaseholder ? —The way I advocate it is this : you put it in a different light from what I looked at the question. If T was transferring my land to another I think it should be revalued then. 127. Would not that be breaking the contract ? —Yes, it would certainly. 128. And still you advocate lease in perpetuity, and at the same time you advocate breaking it up by revaluation ? —Yes, it does seem that way. 129. Do you think that is consistent ? —No. 130. Supposing you had a lease in perpetuity of 200 acres, and you had a wife and three children and you were to die, would you like to leave your wife and family in a fair position and not a burden on the community ? Say the property is to be revalued and you are paying perhaps 10s. an acre rent, and, say, the next valuation would be 14s. to 155., your widow would have to pay that or clear : do you think that is fair ?—No, certainly not. 131. Do you think any Government in creation would bring in a Bill at the instigation of a labour union in that direction ?—No, I do not. 132. Why do you advocate it then ?—We have advocated it because we wanted to place a man in a safer position. If he has got a leasehold he cannot be turned out into the street should any disaster overtake him. 133. Do you think that is a safe position to be in ?—I should say it was fair. 134. Mr. Anstry.] Is there any demand for workmen's homes round the City of Nelson Yes, there is generally a fair demand. 135. How are the workers' rents ?—Very low ; a second-class cottage would be Bs. or 9s. a week. 136. Would it be advantageous if workers had small sections on lease in perpetuity to build homes ? —I think it would be. 137. What areas do you think the workers should have ?—A quarter-acre. 138. How would it be if the Government took over your 2 acres and made it into t-acre sections and gave it on lease in perpetuity :do you think that would be an advantage ? —I do.
C.--4.
W. P. PELLEAY.]
1427
139. Or any smaller area ?—Yes 140. Would it be an advantage to any working-man —Yes, it would be a saving in a sense, but it would have to pay a small rent. 141. Are tbere any number of working-men who would avail themselves of it ?—Yes, I think so in Nelson at the present time. 142. Do you fully understand the question put to you by Mr. McLellan with respect to this valuation? It has two aspects, the one is that the State has entered into a deliberate contract with tenants for 999 years, and the other aspect is whether the revaluation should be applied to them. Are you in favour of breaking the existing lease to the extent of imposing a revaluation, although the lease clearly says there shall be none for 999 years ? —Certainly. 143. You are in favour of it ? —Yes 144. Is it very nice to break a contract like that ?—No, it is not. If the Crown gave me a lease for 999 years on a fair rental and that was handed down from time immemorial, I think that would be a fair way of doing business. 145. Do you think it would be fair for the State to step in and break that ? —No, Ido not. In the case of the freehold where that has been the case my argument is that the whole land should bear one rent. The whole revenue should be derived from the land and taxes put upon the land. 146. If you have sold land and took money for it, you cannot get the land without paying back the money ?—No, certainly not. 147. Do you think that no bargain should be broken without full compensation ?—Yes, if a bargain was broken I think a man should be paid for it. 148. Mr. Paul.] Had you given any consideration to the revaluation question previous to coming here I—No. 149. A.nd in answer to Mr. McLennan you gave your answer without due thought ? —Yes. 150. Would you wish to lay it down as a principle that no bargain should be broken without fair compensation ?—Yes, I do. That is my principle. If a bargain is made with a man he should be compensated if it is broken. 151. The State has entered into a bargain with these tenants for 999 years ■ you thmk the State is morally bound to stick to that, or pay compensation if it is broken ? —Yes. 152. Mr. Johnston.] Would you be willing to give compensation over and above the value of the land I—Yes, certainly. 153. You think they should get quid fro quo for the breaking of the contract ?—Yes, that is breaking the security I have entered into. 154. Mr. McLennan.] How would you arrive at the compensation supposing there is five years to run ? —By arbitration. 155. How could you arrive at it ?—That is a difficult matter, but I should say by arbitration. 156. Mr. Paul] At the present time, without taking a man's freehold from him, it is supposed to be longer than 999 years ? —Yes. William David Brown Murray examined. 157. The Chairman.] What are you ?—Chief Draughtsman in the Nelson office. 158. You have been a long time in the service of the Government ?—Yes, between twenty and forty years. 159. And at present you are acting on behalf of the Commissioner f—Yes. 160. You have not been very long in Nelson ?—No, only twelve months in/his.office. 161. I think that you have prepared a statement regarding the tenures and generally regarding the land systems so far as you know them ?—Yes, but lam placed at a disadvantage through only being a short time in the district. Residential Conditions and Tenures under which Lands are occupied. The tenures are of so many kinds, that the man must be hard to please who cannot find a tenure to suit his circumstances. But hard-and-fast rules for the different classes of lands should not be made to apply for all parts of a land district; but climate, situation, access to the land or markets, should be taken into consideration in dealing with the improvement clauses and payment of rents. A majority of the Land Board of the district should have discretionary power to fix and regulate the conditions applicable to settlers in the various portions of their district irrespective of the tenure or Act under which the lands may be held, subject, of course, to the sanction of the Hon. the Minister. The transferring of sections should not be allowed. If a man cannot fulfil the conditions, the section should be opened for fresh applications. This transferring business is relied on throughout the colony by nefarious persons as their mainstay to, to put it plainly, work a swindle. If transferring were completely vetoed, it would prevent an undesirable class of persons applying for lands that are likely to be keenly competed for. No applications should be accepted from single girls who are in shops or hotels, or who cannot show that they have been accustomed to farming pursuits, and have sufficient money of their own to work the land. Nor should applications be accepted from land-agents in their own name, bank-managers, or principals of business firms ; these are not the class of men from whose ranks come the legitimate settler. For open lands, residence should be compulsory after the first twelve months. With regard to lands under the Bush and Swamp Act, at the end of the period of exemption residence should be compulsory, but not till then. Of course, a certain amount of improvements should be put on the land every twelve months. There is no doubt that residence should be made compulsory after fixed periods. It is one of the best safeguards from dummyism. Revaluation of a man's land at fixed periods may be looked upon as a hardship. It is a tax on the energetic, pushing settler, and in many cases deters a man from improving his property, knowing that the more he does
0.—4.
1428
|W. I). B. MURRAY,
to improve and beautify his place the more he will have to pay eventually. If the land rises in value, the occupier should get the benefit, the same as all classes who have held lands in the colony heretofore. The land laws of the colony, speaking generally, are liberal enough for all purposes, and it is safe to say the majority of the Crown tenants have nothing to complain of. Any one can confirm this who has watched settlement in New Zealand from the early days, for there are thousands of people who have raised themselves to comfort and independence on the lands of the colony, who when they commenced had little or nothing. To give preference to married men with families would be a good measure if it could be done without raising discontent. More lands should be opened on the small-grazing-run system, these runs being keenly competed for in most cases, and a large proportion of the Crown lands in different parts of the colony are more fitted for this system than any other class of farming ; the lands being of poor quality, a man requires from 1,000 to 3,000 acres to make a living. In many districts the products of a dairy cannot be got to a market, while wool can always be packed out and finds a ready market. No Act of the Government ever gave greater relief to intending settlers than " The Bush and Swamp Crown LandsJ-'Settlement Act, 1903," and if it could be coupled with a judicious system of road-making to give access to the lands, no reasonable man could ask for an easier tenure. The balloting system is the fairest way yet introduced of disposing of Crown lands. Its working appears to give general satisfaction, and there is no doubt it is a better system than either the auction or tender, as there is no temptation for a man to go beyond his means, or to give more than the value of the land. In many cases, intending settlers are not capable of putting|the correct value on land. By the ballot system the prices are already carefully calculated and fixed.||jlf the prices err at all, it is generally on the side to favour the applicant, and not the Crown. Without expressing any opinion on the freehold versus the leasehold question, I may say that no tenure ever gave greater satisfaction to settlers than the occupation with right of purchase extending over fourteen years, the rents paid going towards making at the end of that period the land freehold ; but even at the end of that period it would be well if the land were made unalienable, unless with the consent of the Land Board and the Minister. This would prevent men from selling out and once more joining the ranks"of land applicants, as in many cases they do. If the above restriction is considered expedient for thegNative race, there is no reason, except a sentimental one, why it should not apply to Europeans also. Nelson Lands prior to 1892. Re lands settled in Nelson prior to " The Land Act, 1892," coming into force : All lands in the Nelson Land District were settled under the deferred-payment system, fourteen years lease, and the land at the end of that period became a freehold. The ruling rate was 10s. to £1 per acre. No improvements were exacted. The rents were always punctually paid, and the tenants gave no trouble. Drawbacks to Settlement. In the Nelson Land District, within the last twelve months, we have opened to the public over 100,000 acres of West Coast bush country, of which only a few thousand acres have been disposed of. Some blocks we have not had a single application for. Reasons may be : Price too high, not sufficiently known, and that the people who do know have not sufficient capital to work bush country, nor do they know how to handle such country. Good burns are hard to get, the underscrub being very wet and dense, and the country, as a rule, rough and broken. Another reason why the land is not taken up in the Nelson Land District is that the people are too poor to put down the survey-fee of £40 or £50. These fees, I may say, have lately been done away with in this district, and consequently we expect a much better demand in the near future. Other reasons are that there are no markets and no roads. If roads were made, and the land properly advertised, it would, I dare say, be taken up readily, the provisions of " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903," affording facilities not formerly to be obtained. The want of adequate educational facilities has also a great tendency to prevent persons with families from settling in remote districts such as most of the land opened recently lies'in. The French Pass country, which is no better than that of the West Coast, in fact, not so good, has all been taken up, not an acre remaining in that part of the district. Until roads are made settlement will not be a success. There are fully 200,000 acres of similar country on the west coast of this land district, and what is wanted is some few to make a start, and let others see what can be made out of such country, and then people would not be so backward to take the land up. Ido not think that the lease in perpetuity is a very popular tenure with ex-mining people ; old diggers and others prefer to be their own landlords, or to see a prospect of being so. One drawback at present is that all lands on goldfields must be opened on the lease-in-perpetuity system. Some means might be devised by which these lands might be disposed of as freeholds, the Crown to resume possession, say, at land-tax valuation, on the lands being found to be sufficiently auriferous to warrant their being resumed, the Warden and the Land Board to decide the matter. Where we have fairly open country, such as the Maruia Block, 22,000 acres, the land is keenly competed for. The Homestead System. The homestead system might be introduced into the Nelson and West Coast Districts with advantage. The provisions of the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act, which are somewhat similar, are very liberal, and the Act is being taken advantage of in a large measure in the Nelson District. But the homestead system has advantages, and specially provides for people with young children, who individually benefit, which any other land-tenure does not. It also helps to keep a family together, and this often enables better living out of the land than they otherwise would do. It also breeds the right class of settler, who when he starts on his own account has passed his apprenticeship, and has little to learn.
W. D. B. MURRAY.]
1429
C.—4.
Lessees borrowing privately The Crown, as a rule, is a good and easy landlord, and safeguards the interests of settlers in many eases better than they can do themselves. The less they have to do with borrowing from outside sources In fact, if Crown tenants were compelled to borrow only from the Advances to Settlers Office I believe it would be to their advantage. In no case should they be allowed to borrow without the whole transaction being examined and sanctioned by the Board, so as to hinder reckless or improvident settlers from placing themselves and the land under embarrassments. The Crown and its tenants should be the sole parties interested. Outsiders should not be allowed to step in, as in many cases they do, to the ultimate ejection of the man from his holding, and one more loophole made for dummyism to utilise. The Crown, as the landlord, has a perfect right to make such conditions and stipulations with regard to its tenants as it may see fit. If it be for the benefit of the Crown, and at the same time to safeguard the interests of its tenants, there is no good reason why a clause should not be inserted in a lease that all moneys borrowed on the security of the land or lease should be borrowed from the Advances to Settlers Office, unless a man can prove to the satisfaction of the Board that he can borrow equally safely, and at a lower rate of interest, from a trustworthy outside source. Loading Lands for Roads. With|regard to loading lands for roads, this appears to be the best and most independent way of raising money for this purpose : Let the bare prairie value of the land be fixed. The County Engineer or the Government Road Engineer, with the surveyor of the land, go over the roads actually required to give fair access to the lands to be opened, come to a decision what roads have to be made, bridle-roads or dray-roads," make a careful valuation re the cost of the same, and load the lands sufficient to pay interest and sinking fund on the money required to make these roads, the debt to be extinguished in a period to be agreed upon. The lands opened should certainly have access given to them. The question has to be faced. The colony cannot and should not be asked to find the money. The lands should carry their own burden, which they certainly should be able to do once good access to markets and the outside is given to them. The " thirds " and " fourths" do not give sufficient money to make roads or tracks in a systematic manner. They are only useful for improving access, or for keeping roads in repair. Chain Reserves on Banks of Streams or Lakes. These reserves are being utilised, and in some cases abused, by County Councils and Road Boards When these reserves were first introduced in the early survey days by the late Surveyor-General, Mr. J. T. Thompson, they were never meant for roads, but were intended principally to conserve the rights of the Crown to all water frontages and sea-coasts. They should be looked upon as one of the most useful assets of the colony, and should be in the sole charge of the Land Commissioners and Land Boards. These reserves were designed in a measure as a protection to the mainland, and, from the late interference with them in some parts of the colony, an Act should be passed that flax or bush growing on the chain reserves along river banks should not be cut or destroyed, as they are in many cases the only protection to the neighbouring lands in time of floods. Where these reserves are in bush country, when the bush is felled into the rivers—as is invariably done to get rid of it —the first big flood that comes along rushes the timber down in masses, which fouls the pillars or piers of bridges, and as the mass accumulates sweeps the whole structure before it. Also any bridges further down the river share the same fate. If the late legal opinion is correct, that in sixty years these reserves will become the property of the neighbouring landowners, an Act should at once be passed vesting all reserves along sea-coasts, lakes, and rivers in the Crown for ever. In some parts of the colony the rivers and lakes are private property, the opposite proprietors holding to the centre of the river. It is only a question of time when these interests will clash with the privileges supposed to be taken advantage of by tourists, fishermen, or sportsmen. In time, no doubt, these water-rights will have to be acquired again by the Crown, as already in places these rights are found to be a nuisance. Lands granted by Native Land Court. In many cases where Native Land Courts deal with land they grant the Natives, and also Europeans, the lakes, rivers, and all rights to high-water mark. With regard to the high-water mark being granted, lam told this is illegal, but it is done and will be a source of trouble in the future. The kkes and rivers should certainly be reserved to the Crown, even if the Natives have to be compensated. This is a far easier process than dealing with Europeans afterwards. Sawmill Areas. Where sawmill areas are leased, the lessees should be compelled to cut out the bush systematically, and not pick out the best of the timber only, and then apply for a fresh lease. A clause to this effect should be inserted in their leases and the Ranger inspect the bush said to be cut out before a fresh lease is granted. Nor should lessees be allowed to pick the eyes out of a forest, as is being done. Where milling-timber reserves have been made, the bush should be leased, when millowners apply for it, in such areas as will take the bush on a face, and a fresh lease should adjoin the former one. As is well known, the timber industry of New Zealand is an important one, but its duration is limited, therefore all due precautions should be taken that the bush is not culled over and wasted, as in many parts is being done at present. When bush areas are cut out, the lands should be opened for selection, and on the most favourable terms for settlement, as the land if left becomes in a short time a garden for noxious weeds and undergrowth.
1430
Tw. D. B. MUBEAY.
C—4.
Sections being taken up for the Disposal of the Timber only. Safeguards will have to be imposed to provide for cases where men take up sections with the intention of disposing of the timber thereon, and then throwing up the land. A clause should be inserted in every lease, that where bush is on the land no timber must be sold except from such portions as are felled for clearing purposes. That is to say, if a man fells 50 acres of his section to burn, he can only dispose of the timber on that 50 acres, and any other portion of his section likewise. Sections offered at Auction. I think the sections that have been once offered at auction, and not sold, should be open afterwards, to be applied for and granted without the section being put up to auction a second time. The present system invites in many cases spiteful opposition, which I think is needless. Taking Roads. Over all Crown lands sold for cash, or under any tenure, the Government should reserve the right to take roads through at any time—no limit—at the land-tax value. The giving of access to lands— or, as industries spring up, better access than was originally laid off—is, where private property intervenes, an expensive and troublesome proceeding. In cases as much as £20 per acre is asked, while the Government lands adjoining are offered at 7s. 6d. per acre and do not readily go off at that. Grouping Sections. With regard to grouping ofjsections, I never heard any intending settler speak favourably of this, but the very reverse. 162. You think that the Land Boards should have a great deal more discretion I—Yes. 163. You recommend that the law should be amended so as to give them more power: you do not mean, I presume, to advocate that the Land Boards should proceed irrespective of law ? —No, I mean that the present law should be amended to give them more discretionary power. 164. You said that survey fees had been done away with : is not that in respect to unsurveyed land ?—Yes. 165. How is the Government to be recouped for the cost of survey ? —They are not recouped in any way. The Land Board have decided in cases where they wish to facilitate the land going off to do away with surveys, and we have to make a list out and submit it for the Minister's approval. 166. What is the lowest price for the land here ?—Five shillings. 167. Regarding that 2,000 acres on the West Coast you referred to, i suppose it is very rough and wild ?—Yes. 168. What areas would it require to be taken up in ?—I think there should be power to take it in areas from 1,000 to 2,000 acres. It is inland from the coast. 169. Is there any reasonable access to it suppose any one took it up ?—Not at present. There would require to be some tracks taken in. It is all unsurveyed country. 170. Do you think it would promote settlement if a certain quantity of that land were laid off in reasonable areas I—Yes, if there were any road to it. 171. But as a preliminary, if the country were carefully examined and road-lines cut so that people could get into it, do you think that would promote settlement a little ? —1 certainly think so. Blazed tracks might help them and survey-lines. The flying topographical survey is essential at the start. 172. That would cost probably to prick off the country 2d. or 3d. an acre ?—Yes. 173. With regard to sawmill areas in Southland, the system used to be that if a man gave substantial security that he would put in a mill of a certain calibre he was allowed about 800 acres, but he was not allowed to pick out the trees. Do you think that would be a good system to apply here ?—lf that were done here it would be better than the promiscuous leasing here and there as carried on now. 174. It is quite within the power of the Land Board to do that ?—But the Warden grants the leases here for the bush because it is in a goldfield and it is a very hard matter in some cases for us to locate the area on the maps. We have introduced a system that the Rangers must forward a sketch to the Board when we cannot tell where the Warden has granted these areas. 175. Is this 2,000 acres you refer to within the goldfield ?—lt is all within a goldfield. 176. Mr. Johnston.] You object to applications form girls : have you had any such applications < I no tioed in the Hawke's Bay District when lands were opened there that various hotel-servants went in for sections. Girls from Dannevirke and places like that went in for such lands as Hatuma and the Brow. . m 177. You think that there has been some abuse of the application system ! —1 think so. 178. For speculation purposes ?—Yes, that was our experience in Napier. 179. Do you in your remarks practically approve of the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system or the deferred-payment system ? —That is the system which appears to have been a great success in the Nelson District. 180. But that is not your experience in the other districts ?—ln Otago the best system introduced was the deferred-payment system under the three- and ten-years terms. Very successful settlement took place there under that system, and most of the settlers at the end of the ten years made it a free*lBl. What about the Awarua Block That is the block up in the Rangitikei ? 182. Yes I—l suppose it is mostly lease in perpetuity. 183. That is all gone, you have surveyed that: were you there at the ballot ?—No, I left the district at the time the ballot took place; but the land is very good land and people would take that land up on any system in order to get it.
1431
C—4.
W. D. B. MURRAY.]
184. You advocate that a man should be allowed to take up from 1,000 to 3,000 acres of poor land : is that second-class land ? —Yes. 185. What do you term second-class land ?—Land that would carry if improved from one sheep to one and a half sheep to the acre, but in the case of a greater part of the Nelson land down in that country I do not think even if it were improved that it would carry any more. 186. What do you mean by " down there " ?—Anywhere there up to the west coast in large blocks that we open up in the bush country. 187. What do you term " first-class land " in this district ?—I would term " first-class land " land which would carry three sheep to the acre. Riwaka, Motueka, and T suppose a good part of the Waimea Plains could be termed " first-class land." 188. Do you not think that the land put in the market at £1 is badly classed as first-class land ? —I do not know that we put any in at £1 and classify it as first-class. 189. Taking the Awarua Block it is classed as first-class land close to the Ruahines. Do you consider that is a fair classification as first class as compared with the Waimea Plains which are also classed as first class ?—No, I would not class any land which is lying under the Ruahines as first class, but any land about Taihape, Mangaweka, or Apiti I would feel inclined to classify as first-class land. 190. But it stands to reason that the land there and the land at Motueka cannot be compared in price. It is cheaper than the land at Motueka ? —Yes, but it has been got into some state of cultivation. 191. Do you not think the whole system of the classification of land wants reorganizing ?—I would rather not express an opinion about that. 192. You do not approve of the ballot system as it is at present \—l think so. 193. But not the second ballot. Have you read Mr. Humphries idea of a ballot ? —Not that I can remember it. 194. Do you not think that a straight-out ballot would be better than having grouping under a second ballot ?—I do not think the settlers care about the grouping of the sections by any means. Many who come here express themselves to that effect. A gentleman named Rutherford, who called here in connection with the forthcoming ballot in Marlborough, was trying to find out whether there was any small run there by itself. He said he did not care about going into the grouping system. 195. With regard to the occupation with right of purchase you advise there should be no transfer for fourteen years. Has there been much dummyism here under that system ?—I do not think any great dummyism goes on in this district. 196. Can you give any reason for this 100,000 acres having not been taken up excepting that you think it might be a little too dear or that there was a want of roads We opened up cheap enough, because the greater part is opened at 6s. an acre, and you might put on from Is. 6d. to 2s. an acre for loading for roads, but there is not the population to take it up nor the class of people. 197. Is it all bush ?—All heavy rough bush. 198. Is it good for milling ? —Yes, we have reserved large portions for milling purposes and also thousands of acres for forest-conservation. 199. Is the land you put on the market quite fit for milling ?—lt is all more or less bush, and no doubt milling-timber could be taken off some part of it. Some of this Westport Harbour Endowment land at Mokihinui which is going to be opened in a short time is fairly well bushed, and if we classed it as " no milling-timber " we could not open any at all, so we have to pick out the best of it. 200. You know the destruction of milling-timber which has gone on in the North Island : do you not think it is a great mistake to put this bush land into the market which ought to be reserved for milling purposes in future ? —We do make in every block large reserves for milling purposes and also for forest-conservation. Our only trouble is that the Warden grants rights to settlers and bushfellers to go into these Government reserves, and we have lately had to take steps to prevent this being granted. . 201. It appears then that the Warden's Court overrules the Land Board in dealing with land to that extent ?—Yes, it appears to be the rule in these goldfields. We have written to the Warden lately asking him not to grant rights. Of course he has replied. We have sent him maps, and he said if he knew the boundaries of these bush reserves he would not grant the rights. We have sent the maps down accordingly, but the practice has hitherto been that they were granted indiscriminately anywhere. 202. Is there none of this land fit for dairying ?—lf it were once in good grass it might be right enough. I dare say there may be portions of it fit for dairying, but I have no personal knowledge of the country. 203. Do you not think under the borrowing system the settlers would resent the inquisitiveness of the Board ? —At present they are asked questions as to their financial capacity when proposing to take up land under the land-for-settlements system. 204. But later on they might resent it ? —There are some who might be " touchy." 205. You heard the evidence of Mr. Pattie ? —Yes. 206. Is the land he referred to fit for milling ?—I do not think there is any milling country in the vicinity of Mount Arthur. 207. Generally speaking, are the tenures satisfactory in this district?— Yes, I think so. There are no complaints. 208. Are the settlers satisfied ?-*-No complaints have been received since I have been in the district. 209. Is the amount of arrears very small ?—Yes, only about £34, I think. 210. Mr. Paul.] In your opinion roading is a great necessity for the settler ? —Yes. 211. Do you think it is of equal importance or more importance than the tenure ? —Yes, I believe
C—4.
1432
[W. D. B. MURRAY
it is. I believe if good roads were given the question of tenure perhaps would not be a deciding-point with them. 212. Is there any settlement in your land district that is not fairly roaded ? —Yes, I think there is a good deal that is not fairly roaded. 213. In dealing with compulsory residence, is the Board lenient in cases where the access is not good % —Yes, we deal with every case on its merits. 214. Does it not seem selfish that the miner, while wishing to have his rights protected when actuallv mining, should, when he takes up land as a settler, desire the freehold only ?—There is no doubt about it that as soon as the miner becomes a settler on the land he takes an opposite view to what he did before. 215. Do I understand that you want to prevent townspeople getting on the land ? —No, but I sav that where they go in for land for the simple purpose of waiting till they get an increase in price offered to them, in which case they transfer to somebody else, and where they have no intention of settling on the land, I do not think they should be allowed to compete against people who are prepared to go on the land and make proper settlers. 216. In other words you would penalise all speculators and prevent them competing against genuine settlers ? —Yes. 217. Mr. McLennan.] You said that the Warden grants licenses to cut timber?— Yes. 218. Who gets the fee ?—The Crown. . 219. Is it used in making roads ?—No, it is simply paid into the consolidated revenue. 220. You say it is very hard to get tenants to take up this land that is being opened for settlement: do you think the want of roading has something to do with it ?—Certainly. I think if roads were put into the country much of the land would go off. 221. Mr. Anstey.] What is the price of the land you have opened and for which there are no applicants ?—I suppose it is from 6s. to 12s. 6d. per acre. 222. Have you any idea how much per acre it would cost to road that block ?—I cannot say, unless I had all the papers and figures. 223. Supposing there was proper roading, would not that land bear a higher price ? —Yes, once the roads were made. Ido not think people would stick at the price if there was a decent road to get into the land. 224. With regard to these small grazing-runs you say they are very rapidly taken up ?—Yes, but there are very few small grazing-runs here, but I think if they were to open up some of the coast land in larger areas it might go off under the small-grazing-run system. 225. How much of the Nelson district is within the mining-area ?—Nearly the whole of it. 226. Do you think that any portions of it might be excluded from the mining area ?—I think the land should be opened to the public where there are no indications of good gold or cause to suppose that gold exists.
Nelson, Thursday, 22nd Jttne, 1905. John K irkpatrtok Johnston examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a carpenter. T have lived here for about four years. I had a lease of 31 acres'of land in the city boundary at one time. I have not got it at present. 2. Is there any particular point you wish to bring before the Commission ? —ln regard to the question that seems to have been asked all over the colony, I am at present secretary of the Trades and Labour Council, and during last September, in Wellington, I was one of a deputation that drew up the platform of the Labour League, and, speaking for the local council, I do not think one of them desires any breach of contract on the part of the Government. With regard to the existing leases, when the deputation met the Premier last September, he stated he had no intention of supporting anything with regard to the existing leases in the way of revaluation, and we all agreed. lam certain there was nothing on the order paper for the conference that sat in Wellington in regard to this same question —we had had no time to consider it. Ido not think any statement coming from any labour man shows the feeling on that matter —especially in this city. 3. You are aware that it is published in the papers that it was passed ?—That was at the conference. That was fetched up after the paper had been gone through. With regard to workmen's homes, there are a few blocks of land within fairly easy distance of this city which could be comfortably cut up into 3-acre sections for growing small fruit or poultry-farming. The rent at present for a decent house takes a day and a half's work to pay for it. 4. Do you know any particular block ?—There is one, " Bishopdale," of 600 acres, I think it is O'Brien's, about two miles and a half out of town. The rent here for a five-roomed house is from 10s. to lis. 5. We have been getting evidence from various places about workmen's homes, and at Epuni they have J-acre sections, and they think it is quite enough for a man who does other work to look a fter ?—There are a|few men in this place who, if they could get a small block, could look after it in their broken time. I think 2or 3 acres would not be too much—they would not need to cultivate the whole of it. 6. Is there any other point you would like to mention ?—I am not altogether in favour of the lease in perpetuity as it stands at present, but a shorter lease with revaluation at the end of the lease for tenants' improvements. I worked in a place in New South Wales under a homestead lease of twenty-one years, with pre-emptive right to a certain part of it* at the end of twenty-eight, years. 7. I suppose you mean revaluation recurring at periods of twenty-eight years ?—Yes, about that.
J. K. JOHNSTON.I
1433
C.—4.
8. What was this land in New South Wales ?—lt was what I suppose you would call second-class land here—they were 10,000-acre blocks. 9. Mr. Johnston.] We had evidence in Wellington, and an absolute assertion that the Trades and Labour Council that met in Wellington two months ago, represented twenty thousand workers, and that the majority were prepared to repudiate the present lease in perpetuity given by the Government: you assert that that is not true ? —Not with regard to Nelson —I was not a member of the meeting that met in Wellington last time. 10. You are perfectly certain that the workers in the country, so far as Nelson is concerned, would not repudiate the existing lease ? —No ; they have no intention of so doing. 11. Then the motion at the Trades and Labour Council was not voted on by your council ?— No. 12. And your delegate had no authority to vote for that or against it ? —None whatever. 13. Do you think that is the case with regard to the majority of the councils ?—I cannot answer for others. 14. With regard to these village settlements, you want a larger area than \ or £ acre ?—There is a special thing in the district in regard to poultry, or anything like that—l believe anything up to 3 acres. 15. The area at the Hutt has been \ acre—but you want larger areas here ?—Something in which they could plant fruit. If the Government were to take a fairly large-sized block and cut this up into small blocks, say from 1 to 3 acres, and planted so that something could be done with the fruit export in having uniform planting. 16. Have you had experience.of any place outside Nelson ? —I came from Invercargill, Victoria, and New South Wales. I have worked on farms from one end of the colony to the other, and lived in Christchurch for nine years. 17. What sized areas do they want in Christchurch for village homesteads ? —As large as they can get. 18. You say you are not in favour of the continuation of the lease in perpetuity ?-—No. 19. You want revaluation at certain periods ? —Only for new leases —shorter leases, something under thirty years. 20. Mr. Paul.] Is there any suitable land within reasonable access of Nelson for these homes ?— Just the last few years there have been two or three farms sold privately and by auction, six miles away —at Stoke, for instance. It is fairly rich land, and some has been cut into small blocks. 21. Could it be got at a reasonable price ? —lt was reasonable enough for the private speculator, and I think it would be reasonable enough for the Government. 22. Do you think if this land were acquired there would be a demand for it ?—I am certain of that; there are any amount of men in this town who are only two eager to have a small piece of land. 23. Are the rents very high in Nelson ? —Not extraordinarily. 24. Do you think it would be better for the average workman to get outside the city, and combine fruit-growing and poultry with his work ? —Yes, that is the object of fetching this forward, if we could get land at a reasonable price to suit them. 25. In considering this, you are considering those men in intermittent employment ? —Yes. 26. Mr. McLennan.] You say that your union did not have that question before them ?—The Trades and Labour Council, no. 27. Did you have a delegate there ? —We had two delegates. 28. Did they vote ? —I have not got the details of the voting. 29. Can you say whether they voted from seeing the papers ?—I do not think they had the details of the votes. If they voted for it, it was a catch vote, and they have gone without any authority from this council whatever. 30. Can you say whether it affects the present agitation for the freehold—this motion being carried in Wellington —whether it caused unrest amongst Crown tenants ?—I should think so. 31. In Auckland there was an area of land bought by the Government for workmen's cottages, and we were told that the land is not taken up. There were sixty sections, varying from %to 3 acres, and only about sixteen taken up. Do you think this might apply to Nelson if the land is broken ?— I hardly know the conditions —what sort of soil 32. The soil was very fair, but the distance was very long—they could get to Auckland in half an hour by train ? —I think we could get closer to town than that. 33. Supposing the Government were to buy up an area of 600 acres for village settlements, would there be any chance of the Government having a lot of that land on their hands for a number of years ? —I do not say the whole 600 acres would be suitable for cutting up into 3-acre blocks. 34. And the rest would be lost ? —Not necessarily. It could be leased as a dairy-run, or for cows and sheep —say, half of it. 35. What sort of lease ? —Something under thirty years. 36. With revaluation at the expiration of the term ? —Yes ; with tenant's right to all improvements that he put on the land himself. 37. Mr. Anstey.~\ Supposing you got 3-acre farms that you speak of for orchard, gardens, and so on, is there not sufficient for a man to do on the 3 acres ?—Yes. The object of every workman is to some day see himself out of the labour-market. 38. That is providing a different, trade for him altogether ?—They are only workmen by force of circumstances, but they are anxious to get a piece of land and cultivate it. 39. You think it is necessary to build workmen's homes pure and simple ? —I should like to see workmen's homes in the city.
180—C. 4,
a—4.
1434
[j. K. JOHN
40. Supposing a section of land could be obtained and cut up into J-acre sections for gardens, &0., do you think it would be a useful thing for workmen ?—Yes. 41. Do you think it would go liand-in-hand with the 3 acres ?—Yes. 42. We have heard in Epuni they have 3-acre sections—and they are too large —they have 110 time to cultivate it, and all that is required is a home ?—Up to 3 acres would be best for Nelson. 43. Do you think smaller areas would be taken up ? —There would be a demand for anything with a house on. 44. Would there be a number of workmen who would be able to build a house ?—Yes. 45. Would they have the money to do it % —I would like to go further—it would be a paying investment for the Government to put houses up. 46. The workman can be advanced pound for pound up to £50 —would there be many workmen take advantage of that—could they build a house fit to live in for £100 ?—There is a case I know where a contractor agreed to build a house for £175. They would not need to go for a four-roomed house for a start. 47. Are there many who would take advantage of the Act ?—They would be glad to take advantage of that. 48. Supposing they took advantage of this system, are there many who would be able to build ? —Yes, there are a lot of them. 49. Supposing they got J-acre lease in perpetuity, and borrowed £50 from the Government ? — Not lease in perpetuity—short leases. 50. Lease with revaluation ? —Yes. 51. And a number would take advantage of that ? —Yes. 52. And could build a house"on £50 ?—Yes. 53. You spoke of shorter leases : do you think that in the back blocks a tenant could get the full value of his improvements —some of the improvements disappear, and you cannot see them years after ? —A certain amount of improvements he would make to get production from, but the lasting improvements, I think, he ought to get the value of. 54. Do you think anybody would go into the back blocks if their improvements were to disappear ? —I think there would be just as many go in for it—l think they would go on the land under any conditions—but the tenant's right to improvements is what I maintain. When a man takes up land he agrees to clear the land of the bush. 55. Do you think people would go into the back blocks with the understanding that improvements would disappear ? —I did not say disappear. 56. Not the falling of bush ?—The bush would be gone. It is to the tenant's advantage. He would make nothing out of it if he left the bush standing. 57. Mr. McLennan.] Can you say that there is no demand amongst the Trades and Labour Council to interfere with the present lease in perpetuity ?—Yes ; not the local Trades and Labour Council. I am not answering for the members of any other Trades and Labour Council. Peter Higgins examined. 58. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a farmer holding a little over 1,000 acres, of which I obtained most under the deferred-payment system. 59. Your land is freehold now ?—All of it. 60. How long have you been here ?—About twenty-four yaers. 61. Where is it ?—Belgrove, twenty-five miles from Nelson. 62. Your land would be mostly grazing country ?—Yes, the main portion of it. 63. Was it bush originally ?—Yes, the main portion of it. 64. With regard to the Land Boards, have you had much to do with them ?—I have had a little, not a great deal. But my opinion always has been that if the Land Boards were elected by the settlers, the settlers would know which were the men most fitted and understood the value and working of the land. 65. Do you think that Land Boards should be elected by the settlers ?—Yes. 66. By those who elect the County Councils ?—Yes. 67. Have you not thought that the landlord, which is the Minister of Lands in this case, might find it a little difficult to work with an elective Board ?—I think, whether the man was a supporter of the Government or not, he would stand for the good of the country and the district, and it would not matter whether any particular Government was in office. 68. But do you not recognise that the Government for the time being represents the whole colony —they are in the position of a landlord ?—That is so. 69. Then do you think a portion of them should be nominated ?—Probably, if two were elected by the people and three nominated by the Government it might be a better plan. 70. Regarding tenure, which do you think is the most likely to promote the interests of the settler and the country, the freehold or the leasehold ?—I think that the freehold is better for the country as a whole, and better for the individual, because it encourages him to press onward while he is young and do his best. That is what is has done for me. I took up my land under the deferred payment, and I paid it off after about thirteen years. 71. Pretty well all Nelson has been taken up in that way ?—Yes ; under the deferred-payment system, and I have never heard one complaint against it in this district. The settlers have all got their homes and become fairly comfortable. 72. Do you know of any pressure of conditions that are felt irksome by the tenants ?—I have not heard of them. I have asked several members of the Farmers' Union and they all seem to be of opinion that the freehold is the better system, or the lease with the right of purchase.
P. HIGGINS.J
1435
a—4.
73. I understand that under the Nelson deferred payment there were no restrictions at all. You got the land and did what you liked with it ?—Yes. We had no residence conditions. As a matter of fact, most of the people resided on their sections and set to work clearing and making the best use of the land as fast as they could. 74. You have a lot of poor land in the Nelson Province. Do you think the homestead system might be applied to it ?—There is a good deal of it that you could not live on, being too rough, and you would want to go some distance away where you could get a few acres of level ground for a home and garden. It would be a miserable existence otherwise on this rough poor land 75. I understand that if this land was opened up for nothing, or less than 55., it would only be taken up advantageously by those who had a footing in the district, the present settlers ?—Many would take up that land and reside perhaps eight or ten miles away where they could live comfortably. There are several doing that now. 76. Do you know anything about the system of loading land for roads ?—No. 77. Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers ?—No, I have had nothing to do with it. 78. Is there any aggregation of farms going on here ?—There has been a little, but very little, probably where an area has been rather too small and the holder has tried to get another section alongside to help him to make a living. No capitalist is buying land here. 79. Mr. Johnston.'] What is the number in your branch of the Farmers' Union ?—About seventy. It is the Wakefield Branch. 80. Are there any Crown tenants in it ?—1 do not think so. 81. Any tenants who are leaseholders ?—I do not know, but I expect there would be a few. 82. What kind of bush was on.your land ?—Birch and red-pine. It is second-class country, and keeps from one to one and a half sheep to the acre. 83. Have you had any experience of the leasehold ?—No, but in one form I have. The early settlers planted blackberries and these have overrun the country. They have spread at such a rate that if the land was held under perpetual lease the land would be so smothered up by the noxious weeds that it would not be worth anything to the leaseholders. In my case the cost of clearing land of these weeds is what the land brings me in, and if I had to pay every year more money than what it is bringing in I should feel inclined to let my payments run out and allow the land to go back to the Government. Thousands of acres will go back to the Government in this way. 84. If you had £3,000 or £4,000 of improvements, would you allow it to go back to the Government then ?—There are a good many who would not put on improvements if the land was tied to the Government. 85. How do you know that ?—I know the man who has the freehold is the best off. 86. Have you seen a Government leasehold ?—I have seen a few of them. 87. Have you ever seen any land taken under the Land for Settlements Act ?—No. 88. What Government leases have you seen ?—College leases. 89. Have you ever seen a lease in perpetuity at all ?—No. 90. Then it is only your own opinion you are giving ?—That is what I came here for 91. You made an assertion that a freeholder keeps his land in better condition than a leaseholder: can you give us any instance of that ?—No, because I have not got a leasehold round me. 92. Have you been down to Timaru and Oamaru ?—No. 93. Do you not think that in this request for the freehold it is a matter of whether it pays or not ? —I do not think so. I think it is because a man feels more independent and knows there will be no revaluation afterwards. 94. Have the farmers made money in this district ?—They have made a comfortable living, but not a great capital, 95. Are they fairly well off ?—Yes. 96. Would you make the Education Boards sell their leasehold ?—No. 97. Supposing the Government said, " Very well, we will take this land at its value and give you debentures," would you then insist on the Government giving the freehold to these people ?—Then I think it would be better. 98. Mr. Paul.] Do you think it is likely that the endowments are increasing in value as the colony progresses ?—Yes, I think they will. 99. Is not that a good reason for conserving them for the purpose for which they were set aside ? —No. If the Government took the money for the land they would have that money used and the interest on it, but it would not give the settler the same encouragement as the freehold would. 100. How do you account for the fact that on some leases in the south—twenty-one years with the right of renewal—the improvements on the land are worth at least £2,000 ?—I suppose that man can claim compensation for improvements. If he cannot I think he is a very unwise man to put them there. 101. Does not that clearly show that the leaseholder can erect substantial improvements ?—He can, and in some cases he would, but I understand that in the majority of cases they have not done much in the direction. 102. Take the lease in perpetuity : what is there in the conditions of that lease which prevents a man using the land to advantage ?—There is nothing to prevent him, only I do not think he would feel the same interest in it, as he has to pay so much every year, as he would in the freehold. 103. Have you ever heard of a freehold with a mortgage I—Plenty of them. 104. Which, in your opinion, is best off, the man who is paying 4 per cent, on lease in perpetuity or a man who has a mortgage ?—I would sooner have the mortgage. I have some hope of getting free from that as time goes on, but not from the other.
C.—4.
1436
[P. HIGGINS.
105. Have you studied the question of elective Land Boards ?—lf elected they would be men picked out from the country, and would know the wants of the country better than the men who are appointed from the towns and who have not the least idea of what back country is like. 106. Are there any such men on the Nelson Land Board ?—There have been, but I do not think they are there now. We have two or three practical men on the Board now. 107. Is it not the fact that the men appointed to the Land Board are desirable men ?—I do not think so. 108. Is it so everywhere ?—I did not say that. There are some very desirable men on the Boards. 109. To remedy this you advocate their election by a section of the people ?—A part of them. 110. Do you not think that every man, woman, and child in the colony has a right to say how the land of the colony shall be disposed of and administered ?—I do not think that those living in the towns have the same right as those working on the land. 111. Is not the land something we have found here and should it not be looked on as a national inheritance in regard to which every one should have a voice as to its administration and disposal ?— It is only reasonable as far as those who take an interest in it by working it are concerned. 112. You were not quite definite in answer to the question as to whether there was land here which could be settled under the homestead system. Do you think there is any land in Nelson that should be given away ?—There is some, no doubt. I believe there is some down the Buller way, but I have not seen it. 113. Mr. Anstey.] On what franchise do you propose to elect the Land Boards ?—Under the County Council system. 114. Do you think it would not be wise to elect them on the Farmers' Union franchise ?—I do not think so. 115. They are all practical farmers ?—Yes ; but still they would be only a portion ; but under the County Council all have to pay taxes whether they own land or not—that is, the ratepayers. Kichard Edward Harris examined. 116. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am the Crown Lands Ranger, and have held the position for four years and a half. Igo over the whole of the district. There are about three hundred and fifty Crown tenants in the district. They are mostly under the lease in perpetuity with occupation-with-right-of-purchase and mining-district leases. Most of them are under the lease in perpetuity ; they are getting on very well, and there is no dissatisfaction that 1 know of. The mining-district leases are restricted to 100 acres, and the lessees are quite satisfied with that area. The mining leases are for twenty-one years. Those lessees make a lot of improvements, just as much as the lessees under other tenures. 117. Is there much difficulty in the matter of roads : are there many of the settlers situated in very remote corners I—Some of them are very remote. 118. Is there much road-making going on ? —A good lot of it. 119. Is it being done by loans under the Local Bodies Act or do they raise a loan themselves ?— It is mostly by loans raised by the local bodies from the Government. 120. Are there any pastoral leases or small grazing-runs that come under your notice ? —They are freehold. 121. It would be all bush originally ? —Yes. 122. Are there any restrictions which bear hardly on the tenants I—No, I think they are very leniently dealt with. 123. Mr. Johnston.] Are the mining leases satisfactory to the tenants as well as to the Crown ? — Yes, I think so. 124. Are noxious weeds very bad on the Government land '? —No, they are worse on the freehold. 125. Is the blackberry bad on Government land ? —lt is bad in places. 126. Have any means been taken to eradicate it ? —No. 127. Is there any Californian thistle there I—Very1—Very little. 128. Is the Noxious Weeds Act enforced ?—ln some places. 129. Would it ruin some settlers if it were enforced in their case '! —Yes. 130. Has any land taken up from the Government under lease been forfeited or given up '!—There may hav< been one or two leases given up. 131. The majority of the settlers are satisfied l —Yes, very well satisfied. 132. Mr. Paid.] Have some of the settlers bad roads to contend with in the Nelson District ?— fes. 133. Is the Land Board lenient in dealing with settlers in cases where no road access is given ?— Yes. 134. You say, speaking generally, the tenants are fairly prosperous I—Yes. 135. Mr. McLennan.'] Are the improvements made by lease-in-perpetuity tenants as good as those made by occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenants ?—Yes. Charles Yates Fell examined. 136. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a solicitor, residing in Nelson, and I have been here since 1870. 137. Is there any particular matter you wish to bring before the Commission ?—Yes, I am directed by the Council of the Nelson College Governors —of whom I am one, in fact, I think I am the oldest member of the Board of Governors, having been on the Board for about thirty years—to appear before
C. Y. FELL, j
1437
C—4.
the Commission to-day and explain the position in regard to land in the Riwaka district held by the Board of Governors. The matter has been referred to more than once before this Commission, and the Board has asked me to appear and put the facts before the Commission. Here is a statement showing the Riwaka properties held by the College:—
* £500 paid previous holder for transfer, 1898. t £1,050 paid previous holder for transfer, 1905. Those are the only dealings that have taken place that lam aware of. These lands have been held by various tenants —by the parents or predecessors of most of these people for a great number of years. The lands were originally swampy bush land, and have been let from time to time at rents which fairly took into consideration the quality of the land k and the fact that improvements were necessary to bring the land into proper cultivation. Lately there has been a certain amount of agitation in the district for an alteration of the tenure so as to make the terms of the leases similar to those in the case of the Native trust land. The Governors have had the matter frequently before them, and last year a committee was appointed to consider the subject carefully, which they did. 1 was one of the members of that committee. We reported the result of our inquiries to the College Governors. The following letter was then sent by the Governors to one of the tenants : " Nelson College, Nelson, N.Z., College Office, Ist May, 1905. —Joseph A. Askew, Esq., Riwaka, —Dear Sir, —With reference to the petition from yourself and others respecting the conditions of lease of College lands, and to the visit of a committee of the College Governors to Riwaka in November last, and their interview with the tenants of College lands there, I am directed to state that the report of the committee was submitted to the Council of Governors in November last, when it was referred to a later meeting. Before this meeting was held, the fire at the boys' college took place, and the many matters of urgency which arose from that event caused consideration of the report to be deferred. It has now, however, been adopted by the Council, and I am directed to state, should you in the future desire to make any permanent improvement on the property occupied by you, that upon first obtaining the consent of the Council to the particular work, and also satisfying them of the prime cost thereof, the Governors will, at the end of your term, pay to you the then value of such improvement, such value to be arrived at, if necessary, by arbitration. The Governors trust that this concession, which will be held as in force from the date of the visit of the committee, will meet your wishes.—Yours, &c., Jas. Blair, Secretary." I may say that the lands are all in exceedingly good condition, and the tenants when asked if they considered the terms such as that they would desire to give up the lease, replied that they would not think of it for a moment. I have heard it stated that a tenant was recently ejected without any improvements being aLowed to him. That is incorrect. The only tenant who has lately changed at all was an old man named Boyce, who had probably been there between thirty and forty years, and his lease was transferred. His being ousted from his tenancy had nothing to do with us. I would like to point out that the rent paid, except in the case of Parkinson's lease, is less than 3 per cent, on the assessed value of the land. The College Governors do not consider that the terms are at all harsh. This, ho weer, is an endowment for educational purposes. The whole of the receipts go towards the education of the youth of this part of the colony, and we consider that, as Governors, it is our duty to administer these endowments in as businesslike and efficient a way as possible. There has been a request made by three or four men to get more advantageous terms, but in the interests of the trust, we think we are administering the reserves to the best advantage. 138. You say that in leasing the College land and in fixing the rent, you take into consideration the fact that the tenants must effect certain improvements ?—Yes. 139. I presume from that that the rents on that account are made considerably less than they otherwise would be ?■—Yes. 140. Mr. Johnston.] In. regard to the evidence given by tenants from Motueka, do you practically repudiate the bulk of that evidence —As far as it differs from what I have said, I most distinctly do. The proof of that is that these leases have been in exceedingly great demand, and high prices have been obtained for the goodwill. Ml. You contemplated improvements being made on the land ?—Yes. 142. Did you make any allowance for those improvements ? —The compensation was only made in the nature of a low rental. 143. You reckoned that the rental you asked allowed the tenants to make full improvements on the land ? —I think it is quite likely they may not have carefully considered the question of improvements, but, as a matter of fact, these leases have been held by members of the same family for very many years. 144. If they have put abnormal improvements on the land, do you not think they should have some allowance made for them ?—I think the College Governors have treated them very fairly. The improvements have been gradually done during the past fifty years. 145. Would you advocate these endowments being revalued and bonds to that value handed to
Name. S otion. Area. Duration of Lease. Annual Bent. Acies. £ s. d. Joseph A. Askew ... 35 51 14 years from 1st January, 1895 50 0 0 Charles Jenkins ... 36 51 10 „ 1st June, 1900J 50 0 0 Edward Wratten* ... 38,39,49 150 21 „ „ 1885* I poi !° r i 4 years " ' ' io I£85 for 7 years. T. E. G. Parkinson! ... 40 51 14 „ „ 1904' 72 0 0 Thomas Macmahon ... Part 58 25 21 „ 1st October,,1888 2 10 0
C.-4.
1438
[O. T. PELL.
the College Governors in place of the land ; the land being taken over by the State ?—Speaking foi myself, I should say I would agree to it. I would rather have the money and invest it. 146. And gave you bonds bearing 4 and 5 per cent., so long as the interest is not reduced ? —lt would be a question of value. 147. Do you think it would be a good thing to do generally ? —Do you mean all over Motueka. 148. All over the colony ?—Well, I can only speak for my own district. I should have thought myself that so far as the cestui'que trusts are concerned with this land in Motueka, it is an exceedingly improvident method so far as the cestui que trusts are concerned, the tenants do not deserve any consideration at all. 149. Can you give us any information about the Riwaka trust ? —No. 150. Do you know " The Westland and Nelson Reserve Act, 1887 "? Was that the Act you referred to ? —Yes. 151. What is the area under that Act ?—I do not know. 152. Who administers that Act ? —The Public Trustee ; the lease is granted by the Public Trustee. 153. Are there many of them ?—I think a good many of them in this town. The Native reserves are all granted under this Act. 154. Any country lands ?—I do not know. It would be easy to ascertain the reserves.. 155. Do you approve of the Land Boards as at present constituted ?—I think it has worked very well here. We have had good men here, and I think it has worked satisfactorily as far as my experience goes. 156. Are the settlers doing well in the Nelson Province ? —Yes, I think so. Inland, we want the railway, and then there will be great changes in course of time. There is a great amount of Crown land between here and Murchison that could be cut up. 157. Have these Land Boards come under your notice at all ?—I have been applied to for money. 158. Do the settlers have any difficulty in getting money ?—Yes, great difficulty. 159. What rate of interest do they pay outside ?—lt is hard to get money at all under lease in perpetuity. The rate of interest on freeholds is from sto 6 per cent., but I would not lend on lease in perpetuity if I could help it 160. Do you know if such loans are negotiated ?—I suppose they are, but Ido not think there are many of them. 161. Do you know the rate of interest that is asked ? —They would be certain to ask more for the lease in perpetuity than for the freehold. 162. Do they ask 8 per cent. ? —No, near to it—l should think from 6to 6j per cent. 163. Mr. Paul.] Is it the case that there is plenty of freehold to lend money on ? Would that be one reason why they would not lend on the leasehold ?—There is plenty of freehold, but that depends whether the market is tight or not. At the present time there is a sufficient supply of money, but I would not lend on lease in perpetuity if I could help it. 164. What would be unsatisfactory in that tenure as regards lending money ?—The conditions under which the lease in perpetuity is held are unsatisfactory. The mortgagee, for instance, cannot hold more than a certain area. Supposing you lent on a dozen mortgages, and there was any difficulty, you would fall in. 165. Would you advocate the sale of endowments generally throughout the colony ? —That is a large question, and I would not like to give an answer about it offhand. 166. Is it not likely that your land would increase in value as time goes on ?—Yes, I dare say it will. It is not in a very good state of cultivation. It is not likely that it could be used for building purposes, it is too far away, and unless there was some other use to which the land could be put, I do not think it would be greatly improved. It is drained and in good grass, but so far as using the land for natural products, Ido not think it would be much better. Some of the land is closely cultivated, mostly hops, raspberries, and small fruit. Ido not know of any form of cultivation you could bring it under. " 167. A large increase in the population would increase the price ? —But still you cannot get a living unless there is a certain amount of land to get it from. These are not let in very large pieces—l think 150 acres is the biggest. Somewhere about half is flat land and the rest is hilly land and good for nothing but sheep. 168. Speaking of these goodwills, of course that £500 and £1,500 included improvements ?—Yes. 169. Will there be any difficulty in the future of the Board of Governors giving these tenants the right of renewal with an arbitration rent ?—I do not see why we should submit to arbitration—we should object. Why should our freewill in the matter be taken away from us 1 You cannot say that the rental as a rental has ever been other than a very low one, and the proof of it is in the fact that we are only getting about 3 per cent, on the capital value of the land now. 170. You know there is a wide divergence of opinion as to whether the rent there is a low one ? — Treating it as a matter of common-sense, it is out of the question —there is no room to argue whether it is large or small. It is a very low rent. 171. You propose giving valuation for improvements that are erected ? —Approved improvements. 172. Of course those improvements erected before you came to that conclusion are not to be considered ?—Yes, we came to the conclusion that it is quite improper to do it 173. As a general principle, do you not think the interests of education can be considered and the tenants fairly dealt with ? —Certainly. 174. You contend that the tenants have been fairly dealt with, although some of the tenants say they have not ? —Some tenants would never be satisfied. I understand Mr. Boyce is one of them— he does not understand the position. He is aggrieved because he has arrived at old age without having anything set apart.
C. Y. FELL.I
1439
C.-4.
175. What was the rate of interest on the capital value at the time these leases were granted ?—I could not tell you. 176. Are you acquainted with Mr. Seedman's position as a tenant ?—I do not think he is one of our tenants. 177. Anyhow, this position was put before the Commission, that Mr. Seedman got a section at a low rental and made extensive improvements and afterwards paid a rental of £35, and said that was as much as he could pay. Your Board offered it to him for £50, and eventually you got a tenant at £66. Now, on that land, Mr. Seedman spent £32 in improving 3 acres alone, and he felt very much aggrieved that he should have been treated as he was ? —I do not think he had any ground for complaint. If you let a piece of ground to a man for £10,000 a year and he chooses to put improvements on it, that is his matter entirely, it has nothing to do with us. He has only got himself to thank for it. 178. Do you not think that the better way to work these endowments is to give valuation for improvements than letting the land at a low rental : you know when a man rents land he thinks he is paying enough for it whatever the rent may be ?- —He should not think so. Tn some cases that is so, but in this case it is not so. I think that some men in the past days put more improvements on the land than was warranted. We could not attempt the principle, that, because a man chooses to do that, therefore we should immediately allow him some money. We should be restrained from doing so. 179. You take up this position : that, had there been revaluation in the lease to allow for the value of improvements at the end of the term, the rental would have been much higher ?—Certainly. 180. Mr. McLennan.] You say you have a few tenants in your time ? —There are five. 181. Are they putting the same improvements on their holdings as the freehold alongside ? — Hardly. When we inspected these properties in November last there were certain little neglects, such as hedges, and the house wanting p&inting, &c. 182. If they had valuation for their improvements when the lease expired, do you think that they would look after the property better ?—Possibly. In that particular respect, we have now written to them to say that we will pay them for approved improvements. 183. Would you pay for improvements such as draining, fencing, and building ?—lt would depend upon the class of fencing, and the draining would be a permanent improvement and so would the building ; but I should not pay a man for putting in a couple of acres of raspberries or a temporary crop of any kind, because the value of that crop may be utterly useless. 184. Would you pay valuation for new grasses ? —I am not a farmer, but we should pay for whatever was a fair improvement. 185. Mr. AnsteyA What was the original rent paid for these sections ? —I could not tell you without looking at the books. 186. They were much lower ?—Yes. 187. What are your present leases of these town sections ? —They are only let on temporary terms. 188. Do people build on them ? —No. 189. Do they get any value for improvements at all ?—No. 190. Do you think it is wise that that land should be allowed to remain idle —these town lots— for want of some .security for the tenants ? —We could easily make arrangements if anybody wanted it. The 17 acres behind the College is quite unsuitable for building —nobody wants it. We could make special arrangements about the land at the Toitoi Valley if it is necessary. The cottages let at so much per week. 191. Do the cottages belong to the Board of Governors ? —Yes. 192. Who erected them ? —I do not know—not the previous tenants. 193. Did the College Governors erect them ?—No, Ido not think they did. Some of these houses must have been fifty years old. 194. The College Board never paid for erecting them ?—No. 195. Do they collect the rents ?—Yes. 196. What security have the tenants on the sheep-country got ?■—A lease for so-many years. 197. With valuation for improvements ? —No. He is not going to make any improvements. 198. Do you think that, provided you were giving suitable security, these rents you are now charging would be very much higher ? —I really could not say. I should think they would. I can only judge from the fact that they are greatly in demand, and these two properties have been sold at a premium on the present rates. 199. There is a considerable quantity of valuable land of which your colleagues are trustees. It is vested for certain purposes, and you are only getting half the rents to which you are entitled ?—The people say we are cruelly treating them by getting more than we should. 200. If you admit that you are taking rent for a cottage which you never built, you must be taking what does not belong to you ?—I do not think so. It appears to me to be perfectly proper under the circumstances to take rent for the cottages. 201. You told us quite recently that the goodwill of a section was sold for £1,050, and that the rent was £72 ? —Yes. 202. Taking that £1,050 at 5 per cent., that and the reno would be £124 a year now ? —Yes, I suppose it would. 203. That is if you had given the tenant security for his improvements ? —Yes. 204. Do you not think you are neglecting the interest of your trust in letting your land upon such terms that no tenant can properly occupy it and pay a fair rent ?—I do not admit that is so. It is a fair rent as the thing stands. It depends upon what you call security. If a man has a lease for say twentyone years and he pays a low rent, he has security for improvements. That is the security which he is to get now. If we were going to charge him a rack-rental, that is another matter, but if he has a moderate rental he has security for improvements.
1440
[C. Y. PELL.
a—4.
205. You have 800 acres of swamp land ?—Yes. 206. That is let for sixty-eight years ? —Yes. 207. Has he any security for his improvements ? —I do not think so. 208. Supposing he drained it and had no value for improvements, he would be jumped up in his rent ?—I suppose so. If he came to us and said that this land could be greatly improved—l am at present spending £1,000 on drainage, I have no doubt we would meet him. 209. Is it not a fact that you have only agreed to this since May —after the Land Commission commenced ?—I would not say that. 210. Do you know of any valuation for improvements being given for planting fruit-trees ?—We have not made any allowance. Ido not think we would. 211. We had evidence from a man the other day that apparently it takes five years to get the trees into bearing, and then if he has to go out is he not entitled to the value of improvements ?—He would not be. Mr. Boyce showed us his plantation of fruit-trees, gooseberries, and black currants. He said, " I could not get anything for these, they are worthless." I asked him whether he thought it was a class of improvement for which he should be paid, and he said " No." 212. You give a tenant valuation for improvements at the end of the lease, and if there is any value you would pay 'Yes. Ido not know about apple-trees. 213. Do you think apple-trees should be included in the lease as one of those things for which value should be allowed ?—No, I think we should give approved improvements. 214. Would you approve of apple-trees ?—No, I should not. 215. You said you did not think the tenants deserved any consideration whatever. Do you think any kind of land should be administered by a body of men who consider that ?—I do not mean that tenants should not be considered—we have given tenants very high consideration. 216. You say this trust is set aside for educating the youth of the colony : have any of the men on the land any rights ?—Yes, distinct rights—they are shown in the deed they hold. 217. In giving tenants fresh leases would you be prepared to give them full valuation for their improvements under a right of renewal for their leases ?—No, certainly not. I object to absolute right of renewal. Why should we be deprived of absolute ownership of land ? 218. Mr. Johnston.] That Blenheim land is subject to very heavy floods ?—Yes. Russell H. Turner examined. 219. The Chairman.] What are you I—l am president of the Farmers' Union for Nelson district. I am a farmer and hold 116 acres of freehold at Redwood's Valley, about sixteen miles from Nelson. I have no leasehold. 220. Do you wish to bring any matter before the Commission ?—I wish to defend the Farmers' Union from the imputation that we have been the originators of the agitation amongst the Crown tenants for the freehold. I deny that it originated with the union. The Crown tenants approached the Farmers' Union in the North Island and the matter was simply laid before us for our support. In our opinion, the leasehold system is not a satisfactory one for any man to work under ; the freehold tenure is. We have an object-lesson of the evil effects of the leasing system in the condition of Ireland about forty years ago. There is an agitation in New Zealand for a Fair Rent Bill; in our opinion, if such a measure were passed into law it would have a very detrimental effect on the settlers of this colony. 221. Mr. Johnston.] Have you ever been in Ireland ?—No. 222. Then your evidence on that point is valueless ?—lf the Times newspaper statements are valueless then I certainly agree with you. 223. Do you say that the Farmers' Union has never sent round a circular ?—I did not say that; we were asked to support the request of the Crown tenants, it did not originate with the Farmers' Union. 224. Did the Farmers' Union have a circular printed and sent round to the Crown tenants ?— As far as I know I do not think they did. 225. You are absolutely prepared to swear to that ?—As far as I know. 226. I suppose you read Mr. Wilson's evidence ?—I do not think so. Ido not sit on the Wellington executive, we have one of our own here. 227. Did you not attend the delegates' colonial conference ?—No. 228. You are simply giving evidence from a Nelson standpoint ?—Yes. 229. And there was no circular sent round the Nelson section?— There was a circular sent to us asking us to support it. 230. Was not a copy of that circular sent everywhere ?—I do not think it was sent to the Crown tenants. 231. Was it sent to the union to ask the Crown tenants to sign it ?—Yes, I believe it was. 232. Mr. Paul.] It was the colonial executive of the Farmers' Union that brought this matter before your union ?—Yes. 233. Would you prefer to be a tenant in Ireland or a leaseholder under the Crown in New Zealand ? —I would prefer to have no land at all rather than to be a leaseholder to any one. I would rather be a tenant under the Crown in New Zealand than be a tenant in Ireland. 234. Then the leasehold is an improvement here ?—Certainly 235. Mr. McLennan.] How rpany Crown tenants are there in this district ?—I could not say. I do not think there are many. 236. There are a few ?—ln connection with the petition sent to me you could not get a signature to it because we did not know where to look to for the tenants
R. H. TURNER.]
1441
C.—4
237. Do you not think it rather strange seeing that the Commission was sitting here that not one of the Crown tenants has come forward to give evidence ?—I cannot consider it strange because there has been such short notice given of the Commission. 238. But it is not only in Nelson but all through our travels that we find very few actual Crown tenants coming forward to give evidence. We do find, however, a great number of the Farmers' Union and those who are not directly interested in the lease at all coming forward : do you not consider that rather strange ?—The farmers as a rule do not care to come out much and take part in public meetings. Of course the few who have come before you may be the exception. 239. Do you not think that if there was a geat demand amongst the tenants for the freehold that they would come forward ?—They might, but I could not say decidedly what farmers would do, they are a very curious body of men. I have had a good deal to do with them in connection with public meetings, and it is -very hard to get them out. 240. You admit that this agitation for the freehold should first come from the Crown tenants themselves, independently of outsiders ?—I quite agree with you that it should come from them, and I think it did come from them. 241. We have so far no proof of that, and it is a matter of surprise that so very few Crown tenants have come here to give evidence ?—Would they be afraid to do so. 242. Why should they be afraid ?—They might be afraid that they would be likely to lose their rights through offending any officials. 243. Do you mean to say that things have come to such a pitch that a man would be afraid to come forward and air his grievances when he was paying his rent and doing his improvements ?—I could not say. 244. Mr. Anstey.] Did you get a request from the Crown tenants in your neighbourhood to advocate this freehold ?—-No. I do not know how many Crown tenants there are in Nelson. 245. Have you any Crown tenants in your union ?—Not that I know of. 246. Does your union advocate the granting of the freehold to Crown tenants ?—Yes, optionally. 247. You told us that the Farmers' Union did not commence the agitation, and you say you have no Crown tenants in your union, or that they have asked you to bring this matter up. Are not you as a member of the Farmers' Union doing the very thing you say the Crown tenants are doing ?—We are supposed to be part and parcel of a union all over New Zealand, and what the North Island does we are requested to support, and what we do the North Island is expected to support. 248. You are acting on the request of the executive of the Farmers' Union in the North Island ? —The executive did not bring me here. I came as president. The work of the union is left between the meetings to the president, and as I have seen in the papers so many statements that this charge has been made against us I wish to make our position clear. I also wanted to advocate the freehold tenure. 249 Did the Crown tenants request you to advocate the freehold ?—No. 250. Did the executive of the Farmers' Union request you to do so ?—The colonial executive sent the request to our executive. Robert Inkpen Kingsley examined. 251. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—Diocesan Secretary and Treasurer of the Province of Nelson. I have held that position for twenty years. The Bishop, who is the trustee under the trust you have had evidence about recently, asked me to attend the Commission, and I have gathered a few facts which I will place before you. The trust was established under a Government grant of 1853, and I will hand in a paper containing a clause of the trust. It arose out of some correspondence between 1849 and 1851 between Sir George Grey, the then Governor, and Earl Grey, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. There are about 800 acres in the trust, and I will send you a list of the names of tenants and other particulars. You will observe that the rent is very low indeed, and that a large number of the leases are for twenty-one years, expiring in 1922. They were issued in 1901 ; that was the time when the trustees of their own freewill gave up to the tenants the improvements past and present. It is a question whether the trustees were justified in doing that, as they gave a very valuable consideration to the tenants thereby. The leases that existed before that, such as Mr. Wrett's, had no right to improvements. Mr. Wrett pays a rent of something like 3s. sd. per acre, and he has never asked the trustees whether they would give him improvements. I fancy, if he did ask, that improvements will be allowed provided he does improve, but when I have been auditing the accounts and looking over the properties I had to draw the attention of the trustees to the fact that Mr. Wrett was allowing the blackberries to spread on his farm, so that I expect the trustees will ask him to carry out the terms of his lease and do away with those blackberries. 252. I think he told us he was leaving the farm ?—His lease expires in 1906, and two years ago the trustees gave him notice that they required his land because it surrounds the orphanage to enable them to more effectually carry out the industrial training of the inmates, which they have to do as provided by the grant. I will give you a copy of the terms upon which they have the right to improvements. 253. Mr. Paul.] I understand that Mr. Wrett considers he has a grievance in having to go out of the place and forfeit his improvements. Do you consider that he got that land at a lower rental because valuation for improvements was not allowed ?—I am not prepared to answer for the trustees ; but some years ago, when I first became acquainted with the trust through my position, I considered that the rents were far too low, and that the trust was not being done full justice to. Mr. Wrett's property is principally stony land and the principal improvement on it is a wire fence. 254. Is there any objection to giving these tenants the right of renewal at an arbitration rent and valuation for improvements ? —That is provided for in the lease, and I presume as the old leases fall 181—C, 4.
C—4.
1442
B. I. KINGSLEY.
in they will be provided for in the same way as those which were renewed in 1901—that is, that they will be given valuation under the lease for all present improvements on the land. 255. Mr. Anstey.] What do you value Mr. Wrett's existing improvements at ?—I should be sorry to hazard an opinion. 256. Are they worth £500 ?—No ; they are merely large paddocks and sheep fencing. 257. Are they worth £200 ? —I think that would be far too much. 258. Are they worth £100 ?—Possibly ; but I would not say. I should want to measure them first. 259. What were these reserves set aside for ? —You will find that in the copy of the trust. 260. Is it a diocesan trust for general Church purposes ? —No. Some properties were given to the religious bodies —some to the Wesleyans, some to the Roman Catholics, and some to the Church of England —to provide for the bringing-up of the destitute children of all races of Her Majesty's subjects in the Pacific islands. That was done because Earl Grey pointed out that, as the colony progressed, certain islands of the Pacific would come more or less under the Government of New Zealand ; and some of the children from those islands would require to be sent to New Zealand to be trained in European habits. I think the Roman Catholics passed a Bill through the House in about 1859 by which they alienated their property from the original trust, and I believe the Wesleyans did the same, but I merely speak from memory. 261. Then, this land was set aside for the purpose of bringing up destitute children ? —Yes. 262. Is that what you are doing with it ? —We apply the revenue to the purposes of the orphanage. 263. Who administers it ?—The Bishop of Nelson, the Rev. Mr. Kempthorne, and Archdeacon Grace. They are nominated by the Synod. 264. Was this land given by the State or by Sir George Grey personally ? —Part was Native land, and only about 250 acres was given from Government land. 265. Who gave the Native land, the Government or the Natives ? —The Government owned a bit. 266. You say that now all the tenants would have a sounder tenure ?—Yes, as the old leases fall in. 267. But you say nearly all have fallen in ?—Yes, a great number of them. 268. All the new leases are being granted for twenty-one years with valuation for improvements and right of renewal ? —Right of renewal with valuation. Andrew T. Maginnity examined. 269. The Chairman.'] You are a solicitor ? —Yes, and Chairman of the School Commissioners for the Provincial District of Nelson. I have been here for the last fifteen years, and Chairman for the past four years. I wish to put before the Commission the form of lease which is adopted by the School Commissioners in this district, from which the Commission will see that there is a valuation for improvements and right of renewal if the terms of the lease are carried out by the lessees. 270. What improvements do you give valuation for ?—General improvements, ascertained, of course, by arbitration —by a valuer appointed by the lessee, another by the lessor, who in turn appoints an umpire. 271. And they have a right of renewal ?—Yes. 272. I suppose that under these terms your relations with your tenants have been satisfactory ?— They have always been of the most friendly character. If any difficulty arises, or if there is a complaint from the tenant as to his rights, the Commissioners, if possible, or a portion of them, visit the property and endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement with the tenant. 273. How many tenants are there ? —I cannot tell you ; but I propose to have a list prepared and sent on to the Commission with particulars of our reserves, the rents, and to make it as full as possible. The term is generally for twenty-one years unless the Commissioners deem a shorter term advisable ; but it is never less than fourteen years. 274. Mr. Johnston.'] How many School Commissioners are there ? —Three nominated by the Government and two by the Education Board. 275. Are those nominated by the Government practical farmers ?—The Government nominees at present are Mr. Trask, who has a very good knowledge of land, Mr. Graham, M.H.R., and the Commissioner of Crown Lands. 276. There have been no complaints ? —I do not know of any, or if there have been any they have been dealt with at once and relief afforded. 277. Would you advocate the revaluation of this land and the Government handing you bonds to equal value %—That is a large question which I would not like to answer without further consideration. 278. You would not advocate giving your tenants the right of acquiring the freehold ? —Personally, I am strongly in favour of the freehold. 279. Have you any idea of the cost of your administration ?—There is only the payment to the Secretary, and the country members attending meetings get mileage one way. I think the travelling expenses of the four members is 18s. a quarter for attending meetings. 280. What is your total income ?—About £1,500 a year. 281. Are you protecting your land against the spread of noxious weeds and rabbits ?—Yes. 282. Mr. Anstey.] You are not bound to give a renewal ?—Every consideration is always given to the existing tenants as long as he has complied with the covenants of the lease, and the School Commissioners are always anxious to retain him. ! p 283. I notice that you include.the planting of trees amongst improvements : would you consider of an orchard a permanent improvement ? —I think the Commissioners would look upon that as an improvement. E" 284. Have you had any of these leases come up for renewal ?—No, I do not think we have. I" 285. Do the valuations for improvements become excessive ? —We have had no difficulty with our tenants.
1443
0.—4.
<J. J. RTJFFELL.]
Charles James Ruffell examined. 286. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a dairy-farmer, and farm 40 acres at Wakapuaka, three miles from Nelson. I have been there for thirteen years. I rent my land from private individuals and am paying it off by instalments. I have been deputed by the Wakapuaka Branch of the Farmers' Union to give evidence, and I also desire to give evidence on my own account. I differ from the other members of the union on some questions and agree with them on others. The membership of our branch of the union last year was sixty-odd. 287. What do you desire to say on behalf of your branch of the union ?—As mentioned by Mr. Turner a short time ago there is a genuine desire amongst the Nelson people for the option. Personally, I favour a leasehold for, say, fourteen years on certain conditions. Ido not believe personally in the lease in perpetuity. lam in favour of the option. On this question there is some difference of opinion between myself and other members of the union. I think the lease in perpetuity is the very worst tenure existing in the colony to-day both for the Government and the people. As I understand the lease in perpetuity it exists for 999 years without revaluation. That I consider is utterly wrong to the people, and I think it will tend to bring about what in England resulted from the law of entail. It will mean that one individual of a family will hold the property, and others will have to seek fresh fields, so that it makes things no better for the people who say there is a hunger for the land. There is no doubt a hunger, but it does not apply to those who cause the cry. It really applies only to the farmers and their descendants. The 999-years lease is difficult to deal with in several ways —for instance, in the case of a person desirous of exchanging his section, and it is also difficult to raise money on it if a farmer wants money for the purpose of working his land. In view of the powers possessed by the Government to acquire estates there can be no objection to granting the freehold, because the Government can immediately acquire a property if they desire to do so, and they can dispose of it as they think proper. While the present conditions remain there is nothing in trying the nationalisation of the land. I might point out that quite recently the Government assisted a firm to control the product of the land to the detriment of the farmers. The Government, a short time ago, had dealings with a firm in respect to a cargo of oats for South Africa, and paid the man they dealt with Is. Bd., whilst the farmers only got Is. Id. The Government could well have bought the oats direct. They bought horses direct, and there was nothing to prevent them also buying the oats direct. While capitalists are allowed to control the output of produce the question of whether land is sold or let is really a matter of indifference. * 288. Mr. Paul.] You say the lease in perpetuity is a very bad bargain for the State ?—Yes, and for the individual too. 289. How do you explain that ? —I think it is bad for the individual because, unless a man is possessed of means, he will find it difficult to carry on. 290. Can you tell me how a man who has no means can buy the freehold ?—I approve of the leasehold with the power to purchase. 291. Can you imagine any system of land-settlement which would give better terms than a 4-per-cent. rental on the capital value \—lt is a good thing to a certain extent, but it does not apply altogether. The 999-years lease is practically making it more secure to the tenant —so much more secure that he practically cannot sell it—and it will descend from father to son right through to the end of the term. 292. You object to the lease in perpetuity because it is too secure ?—I think it makes it more difficult to transfer. 293. Mr. Anstey.] You advocate the right of purchase ? —Yes. 294. When all the land is freehold, how is the poor man to get on then I—l1 —I think every man should become his own valuator, and all properties up to £2,000 the Government should be entitled to acquire by paying 15 per cent, additional to the owner's valuation ; and any person by applying to the Government should be able to claim the property at that value. 295. Then, if I value my farm you can go to the Government and buy it ? —Yes ; I think so, if you place your own valuation upon it. Brother Jesse Lammas examined. 296. The Chairman.] What are you ? —I am a farmer, and hold 480 acres freehold at Dovedale, and have been farming about thirty-six years. Last February, there was some land sold in that district that had been a Native reserve ; it was put up to be balloted for. About thirty years ago, I applied for a part of that land, thinking to add it to my present holding, and thus make it a more compact property. The land was surveyed, and 180 acres was retained as a forest reserve, and this has lately been thrown open by ballot. I think that under this Act I should have had a prior right to take up the land. The Chairman said this was a matter that did not come within the order of reference of the Commission, and therefore they could not deal with it.
Seddon, Friday, 23rd June, 190^ John George Armstrong examined. 1. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am a settler ; I have 983 acres lease in perpetuity. 2. Are you one of the original settlers here ?—Yes. 3. You have been here about six years then ? —Yes, six years last month. 4. I suppose you have dealings with the Land Board ? —Yes, very little.
C—4.
1444
B. I. KINGSLEY.
in they will be provided for in the same way as those which were renewed in 1901—that is, that they will be given valuation under the lease for all present improvements on the land. 255. Mr. Anstey.] What do you value Mr. Wrett's existing improvements at ?—I should be sorry to hazard an opinion. 256. Are they worth £500 ?—No ; they are merely large paddocks and sheep fencing. 257. Are they worth £200 ? —I think that would be far too much. 258. Are they worth £100 ?—Possibly ; but I would not say. I should want to measure them first. 259. What were these reserves set aside for ? —You will find that in the copy of the trust. 260. Is it a diocesan trust for general Church purposes ? —No. Some properties were given to the religious bodies —some to the Wesleyans, some to the Roman Catholics, and some to the Church of England —to provide for the bringing-up of the destitute children of all races of Her Majesty's subjects in the Pacific islands. That was done because Earl Grey pointed out that, as the colony progressed, certain islands of the Pacific would come more or less under the Government of New Zealand ; and some of the children from those islands would require to be sent to New Zealand to be trained in European habits. I think the Roman Catholics passed a Bill through the House in about 1859 by which they alienated their property from the original trust, and I believe the Wesleyans did the same, but I merely speak from memory. 261. Then, this land was set aside for the purpose of bringing up destitute children ? —Yes. 262. Is that what you are doing with it ? —We apply the revenue to the purposes of the orphanage. 263. Who administers it ?—The Bishop of Nelson, the Rev. Mr. Kempthorne, and Archdeacon Grace. They are nominated by the Synod. 264. Was this land given by the State or by Sir George Grey personally ? —Part was Native land, and only about 250 acres was given from Government land. 265. Who gave the Native land, the Government or the Natives ? —The Government owned a bit. 266. You say that now all the tenants would have a sounder tenure ?—Yes, as the old leases fall in. 267. But you say nearly all have fallen in ?—Yes, a great number of them. 268. All the new leases are being granted for twenty-one years with valuation for improvements and right of renewal ? —Right of renewal with valuation. Andrew T. Maginnity examined. 269. The Chairman.'] You are a solicitor ? —Yes, and Chairman of the School Commissioners for the Provincial District of Nelson. I have been here for the last fifteen years, and Chairman for the past four years. I wish to put before the Commission the form of lease which is adopted by the School Commissioners in this district, from which the Commission will see that there is a valuation for improvements and right of renewal if the terms of the lease are carried out by the lessees. 270. What improvements do you give valuation for ?—General improvements, ascertained, of course, by arbitration —by a valuer appointed by the lessee, another by the lessor, who in turn appoints an umpire. 271. And they have a right of renewal ?—Yes. 272. I suppose that under these terms your relations with your tenants have been satisfactory ?— They have always been of the most friendly character. If any difficulty arises, or if there is a complaint from the tenant as to his rights, the Commissioners, if possible, or a portion of them, visit the property and endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement with the tenant. 273. How many tenants are there ? —I cannot tell you ; but I propose to have a list prepared and sent on to the Commission with particulars of our reserves, the rents, and to make it as full as possible. The term is generally for twenty-one years unless the Commissioners deem a shorter term advisable ; but it is never less than fourteen years. 274. Mr. Johnston.'] How many School Commissioners are there ? —Three nominated by the Government and two by the Education Board. 275. Are those nominated by the Government practical farmers ?—The Government nominees at present are Mr. Trask, who has a very good knowledge of land, Mr. Graham, M.H.R., and the Commissioner of Crown Lands. 276. There have been no complaints ? —I do not know of any, or if there have been any they have been dealt with at once and relief afforded. 277. Would you advocate the revaluation of this land and the Government handing you bonds to equal value %—That is a large question which I would not like to answer without further consideration. 278. You would not advocate giving your tenants the right of acquiring the freehold ? —Personally, I am strongly in favour of the freehold. 279. Have you any idea of the cost of your administration ?—There is only the payment to the Secretary, and the country members attending meetings get mileage one way. I think the travelling expenses of the four members is 18s. a quarter for attending meetings. 280. What is your total income ?—About £1,500 a year. 281. Are you protecting your land against the spread of noxious weeds and rabbits ?—Yes. 282. Mr. Anstey.] You are not bound to give a renewal ?—Every consideration is always given to the existing tenants as long as he has complied with the covenants of the lease, and the School Commissioners are always anxious to retain him. ! p 283. I notice that you include.the planting of trees amongst improvements : would you consider of an orchard a permanent improvement ? —I think the Commissioners would look upon that as an improvement. E" 284. Have you had any of these leases come up for renewal ?—No, I do not think we have. I" 285. Do the valuations for improvements become excessive ? —We have had no difficulty with our tenants.
1445
0.-4.
3. O. ARMSTRONG.!
32. That does not provide for any value for improvements ?—Very small. 33. And provides for no right of renewal ?—No 34. Do you think if they had right of renewal and fair valuation for improvements that would be an inducement to them to improve ? —lt would be a great improvement on the present system. 35. Can you suggest anything better ?—No, I cannot. I think it would be very fair if they got full value for their improvements when the place was taken from them. 36. Do you think it would be wise to put in a clause compelling them to surface-sow certain portions in the year ?—No, Ido not think so. There may be ground which wants it, and other land that would not take surface-sowing. That should be left to the man who takes the ground. 37. You said you were in favour of electing the Land Boards by parliamentary franchise ? —Yes. 38. Do you think it would be quite fair: probably you would have a lot of town men on the Land Board ? —I do not think you would. Ido not think the town vote would swamp the country vote. I would not agree to have town men mostly on the Boards. 39. Is it not a more satisfactory way for the Government to nominate men to administer their own policy ; they are responsible to the country for it. Supposing you were a landlord and had a large number of tenants, would you allow your tenants to elect their steward ?—There is a lot of wire-pulling done, and members have a favourite man who they put on the Land Board. It is a reward for their supporters, and very often the men have not fitness for the position, and I think the common-sense of the people would enable them to put good men on the Boards. 40. Do you think the people in the districts would have any knowledge of the man who they voted for, say, in Canterbury or Auckland ?• —I think they would know the man. No one would have a chance of getting on the Board without being known publicly. 41. What are your relations with the existing Land Board ?—Very good, but I have had very little dealings with them as a matter of fact. 42. Are they suitable men ?—Some of them are and some of them are not. 43. Mr. Paul.] You consider Starborough a successful settlement ? —Yes. 44. Is there anything wrong with the co-operative system as a system, or is it in the supervision ?— I do not think the supervision could be better, but I do not think you could get a perfect way of working it. You have to put good and bad men together, you cannot get all men of one build, and very often the way they work the roads here, the men do not know what price they are going to get for the work till it is done. They do not know what price they are to get per yard for shifting the stuff. I know they have put days in their time-sheet when they have not been working at all, and afterwards said they made 16s. and 17s. a day, whereas, according to the time-sheet, it was 9s. and 10s. lam only speaking of an experience I heard of five or six years ago. It may be improved since, but I have no knowledge that it is so. I think it should be made known what price they are to get for shifting stuff. I know of one case here in particular of a fencing job, where the Government were giving a certain amount per chain for fencing the line in. Two good fencers came along and got a rough section, and knowing how to do the work they put it up much quicker, and they expected to get a better price, but when they sent in their time-sheet they were surprised to get the price cut down by 6d. a chain. They thought the Government beat them in this case, and they made up their minds to get at the Government next time and get a good section at the top price. 45. If you had a lease of a farm for twenty-one years, would you let it run to noxious weeds and neglect it generally ? —I would not like to, but in the last few years of the lease I would certainly take as much out of it as I could, so that the man putting my rent up and coming after me would not benefit by my work. 46. Would it pay you financially ? —Yes. 47. To neglect it for five or six years on the off-chance of getting a lower rent ? —Yes, I think so. The lower rent would pay to clear the land again. 48. Is that from your knowledge as a practical farmer ?—Yes, I have seen it done in private leases plenty of times. 49. As a practical farmer you say it would pay you to let the farm run to noxious weeds for six years, and a probable reduction in rent would pay you to clear that land again ?—You might crop it very badly and let it get foul of twitch or sorrel, and make the land look bad, and it is not very expensive to clear in this district. 50. Do you not think it would pay you better to farm the land well right through the lease ?—And have the satisfaction of paying a higher rent. 51. You might get a lower rent under revaluation ?—You might. 52. Take the Flaxbourne for instance, it is bought on the top market ?—The market might go higher in the next few years. 53. And might be lower (—Yes. 54. And if there was revaluation the tenants would get it at a lower rent ?—And if it went higher they would have to pay a higher rent. It stands this way: that the good settler would get his rent put up, and nobody would want the land of the bad settler that allowed it to go wrong. 55. Mr. Johnston.] How long have you been in this district ?—Six years. 56. And that is your only knowledge of Marlborough ?—Yes. 57. Where were you before ?—Canterbury. 58. Are you a delegate from the Farmers' Union I—No. 59. Do you belong to the branch ?—The branch is extinct here. 60. You say it would be better with the freehold ?—I said I thought the freehold would be better for the country. Ido not think it makes much difference to the individual. 61. Do you know any freeholds without mortgages ?—Yes, plenty in Canterbury 62. Extensive ?—Yes.
C.—4
1446
[j. G. ARMSTRONG;
63. What district ?—North Canterbury. 64. And the mortagaes are on the larger areas ?—Well, a big percentage. I think to a large extent where sales are taking place the new-comer generally has a mortgage, but the settlers who have been on the land for any number of years are not encumbered with mortgages. 65. Where are the runs you spoke about having gone back ?—Up at Awatere. There is one that used to belong to the Assets Board. It is the run that Mr. Bell has got now. 66. You say it has gone back?—l cannot say from my own knowledge. I have a knowledge of the condition of the country at the present time. 67. Do you know how many sheep less it is carrying ?—No, only from hearsay. 68. What weeds are prevalent here ?—lt is very free from weeds. 69. Is there any Californian thistle ?—Scarcely any in Awatere, a little in Blenheim. 70. Any ragwort ?—No. 71. One man sold out on one of the grazing-runs : do you know what he got for it ?—No, only from hearsay. 72. Do you know what the value of his improvements were ?—No, 1 could not say. 73. What is he reputed to have got ?—Close on £1 an acre goodwill. 74. Have you got any idea of what the improvements were ?—No, I could not say from memory. He told me himself that he had got close on £1 an acre goodwill. Robert Dampier Atkinson examined. 75. The Chairman.] What are you ?—A settler holding 2,844 acres, part being on Starborough. I have a twenty-one years lease.and the rent is £240 a year, less 10 per cent. I have held it not quite twelve months. 76. Did you pay any goodwill ?—You would hardly expect a man to come from Canterbury and get a place on Starborough without paying goodwill. lam well satisfied with the place. 77. What do you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I think the majority of the settlers here are in favour of acquiring the freehold. We want that privilege because we do not wish to have the pleasure of surrendering our lease and having it put up again in order to be able to acquire it as a freehold when we might be in a position to pay for it. My lease is for twenty-one years, and perhaps in the last five years—l do not say I would do it—l might stock it to three times the number it is able to carry in order to make the place look bad and so keep outsiders from competing with me for it when I wish to take it up again. The same remark applies to the noxious weed : if it is a freehold the man will take care to keep it in order, but if it is a leasehold I might allow the weeds to spread, and I do not think the authorities would bother about enforcing the Act. Consequently when the State put it up again they would not get anything like the rent they are getting now. 78. Supposing the Government granted you this option, would it be on the present capital value or on the value at the time you purchased ?—lt ought not to be on the present value because I reckon that after twenty-one years we have paid for the land, and I think it is only right the present occupier should have the privilege of renewing at the present rent. The improvements at the end of our lease might have cost £5,000, and we might be very lucky if we got £500 for them. 79. Supposing they offered you something which was quite inadequate, you could demand that the lease should be put up to arbitration ?—That is going to cost us a few pounds. 80. It would not be much if your improvements were of a high value ?—lt would not be if we had the right of renewal at the end of our lease. 81. You practically have that under the small-grazing-run system ?—I do not think it would be fair to charge it on the present value. The pioneer is entitled to a big concession over an outsider coming in later. Even if we buy a man out we have to pay him a certain amount of goodwill for improvements, and certainly after twenty-one years we shall not get the same amount for them that we paid. 82. Well, the pioneer has got his reward when he has sold out ?—Yes, but we are entitled to that reward as well as he. I paid him for his improvements and for his goodwill, and I have as much right to also get paid for them as he has. 83. Supposing at the end of the twenty-one years the price of sheep and wool has gone up, then the goodwill will be worth a good deal more than what you paid for it, and if you sold out you would get a very good profit. On the other hand if prices went down the goodwill would disappear, and something more probably ?—lt just comes to the difference of buying when things are at the top and when things are of medium value. That is the difference between Starborough and Flaxbourne at present. Land has gone up to top price, and it remains to be seen how it will turn out. If sheep keep up, the tenants will be able to renew at the present rents of Flaxbourne, but if they drop to 4s. a head the Government will know all about it. 84. Have you had any experience of Land Boards ?—There are good men on the Boards and inferior men, but I think the settlers ought to have the privilege of having their own representatives on a Board. A man in the Kaikoura district cannot know anything about the Starborough Settlement, and what would a man from Picton know about Kaikoura. There are two different classes of land in those districts, and a man has to have a certain amount of tact and common-sense to do his duty on the Land Board. I would suggest that we in this district should have a representative on the Board, and other parts should have representatives also. 85. Then in the case of the large districts like Canterbury you would have quite a little Parliament \ Yes. Regarding Canterbury, my .experience is that the Land Board there are not cognisant of what the majority of the settlers want or with the majority of the country runs, in fact they could not get tc some of those runs. They know where they are on the map, but as for seeing them they could not do it.
B. D. ATKINSON.]
1447
0.—4.
86. I must correct you there. I know as a matter of fact that the Land Board which was in existence two or three years ago, traversed nearly every run in Canterbury ?—I do not think they were ever on Askid Run, at the head of the Hurunui. I think they got as far as the lake when it came on to rain and they went across to the Lake Station. I happened to be there at the time. 87. My knowledge of some of those gentlemen—l refer to Mr. McMillan and others—was that they took nothing on trust, but were the most painstaking men ?—Mr. McMillan had sufficient knowledge of that country that it was not necessary for him to go over it, because he had a lease of the adjoining station, the Lake. 88. Do you know of any pressure of conditions on the settlers ?—I do not think there are any. If a man buys land he ought to be able to live on it. 89. Mr. Anstey.~\ On what terms do you wish to acquire the freehold of this land ?—On the original valuation. 90. Supposing it has gone up in value, do you still wish to acquire it at its original value ?— Yes. 91. Supposing it went down in value, would you be willing to be compelled to purchase it ?—Yes, at the original value. 92. Do you think it would be fair to compel everybody to do that ?—I do not think so. The option is what I ask for. 93. If the runs go up in value you want to buy, but if they go down in value you want the State to take the loss ?—No, but I think we should have the option of acquiring the freehold. 94. Upon what franchise would you elect the Land Boards %—I think the different settlements ought to have their representatives on the Board. Starborough and Flaxbourne would have the one representative. 95. Do you mean the Crown tenants %—Yes, 96. You would not allow anybody but Crown tenants to vote for them ?—No, the Crown tenant is as much entitled to representation on the Board as the freeholder and townspeople. 97. Supposing you were the owner of a large estate, would you allow the tenants to elect their own steward ?—I would like them to elect their representative to meet me. 98. Who is going to elect the balance ?—The Government are bound to elect some. 99. How many ? —That requires thinking over. I would not name a special number. 100. Mr. Paul.] You have not thought over it sufficiently to say what would be the maximum or minimum number to sit on the Land Board ? —I think we are entitled to one representative on the Board, the same as different districts are entitled to representatives on the Road Boards. Why should the members of the Land Board come from one district % 101. Are not the present members representing the whole district as nearly as possible ? —They are fairly representative, or would be so, if outside influence was left out of it. Then there would be a big improvement. 102. Would you extend the elective principle to Magistrates and Judges ? —Yes ; if they were settlers on the different settlements. 103. You know quite well that the Land Boards are administrative bodies more than anything else and administer the law as they find it. The Magistrates and Judges also administer the law as they find it. Do you think it would be well to elect the Stipendiary Magistrates ? —One of them, where there are several on a body for a large district. 104. You advocate the option of the freehold being given to Crown tenants, and you admit that Starborough is a success and Flaxbourne may be a success or a failure. Do you think it would be detrimental to the best interests of the State if, supposing the freehold were granted, Starborough was all bought up and Flaxbourne was left on the hands of the Government ?—Certainly not. 105. You think it is quite right that the tenants should buy all the good bargains and leave the bad bargains on the hands of the State ?—I do not. The system of grouping encourages that. 106. What would you suggest to get over that difficulty ?—lf the Government had taken Flaxbourne years ago, when it was offered to them at a decent price, there would not be the cry now. 107. We have to take the position exactly as we find it. Starborough and Flaxbourne belong to the Government, and we want to safeguard the interests of the State. Can you suggest any method to get over the difficulty ?—Yes, I can ; that the Government should be mighty cautious what estates they purchase. 108. But it is not a matter of what the Government should do in the future. We have certain estates on our hands, Flaxbourne and Starborough are two of them : you can see the difficulty that, if the option is given, Starborough might be all purchased and Flaxbourne left on the hands of the State ; and the tendency might be that the rents would have to be reduced on Flaxbourne ?—Yes, undoubtedly ; and why should they not be reduced, because through the mismanagement of the Government there has been a considerable amount added to the price of Flaxbourne per acre. 109. Do you think it would be wise to overstock your small grazing-run in the last three vears on the off-chance of getting a low rent at the renewal of the lease ?—Yes. 110. Supposing a practical grazier came along and found your place overstocked he would know exactly the position and you might lose on the transaction ?■ —I would like to see the man who would go across my country and tell me how many sheep I have got on it. 111. If you increased the number of members of the Land Board, would you increase the salaries ? —I would make the position hononarj and do away with the salaries altogether. 112. Mr. Johnston.] How long have you been in possession of this run ?—About twelve months. 113. Where did you come from ? —Cust, in Canterbury. 114. What did you pay for the goodwill ? —I never worked it out. 115. What did you pay for the run ?—About £5,000 with the law expenses.
C.—4.
1448
E. D. ATKINSON.
116. What improvements are on it? —I could not tell you from memory. I have not got my book with me. 117. Do you mean to say you can give me no idea of the value of the improvements '? —Something about £1,500. 118. The Chairman.'] Did that include stock ?—Yes, everything ; lock, stock, and barrel. 119. Mr. Johnston.] What stock do you carry ? —Two thousand two hundred. 120. Is that your average carrying-capacity or your present carrying-capacity ? —I have only been there about twelve months. That is all I have on the place now. 121. What do you shear ? —Two thousand six hundred ; but those were dry sheep, and nearly all of mine are wet which makes a difference. 122. You practically said that you would be dishonest enough to let your farm go to weeds for the purpose of having the rent reduced or having it revalued ?—I did not say that I would do it, but I could do it and ought to do it to protect myself. 123. That would be honest ? —lt is all fish that comes to a good many nets, and I do not suppose it makes any difference in the case of mine. 124. When you bought this run you knew the tenure and what you were doing ?—Yes. 125. You know the value of a run ?—I have a fair idea. 126. You bought it with the expectation of being able to get your capital out of it before the end of the term ?—I did not expect to lose anything on it. 127. You did not pay your £5,000 with the expectation of not being able to get it at the end oi your lease ? —Certainly not; I expected to get that or the equivalent before my lease was up. 128. Then the run must be worth a little bit more than you paid for it ? —lt just depends on how it is improved. Surface-sowing will improve it and will make it carry more sheep. 129. At the end of your lease you hope to get £5,000, including your stock ?—Yes. 130. And interest and compound interest to make your investment secure ? —Yes. 131. Then your run is worth a little bit more than Is. 9d. an acre now ?—lt is as long as sheep keep up. 132. You have taken the risk of years now as to whether sheep will keep up, or you would not have given this rent ? —I have a chance of getting that back in the fifteen years to run. 133. If you include the goodwill and the interest and compound interest on it, you will find that it will run out to a little more than Is. 9d. an acre for the term of your lease ?—Undoubtedly. 134. Therefore, your land is worth a little more than Is. 9d. an acre at present ? —1 dare say it is worth more than that. 135. Well, you want to get a run out of the Government at the capital value ? —I want to make it freehold. 136. Because it pays you well ? —I do not know why you say that. Naturally, every British subject wishes to have his own house a freehold. 137. Would you have been able to take this run up for cash if it had been a freehold ?—Yes. 138. Why did you not buy a freehold run ?—Because everything is at the top of the tree now. 139. You thought it better business to take up a lease in perpetuity and then turn round and ask for the freehold ? —No, sir. Mine is only a twenty-one-years small grazing-run. 140. You make the assertion that outside influence is being used on the Land Boards : can you tell me within your knowledge where such has been the case ? —I did not say any particular member. 141. You made the statement and you are on your oath. Let us know where outside influence has been used ?—I meant to say that the appointments to the Land Board did not altogether seem to be in keeping with the position that the Land Board is held up to in the district. It appears that the Government appoint so many to the different districts. Ido not say it for a fact, but we all understand, and are left to suppose, that there is a certain amount of influence brought to bear to get certain men appointed as members of the Board and on the men who are appointed. 142. Have you ever known of any one instance of a member of a Land Board misusing his position on" the Board ?—No. Henry Lissaman examined. 143. The Chairman.] What are you % —A settler holding 3,077 acres on Starborough. lam paying Is. 9d. an acre rent and have been there six years, that is, from the start. I find it suitable for my purpose. lam satisfied with the tenure, but I think we should have the privilege of making it a freehold under the option of purchase. I think the present tenure is a fair one, but I prefer the option. 144. Have you any views as to the constitution of Land Boards ?—I have had very little experience of them excepting the last six years here. They have dealt fairly with me, but I think we should have a representative on the Board and that it should be partly nominated and partly elected. 145. What franchise would you elect them on ?—I think the settlers should have the election of a representative as settlers. 146. You do not mean the Crown tenants only ? —No, the country settlers. You could have it as a Road Board election —that is, the country ratepayers. 147. Do you find the residence conditions at all irksome ?—No. 148. You have very little to do with the Crown Lands Ranger ? —He makes his periodical visits. 149. Have you any weeds on your place ? —Yes; sweetbriar, which is the pest of the Awatere. 150. Have you tried to keep it down ? —Yes, when I can get labour, but it is very hard to get labour when you want it. I have teen trying to get men for the last three months. 151. Is the sweetbriar extending or being kept in check ?—lt is extending. I think the Government should offer a decent bonus to any one who can find the means of eradicating it. The £500 which they offer at the present time is absurdly low, and if it were made something like £50,000 it would pay the Government and the individual who found the means of eradicating it. It goes up the gullies to the tops of the hills wherever there is any dampness.
H. LISBAMAN.]
1449
0.—4.
152. Could it be eradicated by continually cutting it ? —We have tried it, but it is only fairly successful. The roots will come up again. We find now that there is a kind of red blight on it, which is smothering the trees and killing a great portion. Those it does not kill it weakens and they cannot get the growth. 153. Your remark implies that cutting is a good thing ?—Yes, provided it is done at the right time —that is, when the plant is in bloom. 154. It is disseminated a good deal by the birds ? —Birds, pigs, cattle. Sheep less than anything. The cattle are very bad. 155. Mr. McLennan.] Would you be prepared to pay for having the privilege of the option of the freehold ?—Yes ; if my country was worth more. If it was worth less I should expect the Government to reduce it. ] 56. Supposing you were given full value for your improvements, would you be prepared to have the section put up to ballot so that others could compete with you for it ?—I do not think so. I would sooner stick to my lease, or pay the extra, and have the option of taking the freehold. 157. Perhaps others would like the option of taking it also ?—We have had the labour of making it what it is, and therefore we should have the offer of the first chance. 158. What improvements do you make ?—There is one you never get any compensation for and that is what they call the unearned increment, but it is not all unearned. We have to break this country in and a lot of the increased value we have made ourselves. It is a thing you cannot put a valuation on. When we took this country up we were told by a great many people that we were mad to do so, and we should be done for" in less than five years ; if we liked to put our money into it and to make it what it is now surely we should have something of the increased value. 159. Do you not think some of your neighbours have helped to make that increased value ?—We were told that it was going to be a rank failure, and I was told I was a fool for taking it up, and I was given so-many years to leave it. Everywhere my neighbours have had what I had myself. 160. At the present time, you have no claim for the option of the freehold ?—No. 161. Seeing that it is of more value to you to have the option, should you not be prepared to pav something for the privileges I—No, Ido not think we should go into competition with others. I think we should have the option of taking it up. 162. Have you had anything to do with the Advances to Settlers Office ?—No. 163. Do you think it is advisable to give Crown tenants full control of their farms after residing for, say, ten years, and making certain improvements ? —I think they should have full control before ten years. 164. Mr. Anstey.] In what way would you like the additional value assessed if you acquired the freehold ?—lt would be a matter to be settled by arbitration. 165. Why do you particularly wish the freehold ?—lt is better for the tenant and better for the country. 166. Do you think all tenants should have the option of the freehold ? —Certainly. 167. Would that apply to all descriptions of lease ?—I think so. 168. On what terms —capitalising at 5 per cent. ?—Yes, that would do. 169. Mr. Paul.] Is the Starborough Settlement a success ? —Yes. 170. Have you given much consideration to the question of giving the freehold to tenants on educational endowments ? —I have not studied that question sufficiently, but lam in favour of the country being freehold. 171. At present it would pay the State to give the freehold of these small grazing-runs ? —Yes, up to a limited area. 172. Do you think that all members of Land Boards should be honorary members ? —I think thev should be paid for their services. 173. Mr. Johnston.'] You have faith in your land if you are prepared to buy it ?—Yes. 174. What is your carrying-capacity ? —Two thousand four hundred sheep. ■175. Any cattle ? —About twenty head of cattle. 176. Have you done much improvements ? —I have made improvements. 177. Have they turned out satisfactory I—Yes.1 —Yes. 178. Are you carrying more sheep now than when you went on to the land ? —No. 179. Then your improvements have not assisted you to carry more sheep ?—No, one reason is the country had had a considerable spell before I went on to it. 180. Do you think the country has gone back ?—No. 181. When you took up the land were you satisfied with the tenure ?—Yes. 182. How long is it since you have come to the conclusion that you would like the freehold ?— I think it dawned upon me as soon as I took it up that I would like to have the freehold. 183. You can make more money out of the freehold than out of the leasehold ?—I should work my land differently if it were freehold. 184. But it would be more advantageous to you because you could make more money out of it ? — Yes, to a great extent. I am, however, satisfied with my tenure, but I would prefer the freehold. You do not feel in the case of the leasehold that you have a secure tenure. 185. Did you not have that feeling before you took up your land ?—Yes. 186. But it has come on you of late again ? —Yes, and a lot of us have that feeling. 187. Why %—Because they are always talking of revaluation. 188. They could not revalue except at the termination of the lease ? —They can pass an Act of Parliament and upset our lease at any t'me. 189. You do not think the Government are going to repudiate their own leases ?—I do. 190. Then would they not just as likely repudiate the freehold ?—They have done so already.
Ib2 —C. 4.
1450
[h. lissaman.
a—4.
191. Then what does it matter if they are going to repudiate both ?—I do not believe that the Crown tenants of Starborough are going to have their leases at the present rents for 999 years. 192. You really believe that the Government are going to repudiate their contract in that respect ? —Yes, and that is the opinion of many of us. 193. With respect to what is called the unearned increment, do you think you are entitled to that : —I think I am entitled to a portion of it. 194. Would you give the large runholders the freehold ?—No. 195. Why should you give the small runholders the freehold and not the large runholders ?— I understand the policy of the Government is to cut up the large runs where that is desirable. 196. You say your land would be better farmed under freehold than under leasehold ? —Yes, I think I should look further ahead of me. Alexander Fleming examined. 197. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler, residing at Starborough. My wife and I hold a little over 1,000 acres, and our rent is for one portion 3s. 2d., and for another portion 2s. 9d. I have been there for six years. 198. Are you satisfied with your land and with your tenure ?—I am satisfied as long as lam left alone. If I were asked if I would take the freehold I would agree to do so, but I have not been agitating for it. 199. Have you any fear of revaluation interfering with your tenure ? —Not a bit. 200. Are you satisfied with the Land Board ? —I have no complaints to make against it, but I think the Crown tenants should elect two members of it. 201. Upon what franchise '—The Crown tenants to elect two and the Government nominate two. 202. Have you any objections to the residence conditions ?—No, but I think that in some of the back blocks where a man has a family, he should be exempt from residence for a certain time as long as he is a bond fide settler. 203. Would you give the Land Board discretion to say when the restrictions should be relaxed <— Yes. 204. Have you any experience of the working of the Advances to Settlers Office ? —I have a small loan. They did not give me half enough, and there was more trouble in getting than what ic was worth. 205. What interest did you pay Four and a half per cent. 206. Have you found that borrowing privately you cannot get money so cheaply ?—That is so, but the expenses in connection with the Advances to Settlers loan in the case of a small sum are too high. 207. Mr. McLennan.] What is your opinion in regard to cropping restrictions ?—I am pleased enough in my own case, but in the case of good land, I think there ought to be different croppingrestrictions. 208. Do you think it would be advisable to give tenants a free hand after making certain improvements and residing a certain number of years on the property ? —Yes, I think that after residing six or seven years, and after making substantial improvements, they should be given a free hand. 209. In your opinion, would 33 per cent, of the capital value be sufficient improvements - No, I should say 50 per cent. 210. Mr. Paul.] Have you had any experience of borrowing privately ?—Yes, 1 have borrowed money privately, but not on improvements. In the case of the loan from the Advances to Settlers Office, the cost of a small loan was so great that it was not worth the trouble. 211. You cannot tell us the total amount of your costs ? —No. 212. Did you borrow privately on land I—No.1 —No. 213. You cannot say which is the more moderate cost —that of borrowing privately or from the Advances to Settlers Office ? —I believe that things are now better in regard to borrowing from the Advances to Settlers Office. . 214. Mr. Johnston.] In regard to members of the Land Board, would you be satisfied if the (government nominate one of their tenants as representing holders of lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 215. As long as you have a representative of the class of tenure you hold you would be satisfied ?— Ygg David Foesyth Fleming examined. 216 The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler at Starborough, and hold about 1,000 acres, and lam paying 2s. IOJd. for one portion, and 3s. 3d. for the other. My brother and I have been there from the beginning. . 217. Do you generally concur in what your brother has said ?—Yes, generally speaking. 218. Do you wish to supplement what he said ?—We have no claim for the freehold, but I would like to have the option of the freehold, paying off the money as we can ; and if we cannot get the freehold, I would like the opportunity of reducing the capital value of it so as to make the rent smaller. 219. While you say that, I presume you are not so extremely anxious for the freehold that you would pay any more for it ?—No. 220. You think that the capital value on which you are paying rent is quite enough '.—Yea, I think so, taking it over a number of years. 221. How are you off for roads to your place ?—We have roads now, but we have most 4 of the heavy work done. I think that roads and railways should be pushed on ahead of settlement.!^For the first two years before the roads are any good most of the work is done—you have to ft sledge and pack. If the roads were madejbeforehand it would be a benefit to the settler. When the Government gazetted the land to be takenjjat Flaxboume they should|have begun the roads then and the settlers could have got on to it, but will have to wait. 222. Are your relations with the Land Board satisfactory ? Yes.
1). F. FLEMING.'
1451
C—4.
223. Do you agree with your brother's views that the settlers might be represented by one member by nomination or election ?—I do not know that I would. As long as we get good practical men who understand the land, Ido not think I would alter the system. If I was a landlord, I would not like to be dictated to by my tenants. 224. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—I am of the same opinion as my brother. It was rather expensive for the amount we got at that time. 225. I believe he did remark that it is a little better now ?—Yes, I hear it is. 226. Have you found any difficulty in regard to the working of the ballot system]?— No. I do not believe in this grouping system. I think if they could do away with the putting-down of a deposit it would be better. With five hundred or six hundred applicants each one has to put down a deposit, and I think if the successful tenant did that it would be sufficient and save a lot of trouble and inconvenience. 227. It is a protection for the bond fide settler ?—They are all examined before the ballot, and they could weed them out then. It is only the inconvenience of the settlers living at a distance sending money, and I have heard of a large number who do not like it. I think it is unnecessary trouble. 228. Mr. Anstey.] How are the cropping conditions ?—They are all right so far as I am concerned, for all the cropping I do. 229. Have you had any dealings with the Land Board ?—Very little. 230. Have your relations always been satisfactory ?—Yes, very satisfactory indeed. 231. Are the members practical farmers ?—Some of them are —not all of them. 232. Have you been over the Flaxbourne Estate ?—Yes, the other day. 233. Do you know what rents are charged on the different sections ?—Not exactly—l know the general run of them. 234. Are they high or reasonable in your opinion ?—They are reasonable enough taking them at this time, but taking them for the last ten years I think they are very high. 235. How are the sections divided—are they in suitable areas ?—I would not have cut them so small. 236. You think the small ones are too small ?—Yes. 237. What size do you think is a fair one I—lt depends on the quality of the land. I might say that I believe, instead of limiting the area, they should make it a monetary value of the land—if it is £10-an-acre land they should make it a monetary limit instead of an acreage limit. 238. Do you think 50, 70, 80, or 90 acres are suitable for that class of land ?—No, I do not think so where they are—they are too far away. 239. What about the grazing-runs, how many sheep would the grazing-runs carry in order to give a man a living ?—I would not like to take one that would not carry a thousand sheep. 240. And what size do you think the cultivable land ought to be ?—lt all depends on the quality of the land. Of course 100 acres of some land would be a good farm, and 500 acres of some other land would not be. 241. Is there any land at Flaxbourne good enough at 100 acres ?—No, not for a man to make a living. 242. Should the average be less than 300 acres for cultivable land ?—No, I think 300 acres is small enough for the quality of the land at Flaxbourne. 243. Mr. Paul.] Do you know what the expenses were for obtaining that loan ?—No, I do not. We could have got it for 7 per cent. 244. Mr. Johnston.] You say the rents in Starborough are too high ?—No, I did not say so. 245. Do you know if any settlers here borrow from the local money-lending firms on their lease-in-perpetuity leases ?—I do not know. 246. You have not had any experience of it ?—No. 247. You said you thought the Flaxbourne areas are too small ?—Some of them are—l do not say all of them are. 248. These small sections are too small. Mr. Anstey asked you whether you did not think there should be about 300 acres. Do you not think a farmer does better on a fair-sized area than on a large area ?—Yes, I think so. I think it is better to have one or two good settlers than one struggling along. Frederick Samuel Barnes examined. 249. The Chairman.'] Are you a farmer in Starborough ?—Yes, and between myself and my wife we hold something over 1,000 acres. 250. What sections have you ?—Sections 10 and 12, Block XXII. 251. Are you the original settler ?—Yes. 252. What rent are you paying for section 10 %—4s. 3d. 253. And Section 12 ?—3s. 254. Are you satisfied with your land and tenure ?—Yes, I am quite satisfied. 255. What is your opinion about the constitution of the Land Boards ?—I am quite satisfied with the Land Board. I have no fault to find with it. 256. And in the matter of the tenure you are quite satisfied as regards your own personal experience ?—Yes. 257. I suppose you would not refuse the freehold if it was offered to you ?—No. 258. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—No. 259. And with regard to the working of the ballot system, there was no difficulty in your case (— No, no difficulty. 260. Have you got any roads ?—Yes. 261. Do you feel the restrictions grevious ?—I object to the cropping restrictions. I think the conditions are too hard and fast.
1452
C.—4.
[F. S. BAENES.
262. Do you feel that if you wished you should have more than two white crops before putting down a crop in grass ?—Yes, I think in some cases a man should be allowed more than two white crops. 263. Do you find that in your own farm, if you were free to do what you liked, you would have gone in for more white crops ?'■—Yes. 264. Did you apply to the Land Board to allow you to so ?—Yes. 265. Did they refuse ?—No. 266. Then you were allowed to do it ?—Yes. 267. Did you think it any humiliation to go to the Land Board and ask ?—No. I think it would be better if it was left to the discretion of the Ranger, and after a man had been on it for some time to crop it as he liked. It would seem more like as if the land was your own and you were the farmer on it and not the Crown. 268. Is there anything you would like to mention to the Commission ?—-No, nothing else. 269. Mr. McLennan.'] In your opinion would it not be desirable that the tenants should have a free hand after making a certain amount of improvements, and after residing on the land for ten years ?— Ten years is rather too long a term. 270. By that time they would be thorough good farmers supposing they were not farmers when they started—they would learn a lot in that time ? —Yes. 271. They would learn sufficient so that the Government would have confidence in them ?—I do not think it would take ten years to teach a man to farm his land. 272. It is better to be on the right side ?—Yes, possibly. 273. Would you farm your land if you had a free hand just as well as if it were your own ?—Yes. 274. You do not make any difference if it had been freehold ?—None at all. 275. Mr. Anstey.] How are the settlers doing—are they, generally speaking, prosperous ?—I think fairly prosperous. 276. Mr. Johnston.] What is your carrying-capacity ?—I crop a bit and carry about seven hundred or eight hundred sheep. 277. On both places ?—Yes. 278. How much do you crop ?—Three hundred acres. 279. Mr. McLennan.'] What kind of crop do you grow ?■—Principally barley. 280. Do you grow any wheat ?—Yes, a little. 281. How does it do ?—Pretty well. 282. How many bushels to the acre ?—You cannot depend on more than twenty-five. 283. What about oats ?—There is very little oats threshed in this district. 284. Do you put the barley in one furrow or fallow the ground ?—I prefer to put it in one furrow. You would not get a crop at all if you fallowed—it would go into straw. 285. Mr. Johnston.] What is the yield of barley ?—About 30 bushels. George McLeod Gunn examined. 286. The Chairman.] What are you ?—A farmer in this district, and hold 434 acres in the Starborough Settlement. 287. What section ?—Section 8, Block XXII. 288. What rent are you paying ?—6s. 3d. 289. Are you an original settler ? —Yes, and have been here six years. 290. Are you satisfied with the section and with the tenure ?—Yes. 291. You have been here during the hearing of the evidence ?—I have. 292. You have heard the general remarks of the settlers, and is there any particular point you wish to mention ?—Yes, in regard to cropping restrictions. After a tenant has been on a section a number of years he should be given a certain amount of discretionary power. 293. Did you ever find any necessity to depart from the conditions ? —Of course, as it is laid down in the conditions, you take two white crops and one green crop. The farmers prefer to have sometimes one white crop, then a green crop, and then a white crop. 294. Have you approached the Land Board with regard to that ?—No, I have not. 295. You heard what Mr. Barnes said on that point ?—I am quite in accord with Mr. Barnes in that respect. 296. Do you agree with the present constitution of the Land Boards ?—Yes, I think so. Ido not think the number of members wants to be increased —it is only an expense to the country. 297. Have you any decided views about the tenure —what sort of tenure is best for the country as a rule ?—Everybody I suppose would like the freehold if he had money to pay for it. 298. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Department ?—No. 299. Mr. McLennan.] What stock do you carry I—l carry about four or five hundred sheep during the season, besides crop. 300. I suppose you would have a third in crop every year ? —I have not cropped very extensively this year ; I have about 120 acres. 301. And how many acres altogether ?—Four hundred and thirty-four. 302. What crop do you grow ?—I grow turnips in the winter time. 303. What kind ? —Most of the early kinds here. 304. Do you grow any swedes ?—No, we find the climate too dry for them. 305. Only purple-tops ?—Yes r and other kinds 306. Do you grow any rape ? —Yes, the rape does very well. 307. Do you try wheat ?—Yes, but I do not think this is good country for wheat after what my experience has been in Canterbury. 308. Have you tried to grow potatoes ? —Yes, but not successfully
G. M. GTJNN.]
1453
C.—4
309. Do they grow rough ?—Not very rough, but do not come to the size. 310. You do not put any manure with them ? —Not a great deal. The land being virgin land they do not put much manure in. 311. Do you sow grass with the barley ? —I did last year. 312. How did it do ? —Very well. We had a very good season here last year, but I believe as a rule it would be as well if the grass was sown by itself. 313. Mr. Anstey.] Is there anything in the conditions of your lease which prevents you from farming to the best advantage ? —No, there is nothing particularly, only the conditions as to the two white crops. 314. Do you think the lease in perpetuity helps the small man to get on the land ?—Yes, I think it is a very good system. 315. If you had the freehold system do you think it would help the small man to get on the land as easy as the lease in perpetuity ? —No. I think the lease-in-perpetuity system is the best, although as things are going at the present time I do not think the small man has the same show that he had some years ago ; they are making the conditions more strict before you take up land. 316. Mr. Paul.'] Has the subdivision of these estates and consequent closer settlement benefited the district at all ?—To a considerable extent. 317. Mr. Johnston.'] What does the barley yield ?— Abour 30 bushels. Last year I think it was up to 40 and 50 bushels. 318. Do you know Canterbury ? —Yes, very well. 319. Do you know the land that has been taken under the Land for Settlements Act ? —I have a general knowledge of it. I have seen some of the land. 320. Do you think it is a success I—l1 —I think it is a great success. 321. That land would have been practically idle in the hands of large holders if it had not been for the Land for Settlements Act ?—Yes, I suppose it would still be in the hands of large owners. 322. Mr. McLennan.] What part of the country were you in ? —I was in the Courtenay district. 323. Were you cropping there ? —Yes. I have been farming in the colony for the last thirty years ; our land in Canterbury was freehold. 324. You were not leasing any land for cropping ? —No. John George Armstrong recalled. 325. The Chairman.] You wish to make a further statement ? —I would just like to give the Commission my idea of what the freehold should be based on. As far as the 999-years lease is concerned there is only one basis on which it can be granted, and that is on the old valuation. No one with a 999-years lease is going to submit to revaluation even if it is worth more. His own lease is already a marketable commodity, and the Government would not get more if they put the land up to the present capital value. I noticed that one member of the Commission suggested that if the Government sold out the good estates, the estates that the settlers considered were not worth buying would be left on their hands. Ido not think that is so. They have no right to revalue the land during the 999 years, and they cannot raise the rent until that time is up. I think, if a settler was given the right of purchase in time to come, it should be given on this basis : the old valuation after 999 years' lease with a percentage added of, say, 5 or 10 per cent., and that would form a fund to clear the Government of any loss they might be at on certain properties. 326. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think the farms at Flaxbourne were cut into suitable areas ? —I think that when the first plan came out the areas were a little too large. They were mostly cut into 800acre sections in the case of the lease-in-perpetuity land, and the others into about 200- or 300-acre sections. Now I think they have gone to the opposite extreme and cut them too small. I believe in a lot of little sections about the township for workmen's homes and business people, so that they can have a little bit of land adjacent to the township to run their horses and cows. That is the great fault of Seddon Township ; there is absolutely no paddock accommodation to be got there unless you rent it from a settler when you have to pay through the nose for it. 327. What is about the size of these sections ?—The country, like the Haldons, could be cut so as to carry six hundred sheep —that would be about seven hundred ewes. 328. What is your opinion about the number of these sections which are cut into 50-, 80-, and 90acre blocks ?—I do not think they are any good at all, they are not one thing or another. 329. Is there any of the land suitable for dairying ? —None whatever, excepting a little piece where the swamps are, but there is not enough to warrant the establishment of a dairy factory. The country dries up too much. 330. What size would the grazing-runs be cut into ?—A grazing-run which would carry a thousand sheep is not too expensive to work, but the rougher the country the larger should be the area. 331. Mr. Paul.] You said that the Government had no interest in the lease in perpetuity ; that the settler had it, and it was a marketable commodity, and that he traded with it ? —Yes. 332. If you had die option of the freehold could you sell your section to better advantage ?— A little, perhaps, because I would have what is regarded in the public eye as a more secure tenure. 333. Then there is a value that would accrue to your section if you had the option of the freehold ? —A slight value, but in giving me that slight value it would be a loss to the Government, excepting when the thousand years were up. 334. You propose that the tenants should get the freehold. That is a remission of the original conditions, and there is an opportunity for the State to square up the whole business in the case of good bargains, and there would be no hardship to the tenant, and in the case of bad bargains the tenant might get the land at a lower price ?—I do not think so. Ido not think there should be any land sold
C.—4.
1454
|J. Q. ABMSTBONG.
formless than the capital value, but if bad times ensued there should be something to make up the loss. The settler goes on the land at his own wish, he is not compelled to go there. P 53 335. Would you make no reduction on any section after the option of the freehold was given ?— I would not say that. If a man wanted to buy his place—supposing it was too dear to be bought — as long as he rented it I should say the Government could not sell it at less than the original price, but. if they forfeited the section they should have some fund to meet the deficiency. Ido not think they should reduce the rent. 336. In the case of good bargains, you think they should require a slight increased percentage with it if the option was given ?—Yes. 337. Mr. Johnston.'] You say there is a very slight increase : do you not think that Mr. Atkinson paid £1,200 for his goodwill in the case of the 3,000 acres he bought ?—Probably he did. Ido not know what he paid. 338. That is 10s. an acre, and a very fair advance is it not ?—lt is a considerable advance. 339. Generally speaking there is an advance all round on Starborough ?- Yes. 340. If that land went back into the hands of the Government to-morrow they could get a very large increase on it ?—Certainly. 341. That means the land has increased in value over and above improvements ? —Yes. 342. Mr. Paul.] I asked you whether there was not a slight increase above the present goodwill if you got the option of freehold ?—I think there is. I think I could sell it better.
Blenheim, Saturday, 24th June, 1905. Andrew James Curry examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ?—A carpenter in Blenheim. I have been here twenty-one years. I own no land. I represent the Carpenters, Plumbers, Painters, and Bricklayers' Industrial Union of Workers. There are sixty members in the union. 2. What do you wish to bring before us ?—The workers believe in the lease in perpetuity as at present constituted as it gives people of moderate means a chance to get on the land. They do not think it right to give the present leaseholders the freehold as it would mean breaking faith with those who have got no land at the present time, and it would break up the leasehold system, which is one of the best things ever brought into law in New Zealand. In the event of it being decided to give the option to the leaseholders we consider that it should be given according to the value at the present time and not on the original valuation. In the case of the workers they have a hard struggle in the towns now, and special facilities should be given for married men with families to take up land in such settlements as Flaxbourne. A single man can go and live there for 2s. 6d. a week, but a married man cannot do so. We think if the Government would put up a cottage on these sections to the value of say, £200, and interest to be paid accordingly, with a 1 per cent, sinking fund to wipe off the cost, it would be the means of helping us very much. We consider that the Act hardly goes far enough in that direction at present. 3. How much land do you think ought to be attached to these cottages ?—lt would depend on'the locality. Estates have been cut up cheaply a long way from town, but in the event of the railway going into Flaxbourne, I think if sections for workers' homesteads were cut up into 40-, 50-, or 70-acre blocks it would give men the opportunity of getting a living. 4. Do you not think if the Government would give, say, half, the worker could find the other part ? —I think the workers would be only too glad to do that. The main thing would be to get up a shelter so that the worker could start to use his section. 5. Do you think a man could go up to Flaxbourne and take up 50 or 60 acres and make a living on it ?—Yes ; for the reason that it is a new settlement, and being a tradesman he has the opportunity of- getting work around the neighbourhood. 6. We were out there yesterday, and in the vicinity of the woolshed the Government have cut up sections varying from sto 70 acres: do you think that would be sufficient for your purpose ? —Yes ; I think there would be work for men there. 7. Do you know of any who are going in for the Flaxbourne land %—Yes, some of the carpenters. 8. Mr. Paul.] Is there any demand for land for workmen's homes close to Blenheim ?—There would be a great demand, for the simple reason that the work is here, but the price of land around the town is inflated and it is out of their means to get land. 9. Are there many workers renting homes ?—Not a great number in my class. They are struggling with a monkey on their backs and trying to pay for the little property they have got. Some who have large families growing up are not in a good position. Those with small families are in a better position. 10. Do you think it would be better if, instead of struggling with a monkey on their back, they leased a small plot, built a house, and paid a small ground-rent ?—Yes ; if they were under the Government, because they would get better terms from the Government than they would from a private individual. The latter do not want to lease the land if they can sell it, but I claim that it is at an inflated price. There is some property about Marlborough that you could get for workmen's homes, and there is a demand for such places due to the opening-up of the country here. 11. With regard to the lease in perpetuity there is a demand for revaluation. It is proposed in some quarters to revalue existing'leases, and in other quarters to apply it to leases issued in future. Some people say where contracts are entered into between the State and the tenants those contracts should be rigidly adhered to. What is your view of that matter ?—We say that as the Government have entered into a contract to give the lease for 999 years it is unfair that they should further tax or revalue the property. On the other hand it is said that the weak point of the lease is that there
A. J. CUBBY.]
1455
0.—4.
is no provision for revaluation at the end of reasonable terms. Some people state that in the event of the freehold being given it should be given at the unimproved value. 12. Do you think the wise course to pursue is for the State to stick to their bargain ? —I should say so. 13. With regard to revaluation of future leases, do you think it would be equitable to apply the principle to them ? —Yes, for the future. 14. For periods of twenty or thirty years ?—Yes ; for the simple reason that they have now found out where the weak point is. 15. Do you consider the workers in the towns would consider that also, those who take up land close to Blenheim on lease ?—I think so. They would not get it otherwise. 16. Then you consider that if the option of the freehold were given to Crown tenants it would be breaking faith with the landless who have helped to carry that system to its present stage, and that if the system were seriously interfered with it would be against the interests of the workers ?—I am certain of it. It is breaking faith with them. 17. Mr. McLennan.] Is your union affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council ? —No, we stand alone. 18. You had no delegate at the Wellington conference ? —No. 19. Did the revaluation come before you for discussion ? —Not the question which has been discussed in Wellington. We have just talked it over amongst ourselves. 20. Can you say whether that question has caused a great deal of unrest amongst the Crown tenants. I refer to the motion which was carried in Wellington by the conference ? —I could not say that. 21. Mr. Anstey.\ I understand you to say that the labour union you represent would have no sympathy with the resolution carried by the Trades and Labour Council in Wellington ? —I did not say that, but I believe the majority would have no sympathy with them, although that question was not discussed amongst us excepting casually. Some of us think it has gone too far and have our own opinions about it. 22. Are there any workmen's homes under the Government in the neighbourhood of Blenheim ? —No. 23. You think it would be wise for the Government to acquire some land here for the purpose ?— If they did so I think every bit would be taken up. 24. Have the workers petitioned the Government to do so ? —No. 25. What-sized areas would be suitable close to a town like Blenheim ? —I suppose they would run from J acre up. 26. Do you think a worker pure and simple would find J acre sufficient or as suitable as a large area if he were close to his work ?—Yes. 27. Have you had any experience of what such a settlement as Flaxbourne would be in regard to suitability for sections such as you refer to ?—No. The reason I mentioned a certain area was that such a settlement as Flaxbourne would be far away from a settled town, and if a man had from 50 to 70 acres there he could go in for perhaps fruit-culture or gardening in the intervals of getting work at his trade in the neighbourhood ; and in four or five years he would no doubt be able to get a living in the district at his trade, and in the meantime his garden would be bringing in a return. 28. Do you think a man could economically do anything with from 50 to 70 acres : he would have to plough it and he could not keep a team of horses % —He would have neighbours who could perhaps do the ploughing for him. 29. Is not a small area of, say, 15 acres more suitable for such a purpose as you suggest: it would be big enough to keep a cow and a horse ?—I maintain that the wages a man would earn at his trade he would like to put into the ground, and he could get his neighbours to plough the country for him. The settlers who went on Starborough are now in an independent position. 30. On 70 acres ? —No, on a larger area. 3"1. You think you could work a small section as economically as you could a fair-sized one ?— Yes, he might. 32. You cannot dig it and you would have to get a team 'Yes ; but you must remember that while the worker is working at his trade his family is growing up. 33. You have never been on land on that sort of section? — Never. 34. Mr. Johnston.'] You think the workers, if they got the opportunity, would go on the land 1— I think so. 35. How many workers have applied for the ballot in Starborough ?—I could not say. 36. Do you know of one ? —I do not know that I do. 37. Do you know of any who have applied for Flaxbourne ?—Yes. 38. How is it that the cutting-up into these small areas has not been a success down south, and that the workers, although land was cut up for their purposes, did not apply for the areas ?—I do not know the locality you refer to. 39. Mr. McLennan.\ Is there any land about Blenheim suitable for worker's homes ? —I dare say there is ; but I am afraid the price would be too great in the case of land within a reasonable distance of town. 40. Mr. Anstey.] Would not the price be too much for j-acre sections supposing you paid a large price for an estate to be cut up ?- —Yes. 41. What price would they ask for'such land ?—£4o or £50 per acre within four miles of Blenheim. 42. That would be only £10 for £ acre. Do you consider that would be too high a price for a man to pay ground-rent on on a small section ?—I do not think so. 43. I suppose it would be much better to pay £iOO an acre for land close to town for workers' homes than a small price for land further out ?—That is so.
C.—4
1456
,R. REGISTER.
Robert Register examined. 44. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a teamster. I represent the Labourers' Union. 45. Is that the same union as the last witnesses' ?—No, distinct. 46. How many members are in your union ?—Between two and three hundred. 47. Have you any land ?—I have half an acre of land in Blenheim, freehold, but there is a small mortgage on it. ... 48. What do you wish to bring before the Commission ?—I am a thorough believer in the lease in perpetuity as at present constituted. 49. You heard what the last witness said about giving men with limited means an opportunity of getting on the land, that he would not approve of any breach of contracts already entered into, but that in the future he would recommend there should be periodical revaluation. Do you agree with all that ?—J cannot agree with him as regards revaluation. I think that it tends to weaken the confidence of people who have taken up this land. lam not in favour of periodical revaluation. I believe in the lease as at present constituted, for the reason that, taking Starborough, if that land was still in the hands of the late Mr. Beaumont, it would be hardly got at a rental of £1 an acre, whereas the settlers have got it at 7s. 6d. an acre. Under the present lease a man is secure for 999 years, and that is as long as any of us wish to live. In the case of leases from private individuals, they range from five to seven years, and at the end of that term, the private landlord, if he is short of cash, comes along and raises the rent according to the improvements the tenant has put upon it. It is not so with the Government. Another matter is that if a man wishes to sell his Government lease he should be required to sell it to somebody who is not occupying any land. 50. I see that you stand for security of tenure without disturbance on the part of the Government or landlord, and that you wish to have the power to deal with land in the way of transfer and at the original rent ?—Quite so. 51. Mr. Paul.] You believe the leasehold has been of great benefit to the poor man ?—Yes, and it will be greater as time goes on. 52. You think the closer settlement of the country has been for the benefit of the mass of the people ? —Yes. 53. You think that all present contracts should be adhered to ?—Certainly. 54. You think the area of land held should be strictly limited ?—I do. 55. Do you think that can be done if the freehold is granted ?—Certainly not. 56. In the case of future leases, if there was revaluation, say, every twenty or thirty years, would that interfere with a man using his land properly ?—No, I should not say so. 57. Do you think that revaluation would be a fair principle to apply to leases let in the future ?— —Not as regards increasing the rents. If the Government think about reducing the rents no man would find fault with it. 58. You are quite well aware that the Government cannot rack-rent its tenants ; it will only charge a fair rent ?—Yes, the Government does not wish to make money out of it. They only want to settle the land profitably and make the system pay. 59. All thaat the State wants is a prosperous tenantry ?—Yes. 60. Mr. McLennan.'] Would you give the tenant a free hand in managing his farm after a certain period of residence and on his making certain improvements ?—Yes, I would remove all the present restrictions. Under those conditions, no man would destroy his land, but would work it to the best advantage. 61. In your opinion, would it make the tenant more independent and contented if he had a free hand in farming his land ?—I do. 62. Mr. Anstey.] Is your union affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council ?—No. 63. In regard to the resolution passed recently in Wellington by the Trades and Labour Council in favour of revaluing existing leases at certain periods, had your union any sympathy with that proposal ? . 64. Do you think it would be unjust ?—Yes, but lam speaking personally. 65. Is there any demand for workers' homes in the neighbourhood of Blenheim ?—Yes. lam a thorough believer in small holdings which would enable a working-man with a family and with very little capital to get one of these sections, the area to vary according to the quality of the land. 66. Would the same remark apply to Picton, that is as to the demand for workmen's homes ?— I could not say. 67. Do you think it would be necessary to buy, say, 10 acres, for this purpose. A man in constant employment could not work such a large area as that. Is there any demand for, say, J-acre sections for workmen's homes I—ln Blenheim, I consider that £ acre for a man who is engaged in regular work is as much as he can look after. 68. Is the lease in perpetuity suitable for this class of holdings ?—I should say so. 69. Would they not want the freehold ?—I should be perfectly satisfied if I had | acre under lease in perpetuity. 70. Would you put as good a house on the lease in perpetuity as on the freehold ?—Yes. 71. And you would consider it just as secure ?—Yes. Andrew Watson examined. 72. The Chairman.] What are you ?—I am a settler in Blenheim, and hold 1 acre just outside the town ; it is freehold land. I have been here for thirty-five years. I have been a tenant farmer, but at present lam following sheep-station work. I believe in the leasehold tenure. Ido not think that the present law in regard to the lease in perpetuity should be disturbed. To grant the freehold would be to make an end of it. I think it would be all right to have revaluation in regard to future
A. WATSON.I
1457
a—4.
leases. I would be afraid that if we disturb existing leases it might give the tenants an opportunity of saying " You have broken your covenant with us; give us the freehold." I could mention dozens of runs in this district where the owners keep a shepherd and a boy, and in some cases they hold 20,000 acres, and they simply pocket a thousand or two thousand pounds a year, and then go jaunting and so forth, and employ no other labour at all. 73. Are these people capable of being subdivided to advantage ?—Yes. 74. I suppose you would not care to mention them ?—I might mention the case of the Burleigh Estate, which is quite close to town. It is a run of 4,000 or 6,000 acres, held by Carter's trustees. It is undulating low downs, and is good grazing-country. The nearest boundary is two miles from Blenheim, on the left side of the road to Taylor's Pass. There are some parts that are flat and that is shingly, and some parts would not be much good for agriculture, but it would make half a dozen small sheepfarms, and there is nothing being done with it at present. It is nothing but a rabbit-warren. There is not a building on it. Although it is dry, it is splendid sheep country, because the spurs face the sun. It has been the best run about here ; the best sheep used to come off it. 75. Is there any other point you would like to bring before the Commission ?—I think the Land Board has done fairly well, but I think it ought to be elected. 76. Under what franchise ?—Under the same franchise as for members of the House of Representatives. Probably the expense would be great, but I think Land Boards are the most important public bodies in the colony. Licensing Committees are elected, and Ido not see why members of Land Boards should not also be elected. 77. Under the lease in perpetuity the people of the colony through the Government are the landlords. Do you not think the landlord shmfld be represented specifically by one or two members ?—lt might be better to have the Land Boards partly elected and partly nominated. 78. Is there any other point you would like to mention ?—I should be very sorry to see the freehold granted, because it would simply upset the whole thing. 79. You are entirely against it. You think all the land should be under leasehold ?—Yes, and I do not think the tenant should be allowed to sell out. lam against the tenant getting any goodwill. I think if he is doing all right he should be satisfied, and not be allowed to gamble with Crown lands. 80. Would there not be circumstances arise in some cases which would be extremely hard ?— He could sell out. Ido not think he should be entitled to that which the State has created. It is not the individual that has created the good times, and I think the unearned increment should belong to the colony. 81. You approve of revaluation in the future ?—Yes, in the future. 82. You would not break any contract ?—No. 83. Take the case of a man who had a lease of land on lease in perpetuity and who wants to sell out, supposing the goodwill is worth £2 an acre, you would not allow him to get that ?—No. 84. Who would get the £2 ?—Of course, you might say the next tenant would get it, but he would not. He would be living there, but he would not get the benefit of it. He would get it, but he would not be able to sell it. 85. Mr. Paul.] So far as the existing contracts are concerned, do you not think that the tenant is entitled to that £2 ?—No, I do not think he is. 86. Granted that the State made a bad bargain, is that any reason why they should alter it when they find out it is a bad bargain ?—Do you not think it is against the spirit of the Act that the tenant should have this unearned increment. 87. But the State gave it to him, and therefore he has a legal right to it ?—Would it not be gambling in land ? If he gets a good living while he is there he ought to be satisfied. He ought not to sell it to another man, and then perhaps bad times come directly afterwards, and then the other man is down on it, and that would jeopardize the State. 88. You mean to infer that the man who pays a certain rental, being the original holder—-say, for example, he pays ss. an acre—he sells out to another man and pays back the goodwill for the section, and pays the original ss. in addition, therefore the second settler is not in so advantageous a position as the first I—Yes.1 —Yes. If bad times come first the other man would be all right because he has something in hand. 89. The State gave this to the tenant, and has not the tenant a legal right to use or dispose of it as he likes ? —The State gave it with the understanding that he was to get a good living out of it, and they would give him every encouragement, but not to make a fortune. 90. But the State did not understand that he was going to live 999 years and enjoy the benefit 1 imself ; the State gave it to him for himself and his heirs ? —I am against all fortunes being made. 91. You think the community value should accrue to the State, that the tenant should have everything he creates, and the State everything it creates ?—Yes. 92. Has the closer settlement benefited the district ? —Undoubtedly. There were some lands I could take you to and you could ride right up to them and you would think they were desolated. They have a shepherd and a cowboy and 20,000 acres or more. 93. You think the Flaxbourne closer settlement will wear a different aspect than it does to-day ? —Undoubtedly. I think the State gave a bit too much for it, but as long as the times keep good I think it will pull through. 94. You are quite sure that there should be no interference with existing contracts ? —Yes, I should say so. 95. Mr.McLennan.] Do you think any of the present holders are making any fortunes out of their holdings ?—Do you mean the Starborough settlers ? 96. Yes, or any settlers under lease in perpetuity ? —Yes, we were told of a man who sold out, and he went in with £700 and took out £7,000.
183—0. 4.
a—4
1458
[A. WATSON.
97. He had to take some risk ?—Yes. 98. Things might have gone against him and he might have lost his £700 ?—Certainly, but these people, when they come down, always cry out to the Government and the Government in most caseg give them help. 99. Mr. Johnston.'] Who is this man who went in with £700 and came out with £7,000 ?—I think his name was Shapman. : "-'IOO. What section in Starborough did he have ? —One of the grazing sections. I have only heard from others. 101. Do you know who bought him out ? —No, I know he went out with a good deal of money. William Blyth Buckhurst examined. 102. The Chairman.'] What are you ? —Crown Lands Hanger for the District of Marlborough. I have held the position for five years. There are between seven and eight hundred Crown tenants in all tenures. 103. What is the principal tenure in vogue here ? —Lease in perpetuity, and closely run up by small grazing-runs as regards area. 104. Do you find the lease-in-perpetuity settlers successful I—Yes,1 —Yes, I may say this district is very successful. There are one or two instances where they are not, but most settlers have done very well. 105. In regard to the lease in perpetuity what proportion are under the Land for Settlements ! —About one-third. 106. I understand they are particularly successful ?—Yes. The Northbank land has not been a great success. 107. It is only suitable for small grazing-runs ? —Yes. 108. And it was held over to see how that would develop 'Yes. Ido not mean it is a non-success, but I cannot classify it with the others that are a pronounced success. 109. There is nothing wrong with the tenure ?—No. 110. You have a large number of small grazing-runs ?—Yes, a great number of these grazingruns are supplementary to small freeholds. 111. Have you been in this district before you were Crown Lands Ranger ?—Yes, thirty years. 112. Had you any knowledge of these runs before thirty years ago ? —No. 113. Do you know whether they are deteriorating at all ?—Only by hearsay. Ido not know of my own knowledge, but from conversations with old residents I believe they are ; fire and rabbits have been the chief causes. 114. Is there any overstocking ?—Yes, it has been caused in a measure by overstocking. The blue-grass has been eaten out by overstocking. 115. From your observation and your knowledge, can you suggest any practical means of bringing them back to a better state of fertility I—l do not know that I have thought the matter out, but I should say that to keep the stock off them for a while would be the best way to rest them. 116. Who has got the Patriarch Run ?—lt is not a pastoral run now, it is a small grazing-run. Mr. Tapp has it. He is not there all the time, only part of the time. 117. You have nothing to suggest further than just resting the country ? —To let the native danthonia seed if possible. 118. Is it spreading ?—No, because it does not get a chance. Fire is the greatest enemy; it will not seed. 119. Mr. Paul.] You think your district is, generally speaking, prosperous ? —Yes. 120. And the tenants doing fairly well ? —Yes. 121. Mr. McLennan.] Are the tenants putting improvements on their holdings to your satisfaction ? —Yes, very little trouble in that respect; they are generally a long way ahead of the requirements. 122. There is evidence before us that the tenants on lease in perpetuity do not improve their holdings as they would if it was freehold : is that your experience ?—No, it is not. They must improve their holdings if they wish to make anything out of it. 123. I mean buildings and fencing ?—They put up buildings—those that are living on the ground— the older occupants have done nearly all their improvements. They could not have done more if they had the freehold. 124. No trouble with the tenants ?—No, none at all. 125. You do not visit them very often ? —I think I do. Until last year, when I was engaged on the Flaxbourne case, I have visited them every year. 126. In your opinion would it do any injury to the State if the tenants had a free hand in managing their holdings ?—I think the tenants have the interest of their property at heart. I think they would do the best they could for themselves. 127. You think it would not tend to spoil the ground ? —No, they do not spoil the ground. 128. In your opinion would they not be more contented and happy if they had a free hand in managing their own affairs ?—The more you give a man a free hand in any case the better he is contented. 129. Mr. Anstey.] What is the nature of these leases in the mining areas ? —They are held for twenty-one years. 130. Have they any right of renewal ?—Yes, I think so, and value for improvements. 131. Do they get full value for improvements ? —Not what it has cost them, they get the value. 132. Does that in any way interfere with the miners' rights ? —No. 133. What terms do they come under ? —They have to pay compensation for surface-damage.
W, B. BTJCKHURST.]
1459
0.-4.
134. Any limited amount to be paid ? —The Warden, I think, would adjudicate on that. There is no limitation set down by law. 135. How do you arrive at the damage ?—By valuation. 136. In Southland the damage is limited to £1 an acre ? —Perhaps that is in special districts, and specified in the lease. 137. There is nothing to prevent a miner carrying on business after twenty-one years lease ?— Nothing at all. 138. How are the settlers doing on the Blind River Estate I—They are doing all right. The best indication of whether a settler is doing well is when he sells out well. 139. Are there not two or three sections put together %—Yes, they are grouped. It was necessary to group them. In one case there were three sections grouped ; they were too small to get."a fair living. 140. Were they taken up originally in small areas I—Yes. The men forfeited their sections and the Department grouped them. 141. Apparently it is not wise to cut this land up too small ? —No, it is noi 142. What is your opinion about the Flaxbourne areas : are not some of the areas too small ? —For the purpose of sheep-farming a lot of them are too small. 143. What is your experience of the most successful farmer ?—A good deal depends on whether he is growing crops. All the farmers have been successful as far as these particular estates are concerned. Those that have had crops have had good crops and got good prices for them. 144. Both small and big have been successful ?—Yes, both small and big. There are not many small ones. Those who have had small sections have done well; they generally have the best land to deal with. 145. The road access on the Blind River is good ?—You could drive a brougham on any part of Starborough. 146. What about the Flaxbourne Estate ?—The roads are being made there now. The main road is being deviated, it is too steep. 147. How long will it take to make the roads ? —Mr. Williams, the engineer, says he is making half a mile a day on the flats. 148. You spoke about unstocking as the best way of renewing the land : have you any particular scheme for unstocking them ? —lt is almost impracticable. I was asked the question how it could be done, and I gave that answer. It may be the best to do that in the long-run. 149. But suppose you unstock the run for a year ?—That is not sufficiently long. You want five or six years for unstocking this high country. 150. Is there any scheme whereby the man on the land would be compelled to fence off so-much every year : would that not keep the stock out ? —Yes. 151. Would you give any idea whether the stock would be kept off ? —I do not think it would be practicable. A man could run his stock on without you knowing anything about it. 152. Mr. Johnston.'] Are you aware of any settlers going on Starborough other than practical farmers —ordinary labourers ?—There are some ordinary labourers. 153. I mean working-men about town ? —Yes. 154. Have they taken up any areas ?—Yes, small ones ; there are two or three. 155. Have they done well ?—Yes, fairly well. There is a lot of work to be done, and if a carpenter takes up a section he is able to do other work when he is not working on his section. 156. But the area of the section is only limited to a certain number ? —You would require just a sufficient number to keep them employed during the year. If you overdo it you will hear the cry for the amalgamation of sections. 157. Do you think that areas of 60 to 100 acres on Flaxbourne can pay ?—There are one or two sections that would pay. 158. But the land is cut up too small ?—That is my opinion; not all of it. 159. Was the cutting-up according to the original survey satisfactory ?—I consider the first survey of Flaxbourne was an excellent one. 160. What weeds do you get in your district %—We have got blackberry, bramble, a little Californian thistle, and gorse. 161. I mean the weeds that are doing serious harm % —Briar and blackberry. 162. Have you seen the result of Californian thistle, have you had any experience of it ?—No. 163. You could not express any opinion as to whether briar and blackberry would be as detrimental to the country as Californian thistle ?—No. 164. Are they doing serious harm ? —Yes, occupying some of the best land. 165. In large areas ? —Areas of 100 acres. 166. And the Agricultural Department are forcing the settlers to clear them ?—They are trying to get them to do so much every year, but the next year it comes back, and it is almost impossible to eradicate. 167. What reasonable means would you suggest for eradicating it \—As a farmer I have had blackberries on my own place, and I think the best way is by planting willows amongst them when the ground is damp. The roots of the willows have great sucking-power, and they draw the moisture from the blackberries, and when the trees get a little large, they keep the sun off the blackberries, and so keep them down. I would plant them where the ground is damp and where they would grow well. 168. What would you do with those runs, the Blue Mountain and Cape Campbell ?—The best way to get rid of the blackberries there is to pull them out. 169. How do you propose to eradicate the sweetbriar ? —By pulling it out in the wet weather.
e.—4.
1460
[W. B. BUCKHURST.
170. How do you account for the carrying about of the seeds of the blackberry ?—The birds do that. The blackbirds are the worst. 171. Do you think the farmers have taken all legitimate means to cope with the Californian thistle from the start ? —They have not done so in the past. It is one of those things which has been left to be attended to in their spare, time and that spare time has never come, and now it has outgrown them. 172. Where is the blackberry land mostly ?—Up the Wairau, on the north bank. 173. Is it all rich land ? —Not all, it varies a great deal, it is a micha-schist formation. 174. How is it that it is not on the south bank also ?—There is more moisture on the north bank. 175. What tenure are the pastoral runs held under ? —Pastoral license. 176. Are many of them freeholds ? —A portion of them are freehold, and the lands at the back, which are high lands generally speaking in this province, are made supplementary to the freehold runs in front, and are held under pastoral lease from the Crown. 177. Are not all these back-country runs fit to cut up ?—I should not think so. 178. Do you think any of these pastoral runs have been too much cut up already by reducing the winter area ? —No. If you were dependent on them alone, that would be so, but they are worked in conjunction with the low-lying freeholds. 179. Then if it were not for the freeholds, the back country would not be any use ?—Not in many cases, because they could not winter the sheep. 180. Is there any leasehold land from which the winter country has been taken ?—I do not thinkso, excepting in the Kaikoura district. There is some of Mr. Bullen's I refer to. His land is all freehold, and the pastoral run was taken away. 181. Is there any more land'of that description suitable for cutting up ?—Yes, a fair-sized area. I allude to the Waihopi, Carter's estate. It might be cut up smaller there. 182. Would that be detrimental to the back country ?—No, because they have the front country. 183. Do you know of any of these Starborough settlers having sold out ? —Plenty of them. There was a recent sale by Chapman to Atkinson. 184. What did he get ?—Four thousand five hundred pounds, which included stock. There were about two thousand sheep at the time. The stock was low when Atkinson took it oyer. They were worth from 15s. to £1 a head. The improvements were about £900, and I think the goodwill was £1,500. Another section sold was No. 4 Small Grazing-run. Four thousand pounds was given for that. The improvements were £700, and the price included stock. There were three thousand four hundred ewes, and they were worth 12s. a head. Stock was not so valuable at that time. 185. Has any of the first-class land been sold ? —Yes. 186. At what price ?—The general run would be about £1 an acre goodwill. 187. What would be the goodwill on the second-class land ?—From 10s. to 15s. an acre, but in that case it has been emphasized by the fact of the large areas. 188. What is the carrying-capacity of the small grazing-runs in Starborough ?—The winter capacity is about two-thirds of a sheep to the acre, and about one sheep to the acre in summer. 189. What is the carrying-capacity of the first-class land ?—ln its prairie state it will carry very nearly one sheep to the acre. 190. What has the Blind River land been changing hands at ?—At about 10s. an acre for secondclass land. Not much first-class land has changed hands at Blind River. 191. You mentioned that one section in Blind River sold very well ?—Yes. 192. What was that section ?—I do not think it should be taken altogether as a guide ;it would be rather misleading ; in fact, I do not think it would be advisable for me to answer that question. 193. Have these settlers complained to you about their tenure %—Some have wished to use the tenure as a sort of savings-bank to pay some money into it to reduce the capital value in times of prosperity, so as to reduce thier rentals in bad seasons. 194. Supposing they were able to pay in the rent to a sinking fund, and the Government allowed them the same interest that they paid on the balance to stand to their credit, would they be satisfied ? —They intimated to me so. 195. Is that the only complaint you have heard ? —When one travels through the district you hear different stories. Some settlers are pretty well satisfied with the tenure and others again would like the freehold. 196. Has this agitation come of late years, or when do you reckon that they got dissatisfied with the tenure ? —I do not know that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in this district. It has been of slow growth. 197. Can you account for the growth ? —lt is more that they feel that they would like to own the land themselves. They have made it their home, and they would be more satisfied ; and there is one other fear which I think has already been advanced in evidence before you, that is the fear of revaluation. 198. They feel themselves on their feet and rather like the freehold ?—Exactly. 199. About what percentage of these men could have gone on to the land without getting terms ? —Very few indeed. Most of them have been successful since they started. 200. Generally speaking, they are a good class of settler ?—A very good class. 201. Have you had to foreclose on any sections ? —We have, but very few. 202. On what class of land ?—We had to foreclose on one or two sections on the Blind River, for non-payment of rent. 203. What brought the settlers to that position ?—The low markets at the time, and they had already spent most of their capital in experimenting with cropping and could not go any further. 204. Really, these men lost their capital in endeavouring to develop the land ?—Exactly. 205. Did they get any compensation ?—The value of the improvements was given to them. The
1461
C—4
W. B. BUCKHURST.]
debt to the Crown was paid off and if their was any surplus they got it. They were a very high class of settler, and it was misfortune that brought them down. 206. Would it not be possible in such a case to assist them to such an extent as to enable them to hold their land for a further term ?—Yes. In fact, the Starborough Settlement became successful through being nursed in the early stages. But for that a good many of them would not be there now. 207. Do you not think it is advisable to do something to this effect to provide for bad times : if the tenants had their rent capitalised and spread over a term of years, would they be able to hold out in such a case ?—They would have pulled through in that case on the Blind River, because times improved, markets improved, and access to their sections improved, and had the rent been capitalised and charged to the section they would have been there to-day. 208. That was not done ?—That is not provided for by law. 209. Were the Land Board approached in that direction ?—No. 210. Mr. McLennan.] Are there any forest reserves under your control that the timber has been cut off of in former years ?—Yes. 211. What did you do with the reserve ?—lt has been surveyed with a view to removing it from the State forests and giving it to the settlers. 212. Was it a large area ? —There is a good deal of it. There is only one small area useful. 213. Are there any weeds on that forest reserve ?—A little blackberry on the low-lying ground. 214. You could not say how many acres are at present available for settlement ? —There will be be about 2,000 acres available in the next two years. 215. Mr. Anstey.] Do these reserves run to weeds very rapidly ?—Yes, unless they are cleared and sold very rapidly. They should "be opened directly the bush is off. 216. Do you think such forest reserves should be immediately settled, even before they are cut out ?—lt would be better if that could be done. 217. Mr. Johnston.] Do the farmers object to the cropping conditions on agricultural lands ?— Yes, they like to have more control of the land themselves. The conditions are not applicable in all cases. 218. Do you give and take in regard to enforcing those conditions ?-—Yes. Where a crop has been a failure I do not reckon it. 219. What is the yield per acre generally here ? —ln barley 30 to 40 bushels. Oats are mostly grown for chaff, and run from 1|- tons to 2 tons to the acre in a fair season. Wheat is not so good here ; speaking generally, it runs from 20 to 30 bushels to the acre, but on one farm it has been as low as 6 bushels to the acre. Potatoes are very good indeed, and run from 10 to 12 tons to the acre. William Armstrong examined. 220. The Chairman.'] What are you ?—I am Chief Draughtsman, Receiver of Land Revenue, and Secretary to the Land Board. I have been here five years and a half, and have been in the Lands and Survey Department for thirty years. 221. Are the rents very well paid up by the tenants ?—Very well indeed. The arrears at present amount to only £500 out of a total revenue of £20,000. 222. Mr. Anstey.] Have you always given the 10 per cent, rebate to the Crown tenants ?—ln the first year it was 5 per cent. ; but there were complaints from settlers that settlers in other districts were getting 10 per cent., and the Commissioner of Crown Lands and myself decided to give 10 per cent., and it had a good effect. We have always received the rents punctually. 223. Why did you alter your practice of giving 5 per cent, and making it 10 per cent. ?—Because other tenants were getting it. 224. Do you not think the amount of rebate should be made uniform and universal ?—The small amount of arrears is due to the general prosperity of the district; and, I think, that even without the 10 per cent, there would not have been much difference in the amount of arrears. 225. Do you think the responsibility should be put on the Commissioner of Crown Lands and the Receiver of Land Revenue of determining the amount of rebate ?—I think we should be relieved of that responsibility. I think it should rest on other shoulders. 226. Mr. Johnston.] What settlements are there in this district under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Eight—viz., Blind River, Omaka, Puhipuhi, Starborough, Richmond Brook, Waipapa, Northbank, and Rainford. 227. Which of these is the most successful ?—They are all financially successful. There is only £200 of arrears on the whole lot. 228. Have you ever capitalised any rents ?—Never. 229. Have you given any time in which to pay ?—The Land Board allowed a certain time in which to pay, and they paid. 230. Did you charge interest on the outstanding amounts ?—No. 231. What class of settlers have gone on the land ?—They seem to be a good class of settlers. 232. Principally farmers ?—Yes. 233. Are there any workers from the towns ?—Very few. 234. Are there any village settlements ?—Only two. 235. Have any of the Crown lands been thrown up ?—There was one run at Waipapa. We had had a lot of trouble in connection with the Waipapa Estate. In the case of the run that was thrown up the occupier said he had a distinct promise from the Minister of Lands that he would rabbit the country, and as that had not been done he surrendered it. 236. Was the land so infested with rabbits that he could not go on ?—That was the reason given for throwing it up. 237. Generally speaking, this land-for-settlements land has been an unqualified success ?—Yes.
C—4.
1462
|"W. ARMSTRONG.
238. There has been a demand amongst some settlers for permission to pay off a portion of the capital value and thus reduce their rent ?—I see no reason why that should not be allowed. The settlers seem very contented here. 239. Can you give us the areas of the runs taken up ?—18,217 acres, small grazing-run. The holder left the colony. Then there is Run 107, called the Peninsula. Run 108, 18,903 acres. Run 107, 108, 109, formerly cut into three runs and now cut into two because they were too small. Run 107 has been taken up at the same rental. 240. Mr. McLennan.\ Do you look on the rebate as interest or as discount ?—I look on it as discount. 241. Do you not think that the tenants of small grazing-runs under tne Land Act'should have the same privilege as the other ?—Certainly, I do ; but there is no provision in the Act. Probably their position was taken into account when the Act was passed. Small grazing-runs only pay 2| per cent, on the capital value, while under tne Land for Settlements Act 5 per cent, is paid. Probably that is why under the Land Act the holders were not allowed this rebate. 242. In regard to leases put up at auction, what is the position ?—There is no rebate given. 243. They are supposed to pay the rent six months in advance ?—Yes ; and if they do not pay promptly they get 10 per cent, added. 243 a. That is a pastoral lease ?—Yes. 244. If they get 10 per cent, added, do you not think the 10 per cent, ought to be paid in advance f . — Yes ; I think some advance, anyhow. 245. Do you think all are entitled to it ?—Yes ; if you give it to one you should give it to all—it is only fair. 246. Mr. Anstey.] You spoke about small workmen's homes ?—There are only two. There is one in the Wakamarina, near Havelock, and there is one down at Kaikoura. 247. What areas ?—Small—s acres. 248. Are they successful ?—Yes. 249. Do they pay the rent ?—Yes, always. 250. Is there any demand for more workmen's homes ?—No, I do not think there is. 251. They would not be taken up if they were offered ?—They might be taken up ; but I do not know of any demand for them. 252. There are a lot of small sections at Seddon ?—Yes ; J-acre sections in the township. 253. Are they taken up ?—All that have been offered have been taken up. There are two or three blocks yet to be offered. 254. Blocks or sections ?—Blocks of sections; they would have seven or eight sections in them. 255. So there are fifteen or twenty more sections to be offered yet? —Yes; there should have been more 5- or 10-acre sections. 256. Do they pay promptly ?—Yes. 257. Are they building on them ?—Yes. 258. What are the conditions ?—ln the first part they exempted them from personal residence and improvements, and from making a declaration. You will see that in the Starborough pamphlet. Now they insist on personal residence and improvements. That has come since. 259. They are all being taken up on those terms ?—Yes. Harry Marsh Reader examined. 260. The Chairman.'] You are a member of the Land Board ?—Yes ; and a settler in the Pelorus Road Board District, and I am Chairman of the Pelorus Road Board. 261. Do you hold any land ?—Yes, I hold nearly 2,000 acres. 262. What tenure ?—I have lots of tenures. I have 300 acres of freehold, three leases, two leases of 643 acres lease in perpetuity. All my properties are attached. I have also a lease under the Bush and Swamp Settlement Act of about 430 acres. It is not complete yet, but it has been granted. It was the first application under the Bush and Swamp Lands Settlement Act in Marlborough. I also lease 200 acres of Maori land besides that; it is a Native lease. My son has another lease of a small grazing-run of 400 acres, making about 2,000 acres altogether. 263. What tenure do you prefer generally ?—I think they are all good tenures. The lease in perpetuity is a splendid tenure. The Bush and Swamp Lands Act I look upon as the most liberal Land Act that was ever put on the statute-book. It will be the means of settling hundreds and thousands of acres of land that, I think, would not be taken up under any other tenure ; because it means that the tenant gets his land free for three or four years, and with the Minister's and Land Board's consent it is exempt from the survey fees, which is a very big item to a poor man. It would be useless giving them that tenure unless that was so, because the survey fees would amount to a pretty considerable sum on 400 or 500 acres. I would like to say that there is also a lot of dissatisfaction on account of not being able to get more land. The Wakamarina is an old mining district, which is just about done, and a lot of settlers there have about 50-acre blocks, and they have big families coming on. There is a lot of rough land behind the holdings, but it is in the State forest. I would like to say here that the State forest and settlement cannot go together. The settlers have applied to the Land Board time after time, and I have tried to do what I could for them. I know there are 40-acre blocks which had been refused. This land is hilly land, and it would carry from a half to two sheep per acre. The timber on it is practically valueless as far as sawmilling-timber is concerned because the cost of getting it off the land is more than it is worth. This being in the State forest the Board has no power to deal with it. There was a petition sent in, signed by a large number of settlers, asking that the Proclamation should be lifted. The gold-mining part of it is nearly done, and the miners and farmers are becoming settlers; and they are dissatisfied with the land they have got, and there is more land behind them if
H. M. READER.]
1463
G.—4.
they could get it. If the Land Board had power to grant it, it would be given. There is always some reason, it has never been taken out of the State forest. Then, in the Rai Valley, which is another part of the State forest, sawmilling is going on. There is at the present time 600 acres of that land that has been fired ; the timber has been taken off and it has been practically ruined if it does not get into the market shortly ; and the Land Board, with the consent of the Minister, is providing seeds to sow this land to try and keep it from getting this way. The settlers are most anxious to get this land, and because it is in the State forest the Board cannot deal with it; and we think the law wants amending in that direction. We would like to see this law in relation to the State forest amended so that as soon as 100 or 200 acres is cut up, or the fire has gone through it, it should cease to be a State forest. It seems ridiculous to keep it there year after year till it is ruined. There is a place which is called Ballyhooley which was burned, but it is mostly fern now. It practically reduces the value of the land ; if it was worth £5 at first, and it then gets the fern on it it is not worth £1 afterwards when the noxious weeds get on it. It has been pointed out to me with regard to transfers, they think that from father to son and father to daughter transfers might be granted, say, instead of having to wait five years in the case of a genuine settler ; it seems that the Board ought to have power to grant them. 264. Have any cases arisen where there is hardship in waiting five years ?—I could not point out. I was asked to mention it. 265. The main point is the disabilities under which the settlers at Wakamarina and Rai Valley are working who have small areas, and that it is very desirable to retain them by getting some of the areas worked out in the State forest ? —Yes, and the State Forest Proclamation wants lifting. 266. You say in the Wakamarina there is practically no milling-timber ? —Yes, some portions the Board would be careful to reserVe. Settlers were applying for this land and the reply was that nothing could be done until the whole of this 800 acres was cut out. We do not want the timber destroyed. The object I want to impress upon the Commission is that we want the land before the whole of it is cut out —before it is ruined by the fern. 267. You would even open 100 acres at a time ?—Yes. It nearly always follows that a fire gets into it some way or other. You would not be running much risk if you let the settlers have 100 acres. 268. You want power to deal with this as it is cut out ? —I am speaking from the settlers' point of view—l am voicing the opinion of most settlers. 269. How much do you allow the sawmiller to get set aside at a time —800 acres ? —Two hundred acres he is allowed at first and 600 acres later on. If as soon as he has cut 200 acres you could put it up and give him another 200 acres, that would be better, but now we are told that we must wait till the whole of that 800 acres is cut out. Almost on every occasion it gets fired by accident. 270. Mr. Paul.] Are the areas under the land for settlements fairly suitable ?—Are you referring to Flaxbourne ? 271. Take those that are settled upon, Starborough and Blind River? —Blind River was found to be rather small, but they have been amalgamated. Starborough has been a more successful settlement, and we have had very splendid competition for Flaxbourne. 272. There seems to be an impression abroad that Flaxbourne has been subdivided into too-small areas :do you think that is so ? —I could not say for myself. I have only been through the country once. I think there is only one run that is not applied for —there may be some little pieces, but there is no doubt it will all go off at this ballot. 273. Forming an opinion from that, you would conclude that the areas were about right ?- —I think so. There may be one instance where they have been divided where it would have been better to have left them alone. 274. Do you think those areas of 50, 60, 70, and 90 acres are suitable I—Suitable to men according to their means. Men with different means go for different blocks. There are applications for 5 acres and applications for all the groups. 275. In the Marlborough Land District are there any settlers without roads ?—I could not say ; I suppose there are some in every district. 276. Are there settlers without reasonable access ?—I suppose there are sure to be an odd one or two, but I think, compared with the other parts of New Zealand, Marlborough is roaded very well. 277. Do you have many applications made to the Land Board to exempt tenants from residence ? —No, not many. 278. Are there many on account of want of access ?—No, very few. 279. You proposed that transfers from relatives should be made easier : do you think that would promote better settlement ? —Well, I look at it this way : sometimes a father has a son not quite twenty - one, and he has to take the land up himself, and if he could transfer it as soon as his son came to twentyone, or his daughter, that would be a reasonable ground for transferring it over to him. 280. You know as a member of the Land Board some check would have to be exercised on transfers of that description : we have heard of dummyism ?—You could not call it " dummyism " if it is in the same, family, and the boy was landless. 281. You could call it " dummyism " if there were two or three boys working in town : they simply put in an application for the land, with no intention of going on it, and transfer it to some member of the family ? —lt would simply be ridiculous. It would be the Land Board's fault if they did not carry out the residence conditions. 282. You think the period in which the transfer might be exercised can be reduced with the supervision of the Land Board ? —ln family'matters I think they should. Ido not think five years is too long, otherwise with extraordinary circumstances we have that power now. 283. You think the Land Board would prevent anything approaching dummyism ?—Yes, if they possibly could. 284. Mr, McLennan.] In your opinion, have the tenants under the Land for Settlements Act put
C.—4.
1464
H. M. READER.
good improvements on their holdings ?—I think so. Generally, they have been much in excess of what is required by law. 285. Is there any dissatisfaction amongst them with regard to the cropping restrictions ?—I have not heard of any. I believe in a free lease, and by that I mean that a man should be allowed to dispose of his lease with all his improvements, and that he should have the right so long as he complies with the law to transfer without the Land Board saying that some of his improvements should go to the Crown. That one point causes a good deal of the dissatisfaction amongst the tenants. 286. You would advocate the farmer having a free hand on his holding to do as he thinks fit, provided he does a certain amount of improvements and resides on it for a certain number of years ? — I would not like to give an opinion on that point. He might take all he could get out of the land and leave it. 287. But supposing he had 33 per cent, of improvements on the capital value, it would not pay him to leave it or abuse his land by taking too many crops out of it 1— No, it would not; "but Ido not see why there should be very stringent restrictions. Very often the farmer knows more about the cropping capabilities of his land than the members of the Land Board. 288. Supposing he had resided on his property for ten years, surely he ought to know by that time how to farm that land ?—He ought to know something about it, or else he would have farmed himself out of it. 289. Would it be advisable to give him a free hand after ten years' residence, and after doing 33 per cent, of improvements on the capital values ? —I think it would be. 290. Mr. Anstey.\ With regard to the Bush and Swamp Lands Act, the settlers under that Act are exempt from the payment of rent and rates for four years ?—For three to four years. 291. Do you think it is wise that they should be exempt from paying rates as well as rent ? —That Act was supposed to help the man who had no means at all, and in the case of the land included in the Act you cannot make anything out of it within two years. You could not make the rates, very likely. 292. But if you have not the roads you cannot do anything with it ? —That is so. 293. Would it not be better that the rates should be paid and the money spent oil the roads ? —It is the most liberal measure ever put on the statute-book and I would not want to alter it. It is in the interests of the struggling settler. 294. You say that State forests should be opened to settlement immediately the milling-timber is ofE ?—Yes. 295. How about roading those sections involving additional expenditure ?—lt might be so in some cases. In the particular case of ours it would not mean additional expenditure. We have one main road going through the Wakamarina, and it would not mean any more roading. But you want 500 acres there to make a living. That is the least you should have in that part of the country. 296. In many cases it would require additional roading ?■ —Yes, in some cases, but in our district we are very free from that. 297. Have you had any experience of the second ballot in this district ?—I do not believe in the grouping. 298. Have you ever had the second ballot here before I—l could not say. The only time I had anything to do with it was at Kaikoura. We had this grouping system there, and the present is my second experience. The grouping has caused a lot of dissatisfaction, in fact they tell me that many intending applicants would not go in owing to the grouping. I think it was put into the Act to provide against dummyism or swindling, but I do not think the members of the Board would forfeit any man's deposit, which is what is feared by applicants for land. 299. I understand your Board has made it public that they will not insist on any man taking a section if he does not want it ? —I think so, at any rate every member has said so. 300. You think that ought to be done in all cases ?—Yes, unless a man proved to be a rogue. 301. You think that we ought to do away with the second ballot ? —I do. 302. Would you do away with the grouping altogether ? Is it not necessary to group to some extent according to people's means ?—lf there was no grouping an applicant would only put in his application for the section he has got the means for, but under the present grouping system he might put in for a small section and draw a big one which he cannot afford to take. 303. You examine your applicants as to their means ?—Yes. 304. Is there any necessity to examine applicants at all ? —I think so. 305. What do you examine them for I—To1 —To see if their statement is true. 306. And for their means ?—Yes. 307. If a man had only £50 would you allow him to apply for all the sections in Flaxbourne ? — No, only acording to his means. 308. Is not that grouping ? —lf there was no grouping he would have to apply for a certain section. 309. That you indicate for him ?—Yes. 310. Is not that grouping ? —That is not my opinion. I think it should be done away with altogether. 311. Mr. Johnston.] The area you spoke of is reserved for goldfields purposes ?—Yes, but on parts of it there has never been any gold found. 312. Supposing gold was discovered ?—Mining-rights are always reserved. 313. Under the lease in perpetuity —under that system you would not reserve at all ?—No. 314. Do you want to take those small areas you spoke of into the forest reserve ? —Certainly. 315. Do you not think it is good timber-country ?- —There is scarcely any timber at all on the country lam referring to. The settlers have the frontage sections and the timber was destroyed many years ago, and the back country is too hilly to get the teams through to get the logs out.
H. M. READER.]
1465
o—4.
316. Is that part of the country in the hands of the Land Board to deal with ?—No. 317. It is in the hands of the Government ? —The Proclamation has to be lifted before it can be dealt with at all. 318. Are all the sections on Flaxbourne applied for ?—I think so. There are four hundred applicants, but some of them are for the one section. 319. You believe in the free transfer of all sections ?—Yes. 320. Do you not think that that encourages speculation pure and simple ? —I do not think so. 321. Take the case of one of these lease-in-perpetuity sections on Starborough when the man was buying it out and paid a large sum of money for it: would you not consider whether he was or was not paying beyond his means for it and beyond the value of the property before you allowed the transfer ? —I would not consider it at all. 322. Supposing the man was not able to pay his rent eventually to the Government ? —The Government would have hundreds of pounds of improvements that would have to be on it before you could grant the transfer. The rent would not have increased. 323. No ; but he would have lost a considerable sum of money through a foolish transaction on his own part ?—You cannot look after all the fools in the country. If a man likes to give too much money for a place it is his own look-out. He would know more about his own business than the Land Board. 324. Do you not think it is as well in the interests of the settler that the Land Board should inquire into this transfer first ? —I do not think they have any right to inquire into it. That is the very thing that is causing dissatisfaction amongst leaseholders. 325. You say that you think Flaxbourne is valued too high ? —I did not say anything about it, 326. You said you had only been once on Flaxbourne ? —I said I had only been once through it--327. Who put the values on the "different sections ?—The Board did not have anything to do with it. I think it was done by the Government. 328. Was Flaxbourne cut up twice ? —I believe so. 329. Would it not have been better to have left it as it was under the original survey ? —I think so. Henry Trent examined. 330. The Chairman.\ What is your official position ?—Commissioner of Crown lands and Chief Surveyor for the Marlborough Land District. I have held that position twelve months on the first of this month, and previous to that I had been in the service of the Lands and Survey Departm nt for forty-four years. 331. About the valuation of Flaxbourne, Mr. Reader was not quite sure as to who valued the sections that are opened for selection under the Land for Settlements Act. Is it not the function of the Land Board to fix those values ? —That was fixed by the award of the Court. 332. But after the capital value of the property has been fixed by the Compensation Court, it is the function of the Board, is it not, to take that capital sum and distribute it over the various sections according to the best of their knowledge and judgment—is that not so ? —Quite so. 333. Mr. Johnston.'] Who did it ? —There is a certain amount of work to be done in regard to the valuing of the land, and then it is distributed by the Land Board amongst the various sections. 334. Who was present when it was done ? —lt was not done by the Board themselves but by the Head Office. 335. The Chairman.] And sent over here ? —The surveyor, Mr. Brodrick, Mr. Buckhurst, and the valuer here jointly arranged the assessments between them. It was done here, and the Land Board approved of it. 336. The Land Board is responsible for it ?—Yes. 337. In law they are. It is their function to settle that matter ? —Yes. 337 a. Mr. Anstey.\ Did the Land Board appoint these three gentlemen to fix the values ?—No, the Head Office. The Surveyor-General appointed Mr. Buckhurst and Mr. Kenny to make the valuations, and after having made the valuations these gentlemen went over them and apportioned them amongst the different sections or allotments. 338. These gentlemen jointly fixed the individual rents ? —Yes. 339. And the Land Board acquiesced in them ? —Yes. 340. Mr. Johnston.] The Land Board never visited the land at all ?—Never. Some members have been over it, and I myself have been over it, but not in the capacity of valuer, more in the capacity of Chief Surveyor. 341. The Chairman.] Is there any point you would like to bring before the Commission ?—Not that lam aware of. Mr. Header pointed out one matter with regard to the transfer of leases to families, and lam at one with him in his remarks. I think that in the case of transfers on sons and daughters coming of age, if the parents wish to adjust the lease on the property, it should be facilitated in every possible way. 342. You heard his remarks with regard to the various reserves: do you argee with him in that respect I—l did not hear him. 343. He said that in the Wakamarina and the Rai Valley there are areas which are classed as forest reserves, but are really of no use for timber purposes. The settlers there have small areas, and he recommends that they should be allowed to take a strip off these reserves so as to increase their areas to a suitable size to enable them to make a living :do you agree with that ? —I do. These forest reserves are blocking the whole of settlement, and the amount of milling-timber on them is nil. It is a matter of great difficulty to get it off, and the conditions generally are unworkable. Only the settlers already there can utilise this land to any advantage. It is on one side of the Wakamarina. 344. Mr. Anstey.] What is your opinion with regard to grouping and second ballot ? —There have been all sorts of schemes propounded, but this seems to be the only workable one. I think there must
184—C. 4.
0.—4.
1466
!h. teent.
be some grouping in order to bring the different sections and different values and qualities of land into line. 345. Do you think there should be a second ballot ?—I do not quite hold with the system. 346. Do you think it would be wiser to group the sections according to people's means and let them have their choice ?—Yes, I hold with the single ballot with grouping. 347. Mr. Johnston.\ Are you prepared to make any suggestions on the land question ?—I have gone carefully through the order of reference of the Commission, but considering my short experience as Commissioner of Ciown Lands, I do not think I am justified in making any statement in regard to it. The present law seems to work very well and to give general satisfaction. I have never heard any complaints in this district. The settlers seem to be satisfied with the present tenures. In some localities, like Pelorous and outlying bush districts, the old deferred-payment system might be reverted to. That question was brought forward at the recent conference of Land Boards, and the Minister of Lands and others agreed that in certain prescribed areas it might be suitable. 348. You do not think the restrictions on Crown tenants are proving too harassing ?—No. In regard to residence conditions, wherever the Board sees there is any hardship entailed, they take that into consideration. For instance, at Puhipuhi, where the road was bad and the river dangerous, and there was a danger in sending children to school, we relaxed the residence conditions on that account temporarily, and in similar cases we meet the wishes of the settlers as far as we can. 349. Have there been any complaints in regard to the working of the Advances to Settlers Department I—There1 —There have been one or two minor complaints. 350. Was Flaxbourne cut up differently to what it is at present ?—At first it was. 351. How many sections were resurveyed ?—Pretty near the whole of them were subdivided. 352. Why ? —I could not say* 353. Do you think the second cutting-up was judicious ?—ln some cases perhaps it was not, but in other cases it was quite advisable. 354. Did not the Minister of Lands approve of the way it was cut up in the first instance ? —He did, I believe. 355. Then, he altered his mind ?—I believe he did. 356. Mr. McLennan.\ Would you be in favour of allowing tenants a free hand in managing their own farms after making a certain amount of improvements and residing on the land for a certain number of years ?—I think they should be amenable to the existing regulations. The condtions of cropping vary very much. 357. If you allowed the settlers to farm as they think fit, do you not think it would make them more contented ?—I do not think they should on principle. I think they should be subject to regulations, and the Ranger should have the discretion of saying whether they are using their land properly or not. Ido not think it would be a desirable thing to give them a free hand. 358. Mr. Johnston.] Are the Land Boards satisfactory as at present constituted ? —Yes, I think so. 359. Has the Board given satisfaction in this district ?—Yes. William Blyth Buchkurst re-examined. 360. Mr. Johnston.] I want you to explain the position of the Waipapa runs as far as you know about the question ?—Tn the first place, they were cut up by two surveyors who were in charge of the work. Then the Kaikoura Settlers' Association took a hand in the matter, and made representation to the Minister of Lands that it would be advisable that they should be cut up into smaller areas, and instructions were issued that they should be cut up into smaller areas. This was done. One of the runs was noc applied for. Another was very quickly surrendered, and then it was found that it would have been better to have adhered to the original survey. The altered boundaries were then wiped out, and practically a return was made to the original survey. 361. If the survey had been left as it was originally, and had not been interfered with by the Kaikoura Settlers' Association, it would have been all right ?—Yes. 362. Are the rabbits being kept down ?—They have been dealt with, but not in a sufficiently drastic manner, I think. 363. Where are they worst ? —On the Clarence River bank. 364. Are they fairly clear on the northern district ? —Yes, in the bush district there are very few rabbits. The rabbits chiefly infest the open dry country. The belt of country between the Waiau River and the Clarence River is the worst. 365. Have they depreciated the value of the land ? —Not of recent years. They have not been allowed to get ahead. 366. You heard what Mr. Reader said about the reserve at the back of some small settlements at Wakamarina : is part of that land fit for timber purposes ? —Yes, and it is very little fit for settle ment, as it is too steep. 367. Is the Board conserving the timber for milling purposes for opening up the land ? —Yes. wherever there is timber they are prepared to protect it. 368. What leases are they giving ? —Ordinary timber licenses. 369. Mr. Anstey.] With regard to Flaxbourne, you and Mr. Kenny valued it first ? —Yes, in the first place, the Minister of Lands appointed us, and a subsequent valuation was made when the subdivision was made, and then Mr. Brodrick assisted in the subsequent valuation. 370. You had nothing to do with the cutting-up of these sections ?—Not in the original case. When the proposal for a resubdivision was made, I was consulted as u o where the most suitable sections were for cutting up ; others were also consulted. 371. How do you value these sections ?—I have been over every bit of the ground eight or ten times 372. Did you go over each section after the boundaries were fixed ?—No, because I was intimately acquainted with the land.
T. W. KIRK.]
1467
C.—4.
Wellington, Monday, 26th June, 1905. Thomas William Kirk, F.L.S., examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ?—Government Biologist. I have held the position since 1892. 2. With regard to the various kinds of grasses that do well in New Zealand, perhaps you can give us a statement especially as to renewing high pasture-lands ?—With regard to the restoration of a number of practically worn-out pasture-lands, especially at high levels, and also grassing poor lands, I do not think any very great difficulty will be met, provided that you will give the grasses a chance, and not overstock as soon as you have sown them. Ido not know whether the members of the Commission had an opportunity of examining the paddock at Okoroire, in the Waikato district, but it was very poor land indeed, and the great difficulty in the Waikato was to obtain permanent pasture. The grasses in the Waikato used to be sown, and in a year or two were beginning to get scarce again, and then the old routine had to be repeated—viz., plough, grow turnips, then grass. The danthonia, or, rather, two species of danthonia and Chewing's fescue, were used, and the Department was able to prove that permanent pasture of considerable \ alue could be established on that poor soil around Okoroire. It was that experiment there which had a great deal to do with the adoption of these grasses on the poorer lands of the north. That paddock was sown, Ido not remember exactly the number of head of stock it carried, but the paddock gave a really good sward and is in its ninth year now. I have not seen it for twelve months, but the last time I saw it it was as good a paddock as you could wish to see. There is here a small leaflet I issued some years ago on the various native grasses, and the brief notes marked show the values of danthonia, and one or two other grasses. Danthonia pilosa, R. Br. (Hard Tussac.) An excellent grass for mixed pasturage. Forms a good sole; is very hardy, of rapid growth after cropping, and affords a good yield of nutritious herbage. Eaten by horses, cattle, and sheep alike, and not only holds its own but exhibits a decided improvement when cultivated with ryegrass, fescues, &c. Being deep - rooted, it suffers less during dry seasons than many other kinds. Danthonia pilosa, var. gracilis. Equal in value to the typical forms, but the yield of herbage is less. Danthonia semiannularis, R. Br. (New Zealand Oat-grass.) Lowland form. A common lowland grass of great value for mixed pasturage. It produces a large amount of rather dry but very nutritious herbage. Grows quickly, forms a compact sole, and is liked by stock of all kinds. In many districts it forms a large proportion of the herbage, but attains its greatest luxuriance under cultivation. Excellent for resisting drought. Danthonia semiannularis, var. alpina. Lake Harris ; 4,000 ft. A grass of great value, especially for sheep. Danthonia semiannularis, var. ccespitosa. Nelson Mountains. An excellent sheep-grass mixed with ordinary pastures, and very hardy. Microlcena stipoides, Ehrhart. (Meadow Rice-grass.) Of very high value for mixed pasturage in all moderately warm districts. Affords a large quantity of soft nutritious herbage, forms a very compact sole, is of very early growth, patient under severe cropping ; grows quickly, and adapts itself to nearly all soil and situations except undrained wet land. It does best in warm country, being somewhat impatient of severe frost and snow, although it is found in mountain districts. Poa intermedia, Buch. (Small Tussac Poa.) A common mountain grass of great value for sheep. Adapts itself readily to cultivation, and appears suitable for ordinary mixed pasturage, especially on light soils of good quality. Endemic. Poa colensoi (Blue Tussac), 3,000 ft. An alpine and sub-alpine grass of great value. Very hardy, and grows quickly after being cropped. Becomes more luxuriant and softer under cultivation. One of the best sheep grasses in the colony, but of less value for horses and cattle, except when in flower. Endemic. Agropyrum enysii, Kirk. Bealey Gorge ; 3,000 ft. A sub-alpine and alpine grass, eaten by stock of all kinds, and highly nutritious. It seems likely to prove of great value for cultivation in cool lands. Endemic. Agropyrum scabrum, Beaur. (Blue Mountain Grass.) Kaikoura Mountains. Sea-level to 4,000 ft. A highly nutritious grass, eaten by all kinds of stock, but especially valuable for horses and cattle. It is very hardy, grows quickly after close cropping, and affords a generous yield, but is apt to die out unless allowed to perfect seed occasionally. A grass of high value. Trisctum antarcticum, var. effusum. Amuri; 4,000 ft. A mountain form of this valuable grass, which affords an unusually large yield of soft nutritious herbage. It is eaten by stock of all kinds, especially sheep ; is very hardy, and seems well adapted for cultivation in mixed pasturages, but has not been properly tested. Trisctum antarcticum, Trimens, var. strictum. (Shining Oat-grass.) The common lowland form of a grass, equally valuable and variable, eaten by stock of all kinds. Hardy and quick of growth after being closely cropped. Affords a heavy yield of nutritious herbage. Has not been tested under cultivation, but believe it to be of high value for mixed pasturage, and consider it superior to its near relative, Trisctum flavescens. Those are grasses that are principally suitable with Chewing's fescue for use on the poorer lands, largely because of their tremendous root-system. They are not grasses that I would ever advocate sowing on rich lands. There are other native grasses of very great value, but these are the ones that have caught on principally at present, and they have great resistance. One great value of danthonia is, that it may be sown through burnt-manuka land, then, when the manuka-seed that is on the ground comes away, the danthonia will carry a rapid fire through the old standing manuka and kill the seedlings but will not itself be killed.
C.—4.
1468
JT. W. KIRK.
3. And the deep roots will help it to resist the frosts ?—Undoubtedly. There is a Government horse paddock owned by this Department at Johnsonville. It was a very rough paddock and fire was passed up the main gully of it; the Stock Inspector here was supplied with some seed of danthonia, Chewing's fescue, and a little crested dogstail seed amongst it. Now, the first year when we had that paddock, before it was fired, it only held three horses, and they had to be fed in the middle of winter. The following winter that paddock held five horses, and they came out thoroughly fat and did not have a bite of extra food during the winter. 4. The five horses were fed upon the danthonia ?—Yes. My own horse was there right through the winter and did not have a bite except what it got in the paddock. 5. Mr. Johnston.\ In the native pastures down in Otago and Canterbury there used to be the little annis plant wonderfully prevalent all over the pastures, and it was appreciated by sheep and cattle, and there was also blue tussock, and other grasses \—The principal cause of their disappearance, I think, was that the settlers thought they had to burn them very frequently. It is true they get a considerable growth of nice young feed after that, but they burnt too much and burnt the soul out of them. If you keep on taking the foliage ofi any plant you will soon kill it. That was probably the principal agency, but, as you know, the swarm of rabbits has a great deal to do with it 6. Many people deliberately tried to get rid of native grass to sow imported ; do you not think these might come again without any sowing at all ?—lf you lock up your country, and keep your stock and rabbits off, they will come again if there are a few plants there to seed. This danthonia is an indigenous native grass. It is also indigenous to Australia. There was not much of it to be seen near Johnsonville until after sowing that paddock, and now you can find it very thick all over the paddock and on adjoining properties. It is a very valuable grass indeed for some country, but I would not sow it on rich land because I could get something better. 7. In the experimental farms are there any of these grasses being grown experimentally ?—There are at the Waikato farms under Mr. Clifton's direction. Of course this Okoroire paddock was given up. At Waerenga there is a considerable area of these grasses that will stand on the poorer lands, that is, Danthonia pilosa, Danthonia semiannularis, Triodia, Chewing's fescue, and several others that are likely to stand there. At the experimental station at Weraroa, close to Levin, we are now establishing a grass-garden. I got over thirty varieties sown last spring ; each of these plots is about one-twentieth of an acre for each kind of grass. I have to have over one hundred plots of clovers and feed-grasses sown next spring. We established a similar collection at Momohaki. They have now been allowed to go back, because a building is to be put on that spot; but at Levin we are now establishing the same thing, and the object is that if a farmer wants to know about a particular grass he goes and looks at the plot, and that is better than an hour of descriptive talk with him, and you can talk relative merits of grasses to him after he has seen the plots. Then, we cut these plots whenever they need it and weigh the material off them, and that gives us an idea of the amount of herbage per acre available per year. Then, the rarer ones will act as seed-plots from which seeds can be taken so as to test the feeding-values on larger areas. We found at Momohaki they were one of the most popular exhibits on the station, and the farmers got amongst the grass-plots and discussed them for hours, but that collection has, as already stated, been allowed to go back. Before this time next year we shall have a very fine collection at Levin. Yes, I have got the Danthonia pilosa there now. 8. The Chairman.] These places are not only for departmental experiments, but really educational ?—That is the main object of them. 9. For visitors to see them ?—Yes ; to see them and discuss them ; and if they have seen a plot there and want any information that the gardener cannot give them, they drop a note to me and I am only too glad to supply any information in my power. In several annual reports of the Department you will find the Momohaki reports are published. This is very much lighter soil than at Levin. 10. Mr. Johnston.'] You say there are two kinds of danthonia ?—Two specially good species, but there are many kinds. 11. Are those two especially good for poor country ?- —Yes, that is the point. • 12. Those two you specially recommend : are they suitable for sowing on the poor land down south, and are they suitable for the pipeclay land of the North of Auckland ?—For both. You will find them growing on both now. 13. Where is the alpine variety of Danthonia semiannularis you mention got ? —ln different places. I found it growing at Lake Harris. 14. Has your Department made any experiments of this high country down south ?—No ; we have no land at present at our disposal for this high-country experimental work. That is the point I should like to bring out, the necessity for more experimental stations than we have got. We have, at present, no land at our disposal for work of this kind. It could easily be done if we had a bit of land ; but there is no doubt whatever that these grasses will succeed, because I have seen them growing there and collected them there, and I have seen them spreading on to land where they did not previously exist. 15. We have evidence of them in the North of Auckland, but not in the south, and there is heaps of country down there suitable for experimental purposes ?—We should only need to fence a few acres. 16. Have you tried it on that pipeclay country north of Auckland ? Have you tried experiments with the various kinds I—No ; we have no land in the district you name to try it with. 17. Is there any of this pipeclay land at Okoroire ? —No ; that is all pumice land ; it is also wretchedly poor pumice land at Waerenga. I have also seen this grass growing on that pipeclay land north of Auckland, and again at Henderson there is a very good example of how it fights the manuka. 18. Have you seen it up at Russell and Kirikiri ?—I do not remember any paddock of it there, but it is growing about the roads and through the manuka. 19. Do you know anything about this Paspalum dilatatum for this class of country ?—That is an imported grass and it does best in warm country ; it will not do so well down here. Ido not think it
1469
C.—4.
f. W. KIRK.J
would pay. I have a plot of it at Levin. It will grow 9 ft. high under special conditions, and I have seen that grass in the north cut five times. It is a suitable grass for some places north of Auckland. It is suitable for those who have a dairy-farm up there ; but they should not stock it too heavily and too continuously ; if they stock it too heavily they will exhaust it, but it has a fine root-system and will stand a great deal. 20. Will it stand fire ?—No ; the danthonia and native grasses are the best to stand fire. 21. Do you know what were the original native grasses in Otago and Canterbury ? —Danthonia and poas principally. There is another one that goes by the name of Deyeuxia forsteri or toothed bent-grass. 22. What mixture do you think ought to be sown on the hills at Lake Wakatipu ?—lf I was going to sow there, the first thing I would do would be to get people to collect the grass-seed, because that would be better that taking it from the North of Auckland—collect the seeds in the south and take them to Lake Wakatipu and grow them in small areas for seed. 23. Do you not think it would be as well for the Government to shut off, say, 1,000 acres for experimental purposes ?—You only want a few acres for experiment. 24. I say 1,000 acres because some people say that it is by spelling the country that the native grasses will grow ? —You will find native grasses all over this land, and if you shut that country up, and kept the stock off it and rabbits, in two years' time you would be simply struck with the improvement on it. 25. Do you think it would be advisable for the Government when leases fall in to insist on spelling the country for two years ?—Speaking generally, I would say Yes. I would not like to speak of any particular section without I saw it. - 26. There would have to be an inspection by cojnpetent men to see if these native grasses existed ? —Yes. 27. You think that would greatly tend to increase the carrying-capacity of these runs ?—Undoubtedly. If you go to Johnsonville you will understand how the native grasses will take possession. 28. That disposes practically of the high country : what would you suggest for that pipeclay land in the North of Auckland ?—That pipeclay country in the North of Auckland can be reconstructed with these very grasses that were used at Okoroire and Waerenga. I know of no imported grasses that will ever hold permanently on these very poor lands. Nature has provided our native grasses with qualities that make them specially suited, and for years we have done the best to get rid of the native grass and substitute for it the so-called English. lam certain of this, that large areas of New Zealand have got to be put back into native grass. 29. How would you get at the seed of this grass ?—I would suggest, if quantities of this seed are likely to be wanted, that some one who knows the grass should be sent out in the season to carefully collect the seed ; then establish small paddocks from which the seed could be collected subsequently, and bigger ones could then be sown. When this danthonia began to become popular, several people in the north sowed down paddocks and saved the seed of this grass. I bought a ton and a half a few years ago at Is. a pound in Auckland. The cost afterwards ran up to Is. 6d. a pound. A friend of mine, who has a place to the south of Castlepoint, every year, when he sows down new land, mixes in some danthonia for his poorer higher land, and he is satisfied with the results. 30. The Chairman.'] What was done with this 1J tons of seed you spoke of ?—lt was bought for sowing on Government properties. 31. Mr. Johnston.] Is this danthonia in any way detrimental to the richer lands ?—No ; my only objection to it is that I can grow a more paying grass on rich land. 32. What is the carrying-capacity of danthonia ? —I cannot say from memory ; but I will look the question up and let you know later.* 33. Are you making an effort now to collect native grasses ? —No ; because I have nowhere at present where I can grow them. lam making collections myself. 34. Do you support the sowing of cocksfoot in high country ?—Yes ; so long as you do not go too high. 35. Is that the only English grass suitable for that kind of country ? —Yes ; that is, on the higher country. Other grasses will creep up to a fair height in some localities, but no general rule can be laid down as to the height they will go. 36. You are a strong believer in regrassing with native grasses ? —Undoubtedly, both for high country and poor country. 37. Mr. Anstey.] You think paspalum would not be suitable for any of the South Island ? — It will grow, but it would not give the big yield it would give in a warm district. 38. It would grow fairly well in the low cultivated lands ? —Yes. 39. Could danthonia be profitably grown in such country as the Mackenzie country ?—I think so. 40. We are told that it will perish out in the course of time ?—lf danthonia perishes out and Chewing's fescue perishes out there is not much hope for you in that country. I know if it is once established it will take a good deal to perish it. Danthonia will stand better than the big tussock will 41. Will danthonia stand a cold climate ?—Yes. 42. Will it do under snow ?—Yes ; I have specimens of an alpine form of it which I can show you. 43. How is it there is so little in the south ?—There used to be a great deal more, but it has been killed out largely by firing.
* The following is an extract from Mr. Clifton's report:—Fescue paddock at Woodstock, Okoroire: This six-year-old Chewing's fescue paddock of 70 acres is about the only real pasture on this light class of land that can be found throughout the whole of the Waikato, and its carrying capacity is unequalled. The stocking has been as follows: October to December, 1897, 100 sheep; December, 1897, to July, 1898, 170 sheep; July, 1898, to December, 1898, 210 ewes (these lambed in the paddock—Bs per cent, of lambs); December, 1898, to April, 1899, 150 sheep. All these sheep improved and were sold off in good condition.
a—4.
1470
Ft. w. kiek.
44. Do you not think danthonia stands firing better than tussock ?—Yes ; but they have been firing so continuously in the south. This danthonia only requires a spell sometimes, that is all. 45. Would it not be well to make some inquiries in foreign countries where grasses are grown for pasture at much higher altitudes than is the case in New Zealand. For instance, in Thibet there are cattle living in much higher altitudes than in this country ?—lf you give us an experimental station on high lands I will soon get the grasses from foreign countries. 46. Are there not grasses grown at great heights in the Andes ?—Yes. 47. Would you not require pieces of land in different parts of the colony for the purpose of experimenting ? —A couple of stations in the South Island would be sufficient for the high country. 48. You would want a strip of country from the low land to the high land ?—Yes ; but, speaking generally, grass which will grow on the high country will grow on the low country. 49. Your experiments at Waerenga and elsewhere cannot be of much value as applied to high lands ?—No ; only as applied to poor lands. 50. What experiments have you made with regard to the poor tea-tree land to the north of Auckand ?—The land at Okoroire is about as poor as you can get. 51. Do you think those experiments would apply equally successfully all over the North of Auck land ?—Yes ; private people in the north are fighting the tea-tree with danthonia now. Instances of this can be seen about Henderson on that poor blue-and-white pipeclay land. 52. Have you made any experiments with a view of chemically improving that class of land ? — No : some manurial experiments have been made on the Waikato stations under Mr. Clifton's charge. 53. Is there not some chemical deficiency in a lot of this manuka land which might be restored artificially ?—That is a matter for a chemist to deal with. There is now a chemist attached to our Department, but he has not long-had sufficient accommodation to enable him to undertake soil-analysis. 54. We ha\e been told that a certain amount of this land was laid down in gorse, which between burning and one thing and another has eradicated the tea-tree, and the land has been improved chemically ?—Undoubtedly ; but it is a very risky way of doing it. 55. Could you suggest any other plant which would answer the same purpose as gorse, but which would not be so expensive to eradicate, and which could be more easily replaced by grass ?—Lupin would do as well as gorse almost, and would mean less trouble to get rid of afterwards. 56. Would it not be wise to set apart a block of this poor manuka land to the north of Auckland for the purpose of experimenting chemically and otherwise ?—I think there should be an experimental station on that poor land north of Auckland to experiment generally as to the utilisation of those poor lands and their possible improvement. . 57. With regard to the high lands in the south, do you think the grasses could be renewed by spelling ?—I do not see why they should not be, provided a sufficient number of plants survive to afford seed. 58. Can you suggest any way in which they could be spelled ?—That would be a matter for the Land Boards. I should think it would be possible under proper inspection 59 Do you know of any grass which will act upon fern as danthonia does upon tea-tree ?—The difficulty in fighting the fern is that the fern overshadows the grass. Danthonia does very well so long as you keep the fern cut. I have not tried any other grass for the purpose. Still, you will find dan thonia very useful in fern country. 60. Mr. McLennan.] We have in the south a kind of weed called " wild-barley," which grows along the roadsides ; would it be suitable for that country to the north of Auckland ?—No, because when it is in seed nothing will eat it. 61. I know one or two paddocks where it is growing, and when the grass is not in seed the sheep are very fond of it ?—lt is an aggressive grass. Its seeds have actually been known to pierce the pelts of sheep. In some portions of England where they keep it from seeding, it is used as pasture. Here it is dangerous. 62. With regard to these runs in Otago and Canterbury, do you think it would be a good idea if .the owners were asked to fence off a small portion or paddock on which they could experiment with the different grasses to see which would suit their country best, the seed being supplied to them by the Government ?—That would be a practical way of testing the thing. 63. And as to the poor lands in the north, would it not be advisable by means of chemical tests to ascertain what ingredients were wanting in the soil—whether there was too much salt, and so on ?— Next year our chemist will, I believe, proceed to test the soils in the different parts of the colony. Hitherto his workrooms have not been large enough. 64. Some of the poor soil up there is well adapted to growing grapes ?—Yes. 65. Mr. Paul.] You are quite certain that the various species of danthonia would improve the southern runs'?—I am as certain as I can be without having tried it over large areas. The grass grows there now. I should like to have a few acres to test. 66. In the south, several witnesses advocated the Department taking over a small area of this very poor land so as to show intending settlers what it is capable of. I gather that is what you mean when you advocate establishing experimental stations in different parts of the country ?—Yes. The only other alternative is a scheme I have advocated for some years—that is, a system of co-operative experiments. We would say to the landholder, "If you will find the land for this experiment, we will supply the seed, and we will pay you for your actual labour. What you would lose would be the rent of your land during the years we needed it as an experimental station, but if you as proprietor will undertake to supply and supervise the labour, we will pay you for your actual outlay. At the end of the term, you will not only have improved the area upon which you have been working, but you will have acquired knowledge which will enable you to improve your property as a whole." It is true, of course, that other landholders will reap the benefit, for that is for the good of the country.
T. W. KIEKJ
1471
C.—4.
67. Has the Department adopted your suggestion ?—Only partially. The theory has been approved of, but there does not seem to be enough money available for all these matters. 68. Mr. Johnston.] I have received the following letter from Mr. J. G. Wilson : —" 23rd June, 1905. —To the Chairman of the Lands Commission, Wellington. —Re Danthonia pilosa.—Sir,—Since giving my evidence before your Commission, and correcting that evidence, I am reminded by my son, who paid a visit to Kyeburn Station since Mr. Scobie Mackenzie's death, of some information re the sowing of the bag of danthonia sent him. The manager said it had come very well, and he had noticed that where the grass grew the sheep and rabbits were especially fond of grazing on it. I have since heard that the run has carried the sheep better, and this is attributed to Mr. Mackenzie's sowing a considerable amount of grass-seeds of various kinds. A letter from the manager of the run would be of value as showing the result.—Yours, &c., Jambs G. Wilson." Are you aware that Mr. Wilson has been growing danthonia ?—Yes. That letter simply bears out my contention as to the utility of these grasses. 69. Where is most of the danthonia seed being got from at the present time ?—Auckland. 70. We were told that danthonia will fatten sheep well ?—That is true as a comparative statement. It will not fatten sheep as well as grasses on the lower lands. There is another grass called Miorolosna stipoides (meadow rice-grass). In my pamphlet there is this note about it: "Of very high value for mixed pasturage in all moderately warm districts. Affords a large quantity of soft nutritious herbage, forms a compact sole, is of very early growth, patient under severe cropping, grows quickly, and adapts itself to nearly all soil and situations except undrained wet land. It does best in warm countries, being somewhat impatient of severe frost and snow, although it is found in mountain districts." That is a very fine grass indeed, but when it goes to seed the seed has been known to injure sheep. It has such very fine-pointed horns that it pierces their skins. 71. Is there ergot in danthonia ?—No, I have never seen it. 72. Or in paspalum ?—I have not seen it. 73. It appears to me that paspalum would be a grass that would take ergot?— Any of these rankgrowing grasses would be especially liable to take ergot. 74. Is Californian thistle doing much damage, or is there any chance of eradicating it ?—There is every chance of eradication under certain conditions. Mr. Williams, of Hawke's Bay, uses an arsenic spray, which kills it to the ground. Speaking generally, skimming it down to the ground is the best plan, but you must not break the roots. I prefer to skim just under the surface. 75. Have you seen them in Southland ?—Yes. 76. What is going to be the result of it there ?—A great many parts of Southland could be cleared if you could get the tools to work. It often happens that a man skims it and then gets busy with something else, and the plant gets to a certain height before I) e touches it again. That means the plant has got a new lease of life. Dr. Newman has some land up the coast, and he used to be very much troubled with Californian thistle. I persuaded him to adopt the system of skimming, and after some time he has come to the conclusion that he no longer need be afraid of the Californian thistle. I can give you names of others who have succeeded. 77. Do you think it can be coped with in Southland ?—lt can be coped with on land where you can use implements, but there is going to be great difficulty in dealing with it on the rough land. 78. Do you not think that a lot of the Southland grass-seed is carrying an enormous amount of thistle-seed to other parts of the colony ?—There has been a great deal of Californian thistle-seed in the grass-seed that has come up during recent years. 79. Do you think it is practically impossible to clean ryegrass-seed entirely from the Californian thistle ?—lt is very difficult to get the thistle-seed entirely out. 80. What is your opinion of ragwort ?—Ragwort is certainly a big trouble. It has been spread by means of seed in many districts in the North Island, and it is going to be a trouble to get rid of; but in the case of land you can get at with a spray pump, or can skim as in the case of the Californian thistle, I will guarautee you will get rid of it in two seasons with systematic work, but you must not let it grow between whiles. 81. Is there no way of getting rid of it with stock ?—Yes, if you stock heavily with sheep when the ragwort is young, they will eat every leaf of it, but if you leave it too long, they get a disease, and the flesh looks jaundiced. Mr. Gilruth describes the disease under the name of "hepatic cirrhosis." But if you put on a mob for a short time, and then remove them and put on another mob, they will suffer very little indeed, and they will keep the ragwort down, but they will not touch it when it is old. 82. Are there any other weeds of as serious a description as Californian thistle taking possession of the country ?—No, excepting sweetbriar and blackberry. There are, however, others which will cause considerable trouble. 83. There is another weed down south that grows in the turnips called " yarr " ?—There is a leaflet published about that. It is a weed that does not go into pastoral land. At one time in Europe they used to grow it as a crop for sheep, and one man in America introduced it as a crop for sheep, but they have abandoned it now. It is very troublesome. 84. What about sweetbriar and blackberry ?—As far as the sweetbriar is concerned, if it is country I can work a team on, I can get the briar out. The best time to get the briar out is when it is fully in flower. Then take a team to it and drag it out by the roots. You will find that the roots left in the ground very seldom grow again if pulled out at that time, but if pulled out at other times they will send up young shoots and develop fresh plants. 85. What about the blackberry ? —That is a very difficult plant to deal with. The best way I have found to tackle very large bushes of blackberry is to spray it with arsenic solution with a good spray-pump. Then you can slash away the larger growth, leave it to dry, and put a fire through it. That gives the plant a severe check ; the subsequent growth can be controlled when the young growth
C—4.
1472
[t. w. kirk.
starts. I might add that blackberry-seeds are spread largely by the droppings of birds. There is one other point I would like to mention. Ido not know whether it comes within the order of reference of the Commission, but if it is within the scope of the Commission I think it would be very desirable if they thought fit to make a strong recommendation that agricultural experimental stations should be increased in number as quickly as possible in suitable parts of the colony, and that these stations should be so equipped that cadets can be taken on them. I think you would find that a number of young fellows from the country would get quite as much, if not better, information by working on those stations than they would get at an agricultural college because they would get more all-round work, and they would see experiments carried on which they possibly would not see at other places. Such stations would not of necessity differ very much from the present Government farms, but I want to see more of them. For instance, in suitable districts we should have a place where we can test crops of all kinds, also fruit and other trees. I might mention that there is not a single foot of land in the South Island at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture for an experimental station. 86. Mr. Anstey.] Do you not think there is a lot of experimental work done at Lincoln College, for instance ? —Yes, and a lot of very good experimental work is done there too. Lincoln College is quite apart from the Government, and has its own work to perform. 87. Mr. Johnston.\ There are separate experiments you want to carry out in connection with your own Department ?—The experiments at Lincoln College are undoubtedly valuable, but it is not within their scope to carry out many experiments that we should carry out. I wish, also, to draw attention to the desirableness of establishing a complete system of agricultural education, starting at the primary schools. 88. The Chairman.] Are there not schools in the colony where the children are taught something of agriculture and gardening ?—Yes, a friend of mine, Mr. Davies, of Mauriceville West, within the last two or three years has engaged in that work, and the publication of the results of such work in our annual reports has induced the masters at four other schools to start on similar lines. Those schools are largely dependent on private subscriptions for the material to carry on the work. I think some provision should be made for this. I have done all that I can ; ever since 1897 I have urged the encouragement of agricultural education. 89. Mr. Anstey.] How are you going to test the land and grasses in regard to stock-carrying ?— Simply growing a few kinds of grass in a garden or in a small way is no test as to how those grasses will carry ordinary stock. Tests of that nature as to the carrying of stock are already made at certain stations. 90. How would you propose to carry out such experiments in high country ?—By sowing a lot of different areas with different grasses, and then trying stock on them, or by sowing several kinds of grass that are likely to succeed in high country —because the choice is very limited there —and then let the stock have the run of all the different kinds and see which they take to and which stand the wear-and-tear best. 91. With respect to spraying for weeds, do I understand that it does not kill the weeds ?—I was speaking just now of such weeds as Californian thistle, blackberry, and sweetbriar, and in no case does it kill the root save by repeated applications killing the foliage and so affecting the root. 92. Spraying is only a temporary expedient ? —Yes, in some cases it does fairly well, and in others not so well as frequent cutting; this is according to circumstances. 93. Mr. Paul.] In going through the South Island we came across several fine plantations of bluegum which appeared to be dying. Has a remedy been found for the disease, and can it be economically applied ?—lt is caused by a scale insect, and lam trying to get a natural enemy in the shape of a small beetle from Australia, but it has been a bad season there and the Government officers have so far been unable to get me a supply. lam not sure that it will be a remedy as far as the South Island is concerned, but I am hoping it will be, and that when we get a supply they will breed sufficiently to attack that scale. They seem to keep it in check in Australia by that means, but whether the South Island is too cold for it Ido not know. There is no other economical remedy that you can apply, because the trees are too tall to spray profitably. The younger plantations could be saved by a spray-pump, but the older ones cannot be as far as we know at present. There is only the hope that the natural enemy will beat the scale. 94. Eventually, of course, that scale will kill the plantations ? —lt has killed some. 95. Mr. Johnston.] Can you prevent the spread of it to this Island ?—Not if any man is foolish enough to bring a piece of blue-gum that is infected up here. 96. Have you ever seen Californian thistle killed by half a stack of straw being thrown on the top and left there to rot ? —Yes, that is one way, and I have also seen a stack of straw put on and the thistle coming right through. 97. Mr. Anstey.] Have not Californian thistles been known to grow right through straw-stacks ? —I have known them grow through a loose straw-stack. If it is loose straw they will grow through. You want to make it solid. 98. The Chairman.] Do you think that restrictions with regard to cropping are necessary on the improved estates belonging to the Crown ?—Some restrictions are undoubtedly necessary, but I think they would have to be varied in almost every case. Ido not think it is possible to lay down a hard-and-fast rule applicable to all Crown lands. 99. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think it is quite correct to speak of a " green " crop as a crop at all ? —If by a " green " crop you mean a crop of legumes, such as beans or peas, then I would say that in many respects they really benefit the soil, because, although you cut them off, if you retain their roots in the ground they add a large amount of nitrogen to the soil. 100. What about a turnip-crop ?—The turnip-crop does not do that to the same extent. It is not so exhausting as a white crop, but it does not add to the soil as a crop of legumes does.
T. W. KIRK.]
1473
C.—4.
101. Is a turnip-crop an exhausting crop at all ? —I would not call it an exhausting crop, but it is not a recuperative crop in the same sense that peas, beans, and clover are. 102. In the event of manure being applied with the turnips and the latter being fed off the ground, is there any necessity to then restrict your turnip or green crop ?—Not so much. If my turnips are sown with manure and are fed off I would not, under ordinary circumstances, object. 103. Do you think that it would be wise for the Government restriction to apply only to white or straw crops which are removed from the land ?—I would not lay down a rule like that. I think the conditions should be varied practically with each lease that you let. 104. The settlers down South say that two straw crops and one green crop do not suit the position and that one green crop is not sufficient to allow them to clean the land ?—Personally, I cannot say very much about the Government regulation, neither can I say that I should or should not impose that restriction myself if I had a tenant, it would depend on the land and circumstances. 105. Mr. McLennan.'] In your opinion would it be advisable after a man has resided on his property for ten years, and has made improvements equal to two-thirds of the capital value during that period, to remove these restrictions after that period ?—I should say that if the authorities thought that the improvements were sufficient and that the man was a good farmer after he had worked for ten years he might perhaps be given the control. 106. You know that a man is more independent if he has the management of his own farm in his own hands ? —Undoubtedly. 107. In South Canterbury and Otago some of the estates which have been purchased have been very bad with couch, and the settlers have endeavoured to eradicate it by farming, but they have not been very successful. According to the regulations they have to put grass in immediately after the turnips, whether the ground is cleared or not. Do you think that is a good system of farming ? — Again the question must come back to what I said before —that you must vary the regulations to suit the conditions of each farm. I certainly think it is a mistake to compel a man to put down grass if he wants to eradicate the couch-grass. 108. In your opinion the land would not suffer supposing you took off three turnip or green crops in succession until such time as you got rid of the couch-grass ?—That depends on the land. I would not say that a particular farm would not suffer, but there are undoubtedly times when the taking of an additional crop off the land is advisable. 109. Would you agree that after ten years' farming a man ought to be competent to manage his own affairs ?—He ought to be. 110. If he is not, all the Rangers in the country would not make him a farmer ?—lf he is not a farmer by that time you had better take his land from him and give it to some one who is a farmer. John Strauchon examined. 111. The Chairman.'] You are Commissioner of Crown Lands and Chief Surveyor for the Wellington Province ? —Yes, and have held that position for three years and a half. Before that I was nine years in Taranaki and two years in Westland in the same position, and previous to that I was District Surveyor at Mataura. 112. How many years have you been in the Government service ? —Forty-three years. 113. I think you have a statement which you wish to read ? —Yes. I have prepared a compendium or synopsis of the various Acts and regulations dealing with the settlement of Crown lands in this district, and in doing so have endeavoured to bring out in a clear and graphic manner the principal sections dealing with, the many different phases of the question. I have endeavoured in the first place to show what are Crown lands, and what steps intending settlers have to take to apply for and get on the land, also when they have got there what is required of them in the way of residence and improvements, &c., under the various tenures now in operation. I may here say that, although there are some districts where other tenures such as obtain in the mining districts, &c., are in operation, still my notes and remarks so far as they go are equally applicable to every district in the colony. A chapter has been devoted to explaining the much-vexed question of classification of Crown and Native lands, and for this purpose I have quoted from the official records in my office, a most able and lucid explanation prepared (read before the then Land Board and adopted by that body, and also by the present Land Board) by my predecessor in office, Mr. J. W. A. Marchant, now Surveyor-General of the colony. Another chapter has been devoted to the question of " thirds " and " fourths," showing their derivation and application, &c. Proposed amendments in the Land Acts are presented and discussed. Tables have been prepared showing the numbers of selectors under the various tenures, and numerous other details in connection therewith. Also showing the areas of Crown lands and of Native land in this district, giving approximately the respective areas occupied or partially occupied, and those unoccupied. This table also sets out the areas that have passed through the Native Land Court, and those not yet dealt with, and also shows separately the area now under the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Councils in the Wellington Land District. Another shows the principal endowment lands, State forest, and ordinary forest reserves. A chapter is devoted to general remarks on the various tenures. A few reasons are also given whv the proposal made by Mr. Job Vile, at Palmerston North, in regard to the Post Office collecting the land revenue, would not in my opinion work satisfactorily. During the recent tour I had the pleasure of making, in company with the southern portion of the Land Commission, the question of the rate of interest demanded by private lenders from Crown tenants under the occupation-with-right-of-purchase and lease-in-perpetuity tenures respectively was repeatedly
185—0. 4.
a—4.
1474
[j. STRAUCHON.
referred to in the evidence taken. I have therefore prepared a tabular statement showing in parallel columns what these have been in the cases of private mortgages under these tenures passed by the Wellington Land Board during the past six months. !'*? The order of reference has been taken up and dealt with seriatim. ' h I have also had precis prepared dealing with the various complaints made against the administration of the Land Board, which I think when read will prove that these complaints are utterly unfounded, of a trivial nature, or such as the Board was compelled by law to carry out. These papers have stretched out to a much greater length than I originally intended, but I feel sure there is nothing in them that is not of interest to this Commission. Compendium op Land Acts, Regulations, etc., as affecting Land-settlement in the Wellington Land District. Crown lands in the Wellington District comprise for the most part Native lands which have been purchased or otherwise acquired in freehold from the Natives on behalf of His Majesty. They may be dealt with under the provisions of " The Land Act, 1892," and its amendments ; " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903 " ; " The Public Reserves Act. 1881," and its amendments ; " The State Forests Act, 1885 " ; and " The Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisition Act, 1894." Lands purchased by the Crown from private owners under the powers given by " The Land for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1900," and its amendments, are leased or disposed of under the special provisions of that Act. Ordinary Crown lands may be offered for sale or selection either as surveyed or unsurveyed, due provision being made for public reserves under " The Public Reserves Act, 1881 " ; for State forests under " The State Forests Act, 1885," and for primary education reserves up to 5 per cent, under " The Education Act, 1877," and its amendments. Special care is taken to withhold from sale lands suitable for scenic or milling purposes. All Crown lands consist of three following classes :— " Land Act, 1892," sec. 111. (1.) Town and -village lands, the upset prices of which are respectively not less than £20 and £3 per acre. Such lands are offered for cash by public auction, and, if not then disposed of, may be leased thereafter for any term not exceeding fourteen years, at a rent not less than 5 per cent on tne upset price. Sec. 111. (2.) Suburban land—in the vicinity of town and village lands. Minimum upset price, £2 per acre. These lands are dealt with in the same manner as (1). Sec. 112. (3.) Rural land : Lands not reserved for towns or villages or other public purposes. Rural lands may be classified into either first-class land at not less than £1 per acre, or secondclass land at not less than ss. per acre. They may be dealt with in the following ways : — Sees. 67 and 68. {a.) By offering for cash by public auction in lots not exceeding 640 acres of first-class, or 2,000 acres of second-class land. Sec. 136. (b.) By opening for application on optional systems under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892— -viz., for cash, occupation with right of purchase, or lease in perpetuity at the option of the selector. Limits of areas of lots same as (a). Sees. 162 to 171. (c.) By allotment to special-settlement associations numbering not less than twelve on lease in perpetuity only, under Part IV. of " The Land Act, 1892," in areas not exceeding 320 acres, except in case of swamp lands, in which area may be increased to 500 acres. Minimum price, 10s. per acre. Rent not less than 4 per cent, per annum on"capital \ alue. Sec. 169. (dS By opening for sale or lease tinder Part IV. of " The Land Act, 1892," as village settlements which may comprise village lots not exceeding 1 acre, and village-homestead allotments not exceeding 100 acres. Village lots may be offered for cash by public auction at a minimum upset price of £3 per lot, or may be opened for application on optional systems under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892." Village homesteads can be open for application on lease in perpetuity only. Minimum price, 10s. per acre. Rent not less than 4 per cent, per annum. No such lease shall be liable to be seized or sold by legal process for debt or in bankruptcy. " Land Act, 1895," sec. 13. Lessees of village homesteads may increase their holdings (with the consent of the Minister) up to 100 acres by selection of adjoining land, without competition, under section 13 of " Tne Land Act Amendment Act, 1895." Minimum price not less than 10s. per acre. " Land Act, 1892," sec. 172. (e.) Pastorai rural lands may be classified into first-class small grazing-runs not exceeding s,ooo'acres, andTinto second-class small'grazing-runsTnot'exceeding 20,000 acres, and opened for application under Part IV. of "The Land Act, 1892." Term of lease,
twenty-one years, right of renewal or -valuation for improvements. Minimum price, ss. per acre. Rent not less]than per cent, per annum on capital value. (/.) Rural lands wnolly or partly suited for pastoral purposes may be classified into :— Sec. 189. (1.) Pastoral lands which are suitable only for depasturing more than five thousand sheep, and Sec. 187. (2.) Pastoral agricultural lands suitable for subdivision into areas less than 5,000 acres. Term of lease of pastoral lands not to exceed twenty-one years. Pastoral agricultural land may be disposed of under any part of the Act that the Governor thinks fit Pastoral runs must be offered by auction, and are dealt with under Part VI. of " The Land Act, 1892." Sec. 121. (g.) Rural lands on or adjacent to which any mineral, oil, gas, metal, or valuable stone are discovered, may be withdrawn from sale and opened for application on lease in perpetuity only under Part 111., on small-grazing-run leases under Part V., or on pastoral lease under Part VI. of " The Land Act, 1892," as provided by section 121 of the same Act. When dealt with in this manner the lessee has no right to any mineral, &c,, under the surface. Crown lands within mining districts may be dealt with in same manner. (See section 119 of Act.) Sec. 114. (h.) Surveyed or unsurveyed rural land may be allotted without competition to any contiguous selector of less than 640 acres under Part 111. of the Land Act, or under any similar tenure under any former Act up to the prescribed limit of area —viz., 2,000 acres, inclusive of not more than 640 acres of first-class land. Minimum price, £1 per acre. Sec. 115. (i.) Unsurveyed rural land not exceeding 640 acres may, with tire Governor's approval, be allotted to any person desirous of acquiring it under any tenure on payment of cost of survey. Land Board fixes price. Sec. 117. (].) Rural lands not exceeding 50 acres in area, to which there is no convenient way of access, or which are too small for public sale, or which take up the frontage of lands already granted, &c., may, with the Minister's consent, be sold to adjacent owners without competition. Minimum price, £1 per acre Sec. 118. (k) Rural lands deemed to possess special value owing to superior quality for agricultural purposes, proximity to constructed or projected lines of railway, or on account of minerals, timber, &c., may be offered for sale or lease by public auction in such manner and at such price as the Board thinks fit. Sec. 219. (I.) Pastoral lands may be leased temporarily for grazing purposes, with the consent of the Governor, for any period not exceeding three years, at whatever rental is deemed equitable. Sec. 222. (m.) Crown lands may be leased in areas not exceeding 80 acres for any period not exceeding seven years, for the cutting and removing of timber, bark, flax, removal of clay for bricks, sites for sawmills, flax-mills, tanneries, inns, accommodation-houses, &c. Sec. 223. Board may grant the holder of a license for inn or accommodation-house site, a lease for any term not exceeding twenty-one years. This does not give a right to sell spirituous liquors. Sec. 226. Rural lands not exceeding 200 acres in area may be let for any term not exceeding three years for any of the purposes mentioned in section 222 of " The Land Act, 1892," and if the Board sees no objection it may, during the currency of such occupation, grant a lease for the same land for any term not exceeding twenty-one years. Sec. 227. (o.) Rural timbered lands not exceeding 600 acres in area may be set aside for sawmill proprietors and others, and disposed of in the manner provided in the timber regulations. Sec. 228. (p.) Rural lands may be leased by public auction in lots not exceeding 2,000 acres for the purpose of cutting or removing flax. Term of lease not to exceed seven years. Sec. 231. (q.) Crown lands on which kauri-gum is situated. Annual licenses to dig for and remove gum may be granted on payment of fees of ss. each, which go as county revenue.
1475
J. STEAUCHON.
C—4.
See. lib. (r.) Licenses from year to year for occupation for grazing purposes may be granted or offered by public auction of any area of Crown lands under section 116 of " The Land Act, 1892." See. 242. (s.) Crown lands containing, or adjacent to, any mineral or other springs, may be leased by the Governor in areas not exceeding 7 acres for any term not exceeding sixty-three years. " Land Act, 1895," sec. 14. (if.) For the purpose of encouraging the establishment of industrial, rescue, and reformatory homes, the Minister may grant a society the exclusive right to select a site not exceeding 100 acres. Term, twenty-one years with perpetual right of renewal. Rent, 5 per cent, per annum on capital value. Improved-farm settlement. (u.) Rural lands may be disposed of by ballot or otherwise to deserving men out of employment, or to those unable to select land in the usual way. Areas to be not less than 10 nor more than 200 acres. Tenure : occupation with right of purchase or lease in perpetuity, at the option of the selector. Disposal under " The Lands Improvement and Native Land Acquisition Act, 1894," and the regulations made thereunder. Selection before survey. {v.) " Unsurveyed " rural lands offered for free selection are usually opened under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892," They may be also disposed of under sections 114 and 115 of the same Act. Applications under 63 and 64. Form of application is given in section 109. Summary of Maximum Areas that may be held under various Tenures. Under " The Land Act, 1892." Town, village, and suburban land offered by public auction, no limit (sec. Ill) ; rural land offered by public auction, 2,000 acres, including not more than 640 acres first class (sec. 96, &c.) Optional system (Part 111., Sec. 96 and 136) : Cash, occupation with right of purchase, and lease in perpetuity, 2,000 acres, including not more than 640 acres first class. Farm homestead (lease in perpetuity) : 320 acres (500 acres in case of swamp land), (sec. 164). Village homestead (lease in perpetuity), 640 acres, but no allotment shall exceed 100 acres (sec. 169). Small grazing-runs (Part V., sec. 172) : First-class runs 5,000 acres ; second-class runs, 20,000 acres. Pastoral lands (Part VI., sec. 187) : Pastoral runs, to carry 20.000 sheep or 4,000 head of cattle ; pastoral agricultural runs, 5 000 acres. Without competition : 2 000 acres, including not more than 640 acres of first-class (sec. 114) ; 640 acres (sec. 115) ; 50 acres (sec. 117). No limit, but generally in small areas (sec. 118). No limit, but would probably be governed by areas as in pastoral land (sec. 219). Miscellaneous licenses granted up to 80 acres (sec. 222) ; up to 200 acres (sec. 226); sawmills, &c., up to 600 acres, in 200-acre lots (sec. 227) ; flax, up to 2,000 acres (sec. 228) ; yearly grazing licenses, area unlimited (sec. 116) ; mineral-spring leases, &c., 7 acres (sec. 224). Under " The Land Act Amendment Act, 1895." Industrial homes, &c., 100 acres (sec. 14). Under " The Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisition Act, 1894." Improved farms are set aside up to an area of 200 acres. Under " The Land for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1900." Church sites, not exceeding 1 acre ; dairy factory and creameries, not exceeding 5 acres ; ordinary dairy-farms, &c., 1,000 acres (sec. 64 and Regs. 49 and 3); small grazing-runs, 5,000 acres (Reg. 39); workmen's homes, 5 acres (Reg. 50); married women, 320 acres of first-class and 1,000 acres of secondclass land, irrespective of any land her husband may hold or be entitled to acquire or hold (Reg. 9 as amended on 18th November, 1903). public auction. Under " The Land Act, 1892." Crown lands on the following systems may be offered for sale by public auction, and if not sold may be leased for not exceeding fourteen years : Town lands, village lands, and surburban lands, for cash (sec. 111). Rural and pastoral lands not sold shall remain open for application (sec. 62 (4)). Rural land for cash in special cases (sec. 67). Pastoral runs for lease (Part VI., sec. 187). Lands of special value for sale or lease (sec. 118). Flax lands for lease (sec. 228). Renewal of leases of small grazingruns (Part V., sec. 183). (Auction not compulsory.) Unoccupied lands for lease (sec. 116). BALLOT. Under " The Land Act, 1892." Crown lands on the following systems must be opened for application to public competition, and are subject to ballot if more than one person applies for the same land on the same day (sec. 62). Cash,
1476
C.—4.
[j. STBAUCSON.
1477
C—4.
J. STRAUCHON.
occupation with right of purchase, lease in perpetuity (Part 111., sec. 136). Village-homestead (lease in perpetuity), (Part IV., sec. 169). Small grazing-runs (Part V., sec. 173). Lands supposed to contain minerals, lease in perpetuity only (sees. 119 and 121). Under " The Land for Settlements Act, 1901." Land for Settlements : Lease in perpetuity and small grazing-runs (sec. 8); workmen's homes (Regs. 10 and 60). Improved-farm lots are allotted by ballot or arrangement (Reg. 4). Farmhomestead special settlements, lease in perpetuity (Part IV., " Land Act, 1892 "), are allotted by ballot, as association and Commissioner agree or arrange (Reg. 3). WITHOUT COMPETITION. Crown lands may be allotted on application without competition under the following sections of " The Land Act, 1892 " :— To adjoining owners (sees. 114 and 117); to applicant for unsurveyed land (sec. 115); pastoral land, temporary lease (sec. 219); year-to-year leases, unoccupied land (sec. 116). Under " The Land Act Amendment Act, 1895." Industrial homes, &c. (sec. 14); to adjoining village lessees (sec. 13). Under " The Land for Settlements Act, 1900," Church-sites, creameries, &c. (sec. 64). Miscellaneous. For miscellaneous purposes, under sees. 222, 223, 226, 227, and 242 of Land Act. " THE BUSH AND SWAMP CROWN LANDS SETTLEMENT ACT, 1903." Crown lands under the following systems may be proclaimed as open for sale or selection under the provisions of " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903," and classified as " heavy bush," " light bush and swamp," or " scrub " land : with exemption from rent and taxes for four years in case of " heavy bush," three years in case of " light bush and swamp," and two years in case of " scrub land " :— Occupation with right of purchase and lease in perpetuity (Part 111., Land Act). Farm-homestead lease in perpetuity, and village-homestead lease in perpetuity (Part IV., Land Act). Small grazing-runs (Part V., Land Act). TOWN, SUBURBAN, VILLAGE, AND RURAL LAND OFFERED BY PUBLIC AUCTION FOR CASH. These lands must be surveyed prior to offering, and no lot of rural land can exceed 640 acres of first-, or 2,000 acres of second-class laud (" Land Act, 1892," sees. 67 and 68). The highest bidder, on the land being knocked down, must sign the sale-sheet, and pay to the Receiver of Land Revenue one-fifth of the purchase money that he has bid The remaining fourfifths must be paid within thirty days from date of sale, together with the Crown-grant fee and value of improvements if the section is weighted (sec. 67). Crown-grant fee, £1 per 100 acres, and Jd. for every acre exceeding that area (" Crown Grant Act, 1883," sec. 46). In the event of the payment not being completed within thirty days, the deposit is forfeited, and contract for the sale of the land null and void (" Crown Grant Act, 1883," sees. 66 and 67). There are no residence or improvement conditions, and title may issue on completion of final payment for lands sold by auction for cash. In the event of town, suburban, or village lands being unsold at auction they may be withdrawn from sale till further notice, but may be leased for fourteen years. Rural lands offered by auction remain open for sale at upset price. (" Land Act, 1892," sees. 11l and 62.) LANDS OPENED ON OPTIONAL SYSTEMS UNDER PART 111. OF " THE LAND ACT, 1892." These may be surveyed or unsurveyed, and lots must not exceed 640 acres of first-class or 2,000 acres of second-class land (sees. 62, 96, and 136). All formal applications for surveyed or unsurveyed lands are deemed to be simultaneous if made on the same day, and if there be more than one applicant for the same land, the right of selection is determined by ballot (sec. 62). CASH. The applicant must lodge his application on the proper form at the Land Office within the district in which the land applied for is situated. He must sign the declaration (Schedule A, Land Act) in the presence of a Justice of the Peace or other person authorised to witness declarations. ("Land Act, 1892," sees. 58 and 62.) No age limit for applicants (Schedule A). Applicant must declare land is for his own use and benefit, and not directly or indirectly for the use or benfit of any other person whatsoever, and that including the land applied for, he is not the holder directly or indirectly of any other land in the colony exceeding 2,000 acres, inclusive of not more than 640 acres of first-class land (sec. 62). He must either remit one-fifth of the price with his application, or sign the agreement on back thereof, undertaking to pay deposit when asked to do so, and if a ballot is required, he must have an authorised agent to represent him, 'and pay required deposit if he has not already remitted it, or if he is not present himself to pay it when declared successful (sec 63). An applicant for lands for cash cannot apply on the same day for more than the maximum areas stated above (sec. 62). If the applicant is successful in obtaining a surveyed section, he must pay the balance of four-fifths of the purchasemoney within thirty days from date of sale, together witn certificate of occupation fee £1 Is. (sees. 66 and 81 (2)).
1478
[j. STRAUCHON.
a—4.
Crown grant fee (£1 per 100 acres, and jd. for every acre exceeding that area), and value of improvements if any (" Crown Grants Act, 1883," sec. 46). If tne payment is not completed witnin thirty days, the deposit is forfeited, and the contract for the sale of the land null and void (" Land Act, 1892," sees. 66 and 67). The deposit with a cash application for " unsurveyed " land is the survey fee, which varies from £6 for 30 acres, to £100 for 2,000 acres : the balance of the purchase-money is payable within thirty days after the Commissioner notifies applicant that survey is completed (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 63 (1); Survey Reg. 40; " Land Act, 1892," sec. 66). No residence conditions. A certificate of occupation (in Schedule F, Land Act) issues to applicant in due course after his final payment (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 149). His Crown grant may issue at any time within seven years from the date of his purchase, provided Board is satisfied that he has expended in substantial improvements of a permanent character on the land a sum equivalent to £1 per acre on first-class land, and 10s. per acre on second-class lands (sees. 148 and 149). An applicant for cash land does not secure the benefit of " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903," except perhaps exemption from local rates if land has been proclaimed open under this Act. " Thirds " are not levied from proceeds of land disposed of under " cash " system (sec. 126). No greater area than 250,000 acres of rural land can be disposed of for cash in any one financial year (sec. 139). OCCUPATION WITH RIGHT OF PURCHASE The applicant must lodge an application on proper form, with declaration (Schedule B of Land Act) signed in the presence of a Justice of the Peace or person authorised to witness it (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 62). The total area applied for on one day cannot exceed 2,000 acres, inclusive of not more than 640 acres of first-class land. Lands selected must be contiguous (sec. 62) —Contiguous for selection (sees. 44, 155, 158). Contiguous for residence (sec. 142). Applicant must declare that he is not less than seventeen years; that the land is solely for his own use and benefit, &c., and that including the area applied for, he is not the owner, tenant, or occupier of any land in the colony exceeding the maximum areas stated in the last paragraph (sec. 62 and Schedule B). A married woman who has not obtained a decree of separation or protection order, must restrict the area applied for to 320 acres of first-class, or 1,000 acres of second-class land (sec. 93). Each application for surveyed land should either be accompanied by one-half year's rent and £1 Is. lease and registration fee, or have the agreement on the back signed, undertaking that the deposit will be remitted immediately on demand (sees. 63 and 81 (2)). In the event of a ballot being required, the applicant must be present to pay required deposit, or have an authorised agent present to pay it for him if the deposit has not been previously lodged; otherwise, even if drawn first, he loses his right of selecting the land (" Land Act, 1895," sec. 3 (2)). In the case of applications for unsurveyed land, the deposit consists of the survey fees, which varies from £6 for 30 acres to £100 for 2,000 acres, together with £1 Is lease and registration fee (Survey Regs., 40). The successful applicant must pay the amount with which the section is weighted for improvements (if any) before he can be admitted into possession (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 72). Immediately after approval of his application by the Land Board and completion of the required payments, the selector is notified that he may enter into possession (sec. 72). Term of license : twenty-five years, at a rental of 5 per cent, on capital value. After the tenth year, at any time during the residue of the term, the selector may purchase the freehold at the original capital value, provided he has fulfilled conditions, or he may exchange his license for a lease in perpetuity at 4 per cent, rental. If the selector has not exercised his right of purchase at expiration of term, he has a prior right to a lease in perpetuity of same land at rent of 4 per cent, per annum. (Sees. 152 and 156.) A selector under occupation with right of purchase is barred from selecting non-contiguous land on" same system or on lease in perpetuity for a period of three years from date of his license. At the end of this period he may select non-contiguous land under either system, provided he does not hold more than one license, and has duly fulfilled its conditions, and residence on either allotment is regarded as a sufficient compliance (see. 153). Two or more selectors may make a joint application for an occupation-with-right-of-purchase license, and each is subject to the same conditions, limitations, restrictions, &c., as in the case of one licensee, but only one is required to live on the land (sec. 161). LEASE IN PERPETUITY. Under " The Land Act, 1892." Term of lease, 999 years from the Ist January or July following date of selection. Rent, 4 per cent, per annum on capital value. (Sec. 157.) Mode of application, qualifications, restrictions, &c., same as in the case of occupation-with-right-of-purchase selections (sec. 62). Declaration accompanying application must be on form. Schedule Cof Land Act (sec. 93, &c., Schedule C). SPECIAL SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATIONS. Under Part IV. of " The Land Act, 1892." The Governor may set apart for special settlements blocks of rural land not exceeding 250,000 acres in one year. Areas not less than 1,000 acres nor more than 11,000 acres may be allotted to associations containing after ballot not less than twelve persons. (Sees. 162 and 163.)
J. STRAUCHON. 1
1479
C—4.
Maximum area of holdings, 320 acres, except in case .of swamp lands, where it may be increased to 500 acres (Reg. 164). Tenure, lease in perpetuity only, at a rental not less than 4 per cent, on capital value. Minimum price, 10s. per acre. Governor may alter regulations. (Sec. 163.) MODE OF APPLICATION. All applications must be made to the Minister of Lands by the secretary or chairman of the association, and should contain a list of the names, addresses, and occupations of the applicants, and the area which each wishes to acquire. The association must deposit cost of survey up to 2s. 6d. per acre with Receiver before survey is undertaken. (Regs.) In the event of the Minister approving the association's application, each individual member must lodge a statutory declaration in the form set forth in Appendix to Regulations for Special-settlement Associations (New Zealand Gazette, 2nd February, 1893), to the same effect as in declarations for lease in perpetuity under optional system, excepting that 320 (or 500 acres as the case'mayjbe) is the maximum area that can be applied for, including what applicant may already hold. The rent for the first two years may be added to the capital value of the land, or may be paid off at any time at the option of the selector (Reg. 11). Residence, improvements, &c., conditions same as for lease in perpetuity under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892 " (sec. 163). Lands disposed of to special settlements may be exempted from rents and taxes under " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903," if proclaimed by the Governor, before disposal, as coming under the operation of this Act. A block of 5,000 acres may be disposed of in suitable-sized lots, under any of the following systems, to persons who may be desirous of working the same under regulations to be approved by the Governor in Council, who may fix terms and conditions (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 165) :— Cash occupation with right of purchase and lease in perpetuity : Part 111., " The Land Act, 1892." Lease in perpetuity, farm homestead : Part IV., " The Land Act, 1892." Cash, village : Part IV., " The Land Act, 1892." Lease in perpetuity, village homestead : Part IV., " The Land Act, 1892." VILLAGE SETTLEMENTS. The Governor may set apart for village settlement such blocks as he thinks fit (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 168). Every village settlement must be surveyed, and may be divided into village lots not exceeding 1 acre each, and village homesteads not exceeding 100 acres each. (Sec. 169.) Village allotments may be disposed of as follows : — (a.) For cash by public auction at upset price not less than £3 for each allotment. The method of purchase is the same as previously set forth in the case of town, suburban lands, &c. (Sec. 169.) (b.) May be opened for application under Part 111. of Land Act. Method of application, &c., same as given in the case of cash, occupation with right of purchase, and lease in perpetuity applications under Part 111. (Sec. 169.) Village-homestead allotments can be offered only on lease in perpetuity, at a rent of 4 per cent, on capital value. Minimum price, 10s. per acre (sec. 169, (4)). Mode of application, qualifications, restrictions, &c., same as for lease in perpetuity under Part 111. (Sec. 169). Married women not separated by judicial order are not eligible to apply for village homesteads (Regs.). No such lease shall be liable'to be seized or sold byHegal process for debt or in bankruptcy. (Sec. 169 (4). Village lands may be brought under the operation of " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903," before disposal, with consequent exemption from rent and taxes for various periods. Money may be advanced by Parliament for advances to village lessees for the profitable occupation of their holdings (" Land Act, i 892," sec. 170). SMALL GRAZING-BUNS. Under Part V. of " The Land Act, 1892." Any pastoral lands may be classified into first-class small grazing-runs not exceeding 5,000 acres, and second-class grazing-runs not exceeding 20,000 acres, and open for application to public competition (sec. 172). Term twenty-one years, with right of renewal, or valuation of all substantial improvements of a permanent character in existence on land at end of term (sec. 179). Rent cannot be less than 2f per cent, on capital value, which cannot be less than ss. per acre (sec. 173.) The applicant must lodge an application on the proper form with declaration (Form D in Schedule to Land Act), signed in the presence of a Justice of the Peace or other person authorised to witness it. The applicant must declare that he is not less than seventeen years of age, that he is purchasing the lease solely for his own use and benefit, &c., tnat he does not hold and has no interest in any other small grazing-run or pastoral license, and that he does not own any other land, which, with the area applied for, exceeds 1,000 acres. A married woman not judicially separated or protected is barred from selecting small grazingruns exceeding 320 acres of first-class land or 1,000 acres of second-class land (sec. 93). Each application should be accompanied by one half-year's rent and £1 Is. lease fee, or have the agreement on back signed undertaking that the deposit will be remitted immediately on demand (sec. 63 (2)). In the event of a ballot being required, the applicant must be present to pay required deposit or have an authorised agent present to pay it for him (if the deposit has not been previously lodged,)
C._ 4.
1480
T.T. STBAUCHON.
otherwise, even if drawn first, "he loses his right of selecting the land ("Land Act, 1895," sec. 3 (2)). The successful applicant must pay the amount with which the run is weighted for improvements, if any, before lie can be admitted into possession (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 72). The lease entitles the lessee to the exclusive right cf pasturage, and tr all crops which he may take off the land. No right of purchase is conferred, but the lessee may, with the Board's approval, select an area of 150 acres adjoining and including his homestead, through which no road can be taken without his consent (sees. 176 and 177). Roads may be taken through any other portions of the run, and holders of miners' rights and business licenses may exercise them over small grazing-runs (sec. 181). The lessee of a small grazing-run, after compliance with the conditions for a period of three years, may, with the Board's approval, subdivide his run amongst other members of his family over the age of seventeen (sees. 177 and 181). Residence continues for whole term after one or three years (sec. 178). A renewed lease for a further term of twenty-one years is to be offered to the existing lessee at least twelve months before the expiry or other determination of his lease at a rent calculated at not less than per cent, on the value of the fee-simple, less value of improvements, and he shall then elect whether he accepts the new lease, which is to be subject to similar conditions as the original lease excepting as to rental that may be payable (sec. 182 (b)). On the day of expiry of existing lease, or thereafter, the improvement-money is paid over to the outgoing tenant if he has not elected to accept a fresh lease, and if he has let the new tenant into quiet possession (sec. 183 (d)). If the original lessee does not accept new lease, and if the Board fails to find a purchaser at auction, he may again elect within thirty days whether he accepts the renewed lease, and, if not, he shall continue as year-to-year tenant and pay the rent reserved by the original lease until a new tenant under the new lease is found, failing this it may be sold by auction (sees. 185 and 67). Small grazing-runs may be proclaimed before disposal as coming under the operation of " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903," with consequent exemption from rent and taxes for various periods. The Governor on Board's recommendation mav accept the surrender of a small grazing-run (Part VI., sec. 218). Small grazing-runs may be converted to lease in perpetuity (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 160, " Land Act, 1895," sec. 15). " The Grown Tenants Rent Rebate Act, 1900," does not apply. Leases of Pastoral Runs. Under Part VI. of " The Land Act, 1892." All rural lands wholly or partly suited for pastoral purposes (sec. 187) may be classified into— (1.) Pastoral lands suitable exclusively for pasturage and not capable of being used with profit in areas of a carrying-capability of less than 5,000 sheep. Unless in extraordinary circumstances, no run is to be of a larger area than will carry all the year round 20,000 sheep or 4,000 head of cattle. Each run must have sufficient low contiguous, or non-contiguous country included in it to insure its proper working. (Sec. 190.) These runs are offered by public auction for any term not exceeding twenty-one years, at upset rentals determined by the Land Board (sees. 187 and 194). (2.) Pastoral agr-cultural lands, partly adapted for pasturage and partly for agriculture, suitable for subdivision into areas not exceeding 5,000 acres (sec. 189 (2)). These lands may be disposed of by way of lease or license under any part of the Land Act in such manner as the Governor may notify in Gazette (sec. 191). The Governor may resume at any time the whole or any portion of pastoral agricultural land held under lease or license, on giving tenant twelve months' notice in writing, but without compensation in holdings granted after the 15th September, 1882 (sec. 192). The bidder of the highest rent at public auction becomes the lessee or licensee, and deposits on the fall of the hammer one half-year's rent and £1 Is. lease and registration fee, together with the value of the improvements, if any (sees. 195 and 81 (2)). He is also required to sign a statutory declaration to the effect that he is purchasing the lease for his own use and benefit, &c., and that he is not the holder of any pastoral lease or license or small grazing-run in any part of the colony, and that he has no interest therein (Schedule (e)). There is no age limit; one man, one run (except under section 219), but the holder of any pastoral run may become the lessee of an aggregate area sufficient to carry not less than 10,000 sheep or 2,000 head of cattle (sec. 193). There is no restriction on the area a married woman may select under pastoral lease or license. A pastoral lease or license entitles the holder thereof to the exclusive right of pasturage over the lands specified therein, and gives' no right to soil, timber, or minerals, and determines immediately over any portion that may be leased, licensed, or purchased, granted, or reserved (sec. 198). It contains conditions that the lessee or licensee shall prevent the destruction or burning of timber and bush, and also the growth or spread of gorse, broom, and sweetbriar, or the spread or increase of rabbits. Roads and rights of way may be taken at any time without compensat'on. (Sees. 198 and 199.) The lessee or licensee may at any time on the recommendation of the Board, and the approval of the Governor, and on payment of fees, divide his run, and thereupon the Board may issue new leases or licenses for the balance of the term (sec. 209). The lessee or licensee of any pastoral run exceeding 5,000 acres in area who has erected a homestead on the land has the right, with the consent of the Board, to select and occupy during the currency of the lease or license an area not exceeding 150 acres adjacent to the homestead, which is exempt from right of determination under section 192 (sec. 211). [There seems to be a contradiction here in the Act (section 211), as the right of determination here referred to was made by section 192 to apply only
J. STBATJCHON.]
1481
a—4.
to runs less than 5,000 acres in area —viz., pastoral agricultural lands which are by section 189 (2) limited to 5,000 acres. There appears to be no power of resumption on runs over 5,00 acres.] The Governor may, on Board's recommendation, accept the surrender of any pastoral lease or license (sec. 218). There are no improvements or residence conditions on pastoral leases or licenses. If the Governor determines to relet pastoral lands for depasturing purposes, the Board reoffers the run by auction, at least twelve months before the expiration of existing lease or license, and, in the event of the then lessee or licensee not purchasing the new lease, the Board not later than one month before expiration or original term obtains a revaluation of all improvements, and their value is paid over to the outgoing tenant, the amount thus paid not to exceed three times the average annual rent paid under expiring lease, or five times where such rent has not exceeded £50. In addition to the amount specified, the incoming tenant must pay the value of every rabbit-proof fence erected on the run. (Sec. 207 (1).) In the event of the run not being relet for depasturing purposes, the Crown pays the value of the rabbit-proof fences as appraised at end of term. The Commissioner or Board is not liable for any other kind of fence or improvement. (Sec. 207 (3).) Pastoral leases or licenses do not come under the operation of " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903." Pastoral run leases may be converted to lease in perpetuity within statutory limits as to class and area (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 160 ; " Land Act, 1895," sec. 15). Surrenders may be accepted (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 218). " The Crown Tenants' Rent Rebate Act, 1900," does not apply. ADVERTISING, ETC. All Crown lands offered to public competition for sale or lease are advertised in the New Zealand Gazette and in local newspapers as available for disposal for not less than one month prior to the date fixed for sale (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 67). Sale posters are posted on notice-boards at the principal post-offices and railway-stations, and are forwarded to Postmaster for distribution. Crown Land Guides and sale posters are also forwarded to all inquirers from the local office. These publications give full particulars as to date of offering, tenure, price, description of land, access, &c. IMPROVEMENTS. Lease in Perpetuity and Occupation with Right of Purchase. Ten per cent, first year, 10 per cent, second year, and 10 per cent, within six years, and, in addition, £1 per acre first-class, and not exceeding 10s. per acre on second-class lands within the sixth year (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 144). Cash Lands. Within the first seven years £1 per acre first-class, and 10s. per acre on second-class lands (sec. 148). Small Grazing-run. First year, equal half-year's rental; second year, another year's rental; and thereafter, but within six years, another two years' rental, and if in bush 10s. per acre on first-class and ss. per acre on secondclass lands (sec. 179). These improvements may be modified to not less than half (" Land Act, 1895," sec. 8). RESIDENCE. Lease in Perpetuity and Occupation with Right of Purchase. On bush and swamp lands within four years, and on open or partly open lands within one year. On lease in perpetuity to continue for ten years, and on occupation with right of purchase for six years, or seven years on open lands (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 141). Small Grazing-run. Residence after one or three years to be continuous to the end of term (sec. 178). TRANSFERS. After a selector has held for twelve months, he may apply to transfer. If the conditions as to residence and improvements have been fulfilled, and on payment of any rent due, and a transfer fee of £1 Is. the Land Board consents, and the District Land Registrar is notified he may accept a transfer when lodged (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 83). Subdivision of the Land comprised in a Lease or License and Transfer of a Part. If the conditions have been fulfilled and the proposed transferee is eligible, the Land Board approves. The application is then scheduled and sent on to the Head Office for the consideration of the Minister. When he approves the application, the parties are notified that a plan of a survey executed by a duly licensed surveyor must be supplied. Payment of any rent due is then required, together with £2 25., fees for two new leases and £1 Is. transfer fee. The District Land Registrar is authorised to accept the transfer when lodged for registration. (" Land Act, 1895," sec. 12.) When registered, the District Land Registrar forwards to this office the lease with the transfers indorsed. Two new leases, one in the name of the original lessee and the other in the transferee's name, for the respective parts are then prepared, sent for signature, signed, and registered in the District Land Registrar's office, and delivered by him to the parties. Subdivisions and transfer of both parts are dealt with in a similar manner (sec. 12).
186—C. 4.
C—4.
1482
[j. STRAUCHON.
Subdivision of Land comprised in a Lease and surrender of a Part in order that it may be offered for Sale to enable a Dairy Company to secure a Site. A form of surrender of the piece of land is necessary, together with sketch. The Crown Lands Ranger is then instructed to report, and if the application is in order and the reports favourable the Land Board will approve. Full particulars are then sent to the Head Office for the Minister's consideration, and on his approval the parties are notified and requested to supply a plan of a survey executed by a duly licensed surveyor. When such has been received, approved, and recorded, the parties are requested to send in the lease, together with anv rent due and ss. surrended fee. (" Land Act, 1895," sec. 12 ; " Land Act, 1892," sec. 159.) The lease and form of surrender or part are with the ss. sent to the District Land Registrar, who amends the lease and returns it. It is then sent to the lessee, or whoever may be authorised to receive it. Steps are then taken to offer for sale the piece of land surrendered, weighted with the improvements the dairy company may have effected on the land, and put up for public auction. SUBLEASES. Subleases are effected by an application, stating terms of proposed sublease. A declaration of eligibility is required from the sublessee (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 83). FREEHOLD TITLE. Application for the freehold title to a section held under occupation-with-right-of-purchase system may be made on the expiration of ten years of the term of the license (Land Act, 1895," sections 152, 156). If the conditions as to residence and improvements have been fulfilled, the Land Board will approve the is=ue of the title. MORTGAGES. There are mortgages to private persons and mortgages to the Superintendent, Government Advances to Settlers Office. If the conditions of the lease have been fulfilled, and the mortgage is made subject to section 83, subsection 3, of " The Land Act, 1892," the Board's consent is indorsed on the mortgage docket. (" Land Act, 1892," sec. 83.) SURRENDERS. Surrenders are effected under sections 159 and 218 of " The Land Act, 1892." FORFEITURES. Forfeitures take place in terms of sections 32, 67, 72, 82, 83 (8), 96, 100, and 102 of " The Land Act, 1892," and section 7 of " The Land Act Amendment Act, 1895." CONVERSIONS. When a selector applies to convert from one system to another, and all conditions of the Act have been complied with, the conversion computed, and, with the exception of conversions from small grazing-run to lease in perpetuity, the rental paid on the old tenure is credited, until the amount is exhausted, to the new tenure. The leases are antedated to the date of the original lease. In the case of small grazing-runs, the rental paid is not credited to the new lease. The new lease is dated from the date of the acceptance of surrender of the old lease. The following tenures can be converted : Perpetual lease, to lease in perpetuity ; deferred payment, to lease in perpetuity ; village-homestead special settlement, to lease in perpetuity ; small grazing-run, to lease in perpetuity. The benefit derived by the selector under the conversion, except small grazing-runs, is that the rent is calculated at a reduced rate —4 per cent. Exemption from residence after ten years. " Thirds " become available, and " fourths " become " thirds "on small grazing-runs, &c. (" Land Act, 1892," sees. 150 and 160 ; " Land Act, 1895," sec. 15.) CAPITALISATIONS. All deferred-payment sections can be capitalised and can also be extended from ten years to fourteen years (" Land Act, 1885," sec. 126 (1-4)). If a Land for Settlements lease-in-perpetuity selector has buildings on his section which are the property of the Government, or has received an advance on his buildings, the balance outstanding can be capitalised at any time during the currency of the term of the repayment. The terms for these repayments range from five years to twenty-one. (Land for Settlements Regulations.) REBATE. The granting of not more than 10 per cent, rebate of rental to tenants rests entirely with the Commissioner of Crown Lands and the Receiver of Land Revenue, who may in their discretion carry out the provisions of the Act (" Crown Tenants' Rent Rebate Act, 1900 "). Rebate of rent is allowed on all tenures except reserves, miscellaneous licenses, small grazing-runs, Native townships, and village-homestead special settlements (" Land for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1900," sec. 52). The condition required to obtain rebate is that the rent must be in the hands of the Receiver of Land Revenue not later than one month after the rent becomes due. The rebate allowed in the Wellington District is as follows : Occupation with right of purchase, lease in perpetuity, farm homestead, improved farm, village-homestead lease in perpetuity, 10 per cent. ; perpetual lease, deferred payment, land for settlements, lease in perpetuity, 5 per cent.
1483
a—4.
J. STEAUCHON.]
In the event of any Crown tenant being unable at any time through any natural disaster or other sufficient cause to pay his rent, upon the recommendation of the Land Board the Minister may remit a year's rent, or such portion of a year's rent as he deems advisable (" Land for Settlements Act, 1900," sec. 53, and " Crown Tenants' Rent Rebate Act, 1900," sec. 4). TITLES. The freehold title of perpetual leases can be acquired at any time after the improvement and residential conditions of the lease have been complied with, and under the occupation-with-right-of-pur-chase system the freehold title can be acquired after the lapse of ten years from the beginning of the term, provided all the conditions have been complied with. The payment of capital value, Crown grant, and any rent due to date is required in each case. (" Land Act, 1885," sec. 160, and " Land Act, 1892," sees. 152 and 156.) IMPROVED FARM. Under " The Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisition Act, 1894." Lessees holding land under this system are entitled to monetary assistance from the Government for bushfelling and grassing. All amounts advanced for bushfelling and grassing are added to the capital value of the land, and the rental is payable on the Ist January or the Ist July ensuing twelve months after any area has become ready for stock, and the rent is increased as fresh areas become ready. Advances up to £30 can be made to tenants for house or garden. This may be repaid before the lease issues, or may be added to the .capital value. Tenants have the option of holding the land under occupation-with-right-of-purchase or lease-in-perpetuity systems. (Regulations.) RENTAL. Under " The Land Act, 1892." Rents are payable half-yearly in advance on the Ist January and Ist July in each year on all systems except small grazing-run and pastoral license. The rent on these two systems is payable on the Ist March and Ist September in each year. Should any selector find that he is temporarily unable to pay the rent due, and applies for reasonable time, the Land Board invariably grants his request. Selectors who are in poor circumstances or who have met with misfortune are treated leniently, and are given extension of time in which to pay. (Sees. 152-157, 180, 213, &c.) " THE BUSH AND SWAMP CROWN LANDS SETTLEMENT ACT, 1903. This Act is to provide for the encouragement of settlement on bush and swamp lands. Any selector taking up land under this Act will have his land designated " heavy bush," " light bush," " scrub," or " swamp land " respectively, and he will receive the following concessions regarding the payment of rent. In the case of " heavy-bush land "he will be relieved of any payment (except his first deposit) for four years; three years in the case of " light bush "or " swamp lands," and two years in the case of " scrub " land. If, however, he should dispose of his interest in the land during the first five years of his occupancy, the rent conceded under this Act will have to be paid by him in full. The Land Board may exempt any tenant of " swamp " land from residence for five years if he puts on the land twice the amount of substantial improvements. ADVANCES TO SETTLERS. Under " The Government Advances to Settlers Act, 1899." Settlers can obtain an advance on their improvements from the Superintendent, Advances to Settlers Office. When an advance is applied for, this office furnishes a report on the state of the rent and improvements, and if the advance is made by the Superintendent, this office is advised of the fact and the information noted in the books here. Twice a year the Superintendent is advised of the state of the rental of those selectors who have received an advance from him. (Sec. 15.) The Superintendent has power as mortgagee to sell the interest of any selector who makes any default in the conditions of the mortgage, and if the selector is in arrear with his rent, the Land Board can only claim three half-yearly instalments of rent. The Land Board must give three months' notice to the Superintendent of its intention to forfeit the interest of any selector. The Superintendent can sell without the consent of the Land Board. " Thirds " and " fourths " derived from Crown rents. " Thirds " and " fourths " derived from rents payable on land held under various tenures from the Crown. " Thirds " payable under " Land Act, 1892," and amendments. These moneys are set apart and dealt with under " The Land Act, 1892," sections 126-135, and Amendment Act, 1895, section 10, subsection (2). " Thirds " and " fourths " payable to local bodies. The " thirds " and " fourths " are payable to the local body in whose district the land lies from which these moneys are derived when proposals for expenditure on roadwork made by the local body have been approved by the Land Board as being for the benefit of the selectors whose sections provide them. On what tenures " thirds " and " fourths " are payable. " Thirds" are payable on all tenures (including deferred payment) except village-homestead special settlement, land acquired under " The Land for Settlements Act, 1890," and small grazing-runs. On the last-named tenure " fourths " are payable.
C.—4.
1484
[j. STKAUCHON.
METHODS OF CALCULATING " THIRDS." No survey fee and no loan. A section on which no survey fee has been paid and no loan raised from the Treasury for opening up the block in which it is situated. One-third of actual rent. Survey fee paid, but no loan. The " thirds " are one-third of the actual payments of rent. A section on which a survey fee has been paid, but no loan as above raised. One-third of actual rent after survey fee has been repaid. The " thirds " are one-third of the actual payments of rent, but are not payable until the amount of the survey fee has been exhausted—i.e., the survey fee paid relieves the selector of payment of rent until the instalments of rent, which would otherwise be payable, are equal to the amount of the survey fee. (Sec. 65, clause 2of " The Land Act, 1892.") No survey fee, but a loan raised. A section on which no survey fee has been paid, but which is liable for a proportion of a loan from the Treasury raised to open up the block in which the section is situated. One-third of the rent on the prairie value. Before the section is loaded with its due proportion, according to area, of the above loan, a " prairie value "is fixed. This is the net price or value on which " thirds " are computed and paid by section 126, " The Land Act, 1892." A rent of 4or 5 per cent., according to the tenure, is computed on the prairie value, and a third of this ie the " thirds " due to the local body. This applies to sections selected after Ist January, 1896. This practice applies to all sections selected subsequently to the Ist January, 1896. Practice for sections selected before Ist January, 1896. The present practice for sections selected prior to the Ist January, 1896, is as follows : The selector pays rent on the total value of the section—i.e., the prairie value and the loading or proportion of loan. He pays 4or 5 per cent, interest on this total capital value, the payment being called rent. Selector pays rent on prairie value plus loading. Department pays Treasury 7 per cent, on loading. One-third of the balance after deducting payment to Treasury is " thirds." The Department pays the Treasury interest and sinking fund at the rate of 7 per cent, on the loading. The selectors pay interest at 4or 5 per cent, only on this loading. The difference between 7 and 4 or 5 per cent., therefore, comes out of the interest or rent on the prairie value, and decreases the amount of net rent available for the payment of " thirds." The interest at 7 per cent, on the loading being deducted from the gross rent which the selector pays and the " thirds " being calculated as onethird of the rent remaining. (This practice is in accordance with a ruling of the Surveyor-General, S.G. 20592/26, dated 28th June, 1894; D.S.O. 11563/5. Circular letter from the Auditor of Land Revenue dated 22nd June, 1895, and explanation and note by him on the above letter, D.S.O. 11563/6 and 11563/10.) Interest upon loan is first charge ; therefore payment of " thirds " may be postponed. It has been stated that where a survey fee has beed paid no rent is payable for a certain period. During this time the interest due to the Treasury on the loading has fallen into arrears. Under section 4 of " The Government Loans to Local Bodies Act Amendment Act, 1891," the interest upon the loading is held to be the first charge on the proceeds of the land. Therefore, these arrears have to be paid from the first instalments of rent available, leaving no balance from which " thirds " can be paid. This postpones the time at which the payments of " thirds " commences, but does not shorten the period. Period for which " thirds " and " fourths " are payable. " Thirds " and " fourths " are payable for a period of fifteen years, except in respect of deferredpayment lands, when they are payable for ten or fourteen years as may be the time of the instalments, or if the balance of payments has been capitalised, for as long as interest is paid. One-third of the whole of the payments under a deferred payment, except the survey fee, are payable as " thirds." Time does not count when there is no rent payable, and therefore no " thirds." Where a section is held and " thirds " are payable, then it is surrendered and rent and " thirds " cease ; and afterwards it is again held, and " thirds " again payable. It has been ruled by the Sur-veyor-General (D.S.O. 15582) that the " thirds " are payable for fifteen years, not counting the time during which no rent and therefore no " thirds " were available, but not making a fresh start from the commencement of the new payments. ADMINISTRATION. Schedule of accrued " thirds " sent to local body for every six months to 30th April and 31st October. In the Wellington Land District, each local body is advised every six months of the amount of " thirds " accrued to the 30th April and the 31st October, and available for expenditure on road-work in its respective district. Method of preparing schedules with deatils of each section with road frontage, &c. Press copies kept and duplicate sheets sent to local bodies with a letter of direction. The " thirds " are entered upon schedules giving the amount against each section, specified by number, block, survey district, and system of tenure. The sections are grouped upon the road or roads on which they front, and on which the " thirds " should be spent, except in special cases. These roads are designated by numbers on the " thirds " maps, and the Receiver of Land Revenue is supplied
1485
C—4.
J. STBA.TJCHON.]
by the officer in charge of " thirds " with the numbers of the frontage roads for all sections, so that the accruing " thirds " for each section can be entered in the " thirds " ledgers under the respective road for the convenience of speedy reference. The schedules of " thirds " are printed and written in copying-ink. They are press-copied before being posted, and are accompanied by a printed circular letter giving a specimen of the manner in which the particulars of proposed works should be filled in. Blank duplicate sheets are also enclosed, so that the local authorities can keep copies of the amounts and proposals, if they see fit. Examination of proposals. When the schedules are returned by the local bodies, with their proposals for works, these are carefully examined by the officer in charge, and prepared for the consideration of the Land Board (sec. 126, " The Land Act, 1892 ") whose sanction is required thereunder. Wishes of selectors consulted and recorded. The wishes of the selectors, therefore, form an important consideration. Several of the local bodies forward with the proposals forms of consent signed by the settlers. Or, if the selector has written about the " thirds " from his section, the number of his file is entered on the section on the " thirds " maps, thus giving the reference to his wishes or needs. Details required for location and returns. Another consideration is that the proposals made can be located, and the necessary details given, so that, if deemed necessary, inspection can be made on the ground as to the carrying-out and completion of the works, and that the annual returns of work done with " thirds " and " fourths " can be correctly compiled. Provision for inspection. These details are chainage of formation, bushfelling, &c., width of road, and whether dray, bridletrack, &c. Specimens of particulars are given on the enclosed letter with the half-yearly schedules. (By Survey Regulations, folio 34, page 6, steps should be taken from time to time to test the expenditure by the local body. HYPOTHECATION OF " THIRDS." Hypothecation of " thirds " by " Land Act, 1892." Section 131 of " The Land Act, 1892," provides that when the Land Board is satisfied that the roads of access are completed, or that the local authority proposes to complete them by means of a loan, the " thirds " may be hypothecated as ordinary revenue of the district in the first case, and in lieu of or in reduction of the special rate in the second case. ORDINARY REVENUE CERTIFICATE. Application for " thirds " as ordinary revenue. The application is on a printed form, and includes certificate by the Chairman of the local body that the roads of access are complete. It is usual to ascertain if the holder of the section, to which access is complete, is willing that the " thirds " should be hypothecated, and that there is no special rate for roadwork to which he is liable. HYPOTHECATION CERTIFICATE IN AID OF RATES. Application for " thirds " in aid of rates for special loan. The printed application form includes a certificate by the Chairman of the local body that the loan has been raised, and is accompanied by a copy of the advertisement relative thereto, showing that the requirements of the Local Bodies' Loans Act have been complied with, or other proof thereof, and by a tracing of the loan area showing all sections whose " thirds " it is proposed to hypothecate. Details of comparison of amounts of rates and " thirds," and that the " thirds " from each section are kept for its sole benefit. When examining an application, the amount of annual rate on each section is compared with its annual " thirds." If the " thirds " are larger, the excess can be used for ordinary roadwork on approved proposals, or paid to the local body to meet the rates in the future when the " thirds " are no longer accruing, but the special rate has still to be paid. The period of the loans being from twenty-six to forty-one years, while that of the " thirds "is fifteen years. A special clause is added to the hypothecation certificate that the " thirds " must be kept for the sole benefit of the section providing them. DIVIDED SECTIONS AND TRANSFER OF " THIRDS." Payment of " thirds " from sections in two local districts and procedure for transfer of sections from one local district to another. Where a section is situated in two local districts, with the consent of the local bodies the " thirds " are paid to the one through whose district the access lies. Strictly, a part of the " thirds "in proportion to the area therein is due and may be claimed by each body, and can only be handed to another body under the authority of the Minister. (Section 128, clause 1, " Land Act, 1892.") It also occurs that though a section is in one district, the access is through another. In such cases when the selector and local body agree, and the Land Board concurs, the consent of the Minister is applied for through the Surveyor-General to the transfer of the " thirds." Division of " thirds " when a section fronts on mere than one road. Where a section fronts on more than one road, the Land Board has directed that the " thirds " should be expended on each road fro rata to the frontages, except in special cases submitted for its consideration.
C—l.
1486
[j. STRATJCHON.
Amount of " thirds " and " fourths " in hand at 31st March, 1905. The sum of £13,996 3s. lid. was lying to the credit of the local bodies in the Receiver of Land Revenue's Deposit Account on the 31st March, 1905, for which amount no proposals for expenditure had been received. " Thirds " and " fourths " payable to eighteen counties, four Road Boards, one Borough Council, one Town Board. In the Wellington Land District there are at present receiving " thirds " and " fourths " eighteen County Councils, four Road Boards, one Borough Council, and one Town Board. By clause 128, subsection (1), " Land Act, 1892," the " thirds " and " fourths " are payable to these respective bodies. " Thirds " and " fourths " are not payable for same land to more than one body. Generally, where " thirds " are payable to a county, the road districts therein do not receive any but in a few cases the Road Boards still have separate administration for the " thirds " from sections in their districts. Boroughs and town districts which contain lands on which " thirds " are payable receive these by clause 128 of " The Land Act, 1892." The " thirds " and " fourths " from no lands are payable to more than one local body. MEMO. EE ROAD BOARDS IN COUNTIES, ETC. Waitotara County Council, Waitotara -Momohaki Road Board. Wanganui County receives the " thirds " from Paratieke Block, which are hypothecated for a bridge, but the rest of the county is included in the Mangawhero and Upper Wangaehu Road Boards. Te Horo Road District is iji the Horowhenua County. Petone Borough Council administers the Korokoro Village Settlement. Hunterville Town District includes three village-homestead leases in perpetuity. , LAND FOR SETTLEMENTS ACTS. Sections 1 to 46, inclusive, are administered by the Land Purchase Department. Lands acquired are deemed to be Crown lands, and may be disposed of under the lease-in-perpetuity system, except small grazing-runs, which will be disposed of under Part V. of the Land Act (sees. 47 and 48 ; see also Regulations 1 to 35 for lease in perpetuity, and 36 to 48 for small grazing-runs). Unless in the case of lands required for homesteads (clauses 55 to 57), or of the mineral-lands (clause 66), the Minister determines the size of allotments into which the land is to be divided, and these may comprise less or more than one surveyed section, but shall not exceed the maximum area prescribed by the Land Act and Regulations (sec. 49, Reg. 3). Classified and grouped as ordinary farms, dairy farms, or small grazing-runs, or partly as farms and partly small grazing-runs, and for purpose of ballot these groups may be further subdivided by Land Board (sec. 8, 1901). Applicants must be twenty-one years of age, and can hold only one allotment—landless applicants having preference. All applicants are examined by Board in regard to this, and also as to their means and ability to work the land. Land Board may increase area of holding if satisfied it is too small to support the applicant and family. A half-year's rent and lease fee of £1 Is. to accompany all applications. (Sec. 49.) Minister may set apart lands for workers' homes in areas not exceeding 5 acres each, and may make advances thereon for buildings, &c., equal to £1 for £1 up to £50, interest thereon to be 5 per cent, per annum, repayable within ten years (sec. 50 ; see also Regs. 49-60). Minister to determine rentals, but these must be at a rate not less than 5 per cent, on capital value of the land. When rent is paid within one month of due date, and no arrears exist, a rebate not exceeding one-tenth of the half-yearly instalment is allowed. (Sees. 51 and 52.) Remission of rent may be allowed in cases of natural disaster, not exceding one year's rent as may be determined by the Minister, provided lessee is not over twelve months in arrear with his rent (sec. 53). When buildings exist on the land, and are repayable by half-yearly instalments spread over a period of not less than seven nor more than twenty-one years, with interest'at 5 per cent., in special cases these repayments may be suspended until the expiration of the second year ; lessee meanwhile paying interest at 5 per cent, on value of buildings only (sec. 54 and sec. 2 of 1901). Lands may be set apart as homestead-sites for neighbouring pastoral lands, lessee having right to valuation for improvements at end of term as provided by sections 72 to 77 of " The Land Act, 1892," &c. (sec. 55). From lands acquired the owner of a homestead may obtain a lease in perpetuity of 640 acres of firstclass land, or 1,000 acres of mixed classes of land as he may select, but subject to the approval of the Land Board (sec. 56 ; also 6 of 1901). A tenant under the late owner in bond fide occupation of a homestead on the estate at time of purchase (but subject to prior rights of such owner) may also obtain on the same terms and conditions a lease in perpetiuty up to 640 acres around same irrespective of class (sec. 57). No " thirds " or " fourths " are payable on lands acquired under this Act, and no reserves along coast, around lakes, or along river-banks are made (sees. 58 and 62). Lessees are liable to pay rates and taxes (sec. 59). Unless under extraordinary circumstances, lessees are not allowed to transfer, sublet, part with, mortgage, or charge their leases or. any part thereof, until expiration of the fifth year of term (sec. 60, sec. 10 of 1901; also Reg. 12). Board may, with Minister's consent, after two years accept surrender of a lease on payment of all rent, &c. Valuation for improvements by lessee to be paid by incoming tenant. (Sec. 11 of 1901.) Subject to this Act and Regulations, penalties, forfeitures, &c., are same as in Land Act (sec. 61).
J. STEAUCHON.]
1487
a—4
Reserves may be set aside for State farms or other public purpose, but a sum equal to capital value thereof must be voted by Parliament for credit of Land for Settlements vote (sees. 62 and 63). With consent of the Minister, lands acquired under this Act may be sold in fee-simple as sites for churches, dairy or creameries. Church-sites not to exceed 1 acre, dairy-sites, 5 acres, at prices to be fixed by the Minister, but not less than the cost of the land with all expenses. Provisions of the Land Act relating to declarations, application, and auction, not to apply. Proceeds to be paid into Land for Settlements Account. (Sec. 64.) Lands to be surveyed and classified as soon as practicable, and Minister may lease lands temporarily, or may construct and carry on works necessary for developing deposits of coal, lime, or stone, cost thereof to be paid out of Land for Settlements Account, and receipts paid into credit thereof. And Minister may lease any of these works, &c., for terms up to twenty-one years. (Sees. 65 and 66, and 3of 1901). Small areas of Crown land within or adjacent to these lands may, by proclamation in Gazette, be brought under this Act (sec. 68). Unused and unneeded roads within the estate may be closed and disposed of under this Act (sec. 69). The Governor may make all necessary regulations (sees. 72 of 1900 and 12 of 1901). Residence to be continuous (sec. 9 of 1901 ; see also Reg. 11). Persons who have drawn a section in any land ballot, and have afterwards disposed of same, are ineligible to again select for one year after such disposal, unless under special circumstances, and with consent of Land Board (sec. 5 of 1904). Applicants may be examined in districts where they reside (sec. 6 of 1904). Governor may lease sites for public halls or for recreation purposes (sec. 7 of 1904). Regulations under Land for Settlements Acts. Clauses 1 to 10 prescribe term and date of lease, area of allotments, grouping, rents, applications, choice of allotment, deposits, statutory declaration, questioning by Board, limitations and disabilities of applicants, and conditions of ballot. Clause 11 prescribes continuous residence from date of lease. Clause 12 : No transfers for five years unless on death of lessee, or other extraordinary event Clauses 13 to 17 set out improvements required within first six years. Mode of discriminating improvements existing at date of lease. Define substantial improvements. Ring-fence within two years. Trimming hedges, stubbing of gorse, broom, sweetbriar, and noxious weeds. Clauses 18 to 22 deal with cropping, hay-cutting, cleaning watercourses, drains, and if tenant fails to do this, provides for such cleaning &c., being done by Commissioner, who can recover the cost thereof from lessee in same manner as rent. Clause 23 : Lessee shall pay all rates, taxes, and assessments during term of lease. Clauses 24 and 25 deal with land having buildings thereon, and which have been valued separately, arid also insurances thereon. Clause 26 provides for forfeiture in case of failure to pay rent, interest, &c. Clauses 27 to 29 deal with mining, quarrying stone, removing gravel, and cutting timber. Clauses 30 and 31 : Valuations of improvements ; and distinguishes between those existing at date of lease and those made subsequent thereto. Clauses 32 and 33 reserve right to Crown to take water-races and lay pipes over lands without compensation other than a proportionate reduction in rent. Also deal with lessee's rights to water in creeks running through his land, and bars diversion without consent of Commissioner. Clause 34 : Form of lease as provided in Third Schedule of Regulations. Clause 35 : Conditions of Land Act to apply. As to Pastoral Lands. Clause 36 : All pastoral lands under the Act to be disposed of as small grazing-runs by Land Boards. Clause 37 : Term and date of small-grazing-run leases. Clause 38 : Option of renewal on a revaluation. Clause 39 limits area of small-grazing-run allotments to 5,000 acres generally, but in no case to exceed limits fixed by Land Act —viz., 5,000 acres for first-class, 20,000 acres for second-class runs, and no lessee to hold more than one run. Clause 40 : Rent, 5 per cent, on capital value of land (exclusive of buildings), and fixes Ist days of March and September in each year as dates for payment. Date of lease to be date of Land Board's approval of application. Clauses 41 and 42 deal with form of application, declaration, limitation of areas and values thereof that an applicant may hold at time of applying. Married woman may hold 320 acres of first- or 1,000 acres of second-class land, in addition to any land her husband may hold, &c. Clauses 44 and 45 : Residence, improvements, classification, and area to be kept in permanent pasture. Clause 46 : Lease to be in form of Fifth Schedule. Clause 47 makes certain clauses of these regulations apply to small grazing-runs, and brings them under the Land Act, Land Board, and Commissioner, but clause 48 absolutely bars a selector from ever obtaining a lease-in-perpetuity title for a small grazing-run. Clauses 49 to 60 deal with allotments for workmen's homes.
C.—4.
1488
[j. STBAUCHON-
Classification of Lands. By the late Commissioner of Crown Lands/ Mr. J. W. A. Marchant Turning now to " The Land Act, 1892," in order to determine how the Land Board should proceed to deal with applications for classification of Maori lands under section 32 of " The Native Amendment Act, 1896," the following sections appear to be those bearing on the matter : — Section 68 limits allotments to be auctioned to 640 acres first-class or 2,000 acres of second-class land, excepting in the cases of leases of pastoral lands. Section 96 prescribes that no person can be a selector who owns 2,000 acres or upwards of freehold land, inclusive of 640 acres of first-class land. > f- •> Apparently foreseeing the difficulty involved in the determination of first- and second-class lands, this same section 96 clearly defines that any land held by any person, if of an unimproved value of £1 per acre or more, shall be deemed first-class land, and, if of less unimproved value than £1 per acre, shall be deemed to be second-class land. Sections 106 and 108 provide for the classification of Crown lands into town, suburban, and rural. Section 112 empowers the Board to classify land and dispose of same —(1) first-class lands at a price not less than £1 per acre ; and (2) second-class lands at a price not less than ss. per acre. >' 9 Section 113 empowers the Government to classify and reclassify town, suburban, or rural lands; Though there are throughout the Land Act other references to the question of class of land, I am not aware of any other important clauses of special provision specifying or distinctly defining how Crown lands are to be classified. The Land Boards of the colony, assisted by the officers of the Lands and Survey Department, working under the directions and guidance of the Surveyor-General are believed to have dealt with this important question of classification of Crown lands in the following manner, and with regard to the following considerations : — (a.) The position and accessibility of the particular block of land in relation to centres of population and markets. (b.) The character of country and quality of soil. (c.) The capabilities and adaptability of the land for purposes of culitivation, and the production of various classes of farm and garden produce, and the grazing and rearing of stock. (d.) The nature and extent of the demand, and the class of persons likely or desirous of acquiring portions of the land. These and like considerations have enabled the Land Board to approve of the capital value proposed in each instance, and to decide as to the areas into which the land should be subdivided, and the system, and also the class under which the land should be dealt with. In this manner the Land Boards of the colony have had no difficulty in separating those portions of the Crown lands that could most advantageously be dealt with under Part V. (as small grazingruns) and Part VI. (under pastoral licenses) : the balance of the Crown lands generally coming under Part 111., the optional system. Special portions of the latter, such as those in towns and suburbs, being disposed of at auction for cash under Part 11. of the Act; other portions, again, being opened under Part IV. of the Act as special or village settlements. Having determined the systems of the Act under which any particular block should be disposed of, and having decided whether the value should be greater or less than £1 per acre (vide section 112), and also the restriction as to limit of area which should be placed thereon, the Board determines whether the land shall be first or second class, or a combination of both. In carrying out this duty the Boards have included under the designation of " first class," not only rich alluvial and other agricultural lands of high value, but also immense areas of hilly broken country, open or forest-clad, valued at £1 or more per acre, and suitable for occupation in holdings not exceeding 640 acres. Under the designation of " second class," the Boards have generally placed light stony plains, high, cold, and scrubby and open hills, and a large proportion of the rugged, broken, forest-clad, and generally remote and not easily accessible portions of the colony, but which yet are superior to the class of land allotted in small grazing and pastoral runs. It appears to have been generally understood and accepted by the Land Boards, that under the provisions of " The Land Act, 1892," it is required of them when classifying country —(1) that every care be taken that it be dealt with under the system of the Act, which, in pursuance of the foregoing considerations, would insure of its being selected and occupied to the best advantage ; (2) that it be subdivided and offered in areas suitable to its capabilities and the requirements of the people, and so that its occupancy and utilisation be controlled by the special provisions of the Land Acts relating to the particular class and system under which the land was disposed of. This method of classification of Crown lands in vogue under the Land Act, occasionally causes misconception in the minds of the farmers, expert land-valuers, and others, who apply the terms " first " and " second class " to agricultural and other lands in the ordinary acceptation of the words, and it is difficult to make plain to them that these terms are only used in the Land Act for the purpose of distinguishing Crown lands, which are rarely first class in the sense in which they understand and apply the term, but which are used throughout the Land Act for the purpose of deciding which lands are suitable for occupation in areas of 640 acres, and which in blocks of 2,000 acres, as the case may be, valued at £1 per acre or more in the one instance, and less than £1 as a rule in the other. These two classes carrying with them different obligations as regards improvements. As an illustration of this question of classification, take, for example, a section of land near the Waikanae Railway-station, where it is undoubtedly first-class open flat land, but within practically a stone's throw of that station the hill rises abruptly and is covered with bush. The Board, when
J. STRA.UOHON.I
1489
C.-4
dealing with it, classified this land as far as the top of the hill as first class, taking into consideration its proximity to a railway-station and township, accessibility by metal roads, and capability of being worked in with the low flat lands adjoining. Suggested Amendments to the Land Acts. " The Land Act, 1892." Section 81, (2) : Insert, after " license " in the first line, " certificate of occupation," so as to applv the payment of the license fee to certificates of occupation, these being practically licenses. Sections 83, (1), and 85 : Make provision to enable mortgages to be effected during the first twelve months after the date leases issued in lieu of leases surrendered for revaluations, subdivision, and transfer, and other similar causes. (See note at end.) Section 83 : Insert provision to enable dealings on leases in the Land Transfer Office to be brought down on new leases issued in lieu of existing leases for any cause. The want of this provision has caused considerable expense in dealing with cases of surrender of leases for revaluations, subdivision, and transfer, &c., besides delaying the registration of the dealings for twelve months. Section 83 : Insert provision to facilitate the transfer of sections to widows and children, without the present necessity of having to take out letters of administration, proving wills, &c. (This may necessitate an amendment of the Land Transfer Act.) This is only intended to apply to cases where the estate is of small value, or where the family are in poor circumstances. Section 96 : Delete " freehold." See declaration (Schedules Ato D). This will prevent a lessee of private property from acquiring Thrown lands which, with what he already holds, will be over the area allowed by the Land Act. Section 114 : Price, £1 an acre, is too high in some cases in this land district, and might be reduced to not less than 10s. Section 147 : Amend to read " the improvements on the land required by the Act under which it is held." This is to make the provision apply to " The Land Act, 1885," and its amendments, the Land for Settlements Acts, " The Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisition Act, 1894," &c. Section 148 : Provision is required for a case where improvements are not completed within seven years from the date of purchase. At present if a purchaser of Crown lands does not effect the required improvements within the seven-years limit, there appears to be no provision to compel him to effect them or to issue the Crown grant should he do so afterwards. Sections 152 and 156 : To be made to agree as to date of issue of title from commencement of term of license, Ist January or July following selection, or from date of license. Section 154 : Apply the provisions of section 154 of 1892 as amended by section 9 of 1895, in case of death, to lease-in-perpetuity lands. At present there is no provision to compel a transfer of a deceased person's interest in a lease in perpetuity to some eligible person, who would reside and comply with the conditions of the lease, and it is inadvisable to allow titles to remain in an indeterminate state. Section 164 : Remove the 320-acre limitation, and insert in lieu 2,000 acres, inclusive of not more than 640 acres first-class land as maintained in Part 111., so as to enable farm-homestead lessees to amalgamate their holdings where the sections are too rough or too small to be held separately. Section 173 : Section 173, Part V., of " The Land Act, 1892," conflicts with section 63, (4), Part 1., of the same Act. The former section provides that small grazing-runs can be offered at a rent of not less than 2| per cent, of capital value, while the latter section provides that the deposit shall consist of 1J per cent, of capital value. Therefore, if, for instance, the rent is fixed at 5 per cent., instead of 2| per cent, as is now the custom in this district, the deposit fixed by law is the rent for only three months instead of six, as is shown by the following case: A small grazing-run of 1,000 acres valued at £1 per acre, on which rent is calculated at the rate of 5 per cent. : Capital value, £1,000 ; annual rent, £50 ; half-year's rent, £25. In this case, section 63, (4), provides for only 1J per cent, being paid as deposit —viz., £12 10s., but the custom in similar cases is to collect one half-year's rent as part deposit. Section 203 : Add after " license issued," " under this part of," so as to make this section of the Act apply to pastoral licenses only. Take power to dispose of sites for dairy factory and creamery, churches, &c., without competition, and to enable certificates of title to be issued for sites transferred by lessees or licensees. The Act does not cover cases of this kind at present. " The Land Act Amendment Act, 1895." Section 9 : After " transfer it to the " in (1) include a widower, and make provision for the surviving parent to hold the property in trust for the children and him- or her-self. Section 12 requires amendment to enable new dealings to be effected during the first twelve months, and also dealings on original leases to stand. This might possibly be effected by dating back new leases to date of original lease. (See notes above relating to section 83, which also deals with this question.) " The Land for Settlements Act, 1900." Section 49 (16) : This is hardly wide enough. A lessee's holding may be large enough, and still it may be advisable to allot him an additional small area for water access or some other reason. After the word " family," insert "or for the proper working of his holding." Provision is required to enable adjoining lessees to arrange their common fencing boundaries, and amend their leases by indorsement without going through all the formalities of section 12 of " The Land Act, 1895," by subdivision and transfer, and issue of new leases. At present a lessee holding 640 acres of first-class land cannot do
187—C. 4.
('.— 4.
1490
!.T. STRAUCHON.
this if his total area would be increased ever so slightly over that area. If the transaction has to be effected by subdivision and transfer, the cost, including surrender, transfer, and new lease fees, cost of survey, &c., is often prohibitive ; especially if the leases are mortgaged, &c., as all dealings have to be re-executed and registered on the new leases. Provision should, however, be made for payment of the usual transfer and survey fees. Summary of General Information. Number of tenures, 16 ; number of selectors, 3,084 ; area held as at the 31st March, 1905, 738,649 acres and 39 perches ; total annual rent receivable as at the 31st March, 1905, £40,898 16s. sd. ; rebates of rent allowed from the Ist January, 1901, to the 31st March, 1905 —number 7725, total rebates allowed £8,669 9s. 9d., average rebate £1 2s. 6d. ; selections under " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903," —number 60, area 45,233 acres and 14 perches, amount of rent remitted £7,946 18s. ; mortgages to Advances to Settlers Office Superintendent for the year ended the 31st March, 1905, 164; mortgages to private persons for the year ended the 31st March, 1905, 315; forfeitures during year ended the 31st March, 1905, 21 (including nine forfeitures at the request of the lessee); arrears (exclusive of current half-year's rent) as at the 31st March, 1905—number 158, amount £1,538 14s. 7d. : defaulters under ordinary Crown lands —residential 248, improvements 151 ; defaulters under Land for Settlements —residential 17, improvements nil.
SCHEDULE OF TENURES IN THE WELLINGTON LAND DISTRICT.
Land for Settlements. —Paparangi, 37 selectors ; Ohakea, 15 ; TeMatua, 13; Aorangi, 37 ; Langdale, 28 ; Mangawhata, 7 ; Epuni, 42 ; Maungakari, 19 ; Linton, 5 ; Longbush, 6 ; Tablelands, 9 ; Normandale, 27 : total, 12 settlements, 245 selectors. Improved Farms (registered).—Pemberton, 13 selectors ; Kawatau, 11 ; Hautapu, 12; MastertonTenui, 12 ; Akitio, 36 ; Horopito, 3 ; Otaihape, 10 ; Oliutu, 34 ; Otuarei, 6 ; Rongoiti, 5 ; Mangatiti, 23 ; Oraukura, 9 ; Sommerville, 1 ; Taihape Extension, 6 : total, 14 settlements, 181 selectors. Improved Farms (not registered, as no rent due yet).—Kauaekeke, 1 selector ; Tapui, 3 ; Raketapauma, 17 ; Mangatiti, 6 ; Oraukura, 1 ; Sommerville, 7 ; Namunui, 23 : total, 7 settlements, 58 selectors. Village-homestead Settlements.—Bunnythorpe, 1 section ; Hastwell, 13 ; Hawaenga, 4 ; Horowhenua, 46 ; Horowhenua East, 13 ; Hunterville, 6 ; Karewarewa, 15 ; Korokoro, 22 ; Levin, 14 ; Mangaramarama, 24; Mangatainoka, 26; Makuri, 17; Mangaone, 6; Makairo, 11; Mangamahu, 10 ; Mangaweka, 27 ; Mangaweka Extension, 6 ; Mangaweka North, 4 ; Makohine, 11 ; Marshall, 3 ; Mataroa, 10 ; McKenzie, 7 ; Mowhanau, 4 ; Ngaturi, 4 ; Ngamatea, 3 ; Nauhura, 11 ; Paa Creek, 3 ; Pahiatua, 72 ; Pahiatua West, 9 ; Pakihikura, 11 ; Pongaroa, 35 ; Pouhiou, 3 ; Rakaunui, 22 ; Rakautoru, 11 ; Raitihi, 24-; Rewa, 8 ; Taihape, 28 ; Torere, 4 ; Tutaekara, 16; Umutoi, 1 ; Upper Makuri, 4 ; Welford, 4 ; West Waitapu, 6 ; isolated sections, 7 : total, 44 settlements, 586 sections. Some Particulars of Crown and Native Lands.—Area of Crown lands undisposed of as at 31st March, 1905 —95,764 acres open, 390,539 acres not open, total 486,306 ; area of State forests and forest reserves, 562,352 acres ; area of Native land occupied as at 31st March, 1905 (approximate), 1,050,833 acres ; area of unoccupied Native land as at 31st March, 1905 (approximate), 482,218 acres ; total area of
|-*r -i » Number of Number in Tenure. Q l \ m , ei ° , Area. Annual Rent. Forfeitures, Arrear, Sectors.! ! 1904 _ 5 |!K)4 _ ri A. R. P. £ s. d. Deferred payment .. .. j 2 981 0 22 18 10 8 i .. 1 Perpetual lease .. .. .. 31 11,330 2 29 438 15 11 .. 3 Occupation with right of purchase .. ! 627 206,316 0 34 11,515 6 1 4 16 Lease in perpetuity (ordinary) .. ! 471 138,917 3 7 6,019 2 6 1 19 (Land for Settle- 235 21,100 3 23 8,522 9 0 1 4 ments) Village-homestead special settlement 586 10,711 2 22 1,808 11 9 5 39 (lease in perpetuity and perpetual lease) Special-settlement associations (lease ' 431 78,258 3 5 4.473 2 11 . . 21 in perpetuity) Small grazing-run (ordinary) .. 85 76,202 3 22 ' 2,332 8 6 1 8 (Land for Settle- 1 1,030 0 0 171 13 4 ments) Small grazing-run (endowment) .. 1 1,780 0 0 44 10 0 Pastoral runs .. .. .. 24 96,691 0 0 1,682 15 2 Miscellaneous .. .. .. 231 | 73,458 3 15 1,467 0 10 4 16 „ (Land for Settlements) 9 2,718 2 3 277 1 10 „ (endowments) .. 7 21 0 18 19 18 0 Native townships .. .. .: 162 412 2 6 671 10 2 5 5 Improved farms .. .. .. 181 18,717 0 33 1,435 19 9 .. 26 Total .. .. 3,084 . 738,649 0 39 i 40,898 16 5 21 158
1491
C.—4
J. STRAUCHON
Native lands as at 31st March, 1905, 1,533,051 acres. Area of Native lands passed through Court, 1,428,320 acres ; area of Native land not passed through Court, 104,731 acres ; lands under administration of Maori Land Councils, 100,554 acres. Total Area of Various Endowments and Ordinary Reserves set aside in the Wellington Land District.— For acclimatisation, 500 a. ; bridge and ford, 161 a. Or. 37p. ; cave, 7a. lr. 19p. ; cemetery, 498 a. Or. 25p. ; courthouse, 11a. 2r. 9p. ; college, 11,251 a. 3r. 13p. ; dairy, la. 3r. 30>p. ; English Church mission and parsonage, 10a. 3r. 18p. ; college and grammar-school endowment, 10a. 3r. 17p. ; Wellington Borough endowment, 1,601 a. ; Wanganui Harbour Board endowment, 6,935 a. lr. 34p. ; Wanganui River Trust endowment, 38,000 a. ; ferry and ford, 985 a. 3r. 14p. ; State forest, 463,782 a. ; forest, 98,570 a. ; flagstaff, 10a. lr. 25p. ; gaol-site, la. ; gardens, 76a. 2r. 25p. ; Government House and grounds, sa. lr. 39p. ; gravel, 1,327 a. Or. lOp. ; girls' high school, 2,973 a. 3r. 12p. ; harbour and river, 1,278 a. lr. 29p. ; hot springs, 59a. 3r. 24p. ; hospital and asylum, 169 a. 2r. 30p. ; landguard, 20a. ; limestone, sa. ; landing-place, 39a. 2r. 16p. ; lighthouse, 191 a. 3r. 14p. ; library and mechanics' institute, 9a. 3r. 36p. ; Mount Cook Barracks, 13a. 3r. 32p. ; military, 613 a. lr. 16p. ; municipal, 4,545 a. lr. 34p. (of this area 4,142 acres is not vested) ; national park, 62,300 a. ; old men's home, 3a. 3r. 15p. ; orphan asylum, la. ; pound, 15a. 2r. 16p. ; police purposes, 15a. Or. 9p. ; pilot-station, 79a. Or. Bp. ; primary-education reserve, 112,606 a.; public parks, 390 a. ; public buildings, 125 a. lr. 35p. public utility, 70a. ; quarantine, 67a. 2r. 24p. ; quarry, 9a. Or. 9p. ; racecourse, 255 a. lr. 3p. ; rabbitfence men's reserve, 20a. lr. ; Roman Catholic school, la. ; railway, 1,249 a. Or. 23p. ; recreation, 4,977 a. lr. 2p. ; reformatory, 404 a. 3r. 30p. ; roadmen's hut, 47a. 3r. 29p. ; rifle range, 33a. 3r. 30p. ; river-protection, 482 a. 3r. 14p. ; rubbish, 47a. Or. 14p. ; school, 2,217 a. ; Scotch Church, lr. 12p. ; showground, 9a. 2r. ; signal-station, 424 a. (of this area, 418 acres at Foxton is leased to Francis Robinson and Sons) ; stock, 546 a. 3r. 24p. ; Sussex Square, 9a. 3r. ; telegraph-station, 6a. Or. 39p. ; Thorndon Esplanade, 6a. 3r. 38p. ; Town Belt. 1,667 a.; totara, 212 a. ; Town Hall, Ba. lr. 21p. ; university, 4,000 a. ; water reserve, 237 a. 2r. 34p. ; Wesleyan Industrial School, 73a. 2r. 22p. ; Wesleyan Church, la. lr. ; Patea Harbour Board, 152 a. lr. 34p. : total area, 614,193 a. lr. 34p. NOTES AS TO EDUCATION RESERVES IN WELLINGTON PROVINCIAL DISTRICT. Reserves leased as at 15th June, 1905. —Number of tenants, 477 ; area, 97,638 acres and 30 perches annual rent payable, £6,466 lis. lOd. Length of lease. —Twenty-one years (excepting forty-nine leases, which are for thirty years). Right of renewal. —All have right of renewal for other twenty-one years, except a few of the earlier leases which have still to fall in. Restrictions in regard to transfers, subleases, mortgages, &c., or with respect to cropping, fencing, or clearing, &c.- —No restrictions, except that leases have the usual clause as to noxious weeds, and that mortgages have to be in terms of section 83, (3), of " The Land Act, 1892." Compensation at end of term. —The compensation provided for in the leases does not include buslifelling, and grassing. Is working satisfactory to Commissioners and tenants ? —Yes ; there are practically no complaints. Arrears of rents. —The arrears of rent at present outstanding are £17 lis. 3d., owed by three tenants. Cost of a lease. —£2 10s., paid by lessee. C-.ist of a transfer. —No charge made by Commissioners. Are lands as well farmed, and fences, &c., kept in as good order as on adjoined freeholds or leaseholds '—There are no residential or improvement conditions imposed in the leases, bur as iav as the Commissioners' knowledge extends the farming and conditions of the land, fences, buildings, &c., compare favourably with those on adjoining lands. Most of the Commissioners' tenants are farmers of the better class, who in their own interests work the land to the best advantage, and keep their fences and buildings (for which compensation ip'allowed at the end of their terms) in good order. Punctual payment of rent. —As will be noted above, the rents are paid up satisfactorily. Forfeiture. —Cases of forfeiture or abandonment are of rare occurrence. Renewals. —In almost all cases the lessees exercise their right of obtaining renewals at rentals fixed by arbitration. J. H. A. Wardrop, Wellington, 15th June, 1905. Secretary, Wellington School Commissioners. GENERAL REMARKS. Deferred payments are now practically extinct, but in its time it was a most popular and useful class of settlement. Perpetual lease is rapidly becoming extinct, only thirty-one now remaining on the books. The occupation-with-right-of-purchase, lease-in-perpetuity, and small-grazing-run are now the principal tenures under the ordinary conditions of "The Land Act, 1892." The first two systems also include the improved-farm settlement; the second system embraces the land for settlements, lease in perpetuity, and village-homestead and other special settlements. The village homestead has been a very useful and much availed-of tenure, and served a very good purpose, especially in supplying homes for working-men and small settlers, also their families whilst the selectors were following work in the surrounding districts. Some of the principal settlements are —Hastwell, Pahiatua, Mangatainoka, Mangaramarama, &c., on the East Coast, and Korokoro, Horowhenua, Levin, Hunterville, Mangaweka, Taihape, Raetihi, &c., on the West Coast. Of all the systems of tenure now in vogue, none are so much sought after and so suitable to the circumstances of the poorer classes of settler as the improved-farm settlement, principally owing to the assistance rendered to settlers during the early stages of felling, clearing, and building by the Government. (See my fuller remarks on pages 10 and 11 of parliamentary paper C.-8.)
U.—4.
1492
[j. STRAUCHON.
As the principal cause of friction between Land Boards and their tenants is undoubtedly principally owing to the question of compulsory residence - for stated periods, it is worth considering whether the provisions of section 21 of the Land Act of 1887 should be revived, and made to apply to lease in perpetuity and occupation with right of purchase or small grazing-runs under " The Land Act, 1892." This would, of course, give artisans, business-men, and other residents in towns, the opportunity of investing their savings in land ; but it is open to question whether oi not the resident population on the land would thereby be permanently increased, although, no doubt, a registered substitute would be required, but the residencee of such registered substitute, even with an equal family, who has no permanent interest in the land, can never be of the same value to the local community as that of the real owner or lessee of the land. Settlers sometimes complain that they are handicapped through the Board's leniency in not insisting more stringently on bona fide residence of some of their neighbours, thereby prejudicially affecting them in the following matters —viz., road access, schooling, fencing, social intercourse, and general community of interests. Under the Village Homestead Regulations (page 95, clause 10) married women are barred from becoming lessees by selection or transfer. Does this not conflict with sections 93 and 169, subsection 4, (a), of " The Land Act, 1892," ? The former says a married woman may become the selector of 320 acres of first- or 1,000 acres of second-class land. The latter says that these allotments shall only be offered on lease in perpetuity under Part 111. of this Act, and that application for leases shall be made as provided in Part 1., which defines the selector's privileges, limitations, and penalties, &c. 115. The Chairman.] Married women have been mentioned very often : why should a married woman be in a different position-from that of a married man ?—That is a matter over which I have no control, and is statutory. 116. Mr. Anstey.] What is your opinion ? —I do not see why she should be treated differently to a single woman who has the right to select 640 acres, and I do not see why a married woman should not be on the same footing, provided her husband is landless. Mortgages under section 83, "Land Act, 1892," and section 60, "Land for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1900."—Reference has frequently been made in evidence before the Commission as to whether the law should or should not fix the maximum rate of interest chargeable on these mortgages by private lenders. This is no doubt very desirable if it can be done in such a way as to be a benefit to the settler, but my experience is that settlers would be more frequently hampered than benefited by such a law When desirous of obtaining advances at short notice to buy stock when the chance occurs of getting them cheap, in such cases it would often pay him to give more than 8 per cent., which is now supposed to pass current as the maximum charge for interest on these transactions; but I think lam quite safe in saying that the good intentions of the Government and Land Boards in this direction are frequently frustrated by arrangements between the settlers and lender, whereby the nominal amount of the loan is increased by a sum sufficient to cover the difference in interest required by the lender above the fixed maximum. The provisions of sections 13 to 16 of " The Land Act, 1892," require modification to enable the purposes to be achieved with less procedure and more certainty, and especially in the direction of enabling the more facile substitution of old for new roads in the security for mortgages affecting lands taken for roads. There is practically no aggregation of estates in this district worth mentioning, only a few amalgamations of holdings under different tenures, but within the limits of the Act, are being effected. Were it not, however, for the restrictions of the law as to area and residence, I have no doubt that large aggregations of areas would take place. Several applications have been made by local bodies for the Land Board to collect rates in arrear on Crown leases, section 124 of " The Land Act, 1892," being quoted as the authority for the request. My Board, however, has always interpreted that section to apply only to cases where forfeiture has taken place for non-payment of rates ; and also that the Board considers it is the duty of the local body to collect its rates whilst the tenant is in actual occupation of the land. It is also obvious that to forfeit a selector's holding for such small amounts usually due would be a very drastic and inadvisable course to pursue. Reasons why Post-offices should not receive Rents, &c., on Crown Lands as suggested by at least one Witness before the Commission. 1. That any selector can at. the present moment walk into any money-order office, produce his rent notice, and demand a post-office order in favour of the Receiver of Land Revenue free of charge, and also post the same free of postage. 2. That provision is made by which settlers can send their cheques and orders on financial companies without being marked " good." 3. That moneys received through the post-office would be all paid to the Public Account, whereas portions must be paid to Local Bodies' Deposit Account; Loan Account; North Island Main Trunk Account, Endowment Account, and in some cases to Ordingry Deposit Account, besides to Public Account. This course would entail a vast amount of work in the Treasury and this office, in adjusting payments, &.C., and practically increase the work of the three Departments. 4. That the Land Board would probably not be advised of collection of rent for a week or considerably longer. Consequently, action might be taken at a meeting of the Board which might complicate matters, not knowing whether the money was received or not.
J. STBADCHON.]
1493
C—4.
Return of Mortgages approved by the Land Board duritig the Year to Private Persons showing the respective Rates on Occupation with Right of Purchase and Lease in Perpetuity. Total mortgages, occupation with right of purchase, 137 ; mortgages, lease in perpetuity, 162 : total, 299. Advances by banks jand companies on occupation with right of purchase, 40; on lease in perpetuity, 26. Rates of Interest. Occupation . with Eight of . i" ease , .. Purchase ln Perpetu.ty. Nil .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 1 Current rates .. .. .. .. .. 2 3 2| per cent. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 4 .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 1 H „ ■■ ' • • 2 5 .. .. .. .. .. .. 20 18 H „ 8 12 6 .. .. .. .. .. .. 18 25 6£ „ .. .. .. .. .. .. 14 19 7 .. .. .. .. .. .. 19 38 7i 1 3 8 .. .... .. .. .. 53 39 Total .. .. .. 137 162 1. " Constitution of Land Boards." 1 think that the number of members should not exceed five, including the Commissioner. That the term of office should be two years. That all members be appointed by Government subject to the following : —That not less than one nor more than two Crown tenants shall in any case be members of any one Board. That the word " twenty-one " be inserted in lieu of the word " ten " in the ninth line of section 47 of " The Land Act, 1892." That otherwise all the provisions of " The Land Act, 1892," and its amendments, " The Land for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1900," and its amendments, and any other Acts relating to the powers and duties, &c., of Land Boards shall be maintained. A Board of five members should be quite large enough to insure a quorum being in attendance, and my experience is that a small or medium-sized Board, such as is now proposed, gets through the business more expeditiously than a larger one. As the Land Act and its amendments must always be an important factor in the policy of the Government of the day, it is absolutely necessary that it should have the power to appoint men known to be in sympathy with the land laws for the time being in force, and who are capable of administering them in a fair and impartial spirit. The elective principle is unsuitable. The constituencies would necessarily have to be the land districts in most cases these are very large, and to canvass them every two years would be inconvenient and costly. Members of Land Boards thus elected would certainly be important personages representing constituencies which would include several electoral districts for the House of Representatives, or else the land district would have to be divided up into ridings, each returning one member, but this also would be expenisve and very unsatisfactory. A partly nominated and partly elected Board would, I fear, be equally unsatisfactory, and might lead up to the introduction of party politics into the discussions of a Board whose duties are purely judicial and administrative. As Crown-tenant members of a Board are often called upon to decide questions in which they have a common interest, their representation should be a minority one. Payment of Members. —From personal experience, I can say that the remuneration of 10s. per day, as at present allowed by the Act, is most inadequate, being hardly sufficient to pay hotel expenses, leaving nothing for the time occupied, and I think £1 Is., proposed to be inserted, is by no means over-liberal pay for men of the right stamp for Land Board members, who should possess a thorough knowledge of settlement conditions and requirements, also a fair knowledge of business principles, combined with tact and firmness. 2. " The tenures upon which lands may be obtained and occupied." My views with respect to land tenures are as follows : —(See page 52 of Land Board Conference Report, 1904.) lam of opinion that the tenures as at present contained in " The Land Act, 1892," its amendments, " The Land for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1900," its amendments, " The Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisition Act, 1894," and regulations thereunder : seem to provide fair and reasonable scope for would-be selectors of Crown lands, although consideration might be given as to whether or not it is desirable to widen that scope by reintroducing some of the principles of the deferred-payment system, leaving it for the Government to determine whether such principles might not, with advantage to selectors, be introduced in the case of future selections made in the rougher and more remote Crown lands on the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system. This would mean that instead of paying interest for the full or limited periods prescribed in sections 152 and 156 of " The Land Act, 1892," and being at the end thereof required to pay up the full price of the land in cash in one sum, they would pay the amount off gradually, and thereby save considerably on the interest pay-
0.—4.
1494
[j. STRAUCHON.
ments. Something like this, together with the proposed relaxation of the residential conditions oh these poor and remote Crown lands, would go far to encourage the taking-up and eventual occupation thereof. The present Land Acts worked very satisfactorily, and, if extended and modified to meet the altered times and class of land now at disposal, they would continue to meet all requirements. My experience was similar to that of Mr. Humphries in regard to the contentment of our land [for settlements settlers generally with the lease-in-perpetuity tenure under which they held. Members of the Conference should consider well before giving their vote on Mr. Renner's motion, and remember that all who voted " Aye " voted against the continuance of the optional systems of the present Act. It might also be worth considering whether in certain parts of the colony where the land was remote, poor, and the population small and scattered, it might not be advisable to reintroduce the provisions of the homestead system of 1885, or a modified form thereof, but that, I understood, they would have an opportunity of discussing later on. 3. " Whether Crown tenants labour under restrictions which are inimical to their wellbeing and unnecessary in the interests of the State." 4. " To inquire and advise whether the residential conditions now existing are too exacting and require relaxing." For my remarks and views under these headings, see pages 8, 9, and 10 of the Land Boards Conference Report, December, 1904. With regard to the cropping regulations, my motion at of Land Boards was as follows : —" That the regulations .with regard to the cropping of lands held under the Land for Settlements Acts appear to require amending in the direction of giving Land Boards the power to fix the number and rotation of crops to be taken from each holding, so as, where in the opinion of the Boards it is desirable in the interests of settlement, and where such can be done without detriment ito the land to allow lessees to take a greater number of green and grain crops than those at present specified." It seemed to me quite impossible to frame any set of regulations that would apply equally to all classes of land in the colony, to each Island, or even to each district, on account of the varying climate and difference of soils, the latter frequently changing on opposite sides of a stream or ridge. The matter was further affected by the question of whether the land was dry or open, by the nature of the subsoil, whether it had previously been bush or swamp land, by its aspect or exposure, and by a variety of other circumstances. I had therefore come to the conclusion that, instead of having one hard-and-fast set of rules and regulations for cropping throughout the colony, the various Land Boards should be given power to fix the number and rotation of crops to be taken in each settlement, and, if necessary, from each section therein, as the respective Boards might consider advisable in the interests of settlement, and without injury to the land. I considered that the Board's decision should be final in each case, and that there should be no right of appeal, otherwise disputes would be interminable. My intention was not, as apparently supposed by some members of the Land Board Conference, to cancel the present regulations, or even section 18 thereof, as the retention of this section will be necessary in dealing with the poorer classes of lands. 5. " Whether, owing to the varying conditions existing in respect to the climate and land configuration in the several parts of the colony, an alteration and variation in the law regarding tenure and occupation is necessary." This has already been partly dealt with in so far as the homestead system is concerned. Otherwise, I do not think that the question of tenures and occupation already provided under the Land Acts requires alteration or variation on account of the climate or land-configuration, unless it be in the direction of providing a third class of land (to come between the present second class and pastoral lands under Part VI. of " The Land Act, 1892," with a maximum limit of area up to, say, 5,000 to 10,000 acres, in accordance with the quality, locality, geographical position, and a minimum price of, say, 2s. 6d. per acre, with residence as proposed in small grazing-runs on page 9—viz., as in occupation with right of purchase, and improvements as in existing small grazing-runs, with the exception of an addition to clause 179 of " The Land Act, 1892," to be inserted between lines 10 and 11 thereof, and to read " or of 2s. 6d. per acre if third-class land." 6. " Also as to the reintroduction of the homestead privileges." It does not seem necessary to introduce this system into this district. 7. " As to the working of the present ballot system, and the dealing with applications for land." The present ballot system and the receiving of applications for land under " The Land Act, 1892," have been fully dealt with in my report published in Parliamentary Paper C.-8, 1903, page 10, clause 6. For the reasons stated therein, I think the Land Boards should have power to examine and classify all applicants in accordance with their suitability, experience, means, &c., and if necessary, to reject unsuitable ones. When this has been done, the present system of determining the successful applicant is perfectly fair, suitable, reasonably expeditious, and economical. In regard to ballots and applications for land under the Land for Settlements Acts, the Boards have already the power to examine and. reject applicants, and this works very satisfactorily, but in regard to the grouping of allotments and methods of balloting prescribed by section 8 of " The Land for Settlements Act, 190 l," frequent complaints are made by applicants who have drawn allotments which they did not want (in a group) and which under the Act they might perhaps be compelled to take, and, whether they take them or not, thereby lose their chance for the allotments desired and indicated for
J. STRAUCHON.I
1495
C— 4.
choice in their applications; they also complain of having to run the risk of their deposits being forfeited should they decline to take the allotments drawn as above. Land for Settlements Ballot.—First, the lands offered for selection should be classified and grouped in accordance with section 8 (1), of " The Land for Settlements Amendment Act, 1901." Second, each applicant should apply for the section he prefers in any one group. Third, a straight-out ballot should then be taken between all the applicants in each group to determine their order of choice for sections in that group. Fourth, in the event of the section for which the applicant has applied being selected before his order of choice came round, he should be allowed to select any section remaining open in his group, or, if he wished, he should be allowed to withdraw from the ballot and have his deposit returned. My views in regard to dealing with applications and preference to applicants are set forth in Parliamentary Paper C.-8 (on the land-ballot system), pages 10 and 11. I am also, of course, assuming that the applicants have all been examined and approved by the Land Board. Ballots under " The Land Act, 1892."—These are at present straight-out ballots, but I think as already recommended in C.-8, referred to above, that all applicants should come before a Land Board for examination and approval ; this course is not pursued at present. 8. " What lands have been loaded for roads giving access thereto, and whether good faith has been kept, and also the amount borrowed, the amount spent, and the amount available." I have had particulars prepared showing the blocks loaded and the amounts borrowed thereon, the particulars as to the amounts expended, and balances still available have been obtained from the Department of Roads, and generally good faith has undoubtedly been kept with the settlers in the matter of expenditure on roading. 9. " Generally as to whether lessees of the Crown are placed at a disadvantage in borrowing privately or from the Advances to Settlers Office." As the proportion of advances made by the Superintendent to leaseholders is less than that made to freeholders, Crown tenants are thereby placed at a disadvantage, and have frequently to go into the open market to obtain the full amount they require, and in consequence have usually to pay a higher rate of interest than that charged by the Advances to Settlers Office. Crown tenants should, therefore, be enabled to obtain the same proportion of advances as freeholders, or as"nearly so as possible. I see no reason why substantial advances should not be made against the lessees' goodwill in a lease-in-perpetuity section. As the Advances to Settlers Department was originally created for the special benefit of Crown tenants, it is worth considering whether the future operations of that Department or a branch of it should not be confined to making advances to Crown tenants only. Statutory power might be obtained authorising the setting-aside of a certain proportion of all moneys borrowed under this Act (say, onehalf or three-fourths) for lending to Crown lessees only on the security of their improvements and goodwill in the leases. The proportion of advances which the Superintendent can make on freehold and leasehold properties is, of course, strictly limited by statute, and the amount at his disposal in any one year is also, no doubt, limited ; and as he is not bared by statute from lending on freeholds, and naturally desires to run his Department on business lines, it is therefore exceedingly likely that he will select what the money-lenders call " the gilt-edge securities," and this, of course, means that the bulk of the advances may be made on freehold securities, to the detriment of the Crown tenant, on whose improvements only the Department can make advances. It seems worth considering whether the goodwill, or a portion thereof, could not be advanced against. A leasehold is looked on as only a chattel, and consequently limited security, beiug liable to foreclosure for failure to comply with residence and other conditions. To remedy this, statutory power is required enabling the Department to make the same proportion of advances on highly improved Crown leaseholds as on freeholds, and it may also be further considered whether the future operations of the Advances to Settlers Office should not be strictly confined to Crown leaseholds only, as was probably originally intended. In travelling round the district many complaints were made to our Board about the difficulty and delay experienced in some cases in obtaining advances from the Department, but of the facts of the cases we had no means of judging, as we only heard one side of the story, and the Superintendent might, had he been there, have been able to put matters in a somewhat different colour : the experience of our own Board being that it is not wise to come to conclusions without first hearing both sides ; but, even supposing that individual cases of hardship and disappointment have occurred, there is no gainsaying the fact tliat the creation of the Advances to Settlers Department has proved an immense boon to the settlers generally. It has been suggested that the valuation fee in every case where a loan is refused should be returned, but this would hardly do, and could only reasonably be done or expected in cases where the loan was declined ; not because of insufficient security, non-residence, or for other good reasons, but because the Department is disinclined to lend through no fault of the applicant or his security. 10. "As to the condition and position of those of our colonists holding and occupying the lands of the State under the several tenures now obtaining." From my own personal observation the settlers in this district generally undoubtedly appear to be prosperous and contented. This is also supported by the periodical reports made by the Crown
C.—4.
1496
|"j. STEATTCHON.
Lands Rangers, in which, inter alia, it invariably appears that the value of improvements effected are far in excess of those required by the terms of the lease, as shown in the following schedule :—
This is also further evidenced by the keen competition for sections that have reverted to the Crown and been reoffered, generally at the same or a higher valuation, and these sections are rarely thrown up a second time, in fact, whenever any piece of Crown lands suitable for settlement is offered, it is eagerly sought after, clearly showing that the provisions of the Land Acts and their administration in no way deters selectors from taking up Crown leases or licenses. The transfers coming before the Board from time to time constantly disclose that in very few cases do transfers take place except at a substantial and sometimes very large profit, notwithstanding the fact that many of these sections have changed hands more than once. Bankruptcies amongst Crown tenants are almost unknown in this district, further proving the prosperity of settlement. In concluding this statement, If'desire to acknowledge my indebtedness to the following gentlemen (especially the first named) for the great assistance rendered me in getting up and compiling the information contained therein—viz : Messrs. Wright, McCormick, Joseph, Duncan, and other officers. Precis of the late Mb. Chapman's Case. From the following copies of correspondence that passed at the time, it will be clearly seen that there was absolutely no foundation for the statements made by Mr. Johns, at Pahiatua, on the 10t<h instant, before the Commission, and that the charges made then and previously were actually pure fiction. THE LATE MR. CHAPMAN AND THE LAND BOARD. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The following paragraph, appearing in your issue of the 3rd instant, has been brought under my notice : — " A sad gloom spread over this district on New Year's morn, when it became known that Mr. J. H. Chapman was found dead in one of his outhouses It is rumoured that he had been sorely worried of late by the Land Board officials re the residential clause on his section at Pongaroa. It appears the deceased had done a considerable amount of improvements on the section, amounting to upwards of £300, and had been notified that unless he fulfilled the residential clause of the Act the section would be forfeited. He has made his home at Mangatainoka second to none in the Forty-mile Bush. The children are all very young. Finding his home not large enough he took up another section, and by indomitable pluck succeeded in getting a good portion of it felled and grassed, only to find at this juncture his only reward to be a direct threat of certain forfeiture of all his interests in the said section if he did not forthwith take his family away from all possibility of receiving an education to the wilds of Mount Marchant. If this is the way the present administrators of our land laws intend to act, the sooner they make room for a more humane class of administrators the better. The present system is rotten, deny it who may." I have looked through the records relating to the late Mr. Chapman's section in the Pongaroa district and find that the Crown Lands Ranger's reports of the 27th May, 1896, and the Bth May, 1897, were thoroughly satisfactory as regards the conditions of the Act, and that residence upon the section was not due till January, 1899, and, of course, was never called in question by the Land Board or Government officials. The very latest communication between this office and the lessee was dated the 16th March, 1897, and had reference to payment of rent. No reply was received thereto and the matter was not followed from that day to this. With regard to the deceased's Mangatainoka village-settlement section, held since 1889, all the Ranger's reports were eminently satisfactory, and no question of residence was ever raised. The last communication in connection with the section was a demand for rent made on 23rd March, 1897, which was not replied to, though steps were taken to meet the claim. To the best of my knowledge and belief no other communications were forwarded from this office to the lessee. On behalf of the Land Board, and in the public interests, I have, therefore, to give an absolute denial as to the correctness of the statements in the paragraph quoted, which I hope, will be admitted to be sufficient warrant for my referring to the case, though out of respect for the memory of such an excellent settler, and sympathy for the family, I regret the necessity of having to do so. —I am, &c., J- W. A. Marchant, Commissioner of Crown Lands. THE LANDS DEPARTMENT AND THE LATE MR. CHAPMAN. [From the Pahiatua Herald of Friday, 14th January, 1898.] With genuine pleasure we direct attention to the letter in another column from Mr. J. W. A. Marchant, Commissioner of Crown Lands, re the dealings of the Lands Department with the late Mr. Chapman of Mangatainoka. Unquestionably Mr. Marchant's letter is a complete refutation of the
v Value Value „ required. effected. xcess. 1899-1900 .. .. .. .. £101,691 £317,780 £216,089 1900-1 .. .. .. .. 49,839 206,826 156,987 1901-2 .. .. .. .. 102,443 215,366 112,923 1902-3 .. .. .. .. 135,246 286,875 151,629 1903-4 .. .. .. .. 155,174 346,389 191,215 Totals .. .. .. £544,393 £1,373,236 £828,843
J. STRAUCHON.]
1497
C.—4
statements made by our correspondent, and we gladly accept the opportunity of exonerating the Land Board and its officials from any blame in the matter. Mr. H. P. Kavanagh, the Crown Lands Ranger, says he always regarded Mr. Chapman as a firstclass settler, who complied in every way with the regulations, and his name only appeared in the books as showing that the ordinary inspections had been made. No report had ever been made against Mr. Chapman, and only the ordinary formal notices issued to Crown tenants had ever been sent to him. We are pleased to be able to publish this denial of the Commissioner's, which effectually removes from the Lands Department the stigma of having been unduly harsh in its dealings with an industrious and deserving settler. Pahiatua, 18th January, 1898. Section 18, Block XI., Makuri. Sir, —Mrs. Chapman, widow of the late selector of the above section, wishes me to write in reference to a letter published in the Pahiatua Herald of the 14th instant, over your signature. Mrs. Chapman feels that the letter was written with kindly sympathy, but at the same time it has left an impression contrary to fact. The letter in the Herald states that the very latest communication with the late Mr. Chapman from the Crown Lands Office was dated the 16th March, 1897, demanding the rent, and since then the matter had not been followed up. It would thus appear that Mr. Chapman had not paid his rent. Mrs. Chapman showed me the receipt for the rent on the Pongaroa section, dated the 3rd December, 1897. The latest communication from your office to Mr. Chapman is dated the 24th December, 1897, and is a demand for the next half-year's rent. This was also shown to me.— Yours, &c., * R. P. Greville, Land Agent and Surveyor. J. W. A. Marchant, Esq., Commissioner of Crown Lands, Wellington. Section 18, Block XI., Makuri. Sir, —In reply to your letter of the 18th instant, I very much regret that Mrs. Chapman should have to take exception to any statement in my letter to the Pahiatua Herald, which was carefully framed so as not to cast any possible reflection on the late Mr. Chapman, whilst at the same time giving an absolute denial to the unfounded charges brought against the Land Board by the newspaper correspondent. It is perfectly true that, on the 2nd December last, Mr. Chapman paid the arrears of rent due on the Pongaroa section, nine months after he had been called upon to do so, but the two payments then due on the Mangatainoka section were not paid, and are still outstanding. I did not, however, wish to state specifically in my letter to the newspaper that Mr. Chapman had been so long in paying his arrears on the one section, and had not paid them at all on the other ; whilst I was compelled, in defence of the Land Board, to mention the fact that the notices sent with regard to the arrears in March last year had not been followed up, as they might have been, by enforcement of payment or the forfeiture of the sections. I now find, although my attention was not drawn to it when writing to the newspaper, that a notice was sent to Mr. Chapman on the 24th December last as stated by you, but this was merely the usual half-yearly printed notice (copy attached), reminding him of the rent falling due on the Ist instant, which was sent to him in common with all the other selectors in the Wellington Land District, and cannot be considered in any sense a notice of default. You are at liberty to make any use of this memorandum you may think proper.—l am, &c., J. W. A. Marchant, R. P. Greville, Esq., Surveyor, Pahiatua. Commissioner of Crown Lands. THE LATE MR. CHAPMAN AND THE LAND BOARD. [From the Pahiatua Herald of Friday, 28th January, 1898.] (To the Editor.) SIR, —Will you kindly publish the following letters in reference to a letter, published on the 14th instant, written by the Commissioner of Crown Lands. It may be interesting to note that the rent on the village section, which is twelve months in arrear is only about £1 10s., and that the improvements effected by the late Mr. Chapman are, at the minimum, worth £400. The rent on the Pongaroa section, which is paid up to date, amounts to £15 a year, and the value of improvements is about £250. —I am, &c., R. P. Greville. Forfeited at Mrs. Chapman's request, 27th April, 1899. Mrs. Chapman's valuation of improvements (27th May, 1899), £198 14s. Ranger's valuation of improvements (6th May, 1899), £150. Mrs. Chapman writes, is willing to take £100 for the improvements, 21st April, 1900. Ranger recommends reduction to £101 10s., 25th May, 1900. Mrs. Chapman wants improvements reduced to £80, 15th August, 1900. Board decided to reduce to £90 only, 30th August, 1900. Section offered weighted with £101 Is., as a Mr. Tobin offered to take it up if improvements were valued at £100, 7th November, 1900. Section offered weighted with £81 Is., 30th April, 1901. Section applied for, January, 1902. PRfecis op J. Jessop's Case. The complaint in this case is that his name appeared in the newspaper report of the Land Board's proceedings, along with those of other selectors who were in arrear with payments of rent. As section 48, subsection (4), of " The Land Act, 1892," prescribes that all meetings of the Land Board shall be open to the public, which means also the Press ; to give effect to this and other similar requests might result in practically the greater portion of the Board's work being done in Committee. As a matter of fact, however, steps have been taken during the past year to, as far as possible, keep the names of selectors in arrear with rent from appearing
188—C, 4.
C.—4.
1498
[j. STBATJCHON.
Precis of Correspondence and Action ■ —Section 21, Pahiatua Village Settlement (mortgaged to Government Advances to Settlers); J Jessop; selected 18th June, 1886; area, 10 acres 1 rood 14 perches. —2nd January, 1903 : Selector wrote re arrears, and forwarded £2 2s. lid. on account, £6 3s. lid. owing (six payments). 29th January, 1903 : Land Board resolved selector be asked to make definite proposals for payment of balanace. 21st February, 1903 : Under-Secretary writes that selector has complained to Mr. O'Meara of his name appearing in newspapers as defaulter for rent. 26th February, 1903 : Land Board decided to take no action in matter of Mr. Jessop's name appearing in paper. 26th March, 1903 : Selector asked for further time to pay up, having had misfortune to be burnt out. 28th May, 1903 : Land Board granted three months to 28th August, 1903, to finally pay up arrears. Rent paid up shorlty after above date ; since paid regularly. Precis op the late A. W. R. Sedcole's Case. This selector took up the land in 1893, but by subsequent arrangement, and as an act of grace, the date of selection was post-dated to the Ist January, 1895, thus giving him two years rent-free, but in November, 1895, selector not only failed to pay up the first two instalments of rent due for that year, and balance of lease fee, lis., but did not even reply to the Board's notices, consequently his interest was forfeited on the 28th of that month. Forfeiture was, however, suspended until the 28th January, 1897, when it was rescinded, the rent having been paid. In July, 1898, as he again failed to pay or reply to the Board's notices, his interest was forfeited, and again held over and rescinded in July, 1899, on payment of the overdue rental. In July, 1903, on learning" of selector's death, the Board advised Mrs. Sedcole fully how to act, but as she only held a third interest in the section, the Board, in December, 1904, approved of her continuing in occupation and fulfilling residential conditions until such time as she could legally transfer the land to herself and two children according to their respective shares. Precis of Correspondence and Action.—A. W. R. Sedcole ; Section 12, Block VII., Mount Cerberus, Pahiatua, No. 3 ; area, 201 acres ; date of selection, Ist January, 1895 ; residence due, Ist January, 1899.—28 th November, 1895 : Board resolved to forfeit, selector having failed to reply to its requisitions re rent. 28th January, 1897 : Board rescinded forfeiture, rent having been paid. 28th July, 1898 : Board forfeited for non-payment, selector having failed to reply to its notices. 29th June, 1899 : Selector explains. 27th July, 1899 : Forfeiture rescinded. 21st July, 1903 : Commissioner having heard of death of selector, wrote advising Mrs. Sedcole what steps to take in dealing with the land. 16th August, 1903 : Mrs. Sedcole states she is following Commissioner's advice. 21st April, 1904 : Solicitor forwards transfer papers. 28th April, 1904 : Transfer approved by Land Board. 13th December, 1904 : Mrs. Sedcole having found that she could not legally transfer the section to herself, the Board approved of her continuing in occupation and fulfilling residential conditions until such time as she can legally transfer the land to herself and her two children in the shares specified in the intestate estates. Precis op Mr. R. B. Robertson's Case. Selector desired to transfer to a Mr. Dickens, who already held two. Crown leases aggregating 330 acres, or 530 acres in all if approved. The Board, however, on the report of the Ranger that the sections should not be amalgamated, being unsuitable for occupation in smaller holdings, refused to approve of the transfer. Precis of Correspondence and Action. —R. B. Robertson; Section 8, Block VIII., Puketoi; area, 200 acres ; selected 28th October, 1897. —13th July, 1903 : Mr. Robertson applied to transfer to Mr. C. H. Dickens. Ist October, 1903 : Land Board refused transfer for following reasons : That Mr. A. Dickens already holds two Crown titles, one a lease in perpetuity adjoining Robertsons' section, and the other an occupation with right of purchase, the two aggregating an area of 330 acres, and the Crown Lands Ranger reported that it is not desirable to group Section 8 with his present holding, as the sections are suitable for close settlement. There will, of course, be no objection to Mr. Robertson transferring the section to some other eligible person, provided no proposal to group sections suitable for separate settlement is made. With reference to Mr. Robertson's question re a transfer being allowed of Section 13, Block VIII., Puketoi, 470 acres, to a Mr. Murray, who already held 692 acres, making 1,162 acres in all, this case is not in the same category as that of Messrs. Robertson and Dickens, inasmuch as Section 13 is second-class land, it was sold by the Public Trustee in the estate of the late W. Gillespie, and the 692 acres already held by Mr. Murray was freehold land at the time. Precis op Frank Burling's Case. On looking over the papers I cannot find that this selector has any complaint. PrScis of Correspondence and Action. —Frank Burling; Section 38, Block IV., Mount Cerberus; area, 200 acres; date of selection, 29th March, 1899; original date, Ist January, 1896.—13 th October, 1902 : Transfer to F. Burling completed. 29th March, 1904 : Ranger reports selector not residing. 27th May, 1904 : Selector asked to explain. 13th June, 1904 : States his house is complete, and he is residing. 3rd December, 1904 : Ranger verified. 3rd February, 1905 : Applies for permission to reside on wife's section. 23rd February, 1905 : Board approved. Precis of A. Brown's Case. Selected in March, 1893, but was post-dated to the Ist January, 1895, as an act of grace. In October, 1902, selector stated he was not residing and could not reside owing to the death of his wife, and further, that he desired to keep the section in trust for his thirteen-year-old son. The Board informed him that he could not be allowed to hold the section in the manner proposed, and that he should
J. STKAUCHON.J
1499
C.—4.
therefore endeavour to transfer ; for some considerable time he failed to find an eligible transferee, but eventually in June, 1904, transferred the section to Mr. W. J. Cox. The statement that Mrs. Brown's death was caused by being compelled to reside on this section is shown by our records to be absolutely unfounded, as the Ranger's frequent reports clearly show that the wife and family never took up their residence on this section, but continued to live at Ngaturi. The only house then on the ground being a whare, valued at £10. Precis of Correspondence and Action. —Section 35, Block V., Mount Cerberus, Pahiatua No. 1 Block, farm homestead ; area, 200 acres ; selector, Alex. Brown ; date of selection, Ist January, 1905 ; residence due, Ist January, 1899. —25th April, 1901 : Land Board resolved that only reasonable compliance is required. 7th October, 1902 : Selector wants to hold section in trust for his son, who is thirteen years of age ; cannot reside owing to death of wife ; must place his family where they can be looked after. 27th November, 1902 : Land Board resolved he should endeavour to transfer within three months, as he cannot be allowed to hold the section in manner proposed. sth January, 1903 : Asks whether he may transfer to a neighbour. Bth January, 1903 : Advised an application would be considered if neighbour is eligible and satisfies Board he is a suitable person. 20th February, 1903 : Asked what steps he is taking to transfer. 2nd March, 1903 : Replies the declaration bars any of his neighbours from buying ; cannot see why 320 acres should be the limit in his case when Souness and others hold 350 and upwards. (Farm homestead 338, lease in perpetiuity 387 : Held by Souness ; area, 350 acres : Souness selected Section 16 (farm homestead 388), area, 250 acres, on 17th August, 1895, and Section 15 (lease in perpetuity 387) on Ist December, 1898, there being no bar in the lease, in perpetuity declaration; had he selected the lease in perpetuity first, the farm-homestead declaration would have prevented him from taking Section 16.) Ist April, 1903 : Selector says he has found a purchaser and asks whether he can take a mortgage for the purchase-money. 3rd April, 1903 : Ranger states road is metalled and selector should be called on to reside. 21st April, 1903 : Selector was advised re mortgage and was asked to send in the application to transfer. sth May, 1903 : Selector states he has had difficulty in coming to arrangements with proposed transferee, and asks how long he would have to reside to complete the term required. Particulars of residence by Ranger's reports Ist May, 1896 : Not residing (buildings and yards valued at £20). 28th April, 1897 : Residing since Ist January, 1895 (this conflicts with above); whare valued £10. 19th July, 1899 : Not residing;, whare, £10; resides occasionally; family resides at Ngaturi. 29th November, 1899 : Land Board granted reasonable time to reside. Bth February, 1902 : Resides about half his time ; whare, £10. 20th May, 1903 : Ranger advised. 23rd June, 1903 : Ranger states he has never seen the selector on the section since second year's report (28th April, 1897) ; whare is now in a dilapidated condition ; selector has not resided continuously in a habitable house and is not residing at present. (From this it would appear that selector has not complied with any portion of the term of ten years' residence in a habitable house. See selectors query above (sth May, 1903). Selected Ist January, 1895 ; ten years will expire Ist January, 1905.) 23rd October, 1903 : Selector called and was given a month's time to take his children to the South Island, after which he will improve the house and live on the section. 16th December, 1903 : Selector states timber is on the ground, but it is too green to build ; asks what he will do. 14th January, 1904 : Selector states he has finished the outside of the building. 28th January, 1904 : Ranger was asked to report whether selector resides. 23rd April, 1904 : Ranger reports selector has built a substantial lean-to house (minus chimney), repaired fences, &c., but was not residing when visited ; recommends he be asked to state when he proposes to reside. (See minute, 23rd October, 1903.) 28th April, 1904 : Selector was asked to explain non-residence. 16th May, 1904 : Selector states he is living on the section, was sowing grass-seed at the time of Ranger's visit and was on the back of his section ; is now in Pahiatua obtaining treatment for an accident; asks whether wife of an adjoining selector could become transferee. 15th June, 1904 : Mr. Brown applied to transfer section to Mr. W. J. Cox. 30th June, 1904 : Board resolved to exempt Mr. Brown from residence to date and approve transfer to Mr. Cox, provided Mr. Cox will reside in a bond fide manner. Precis of Mr. F. H. Schormann's Case. There can be no complaint against the Land Board for revaluing the section, as it is required by law to do so in every case where land has been surrendered or forfeited. Precis of Correspondence and Action. —Section 3, Block IX., Tararua, 500 acres ; originally selected, P. G. Clark, 28th December, 1893 : Original valuation—24s acres at £1 2s. 6d., £275 12s. 6d.; 40 acres at 17s. 6d., £35 ; 178 acres at 155., £133 10s.; 37 acres at 12s. 6d., £23 2s. 6d. : total, £467 ss. Average price, about 18s. Bd. per acre, which includes 2s. 6d. per acre loading for roads. Section forfeited, 30th September, 1897. Revalued by Rangers McKay and Kavanagh at £1 per acre (improvements, £60), 4th August, 1898. Reofiered at £1 plus 2s. 6d. loading for roads. Total capital value, £562 10s.; improvements, £60. Reselected by F. H. Schorman, 18th April, 1899. Selector has not made any complaint to Land Board re the valuation placed on tljis section. Precis of Mr. R. Brown's Case. This settler selected his land on the Ist January, 1895, but failed to reside for a period of nearly eight years, or four years after residence required by lease, although he stated to the Ranger in November, 1898, that he intended building and permanently residing on the section in the near future. In July, 1903, he built a five-roomed house, and resided with his wife and family. Precis of Correspondence and Action. —Section 15, Block XV., Mangaone ; R. Brown * residence due Ist January, 1899.—24 th November, 1898 : Ranger reports not residing, but selector would build and reside in the near future. 2nd March, 1899 : Selector informed should be residing. 26th March, 1899 : Selector asks for exemption as he lives so close (half a mile away). 13th March, 1899 : Selector
C—4.
1500
[j. STEAUCHON.
granted for the present (Land Board, 27th April, 1899). 29th July, 1902 : Asked ifjEyet residing on section. 15th September, 1902 : Asked for reply to last letter. 27th September, 1902 : Selector states not residing, and has been exempted by Land Board before; is not living on section. 27th November, 1902 : Land Board cancelled above exemption, and resolved to ask Ranger for further report. 6th January, 1903 : Ranger reported lessee intended to build coming winter ; recommended exemption to Ist June, 1903. 29th January, 1903 : Land Board granted until 30th April, 1903, to reside or transfer. 18th February, 1903 : Selector states he has ordered material for house. 19th June, 1903 : Lessee asked if he is yet residing. 23rd June, 1903 : Ranger reports selector not residing, but building in course of erection ; recommends no action at present owing to delay with carpenters. 4th July, 1903 : Selector states he is now residing. 21st August, 1903 : Ranger confirms selector's statement; residing with wife in five-roomed house. Precis of J. H. George's Case. Selected in March, 1895, and in 1901 built a small whare valued at £10, but according to the Ranger's reports, failed to reside, and six months later selector wrote saying he could not reside continuously, and wished to surrender his interest. The Board, about five months later, and, after giving him time to reconsider the matter, forfeited his interests in accordance with his wishes. The section was reoffered, weighted with value of improvements in February, 1903 —was not selected. Improvements revalued and reduced 10 per cent., and in June, 1904, was reoffered, the section again failed to find a selector. Improvements have been recently again reduced by 10 per cent., and steps are now being taken to reoffer it for selection. Precis of Correspondence and Action. —Section 28, Pongaroa Village Settlement; J. H. George; residence due, 28th March, 1899. —12th September, 1899 : Asked whether residing. 24th September, 1899 : Says cannot get neighbours to fence ;as soon as roads passable will build and reside. 26th October, 1899 : Proposal re residence accepted by Board. 3rd March, 1900 : Ranger reported roads passable, but selector not residing. 18th April, 1900 : Selector asked what steps he is taking. 3rd May, 1900 : He has been waiting for sawmill; which will soon be working, will then commence building. 31st May, 1900: Land Board granted exemption till 31st December, 1900. 13th February, 1901 : Selector now wishes to build on town section, half-mile away, and wants twelve months' exemption on village homestead section, which he only requires for paddocking. 28th February, 1901 : Land Board resolved must comply or forfeit. 26th March, 1901 : Selector states has decided to build and reside. 27th March, 1901 : Ranger reports not residing; settlers in locality are commenting. 4th April, 1901 : Asked to fix a definite date. 15th May, 1901 : Says he is going to build and reside at once. 12th June, 1901 : Told his assurance was accepted. sth July, 1901: States he has built, but cannot always reside. 17th August, 1901 : Ranger reports selector built whare, but not residing ; settlers complaining of this. 9th September, 1901 : Selector asked what steps he is prepared to take. 11th October, 1901 : Selector says he took up permanent residence 24th May, 1901, and complains re neighbours not fencing. 23rd October, 1901 : Asked for explanation and proposals for Land Board. 6th January, 1902 : States he resides occasionally, but imputes personal animus to Ranger. 30th January, 1902 : Land Board resolved to consider matter at next meeting, when selector can attend. 17th February, 1902 : Selector says cannot reside continuously, and wishes to surrender. 27th February, 1902 : Land Board granted three months to comply, or interest will be forfeited. 2nd June, 1902 : Ranger says residential condition not fulfilled. 13th June, 1902 : Selector asked to show cause. 21st July, 1902 : Selector says neighbours failed to fence, and cattle stray on to section ; he is bushfelling at Alfredton, and will proceed with house when he returns. 31st July, 1902 : Interest forfeited by Land Board. 6th October, 1902 : Land Board decided to reoffer section at £2 per acre, weighted with £81 17s. 6d. for improvements; section offered 24th February, 1903, but not reselected. 24th August, 1903 : Ranger recommends valuation of improvements be reduced 10 per cent., and section again offered. 29th October, 1903 : Land Board decided reduce value of improvements to £73 13s. 9d. as recommended ; section offered Bth June, 1904, but not selected. 14th March, 1905 : Ranger recommends valuation for improvements be reduced to £65 19s. 3d. 31st March, 1905 : Land Board resolved section be reoffered again, weighted with £65 19s. 3d. for improvements. 13th June, 1905 : Date of sale not yet fixed ; steps now being taken to have section again gazetted for sale. Precis of Ole Petersen's Case. This selector, after residing for seven and a half years, left the section (by the Ranger's reports) and resided on another man's section a mile away, with whom he was milking on shares. Another man and family, who were employed by an adjoining freeholder, were residing in Petersen's house, the freeholder paying the rent to Petersen. Although Petersen continuously asserted that he was residing, and that the Ranger's reports were incorrect, he at the same time in his letter declined to make a statutory declaration in support of his statements, which would have ended the difficulty. Eventually the required period of ten years' residence ex'pired without his returning to the land. Precis of Correspondence and Action.—Section 21, Block XV., Mangaone, Pioneer Freehold Block ; area, 100 acres; selector, Ole Petersen; selected, Ist January, 1905; residence due, Ist January, 1899; value of improvements required for sixth year, £130; how far complied with—(a) not residing; (b) improvements effected, £381. —20th December, 1902 : Ranger reported selector not residing now ; was residing up to July, 1902. 20th January, 1903 : Asked for explanation. 10th February, 1903 : Replies his family resides on John Judd's place, and are milking there; he (selector) works on his section, and is there nearly all the time, trying to make it fit for dairying. 26th February, 1903 : Land Board granted three months to take up permanent residence in a habitable house. 24th July, 1903 : Selector was asked whether he was residing. 10th August, 1903 : Selector repeats reasons referred to in memo, of 10th February, 1903 ; he now " works on the section most of his time." 27th August,
C.-4.
J. STEATJCHON.J
1501
1903 : Land Board resolved to obtain a further report from the Crown Lands Ranger. 24th August, 1903 : Ranger reports and recommends that selector be called on to comply. Ist October, 1903 : Land Board confirmed. 3rd October, 1903 : Selector asked to show cause why his interest should not be forfeited for non-compliance with conditions. 12th October, 1903 : Selector stated he is residing and has done so for the past twelve years ; if necessary, his family will reside, but as section (being unfit for dairying) is insufficient to keep them it will necessitate hardships. 29th October, 1903 : Land Board resolved if selector can satisfy the Board that he is residing on the section in a bond fide manner it will be sufficient, but his residence must be permanent and continuous. 6th November, 1903 : Selector notified. 4th January, 1904 : Selector was asked whether he is now residing. 10th March, 1904: Asked for an immediate reply. 26th March, 1904 : States he has already answered the question in his letter of 12th October, 1903 ; and asks whether term of residence has not expired. 14th April, 1904 : Selector was asked to make a sworn declaration. 9th May, 1904 : Selector was asked for an immediate reply. 10th May, 1904 : Selector explains that he cannot make the declaration; wants an answer to his query re expiration of the term of residence. (The lease is dated Ist January, 1895, but selector has, according to the Ranger's report, been residing from January, 1895, up to July, 1902.) 13th June, 1904 : Selector was asked to explain. 24th June, 1904 : Selector explains why he did not make the declaration asked for, and says he will lay matter before Minister if his statement is not accepted by the Board. 15th July, 1904 : Position explained to selector. 23rd September, 1904 : No reply. 22nd November, 1904 : No reply. 14th December, 1904 : Land Board resolved it is now too late to take any further action. Precis op Me. Wiggins's Case. Selected in March, 1894. Selector, being a business man resident in Wellington and unable to reside, asked in April, 1903, some nine years after selection, that the Board should take over and dispose of his section to some one who would pay him a reasonable amount for his improvements. The Board accordingly forfeited his interest in April, 1903, reoffered the section for sale under the optional clauses under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892." After lying open for some considerable time without any application, Mr. Wiggins purchased the section for cash in July, 1904. Precis of Correspondence and Action.—W. Wiggins ; Section 6, Block IX., Tararua ; selected, Ist March, 1894; residence due, Ist March, 1898. (See also L.P. 65.) —24th May, 1899 : Ranger reported not residing. 30th June, 1899 : Asked to explain. 21st July, 1899 : Says he originally intended to reside, but cannot now do so on account of his business ; asks for extension of time. 28th September, 1899 : Land Board granted exemption for the present. 4th May, 1900 : Selector asked whether he is residing yet. 11th May, 1900: Ranger reports selector not residing; man in charge residing with his family. 22nd May, 1900: Selector says, owing to bad burns, has been unable to clear sufficient space to build with safety ; hopes to build after next burn. 31st May, 1900 : Land Board resolved to accept his statement, and trusts there will be no further trouble in the matter. 27th June, 1901 : Selector asked if residing yet. 2nd July, 1901 : Selector says negotiating for transfer. 4th July, 1901 : Particulars and forms for transfers forwarded to selector. 6th February, 1902 : Selector asked whether he has completed arrangements for transferring. 7th February, 1902: Selector says agreements for transfer not completed; two or three persons negotiating for it. 27th February, 1902. Land Board gave three months' time to do so. 27th May, 1902 : Selector explains that he cannot find a purchaser owing to the large amount spent on improvements (about £3,000), but one of his sons, now at school, will be ready to reside on the land in about twelve months' time ; asks time till then. 24th June, 1902 ; Land Board asked him to show cause. 22nd July, 1902 : Selector says he is sending up an intending purchaser to view the land, and asks for further time to sell his interests. 31st July, 1902 : Land Board resolved to grant three months' time to transfer or reside. 20th November, 1902 : Asked what steps he has taken. Ist December, 1902: States the land was put up at auction but there was no bid; wants further time, as he is willing to sell out at £400 less than what it cost him. Bth January, 1903 : Land Board gave a further period of three months to transfer. 14th January 1903 :' Selector notified. 21st April, 1903 : Selector states that he has not yet found a purchaser • would be glad if Board would dispose of it to a person who would pay him a reasonable amount for his improvements; asks to be allowed to remain in possession longer. Ist May, 1903 : Land Board resolved to declare his interest forfeited. 21st July, 1904 : Mr. Wiggins purchased section for cash. Precis of Mr. M. Haddiman's Case. Selected in January, 1895, but after holding it over seven years, or three years after residence was required by his lease, he had failed to reside, and was also over 50 per cent, short of required improvements. As a sample of the improvements, the hut built on the land was valued by the Ranger at only £2. When pressed for residence, he asked for twelve months' further extension of time to reside, until such time as his neighbours could join him in erecting boundary-fences. The Board declined to do this, and as he failed to reply to further communications from the Board his interest was forfeited on the Bth January, 1903, and formal notice of same sent to him at once. He did not appeal within the prescribed time, but about the end of April he asked the Board to rescind forfeiture, as he had found some one to whom he could transfer. As possession had been resumed and the forfeiture registered in the Land Transfer Office, the Board was unable to comply. Precis of Correspondence and Action.-—Mr. Haddiman; Section 22, Block V., Mount Cerberus (Pahiatua No. 1) ; area, 200 acres ; date of selection, Ist January, 1905 ; date residence due, Ist January, 1899. —21st July, 1899, and 10th February, 1902 : Ranger reported non-compliance with residence conditions. 30th August, 1899 : Selector asked to explain. 22nd September, 1899 : Selector says he resides six months and goes out working other six; will reside when neighbours fell boundary-lines. 26th October, 1899 : Land Board accepts, and advised selector of resolution. Ist May, 1902 : Com-
C—4.
1502
[j. STRATJCHOtf.
missioner asked selector to explain non-compliance. 12th May, 1902 : Selector explained. 29th May, 1902 : Board granted three months' exemption. 15th September, 1902 : Selector asked if he has resumed residence. 13th September, 1902 : Selector asks for twelve months' exemption. 27th November, 1902 : Board called on him to show cause. 28th November, 1902 : Selector advised. Bth January, 1903 : No reply, and Board resolved to forfeit. 12th January, 1903 : Haddiman notified. 22nd April, 1903 : Haddiman applied for section to be given back to him. Ist May, 1903 : Board refused, as forfeiture completed. Precis of William Nation's Case. This is a case in which a settler failed to reside for nearly nine years after selection, or in other words five years after residence was required by his lease, and although he afterwards commenced residence, he subsequently demurred to continue because the Land Board would not give him a right of road through his neighbour's property, which it had no power to grant. Besides, the Ranger reported that this selector already had sufficient access through his own frontage, and he actually later on made a good dray-road to his house. Precis of Correspondence and Action.—W. Nation ; Section 37, Block XI., XV., Mangaone ; transferred to W. Nation, Bth November, 1898 (signed undertaking, 27th June, 1898); area, 200 acres ; selected, Bth February, 1894 ; improvements for sixth year done.—3lst January, 1901 : Land Board granted exemption from residence for present. 23rd May, 1902 : Asked when he will reside. 24th June, 1902 : Land Board resolved he should reside forthwith or forfeit. 28th July, 1902 : Selector asked for time to reside. 31st July, 1902 : Land Board gave him three months to reside, transfer, or forfeit. 4th October, 1902 : Selector says cannot make use of land as a dairy-farm unless he gets cart-road through Section 38. 14th October, 1902 : Ranger asked to report. Bth January, 1903 : As Ranger reported selector was residing, Land Board resolved no further action necessary. 29th January, 1903 : Refers to promise that matter would be laid before Land Board; has been waiting for an outlet; cannot make a living with sheep, and unless access is given cannot go in for dairying; has got cows, but will have to sell again ; has been offered billet looking after a sheep-farm, and unless he can get access and supply dairy, will not stop on the section; has been forced to reside, but cannot remain without access ; wants letter placed before Board. 26th February, 1903 : Land Board resolved it cannot provide a private road through another man's property.. 7th March, 1903 : Selector advised, and asked what he intends to do re residence. 21st May, 1903: Asked for an immediate reply. 18th May, 1903 : Selector states that he does not want a private road ; wants a right of road through a neighbour's section sth June, 1903 : Selector was advised of the position, and that Ranger has reported he could obtain access within his own frontage. 18th November, 1903 : Ranger asked to verify. 21st May, 1904 : Ranger stated selector residing from 16th October, 1902, to April, 1904, but was not now residing. 26th May, 1904 : Selector asked to explain non-residence. No further action since. 117. Mr. Johnston.] Have you many three-years-pastoral-run leases ?—No, we have had only one case, which was an application, and not granted, because it was in the meantime taken up by another man. The applicant was Mr. Bell, of Marlborough. 118. It was taken up by Mr. Bell's nephew ? —No. 119. It does not mater what one holds, he can take up another run for three years if it is unoccupied ? —Yes. 120. What happens at the end of three years ? —lt will be offered for public competition again; the lessee getting nothing for his improvements. Since the run was taken up by the lessee, Mr. Campion, of Feilding, has applied for the lease of some 2,000 acres of Crown land adjoining, and I presume he will want to come under that clause. 121. What is the area of the improved-farm-settlement sections I—2oo acres is the limit fixed by the Act. 122. What area is there under that system ? —There are 181 selectors, holding 18,717 acres. . 123. Where are these holdings ?—Scattered about everywhere. 124. Was not a large portion of that land totara-bush land which was felled and grassed in the vicinity of the North Island Main Trunk Railway ?—Yes, about Taihape and Mangaweka. I think most of them are a success. In Taranaki also, I know a great many are a success. The Government felled the bush and grassed the land, and gave advances of money towards building houses. To a single man they advanced £10, and to a married man up to £30, and where a house was valued at over £40, the settler was required to insure it. They are a good class of tenants. It is the favourite tenure if we had the land, but we have no land suitable for it now. Good land that is fit for dairying is required. If you refer to Parliamentary Paper C.-8, page 11, you will find a full report by me on this system. 125. What are the terms of the leases issued in regard to flax lands ? —They are merely for the cutting-rights. The Board fixes the royalty to be charged according to the accessibility of the flax and other circumstances. 126. Do these leases give the right to graze ? —No, they are for cutting the flax only. 127. Have the Boards the right to issue grazing leases in respect to these flax lands ? —Yes, if they like to let the grazing, the Board have the independent right to do so. 128. What about swamp land with flax on it ? —The right to cut flax can be issued in regard to areas up to 2,000 acres, but we have no swamp Crown lands with flax of that area. There is some at Raketapauma, but the right to cut has not been let yet. 129. Have you read Mr. Humphries's ideas in regard to the ballot ?—Yes. 130. What do you think of it I—As1 —As you will see in my review of the system in the Land Conference Report I think it is rather complicated. It is an excellent idea, but I think the fewer the restrictions and the fewer the difficulties in the methods of conducting the ballots the better. That is my only objection to it.
0.—4.
.J. STRAUCHON.J
1503
131. Where are the lands let under the Bush and Swamp Lands Act ?• —Principally in the Kaitieke Block, in the Upper Wanganui district, south of Taumarunui. 132. What is the class of that land ?—Ordinary forest land, fair to good. It is fairly accessible now by the railway. The exemption from rates and rents for four years is a very great advantage, and a lot of land has been taken up on account of these privileges. They can take up to 640 acres of first-class or 2,000 acres of second-class land under this Act. 133. Does that not come very hard on the Raetihi settlers who are under lease in perpetuity and who went on to the land in what was then a far more remote district ?—That is a matter of legislation. We have nothing to do with that. But I may say, as a matter of fact, that it is mostly Raetihi and Taihape men who have gone up there. The capital value of the land runs from 15s. to £1 per acre. Ido not think there is any over £1 per acre. They are compelled to do the ordinary improvements according to the tenure under which they hold the land, and they are barred from transferring for five years unless they pay up the rent as from the beginning. 134. Have you ever forfeited any deposits under the ballot ? —Never. Our Board would let a man stand out if he was not satisfied with his section. They never force a man to take a section he does not want. Of course, under the strict letter of the law the deposit is liable to forfeiture. 135. In regard to the associations which were formed to take up land at the back of Apiti and Hunterville, did you charge them all 2s. 6d. for survey fees ?—I think the Minister exempted a large number of them. 136. Is that not a very heavy charge ?—lt will not pay the cost of the survey. I may say this all happened before my time, and I am not familiar with the position of this matter in the Wellington District. I had the same thing in Taranaki, and large areas were taken up by business men in the towns, who never intended to go on the land so far as we could see. Lots of them came from Palmerston and Terrace End. The great fault of these blocks was that they were surveyed into too small areas, necessitating a great amount of roading and a large expenditure of Government money. 137. Do you think the examination under the Land for Settlements Act should be extended to cover the other tenures I—l1 —I do, and I mentioned that in my report to-day. 138. Instead of the examination by the Board, would it be satisfactory if the Board got a certificate sworn to before a Justice of the Peace and certified to by the manager of a bank ?—I do not know that it would. At all events it would not be equal to an examination by the Board. 139. Do you not think that would be a better guarantee of an applicant's financial position than anything else you could get ? —So far as that aspect goes it would be all right. We"ask"them when they come before us to produce their bank-books. 140. We had evidence that in a good many cases the money goes into the bank just before the ballot so that it can be shown to the Board, and that then it is taken out again ?—I think Mr. Humphries told me about that. A similar case occurred here at an examination. I asked the man how it came about that this money had been paid in that very day. He said that the money had been owing to him for some little time and that it had just been paid in. I asked if it had been paid in for the express purpose of supporting his application, and he said it had not. 141. Do you not think if you got a certificate from a bank-manager to the effect that the applicant was a fit and proper person to go on the land, and if you also saw him and asked him a few questions, that it would be quite sufficient ?—lf an applicant came forward with such a certificate, of course it would be a wonderful help to me; but we want to examine him personally, in addition, as to his ex pejience, &c. 142. You say a month's notice is posted in regard to reselling a section : is that always adhered to strictly ?—Yes ; it is advertised in the Gazette for a month and in the local paper of the district once or twice. We only advertise it in the local paper once or twice because of the expense. 143. The expense is nothing so long as the people know about the land and you get applications for it ? —lt is advertised in the Gazette for a month. "144. And who gets the Gazette ?—lt is obtainable in all the institutes, courts, and post-offices. 145. Are you sure that every notice you send round is put up in the post-offices ? —They are supposed to be, and in the railway-stations as well. We have a special board for these notices at these places. A plan of every section is always furnished, and it is posted at the principal railway-stations and post-offices, and we send it out to a lot of people as well. 146. Do you think it is a good thing giving this 10 per cent, rebate ?—These percentages were fixed before my time, and I did not consider it advisable to alter them. I have no objeetion to them at all. 147. Do you think it is right that you and the Receiver of Revenue should have the responsibility of deciding this matter ? —I should be very glad to be rid of it. Ido not think it is fair to put it on us. 148. Why do the perpetual-lease and deferred-payment settlers get 5 per cent. ?—That I cannot tell you. I found them here and I did not alter them. 149. Is the survey fee not altered now I—No1 —No ; they are as I read them to you. 150. You say there are £13,900 of " thirds " outstanding ?—They are still in the hands of the Receiver of Land Revenue, and no proposal has yet been received for their expenditure. If the local bodies say they cannot get them it is not correct. They are there waiting for the local bodies to make proposals for their expenditure. 151. Do you continue these chain reserves up the rivers now ? —ln regard to ordinary Crown lands, Yes ; but not in regard to land-for-settlements land. 152. Do you not think they ought to be made under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Except for the cost I think they should. When the Government buy land for £20 per acre they cannot afford to"make them. E ■■ 153. Could they not issue grazing rights over them ? —No ; because the control of these reserves would go under local bodies.
C—4.
1504
[j. STRATJCHON.
154. You say you sell sites for dairy factories and churches and suchlike things ?—Yes ;°P*under the Land for Settlements Act. 155. Suppose when one of these towns is started the dairy factory collapses and that it is bought in by a private firm, would they have the freehold of that site given to them ?—I have discussed that matter with the Land Board, and I think when such a case occurs the thing should lapse. I think there should be a condition in the deed that if the scheme is not carried through the title should lapse. 156. In regard to the classification of lands, you know the Manawatu and you know the Oroua lands : would you class them as first-class lands ? —Certainly. I may say that the classification of land to cover the agriculturist's point of view of first-class land and the Crown Lands Department's point of view represents two different things. What I read of the classification in the Land Act is that it is not used in a productive sense, but is purely and simply comparative, and for the purpose of the Land Act only. 157. Was the land round Eltham sold as first-class land ?—Yes ; and it is very valuable to-day. 158. Was that sold with a limit of 640 acres ?—That is so ; but, as a matter of fact, the areas ranged from 50 to 200 acres. 159. Why should a man be allowed to get 640 acres of that land when a settler who takes up bush land twenty or thirty miles beyond Stratford is only allowed 640 acres of the hills ?—That is not firstclass land from a productive point of view, and the limitation is a stationary one. 160. It is all over £1 per acre ? —Yes ; but second-class land may be valued over £1 per acre. 161. Do you not think your Department should arrive at some absolute classification of land ?— I think it is impossible to classify it down as fine as you want it. 162. Were the School Commissioners' lands leased originally at a peppercorn rental on the condition that the bush was felled and fences erected ?—Not to my knowledge. That was all before my time. 163. The Wanganui Harbour Board leases were a success, were they not ? —I think fairly so in regard to its rural lands. 164. Do you not think the County Councils and Road Boards should be protected to a certain extent so far as collecting rates is concerned ?—No ; as I have already told you to-day the Land Boards have no power to deal with the question of collecting rates. Furthermore, the Board have expressed themselves against anything of the kind. They say they will not do that work for the local bodies, unless where a section is absolutely forfeited for the non-payment of rates. 165. What is this North Island Main Trunk Railway Account ?—lt is provided by statute that the revenue derived from certain Crown lands within fifteen miles on either side of the centre of the railway-line must be credited to the North Island Main Trunk Railway Account. These funds are practically for the construction of the railway. 166. The entire revenue ?—Yes ;in so far as regards revenue received from lands purchased out of " The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act, 1886," and Amendment, 1889, less, of course, the " thirds " and " fourths." 167. What has led to the throwing-up of the sections that have been thrown up ? —Various reasons. Because they have failed to go and reside on them; sometimes because of want of road-access, and sometimes because the man has not been bond fide. 168. Does the genuine settler ever forfeit as a rule ?—I think not. Of course, a man's circumstances may alter very much after he has taken up the section, and he may be forced to forfeit thereby. But, as a rule, the Board helps him as far as possible. 169. You say several transfers at a large profit have taken place ? —Yes. 170. Do you pass them if there are large profits ?—Yes ; we do not consider we have anything to do with the question of profits. This matter has been thrashed out several times by the Land Board, and the Board have decided they have no right to interfere so far as the tenant's bargain is concerned. The Board say they have no right to interfere no matter what his profit may be. 171. Could you furnish us with a return showing the particulars of some of these transfers that have taken place during the past three months ?—'Yes ; how many cases would you like ? 172. Say about thirty ?—Very well. 173. What form do you use for demanding rent ? —lt is a printed form. 174. Is it an arbitrary form ? —There are different forms. They were much more arbitrary at one time. 175. There was an exception up north to the using of the form ? —I do not think ours are very arbitrary; I can supply a copy. 176. Are the estates taken under the Land for Settlements Act a success ? —Yes, all a success. 177. Do you allow joint occupation ? —Yes, as tenants in common. 178. You heard the evidence at Waipukurau : do you not think occupation by tenants in common is a mistake ?—No, Ido not think so. You and your brother may be wanting to go into a section, and I do not see why you should not—the residence of one is sufficient for both of you. 179. Do you not think it leads to dummyism ? —I do not know that it does. It would be very hard lines to debar mates from going in together. In geniune cases Ido not think there is anything wrong. I think it is fair that two partners should go in. 180. You heard one man up there say that he was receiving wages ? —That was a clear case of dummyism; lam perfectly satisfied of that. 181. Mr. Anstey.] You say that you give a rebate on deferred payment of 5 per cent. ? —Yes. 182. Is that in your own discretion ? —lt is in the discretion of myself and the Receiver of Land Revenue. 183. With regard to the rebates on deferred payments, these are paid on the instalments ? — Yes,
J. STBAUCHON.]
1505
a—4.
184. In that case your rebate is not a rebate on the rent at all, it is a rebate on the capital value ? —-No, it is a rebate on the rent. 185. It is a rebate on the rent and capital value both ? —Rebates on the instalments of interest. 186. These men are paying rent every year, and on these instalments you make rebates ? —Yes. It would be a rebate of the rent or interest they are paying after capitalisation. 187. You do not make a rebate on their half-yearly payments ? —Yes. 188. Then the half-yearly payments are not only interest but capital as well ?—Yes, but rebate is allowed on the interest portion only. . 189. It is a rebate on the capital value then ?—-The capitalised value is ascertained over a limited period, and, therefore, while that is so, I think it is quite a fair rebate to give them. 190. Are you sure that is within the meaning of the Act —that is a rebate on the capital value, not a rebate on the rent ? —Those were all fixed before I came here, and are rebates on instalments of interest only. 191. That is a rebate on the capital value, and the Act says it is to be a rebate on the rent ?—The point has not been raised before. 192. With regard to the rebates generally, you say you think you ought to be relieved of the responsibility of making them ?—I should certainly like to be relieved of the responsibility of making them. 193. All the revenue from the Main Trunk Railway goes to the railway ? —Yes. 194. Does that include the " thirds " and fourths " ?—No. 195. With regard to the Bush and Swamp Lands Act, do you think there should be no remission of rents for a period of five years ?• —It is according to the fixing of the Legislature, and is no doubt intended to encourage people to go back and settle. 196. If these people pay no rates then there are not rates to spend on the roads. Would it not be much better for them to pay rates and expend the money on roads ?—That would be more advantageous. It would certainly enable them to get access much quicker. 197. Do you think it would be better to classify land on its productive value ? —How is it to be arrived at ? 198. The present classification is not quite fair ? —lt is almost impossible to classify it down to the point to which Mr. Johnston wants it, and we have no such land as the rich Manawatu country on our hands to dispose of. 199. In the case of educational reserves, you are now only giving partial value for improvements ; would it not be best to give full value ?—I do not see why they should not have full value. Ido not see why the clause was introduced excluding bushfelling and grassing—they are good improvements. At all events, at the end of the first lease I think it should be given. After that they would drop out. 200. You do not pay for the improvements ?—The incoming tenant pays that. 201. With regard to the University Reserve, do you know the terms of their lease ?—Twenty-one years' lease, but it can be extended to thirty years in bush lands. 202. Does it carry valuation for improvements ? —I think so. 203. With right of renewal ? —I am not positive; I think it is valuation for improvements with right of renewal. 204. Has any complaint ever reached you with regard to the administration of a reserve situated a long way from the city —from an absentee point of view ?—No complaints that I know of. 205. There is the Wellington City Council reserve at Pahiatua ? —Yes. 206. They are absentee landlords ?—Yes. 207. Do you think it is wise that a body which is out of touch and away from the land should administer the land ? Is it not fair that the land should be administerd by a body in sympathy with the tenants, say the local body ? —Being a School Commissioner I should not like to express an opinion with regard to that. 208. Say municipal reserves ?—The Land B&ard does administer until they are vested. 209. Would it not be better for the Land Boards always to administer them ?—-At all events, if the Land Boards did administer them, they would have their officers to go and see them when going round on their other duties. 210. It is not so much a question of the officers but the body that administers them is an absentee, and they give the tenants no redress ?—With the Land Boards they would have redress. 211. Have you ever received any compliants about reserved timber areas from people complaining that they should not be thrown open ? —I cannot say that we have had any complaints, but we have frequent applications to get parts of them. Our Board is very anxious to conserve those on the mountains for the sake of climatic and water-supply purposes, and they are very loth indeed to grant any of these applications for portions of these reserved lands. 212. Do you think it is wise that these immense areas of reserves should be set aside and become breeding-grounds for noxious weeds, deer, boars, and opossums ? —I think it is certainly wise that they should be set aside, but not as breeding-grounds for dangerous animals; the ordinary steps should be taken to keep all pests down. 213. They are actually importing them and turning them adrift ? —I should not agree to that in regard to animals that would be a nuisance to settlers. 214. With regard to these timber areas, a man has a right over 800 acres, but he has to clear 200 acres first, do you think it is wise that the land should be cut up immediately a small portion of it is cut out ? —lt is 800 acres, but a man can only cut 200 acres at a time, and he must have a certificate from the Ranger that he has cut out that 200 acres before he can go on with the next. Ido not see any reason why it should lie idle once the sawmiller has dealt with it. Ido not see there is any occasion for him to wait till the 800 acres is cut out.
189—C. 4.
[J. STEAUCHON.
1506
C.—4.
215. Mr. Johnston asked whether the bankers should be allowed to examine the tenants ? I should prefer the Land Board. 216 Do you think the bankers would be suitable people to examine witnesses I—Mr. Johnston said the country bankers. They are mostly intimately acquainted with farming. They know a man's position, and know every bushel of wheat he grows, and they know what stock and implements he has on his place. , 0 217. Mr. Matheson.] Do you understand the rebate of 10 per cent, to be for prompt payment. Yes. 218. Do you think if it applies to one tenant it should-apply to all ?—The Legislature has made certain exemptions. I would not like to express an opinion upon that matter. The law so states it, and we administer it accordingly. 219. If you read the law, that is a rebate for prompt payment, are you not compelled to give it to all who pay promptly ?—The law exempts certain classes. 220. Who are exempted ?—Ordinary small grazing-runs and pastoral tenants. 22L Take it with regard to lease in perpetuity—it is not given to all lease-in-perpetuity holders who pay promptly ?—Yes, for prompt payment, and occupation with right of purchase also._ 222. You are speaking of the Wellington Province ?—Yes ; and in regard to Taranaki, in my time the position there was this, that it was left by Act to the discretion of the Receiver of Land Revenue and myself. It is a much simpler plan here. There we took each case on its merits, and we took into consideration the amount of rent a man was paying, access, and distance from the market, and decided whether he should have it or not, and the amount. . 223. If it is for prompt payment can a discretionary power come in and alter it ?—Yes, the Act says so. 224. Where a man has excellent access and an excellent bargain: if it is for prompt payment, how can you refuse it ? —That is the view we took of the Act. 225. Mr. McLennan.'] Are you in favour of giving each Land Board a discretionary power with regard to cropping on the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 226. In your own opinion, would it be wise to give them a free hand in managing their own farm after they reside on the land for ten years, and have improvements to the value of 33 per cnet. on the capital value of the land ?—No, Ido not think it would—with a good farmer that would be all right. 227. Can you say that because a Ranger goes round and looks at the farm he can make a bad farmer a good farmer ?—No, certainly he could not; but he might report to the Land Board whether the land was being farmed profitably or otherwise. 228. It is difficult for a Ranger to understand the various kinds of land a man may have ?—The farmer gets the best knowledge of it. The Rangers are supposed to be men with a good knowledge, not only of land, but of their duties, values of improvements and fences, &c. I would certainly recommend a man who had been a farmer and who has done farming with his own hands, and done the work himself—that is the man I would prefer. 229. In your opinion, do you think ten years sufficient time for a man to learn farming, although he may not have had experience previously ?—He should know something in ten years if he has any gumption. . 230. In your opinion, if he does not know enough in ten years, would it be better to get some one else in his place ?—I think he ought to know in that time. 231. There must be some limit. After a man has been ten years on his farm, the Ranger knows during that time whether he is farming it properly or not: do you not think it reasonable after ten years to give a man a free hand to manage his farm, providing he has put the necessary improvements on it ?_He ought to be, but the difficulty is that he may transfer it to a man who is incompetent. There is no doubt it is a very difficult question. 232. Then you would not be prepared to give a farmer a free hand after ten years' residence ? — No, I do not think I would. 233. Mr. McCutchan.] With reference to the Crown Lands Ranger's inspection of lands, under the Act of 1892, does the inspection cease when the improvements required by law are made and the residence conditions are fulfilled ?—Yes, the tenant is practically free after that. 234. Selectors under the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure under the Act of 1892, when they have fulfilled the conditions for three years have the right to take up another section even if it does not adjoin their present holding ?—Yes. 235. Have the lease-in-perpetuity holders the same privilege ?—Yes, after three years' compliance with the conditions. 236. Do you think it would be as well that all roads should become county roads as soon as the Government expenditure ceases % —Well, that might be a long time, because the Government often gives grants for many years after the settlement has taken place. It might be better if the local bodies went in for loans, and were subsidised by the Government on the rates they levied for those loans. 237. As to the four years' exemption from rent: is the amount deducted spread over the subsequent years' rents ? —No, there is no increase of rental. It is practically a gift of four years rent. 238. With reference to the rebate-of-rent matter, the rebate is solely for the purpose of encouraging prompt payment of rent ? —Yes. 239. If that is so why should there be any differentiation between one tenant and another in the amount of rebate ?—As I have said, we take the view that the man who has had greater difficulties to contend with in the back blocks should have more rebate than the man who is within a mile of a metalled road. 240. So that it is not really a discount in the strict sense of the term ? —No. 241. You are aware that the trades and labour organizations of the colony base their claim for revaluation chiefly on the ground that this rebate interferes with the existing contracts —morally, at
C—4.
J. STBAUCHON.J
1507
any rate ?—Why should it be a breach of the contract ? A landlord may say, "Your rent is so-and-so, give me the rent and I will hand you back £10 or £20." That is not a breach of contract, neither would it be in this case. 242. Is"it n your opinion that the rentsjwere too high and that the tenants were not able to pay the rental placed upon the land by the Government —I am alluding principally to the land settled under the Act of 1892 ?—As a general rule I think not. There are cases where the rent has probably been high, but, taking them all through, they are higher in Wellington than in your district, Mr. McCutchan. 243. There is no real necessity for this rebate of rent ?—No special necessity in the case of the genuine settlers, I think. It has certainly been a great advantage to the selectors all the same, and it will be appreciated. 244. They will not appreciate it very much if the trades and labour organizations insist on revaluation on that ground ?—I know that you have refused it yourself, but it does not follow that other settlers should do the same. It is given freely by the State, and Ido not see why you or they should not accept it. 245. If the State enters into a contract with the tenants, and no variation can be made in that contract without special legislation, does it not follow that this is at any rate a moral infringement of the contract ? —No, I do not think so ; it is simply a free gift to you of so-much. 246. With reference to the £14,000 of accumulated " thirds " : has this largely been through roads vested in the local bodies ? —Yes ; but until last year it was over £20,000. The iocal bodies naturally do not wish to spend the " thirds " on any road until satisfied that Government expenditure has ceased, and, as you know, large grants continue to be made for these works long after settlement has taken place It was only by the Boards passing strong resolutions that the Government took the matter up, and they now require the local bodies within special periods to do the work, and, if it is not done within a certain time will be done by the Roads Department. 247. With reference to rebate on deferred-payment land : is that confined to rebate where the unpaid instalments have been capitalised, and the holder is simply paying interest on capitalised value, or is it a rebate on the principal ? —I do not think it is a rebate on the principal. 248. Have all the rents under the deferred-payment system been capitalised ?—The bulk of them have been. We have practically only two left in this district now. 249. In the case of deferred payments there is an increase of 25 per cent, on the capital value : I suppose it is on account of that that the rebate is given to the tenants ? —No ; it is simply because they were not asked to pay prompt cash. They were given time within which to pay. 250. With regard to small grazing-runs taken up under the Act of 1892 : has the State the right to resume those runs for closer settlement at the termination of the first term ?—No ; they must give the option to re-lease at the end of twenty-one years, so that this can go on longer than 999 years. These runs are usually in remote places, without proper road access. 251. Would it be wise that the State should have the power of resumption I—l think, in regard to the new runs, that the State should have power to resume, but there should be no breach of a bargain already made. 252. You spoke of the disqualification of successful applicants at a ballot for twelve months : that does not apply to anywhere outside the land district in which a tenant was successful, does it ? —I think it should. 253. But does it ? —I cannot say that it does. 254. Do the Land Board examine a man buying in from a present tenant ? —No, but they require him to make a statutory declaration that he does not hold over the limit allowed by law. He has to make that declaration before he can become a transferee from any one else. 255. You do not inquire into his financial position at all ? —They do not question in any way the right of the original tenant to sell for as much as he can get. 256. Does it not strike you as peculiar that the Land Board examine the original tenant, but do not examine the man who comes in under different conditions and in the face of greater difficulties, because he has to pay something for goodwill as well as his rent ? —There is no examination by the Land Board under the Land Act, but under the Land for Settlements Act there is. 257. The sums paid for goodwill in the case of transfers under the Land for Settlements Act are, generally speaking, more than they are under the Land Act of 1902 ? —Yes, they are mora valuable properties. 258. Does it not strike you as a mistake that you should not examine the incoming tenant ?—I do not think it is a mistake, though there might be no harm in doing it; and the Act does not require it. 259. Mr. Paul.] There is no rebate on small grazing-runs let under the ordinary Land Act, but there is under the Land for Settlements Act: is there any reason for the distinction ? — Ido not know. Under the ordinary Land Act the lands are poor and far away, and unimproved, whereas, under the Land for Settlements Act, the lands are all more or less improved. 260. The rent on a small grazing-run is based on a capital value of 5 per cent.: what is the basis on which the rents are fixed under the Land Act ? —lt must not be less than 2| per cent, of the price fixed, but it may be up to 5 per cent, or more. 261. Well, the tenant gets an apparent advantage under the Land Act of 1892 ?—Yes, but of course it is unimproved land, far back, and rough. 262. You think it may work out fairly equitably ?—Yes, I think so. 263. Regarding workmen's homes : in your experience as Commissioner, have they been a success ? —A decided success, I think. The only thing is, that on the Hutt flats land-values have gone up so high that from 1 acre to 3or 4 acres is too much for a small settler to hold. He cannot make his living off it, although the land around him for subdivision purposes is probably £300 or £400 an acre. The rates put on by the local bodies are killing the small settler. If he held j acre or J acre, he would thrive fine.
C—4.
1508
r .T. STRAUCHON.
264. You think that has been the trouble at Epuni ?—Yes. 264 a. Have you had experience in any other land district than this with workmen's homes ?—No. 265. Can you express an opinion as to whether it would be advisable to extend the system in the cities ?—I think it would. 266. But certainly with smaller areas ? —Yes. 267. It appears very clear that a man working at his ordinary every-day business has very little time to cultivate above J acre ?—Yes ;in fact, I think f acre would be quite enough for him. 268. Mr. Johnston.'] Has there been much dummyism here in your experience ? —Not in my time. There have been cases where we have suspected it, but we have not been able to prove it. 269. Did your Board ever object to transfers ? —Yes. 270. For what reason ?—That the man was not eligible, &c. That was almost the only reason. 271. When did the agitation for the freehold commence ? —Only within the last fifteen months. I do not think we noticed it before that. 272. Have you ever reduced any rents in this district in your time ?—No, except in the case of forfeiture ; when the Crown resumes possession the land is revalued. 273. Mr. Anstey.] Do you think it would be safe for the Government to give workmen rather more assistance in the shape of building their homes, instead of quite so much in the shape of land : would it be safe for the Government to advance £100 against the tenants' £50 for building purposes ?—I do not think so, because, if the settlement proved a failure, where would the Government come in ? 274. Do you think it would be safe for the Government to go higher than they are going now ?— Yes, I think a little higher. 275. Mr. McCutchan.] When a section is sold under the Land Act of 1892 the Land Board take no notice of the consideration that is transferred from one man to another ? —No. 276. You think there is no necessity to inquire into the consideration '?—I think not. Our Board have discussed the matter many times, and they take the view that a man has the right to what he can make off it. 277. Is not the Crown's position safeguarded by the improvements ?—Yes. 278. Suppose the Board vetoed a transfer : could the tenant force the Board to allow it ?—Possibly, if lie went to the Supreme Court. 279. It is fairly clearly laid down that a tenant has the right to transfer if he has fulfilled the conditions ? —Yes. 280. If vexatious restrictions were set up in addition to those already existing, it would tend to make the tenure unpopular \—No doubt it would, but the Board are very careful not to make the restrictions vexatious. 281. Do you think residence conditions should be imposed upon a man who buys a section for cash ? —I can see no reason why they should not be. There is already a condition with regard to improvements. 282. Do you think it would be an improvement to amend the law in that direction ?—I think, if the cash man were placed on the same footing as the occupation-with-right-of-purchase or lease-in-perpetuity man, it would be doing no harm, and it would be only fair. 283. Mr. Paul.] Returning to the question of workmen's homes : would you fix a maximum amount that could be advanced to any one man ? —I think it would be necessary to do that, so that they should not be induced to build palaces. I should say the amount spent on a house should not be more than £250 or £300, because the real workman would not require more than that. And, as to the proportion of the advance, I think perhaps £75 might be advanced against their £50. With regard to a question asked me on the subject of restrictions on married women, 1 think perhaps my answer was not very clear. I said, I think, that so long as they are recognised as eligible applicants, I did not see why they should be restricted. I did not mean you to infer from that that I thought a man and his wife should be allowed to select 4,000 acres between them. What I meant to imply was, that a married woman who wished to take up land entirely on her own account should not be restricted more than, say, her unmarried sister. From my report in Parliamentary Paper C.-8, page 10, it will be seen that I am not favourable to married women who are living with their husbands, or to single women, being allowed to become selectors of Crown lands.
Wellington, Tuesday, 27th June, 1905. George Frederick Colin Campbell exaimned. 1. The Chairman.J You are Valuer-General, I think ?—I am. 2. How long have you occupied that position ? —I have been in charge of the Valuation Department since August of last year. 3. And you were Deputy Valuer-General and Deputy Commissioner of Taxes for a long time before that ?—I was Deputy Valuer-General, Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, and Deputy Superintendent of Advances to Settlers for several years previous to that. 4. Well, we have asked you to come here in connection with one of the items of our reference ; about the value of leaseholds now and their value at the date of lease. I understand you have been preparing a statement as to that ? Yes, 1 have a copy of it here. 1 have also furnished a copy to you through the Lands Department. I think that is in your possession now. 5. It has not come to me yet ?—I furnished it on the 14th instant. Arid T had an intimation from the Under-Secretary for Lands to say he had forwarded it to you along with other information he was supplying. 6. It has not reached me yet ?—I can give you a copy now. [Copy of return put in.]
G. F. C. CAMPBELL.]
1509
C—4.
7. You might explain this return to the Commissioners —This, gentlemen, is a return of Crown leaseholds of the colony, and it includes Cheviot, but does not include lands which are let for timber and mineral purposes, or pastoral runs or occupation licenses. The reason why that class of leasehold is not included is that these lands are not permanently leased for settlement purposes. The return includes leases in perpetuity, small grazing-runs, perpetual leases, and occupation-with-right-of-purchase holdings. The return is as follows : —
Table I. —Crown Leaseholds of the Colony inclusive of Cheviot, but not including Lands leased for Timber and Mineral Purposes, or Pastoral Runs or Occupation Licenses.
* In this column lessees' improvements are omitted. t Lessees' interest in the unimproved value omitted. The figures in regard to present values do not include the lessee's improvements, as you will observe. 8. Mr. Johnston.'] Are the present values assessed on the increment given by railways, roads, harbour facilities, and so on ?—The increased value is due to the general prosperity of the colony. 9. It seems a small increase compared with other returns that we have got ?—The reason of this is that when the Crown buys a property, it generally buys at a full price. In addition to the price which the Crown pays for the property, it has to load it up with the roading, expenses of survey, and any costs attachable to purchase. It is then let at a figure which represents the full market price plus expenses. The consequence is that my Department's values at date of disposal are not equal to the values at which the Crown lets these lands. 10. You mean capital values as they appear on your books for rateable jmrposes ? —Yes. 11. You say it takes two or three years to reach the Government selling-value. Therefore, this upset price which you have given us is not the Government's selling-value ?—lt is the Lands Department's selling-value, but not the Valuation Department's value. The Valuation Department's value at the time at which the land is let would be something below the £2,630,573 for the reasons stated. 12. Then they take it on the prairie-value ?—They value it on the actual cost to the State under the Land for Settlements Act. 13. The Chairman.] What is the date of the valuation I—The latest date I can give it; it is up to date, practically. 14. If you were giving your actual valuation of those estates when the State bought them, and compared it with the £2,796,821, the difference would be very much larger ?—Yes. The return gives the' Lands Department's upset price in one column, which was a high price, and the Valuation Department's value in the other column. 15. Mr. Johnston.] Your values are lower than the selling-values ? —ln some cases. You have to remember that a great proportion is tenants' improvements, which are not included. Under the subheading " Ordinary leases in perpetuity," the upset price was £1,466,321 ; in the second column we have £1,844,324 ; in that case the increase refers solely to unimproved values, for the reason that in the upset price there were no improvements included, and in the amounts which the tenants would have to pay now to acquire the freehold of course there are no improvements included. This is purely the increase of unimproved values. The object of the table is to show what the tenants would have to pay the Crown if they had the right to purchase their leases at the present date ; and in making such a return it is necessary to leave out the tenants' own improvements, because they would not have to purchase these. I have made a separate table for the Cheviot Estate under the same headings as T have just given. There were no land-for-settlements holdings in the Cheviot Estate. The values of the Department were made over two years ago ; they are now being revised.
Table 2.—Cheviot Estate.
Amount whiHi Tenants Upset Price as J ou , ld l,ave : to « nd j' 1 , , Tenure. fixed by order to acquire Freehold Lands Department. a * Values ' as fixed by Valuation .Department in 1903.* Lease in perpetuity, ordinary and village homestead, &c. £154,626 £175,646 Small grazing-runs, ordinary _ .. .. .. 132,431 134,663 Totals .. .. .. £287,057 £310,309 * Lessees' improvements are omitted in this column.
Amount which Tenants Upset Price as J ou , ld have tofind in Tenure. fixed bv order to acquire Freehold I.ands Department. a * Present Values ' as nxed by Valuation Lease in perpetuity— Department.* Land for Settlements.. .. .. .. £2,630,573 £2,796,821 Ordinary and village - homestead improved - farm settlements, &c. .. .. .. . . 1,466,321 1,844,324 Small grazing-runs— Land for Settlements.. .. .. .. 124,712 131,054 Ordinary .. .. .. .. 1,448,723 1,640,193 Perpetual lease .. .. .. 117,601 117,601f Occupation with right of purchase . . .. 848,045 848,045f Totals .. .. .. £6,635,975 £7,378,038
a—4.
1510
[G. F. C. CAMPBELL.
The third table, which I also submit, is almost a repetition of the first one, so that I do not know that it is necessary to go into details. There are only two items that are different—perpetual lease and occupation with right of purchase—and I put the return in here in case the Commission would like to see the increased value shown under these two tenures.
Table 3.—Crown Leaseholds of the Colony, including Cheviot, but omitting Land leased for Timber and Mineral Purposes, or Pastoral Runs or Occupation Licenses.
The small grazing-runs under the Land for Settlements Act show an increase from £124,712 to £131,054. That will not appear, a very large increase, but it has to be remembered that the land is mostly poor. Another point with regard to these small grazing-runs is that as they are indifferent land they are let at a low rental, and that tends to keep down the value. If you capitalise the rental the value is very small. lam not saying that it is the rule to capitalise rental, but still a small rental tends to keep down value in rough country. 16. Under ordinary Crown lands there is a much larger increase, from £1,448,723 to £1,640,193, an increase of £200,000, but I do not think the percentage is any more than in the other case ?—We have got to bear in mind that this is purely an increase in the land. It does not include improvements. When we come to the perpetual lease the circumstances are changed. In the perpetual lease and also occupation with right of purchase, shown in Table 1, the tenant has already the right of purchase, and the consequence is that in this return the figures in both columns are the same. The tenants having the right to purchase at the original upset price necessitates the same figures being put in the second column as in the first. 17. As a matter of fact the value of the land may be greater ?—lt is. In the third table the difference is given showing the increase in the land without the tenants' improvements. 18. Mr. Anstey.] The increase which you show on the Land for Settlements small grazing-runs is only about 7 per cent, on the original value ? —Yes. 19. Can you account for that comparatively small increase when we know and have had evidence from end to end of the colony that there is a vastly greater increase than that in the selling-value of these lands over and above a very liberal allowance for goodwill ?-—The answer to that is that either the value is low or else they are selling high. The figures given here do not prove the one or the other. In some cases they will sell above upset prices and in other cases they will sell below ; my figures show the net increase. 20. There is a much larger percentage of increase on the Crown lands than on the land-for-settle-ments land ?—Land-for-settlements lands are, as a rule, improved lands highly cultivated, and are let out at a very much higher upset rental than the ordinary lease in perpetuity, which are unimproved. There has been less increase in the value of lands under the Land for Settlements Act, because there has been less time for that increase to take place, and for the reasons, as I have stated, that the lands were highly improved and let at a high rate. 21. Can you account then for the difference that, according to our evidence from one end of the colony to the other, the goodwills being paid for land-for-settlements lands are immensely greater than the goodwill being paid on the Crown lands I—That1 —That may be true of individual cases ; but not, I think, in all. As I have already said, land-for-settlements lands are let at a higher upset price than we value them at, so that when you compare the upset price with the present values of our Department there is not much difference. Ordinary lease in perpetuity, however, were let at a lower upset value a longer time ago, and have consequently had a greater time in which to increase. I could best explain it by giving one instance of each. 22. Mr. Johnston.] The ordinary lease in perpetuity have increased 25 per cent, as against 6 per cent, in the other. Although you have made an explanation about it to Mr. Anstey it does not seem to be borne out ?—lt appears to me to be clear enough. We are comparing upset values fixed by the Lands Department with the present valuation fixed by the Valuation Department. The upset values fixed by the Lands Department in the case of the land-for-settlements lands are high because the Crown has to pay high for the lands taken under that Act and have to load that value with the cost of survey, roading, and other expenses, so that when launched on the market the price is considerably higher than the value of the Valuation Department. It is different in the case of ordinary lease in perpetuity where unimproved land has been taken up many years back at reasonable values. The tenures do not stand comparison. . 23. It does not justify a difference of 19 per cent. ? —I think it will. You take the Land for Settlements lands throughout the colony and there are few of them where there is really very much increase in the unimproved value over the upset price yet. In the more recent purchases we cannot assess
Upset Price fixed Value a f rt from Tenure. by the Lands De- Lessee s own Improve. J , . raents as faxed by the Lease in Perpetuity — nlen ' Valuation Department. Land for Settlements .. .. .. .. £2,630,573 £2,796,821 Ordinary and village-homestead improved-farm settlements, &c. .. .. .. .. 1,466,321 1,844,324 Small grazing-runs— Land for Settlements .. .. .. .. 124,712 §131,054 Ordinary .. .. .. .. 1,448,723 i,640,193 Perpetual lease .. .. .. .. 117,601 153,093 Occupation with right of purchase .. .. 848,045 1,043,095 Totals .. .. .. £6,635,975 £7,608,580
C.—4.
(i. F. C. CAMPBELL.j
1511
unimproved values much beyond the upset price as we must be guided by sales of freehold in the district. 24. In ordinary small grazing-runs and small grazing-runs under the Land for Settlements Act there is an increase of 5 per cent, as against 14 per cent. ?—The same thing runs through the land-for-settlements holdings —the increase is small in proportion to the ordinary. 25. Can you give us any indication as to the real values ?—We value at the selling-value, and all our values should be selling-values at the time they are made. Unfortunately we cannot get owners and lessees to look at it in that light altogether. 26. We want to get at the selling-values : can you give us the average ? —I can give the capital value if that is desired. We get as near the selling-values as we can. 27. We heard of a man down south who had a small grazing-run selling out at a considerable increase—something like a couple of thousand pounds over and above his improvements, and he owned up to it; and there was a man in Starborough who owned up to selling out at a considerable increase ? —All I can say in answer to that is this :if you go into an Assessment Court you will not get a lessee to admit that there is any goodwill apart from his improvements. The difficulty is to get an admission from the taxpayer that there is any unearned increment. 28. Is it understood that you do not revalue land held under the Land for Settlements Act ? — Yes, we do. 29. How often ?—lt depends very much upon the necessity of the districts. In some districts we revalue more frequently than in other districts. There are parts of the colony where land does not change so rapidly in value as it does in other parts, and consequently our revaluations are less frequent. 30. How long is it since you revalued Waikakahi ? —I cannot tell you from memory. I think a year or two. 31. Has it been revalued withirt the last eight years ? —Yes. 32. Have the tenants been assessed on such valuation ? —Yes. 33. Have all the land-for-settlements lands taken up within the last two years been revalued ? — No, not all of them. 34. What is the longest date ? —Under the Government Valuation of Land Act there is no limit. 35. Is there such a thing as a difference of five or six years ? —There could be ; but I cannot call to mind such a case at present. 36. There is no understanding that they are not to be increased ? —None whatever. 37. Mr. Hall.'] In the case of estates purchased under the Land for Settlements Act, in addition to the cost to the Government, there is an amount put down for survey ?—Yes. 38. Is it loaded for roading ? —I believe it is. 39. Are all incidental charges considered in making up the cost of the estate ? —Yes ; I believe that is the practice. 40. The Valuation Department assume that they take the cash value—that is, not a fancy value, but what the land would likely bring if put in the market ? —Yes ; according to ordinary terms and conditions of sale, not necessarily cash. 41. Mr. Matheson.] Supposing you were valuing a land-for-settlements estate at the time it was opened up, would the unimproved value be arrived at by deducting the existing improvements ?—Not necessarily. The unimproved values in a district may be arrived at by assessing the land first of all and adding the improvements. If the valuer makes that his practice he has to be certain that the unimproved value plus the improvements must equal the fair selling-value. The valuer may take the capital value first and then value the improvements and deduct them, leaving the unimproved value ; but the general practice amongst valuers is to ascertain the unimproved value first. 42. Where the improvements are invisible—or some of them are invisible—is the valuer supposed to take them into account ? —Most certainly, if they come within the Act. 43. Does the Department consider that the erection of a dairy factory by a number of settlers which increases the value of their property : do they consider that improvement or an unimproved value ? —lf the valuer were valuing the land on which the factory stood it would be valued as an improvement; but if he were valuing a property some distance away he could not value as an improvement what did not exist on the land. 44. But the construction of a dairy factory causes an increased value to be put on property in the neighbourhood ?—Yes ; and so does the construction of railways or public works. I would like to read the following explanatory memo, on the question as to what should be included in improvements. As there has been a good deal of controversy on that point I have endeavoured to supply valuers with full information as to the requirements of the Act:— Improvements. The Act defines " Improvements " and " Value of improvements " as follows : — " ' Improvements ' on land means all work actually done or material used thereon by the expenditure of capital or labour by any owner or occupier of the land, nevertheless in so far only as the effect of such work or material used is to increase the value of the land, and the benefit thereof is unexhausted at the time of valuation, but shall not include work done or material used on or for the benefit of land by the Crown or by any statutory public body, unless such work has been paid for by the contribution of the owner or occupier for that purpose : Provided that the payment of rates or taxes shall not be deemed to be a contribution within the meaning of this definition." " 'Value of improvements' -means the sum by which the improvements upon an owner's land increases its value : Provided that the value of improvements shall in no case be deemed to be more than the cost of such improvements estimated at the time of valuation, exclusive of the cost of repairs and maintenance."
C.—4.
1512
[G. F. C. CAMPBELL.
Subject to the limitations contained in the above definition, all buildings, fences, planting, draining, private roads and water-races, clearing, permanent grassing, and other work of a permanent nature effected upon land are improvements. It has been frequently urged that the Department should fix a standard value for each class of improvement for the guidance of valuers so as to insure uniformity of value. Beyond issuing instructions that improvements are to be valued at their full market value no restrictions have ever been placed by the Department upon District Valuers in this matter. It would be impossible to fix a maximum or a minimum value for any class of improvement which would be general in application, as the value differs in different parts of the colony and must also vary according to the condition of the improvements and their degree of usefulness at the date of valuation. Great diversity of opinion moreover exists amongst owners themselves regarding the value of their improvements. This would make it difficult to fix a standard which would give general satisfaction. Take, for instance, the question of clearing. Some owners who have spent money liberally on improvements have been known to claim from £3 to £5 per acre for clearing rich open fern country, while others have complained that an allowance of £2 per acre for clearing and surface-sowing heavy-bush land was very excessive. The valuer must be guided, when valuing details of improvements, by the terms of the above definitions, and it is necessary, therefore, that the limitations referred to should be considered in detail. Anything which can be valued as an improvement must, in the first place, be effected upon the land which is benefited by that improvement. A public road may have the effect of increasing the value of the land in the vicinity. The road would not be valued as an improvement, as it is not on the land and is not included in the area which is valued. Were the road a private one, however, such as a farmer would make through hia farm for the convenient working of his holding, it would be included in the total area valued, and would then also be valued as an improvement. Improvements can only be valued to the extent to which they increase the selling-value of the land. This fact should not be forgotten : the valuer must therefore value an improvement at the proportionate sum which it represents in the selling-value of the whole property. We sometimes find a large house built on a small area of farming land. The ordinary farmer who would purchase such a property would not be likely to pay for the house anything approaching its cost —he would only pay the price of a house which suits the requirements of the farm. The selling-value of the house must therefore be valued at what the ordinary purchaser would be likely to give for it, or, in other words, at the sum by which it increases the sellingvalue of the property. Sometimes an owner will expend his capital and labour injudiciously, and the result will prove detrimental to the land instead of being an improvement. Some lands hold grass better without being first ploughed than they do after the plough. The effect of ploughing in such cases would not be to improve the selling-value. Some improvements, such as ornamental shrubbery, orchards, lawns, vineries, &c., rarely increase the selling-value to the full extent of their cost, and should therefore, be valued accordingly. The definition also tells us that no work can be considered an improvement if the benefit is exhausted at the time of valuation. The Government lends money on the security of improvements, and it is obvious that if exhausted improvements were included in the valuation the security would be a very poor one. English grass may take well and improve by time on some farms, in which case it would be valued at full value. It may, however, on other lands, become choked with noxious weeds, or native grass may take its place, in which case it becomes more or less exhausted, and must be valued accordingly. Gorse, if allowed to spread, may exhaust the grassing, and in some parts of the colony fern will act similarly if not kept under. Bush clearing will become more or less exhausted if the under-scrub is allowed to grow up. In many parts of the colony the land has been cleared for so many years that it is impossible at the present day to say with certainty by what process it was cleared. With regard to land which is known to have been in bush very many years ago, but upon which there is no vestige of its former condition now apparent, it becomes a question for the valuer to determine as to whether the land would not sell at the present day at a higher price with the timber on it than it would without the timber. Stumping and logging-up are sometimes carried out by the owner at a considerable outlay of capital or labour, in which case fall value is allowed ; in other cases, little or no labour or capital is employed, the stumps and logs becoming decayed by ordinary process of time. Clearing of open country is often accomplished by burning and by stock running on the land, in which case comparatively little labour or capital may have been expended. Noxious weeds, if allowed to spread, not only exhaust improvements, but they depreciate the unimproved value as well. Draining and orchards are improvements which frequently become exhausted. As long as a drain is effective and acts as a drain it necessarily adds to the selling-value and is an improvement; but an open drain which was cut many years ago and has become filled in and grassed over, owing to the necessity for it having passed away, would be considered as exhausted. Any improvement which has become exhausted and has been renewed, such as is frequently the case with grassing, is valued at the amount by which the then state of the improvement increases the selling-value—not at the accumulated values of the repeated renewals. It would be manifestly improper to lend money on grassing which had been ploughed in. From the foregoing it will be seen that it devolves upon a valuer to ascertain carefully the condition of an improvement before estimating its value. It also devolves upon the owner to afford the valuer all the information in his power, sp as to insure a fair and accurate value being placed on his improvements. Work done by the Crown or a public body is not, the Act says, to be considered an improvement unless it is paid for by the individual, but expenditure by way of rates and taxes is not to be deemed to be payment for the work.
G. F. C. CAMPBELL.]
1513
C.—4
The expenditure of loan-moneys by the Crown or by public bodies is for the benefit of the community or district, and not for the exclusive benefit of any individual or holding. It would be beyond the powers of any valuer to apportion the value of a public street, railway, telegraph-line, or, in fact, any public work amongst the different holdings which derived benefit from that work. It has been argued that public works done by small communities, and for which those communities agree to rate themselves, should be valued as an improvement. This, however, is a question which could not in fairness admit of differential treatment. The principle which enables a small community to borrow money for making a water-race on the understanding that it rates itself for the purpose, is the same as that which enables a larger community to borrow money for making a harbour, watersupply, or drainage system on a similar understanding. The only difference is one of degree ; the principle is the same in each case. There is, however, another phase of this question which is of importance. The existence of heavy rates in a district will affect selling-values there. A property outside the boundary will sell, other things being equal, more readily than a property inside such a district. The assessed value will consequently be correspondingly lower where rates are usually heavy, and relief will thus be obtained in the ordinary process of valuation. The question of liability to excessive rates is one which all valuers have to take into consideration when valuing. The amount at which improvements are to be valued is defined by the Act as the sum by which they increase the selling-value of the land, provided that the value must not exceed the cost, although it may be below the cost if their condition warrants it. The cost of an improvement is not necessarily its selling-value, as its suitability and condition must be taken into consideration. It is the actual improvement which is valued, not the effect of that improvement. For instance, supposing that the expenditure of a small sum in cutting an outlet for water has converted a swamp into first-class agricultural land. The fact that the swamp was capable of easy drainage would enhance its unimproved value, and the cost only of cutting the drain would be valued as the improvement. Machinery, whether fixed to the soil or not, is not an improvement, and it is not included in the capital value. The buildings containing the machinery would, however, be valued as an improvement. The foregoing describes briefly the limitations imposed by the Act upon the valuer with regard to the valuation of improvements. Were it not for such limitations it would be quite possible— especially in the case of many of the older holdings where money has been spent injudiciously, and where improvements have been renewed again and again—for the valuer to find that in the aggregate the work done by way of improvement exceeded in value the total selling-price of the property. 45. Are the rateable values of small grazing-runs fixed by law on the capitalised value of the rent ? —Yes. 46. Are small grazing-runs for rateable purposes valued in exactly the same way as other properties ? —No ; the rateable value is the rent capitalised at 6 per cent. 47. Mr. McLennan.'] In the event of an amendment of the Land for Settlements Act to enable the Crown tenants to purchase the freehold of their sections at your valuations, in your opinion would it be of great advantage to them ?—I should say, in some instances, it would be a good thing for them, judging by the present prices of produce and the present condition of the land-market. 48. In your opinion, according to the present prices of land they would make money by purchasing at your valuation ? —ln some instances, but not in all. 49. You cannot say in all instances I—No.1 —No. 50. Mr. Paul.] You told Mr. Anstey that if he asked the question why the increase under the Land for Settlements Act was so small you could answer it ? —Yes ; the answer is : that in the case of the Land for Settlements Act the Government pays more money for the land than what we have it valued at. The consequence is that when you compare the upset values with the Land Valuation Department's present, values the difference appears small. If I were asked to give you the Land Valuation Department's values at the time the upset prices were fixed, and the present values of the Land Valuation Department, the difference would appear very much greater. You see there are two Departments dealing with the matter. The Land for Settlements Department pays a higher price than I could value land at. They then load up the value with the cost of surveys and roading, &c., and let the land at these values to the tenants. Therefore, when the tenants take up the land they are taking it up at a price above my roll value. I have had to start from a lower basis than that of the Land for Settlements values. 51. Let us take a concrete case of an estate purchased by the Government: in the first place you value that estate for taxing purposes at a certain price, and the Government may buy that estate at an increase of £20,000 or £50,000 on that price : have you to wait till your value really rises to that figure ?—When I next make a valuation of the district then I should put up the value probably to the Government price, and in the course of a few years or more, I might make another valuation, and then the value might go beyond the Government price. 52. You know as a general rule that the valuation for taxing purposes is much lower than the price paid by the Government in purchasing an estate ?—lt is. 53. Therefore, seeing that your valuation is so much lower does it not also follow that your valuation is very much lower now ? —ln some cases it may be lower now, and in other cases it may be fairly accurate. I can tell you at once that the increase in selling-values in this colony has been so great of late years that it is almost impossible for me to establish the true selling-value in Assessment Courts. 54. Then your values as embodied in that table must be understated ?—Some of them probably are under. 55. You say that in some cases your valuation of an estate before it is purchased by the Government is about the fair selling-value, and in other cases it is undervalued : could you give an instance
190—C. 4.
C.—4.
1514
[G. P. C. CAMPBELL.
where the Government have been able to buy an estate at your value or at a price reasonably close to that value ? —I could. I cannot recollect the name of all the estates at present. There was Borton's Maerewhenua Estate for one, and Smith's Greenfield Estate for another. 56. Is it fair to assume that in the majority of cases the Government buy at a price much above your valuation ?—I will say, in the majority of cases they buy at a price above our valuation. In the case of the compulsory taking of an estate, the Government pays more than what we value the estate at, partly because it has to compensate the owner for loss of interest, for loss on the sale of his stock, for disturbance, and for sentiment, &c. That is how it is that in the case of the compulsory taking of land the Crown has invariably had to pay so much more than the Valuer-General's estimate. 57. You value an estate to-day as an estate, and it is bought by the Government at the increased value you mention, and it is subdivided : that value does not exist to-morrow to each and every one of these tenants according to the area they hold ? —That is a question that only a person who has a knowledge of the land and the surrounding circumstances can answer. It might or it might not. The land might go up very rapidly in value. 58. Does it not seem very clear that if the Government are compelled to pay a fictitious value to the owner of an estate to compensate him for disturbance and sentiment, and the other things you have mentioned, that that value cannot exist when the land is leased to the small holders ? —That is so. 59. Does that fact not seriously undermine your values as presented to-day ?—I do not think so. 60. Perhaps not from your point of view, but from the point of view of the value of the figures in that return ?—-I will answer your question in this way :Ifit is a question as to the fairness or accuracy of the values which I iT&ve given in my return, I can only prove to you as to whether the values are right or wrong by taking individual properties. That is the only way your question can be answered. Taking the return as a whole, some of the properties may be valued fairly, and some, for all I know, may be valued above and some below the real value. 61. On some of the estates it is a fact that every section could be sold to advantage —I mean for a sum over and above the value of the improvements to pay for the goodwill : now, do you think there are any estates where there is not one section which could be sold to advantage ? —I have not sufficient knowledge of the actual estates themselves to answer that question without reference to the roll. 62. I suppose you cannot say what the Flaxbourne Estate was valued at for taxation purposes ? —At £160,000. I would like to say that it must be remembered that the land-tax is charged on the unimproved value, and if the capital value was £160,000 only, still the unimproved value may have been correct. I differ from those who state that because the Government buy an estate at a capital value over and above the Department's value the owner has necessarily escaped taxation. He may have escaped, but he may be assessed fairly on his unimproved value and yet his capital value may be low, because an insufficient sum may have been allowed for improvements, and because the Department's value cannot include anything for losses and disturbance, &c. 63. But you also assess the capital value ? —But he does not pay the land-tax on the capital value. As a matter of fact, in many districts the owners will not pay a great deal of attention to the assessment of their capital value so long as their unimproved value is right. 64. In the case of an estate worth £150,000 unimproved value and £200,000 capital value, and the Government eventually pay £300,000 for it, would it not be reasonably fair to assume that it has been undertaxed ?—That would be an extreme case, I am only saying it does not necessarily follow in all cases. 65. Mr. Hall.'] Perhaps you have no knowledge of the Matamata Estate, but I think the discrepancy there between the taxing-value and the purchasing-value was not very much ? —I cannot call to mind the exact figures, but I believe that was the case. 66. In valuing for the Taxing Department you would not follow the fluctuations of the land-market ■very closely : you would not be influenced by booms that happened to take place in the different districts of the colony, and which were restricted to those districts ?—Our valuers are especially cautioned not to take boom prices as the standard prices of a district. They are instructed to take the ordinary selling-values as a guide. 67. Mr. Johnston.'] Have you ever issued instructions to valuers to value according to schedule prices, such as, say, £1 for bushfelling, and 10s. for fencing, and so on ? —I have been connected with the valuing of land since 1879, and as far as I know no such instructions have ever been officially issued. It has always been the practice of the Department as laid down by the original Commissioner of Taxes and continued by all his successors, including myself, not to issue any such schedule prices with regard to the valuing of improvements, as it has always been recognised that the expert must be the judge of the value. The expert is the valuer. lam not going to say that the matter has not been discussed by the valuers because I know it has, but there have never been any such schedule prices issued by the head of the Department. 68. The charge has been levied at your Department very often ? —lt has, I am sorry to say. 69. Are you aware whether noxious weeds have depreciated any of your values ? —I am aware that noxious weeds have depreciated the unimproved value of properties. 70. Reverting to the Flaxbourne Estate and Mr. Paul's question, do you not think that when there are such numerous applications for the land at the prices put upon it by the Government, which include the cost of the surveying and roading, and so on, it is testimony as to the real selling-value ?—I should say it is. When the Government buys a property in a district, it is, I think, recognised that the value of all property goes up in that vicinity. The prospect of an increased number of settlers necessarily increases the demand for land in that district.
1515
G. P. CAMPBELL. |
C.—4.
71. Does it account for the margin between the capital value of the estate as taxed and the capital value of the estate now as leased ?—I should say it would. When a property is cut up, even if you take the case of a small suburban property of a few acres, you could never value it as a whole property at the same price as you could after it is sectionised and roaded. 72. It is not roaded any more than it is now ? —But the same influence will be at work ; it is known that the Government is going to do it. 73. I simply want to get at this : Would you establish your capital value on the price paid for the land ? —Not necessarily. If the prevailing price paid for land in a district runs up to that value, then the valuer when he comes round will put that down as his basis, but if one person gives a large price for a property, and other people do not give the same price, then the valuer is bound to take the general ruling price of the district. 74. Will you assess the settlers who are going on the Flaxbourne Estate now on the capital value on which they are paying rent ?—That is a matter which will rest entirely with the valuer when he goes there ; I would not interfere. 75. Has it been done in any other estate ? —Yes ; I believe it was done at Hatuma. 76. If that is the case, then you establish at once that the value on which these people are paying rent is the capital value, and that the difference between what they paid for it and what these people were paying on is really a loss to the Crown ? —I scarcely think so. The valuer may not go to value that district agaiu for a year or two after the Crown takes possession, and the prices of property may meanwhile have entirely changed. By the time the valuer gets round again to value that district, the price may not be a bit too high. It may be too low. You see the Department does not send its valuer round immediately after the Crown buys a property. 77. Mr. Anstey.] Do your valuers get that interpretation of the Act which you read to us ? —Yes. 78. That is in the nature of an instruction : is that the only instruction they get ?—No ; I anticipated that the question as to instructions would be raised. I may say, in regard to valuation of improvements, that valuers have not been instructed as to the actual amounts which they are to put on improvements, but they have always been cautioned to be careful to make a fair value. On the Ist July, 1904, I find a circular was sent to all District Valuers asking them to be careful in assessing improvements. 79. What is the wording of that circular, as it is rather an important point ?—Here are paragraphs from the circulars issued to valuers : " . . . . Increase of population, closer settlement, ready sale for produce, and the steady progress of works public and private are always adding to the unimproved value of the land, but it must not be forgotten that in bush country, clearing, stumping, logging-up, improved fencing, new buildings, &c., are not at a standstill, and owners, while not objecting to the capital value, are ever ready to prove that improvements are not sufficiently allowed for in the hope of reducing the unimproved value Every valuer must be in a position to show he has knowledge of all improvements and their value, and be able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court and the objectors that he has made full allowance for all existing improvements, and that his valuation is a fair one in terms of the Act " 80. That is an instruction in a way ? —When I say that no instructions are given I mean that none have been issued to any valuer to indicate what price should be put on any particular improvements. 81. It might be taken to mean that the improvements are to be written down and the unimproved values written up ? —I should rather take it the other way. In November, 1904, the Department wrote as follows to the valuers : " . . . . The unimproved value should be agreed upon with the owner first if possible, and the improvements next. Owners are demanding fuller value for improvements, and District Valuers have already been cautioned against valuing improvements below their fair market value I desire that the real selling-value be entered in the Capital Value column, and that the fair and full value of improvements be allowed in all cases." We endeavour to make the values as fair as possible. I merely quote this to show that the Department allows owners everything in the shape of improvements which by law they are justly entitled to. 82. We had several complaints that valuations are made at intermittent periods. Is there any fixed period for taking values '?—There is no fixed period between one revision of a district and another. Sometimes individual properties get valued more frequently than others, because an owner might apply for a loan, or the Stamp Office might want a valuation, in which case we should send our valuer to make a special valuation, but taking the districts as a whole, there is no fixed period under the present law for making revaluations. The reason is that under the old system it was found that when we made a valuation of the whole colony every three years, some districts required it and others did not. Some districts progressed rapidly, while others were stationary, and the consequence was that the Department was put to a lot of trouble and expense in valuing districts which did not require it. The present system is infinitely a better one, and we therefore value as the necessity arises. 83. Who fixes the date at which these valuations are to be taken ? —The Governor in Council. 84. How does he get the information as to when particular districts require revaluing The information comes to me sometimes from the local bodies. The local body might say that a particular district wanted revising, in which case the valuer would be sent to confer with the County Clerk or Chairman. He would look at the roll and compare the selling-values with the roll values, and he would then report to the Head Office as to whether it was necessary to revise or not. If he said it was advisabe to revise that district, it would be put down on the list, and an Order in Council would be issued by the Governor, saying that the district was to be revised at an early date. 85. Then, generally, the information comes from the local body ? —I would not say, generally. Sometimes sales will show that roll values are out of date. 86. How would that be brought under your notice I—A1 —A copy of every transaction which is registered is supplied.to me, so that my rolls will show the actual selling-price of the properties which have changed hands, and the inspecting valuer has only got to compare the roll values with the selling-values actually registered, to be able to tell at a glance whether or not the sale prices are in excess of the roll values.
1516
[G. F. C. CAMPBELL.
C—4.
87. What happens in a case like Flaxbourne. Your present valuation is about £2 16s. per acre, and we know that the Government have paid about £4 per acre for the portion they have acquired. Will you immediately revalue that portion ?—The valuer will go into the district and look at the values of all the properties, and not only at that of Flaxbourne alone, and if the value is too low as a whole, he would recommend the district for revision. 88. Upon what basis will the Flaxbourne settlers pay taxation ' They would not pay any land-tax at all, because they would not have sufficient interest in the unimproved land yet. We shall divide up the land according to the present valuation for local rating. 89. The £2 16s. per acre which was your valuation, or the £4 which the Government paid for it :— The £2 16s. per acre, until we make the revaluation. 90. In the case of Flaxbourne, do you consider the difference I have quoted is sufficient to cause you to make a revaluation of the property now ?—I would not answer that question right off, because it depends on the market values of all the properties in the country. 91. That might not be for a long time ?—I do not think it is likely to go on very long, because attention is necessarily drawn to values in a district when sales take place like that. 92. We had complaint regarding a case at Pareora, where land was taken by the Government. The value of the lease-in-perpetuity sections remained at the price which the Government paid for the land, but on the freehold properties adjoining, the owners had to pay in some cases about 50 per cent, higher local rates than were paid on the lease-in-perpetuity lands. The explanation was, according to the witnesses, that instructions were given not to revalue the land taken by the Government, but to revalue all the freeholds in the county ? — There must be something wrong there. That explanation cannot be correct. We never exempt any properties if a district has to be revised. Every property has to be done. 93. How is it that in valuing improvements on Crown lands that you value grassing as an improvement. Do you take into account the fact that perhaps grassed land has become overrun with weeds ? — Yes. 94. Then your valuation in some cases would go below zero ?—I do not think so. Supposing a man had a house on his land, and the blackberry was pretty bad, we would not allow the blackberry to go against the value of the house. 95. You still consider the house an improvement ?—Yes. The blackberry would destroy the grassing if it spread over the section. Then there would be nothing allowed for grassing at all, and the blackberry would reduce the unimproved value. 96. Then a man who allowed his land to be overrun with weeds would pay less taxation than a man who kept his land clean ?—No, that is a question of weeds only ; the question of blackberry supplanting the grassing is a different matter, because, before the land is workable, it requires the expenditure of capital to clear it, whereas the keeping-down of weeds is done by the ordinary process of cultivation. 97. What is your opinion as to whether there could not be a better system 01 valuation than on the unimproved value or the capital value, say, on the productive value of the property ? —I can best answer that question by reading an extract from a memorandum explanatory of the Act, as follows : It is also frequently argued that the Act should not make the selling-price the basis of valuation at all, but that all land should be valued on its producing-capacity. As a matter of fact, the producing-power of land must more or less regulate the selling-price. Indirectly, therefore, the producing-power is already a, factor in determining the capital value under the present law. But the impossibility of adopting the producing-power as the sole basis of valuation is at once apparent when the subject is fully considered. For instance, how could a valuer estimate the producing-power of a piece of vacant town land which is not producing anything % It might be capable of producing a great deal in the hands of one man, and a very little in the hands of another. Much would depend upon the use it was put to. The good farmer would be valued higher than the bad farmer, although he might have no better farm. Intricate questions would arise as to what was the producing-power of a farm and as to how the income should be ascertained, and the duties of a valuer would largely resolve themselves into a question of accountancy. All owners would require to keep books to show what their land produced. The farm owned by a good farmer would pay higher rates than that of the bad farmer, and good farming would thus be discouraged. These and other objections present themselves to any system of valuation based solely on the assumed productive capacity of the land." 98. Do you think it would be possible to introduce a system such as you have mentioned m place of the existing one ?—I do not. To establish the value of land in an Assessment Court, if you are going on the producing-capacity, the evidence must lean in the direction of what the owner can make off the land, and, when it comes to the question, the good farmer would be valued higher than his neighbour ; you would, in short, be taxing the man's brains where he had proved himself a good farmer. 99. Can you give the value of the Pomahaka Estate at the time it was bought and its present value ? —Yes. Present roll value, exclusive of lessees' improvements, £16,923 ; upset price, £23,830. 100. Mr. Hall.] Is it not of primary importance that the values should be regular and uniform all over the colony ? —lt is. 101. I refer to values for land-tax purposes ?—Yes. 102. Then, for local purposes, as long as a district is valued uniformly and fairly, it is of little importance whether the valuation is a little higher or a little lower, because, if the local body requires to raise so much money for local purposes, it would make the rate accordingly ?—Yes. The point you have raised is one I have endeavoured to explain to ratepayers, because, as long as the value is uniform, the question of rating rests with the local body. 103. Mr. Johnston.] Are your valuers the same persons as those for the Advances to Settlers Office ?—They are.
1517
C—4.
J. F. C. CAMPBELL.
104. Mr. McCutchan.\ In the Gisborne district we had evidence that, for local-rating purposes, the value of grazing-runs was calculated in this way —the rent was capitalised at 6 per cent, to find the rateable value. Now, when these settlers want to raise money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, if they form a rating-area, their rateable value is so extremely low that the Treasury Department is refusing the loan, and the settlers are asking for revision, so that they might value on the selling-interest of the land ? —The rateable value is fixed by the Rating Act at the rent capitalised at 6 per cent. 105. Are all loan areas submitted for your opinion ? —I am asked for the rateable value within a loan area. 106. And in the case of loan areas composed entirely of small grazing-runs, is the rateable value too low to admit of loans being made by the Treasury ?—lf the runs were let at a very low rental, I should say that there would be difficulty in obtaining a loan, as the rating-value would be low. 107. The Chairman.] Is there anything you wish to add I—l1 —I believe the Commission has been approached with regard to certain delays presumed to have taken place in the making of valuations, and I would like to make an explanation on that point. The District Valuers have a large area to travel over, and a large amount of work to do in that area. The applications for loans have to go through a considerable number of hands. The application requires to be mailed in the first place, and that may occupy a day or two. Then, it has to be scrutinised in the Lending Department, and that also may occupy a little time. The instruction to the valuer is then mailed. That, again, occupies time. The valuer then has to visit the property, and the report comes back in due course. It is scrutinised again and then submitted to the Board. It may have to wait a few days for the Board meeting. Instructions are then sent to the solicitor. The certificate has to be given by him that the title is in order, and that may occupy a few days. I Tnerely mention these facts to indicate that it does not necessarily follow that the whole delay, when any delay takes place, is necessarily attributable to the District Valuer. lam sure they all do their best to meet the necessities of those requiring to take advantage of the loan system. Some securities are far away, and the valuers have long distances to travel, and in some instances over very bad roads. We have had cases where, in the winter-time, they have been completely knocked up after their journeys and have had to take a spell. 108. Mr. Hall.'] Would it not be wise to make that statement public, so that applicants could send in their applications a considerable time prior to requiring the money ?—I wish it were made known, and if the Lending Departments would make it public it would assist me very much. 109. The Chairman.] What is the average time involved in dealing with a loan ? —I have Known a person to apply for a loan one day and to get the money the next. I have known other cases where a loan has been delayed for some time, because the state of the roads was such that the valuer has been unable to get through, although he has made the attempt. There was a case at Upper Wangaehu recently, where the District Valuer was instructed to visit an applicant and report. He made the attempt, but had to turn back. There was a similar case in Gisborne. The valuer spent five days on the road, which was in a terrible state of mud, and eventually he succeeded in making the valuation. These are difficulties which the ordinary borrower does not recognise. 110. Mr. Johnston.] Supposing you have just made a valuation a few months ago —or a month— for taxation purposes, and a man applies for a loan, would not the Advances to Settlers Office accept that valuation, or must they have another valuation ?—They would necessarily refer to the Valuation Department, and we should refer to the valuer, because we do not know what improvements may have been put on or taken off since the valuation. There are cases in which a valuer has stated, " I only valued this property a few weeks ago and know its condition " ; in which case he would not visit unless again instructed. 111. Well, do you accept that %—Yes. There is one other matter I would like to mention. It has been stated to the Commission that valuers are in the habit of valuing improvements differently on the different tenures. I wish to contradict that. No difference is made with regard to valuations, whether lease in perpetuity or land for settlements ; all leaseholds are valued according to the Act. 112. Mr. McCutchan.\ In the case of a lease-in-perpetuity section and an occupation-with-right-of-purchase section side by side, where equal improvements have been made : seeing that the valuers are now instructed to value the goodwill as well as the improvements for the purpose of security, is there any difference in the value of the two sections ? —There must be a difference, because the extent of the lease and rental has to be taken into consideration, so that no two can possibly be valued the same. If you ask me as to whether there is any difference in the principle of valuation, I say there is none. 113. Your valuers are instructed to value upon the selling-value: all things being equal, in the case of an occupation-with-right-of-purchase section and a lease-in-perpetuity section, which has the highest selling-value ?—As to the question of security, that is a different matter altogether; but, if it is the question of the valuation of a lease, the principle applied to the occupation with right of purchase would be the same as that applied to the lease in perpetuity. 114. The question is this : we have heard it in evidence that a lease-in-perpetuity allotment has not the same selling-value as an occupation-with-right-of-purchase allotment, and all things being equal, can you state whether that is so or not ? —Some leases in perpetuity will sell for more than others, and Ido not think there is any decided rule you can go by. Supposing an occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenant pays a low rental, his unimproved interest will necessarily be high, and, supposing a lease-in-perpetuity tenant pays a high rental, then his interest will be low. 115. A statement has been made that there is no differentiation by the Department between the two securities, but the differentiation does not rest with the Department nor the valuer ; it rests with public opinion, and, if public opinion fixes the selling-value of an occupation-with-right-of-purchase section at a higher price than a lease-in-perpetuity section, it follows that the differentiation comes from the
C—4.
1518
[ft. F. C. CAMPBELL.
public, and the Department and the valuer have to obey it ?—The valuer must value a leasehold according to the 1903 Act. It is a question of being guided by the law, not by public opinion. 116. Have you any evidence that the selling-value of an occupation-with-right-of-purchase section is any higher than a lease-in-perpetuity section —all things being equal ? —Well, it is largely a question of sentiment, I should think there may be a difference. 117. lam asking you whether you have any evidence from the Department ? —I can only answer that by saying that, where it is a question of valuing a lease, it is valued according to the rule laid down by the Government Valuation of Land Act of 1903, and, whether occupation with right of purchase or lease in perpetuity, the valuer has the Act to guide him, and he cannot make any distinction between the tenures. 118. Mr. Hall.] Are the tenants under lease in perpetuity liable for land-tax, provided that their interest in unimproved value exceeds the exemption of £500 ?—They would be liable if they are not mortgaged—the mortgage would come off land-value, but a leaseholder with sufficiently large interest iji the unimproved value would be liable to land-tax. George Francis Robinson examined 119. The Chairman.] What are you ?■ —District Road Engineer. 120. How long have you been in that position ? —ln this district or altogether ? 121. Since you joined the Roads Department ? —The Roads Department was instituted on the Ist April, 1891. 122. How long have you been in the service ? —Thirty years and a half. 123. And part of that time yo*u were serving in the Taranaki District, I think \ —l was for twentysix years in the Taranaki District and for the remaining four years and a half I have been engaged in the Wellington District. 124. We have asked you to come here knowing, as we do, that you have a very intimate knowledge of road-construction in both of these districts, and generally all over this coast, and we have had a great deal of information given us by settlers about this loading for roads. There seems to be a general impression abroad that the money has either not been altogether expended, or that, if expended, not wisely expended : in other words, not on such roads as it should be, and there is a great deal of dissatisfaction on that score. You represent the Wellington Road District ?—Yes. 125. You might just inform the Commissioners of the boundaries of that district in a general way ? —The Rangitikei River from the sea up past Mangaweka to a place called Aorangi; then straight across to the Hawke's Bay boundary; and thence it follows the Hawke's Bay boundary to the sea on the East Coast. 126. What proportion of the Wellington Province might this include ?—I should think about two-fifths. 127. And within these boundaries are there a great many settlers ? —Oh yes ; I could not say how many. 128. Under your charge the money that has been put on for what they call " loading " and the Government votes and grants have all been expended ? —No ; under the officers who preceded me. I have only been here during the last four years and a half. 129. I mean that during the last four years and a half whatever was spent in that way was spent under your charge ? —Yes. 130. Have you any statement showing the amounts of money expended under your direction ? — Not under my direction altogether. 131. I mean for the last four years and a half ? —No. Mr. Strauchon, the Commissioner, told me you would require to know what money had been spent on these settlements. That statement I have. 132. Compiled from the records % —Yes 133. You might just inform us about it ? —There were twenty-eight settlements in this district. The first column of this tabulated statement shows the name of the settlement, the second column the loading, other columns the amounts of the Government appropriations and the total amount provided for ;pending. The sixth column states whether the roads were metalled or formed, and so on. I submit to the Commission a summary of the loans to open roads through settlements in the Wellington Road District, with additional amounts granted from roads and bridges appropriations as follows : On the twenty-eight settlements the loadings amounted to £66,562 13s. 4d. Government lias supplemented this by £182,525 6s. 6d., and each year is voting additional sums where they are urgently needed. The above sums were spent on roads within the blocks, and on main roads running through the blocks, and are entirely apart from other Government expenditure on roads and bridges. 134. Between what times was this money expended ?— From the time that the sections were taken up up to the 31st March last. 135. That will extend over a considerable period ? —Yes. Some of them are ten or twelve years old. or more. The total area covered by this is 260,820 acres —that is, the area of the twenty-eight settlements ; and the length of roads that were made is 217 miles, formed and metalled as dray-roads ; 162 miles were formed as dray-roads only, and 56 miles as 6 ft. bridle-roads only. That makes 218 miles. 136. So far as you have supervised the expenditure, have all the moneys loaded on to the blocks been expended ?—Yes ; the whole of these moneys stated here have been expended, and the whole of the additional money voted by Government has been expended. 137. You have compiled this statement from the records of the Department \ —l have taken it from the Lands and Survey Department records and checked it from our own books. Some of these sums given by the Government have been during my time ; the loadings were all expended before my time. 138. You cannot of your own personal knowledge say anything regarding the expenditure ? —No.
G. F. ROBINSON.]
1519
U.—4.
139. The moneys that you are expending now are simply from the Government votes ?—Government votes from the Public Works Fund. 140. You are forming roads and metalling them, and so on ?—We do not do very much metalling. In that case the money is usually handed to the local bodies. We widen bridle-tracks and attend to bridges, culverts, and that sort of thing. 141. Do you follow up the settlements pretty quickly after the settlements are open ? —No settlements .have been established since I came to the district. It is simply going over old work, widening and bridging. 142. How do you get on in regard to metalling ? —ln this district, except the Pongaroa part, the metalling presents no difficulty. A great deal of the metal is got from the streams, and in certain districts there is a great deal of material available in the form of deposits of gravel left on the land. 143. When you get into papa country how do you get on then ? —We burnt some of the papa and used it for the Alfredton-Weber and the Makuri-Pongaroa Roads, and our last price was ss. per cubic yard at the pit, but the Akitea County has done it more cheaply than that since. The lowest price it was let at was 4s. 3d. That was one contract; others were at 4s. 6d. 144. It would be interesting if you would tell the Commission how this work is done ?—Here it is generally done on the road. The contractors pile the wood on the road and make a base about 2 ft. high by whatever length they intend to have the heap —20 ft. to 25 ft. long and 12 ft. deep. Then they simply break down the batter, throwing the stuff excavated on the brushwood or timber and then put on about 2 ft. of papa broken to not more than 6 in. to 8 in. thick, over which they throw fine stuff, and then put another 2 ft. or 18 in. of timber, and so on, right up to whatever height they require the heap. That is then fired, and the heat controlled, and is left to burn itself out, which takes two or three days. It is then left for a week or a fortnight to cool. It is paid for either by measurement of the drays or on the road. The contractor receives progress-payments up to perhaps 50 per cent, of the estimated quantity in the kiln. 145. Under your direction how much has been treated in this way ? —Not more than a mile and a quarter, but the Akitea County has done nine or ten miles. 146. How does it stand traffic ? —The only proof of that is what has been done on the AlfredtownWeber Road. That road was put down 10 in. wide by 9 in. thick some ten years ago. It has never been touched in any way in the way of surfacing, and it stands now as a good road. It is wearing thin, but does not break in any way, and the heaviest traffic —wool-wagons and timber-wagons—goes over it without damaging it. It is very elastic and does not crush, but wears away by degrees. No other metal I know of holds its formation like burnt papa does. Whatever camber you put on at first it retains all the time. 147. I see from your table here that the loading seems to be about ss. per acre as a general thing. Do you think that is sufficient to provide roads for land laid off in 200 to 500 acres ? —Certainly not. With the ordinary frontage it would not make a bridle-track. I made out a statement showing this, thinking this question might be asked, as follows :— Estimate op Cost of felling, stumping, clearing, forming, culverting, bridging, and metalling Roads in Bush Districts in Wellington and Taranaki Provincial Districts, where the Country is moderately broken ; also the Proportion of such Cost to each Acre of Adjoining Lands where the Areas of Sections are about 200 Acres, and the Frontage of each Section equals about One-third the Depth as required by the Survey Regulations. Data on which Estimate is prepared. (1.) Allowing each frontage to be 25 chains wide (the depth being about 80 chains), and assuming that similar sections are laid'off on the opposite side of the road, each section should be debited with the cost of 12J chains of road. (-2.) In ordinary broken bush country the average cross-section of the land along which a road is laid off is usually from 35° to 45°, at which angles over one-third of the excavation needed to form the road would consist of papa-rock or sandstone, and the other two-thirds, of earth, roots, and stumps. The angle of batters in these cases is usually J to 1. (3.) Where the cross-section of a bush road is about 35° the value of removing the earth, including roots and stumps, would be : for 14-ft.-wicle roads, about 7d. to Bd. per cubic yard ; and for 6-ft.-wide roads, about Bd. to 9d. per cubic yard : the rock in each case being about Is. per cubic yard. (Where the angle of cross-section is steeper the rate for rock would be lower, but the proportion of rock would be greater). The average price, therefore, for a 14-ft.-wide road—earth and rock—would be about 9d. per cubic yard ; and for a 6-ft.-wide road, about 9£d. to lOd. per cubic yard. [Note. —The above prices per cubic yard are based upon the present rate of wages, Is. per workinghour.] Taking the above as standards the cost would be as follows : — Approximate Cost of a Roadway of 14 ft. effective width. Felling bush 1 chain wide, stumping and clearing 30 ft. wide, at £1 ss. £ s. d. per lineal chain, for 12| chains .. .. .. .. 15 12 6 Dray-road formation of 14 ft. effective width ; about 203 cubic yards to chain for 12| chains —about 2,537 cubic yards at 9d. per cubic yard.. 95 2 9 Culverts, two, each 20 ft. long ; average value of various sizes, 3s. per foot 60 0 Assuming that the average cost of bridges on a road would be £80 per mile, 12£ chains would be .. .. .. .. .. 12 10 0 Plans, specifications, and supervision at 5 per cent., say .. .. 6 10 0 * Cost of 12| chains of bush road felled and formed .. .. £135 15 3 Equals about 13s. 6d. per acre.
a—4
1520
[G. F. ROBINSON.
If we add to the above a light coat of metal, say, 10 ft. wide by 8 in. deep, about 16J cubic yards to the lineal chain ; and allow 7s. per cubic yard as the value for providing, breaking, carting, and spreading the metal, the additional cost for the 12| chains would be.. .. 716 3 To which, add for supervision, &c., say .. .. .. .. 4 0 0 Total cost of 12J chains felled, formed, and metalled.. .. £211 1 6 Equals about £1 Is. Id. per acre. [Note. —The above estimate is for the usual heavy-bush land in Wellington and Taranaki Districts.] Approximate Cost of a &-ft.-wide Bridle-road. Felling bush 1 chain wide, stumping and clearing 20 ft. wide, at £1 per chain, for 12J chains .. .. .. .. .. 12 10 0 Bridle-road formation 6 ft. wide, about 37§ cubic yards to chain, 12J chains —about 468 cubic yards, at 9Jd. per cubic yard .. .. 18 10 6 Culverts, two, each 10 ft. long, at 2s. 6d. per lineal foot .. .. 2 10 0 Share of pack bridges, say .. .. .. .. .. 250 Supervision at 5 per cent., say .. .. .. .. .. 116 0 Cost of felling and forming 12J chains .. .. .. £37 11 6 Equals about 3s. 9d. per acre. [Note. —If angle of cross-section of road is about 45°, as it frequently is where bridle-roads are made, the cost, on above basis, would rise to about 4s. lOd. per acre.] To summarise : A 6-ft.-wide bridle-road, under above conditions, would cost about 3s. 9d. to 4s. lOd. per acre; a 14-ft.-wide dray-road, not metalled, would cost about 13s. 6d. per acre; a 14-ft.-wide dray-road, formed, bridged, and metalled, would cost about £1 Is. Id. per acre. (These prices are for roads through lands heavily timbered and in moderately broken country.) The average loadings placed upon lands was about ss. per acre, the loading varying from 2s. 6d. per acre to 7s. 6d. ; but one settlement (to and through which the road is metalled) was 10s. per acre. About six weeks ago the Engineer asked me to make an estimate for roading land at Utiku, where there is a block of 13,100 acres. It is very rough bush country and there are 26J miles of road to be made. I recommended that four miles and a half of dray-road should be constructed and the other twenty-two miles to be 6 ft. bridle-roads, and the cost of doing that made the average 14s. 3d. per acre over the whole. 148. Is there anything further you wish to say in connection with this matter ?—What I wanted to show was that the loading would come to £9,320 on 13,100 acres, or equal to 14s. 3d. per acre. But, in addition to that, the Government would have to spend £4,000 for a bridge to give access to the block, which would mean another 6s. per acre. Then, in addition to that again, before the local body would take the roads over all these roads would have to be formed and that would cost another 7s. 6d. per acre ; so that there would be a loading of £1 7s. 9d. per acre for the formed roads, without metal, to be added to the cost of that block. 149. And a lot of the land is not worth that ?—No. Some of the front land is worth it, but a good deal of the land is not worth 10s. per acre. It is hign cold country. The front small sections are very valuable because they are covered with timber. The prices have not been fixed yet, but the Commissioner told me they would be as high as £10 to £12 per acre. 150. Why are the sections made so small when they are covered with valuable timber ? If a small settler got a section he would have to slash down the timber to carry out his improvement conditions ?—These sections are not suitable for small settlers. A small settler would either have to slash down the timber or wait until the sawmill comes along. The proper method would be for the Government to take off the valuable crop of timber first and then let the land out to the settlers afterwards. 151. What kind of timber is it ?—lt is mixed bush. The principal timbers are totara, rimu, and matai. 152. Mr. Anstey.] Have you any idea what the timber is worth on the front sections of the block ? —The Commissioner showed me the report made by one of his officers, showing that on some of the sections the timber is worth as high as £13 per acre. The value varied from about £6 to £13 per acre. 153. About how many acres of timber are there ?—I cannot say. 154. At what price has the royalty been fixed ?—The Commissioner valued it as high as ss. per 100 superficial feet. You will understand that totara is very scarce now. 155. Would there be 1,000 acres of timber ?—No. 156. Would it be a fairly rough estimate to say there are 500 acres of timber worth £10 per acre ? —I should say it was a very high estimate. There might be four thousands pounds' worth. 157. Would it not be a fair thing to sell the timber and make the roads with the money so derived ? —I think that would be a perfectly fair thing to do. 158. Do you not think the proper thing for the Government to do is to sell that timber and make the roads with the money derived from the sale of it ?—Yes ; and that is the recommendation of the Commissioner. 159. In regard to the general question of roading, do you not think that a much better way than the present system would be to have all these lands loaded with the full amount of the cost of the roads ? —The land would not bear it in some cases. 160. But if the full cost were always loaded on the land, should we not know exactly then whether the land was worth opening up for settlement or not ?—That is so ; but some of the lands would not bear the loading if the capital value was eliminated altogether.
G. F. BOBINSON.]
1521
C—4
161. You say that tne roads in the block you have quoted are going to cost £1 7s. 9d. per acre, and that some of the land is not worth 10s. per acre. That being the case the land is not worth loading, so what difference would it make if you put the full cost of the loading on to begin with ?—Even if the land would not cover the cost of the roading, still you must remember that if the land is occupied by settlers and they produce goods to go out of the country and consume dutiable goods, it might pay the Government to settle them on the land, although the Government did not derive any direct revenue from the land. I might say that Ido not believe in loading at all. 162. Then how are you going to make the roads : are you going to make them out of consolidated revenue ?•—When I say I do not believe in the loading I mean I do not believe in having any special sum for the loading. Ido not think that a settler should say "I am paying £1 per acre for my land and ss. per acre for the loading." I would prefer that the Government should put on what they consider a fair amount as the selling-value of the land, and if there is any money to spare out of the receipts let them spend it on the roads. If the money available is not sufficient they should supplement it out of the Public Works Fund. 163. That means perpetuating the present muddle ; but if the lands were loaded with the full cost of the roads, and the roads were made, and the settlers then put on the land, would not that be a much better system than the present method ?—No ; Ido not think that would be better. I do not think the roads should all be made first because the settlers must be able to depend on getting work on tne roads while tney are settling their lands. 164. Do you mean to say that there has been no settlement whatever in the last four years in the Wellington District ? —There have been no new settlements in this part of the Wellington Road District. 165. Has all the loading from the various sections been spent on these sections ? —Yes, or on roads leading to the sections. 166. In all cases ?—So far as I know. There may be a few isolated cases where the loading has not been spent. There is the case of the Rain's Road at Pongaroa. There settlers are only getting a road now, and they have been settled there for eight years. 167. In the case of this new settlement, where it is going to cost 14s. 3d. per acre to make four and a half miles of dray-road and twenty-two miles of bridle-track, would it not be much better to make a larger quantity of dray-road ? —lt would be very much better. I may say though, that as a general rules, it pays better to make a 6 ft. bridle-track first and a dray-road afterwards. My invariable rule is to make the bridle-track on the grade. 168. Mr.McCutchan.\ In speaking of the roading question, to what extent do you think the Government should go in the matter of roading before vesting the roads in the local bodies. What has been the practice of the Government in the past ? —There has been no legalising done or handing over to any extent until the last two or three years, and the instructions from the Government are that the road should be a formed dray-road not less than 10 ft. wide before it is handed over to a local body. 169. Is it the practice to metal the main arterial roads as well ?—No. 170. Is it the custom ? —No. 171. They are doing so in Taranaki on the East Road before vesting it in the local body ? —The custom of the Government is this : The Government may gazette a road over to the local body, but it does not necessarily follow that they cease spending money on it either directly or by subsidy to the local body. 172. You are aware that great national loss is going on through inadequate roading facilities, and that the settlers are paying three and four times the ordinary freight for the carriage of their goods owing to the lack of access, and thus are very severely handicapped. Generally, it is felt that a radical change should be effected, either in the way of spending more money, or else by shutting the country up. The value of the land for the purposes of settlement is the value of the land roaded, because the land has no value until it is roaded for settlement purposes. Is not that the correct view to take ?—That is so. 173. The trouble is how is a reform to be brought about, because unless the Government take the responsibility of making and metalling the main roads, and at least making the dray-roads on the by-roads, the settlers cannot carry on I—That is quite true. 174. Do you think it is too much to ask the Government to make and metal the main roads, and to make and form the by-roads ?—No, I think that is very desirable. 175. In regard to the question of maintenance, very large sums are spent in the maintenance of these roads are they not ?—-Yes. 176. Do you not think that if the Government did the work more expeditiously all that maintenance would be saved, inasmuch as they could hand the roads over to the local bodies, who would be responsible for the maintenance % —Not in all cases. Although a road may be metalled, it does not prevent slips coming down. 177. If a road is vested in the local body they would have to clear the slips, and the Government would be free of that cost ? —They would. I may say that last year the Kiwitea County Council had to come to the Government for £500 to enable them to clear slips on the roads. 178. That is very true, but it does not affect my argument. Does it not show that a fund should be provided for disasters of that sort ? —Yes. 179. Do you find co-operative work as cheap as contract work ?—lt is now. 180. It is a question of close supervision ?—Yes. I find that, within the last two years especially, the local bodies are letting out work a great deal by day-labour and a great deal by petty contract, which is very similar to co-operative work. We find really that there is no difference in the cost of work done by the Government, at the present time and during the last three or four years, and that done by the local bodies. And we find, too, that we can do the work|cheaper under the system of petty contracts with the small settlers than by advertising for open tenders.
191—C. 4.
C—4.
1522
[g. f. eobinson.
181. Do you think the whole question of road-work should remain in the hands of the Government, or do you think there should be divided control ? —I suppose the Government would be in the better position to open the roads in the first instance, but once they are opened, undoubtedly the local body should take charge. 182. You think the matter of road-construction is work for the Government of the day, and that road-maintenance is properly speaking the work of the local bodies I—Yes.1 —Yes. 183. You think that is where the line of cleavage should take place, that the Government should construct and that the local body should maintain ? —Yes. 184. With reference to country that does not pay forroading, such as the block you have mentioned, is it not a narrow way of looking at the settlement of a block of land to say it will not pay for roading in view of the amount of produce that comes out of the land when the settlers' labour and capital are put in ?. —That is so ; but the money could not come off the land entirely. 185. Naturally not, seeing that we are borrowing largely every year for public works ?—What I mean is that a block such as that could not be loaded with a sufficient amount to make roads. The loading must be supplemented by grants from the consolidated revenue. 186. And would not such grants be justified ? —Quite true. 187. Mr. Johnston.'] Can you give us any idea what these shell-rock roads cost ?—I have not had any of that work done. I know there was some shell-rock metalling done on the Ohura Road before I left Taranaki, and that cost, I think, £6 ss. per chain. That provided a thin coating 12 ft. wide and 6 in. deep. 188. How is that country up the east and west sides of the Rangitikei River going to be roaded and metalled unless at a tremendous expense ? —There is no other way. 189. Is it not a fact that the' Sawmill traffic is cutting up these roads to nothing in that locality ?— Yes, they are doing very great damage. They entirely blocked the Kawatau Road. The Government do nothing in a case of that kind because it is a country road. I may say that the County Council determined not to repair the road nor to ask the Government to repair the road until all the timber is cut off. I believe all the timber is cut out now. 190. What happens when the Government allow such cartage to go over their own roads ? —The Government do not allow the cartage on the roads in the winter. They put up notices stopping bullock traffic after the 30th April. 191. Is the money that is spent in putting the roads right after this traffic charged to the land ?— No, it comes out of the Public Works Fund. 192. Mr. Paul.'] Is the system of patchwork, of making roads a little this year and a little next year, an expensive one ?—Yes. It would be very much better to make the roads continuously, and it would be very much more economical. The results would be felt at once. As it is, we have nothing but complaints from the settlers. Of course, if there is one mile of bad road it will block twenty miles of good road. 193. Do you think it would be wise for the colony to go in for a very large loan for roading ? — That is a policy matter, and I am afraid I cannot give an opinion on that. 194. Of the three systems, day-labour, co-operative, and contract, which is the best I—lt depends. For a large bridge, for instance, the ordinary tender system is the best as a rule, although I have built bridges within the last four years by day-labour at less than the price tendered. 195. You agree that day-labour and the co-operative system are satisfactory under fair supervision ? —It depends entirely on the supervision. 196. Mr. McCutchan.] Does not a good deal depend on the class of labour. Do not the Labour Bureau sometimes send workers from the cities who are not quite as satisfactory as local labour ?— That has not happened so much in the last four or five years. A very great change for the better has taken place. Most of the men who come out to work now know something about it. If they cannot do the work at the price fixed, it simply means they get lower wages. 197. The Commissioner for Wellington Province pointed out that there was £14,000 of " thirds," and under an amending Act passed last session, if the local bodies do not spend their " thirds," the Roads Department are going to resume control and enforce the expenditure. Well, if the local body is compelled to do the work, it may happen that both the Government and County Council will do it on the same piece of road ? —Yes, that occurs frequently. Even before the road is handed over, if the local body has " thirds," we ask it to spend them, even it we continue to spend Government money upon it; and we do not compel them to have the road simply because they have spent the " thirds ' upon it. It does not prejudice their position at all. 198. May it not lead to confusion amongst the engineers working upon the same piece of road ?— No, it has become easy in practice. We generally work together in a case of that kind. 199. Mr. Paid.] With reference to the undesirable labour sent into the country at times, would it be satisfactory if you gave the men good wages ? —We fix the work for them, and if they are not competent men, they make small wages. Instead of making Bs. a day, a man may make 4s. a day, and we have had cases where men have only made 3s. 6d. a day. 200. Would that work be satisfactory?— No. A man who does not know how to do earthwork cannot do it properly. The formation-work may be all right, but such work as batters such men can never do. 201. Mr. McCutchan.] The roads have fallen much in arrear as settlement has gone on ; that is to say, settlement has far outstripped the progress of the roads ?—Yes. 202. If the public expenditure .were doubled, do you think the roads would keep pace with settlement ?—I do not think so. It would take a long time to overtake the settlement which is in existence now, without opening up any new land at all. 203. Do you think it is wise to open up new districts until there are reasonable prospects of giving
G. F. KOBINSON.]
1523
a—4.
access to them ?—I think it is undesirable, but sometimes the pressure or demand for land forces the hands of the Government. 204. But, if so, it should force the hands of the Government in finding adequate finance ? —lf they can. 205. There has been no difficulty for a number of years, our credit has been good enough ? — That is a matter I cannot deal with. 206. If the Government had a road going through the country, would not a large amount of the expenditure in a great many districts be recouped in the price of the land obtained : would not the settlers give 50 per cent, more if the country were roaded ? —-Undoubtedly they would. 207. The Chairman.'] You mentioned the matter of letting contracts : do you call for tenders ? —No. 208. How is it done, then ? —lf there are men on the road, or if new men come, the work is laid off for them. A length of, say, 20, 30, 40, or 50 chains is estimated by the Engineer, that is, the levels are taken and the quantities included. The whole information is put before a man, and he is told that this is at 7d., Bd., or 9d. per cubic yard, and the quantities are so-much. Usually the levels and plans are given to him, so that he may satisfy himself that the measurements are correct. Then he is shown how to do the contract, and when it is completed he gets paid according to the measurement. 209. Has any deposit to be made ? —No, he signs a contract, but there is no deposit. 210. You have no sureties ? —No. 211. You bring the prices down to the level of the hardworking man ?—Yes. 212. You do not give any progress-payment ?—No. The man usually gets 90 per cent, of the work done, but does not get paid for a week after the measurement, and that makes a difference of perhaps 15 per cent. 213. In other words, that has been found satisfactory ? —Yes. 214. Mr. Paid.] At the present rate of progress, and following the lines that have been followed in previous years, there is no possibility apparently of the settlers having geod roads ? —Well, they come very gradually. You do not see the improvement in one year, but by looking back three or four years you see very marked improvements in the various districts. It is weary waiting, no doubt in some cases, but the roads come in time. 215. While being kept waiting, perhaps, there is a good class of settlers who are being brokenhearted, and are leaving the settlement ?—There are cases of that kind. 216. At the present time there are settlements that have been ten years without roads ?—Yes, or with very indifferent tracks—they cannot be called roads.
Wellington, Monday, 3rd July, 1905. Franz David Bauoke examined. 1. The Chairman.] What are you ? —At the present time lam both a miner and farmer I come from the Rimu district, Westland. I have been in that district seven years. I hold 92 acres of land under a year-to-year lease, and I pay £15 per annum rent for it. It is land that was resumed by the Crown for the deposit of mining debris, and it was partly improved before I got it. I may say that lam only newly in occupation of it. lam going to crop it and graze it. 2. Do you do a little mining as well ?—Yes, I am working in a claim in which I have a share, about a mile away. 3. Do you find this tenure from year to year satisfactory to you ? —Under this tenure I am obliged to give up at a month's notice, and I get very litole consideration for improvements. If the conditions were otherwise, there is not the slightest doubt but that I should be paying more rent. I may say that the whole matter is really a question of administration. So long as the men from whom I hold the land are fair-minded men I do not feel the slightest hardship in being under this tenure, because if a portion of the land is required for mining purposes that portion can be cut off. At the present time I have not the slightest fear of my tenure being disagreeable to me, or that I shall suffer in the least, because I have confidence in the Land Board. I know the conditions under which I took up the land, and I am satisfied. 4. So far as Land Boards are concerned, do you think the system of nomination by the Government is a good system ? —I am afraid to speak on that subject. I could not give a pronounced opinion. My difficulty is that we have men appointed who do not give me satisfaction, and in a matter of that kind, if I had confidence in the appointee, I believe I should have confidence in the appointed. There are reasons why the Land Boards should be elected, but who is going to elect them ? Is every man on the roll going to elect the Land Board, or only those who are directly interested in the land ? Then, again, there may be men who want to go on the land but who cannot get land, and if they are not actually in occupation, it is said they should have no vote in the election of the Land Board. I may say I prefer the elective system on general principles, but I see great difficulties in its application in this respect. 5. You say the administration of the present Land Board so far as you know is quite satisfactory ? —Yes. 6. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Office ?—No. 7. Do the mining interests conflict at all with settlers' interests, or do they get on very well together ? —There is no difficulty in that respect. 8. Mr. Hall.] Do I understand you to say that you see no reason to make any objection to the present system of appointing the Land Boards ? —I see evils on both sides, but Ido not see how to avoid them.
0.—4.
1524
Ff. D. BATJCKR.
9. Mr. McCardle.] You had experience on the land before you came to the Coast ?—Yes, I was brought up on the land. 10. You say you are not quite decided as to how the Land Boards should be constituted : you would like to see them elected, but can you not see an almost insurmountable difficulty in bringing about an elected Land Board ? —I see difficulties to getting the Land Board elected fairly. 11. Do you not think that the districts and franchise would be so widely spread as to render it almost impossible to get representative men on the Board at all ? —That is the result of the thoughtless voter and canvassers. 12. Do you not think the present system would answer very well if the Government in making the appointments saw that the members represented the various interests, and were men with a practical knowledge ?—Yes ; so long as practical fair-minded men were appointed there would not be the slightest difficulty. I should be quite satisfied. 13. Mr. McLennan.'] You have only a year-to-year lease ? —Yes. 14. Is it quite satisfactory to you ?—Yes, because I got it under certain special conditions. I know the conditions, and although they would seem to an outsider somewhat severe, T know their object, and I know I have no reason to complain. I have confidence in the Department under which I hold my land. The tenure is immediately connected with mining interests, and the land was resumed by the Crown, and a very high figure paid for it or mining purposes. 15. Supposing you were on a part of the West Coast where there was no mining at all, would you not rather have a thirty- or forty-years lease ?—Certainly I would. In regard to the question of compensation for improvements I believe that the results of exerted labour should be requited under all circumstances. 16. Mr. Paul.] Which is the best tenure to suit both agriculture and mining for land situated in your district ?—I am very well satisfied with these special regulations for Westland. It has been a great mistake in the past in having so much land lying idle when it could have been used. Before these regulations were drawn up a man could only occupy it by trespassing upon it, and, naturally, he did not care to improve the land. Now, these special regulations have been drawn up, and they give a man an opportunity of paying a small rental and putting the land to some use, and the Crown is still protected from exorbitant demands by way of resumption. There is only one clause in the regulations with which I have fault to find. It provides for valuation for improvements to be paid by new lessee, and states " The maximum amount shall not exceed three times the amount of the average annual rent or five times that amount where the annual rent does not exceed £50." That is a mere trifle. Although a man might not expend any money at all he might utilise all his spare time in improving the land, and afterwards another party who had nothing to do with effecting these improvements tells him how much he is to receive as compensation. 17. Do the farmers and miners work amicably together ? —Yes ; their interests do not clash, because they are in different districts. Only a small part of the land along the Hokitika River bed is available for farming purposes, and the other land is only fit for grazing a few cows 18. Your district is different from others where mining and farming take place on the same land ? —That is so. I have heard that there has been a little trouble of that kind along the Arahura and Teremakau Rivers, but I am not acquainted with the particulars and cannot speak on the matter. 19. Mr. Anstey.] You have a lease which practically gives you no security of tenure : can you suggest any lease which would give you a secure tenure as to compensation for your improvements and continuous occupation, and which would not conflict with the mining interests ?—Not in our particular circumstances. I would have to trust the Land Board, or the Land Board would have to trust me. 20. In the miners' interests it is impossible to give the farmers a secure tenure of that kind ?— It is there. 21. You would not apply that generally to the West Coast ? —No. 22. The Chairman.] Is there anything further you wish to bring before us ?—I may say lam Secretary of the Rimu Miners' Association, consisting of about forty-eight members. We had some difficulty in arranging who was to represent the association at the Commission, and it was suggested that we should all state our views on mining lands generally. They nominated me, and asked me to state my views, and I said that as a general principle I would always uphold the Crown ownership of the land They would hear no more, as they said they were quite satisfied with that. 23. Mr. Paul.] Did your association pass any resolution or consider the question of giving the present Crown tenants the freehold ? —They did not consider that question, but the resolution passed was " That the delegate to give evidence on behalf of the association before the Land Commission is hereby instructed to uphold the principle of the Crown ownership of land." 24. Then it is fair to assume that they should be opposed to giving the freehold to the Crown tenants ?—Yes. Thomas William Duff examined. 25. The Chairman.] What are you % —I am County Chairman, Westland. 26. What is your occupation ? —I am in the boot trade. I have been in the district at Stafford about thirty-five years. I have been County Chairman six months, and I have been a member of the Council three years. 27. Your district is one which is largely engaged in mining and sawmilling, and agriculture occupies a very subordinate position-: I suppose the district is getting on gradually and steadily ?— Yes. 28. Has the administration of the Land Board so far as your observation goes been satisfactory ? —It could not be more satisfactory so far as I can learn.
T. W. DUFF]
1525
C.—4
29. In regard to the constitution of Land Boards, do you think the present system of nomination is a good plan % —I cannot see that it could be improved on very much. If it was elected it would be a difficult matter to get the right men to stand for the position. Ido not think the present system could be improved on unless more representative men were placed on the Board —I mean men from the different districts, who would know the local conditions affecting the land in their particular district. 30. In your particular county, of course, if a man were appointed to represent the far south he would require almost to live at Hokitika ?—At times, of course ; but a man need not be appointed from the far south to represent land-settlement in that district. I think the present Land Board have given general satisfaction, although there is no representative from the far south on the Board. 31. What is your view on the matter of tenure ?—I have not gone very much into the question of the different land-tenures, because I have never had occasion to do so. I may say that individually I hold that, although the Government have in the past sold the Crown lands, I think on principle the Government should have held and should continue to hold the freehold of these lands. 32. Have you had any experience of the Advances to Settlers Act ?—No, except from hearsay. Some of the settlers under leasehold tenure think they are not as well treated as people holding the freehold. They find they cannot get as large advances on their leases. If there were some means by which the men holding leaseholds could get advances from the Government as high as men with the freehold, I think it would be an advantage. 33. I suppose the roading question is one that bulks very largely in your district ? —Yes, and that is the particular question that affects us from a county point of view. Of course the position is this : that, as the lands are opened up, a very large amount of roads is made. At first they are perhaps not made to the best advantage, and very shortly after construction they are handed over to the County Council to be maintained, and that means a very heavy charge on the local body's finance. I think there should be some means whereby the local bodies should have a certain amount of revenue from the sale of the lands, if they are sold, or from the rents derived from the land. It is a large question in a new district like ours, and, speaking from the County Council's point of view, we find it difficult to maintain a large number of the roads that are made. 34. The Government, I think, maintain the main road to Hokitika, and then the road south as far as it goes ? —The Government have maintained the main road through from Christchurch, say, to Ross. Below Ross the Council have had the maintenance of the road up till a short time ago. In fact, we still have it, only the Government have allowed us a subsidy of pound for pound up to, I think, £700 for some years. For a short time back the Government maintained the road or they spent a considerable amount in maintaining it. I may say that the £700 from the Government with our own £700 is hardly enough to maintain the road, because we have so many floods to contend with. After every flood there is a large demand on the Council for repairs and for new tracks up the river-beds. In a scattered district such as ours we want a lot of new tracks and roads. 35. Do your Council solely maintain the road from Hokitika to Kokatahi ? —Yes. We have, of course, obtained grants from the Government to assist us in maintaining it. 36. Mr. Johnston.\ Do you own any lands ?—Only some sections in the mining township of Stafford. 37. Are the interests of the State being conserved so far as bushfelling is concerned ? Is the felling being done indiscriminately or systematically ? —lt is done systematically, of course, by the sawmillers who take up a forest area for milling purposes. 38. Do they just cut the bush down and leave the land ? —Yes. 39. Is that land then allowed to come up in weeds and rubbish ?—That is so. 40. Is the land any good after the timber has been taken off it ? —Some of it is good and some is not. 41. Has any grass been sown on it ?—No. 42. It is simply left a hotbed for weeds ?—That is all. 43. How is it that this land is not taken up for occupation ?—Because a lot of it is not suitable. 44. What is it suitable for ?—Round our particular district it is used for mining principally. Most of the land is considered alluvial, and a certain amount of prospecting is proceeding on the bush lands. We are always hoping to find some fresh gold-lead. 45. If the land from which the timber has been cut off were properly cleared, would it grow grass ? —Some of it would, but the rest would not grow sufficient grass to make it profitable. Of course lam not an expert in these matters. The people round these farming districts, and near where the timber is being cut, own a few head of stock. 46. Do the farming interests conflict with the mining interests ? —Not to any great extent. I think in an alluvial mining district the land should not be sold or a title given which would prevent the mining being continued. 47. Are you a member of the Land Board ? —No, and I have never been a member of the Land Board. 48. Is the land increasing or decreasing in value in your district ? —lt is increasing in value materially. 49. Are the Government getting a larger royalty now from these mills than they did previously ? —I think the royalties are the same, so far as I know. The local bodies wish to obtain these royalties. We think we have a right to them. 50. Are the royalties the same now. as they were five years ago ?—I am not certain on the point. 51. There has been a considerable rise in the price of timber ? —Yes, but that is owing to a combination of the millowners. 52. Mr. Paid.] With reference to the election of Land Boards, you said there might be a difficulty in getting the best men to stand if the elective principle were adopted : do you not think the franchise
C—4.
1526
| T. W. DUFF.
is a difficulty too ? —So far as our district is concerned, it would be a certain part of the district that would have any knowledge of the land troubles at all. A large portion of the electors are miners pure and simple. 53. Unless the election were held under the parliamentary franchise, would it not be an injustice to a large number of people ?—I think, if the Land Boards are elected at all, they should be elected under the parliamentary franchise. 54. But you believe the nominative system is the best? —So far as our district is concerned, yes. I cannot speak of other districts. 55. Mr. Anstey.] You said you had a difficulty in getting revenue for necessary works for your county : can you tell us the different headings under which your revenue is derived ?—Our principal revenue is derived from the rates on the lands that are occupied, and from mining rights. 56. Do you rate on the unimproved value or on the improved value ? —On the improved value. 57. What is the total amount of your rates annually ?—I cannot tell you from memory. 58. Can you give us the amount of Government subsidies you receive ?—No. 59. What revenue do you derive from the gold industry ?—I cannot tell you that either. 60. What do you derive from the timber industry ? —Nothing at all. 61. Does the timber industry make use of the roads % —Yes, to a very large extent. 62. Do you think that industry should contribute towards the maintenance of the roads ? —I do. I think we should get the royalty from the timber in our district. We get the whole of the rents and the whole of the license fees, which amount to ss. per annum, from the gold-mining industry. We also get the whole of the rents from the dredging claims. 63. And you think you ought to get an equal amount from the timber industry ? —Yes. 64. Do you get any Government grants ? —Yes, for roads. I do not know the amount. You will find the grants in the appropriations. 65. The grants of course depend on the will of the Government: do you think that is a satisfactory way of getting revenue ? Does not the most industrious member get the most grants for his district ? —I do not know about that. 66. Is that a satisfactory way of getting revenue ?—lt would be more satisfactory if we had an assured revenue which we could spend to the best advantage. 67. Do you think if you got a revenue from the timber industry, as you get a revenue from the mining industry and from rating, and if you got a reasonable subsidy on your total revenue from these sources, that you would then have sufficient revenue to maintain your roads without further grants ? —Not for the making of new roads. It would do to keep up the present roads. We should want special grants to make new roads, because the country is very difficult to road. 68. Suppose the Government made the roads themselves for new country, and then handed them over to the local bodies for maintenance, and the local bodies undertook the whole of the maintenance out of an assured revenue derived, as I say, from rates, mining, and timber industries, with a reasonable Government subsidy thereupon, would that be satisfactory ?—We should want an increased subsidy on what we get at the present time on our rates. 69. How much of an increase ? —I have not gone into that question closely. 70. What subsidy do you get now ?—I think it is ss. lam not sure. 71. Supposing it was increased to 10s., would that be sufficient ?—I have not gone into that question fully. James Hargreaves examined. 72. The Chairman.] What are you ?—Mining and general commission agent, and Chairman of the Grey County, and have been forty years in the district. 73. How long have you been Chairman of the Grey County ? —This is my second term. I have been twelve years in the Council and two years as Chairman. 74. Your experience and the position of your county is somewhat similar to Mr. Duff's ?—Yes. 75. And in the matter of roads, it is very largely the same in your district ? —Yes, it is equally good in my district regarding roads. 76. You have a much better county for rates than Westland ? —Yes, we have a larger amount of settlement, I believe, in our district. 77. Your county is partly in Westland and partly in Nelson ? —Yes, down to the Teremakau and to the Grey River. 78. You necessarily have had some communication with the Land Boards ?—Yes. 79. Have they been satisfactory ?—Yes, I have been dealing with the Land Boards for a period of eighteen years. Ido not include the Westland Land Board in that time. I have been attending the Westland Board meetings, and I have only missed once. 80. Have you anything to say with regard to the administration of the Land Boards ?—I have nothing to complain of as to the administration by either Board. 81. With regard to the constitution of the Land Boards, do you think it is satisfactory ?—The only thing I would like to say is that an amendment might be made giving a wider range to the appointments so that the Board might be constituted of men in different localities. I think that thereby you would have a member from every part of the district, and he would no doubt have a special knowledge of the locality where an application was referred to, and also the Board would have the advantage of the special knowledge that such person might have of the persons living in the districts. I think if the Government gave that wider range, then the Board would be perfect, as far as I know. 82. You think the selection of members might be wider over the district ? —Yes. Apparently the Government have been actuated by appointing members in a special area, thinking expense might be saved, but no special knowledge is brought to the Board by appointing members immediately where
1527
C—4.
J. HABGREAVES.j
the Board sits, and I presume the Boards are administering public estates, and they should be placed above any kind of position where anything might crop up that was not done fairly and justly to the people. 83. They should be as independent as possible ? —Yes. 84. With your knowledge of the business transactions of the people in the district, what is your opinion in regard to the Advances to Settlers Department ? —ln my particular district, I have known advantage to be gained by taking advantage of that Act. 85. It is not very general ?—No. In fact, there is a considerable amount of difficulty ; it is not availed of very much. 86. Do the people borrow privately ?—Yes. I have not a very extensive knowledge of it, but there are some. There are some in my district who have not gained much advantage by the Advances to Settlers Act; there seems to be a difficulty in getting money. 87. In regard to the matter of roads, the main road through your district would be upheld by the Government ? —No, my county is an exception in that respect. The Government do not keep our main roads ; we keep them ourselves. We are entirely different to Westland and the Inangahua County in that respect. Although we have at different times asked the Government to take our main roads over, they have not done so, and we have determined to keep the main roads ourselves. We are going to ask the Government to give us an appropriation so that we shall have the control of the roads. It was discussed at our last Council meeting, and we do not feel desirous of allocating any of our roads to the Government. 88. On what basis do you wish the Government to grant a subsidy ? —Simply a subsidy. I think it is possible we might ask the Government to give us a grant of £500. Our road only goes to the Big Grey River. 89. Of course, you have the railway up there ?—Yes, we are no different to the Westland and Inangahua Counties in that respect. 90. The timber industry is very large there I—Yes.1 —Yes. 91. You have a large export of timber from Greymouth ?—Yes ; 26,000,000 ft. a year. 92. Is there anything you would like to mention ?—You were alluding to timber : I might say that I know something about timber and timber areas, and how they are obtained. The Westland Land Board in particular make every effort to conserve the timber. 93. To an unusual degree ? —The Land Board conserves the timber this way : On an application coming before the Board, the Board has it inspected, and if the Crown Lands Ranger or Inspector reports that there is two or three thousand feet of milling-timber to the acre upon the area of land, then, of course, it is not alienated. The person gets no title, except that he might possibly get a temporary grazing license which works out at three months' notice. That is particularly with regard to the regulations under the Westland Mining District. Within the last two years, or thereabouts, there has come into existence regulations under which they give a pastoral license of twenty-one-years tenure, with valuation for improvements and right of renewal. This is a very good title for our district, inasmuch as there is provision whereby the greater part or nearly the whole is taken for mining, and there is a reservation with regard to a small part of it for residential purposes, and so on. This is a title which is very much sought after at the present time in the Westland Mining District. I might say that these regulations have been brought into existence in the Nelson District, and within the last few months I have obtained a title or two under the pastoral license in Nelson. 94. It was found to suit the circumstances of the district very well ?—Yes, this form of license is very much sought after. There is a very great earth-hunger amongst the people on the West Coast, and they readily take this title. You will observe that it offers very good security, the three principal features being right of renewal, title for twenty-one years, and in the event, I presume, of the Board at any time determining to alter that title, the land will then be loaded and valued for improvements. Now, what I would suggest would be that those persons who have obtained a title as I have described should get a lease in perpetuity. 95. Is that the general wish or only your own opinion ?—That is the general wish. They would give up the pastoral license immediately and apply for a lease in perpetuity if the opportunity was offered ; I have no doubt about that. In fact, I might point out that a large portion of our lands were locked up for a considerable period through the Midland Railway, and the Land Boards for a considerable time were only giving what they called the temporary grazing license, as I have described, running for no period but from year to year, with the likelihood at any time of the title being taken away with no valuation for improvements, in fact, no consideration whatever. Of course, referring to that, I have not known a Land Board either in Nelson or Westland take the land away from a person on the temporary grazing license without giving value for improvements in the event of the land being thrown open ; that is allowed to a certain extent. Under one section of the Act —section 219 of " The Land Act, 1892 " —they run for three years, and under another section they run from year to year, and they can be transferred at three months' notice. 96. Of course, those that can be cancelled at short notice are necessarily where the land is auriferous or likely to be ? —Yes, that is so. 97. Mr. Hall.] As regards the Advances to Settlers, you say that some borrow in that way and some borrow outside ? —Yes, that is so. 98. Do you consider that the policy has been very beneficial in the country ? —I think it has. I think, as far as my knowledge extends, it is worth taking advantage of ; some have benefited by it. 99. Do you think, as regards those who borrow outside that Department, that it is much more easier to borrow, seeing that some millions of pounds have been lent at a low rate of interest, and that policy has kept down the rate of interest outside the Department ?—Mostly in my district they generally try to take advantage of the Advances to Settlers Department, but there seems to be some difficulty
C—4.
1528
[j. HARGREAVES.
in getting the money. Whether the'difficulty is in regard to the titles'or not Ido not know, but I know that in some freeholds they have not succeeded in getting it. 100. Has that lending policy made it easier for people to borrow outside the Department —on account of the millions that have been lent under that policy, has it made it easier to borrow by reducing the interest in the colony generally ? —Possibly it might have acted that way ; I do not know of any particular instance. 101. Mr. Johnston.'] Have you ever been a member of a Land Board % —No, never. 102. Are the Crown tenants satisfied with the present leases as far as you know ? —I have heard no special gru*nb i: ng. 103. There is no dissatisfaction with the Crown tenants ? —They would readily take the leasehold if they could get it, but they would go for the occupation with right of purchase if they could get it. 104. Do you think they would prefer the occupation with right of purchase ? —Undoubtedly they would. I may say that it lias always struck me that in valuing the land for the lease in perpetuity and the occupation with right of purchase, the rent on the valuation under the lease in perpetuity is too high in proportion to that of the occupation with right of purchase. There is only 1 per cent, difference in the rental working it out this way : We will say that a person applies for 100 acres of land, valued at 10s or £1. If a person pays 5 per cent, on that, supposing it is valued at 10s. an acre, the actual price of that at the end of a term of ten years would be £50, and the rental during the ten years would amount to another £25, making it £75 in all; whereas, under the lease in perpetuity, a person getting the right over the same area of land would pay £20, which would still go on. It is my opinion that the rental on one is either too low or the other is too high. 105. Is the farming industry progressing in your district ?—Yes, we have there a great earthhunger, and very much more land will be taken up. 106. Why do you advocate the lease in perpetuity on these small grazing-runs when you say the occupation with right of purchase is the best tenure ?— Occupation with right of purchase is undoubtedly the best tenure. 107. Why do you advocate lease in perpetuity for small grazing-runs instead of the occupation with right of purchase ?—The position I take up is this : I certainly say with regard to the whole of my clients they would much prefer the opportunity of taking the occupation with right of purchase. For instance, in our district there has been very little of these titles given, either with the Nelson or Westland Land Boards. There is a considerable area taken from the Crown under lease in perpetuity, and we have pastoral licenses and temporary grazing licenses. 108. You have advocated lease in perpetuity instead of the twenty-one-years grazing-run ? — Undoubtedly. 109. Why do you advocate lease in perpetuity instead of occupation with right of purchase ?—I do not advocate lease in perpetuity as against occupation with right of purchase. 110. You recommend lease in perpetuity instead of small-grazing-run leases ? —No; I say most of my cleints would exchange their small grazing-runs for lease in perpetuity. 111. Why do you recommend the lease in perpetuity, and then say that the best tenure is the occupation with right of purchase —which do you mean \—l mean the occupation with right of purchase is the best. 112. Do you think it is in the interest of the State to give occupation with right of purchase ? — It is undoubtedly the best tenure. 113. I ask you which is the best tenure for the State —occupation with right of purchase or lease in perpetuity %—Undoubtedly the lease in perpetuity is the best thing for the State. 114. You think the right of purchase is not the best thing for the State ?—lf you are getting at the political aspect of it, I might say that I am not prepared to give on opinion. 115. Do you believe in the Wardens having the control over the mining interests, and having the right to give licenses for cutting the bush ? —Yes. 116. Do yo i not think it is better for the Land Boards to administer the mining lands ?—I think the Board is in a better position to judge in respect to a lot of it than the Warden. 117. Then it is not advisable to allow the Warden to have control of the cutting-rights ? —Not in all cases ; but the lands are not all auriferous. 118. Is it not a fact that the Warden gives indiscriminate rights for cutting timber ? —Yes, undoubtedly for timber rights, but that is only very recently. 119. Is it not a fact that the Warden gives a license anywhere near the bush when it is applied for, or does he submit the license to the Land Board ?—Yes, at the present time. I may explain that the'y did not give timber rights for land over a lot of Westland until some two years ago. They were not given indiscriminately. . 120. But now they are given indiscriminately % —Now they are. There is no question as to which is Midland Railway land or Government mining reserves—l can vouch for that. 121. Is there not a great waste of timber through giving these rights in that way ?—No ; there is a Ranger to look after the revenue, and strict regulations with regard to royalties ; and full security is taken so far as the State is concerned in order to conserve the timber. 122. The right of cutting sleepers is not given indiscriminately ? —No, it is not. You have no right to cut timber unless you comply with the regulations. You have to get a right over an area, and the area with regard to sleepers is a very limited one—2o acres—for which you pay yearly a license of £5, and for six months a license fee of £3. 123. When this timber is cut .off does the land deteriotate in value ?—lt is the very land that the earth-hunger is about. It is readily taken up if you can get a title to it. 124. What class of land is it that is taken up under the twenty-one-years lease—the small grazmgrun —is it bush land ?—Yes.
1529
J. HARGBEAVES]
C.—4
125. Do the lessees fall it ? —Yes, if the Land Board gives a title they can fall it. 126. And grass it ? —Yes. 127. Mr. McCardle.] I think you said that where applications were made under the Land for Settlements Act, the settlers were placed at a disadvantage in the unsatisfactory tenure under which they held the land ? —Yes. What I meant to say was that some succeeded in obtaining advances under the Land for Settlements Act and some did not, for what reason Ido not know. I have been in no way implicated in a case. An officer is sent to report, and I suppose it depends upon the nature of his report whether they obtain an advance or not. 128. Do you not think it would be very much cheaper in your district if the land-tenures harmonized —that the State should reserve all the mineral rights to prospect and take up claims I—l think possibly that would be the case. 129. Do you not think it leads to confusion to have so many different titles ?—You have only the Land Act of 1892, and of course under that you practically have only got two tenures. The ones I am referring to are the pastoral-land and the .imber-land lessees who have no title to borrow money upon 130. With regard to the difference between lease in perpetuity and occupation with right of purchase : you say that the State's best bargain is on the 4-per-cenj. tenure : are you not aware that the money costs the Government over 5 per cent. ? —You are speaking of one thing, and lof another. I am speaking of the rental, that is not nicely adjusted under the lease in perpetuity. Pour per cent, is either excessive, or the 5 per cent, with the right of purchase is too small. 131. You think the lease in perpetuity is too high ? —I do. 132. Do you think the Government can get money much cheaper than that ?—No, they are not lending money. It is what they are deriving on the freehold land that lam speaking of. 133. Do you not know that the rent runs for 999 years at a fixed price ? —Yes. 134. Is it not better than the tenure you refer to ? —What about future generations ? 135. Do you expect any future valuation ? —No. 136. What do you expect then ? —lf I understand the matter it is this : that the periodical revaluation of land would carry the valuation of the improvements to the lessee ; then I think he would certainly be worked out of his land in time. 137. Do you think the State has any right to do that ?—No, I do not. 138. You wish to convey to us that the 4 per cent, on the fee-simple of the land is a very profitable thing to the State ? —Yes, I do. 139. If you can show me where the Government can get money at 3 per cent, then I will agree, but they cannot do that. Recent operations have been at 4 per cent., and I cannot see how the State can be making anything with the lease in perpetuity ? —lt is a mere matter of opinion, I presume. 140. It is a matter of figures. You favour the right of purchase ? —I am not expressing an opinion. I say it is the best title, and if I were going in for the land I should certainly take it up on occupation with right of purchase. 141. You said in answer to Mr. Johnston that you had some doubt as to whether it would be a good practice, so far as the State is concerned ?—I did. 142. It is a question whether any lands should be alienated, or that alienation should take place in the future ? —That is a matter I am not prepared to express an opinion upon, I am only speaking as to what I should prefer. 143. Do you think that a man with the right of purchase is more likely to succeed than a man under the lease in perpetuity ? —Yes, I do. 144. If that is your individual opinion, and the pretty general opinion of people settled on the land, do you think it is in their interests that concessions should be made to them ?—Yes. 145. It must have its collective benefits—the State benefits if you can produce more from the land ? —lt would be a benefit, because I am satisfied that the person with the right of purchase would put the best labour into his work. There is another matter I wish to draw attention to. The man that has land under the occupation with right of purchase has less difficulty in getting an advance from any private person with regard to that land than the person having a lease or right of any description. 146. Is it not another advantage that the State with its land-tax can always get at the freehold ? —Yes. 147. Mr. Anstey.] You said you thought it would be wise if all parts of the district were represented —do you think it would be wise that the mining interest should be represented on the Land Board in the Grey district ?—I cannot say that it would require any person to represent the mining interest. I may say that I have been placed in the Warden's Court for the last eighteen years, and 1 have never seen any necessity whatever for the miner being specially represented. The Boards, I think, take all kinds of precautions in that direction, and where there is the slightest doubt it is referred to the Wardens. I cannot say how the Warden collects his information, but where it is necessary for him to express an opinion the Board gives effect to it. 148. Do the mining and agricultural interests conflict ? —Not very much. 149. Are agricultural holders of land able to get a secure tenure of title to their land ? —As a matter of fact, we have had no titles to permanent tenures given on the West Coast. About my locality there is any amount of land that does not conflict with the miners' rights. There are only certain belts of country with auriferous land within them. 150. And inside of that ? —lnside of that belt, unless it is the flats along the river-beds and creeks, there is very little land that is taken. It is heavily timbered land as a rule. 151. 1 am asking you whether you can give to any tenants a secure tenure and the right of occupation without conflicting with the mining rights ?■ —In a lot of cases you could not give a secure title.
192—C. 4.
C.—4.
1530
[j. HABGBEAVES.
152. Your answer was not quite correct then —the mining rights do conflict with the agricultural interests ? —ln some cases, undoubtedly. 153. Could you suggest any way by which that difficulty could be got over : could you give a title ? —The landowners oil the West Coast have been very good with regard to the mining arrangements that have been come to 154. The miners have to pay compensation ? —Yes. 155. Does the fact that the miners have to pay compensation interfere with the miners' rights ?— No, they are treated liberally. 156. How is the damage assessed in connection with the miners' rights over the freehold—by arbitration ? —Yes. 157. Have you ever heard of a case where an unreasonable award has been given ?—I have not. Generally, as I say, the matter is settled by amicable arrangements with regard to the land. 158. In that case there is no reason why the occupier should not give a secure title, provided that it is subject to mining rights being submitted for arbitration ? —No. 159. Mr. Hall.] As regards land for settlements, in the interests of the State do you think that a system that would promote bond fide settlement and contented settlers is likely to be in the interests of the State ?—Undoubtedly Albert Henry Wheeler examined. 160. The Chairman.'] You come from the Poerua Settlement ?—Yes. 161. It is on the railway-line near the Teremakau River ?—Yes. 162. You have been there Jiow long ? —Eight years last June. 163. How much land do you hold ?—Two hundred acres. 164. What is your rent ?—ls. lOd. an acre. 165. You are under the lease in perpetuity ?—Yes. 166. How do you like being under that tenure ?—I like it very much. 167. Your land is partly bush, is it not ?—Yes, scrub land and swamp. 168. How is the settlement getting on ?—lt is progressing all right, slowly at first, for want of roads, but we have roads now. 169. Did the Government make the roads for you I—Yes, they finished the last piece last March. 170. Are the roads shingled there ?—Yes, and are very good roads. 171. The land is fit for grazing ?—Yes. 172. What is the number of your section?— No. 4. 173. How many settlers are there in the settlement altogether ?—All the sections are taken up. I think there are twenty. 174. Are they mostly married people ?—There are four not married. 175. You have a school too, I suppose ?—Yes. 176. Have any tradesmen started there ?—No, there are no stores or anything of that sort. 177. I suppose your neighbours are very well satisfied with their tenure and occupation generally ? —Yes, but they have asked me to make a suggestion in connection with the lease in perpetuity—that is, they wish to have the right to pay off 75 per cent, of the capital value, so as to ease their rents. 178. Do they wish to pay it by instalments ?—Yes. 179. You have a creamery there, I see ?—Yes. 180. Some of you are engaged in burning ?—All are engaged in burning. We"only started last March, but anticipate doing something next summer. 181. Is there any sawmilling in your district ?—Yes, within two miles of the settlement. 182. Then there would be some employment for the people besides that of farming ?—Yes. There is also a flax-mill there. 183. With respect to your dealings with the Land Board : what is your experience ?—lt has always been satisfactory. I have no complaint to make. 184. Do you think the constitution of the Land Board is satisfactory too ?—I am asked to say that people in my locality would like to see an elective Land Board, for the reason that you would get the whole of the country better represented—of course, together with the Commissioner. 185. What franchise would you elect the members on ?—We consider it should be with the county franchise. 186. Would you have all the members elected ?—We think so. 187. Of course the Government is the landholder and ought to have a conservative voice in the settlement of its estate, and if only the tenants were represented on the Board, it might be a little onesided : have you thought of that phase of the matter ?—I have said all I have been asked to say. Possibly the people have not considered the matter from that point of view. 188. Have any of your friends had any connection with the Advances to Settlers Office ?—Yes. 189. Has it been satisfactory ?—Yes, as far as I know. 190. You are all pleased with your tenure ?—Yes. I should like to say that we are loaded with about £1,000 for that little estate. We shall have to pay 5 per cent, for 999 years, and we consider that 1 per cent, should be set apart for a sinking fund, so as to enable us to wipe it out. There are about 14,000 acres owned by private individuals, who get the benefit of the roads"for"all£that" time. Why should we have to continue to pay for the benefit of others all that time ? 191. You would be quite agreeable to pay it off by means of a sinking fund ?—Yes. 192. Now that you have the roads made I suppose the rates have to keep them'up ?—Yes. 193. That is the County of Grey I—Yes 194. Are your rates heavy ?—Not particularly. 195. Mr. Johnston.] What did you say your area was ?—Two hundred acres,
A. H. WHEELER.]
1531
C—4.
196. What stock do you carry on it ?—About fifty head of cattle. 197. Any sheep ?—About fifty sheep. 198. What is the'area in grass ?—Half of it is in grass. We are not confined to the settlement; there are any amount of Crown lands round about on which our cattle run. We have a river-bed which s a commonage. 1199. Is the land on which you carry outside bush land ?—Yes, and river-bed. j2OO. And you run your cattle through the bush ?—Yes. 201. What could you get for your land now ?—I do not know. There was some land, when the Midland Railway reservation was taken off, which was worth 125., and which has changed hands since for £5. 202. Were there any improvements on it ?—No. 203. Is it farming area ?—lt is fairly good land. A man bought it for the purpose of starting a flax-mill. 204. Generally speaking, what is the land there selling at ? Have any sections changed hands ? —Yes; one section of 150 acres changed hands for £100. The improvements consisted of fencing. 205. What was the value of the fencing ?—About fifty pounds' worth of fencing. That was before the roads were completed, and before the creamery was put there. 206. What would be the enhanced value of the settlement per acre ?—I should think it would be worth £5 an acre, and it was bought for £1 2s. 6d. 207. What was the settlement worth as standing bush before that, and before you went into it ? —I would sooner give £4 now for it than £1 when I went into it. 208. What area can you burn there per year ?—You can burn as much as is fallen. The bigger the area the better you can burn it. 209. We have evidence that it is not safe to fell a big area there on account of the bad seasons ?— The scrub on our land is peculiarly lignt. 210. It is not heavy bush ?—No. 211. What area of bush land would you fell ?—I would not fall any. I would not have anything to do with it if it were heavy bush. I have seen areas fallen that would never burn. 212. You have not had any experience of it yourself ?—No. You can burn the scrub on our estate easily. It is scrub land and swamp —ribbonwood, black-scrub, and vines. 213. Does the sawmilling industry interfere with the farming industry ?—No. 214. Is any of the land that has been locked up for sawmilling such as could be used for farming 1 —No. The big timber is taken off by the sawmillers, and that is all the better for the settler. As a matter of fact, land on the West Coast with big timber on it fit for sawmilling is not of very much account for farming. 215. Do you represent the whole of the settlement ?—Yes. 216. How many do you represent ?—Twenty settlers. 217. You say you object to Land Boards as at present constituted. Would it do if the West Coast were divided into four districts and the Government nominated a member from each district ?—I am here to represent other people's opinions. They would prefer elective Land Boards. 218. What is your own opinion ?—I think the chief reason for getting men elected is that there would be a member elected from each district, and each district would thus be represented. 219. If the Government nominated a man from each district, would that satisfy you ?—lt would satisfy me personally. 220. Would it satisfy the other settlers you represent ?—I think so. 221. Do you approve of the present ballot system I—Yes. 222. Who are the people who own the 14,000 acres of land, and what sort of land is it ?—Some of it is very good land. The owners are a syndicate. They are mostly Wellington people. They bought the land from the Midland Railway Company. There is a petition to get the Government to resume tire land. 223. What did they give the Midland Railway Company for it ?—I think it was]l2s. 224. What could they get for it now %—One pound or £1 ss. 225. It is idle now ?—Yes, they will not sell it. 226. You heard what the last witness said about small grazing-rans ?—What is your opinion ?— I can see no objection to it. 227. Do you not think it would be far better and in the interest of the State to leave it as it is ?— I should think the lease in perpetuity is best for the tenant, and the other is best for the Crown. 228. You have had no experience of any other districts except your own ?—No. 229. Are the tenants satisfied with their lease as it stands ?—They would like to have an opportunity of getting rid of this loading. 230. Do you know anything about the Advances to Settlers ?—Yes, some of us have taken advantage of it. 231. Is it satisfactory ?—Yes. 232. Has there been any increase in estates in your district ?—No, not that lam aware of. 233. Mr. McCarcUe.\ Is there not a large area of unsettled land in your district ?—Yes, thousands of acres. 234. Owned by the Crown ?—Yes. 235. Is it rough broken country ?—Hilly country and heavily timbered. 236. Would it be capable of carrying grass ?—Yes, some of it. 237. Under what conditions do you think the Government should part with it ?— 238. Supposing they were to give it for ten years, and then at the end of forty years that it was to be revalued every twenty-one years following, do you think that would be satisfactory ?—lt is very
C.—4.
1532
[a. h. wheeler.
difficult to give an answer to a question like that on the spur of the moment. I should think that ten years rent-free would be an inducement to a man to take up the land. 239. What is the value of the land ?—Some of it I would not pay rates on, but some of the land is not so bad. 240. Mr. Paul. 1 Do you think the Crown tenants should be specially represented on the Land Board ?—Yes. 241. Would you recommend that at least one Crown tenant should be appointed to each Land Board ? —Yes. 242. Mr. Anstey.] You say you have got good roads to your settlement ?—Yes. 243. Do you know what amount of loading was on that settlement ?—Somewhere about £1,000. 244. Do you know if that amount has been spent ? —Yes, and more. 245. How much more ?—I should think about double ; but all the loading expended in the district was not for the benefit of our settlement. 246. We have had numerous complaints throughout the colony that sums have been placed on estates by way of loading, and that they have not been spent. You appear to have been particularly fortunate in this respect ?—The roads were only finished last March and we have been eight years there ; we have had to worry over eight years to get it done. 247. You appear to have been more fortunate than some other districts \ —l should advise them to get Dick Seddon for their member. 248. Are the settlers in your district complying with the conditions as regards improvements ? — Yes ; they have exceeded the amount of improvements required. 249. Have you any idea to what extent ?—I should think the country is about half cleared and sown down in grass. 250. What conditions have you to comply with in regard to improvements ? —I think there is about 25 per cent, yet to be done, and about 50 per cent, has been done. 251. You do not find anything in the conditions of the lease in perpetuity to interfere with properly forming your land ? —I do not know of any ;we are quite satisfied with the lease. 252. Do mining rights clash with your tenure ?—No. 253. Is there much more of that land suitable for settlement on the West Coast ?—No ; except the land owned by the syndicate, in respect to which we have petitioned the Land Board There is another thing I would like to mention with respect to the back-blocks settlers. I think they should endeavour to get the Government to arrange for a doctor, by way of subsidising him or otherwise, who should be at the call of the country settlers in certain districts. 254. Mr. Hall.] Is the heavily timbered land on the West Coast fit for settlement under any conditions that could be made productive ? —As a matter of fact the heavily timbered land has not been gone into very much; but where it has been gone into it has been very difficult to get a burn, and the second growth has come up again. 255. Is the land of such a character that it would grow grass ?—Yes ; a good deal of it if you could get a good fire through it. 256. Would people taking up that land like to have the right of purchase ?—As far as my experience goes on the West Coast, I have not heard much about the right of purchase ; everybody seems very well satisfied with the lease in perpetuity. 257. With revaluation ?—No ; we would not stand revaluation. 258. Mr. Paul.] That answer is in connection with present leases ?—Yes. 259. You would not put up with any interference with existing leases as regards revaluation ? —No. 260. You took up the land for 999 years and you expect the contract to be kept or that you should be fully compensated for any interference ? —Yes. 261. Mr. Hall.] As regards future leases, do you think people would take up that land under revaluation conditions ?—Yes, I think so. I think that if I could have got a lease for 999 years I would have taken it up. 262. Mr. Johnston.] Have you got a Farmers' Union down there ?—No ; we have managed to struggle along without it up till now. Richard Allan Harcourt examined. 263. The Chairman.] What are you I—l am a settler at Koiterangi, and hold 704 acres. It was originally all bush. I have got 550 acres clear. I have been there two years. It was resumed land. My rent is 2s. 6d. an acre, and I hold land under the lease in perpetuity. I like that tenure very well, but I would like the option of the freehold, and those settlers whom I represent wish the same thing. Failiug this, we would like to get the option of paying off a portion of the capital value, so that in case of hard times coming over the country the rent would be diminished and the State would be sure of getting their rent. 264. In what proportion, say half ? —Yes ; half or 75 per cent. It would be much easier for the settlers in case of hard times occurring. 265. You have fairly good roads ? —Yes. 266. Is the dairy factory in your district ? —Yes; it is paying fairly well; there is a bigger output every year. 267. How many settlers are supplying the dairy factory ?—The factory turns out 800 lb. of butter a day. 268. Is any of your land loaded for roads ?—Yes ; my land is loaded for roads. 269. To what extent ?—I could not say.
B. A. HAECOUET.]
1533
C—4.
270. lias the money expended been properly expended I—l1 —I think a lot of the money was wasted, and I think it would have been expended much better if it had been done through the County Council. It was done by day-wages under the Government. 271. Was the waste through the want of supervision ? —No ; there were too many bosses and not enough workers. 272. Was there no expostulation sent to the Government from the district ? —No. 273. Mr. Hall.] Is there much Crown land remaining in your part of the district I—No ; in the Kohatahi district it is practically all taken up. 274. Are you satisfied with the Land Board ? —Yes, but I think that the Crown tenants, although it may not affect us very much in our district, should be represented. There are only a few Crown tenants there ; but, I think, speaking in reference to the colony generally, the members of the Land Board should be elected. 275. Under what franchise ?—The Crown tenants alone, I should think. 276. You do not think it should be the parliamentary franchise ? —No. 277. In the parliamentary franchise are hundreds of people. For instance, in the Old Men's Homes. I suppose you admit it is the duty of the State to maintain such people even though they may have dissipated their money ?—Yes. 278. Do you think they should have a vote in the disposal of the land of the colony ? —No. 279. Then, in regard to their exercising a vote, you think that would be going rather too far ? — Yes, I think so. 280. Mr. Johnston.] You heard what I said to Mr. Wheeler about dividing the county into four ridings, would not that suit the settlers just as well ?—lt would not in our district. 281. Why ?—There are so few in comparison with other parts of the district who are Crown tenants. 282. Supposing that your district was made into a riding and the Government nominated the practical farmer to represent that riding, would that be satisfactory ?—Yes ; I think that would be satisfactory. 283. You want representation by more farmers and less merchants I—Quite1 —Quite so. We think that Crown tenants should have a say in the matter. It does not affect our district so much, but in other parts of the colony, where there are settlements, I do not see why Crown tenants should not have some representation on the Board. 284. Would a rent sinking fund suit —that is, in good years, for a tenant to pay any amount he liked into the fund to sustain his rent for years to come, the Government allowing him interest equivalent to what he is paying on his capital value on the balance at his credit each half-year ?—Yes ; that would be all right, I think, in the case of the majority of farmers lam representing. They want the option of paying off a portion of the capital value. If we cannot get the freehold, we want to get the right to reduce the rent. 285. How many farmers do you represent ?—There are only seven Crown tenants there. 286. What is the kind of bush on your land ?—lt is scrub. It is not heavy bush. 287. Do you know of any extent of heavy bush having been felled and grassed ?—No ; not on good land. I have seen plenty of bush felled, but the attempt to sow grass on that milling country has been a complete failure. 288. Do the mining interests interfere with the farming interests ? —No. 289. What weeds have you got down there ?—There is plenty of ragwort and blackberry and gorse. There is a little Californian thistle. 290. Where do these weeds exist principally %—Along the Government roads they are worst. There are some in the paddocks. 291. Who owns the lands on each side of the roads ?—The farmers. 292. Is not each farmer responsible for keeping half the road fronting his section clear of weeds ? —That was the law in Tarauaki, but it is not enforced on the Coast. 293. Mr. McCardle.] Have you personally inspected any of the lands where these bad burns have taken place ?—Yes. 294. Is the surface of the ground covered with a peaty substance to any extent ? —No. The land where these bad burns of the heavy bush have occurred is generally heavy sodden-clay country. 295. Are these roads under the County Council or in the hands of the Government ?—They are under the County Council in our district. 296. The Chairman.'] Is there anything else you wish to bring before us ?—I want to say that we object to the grouping system. A settler may go in for a ballot and draw a section that he does not want. We think the fairest way is that a man should ballot for the section he wants. We also think that the settlers who wish to borrow money on their improvements should receive an advance up to three-fifths, the same as allowed in the case of freehold. The security should be good enough, and if it is not then the leasehold title is not as good as the freehold title. These were all the matters we discussed. George John Roberts examined. 297. The Chairman.'] You are Chief Surveyor and Commissioner of Crown Lands for Westland ? — Yes. I have held that position three years and a half. Before that I was chief officer there for many years. I have been thirty-two years in the Lands and Survey Department. 298. We wish to get all the information we can from you in regard to your district, and we shall be very pleased to hear any statements you have to make regarding the matters dealt with in our Commission ?—I would like to preface my remarks by saying that when I received notice that the Commission were not going to visit the Westland District I put this question on one side, and as I only received short notice to come up here lam not as fully prepared as I might otherwise have been. I have prepared the following statement: —
C—4.
1534
[G. J. EOBEETS'
Constitution of Land Boards. (a.) " The Westland Land Board affirms the principle of the appointment of members by the Governor, as at present defined by section 41 of " The Land Act, 1892." If elective, in our scattered district, it would result in certain localities dominating the outlying settlements as few even of them would or could conveniently vote, &c. ; again the views of those in the well-roaded, established districts, would not suit for the advancement of new country. A member continually representing one district would, even against his inclination, be biassed in favour of his own locality. Probably, if the principle of " election " were established, the towns would be cut out and we should then lose the valuable services of men whose business training and long acquaintance with commercial matters affecting the settlers all over the country especially fit them to settle certain points, in fact, we consider the Board would not be thoroughly equipped nor completely representative without them. So far no appeals against the decisions of the Westland Land Board have been even made to the Minister, nor has any desire as yet been expressed that any change in the principle of the appointment of members should be made. (The principle " that all members be appointed by the Government " was carried at the conference between Minister of Lands and Commissioners and Land Board members, held at Wellington in December last: see printed Proceedings, p. 47.) (b.) " That the number of members be increased to five." This we esteem to be necessary, so that the Board may be more representative than at present; that is, our members could be selected from a wider area. Besides the settlers on the coast, we have the saw- and flax-millers, coal lessees, and the gold-miners, all of whom, we may say, are directly in touch with the Land Board. Again, with the present number of only four members, there is sometimes a difficulty in obtaining a quorum. (The above motion for five members was negatived by the conference : see Proceedings, p. 47, (B).) (c.) " That a sum of £1 Is. per day be paid to each member of the Land Board, whether he be absent J from his place of residence or not." Our desire is to pay each member a somewhat fair wage for not only performing very important duties, but as a partial remuneration for their loss of time on public business, for it must be remembered that none of our members are leading retired, easy, rosy lives, to whom the Land Board business would be somewhat of a " recreation," but they are all engaged either in farming or commerce. At present only country members are paid. (The above motion was agreed to by the conference : see printed Proceedings, p. 47, (C).) 2. " The tenures upon which lands may be obtained and occupied, and whether in the interests of the colony any alteration of the law is desirable." The following are the tenures upon which lands may be obtained in Westland : Cash (on the optional system, under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892 ") ; occupation with right of purchase (on the optional system, under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892 ") ; lease in perpetuity (on the optional system, under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892 ") ; lease in perpetuity (under " The Land for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1900 ") ; village settlements (under Part IV., section 169, subsection (4) of " The Land Act, 1892 ") ; occupation license (under Part 11., section 116, of " The Land Act, 1892 "); pastoral runs (under Part VI., section 187 of " The Land Act, 1892 ") ; temporary grazing license (under Part VI., section 219 of " The Land Act, 1892 ") ; occupation license (under Part VII., section 222 of " The Land Act, 1892 ") ; regulations for the occupation of pastoral lands within the Westland Mining District; reserves (leases of), (under Part VIII., section 243, subsection (1), and section 248 of " The Land Act, 1892 "); leases under " The Mining Districts Land Occupation Act, 1894." (a.) Cash (on the optional system, under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892 ") ; and with this I will take (b.) occupation with right of purchase (on the optional system, under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892 "). —The whole of Westland is a mining district—l wish to emphasize that —and, therefore, great care has to be exercised in dealing with lands for cash or occupation with right of purchase, as in the event of payable gold being discovered on any of these permanently alienated areas, the resumption of such auriferous country by the Crown causes much vexatious trouble, delay, and expense. Therefore all settlement blocks are referred to the Warden for his approval before being placed in the market, or before any grant is given by the Land Board. Hence our cash lands are limited to a few town and village allotments, and one or two small isolated blocks which do not abut on any of our numerous goldfields, while the occupation-with-right-of-purchase system is now practically nonexistent. (c.) Lease in perpetuity (on the optional system, under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892 "). — This tenure, quite apart from its many other admirable features, exactly suits this district, as it is quite a simple and inexpensive matter to immediately resume any lease-in-perpetuity leasehold should the interests of the gold-miner demand it. Consequently all our new settlement lands are being thrown open solely under this system, and are being eagerly taken up. (d.) Lease m perpetuity (under " The Land for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1900 "). —We have only two land-for-settlement blocks in Westland, viz., the Kokatahi and Poerua Estates, both of which are flourishing under the lease-in-perpetuity system, there being no arrears of rentals on either of them. (e.) Village settlements (under Part IV. and section 169, subsections (3) and (4) of " The Land Act, 1892 "). —So far, we have only dealt with two small townships and four homestead allotments under this section of the Act. The sections in the Town of Runanga, which overlies the coal-measures at the State Coal-mine, near Greymouth, are leased as village-homestead allotments on lease in perpetuity, as, in view of future possibilities, it would be inadvisable to deal with the area in any other way. (/.) Occupation license (under Part 11. and section 116 of " The Land Act, 1892 "). —Under this section a large number of isolated patches of Crown lands, and also small reserves, are leased for grazing-
1535
C—4.
Q. J. BOBEETS.
purposes. It will be noted that the term is only yearly, and that the lease can be determined at any time without entitling the licensee to any compensation whatever. They have their eyes fully open to that fact. It is thus a very convienient. way of dealing with lands which are reputably auriferous, and with reserves for which it is not prudent to grant long leases. At the same time it is a poor title, and gives no encouragement to the licensee to improve his holding. A recommendation to remedy this was made by the conference held last December in Wellington ; it also covered all those holding under section 219. (</.) Pastoral runs (under Part VI. and section 187 et seq. of " The Land Act, 1892 "). —Our pastoral runs, varying from 4,000 to 35,000 acres, with the exception of a few areas of summer sheep-country, occupy the heavily timbered slopes of the lower hills, the river bottoms, and the costal lands, where large herds of cattle are bred and fattened on the dense undergrowth of the forest. The usual term is ten years. (h.) Temporary grazing license (under Part VI. and section 219 of " The Land Act, 1892 "). — Except that the term may be three years instead of one, licensees under this system are placed in the same position as those occupying under section 116. During the Midland Railway Company's regime this was the only method of settling people on the land, and even now it is the only way we can give a right to occupy areas which are deemed to be auriferous or which contain milling-timber. The Commission will especially note that we specially prohibit any of these lessees from injuring or cutting any milling-timber on their leaseholds. (i.) Occupation license (under Part VII. and section 222 of " The Land Act, 1892 "). —Under this section we lease allotments of varying areas for flax-milling and other industrial purposes. (j.) Regulations for the occupation of pastoral lands within the Westland Mining District.—These are an adaptation, by the Under-Secretary of Lands, of similar regulations framed by him for the Auckland District, and they have been of great service in promoting settlement in Westland. Many holders under the trumpery and precarious titles granted under the 116 th and 219 th sections (noted above) have surrendered these and now hold under these new regulations which, while safeguarding the interest of the gold-miner and sawmiller, yet provide our settlers with a twenty-one-years lease with renewal terms, a homestead area, and the right to limited compensation should the area be required for mining or any other public purpose. (k.) Leases of reserves (under Part VII., section 243, subsection (1), and section 248 of " The Land Act, 1892," and under section 23 of " The Public Reserves Act, 1881).—We have only a few reserves leased under these Acts, and, as the leases expire, we prefer not to renew them but to release the areas under section 116, so that there is less trouble in resuming the land if necessary. (I.) Leases under " The Mining Districts Land Occupation Act, 1894."—This Act provides for the settlement in small areas of lands within any mining district, and is especially applicable to blocks which are contiguous to gold-workings. It is an admirable measure, as it enables our miners to combine farming on a small scale with their original avocation. So far, it has not been taken much advantage of here,, owing to the minimum rental fixed by the statute being too high for this district; reference will be made to this aspect of the case later on. The foregoing is a brief summary of the tenures obtainable in Westland, and, we consider, sufficiently indicates their applicability to the district. The Commission will, however, have noted that we do not deal with any lands under Parts IV. and V. of the Act, viz., as " special-settlement associations " or as " small grazing-runs," the reasons again for this being that the minimum" rentals fixed by statute are too high. We will allude to this further on. Improved-farm settlements (under " The Lands Improvement, &c., Act, 1894 "). —We have been consulted by the Head Office with regard to the establishment of these, but we could not advise the experiment in this district, nor have we ever received a local request. We now come to the second paragraph in this heading—that is, " whether in the interests of the colony any alteration of the law is desirable." That certain minor and, for the welfare of this district, very important alterations of the several laws dealing with the settlement of our people on the land are necessary is self-evident, and were very fully and favourably discussed by the conference of the Minister and Land Board members which met lately in Wellington. These will be placed seriatim before the Commission when we deal with item No. 5, under which heading we consider they are included. We, therefore, presume that this second paragraph of item No. 2 refers to the question as to whether any alteration in the principle of the law is desirable. My brief answer to that is, that no such alteration is desirable in Westland. The problem of comfortably settling the people on the land in Westland is very complicated, and at times very troublesome. All over the Coast, wherever we make our numerous attempts to set apart blocks for settlement, we have to carefully see that the coal-miner, the gold-miner, the sawmiller, and lumberer are thoroughly protected ; not only so, but we have to be equally careful in safeguarding the various areas which are reputably metalliferous and the vast acreage of milling-timber which, in the near future, will employ thousands of miners and lumberers, and thus form markets not only for our own farmers, but for the rest of the colony. And, complicated as our task is, yet our laws are so elastic and so admirably adapted to our circumstances as to enable us to successfully meet the many difficulties which crop up. We, therefore, see' no reason whatever for any alteration in the principle of the law, and most especially do we see no good and proper excuse for tampering with the conditions contained in the lease-in-perpetuity system as applied to the Land District of Westland. Hitherto we have heard no complaints from our tenants concerning this tenure ; but, on the contrary, they have admitted that but for the liberal provision of the lease-in-perpetuity system, they would never have succeeded as they have done. Apart from all hearsay on this subject, the actual feeling of our tenants is clearly indicated when I tell the Commission that, in this small district, there are nineteen holders under perpetual lease and occupation with right of purchase who are entitled to acquire the freehold, and yet who elect to go on paying rentals instead.
0.—4.
1536
fO. J. BOBEBTS.
I wish most emphatically to tell the Commission that our eager desire has been, and is, to get the people settled on the land, and to so place them that they can not only make a bare living for themselves and families, but that they can by due industry and thrift make a moderate independency, and thus be enabled to comfortably enjoy the autumn of their lives and also to settle their sons around them. And, in order to bring this about and to induce settlement in this tangled wilderness, we have deliberatel}' offered the Crown lands to the public at as low a price as is equitable, on lease in perpetuity ; whereas if we had thrown these lands open for cash or on occupation with right of purchase, we should have increased our values, as we would reckon that the men who want the luxury of a freehold can afford to pay for their choice. Consequently, I consider that the whole question of values will have to be reviewed if our lease-in-perpetuity tenants are hereafter empowered to acquire the freehold of their lands. 3. " Whether Crown tenants labour under restrictions inimical to their well-being and unnecessary in the interests of the State." In the Westland Land District, tenants who occupy lands under " The Regulations for the Occupation of Pastoral Lands within the Westland Mining District," at the end of twenty-one years, are so restricted as to the maximum amount payable as compensation for improvements as to prevent the making of the area the real homestead of the selector and thus retard full improvements being made. As I noted under item 2, these are most admirable regulations and have conduced to the settlement of much land, especially by miners who are now combining mining with farming. If a more liberal clause were made with regard to compensation for improvements, it would encourage the present holders very much. (a.) Tenants occupying pastoral runs complain that the maximum amount which, under the terms of their license, may be awarded" to them as compensation for improvements on the expiry of their lease is too inadequate. Take the case of a run of 10,000 acres, rental £10. The maximum allowance for improvements under the Act as at present would be only £50. As the Commission is aware, the pastoral runs here are all in bush country, and only suitable for cattle. Under the present conditions, the valuation for improvements allowed a pastoral-run lessee was, as shown above, only nominal. The result is that tenants will not improve their runs under existing circumstances. If a settler were granted a license over a pastoral run for a term of ten or twenty-one years, as the case might be, and went in for improving the carrying-capacity of the run he would soon spend more than the amount he was entitled to at the end of his term. If the licensee had improved his run, and the time came when the area had to be reoffered for another term, he would find perhaps that he had to bid to a very high rental to save his improvements. Thus, by improving the land and increasing the carrying-capacity he runs the risk of losing money on account of improvements, or of otherwise being run to a very high figure per annum for the next term, while the tardy settler who does not improve his run, and did not thereby bring it into prominence, is not likely to be opposed at auction. In other words the enterprising runholder who reclaims his leasehold simply invites loss by hostile competition, whereas the easy-going tenant leaves the run probably less valuable at the end of his term, and thus actually prevents opposition. If encouraged in the way of improvements, the licensees of this valuable class of country in the various districts would feel secure in improving their runs in the way of clearing, surface-sowing, fencing, &c. Perhaps such valuation for improvements as is given in the case of small grazing-runs (section 182, subsections (a) and (b)) might meet the case. Under item 5, No. 9, will be found a proposal in connection with this matter, which was approved by the conference. (b.) Tenants of flax-cutting areas complain that, in view of the expense of establishing a mill, erection of tramways, wharf, &c., and the difficulty and cost of shipment, seven years is too short a term, and that the area fixed by the Act is also too small. This is a well-grounded complaint, and with a view of still more encouraging this valuable local industry, under item 5, No. 11, will be found our proposal to remedy this drawback. We need hardly, refer to the importance of this industry as a source of revenue to the Crown, as providing local markets for our outlying famers, as using up much labour, and, in the way of trade, &c., advancing the interests of the district. (c.) Occupiers who are desirous of extending their holdings by obtaining small areas of adjacent lands, without competition (as provided in sections 114 and 117 of " The Land Act, 1892 "), are debarred from doing so on account of the minimum price being too high, and under section 117 prohibitive, as being for cash, and therefore not allowable on the goldfield. The present definition of " contiguous lands " also prevents expansion. We have many selectors who, in the course of years, have overtaken the reclamation of their original holdings, the produce of which, conjoined with gold-mining, sufficed for their wants. But now that they have to depend almost wholly on farming they find the area too small for their support, hence their desire to extend their boundaries. We found their case so true and reasonable that we endeavoured to remedy their position by two proposals which were approved by the conference, and are noted under item 5 as Nos. 4 and 5. (d.) Temporary grazing licenses under section 219 of " The Land Act, 1892 " (see item 2, paragraph (b)).—On the Westland goldfields, many scattered areas contiguous to gold-workings are leased under the above section for a term of three years, with right of resumption on demand and without compensation for improvements. Hence, many of our tenants dare not launch out into any improvements of value, because they are liable to lose the whole of their labour at an hour's notice. It is strongly urged that this stringent condition with regard to compensation should be liberally modified. This request comes from those occupiers who cannot obtain the permission of the Warden to obtain any other title, because, as noted above, the land is either actually auriferous, may possibly prove so, or may in many ways be required for mining purposes at any time, and it is therefore often impossible
ft. J. EOBEBTS.]
1537
C—4
to give another title. Still, we are quite in sympathy with the request, and consider that it is extremely hard that a man who has, even with full knowledge of the case, risked the reclamation of an area of waste land should be turned off without any compensation whatever. We would, therefore, respectfully suggest to the Commission that, in the event of any license under the 219 th section of " The Land Act, 1892," being determined for mining purposes, compensation up to a maximum of £50 be awarded for all direct improvements to the land other than buildings, and that the Warden and Commissioner for the district appraise the improvements, and that their decision be final and without appeal. 4. " Whether the residential conditions now existing are too exacting and require relaxing, and, if so, in what direction." The occupation-with-right-of-purchase and lease-in-perpetuity lands of the colony are out of the reach of a most deserving and really eligible class of selector. At present, the townsman cannot place his sons on our Crown lands under those tenures because of the age and residence conditions; he may be willing to give any reasonable guarantee (say double or even treble the improvements required under the Act), but he is debarred. The framers of the Act, in their desire to prevent " dummyism," have actually hindered the town-men from placing their sons upon the land, although the fathers were willing to place a manager with them and enter into a bond to fulfil any conditions. The risk of dummyism could be reduced to nil, by insisting upon extraordinary improvements, permitting no transfer for, say, ten years, all or which are conditions which the bond fide town man would undertake willingly. We believe that there are numbers of men in our large towns who would gladly take ; *up such a lease while their sons are learning farming, and who would improve their holding in any such manner as the Land Board might direct. So far, we have not heard of complaints under the above heading (4), for throughout this district our tenants have loyally complied with the residential conditions, and the reports of our Crown Lands Rangers bear this out. The discretionary power conferred by the Act enables the Land Board to modify these conditions where they have full proof of the special necessity for the concession and also of the bona fides of the applicant. We would respectfully suggest that the Land Boards be still further empowered to enable the satisfactory settlement of all residential troubles. 5. " Also, if alterations and variations are necessary in the law regarding tenure and occupation, owing to the varying conditions existing in respect to the climate and land-configuration in the several parts of the colony." The following resolutions to amend the law were agreed to by the conference held at Wellington in December last, and these were set forth to further the comfortable settlement of the Westland Land District, to encourage the more complete cultivation of holdings, and to induce selectors to take up settlement lands. (1.) " That within the Westland Goldfield, when an applicant desires a holding under lease in perpetuity over any lands reputed to be auriferous, the present law be so amended that in all such cases evidence be taken before the Warden as to whether the area be auriferous or not." The whole of the Westland Land District is a goldfield, and as such it has been deemed advisable to conserve any possible auriferous country by limiting the selection of any agricultural lands to lease in perpetuity, under which tenure the leaseholds can be resumed very readily if the areas are required for mining purposes ; and any such settlement lands are only set apart by recommendation of the Land Board, with the concurrence of the Warden. The miners are thus carefully safeguarded against any encroachment by settlers and speculators on lands which are reputably auriferous. While still recognising the necessity for the maintenance of these areas for the preservation of the gold-miners, who are the mainstay of our farmers, we are of opinion that the time has now arrived, in view of the more precise knowledge of each locality, for a careful revision of the position of scattered areas of so-called auriferous lands from which at present all permanent settlement is barred. For nearly forty years a considerable acreage of agricultural country has been closed against farming operations because such lands were deemed gold-bearing, and must therefore be kept intact for exploitation by the miner. In the Grey and other valleys there are large areas of land, which for nearly forty years have been called " auriferous," which have been taken up for speculative purposes every time a mining revival set in (notably during the dredging boom), have been prospected more or less, and abandoned. The whole of these lands for forty years have thus been lying almost waste, and will be for another forty if this embargo is not lifted. I would, therefore, respectfully suggest that when an applicant desires a holding under lease in perpetuity over any lands reputed to be auriferous, the present law be so amended that in all such cases, evidence be taken before the Warden as to whether the area be gold-bearing or not, and that the Warden decide accordingly, and not, as at present, on the bare report of an official, who is sure to sin on the safe side, and, hearing that the land was auriferous years ago, informs the Warden that it is equally so to-day. (2.) " That legislation be made to enable selectors under ' The Regulations for the Occupation of Pastoral Lands within the Westland Mining District' to exchange their leases for a right under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure." In my notes on item 2, paragraph (j), concerning tenures, I have already described these regulations and their relation to this district. Many of these holders already occupy small adjoining areas under permanent tenures, and they are anxious to have a similar title for the lands they now lease under these regulations. And we see no reason why this exchange should not be granted, always provided that due public notice is given, and that the Warden's concurrence is obtained. Special legislation was enacted to enable holders of temporary leaseholds taken up during the Midland Railway embargo to acquire more permanent titles, and this was done, to the great satisfaction of our tenants and without the slightest injury to the miner. In the above resolution we simply ask for a similar reasonable concession.
19a—C. 4.
C—4.
1538
[G. J. ROBERTS.
(3.) " That the minimum rental of small grazing-rans within the Westland Land District shall be £1 per 1,000 acres." This admirable tenure is completely useless for Westland, owing to the minimum rental being far too high. According to section 173 of " The Land Act, 1892," the lowest rental allowable on, say, 1,000 acres would be £6 55., which in our rough forest land is absolutely prohibitive. After our explanation of our special position, the conference at once endorsed the above proposal. (4.) " That within the Westland Land District the minimum price for all lands, other than land-for-settlement estates and pastoral runs, shall be ss. per acre." This affects sections 114 and 117 of the Act, and the reduction is necessary to enable us to deal with applications under these sections wherein the minimum price is fixed at £1 per acre, which is too heavy for the bulk of our lands, and thus prevents many of our old deserving settlers from extending their holdings. (5.) " That within the Westland Land District the contiguity of lands which are further apart than an ordinary separation by road or stream be determined at the discretion of the Board." Under section 142 of " The Land Act, 1892," power is given to the Land Board to determine what are " contiguous " lands, in connection with the question of residence. But we especially desire that the Board should have the same discretionary power in connection with the definition of the " adjoining " of allotments, as, for instance, inter alia, in the cases governed by sections 114, 117, 153, and 158 of " The Land Act, 1892." (6.) " That within the Westland Land District, in connection with selections of unsurveyed lands, the Land Board be empowered to dispense with a whole or a portion of the estimated cost of survey." This can be done at present under section 2 of the Land Amendment Act of 1895, with the Minister's approval. But this only applies to cases under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892 " —viz., the optional system. We would suggest that it should also apply to cases which may arise under section 115, and also to Parts IV., section 165 ; V., " Small Grazing-runs " ; VI., sections 211, 219, and 217 ; and also to any cases under Part VII. of " The Land Act, 1892." (7.) " That within the Westland Land District the Land Board shall determine the value of improvements to be effected on any small grazing-run." This is to enable us to modify the value of the improvements as fixed by section 179 of " The Land Act, 1892," and thus render this tenure available for this district. (8.) " That, in the event of the resumption of land from any pastoral run in the Westland Land District, it be sufficient to give the lessee three months' notice if the area to be resumed is under 500 acres, six months, if between 500 and 1,000 acres, and twelve months if over 1,000 acres." At present under section 192 of the Act, we have to give twelve months' notice if we require even a small area out of a run for settlement, and, as these runs are only sparsely occupied by cattle, it entails no hardship or loss to the runholder when for more speedy farming occupation we curtail the period of the resumption notice. In many instances, after resumption of land from a run and consequent rebate of rental, only a small area was taken up by the public, and the balance went back to the runholder at the ordinary rental. (9.) " That within the Westland Land District, subject to the right of resumption for close-settle-ment purposes, all pastoral runs to be leased with renewal terms, contingent upon due and equivalent improvements having been made." Under item 3, paragraph (a), I have probably indicated sufficient reasons for the above proposal. (10.) " That within the Westland Land District and Goldfield, where the approval of the Warden is obtained, all holders of temporary grazing-leases under the 219 th section of " The Land Act, 1892," shall have the prior right to exchange their titles for a right under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure." Kindly see my note upon proposal No. 2 of this item, which covers practically the same ground as this proposal, and for the same reasons. As noted before, many such holders obtained permanent titles under " The Midland Authorised Land Settlement Act, 1900." (11.) " That within the Westland Land District all flax-milling areas should be leased at the Board's discretion, in forms to be by the Board prescribed, for such area as the Board may direct, and for a term of fourteen years." Under item 3, dealing with " restrictions," paragraph (b), I think, completely sets forth our reasons for this proposal. (12.) " That the Land Board of the Westland Land District be empowered to grant any application under the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act for any area not exceeding 500 acres." This is a proposed modification of section 6, subsection (1), of this Act, which I have no doubt is a most important and convenient statute in other mining districts, where land was of good quality and under the influence of a harvesting climate. But in this district this fine Act is virtually useless, mainly because the minimum rental was too high and the maximum area too small. Under this Act a man cannot get a lease under 6d. per acre, nor hold more than 100 acres. The bulk of our lands adjacent to gold-workings will not possibly pay at that rate, nor can a living be made off 100 acres. We cannot grow wheat or barley in Westland, so the farmer must mainly depend on pasture-land for a living. In proof of this, I may state that, despite the anxiety of so many men to obtain good titles to their present precariously titled holdings, only four leases of these lands have been applied for under " The Mining Districts Land Occupation Act." We want the Act made applicable to our district, when numbers of people would take advantage of it. 6. " Also, whether it is expedient that the homestead privileges as indicated in the Appendix to " The Land Act, 1885," should be reintroduced." At the conference of Commissioners and Land Board members, held at Wellington in December last, we stated we considered that the reintroduction of the homestead system would be most desirable within the Westland Land District, and to that end we made the following proposals, which were all duly approved : —(a.) That the following conditions shall apply to all selections under the homestead system in the Westland Land District, (b.) The area to be allowed to be selected by each person of
G. J. ROBERTS.!
1539
C—4.
the age of seventeen years or upwards shall be 200 acres, and for persons under seventeen years of age 100 acres : provided that the total quantity to be selected by any one family or number of persons occupying the one household shall not exceed 1,200 acres, (c.) Within six months after the selection has been approved by the Board, the selector shall commence to reside on his selection, and shall continue to reside continuously thereon for five years from the date of such approval as aforesaid, (d.) Within three years after such approval, the selector shall erect on his selection a permanent dwellinghouse of wood or other materials, which shall be specified in regulations to be issued in reference to homestead-system selections, (e.) In each year there shall be brought under cultivation one twentyfifth of the area of such selection if under 500 acres, and one-fiftieth if over 500 acres, so that at the end of the term of five years one-fifth of the selection shall be under cultivation. (/.) Non-performance of any of the foregoing stipulations shall render the selection void, and the right of the selector therein, and to all improvements thereon, shall be forfeited. (g.) At the end of the said period of five years, a lease or leases shall issue for the land selected —the said lease-terms to be in regulations noted in condition (d) : provided the selector shall not have forfeited his right thereto in manner aforesaid. In moving the above proposals at the conference, I stated that I based my opinion as to their desirability upon the following reasons: In the Westland District we have scattered areas of poor country which would repay the efforts of energetic men if the conditions of settlement were mae tod fit the locality and circumstances. Such aj'eas of land will never be selected except in some such manner, and there is no intention of applying the system to any blocks which could reasonably be dealt with under any other close-settlement tenure. It often happened that some enterprising settler had explored a mountain valley and found a portion of it suitable for settlement and cattle-feeding. He next made application to the Land Board to have the areas thrown open. The consequence was that when the whole matter had become advertised to the public, some outsider outbid him for the pastoral lands and wiped him out at the ballot for the other land. He thus lost all the time, money, and hardship which his exploiting the country had cost him. Again, many of the far-back lands have been exploited and settled on by an indomitable pioneer, and it had been suggested as a most suitable course that such a man and his sons should be allowed to select a reasonable area without competition before the land was thrown open to the general public. Here, provided the land is not too high class, we have through the homestead system the means of meeting such cases. The matter of priority of choice, as in the foregoing instance, the prices of the homestead blocks, and any other proper conditions could all be settled by the Board in accordance with suitable regulations for the carrying-out of the system. The area to be granted would have to be fairly large in Westland, but no good land would be allowed to be taken up under this tenure. The Commission will especially note that our proposal is to give a lease, and not a freehold, to the man who complies with conditions, and our reason for this is that we must look out for our goldfields and not give the land away —it must be leased. I must draw the attention of members to the great help to close settlement which has followed on account of the application to this district of the Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, the liberal provisions of which approximate to the principles of the homestead system. 7. " As to the working of the present ballot system, and the dealing with applications for land." My experience of the present ballot system has been wholly within the Westland District, arid is therefore somewhat limited, but the inadequacy and inequality of the existing methods lead me to suggest for consideration the following proposals, which are identical with those on page 15 of Parliamentary Paper C.-8, on " The Land-ballot System." " As to the working of the present ballot system " : — (1.) That in the case of any lands being thrown open for sale or selection under the optional system, or in the case of any land-for-settlements estate, the Land Board shall define the district from within which only applicants shall be eligible for the first ballot, always provided that such applicants shall have been resident in the said district for a period of five years. (In the case of small blocks or estates being offered there the Land Board may restrict the application district to a small area around those lands ; and in the case of large blocks or extensive estates, the application area might be noted as extending to the whole Island or colony-. In some instances, old residents who have been the pioneers of a district, and who have been looking forward for years to obtaining a section either for themselves or to settle their sons close to the old home—l say, these old settlers have frequently seen men from other districts, new arrivals from other colonies, by the haphazard of a mechanical ballot obtain the cherished and hoped-for allotments, and these old colonists or their sons have been compelled to leave the old locality and seek their fortunes elsewhere.) (2.) That, in the case of settlement estates, no relatives or the immediate connections of the person or persons from whom the estate was purchased shall be eligible for the first ballot, but that any of these may be allowed to make subsequent application. (In a recent ballot four sections out of seven were obtained by the sons-in-law, &c., of the man from whom the estate was bought. We have had experience of cases where several members of a family have swamped a ballot and excluded many other applicants. In one particular case lately, three brothers and one sister were all successful in drawing sections, whilst other individuals were thrown out. In another case several members of a family put in applications specially against another single applicant, and obtained the coveted allotment.) (3.) That married men hvaing a family should have preference at the first ballot over single men or men without family. (4.) If any applicant is unsuccessful at the first ballot then such applicant shall have two chances at any subsequent ballot; and, failing for the second time, the applicant shall ballot with others of the same class only at any following first ballot, the intervals between each ballot being not more than six months. (5.) That any male applicant of the age of sixteen and upwards under the optional system, and of nineteen and upwards under the Land for Settlements Acts, be allowed to apply, provided that some person who is landless be responsible for such applicant until he comes of age—depositing security,
a-4.
1540
[g. j. eobekts.
&c. That such under-age applicant reside continually 011 the land and be not allowed to transfer until he is twenty-six years of age, and the conditions have been fully complied with, &c. We have had several applications for sections on estates by applicants under twenty-one years of age. Some of these applicants were educated at Lincoln College ; their fathers and brothers were storekeepers who were landless, and were most anxious to have these young men settled on the land, but were debarred by the present regulations.) (6.) That power be given to the Land Board, after due examination of applicants in committee, to reject any applicant without giving any reason for so doing, and that their decision be final and without appeal. (In our experience it has happened that, after due and searching examination of an applicant, the Land Board was reluctantly obliged to accept him as an " approved applicant," although we were all morally certain that he was propped up and supported by —in fact, was simply acting for —another man ; yet we could not actually prove this. Again, an applicant might, for other reasons, be a very undesirable person to thrust amongst respectable, well-doing settlers, and it would be very commendable that the Board should have power to shunt such a character without further complications (such as appeal or giving reasons, &c.) (7.) That the system of the grouping of sections be abolished, so that any applicant may have the right to select any section he chooses. (8.) That only one member of any family be allowed at the first ballot for any lands whatever. (This is to prevent the monopoly of sections by a family to the exclusion of others. For instance, an application is made to have lands thrown open in certain localities—say, out of a run, &c.—and forthwith all the members possible of an interested family send in separate applications, and often completely overwhelm isolated applications. See also note to suggestion No. 2 ) The foregoing suggestions Jiave reference only to the first ballot for any sections whatever, and all remaining lands should be open to the general public immediately after the declaration of the first ballot, or the day after allotments have been declared open for selection. Second, the dealing with applications for land : — " In connection with the dealing with applicatoins for land, we would urge that clause 6 of our suggestions regarding the ballot system be adopted for all applications, or some modification of it in that direction." " That some discretionary power be given to the Commissioner to refuse to file any application which is plainly informal." " That, if possible, an alteration be made to section 60 of ' The Land Act, 1892,' where the Board is directed, in the event of refusing to receive an application, to ' cause an entry to be made in its minutes of the ground on which such refusal was made.' " The Board frequently consider certain applications in committee, and it is often inexpedient to give their reasons for refusal publicly, and we think it should be a sufficient entry that the refusal was made "in the public interests." At any rate, no reason should be published unless an appeal is made against the decision of the Board, as provided in section 53. 8. " The area of lands loaded for roads, the amount of such loading, the amount expended on roads in or giving access to the lands loaded, whether good faith has been kept in regard to them, and as to the amount borrowed, spent, and available." In the Poerua Settlement the area of lands loaded for roads was 3,230 acres ; the amount of such loading, £936 ; the amount expended on roads in or giving access to area so loaded, £2,971. In the Waitaha Block the area of lands loaded for roads was 4,270 acres ; the amount of such loading, £1,341 ; the amount expended on roads in or giving access to area so loaded, £1,974. The £2,971 was partly spent in the construction of the main road from Teremakau to Grey Valley, which bordered and passed through a portion of the estate. The £1,974 has completed access to the block and has also provided for an access-road to adjacent Crown lands in the Upper Waitaha Valley, which are about to be thrown open. Good faith has been kept in regard to the roading of the above blocks. The amount borrowed was £1,341, and the whole of it has been spent and there is therefore no money available. Mr. Harcourt inadvertently made a remark to-day that the Kokatahi Block was loaded for roads. We happened to have a main road running right up through the block, and no charge whatever was made for that. 9. " To ascertain the value of the land now leased from the Crown at the time the land was so leased, and the value of the said land at its last valuation." Value of Land when Value of Land at its leased from the Crown. Last Valuation. Locality. Per acre. Per acre. £ s. d. £ s. d. Grey Valley .. .. ... .. 010 0 017 6 Ahaura Valley .. .. .. ..0 7 6 0 10 0 Te Kinga Valley .. .. .. ..0 10 0 100 Teremakau Valley .. .. .. ..076 0 10 0 Arahura Valley .. .. .. .. 0 10 0 012 6 Hokitika Valley .. .. .. ..0 17 6 200 Waitaha Valley .. .. .. ..100 200 Wanganui Valley .. .. .. .. 015 0 110 0 Wataroa Valley .. .. .. ..0 10 0 100 Waiho Valley * .. .. .. .. 012 6 015 0 Cook Valley .. .. .. .. 010 0 012 6 Karangarua Valley .. .. .. .. 015 0 017 6 Mahitahi Valley ~ .. .. .. 010 0 012 6 Paringa Valley .. .. .. 0 10 0 0 10 0 Haast Valley .. .. .. .. 010 0 012 6 Okuru Valley .. .. .. .. 010 0 012 6 Arawata Valley .. .. .. .. 010 0 010 0 !i • ; i s i.-- Average Values .. .. .. .. £0 11 6 £0 17 9
G. J. ROBERTS.]
1541
C—4.
I found that a very complicated matter. When we went through the country last we found such a disagreement that we had to hold a conference between the Rangers, surveyors, and others, and this is a fair approximation of the present value. It is evident from the records of dealings in connection with advances required by leaseholders in the Westland District that the lessees of the Crown are placed at a disadvantage in borrowing privately or from the Advances to Settlers Office. Again, we had some trouble to get information from them. The settlers in this district were never so well off as at present. This is mainly due to the establishment of butter-factories ; coal and gold mines ; saw- and flax-mills ; also providing splendid local markets for produce of all kinds. There is more stock this year than heretofore; more stud animal, imported ; cream-separators and improved agricultural machinery and implements introduced; more bush fallen, and a greater area laid down in grass 5 new and commodious houses and outbuildings are being built all over the Coast, and on the 31st May there were no arrears on any holdings, either on ordinary Crown holdings or on the Settlement estates. Perhaps, apart from the fact that our Crown tenants are not in arrears with their rentals, this is also a very satisfactory position : that during the last ten years only one farmer has become bankrupt, and sickness and family affliction accounted for his deficit. Cash. —There are only 61 occupiers under this tenure, under " The Land Act, 1892," with a combined area of 5,976 acres, or an average of 98 acres to each purchaser. It will be especially noted that these cash selectors only purchased small areas. Several of these have adjacent pastoral runs, &c., and are, in the main, fairly successful men. Occupation with Right of Purchase.—Under this tenure there are 103 holders, with a total area of 17,310 acres, being an average of 168 acres to each selector. With the exception of a few selectors in out-of-the-way districts, the whole number occupying under occupation with right of purchase are successful farmers. Lease in Perpetuity. —333 selectors occupy 31,391 acres under this tenure, being an average of 95 acres to each lessee. This is due to a number of people taking up land contiguous to the State Coalmine. The bulk of these settlers are thriving and prosperous ; even the unskilled farmers amongst them are making a fair livelihood. The above are the tenures under the optional system. Lease in Perpetuity under the Land, for Settlements Act.—We have only two areas under this Act— viz., the Poerua Estate and the Kokatahi Estate. Poerua Settlement. —The whole area of this estate is in active occupation and in a very satisfactory (ondition. The settlers are very contented, fairly prosperous, comply most willingly with the statutory requirements, and are not in arrears with their rentals. A station, " Roto Mana," has been placed on the railway which skirts the estate, and the access-road to it has been completed this year, thus enabling stock and produce to be readily delivered. A creamery has recently been set up in a most substantial building. This contains an up-to-date plant, comprising an Alpha-Laval separator, with 6-horse-power engine, powerful boiler, and pasteurizer. The settlers are fast improving their holdings ; new houses have been erected ; roomy sheds built; paddocks well fenced ; and where a short time ago some swampy portions were impassable, now cattle are grazing all over them. Orchards are beginning to fruit, and one settler rails large quantities of splendid vegetables ; some stud stock has been obtained, and great efforts are being made to secure a good class of milking-cows. Last year we intimated that this settlement would progress prosperously, and we again venture the same prediction. The following figures may prove of interest : Area purchased, 3,230 acres 1 rood 6 perches ; number of occupied sections, 19 ; total population, 61 ; numbers of stock—sheep 635, horses 49, cattle 721, pigs 103 ; area in grass, 1,549 acres ; area in white and green crops, 22 acres : requirements of Act, £1,470 ; how far complied with, £5,840 : arrears of rental, nil. Kokatahi Settlement. —This settlement is wholly occupied and is in a very flourishing position. Good, well-built houses and steadings stand on each holding, many of these being very roomy and substantial. The fencing has been put up to last and is very creditable. Orchards are growing apace ; a greater area is now under cultivation ; more clearing and draining has been done ; and, in every way, the various homesteads are fast acquiring a prosperous and comfortable appearance. Five of the tenants are supplying the local dairy factory with milk, with very remunerative results ; all have the regulation milk-stands and pumps and other dairy-utensils. Stock is increasing in numbers and quality owing to much enterprise in those directions. The root-crops this season, with the exception of potatoes, have given splendid results, and the oaten and grass hay has been saved, practically without getting any rain. The estate is undoubtedly prosperous, and the tenants all speak hopefully of their prospects. It is expected that twice the present number of cows will be milked next season, and, as all the settlers have abundance of grass and turnips, as well as good hay both in stack and shed, there will be an ample sufficiency of feed for the winter. The following statistics set forth the present position : Area purchased, 1,894 acres 2 roods 20 perches ; number of occupied sections, 7 ; total population, 21 ; numbers of stock—sheep 260, horses 19, cattle 415, pigs 128 ; area in grass, 1,588 acres ; area in white and green crops, 63 acres : requirements of Act, £184 ; how far complied with, £7,527 : arrears of rental, nil. Village Settlements.- —We have only one small area under this tenure —viz., Kokatahi Village Settlement. Although this settlement was only opened in 1903, yet the holders (four) had occupied the area without title for several years previously, the land being closed against selection under the Midland Railway embargo. Consequently the sections are, with the exception of small patches of shelter-scrub, all under crop, grass principally ; other portions of them are giving good returns in rootcrops, but most of the area is used for grazing purposes. Three settlers supply milk to the adjoining dairy factory, and obtain very good returns. They have all fairly good houses and outbuildings, and are in comfortable circumstances. The outlook for the coming year is most promising and satisfactory.
0.—4.
1542
r G. J. ROBEliTfi.
The following items indicate the state of the settlement: Total area, 196 acres 2 roods 22 perches ; numbers'of occupied sections, 4 ; total population, 14 ; numbers of stock —sheep nil, horses 25, catvlc 111, pigs 24 ; area in grass, 180 acres ; area in white and green crops, 11 acres : requirements of Act, £20 ; how far complied with, £1,082 : arrears of rental, nil. Under the remaining tenures—occupation licenses, pastoral leases, &c.—there are a large number of holders, many of whom combine farming on a small scale and stock-raising with gold-mining, &c. ; these may all be said to be contented and owe nothing to the State. There are a considerable number of settlers who occupy lands under the Regulations for the Occupation of Pastoral Lands : these lessees are all doing well and are reclaiming large areas of hitherto waste country. 12. " To consider the report of proceedings and finding by the conference of Commissioner of Lands and members of Land Boards held at Wellington, on the Ist, 2nd, 3rd, and sth days of December, 1904, and to report and advise thereon." Members of the Commission will kindly note that the notices of motion, as below, from the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Westland, on page 3 of No. 2 Agenda Paper, should be interleaved between pages 70 and 71 of the proceedings of the above conference. (1.) That within the Westland Goldfield, when an applicant desires a holding under lease in perpetuity over any lands reputed to be auriferous, the present law be so amended that, in all such cases evidence be taken before the Warden as to whether the area be auriferous or not. (2.) That legislation be made to enable selectors under the regulations for the occupation of pastoral lands within the Westland Mining District to exchange their leases for a right under the lease-in-per-petuity tenure. (3.) That the minimum refltal of small grazing-runs within the Westland Land District shall be £1 per 1,000 acres. (4.) That within the Westland Land District the minimum price for all lands, other than land-for-settlements estates and pastoral runs, shall be ss. per acre. (5.) That within the Westland Land District the contiguity of lands which are further apart than an ordinary separation by road or stream be determined at the discretion of the Board. (6.) That within the Westland Land District, in connection with selections of unsurveyed lands, the Land Board be empowered to dispense with the whole or a portion of the estimated cost of survey. (7.) That within the Westland Land District the Land Board shall determine the value of improvements to be effected on any small grazing-run. (8.) That, in the event of the resumption of land from any pastoral run in the Westland Land District, it be sufficient to give the lessee three months' notice if the area to be resumed is under 500 acres, six months if between 500 and 1,000 acres, and twelve months if over 1,000 acres. (9.) That within the Westland Land District, subject to the right of resumption for close-settlement purposes, all pastoral runs to be leased with renewal terms, contingent upon due aiid equivalent improvements having been made. (10.) That within the Westland Land District and Goldfield, where the approval of the Warden is obtained, all holders of temporary grazing-leases under the 219 th section of " The Land Act, 1892," shall have the prior right to exchange their titles for a right under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. (11.) That within the Westland Land District all flax-cutting areas should be leased at the Land Board's discretion, in forms to be by the Board prescribed, for such area as the Board may direct, and for a term of fourteen years. (12.) That the Land Board of the Westland Land District be empowered to grant any application under the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act for an area not exceeding 500 acres. 13. " To investigate and report as to the aggregation of estates, large and small, the maximum area which should be held under the several classes, and if in certain districts variations are advisable." In the Westland Land District there has been no aggregation of estates, large or small. We consider that the present maximum areas under the several classes are equitable and workable. We do not advise any variations in this district. 14. " To inquire and report whether each area of land leased under the Land for Settlements Act shall have a separate occupier, and the area not to be increased or boundaries altered without the direct sanction of Parliament." We have only had experience with two small settlements, but so far we have found that, until we have clear evidence to the contrary, it would be very unwise to have a definite rule as to each allotment having a separate occupier, and the area not to be increased or the boundaries altered without direct sanction of Parliament. For in the administration of our estates, after due experiment and careful investigation, it was found most advisable and necessary to increase a holding, which was accordingly done, with the best results for the estate and occupier. Again, we have an oppoiste case on hand at present, where two partners holding a section have asked the Board to permit its division between them—that is, the area is to be decreased and its boundaries altered. Whenever the Land Board has decided to increase or decrease an area, or to alter boundaries, a complete statement of each case is sent forward for the Hon. the Minister's consideration and decision. I therefore consider that no alteration in the present procedure is necessary, and that the whole matter can be safely intrusted to the Bo&rd, as at present. Suggestions and recommendations that we consider desirable and necessary for the further encouragement and promotion of land-settlement and the removal of any anomalies and disabilities that may be found to exist in regard to land-settlement and the existing law relating thereto : —
G. J. EOBERTS.]
1543
C.—4.
(a.) Arrears.—The due collection of arrears is at present one of the most annoying and disagreeable duties the Commissioner has to perform, and with the view of simplifying the financial relations as between Crown and tenant, we would make the following suggestion : That when any lessee or licensee is twelve months in arrears of rentals, his lease or license should automatically be null and void. An intimation to that effect should be published as one of the conditions when the area is advertised. A clause directly instructing the tenant should be prominently placed in the body of the lease, and at the end of six and nine months, the lessee should also be warned by a printed notice that if his arrears were unpaid at the end of the current twelve months, his lease would be forthwith determined. There would thus be no odium cast upon the Board or Commissioner, as happens at present if we are obliged to take action. The Land Board should have discretionary power to extend the period beyond twelve months in special cases, such as sickness, loss by fire, &c. (b.) Advance of Money for Improvements.—ln " The Land Act, 1892," under Part IV., " specialsettlement associations," and section 170, it is specially enacted that the Colonial Treasurer may make advances of money to occupiers of land under section 169, for the purpose of enabling them to profitably occupy their respective allotments. It has been suggested that this provision might be most advantageously extended to other tenants of the Crown. 299. The Chairman.] You say that applications for land are referred to the Warden ?—Yes. 300. And does the Warden ever act independently of you ?—I am aware that the Warden has certain powers, and I thought they might clash a little with the authority of the Commissioner, or overlap with each other ? —We do occasionally overlap a little. A man applies for a piece of land, for instance, we adjourn the application for a month invariably, and it is given to the Ranger to report upon. He goes out and makes a close inspection of the area applied for. He sees the neighbours round about— the miners, settlers, and other people —and hears if they have any objection. He then comes back to us. Then, if the Board agree to the granting of the application, we fix the survey fee and the rental, and we then send the whole of the papers to the Warden for his approval when our Ranger reports. If the Ranger reports that the land is wanted for mining purposes the Warden vetoes the application. It comes back to us, and at the succeeding meeting it is thrown out. If the Warden approves, the selection goes through and the lease is granted. That is not for lease in perpetuity. In the case of throwing land open on the lease in perpetuity I always wait upon the Warden, and with a map I carefully explain where the country is and whether or not any goldfield area is immediately contiguous, and I get his verbal approval of the block. Then we forward this to Wellington and it comes back through his secretary, and he grants his full approval of the block being dealt with under the lease in perpetuity. Then we take it in hand straight away. 301. Does the Warden in all cases assume responsibility of saying whether the land should be opened or not ? At one time it was advertised so that the miners could have an opportunity of making an objection if it were auriferous ?—When a man applies for a piece of land the man has to advertise. That is not done so much for the benefit of the miner as for the people round about the piece of land who may have cattle depasturing on it, and to take 100 acres out of that area might affect a hundred people. But the Warden acts upon the Ranger's report or my own report, or that of the surveyor's, and also in many cases on his own knowledge or that of the miners in the locality. 302. That is when you take the initiative in regard to the land : does the Warden ever take the initiative in regard .to Crown lands ?—No. 303. He may grant mining privileges ?—-Yes, and timber privileges. 304. I wanted to know if there was any conflict between the two authorities ?—No, every assistance has been given us. 305. In the matter of tenures you think they are satisfactory as they are now on the statute-book ? —I do. 306. And you say that in your districts, where there are so many diverse interests and tenures, it is desirable to continue them as they are ?—Yes. 307. That if there was any change it would be inconvenient to people who had got accustomed to them, and so forth ? —Yes. 308. With regard to the flax areas, you think they are too little yourself—that the time is too short and the areas are too small ? —A man can only get two cuttings. 309. Have you large areas of flax in your district ?—There are great strips of flax along the rivers and sea-coast. 310. You said that if a lessee was twelve months in arrear his connection with the land should be mechanically forfeited ? —That was my remark, but I think the Board should have discretionary powers to extend that period. 311. We have had evidence in other places that settlers have been very much aggrieved in respect to demands received for rent. Do you not think it would be rather irritating for a settler to receive sharp demands ?—I want to shift the irritation from myself to the settler who causes the irritation. 312. You have no arrears of rent ?—No. 313. You think the town residents should have an opportunity of taking up land, and, being free of the residence conditions on doing, say, two or three times the amount of improvements required ? —I think that a townsman should be able to put his son on the land, but that he should not be able to put an outsider there. 314. Could not the son go on the land on his own account ?—No, he might be too young. 315. I noticed that the Conference of Land Boards approved of a registered substitute : what do you think ? —I should approve of it under certain circumstances, but I would not approve of it universally. It would have to be a very exceptional case. 316. You know that in some instances in your district the Land Act of 1892 has been inoperative
C— 4.
1544
[g. j. boberts.
from the fact that the land does not come up to the minimum price ?—Yes, if a man wants to extend his holding, unless he pays £1 an acre for it he cannot do so. We want that section altered so as to be able to give it to him at a less price. 317. You think the homestead system might be introduced into your district again ? —Yes. 318. Do you not think the Bush and Swamp Lands Act sufficiently liberal ? —Many of the areas in the back valleys would be dear even under that Act. Virtually you would have to give that land away. If one could get a few of the old pioneer settlers to go on the land, I would say give them a bonus for going on the land. They are reclaiming the Crown land and adding to the wealth of the colony. 319. You said that in some valleys there was some very good land. A person going there might take up the land in such a way as to prejudice the settlement of the surrounding country ? —I have stated that I would not let him get such land under the homestead system, we would only give him the poorest land. 320. Do you not think that sending a poor man on to poor land would be a bad combination ? —We would give him plenty of it. There are numbers of men who would go back on to the poor land if they got a certain area of it. 321. Is mining increasing or decreasing in your district ?—lndividual alluvial mining is decreasing, but companies now seem to be taking up areas of land. We have in that district one of the finest mineral blocks on the face of the earth, running through Westland. We have got out of that belt of country specimens of nearly every known mineral. The indications are really splendid for minerals in that district, and eventually I feel sure that it will support an enormous population. 322. Mr. Hall.] Is there any stipulation in the land leased for flax with respect to the cutting of flax ? —There is no stipulation aa.to how it should be cut. 323. Mr. Johnston.'] Do you not think in connection with licenses for cutting sleepers and milling that the Warden and the Board involve a duplication of work ? —Undoubtedly. 324. Do you not think it would be better administered by the Land Board ? —lt would be better administered by one head than it is at present. 325. Is it done now to the advantage or disadvantage of the Crown ?—There is no disadvantage to the Crown at present. 326. In reference to the areas, are they given in such a way that the land can be improved afterwards ?—Yes, the sawmiller has no right to the land whatever. 327. What becomes of the land ?—The sawmiller holds the land until the cutting is completed. 328. Supposing he cuts 200 acres, does he still hold that area ?—Yes, and he sometimes grasses it. 329. Do you not think it would be much better if the land were settled directly the timber was sawn out ?—Yes. 330. You say that your district is purely a mining district ?—The whole district is gazetted as a goldfield. 331. You said the lease in perpetuity suits the district ? —Yes. 332. Is there any agitation for the freehold on the part of the Crown tenants ? —No. 333. Are noxious weeds prevalent in your district ? —Yes, on the river-bottoms and along some of the roads. 334. Have any means been taken to eradicate them ? —The Inspector of Stock has done a great deal in that direction. 335. Does the Government instruct the men in charge of their roads to clear them of noxious weeds ? —Only on roads through Crown lands. 336. You advocate the homestead system being applied to the poorest land ?—Yes. 337. Do you not think it is rather strange to advocate putting a poor man on poor land ?—I very much doubt whether you would get other people to take up such land, but I advocate the homestead system because I am convinced that under that system land in the back valleys would be taken up by a certain class of men if they could get the land under homestead conditions. 338. What area of bush can be felled to get a good burn ? Have you known of 100 acres of big bush ?—No. 339. Fifty acres ?—Yes, of heavy bush. 340. This heavy-bush land is not fit for settlement, is it ?—lt will be fit for settlement when population gets there, but at the present time it is not profitable to attempt to grass it. 341. Were you on the Board when they passed the resolution about the Commission I—-Yes,1 —-Yes, I was in the chair. 342. Did you know at that time that it was utterly impossible for us to get down to the coast ? —No, all that I knew was that the Commission was not coming, and I may say that I did not vote upon the resolution. I put the resolution to the members of the Board present, and it was carried. 343. Is there any dummyism there ? —I have never known of such cases. 344. Do you believe in tenants-in-common holding land under lease in perpetuity ? —Yes, that is, there should be sufficient land for both, not for tenants-in-common to hold one holding; Ido not believe in that. 345. Is dairying paying down there ?—Yes. 346. Have you any land under the Land for Settlements Act ?—Only two settlements. 347. Are they satisfactory ?—Yes. 347 a. If your district were cut into four ridings, and a member of the Land Board were nominated for each riding, would you approve .of that ?—Yes. 348. Do you give rebate on your rents ?—No, we consider that we give liberal conditions enough to warrant us in refusing rebates, but we might reconsider that if there were bad years. 349. Do you not think in the interests of the Crown a great deal of that land could be kept for sawmilling purposes ?—Yes, and so we do.
a. J. BOBEKTS.]
1545
C.—4.
350. And that such land should be withheld from disposal ? —Yes, we have special instructions from the Government to conserve every acre of milling-timber, and when we send particulars of a block to Wellington we have especially to note that there is no milling-timber on it of marketable value. 351. Where does this mineral belt extend from and to ? —lt extends, to my knowledge, for two hundred miles on the western side of the range, and it varies from sometimes a few feet to a couple of miles in width. 352. Are there any precious stones in it ?—We have no stones, but we have the matrix of the emerald and the ruby that has been got in the alluvial wash. At the present time, Dr. Bell, the Government Geologist, is in the locality exploring the belt. I may say we have specimens in our collection at Hokitika of the rocks from nearly every part of the district, and we have the locations all duly noted. 353. Mr. McLennan.] You say you have a lot of flax land there ? —Yes. 354. What is done with the land after the flax is taken off ? —We do nothing with it at present. 355. Can they sow grass on it ? —Yes, in places. We have a special condition in the lease that we may resume any land we choose out of these flax areas for settlement purposes. 356. Would the land be fit for settlement when the flax is taken off ?—Only small strips of it. 357. Would the land grow grass if it were drained ? —There are some very small areas on our side, but the areas generally are not wide enough to be fit for settlement. 358. Mr. Paul.\ Seeing you have practically no arears of rent in your district, why do you advocate that drastic change of forfeiture when any man is twelve months in arrear ?—I do not care to air my own troubles, but I have had some little difficulty in getting those arrears collected, and I do not want to repeat that if I can help it. I would be very pleased if some method of this sort could be adopted. I have no trouble with some settlers in-regard to arrears, but others again are utterly careless. It is not that they have not the money, but they seem to think they will pay any one but the Government. 359. Your settlement must be very successful judging by the small amount of arrears in your land district ? —Yes. 360. And the settlers must be fairly prosperous ? —Yes. We cannot say that very many of them are wealthy men, but they are going along very well. 361. Mr. Anstey.] Are there any instances of good land being spoilt by mining operations ?—There is not much of it. There is a little along the seaboard. 362. Is there any way of avoiding that ?—No. 363. Is the land that is being spoilt profitable for gold-mining ? —Yes, very profitable. 364. Is it dredging land ?—Some of it, but the most of it is used for ground-sluicing. 365. We had evidence in the south that this destruction of land could be avoided very largely by a proper system of arranging the debris so that it might be returned to practically the same position it occupied before being dredged away ?—I have not heard it. Ido not know if it would be practicable on our side. 366. You principally supported lease in perpetuity because under it you can resume land if it is required for mining purposes ?—Yes. 367. I cannot see the difference between resuming lease-in-perpetuity lands and resuming freehold lands : can you explain it ?—Lease-in-perpetuity land in a mining district can be resumed by the surrender or determination of the lease if the land is required. Every leasehold is termed Crown lands under the Mining Act. 368. That means there is a provision put in the lease allowing the land to be resumed ? —There is no necessity for it, because, under the Act, the interpretation of " Crown lands " is that any leasehold from the Crown is Crown lands. 369. Why should not the position of freehold be just the same in a mining district ? —lt has not been done. 370. Why should it not be done; it is no more difficult in the one case than the other 'That is a matter for Parliament to decide. 371.. What is your particular object in confining the application of the ballot to one member of a family : why should a man, because he is his father's son, not be allowed to ballot ?—I am afraid I have only looked at the matter from our own narrow point of view. 372. Supposing there are six or seven members of one family who wish to get a farm, why in the world should they not get a farm on an adjoining estate if they draw the farm fairly in the ballot ? — My little experience has been confined to one estate under the Land for Settlements Act, and, for that reason, I was very diffident in making any suggestions at all. I may say that in the ballot for the Kokatahi Estate, there were four sons-in-law of the man from whom we bought the estate. These men applied, and, although all the people round about wanted a section there, each of these four got a section. 373. Were they not good and eligible settlers ? —Yes, but virtually we paid the proprietor of this estate for the land and then we gave it back to him in this way. 374. Were these people not just as eligible settlers as any one else —They might be so. 375. Why block them then ?—I would have been content if one of these men got a section and given a chance to the sons of settlers round about to get the rest. 376. Does the Warden never veto the occupation of land that is not suitable for mining ?—No. We sufficiently advise the Warden as to whether the land is auriferous or not, and he gives his decision accordingly. In some cases he also acts on his own knowledge. 377. Is he always ready to remove all obstacles to the settlement of land if possible ?—I have always found the Wardens most willing and anxious to help us in every way. 378. With regard to your suggestion that a shopkeeper should put his son on his section, how far would you extend that privilege ?—Only to one son.
194—C. 4.
C—4.
1546
[g. j. robkbts.
379. Would you allow him to put any one else's son on ? —ln certain circumstances I would if we had a bond of assurance that the shopkeeper was eventually going on that land. 380. Would you allow him to put his daughter there ?—Yes. 381. Or his nephew ?—Yes. I would allow him to put his registered substitute on the section in certain circumstances. 382. Would you allow him to put his father there ? —Yes, if he was the registered substitute. 383. Would you bar him from registering as his substitute a cousin or ? —No, 1 would allow him to put any one there, provided he was a suitable settler. 384. If you allow somebody else to occupy the land in place of the settler, is that not simply dummyism ? —I want to curtail that, and I say that the man must enter into a bond that he is going to go on the land later on. 385. Has the success of the settlements at Poerua and Kokatahi been very largely assisted by the fact of having good roads ?—Yes. 386. Would they have been so successful if they had not got roads ? —No. We must have roads if we are to settle our country. The bush is so heavy, and in many cases so jwet, that the people cannot get into the land without roads. 387. You think good roads are an absolute necessity for successful settlement ?—Yes, under the Land for Settlements Acts. 388. Mr. Johnston.\ Are there many education reserves in your district ? —Yes, a good number. 389. Are they in profitable use ?- —They are not very valuable at present. 390. Would you advocate the Government taking over these reserves and giving the Education Board an equivalent in bonds,-the reserves then to be administered by the Land Board ?—-I do not see any reason to do that in our district.
1547
0.—4
APPENDIX. CORRESPONDENCE. Additional Statement. —Me. W. H. Williams, Christchurch. Residence. —On all settlements of the same class as in South Canterbury, where the tenants can obtain an immediate return, either in crop or grazing, the building and residing should be strictly enforced, as this is one of the important measures in the success of the settlements—viz., getting the tenants, more especially those with families, on to the holdings, as they then commence to make permanent improvements ; and if this is not enforced, then it only opens the way for merely cropping. Getting the married men on helps to bring pressure on to the single men to also comply. Grouping.—There is a strong feeling against this, and numbers of applications have been lost from good men ; and on the Rosewill Settlement I can safely say that from eighty to a hundred intending applicants refused to apply when they found the sections were grouped as at present, whereby a person is compelled to accept whatever section is allotted to him. They want freedom of selection; and the old plan of allowing them to apply for so-many sections, not to exceed a certain area, was satisfactory, as if an applicant applied for, say, one, two, or three sections, if he was fortunate enough to obtain either of them, then they were his own choosing, and he could not complain. Men have very different ideas of land, and what one would choose and could see his way to work another would not have at any price. My meaning, in answer to question 38, was this : An applicant is allowed to apply for up to an area of 1,000 acres. This will embrace, say, two, three, or even four sections. He applies for that number, and says his first choice is number so-and-so. At the ballot, if any of those he has applied for are drawn in his favour he cannot refuse to take it, as he has applied for it. This was the old plan of ballot, and always gave perfect satisfaction. A married woman should also be allowed to apply for any section the same as her husband, as if one draws a section the other cannot hold another.
[To accompany the evidence of John Heath Newlyn.] Proposed Scale of Graduated Land-tax. The tax shall be estimated at the rate of Jd. (or other determined fractional part) in the pound sterling of capital value of each £10,000. The rate per pound sterling rising or falling above or below the rate of one unit (or farthing) in the pound to agree with the capital value in excess of or less than the sum of £10,000. The graduated tax shall start at any capital value determined by Parliament, and shall be levied according to the graduation below. Examples. Where the Capital The Tax in the Qr Total Tax of Value is -Found snail be £ Farthing. £ a. d. 1 ... ... ... ... ... 00001 10 0001 100 ... ... ... ... ... 001 1,000 ... ... ... ... 01 0 2 1 10,000 ... ... ... ... ... 1 10 8 4 100,000 ... ... ... ... ... 10 1,041 13 4 200,000 ... ... ... ... ... 20 4,166 13 4 210,000 ' 21 4,593 15 0 Examples of Plans of Graduated, Tax. Capital value, £87,500. Tax payable, 1891, £410 2s. 3£d.; 1903, £524 Is. 9Jd.: suggested, £797 10s. 6£d. Examples of Graduation in the Three Systems. Rise in Capital Value. Tax Payable , Rise 0 « From To v ' £ £ £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. 50,000 51,000 ... 29 13 4 17 3 9 10 10 5 40,000 41,000 23 8 9 14 1 3 8 8 9 30,000 31,000 ... 17 14 2 10 18 9 6 7 1 9,000 10,000 0 10 5 .3 2 6 1 19 7 195—C. .
C—4
1548
Letter on Graduated Taxation. Sir, — Merivale, 7th July, 1903. You are possibly aware that in 1884, before the formation of the Stout-Vogel Government, a series of letters appeared in Christchurch papers upon the subject of land-taxation. When the late Mr. Ballance was one of the above Ministry he received copies of letters dealing with the " cheap money scheme " —as proposed by me—and with graduated taxation. A plan of " progressive " graduation was then forwarded to him, and may have been retained among his papers. The adoption of the suggested tax in 1891 (?) was not accompanied by the widening increments suggested in 1884. As some alteration in the tax is contemplated, I respectfully submit that the adoption of the original scale in principle will decrease existing anomalies. I have, &c., The Eight Hon. the Premier, the Treasury, Wellington. J. H. Newlyn. Reply to the above letter : — Sir, — Prime Minister's Office, Wellington, 21st July, 1903. I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of the 7th instant on the subject of the incidence of the graduated land-tax for which I thank you. I have, &c., T. H. Newlyn, Esq., Merivale. R. J. Seddon. Copy of Letter inserted in the Christchurch " Star," Ist July, 1884. A New Land Policy. To the Editor of the Star.' Sir, — "Confiscation without compensation" has not up till now found much favour in New Zealand, although some of the advocates of a " bursting-up " policy have endeavoured to foster a taste for the fallacious literature provided by Messrs. George and Wallace, which inculcates the doctrine that those who, like myself, do not own enough land in which to bury a sparrow, have a right to a share in the estate bought at the price demanded by our thrifty neighbours. The manner in which some of the estates in England were bestowed upon Court favourites, and the various frauds practised by land-grabbers in America, must force candid persons' to own that there is some reason for the feeling of antagonism that exists between the land-monopolists and their victims. The cry of the " alien landlord," which has found an echo here, is increasing in force throughout America, where Mr. George has provided it with a congenial home. The Duke of Sutherland owns land in Colorado equal to the area of Yorkshire, and the Earl of Dunraven has had his title to his Colorado territory disputed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Earl's agent has, it is said, bribed summoned witnesses to absent themselves from the inquiry. " Taking one consideration with another" it does not appear that the 25,000,000 dollars invested in American land will be a source of unusual profit, for all local taxes are raised directly from the land, whether cultivated or not. As " all laws relating to corporations may be altered or repealed "by most, if not by all, of the State Legislatures, it is not at all improbable that Mr. George may actually benefit Australia and New Zealand by diverting the stream of British capital to our shores. I presume, sir, that such a diversion of capital would not be repugnant to our politicians, and that the opponents of the large estate holders simply desire to see all arable land put to best uses. I respectfully suggest that all their reasonable demands would be met by a law requiring each landowner to bring under cultivation, to avoid special taxation, from one-eighth to one-twelfth of his holding annually, according to the estimated quality of the soil and its distance from main roads and settlements, but irrespective of the area of the estate. Of course, the fractions just mentioned are simply given to indicate the principle that I think should guide our legislators in dealing with this very difficult subject. It seems probable that the adoption of the above plan would provide increased work for agricultural labourers, and materially augment our exports, without specially interfering with large capitalists. I am, &c., Ist July, 1884. J. H. N. Memorandum for Chairman of Lands Commission. I beg to forward herewith the figures regarding the position of peasant proprietors in France, which I referred to when giving evidence before the Commission. They are taken from a recently published work entitled " The Farming Peasantry of France from 1789: from the Official Documents," by A. Toubeau, a French author well known for his advocacy of intensive agriculture. According to the official statistics—from which Toubeau took his data—the surface of France, after deducting the area taken up by rivers and lakes, is given as 49,000,000 hectares (1 hectare =2J English acres). This area, according to Toubeau's investigations, is made up as follows :— Hectares. Area covered by forests, heath, swamps, grazing-land, &c. ... = 16,000,000 Houses and gardens ... ... ... ... ... = 1,000,000 Leasehold property (cultivated by tenants) ... ... ... = 16,000,000 Large properties (cultivated by labourers) ... ... ... = 12,000,000 For the peasant proprietor (including gardens and house area)... = 4,000,000 Total ... ... ... ... ... = 49,000,000 It will thus be seen that in the paradise of the peasant proprietor only one-tenth of the soil belongs to men who work it with their own hands. The Government statistician, referring to the fact that a great number of so-called proprietors are such only by name, says, " Half of the land-
1549
C—4.
owners possess only a small house with a very modest garden, sometimes an insignificant portion of an old common or an undivided portion of a yard, open space, passage, or building-lot. In this way, in a great number of cases, in reality they have only the name of proprietors." A German author, commenting on Toubeau's figures, says the proportion of holdings worked by paid hands or by tenants is likely to become more unfavourable from year to year through division by inheritance and increase of mortgages. The Commission will thus see that in making my statement about France I was at least not speaking without authority. J. A. Scott, Dunedin.
Wade, 23rd May, 1905. To the Chairman and members of the Land Commission. Sir and Gentlemen, —As secretary of the Wade Branch of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, I was deputed to attend and give evidence before you. Owing to unforseen circumstances lam unable to do so. I do not know if your rules permit letters to be read, but should they do so I trust you will read this in lieu of my personal attendance. The members of my branch are unanimously in favour of freehold tenure, and, generally speaking, would advise the renewal of the Homestead Act. Our great want is roads, and it would be well to devise some better system of spending Government grants than at present obtains. This more especially applies to County Councils.—l have, &c., S. Scruby, Hon. Secretary, N.Z.F.U., Wade Branch.
Sirs, — 105, Grant Road, Wellington. In response to your request for opinions on the tenures controlling the privilege of individuals to hold land in their own right as against that of the community, I beg to offer the following original remarks on the subject:— I set up my claim to sepak with some degree of authority on the basis of forty years' work and dealing in matters intimately connected with the question of tenures, having during that time worked on, built on, lent money on, owned, occupied, leased, and let on lease land, leasehold and freehold, in town and country. I had experience in parts of Australia where no tenure existed at all, and the squatter merely paid an assessment on his stock, until the free selector came on the scene, and, by picking the eyes out of his stations, burst up his estate. I helped to clear land for cultivation at the beginning of one of Dunedin's earliest settlements—viz., Kuri Bush ; hewed and used coal at Kaitangata before any one else knew there was anything of the sort there; worked at Palmerston North on the sawmills before there was a township of anything more than sawmill whares ; and passed through the populous village of Tenui in what a member of the House recently described as its palmy days, before the freehold iniquity wiped out the villagers and replaced them with sheep. Well, all the villagers I found there in those palmy days were a bullock-driver and his wife. The incident would not be worth mentioning only for its evidence of the lengths politicians will go to prove a pet theory. My baptism of land-ownership came during the years of adolescence, when I swopped a horse, saddle, and bridle for a Dunedin town acre, followed soon after by the purchase of a section in the original subdivision of St. Clair, which returned me the handsome profit of £150 in seven years on a very small outlay. I had the misfortune to be a purchaser of Wellington property in the boom times, before the depression, and was reduced to accepting 2s. 6d. per week for property which had previously let for £1 per week, and got nipped with a Wairarapa farm of 200 acres, which I passed on to a graduate of one of England's leading agricultural colleges, who subsequently abandoned it and left it a derelict breeder of noxious weeds. Owing to my taking up the new idea of separating milk, in 1886, and hawking the idea round the country, I have had the privilege of considerable and varied intercourse with farmers for nearly a score of years, and flatter myself I know something of their needs and the tenure that will encourage them to the best effort; and if the Government have the true interests of the country at heart they will quickly get into line with other countries in granting facilities, not only for obtaining, but for turning brain and sinew into the only tenure extant —viz., freehold. It is the fashion to speak of leasehold in all its varied hues as a tenure, but that is only due to a faint attempt at pleasantry on the part of those ogre-eyed people who have no vigour, and hate those who have. The incident in my experience impressing me most particularly as to the utter failure of the leasehold tenancy —" tenure " I decline to call it—is worth narrating. A farmer, whose produce I was the continuous purchaser of, held an expiring lease, and wanted another to take its place. This turned up within the necessary radius, but, owing to the disadvantage of the leasehold system, did not eventuate. The would-be vendor had fallen on bad times, owing to a breakdown of health, and badly wanted to sell, offering his interest for the net cost of improvements, £2,000. The lease was a Government one, and the Advances to Settlers would only lend £700, the regulation half of a regulation valuation, but only one-third of the real value. The applicant had only £500 towards the deposit, and the gap proved unbridgeable. Outside lenders saw no difficulty if the proposal could be put on a freehold footing, although the sum then required would be much greater, but the leasehold was out of the running with them. Proof that the Advances to Settlers agreed with this policy is found in a transaction where they lent £1,000 on a property which changed hands at £1,200 ; a proportion which would have enabled my friend to have taken on the freehold when the leasehold was out of his reach. The lack of enterprise by the Government Department in assisting bond fide settlements is shown in the vivid light of the fact that they were ground-owners, and to them would have reverted the whole of the property in case of forfeiture, while outside lenders would, on the other hand, lose everything in case of forfeiture.
C—4
1550
The crucial point is the difference between freehold and leasehold in their money-raising power ; for the money-raising power and the power to realise outlaid capital is the spark that gives vitality to the whole mechanism, and without which it must at some time or another come to a full stop, like the transaction above narrated. The answer is that freehold is a real tenure, but leasehold is no tenure at all, and the reason ordinary lenders cannot afford to lend on leasehold is due to that fact. The land itself cannot be tendered as security, only what has accrued under the temporary tenancy, and any one having the temerity to lend on such a security may wake up any morning to find a covenant broken and his security reverted to the ground-owner. Leasehold in all its shapes and forms and variegated titles is only a tenancy. There is only one tenure, and that is freehold, and in no other way than by capitalising the working-value of the land can the worker have the semblance of a free hand in working the land. I am quite conscious of the supposed disabilities and iniquities of the freehold. I have been through the whole pharmacopoeia of those mental derangements—the single-tax disease, the nationalising mania, the increment phobia —and have arrived at the conclusion that there is very little in them when diagnosed, and nothing that could not be immuned by inoculation with the lymph of commonsense. Those who are likely to get a fit over the future probabilities of the unearned increment in New Zealand should investigate land-values in fully populated countries, say, Great Britain, for instance, where the average agricultural value is £7 per acre ; a special property of 2,000 acres, let to a tenantry of fifty-six families, with houses and other buildings, £32,000 ; 80 acres at Harrow, ten miles from centre of London, bought for a breathing-space, £300 per acre ; pleasure resort at Basingstoke, with fishing, shooting, ornamental and athletic grounds, 200 acres, £10,500. Compare the latter with Bellevue, Lower Hutt, at £17,50 Q. Of the bogeys brought up against the freehold, I will say a word about land-nationalising before coming to a finish. At the very outset, land never has been any other than nationalised, and no individual freeholder or party of them could defy the State or inflict an injury on the community unless the community voluntarily submitted to it. But, supposing for the sake of argument, the common idea of nationalising actually took place, what would happen ? Exactly what has happened already. The whole lot would be parcelled out in tenancies, which, on a large scale, would prove unworkable, and after a lot of harm had been done there would be a reversion to the only tenure —freehold—that has the flexibility necessary to adapt itself to the varying conditions of general cultivation, or apply itself to the multitudinous demands of industry. The Land Commissioners. Henry Bodley.
Gentlemen, — Wataioa, 13th April, 1905. I have received an invitation from Mr. Roberts to attend your sitting of the 29th instant. I would willingly, do so but am so crippled with rheumatics that I could not undertake the journey. lam sixty-eight years of age. I hold 200-odd acres of land under lease in perpetuity, and came to the conclusion long ago that the State ought never to have parted with an acre of land. I and others down here are of the same opinion and believe in the principle of the thing. Of course, it is human nature for us to wish for the freehold, and if one gets it we fancy all should have it. However, the lease in perpetuity has been a great boon to thousands of us who could never have taken up an acre of land on any other tenure. What we complain of is that we are rated the same as the freehold, and we do not consider that fair; and again, if one wants to borrow money we cannot get the same amount even from the Advances to Settlers Department. As to revaluation, we are of opinion that, if done at all, it should only be done on the betterment principle, and not on the work a man or his family has done to improve their land. Speaking for myself, I would like to see all absolute sale of land done away with, including the occupation with right of purchase. I have, &c., The President and members of the Land Commission. Alex. Gunn, Settler.
Gentlemen, — Wellington, 19th June, 1905. I had arranged to give evidence before you at Pongaroa, but was debarred when you did not visit that township. On Friday last, 16th June, I attended at the Chamber of Commerce with the intention to tender my evidence. After waiting a considerable time and hearing the evidence of the Crown Lands Ranger (Rutherford), I expresed a wish to your Chairman to follow the Ranger's testimony with my experience, but your Chairman called upon P. Heyes, Advances to Settlers Department, at the same time asking me to wait. As it was then getting late in the afternoon I was unable to comply, therefore I feel that opportunity should be given me to state my case. Assuming you will grant my request, I beg to state — Selection and supervision by Ranger.—Upwards of eleven years ago I was instrumental in forming the Woodville No. 2 Farm-homestead Association, and selected 6,000-odd acres on the eastern side of the Puketoi Range ; the Rakaunui Township is now situate about the centre of this selection, nine miles from Pongaroa. I was the first occupier of a section in the block selected, going five miles into the bush —practically without a road—to my section. From that time to the present myself or some members of my family have constantly occupied my section (200 acres), two of my sons having taken up adjoining sections, making an area of 930 acres in all. 630 acres of this land is lease in perpetuity, and 300 acres education reserve. Many of the adjoining sections reverted to the Crown, and have been reselected under the improved-farm-homestead and lease-with-right-of-purchase systems, with this result : Two of the farm-homestead settlers that went on their section without sixpence of capital have sold their interests for £100 each, the Government, of course, having advanced the whole of the money for
1551
C—4
whatever improvements have been put on the land. Both these men had work (one of them nearly constant) at Bs. per"day, on the roads under Government construction, and have both left the district practically not sixpence better off than when they came into it. I can give more cases with the same results. From my experience, it is this class of " ne'er-do-wells " that get the most consideration from the Government. In the case of my sons (both single men), they have been worried and harassed by the then Ranger (Cavanagh) on account of not personally residing on their sections, although the said sections have been constantly occupied by them, the whole bone of contention being that they should not walk half a mile from my house, where they could sleep in comfort, to their own sections to sleep in a whare. To such an extent was this persecution (I can call it by no other name) being carried, that one of my sons, after years of hardship, has parted with his holding for less money than the outlay in rents and improvements—the lease-in-perpetuity tenure militating against a profitable sale. Concurrent with above events a 200-acre improved-farm-homestead section was taken up by a selector, the Government advancing money to him for bushfelling and erection of house ; this money was no sooner spent than the selector left the district, and the section has been unoccupied now for two years. The same Ranger who has given so much trouble to my sons (both bona fide settlers) has annually inspected this section. Lately an application was put in by a would-be selector for this long-neglected section (the chimney having fallen from the building and the whole place goins to ruin), and has been informed " the land is still in the late occupier's name but that he wil 1 be communicated witb." Comment is needless. Access. —Certain evidence was tendered to you at Pahiatua regarding the bad state of the Government roads in our district. Such statements were characterized by the Ranger, in his evidence at the Chamber of Commerce, as not wholly correct. He also stated there was only three miles and a half of the road to Pongaroa unmetalled, buf he failed to inform you that there are two roads running through the district (both main arterial) to that place, and although one may be nearly finished, the other, which serves a larger area and consequently more settlers, is in a deplorable condition, and has been every winter for years past. Relief has been promised year by year by the Government, and although large sums of money have been spent, the results (on account of bad administration and log-rolling) are as stated. It took years of representing these things to the Government before the inefficient officials could be moved, and now that we have a thorough, practical man (Mr. Nathan) in charge, he has been hampered for the past two years for want of sufficient funds. Personally, compared with the large majority of settlers, I am in a good position, so far as access to my land is concerned, having a break of three miles only of impassable mud to contend with, after an occupancy of upwards of ten years. This season 2 tons 17 cwt. of stores and goods forwarded from Wellington cost £13 10s. for rail and cartage to my house, situate thirty miles from Pahiatua Railway-station. There are settlers thirty miles beyond my place, who have to get their stores and goods over the same route as I do at an added cost of £4 per ton Tenure and Finance. —In my opinion, the now burning question of tenure would never have attained the prominence it now holds if correct legislation had been passed to give the lease-in-perpetuity selector the same facilities to improve his land as the freeholder. The freeholder and the lease-with-right-of-purchase selector can raise money without the least trouble as an ordinary mortgage ; or by depositing, in the former case, his deeds, in the latter, his certificates of title, with his banker, a temporary advance can be obtained to help him over a pressing need in purchasing stock, grass-seed, fencing-material, or whatever he may require to make his holding remunerative. The lease-in-perpetuity selector has no such facilities, consequently he is left behind by his more fortunate neighbour. The banker will not look at the lease-in-perpetuity title, the private money-lender, with trust funds at his disposal, is debarred from lending by law. The Advances to Settlers Department has in the past raised all sorts of objections, and in many cases refused loans altogether, without any explanation, to lease-in-perpetuity selectors. The present agitation is therefore the outcome of the serious disability laboured under by the lease-in-perpetuity selector. It seems to me it is to the community's interest to see that the leaseholder has the same facilities to raise money to improve and work his land as the freeholder and right-of-purchase selector. If this had been done I venture to say there would have been less agitation for the freehold to-day. The Landless and Taxation. —The views expressed by the labour organizations and socialists re the State parting with the freehold are, in my opinion, based upon wrong premises. On the one hand they agitate for State ownership of land, and, on the other, protection. Both contentions, in my opinion, are against their own interests —i.e., if the Custom duties were removed the worker would be able to purchase most of what he consumes at 20 per cent, less cost than now, and if the whole of thi s colony's land was sold to-morrow the State, and consequently the toiler and landless, would benefit to the extent of thousands of pounds per annum as the result of a land-tax, which is now lost through the State being its own landlord, and if the tax levied was based upon correct lines, it would not matter if one individual owned the whole of the land in New Zealand, because to be able to pay the tax he would be compelled to put every acre to its proper use. To do that would not only mean the absorption of all surplus labour now in this country, but that the population would need to be increased fivefold to meet the demand for labour; therefore, as a demand for labour with short supply means high wages, and free ports mean cheap commodities, the spending-power of the toiler would at once be doubled. Roading and Loading. —The whole of the land in my district is loaded to the extent of ss. per acre for roading ; this sum, so far as the association I formed, was added after the sections had been allotted, raising the price of the land from £1 2s. 6d. and £1 ss. to £1 7s. 6d. and £1 10s. per acre, and although it was understood at the time this loading was only for a limited period, we have been unable to get any definite statement from the Government as to when such loading will be removed, consequently each 200-acre section is now contributing annually to the Government a sum of £2 10s. in interest on such loading, besides the rates levied by the County Council, amounting already, in my case, to twice
C.-4
1552
the amount paid to the Government. If we apply to the Government to finish our roads they plead (in spite of the large surpluses of recent years) want of funds, and if we|apply to the County Council they say the roads are not vested in them and they have no power to spendjmoney on Government roads. I have therefore to suggest that the Government position be defined as to duration of loading and extent of responsibility re making our roads. Tenure.—ln my opinion, the best of all tenures for the selector is the lease with the right of purchase, as under this tenure a man with only his labour for capital is not debarred, and can therefore work out his own salvation ; whereas, under the deferred-payment system, a selector must have considerable means, for five half-yearly payments have to be made during the first two years, or before he can get any returns from the land. It is therefore quite impossible for a labouring-man in the country to earn sufficient to make those five payments, clear, grass, fence, stock his land, and live, without some returns from his land. That has been in the past the real cause of so many transfers and forfeitures under this system. The first two years make for failure or success on new selections, it is therefore imperative that all payments after the deposit should be waived until the expiry of that period at least. Six-foot Tracks.—The Ranger evidently wished to impress the members of the Commission with che roading-facilities placed at settlers' disposal in the shape of 6 ft. tracks ; my experience of 6 ft. cracks is that settlers are far better off without them, and the construction of such Sloughs of Despond has entailed an enormous expenditure upon the country, a greater part of which was quite unnecessary, for, when the wide road is formed, it is generally upon a different grade to the original 6 ft. track, which necessitates new and large culverts and the raising and lengthening of bridges—a most expensive procedure. In my district I feel quite safe in stating that one-half of the public money expended has been absolutely thrown away. A track cut through the standing bush is preferable to an open 6 ft. track in most cases. Publicity.—The publication of business communications passing between a selector of Crown lands and the Land Board seems to me quite unnecessary and a very unbusinesslike mode of procedure. 1 can quite understand the necessity of Board meetings being open to the public, but not that a selector's business should be made the common property of all, through the medium of the daily Press. Elective Land Boards. —Although I have here advocated elective Land Boards, I feel I shall not be taking up a fair attitude if I do not admit the many excellent appointments that have been made to the Wellington Board. I refer more particularly to Messrs. Stevens, Rangitikei : Pirani, Palmerston North ; Hogg, Masterton ; and Reece, Pahiatua —all broad-minded men with advanced liberal ideas regarding land legislation and administration. Personally, I feel gratified that the district in which I reside has such an advanced and able thinker for its representative on the Board as Mr. Reece. I am, &c., Cecil Roadley, Rakaunui. 1 hereby certify that Cecil Roadley has this day declared before me that the whole of the above statements are true to the best of his knowledge and belief. E. Arnold, J.P. To the Chairman and members of Land Commission, Wellington.
Gentlemen, — Normandale Settlement, 15th June, 1905. We, the undersigned, are in favour of the leasehold, with minor amendments, as the best system for enabling a poor man to go on the land. We think that the alienation of the freehold, while benefiting the individual fortunate enough to secure it, would ultimately, in spite of all safeguards, lead to the evils so rampant in the Old Country. We think it the bounden duty of each generation to leave things a little better for the next, as other generations have undoubtedly done for this. We think that this colony, ahead as it is in many things, has another chance of being an example to the world by gradually absorbing the freehold. While favouring the leasehold, we think there are various minor matters that might be amended, amongst which are permission to change from a small section to a larger one without first having to sell out. We think also it is unfair to be rated on improvements, especially when such improvements are compulsory. This has a tendency to cause stagnation. Trusting that the labours of your Commission may be beneficial, we remain, Yours, &c., Harry Adams. J. E. Knight. P. E. Brooker. J. Arnold. G. Earl.
1553
0.—4
[See Evidence of Alfred Gregory, Dargaville.]
Summary of the Lands of the Hobson County, 23rd May, 1905, and the Revenue (£4,439 12s. 6d.) derived therefrom, and the Proportion paid by the Twenty-eight Landholders who own £209,779 out of the £355,170 Unimproved Value of the County. Also showing how Rating on the Unimproved Value affects the Ratepayers of the County, against the Old System, now discarded in this County. (Compiled by Alfred Gregory, Dargaville.)
* Section. Bond fide settlers. t Now kept in pocket of bond fide settler. § Sura saved by bond fide settler U Included in £531195. sd. 1T Included in £109 15s. 4d. ** Included in £650 2s. 2d. Notes worth remembering. The best and richest lands are in the hands of the speculators. Practically a tenth of the county (unimproved value) is in the name of one man. Thanks to rating on the unimproved value, the land-speculator now pays 59 per cent, (possibly another 3 per cent, added) instead of 44£ per cent, on old obsolete system. The bond fide settler is reduced from 56 per cent, to 43J per cent, (possibly many per cent. less). There are 739 sections in the county that pay lessened rates, 426 sections that pay increased rates, and 224 sections of the 426 are altogether void of improvements, and therefore pay £2 rates for every £1 last year. Twelve persons own 48 per cent., sixteen persons own 11 per cent., and 1,109 sections, many of which belong to the aforesaid twelve, 40 per cent.
Correspondence. To the Editor. Dear Sir, — Mr. Harding, in his pre-sessionai address, as usual, belittled "Rating on the Unimproved Value." What Opposition member does not? He trotted out that crown jewel of the Opposition, "the poor (?) widow of Devonport," who seems lucky enough to own a town section. The large landholders of the Auckland District, especially, seem fair gone on her. It is their only trump card which, when examined, turns out to be a knave. Enough 1 Let us examine our own new rate of 3d. in the pound, which, thanks to the common-sense of the majority of workers in this district, is collected on the unimproved value; there we shall find the true reason why large landholders go on advocating the old obsolete system (as far as this county is concerned) and try to fool the non-thinking settler back to rating on the capital value, instead of the unimproved value. To begin with, some settlers will remember last year the rate was ljd. in the pound, and was collected on the capital value, £555,714, of which £200,544 represented labour. They will also remember, against great opposition of the Council, the more sensible portion of the community decreed that this £200,544 should no longer be taxed by the unimproved value, which is made by all the people and its natural surroundings. This value at that time was worth £355,170, of which amount I have ascertained twenty-eight people own £209,779, besides much of the £145,391 allotted to labour in 1,109 sections. If the county revenue had remained the same a 2fd. rate
Rates now Average Tmmvwp I Average ,.™fl „, Im . Bate saved Rate now paid , "fmp'roved "ZT ™nts A eaeT P-edW ing Land. .and. Person. Per80n . . feggp gjj- ««»* nae bettler. p dn ny). £ £ £ £ £ £ s. d. s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. Over £5,000 171,196 14,266 28,899 2,408 17 230 15 10 2 9 2,139 19 0 1 5 0 (12) Over £1,000 38,583 2,411 8,063 504 21 64 7 10 3 4 482 5 9 1 5 0 and under £5,000 (16) Under £1,000 145,391 131' 163,582 147* 112J 1,306 7 8f 18 0 1,817 7 9 1 5 0 (See tione only) 1,109 — — 355,170 .. 200,544 .. .. 1,601 11 4 .. 4,439 12 6 If Rates(f4,439 W.,„ IO Total Sum of Proportion of .. !'/ ioo \ inava Bonus would Unimo tit/-in i ri t< v f,. 0 t> n „ n Wnat it would Bonus would Number of collected on A ™rage have been B °"" e £ ou ' d have been if have been Mostly GoPersons own- old obsolete P ®nfJ.°° paid bv bo " d 3d '> aU °"ed to P t™culator d " T/nd (no\ ina Tjflnrl stvle unim- fide Settler to fid* Gatt\f\r tn earh Section had not speculator Laud (not ing Land. Style (Capital) ed La nd-specu- ™ ° e ° tl ° n been beaten, out of the rated). Pound. latOT - "ato P r Rate! 14th Feb., 1905. extra £965 14s. £ s. d. £ s. d. s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ Over £5,000 1,597 19 7 0 18 8 6 4 531 19 5 465 9 8 347 14 5 117 15 3|| 56,643 (un(12) improved) Over £1,000 372 10 5 0 19 2 5 10 109 15 4 104 18 2 81 1 3 23 16 11U 12,037 (inland under provements £5,000 (16) Under £1,000 2,467 9 11 1 14 11 9 11} 650 2 2§ 395 6 5 536 18 7 140 12 2** 68,680 (capi(Sec tions tal) only) 1,109 4,437 19 11 .. .. .. 965 14 3 965 14 3
a—4
1554
would have been sufficient to make it up. The Council has raised this rate from 2§d. to 3d. which brings in an increase of revenue amounting to £965 14s. 3d. The twenty-eight who own nearly two-thirds of this county will have to pay £570 7s. lOd. of this amount, and the 1,109 section-holders £395 6s. sd. I crust that the Council will see that this extra revenue is well spent, first, in reducing our overdraft: secondly, in making roads without favouring the twenty-eight. Below is a summary showing the people of Hobson County how the new rate will affect the land-speculator and the bond fide settler, and also how it would have affected him if this £965 14s. 3d. had been collected on the old system. Summary. The above figures, which I can vouch for as being fairly accurate, should be useful to widowallotment mongers of New Zealand as well as the bond fide settler. It will save the former from making childish statements, and the latter from being fooled all the time by scheming and timeserving politicians. To-morrow the Lands Commission sits in Dargaville. May it open the eyes of all small settlers who are carried away by the bluff of pseudo-politicians and their tools (the monopolized Press) who magnify their little holdings into the same value per acre as large city centres. Again, I trust they will see it is wrong for the Government to part with the Crown lands, which belong to the people as a whole and their children's children for ever; that it is immoral to supply individuals with Government money to buy their Government leases, the unimproved value of which belongs to the whole. I would also like to see the exemption clause taken off the present Land-tax Act. This would cause much speculation in town allotments to cease, and would bring them into the market earlier. An Act should be passed doing away with "the falling-in" system of leases. Every worker should be able to claim the full selling-price of all his necessary improvements at the end of his lease or from the ingoing tenant. If this just system were adopted we should do away with much of these short leases now in vogue with beggar-my-neighbour land-speculators. It is time the Government took the bull by the horns and passed an Act making rating on the unimproved values general right throughout New Zealand, instead of putting each county and borough to the unnecessary expense of a poll.—Yours, " The land for the people," Dargaville, 23rd May, 1905. Alfred Gregory.
RETURNS. Department of Lands and Survey, New Plymouth, 12th June, 1905. As verbally requested by you, I forward herewith copy of statement previously furnished you regarding prices of lands purchased from Natives and of ultimate disposal thereof; also table showing, for the last five years, the arrears of rent, forfeitures and surrenders, transfers allowed and refused, mortgages registered, and revenue derived from Education endowments. W. H. Skinner, For Commissioner of Crown Lands. The Chairman, Land Commission, c/o Lands and Survey Department, Wellington.
Arrears of Rent from 1901 to 1905.
Total yearly rent, 1905, £19,185 16s. 4d. * One land for settlements, £57 2s. 2d. f Five land for settlements, £191 9s. { Eight land for settlements, £403 2s. sd. Forfeitures. Surrenders. 1901 10 5 1902 ... ... ... ... ... ... 9 13 1903 ... ... ... ... ... ... 12 4 1904 ... ... ... ... ... ... 18 10 1905 18 4 67 36 Transfers Transfers Mortgages allowed. refused. registered. 1901 ... .. ... ... ... 84 8 99 1902 ... ... ... ... ... 73 4 106 1903 . . ... ... ... ... 115 11 177 1904 ... ... ... ... ... 93 ... 153 1905 . ... 103 1 177 468 24 712 Lands and Survey Office, New Plymouth, 12th June, 1905.
Number of , , Number of Se- , , Year - Selectors. Area ' ! lectors in Arrear. Area " Amount. | | A R P A RP £ 8 d 1901 ... ... 1,040 263,758 2 16 126 30,385 2 8 832 i 0 1902 ... ... 982 278,368 1 37 106 29,120 1 24 931 10 6 1903 ... ... 1,058 297,745 1 38 110 28,455 1 28 788 8 7* 1904 ... ... 1,241 343,601 0 34 89 26,639 2 19 884 7 4f 1905 ... ... 1,293 388,809 1 6 181 53,919 1 14 1,891 13 10}
C— 4
1555
g IB) Board of School Commissioners, New Plymouth, 9th June, 1905. In compliance with the request contained in your letter of the 7th instant, 4583/195, I hand you herewith the information desired.
Bents of Endowments in the Taeanaki District. Year ended 31st December. Primary. Secondary. Total. £ s. d. £ s. d. k s. d. 1904 .. ... 2,788 2 0 433 1 0 3,221 3 0 1903 ... ... 3,138 12 3 493 13 4 3,632 5 7 1902 2,675 9 7 467 8 7 3,142 18 2 1901 ... ... ... 2,487 14 4 490 17 9 2,978 12 1 1900 ... ... 2,609 19 8 502 15 7 3,112 15 3 You will observe that the Board's year is the calendar year, not the Government financial year ending the 31st March. Yours, &c., The Commissioner of Crown Lands, New Plymouth. F. P. Corkill, Secretary.
[See evidence of Commissioner of Crown Lands, Taranaki.]
Information for Land Commission as to Blocks in Eastern and North-eastern Taranak disposed of under "The Land Act, 1892."
Note.—The Mangaere Block in Ngatimaru Survey District, near Strathmore, was disposed of on the 26th October, 1892, but since that date some lands have reverted to the Crown, and are held under " The Land Act, 1892." The area comprised 7,432 acres, the loading averaged lis. Id. per acre, but the sections on Main Ohura Eoad were loaded £1 per acre ; the prices varied from twenty-nine shillings to forty-five shillings per acre,
196—C, 4,
_ - ■ Price paid by Loading for Minimum and MaxiName of Block. Area. I Survey District. Government Roads j mum Prices of ** | " per Acre. per Acre Disposal per Acre. I ! Mangaotuku ... ... 38,860 Ngatimaru ... About Is. 6d. 4s. 3d. i2s 6d to £1 12s 6d Witinui ... ... 2,080 Omona,Mahoe Is. 6d. 4s. 3d. & Taurakawa Taumatamahoe No. 1 ... 82,670) Ngatimaru, 2g 2s. 6d. to5s 7s. 6d. to £1 15s. „ No. 2a ... 19,765 J Pouatu, &c. Waiaraia and Taurangi ( wlir™ "! 2s.' 9d." I 4s " 2d- 12s - 6d - t0 27s - 6d - Mohakatino-ParaninihiNo. 34,945 MimiandWaro 2s. 6d. 3s. 8d.to 10s. to 20s. 1 A 5s. 4d. Ratatomokia No. 2a ... 5,626 ) j f 2s. 6d. \ No Ib 2,563 0 , j 3s. 6d. [ 4s. 9d. 17s. 6d. to 35s. No. 2b ... 1,381 Ana ( 3s. ) Maraekowhai No. 1 ... 16,450 Pouatu ... 2s. 4s. 3d. 15s. to 20s. OhuraSouthK No. 1, Sec- 25,131 Ohura & Heao 4s. „ tion 1 Ohura South K No. 1, Sec- 5,894 „ 4s. i „ tion 2a - "i Ohura South K2 No. 1 ... 11,424 Ohura ... 4s. „ K3 No. 2 ... 459 „ ... 4s. > 20s. to 27s. 6d. „ K4 No. 1 ... 1,435 „ ... 4s. v „ K2 No. 2a... 387 „ ... 4s. 6d. )| 7g K4 No. 2a... 385 „ ... 3s. 7d. jl K5 ... | 10,000 „ ... 3s. 6d. 4s. 9d. 12s. 6d. to 30s. Taurangi 3b ... ... j 5,064 „ ... 4s. j Mangaroa A1 ... ... 590 „ ... 4s. 4s. 7d. 10s. to 30s. B1 .. ... 209 „ ... 5s. I „ ■ CI 55 „ ... 4s. 6d. j Aorangi A ... ... 4,153 Totoro ... j i, 1A ••• ••• 672 „ ... [ g g 0 S 25 s 25s. 2a ... ... 156 „ 1b ... ... 61 „ ... I Pukeuha A ... ... 642 „ ... 4s. 6s. 15s. to 25s. Waikaukau ... ... 4,579") 3s. "j Umukaimata 5a ... 9,727 i g 3s. Taurangi 1a ... ... 5,292 43 "g £ 2s. 6d. No. 2... ... 2,500 o go 2s. 6d. No. 5 10,000 °o®i 2s. 6d. Umukaimata No. 4 ... 11,000 mpS—j-S 2s - 6d. No. 4a ... 5,000 2s. 6d. Taorua No. 1 ... ... 1,591 I '■§ g _ „ , 3s. , 7s. i2 s . 6d. to32s. 6d. Mangakahikatea No. 1 ... 9,150 | - 23s. ' (average) Taorua No. 2b ... ... 5,608 -g-2 m 4s. Umukaimata 1b ... 7,374 "S « ■ 6s. 5b, No. 1 ... 5,867 ;g =e"5 a £ 3s. Taurangi Ib ... ... 378 • pj 2 o § 3s. 6d. Umukaimata No. 3a ... 1,892 So > j* § ® s - Mangakahikatea 2b ... 1,752 q 3s. Taorua No. 2, A1 ... 1,591 J t J 1
a—4
1556
Government Advances to Settlers Office. £ Number of applications received up to the 31st May, 1905 ... ... 19,792 Amounting to ... ... ... ... ... 7,045,432 Number of applications on which, up to 31st May, 1905, advances were authorised ... ... ... ... ... ... 15,543 Amounting to ... ... ... ... ... ... 5,098,350 Number of applications authorised which were declined by applicants up to the 31st May, 1905 ... ... ... ... ... 1,992 Amounting to ... ... ... ... ... 868,815 Balance, being amount of advances authorised to and accepted by applicants (to number of 13,551) ... ... .. ... 4,229,535 Note. —The amount authorised to and accepted by applicants (£4,229,535) includes mortgages repaid and reinvested on mortgage. Classified according to provincial districts, the advances authorised are as under: — Number of Amount of Applications. Loans authorised. £ Auckland ... ... ... ... ... 3,276 944,778 Taranaki ... ... ... ... ... 2,259 883,939 Hawke's Bay ... ... ... ... 947 263,420 Wellington ... ... ... ... ... 3,938 1,289,508 Marlborough .?. ... ... ... 515 184,615 Nelson ... ... ... ... ... 211 59,095 Westland ... ... ... ... ... 215 48,740 Canterbury ... ... ... ... ... 1,230 333,180 Otago ... ... ... ... ... 2,952 1,091,075 15,543 5,098,350 The total sum raised by the Government for investment on mortgage is £3,200,000. The total sum invested to the 31st May amounts to £4,185,355 : the repayments totalling £1,442,588 4s. 3d., leaving the actual balance of principal owing by mortgagors on mortgages of property, £2,742,766 15s. 9d. The amounts at credit of the Assurance Fund and Debenture Sinking Fund Accounts are £125,724 15s. 6d. and £183,887 10s. sd. respectively, making a total sum of £309,612 ss. lid. held by the Public Trustee. The net profits for the year ended the 31st March, 1905, amounted to £34,454 14s. 7d. Sixty-three per cent, of the amount applied for was for the purpose of paying off existing mortgages at rates of interest higher than 5 per cent. Arrangements have been made whereby the whole cost of mortgagee's accident indemnity insurance in respect of its mortgages will in future be borne by the Advances to Settlers Office, and mortgagors will not be called upon to pay premiums thereon falling due after the 31st March, 1905. [For the information of the Land Commission.] P. Heyes, Superintendent. Government Advances to Settlers Office, Wellington, Ist July, 1905.
Valuation Department, Wellington, 16th June, 1905. Crotvn Leaseholds. Following on my memo, of the 31st January, I have now to enclose the particulars referred to therein. G. F. C. Campbell, Valuer-General. The Under-Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington.
Crown Leaseholds of the Colony (inclusive of Cheviot, but not including Lands leased for Timber and Mineral Purposes, or Pastoral Runs or Occupation Licenses).
G. F. C. Campbell, Valuer-General. Valuation Department, Wellington, 15th June, 1905.
' Amounts which Tenants Tenure. Upset Price. w ° uld , have * fin * ,n * j order to acquire Freehold at Present Values. Lease in perpetuity— £ £ Land for settlements ... ... ... 2,629,293 2,796,821 Ordinary and V.H.I.F.S., &c. ... ... 1,444,912 1,822,583 Small grazing-runs— Land for settlements ... ... ... 124,712 131,054 Ordinary .. ... ...• ... ... 1,442,959 1,640,193 Perpetual lease ... ... ... .. 139,342 139,342 Occupation with right of purchase ... ... 848,045 848,045 6,629,263 7,378,038
1557
a—4
Crown Leaseholds of the Colony (including Cheviot but omitting Land leased for Timber, Mining, or Pastoral Purposes).
G. F. C. Campbell, Valuer-General. Valuation Department, Wellington, 16th June, 1905.
Crown Leaseholds (Cheviot Estate).
Valuation Department, Wellington, 11th April, 1905. Referring to your memorandum of the 3rd instant, and your subsequent telegram, I have to return the list of Crown leaseholds for Marlborough, showing the comparison between the original valuation as fixed by the Crown Lands Department and the present unimproved value in each case. "The list summarised shows the following results : —
* Crown has an interest of over £8,000 in the improvements. f The original value in many oases represents the rental capitalised on a basis of 2J per cent., thus making it appear high when compared with the assessed value ; also the value of improvements tends to modify the comparison. G. F. C. Campbell, Valuer-General. The Commissioner of Crown Lands, Blenheim.
! Present Values apart Tenure. Upset Price. from Lessee's own Improvements. Lease in perpetuity — £ £ Land for settlements ... ... ... ... 2,630,573 2,796,821 Ordinary and V.H.I.F.S., &c. ... ... ... 1,444,580 1,822,583 Small grazing-runs— Land for settlements ... ... ... ... 124,712 131,054 Ordinary ... ... ... ... ... 1,448,723 1,640,193 Perpetual lease ... ... ... ... ... 139,342 174,834 Occupation with right of purchase ... ... ... 848,045 1,043,095 6,635,975 7,608,580 I
Amounts which Tenants Tenure. Upset Price. w0 , uld f have to . fln £ in r order to acquire Freehold at Present Values. Lease in perpetuity— j £ £ Land for settlements ... ... ... j Nil Nil Ordinary and village homestead, &c. ... ... 132,845 153,905 Small grazing-runs— Land for settlements ... ... ... Nil Nil Ordinary ... ... ... ... [ 132,431 134,663 Perpetual lease ... .. ... ... 21,741 21,741 Occupation with right of purchase ... ... Nil Nil 287,057 310,309 G. F. C. Campbell, Valuer-General. Valuation Department, Wellington, 15th June, 1905.
I Original Grown I Present Unimproved Value. j Value. £ £ Lease in perpetuity (ordinary) ... ... ... ... 71,481 106,200 Lease in perpetuity (land for settlements) ... ... 155,890 165,088* Small grazing-runs (ordinary) ... ... ... ... 107,993 95,281t Small grazing-runs (land for settlements) ... ... 32,363 34,816 Occupation with right of purchase ... ... ... 10,257 12,310 Perpetual lease ... ... ... ... ... 917 1,887 Held under Mining Act ... ... ... ... 648 1,690 Totals 379,594 417,272
C—4.
1558
Advances appboved by Land Boabd (all Government Tenures). Private Loans.—£lso at 4 per cent., £3,865 at 5 per cent., £1,000 at 5£ per cent., £2,360 at 5£ percent., £10,050 at 6 per cent., £4,400 at per cent., £9,000 at 7 per cent., £1,820 at 8 per cent., £2,200 at 8-J per cent., £580 at 9 per cent.: total, £35,425 ; average, 6 per cent. Government Loans from Government Advances to Settlers Department.—£4s,soo at per cent.
Marlborough Land District.—Schedule B.
Marlborough Land District.—Schedule A (all Crown Tenants up to 31st March, 1905).
Marlborough Land District. —Schedule A1.
Number of Tenants. Area. " Land Act, 1892." Aores. Lease in perpetuity ... ... ... ... 220 102,861 Land for Settlements Acts—Lease in perpetuity ... 164* 40,396 Total ... ... ... ... 384 143,257 * This inoludes 62 lessees in Town of Seddon.
Number of Area. Annual Rent. Tenants. ! " Land Act, 1892"— Aores. £ s. d. Deferred payment ... ... ... ... L 20 2 13 8 Perpetual lease ... ... ... ■ • ■ 7 1,522 40 12 0 Occupation with right of purchase ... ... 39 10,942 511 9 5 Lease in perpetuity ... ... ... 239 122,474 2,855 19 4 Mining Districts Land Occupation Act ... 19 1,161 3144 Deferred payment (village settlement)... ... 2 21 2 11 6 Perpetual lease (village settlement) ... ... 1 10 150 Lease in perpetuity... ... ... ... 9 153 22 3 4 Village homestead special settlement (P. L.) ... 13 184 20 3 6 Small grazing-runs ... ... ... ... 106 207,951 2,613 13 11 Pastoral runs ... ... ... ... 67 914,183 4,044 17 2 Miscellaneous leases ... ... ... 85 36,343 878 7 2 Totals ... ... ... ... 588 1,294,964 11,025 0 4 Land for Settlements Acts— Lease in perpetuity... ... ... ... 174 40,646 7,841 2 0 Small grazing-runs ... ... ... ... 12 23,127 1,769 1 10 Miscellaneous leases ... ... ... 23 3,046 107 12 4 Totals ... ... ... ... 209 66,819 9,717 16 2
J Number of Tenants. I Area. Acres. Occupation with right of purchase ... ... ... ... 38 10,904 Lease in perpetuity ... ... ... ... ... 384 152,978 Small grazing-runs ... ... ... ... ... 120 230,451 Pastoral runs ... ... ... ... ... ... 71 933,069 Total ... ... ... ... ... 613 1,327,402
1559
C—4
Summary showing Total Area Loaded under the Loans to Local Bodies Acts in each Land District; also the Valuation of the Area loaded, the Amount borrowed thereon, and the Amount expended up to the 31st March, 1904.
[For details see Parliamentary Paper 0.-7, 1904.]
Supplementary Statement showing Expenditure on Roads out of Local Bodies' Loans Account, from Ist April, 1904, to 31st December, 1904. Gross Expenditure. £ s. d. Auckland Land District ... ... ... ... ... 6,009 4 9 Hawke's Bay Land District ... ... ... ... 2,345 9 8 Taranaki Land District ... ... ... ... ... 9,176 5 9 Wellington Land District... ... ... ... ... 2,014 15 0 Marlborough Land District ... ... ... ... 154 2 4 Otago Land District ... ... ... ... ... 339 6 8 Total ... ... ... ... £20,039 4 2
NOTES UPON WASTE CROWN LANDS IN THE TAKAKA AND COLLINGWOOD COUNTIES. By C. Lewis, Licensed Surveyor, of East Takaka. Sib,— East Takaka, 21st June, 1905. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your wire re Land Commission at noon to-day, so I have hastily written what I have learned as a surveyor here for the last thirty years. I know the country well, and most of the settlers. If it is permissible, may I ask you to hand my remarks to the Chairman of the Land Commission ? I could have wished for more time to prepare them in a better form, but as it is, I have to send five miles to the Takaka Post-office, hoping to catch a mail in time for to-morrow. Yours, &c., W. D. B. Murray, Esq., Acting Commissioner of Crown Lands, Nelson. C. Lewis. The Land Act which gave the most satisfaction was that under which the deferred-payment system was a leading feature. I know of no case in which land was taken without being thoroughly improved and used long before the final instalment was paid. Lease-in-perpetuity system has few, if any, supporters; in fact, but a few clauses of the Land Act are suitable, as although there are many thousands of acres of unsurveyed Crown lands, they are all mountainous, covered with bush and scrub, and of inferior quality. Residence upon such lands is almost impossible. All of the land should be opened for application, not arbitrarily selected portions as at present, and provision be made for the resumption of the land by the Crown should any minerals be discovered.
Estimated Coat of Total T , tv . . . A _ „ Valuation of Boad-works, and Expenditure to Land District. Areas of Blocks. Blooks Am0U nt 31st March, borrowed. 1904. Acros £ £ £ s cl Auckland ... ... ... 872,070 454,691 131,759 88,732 12 9 Taranaki ... ... ... 505,184 330,504 98,674 69,769 4 8 Hawke'sBay ... ... 291,492 173,612 39,868 21,673 12 2 Wellington ... ... ... 509,890 507,701 128,717 116,833 17 1 Nelson ... ... ... Nil Nil Nil Nil. Marlborough ... ... 160,096 89,238 26,542 19,355 19 0 Westland ... ... ... 4,270 5,362 1,341 1,341 10 6 Canterbury ... ... ... 2,154 17,000 456 425 0 0 Otago ... ... ... 174,351 161,757 21,290 20,401 11 9 Southland ... ... ... 92,974 55,930 22,692 20,044 7 5 Totals ... ... 2,612,481 1,795,795 471,339 358,577 15 4
C—4.
1560
A person desirous of taking up any of this land should have to pay a deposit of from £5 to £10, and the cost of survey be defrayed in ten annual payments, as is the case in West Australia. He should be allowed to begin felling bush as soon as his application has been approved by the Land Board. If two applications adjoin, let the applicants decide upon an approximate boundary to be defined when the survey is made. No loading for roading should be added : let the applicant make his own rough track ; he would naturally select that which would be the cheapest first, which would give the surveyor at some future time a better opportunity of discovering the most suitable line of road. When found, let the track be made well, and loading made in a reasonable proportion to cost of construction. Wherever the land is good enough to warrant felling bush, burning, logging, and grassing, a right to acquire the freehold within fifteen or twenty years should be given. If not so taken, then a revaluation should be made for a lease-in-perpetuity, and any regulations suitable under existing Land Act should apply. None of this class of land should be assessed at more than ss. per acre. Improvements should be compulsory but not residence, and the Noxious Weeds Act enforced. Much of the land is too poor to pay for the felling of the bush, but in a favourable season many acres can be partially burnt, and thus partially cleared. In these cases a lease for twenty years might be granted, at perhaps 2d. per acre rental, but the land so cleared should be sown with suitable hardy grasses within three months of time of burning, noxious weeds kept down, also wild pigs and goats, and areas up to 4,000 acres granted. At present an occupation license only is granted over this class of land, which can be terminated in three months. The holder cannot improve the land, as he is not supposed to either fell or burn anything on the ground, so he takes what little he can out of it quickly. Wild pigs in the back country are now spreading the blackberry. During the season when the berries were ripe I saw pigsieating them, and saw excreta containing the seeds more than a mile away from the bushes, which were growing in a deserted camp. I also saw many acres of bush in which the undergrowth was completely stripped of leaves and bark by goats. Then, the poorest of the land could be let under the existing occupation license—which is suitable in some cases—but the noxious weeds should be kept down. At present a young man who has saved a few pounds, and wishes to take up land, has to pay down full survey fees, perhaps wait a year or two for survey, and when he finds himself in possession of the land he may also find that he has to go away to earn more money to keep himself in food and clothes while he is clearing the land. lam speaking now of labouring-men, and have several times had the case stated to me as I have put it. Another thing that has occurred is, that the man has fixed upon a piece which he thinks will suit him, and he has found that it is not open for application. I know of a case such as this. Three young men saw upon a Government plan that certain lands were open for selection as second-class land. Upon going into the matter they were informed that portions were withdrawn, as a District Surveyor had reported that they contained asbestos, gold, and quartz leaders. The man had not been on the ground, and the report was false practically, as I know that the land is rough limestone country. Every reasonable facility should be given to men who wish to use this land, and there are many young men willing to take advantage of any facility so given. C. Lewis, East Takaka, 21st June, 1905. Licensed Surveyor.
SCHEDULE A.
Crown Tenants in the Nelson Land District.
Less Forfeitures To 31st March, 1904. ft'™ 1 Gra -? d al °° 18th 18th January, 1905. lfl04> to lgth Janv |. January, 1905. Tenure. ary, 1905. 1 P old "' Aran Hold "i Aran Hold " Area Hold " Area ings. Area ' ings. ! Area ' ings. Area ' ings. Area " „ . , . n | ~ A. B. P. A. B. P. A. B. P. A. B. P. Occupation with right of purchase .. 198 39,423 1 35 1 48 0 5 3 1,118 0 0 196 38,353 2 0 Lease in perpetuity .. .. 200 58,400 3 26 27 5,496 0 24 4 3,832 2 16 223 60,064 1 34 Small grazing-runs .. .. 6 8,556 0 0.. .. .. .. 6 8,556 0 0 Pastoral runs .. .. .. 70310,520 0 0 3 1,860 0 01 1 1,000 0 0 72311,380 0 0 Deferred payment (ordinary) .. 223 22,881 0 29 .. .. .. .. 223 22,881 0 29 (endowments) .. 2 106 1 23 .. .. .. .. ! 2 106 1 23 Perpetual lease .. .. .. 17 3,129 0 31 .. .. .. •• I 17 3,129 0 31 Mining districts land occupation (ordi- 15 584 2 8 5 342 0 6| .. .. 20 926 2 14 nary) Mining districts land occupation (en- 61 1,245 1 24 16 248 2 27 2 35 2 0 75 1,458 2 11 dowment) Village-homestead special settlement 20 100 3 7 .. .. .. .. 20 100 3 7 (endowment) Miscellaneous — Occupation licenses .. .. 146 16,462 1 4 18 1,344 3 33 1 1 2 0 163 17,805 2 37 Reserves leases .. .. .. 43 i ; 989 2 8 9 455 0 8 .. .. 52 2,444 2 16 Westport Harbour Board (endow- 294 5,480 1 17 2 0 0 36 .. .. 296 5,480 2 13 ment) leases Miscellaneous leases .. .. 6 600 0 0 5 9 1 21 .. .. 11 609 1 21 Totals .. .. 1,301 469,480 0 12 86 9,804 2 0 11 5,987 2 161,376 473,296 3 36
C—4
1561
Department of Lands and Survey, District Office, Christchurch, 23rd June, 1905. To the Chairman of the Land Commission. I have been looking further into the question of disposing of surrendered small grazing-runs, and find that it is not exactly as given in my reply to Mr. Anstey in my evidence before the Commission. It appears that I was confusing the " surrender " with the reoffering after refusal of the outgoing tenant to take a renewal. The question was, " When small grazing-runs are surrendered are they put up to auction ? " After quoting a section of the Act of 1892 I said " Yes," but the section in question did not relate to surrender. In anticipation of the Commission's approval I have corrected my proof by substituting, " When surrendered they are thrown open for selection, but auctioned when the tenant under an expiring lease has been offered a renewal and declined it " for " Yes." Under the Act of 1885 surrendered small grazing-runs had to go to auction —in fact, they were all auctioned—but under the Act of 1892 all are thrown open for selection excepting those of which the renewal has been declined, and such have to be auctioned. It is not surprising that I felt a little uncertainty on the point, especially as I have no recollection of ever having had a surrendered run under the Act of 1892 to deal with. As to the modus operandi in connection with the case of a lease-in-perpetuity section left by will, I have again consulted the District Land Registrar about it. You will remember that I stated that the opinion of the Crown Law Officers was that the transmission to the executors did not require the consent of the Land Board, but that from the executors to the devisee constituted a transfer, and required the consent of the Land Board. But I learn that under the Land Transfer Act a devisee may apply fpr direct transmission with the consent of the executors, and that would be simply a transmission. If I remember rightly, such is termed a " devolution by operation of law." lam still unable to come to a decision about the operation of the limitations in such cases, and think that the point should be cleared up, so that there might be uniformity of action throughout the colony. I intend bringing the matter under the notice of the head of the Department. I have slightly altered the tenor of my reply to Mr. Anstey in revising my evidence, anticipating the approval of the Commission to my corrections, as otherwise my first answer might mislead. A copy of the corrected reply is attached. Will you please notify Mr. Anstey of the modification in the answers referred to, as he, being the questioner, is interested ? Thos. Humphries, Commissioner of Crown Lands. There has been a good deal of doubt as to the right of a lease-in-perpetuity holder to leave his property by will. Will you explain the true position of that matter? —On the death of a lease-in-perpetuity holder who leaves the leasehold by will there is, in the ordinary course, a transmission to the executors, over which the Board has no control. Since two of the Commissioners spoke to me on the subject yesterday I have ascertained that the opinion of the Crown Law Officers has been obtained on this question, and it is to the effect that the acquisition of the property by the devisee from the executors is a " transfer," and consequently needs the approval of the Land Board, The approval appears to be in a degree somewhat of a formal matter. lam not aware of the practice followed in most of the districts, but I believe that in Wellington, as well as in Canterbury, the District Land Registration Office has hitherto dealt with such cases, and the change of proprietorship is recorded in the books of the Land Office. In ease of its being left to the wife, you have to approve the transfer ?—We have not done so yet. There are several widows so situated in Canterbury, but we have had no trouble in their cases. A widow can apply for transmission and, with the consent of the executor, obtain it; in which case it would not be a transfer, and presumably would not require the approval of the Land Board.
Schedule showing Crown Lands available foe Settlement and the Abea of Native Lands. Acres. Crown lands fit for occupation on settlement conditions ... ... ... ... 235,686 Native lands which have passed the Native Land Court and are still in the hands of Maoris, and fit for occupation on settlement conditions ... ... ... 734,173 Native lands which have passed the Native Land Court, and are fit for occupation as runs under pastoral license ... ... ... ... ... ... 532,380 Native lands which have not passed the Native Land Court, and which are fit for occupation on settlement conditions ... ... ... ... ... ... 184,842 Native lands which have been handed over or are about to be handed over to Maori Land Councils ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 41,429 Napier, 20th June, 1905.
a—4.
1562
Tenures Current in the Nelson Land District.
Tenure. Act. Hiding. . Term - Renta1 ' ' Residence. Improvements. Remarks. Years. Perpetual lease ... Part IV.,"Land Maximum, 30 5 per cent, on Necessary ... Necessary for 10per cent, in one year, Renewable on revaluation, purAct, 1885 " 640 acres capital valua- six years 10 per cent, in two chaseable on completion of tion —subject years, 10 per cent, in improvements. Residence conto tender six years ditions may be dispensed with under Amendment Act, 1888. Deferred payment i Appendix C, Maximum, 14 10 percent, on Necessary, but No residence No improvement con- Freehold obtainable on compleunder Appendix C, "Land Act 640 acres capital valua- do not form conditions ditions tion of term, or at any time " Land Act, 1885" 1885 Amend- tion. Capital part of pur- during currency by payment of ment, 1887 " valuation, chase-money balance of rents. Practically 10s. to £2 per j bulk of Nelson deferred-payment acre j ' leases have capital value of 10s. Village - homestead PartV.,"Land Maximum, 30 5 per cent, on Unnecessary Necessary ... | 1 acre to be cultivated Renewable for periods of twentyspecial settlement Act, 1885 " 50 acres capital valua- j within two years, half one years. Land held on pertion. Mini- of remainder within petual lease without right of mum capital four years. Dwelling- acquiring freehold. valuation £1 house to be erected per acre and within six months. In 5 per cent, on bush lands felling to any sum ad- , begin immediately vanced Lease in perpetuity "Land Act, 2,000acres 999 4 per cent, on Necessary, but Necessary ... 10 per cent, of capital 1892" second capital valua- credited as value in one year, 10 class tion. Mini- rent. (Now per cent, of capital mum capital unnecessary) value in two years, 10 valuation, 5s. per cent, of capital p e r a c r e, value in six years, and second class in addition substantial improvements to value of capital value Occupation with "Land Act, 2,000acres 25 5 per cent, on Necessary, but Necessary ... Same as above ... , Purchaseable within ten years, right of purchase 1892" second capital valua- credited as If not purchased, renewable as class tion. Mini- rent lease in perpetuity on revaluamum capital tion. valuation, 5s. per acre, second class Occupation license Section 116, No limit Yearly ... Fixed by Land Unnecessary No residence No improvement con- Temporary occupation, subject to and pastoral license "Land Act, Board conditions ! ditions three months' notice 1892 " Miscellaneous leases Section 111, j „ 14 5 per cent, on „ Ditto ... Ditto " Land Act, 1 upset nrice 1892 " j | |
1563
C— 4.
Tenures Current in the Nelson Land District— continued.
197—C. 4
Tenure. Act. Hiding. ! Term - Renta1 ' | -Land unsSveyS! Residence. Improvements. Remarks. Years. Pastoral lease within Section 4, 25 acres to . 21 Fixed by Land Unnecessary Not compul- As under section 199, Eenewable by Land Board for mining district "Land Act, 1,0 0 0 Board; mini- except in sory "Land Act, 1892." twenty-one years, subject to 1892," and acres mum, 2s. 4d. special cases, Substantial improve- Warden's approval and sec- ( section 38, I per acre when Is. 6d. ments to value 4s. per tion 207, "Land Act, 1892." "Mining Act, ! per acre acre within three years Subject to mining privileges is1898" charged as : sued by Warden, road and miximum, to | water rights be credited as rent Small grazing-runs PartV.," Land First-class, 21 Minimum, 2f Unnecessary Necessary ... Substantial improve- Eenewable after revaluation under Act, 1892" 5,0 0 0 per cent, on ments to value of one section 182 of " Land Act, acres; capital valua- i year's rent within one 1892." If not renewed, valuasecond tion year; to value of tion of improvements to be paid class, one year's rent within by incoming tenant to late 2 0,000 two years ; to value lessee. acres of other two years' rent within six years ; and on bush land other substantial improvements to value of 10s. per acre if firstclass, 5s. if secondclass land Pastoralruns ... Part V.," Land No limit 21 Fixed by Land Unnecessary Necessary ... Under section 199, Under section 199, "Land Act, Act, 1892 " Board " Land Act, 1892" 1892." Pastoralruns ... Section 219, „ Maximum, Ditto ... „ Not necessary No improvement con- Temporary grazing licenses. "Land Act, three years ditions 1892" Mining districts land Mining Dis- 100 acres 21 Fixed by Board; Necessary; Necessary ... Ditto ... ... Subject to mining privileges occupation leases tricts Land minimum, 6d. but credited granted by Warden. ApplicaOccupation per acre to rent tions to be advertised twice. Act, 1894" Westport Harbour Board endowments — Town leases ... ... ••• 42 Fixed by Board Unnecessary Mineral „ ... "Nelson and ... 99 Bent and „ Westland royalty fixed Coalfields Ad- by Land ministration Board Act, 1866," and amendments J
0.—4
1564
Leases held by Lessees as Tenants-in-Common in Hawke's Bay Land District on the 16th June, 1905.
E. C. Gold Smith, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hawke's Bay Land District. Napier, 16th June, 1905.
[See evidence Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hawke's Bay.] I I I ce • I s * ® Tenure. Lessee. .2 Block. District. Area. 3 q ■43 | CD Q o fl-2 I ; • 1 I ■ L • 1 6" I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ' r „ A. R. P. | £ O.R.P. .. Abberton and Ivenson .. 2 IX. Ngatapa .. .. 1,405 0 0 L. in P. .. Amandsen, A. and L. W... 3 j VIII. Norsewood .. .. .. 200 0 0 O.R.P. .. Andrew and Wilson .. 37 III. 1 „ .. .. .. 310 0 0 Small grazing-run Barclay and McLachlan .. Run No. 71 i Matakaoa .. .. .. 8,717 0 0 O.R.P. .. Barnett, A. and A. W. .. I XVII. Woodville .. .. .. 254 0 0 .. L. in P. .. Baines, H. G. H. and A. .. 1 VII. Mangatoro .. .. .. 450 0 0 Land for settl'm'ts Balfour and Poulton .. 17 j XIV. Waipukurau (Lindsay Settlem't) 191 0 0 ( Q I VfT 1 1 „ Beamish, Pinch, and Schott VIII R" a t an i w h a (Forest Gate) .. 643 2 20 Small grazing-run Black, S. and J. A. .. Run No. 16 Nuhaka .. .. .. 1,983 0 0 „ Bond and Morgan .. Run No. 75 Mangatoro .. .. .. 4,910 0 0 Land for settl'm'ts Boyd and Lowe .. .. 1 X. Waipukurau (Lindsay) 146 2 0 L. in P. .. Bridge, W. W. and C. H... 10 VII. Motu .. .. .. 1,178 0 0 O.R.P. .. Castles, J. and J. V. .. 2 VII. Mangatoro .. .. .. 369 0 0 Land for settl'm'ts Carswell and Hogg .. 1 XI. Ruataniwha (Forest Gate) .. 399 0 0 190 Small grazing-run Clarke, J. and C. H. Run No. 72 Mangaoporo .. .. 2,258 0 0 L. in P. .. Clegg, R. W. and W. E. .. 2 XV. Takapau .. .. .. 276 0 0 O.R.P. .. Cole, G. W. and H. S. .. 1 XIII. Whangara .. .. .. 410 0 0 1,000 Land for settl'm'ts Cosser and Rood .. 3 IV. Ruataniwha (Lindsay) .. , 896 0 0 Small grazing-run Cotterill and Trampton .. Runj No. 55 Tokomaru and Tutamoe .. 5,038 0 0 1,600 Land for settl'm'ts Davidson, R. and M. 2 IV. Ruataniwha (Lindsay) .. 874 0 0 Pastoral run .. Death and Ryder .. Hun No. 5 Mohaka .. .. .. 8,519 0 0 Small grazing-run Dickin and Ormond .. Run No. 17 Nuhaka .. .. .. 2,263 0 0 .. „ Fitzgerald, J. G. M. and M. Run No. 46 Tokomaru and Uawa .. 5,000 0 0 „ Fletoher, A. and others .. Run No. 73 Mangatoro .. .. .. 4,020 0 0 90 O.R.P. .. Francis, W. and T. W. .. 11 VII. „ .. .. .. 491 0 0 Land for settl'm'ts Fraser and Wilkinson .. 5 VIII. Ruataniwha (Forest Gat') .- 41 3 28 Pastoral run .. Gamble and Pearse .. Run No. 10 Nuhaka and Waitara .. 11,568 0 0 O.R.P. .. Gillanders, J. R. and G. H. 3 XIII. Nuhaka N. .. .. 360 0 0 900 .. Goldfinoh, A. and G. J. .. 7 XIII. „ .. .. .. 857 0 0 L. in P. .. Grace and O'Brien .. 6 XV. Motu .. .. .. 890 0 0 O.R.P. .. Green, E., and Henson,R.M. 5 VI. . .. .. .. 1,200 0 0 Land for settl'm'ts Groome and Wright .. 1 XV. Maraekakaho (Argyll Settlem't) 913 0 0 Pastoral run .. Guthrie, Smith, and Stuarts Ituu No. 6 Waitara .. .. .. 5,817 0 0 .. Hallett and Couper .. Rum No. 13 Kuripapanga .. .. 19,500 0 0 O.R.P. .. Harker, A. and J. H. .. 1 I. Urutawa E. .. .. 1,840 0 0 „ .. Heald, H. F. C. A. and G. W. 4 III. Mangaoporo .. .. 511 0 0 300 L. in P. .. Peti, Henare and Himi .. 4 I. Waiapu .. .. .. 1,017 0 0 „ .. Henare te Owai and Henare 1 XV. Matakaoa .. .. 1,093 0 0 Nahuika Land for settl'm'ts Hewitt and Fasstier .. 6 VII. Ruataniwha (Forest Gate) .. 637 0 0 L. in. P. .. Hone Ngata and Hopa 5 I. Waiapu .. .. 1,019 0 0 Hemara Land for settl'm'ts Houston and Kelly .. 2 V. Motuotaria .. .. .. 704 0 0 Small grazing-run Howell and Harrison .. Run No. 79 Waikaremoana (Tuahu) .. 2,292 0 0 Pastoral run .. Hutchinson, M. and A. .. Run No. 47 Ngatapa (Hangaroa).. .. 19,649 0 0 Land for settl'm'ts Lane and Mitchell .. 4 XV. Maraekakaho (Argyll Settlem't) 607 0 0 „ Little, W. and J. T. .. 9 II. Waipukurau (Argyll Settlem't) 792 0 0 „ Love and Hodge .. 2 VIII. Waimata (Waimani) .. 28 0 0 60 O.R.P. .. Lucas and Phillips .. 25 II. Motu .. .. .. 640 0 0 Land for settl'm'ts Maulder and others .. 17 XI. Waipukurau (Lindsay) .. 352 0 0 Small grazing-run Mitchell and McDonald .. Run No. 14 Moeangiangi .. .. 1,928 2 0 O.R.P. .. Mortensen, P. and S. .. 23 II. Motu .. .. .. 450 0 0 „ .. Munro and Gillanders .. 4 XIII. Nuhaka N. .. .. .. 372 0 0 ..8 XIII. „ .. .. .. 404 0 0 Land for settlm't's MacDougall and White .. 6 XIII. Mangatoro .. .. .. 390 0 0 L. in P. .. McKenzie J. and MoR. D. 8 XI. Motu .. .. ., 600 0 0 Small grazing-run McLachlan and Barclay .. Run No. 71 Matakaoa .. .. .. 8,717 0 0 O.R.P. .. Nielson, J. E. and N. .. 4 VII. Mangatoro .. .. ., 344 0 0 Land for settl'm'ts Oliver, G. Y. and J. .. 7 II. Waipukurau (Argyll) .. 327 0 0 O.R.P. .. Olsen, E. and A. T. O. .. 3 V. Mangatoro .. .. .. 240 2 0 L. in P. .. Paraone Timi and Paami.. 4 IX. Nuhaka N. .. .. .. 861 0 0 10 Land for settl'm'ts Parker and Fleming .. 1 IV. Ruataniwha (Lindsay Sett.) .. 733 0 0 Small grazing-run Penty, F. and A. .. Run No. 83 Tuahu .. .. .. 2,946 0 0 O.R.P. .. Pickett, T. and J. 8 VI. Mangatoro .. .. .. 640 0 0 Small grazing-run Poppelwell, J. and F. J. .. Run No. 38 Mangapai (Waiau) .. 7,069 0 0 „ Potter, E., and otbers . . Rim No. 9 Pohui .. .. .. 2,534 0 0 Land for settl'm'ts Price, A.N. M. and L. ( « !! " .. } 501 1 0 L. in P. .. Riddle, J. G. and P. A. .. 15 XV. Nuhaka N... .. 770 0 0 ,, .. Rosenbeck, B. N. and F. .. 2 XV. Mangatoro .. .. 1,157 0 0 » .. Shaw, A., and others .. 2 XIV. Motu .. .. .. 2,000 0 0 O.R.P. .. Simcox, E. T. and F. G. .. 3 VIII. Mangatoro .. .. .. 1,390 0 0 „ .. Smith, A. and A. G. .. 6 XI. Motu .. .. ., 400 0 0 ,, .. Snaddon, A. and J. 10 XV. Takapau .. .. .. 319 0 0 Pastoral run .. Tait and Mills .. .. Run No. 7 Poliui and Maungaharuru .. 3,990 2 0 O.R.P. .. Tame Mete and others .. 3 XVI. Opoiti .. .. 481 0 0 „ .. Taylor, G. I. and E. H. .. 3 IV. Urutawa E. .. 360 0 0 „ .. Warrington, J.,-and others 15 VII. Mangatoro .. .. .. 672 0 0 L. in P. .. West, J. J. and G. .. 3 VII. „ .. .. .. 383 0 0 O.R.P. .. West, T. and W. 4 II. „ .. .. .. 383 0 0 L. in P. .. Whyte, W. and D. jun. .. 25 X. and Hangaroa .. 375 0 0 XIV. Land for settl'm'ts Wilson, J. A., and others.. 35 XIII. Tahoarite (Kumeroa) .. 726 0 0 „ Wright, G. and A. .. 7 XII. Tahoraite (Mangatoro) .. 462 0 0 Small grazing-run Young and Brown .. Run No. 26 Hangaroa .. .. .. 1,250 0 0
1565
a—4
Schedule of all Crown Tenants in the Hawke's Bay Land District.
Schedule of Crown Tenants, Hawke's Bay Land District, as at 31st March, 1905.
Summary of Crown Tenants in Taranaki Land District.
Number of Tenants to 31st March, Number of Tenants to 31st March, 1904. 1905. Tenure. u «j u 9 £ ° o ° -2 dno Area. Annual Rent, afjo Area. Annual Rent. § ® hr <& hr ® CO A. B. P. £ s. d. A. B. P. £ s. d. Deferred payment .. .. .. .. 3 2,140 1 13 87 10 2 2 1,829 1 13 76 14 8 Perpetual lease .. .. .. .. 30 9,772 0 6 652 11 7 26 8,007 2 36 579 5 9 Occupation with right of purchase .. 225103,963 2 0 4,586 5 11 284117,068 3 15 5,051 3 5 Lease in perpetuity .. .. .. 187 103,957 0 9 3,292 2 3 194 105,379 1 37 3,323 8 9 Village Settlement— Occupation with right of purchase .. 8 628 200 6 428 1 12 6 Lease in perpetuity .. .. .. 66 652 3 24 110 7 4 66 652 3 24 110 7 4 Perpetual lease .. .. .. .. 4 51 0 17 9 18 2 4 51 0 17 9 18 2 Special settlement lease in perpetuity 14 3,111 0 19 101 16 0 14 3,111 0 19 101 16 0 Improved-farm settlement .. .. 17 1,916 0 0 246 4 3 17 1,916 0 0 246 4 3 Small grazing-runs .. .. 81235,016 3 2 2,586 10 8 -85 242,548 3 2 2,735 5 0 Pastoral runs .. .. .. .. 15106,239 2 0 662 6 8 14104,665 2 0 636 2 0 Miscellaneous leases .. .. .. 78 49,420 2 36 977 9 6 80 68,765 3 38 1,046 13 10 Native townships .. .. .. .. 81 527 0 4 385 16 6 82 516 2 37 387 13 0 Land for Settlements Acts — Lease in perpetuity .. .. 328 92,310 0 19 29,203 18 6 334 94,255 1 5 29,908 11 2 Lease in perpetuity, village .. 15 34 3 16 23 8 0 17 35 2 16 24 12 0 Small grazing-runs .. .. .. .. 14 16,854 0 0 3,971 10 0 15 17,795 0 0 4,115 11 10 Miscellaneous .. .. .. 7 362 2 27 112 6 0 9 384 2 5 126 3 6 1,173726,336 1 047,012 1 61,199766,988 1 3248,481 3 2
Tenure. Numb" of Area. Yearly Rent. Holdings. J A. E. p. £ s. d. Occupation with right of purchase ... ... 240 117,073 1 23 5,052 15 11 Lease in perpetuity .. ... ... ... 625 203,434 1 21 33,468 15 3 Small grazing-runs ... ... ... ... 100 260,343 3 2 6,850 16 10 Pastoral runs ... ... ... ... 14 104,665 2 0 636 2 0 Totals ... ... ... ... 979 685,517 0 6 46,008 10 0 Schedule of Crown Tenants, Hawke's Bay Land District, as at 31st March, 1905. Tenure. ? T u ™ t ? er of Area. Yearly Bent. Holdings. a. r. p. £ s. d. Lease in perpetuity, land for settlements ... 351 94,290 3 21 29,933 3 2 Lease in perpetuity (ordinary) ... ... ... 274 109,143 2 0 3,535 12 1 Totals ... ... ... ... 625 203,434 1 21 33,468 15 3
Selections up to 31st Maroh, 1904, excluding forfeitures, &o., to Selections up to 9th March, date. 1905. Tenure. . Number. Area. Number. Area. a. E. p. A. R p. Deferred payment ... ... ... 6 1,134 00 Perpetual lease ... ... ... 16 4,601 0 16 Occupation with right of purchase ... 329 125,902 0 19 21 14,254 3 15 Occupation, village settlement ... ... 10 910 Lease in perpetuity ... ... ... 385 120,787 2 28 48 32,913 2 19 Village settlement ... ... ... 12 97 0 19 Farm homestead ... ... ... 85 16,064 2 23 Improved-farm settlement ... ... 131 11,822 0 39 Land for settlements... ..." ... 34 2,427 0 19 Small grazing-runs ... ... ... 17 16,654 2 6 Totals ... ... ... 1,025 299,449 3 9 69 47,168 1 34
C.—4
1566
Return showing the Areas of Native Lands in the North Island which have and which have not passed the Native Land Court, giving Areas fit and unfit for Settlement Purposes.
Note.—The above return has been compiled from data supplied by Commissioners of Crown Lands, in response to Circular No. 581, issued on the 24th July, 1903 (L. & S. 50902/2).
Statement showing the Total Number of Crown Tenants, with Area selected or held, the Yearly Rent payable, and Rent in arrear on 31st March, 1905.
District. Area passed Court. Area not passed Court. Acrss Acres. Auckland... ... 2,749,298 fit for settlement ... 664,821 fit for settlement. 772,114 unfit „ ... 16,732 unfit 3,521,412 681,553 Hawke's Bay ... 734,173 fit for settlement ... 184,842 fit for settlement. 532,380 unfit „ 1,266,553 184,842 Taranaki ... ... 378,300 fit for settlement ... not given. 22,400 unfit „ ... „ 400,700 Wellington ... 1,077,052 fit for settlement ... 41,760 fit for settlement. 237,069 unfit „ ... 80,540 unfit „ 1,314,121 122,300 Summary... ... 4,938,823 fit for settlement ... 891,423 fit for settlement. 1,563,963 unfit „ ... 97,272 unfit Totals 6,502,768 ... 988,695
Total Total Total Amount of r „ Number Total Area held by Yearly Rental suoh Rents or ienure. 0 f such Tenants. or Instalment Payments in Tenants. payable. Arrear. Ordinary Crown Lands. a. r. p. £ s. d. £ s. d. Deferred payment.. .. .. .. 312 55,178 3 2 2,584 Si 44 0 8 Perpetual lease .. .. .. .. 640 121,378 1 18 4,580 2 5 185 0 8 Oeoupatiou with right of purchase .. .. 4,151 1,193,646 1 15 43,667 0 4 1,855 12 9 Lease in perpetuity .. .. .. 4,322 1,243,495 0 15 39,943 9 1 1,489 10 4 Agricultural lease.. .. .. .. 17 542 1 30 22 16 9 Homestead Mining Districts Land Occupation Act .. 510 22,207 0 13 1,310 0 8 43 0 9 Village settlements — Deferred payment .. .. .. 20 378 3 28 32 0 8 Perpetual lease .. .. .. .. 136 2,049 2 20 303 10 6 15 10 8 Occupation with right of purchase .. 31 22 3 4 10 17 8 0 3 0 Lease in perpetuity .. .. .. 511 9,388 2 34 778 12 2 25 13 8 Village-homestead special settlements — Perpetual lease .. .. .. .. 346 6,350 1 26 838 15 9 132 9 4 Lease in perpetuity .. .. 710 16,619 1 27 2,462 11 6 109 4 5 Special-settlement associations— Deferred payment .. .. .... Perpetual lease .. .. .. 13 768 0 26 55 14 0 0 8 5 Lease in perpetuity .. .. .. 645 116,521 0 8 6,008 7 9 469 10 7 Improved-farm special settlements .. .. 592 75,370 1 28 3,255 17 2 823 5 0 Small grazing-runs .. .. .. 646 1,352,918 1 37 27,291 19 10 932 1 4 Pastoral runs .. .. .. .. 860 11,386,416 2 12 72,768 14 6 200 15 0 Miscellaneous leases .. .. .. 2,891 645,310 0 33 12,222 19 8 739 14 8 Totals .. .. .. 17,353 16,248,562 3 16 218,137 15 6 7,066 1 3 Cheviot Estate. Lease in perpetuity .. .. .. | 119 24,403 1 9 6,456 5 0 73 15 2 Village-homestead special settlement .. ! 92 2,480 1 0 869 10 4 14 5 1 Grazing-farms .. .. . . ' .. I 50 46,020 1 6 6,912 14 0 Pastoral runs .. .. .. .. 1 1,642 0 0 193 3 8 Miscellaneous .. .. .. ..J 71 1,434 2 24 320 17 8 13 17 0 Totals .. .. .. I 333 . 75,980 1 39 14,752 10 8 101 17 3 i-
1567
C.—4
Statement showing the Total Number of Crown Tenants, &c.—continued.
Total Total Total Amount o£ Tenure Number Total Area held by Yearly Rental such Rents or c of suoh Tenants. of Instalment Payments in Tenants. payable. Arraar. Land foe Settlements Acts. " a. a. p. £ s. d. £ s. d. Lease in perpetuity .. .. .. 2,838 497,909 2 35 147,232 6 7 5,247 5 0 Lease in perpetuity, village .. 48 448 2 20 341 15 10 8 6 7 Special-settlement associations .. .. 11 2,114 1 9 162 7 8 Small grazing-runs .. .. 73 128,861 1 16 17,233 11 2 503 18 4 Pastoral runs .. .. .. .. 2 953 2 38 121 13 0 Miscellaneous .. .. 155 12,652 0 5 1,189 4 £8 27 18 8 Totals .. .. .. 3,127 642,939 3 3 166,280 18 11 5,787 8 7 Thermal Springs (Rotorua).. .. 283 6,071 0 24 1,973 16 4 127 7 8 Grand totals .. .. 21,096 16,973,554 1 2 401,145 1 5 13,082 14 9 Endowments .. .. 767 390,494 3 21 14,514 7 4 207 15 4 Native townships .. 323 958 0 33 1,332 5 8 111 19 3
C.-4
1568
Summary of Lands absolutely disposed of from the Foundation of the Colony, with Total Cash received to the 31st March, 1905.
Total Area sold Total Cash received ! Total Area , Total Area remaining for i 'I'm! „ i \ »i.i Total Area granted or otherwise finally to the I disposed of on Total Area open for ! Future Disposal, exclusive Land District. £_®°ir.?? or disposed of 31st March MIK Leasehold Tenures Selection of Area in preceding Column, held on i reeliold. reserved under Acts. from the Foundation exclusive of Rente of a Permanent on 31st March, 1905. of Native Lands, of the Colony. exclusive 01 itents. , Character. ' and of Pastoral Leases. _ I l_ ! j A. B. P. A. R. P. A. R. P. i. S. a. A. R. P. A. R. P. A. H. P. Auckland .. .. 2,078,622 2 16 3,440,169 3 18 5,518,792 1 34 853,936 0 9 1,052,220 0 21 903,667 0 0 795,832 0 0 Hawke'sBay .. .. .. 1,423,566 3 26 381,652 3 3 1,805,219 2 29 718,564 8 0 583,097 111 55,387 0 0 224,836 0 8 Taranaki .. .. .. .. 435,780 3 9 689,023 0 31 1,124,804 0 0 855,676 3 1 380,147 0 3 133,898 3 5 230,000 0 0 Wellington .. .. .. .. 2,192,499 0 34 1,321,200 1 36 3,513,699 2 30 2,442,564 14 6 563,567 0 37 95,769 0 0 390,539 1 31 Nelson .. .. .. .. 500,218 2 14 845,689 3 12 1,345,908 126 455,448 17 3 127,945 3 3 310,117 2 20 2,914,289 0 0 Marlborough .. .. .. 853,550 3 7 216,490 2 17 1,070,041 1 24 342,447 8 2 408,211 2 27 130 0 0 155,000 0 0 Westland .. .. .. .. 66,612 0 20 131,877 2 22 198,489 3 2 75,866 6 10 54,503 1 9 109,646 0 0 2,847,811 1 4 Canterbury .. .. .. .. 3,532,831 3 33 1,543,431 3 15 5,076,263 3 8 6,466,876 0 8 536,127 1 33 7,287 0 0 628,093 1 3 Otago .. .. .. 2,064,554 124 698,421 0 19 2,762,975 2 3 2,213,883 15 6 915,820 3 10 156,577 0 35 443,105 0 0 Southland .. .. .. 1,595,280 1 17 2,920,615 1 23 4,515,895 3 0 , 1,896,622 4 1 284,888 3 14 140,499 0 0 506,720 0 0 Totals .. .. .. 14,743,517 3 0 12,188,572 2 36 20,932,090 1 36 [ 16,321,885 18 10 4,906,529 2 8 1,912,978 2 20 9,136,226 0 6 ' l I ' ; •
1569
a—4
Return of Gross Revenue received during the Year ended 31st March, 1905.
System. Auckland. jHawke's Bay Taranaki. Wellington. Nelson. Marlborough. Westland. Canterbury. Otago. J Southland. Totals. — - - | ■ Ordinary Crown Lands. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.! £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. Cash lands .. .. .. .. .. 2,603 0 9 857 6 0 3,909 1 0 4,808 8 2 1,834 8 2 461 5 0 559 15 6 1,456 16 1 1,523 12 01 841 6 4 18,854 19 0 Perpetual lease made freehold .. .. 3,547 17 8 1,141 12 0 1,534 11 0 1,067 17 8 322 0 0 79 0 0| .. 389 18 4 2,140 4 2 623 4 8 10,846 5 6 Occupation with right of purchase made freehold 4,271 19 6 1,548 18 6 937 3 1012,579 17 l! 284 18 31 159 15 0 .. 281 11 0 .. 678 13 2! 20,742 16 4 Village-settlement perpetual lease made freehold .. .. ■ • 36 19 2j .. .. .. 75 0 0 46 0 0 23 3 3 181 2 5 O.E.P. made freehold .. .. 10 0 0 28 10 0 .. .. .. .. .. .. 38 10 0 Deferred payment, rural .. .. .. 378 18 2 220 14 3 85 3 11 36 11 5| 1,156 9 2| 12 6 3| .. 364 14 6 388 16 lj 350 6 5, 2,994 0 2 Deferred payment, pastoral .. .. .. j 42 10 0 .. .. j .. .. .. 1,340 2 6 842 7 4! 133 4 8' 2,358 4 6 Perpetual lease and small areas .. .. 912 16 3 238 15 10 184 18 8 428 13 10 j 45 2 5 43 13 4 48 10 2 217 10 3 1,559 13 0 1 471 9 01 4,151 2 9 Occupation with right of purohase .. 11,569 6 4 4,508 9 4 5,394 10 5 9,766 111 569 11 7 430 4 0i 553 17 6 259 16 3 1,044 19 7 1,309 5 2 35,406 2 1 Lease in perpetuity .. .. .. .. 6,182 8 6! 3,235 15 2 4,087 18 10 5,815 14 2 783 0 5 2,578 9 11 969 16 5 3,764 15 9 4,529 10 10 1,747 1 7j 33,694 11 7 Agricultural lease .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . i .. 11 13 10| • • 11 13 10 Occupation -lease under "The Mining Districts 352 13 4| .. .. .. 57 0 6| 30 17 7 2 9 0 .. 262 11 6 118 10 0 824 1 11 Land Occupation Act, 1894 " Village settlement, cash .. .. .. j .. .. .. .. .. .. 600 .. .. .. 600 Village settlement, deferred payment .. .. .. .. .. .. • • 2 9 3 .. 15 9 6] 2 19 4 7 12 3 28 10 4 Village settlement, perpetual lease .. .. .. .. .. 031 12 6; .. 112 18 10 30 13 3 154 15 7 299 13 3 Village settlement, occupation with right of pur- .. ; 1 12 11 3 0 11 .. .. .. .. 4 19 11! 0 12 0 3 2 1 13 7 10 ohas6 Village settlement, lease in perpetuity .. 114 18 6 52 13 2 13 9 2 .. .. 22 7 10 6 8 7 8 17 4 142 5 0; 332 0 10 693 0 5 Village-homestead special settlement .. .. 220 13 1 61 13 7 .. 1,764 6 1 .. 14 8 0 .. 781 7 11' 148 7 1 128 7 6 3,119 3 3 Special-settlement association, deferred payment .. .. .. .. ■ • .. . • • • • ■ • • ' • • Special-settlement association, perpetual lease .. .. .. .. .. ■. .. ■ ■ 64 5 10 .. 64 5 10 Special-settlement association, lease in perpetuity 350 6 1 70 5 8 642 9 4 4,270 7 1 .. .. .. 27 12 6; 109 8 4 .. 5,470 9 0 Improved-farm special settlement .. .. | 206 4 11! 209 1 8 773 3 0 2,050 6 5 .. .. .. .. j .. 302 18 11 3,541 14 11 Small grazing-runs .. .. .. .. 423 6 5 2,350 13 10 235 17 4 1,979 6 0 52 6 1 2,685 6 11 .. 5,528 3 7 12,930 12 10 789 5 3 26,974 18 3 Pastoral runs .. .. .. .. 613;17 7 799 4 4 .. 1,605 12 0 552 1 6 3,974 9 3| 731 11 6 32,959 19 4' 26,552 14 7 3,612 11 2 71,402 1 3 Coal and mineral leases .. .. .. 498 4 5; .. .. .. 715 0 8 .. 126 9 0 100 0 8 1,352 12 9 155 6 10 2,947 14 4 Prospectors' mining leases .. .. .. .. I .. .. .. 97 10 0 .. .. 11 10 0 .. .. 109 0 0 Timber licenses and other leases, and sale of j19,203 8 1! 264 4 0 2 1 0 1,287 10 3j 1,305 19 5 103 7 1!11,695 1 8 268 15 11 216 1 9 473 3 6 34,819 12 8 timber Flax-cutting.. .. .. .. .. 181 18 6 .. .. 25 0 0 10 7 0 18 8 9 166 18 4 .. 70 10 8 175 17 4 649 0 7 Miscellaneous leases .. .. .. 925 13 10! 1,543 19 2 96 0 7 440 0 6 205 6 6 89 0 9 289 9 0 .. 933 16 2 .. 4,523 6 6 Transfer, lease, and license fees, &e .. 722 16 6 161 17 0 162 3 0 410 6 0 143 10 6 76 12 0 164 9 0 302 10 0 304 9 6 234 3 0 2,682 16 6 Bents of reserves .. .. 117 17 3! 0 7 6 262 12 4 648 14 9 247 19 3| 605 7 9 25 6 6 2,939 9 10 92 4 10 837 10 11 5,777 10 11 Miscellaneous .. .. .. 359 11 8 79 4 10 75 12 6 626 5 5 664 0 ll 1 25 14 6 44 12 6 186 14 3 338 6 6 67 11 5 2,467 14 6 Crown-grant fees .. .. .. 155 13 4 25 3 8 99 2 4 75 12 9 86 19 10 13 18 6 8 0 0 40 10 1 85 16 9 52 8 6 643 5 9 State forests .. .. .. .. 11,770 3 3 1 .. .. 34 19 6! .. 814 11 6 .. 473 15 9 .117 2 4 2,625 9 8 15,836 2 0 Survey liens on Native lands .. .. .. 741 7 0j 95 13 1 .. 418 19 9 .. .. .. .. .. .. 1,255 19 10 Survey fees which do not form part payment of land .. 227 10 0 45 14 8 15 0 0 19 17 9 .. .. 99 9 5 42 12 2j 12 0 0 462 4 0 Survey fees which do form part payment of and 24 19 8! .. .. .. 15 0 0 .. • .. .. 132 0 0! .. 171 19 8 Carried forward .. ..66,450 0 7117,747 5 618,573 3 1050,192 13 0 9,168 9 1112,242 15 815,398 14 8 52,076 15 4! 55,952 14 216,260 9 0 314,063 1 8
C—4
1570
Return of Gross Revenue received during the Year ended 31st March, 1905.— continued.
System. Auckland. Hawke's Bay. Taranaki. Wellington. Nelson. Marlborough. Westland. Canterbury. Otago. Southland. Totals. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. Brought forward .. ..66,450 0 717,747 5 618,573 3 10 50,192 13 0 9,168 9 11 12,242 15 815,398 14 8 52,076 15 455,952 14 216,260 9 0 314,063 1 8 Land fob Settlements. i I | Cash lands .. .. .. .. ■ ■ 85 0 0 10 0 0 .. .. .. .. .. 87 17 3! 3 10 0 35 0 0 221 7 3 Lease in perpetuity .. .. .. 10,584 15 1129,145 7 5 1,760 6 11 8,702 10 9 .. 7,893 19 3 585 18 544,908 15 917,898 12 5 7,950 15 4 129,431 2 2 Lease in perpetuity, village .. .. .. 22 4 0 .. .. .. .. .. .. 312 15 9 .. 334 19 9 Special-settlement associations .. .. .. .. .. .. •. ■ • 140 4 3; .. j .. 140 4 3 Small grazing-runs .. .. .. 36 19 0 4,540 7 3 .. 171 13 4 .. 1,456 11 4 .. 8,821 15 10 459 19 7 181 17 4 15,669 3 8 Pastoral runs.. .. .. .. -• .. •• •• •• •• •• •• ■■ 121 13 0: .. 121 13 0 Miscellaneous .. .. • - 804 2 6 560 17 0 383 1 10 285 1 0 .. 270 19 4 .. 700 19 9 181 11 3! 776 1 1 3,962 13 9 . 1 1 — Totals .. .. .. 11,510 17 5 34,278 15 9 2,143 8 9 9,159 5 1 .. 9,621 9 11 585 18 554, 659 12 10118,978 2 0 8,943 13 9 149,881 3 10 ' 1 I El ! I Cheviot Estate. Cash sales' .. .. .. .. • • .. .. • • .. .. • • • • 450 0 0 .. .. 450 0 0 Lease in perpetuity .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • ■ 5,834 0 3 .. ■ ■ 5,834 0 3 Village homesteads .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • • 817 5 6 .. . • 817 5 6 Grazing-farms .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. •• 7,705 5 11 .. .. 7,705 5 11 Pastoral runs.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • • 193 3 8 .. .. 193 3 8 Miscellaneous leases .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 280 9 0 .. .. 280 9 0 Miscellaneous .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • ■ • • 11 5 0 .. .. 11 5 0 Totals .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15,291 9 4 .. .. 15,291 9 4 I | Endowment lands .. .. .. .. 367 2 11 336 7 7 627 14 4 47 11 915,250 14 8 .. 2,088 17 9 2,019 14 7 3,054 15 7 3,051 13 10 26,844 13 0 Thermal-springs Districts Act: Rents .. 30 5 0 .. .. .. .. .. .. ■. • • 30 5 0 «'Native Townships Act, 1895 " .. 125 15 0 236 18 ol .. 651 10 0 .. .. .. .. .. •• 1,014 3 0 Rotorua Town Council .. 1,795 4 2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. •• 1,795 4 2 Grand totals .. .. .. 80,279 5 152,599 6 9|21,344 6 1160,050 19 10 24,419 4 721,864 5 718,073 10 10124,047 12 177,985 11 9 28,255 16 7 508,920 0 0
1571
C.—4
[To accompany evidence of Mr. J. Mackenzie, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland.] A.—Statement of Tenures, Number of Tenants, &c., as at 31st March, 1905.
198—C. 4,
Cfl AOt tion egUla " Tenure ' 6' Tot beid rea ! Annual Rent. Description. ' ' 1 Under existing Acts. Acres. £ s. d. "The Land Conditional *293 46,110 .. Payment of one-fifth purchase-money on application; Act, 1892," l cash pur- f340 34,320 balance and Crown-grant fee within thirty days and Amend- chases (op- thereafter, when occupation license issues, which is ment Act, tional sys- exchanged for a certificate of title when improve189 5 (Part, tem) ments effected ; improvements required on first-olass HI.) lands to value of £1 per acre, on second-class lands 10s. per acre, must be effected within seven years ; residence not required; rights of transfer at any time with Land Board's consent; no " thirds " paid. Ditto .. i Occupation 2,079 556,931 15,722 2 8 Term, twenty-five years, at 5 percent, capital value, with right of without right of renewal. Residence required, and purchase improvements as follows: Within one year, 10 per (optionalsys- cent, of cash price; within two years, 20 per cent., tem) and within six years, 30 per cent., and substantial improvements as follows: On first-class lands, £1 per acre; on second-class lands, equal to net price of land, but not exceeding 10s. per acre. Residence required for six years on bush or swamp lands, for seven years on open or partly open lands. Maximum area allowed, 640 acres first-class, or 2,000 acres second-class. On expiry of term, if freehold not acquired, licensee has prior right to lease in perpetuity after revaluation (vide section 156 of Act, 1892, second paragraph). "Thirds" paid to local authority for fifteen years. Right to exchange to lease in perpetuity after ten years - t right of transfer after one year with the Land Board's consent. May acquire freehold after ten years. Ditto .. Leases in per- 1,158 281,313 7,468 13 3 Term, 999 years, at 4 per cent, on capital value. Resipetuity (op- dence required for ten years. Improvements retional sys- quired as follows ; Within one year, 10 per cent, of tem) capital value; within two years, 20 per cent.; within six years, 30 per cent., and substantial improvements as follows : On first-class land, £1 per acre; on second-class, equal to net capital value, but not exceeding 10s. per acre; no right to freehold title. Maximum area, 640 acres first-class, or 2,000 acres second-class. "Thirds" paid to local authority for fifteen years. Right to transfer after one year with Land Board's consent. "The Land Cash lands at .. .. Town or suburban lands or lands of special value Act, 1892," auction offered at public auction and sold to highest bidder, section 67 Terms, one-fifth cash on fall of hammer ; balance payable within thirty days, with Crown-grant fee when certificate of title issues ; no improvements or residence required ; no " thirds " paid. Rural lands so offered and not disposed of remain open for selection at upset prices. "The Land Small grazing- 9 57,711 458 3 5 Lease for twenty-one years, with right of renewal or valuaAct, 1892," runs tion for improvements, which are paid by the incoming (Part V.) tenant. Maximum area, first-class run, 5,000 acres ; second-class run, 20,000 acres ; only one run can be held. Residence required within three years if bush or swamp land ; if open or partly open, within one year and continuous thereafter to the eiid of the term. Improvements required within one year, equal to one year's rent; within two year*, equal to two years' rent; within six years, an amount equal to four years' rent, and on bush land substantial improvements to the value of 10s. per acre for first-class land, and 5s. per acre for secondclass land. "Fourths" of rent paid to local authority for fifteen years. Rights of transfer with Land Board's approval. "The Land Pastoral runs 41 210,310 500 1 0 Term of lease, twenty-one years, not renewal, but Act, 1892" Governor may determine to reoffer runs the leases (Part VI.) of which are auctioned twelve months before expiry of old leases. Valuation for existing improvements paid by incoming tenant in event of original lessee not becoming purchaser of new lease. Lands are classified " pastoral " and " pastoral agricultural " ; only one run can be leased by the same person or company ; leases are offered at auction; no residence required. Improvements clause relate to preventing destruction or burning of timber or bush on the lease, prevention of growth and spread of gorse, broom, and sweetbriar; destruction of rabbits. Leases transferable with Land Board's consent; no "fourths " of rent paid to loci 1 authority. * These figures represent number of cash selectors on books at date for which certificates of title are to issue. They are not included in the totals. I Certificates of title issued in these cases.
1572
0.—4.
Statement of Tenures, Number of Tenants, &c. — continued.
00 Act or Regula- Tenure. °-o Total Area Annual Rent. Description. tion. £-3 neia. __W Under existing Acts—continued. Acres. £ s. d. "The Land Village home- 49 2,715 157 7 4 Term, 999 years. Maximum area, 100 acres; mimAot, 1892," steads (lease mum price, 10s. per acre. Residence and lmprovesection 169, in perpetuity) ment conditions similar to ordinary leases in persubsection (4) petuity under Part III. of the Act. One man one lot. Married women barred as holders. Leases cannot be seized for debt or in bankruptcy. Governor may make regulations to provide for advances to enable lessees to profitably work holdings. " Thirds " paid for fifteen years. May transfer after one year with Land Board's approval. "The Land Special settle- 84 14,552 355 9 0 Selected by association comprising not less than twelve Act, 1892," ments (lease persons. Minimum area of block, 1,000 acres; section 163 in perpetuity) maximum area, 11,000 acres; maximum area to each selector, 320 acres ordinary land, 500 acres swampland. Lease in perpetuity, 999 years. Capital value not less than 10s. per acre. Residence, occupation, and improvement conditions as in the case of leases in perpetuity under Part III. of Act. Association pays cost of survey. Rent for first two years may be added to capital value of land, or may be paid off at any time at option of selector. " Thirds " paid for fifteen years. Right to transfer after one year with Land Board's consent. "The Land Village settle- .. .. .. Maximum area, 1 acre. May be sold at public auction Act, 1892," ment (cash or opened for application under Part 111. of the Act. sections 168, or lease under Minimum price, £3 per acre. If under Part III. of 169 p ar t HI. of Act, improvements and residence conditions the . Act) same as leases and licenses under that Part of the Act, and the same conditions apply in regard to transfers and payment of " thirds." One man one lot. Married women barred as selectors. "The Land Miscellaneous 205 40,490 1,184 6 9 Term generally from year to year, or for periods up Act 1892," leases to seven and fourteen years. Rent fixed by Land section 116 Board. No allowance for improvements. No residence or improvement conditions. No " thirds" paid. Transfer at any time with Land Board's consent. Applies to odd areas, reserves not gazetted, or lands to which a better title cannot be given at the time. Under Land for Settlements Acts. Rural lands: Term of lease, 999 years, without revaluation; rental, 5 per cent, on fixed capital value. Personal residence continuous. Improvement conditions as follows: Within one year to a value equal to 2J per cent, of capital value of land; within two years, another 2J per cent. ; within six years, another 2J per cent, and substantial improvements to a value of £1 per acre of first-olass land and 10s. per acre for second-class land. Maximum area, 1,000 acres. No " thirds " paid. Transfer after five years, except on the death of lessee or happening of some extraordinary event rendering a transfer necessary. Only one lease can be held. Town lands : Same conditions as rural lands above. Workmen's homes: Lease in perpetuity, 999 years, at 5 per cent, unfixed capital value, without revaluation. Maximum area, 5 acres. Only one lot can be held. Continuous residence. Improvements as follows : Within one year, a house to value of at least £30; within two years, a sufficient fence in terms of Fencing Act, 1895 ; within three years, at least J acre to be fenced and properly culti- " The Land for Leases granted 402 79,00612,804 16 7 vated as garden or oichard. Advances made by Settlements under the 1 Governor up to £50, at 5 per cent, interest, on Consolida four head- improvements made by tenant. No " thirds " paid, tion Act, ings named Rights of transfer after five years with Land 1900," and in margin Board's consent. amendments Pastoral lands (offered as small grazing-runs) : Maximum area, 5,000 acres. Term of lease, twenty-one years, with right of renewal for further term of twenty-one years; or valuation for improvements, which are paid by the incoming tenant, as in the case of small-grazing runs under the Land Aot, 1892. Residence compulsory for whole period. Improvement conditions as follows : Within one year to a value equal to one year's rent; within two years, another year's rent; within six years, another two years' rent; and on bush land (in additi n), within six years, substantial improvements equal to 10s. per acre if first-class pastoral land, or 5s. per acre if second-class pastoral land. Lessee shall also at all times during the lease maintain in permanent pasture not less than two-thirds of total area. No "fourths" paid. Cannot surrender lease or part of it for a lease in perpetuity. Right to [ transfer after five years with Land Board's consent.
1573
C—4
Statement of Tenures, Number of Tenants, &c.—continued.
CO ACt °W(S eBUla ' Tenure. T °held r6a AunuaI Rent- Description. a W ' I Under Land for Settlements Acts—continued. Acres. I £ s. d. "The Land for Miscellaneous 13 277 64 10 6 Odd areas at peppercorn rentals fixed by Land Board Settlements leases chiefly from year to year. No residence or improveConsolida- ments. No compensation for improvements. No t i o n A c t, " thirds." Rights of transfer with Board's consent at 1900," and any time. amendments Under Miscellaneous Acts and Regulations. Regulations Hauraki pas- 59 14,540 267 6 6 Pastoral leases in vogue only within the Hauraki gazetted 2nd toral leases Mining District (Counties of Coromandel, Thames, March, 1905 and Ohinemuri). Lease, twenty-one years, with re(Hauraki newal for further term of twenty-one years with leases) Warden's approval. Minimum area, 25 acres ; maximum, 1,000 acres. Rental fixed by Land Board. Minimum rental, 3d. per acre per annum. Right to surface soil only, and not right to soil, timber, minerals, or kauri-gum. Residence not required. Substantial improvements to the value of 2s. per acre to be effected within three years. Lessee to prevent destruction or burning of timber or bush; prevent growth or spread of noxious weeds ; destroy rabbits on the land. Rights of transfer with Land Board's consent. No " fourths" paid to local authority. 'The Mining Mining dis- 192 9,540 754 8 10 In vogue only within mining districts. Occupation Districts tricts land leases for twenty-one years, with rights of renewal Land Occu- occupation for further periods at rentals assessed by arbitration pation Act, leases under" The Land Act, 1892." If lessee deolines a 1894 " renewal, lease submitted to auction with loading for improvements, which are paid by incoming tenant. Maximum area, 100 acres. Rentals fixed by Land Board with Warden's report. Minimum rent, 6d. per acre. No "thirds" paid. Personal residence required. No improvement conditions. Rights of transfer after one year with Board's consent. The Lands Improved farm 37 3,750 295 4 2 Tenure, occupation with right of purchase or lease in Improve- settlements perpetuity, at option of selector, the lands being held ment and under association. Intended for the unemployed, Native Land co-operative workmen, and men without means or Acquisition unable otherwise to obtain land. Maximum area, Act, 1894" 200 acres; minimum area, 10 aores. Improvement conditions as under Part III. of "The Land Act, 1892." Residence within three months after first burn, and continuous for ten years. Advances for house and fencing at 5 per cent, interest. Regulations for advances for bush-falling, " thirds," rights of transfer as under Part III. of " The Land Act, 1892." ' The Thermal Rotorua leases 283 6,071 1,973 16 4 Term, ninety-nine years, applies to township, suburban, Springs Dis- and rural lands. Leases, sold to highest bidder at tricts Act, auction, confined to areas within the thermal springs 1881" distriot of Rotorua. Residence not required. Improvements as follows : On rural and suburban lands, to be fenoed within one year from date of lease; town lots, to be improved within one year from date of lease to value of ten times the annual rental realised. No compensation for improvements. Rights of transfer with Commissioner of Crown Land's approval. All revenue goes to Rotorua Town Board under special Act. " The Native Native town- 79 28 263 2 6 Applied to Native lands for establishing townships in Townships ship leases various centres. Leases, not exceeding twenty-one Act, 1895 " years, submitted at auction or by tender; renewable for further terms after revaluation by arbitration. No residence or improvements stipulated. Commissioner of Grown Lands empowered to re-enter and take possession if land held unused to the detriment of the township. Rentals go to Native owners. Under Acts and Regulations repealed. The Land Deferred-pay- I 40 4,017 123 15 51 Licenses for ten years, with power to extend to fourteen Act, 1885," ment license-- ' years. Freehold title issued on expiry of term, and Land Act Residence required for six years, but exempted if Amendment double improvements effected. Improvements as Acts, 1887 follows: On first-class land, within one year, oneand 1888 twentieth of area ; seoond-class, 10 per cent, on price : within two years, on first-class, one-tenth of area; on second-olass, 20 per cent, on price : within four years, : on first-class, one-fifth of area: within six years, on first-class, one-fifth of area and substantial improvements to £1 per aore; on second-class, 30 per cent, of price. "Thirds" payable for the whole term. Rights of transfer after one year with Board's consent. Maximum area of holding, 640 acres of either olass. Married women barred as holders. Right to exchange to lease-in-perpetuity tenure now becoming obsolete through conversions into lease in perpetuity and freeholds as licenses expire.
C,—4,
1574
Statement of Tenures, Number of Tenants, &c. — continued.
* Represents number of selectors and area granted up to the time of repeal of the Act, and not included in totals. I A. r. p. 2,0 76;096 0 X 0 (homestead lands). v ' 2,154,718 2 16 B.—Abeas of Grown Lands open and unopened at Ist May, 1905. Summary of Lands open. Surveyed rural land... ... ... .. 15,417 acres, in 54 sections. Surveyed rural land under " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903" ... 93,812 acres, in 568 sections. Unsurveyed rural land ... ... ... 71,198 acres. Unsurveyed rural land, under " The Bush and Swamp Crown Lands Settlement Act, 1903" 75,708 acres. Lease in perpetuity, under Land for Settlements Act ... ... ... ... ... 5,888 acres, in 267 sections. Village settlement lease in perpetuity ... ... 4 acres, in 2 sections. Pastoral runs ... . ... ... ... 255,949 acres, in 10 runs. Small grazing-runs ... ... ... ... 61,051 acres, in 10runs. Hauraki pastoral leases ... ... ... 248,143 acres. Total ... ... ... ... 827,170 acres.
=H ACt tto e8Ula " Tenure. To^j^ rea Annual Hent. : Description. | Under Acts and Regulations repealed— continued. Acres. £ s. d. "The Land Perpetual 236 41,070 1,157 10 9 Term of lease, thirty years, renewable for further term Act, 1885," leases of twenty-one years at revaluation. Incoming tenant andLandAct pays valuation for improvements if original lessee Amendment fails to obtain renewal. Residence required for six Acts, 1887 years, but exempted if double improvements effected, aud 1888 Maximum area, 640 acres first-class land or 2,000 acres second-class. "Thirds" paid to local authority for fifteen years. May exchange to lease in perpetuity or acquire freehold whenever necessary improvements effected. Improvements required as follows : Within one year, on first-class, one-twentieth of area; on second-class, 10 per cent, on price : within two years, on first-class, one-tenth of area; on second-class, 20 per cent, on price : within four years, on firstclass, one-fifth of area: within six years, on firstclass, one-fifth of area and substantial improvements equal to £1 per acre; on second-class, 30 per cent, of price. Right to transfer after one year with Land Board's consent. Tenure now becoming obsolete by freeholds being acquired or exchanges made to lease in perpetuity. "The Land Village home- 42 1,611 133 9 6 Term of lease, thirty years, renewable for subsequent Act, 1885," stead special terms of twenty-one years without right of freehold, section 153 ; settlement Revaluation at end of first term, and if lessee fails to regulations renew lease submitted and incoming tenant pays gazetted valuation for improvements. Minimum capital value, 1886, p. 699 £ 1 per acre. Maximum area, 50 acres. Rent, 5 per cent, on capital value. Only one lot can ba selected. Married women have preference. Advances for house and fencing. Permanent residence required. Improvements as follows : Within two years, 1 acre cultivated ; within four years, one-half the remainder of selection. No " thirds " paid. Rights of transfer with Land Board's approval. System now obsolete in this district, having been superseded by the improvedfaim settlements and special settlement associations. Many lessees exchanging to lease in perpetuity. Appendix A, Homestead *464 76,096 .. Tenure now obsolete; was peculiar to Auckland District "The Land lands alone. Maximum area : First-class, 50 acres ; secondAct, 1885" class land, 75 acres; total for one family, 200 firstclass or 300 acres second-class. Requirements : Five years' continuous residence on land and erection of a house ; in each year one fifteenth to be cultivated (if open) and one-twenty-fifth of bush land, so that at the end of the term of five years one-third of selection (if open) or one-fifth (if bush) shall be under cultivation. Crown grant thereupon issued. The only payment required was survey fee according to scale. Endowments .. 46 24,453 356 5 0 Under different tenures of the Land Acts and Regula(university tions. and museum Totals .. .. 5,0541,348,38544,040 9 6
1575
a—4.
Areas of Crown Lands open and unopened, &c.—continued.
C.—Foeest Reseeves in Auckland Land Disteict.
Acres. Acres. Mangonui ... ... 15,864 Awakino ... ... 14,441 Whangaroa ... ... 640 Coromandel ... ... 2,720 Bay of Islands ... ... 11,597 Thames ... ... 3,190 Hokianga ... ... 51,819 Ohinemuri ... ... 3,239 Hobson ... ... 26,558 Piako ... ... ... 2,652 Whangarei ... ... 24,678 Tauranga ... ... 3,592 Otamatea ... ... 4,300 Whakatane ... ... 6,170 Rodney ... ... 5,018 Opotiki ... ... 57,700 Waitemata ... ... *5,165 Rotorua ... ... 5,381 ManukaU ... ... . 1,333 East Taupo ... ... 2,150 Eaglan ... ... 5,320 Kawhia ... ... 3,240 Total ... ... 256,767 * Includes 4,709 acres vested in Auokland City Council.
Under " The Land Act 1892." Area open at 1st May, 1905. County. Area unopened. j— — — No ' of Sections. Surveyed. Unsur- Total Acres. Acres. Acres. Acres. Awakino.. .. .. .. .. 12,448 24 17,534 .. 17,534 Bay of Islands .. .. .. .. 51,116 71 12,120 990 13,110 Coromaudel .. .. .. .. 2,337 5 646 7,061 7,707 „ Hauraki pastoral leases ., 2,337 .. .. .. 68,595 East Taupo .. .. .. .. 130,307 .. .. 5,940 5,940 » .. .. .. .. 130,307 7 pastoral runs .. .. 204,801 „ .. .. .. .. 130,307 2 small grazing-runs .. .. 19,288 Hobson .. .. .. .. .. 35,050 6 sections 557 1,100 1,657 Hokianga .. .. .. .. 88,384 84 sections 14,373 3,349 17,722 Kawhia .. .. .. .. .. 3,474 .. .. 500 500 Manukau .. .. .. .. 5,230 .. 1,033 3,443 4,476 Mangonui .. .. .. .. 53,630 61 8,414 10,646 19,060 Ohinemuri .. .. .. .. 62,594 20 7,694 .. 7,694 „ .. .. .. .. Hauraki pastoral .. .. .. 66,398 leases Opotiki .. .. .. .. .. 129,085 35 2,126 15,576 17,702 Otamatea .. .. .. .. 8,530 9 168 .. 168 Piako .. .. .. .. .. 10,260 46 3,292 2,061 5,353 Raglan .. .. .. .. - .. 20,100 10 2,297 .. 2,297 Rodney .. .. .. .. .. 2,800 21 1,648 230 1,878 Rotorua .. .. .. .. .. 24,000 7 3,167 11,020 14,187 » .. .. .. .. .. 24,000 1 pastoral run .. .. 19,460 Tauranga .. .. .. .. 24,816 31 4,195 14,368 18,563 Thames .. .. .. .. .. 20,600 7 2,868 1,970 4,838 „ .. .. .. .. .. 20,600 Hauraki pastoral .. .. 113,150 l63iS6S Whangarei .. .. .. .. 18,060 57 4,295 2,409 6,704 Waikato .. .. .. .. .. 34,265 28 5,041 13,606 18,647 34,265 2 small grazing-runs .. .. 6,386 Waipa .. .. .. .. 400 2 25 25 Waitemata .. .. .. .. 14,900 52 4,513 400 4,913 Waitomo .. .. .. .. 6,679 .. .. 3,490 3,490 « .. .. .. .. 6,679 2 village-settlement .. 4 lots Whangaroa .. .. .. .. 3,500 15 1,741 1,207 2,948 Wbakatane .. .. .. .. 110,561 4 506 3,580 4,086 „ .. .. .. .. 110,561 1 pastoral run .. .. 17,413 110,561 1 small grazing-run .. .. 5,232 West Taupo .. .. .. .. 6,260 7 10,129 42,609 52,738 „ .. .. .. .. 6,260 1 pastoral run .. .. 14,275 „ .. .. .. .. 6,260 5 small grazing-runs .. .. 30,145 No county .. .. .. .. 6,260 10 847 1,351 2,198 Totals .. .. .. .. 879,386 .. 109,229 146,906 821,282 Under the Land for Settlements Acts. Eden .. .. .. .. .. .. 23 47 .. 47 Otamatea .. .. .. .. .. 18 5,209 .. 5,209 Piako* .. .. .. .. .. .. 104 73 73 Waitemata .. .. .. .. .. 113 451 ' .. 451 „ .. .. .. .. .. 1 rural section .. .. 39 Waikato .. ., .. .. .. .. 1 rural section .. .. 64 Whakatane .. • • .. .. .. 7 village lots .. .. 5 •Total .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5,888 Grand total .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 827,170 * Does not include area of Selwyn Settlement, 159,302 acres, not yet subdivided, and possession by Crown not obtained before 1st August, 1905.
C—4
1576
D.—Kauri-gum Beserves in Auckland Land District as at the 17th May, 1905.
Acres. Acres. Mangonui County ... 106,975 No county (Barrier) ... 890 Whangaroa ... ... 2,200 Waitemata ... ... 7(156 Bay of Islands ... ... 32,282 Manukau ... ... 5,409 Hokianga ... ... 14,340 Coromandel ... ... 770 Whangarei ... ... 32,477 Tauranga ... ... 1,900 Hobson ... ... 12,537 Otamatea ... ... 6,520 Total ... ... 229,412 Rodney ... ... 5,956
E.—Native Land in Auckland Land District.
F.—Schedule of Government Loans to Local Bodies Blocks (31st March, 1905), Auckland Land District, showing Areas, Loans, and Amounts expended out of Loans by Roads Department; also Amounts expended out of Public Works Vote on Roads of access to Loan Blocks.
Still in tbe Hands of the TTl ,. , County. Natives. Unadjudicatea. A nvod A/trna Mangonui 91,837 12,680 Whangaroa ... ... .. ... 41,609 836 Bay ofjlslands ... ... ... ... 38,702 168,306 Hokianga ... ... ... ... 153,952 84,393 Hobson... ... ... ... ... 64,732 2,220 Whangarei ... ... ... ... 27,325 18,056 Otamatea ... ... ... ... 47,779 8,986 Rodney... ... ... ... ... 11,303 1,254 Waitemata ... ... ... ... 4,709 20,026 Great Barrier Island ... ... ... 3,514 Nil. Manukau ... ... ... 38,793 Nil. Baglan ... ... ... ... ... 92,798 Nil. Waikato ... ... ... ... 10,299 Nil. Thames... ... ... ... ... 47,470 648 Coromandel ... ... ... ... 40,928 Nil. Ohinemuri ... ... ... ... 108,713 Nil. Piako ... ... .. ... ... 63,811 Nil. West Taupo ... ... ... ... 578,435 Nil. Kawhia Waitomo ■ ... ... ... ... 330,425 45,170 Awakino Tauranga ... ... ... ... 117,586 Nil. Whakatane ... ... ... ... 756,405 Nil. Opotiki... ... ... ... .. 296,586 156,250 Botorua ... ... ... ... 246,451 2,410 East Taupo ... ... .. ... 255,287 19,500 Part Clifton, in Auckland District ... ... 70,326 Nil. Total 3,539,775 540,735
Blocks under control of Mr. A. B. Wright, District Road Engineer, Auckland. Name of Block. Locality. Area. Loan. § g | Remarks. 00688 j_ I_1 Acres. £ £ £ s. d. Otukai ... Mangonui Co. 10,000 1,000 396 In progress ... ... 417 0 0 Kohumaru ... j „ 4,880 600 185 Awaiting settlement of Nil. roads Maungatani wha „ 4,000 500 500 Loan expended ... 800 0 0 Maungatani wha „ 1,200 120 120 „ ... 100 0 0 No. 2 Takahue ... „ 1,900 300 300 „ Nil. Eaetea ... „ 686 137 Nil Not authorised ... Nil. Takahue Wha- „ 12,200 1,800 1,800 Loan expended ... 2,195 0 0 ngape Otepo... ... „ 463 115 Nil Not authorised ... Nil. Carried forward ... 35,329 4,572 3,301 ... 3,512 0 0
C.—4
1577
Schedule of Government Loans to Local Bodies Blocks, Auckland Land District, &c. —continued.
° T3 "a S ■§ t, i Cost of Access Name of Block. Looality. Area. Loan. s o 5 Remarks. Road a ___J_S : Acres. £ £ £ s. d. Brought forward ... 35,329 4,572 3,301 ... 3,512 0 0 Maire .. ... Hokianga Co. 2,659 399 Nil In hand ... ... 300 0 0 Pareokawa ... „ 7,645 950 839 In progress ... ... 425 0 0 Mangonuiowae... „ 4,599 500 500 Loan expended ... 655 0 0 Pnknnae 992 124 124 „ ... Nil. Wairau l" I 3,933 390 Nil Not authorised ... Nil. Waoku ... „ 22,804 2,000 2,000 Loan expended ... 2,570 0 0 Auckland S.S. ... „ 8,995 299 299 „ ... 4,378 0 0 Marlborough S.S. „ 4,670 467 467 „ ... 1,470 0 0 Huehue ... „ 4,134 827 825 „ ... 100 0 0 Kawaka ... „ 3,420 684 160 In progress ... ... Nil. Waimatanui ... „ 20,000 3,000 2,924 ... Nil. Ketetangariki ... „ 1,070 267 Nil Loan not yet granted by Nil. Treasury Otaenga ... „ 1,630 326 Nil Not authorised ... Nil. Waipoua ... „ 58,200 5,800 5,800 Loan expended ... 4,900 0 0 Omawhaki ... Bay of Islands 5,094 637 Nil Not authorised ... Nil. Parahaki ... „ 1,935 193 Nil Authorised, a w ai ti n g Nil. Bay of Islands Co. making access roads Buapekapeka ... „ 11,900 500 500 Loan expended ... Nil. Motatau ... „ 5,803 600 600 „ • Nil. Motatau Ex- „ 343 43 43 „ ... Nil. tended No. 1 Owai ... ... Whangarei ... 3,400 340 340 „ ... Nil. Opuawhanga „ ... 4,815 500 500 „ ... Nil. No - 1 Opuawhanga „ ... 4,600 500 500 „ ... Nil. Whangarei Ngunguru ... „ ... 6,125 772 772 „ ... Nil. Kanaeranga ... „ ... 3,556 445 299 In hand ... ... Nil. Mangakahia ... „ ... 10,223 2,000 2,000 Loan expended ... Nil. No. 2 1,220 120 120 „ ... Nil. Whatatiri ... „ ... 5,628 844 844 „ ... 100 0 0 Tangihua ... „ ••• 4,650 466 466 „ ■■■ Nil. Waipu ... ' „ ... 6,350 790 790 „ ... Nil. Mareretu ... Otamatea Co. 5,060 395 395 „ ... 200 0 0 Tokatoka ... „ 11,846 8,958 8,958 „ ... 5,600 0 0 No. 2... „ 1,966 1,472 1,352 In progress ... ... 2,555 0 0 No. 3... „ 448 448 424 „ ... ... Nil. Opanake ... Hobson Co. ... 2,508 100 100 Loans expended ... Nil. Mansaru ... „ ... 4,308 460 460 „ ... 426 0 0 Avoea... ... ,, ... 3,668 458 458 „ ... 150 0 0 Maropiu ... „ ... 5,350 590 590 „ ... 200 0 0 Maraekura, No. 1 „ ... 950 458 458 „ ... 25 0 0 No. 2 584 120 120 „ ... 25 0 0 Pakiri Rodney Co. ... 2,950 369 369 „ ... Nil. Tauhoa ... „ ... 4,069 449 449 „ ... Nil. „ Komokoriki „ ... 2,650 325 325 „ ... Nil. Otau Manukau Co. 18,510 2,350 2,350 „ ... 1,260 0 0 Akaaka ... „ 2,935 920 920 „ ... Nil. Maioro ... „ 722 225 225 „ ... Nil. Taupiri ... Waikato Co.... 9,200 920 563 Will be expended this year Nil. Wharekawa ... „ ... 5,700 570 Nil No loan (land too inferior) Nil. Ngarua ... Ohinemuri Co. 3,461 849 Nil Being expended ... Nil. Mancawhara ... „ 9,665 2,416 Nil Not yet authorised ... Nil. Maukoro ... „ 9,978 1,496 Nil In hand ... ... Nil. Opuatia, No. 1 ... Raglan Co. ... 5,720 858 858 Loan expended ... 301 0 0 No. 2 ... „ ... 8,030 1,004 779 To be expended this year 200 0 0 No. 3 ... „ ... 4,337 650 650 Loans expended ... 100 0 0 Ahuroa ... ,, ... .4,000 500 500 „ ... Nil. Awaroa, No. 2 ... „ ... 4,050 400 400 „ ... Nil. Puriri „ ... 1,856 186 186 „ ... 100 0 0 Paekotare ... „ ... 890 80 80 „ ... Nil. Totals ... ... 392,244 58,38446,942 ... 29,552 0 0
1578
C.—4
Schedule of Government Loans to Local Bodies Blocks, Auckland Land District, &c. —continued.
Blocks under the Control of Mr. Burd, District Road Engineer, Te Kuiti. | O rQ _ , „ q n i Coat of Aocess Name of Block. Locality. Area. Loan. so J Remarks. Roads § J o< 3 M <i D Aores. £ £ £ s. d. Te Puroa ... Raglan ... 8,600 1,000 993 Work in progress Mangaokahu ... „ ... 2,325 233 ... Loan expended by Lands and Survey Department, Auckland „ No. 2 „ ... 2,040 255 ... Work in progress Karioi-Alexandra „ ... 13,300 1,662 1,607 This loan was expended by Lands and Survey Department Pirongia West*... Kawhia ... 16,910 2,203 1,940 Loan nearly all ex- 3,943 12 10 pended ; work in progress Kawhia* ... „ .. 4,927 616 461 Work in progress ... 457 6 8 Kopua ... „ 4,263 894 ... No authority Ngutunui ... „ ... 1,629 210 ... Authority for £100 received ; work not put in hand yet Turoto ... „ ... 1,783 539 ... No authority W hangaingata- „ ... 973 170 170 Loan expended last year kupu Te Kauri ... „ ... 3,664 916 ... No authority Hauturu* ... „ ... 65,012 10,000 9,274 Loans expended years 3,884 1 10 ago Waiharakeke ... „ ... 2,116 318 ... No loan raised yet Kinohaku West* „ ... 80,000 19,224 9,960 No work has lately been 2,066 2 10 done here, as the access roads must be first completed Kinohaku West, „ ... 32,004 6,187 4,774 No work done this year 8,552 19 11 No. 2* Ouruwhero ... „ ... 2,615 680 328 Dray - road has been formed through this block Puketarata ... „ ... 5,350 535 532 Dray-road formed through this block No. 2 „ ... 3,026 378 378 Ditto ... No. 3* „ ... 2,369 296 296 „ ... ... 400 0 0 Kiokio* ... „ ... 4,349 545 512 „ 1,244 1 3 Te Puhi ... „ ... 4,505 1,689 ... No authority Te Kuiti* ... „ ... 3,566 777 776 The whole of this ex- 250 14 9 pended in forming dray - road through block Moeatoa ... „ ... 2,930 733 ... No authority Pakeho* ... „ ... 9,969 1,800 1,793 Loan nearly expended, 1,393 6 11 and work still in hand Whareorino* ... „ ... 20,583 5,776 998 Loan cannot be expended 1,201 1 1 economically until access roads made Mahoenui* ... „ ... 6,471 990 977 Bridle-road formed 350 0 0 through block giving access to every section Wairere „ ... 1,930 483 ... No authority Otanake ... „ ... 7,253 1,813 1,024 Dray-roads formed through block giving access to all sections Pukenui ... „ ... 1,600 240 154 Bridge-road formed giving access to all sections Wharepuhunga... West Taupo... 31,700 2,828 256 No authority Totals ... ... 347,762 63,99037,203 ... 23,743 8 1 * In addition to this there has been an expenditure of £31,754 on Te Kuiti-Awakino Road, and £6,288 on Pirongia-Kawhia Road, giving indireot access to various blocks, the former to Pakeho, Whareorino, and Kinohaku West, the latter to Pirongia West, Hauturu, and Kinohaku West No. 2.
0.—4.
1579
Schedule of Government Loans to Local Bodies Blocks, Auckland Land District, &c. —continued.
Forfeitures, Transfers, and Arrears, Otago Land District. Total number of forfeitures in the Otago Land District for the last five years ... ... ... ••• ••• ... 158 Total number of transfers (land-for-settlements holdings) for the same period ... ... ... ... ... ... . 128 Of this number ninety-three changed hands for a total sum of £23,269, of which amount £9,113 is assessed as premiums, or an average of about £98 premium on each transaction. The emaining thirty-five were sold without premiums, and in some cases for less than the value of the mprovements, the consideration-money amounting to £4,662. Number of tenants in arrears at the 31st March, 1905— Rent in Arrears. £ s. d. Crown lands .. ... ... ... ... 48 383 17 3 " Land for settlements ... ... ... ... 22 572 4 5 Total ... ... ... 70 956 1 8 This is exclusive of the rents due for the current half-year commencing on the Ist January, 1905.
Canterbury.—Summary of Tenures as at the 31st March, 1904. Included in the above are the following :—
No. of Tenure?. Holders. Area. Revenue. Farm-homestead special settlements (ordinary Crown land)— a. r. p. £ s. d. Perpetual lease ... ••• ••• 91 2,060 224 309 8 6 Lease in perpetuity ... ... ••• 215 7,906 2 0 979 13 0 306 9,967 024 1,289 1 6 Cheviot Estate — Lease in perpetuity ... ... ••• 238 74,503 018 13,464 1 7 Miscellaneous 73 1,450 2 11 289 15 7 311 75,953 2 29 13,753 17 2 Lands for settlements — Lease in perpetuity 1,076 241,630 028 54,792 15 7 Miscellaneous 31 956 2 15 210 14 8 1,107 242,586 3 13 55,003 10 3
199—C. 4,
Blocks under the Control of Captain A. C. Turner, District Road Engineer, Hotorua. I I ° -S I Name of Block. Locality. Area. Loan. s o | Remarks. ' J ° S Roads ° eSS s*j I <i p I Atg3i £ £ £ s. d Taumata ... Rotorua Co 3,423 428 428 All spent ... ... 109 0 0 Taumata Wha- „ ... 3,269 817 815 All spent ... ... 5 0 0 tauma Te Eerenga ... „ ... 7,991 1,599 72 Work in progress ... 686 0 0 Mangorewa „ ... 24,100 2,800 2,800 All spent ... ... 294 0 0 clh £LI*OcL Kaikokopu ... „ ... 7,397 740 739 Work in progress ... 317 0 0 Mamaku ... „ ... 7,684 700 700 All spent ... ... 2,423 0 0 Umurua ... 4,860 480 479 All spent ... ... 146 0 0 Okoheriki ... „ ... 15,500 1,550 1,547 Work in progress ... 574 0 0 O k o h e r i k i, „ ... 2,626 260 247 Work in progress ... 100 0 0 No. 1 E. Kaimarama ... CoromandelCor 3,182 318 ... Loan expended Tamu Kaituna... Tauranga Co. 3,187 1,275 1,274 All spent ... ... 19 0 0 Omanawa ... „ 3,380 845 Nil Money just authorised Nil. Waimana ... Whakatane ... 15,986 2,000 2,000 All spent ... ... 1,085 0 0 Waiotahi ... Opotiki ... 6,048 756 751 All spent ... ... 1,400 0 0 Oumauku ... „ ... 9,770 1,465 589 Work in progress ... 1,393 0 0 Waiawa ... „ ... 20,000 2,500 2,500 All spent ... ... 164 0 0 Totals ... ... 128,403 18,53314,941 ... 8,826 0 0 Grand totals ... 868,409140,907 99,086 ... 62,121 8 1
1580
a—4
Advances to Settlers, Southland. Amount of current mortgages on freeholds ... ... ... ••• ••• £395,130 Amount of current mortgages on Crown leaseholds ... ... ••• ••• £16,825 Total number of freeholds mortgaged ... ... ... ... •• ••• 795 Total number of mortgages on freeholds ... ... ••• ••• °41 Total number of Crown leaseholds mortgaged ... ... ... ... ••• 129 Total number of mortgages on Crown leaseholds ... ... ••• ••• 149 Analysis of Tenures of Crown Leasehold Securities— L.I P. ... ... ... ••• 64 (in 4 cases freehold also included). O.K.P. ... ... ... ••• ••• 20 (in 1 case „ „ ). P.L. ... ... ... ... ••• 31 (in 1 case „ „ ). D.P. ... ... ... ... ••• 3 (in 1 case „ „ ). S.G.E 5 O.E P., P.L., and L.I.P. mixed ... ... 6 Foreclosures on Crown leaseholds securities since inception of lending scheme ... ... Nil. Loans on Crown leaseholds declined by Lending Board during last three years: Number, 30, amount, £3,185. T. L. Oswin, Officer in charge.
[See evidence of Mr. T. Humphries, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Canterbury.] SUMMARY OF TENURES AS AT 31st March, 1904.
Area. Kevenue. Holdings. a. B. P. £ s. d. Cheviot ... ... ... 238 74,503 0 18 13,464 1 7 Miscellaneous ... ... 73 1,450 2 11 289 15 7 Total ... ... 311 75,953 2 29 13,753 17 2 Land for settlements ... 1,076 241,630 0 38 54,792 15 7 Miscellaneous ... ... 31 956 2 15 210 14 8 Total ... ... 1,107 242,586 3 13 55,003 10 3
DO J s & £ Tenures. 2 Area. Area. Bevenue. o So K a a a. R. P. a. B. P. £ s. a. £ s. d. Deferred payment .. .. .... .. 19 11,200 0 2 .. 932 13 9 Perpetual lease .. .. .... .. 171 6,948 2 28 .. 870 18 4 Occupation with right of purchase .... .. 35 4,932 1 24 .. 252 10 0 Lease in perpetuity— Crown .. .. .. .. 406 83,070 1 27 .. .. 4,299 12 11 Endowment .. .. .. 113 15,363 1 2.. .. 1,523 6 9 Land for settlements .. ..1,032 160,469 0 12 .. 45,721 5 6 Cheviot .. .. .. .. 189 26,883 2 9 1,740 285,786 1 10 6,978 14 2 58,512 19 4 Grazing-farms, Cheviot .. .... .. 48 45,977 2 9 .. 6,292 3 9 Small grazing-runs— Crown .. .. .. .. 50 119,585 1 25 .. .. 5,286 8 0 • Land for settlements .. .. 44 81,161 0 26 94 200,746 2 11 9,071 10 1 14,357 18 1 Pastoral licensesCrown .. .. .. .. 150 3,522,504 3 34 .. .. 30,920 2 3 Cheviot .. .. .. .. 1 1,642 0 0 1513,524,146 3 34 193 3 8 31,113 5 11 Total fixed tenures .. .. .... .. 2,258 4,079,738 1 38 Miscellaneous temporary occupation licenses .. .. .... .. 684 101,381 3 13 .. 10,330 5 4 Total holdings .. .. ■■ L . 2,942 4,181,120 1 11 .. 122,662 14 6
1581
C—4
Classification of Holdings as at 31st March, 1904.
Fiest Ballot in Southland under the Land fob Settlements Regulations, dated 18th November, 1901.—Ringway Settlement: Seven Allotments, Twenty-one Applicants. Out of the twenty-one applicants the following seven were successful for taking part in the second ballot:—
Rangitikei County Council. —"Thirds" Account.
Expenditure. Receipts. „ Transferred to Koad works. Interest Account. £ a. d- £ s. d. £ s. d. 1895-96 ... ... 531 14 4 1895-96 ... 116 6 3 59 8 6 1896-97 ... ... 846 13 4 1896-97 ... 265 4 9 59 8 6 1897-98 . ... 180 9 10 1897-98 ... 659 18 2 59 3 6 1898-99 . 360 11 10 1898-99 ... 118 13 5 59 7 10 1899-1900 ... 236 4 1 1899-1900 ... 210 11 10 59 4 6 1900-1 ... 2,987 4 8 1900-1 ... 1,198 16 8 53 9 7 1901_2 ... 628 12 7 1901-2 .. 864 10 10 53 0 10 1902-3 1,548 17 3 1902-3 ... 799 4 1 88 11 4 1903-4 ... ... ... 2,345 2 2 1903-4 ... 2,450 910 1,910 411 1904-5 ... ••• 2,223 13 5 1904-5 ... 1,388 4 4 395 15 3 8,071 10 2 2,797 14 9 2,797 14 9 — £11,889 3 6 £10,869 4 11
Class of Holdings. Tl" W^ngs° f Area. Revenue. •£= — — — A. £. p. £ s. d. Village ... ... ... ... ... 59 582 2 18 260 6 4 Village-homestead special settlement ... ... 344 12,447 1 24 1,834 16 11 Rural 1,521 291,186 1 36 58,154 13 0 Farm homestead ... ... ... ... 41 4,650 3 26 319 5 2 Small grazing-run ... ... ... ... 94 200,746 2 11 14,357 18 1 Grazing-farm ... ... 48 45,977 2 9 6,292 3 9 Pastoral run 151 3,524,146 3 34 31,113 5 11 Miscellaneous ... ... ... ... 684 101,381 3 13 10,330 5 4 Totals 2,942 4,181,120 1 11 122,662 14 6
N Allotment Allotment Remarks. desired. drawn. B. A. A. Pearce ... 1, 3, 4 1 Took 1. George Buchanan ... 6 4 „ 4. Joseph Swap 3 2 Declined to cake 2; allowed to withdraw. Charles Lyon ... ... 7 7 Took 7. Andrew McMenamin... 3,4,8 6 „ 6. Duncan Cameron .. 3 3 „ 3. John McMenamin ... 3 8 Withdrew, as one section sufficient for family. Then, Samuel Saunders ... 2 ... Thrown out at first ballot; took 2, being the only applicant for it. John Neylon 8 ... Thrown out at first ballot, ahd being the only other i- applicant for section 8, took it. Final result— -jflin. B. A. A. Pearce ... .> 1 372 acres. Samuel Saunders ... ... ~» 2 599 „ Duncan Cameron ... ... 3 211 „ George Buchanan ... ... 4 217 „ Andrew McMenamin... ... 6 253 „ Charles Lyon ... ... ... 7 242 „ John Neylon ... ... ... 8 337 „
1582
C.-4
[See evidence of Mr. T. Humphries, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Canterbury.] Rosewill Settlement.
Group A.—Coloured Green. Lease in Perpetuity: Rent, 5 per Cent. Section. Block. Area. Ileut per " Half-yearly Acre pit per Annum. A. R. P. s. d. £ s. d. 2 III. 500 80 100 3 10 00 80 200 4 „ 10 00 80 200 5 „ 20 0980 403 44A I VIII. 36 00 36 330 44B „ 12 0 0 2 6 0 15 0 66 | IX. 45 0 0 3 0-6 3 8 8 71 „ 51 0 0 6 2-1 7 17 6 72 „ 54 0 0 6 2-1 8 6 9 73 „ 59 0 0 6 3-6 9 5 11 136 „ 11 1 10 18 0 5 1 10 137 „ 9 0 0 18 0 4 1 0 138 , 9 0 0 18 0 4 1 0 339 „ 5 0 0 20 0 2 10 0 140 „ 5 0 0 20 Q 2 10 0 141 „ 5 0 0 20 0 2 10 0 142 | „ 5 0 0 20 0 2 10 0 43A j VIII. 24 00 20 140 13 IX. 0 2 2 30 0 0 7 9 14 „ 0 1 38 24 0 0 5 11 15 j „ 0 1 34 24 0 0 5 7 16 „ 0 1 33 20 0 0 4 7 17 „ 0 1 33 20 0 0 4 7 18 „ 0 1 33 20 0 0 4 7 19 „ 1 3 38 12 6 0 12 6 20 „ 2 0 29 10 0 0 10 11 27 „ 2 2 25 10 0 0 13 4 21 „ 1 1 39 10 0 0 7 6 22 „ 1 1 39 10 0 0 7 6 23 „ 1 0 36 10 0 0 6 2 24 „ 1 0 36 10 0 0 6 2 25 „ 1 0 36 10 0 0 6 2 28 „ 5 1 12 10 0 1 6 S 29 i „ 5 1 12 10 0 16 8 Group B.—Coloured Pink. 6 III. 75 2 0 9 0-6 17 1 8 7 „ 68 1 0 9 0-6 15 8 10 8 „ 73 1 0 9 6-6 17 9 10 9 „ 135 3 0 8 0-6 27 6 5 10 „ 130 1 0 7 6-6 24 11 9 11 „ 114- 1 0 7 9-6 22 5 7 12 IV. 104 3 0 7 3-6 19 2 5 41 „ 223 0 0 4 9-3 26 12 0 32 » 187 0 0 6 0-6 28 5 9 74 „ 62 0 0 7 4-8 11 9 5 75 IX. 86 0 0 6 6-6 14 1 8 98- „ 102 1 0 11 1-2 28 7 6 101 VII. 70 0 0 10 7-2 18 11 0 129 IX. 60 3 26 14 1-2 21 9 6 130 „ 55 2 0 14 1'2 19 11 4 132 „ 65 1 0 14 1-2 23 0 1 133 „ 65 0 0 13 1-2 21 5 9 143 „ 55 3 0 20 1-2 28 0 4 134 „ 35 1 11 17 1-2 15 2 0 135 , 40 2 22 18 1-2 18 7 10 Group C.—Coloured Blue. 13 VII. 350 0 0 5 6-3 48 6 11 15 ' , 229 0 0 6 3-3 : 35 18 6 16 , 282 0 0 6 6-3 : 46 0 1 26 VIII. 334 0 0 5 3 43 16 9 35 „ 235 2 0 8 0-6 j g 1 g, 36 „ 281 3 0 7 0-6 49 13 3 37 „ 269 0 0 7 0'6 47 8 3 38 „ 269 0 0 7 0'6 47 8 3 28 XI. 286 0 0 7 0-6 50 8 2 29 VII. 338 2 0 5 6 46 10 11 30 „ 184 2 0 6 6-3 30 2 0 40 XII. 263 2 0 5 3'3 34 15 5 44 V. 346 0 0 5 1-2 44 2 4 45 „ 190 0 0 9 1-2 43 4 6 46 VI. 210 0 0 9 1-2' 47 15 6 52 II. 211 2 0 9 2-7 48 15 7 53 . 160 0 0 11 7-2 46 8 0 54 „ 163 0 0 11 7-2 47 5 5 55 „ 164 2 0 11 7-2 47 14 2 58 „ 201 1 0 8 8-7 43 18 0 59 II., VI. 232 3 0 8 5-7 49 6 4 63 IX. 292 2 0 6 6-6 47 17 11
Group C — Coloured Blue —continued. Lease in Perpetuity: Kent, 5 per Cent. i Section. Block. Area. Acre Half-yearly per Annum. Eent ' j A. E. P. I s. d. £ s, d. 76 IX. 185 2 0 6 6-6 30 7 7 78 „ 182 2 0 9 0-6 41 5 10 79 „ 220 2 0 6 2-1 34 0 10 80 Xni. 257 0 0 .6 7'8 42 14 7 68 „ 253 2 0 5 1M j 69 „ 228 2 0 5 11-1 33 17 0 70 „ 323 0 0 5 8-1 45 16 7 81 „ 339 0 0 5 9 48 14 8 89 X. 150 0 0 8 1'2 30 7 6 94 VI. 131 3 0 11 7-2 38 4 2 95 VII. 129 1 0 11 7-2 37 9 8 97 „ 109 1 0 11 1-2 30 6 5 104 „ 291 2 0 6 6-3 47 11 I 105 „ 282 2 0 6 1'8 43 8 9 122 Xlf. 130 1 0 10 1-2 32 17 10 123 IX. 94 3 0 14 1-2 33 8 0 124 „ 115 1 0 14 1-2 40 12 7 125 „ 91 1 13 14 1-2 32 3 11 126 „ 121 1 0 14 1-2 42 14 10 127 „ 96 2 30 13 7-2 32 17 6 128 „ 81 2 0 15 1-2 | J® * } 131 „ 87 0 0 14 1-2 30 13 5* * Interest and sinking fund on buildings valued at £100, repayable in ten years by half-yearly instalments of £6 9s. 6d. Total halfyearly, £53 17s. 5d. + Interest and sinking fund on buildings valued at £100, repayable in ten years by half-yearly instalments of £6 9s. 6d. Total halfyearly, £44 0s. 6d. t Intere-t and sinking fund on buildings valued at £200, repayable in ten years by half-yearly instalmeuts of £12 19s. Total halfyearly, £43 14s. 4d. Group D.—Coloured Purple. 17 III. 319 0 0 8 0 1 68 19 IV. 312 2 0 6 6-3 50 19 7 21 „ 360 0 0 5 9-3 51 19 6 23 VIII. 357 0 0 6 3-3 56 0 2 25 , 440 0 0 6 0-6 66 II 0 39 „ 330 2 0 6 9-3 55 19 7 34 XI. 673 0 0 3 9*3 63 10 4 47 II. 310 2 0 7 7-2 58 19 11 48 VI. 298 0 0 7 8-7 57 11 1 50 „ 301 0 0 7 7-2 57 3 10 60 II. 339 0 0 6 7-2 55 18 9 62 - 1- 475 0 0 5 8-1 67 7 10 I T-1A. ) 64 „ 354 0 0 7 3'6 64 12 2 67 „ 347 0 0 7 5-1 64 8 3 86 X. 176 0 0 11 10-2 52 2 10 91 VI., X. 277 0 0 8 1-2 56 1 11 99 VII. 219 0 0 10 4-2 56 13 4 92 X. 437 0 0 6 1-2 66 12 11 102 XI. 229 0 0 8 11-7 51 7 8 103 „ 276 0 0 7 11-7 55 0 7 108 „ 304 0 0 8 7-2 65 7 3 109 „ 237 2 0 8 10-2 52 11 0 110 „ 296 0 0 8 10-2 65 9 10 114 „ 261 0 0 10 7'5 69 6 7 119 XII. 181 2 0 12 2-7 55 9 6 121 „ 2 0 11 2-7 56 11 0 * Interest and sinking fund on buildings valued at £12, repayable in seven years by half-yearly in-talments of JCL Cs. 9d. Total halfyearly, £64 16s. 9d. Group E.—Golmored Salmon. 14 VII. 528 0 0 5 9-3 76 4 8 18 „ 630 0 0 6 0 94 10 0 22 „ 620 0 0 5 9-3 89 10 3 49 VI. 396 2 0 8 1-2 j x g 51 II. 293 1 0 9 10-2 72 4 4 56 „ 285 2 0 11 7-2 82 15 11 57 III. 258 2 0 11 1-2 71 14 9 65 „ 473 0 0 7 5-1 87 16 1 82 IX., X. 618 0 0 5 0-6 78 0 6 83 „ 879 0 0 4 0'6 89 0 0 84 „ 580 0 0 5 0-6 73 4 6 85 X., XV. 797 0 0 4 0-6 80 14 0 87 „ 218 0 0 11 10-2 j ** |
0.-4.
1583
Rosewill Settlement—continued.
Rainfall, 1896-1905, Eweburn Nursery, Ranfurly. (Altitude, 1,400 ft.)
Group E.—Coloured Salmon—continued. Lease in Perpetuity: Bent, 5 per Cent. Seotion. Block. Area. T? or >t no - Aero ;per Annum. A. B. p. s. d. £ s. d. 88 X., XV. 246 0 0 11 10-2 72 17 7 90 VI., X. 880 0 0 9 1-2 86 9 0 96 VII. 366 0 0 9 10-2 90 2 7 93 VI., X. 396 0 0 7 7'2 75 4 10 100 X., XI. 467 0 0 6 7-2 77 1 2 106 XI. 498 0 0 6 10'2 85 5 8 107 „ 494 0 0 7 8-7 95 8 1 111 361 2 0 8 1-2 73 4 1 112 „ 296 2 0 9 6 70 8 5 113 „ 312 0 0 9 1'2 70 19 8 115 „ 260 2 0 11 1-5 | g g t 117 XI., XII. 324 2 0 9 4-2 75 17 1* 116 „ 379 0 0 9 10-2 93 6 7 118 XII. 434 0 0 8 7-2 93 6 3 120 „ 231 0 0 12 2 7 70 12 0 * Interest and sinking fund on buildings valued at £400, repayable in ten years by half-yearly instalments of £25 18s. Total halfyearly, £106 3s. lOd. + Interest and sinking fund on buildings valued at £150, repayable in ten years by half-yearly instalments of £9 14s. 3d. Total halfyearly, £74 5s. lid. t Interest and sinking fund on buildings valued at £25, repayable in seven years by half-yearly instalments of £2 3s. 3d. Total half- | yearly, £74 12s. 4d.
Group F.—Coloured Yelloiv. Lease in Perpetuity: Bent, 5 per Cent. Section. Block. Area. Pan . 1 Acre . per Annum.j 24 VIII. 649 0 0 6 6'6' 106 5 6 61 { fix' } 714 0 0 5 8-1 101 6 0 77 IX. 626 0 0 5 0-6 j ™ * Interest and sinking fund on buildings valued at £1,050, repayable in ten years by half-yearly instalments of £67 19s. 9d. Total half-yearly, £147 0s. 5d. Group G. —Coloured Brown. Small Grazing-euns.—Lease fob 21 Years. Opawa Survey District. 20 I IV. I 162 0 0 I 5 3 | 21 3 3\ Tengawai and Opawa Survey Districts. I 42 ]j J- 1,640 0 0 j 2 6-9 j 105 11 6j Opawa and Pareora Survey Districts. 43 IV., VIII.,(1,826 0 0 ( 2 11-7 1 135 16 3 V- 1 1 I
Total Number Lowest Shade Highest Sh*de Number f 0 t a i Date. Pall for of Temperature of Temperature of of Days R . ?,, Month. Days. Thermometer. Thermometer, of Rain. aln a ' ■ I ■ ~~ — -- I.... ■ I J~ 1896-1897. 1896. Inches. Inches. October .... ... ... 023 November ... ... ... 0 00 December ... . . ... 0'58 1897. January ... ... ... 186 February ... ... ... 025 March ... ... ... 2-01 Six months ... ... 4-93 ... ... ... ... 4-93 1897-1898. ' 1897. April ... ... ... I 0-19 3 22°, 18th 72°, 13th May ... ... ... 0-58 5 17°, 23rd 66°, 2nd June ... ... ... 0 05 1 14°, 14th 62°, 4th July ... ... ... 018- 3 16°, 21st 58°, 25th August ... ... ... 045 6 20°, 16th 64°, 18th September ... ... ... 0-71 8 28°, 27th 72°, 22nd October ... ... ... 2'83 10 28°, 2nd 70°, 20th November ... ... ... 2-08 7 30°, 19th 80°, 15th December .. ... ... 0 20 1 30°, 28th 89°, 31st 1898. January ... ... ... j 0'30 1 | 28°, 18th 90°, 21st February ... ... ... I 0-45 3 j 26°, 13th 88°, 17th March ... ... ... 1-21 5 30°, 23rd 91°, 31st 923 53 ... ... ... 9-23
6.-4
1584
Rainfall, Eweburn Nursery, Ranfurly—continued.
Total Number Lowest Shade Highest Shade Number Total Date. Pall for o! Temperature of Temperature of of Days jj a j n f a i] Month. Days. Thermometer. Thermometer, of Rain. 1898-1899. 1898. April ••• ••• 0-89 6 21°, 3rd 64°, 13th Mav *' ••• 0-96 8 24°, 23rd 66°, 1st June !" 0-54 5 16°, 11th 60°, 16th July ... ... 0'89 9 14°, 25th 52°, 5th August 0-44 3 19°, 24th 58°, 28th September ... ... ••• 1"64 8 24°, 7th 71°, 28th October 1-15 8 23°, 5th 70°, 28th November ... ... ... 0 84 10 24°, 15th 81°, 30th December 1-36 13 30°, 24th 82°, 29th 1899. January 1'3* 8 27°, 20th 88°, 5th February 1-98 7 30°, 28th 84°, 19th March " ... 139 8 18°, 13th 78°, 10th 13-42 93 ... ... 93 13-42 1899-1900. 1899. April . ••• 0-83 8 13°, 3rd 66°, 1st May ' 1-54 9 14°, 29th 54°, 7th j urie ' 0-36 1 16°, 9th 58°, 21st July ... 0-89 3 5°, 26th 56°, 24th August 1-62 2 7°, 8th 52°, 31st September 2-32 7 21°, 28th 63°, 14th October 0-58 6 21°, 6th 69°, 17th November 1-79 11 25°, 4th 80°, 19th December ... ... ••• 3-44 13 26°, 8th 82 , 3rd 1900. January ... ... ••• 1-91 9 27°, 8th 84 , 30th February 2-83 9 29°, 3rd 87°, 7th March M0 5 27°, 20th 82°, 22nd 19-21 83 ... ... 83 19-21 1900-1901. 1900. Inches. Inches. Anr il . ... 2-81 6 23°, 27th 74°, 1st M a V .. 1-06 8 20°, 25th 66°, 25th June ... Nil ... 10°, 19th 48°, 26th and 23rd -July , ... 1-65 10 14°, 10th 58°, 6th August " 0-39 5 19°, 15 th 63°, 15th September 0-63 7 22°, 5th 69°, 25th October 2-50 12 19°, 13th 72°, 12th November 1-59 1 26°, 1st 83°, 22nd December 2-49 7 27°, 26th 91°, 18th 1901. j anuar y 2-83 11 28°, 12th 93°, 21st February 1'92 7 28°, 8th 91°, 20th March 0-89 10 16°, 26th 87°, 11th 18-76 90 ... ... 90 18-76
1585
0.-4.
Rainfall, Eweburn Nursery, Ranfurly—continued.
I I Total Nnmber Lowest Shade Highest Shade Number T 0 t a i Date. | Pall foe of Temperature of Temperature of of Days Month. Days. I Thermometer. Thermometer, of Bain. m a ' 1901-1902. 1901. Inches. Inches. April ... ... ... 0-55 3 19°, 19th 77°, 6th and 7th May ... ... ... 1-13 7 18°, 7th 62°, 15th and 13th June ... ... ... 0-05 1 14°, 10th 58°, 2nd and 13th July ... ... ... 0-05 1 9°, 1st and 45°, 8th 3rd and 9th August . . ... ... 0-38 6 15°, 8th 59°, 13th September ... ... ... 0-54 4 21°, 6th 67°, 21st and 24th October ... ... ... 0-47 6 22°, 8th 74°, 28th November ... ... ... -1-41 7 24°, 7th 77°, 11th and 25th December ... ... ... 4-53 17 34°, 23rd 76°, 27th 1902. and 25 oh January ... ... ... 2-60 9 32°, 29th 86°, 13th February ... ... ... 1-62 9 36°, 19th 86°, 3rd March ... ... ... 3-71 12 26°, 18th 75°, 4th 1704 82 ... ... 82 17-04 1902-1903. ——— —.— ( ■ —— : 1902. April ... ... ... 1-47 11 25°, 27th 70°, 1st and 2nd May ... ... ... 0-53 6 18°, 23rd 55°, 7th and 21st June ... ... ... 1-50 5 17°, 17th 56°, 20th and 29th and 21st July ... ... ... 0-36 1 20°, 13th 47°, 28th and 27th August ... ... ... 1-21 5 16°, 25th 50°, 21st September ... ... ... 1-46 7 18°, 9th 55°, 19th October ... ... ... 1 12 7 20°, 20th 66°, 7th November ... .. ... 0 95 ; 6 25°, 11th 69°, 26th December ... ... ... 400 j 13 26°, 14th 78°, 11th 1903. j and 25th January ... ... ... 3-83 11 29°, lltii 78°, 24th February ... ... ... j 1-62 1 5 30°, 23rd 78°, 3rd March ... ... ... 1-53 ! 8 24°, 22nd 72°, 26cii 19-58 85 ... ... 85 19-58 1903-1904. 1903. April ... ... ... 0-70 6 23°, 25th 62°, 12th and 26th May ... ... ... 1-57 10 17°, 22nd 56°, 2nd June ... ... ... 0-23 3 12°, 7th 46°, 28th and 8th and 29th July ... ... ... 0-51 2 —14°, 17th 51°, 1st August ... ... ... 0;59 2 8°, 6th and 46°. 12th 7th September ... ... ... 0-30 3 18°, 6th 59°, 21st October ... ... ... 1 ! 91 8 25°,4thand 72°, 25th 5th November ... ... ... 3-22 8 30°, 11th 79°, 29th and 20th December ... ... ... 1-70 7 34°, 5th 78°, 28th 1904. and 19th January ... ... ... 1-44 5 31°, 3rd 90°, 10th February ... ... ... 2-13 8 30°, 25th 78°, 27th March ... ... ... 4-70 11 25°, 15th 68°, 13th 1900 73 ... ... 73 1900 .. u ■ Ik . , . ■
C.—4
1586
Rainfall, Eweburn Nursery, Ranfurly— continued.
The total rainfall from October, 1896, to 18th March, 1905, amounts to 136 77 in. Average for, say, eight years, 16 48 in. The number of days on which rain occurred was 644.
Deed of Lease. This deed made the day of one thousand between the Canterbury College incorporated by an Ordinance of the Superintendent and Provincial Council of the Province of Canterbury intituled " The Canterbury College Ordinance 1873 " hereinafter called the said College (which expression whenever hereinafter used shall be construed to include the successors and assigns of the said College save where such construction would be repugnant to the context) of the one part and of in the Provincial District of Canterbury and Colony of New Zealand hereinafter called the lessee (which expression whenever hereinafter used shall be construed to include the executors administrators and assigns of the said lessee save where such construction would be repugnant to the context) of the other part witnesseth that in consideration of the yearty rent hereby reserved and of the covenants and conditions hereinafter contained or herein by law implied and on the part of the said lessee to be paid performed and observed the said College doth hereby demise and lease unto the said lessee all th parcel of land and premises more particularly set forth and described in the schedule hereunder written as the same delineated and more particularly described in the plan thereof drawn or indorsed hereon and therein in outline coloured pink together with all buildings and erections upon the said land and all the rights easements members and appurtenances thereunto belonging or appertaining to hold the said land and hereditaments and all other the premises hereby demised or expressed or intended so to be unto the said lessee for the term of from the day of one thousand yielding and paying therefor yearly and every year during the said term the yearly rent of per acre for every acre and portion of an acre of the land hereby demised making in all a yearly rent during the said term of such yearly rent to be paid in advance clear of all deductions whatsoever by equal half-yearly payments upon the first day of May and the first day of November in every year during the term hereby granted the first of such half-yearly payments having been made prior to the execution of these presents the second of such half-yearly payments to be made on the day of now next ensuing Provided always and it is hereby expressly declared and agreed by and between the parties hereto that all the covenants powers conditions and agreements directed by an Act of the General Assembly of New Zealand intituled " The Property Law Consolidation Act 18S3 " to be implied in conveyances of land for valuable consideration by way of lease shall be herein implied save and except in so far as the same or any of them are negatived or modified by or are inconsistent with the provisions of these presents And the said lessee doth hereby covenant with the said College in manner following that, is to say that he the said lessee shall and will insure and during the term hereby granted keep insured in the joint names of the said College and the said lessee all buildings now erected or which may at any time hereafter during the term hereby granted be erected upon the land hereby demised against loss or damage by fire in some public insurance
Total j Number j Lowest Shade Highest Shade Number Total Date. Fall for of Temperature of Temperature of of Days Rainfall Month, j Days. Thermometer. Thermometer, of Rain. 1904-1905. 1904. j Inches. Inches. April ... ... ... 0-64 4 26°, 7th 66°, 20th May ... ... ... 0 52 5 20°, 30th 52°, loth June ... ... ... 2-48 10 20°, 21st 46°, 10th July ... ... ... 010 1 14°, 3rd 48°, 27th and 4th and 28 th August ... ... ... 0-52 2 6°, 7th 47°, 29th and 30th September ... ... ... 3-27 10 19°, 24th 56°, 28th October ... ... ... 1 13 9 23°, 5th 72°, 20th November ... ... ... 1-06 10 26°, 16th 70°, 23rd December ... ... ... 2 62 15 28°, 7th 78°, 15th 1905. January ... ... 1-98 12 30°, 5th 86°, 14th February ... ... ... 0 91 4 36°, 16th 80°, 24th and 27 th March (18th) ... ... 0-37 3 32°, 7th 73°, 10th and 8th 15-60 85 ... ... 85 15-60 Grand total ... ... ... ... ... ... 644 136-77
1587
C.—4
office carrying on business in the City of Christchurch of which the said College shall approve in the full insurable value thereof and shall and will duly and punctually pay the premiums duty and charges payable in respect of such insurance upon .the first day upon which the same ought to be paid And shall and will when and so often as he shall be required so to do produce and hand over to the said College the policy or policies evidencing such insurance and the receipt for the premiums duty and charges payable in respect of the same for the current year And shall and will and as often as such buildings or any part thereof shall during the said term be destroyed or damaged by fire with all convenient speed after the happening of such fire under the direction of the said College or of some person authorised by the said College for that purpose expend and lay out all moneys which shall be received under and by virtue of such insurance in and towards repairing reinstating or rebuilding the buildings so damaged or destroyed And shall and will in case the moneys so received shall prove insufficient for that purpose provide out of own moneys such further sum or sums as may be required and will lay out and expend the same in completing and repairing reinstating or rebuilding of such buildings And also that he the said lessee shall and will throughout the term hereby granted keep and maintain all buildings gates fences and improvements now standing and being or which may hereafter at any time during the term hereby granted be erected upon the land hereby demised in good and tenantable order condition and repair and shall and will at the end or sooner determination of the said term yield and deliver up the said land with all such buildings gates fences and improvements in like good and tenantable order condition and repair And also that he the said lessee shall and will within the first three years of the said term fence and enclose the whole of the land hereby demised from the adjoining lands and roads with a good and substantial fence sufficient in all respects to comply with the provisions of an Act of the General Assembly of New Zealand intituled "The Fencing Act 1895" or any other law to regulate the fencing of land and to restrain the trespass of cattle which may for the time being be in force in the Colony of New Zealand and shall and will at all times after the erection of such fence during the term hereby granted keep and maintain the said land so fenced in and enclosed and shall and will at the end or sooner determination of the said term yield and deliver up the same so fenced in and enclosed and also will throughout the term and as often as it shall be necessary so to do pull up mow or destroy all thistles docks nettles and other weeds growing upon the hereby demised land And also that he the said lessee shall and will once in every year of the term hereby granted at the proper season for so doing in a proper and workmanlike manner cut over dress and trim all live and growing hedges and fences which now are or which may at any time hereafter during the term hereby granted be growing upon the land hereby demised and shall and will during the said term maintain and keep such hedges and fences in good order and condition and shall and will at the end or sooner determination of the said term yield and deliver up the land hereby demised with all such live hedges and fences in such good order and condition properly cut and trimmed And also that he the said lessee —shall and will at least once in every year of the said term stub and root up all gorse broom and briar growing upon the land hereby demised which shall not be growing in and as a hedge or fence or which shall be spreading from a hedge and growing upon the hereby demised land or any road or roads adjoining the same And also that he the said lessee shall and will throughout the said term farm and cultivate the land hereby demised in a proper and husbandlike manner and upon a system of rotation of cropping not more exhausting than as hereinafter mentioned that is to say so and in such manner that not more than two crops of grain shall in any case be taken in immediate succession from any part of the said land and so also that not more than two crops of grain in all in any period of five years of the term hereby granted shall be taken from any part of the land hereby demised And also that he the said lessee shall and will at own cost and expense either together with the second crop of grain or immediately after the removal of the second crop of grain sow and lay down the portion of the land hereby demised in which such second crop of grain shall be sown or off which it shall have been removed with a sufficient and proper quantity of good English grasses and will thereafter maintain and keep the land so sown as aforesaid properly laid down in English grass pasture for the period of three years at the least And also that if and as often as such grasses after the same shall have been so sown and laid down shall through grub or any other cause fail to come up and grow the said lessee shall report such failure to the said College and shall forthwith at the proper season of the year sow and lay down such land again with a sufficient and proper quantity of good English grasses unless upon reporting the failure of such grasses to the said College as aforesaid the said College shall give the said lessee a license exempting from resowing such land with grass as aforesaid And also that he the said lessee shall and will before or in the spring season of the eleventh year of the term hereby granted in a proper and husbandlike manner sow and lav down at the least of the land hereby demised (being three-fourths of the area thereof) with a sufficient and proper quantity of good permanent English grasses and shall and will thereafter during the residue of the term hereby granted keep and maintain the said of the said land so sown as aforesaid properly laid down in permanent English grass pasture and will at the end or sooner determination of the term hereby granted yield and deliver up the said land with the said thereof well and sufficiently laid down in permanent English grass pasture And also will throughout the said term clean out at least once during every year in a proper manner and keep in good order all ditches watercourses and drains upon the hereby demised land And also that he the said lessee shall and will permit the said College at all reasonable times to enter upon the hereby demised land to view the state and condition of all such ditches watercourses and drains and"of all buildings gates fences and improvements on the said demised land and of all wants of repair therein then respectively found to give or leave a notice in writing for the said lessee to amend the same And also will at own cost and expense within one calendar month from the giving or leaving such notice well and sufficiently
200—C. 4,
c— 4;
1588
amend the same accordingly And further that if the said lessee shall make default in observing any such notice as aforesaid or shall make default in keeping all such ditches watercourses and drains buildings gates fenoes and improvements or any of them in good repair and condition then and in such case it shall be lawful for but not obligatory upon the College to enter upon the demised land and to cut repair and clean out such watercourses ditches and drains and execute and do all such other repairs and amendments to the said premises as may be deemed necessary and proper and that the said lessee shall and will forthwith pay to the said College the costs and expenses of and incidental to all such repairs And also that the said lessee shall and will pay all rates assessments and outgoings of every description which may during the term hereby granted be payable in respect of the land hereby demised And also that he the said lessee shall not and will not assign sublet or otherwise part with the possession or occupation of the land hereby demised or any part thereof or execute any mortgage affecting the same without the consent in writing of the said College for that purpose first had and obtained And it is hereby declared and agreed that it shall be lawful for the said lessee at any time during the last year of the said term but not later than three calendar months before the expiration thereof by notice in writing to call upon the said College to appoint a valuer and upon the receipt of such notice it shall be the duty of the College to appoint a valuer and such valuer when appointed shall settle and determine the value to an incoming tenant of any and every substantial building and buildings erected upon and permanently affixed to the said land during the said term by the Lessee with the written approval of the College in that behalf first obtained and in case the said lands shall be again let to any person other than the said lessee the same shall be let subject to the condition that the incoming tenant shall pay to the College the value of the said buildings as so ascertained and determined and the College will on receipt of the amount of such valuation and after deducting the reasonable charges for making such valuation and any moneys due or accruing due by the said lessee to the said College pay and hand over the balance to the said lessee and the said College shall and will at the cost and charges of the lessee use all reasonable endeavours to obtain payment from such incoming tenant of the amount of such valuation Provided nevertheless that it shall not be obligatory upon the said College to obtain payment of the amount of the said valuation nor shall it be in any way liable to the lessee in case it fails to recover the same or any part thereof Provided further that in no case shall any incoming tenant be required to pay or the said lessee entitled to recover a greater sum than in respect of apy building or buildings erected upon the land and premises hereby demised and so to be valued as aforesaid Provided always and these presents are upon this express condition that if and whenever the rent hereby reserved or any part thereof shall be in arrear and unpaid for the period of twenty-one days whether the same shall have been legally demanded or not or if and whenever there shall be a breach non-observance or non-performance of any of the covenants or conditions by and on the part of the said lessee herein contained or herein by law implied the said College may re-enter upon any part of the land hereby demised in the name of the whole and thereupon the term of hereby granted shall absolutely determine Provided always that such re-entry by the said College shall not in any way prejudice affect or impair the right of the said College to enforce payment of any moneys payable to the said College by virtue of these presents or to maintain any action suit or proceeding against the said lessee for any damage which may be or have been sustained by the said College by. reason of any such breach non-observance or non-performance and that in case of any such re-entry the said College shall be entitled to recover in an action of debt against the said lessee the rent accruing between the date of the last payment of such rent and the date of making such re-entry. In witness whereof the said parties hereto have executed these presents. The Schedule hereinbefore referred to. Signed by the said
Memobandum of Lease. [Approved by D.L.R., Christchurch, New Zealand. The Canterbury College incorporated by an Act of the General Assembly of New Zealand intituled "The Canterbury College and the Canterbury Agricultural College Act 1896 " and hereinafter called "The said College" being registered as the proprietor of an estate in fee-simple subject however to such encumbrances liens and interests as are notified by memorandum underwritten or endorsed hereon in that piece of land situated in the District of Selwyn containing by estimation thirteen thousand seven hundred acres be the same a little more or less being Run No. and being part of the land comprised in Crown grant recorded in the Canterbury District Land Registry in Register-book Vol. 13 folio 160 as the same is delineated on the plan drawn hereon and therein coloured green in outline doth hereby lease to of Selwyn in the Provincial District of Canterbury sheep-farmer and hereinafter called the lessee all the said lands to be held by him the said lessee as tenant for the term of thirteen years to be computed from the first day of March one thousand nine hundred and four at the yearly rental of payable as follows a sum equal to one-half year's rent on or before the execution hereof and a further sum equal to six calendar months' rent in advance on the first day of September one thousand nine hundred and four and thereafter by equal half-yearly payments in advance on the first day of March and the first day of September in each year the first of such last-mentioned half-yearly payments to be made on the first day of March one thousand nine hundred and five subject to the covenants conditions and restrictions herein contained and implied the said lessee for himself his heirs executors administrators and permitted assigns doth hereby covenant with the said
C.-4.
1589
College its successors and assigns as follows That he the said lessee will pay the rent hereby reserved at the times and in the manner hereinbefore provided for payment of the same And that he the lessee " will insure " And that he the lessee " will not lease assign or sublet " And that he the lessee shall and will pay all rates assessments taxes and outgoings of every description which may during the term hereby granted be payable in respect of the land hereby demised And that he the lessee will at all times during the continuance of this demise keep and maintain all buildings fences and improvements erected built or placed on the said land in good condition and complete repair and so yield up the same at the expiration or other sooner determination of the said term And will immediately after the commencement of the term hereby granted grub up clear away and destroy all noxious weeds gorse sweetbriar bramble and broom growing on the said land And will at all times during the continuance of this lease keep the said land free from noxious weeds as defined in " The Noxious Weeds Act 1900 " gorse sweetbriar bramble and broom save and except such gorse only as shall form part of any fence on the said land And that he the said lessee will not burn the grass upon the said land during the months of December January February March April May and June or such other months not exceeding altogether seven months in any one year as the said College shall from time to time by notice in writing sent to the lessee determine And further that the lessee shall prevent the destruction or burning of timber or bush growing on the said land And further that the lessee shall destroy all rabbits which • from time to time may be upon the said land and prevent them from inrceasing or spreading over or upon the said land Provided also and it is hereby declared and agreed that the said College may at any time and from time to time cause to be given to the lessee notice in writing that the whole or any part of the said demised lands has been sold by the College as agricultural or pastoral land and thereupon this Tease and the term hereby granted in respect of the land specified in such notice shall determine and be void Provided always that in case this lease shall be determined at any time as to part only of the said lands by notice as aforesaid the rent hereby reserved shall be reduced at the next half-yearly day for payment to an amount proportionate to the value of the area over which this lease has not been so determined Provided also that the said lessee shall not at any time during the said term without the previous consent in writing of the said College in that behalf first obtained plough or cultivate any part of the said lands or dig up or take away any minerals thereon or thereunder And further that the said College or the Crown shall have the right to lay out construct and make such roads and rights of way upon over or through the said lands as either may think necessary without making any compensation to the lessee therefor Provided further and this lease is subject: to the express condition that the lessee not being the actual tenant at the time of the commencement of the term hereby created shall before being let into possession pay to the said College the value of any improvements made on the land and premises hereby demised such value to be fixed and determined as next hereinafter provided that is to say in the event of the lessee being some person other than the tenant in possession immediately prior to the commencement of the said term the College shall at least one month before the commencement of the said term appoint an appraiser to value all improvements consisting of necessary buildings and of plantations fences and ditches for draining made on the said lands Provided the amount of such valuation to be paid as aforesaid shall exclusive of the value of a rabbit-proof fence not exceed three times the amount of the average annual rent paid under the lease or license of the tenant in possession immediately prior to the commencement of the said term during the term of such last-mentioned tenant when the annual rent exceeds fifty pounds or five times such amount in cases where the annual rent does not exceed fifty pounds Every rabbit-proof fence erected by a lessee or license on a run with the sanction of the Governor or the College and to his satisfaction shall be valued as an improvement and such value shall be paid by the said lessee On the receipt of any money paid on a valuation made as aforesaid the College will on application being made to it in that behalf pay over such money to the person entitled to the benefit of the lease or license expiring immediately before the commencement of the term hereby created Provided also and it is hereby further declared and agreed that in anticipation of the expiry of this lease the College shall cause the premises hereby demised to be offered at auction at least twelve months before the expiration of the term hereby created for a further term of years or for such other estate or interest and subject to such terms and conditions as the College may deem expedient-and may be authorised by law such sale shall be upon the express condition that the purchaser of such further term of years or other estate not being the lessee under the term hereby created his executors administrators or permitted assigns shall before being let into possession pay to the College the value of any improvements made on the said land and premises such value to be fixed and determined as next hereinafter provided (1) In the event of the said lessee not becoming the purchaser the College shall at least one month before the expiration of this lease appoint an appraiser to value all improvements consisting of necessary building and of plantations fences and ditches for drainings made on the said lands the lease of which shall have been so sold at auction as aforesaid Provided nevertheless that the amount of such valuation so to be made and paid as aforesaid shall exclusive of the value of any rabbit-proof fence in no case exceed three times the amount of the average annual rent paid under this lease during the term thereof or five times such amount in case the annual rent under this lease does not exceed fifty pounds Every rabbit-proof fence erected on the premises hereby demised with the sanction of the College and to its satisfaction shall be included with the improvements mentioned in this proviso and shall be valued therewith on the expiry of the lease and such value shall be paid by the purchaser of suph further term of years or other estate to the said College (2) On the receipt of any money paid on a valuation made as aforesaid the said College shall on application being made to it in that behalf pay over to the person who immediately before the expiration of this lease is entitled to the benefit thereof the amount received for such valuation (3) No lessee shall have any claim for valuation or compensation for or on account of any improve-
1590
C.-4
ments against the College And also that the said lessee shall and will during the continuance of the said term and if and when required by the said College insure and maintain an insurance in the joint names of the said lessee and of the said College against all claims for damages or compensation which may at any time during the continuance of these presents be brought had or enforced against the lands and premises hereby demised under or by virtue of the provisions o " The Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act 1900 " and will duly and punctually pay ail premiums and moneys necessary for effecting and keeping up the said insurance when the same shall become due and shall andVill forthwith deliver to the College the policy or policies ot such insurance and will from time to time when and so often as the premiums in respect ot such insurance become due hand over to the said College the receipt or receipts for the annual or other premiums payable on account thereof and if default shall at any time be made by the said lessee in effecting or keeping up such insurance as aforesaid or in producing any such policy or receipt to the said College it shall be lawful for but not obligatory on the said College to effect and maintain such insurance and to recover from the said lessee all costs charges and expenses incurred by it in so doing with interest after the rate aforesaid from the time of the same respectively having been so expended or applied Provided also and it is hereby declared and agreed that if and whenever the rent hereby reserved or any part thereof shall be in arrear and unpaid for the period of twenty-one davs whether the same shall have been legally demanded or not or it and whenever there shall be a breach or non-observance or non-performance of any of the covenants or conditions by and on the part of the said lessee herein contained or herein by law implied the said College its successors or assigns may re-enter upon any part of the land hereby demised in the name of the whole and thereupon the term of years hereby granted shall absolutely determine Provided always that such reentry by the said College shall not in any way prejudice affect or impair the right of the said College to enforce payment of any moneys payable to the said College by virtue of these presents or to enforce the performance of any covenant condition or agreement on the lessee's part herein contained or implied or to maintain any action suit or proceeding against the said lessee or any damage which may be or have been sustained by the said College by reason of any such breach non-observance or non-performance of any such covenant condition or agreement and that in case of anv such re-entry the said College shall be entitled to recover in an action for debt against the said lessee the rent accruing between the date of the last payment of such rent and the date of making such re-entry. I of aforesaid sheep-farmer do hereby accept this lease of the above-described lands to be held by me as tenant and subject to the conditions restrictions and covenants above set forth. Dated this day of 1903. The corporate seal of the Canterbury College was hereto affixed by authoity of a meeting duly held at Christchurch this day of 1903 in the presence of the undersigned.
EAST. Schedule of Loan Blocks in Eastern Division of the Wellington Land District, with the Amounts of the Loans authorised and expended, and the further Expenditure from Public Works Fund, also the approximate Chainages of the Road-formations.
1591
C.-4
g Loans. Approximate Chainage Road-formation. . „ _ Total Expenditure * o Expenditure from from Loan .Su Name of I.oaxj Block. Survey Districts and Blocks. Public Works a(1 Public Works ... ,, Hemarks. 33 . Amount Amount Fund. i Not Cleaved Bridle- DrayI Amount of Loan. authorised. expended. cleared. only. track. road. ! i £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. 1 Hall Freehold .. .. Mangahao, I., II. .. .. 794 0 0 794 0 0 794 0 0 1,562 12 4 2,356 12 4 ' 100 .. 260 400 Sections with frontage to uncleared road have access. 2 ! North-east Puketoi .. .. Makuri, VII., VI., XI., XVI.; 3,990 0 0 3,990 0 0 3,990 0 0 6,876 17 10 10,866 17 10 340 .. 440 1,100 Mount Cerberus, XII. 3 East Puketoi; Pahiatua 1, 2, Mount Cerberus I., II., III., 19,375 0 0 19,375 0 0 19,375 0 0 94,716 8 5 114,091 8 5 840 280 1,940 7,640 3, 4; Rising Sun ; Masterton IV., V., VI., VII., VIII., IX., Reform; Pongaroa Village- X., XII., XIII.; Aohanga, I.; settlement; Rakaunui Vil- Makuri, XI., XV.; Puketoi, lage - settlement; Woodville III., IV., VIII. No. 2; Kaikoura; Christ church 4 Mekaliokstone Freehold .. Aohanga, V., VI 1,503 0 0 1,503 0 0 1,503 0 0 7,012 4 4 8,515 4 4 80 .. 300 400 5 ! Puketoi-Aohanga .. .. Aohanga, V.; Puketoi, VIII... 319 0 0 319 0 0 319 0 0 .. 319 0 0 .. .. .. 220 6 ; Dannevirke Centennial .. Aohanga, VI., X., XI. .. 2,494 0 0 2,200 0 0 2,200 0 0 1,508 14 5 3,708 14 5 360 200 660 80 7 Waiwera .. .. .. Taueru, II.; Mangahao, XIII. 1,460 0 0 1,431 10 7 1,431 10 7 2,542 7 4 3,973 17 11 360 .. 80 420 8 Kakariki .. .. .. Taueru, IV.; Mangaooe, I. .. 1,561 12 6 1,561 12 6 1,561 12 6 567 18 5 2,129 10 11 *140 .. 40 520 9 Stirling Tararua, IV., VI., VII. .. 1,192 10 0 1,193 0 0 1,193 0 0 1,778 17 8 2,971 17 8 *120 .. .. 440 10 Kaiparoro .. .. .. Tararua, VI., IX., X., XIII., • 1,174 0 0 1,174 0 0 1,174 0 0 1,182 11 3 2,356 11 3 440 .. 60 560 XIV. II Mount Baker and Pioneer Free- Mangaone, X., XI., XV., XIV., 2,487 6 0 2,471 0 0 2,471 0 0 6,601 5 1 9,072 5 0 *80 .. .. 1,500 hold XVI. 12 TeMara .. .. .. Mikimiki, III., VII., X., XI. .. 436 0 0 436 0 0 436 0 0 1,521 10 5 1,957 10 5 160 .. 180 440 13 Kaitangata.. .. .. Mikimiki, X., XIII.; Wai ihine, 884 0 0 884 0 0 884 0 0 3,059 12 10 3,941 12 10 380 .. 100 880 Chiefly formed road of IV., VI. • Tiffin, I., II., V., IX. access outside block, and unformed roads in block to give access to Crown land. 14 Kaiwaka (White Rock) .. Kaiwaka, IV., VIII., XI. .. 598 0 0 598 0 0 598 0 0 450 0 0 1,048 0 0 120 .. 400 .. Outside block to give access thereto. * Not required at present.
WEST. Schedule of Loan Blocks in Western Division of the Wellington Land District, with the Amounts of the Loans authorised and expended, and the further Expenditure from Public Works Fund; also the approximate Chainages of the Road-formations.
1592
C.—4.
Loans. Total Additional Approximate Chainage Road-formation on Name of Loan Block. Survey Districts and Blocks. • — w® £° m I . Ex P« nditur ® Proportion of Litho. ~ Public Works from Loan and Expenditure x> i Amount of Amount Amount Fund. Public Works on n , c Remarks. l_J 1 L Loan " authorised. expended. Fund. , Main Roads. C^ ed %££ 1 PartofKaitieke .. Kaitieke VI..VII.' X., XI ., 11,875 0 0* 6,513 9 o| 5,827 18 2' 2,809 15 8 I 8,637 13 f * * | 2 gcxT T R ■' XIV., &c. i .. 1,200 .. Requisition signed for balance 2 Gladstone .. .. Manganui.VII., VIII., XII. 1,899 0 0 1 899 0 0 1 fiqft s 9 1 fs«7 ii o q o r ■, „ i of loan. • » «•—%» •• .. 2 ;„o 0 S ass J J;S S I fcjgg J Kg J ? i:SS ! ? » •• S w 4 Manganui and Ruapebn .. Mangaim!, XV., XVI. .. 1,838 0 o| 1,838 0 „ 1,888 „ 0 1.9S8 8, 8,798 8 4 1,9618 7 540 .. „„ .. D „,„». a tt , ragh „„„„ 5 Horopito I.F. .. .. , Manganui, XV., XVI. .. 500 0 0 500 0 0 500 0 0 31 9 5 5S8 9 5 on nnn land, not open for seleotion. I • Unformed road not required at 6 Waimarino S.F. ( Manganui, XIV., XV. .. .. .. .. .. o „ 7fi ,, • , 0 „ 1jlA ! present, 7 Wanganui United W. \, VI.', X." .'i 7 ' 0 0 7 ' 837 0 0 7,837 0 0 3,127 2 9 10,964 2 9 15 8 « i! Z 8 Waimarino- Atuahae .. I Makotuku IX " " " " . •• •■ i 8SSS&. \st j s js ? i aiar; »,isr; ;$»»? g :: 2 i 8 as s s as s s as s s «s i { as i t as j j ! » J jb - 13 TeRuanui .. .. Maungakaretu, X. .. 386 0 0 386 0 0 386 0 0 847 19 4 1 233 iq d /n 15 H g autS e i.F. :: :: 409 . 0 0 409 0 °| 408 18 2 ° '«»i4 2 5 3 8 '0 5 16 o :: :: no 1R , ** 410 Not brought under Government OrauKura .. .. Ohinewairua, X., XI., XV., 1,114 0 0 1,114 0 0 1,114 0 0 693 16 5 1,807 16 5 1 076 0 10 80 130 4nn TT L ° ans t0 L 00 / 1 B °dies. , XVI. ' ' iu ° *> U ' D u lu H(J •• 130 400 Unformed road, not required at Og..™., V,IL, v XII, 8,936 0 0 1,500 0 0 1,402 8 2 3,587 0 1 4,939 9 3 2,152 1 9 280 .. 440 280 , « g n,d ,o, ba,..« Pfi.ok.hu .. .. M~^,X i Xm,XlV. 2,844 0 0 2,844 0 0 2,844 0 0 2,853 7 7 5,897 7 7 2,,52 1 9.. .. 280 800 Hautapu, IV.; Ruahine, I. bommerville .. .. Ohinewairua, IX.; Maunga- 2,141 10 0 2,141 10 0 2 141 10 0 6 564 7 2' „ ,, o o i*o i n I karetu, XVI.; Tirirau- ' 11,454 17 2 2,152 1 9j 40 .. 400 840 £11,454 17s. 2d. includes £2,749 on nu- • v,tt kawa, IV. loan expended in Palmerston gasrs.yftn...;i•• jgjj «♦» »«■ *, . " O"— - ■ - ! ! mSS; ,.81,8 5 >.S8?f „'° :: 23 M»»j— «.»». 21,007 18 3 .. ,80 .. 2,9*1.200 III., V., VI., VII. ' , 24 Nor^ K T ™kawa,III., IV.,VII., 2,749 0 0 2,749 0 0 2,749 0 0 See Sommerville, No. 19. 2,152 1 9 .. .. 580 1,400 25 Tiriraukawa; Hautapu .. Tiriraukawa, IV.; Hautapu, 1,686 0 0 1,686 0 0 1,686 0 0 1,450 0 8 3,136 0 8 1 614 1 3 440 620 26 U ton-T^u k i 0hine; MaSter " T £Xri.,7vi VI S ; 3 ' 23 ° ° ° S ' 23 ° ° ° 3 ' 087 ° ° 6 ' 287 11 0 9 ' 37 *" 0 2,152 1 9 50 .. 700 1,400 XV. ' ' ♦ Including expenditure in Palmerston North Knights of Labour.
1593
C—4
Schedule of Loan Blocks in Western Division of the Wellington Land District, &c.— continued.
Loans. Expenditure Total Expenditure Additio-al Approximate Cbainnge Kond-formation. Litho! Name of Loan mock. Purvey Districts and lilocks. — . ' . .. j - PaWtoWork. ,r< "^° an ExjKtSre' ' Remarks. Amount of Amount Amount Fund Public \\ orks on Not Cleared bridle- Dravl.oan. authorised. expended. V Fund. Main Roads. cleared. only. track. road. * 0f7 tt ■ ■ i_• £ *. d. | £ 8. d. £ s. rr. £ h. d. £ s. d. j Hautapu-Ruahine No. 2 .. Hautapu, VIII ; Ruahine, 4,192 15 0 4,192 15 1 4,192 15 1 698 0 0 4,890 15 1 ! .. 440 .. 100 960 IX., XIII. ; Apiti, IV.; ] Umutoi, I. • ou awhftt au •• Hautapj, X., XI. .. 1,425 0 0 1,367 6 4 1,367 6 4 1 20,038 14 8 21,406 1 0 .. 480 .. 140 580 gautapu No. 2 Haut.ipu, X., XIII.. XIV. 1,714 0 0 1,714 0 0 1,714 0 0 3,718 12 6 5,432 12 6 .. 80 .. 220 700 30 Hautapn, Peniherton I.F. Hautapu. XI., XIV., X\. 1,573 0 0 1,573 0 0 1,573 0 0 3,955 10 1 5,528 10 1 .. 120 .. 400 840 Hautapu Ruanine .. Hau'apu, XI., XII., XV., 7,000 0 0 6,925 8 7 6,925 8 7 9,571 7 3 16,496 15 10 .. 1,200 .. 1,040 2,400 XVI.; Ruahine, IX.,XIII.; Apiti, IV.; Umutui, I. , 32 Onslow.. .. .. Lmutoi, I. .. .. 601 0 0 386 9 9 386 9 9 364 15 6 751 5 3 | . , t 280 .. .. Crown lands, except three sec*oq T , , . ... . t ons with dray-road access, .qf M™" n lr ," ; •• V mi ! T ■•'! ° 50 0 0 550 0 0 550 0 0 1,402 11 8 1,952 11 8 .. 360 .. 160 Mongoira Coal Cr. ek .. Apiti, VIII., XII. .. 2,031 0 0 2,031 0 0 2,031 0 0 3,311 9 1 5,342 9 1 .. 60 100 780 R°H a h glna -tV! " Umutoi, IV VII., VIII... 1,181 0 0 1,181 0 0 1,181 0 0 1,181 0 0 .. 100 .. 220 540 3b Salisbury ana Delaware .. U'nutoi, VII., X.; Apiti, 3,3j0 0 0 3,350 0 0 3,350 0 0 2,5l'2 10 10 5,862 10 10 .. 40 280 2,200 XII., XVI.; Pobangina.lV. *37 Oroua Coal Creek North .. XI., XIV., XV., 1,050 0 0 1,050 0 0 1,155 18 11 2,483 3 9 3,533 3 9 .. 240 .. .. 440 *38 Malton George, II 302 0 0 302 0 0 302 0 0 605 4 4 907 4 4 ... 120 .. 120 aup ,'"" •• Nsamatea, XII., XIV. .. 385 0 0 385 0 0 233 12 3 370 17 5 604 9 8 .. 40 160 40 lauakira .. .. Naamatea, XIII., XIV.; 2,592 0 0 2,592 0 0 2,583 17 5 403 32 9 2,987 10 2 .. 1,400 620 Tauakira, XVI.; Waipakura, III., IV., VII. 41 Mowhanau .. .. Nukumaru, XV. .. 3S0 0 0 380 0 0 j 378 7 9 .. 378 7 9 .. .. .. .. 80 £100 spent by Waitotara County , Council. 42&44 Momahaki .. J Monmhaki, y. _ ... 270 0 0 270 0 0 270 0 0 .. 270 0 0 .. .. .. .. 180 ( Omahine, X. .. ,, ,, # _ i 100 50 140 43 TeNgaue ... .. Mo-nahaki, XIII., XIV., 367 0 0 .367 0 0 344 13 6 .. 43 13 6 .. .. " 280 .. Balance, £22 6s. 6d., in hands 44 (See Momahaki.) '' ' '• of Patea County Council. 45 M ment bak ' V ' ilage " settle " Wairoa, VIII. .. .. 1,360 0 0 1,360 0 0 1,360 0 0 .. 1,360 0 0 .. 40 .. .. 320 47 v it " -Mangahao, It., XIX. .. 998 0 0 998 0 0 998 0 0 5,862 17 0 6,860 17 0 .. .. .. .. 740 J Wellington i ruit - growers Kait'twa, X. .. .. 1,304 3 0 .1,304 3 0 1,304 3 0 328 17 0 1,633 0 0 .. 80 40 560 * Blocks numbered 27 to 38 inclusive are in Mr. G. F. Robinson's (District Road Engineer) district.
C—4
1594
ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE. Petition of Pastoral Tenants. [Presented by Mr. B. E. H. Tripp, at Timaru, on the sth April, 1905.] To the Chairman and members of the Land Commission. We, the undersigned pastoral tenants, or being otherwise interested in pastoral leases, wish to bring before you the following observations and suggestions: — It is admitted by all practical men who have experience of the hill country of Canterbury and Otago that the present tenure under which the pastoral runs are held is detrimental to the interests of the licensee and of the colony. Under the present law the pastoral runs are let for a period of not more than twenty-one years, and in many cases the term is only fourteen years. The licensee at the end of this term only gets compensation for buildings, fences, and ditches for draining; 110 compensation is given for grassing, and in 110 case is the compensation to exceed three times the amount of the average annual rent. At the end of the term the license is put up to auction. It will be seen, therefore, that there is no inducement for the licensee to improve his property. If he improves his property by sowing grass-seed he finds that, because his property is so improved, when he comes to the auction some one else wants his property, and he is run up to a high figure before he can get it back again. In some cases a licensee has put all his capital into permanent improvements for which he cannot get compensation, and, therefore, "lie, if run up at the auction, will pay a very high rent in order to get the lease back. The consequence is that if bad years come the Crown will find that the licensee cannot pay the rent, or the licensee may just be able to make both ends meet, in which case he does no further improvements to the lands, and the lands deteriorate. Ihe colony does not want an excessive rent, but only a fair rent, and a good tenant who will improve the Crown lands. The effect generally of the existing tenure is as follows: — 1. Practically no grasses are sown in the hill country and the native grasses are eaten out, and the country will not carry the stock it used to. 2. Towards the end of his tenure the licensee, knowing that he may lose his license, keeps all the stock he can on the land, and exhausts the land. 3. The land is found to go back, and the following facts will be found to be correct: — (a.) Rents from pastoral runs have decreased. ( b.) The same number of sheep cannot be carried 011 the hill country in the South Island now as were carried, say, fifteen years ago. (The Sheep Returns and also the Freezing-works and Export Returns will show this statement to be correct.) The farmers 011 the plains now, in many cases, look to the licensees on the hills to breed the sheep for them to fatten. From the above statement it will be clearly seen that the present tenure under which the pastoral runs are held is one which is very detrimental to the colony. The present tenure was introduced many years ago. It is only of late years that, seeing sheep and rent decreasing, practical men are looking out for the cause and the remedy. We submit it is clearly shown that the present tenure under which pastoral runs are held should be altered, and the following alteration of the law is suggested:— 1. That all pastoral tenants whose leases have not expired by the Ist January, 1906, should have the option to renew them for fourteen or twenty-one years from that date, at a rental to be fixed by arbitration. 2. That the new leases should contain the following clauses relating to improvements: — (a.) That if during the term of the new lease the licensee shall expend on improvements a sum to be.inserted in the license when it is signed, then the licensee shall have the option to have a renewal of his lease, at a rental to be fixed by arbitration twelve months before the expiry of his lease, for a further period of fourteen or twenty-one years, such renewal to be on the same terms as the existing lease. (i b.) Such new lease shall state the value of the improvements for which the licensee was entitled to compensation under the leases refeired to in paragraph numbered 1. (e.) That if seven months previous to the expiration of the new lease the licensee does not give notice to the Commissioner of Crown Lands of his intention to renew his lease, then the lease shall be put up to auction for a further term of fourteen or twentyone vears, and the sale shall be on the express condition that the purchaser, not being the actual licensee, shall, before being let into possession, pay to the Receiver of Land Revenue three-fourths of the amount spent on improvements on the run during the existence of the lease then in existence, and also three-fourths of the value of the improvements referred to in paragraph ( b), such auction shall take place six months before the expiration of the existing lease. (d.) The term " improvements " shall be deemed to include buildings, plantations, fences, ditches for draining, the making of roads or bridle-tracks, snow-shelters, and the sowing of the grasses to be approved by the Land Board, such as cocksfoot, Chewing's fescue, crested dogstail, blue-grass, &c. («.) The licensee shall, before he proceeds to make any improvements on the run, inform the Land Board by notice in writing what improvements he proposes to make, and after such improvements are made the licensee shall immediately forward a statement and vouchers showing the cost of such improvements, and, if the Land Board so require, a declaration by the licensee or his manager that the moneys shown in the statement have been duly spent as aforesaid.
1595
C—4
(/.) If twelve months before the expiration of any Jease or renewal the Governor is of opinion that the lease shall be determined for the purposes of closer settlement, then, on giving the licensee twelve months' notice, the license shall at the expiration of such notice be determined, provided that 011 giving up possession of the same the licensee shall be paid three-fourths the costs of all improvements as aforesaid. [Here follow signatures.] Nelson College and Riwaka Leaseholds. [Referred to 111 evidence of Mr. Fell, Nelson.] A Committee of the Council of Governors was appointed on the 31st August, 1904, to visit Riwaka, inspect the leasehold lands vested in the Council, and hear any representations made in support of the application on behalf of the tenants that they should be entitled to any improvements made by them, or to compensation therefor on termination of lease. REPORT OF COMMITTEE. We have this day, 16th November, 1904, inspected the various properties in Riwaka belonging to the College Governors, and have seen and questioned each tenant with reference to his position and his claim against the Governors. Dealing with the properties seriatim we find, — 1. That Mr. Albert Askew holds under a lease to his late father, William Askew, which lease lias still four years and a half to run. The Section No. 35, containing 50 acres, is all flat land. It is bounded on the road side by "the main drain, which is in good order and has a considerable fall. The land is protected from overflow from the main drain by a heavy bank. The fence on top of this bank is almost entirely decayed, but the bank and ditch together form a good boundary. The other fences on this section are quick hedges, mostly overgrown and kept in moderate order only. Some of the division fences, also, are but in moderate order, and the gate is out of repair. Of the land, about 7 acres are in hops, 3 acres in various kinds of fruit, 6 acres in oats, and the remainder in grass. The buildings consist of old division of house, containing four rooms, to which the tenant added four other rooms, and sundry sheds erected by the tenant, who stated that he had spent £162 011 buildings, and had put up the wash-house himself. There is no insurance on the buildings. The whole of the land appears to have originally been covered by bush, but it has been cleared for many years, and most of it has been stumped. There are 18 acres not stumped, and there are 2 acres in hollow, but the land is covered with grass, though it could not be properly broken up unless the stumps were removed. The tenant paid £15 an acre for stumping the land whereon the hops are growing, while he cut the rushes himself. The whole of the land is first class, and very suitable for dairy purposes, though some of the grass is becoming exhausted, and would be greatly improved by being ploughed and resown, which could not be done without clearing the remaining stumps. Mr. Askew is a very intelligent and reasonable man. He says that the rent is fair, and practically admits that he cannot expect to receive the value of past improvements; but ■he is anxious to build an addition to his house, and a hop-kiln, and to stump the land, and would, we think, do so if he could be allowed a fair value for what these improvements might be worth at the end of his term. 2. Charles Jenkins is the tenant of Section N°- 36, next on the north to that of Mr. Askew. The land is of very similar character to that held by Mr. Askew, and the fences and drains are practically in a similar condition. There are some rushes on both this and Mr. Askew's land. Mr. Jenkins has 110 buildings 011 his section. The whole is clean and subdivided into various paddocks, and about half is stumped, all being in grass except about 2 acres in hops, which cost £10 an acre to stump. The hops do not appear to be in very good condition. The property has been in possession of Mr. Jenkins's family for about thirty years, and they have done all the ditching, fencing, &c. Mr. Jenkins stated that the land would carry from thirty to thirty-five head of cattle-all the year round. He asserts that as a glazing-farm for fattening cattle alone it would be impossible to make a living out of it. He says it'is of value to him as a fattening-ground in addition to his other property. He expressed himself satisfied with his lease, but thought he paid plenty. He thought he should be paid for past improvements, adding that others renting similar land pay less rent and get value for improvements. 3. Hamilton's executors hold the lease of Section No. 40, which is on the opposite side of the road to Askew's section, and is occupied by Mr. Boyes. Alongside and on the south of the section runs the main drain, which on crossing the road turns at right angles, and bounds Askew's and Jenkins's holdings. The whole of this section, excepting about an acre on the north-west corner, is perfectly flat and of excellent quality, that part nearest the road, however, being somewhat wet and rushy, and, 110 doubt, frequently covered by water in flood-time. Boyes has held the land for about thirty years, and states that all the improvements have been done by him. The buildings consist of a house of seven rooms, one cottage of a single room, byres, cart-shed, &c. There is no kiln on the ground. Ten acres are in hops, about 9 acres in small and large fruit. One paddock was shut up for hay. In addition to the main drain there is another smaller drain going completely through the property, which Boyes says cost him about £116 to construct. The fences and farm generally appear to be in fair order, but the fruit, both small and large, has not proved a very payable crop. The raspberry-canes and currant-bushes have been attacked by grubs, while the prices" obtained have not been remunerative. Boyes himself admitted that of all his labours and improvements during the past thirty years not one-half was now useful. He would like to build a hop-kiln, but says it is impossible to do so under the present tenure. He says he generally milks ten or twelve cows; he could not carry more. His neighbour only paid 12s. an acre for his land, and had all improvements.
201—C. 4.
C.—4
1596
4. Edward Wratten holds Sections 38, 39, and 49, lying next to the north of Hamilton's. Of this land about 60 acres are flat, the remainder consisting of steep hills, the latter being partly covered with bush, partly in fern, and partly in grass, and is now running sixty ewes with lambs. The flat land is of excellent quality, surrounded and subdivided by live fences, which are for the most part in good order; there are also some wire fences. The fences on this section generally are in better condition than those on the sections previously referred to. Wratten informed us that he gave Bisley Brothers £500 for the goodwill of the lease upon the understanding, as he says, that he was to have a renewal for fourteen years on condition that 3 acres were planted in hops, a hopkiln built, and the house roofed with iron. These conditions he considers lie has satisfied by putting in 3 acres additional of fruit-trees instead of hops, and, according to lease obtained, building a barn at a cost of £35, and two small cottages, instead of a kiln, and partly roofing the house with iron. Of the flat land 15 acres are in fruit, 4 acres in crop (oats), 2in young hops, and 39 in grass. In addition to the sheep he feeds twenty head of cattle, including twelve cows, and 6 horses, including three brood-mares. Wratten is a quiet and respectable man, evidently a hard worker, and he has trusted to the proceeds from his fruit to pay for his outlay and rent. So far, for his fruit which was picked last year he has received in all ljjjd. per pound, and the total receipts have not done more than pay for the cost of cultivating and picking. The cost of picking alone was id. per pound. It seems clear, therefore, that for the past year his farm cannot have paid, yet he considers the rent fair and does not want to give the lease up, nor does he make special claims for improvements, though he says he has laid out .£l5O in various directions. The house contains seven rooms, and is insured for £150. The sheds are of considerable size. The land is generally well drained, and is not troubled by flood-water. A butter-factory, &c., has been erected on a part of the property, for which he receives a rental of £5 per annum. He only milks about six cows now for want of labour. He now has to pay £10 for rates instead of £5. The garden round his house was much neglected. 5. T. Macmahon : This property, containing 25 acres, consists of a narrow strip along steep hills. The land is half covered with bush, and half is in grass. It lies back from the road. Mr. Macmahon said that the land was carrying twenty-five sheep. He was keeping the bush for scenic purposes. Upon considering the whole matter, after having seen the properties and heard the tenants, your committee has come to the following conclusions: — (1.) That various substantial improvements have been effected by the several tenants during their terms of occupation. The permanent improvements we refer to include drains, buildings, stumping, fencing, &c., and we do not include as permanent improvements the planting and cultivation of various forms of produce which they may have chosen. (2.) There is in the district a common system of leasing lands under which the tenant is given the right to the value of the permanent improvements at the end of his term. (3.) The rents for College lands at Riwaka have been fairly estimated at the current value of the land at the time of granting the leases or their extension. (4.) The tenants have frequently, in order to obtain a better return from their land, effected greater improvements than they probably would have done had they rigidly considered the cost under their existing tenures, and they are more or less incensed by the comparison of their position with that of their neighbours, the goodwills of whose holdings are worth very considerable sums. (5.) It would be most difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at any present estimate of the value of the permanent improvements effected by the present tenants, and, even were it possible to do so, your committee is clearly of opinion that it would be altogether inexpedient, if not positively unlawful, to attempt to go back upon existing bargains in order to make a compassionate allowance in respect thereof. (6.) Your committee considers, however, that, for the sake of encouraging tenants to effect improvements, without which the lands cannot be got into a condition from which they would give the best return, it would be desirable to make the following offer to each tenant: That should he wish to effect any permanent improvement, upon receiving the consent of the Governors to same, and satisfying them as to the prime cost, he will be allowed at the expiry of his lease the then value of any such improvements, such value to be arrived at, if necessary, by arbitration. Your committee believes that if this position were properly explained each tenant would be satisfied, and would gladly welcome the change. (7.) As to insurance, there appears to be no provision in the leases, and your committee thinks it necessary and proper that arrangements should be made with each tenant whereby buildings should be fully insured. (8.) Your committee finds that the county rate has been materially increased of late, and as the valuation of the land affects the tenants this should be looked into. Charles T. Fell. Thomas Henry Bannehr. Philip Best.
Gentlemen, — Matapu, Taranaki, 27th May, 1905. I beg to submit my opinions on the land question to you. Owing to continued illness, I am unable, as I should have liked, to offer them in person with any explanations you might desire. I may say that they arts the result of first-hand experience. You will notice the papers are in two batches —Nos. 1 and 2 of each —of which I enclose two copies, so that the Chairman may have one at hand while the other is available as required. No. 1 is the same as I sent to the Land Board Conference held in Wellington on the Ist December, 1904, with the exception of two alterations —viz., an addition under the heading of
1597
C—4
" Ballot System," and under the heading of " Residence " a few lines struck out. No. 2 has been written since that time. Hoping the suggestions may prove of some benefit and assistance to your good work, —I am, &c., John Heslop. The Chairman and Members of the Land Commission. No. 1. CONSTITUTION OF LAND BOARDS. Contrary to opinions held by some, I consider that members of Land Boards should be appointed as at present, by the Government solely, as the land policy is the Government's, and it is responsible for the administration. Members of Laud Boards should be broad-minded men, with a good and sympathetic knowledge of all the conditions under which settlers have to work and live, and having intimate acquaintance with the Crown lands of their district and their requirements. In my opinion, Land Boards should be carefully constituted, should be given large discretionary powers enabling them to deal with various cases on their merits, even to the extent of rent-reduction, and subject to the consent of the Minister of Lands only. I have long observed that the arbitrary enforcement all round of the Land Acts' provisions has a most unequal and crushing effect on prosperous settlement in certain cases, due solely to the unequal primary conditions of such things as climate, land-configuration, location, personal circumstances, &c., and I see no way of adequately dealing with the matter except by giving the Land Boards greater and more extended powers. LAND-TENURES. 1 consider that existing land-tenures could stand considerable alteration in the interests of the individuals and State alike. The following are my suggestions (a.) That the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, except under the Land for Settlements Act, should be amended so as to give tenants the same privilege to exchange tenure as that held under the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure (subsection (3), clause 132, " Land Act, 1892 "), on the condition that the occupier under the former tenure pay the 1 per cent, difference between the two rates of interest as rent from the date of the original occupation of the land. Owing to the conditions disassociable from leasehold in perpetuity, such as the overlordship of the proprietor even in the matter of the willing of the tenant's interests, as well as the small borrowing-power cf the tenure, together with a sense of insecurity caused by the agitations of so-called land-reformers in such proposals as the " Fair Kent Bill," there is very great discontent and unrest among settlers under this tenure. The latter have found the tenure other than what they were originally led to believe, and in the case of these unimproved lands their interests exceed so hugely in value those of the proprietor (i.e., the State) that the position is anomalous, and deserving of rectification in the manner I have suggested. I uphold the terms I have indicated for rectification in distinct opposition of those who contend that the tenant so treated would be given an unearned increment. In my opinion, there is no such thing in the case of the settler on the bush and swamp lands under the Act of 1892. He has had to pay rent on the unreproductive areas of the land from the date of occupation, has suffered large losses in the way of bad burns, the destruction of fences and grass by fire and landslips, stock lost or killed by accident, never to speak of the deprivations from a social and educative point of view, as well as his loss of participation in the benefits of State institutions to which as colonist he contributes, and which remoteness bars to a man and his family. These and many other things I earnestly contend, if taken proper count of, would leave the State in financial and moral debt to the pioneer settler, and he under the lease-in-perpe-tuity tenure should be permitted, if he chooses, to enjoy the same privileges and benefits for the same price as his fellow-settler of the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure, who, better advised, and perhaps wealthier, started by providing for the right to purchase the freehold. With tenants under the Land for Settlements Act the case is entirely different. There the interests of the proprietors are and will always be in large excess of those of the tenant. The land has been purchased for cash, and is leased in a state of high improvement, usually capable of immediate returns to the tenant, mostly through the dairy industr-y; all the advantages of civilised life are usually at hand, and the worst disabilities and losses of the pioneer life conspicuous by their absence. Besides, lands under this Act are generally acquired under pressure of the local public, and do not require the same incentive for occupation as the remote and unimproved lands of the Crown. (&.) That under the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure provision should be made whereby the occupier may surrender his tenancy if he desire, the same as under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. (c.) That in the case of the lands disposed of for cash a proportionate amount, equivalent to the " thirds " of Land Fund in the case of leasehold, should be expended on the roads giving access to the land from which the money is derived. ( d.) That as regards the reintroduction of the homestead privileges it may be found advisable, under certain conditions of quality and location, to place some lands under this tenure. (e.) In my opinion, the optional system in the Land Act of 1892 should apply to all bush, swamp, and uncultivated Crown lands, and in the case of mineral areas provision for resumption by the State on equitable terms should be made. (/.) That no transfer of interest in any lease should be granted inside three years from the date of original occupation. RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONS. I consider the residential conditions of the Land Act of 1892 not in the interest of the State or occupier. In my opinion, residence should in no case be compulsory until there is a fair
C— 4
1598
summer cart-road to the section. In some instances, from various causes and at the discretion of the Land Board, it should be dispensed with altogether —in the case of rough lands having no adequate homestead-site, &c., double improvements on the said rough lands and the residence of an employee there should be sufficient for the tenant's exemption from residence, subject to area-limit. It is desirable to have all classes represented in land-settlement —the richer providing very acceptable employment for the poorer —and there are many rough lands capable of being made productive in the above manner which it would be madness in a poor man to occupy. In all th'ese matters, in the interests of prosperous settlement, Land Boards should have large powers. THE BALLOT SYSTEM. While acknowledging the many disadvantages of the present system, I consider there is absolutely no better substitute for at, and the remedy is to be found rather in improving it. This can be done by the examination of intending applicants on the part of the Land Board, as in the case of those under the Land for Settlements Act, when the purely speculative and otherwise unsuitable class would be restrained from monopolizing the ballot. I am of opinion that the present system cannot well be improved on, with the exception of the modification that applicants who have never held Crown lands should have preference over others, and more especially over those who have sold their interest in Crown lands formerly held by them. 1 am aware that in this there is a modification of views recently held bj r me, but I think it after all a necessary change, and, granted discretionary powers to Land Boards, there should be little difficulty under examination of determining who ought to be eligible for the ballot and who ought not. LANDS LOADED FOli ROADS. I am unable to give the information sought, which no doubt is available from the records of the Roads Department; but in a great many instances the loading has been quite inadequate, from the nature of the country, to provide roads, and has been spent in making and keeping open 6 ft. tracks, which rapidly degenerate into narrower or more dangerous ones. Failing, then, a grant from Government, the settlers have to find interest for a loan with which to form a summer cart-road, and they may thus complain with some degree of truth that no road to their holding has been provided, though the land was loaded for same. The whole question of roading the Crown lands is perhaps one of the most vital in the interest of successful settlement, and requires early and most careful revision. BORROWING-DISADVANTAGES OF CROWN TENANTS. Latterly the operations of the Advances to Settlers Office seem to have been largely curtailed, it is alleged through lack of funds. This has had the effect of throwing the impecunious class of Crown tenants into the hands of the money-lenders at high rates of interest. Especially is this with tenants under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, who from the nature of their security fare worse in the matter of high interest on a restricted advance, having usually also to mortgage their stock. It is a matter of common report that in many cases the rate of interest 011 these loans is 8 to 10 per cent., which has an absolutely ruinous result. With regard to valuation of lease-in-perpetuity holdings for Advances to Settlers purposes, I consider that recognition of more than merely the lessees' improvements should be made. Surely the goodwill of a 999-years lease is worth something. In my opinion, a valuation on the basis of selling-value of the lessee's improvements, together with his goodwill in his lease, should le made, and an advance up to three-fifths of that amount granted. At present advances do not represent- more than one-half the value of improvements effected, and often not that, which makes the Advances to Settlers Office of little use to lease-in-perpetuity leaseholders. CONDITION AND POSITION OF CROWN TENANTS. Speaking for the Taranaki Land District, I consider there is very wide variation of the above. In some instances where- the occupier has been possessed of adequate capital and sufficient experience, progress has been steady and satisfactory, and with the revival of the sheep industry, in which this class mostly engage, the prospect is hopeful where the land is good and there is reasonable access to it. On the other hand, there are a large number of small tenants on Crown lands who have an extremely hard struggle to make ends meet. These are mostly engaged in dairying to a certain extent and the grazing of a few young cattle, the revenues from which at present are restricted owing to lower prices and the roughness and remoteness of their holdings. When the nature and conditions of the Taranaki back country are considered, the necessity for giving every possible help and encouragement to its struggling settlers will be only too apparent, and every case of misfortune or undue hardship should have the careful consideration of a Land Board endowed with large remedial powers. OPENING AND ROADING NEW BLOCKS OF LAND. In doing this I consider the first operation should be the laying-ofi of the best road-line obtainable as near the centre of the block as practicable. Then, in rough country the survey of the sections should be proceeded with, boundaries being only on road-lines, ridges, and rivers, where the latter are good enough to fence in cattle. On surveyed road-lines, where practicable, an average width in all of 5 chains of bush should be felled, burnt, and grassed, allowing wind and sun to reach the track and keep it dry. The bridging' of streams should then proceed, together with the formation of the bridle-track 6 ft. wide in the solid. This would leave some grass frontage to each section, giving place to build a
1599
C—4
hut and keep a horse, besides allowing intending settlers a better view of the land to be allotted. At present the selection of land is more or less a leap in the dark. The cost of the foregonig work would, of course, be added to the price of the section. The formation of cart-roads could be done after allotment, giving an- opportunity to those settlers who desire work to get it, residence on the land not being compulsory before these cartroads are formed, and in any case not earlier than four years. I am quite aware that up till now circumstances have made it impossible for a policy of this kind to be carried out; but at the earliest possible moment it should be begun and persevered with, and I feel convinced that its results would be satisfactory. John Heslop. No. 2. ALLEGED UNEARNED INCREMENT. In the course of things which have led to the appointment of this Royal Commission there have been many references, chiefly by townspeople, to what has been called the "unearned increment " in rural land-values, and a strong disposition exists on the part of urban dwellers to secure from the settler for State revenue part, if not the whole, of what they term " unearned increment.'' It has often struck me as curious that so few settlers trouble to adequately present their side of the case to the public, and, allowing for the usual apathy of the rural classes to politics and political economy, 1 can only account for their silence by their contempt for the hollow arguments of their opponents, and their conviction that the community as a whole takes too sensible a view of things to be long misled by casuftstry. But the opportunity for the ventilation of these matters being now created, it is well to set forth the bearings of the so-called "unearned increment" question. If such a thing exists at all, 1 am of opinion it is to be found almost exclusively in urban centres. Business enterprises and property-values in towns are directly created by increase of population, not only for the towns themselves, but of the country as well, and the more prosperous the country settler the greater the benefit to commercial concerns, and, as a consequence, to urban property. Then, there are people who retire to the neighbourhood of the town, some of them farmers who have acquired small settled incomes, who go to swell urban populations and values. This can hardly be said to apply to rural districts, their values having an origin entirely different, being affected almost exclusively by demand for land due to what can be made from the land, and this is determined in this colony by markets oversea for our wool, mutton, beef, dairy-produce, &c., so that, if any one is due a share in the sale value of New Zealand rural land, it is the rural population of Great Britain, whom our success as producers has almost ruined. If there have been fabulous prices paid for rural land in some instances, these will be found due to temporary inflations, traceable in almost all instances to the swelling success of some industry, or to speculative mania and the financial manipulations of the numerous horde of land agents, originating again, let me remark, from the towns. But apart from this, there are in Taranaki, for instance, sound reasons for much of the enhanced land-value, running frequently from 3 to 4 per cent, over original values. The growth of the dairy industry, due to oversea demands, the adaptability of the land and climate along the coast and around Mount Egmout, the energy of the large population of mostly small freeholders, and the metalling of roads everywhere —a requirement of the industry for which these settlers have becomc responsible through the Loans to Local Bodies Actall these things, added to the possibility of a regular monthly income and the utilisation of family labour, have raised values to fairly well what they are, and I fail to see where the credit for enhanced values can be claimed by any others than those engaged in the industry. As I have stated, metalled roads alone have indisputably contributed to higher values, and I may instance that even such an arterial road as the one between Eltham and Opunake was metalled by loans raised by the settlers, though the road is used enormously by the travelling public, among whom,- no doubt, are many of our would-be land-reformers, who view the farms from the pleasant comfort of their hired buggies and estimate the farmer's supposed unearned increment, forgetting the toil, the sweat, the hope deferred, the financial worry, the hard living and poor housing that have been gone through to make those farms and roads what they are to-day. Then, turning to the swamp lands and the rough lands of the back country, suitable for sheep and young cattle only, one has merely to engage in the breaking-in of it to know how hardly earned everything that is got out of it is. A settler on one of those blocks under the Land Act of 1892, which is the system mostly in force here, has to pay rent on the total area of bush from the date of occupation. He can only bring in a certain portion of the land each year, and has to suffer large losses through bad burns, destruction of fences and grass by fires and landslips, embracing resowing; then the long list of stock lost and killed by accident, never to speak of lost time and the tear-and-wear to man, beast, and gear through the rough condition of the country and its roads, or tracks rather. The hope of things improving alone encourages him to hold on and persevere through the years of what his town fiiends call his exile in the bush, years in which, though a citizen of the country and a subject of the King, he shares in no social benefits, nor participates in the advantages of the many public institutions which are at hand for others. Surely his lot is worthy of consideration, and his grit and energy of any backing-up a Government can o-ive them in the way of the option of freehold at original values level with right-of-purchase ones around him; better' roads, if possible, and the greatest amount of freedom from official restrictions consistent with conserving the State's relatively small interest in these lands when improved, for these settlers are, after all, coming valuable producers adding their quota to the colony's prosperity, and, were need to arise, would be the first looked to for its defence. The fact is, in these rough bush and swamp lands no market value yet reached has ever compensated for the outlay properly reckoned, and, in my humble opinion, with few exceptions, the
0.—4
1600
State is left a financial as well as a moral debtor to the pioneer settler. Could our city landreforming agitators be only induced to take up a section and become one of that class, then agitatation would be turned in the direction of obtaining a bonus for bringing in the waste lands of the Crown; and yet at the present moment one of the Labour League's platform-planks is periodical revaluation of all Crown lands held in lease, this not to apply to existing leases until the death of the present leaseholder or the transfer of the lease to another, as the case may be. Now, this means that the 999-years lease is only for a man's lifetime, which might end at any moment, when his family's interest would also die, just perhaps as by their combined efforts they were getting on a sound footing; so that receiving value, an uncertain thing, and not cost for their improvements, possibly mortgaged, they would be turned out of their home to face revaluation, or, 1 suppose, the congenial prospect of another lease of unimproved land under the same conditions. 1 consider no more scandalous proposal was ever submitted in a professedly moral community. Of course, it is obvious that in some instances, such, as the expenditure of State money on the construction of railways, there is an enhanced value of adjacent lands, in which at first sight it might be claimed the community at large should directly share. But I question the wisdom of even making such a disinction, as ordinary land taxation deals with this. Railways in this colony are laid down in arbitrary routes to suit our national development, and are not wholly indispensible in a well-roaded, stock-raising district, so that, in my opinion, the community's share should be in their earning-power which should justify their existence, and we should have to turn our eyes to our large cities and towns for direct benefit to their land-values, in numberless cases greatly exceeding 300 or 400 per cent., by the ostensibly indispensible expenditure of State funds —a betterment in which, if anywhere, the colony's public has a direct claim. Why, then, should the ultimately successful leasehold settler be deprived of part of his increased yet modest wealth by a special State claim while even his freehold neighbour is exempt? Let every one in the country pay a fair share of taxation according to his wealth, but let there be no special class-taxation, especially of those who are taking up the rough broken Crown lands which are useless until brought into production, at the expense and hardship of the settler, of whom the town dweller takes little thought and has no conception. The fact is that of recent years it has been the fashion with a certain section of politicians to single out the settler and Crown tenant as a fit subject for fresh taxation, for in reality this is what the talk of " unearned increment " in rural lands means. Population in Great Britain has increased continually, and land in cities risen to enormously enhanced values, while the value of rural lands has largely decreased. If this should come to pass in the colony, would our land-agitators agree to the State making good to owners and occupiers the decrease in the value of farming-lands? FREEHOLD OPTION TO CROWN TENANTS. I am entirely in favour of all Crown tenants having the option of freehold, except land under the Land for Settlements Act, at the value of the land at date of original occupation, provided the difference of I per cent, in back rents as against the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure is made good by the purchaser. When the unimproved value of a Crown leasehold in which there is no right of purchase exceeds the original value, the tenant under present law becomes liable for land-tax on the increased value, thus admitting that the increase belongs to the tenant, or else lie is being taxed unjustly. It also shows that the interest of the State remains at the original value on which it receives 4 per cent, for 999 years as rent, unless there is a change in legislation as proposed in such measures as the Fair Rent Bill, which our city land-reformers have in view, one of whom advocated that the old-age pensions ought to be provided for by an increased tax on lands. As these city land-reformers are increasing in numbers, and probably will increase still more, as city population increases more rapidly than that of the country, their power in Parliament will increase accordingly, and in this lies the danger to the Crown tenant in the uncertainty of the value of his 999-years lease, a danger so apparent as to be the causa of much of the dissatisfaction and unrest now existing. For other reasons the lease in perpetuity has been found unsatisfactory, such as in financing, where even the Government Advances to Settlers Office recognises and proclaims the inferiority of this tenure as security by its restricted advances. If land is placed on the market now under the optional system, no one with his wits about him ever thinks of adopting the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, under which on unimproved land with so many drawbacks his improvements would so soon overwhelm in value the relatively small interest of the State in the land. Considering everything, I strongly urge that lease-in-perpetuity tenants be allowed the same privilege of exchange (by paying the 1 per cent, difference in rent from date of occupation) as the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenants have under subsection (3), clause 152, of the Land Act of 1892. By granting this the State would be a gainer not only to the extent of the 1 per cent., but when the freehold is obtained the full unimproved value would become liable to land-tax, so that the State would receive the value of the land and retain the right tc tax the same. It would have the effect of giving a feeling of greater security and contentment to the struggling settlers, and would be an incentive to first-class and lasting improvements on their holdings. The argument that the granting of the option of freehold would throw lease-in-perpetuity tenants into the hands of money-lenders I consider beside the question. As it is, these tenants are obliged to deal with money-lenders, and under a penalty by reason of the nature of their tenure that does not obtain in the case of their fellow-settlers with the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure. And if there is a certain amount of sentiment in the settler's desire for the freehold, I would respect it; and if the option of the freehold will make the settlers more contented with their lot and industrious in founding their homes on the land and bringing the latter into productiveness, I would have no hesitation in granting it.
1601
a—4.
TENURE. I strongly advocate the occupation-witli-right-of-purehase tenure as being infinitely in advance of the deferred-payment or any other, and in granting the option of freehold to the Crown lease-in-perpetuity tenants I can think of no better method than the exchange, under the conditions stated above, to the occupation-with-riglit-of-purchase tenure, and accepting as fulfilled for the latter tenure all the obscured conditions of the former, with the exception of the 1 per cent, difference in back rent to be met. In my opinion, this would be infinitely better for the State, the tenant, and money-market than granting freehold at once on application or under the deferredpayment system, where money has to be found at once. Without going into self-evident detail, I think the great advantages of the occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure over any other should be apparent to any one. VALUATION OF UNIMPROVED CROWN LANDS. In the case of rough, broken bush lands, where it is not practicable to make a fair valuation of the unimproved value, I would advocate that a temporary value within certain limits be placed on the land, liable to readjustment within five years. In many cases it has been found that too high a value has been placed on the land, which has turned out much more rough than was anticipated, and vice verm. In such cases, revaluation when the bush is down would readjust matters. In this rough, gorgy country it is almost impossible to see what the country really is until the bush is cleared, and it is very deceptive in many instances, concealing gorges and gullies, which make this rough country so very expensive, owing to the loss of stock in them and in the heavy landslips that occur on their sides. John Heslop. Sirs, — Kinohaku, Kawhia, Ist June, 1905. We, the undersigned settlers, respectfully request the Commission to accept the following statement as evidence, owing to shortage of time upon the part of the Commission in not taking all available evidence at their sitting in Kinohaku: — We are all anxious to obtain the right to purchase our holdings, for the following reasons : — That we were not allowed the option originally, and that it is concomitant to the welfare of this district it should have more security of tenure. Construction of Land, Boards.-- That the suggestion of Mr. McCardle should be given effect, to — that is, there should be seven instead of four members, the settlers to choose and elect by ballot their members. Advances to Settlers Office. That the Advance Office should be placed upon a more businesslike and satisfactory method in dealing with applications promptly, so as the applicant can utilise to his advantage the rise and fall periodically taking place in the stock and commerce markets. Roads.- We consider that the Government have shockingly neglected this district in regard to stock-roads and general communications. It is a fact that at present we are completely isolated in regard to roads and telephone communication, and we respectfully request the Commissioners to endeavour to rectify this, what the settlers strongly feel to be shocking neglect upon the part of the Government to fulfil their obligations amounting to a gross injustice. We strongly feel the injustice of being loaded for reading and paying interest thereon, while the majority of settlers are receiving no benefit from it whatever. [Here follow signatures.] We beg the Commissioners to give this earnest consideration, as we seftlers feel very strongly upon the subject-matter of this petition. Sins, — Kinohaku, Ist June, 1905. The undersigned selectors of the Kinohaku Special Settlement wish to point out that owing to the very limited time that the Commission sat in Kinohaku we were unable to give evidence. We wish, therefore, to submit the following evidence: — The Kinohaku Special Settlement Block has been open for over two years, and not one penny has yet been spent upon roads giving access to it. As the land was loaded, the fact that roads have not been made is a breach of faith by the Government. Tenure. —We also pray that the present lease-in-perpetuity tenure may be altered to occupation with right of purchase. [Here follow signatures.] The Royal Land Commission, Kawhia. Gentlemen, — Awhanga, Great Barrier, sth June, 1905. There is a block of land, about 19,000 acres, lying idle here. I think it is known as the Copper-mine Company's land, and most of it is said to be good land. I know one farmer that has 600 acres out of the same block; he has held his farm close on thirty years, and has brought his family up to men and women, and I do not think that he and his boys make much less than £300 per year off the 600 acres, so if all the other portion of the block yielded at the same ratio, we settlers would be better off. We could make dray-roads, and get our produce to a market without having to take it on a pack-horse to the steamer. What we want at the Barrier is more settlers, and then, maybe, the Northern Steamship Company would charge less for freight; the charges are
a—4
1602
now —passengers, .£1 2s. 6d. return, and find your own tucker; horses, £1; cattle, £1; store cattle, 12s. 6d; sheep, Is. each; rams, 55,; goods, 15s. per ton; small parcels, Is.; small pigs, Is. 6d.; so if we send any produce to Auckland worth, say, 4s. or ss. per hundredweight, there is not much left for us, to say nothing of the pack-horse work, commission, and wharfage. Could not the holder of the above land be induced to cut it up into farms, say, of 1,000 acres each. I know several young men who would take some if it could be had. Two of my sons have left the island because they could not get any good land ; they are both married men. I hold 850 acres in the Harataunga district, and I have to go over ten miles if I have to send any produce by the steamer to Auckland. The steamer comes only twice a year to the settlers that live on the east side of the island, and we have only pack-tracks to work on. We want dray-roads if we are to compete with other parts of New Zealand. My property is freehold. I think leasing with right to purchase is a good way. Some of my sons hold leases. Yours, &c., The Land Commissioners. Wm. Alcock. Sir, — Ohakune, sth June, 1905. At a meeting of Crown tenants, held on the 27th May, Messrs. Kerr, Robinson, and myself were appointed as delegates to wait on the Commission and give evidence, but, as this district was cut out of your programme, it was arranged that I should go to Taihape last Saturday, and I certainly should have come but for the weather and the roads being impassable, therefore we are sending you the enclosed petition, which was prepared for me to take as a proof of my representing this portion of the district. You will see by enclosed newspaper-clipping that we are unanimously in favour of the lease with right of purchase being granted, it being optional as the tenant so desires, and that it be granted to all Crown tenants. We consider it a gross injustice that this county, which is composed solely of settlers holding land under different Crown tenures, should not be given a chance to make known their wishes about freehold tenure, when other places hardly affected by the question were privileged with a sitting. Trusting that you will accept this as evidence of che mind of the settlers, who very much object 1o the idea of revaluation, considering that any value the land may bear above the original upset price has been put there by the occupier of such land. Yours, &c., The Chairman, Land Commission. W. F. Ellis. Ohakune, 31st May, 1905. We, the undersigned Crown tenants, being disappointed at not having the opportunity of giving evidence before the Royal Commission re the optional freehold, hereby appoint W. F. Ellis, and authorise him to represent us and give evidence on our behalf. [Here follow signatures.] The Land Question discussed hy Ohakune Settlers. [From Our Own Correspondent.] Ohakune, 29th May. On Saturday, the 27th instant, a well-attended meeting of Crown tenants was held in the Ohakune Schoolroom to discuss the question of land-tenure, freehold versus lease in perpetuity. Mr. Ellis was voted to the chair, and explained the reason for calling a meeting, and stated that he had endeavoured to find out if the Land Commission would sit in Raetihi to take evidence, and on what date, but could gain no information. The chairman strongly advocated lease with right of purchase, and gave some reasons in favour of freehold —viz., the difficulty of financing lease in perpetuity and the danger of revaluation, and the advantage of right of purchase in selling a property, all of which reasons were freely discussed and unanimously upheld. - Mr. Robinson pointed out the injustice done to original settlers in association blocks by allowing forfeited sections to be taken up under the right of purchase, the original settler being bound to remain under the lease in perpetuity, thus giving the newcomer an unfair advantage. It was proposed by Mr. Crawford and seconded by Mr. Kerr, That this meeting desires the option of the freehold. Carried unanimously. Considerable discussion then followed on the insecurity of lease-in-perpetuity tenure, difficulty experienced, and the length of time taken to obtain transfers, also the disadvantages under wTiich settlers in the farm-homestead associations labour, not being able to increase the size of their holdings. It was resolved, " That this meeting considers that any area under 200 acres in this district is far too small." The meeting disapproved of the way Land Boards are appointed, and considered they should be elected by the people. Great dissatisfaction was expressed at the manner in which the land laws are administered in this district. The general opinion and wish was that the freehold should be granted at the original upset price. After appointing delegates to wait on the Royal Commission when sitting in Raetihi, the meeting terminated. Sir, — Tokaora, Bth June, 1905. Having attended the Land Commission at Stratford and failed to obtain a hearing owing to having to return by the 6.40 train, I am putting in writing my experience of the leases is perpetuity, hoping they will be considered. I took up my lease in August, 1903, being one of the last to be taken up. It comprises 89 acres, of which 10 acres are plantation, a dam covers 2| acres, and a swamp cuts the place up very
1603
C—4.
badly. In it says the swamp is easily drained. 1 have put a drain up the centre with very poor results. The Commissioner, who came and looked over the place, saw how I have been and am haudicapped by having to pay so much for waste land, and recommended that the plantation should be taken over by rhe Government, but the reply was, " The tenant must have known before he took the section," so I can get no help. I maintain that in faking up a section I have a right to expect that the value put on it by the man who valued it was a fair one, at which I could expect to make a living, and would compare reasonably with my neighbours. My neighbour has 50 acres, pays £1 3s. lOd. rent per acre, and carries the same number of cows as I do, who pay £1 2s. lid. and have 89 acres. I think that the Government valuers are to blame for much of the speculation in land, for if fair value was put on the different sections one would be no more valuable than another. This being a rather difficult matter it should, I think, be overcome by an amount of money being charged to the estate before being cut up, which would be available for the reduction of the rent of those sections which turn out a failure —this section of mine, for instance. Mr. Mackenzie said he saw the plantations were a very serious handicap. Mr. Simpson the same. Mr. Hislop, late member of the Land Board, the same. lam unable to make anything, and am unable to sell. It is only a question of time before I must forfeit, and lose all my improvements as well as my time, as this section is too highly valued. I pay really part of some one else's rent, as one man who has very little improvements on his land was offered £350 for his goodwill of 89 acres or thereabouts, but the Land Board would not transfer. The swamp also is not only waste land until drained —which has already cost me £25 —but so cuts up the farm that it is difficult to work, and it is well known that the land is much poorer for some distance each side of the swamp. I can only keep thirty cows on this place with the necessary horses —namely, two to work it. The rent comes to £104 per annum, which works out at £3 9s. per head before I can get anything for myself. I remain, &c., The Secretary, Land Commission. J. A. Corkerton. Sir, — Alfredton, 6th June, 1905. Being unable to attend the sitting of the Commission in Masterton, and being Crown tenants in the Pioneer Farm-homestead Association, we wish to say that we are perfectly satisfied with the leasehold, but think that settlers of these associations should have the option of increasing their holdings to 400, and in the far-back blocks to 600 acres. Owing to the unmetalled roads it is impossible to go in for dairying, and the 200-acre sections into which the association's land is cut up are too small for sheep-farming. As farmers, and putting the country before self-interest, we wish to most emphatically object to the freehold being given. The freehold land in this district is tending to get into too few hands, so the graduated land-tax should be increased as the only practical method to check this. If the Government want to give anything away, give us metal for our roads, instead of the freehold, and a real benefit would be conferred on the settlers instead of an imaginary one. The real fact of the matter is that this freehold agitation is got up as a vote-catching bribe, to get the small farmers to cut the throat of the Government that put them on the land. We are, &c., Foster Perct. Leonard Perct. g IR) — Waituna West, 10th June, 1905. When your Commission sat in Feilding I made an effort, at considerable inconvenience to myself, to attend and give evidence, but owing to the shortness of time at your disposal and the number of witnesses, I, with others, was blocked out. On remarking to you at the close of the sitting on the distance I had come, &c., and then not getting a chance to you were kind enough to promise that if I would forward my views to you at Wellington, in writing, they should be laid before and considered by your Commission, although not being sworn to they could not be admitted as evidence. I therefore submit them herewith. I am sorry to find that they cover so much paper, but I do not see how to shorten them without obscuring the points I wish to make. Thanking you for the opportunity of presenting them. I am, &c., The Chairman of the Land Commission, Wellington. Joseph Guyler. The Proposed Evidence of Joseph Guyler, Farmer, of Waituna West, Kiwitea County, farming 320 Acres Freehold, 120 Acres of which were formerly held on Lease with Bight of Purchase. 1\ Land Boards—l only wish to state that I consider that a majority of the members should be landholders. , 2. Land-tenure.-—I am a freeholder by conviction, and had I control of the colony s land destiny that would be the only final tenure. As a step thereto I would deal with all Crown lands on the oceupation-with-right-of-purchase principle, and on that method only. I would not sell any Crown lands for cash." No settler to be allowed to take up over 640 acres first-class or 2,000 acres second-class Crown land if not owning land at the time, and if owning land only such area as would bring up his total area to that amount; but, on the other hand, I would permit him to take up on behalf and in the name of each child (if he wished), but not in the nanje of his wife/ a quarter of those areas.
202—C. 4.
C—4
1604
In paying for land I advocate the principle of the present Advances to Settlers terms, 1 per cent, loading to pay off capital, but with £10 instead of £5 payments if able to oft' more at a time; but in no case would I issue the Crown grant under ten years, and necessary improvements, to prevent land-gambling. In order to enable town residents or others to take up land for future homes (and I wish to see every colonist a landowner), I would not insist on residence if double improvements were made, subletting to be subject to approval of Land Board. All Crown tenants to have right of purchase as above; but, in the case of the 4-per-cent. men, in order to bring them into line with right of purchase, the extra 1 per cent., with compound interest thereon, from date of lease to time of alteration to be added to original capital value, and that to become the new capital value for a new lease as above. 3. Pressure of Residence, c(sc. —Here I will give an example of the case of a small settler well known to me; in fact, it is only a few weeks ago that he was complaining to me about his position. He is a leaseholder —holds 5 acres on thirty years' lease with right of renewal —no right of purchase —residence compulsory —section too small to make a living —situation not desirable —took it over as transfer thinking he had purchasing clause (his fault, not finding out) —in regular work at time, wanted a home and place convenient —out of work later, got nothing to do in neighbourhood. He values his interest at £200 -not able to transfer as few willing to take it -those in position financially the Land Board would not accept, and those not he would not accept —oould only get work at a distance, and so Board gave him six months' leave of absence —before five of them had passed the Board began worrying him about the expiry of his six months shortly —had to return or forfeit. He complains that he has no assured position, for if he died, or was killed accidentally, his wife and young family would be unable to get a living there and would have to leave, and they have no claim on the Government for that £200 if it should happen that no one wanted to take it over (a more than likely contingency, for, as stated, the situation is not a desirable one), and the same thing occurs at the end of the lease. Of course, he wishes the freehold, for then, in case he could not get work, he could easily let or sell it, and in case of his death his family would be assured of something, for the place would at least always be worth as much as adjoining farm lands. I suppose the Government interest was originally from £10 to £20. It seems to me a hard case. Another point to which I would refer is the pressure of valuations. Land ought to be valued on its producing-powers, and not on its selling-value—real or imaginary. Land is only of use for what can be produced from it. lam a single-taxer, but that tax should be an income and not a land-tax. The land-taxer is too conservative; he fails to march with the times. Land-tax was right enough at one time; in fact, the land lightly bore pretty well all the taxes, but then it had all the privileges —nobility, franchise, public officer, everything. Now all have gone, and with them the land-tax should have gone too. Personally, I hold that the franchise should belong to the land. And here, where land can be got for a few pounds, no one unwilling to exercise the little self-denial requisite to obtain a bit should be entitled to a vote. The area required is immaterial — J acre would do. Then his electoral right would be his Crown grant, which would enable him to enrol himself in any electorate in which he might happen to reside, independent of the situation of his land. My idea is that every colonist should have his stake in the country by owning some part of it, no matter how small. It would be a levelling-up —a certain fixed standard must be reached by every one wishing to take part in the Government of his country; but the present system, however fair it may seem on paper, is one of levelling down. It brings down the best of the colony to the level of the worst. Having to make an effort to obtain it on my plan, a vote would be valued, and the initial step upward having been taken more would be likely to follow. 4. Effects of Climate, dkc. —Under this head it would probably be necessary to make some alterations in the areas previously mentioned, exceptional cases requiring special remedies. 5. Homestead Privileges, &c. —My plan (2) would do away with the necessity for any other tenure. 6. Ballot. —Approve of it; but some special concessions should be allowed to unsuccessful candidates in a former one. 7. Loading for Roads, <kc. —Do not believe in it. The loading is done all right, but the settler gets practically nothing for the money. It is uselessly frittered away. In all existing cases the money should be handed over intact to the local bodies, free of restrictions, but strictly earmarked for its special purpose. The Government ought not to expect to get revenue out of its waste lands. If necessary the full value of land should be spent on the roading, and balance might then go to the revenue, but if not sufficient the settlers to specially rate themselves for the remainder. The advantage to the revenue would come later. Then, again, local rating on capital value is unjust, for of two sections of equal size and fertility the one best farmed pays the most. An idle section is no loss to the community as a whole (there being no " unearned increment "), yet it is a loss to the adjoining properties as regards local rating, hence the necessity for a change. 8. Advances to Settlers. —Valuation fees should be returned, and that promptly, if no loan is granted. 9. Condition and Position of Occupiers.—Freehold is best, both for the colony and the settler. As regards the colony, its funds are not tied up in real estate as in leasehold, and its lands better farmed by more contented settlers. The settlers are not worried with residence, cropping, and other regulations, and red-tape, and being independent they will always do better for themselves. The threats of the Labour Councils of revaluations have shaken all faith in leasehold, and it will be found that settlers will never have the same confidence in it again Several of my own friends took up land under the 999-vears system, and at the time they were quite enthusiastic over it, telling me it was better than my- freehold, and so at first blush it seemed. They had all their capital to work on instead of sinking part in the fee-simple, but now, owing to their experience in the past and their fears for the future, they are freeholders to a man. To my mind leasehold has been boomed owing to a section of city dwellers getting a mistaken notion that the freeholder is getting something for nothing—something at their expense—and
1605
C.-4
that something is known at the present day as the " unearned increment." The various Press reports of evidence given before your Commission show that several witnesses stated that there was no unearned increment, but none of them proved it, and, as assertion is not proof, I will endeavour to supply the deficiency. To do so it is necessary to consider the value of money in the colony at different periods. After making all possible inquiries, including from editors of leading weekly papers through their correspondence columns, I find that at the present time money is worth from sto 54 per cent, on average general mortgage. Some years ago 8 per cent., farther back 10 per cent, (which was the general rate for a considerable number of years), and still farther back 12 per cent, away to 15 per cent, as far as we need go; but as these higher rates were before my arrival in the colony, I have to take the word of others respecting them. Some old settlers even speak of 20 and 25 per cent., but as they must have been exceptional cases I ignore them. Taking everything into consideration, I find that the average rate for the past fifty or sixty years works out to a trifle over 10 per cent., and so I take 10 per cent, as the average. For my example, 1 take the block of land with which I first became acquainted on my arrival in the colony twenty-six years ago. It had then been settled from twenty-five to thirty years, and was purchased in the first instance at 10s. per acre. It was then worth from £10 to £15 per acre, and was situated seme ten miles from a town of some importance. Now, at 10 per cent, compound interest money doubles itself in about years. Therefore, in that time 10s. would amount to £1; to £2 in 14§ years; £4 in 22 years; £8 in 29J years; £16 in 36§ years; £32 in 44 years; £64 in 51J years; and £128 in 58§ years, which brings us to about the present time. So tenshilling land then ought to be worth £128 now, without improvements. What improvements cost in those days. I have been unable to find out. Being open land in manuka, flax, and toi of A 1 quality, it would require clearing, grassing, fencing, and some buildings. Whether improvements cost more or less then than now 1 cannot say, but my own (sixteen years ago) cost 10s. per acre to grass, about £1 to fence, making £1 10s. per acre, which we will assume was the value in former times plus clearing and buildings. As sawn timber must have been expensive in those days —and they all had sawn-timber houses, &c.- -1 will allow 10s. for the buildings and clearing — probably a fair average, being no doubt too much on a large holding and too little on a small one, making a total of £2 per acre for improvements, which works out to £512 at the present time. Add £128, cost of land, and we get a total of £640, which would represent the value per acre to equal mortgage-rates- a most astounding sum, when we consider that the land to-day cannot be worth much over £30 per acre, if that. I ask, where is the unearned increment? The land is actually over £600 in debt. Why, had the land cost Is. 6d. instead of 10s. there would be none, and yet scores of thoughtless people imagine a freehold is a perfect El Dorado. But it is merely want of thought. Take any land outside a town at any time, its original cost-price, cost of reasonable improvements at then current rates, and allow current mortgage rates on the amounts, and it will be found that the present selling-price is much lower. Another instance —the property next my own taken up sixteen years ago. It works out to £10 10s. per acre, but the present lessee has the right of purchase in about eighteen months' time at £9. Add eighteen months' interest at 5 per cent, to £10 10s., and it amounts to £11 6s. Clearly there is no unearned increment there, and I maintain that rural lands have not, nor have ever had an unearned increment. What city lands may have 1 cannot say, having paid no attention to it. Of course, money on loan might be lost; but many settlers lost their lands. Then, in the early days it was necessary to have the 10s. —no inconsiderable item then —be willing to invest it in land, and take the risks of so doing. In the ten-shilling block I instanced the settlers had to send their wives and families into town to be near the blockhouse, while they and their men slept nightly with rifles beside them in barricaded houses. I fancy that alone requires a fair amount of " unearned increment" to strike an equitable balance. Again, freehold, like the sea-salt, is part of the Anglo-Saxon nature —freemen and freeholders our fathers were, and freemen and freeholders we shall remain until the glory of our race departs. Was it for a miserable leasehold we or our fathers broke up our homes and our home ties in Europe, and crossed the ocean to subdue the wilderness here? 1 say, " No, sir," the most entrancing leasehold ever invented would not have proved sufficiently magnetic. Suppose the whole colony to become leasehold, what would be the position of her settlers? Serfs, sir, serfs. We have a standing object-lesson of that fact ever before us. There is one people on earth, great and mighty in numbers, and as industrious as any living —a nation that has been great and mighty in itself, great in literature, great in arts, and great in knowledge. To-day its farmers are all leaseholders (its lands are all nationalised), arid their position—the most downtrodden and oppressed upon the face of the earth, afraid to resent any injury or insult from another nation. I refer to China. The cause? Leasehold. Leasehold has sapped all the manliness out of them, for they are cursed with the curse of officialdom. Is that the position we hope to see in cur own colony; is that the kind of nation we are building up? But that is where the leasehold will ultimately bring us. According to the Press reports your Commission have proofs oF it, for we read that some of the leaseholders were afraid to give evidence that they wished for the freehold. Afraid! that is it. Mind, it is the system, not the settler. 1 warrant no freeholder would be afraid to come forward and say so if he wished to change his freehold into a leasehold. In times of stress and danger, which may come even to our colony, is it to leaseholders such as these we should be willing to commit the defence of our hearths and homes? Nay, sir, nay. I would far sooner trust them to the care of the members of the Trades Councils-, who, though mistaken regarding the land, are not afraid to .state what they want. 10. Large Estates. —I see no fear from them. The Land for Settlements Act will prove the necessary check. At the same time Ido not think they are forming to any extent. To a certain extent small holdings have a tendency to enlarge from economic reasons. A farmer requires a certain amount of plant for the working of his farm, and the plant which is required to work 100
C—4,
1606
acres will usually work 200. Therefore, if the 100-acre man can do so he acquires the 200. If he has 500 acres, with sheep, his plant, woolshed, yards, and dip, &c., will work 1,000 acres, and so he tries by enlarging his output to reduce the percentage of w5 .'king-expenses. Then, again, the large estates are not the " social pests " some would lead us to believe. The ideal settlement at the back of most minds seems to be a settler on every 100 acres. Suppose it possible to accomplish, it would ruin the country. It might answer if we could tow the colony near to England and there anchor it down, but here it would not. For generations to come we can only be an agricultural, pastoral, and mining people, bringing our substance from the soil, and exporting what we do not require for our own use. It is easy to talk of the colony supporting millions; but millions cannot be supported directly from the land only from manufactures, and we shall never be a great manufacturing country until the centre of population shifts from the Northern to the Southern Hemisphere. We are too far away, to say nothing of hostile tariffs, consequently we can do little more lhan manufacture for ourselves. Now, if the country were cut up solely into small holdings, the settlers would have to devote themselves entirely to the production of the best-paying article for the time being, be it butter, wool, corn, &c. Say butter was up : the colony would be one huge dairy-farm. In a few years butter would drop, and wool and mutton would be up. Dairying would have to go, cows be boiled down (there would be no buyers), and sheep procured from somewhere, and so on. The settler would be everlastingly chasing a market that as everlastingly eluded his grasp. He could not afiord to mix his farming —it would not pay. Hence every few years there would be agricultural panics. (We must not look at, say, Denmark as an example, and say, what they can do we can. They resemble the small holder near a city — their market is at hand.) Now, the large estates regulate all that. The large holder keeps steadily on with his sheep and cattle, knowing that the markets will return to him, and so when the small settler wishes cattle the large one has them for sale. If the small holder wants sheep the large one can supply them, taking instead a fair percentage of the discarded cattle, and so steadying the market. In fact, the large estate serves much the same purpose as a lake. Heavy rains and melting snows turn the streams into torrents, which, if they run directly to the sea, flood the lowlands every time, but if a lake intervenes they merely raise its level a few inches or a foot, and so allow the water to pass ofi gradually without damage. 11. Separate Occupation, &c. —I am not sure that I understand the meaning of this term in your order of reference. If it refers to " one settler one section " I think I have previously said enough to indicate my views on the subject. Of course, a good deal depends upon its distance from a centre, and on what I have remarked about economy of working. J. Guyleh. Sir,— Harimoana, near Wliangamomona, Ist June, 1905. I was at Whangamomona yesterday with the intention of giving evidence before the Land Commission, but had not an opportunity, owing to the number that were before me who were desirous of giving evidence. I had ten miles of bad roads, so had to leave early. I own 212 acres occupation with right of purchase, and paid £500 cash for it; also about 230 acres lease in perpetuity, and paid £250 cash for that. I approve of the freehold, and would like to get the occupation with right of purchase for the lease-in-perpetuity section. Moneylenders do not care about lending on the lease in perpetuity, but do not mind the occupation with right of purchase. I would prefer to borrow from the Advances to Settlers, but that seems to be out of the question back here. Last winter, out of sixteen that applied for small loans who had good security, only three out of that number were granted small loans, so I had a small hope of borrowing from the Advances to Settlers Office. If ever I want to sell through sickness or other causes I would have more difficulty in selling the lease-in-perpetuity section than the occupation with right of purchase. I came to this part of the district during the winter of 1902, selling out my farm at Te Roti, where I had been settled for about twenty years, and took up the above-mentioned land on the Whitianga Road. I liked the look of the locality, and two men were cutting timber for a bridge on the Pukeko Road so as to give me access to a building-site on the occupation-with-right-of-purchase section. Shortly after I paid the money and took up my permanent residence. Mr. Barron, Road Engineer for the district, told me that they had no money either for the bridge or tunnel. I made inquiries from the Roads Department various times, laying my case before them, and also communicated with the Minister for Public Works. He said that the case would be considered when they were preparing the parliamentary estimates. I got reply, as usual, to the effect that my application was declined. Seeing that the Government would not make a bridge, I made one myself at a cost of £15, which enabled me to cart timber, bricks, &c., to build my house and sheds, which cost me £700. On the 6th February last the district was subject to a terrible storm, which carried my bridge away. I had to set to work at once and make another small one. That was also carried away, and I erected another temporary one. I am dairying, milking forty cows, and have so many difficulties to contend with, with the great loss of cattle with the poisonous tutu, &c., I am short of sixty cows and three-year-old heifers, in addition to the percentage I allowed for losses. Freight from Stratford to here costs at the very lowest in summer Jd. per pound, and has cost me up to l|d. per pound in the nine months of winter—that was from the Ist May to 10th January— when the roads were almost dangerous for traffic. Together with all these difficulties, and in addition to be without a bridge which was promised by the Government, and after spending £2,000 in improvements, to be treated like this, I consider I am badly treated. And if there is no prospect of getting it I intend to get legal advice on the matter. Mr. McCutchan, a member of your Commission, knows me and the district, and I think his son is interested also, as he has land on the Pukeko Road. Trusting you will do your best for me, —I am, &c., F. H. Symons. The Chairman, Land Commission.
1607
C—4
We, the undersigned Crown tenants in the Marton Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Small-farm Settlement, and in the surrounding districts of Rangiwahia and Ruahine, beg to state that we desire the right of converting our holdings from lease in perpetuity to freehold, for the following reasons: — 1. Most of us were not given, in the first instance, the option of taking up our sections under any tenure except the lease in perpetuity. 2. Settlers afterwards taking up unselected, surrendered, or forfeited sections in this district were given the option of taking up these sections either for cash, occupation with right of purchase, or lease in perpetuity, thus giving them a distinct advantage over the original selectors. 3. The insecurity of the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, which has already been attacked five times by the introduction of what is called a Fair Rent Bill embodying the principle of revaluation, has had a very detrimental influence on the Crown tenants' interests. The aim of this periodical revaluation being to raise the rental as soon as the tenants by the expenditure of their time, labour, and money have increased the value of their holdings. 4. Because, by the action of the Valuation Department, the Crown tenants' interests are sacrificed through writing down the value of their improvements and adding this to the unimproved value so as to unfairly increase Government interest in the sections. 5. Because of the power any Government might exercise through an Act of Parliament in changing the original terms and conditions of lease, which really destroys the security of tenure, and thereby enormously reduces its value. 6. Because we wish to free ourselves from that most unjust imposition of loading at ss. per acre for roads, which under lease-in-perpetuity tenure is to go on for 999 years, so that a 200-acre section will pay in that time £1,998, while a cash purchase of the same section has only to contribute £50, and a selector under occupation with right of purchase £75. 7. Because of the difficulty of transfer and stringency of residential conditions, which require on lease in perpetuity a residence of ten years, while a selector under occupation with right of purchase has only to reside for six years. 8. Because at the decease of a Crown tenant there is a danger of his family losing his property though not being able to comply with all the stringent and irksome conditions. 9. Because of the difficulty of subletting either grass or bush for milling, owing to Land Board restrictions. 10. Because all the above, working together, render our leases practically useless as a security in the money market, and renders it almost impossible for Crown tenants (outside of the Government Advances to Settlers Office) to borrow on the security of lease-in-perpetuity tenure. In the few cases where tenants have been able to do so it was only at a much higher rate, and because the borrower was known to be a reliable and honest person. 11. Because it is desirable in the interests of the individual Crown tenant, as well as of the State, that all sections of the farming community, forming as they do the largest number of wealth-producers, that they should be placed in the position of enjoying the fullest sense of security and confidence in their undertakings. 12. Because we believe that this condition can only be found in its truest and fullest sense under freehold occupancy of the land, which tends to give every man a pride in making the best of his surroundings, because it is his own and his family's home, thereby calling into activity his ibest energies and endeavours. 13. Because, seeing this lease in perpetuity is such a ridiculously bad bargain for the colony, it must break down sooner or later, and therefore at the present time while it is possible to do justice to the Crown tenants they ought to be granted the option of obtaining the freehold title to their sections, if they so desire, by paying for same the same amount as would be required had they taken up their land under occupation-with-right-of-purchase tenure. [Here follow signatures.] Gentlemen, — Whangamomona, 4th June, 1905. As the Land Commission made such a hurried trip through the Taranaki District, and in this way deprived the settlers from voicing as completely as settlers in the South Island their views upon the various questions submitted to the Commission, we take this opportunity of placing before you our views upon two of the most important questions submitted to you. Re Land-tenure. —We ask for the option of the freehold, because — 1. When the lease in perpetuity was first instituted it was represented to be equivalent to, or even better than, the freehold. Subsequent events have proved that this representation has no foundation in fact. We consider we are justified, therefore, in approaching the State, and asking that the above representation be made good in the only way now possible—namely, by granting to us an option of purchasing the freehold. There can be no breach of contract in our approach to the State. All we ask for is an offer from the State, which will not be turned into a contract or affect the present lease until we accept it. As has been pointed out, it was on account of our want of means and the representation that the lease in perpetuity was as good as a freehold that we took up our land under the present tenure, and the State's refusal to grant us the right to obtain the freehold now is therefore equivalent to an expression of its determination to keep us in a weaker and subordinate position in comparison with those more fortunate individuals who, possessed of more money when the land was first put upon the market, were enabled to take advantage of the occupation license or the freehold options. 2. The price which we should be .asked to pay should be only what the State's reversion would feteh in the open market, and that is the price put upon the land when first we took it up. It has been objected that the State would thus, for nothing, be giving us a more valuable tenure than we at present possess; but our answer to this is (1) that the State will be getting the full market value of its interest, and (2) that this objection should not be raised by the State when it
C.—4
1608
is considered that the State in the beginning represented that the lease in perpetuity was better than a freehold. If, as a matter of fact, the State still considers the lease in perpetuity to be superior to the freehold, it cannot honestly claim any price for the change of tenure; and if the lease in perpetuity is inferior to the freehold, the State should not be entitled to say, " I find now that I was wrong; but if you want my representation made good you must pay me the difference in value between the two tenures." This would be glaringly unjust and inequitable; and if a similar representation were made by an ordinary landlord to his tenant the tenant could, by due process of law, force the landlord to make good his representation. 3. It is an accepted fact that the freeholder is more independent than the leaseholder, as the former is hampered by fewer restrictions; and as the status of a State depends upon the status of the different individuals composing it, anything tending to improve the status of the individual inevitably improves the State. We think that the tenure best for the State is the freehold, because under that tenure the truest development of the citizen can take place. It is an accepted fact that under a freehold, where the occupier recognises that lie gets the full benefit of whatever he does, the land itself is better farmed. The prevention of the aggregation of large estates could easily be secured by appropriate alterations in the law relating to land-tax and death duties, by the limitation of area, and the resumption of large estates. We would respectfully point out that this prevention of aggregation, which is the real evil the land policy of the colony was intended to avert, cannot be secured by changing the tenure under which the land is held, but must be carried out by more direct measures. So long as the State has the right of taxation its grip upon the land is certain. The Land Board, it is true, represents the State, and must administer the law as it appears on the statute-book, but the members are only human beings, and we object to our freedom of action being limited in any way, or our private affairs overhauled by any small body of our fellow-settlers, when the freeholder is absolutely exempt from such harassing conditions. It has been said that our claim for the freehold is instigated by the money-lenders, but a very little reflection will show that this is not so. It is the present position of the leasehold, its insecurity of tenure and restrictive conditions, that enable the money-lender to demand and obtain a high rate of interest. If our land were freehold we could go into the open market and get the cheapest money. At present we are barred from this, and are compelled to go to a class of men who make a speciality of extorting interest. All the large lending institutions, the banks and trustees, will not touch the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. 4. We feel that we are not secure against future revaluation. This agitation is only commencing, and must inevitably bear fruit when the leaders of the agitation can persuade a bare majority of the people that revaluation is a good thing. And we think this agitation is likely to grow' with the increase in population of the towns, whose inhabitants have no true practical knowledge of the conditions of land-settlement. This insecurity of tenure, besides placing us at a disadvantage in the money-market, must have a bad effect upon the individual. 5. We deny that there is one penny-piece of unearned increment in our land. We were loaded and have been paying for roads and railways which have never yet been made, and have, in addition, spent over £100,000 of money borrowed under the Loans to Local Bodies Act, to raise which we have voluntarily taxed ourselves and practically mortgaged our lands. Even if a railway is put through to the main trunk line and the main road completed and metalled, the State is giving us no more than our due share of the general revenue of the colony, a considerable portion of which we provide ourselves. Roads and railways have been made in other parts of the colony where freehold exists, and no loading was placed upon that land. Why, then, should we be treated differently, and compelled to pay additional merely because we get justice later than other portions of the people? In addition, as we have already pointed out, we are, by the loading placed upon our lands, already paying interest upon a sum large enough to complete all our roads and railways. _ . Roads and Railways. —1. We have to point out that the immediate completion or the mam road, junctioning with the main trunk line, is absolutely essential. The metalling is done only for abo'ut seventeen miles, and in winter the rest of the road is quite unfit for traffic. This lack of a good road, to say nothing of our personal hardships and our inability to place our stock upon the market excepting at stated periods, compels us to pay highly for all necessaries of life, and makes our burden almost harder than we can bear. One storekeeper alone estimates that the additional carting caused by bad roads costs him .£1,500 a year. All this, of course, we have to pay for. The road through the Tangarakau Gorge should be immediately formed and completed, there being at present only a bridle-track. The grade is good, and there are no engineering difficulties. , . , , T . , , , . 2 We consider that the railway should be pushed on with all speed. It is absolutely essential as the road could not bear the traffic of this large district. We need hardly point out how repeatedly we have been promised this. It seems to us that the expenditures we are urging have a claim upon the colony very much before the public works completed recently or now being proceeded with in the large centres of population. The delay of these works might cause the townspeople some trifling inconvenience, but the delayed completion of our roads and railways means absolute ruin to us. We have already pointed out that we have raised over £100,000 ourselves, and it is quite impossible for us to tax ourselves any more; the load is already too heavy. It. cannot be said that we have not helped ourselves as far as we could. The remaining points upon which the Commission is receiving evidence we consider as secondary when compared with the two questions of land-tenure and the construction of roads and railways. We are, &c., [Here follow signatures.] The Chairman and members of the Land-tenure Commission, Wellington.
1609
C.—4
Pongaroa Settlers. —Minutes of Meeting of Crown Tenants held sth April, 1905 (about sixty-seven present). The following resolutions were passed at the meeting : — That the Land Commission be asked to visit Pongaroa and hold a sitting to take evidence. That this meeting of Crown tenants is in favour of the freehold tenure. That the Government have not fulfilled their contract in regard to the making of the roads in this district, as promised at the drawing of the original associations. That the gentlemen who heard the promise made by the Commissioner of Crown Lands, that the roads will be made, be asked to attend the Land Commission if held in Pongaroa. That the administration of the Wellington Land Board has been unsatisfactory. That this meeting considers that Crown tenants should elect a portion of the Land Board. That Messrs. McCardle, McDonald, and Neilson be appointed delegates to give evidence at the Commission and present the above resolutions. The following gentlemen stated they heard the promise of the Commissioner: Messrs. David Isles, Charles Reed, Alexander Anderson, Andrew Person, John Gunther, Charles Matthews, E. T, Green, C. W. Cooke, James McCardle, L. P. Hansen, and J. J. Gosling.
By Authority. John- Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9os.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1905-I.2.2.2.1
Bibliographic details
CROWN LANDS: REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON LAND-TENURE, LAND-SETTLEMENT, AND OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE CROWN LANDS OF THE COLONY: TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE., Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1905 Session I, C-04
Word Count
1,760,885CROWN LANDS: REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON LAND-TENURE, LAND-SETTLEMENT, AND OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE CROWN LANDS OF THE COLONY: TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1905 Session I, C-04
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.